Do you Admire Martin Luther?

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by MikeB:

Here is a man who may not have even known of the early Church Fathers. Who in many ways did not even have a strong foundation in his own faith and had to form his own religion to find that foundation to give him some assurance of salvation.

Luther certainly knew of the Fathers. To which extent and which Fathers, I do not know. I know he quotes from Augustine, as well as Chrysostom. Many of the Church Fathers (especially certain Eastern Fathers) were only recently being re-discovered in the West, and so if Luther does not evince great knowledge of, say, St. Basil the Great, it cannot be ascribed to him as a personal fault.

Luther did indeed desire to find some assurance of salvation, of being justified. But the question I often wonder: why was Luther so troubled, so much in religious turmoil, in fear of not being holy enough in the avoidance of sin, purification of the faculties and doing works of charity?

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by MikeB:

Here is a man who thought that he was still a part of the Catholic Church and working to reform it. A man who probably had a confessor to his death bed but felt that the lay person didn’t need one. Who thought that his internal stomach problems were the result of demonic possession and not anything to do with his 350 lbs of weight.

Luther highly recommended the confession of sins. In the Book of Concord there even is a formula written by Luther for the confession of sin before one’s pastor.

A man who had such varying opinions that the vast majority of his writings have never been translated from the original old German. This is a question that no Lutheran wants to address.

I know that Luther wrote many, many works. I’ve too heard that Luther had such varying opinions. I do not know. But it seems to me, so did Augustine. I mean, what’s with Augustine with his Retractions concerning Peter as Rock.

Finally, each and every Christian needs to listen and discern among 3 voices in their head. There is the voice of God, our own voice and the voice of satan. God’s voice preaches to us of unity - “I pray that they are one as we are one” - our voice speaks of vanity - “Oh vanity of vanities”- and satan speaks of division and discord.

Did Luther listen to God?

Well, he certainly thought he was following God’s Word!

I can’t jump into his head though.

 

[mgrfin]

Luther certainly knew of the Fathers. To which extent and which Fathers, I do not know. I know he quotes from Augustine, as well as Chrysostom. Many of the Church Fathers (especially certain Eastern Fathers) were only recently being re-discovered in the West, and so if Luther does not evince great knowledge of, say, St. Basil the Great, it cannot be ascribed to him as a personal fault.

Luther did indeed desire to find some assurance of salvation, of being justified. But the question I often wonder: why was Luther so troubled, so much in religious turmoil, in fear of not being holy enough in the avoidance of sin, purification of the faculties and doing works of charity?

It’s amazing that some Protestant historians tell us that Luther discovered parts of the bible hidden away in the Monastery, but yet, he was so well read in the Fathers, like Basil and Chrysostom? In this little town of Wittenberg?

Boy, they sure think we are gullible. Luther was in an Augustinian monastery, so they had some of the works of St. Augustine. But this was before the printing presses were going to work. In 1517 there was still little market for reproducing the works of the early Fathers.

I don’t think Luther had the availability of all the early Fathers, and St. Thomas Aquinas, and even Augustine.

They want us to think Martin was so learned and so well read. That’s a little hard to take, in 1517. And that he was an accomplished theologian?

Look at the availability we have today with vast libraries, book stores, Amazon.com, fabulous schools, colleges, and universities, and the Internet - how long does it take to be accomplished in anything? Years and years.

Caejetan took him to the woodshed, and Luther never forgave him or forgot it. He wasn’t that learned, or that smart. He was bombastic, and put down anyone who opposed him.

 

[St_Violet]

so can someone that does admire Luther please explain what he has accomplished besides confusion, disagreements division among christianity, his support for the noblility during the peasant war and his influence on Hitler toward the Jews:shrug:

 

[Contarini]

I thought it was divorce?

The word divorce was used, but in terms of the modern distinction between divorce and annulment, it was definitely annulment.

Henry’s marriage to Catherine had had an impediment owing to the fact that she’d been married to his (deceased) brother. The Pope had dispensed him from this and Henry wanted the Pope to reverse the dispensation, essentially, and declare that the marriage hadn’t been valid after all. (One of the issues was whether Catherine’s marriage to Henry’s brother had been consummated or not–Catherine had sworn that it wasn’t, but Henry argued that it had been and therefore the whole question should be reopened.) Since the Pope was reluctant to do this, Henry and his court began building a case for getting a divorce/annulment without the Pope’s permission.
The basic argument was that incest (of course, this assumes that marrying the widow of a deceased sibling is incest) is contrary to divine law and the Pope can’t dispense from divine law. It was a lot more complicated than that, and if the poster called “GKC” is in the mood he’ll fill you in. (We are a tag team on this issue–I give the rough and ready sketch and he corrects me.)

and plus didn’t King Henry kill his first wife because she couldn’t give him a son.

