What changed in 500 years?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Reformed
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I hate to interrupt this thread, but Mr. Zooey touches on something that has bothered me for a while since I have been researching Christianity,
Zooey would like to mention at this point, that **she **is 😛 too old a lady to be called "Mister’.😉
I too have read Martin Luther “On the Jews” and it was very disconcerting.
I also read how John Calvin fried Michael Servetus and how Zwingli drowned the anabaptists. Actually I have read quite a bit about the persecution of the anabaptists by both the Catholics and the Protestants and italso was very disconcerting.
And this is my problem, in a nutshell. I hear people lauding Luther to the skies, without having any idea that he ever produced such http://bestsmileys.com/puking/2.gif[self-censored Dutch word for what you may step in at the north end of a southbound horse] as:bigyikes: “The best way to baptize a Jew is to attach heavy weights to his legs, throw him off a bridge, and say, ‘In the name of the Father, & of the Son, & of the holy Ghost’ as he goes under for the last time”. :crying: :crying:[Freely translated from a Dutch translation of the original German…but you all take the point].
That is hate speech, and that is:banghead: blasphemy, with a capital B!!!
I do not know Luther’s eternal fate. I pray that he–and all who name the Name of Christ may rest in peace.
But I fear for the spiritual state anyone who subscribes to such filth. And I know that Luther was a fave of many & many a leader of the 3rd Reich…with reason.
So what then is the logical difference between Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli versus Bakker and Swaggart unless you want to argue that killing other Christians for Christ and being an anti-semite is not as much of a biggie as sleeping around.
Ah. Now that is, to date myself even more, the $64,000 question.
For myself, I can forgive Swaggart & Bakker before I can forgive Luther.🤷
But I am not, as my sainted grandpa Mark used to say, “God’s Admission Counselor.” And a good thing, I dare say… I spend my time better, IMHO, trying to stay close to God myself, and leaving judgment to the Judge of all the earth.
But hey! That’s me…
 
That having been said I will defend the Mormon / Catholic comparison since the point of the comparison was that both claim to be the one true church. **
**Of course in other respects they are quite dissimilar **
One of these believes Jesus’ Church has not failed and the other believes it did. One of them believes Jesus’ teachings regarding marriage and one of them is forced by the U.S. government to change its teachings about marriage, and so on.
but the comparison in that regard is valid,
I know Baptists that believe John the Baptist started their church and that it is the one true church. And Jehovah’s Witnesses that clain there is an unbroken line of JW’s back to the apostles. And David Coresh and Jim Jones. . . . . .
 
Zooey would like to mention at this point, that **she **is 😛 too old a lady to be called "Mister’.😉

And this is my problem, in a nutshell. I hear people lauding Luther to the skies, without having any idea that he ever produced such [self-censored Dutch word for what you may step in at the north end of a southbound horse] as:bigyikes: “The best way to baptize a Jew is to attach heavy weights to his legs, throw him off a bridge, and say, ‘In the name of the Father, & of the Son, & of the holy Ghost’ as he goes under for the last time”. :crying: :crying:[Freely translated from a Dutch translation of the original German…but you all take the point].
That is hate speech, and that is:banghead: blasphemy, with a capital B!!!
I do not know Luther’s eternal fate. I pray that he–and all who name the Name of Christ may rest in peace.
But I fear for the spiritual state anyone who subscribes to such filth. And I know that Luther was a fave of many & many a leader of the 3rd Reich…with reason.

Ah. Now that is, to date myself even more, the $64,000 question.
For myself, I can forgive Swaggart & Bakker before I can forgive Luther.🤷
But I am not, as my sainted grandpa Mark used to say, “God’s Admission Counselor.” And a good thing, I dare say… I spend my time better, IMHO, trying to stay close to God myself, and leaving judgment to the Judge of all the earth.
But hey! That’s me…
Zooey, You da’ ma… da’ … uhhhh… Woman!!! 👍

p.s. the “Pukie” had to go!
 
That is a bold claim. Even the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges that Protestants are your separated brethren. You also receive the Eastern Orthodox Church as brothers and sisters in Christ. With that official position, the Magestrium receives others that are not in communion with the Pope as being part of the body of Christ and the universal church.

