If The Reformation Never Happened . . .

balshan

Well-known member
And why wouldn't they have an infallible bible? After all that's what they claim the 'gift' is for right?
They do say it is the word of God but then say you cannot trust the translations. But I bet you can trust the Latin translations. I mean people have studied the originals and later copies there is hardly a mistake made. Yet they claim unless we have the original in Greek, it is not to be trusted. It is a shame because their institution does translate the word into different languages.
 

balshan

Well-known member
So why didn't it "Reform", and why is it still teaching the same heretical GARBAGE that it was teaching in 1500 AD????

But AT LEAST it doesn't murder folks who get in it's way, any more. That's progress, I guess.
Excellent question. Why has it not the institution not reformed? Why is there no self reflection?
 

Tertiumquid

Active member
Just yesterday I saw a YouTube 'debate' on whether Christ instituted an infallible magesterium. So the side claiming the affirmative starts off by going to o.t. Jewish sources and the Babylonian Talmud. Twenty minutes of this. I'm thinking if Christ established an infallible magesterium I'd just go to the verses that talk about that instead of a 4000 year history lesson. But this is what they have to do.
That's interesting. On the positive side, it's good to see Rome's defenders using a different argument. On the negative side, the new argument sounds a bit like Jenga.
 

Nondenom40

Super Member
That's interesting. On the positive side, it's good to see Rome's defenders using a different argument. On the negative side, the new argument sounds a bit like Jenga.
Yes, still eisegesis. Another debate i saw on the papacy the one thats arguing for it starts off by saying hes NOT going to appeal to scripture. Its almost as if they've given up going to the bible for any of this. Instead they want to make a 'compelling' argument. Thats what the catholic said.
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
Really then why no reform?????
Sigh! 😉 Some folk - like pilgrim - seem to not know the meaning of "counter". Merrtam-Webster says (amongst other things):
transitive verb
1a: to act in opposition to : OPPOSE
b: OFFSET, NULLIFY
intransitive verb
1: to meet attacks or arguments with defensive or retaliatory steps


And if one looks at what the couner-Reformation council (Trent) produced, they'll see that a better name would have been "Anti-Reformation" 🙄

--Rich
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Yes, still eisegesis. Another debate i saw on the papacy the one thats arguing for it starts off by saying hes NOT going to appeal to scripture. Its almost as if they've given up going to the bible for any of this. Instead they want to make a 'compelling' argument. Thats what the catholic said.
If they truly used the Bible ,they would not find anything to support the Papacy.
 

Nondenom40

Super Member
If they truly used the Bible ,they would not find anything to support the Papacy.
They don't. Even Trent Horn a catholic answers apologist on a podcast admitted there is no explicit verse on the papacy in the n.t. This is why they are stuck with things like Jesus saying to Peter; feed my sheep, or 'you are peter, or hes first in some list...' They cobble together a bunch of unrelated verses then say theres the papacy! If there were an office of the papacy which is something we see here all the time, then it'd more than likely be listed and described in the pastorals where deacon, elder and overseer are. Its not. Its an altogether empty man made doctrine.
 

balshan

Well-known member
They don't. Even Trent Horn a catholic answers apologist on a podcast admitted there is no explicit verse on the papacy in the n.t. This is why they are stuck with things like Jesus saying to Peter; feed my sheep, or 'you are peter, or hes first in some list...' They cobble together a bunch of unrelated verses then say theres the papacy! If there were an office of the papacy which is something we see here all the time, then it'd more than likely be listed and described in the pastorals where deacon, elder and overseer are. Its not. Its an altogether empty man made doctrine.
Maybe they think they will be able to use the pope said as a mitigating circumstance when facing God on the day of judgement.
 

JoeT

Active member
Which of his followers said that?
In response to "His own followers said that Luther was a pathological liar, his teaching bore this out; hence, Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.".

