Mistakes of Past Popes and Higher Level Clergy: Reformation Contibutor?

[Phantox]

Italian wants only that Popes are Italians, didtatorship?..Hypocrisy, is God an italian? Hypocrites italian ! When Pope John Paul was with us they just keep on commenting the travels of Pope and they cry “they say” or they laugh? they cry to show to people but deep inside their heart they don’t want Polish Pope or american or African…true or no? Don’t be hypocrite !

 

[Phantox]

CatherineofA:

It appears that a great deal of early Reformation acts came out of the immoral and self indulged behavior on the part of popes and past clergy. Are we somewhat harsh on the early reformers due to the fact that we ourselves do not experieince such commonly seen self centered actions and immorality on the part of higher level clergy?

Italian wants only that Popes are Italians, didtatorship?..Hypocrisy, is God an italian? Hypocrites italian ! When Pope John Paul was with us they just keep on commenting the travels of Pope and they cry “they say” or they laugh? they cry to show to people but deep inside their heart they don’t want Polish Pope or american or African…true or no? Don’t be hypocrite !

 

[Phantox]

RSiscoe:

It is certainly true that bad behavior from Church leaders is a scandal, but it is no excuse for what the so called reformers did. They attacked many truths of Christianity; rejected the divine inspiration of many books of the Bible, and made up brand new doctrines that were contrary to what had always been taught. There is no excuse for their actions.

What they should have done was to “protest” the bad behavior of the Church leaders, and demand that measures be taken to correct it, rather than “protest” the teachings of Christianity.

I believe it is misguided to have sympathy for the heretics of the 16th century. They are responsible for the damnation of millions and millions of souls.

Italian wants only that Popes are Italians, didtatorship?..Hypocrisy, is God an italian? Hypocrites italian ! When Pope John Paul was with us they just keep on commenting the travels of Pope and they cry “they say” or they laugh? they cry to show to people but deep inside their heart they don’t want Polish Pope or american or African…true or no? Don’t be hypocrite ! the Phantox

 

[CatherineofA]

Tantum ergo:

That’s why I specifically referrenced Calvin. And, if denominations can have views which are not necessarily “Biblical”,
how can one know which of those is the “right” church? Many Protestants who are complaining that the CATHOLIC Church has “unbiblical” views are perfectly happy with THEIR “unbiblical” views because they think that somehow THEY are right and others are WRONG. There must be a “right” church; all other churches must range from “almost right” to “wrong”. If there is no “right” church, then how could Jesus have promised that He would build His church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it?

I agree with you (as I did earlier) that churches have become hypocritical in pointing the finger about what is authentic and what is man made. However, what I think it all boils down to is researching what the diffeence is between chruch and actual Christianity. I think your interpretation of “church” depends on your outlook. Catholics see the word as meaning more institutional where Protestants see church as being more spiritual. if Jesus meant for the church to be institutional, then why wasn’t an institution with a government and polices set up then. Are men walking around and spreading the gospel an institution? What of Peter and Paul? How could they have disagreed of a set institution had been in place? Could the Biblica inclusion of their differences be an example to show that legalism separates the actual mesage of Christ? Afterall, there differences were based on legalism.

Really? It was mostly the so-called “common man” of the Protestant persuasion who DESTROYED icons; the peers were more into the SPOILS system. In any case, does the action become “OK” because it was from “the common man?”

If youa re speaking of England, this was lead by Thomas Cromwell under Henry VIII. As a whole, commoners, could not have been involved in actual destruction just based on their numbers. Had the population been as anti-Catholic as that, Mary I would have never have regned nor could she have defeated Lady jane Grey who was a pawn by Protestant leaders to take the throne.

Think Methodists and “no dancing”, though David danced before the Lord. Think “no wine” though our Lord changed water into wine at Cana. Think, “Spare the rod and spoil the child”, think “Women are spiritually inferior, just creatures of matter, unlike men”.

