Was the reformation bound to happen ?

[elvisman]

The proof was given … you ignored it.

Then please point me to the post #.
I’ll be more than happy to review it.

 

[elvisman]

I saw a debate a while back about indulgences, and the Catholic side mentioned that indulgences are not “get out of jail” cards, but rather a way of granting grace to someone in purgatory, in other words Roman Catholics view indulgences as “gifts” is this somewhat correct ?

Think of it this way:
**Your son throws a rock through the neighbor’s window. He is very sorry for what he did and you eventually, you forgive him. However, somebody still has to pay for that window so your son has to pay for it out of his allowance - even though he is already forgiven.
**An indulgence would be the same this as his not having to pay for the window.

Here is the official teaching from the Catechism:
***1471. The doctrine and practice of indulgences in the Church are closely linked to the effects of the sacrament of penance. ***

*"An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints" (Indulgentarium Doctrina norm 1). *

"An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin" (ibid. norm 2, norm 3).

An act of charity may gain an indulgence. This is precisely how indulgences went from being gained from charitable acts such as monetary donations to the actual “buying” of them. Individuals within the Church like Johan Tetzel went around the countryside telling people that they could buy somebody out of Purgatory. His famous line was, "When a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from Purgatory springs."

At Trent, monetary charitable acts were no longer accepted for indulgences because of the possibility of abuses. That’s it in a nutshell.

For people like 1voice to go around accusing the Church of selling or mandating the sale indulgences is either dishonesty or ignorance of the facts.

 

[jnpl1185]

**Think of it this **way:
**Your son throws a rock through the neighbor’s window. He is very sorry for what he did and you eventually, you forgive him. However, somebody *still ***has to pay for that window so your son has to pay for it out of his allowance - even though he is already forgiven.
**An indulgence would be the same this as his *not ***having to pay for the window.

Don’t mean to get the discussion off track, but one thing I have trouble wrapping my head around is why Christ’s sacrifice seems only to be sufficient for forgiveness of original sin and not individual, actual sins. If indulgences and the deeds of the saints can be given to us so that we do not have to “pay for the window” so to speak, why doesn’t Christ’s sacrifice work for this as well? If the crucifixion is sufficient to pay for all sins and the divine economy is infinitely able to pay for the sins of all humans, why are some sins remitted for free either by the crucifixion or indulgences or the deeds of the saints, and others punished?

 

[guanophore]

Making pseudo-psychological comments about the person that you disagree with is simply a sign of diversion… and a weak one at that.

When addressing questions of history as those posted in this thread title, it is advantageous to look at a variety of factors. Those factors include the economic and political climate of the time, and the character of the persons involved in the changing events.

Luther was a product of his time. Unfortunately, the horrible remarks he made about Jews and peasants reflected some of the common attitudes of his day and age.

You appear to be championing the idea that a bad tree cannot bear any good fruit when it comes to Catholic authorities, but you do not apply the same standard to Luther. Why is that?

Out of curiosity I did a word search of my posts in this thread. The word 'all' never appeared in the context that you assert.

Implying that I am a liar is counter productive and adds nothing to the discussion.

Try the search again using the word “no”. You have asserted that there was ‘no’ authentic leadership. To the reader, that translates that they were “all” corrupt.

As for the doctrine of greed and self aggrandizement that the Popes of that era espoused… The proof is in the pudding.

No, 1voice. These are not doctrines. This is one of the roots of your errors. These failings of man never were doctrines of the faith. On the contrary, they are works of the flesh. Basically what you are doing is bringing calumny against the Holy Bride of Christ. This is the same as accusing Christ of teaching falsely because Judas betrayed him.

Greed and self aggrandizement of the bishops most certainly fomented division in the Church. The Church teaches (and has always taught the doctrine) that such actions are mortal sins. Yes, the proof is in the pudding. Sin begats division and error.

Adherance to the Truth brings unity. Your assertion that the Truth did not exist because certain persons departed from it is erroneous.

