Do you Admire Martin Luther?

[mgrfin]

Edwin,

According to Catholic teaching the Passion of Christ was the one great mediating sacrifice in which Christ was both High Priest and Victim. This dogma has been denied by non-Catholics who profess to see in the suffering of Christ nothing but an example of high moral worth; but the history of the Jews, the express statements of the NT, and the very nature of Christ’s passion are overwhelmingly clear in the evidence.

The confusion is not on the Catholic side. We have in the OT the record of the sacrifices of Abel, Noah, Abraham, and Melchisedech, which point to a more perfect sacrifice of which they were types. In Exodus, a lamb was eaten with unleavened bread and blood sprinkled on the door posts. St, Paul says ‘no one takes the honorable office of High Priest upon Himself, but only accepts it when called to it by God as Aaron was. …I have today begotten thee… And in another passage, “Thou are a priest according to the order of Melchisedech.”
Christ it was who “once for all entered the holy place securing an eternal redemption, and He is the mediator of a new covenant in order that since a life has been given in atonement for the offences committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the eternal inheritance which has been promised to them” This is the Priesthood of Christ and explains for us the meaning of the Redemption.

Pax

mgrfin

 

[whatevergirl]

I am in favor a Luthers search for the truth, I am not a Lutheran I am a Christian, that is I am a follower of Christ.
the problem with a group like the R.C.C when you disagree or oppose there teachings you have to breakaway because you are excomminicated so to answer your quote “but you don’t judge the religion as entirely lost, and build up your own.” A priest who disagrees is shut away or turned out, so what choice do they have if God called them to minister and lead, than to start a church outside of the R.C.C?

The teachings really weren’t what he was opposed to…the RCC was abusing their authority. They were wrongfully interpreting their authority…it’s not that he disagreed (solely) with pure doctrine. There is nothing impure about the Catholic faith–it’s a gift from God. The moral teachings of the RCC were founded by Christ Himself…so, to break away from those teachings, is to somewhat in essence say to Christ…‘we know better, than to accept Confession, to accept the Sacraments, to accept the Eucharist …etc…’ The missing link between Jesus and the Church is Peter. (thus our very first leader/Pope) The Papacy was manmade…but something that Peter started, to ensure structure and moral balance into people’s lives…to have a standard to follow, in Christ’s absence. It’s not about who’s right who’s wrong…there certainly won’t be sections in Heaven, reserved for Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, etc…we are all one body of Christ…or should be. But, people like to interpret the Scripture whereby Jesus passes the keys to the kingdom to Peter, as a metaphor for perpetuating the faith. What faith though? Catholic means universal…Roman, is where Peter began it. So…one would have to dismiss the conversation Jesus had with Peter completely, or not see the credibility as it relates to the RCC…in order to look at the RCC as ‘wrong.’

Ok–just my 2 cents.

 

[mgrfin]

The teachings really weren’t what he was opposed to…the RCC was abusing their authority. They were wrongfully interpreting their authority…it’s not that he disagreed (solely) with pure doctrine. There is nothing impure about the Catholic faith–it’s a gift from God. The moral teachings of the RCC were founded by Christ Himself…so, to break away from those teachings, is to somewhat in essence say to Christ…‘we know better, than to accept Confession, to accept the Sacraments, to accept the Eucharist …etc…’ The missing link between Jesus and the Church is Peter. (thus our very first leader/Pope) The Papacy was manmade…but something that Peter started, to ensure structure and moral balance into people’s lives…to have a standard to follow, in Christ’s absence. It’s not about who’s right who’s wrong…there certainly won’t be sections in Heaven, reserved for Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, etc…we are all one body of Christ…or should be. But, people like to interpret the Scripture whereby Jesus passes the keys to the kingdom to Peter, as a metaphor for perpetuating the faith. What faith though? Catholic means universal…Roman, is where Peter began it. So…one would have to dismiss the conversation Jesus had with Peter completely, or not see the credibility as it relates to the RCC…in order to look at the RCC as ‘wrong.’

Ok–just my 2 cents.

Well, you’re entitled to your opinion.

However, the Papacy is not a manmade thing by someone like Peter. He would have to have more than one sword to take over authority from the other Apostles and St. Paul.

Christ instituted his Church, and put Peter at the head of it. We quote all the well known SS for this. It took 1500 years for Martin Luther to discover that the Papacy was in error all along, about Justification, Salvation, Predestination, Grace, etc. all the other important doctrines like the Sacraments.

