Anti-Catholic WELS

[Sherlock]

Everyone, everyone, everyone knws of the rampant immorality and greed of the clergy in his day - right down to the popes. Yes! Even your popes are human…
.

That’s a pretty broad brush you’re painting with there. You may not want to admit it, but there were saints as well as sinners among the Catholic clergy of Luther’s day. It ought not to be surprising, anymore than the presence of sinners ought to be surprising. And the Church is always in need of reform: she was before Luther’s time; during Luther’s time; and after Luther’s time. She needs reform now. She will need reform in the future. It’s what’s known as “human nature”, Lutheranstudent. To think that the problem lies, not with people, but with the institution peopled by–gasp–people, is simply erroneous. To couple that error with ego and decide that one will then create a more perfect institution elsewhere is to misunderstand Original Sin, and misunderstand it pretty badly. And so that’s one of the reasons Protestantism keeps breaking up: the never-ending search for leaders who don’t sin motivates people to leave one corrupt (in their saintly eyes) church to found another down the street. In the process, doctrine is fragmented as well until you simply have relativism reigning, the real legacy of Protestantism. News flash: humans are flawed, yes, even Protestants. The rate of sexual abuse is about the same in Protestant denominations as it is in the Catholic Church, about 4%. Rates are actually slightly higher in public schools and in therapy professions. And even Protestants go for the money, as any scan of TV Evangelists will show you.
No, the claim that the Church was just too corrupt for Luther to stay within is ludicrous. Read about the saints of the times. No, what Luther wanted was to become his own pope. But Jesus only gave the keys to one man.
And yes, popes are human. That’s a big “duh” there, Lutheranstudent.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Peace be with you!

Luther was also a clergyman of that time. Just thought I’d point that out. Do you (Lutherans) honestly…and I am asking you, honestly…think that he was the ONLY “good” clergyman in existance? Your completely honest answer, please.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Anima_Christi]

LutheranStudent:

In the end I know I will be saved - not because of anything I have done, not even in part - but because I rest on the sure foundation that is Christ.

Wouldn’t count on that! Unless you repent of your heresy, humble yourself and submit to the Vicar of Christ (currently Pope Benedict XVI) and return to the only ark of salvation, the Catholic Church, you just might perish in the flood! By rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church, which is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim. 3.15–I don’t think Luther threw that book out of the Bible, did he?), you are in fact rejecting Jesus Christ, as He stated, *“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” *(Lk 10:16)and *“if he refuse to hear even the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican. Amen I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.” *The foundation your rest on is in fact quite shaky, because the foundation is Luther, a mere man, not Jesus Christ and the Church He infallibly guides. One Church Father whose name eludes me at the moment stated once, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
I put more stock in the legitimate authority Our Lord Jesus Christ gave us (the Catholic Church, the Pope, and the bishops in union with him), rather than the novel doctrines of some rebel psychopath who came 1500 years later. Obviously you don’t.
By the way, if the doctrine of “sola fide” is scriptural, care to explain why Luther felt the need to insert the word “alone” into his translation of Romans 3:28? *For we hold that a man is justified by faith [alone] apart from works of the law. *Thank you.

 

[Dominica33]

Rand Al'Thor:

Actually, this was not Luther’s view. What is so hillarious about this point, though, is that while Luther himself believed in (and avidly preached) the perpetual virginity, Immaculate Conception, and Assumption of Mary (so did Calvin, by the way) no Lutherans believe any of those things!

Rand:

I find it inane, as well. I included them in my list simply because LutheranStudent will undoubtedly declare those Marian doctrines unscriptural, Catholic fabrications.

I wish to quote from the LCMS website about Mary:

“…Luther also held to the semper virgo (the perpetual virginity) of Mary. This, again, is a personal view to which Lutherans today are not bound. Scripture is not clear on this matter, and Lutherans do not regard it as a theological issue…”

lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2195

They’ve abandoned their own founder on key Marian doctrine; doctrine, as you mention, that is genuinely Catholic.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Anima Christi:

Wouldn’t count on that! Unless you repent of your heresy, humble yourself and submit to the Vicar of Christ (currently Pope Benedict XVI) and return to the only ark of salvation, the Catholic Church, you just might perish in the flood! By rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church, which is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim. 3.15–I don’t think Luther threw that book out of the Bible, did he?), you are in fact rejecting Jesus Christ, as He stated, *“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” *(Lk 10:16)and *“if he refuse to hear even the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican. Amen I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.” *The foundation your rest on is in fact quite shaky, because the foundation is Luther, a mere man, not Jesus Christ and the Church He infallibly guides. One Church Father whose name eludes me at the moment stated once, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
I put more stock in the legitimate authority Our Lord Jesus Christ gave us (the Catholic Church, the Pope, and the bishops in union with him), rather than the novel doctrines of some rebel psychopath who came 1500 years later. Obviously you don’t.
By the way, if the doctrine of “sola fide” is scriptural, care to explain why Luther felt the need to insert the word “alone” into his translation of Romans 3:28? *For we hold that a man is justified by faith [alone] apart from works of the law. *Thank you.

