Did early protestant reformers agree that the catholic church was true church of Christ?

[JonNC]

Jumping in here, I think that the Church’s teachings on papal authority may have been overshadowed by the actions of Leo X. Even Catholic commentators recognize that Leo’s pontificate was not the brightest time in church history. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

As noted in the last paragraph, Leo’s lifestyle and actions led people to lose “faith in the integrity and merit of the papacy.” While I believe it to be true the the Church can never err, the human beings charged with leading it can go astray, sometimes with very bad results. One major strength of the recent Popes is that they have been men of integrity. Had Leo X been of that caliber the Reformation might have played out much differently.

Pastor,
I am always appreciative of what you have to say. I think your comments about the integrity of recent popes, even their outright kindness to Lutherans, ought to be in the front of our minds when we speak about popes and the papacy today. We may disagree with the claims of the office, but not the Christian faith and leadership they present to the world.

Jon

 

[steido01]

Pastor,
I am always appreciative of what you have to say. I think your comments about the integrity of recent popes, even their outright kindness to Lutherans, ought to be in the front of our minds when we speak about popes and the papacy today. We may disagree with the claims of the office, but not the Christian faith and leadership they present to the world.

Jon

Amen. What wonderful, living examples of Christian charity He has given us!

 

[KathleenGee]

Affirm, hn…Both Catholics and Protestants killing each other through the military.

So the Catholic Church used the Gutenberg Press to affirm universality and unity.

My pastor in RCIA told us the whole problem was the fault of Catholic clericalism, and he made a remark about Pope Leo…in his mind, the worst pope. T

Pope Leo is the one connected to the establishment of the Cardinals’ Tower…the one he put up to hold cardinals in opposition to him.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

. . . papal authority may have been overshadowed by the actions of Leo X . . . recent Popes . . . have been men of integrity. Had Leo X been of that caliber the Reformation might have played out much differently.

Good points, gcnuss.

I’m not willing to place the blame on Leo (Luther was still responsible for his choices), but certainly the popes of that time did not help matters . . .

 

[JonNC]

Good points, gcnuss.

I’m not willing to place the blame on Leo (Luther was still responsible for his choices), but certainly the popes of that time did not help matters . . .

I second what the Catholic Catechism says on the matter:

• In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269*

Father, forgive them, and us.

Jon

 

[KathleenGee]

AMEN!

When we are fully reunited, our Christian impact will be much greater. The world is in such need of authentic Christian witness.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Quote showing Martin Luther originally believed the Catholic Church was the true Church of Christ:

“Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., just as the Jews sat in their synagogues or assemblies and were the regularly established priesthood and authority of the Church. We admit all this and do not attack the office, although they are not willing to admit as much for us; yea, we confess that we have received these things from them, even as Christ by birth descended from the Jews and the apostles obtained the Scriptures from them.”

Sermon for the Sunday after Christ’s Ascension; John 15:26-16:4 (2nd sermon) A Sermon by Martin Luther; taken from his Church Postil, 1522. [This sermon is taken from volume III:254-271 of The Sermons of Martin Luther]

I’m curious if anyone here that has commented in this thread thus far has taken the time to look up this quote and read it in its context? If no, why not? Based on the comments thus far, it doesn’t appear that anyone has.

Before extrapolating particular points to discuss, wouldn’t having read and understood the actual sermon first be a good idea?

JS

 

[TertiumQuid]

So Luther may have been consistent on that point after the nailing of the 95 theses. For those who haven’t seen the following, in 1516, he preached:
If Christ had not entrusted all power to one man, the Church would not have been perfect because there would have been no order and each one would have been able to say he was led by the Holy Spirit. This is what the heretics did, each one setting up his own principle. In this way as many Churches arose as there were heads. . . . Wherefore, whoever breaks away from this unity and order of the power, let him not boast of great enlightenment and wonderful works, as our Picards and other heretics do, ‘for much better is obedience than to be the victims of fools who know not what evil they do.’ (cf… Eccles.iv, 17)." (Sermo in Vincula S. Petri, “Werke” Weimar ed., I 69)…

As far as I’ve been able to ascertain, the evidence for this sermon is nothing more than one short Latin paragraph. Historian Hartmann Grisar cites this quote to prove that when Luther visited Rome in 1510, the corruption or the city did not cause Luther to lose faith in the Papacy. On the other hand, Ken Hensley’s lecture, Luther: The Rest of the Story says that Luther’s experience in Rome caused him to doubt the power and authority of the established Church. It certainly is interesting how history is interpreted.

