Catholics who know history: please answer

[Hisalone]

Hisalone;
The body of Christ is ALL believers

Gabriel of 12:
yeah, but Jesus said, “Many will say Lord, Lord” “did we not do marvelous things in your name? and Jesus will tell them “depart from me you evil doers, I never knew you” Yet Jesus confirms to those in John 6: " you must eat my body, and drink my blood inorder to have eternal life”. So which believers are given eternal life, all believers who believe, or the believer’s (Catholics) who obey his commandments and act out his will to eat and drink his body and blood. So to which body of believers do you Hisalone belong too?

Jesus says I am one of His whom is it best to believe Him or you?
Hisalone:
The counterReformation is proof that reformation was needed.

**Gabriel of 12:
The counter Reformation is proof that Luther and his reformers could not change Catholic apostolic teaching and doctrine.
The reformers changed their Catholic faith for different gospel teaching beginning with the “Sola’s” teachings that were never heard of until the reformers invented this new christian doctrine. This is the change brought about by the reformers. **

If there was no Reformation there is no counter Reformation.

Hisalone"
the RCC departed from salvation by grace through faith they were in apostacy

Gabriel of 12
Talk about wishful thinking, your reformers would disagree with you on that false accusation; unless you can prove other wise? Yet no one has never proved such a lie from history, so why feed such calamity to a topic of wishful haters of the body of Jesus Christ, fully human and fully divine.

Are you denying that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church was ever taught? If so you need to brush up on your history.
The “Rock” Jesus built his church upon Peter is still the same today,
The rock is Christ
yesterday and forever more until he comes for his church finding Peter (present Pope) and the Roman Catholic church doing so as Jesus instructed her. This price not to change Jesus teachings came at a high price from the blood of Catholic martyrs who refused to change. So it was in the reformers period. What changed was like you call it, administrators in conduct or disciplines. But the Catholic faith remains intact unchanged only defined and revealed in her faith and apostolic teachings from Jesus Christ himself.

Peace

**1Sa 2:2 - Show Context
"No one is holy like the Lord, For there is none besides You, Nor is there any rock like our God.

2Sa 22:2 - Show Context
And he said: "The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer;

2Sa 22:32 - Show Context
"For who is God, except the Lord? And who is a rock, except our God?

Ps 18:2 - Show Context
The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; My God, my strength, in whom I will trust; My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.

Ps 18:31 - Show Context
For who is God, except the Lord? And who is a rock, except our God?

Ps 92:15 - Show Context
To declare that the Lord is upright; He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him. **

So you would twist scripture to suit your ends rather than to find truth?

 

[Metamorphoo]

The “reformation” is not the **spiritual fruit **of the corruption within the Church. Because as I have mentioned there are those who saw the corruption and effected REAL REFORM. And these men and women are now saints precisely because they were humble.

In the end the only question is whether Christ kept His promise or not to preserve His Church from the gates of hell. Reform was indeed needed, but it was not the protestants who brought the reform about. **It was those who remained in the Catholic Church and loved the Body of Christ enough not to break it up into pieces who brought about the reform that was needed. **

The Holy Spirit Unites. The Devil divides.

Okay … give me the names of the people you mention as reformers who were bringing real change at the time Luther posted his 95 Theses (or in the 20 or so years leading up to that time). Who were these people, and what reforms did they promote that were exhibiting fruit by the time the Reformation began?

 

[Hisalone]

Okay … give me the names of the people you mention as reformers who were bringing real change at the time Luther posted his 95 Theses (or in the 20 or so years leading up to that time). Who were these people, and what reforms did they promote that were exhibiting fruit by the time the Reformation began?

You could expand it to 200 years.

 

[Metamorphoo]

You could expand it to 200 years.

I don’t have a problem going back further, as long as the reforms were showing evidence of being accomplished by the time the Reformation began.

 

[DebChris]

Starting with the Council of Jerusalem, described in Acts, the apostolic leadership of the Church has gathered to discuss issues of concerns and conflict. Heresies have been confronted within these councils and official doctrine established.

Historically, communication and travel were not the high speed events that we enjoy today. That means there was isolation. I mention this isolation as I remember a scene from the 2001 movie about St. Patrick that I watched on television. Even then, we see a political pulling away from Rome by bishops in the British Isles.
This physical isolation is a contributing factor to conflict building and a failure to address issues while still small enough to reach resolution.

