Purgatory

[Mikeuk]

I do not believe the bible shows or teaches succession. Peter was not a pope.

And if it were taught in scripture, boy did you guys mess that up.

I am not in this post referring to the pope.

And it wasnt “ us guys” - it was all till the reformation believed it, including those at councils. The difference between us and orthodox is in metaphysics of transformation , not the belief in real flesh.


So . I am referring to how the faith was actually handed down early days - as Paul confirms - by paradosis ( tradition), and what Jesus passed to apostle John, to his disciples, to ignatius and iraneus.

It’s indisputable what they believed.
And If John didn’t know what John 6 meant , who did?
And we know what he passed on - read ignatius to smyrneans or iraneus on tradition, bishops and authority.

What scripture says on interpretation,

Proverbs 3:5-6, “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not unto your own understanding"
So look to Jesus appointed authority to know what it means..

So who can you trust, if you cannot trust your own exegesis?
2 Thess. 2:15 Paradosis , which is tradition the faith handed down, Paul says “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” .
And we read in Paul and johns disciples the truth of the eucharist.

2 Timothy 2:22 reinforces this "the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others. So it is teaching by "those who are sent "Rom 10:15 "how can men preach unless they are sent?" So unless you have been "sent" your word does not count! Succession.

Jesus also gave the ultimate power to resolve disputes on doctrine "the power to bind and loose" Matthew 23:13 to Peter alone and Matthew 18:18 to the others jointly, which is why we can trust councils. So apostolic tradition and authority of a magisterium is where you find true meaning.

Thats why 1 Timothy 3:15 "the pillar and foundation of truth" is the "Household of God". Which is specifically where to take disputes . Eg meaning of Eucharist, There is clearly scriptural and Tradition support for tgst.


Now Step back from all that . Be that as it may…argue if you must,
But.. Answer this question:

We know that the early fathers handed down to say what the eucharist was , and why Paul says profaning it is serious.
that’s consistent with John 6 saying Jesus abides in those who eat ( meaning gnaw) his body and blood. They are the ones raised up on the last day.

We know what they believed, that they tell us, in ignatius , Justin martyr iraneus etc.

Do you seriously think Jesus would allow his church to go off the rails in the first generation?
Because like it or not - that’s clearly what they all believed.
only “ leaning on your own understanding “ disputes it as doctrine. Since all believed it then, and handed it down For the next Millenium,

Matthew says the gospel is preached to the end of time. Not with a 1500 year gap.

Is Jesus really so impotent as to let ALL go off the rails ?

 

[Mikeuk]

The early church was so dead-set on spreading the gospel that they sold everything, lived together in true communist form, so that they could devote themselves single mindedly to reaching others with the Word of God. The real "Early Fathers" are detailed in the BIBLE. What YOU think are "Early fathers" came well after the first church and were already incorporating heathen beliefs (like "purgatory", and "mariolatry"), contaminating the purity of the Gospel.

Paul mentions that in HIS TIME, denominations were already forming, and leading people astray.

yep.
Iraneus and the early church outed many heresies , gnostics, modalists, Arian’s, docetists.
Thankfully the authority Jesus gave his church kept it on track.
So the Doctrine on such as Eucharist has never changed. still the same today,

Its sad at the reformation too many decided they knew better when told not to lean on their own understanding.
So yet more fell away…
How we know the reformationists got it wrong..
Because they all disagree with each other and so fractured into 10000 bits.
Some even brought back early heresies, like some Pentecostals still have modalism.

tell me …if scripture had an obvious meaning , why did Zwingli, Luther and Calvin all disagree?
Why did luther lament in despair of the monster sola scriptura created “ every milkmaid now has their own doctrine.”
Luther and Calvin didn't want to abolish the pope, they wanted to be pope. Theyeven misunderstood the power of the pope. It’s normally the magisterium that declares decisions on doctrinal disputes

So catholic doctrine is the same as always.

its the manmade tradition “ sola scriptura “ to blame.
When scripture says nothing of the sort

 

[Illuminator]

Good. We agree on that, and Judas Maccabeus obviously had NO CONCEPT of what God was about.

Because you conveniently deny Jewish beliefs and practices that don't fit into your narrow paradigm. Luther had the same problem.

SO Jesus work in Cleansing us was defective, and in life we're UNCLEAN in HIM (contrary to Scripture). Born Again People ARE PERFECT BEFORE GOD.

Forensic or imputed justification was a reformist innovation, not found anywhere for 1500 years.

