Was the reformation bound to happen ?

[1voice]

He was excommunicated for BEING a heretic.

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, pp. 87-88:

… there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East).*** It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian. ***In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy. Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy. The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.”

 

[GKC]

Now this I see no problem with. Am I correct in interpreting this to say that Purgatory is nothing more no less than God’s purifying act of grace on His children, cleansing us to be in His presence forever? If so, then we agree on Purgatory.

Jon

That is how C. S. Lewis conceived it.

Me too.

GKC

 

[JonNC]

That is how C. S. Lewis conceived it.

Me too.

GKC

It seems to me that, often, the more we define and attempt to explain things, the more we disagree.

Jon

 

[jnpl1185]

These verses absolutely DO support the doctrine of Purgatory - along with Tradition. Nobody ever said that it was taught by the Church from Scripture alone.

Again - READ the posts before responding.

Is this guy stable?

 

[JonNC]

Is this guy stable?

Yes, he is!! He is a very devout Catholic who is fervent in his defense of the faith. He and I often differ, but I believe we have a good respect for each other, and a recognition of each other’s faith.

Jon

 

[jnpl1185]

Not talking about his beliefs, I’m talking about his constant disrespect and assumption that no one else could possibly know what they are talking about.

 

[elvisman]

How is it people can accept Christ being the SON of God, but cannot accept the Eucharist being the body of Christ?

God sent his only Son who was truly the Living God. Then he said he this is my body which is given up for you. How can people accept God as Man but not God as living bread from heaven?

They can also accept that Jesus rose from the dead, resurrected others from the dead, disappeared into thin air on the Road to Emmaus, was born from a virgin, walked on water, fed over 5000 people with 3 loaves and 2 fish, told a storm to knock it off (and it obeyed him!!) - but NOT the Eucharist. "Oh, nooooooo . . . that’s impossible!"

 

[elvisman]

Now this I see no problem with. Am I correct in interpreting this to say that Purgatory is nothing more no less than God’s purifying act of grace on His children, cleansing us to be in His presence forever? If so, then we agree on Purgatory.

Jon

Absolutely, brother.

 

[elvisman]

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, pp. 87-88:

… there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East).*** It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian. ***In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy. Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy. The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.”

You misunserstand his words 100%.

He is saying that:
**Luther was a heretic.
**Calvis was a heretic.

THEY were heretics because they ewere CATHOLIC men who embraced heretical viewpoints. If you were born into these heresies - you are not a heretic because you didn’t turn from the truths of Catholic doctrine. You are simply misled. THAT is what he means by calling people heretics in the 21st century is of no value.

If I - a Catholic from birth left the Church today for say, Calvinism, then I would be a heretic.

 

[JonNC]

They can also accept that Jesus rose from the dead, resurrected others from the dead, disappeared into thin air on the Road to Emmaus, was born from a virgin, walked on water, fed over 5000 people with 3 loaves and 2 fish, told a storm to kock it off (and it obeyed him!!) - but NOT the Eucharist. “Oh, nooooooo . . . that’s impossible!”

Wellll, not all of us.

Jon

 

[elvisman]

Wellll, not all of us.

Jon

Exactly - just the nay-sayers . . .

 

[elvisman]

Is this guy stable?

Absolutely.
I simply love the truth and have little patience for those who try to twist it to the destruction of others.

 

[GKC]

It seems to me that, often, the more we define and attempt to explain things, the more we disagree.

Jon

Lewis (and the occasional other Anglican) might use the term purgation, to emphasize the act/process, as opposed to purgatory, which seems to emphasize a place/duration. Details, details.

GKC

 

[elvisman]

Not talking about his beliefs, I’m talking about his constant disrespect and assumption that no one else could possibly know what they are talking about.

If asking people to present evidence for their ridiculous claims about the Church is disrespectful - then let me be guilty.

If all you and 1voice do is dance around the issues - then your posts speak for themselves. I have asked ALL of you to present one, single, solitary shred of documented evidece for your claims and so far - none of you has been able to do so. If this is what you call “disrespect”, then maybe a debate forum is not the right place for you to be spending your time.

Firing off one accusation after another about the Church is easy - until somebody demands proof . . .**

 

[roselily]

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

No, it is not true!
Christ died on the cross for all of our sins, Christ’s Sacrifice Once for All–the sweetness of his doctrine, the bitterness of his death, and the glory of his resurrection.

No, but because he gave us free will in the beginning from Edam and Eve, -

Seriously, do you think life interesting if you do not have free will?

That God made us according to His image, and He made commandants for us, for that He know this is good for us, but He gave us free will, let us to choose good and right, for this is the way to life.

He put His laws in our minds, and write them on our hearts,
I read that-
Everything may be proven some way or other; but when we do wrong our conscience tells us, 'It is wrong, wrong! and nothing can convince it to the contrary.

I think you too must be of the same opinion,

 

[roselily]

Don’t you read this, Jnpl?

Hebrews 8

Mediator of a Better Covenant

8Now the main point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,2a minister in the sanctuary and the true tent that the Lord, and not any mortal, has set up.3For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.4Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law.5They offer worship in a sanctuary that is a sketch and shadow of the heavenly one; for Moses, when he was about to erect the tent, was warned, ‘See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.’6But Jesus has now obtained a more excellent ministry, and to that degree he is the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted through better promises.7For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need to look for a second one.
8 God finds fault with them when he says:
‘The days are surely coming, says the Lord,
when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah;
9 not like the covenant that I made with their ancestors,
on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt;
for they did not continue in my covenant,
and so I had no concern for them, says the Lord.
10 This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, says the Lord:
I will put my laws in their minds,
and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
11 And they shall not teach one another
or say to each other, “Know the Lord”,
for they shall all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful towards their iniquities,
and I will remember their sins no more.’
13In speaking of ‘a new covenant’, he has made the first one obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear.

