500 Years of Protestantism: 38 Things Martin Luther Wrote

[steve_b]

GKC answered this quite well.

You referring to his 1st among equals comment?
J:

Actually, its four, not three, and his views are historical. The term Antilegomena dates back to the early Church. Again, this affects you, Steve, how?

It doesn’t effect me. It obviously effected guys like Luther and the others who were in revolt.
J:

Well, we hit something we agree on. Luther agreed on it, too. “…I will say nothing of the fact that many assert with much probability that this epistle is not by James the apostle, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit; although, whoever was its author,** it has come to be regarded as authoritative**.”

It’s scripture.
J:

Why is he not allowed to make judgements? Lots of people did it. It seems like some want to set up a different set of rules for what Luther said and did, and what others even of his time era said and did.

The rules aren’t different.
J:

Why is he not allowed to make a comparative statement? Is it simply because it is Luther that makes that comparison? Stating an opinion about a book that has, from the time of Eusebius, been disputed seems quite reasonable to me, and it certainly isn’t violating Timothy.

The canon was established in 382. And in 1546 session IV of Trent, affirmed it again

saints.sqpn.com/trent04.htm

To say any book of scripture isn’t scripture, or isn’t up to scripture, violates Timothy
J:

Of course, but I’m not separated for our Lord’s Church.

That’s what you believe, but you are seperated. If I as a Catholic leave the Catholic Church and become a Lutheran and remain that way till I die, I would be violating Paul’s warning and I would reap the consequences Romans 16:17-20 , Galatians 5:19-21. Now why would I do something so dangerous to my soul? Paul is writing to baptised Catholics. These aren’t pagans he’s writing to. They are in the Church he’s building and writing to. He writes those that leave (divide / dissent from ) the Catholic Church will not inherit heaven. I would have to be an absolute fool to go against that warning considering that warning and that consequence really didn’t come from Paul, it came from the inspiration of the HS, and the HS received it from Jesus. John 16:12-15 . When the one who will judge the living and the dead makes such a warning…I BELIEVE HIM.!

If this applies to me, what does it say for those already outside the Church?
J:

Sure I do. But it is triumphalism to say that simply because I am not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, I am condemned.

Show me my friend where Jesus or any apostle said it’s okay to be seperated from Peter?

You realize when the scriptures say the pillar and foundation of truth isn’t you or me, it’s the Church. And the only Church Jesus established is the Catholic Church…outside of which there is no salvation, as Galatians 5:19-21 clearly teaches.
J:

I’m not saying your position is not out of love. I am saying that the belief that I am condemned because I am not in communion with the Bishop of Rome is triumphalism, in my view.

Jon

Don’t be mistaken. I’m not judging you. I’m nothing in this process. All I can do is pass on the true faith the best I can using materials going back to Jesus and the apostles.

Luther did NOT keep the ancient faith. He did NOT persevere. And if he died that way then Jesus already warned him and anyone else who Leaves His Church and dies that way what will happen. There is no expiration date to that warning and consequence. Since Jesus doesn’t make idle threats, nor scare people needlessly, the consequences really will happen.

So besides all the right reasons I choose to believe in and remain in the Catholic Church, I’m also not going to go against any of Jesus warnings and consequences. Since I believe Him in everything He said, I believe him on the bad news as well. So you see, by me talking about the bad news with you, isn’t me judging you. If I did not share everything in an honest way with you I would not be doing you any favors. It’s certainly not demonstrating love of neighbor. I’m a big believer in giving someone the whole story so they can truly make an informed decision, because that’s what I want for myself as well…

 

[Peter_J]

I was speaking about the church that I am a member, none have gone to Rome.

OIC. I thought you were saying that in the LCMS overall, nobody goes Rome-ward.

 

[Per_Crucem]

OIC. I thought you were saying that in the LCMS overall, nobody goes Rome-ward.

Defective ecclesiology will do that. But I digress from poking fun at my LCMS friends hehe.

 

[Peter_J]

We also lose some bright people to the Orthodox faith. Frankly - let me say this generally but succinctly:

**They suck.
**

I trust the “they” in sentence refers not the Orthodox but to the individuals who switched teams.

 

[benjohnson]

I trust the “they” in sentence refers not the Orthodox but to the individuals who switched teams.

Indeed!

Thanks for clarifying that! I should be more careful!

