H
Hesychios
Guest
No dispute with your point here.
I wonder how involved Pope Leo X was in this deception, how much did he know about this?
- Status
I wonder how involved Pope Leo X was in this deception, how much did he know about this?
H
Hesychios
Guest
He even supported Saul’s enemies until Saul and his heir was gone back to God’s judgement.
G
guanophore
Guest
Enough to put a stop to it, which he clearly did not do. Enough to profit financially (for the purpose of building St.Peters).
E
EphelDuath
Guest
J
josie_L
Guest
**I’m glad you side with Luther as I was unaware of your protestant leanings (does Orthodoxy espouse the sola scriputa, sola grazia, sola fide . . .etc. of Luther and the reformers?). **
p.s. Anything to bash the Church, right, Hesychios (but I forget you love us)?
S
Sword_Brethren
Guest
That title does not mean anything. Luther still taught error.
L
Lutheranteach
Guest
Many feel the same about the title: Pope.
G
guanophore
Guest
Do any of them pertain to the topic of this thread?
G
guanophore
Guest
I thought he had only a Master degree?
This can also be said about Catholic doctors of theology. I love Fr. Corapi’s observation that some people can be “educated into imbecility”.
G
guanophore
Guest
This is very true. A Pope who models corruption, or embraces error is not a good testimony as the Successor of Peter. But, then again, Jesus appointed Peter after He had already called Him “Satan”, so impeccability must not be a requirement.
S
Sword_Brethren
Guest
But Jesus Christ founded the Holy Papacy.
Matthew 16:16-19
“Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”
Z
Zundrah
Guest
People can make their own rosaries. It’s a simple matter of binding beads onto a string!Here we go again…another misguided, misinformed Protestant who insists that popes sold indulgences…really…who teaches you these things??
People don’t need to buy rosaries and besides you can just do it by counting the prayers. You don’t need the whole thing! There goes his theory! 
H
Hesychios
Guest
I do not agree with Lutheran theology, but early Luther was a very sincere priest who, like countless other lowly priests worried about the church and the spiritual well being of the faithful. I do not defend what you call the solas of Luther and the Reformers. I am however, convinced that some sort of disaster was due to erupt upon the western church, and if it had not been Father Martin (supposing he never existed, of had died young), it would have started with someone else.
Nevertheless here Father Luther is vilified routinely. People just want to paint Father Luther as something evil, as if he and he alone were responsible for the calamity.
People around here wish to forget that the two banker Popes of the Medici family bear a large responsibility for what happened. They set up the entire scenario which started the disaster. In fact, being the men with the most responsibility in the entire western church they are mostly responsible for the failure of the church to hold the confidence of the people. They gave scandal, as great a sin as any if it causes others to lose faith.
Here we have millions who lost faith, and as a secondary effect millions died in the thirty years war (in which Catholic France under the direction of Cardinal Richeliou sided with the Protestant cause).
You accuse me of having Protestant leanings, but the people who care about the church want it to face it’s responsibility, owe up to it’s mistakes and correct it’s errors. People who want to shout down the critics and make them shut up are not expressing love for the church, they are enablers.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
The word “Pope” means “father,” which comes from the Bible. Check Isaiah 22. The man, who is given the keys of the Kingdom (cf. Matthew 16:18-19), “shall be a father” to the Kingdom of Judah.
J
josie_L
Guest
I don’t buy this malarky one bit, in fact, Luther believed in the “solas” long before Tetzel came along (1512); the misuse of indulgences just happened to be a platform which he could use to ply his heresies. You would have to be extremely naive not to see this (or extremely biased). Furthermore, your belief that the Church has to face it’s responsibility and own up to its mistakes is quite incredulous considering that all throughout Pope John Paul’s II reign (and well before that) we have been apologizing and reconciling ourselves in the name of Christian unity and love towards all those who were hurt by the Church. Do you think that humbling ourselves as we did before the world was easy Hesychios? What more is it that you wish from us? A big placard dipped in gold in the middle of Times Square with the words “I’m sorry” on it, or what about reparations of some sort because the big bad “whore of Babylon” (coined by sincere “father” Luther) still needs to pay for the sins of the past?
And while you “care” about the Church do you not see that you’re an enabler to disunity when rather than upholding the truth that we share in common and expressing that with our Protestant/Christian brothers you give them more reason to flee from it by self-righteously condemning us? I mean wouldn’t it be more in tow with God’s will to show the falsity of their beliefs to restore Christianity to its roots? It seems however you are more concerned with our supposed mistakes and errors than theirs (or for that matter yours).
p.s. Luther was not doing God’s will, you can however pretend that he was.
G
Guyonthestreet
Guest
Number 33 on the list caught my eye:
If I read this correct, Pope Leo X is saying that it is a heretical view that it is against the will of the Spirit that heretics should be burned.
So he’s saying it’s ok to burn heretics :shock:
And if you think it’s not ok, you’re a heretic
Huh
J
josie_L
Guest
It’s against the will of the Spirit that heretics be burned therefore the will of the Spirit is not for burning heretics (that is what Pope Leo X said).Number 33 on the list caught my eye:
If I read this correct, Pope Leo X is saying that it is a heretical view that it is against the will of the Spirit that heretics should be burned.
So he’s saying it’s ok to burn heretics :shock:
And if you think it’s not ok, you’re a heretic
Huh
G
Guyonthestreet
Guest
The list is prefaced by this remark:
Thats whats confusing me.
That made it sound like the list was Luther’s herecies, not what the Pope said.
Number 32 is
This is a herecy - no?
So if the list is in fact a list of herecies, then the Pope is indeed saying that to believe one shouldnt burn heretics is against the will of the spirit.
So he appoved the burning of heretics?
G
Guyonthestreet
Guest
Ive done a quick search and found several sites that agree that the Pope was saying it was an error on Luthers part to state it was wrong not to burn heretics.
This site has postings by Carroll, a catholic historian connected with EWTN
aloha.net/~mikesch/burn-heretics.htm
Interesting reading.
Looks like Luther got that one right, and the Pope got it very very wrong.
Now, that does beg some questions, doesn’t it!
G
guanophore
Guest
This is true, but so is the rest of what my brother Michael is saying. There was so much corruption in the Roman clergy at the time that it would have been sparked by something else.
What he said about the Medici brothers and the abuse of the Papacy is all true. They gave gross scandal to the Church, and were the cause of many abandoning the faith, mayGod have mercy on their souls.
No, it is not incredulous at all. However, I would make a distinction between the Holy, Infallible and impeccable bride of Christ, and the corrupted persons attached to her. I think that responsibilility needs to be taken for wrongdoing engaged by ordained persons in the Church.
And it proves his point that this is the Godly and appropriate action to take.
I think you are being over defensive here. All he is asking for is some acknowlegement that the abuses happened, and that the blame lies at the feet of the ordained Roman clergy - all the way up to the Pope.
Michael has done nothing “self righteous”, and this is an unwarranted accusation. Methinks thou dost protest too much.
I do not agree with MIchael;s views about Luther either, and think he is deservedly villified here, but the truth is that he was a small stone in an avalanche that was about to go, and this avalanche was stacked by corrupt Roman clergy.
Errors on both sides are equally problematic. The Latin communion is as much responsibile for the cause of the Reformation as those who rebelled against the abuses they committed.
He had some just complaints that needed to be addressed.
- Status