Heresies of the sixteenth century

[pinacled]

Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them.
14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15 When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.


So how is justifying favor taught to the disciples heretical?

26. First in order, come the forty-one propositions of Luther, condemned by Leo X. in his Bull Exurge Domine, published in 1520, which is found in the Bullarium of Leo X. (Constit. 40), in Cochleus’s account of Luther’s proceedings, and also in Bernini’s (1) works. They are as follows :
[1st – It is a usual, but a heretical opinion, that the Sacraments of the New Law give justifying grace to those who place no hindrance in the way. ]





Narrowed to a single confession.
so luther the hypothetical character is almost like a disingenuous way of admitting guilt.
By their own mouth it seems quite obvious what is in the Heart of rome.

Unless of course it is a fictional work meant to slander catholics.

 

[MoreCoffee]

27. Besides the errors here enumerated and condemned by the Bull, there are many others mentioned and enumerated by Noel Alexander, and Cardinal Gotti (2), extracted from various works of Luther, as from the treatise ” De Indulgentiis,” ” De Reformatione,” ” Respon. ad lib. Catharini,” ” De Captivitate Babilonica,” ” Contra Latomum,” ” De Missa privata,” ” Contra Episc. Ordinem,” ” Contra Henricum VIII. Regem,” “Novi Testamenti Translatio,” ” De Formula Missæ et Communionis,” ” Ad Waldenses, &c.,” ” Contra Carlostadium,” ” De Servo arbitro,” ” Contra Anabaptistas,” and other works, printed in Wittemberg, in several volumes. Here are some of his most remarkable errors:

1st – A Priest, though he does it in mockery or in jest, still both validly baptizes and absolves.

2nd – It is a foul error for any one to imagine he can make satisfaction for his sins, which God gratuitously pardons.

3rd – Baptism does not take away all sin.

4th – Led astray by wicked Doctors, we think we are free from sin, by Baptism and contrition; also that good works are available for increasing merit, and satisfying for sin.

5th – Those who have made it a precept, obliging under mortal sin to communicate at Easter, have sinned greviously themselves.

6th – It is not God, but the Pope, who commands auricular confession to a Priest. Whoever wishes to receive the Holy Sacrament, should receive it entire (that is under both kinds), or abstain from it altogether.

(2) Nat. Alex. t. 19, art, 11, sec. 2; Gotti, c, 108, sec. 4; Tournelly, Comp, Thol. t. 5, p. 1, diss. 5, art. 2.

7th – The right of interpreting Scriptures is equal in the laity as in the learned.

8th – The Roman Church in the time of St. Gregory was not above other Churches.

9th – God commands impossibilities to man.

10th – God requires supreme perfection from every Christian.

11th – There are no such things as Evangelical Counsels; they are all Precepts.

12th – We should give greater faith to a layman, having the authority of Scripture, than to a Pope, a Council, or even to the Church.

13th – Peter as not the Prince of the Apostles.

14th – The Pope is the Vicar of Christ by human right alone.

15th – A sin is venial, not by its own nature, but by the mercy of God.

16th – I believe a Council and the Church never errs in matters of Faith, but as to the rest, it is not necessary they should be infallible.

17th – The primacy of the Roman Pontiff is not of Divine right.

18th – There are not Seven Sacraments, and for the present there should only be established Baptism, Penance, and the Bread.

19th -We can believe, without heresy, that real bread is present on the altar.

20th – The Gospel does not permit the Mass to be a sacrifice.

21st – The Mass is nothing else but the words of Christ : ” Take and eat, &c.,” the promise of Christ.

22nd – It is a dangerous error to call Penance, and believe it to be, the plank after shipwreck.

23rd – It impious to assert that the Sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, unless we should say that when there is undoubted faith, they confer grace.

24t – All vows, both of Religious Orders and of good works, should be abolished.

25th- It is sufficient for a brother to confess to a brother, for to all Christians that were, has been addressed : ” Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth.”

26th – Bishops have not the right of reserving cases.

27th – A change of life is true satisfaction.

