Do you Admire Martin Luther?

[revmarty]

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.

The Bible nowhere describes Mary as anything but an ordinary human female whom God chose to be the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ. Mary was undoubtedly a godly woman (Luke 1:28). Mary was surely a wonderful wife and mother. Jesus definitely loved and cherished His mother (John 19:27). **The Bible gives us no reason to believe that Mary was sinless. **In fact, the Bible gives us every reason to believe that **Jesus Christ is the only Person who was not “infected” by sin and never committed a sin **

 

[Contarini]

quote=mgrfin;2558069]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.

This “little” is the difference between truth and falsehood. I’m sorry that difference means so little to you.

playing at intellectual snobbery and one-up-manship?

Certainly not I. What looks like a “little off the top” to you is flat-out misrepresentation to me. Instead of trying to insult me for pointing out the truth, you would do better either to refute what I am saying or humbly admit that you have gone over the top in your hatred of Luther.

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

And if you demanded accurate and honest accounting from your business partners, would you be guilty of “snobbery and oneupmanship”? Would it be OK that they cheated you of a few hundred here and a few hundred there, because they weren’t raking in millions?

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.

I’m glad you admit it is a weakness. Now you can start working on it!

It really is a serious weakness. It blinds you to truth and fairness. It doesn’t help the cause of Catholicism at all.

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.

That’s very interesting. Because if you are serious about what you just said, then you need to get behind me and stop this Luther-trashing. I’m completely with you on this one. But the only way we can have corporate reunion is if we stop the violent, bitter, bigoted attacks on each other’s heritage. Even where there are legitimate grievances, we need to be gentle in voicing them. Even when we think the other side has done horrible things, we need to draw a veil of charity. I am not talking about compromising on the truth. I’m talking about not trying to prove that, in this case, Luther was a bad person. You will never get corporate reunion that way. No one asks you to like him or venerate him as a saint. But as long as you jump on this bandwagon of exaggerating his faults and blaming him personally for all the tragedies of the past 500 years, you will simply antagonize Protestants of good will.

You are obligated to think as charitably as possible of all your fellow mortals, living and dead, no matter what the circumstances. But the agenda you have just described requires you to be extra careful with regard to people who, rightly or wrongly, are respected on the “other side of the aisle.”

I have all sorts of problems with Luther. I don’t regard him as a saint or a hero, and I think his theology is, on the whole, far inferior to that of someone like St. Thomas Aquinas. I think he has done immense harm to the Christian Church. But I’m a historian–it’s my job to understand him, not condemn him. This is also a good strategy to follow if you are serious about reconciliation with Protestants.

IN Christ,

Edwin

 

[RevDrNorth]

The Bible nowhere describes Mary as anything but an ordinary human female whom God chose to be the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ. Mary was undoubtedly a godly woman (Luke 1:28). Mary was surely a wonderful wife and mother. Jesus definitely loved and cherished His mother (John 19:27). **The Bible gives us no reason to believe that Mary was sinless. **In fact, the Bible gives us every reason to believe that **Jesus Christ is the only Person who was not “infected” by sin and never committed a sin **

I hate to say it folks but I agree. There is no scriptural warrant for suggesting Mary was without sin. In fact there are verses to suggest only Jesus Christ was without sin.

 

[mgrfin]

The Bible nowhere describes Mary as anything but an ordinary human female whom God chose to be the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ. Mary was undoubtedly a godly woman (Luke 1:28). Mary was surely a wonderful wife and mother. Jesus definitely loved and cherished His mother (John 19:27). **The Bible gives us no reason to believe that Mary was sinless. **In fact, the Bible gives us every reason to believe that **Jesus Christ is the only Person who was not “infected” by sin and never committed a sin **

We always seem to be playing by Luther’s and Calvin’s game:
Sola Scriptura.

Before these Catholics arrived on the scene we also had a tradition - which was not tribual myths handed down from around the camp site. It was the teaching Magisterium of the Church.

Scriptually, however, I’m okay on it too

Luke 1: 28-30 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women. Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God
Luke 1:42 And she (Elizabeth) cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

I don’t believe Luther ever attacked the doctrine of the Church on the Virgin Mary. Maybe it was only saving grace.
mgrfin

 

[RevDrNorth]

We always seem to be playing by Luther’s and Calvin’s game:
Sola Scriptura.

Before these Catholics arrived on the scene we also had a tradition - which was not tribual myths handed down from around the camp site. It was the teaching Magisterium of the Church.

Scriptually, however, I’m okay on it too

Luke 1: 28-30 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women. Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God
Luke 1:42 And she (Elizabeth) cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

I don’t believe Luther ever attacked the doctrine of the Church on the Virgin Mary. Maybe it was only saving grace.
mgrfin

Ummmm…I hate to tell you but none of that even implies she remained sinless. There are many scriptures pointing to the fact that everyone has sinned and that ONLY Christ was sinless.

