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.

[robrecht]

The closest they ever came to stealing stuff that wasn't theirs were embezzlement schemes carried
out by corrupt members of the Church, I guess you could also attempt to argue that this was the case with the conversion of England, however, that was carried out by the king, not the Church.

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.

[Cow Poke]

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

[robrecht]

By the way, this approach of the primacy of the local church, ie, an ecclesiology of the communion of churches, was proposed to Pope Paul VI during the Second Vatican Council in a private audience with one of the theological experts in attendance at the Council. Paul VI looked back at him without a hint of understanding and said he didn't know what he was talk about. After another attempt to explain, he said, no, that's not what the Lord wants, the Orthodox will just have to come around. But later on, he seemed perhaps to understand, and said that things will change little by little. The theologian later admitted to being cowardly in this private meeting. Note to self: don't be afraid to make your point forcefully with the pope.

[TimelessTheist]

Because the Catholic Church NEVER stole property that wasn't hers to begin with and never forcibly oppressed people who lived their.....

The closest they ever came to stealing stuff that wasn't theirs were embezzlement schemes carried
out by corrupt members of the Church, I guess you could also attempt to argue that this was the case with the conversion of England, however, that was carried out by the king, not the Church.

As for the oppresion of their people, eh, can you give some examples?

[robrecht]

That's pretty much what it comes down too. Save the fact that I find my own take on it. IF the RCC had a legitimate claim over being the one original authoritative church or the one true church, Her pride got in the way, so much so that she fell, and as a result split 1st from the East and the West, second in Europe.

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.

[Cow Poke]

That's pretty much what it comes down too. Save the fact that I find my own take on it. IF the RCC had a legitimate claim over being the one original authoritative church or the one true church, Her pride got in the way, so much so that she fell, and as a result split 1st from the East and the West, second in Europe.

I'm glad I'm just a Christian.

[Catholicity]

Wars have unintended consequences, and religious wars are not a good witness to the message of Jesus, especially when both sides claim to be Christians. But if the Church and secular state believe heresy is punishable by death and the Protestant forces believe they are fighting against the Antichrist, each side believes a religious war is justified. I think both sides were wrong and Christ's church suffered unintended consequences.

That's pretty much what it comes down too. Save the fact that I find my own take on it. IF the RCC had a legitimate claim over being the one original authoritative church or the one true church, Her pride got in the way, so much so that she fell, and as a result split 1st from the East and the West, second in Europe.

[Catholicity]

Those two things aren't comparable. One made heresy illegal within its own territories, in which the temporal authorities were intertwined with the Church itself, the other was stealing territories that didn't belong to it and forcibly oppresing the people that lived there.

Because the Catholic Church NEVER stole property that wasn't hers to begin with and never forcibly oppressed people who lived their.....

[TimelessTheist]

I'm pointing out that it looks "fishy" and suspicious to make a declaration of antipope in order to sustain the claim of infallibility during the time of corruption. I hope that makes sense to you.

Save for the fact that he was 'not' the Pope. Get it?

Secondly the reformation started as optional, later it was forced as a political issue.
Obviously this is wrong, but it was just as wrong for Catholicism to attempt to force defectors back, and if they didn't
(clearly this is not an endorsement of two wrongs make a right this is a point of politics became an issue entertwined with religion here on both the protestant and the catholic side where it appeared initially to be about religion)

Those two things aren't comparable. One made heresy illegal within its own territories, in which the temporal authorities were intertwined with the Church itself, the other was stealing territories that didn't belong to it and forcibly oppresing the people that lived there.

[robrecht]

Wars have unintended consequences, and religious wars are not a good witness to the message of Jesus, especially when both sides claim to be Christians. But if the Church and secular state believe heresy is punishable by death and the Protestant forces believe they are fighting against the Antichrist, each side believes a religious war is justified. I think both sides were wrong and Christ's church suffered unintended consequences.

[Catholicity]

I think if the Catholic empire were effectively at war with with Protestants, which it was, then it made perfect sense to use violence to suppress Catholicism.

Actually, yes...it does.

[Obsidian]

I think if the Catholic empire were effectively at war with with Protestants, which it was, then it made perfect sense to use violence to suppress Catholicism.

[Catholicity]

Eh, sorry. That's what it looked like.



Oh, okay. Well, that also wasn't what it looked like. It looked like you were using the words of John XXII in an attempt to disprove papal infallibility.



Maybe, since he was an anti-pope, and thus had no actual, legitimate claim to the papacy, they didn't consider it the Church's fault in the first place? Which, to an extent, that's still kind of true.



Well, okay then. I'm just saying that, if the Church corruption was one of the causes of it, the citizens and academics should have in support of it. Instead it was forced on all of them.

I'm pointing out that it looks "fishy" and suspicious to make a declaration of antipope in order to sustain the claim of infallibility during the time of corruption. I hope that makes sense to you.

Secondly the reformation started as optional, later it was forced as a political issue.
Obviously this is wrong, but it was just as wrong for Catholicism to attempt to force defectors back, and if they didn't
(clearly this is not an endorsement of two wrongs make a right this is a point of politics became an issue entertwined with religion here on both the protestant and the catholic side where it appeared initially to be about religion)

[robrecht]

... Maybe, since he was an anti-pope, and thus had no actual, legitimate claim to the papacy, they didn't consider it the Church's fault in the first place? Which, to an extent, that's still kind of true. ...

Well, it is not like all the church hierarchy involved up to that point were Lutherans. After that point, "on 1 March, 1420, Pope Martin V issued a Bull inviting all Christians to unite in a crusade for the extermination of Wycliffites, Hussites, and other heretics."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07585a.htm