Protestant errors and inventions (3)

[Root of Jesse]

You can't be serious. You've never seen the Pope's great white throne with two angels positioned on his left and right side?

No, never seen that. Even if it's so, so what? It's a chair...

Because you aren't supposed to do that. Why should that even be comforting to someone, to kiss the hand of a sinner? And please don't act like every person who does that is looking for comfort. It'd be quite disingenuous of you to ignore that many see that as the proper way to greet him.

The point is, it's not something imposed by the Church. Yes, there's a protocol. Same with a King or Queen, or whatever. Here in the US, we don't have a sense of that, but still there's protocol with a president or Supreme Court judge, and there is, whether you beleive it or not, a protocol with any religious figure.

When did the Holy Ghost name the Pope God's substitute? If Christ promised to never leave nor forsake us, and that where "two or more are gathered" He'd be in the midst thereof, what need is there for a substitute? If we have the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost, who if you want to get technical was the only One given as a substitute, what need is there for a man to stand in the gap?

The same need there was when Jesus was crucified, rose, and left the apostles. The need for the one Faith Christ instituted to be led the right way. With the guidance of the Holy Spirt, since the day of Pentecost. Two minutes after Pentecost, there were questions to be asked and answered, regarding the nature of Christ, the persons of the Godhead, the tenets of the faith. Who, do you think, guided them? And who, do you think, taught, spoke, wrote, imparted the faith?

My personal struggles with time management are not the same here, and please don't try to insult my intelligence by acting like it is. The admaration shown to the Pope is ridiculous and it's not my judgement, it's quite easy to see. The only person who ever drew a reaction from a crowd the way the pope does, that I am aware of, was Michael Jackson .

Well, it is your judgement, and that proves that there must be an arbiter, an authority, to go to when there is a serious question regarding the faith.

And if you think Michael Jackson is more important, go on, go! Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

No, the only way we know the truth is that we get it from those who walked with Christ, and those who walked with them, who learned from them, directly. And this is the Catholic Church. If a matter of faith and morals wasn't believed then, it's not believed now.

 

[Hentenza]

"You need to look up..." Please do not patronize me. I have already done so and understand that this is the interpretation you have made on what you looked up. However, no amount of corruption or oppression necessitated the response that led to an even more destructive and bloody conflict in the Thirty Years War.



No, not by definition, but in certain places it did lead to things that you have described. But you cannot make a sweeping generalization on the development of feudalism in all regions of Europe. I would suggest, beyond what is requited to maintain rhetorical points, if you are interested, to read some of the more recent scholarship on feudalism that has modified traditional historiography in different ways.

lol I am using the latest and most recent scholarship on feudalism since I am a second year graduate student seeking a PHd in history with a specialization in the middle ages.

BTW- I am in no way patronizing you but I am fully engulfed in this topic and am in a position to guide you historically in this topic.

 

[Albion]

"You need to look up..." Please do not patronize me. I have already done so and understand that this is the interpretation you have made on what you looked up. However, no amount of corruption or oppression necessitated the response that led to an even more destructive and bloody conflict in the Thirty Years War.

lol I am using the latest and most recent scholarship on feudalism since I am a second year graduate student seeking a PHd in history with a specialization in the middle ages.

BTW- I am in no way patronizing you but I am fully engulfed in this topic and am in a position to guide you historically in this topic.

Hentenza's right in this case, although I doubt that it will cause Tz. to reconsider. The savagery on the Imperial side during and after the first phase of the Thirty Years' War is well known and has significance even now. And those rebellions of the lower classes leading up to the Reformation and this war were mainly the fault of the Catholic parties, like it or not.

 

[Tzaousios]

lol I am using the latest and most recent scholarship on feudalism since I am a second year graduate student seeking a PHd in history with a specialization in the middle ages.

Then why are you offering the same old interpretations that were made 40-50 years ago on the topic? By the way, if you are wanting to wave degrees around, which the resident Evangelicals in GT do not normally like, I did my MA in medieval Byzantine and western European history. I still teach it at the university level.

BTW- I am in no way patronizing you but I am fully engulfed in this topic and am in a position to guide you historically in this topic.

Okay, then guide me. What are you reading on the subject of feudalism that has led you to this conclusion?

