E
East_Anglican
Guest
Luther was excomunicated by the pope, he did not leave of his own accord. I don’t want to discuss this over Lent anyway.
- Status
E
East_Anglican
Guest
Oh yes it is.
Besides, Jesus said he would build his Church, not yours or mine.
(I will discuss this no further over lent.)
p.s
It’s 2008 not 1508.
A
AquinasT
Guest
If Martin Luther is not the “authority” for Protestants, and if whatever Luther stated about doctrine must be questioned, and the Protestant churches are in a constant state of “reform,” always questioning their roots, then this must necessarily call into question other doctrinal statements proclaimed by Luther - such as Sola Scriptura, or Sola Fide. Since Martin Luther was a fallible man, capable of doctrinal error, and indeed, Protestants admit that his teaching is in need of perpetual reformation and is not dogmatically “written in stone,” then we must look questioningly at the “Bible Alone” doctrine, “Faith Alone,” as well as other doctrines that originate with this man.
Protestants depart from the teachings of their founders on many levels. No Protestant church teaches exactly what the Reformers originally held. They do not see the Reformers as infallible teachers or interpretors of Scripture. If the Reformers say that the “Bible Alone” is taught is the pages of Scripture, it must also be remembered that they do not have the authority to back up this claim, nor do they claim to have such authority to teach this or any doctrine infallibly, nor do Protestants admit such an authority. Perhaps it is time to “reform” this erroneous teaching as well and seek out an authority that is infallible so that Protestants can have a sure guide to Truth.
Thomas
Protestants depart from the teachings of their founders on many levels. No Protestant church teaches exactly what the Reformers originally held. They do not see the Reformers as infallible teachers or interpretors of Scripture. If the Reformers say that the “Bible Alone” is taught is the pages of Scripture, it must also be remembered that they do not have the authority to back up this claim, nor do they claim to have such authority to teach this or any doctrine infallibly, nor do Protestants admit such an authority. Perhaps it is time to “reform” this erroneous teaching as well and seek out an authority that is infallible so that Protestants can have a sure guide to Truth.
Thomas
E
East_Anglican
Guest
The ultimate authority is Jesus Christ.
A
AquinasT
Guest
Yes, absolutely, Jesus is the final authority…
So then the question becomes: Did Jesus teach that the Bible Alone is to be the earthly seat of that authority, or did He establish a Church on Peter and the Apostles who would carry His authority out into the world?
This is why HISTORY is so important and cannot be brushed aside as though we are living in the past.
Thomas
So then the question becomes: Did Jesus teach that the Bible Alone is to be the earthly seat of that authority, or did He establish a Church on Peter and the Apostles who would carry His authority out into the world?
This is why HISTORY is so important and cannot be brushed aside as though we are living in the past.
Thomas
M
Mystic_Warrior
Guest
You told me simply to “read his biography” for more information, which in my mind assumes you have read it and can back up the assertions of claudius. However, you can neither provide me with a link or further information. Have you done the research to verify the historical facts that claudius proposed?Instead of always asking gazillion questions here, why not do some research…
I’ve found nothing in Luther’s writings that corraborate the story that he insisted his mother not leave the church.
Either you have the information to back up the claim or you don’t. If you don’t, then you have no business speaking about it to begin with, especially by alluding to some biography that you can’t point to.
Peace…
MW
M
Mystic_Warrior
Guest
I’m not a history buff. If the Orthodox broke away from the Catholic Church then how could they be in union with the Pope when they rejected the supremacy of the Pope? Do you acknowledge the difference in the filoque and the rejection of the supremacy of the pope being acknowledged by the Orthodox?Well, if you were really a history buff, then you’d know that the Orthodox broke away from the Catholic church in 1059 in unity with the pope. And it is all about Jesus Christ and the Roman Catholic church…my friend.
As I understand it, the Orthodox believe that the Roman church broke away from the true faith, not the other way around. But again, it’s all about perspective - as I said earlier.
Peace…
MW
R
Righteousone
Guest
Well, you understood wrong…they broke away from the Catholic church. period. end of discussion. Do your homework.I’m not a history buff. If the Orthodox broke away from the Catholic Church then how could they be in union with the Pope when they rejected the supremacy of the Pope? Do you acknowledge the difference in the filoque and the rejection of the supremacy of the pope being acknowledged by the Orthodox?
As I understand it, the Orthodox believe that the Roman church broke away from the true faith, not the other way around. But again, it’s all about perspective - as I said earlier.
Peace…
MW
M
Mystic_Warrior
Guest
I suppose it’s always going to be pointless discussing with you.
You’re now a member of my ignore list
Go in peace…
MW
R
Righteousone
Guest
Did you know that Luther was in unspeakable solitude and grief after what he did?
