500 years ago today

solodeogloria wrote: »

G

The poster claims that I'm knowledgeable and erudite. I want to say to him that I'm sod all. All that I am God has given me.

I never claimed that at all , stop thinking so much of yourself:D
I was pointing to the Book, not you.
It was written so the plough boy could read and understand it.

But it looks like Owen doesn't care to look at its contents.

Good morning!

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

Well, if all the answers to her points are in the Bible, why doesn't she see them for herself?

Firstly - I'm a bloke!

Secondly - I'm confused by your question. You're aware that there's the possibility that the Bible may disagree with you and / or the Papacy?

Part of my Christian walk involved grappling with God seeming to say things that I didn't want Him to say or saying no to things that I wanted. Have you ever experienced that? It's the most humbling of experiences to say OK God, I submit to you rather than myself.

If God always agrees with you, and if your God never challenges and stretches you, it probably means that your God is actually you.

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

Solodeogloria, there is such a great chasm between us regarding the way to salvation that it is impossible for you to influence my position about the centrality of the Eucharist, or me to influence yours.

It's possible for us both to hear something new if we're willing to listen and share with one another.

All I ask for is Biblical grounds for believing that Martin Luther is a heretic. I can give them for saying that Johann Tetzel who sold indulgences on behalf of Pope Leo X.

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

As regards the Pope, he is dragging the one true church into the mire, and will pay dearly for his causing further confusion and scattering of the flock. Thank you.

OK - so if the Pope is wrong now, why couldn't the Pope be wrong to condemn Luther as a heretic during the Council of Trent?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Delirium

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

Why are you, a non believer, on a Christian forum site?
You do your snivelling best to insult my beliefs, hiding behind a pretence of interest in the Reformation. Go and study it if you are interested, but do not insult me, and millions of others. Go and get lost to a history forum.

MOD NOTE

Anyone, be they Christian or not, are free to post in the forum once they stay within the bounds of the charter.

It would also be appreciated if you could avoid getting personal with other posters. (Also applies to you, feargale).

Thanks for your attention.

I apologise for assuming you were a woman. We usually assume the opposite, so I thought I might be correct, Solodeogloria.
If a ploughboy could read and understand the Bible, how come there are so many interpretations?
Christ founded the Catholic church when he said to Peter "Thou art Peter and on this rock... The Church then was given the power through the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible for us.
Left to ourselves, we can interpret it any way we like. Thus the confusion over such things as the Eucharist.
Because the church was founded by Christ, it must be infallible in matters of faith. Christ would not abandon His bride, the church.
As regards the popes, there have been many heretical ones, and charity prevents me from assuming where their eventual destinies lay. Thanks

Good morning!

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

If a ploughboy could read and understand the Bible, how come there are so many interpretations?

I'm not that sure that there are. The way I would probably see it is that there are primary and secondary interpretations of Scripture. If a text is crystal clear, namely that Jesus was crucified (this is impossible to miss in all four gospels and in the apostolic writings and the prophets point toward it) then I would say that this is a primary matter of faith. For things that aren't clear, there is room for disagreement. Paul tells us how to deal with these in Romans. He fully anticipates that there will be different views on secondary matters in the church:

Romans 14:5-8 ESV wrote:

Some think that one day is more important than another, and others think that every day is the same. Let all be sure in their own mind. Those who think one day is more important than other days are doing that for the Lord. And those who eat all kinds of food are doing that for the Lord, and they give thanks to God. Others who refuse to eat some foods do that for the Lord, and they give thanks to God. We do not live or die for ourselves. If we live, we are living for the Lord, and if we die, we are dying for the Lord. So living or dying, we belong to the Lord.

It is tempting to say that there is only one person who has the final say on how we understand Scripture, but it doesn't get away from interpretation. The same issues that you are raising with differences of interpretation also apply to Papal Magisterium. It's entirely possible that one Catholic can understand that entirely differently to another Catholic.

I think if there are discussions about interpretation, I'd rather that be about the primary source than about the secondary source.

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

Christ founded the Catholic church when he said to Peter "Thou art Peter and on this rock... The Church then was given the power through the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible for us.

A number of points here.