 

[Root of Jesse]

The demeanor of some people? Jesse I am talking directly about popes, archbishopes, bishops, and priests that exacted countless abuses prior to the reformation (and some after). You can't sweep that under the rug.

Yes, so? Anyone here not a sinner? Anyone here doesn't have any baggage?
Countless abuses? The Church is the reason we have what we have today. The Church feeds more people, educates more people, clothes more people, and always has, than any other entity on earth. The Romans killed children if they didn't want them. They subjugated people, made them slaves. Before Christianity, the law was eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Have their been abuses? Yes. That's humanity. But that in no way means that the Church isn't what Christ declared it to be. It means that Humanity is messed up.

He did work within the confines of the Catholic church initially. The posting of his 95 theses on the door of the church was working within the confines of the church since that was a common practice. What he was looking for was discussion with those in position of leadership in his area. Instead of discussion he received threats on his life and threats of excommunication.

If it was such common practice for a priest to nail grievances with the Catholic Church on the door of the Cathedral, can you show me one other instance where someone did that? A priest?

lol One example, pope Leo X was involved economically and politically with the powerful house of Hohenzollern which aspired to hegemony in Germany. One of the members of that house, Albert of Brandenburg, already was in possession of two episcopal sees and hoped to acquire the most important archbishoptric in Germany, Mainz. He negotiated with Leo and the result was an agreement whereby for ten thousand ducats Albert could have Mainz. Since the sum was quite large, pope Leo authorized Albert to announce a great sale of indulgences in his territories on condition that half of the proceeds be sent to the papal coffers since one of Leo's dreams was to finish the great Basilica of St. Peter, which he did. The man put in charge of the sale on indulgences in Germany was the Dominican John Tetzel who made some outrageous claims to those who would purchase the indulgences. Some of these outrageous claims that those who purchase indulgences would be "cleaner than when coming out of Baptism," "cleaner than Adam before the fall," etc.

No pope ever authorized the sale of indulgences, that would be simony, and a very serious sin. Indulgences were always issued for good works, accompanied by prayer for the Pope, Sacramental confession, and Sacramental Communion.
What actually happened is that Indulgences were preached, allowed in response to good works-prayer, fasting and almsgiving. But indulgences were never sold.

It was a practice heavily practiced prior to the reformation.




Luther was not at fault, your church was.

so you say.

 

[Stryder06]

No, never seen that. Even if it's so, so what? It's a chair...

A great white throne, with two angels on either side is his seat, which you can see if you want, plenty of pictures of it, and you want to say it's just a chair?

The point is, it's not something imposed by the Church. Yes, there's a protocol. Same with a King or Queen, or whatever. Here in the US, we don't have a sense of that, but still there's protocol with a president or Supreme Court judge, and there is, whether you beleive it or not, a protocol with any religious figure.

Not the same. This isn't about protocol. No man who claims to be Christ's representative should be ok with people kneeling before him and kissing his ring. Those who would be greatest must be the least. Our is not the same as the secular world. Not even Christ placed himself in such a position as the pope does.

The same need there was when Jesus was crucified, rose, and left the apostles. The need for the one Faith Christ instituted to be led the right way. With the guidance of the Holy Spirt, since the day of Pentecost. Two minutes after Pentecost, there were questions to be asked and answered, regarding the nature of Christ, the persons of the Godhead, the tenets of the faith. Who, do you think, guided them? And who, do you think, taught, spoke, wrote, imparted the faith?

All the leading that needed to be done was done by the Holy Spirit. He worked through the apostles to accomplish the work that needed to be done, just as He works through people today to continue it. What wasn't needed, was a visible head.

Kind of reminds me of how Israel "needed" a visible head when they came out of Egypt, and then again when they were in Canaan and wanted a king like the other nations. We know how pleased God was with those actions.

Well, it is your judgement, and that proves that there must be an arbiter, an authority, to go to when there is a serious question regarding the faith.

His name is Jesus.

And if you think Michael Jackson is more important, go on, go! Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Is that what I said? I was making a comparison between how people react to your pope with how they reacted to a secular artist.

No, the only way we know the truth is that we get it from those who walked with Christ, and those who walked with them, who learned from them, directly. And this is the Catholic Church. If a matter of faith and morals wasn't believed then, it's not believed now.