 

[guanophore]

Hi again,

I find here Alister McGrath’s Justitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification", Cambridge, Third Edition, 2005. AM is a well-respected theologian, professor of Historical Theolofy at Oxford. In the present work McGrath traces the history of the doctrine of justification. He is Protestant. Allow me a telling quote :
(p.208)

Given time, I may be able to hammer out some sort of substantiation for what seems to be regarded as some sort of wordy history. Unfortunately I do not have that sort of time, but I may be able to find some documentation on some of these points. But what is acceptable?

-Tina “Obviously What I Say Without Sources Is Unacceptable” G

I think this is a true statement. Luther’s concept of justification was Catholic, as is evidenced by the Joint Declaration.

The Reformed view emanates from Calvin, who further departed from the Apostolic faith by creating new doctrines, a new soteriology, and innovative concepts that were previously unconceived by the people of God. It owes little to the Apostolic faith,and represents such a significant departure from it as to be considered “a different Gospel” than what we received from them.

 

[KathleenGee]

jnpl,

Christ died once and for all as atonement for sin. But we as Christians continue to sin…Scripture says the just man sins about 7 times a day…

Daily Mass is united with Christ to be atonement for daily sin. When we go to Mass, we are absolved of all ordinary sin. The Mass is said not only for Catholics but for all mankind.

 

[guanophore]

It looks like you cannot stand the truth when it hits you in the eyes, if you read history,

No, we just understand it differently. Catholics accept the Apostolic Teaching on the nature of the Church, so we understand history in the light of that revealed Truth from God. When you read history, you seem to read it from a point of view that is not consistent with the Apostolic Faith, so you understand it differently. The same is true for reading the Scripture.

the Catholic Church was plainly corrupt starting with the popes in the Renaissance period.

This is where our perceptions differ, hn. You see, Catholics understand the Church to be the Holy Bride of Christ, and as such, incorruptible:

No amount of corruption in the members, or wolves among the sheep, can sully what Christ has purified. They can separate themselves from her through sin, but they cannot corrupt that which is divine in origin.

Eph 5:23-31
Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body.

She is cleansed by washing of water and Word, she is presented to Him in spledor, without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing. She is holy, and without blemish. he loves her, and nurtures her.

There were priests that were trained to just say masses.

Priests did need more training. They were not adequately prepared to equip the saints for the work of the ministry. This is a lack of adequate catechesis. It causes people to fall into error.

 Indulgences were sold to finance the re-building of St. Peters and the local bishops such as the Archbishop of Manz used the sale of indulgences to pay off loans of the bishoprics that he bought.

This is an abuse, not a doctrine.

 Show me where he was wrong in his writing or his lifestyle was wrong. Luther didn't mince words or be politically correct, that is what Catholics cannot stand.:D

I think showing where his writing and lifetyle was “wrong” is beyond the scope of this thread, as has been pointed out. It is not about Luther’s personal shortcomings as a person. In spite of that, I posted some of his writings up the thread that have represented a lack of sanctity in his expressions. Responding to lack of santity in the bishops with more lack of sanctity is not the way to achieve God’s righteousness.

Luther has said nothing that I, as a Catholic “can’t stand”. I am examining his writings and life in order to better undertsand my own faith. I find the hatefulness in some of his expressions painful. Why should I not? I find the actions of the bishops against which he railed painful. Why should I not?

 

[jnpl1185]

jnpl,

Christ died once and for all as atonement for sin. But we as Christians continue to sin…Scripture says the just man sins about 7 times a day…

Daily Mass is united with Christ to be atonement for daily sin. When we go to Mass, we are absolved of all ordinary sin. The Mass is said not only for Catholics but for all mankind.

So in other words, he died to release us from the guilt of Original Sin only–not our every day sins?

 

[guanophore]

The proof was given … you ignored it.

No, 1voice. You have offered no “proof”.