Then explain the "Missionaries of the Holy Family, The National Catholic Register, The Franciscan Missions, and "Aur Lady of Angels Association", all of whom sell "Gregorian masses" NOW to spring people out of purgatory!!!

Again, you have been deceived by liars. Masses being sold to spring people out of purgatory is a stupid mantra. That's not how it works but you are fixated on misrepresentations and resist explanations.
John 3:5 defines "born again", it has nothing to do with an emotional experience at an altar call, as valuable as that may be.

You apparently have NO IDEA what's happening in your "one True CHurch"!!

If I believed half the lies you do about the CC, I would be twice as rebellious as you.

 

[Illuminator]

Louis Bouyer contends that the only way to safeguard the positive principles of the Reformation is through the Catholic Church. For only in the Catholic Church are the positive principles the Reformation affirmed found without the negative elements the Reformers mistakenly affixed to them...

...Catholics agree with their more agreeable Protestant brethren that the sixteenth century division among Christians was tragic. But most Catholics who think about it also see it as unnecessary. At least unnecessary in the sense that what Catholics might regard as genuine issues raised by the Reformers could, on the Catholic view, have been addressed without the tragedy of dividing Christendom.

Yet we can go further than decrying the Reformation as unnecessary. In his ground-breaking work, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, Louis Bouyer argued that the Catholic Church herself is necessary for the full flowering of the Reformation principles. In other words, you need Catholicism to make Protestantism work for Protestantism's principles fully to develop. Thus, the Reformation was not only unnecessary; it was impossible. What the Reformers sought, argues Bouyer, could not be achieved without the Catholic Church.

From Bouyer's conclusion we can infer at least two things. First, Protestantism can't be all wrong, otherwise how could the Catholic Church bring about the "full flowering of the principles of the Reformation"? Second, left to itself, Protestantism will go astray and be untrue to some of its central principles. It's these two points, as Bouyer articulates them, I would like to consider here. One thing should be said up-front: although a convert from French Protestantism, Bouyer is no anti-Protestant polemicist. His Spirit and Forms of Protestantism was written a half-century ago, a decade before Vatican II's decree on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, yet it avoids the bitter anti-Protestantism that sometimes afflicted pre-conciliar Catholic works on Protestantism. That's one reason the book remains useful, even after decades of post-conciliar ecumenism.

Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation

Louis Bouyer contends that the only way to safeguard the positive principles of the Reformation is through the Catholic Church. For only in the Catholic Church are the positive principles the Refor…

www.catholiceducation.org

 

[Mikeuk]

I never said "all Jewish history is meaningful in a spiritual sense." They apostatized at times and God punished them for it. You don't need to be so anti-Semitic to prove a point.

DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
4. As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham's stock.

Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God's saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ-Abraham's sons according to faith (6)-are included in the same Patriarch's call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people's exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles.(7) Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself.(8)

The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: "theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church's main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people.

As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation,(9) nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading.(10) Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(11) In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and "serve him shoulder to shoulder" (Soph. 3:9).(12)

Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.

True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.

Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.

Besides, as the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. It is, therefore, the burden of the Church's preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God's all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows.
source


Rev. 21:27 – nothing unclean shall enter heaven. The word “unclean” comes from the Greek word “koinon” which refers to a spiritual corruption. Even the propensity to sin is spiritually corrupt, or considered unclean, and must be purified before entering heaven. It is amazing how many Protestants do not want to believe in purgatory. Purgatory exists because of the mercy of God. If there were no purgatory, this would also likely mean no salvation for most people. God is merciful indeed.

Purgatory - Scripture Catholic

Contents1 Scripture1.1 I. A State After Death of Suffering and Forgiveness1.2 II. Purification After Death By Fire2 Tradition / Church Fathers2.1 I. The Early Church’s Belief in Purgatory Scripture I. A State After Death of Suffering and Forgiveness Matt. 5:26,18:34; Luke 12:58-59 – Jesus...

www.scripturecatholic.com

Another anti-Catholic lie. The Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences, and, because of prior abuses, “in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions” (Catholic Encyclopedia). This act proved the Church’s seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences.
That was over 400 years ago and anti-Catholics can't stop complaining about prior abuses. Yes, prior abuses; it happened. Abuses is not doctrine.

Another lie you can't document with any link to a source.

