Luther's Thesis

[Catholic Crusader]

The continued statements that Luther didn't really want to break away are a bit disingenuous.

I didn't say he didn't want to break away, I said he did not approve of the violence and that he was a relatively conservative reformer. That's all I said.

Fair enough. But in other posts, it was said that Luther really didn't want to divide up the Church or leave the Church at first. I guess I was addressing those posts more than yours.

 

[Righteousone]

I often laugh when I read how Luther and Calvin contradicted themselves when they said to "go by the bible only", then wrote creeds in addition to the bible...the blind leading the blind. 8-)

 

[mondar]

....Also you do know that the Reformation quickly got out of Luther's hands don't you? There were soon after riots on Catholic Churches by the people, violent riots, which Luther by no means ever wanted to see happen.....

I meant to tackle this subject earlier with an analogy:

If an Army General wants to reform the military, then sets out insulting his superiors, how far do you think he will get with his reforms? He will more likely get a court martial rather than his reforms.

The continued statements that Luther didn't really want to break away are a bit disingenuous. Year after year of insulting the pope is more likey to get you booted out of the Church than get you an audience with his holiness. Frankly, I think the pope - a man with a medieval mindset - showed great forbearance in waiting so many years before giving Herr Luther the swift kick in the arse he deserved. I mean, really: How far would you get in your job if you wanted to introduce some innovations and started out by insulting your boss?

Awww, you think Luther was a nasty guy who insulted the pope? Why that nasty person! Did you ever read some of the Church Fathers. One called the Bishop of Rome "pontificus maximus" (the ruler of the roman pantheon).

Luther did seem inclined to be insulting, but that came after the excommunication. The only think wanted of Luther by that time was to burn him at the stake. But such was their custom at that time.

Nevertheless, can you document your claim that Luther insulted the pope before his excommunication in December of 1520?

 

[Laudate Dominum]

....Also you do know that the Reformation quickly got out of Luther's hands don't you? There were soon after riots on Catholic Churches by the people, violent riots, which Luther by no means ever wanted to see happen.....

I meant to tackle this subject earlier with an analogy:

If an Army General wants to reform the military, then sets out insulting his superiors, how far do you think he will get with his reforms? He will more likely get a court martial rather than his reforms.

The continued statements that Luther didn't really want to break away are a bit disingenuous. Year after year of insulting the pope is more likey to get you booted out of the Church than get you an audience with his holiness. Frankly, I think the pope - a man with a medieval mindset - showed great forbearance in waiting so many years before giving Herr Luther the swift kick in the arse he deserved. I mean, really: How far would you get in your job if you wanted to introduce some innovations and started out by insulting your boss?

Awww, you think Luther was a nasty guy who insulted the pope? Why that nasty person! Did you ever read some of the Church Fathers. One called the Bishop of Rome "pontificus maximus" (the ruler of the roman pantheon).

Luther did seem inclined to be insulting, but that came after the excommunication. The only think wanted of Luther by that time was to burn him at the stake. But such was their custom at that time.

Nevertheless, can you document your claim that Luther insulted the pope before his excommunication in December of 1520?

The title Pontifex Maximus was the title of the high priest in the city of Rome. Literally, it means that "greatest bridge-builder" though the latin superlative could communcate a lesser sense than the absolute-greatest. IF Christianity became the official religon of the Roman Empire, there is no reason that the title of the high priest of Rome would remain in pagan hands when it became a Christian city. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? :-?

 

[Vic C.]

The title of Pontifex Maximus was relinquished by one of the two emperors (Gratian) in 382 to the Church. Considering the origin and history of the title, they should have outright refused it. :-?

 

[Laudate Dominum]

The title of Pontifex Maximus was relinquished by one of the two emperors (Gratian) in 382 to the Church. Considering the origin and history of the title, they should have outright refused it. :-?

In your opinion; however, it should be understood that, if the religion of Rome is Christianity, its chief priest should be Christian as well, no? It only makes sense to me :-?

 

[mondar]

The title Pontifex Maximus was the title of the high priest in the city of Rome. Literally, it means that "greatest bridge-builder" though the latin superlative could communcate a lesser sense than the absolute-greatest. IF Christianity became the official religon of the Roman Empire, there is no reason that the title of the high priest of Rome would remain in pagan hands when it became a Christian city. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? :-?

I understand what you are saying, but you are totally taking the conversation off on a dog trail. Maybe I should expect such behavior... hey, its the internet!

The term "pontificus maximus" was used of the ruler of the Roman pantheon, and has been adopted by Rome for its claims. To this everyone agrees. The adoption of the claim is not the issue. The point was that the term was used by a church father as an insult. The church Father that coined this phrase was mocking the bishop of Rome.

