Quo Vadis? said:
AgLiving06 said:
Quo Vadis? said:
AgLiving06 said:
Quo Vadis? said:
AgLiving06 said:
Quo Vadis? said:
AgLiving06 said:
Quo Vadis? said:
AgLiving06 said:
Quo Vadis? said:
AgLiving06 said:
Quo Vadis? said:
AgLiving06 said:
Simply repeating a claim does not make it true or correct.
Christ did not "create the Roman Catholic Church." Christ created His Church. Roman Catholics are certainly within the broad definition of Christ's church, but they don't have a unique claim to anything.
And your second paragraph is just victim blaming, and especially ironic given your analogy to a marriage/broken home. It's really the child's fault the parents are fighting. It's the child's fault the parents want to kill him. Rome was broken.
However, I do enjoy pulling up Exsurge Domine though, because we get to see the pope's own words the "errors of Luther."
Exsurge Domine - Papal Encyclicals
Quote:
In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:
----
33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
Rome itself viewed the burning of heretics, not as problematic, not as an error, but the will of the Holy Spirit.
I hope we could at least find agreement that the pope was absolutely wrong in this claim and should rightfully be called out for theological and frankly human error.
I will repeat since you can't understand..Christ created the Catholic Church, and charged the Apostles to shepherd it, Peter foremost of all. Peter established the church in Rome, and passed his authority on for 2,000 years. There are many several apostolic sees, all have been established by Apostles, charged by Christ.
Ah yes the old Lutheran victimhood "the 1500 year old bride of Christ won't bow to the whim of an egotistical German monk, let's take our ball and go home".
Again, we know what Christ said about those who would lead children astray. Would you argue that having millstones thrown around the neck of heretics would be contrary to the will of the Spirit?
I will repeat what you can't understand..Christ created His Church. Luther, you, and I aren't beholden to the pope, but to Christ. Rome did not represent "the 1500 year old bride of Christ..." but a branch of christianity that had fallen into error. You continually fall into the error of believing that because the Church existed, it was a reflection of Rome. Rome, especially by the middle ages was not a reflection of the early church and its teachings, but something new that reinvented itself.
To your last point...are your now claiming Rome should continue to execute heretics? Since I certainly believe Luther and the Reformers were correct in their reforming of the errors of Rome, should I be burned at the stake as the pope wanted to do to Luther and others? You danced around it in your post, so please be clear.
Should I be burned at the stake?
When did it fall into error? As I've mentioned many times in the past, the oldest churches of Christendom that have been continually celebrating mass for over a thousand years before the reformation are Catholic or Orthodox. At which point did they change from "looking like the original church" to "falling into error"?
Your obstinate "I bow to no one" bs, sounds more like Satan's "non-Serviam" than anything remotely related to Christianity; and being obedient to Christ by severing yourself from the Church he instituted on his Apostles and charged with shepherding you feels counter productive.
Also, the effeminate hysterics behind the burning at the stake will hopefully be put to bed by my answer.
If I could end the heresy of Protestantism by burning you at the stake, I would do so. Given the fact that it seems at this point impossible to put Pandora back in her bottle, we do not have a state religion, it would be killing someone for no purpose; which is murder. I will instead have to be content with seeing the best and brightest continue to flee from Protestantism into the apostolic faith, while those looking for good music and to see a person jump a motorcycle through a ring of fire continue to defect to the Protestant novelty.
A specific date? That would be hard to pinpoint, but we can mostly track the rise of the pope from one of many bishops to an ecumenical bishop to the modern claims Rome made (which we can probably trace to the Great Schism).
But as I've pointed out in other posts/threads, much of Rome's theology, which is ironically really driven to be "anti-reformer" isn't nailed down until Trent.
--------------
To your next point, you make a blatantly false claim. Nowhere have I claimed "I bow down to no one." That is BS, but that's you spouting BS that isn't true, correct, or accurate. I'm obedient to Christ and His Church. However, His Church is not the Roman Catholic Church exclusively or specifically as that organization was not established by the Apostles or any of that nonsense, but by men who came later.
It is nice though to see you admit you'd burn me and others. It's a great reminder of why Rome (thankfully) is not the Christian Church. It's a testament to how insecure Rome is and how fragile their faith is.
Your last sentence is just complete nonsense. Nobody on here is defending that kind of nonsense, but that you have resorted to that kind of petty language several times is a good indicator you know you're arguments are lacking.
Why would it be hard to pinpoint? You're the one arguing that mass being held in churches since the 300's isn't reminiscent of "original Christianity" but whichever Missouri synod, ELCA nonsense group you're a member of is.
You're not obedient to Christ or his Church, you're an offshoot of an offshoot of an offshoot. Christ's Church is the Catholic Church, I don't know why you keep on focusing on just the Roman see, but likely because it's easier than admitting that we've got 1,400,000 billion people in all of the ancient sees of Christianity, and you've got….Dallas? Since 1968 or Missouri?
Your effeminance knows no bounds.
"Just come out and stop side stepping what you'd do"
"Omg he just said he'd burn me in a hypothetical situation 500 years ago"
This is your argument?