Firstly - Jesus founded the Christian church. There's no reason to believe that this is the Roman Catholic Church from Scripture.

Secondly - All Christians have the Holy Spirit dwelling with them, all true Christians are a temple of Holy Spirit. If anyone doesn't have the Spirit of Christ they are not a Christian (1 Corinthians 3:16). God the Holy Spirit helps us understand His Word because He's the one who inspired it in the first place.

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

Left to ourselves, we can interpret it any way we like. Thus the confusion over such things as the Eucharist.

Yes, and no.

Language has restrictions. If the Bible says clearly that Jesus is crucified I can't come to the conclusion that He wasn't crucified. That's not "interpretation". That's dishonesty.

Moreover, it isn't true that anyone can interpret anything any way they like. Words have meaning. It is possible that something can be interpreted in multiple ways, and if the passage permits that we have that freedom as Christians, but there are some things that are very clear and indisputable, we don't have freedom to ignore these things.

I don't think there's any "confusion" in my church about The Lord's Supper. We're doing it to remember Jesus.

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

Because the church was founded by Christ, it must be infallible in matters of faith. Christ would not abandon His bride, the church.
As regards the popes, there have been many heretical ones, and charity prevents me from assuming where their eventual destinies lay. Thanks

Now, there's a contradiction isn't there. How can the church as an institution be infallible if the shepherd of that church can be a heretic?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

solodeogloria wrote:

Much thanks, solodeogloria

Of course a Pope can be corrupt and work against God's church. The infallibility is guaranteed over the life of the church ie. until the end of time. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The church cannot be defeated.

Solodeogloria, there are as many versions of the Bible as there are churches. They are all in varying degrees of error.

Christ sent us the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is clear, concise, exact, not given to searching or grappling. The same for Christ's sermons. When he speaks, no one is left in any doubt what he says. His teaching on the Eucharist is clear and precise. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood, you shall not have life in you.

So many of his hitherto followers walked away that day, because they could not accept it. Thank you.

By the way, is it not an historical accuracy to say that Peter was the first Pope?

I can probably save you and solo a bit of typing time by referring you to some of his stock responses to those differences in this thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99111110

Outcome of the conversation that time: the same dissembling about interpretation and clarity as in this thread above.

I agree that there is room for error between receiving God's word and understanding it. However I believe the Bible is broadly clear. Disagreements tend to arise on secondary issues. Understanding a text isn't a free for all. Language has meaning.

Solo scriptura, where understanding scripture can't be a free for all.

Different interpretations (presented as "clear and indisputable") of John 6 become the core of this disagreement on Eucharist.

How there can be no church institutional infallibility in interpretation of scripture, and yet personal infallibility in interpretation of scripture (a multiplicity of them) is the great contradiction unresolved in Protestantism. (Unless, of course, they maintain it is the work of the Holy Spirit to seek confusion in the meaning of Christ's words, which I doubt they would claim).

Unfortunately, confusion and division are Luther's legacy, 500 years on, all 40,000+ flavours of it.

EirWatchr wrote: »

I can probably save you and solo a bit of typing time by referring you to some of his stock responses to those differences in this thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99111110

Outcome of the conversation that time: the same dissembling about interpretation and clarity as in this thread above.

Solo scriptura, where understanding scripture can't be a free for all.

Different interpretations (presented as "clear and indisputable") of John 6 become the core of this disagreement on Eucharist.

How there can be no church institutional infallibility in interpretation of scripture, and yet personal infallibility in interpretation of scripture (a multiplicity of them) is the great contradiction unresolved in Protestantism. (Unless, of course, they maintain it is the work of the Holy Spirit to seek confusion in the meaning of Christ's words, which I doubt they would claim).

Confusion and division is Luther's legacy, 500 years on, all 40,000+ flavours of it.

Good afternoon!

So Roman Catholics never disagree with each other on anything? Is that the conclusion that we're coming to?

I think the more sensible answer is that Christians will inevitably disagree with each other on some things.

On the Lord's Supper - John chapter 6 is a perfect example:
Firstly - given the context, Jesus isn't speaking about communion because The Lord's Supper isn't instituted (that happens in John 13).

