Confused??!!

[GTNJNightingale]

My Question is if the protestants do not believe that peter had authority (the pope today) on what was authentic to Gods word in the bible and what books n such…(which Jesus had spoken out of his mouth that Peter did have authority). than who is Martin Luther and what authority did he have to take away from?? there whole thing is refuting the churches authority…well fine ok but then what authority did Martin Luther have??? doesnt this sort of Defeat the motive to reform in the first place?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Martin Luther was a Catholic priest-monk and a profound thinker, who got swept away by a new wind of doctrine called “freedom” that was spreading like fire during his time. He saw abuses in the Church being exercised from his own German clerics.

He took this “freedom” spirit and applied to his own interpretations of the bible which contradicted the apostolic teachings of the magisterium and drew favoritism from secular powers who were seeking to remove their subjects from the influence of the Popes and bishops.

Had Martin Luther followed the footsteps in reform such as St. Francis of Assisi, St. Benedict, St. Ignatius of Loyola in the leadership by calling them to live the gospel message instead of removing the leadership founded by Christ, we might have a Catholic “Lutheran” apostolate priesthood today?

Instead, Martin Luther received support from those secular powers moving to gain great wealth from the Church not only in land and political position but gain the populace support away from the Popes and bishops to their own secular powers which gave the false pretense “freedom”, and those who followed Martin Luther’s new wind of doctrines gained the freedom to believe how and when ever they want to believe, removing themselves from the valid apostolic succession and apostolic teachings.

In short, Martin Luther interpreted the scriptures by his own authority claiming to the “spirit” of freedom. Protestants follow this same freedom and claim to the bible alone as their authority not the Apostolic successors in the Popes and bishops.

Protestants cannot deny what Jesus stated in Matthew 16:14-17 of building his Church upon Peter.

Protestants by their own “infallible” authority interpret this scripture by themselves to mean that Jesus built his Church upon Peter’s faith, and they claim to have the faith of Peter. So they do not need no ones authority but the bible alone, which the Catholic Church gave to Martin Luther, who relabeled 7 canonized books as “Apocrypha” not inspired of God among other things.

Martin Luther claims to his new man made doctrine of “faith alone” in the “bible alone” is enough authority to deny the Apostolic Catholic faith handed down to us these past 2000 years unchanged, or rather 1500 years handed down unchanged during Martin Luther’s time.

Peace be with you

My Question is if the protestants do not believe that peter had authority (the pope today) on what was authentic to Gods word in the bible and what books n such…(which Jesus had spoken out of his mouth that Peter did have authority). than who is Martin Luther and what authority did he have to take away from?? there whole thing is refuting the churches authority…well fine ok but then what authority did Martin Luther have??? doesnt this sort of Defeat the motive to reform in the first place?

 

[ForeverGrace]

My Question is if the protestants do not believe that peter had authority (the pope today) on what was authentic to Gods word in the bible and what books n such…(which Jesus had spoken out of his mouth that Peter did have authority). than who is Martin Luther and what authority did he have to take away from?? there whole thing is refuting the churches authority…well fine ok but then what authority did Martin Luther have??? doesnt this sort of Defeat the motive to reform in the first place?

Actually, protestants do not believe that Peter was granted any authority to start the church. If you would like, I can break down the scripture from Mathew, to give you our exegesis of it.

Given that this is a Catholic Forum some might think it disrespectful to do this. It’s not my intention to cause any difficulties here. If you would really like to hear the Protestant view, send me a pm and I’ll be happy to provide it for you.

God Bless

 

[benidict]

My Question is if the protestants do not believe that peter had authority (the pope today) on what was authentic to Gods word in the bible and what books n such…(which Jesus had spoken out of his mouth that Peter did have authority). than who is Martin Luther and what authority did he have to take away from?? there whole thing is refuting the churches authority…well fine ok but then what authority did Martin Luther have??? doesnt this sort of Defeat the motive to reform in the first place?

Hope my Lutherans friends dont take this the wrong way. What authority did Martin Luther have? NONE. Doesnt this Defeat the motive to reform in the first place. YES. No authority = No reform. Just the potential for serious error.

 

[benidict]

Actually, protestants do not believe that Peter was granted any authority to start the church. If you would like, I can break down the scripture from Mathew, to give you our exegesis of it.

Given that this is a Catholic Forum some might think it disrespectful to do this. It’s not my intention to cause any difficulties here. If you would really like to hear the Protestant view, send me a pm and I’ll be happy to provide it for you.

