500 Years of Protestantism: 38 Things Martin Luther Wrote

[Novocastrian]

That one Church…which one? The one that bucked the authority of the bishops in favor of the paper confessions? The one that called a bishop as antiChrist?

If a bishop is heretical, does one have to acknowledge his authority to teach doctrine? It seems to me that the magisterial authority of a bishop is conditional upon his orthodoxy…

 

[Novocastrian]

well…how about your own counter arguments? Why should they be accepted?

Counter arguments against what, in particular?

 

[Peter_J]

That one Church…which one? The one that bucked the authority of the bishops in favor of the paper confessions? The one that called a bishop as antiChrist?

Hmmm … so you have a problem with anyone calling any bishop (not just the pope) “antiChrist”? Wasn’t Nestorius a bishop?

You might want to do a bit of reading … there are a lot of good Catholic criticisms of Lutheranism out there, but this ^^ isn’t one of them.

 

[pocohombre]

The NT books involved were James, Hebrews and Revelation. There’s various stories on why Luther put them back. But he still sneered at them.

Again, as others have noted he was not the only Catholic who held similar opinions.I think Jerome had similar "problems’ with apocraphyl books and gave his opinion on all books.

 

[hn160]

Who are you trying to convince?

Catholic means those specific followers of Christ united to the bishop of Rome. Jesus establish the Catholic Church. He called it my Church. He appointed st Peter the head of his Church, and gave him personally charge to feed and tend His flock. The followers of Christ understood this, acted like it, preached it, lived it, http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11209526&postcount=146

Jesus is absolutely insistant on perfect unity John 17:20-23 there is no such thing as seperate but equal. Jesus established one Church not many, not even two, ONE Church. He gives all His promises to His Church. Outside of which there is no salvation.

Where did Jesus give permission to be seperated from Peter? He didn’t.

If what you said here is true, how do you explain the fact that the other early See’s thought that they were equal to Rome and were they not Catholic? All that catholic means is universal.

 

[pocohombre]

steve b;11241942 Headquartered in Rome:

The writers of the NT were in the Church they wrote to and for. That’s the Catholic Church. se validated in the councils of Hippo, Carthage, Trent.

Perhaps technically from Catholic viewpoint, but a bit contrived to call the first church Catholic as in Roman Catholic. I prefer Catholic historians who are honest to admit some things "evolved’, and not hyper technical to label all things Catholic. To be technical, St Paul or St. Peter were not known as “Catholics” but as “Christian” or even apostles of the “Way”. Late in first century an adjective was used to describe the church- the word was “universal”. I would say centuries later the adjective became a noun as in capital C…Is it like saying Abraham was a “Jew” (before Judah was even born?), an “Israelite” (before Jacob was even born ?) as saying Paul was a Catholic ? Anyways, I think 2nd vatican wanted to get away from such divisiveness of saying it is a “Catholic” book to saying it is God’s book, He gave it to “us”.

When books are removed from canonical status and made apocryphal, that’s taking books away from scripture. That happened to 7 OT books. You know them already

Jerome had similar thoughts about those books as do the Hebrews. The CC also did not deem all the books of the Septuagint as canonical and hence did not include them all.

 

[ufamtobie]

Agreement with Ufam. :bigyikes:

Yep, me too, on this one.

Jon

JohnnyNC

LOL

Lord Willing, you will agree with me to enter the Only Church you ought to be in, because it is the only Church that was founded on Rock… I know, I know I sound like a broken record, you have heard me say this a thousand times, “Founded on Rock” well, get prepared to hear it a thousand more

Ufam Tobie

 

[Darryl_B]

I say this with gentleness in sincerity. What do you know about Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide? I do not know the historical research you have done on either, but I imagine it is a misunderstanding of the original teachings, granted many protestants have strayed away from the original teachings due to their own misunderstandings and anti-romanism. It reminds me of the issue of the fillioque. A lot of the controversy is actually just an issue of semantics and linguistic nuance.

