Swazi King Rejects Pants: War on Terror Lost

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
What German?

Not sure what you mean. German bible translation before Luther? There were several, I think most (or all?) after 1450 due to the printing press. Before that, there was little interest anyway, because books were incredibly expensive. Out of the minority that could read, an even smaller minority could afford books.

The effect of those earlier translations (if you exclude Ulfilas version ) was limited, as they were rather bad and based on the vulgata only.

[Arrian]

I knew that, Hersh. I did actually read the thread, and didn't see any theological debating.

-Arrian

[HershOstropoler]

So you only saw a pissfest. Good eyes.

[Ben Kenobi]

Prior to that, the Bible was only available in Latin and basically out of reach of most people, even literate ones.

Yes, there were some translations into the vernacular, but prior to Gutenberg, these were well out of the reach of the common person.

Luther emphasised people reading the bible for themselves because of one passage:

Romans 3:28

" For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law."

NIV, rendered by Luthor as "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith alone."

Luthor, as a Catholic had never seen this passage before, and felt disgusted by some of the practices of the Catholic church contrary to this doctrine. Indulgences, as one of these violated this principle by teaching that money would buy one's way into heaven.

Granted Luthor did many things wrong with his own church, in my case I would take him to task for burning anabaptists that refused to baptise those who were unable to express their faith.

While there are some evangelical Catholic churches, most of the Catholic congregation relies upon the clerics for their biblical knowledge, as the church encourages submission to the authorities of the church. Now, there are some very good reasons for this approach but there needs to be a balance between reading one's bible for oneself, and submission to the authorities of the church.

Another barrier placed between the Catholic church, and knowledge of scripture is that only recently they have begun to hold services in the language of their respective congregations rather than Latin.

[SnowFire]

Well, we all know that pants rapidly turns into a Reformation debate.

Hersh, interesting you bring up Wycliffe- I made a side reference to him earlier, when mentioning people who the Catholic Church killed for disagreeing with them. Mind you, they didn't just kill him for translating the Bible, about 20 years after his death, they dug up his body & burned the bones just to make sure the point got across before scattering the ashes in the Thames.

As for "Lutherian democracy," I recommend you check out "Calvinic democracy" for more fun. After all, Calvin ran Geneva like a dictator, and yet his theology called for highly decentrailzed churches that elected their elders, who would run the church. And indeed, after Calvin's death, most of his churches were run highly democratically. None of this top-down Catholic stuff.

[GePap]

The inquisition has been very badly maligned by protestants. Unlike the protestant Witch burners, the lawyers of the inquisition keep asidious records, which can be looked up in Spain.

Protestanism leads more easily to fundamentalism than Catholicism for the same reasons Sunni Islam (and perhaps Islam in general) breed fundamentalism so easily: interpretation is up to the individual, and there is no central hierarchy enforcing ceremony to keep the fundies in check. If one notes, the most fundie catholic groups actually break from the Vatican, as conservative as this Pope is.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by SnowFire

Hersh, interesting you bring up Wycliffe- I made a side reference to him earlier, when mentioning people who the Catholic Church killed for disagreeing with them. Mind you, they didn't just kill him for translating the Bible

They killed him? That's new to me. I thought he died of a stroke.

"about 20 years after his death, they dug up his body & burned the bones"

After the Council of Constance, I think. About the 1420s.

"After all, Calvin ran Geneva like a dictator, and yet his theology called for highly decentrailzed churches that elected their elders, who would run the church."

Calvin was more running a theocracy, ruled by the elect. That they were decentralised had more to do with them not becoming the state religion in many places.

Also, it's not my job to defend catholicism. The inquisition was bad enough, even if we subtract the protestant propaganda lies.

[Shi Huangdi]

Wow, can't believe I have overlooked this one. Where to start...

Gepap:

interpretation is up to the individual, and there is no central hierarchy enforcing ceremony to keep the fundies in check.

In theory anyway. In reality there is alot of dissent in the modern church from the magisterium, although you are probably right the hierarchy would expel somebody who went to the level of Fred Phelps of Jerry Falwell

Obiwan:

[quotes]Romans 3:28

" For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law."

NIV, rendered by Luthor as "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith alone."