God Bless

Not disrespectful at all. Feel free. I always like seeing my Fellow Catholics who are well versed in this area, once again refute this line of teaching.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

ForeverGrace;7682217]Actually, protestants do not believe that Peter was granted any authority to start the church. If you would like, I can break down the scripture from Mathew, to give you our exegesis of it.

This forum is formed just for you to share your exegesis about your faith and interpretations,** please feel free to share your faith here in **this noncatholic forum.

I would respectfully ask, how do you interpret the following scriptures? and can you give historical support for your interpretation? for example a council, a recognized theologian, historical Christian witness etc?

Matthew 16:17
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, **you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, **13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
**I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” **

John 21:15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you**].” He said to him,** “Feed my lambs.”
16
He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you**.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17
He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John**, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you**.” (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep. **

Your humility is greatly respected here, and we share in your good will intentions. So you are invited respectfully to share your interpretation of scripture and exegesis of Matthew.

Peace be with you

Given that this is a Catholic Forum some might think it disrespectful to do this. It’s not my intention to cause any difficulties here. If you would really like to hear the Protestant view, send me a pm and I’ll be happy to provide it for you.

God Bless

 

[GTNJNightingale]

thank you to all who have helped me to understand more clearly the history of the reform. though I do not agree with it. I wish there was some way I could change the very idea of the reform. it make me feel a number of emotions. But our lord is Loving and compassionate and just…and he gave us free will of our lives. I strive everyday to stay so true and close to HIS teaching trying not to stray away …let us pray for each other to remain close to him…in this evil world…it is very difficult…and also for those who have strayed or been led away let us pray. I know that I am a sinner and I am ashamed. But have mercy on me Lord because I love you and desire to be with you.

 

[elvisman]

Actually, protestants do not believe that Peter was granted any authority to start the church. If you would like, I can break down the scripture from Mathew, to give you our exegesis of it.

Given that this is a Catholic Forum some might think it disrespectful to do this. It’s not my intention to cause any difficulties here. If you would really like to hear the Protestant view, send me a pm and I’ll be happy to provide it for you.

God Bless

Since this thread is about the very topic of Authority - please post it here. I’d like the chance to read - and respond to your thoughts.

 

[JaredM]

well fine ok but then what authority did Martin Luther have?

God’s.

 

[elvisman]

God’s.

**Well, I’ll bite.
**If you can show me where Jesus said to start your own set of beliefs apart from his Church, I’ll agree with you.

 

[Nicea325]

God’s.

Would you apply the same belief to every man-made church too?

 

[JaredM]

**Well, *I’ll ***bite.
If you can show me where Jesus said to start your own set of beliefs *apart *from his Church, I’ll agree with you.

Are you suggesting that Roman Catholicism the only true version of Christianity? Being a Christian simply means you follow the teaching of Jesus Christ. Martin Luther saw immorality, greed, and corruption in the Church. If I am a heretic I am a proud heretic.

 

[Nicea325]

Are you suggesting that Roman Catholicism the only true version of Christianity? Being a Christian simply means you follow the teaching of Jesus Christ. Martin Luther saw immorality, greed, and corruption in the Church. If I am a heretic I am a proud heretic.

Versions of Christianity? I did not know Jesus set up versions of His Church? Immorailty? Did Luther not marry a nun? Is that not breaking one’s vows? Did he not want to remove books from the Bible? Did he not add to the Bible? Smells like greed and corruption to me. Yup! Heretic!

 

[JaredM]

Versions of Christianity? I did not know Jesus set up versions of His Church? Immorailty? Did Luther not marry a nun? Is that not breaking one’s vows? Did he not want to remove books from the Bible? Did he not add to the Bible? Smells like greed and corruption to me. Yup! Heretic!

There is nothing wrong with breaking a vow because it never states in the bible that a priest should be celibate. Also are you forgetting about indulgences?

 

[elvisman]

Are you suggesting that Roman Catholicism the only true version of Christianity? Being a Christian simply means you follow the teaching of Jesus Christ. Martin Luther saw immorality, greed, and corruption in the Church. If I am a heretic I am a proud heretic.

