Protestant Reformation not from God but from the Evil One.

[faelpsanfeel]

Yeah, the guy who called the church out for SELLING salvation for MONEY was obviously inspired by “The Evil One.”

I love how we’re all so empathic for “our protestant brothers” sometimes, and then at other times the reformation was inspired by Satan.

I’m glad we’re all so sure about that last part; not that Catholics would have a vested interest in seeing things that way or anything like that.

What an extreme viewpoint to have though. I mean GEEZ.

 

[Freshman88]

hold your horses here, before you go off praising his post… didn’t this little quote catch anyone elses attention?

they are not in communion with this one man, this Peter, who is clearly shown not to be without error, much less the Vicar of Christ, the one God chose to rule over the Church.

Much less the Vicar of Christ? So he isn’t the vicar of Christ?
And no one here would argue that the man himself is without error, but his infallible teachings are certainly error free.This “one man” is the bishop of Rome, the Holy Father, the succssor of Peter, you should have a lot more respect for such a holy office. I love the Orthodox too, and have great respect for the East but before you go off acting like they are innocent, consider the fact that His Holiness is the prince of the Apostles.

 

[stignatius]

Yeah, the guy who stopped the church from SELLING salvation for MONEY was obviously inspired by “The Evil One.”

Perspective people; perspective.

Anyone who thinks that the sellling of indulgences was his only gripe with the Catholic Church at that time should read two of the works he was asked to recant at the Diet of Worms, “To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation” and “On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church”. In “To the Christian Nobility”, he says that the all men are ordained to the priesthood. In the “Babylonian Captivity”, he calls for the removal of all but two of the seven sacraments. Simply put, he had beliefs that were much to far away from Catholic teaching for him to expect the Church to meet his demands.

 

[Freshman88]

Yeah, the guy who stopped the church from SELLING salvation for MONEY was obviously inspired by “The Evil One.”

Perspective people; perspective.

Yes perspective… what about the wars that ravaged and tore apart Europe killing hundreads of thousands of people as a result of the reformation. How about the countless souls wandering in these Churches, I pray they are saved, but can we truly be sure that they are?

The truth is we didnt need a reformation to cure the church, wasn’t it Hildebrand who in a previous century fought against many of the crimes of the church at the time. He certainly didnt need a heretical church to fight against such crimes. We need to have more faith that the holy spirit is guiding the church, for if we did, we could rest assured that without Martin Luther, the Church could very well have cured herself for the gates of hell shall not prevail.

Lets also consider that without the backing of the German princes, luther would have gone no where. I wonder if the reformation would have occured if these princes were more conerned with unity then they were with paying Church taxes.

Overall the bad clearly outweighes the good on this one.

 

[faelpsanfeel]

Well there are plenty of protestants who support what Martin Luther did just as fervently as you all condemn it, so I guess the entire protestant movement was inspired by Satan.

Once again, what an utterly freaking extreme viewpoint to have.

Obviously the man had something new to offer. Something that the Catholic Church was desperately lacking at the time.

e: I’ll also go ahead and point out the irony that this issue is still highly divisive based purely on the idea that it divided the church.

 

[Imryl]

Someone explain to me why you refer to Satan as the Evil one rather then one of the names he’s known by.

Just curious

 

[Traveller1534]

I wish to respond to the topic. I think that it is absolutely absurd to make a statement like this. The Reformation took place because the church was abusing people, throwing scripture out the window and disregarding its own early teachings. If it were not for the Reformation, the (evil one) would have won the day. It was because of brave folks like Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer that people like myself could freely leave the Catholic church and find out that the holy spirit boldly lives and exists in what Catholic’s (not myself) refer to as Protestant circles.

Traveller 1534ad

 

[Sabda]

Well there are plenty of protestants who support what Martin Luther did just as fervently as you all condemn it, so I guess the entire protestant movement was inspired by Satan.

Once again, what an utterly freaking extreme viewpoint to have.

Obviously the man had something new to offer. Something that the Catholic Church was desperately lacking at the time.

e: I’ll also go ahead and point out the irony that this issue is still highly divisive based purely on the idea that it divided the church.

Jesus prayed that we would be ONE as He and the Father are ONE!!! The Reformation did NOT bring about unity it brought about disunity. That was NOT what Jesus wanted.

I don’t feel the Protestant movement was inspired by Satan. I do feel that Satan saw an opportunity in the movement and took it.

At one point in time many people felt that slavery was acceptable. Does that make it so? Just because a group of people feel something is ok does not make it so.

 

[Traveller1534]

It would certainly make it so if those folks were referring to Liturgical abuses which could be proven as being such by scripture and by the teachings and traditions of the early church. I

 

[Morning_Star15]

I wish to respond to the topic. I think that it is absolutely absurd to make a statement like this. The Reformation took place because the church was abusing people, throwing scripture out the window and disregarding its own early teachings. If it were not for the Reformation, the (evil one) would have won the day. It was because of brave folks like Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer that people like myself could freely leave the Catholic church and find out that the holy spirit boldly lives and exists in what Catholic’s (not myself) refer to as Protestant circles.

Traveller 1534ad

The Catholic Church was throwing Scripture out the window? Wasn’t Martin Luther the one who did that literally when he removed books from the Bible that supported Catholic doctrines that he disagreed with?

