P
Peter_J
Guest
Duh, weāre people with computers. (How many of the reformers could have said that?)Wellā¦if the bishop gave his okā¦who are we to disagreeā¦
- Status
P
Peter_J
Guest
Holy Moly.
Iām not sure if I can say anything that would convince you otherwise, but fwiw I believe you are mistaken.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
I hear a roaring boar coming through the vineyard
P
Peter_J
Guest
P.S. I should add ā although it may go without saying, but yānever know ā that I donāt want to overstate Lutherās importance. Who knows, if he hadnāt been around perhaps someone else would have filled those shoes. I just want to stress that Catholics have changed a lot in the last 5 centuries, and a good chunk of that was in response to Lutherās criticisms.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Right. Recognizing our faults doesnāt justify the schismatic actions but opens up the opportunity to get better. After all, truth is a 2-way street - it convicts all of us.
P.S. I should add ā although it may go without saying, but yānever know ā that I donāt want to overstate Lutherās importance. Who knows, if he hadnāt been around perhaps someone else would have filled those shoes. I just want to stress that Catholics have changed a lot in the last 5 centuries, and a good chunk of that was in response to Lutherās criticisms.
K
kmcarl56
Guest
As a non-Catholic, I no more follow Martin Luther than I do Neitche or Descarte.
I follow God/Jesus, and what they told us directly in the Bible!
If others hang on Lutherās every word, we must pray for them, not ridicule them.
:sad_yes:
I follow God/Jesus, and what they told us directly in the Bible!
If others hang on Lutherās every word, we must pray for them, not ridicule them.
:sad_yes:
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Clearly Lutherans donāt āhang on Lutherās every wordā and wish some statements by Luther had never been uttered *As a non-Catholic, I no more follow Martin Luther than I do Neitche or Descarte.
I follow God/Jesus, and what they told us directly in the Bible!
If others hang on Lutherās every word, we must pray for them, not ridicule them.
:sad_yes:
*
S
steve_b
Guest
How about listing ALL THOSE changes attributable to Luther.
P.S. I should add ā although it may go without saying, but yānever know ā that I donāt want to overstate Lutherās importance. Who knows, if he hadnāt been around perhaps someone else would have filled those shoes. I just want to stress that Catholics have changed a lot in the last 5 centuries, and a good chunk of that was in response to Lutherās criticisms.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
N
Novocastrian
Guest
To make this a team effort, Iāll add the (technically illegal, but in some places tolerated) sale of indulgences.
A
ApologiaSophia
Guest
Luther may have not had a direct impact on the RCC, but I would argue that the indirect, lasting effects are tgere. It was a catalyst for reform in the RCC because they were now no longer the only church in town. They had to get it together, or run the risk if losing an increasing amount of people to Protestantism. The RCC has been greatly shaped by its opposition to Protestantism and, in certain cases, has been influenced by it. I donāt think Vatican II would be what it was apart from it.
Again, most of Lutherās original ibjections were valid and accurate. The Reformation is not solely the result of Luther, but of the Catholic magisterium that is so slow to acknowledge their hand in the reformation. Had the Church not been morally corrupted, had it received righteous rebuke, Luther would likely have stayed. Of course, I think other Reformers would still have left eventually, but thatās an entirely different discussion.
I see a problem that so many RCās will not own up to tgeir faults past and present and their contributions to presence of Protestantism. It is this staunch disregard of self-falibility that helped spur past schisms to begin with, including the Great Schism.
S
steve_b
Guest
The plack Over Our Lordās head was written in 3 languages John 19:20 all working languages of the day
When Jesus instituted the 1st Eucharist
*]Aramaic was used ( ~33 a.d.)
*]then as the Church grew the languages used were Aramaic, Latin, & Greek
*]then in 1965 after Vat II, mass permission was given for the vernacular
Luther hardly had anything to do with the CC using the vernacular.
As for communion in the hand, the first we see of that is at the Last Supper. The CC had that practice early on, then moved to the tongue which is preferred, and in the hand is also done.
Therefore, Luther had nothing to do with those 2 issues.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
So praying Mass in Latin up to 1965, contrary to all other Christian bodies, was just a minor thing? Communion in both kinds refers to the Host and Cup; not hands!
S
steve_b
Guest
catholic.com/quickquestions/does-the-catholic-church-still-sell-indulgences
btw, if /when you hear of stipends to a priest, they are voluntary.
