Luther was right

[Hisalone]

And God decided that a person can only preach and teach if they are given apostolic authority by the Church of which St. Paul was a part of. He did not go about making up his own interpretation apart from what the Church was teaching.

Tell me who gave Francis of Assisi his teaching and preaching authority? No one laid hands on him?

 

[dawid]

Luthers courage saved hundreds of millions from false doctrines.

Given that you imply that Catholic doctrines are false, and that there are at least 30,000 Protestant denominations, it is interesting to speculate which of their doctrines is the truth.

 

[Hisalone]

Given that you imply that Catholic doctrines are false, and that there are at least 30,000 Protestant denominations, it is interesting to speculate which of their doctrines is the truth.

Better yet what was the doctrines that Luther saved.
Doctrine of salvation and the authority of scripture.

 

[dawid]

Better yet what was the doctrines that Luther saved.
Doctrine of salvation and the authority of scripture.

Luther would recognise little in the Protestant denominations that he intended as they have each developed and followed their own doctrines.

 

[Contarini]

Tell me who gave Francis of Assisi his teaching and preaching authority? No one laid hands on him?

Not true. St. Francis sought and received authorization from his local bishop and eventually from the Pope.

Edwin

 

[Bill_Pick]

" Luther says it is anyone who can read." Well you got one right and that is Jesus one CHURCH went to 32,000 with PRIVATE INTERPRETATION which goes against the Bible 2Peter 1:20

Luther near the end of his life said and milkmaid that can read can now start his/her own denomination m and look what happen, he did open a pandora 's box

 

[JonNC]

=DeusVult09;5563388]it qualifies me because im not just some catholic who is on a Luther hating spree, i actually was a protestant (well i have been both presbyterian and pentecostal).

Your words sounded kind of hateful. And my understanding is pentecostals are not particular fans of Luther, anyway.

who the hell was he to question anything if his sola scriptura doctrines stands. That’s a huge contradiction . martin luther said “nothing but the bible” but then said “ohh apart from these books” that’s such a huge contradiction I don’t know where to begin.

He was a Christian who lived at a time prior to the Council of Trent, whenb all Christians were permitted to question and debate the canon. His rights were the same as anyone’s.
“nothing but the Bible” is solo scriptura. Lutherans acknowledge the importance of tradition, the councils and creeds, the ECF’s, etc. Scripture is the final norm by which these things are measured.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Luther would recognise little in the Protestant denominations that he intended as they have each developed and followed their own doctrines.

The only one he might even be concerned about would perhaps be Lutheranism. Your statement might be partly true to that extent. Other denominations, whose roots are Zwibglian, anabaptist, are irrelevent. Luther didn’t like them then, either.

Jon

 

[Bill_Pick]

Not true. St. Francis sought and received authorization from his local bishop and eventually from the Pope.

Edwin

Hisalone Keep it up you still gave time to get one right.

 

[josie_L]

Tell me who gave Francis of Assisi his teaching and preaching authority? No one laid hands on him?

He was not teaching/preaching anything different than what the Church was or had already taught.

 

[Tanner9188]

Your zeal as you say is nothing short of rudeness (you have called people here lazy more than once and have spread lies about the church, i.e., Foxes book of Martyrs, I have seen nothing but contempt for the people for whom you are talking too and then you have the audacity to say we have attacked you. Good grief.

**Josie,

You are among the lazy concerning the reading, studying and understanding the Word of God; you know that I am telling the truth; you can fool yourself or get busy.

Tell me one lie I have said about your church and I will apologize. Don’t confuse a lie with a mistake, we all make mistakes and when I do, I am willing to openly thank the person for pointing it out.

You say “Foxes Book of Martyrs” has been debunked, by whom? Your Church? You can not change historical fact, but you can manipulate it by revisionist history.

As bad as it was a few centuries ago and throughout its history; it was far worse in the 20th century. I know that for a fact because I have the documentary/historical record and eyewitness, my Father in law, who is Serbian saw what the Church did to his countrymen, Eastern Orthodox and Jews, and the massive slaughter that occurred with the approval of the Vatican and direct participation of priests and bishops in the slaughter; working sise by side with the German statist.

