-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Roman Catholicism , cult or not?
- Thread starter shannonL
- Start date
In 1517 Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Castle Church.
In 1521 he was "outlawed" (excommunicated" and exiled to Warburg.
In 1522 he returned to Wittneburg.
In 1525 he married Katharina von Bora.
In 1534 he published the complete Bible in German.
In 1546 he (February 18) Died in Eisleben.
Was Luther a Catholic? History says no. Why?
2 Corinthians 5:16-17 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.
17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
We don't judge a man after the flesh. And in this case neither does history. Both Christianty and history judge Luther after he put his faith in Christ for that is when he accomplished his work, and that is when he put his stamp on this world. He is not known as a Catholic, but as a reformer, and as a Protestant. His work as a reformer (trying to reform the Catholic Church from within failed). He was a Protestant and continued to protest against the evils of the Catholic Church. For their corruption--both immoral and doctrinal--he was excommunicated. He did not remain a Catholic til the end of his days. How could he? He was excommunicated. His followers followed him and were called Lutherans (even if he didn't like the term). That Anabaptists didn't like the term "Anabaptists" either. History does not look upon Luther as a Catholic. To say so is ludicrous, though Catholicism may have been in his background.
DHK
But were the bulk of the European population illiterate. I know that is what you were referring to. That is what I was questioning. If that were true, why would Tyndale make the statement that he did? Why were there so many itinerant preachers with no formal education? God saved them. They were called to preach. And so they did. It doesn't sound like they lived in an illiterate age, if there was one. God has always preserved his Word. And it hasn't been preserved through the Catholic Church. You intimate that it has. That is an arrogant statement. Your assumption seems to be that all outside the Catholic leaders were illiterate. This is not true. In fact many of the common people could read and write. Copies of the Bible were scarce because of the Catholic Church, but not impossible for some to lay their hands on.
DHK
OK, let's break this down:-
DHK, I do indeed think that most of Europe outside the ruling classes was illiterate into pretty late in the Middle Ages. Part of the problem in the skill of reading spreading was the sheer number of dialects. Take England for example: a Yorkshireman was virtually unintelligible to a Cornishman and someone from Norwich could not readily verbally communicate with someone from Chester. The effect can be felt when we try to read one of the first examples of written English from the 14th century:
"Efter haly kirces state, Yis ilke bok it es translate" (from Gloucester)
and
""Yis manere was moche y-used tofore ye furste moreyn and ys seth the somdel ychaunged" (from Cornwall)
Now what do those mean?
These differences meant that there was little point in writing anything in English down as few people, even if they could have read it, would have understood it unless it was in ther local dialect. This made Latin and to a lesser extent Norman-French the linguae francae of the Church and the State respectively. So not only the Bible but in fact nothing was written in English, the language(s) of the common man, prior to the 14th century
What changed things were three factors:
1. The Black Death and subsequent population loss, leading to a decline in French and Latin and a far greater standardisation of English; it is no coincidence that those earliest English MSS quoted from above date from the 14th century.
2. The advent of the printing press from 1476 in England. This meant that only could things be written in English but they could be mass-produced in English, leading to greater standardisation of the language and a greater interest in learning to read.
3. The rise and rise of the 'middle class': the merchants, the traders, the shopkeepers, the skilled craftsmen. Nearly all of these were in trade guilds and their business was transacted in English and written down in English. It was these 'middling sort', numerous by Tyndale's time, who were the avid recipients of his Bible.
Similar linguistic pathologies can be found all over Europe...
Generally considered to be false by whom? Given that one third of the world's population is Catholic and, of the remaining two thirds, the vast majority of those with any religious belief and indeed those with none at all think the same about Catholics as they do any other Christian denomination, I think one is hard-pressed to show that that the 'consideration' is 'general' or any different from any other Christian group ie: the 2 billion Catholics don't consider it false, atheists are indifferent and whilst Hindus, Muslims and the rest may think it's false, they think that of all the Protestant groups too.
I led a pretty conventional life when I was growing up in the Catholic Church. We lived in a house, watched TV, went on holiday, I went to school, we wore normal clothes, ate normal food etc. Same goes for all the other Catholic families we knew.
