T
Tomster
Guest
Thank you for the admission. And I might add there can only be one, ONE, Mystical Body of Christ, one Church.
- Status
T
Tomster
Guest
Lets take a look at #6
Habitual grace is a divine gift infused by God into the soul, as something permanent by its nature. In the strict sense, habitual grace is that infused into the very essence of the soul, and is called sanctifying grace, inasmuch as it confers holiness and makes righteous one who had been a sinner. In a broader sense, habitual grace includes, in addition to sanctifying grace, also the virtues and gifts of the Holy Spirit, which are like the ramification of sanctifying grace and are received in the faculties of the soul.
The Scholastics, starting from the data of revelation, developed an abundant doctrine on habitual grace with the help of the Aristotelian theory about habits. But Luther, opposing this theory on account of nominalistic mentality, rejected the entire traditional doctrine and reduced sanctifying grace to an extrinsic, divine favor or to an extrinsic imputation of Christ’s sanctity to the sinner, who remains in himself intrinsically corrupted and incurable. The Protestants have followed in their master’s footsteps up to our own times, with however a few exceptions.
Baianism conceives grace dynamically, i.e., only as actual, and identifies it with morally good and salutary action, namely: with the observance of divine precepts which according to him, is possible only with grace, integrative element of the creature.
The Church condemned both of these errors (Council of Trent, session VI, canon 11), appealing to revelation (especially St. Paul and St. John), which manifests to us grace as a regeneration, a new life, a divine energy, diffused by the Holy Spirit and INHERENT in the soul. Hence the true theology of sanctifying grace is that grace is a divine quality or entitative habit inherent in the soul, upon which it confers a mode of divine being, a participation of the divine nature, according to St. Peter, adoptive divine filiation (Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:5; John 3:1), and the right of inheritance to eternal life (Romans 8:17).
Tradition, in the East especially, is rich in concepts and developments with respect to sanctifying grace, boldly termed “divinization of man” (Irenaeus, Origen, Cyril of Alexandria).
Sanctifying grace is lost through mortal sin (Council of Trent, see Denzinger # 808), is conserved and increased through good works, done under the influence of God, and by means of the sacraments duly received (Council of Trent, again, Denzinger #s 834 and 849).
T
Tomster
Guest
Again, to #6.
Actual grace is the transient supernatural influence of God IN the soul, moving it to the salutary act, i.e., to an act ordained to sanctification and eternal life. The existence of this grace, as distinct from habitual grace, is attested to by Holy Scripture, which speaks of illumination (Ps. 12:4), of attraction (Cant. 1:3; John 6:34), of impulse (Acts 9:5). Thus also Tradition: St. Augustine, who had to deal most with grace, speaks rather rarely about sanctifying grace, but continually about actual grace - or perhaps about both without distinction. The Council of Trent (session VI, c.6, Denzingers 798) describes actual grace as disposing a man to justification.
A great part of the systematic doctrine about actual grace, however, was developed immediately after the Council of Trent, on the occasion of Baianism and Jansenism which adulterated the concept of the supernatural influence of God with respect to human activity.
T
Tomster
Guest
Once again, on #6.
"Here is the chief distinction between Catholic and the orthodox Lutheran conception of justification. Man is not purely passive under the action of grace like some lifeless stone or log. As the Church conceives original sin, the natural religious and moral endowment of man was not destroyed by that sin so that as the Lutheran “Formula of Concord” expresses it “no spark of spiritual power was left him for the knowledge of truth and accomplishment of good.”
Man’s religious and moral faculties are not impaired in their natural substance, but weakened in their operation, inasmuch as original sin deflects them from their supernatural course and gives them therefore a false direction. The effect of grace, as the upsurging of the eternal love within him, is to bring man’s faculties back again into their original course , and so to disengage them completely and set them free. Therefore grace is not merely compassionate mercy, nor is it like some brilliant cloak of gold thrown over the human corpse. On the contrary, the Church conceives of it as a vital force, which awakens and summons the powers of man’s soul, understanding, will and feeling, inspires them with a new love, with a new fear of God and His judgments, with a new yearning for transcendent holiness and infinite goodness. When grace thus works on the sinner, continually urging him on with its secret goad to the heights, it produces in man those spiritual acts of faith, fear and trust which are the preparation on the human side for justification. The justification itself which follows these acts is the sole work of God. In the sacrament of baptism or penance God answers the appeal of the penitent with His kiss of forgiving love: “I baptize thee, I absolve thee.”
