The reformation

the roman church is not infallible...the apostles themselves said to watch for false teachers in the church...

the selling of indulgences was approved at the highest levels of the roman church...

the roman church has introduced several new doctrines just since the reformation...papal infallibility...immaculate conception of mary...

to understand church history is to stop being roman catholic...

finally the roman catholic church teaches that they are saved by faith plus works...they taught it during the reformation and they still teach it today... of course they don't openly admit this to protestants...but if you watch roman catholic tv or listen to roman catholic radio...they say something very different to other roman catholics...

this never happened...the roman catholic church never 'canonized' the bible until the council of trent...and then all they did was to acknowledge after the fact the books that everyone in christendom already accepted...plus some dubious extras...

bibles that are older still...the hebrew texts...omit those books... -saint- jerome himself...the translator of the latin vulgate that the roman church still regards as authoritative today...questioned these books just as luther did many years later...

also it wasn't just a matter of books that were omitted...the roman catholic version of esther for example was completely reworked by a hellenistic jewish editor...the roman catholic version of daniel has three chapters of added text that were doubted as early as the second century AD...

Rachel you have much bias information which has never been truth of doctrine. Selling indulgences were corrupt people never doctrine, saved by grace has always been Catholic doctrine Luther learned it from the Catholic church but Luther believed saved by faith alone and he even changed Romans 8 to teach people his own doctrine. The church is the pillar and bulwark of the church, the bible can be profitable to make sure we are in line with the teachings, and guess what! We are. Every Catholic doctrine has scripture back up. There is much that is not written in the bible and we believe it, you and me alike simply because we have scripture back up. The most popular of course is the trinity, but it was not always that way, this was a great heresy that the church had to battle, today you are guided by this truth because the church fought against it. Jesus was fully God and Fully man and He was here on earth, you do not doubt this any more because the church also fought against the believe that Jesus was God and only appeared as human from time to time. Jesus was God the Son in the womb of the blessed virgin Mary and the church also fought against the heresy that Jesus became God much later some said at the age of 30 when He was baptized.

When personal interpretation became a popular belief many people have come up with many old heresies that have resurfaced. It has always been about relationship with God and each other never about everyone reading a book. Some people refuse to use repetitive prayer but read the same verse again and again making it repetitive. Remember it has always been about love.

like i said he was not the first to question those books...early church fathers admitted to legitimate disupute about james as jude...along with hebrews and second peter and second and third john and revelation...those books were called the 'antilegomena'...

all luther really did was to revive the issue of the antilegomena that had basically been swept under the rug...i think the church is stronger for it today...

If the Pope have decided the same thing would your attitude be equal?

sigh...

decree of pope innocent iii at the fourth lateran council in 1215..."To anyone who for the recovery of the Holy Land either goes to war at his own expense or contributes something we grant forgiveness of all his sins, and promise him an increase of eternal salvation when the just are rewarded, that is, as others speak, that those who take the cross in order to fight against the infidels are given plenary indulgences from the Roman pontiff."

'cum postquam'...papal bull of leo x...november 9, 1518..."The Roman pontiff, the vicar of Christ, by the power of the keys (with which he takes away the guilt and punishment owed for actual sins, the guilty by means of the sacrament of penance, the temporal punishment owed for actual sins according to divine justice by means of the ecclesiastical indulgence) is able for reasonable causes to grant to the faithful, whether they are in this life or in purgatory, indulgences from the superabundance of the merits of Christ and of the saints, for the living as well as for the dead, by his apostolic authority. He can confer this indulgence by means of absolution, or transfer it to others by means of their intercession. And therefore all, the living as well as the dead, are set free from punishment to an extent equal to the indulgence that has been granted and purchased."

what did you do? just ask a priest about this stuff and take his word for it?

I have been shown many things that the church has done. This is part of our history but apparently some one showed you this and a few others which make the church look evil right? That way they could make the reformers look like heroes. I wondered if they also discussed the heresies and threats to the church at those moments and the seriousness of the situation. Many things the church had to do, otherwise we would be a muslim world. The church is the pillar and bulwark of truth, read it in the bible. It never says scripture is the pillar and bulwark of truth.


Who put the bible together? The Church by authorization of a Pope and thanks to Constantine. But who took books out and added a word to romans? Luther did. Seems to me Luther did more harm than good.

Would your attitude had been the same if a Pope took books out or added books?

Sure, but by that measure he ought to have problems with Hebrews, Peter, and the Johnnie epistles. The problems he had with those two where specifically that they hard-countered his point of view. Well I suppose he did have an issue with Hebrews as well, so that's somewhat fair.

It is my understanding that he only included part of the apocrypha. I don't know though.


Well, go try to buy an indulgence then.

This is not exactly true. Many doctrines have only suggestions in Scripture that they might be likely, and often degrees of that. Purgatory (even if you allow Maccabees as Scripture), papal infallibility, humanity of the unborn fetus, and assumption of Mary, to name a few.

Specifically, Esubius reported on disputes over it. The grounds for that objection is only that it is not quoted often. Is there anyone else 'early' that objects to it? I suppose Jerome, but that's later.

Yes, Martin Luther was a flawed man. His attitude towards Jewish people for one, and the desire to remove several books of the Bible BUT he's still a hero of the Christian faith and helped it return to it's biblical roots that had been tarnished during that time.

I agree with Tintin.

I appreciate that you can at least accept that Martin Luther was an anti semite. Others here have justified it or looked the other way to ignore it, then again, the same ones ignore Calvin's flaws..etc.

God used Luther, he was a willing and available vessel. I truly believe someone else would have eventually rose up to the occasion and had been the catalyst of reform in Luther's stead had it not been Luther doing so regarding the reformation.

I'm a Lutheran but I believe even the heroes of the Christian faith are fallen. I have great respect for people like Martin Luther, C.S. Lewis, Philip Yancey etc. but they are human. Nothing more.

Hopefully beyond our humanness we can have the faith to transcend the flesh and live lifes that are pleasing to God..and a pleasant aroma that smells sweet before a God who is worthy to be served and praised with all our heart,mind and strength. So yes, we are human..but the christian is more than just human. We are empowered by God,and by his grace and the spirit of Grace,the Holy Spirit..we can live for him.