28th – There is no reason why Confirmation should be reckoned among the Sacraments.

29th – Matrimony is not a Sacrament.

30th – Impediments of Spiritual affinity, of crime, and of order, are but human comments.

31st – The Sacrament of Orders was invented by the Pope’s Church.

32nd – The Council of Constance erred, and many things were rashly determined on, such as, that the Divine essence neither generates nor is generated, that the soul is the substantial form of the human body.

33rd- All Christians are Priests, and have the same power in the words and Sacraments.

34th – Extreme Unction is not a Sacrament; there are only two Sacraments, Baptism and the Bread.

35th – The Sacrament of Penance is nothing also, but a way and return to Baptism.

36th -Antecedent grace is that movement which is made in us without us, not without our active and vital concurrence (as a stone which is merely passive to physical acts), but without our free and indifferent action. It was thus Luther explained efficacious grace, and on this he founded his system, that the will of a man, both for good and evil, is operated upon by necessity; saying, that by grace a necessity is induced into the will, not by coaction, for the will acts spontaneously, but by necessity; and in another place, he says, that by sin the will has lost its liberty, not that liberty which Theologians call a coactione, but, a necessitate, it has lost its indifference.

 

[Lamb]

III. – ERRORS OF LUTHER. –


33rd – It is against the will of the spirit to burn heretics.

And that's wrong because...?

 

[pinacled]

And that's wrong because...?

[5th – Those who have made it a precept, obliging under mortal sin to communicate at Easter, have sinned greviously themselves.]


A murderer(unforgivable sin) presides over Easter I suppose.
Another confession as far as I can tell.


Which is in opposition to what I was taught in the spirit about pesach.
Mercy and a strength of forgiveness offered with a promise.

 

[MoreCoffee]

And that's wrong because...?

It's wrong because -

• The common punishment for serious crimes was death, at the time that the 41 errors were listed, and burning was less cruel than hanging, drawing, and quartering which was the punishment (in England) for treason (a capital crime) and heresy was a capital crime under civil law (often treated as a kind of treason against king and country). We see matters differently now - 500 years later. Nevertheless the concept that serious crime was rightly punishable by the civil authorities is one taught in holy scripture, in Romans 13 specifically.
  Romans 13:1-4 Let every soul be subject to higher authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those who have been ordained by God. 2 And so, whoever resists authority, resists what has been ordained by God. And those who resist are acquiring damnation for themselves. 3 For leaders are not a source of fear to those who work good, but to those who work evil. And would you prefer not to be afraid of authority? Then do what is good, and you shall have praise from them. 4 For he is a minister of God for you unto good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid. For it is not without reason that he carries a sword. For he is a minister of God; an avenger to execute wrath upon whomever does evil.​
• God punished evil doers with death on many occasions; the great flood is one very notable case.
• If it is the use of fire that is seen as objectionable then what is one to make of the story of Lazarus and the rich man? God punishes with eternal fire. Is he wrong to do so?
• If it is capital punishment for preaching and teaching heresy that is objected to then why did God instruct ancient Israel to "not suffer a witch to live" and why did God mandate capital punishment for heresy in the Law given to Moses?

People see things very differently now, 500 years later, nevertheless what the scriptures say remains as it was 500 years ago and the example God set in the old covenant remains in print for Christians to read today. So what was said against Martin Luther's views is rooted in holy scripture despite differences between culture now and back in 1520.

 

[pinacled]