“The Spirit of Catholicism” Karl Adam
R
rcwitness
Guest
Actually, I think this was my point. Luthernism and even reformers of Luther’s time did not have one mind and agreement on issues, yet the Church should have been able to coral in Luther and organize his teachings from his false heresies?
Again, From a Lutheran point of view, why was Luther ex Communicated? Do you think he still would have been excommunicated today?
K
KjetilK
Guest
In light of other encounters with you, I highly doubt that you even got what I was writing. Lutheranism is not a Church. But neither is Byzantinianism or Alexandrinianism.
C
Contarini
Guest
The word “church” is equivocal. After all, Catholics speak of 23 “sui juris churches” all part of one Church.
Protestants typically see all Trinitarian Christian “churches” as similarly part of one Church.
Edwin
S
spina1953
Guest
In April 1520, Luther’s writings containing most of his doctrines were submitted and discussed finding some 41 errors. The papal Bull Exsurge Domine, was then drawn up on July 15th,1520. it formally condemned the 421 errors drawn from Luther’s writings ordering the destruction of books containing these errors, and summoned Luther to recant within 60 days or be excommunicated. The Papal Bull seemed to have drove Luther to greater extremes and new reasons to revolt against the CC.
In response to Exsurge Domine in Nov. 1520 Luther published a treatice titled Assertion of All the Articles Wrongly Condemned in the papal Bull, in which Luther defended his views and called the Pope the Antichrist. Luther in obvious defiance of the demand for recantation, Pope Leo X on Jan.3rd.1521 excommunicated Luther after being found guilty of heresy.
In response to Exsurge Domine in Nov. 1520 Luther published a treatice titled Assertion of All the Articles Wrongly Condemned in the papal Bull, in which Luther defended his views and called the Pope the Antichrist. Luther in obvious defiance of the demand for recantation, Pope Leo X on Jan.3rd.1521 excommunicated Luther after being found guilty of heresy.
T
Tomster
Guest
On to points 2.3 &4 specifically concupiscence.
Are you aware that concupiscence is not a sin? Luther did and big time. Luther held this concupiscence is sinful in itself and invincible. The Church, however, teaches that concupiscence, though a consequence of original sin, is not a sin in itself. Concupiscence only inclines to sin, and that not irresistibly, since with good will and God’s grace man can conquer it and in doing so can acquire merit for the struggle.
"Concupiscence, then, is a certain commotion and impulse of the soul, urging men to the desire of pleasures, which they do not actually enjoy. As the other propensities of the soul are not always sinful, neither is the impulse of concupiscence always vicious. It is not, for instance, sinful to desire food and drink; when cold, to wish for warmth; when warm, to wish to become cool. This lawful species of concupiscence was implanted in us by the Author of nature; but in consequence of the sin of our first parents it passed the limits prescribed by nature and be so depraved that it frequently [and here I emphasize the word “frequently” as opposed to always] excites to the desire of those things which conflict with the spirit and reason.
If well regulated and kept within proper bounds, it [concupiscence] is often still the source of no slight advantage. In the first place, it leads us to supplicate God continually, and humbly to beg Him those things we most earnestly desire. Prayer is the interpreter of our wishes: and if this lawful concupiscence did not exist within us, prayer would be far less frequent in the Church of God. It also makes us esteem the gifts of God more highly; for the more eagerly we desire anything, the dearer and more pleasing will be its possession to us. Finally, the gratification which we receive from the acquisition of the desired object increases the devotion of our gratitude to God. It must be conceded that not every species of concupiscence is forbidden" - “Catechism of the Council of Trent”
T
Tomster
Guest
And they would be wrong since the other Trinitarian “churches” they typically see are bodies without a visible head, the Vicar of Christ.
