500 Years of Protestantism: 38 Things Martin Luther Wrote

  • Thread starter Thread starter yosephdaviyd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I try to go by what the Bible says, not what indoctrinated men say. I take Jesus’ words literally, and when He says “all” He means all…and that includes me.
All what? 🤷

But I appreciate your approach, and I would like to hear your thoughts on taking the following literally:

John 6:51-55
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

Catholics believe that Jesus is really and truly present in the Eucharistic host and cup. Is this your literal understanding of Jesus’ words, also?
 
I don’t think you did it intentionally, but please do not misrepresent me. I was permitted to take part in communion at a Roman Catholic church the one and only time I asked, under extraordinary circumstances.
Don, you made it clear that it was a once only incident that you sought Christ’s Presence in a Roman Catholic church; I knew that when I commented. Sorry.

Coming from the perspective that sharing the Holy Meal is a witness of our love of God and salvation, I have communed with many Christians. I once had a Baptist girlfriend when I was a young seminarian; we met at St Augustine’s House [Lutheran] where we both participated in the Mass each day while on retreat. And once she communed at the seminary [Fort Wayne]. She knew exactly what Lutherans believe and experienced for herself Christ holy Presence. Now she is a Lutheran by the way.
 
I supply the LCMS after my name so that I am easily identifiable to those on this forum.
Just speaking for myself, I’m very glad that you and others do that. (And even gladder that don’t just put “Catholic” in your profiles. :cool:)
 
I go and type a lovely statement of my position, and cloud it up for you by saying Eastern. I know. What I meant was them other Orthodox.
No sweat amigo, we’ve all been unclear at times.
G:
That para is not talking about the same folk that para 3 is. That’s why it uses all those terms I pointed out: same sacraments, other Christians, community. And approval from a higher authority. That’s not the way para 3 speaks of “members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church”.
And Catholic faith as to that particular sacrament would be something along the lines of the canons found in Session XIII of the Council of Trent. And you can certainly find Anglicans who affirm that. As to properly disposed, that’s why the “same sacraments” include penance.
the canon we’re speaking of, says a person must “manifest Catholic faith regarding those sacraments”, what does that mean to an Anglican? Don’t Anglicans believe and follow the 39 articles?
Keep in mind, the statement from §4.

“provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.”

From the 39 articles [emphasis mine]

XXV. Of the Sacraments.
Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him. There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.
The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.

XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper.
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, over throweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith. The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.
anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html

we are talking about the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, extreme unction (sacrament of the sick) as Catholics believe. Those articles imv, completely contradict the Catholic faith and disposition on those sacraments.
G:
I read those paras and to me they say nothing like what you seem to see there. You seem unable to see the points I’m making. Absent some overwhelming, authoritative reference to the contrary, I hold to my reading. Fortunately, neither of us is in a position to enforce our readings, of course.
GKC
I think those articles from the 39 articles takes this out of the theory catagory, and puts it squarely into what is known about Anglican teaching and belief. IMV Anglican teaching and faith contradicts

§4.“provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.”]

I’m just thinking outloud, so I defer to the bishops on this. 😉
 
Gotta delete your post, too long.

To your first question, no. I fear you have no idea what the Articles are. They are not an Anglican confession. They are not binding, in any sense, necessarily, on any Anglican whatsoever, save (in a technical sense only), on the clergy of the Church of England, per the Parliamentary Subscription Act of 1571. Which is not enforced. Any Anglican, generally, is free to affirm, deny, partially affirm (which wouldn’t be surprising, since many of them are mere Trinitarian Christianity), or cut them from the Prayer Book, and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter. They are history (and one of the few things I like about the Episcopal 1979 Book is that they are so marked); how Elizabeth I chose to govern her fractious Church, in respect to the issues of the day.