Secondly - given the context he is speaking of the sacrifice of His own body in comparison to what Moses gave the Israelites in the desert in the previous verses (6:30 in particular). He compares eating the bread and drinking the blood to faith in Him (verse 35). When His disciples ask about it afterwards He says that His words are spirit and life and that the flesh is no help at all (verse 63).

Thirdly - there is no passage of Scripture that explicitly states how The Lord's Supper is to be understood bar Jesus saying it is to be instituted as a remembrance, and Paul recounting the account of The Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians when he speaks of people taking it unworthily.

Given the silence on Scripture on the exact nature of the The Lord's Supper we are free to reach our own conclusion on the matter (see my previous quote from Romans 14) in love to one another and in good conscience in faith to our Lord Jesus Christ. Indeed - amongst the Reformers Martin Luther and the Swiss Reformer Ulrich Zwingli had different views on The Lord's Supper.

The Lord's Supper is important to the Christian life, but the Christian life isn't just about The Lord's Supper. It is about our faith and walk and our understanding of Jesus and how we live and speak for Him in our day to day lives.

Again - I don't see how the Roman Catholic Church can be infallible given the fact that you have Pope Leo X advocating taking money from vulnerable people through Johann Tetzel, and a pope in Avignon and a pope in Rome at the same time on two occasions! The Reformation happened with good justification. The church was corrupt, and not infallible because it had stopped listening to Scripture.

I don't maintain that any church is infallible because the church is full of sinners (myself very much included!). I maintain that my Lord Jesus Christ is perfect and that His Word inspired by the Holy Spirit is perfect.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Thanks solodeogloria, for your comments. I don't have anything to add to my earlier points. God bless you.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

So Roman Catholics never disagree with each other on anything? Is that the conclusion that we're coming to?

Facetious comment, unworthy of you.

There are differences within the Catholic community all the time, as you know - just as there are in the Anglican communion. It is precisely in times of internal difference and tension within the Catholic Church that we see the workings of the Holy Spirit there, ensuring infallibility against incorrect teachings on matters of faith and morality. (Which, by the way, no such infallible teachings have been proclaimed by the current pontiff. As such, it is incorrect to give the impression he is considered heretical within the Catholic Church.)

EirWatchr wrote: »

Facetious comment, unworthy of you.

There are differences within the Catholic community all the time, as you know - just as there are in the Anglican communion. It is precisely in times of internal difference and tension within the Church that we see the workings of the Holy Spirit there, ensuring infallibility against incorrect teachings on matters of faith and morality. (Which, by the way, no such infallible teachings have been proclaimed by the current pontiff. As such, it is incorrect to give the impression he is considered heretical within the Catholic Church.)

Good afternoon!

It is hardly facetious to point this out. You were labouring a point about how Protestants (of all shades) have different views about some things in Scripture. It is clear that Roman Catholics have different views, even about the Cathecism and the Papal Magisterium. Disagreement is unremarkable. The fundamentals of the gospel are very clear from Scripture. This is why tatranska is right to say that the plough boy can understand the Bible for himself and come into a relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ through it without any need for anyone to come in between this.

Pope Leo X supported a true heretic - Johann Tetzel who manipulated people to give money to get themselves and their relatives a get out of jail free card from purgatory whilst giving Martin Luther a Papal Bull for encouraging reform on this issue. In one sense that's all I need to know to say that the Reformation was God's work in the church. That's without recounting all that God has done over the last 500 years. The Reformation isn't over either, it is a continuing work that hasn't stopped and it is a work that needs to happen again and again in our churches to bring us closer to our Lord Jesus and what He has said in His word and what He has done once and for all on the cross.

owenybaloney implied that there were "heretical popes" in his post.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

solodeogloria wrote: »

You were labouring a point about how Protestants (of all shades) have different views about some things in Scripture.

Stating actually, to prevent the repetition and labouring of the same old fruitless discussion. Was it an incorrect statement?

solodeogloria wrote: »

It is clear that Roman Catholics have different views, even about the Cathecism and the Papal Magisterium.

Now you are re-iterating. I did/do not dispute that point.

