Thank you Altesse…I will go read the rest of them!
Ingesting blood from meat and drinking a cup of blood are two different things; I certainly know that I am not tasting human blood when I drink from the cup.
You said that what the Church taught did not jive with scriputre yet now you tell us it true only in “tevhnicality”. What does this mean.
And these were?
The Scripture had been read and taught to people for 1500 years before the reformation. Prior to guttneberg that was the ONLY way that Scripture . was available to the people. Before Gutenberg Bibles were not readily available and were written in latin-iof course the language it was writtnen in was irelevant as most people were illiterate.
.\
More nonsnense.
Medevil form of Chrisitanity? how about the form of Christianity that had stood as the basion of Truth for 200 years. Luther was creative all tight-he invented two new doctrines-neither of which was supported by either Scripture , tradition or Church teaching.
Again an over simplification of what actually occured.
So they should have rejected the Truth to keep people from following false doctines? we, of course, see the same agrguments today which is why so many protestant Churchs have embraced abortion, homosexuality.contraception fermale ordination, et al.
Utter nonsnese. the Church did not ban translation or distribution of the Bible. They did ban the reading of deliberately mistranslated Bible-but of course the Protestants did the same-going so far as to exectute those who issued Bibles they didnt like.
Fair enough. (In the same vein, I have often wondered about the prohibition of Homosexuality in Lev. being a “big law” or a “little law”…i.e., was it merely at that time? Was it related to temple prostitution? Was it a form of pederasty that was prohibited? etc. etc.)
No evidence, just a “what if?” Looking at today’s politics it would not suprise me if such things happened then.
The problem is that one side said "OK-you are corrupt therefore we are going to invent new Doctrines and start our own church. So they left the "corrupt: Church and put millions and millions of peoples souls in jeapordy by teaching these false doctines.
I was baptized (sprinkled) and confirmed Lutheran, baptized (dunked) Pentecostal (non-denominational/charismatic whatever you want to call it), attended a “pentecostal” bible college, confirmed (RCIA 2004) Catholic.Fair enough. (In the same vein, I have often wondered about the prohibition of Homosexuality in Lev. being a “big law” or a “little law”…i.e., was it merely at that time? Was it related to temple prostitution? Was it a form of pederasty that was prohibited? etc. etc.)
I still think blood sausage is icky-poo!
I must admit that I have eaten both pork and shellfish recently. My only defense is the NT dream of Peter’s (“Arise, kill and eat…call nothing unclean that I have called clean.”)
**So where does that leave us on the issue of blood/transubstantiation?**And again, unless this was one of the sticking points of Luther re: the reformation, we really need to link to another thread to discuss this side point.
P.S. I’m still going through the 95 theses link provided earlier to see if I can distill down to “top 10” reasons.
I truly believe that Luther never intended to leave the Church. He loved the Catholic church and it broke his heart when his attempts to bring about correction failed. His starting a “new” church only came about because he was excommunicated. I don’t believe he would not have left otherwise.
I’m all for that!
That was the impression I got from that class I took…How many days/months/years did it take to go from the 95 theses to excommunication?
Altesse said:
Just a side note, guys/gals:
Since he disagredd with fundamental doctrines of the Chgurch how could he possible have remained?
We don’t know a lot about Calvin’s theology before he left France. It is certainly possible that, like many other people, he went through a “Lutheran” stage. But we have no evidence of this. This is even less true of Zwingli, who always insisted that he developed his ideas independently and was never a follower of Luther.
It depends on what we mean by the “Reformation.” I think some sort of schism would very likely have taken place without Luther–whether or not Zwingli was completely independent of Luther (I doubt it), he certainly had rather different emphases and probably would have developed many of his ideas anyway. I think there would have been a kind of Protestantism focused on issues such as church-state relations, greater power to the laity, and rejection of much Catholic sacramentalism and allegedly “superstitious” practices. It would not, however, have had a full-fledged doctrine of justification by faith, which was Luther’s peculiar contribution.
That is total bunk. Give one example of a Catholic being converted to Lutheranism on pain of death. You can’t do it.
That is possible, but I’d still like to see an example.
How does that have anything to do with Luther converting people to his ideas? The peasants were revolting for reasons partially unconnected to the Reformation and partly linked to their own more radical interpretation of Luther’s ideas. This is irrelevant to the argument you are allegedly making.
Again, give an example of this.
Please list the ways in which policies toward Jews in Lutheran territories differed from policies toward Jews in Catholic territories.
Very Renaissance indeed. Both the unscrupulous use of force and the employment of nasty, over-the-top rhetoric were characteristic of the Renaissance.
Both scatological language and vicious anti-Jewish rhetoric can indeed be found in Luther’s writings. Neither of these is unique to Luther, of course! But there’s no point trying to let Luther “off the hook” here.
I apologize for the implication that estesbob was unscrupulous. However, I do not think he is bothering to inform himself of the facts, and that he is relying on unscrupulous (or at least culpably careless) sources. Is that better? It’s as good as I can do without violating the truth.
The “selling” of indulgences was never infallibly defined. The Catholic Church has never admitted that the basic theology of indulgences is in error.
Sorry for the carelessness!
Sounds a lot like me. I grew up in a nondenominational house church with a Wesleyan Holiness background. I became Episcopalian in grad school after seriously considering conversion to Catholicism (something that did not end when I became Episcopalian). My wife is United Methodist, and we currently attend an Episcopal church on Saturday evening and a Methodist church on Sunday morning.