Modern Roman Catholicism is built upon claims of incrementalism that John Henry Newman developed, because Roman Catholic Newman couldn't defend against the claims of Anglican Newman. Without incrementalism, Rome requires incrementalism to hold onto any claim it has today. So as I said, the two we can follow are the rise of the modern pope (with all the anti-christian activities that occurred) and then Trent creating the beliefs of the new Roman church.
You second sentence again is garbage because I can point to those guitar playing catholic services in the exact same vein. Or popes blessing blocks of ice or wooden statues of goddesses. Maybe I should only understand Roman Catholicism through Pr James Martin's views?
Or does Matthew 7, not apply for you?
3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
------------
Second paragraph yet again makes a claim and that's it, and so I can reject it as easily as you claim it. The modern Roman Catholic church is just a heretical offshoot of the real Christian Church. That you have lots of followers is more sad than anything else, but also shows what extensive amounts of money gained through corrupt and political means can do for someone.
Or does Matthew 7 (again) not apply:
13 "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
-------------
It's not a hypothetical. Your pope make the claim from the seat of Peter, in his pastoral office, that it is the will of the Holy Spirit to burn heretics.
But again, lets blame Luther for standing up and saying it's wrong to murder people we disagree with.
btw, I did want to come back to this because we have an absolutely perfect example to show your hypocrisy
Quote:
If I could end the heresy of Protestantism by burning you at the stake, I would do so.
This is an exact parallel to the "anti-facist" movement that murdered Charlie Kirk, who you so passionately defended on the politics board. Kirk's murderer wanted to stop the "heresy of fascism" and putting a bullet in Kirk was what they thought would help in that mission.
But I supposed you only support the murder of people who you disagree with only when it supports your cause.
I've asked you to make the claim, you said it'd be hard to pinpoint . Show me when the Catholic Church made the break from the original church. I can show you where Protestantism split from the Catholic Church, and I can show you were orthodoxy and Catholicism schism'd. You can trace every little single break and offshoot of Protestantism since the very beginning. Do the same thing with Catholicism. It should be simple. You've made some very bold claims regarding when Catholicism broke off from the "true faith" yet you've given no sort of example.
When did the mass held at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, or the Church of the Nativity turn from "original Christianity" to "Roman innovation". If you're the original church of Christ, why are all the saints buried in Catholic and Orthodox Churches? Where are all of your cathedrals? Your apostolic sees?
Why are you really only represented in certain parts of Europe and North America?
The idea that burning a heretic is the same as killing Charlie Kirk shows your enlightenment era moral relativistic mindsets. This is the same brain rot that states that banning porn is the same as banning the Bible. Some things are good and some things are bad. It is good to stop the spread of heresy, it is bad to kill someone for speaking lukewarm Republican talking points.
The key fallacy in your argument is that splitting from a heretical church towards restoration of the Western church is materially different than when Rome fell into heresy.
There was a multitude of attempts to reform Rome, most of which led to the death of those at the hands of Rome.
-----------------
Your second claim is also false. You certainly cannot "trace every little single break and offshoot." It's a fools errand and a claim you can't back up. But likewise, from a theological standpoint, I can just as easily point to Trent as the moment that Rome officially went into heresy from a doctrinal standpoint. It's not debatable that this was the moment they truly defined themselves as a Church for the first time.
The vagueness I speak of relates more to when the pope became the most divisive person in history. We can more or less trace all division on the church to this exact office. It's always going to be problematic to point to a specific instance when this role has been so corrupted and more myth than reality.
Quote:
Why are you really only represented in certain parts of Europe and North America?
Wrong again
International Lutheran Council: https://ilcouncil.org/
Covers 5 continents.
A key difference is that Lutherans hold to the historical and biblical view that local churches should oversee their areas as opposed to the errors or Rome that want everything under one person. We are far less concerned about manmade structures and traditions, and instead far more concerned with making sure the biblical faith and tradition is believed and taught.
-------------
Quote:
The idea that burning a heretic is the same as killing Charlie Kirk shows your enlightenment era moral relativistic mindsets. This is the same brain rot that states that banning porn is the same as banning the Bible. Some things are good and some things are bad. It is good to stop the spread of heresy, it is bad to kill someone for speaking lukewarm Republican talking points.
The idea IS the same because, just as you pointed out, if we kill the other side, maybe we stop their ideas. I didn't say it...you did. You made the exact same argument for killing heretics that Kirk's murderers organizations make to justify shooting him. It's ok to admit your biases though..that's part of growing as a person.
So essentially this was an extremely long winded way to say that you can't actually point to when Rome lost its way, as I've asked multiple times. Because if you're pointing to Trent, which was post reformation, it made no sense for the reformation to occur.
Secondly, imagine you're claiming the Roman Catholic Church offshoot didn't begin until a few hundred years ago. From whom did the Orthodox split?
Wow, your International Lutheran Council has about as many adherents as there are Catholics in Burundi; so while it's not quite the 144,000, it seems your organization goes way back to the council of…..Antigua Guatemala in…..1993. Yes surely this is the Church that the Apostles founded.