“The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christan communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but they differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ himself were divided. Certainty, such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages that most holy cause, the preaching of the Gospel to every creature.” (Introduction to Decree on Ecumenism}

 

[benedictus2]

The DIVISION of the Body of Christ–not the Reformation itself–was, I believe, the fruit of the sins of the RCC. (I consider the two to be separate issues.)

You can believe that as much as you like but it will not make it true. The division of the Body of Christ is the result of the reformation, because it is possible to reform the Church without chopping it up into pieces. It is not a separate issue.

There are natural and spiritual laws of sowing and reaping. If you sow seeds of sin, you will reap a harvest of destruction. While Catholics acknowledge the gross sins of that era, I don’t think that they will admit that the ongoing sinful behavior of many RCC clergy sowed seeds which led to a destructive harvest.

Haven’t you been listening? We do believe that Luther was correct in addressing the evil. It was the way that he addressed it that made it wrong. You are right about the need for humility. The reformers were in dire need of it.

The sins of many clergy of that era bred a lot of cynicism and a lack of confidence in the spiritual leadership of the RCC. That is why so many people threw off the authority of the pope during the Reformation.

Just during the reformation? As far as I know, to this day no protestant acknowledges the authority of the pope. Because every protestant is in fact a pope unto himself. The doctrine of “Sola Ego” is the pervading doctrine in protestantism.

They were fed up with the hypocrisy and tired of being taken advantage of by unscrupulous clerics. The sins of the clergy caused a loss of spiritual credibility. And that loss of credibility led many of those involved in the Reformation to question the teachings of the RCC. These were the reasons that the Reformation was possible.

Hypocrisy? Who ended up being more of a hypocrite but the reformers who advocated individual interpretation of the Bible and then killed those who did. The protestants who castigated the members of the Catholic Church for her sins and proceeded to commit the very same sins themselves.!

Were all RCC clergy engaging in decadent lifestyles? Obviously not. God always has a faithful remnant. But the problem was widespread enough that it

EXACTLY! Reform was possible without hacking the Body of Christ. The reformers chopped her up for the sins of some of her members.

I know Catholics believe that God would have corrected the situation by reforms from within. You said that God unites, Satan divides. That is generally true. But the Bible shows that God can and will divide under certain circumstances: He divided Israel because of Solomon’s sin (Jeroboam was NOT a usurper to the throne, in spite of the fact that he chose not to walk with the Lord); He divorced Israel (even though He hates divorce) because of the nation’s sins. Why do you assume He would not divide due to the sins of RCC leadership?

The difference between God’s division and Satan’s is in their ultimate purpose. God’s purpose to address the sin; ultimately, He wants restoration and reconciliation. Satan’s purpose is simply to destroy.

You are conveniently forgetting that the Israelites did not have Christ’s promise of not letting the gates of Hell prevail. They did not have Christ’s promise that He will send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church into all truth.

Do I believe that God will one day reunite all of His people into one? Yes, I do. But I don’t necessarily think that unity will be achieved the way Catholics expect (by all Christians acknowledging the authority of the RCC and the pope). And do I believe that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church? Yes, I do; but I don’t necessarily think that “the Church” is synonymous with the institution of the RCC. The Church is the Body of Christ–people who are disciples of Christ. They are the faithful remnant within the RCC, the Eastern Orthodox, Protestantism, and Messianic Judaism. Although God chastises His People for their sin, He will not allow their total destruction.

That is your opinion and not fact. Read more history and then you will know.

The Roman Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded on Peter.

And many protestant converts (Biblical Scholars at that) have found this out to be the truth.

 

[benedictus2]

Okay … give me the names of the people you mention as reformers who were bringing real change at the time Luther posted his 95 Theses (or in the 20 or so years leading up to that time). Who were these people, and what reforms did they promote that were exhibiting fruit by the time the Reformation began?

St Theresa of Avila, St John of the Cross, St Ignatius of Loyola, St Philip Neri, St Francis de Sales

 

[benedictus2]

I don’t have a problem going back further, as long as the reforms were showing evidence of being accomplished by the time the Reformation began.

