I’m afraid the entire topic is potentially explosive; my apologies. I didn’t start the thread (it was started for me when someone moved my question from another thread)…I thought I had asked a simple question which would be cleared up in two or three posts. SILLY ME!!!
So how do you determine the Truth? The way that was taught for the last 2,000 years or the way Luther et al taught it for the last 500 years?Um, no disrespect or nothin’…but I came here by happy accident, looking for an article written elsewhere on the internet.
So far, I’ve stayed, because the level of discourse is far above what I’m used to on other forums (my favorite of which has lately descended so low that the typical posting consists of a pornographic picture and sophomoric snickering.)
I’m not “hungry for truth and you’re the only game in town”; I love the truth, and respect it where I find it…and insofar as you speak the truth, I will love you too…But let’s not be condescending to all the protestants here, stating that they have nothing better to do and nowhere better to go; you will not win them by talking down to them…
"But," said the bulldog, “if one can’t trust one’s nose, what can one trust?”
Ultimately it was the Catholic Churches problems that led to the Reformation. That does not excuse the misdeeds and rebellion of many of the Reformers. But there were abuses and I believe I even heard Father Corapi, a very respected Catholic Priest, say it was the churches fault. The Reformation was a reform movement, not a seperatist movement. So the church bare responsibilty for the abuses that led to it, while those who seperated of their own volition were responsible for rebellion.
My motive is to find out how you determine the Thruth. it is part and parcel with the subject of those thread. Some believe that the Truth is passed on though the Church-some think it is passed on to them individually. That is a MAJOR difference between Catholicism and Our sepreated bretheren."But," said the bulldog, "if one can’t trust one’s nose, what can one trust?"
"Well his brains, perhaps," said the elephant mildly.
How was truth determined for the 4-5,000 years before Christ? How did the patriarchs determine truth? The prophets? Jesus himself?
God doesn’t tell us to check our brains at the door, when honestly searching for the truth: He says, ask, seek, knock (and the verbs are in their present perfect form, meaning “keep on asking, keep on seeking, don’t stop knocking”), and you will find what you seek.
EDIT: Why are you asking me this question, Estebob? What is your motive for doing so?
I think it is possible to make room for both possibilities.
What is so condescending about stating this forum is a great place for people of all faiths to find Truth? We’re not the only game in town, but we’re a reliably good one. The HCC is the source of the fullness of Truth. I come here to learn. I have found this an excellent source for further study. There are many places to learn. This forum is great, especially because Protestants bring up points about the teachings of the HCC, that I just took for granted and never saw a problem with it. Now I better understand the teachings of the HCC. The more I study, the more I know I am in the best place and that the teachings of the HCC are true. BUT, you don’t need to be a scholar. Many Catholics do not know why they do what they do. Not everyone is inclined to study Theology or History. And you shouldn’t have to in order to believe in God and practice your faith. That’s another great thing about the HCC, you don’t need to reinvent the wheel. It’s all there.Um, no disrespect or nothin’…but I came here by happy accident, looking for an article written elsewhere on the internet.
So far, I’ve stayed, because the level of discourse is far above what I’m used to on other forums (my favorite of which has lately descended so low that the typical posting consists of a pornographic picture and sophomoric snickering.)
I’m not “hungry for truth and you’re the only game in town”; I love the truth, and respect it where I find it…and insofar as you speak the truth, I will love you too…But let’s not be condescending to all the protestants here, stating that they have nothing better to do and nowhere better to go; you will not win them by talking down to them…
Looks like we agree. i too beleive the Spirit speaks to us-but if i perceive he is telling me something that contradicst what the Church teaches i know it aint the Spirit talking to me.
Not quite…my former pastor taught things that directly contradicted Scripture. HE was in error…and he represented the church to me. In that case, it was the church that needed to be corrected. (You can PM me for details if you like; I dont want to derail the topic again.)
I was not talking about an individual pastor-I have heard some doozies from former pastors. !Not quite…my former pastor taught things that directly contradicted Scripture. HE was in error…and he represented the church to me. In that case, it was the church that needed to be corrected.