No. Catherine was not killed.

but even if the situation was about Henry getting an annulment, the Catholic Church doesn’t just give out annulments freely.

I know that. I am not saying that they should have given him one, just clarifying that the indissolubility of marriage was not the point at issue. The question was basically one of authority–who gets to decide whether the king’s marriage was valid or not? Henry’s solution was the worst one possible, morally and theologically, because he essentially became judge in his own cause.

I also learned he killed his mistress because she as well couldn’t give birth to a son.

Not exactly. Anne Boleyn, whom he married after finally getting his divorce/annulment from Catherine, was executed adultery, witchcraft, incest and treason (adultery was considered treason if you were the monarch’s spouse; one of her lovers was allegedly her own brother; and I frankly don’t know where the witchcraft charge came from). Her failure to provide him with a son may have disposed him to cook up some an excuse for getting rid of her (whether any of the charges were true I don’t know). Catherine Howard, his fifth wife, was also executed for adultery–in that case the accusation was brought by a Protestant who feared the influence of Catherine and her devoutly Catholic family on Henry (though I believe that she had definitely had some kind of extramarital relationship).

Also do the Anglican Church permit female and homosexuals to be ordained ?

The Church of England and many parts of the Anglican Communion, including the Episcopal Church, ordain women to the priesthood, and some provinces (including the Episcopal Church but not as yet the Church of England) have female bishops. In most of the Anglican Communion, homosexual activity is considered sinful, making active homosexuals unfit for ordination. However, it’s an open secret that in the West (Britain, North America, etc.), noncelibate are frequently ordained. Of course, this has almost certainly happened throughout the Church’s history–most sinful behaviors have been practiced by ordained people at some point! So it’s hard to point to the exact moment when lax discipline or economia becomes a change in moral teaching. For many Anglicans, the decisive moment was the election of Gene Robinson (a divorced man who is in a homosexual relationship, and divorced his wife in order to live openly as a gay man, although not, as many people report, in order to engage in any particular sexual relationship) as the bishop of New Hampshire in the Episcopal Church in 2003. The repercussions of this have not yet fully been seen, but we are definitely looking at a schism in North America, I think, and maybe throughout the Anglican Communion. Where Canterbury is going to come down is still in doubt. The current Archbishop, Rowan Williams, speculated before becoming archbishop that the Church might be able to bless gay unions. But he has put these speculations on hold as archbishop and announced his intention to uphold the teaching of the Anglican Communion (and the Universal Church) as a whole rather than his own opinions. Whether he’ll go so far as to break communion with the Episcopal Church is another matter.

I should add (GKC will if I don’t!) that there are not only provinces of the Anglican Communion that do not ordain women, but also churches of the Anglican tradition that split from the Episcopal Church and other provinces of the Communion in order to uphold a more traditional liturgy and the male-only priesthood.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

some Protestant historians tell us that Luther discovered parts of the bible hidden away in the Monastery,

These Protestant historians accept Luther’s hyperbolic reminiscences uncritically. This is one of my big criticisms of Martin Brecht’s magisterial three-volume biography.

but yet, he was so well read in the Fathers, like Basil and Chrysostom?

I don’t think Luther was extremely well read in the Fathers–not like some of his contemporaries. I do not know off hand just how much we know about what he read (lots of Augustine, obviously), but I’m pretty sure he had read a good deal of Chrysostom. Basil I am not so sure about.

In this little town of Wittenberg?

It was a university town (albeit only of recent origin) and the university was the pride and joy of one of the seven Electors of the Empire. It was not a backwater, although it wasn’t a long-established intellectual center like Paris or Cologne or even Erfurt or Tubingen or Heidelberg. Furthermore, just before the whole 95 Theses business the university underwent a curricular reform along the lines of humanism, which included more emphasis on the Fathers.

. But this was before the printing presses were going to work. In 1517 there was still little market for reproducing the works of the early Fathers.

