BABYLON SCAMYLON

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

TheHolyBookEnds

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2018
545
161
63
Neighbour
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hmmmm......so when you said, "I read every thing in full, where possible" and that you "read as much as is possible.." that really means that you "read all of it" ?? A bit confusing to me but I digress!!!
I meant what I said, and my statement refers to all that I have cited, not merely the citation from NewAdvent in regards "most latin fathers". You have misread my statement. I cannot help that. Read more carefully, and do not assume more than what is stated.

You did not give context.
The citation in regards "most latin fathers" was a full citation, since explantions 1, 3, & 4 which surround explanation 2 are independent of it. That you cited explanation 1 & 2, leaving 3 and 4, does not give any further context to explanation 2, when it reads "most latin fathers", since in explanation 1, it references only "(Grimm, Simar)." 2 Persons which differ in understanding from "most latin fathers", explanation 2. The same goes for explanations 3 & 4 in regards explanation 2. Explanation 3 gives as references a vague "Protestant theologians living after the seventeenth century).", which means absolutely nothing, since true Protestant reformers "all" identified the Papacy as the AntiChrist, and many of which were former Roman Catholics themselves, being scholars, priests, etc., beforehand. Any other "portestant theology" is mistaken or a Jesuit co-adjutor, or a plain ol' Jesuit, pretending to be protestant. Examples may include Westcott, Hort, Lightfoot, Tregelles, etc. Explanation 4 simply references "(Döllinger)." A single man, a "(28 February 1799 – 14 January 1890)" (WikiP) a german Catholic priest who wrote well after all the so-called "most latin fathers" wrote.

Post #249 is context.
No, it is simply citing the other explanation 1, in addition to explantion 2. Explanation 1, is not actually necessary to cite Explanation 2, or 3 or 4.

You are in error once again.

I realize now that you did not give YOUR opinion.
I am beginning to realize something about you also.

You cut and pasted someone else's.....
I do not know what you refer to, and until you demonstrate it, it is simply an accusation (and unfounded at that no matter what you cite, since as I have stated, I have done my own homework, and cite as much of quotation source material as is possible).

Once again, no big deal,
It is, since it is a incorrect accusation.

I have done the same thing.
You admit yours, but I do not so grant any such thing in regards the sources under question.

HOWEVER when you cut and paste someone else's opinion you own it.
What are you referring to please?

The originator of your opinion took the writings of Tertullian out of context and you parroted them.
I cited Tertullian directly from NewAdvent.org. Nothing was out of context and cited in full relevant part. I even gave you two other sources on Tertullian, the one from CCEL, which you asked me for, and original Latin text. As for the "most latin fathers" citation, this too was in full relevant part, nothing out of context or mis-cited, or mis-applied. I stated on several occasions now, that those citations mean what they say, nothing more, nothing less. You have added to my replies, something which is simply not there.

Are you ok with us discussing the other quotes you posted??? I have some issues with them since they are also out of context and deceiving. :)
Can discuss what you will, since they are in context, and not deceiving at all, since they state what they state and nothing more and nothing less. You are adding to my response and then accusing me of an idea of that which you yourself added.
 
Last edited:

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,426
1,681
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What is there to "LOL" about? Please explain.

"Officially sanctioned" in matters the Roman Catholic sources, would have to have the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur at the very least, or be published directly under a Roman Catholic publishing house, such as Ignatius Press, L'Oservatory Ramono, etc.

LOL means to Laugh out Loud!! ;)

Upon reading your post I could clearly see that you were in grave error and misquoting (cutting and pasting from other anti-Catholic sources) historical writings.

I have said this before but you probably haven't read my previous post: I am a retired History Professor. It was easy to see your errors. I just had to do some quick refreshing before responding to you errors. That is why I laughed out loud when I read your post. I instantly knew you had fallen into the grips of anti-Catholic writers/blogers.

Sooooo the questions still remains: Would something from a Catholic source be "officially sanctioned" in your opinion???

A simple yes or no would do
instead of the 38 word NON ANSWER you gave.

Mary
 

TheHolyBookEnds

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2018
545
161
63
Neighbour
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hmmmm.... the 21 words you quoted is more context than the 65 words I quoted??? Fascinating.

How does that work again?? Fewer words mean MORE context????

I didn't ADD to what you posted.....I put into CONTEXT what you posted.

Do you know what the definition of CONTEXT is???
I stated "relevant" context. A person can cite the whole page, but that doesn't make it relevant to the other citations. Explanation 1, is not relevant to Explanation 2, nor 3 nor 4, nor to the persons cited as Tertullian, etc.
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,426
1,681
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I do not know what you refer to, and until you demonstrate it, it is simpoly an accusation (and unfounded at that no matter what you cite, since as I have stated, I have done my own homework, and cite as much of quotation source material as is possible).
Thank you for your time. I can see we are MILES apart and you have an rabid anti-Catholic bent that blinds you.