While Dr. Johann Eck wasn't a follower of Luther He did say a few things of Luther's character:

“More than once have I proved,” he says, “ that he is a liar and hence that he has for his father, him [the devil] of whom the Scripture says that he is a liar and a murderer.” “The fellow exudes lies from every pore and is inconstancy itself (homo totus mendaciis scatens nil constat). His teaching too is full of deception and calumny. What he has just advanced, he presently rejects without the least difficulty.” “ The dregs of those vices of which he is always accusing the Christians, we rightly pour back upon his own head ; let him drink himself of the cup he has mixed.” “ He heaps up a mountain of evil on the Pope and the Church,” but with “ his nun,” this is what he adds in a later edition in his indignation with Luther s marriage “ he is really worshipping Asmodeus “ and this he is not ashamed to do in the old monastery of the Augustinians, “ where once pious monks served the Lord God, and pious foundations, now alienated from their original purpose, proclaimed the Christian virtues to the faithful.” [Hartmann Grisar, Luther, pg. 147 c., Conclusion of the Tract “De Purgatorio,” “ Opp.,” Pars II, Ingolst., 1531, pp. 95 , 96. Cp. volume iv., xxii. :” Luther and Lying.”]​

And then there was Thomas Müntzer, a reformer's reformer.

[Thomas] Müntzer, in his “Schutz Rede,” was not slow to answer Luther’s “boasting “concerning his three appearances in public. It must be touched upon here for the sake of completeness, although it must be borne in mind that it is the utterance of an opponent. Müntzer calls Luther repeatedly, and not merely on account of this boasting, “Dr. Liar “and“ Lying Luther.” He says to him: “ Why do you throw dust in the eyes of the people ? you were very well off indeed at Leipzig. You rode out of the city crowned with gillyflowers and drank good wine at Melchior Lother’s? Nor were you in any danger at Augsburg [as a matter of fact every precaution had been taken], for Staupitz the oracle stood at your side. . .. That you appeared before the Empire at Worms at all was thanks to the German nobles whom you had cajoled and honeyed, for they fully expected, that, by your preaching you would obtain for them Bohemian gifts of monasteries and foundations which you are now promising to the princes. [Hartmann Grisar, Luther, pg. 367, c., In “Neudrucke”; this work also is edited by Enders (p. 19 ff.). The passage will be found on p. 37 f.]​

And

Here comes Campanus, he says of a refractory theologian in his ranks, and “ makes himself out to be the only man who is sure of everything” ; “he prides himself on being certain upon all matters and of never being at a loss “ ; Campanus condemns him as a “ liar and diabolical man,” and of this he was “ as sure as that God is God.” And yet this Campanus has “ never passed through any struggle, nor had a tussle with the devil, and actually glories in the fact.” On the other hand, he himself, he says, had been “ tried by the devil “ and proved by “ temptation “ ; that is the true test and is essential for every real “student of theology” ; “for as soon as God s Word dawns upon you, the devil is sure to try you, and in this way you become a doctor in very truth.”[Ibid, pg. 378]​
This and more leaves us with one conclusion, Luther was the son of the devil, "a liar and a murderer.”

JoeT
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Thank you, but since Eck was a Catholic who debated Luther, I hardly think he was a "follower" of Luther. As for Muentzer, from what I have been able to find out about him, he was a radical who ended up rejecting much of what Luther taught and had a bitter falling out with him--so he was no longer a follower, either. So neither source is exactly unbiased. However I won't discuss this further on here, because it would be off topic, but I put your quotes on the Lutheran board, and asked Tertium Quid to take a look at them. He would know the context far better than I.
 

JoeT

Active member
"Pope Leo took the initiative in reforming the Church precisely on the point Luther had attacked. In 1518, the pope clarified Catholic practice on indulgences, reminding the faithful that they could not buy their way to Heaven; indulgences were merely forms of penance, alms offered for the forgiveness of temporal punishment, and certainly not a blank check for sins to be committed or to buy the freedom of a soul in Purgatory. A papal emissary ensured that Tetzel was disciplined, and Luther again affirmed his submission to the pope, while concealing his continuing doubts about 'whether the pope is the Antichrist or his apostle.'" [Crocker, H.W. III, Triumph, The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church, 241-2.]
And, alms and indulgences exist to this day, this was what they claimed needed to be reformed. Let me suggest it was the devil's son who obligingly attempted to forcibly overthrow the God's house, the Catholic Church.
 

pilgrim

Well-known member
And, alms and indulgences exist to this day, this was what they claimed needed to be reformed. Let me suggest it was the devil's son who obligingly attempted to forcibly overthrow the God's house, the Catholic Church.
Well, what was the fruit of the Reformation, even during Luther's day?