No, you are wrong. In intellectual circles there was a huge interest in the Fathers precisely at this point. You are right that by 1517 there was a lot that had not yet been printed–Erasmus was just getting started, producing his edition of Jerome at that time and many other patristic editions later. But Erasmus wasn’t the only one.

I do know the list of books owned in 1518 by Martin Bucer, and they included at least one volume of the Fathers (including a work attributed to St. Gregory of Nyssa, though not actually by him, I think), even though Bucer was not that interested in the Fathers at that point.

Furthermore, even though the Reformers were very busy, they generally kept up with their reading (though one has to wonder how carefully they read). Luther would have had access to later patristic editions as they came off the press. He wasn’t the most patristically learned of the Reformers (Bucer became one of the most impressive, in spite of his slow start–Calvin was also way ahead of Luther in that respect, and Zwingli was always steeped in the Fathers; among the Lutherans I think Melanchthon would have been way ahead of Luther as well), but he wasn’t an ignoramus. Still, I think he mostly knew the Latins.

I don’t think Luther had the availability of all the early Fathers, and St. Thomas Aquinas, and even Augustine.

He was pretty well acquainted with Augustine, though I’m sure he hadn’t read everything Augustine wrote (few people have, even today). And there is no clear evidence that he ever read Aquinas. People who were not Dominicans frequently didn’t–Aquinas was not the universal authority in Catholicism he later became. (In fact, one of my professors in grad school–a Catholic priest if that means anything–told me that even German Dominicans often read Albert the Great instead of Thomas. The above-mentioned book list proves that Martin Bucer, on whom I wrote my dissertation, did own parts of the Summa with Cajetan’s commentary, so I was able to get past that objection!)

[QUOTEThey want us to think Martin was so learned and so well read.
[/quote]

Who wants you to think this? The only person I’ve seen making this claim on this forum was Ani Ibi, who did it in order ot discredit Luther. It seems to me that you guys really don’t care what you say or how far-fetched it is, as long as it will discredit Luther.

That’s a little hard to take, in 1517.

Why? Are you saying that before the modern era no one was well-read? What about Aquinas, who had far less access to printed sources than Luther (that would be zero!)? Do you really want to go there? This is “chronological snobbery” and nothing more.

And that he was an accomplished theologian?

Again, are you saying that there were no accomplished theologians before the glorious Dawn of Modernity? Your argument makes no sense at all.

how long does it take to be accomplished in anything? Years and years.

And Luther took years and years. They didn’t give out doctorates in theology like popcorn in those days.

Caejetan took him to the woodshed .

What were Cajetan’s arguments? From the accounts I’ve read, Cajetan simply cited papal authority. What makes you think Cajetan “took him to the woodshed” in terms of scholarship or logic, other than your understandable prejudice in Cajetan’s favor?
I actually think that Cajetan probably could have trounced Luther if he’d engaged in real debate with him on the issues. But at least based on Luther’s account, that’s not what he did.

Edwin

 

[Image_of_God]

I do in fact admire Martin Luther and I’m Catholic. The courage he had to challenge a corrupt Church is a unique. But, I don’t admire how he “reformed” the Church. Reformation is supposed to help keep people inside the Church, not take them out of it. Reformation also means helping reestablish original Church teachings, not attacking them. In my opinion, there could have been other ways to reform the Church. St. Francis had one way, St. Catherine of Siena another.

 

[fatima1917]

Which one of these beliefs of Luther could I admire him for?

Luther teaches: “If Moses should attempt to intimidate you with his stupid Ten Commandments, tell him right out – chase yourself to the Jews”[3]

“It is more important to guard against good works than against sin.”[22]

[27]: “Peasants are no better than straw. They will not hear the word and they are without sense; therefore they must be compelled to hear the crack of the whip and the whiz of bullets and it is only what they deserve.” [28]

“To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Let there be no half measures! Crush them! Cut their throats! Transfix them. Leave no stone unturned! To kill a peasant is to destroy a mad dog!” – “If they say that I am very hard and merciless, mercy be damned. Let whoever can stab, strangle, and kill them like mad dogs”[29]

“God has given the law, and nobody observes it. He has in addition instituted rod masters, drivers and urgers; so then are rulers to drive, beat, choke, hang, burn, behead, and break upon the well of the vulgar masses.”[31]

“If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang a stone round his neck and push him over with the words I baptize thee in the name of Abraham”[36]

“If the husband is unwilling, there is another who is; if the wife is unwilling, then let the maid come.”[39]

