Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[The Rich Port]

No, this is just your "the church is infallible; conform or die" side showing.

Except we're not saying "conform or die".

We're saying that we hold certain things true, and other things to be untrue. Which is the basic of the basic of holding any kind of belief.

Yeah, funny thing about theology is that everybody kinda has a right to believe whatever they want and it's just as valid as what you believe unless you have some hard evidence... Which theology never really has.

[Tarsonis]

Except we're not saying "conform or die".

We're saying that we hold certain things true, and other things to be untrue. Which is the basic of the basic of holding any kind of belief.

Yeah, funny thing about theology is that everybody kinda has a right to believe whatever they want and it's just as valid as what you believe unless you have some hard evidence... Which theology never really has.

Nobody cares dude

[Salus Maior]

Except we're not saying "conform or die".

We're saying that we hold certain things true, and other things to be untrue. Which is the basic of the basic of holding any kind of belief.

Yeah, funny thing about theology is that everybody kinda has a right to believe whatever they want and it's just as valid as what you believe unless you have some hard evidence... Which theology never really has.

Yes, that's true that everyone has the legal right to believe whatever.

We still believe that there are correct and incorrect things to believe while being a Christian, based on scripture, tradition, and precedent.

You don't have to like it, but we're not really going to care either way.

[Lost Memories]

With the historical understanding of the context in which the reformation too place, it's striking that the attitude of the protestant reformers, relied mainly on two points:
there are many others aware of the issues in the clergy hierarcy, who are thinking, proposing, and trying solutions:
1) but i alone have the correct final solution for it
2) i am so right, and my solution is so great, that anyone should just grovel at my feet in awe, if they don't, they are even more evil than expected

Which is both very obtuse and egoistical, or self-absorbed.

More intelligent scholars of that same time:
1) had the understanding that the abuses coming from the clergy having also temporal powers, was a big issue to deal with, tracing back centuries to the time the church was left alone to manage territories where the roman institutions had evaporated, and that no one could claim alone to solve it all
2) even when they proposed their own version of a solution, they didn't get uppity when it was discarted as not appropriate

3) the ones who at the time were informed on history, or those who just had an administrative role over communities, were also aware that it wasn't really possible to remove the temporal power from the church, so long most of the secular powers were still inferior to the ancient romans in culture of management (culture which the church had retained across history), just look at how justice most often worked in secular "courts", germany and the northern kingdoms/dukedoms were especially bad at it.
There started to be some improvement in culture of management/government only after feudalism got gradually supplanted by non-hereditary city systems.

[The Archregimancy]

Orthodox definition;conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved

Orthodox, in the religious sense at least, means true teaching. Heresy in contravention to Orthodoxy, is false teaching.

How very true; what a pleasing statement.

Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen. Your Catholic skills are no match for the power of the Orthodox side.

I want you to know that there is always a place for you with me. Once your training is complete, of course.




I think you'll also find that the deflector shield is still operational.

[Bienenhalde]

Because the pope tried to force Luther to repudiate some of his core theological criticisms of late medieval Catholicism? Because Luther was wrongly denounced as a heretic simply for opposing dubious theological innovations on the part of the Vatican?

Propaganda is propaganda no matter how many times you repeat it.

Well, I could say the same thing to you. You haven't actually cited what Luther taught that could be considered heretical, though.

[Diopolis]

Propaganda is propaganda no matter how many times you repeat it.

Well, I could say the same thing to you. You haven't actually cited what Luther taught that could be considered heretical, though.

Salvation through faith alone, throwing out seven books of the bible, no prayers for the dead, marriage and holy orders not sacraments, shall I keep going?

[Bienenhalde]

Well, I could say the same thing to you. You haven't actually cited what Luther taught that could be considered heretical, though.

Salvation through faith alone, throwing out seven books of the bible, no prayers for the dead, marriage and holy orders not sacraments, shall I keep going?

Luther did not deny that good works are good or necessary. What he taught was that good works are the results of God's grace, and that there can that humans can not do truly good works on their own without God.

[Lost Memories]

Propaganda is propaganda no matter how many times you repeat it.