I put into context your post and you say your post are in context.

I fully quote a source to destroy your beliefs and you partially quote a source to make your point.

I ask you questions and you don't answer them. I suspect it is because you fear your answer will reveal your errors.

I wish you well.

Mary
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,426
1,681
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Is English your first language (asking sincerely).

I asked, "What is there to "LOL" about? Not 'what does LOL mean'.
Silly boy.....did you read my entire post or just what offended you?

I will re-post what made me LOL: "Upon reading your post I could clearly see that you were in grave error and misquoting (cutting and pasting from other anti-Catholic sources) historical writings."

When one cuts and pastes from others WITHOUT RESEARCHING what they have cute and pasted....it makes me LOL!!!!

best wishes....Mary
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,426
1,681
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I do not believe you for a moment. Scripture tells me not to.
I sincerely do wish you well.

You do know that your newadvent.org "source" is not the official voice of the RCC???

I will gladly help you in your "research": http://w2.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html

Sincerely....Mary
Is English your first language (asking sincerely).

I asked, "What is there to "LOL" about? Not 'what does LOL mean'.
I do not believe you are being sincere. I believe you are being sarcastic.

Notice the little emoji at the end of that statement???

It is a winking emoji and most people know what that means. Since you don't, I will help you out: http://www.dictionary.com/e/emoji/winking-face-emoji/

Look for this sentence in the article: The winking face emoji also functions as a way to imply that someone is just joking around.

Your welcome.....:)

Mary
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
I meant what I said, and my statement refers to all that I have cited, not merely the citation from NewAdvent in regards "most latin fathers". You have misread my statement. I cannot help that. Read more carefully, and do not assume more than what is stated.

The citation in regards "most latin fathers" was a full citation, since explantions 1, 3, & 4 which surround explanation 2 are independent of it. That you cited explanation 1 & 2, leaving 3 and 4, does not give any further context to explanation 2, when it reads "most latin fathers", since in explanation 1, it references only "(Grimm, Simar)." 2 Persons which differ in understanding from "most latin fathers", explanation 2. The same goes for explanations 3 & 4 in regards explanation 2. Explanation 3 gives as references a vague "Protestant theologians living after the seventeenth century).", which means absolutely nothing, since true Protestant reformers "all" identified the Papacy as the AntiChrist, and many of which were former Roman Catholics themselves, being scholars, priests, etc., beforehand. Any other "portestant theology" is mistaken or a Jesuit co-adjutor, or a plain ol' Jesuit, pretending to be protestant. Examples may include Westcott, Hort, Lightfoot, Tregelles, etc. Explanation 4 simply references "(Döllinger)." A single man, a "(28 February 1799 – 14 January 1890)" (WikiP) a german Catholic priest who wrote well after all the so-called "most latin fathers" wrote.

No, it is simply citing the other explanation 1, in addition to explantion 2. Explanation 1, is not actually necessary to cite Explanation 2, or 3 or 4.

You are in error once again.

I am beginning to realize something about you also.

I do not know what you refer to, and until you demonstrate it, it is simply an accusation (and unfounded at that no matter what you cite, since as I have stated, I have done my own homework, and cite as much of quotation source material as is possible).

It is, since it is a incorrect accusation.

You admit yours, but I do not so grant any such thing in regards the sources under question.

What are you referring to please?

I cited Tertullian directly from NewAdvent.org. Nothing was out of context and cited in full relevant part. I even gave you two other sources on Tertullian, the one from CCEL, which you asked me for, and original Latin text. As for the "most latin fathers" citation, this too was in full relevant part, nothing out of context or mis-cited, or mis-applied. I stated on several occasions now, that those citations mean what they say, nothing more, nothing less. You have added to my replies, something which is simply not there.

Can discuss what you will, since they are in context, and not deceiving at all, since they state what they state and nothing more and nothing less. You are adding to my response and then accusing me of an idea of that which you yourself added.
I gave you quotes from Tertullian that you ignored because they didn't fit your preconceptions. I challenge you to name one ECF from the 1st to the 8th century that was Protestant. Better still, name one ECF who rebelled against the Church.

The moral deficiencies of the original Protestant so-called "reformers" were the MOTIVE, for their apostasy. It was not merely that they were sinners. They were sinners who apostatized BECAUSE of their sins.

If Henry VIII did not want to divorce his sacramentally married wife, marry his chippie mistress, steal Church lands and use the money to pay off his personal debts, England would still be Catholic. Henry VIII made himself 'head of the Church" in England. He had more mistresses than wives and he killed several of those. He used his 'religious authority' to ignore the teaching of Our Lord and Savior on divorce and serve his own lusts. he was also guilty of greed, egoism, cruelty, murder, extortion, and irreligion.

