The pope was invalid. Benedict may have been forced to resign. Post says nothing about the fact remorse was expressed for Protestant persecution. That simply and solely means the RCC was wrong and needed reform. What would decide who or what was "invalid"? A bunch of men acting in accordance with scripture, or a bunch of men acting with lack of accord with scripture?
No cop outs.
I signed back in and went to my Notifications page and discovered you've posted nine posts to me. Every single one of them avoids the fact the RCC erred, needed reform, and reformed. Not a single one of those posts acknowledged the fact the reforms were precipitated both internally and externally.
I meant what I said.
Titus 3:9-11
But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.
I meant what I said. I went well beyond the first, second, and third attempts. You have plenty of opportunity to simply
acknowledge the facts of history and did not do so. I do not know what the Roman Catholic Church calls that, but scripture calls it warped and sinful. You do NOT get to ask me "
What was reformed?" or "
When was the time for reformation according to scripture?" when you have so profoundly refused to acknowledge the unchangeable facts of history.
Completely incorrect.
Luther was excommunicated because Pope Leo X (who practiced nepotism, murdered his competing Cardinals, was promiscuous, and started an unnecessary war) wanted Luther to recant 41 of the 95 theses Luther had posted on the doors of the Wittenburg Cathedral. Fifty charges were brought against him, only one of which pertained to any of the five solas (sola scriptura). In the case of at least 14 of the original 50 charges the RCC has since amended their views and/or changed their practice. Reform was warranted.
From
Wiki:
"The war of Urbino was further marked by a crisis in the relations between the pope and the cardinals. The sacred college had allegedly grown very worldly and troublesome since the time of Sixtus IV, and Leo took advantage of a plot by several of its members to poison him, not only to inflict exemplary punishments by executing one (Alfonso Petrucci) and imprisoning several others, but also to make radical changes in the college."
- A worldly sacred college
- A plot to poison the Pope
- Reforms
- A corrupt Roman Catholic Church run by a host of corrupt leaders.
The history of the Medici family is filled with corruption and depravity. Those are the facts of history. Can't change the facts of history. You said it. Everyone here agrees.
"Leo failed to fully comprehend the importance of the movement, and in February 1518 he directed the vicar-general of the Augustinians to impose silence on his monks."
Luther was of the Augustinian Order. The requests for reform came from
within the RCC and Leo X ignored them and then set His own against his own. Worse than that, he set the Church against the Church; he set the Church on itself! It was a godless and depraved act and no matter how hard you might try to justify it or explain it away it necessarily and inescapably speaks to a need for reform. ALL of this information is easily found and verified in Catholic,
RCC approved sources.
I meant what I said. Repeated opportunities to do the right thing have availed you and the falsehood persist. Don't bother with my posts further (and if you do, do not expect a reply).
Do not let
@donadams hijack your op. RCCism has nothing to do with what it means to be Reformed today. We're 500 years away from the Reformation and centuries of scriptural examination has tempered Reformed thinking, doctrine and practice. Ironically, one of the remaining areas of reform among the Reformed has to do with vestiges of RCCism (like clerical garments and the way we practice the Lord's supper). There isn't a single line in the entire op that requires a sentence of reply to protests and off-topic inquiries from RCs.
If they want to correctly understand what it means to be Reformed they'll stick to the op. It's a good op, btw. A few areas of clarification (such as the solas being predominantly soteriological in nature and therefore limited in scope) could be added but it's a fine op and anyone wanting to know
more about what it means to be Reformed need only ask. A plethora of great information was provided. Well done.