They are between “The Rock” and a hard place.
T
Tomster
Guest
On free will.
Man has not lost the freedom of his will by original sin, else he would not have that consciousness of being able to exercise choice, or that feeling of remorse when he had yielded. Even a full blown atheist can choose to put money in the hat of a blind man selling pencils on a street corner.
On free will, from the Augsburg Confession:
The response of the Confutators:
Emphasis mine
Jon
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Tomster: I like what you posted as it gets to the point of free will. One can certainly have a bad thought but does not act on it, thereby not bring a sin since one has free will to overcome the thought. Every person is tempted by one thing or another but that does not mean that we can not use our will to overcome the temptation. When we do, of course God is also giving us the grace to be strong in the face of it, but is happens when we using our free will cooperate with God’s grace. However, I will say that you have addressed it better than I can.
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Tomster: You are correct of course concerning free will. I would like to add that free will is the freedom to choose. God gave man free will because he wanted us to be able to choose to either love Him or not and not being forced to love God because we are as I said forced to. God does not operate that way. Just as we have free will to choose whether to eat, drink, sleep, go for a walk etc… so to we have free will to either sin or not, it was never taken away. Otherwise either Adam &Eve would have been condemned to hell or never be forgiven. They fell into sin by disobeying God, yet, God forgave them and also gave them the hope of redemption in due time by sending His only Son to make the perfect sacrifice that we ourselves could do. So Luther I think was very much wrong in his teaching that man did not have the will to overcome sin and that everything man did, good works were still sin.
S
steido01
Guest
Spina, take another read at Jon’s post #52. Pay special attention to what the Roman Catholic Church wrote in response to the Lutherans (“they”).
S
spina1953
Guest
This was in response to what Luther thought and not what modern Lutherans think, as I am not asking Lutheran’s to defend anything that Luther himself might have said.
Hi Spina,
As the quote above is from the Augsburg Confession, there would be no essential difference between what modern Lutherans think and what the contributing reformers thought on the issue.
Jon
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Jon: I understand what you have said. However in Exsurge Domine it refuted 41 of Luther’s teachings or doctrines two being 31)In every good work the just man sins and 32) A good work done very well is a venial sin. Now I am not saying that modern Lutheran’s believe this as I really do not know. What I am getting at is that Luther wrote something about these two things I used as just an example that the CC rejected and refuted as errors, which Luther would not recant as well as the other 39 errors the CC said Luther was teaching. So it seems that Luther must have said and or wrote things that the CC thought to be in error and some a heresy, which only deals with Luther himself and not in anyway modern Lutheran’s, since its my understanding that not al of Luther’s teachings and doctrines were accepted or are accepted by modern Lutheran’s. The Augsburg Confession long after Exsurge Domine, so not sure how that plays in with the 1520 document; Papal Bull.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi guano,
“He never had much talent for apology. Now he addressed Leo in the firm tones of a good German schoolmaster admonishing an inept but well-meaning child. ** Although he had not attacked Leo personally, he nevertheless declared unremitting war against the papacy itself, he said. Leo was counseled to give up his “glory” – that is, the title of pope – to retire to the parish and live on the income of a simple priest. Then Leo could help Luther reform the Church, In effect, Luther said peace could reign between them if Leo helped destroy the papacy. **** The letter looks like a calculated insult, couched in a vocabulary of meekness and friendship but aimed at showing friends as well as enemies – the elector and Spalatin as well as Militz and the pope – that no compromise was possible between true Christians and the Antichrist at Rome.”** Marius, pg. 266
I think that this tells us a great deal about the character of Martin Luther, and also makes clear that Luther left the Church with no choice but to excommunicate him. I doubt if anyone here would be willing to suggest that Luther should not have been excommunicated by the Church.