Well, I could say the same thing to you. You haven't actually cited what Luther taught that could be considered heretical, though.

On 15 June 1520, the pope warned Luther with the papal bull Exsurge Domine that he risked excommunication unless he recanted 41 sentences drawn from his writings, including the Ninety-five Theses, within 60 days.

Exsurge Domine (Latin for 'Arise, O Lord') is a papal bull promulgated on 15 June 1520 by Pope Leo X. It was written in response to the teachings of Martin Luther which opposed the views of the Church. It censured forty-one propositions extracted from Luther's Ninety-five Theses and subsequent writings, and threatened him with excommunication unless he recanted within a sixty-day period commencing upon the publication of the bull in Saxony and its neighboring regions. Luther refused to recant and responded instead by composing polemical tracts lashing out at the papacy and by publicly burning a copy of the bull on 10 December 1520. As a result, Luther was excommunicated in 1521.

History
Beginning in January 1520, a papal consistory was summoned to examine Luther's fidelity to Catholic teachings. After a short time, it produced a hasty list of several perceived errors found in his writings, but Curial officials believed that a more thorough consideration was warranted. The committee was reorganized and subsequently produced a report determining that only a few of Luther's teachings could potentially be deemed heretical or erroneous from the standpoint of Catholic theology. His other teachings perceived as problematic were deemed to warrant lesser degrees of theological censure, including the designations "scandalous" or "offensive to pious ears".

Johann Eck subsequently became involved in these proceedings. He had personally confronted Luther a year earlier in the Leipzig disputation and had obtained copies of condemnations issued against Luther by the universities of Cologne and Leuven.
Soon after having joined the committee when it was already halfway through its deliberations, he began to exert his considerable influence on the direction it subsequently took.

The committee on which Eck sat consisted of some forty members, including cardinals (among whom was Cardinal Cajetan), theologians and canon lawyers. The heads of the three major mendicant orders, the Dominicans, Franciscans and Augustinians, were represented.
Some members argued that Luther's popular support in Germany made it too politically risky to issue a bull at that time. The theologians supported an immediate condemnation of Luther. But the canon lawyers advocated a mediating position: Luther should be given a hearing and a chance to defend himself before being excommunicated as a heretic. Ultimately the committee negotiated a compromise. Luther would be given no hearing, but he would be offered a sixty-day window in which to repent before further action would be taken.

Prior to Eck's involvement, Cajetan had expressed his desire that the committee members examine the whole context of Luther's writings and specify careful distinctions among the various degrees of censure to be applied to Luther's teachings. Eck's approach was markedly different. He bulldozed a final decision through the committee to ensure a speedy publication.
As a result, the text it ultimately drafted simply contained a list of various statements by Luther perceived as problematic. No attempt was made to provide specific responses to Luther's propositions based upon Scripture or Catholic tradition or any clarification of what degree of theological censure should be associated with each proposition listed.
All quoted statements were to be condemned as a whole (in globo) as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears, or seductive of simple minds.
However, this in globo formula for censure had already been employed by the earlier Council of Constance to condemn various propositions extracted from the writings of Jan Hus.

When the committee members had obtained agreement among themselves regarding the selection of forty-one propositions which they deemed to be problematic, they subsequently submitted their draft text to Leo X. He appended a preface and conclusion and issued the document as an official papal bull on 15 June 1520.

Copies were printed, notarized, sealed and distributed to specially appointed papal nuncios who were tasked with disseminating the bull, especially in those regions where Luther's followers were most active, and ensuring that its instructions were carried out.

Original latin text of the bull of 1520
One english translation of the bull

Notably, some historians seem to support the idea that it was that papal bull to actually give Luther much more visibility and prestige, and to basically just neatly listing some of the major points of Luther in a simple and concise list, which was more helpful to the newly forming protestants, than it was to actually fight them off.
Ultimately the bull of 1520 was just a statement of condemnation, but not a scholastic reaffirmation of orthodox belief (which orthodoxy maybe was taken for granted, given the bull was supposed to be entrusted to high ranking church officials, for them to act on).