 

[lweisenthal]

Hi Randy (apparently a fellow swimmer),

Thanks for reading and considering my comment.

You ask a couple of questions:

First, quoting me:

“The title of this thread is misleading. We haven’t had only 500 years of Protestantism – rather Protestantism has existed for 2,000 years, since the founding of the Roman Catholic Church.”

You ask:

“Could you reference some of the existing writings of these early non-Catholic Christians?”

You misunderstand the point I was attempting to make. The foundational difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is belief in Magisterial teaching authority (the “bind and loose” clause). Protestantism doesn’t have a catechism. That’s why there are so many Protestant denominations. Protestant denominations are merely assemblies of communities of people with similar beliefs and a preference for a given style of worship (liturgy). But what all Protestant denominations have in common is a lack of belief in Magisterial teaching authority.

Now, I believe it is self evident that, from the post-resurrectional beginnings of Christianity, there were many people who were sincerely faithful and observant Christians, but who didn’t believe in Magisterial teaching authority. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians was chiefly about the fact that, in the years shortly after Paul’s evangelism to Corinth, the Christian community had, in effect, split into 4 different denominations, following, respectively, Paul, Cephas (Peter), Christ, and Apollos. Some Christians accepted Paul’s teaching authority. Some did not.

There have certainly always been Catholics who obediently followed the rules of the Church, while not necessarily believing in all the dogmas and doctrines. Likewise, there have certainly always been Catholics who not only did not believe in all the dogmas and doctrines, but who didn’t even follow all the rules.

I’d argue that the latter applies to a great many Catholics today, as evidenced by my examples of rejecting prohibitions on artificial contraception and receipt of the Eucharist in the absence of reconciliation. Such individuals are effectively Protestants who choose to affiliate with the Catholic church, for personal (often family) reasons, and/or because they are comfortable with the community and liturgy. Thus, for these particular individuals (Catholics who do not believe in Magisterial authority), Catholicism is, in effect, a denomination of Protestantism, and this state of affairs certainly dates back 2,000 years.

What the Protestant Reformation established was simply other choices for people lacking a belief in Magisterial authority. Some people with Protestant-type beliefs left the Catholic Church to associate with groups of like minded people. Other people with Protestant-type beliefs (let’s call them “liberal Catholics,” as we can all agree on what that means) remained in the Church (and remain in the Church, today).

But disbelief in Magisterial authority didn’t begin with Luther. Luther simply took it out of the closet.

Quoting me again:

"Protestantism has, at its core, the belief that there need be no middlemen between the believer and the Holy Trinity.

You say (and ask):

“I can imagine John MacArthur or Mike Gendron saying these things, but I am unfamiliar with anything from the Vatican telling me not to waste my time trying to go around the Church’s middlemen to get to God. My own experience is that God uses the priesthood of His Church to get to me.”

“Could you cite any documents from the Catholic Church which explains how Catholics cannot go directly to God without them?”

The relevant example (since we are talking about Luther) is the sale of indulgences. By making a monetary contribution to the Church, the penitent would receive a reduction in the time spent in purgatory. This is a striking example of Church as middleman between believer and God. But there are a great many other examples as well. In Protestantism, an individual has the freedom of conscience to believe or disbelieve in the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. In Catholicism, the individual is told, by the authority of the Magisterium, that these are “true” dogmas, in which the individual is required, at minimum, to maintain an open heart as regarding belief. And, of course, in Protestantism, there is no requirement to confess sins to a cleric – only to God. No middleman.

I am neither attempting to praise Protestantism nor to denigrate Catholicism. I know for a fact (based on personal experience with both Catholic and Protestant Christian communities) that individuals in both communities derive a great deal of good personal benefit from their respective Christian communities, and I personally believe that God has always provided different pathways to grace and continues to do so. I don’t like to see any given religious community attempting to denigrate other communities. It’s possible to defend one’s own faith without denigrating the faith of others.

• Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

 

[steve_b]

quote, steve b

“Protestant division from Our Lord’s Church in the 16th century and the proliferation of division that ensued, remains because those in division, have dug in to defend their right to be divided from Our Lord’s Church. People are defending division from the Catholic Church. And they’ve learned every argument protestantism can provide to support 500 years of maintaining that division. None of this protest absolves any person from being divided from Our Lord’s Church. Protestantism no matter the stripe, no matter the name they want to use, is Our Lord’s Church. All of them have one thing in common, in their divisions, they are all outside Our Lord’s Church. Our Lord never taught seperate but equal. He condemned it.”

