A
AlNg
Guest
It is? What reform is needed today?
- Status
The Church allowed/ promoted the teaching of Ockham and Biel.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
There has been quite a bit of attention around the sex abuse scandals, and the Church response. Don’t tell me you missed all that?
G
guanophore
Guest
I don’t see what the two things have to do with each other. Luther rejected the role of the Pope, and did not consider the Bull valid. He did not believe that the Pope had the authority to excommunicate him because he abdicated any authority by abusing his office. That is why Luther saw himself in a valid continuation of the Catholic Church.
I certainly was not taught anything about it.
This is one reason it seems ludicrious to accuse him of founding it!
Yes, but this was as much political and economic as it was theological.
No, on the contrary, he was quite vexed that Zwingli and Calvin rejected the doctrine of the Real Presence, and was continually frustrated that Sola Scriptura resulted in contradictory doctrines.
I don’t see any evidence that he did. He believed that he rediscovered the Gospel of Christ that had been hiding within the Church.
G
guanophore
Guest
A priest who has embraced heresies will have their faculties suspended (told they are not allowed to teach). Rarely does this continue to the point of excommunication, and in no case does it mean the offender intends to start their own Church. Luther believed that he had discovered the true Gospel of Christ, and that he was bound before God to proclaim it.
He certainly provided the tools which were used.
D
Dhc8_Type
Guest
Just because he translated the New Testament from Greek not Latin to German doesn’t make it unofficial. Or the fact that he encouraged the population to learn to read by providing religious instruction in German. Or used the printing press better then the Catholic Church. I recommend this book on Luther and the printing press.
J
JanSobieskiIII
Guest
No but adding words to the scripture sure makes it unofficial.
S
steve-b
Guest
steve-b:
I don’t see what the two things have to do with each other. Luther rejected the role of the Pope, and did not consider the Bull valid. He did not believe that the Pope had the authority to excommunicate him because he abdicated any authority by abusing his office. That is why Luther saw himself in a valid continuation of the Catholic Church.
how can you disagree with that? He was also delusional along with being a heretic
Last edited:
J
JanSobieskiIII
Guest
I’m pretty convinced Luther suffered from some kind of OCD and other mental issues.
Also, OP, why do you post so much about Luther? I don’t really see anyone talking about him until a thread like this is made, and you’ve made several.
Also, OP, why do you post so much about Luther? I don’t really see anyone talking about him until a thread like this is made, and you’ve made several.
D
dorothySays
Guest
Thank you JonNC. Our Theresa is a titch out of her depth on the historical front (no shade, T…it’s just notable).
D
dorothySays
Guest
Regrettably for you, Martin Luther has nothing of the kind. I suggest a thorough reading of his catalogue of sermons, lectures and writings; plus a decent grounding in the historical and secondary literature on his astonishing theological charism, before you make any such rash calculations about the man.
A
Agathon
Guest
The question for me isn’t whether he started the movement called the Reformation. It’s whether his teaching corresponded to the Gospel. I’m not ashamed to answer “No.”
T
Theo520
Guest
I was very specific not to deride or judge his translation.
The only “official” bibles were those translated and published under authority of the RCC. Thus, Luther’s bible was unofficial. It’s not about the quality of his work.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Quite right. Political secularism was the cause of of the lasting “reformations” in England and continental Europe.
Henry VIII wanted to remove papal suzerainty over himself and his dominions.
On the mainland, some French and Imperial princes wanted much of the same. Thus the petty rabble ever-prone to rebellion (because, admittedly, feudalism was awful) finally had something they typically lacked in the last 1500 years of Church history -
The support of at least part of the state.
Naturally, this was made possible due largely to the irreparable crack in Catholic Authority that was the triple-papacy of the Avignon Crisis (aka “Western Schism”).
Last edited:
G
guanophore
Guest
I don’t see how it helps to call his point of view delusional. Maybe many of the rest of us see it differently (we are looking backwards through history, after all), but part of literary criticism is understanding what a person wrote from the point of view they had when writing.
It is not really possible to do an all or nothing thing with Luther. There is a lot of his work that is quite consistent with the CC. Besides, such a position is not consistent with the Church Teaching.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...hrstuni_doc_20160531_week-prayer-2017_en.html
He didn’t add words. He translated. He didn’t do a transliterationDhc8_Type:
No but adding words to the scripture sure makes it unofficial.
J
JanSobieskiIII
Guest
A
Agathon
Guest
So sola fide and sola scriptura are part of Catholic teaching? Because those teachings aren’t consistent with Church teaching and from what I know a little leaven leavens the whole lump.
S
steve-b
Guest
steve-b:
I don’t see how it helps to call his point of view delusional. Maybe many of the rest of us see it differently (we are looking backwards through history, after all), but part of literary criticism is understanding what a person wrote from the point of view they had when writing.
does that answer your objection
Last edited:
G
GKMotley
Guest
Yes, as to Henry. There was a long history of power struggles between the Throne and Rome, in the island.
Plus, of course, his dynastic and hormonal issues.
Plus, of course, his dynastic and hormonal issues.
- Status