It's wrong because -

• The common punishment for serious crimes was death, at the time that the 41 errors were listed, and burning was less cruel than hanging, drawing, and quartering which was the punishment (in England) for treason (a capital crime) and heresy was a capital crime under civil law (often treated as a kind of treason against king and country). We see matters differently now - 500 years later. Nevertheless the concept that serious crime was rightly punishable by the civil authorities is one taught in holy scripture, in Romans 13 specifically.
  Romans 13:1-4 Let every soul be subject to higher authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those who have been ordained by God. 2 And so, whoever resists authority, resists what has been ordained by God. And those who resist are acquiring damnation for themselves. 3 For leaders are not a source of fear to those who work good, but to those who work evil. And would you prefer not to be afraid of authority? Then do what is good, and you shall have praise from them. 4 For he is a minister of God for you unto good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid. For it is not without reason that he carries a sword. For he is a minister of God; an avenger to execute wrath upon whomever does evil.​
• God punished evil doers with death on many occasions; the great flood is one very notable case.
• If it is the use of fire that is seen as objectionable then what is one to make of the story of Lazarus and the rich man? God punishes with eternal fire. Is he wrong to do so?
• If it is capital punishment for preaching and teaching heresy that is objected to then why did God instruct ancient Israel to "not suffer a witch to live" and why did God mandate capital punishment for heresy in the Law given to Moses?

People see things very differently now, 500 years later, nevertheless what the scriptures say remains as it was 500 years ago and the example God set in the old covenant remains in print for Christians to read today. So what was said against Martin Luther's views is rooted in holy scripture despite differences between culture now and back in 1520.

Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother's were righteous.

Rebellion in the case of korach was, is, and will always be dealt with by the All Mighty..

The two capital offenses are conspiracy to commit murder and murder.
Both of which The Lord has never asked his children to forgive.

 

[Lamb]

It's wrong because -

• The common punishment for serious crimes was death, at the time that the 41 errors were listed, and burning was less cruel than hanging, drawing, and quartering which was the punishment (in England) for treason (a capital crime) and heresy was a capital crime under civil law (often treated as a kind of treason against king and country). We see matters differently now - 500 years later. Nevertheless the concept that serious crime was rightly punishable by the civil authorities is one taught in holy scripture, in Romans 13 specifically.
  Romans 13:1-4 Let every soul be subject to higher authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those who have been ordained by God. 2 And so, whoever resists authority, resists what has been ordained by God. And those who resist are acquiring damnation for themselves. 3 For leaders are not a source of fear to those who work good, but to those who work evil. And would you prefer not to be afraid of authority? Then do what is good, and you shall have praise from them. 4 For he is a minister of God for you unto good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid. For it is not without reason that he carries a sword. For he is a minister of God; an avenger to execute wrath upon whomever does evil.​
• God punished evil doers with death on many occasions; the great flood is one very notable case.
• If it is the use of fire that is seen as objectionable then what is one to make of the story of Lazarus and the rich man? God punishes with eternal fire. Is he wrong to do so?
• If it is capital punishment for preaching and teaching heresy that is objected to then why did God instruct ancient Israel to "not suffer a witch to live" and why did God mandate capital punishment for heresy in the Law given to Moses?

People see things very differently now, 500 years later, nevertheless what the scriptures say remains as it was 500 years ago and the example God set in the old covenant remains in print for Christians to read today. So what was said against Martin Luther's views is rooted in holy scripture despite differences between culture now and back in 1520.

I'm somewhat disgusted that you are defending murder that is not justified and not declared by God to commit.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'm somewhat disgusted that you are defending murder that is not justified and not declared by God to commit.

It'd be just peachy if somebody alleged that God said to do burn heretics?

I notice that your argument against burning heretics has no scripture support to it.

You just rely on current cultural revulsion at the idea of burning heretics to death.

It is, of course, totally deplorable, nevertheless Lutherans did it to Anabaptists when they were not drowning them.

The English liked to try their Catholic "heretics" as traitors and then they hung, drew, and quartered them.

All the folk doing the killing justified their actions from holy scripture. In that they managed more than your condemnation does.

But if burning a heretic is so horrifying what about the eternal flames of hell applied to the unrepentant, unconverted, and heretics?

Or is that also too horrible to be right?

 

[pinacled]

It'd be just peachy if somebody alleged that God said to do burn heretics?

I notice that your argument against burning heretics has no scripture support to it.

You just rely on current cultural revulsion at the idea of burning heretics to death.

It is, of course, totally deplorable, nevertheless Lutherans did it to Anabaptists when they were not drowning them.

