Error Begets Error

[aidanbradypop]

In keeping with the theme “Error begets Error” here is an article by Fr. Leonel Franca

traditioninaction.org/religious/e019rp_Luther_2_Plinio.htm

Remarks?

 

[benjohnson]

In keeping with the theme “Error begets Error” here is an article by Fr. Leonel Franca

traditioninaction.org/religious/e019rp_Luther_2_Plinio.htm

Remarks?

If I met the author, I’d urge him to pray.

Let me pick about one quote from the author - where the author used this quote from Luther:

"There is no [other] religion in the whole world that teaches this doctrine of justification. I myself, even though I teach it publicly, have a great difficulty in believing it privately”

The author then insinuated that this implied that Luther knew his ideas on justification were wrong.

This is not the point Luther was making at all - the point is that we humans have a very difficult time understand the unmerited grace that God gives us, so much so that we seem to always want to invent rules and laws to justify that grace.

 

[Daniel_Stinson]

Oh. Wow! I think you and JonNC are the only two friends of mine that are willing to admit that the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Catholic Church. How about - into all truth, as per John 16:13? Or am I pushing my luck…LOL…

I would 3rd that, the Holy Spirit is always available to bring us back to a Christ Jesus centered faith.

 

[Daniel_Stinson]

If I met the author, I’d urge him to pray.

Let me pick about one quote from the author - where the author used this quote from Luther:

"There is no [other] religion in the whole world that teaches this doctrine of justification. I myself, even though I teach it publicly, have a great difficulty in believing it privately”

The author then insinuated that this implied that Luther knew his ideas on justification were wrong.

This is not the point Luther was making at all - the point is that we humans have a very difficult time understand the unmerited grace that God gives us, so much so that we seem to always want to invent rules and laws to justify that grace.

Are these even legitimate quotes breathed from Luther’s mouth, or are these comments a fictional perspective of what Luther might have said from the biased viewpoint of someone who’s anti-Lutheran? I did a search of some of these literary works, which indicated late 1800’s-mid-1900’s, so 300-years after Luther’s death, we all of a sudden know every slander available about the man?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Are these even legitimate quotes breathed from Luther’s mouth, or are these comments a fictional perspective of what Luther might have said from the biased viewpoint of someone who’s anti-Lutheran? I did a search of some of these literary works, which indicated late 1800’s-mid-1900’s, so 300-years after Luther’s death, we all of a sudden know every slander available about the man?

It’s a little about the same way some people attack the Catholic Church but severely magnified…

 

[aidanbradypop]

Are these even legitimate quotes breathed from Luther’s mouth, or are these comments a fictional perspective of what Luther might have said from the biased viewpoint of someone who’s anti-Lutheran? I did a search of some of these literary works, which indicated late 1800’s-mid-1900’s, so 300-years after Luther’s death, we all of a sudden know every slander available about the man?

He give many sources. However, I haven’t a chance to look them up but will soon enough. I

 

[benjohnson]

Are these even legitimate quotes breathed from Luther’s mouth, or are these comments a fictional perspective of what Luther might have said from the biased viewpoint of someone who’s anti-Lutheran?

I don’t think the author made the mistake of using fictional quotes - but I’m too lazy to check.
There are an amazingly high number of un-sourced quotes about Luther - it gets even worse when you add in the bad translations. Even more fuel can be added to the fire given that real quotes from Luther are filled are often crude jokes and gutter talk.

The running joke is that with the proper quotes, you can get Luther to say anything.

So what do we do???

In my opinion, Lutherans don’t always have to defend Luther - he’s made of stern stuff. We should do as Luther did and keep pointing to the Gospel. Over and over.

And if we need a bit of levity, we can always treat ourselves to some of Luther’s finest 16th century insults: ergofabulous.org/luther/

 

[aidanbradypop]

I don’t think the author made the mistake of using fictional quotes - but I’m too lazy to check.
There are an amazingly high number of un-sourced quotes about Luther - it gets even worse when you add in the bad translations. Even more fuel can be added to the fire given that real quotes from Luther are filled are often crude jokes and gutter talk.

The running joke is that with the proper quotes, you can get Luther to say anything.

So what do we do???

