V
valiermn
Guest
God Did not call Luther to "Break away "from the Catholic church He called him to reform it. The Catholic church was reformed at vatican II. The church is still being reformed today
- Status
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
Doesn’t he also have to solemnly define what is to be “infallible” in word OR be teaching something concerning faith and morals that has been consistently taught by the vast majority of the bishops throughout time?
IOW, something merely belonging to the domain of faith and/or morals is not sufficient for a papal statement to be infallible, rather it actually has to be defined as such ex cathedra. Though this certainly doesn’t diminish a Catholic’s responsibility to assent, merely leaves the teaching in question to not be infallible.
This at least is how papal infallibility was explained to me. I’m a newbie at this too
A
Ag_not
Guest
Yeah, but I bet you know a heck of a lot more than I do - I think youre explanation is much better and more detailed than mine
R
RobHom
Guest
I’m more inclined to bet on “Jaegermeister or Ratzeputz”…
I don’t think he or any of the reformers were “inspired” by anything beyond their own egos and self-righteousness.
Granted Luther had a beef with the Church that had validity, and it was corrected, though not quickly enough to suit him, and he had other issues, but I have to think that claiming “inspiration” by the Holy Spirit is going out on a limb. Political history and history in general will bear much of it out.
Besides: Why on earth would God send the Holy Spirit to “inspire” Luther and Calvin? Further, why would He inspire both of them to end up hating each other…???
Apparently you think God has a weird or sick sense of humor.
Luther was a Catholic monk, so yes he did. I think (probably wrong
) he spoke of intercession as late 1521, but I’m no historian.Scripture, in short. Scripture is not explicit in this area. But I also believe (speaking only for myself, not Lutherans in general) he was responding to overemphasis and idolatry, perhaps not taught by the church, but practiced by many Catholics of his time.
Jon
C
Crystal_H
Guest
REFORMED
http://www.americanbeautybordercoll...pond/wolf-in-sheeps-clothing.jpg.w180h213.jpg
In the theme of this thread, is this Martin Luther or Pope Leo X?
YOU ARE SO BLATANTLY OFFENSIVE>>>
BUT that’s okay… I forgive you and I am praying a novena just for you.
I knew Luther was a dog…
http://www.americanbeautybordercoll...pond/wolf-in-sheeps-clothing.jpg.w180h213.jpg
In the theme of this thread, is this Martin Luther or Pope Leo X?
YOU ARE SO BLATANTLY OFFENSIVE>>>
BUT that’s okay… I forgive you and I am praying a novena just for you.
I knew Luther was a dog…
R
RobHom
Guest
The Church…the Catholic Church did not drift to another Gospel. This my friend is the kind of thing that makes you OFFENSIVE!!! You know very well that the Catholic Church has NEVER changed Gospels. The issue was the Reformers, not your single minded junior attack dog mentality…
If you are so anti-Catholic…go elsewhere.
R
RobHom
Guest
Jon, I agree. Its like we talked about on the phone. Luther had bonafide complaints. He addressed them. The failure, and yes, even as a Catholic I will state: The Church did not move quickly enough to correct the errors, though they did correct them later. I also believe that had the Church been more amenable to moving more quickly to rectify things… Luther could well have stayed within the fold. But it did not happen that way.
I’m not one to make excuses, but lets face it…these were borderline feudal times and the political intrigues were plentiful and history so records the intrigues…on both sides. We cannot view these times through the myopic lens of “whatever”… we have to view things through a greater lens of reality. Failure to do so is to mislead ourselves.
If we as Christians were to concentrate on those things that we share in common, and not capitalize on our differences and use them as bludgeons on each other…we may actually be able to make strides forward to unity.
Personally, I believe that we need to spend less time dwelling on the words of the Apostles…not to discount them, but instead that we need to spend more time dwelling on the very words of Christ…afterall, is HE not the most important??
W
With_Questions
Guest
Actually the correct meanining of infallible is simply “incapable of being incorrect”.
Catholicism then applies the word infallible to the process of “the pope speaking ex-cathedra on an issue of faith and morals”.
Catholicism uses the word infallible correctly by applying it to a process. Internet forums often to not.