This makes about as much sense as Protestantism.
Sure
The Bad Popes - Wikipedia
Do you want to consider Rome off the rails here or a later point?
Or the time when there were muliple popes "divinely selected."
Western Schism | History, Background, Popes, & Resolution | Britannica
Or when pope honorius taught heresy
Pope Honorius I - Wikipedia
The role of pope has been a disaster in general. The most divisive role in humankind. These corrupt "leaders" guided the theology of Rome for centuries.
----------------
But as stated, Rome for the first time defines its theology at Trent and so we can clearly see the creation of the Roman church and the rejection of normal historical beliefs and faith.
--------------------------------
The EO will gladly say that Rome went heretical or at least heterodox when the split occurred.
----------------------
The point of the organization is not when it started. You're smart enough to know that. It was merely to disprove this claim here: " Why are you really only represented in certain parts of Europe and North America?"
This Lutheran organization represents 5 continents. Not the 1.5 or 2 or whatever you want to claim.
------------------
Go back even further why don't you. You'll love this tidbit, our first Pope contradicted himself so hard he literally denied Christ 3 times shortly after naming him as the Messiah! What a dunce!
Nothing any other Pope has done has had a candle to Peter's denial of Christ in one of his greatest moments of need, yet he was still chosen and set apart as the foremost of the Apostles.
It's always funny to hear Protestants talk about what a disaster the Catholic Church has been over the years; despite being around for 2000 years, vs 1993. Congrats dude, you've managed to avoid any sort of unpleasantries by being a complete nonentity on the global stage, forming a new church whenever there's an internal disagreement, and keeping your membership numbers less than the attendance of SEC home games during a season.
the first pope didn't do that. Peter, who was an Apostle did that. Fortunately he was never a pope and people like James and Paul were there to correct, rebuke, and decide above and beyond Peter.
Likewise, it's always funny to hear Rome dismiss how disastrous the pope has been historically, but also claim he can somehow speak in the place of God.
But you do make an interesting observation that really doesn't help you. Protestants in general fall under a wide umbrella of agreement on many things, but some disagreement on others. We agree on the solas, we agree that Scripture is the only infallible Word of God
Rome is no different. The only unifying thing Roman Catholics seemingly agree on is the pope. Beyond that, the jesuits and dominicans can have whatever theology they want, most roman catholics believe in abortion, contraception etc...but as long as the believe in the pope, they are part of the big tent.
This is why I pointed out pages ago that nothing Luther taught from history was outside of Rome's theology at the time. The real problem Luther had was realizing there was no historical or scriptural support for the Roman claimed pope. There's no historical supremacy that can be claimed. And in the end...this is what the real issue boiled down to. Do you follow Christ or the claims of a men.
Dude, it's not every day that another poster on this thread private messages me to call you a ******, but this day is a special day.
How do I respond to someone that says since some Catholics dissent from church teaching, that the Catholic Church has multiple teachings. How do I respond to someone that thinks the Dominicans and Jesuits have different catechisms; or that Luther was a guy who disagreed about the papacy but otherwise held orthodox Catholic theology? With laughter; that's how I respond.
Please answer me a few things:
How many Protestant churches have/allow
Women pastors
Gay marriage
Birth control
Differing number of sacraments
Difference of opinion on infant baptism
Difference of opinion on the Eucharist
And how many Catholic Churches do the same.
I'll hold.
Do you think I particularly care that Rome has to resort to name calling when losing an argument? That's better than what they used to do (burning people), so I'll take that with pride. What I learn more and more is how little Rome knows of it's own history. It tries to see the world through the rosy Catholic Answers glasses. I tried that one time...but man you have to work really hard to avoid realizing that Rome is not the historic church, but something created in response to the Reformation.
---------
I know you're in denial, but Luther would have been more mainstream within Rome than James Martin or the German Bishops or the South American idol worshipping Roman Catholics. He had this small problem of wanting to follow God and not a man. A man that was corrupt. A man who taught a false gospel.
Your position on Rome is that it's the place where the true Gospel is taught and morals upheld, and yet we have numerous instances of a pope teaching a false gospel and breaking all moral code. It's more of a "trust us bro" situation. Thank the Lord the Scriptures existed to overcome how corrupt the pope was and is.
-----------------
Again, you simply prove my point with your "gotcha" questions
Woman Pastors - None in any of the Churches that I am in communion with. I would of course make note that Rome is closer with many of the most liberal protestant churches with their "joint declaration of the doctrine of justification." You know who those lutheran churches are? The very churches that fulfill the list you have.
So it's kind of interesting that Rome wants to become closer with those churches who actively promote what you claim Rome is against. Why is Rome closer to the ELCA than the LCMS is? Says more about Rome than anything else.
---------
But lets hit the obvious one. The number of Sacraments, from history, is not 7. The most historically accurate number would be 2, though depending on the definition, could be more. Ironically, most Protestants will agree to the 2 number. So swing and a miss!
Baptism and Lord's Supper are more complicated. Both are Sacraments to Protestantism. I don't have time to go into the depth each deserves, so I'll leave it at that.
