- Status
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
This is drifting off the topic, but
- Although she is present at certain significant events
- It is equally true that there are several passages that set her apart from Jesus
- She is numbered with his brethren as being among those who thought “He is beside himself” - Mark 3.19-21
- In John 2, she displays a lack of understanding of Him - “My hour has not yet come”
- Luke 11.27 f. contains a correction of a woman’s enthusuastic words about Him & also about His mother: what the woman said, true as it might be, missed the point somewhat.
The OP is absolutely right about the relative importance of Jesus as compared with His mother: the NT is stuffed with hundreds of references to Him, while there are fewer than 20 references to her. In no way are they comparable, nor are they are partners: it is Christ Who is central to the NT & its message, & not His mother. Mary trails behind Saints Peter & Paul - each of them is mentioned much more often, which surely counts for something. She is just not central to the NT - Jesus, by contrast, is.
BTW & FWIW, He was not “confirm[ed]”
G
GKC
Guest
The Pastoral Provision has been around for about 30 years. In that period, maybe 15+ Anglican Use parishes have formed. About 3 of these, all in Texas, have been around more than a few years. The average age of those parishes other than those 3 is around 4-5 years (IIRC). Normally, an Anglican Use parish is formed to assist a group of Anglicans who converted individually, to make the transition, as a parish. They normally are not expected to last long, as AU. There is no regular provision to provide for replacement priests, and when the original convert priest dies the usual next step is to convert the parish into a Latin Rite parish, sometimes TLM, sometimes NO. Again, the large Texas parishes are exceptions.
There was an Anglican Use parish in my town, a sister parish to my own traditional Anglican one, in that both were formed from Anglicans who left the Episcopal Church, in the 80s, as it ran off the rails. After a few years, they became NO, then were the indult Church for the TLM, now they are the only regular TLM parish in the area.
GKC
K
KingAlfred
Guest
These were smart guys with interesting ideas, but that’s it. I’d never abandon 2,000 years of Church unity and achievement to chase after the intriguing notions of a handful of intellectual rebels. Nope. Besides, most of everything they conceived, the Church had already considered and dismissed. They were the beneficiaries of a great deal of historical luck.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
That’s a bit of a dodgy argument 
And when it does not ? What then ? The legitimacy of things Marian would be more convincing if they had not given rise to expressions of devotion & theological ideas the connection of which with the NT is, to put it very mildly, tenuous at best. St. Paul may have seen eye to eye with Louis de Montfort: but the Pauline letters do not exactly suggest this; just as they do not provide much support for the ideas of Father Kolbe. It’s hardly surprising that Evangelicals are not always impressed by Catholic professions that Christ is at the heart of Catholicism; & no fault of those Evangelicals - the wound is self-inflicted 
- that’s possibly the worst thing about it.
The remarks of Newman on “Catholic Excesses” are admirably balanced, & as relevant today as they were in the mid-1860s; or in the 16th century. Anyone who imagines that Catholics never have, or could never, go too far in speaking of her, might do well to read them - chapter five in particular:- [http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/pusey/index.html (http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/pusey/index.html)
I thought they were perfectly justified - may we should swap positions 
L
LutheranDK
Guest
As people so often say here: Luther was not always right
Yeah, I’m a “Lutheran” (Luther himself would turn in his grave hearing that term), and I just said that. Luther was not infallible. No one is.
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Show me a Luther quote from that website taken out of context. Thanks.
S
SyCarl
Guest
Actually the indulgences that Tetzel was dealing with were a bit more complex than that. This was originally a jubilee indulgence announced by Julius II in 1505 to rebuild St. Peter’s and to combat the Turks. However the north German princes prohibited the “sale” of the indulgence in their lands.