This, along with Henry VIII’s Great Matter, and the sad history of Apostolicae Curae, is among the topics I have most frequently posted on in this forum over the past 8+ years. Have you ever noted my use of the phrase “Anglicans are a motley crew”? This is sort of why. If you want to know what an Anglican believes, on something like this, you need to ask. Generally, if you try to generalize, you will be, generally, wrong.

Since in any case of an Anglican (for example) appealing to the RCC for permission to receive, the individual case would have to be examined, as to how extreme the circumstances, what belief is manifest, and what the disposition might be. And, as I said, one might find the Anglican affirming Trent, Session XIII, on the Eucharist. You certainly will find that at my parish, where I have never heard a single reference to the Articles. They are not pertinent. A motley crew, those Anglicans.

GKC
 
I was in an evangelical Protestant college taking a class in Reformation history, and the image of the brave noble Reformer who nailed the theses to the church door and fought the sophistries and accretions of the Catholic Church died on reading his argument with Erasmus.

Unfortunately, we can expect a good deal of foolishness over the next four years as the five hundredth anniversary of Luther’s abandonment of the desire for holiness and obedience approaches . . .
 
I know Lutheran missionaries spread to the Pacific in the early 1800’s, but are you sure Germans did not settle in New Zealand? I’ve read about it before…

lutheran.org.nz/information.php?info_id=14
Sorry I should be more specific. German Lutherans did come to New Zealand but the actual number or percentage of immigrants was not many, it was nowhere near as significant as say Australia or United States.
 
It may be difficult to understand without first having read the Confessio Augustana. The Confutation, by definition, is only an answer to the Confession; it cannot really stand alone. It is also important to note that many scholars - both Lutheran and Roman - did not think highly of the Confutation. Rome didn’t really have a solid response to Augustana until Trent, and Trent was really more of a reaction to protestantism, in general, than to Lutheranism in particular. There is plenty in Trent that even Lutherans could find worthwhile. Just some food for thought.

I supply the LCMS after my name so that I am easily identifiable to those on this forum. Outside of that, I find ‘Evangelical Catholic’ to more accurately describe my belief, as did the Reformers.

It’s not like that. As I said, I include the “LCMS” simply for easy identification on the forums. There are two kinds of Lutherans - those with a “quia” adherence to the Lutheran Confessions, and those with a “quatenus” subscription. By including “LCMS,” I leave no question where I stand. Our Melkite friends on the forums could simply call themselves “Catholic,” but it wouldn’t tell us much about them. I include “LCMS” so that other posters know where I’m coming from. Perhaps I should take up GKC’s method… 🙂
Thanks. So there are two different kinds of Lutheran? As I am not from the United States I really don’t know the status of the Lutheran church there. So by “other posters” I think it would be more familiar to other Lutherans than non-Lutherans.

Melkite is a Rite in communion with the Catholic Church so it is a heritage. That is slightly different.
 
Thanks. So there are two different kinds of Lutheran?
You don’t know how hard it is for me to reply “We’ll there’s only one kind of Lutheran, but there are some that borrow the name.”

Now that I’ve smacked my wrist, let me pretend to be charitable and then continue:

There are some Lutherans that have barricaded themselves with the Confessions, and the Bible and there are other Lutherans that come from a reformed background that are “moving with the times.”

Even with this devision, both sets agree on a lot of Gospel issues, but the divergence is getting wider - with the division so wide that the conservatives don’t commune with the reformed.
 
Gotta delete your post, too long.