This is one reason the Vatican, under Paul II I believe, issued an apology on behalf of people like you, the laity; they would not take personal responsibility in order to avoid staining the magisterium. All this under the name of God.

Thank God for people like Luther, who had guts to stand up for what is right in the sight of God.**

 

[Tanner9188]

Thank you and I have heard complaints about it in the past is all. People some times get upset about the copy and past function.

F

Ok in verses 13-15 all the disciples. In verse 16 Peter answered Jesus directly. In verse 17-19 is addressed directly from Jesus to Peter.

Verse 17 reveals that this knowledge was given to Peter by God and not of any sign of this world.

Verse 18 this verse where Jesus directly talks to Peter is where Peter is established as the head of the Church on earth.

Verse 19 this verse establishes the office of the keys. The ability to forgive sins. Confession.

Yes the question was directed to all but Peter answered from divine insperation. Yes Jesus did tell them all the answer but Peter was set up as the head aka the rock of the visible Church.
Ahh yes the good ole Paul. So what made Paul the head or maverick instead of Peter since Christ put Peter as the head and blatantly so in verse 18.

Ok look also then at St. Matthew 17:24-27, Who did the temple tax collectors talk to? They addressed Peter. Peter spoke as the Vicar of Christ. Christ then provided a whole shekel for payment instead of the required half. Peter took the coin and paid the tax again acting as Christ representative.

Also lets look at Acts 15:6-12 Peter settles one of the doctrinal issue of circumcision. In verse 12 Paul and Barnabas speak after Peter (the first Pope) confirming his stance. Then James speaks in 13 and 14 further confirming Peters teachings.

CONTINUED – NEXT POST

**I assume you were unable to follow along with practical and logical reasoning from the Scripture itself; that makes you devout.

Peter was the leader of the apostles without any doubt (John 21); but that is the extent of it as far as Scripture speaks. To jump to apostolic succession is a huge and unmerited leap of blind faith IMO.
I wish Catholics would just listen to Peters own words; it would end any debate or doubt, but unfortunately the “Church” is more important than the Jesus that is the Builder IMO and observations. In the end; it won’t matter because His sheep hear His voice and He knows them.**

 

[Contarini]

**

As bad as it was a few centuries ago and throughout its history; it was far worse in the 20th century. I know that for a fact because I have the documentary/historical record and eyewitness, my Father in law, who is Serbian saw what the Church did to his countrymen, Eastern Orthodox and Jews, and the massive slaughter that occurred with the approval of the Vatican **

That’s not true. The Vatican did not approve of what the Croatian regime did, although unfortunately Cardinal Stepinac managed to persuade the Pope not to condemn the regime outright. That is very much to the discredit of both the Cardinal and the Pope, but it is a lie to claim that the Vatican approved of the slaughter.

Edwin

 

[Tanner9188]

I quoted a few more verses above that also adress the issue of Peter as the head or first Pope. I am not going to draw into the literal deffinitions of Peter meaning rock ect… Christ is the chief cornerstone but Peter is the rock upon that the visible Church will be built with Peter as the head on earth.

**No you are claiming to see God’s elect? Many preachers and teachers wish they had that supernatural ability. There is a distinct reason the Holy Spirit gave us the NT in Greek and not Aramaic as you want to dive into concerning the word “rock”. If that were the case, then Jesus play on words would not make any sense at all, but like you implied, that is a different debate for another day, Lord willing.

You can always tell the value of God’s word in one’s life, by the way they understand Scripture. In the same manner, you can also tell by the pocket book a persons commitment to the Lord.

By the way, the claim about Peter as head on earth; God makes the same claim, both cannot be right.

Were you raised as a Catholic or did you convert?