It doesn't. You have been deceived by anti-Catholic liars.

scroll down this long list, and pick one that fits you, and maybe we can discuss it, but not likely:

Anti-Catholicism (Index Page For Apologist Dave Armstrong)

Collection of papers by Dave Armstrong refuting anti-Catholicism: the absurd, self-defeating notions that Catholicism is not Christianity at all.

www.patheos.com

The big point that @Bob Carabbio doesn’t get, despite my “ pesky verses “ on authority,

In all protestant denominations it’s hard to see who speaks for the denomination.
Anyone can. And often they all disagree. Often they schism because of disagreement.
So who holds the true view of a denomination? Who speaks for it?
Does a single dissenting pastor speak for all?
In non denom it’s even worse.

You can get crazy situations where in Anglicanism there are multiple views , even of Eucharist under one roof!
But there is only one truth. Not a high or low church view or Anglo catholic view. You cannot pick and choose, otherwise it’s creating a designer denomination in your image not Gods it’s part of why I left,
In such as presbyterian it’s much worse. The pastor and elders decide. The split P because of it.

in Catholicism bob Should take note

It’s recognised all men are sinners including the pope.
NONE of them speak for the church or the faith except in specific situations.
So just because cardinals exceeded authority, did not make paid indulgences a tenet of faith.

if only Luther hadn’t been such a hothead , he only had to wait.
Trouble is the church is a supertanker , it takes time to set a course or change course, or declare a heresy.

At Trent indeed the pope and council - Union of bishops, spoke against paid indulgences
Only then was it the voice of the church.

So for example Jerome had reservations about maccabees.

But he HIMSELF clearly said it was for the CHURCH to decide the canon, which it did at Hippo .
for him the question was settled then,
The question is not why Catholics have maccabees, the church spoke with authority,

The question is why luther took them out, in his case to make scripture align to his belief , not make his beliefs align to scripture.
he wanted to remove James because it didn’t agree with Him!

 

[Mikeuk]

Louis Bouyer contends that the only way to safeguard the positive principles of the Reformation is through the Catholic Church. For only in the Catholic Church are the positive principles the Reformation affirmed found without the negative elements the Reformers mistakenly affixed to them...

...Catholics agree with their more agreeable Protestant brethren that the sixteenth century division among Christians was tragic. But most Catholics who think about it also see it as unnecessary. At least unnecessary in the sense that what Catholics might regard as genuine issues raised by the Reformers could, on the Catholic view, have been addressed without the tragedy of dividing Christendom.

Yet we can go further than decrying the Reformation as unnecessary. In his ground-breaking work, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, Louis Bouyer argued that the Catholic Church herself is necessary for the full flowering of the Reformation principles. In other words, you need Catholicism to make Protestantism work for Protestantism's principles fully to develop. Thus, the Reformation was not only unnecessary; it was impossible. What the Reformers sought, argues Bouyer, could not be achieved without the Catholic Church.

From Bouyer's conclusion we can infer at least two things. First, Protestantism can't be all wrong, otherwise how could the Catholic Church bring about the "full flowering of the principles of the Reformation"? Second, left to itself, Protestantism will go astray and be untrue to some of its central principles. It's these two points, as Bouyer articulates them, I would like to consider here. One thing should be said up-front: although a convert from French Protestantism, Bouyer is no anti-Protestant polemicist. His Spirit and Forms of Protestantism was written a half-century ago, a decade before Vatican II's decree on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, yet it avoids the bitter anti-Protestantism that sometimes afflicted pre-conciliar Catholic works on Protestantism. That's one reason the book remains useful, even after decades of post-conciliar ecumenism.

Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation

Louis Bouyer contends that the only way to safeguard the positive principles of the Reformation is through the Catholic Church. For only in the Catholic Church are the positive principles the Refor…

www.catholiceducation.org

Interesting. I’ve just bought bouyers book you referred.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

So catholic doctrine is the same as always.

That's the funniest thing that's ever been posted here!!! Tell us another!!! We all know the Roman Catholic doctrine changes with the tides, and Unity in Roman Catholicism is a bad JOKE.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

The big point that @Bob Carabbio doesn’t get, despite my “ pesky verses “ on authority,

In all protestant denominations it’s hard to see who speaks for the denomination.

Another lie. all denominations have "CEOs" who, with their councils, define the "Precious defining Doctrines" of their denomination.

You can get crazy situations where in Anglicanism there are multiple views , even of Eucharist under one roof!

Exactly like the chaos that reigns in the Roman Catholic system nowadays - The RCC couldn't even elect a Catholic POPE to represent them!!!

But there is only one truth.