The church of Jesus Christ is the catholic church…and that is a statement that I can agree with! The word catholic means universal, as used in the Apostle’s Creed.
If the word Catholic means “universal” to all his people, why aren’t you in the church Christ called "universal?
 
40.png
Reformed:
are Protestants all heading to damnation because they reject the Roman Catholic Church?
40.png
Ignatius:
No, The Authentic Catholic teaching is that Gods justice only those who know that the Catholic Church is the Church
founded by Jesus Christ are obliged to follow her.
Are you saying if your study Roman Catholic doctrine you become accountable? And, if you are ignorant of Roman Catholic
doctrine, then you can be saved? In summary, Roman Catholic light is not relly good news, but accountable bad news.
Hmmm, this seems a bit disconnected:
Reformed implies Catholic Teaching says protestants are damned.
Ignatius explains his error
Reformed replies with some unrelated comment and a polemic.

I see now how how some are able to stay Protestant; simply change the subject when proven wrong!

If you really want to convince Catholics of their error, you are going to have to be a little more coherent.

Here’s a little more information: youtube.com/watch?v=hl-08atFqzc.That being said, however, you do have an obligation to investigate the Catholic claims to be His Church. Be careful, though, many people who have set out to proove the Catholic Church false, including myself, have discovered the Truth and become converts.

God bless brother.

Yours in Christ.
 
Thanks for the post. But doctrinally, indulgences are still part of your Faith, correct?
What is an “indulgence”?
In addition, Priests and nuns are still not able to marry. Is my understanding correct on these two doctrinal issues?
No. In fact, it seems clear to me that very little of what you “understand” about the Catholic faith is accurate.

A priest is not comparable to a nun, that would be a monk. Nuns and Monks feel called to be “eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven” and choose a life of celibacy so that they can live a devoted life to Christ without having divided interests. Priests of the Latin rite choose likewise, so that they will not be concerned with pleasing a wife.

The Catholic Church does not “forbid” anyone to marry.
Would you also agree that the way of salvation is the same as it was taught 500 years ago?
I would agree that 500 years ago there was a major apostasy from Apostolic Teaching on the nature of salvation.
That’s a good answer. So when you see ecumenical attempts between Roman Catholics and Protestants such as ECT 1 and ECT 2, would it be fair to say that only the Protestants are changing their doctrine, and not the Catholic Church?

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/EVANCATH.TXT
No, I do not think that is accurate, or fair.
Are you proclaiming that Jesus only died for those who are members of the Catholic Church and not for other Christians?
Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. Not all have chosen to take advantage of HIs great sacrifice. Those that have, become members of HIs ONe Body, the Church.
Therefore, we are saying nothing has been resolved in 500 years since nothing essentially has changed with Roman Catholics and Protestants in regards to our division. I don’t think the solas are a water-downed version of Christianity. I think the solas are about the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
A lot has changed for us, Reformed. The abuses happening in the Church were corrected at Trent. The misunderstandings in doctrinal differences have been cleared up, to a large extent.
 
The Protestant Reformation was based on essential doctrinal issues. It is my understanding that nothing has changed doctrinally in the last 500 years in regards to the Protestant Reformation. Has the Roman Catholic Church changed on the issues that caused the Protestant Reformation? The issues are still the same. Would you agree with my conclusion?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation
Are you kidding?

There are now over 30,000 protestant denominations. There are multiple understandings of the salvation process in protestantism.

There are multiple understandings of Baptism in protestantism.

There are multiple understandings of the Eucharist in protestantism.

There are multiple understandings of the gifts of the Spirit in protestantism.

You must be kidding, right?
 
What is an “indulgence”?
Good question. scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c2a4.htm says this:
"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."81
 
The Protestant Reformation was based on essential doctrinal issues. It is my understanding that nothing has changed doctrinally in the last 500 years in regards to the Protestant Reformation. Has the Roman Catholic Church changed on the issues that caused the Protestant Reformation? The issues are still the same. Would you agree with my conclusion?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation
Martin Luther suggested change 500 years ago some of what he recomended was changed with Vatican II.
 