However in 1514, Albert the Margrave of Brandenburg, and the brother of the Brandenburg elector, was made archbishop of Mainz. Unfortunately he already was archbishop of Magdeburg and held the administration of Halberstadt. Being given another see required a dispensation and a heavy fee had to be paid, which put Albert badly in debt. To get the agreement of the elector of Brandenburg to sell the indulgence in his lands, it was agreed that half the revenue from the indulgence would go to pay his brother Albert’s debt. So the sale did not have an entirely charitable purpose. Luther was not aware of this arrangement and sent a copy of his 95 thesis to Albert who was Tetzel’s bishop. This did not go over well at all and was part of the reason for the uproar caused by the theses as Albert did not want to see his loan repayment halted.
My information comes from The Division of Christendom, Christianity in the Sixteenth Century by Hans J. Hillerbrand, a professor of religion at Duke University.
How so, Michael?=Gottle of Geer;5333730]## That’s a bit of a dodgy argument
I agree that this is the danger.
Perhaps, but charity and the 8th commandment remind me to assume the best of my siblings in Christ.St. Paul may have seen eye to eye with Louis de Montfort: but the Pauline letters do not exactly suggest this; just as they do not provide much support for the ideas of Father Kolbe. It’s hardly surprising that Evangelicals are not always impressed by Catholic professions that Christ is at the heart of Catholicism; & no fault of those Evangelicals - the wound is self-inflicted
Seems to me that might be a good sign.I thought they were perfectly justified - may we should swap positions
Jon
P
PerryJ
Guest
I don’t mind apologetics. I think apologetics are very good. My point is that it is not accurate. Let me be a bit more clear about my point of view. I was a Protestant for most of my life. As such I researched Christianity from a secular stand point to find out the truth. This site is not providing an unbiased view of Luther. It appears to be picking and choosing to fabricate a new persona of Luther. If you wish to understand the Reformation I would read the book I suggested. It will clearly point out the weakness and strengths of the Catholics and Protestants at the time. It helps one to understand Luther and Calvin’s actions not from a negative perspective; but, a realistic perspective. The same for the Catholics involved and other Protestants. To truly understand the dynamic one has to understand the political situation with France, Germany and the Muslims infringement into Christendom. The Pope was dealing with more then just the Protestant Reformation. At the time Islam was very close to destroying all of Christendom. For example both Muslims and Lutheran captured Rome and ransacked it during these times. I state this not to pick on anyone as Catholics were not innocent. The situation was very complex and had many players involved.
I was in error when I stated that the indulgences Luther questioned were to raise funds for the Sistene Chapel. They were to pay for back taxes and St. Peters Basilica. Tetzel that was raising these funds was clearly not following Church doctrine and was later disciplined by the Church. At the same time that Luther was criticizing the use of the indulgences the Catholic Church was punishing other Priests that were improperly using indulgences. For example in Constance in Germany an Italian Priest was expelled for performing the same (name removed by moderator)roprieties as Tetzel. Luther did not question the use of indulgences. He questioned how Tetzel was abusing them. The Church in fact agreed with Luther. The Church always moves slowly when punishing individuals. As you are aware Catholics met with Luther probably five or six times over many years trying to reach an agreement with him. The same courtesy was given to Tetzel.
Another book that is very short; but, has some good insight into this area is The Cahtolic Church In History by Keith D. Lewis. It is not as scholarly and certainly does not have the depth of knowledge as the other book. It does give a good over view of this area in 25 pages or so. I can refer you to many other books that are unbiased for you to read if you wish their names.
P
PerryJ
Guest
As I show in a later post the use of the indulgences did not follow the teachings of the Church and Tetzel was punished. Other Priests at this same time were punished for doing the same impropriety.
It should be noted that Luther and the German Princes, there were over 300 so certainly not all, stood with the Muslims, being the Turks or Ottoman Empire, that were on a religious jihad against the west. Luther in fact is quoted as saying that the growing threat of the Muslim Turks was a “scourge sent by God” to punish Christendom for it sins. Luther and the German Princes in general did not support Christians against the Ottomans until they were threatened. Note individuals over the Holy Roman Empire did support actions against the Muslims that were committing atrocities against Christians. France often forced their attention away from protecting Christendom.
- Status