Peace be with you!

You can’t judge what is in Lutheranstudent’s heart. We can’t say where he will go when he dies; only God knows that. The Catholic Church does not teach that everyone that is not Catholic is doomed to hell. The Catechism teaches that everyone has the chance to be saved.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Anima_Christi]

Rand Al'Thor:

Peace be with you!

You can’t judge what is in Lutheranstudent’s heart. We can’t say where he will go when he dies; only God knows that. The Catholic Church does not teach that everyone that is not Catholic is doomed to hell. The Catechism teaches that everyone has the chance to be saved.
In Christ,
Rand

That’s why I said he *might *perish in the flood . . . it’s perfectly fine to warn people that they are in danger of hell, in fact we have a duty to. One can be saved outside the Catholic Church, but this does not mean one is likely to be saved.

 

[bekalc]

I agree we cannot judge what it is in the Lutheran student’s heart. I have met Lutherans who are just wonderful Christians…And you can tell they walk closely with the Lord…Just because someone isn’t in Peter’s Church doesn’t mean that they aren’t in Christ’s Church. Our Church does teach that.

We can only be responsible for what the Lord tells us to do…

 

[Anima_Christi]

bekalc:

I agree we cannot judge what it is in the Lutheran student’s heart. I have met Lutherans who are just wonderful Christians…And you can tell they walk closely with the Lord…Just because someone isn’t in Peter’s Church doesn’t mean that they aren’t in Christ’s Church. Our Church does teach that.

We can only be responsible for what the Lord tells us to do…

Ummmm, sounds like you are very misinformed about the teachings of the Church, Bekalc. Peter’s Church (as in the Apostolic Roman Church) is Christ’s Church. If you think that it isn’t, well, maybe you should become an Anglican or something, because the Catholic teaching is that the Roman Catholic Church IS the Church of Jesus Christ, and the Pope is His Vicar on earth, period. In a sense all baptized Christians are children of the Church, but they are disobedient and rebellious children.

 

[bekalc]

Anima Christi:

Ummmm, sounds like you are very misinformed about the teachings of the Church, Bekalc. Peter’s Church (as in the Apostolic Roman Church) is Christ’s Church. If you think that it isn’t, well, maybe you should become an Anglican or something, because the Catholic teaching is that the Roman Catholic Church IS the Church of Jesus Christ, and the Pope is His Vicar on earth, period. In a sense all baptized Christians are children of the Church, but they are disobedient and rebellious children.

Never said Peter’s wasn’t Christ’s Church. You misunderstood me. It’s a part of Christ’s Church and the authortive part and the valid visible part. But Lutherans can still be part of Christ’s Church, even if they don’t recognize Peter’s Church authority. Just they are invisible members, just like Protestants claimed.

 

[littlesheep]

Never said that there was a third group I ask if there was?

Originally Posted by Lazerlike42

Jesus is saying to the sheep to come inherit the kingdom because they did these works. Come inherit the kingdom for the reason that they did these works. Similarly, He tells the goats to depart because they didn’t do them, for the reason of having not done them.

What? They told Him that they did them. The goats really did do the thing they say they did. What you don’t believe them?

Luther was also a clergyman of that time. Just thought I’d point that out. Do you (Lutherans) honestly…and I am asking you, honestly…think that he was the ONLY “good” clergyman in existence? Your completely honest answer, please.

No Luther was not the ONLY “good” clergyman at the time. To name one off the tip of my fingers, Johann von Staupitz his confessor ( “Martin, come back when you have some real sins to confess” ) was the one who encouraged Luther to keep searching the Scriptures. There were many others that Luther thought highly of. Most of them became “Lutherans” although a few did return to the RCC. When Luther was kicked out, the Pope also kicked out the people who agreed with him. (Most of Germany by the way.) There were several who had tried to reform the church before Luther such as Hess and Tyndale (of Tyndale Bible fame, the first real English Bible) but Luther is the one who got it the ball rolling and kept it going. (Here I Stand, by Ronald Bainton, This is a very good biography of Luther by the way).

It was not until the Council of Trent where the Lutherans hopes were dashed that the Church they grew up with, could be reformed. That is why we have such a bad taste in our mouths about that council.
After Luther? Chemnitz and company - those who compiled and wrote the BOC.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

littlesheep:

Never said that there was a third group I ask if there was?

What? They told Him that they did them. The goats really did do the thing they say they did. What you don’t believe them?

No Luther was not the ONLY “good” clergyman at the time. To name one off the tip of my fingers, Johann von Staupitz his confessor ( “Martin, come back when you have some real sins to confess” ) was the one who encouraged Luther to keep searching the Scriptures. There were many others that Luther thought highly of. Most of them became “Lutherans” although a few did return to the RCC. When Luther was kicked out, the Pope also kicked out the people who agreed with him. (Most of Germany by the way.) There were several who had tried to reform the church before Luther such as Hess and Tyndale (of Tyndale Bible fame, the first real English Bible) but Luther is the one who got it the ball rolling and kept it going. (Here I Stand, by Ronald Bainton, This is a very good biography of Luther by the way).

It was not until the Council of Trent where the Lutherans hopes were dashed that the Church they grew up with, could be reformed. That is why we have such a bad taste in our mouths about that council.
After Luther? Chemnitz and company - those who compiled and wrote the BOC.

Peace be with you!

So the ones that agreed with Luther were the only good Christians…right…

How did I know Tyndale was going to be brought up sooner or later? Tyndale was not a scholar with enough experience to translate. His Bible was never thought of as being an accurate translation of Scripture. His own bishop said he could count upwards of 2,000 errors in the New Testament alone. King Henry VIII, the founder of the English church, condemned his Bible and said it was not to be read.

That being said, Tyndale was not even the first to translate the Bible into English. In the 7th century, a monk named Caedmon translated most of the Bible into Anglo-Saxon. In the 8th century, St. Bede translated parts of the Bible into Anglo-Saxon. King Alfred the Great translated the Bible into Anglo-Saxon, with the help of an archbishop. In 1250 an Anglo-Norman (that would be early Middle English, for all you non-historians or linguistics people) Bible called the Salus Animae was printed. All these were approved by the Church and were translated by the clergy themselves, so you can hardly claim that they were not allowing the Bible to be translated into the vernacular. Even John Wycliffe translated the Bible into English before Tyndale! I am curious, though. If Tyndale’s Bible was the “first real English Bible” then why don’t ANY Protestants use it? Hmmm?

St. Francis of Assisi worked to reform the Church. But rather than invent new doctrines that had NEVER before existed and then forming a schism (whatever you claim, Luther was not “kicked out” of the Church; he had ample time to repent and chose his excommunication). He worked from the inside and suceeded. Luther caused a cataclysm of events that have now led to over 33,000 Protestant denominations. What a huge success…

And did Luther come back to his confessor when he ordered thousands of peasants to be slaughtered? How about after he wrote “On the Jews and Their Lies”? Were those not “real sins”?

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Lazerlike42]

littlesheep:

Never said that there was a third group I ask if there was?

What? They told Him that they did them. The goats really did do the thing they say they did. What you don’t believe them?

The goats never once claim to do any works at all. You really need to reread this.

Mat 25:41 "Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’

The goats did not do anything. They did not do these good deeds. Where on earth are you getting the notion that they did?

I don’t intend to be rude, but you really need to reread this slowly.

 

[littlesheep]

Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’

Missed some of Sister Margaret’s English class huh!

So the ones that agreed with Luther were the only good Christians…right.

Now your accusing the Lutherans of thinking their the only Christians? Rand you know better then that. Neither you nor I have said anything like that. Some of the other posters maybe. But I don’t think any Lutheran ones. ( haven’t read everybody’s profile)

How did I know Tyndale was going to be brought up sooner or later? Tyndale was not a scholar with enough experience to translate. His Bible was never thought of as being an accurate translation of Scripture. His own bishop said he could count upwards of 2,000 errors in the New Testament alone. King Henry VIII, the founder of the English church, condemned his Bible and said it was not to be read.

Well I can throw that book out the window now can’t I Don’t use “A History of the Christian Church” for any references. But I will check it could be that I just need to re-read it.

Luther was not “kicked out” of the Church; he had ample time to repent and chose his excommunication).

"Here I Stand” What else could he do? He could not “revoke”
He stood on Scripture (here it comes) alone. I would give you whole quote but I can’t find his bio right now.

 

[Lazerlike42]

littlesheep:

Missed some of Sister Margaret’s English class huh!

I got my english education in the15th ranked high school in my state, thank you. Also, I got a 750 on the English SATs. I know how to speak and read the language.

And I am going to ask you again: where does that say that the goats did any works? The verse you quote is where the goats are trying to defend themselves for not having helped the poor.

I really think you see this but you just won’t let it go. Again, I am not trying to be rude but this is incredibly clear.

Show me where the goats claim to have done any work at all.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Here is a quotation from Albert Barnes’ notes on the Bible on Matthew 25. Albert Barne’s was very anti-Catholic:

By not doing good to the “followers” of Christ, they showed that they had no real love to Him. By not doing good to the poor and needy, to the stranger and the prisoner, they showed that they had not his spirit, and were not like him, and were unfit for his kingdom. Let it be observed here that the public ground of their condemnation is the neglect of duty, or because “they did it not.” We are not to suppose that they will not also be condemned for their open and positive sins. See Rom_2:9; Eph_5:5; Col_3:5-6; 1Co_6:9-10; Rev_21:8; Psa_9:17. But their neglect of doing good to him and his people may be the “public” reason of condemning them:

1. Because he wished to give pre-eminence to those virtues, to excite his followers to do them.
2. People should be punished for neglect as well as for positive sin. Sin is a violation of the law, or refusing to do what God commands.
3. Nothing better shows the true state of the heart than the proper performance of those duties, and the true character can be as well tested by neglecting them as by open crimes.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Here is a quote from Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary on the whole Bible, possibly the most famous Protestant commentary ever written (Henry was also relatively anti-Catholic):

The reason of this sentence assigned. God’s judgments are all just, and he will be justified in them. He is Judge himself, and therefore the heavens shall declare his righteousness.
Now, [1.] All that is charged upon them, on which the sentence is grounded, is, omission; as, before, the servant was condemned, not for wasting his talent, but for burying it; so here, he doth not say, “I was hungry and thirsty, for you took my meat and drink from me; I was a stranger, for you banished me; naked, for you stripped me; in prison, for you laid me there:” but, “When I was in these distresses, you were so selfish, so taken up with your own ease and pleasure, made so much of your labour, and were so loth to part with your money, that you did not minister as you might have done to my relief and succour. You were like those epicures that were at ease in Zion, and were not grieved for the affliction of Joseph,” Amo_6:4-6. Note, Omissions are the ruin of thousands.
[2.] It is the omission of works of charity to the poor. They are not sentenced for omitting their sacrifices and burnt-offerings (they abounded in these, Psa_50:8), but for omitting the weightier matter of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith. The Ammonites and Moabites were excluded the sanctuary, because they met not Israel with bread and water, Deu_23:3, Deu_23:4. Note, Uncharitableness to the poor is a damning sin. If we will not be brought to works of charity by the hope of reward, let us be influenced by fear of punishment; for they shall have judgment without mercy, that have showed no mercy. Observe, He doth not say, “I was sick, and you did not cure me; in prison, and you did not release me” (perhaps that was more than they could do); but, “You visited me not, which you might have done.” Note, Sinners will be condemned, at the great day, for the omission of that good which it was in the power of their hand to do. But if the doom of the uncharitable be so dreadful, how much more intolerable will the doom of the cruel be, the doom of persecutors! Now this reason of the sentence is.
First, Objected against by the prisoners (Mat_25:44); Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst? Condemned sinners, though they have no plea that will bear them out, will yet in vain offer at excuses. Now. 1. The manner of their pleading bespeaks their present precipitation. They cut it short, as men in haste; when saw we thee hungry, or thirsty, or naked? They care not to repeat the charge, as conscious to themselves of their own guilt, and unable to bear the terrors of the judgment. Nor will they have time allowed them to insist upon such frivolous pleas; for it is all (as we say) but “trifling with the court.” 2. The matter of their plea bespeaks their former inconsideration of that which they might have known, but would not till now that it was too late. They that had slighted and persecuted poor Christians, would not own that they had slighted and persecuted Christ: no, they never intended any affront to him, nor expected that so great a matter would have been made of it. They imagined it was only a company of poor, weak, silly, and contemptible people, who made more ado than needed about religion, that they put those slights upon; but they who do so, will be made to know, either in the day of their conversion, as Paul, or of their condemnation, as these here, that it was Jesus whom they persecuted. And, if they say, Behold, we knew it not: doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? Pro_24:11, Pro_24:12.
Secondly, Justified by the Judge, who will convince all the ungodly of the hard speeches spoken against him in those that are his, Jud_1:15. He goes by this rule (Mat_25:45); Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. Note, What is done against the faithful disciples and followers of Christ, even the least of them, he takes as done against himself. He is reproached and persecuted in them, for they are reproached and persecuted for his sake, and in all their afflictions he is afflicted. He that touches them, touches him in a part no less tender than the apple of his eye.
Lastly, Here is the execution of both these sentences, Mat_25:46. Execution is the life of the law, and Christ will take care that that be done according to the sentence.

 

[Sherlock]

littlesheep:

What? They told Him that they did them. The goats really did do the thing they say they did. What you don’t believe them? ]

Littlesheep, you have some problems with basic comprehension here. Since I have never come across this particular interpretation from anyone before (even when I was a Protestant), I think I’m safe in assuming that this is your personal own interpretation, affected (unfortunately) by a lack of reading comprehension. Let me try to explain this as simply and clearly as possible: both groups believe in Christ (they refer to him as “Lord”). The sheep go to their reward because their belief in the Lord was spilled out in works of love to others. When Jesus says that they gave Him food; clothed Him; etc., they are surprised—they didn’t see Jesus personally. Jesus assures them that what they did for the least of their brothers, they were doing for Him. Likewise with the goats: when Jesus condemns them, it is because they did NOT do the works of love that is part of a saving faith—they were “sola fide”, you might say. They try to defend themselves by explaining that they never saw Jesus personally in front of them, but, as with the sheep, He points out that what is done and, in the case of the goats, NOT done, for our brethren, is done or not done for Him. Likewise for the rich man in the parable—we are told NOTHING about his faith, but what comes through loud and clear is that he is condemned for failing to have regard for the starving Lazarus at his doorstep. In other words, he is judged for his works (or lack of them).

 

[littlesheep]

Off on a side track here, but the words are “and did not minister to you?”, what you appear to be focusing on is “When did we see you?” The little words “did not” make a big difference. Read the passage without them and the passage does change focus to the “When did we see you?”

Sorry about that snide remark. That was me banging my head on the keyboard without thinking.

See I believe Christ has saved me because He died on the cross for me and everyone else which includes you. No “Ifs, ands, or buts” about it, now I will have to figure out how to add those little words “did not” to that list.

 

[Sherlock]

littlesheep:

Off on a side track here, but the words are “and did not minister to you?”, what you appear to be focusing on is “When did we see you?” The little words “did not” make a big difference. Read the passage without them and the passage does change focus to the “When did we see you?” ]

No, the focus is not changed. You are misunderstanding the meaning of the sentence—this is a comprehension problem, and I don’t know how to “make” someone comprehend something they apparently can’t. The words “and did not minister to you” is an attempt by the goats to deflect their guilt by saying, “Hey, if we’d seen You, we would have ministered to You!”. Lazer has provided you with quotes from non-Catholics who agree that the sin being committed is a sin of omission, that is, of not doing works out of love. The goats are an example of what James speaks of when he writes, “faith without works is dead”. I would suggest that you read James 2:18-26. Works without faith is also dead, and Catholicism doesn’t teach otherwise. Pelagianism (the idea that one is capable, through one’s own unaided efforts, of earning salvation) was condemned in the 5th century.

littlesheep:

See I believe Christ has saved me because He died on the cross for me and everyone else which includes you. No “Ifs, ands, or buts” about it, now I will have to figure out how to add those little words “did not” to that list.

Of course what you say is true! Christ has provided us with a lifeboat to save us from drowning in our sins. However, we are responsible for swimming *to * that boat, and for guiding as many of our drowning neighbors as we can to the same boat.

 

[Lazerlike42]

littlesheep:

Off on a side track here, but the words are “and did not minister to you?”, what you appear to be focusing on is “When did we see you?” The little words “did not” make a big difference. Read the passage without them and the passage does change focus to the “When did we see you?”

I don’t understand what you are saying here.

Sorry about that snide remark. That was me banging my head on the keyboard without thinking.

See I believe Christ has saved me because "He died on the cross for me and everyone else which includes you. No “Ifs, ands, or buts” about it, now I will have to figure out how to add those little words “did not” to that list.

Jesus didn’t save you with no ifs ands or buts. He always asks for repentence. In facy, if you want an “if” straight from Scripture, here you go:

Heb. 10:26 - “For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.”