Luthor, as a Catholic had never seen this passage before, and felt disgusted by some of the practices of the Catholic church contrary to this doctrine[/quote]

Justification by faith alone is silly. If you were to read on in that passage, you will see that "the law" you see refered to here is the Jewish law, as per the references to circumcision. You certainly aren't excluded from trying to follow Jesus's teaching just by intellectual assent to the Christian Faith, as is reinforced by several other bible passages.

Now, there are some very good reasons for this approach but there needs to be a balance between reading one's bible for oneself, and submission to the authorities of the church.

The Church in no way today discourages study of the bible. Scritural readings are a part of every mass, and we do not at all discourage people from reading the bible. Now, the Church does teach that it is infallible in faith and morals, although in practice most Catholics do not take the Church's words and face value and dissent is fairly common, although there is a minority of about 9% who are compltely obedient to the Church's teachings.

Hersh:

Not sure what you mean. German bible translation before Luther? There were several, I think most (or all?) after 1450 due to the printing press. Before that, there was little interest anyway, because books were incredibly expensive. Out of the minority that could read, an even smaller minority could afford books.

The effect of those earlier translations (if you exclude Ulfilas version ) was limited, as they were rather bad and based on the vulgata only.

Correct, it was not the Church's intention to stop people from reading the bible. If they wanted to do that, they could have kept it in it's original Greek and none but the top Church leaders would understand it. They did translate into Latin, which was the language of the educated in that day.

Lord Merciless:

That's the key of my whole point: because people started interpreting the Bible on a more individual basis, the results went into both directions. The more fundamentalist ones were of course of no helpful to science, but the enlightened certainly did. And it was the enlightened England that finally broke through the medieval system into the modern world (constitution, capitalism, and industrialization).

Some of the greatest philosophers of the enlightenment came from France, the enlightenment was not a Protestant only phenomon. You are correct however in that the Church of that time was hardly friendly to the enlightenment.

England kicked Spain's butt with a bunch of pirates;

England kicked French butt twice ( Spanish Succession War, 7 Seven Years War);

Sweden kicked Austria's butt in 30 Years War;

Prussia kicked Austria's butt twice (Silesia, Koenigsgrraetz);

Prussia kicked French butt twice (Waterloo, Sedan);

So because the protestants enjoyed military sucsess they are correct? Hersh is correct in pointing out that French intervention on the Protestant side was key, but also remember who won the Crusades? Should that mean God favored the Moslems? The Moslems eventually took Constantinople and ended the Byzantine Empire, Does God not like the Eastern Churches? If you want to base your argument on sucsess on this world, well then check the bible to see who "The Prince of This World" is named. Hint: It's not God.

Luther's condemnation of peasants during the "Bauernkrieg" was smart politics

Then so was the Catholic support of the nobility.

[St Leo]

The Church ain't in the business of running empires any more.

Actually, the church was never in it, it was just nicely coopted. It was really cute during that brief chunk of the schism when there were three, count 'em, three popes.

Indeed? Tell that to the Holy Roman Emperors standing barefoot outside the papal residence and begging for the Excommunication to be lifted.

The Guelf/Ghibbeline conflict was basically about how much temporal power the popes should have.

Link, please.

Would anyone care to help? I know that I've read of it in several independent sources several years apart.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi

Some of the greatest philosophers of the enlightenment came from France, the enlightenment was not a Protestant only phenomon. You are correct however in that the Church of that time was hardly friendly to the enlightenment.

There would have been no Enlightenment if the monopoly of the Catholic Church had not been broken. Competition spurres progress and changes.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by St Leo
Indeed? Tell that to the Holy Roman Emperors standing barefoot outside the papal residence and begging for the Excommunication to be lifted.

The Guelf/Ghibbeline conflict was basically about how much temporal power the popes should have.

Link, please.

Would anyone care to help? I know that I've read of it in several independent sources several years apart.

The operative question is what other temporal powers owned the pope at the time?

[St Leo]

The operative question is what other temporal powers owned the pope at the time

No one.

At different times, the Popes were owned by Roman Mafia, Byzantine Emperors, Holy Roman Emperors, Franks, Habsburgs, and Mussolini's Italy.

[Ben Kenobi]

Shi:

You certainly aren't excluded from trying to follow Jesus's teaching just by intellectual assent to the Christian Faith, as is reinforced by several other bible passages.

Agreed, but see Paul answer your critique of salvation by faith, later on in Romans:

6:1-4

"What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."

