500 Years of Protestantism: 38 Things Martin Luther Wrote

[Isaiah45_9]

Keep in mind, I don’t like to proof text, but here it is:

Matthew 18:18

“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[a] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be* loosed in heaven."***

Remember, in Mathew 18, Jesus is talking to the disciples - “At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked”

There’s other scripture too that indicated Peter’s place among the apostles:

1 Pet. 5:1-2, “Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, **as your fellow elder **and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, 2 shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness;”

Hmmm… that is one “mystical” keychain.

 

[steve_b]

Now you’ve got me curious how many times you’ve posted ^^ this. I’ve seen it quite a few times but I don’t really keep track (plus I would guess that there are a bunch of times that I didn’t see).

here’s but a few times I asked the question in various ways. I think you’re in there too

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11214035&postcount=158
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11167846&postcount=960
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10867934&postcount=253
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10422775&postcount=15
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10253879&postcount=664
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9161528&postcount=97
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9089475&postcount=23
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8955664&postcount=182

I would truly like to see the answer. I didn’t think this question was so difficult.

 

[Peter_J]

I would truly like to see the answer. I didn’t think this question was so difficult.

My guess would be that nobody’s very interested in it (not enough to answer it anyhow).

 

[pocohombre]

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.

Thanks for somewhat agreeing. Yes, I have seen the term Catholic used negatively, as in aligned with a questioned Roman doctrine. I have heard it the other way also where going door to door years ago with gospel tracts and some saying to us ,“No thanks, I am Catholic.”… I have heard that there was a pilgrim approaching the Pearly Gates with St. Peter standing there. The pilgrim asks if there are any Catholics up there and St. Peter responds , “No.”. “Any Lutherans up there?” asked pilgrim. “No”, says St.Peter. “Any Episcopals or Baptists or Orthodox up there ?” “No, we don’t go by those names up here.” 'Well then who is up there ?", asked a puzzled pilgrim. “Just those Saints who have been washed by the blood of the Lamb”.

 

[pocohombre]

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

True but the Didache puts responsibility on both sides. Some historians say the Luther controversy was handled poorly by the Church. 4:3-“Thou shalt not make a schism, but thou shalt pacify those that contend”

 

[pocohombre]

Corinth Greece requested Clement of Rome to settle sedition among their bishops during apostolic times.

They did not address it to Clement but to “Church in Rome”. There were closer apostolic (Paul) ties of Corinth/Rome than say Corinth/Jerusalem.or Antioch.

*]Ignatius of Antioch while on his way to be martyred in Rome identifies the Church of Rome, as holding the presidency, and asked for the Bishop of Rome to watch over his see during transition to a new bishop

Not sure he said anything of Bishop of Rome-there are two versions of his letters long and short, one more reliable than other. Furthermore in his other letters to other cities he names bishops -big name dropper-but zero naming of any Roam bishop, zero.

]Irenaeus of Smyrna, and bishop of Lyons France, in his work “Against heresies” instructed all to agree with Rome on account of it’s pre-eminent authority

He also says the Church started there. Did the Church of Jesus start in Rome? He qualifies the statement by saying two apostles’ blood was at the Roman church foundation, Peter and Paul.

 

[steve_b]

My guess would be that nobody’s very interested in it (not enough to answer it anyhow).

Why?

It’s a question that gets asked of Catholics, and Catholics can answer the question.

 

[pocohombre]

Re: keys, Please quote the passage from scripture where all the apostles receive them

Re: Paul criticizing Peter, [Gal 2] this has been answered many times
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6868438&postcount=245

What could the keys do ? Apart from being a leader, did not the other apostles do the same things as Peter did with those “keys”? Peter led and preached the first sermon, but did not other apostles preach? Peter did bind and loose but did not other apostles do also?

 

[steve_b]

Keep in mind, I don’t like to proof text, but here it is:

Matthew 18:18

“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[a] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be* loosed in heaven."***

Remember, in Mathew 18, Jesus is talking to the disciples - "At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked"

There’s other scripture too that indicated Peter’s place among the apostles:

**1 Pet. 5:1-2, “Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, **as your fellow elder ****and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, 2 shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness;”

Keys of the kingdom are only mentioned with Peter in Mt 16. The holder of the keys is the prime minister over the other ministers. As in Isaiah 22, one person gets the keys from the king to exercise authority for the king. Mt 18 doesn’t talk about keys. Binding and loosing for example in Mt 18, takes a process. THEN one who has an issue finally takes it to the Church. THEN when 2 or 3 agree then it is done. Not so for Peter in Mt 16. Peter alone can bind and loose on his own because he has the keys as prime minister… He can shut what no one can open and open what no one can shut.