There will always be evils in the Church. But the gates of hell will not prevail and it has not.

Whenever the church needs rejuvenation, Christ raises up saints to rejuvenate her. St Francis of Assisi was a case in point.

On the other hand, see the sorry mess that you call protestantism now.

Look at all the heresy in their doctrine. See how they have come to embrace doctrines contrary to the Bible.
Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are not scriptural and all came from “Sola Ego”.

I put this challenge to you.

If Christ established A church and he said the gates of hell will not prevail against it, that Church will still be here on earth.

Discounting the Catholic Church since you say she’s not the one, which of the thousands of protestant churches is it?

 

[steve_b]

A discipline in the ministry of reconciliation (indulgences) by Martin Luther’s German religious corrupted the discipline. Martin Luther as other great scholars saw a new way of Christian thinking.

Martin Luther ignored Paul’s warning, that division is NOT allowed, in fact it is condemned

Rm 16:

17I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil

 

[The_Preacher]

Martin Luther ignored Paul’s warning, that division is NOT allowed, in fact it is condemned

Rm 16:

17I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil

Though he is not my primary field, I am enough of a Luther scholar to lecture on him routeenly on the university level. I have great love and empathy for the man. He was a pretty good scholar for the time. Good enough in fact that his Father Regular, confessor and friend Father, Baron Von Staupez sent him to Wittenburg to lend prestege to the Elector Fredrick’s new uiversity there. But the fact remains that he was out in the sticks, on the very edge of the Holy Roman Empire, and had very limited academic resources, Church and world events. He was out of the loop and essentially ignorant of the reforms and struggles, theologican and temporal going on in Rome. They were earth shaking. On the basis of what he had, he made a rational decidion, reversing the historic and proper order, making the Church a creature of the Bible, whereas the Bible is a creature of the Church. In his case, he was driven by honest faith. The same can’t be said of the other reformers. He is forgivable. Regretably he was caught up in the power struggle between the Princes, including the Elector Fredric, to whome he was immesurablly useful, and the Holy Roman Emperor. Please don’t lump him together with the other reformers. From the beginning Lutheran theologins have strenuously striven to make the point that Lutherans are Reformed Catholics, not Protistants. At his “worst” Luther remained a better Catholic than very many Catholics I’ve encountered, if disobedient. Perhaps this would have been better addressed to steve b to whome I must say, there are names for new ways to look at the Faith: Herricy, Apposticy and Error.

 

[benedictus2]

Martin Luther ignored Paul’s warning, that division is NOT allowed, in fact it is condemned

Rm 16:

17I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil

VERY GOOD POINT

 

[DebChris]

Though he is not my primary field, I am enough of a Luther scholar to lecture on him routeenly on the university level. I have great love and empathy for the man. He was a pretty good scholar for the time. Good enough in fact that his Father Regular, confessor and friend Father, Baron Von Staupez sent him to Wittenburg to lend prestege to the Elector Fredrick’s new uiversity there. But the fact remains that he was out in the sticks, on the very edge of the Holy Roman Empire, and had very limited academic resources, Church and world events. He was out of the loop and essentially ignorant of the reforms and struggles, theologican and temporal going on in Rome. They were earth shaking. On the basis of what he had, he made a rational decidion, reversing the historic and proper order, making the Church a creature of the Bible, whereas the Bible is a creature of the Church. In his case, he was driven by honest faith. The same can’t be said of the other reformers. He is forgivable. Regretably he was caught up in the power struggle between the Princes, including the Elector Fredric, to whome he was immesurablly useful, and the Holy Roman Emperor. Please don’t lump him together with the other reformers. From the beginning Lutheran theologins have strenuously striven to make the point that Lutherans are Reformed Catholics, not Protistants. At his “worst” Luther remained a better Catholic than very many Catholics I’ve encountered, if disobedient. Perhaps this would have been better addressed to steve b to whome I must say, there are names for new ways to look at the Faith: Herricy, Apposticy and Error.

I learned much about Luther when I read Dietrich Boenhoeffer’s Cost of Discipleship. Much of what Luther actually taught has been distorted by his followers. His actual message was that works result from faith, not simply faith alone.
Luther did believe that God worked within the lives of the laity as much as he did the lives of monks like himself. He encouraged the confession of sin.
Do I think he was right in his actions? No. I still see the difference between the obedience of St. Francis and Luther.