You cannot substantiate your outrageous assertion that corrupt behavior equates to “doctrine” in any way.

You cannot substantiate that there were “none” in leadership that espoused the authentic faith. In fact, your posts were self refuting, as faithful persons near the Pope attested to his corruption. This historical evidence alone indicates that there were Cardinals that had not fallen into corruption.

You are attempting to put words in my mouth.
You and several others shift the focus to the institution and accuse me of attempting to tear it down … that is an assumption on your part.

The subject is “was the Reformation bound to happen”… That is my focus. I said that the problem was systemic and it developed over a series of Papacy’s and it could have been prevented if the leadership had taken Christ seriously.
A fish smells from the head down… Mark Twain.

I am attempting to help you see how your expressions are coming across. It is called “feedback”.

When you attack the office of the successor of Peter (called “the Papacy”) we understand that you are finding fault with the structure put into place by Christ.

Your posts indicate that you are unable to separate the office from the person occupying it.

I think that we are all in agreement that there were system wide problems (that is what Trent was called to address) that were (and are) preventable. However, some of these systemic problems had nothing to do with the corruption of certain persons. The conflation of secular and spiritual authority predated these people for almost a millenia.

 

[elvisman]

Don’t mean to get the discussion off track, but one thing I have trouble wrapping my head around is why Christ’s sacrifice seems only to be sufficient for forgiveness of original sin and not individual, actual sins. If indulgences and the deeds of the saints can be given to us so that we do not have to “pay for the window” so to speak, why doesn’t Christ’s sacrifice work for this as well? If the crucifixion is sufficient to pay for all sins and the divine economy is infinitely able to pay for the sins of all humans, why are some sins remitted for free either by the crucifixion or indulgences or the deeds of the saints, and others punished?

Christ’s sacrifice IS sufficient for the the forgiveness of ALL sins. However, there is temporal punishment for sin. For example, if you were to cheat on your spouse, then repented for the sin - you are forgiven, right?

**The damage you did, however, may reverberate for years. It may have brought an air of distrust in your marriage or you may have acquired an STD. You’re forgiven, bu there are consequences for what you did. There is a price to pay - just like the broken window. **

**King David was forgiven for having Uriah killed so that he could have his wife, Bathsheba. However, the sword never left his house. Look at all of the chaos and tragedy that he went through for the rest of his life.

It is the same thing with sin. Purgatory does not nullify God’s grace nor does it nullify Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. It validates it. Jesus had so much love for me that he provided a way for me to enter heaven. Rev. 21:27 tells us emphatically that nothing unclean can enter heaven. Purgatory is a state of purification, of cleansing before we can enter heaven.

*Remember - we are forgiven of ALL of our sins when we repent. How many people die in a state of small or minor sins - or the attachment *to sin in their hearts or thoughts? Not everybody gets a deathbed scene where they “make peace” with God and make a final repentance for everything they did. That’s why Jesus gave an opportunity to get clean. **

Unlike Luther’s idea that we are simply snow-covered hills of dung that are “covered” by Christ’s righteousness so we can sneak into heaven incogneto, Jesus MAKES us righteous so we can enter heaven CLEAN. Remember Rev. 21:27. . .

 

[elvisman]

So in other words, he died to release us from the guilt of Original Sin only–not our every day sins?

No - ALL of our sins.

**You must remember that Jesus died once for all (Heb 10:10, 1 Peter 3:18). However, **Rev. 13:8 tells us that his sacrifice is ETERNAL. It says that he was crucified before the foundations of the world. His is constantly mediating for us before the Father (1 Tim. 2:5) - not just one Friday 2000 years ago.

The mass re-present this sacrifice - it doesn’t make it happen again. It shows us that it is ongoing, eternal. It brings us to Calvary - to the foot of the cross.**

 

[guanophore]

I am referring to the Papacy as it applies to the Reformation in all of my posts.

The subject “Was the reformation bound to happen” involved the Papacy.