JS

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I second what the Catholic Catechism says on the matter:

• In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame*."269

Father, forgive them, and us.

Jon

As always Jon beautifully stated; Yet I call your attention to the quote “men of both sides were to blame”. It was the men on both sides to blame, never the Church herself.

If we can remove the disputes between the men on both sides and give light to the true hidden agenda’s of each man? We may see it is not the Church that Jesus founded upon Peter and the apostles that is called into question here, during the reformation period, but the fallacy of men on both sides trying to change the Church Jesus founded.

Trent counciled later until the dust settled, so that light can be shed on the reformation and the problems that resulted from the reformation. Vatican I and Vatican II centuries later, confirmed what is needed for reform and acted, but never moved from the foundation of the Rock that Jesus layed in stone.

History proves that It is difficult for the clergy and laity in the Catholic Church to adapt to changes that deal with disciplinary actions from societies that mature or discover new knowledge and understanding. We are careful not to implement these outer disciplines (science, reform, medical etc.) that could infect or may effect a change in the apostolic faith, which causes the Church as a whole very slow to change.

The reformers wanted changes in the disciplines of the clergy and the new expression of the apostolic faith with sola fide and sola scriptura. The Popes and the bishops were not having it and were reforming the disciplines from another view. Today the sola fide and sola scriptura does not necessarily change the apostolic faith and can be accepted so long as they are never rejecting Peter and the apostolic successors of the apostles and sacred Tradition supported by sacred scripture.

Communicating with one another definetly proves more postivie results than attacking one another as did our forefathers who are left to blame as the men for the separation, not Jesus Christ our head of the Church.

Peace be with you

 

[Peter_J]

I’m not sure we’re accurately reporting Luther’s positions by saying he contradicted himself. Luther was consistent in his teachings, although it can be difficult for those taking a cursory, out-of-context look at Lutheranism to understand his views. Yes, his choice in words often left some charity to be desired (hey, let’s be honest, he and his Catholic contemporaries were earthy, crass products of a hard time). But what he’s saying in Smalcald about the papacy and what he’s saying here about the church are entirely compatible, and not contradictory. Luther never stated that the Catholic church wasn’t part of the Church of Christ; only that its leadership had claimed authority for reasons other than what he believed was Scriptural. You’re correct when you say “we can’t take just one quote and say, ‘This was Luther’s position.’” It is equally as disingenuous to take multiple quotes out of context to further a misconception.

I’m not defending everything the man said, mind y’all, and I know we don’t agree on whether he was correct or not. Just noting that he was consistent in his Reform/heresy.

My point, in relation to the OP, is: yes, Luther did consider the Catholic church part of the Church of Christ.

I think you may be right there.

By way of comparison, I think an Orthodox Christian could say that “The Vatican considers the Orthodox Church to be the true Church of Christ” and give some quotes that would appear to back that up.

 

[Peter_J]

Ok…thanks for explaining. I can see how the quotes in question could both fit that view. No misrepresentation was intended (as steido1 implied).

So Luther may have been consistent on that point after the nailing of the 95 theses. For those who haven’t seen the following, in 1516, he preached:

If Christ had not entrusted all power to one man, the Church would not have been perfect because there would have been no order and each one would have been able to say he was led by the Holy Spirit. This is what the heretics did, each one setting up his own principle. In this way as many Churches arose as there were heads. . . . Wherefore, whoever breaks away from this unity and order of the power, let him not boast of great enlightenment and wonderful works, as our Picards and other heretics do, ‘for much better is obedience than to be the victims of fools who know not what evil they do.’ (cf… Eccles.iv, 17)." (Sermo in Vincula S. Petri, “Werke” Weimar ed., I 69).