“The word and work of God is quite clear, viz., that women are made to be either wives or prostitutes.”[44]

“I look upon God no better than a scoundrel”[50]

“We eat and drink to kill ourselves, we eat and rink up to our last farthing.”[52]

“St. Augustine or St. Ambrosius cannot be compared with me.”[54]

“What I teach and write remains true even though the whole world should fall to pieces over it”[55]

"Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tell’s us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.”[57]

“I have greater confidence in my wife and my pupils than I have in Christ”[58]

“If your Papist annoys you with the word (‘alone’ - Rom. 3:28), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and *** are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.”[62]

“The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible.”[63]

“The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish foolishness.”[64]

“…the epistle of St. James is an epistle full of straw, because it contains nothing evangelical.”[66]

N.B. Erlangen and Weimar refer to the different editions of Luther’s works.

[3] Lecture at Wittenburg

[22] Trischreden, Wittenberg Edition, Vol. VI., p. 160

[27] It is important to keep in mind that these peasants were actually Protestants who favored Luther and his views, yet in order to please the German princes Luther and gain influence Luther did not hesitate to have even his own followers put to death! As one writer put it “I know of no example in history ( with the exception of Hitler’s famous, or rather infamous, June 30, 1934) where a man turned in such an inhuman, brutal, low way against his own followers – merely in order to establish his own position, without any reason.” – Peter F. Winer, Martin Luther, Hitler’s Spiritual Ancestor, Pg. 57

[28] Erlangen Vol 24, Pg. 294

[29] Erlangen Vol 24, Pg. 294

[31] Sermon delivered by Luther in 1526. Ref. Erlanger, Vol. XV, 2p. 276

[36] Grisar, “Luther”, Vol. V. pg. 413.

[39] Of Married Life

[44] On Married Life

[50] Weimar, Vol. 1, Pg. 487. Cf. Table Talk, No. 963

[52] Weimar, Vo. 9. pg. 215. We can also note on this point that the opinion of Luther’s contemporaries on the subject is unmistakable. They all agree that Luther “was addicted to over-drinking.” - Th. Brieger: “Aleander and Luther”, pg. 170, 307.

[54] Erlangen, Vol. 61, pg. 422.

[55] Weimar, Vol. 18, Pg. 401.

[57] Trishreden, Weimer Edition, Vol. 2, Pg. 107. - What a great blasphemy from a man who is regarded as “great reformer”!

[58] Table Talk, 2397b

[62] Amic. Discussion, 1, 127,‘The Facts About Luther,’ O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 201.

[63] 'The Facts About Luther, O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 202.

[64] Ibid.

[66] ‘Preface to the New Testament,’ ed. Dillenberger, p. 19.

 

[revmarty]

These kinds of topics are difficult because we don’t want to be uncharitable and at the same time we don’t want to shrink back from truth. Some times turth is blunt and can seem harsh or hard.

I do not admire Martin Luther at all. He broke his solemn promises he made before God. He forsake his priesthood. He left Christ’s Church. He took for a wife a woman that was a consecrated religious, thus becoming party to her breaking her solemn promises before God and making her an adulterer before Jesus Christ her bride. In his insolence he then became the attacker of the Church he left. As more and more splintering groups formed he then called those various groups heretics and worked to silence them (most notably Zwingli and his arguments about Holy Communion). I agree with flyersfan1088 that next to Arius, Martin Luther stands as rather notorious.

Firstly it is a bit rich to be attacking Martin Luther for leaving the C.C and taking a wife, the whole concept of the Priest being forbidden to marry was a C.C. idea, if you consider most cults, they attempt to control their people in various ways and a very typical cultic practice is to control the sexual desires and activity’s of their members, this idea of no marriage is not supported by the scriptures or the apostles own lives.

the truth about Martin luther is he had the courage to stand up for the truth in a time when the truth was concealed and controlled, Martin luther simply read the Words of God in scripture and new something was wrong in denmark?
you see being one as The church of Jesus the Christ is more than conforming to an organized religious groups piont of view.

Have you ever considered why the C.C say’s that scripture is not to be able to stand as it’s own witness? well scripture contradicts Catholic teaching, so just like a criminal would silence a witness to his crime, so the C.C silences the voice of the Prophets, Apostles, Jesus and Holy Spirit. Shame on them.

