T
Telstar
Guest
I have my protector! Ready, whenever you are!
i2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/Telstars/3bad0f88-cfa8-4149-b74d-4c95131d02a0.jpg
- Status
i2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/Telstars/3bad0f88-cfa8-4149-b74d-4c95131d02a0.jpg
C
Contarini
Guest
Denise1957, the late medieval and early modern Church did limit lay access to Scripture. The Jansenist Quesnel was condemned for saying that laypeople should have free access to Scripture. Vatican II said that access to Scripture should be opened wide to the Christian faithful. I do not think that there is any plausible explanation of this evidence other than that Vatican II sided with the condemned Quesnel against Pope Clement XI who condemned him.
Again, this is not about infallibility. I have very deliberately framed the issue so as to sidestep infallibility. This is about the guidance of the Church by the Holy Spirit.
Was Pope Leo X guided by the Holy Spirit when he condemned Luther for saying that heretics shouldn’t be burned?
Isn’t it far more likely that on that particular issue, Luther was the one who was listening more attentively to the voice of the Spirit?
Edwin
D
Denise1957
Guest
So what if the Church limited access to scripture. I don’t have a problem with that. If you do, that’s fine. I’m not a Protestant.
How would I know if the holy Ghost guided the Pope in his condemnation of Luther for saying that the Holy Ghost would not condemn heretics? I think that the Holy Ghost condemns heresy, but it’s up to the Pope to decide how to deal with it. It’s not up to me. I’m not the pope.
I don’t see how Luther could have been guided by the Holy Ghost, given all that he had done and written. Do we really want to dredge all that up again?
G
GKC
Guest
There are Luthero-Papalists. Look a lot like Lutheran flavored Anglo-Papalists.Indeed, I don’t think I’ve ever even heard of Luthero-Papalists or Presby-Papalists … though of course I’ve heard of Anglo-Papalists.
GKC
S
spedteacherita
Guest
I wonder what would have happened if the Reformation had not happened when it did. There were a couple of other men who had (or started to) translate scripture into the language of the lay people. Luther became “famous” because of the invention of the printing press at that time - if that had not happened I’m not sure how far the Reformation would have gone at the time. I think it was probably inevitable as information became easier and easier to get ideas out into the world.
I haven’t notice you posting lately so it’s good to “see” you again…
God bless!
Rita
C
Contarini
Guest
We just have different priorities, clearly.
To you, it’s impossible that Luther could be guided by the Holy Spirit in any way and at any point, because of some of his words and actions (no, let’s not dredge up which ones–we may disagree on which of his words and actions were bad and on just how bad they were, but we both agree that there’s plenty to object to in Luther). But no words and actions of Popes and bishops seem to you to cast any doubt on whether they could have been guided by the Holy Spirit.
And at that point it looks as if you’re using infallibility as a sort of sanitizer to avoid actually dealing with the question of what being guided by the Holy Spirit looks like.
Note: my claim is not that the Church can’t be guided by the Holy Spirit because of some of the words and actions of popes and bishops. My claim is that all Christians, including popes and bishops acting in their institutional capacity, have frequently managed to ignore the Spirit’s guidance, and in that sense no person or institution can be trusted always to get it right. This does not rule out the possibility that the See of Rome does have a special charism that will prevent it from finally and permanently getting things wrong, or even from getting things wrong in a very particular, highly official way. But that doesn’t exhaust the great many ways in which Christians may fail to listen to the Holy Spirit.
Edwin
B
benhur
Guest
Thanks for the healthy laugh. It was getting a bit edgy here, or at least I felt I was.I have my protector! Ready, whenever you are!
i2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/Telstars/3bad0f88-cfa8-4149-b74d-4c95131d02a0.jpg
Blessings
D
Denise1957
Guest
Hi Rita,I wonder what would have happened if the Reformation had not happened when it did. There were a couple of other men who had (or started to) translate scripture into the language of the lay people. Luther became “famous” because of the invention of the printing press at that time - if that had not happened I’m not sure how far the Reformation would have gone at the time. I think it was probably inevitable as information became easier and easier to get ideas out into the world.
I haven’t notice you posting lately so it’s good to “see” you again…
God bless!
Rita
I’ve not been posting lately because I joined the choir at my parish a few weeks ago, and it’s a lot more work (practicing at home - which is very time-consuming) than I thought it would be. But I love it!
Yes, I think that the reformation may not have had such a great start if the printing of bibles had not been more widespread. But I think that the reformers weren’t the only ones to print bibles up. I think that Catholics were doing it too. Not that that’s such a bad thing. Reading the Bible is a good thing, but the bible can’t save us. Its a person (Jesus) who saves, not a thing. And it’s the private interpretation that’s a problem…a big problem.
D
Denise1957
Guest
I’m not sure what you are getting at here. I don’t think I’m referring much to infallibility at all. After all, it’s rarely invoked by Popes.