Charismatic?! "Kettle, I have the pot calling you on line 3!" : what about the Protestant TV evangelists and some of the many evangelical preachers I've come across? Anyway, some Popes (if that's who you mean) have charisma, like JP2; others like Ben16 and Paul6 don't. The authority bit is technically collectively wielded by the Bishops who constitute the teaching Magisterium; then again, Jesus didn't establish a democracy and the terms 'authoritarian' (ask a demon or a pharisee) and 'charismatic' might equally be applied to Him...
Yes. And? All Christian groups have that. Nothing sinister in that particular meaning.
Ditto.
Yes, but what does that have to do with the Catholic Church; this definition can be more appropriately applied to the likes of Benny Hinn and Co.
You mean Christians being devoted to Jesus?!
DHK, I do indeed think that most of Europe outside the ruling classes was illiterate into pretty late in the Middle Ages. Part of the problem in the skill of reading spreading was the sheer number of dialects. Take England for example: a Yorkshireman was virtually unintelligible to a Cornishman and someone from Norwich could not readily verbally communicate with someone from Chester. The effect can be felt when we try to read one of the first examples of written English from the 14th century:
"Efter haly kirces state, Yis ilke bok it es translate" (from Gloucester)
and
""Yis manere was moche y-used tofore ye furste moreyn and ys seth the somdel ychaunged" (from Cornwall)
Now what do those mean?
These differences meant that there was little point in writing anything in English down as few people, even if they could have read it, would have understood it unless it was in ther local dialect. This made Latin and to a lesser extent Norman-French the linguae francae of the Church and the State respectively. So not only the Bible but in fact nothing was written in English, the language(s) of the common man, prior to the 14th century
What changed things were three factors:
1. The Black Death and subsequent population loss, leading to a decline in French and Latin and a far greater standardisation of English; it is no coincidence that those earliest English MSS quoted from above date from the 14th century.
2. The advent of the printing press from 1476 in England. This meant that only could things be written in English but they could be mass-produced in English, leading to greater standardisation of the language and a greater interest in learning to read.
3. The rise and rise of the 'middle class': the merchants, the traders, the shopkeepers, the skilled craftsmen. Nearly all of these were in trade guilds and their business was transacted in English and written down in English. It was these 'middling sort', numerous by Tyndale's time, who were the avid recipients of his Bible.
Similar linguistic pathologies can be found all over Europe...
Matt,
Perhaps we are talking about slightly different time periods. The one single event that changed the world was the invention of the printing press in 1476. With that written materials could be mass produced, and bound in such a way that could be easily distributed. Around the same time English started to become more standardized.
As more books and materials were produced, the desrire to read became greater, and the literacy rate grew.
English itself, compared with other languages, is not very old. It is a germanic language, evolving from a number of different sources. Modern English is said to have begun from 1485 onward. Middle English was before that time. Old English (almost unreadable [to modern readers] and basically germanic in nature) was from 500 to 1100. Most literature was written in Latin at that time.
But we were talking of the Roman Catholic Church in general. Luther translated his Bible into German. He did it for the common person. As many that could read and that had access to it would have been able to read it. The RCC denied that access to as many as possible. That was always their goal.
It was their goal with the Latin Vulgate even during the years when the Latin Vulgate was the lingue franca. It still is today. The aim of the RCC is to keep the Bible out of the hands of the common person. Since that is virtually impossible today the goal is accomplished by stating that even if the Bible is read by RCC adherents it must not be interpreted by them. The only acceptable interpretation must come from the magesterium (the priest giving it).
DHK
Perhaps we are talking about slightly different time periods. The one single event that changed the world was the invention of the printing press in 1476. With that written materials could be mass produced, and bound in such a way that could be easily distributed. Around the same time English started to become more standardized.
As more books and materials were produced, the desrire to read became greater, and the literacy rate grew.
English itself, compared with other languages, is not very old. It is a germanic language, evolving from a number of different sources. Modern English is said to have begun from 1485 onward. Middle English was before that time. Old English (almost unreadable [to modern readers] and basically germanic in nature) was from 500 to 1100. Most literature was written in Latin at that time.