Modern reactions
Not only does the text fail to identify precisely how each proposition is censured, but also it avoids direct engagement with numerous issues that are central to Luther's theology including Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. In part, this evasion was simply an unavoidable consequence of the fact that Luther did not fully articulate his mature theological position until some time after this bull had been issued.

That english translation seems to leave out some parts, by a quick comparison with the (supposedly) original latin.
Well, this is what is available. Being careful with historical texts, and not assuming to understand all of them without their context, never hurts regardless.

Exsurge Domine
Condemning the Errors of Martin Luther
Pope Leo X - 1520

[...]
We beseech you also, Paul, to arise. It was you that enlightened and illuminated the Church by your doctrine and by a martyrdom like Peter’s. For now a new Porphyry rises who, as the old once wrongfully assailed the holy apostles, now assails the holy pontiffs, our predecessors.

Rebuking them, in violation of your teaching, instead of imploring them, he is not ashamed to assail them, to tear at them, and when he despairs of his cause, to stoop to insults. He is like the heretics “whose last defense,” as Jerome says, “is to start spewing out a serpent’s venom with their tongue when they see that their causes are about to be condemned, and spring to insults when they see they are vanquished.” For although you have said that there must be heresies to test the faithful, still they must be destroyed at their very birth by your intercession and help, so they do not grow or wax strong like your wolves.
Finally, let the whole church of the saints and the rest of the universal church arise. Some, putting aside her true interpretation of Sacred Scripture, are blinded in mind by the father of lies. Wise in their own eyes, according to the ancient practice of heretics, they interpret these same Scriptures otherwise than the Holy Spirit demands, inspired only by their own sense of ambition, and for the sake of popular acclaim, as the Apostle declares. In fact, they twist and adulterate the Scriptures. As a result, according to Jerome, “It is no longer the Gospel of Christ, but a man’s, or what is worse, the devil’s.”

[...]
For we can scarcely express, from distress and grief of mind, what has reached our ears for some time by the report of reliable men and general rumor; alas, we have even seen with our eyes and read the many diverse errors. Some of these have already been condemned by councils and the constitutions of our predecessors, and expressly contain even the heresy of the Greeks and Bohemians.
Other errors are either heretical, false, scandalous, or offensive to pious ears, as seductive of simple minds, originating with false exponents of the faith who in their proud curiosity yearn for the world’s glory, and contrary to the Apostle’s teaching, wish to be wiser than they should be. Their talkativeness, unsupported by the authority of the Scriptures, as Jerome says, would not win credence unless they appeared to support their perverse doctrine even with divine testimonies however badly interpreted. From their sight fear of God has now passed.

These errors have, at the suggestion of the human race, been revived and recently propagated among the more frivolous and the illustrious German nation. We grieve the more that this happened there because we and our predecessors have always held this nation in the bosom of our affection. For after the empire had been transferred by the Roman Church from the Greeks to these same Germans, our predecessors and we always took the Church’s advocates and defenders from among them.
Indeed it is certain that these Germans, truly germane to the Catholic faith, have always been the bitterest opponents of heresies, as witnessed by those commendable constitutions of the German emperors in behalf of the Church’s independence, freedom, and the expulsion and extermination of all heretics from Germany.
Those constitutions formerly issued, and then confirmed by our predecessors, were issued under the greatest penalties even of loss of lands and dominions against anyone sheltering or not expelling them. If they were observed today both we and they would obviously be free of this disturbance.
Witness to this is the condemnation and punishment in the Council of Constance of the infidelity of the Hussites and Wyclifites as well as Jerome of Prague. Witness to this is the blood of Germans shed so often in wars against the Bohemians. A final witness is the refutation, rejection, and condemnation no less learned than true and holy of the above errors, or many of them, by the universities of Cologne and Louvain, most devoted and religious cultivators of the Lord’s field. We could allege many other facts too, which we have decided to omit, lest we appear to be composing a history.

In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:

List of the 41 statements which were condemned in the papal bull of 1520:

1. It is a heretical opinion, but a common one, that the sacraments of the New Law give pardoning grace to those who do not set up an obstacle.

2. To deny that in a child after baptism sin remains is to treat with contempt both Paul and Christ.

3. The inflammable sources of sin, even if there be no actual sin, delay a soul departing from the body from entrance into heaven.