The Protestant Reformation was based on essential doctrinal issues. It is my understanding that nothing has changed doctrinally in the last 500 years in regards to the Protestant Reformation.
In a letter to Zwingli, Luther wrote:“If the world last long it will be again necessary, on account of the different interpretations of Scripture which now exist, that to preserve the unity of faith we should receive the Councils and decrees and fly to them for refuge.” (Contra Zuingli et Oecol. cited in “Sola Scriptura: A Blueprint For Anarchy” by Patrick Madrid)
So, it appears that 500 years ago Protestants couldn’t agree with Protestants with regard to the “essential doctrinal issues.”

That hasn’t changed.

One thing I encourage you to look at, however, is the early Protestant teaching on contraception, and compare it to today’s Protestant teaching on contraception.

For instance, Luther sharply condemned contraception: How great, therefore, the wickedness of [fallen] human nature is! How many girls there are who prevent conception and kill and expel tender fetuses, although procreation is the work of God! Indeed, some spouses who marry and live together . . . have various ends in mind, but rarely children.
Regarding the sin of Onan, as recorded in Genesis and involving the form of contraception now known as “withdrawal,” Luther wrote:
“Onan must have been a most malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. . . . Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed.”

John Calvin likewise wrote that “the voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the [human] race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring.”
John Wesley wrote"Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls."
The Synod of Dordt declared that Onan’s act “was even as much as if he had, in a manner, pulled forth the fruit out of the mother’s womb and destroyed it.”

The Eastern Orthodox taught, regarding the sin of contraception:
Concerning birth and the control of births the Greek Orthodox Church’s stand is the following, in all respects in agreement with the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ and the heavenly Paul (1 Cor. 7, 1-6). According to this teaching, the husband and wife ought to unite conjugally without taking any prophylactic precautions whatever… If the husband and wife do not desire to have any children, thy ought to abstain from all conjugal relations while they are able to have children, and then to come together again in sexual union relying entirely and solely on God’s omniscience. The use of contraceptive devices for the prevention of childbirth is forbidden and condemned unreservedly by the Greek Orthodox Church. [Greek Orthodox Handbook, 1958 (New York: Greek Archdiocese of North & South America), p. 46].
The Anglican Church (Church of England) repudiated* contraception* in 1908 in Resolution 41 of the Lambeth Conference, and again in Resolution 68 of the 1920 Lambeth Conference. In 1920, the conference argued:
“… we feel called upon to utter an earnest warning against the use of any unnatural means by which conception is frustrated…we believe that the question [of contraception] cannot be separated from the moral and religious issues involved.”
Resolution 15 of the 1930 Lambeth Conference broke with Christian teaching on this matter.

Who stands against artificial birth control still today?

On Feb. 24, 1961, a statement which approves of contraception was issued by the National Council of Churches of Christ, which consists of 25 major Protestant bodies and 8 Eastern Orthodox communions. However, because the Orthodox communions (at that time) recognized sexual abstinence as the only method of limiting their families, their delegates refrained from voting and thus dissociated themselves from the pronouncement.

Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians each support artificial birth control today.

Before 1900 it would have been difficult to find any organized Protestant body defending the moral lawfulness of contraception.
 
-]/-]

As soon as a coin in the coffer rings / the soul from purgatory springs." Tetzel
And? Tetzel was the “Benny Hinn” or “Oral Roberts” of his era. Should we criticize all of Protestantism because at one point or another, these two guys have either said or implied that giving them money saves souls? 🤷
In regards to the Roman Catholic Church, is celibacy an option for a Roman Catholic Priest or nun? Are you saying Eastern Orthodox Priests can marry?
First, nobody is ever forced into the priesthood or into the convent. If a young man at 17 discerns that his vocation is marriage, he is free to marry. He doesn’t have to become a priest. If a young woman discerns that her vocation is marriage, then she chooses marriage - she is not required to become a nun.

However, if he discerns that he is not called to marriage, and makes a vow of celibacy, the Church may then (and only then) ask him to discern for the priesthood. He may or may not find that he is called to the priesthood - but he was celibate before he made the decision. He doesn’t get “forced into” celibacy after discerning that he is called to the priesthood; rather, he freely chooses celibacy before that.

In the Eastern Rites, the young man can either get married first or commit to celibacy first, and then discern for the priesthood, and in the case of the married man, he would discern together with his wife, and they would work together as partners in the discernment process, to ensure that both of them are called to the priestly lifestyle.

With regard to monks and nuns, these are strictly single vocations; they follow in the traditions of the desert hermits of the 200s AD.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top