M
Mickey
Guest
In 1054 there was a severe quarrel. The Normans had been forcing the Greeks in Byzantine Italy to conform to Latin usages; the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, in return demanded that the Latin churches at Constantinople should adopt Greek practices, and in 1052, when they refused, he closed them. This was perhaps harsh, but as Patriarch he was fully entitled to act in this manner. Among the practices to which Michael and his supporters particularly objected was the Latin use of “azymes” or unleavened bread in the Eucharist, an issue which had not figured in the dispute of the ninth century. In 1053, however, Cerularius took up a more conciliatory attitude and wrote to Pope Leo IX, offering to restore the Pope’s name to the Diptychs. In response to this offer, and to settle the disputed questions of Greek and Latin usages, Leo in 1054 sent three legates to Constantinople, the chief of them being Humbert, Bishop of Silva Candida. The choice of Cardinal Humbert was unfortunate, for both he and Cerularius were men of stiff and intransigent temper, whose mutual encounter was not likely to promote good will among Christians. The legates, when they called on Cerularius, did not create a favorable impression. Thrusting a letter from the Pope at him, they retired without giving the usual salutations; the letter itself, although signed by Leo, had in fact been drafted by Humbert, and was distinctly unfriendly in tone. After this the Patriarch refused to have further dealings with the legates. Eventually Humbert lost patience, and laid a Bull of Excommunication against Cerularius on the altar of the Church of the Holy Wisdom: among other ill-founded charges in this document, Humbert accused the Greeks of omitting the filioque from the Creed! Humbert promptly left Constantinople without offering any further explanation of his act, and on returning to Italy he represented the whole incident as a great victory for the see of Rome. Cerularius and his synod retaliated by anathematizing Humbert (but not the Roman Church as such). The attempt at reconciliation left matters worse than before.
fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_1.htm
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
I could care less about Luther. If it had not been Luther, it would have been someone else and actually history has borne that out.
As far as history, I know mine, that is why I know the early church did not believe in venerating images, emphasize Mary, believe in apostolic succession and so forth. All of those are inventions of man at least a hundred years after Christ rose from the dead.
M
Mystic_Warrior
Guest
Thank you Mickey. This reminds me of Luther and his issues that he originally had (that is, the indulgence abuse) with the papal authority to do so and how the ensuing dialogue was not met very well with the authorities. This seems to have caused his eventual excommunication when he wouldn’t recant. It’s unfortunate that disagreements like these led to the fracture of the Christian churches.
It all comes down to who thinks who is right or wrong. I like your signature. If we all (especially me) followed that quote maybe the church wouldn’t be so fractured.
Peace…
MW
M
Mickey
Guest
Yes. Many people forget that Luther was a Catholic Augustinian priestmonk. His intentions were noble. There were many abuses in the Church at that time. But sadly, pride is very powerful. Rome would not listen. And then when things spiraled out of control, Rome was compelled to a counter-reformation at Trent.
Remember, Lucifer was of the highest order of angels (cherubim), but pride caused his utter destruction.
M
Mickey
Guest
There were images of cherubim:
On the Ark—Ex. 25:18
On the Curtains of the Tabernacle—Ex. 26:1
On the Veil of the Holy of Holies—Ex. 26:31
Two huge Cherubim in the Sanctuary—1st Kings 6:23
On the Walls—1st Kings 6:29
On the Doors—1st Kings 6:32
And on the furnishings—1st Kings 7:29,36
In short, there were Icons everywhere you turned.
“henceforth all generations shall call me blessed” (Luke 1:48)
Matthew 16:16-19.
Matthew 18:18
Ephesians 2:19-22
R
Righteousone
Guest
What is Rightlydivide’s answer to Mickey’s ‘proof’ of what he said didn’t happen?
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
my answer is that:
the synagogues of the intertestamental period did not have images and the early Christians wrote against them.
My answer to Mary is that she is blessed but no one said a word about her assuming into heaven for over 300 years.
No one said a word about her being born immaculate until 2 centuries later.
My answer to the apostolic succession is that the early church did not believe in it and the verses you quoted do not prove the Roman Catholic concept of it either…in a nutshell
the synagogues of the intertestamental period did not have images and the early Christians wrote against them.
My answer to Mary is that she is blessed but no one said a word about her assuming into heaven for over 300 years.
No one said a word about her being born immaculate until 2 centuries later.
My answer to the apostolic succession is that the early church did not believe in it and the verses you quoted do not prove the Roman Catholic concept of it either…in a nutshell
M
Mickey
Guest
K
khutcheson
Guest
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Hello khutcheson,
Thank you for your comments,
I appreciated your comments and there is some truth to what you wrote. However, lets be honest, the reason “Protestant” religions are referred to as such, is because, they our “protesting” the Roman Catholic Church, not because they are “protesting” other “Protestant” religions.
- Status