 

[Traveller1534]

The books I assume that you are referring to are the 7 books that are called the apocrypha. These books are not part of sacred scripture and never were. If you could make a case for them than you could make some sort of a case for the hundreds of supposed gospels that were written as well. Martin Luther called a spade a spade and the church was too arrogant and self absorbed to reason with him as they would be today for certain. I’m glad I left.

 

[Freshman88]

If it were not for the Reformation, the (evil one) would have won the day.
Traveller 1534ad

false, “the gates of hell shall not prevail”.

Sin (heresy) doesnt cure sin. Those Catholics (I assume you aren’t) who are “supportive” of the reformation should have more faith in the fact that the holy spirit can overcome all obstacles and will never abandon the Church. I have complete faith that if Luther did not commit his errors and sins the Church would have healed, again, we were promised that hell shall not prevail, to suggest otherwise is just simply false the evil one never had a chance.

 

[Contarini]

The books I assume that you are referring to are the 7 books that are called the apocrypha. These books are not part of sacred scripture and never were. If you could make a case for them than you could make some sort of a case for the hundreds of supposed gospels that were written as well.

That makes no sense. These “supposed Gospels” were not included in the canon for centuries, defended by Augustine as fully canonical and accepted by more skeptical Fathers such as Jerome as having some kind of canonical status, etc.

Check the 39 Articles–they recognize that the OT Apocrypha are in a special category and cannot simply be rejected.

Edwin

 

[Traveller1534]

You assumed correctly, I am an ex-cradle Catholic but left three years ago. There is no correlation between the statement that the gates of hell will not prevail against it and the Catholic church as it is today. I can own a business and change the name three times and someone else could begin a new business with my original name. Does that make them who I was when I started?? Certainly not.

 

[Freshman88]

The books I assume that you are referring to are the 7 books that are called the apocrypha. These books are not part of sacred scripture and never were. If you could make a case for them than you could make some sort of a case for the hundreds of supposed gospels that were written as well. Martin Luther called a spade a spade and the church was too arrogant and self absorbed to reason with him as they would be today for certain. I’m glad I left.

These books are old testament. They have nothing to do with other gospels, which the CATHOLIC church choose under the guidance of the holy spirit. Yet for some reason protestants only accept our new testament canon but reject the holy spirit when it choose the old testament canon.

We were using a greek translation of the Old testatment common in much of the greek speaking Jewish diaspora. Many Jews used this canon, and infact the Jewish canon wasnt closed until the 3rd or 4th centuray i believe. Jesus would have been using these books too. Protestants for whatever reason decided that they would reject the Christian canon of the old testament and use the rabbinc Jewish one. Why? I havent the foggiest. Jesus wasnt even a rabbinic Jew he was a 2nd temple Jew, Judiasm had a major face lift once the temple was destroyed, I dont know why they think the Jewish cannon that came several centuries after Jesus is any better then the cannon floating around the mediterrian that we Christians choose.

 

[Sabda]

The books I assume that you are referring to are the 7 books that are called the apocrypha. These books are not part of sacred scripture and never were. If you could make a case for them than you could make some sort of a case for the hundreds of supposed gospels that were written as well. Martin Luther called a spade a spade and the church was too arrogant and self absorbed to reason with him as they would be today for certain. I’m glad I left.

Are you aware that Martin Luther also wanted to throw certain New Testament books out the window? There were also other books of the Old Testament that he had issues with. The Deuterocanical books were not the only books that Martin Luther wanted to do away with.

Martin Luther most certainly did not call a spade a spade. Martin Luther did not like certain books (like the Epistle of James) because they contradicted his own theology.

the church was too arrogant and self absorbed to reason with him as they would be today for certain

You mean the leaders in the Church? Ya know, the same could be applied to Martin Luther. It seems to me that all sins seem to have something to do with that one original sin called pride.

 

[Morning_Star15]

The books I assume that you are referring to are the 7 books that are called the apocrypha. These books are not part of sacred scripture and never were. If you could make a case for them than you could make some sort of a case for the hundreds of supposed gospels that were written as well. Martin Luther called a spade a spade and the church was too arrogant and self absorbed to reason with him as they would be today for certain. I’m glad I left.

The 7 Deuterocanonical books are all in the OT. Luther also threw out part of the NT (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation), which were later added back in, although the Deuterocanonical books were not. If Luther was such a great hero, why does your Bible not include Luther’s “alterations”?

 

[Traveller1534]

I am correct when I said that those 7 books are called the apocrypha. Only Catholic versions of scripture contain them because many theologians from several denominations rejected these books as sacred scripture.

 

[Sabda]

I am correct when I said that those 7 books are called the apocrypha. Only Catholic versions of scripture contain them because many theologians from several denominations rejected these books as sacred scripture.

The Orthodox use them too as do a number of Protestants. It’s not just Catholics who use them.

You mean the theologians AFTER the Reformation? There were most certainly not several denominations in the 4th century. In fact there was no set canon until that time. There was only one Church (not many) that decided that matter.

 

[Morning_Star15]

I am correct when I said that those 7 books are called the apocrypha. Only Catholic versions of scripture contain them because many theologians from several denominations rejected these books as sacred scripture.

Some call them “apocrypha”, others call them by the more correct term of Deuterocanonical, indicating that they are in fact canonical. Theologians rejecting them and calling them by a different name doesn’t change the Canon. Luther rejected four books of the New Testament as Sacred Scripture as well, as I mentioned in my previous post. Why does your copy of the Bible include them, then, if Luther’s actions were all so beneficial to Christianity?