Re Post #107: Sts. Theresa of Avila and John of the Cross reformed the Carmelites. I have read Dark Night of the Soul.
I like the story of St. Theresa falling off her horse while crossing the river. To God’s “I chastise those I love,” she replied “No wonder you have so few friends.”
St. Ignatius of Loyola established the Jesuits. I have read his autobiography. He writes about his attempt to follow the footsteps of St, Francis in terms of embracing poverty and being ordered to dress better while attending the Sorbonne. As his spirituality developed, he no longer waited for the Inquisitor to arrest him. Instead, he became proactive in saying “I understand you are looking for me.”

 

[The_Preacher]

I learned much about Luther when I read Dietrich Boenhoeffer’s Cost of Discipleship. Much of what Luther actually taught has been distorted by his followers. His actual message was that works result from faith, not simply faith alone.
Luther did believe that God worked within the lives of the laity as much as he did the lives of monks like himself. He encouraged the confession of sin.
Do I think he was right in his actions? No. I still see the difference between the obedience of St. Francis and Luther.

Re Post #107: Sts. Theresa of Avila and John of the Cross reformed the Carmelites. I have read Dark Night of the Soul.
I like the story of St. Theresa falling off her horse while crossing the river. To God’s “I chastise those I love,” she replied “No wonder you have so few friends.”
St. Ignatius of Loyola established the Jesuits. I have read his autobiography. He writes about his attempt to follow the footsteps of St, Francis in terms of embracing poverty and being ordered to dress better while attending the Sorbonne. As his spirituality developed, he no longer waited for the Inquisitor to arrest him. Instead, he became proactive in saying “I understand you are looking for me.”

Very true. As I said, I have great empathy for him but don’t agree with him. The actual formula is: “Justification by Grace, through Faith, apart from works of the law.” Works proceed from Faith. Justification does not proceed from works. The distortions began with Melanthon, a close friend of Luther who tried to systimatize him. No compitant theologian would ever accuse Luther of being a systimatition. In fact, he himself didn’t bother to write down most of what he taught. A lot of it comes from his lectures and “table talks” where his listeners would take notes of his frequently off handed remarks and then pool them to draw up a reasonable transcript. The real damage was done by the German High Scolastics. Where modern Lutherans get their theology Oh! While I’m at it: Luther wanted to be a monk and stay a monk. Von Staupz pushed him into the priesthood, then into his doctorate and professership, which was where he was when he made his understandable but terrable mistake. As I’ve said, I’m confident of the comming pleasure of shareing a beer with him at the great feast. He was a great story teller. Did you hear the one about his “Tower Experience?” “The tower” in his day was a eupherism for the out house. But there are oh so many paintings of the earnest monk praying in a high castle room. And that is exactly what he intended. No disrespect there. That’s where I’ve done my best thinking. I started out Lutheran, but made the mistake (in the eyes of my superiors) of seriously reading theology, following Luther’s injunction “To the sources!” with an open mind. Do that and there is only one possibility: Rome.

 

[Metamorphoo]

Haven’t you been listening? We do believe that Luther was correct in addressing the evil. It was the way that he addressed it that made it wrong. You are right about the need for humility. The reformers were in dire need of it.

(Sigh) And I don’t think you are hearing what I am saying. There are TWO separate issues being addressed here: (1) the sins of the RCC leadership; and (2) the sins of those who reacted to the sins of the RCC leaders. God deals with each separately. There are ALWAYS consequences to sin. There were consequences for the RCC, and there were consequences for Protestants as well.

The sins of each continue to affect all Christians to this day. Many Protestants continue to distrust the RCC spiritually because of the abuses that occurred at the time of the Reformation. Trust that has been broken is VERY difficult to restore. That is an ongoing CONSEQUENCE of the sins of RCC leadership in the years leading up to the Reformation.

Protestantism, for its part, is plagued by an ongoing mistrust of spiritual authority–and its consequent reluctance to submit to authority has resulted in split after split after split after split and wide divergences in doctrine. That is an ongoing CONSEQUENCE of its sins.