To your first question, no. I fear you have no idea what the Articles are. They are not an Anglican confession. They are not binding, in any sense, necessarily, on any Anglican whatsoever, save (in a technical sense only), on the clergy of the Church of England, per the Parliamentary Subscription Act of 1571. Which is not enforced.
Seems to me, the problem is, no one speaks for the Anglicans. Therefore, the following Anglicans opinion is just as valid as anyother Anglican’s opinion…true? Unless of course, there is an authoritative body that tells Anglicans what’s right from wrong beliefs…

The Anglican 39 Articles in Contemporary Language
The 39 Articles are a brief and condensed statement of what Anglican Christians believe and teach. These carefully summarized statements of biblical theology were compiled by the English Reformers (Thomas Cranmer and Joseph Ridley) as a means to guide and guard our identity in Christ. Adopted by the Church of England in 1571, the 39 Articles are designed to assist believers in thinking, discussing, applying, and sharing “the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3). These theological principals remain relevant or our spiritual health and maturity as we follow Jesus Christ today*.*
s3.amazonaws.com/churchplantmedia-cms/grace-anglican-fellowship-tx/the-anglican-39-articles–contemporary.pdf

Without central authority, who says these Anglicans are wrong about the 39 articles? Outside of a central authority, we just have personal opinion… …true?
G:
Any Anglican, generally, is free to affirm, deny, partially affirm (which wouldn’t be surprising, since many of them are mere Trinitarian Christianity), or cut them from the Prayer Book, and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter. They are history (and one of the few things I like about the Episcopal 1979 Book is that they are so marked); how Elizabeth I chose to govern her fractious Church, in respect to the issues of the day.

This, along with Henry VIII’s Great Matter, and the sad history of Apostolicae Curae, is among the topics I have most frequently posted on in this forum over the past 8+ years. Have you ever noted my use of the phrase “Anglicans are a motley crew”? This is sort of why. If you want to know what an Anglican believes, on something like this, you need to ask. Generally, if you try to generalize, you will be, generally, wrong.

Since in any case of an Anglican (for example) appealing to the RCC for permission to receive, the individual case would have to be examined, as to how extreme the circumstances, what belief is manifest, and what the disposition might be**.** And, as I said, one might find the Anglican affirming Trent, Session XIII, on the Eucharist. You certainly will find that at my parish, where I have never heard a single reference to the Articles. They are not pertinent. A motley crew, those Anglicans.

GKC
As an observation, I think our discussing this issue, has put flesh to this sentence
§4.“provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.”

as you point out, if there is no set belief system to point to in Anglicanism, (to manifest) nor authority to back it up, and the 39 articles established by Anglicans who started your 16th century reform , aren’t even held as a suggestion to follow by some today, yet are important to other Anglicans. Then what do we have evidence (disposition) for, that we can look at? I think you would agree, this is certainly not the Catholic faith regarding sacraments nor the disposition a Catholic would have towards the same.
 
I have a proposal - rather than commenting on this thread (and lending free pageviews to the divisive and not-quite-truthful OP), can we start some new threads? :o
 
Seems to me, the problem is, no one speaks for the Anglicans. Therefore, the following Anglicans opinion is just as valid as anyother Anglican’s opinion…true? Unless of course, there is an authoritative body that tells Anglicans what’s right from wrong beliefs…

The Anglican 39 Articles in Contemporary Language
The 39 Articles are a brief and condensed statement of what Anglican Christians believe and teach. These carefully summarized statements of biblical theology were compiled by the English Reformers (Thomas Cranmer and Joseph Ridley) as a means to guide and guard our identity in Christ. Adopted by the Church of England in 1571, the 39 Articles are designed to assist believers in thinking, discussing, applying, and sharing “the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3). These theological principals remain relevant or our spiritual health and maturity as we follow Jesus Christ today*.*
s3.amazonaws.com/churchplantmedia-cms/grace-anglican-fellowship-tx/the-anglican-39-articles–contemporary.pdf

Without central authority, who says these Anglicans are wrong about the 39 articles? Outside of a central authority, we just have personal opinion… …true?