J:

On the bolded parts of your opinion I agree.

For clarification, do you think I’m saying Protestantism regardless of stripe is Our Lord’s Church or are you agreeing with me that NONE are Our Lord’s Church

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I have no idea what the number/ percentage of Lutheran clergy converting to Catholicism is. Maybe somebody has data. My guess is that more Lutherans become Anglican due to merged parishes but that is merely out of convenience than theological issues, I suspect. For example the presiding bishop of the ELCA is a woman whose husband is an Episcopal priest.

Some Lutheran theologians likely see no reason to be separate from Rome since Vatican II.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Some of the most talented Lutheran theologians in America have converted to Catholicism. They call it the “Lutheran landslide” and these priests/ bishop come from both the ELCA and LCMS. I was among fellow seminarians and clergy to hear homilies and dined with Father Neuhaus at St John the Evangelist parish [LCMS] in Brooklyn and studied Wilken and Philip Max Johnson.

What do my fellow Lutherans think about our brightest stars jumping ship?

Robert C. Koons (2007)

 

[Randy_Carson]

We also lose some bright people to the Orthodox faith. Frankly - let me say this generally but succinctly:

They suck.

The good shepherd doesn’t desert his flock.

Now… if they brought their flock with them or made a noble attempt, then that’s ok.

Our reaction should be is that we need to make our church such that there is no reason to leave - but with all the contemporary worship, nutty secular theology, and politics in our synods, I can understand why they left.

But I’ll never understand turning one’s back on good people that need their shepherd.

Ben, maybe the issue is that they have come to realize that the Good Shepherd has one flock, and he left Peter and Peter’s successors to watch over it.

Is this REALLY so difficult?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Randy,

• Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

Hi, Larry. Welcome to CAF.

I’ll go through your post in a bit, but first this:

How to use the Catholic Answers Forum Quote Function

If you want to respond to something that someone else posted, you can simply hit the “Quote” button on the lower right…not the “Post Reply” button on the lower left. Simply begin typing after the text that the forum automatically copies for you. That’s what I did at the beginning of this post above.

If you want to insert your comments into the middle of something you are quoting, you have to manually insert square brackets. Here is the original passage I want to comment on:

Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was black as soot, and everywhere that Mary went, his sooty foot he put.

In order to show you what you need to do, I have to use a different set of brackets for illustrative purposes only. I’ll use { and } instead of and ] so that you can see where the brackets should be located, and I’ll insert my comments in red text.

{quote}Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was black as soot,{/quote} I’m inserting my comments here in red. {quote}and everywhere that Mary went, his sooty foot he put.{/quote}Hope this helps.

Now, wherever you see the { or } you have to actually use a square bracket or ]. So the paragraph above comes out like this:

Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was black as soot,

I’m inserting my comments here in red.

and everywhere that Mary went his sooty foot he put.

Hope this helps.

One more thing: the quote function will automatically insert the name of the person to whom you are replying so that person can find your response more easily.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Ben, maybe the issue is that they have come to realize that the Good Shepherd has one flock

Is this REALLY so difficult?

You mean Orthodoxy

Seriously though, there are issues in those churches/synods which are causing them to bolt, and they are serious ones that have to be addressed. What they are doing by leaving may or may not be the answer. Often times it is. That doesn’t mitigate their offenses to their former congregations, though.

 

[lweisenthal]

Hi, Larry. Welcome to CAF.

I’ll go through your post in a bit, but first this:

How to use the Catholic Answers Forum Quote Function

Thank you for the most helpful instructions!

• Larry

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Randy (apparently a fellow swimmer),

Thanks for reading and considering my comment.

You ask a couple of questions:

First, quoting me:

“The title of this thread is misleading. We haven’t had only 500 years of Protestantism – rather Protestantism has existed for 2,000 years, since the founding of the Roman Catholic Church.”

You ask:

“Could you reference some of the existing writings of these early non-Catholic Christians?”

You misunderstand the point I was attempting to make. The foundational difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is belief in Magisterial teaching authority (the “bind and loose” clause). Protestantism doesn’t have a catechism. That’s why there are so many Protestant denominations. Protestant denominations are merely assemblies of communities of people with similar beliefs and a preference for a given style of worship (liturgy). But what all Protestant denominations have in common is a lack of belief in Magisterial teaching authority.