You seem to want to compare who was and who wasn’t guided by the Holy Ghost. I’ve already stated what I think about that. IMO, Luther was not guided by the Holy Ghost. Look at what his ‘reformation’ has led to. One only need to see the fruits of his actions, which are all-too-apparent today.
S
spedteacherita
Guest
I agree. Private interpretation is a problem - my brother and I go around and around about that because he interprets from the King James or another English version and not from the original languages that mainline churches do.Hi Rita,
I’ve not been posting lately because I joined the choir at my parish a few weeks ago, and it’s a lot more work (practicing at home - which is very time-consuming) than I thought it would be. But I love it!
Yes, I think that the reformation may not have had such a great start if the printing of bibles had not been more widespread. But I think that the reformers weren’t the only ones to print bibles up. I think that Catholics were doing it too. Not that that’s such a bad thing. Reading the Bible is a good thing, but the bible can’t save us. Its a person (Jesus) who saves, not a thing. And it’s the private interpretation that’s a problem…a big problem.
The Bible is a “thing” for sure - we had a big family Bible when I was growing up but it was only looked at from the outside - not read. The inside, though, is where the Word is and the Word is Jesus so it’s very important to learn what it says to counter the Enemy as Jesus did when he was out in the wilderness.
I love to sing in choirs but with this fibromyalgia I can’t be depended on at this point in my life to be involved on a regular basis. The nicer weather gives me the opportunity to get out and do some light yard work - then I’m back inside to sit down because of the fatigue. Can’t wait till Jesus comes back so I can get my new body!!
God bless, Denise,
Rita
B
benhur
Guest
View attachment 21756 You may have an arcangel but I have a saint and a horse, a white one at that.
B
benhur
Guest
Hang in there Rita, you’ll be better than bionic.
L
LutheranScholar
Guest
Hey, Rita! That will be an amazing Day, won’t it?
Please know that I’m still praying for you. Take care.
T
Telstar
Guest
Now, on to respond to the rest of your post…
The followers of Jesus were/are considered to be a cult, in the classic definition of the term.cult: noun: *a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.*A cult is only dangerous when it follows a man that falsely claims to be (or to represent) a god, such as Jim Jones or David Koresh, and others of their ilk.
Yes, Jesus taught the multitudes openly, but there were many times that He discussed things with the Apostles that He never taught to the crowds."Matthew 13 [10] And his disciples came and said to him: Why speakest thou to them in parables? [11] Who answered and said to them: Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given."Jesus is stating that the Apostles are privileged, and set apart from the others, because He chose them to be. They were given more information (including knowledge about spiritual mysteries) that were not meant to be given to others, because they couldn’t understand it. They were given the specific task of preaching the Gospel, because He taught them exactly what, and how, He wanted them to teach. Using parables as a teaching tool, was one of the things He taught them. There’s nowhere in the Gospels where Jesus tells the crowd that followed Him to preach the Gospel, or to do anything else that He only taught the Apostles to do (forgiving sins, etc.).
Jesus uses the idiom of a good shepherd watching over his flock, protecting them from evil and from going astray, when He asks Peter:John 21: [15] When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. [16] He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. [17] He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.He didn’t just ask if Peter loved Him, but whether he loved Him “more than these”, meaning more than the other Apostles did. Jesus was indicating the one that He chose to lead the whole Church, above all of His other Apostles. Does that mean Jesus loved Peter more than the others? Nope. He just told Peter (and us) that he would be responsible to take His place as leader, the “shepherd of the flock” of Christians, after Jesus was gone.
The Catholic Church cannot make up doctrines out of thin air, that were never part of the Deposit of Faith in the first place. What part of that don’t you understand? I already explained it in detail, so anyone could understand it. Or, are you just insisting that the Church must be making it up as she goes along, because you just don’t want to believe that anything She says is true? I’ve always tended to be a bit stubborn, so an old friend of ours used to say, “Y’know, obstinacy is not a virtue.”.
I never said anything about “Catholic Baptism”, in fact I said that it didn’t matter who was performing the Baptism, as long as it was done according to the way Jesus taught the Apostles to do it. You’re putting words in my mouth that I never said.
The Roman Catholic Church is very far from being Gnostic in any way. The ECFs condemned those ideas as heresy, and fought long and hard to correct anyone who believed the errors that they taught.
The followers of Jesus were/are considered to be a cult, in the classic definition of the term.cult: noun: *a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.*A cult is only dangerous when it follows a man that falsely claims to be (or to represent) a god, such as Jim Jones or David Koresh, and others of their ilk.
