A
AgnosTheist
Guest
I’m not a muslim and the only time I would agree with “outside Jihad” is when muslims are doing jihad against each other.
Is man’s ego and the lack of personal humility the major cause of all Christian division?
- Status
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Hello reteeks21, thank you for your post.
I will try not to sugar-coat this too much.
Martin Luther wrote much more than the 95 Thesis.
Martin Luther not only harmed the Roman Catholic Church, he harmed all of Christianity.
Martin Luther in my opinion, based on what I have read by many scholars and what I have read by Luther himself, was nothing more than a rambling, sometimes incoherently, highly educated (thanks to the Catholic Church), trouble making ego-maniac who was an ill-informed, “disgruntled employee” (Luther was a Catholic Priest).
He had a local problem with one local Bishop and transferred his anger and frustration to the Pope and the entire Roman Catholic Church.
What Martin Luther did, would be no different than if a Priest today, who if he had a problem with his local Bishop, sent a nasty email to the Pope and blamed the Pope and all of Catholicism for a problem that he had with one local Bishop, on a couple of issues.
The problem is that there were no telephones, internet, modern mail or “Fed-Ex” during Luther’s time and the harm had already been done before the Pope or the Catholic Church could respond to Luther personally, or address his anti-Catholic “movement”.
Information traveled very slowly in those days.
There have been many would-be Martin Luther’s in history, the only difference is that Luther’s timing was different, being that there were many new “intellectuals”, mostly (by this time) do to all of the universities and colleges, which were created by the Roman Catholic Church.
This was a fairly recent development in human history.
Moreover, Luther’s ranting’s would have probably gone unnoticed if it where not for an insane English King named, Henry the VIII, who promoted these new “ideas” of Luther’s at the end of his “sword” to satisfy his (the King’s) own desires.
Luther was from Germany and he did not found a “religion” he started a movement. He had a bad influence on many people who were already apposed to the Roman Catholic Church and in many cases , apposed to God and any “religion”. This was when many first started believing that “science ruled” and “the human intelect” ruled over everything, including God.
The first Protestant Church was started by King Henry the VIII.
Luther’s main problem, in his “rambling” 95 Thesis was with a practice involving the “purchase of indulgences” by “pardon-merchants”.
In his 95 Thesis, he did not reject the practice of “indulgences” of altogether.
Reform of the Catholic Church was well underway by the time of Luther. If Luther were alive today, he would most likely be a Roman Catholic.
Don’t take my word for it, research it for yourself, look for Luther’s trial and read his letters to the Church and the Church’s response.
I hope this helps. When I have more time I will provide some “Protestant” and secular University web sites where Luther’s letters, and more on Luther can be found.
I hope this helps,
God Bless.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
I will try not to sugar-coat this too much.
Martin Luther wrote much more than the 95 Thesis.
Martin Luther not only harmed the Roman Catholic Church, he harmed all of Christianity.
Martin Luther in my opinion, based on what I have read by many scholars and what I have read by Luther himself, was nothing more than a rambling, sometimes incoherently, highly educated (thanks to the Catholic Church), trouble making ego-maniac who was an ill-informed, “disgruntled employee” (Luther was a Catholic Priest).
He had a local problem with one local Bishop and transferred his anger and frustration to the Pope and the entire Roman Catholic Church.
What Martin Luther did, would be no different than if a Priest today, who if he had a problem with his local Bishop, sent a nasty email to the Pope and blamed the Pope and all of Catholicism for a problem that he had with one local Bishop, on a couple of issues.
The problem is that there were no telephones, internet, modern mail or “Fed-Ex” during Luther’s time and the harm had already been done before the Pope or the Catholic Church could respond to Luther personally, or address his anti-Catholic “movement”.
Information traveled very slowly in those days.
There have been many would-be Martin Luther’s in history, the only difference is that Luther’s timing was different, being that there were many new “intellectuals”, mostly (by this time) do to all of the universities and colleges, which were created by the Roman Catholic Church.
This was a fairly recent development in human history.
Moreover, Luther’s ranting’s would have probably gone unnoticed if it where not for an insane English King named, Henry the VIII, who promoted these new “ideas” of Luther’s at the end of his “sword” to satisfy his (the King’s) own desires.
Luther was from Germany and he did not found a “religion” he started a movement. He had a bad influence on many people who were already apposed to the Roman Catholic Church and in many cases , apposed to God and any “religion”. This was when many first started believing that “science ruled” and “the human intellect” ruled over everything, including God.
The first Protestant Church was started by King Henry the VIII.
