The Apocrypha

[ken_sylvania]

Technically, Luther got himself excommunicated when he publicly declared it unnecessary to salvation to be obedient to the Roman Church and that the pope has no more spiritual authority than any other man. That pretty much would get anyone excommunicated.

It's a sorry state of affairs when stating Bible truth gets a person excommunicated.

As if someone in an Anabaptist community who publicly declared it unnecessary to submit to church authority wouldn’t also find himself under the ban . . .

and burnt too, right?

[ken_sylvania]

I think it is a worthy reminder that many of the allegations against practices of the Catholic Church date to 500 years ago. As noted, the Catholic Church has never sold indulgences. There were rogue individuals who did so without the endorsement nor approval of the Roman Catholic regulations.

The little document called the Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences, published 506 years ago this Tuesday by an Augustinian monk and university professor as an invitation to an academic dispute, certainly assumed it to be common knowledge that indulgences were being sold by representatives of the church. He believed that his position on the sale of indulgences was in agreement with the Pope, stating:

51 Christians are to be taught that the Pope would and should wish [as it is his bounden duty to do] to give of his own money [if there is need], even though he had to sell the basilica of St. Peter, to many of those from whom certain hawkers of indulgences cajole [extort] money.

...yet the Pope "bull"ied and excommunicated him. Mostly because the construction of said basilica was being funded by half the proceeds from the sale.

Technically, Luther got himself excommunicated when he publicly declared it unnecessary to salvation to be obedient to the Roman Church and that the pope has no more spiritual authority than any other man. That pretty much would get anyone excommunicated.

According to the Pope, part of the reason for trying to silence Luther was his preaching that it is against the will of God to burn heretics.

[Falco Knotwise]

It's a sorry state of affairs when stating Bible truth gets a person excommunicated.

As if someone in an Anabaptist community who publicly declared it unnecessary to submit to church authority wouldn’t also find himself under the ban . . .

and burnt too, right?

He’d be excommunicated. The Protestants weren’t necessarily models of non-violence either. It’s a good thing the church is now rid of entanglements with state power. We can all agree on that much. Where we disagree nowadays is on the degree to which the church has to be separated from politics, as if it were just a private hobby with no real witness or influence on the real world. That’s where the current differences lie, I think.

[Bootstrap]

Falco, I don't know how much you know about Mennonites. We have a deep identity of refusing to kill our persecutors, and there were a lot of Mennonite and Anabaptist martyrs. We were killed by Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists and Zwinglians.

We were very much on the receiving end of that killing.

Menno Simons and Conrad Grebel and others in early Anabaptism believed the Catholic church had abandoned biblical Christianity. In order to follow the Jesus of the Bible, they were willing to give their lives. But they were not willing to kill.

Some Mennonites and Anabaptists call themselves Protestants. Some do not. Regardless, I don't know what exactly you are blaming us for in this thread.

[Bootstrap]

The Protestants weren’t necessarily models of non-violence either. It’s a good thing the church is now rid of entanglements with state power. We can all agree on that much.

Back in the 1500s, those two points were sufficient to get many Mennonites and Anabaptists killed.

[ken_sylvania]

As if someone in an Anabaptist community who publicly declared it unnecessary to submit to church authority wouldn’t also find himself under the ban . . .

and burnt too, right?

He’d be excommunicated. The Protestants weren’t necessarily models of non-violence either. It’s a good thing the church is now rid of entanglements with state power. We can all agree on that much. Where we disagree nowadays is on the degree to which the church has to be separated from politics, as if it were just a private hobby with no real witness or influence on the real world. That’s where the current differences lie, I think.

So was the Pope wrong when he published the bull stating that it is heresy to teach that burning heretics is against the will of God?

[Falco Knotwise]

So was the Pope wrong when he published the bull stating that it is heresy to teach that burning heretics is against the will of God?

That isn’t exactly what he said. These statements are being censored in globo (in general), not individually. They are being censored for all kinds of different reasons . . .

With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected

Because the statements are being addressed in general and not individually, we do not know exactly why that statement was being censored. It could be because it was considered “scandalous,” “offensive to pious ears,” or “seductive of simple minds.” Neither of those reasons would necessarily even imply the statement is “false.”

Also, since heresy applies to points of doctrine and teachings on morals and matters of faith that have been clearly defined by the Church, it’s very unlikely this statement was being condemned as heretical, imo.

Finally, because the document is not defining something about doctrines or morals in a perfectly clear way, but only censoring statements made by Luther, it is not even considered infallible.

[Judas Maccabeus]

This is true as corroborated by the Lutheran delegation. This is true regarding the information in the Vatican archives.

But fully untrue as regards to the archives held in Wittenberg. I have seen these with my own eyes. I doubt if the curators of the Lutherhaus made these up. Including a GENUINE indulgence box. I am quite sure it was not for holding prayers.

That "Act of Reconciliation" as noble as it may be, was basically a piece of historical amnesia. While one can forgive past wrongs, and we do, the historical record is unchanged. Anabaptists were burned wholesale by the Church of Rome when it thought its secular power challenged.

Claim as you wish, I look up at my some 40 year old history texts from a state university, and they are united on the point. That indulgences were being sold in the name of the Church of Rome, and that money was being collected for them.

Get off of the "The church did not authorize this" if you want to maintain a thread of creditability. If Tezel was acting contrary to church law, why was he not on the run, and Luther being pursued.

Your approach reinforces my earlier conclusion-That the Church of Rome is built on a foundation of lies, from the "Donation of Constantine" to present.

[Judas Maccabeus]

So was the Pope wrong when he published the bull stating that it is heresy to teach that burning heretics is against the will of God?

That isn’t exactly what he said. These statements are being censored in globo (in general), not individually. They are being censored for all kinds of different reasons . . .

With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected

Because the statements are being addressed in general and not individually, we do not know exactly why that statement was being censored. It could be because it was considered “scandalous,” “offensive to pious ears,” or “seductive of simple minds.” Neither of those reasons would necessarily even imply the statement is “false.”

Also, since heresy applies to points of doctrine and teachings on morals and matters of faith that have been clearly defined by the Church, it’s very unlikely this statement was being condemned as heretical, imo.

Finally, because the document is not defining something about doctrines or morals in a perfectly clear way, but only censoring statements made by Luther, it is not even considered infallible.

Well, the secular authorities chasing him sure considered it authoritative. They would have burned him like Jan Huss and so many others.

Do you really expect anyone to believe this?

I am noe convinced the term you used here "catholic truth" is in fact an oxymoron.

[ken_sylvania]

So was the Pope wrong when he published the bull stating that it is heresy to teach that burning heretics is against the will of God?

That isn’t exactly what he said. These statements are being censored in globo (in general), not individually. They are being censored for all kinds of different reasons . . .

With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected

Because the statements are being addressed in general and not individually, we do not know exactly why that statement was being censored. It could be because it was considered “scandalous,” “offensive to pious ears,” or “seductive of simple minds.” Neither of those reasons would necessarily even imply the statement is “false.”

Also, since heresy applies to points of doctrine and teachings on morals and matters of faith that have been clearly defined by the Church, it’s very unlikely this statement was being condemned as heretical, imo.

Finally, because the document is not defining something about doctrines or morals in a perfectly clear way, but only censoring statements made by Luther, it is not even considered infallible.

So was the Pope correct when he said that the statement "that burning heretics is against the will of the Spirit" is heretical, false, scandalous, or offensive to pious ears?