Is The Protestant Bible Heretical?

[Thunderchild]

Noting again that the Catholic Encyclopaedia DOES bear the imprimatur of the Vatican - and has the full approval of the college of censors....

Under such circumstances, it is not surprising that the large treasure left by Julius II was entirely dissipated in two years. In the spring of 1515 the exchequer was empty and Leo never after recovered from his financial embarrassment. Various doubtful and reprehensible methods were resorted to for raising money. He created new offices and dignities, and the most exalted places were put up for sale. Jubilees and indulgences were degraded almost entirely into financial transactions, yet without avail, as the treasury was ruined. The pope's income amounted to between 500,000 and 600,000 ducats. The papal household alone, which Julius II had maintained on 48,000 ducats, now cost double that sum. In all, Leo spent about four and a half million ducats during his pontificate and left a debt amounting to 400,000 ducats.

 

[MissytheButterfly]

Originally posted by VOW
To Missy:

I just did some EXTENSIVE reading about the whole Luther-indulgences business. What a MESS!

First, we both get points, LOL. Right now, history is wondering whether or not Luther DID go to Rome. So many stories abound, it's really difficult to untangle them all. It appears that if he went, it was a pilgrimage of sorts, it had nothing to do with the clash of politics that later developed between Luther and the Catholic Church.

Second, hindsight seems to show Luther as a sufferer of depression. That must have colored everything he felt, said, and did during those times. He was a scholar, and more than anything he wanted to do research and study. But the mundane day-to-day work of being a priest prevented him from doing what he wanted to do.

The Papal Bull of Indulgences was renewed, in order to gain money for the cathedral in Rome. It wasn't intended to serve as a fund-raising device, apparently any monies received were just to be forwarded on to the Church for construction purposes. However, in local hands, Indulgences went hog-wild. The biggest scandal (and apparently the one where Luther blew his top) had to do with someone in power using the indulgences as a bribe to get rid of a rival and put a personal advocate in his place. From what I can gather, an archbishop who would profit from the arrangement made some kind of deal so the pope apparently agreed to it, and then the proceeds from the pay-off were split with the archbishop and Rome. Rome also gained a bonus along with the payment.

Granted, it was a rotten deal. But I still maintain that Luther's tactics were throwing out the baby with the bathwater. My feelings would be, "If it's Broke, FIX it, don't go buy a new one."


Peace be with you,
~VOW

LOL Vow..History sometimes..I wonder about it..meaning if it's the REAL history or did someone try to make it look exactly the way they wanted it to..you know like when in school we are taught the pilgrims made friends with the indians..LOL..and later you learn how they took their land and turned them on to alcohol and gambling...ROFL!

Anyway, your points are well taken..and I respect you for searching for the truth.

Here are some blessings from me to you!!!


Missy

 

[Thunderchild]

Indeed - Biblelight site seems to very much refer to the church of Rome in the same terms as the Catholic Encyclopaedia refers to protestants.

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by VOW
However, in explanation, the overall attitude on the board at that time was "get the Catholics." We were being attacked, right and left, with people saying that our interpretation of Scripture was whacked, and various other words of love.

That is the overall attitude on this board regularly. I can only say that I'm sorry that my Catholic brothers and sisters are faced with such "un-Christian" approaches from those who claim Christ as their Lord. The only comfort that I can offer is that no one ever said being a Christian was easy, and if they did, they were wrong. The important thing is to always respond in a way that glorifies our Redeemer, despite what we encounter.

The Protestant viewpoint was presented as one of purity, uncontamination, and overall superior to anything the Catholics could say or do. My intention was to show that the BIRTH of Protestantism was not as shining as people thought. I do regret the entire TONE of the thread, but the information was true and totally applicable.

I understand, and while wrong I think it's important that no Christian assume the air of superiority that allows them to think that they are above being mislead from time to time or that "their" religion is without spot or blemish. As long as our earthly church leaders are human they are subject to sinning. As such, we are subject to their mistakes. What's important is that none of us "wait like wolves" for the mistakes of others merely for the purpose of pouncing and proclaiming the entire religion debunk. I do not agree with many parts of the Catholic doctrine but I hold no illusions about knowing who's a "real" Christian nor is it my place to try and decide. God has tasked all of us with treating everyone with a godly love:

Matthew 25:45
Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.

To talk about your superiors in such a fashion is horrendous! To think that you have the endorsement of God to elevate yourself above the teachings of the Church which has existed for 1500 years is egotistical beyond words.

I think this is exactly the issue. It seems pretty apparent that Luther did not consider those in charge of the Catholic church "his superiors." As to the "endorsement of God," think about the apostles. They were all Jews. Think how it must have appeared to other Jews that these twelve men were "elevating themselves above the teachings of the church" and preaching a gospel totally contrary to what was accepted. And, we know their plight to truly be an endorsement from God. Luther believed his separation from the RCC to be inspired by God. Whether it was or not is not something we will know in this life. I personally believe it to be the case, else I would be a Catholic. Again, I think what's more important is our conduct to our neighbor than whether the doctrines of our church are exactly the same, down to the letter.

All OTHER translations were a joint effort, but Luther wanted no "help," for then he would have to compromise his "work."

Again, as you showed, Luther did not believe that those in the position to aid to be of any aid. It doesn't necessarily mean that he was wrong though.

It's my feeling that Luther didn't love the Bible, or love God, as much as he loved Luther.

Unfortunately, how often is this the case with all of us? I would venture too often.

He was shooting down his superiors, his teachers, his Church, his God. Luther was a Roman Catholic PRIEST. It's like a clerk at a large company walking up to the CEO and saying, "Look, Pal, I know more about running this place than you ever could. Here's my list of demands, you BETTER change!"

All I can say is, at least he wasn't making his claims without a prior knowledge of the existing inner workings of his church. No one alive today knows whether Luther appealed to the papacy for the validity of his claims. For all we know, he was shunned, not the other way around.

I've been told that I DO make a difference, so I stay on.

You do. And, we are all blessed by your presence and insight.

This in-fighting amongst Christians is abysmal, and heartbreaking. I simply wish to clear up the confusion so we ALL can function as members of the Body of Christ, and share His message with the world.

I agree and the best place any of us can start is with ourselves.

God bless.

 

[kern]

I really think the differences between Protestants and Catholics are not all that great, they've just been exaggerated by a few writers who have a lot of readers. Hopefully we can overcome those differences someday and all these protestant vs. catholic things will end.

-Chris