4. To one on the point of death imperfect charity necessarily brings with it great fear, which in itself alone is enough to produce the punishment of purgatory, and impedes entrance into the kingdom.

5. That there are three parts to penance: contrition, confession, and satisfaction, has no foundation in Sacred Scripture nor in the ancient sacred Christian doctors.

6. Contrition, which is acquired through discussion, collection, and detestation of sins, by which one reflects upon his years in the bitterness of his soul, by pondering over the gravity of sins, their number, their baseness, the loss of eternal beatitude, and the acquisition of eternal damnation, this contrition makes him a hypocrite, indeed more a sinner.

7. It is a most truthful proverb and the doctrine concerning the contritions given thus far is the more remarkable: “Not to do so in the future is the highest penance; the best penance, a new life.”

8. By no means may you presume to confess venial sins, nor even all mortal sins, because it is impossible that you know all mortal sins. Hence in the primitive Church only manifest mortal sins were confessed.

9. As long as we wish to confess all sins without exception, we are doing nothing else than to wish to leave nothing to God’s mercy for pardon.

10. Sins are not forgiven to anyone, unless when the priest forgives them he believes they are forgiven; on the contrary the sin would remain unless he believed it was forgiven; for indeed the remission of sin and the granting of grace does not suffice, but it is necessary also to believe that there has been forgiveness.

11. By no means can you have reassurance of being absolved because of your contrition, but because of the word of Christ: “Whatsoever you shall loose, etc.” Hence, I say, trust confidently, if you have obtained the absolution of the priest, and firmly believe yourself to have been absolved, and you will truly be absolved, whatever there may be of contrition.

12. If through an impossibility he who confessed was not contrite, or the priest did not absolve seriously, but in a jocose manner, if nevertheless he believes that he has been absolved, he is most truly absolved.

13. In the sacrament of penance and the remission of sin the pope or the bishop does no more than the lowest priest; indeed, where there is no priest, any Christian, even if a woman or child, may equally do as much.

14. No one ought to answer a priest that he is contrite, nor should the priest inquire.

15. Great is the error of those who approach the sacrament of the Eucharist relying on this, that they have confessed, that they are not conscious of any mortal sin, that they have sent their prayers on ahead and made preparations; all these eat and drink judgment to themselves. But if they believe and trust that they will attain grace, then this faith alone makes them pure and worthy.

16. It seems to have been decided that the Church in common Council established that the laity should communicate under both species; the Bohemians who communicate under both species are not heretics, but schismatics.

17. The treasures of the Church, from which the pope grants indulgences, are not the merits of Christ and of the saints.

18. Indulgences are pious frauds of the faithful, and remissions of good works; and they are among the number of those things which are allowed, and not of the number of those which are advantageous.

19. Indulgences are of no avail to those who truly gain them, for the remission of the penalty due to actual sin in the sight of divine justice.

20. They are seduced who believe that indulgences are salutary and useful for the fruit of the spirit.

21. Indulgences are necessary only for public crimes, and are properly conceded only to the harsh and impatient.

22. For six kinds of men indulgences are neither necessary nor useful; namely, for the dead and those about to die, the infirm, those legitimately hindered, and those who have not committed crimes, and those who have committed crimes, but not public ones, and those who devote themselves to better things.

23. Excommunications are only external penalties and they do not deprive man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church.

24. Christians must be taught to cherish excommunications rather than to fear them.

25. The Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, is not the vicar of Christ over all the churches of the entire world, instituted by Christ Himself in blessed Peter.

26. The word of Christ to Peter: “Whatsoever you shall loose on earth,” etc., is extended merely to those things bound by Peter himself.

27. It is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or the pope to decide upon the articles of faith, and much less concerning the laws for morals or for good works.

28. If the pope with a great part of the Church thought so and so, he would not err; still it is not a sin or heresy to think the contrary, especially in a matter not necessary for salvation, until one alternative is condemned and another approved by a general Council.

29. A way has been made for us for weakening the authority of councils, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved or disapproved by any council whatsoever.