If Martin Luther did not suffer from severe bipolar manic-depressant illness with frank psychosis during his periods of mania, he would never have invented a purely formal definition of 'righteousness' that was evacuated of all moral content and inspired millions of others to settle for a sub-Christian notion of discipleship…
Luther shacked up with his girlfriend for 1 1/2 years before marrying her. He was complicit in the bigamy of Philip of Hess. He encouraged gangs of thugs to invade convents and rape the nuns therein.

If Zwingli the priest had not been a sex crazed rogue who seduced the young women in his congregation... and frequented prostitutes

If Calvin had not been an egomaniac who had murderous intent towards anyone who disagreed with him and in fact executed many people under horrendous conditions. he treated the Genevans so badly that they through him out of town, but in the social chaos that ensued they invited him back so he could use his form of dictatorial repression to stabilize the social disaster the 'reform' had created. And there are the credible charges of his own private vices.

If Knox had not been part of the assassination team that murdered Cardinal Beaton...

Cranmer was Henry's foil to destroy the Church. He had a secret wife in Germany while he pretended to be a celibate priest.

All in all they were total moral reprobates and hypocrites. Forgive me for not finding them worthy to challenge Historic Christianity, especially when their false doctrines were at the service of their personal vices.

The faults of the so-called "reformers" are central to their apostasy.

To turn around and complain that some Catholics may not have been nice is besides the point. No matter how mean some of them were, they stayed in the Church. Jesus said that he had come to save sinners, not righteous people. In light of that, claiming that Catholics were sinners therefore someone needed to found a new Church makes no sense! Sinners need to be in THE Church and no other.

These men were not qualified to infallibly declare the Pope to be the anti-Christ. What they really were trying to do is justify their break from the historic Church, and the papacy was their chief target. It was politics, not "true Christianity".
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
I sincerely do wish you well.

You do know that your newadvent.org "source" is not the official voice of the RCC???

I will gladly help you in your "research": http://w2.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html

Sincerely....Mary

I do not believe you are being sincere. I believe you are being sarcastic.

Notice the little emoji at the end of that statement???

It is a winking emoji and most people know what that means. Since you don't, I will help you out: http://www.dictionary.com/e/emoji/winking-face-emoji/

Look for this sentence in the article: The winking face emoji also functions as a way to imply that someone is just joking around.

Your welcome.....:)

Mary
How refreshing! The Catholic Encyclopedia provides a source for starting research, it is a means to an end. It is not an end in itself. As you say, it is not intended for catechesis. Not everything the ECF wrote was accepted by the Church. But anti-Catholics don't care. They can fashion weapons from the Church's teachings or anything else. The Bible never pits the Bible against the Church. Never. They do it because it is a man made tradition.
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
Better still, name one ECF who rebelled against the Church.
it's like Catholics are taught that Trent I, II, and III didn't even happen or something, and maybe the Orthodox just decided to split in a vacuum lol.

Of course most Christians don't know what happened either, and after all it would take 2 or 3 clicks to find out, but i mean what are you going to do when everyone knows what "the church" did @ Trent?

The RCC was the rebel then, see, and just foisted their pov on everyone else at the point of a gun, basically. Trent III was all pagans, as the real believers had already given them the finger and split. And this is after promises were made to not do exactly what they did! (if i remember right)
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheHolyBookEnds

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
"
Since its much lamented fall from natural glory at the end of the Bronze Age, in the century of Christ the world's government had slumped the lowest. The non-centralized but highly advanced worlds of the Celts and the Phoenicians had been destroyed, millions or its people slaughtered and its territories turned to waste lands. The democratic experiment of Athens and even Rome's ancient senate (or curia) had failed. Rome's Republic too had become unstable and greedy generals such as Pompey and Julius Caesar had turned it into a tyranny. A milestone in primitivity was reached when Octavian became Emperor Augustus and the suffocated Republic was resurrected as Empire: a governmental zombie without a soul and a true horror; the world's first fascist state.

The Roman Empire was a death machine in which only one man was always right and everybody else a slave. Men were constricted into uniforms and poised into legions, where they were made to obey remote masters (Ephesians 6:12) and serve the currencies of terror and coercion. The world became a vortex that directed mankind's proceeds to Rome where it was converted into concrete and madness by millions of slaves, many of whom died of abuse or suicide. The city of Rome became the greatest altar of human sacrifice the world had ever seen and the death toll among civilians was so high that a continuous stream of fresh citizens was required just to keep its squalor going. The individual counted for nothing and the masses were entertained with death and ignorance. The higher up the social ladder, the more in line with the structure of tyranny one had to be, the more noble one was deemed, and the more one could count on the system's protective machine: the police and judicial courts.