OIC. I had been wondering what you meant by “It seems to me he says in one place that Christ instituted the papacy”.

I don’t think it’s any great surprise that Luther, pre-reformation, said the above. Indeed, I think it’s precisely because of the ultramontanism of that time period that the Reformation was able to gather so much momentum – the old “pendulum swinging from one extreme to another” principle.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I think you may be right there.

By way of comparison, I think an Orthodox Christian could say that “The Vatican considers the Orthodox Church to be the true Church of Christ” and give some quotes that would appear to back that up.

I don’t get that sentiment from the present Vatican. The Orthodox is looked upon as having valid sacraments and a valid priesthood, technically due to each authocephalous church a case by case assumption would be in order for the fact that some Eastern Church’s are still in heresy have adopted the term Orthodoxy, which can create confusion one reading from such a Vatican quote.

I believe the Vatican is strong on the point of being the true Church of Christ involves not only the sacraments and apostolic succession and unity among all the apostolic successors. One rejecting that unity involves a schism from the one True Church of Christ, that reveals an incompletness from the unity of the True Church of Christ.

Although I totally agree with you on your comparison, that one could read a quote on the surface that appears to be saying one thing, yet unless one knows the true spirit from which the quotes are truly stated and the understanding from the mind who delieverd the quote, such as the example of the Vatican giving a quote, one can misinterpret them.

Peace be with you

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t get that sentiment from the present Vatican.

Nor should you. In fact if you did my post would be without point.

Although I totally agree with you on your comparison, that one could read a quote on the surface that appears to be saying one thing, yet unless one knows the true spirit from which the quotes are truly stated and the understanding from the mind who delieverd the quote, such as the example of the Vatican giving a quote, one can misinterpret them.

Just so.

 

[TertiumQuid]

I think you may be right there…

I’m not meaning to pick on you Peter J, but your comment provides me the opportunity to once again ask this question:

I’m still wondering if anyone here has been interested enough in actually reading the context of the initial Luther quote that was posted. It doesn’t appear to me that anyone has.

The sermon in which the initial Luther quote is from is easy to find online, and the sermon is not that long.

JS

 

[Peter_J]

I’m not meaning to pick on you Peter J, but your comment provides me the opportunity to once again ask this question:

I’m still wondering if anyone here has been interested enough in actually reading the context of the initial Luther quote that was posted. It doesn’t appear to me that anyone has.

The sermon in which the initial Luther quote is from is easy to find online, and the sermon is not that long.

JS

Well, perhaps we should. But even without reading the whole sermon, it seems clear enough what he meant. As steido01 put it:

My point, in relation to the OP, is: yes, Luther did consider the Catholic church part of the Church of Christ.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Well, perhaps we should. But even without reading the whole sermon, it seems clear enough what he meant. As steido01 put it:My point, in relation to the OP, is: yes, Luther did consider the Catholic church part of the Church of Christ.

The sermon in context doesn’t ultimately make this point. If anyone does look up the context, see points 39-41.

JS

 

[Tomster]

Luther had this to say about The Roman Catholic Church. This is from a book “What Luther Says” in #372 Yet the Roman Catholic Church Is Part of Christendom.
" We ourselves confess and concede that they are in the right church, have the office which was given by Christ, and which the apostles gave them as a heritage - the office to teach, baptize, administer the Sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc …We allow all this to be right and do not call the office in question, although they do not want to admit that the same obtains among us. In fact, we confess that we receive these things from them, as Christ Himself came from the Jews according to His birth and the apostles found Scripture among the Jews. ( W 21, 432 - E 12, 262 - SL 11, 1012 )

Mighty big of him to allow it.