Luther’s main problem, in his “rambling” 95 Thesis was with a practice involving the “purchase of indulgences” by “pardon-merchants”.
In his 95 Thesis, he did not reject the practice of “indulgences” of altogether.
Reform of the Catholic Church was well underway by the time of Luther. If Luther were alive today, he would most likely be a Roman Catholic.
Don’t take my word for it, research it for yourself, look for Luther’s trial and read his letters to the Church and the Church’s response.
I hope this helps. When I have more time I will provide some “Protestant” and secular University web sites where Luther’s letters, and more on Luther can be found.
I hope this helps,
God Bless.
By - Jimmy B.
Sorry for the re-post, I just had to correct a spelling error that was driving me nuts… intellect, instead of intelect.
Thanks all
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
Jimmy, you can set up CAF to automatically spell check your posts, then you will catch them all and you won’t have to be driven nuts.Sorry for the re-post, I just had to correct a spelling error that was driving me nuts… intellect, instead of intelect.
Thanks all
Re: the topic of this thread ~ something that has been touched on slightly but not specifically mentioned as an element in Christian division is Greed. It may arguably be more of a modern day problem than a historical one (although I’m sure there are examples in the past as well) and it may be an adjunct of such things as ego and pride, but Christianity is big business for some, and cashing in on religion takes a lot of different forms.
S
SyCarl
Guest
You really should be more careful with the accuracy of the statements you make as it reduces your credibility in general. Whatever he may have been, Henry VIII was no friend or promoter of Luther’s ideas.
newadvent.org/cathen/07222a.htm
R
reteeks21
Guest
I’m well aware that Luther was a Roman Catholic, and I have mnay things written by him. His catechism mirrors the RC in many ways. The man makes it clear that he wanted to assist in the current reform. He did not ramble in the Theses. He addressed the on-going issues that were present with indulgences in his day. And if you look at them objectively you see that he said that indulgences were fine if they were based on the authority if God and not man.Hello reteeks21, thank you for your post.
I will try not to sugar-coat this too much.
Martin Luther wrote much more than the 95 Thesis.
Martin Luther not only harmed the Roman Catholic Church, he harmed all of Christianity.
Martin Luther in my opinion, based on what I have read by many scholars and what I have read by Luther himself, was nothing more than a rambling, sometimes incoherently, highly educated (thanks to the Catholic Church), trouble making ego-maniac who was an ill-informed, “disgruntled employee” (Luther was a Catholic Priest).
He had a local problem with one local Bishop and transferred his anger and frustration to the Pope and the entire Roman Catholic Church.
What Martin Luther did, would be no different than if a Priest today, who if he had a problem with his local Bishop, sent a nasty email to the Pope and blamed the Pope and all of Catholicism for a problem that he had with one local Bishop, on a couple of issues.
The problem is that there were no telephones, internet, modern mail or “Fed-Ex” during Luther’s time and the harm had already been done before the Pope or the Catholic Church could respond to Luther personally, or address his anti-Catholic “movement”.
Information traveled very slowly in those days.
There have been many would-be Martin Luther’s in history, the only difference is that Luther’s timing was different, being that there were many new “intellectuals”, mostly (by this time) do to all of the universities and colleges, which were created by the Roman Catholic Church.
This was a fairly recent development in human history.
Moreover, Luther’s ranting’s would have probably gone unnoticed if it where not for an insane English King named, Henry the VIII, who promoted these new “ideas” of Luther’s at the end of his “sword” to satisfy his (the King’s) own desires.
Luther was from Germany and he did not found a “religion” he started a movement. He had a bad influence on many people who were already apposed to the Roman Catholic Church and in many cases , apposed to God and any “religion”. This was when many first started believing that “science ruled” and “the human intelect” ruled over everything, including God.
The first Protestant Church was started by King Henry the VIII.
Luther’s main problem, in his “rambling” 95 Thesis was with a practice involving the “purchase of indulgences” by “pardon-merchants”.
In his 95 Thesis, he did not reject the practice of “indulgences” of altogether.
Reform of the Catholic Church was well underway by the time of Luther. If Luther were alive today, he would most likely be a Roman Catholic.
Don’t take my word for it, research it for yourself, look for Luther’s trial and read his letters to the Church and the Church’s response.
I hope this helps. When I have more time I will provide some “Protestant” and secular University web sites where Luther’s letters, and more on Luther can be found.
I hope this helps,
God Bless.
And he was not responsible for Henry or any of the others who started the "human intellect: movement. In fact, he spoke against it, and he was insulted that they used his ideas for personal gain. I have read and researched Luther from all angles, not just a Catholic one. And he would be a Catholic because he never intended to be anything other than that. He was kicked out simply for challenging authority. That is not only my assertion but the belief of at least two of my priest friends. I know you believe that we are absolutely wrong, but please be a little more objective and try to get the facts straight.