Ordinary people had very little claim to such protection, unless their discomfort bore directly upon someone higher up. Rich people could literally get away with murder and rarely suffered a punishment worse than forced relocation. Rome's signature mode of torture — namely crucifixion, which after a day or three led to death by exhaustion — was reserved for uppity slaves and foreigners and specifically designed as a public deterrent. That so many still ended up on crosses shows that a very large segment of Rome's population valued resistance more than their own lives. Ultimately, only very few people really benefitted from Rome and a great many felt imprisoned by it and fought to get out.

Even from before its inception, people from all walks of life, both foreigners and Romans alike, battled this atrocious beast with all their might. The empire's architect Julius Caesar found himself murdered..." http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Mary.html#.W1jhudJKiUl

this is where the ppl that usurped the Councils of Trent earned their chops, the ones you now call your "Catholic Church."
my apologies, ok
 
Last edited:

TheHolyBookEnds

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2018
545
161
63
Neighbour
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
...If Martin Luther did not suffer from severe bipolar manic-depressant illness with frank psychosis during his periods of mania, he would never have invented a purely formal definition of 'righteousness' that was evacuated of all moral content and inspired millions of others to settle for a sub-Christian notion of discipleship…
Martin Luther was assaulted by the devil and his angels, into various times of deep depression (History of Protestantism, by J. A. Wylie (page 303); & History of the Reformation, by J.H. Merle Daubigne (page 386)), to cause him to cease from his assaults upon the devils "whore" (Revelation 17).

Others in scripture fell under the same assault, such as the prophet Elijah:

1 Kings 19:4 But he himself went a day's journey into the wilderness, and came and sat down under a juniper tree: and he requested for himself that he might die; and said, It is enough; now, O LORD, take away my life; for I am not better than my fathers.​

Such as Job:

Job 3:2 And Job spake, and said,
Job 3:3 Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night in which it was said, There is a man child conceived.
Job 3:4 Let that day be darkness; let not God regard it from above, neither let the light shine upon it.
Job 3:5 Let darkness and the shadow of death stain it; let a cloud dwell upon it; let the blackness of the day terrify it.
Job 3:6 As for that night, let darkness seize upon it; let it not be joined unto the days of the year, let it not come into the number of the months.
Job 3:7 Lo, let that night be solitary, let no joyful voice come therein.
Job 3:8 Let them curse it that curse the day, who are ready to raise up their mourning.
Job 3:9 Let the stars of the twilight thereof be dark; let it look for light, but have none; neither let it see the dawning of the day:
Job 3:10 Because it shut not up the doors of my mother's womb, nor hid sorrow from mine eyes.
Job 3:11 Why died I not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly?
Job 3:12 Why did the knees prevent me? or why the breasts that I should suck?
Job 3:13 For now should I have lain still and been quiet, I should have slept: then had I been at rest,
Job 3:14 With kings and counsellors of the earth, which built desolate places for themselves;
Job 3:15 Or with princes that had gold, who filled their houses with silver:
Job 3:16 Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light.
Such as Jonah:

Jonah 4:3 Therefore now, O LORD, take, I beseech thee, my life from me; for it is better for me to die than to live.​
 
Last edited:

TheHolyBookEnds

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2018
545
161
63
Neighbour
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Luther shacked up with his girlfriend for 1 1/2 years before marrying her.
Source please?

"... In the monastery of Nimptsch, near Grimma in Saxony, dwelt in the year 1523 nine nuns, who were diligent in reading the Word of God, and who had discovered the contrast that exists between a christian and a cloistered life. Their names were Magdalen Staupitz, Eliza Canitz, Ava Grossen, Ava and Margaret Schonfeldt, Laneta Golis, Margaret and Catherine Zeschau, and Catherine Bora. The first impulse of these young women, after they were delivered from the superstitions of the monastery, was to write to their parents. “The salvation of our souls,” said they, “will not permit us to remain any longer in a cloister.” Their parents, fearing the trouble likely to arise from such a resolution, harshly rejected their prayers. The poor nuns were dismayed. How can they leave the monastery? Their timidity was alarmed at so desperate a step. At last, the horror caused by the papal services prevailed, and they promised not to leave one another, but to repair in a body to some respectable place, with order and decency. Two worthy and pious citizens of Torgau, Leonard Koppe and Wolff Tomitzsch, offered their assistance, which they accepted as coming from God himself, and left the convent of Nimptsch without any opposition, and as if the hand of the Lord had opened the doors to them. Koppe and Tomitzsch received them in their wagon; and on the 7th of April 1523, the nine nuns, amazed at their own boldness, stopped in great emotion before the gate of the old Augustine convent in which Luther resided.

“This is not my doing,” said Luther, as he received them; “but would to God that I could thus rescue all captive consciences and empty all the cloisters!— the breach is made!” Many persons offered to receive these nuns into their houses, and Catherine Bora found a welcome in the family of the burgomaster of Wittenberg.

