Reformation Day Oct 31

[learning]

I believe this is known as the day Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door

[One Bad Pig]

:yes:

[CatholicSage]

Boo! Hiss! I'm having a very nice All Saints' Day right now. :tongue:

[James Peter]

And there I was under the impression that historians weren't even certain that Luther ever nailed the 95Ts to any door, let alone that we knew which day he did it on...

[CatholicSage]

And there I was under the impression that historians weren't even certain that Luther ever nailed the 95Ts to any door, let alone that we knew which day he did it on...

Why would they challenge that? It seems rather pointless and unprovable.

[Anoetos]

Richard Marius is the only "scholar" I know of who doubts the historicity of the nailing, and he's not so much a scholar as a novelist cum historian.

[James Peter]

Richard Marius is the only "scholar" I know of who doubts the historicity of the nailing, and he's not so much a scholar as a novelist cum historian.

Well if I recall correctly both Oberman and Cameron say that there is little evidence for the nailing to the church door, and there must be some merit in the argument because one of my lecturers also mentioned it (and I consider him a pretty credible source considering he is a historian whose specialty is the early modern period of church history). I believe that the earliest time such an occurance is mentioned is more than two decades later, by Melanchton, who gets other details of Luther's early life wrong (he wasn't in Wittenberg at the time so his information is second hand). Certainly its a plausible thing to have happened and is often taught like fact but that doesn't mean that it was. Luther certainly issued them but the 'how' isn't known.

You said its pointless and unprovable - but so is the fact that it ever happened. And to those who are interested in that period of history it matters. Heck, the general modern perception of the event is skewed even if it did happen. They would have been posted in latin and the only people who would have read them would have been academics - the church door was just used as a noticeboard. Not quite the defiant outcry against Rome that its usually taught as (I know thats how my high school history teacher and textbook portrayed it, maybe thats not how its taught everywhere though)

[One Bad Pig]

Well if I recall correctly both Oberman and Cameron say that there is little evidence for the nailing to the church door, and there must be some merit in the argument because one of my lecturers also mentioned it (and I consider him a pretty credible source considering he is a historian whose specialty is the early modern period of church history). I believe that the earliest time such an occurance is mentioned is more than two decades later, by Melanchton, who gets other details of Luther's early life wrong (he wasn't in Wittenberg at the time so his information is second hand). Certainly its a plausible thing to have happened and is often taught like fact but that doesn't mean that it was. Luther certainly issued them but the 'how' isn't known.

You said its pointless and unprovable - but so is the fact that it ever happened. And to those who are interested in that period of history it matters. Heck, the general modern perception of the event is skewed even if it did happen. They would have been posted in latin and the only people who would have read them would have been academics - the church door was just used as a noticeboard. Not quite the defiant outcry against Rome that its usually taught as (I know thats how my high school history teacher and textbook portrayed it, maybe thats not how its taught everywhere though)
No, it wasn't a defiant outcry, merely Luther asking questions he felt strongly about. He didn't want to leave the church.

[Anoetos]

You said its pointless and unprovable

I didn't say that, CatholicSage said it.

It is pretty pointless though. Not Luther's Reformation, but how he initiated it.

Besides any of which, this is just the accepted date. As with the celebration of the Nativity (though Reformation Day is certainly not to be compared per ipse with the Incarnation), the date is not so important as the event.

And as has been mentioned, it's not as though Luther woke up one morning and said, "That's it, I'm leaving the church". It wasn't until he'd been excommunicated (for no good reason, by the way) that he made that decision and, even then, he'd already been kicked out.

[learning]

I thought Nov 01 was All Saints Day. And though I'm not Roman Catholic, I'ld rather think about the saints of the church, then some of the things that come out on Halloween. That's why I posted it, just to give an alternative to the other. I do remember once, our church had a party on Halloween where they had to dress up as Bible Characters, instead of other things related to the 'worldly view' of Halloween.

[Anoetos]

That's pretty common in confessional churches; i.e. to churches which self-consciously link themselves to the Reformation.

Sometimes it's called a harvest-party, or whatever.

I have to say though, the annual hullabaloo about Halloween among Christians leaves me cold for the most part. It's a secular holiday. I don't let my children dress up as demons or witches, but yes they do dress up and go begging for candy. I have yet to participate in a Samhain wicker-man lighting, or, indeed, any religious activity, except of course some observance of Luther's nailing of the theses.