R
ralphinal
Guest
According to some of the Muslim Posters on here, the sects in Islam were predicted by Muhammid. I would say that they would say God caused them.
R
ralphinal
Guest
I agree that Luther and Henry VIII are two different cases indeed. But, can it be said that had Luther not gone first, Henry might not have left as well?
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Hello Sycarl
Let me start by thanking you for providing the link to a Catholic web-site, the “Catholic Encyclopedia". You are a good man!
I encourage all of our Protestant friends to take Sycarl’s advice and go there. They may find this site very helpful.
Here is the link to New Advent’s Home page. This Must be a good site because my “Protestant” friend here, Sycarl is recommending it! **
**_________________
Sycarl, so I should "be more careful with the accuracy of the statements I make”… Really?
What do you think about these statements? -
The fact is that Martin Luther (1483-1546) started the first Protestant “Movement” and King Henry VIII (1491-1547) started the first official Protestant Church - Religion.
Do you or any other “Protestant” or non-Catholic Christian here at CAF, want to deny these facts?
- In 1517, Martin Luther nails his 95 Thesis to the door of the Wittenberg Church (Germany).
- In 1534, King Henry the VIII creates the first Protestant Church “religion”, the Church of England.
Does any Protestant here want to deny these facts as well?
How could anyone possibly separate Martin Luther and King Henry VIII? History will not allow us to separate these two.
Catholics have to except the “good with the bad” when it comes to history, but I guess Protestants don’t, is that your point here?
Thanks for your Post.
Your are awesome!
R
reteeks21
Guest
Yeah, your statements are wrong. Luther requested reform. He hated the title of Protestant. Henry and other kings in Europe abused his teachings, and Luther was incredibly offended that they would abuse his ideas. It broke his heart when the pope excommunicated him. If you would actually read his statements objectively, you would see that he was seeking to get the church back to Christ and not to buying heaven. Why don’t you try checking out this site and see what has actually taken place in the past 10 years between the Curia and Lutherans. You may actually be surprised.
Hello Sycarl
Let me start by thanking you for providing the link to a Catholic web-site, the “Catholic Encyclopedia". You are a good man!
I encourage all of our Protestant friends to take Sycarl’s advice and go there. They may find this site very helpful.
Here is the link to New Advent’s Home page. This Must be a good site because my “Protestant” friend here, Sycarl is recommending it! **
_________________
Sycarl, so I should "be more careful with the accuracy of the statements I make”… Really?
What do you think about these statements? -
The fact is that Martin Luther (1483-1546) started the first Protestant “Movement” and King Henry VIII (1491-1547) started the first official Protestant Church - Religion.
Do you or any other “Protestant” or non-Catholic Christian here at CAF, want to deny these facts?
- In 1517, Martin Luther nails his 95 Thesis to the door of the Wittenberg Church (Germany).
- In 1534, King Henry the VIII creates the first Protestant Church “religion”, the Church of England.
Does any Protestant here want to deny these facts as well?
How could anyone possibly separate Martin Luther and King Henry VIII? History will not allow us to separate these two.
Catholics have to except the “good with the bad” when it comes to history, but I guess Protestants don’t, is that your point here?
Thanks for your Post.
—http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstun
i/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-
declaration_en.html
Also, since you think so little of Luther’s motives, and since you think so accuse of being an egotistical heretic how do you truly view Protestants?
R
ralphinal
Guest
There were a couple of things that lead to Luther’s doctrines becoming a faith system. One, German leaders using it to seize church land and holdings. Next, a certan Cardinal in France promoting it by the sale of arms in order ot position France as a new power to Rival the Holy Roman Empire. He felt that if Rome was facing Germany, he could be the peacemaker creating a more powerful France.
This is a sumary form Henry Kissenger’s Diplomacy.
This is a sumary form Henry Kissenger’s Diplomacy.
H
Hisalone
Guest
Jimmy B please address the ego of Pope Leo and the harm he did to the Body of Christ.Hello reteeks21, thank you for your post.
I will try not to sugar-coat this too much.
Martin Luther wrote much more than the 95 Thesis.
Martin Luther not only harmed the Roman Catholic Church, he harmed all of Christianity.
Martin Luther in my opinion, based on what I have read by many scholars and what I have read by Luther himself, was nothing more than a rambling, sometimes incoherently, highly educated (thanks to the Catholic Church), trouble making ego-maniac who was an ill-informed, “disgruntled employee” (Luther was a Catholic Priest).