If Luther at that time thought of preparing for any solemn event, it was to ascend the scaffold, and not to approach the altar. Many months after this, he still replied to those who spoke to him of marriage: “God may change my heart, if it be his pleasure; but now at least I have no thought of taking a wife; not that I do not feel any attractions in that estate; I am neither a stock nor a stone; but every day I expect the death and the punishment of a heretic.”

Yet everything in the Church was advancing. The habits of a monastic life, the invention of man, were giving way in every quarter to those of domestic life, appointed by God. On Sunday the 9th of October 1524, Luther, having risen as usual, laid aside the frock of the Augustine monk, and put on the dress of a secular priest; he then made his appearance in the church, where this change caused a lively satisfaction. Renovated Christendom hailed with transport everything that announced that the old things were passed away.

Shortly after this, the last monk quitted the convent; but Luther remained; his footsteps alone re-echoed through the long galleries; he sat silent and solitary in the refectory that had so lately resounded with the babbling of the monks. An eloquent silence, attesting the triumphs of the Word of God! The convent had ceased to exist. About the end of December 1524, Luther sent the keys of the monastery to the elector, informing him that he should see where it might please God to feed him. The elector gave the convent to the university, and invited Luther to continue his residence in it. The abode of the monks was destined erelong to be the sanctuary of a christian family.
Luther, whose heart was formed to taste the sweets of domestic life, honored and loved the marriage state; it is even probable that he had some liking for Catherine Bora. For a long while his scruples and the thought of the calumnies which such a step would occasion had prevented his thinking of her; and he had offered the poor Catherine, first to Baumgartner of Nuremberg; and then to Dr. Glatz of Orlamund. But when he saw Baumgartner refuse to take her, and when she had declined to accept Glatz, he asked himself seriously whether he ought not to think of marrying her himself.

His aged father, who had been so grieved when he embraced a monastic life, was urging him to enter the conjugal state. But one idea above all was daily present before Luther’s conscience, and with greater energy: marriage is an institution of God,— celibacy an institution of man. He had a horror of every thing that emanated from Rome. He would say to his friends, “I desire to retain nothing of my papistical life.” Day and night he prayed and entreated the Lord to deliver him from his uncertainty. At last a single thought broke the last links that still held him captive. To all the motives of propriety and personal obedience which led him to apply to himself this declaration of God, It is not good that man should [388] be alone, was added a motive of a higher and more powerful nature. He saw that if he was called to the marriage-state as a man, he was also called to it as a reformer; this decided him.

“If this monk should marry,” said his friend Schurff the lawyer, “he will make all the world and the devil himself burst with laughter, and will destroy the work that he has begun.” This remark made a very different impression on Luther from what might have been supposed. To brave the world, the devil, and his enemies, and, by an action which they thought calculated to ruin the cause of the Reformation, prevent its success being in any measure ascribed to him—this was all he desired. Accordingly, boldly raising his head, he replied, “Well, then, I will do it; I will play the devil and the world this trick; I will content my father, and marry Catherine!” Luther, by his marriage, broke off still more completely from the institutions of the Papacy; he confirmed the doctrine he had preached, by his own example, and encouraged timid men to an entire renunciation of their errors. Rome appeared to be recovering here and there the ground she had lost; she flattered herself with the hope of victory; and now a loud explosion scattered terror and surprise through her ranks, and still more fully disclosed to her the courage of the enemy she fancied she had crushed. “I will bear witness to the Gospel,” said Luther, “not by my words only, but also by my works. I am determined, in the face of my enemies who already exult and raise the shout of victory, to marry a nun, that they may see and know that they have not conquered me. I do not take a wife that I may live long with her; but seeing the nations and the princes letting loose their fury against me, foreseeing that my end is near, and that after my death they will again trample my doctrine under foot, I am resolved for the edification of the weak to bear a striking testimony to what I teach here below.”

On the 11th of June 1525, Luther went to the house of his friend and colleague Amsdorff. He desired Pomeranus, whom he styled emphatically The Pastor, to bless his union. The celebrated painter Lucas Cranach and Doctor John Apella witnessed the marriage. Melancthon was not present.

No sooner was Luther married than all Europe was disturbed. ..." - The History of the Reformation, by J.H. Merle Daubigne, Chapter 13, pages 387-389.
 