You guys tag team changing the focus and traveling down rabbit trails that have nothing to do with the topic.

If you make baseless accusations, post falsehoods, and attack our faith, we are going to defend it. That is why we are here. If you think they are rabbit trails, you may wish to alter your methods. Some of us will follow a rabbit trail all the way into a hole if it will root out calumny. We can’t very well sit back an watch you debase the Holy Bride of Christ and pretend it does not apply to the arguement.

Actually, you are the one that is finally getting it. That is exactly what I have been saying from the get go.

No, 1voice, that is not what you have been saying. It may have been what you MEANT to say, but that is not how it came out.

The Medici Popes et al …installed corruption as a way of life … and over a period of years that toxic atmosphere became more and more repulsive to decent God fearing men … who finally had enough and found the strength to fight back… That was the Reformation in a nut shell.

I think this view is pretty narrow minded. Although the Medici popes did bring corruption to the office, that corruption long predated their lives. They brought secularism into the rulership of the Church, but the contamination with the chair fo Peter with secular rulership occurred centuries prior.

Yes, the more wolves among the sheep, and the more influential their roles, the more toxin to the flock, without doubt. But your implication is

1. There were no decent God fearing Cattholics
2. Decent God fearing persons have to rebel in order for purity to happen (reform cannot happen under obedience)

There was a lot more than one wolf… as I made clear in earlier posts. I referenced Leo X because he was a blatant example and the last straw for many.

I agree. But your assertion was that the corruption of this one wolf “caused people to leave the church in droves”. This is just not an accurate representation of the facts. Most people had NO IDEA how corrupt he was!

What doesnt make sense is that a man, who denies Christ and lives a life described by his personal secretary as depraved and steeped in sin … and has exalted corruption to the point that he fractured the Church in front of God and everybody … is considered righteous in his rebuke of the man that simply called it what it was. ???

Why would that not make sense? The Scriptures say that the Great HIgh Priest, by virtue of his office, prophesied accurately about Christ giving His life for the people. He was the one to put Christ to death.

God can speak through the mouth of a donkey.

You seem to be unable to separate infalliblity from impeccability. The promise of Christ that the Church would not err does not mean that all the people in her are without error.

I saw a debate a while back about indulgences, and the Catholic side mentioned that indulgences are not “get out of jail” cards, but rather a way of granting grace to someone in purgatory, in other words Roman Catholics view indulgences as “gifts” is this somewhat correct ?

Yes. they are avenues thorugh which the grace of God touches the lives of people. There are a lot of threads here that speak to this.

Don’t mean to get the discussion off track, but one thing I have trouble wrapping my head around is why Christ’s sacrifice seems only to be sufficient for forgiveness of original sin and not individual, actual sins.

Yes, this is probably beyond the scope of this thread. Catholics don’t believe what you have posted here, so I am not really sure where it is coming from. A misunderstanding, probably. Perhaps an indulgence thread better? Catholics believe there are certain things that must be done in order for the expiation of Christ to be applied to us, baptism for starters, and confession of sins after that.

IF we confess our sins, he is faithful to forgive them. Otherwise, not so much.

If indulgences and the deeds of the saints can be given to us so that we do not have to “pay for the window” so to speak, why doesn’t Christ’s sacrifice work for this as well?

Good question. Search for a thread on indulgences better. Indulgences only work on sin that has already been forgiven by Christ’s sacrifice.

If the crucifixion is sufficient to pay for all sins and the divine economy is infinitely able to pay for the sins of all humans, why are some sins remitted for free either by the crucifixion or indulgences or the deeds of the saints, and others punished?

We don’t know this. What we do know is that we sometimes escape temporal punishment, and sometimes we have to pay it. I got a ticket for speeding. It was not dismissed. I confessed my wrongdoing, but I still had to pay.

 

[Cristiano]

So in other words, he died to release us from the guilt of Original Sin only–not our every day sins?