Sola Fide speaks out against the RC folk theology that was much more prevalent then than it is today, though it still is prevalent. It shows up in some areas more than others. In any case, the notion that if someone wears a scapular it will save them from the gates of hell just because they die wearing it. Or the idea that if you observe such and such a feast and visit such and such a relic and do such a such an action you will be as “pure as you were on the day of your baptism.” Does this not happen EVERY time after confession? Sola Fide is also not the idea that works are irrelevant to salvation. Jesus said a good tree bears good fruit. The tree is what makes the fruit, the fruit is not what makes the tree. True faith is a work of the Spirit and is followed by true repentance, Christ gives true grace, which then leads to true sanctification. There is a difference in saying that the grace of God produces good works in one’s life and saying my works are what merits the grace of God.

Sola Scriptura is not intended to be Scripture in a vacuum, void of tradition. The Reformers were actually looking to tradition as part of their cause. They especially drew from St. Augustine. Sola Scriptura was to say that Scripture, in light of the traditions of the EARLY church, and proper exegesis should be the final rule of faith, not the magisterium. Remember that in the Luther’s day the magisterium were using tradition as an excuse for all kinds of abuses. No one could say ANYTHING to rebuke or correct the corruption of the magisterium because the magisterium was the true interpreter of Scripture and contender of the faith, and so if they said it that was it.

Now you can say I have a “incorrect” interpretation of history, but you cannot ignore the abuses of Rome in the time of the Reformation. You can read the earlier writings of Luther and see that he struggled with the idea of the pope being corrupt and having to leave the RCC.

My last remark, in regards to the OP, there a large number of Saints and Church Fathers who have made anti-Semitic remarks, and who have misbehaved horribly towards Jews and Pagans. Does this in anyway invalidate the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church (in the historical sense of those words, not the Roman sense)? No. If such things invalidated doctrines, structural bodies, or ideological movements, the RC would have be invalidated a long time ago, especially in the Medieval era. I would not invalidate the RC for atrocities for the errors of some men, though I will speak out against its unwillingness to critically self-examine itself. At the end of the day, friend, sin divides and the wickedness of many in the clerical ranks of that day ran rampant. If Protestantism was/is a heresy, the unrighteousness of Rome past birthed the monster.

Sir, I say this respectfully. Martin Luther drew up a reinvention of Christian teaching in 95 points that is simplistic. Of course he would have remained Catholic if the Catholic Church would submit to him. But many of his teachings are contrary to Catholic teaching even today and for good reason. But my point is that his reinvention of the Christian message into a very simplistic approach to the gospel message has mass produced church satellites. I of course exclude the Henry VIII Church which exists over divorce, after all who is going to question a king. Off with his head. eg Tyndale.

I will liken the Catholic Church to a city on a hill, I would not be the first one to do that. There is a city, single point of authority, it has suburbs (rites) it has walls (in communion) and outside those walls there are a whole lot of little groups sitting around little camp-fires, saying to passers-by, come warm yourself at my camp-fire, sit down share with us. Then people move from camp-fire to camp-fire always looking for the best camp-fire but not being prepared to enter the gates of the city.

That is the impact of Martin Luther and his points. And Jesus never mentioned the ones outside the walls, he only mentioned the city.

 

[JonNC]

That one Church…which one? The one that bucked the authority of the bishops in favor of the paper confessions? The one that called a bishop as antiChrist?

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. That one. The congregation of saints, where the word is preach and the sacraments administered. That one.

Jon

 

[GKC]

Sir, I say this respectfully. Martin Luther drew up a reinvention of Christian teaching in 95 points that is simplistic. Of course he would have remained Catholic if the Catholic Church would submit to him. But many of his teachings are contrary to Catholic teaching even today and for good reason. But my point is that his reinvention of the Christian message into a very simplistic approach to the gospel message has mass produced church satellites. I of course exclude the Henry VIII Church which exists over divorce, after all who is going to question a king. Off with his head. eg Tyndale.

I will liken the Catholic Church to a city on a hill, I would not be the first one to do that. There is a city, single point of authority, it has suburbs (rites) it has walls (in communion) and outside those walls there are a whole lot of little groups sitting around little camp-fires, saying to passers-by, come warm yourself at my camp-fire, sit down share with us. Then people move from camp-fire to camp-fire always looking for the best camp-fire but not being prepared to enter the gates of the city.

That is the impact of Martin Luther and his points. And Jesus never mentioned the ones outside the walls, he only mentioned the city.

Decree of nullity.

Henry didn’t have Tyndale executed.