The entire Body of Christ has suffered as a result. There are no winners here. SIN HAS CONSEQUENCES. Period. We reap what we have sown. Neither the RCC nor the Reformers were humble in their responses. The Reformers did not have an ‘exclusive’ on the sin of pride. If RCC clergy had been humble enough to receive correction when initially confronted with their sin, there probably would never have been a Protestant Reformation.

I have two children. Sometimes the older one (my son) has come to me, crying, “Mom, B** hit me!” Knowing my children like I do, I know that the probability is pretty high that my son has teased his sister to the point of exasperation–and she lashed out at him in her frustration. Do I discipline my daughter for what she did? Absolutely! Regardless of what her brother did to provoke her, she is accountable for her response. But my son is disciplined, too (and typically, more severely than his sister) because he started the conflict by willfully antagonising her. I have told him more than once, “When your sister hit you, she was wrong. But you started the issue by provoking her. You reaped the fruit of your doings.”

The ONE and ONLY point that I have been trying to make from my very first post on this subject is this: I don’t think Catholics want to acknowledge the possibility that God’s rending of the Church was a consequence of the ongoing, grievous sins of many RCC clergy. While I think the Reformers certainly have to bear their share of the blame for what happened during the Reformation, it seems like you want to cast blame for the split exclusively on the Protestants. That’s not fair. To me, it’s like my son blaming his sister for hitting him–and not wanting to acknowledge that she hit him because he had greatly provoked her. While you acknowledge that there was abuse in the RCC, you don’t seem to think the RCC has to take responsibility for the mistrust and anger its sins incited in the sheep that it was supposed to be caring for–and the fact that those provocations were major factors as to why people rejected the RCC and papal authority.

You are conveniently forgetting that the Israelites did not have Christ’s promise of not letting the gates of Hell prevail. They did not have Christ’s promise that He will send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church into all truth.

The New Testament states that judgment begins with the Household of God. It is not merely an OT concept. Christ’s promise does not exempt the Church from discipline for sin–whether individual or corporate. It is simply His means of bringing repentance and restoration of holiness. While the Holy Spirit’s job is to bring conviction for sin, God will exert as much pressure as necessary to get His message across to those who do not respond. Sometimes His People are stubborn–and that pressure becomes intense, out of necessity.

God’s discipline of His People for sin has nothing to do with “the gates of hell prevailing.” In all honesty, I don’t understand the point you are trying to make by referencing this verse.

 

[Metamorphoo]

I learned much about Luther when I read Dietrich Boenhoeffer’s Cost of Discipleship. Much of what Luther actually taught has been distorted by his followers. His actual message was that works result from faith, not simply faith alone.

I can’t speak for all Protestants (being the diverse lot that we are)–but I know that many would agree that works are the by-product of faith. We’re saved by grace, through faith. The presence of good works, however, is the authentication that the faith a person has is a genuine, saving faith. I don’t see how this perspective would be problematic to anyone.

Thanks for the post.

 

[Hisalone]

St Theresa of Avila, St John of the Cross, St Ignatius of Loyola, St Philip Neri, St Francis de Sales

All after Luter. None before.

 

[Chancellare]

I can’t speak for all Protestants (being the diverse lot that we are)–but I know that many would agree that works are the by-product of faith. We’re saved by grace, through faith. The presence of good works, however, is the authentication that the faith a person has is a genuine, saving faith. I don’t see how this perspective would be problematic to anyone.

Thanks for the post.

Even if you declare you have Faith and forget to produce the corresponding result in Works, it is an evidence of no faith which is just another way of saying ‘not saved’. Not all who say “Lord, Lord,…”

 

[The_Preacher]

All after Luter. None before.

Does that include the prophets, Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and Jesus? Particularly Jesus who delegated his authority to his Vicar Peter, to be passed down by anointing and laying on of hands, to Peter’s successors and delegated to his bishops, to delegate to his priests and deacons, to rule the Church and all the world? as Luther said: “Who is this maggot infested dung heap Luther?”

 

[ralphinal]

St Francis of Assisi would be an example of someone who wanted reform. St. Dominic as well.

 

[Metamorphoo]

Even if you declare you have Faith and forget to produce the corresponding result in Works, it is an evidence of no faith which is just another way of saying ‘not saved’. Not all who say “Lord, Lord,…”

Isn’t that what I just said???