The Cathechism stands as the Church's body of teachings - its infallible scriptural interpretations, by the college of bishops, the apostles' successors - of God's will for contemporary Christian faithful. Everyone has free will to choose where to go for their teaching and development of their understanding of scripture and of God's will, and they are also free to disagree or ignore any teaching they want, to whatever consequences that leads to. A professed Catholic holds that choosing to wilfully act or teach contrary to the articles within the Catechism contravene's God's will.

solodeogloria wrote: »

This is why tatranska is right to say that the plough boy can understand the Bible for himself and come into a relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ through it without any need for anyone to come in between this.

Not too many plough boys left today, but in medieval times most were illiterate. Thankfully, where you might have left the plough boy alone with the book and no intermediate, the Lord had the wisdom to send another worker into the field, the current Pope's prototype - St. Francis - who inspired love of Jesus Christ of the Gospels through song and fireside tales, or through carved scenes from the Gospels, all without a written word. Was the Lord in error at putting those people "in between"? Strangely enough, it's the model he set in motion Himself when he first sent the apostles out, when not a word of His was yet written.

As an aside that may interest you: St. Francis's insistence on bringing the Gospels to the ordinary people that way brought great tensions between himself and the Papacy at a time when Rome was very protective of the Bible (in Latin), but both remained faithful and found a way (within the Church) of settling their differences, and the eventual outcome yielded fruit to the Church from both approaches combined.

And when the plough boy grows up and enters the modern age, when he is faced the prospect of euthanising a suffering parent, or whether to engage in IVF treatment for a wanted child, or involve in an abortion for an unwanted child - would you leave him alone with just his Bible then to help him navigate God's will? Or would you step forward, as Christ's inspired disciple to help him out? What passages would you direct him to in such matters of contemporary morality?

solodeogloria wrote: »

Pope Leo X supported a true heretic.

On the topic of labouring, you seem very hung up on Pope Leo X. If you're looking for examples of a really bad pope you'd be spoilt for choice going even further back than that. How about Sergius III who murdered another pope and fathered an illegitimate son? Fortunately (or perhaps providentially), he was too busy indulging in his own immorality instead of influencing the Church teachings with it.

Anyway, same 500 year old discussion. We could be labouring until hell freezes over. A thing about labouring - it's worth doing, only so long as it bears fruit.

I'm off - have a good weekend. God bless.

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

I apologise for assuming you were a woman. We usually assume the opposite, so I thought I might be correct, Solodeogloria.
If a ploughboy could read and understand the Bible, how come there are so many interpretations?
Christ founded the Catholic church when he said to Peter "Thou art Peter and on this rock... The Church then was given the power through the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible for us.
Left to ourselves, we can interpret it any way we like. Thus the confusion over such things as the Eucharist.
Because the church was founded by Christ, it must be infallible in matters of faith. Christ would not abandon His bride, the church.
As regards the popes, there have been many heretical ones, and charity prevents me from assuming where their eventual destinies lay. Thanks

Firstly, the verse you quoted in the Greek differs from your interpretation.
Jesus uses 2 words. Petra and Petros. He refers to Himself as the Rock and Peter as a stone. In light of this, He says that He'll build the Church upon Himself (the Rock) not Peter (a stone)

As for the Holy Spirit teaching us. The Apostle John says that believers have an annointing from the Spirit which will teach us all things. Both the old and new testament says that we won't need people to teach us but the God would be our teacher. To think that the Bible can only be opened to us by a church ( any church) is contrary to the Word of God. If you read it, you'd know these things.

It's interesting to see those who are Catholics referring to heretical pope's.
I thought they were all chosen by the Holy Spirit in conclave!
Makes you wonder about it all.

Good evening!

EirWatchr wrote: »

Stating actually, to prevent the repetition and labouring of the same old fruitless discussion. Was it an incorrect statement?

Now you are re-iterating. I did/do not dispute that point.

The Cathechism stands as the Church's body of teachings - its infallible scriptural interpretations, by the college of bishops, the apostles' successors - of God's will for contemporary Christian faithful. Everyone has free will to choose where to go for their teaching and development of their understanding of scripture and of God's will, and they are also free to disagree or ignore any teaching they want, to whatever consequences that leads to. A professed Catholic holds that choosing to wilfully act or teach contrary to the articles within the Catechism contravene's God's will.