The insulting and mocking is the issue. It is is an analogy that if Luther called the pope a few nasty names, why would that be anything new?

 

[Laudate Dominum]

The title Pontifex Maximus was the title of the high priest in the city of Rome. Literally, it means that "greatest bridge-builder" though the latin superlative could communcate a lesser sense than the absolute-greatest. IF Christianity became the official religon of the Roman Empire, there is no reason that the title of the high priest of Rome would remain in pagan hands when it became a Christian city. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? :-?

I understand what you are saying, but you are totally taking the conversation off on a dog trail. Maybe I should expect such behavior... hey, its the internet!

The term "pontificus maximus" was used of the ruler of the Roman pantheon, and has been adopted by Rome for its claims. To this everyone agrees. The adoption of the claim is not the issue. The point was that the term was used by a church father as an insult. The church Father that coined this phrase was mocking the bishop of Rome.

The insulting and mocking is the issue. It is is an analogy that if Luther called the pope a few nasty names, why would that be anything new?

Mocking? Perhaps you could provide the context that supports you assertion?

 

[cyberjosh]

Well it looks like we've had fun going on the "pontificus maximus" tangent, but I'd like to get back on topic by seconding mondar's request to see a documented quote of Luther insulting the Pope before excommunication.

Anyone?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Well it looks like we've had fun going on the "pontificus maximus" tangent, but I'd like to get back on topic by seconding mondar's request to see a documented quote of Luther insulting the Pope before excommunication.

Anyone?

Well, if someone called ME the antichrist, I'd consider that an insult. How about you? BTW, I also consider mondars snotty tone an insult, but I guess thats par for the course.

 

[francisdesales]

The term "pontificus maximus" was used of the ruler of the Roman pantheon, and has been adopted by Rome for its claims. To this everyone agrees. The adoption of the claim is not the issue. The point was that the term was used by a church father as an insult. The church Father that coined this phrase was mocking the bishop of Rome.

Which "Church Father" said that? Are you talking about Tertullian, a comment he made as a Montanist in schism (which is why he is technically not a Church Father)?

Just curious.

Regards

 

[Catholic Crusader]

The term "pontificus maximus" was used of the ruler of the Roman pantheon, and has been adopted by Rome for its claims. To this everyone agrees.

Who's everyone? You have a mouse in your pocket?

Billy Graham uses the word "Crusades". Does that mean he "poped"? LOL

 

[Imagican]

The term "pontificus maximus" was used of the ruler of the Roman pantheon, and has been adopted by Rome for its claims. To this everyone agrees.

Who's everyone? You have a mouse in your pocket?

Billy Graham uses the word "Crusades". Does that mean he "poped"? LOL

There IS a 'bit of difference' between BEING a 'soldier' or God in truth and Spirit and LITERALLY attempting to physically DESTROY those that do not ACCEPT what you offer. In other words, your analogy is TOTALLY lacking in validity. Mr Graham was a SPEAKER, NOT a 'destroying angel of death' as the CC likes to look at itself so far as history is concerned.

And Mr Graham 'started out' with the PROPER perspective, only to become more and more LIBERAL as he aged. He WAVERED in his faith and became just another 'piece of this world'. What started as a 'good work' ended up in chaos. Once again, having a 'form' of righteousness, but denying the POWER. What he ONCE saw and KNEW became 'watered down' to the point that there was little substance left other than that which pertains to 'this world'.

Not condemning this man, for that is NOT mine to DO. But offering 'words of wisdom' for those that are NOT familiar with 'his kind of truth'.

For we have been TOLD that the 'world recogizes it's OWN' and will FLOCK to it's defense. Lauding ITSELF as the ONLY truth and ONLY god. Refusing to bow to the One True God and substituting instead 'one of it's OWN making'.

MEC

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Pontifex Maximus means "Chief Bridge Builder". I see nothing wrong with the title. There are "presidents" of various protestant church conventions. There is nothing wrong with that title either, even though it has been used by despots of past regimes. This is just another straw man

Can we talk about something substantive?

 

[Scott1]

Just FYI.... a few years ago a Catholic theologian offered this:

"I...interpret the ministy of the pope as a ministry of obedience: the pope is not an absolute monarch whose will is law, but quite the opposite- he always has to try to resist arbitrary self-will and to call the Church back to the standard of obedience; therefore he must himself be first in obedience."

... and I quite agree. I wish more people would try to learn about the modern Church... and not try to attack the Church of 500 years ago..... we didn't live then, but we live now.... and if you would like to learn about our faith and about us as believers in Jesus Christ, you might want to stick to talking about this century. :D