Absolutely TRUE STATEMENT.

in Catholicism bob Should take note

It’s recognised all men are sinners including the pope.

True statement.

NONE of them speak for the church or the faith except in specific situations.
So just because cardinals exceeded authority, did not make paid indulgences a tenet of faith.

But the RCC TAUGHT IS AS FACT FOR YEARS - like "LIMBO".

If only Luther hadn’t been such a hothead , he only had to wait.

But we both know that according to CATHOLIC SOURCES that the Pope at the time is considered to have been an "Unfortunate Choice" - like the present one.

The question is why luther took them out,

Except that the "AUTHORIZED BIBLE" (the KJV) kept them in until the late 1800s.

he wanted to remove James because it didn’t agree with Him!

Until he understood what James was REALLY teaching. The Roman Catholic system apparently doesn't know either, since they still promote salvation by WORKS.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Forensic or imputed justification was a reformist innovation, not found anywhere for 1500 years.

Except for being in the Bible all along, of course - Rom 3:22, among others.

Again, you have been deceived by liars. Masses being sold to spring people out of purgatory is a stupid mantra.

That Roman Catholic agencies (like the Franciscans) continue to sell to their victims.

John 3:5 defines "born again", it has nothing to do with an emotional experience at an altar call, as valuable as that may be.

And you're DESPERATE to have "Born of water" (born again) refer to your infant head wetting ceremony.

What you SHOULD PAY ATTENTION TO is the entire passage, which clearly juxtaposes "Natural birth" with Spiritual birth, and has nothing to do with "Baptism in any form".

A person is Born Again, when under CONVICTION OF SIN and of JUDGEMENT (John 16:8), they surrender to God, repent of their SIN, and call upon God IN FAITH for the SIN OFFERING of Jesus to be applied to them. THEN the Holy Spirit indwells them, and they're Born Again. THEN they can take HIS YOKE upon them, and begin to "Learn of Him". Simple as that. The "Conviction of SIN by the Holy Spirit" is the source of FAITH - God's WORD to you (Romans 10:17).

THEN the person can be properly Baptized (by immersion, which is what Baptism means) AS A CHRISTIAN BELIEVER.

 

[Mikeuk]

Another lie. all denominations have "CEOs" who, with their councils, define the "Precious defining Doctrines" of their denomination.

Exactly like the chaos that reigns in the Roman Catholic system nowadays - The RCC couldn't even elect a Catholic POPE to represent them!!!

Absolutely TRUE STATEMENT.

True statement.

But the RCC TAUGHT IS AS FACT FOR YEARS - like "LIMBO".

But we both know that according to CATHOLIC SOURCES that the Pope at the time is considered to have been an "Unfortunate Choice" - like the present one.

Except that the "AUTHORIZED BIBLE" (the KJV) kept them in until the late 1800s.

Until he understood what James was REALLY teaching. The Roman Catholic system apparently doesn't know either, since they still promote salvation by WORKS.

The last point proves you don’t even know what Catholicism is.
Little point in contesting your caricature of it..

I don’t see the “ ceo “ of whatever denomination you are mentioned in the Bible
I do find Peter, given the keys , the power to bind and loose doctrine, told to “ tend my sheep” he was “ sent “ to preach.
You might not like our biblical support - but at least we have an arguable case!

 

[Illuminator]

Bob is so radically anti-Catholic he probably rejects the doctrine of the Trinity, along with the councils that defended and clarified it.

• . THE DIVINITY OR GODHOOD OF CHRIST WAS ONLY FINALIZED IN 325,
• AND THE FULL DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY IN 381.
• THE DOGMA OF THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST (GOD AND MAN) WAS PROCLAIMED IN 451.

THESE DECISIONS OF GENERAL COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH WERE IN RESPONSE TO CHALLENGING HERESIES.

All Bob can do is rant about how evil they all were, even though these authoritive decisions are accepted by all Protestants. This makes Bob anti-Protestant.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

The last point proves you don’t even know what Catholicism is.
Little point in contesting your caricature of it.

Chuckle!! you may know "Catholicism", but I know the BIBLE. What "Catholicism" is, doesn't matter, since it's nothing but a false religious system.

Since you obviously don't, you SHOULD REALLY READ THE BIBLE, so that you can discuss things rationally.

 

[Illuminator]

Chuckle!! you may know "Catholicism", but I know the BIBLE. What "Catholicism" is, doesn't matter, since it's nothing but a false religious system.

Since you obviously don't, you SHOULD REALLY READ THE BIBLE, so that you can discuss things rationally.