TheHolyBookEnds

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2018
545
161
63
Neighbour
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
He [Luther] was complicit in the bigamy of Philip of Hess.
You over reach your knowledge (by far, and simply borrow Jesuit nonsense) -

"... When he was a young fellow of about twenty, Philip of Hesse was married to Christina, the daughter of Duke George of Saxony, a marriage as to which he had--as is customary with princes--little choice. As he found no pleasure in her soceity, this hot-blodded lord used the immemorial privelege of Catholic princes--a custom which unfortunately went over into Protestant lands and has been too often (though not always: witness the pure life of Frederick III of Germany and of his father-in-law, the prince consrt of England) followed by Protestant princes--of satisfying his lusts with other women. Under the quickening influence of Protestantism he became conscience-stricken to the extent of perceiving the moral baseness of his life, but not to the extent of abandoning it and clinging only to his wife. The question occured to him whether it might not be allowed under special circumstances to follow the Old Testament examples and take another wife. As early as 1526 he submitted to Luther--without reference to himself--the question of a possible bigamous marriage. At this time the relation of the Old to the New Testament law was not clear, and from the bitter opposition of the High Church Anglicans to the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill (but cf. Deut. 25:5-10) which was fainlly passed in 1907, that relation is not clear yet. Luther's answer is found in the archives in Cassel, and this, with the later documents in the case, was for the first time accurately printed in 1852 by the late Professor heinrich Heppe of Marburg. This earliest paper in this celebrated case is important enough to be laid before the reader, for with all his faults it is safer as well as faierer to judge Luther by Luther than by Fathers Janssen and Denifle. The first part of the manuscript is torn off. Luther says:

".... As to the other matter it is my faithful warning and counsel that Christians should not take more than one wife, not only because it is scandalous, and no Christian causes scandal but most diligently avoids it, but also because there is no word of God for it that it is pleasing to him by Christians. Heathen and Turks may do what they please. The ancient Fathers [Patriarchs] had several wives, but they were driven to this by necessity. And accordingly kings received as by inheritance the wives of their friends according to the law of Moses. But it is not sufficient for a Christian to be satisfied with the work of the Fathers (Patriarchs). he must have a divine word for himself, that makes it certain for him, just as they had. For where there was no necessity or cause, the ancient Fathers [Patriarchs] did not have more than one wife, as Isaac, Joseph, Moses, and many others. Therefore I canot advise it taking more than one wife), but strongly advise against it, especially to Christians, unless it might be a case of high necessity, such as that the wife was leprous or similarly afflicted. Other cases however I know not how to defend. I have with difficulty answered [page 207-208 (PDF N2-N3)] such questions to Your Grace. God's peace be with you, Amen. At Wittenberg, Wednesday after St. Catherine's Day, 1526. Your Princely Grace's obedient MARTIN LUTHER ..." - https://archive.org/stream/jstor-3154607/3154607#page/n2/mode/1up
https://archive.org/stream/jstor-3154607/3154607#page/n3/mode/1up


Ie. Martin Luther "strongly advise[d] against" Philip of Hesse taking another wife, and for it was unChristian, causing "scandal", but Martin Luther also knew that Philip was a Prince, and might do something drastic. Philip was one normally quick to act (see his leaving the meeting with Emperor in the night and frightening them all that he would come back with an army and take the city and Emperor (awesome stuff)). Therefore, Martin Luther says, "... I have with difficulty answered such questions ...". In those days, with Henry VIII, etc, to take another wife (act of marrying another while married, bigamy, while at the same time 'shelving' (sending away) the original wife, as Henry VIII did to Catherine of Aragon) was considered by the theologians (even the pope, who sent letters to Henry VIII behind the scenes, see History of the Reformation, by J.H. Merle D'Aubigne) the lesser of two evils, rather than to divorce and remarry.

Martin Luther, being what he was, and not a Prince, as Philip, could not dictate to Philip his actions, but advised as best he could, on the foundation of scripture, hoping that Philip would heed the word of God, and not take another wife, but if he did, not to make matters worse and divorce his first wife, Christina. It would be worse.
 
Last edited:

TheHolyBookEnds

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2018
545
161
63
Neighbour
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
He encouraged gangs of thugs to invade convents and rape the nuns therein.
Original source please. Making stuff up is not evidence, you knew that right? That Martin Luther encouraged those leaving the Roman Catholics mo-nasty-ism and celibastardistic systems to get married, has nothing to do with "gangs of thugs" and "rape".
 
Last edited:

TheHolyBookEnds

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2018
545
161
63
Neighbour
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If Zwingli the priest had not been a sex crazed rogue who seduced the young women in his congregation... and frequented prostitutes
I notice you never give actual sources, just copy from others claiming it as yours. What is your source (original source please), for what you have stated? Here is what I have found:

"... But Anna Zwingli had to contend with another matter as well: whether Zwingli had a sexual past. This is still debated (Furcha 1992:134 fn. 13). Jackson (1901:119) says that his unchaste behaviour was one of the reasons that almost cost him the call to Zurich. Reeves (2009:69) claims Zwingli admitted visiting a prostitute, who may have been a nun, during his pastorate at Einsiedeln. A second matter also came to the fore. Zwingli was also able to show that the letter claiming his part in the wronging of a daughter of a prominent citizen of Einsiedeln was false47 (Jackson 1901:119). These accusations never cast any doubt as to Anna's faithfulness. Despite these accusations it seems that their marriage and loyalty to one another was never in dispute. In the final analysis they emulated what Zwingli believed and preached about marriage and against celibacy grounded in scriptural norms developed by the patristic tradition (Furcha 1992:135). ..." - http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2305-08532016000300006 and also here - https://indieskriflig.org.za/index.php/skriflig/article/view/2007/3908