I have since left this church, but retained the principle, in order to keep from error in the future, as best as I can.
(Glad we come close to agreement though!)
Heh! Me too!
:I think it is possible to make room for both possibilities.
If one is in sin, the Holy Spirit is much harder to hear. I have been in churches where the leadership was in total sin, and they spent the bulk of their time trying to force their brand of repentence on the rest of their flock while avoiding it for themselves. (Hypocrisy is not acceptable to our Lord!)
That’s because they believe “Once saved, always Saved”
However, without guidance from the Lord (either direct revelation, or through the Bible, or instruction from priests/preachers), it’s very difficult to determine “the Truth” for oneself. Which is why I prefer to be under the authority of the Church, and to double-check my determinations against the doctrines of Christendom, as found in the Bible.
The Catholic Church teaches that private revelation is just that. Unfortunately many of our separated brothers and sisters believe they need to impose their private revelation on others, therefore, they keep splitting off and starting their own churches, especially non-denominationals.
With the above in mind, I confess to my parish priest because I’m utterly aware of how deceitful the mind is and how quickly one can lead oneself astray.
You confess your sins to a priest? I thought you were not Catholic (ref earlier page in this thread.
Lord Kelvin said “to measure is to know.” Certainly we may measure what we think we know against the infallible teaching given to us by Jesus through the Church. What more reliable measure is there?
Dulcimer, your name appears as the poster of the OP. Also your simple question is ten questions.I’m afraid the entire topic is potentially explosive; my apologies. I didn’t start the thread (it was started for me when someone moved my question from another thread)…I thought I had asked a simple question which would be cleared up in two or three posts. SILLY ME!!!
Like perhaps how a real discussion is conducted perhaps? One person makes a claim. The other person responds to that claim? Would you prefer that I quote the whole big lump of text and respond in a whole big lump of text? That would somehow make it really easy to understand the exchange?
Can you expland on this statement please? How do you apply this quote? Is the Catholic Church just any old religion? How can the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church not pass the test of Christ’s doctrine when it in fact is Christ’s doctrine?
Do you have your own theory on this perhaps? Moreover does apportioning reference excuse them from what they chose? Did borrowing the final solution from Luther excuse Hitler for what he chose?Amen I wonder where they got the idea to persecute people to bring them into their beliefs?? mmmmmmm
I think this request is highly ironic given the allegations you have been throwing around without basis. However, I know that anger doesn’t accomplish much, so I will try to express myself calmly.
My claims would not seem extraordinary to Reformation scholars. And by the way, I do have a Ph.D. in the subject (2005, from Duke University). I don’t say this to make people accept my claims uncritically, but to establish that I am somewhat familiar with what Reformation scholars generally consider extraordinary.
Exactly. And when one has read it, one sees that it does not answer my questions. The quality of your evidence is not measured by the number of your links (most of which were to the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia–hardly the fairest or most up-to-date source).
Because what you actually said was this:
The reference to the peasants is sandwiched between two claims about force being used to make people “convert” or “comply with Luther.” If you intended to make a completely different point, you should have expressed yourself more clearly. The natural inference to draw from what you said was that the killing of the peasants was part of a program of forcible conversion.
I did not see it. So please bear with me and repeat the specific example I asked for.
Not in the least.
No, it wasn’t clear at all. The article in the Canadian Jewish News said that Hitler carried out Luther’s prescriptions, which is correct in the sense that Hitler did many of the things Luther advocated (and of course proceeded to extremes that no one before him had advocated). I am sure that Luther’s anti-Jewish material was *one *of the things Hitler drew on. But that is not what you claimed. There is a difference between “drew on as one precedent” and “lifted directly.”