I agree on this as I indicated earlier. This policy is a denominational standpoint and not a Bilical one and it is hypocritical do pas it off as Biblical. Especially in light of criticism against Catholicims for institutional practices.

"Anticlericalism relates to the early reformers objecting to things like clerical courts, or the ideas that priests could hear confessions. It’s the old “rugged individualism” and the “I’m just as good a man as X is”. The whole idea of a celibate clergy who ranged themselves with God as opposed to individual princes (think Thomas a Becket, St. Thomas More, Cardinal Fisher, Edmund Campion) was anathema to the average petty potentate.

"

Lot of angles in your response. The Protestant view of confessions is not over confessing your sins to a man but over if the man can forgive them for God. Protestants go to minsiters all the time to confess for counseling. As far as clerical courts, most Protestant churches have a hierarchy. Celibacy on the part of clergy is optional. Just not required. The objection is requiring it over what the Bible actually says about celibacy.

 

[CatherineofA]

My answer is in the BLUE QUOTE part of the post and in the BLACK ANSWER part of the post. I feel as if I have to post quickly because my posts do not always post. I am sometimes automatically logged out. Sorry for the typos!

 

[theMutant]

Phantox:

Italian wants only that Popes are Italians, didtatorship?..Hypocrisy, is God an italian? Hypocrites italian ! When Pope John Paul was with us they just keep on commenting the travels of Pope and they cry “they say” or they laugh? they cry to show to people but deep inside their heart they don’t want Polish Pope or american or African…true or no? Don’t be hypocrite !

Making posts off the topic of threads is not only rude, but against the rules of the forum. Please be considerate. If you want to make some point on another topic, please feel free to start your own thread.

 

[theMutant]

CatherineofA:

My answer is in the BLUE QUOTE part of the post and in the BLACK ANSWER part of the post. I feel as if I have to post quickly because my posts do not always post. I am sometimes automatically logged out. Sorry for the typos!

I have that problem too. I get around it by copying my entire post to the clipboard (using Ctrl-A and then Ctrl-C) and then I hit the back button to get back to the thread. I then hit the button to submit a reply. If I have timed out, I am prompted to log in at that point. I then paste the post into the new window (Ctrl-V) and hit the submit button. Just a friendly tip from one who is too long winded.

 

[CatherineofA]

Tantum ergo:

Idolization of the KJV=Why do you say that when the Catholic Bible reads with the same message? By the way, I never saw it idolized at church. One of the original functions of the original KJV was an English translation as opposed to Latin. Bibliolatry is that view which holds to sola scriptora or makes the idea that the KJV (which is NOT a complete Bible, anyway, having had books removed from it) is not just the Word of God but equal to God. My Douay Rheims is a vernacular translation which is from the same period (the early 1600s) as the KJV. And Latin was a lingua franca, read and understood by educated people no matter where they lived. One could actually, in a reasonably cosmopolitan city like Paris or London who had large populations of non natives, do BETTER with a Latin Bible, because it would be understood by more people.

Contraception was embraced since there was not clear cut view by the them in the Bible against it. No direct statement. Actually, there were indeed direct indictments of contraception. I recall one from the OT where a man “spilled his seed” and was immediately immolated by God. There’s also the psalms, “Before I knit you in the womb, I knew you”. There are provisions in Leviticus for punishments for those who injured a pregnant woman and she lost her child because of the injury. . .

Which churches that say they actually believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible accept abortion, homosexuality, divorce, or personal interpretations of the scripture? I would like to see them. Not all Protestant churches believe in a fully literal interpretation of the Bible. And I would like to see one that does NOT accept personal interpretation of scripture. . .since, by its very nature, that church, in being Protestant, has interpreted Scripture by denying the one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith.