It says, "debated", and others make "claims" and "may have been", while Zwingli himself was able to show that one of the charges against him involving a noble woman was definitely false. However, what is the substantial evidence and original source that documents Zwingli had a past with a 'prostitute'? Even if so, moreover, it seems the timeline that this charge was made, was while Zwingli was a Roman Catholic priest (so, if true, that only makes sense, since that is the norm among the 'priests' of Roman Catholicism from the beginning).

He later came out of Roman Catholicism and got married and stayed faithful to his wife, unlike some 'popes' who died in their gross, gross sins (since you so desired to talk about this):

"...
The Papacy From 896 to 1048 AD

Even the Vatican’s apologists acknowledge that the Papacy passed through a dark age from 896 to 1048; they describe the Papacy of the 900s as a “pornocracy,” due to its domination by the Theophylacts, a corrupt family of Roman nobles. The Papal misdeeds of this era include: [1]

Boniface VI (896): Died after about 15 days in office – the second shortest Papal term of office in history. He was elected despite having been defrocked twice (once from the sub-diaconate, and once from the priesthood, and without being canonically reinstated to orders) by Pope John VIII for immorality. [3]

Stephen VI (896-897): Exhumed the corpse of Pope Formosus (891-896), tried the body for offenses against canon law in the “Cadaver Synod,” and had the former Pope's body mutilated (the three fingers used for blessing were chopped off) and the remains tossed into the Tiber. This outraged the population to the point of insurrection. Stephen was deposed and strangled – and then buried in St. Peter's.

Sergius III (904-911): Jailed and strangled his predecessor Leo V (903), as well as the antipope Christopher who had overthrown Leo. Sergius reaffirmed the “Cadaver Synod” verdict against Pope Formosus, and bore an illegitimate son with the Theophylact noblewoman Marozia; the boy later became Pope John XI.

John X (914-928): In order to gain the release of the French King (Charles the Simple) from his imprisonment by Count Heribert of Aquitaine, John confirmed the election of the Count's five-year-old son as Archbishop of Rheims.

John XII (955-964): Elected at age 18, deposed for “perfidy and treason” in 963, overthrew his successor after a few months, and “died at age twenty-eight – of a stroke suffered while in the bed of a married woman.” [4] A traditionalist historian says, “The Lateran Palace was called a brothel in his day, thanks to his diverse taste in lovers – both in terms of gender and number.”[5] John “did not hesitate to consecrate as bishop a ten-year-old boy as token of his affection, or to give sacred vessels to prostitutes.”[6]

John XIX (1024-1032): Won election through bribery.

Benedict IX (1032-1045): According to a traditionalist historian, “his personal life was so disgusting (filled as it was with mistresses and rumors of incest and sodomy) that one of the city's factions was able to rally support against him and drive Benedict out of Rome.”[7] After he fought his way back to power, he soon “accepted a bribe to abdicate in favor of his godfather, the arch priest John Gratian. [8]

Gregory VI (1045-1046): John Gratian was deposed for having bought election to the Papacy. ..."
... to be continued ...
 
Last edited:

TheHolyBookEnds

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2018
545
161
63
Neighbour
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
... a sex crazed rogue who seduced the young women in his congregation... and frequented prostitutes
... continued ...

"... The Papacy From 1455 to 1555 AD

· The Papacy of 1455-1555 likewise earned infamy for its immorality.[9] As is obvious, various Papal decisions (those that apologists describe as “disciplinary acts”) led directly to Protestant revolts in Germany and England. During this period, ancient paganism became respectable in the Vatican; Curial writing referred to “God the Father as ‘Jupiter Optimus Maximus,’ to the Virgin Mary as ‘Diana,’ to the Apostles as ‘legates,’ and to the bishops as ‘proconsuls.’”[10]

Callistus III (1455-1458): Made two nephews cardinals, and made a third nephew the commander of the Papal army. One of these nephews, Rodrigo Borgia, was made cardinal-deacon at age 25, and became vice-chancellor of the Holy See at age 26. This posting – and the immense wealth that the young cardinal was able to gain from it – paved the way for Rodrigo’s election as Pope Alexander VI in 1492.

Pius II (1458-1464): “known throughout Italy and beyond as a connoisseur, an historian, and the author of erotic plays and tales.”[11] PiusII made two nephews cardinals; one of these – who got his red hat at age 21 – reigned for a month as Pius III (1503).