**The Earthly and the Heavenly Sanctuaries **
9(1–22)

Christ’s Sacrifice Takes Away Sin
9(23-28)

Christ Sacrifice Once for All
10(1-17)

A Call to Persevere
10(19-39)

:angel1:

 

[TinaG]

From Tantum (sorry the postal system defeated me

the dereliction of duty by the popes in favor of political power created an absence of authoritative teaching prior to the Reformation. All sorts of teaching sprang up that was not officially contested, and few if anyone knew what was authentic Catholic teaching because no one was saying what was or was not right. *** I"m going to contest this. You need to show that there WAS an absence of authoritative teaching because ‘no one’ was saying what was or was not right. I do not believe this was the case in any way and any student of history will be glad to point out that for crying out loud, HENRY VIII (yes that Henry) was refuting Luther and received for his work the Title of “Defender of the Faith” by the Pope. Now if Henry in England was cognizant enough of Luther to go against Luther point to point, and that refutation was ‘approved’ by the Pope, doesn’t that kind of say, hey yes there was authoritative teaching going on and the POPE was the one who made the final decision? IOW, your vague presumption that there were scads of poor souls wandering in Europe with ‘no one’ to ‘teach them’ is blasted from the start.

Prior to Trent, Luther and Calvin had every right to claim their teaching was as Catholic as anyone else’s. NO they did not.

Tantum equates Leo X’s giving Henry VIII an attaboy to a papal pronouncement on doctrine, or a church council, or other authoritative statement! Leo X, corrupt and master bungler, primary pope during the beginnings of the Reformation, giving Henry VIII, who broke away from the papacy, a title of Defender of the Faith!

Henry VIII wrote a pamphlet. A PAMPHLET! I wonder what he paid the pope for the title of “defender of the faith”, which cost the pope nothing. This was in 1521. What a wondrously authoritative and effective document it must have been, to protect the church against the split that Leo presided over and that Henry VIII advanced! Where are the councils and their decisions, where the infallible pronouncements? Where is the CHURCH defending itself, rather than leaning on such as Henry to defend it?

-Tina “Wondering” G

 

[Tantum_ergo]

From Tantum (sorry the postal system defeated me

Tantum equates Leo X’s giving Henry VIII an attaboy to a papal pronouncement on doctrine, or a church council, or other authoritative statement! Leo X, corrupt and master bungler, primary pope during the beginnings of the Reformation, giving Henry VIII, who broke away from the papacy, a title of Defender of the Faith!

Henry VIII wrote a pamphlet. A PAMPHLET! I wonder what he paid the pope for the title of “defender of the faith”, which cost the pope nothing. This was in 1521. What a wondrously authoritative and effective document it must have been, to protect the church against the split that Leo presided over and that Henry VIII advanced! Where are the councils and their decisions, where the infallible pronouncements? Where is the CHURCH defending itself, rather than leaning on such as Henry to defend it?

-Tina “Wondering” G

Come on, Tina. The logical fallacies are blinding here. From the charming ‘I wonder what he paid the Pope’, it is obvious that your biases are blinding you.

I brought this forth, my dear, simply to show that the rulers of the nations ‘knew’ the teachings of the Church AND rushed forth to defend it.

So, if England is so full, for example, of people who don’t know nothin’ bout the faith, how did HENRY know?

Did you ever bother to read that pamphlet, I wonder? (Henry was a Latin scholar and the ‘pamphlet’ was in Latin. I’m not the biggest fan of Henry by any means but your dismissal doesn’t make any sense).

Did you ever stop to think that back in AD 1521 there was no internet or cable news. No planes, trains, or automobiles. In order for people to communicate, they had to send letters, and the messengers either walked, rode horses (and not on real roads but tracks), or rode on ships with basically sails and a rudder.

IT TOOK TIME for people to communicate. And when they GOT the messages, they took time to read and REFLECT before responding.

Plus there were also other things going on in the world. Wars, for example. Holding the Pope prisoner, for example.

You really, really need to learn the history of that time and the context and stop thinking that the people then could just magically wave a wand and call councils and get things set up in a matter of a few hours or days in an atmosphere of total peace so that they could focus all their attention on one matter alone. . .

 

[GKC]

From Tantum (sorry the postal system defeated me

Tantum equates Leo X’s giving Henry VIII an attaboy to a papal pronouncement on doctrine, or a church council, or other authoritative statement! Leo X, corrupt and master bungler, primary pope during the beginnings of the Reformation, giving Henry VIII, who broke away from the papacy, a title of Defender of the Faith!

Henry VIII wrote a pamphlet. A PAMPHLET! I wonder what he paid the pope for the title of “defender of the faith”, which cost the pope nothing. This was in 1521. What a wondrously authoritative and effective document it must have been, to protect the church against the split that Leo presided over and that Henry VIII advanced! Where are the councils and their decisions, where the infallible pronouncements? Where is the CHURCH defending itself, rather than leaning on such as Henry to defend it?

-Tina “Wondering” G

The story of how Henry got the title of Defensor Fidei is a little more complicated than that ( as history often is). As I have done before, I am always happy to relate the tale, for a mere request.

Hank didn’t pay the the Pope anything. Though he did send him a copy of the
Assertio Septem Sacramentorum bound in his trademark cloth of gold. It was a little more than a pamphlet, though. Around 300 pages, IIRC.

GKC

 

[guanophore]

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.

What was it that he did you thought was Christlike?