30. Some articles of John Hus, condemned in the Council of Constance, are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn.

31. In every good work the just man sins.

32. A good work done very well is a venial sin.

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

34. To go to war against the Turks is to resist God who punishes our iniquities through them.

35. No one is certain that he is not always sinning mortally, because of the most hidden vice of pride.

36. Free will after sin is a matter of title only; and as long as one does what is in him, one sins mortally.

37. Purgatory cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture which is in the canon.

38. The souls in purgatory are not sure of their salvation, at least not all; nor is it proved by any arguments or by the Scriptures that they are beyond the state of meriting or of increasing in charity.

39. The souls in purgatory sin without intermission, as long as they seek rest and abhor punishment.

40. The souls freed from purgatory by the suffrages of the living are less happy than if they had made satisfactions by themselves.

41. Ecclesiastical prelates and secular princes would not act badly if they destroyed all of the money bags of beggary.

No one of sound mind is ignorant how destructive, pernicious, scandalous, and seductive to pious and simple minds these various errors are, how opposed they are to all charity and reverence for the holy Roman Church who is the mother of all the faithful and teacher of the faith; how destructive they are of the vigor of ecclesiastical discipline, namely obedience. This virtue is the font and origin of all virtues and without it anyone is readily convicted of being unfaithful.

[...]
We have found that these errors or theses are not Catholic, as mentioned above, and are not to be taught, as such; but rather are against the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church, and against the true interpretation of the sacred Scriptures received from the Church. Now Augustine maintained that her authority had to be accepted so completely that he stated he would not have believed the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church had vouched for it.
For, according to these errors, or any one or several of them, it clearly follows that the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit is in error and has always erred. This is against what Christ at his ascension promised to his disciples (as is read in the holy Gospel of Matthew): “I will be with you to the consummation of the world”; it is against the determinations of the holy Fathers, or the express ordinances and canons of the councils and the supreme pontiffs. Failure to comply with these canons, according to the testimony of Cyprian, will be the fuel and cause of all heresy and schism.

[...]
Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected.
We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them. They will incur these penalties if they presume to uphold them in any way, personally or through another or others, directly or indirectly, tacitly or explicitly, publicly or occultly, either in their own homes or in other public or private places. Indeed immediately after the publication of this letter these works, wherever they may be, shall be sought out carefully by the ordinaries and others [ecclesiastics and regulars], and under each and every one of the above penalties shall be burned publicly and solemnly in the presence of the clerics and people.

As far as Martin himself is concerned, O good God, what have we overlooked or not done? What fatherly charity have we omitted that we might call him back from such errors? For after we had cited him, wishing to deal more kindly with him, we urged him through various conferences with our legate and through our personal letters to abandon these errors. We have even offered him safe conduct and the money necessary for the journey urging him to come without fear or any misgivings, which perfect charity should cast out, and to talk not secretly but openly and face to face after the example of our Savior and the Apostle Paul.
If he had done this, we are certain he would have changed in heart, and he would have recognized his errors.
He would not have found all these errors in the Roman Curia which he attacks so viciously, ascribing to it more than he should because of the empty rumors of wicked men. We would have shown him clearer than the light of day that the Roman pontiffs, our predecessors, whom he injuriously attacks beyond all decency, never erred in their canons or constitutions which he tries to assail.

But he always refused to listen and, despising the previous citation and each and every one of the above overtures, disdained to come.
To the present day he has been contumacious. With a hardened spirit he has continued under censure over a year.
What is worse, adding evil to evil, and on learning of the citation, he broke forth in a rash appeal to a future council. This to be sure was contrary to the constitution of Pius II and Julius II our predecessors that all appealing in this way are to be punished with the penalties of heretics.
In vain does he implore the help of a council, since he openly admits that he does not believe in a council.

Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures.
Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of.
It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church.

Therefore let Martin himself and all those adhering to him, and those who shelter and support him, through the merciful heart of our God and the sprinkling of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ by which and through whom the redemption of the human race and the upbuilding of holy mother Church was accomplished, know that from our heart we exhort and beseech that he cease to disturb the peace, unity, and truth of the Church for which the Savior prayed so earnestly to the Father.
Let him abstain from his pernicious errors that he may come back to us. If they really will obey, and certify to us by legal documents that they have obeyed, they will find in us the affection of a father’s love, the opening of the font of the effects of paternal charity, and opening of the font of mercy and clemency.