Faith is a gift. If God has not given it to you, and I don’t mean to be a snob, then you don’t have it.

Being outside of the one, true, apostolic Church, and offering arguments why it shouldn’t be so, I can’t say enough.

Peace

mgrfin

 

[whatevergirl]

Well, you’re entitled to your opinion.

However, the Papacy is not a manmade thing by someone like Peter. He would have to have more than one sword to take over authority from the other Apostles and St. Paul.

Christ instituted his Church, and put Peter at the head of it. We quote all the well known SS for this. It took 1500 years for Martin Luther to discover that the Papacy was in error all along, about Justification, Salvation, Predestination, Grace, etc. all the other important doctrines like the Sacraments.

Faith is a gift. If God has not given it to you, and I don’t mean to be a snob, then you don’t have it.

Being outside of the one, true, apostolic Church, and offering arguments why it shouldn’t be so, I can’t say enough.

Peace

mgrfin

Christ instituted the Church–yes, of course. Didn’t mean to elude that He didn’t. But, Christ wasn’t here on earth dictating everything to Peter–verbatim. There had to be some iniatives that he did on his own…of course inspired by the Holy Spirit. I believe that the Papacy was orchestrated by men–ordained by God. Perhaps, I should have written that differently.

 

[mgrfin]

Christ instituted the Church–yes, of course. Didn’t mean to elude that He didn’t. But, Christ wasn’t here on earth dictating everything to Peter–verbatim. There had to be some iniatives that he did on his own…of course inspired by the Holy Spirit. I believe that the Papacy was orchestrated by men–ordained by God. Perhaps, I should have written that differently.

The Deposit of Faith was completed with the death of the last Apostle. Everything had by then been revealed to the Church, at least in germ.

The Papacy was orchestrated by Jesus Christ, and He sent his Holy Spirit on Pentecost to be with Her until the end of time, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against Her.

 

[whatevergirl]

The Deposit of Faith was completed with the death of the last Apostle. Everything had by then been revealed to the Church, at least in germ.

The Papacy was orchestrated by Jesus Christ, and He sent his Holy Spirit on Pentecost to be with Her until the end of time, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against Her.

I think we’re splitting hairs…I’m Catholic, I don’t disagree with the RCC’s teachings or the Papacy authority. Again…it was orchestrated by men–ordained by God.

 

[mgrfin]

Christ instituted the Church–yes, of course. Didn’t mean to elude that He didn’t. But, Christ wasn’t here on earth dictating everything to Peter–verbatim. There had to be some iniatives that he did on his own…of course inspired by the Holy Spirit. I believe that the Papacy was orchestrated by men–ordained by God. Perhaps, I should have written that differently.

Okay, let’s say this again:

1. Christ instituted his Church
2. At Pentecost, the Church began, with the coming of the Holy Spirit
3. The Primacy of Peter, the Papacy was instituted by Christ, and is guided by the Holy Spirit, so that it is without error.
4. We have a Church, instituted by Christ, without error, and the Holy Spirit fills her, and guides her along the path of truth.

peace
mgrfin

 

[whatevergirl]

Okay, let’s say this again:

1. Christ instituted his Church
2. At Pentecost, the Church began, with the coming of the Holy Spirit
3. The Primacy of Peter, the Papacy was instituted by Christ, and is guided by the Holy Spirit, so that it is without error.
4. We have a Church, instituted by Christ, without error, and the Holy Spirit fills her, and guides her along the path of truth.

peace
mgrfin

Ok…I agree. I never disagreed, but ok.

 

[whatevergirl]

I believe that Jesus gave authority over to Peter…as if when you hear Peter speaking…it’s as though the words are coming from Christ. That’s how I have always known the beginning of our Papacy to mean. I suppose we explain it differently, but we are on the same page.

 

[mgrfin]

I think we’re splitting hairs…I’m Catholic, I don’t disagree with the RCC’s teachings or the Papacy authority. Again…it was orchestrated by men–ordained by God.

No, I don’t think we are splitting hairs.

It is important. It is not a human institution, or orchestrated by men.
Matt 16: 13-21
“And I say to thee, That thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shall bind upon earth, it will bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed in heaven.”