Guano, you say that things became too heated for the differences to be resolved, but then that goes directly to the most important question:
**Do you think that the Church gave Luther a fair hearing overall? Or conversely, do you think that he was unfairly excommunicated? **
In fact, in Luther’s “Defense and Explanation of All the Articles”, in which he responded to “Exsurge Domine”, he seemed to purposely make the differences between himself and the Church even greater.
“As far as Luther was concerned the pope and his bull [Exsurge Domine] did not speak for the true church. Rather the bull made it clear that the men in Rome were ‘tyrants,’ and their condemnation of obvious Christian truth would now reveal their tyranny to everybody. In his struggle with the papacy,** Luther made, by this time, no effort to compromise the issues. On the contrary, he went out of his way to show that the differences were even greater than the bull might have suggested.” **LW, Editors J.J. Pelikan, H.C. Oswald, & H.T. Lehmann, Vol. 32, pg. x-xi
The “Legend” of Luther often portrays Luther as being wrongfully condemned and the Church as generally refusing to deal with him honestly. But here we see the Lutheran editors of Luther’s Works admitting that Luther made “no effort to compromise the issues” and in fact, that “he went out of his way to show that the differences were even greater than the bull might have suggested.” The facts about this period reveal a Martin Luther that is very different than the popular “Legend”.
I agree that pride was involved. But in fact Luther’s refusal (or rather inability) to back down, even slightly, set the tone for all that was to come. As a result of “Exsurge Domine” Luther was counseled to write an ‘apology’ to Pope Leo.
“He never had much talent for apology. Now he addressed Leo in the firm tones of a good German schoolmaster admonishing an inept but well-meaning child. ** Although he had not attacked Leo personally, he nevertheless declared unremitting war against the papacy itself, he said. Leo was counseled to give up his “glory” – that is, the title of pope – to retire to the parish and live on the income of a simple priest. Then Leo could help Luther reform the Church, In effect, Luther said peace could reign between them if Leo helped destroy the papacy. **** The letter looks like a calculated insult, couched in a vocabulary of meekness and friendship but aimed at showing friends as well as enemies – the elector and Spalatin as well as Militz and the pope – that no compromise was possible between true Christians and the Antichrist at Rome.”** Marius, pg. 266
I think that this tells us a great deal about the character of Martin Luther, and also makes clear that Luther left the Church with no choice but to excommunicate him. I doubt if anyone here would be willing to suggest that Luther should not have been excommunicated by the Church.
Guano, you say that things became too heated for the differences to be resolved, but then that goes directly to the most important question:
**Do you think that the Church gave Luther a fair hearing overall? Or conversely, do you think that he was unfairly excommunicated? **
In fact, in Luther’s “Defense and Explanation of All the Articles”, in which he responded to “Exsurge Domine”, he seemed to purposely make the differences between himself and the Church even greater.
“As far as Luther was concerned the pope and his bull [Exsurge Domine] did not speak for the true church. Rather the bull made it clear that the men in Rome were ‘tyrants,’ and their condemnation of obvious Christian truth would now reveal their tyranny to everybody. In his struggle with the papacy,** Luther made, by this time, no effort to compromise the issues. On the contrary, he went out of his way to show that the differences were even greater than the bull might have suggested.” **LW, Editors J.J. Pelikan, H.C. Oswald, & H.T. Lehmann, Vol. 32, pg. x-xi
The “Legend” of Luther often portrays Luther as being wrongfully condemned and the Church as generally refusing to deal with him honestly. But here we see the Lutheran editors of Luther’s Works admitting that Luther made “no effort to compromise the issues” and in fact, that “he went out of his way to show that the differences were even greater than the bull might have suggested.” The facts about this period reveal a Martin Luther that is very different than the popular “Legend”.
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Topper: You might if you get the chance read Luther’s pamphlet of Nov.1520 called Assertion of All the Articles Wrongly Condemned in the Papal Bull in which Luther defended his views and called the Pope the Antichrist, which kinda shows that Luther was not only vulgar but crass and crude and very much disrespectful. which does not seem to be very Christian to me or what Jesus Himself taught or would agree that one should speak in such a manor.
- Status