 

[steve_b]

True but the Didache puts responsibility on both sides. Some historians say the Luther controversy was handled poorly by the Church. 4:3-“Thou shalt not make a schism, but thou shalt pacify those that contend”

That doesn’t mean roll over and play dead. It’s not going to go well for those who divide from the Church. Romans 16:17-20 , Galatians 5:19-21

 

[steve_b]

They did not address it to Clement but to “Church in Rome”.

Ever hear the phrase do nothing without the bishop? Do you really think Corinth just sent a letter to Rome hoping it gets to someone in the Church that will respond to their request?
p:

There were closer apostolic (Paul) ties of Corinth/Rome than say Corinth/Jerusalem.or Antioch.

Athens is 50 miles away. It is mentioned in Acts. Valid bishops, established by Paul. Why in the world does Corinth in S.E. Greece, go to Rome on the West coast of Italy?

St John at this time is in Ephesus

Distance between Corinth and Ephesus is ~250 miles
Distance between Corinth and Rome, is ~700 miles where Clement was

BTW, in order to reduce the miles from Corinth to Rome to ~700 mi, sea travel is required also.

You do the Math.

Why did they go to Rome? It’s the chair of Peter. And Clement can settle sedition between bishops where other bishops don’t have that power between themselves.

 

[pocohombre]

That doesn’t mean roll over and play dead. It’s not going to go well for those who divide from the Church. Romans 16:17-20 , Galatians 5:19-21

Yes,pacifying is definitely a work of grace,even a fruit of the spirit.

 

[pocohombre]

Ever hear the phrase do nothing without the bishop? Do you really think Corinth just sent a letter to Rome hoping it gets to someone in the Church that will respond to their request?

 

[steve_b]

Yes,pacifying is definitely a work of grace,even a fruit of the spirit.

Except that it is ultimately Jesus giving Paul that inspiration.

John 16:12-15 [12] I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. [13] But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.[14] He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it to you. [15] All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine. Therefore I said, that he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you.

Ya see that? Jesus the judge is telling Paul through the HS how He is going to judge those who divide from His Church that He established, gave all His promises to and died for. They won’t inherit heaven. i.e. they go to hell.

Romans 16:17-20 , Galatians 5:19-21 When Paul says I warn you as I warned you before,… there’s nothing passive about this warning. And there is no expiration date on the warning. Jesus doesn’t warn needlessly. This warning and consequence is as valid today as it was 2000 years ago, and forever

 

[steve_b]

No one is suggesting to say for instance it was sent to the janitor of the church. Of course you had elders/deacons presbyters/bishops. But to assert it was intended for Clement as head bishop is Catholic conjecture or tradition. Some historians think there was no head bishop ruling Rome at that time-that there were many bishops.

You forget. This is the Catholic Church in the 1st century. The chair of Peter. And every body in the world knew it.
p:

Good points but all roads lead to Rome.I only mentioned it cause I read somewhere that per Pauline epistles there was certain people in Rome who had connections to Corinth.

Paul also established Athens. Are you saying that Corinth had no contacts in Athens? C’mon poco, Athens is only 50 miles away from Corinth.
p:

Don’t think Paul connects anyone from Corinth to Ephesus church or Jerusalem church or Antioch church, but he does to Roman church. I think.

At this time, Paul has been dead for at least 15-20 years. He has letters to the Corinthians, Thesselonians, Ephesians, Romans, and the apostle John is in Ephesus 250 miles away from Corinth. And you think the Church at Corinth has only connections with the Church of Rome and no other connections to the Church in these other locations around them? You’re not thinking this through.
p:

Again,no mention of Clement as arbriter,but certainly presbyters at Rome.

Nothing is done in the Church without the bishop. And in this case the bishop of Rome, the successor to St Peter. neither deacons or priests make these decisions. Only the bishop. And one bishop in particular has the authority to speak for the entire Church.

