Explain to me Martin Luther

[robrecht]

I am so glad ya'll have explained to me Martin Luther. I understand him MUCH better now.

I'm not sure its possible to understand Luther apart from his battle for freedom from the Antichrist. It seems to be how he understood himself and his role in history.

[Cow Poke]

I'm not sure its possible to understand Luther apart from his battle for freedom from the Antichrist. It seems to be how he understood himself and his role in history.

But it HAS been an interesting read!

[TimelessTheist]

You're right, the popes were very generous with their gifts of lands they obtained from the Donation of Constantine. For example, look at how generous Adrian IV (the only English pope) was in giving Ireland to Henry II and his invading armies. How generous he was to the King of England. That worked out splendidly, that did.

Eh, according to historian Edmund Curtis, and several other recognized historians, the authenticity of the grant in the bull has not been verified yet.

[TimelessTheist]

I am so glad ya'll have explained to me Martin Luther. I understand him MUCH better now.

Well, aside from all my vitriol towards Martin Luther, it's clear that he really did have good intentions, which is shown in his writings, when he saw the destruction his Reformation, wielded in the hands of power hungry kings and nobles, had caused, he recanted for it. It's clear he didn't mean for any of that to happen, initially.

I'm not exactly sure 'how' to understand him though, other than reading his works on the Reformation and such. He was a man that loved his rhetoric, that's for sure. Also, judging from his portraits, he clearly liked food a lot .

[Cow Poke]

Also, judging from his portraits, he clearly liked food a lot .

OK, now you've gone from preachin' to medlin'.

[TimelessTheist]

Though some, on both sides, will not admit this, there were faults on both sides in the causes of the East-West schisms. I do not believe that Rome has a valid claim to being the one true church, original and authoritative, but it is ancient and did its best, for the most part, to fill a void in the West, whereas the East has its own shining elements and weaknesses. The papal pretense of universal jurisdiction or doctrinal authority should not be accepted, nor Constantinople's claim to be the Ecumenical or worldwide patriarchate. Both exaggerated their role, especially given the crises in the West and the fall of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem in the West. True Christian primacy should always be found in the local community. If it is not found there, it can never be imposed from a higher authority, at whatever level. The Catholic social teaching of subsidiarity should also be true when applied to church administration. I also see the more fundamental schism occurring much earlier in the split between Judaism and Christianity. We both lost out in that separation, as Christians lost touch with our spiritual roots and our ability to tolerate theological diversity, charitable dissent, and prophetic critique of human authority that characterize Judaism. St Paul and futurists of today rightly look forward to the healing of that rift as of fundamental importance.

Yeah, I'll agree to this too, the schism part, I mean. Which side had more to do with schism is another thread (I don't want to start another argument, and derail this thread even more than it's already been derailed) but it's clear there were actions on both sides that caused the schism.

[TimelessTheist]

OK, now you've gone from preachin' to medlin'.

I'm just calling a spade, a spade, man.

[Cow Poke]

I'm just calling a spade, a spade, man.

That was a joke, son.

[robrecht]

Eh, according to historian Edmund Curtis, and several other recognized historians, the authenticity of the grant in the bull has not been verified yet.

And the Donation of Constantine?

[robrecht]

Well, aside from all my vitriol towards Martin Luther, it's clear that he really did have good intentions, which is shown in his writings, when he saw the destruction his Reformation, wielded in the hands of power hungry kings and nobles, had caused, he recanted for it. It's clear he didn't mean for any of that to happen, initially.

I'm not exactly sure 'how' to understand him though, other than reading his works on the Reformation and such. He was a man that loved his rhetoric, that's for sure. Also, judging from his portraits, he clearly liked food a lot .

Sure you want to use the word 'recanted'?

As for his weight, I'm sure we can blame his Catholic monastic training for that, and not just the food either, but especially the beer, which he and his wife continued to brew in his home. He was ornery enough, but he never would have been accepted as an honorary Southern Baptist.

[TimelessTheist]

And the Donation of Constantine?

Well, it's clearly a forgery, however, its authorship is unknown. It could have been a conspiracy engineered by the Church of Rome itself, or it could have been done by an over zealous fanatic without Rome's permission, and yet another hypothesis suggests that it was done by a schismatic Greek. However, the fact that it was exposed by a Roman Cardinal, and again by a Roman Bishop, shows that not even the Church itself knew it was a forgery until that date, and until someone actually, conclusively proves who authored it, you can't exactly attribute it to a Roman conspiracy to steal land.

[TimelessTheist]

Sure you want to use the word 'recanted'?

Well, I mean, he, himself, said that things were better off under the Church of Rome than the power hungry Protestant kings, so yes.

As for his weight, I'm sure we can blame his Catholic monastic training for that, and not just the food either, but especially the beer, which he and his wife continued to brew in his home. He was ornery enough, but he never would have been accepted as an honorary Southern Baptist

Eh, well, it's not like he was the only hefty person in Christendom.

[One Bad Pig]

Eh, well, it's not like he was the only hefty person in Christendom.

My favorite Catholic is G. K. Chesterton.

[Catholicity]

During the Age of Exploitation...err Exploration. I mean its not exactly nice to conquer a native's land then forcibly baptize them and then enslave them; in the name of God then the King.

[TimelessTheist]

During the Age of Exploitation...err Exploration. I mean its not exactly nice to conquer a native's land then forcibly baptize them and then enslave them; in the name of God then the King.

I assume you mean the Native Americans?