God bless and glad you joined in.**

 

[josie_L]

Not only Catholic historians. According to this article by Patrick Collinson, it was the common opinion in the 19th and early 20th centuries that Foxe was not to be trusted. My advisor, David Steinmetz, is a Methodist, and he said in his short biography of John Hooper (in Reformers in the Wings) that Fox is always to be taken with a grain of salt (though that’s a fairly moderate statement, of course). Collinson, however, argues that Foxe was in fact the greatest historian of the sixteenth century! He apparently has an article that goes into the question of Foxe’s veracity in more detail (see footnote 39 in the article to which I’ve linked). I’m not deeply familiar with the scholarly debate on Foxe, but I have received the general impression that he’s been somewhat rehabilitated in recent years. Partly I think this is due to the postmodern awareness of how biased *all *scholarship is. An author with an obvious and blatant bias, like Foxe, no longer seems to be doing something radically different from history.

So I wouldn’t agree that Foxe has been totally “debunked,” but I certainly wouldn’t rely on him uncritically (or on any other source!). In short, as usual, my mentor Prof. Steinmetz is right!

Edwin

He is not to be trusted with regard to the veracity of many his statements. I know that with regard to the Inquisition, for example, he was completely off base as he had used a source (by some author assuming a false persona, Montanus) that was fictionalized.

Here’s a snippet of an article I read:

“Foxe based his accounts of the martyrs partly on authentic documents and reports of the trials, and on statements received direct from the friends of the sufferers, but he was too hasty a worker and too violent a partisan to produce anything like a correct or impartial account of the mass of facts with which he had to deal. Anthony à Wood says that Foxe “believed and reported all that was told him, and there is every reason to suppose that he was purposely misled, and continually deceived by those whose interest it was to bring discredit on his work”, but he admits that the book is a monument of his industry, his laborious research and his sincere piety. The gross blunders due to carelessness have often been exposed, and there is no doubt that Foxe was only too ready to believe evil of the Catholics, and he cannot always be exonerated from the charge of wilful falsification of evidence.”

nndb.com/people/551/000094269/

Then there is this (the first and last paragraph were taken out of Foxes book):

“The Irish, who formerly led an unsettled and roving life, in the woods, bogs, and mountains, and lived on the depredation of their neighbors, they who, in the morning seized the prey, and at night divided the spoil, have, for many years past, become quiet and civilized. They taste the sweets of English society, and the advantages of civil government. They trade in our cities, and are employed in our manufactories. They are received also into English families; and treated with great humanity by the Protestants.” (9)

“It is only with great difficulty that one can believe that the reviser of Fox’s work would insert such a blatantly false statement, but so it is.”

“One wonders where to begin in the exposition of this particular citation? A good place to start would probably be at the beginning. What was it that reduced the Irish to the state of utter poverty mentioned by the reviser? The answer is to be found in the infamous Irish Persecution Laws.”

“These infamous laws were imposed by England (a protestant nation) upon a nation that was, at the time, 97% Catholic. To quote a protestant historian on the conditions in Ireland after the laws were imposed:”

“They ( i.e. Catholics ) are not only excluded from all offices in church and state, but are interdicted from the army and the law, in all its branches. . . . Every barrister, clerk, attorney, or solicitor is obliged to take a solemn oath not to employ persons of that persuasion; no not as hackney clerks, at the miserable salary of seven shillings a week. No tradesman of that persuasion is capable of exercising his trade freely in any town corporate: so that they trade and work in their own trade native towns as aliens, paying, as such, quarter age, and other charges and impositions. . . .” (10)

geocities.com/militantis/actsandmonuments.html

 

[josie_L]

**Josie,

You are among the lazy concerning the reading, studying and understanding the Word of God; you know that I am telling the truth; you can fool yourself or get busy. **

That Tanner is the last time you call me lazy.

 

[josie_L]

That’s not true. The Vatican did not approve of what the Croatian regime did, although unfortunately Cardinal Stepinac managed to persuade the Pope not to condemn the regime outright. That is very much to the discredit of both the Cardinal and the Pope, but it is a lie to claim that the Vatican approved of the slaughter.