"From the time of the Reformation of the Protestant League, Luther retired gradually from the forefront of the reformation movement. His last years were by no means happy. The Protestant princes confiscated the wealthiest bishoprics and monasteries for their own use, whilst the preachers often suffered the direst want. Irreligion and immorality and vices of all sorts flourished wherever the new gospel gained the ascendancy. 'We experience it daily,' he says in a sermon, 'that the people are seven times worse today than ever before under the Papacy; they are more avaricious, more unchaste, more envious, more intemperate, more dishonest...' He was especially dissatisfied with the state of things in his own Wittenberg. 'Let us get out of this Sodom,' he wrote to his wife in 1545. 'I prefer to wander about homeless, and to beg my bread door to door than to poison my poor last days by the spectacle of all these disorders.'" [Laux, Rev. John, Church History, p. 431]
 

balshan

Well-known member
And, alms and indulgences exist to this day, this was what they claimed needed to be reformed. Let me suggest it was the devil's son who obligingly attempted to forcibly overthrow the God's house, the Catholic Church.
Let me suggest it was a greedy pope, who was misappropriate the institution's money and needed to raise more that is the devil's son who was leading the institution down a false path. Your institution is not and NEVER has been God's house. The evidence is found in the fruit of its leaders. All true believers give charities. But in Luther's day the indulgences were not the same as today and that gives a false impression. They were a burden, they are a lie. You cannot free souls from a non existent place by giving money to your institution.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Well, what was the fruit of the Reformation, even during Luther's day?

"From the time of the Reformation of the Protestant League, Luther retired gradually from the forefront of the reformation movement. His last years were by no means happy. The Protestant princes confiscated the wealthiest bishoprics and monasteries for their own use, whilst the preachers often suffered the direst want. Irreligion and immorality and vices of all sorts flourished wherever the new gospel gained the ascendancy. 'We experience it daily,' he says in a sermon, 'that the people are seven times worse today than ever before under the Papacy; they are more avaricious, more unchaste, more envious, more intemperate, more dishonest...' He was especially dissatisfied with the state of things in his own Wittenberg. 'Let us get out of this Sodom,' he wrote to his wife in 1545. 'I prefer to wander about homeless, and to beg my bread door to door than to poison my poor last days by the spectacle of all these disorders.'" [Laux, Rev. John, Church History, p. 431]
Oh every generation laments the past and thinks the younger generation is worse. Nothing new under the sun. Your institution just grows worse fruit throughout the centuries. You cannot blame Luther for the evil fruit that was in your institution. RCs ignore the evil in their institution, why is that? They blame everyone else except themselves for what happens. That is a sign of a narcassist, your institution shows them all:

playing the victim, blame shifting, the pity party, debating sematics instead of the topic.
 
Last edited:

pilgrim

Well-known member
Oh every generation laments the past and thinks the younger generation is worse. Nothing new under the sun. Your institution just grows worse fruit throughout the centuries. You cannot blame Luther for the evil fruit that was in your institution. RCs ignore the evil in their institution, why is that? They blame everyone else except themselves for what happens. That is a sign of a narcassist, your institution shows them all:

playing the victim, blame shifting, the pity party, debating sematics instead of the topic.
I see. So, the "bad fruits" only apply to one side. If applied to the other side it is called "playing the victim, blame shifting, etc."

Got it.
 

CharismaticLady

Well-known member
"Mary" Luther? 🤣 (I know, it's a typo. But it is hilarious..)

No, there was quite a history of people wanting to reform the RCC. The problem is how the RCC dealt with them...

from "Proto-Protestants" in Wikipedia:
Peter Waldo and the Waldensians
By 1215, the Waldensians were declared heretical and subject to persecution.

Jan Hus and the Hussites
He was burned at the stake as a heretic in 1415. After his execution, a revolt erupted. Hussites defeated five continuous crusades proclaimed against them by the Pope.

John Wycliffe and the Lollards
The Council of Constance declared Wycliffe a heretic on 4 May 1415, and banned his writings, effectively excommunicating him retroactively. [rr- as well as burning his bones posthumously.]

——————————————————
Not to mention the Counter-Reformation. Which was not reforming, but solidifying Rome's attitude against reform.

So you are saying that "If the Reformation had never happened, the Roman Catholic Church would have 'cleaned up it's act' of it's own initiative"?

I still got that second bridge in NYC for sale, and it's even closer to St. Pat's than the first!

It seems the RCC has lost its power to get away with murder now. Of course, John Calvin also got away with murder.
 
Top