web analytics

On This Day…03.01

By ATWadmin On January 3rd, 2007

1521 – Pope Leo X issues the papal bull Decet Romanum Pontificem, which excommunicates Martin Luther from the Catholic Church.

1911 – Police, with the army in attendance, storm a house in London’s East End were it is thought a gang of wanted anarchists are hiding. Newspapers dub the incident ‘The Siege of Sidney Street’.

1959 – Alaska becomes the 49th, and largest, American State.

1977 – Roy Jenkins MP announces that he is to leave the House of Commons to become President of the European Commission.

10 Responses to “On This Day…03.01”

  1. there is a papal bull (i forget the number) that has all Christ beleiving Christians excomunicated.

    The honour is not just for heroes like Luther.

  2. All Christ believing Christians? Do expand.

  3. Luther burned the papal bull. As CH Spurgeon put it, "What cared he for any Pope in or out of hell?"

  4. pepole who take the word of Christ as the exclusive source of their faith.

  5. Juan,
    The Catholic Church could simply have banned the Bible eons ago if it had wanted to. And the Catholic Church does not contain internal contradictions on the scale implied by a bull to ban all "Christ-believing Christians" which in the present context is wrongly applied to Luther since he was conditioned by his environment and upbringing just as the Popes of his day were.

  6. Adrian,
    the catholic church is not and never was the sole holder of the bible, although the suggestion that they could have been capable o doing so implies
    (if you believe in God) that you feel the pope is the supreme being.

    it did effectively ban the bible for many years in its occupied areas when it barred all but its cadre from reading it. It failed. Praise the Lord.

    in what way did luthers environment pose a contradiction to being redeemed by the holy ghost ?

    the papal bull (I will find the number for you), states clearly that all who are not subservient to the pope are damned.

    they may dodge this issue in current times, and others (see the current silence by all hypocrite religious bodies on the forthcoming private property intrusion and Christian oppressing laws in Northern Ireland and soon all the UK) this simply confirms (in the latter instance) their earthly and un-Christian societal ambitions. And their willingness (in the former instance) to contradict themselves in their mad dog lust for authority).
    (where’s purgatory, your granny believed it was a spiritual reality, do you ?)

    these actions and ambitions show that its pride, power and (interchangeable) tradition first (even when they grossly contradict and even attempt to substitute the Will of the Lord) and Jesus’ teachings not at all.

    only IKP and his friends have had the guts to Stand Up For Jesus. does that not make you ashamed as you gaze on you Christ mocking idols ?

  7. " conditioned by his environment and upbringing just as the Popes of his day were. "

    SOUNDS AN ODD THING FOR THE INFALIBALE SUBSTITUE FOR GOD TO SUFFER FROM.

  8. Juan,
    Several glaring errors in your understanding of Catholicism there.

    The Bible itself as we have it today is (humanly speaking) the product of the Catholic Church unless you follow the Bible of the Jews, the Gnostics, Marcion or some of the smaller sects. The only disputed points today are the apocrypha.

    The Catholic Church merely banned the abuse of the Bible by heretics. The Bible itself was preserved and promoted especially by the Benedictine monasteries. Martin Luther had the audacity to tamper with it and throw out books that he didn’t like – an example of his historical conditioning. But the biggest example of how he was a slave to historical circumstances was the way he sided with the German Princes and the way they sided with him. That POLITICAL decision of his paved the way for the Reformation of the Church but the new reformed Church would seem to have lost its continuity with the apostolic college as a result

    The Papal Bull you are speaking of is probably one by Boniface VIII if I’m not mistaken. It doesn’t say anything about Christ-believing Christians, as if there were any necessity to specify that a Christian should believe in Christ. It merely implies that to be a Christian is to be one of the "sheep" whom Christ commanded Peter to shepherd in John 21. I don’t see what possible objection you can have to that.

    Your strangest remark is that the infallibility of the Pope prevents his ordinary activities from being historically conditioned. Try and understand this – the infallibility of the Pope is no different from the infallibility of Peter when he said "You are Christ, the Son of the Living God" – a statement revealed to him not by flesh and blood but directly by the Father in heaven. Infallibility does not preserve the Pope from committing sins – even mortal sins (for instance, the Pope goes for confession once a month or so) and does not mean his ordinary statements are free from error, let alone historical conditioning.

  9. Hi Adrian
    What does papal infallibility mean then?
    I was raised a Catholic and not fully appreciated what it means.

    thanks
    Andy

  10. Hi Andy
    Papal infallibility means that the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra (in the name of the whole church) and when he solemnly defines a dogma, and that something pertains to faith or morals, the Holy Spirit preserves him from error.

    Theologians say that this has happened three times in history. The first was when Peter pronounced Jesus to be the Son of God. The second was the definition of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 (that Mary was free from sin right from her conception) and the third was when Pius XII defined the dogma of the Assumption.

    An infallible pronouncement is not a new revelation but rather a permanently valid insight into the existing revelation (which is to be found in Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition). In the past two instances, it has been made only when the Pope was satisfied that the Church as a whole wanted him to make the definition.

    Note that the fact that the Catholic Church claims that Pius XII was able to pronounce an infallible definition on the Assumption doesn’t mean Catholics have to believe that he wasn’t pro-Hitler for example. Although I believe that he wasn’t in favour of Hitler, that has nothing to do with his ‘infallibility’.