Yes, Jesus taught the multitudes openly, but there were many times that He discussed things with the Apostles that He never taught to the crowds."Matthew 13 [10] And his disciples came and said to him: Why speakest thou to them in parables? [11] Who answered and said to them: Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given."Jesus is stating that the Apostles are privileged, and set apart from the others, because He chose them to be. They were given more information (including knowledge about spiritual mysteries) that were not meant to be given to others, because they couldn’t understand it. They were given the specific task of preaching the Gospel, because He taught them exactly what, and how, He wanted them to teach. Using parables as a teaching tool, was one of the things He taught them. There’s nowhere in the Gospels where Jesus tells the crowd that followed Him to preach the Gospel, or to do anything else that He only taught the Apostles to do (forgiving sins, etc.).
God has always demanded there be a structure of authority over His people, otherwise there would be chaos. We can clearly see it in the OT, with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and on, and on, down through the ages. Someone has to be in charge and lead the people, to make sure don’t stray too far from the truth. Unfortunately, there’s always a few that are stubborn and decide to follow their own way, instead. Some people have a real problem with authority, because they just don’t like being told that they’re wrong, even when they know they are.
Jesus uses the idiom of a good shepherd watching over his flock, protecting them from evil and from going astray, when He asks Peter:John 21: [15] When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. [16] He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. [17] He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.He didn’t just ask if Peter loved Him, but whether he loved Him “more than these”, meaning more than the other Apostles did. Jesus was indicating the one that He chose to lead the whole Church, above all of His other Apostles. Does that mean Jesus loved Peter more than the others? Nope. He just told Peter (and us) that he would be responsible to take His place as leader, the “shepherd of the flock” of Christians, after Jesus was gone.
Wrong. It’s the exact opposite of what the Jews did. The Jewish leaders made up completely new laws for their own purposes, that either contradicted the Law of Moses, or placed a burden on the people that was completely unnecessary, and provided no spiritual benefit to any of them.
The Catholic Church cannot make up doctrines out of thin air, that were never part of the Deposit of Faith in the first place. What part of that don’t you understand? I already explained it in detail, so anyone could understand it. Or, are you just insisting that the Church must be making it up as she goes along, because you just don’t want to believe that anything She says is true? I’ve always tended to be a bit stubborn, so an old friend of ours used to say, “Y’know, obstinacy is not a virtue.”.
C
Contarini
Guest
You referred to infallibility in post 276 with reference to Pope Leo and Exsurge Domine. In context, you appeared to be saying that my point about the Pope being wrong and Luther right in that particular instance was irrelevant if Exsurge Domine is not infallible.
I am speaking of being led by the Holy Spirit because I got into this in response to Jon S’ post 232,
Jon S pointed to disagreements among Christians (and specifically among Protestants) as counter-evidence to the idea that all believers are led by the Holy Spirit.
My point was, “restricting the Spirit’s guidance to the Pope and the bishops in communion with him, and/or the wider body of the faithful in communion with them, doesn’t get us off the hook.”
What does get you “off the hook” is restricting very narrowly what counts as evidence against being led by the Spirit. If, that is, you can persuade the unconvinced to go along with that move.
If you’re willing to say that people can be led by the Spirit to burn other human beings alive, then our presuppositions about what it looks like to be led by the Spirit are so different that further discussion may be pointless.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Can you show that this is a fair characterization of first-century Judaism by a hermeneutic of the same kind that you would like to see applied to Catholicism?
Edwin
D
Denise1957
Guest
Okay, I think I see now what you’re saying. Sorry I didn’t understand it at first. I didn’t intend to give the impression that that particular reference was irrelevant if the document in question is not infallible. I have no idea about it’s being infallible or not. If it was infallible, then yes, the Holy Ghost would be guiding him, but if it wasn’t then we don’t really know if the Holy Ghost was guiding him or not. The Pope still has the right to exercise his authority whether it’s considered infallible or not. The Pope had every right to issue that document, and to condemn Luther’s words. You may not agree with what the Pope wrote, and you may believe that the Holy Ghost couldn’t possibly have influenced the Pope in his decision to condemn Luther’s writings. In that we’ll have to disagree.
D
Denise1957
Guest
Non-Catholics will sometimes think that the supposed shock-value of the idea of burning heretics will get us Catholics to quiver and be humiliated into saying something against our Pope and the Church. Sorry…not gonna happen, with me anyway. You can post whatever you like about the whole burning-at-the-stake issue, and I won’t change my mind about the Church or the Popes.
C
Contarini
Guest
It’s only this particular condemnation (no. 33 in Exsurge Domine) that I was speaking of so confidently. There are other things condemned in ED that I might be inclined to agree with Luther on, others where I wouldn’t, and still others where I think Luther had a valid point but can see why the Pope (or Eck who probably wrote most of the document) would have problems with the way Luther put it. I am not defending Luther as a whole. I am pointing out that “even Luther” was more in tune with the Spirit than the Pope on this particular point, unless you are going to say that the Spirit is more pleased with those who condemn fellow-creatures to horrific torment and death than with those who speak out against such an atrocity.
Edwin
- Status