As an observation, I think our discussing this issue, has put flesh to this sentence
§4.“provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.”

as you point out, if there is no set belief system to point to in Anglicanism, (to manifest) nor authority to back it up, and the 39 articles established by Anglicans who started your 16th century reform , aren’t even held as a suggestion to follow by some today, yet are important to other Anglicans. Then what do we have evidence (disposition) for, that we can look at? I think you would agree, this is certainly not the Catholic faith regarding sacraments nor the disposition a Catholic would have towards the same.
There is no such authoritative body, correct. That’s why Anglicans are a motley crew, and why you need to ask what one such believes or affirms. Which is precisely what would be done for any Anglican who asked to receive, in a RC setting, to determine to what degree he shared the RC doctrine, say on the Eucharist. Each case would be peculiar to the person asking. And, among Anglo-Catholics, it is likely to be one familiar to you.

GKC
 
I will read the Roman Catholic Confutation, but in the mean time I am trying to figure out specifically why is it so necessary to qualify ones religion with the added acronyms. One could define ones religion as Lutheran easily enough, and that would be well and good enough to qualify sufficiently to anyone (as some Lutherans on this forum have done), especially if you have no problem with non-LCMS Lutherans as eg the ones in my country.

But I am finding LCMS after ones religion to be almost more expectantly higher valued and expectantly more worthy of respect than the Lutheran part. It is like the LCMS is of greater importance in definition than the Lutheran part. It is almost like putting PhD after your name.

Am I understanding this correctly?
The link is to the Augsburg Confession. At the end of each article is a link to the Confutation for that article, as well as the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, which is the response to the Confutation.
bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php

Regarding the rest, I agree with Don’s response.

Jon
 
There is no such authoritative body, correct. That’s why Anglicans are a motley crew, and why you need to ask what one such believes or affirms. Which is precisely what would be done for any Anglican who asked to receive, in a RC setting, to determine to what degree he shared the RC doctrine, say on the Eucharist. Each case would be peculiar to the person asking. And, among Anglo-Catholics, it is likely to be one familiar to you.

GKC
With respect, I don’t see how that could be. Who among the Anglicans believes in transubstantiation? Does any Anglican bishop or priest teach it? Given Apostolicae Curae papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm which you brought up, how would an Anglican even make it happen? Transubstantiation for an Anglican, there’s a condemnation on it in an Anglican’s charter from the 16th century…right?

Re: the 39 articles, would you agree at one time all Anglicans believed in them? That’s your heritage. And there are obviously Anglicans today who still believe in them and teach from them…true? If the 39 articles are so universally disregarded as you say, then why haven’t they been tossed? Aren’t they also in your book of common prayer?

I’m just exploring this with you. I don’t see how an Anglican would pass the following provision

§4.“provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.”

help me understand your position
 
It just goes to show you that you cannot believe everything you read, especially when they are not from the original source, the speaker in question.
 
With respect, I don’t see how that could be. Who among the Anglicans believes in transubstantiation? Does any Anglican bishop or priest teach it? Given Apostolicae Curae papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm which you brought up, how would an Anglican even make it happen? Transubstantiation for an Anglican, there’s a condemnation on it in an Anglican’s charter from the 16th century…right?

Re: the 39 articles, would you agree at one time all Anglicans believed in them? That’s your heritage. And there are obviously Anglicans today who still believe in them and teach from them…true? If the 39 articles are so universally disregarded as you say, then why haven’t they been tossed? Aren’t they also in your book of common prayer?

I’m just exploring this with you. I don’t see how an Anglican would pass the following provision

§4.“provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.”

help me understand your position
A fair portion of Anglo-Catholic Anglicans believe in transubstantiation, but you would have to ask (I would have to ask, too, generally). But not necessarily in that as a de fide explanation of the real presence. You may have seen this sort of discussion from Lutherans on here, too. Me, I have absolutely no problem with transubstantiation. It seems as noble an attempt to explain how the the wheels go around, in confecting the sacrament, as one could hope for.

An Anglican priest would make it happen precisely as does a RC priest, through valid form, intent, matter and minister.* Apostolicae Curae * is a binding judgment on RCs (and you certainly should affirm it). Anglicans have a different view of the matter.