How do you view rapture doctrine. What don’t you like and why? There is no such thing as a third coming. All rapture doctrine which I have read have Jesus coming, semi secretly or secretly, and taking His followers away, and THEN coming again, and sometimes even coming AGAIN after a so-called “thousand year reign” to FINALLY defeat Satan. All of which flies in the face of the Bible which clearly states that when Jesus does return, it will be ONCE FOR ALL and the Last Day, the Day of Judgment. The Rapture is a barely 200 year old movement which was started from whole cloth and is not biblical in the slightest.
Reply With Quote

Well, I’d love to chat more right now, but I need to do some errands and feed the hungry. . .my kids. . .have a very good day.

I agree that there might be a group that actually worships the Bible. However, you would be hardpresed to find a majority of Protestants who say this should be done. Many Protestants see the Bible as an instruction book and guide to salvation. A guidebook can’t save you. It can can only teach. The KJV has every chapter my New American Catholic Bible has EXCEPT for the Apocrypha. Those are a few Old Testament books that were excluded based on their presumed authenticity. Their exclusion did not alter the message of Christ even as it was presented by the Catholic Church at the time. The New Testaments of Catholic and Protestant are identical in message. As far as a Latin Bible being understood by more people, that does not really fit historically. Prior to the reformation, there was no printing press and Bibles were few and far between in Latin and guarded against public access due to their availability. In addition, most could not read Latin. The KJV was an attempt to bring the Bible books into the English language as a part of mass printing since the printing had been recently invented. If Latin was so superior to English, why are there Catholic Bibles in native tongues outside of Latin today? The church evidently does not hold this view.

 

[CatherineofA]

“Actually, there were indeed direct indictments of contraception. I recall one from the OT where a man “spilled his seed” and was immediately immolated by God. There’s also the psalms, “Before I knit you in the womb, I knew you”. There are provisions in Leviticus for punishments for those who injured a pregnant woman and she lost her child because of the injury. . .”

The spilling of the seed verse in the OT was seen as a man who was supposed to be producing offspring for someone else. The problem was with the duty to the relative and not failing to procreate for himself. As far as Christ knowing you in the womb and a pregnant woman losing her child, these verses can also be viewed as “life begins at conception.” and verses to help with anti-abortion. To be honest, none of the verses come out and directly support contraception or a lack of contraception.

“Not all Protestant churches believe in a fully literal interpretation of the Bible.”

Exactly, those who do not see it as the complete word of God.

“And I would like to see one that does NOT accept personal interpretation of scripture. . .since, by its very nature, that church, in being Protestant, has interpreted Scripture by denying the one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith.”

Personal interpretation of scripture cannot contradict what the scripture says. You would be hard pressed to find many protestants who walk around with their own interpretation apart from their denominations. You would also find it hard to find denominations that disagree in the Biblical verses. What they often differ on is how they carry out the Biblical commands and what they have set up as institutional practices apart from the Bible. Example-Baptism=ainfancy or older? Church hierarchy=local or centralized, drinking=allowed amongst ministers or not?

All rapture doctrine which I have read have Jesus coming, semi secretly or secretly, and taking His followers away, and THEN coming again, and sometimes even coming AGAIN after a so-called “thousand year reign” to FINALLY defeat Satan. All of which flies in the face of the Bible which clearly states that when Jesus does return, it will be ONCE FOR ALL and the Last Day, the Day of Judgment. The Rapture is a barely 200 year old movement which was started from whole cloth and is not biblical in the slightest.

This is actually an interesting point that I frankly do not have an opnion on. I am still loooking into historical views as well as church or denominational views. I basically am comparing the historical versu the Biblical.

 

[CatherineofA]

theMutant:

I have that problem too. I get around it by copying my entire post to the clipboard (using Ctrl-A and then Ctrl-C) and then I hit the back button to get back to the thread. I then hit the button to submit a reply. If I have timed out, I am prompted to log in at that point. I then paste the post into the new window (Ctrl-V) and hit the submit button. Just a friendly tip from one who is too long winded.

Thanks very much for the tip!!!