What you mean is "really read the Bible according to the unworkable, unhistorical, illogical, self-contradictory irrational man made tradition of sola scriptura that insanely rules out the need for a teaching authority (that got us the Bible in the first place?)
TEXT without CONTEXT is a PRETEXT.
The BIBLE without the CHURCH is just an EXCUSE.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

What you mean is "really read the Bible according to the unworkable, unhistorical, illogical, self-contradictory irrational man made tradition of sola scriptura that insanely rules out the need for a teaching authority (that got us the Bible in the first place?)
TEXT without CONTEXT is a PRETEXT.
The BIBLE without the CHURCH is just an EXCUSE.

So nothing, then. Just Cliches.

 

[Illuminator]

So nothing, then. Just Cliches.

What you mean is "really read the Bible according to the unworkable, unhistorical, illogical, self-contradictory irrational man made tradition of sola scriptura that insanely rules out the need for a teaching authority (that got us the Bible in the first place?)
Why should I follow your absurd self defeating rules?

10. Sola Scriptura Is a Circular Position​

When all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola scriptura as their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to “the Bible’s clear teaching.” Often they act as if they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation.

This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying, “Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t.” The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter.

But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply “going to the Bible” hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only “go to the Bible” themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so “minor” that differences “don’t matter.”

But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are “minor” and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the “three-legged stool”: Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.

A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a “standard of truth”—even the preeminent one—but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn’t teach that.

www.catholic.com

 

[Mikeuk]

Chuckle!! you may know "Catholicism", but I know the BIBLE. What "Catholicism" is, doesn't matter, since it's nothing but a false religious system.

Since you obviously don't, you SHOULD REALLY READ THE BIBLE, so that you can discuss things rationally.

I do. Every day.
And , according to those Christ appointed to pass down the truth before there was a new testament, and those given the power to arbitrate true meaning, it means what we say.

You don’t get it, if you only have the words of the Bible, not the true meaning , you do not have the Word of God.
So what does it mean? What tradition hands down and authority says.


Try it some time. Read the writings of those who John taught the meaning of John 6 having heard it from Christ,
Read ignatius to smyrneans .
Its the Eucharist we have. Lost by too many at the reformation.

At least start with the whole Bible, not without the bits unnappointed luther threw out.
Luther messed up the Bible to fit his theology.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I do. Every day.
And , according to those Christ appointed to pass down the truth before there was a new testament, and those given the power to arbitrate true meaning, it means what we say.

You don’t get it, if you only have the words of the Bible, not the true meaning , you do not have the Word of God.

Ans so IN YOUR OPINION Jesus LIED when He promised that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all TRUTH. You've replaced Jesus Christ and the promised Holy Spirit with a bunch of political old men in dresses and funny hats. PATHETIC!!!!

You should realize that Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic trained master of theology, who was led of the Holy Spirit to UNDERSTAND Hab 2:4 in context, and Gal 3:11.

 

[Illuminator]

Ans so IN YOUR OPINION Jesus LIED when He promised that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all TRUTH. You've replaced Jesus Christ and the promised Holy Spirit with a bunch of political old men in dresses and funny hats. PATHETIC!!!!

You should realize that Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic trained master of theology, who was led of the Holy Spirit to UNDERSTAND Hab 2:4 in context, and Gal 3:11.

In America in the 1910s, Professor Preserved Smith from Amherst College wrote several articles and books analyzing Luther from a Freudian perspective and finding evidence of psycho-pathology in him.

In 1937, a Copenhagen Psychiatrist, Paul J. Reiter MD wrote a 2 volume study, Martin Luther's World Character and Psychosis and the Influence of These Factors on his Development and Teachings which also demonstrated in detail from his own writings that Luther was mentally disturbed.

There is a review of Reiter's book here:

http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=PAQ.012.0261A

There was a brief summary of the findings of these scholars given in the Presidential address by Dr. William Langer delivered at the annual dinner of the American Historical Association at the Statler Hotel, New York City, on December 29, 1957:

Most striking, however, is the case of the greatest of the reformers, Martin Luther, who seems to me to reflect clearly the reaction of the individual to the situation I have been sketching. Luther left behind almost a hundred volumes of writings, thousands of letters, and very voluminous table-talk, suggesting an unusually self-analytical and self-critical personality.56 From all this material it has long been clear that he suffered from an abnormally strong sense of sin and of the immediacy of death and damnation. Tortured by the temptations of the flesh and repeatedly in conflict with a personalized demon, he was chronically oppressed by a pathological feeling of guilt and lived in constant terror of God's judgment. So striking were these traits that some of Luther's biographers have questioned his sanity.57