But we were talking of the Roman Catholic Church in general. Luther translated his Bible into German. He did it for the common person. As many that could read and that had access to it would have been able to read it. The RCC denied that access to as many as possible. That was always their goal.
It was their goal with the Latin Vulgate even during the years when the Latin Vulgate was the lingue franca. It still is today. The aim of the RCC is to keep the Bible out of the hands of the common person. Since that is virtually impossible today the goal is accomplished by stating that even if the Bible is read by RCC adherents it must not be interpreted by them. The only acceptable interpretation must come from the magesterium (the priest giving it).
DHK
tragic_pizza
New Member
You know, DHK, in practice there are not a few Protestant churches who feel that way about their preachers...
tragic_pizza
New Member
I know what you mean. Some people just like to be spoon fed without doing any study for themselves. But it still remains our obligation to study to show ourselves approved unto God, rightly dividing the word of truth. </font>[/QUOTE]Well said.
DHK, I agree.
It is the important point to remember, I believe.
Does Magesterium mean pulpit?
In RC the Pulpit is mono-occupied by the priests( so-called clergy), while Bible says every born again believers are Priests ( 1 Pet 2:5-9) and the Pulpit (1 Cor 14:28-30)
...but wait on, the Roman Catholic Church has at its head Jesus Christ, the Pope being His vicar on Earth. Okay I put up my hand I follow My Lord the Risen Lord....I am a cult member, I believe that our Saviour can cause miracles to occur ( I need only to look at my sinful life in being redeemed by Him and yes the ritual is an establishment of the New Covenant on the remains of the Old.
.....I should get a badge saying I am a cultist...no need, my rosary in my pocket is sufficient, my Bible and my daily Missal by the bed .....
I am of Cephas; I am of Paul; I am of Apollo....
Re: salvation of the soul. It matters not to what church we belong--Jesus said we must be born again to get into the kingdom of God. See John 3:1-10.
We could join every church in the world and still go to hell.
We cannot be saved by good works. See Eph. 2:8-10.
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
Now what?
Selah,
Bro. James
Re: salvation of the soul. It matters not to what church we belong--Jesus said we must be born again to get into the kingdom of God. See John 3:1-10.
We could join every church in the world and still go to hell.
We cannot be saved by good works. See Eph. 2:8-10.
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
Now what?
Selah,
Bro. James
tragic_pizza
New Member
So you're agreeing that a Catholic and a Baptist are equally saved, and on the same terms? Good.
Er...I think that's what I said...
Agreed.
Agreed therefore if we are talking the period 1445 (printing press) to 1536ff(Tyndale's martyrdom); the Catholic Church did try to restrict the circulation of Bibles, not though because they feared men might get saved by reading the Bible in their own language but because they feared the fragmentation of Christ's Church into factions as a result of sola Scriptura. That is of course unfortunately exactly what happened and is still the shame of the Church today (Christ is divided), so I can see their point...
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
The RCC is the source of all the major splits in Christendom in history as well as the infamous Catholic works of "extermination" made sacrosanct in her Canon Law - the Lateran IV edicts come to mind.
WERE such a system of gross error to "appear" today - praying to it's dead, claiming to convert food into God, inventing its own form of "purgatory", it's leader to be kissed and held as infallible etc -- EVEN the RCC would condemn it as a cult!!
But as it is - we have "the falling away" predicted in 2Thess 2 regarding teh Christian church in the dark ages - the RCC being the result and the true Christian faith painfully extracting itself from the bog of error the RCC created.
Still - the point that there are saved Christians in that system remains true -
In Christ,
Bob
WERE such a system of gross error to "appear" today - praying to it's dead, claiming to convert food into God, inventing its own form of "purgatory", it's leader to be kissed and held as infallible etc -- EVEN the RCC would condemn it as a cult!!
But as it is - we have "the falling away" predicted in 2Thess 2 regarding teh Christian church in the dark ages - the RCC being the result and the true Christian faith painfully extracting itself from the bog of error the RCC created.