Tyndale was not beheaded.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

Perhaps technically from Catholic viewpoint, but a bit contrived to call the first church Catholic as in Roman Catholic. I prefer Catholic historians who are honest to admit some things "evolved’, and not hyper technical to label all things Catholic. To be technical, St Paul or St. Peter were not known as “Catholics” but as “Christian” or even apostles of the “Way”. Late in first century an adjective was used to describe the church- the word was “universal”. I would say centuries later the adjective became a noun as in capital C…Is it like saying Abraham was a “Jew” (before Judah was even born?), an “Israelite” (before Jacob was even born ?) as saying Paul was a Catholic ? Anyways, I think 2nd vatican wanted to get away from such divisiveness of saying it is a “Catholic” book to saying it is God’s book, He gave it to “us”.

I somewhat agree with you. But I’d like to stress that it is also frustrating, from the point of view of us Catholics (in the sense of belonging to the Roman Communion), when we hear things like:

• “Are you Catholic or Christian?”
• One Lutheran calling another “Catholic” as an insult.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I somewhat agree with you. But I’d like to stress that it is also frustrating, from the point of view of us Catholics (in the sense of belonging to the Roman Communion), when we hear things like:

• “Are you Catholic or Christian?”
• One Lutheran calling another “Catholic” as an insult.

Lutherans, in general, do not use the word, “Catholic” as an insult since we view ourselves as part of the holy catholic church. When used as an insult is the statement that a parish is “too catholic”; meaning much ritual [chanting, incense] that some Lutherans don’t like.

 

[benjohnson]

But my point is that his reinvention of the Christian message into a very simplistic approach …]

My postulate is that you’ve most likely have never talked with the Lutheran pastor for any appreciable length of time.

 

[benjohnson]

• One Lutheran calling another “Catholic” as an insult.

Feel free to whack such wayward Lutheran upon the head for such poor use of language… there’s far better terms like “papist” or “popery”

 

[Randy_Carson]

Were not the Orthodox also Catholic prior to 1054 before they were known or called Orthodox?

Booyah! :dancing:

 

[Randy_Carson]

And I am a member of that one Church, just as you are. IOW, that one Church is not exclusively and only those in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Jesus has one body, and that body began calling itself the Catholic Church before the end of the first century beginning at Antioch.

I know you know this, but there are lurkers.

So, Orthodoxy has no claim on it? I simply reject the notion that the Church Catholic is only and exclusively in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Formally? Agreed. But there are lots of you who are in communion - albeit imperfect - by virtue of your Christian baptisms.

Gee, we agreed on everything else? :dancing:

 

[steve_b]

If what you said here is true, how do you explain the fact that the other early See’s thought that they were equal to Rome and were they not Catholic? All that catholic means is universal.

1. 
   *]No other see was equal to Rome, or considered equal to Rome. Besides it’s not where Peter was it’s where he moved to and is and remains to be. That’s Rome.
   *]Catholic from the beginning became a specific Church. Obviously you’re not reading the links I provided.
   
   Where do you think St Ignatius, bishop of Antioch from ~69 a.d. to ~107 a.d. got the name Catholic Church in his writings?

 

[hn160]

1. 
   *]No other see was equal to Rome, or considered equal to Rome. Besides it’s not where Peter was it’s where he moved to and is and remains to be. That’s Rome.
   *]Catholic from the beginning became a specific Church. Obviously you’re not reading the links I provided.
   
   Where do you think St Ignatius, bishop of Antioch from ~69 a.d. to ~107 a.d. got the name Catholic Church in his writings?

1. 
   Can you show me where the other See’s deferred to Rome? The Keys were passed onto all the Apostles, not just Peter. In fact St. Paul criticizes Peter.

 

[steve_b]

What was the counter reformation? Was it good, the fruits thereof ? Who were the Jesuits and what good did they bring to win back “lutherans” ? What did they change for they were successful but certainly not because they maintained the status quo or same modus operandi.

Bottomline, It doesn’t matter the stripe, scripture condemns division from Our Lord’s Chuch.

 

[steve_b]

I provided you with the historical context for the Luther quote you posted. I would certainly be interested in any responses you have according to that context. In regard to your feelings about the context, I’m not interested.

JS