Following the teachings of Christ - yes. That means you can’t pick and choose WHICH teachings to follow.
Being a Christian is much more than simply saying you’re one:

Being baptized (Matt. 28:19-20, John 3:5, Rom. 2:29, Col. 2:12-17, 1 Peter 3:21)
Picking up our cross daily to follow him (Matt. 16:24, Luke 9:23)
Works of mercy and charity (Matt. 19:21, 25:31–46, Luke 18:22)
Obeying his commandments (John 15:10)
Doing the will of the Father (Matt. 7:21)
Dying and being buried with him through Baptism (Rom. 6:1-11)
We must suffer with Christ (Matt. 10:38, 16:24, Mark 8:34, John 12:24, Rom. 8:17, 2 Cor. 1:5-7, Eph. 3:13, Phil. 1:29, 2 Tim. 1:8, 1 Peter 2:19-21, 4:1-2)

Obeying the Church, which is is God’s Authority on earth (Matt. 16:19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, 20:23, Acts 15:28-29, 1 Cor. 11:2, 1 Tim. 3:15, 2 Tim 1:13-14, 3:14, 1 Thess. 2:132 Thess. 2:15, 1 John 4:6)

****Somebody that is not willing to follow ALL ****of Christ’s teachings shouldn’t refer to himself as a true Christian.
Last time I checked - Jesus only established ONE “version” of Christianity.

Lastly - you are not a heretic. A heretic is somebody who belongs to the Church and professes aberrant beliefs You’re estranged from the Church.

 

[JaredM]

Were does it say that a vow is a promise to be celibate?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

There are two biblical references here that deal with a vow.

1. thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain ( a broken vow does this, because God gave witness to the vow by his name)
2. thou shalt not lie (well a freely willed broken vow without the Church of Jesus Christ binding or loosing this vow, permits one to have lied).
3. Luther being a Catholic clergy at the time new the capacity in which he took those vows into the priesthood. And he knew how the church could remove his faculties from his vows with her divinely given keys, but he rejected the Popes authority.

Peace be with you

Were does it say that a vow is a promise to be celibate?

 

[Nicea325]

There is nothing wrong with breaking a vow because it never states in the bible that a priest should be celibate. Also are you forgetting about indulgences?

And where does the Bible teach everything must be explicitly stated? God founded His church,not a book stating everything must be in the Bible. Nothing is wrong with breaking a vow? According to you and those who cannot stick to their convictions.

In fact, it is precisely the holiness of marriage that makes celibacy precious; for only what is good and holy in itself can be given up for God as a sacrifice. Just as fasting presupposes the goodness of food, celibacy presupposes the goodness of marriage. To despise celibacy, therefore, is to undermine marriage itself—as the early Fathers pointed out.

Celibacy is also a life-affirming institution. In the Old Testament, where celibacy was almost unknown, the childless were often despised by others and themselves; only through children, it was felt, did one acquire value. By renouncing marriage, the celibate affirms the intrinsic value of each human life in itself, regardless of offspring.

Finally, celibacy is an eschatological sign to the Church, a living-out in the present of the universal celibacy of heaven: “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matt. 22:30).

Matt 19:12 Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have **renounced marriage **(9) for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."

(9) Incapable of marriage: literally, “eunuchs.” Three classes are mentioned, eunuchs from birth, eunuchs by castration, and those who have voluntarily renounced marriage (literally, “have made themselves eunuchs”) for the sake of the kingdom, i.e., to devote themselves entirely to its service. Some scholars take the last class to be those who have been divorced by their spouses and have refused to enter another marriage. But it is more likely that it is rather those who have chosen never to marry, since that suits better the optional nature of the decision: whoever can . . . ought to accept it.

 

[dje101]

My Question is if the protestants do not believe that peter had authority (the pope today) on what was authentic to Gods word in the bible and what books n such…(which Jesus had spoken out of his mouth that Peter did have authority). than who is Martin Luther and what authority did he have to take away from?? there whole thing is refuting the churches authority…well fine ok but then what authority did Martin Luther have??? doesnt this sort of Defeat the motive to reform in the first place?

It kind of reminds me of the first sin of Adam and Even; they wanted to be like God. Protestants like the idea of being able to discern for themselves what God is saying in the bible and then making churches based on that “discernment”. Instead of having to submit to a higher authority (like the CC), they make their own religions and become their own higher authority.

Just an observation that I’ve noticed.

 

[mark_avery]

I think the debate,is there to dwell with!
But also would it not be two obvious,to expect,the so called evangelicals to participate fully in the catholic church to be recognized as Evangelical.