The Articles are not an Anglican charter. They are not and were not binding on Anglicans in general, ab initio, but only were required, by Act of Parliament (Act of Subscription, 1571), to be affirmed (not opposed) by clergy (not laity) of the Church of England. Anglicans, in general, manifest a range of attitudes to them, as I said.

It is not known if all Anglicans ever believed in them. But the range of Anglican positions on the points that were stated in them has been present from the first and is primarily seen in the Tractarian movement/Oxford group, and the later Ritualists. Such folk are usually known as Anglo-Catholics.

Some Anglicans effectively have tossed them. Not in their entirety, since a portion of them are mere Trinitarian Christianity, and some (on the reformed/evangelical side of the Anglican spectrum), still will affirm them. But there is nothing that requires Anglicans, generally, to do so.

In some senses they have been tossed. As I said, they are now listed in the 1979 Episcopal Prayer Book as historical documents. And the 1968 Lambeth Conference (a decennial meeting of the official Anglican Communion), passed the following resolution:

"Resolution 43

The Ministry - The Thirty-Nine Articles

The Conference accepts the main conclusion of the Report of the Archbishops’ Commission on Christian Doctrine entitled “Subscription and Assent to the Thirty-nine Articles” (1968) and in furtherance of its recommendation:

(a) suggests that each Church of our Communion consider whether the Articles need be bound up with its Prayer Book;
(b) suggests to the Churches of the Anglican Communion that assent to the Thirty-nine Articles be no longer required of ordinands;
(c) suggests that, when subscription is required to the Articles or other elements in the Anglican tradition, it should be required, and given, only in the context of a statement which gives the full range of our inheritance of faith and sets the Articles in their historical context."

This resolution is reflective of the Articles’ status amongst Anglicans generally, but certainly doesn’t mean that no Anglicans subscribe to them. Or that any necessarily need to, merely because that document existed. Motley.

Yes, they are in the Book of Common Prayer I use, the 1928 Episcopal Book. They are never referenced or mentioned. We know they represent history, statecraft as theology, fro 450 years ago.

To see if a given Anglican manifests Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments, you are going to have to ask him. No short cuts.

I started posting on line, about 12 years ago, to help other RCs who had some little confusion about Anglicanism. Oddly enough, the first person to respond to me is currently a poster on this board.

GKC
 
Further divide? Remind me again of who divided Christendom in the first place?.. Oh yeah, Martin Luther.
Absolutely incorrect. Luther never intended to leave the Catholic Church, but to reform it because of the blatant corruption at the time. Because of his bold confrontatipnal stance on these matters, Luther was excomunicated. Martin Luther decided the reform would just have to conitinue apart from Rome which, as he saw it, betrayed him and the gospel. Luther did not divide the Church. A corrupt Catholic magisterium divided the Church. That’s what sin does.
 
Absolutely incorrect. Luther never intended to leave the Catholic Church, but to reform it because of the blatant corruption at the time. Because of his bold confrontatipnal stance on these matters, Luther was excomunicated. Martin Luther decided the reform would just have to conitinue apart from Rome which, as he saw it, betrayed him and the gospel. Luther did not divide the Church. A corrupt Catholic magisterium divided the Church. That’s what sin does.
It seems that today there are some who regard Luther as a saint, and some who regard Luther as well-meaning but misguided. The question for me, in RCIA is whether Martin Luther did anything to change the Catholic Church, which from what I have seen he didn’t. Martin Luther had absolutely no impact on the Catholic Church, so here is the Catholic Church today, entirely uninfluenced by Martin Luther.

The one thing he has impacted on the world is that he has given licence to create your own church, and your own creeds and your own confessions and your own statements of faith, your own doctrines, your own reforms, your own sacraments, your own structure, your own revivals, your own revisionist roots, all the while the non-Christians scratch their heads and wonder why they need to put down the Church when they do a perfectly good job of that on their own.

No Luther was over-rated as a crux but his impact is quite frankly a mess, and most definitely not what Jesus promised.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top