No, He died for all of our sins. However, being forgiven out of mercy does not mean that we are automatically exempted from reparation, justice calls for reparation.

 

[1voice]

Originally Posted by 1voice
What doesnt make sense is that a man, who denies Christ and lives a life described by his personal secretary as depraved and steeped in sin … and has exalted corruption to the point that he fractured the Church in front of God and everybody … is considered righteous in his rebuke of the man that simply called it what it was. ???

Why would that not make sense? The Scriptures say that the Great HIgh Priest, by virtue of his office, prophesied accurately about Christ giving His life for the people. He was the one to put Christ to death.

God can speak through the mouth of a donkey.

You seem to be unable to separate infalliblity from impeccability. The promise of Christ that the Church would not err does not mean that all the people in her are without error.

Yes, in that sense … Martin Luther was a ‘type’ of Christ. Condemned for doing the right thing by a leader that didnt have a clue…

 

[elvisman]

Yes, in that sense … Martin Luther was a ‘type’ of Christ. Condemned for doing the right thing by a leader that didnt have a clue…

Only if Christ was a arrogant, scrupulous and rebellions heretic - which he was not.

 

[elvisman]

The proof was given … you ignored it.

Then please point me to the post #.
I’ll be more than happy to review it.

**STILL waiting for the post # . . .

 

[elvisman]

Yes, in that sense … Martin Luther was a ‘type’ of Christ. Condemned for doing the right thing by a leader that didnt have a clue…

**Actually, he was more a type of Algier Hiss, who was also accused by a seemingly “clueless” leader (Nixon) - who was actually exonerated decades later when it was corroborated that Hiss actually did work as a spy . . .

 

[jnpl1185]

Unlike Luther’s idea that we are simply snow-covered hills of dung that are “covered” by Christ’s righteousness so we can sneak into heaven incogneto, Jesus MAKES us righteous so we can enter heaven CLEAN. Remember Rev. 21:27. . .

Thanks for the clarification to you and Guano.

This comment about the snow covered dunghill may not be an authentic quote and no Lutheran believes that we will be sinners in heaven. In fact from everything I’ve read (though I don’t have the citations offhand without searching for them), Luther was supposedly apprehensive about getting rid of the notion of “purgation” (not “purgatory”, as it was taught by the uneducated in the 16th Century) because we still believe that there has to be some transformation (which presumably would come at the instant of justification–any other Lutherans able to clarify this?). The emphasis is that the transformation is one initiated and completed by God–the dung is us in this lifetime. This post may be interesting to you:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/10/has-martin-luthers-snow-covered.html

 

[pablope]

Originally Posted by 1voice
???

Yes, in that sense … Martin Luther was a ‘type’ of Christ. Condemned for doing the right thing by a leader that didnt have a clue…

:crying::banghead:

And this shows the total depravity of yourself!!! I have never seen somebody compare himself or someone to Christ…even our most holy saints who received the stigmata…could not, in their humility, make themselves a type of Christ…they could not even come close.

And you have the temerity to say this…:banghead::sad_yes: It just shows how low you would stoop to get your anti-catholicism to show.

And what is next…well, you are already idolizing…worship Luther, make high altars for him and offer sacrifices?

You just made the devil rejoice in hell.

 

[Cristiano]

:crying::banghead:

And this shows the total depravity of yourself!!! I have never seen somebody compare himself or someone to Christ…even our most holy saints who received the stigmata…could not, in their humility, make themselves a type of Christ…they could not even come close.

And you have the temerity to say this…:banghead::sad_yes: It just shows how low you would stoop to get your anti-catholicism to show.

And what is next…well, you are already idolizing…worship Luther, make high altars for him and offer sacrifices?

You just made the devil rejoice in hell.

Good for you but I did see more than one person comparing himself to Christ. The latest one was quoted in the Italian press and he is accused of murdering his wife. Now if really he said that I must assume that he is a saint.