The English liked to try their Catholic "heretics" as traitors and then they hung, drew, and quartered them.

All the folk doing the killing justified their actions from holy scripture. In that they managed more than your condemnation does.

But if burning a heretic is so horrifying what about the eternal flames of hell applied to the unrepentant, unconverted, and heretics?

Or is that also too horrible to be right?

I thought the eternal wrath of unquenchable flames was reserved for the seed and the worm( Elihu/Satan..

I would not suffer a witch to live.
Having blasphemed the Holy Spirit it isn't asked of any else to forgive either.

Like I said earlier, this is very likely a fictional work.
The m.o. is as familiar as vulgar speech.

 

[pinacled]

I thought the eternal wrath of unquenchable flames was reserved for the seed and the worm( Elihu/Satan..

I would not suffer a witch to live.
Having blasphemed the Holy Spirit it isn't asked of any else to forgive either.

Like I said earlier, this is very likely a fictional work.
The m.o. is as familiar as vulgar speech.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-perversion.html

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

It is, of course, totally deplorable, nevertheless Lutherans did it to Anabaptists when they were not drowning them.

Always tragic to look in the mirror of history. Menno and his followers suffered many things at the hands of the reformers.

 

[pinacled]

Always tragic to look in the mirror of history. Menno and his followers suffered many things at the hands of the reformers.

A misrepresentation of accurate history is far removed from being a mirror.

Such a thing is like sand the enemy builds their house upon.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Always tragic to look in the mirror of history. Menno and his followers suffered many things at the hands of the reformers.

They did but did they learn compassion from their tragic persecution at the hands of Catholic and Protestant zealots?

Evidently not so much.

Many, perhaps most, Mennonites practise shunning. They cut off family and friends from any who dare to doubt the lessons of the elders.

In this they do what was done to them, except for the killing.

But being shunned is a kind of living torture for those who are on the receiving end of it.

I suspect that very few have ever learned not to be cruel to their alleged enemies and especially their alleged defectors.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I thought the eternal wrath of unquenchable flames was reserved for the seed and the worm( Elihu/Satan..

Isn't it for the 'goats' in Matthew 25:31-46?

I would not suffer a witch to live.
Having blasphemed the Holy Spirit it isn't asked of any else to forgive either.

So you'd be happy with witch killing? Then why not heretic killing too?

Like I said earlier, this is very likely a fictional work.
The m.o. is as familiar as vulgar speech.

Many have decided that the bible is fiction for reasons like hell-fire and eternal punishment. Is that what you are doing?

 

[MoreCoffee]

28. In his book on the Sacrifice of the Mass, we may perceive how remorse torments him. ” How often,” he says, ” has my heart beat, reprehending me Are you always wise ? Do all others err ? Have so many centuries passed in ignorance ? How will it be if you are in error, and you lead so many along with you to damnation ? But at length Christ (the devil he should have said) confirmed me.”

29. In the year 1522, Henry VIII. wrote a book in defence of the Seven Sacraments. Luther, answering him, calls him a fool, says he will trample on the crowned blasphemer, and that his own doctrines are from heaven. In the same year, he published his German translation of the New Testament, in which learned Catholics discover a thousand errors; he rejects altogether the Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews, the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, and the Apocalypse; he made many changes after the first edition, no less than thirty-three, in the Gospel of St. Matthew alone. In the words of St. Paul, chap, iii, v. xxviii, [Romans 3:28] ” For we account a man to be justified by Faith without the works of the law,” he adds the word alone, ” by Faith alone.” In the Diet of Augsburg, some one said to him, that the Catholics spoke very loudly of this interpretation, when he made that arrogant answer : ” If your Papist prattles any more about this word alone, tell him that Doctor Martin Luther wishes it to be so; sic volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas I wish so, I order so, let my will be sufficient reason for it.”