Sorry…

What I seem to be getting is that the Bible is not really reliable and that is where the Magisterium comes in because it can go against scripture to teach other things (not merely expound on them). In fact. the Magisterium is MORE important than what the whole of the Bible says on a given topic. I imagine there are no Systematic Theology classes in Roman Catholic Seminaries?

Rev North

 

[Mangy_Donkey]

Luke 1: 28-30 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women.

 

[revmarty]

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

Sorry there are none because when they disagree or alter there teaching to be more inline with scripture they are excomincated?
refer to:
Like Fr. Cachia the Servant Catholic Church.

The Vatican is excommunicating two bishops who were illegally ordained by China’s breakaway Catholic Church.
Pope Benedict XVI expressed his “deep displeasure” over the appointments.

 

[revmarty]

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

who cares about Doctrine, it is not the truth,
Just because a child believes in the easter Bunny or Santa Claus that does make it factual or real, and the wishful fairytale concocted by the C.C is not fact but fiction.

 

[mgrfin]

Ummmm…I hate to tell you but none of that even implies she remained sinless. There are many scriptures pointing to the fact that everyone has sinned and that ONLY Christ was sinless.

Sorry…

What I seem to be getting is that the Bible is not really reliable and that is where the Magisterium comes in because it can go against scripture to teach other things (not merely expound on them). In fact. the Magisterium is MORE important than what the whole of the Bible says on a given topic. I imagine there are no Systematic Theology classes in Roman Catholic Seminaries?

Rev North

Okay, we’ll play by Luther rules:
Where does it say in Scripture that there is Sola Scriptura?

Where does it say in Scripture that Jesus was the only One who was sinless.

mgrfin

 

[mgrfin]

who cares about Doctrine, it is not the truth,
Just because a child believes in the easter Bunny or Santa Claus that does make it factual or real, and the wishful fairytale concocted by the C.C is not fact but fiction.

So you are treating 2000 years of belief in the Virgin Mother of God in the Catholic Church as you would the easter Bunny or Santa Claus?

Sounds like another Lutheran blasphemy.
mgrfin

 

[revmarty]

Okay, we’ll play by Luther rules:

Where does it say in Scripture that there is Sola Scriptura?

1 John 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew not sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

we know who this is referring to because “Romans all have sinned and fall short of Gods Glory”
and if anyone else were sinless we would read these scriptures a lot differently.

I can’t believe this is a serious question???

Wow

 

[revmarty]

So you are treating 2000 years of belief in the Virgin Mother of God in the Catholic Church as you would the easter Bunny or Santa Claus?

Sounds like another Lutheran blasphemy.
mgrfin

2000 years! this a relativly new concept, do your homework,read the canons of the C.C this is another one that the story teller dept of the C.C came up with. You see when using Human emotion they the C.C couldn’t believe Jesus would allow his mother, who was a virgin but not born of a virgin herself, to die and deteriorate like you and I will.

It is just fiction, yes like the Easter Bunny.

 

[mgrfin]

1 John 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew not sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

we know who this is referring to because “Romans all have sinned and fall short of Gods Glory”
and if anyone else were sinless we would read these scriptures a lot differently.

I can’t believe this is a serious question???

Wow

Wow?
Wasn’t it you who compared the BVM to the easter bunny and santa claus. I’m the one who has the right to say “Wow”.

Don’t forget this is Luther rules.

I know Jesus was sinless; I don’t need a scripture quote to tell me that. I asked for a quote that only Jesus was sinless.
According to what you have given me, Moses could have been sinless, and Isaiah the Prophet. I want the quotes telling me that only Jesus is sinless.

And, Luther rules.
Give my your SS quotes proving that Sola Scriptura wins the day.

Take what ever time you need.
mgrfin

 

[revmarty]

Wow?

Wasn’t it you who compared the BVM to the easter bunny and santa claus. I’m the one who has the right to say “Wow”.

No time need, Romans 3:23 All, THAT IS, ALL, AND AGAIN FOR THE DUMMIES ALL, ALL, ALL, ALL, have sinned and fallen short.

does not get any more simple…

 

[mgrfin]

REVMARTY

Instead of being responsive, you continue to bad-mouth the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Yes, Mary was her name. And the Angel called her Blessed, as did her cousin Elizabeth, and Mary “said to Elizabeth that from henceforth all nations shall call me Blessed”; and she fulfilled the prophesy that a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son… So, BVM is what we call her according to the Scriptures. The Scriptures work for me, but apparently not for you.