No, this is of the utmost relevance. For you to demonstrate that Luther was *the *inspiration for Hitler you have to rule out other obvious contenders, such as the long history of Catholic anti-Judaism. Furthermore, it is reasonable to suppose that Luther’s own anti-Judaism drew on this pre-Reformation tradition. In fact, if you look at pre-Reformation Christian regulations concerning Jews such as the canons of Fourth Lateran, you see many precedents for Hitler as well (particularly prescriptions that Jews should wear special clothing and restrictions on their public activity). Note also in the first link I provided Justinian’s ban on the Mishnah, which was taken up again in the thirteenth century at the instigation of Dominican and Franciscan polemicists (see Jeremy Cohen, The Friars and the Jews). The “blood libel” was commonly believed in Luther’s day (Prof. Hans Hillerbrand of Duke University told me that John Eck, one of Luther’s most important Catholic opponents, believed in it, although I have not seen the evidence myself) and allegedly was still being maintained by some Catholic writers at the beginning of the 20th century (since one of my sources for this is Cornwell, I don’t expect you to be convinced–however, I doubt he would simply fabricate articles in Civilta Cattolica and L’Osservatore Romano), yet as far as I know Luther never mentions it.
In an audience with the representative of the German bishops’ conference in 1936, Hitler said:
(Note: I am citing this quote from an article in First Things by a Catholic priest; it is also apparently quoted in Richard Steigmann-Gall’s The Holy Reich, which I have not read. These are both scholarly sources, and at least one of them obviously would not be expected to have an anti-Catholic bias.)
Agreed. But the same is true with regard to his claims of following Luther. I don’t think Luther was much of an inspiration for Hitler–I think Hitler latched on to Luther when addressing Protestants, as he latched on to Catholic anti-Judaism when addressing Catholics, in order to justify what he was doing. Hitler’s motivation arose primarily from a pseudo-scientific racist ideology that came neither from Luther nor from Catholicism, although the general Christian heritage of anti-Judaism did a lot to pave the way for Hitler.
No, you haven’t, because to do that you have to consider other possible sources as well. You have demonstrated no such thing until you discuss Luther’s statements against the background of attitudes to the Jews in the Middle Ages and the sixteenth century, and show how Luther differed from his Catholic predecessors and contemporaries.
For unscrupulous use of force you can go no further than Machiavelli’s *The Prince, *and there’s a good (though very lengthy and detailed) discussion of the broader context in Quentin Skinner’s Foundations of Modern Political Thought, vol. 1. For an example of scatological polemic (particularly appropriate since it is directed against scholastic philosophers/theologians, who were also often Luther’s targets) I refer you to Rabelais’ Gargantua, chaps. 13-15.
Good questions.
Easy does it. We all have motives. Life itself has motives as God is Life.
…AND yourself? You assume that the Reformation movement, the Catholic church and all other denominations are under God’s authority. Well, who am I to hold you back from your assumptions…God knows.
You said it.
Yes. Simply. Yes. Because you claim to be founded on Peter’s confession of faith and Jesus was talking about His Church, not the “catholic church”. Petros (little rock) was affirming the Christ and the Christ was affirming His Petras (her-the Church).
Don’t be confused. The catholic church makes people go to classes, and stand up and prayer to Mary, and do all these “ceremonial” things in order to pray to God through His Son. Why not just simply start at the Book of Acts and read through to the Bood of Revelation. God’s Word is everlasting. Besides, leave Hitler out of it…too many people have died in the world for religious beliefs. My ancestors were Jews and they were just as wrong as those who have not obeyed God’s Word. Mark 16:15-16.Do you have your own theory on this perhaps? Moreover does apportioning reference excuse them from what they chose? Did borrowing the final solution from Luther excuse Hitler for what he chose?
Beware of the use of ‘but’ in a sentence, Mr Contarini. ‘But’ operates to negate the clause which precedes it. In this case what ‘but’ does is render your first clause as: “I am… defending Luther’s attitude to the Jews.”
So?
Oh my gosh, has this inspired me to read more Hitler? :nope:
Contarini said:
And if Luther had not written his anti-Jewish propaganda, what would Hitler have latched on to then? Charlie Chaplin?