Edwin

What exactly are we refering to here (event)?

 

[josie_L]

Your words sounded kind of hateful. And my understanding is pentecostals are not particular fans of Luther, anyway.

He was a Christian who lived at a time prior to the Council of Trent, whenb all Christians were permitted to question and debate the canon. His rights were the same as anyone’s.
“nothing but the Bible” is solo scriptura. Lutherans acknowledge the importance of tradition, the councils and creeds, the ECF’s, etc. Scripture is the final norm by which these things are measured.

Jon

But he was not allowed to debate the Church’s God-given authority by introducing Sola Scriptura (which was never part of the Church’s tradition, councils and creeds, the ECFs etc.).

 

[Contarini]

He is not to be trusted with regard to the veracity of many his statements. ]

Indeed. Part of the problem is that historians come to a text like Foxe assuming that a lot of it will have to be taken with many pinches of salt. But conservative Protestants swallow it all as Gospel truth. I’m not defending this uncritical approach. I’m just saying that he’s neither entirely reliable nor entirely unreliable. He should be used with caution. And his condemnation of the brutal treatment of St. Edmund Campion by the English government should surely count in his favor with Catholics. He’s one of the few sixteenth-century Protestants who seems genuinely to have believed in religious toleration. So I have more respect for his vitriolic exposes of Catholic persecution than I do for a lot of sixteenth-century polemic.

I know that with regard to the Inquisition, for example, he was completely off base as he had used a source (by some author assuming a false persona, Montanus) that was fictionalized.

This is one of the big problems with the way fundamentalists and other very conservative Protestants use him. Growing up, I heard him cited as an authority on the early and medieval Church even more often than as an authority on the Marian persecutions. But he is only valuable as a historical source for these (and to some extent also for earlier persecutions in England). Everything else he took from other sources (not that he was wrong to do so, but obviously people should go to those other sources, or to more modern secondary sources!).

Here’s a snippet of an article I read:

“Foxe based his accounts of the martyrs partly on authentic documents and reports of the trials, and on statements received direct from the friends of the sufferers, but he was too hasty a worker and too violent a partisan to produce anything like a correct or impartial account of the mass of facts with which he had to deal. Anthony à Wood says that Foxe “believed and reported all that was told him, and there is every reason to suppose that he was purposely misled, and continually deceived by those whose interest it was to bring discredit on his work”, but he admits that the book is a monument of his industry, his laborious research and his sincere piety. The gross blunders due to carelessness have often been exposed, and there is no doubt that Foxe was only too ready to believe evil of the Catholics, and he cannot always be exonerated from the charge of wilful falsification of evidence.”

I’m not sure about the wilful falsification part, and I’m highly dubious about the claim that people deliberately deceived him in order to discredit his work. However, as I said, I don’t deny that he has to be used with extreme caution.

The second website you cite gives some good examples of dramatic stories by Foxe that don’t hold up. Again, this is where historians respond a bit differently because we come to a text like that expecting to find some embellishments, and we read stories like those (pointing up the wickedness of Foxe’s enemies and God’s judgment on them) with automatic skepticism (the same goes for similar early Christian texts such as Lactantius’s De mortibus persecutorum). So when we find out that Foxe took some dramatic license, we’re more likely to shrug our shoulders than to explode in indignation.

Then there is this (the first and last paragraph were taken out of Foxes book):

Note that this is from a later revision–it’s not by Foxe himself.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

What exactly are we refering to here (event)?

What Tanner said we were talking about. The horrific violence against Orthodox Christians and Jews in Croatia during the committed during the 1940s by the fascist government, which was publicly and aggressively Catholic and which was supported by the Catholic Church in Croatia (although there is evidence that Archbishop Stepinac, senior bishop of the Church in Croatia, protested the atrocities–the problem is that since he saw the regime as an ally of the Church, he was unwilling to break with them altogether, and many priests and maybe even bishops did participate actively in the atrocities).

Edwin