Incorrect. We learn truth from the word of God. Men have entered the flock as wolves, deceiving many. The only way we can know if what we've been taught is true is not by looking at the teachings that have been held for XYZ years by the many, but by looking at the word of God and seeing what it says. If the tradition is true and the teaching is genuine, than it will harmonize with the scripture. If it isn't than it won't.

 

[Root of Jesse]

A great white throne, with two angels on either side is his seat, which you can see if you want, plenty of pictures of it, and you want to say it's just a chair?

Point me to such a picture, please? A throne is a chair for a king to sit in. A decorated chair. I looked up Papal Throne, and didn't see any great white throne with two angels.

Not the same. This isn't about protocol. No man who claims to be Christ's representative should be ok with people kneeling before him and kissing his ring. Those who would be greatest must be the least. Our is not the same as the secular world. Not even Christ placed himself in such a position as the pope does.

You mean the pope who kneels at the feet of criminals in prison and washes their feet? That pope? As leader of the Catholic world, he does deserve some respect. I wonder if you even realize that someone who becomes pope never desired the office. It's not like they campaign for it. In fact, sometimes their first reaction when named is to say no. But who says no to the Holy Spirit?

All the leading that needed to be done was done by the Holy Spirit. He worked through the apostles to accomplish the work that needed to be done, just as He works through people today to continue it. What wasn't needed, was a visible head.

How's that working for Protestants, with their 35,000 denominations (and counting)? All who say they're the ones guided by the Holy Spirit, all who say their interpretation of Scripture is the right one?

Kind of reminds me of how Israel "needed" a visible head when they came out of Egypt, and then again when they were in Canaan and wanted a king like the other nations. We know how pleased God was with those actions.

Well, the people asked for a king. In this case, they didn't ask...Jesus gave us the office.

His name is Jesus.



Is that what I said? I was making a comparison between how people react to your pope with how they reacted to a secular artist.



Incorrect. We learn truth from the word of God. Men have entered the flock as wolves, deceiving many. The only way we can know if what we've been taught is true is not by looking at the teachings that have been held for XYZ years by the many, but by looking at the word of God and seeing what it says. If the tradition is true and the teaching is genuine, than it will harmonize with the scripture. If it isn't than it won't.

What was the Word of God before St. Paul wrote to the various Churches? How was the Christian faith imparted? BY WORD OF MOUTH. That's Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Tradition both come from the Holy Spirit, as does the Teaching Authority of the Church. Any time any error has tried to creep into the faith of the Catholic Church, it has been disproven, and discarded.

 

[MoreCoffee]

No I don't, but then I don't have the critical sense for the errors and additions of Protestantism that some here seem to have.

One ought to call it discernment.

 

[Hentenza]

Then why are you offering the same old interpretations that were made 40-50 years ago on the topic? By the way, if you are wanting to wave degrees around, which the resident Evangelicals in GT do not normally like, I did my MA in medieval Byzantine and western European history. I still teach it at the university level.

I'm not giving you outdated interpretations. The interpretations are current and supported by research. Maybe you can point out where my comments are outdated.

BTW- I'm glad you are also a fellow history buff. Which university do you teach at? Just curious.

Okay, then guide me. What are you reading on the subject of feudalism that has led you to this conclusion?

Current research and evidence. You being a university teacher should have access to databases such as Jstor, Academic Search Complete, Humanities International, etc. and an assortment of history journals such as ABI/Inform, Aramco, etc. to draw from. As you know this topic is extensive. I just finished reading William Marshal, knight-Errant, Baron, and Regent of England by Sidney Painter. Pretty good historical biography which as you know are hard to find.

 

[Hentenza]

Yes, so? Anyone here not a sinner? Anyone here doesn't have any baggage?
Countless abuses? The Church is the reason we have what we have today. The Church feeds more people, educates more people, clothes more people, and always has, than any other entity on earth. The Romans killed children if they didn't want them. They subjugated people, made them slaves. Before Christianity, the law was eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Have their been abuses? Yes. That's humanity. But that in no way means that the Church isn't what Christ declared it to be. It means that Humanity is messed up.
If it was such common practice for a priest to nail grievances with the Catholic Church on the door of the Cathedral, can you show me one other instance where someone did that? A priest?

No pope ever authorized the sale of indulgences, that would be simony, and a very serious sin. Indulgences were always issued for good works, accompanied by prayer for the Pope, Sacramental confession, and Sacramental Communion.
What actually happened is that Indulgences were preached, allowed in response to good works-prayer, fasting and almsgiving. But indulgences were never sold.

so you say.