 

[Peter_J]

Thanks for somewhat agreeing. Yes, I have seen the term Catholic used negatively, as in aligned with a questioned Roman doctrine. I have heard it the other way also where going door to door years ago with gospel tracts and some saying to us ,“No thanks, I am Catholic.”… I have heard that there was a pilgrim approaching the Pearly Gates with St. Peter standing there. The pilgrim asks if there are any Catholics up there and St. Peter responds , “No.”. “Any Lutherans up there?” asked pilgrim. “No”, says St.Peter. “Any Episcopals or Baptists or Orthodox up there ?” “No, we don’t go by those names up here.” 'Well then who is up there ?", asked a puzzled pilgrim. “Just those Saints who have been washed by the blood of the Lamb”.

You make some good points (again ) but I don’t think you’re getting my main point: Don’t Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc *want *to be called “Catholic”? I can completely understand how you/they might reluctantly give it up, as a courtesy to those of us who are in communion with Rome and feel very strongly about being called “Catholic”. I’ve been in some conversations like that … but more often than not the conversation seems to go more like this:
Us: When we say “Catholics” we only mean us, not you guys.
Orthodox/Lutheran/Anglican etc: So what? We wouldn’t want to be called that anyway.

 

[Peter_J]

Why?

It’s a question that gets asked of Catholics, and Catholics can answer the question.

Well, I don’t really know why … but seeing as you yourself don’t answer the question either, perhaps you should yourself why?

 

[benjohnson]

Why?

It’s a question that gets asked of Catholics, and Catholics can answer the question.

If I had to guess, I would presume that no serious Christian likes to have any adjective in front of their church name as it seems to limit their scope, especially when those adjectives are not those in the creed.

 

[Peter_J]

You make some good points (again ) but I don’t think you’re getting my main point: Don’t Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc *want *to be called “Catholic”? I can completely understand how you/they might reluctantly give it up, as a courtesy to those of us who are in communion with Rome and feel very strongly about being called “Catholic”. I’ve been in some conversations like that … but more often than not the conversation seems to go more like this:
Us: When we say “Catholics” we only mean us, not you guys.
Orthodox/Lutheran/Anglican etc: So what? We wouldn’t want to be called that anyway.

(Which might also be Sour Grapes, but I don’t want to open that can of worms.)

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;11245433]I’ve asked this question many times on these forums. I’ve yet to get an answer, Maybe you can help.

Q: When is the 1st time we see “Orthodox Church” in writing? Date + reference

You seem concerned with the dates here. The fact is the patriarchates of the East are as much a part of the early Church founded at Pentecost as the western see.
I do not dispute the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, only the supremacy.

I mentioned them only to show continuity.

Thank you, Steve, for this answer. And you are correct. It is in this continuity that I, as a Lutheran, am not convinced that Luther was entirely correct in his opinions. I contend he was greatly deferential to the early Church, in contrast to the accusations made against him in this regard, but I think he could have been even more so.

Trent changed nothing. Here’s a couple of short responses

catholic.com/quickquestions/why-did-the-council-of-trent-accept-some-apocryphal-books-of-the-bible-but-not-others

catholic.com/quickquestions/did-the-church-add-the-deuterocanonical-books-to-the-bible-at-the-council-of-trent

Neither of these are relate to the fact that Catholics could and indeed did dispute the DCs and the NT antilegomena

7 Deuterocanonical books he said were apocryphal + James, Hebrews Revelation = 10

Yes, it was his opinion that they DCs were apocryphal. He was not the first, by any stretch, to have that opinion. He was also not the only one during his era, not even referring to the reformers, to hold that opinion.

The 3 NT books were reinstated, depending on the source, there’s various answers for why that is.

And the NT antilegomena was never uninstated to be reinstated.

He turned DC’s into apocryphal status.

That certainly was his opinion.

It’s just odd anyway.

Clearly, there was no sneering here, except that he sneered at how the Church was overemphasizing James.

He started his own religion which is condemned in scripture and tradition. Romans 16:17-20 , Galatians 5:19-21, Division is not being a gospel centric guy. The HS inspired Paul to write those warnings, and the HS received that from Jesus John 16:12-15

Well, you can hold to what I consider a rather simplistic view of that era, that Luther was only and solely responsible here, and that the corruption and abuses of the time, the politics of the time, played no role, but the Catholic Catechism seems to recognize that Church leadership did play a role. Clearly, both sides could have done more to prevent the division we now sadly share.

So, it’s Jesus telling Luther, and anyone else who divides from Our Lord’s Church how He will judge those who divide and / or remain divided from His Church. btw, All Protestants regardless of stripe are outside the Catholic Church.

Well, you’re welcome to that triumphalist opinion. I’m sure you understand that I disagree.

Jon