Instead of making fun of Mary, remember this is a Catholic site, and we are all visitors here, so we should not be rude…

I am awaiting your Scripture quotes:

Don’t forget this is Luther rules.

I know Jesus was sinless; I don’t need a scripture quote to tell me that. I asked for a quote that only Jesus was sinless.
According to what you have given me, Moses could have been sinless, and Isaiah the Prophet. I want the quotes telling me that only Jesus is sinless.

And, Luther rules.
Give my your SS quotes proving that Sola Scriptura wins the day.

Take what ever time you need. I am still waiting.
mgrfin

 

[revmarty]

REVMARTY

Instead of being responsive, you continue to bad-mouth the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Sola Scriptura is catholic term and therfore will not be in scripture… as per usual

 

[mgrfin]

Sola Scriptura is catholic term and therfore will not be in scripture… as per usual

Well, Sola Scriptura is not a Catholic term. The Church grouped Scripture and Tradition together.

It was Luther who said he would not accept anything that was not explicitly in the Scriptures. SOLA SCRIPTURA comes from him.

He would not accept the teachings found in the Councils, for example, the Council of Nicea, which contains the CREDO. You say the doctrines, dogmas contained in such creed are mythys.

It was Luther and Calvin who set the new rules: what I call Luther rules.

So, you need to back up everything with proofs from Scriptures. I have given you quotes from St. Luke’s Gospel honoring the Blessed Virgin Mary, and why we call her by that title.

Since Luther rules mean so much to you, I have to know where it comes from. It came from Fr. Martin.

To be fair to the rest of us, I am interested in the quotes from Scripture setting up his rules for the new religion.

You have not come up with any quotes. You just hem and haw. Have no fear. Noone else has ever come up with any such scripture quotes either. There is no basis or foundation for the religion he founded on Sola Scriptura.

Neither can you show from Scripture that only Jesus was sinless.

She is the sinless Mother of God, and was honored by saints, scholars, Councils of the Church, and ordinary people from the earliest times. She commands our respect, love and admiration.

Blasphemy from anyone is not allowed.
mgrfin

 

[shadow_fire]

As an Atheist I have to say no.

He basically complained about the Catholic faith (which he was mainly correct on) but THEN he goes and makes a new Religion that ends up doing one of the things he complained about right when the protestant faith became large (having overly extravagant churches)

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Contarini:

I have all sorts of problems with Luther. I don’t regard him as a saint or a hero, and I think his theology is, on the whole, far inferior to that of someone like St. Thomas Aquinas. I think he has done immense harm to the Christian Church. But I’m a historian–it’s my job to understand him, not condemn him. This is also a good strategy to follow if you are serious about reconciliation with Protestants.

Thank you again for your well-thought opinions. I enjoy reading and learning from them. In my opinion, it is difficult to compare St. Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther. They lived at different periods spanned by the Conciliar debates, the Avignon Papacy, the Great Western Schism, the Renaissance, etc. St. Thomas Aquinas was a scholastic (*par excellence *at that); he was moreover what we today would consider systematic. He revered Scripture and used it as authority in his arguments. He also placed a high estimation on human reason in leading one towards Christian belief.

Martin Luther, in my experience of him through is writings, strikes me as much more un-systematic than St. Thomas Aquinas. The tone of his writings play much more on the pathos of the reader than do the writings of Aquinas. Unlike St. Thomas Aqunias, he held that human nature is completely corrupted, and therefore that human reason too is tragically affected. He seems to have been more of the Tertullian camp when it came to philosophy: having a distrust in its value in coming to Truth.

I’m not sure if I completely agree with Luther. I admire him, yes, but he may have gone too far on some points. One thing I will mention, however: much of what he wrote was either addressed by the Roman Catholic Church then (and at Trent) or subsequently added (or rahter, given a catholic emphasis), most recently at Vatican II. Communion under both kinds, the idea of a Universal Priesthood, apparent abandonment of temporal papal claims, etc. Even his emphasis on Christ becoming SIN itself (rather than simply a sin offering, the traditional, Catholic understanding) is found in the writings of esteemed Catholic theologians such as Hans Urs von Balthasaar.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by mgrfin:

It was Luther who said he would not accept anything that was not explicitly in the Scriptures. SOLA SCRIPTURA comes from him.

Just as a clarification: Luther did not believe that anything which could not be found in Scripture needed to be done away with. He rather emphasized that only that which conformed with the Scripture should be kept. That which he believed conflicted with the Word of God (i.e. human traditions that pressumed to forgive sins) were to be done away with.

The idea of one not accpeting anything that is not “explicitly” in the Scriptures is more an Anabaptist conception of SOLA SCRIPTURA.