Paul II (1464-1471): According to a liberal historian, he was “among the worst of the Renaissance popes: a vain, intellectually shallow, ostentatious playboy.” [12]

Sixtus IV (1471-1484): Named six nephews to the College of Cardinals; one of these would later become Pope Julius II. Sixtus’ coronation tiara cost 100,000 ducats – and this was just the beginning of his extravagances. He “connived at the Pazzi conspiracy to murder Lorenzo and Giuliano de’ Medici at High Mass at the Duomo in Florence.”[13] Giuliano died, but Lorenzo survived, and Florence rose against the Pope's allies. In response, “the pope placed Florence under interdict, and a two years’ war with the city began.”[14]

Innocent VIII (1484-1492): Won election by bribery, and created a plethora of unnecessary new posts in the Curia, auctioning them to the highest bidder to raise money. In 1489, he struck a deal with the Turkish Sultan. The Pope detained the Sultan Bayezit's fugitive (and rival) brother in Rome, and the Sultan gave the Pope an initial payment “almost equal to the total annual revenue of the papal state,”[15] plus an annual fee of 45,000 gold ducats, plus the relic of the Holy Lance, which supposedly pierced the side of Christ on the Cross. Innocent VIII made Giovanni Medici a cardinal at age 13; the young man was later elected as Pope Leo X.

Alexander VI (1492-1503): The father of “at least nine illegitimate children,”[16] he won his election by “generous bribes and promises of lucrative appointments and benefices,” and soon made clear that “the consuming passions of his pontificate would be gold, women, and the interests of his family. He named his son Cesare, at age eighteen, a cardinal, along with the brother of the current papal mistress. He also arranged several marriages for his daughter Lucrezia and often left her in charge of the papacy, as virtual regent, when he was away from Rome.” [17] The aforementioned papal mistress was Giulia Farnese, wife of Orsino Orsini; Romans referred to her sarcastically as “the bride of Christ.”[18]

Julius II (1503-1513): The nephew of Sixtus IV, and made cardinal by him at age 18. While a cardinal, he sired three daughters. With the aid of “substantial bribes and promises of ecclesiastical preferments,” he won unanimous election to the Papacy in a one-day conclave.[19] Julius donned silver armor and led his armies across Italy to expand the Papal States. He gave Henry VIII, the King of England, a dispensation to marry his brother's widow, Catherine of Aragon. (The dispensation soon backfired. When Henry sought an annulment from his marriage to Catherine, Pope Clement VII refused. This led to the Anglican schism of 1534.) Julius laid the cornerstone of the new Basilica of St. Peter in 1506 – but made the fateful decision to cover the construction costs by selling indulgences. In the bull Cumtam divino, he also declared Papal elections invalid if gained through simony – an ironic ruling, given the circumstances of his own election.

Ironically ,the sainted Pope Pius X reversed this decree. In the 1904 decree Vacante Sede Apostolica, Pius condemned simony, but held that this would not invalidate a Papal election. His successors did the same. John Paul II ruled in 1996 that “If – God forbid – in the election of the Roman Pontiff the crime of simony were to be perpetrated, I decree and declare that all those guilty thereof shall incur excommunication latae sententiae. At the same time I remove the nullity or invalidity of the same simoniacal provision, in order that – as was already established by my Predecessors – the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff may not for this reason be challenged.”[20]

LeoX (1513-1521): Upon his election, he said, “God has given us the papacy; now let us enjoy it.”[21] He continued the sale of indulgences to finance construction of St. Peter's. It was the marketing of this “spiritual benefit” by the Dominican preacher John Tetzel that caused Luther to post the “95 Theses” on the cathedral door at Wittenberg in 1517, starting the Reformation. King Henry VIII publicly opposed Luther and wrote In Defense of the Seven Sacraments; as a reward for this book, Leo gave the English King the title of “Defender of the Faith” – a title that the English royalty have continued using ever since, despite their schism from Rome. One of Leo's cardinals was his nephew, Giulio de’ Medici, who was later elected as Clement VII (1523-1534).

Paul III (1534-1549): While serving as a cardinal, he had kept a mistress, by whom he had four children. Upon his election, the first two cardinals he chose were his teenage grandsons. Paul “was an ardent believer in astrology, timing consistories, audiences, even the issue of bulls, according to the most auspicious arrangement of the stars.” [22]

Julius III (1550-1555): “created a scandal because of his infatuation with a fifteen-year-old boy whom he picked up in the streets of Parma,had his brother adopt, and then made a cardinal and head of the Secretariat of State.”[23] Another biographer describes this youth, Fabiano (who took the name of Innocenzo del Monte), as a “depraved … custodian of monkeys,”[24] and a Roman satirist of the time described Fabiano as an “empty and feminine boy.”[25] Fabiano fell from grace after Julius III died. Pius IV jailed Fabiano for killing two people at a banquet, and exiled him after his release from prison; then, Pius V removed Fabiano’s red hat. ..."​

... to be continued ...