We enjoin, however, on Martin that in the meantime he cease from all preaching or the office of preacher.

Johann Eck again, he was an other overly zealous guy who did actually more harm than good, at that time.

[Lord Dominator]

Not sure why we need an argument about Luther (and other Protestants) were heretics by the standards of the Catholic Church - they rather obviously were, and I'm saying that as a Lutheran.

[Sundiata]

Not sure why we need an argument about Luther (and other Protestants) were heretics by the standards of the Catholic Church - they rather obviously were, and I'm saying that as a Lutheran.

Thank you.

[Lost Memories]

@Lord Dominator
Personally, it's more a matter of honest depiction of history. Depiction of history which has been violated and perverted in an huge number of ways by the hands of protestant(of various different origins) propaganda, mainly by the one of british origin, but not solely.

If there would be any talk based on actual sources and grounded on reliable facts, that could be interesting in an historical context point of view.
Since over 500 years have passed since then.
Many other things have happened, many others have changed.
It could be interesting to look back at it, not as an occasion to find new buzzwords and catch phrases, but to see how much things happened about 500 years ago, still hold validity, and which don't anymore. And, given the context, from looking at things inside their context, if there is anything to be learned from what happened.

Then, i would assume much more things have changed for the protestants since then, than they changed for the catholics, but that's just an assumption, which would still be interesting to verify if it's grounded.

[New Visayan Islands]

@Lord Dominator
Personally, it's more a matter of honest depiction of history. Depiction of history which has been violated and perverted in an huge number of ways by the hands of protestant(of various different origins) propaganda, mainly by the one of british origin, but not solely.

Black Legends and all that?

[Tomislavija]

Orthodox definition;conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved

Orthodox, in the religious sense at least, means true teaching. Heresy in contravention to Orthodoxy, is false teaching.

How very true; what a pleasing statement.

Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen. Your Catholic skills are no match for the power of the Orthodox side.

I want you to know that there is always a place for you with me. Once your training is complete, of course.




I think you'll also find that the deflector shield is still operational.

In the Bible it is written, Jesus gave St. Peter his represenation on Earth.

[State of Turelisa]

Romans 8:29-30 is enough to justify Calvinism.

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”

[Lower Nubia]

Romans 8:29-30 is enough to justify Calvinism.

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”

Bold move cotton, let’s see if it pays off.

Edit: Oh, and the answer is no. It does not.

[Luminesa]

Orthodox definition;conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved

Orthodox, in the religious sense at least, means true teaching. Heresy in contravention to Orthodoxy, is false teaching.

How very true; what a pleasing statement.

Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen. Your Catholic skills are no match for the power of the Orthodox side.

I want you to know that there is always a place for you with me. Once your training is complete, of course.




I think you'll also find that the deflector shield is still operational.

Where is my purple light-saber when I need it.

[Luminesa]

Not sure why we need an argument about Luther (and other Protestants) were heretics by the standards of the Catholic Church - they rather obviously were, and I'm saying that as a Lutheran.

I mean there's a reason they were not accepted into Catholic canon, and then a reason why even other Protestants disagreed with Luther as well. Some of what he taught (such as consubstantiation) was liked neither by the Catholic Church nor by other Protestants.

[Lost Memories]

@Lord Dominator
Personally, it's more a matter of honest depiction of history. Depiction of history which has been violated and perverted in an huge number of ways by the hands of protestant(of various different origins) propaganda, mainly by the one of british origin, but not solely.

Black Legends and all that?

That, but not only.

The whole concept of "middle ages" is a political term, it was created for the purpose to tell how good is the present, and how terrible was the past, when at the time the term started to get used "the past" meant "10 years ago".
The term has very little sense to explain history, since that period contains some 1000 years, which can't be lumped together as an amorphous time where everything stayed the same; where the starting point, the middle one, and the latter, were nothing alike. It's also pretty rude to the people who lived in those times to just call their eras as just "the middle era", the name itself only further plays in the game of claiming that nothing of value happened in there, which is false.