He had a local problem with one local Bishop and transferred his anger and frustration to the Pope and the entire Roman Catholic Church.
What Martin Luther did, would be no different than if a Priest today, who if he had a problem with his local Bishop, sent a nasty email to the Pope and blamed the Pope and all of Catholicism for a problem that he had with one local Bishop, on a couple of issues.
The problem is that there were no telephones, internet, modern mail or “Fed-Ex” during Luther’s time and the harm had already been done before the Pope or the Catholic Church could respond to Luther personally, or address his anti-Catholic “movement”.
Information traveled very slowly in those days.
There have been many would-be Martin Luther’s in history, the only difference is that Luther’s timing was different, being that there were many new “intellectuals”, mostly (by this time) do to all of the universities and colleges, which were created by the Roman Catholic Church.
This was a fairly recent development in human history.
Moreover, Luther’s ranting’s would have probably gone unnoticed if it where not for an insane English King named, Henry the VIII, who promoted these new “ideas” of Luther’s at the end of his “sword” to satisfy his (the King’s) own desires.
Luther was from Germany and he did not found a “religion” he started a movement. He had a bad influence on many people who were already apposed to the Roman Catholic Church and in many cases , apposed to God and any “religion”. This was when many first started believing that “science ruled” and “the human intelect” ruled over everything, including God.
The first Protestant Church was started by King Henry the VIII.
Luther’s main problem, in his “rambling” 95 Thesis was with a practice involving the “purchase of indulgences” by “pardon-merchants”.
In his 95 Thesis, he did not reject the practice of “indulgences” of altogether.
Reform of the Catholic Church was well underway by the time of Luther. If Luther were alive today, he would most likely be a Roman Catholic.
Don’t take my word for it, research it for yourself, look for Luther’s trial and read his letters to the Church and the Church’s response.
I hope this helps. When I have more time I will provide some “Protestant” and secular University web sites where Luther’s letters, and more on Luther can be found.
I hope this helps,
God Bless.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Why? He didn’t start a new “Protestant” Christian “religion”, did he?
R
reteeks21
Guest
Nor did Luther. Please get the facts straight. He sought reform, to bring the Church away from buying forgiveness and back to Christ and His grace. It is beginning to become absurd to continue this since it is clear you do not have a high opinion of Prot. And Luther abhored the term Protestant. It was monarchs in Europe who abused his ideas of Reformation. They were called Protestants by the pope. They were rebelling to get out of from under the temproal power of the RCC. That was probably a waste of time pointing those facts out, but it is quite upsetting when you start threads for the sake of doing nothing else but making sure you tell Protestants how you feel about them.Why? He didn’t start a new “Protestant” Christian “religion”, did he?
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Hi reteeks21, thank you for your post.
I love all Christians! I would just love them more if they were Roman Catholic.
Although I don’t like those two trouble-makers Luther and Calvin:knight2: and I really can’t stand that insane murderer, King Henry VIII. 
I’m sure most people here are real good and decent people and I would probably like them and get alone with them in person. This is a Catholic apologetic forum after-all, so here I defend my faith, nothing personal.
God Bless You!
po18guy
Well-known member
Singling out one particular Pope is not in the same league as singling out a disobedient priest whose actions lead to an almost intractable division of the Body of Christ. The Catholic Church continued on after each and every Pope, but Christian unity has disappeared. Protestant unity is a sad joke, as if Catholic unity was not enough trouble already. Look at the problems addressed by Saint Paul as to unity in the first years after the Ascension.
Christ’s peace.
H
Hisalone
Guest
Why do you insist in not seeing the log in your own eye. Could Leo have resolve many of Luthers issues without a split? Or was his ego too big?Why? He didn’t start a new “Protestant” Christian “religion”, did he?
H
Hisalone
Guest
Why are you so blind to the harm done to the unity by abusive, heretical (selling indulgences) church leaders who ravaged their own flocks for personal gain?
H
Hisalone
Guest
The counter Reformation is proof positive that reformation was needed. The fact that it was after not prior to the Reformation isw proof positive that Church leaders were unwilling to reform.
po18guy
Well-known member
Not blind at all. If Ted Bundy or the Green River Killer were Pope, what on earth does that have to do with the truth the church teaches? Each of the twelve Apostles was a flawed sinner. They all fled when christ needed them around Him. One denied him. Another sold him out. Why even be Christian, then? You can’t live in the past - you can only learn from it and apply the lessons learned. Why not resolve to learn from the lessons of Leo and Luther and move on toward unity?
Christ’s peace.
- Status