S
SteveVH
Guest
The Church has used both species for as long as it has existed, but has never made it a requirement because Jesus is truly present in both species. This was not an influence of Luther on the Catholic Church.
S
SteveVH
Guest
You know, there was probably a big āto-doā when the Mass was changed from Greek to Latin as well. It was changed to Latin because that was the vernacular. No doubt that the Church is very slow in changing anything. There is a reason for this. Regardless, the change to the vernacular had nothing to do with Luther. Where is your evidence for this?
P
pablope
Guest
Wellā¦it looks like you have accepted as factā¦legends on the sale of indulgences:
newadvent.org/cathen/14539a.htm
History presents few characters that have suffered more senseless misrepresentation, even bald caricature, than Tetzel. āEven while he lived stories which contained an element of legend gathered around his name, until at last, in the minds of the uncritical Protestant historians, he became the typical indulgence-monger, upon whom any well-worn anecdote might be fatheredā (Beard, āMartin Lutherā, London, 1889, 210). For a critical scholarly study which shows him in a proper perspective, he had to wait the researches of our own time, mainly at the hands of Dr. Nicholas Paulus, who is closely followed in this article. In the first place, his teaching regarding the indulgences for the living was correct.
The charge that the forgiveness of sins was sold for money regardless of contrition or that absolution for sins to be committed in the future could be purchased is baseless.
An indulgence, he writes, can be applied only āto the pains of sin which are confessed and for which there is contritionā. āNo oneā, he furthermore adds, āsecures an indulgence unless he have true contritionā. The confessional letters (confessionalia) could of course be obtained for a mere pecuniary consideration without demanding contrition. But such document did not secure an indulgence. It was simply a permit to select a proper confessor, who only after a contrite confession would absolve from sin and reserved cases, and who possessed at the same time facilities to impart the plenary indulgence (Paulus, āJohann Tetzelā, 103).
To give it to the confessor or indulgence subcommissary invalidated the indulgence (Paulus, op. cit., 76-77). The Tetzel indulgence chests exhibited at JĆ¼terbog and other German towns, are counterfeits, according to the Protestant writer Kƶrner (Tetzelās Leben, 73). The latest Catholic biographer of Luther, Grisar, writes: āTo ascribe to the unhappy monk the ācauseā of the entire apostasy that set in since 1517 . . . is an untrue legendā (āLutherā, Freiburg, 1911, I, 281).
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Luther translated the Bible into German. The Mass was said in Latin for a brief time but later translated into German, also. It would be interesting to find out if the Eastern Church used vernacular at the time of the Schism. I understood that Luther/ Lutherans and Anglicans were the first European Christians to read the Bible and hold Mass in native languages. Yes?
S
steve_b
Guest
Who specifically are you talking about?
E:
As scripture points out 1 Corinthians 11:27 "whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord
therefore, receiving either species āthis breadā or āthe chaliceā is receiving both body and blood of Jesus.
Catholic masses are large. What if the person in front of me in the communion line, is coughing and sneezing, or maybe itās flu season, and takes the cup in front of me? If I choose not to take from the cup did I not receive the Eucharist that day? No. By taking the consecrated host I received the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus.
Here are some general questions asked and answered. btw GIRM= General Instruction of the Roman Missal
Should Communion under both kinds automatically be offered to the faithful, or are there circumstances in which it should not be offered?
The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christās faithful where there is such a large number of communicants that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that āmore than a reasonable quantity of the blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration.ā The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could be known only with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated (102; cf. GIRM 285a).
What if there are too many people present for a single chalice to be used?
If one chalice is not sufficient for Communion to be distributed under both kinds to the priest concelebrants or Christās faithful, there is no reason that the priest celebrant should not use several chalices. For it is to be remembered that all priests in celebrating Holy Mass are bound to receive Communion under both kinds. It is praiseworthy, by reason of the sign value, to use a main chalice of larger dimensions, together with smaller chalices.
The pouring of the blood of Christ after the consecration from one vessel to another is completely to be avoided, lest anything should happen that would be to the detriment of so great a mystery. Never to be used for containing the blood of the Lord are flagons, bowls, or other vessels that are not fully in accord with the established norms (105ā6).
Iāve been in mass with over 1 million Catholics @ Fatima. Only consecrated hosts were given.
All the reformers lived before Al Gore invented the internet, so there you goā¦Duh, weāre people with computers. (How many of the reformers could have said that?)
Jon
- Status