Now, I believe it is self evident that, from the post-resurrectional beginnings of Christianity, there were many people who were sincerely faithful and observant Christians, but who didn’t believe in Magisterial teaching authority. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians was chiefly about the fact that, in the years shortly after Paul’s evangelism to Corinth, the Christian community had, in effect, split into 4 different denominations, following, respectively, Paul, Cephas (Peter), Christ, and Apollos. Some Christians accepted Paul’s teaching authority. Some did not.

There have certainly always been Catholics who obediently followed the rules of the Church, while not necessarily believing in all the dogmas and doctrines. Likewise, there have certainly always been Catholics who not only did not believe in all the dogmas and doctrines, but who didn’t even follow all the rules.

I’d argue that the latter applies to a great many Catholics today, as evidenced by my examples of rejecting prohibitions on artificial contraception and receipt of the Eucharist in the absence of reconciliation. Such individuals are effectively Protestants who choose to affiliate with the Catholic church, for personal (often family) reasons, and/or because they are comfortable with the community and liturgy. Thus, for these particular individuals (Catholics who do not believe in Magisterial authority), Catholicism is, in effect, a denomination of Protestantism, and this state of affairs certainly dates back 2,000 years.

What the Protestant Reformation established was simply other choices for people lacking a belief in Magisterial authority. Some people with Protestant-type beliefs left the Catholic Church to associate with groups of like minded people. Other people with Protestant-type beliefs (let’s call them “liberal Catholics,” as we can all agree on what that means) remained in the Church (and remain in the Church, today).

But disbelief in Magisterial authority didn’t begin with Luther. Luther simply took it out of the closet.

First, you did not provide any references to these ancient non-Catholic groups. That is duly noted.

Second, Paul’s response to these dissident groups was?

(cont.) (Oh, the suspense…)

 

[Randy_Carson]

1 Corinthians 1:10
I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.”

He wrote powerfully against the type of divisions you reference in the fourth chapter of his letter to the Ephesians…one body, one spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all. This echoes Jesus’ words regarding one flock and one shepherd.

Modern Protestantism was not part of God’s plan from the beginnning.

"Protestantism has, at its core, the belief that there need be no middlemen between the believer and the Holy Trinity.

You say (and ask):

“I can imagine John MacArthur or Mike Gendron saying these things, but I am unfamiliar with anything from the Vatican telling me not to waste my time trying to go around the Church’s middlemen to get to God. My own experience is that God uses the priesthood of His Church to get to me.”

“Could you cite any documents from the Catholic Church which explains how Catholics cannot go directly to God without them?”

The relevant example (since we are talking about Luther) is the sale of indulgences. By making a monetary contribution to the Church, the penitent would receive a reduction in the time spent in purgatory. This is a striking example of Church as middleman between believer and God.

Indulgences (as you describe them) have NOTHING whatsoever to do with ordained clergy acting as middlemen between God and an individual Catholic. To this day, the Church teaches the doctrines of indulgences and the treasury of merits as they apply to a soul in Purgatory, but no middleman is needed now nor was one required in the day of Luther.

I am neither attempting to praise Protestantism nor to denigrate Catholicism. I know for a fact (based on personal experience with both Catholic and Protestant Christian communities) that individuals in both communities derive a great deal of good personal benefit from their respective Christian communities, and I personally believe that God has always provided different pathways to grace and continues to do so. I don’t like to see any given religious community attempting to denigrate other communities. It’s possible to defend one’s own faith without denigrating the faith of others.

Denigrating means “criticizing unfairly”. Which is not quite the same thing as pointing out truths and shortcomings about another faith when and where applicable. People need to hear the truth whether it is uncomfortable or not.

But there are a great many other examples as well. In Protestantism, an individual has the freedom of conscience to believe or disbelieve in the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. In Catholicism, the individual is told, by the authority of the Magisterium, that these are “true” dogmas, in which the individual is required, at minimum, to maintain an open heart as regarding belief. And, of course, in Protestantism, there is no requirement to confess sins to a cleric – only to God. No middleman.

Freedom of conscience? Gee, all I ever seem to hear from my Catholic friends is how they don’t have to agree with Church teachings because Vatican II says they have “freedom of conscience”. Where do you think cafeteria Catholicism got its start?