So yes, it (Reformation Day) is a good observance for Protestant Christians to participate in, but I, personally, haven't much problem with them participating in the other holiday as well, again, as long as they aren't attaching any religious significance to it or dressing up as enemies of Christ.

[learning]

Yeah, my kids dress up and get candy, and man, they were sure hyper on it tonight!
But they usually pick something not related to something 'evil', like a princess,or something from a popular movie, but that's about as far as it goes.

[Chytraeus]

Actually, we know the date better than we know the surrounding circumstances.

First off, the 95 theses were originally written in Latin. They were written and presented for the purpose of discussing them in a theological forum. In those days, church men dated all important documents using the Church Calandar. Therefore, the noted date for the 95 Theses is the Eve of All Saints Day, that is, the day before, or Oct. 31. Interestingly enough Holloween is celebrated on October 31 precisely because it falls on the Eve of All Saints Day. Holloween is an Irish and American holiday, and is not celebrated anywhere else that I know of. In fact, I do not believe that even the Irish celebrate it with quite the zeal that we do.

Now, as to the Theses, they were written by Martin Luther in Latin and posted for discussion. It is assumed that he posted them on the door of the Wittenburg Castle, for that was the traditional place for posting such things. They had to be posted publically for it would be very unfair to invite someone to a theological debate without the opposing party knowing what all the issues were. There were posted in Latin because this was considered scholarly and church business, not common business.

However, someone, and we will never know for certain who, thought otherwise. It is commonly held that some of his students had a printing press. When they saw the Theses they were so impressed by them that they thought that everyone needed to read them, so they translated them into German and printed thousands of tracts to hand out to everyone they met. It is interesting to note that although the collected works of Martin Luther fill nearly 100 volumes, he actually only had a handfull of books intentionally published. All the rest were published by those who thought it unfair that the rest of the world could not read what he had written to them.

However, these theses are not the most interesting or even the most controvesial of his published theses, they are just the most widely known and published.

The Hildelburgh Theses caused much more trouble and are much more interesting to read. In those Luther was arguing that all true theology is theology of the Cross, and that all false theology is a theology of glory. In these theses he challenges us to always remember that we are nothing more than sinners saved by grace, and that any good we do in life is in spite of our strength, only because of the grace of God. It is also a reminder that we cannot ever be saved because of anything that we have done. "The theology of glory says, 'Do this, do not do that and you will be saved.' The theology of the cross says, 'Believe this and everything is already done.'"

Luther eventually repented of the 95 Theses for being too soft on the Pope. It was during the discussion of the Hildelburg Disputation that he found himself forced to first confess that he did not believe the Pope was infalible. This was the statement, made publically at a theological disputation, that really got him into trouble with Rome. Until then he was just a nuisance whom they thought they could eventually bully into returning to the doctrine of his mother. After this point it because open war, and only a complete recantation of all of his writings and teachings could be excepted.

[spauline]

bear with me, I will get to the point of how this applies to the exact date of the beginning of Protestantism. Anyway, this is just something I've been pondering as a Catholic:

In the OT, from what I understand, there was a great division between the North Kingdom and the South Kingdom. The North took 10 of the 12 tribes of Israel with it, leaving Judah behind with only 2, and yet, the true kingship remained with Judah. Well, anyway, we know in Catholicism that the 12 apostles are a type of the twelve tribes of Israel. Well, anyway, I know it may be crazy, but in both Catholic and Orthodox belief, the Apostles left successors in the Bishops, and, in particular there are five [four?] Apostolic Sees. Well, anyway, of course, in the NT history there was a great schism, not between north and south but between east and west, and just as the seceding party took most of the tribes in the OT, so the seceding Orthodox took all but one of the Apostolic Sees, that is, all but Rome, which, nevertheless, is the true kingship (the Pope of Popes).
Well anyway, to go on, because of their respective "apostasies", God of course chastised both the North and Southern kingdoms, and yet, it was the North, by way of Assyria that was chastised first (wasn't it somewhere around the 710's or 720's BC), whereas only later was Judah chastised by Babylon.

Well, I'm just thinking, just as there were these two great arch enemies of the People of God, Assyria and Babylon, so in the modern era, the two great Kingdoms of Christendom, Orthodoxy and Catholicism, are under assault by different but equally evil spiritual kingdoms, the one being ATHEISTIC MATERIALISM and the other RELATIVISTIC, HEDONISTIC MATERIALISM, and, I know I must be crazy, but the Orthodox (who are, according to this analysis a fulfillment of the North) have already been chastised by former, communism, whereas the chastisement of the west yet remains.

What does this have to do with Protestantism? Well, I'm just thinking, Judah was chastised an eye for an eye so to speak, in that it was 490 years that Judah had not been keeping the seventh year Sabbath for the land that their chastisement with Babylon came. Well, anyway, it's interesting to note that the Protesant Rebellion began in 1517, whereas, the chastisement for the Orthodox began in 1917. Moreover, 490 years from 1517 is 2007, and we note that there is considerable data from fully approved Catholic mystics that predict the sign that the Minor Chastisement is about to begin (a dress rehearsal for the end of the world, so to speak) is that a civil war will break out at nearly the same time in France and Italy. Now note, we are only about a year away from 2007, France and Italy are not in stable condition, and the Minor Apostasy is in full swing in the west. This makes me scared that the West's chastisement for hedonistic materialism may be simply a year away.

[spauline]

please note my mistake above: it now reads correct: France and ITALY, not Germany.

[spauline]

Please note another point: On the very eve of this monstrosity that the atheists were about to inaugurate in 1917, Our Dear Mother visits earth, in the name of a place that bears the name of Muhammed's [wife/daughter?], Fatima, to anounce to mankind the impending horrors to face the Church in Russia, the place of one of the greatest seats of Orthodoxy. And yet, even though her warnings are have epic proportions, She proclaims that, "In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph!"

Analogously, the overwhelming evidence from the same mystics that speak of an intermediate apostasy and tribulation to occur before the final set, they ultimately give hope: Inevitably, the faith is restored, and they largely suggest, as the cause, the Reunion of Christians.

Would this not, then, be the ultimate fulfillment of the OT Prophecies that speak of the Reunion of the Divided Kingdoms. For is not the subject of the prayed for unity of His Disciples a significant aspect of Christ's theology (especially John 17:20-23)?

I don't know, but when Jesus said, "Amen, Amen, I say to you, ... It will all be fulfilled," I don't think He was joking!

[humanevitae]

I didn't say that, CatholicSage said it.

It is pretty pointless though. Not Luther's Reformation, but how he initiated it.

Besides any of which, this is just the accepted date. As with the celebration of the Nativity (though Reformation Day is certainly not to be compared per ipse with the Incarnation), the date is not so important as the event.

And as has been mentioned, it's not as though Luther woke up one morning and said, "That's it, I'm leaving the church". It wasn't until he'd been excommunicated (for no good reason, by the way) that he made that decision and, even then, he'd already been kicked out.


"Luther was excommunicated for "no" good reason." This is so incredably blind as to be absurd. It is the patience and charity of the Catholic Church and the Pope (at that time) which proves the authenticity of the Catholic Church. Any other religion would have killed Luther for the things he did. The Catholic Church just excommunicated him.

Exactly what was it that Luther did do.
1) Luther said he would only change his positions if Scripture proved him to be incorrect, as he understood Scripture. Seems like nothing has changed in 500 years except it doesn't even have to be Scripturally correct to have a position altered.

2) Luther brought forth theological issues which needed clarification.These issues challanged the teachings of the Church and even the Church itself. Luther challanged the teaching authority of the Church and also the teaching authority of the Pope. I must ask: Who did he think he was?

3) In contradicting the primacy of the Pope, Luther denied that the inerrancy of the Council of Constance. Luther proclaimed that neither a council or a pope could proclaim their authority if it counterdicted the proper understanding of Scripture. Of course this was Scripture as Luther interpreted it. Luther's interpretations were more accurate than 1500 years of Church teachings as handed down by Jesus Himself. Every pope, bishop, and priest were sadly misinformed. All they had to do was obey what Luther told them and everything would have been OK.

4) Sola Scriptura was the major theme, the only major theme, that Luther could use to counteract the authority of council and Pope. Sola Scriptura was to be one of the major themes of the Reformation.Where in the world did Luther get this idea. It is certainly not in the Bible.

5) Luther argued that the authority of the Church was beneath that of the civil authority. Luther essentially said that when there was a problem with church teachings, ask the governor. Can you possibly get more ridiculous than this? According to Luther, the pope and the bishops did not have the authority to interpret Scripture. Maybe we should ask the attorney general?

6) Luther denied the power of the sacrements. He denied the priesthood. This alone makes him sound like the devil himself. Luther denied the existence of the sacraments of Confirmation, Matrimony, Holy Orders, and the Annointing of the Sick. Exactly who does this backyard preacher think he is? He has more authority than all the true Church for the whole 1500 years it's been in existence. This proves to me that the Protestants, during the Reformation, did not leave the Church because of indulgences. Their reasons were much more base and human. How about greed and material gain, as in property.

7) All this and Luther's disposing of seven books of the Bible, by his supreme command.

This man was not a prophet. He was a travesty. Instead of being a peacmaker he was the destroyer of peace. Not only did he totally screw up half of Europe, he can be blamed for screwing up millions of Protestants to this very day.

[Preterist264]

"Luther was excommunicated for "no" good reason." This is so incredably blind as to be absurd. It is the patience and charity of the Catholic Church and the Pope (at that time) which proves the authenticity of the Catholic Church. Any other religion would have killed Luther for the things he did. The Catholic Church just excommunicated him.

Exactly what was it that Luther did do.
1) Luther said he would only change his positions if Scripture proved him to be incorrect, as he understood Scripture. Seems like nothing has changed in 500 years except it doesn't even have to be Scripturally correct to have a position altered.

2) Luther brought forth theological issues which needed clarification.These issues challanged the teachings of the Church and even the Church itself. Luther challanged the teaching authority of the Church and also the teaching authority of the Pope. I must ask: Who did he think he was?

3) In contradicting the primacy of the Pope, Luther denied that the inerrancy of the Council of Constance. Luther proclaimed that neither a council or a pope could proclaim their authority if it counterdicted the proper understanding of Scripture. Of course this was Scripture as Luther interpreted it. Luther's interpretations were more accurate than 1500 years of Church teachings as handed down by Jesus Himself. Every pope, bishop, and priest were sadly misinformed. All they had to do was obey what Luther told them and everything would have been OK.

4) Sola Scriptura was the major theme, the only major theme, that Luther could use to counteract the authority of council and Pope. Sola Scriptura was to be one of the major themes of the Reformation.Where in the world did Luther get this idea. It is certainly not in the Bible.

5) Luther argued that the authority of the Church was beneath that of the civil authority. Luther essentially said that when there was a problem with church teachings, ask the governor. Can you possibly get more ridiculous than this? According to Luther, the pope and the bishops did not have the authority to interpret Scripture. Maybe we should ask the attorney general?

6) Luther denied the power of the sacrements. He denied the priesthood. This alone makes him sound like the devil himself. Luther denied the existence of the sacraments of Confirmation, Matrimony, Holy Orders, and the Annointing of the Sick. Exactly who does this backyard preacher think he is? He has more authority than all the true Church for the whole 1500 years it's been in existence. This proves to me that the Protestants, during the Reformation, did not leave the Church because of indulgences. Their reasons were much more base and human. How about greed and material gain, as in property.

7) All this and Luther's disposing of seven books of the Bible, by his supreme command.

This man was not a prophet. He was a travesty. Instead of being a peacmaker he was the destroyer of peace. Not only did he totally screw up half of Europe, he can be blamed for screwing up millions of Protestants to this very day.


I just thought that I would give a few thoughts on this post by point to point....


2) I'm sure that most people would have thought this of Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria in a largely Arian church. Just because a few go against an orginized body does not mean that they are always wrong.

3) Yawn an actual argument rather then a blind assertion is needed for credability. :sigh:

Actually on the issue of indulgances while we're at it, Nailing a thesis to the door of a church was a common way of challanging someone to a debate. Luther was challanging them to back up their sale of indulgances utilizing the bible (novel concept huh).

One last bone to pick with this point. If the Bishop of Rome is infaluable, how do you explain Honorius? Was he not he condemed by the 6th Ecumenical Council as a heritic?

4) Right.... So please do tell why Clement the Bishop of Rome has such a strong emphesis upon scripture in his epistle to the corinthians? There seems to be a lot of proving his arguments from the Bible no?

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.i.html

6) Protestants left Rome because it was a corrupt semi-pelagian institution.... there I've asserted something to counter your assertions (note that neither makes a good argument). :lol:

Anyways, to say that we left Rome because of selfish human greed and material gain is poisoning the well (a nice way to dismise arguments without actually arguing). :smile:

And excuse me but Luther was a professor of Theology if you didn't know that not some "backwoods preacher".

7) Well we all know the conflicts about the book of James that were going on at this time. The rest of the books I take it are the Maccabees and Deuterocanonicals?

Rememer please that the Deuterocanonicals were said to be unscriptural by fathers of the Early Church such as Jerome.

[Preterist264]

Couple more thoughts humanevitae...

If you want to discuse SOLA SCRIPTURA start a thread about it. There are lots of representatives of both sides to make for an intresting disscussion. :wink:

As to luther being a prophet huh????????

Who have you been talking to (or is this just a bunch of your less then fair minded well poisoning which I think is more likely). :eek:

Lutherans do not normally hold to the same position on the book of james as Luther did (they belive that it is canonical like John Calvin did). They also do not assert that Luther is somehow infaliable. :sigh:

I am not a lutheran and have disagreements with them (My favorite reformer btw was John Calvin also an educated guy). Conservative Lutherans are however, probablly the most Christ centered denomination in their preaching. :lol:

If you take some time to examine their positions you wouldn't make the mistakes of asserting as you have. :sigh:

Have you ever even set foot on a lutheran website or read/listened to any of their theology to see how they justify themselves? I think not my friend. :eek:

[humanevitae]

I just thought that I would give a few thoughts on this post by point to point....


2) I'm sure that most people would have thought this of Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria in a largely Arian church. Just because a few go against an orginized body does not mean that they are always wrong.

3) Yawn an actual argument rather then a blind assertion is needed for credability. :sigh:

Actually on the issue of indulgances while we're at it, Nailing a thesis to the door of a church was a common way of challanging someone to a debate. Luther was challanging them to back up their sale of indulgances utilizing the bible (novel concept huh).

One last bone to pick with this point. If the Bishop of Rome is infaluable, how do you explain Honorius? Was he not he condemed by the 6th Ecumenical Council as a heritic?

4) Right.... So please do tell why Clement the Bishop of Rome has such a strong emphesis upon scripture in his epistle to the corinthians? There seems to be a lot of proving his arguments from the Bible no?

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.i.html

6) Protestants left Rome because it was a corrupt semi-pelagian institution.... there I've asserted something to counter your assertions (note that neither makes a good argument). :lol:

Anyways, to say that we left Rome because of selfish human greed and material gain is poisoning the well (a nice way to dismise arguments without actually arguing). :smile:

And excuse me but Luther was a professor of Theology if you didn't know that not some "backwoods preacher".

7) Well we all know the conflicts about the book of James that were going on at this time. The rest of the books I take it are the Maccabees and Deuterocanonicals?

Rememer please that the Deuterocanonicals were said to be unscriptural by fathers of the Early Church such as Jerome.




Hi Preterist,
Thank you for responding to my article. I'll do my best to explain every line of it.
1) Jerome was only one of a dozen men that put together the Bible. Of course, all of them were Catholic. It was Jerome's job to actually write the words of the Bible in the Vulgate. In a method that is totally different from any Protestant writings, Jerome was not permitted to change any of the Bible. Every word had to go through the whole group for authorization. When the Bible was complete, the finished manuscript (Bible) was given to the Pope for approval. It was only after the Pope's approval that this book became known as the "Bible".

I have no idea if Jerome disagreed with portions of the Bible, because it doesn't make any difference. He, by himself, had no authority to change anything. Deuteros were in the Bible from the beginning. All the early church fathers used it. All of the the early church fathers would never change a word of the Bible. They wouldn't have had the audacity, like certain German preachers 1200 years later.

By the way, one of the men that were putting the Bible together was St. Augustine. Probably the greatest mind of that period. (maybe any period). St Jerome was not even a priest. He was an intelligent man who loved the Lord and could also write in the vulgar Latin.

Another thing I found out about Protestants. They don't care about the truth, they just want to slice and cut up the Catholic Church. Truth with them is just an unnecessary hinderance.



2) Your argument concerning Athanasius and the Aryans is totally senseless and without the slightest verification. Why even bring it up? It sounds like you have no arguments so that you have to make stuff up. It's a hollow argument and not worthy of you.