So clearly, if one truly believes in Christ and is baptised, they should reject their life of sin out of love for Christ.
Works come after salvation, they cannot be a prerequisite for salvation.

Now, the Church does teach that it is infallible in faith and morals,

I'm not attacking this statement. I call this a strong point of Catholicism as opposed to the Anglican church in particular. If you educate the congregation and show the biblical basis for church decisions, you will have a much stronger congregation, rather than one that accepts things at face value from the priests. This combination with a strong church heirarchy makes a formidable unity not often seen in Protestant denominations.

Scriptural readings are a part of every mass, and we do not at all discourage people from reading the bible.

Improved, but what are you doing to encourage people to study the bible? My church expects everyone who is a believer to know how to share their faith with others. This responsibility exhorts people to study the bible, something I feel Catholics should learn to do as well.

[Zero]

The king's right. We should switch them to min-skirts :doitnow:

and we need more wind! whats wrong with the world today?

[Shi Huangdi]

Obiwan:

"What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through
the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."

So clearly, if one truly believes in Christ and is baptised, they should reject their life of sin out of love for Christ.

As a matter of theory, yes, out of faith in Christ we should renounce sin. As a matter of fact, we know that many Christians do not reject sin at all, and instead act more evil then many non-believers do.

As for works not being a prerequisite themselves for salvation, well, I think that is a bad way of describing the Catholic theory on Salvation. Certainly as the Bible says we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and without the Mercy of God we would be doomed. Think of in terms of a negative here. Although we are able to obtain God's divine mercy, we also have the ability to cut ourselves off from God. Some particularly grevious actions such as murder are by in the very commission of the act a rejection of God. You cannot go around murdering people and saying that you are really following Christ's teachings; by doing such an action you are rejecting them instead. Now God is of course merciful and will be willing to forgive us for our actions, but then if you don't are rejecting God and his plan of salvation for you. In Catholicism this is known as the idea of mortal sin.

For more biblical justification of tying in the importance of actually following Jesus's teachings rather then just believing in him:

Matthew 25: 31-46

"But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. Before him all the nations will be gathered, and he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will tell those on his right hand, 'Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry, and you gave me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in; naked, and you clothed me; I was sick, and you visited me; I was in prison, and you came to me.'
"Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you; or thirsty, and give you a drink? When did we see you as a stranger, and take you in; or naked, and clothe you? When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?'
"The King will answer them, 'Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.' Then he will say also to those on the left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you didn't give me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and you didn't take me in; naked, and you didn't clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn't visit me.'
"Then they will also answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and didn't help you?'
"Then he will answer them, saying, 'Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you didn't do it to one of the least of these, you didn't do it to me.' These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Not faith isn't even mentioned here as a criteria for seperating the saved and the damned, What is mentioned is how we treat the least of us.

I'm not attacking this statement. I call this a strong point of Catholicism as opposed to the Anglican church in particular. If you educate the congregation and show the biblical basis for church decisions, you will have a much stronger congregation, rather than one that accepts things at face value from the priests. This combination with a strong church heirarchy makes a formidable unity not often seen in Protestant denominations.

Actually, we probably have less unity then most Protestant denominations do. I suppose it might be nice that my Church taught it was infallible in matters of faith and morals if it made it a little more believable. Take for instance the 1968 encyclial Humane Vitae which banned contraception. It was made against the reccomendation of the Popes own comission to study the issue, and had pathetic biblical justifcation. As of current only 9% of Catholics agree Birth Control is wrong, and a 1980 Gallup Poll showed only 30% of priests agreeing with Humane Vitae

Personally I don't feel my Church's claim on infallibility on faith and moral issues to be a credible one. Contrary to claims by Conservative Catholics, the Church has changed it's position in the past. For a good example on this, look at the Church's teaching on whether we have the right to freedom of religion: http://www.uscatholic.org/1999/05/wrong.htm and go the section on John Courtney Murray.

Or, if a more famous one, Galileo. Before teaching the earth revolved around the sound could get you declared a heretic, now this "heresy" (the heliocentric model) is official church position.

Improved, but what are you doing to encourage people to study the bible? My church expects everyone who is a believer to know how to share their faith with others. This responsibility exhorts people to study the bible, something I feel Catholics should learn to do as well.

Well, I attend bible study at my Catholic Student Organization at my uni, although this was something started just this year. Overall you are probably right Catholics don't study the bible as much as they should.