Right. Well, when I go to Mass, I hear exhortations to a holy life. That's not a bad thing. I hear music that praises God. That's not a bad thing either. We pray prayers that unite us. The liturgical style is beautiful way to worship. Even those outside the Catholic theology can participate with a blessing from the priest.
Many of the teachings of the Catholic Church are good! But there's a big "however" that keeps me from heading to the RCIA classes, and that's how they look at salvation itself.
They see it as avoiding hell through a sufficiently holy life, I see it as an inability to merit heaven save for God's grace. Both theologies breed humility. Both theologies produce "fruits". It's the reason behind that humility and those fruits that says no, I am not of the Catholic faith. I'll be catholic, with a little 'c', but I deny the capability to ever be "good enough" to merit Heaven on my own. It's nice to think it's possible, but it's also too easy to believe that we can make our own way to God.
2007-03-15 03:50:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by ccrider 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
If you take a look at the period in which Luther lived, you might have a different point of view. First of all, the idea of nation-states was beginning to arise from the scattered communities of the Medieval period as trade increased among different areas of Europe. This tended to foster a sense of lingustic and national identity.
At the same time, the Roman church was collecting large sums of money from the people of the various newly-emerging nations, often by the rather suspect method of selling indulgences. Many of the aristocratic leaders of these new nations thought they might better be served by keeping the money closer to home.
The recent development of the printing press put Bibles in the hands of individual worshippers and broke the theological monopoly of the priesthood. People could read the Scriptures for themselves and arrive at their own conclusion about what they meant.
Then along comes Luther, who did not want to split the church at all, but reform it. The recalcitrance of the church itself contributed to the split.
Read some history.
2007-03-15 03:40:38
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I dont think his aim was to split the Church originally. I think there was some shenanigans going on and I also think that he really didn't understand some of the Doctrine. He basically just copied Bibles and he wasn't a great Theologian. When he got some resistance I think he felt he had no other recourse which is just too bad.
2007-03-15 03:32:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by Midge 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, I don't think that he was inspired by "the devil" because I don't think any such being exists.
Luther had some legitimate gripes....but the result has been bad, I'll agree.
The result that has been the worst is the popular belief that any ol' person can read the bible and understand it. That's ridiculous. That's what leads to bible literalism, which is insane.
For more on that:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AopOsbfl0ouCkGUz_Jj7ZdgAAAAA?qid=20070301001353AAF5hfR&show=7#profile-info-b0636dcabdac676f3cf348ab8a00151caa
2007-03-15 05:02:23
·
answer #4
·
answered by Praise Singer 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, I don't believe that at all. While division within the church is not good, it's not all that bad, either.
If Luther hadn't posted his theses and did what he did, we quite possibly could not have had the freedom of religion and worship that we have in our Constitution.
2007-03-15 05:16:35
·
answer #5
·
answered by mormon_4_jesus 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think he was an evil twisted man.
2007-03-15 03:28:13
·
answer #6
·
answered by Quantrill 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
bible is a guide book . people screw it up by taking it literaly .chill .
2007-03-15 03:25:29
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