Then it becomes almost comical, when after hearing "something bad for which the church is culpable" or "how very regressive they were back then", if you go to read up some of the many sources and summaries we have available now, it most often turns out to be:
1) oh look, that was fabricated, it never happened, it keeps getting repeated in pop culture regardless
2) oh look, the event was taken so much out of context to overturn any possible meaning it originally had

I mean, come on:

[Lord Dominator]

Not sure why we need an argument about Luther (and other Protestants) were heretics by the standards of the Catholic Church - they rather obviously were, and I'm saying that as a Lutheran.

I mean there's a reason they were not accepted into Catholic canon, and then a reason why even other Protestants disagreed with Luther as well. Some of what he taught (such as consubstantiation) was liked neither by the Catholic Church nor by other Protestants.

I think we're really leaning into self-evident points now - should be fairly obvious that if they'd agreed they wouldn't be separate

[Lost Memories]

I mean there's a reason they were not accepted into Catholic canon, and then a reason why even other Protestants disagreed with Luther as well. Some of what he taught (such as consubstantiation) was liked neither by the Catholic Church nor by other Protestants.

I think we're really leaning into self-evident points now - should be fairly obvious that if they'd agreed they wouldn't be separate

It may look self-evident and plain with an outlook where "truth" is just an "opinion". Basically relativism.
But where "truth" isn't an opinion, if many didn't agree over a proposition, maybe that proposition did hold little actual truth into it.

[Bienenhalde]

Black Legends and all that?

That, but not only.

The whole concept of "middle ages" is a political term, it was created for the purpose to tell how good is the present, and how terrible was the past, when at the time the term started to get used "the past" meant "10 years ago".
The term has very little sense to explain history, since that period contains some 1000 years, which can't be lumped together as an amorphous time where everything stayed the same; where the starting point, the middle one, and the latter, were nothing alike. It's also pretty rude to the people who lived in those times to just call their eras as just "the middle era", the name itself only further plays in the game of claiming that nothing of value happened in there, which is false.


Then it becomes almost comical, when after hearing "something bad for which the church is culpable" or "how very regressive they were back then", if you go to read up some of the many sources and summaries we have available now, it most often turns out to be:
1) oh look, that was fabricated, it never happened, it keeps getting repeated in pop culture regardless
2) oh look, the event was taken so much out of context to overturn any possible meaning it originally had

The Renaissance actually happened before the Reformation. Indeed, the Reformation was arguably a reaction against the decadence and corruption of the Renaissance papacy.

[The Rich Port]

Yeah, funny thing about theology is that everybody kinda has a right to believe whatever they want and it's just as valid as what you believe unless you have some hard evidence... Which theology never really has.

Yes, that's true that everyone has the legal right to believe whatever.

We still believe that there are correct and incorrect things to believe while being a Christian, based on scripture, tradition, and precedent.

You don't have to like it, but we're not really going to care either way.

Better not catch you two at the next Angel UFO conference crying about homosexuality or I'm taking pictures.

[Tarsonis]

Yes, that's true that everyone has the legal right to believe whatever.

We still believe that there are correct and incorrect things to believe while being a Christian, based on scripture, tradition, and precedent.

You don't have to like it, but we're not really going to care either way.

Better not catch you two at the next Angel UFO conference crying about homosexuality or I'm taking pictures.

.... wait.... is there actually an Angel UFO conference?

[Lord Dominator]

I think we're really leaning into self-evident points now - should be fairly obvious that if they'd agreed they wouldn't be separate

It may look self-evident and plain with an outlook where "truth" is just an "opinion". Basically relativism.

What? I'm saying that people that if people don't agree on major theological points, it should be fairly self-evident they would split from each other. Not sure where relativism comes in that at all.

But where "truth" isn't an opinion, if many didn't agree over a proposition, maybe that proposition did hold little actual truth into it.

Clearly then Christianity (or if you prefer, religion in general) by that same logic itself doesn't hold truth, since many propositions in it can't be agreed /s