Jesse, pardon me but you are living in a fantasy world. I've given you concrete historical examples that you have not refuted but have merely denied without any evidence presented. You say that it would be simony if the pope agreed to the selling of indulgences but you fail to understand that simony was rampant in the medieval and late medieval Catholic Church. Do the research and prove me wrong, don't just make negative statements. Opinions are worthless.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I'm not giving you outdated interpretations. The interpretations are current and supported by research. Maybe you can point out where my comments are outdated.

BTW- I'm glad you are also a fellow history buff. Which university do you teach at? Just curious.




Current research and evidence. You being a university teacher should have access to databases such as Jstor, Academic Search Complete, Humanities International, etc. and an assortment of history journals such as ABI/Inform, Aramco, etc. to draw from. As you know this topic is extensive. I just finished reading William Marshal, knight-Errant, Baron, and Regent of England by Sidney Painter. Pretty good historical biography which as you know are hard to find.

Sidney Painter isn't what I would call "current". But what do I know, la dee dah? I'm no historian. Though I have taken graduate level courses in Catholic Church history.

At any rate, the Catholic Church never did sell indulgences, or authorize the sale of indulgences. That some people did so is irrelevant, for they did it without authorization, without knowledge of the Papacy. Funny how the devil works, isn't it? Attempt to divide and conquer. Scatter the sheep...

 

[Hentenza]

Sidney Painter isn't what I would call "current". But what do I know, la dee dah? I'm no historian. Though I have taken graduate level courses in Catholic Church history.

Sidney Painter is one of the few historians that ever attempted to publish a biography of a person living during the medieval times. Particular information like that is hard to come by. I thought he did a great job. And, yes, his research is current.

Now, I merely spoke of the last book that I read. As a student of medieval history, I have read many.

At any rate, the Catholic Church never did sell indulgences, or authorize the sale of indulgences.

lol Prove it.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Oi!

This is the Protestant errors and inventions thread - third continuation - so please return to the great and glorious list of 57 errors and inventions forthwith or I shall post new errors

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Oi!

This is the Protestant errors and inventions thread - third continuation - so please return to the great and glorious list of 57 errors and inventions forthwith or I shall post new errors

Sidney Painter isn't what I would call "current". But what do I know, la dee dah? I'm no historian. Though I have taken graduate level courses in Catholic Church history.

At any rate, the Catholic Church never did sell indulgences, or authorize the sale of indulgences. That some people did so is irrelevant, for they did it without authorization, without knowledge of the Papacy. Funny how the devil works, isn't it? Attempt to divide and conquer. Scatter the sheep...

Both these posters are on the mark regarding both the topic of this thread and the fact that while the selling of indulgences was rampant in the middle ages, it was never officially sanctioned by the RCC (tolerated though it was; there is a difference).

 

[Hentenza]

Both these posters are on the mark regarding both the topic of this thread and the fact that while the selling of indulgences was rampant in the middle ages, it was never officially sanctioned by the RCC (tolerated though it was; there is a difference).

Hey Mark,

The leadership of the RCC sanctioned it. I gave the example of pope Leo X in a previous post.

 

[Tzaousios]

I'm not giving you outdated interpretations. The interpretations are current and supported by research. Maybe you can point out where my comments are outdated.

That feudalism was formed to prey upon the peasants and to enrich the Catholic clergy strikes me as an antiquated interpretation that makes a sweeping generalization.

First of all, it can be argued that feudalism was not even a "system" that was "formed," but rather gradually developed over time as a complex phenomenon of socio-economic relationships. Secondly, what was experienced as feudalism varied widely from region to region, especially in places such as Italy and Germany. These are two interpretations that I think have largely superseded the older ones.

Current research and evidence. You being a university teacher should have access to databases such as Jstor, Academic Search Complete, Humanities International, etc. and an assortment of history journals such as ABI/Inform, Aramco, etc. to draw from.

Yes, I do use those all of the time, but I was wanting to know which scholars you were getting your information from. I would suggest, in terms of books:

Bagge, Sverre, Michael H. Gelting, and Thomas Lindkvist. Feudalism: new landscapes of debate. Medieval countryside, no. 5. Turnhout: Brepols, 2011.