Confession? Well, you got me there. Jesus established the sacrament of confession to ordained priests for the good of our souls…but the individual is still confessing his or her sins to God even if it occurs within the confines of a confessional. However, wouldn’t it be accurate to say that the person really repented to God the moment he or she made the decision to go to confession in the first place? Obviously, some examination of conscience has already occurred.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You mean Orthodoxy

Seriously though, there are issues in those churches/synods which are causing them to bolt, and they are serious ones that have to be addressed. What they are doing by leaving may or may not be the answer. Often times it is. That doesn’t mitigate their offenses to their former congregations, though.

Of course the Orthodox have a better claim to being the Church founded by Jesus than the Lutherans do.

 

[benjohnson]

Is this REALLY so difficult?

Pastors don’t get to abandon their flocks.

1 Peter 5:2 ESV :

Shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly;

In my opinion - given the Lutheran understanding of the Church, Lutheran pastors should be doubly careful as to not appear to be shamefully gaining at the expense of their flock.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Pastors don’t get to abandon their flocks.

1 Peter 5:2 ESV :

Shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly;

In my opinion - given the Lutheran understanding of the Church, Lutheran pastors should be doubly careful as to not appear to be shamefully gaining at the expense of their flock.

And what does the Lutheran pastor who converts to Catholicism gain (other than a peaceful conscience)?

But Peter was exhorting Catholic pastors to remain steadfast. Protestant pastors who convert to Catholicism are leading by example…whether any choose to follow or not.

 

[benjohnson]

And what does the Lutheran pastor who converts to Catholicism gain (other than a peaceful conscience)?

If he gains visible communion with the Bishop of Rome, and in the process his actions become a stumbling block to even one member of his flock then he’s a rotten apple (I’d like to use harsher language) and I hope you lock him in a cloister.

If a pastor comes to believe in all the recent Catholic dogma and finds a need to convert, that’s fine. But he need to take his flock and not abandon them.

…

And even if you claim that Peters admonitions are only for Roman Catholics and not Lutherans, Anglicans, and Orthodox, I would still have slings and arrows for such men based on the simple virtue of keeping their vows before God.

 

[lweisenthal]

1 Corinthians 1:10
I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.”

He wrote powerfully against the type of divisions you reference in the fourth chapter of his letter to the Ephesians…one body, one spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all. This echoes Jesus’ words regarding one flock and one shepherd.

Modern Protestantism was not part of God’s plan from the beginning.

Thanks, Randy.

We, of course, could argue the authenticity of Ephesians (regarding Pauline authorship). Among scholars (including Catholic scholars, who’s writings have been vetted and granted an imprimatur certifying them to be free from doctrinal and moral error), the majority view is (to my knowledge) that Paul was not the actual author of Ephesians and that this was a later writing, following the ecclesiastical organization of the early church, and therefore the language could be viewed (by non Catholics) as being somewhat self-serving.

Anyway, my comment regarding Corinthians was simply to provide a reference to my (common sense) assertion that there have always been large numbers of people who faithfully participate in Catholic worship and liturgy without sharing belief in Magisterial authority. 1 Corinthians documented that this occurred – early on – even in a Christian community founded by the Apostle Paul, himself. The fact that Paul wished otherwise does not alter the reality of the fact that such divisions existed, from the very beginning. The fact that Paul wished otherwise must be viewed in the context of other “genuine” Pauline writings. In Romans, for example, Paul seems to approve of both Jewish and Gentile flavors of Christ veneration. Also, many Protestants would not accept that Paul was granted any divine authority, other than to provide his own personal views as a teacher.

However, I didn’t comment for the purpose of debating theology; I commented because I thought that the Luther quotes were basically cheap shots, as explained in my first comment. You then asked me a couple of questions; I answered to the best of my ability. I’ll let my answers stand as written; I get enough in the way of debating on more politically-centered blogs. At this point in my life, I don’t want to debate religion, per se.

As I wrote, my personal belief is that God has always provided many pathways to grace and continues to do so. You disagree. That’s fine. We all must believe what we are capable of believing. It’s up to God to render the final judgement regarding who got it right. According to my belief, you’ve got it right, in the case of yourself, and that’s really all that matters, from both of our perspectives.

• Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA