Book: The Facts About Luther

[hoosierdaddy]

Alexius, actually you ARE a Catholic. If you were baptised into the Catholic Church, even if you were not raised as a Catholic, by virtue of you baptism, you still are one. If you wish to come back to the Catholic Church, you will need to talk to a priest. He will be able to help you join RCIA for the rest of your Sacraments (Penance, Holy Communion and Confirmation) if you have not already received them; or he may give you personal Catechism instruction so you can receive those Sacraments. If you already received all of these Sacraments, then to come back to the Catholic Church you would only need to receive the Sacrament of Penance. Then you could receive Holy Communion again. God bless you in your faith journey.

That applies to me as well. I was baptized into the Catholic church as an infant. They don’t want me back though as I went and got rebaptized as an adult. And if I have to talk to a Priest before I could go back then I don’t want to in the first place. Christ adds people to His Church; not a Priest.

One can receive Holy Communion by virture of being a Christian. And since Protestants are “separated brethren” then they are still Christians (and by golly, they are still Christians), then they should be allowed to partake of the Lord’s Supper. It is the Lord’s table; not the Pope’s, not the magisterium’s, not yours, and not anyone else’s.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

It is true the vast majority of Protestants don’t probably
know all that much about Luther. But he opened the can of worms by
advocating Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. His rejection of Papal Authority
and the Magesterium’s authority led to ME, SCRIPTURE, and THE HOLY SPIRIT
AUTHORITY and 29,999 new can of worms and still counting. Luther’s
writings and details of his theology may be foreign to most Protestants,
but his rebellion is the garden where these thousands of denominations
have been planted.

I don’t consider love for the Lord and submission to His Word, instead of some "vicar"who thinks he speaks for God and wears a funny hat, to be a case of rebellion.

Did you ever stop to think if the Catholic church had gotten it right, the Reformation would have never happened? If they had gotten back to the truth instead of their corrupt practices maybe the Protestant Reformation would never have happened. So the Catholic church is to blame.

Also, do you think the various other aspects of the Reformation were sinful? That being political aspects, etc.?

 

[Alexius]

hoosierdaddy: I don’t consider love for the Lord and submission to His Word, instead of some "vicar"who thinks he speaks for God and wears a funny hat, to be a case of rebellion.

Did you ever stop to think if the Catholic church had gotten it right, the Reformation would have never happened? If they had gotten back to the truth instead of their corrupt practices maybe the Protestant Reformation would never have happened. So the Catholic church is to blame.

Also, do you think the various other aspects of the Reformation were sinful? That being political aspects, etc.?

Did you ever stop to think that if Protestantism had gotten it right, it would really be a Re-formation (that is re formation) of the Church instead of a deformation into 30,000 bickering groups. What about the east? The Lutherans refused to even follow the Eastern Orthodox Church! No, there is more to the “Reformation” than meets the eye and I think you need to figure out what it is you’re trying to defend before you continue…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Jared123]

That applies to me as well. I was baptized into the Catholic church as an infant. They don’t want me back though as I went and got rebaptized as an adult. And if I have to talk to a Priest before I could go back then I don’t want to in the first place. Christ adds people to His Church; not a Priest.

One can receive Holy Communion by virture of being a Christian. And since Protestants are “separated brethren” then they are still Christians (and by golly, they are still Christians), then they should be allowed to partake of the Lord’s Supper. It is the Lord’s table; not the Pope’s, not the magisterium’s, not yours, and not anyone else’s.

No its not that they don’t want you back, its that you don’t want to follow the teachings of the Church. The Catholic Church isn’t a buffet line where you get to pick and choose what you want to follow and what you don’t want to follow. A Christian cannot recieve Holy Communion by virture of being a Christian. Let me cite a few sources for you:

1986 The National Conference of Catholic Bishops issued guidelines for receiving Communion. The Bishops said: "Catholics fully participate in the celebration of the Eucharist when they receive Holy Communion in fulfillment of Chris’t command to eat his body and drink his blood. In order to be disposed properly to receive communion, communicants shouldn not be conscious of grave sin, have fasted for an hour, and seekto live in charity and love with their neighbor. Persons conscious of grave sin must first be reconciled with God and the Church through the sacrament of penance. A frequent reception of the sacrament of penance is encouraged for all.
Two (name removed by moderator)ortant points here, first you must be in a state of grace to receive and secondly you cannot commit a Sacrilege, which is irreverence toward something that is sacred. Unworthly reception of communion doesn’t give a person any graces, but gives you a greater spritual deficit.

1 Cor. 11:27 “Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks ths cup of the Lord in an unworthly manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.”

Taken from “What Catholics Really Believe” by Karl Keating.

So hoosierdaddy Holy Communion is only for Catholics in good standing with God and the Catholic Church. A Protestant cannot receive Holy communion and to do so is a Sacrilege.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Did you ever stop to think that if Protestantism had gotten it right, it would really be a Re-formation (that is re formation) of the Church instead of a deformation into 30,000 bickering groups. What about the east? The Lutherans refused to even follow the Eastern Orthodox Church! No, there is more to the “Reformation” than meets the eye and I think you need to figure out what it is you’re trying to defend before you continue…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

Of course I already knew that. I so much as said it earlier. The reason for the "de"formation is because of the way the Catholic church responded. They threw a hissy fit and instead of going back to the truth, they decided they’d chase Luther out of the church and kill people.

As for your well, I have a feeling you were being sarcastic but oh well. I know what I am defending; there is nothing to try and figure out. Everyone knows how the Catholic church handled Luther’s attempts to reform the church. It’s not his fault they responded in the un-Christlike way that they did.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

There is little question (by the Catholic Church) that the pre-Trent Church needed some reformation (which it got via Trent). It obviously did not need schism and heresy. The Church is impeccable in Her Person, but not in Her persons.

I should be careful of TAN books. They feature books that are not respectful of the post-Vatican II Church at all or the Council. A very balanced and academic book about Luther is *Martin Luther: The Christian Between God and *Death by Richard Marius, who also wrote a very definitive biography of Saint Thomas More. Luther is very accurately portrayed and doesn’t come off well at all. Marius talks about the vigor with which the Catholic Church constantly renews itself. It’s a good read.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

No its not that they don’t want you back, its that you don’t want to follow the teachings of the Church. The Catholic Church isn’t a buffet line where you get to pick and choose what you want to follow and what you don’t want to follow. A Christian cannot recieve Holy Communion by virture of being a Christian. Let me cite a few sources for you:

Exactly. It’s not a buffet line where you get to pick and choose what you want to follow. It’s a kindergarten class where you get told what to follow and what you don’t want to follow. Protestants don’t like buffet lines either though. We just want the main course; that being the faith once delivered to the saints. We want the truth.

1986 The National Conference of Catholic Bishops issued guidelines for receiving Communion. The Bishops said: "Catholics fully participate in the celebration of the Eucharist when they receive Holy Communion in fulfillment of Chris’t command to eat his body and drink his blood. In order to be disposed properly to receive communion, communicants shouldn not be conscious of grave sin, have fasted for an hour, and seekto live in charity and love with their neighbor. Persons conscious of grave sin must first be reconciled with God and the Church through the sacrament of penance. A frequent reception of the sacrament of penance is encouraged for all.
Two (name removed by moderator)ortant points here, first you must be in a state of grace to receive and secondly you cannot commit a Sacrilege, which is irreverence toward something that is sacred. Unworthly reception of communion doesn’t give a person any graces, but gives you a greater spritual deficit.

**This is hogwash. You are in a state of grace if you are saved. There is no such thing as a sacrilege according to your definition. The only thing that cannot be forgiven is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which no genuine Christian can commit. The things you said above, where are they in Scripture? **

1 Cor. 11:27 “Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks ths cup of the Lord in an unworthly manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.”

Easy explanation for this…someone who is not a Christian partaking of communion. Since you say Protestants can’t, then it follows that your church says we are not Christians, no?

Taken from “What Catholics Really Believe” by Karl Keating.

So hoosierdaddy Holy Communion is only for Catholics in good standing with God and the Catholic Church. A Protestant cannot receive Holy communion and to do so is a Sacrilege.

I do appreciate your respectful answers even though I disagree with you. Communion is for all Christians who are in good standing with Christ. And the fact they are Christians makes them in good standing with Christ. I already explained to you about “sacrileges”. Peace.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

" We just want the main course; that being the faith once delivered to the saints. We want the truth."

You won’t find that outside the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. That’s not triumphalism (it being all by Grace, we none of us have anything over which to be proud or smug), but a simple statement of fact. The faith taught and proclaimed by the Catholic Church, under the Successor of Saint Peter, is the same faith “once delivered to the saints.” The Church didn’t run off the rails after the Acenscion and Pentecost and the Faith was not suddenly rediscovered in it’s purity in the 1500’s in Western Europe. You need to read the early Fathers.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hmm, a well known critic of catholicism. Interesting, but not exactly surprising.

Any critiques from catholic sources? Or secular ones?

The book surely is written with an invective not commonly seen in today’s culture (but one St. Jerome would have identified quite well with!). But 1916 was a different world, and I think I can forgive that a bit. It’s also clearly meant to be a popular book, not a historical text as I HAVE noticed that not every quote is footnoted and it is often easy to miss the difference between quotes of Luther and the authors summary/opinion of what Luther said.

P.S. Is it just me, or does anybody else get highly turned off when authors like Swan (Karl Keating does it too in Cath & Fund) use [sic] constantly in their quotes to highlight typos and mispellings? I know it is academically acceptable, but to do it constantly seems childish (haha! You can’t spell/type).

It’s actually a very sensible convention, because it shows that a spelling or a reference has been identified correctly, and not been confused with a similar one. People or works often have very similar names, and it helps to show they are not being confused. So, Peter Martyr Vermigli is not the same person as the Dominican saint Peter Martyr, for example, and it’s reassuring to know they are not being confused.​

 

[runandsew]

Please stop trying to make Luther look bad while letting the Catholic church off the hook.

No one is letting the Catholic Church off the hook, The Church was very very corrupt at the time, even the Pope said so just decades after the Protestant reformation took place. Even many of the saints at the time warned Christians from visiting Rome, because it would shake their faith. Again the Church was very very corrupt. But that was because of the wrongs of the leaders of the Church, not the teaching of the Church. The sale of indulgences was going against the official teaching of the Church. You can not buy indulgences, you have to be really sorry and repentative of your sins to recieve indulgences.
But the fact remains that the Church should have reformed from with in, not from with out.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Hi runandsew, thank you for your explanation. But if the sale of indulgences went against Catholic teachings why was it tolerated? Why did Luther have to spark the Reformation then?

Luther tried to reform the Church from within but he wasn’t allowed to. All he was trying to do was get the Church back to the truth, summed up in the saying “the just shall live by faith”. The Catholic Church should have welcomed this if you ask me.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

" We just want the main course; that being the faith once delivered to the saints. We want the truth."

You won’t find that outside the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. That’s not triumphalism (it being all by Grace, we none of us have anything over which to be proud or smug), but a simple statement of fact. The faith taught and proclaimed by the Catholic Church, under the Successor of Saint Peter, is the same faith “once delivered to the saints.” The Church didn’t run off the rails after the Acenscion and Pentecost and the Faith was not suddenly rediscovered in it’s purity in the 1500’s in Western Europe. You need to read the early Fathers.

Thank you sir. God bless.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Luther is the father of Sola Scriptora (Scripture Alone),most all non-Catholic Churches if not all non Catholic denominations believe in Sola Scriptora.

Not true, certainly not the case where Anglicans and Methodists are concerned.

However he was the Grandfather of Sola Scriptora of which all Protestants now follow. So the thoelogical basis of every Bible based Church eventually goes back to the idea Martin Luther propsed in the early to mid 1500’s.

Again, untrue. Sweeping generalizations are usually not accurate, nor helpful.

O+

 

[Alexius]

hoosierdaddy: Hi runandsew, thank you for your explanation. But if the sale of indulgences went against Catholic teachings why was it tolerated? Why did Luther have to spark the Reformation then?

Luther tried to reform the Church from within but he wasn’t allowed to. All he was trying to do was get the Church back to the truth, summed up in the saying “the just shall live by faith”. The Catholic Church should have welcomed this if you ask me.

From what I have gathered, the pope at the time was not interested in doctrine . I guess the question is: Why was he in the teaching position of the Latin Church? Anyway, he was busy elsewhere while the reforms were taking place. I can say that the responsible party selling indulgences (a certain Bishop Johann Tetzel) was excommunicated and stripped of his bishopric.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[hoosierdaddy]

From what I have gathered, the pope at the time was not interested in doctrine . I guess the question is: Why was he in the teaching position of the Latin Church? Anyway, he was busy elsewhere while the reforms were taking place. I can say that the responsible party selling indulgences (a certain Bishop Johann Tetzel) was excommunicated and stripped of his bishopric.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

Yeah, I wonder why he wasn’t interested in doctrine.