Barthélemy, Dominique. The Serf, the Knight, and the Historian. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009.

Evergates, Theodore. Feudal Society in the Bailliage of Troyes Under the Counts of Champagne, 1152-1284. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975.

Goldsmith, James Lowth. Lordship in France, 500-1500. New York: Peter Lang, 2003.

Górecki, Piotr. Economy, Society, and Lordship in Medieval Poland, 1100-1250. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1992.

Hudson, John. Land, Law, and Lordship in Anglo-Norman England. Oxford historical monographs. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.

Kosto, Adam J. Making Agreements in Medieval Catalonia: Power, Order, and the Written Word, 1000-1200. Cambridge studies in medieval life and thought, no. 51. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Rady, Martyn C. Nobility, Land and Service in Medieval Hungary. Studies in Russia and East Europe. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave, in association with School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London, 2000.

Reynolds, Susan. Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.

West, Charles. Reframing the Feudal Revolution: Political and Social Transformation between Marne and Moselle, C. 800 - C. 1100. 2013. Cambridge studies in medieval life and thought. Fourth series, no. 90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

White, Stephen D. Re-thinking kinship and feudalism in early medieval Europe. Variorum collected studies series. Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 2005.

 

[Albion]

Yes, it certainly was authorized. The church even printed up certificates to be given to those who bought the indulgences. The most generous thing you could say was that the church had an official policy but then winked at violations of it by its own clergy who were not disciplined for doing this. But what kind of a defense is that?

In addition, remember that Johann Tetzel, who prompted Luther's protest, was selling indulgences expressly on behalf of the Vatican in order to raise monies towards the construction of the new St. Peter's church in Rome.

No, it's not correct to say that the church didn't sanction it. Not by a long shot!

 

[MoreCoffee]

On the topic of indulgences take a moment to view this.

Doctrine of Indulgences - YouTube

 

[Hentenza]

That feudalism was formed to prey upon the peasants and to enrich the Catholic clergy strikes me as an antiquated interpretation that makes a sweeping generalization.

First of all, it can be argued that feudalism was not even a "system" that was "formed," but rather gradually developed over time as a complex phenomenon of socio-economic relationships. Secondly, what was experienced as feudalism varied widely from region to region, especially in places such as Italy and Germany. These are two interpretations that I think have largely superseded the older ones.

I agree with you that feudalism developed over time, however, it was the "system" during the early to medieval times. It was also based on socio-economic relationships but, at the level of nobility, it was a necessary system which monarchs used to retain power. As you know, kings in England and France relied heavily in the knight system and armies of the barons and counts to assemble armies in their time of need. You can clearly see this pattern during King Henry II and John the Lion as well as with Phillip II, king of France.

Yes, I do use those all of the time, but I was wanting to know which scholars you were getting your information from. I would suggest, in terms of books:

Bagge, Sverre, Michael H. Gelting, and Thomas Lindkvist. Feudalism: new landscapes of debate. Medieval countryside, no. 5. Turnhout: Brepols, 2011.

Barthélemy, Dominique. The Serf, the Knight, and the Historian. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009.

Evergates, Theodore. Feudal Society in the Bailliage of Troyes Under the Counts of Champagne, 1152-1284. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975.

Goldsmith, James Lowth. Lordship in France, 500-1500. New York: Peter Lang, 2003.

Górecki, Piotr. Economy, Society, and Lordship in Medieval Poland, 1100-1250. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1992.

Hudson, John. Land, Law, and Lordship in Anglo-Norman England. Oxford historical monographs. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.

Kosto, Adam J. Making Agreements in Medieval Catalonia: Power, Order, and the Written Word, 1000-1200. Cambridge studies in medieval life and thought, no. 51. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Rady, Martyn C. Nobility, Land and Service in Medieval Hungary. Studies in Russia and East Europe. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave, in association with School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London, 2000.

Reynolds, Susan. Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.

West, Charles. Reframing the Feudal Revolution: Political and Social Transformation between Marne and Moselle, C. 800 - C. 1100. 2013. Cambridge studies in medieval life and thought. Fourth series, no. 90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

White, Stephen D. Re-thinking kinship and feudalism in early medieval Europe. Variorum collected studies series. Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 2005.

Which one refutes what I have written so far? Out of the list that you provided, I've read Bethelemy and Hudson.