I do want to finish up by saying that my ideas and feelings towards C.C do not and cannot adversely affect my feelings towards people that identify themselves as Catholics who seek the face of God in Christ. I think that is an important distinction to make

 

[revmarty]

Which one of these beliefs of Luther could I admire him for?

put it in context friend, that makes all the difference, or perhaps we should list quotes of former and current popes and priest of the C.C
on Women,
Christians outside of the C.C,
on the devinity of Jesus,
on Child Sexual Abuse

where do we start my friend?

When your house is made of Glass as the C.C is, don’t throw stones.

 

[Image_of_God]

Firstly it is a bit rich to be attacking Martin Luther for leaving the C.C and taking a wife, the whole concept of the Priest being forbidden to marry was a C.C. idea, if you consider most cults, they attempt to control their people in various ways and a very typical cultic practice is to control the sexual desires and activity’s of their members, this idea of no marriage is not supported by the scriptures or the apostles own lives.

the truth about Martin luther is he had the courage to stand up for the truth in a time when the truth was concealed and controlled, Martin luther simply read the Words of God in scripture and new something was wrong in denmark?
you see being one as The church of Jesus the Christ is more than conforming to an organized religious groups piont of view.

Have you ever considered why the C.C say’s that scripture is not to be able to stand as it’s own witness? well scripture contradicts Catholic teaching, so just like a criminal would silence a witness to his crime, so the C.C silences the voice of the Prophets, Apostles, Jesus and Holy Spirit. Shame on them.

I do want to finish up by saying that my ideas and feelings towards C.C do not and cannot adversely affect my feelings towards people that identify themselves as Catholics who seek the face of God in Christ. I think that is an important distinction to make

Celibacy is not neccesarily a Catholic idea. The 12 Apostles forsook marriage for the sake of service just as priests do today. It is nothing new.

And to add to your point of scripture, the Apostles taught without Scripture basing what they taught on what they heard from Christ. There was no such thing as the New Testament while they were alive. That is why the refusal to believe in Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium confuses me. For over 300 years after the Ascension of Christ, there was no NT, just the OT.

 

[mgrfin]

Edwin,

You take exception to everything I’ve said, but then you essentially agree with me, just shaving a little off the top each time.

Who is playing at intellectual snobbery and one-up-manship?

My education, degrees and life’s work have been in the field of finance, not religion.

But, when it comes to religion, I have my strenghts and my weaknesses. I have to admit one of my weaknesses: I dispise Martin Luther. Mostly, for what he had done to us.

Luther had the advantage of getting the ‘drop’ on the Church; Trent and the Jesuits got things aright.

The best way to handle this was to leave the Protestants alone. They would propagate new sect after new sect, which they have done. How many hundreds of ‘christian’ beliefs are we up to now? Every shade of grey is now available in a multitude of forms of Christianity, from Seventh Day Adventists awaiting the Millenium and selective salvation, to high church Anglicans, catering to homosexual unions, female and/or obvertly gay ‘priests’, and divorce.

Jesus didn’t will this to happen. He prayed that we all might be one. We did it to ourselves. That oneness is not going to happen by an occasional breast-stroker making it across the Tiber. Christ’s Church, the Catholic Church, needs whole churches to come back: The Finnish Lutherans, the Anglo-Saxon protestants, the Dutch-Reformed Church, etc.

We pray for that to happen.

mgrfin

 

[Ellen_G]

I guess that I would have to say yes and no to whether I admire Luther – yes in that he attempted to reform abuses in the church–no in that he made himself the authority of the church. Luther also was to have said that the church was a hard one to live in but ever so wonderful a place to die in. We do have the Lord in the Eucharist with us always and so many of us just don’t see Him. It saddens me to see people living such shallow values in our society. In my retirement community, people wouldn’t miss their card game or golf outing but Eucharistic adoration is so poorly attended. We are denying our mortality and are blind to what is happening all around us. We have the Sacraments to nourish our faith but we don’t see the importance of these beautiful graces in our life. Our time is running out. Lastly on Luther, it was said that even though he was very austere in his life style, that he had a crucifix and a life size picture of our Blessed Mother in his library. We need to listen to what our mother is saying to us. The signs are all around us. Ad Jesum per Maria.

