Why do these heretics do it?

[TraditCatholic]

They have a personal hate and grudge against God or HIs Church, and they are inspired by the devil to turn people astray

 

[Cyril]

No, you cant be inspired by something thats not real.

 

[anon64704623]

Initial stages only. Luckily I met someone from this forum which leaded me to a theologian. After reading his research i realised my work was influenced by fallen angels, not God. Then i destroyed everything.

 

[anon64704623]

I can’t. I destroyed my work after realising i was influenced by fallen angels who disguised themselves as God. Now I hate them more than ever. I wasted all my mental energy writing up the work.

 

[Mtdobbs]

As a Catholic , I must somewhat come to Luther’s defence that he saw terrible abuses happening in the church and tried to go about finding ways to address them. Mind you, he went off the rails and his ideas for the solutions were tainted and were disasterous but I really believe his original concern was legitimate.

It can be said that the reason that Martin Luther starting his 95 theses, was Luther didn’t like the fact people could buy indulgences. This actually makes sense as it was a terrible abuse.

“Luther had a problem with the fact the Catholic Church of his day was essentially selling indulgences — indeed, according to Professor MacCulloch, they helped pay for the rebuilding of Saint Peter’s Basilica in Rome.

“Why does not the pope, whose wealth today is greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build the basilica of St. Peter with his own money rather than with the money of poor believers?”

-Martin Luther

Within 50 years of Luther, the selling of indulgences was abolished by the Pope.

 

[phil19034]

You would think that if people like Arius, Luther and Calvin wanted to veer off with their own beliefs why don’t they just stop there, why do they always have to vehemently spread their heresies and drag people down with them?

Because like all activists, they are not satisfied until everyone accepts their way of thinking.

 

[Monica83]

Because they enjoy power and/or feel better about it the more people agree with them

 

[po18guy]

Martin Luther, today, would most likely be adjudged manic-depressive or bi-polar. He had fits of manic activity that would require him to leave company and lie down on a bed so as to regain his composure. His fawning lieutenant, Philipp Melanchthon, wrote of at least one such incident - apparently attributing it to Luther’s perceived brilliance. These manic states were balanced by bouts of inactivity and depression. His unique psychology caused him to obsess to the point of terror with his justification, and the possibility exists that he conflated justification with ultimate salvation.

He was of the belief, much like Calvin, that we humans are detestable to God and can do absolutely nothing pleasing to Him. Thus, whatever good we do is caused by God’s grace being given us (in Calvin’s case, it was grace being forced on us). Quite naturally, this resulted in a “lazy” faith being produced, which we see today in the rejection even of baptism, and the “ME and Jesus” mantra.

Thus, while Luther and Calvin immediately differed on some core beliefs, both rejected the idea of good works having anything to do with our salvation. Essentially, they left everything up to God. If we cannot please Him, they reasoned, then Holy/Religious orders are meaningless. So, Luther caused/ brought about the dissolution of holy orders in his area and ended up marrying a nun who renounced her vows.

In both cases, it was some psychological flaw which appealed to their massive egos, spurring a sort of megalomania such as is observed in cult leaders. And, each consciously departed from the Apostle’s Creed - which is the definition of heresy. Luther and Calvin, along with others, were excommunicated - but excommunication (written of by Saint Paul) was not a penal move, but is intended as medicinal in nature, causing the ex-communicant to reflect and repent.

Now, there was at least as much politics involved on both sides as theology. Europeans outside of Italy strongly objected to their funds being diverted to Rome for the construction of Saint Peter’s Basilica. This strongly appealed to both Germans and the Swiss audiences and thus, the reformers gained many supporters.

This is not to whitewash the behavioral abuses occurring in the Church. However, all of the reformers essentially re-invented Jesus in their own image after rejecting the Apostolic teachings and preferring to rely solely on the fragmentary written record which we know as the bible. 100 years before, Gutenberg and his printing press had made “sola scriptura” possible, by the mass production of bibles. We know that the written word is easily twisted, as Saint Peter wrote of this in his second letter regarding Saint Paul’s letters. Thousands of denominations today stand as stark evidence of the twisting of scripture.