Are there no disagreements about the Catechism? It seems like there's still interpretation but you're relegating it to the secondary source rather than the primary one.

I don't see any advantage in doing that. I also for the record don't see any problems with having oversight pastorally in the church. My own has an Episcopal church structure like yours with bishops and clergy. The only difference is that they are not the primary authority but are subject to God's word. The authority in Catholicism seems to be the church over God's word rather than the other way around. That was basically the problem with Catholicism in the Reformation. If the church has authority when people like Tetzel are running around on the Pope's authority that means the Pope and Tetzel are in the right and God's Word is in the wrong when it conflicts with them.

How could that be right?

EirWatchr wrote: »

Not too many plough boys left today, but in medieval times most were illiterate. Thankfully, where you might have left the plough boy alone with the book and no intermediate, the Lord had the wisdom to send another worker into the field, the current Pope's prototype - St. Francis - who inspired love of Jesus Christ of the Gospels through song and fireside tales, or through carved scenes from the Gospels, all without a written word. Was the Lord in error at putting those people "in between"? Strangely enough, it's the model he set in motion Himself when he first sent the apostles out, when not a word of His was yet written.

Sure - but the Reformation didn't just make the Bible available to read. The Reformation also made the Bible available to hear. The services after Luther were conducted in German. People could hear what Jesus said and what the Apostles taught and understand it. The Bible isn't shared simply by reading. Jesus' words could be heard and listened to. The Reformation gave the common man the ability to hear Jesus speak to him by the simple reading of God's Word out loud in church.

EirWatchr wrote: »

As an aside that may interest you: St. Francis's insistence on bringing the Gospels to the ordinary people that way brought great tensions between himself and the Papacy at a time when Rome was very protective of the Bible (in Latin), but both remained faithful and found a way (within the Church) of settling their differences, and the eventual outcome yielded fruit to the Church from both approaches combined.

Why was Rome ever protective of the Bible? Why didn't they want people to hear it? Why did they stamp out Wycliffe and the Lollards for translating the Bible into English? Why did they kill Jan Hus in Bohemia? Why did they condemn Luther for telling the truth? Why did the church encourage Bloody Mary to kill Ridley, Latimer, Cranmer and Hooper for faithful ministry on the basis of the Scriptures?

EirWatchr wrote: »

And when the plough boy grows up and enters the modern age, when he is faced the prospect of euthanising a suffering parent, or whether to engage in IVF treatment for a wanted child, or involve in an abortion for an unwanted child - would you leave him alone with just his Bible then to help him navigate God's will? Or would you step forward, as Christ's inspired disciple to help him out? What passages would you direct him to in such matters of contemporary morality?

The plough boy could learn about the implications of the truth that he's learned in the Scriptures and how it implies in day to day life. Learning what God has to say about life and death will be useful in knowing about issues such as abortion for example. For example the truth that David writes in the Psalms that he was knitted together in his mother's womb (Psalm 139:13) in and of itself has big implications for how we understand life and death today in our world. Particularly in respect to abortion.

I don't know why you think the Scriptures are limited and we need to hear the teachings of men instead. The Bible is remarkably comprehensive. I was on a Christian summer camp last summer with a dorm of 14 to 18 year olds. Every single question that they had that week in July I was able to answer either by pointing them to Jesus in John's gospel or by looking at Paul's letter to the Romans. Those are just 2 books of the Bible. There are 66. It's my desire to know God better and better and understand him more and more so that there can be no human opinion (which is what non-Biblical church teaching basically is) that can be preferential to the living Word of God in Scripture.

EirWatchr wrote: »

On the topic of labouring, you seem very hung up on Pope Leo X. If you're looking for examples of a really bad pope you'd be spoilt for choice going even further back than that. How about Sergius III who murdered another pope and fathered an illegitimate son? Fortunately (or perhaps providentially), he was too busy indulging in his own immorality instead of influencing the Church teachings with it.

Understanding the Reformation and why it was important is as crucial to the Christian in 2017 as it was in 1517. Constantly being Reformed by God's Word rather than our own is key.

EirWatchr wrote: »

Anyway, same 500 year old discussion. We could be labouring until hell freezes over. A thing about labouring - it's worth doing, only so long as it bears fruit.