As usual, Rob, you have spoken very well, and I agree. The Catholic Catechism says there was blame on both sides, and that is true. I also agree that, while not forgetting the past, we should instead dwell on that which brings us together, and discuss with Christian love and charity that which divides us. If we allow the HS to move in our hearts, and not be so ready to use our words to cut our Christian siblings down, I strongly believe comity, if not unity, can come.
Jon
Regarding you image of a wolf in sheeps clothing:
I think this is neither, and both. We all sin and fall short of the glory of God. We all have pride that drives us to do things not good for ourselves or others. It is that pride that drives us to condemn each other as wolves in sheep’s clothing. Both Catholics and Lutherans, in our orders of public confession, say something to the effect:
Code:
"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the
truth is not in us..."by what we have done, and what we have left undone.
We have not loved you with our whole heart, or our neighbors
as ourselves.”
This confession applies to Luther, Pope Leo, and each one of us.
I would say both were men of faith, and of sin.
Jon
R
Reformed
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
I hate to correct you, but Luther was a wild bore according to the Magestrium. Thanks for your prayers!
R
Reformed
Guest
According to Paul and Peter, the gospel is offensive and foolishness to those who are perishing. At least we should agree that the Protestant gospel is different than the Catholic gospel. Even the Council of Trent makes this exact same point. There’s a little bit of Calvinism from Peter too in his verse. I hope when I offend you, God will use that to drive you deeper into the Scirptures to know Him better.
Romans 9:33
as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
1 Corinthians 10:32
Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God,
Galatians 5:11
But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed.
1 Peter 2:8
and “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.” They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do
R
Reformed
Guest
I understand what you are saying, but Jesus told us when He left us, He would give us the Spirit to remind us of Jesus and what He taught His sheep. The Spirit works through the Apostles according to Jesus. And after the Apostles left us, the Spirit would work through what they wrote. Your statement can also undermine the Catholic teaching of apostolic succession.
John 17
But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. [1] 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them [2] in the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, [3] that they also may be sanctified [4] in truth.
20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
Sounds a bit like my post #42. Would you mine reading it and informing me if I’ve been taught correctly?
I’m in RCIA and have already found the instructors to have been mistaken on a few things. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is another of such cases.
Sorry for deviating from the thread everyone. Just a question I’ve had that I’ve forgotten to raise elsewhere.
R
RobHom
Guest
No, not in the least.
You misunderstood the import of my words.All too often, even here in these forums…and I think you may be one of those who do it…not 100% sure, so if I am in error, forgive me, but some people constantly and to the point of utter distraction quote “Paul” ad nauseum. Its almost as if they think Paul was the Savior.
Seldom do I see anyone quote Christ’s words…
Frankly, I put far more faith in what Christ said than the words of an Apostle…not that I ignore them by any means… But first and foremost Christ’s Word comes first…all else is “trimming”.Nothing said to denigrate the Apostolic Succession…
R
Reformed
Guest
All Scripture is God-breathed. All Scripture ultimately points to Christ including the writings of the Apostle.No, not in the least.
All too often, even here in these forums…and I think you may be one of those who do it…not 100% sure, so if I am in error, forgive me, but some people constantly and to the point of utter distraction quote “Paul” ad nauseum. Its almost as if they think Paul was the Savior.
Seldom do I see anyone quote Christ’s words…
Nothing said to denigrate the Apostolic Succession…
14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom [1] you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God [2] may be competent, equipped for every good work. - 2 Tim 3
H
Hajnalcsillag
Guest
The term is usually “colossal bore”.I hate to correct you, but Luther was a wild bore according to the Magestrium. Thanks for your prayers!
E
Erich
Guest
To say that Scripture “is profitable” is one thing; to say that only Scripture need be followed is something else. John 20:31 tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction.
As John Henry Newman observed, the Apostle Paul here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy:
“Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith.”
One last question… who is the “man of God” of whom Paul speaks? (After you’ve answered this question, you can check your answer here.)
W
With_Questions
Guest
Hi:
If you were taught in RCIA that the pope is incapable of error when teaching on a matter of faith and morals, then I think you were taught correctly as pertaining to Catholicism. I am not Catholic, so I am correctible here.
However, the meaning of infallible separate from Catholicism is just “incapable of being incorrect” not “100% correct”. This distinction must be remembered if you want to correctly apply the word “infallible” outside the domain of the Catholic faith.
- Status