I fully expect Luther’s primary CAF defender to come in, stating that this misrepresents Luther and that the Church has a different view toward him. Really? He was excommunicated, refused to repent, and damned anyone who dared oppose him, using at times the most vile of language.

 

[guanophore]

You would think that if people like Arius, Luther and Calvin wanted to veer off with their own beliefs why don’t they just stop there, why do they always have to vehemently spread their heresies and drag people down with them?

They believed they were teaching the true Gospel. Luther and Calvin, at least, felt a moral obligation to reveal to the world what they thought the CC had kept hidden about the Gospel.

Within 50 years of Luther, the selling of indulgences was abolished by the Pope.

Indulgences cannot be sold. They could never be sold. What was abolished was the accepting of a monetary donation toward an indulgence, so that there was left an appearance that it had been "sold’.

 

[po18guy]

They believed they were teaching the true Gospel. Luther and Calvin, at least, felt a moral obligation to reveal to the world what they thought the CC had kept hidden about the Gospel.

Indulgences cannot be sold. They could never be sold. What was abolished was the accepting of a monetary donation toward an indulgence, so that there was left an appearance that it had been "sold’.

At least in Luther’s case, since the Church would not acquiesce to his innovative beliefs, he declared the pope to be the antichrist and completely remade Jesus as a mini-me Luther.

The evil one knows extremely well which massive egos to appeal to.

 

[Mtdobbs]

Isn’t this just kind of a shady way at getting around the idea of selling indulgences, without actually committing simony?

I know the Catholic Church Herself never accepted the practice and that it was the ordained who did these things.

 

[guanophore]

Isn’t this just kind of a shady way at getting around the idea of selling indulgences, without actually committing simony?

The practice reeked of simony, so it was abolished.

I know the Catholic Church Herself never accepted the practice and that it was the ordained who did these things.

In Luther’s defense, he did try to address the preachers that were out collecting money at the expense of the faithful, and he did take his problem to the local bishop and cardinal. They just blew him off. One has to wonder how things might have been different if they had taken his complaints more seriously.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Indulgences cannot be sold. They could never be sold. What was abolished was the accepting of a monetary donation toward an indulgence, so that there was left an appearance that it had been "sold’.

“I didn’t buy these drugs, your honor. I merely made a monetary donation to this gentleman on the street and he gifted me half a kilo.”

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

[Because like all activists, they are not satisfied until everyone accepts their way of thinking.

Wouldn’t it be fair to say that Catholics would also not be satisfied until everyone accepted Catholic thinking?

Wouldn’t it be fair to say that followers of Jesus in the first century, like the Apostles, would have been considered heretics from the perspective of the Jewish rulers at that time?

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

[Because like all activists, they are not satisfied until everyone accepts their way of thinking.

Wouldn’t it be fair to say that Catholics would also not be satisfied until everyone accepted Catholic thinking?

Wouldn’t it be fair to say that followers of Jesus in the first century, like the Apostles, would have been considered heretics from the perspective of the Jewish rulers at that time?

To a degree, yes. But I think Catholics typically go about it differently (sometimes to a fault)

 

[Delphinus]

They honestly believed they are right. Yes, as a former protestant, I think he (Luther) hurt me more than helped…I was literally spiritually DYING of spiritual starvation in Protestantism…but he really did believe it because his own pride and conviction. These people need to be prayed for, VEHEMENTLY, for conversion. True home is found in the Church. <3

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

To a degree, yes. But I think Catholics typically go about it differently (sometimes to a fault)

How would you say Catholics and non-Catholics differently go about trying to get everyone else to follow their line of thinking? And since we’re reaching back to what some non-Catholics did several centuries ago would you say that how Catholics did it back then differs greatly than how they do it now?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Their own pride and ego

 

[Cyril]

That’s a sweeping generalization, most activists are content once a problem is acknowledged and a solution to the source of that problem is taken care of.

 

[Mtdobbs]

Best response!