I'm off - have a good weekend. God bless.

The truth is important. The role of Scripture is more important today than ever. I make no apology for that.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

What do posters on here think of Fatima?

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

What do posters on here think of Fatima?

Its a town off the motorway between lisbon and porto. I generally keep to the motorway!

branie2

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

What do posters on here think of Fatima?

A town famous for visions, and I was there 11 years ago on a day pilgrimage. It was a wonderful experience.

Thinkingaboutit

branie2 wrote: »

A town famous for visions, and I was there 11 years ago on a day pilgrimage. It was a wonderful experience.

Yes good, but the authorities there are rather hostile to the Mass of Ages and the priests who offer it. On one occasion they actually played loud music and had a Conciliar nun sing an amplified V2 tune on a guitar, in order to disrupt an SSPX pilgrimage. Some recent additions to Fatima are very aesthetically challenged. Yet, nowadays the authorities are at least better than the Knock authorities to deployed security men to deny the SSPX priests and the pilgrims with them access to Knock. They welcome Protestants and Moslems, but Catholics wishing to hear Mass as Catholics always heard it, are cold shouldered.

J C

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

Yes good, but the authorities there are rather hostile to the Mass of Ages and the priests who offer it. On one occasion they actually played loud music and had a Conciliar nun sing an amplified V2 tune on a guitar, in order to disrupt an SSPX pilgrimage. Some recent additions to Fatima are very aesthetically challenged. Yet, nowadays the authorities are at least better than the Knock authorities to deployed security men to deny the SSPX priests and the pilgrims with them access to Knock. They welcome Protestants and Moslems, but Catholics wishing to hear Mass as Catholics always heard it, are cold shouldered.

Sounds like the counter-reformation has come full circle ... to meet the reformation ... or is it the other way around?:)

Anyway, it makes one very grateful for having a direct line to Jesus Christ ... who is far better!!!:)

gozunda

branie2 wrote: »

Martin Luther started the Reformation

Yippee - and brought some debate to the matter of traditional dogma ...

gozunda

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

Thank you for reminding me of those references. I have often asked the question, is it possible for me to be a Christian without the church, or even is it possible for me to be a Christian within the church? I wonder what Luther would think of it all today.

You don't need organised religion to believe in human redemption ...

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by owenybaloney
Because the church was founded by Christ, it must be infallible in matters of faith. Christ would not abandon His bride, the church.
As regards the popes, there have been many heretical ones, and charity prevents me from assuming where their eventual destinies lay. Thanks

solodeogloria
Now, there's a contradiction isn't there. How can the church as an institution be infallible if the shepherd of that church can be a heretic?

Its even worse than that ... within Roman Catholocism, infallability supposedly only resides with the pope(s).
... so, the question becomes ... How can the pope be infallible, if the pope can also be a heretic?

Nick Park

J C wrote: »

Its even worse than that ... within Roman Catholocism, infallability supposedly only resides with the pope(s).
... so, the question becomes ... How can the pope be infallible, if the pope can also be a heretic?

Technically, the Pope is only considered to be infallible when he makes an ex cathedra pronouncement or defines dogma. So, unless the heretic does that, then he should be grand.

You are correct, Nick Park. However, heretical popes work for satan and divide the flock. Hell will be hot enough for them.

J C

Nick Park wrote: »

Technically, the Pope is only considered to be infallible when he makes an ex cathedra pronouncement or defines dogma. So, unless the heretic does that, then he should be grand.

Whatever about the technical niceities of the matter ... there is a very significant logical issue with claiming infallibility for certain pronouncements of a man whilst simultaneoulsly regarding him as a heretic on other pronouncements.

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

You are correct, Nick Park. However, heretical popes work for satan and divide the flock. Hell will be hot enough for them.

Good evening!

Hot coals in hell for "heretical popes" doesn't answer the questions, nor does it exactly inspire confidence that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church founded by Jesus or that Martin Luther was a heretic for challenging it.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

How many times do you have to be told? The Catholic church is the one true Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world.

If you are outside the Catholic Church when the final trumpet blows, through your own fault, you will be excluded from the Kingdom.