Still - the point that there are saved Christians in that system remains true -
In Christ,
Bob
Sorry Bro James, the point is.....?
Yes I am born anew by my Baptism
Yes I can go to Hell if I lead a sinful life and not put my littleness and trust in God
Good works alone will not save me
Faith comes through a grace from God to believe in Him through hearing Him through the Word of God .....
Amen
Yes I am born anew by my Baptism
Yes I can go to Hell if I lead a sinful life and not put my littleness and trust in God
Good works alone will not save me
Faith comes through a grace from God to believe in Him through hearing Him through the Word of God .....
Amen
This is a big misunderstanding by Roman Catholics.
Even though you dive into swiming pool every morning shouting " in the name of Father, of Son, of Holy Spirit" thousand times, you will not be born again unless you were born again by Holy Spirit.
Being Born Again is not taking a pill.
Even though you have been baptized thousand times, if there is no spiritual change in your heart, you are not saved.
This is one of 2 big and critical misunderstandings by RC.
The other big misunderstanding is that RC interprets John 6 about eating Flesh and drinking Blood as partaking Eucharist.
John 6 is talking about Salvation, Spiritual Conversion, Being Born Again. Jesus Christ is mentioning Spiritual aspects saying" flesh profits nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" Jn6:63
He that believeth on me hath everlasting life (Jn6:47)
That is a big, big, and ridiculous misunderstanding. The tragedy is that they do not understand what kind of misunderstaning they conceive and carry. They regards such physical work as a Salvation, then pursue another Works!
This is how RC misses Salvation throughout life time. How miserable they are ! Because they are told that they are going to the Purgatory.
They are worse than the Robber at the Cross who could go to the Paradise directly !
How on earth do you make that out. There were no splits in the Western Church until Protestantism came along and when it did, the split was within and between the Protestant denominations which resulted. Nothing to do with the Catholic Church at all.
I realise I've neglected to translate the two 14th century quotes:
So there you have it! (Did anyone get them?)
="After the manner of the Holy Church, this book is translated into the common (tongue)"
="This manner was much-used before the first plague and is now much changed" (commenting on the change in English during the century concerned)
So there you have it! (Did anyone get them?)
This is a big misunderstanding by Roman Catholics.
Even though you dive into swiming pool every morning shouting " in the name of Father, of Son, of Holy Spirit" thousand times, you will not be born again unless you were born again by Holy Spirit.
Being Born Again is not taking a pill.
Even though you have been baptized thousand times, if there is no spiritual change in your heart, you are not saved.
That is very presumptive of you, Eliyahu to think you can judge my heart and soul. I know my baptism has stamped me indelibly as a child of the Risen Lord.....
I will not engage you in conversation about the Holy Eucharist because it is a deeply spiritual experience....how do you describe colour to one who has never seen?
Even though you dive into swiming pool every morning shouting " in the name of Father, of Son, of Holy Spirit" thousand times, you will not be born again unless you were born again by Holy Spirit.
Being Born Again is not taking a pill.
Even though you have been baptized thousand times, if there is no spiritual change in your heart, you are not saved.
That is very presumptive of you, Eliyahu to think you can judge my heart and soul. I know my baptism has stamped me indelibly as a child of the Risen Lord.....
I will not engage you in conversation about the Holy Eucharist because it is a deeply spiritual experience....how do you describe colour to one who has never seen?
I Am Blessed 24
Active Member
Could someone please explain to me how infant baptism makes one a child of the King when an infant is not aware enough to make a spiritual decision?
I know personally that the RCC believes infant Baptism will keep one out of hell - I just don't understand their reasoning.
I was baptized in a RCC church as an infant and was still headed straight for hell until I reached the point where I knew I was a sinner and ask Jesus to forgive me and be my Lord and Savior.
I know personally that the RCC believes infant Baptism will keep one out of hell - I just don't understand their reasoning.
I was baptized in a RCC church as an infant and was still headed straight for hell until I reached the point where I knew I was a sinner and ask Jesus to forgive me and be my Lord and Savior.