Where did reformers get the authority to leave the Catholic Church?

[Libertarian_FL]

Would Christ have supported the Church as it evolved?

Christ taught to show mercy, do good works, turn the other cheek, be kind to those in grave need and to not seek Earthly things.

Catholic Church History is steeped in killing heretics (He never said to do that), war (crusades), promoting a lust for Earthly power, lust for greed and avarice (the support of the Spanish Conquest is proof of that), And you wonder why God decided to split it? You have more Chrisitan blood and the blood of the innocent on your hands than any other faith ever known. What your church called holy acts to protect the faith I and many consider a violation of our Lord’s name doing great evil. Apologies now mean nothing and since the Popes are infallible then you must then say Jesus said killing pagans in South America was good using force of arms and hatred?

Not singling them out many Protestants have issues to in some of these areas mainy lusting for money and things of this world. The massacre in Utah one September morning comes to mind by the Mormons and Jim Jones but those pale to actions by the One Church. And faiths like Buddhism have far better histories.

 

[jmcrae]

The whole world? You are equating the Catholic Church with all of Christendom, which is inaccurate and an anachronism, just as it is when the Orthodox make the same claim.

Fail - this Catholic vision of authority and governance was the main cause of the Great Schism, and the various Protestant Reformations. It seems to me that it caused the greatest rifts that exist within Christianity. And more than that, if the rest of Christianity is leaderless, it is because this idea denied an accurate version of the leadership of Peter to it by changing it into something it was never meant to be. I would love it if the Bishop of Rome would take on his proper function and lead all Christians, unfortunately it doesn’t seem likely, since the Patriarchs of the East couldn’t make any headway.

St. John Chrysostom thought that the Pope was the leader of the Church. Read his Sermon for Pentecost; it’s quite an eye-opener with regard to how the Eastern Church related to Rome prior to the Schism.

 

[Lutheranteach]

The explanation is very simple; he was hiding out in an extremely well-fortified castle, and guarded by the German army. The Pope was too busy dealing with the Muslims and Jews who were trying to take over Spain, to really apply his undivided attention to Martin Luther.

It is a myth that any Protestants were involved with the Spanish Inquisition, other than very indirectly.

If he had lifted a finger against Luther every peasant in Germany would have taken up arms and have stormed every Catholic Church in the country and then started marching on Rome. Luther was the first media and propaganda master. I don’t believe the Catholic Church had any idea on how to effectively handle him. That said, it was truly a perfect storm with social, political, religious, and technological factors all coming together at the proper place and the proper time.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Luther was no saint, Lutherans today reject the majority of Luther’s beliefs. Luther himself was a tortured soul, he felt as though the devil was always attacking him. He would be excommunicated today, by both Catholics and Orthodox, since he disregarded his monastic vows without seeking permission of his bishop. In addition, he disregarded the Canon of the Holy Scriptures and created his own version - that would be unacceptable to most of us even today.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Would Christ have supported the Church as it evolved?

Christ taught to show mercy, do good works, turn the other cheek, be kind to those in grave need and to not seek Earthly things.

Catholic Church History is steeped in killing heretics (He never said to do that), war (crusades), promoting a lust for Earthly power, lust for greed and avarice (the support of the Spanish Conquest is proof of that), And you wonder why God decided to split it? You have more Chrisitan blood and the blood of the innocent on your hands than any other faith ever known. What your church called holy acts to protect the faith I and many consider a violation of our Lord’s name doing great evil. Apologies now mean nothing and since the Popes are infallible then you must then say Jesus said killing pagans in South America was good using force of arms and hatred?

Citing the SPANISH conquest is proof of CATHOLIC CHURCH what? Is AMERICAN imperialism proof of Evangelical / Protestants being outside Christ’s Body?

Not singling them out many Protestants have issues to in some of these areas mainy lusting for money and things of this world. The massacre in Utah one September morning comes to mind by the Mormons and Jim Jones but those pale to actions by the One Church. And faiths like Buddhism have far better histories.

Buddhism has been involved in some of the most bloody conflicts in Eastern Asia (in quarrels with other Buddhists and Hindus no less) - most Americans and Europeans are unaware of this and glorify their elevated ideas of these Eastern religions instead of seeing the reality of what Buddhism (and Hinduism) are in practice.

 

[JonNC]

=SyroMalankara;5946809]Luther was no saint,

On this we agree.

Lutherans today reject the majority of Luther’s beliefs.

Well, I wouldn’t say that, but certainly we are bound by scripture and the Confessions, not Luther himself.

Luther himself was a tortured soul, he felt as though the devil was always attacking him.

Speculation, but not outside the realm of possibilites.

He would be excommunicated today, by both Catholics and Orthodox, since he disregarded his monastic vows without seeking permission of his bishop.

He already had been. But it is interesting to consider how Luther would react to today’s Western Christian landscape.

In addition, he disregarded the Canon of the Holy Scriptures and created his own version

Source, please. Luther translated and published the entirety of the Western Bible, including the D-C books. His opinion on the D-C and some NT books was shared by many down through the centuries. And his (or anyone’s) right to question the canon was acceptable within the Church until Trent.

that would be unacceptable to most of us even today.

I’m not convinced he would be happy with Bibles excluding the D-C’s, but now I’m the one speculating.

Jon

 

[Justy90]

Luther was no saint, Lutherans today reject the majority of Luther’s beliefs. Luther himself was a tortured soul, he felt as though the devil was always attacking him. He would be excommunicated today, by both Catholics and Orthodox, since he disregarded his monastic vows without seeking permission of his bishop. In addition, he disregarded the Canon of the Holy Scriptures and created his own version - that would be unacceptable to most of us even today.

The Canon you speak of presumably the apocrypha was in question long long before Luther. St. Jerome while compiling the Latin Vulgate even questioned the apocrypha as being Scripturally authoritative. Don’t put it squarely upon Luther. The Hebraic Jews to this day do not include the apocrypha in the OT.

 

[jmcrae]

The Canon you speak of presumably the apocrypha was in question long long before Luther. St. Jerome while compiling the Latin Vulgate even questioned the apocrypha as being Scripturally authoritative.

If you are referring to the Deuterocanon (the Apocrypha includes the Protoevangelium of James, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, but I feel sure you aren’t referring to these) - St. Jerome’s questions about these came about because he knew that the Jews had rejected them - not because of independent research on his part.

Don’t put it squarely upon Luther. The Hebraic Jews to this day do not include the apocrypha in the OT.

And do you know why? The reason the Jews reject the Deuterocanon is that it provides far too much evidence of Jesus being the Christ and Messiah, and because it provides evidence of a Last Judgement, and life after death - these books are “too Christian.”

Another little trivia fact for you: The same Jewish Council that rejected the Deuterocanon also rejected the entire New Testament - are you wanting to have it both ways? You want to use their authority to reject the Deuterocanon, but reject their authority when it comes to the New Testament?

Either they had authority from God, and you need to reject all that they rejected, including the New Testament, or else you need a different basis for rejecting the Deuterocanon. (No such basis exists, as St. Jerome discovered, which is why in the end he included the Deuterocanon in his Bible.)