30. In the year 1523, he composed his book, ” De Formula Missæ et Communionis ;” he abolished the Introits of the Sundays, all the Festivals of Saints, with the exception of the Purification and Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin; he retained the Kyrie, the Gloria, and one Collect, the Epistle, the Gospel, and the Nicene Creed, but all in the vulgar tongue; he then passed on to the Preface, omitting all the rest; he then says : “Who, the day before he suffered,” &c., as in the Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass, but the words of the Consecration are chaunted as loud as the Pater Noster, that they may be heard by the people. After the Consecration, the Sanctus is sung, and the Benedictus qui venit, said; the bread and the chalice is elevated, immediately after the Pater Noster is said, without any other prayer; then the Pax Domini, &c. The communion follows, and while that is going on, the Agnus Dei is sung; he approves of the Orationes Domine Jesu, &c., and Corpus D. N. J. C., custodiat, &c. He allows the Communion to be sung, but in place of the last Collect, chaunts the prayer, Quod ore sumpsimus, &c., and instead of the Ite Missa est, says Benedicamus Domine. He gives the chalice to all, permits the use of vestments, but without any blessing, and prohibits private Masses. To prepare for Communion, he says, Confession may be permitted as useful, but it is not necessary. He allows Matins to be said, with three lessons, the Hours, Vespers, and Complin. (Saint Alphonsus Liguori)

 

[pinacled]

Isn't it for the 'goats' in Matthew 25:31-46?

So you'd be happy with witch killing? Then why not heretic killing too?



Many have decided that the bible is fiction for reasons like hell-fire and eternal punishment. Is that what you are doing?

A witch is a murderer morecoffee
A co conspirator and female compatriot of the plot to murder.
Take jezebel for instance.
Did she have anything in her heart that resembled purity.
No.
Power corrupts.

If I recall correctly vengeance was delivered by The Lord.
Take note of vs 29

Proverbs 16 New International Version (NIV)
16 To humans belong the plans of the heart,
but from the Lord comes the proper answer of the tongue.

2 All a person’s ways seem pure to them,
but motives are weighed by the Lord.

3 Commit to the Lord whatever you do,
and he will establish your plans.

4 The Lord works out everything to its proper end—
even the wicked for a day of disaster.

5 The Lord detests all the proud of heart.
Be sure of this: They will not go unpunished.

6 Through love and faithfulness sin is atoned for;
through the fear of the Lord evil is avoided.

7 When the Lord takes pleasure in anyone’s way,
he causes their enemies to make peace with them.

8 Better a little with righteousness
than much gain with injustice.

9 In their hearts humans plan their course,
but the Lord establishes their steps.

10 The lips of a king speak as an oracle,
and his mouth does not betray justice.

11 Honest scales and balances belong to the Lord;
all the weights in the bag are of his making.

12 Kings detest wrongdoing,
for a throne is established through righteousness.

13 Kings take pleasure in honest lips;
they value the one who speaks what is right.

14 A king’s wrath is a messenger of death,
but the wise will appease it.

15 When a king’s face brightens, it means life;
his favor is like a rain cloud in spring.

16 How much better to get wisdom than gold,
to get insight rather than silver!

17 The highway of the upright avoids evil;
those who guard their ways preserve their lives.

18 Pride goes before destruction,
a haughty spirit before a fall.

19 Better to be lowly in spirit along with the oppressed
than to share plunder with the proud.

20 Whoever gives heed to instruction prospers,[a]
and blessed is the one who trusts in the Lord.

21 The wise in heart are called discerning,
and gracious words promote instruction.

22 Prudence is a fountain of life to the prudent,
but folly brings punishment to fools.

23 The hearts of the wise make their mouths prudent,
and their lips promote instruction.

24 Gracious words are a honeycomb,
sweet to the soul and healing to the bones.

25 There is a way that appears to be right,
but in the end it leads to death.

26 The appetite of laborers works for them;
their hunger drives them on.

27 A scoundrel plots evil,
and on their lips it is like a scorching fire.

28 A perverse person stirs up conflict,
and a gossip separates close friends.

29 A violent person entices their neighbor
and leads them down a path that is not good.

30 Whoever winks with their eye is plotting perversity;
whoever purses their lips is bent on evil.

31 Gray hair is a crown of splendor;
it is attained in the way of righteousness.

32 Better a patient person than a warrior,
one with self-control than one who takes a city.

33 The lot is cast into the lap,
but its every decision is from the Lord.




"Blessed are the pure in heart..........."