 

[RevDrNorth]

I guess that I would have to say yes and no to whether I admire Luther – yes in that he attempted to reform abuses in the church–no in that he made himself the authority of the church. Luther also was to have said that the church was a hard one to live in but ever so wonderful a place to die in. We do have the Lord in the Eucharist with us always and so many of us just don’t see Him. It saddens me to see people living such shallow values in our society. In my retirement community, people wouldn’t miss their card game or golf outing but Eucharistic adoration is so poorly attended. We are denying our mortality and are blind to what is happening all around us. We have the Sacraments to nourish our faith but we don’t see the importance of these beautiful graces in our life. Our time is running out. Lastly on Luther, it was said that even though he was very austere in his life style, that he had a crucifix and a life size picture of our Blessed Mother in his library. We need to listen to what our mother is saying to us. The signs are all around us. Ad Jesum per Maria.

He is a typical mixed bag. In short a human being. I am always kind of amused when I see people attack Morther Teresa for shortcomings. She may be a Saint but no one said she is perfect. Same thing for Archbishop Sheen. Great spiritual educator (etc)…but someone said he was a lousy manager (his nemesis was far better at that).

Same with Dr. Luther. Luther did much to reform a bad situation in the Catholic Church that was spiraling out of control. However, from what I read he was short tempered, crude, and had an obsession with his bowels.

John Calvin was brilliant and did much for Geneva in terms of the city developing some of the first safety and sanitation codes, and as I understand it Calvinism was responsible for the push for education of children (to read scripture). However, he turned Geneva into a Theocracy.

Many Popes have been very sinful and the church did much to apologize for (as Pope JPII began to do).

Only our Lord was perfect.

Rev North

 

[revmarty]

Edwin,

You take exception to everything I’ve said, but then you essentially agree with me, just shaving a little off the top each time.

I have friends who are of the Catholic faith, one who is a local Priest and we have great relationships, the Church can be one with out all submitting to your idea of the Church after all it is only your idea?

Jesus prayed in John “that they would be one as you and I (the Son and the Father) are one” this had nothing to do with denominational ties, it had more to do with a right relationship.

By the way did you no there are more sects within the C.C Than most none Catholic churches?

 

[mgrfin]

Only our Lord was perfect.

Rev North

Not so. The Virgin Mary was perfect. That is doctrine of the Chruch, ‘defidedefinita’.

By her Immaculate Conception we believe that the Virgin Mary born free from the stain of Original Sin, and “when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully comformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death”.
"LUMEN GENTIUM’. and MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS

 

[mgrfin]

By the way did you no there are more sects within the C.C Than most none Catholic churches?

No, I did know there were any sects within the Catholic Church. And the reason I didn’t know is because there are none.

mgrfin

 

[RevDrNorth]

Not so. The Virgin Mary was perfect. That is doctrine of the Chruch, ‘defidedefinita’.

By her Immaculate Conception we believe that the Virgin Mary born free from the stain of Original Sin, and “when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully comformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death”.
"LUMEN GENTIUM’. and MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS

Thank you for shairng that. I knew about the Immaculate Conception as preparation for the vessel to receive our Lord but did not know the Roman Catholic doctrine had extended that to state that Mary remained sinless her whole life. Very interesting.

Rev North

 

[jburgherr]

Thank you for shairng that. I knew about the Immaculate Conception as preparation for the vessel to receive our Lord but did not know the Roman Catholic doctrine had extended that to state that Mary remained sinless her whole life. Very interesting.

Rev North

Rev North, if you want a very intelectual and biblical reasoning behind the Catholic Church’s teachings on the sinless life of Mary, look for a book called “Hail, Holy Queen”. It is written by Dr. Scott Hahn, a once evangelical pastor now convert to Catholocism. It is an excellant read.

 

[mgrfin]

Thank you for shairng that. I knew about the Immaculate Conception as preparation for the vessel to receive our Lord but did not know the Roman Catholic doctrine had extended that to state that Mary remained sinless her whole life. Very interesting.

Rev North

I apologize. I didn’t state the doctrine totally correct.
The Immaculate Conception. the dogma says that the Virgin Mother of God, from the first moment of her existence (NOT JUST FROM HER BIRTH) was free from original sin, and throughout her whole life any sin did not touch her, living her life completely free from sin.

The feast of the Immaculate Conception, celebrated on December 8, was established in 1476 by Pope Sixtus IV.

The Immaculate Conception was solemnly defined as a dogma by Pope Pius IX in his constitution Ineffabilis Deus, on December 8, 1854.

I feel a little better now.
mgrfin