Peace

 

[Contarini]

Edwin,

According to Catholic teaching the Passion of Christ was the one great mediating sacrifice in which Christ was both High Priest and Victim. This dogma has been denied by non-Catholics who profess to see in the suffering of Christ nothing but an example of high moral worth; but the history of the Jews, the express statements of the NT, and the very nature of Christ’s passion are overwhelmingly clear in the evidence.

The confusion is not on the Catholic side. We have in the OT the record of the sacrifices of Abel, Noah, Abraham, and Melchisedech, which point to a more perfect sacrifice of which they were types. In Exodus, a lamb was eaten with unleavened bread and blood sprinkled on the door posts. St, Paul says ‘no one takes the honorable office of High Priest upon Himself, but only accepts it when called to it by God as Aaron was. …I have today begotten thee… And in another passage, “Thou are a priest according to the order of Melchisedech.”
Christ it was who “once for all entered the holy place securing an eternal redemption, and He is the mediator of a new covenant in order that since a life has been given in atonement for the offences committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the eternal inheritance which has been promised to them” This is the Priesthood of Christ and explains for us the meaning of the Redemption.

Pax

mgrfin

Thanks for stating a view of the Atonement that I would hope all Christians can agree on.

However, Anselm’s satisfaction theory certainly has been important in Catholicism, as have patristic ideas about Christ defeating death. But I agree–sacrifice is absolutely central to the meaning of Christ’s death.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The teachings really weren’t what he was opposed to

Why do you think this? Luther explicitly stated the opposite. He thought that the “Papacy” and the “sophist” (i.e., scholastic) theologians had perverted the Gospel, and at times he traced the beginning of this error all the way back to the Church Fathers (though he also spoke admiringly of medieval figures such as Bernard and even John Gerson). He thought the main issue was doctrinal–how are human beings saved?

On the Catholic side, it seems to have been Luther’s teaching on the sacraments that was considered most radical. According to David Bagchi, Luther’s first opponents had trouble saying what was heretical about his teaching on faith, though they were worried that it might promote lax morality. Luther, however, was certain that the Church had gone badly astray on this point.

Edwin

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Contarini:

There is no general Protestant/Catholic disagreement on the Atonement. Classical Protestantism does insist on a strict penal substitution theory, if that is what you are thinking of. But first of all, some Catholics seem to have held something pretty close to that. And in the second place, the penal substitution theory strictly defined is clearly not the Gospel. It is a strange combination of aspects of Anselm’s satisfaction theory (which has been the traditional Catholic view, or an important pillar thereof, for centuries) with the older (and indisputably orthodox) view that Christ took upon Himself the punishment of our sins. Unfortunately, the penal substitution view combines these in such a way as to claim that God punished Christ in our place because God’s justice required Him to punish somebody, which is a problematic doctrine for a number of reasons (and completely distorts both Anselm and patristic atonement theology). And you are right, many Protestants do think this is the gospel. Again, they are wrong. Again, this is about mechanics rather than basic proclamation. It substitutes a speculative heavenly drama for the very real, concrete New Testament kerygma.

The traditional Catholic view is that Christ is a sin offering, and that Christ freely offered himself to the Father as propitiation for our sins. Christ did not vicariously suffer in man’s stead, but freely took upon himself suffering for man’s sake.

Classical Protestantism, on the other hand, emphasizes, as you mention, the penal substitution of Christ. But the key difference, in my opinion, is the perceived relationship between Christ and Sin. Unlike Catholicism, in which Christ is only a sin offering, in Classical Protestantism Christ becomes a personification of sin. Christ assumes not only the entire sin of the world, but the entire guilt that comes with this sin. He suffers, vicariously in man’s stead, the punishments due to this sin, even the punishment of the suffering of Hell. This atonement theory is much more conducive to the forensic imputation of righteousness.

I was thinking, however, especially of the difference between Catholics and Protestants on what happens to sin in the Atonement. Protestants tend to see all sin (past, present, and future) in one instant forgiven on the Cross. Insofar as I understand some Protestant views of justification, when one is justified (a one-time event), one is not only being forgiven of one’s past and present sins but all one’s future sins as well. (I’m personally still confused by the seeming Protestant paradox that all forgiveness was accomplished on the Cross and yet one still asks for forgiveness when one does wrong.) In Catholicism, on the other hand, justification is a process over time. Christ died once-and-for-all, but his death is rather seen as opening the way to the possibility of eternal salvation and not the ultimate (though certainly foundation) cause of salvation itself. Salvation, like justification, is a process over time and worked by the individual in cooperation with the Holy Spirit.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Contarini:

Furthermore–and this may be what you have in mind–many Protestants tie in sola fide directly to the Atonement, so that whatever doctrine concerning good works or Purgatory they may want to attack becomes a denial of the Atonement. The most extreme and consistent version of this is the insistence of some conservative Calvinists that only Limited Atonement does justice to the doctrine, since only if we say that Christ redeemed a certain number of specific individuals (who will infallibly be saved, they and no others) can we truly confess that Christ died for our sins.

