.
Well, didn't Luther have such a "veto button"?
In what? For what Katie made for dinner? IF you mean for dogma, no.
what authority was he bound to during the reformation
Ah. It just seems IMPOSSIBLE for a Catholic (I'm it seems for an EO) to discuss anything without the whole point being POWER - the power to control, the power to mandate, the power to lord it over other as the gentiles do. Truth just doesn't get mentioned, it's all about power.... It's just ONE of the reasons why Catholics too often just don't get it....
The Authority is God.
The Norm is Scripture.
NEITHER of which is Martin Luther.
Or the denomination to which a congregation legally belongs.
Or the one you or the EO or the RCC or the LDS sees in the mirror.
Once Luther abandoned the role of the authority of the church
Yup. THAT is what made Luther so threatening. THAT is why Luther had to be silenced. It had nothing really to do with truth, nothing to do with doctrine or Scripture, nothing to do with faith or life. Luther did not lay aside the issue of truth and instead bow in "quiet docilitic SUBMISSION" to the RCC denomination as unto God. I agree - he didn't. He wasn't the first: John Hus, John Wycliff, etc. preceeded him but in an earlier era, before the printing press and it's widespread us, before government armies could give the Pope pause - the RCC murdered these men as threats it could not let stand. German princes protected the life of Luther (being pro-life it seems) and with the printing press, the Pope couldn't stop things by murdering Luther anyway. The foundation of Catholicism is the POWER - the unmitigated, unaccountable P.O.W.E.R. it alone claims for it alone, this insistence of looking in the mirror at SELF for what is the authority, who is the authority, where is the POWER to trump everyhing (most of all, the issue of truth), the POWER to lord it over others as the gentiles do. Luther didn't quietly, docilicly, just SUBMIT (although his 95 Theses should not have scared the RCC so much) - from the RCC's prespective, THAT is what made him so dangerous, so threatening.
Ah yes, here's the rub. If the church cannot bind the conscience of the believer regarding doctrinal matters, then they are free to make up their own, no, and still be a part of said church? If not, then the church would be binding the believers conscience, wouldn't they?
.... VERY Catholic of you....
I wonder, have you read any of the Early Church Fathers in the LDS? The LDS Apostles and Prophets? I have. AMAZING - just strikingly AMAZING - how not only are the thoughts identical, but even the very vocabulary, the very words!!!!! It's so stunning. And it can't be just remembering Catholicism, I don't think one of them was ever Catholic and none of them knew much about Catholicism - they just have the exact same POWER mindset, the same laser focus on self, the same focus on the denomination, the same "logic" of Jesus founding the denomination and ergo it has all this POWER - truth don't matter, nothing else matters - just this POWER self has to lord it over others, control others and be exempt from accountability.
I studied some "rescue" ministries, ministries that work with people in cults. I learned the fundamental "common denominator" and the issue that makes it SO difficult to reach them: truth has been circumvented and replaced with the concept of docilic obedience to the organization as unto God: thus, WHATEVER might be conveyed by the rescue mission is just moot, nothing matters other than being quietly, docilicly SUBMISSIVE to the denomination, sometimes even as unto God Himself. The whole focus, then, is to constantly hammer that issue: The denomination has all this divine POWER that just trumps everything else; our role is this - passively SUBMIT to the lordship of the denomination, the virtual divinity of the denomination.
Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming tend to do so not because they reject Scripture or have an alternative that is MORE inerrant, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable, MORE unalterable, MORE ecumenically embraced as authoriative. Rather the rejection tends to be because each rejects accountability (and thus norming and any norm in such) in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, unique case of self alone. From The Handbook of the Catholic Faith (page 151), "When the Catholic is asked for the substantiation for his belief, the correct answer is: From the teaching authority. This authority consists of the bishops of The Catholic Church in connection with the Catholic Pope in Rome. The faithful are thus freed from the typically Protestant question of 'is it true' and instead rests in quiet confidence that whatever the Catholic Church teaches is the teaching of Jesus Himself since Jesus said, 'whoever hears you hears me'." The Catholic Church itself says in the Catechism of itself (#87): Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, The faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms." IF self declares that self is unaccountable and that self is exempt from the issue of truthfulness, then the entire issue of norming (and the embraced norma normans in such) becomes moot (for self). The issue has been changed from truth to power (claimed by self for self). POWER is what matters. The POWER of self.
THERE IS NONE LESS QUALIFIED TO COMPLAIN ABOUT SELF CLAIMING UNMITIGATED AUTHORITY AND POWER FOR SELF THAN THE RCC AND LDS (AND YOU'VE PRETTY MUCH CONVINCED ME THE EO, TOO).
.
Typo?
]
Hey DZ! God bless you.