As for Tetzel, it’s good that he was excommunicated. I just don’t understand why they didn’t want to put him to death but they wanted to put Luther to death for trying to get the church back to the straight path.

 

[GKC]

From what I have gathered, the pope at the time was not interested in doctrine . I guess the question is: Why was he in the teaching position of the Latin Church? Anyway, he was busy elsewhere while the reforms were taking place. I can say that the responsible party selling indulgences (a certain Bishop Johann Tetzel) was excommunicated and stripped of his bishopric.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

You sure Tetzel was a bishop?

GKC

 

[runandsew]

Hi runandsew, thank you for your explanation. But if the sale of indulgences went against Catholic teachings why was it tolerated? Why did Luther have to spark the Reformation then?

Luther tried to reform the Church from within but he wasn’t allowed to. All he was trying to do was get the Church back to the truth, summed up in the saying “the just shall live by faith”. The Catholic Church should have welcomed this if you ask me.

Because the Church had become very corrupt, and was desperately in need of reform. I agree with you, the Church should have reformed long before this happened, but it didn’t. Unfortunately it didn’t until the council of Trent, and the damage had already been done with the Protestant Reformation.

And as for the Pope at the time, he was too busy going fox hunting to be concerned with what his job should have been, yes we have had several bad popes. But thank goodness they were too busy sinning to try to teach doctrine.
The Pope is guarded from teaching error, not from sinning.

 

[Alexius]

GKC: You sure Tetzel was a bishop?

My mistake - He was in the service of a certain Archbishop Albrecht. Together, they were excommunicated and Albrecht lost his title. Below are some useful articles…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Tetzel

newadvent.org/cathen/14539a.htm

unterkunft.wittenberg.de/e/seiten/ablass.html

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Because the Church had become very corrupt, and was desperately in need of reform. I agree with you, the Church should have reformed long before this happened, but it didn’t. Unfortunately it didn’t until the council of Trent, and the damage had already been done with the Protestant Reformation.

And as for the Pope at the time, he was too busy going fox hunting to be concerned with what his job should have been, yes we have had several bad popes. But thank goodness they were too busy sinning to try to teach doctrine.
The Pope is guarded from teaching error, not from sinning.

But didn’t the council of Trent **reaffirm ** those doctrines that the reformers rejected, such as purgatory, etc.?

Agreed about the Pope of that time.

 

[manualman]

I can see the use of [sic] if the error in a quote is of significance. But a minor misspelling in a plain word (as opposed to a name or title) or worse, 5 of them in a passage seems petty. Just quote it accurately unless it might cause confusion. If people write to complain, they only embarrass themselves by proving that they didn’t spent a few minutes to see if the error was in the original or the quote.

I agree that there is no point in beating up Luther personally in order to merely win argument ‘points.’ But I disagree that his personal foibles have NO relevance to life today. This man is the pivot upon which a MAJOR alteration in the course to church history turns. If, for the sake of argument, he DID suffer from extreme scrupulosity and that ailment combined with his pride was the genesis of Sola Scriptura, which then gave birth to Sola Fide as merely a means to escape the ecclesial rejection of Sola Fide… Well, the implications for ANY protestant christian should be staggering! Especially since history is quite clear that the idea of Sola Fide is so utterly foreign to 1,500 years of christianity before Luther.

Interesting that even some catholics on this thread see Tetzel as a villian. O’Hare’s book was the first suggestion I had seen that Tetzel was an innocent victim. The New Advent link posted above concurs that Tetzel’s Indulgence preaching was NOT corrupt, but in line with catholic teaching of then and today (which protestants may STILL see as corrupt). It appears that certain others (and perhaps Luther himself) used a campaign of smear against Tetzel in order to discredit his rebuttal of Luther’s theses, since Tetzel’s rebuttal contained little to criticize. Ad hominem isn’t a recent invention and Luther isn’t just a VICTIM of it! How sad that lies and smears can still stick after 500 years.

I think I’ll read another catholic author on Luther first to before finishing the O’Hare book.