I am convinced that none of these claims does justice to the Gospel, and if you are inclined to think that they do I’m happy to discuss the point with you.

Sola fide, yes–especially understood as forensic imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner.

I agree with you that limited Atonement does not do justice to the Gospel. If Christ truly desires that all man be saved, it would be against this will to only atone for the “elect” of mankind. I’m only a beginniner in my studies of Atonement theories. I would need to learn Hebrew and Greek (which I plan to, down the road) before I could make a fine judgment on whether or not certain of these atonement theories are in accordance with the Scriptures. For example, I’m very interested in the Hebrew understanding of Leviticus 16:21-22: “He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites—all their sins—and put them on the goat’s head. He shall send the goat away into the desert in the care of a man appointed for the task. The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place.” This passage (at least in the English translation) seems to indicate that sin is transfered to a living creature. In other passages, the priests lay their hands on the head of a sacrificial animal before killing it. Do these passages support the notion of Christ, as the Paschal Lamb, taking on himself personally, having transferred to himself, the sin of the world?

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Contarini:

Purgatory

Does this place really exist?

 

[mgrfin]

Thanks for stating a view of the Atonement that I would hope all Christians can agree on.

However, Anselm’s satisfaction theory certainly has been important in Catholicism, as have patristic ideas about Christ defeating death. But I agree–sacrifice is absolutely central to the meaning of Christ’s death.

Edwin

Edwin,

Does that mean my post deserves an “A”?

mgrfin

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Contarini:

On the Catholic side, it seems to have been Luther’s teaching on the sacraments that was considered most radical. According to David Bagchi, Luther’s first opponents had trouble saying what was heretical about his teaching on faith, though they were worried that it might promote lax morality. Luther, however, was certain that the Church had gone badly astray on this point.

Yes, especially his elimination of sacraments.

Then again, did the Church always believe that their were 7 sacraments? Seems to me that only at Trent were the 7 sacraments codified as the 7 sacraments (subsequently resulting in other so-called sacraments to henceforth be considered sacramentals).

 

[Madaglan]

I personally like the Ransom Theory. It’s kinda cool.

 

[Pophead]

Lots of confused ideas here. Of course we should be looking to Jesus Christ. But we should also look to the exemplary lives of individuals who have gone before us.

I guess if one does not abide by the rules of non-contradiction, then Jesus teaching on prayer is hollow… Our Saints, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name… I think I will stick to the original, though I still prefer, 'Gentle Peter, meek and mild…, no wait, any creed goes…Gentle Satan, wise as a serpent … no now I definitely have it all wrong… Our Father, that’s it.


Pophead.

 

[mgrfin]

I guess if one does not abide by the rules of non-contradiction, then Jesus teaching on prayer is hollow… Our Saints, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name… I think I will stick to the original, though I still prefer, 'Gentle Peter, meek and mild…, no wait, any creed goes…Gentle Satan, wise as a serpent … no now I definitely have it all wrong… Our Father, that’s it.


Pophead.

No, Pophead. Jesus taught us HOW to pray. Some of my prayers are to God the Father, (and “Through your Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, Amen.” at the end). Sometimes I pray to Jesus directly, and conclude, “Through the same Jesus Christ Our Lord, Amen”).
Some times I direct my prayers to Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and conclude, (Through your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen).
When I pray to the Holy Spirit, I end with "Through Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the unity with the same Holy Spirit.)
And when I pray to the Saints, I finish with "Through Our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen)

You see, if you check out our Missal, or any of our Prayer books, we do know how to pray, and all our prayers end with invoking the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

You are too hard on us, Pophead. Look to us for lessons how to pray. From the rising of the sun, to the setting thereof, His Church is constantly praying throughout the world, at every time and place, according to His commands to us. “Per eundem Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum.”

peace
mgrfin