Here it is interesting to recall that one of our own colleagues, the late Professor Preserved Smith, as long ago as 1913, attacked the problem in an article entitled "Luther's Early Development in the Light of Psychoanalysis."58 Smith, who was remarkably Conversant with Freudian teaching when psychoanalysis was still in its early stage of development, considered Luther highly neurotic--probably driven to enter the monastery by the hope of finding a refuge from temptation and an escape from damnation, and eventually arriving at the doctrine of salvation by faith alone only after he had convinced himself of the impossibility of conquering temptation by doing penance. It may well be that Smith overdid his thesis, but the fact remains that his article was treated with great respect by Dr. Paul J. Reiter, who later published a huge and greatly detailed study of Luther's personality. Reiter reached the conclusion, already suggested by Adolf Hausrath in 1905, that the great reformer suffered from a manic-depressive psychosis, which, frequently associated with genius, involved a constant struggle with, and victory over, enormous psychological pressures. The point of mentioning all this is to suggest that Luther's trials were typical of his time. In any event, it is inconceivable that he should have evoked so great a popular response unless he had succeeded in expressing the underlying, unconscious sentiments of large numbers of people and in providing them with an acceptable solution to their religious problem.59

 

[Bob Carabbio]

In America in the 1910s, Professor Preserved Smith from Amherst College wrote several articles and books analyzing Luther from a Freudian perspective and finding evidence of psycho-pathology in him.

In 1937, a Copenhagen Psychiatrist, Paul J. Reiter MD wrote a 2 volume study, Martin Luther's World Character and Psychosis and the Influence of These Factors on his Development and Teachings which also demonstrated in detail from his own writings that Luther was mentally disturbed.

Chuckle!! NATURALLY Luther had to have a "Screw Loose" to DARE questioning the "One True Church"!!! Textbook "Damage Control".

The REAL miracle is that Leo X, and his goons at the time, weren't able to MURDER Luther (and others) to shut them up. God, however protected them, so that HIS TRUTH could propagate against Rome's religious LIES, and have the desired effect in Christendom.

 

[Illuminator]

Chuckle!! NATURALLY Luther had to have a "Screw Loose" to DARE questioning the "One True Church"!!! Textbook "Damage Control".

The REAL miracle is that Leo X, and his goons at the time, weren't able to MURDER Luther (and others) to shut them up. God, however protected them, so that HIS TRUTH could propagate against Rome's religious LIES, and have the desired effect in Christendom.

JOINT STATEMENT

on the occasion of the Joint Catholic-Lutheran Commemoration of the Reformation

Lund, 31 October 2016

«Abide in me as I abide in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me» (John 15:4).

With thankful hearts

With this Joint Statement, we express joyful gratitude to God for this moment of common prayer in the Cathedral of Lund, as we begin the year commemorating the five hundredth anniversary of the Reformation. Fifty years of sustained and fruitful ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Lutherans have helped us to overcome many differences, and have deepened our mutual understanding and trust. At the same time, we have drawn closer to one another through joint service to our neighbours – often in circumstances of suffering and persecution. Through dialogue and shared witness we are no longer strangers. Rather, we have learned that what unites us is greater than what divides us.

Moving from conflict to communion

While we are profoundly thankful for the spiritual and theological gifts received through the Reformation, we also confess and lament before Christ that Lutherans and Catholics have wounded the visible unity of the Church. Theological differences were accompanied by prejudice and conflicts, and religion was instrumentalized for political ends. Our common faith in Jesus Christ and our baptism demand of us a daily conversion, by which we cast off the historical disagreements and conflicts that impede the ministry of reconciliation. While the past cannot be changed, what is remembered and how it is remembered can be transformed. We pray for the healing of our wounds and of the memories that cloud our view of one another. We emphatically reject all hatred and violence, past and present, especially that expressed in the name of religion. Today, we hear God’s command to set aside all conflict. We recognize that we are freed by grace to move towards the communion to which God continually calls us.

Joint Statement on the occasion of the Joint Catholic-Lutheran Commemoration of the Reformation

JOINT STATEMENT on the occasion of the Joint Catholic-Lutheran Commemoration of the Reformation Lund, 31 October 2016 «Abide in me as I abide in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me» (John 15:4). With thankful...

www.vatican.va

Sorry, Bob, you are outdated.