 

[MoreCoffee]

31. In the year 1525, Carlostad attacked the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Sacrament, saying that the word this did not refer to the bread, but to the body of Christ crucified. Luther opposed him in his book, ” Contra Prophetas sen Fanaticos ;” in this he first speaks of Images, and says that in the law of Moses it was Images of the Deity alone which were prohibited; he before admitted the Images of the Saints and the Cross. Speaking of the Sacrament he says, by the word hoc, this, the bread is pointed out, and that Christ is truly and carnally in the supper. The bread and the body are united in the bread, and (speaking of the Incarnation) as man is God, so the bread is called his body and the body bread. Thus Luther falsely constitutes a second hypostatic union between the bread and the body of Christ. Hospinian quotes a sermon Luther preached against the Sacramentarians, where, speaking of the peace they wished to have established, if the Lutherans would grant them the liberty to deny the Real Presence, he says: ” Cursed be such concord, which tears asunder and despises the Church.”

He then derides their false interpretation of the words, ” This is my body.” He commences with Zuinglius, who says the word is is the same as signifies. ” We have the Scripture,” says Luther, ” which says, This is my body; but is there any place in the Scriptures where it is written, This signifies my body.” He then ridicules the interpretation of the others. ” Carlostad,” he says, ” distorts the word this; Ecolampadius tortures the word body; others transpose the word this, and say, my body which shall be delivered for you is this; others say, that which is given for you, this is my body; others maintain the text, this is my body, for my commemoration; and others again say, this is not an article of Faith.” Returning, then, on Ecolampadius, who said it was blasphemous to assert that God was kneaded, baked, and made of bread, he retorts : ” It would also, I suppose, be blasphemous to say God was made man that it was most insulting to the Divine Majesty to be crucified by wicked men and concludes, by ” saying : ” The Sacramentarians prepare the way for denial of all the articles of Faith, and they already begin to believe nothing.” Speaking of Transubstantiation, he says : ” It makes but little difference for any one to believe the bread to remain or not to remain in the Eucharist, if he believes in Transubstantiation.” In an agreement made with Bucer, at Wittemberg, in 1526, he granted that the body and blood of Christ remained in the Sacrament only while it was received. (saint Alphonsus Liguori)

 

[MoreCoffee]

Philip Melancthon, Luther’s chief and best beloved disciple, was a German, born in Brettan, in the Palatinate, of a very poor family, in the year 1497. He was a man of profound learning, and, at the age of twenty-four, was appointed one of the professors of Wittemberg by the Duke of Saxony. There he became imbued with Lutheran opinions, but as he was a man of the greatest mildness of manner, and so opposed to strife that he never spoke a harsh word against any one, he was anxious to bring about a union between all the Religions of Germany; and on that account in many points smoothened down the harsh doctrines of Luther, and frequently, in writing to his friends, as Bossuet, in his History of the Variations, tells us, he complained that Luther was going too far. He was a man of great genius, but undecided in his opinions, and so fond of indifference that his disciples formed themselves into a sect called Indifferentists, or Adiaphorists. The famous Confession of Augsburg was drawn up by him at the Diet, and his followers were on that account sometimes called Confessionists (1).

He divided his Confession into twenty-one articles, and stated his opinions with such moderation, that Luther afterwards complained that Philip, in endeavouring to smoothen down his doctrine, destroyed it (2). He admitted the liberty of human will, rejected the opinion of Luther, that God is the author of sin, and approved of the Mass. All these points were opposed to Luther’s system.

(1) Nat. Alex. t. 19, a. 11; s. 3, n. 4; Gotti, Ver. Rel. s. 109, sec. 3; Van Ranst, p. 308; Hermant, c. 241. (2) Hermant, loc. cit.