3) You have criticized my arguments as if they are the silliest things you have ever heard. So far It is your arguments that are totally useless if they make any sense at all. However, that's OK, I'm going to blow you out of the water anyway.


4) The Catholic Hierarchy was guilty of selling indulgences and Luther pointed this out. He was correct. However, call it what you want this is not a reason for condemming the Church or for a causing the Reformation. Luther was an angry little man that really liked all the attention he was getting. A lot of this attention came from some very greedy people. People that would gain a fortune by getting the Catholic Church out of their provinces.



5) Again, you are comparing apples to oranges. I'm not surprised. Honorous has nothing to do with this conversation


6) Pope Clement always desired to have people understand the Bible, as every other Pope that has ever lived. The Catholic Church holds every word of the Bible as the truth. They will not change any of it. Too bad the same can't be said by the so called "Bible Alone" Protestants.

You think I'm stretching the point? Jesus Himself said that divorce was not allowed. Every Protestant church ignores this. Why? That alone proves they don't believe in Bible Alone.
There are at least 1000 Protestant Churches. Everyone of them interpret the Bible to their own self justification. 1000 disagreements, 1000 lies, 1000 Bible Alone NOT.



7) Give me you definition of semi pelagian. I really doubt that you can.

I'm not poisoning the well. Just laying down true history. You obviously don't know what that is.
If anyone can brag about poinoning the well it is the long list of ignorant
poinonous Protestant writers. They don't care about the truth and they don't care how many people they hurt. They are like radioactivity. They poison everything they touch.



Compared to 1500 years of holy, solid Catholic writers, Luther was less than a backwoods preacher. Compared to 1500 years of Christ's words faithfully followed, the Apostles, the Early Church Fathers, The Doctors of our Church, the Magisteriums and all the Popes, Luther wouldn't make a blip on the Church radar screen.



8) So you know the about the Book of James. The only problem is that you throw the Book of James under the bus. Just like a typical Protestant. "if you don't agree with something written in the Bible, just forget it".

Doesn't sound like Bible Alone to me.


By the way, I have loved with affection every Lulthern I have ever met.

[One Bad Pig]

Hi Preterist,
Thank you for responding to my article. I'll do my best to explain every line of it.
1) Jerome was only one of a dozen men that put together the Bible. Of course, all of them were Catholic. It was Jerome's job to actually write the words of the Bible in the Vulgate. In a method that is totally different from any Protestant writings, Jerome was not permitted to change any of the Bible. Every word had to go through the whole group for authorization. When the Bible was complete, the finished manuscript (Bible) was given to the Pope for approval. It was only after the Pope's approval that this book became known as the "Bible".
The Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08341a.htm) disagrees with you, mentioning only Jerome as the translator of the Vulgate. That brings me to my next point; Jerome did not write the Bible, but only translated it into Latin. The contents were not collected by him, either; he translated a collection of writings already known as "the book of books." "Bible" is a transliteration from Greek.

Another thing I found out about Protestants. They don't care about the truth, they just want to slice and cut up the Catholic Church. Truth with them is just an unnecessary hinderance.
Most Protestants I know don't concern themselves with slicing and cutting up the Catholic Church. They're perfectly happy worshiping where they are, which they see as the truth.

2) Your argument concerning Athanasius and the Aryans is totally senseless and without the slightest verification. Why even bring it up? It sounds like you have no arguments so that you have to make stuff up. It's a hollow argument and not worthy of you.
Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

4) The Catholic Hierarchy was guilty of selling indulgences and Luther pointed this out. He was correct. However, call it what you want this is not a reason for condemming the Church or for a causing the Reformation. Luther was an angry little man that really liked all the attention he was getting. A lot of this attention came from some very greedy people. People that would gain a fortune by getting the Catholic Church out of their provinces.
Luther did not intend to start a revolution, but the Church forced his hand by booting him out. There was no lack of greed on either side, alas.

6) Pope Clement always desired to have people understand the Bible, as every other Pope that has ever lived.
:ahem: Maybe that's the case if you post hoc call the ones who didn't "anti-popes".


I'm not poisoning the well. Just laying down true history. You obviously don't know what that is.
If anyone can brag about poinoning the well it is the long list of ignorant
poinonous Protestant writers. They don't care about the truth and they don't care how many people they hurt. They are like radioactivity. They poison everything they touch.
Call it what you want, but you're doing a great job of poisoning the well yourself here.