In my opinion, Lutherans don’t always have to defend Luther - he’s made of stern stuff. We should do as Luther did and keep pointing to the Gospel. Over and over.

And if we need a bit of levity, we can always treat ourselves to some of Luther’s finest 16th century insults: ergofabulous.org/luther/

or admit defeat at the hands of PRmerger and convert :clapping:

 

[PRmerger]

or admit defeat at the hands of PRmerger and convert :clapping:

 

[adf417]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/0667a78285301238f18d70a752409cf9/tumblr_meo6v0W3Es1ql5yr7o1_400.gif

PR, where do you come up with these? If pictures are worth a thousand words, PR’s anamations are worth a thousand laughs. :bounce:

 

[PRmerger]

PR, where do you come up with these? If pictures are worth a thousand words, PR’s anamations are worth a thousand laughs. :bounce:

shaw:

 

[JonNC]

Sacramental Union and the Eucharist
“Regarding the Eucharist, the LCMS rejects the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation and the Reformed teaching that the true body and blood of Christ are not consumed with the consecrated bread and wine in the Eucharist. Rather, it believes in the doctrine of the sacramental union, Real Presence, that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present “in, with, and under” the elements of bread and wine. Or, as the Smalcald Articles express this mystery: “Of the Sacrament of the Altar, we hold that the bread and wine in the Supper are Christ’s true body and blood.” It is occasionally reported that the LCMS and other Lutherans teach the doctrine of consubstantiation. Consubstantiation is generally rejected by Lutherans and is explicitly rejected by the LCMS as an attempt to define the holy mystery of Christ’s presence.”

Right, we eventually denounced Philipp Melanchthon’s use of the term consubstantiation; which came up while he was debating John Calvin on the issue of the Eucharist, if I’m remembering that correctly. We simply use the term sacramental union at present. Phillipp overstepped his position by trying to over-explain the Sacrament.

Ironically, Melanchthon did best job in the Confessions in explaining the real presence in the Apology:

The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.

Jon

 

[Daniel_Stinson]

or admit defeat at the hands of PRmerger and convert :clapping:

Convert to what? We’re the only Catholics left…

 

[Daniel_Stinson]

He give many sources. However, I haven’t a chance to look them up but will soon enough. I

Fr. Leonel Edgar da Silveira Franca, S.J., one of the founders of the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and its first Rector (1941 -1948)
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/

Who knew that Brazilian Catholics also have issues with Doctor Martin Luther as well?

Today I am publishing some more facts about Luther that demonstrate well the odor that his revolted figure would spread in that supermarket

I like how the author is so quick to get to the hard hitting issues that is at the center of Lutheranism…

 

[guanophore]

I can’t really answer that properly, but we would we tend to say the Word is inerrent to focus more on the Gospel and not on the people receiving it.

Yes, and I think this is a critical juncture. The Gospel did not come to use separated from the people who received it. Either they received it infallibly, protected by the HS, or we cannot have confidence in the product.

2 Peter 1:20-21
First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

If people can be “moved by the Holy Spirit” and still make errors, then we have no basis to rely upon the prophesies, do we?

1 Thess 2:13-14
13 We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God’s word, which is also at work in you believers.

If the Word of God was never really at work in the Church, then we can’t rely on the Scriptures produced by that Church.

Isa 55:11
11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

If God placed His Word in the Church, and it has not been preserved infallibly there by the Holy Spirit, then His Word has returned to Him empty, and has not accomplished that for which He sent it.

 

[guanophore]

Which Pope, the one at: Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, Rome, Avignon, Alexandria...? Perhaps the multitude of popes were Peter's helpers? But I'd much rather see Christ Jesus get the credit, as they're really his helpers.

Peter had certain gifts and responsibilities that were given only to him. He was surrounded by the Apostles and Prophets to fulfill his Petrine duties. It is not a matter of “credit”, as anyone can see by reading the very humble letters of Peter. He did not Lord it over anyone, just as Jesus had taught them. He was given the keys, and the responsibility to feed, care for the flock, and to strengthen his brethren. These duties were passed on to his successor, and so on, until this day.

For a Church that puts so much more focus on the Virgin Mary than many others, why don’t I hear more about St. John the Apostle who was the only one worthy enough to care for Christ Jesus’ mother?

Perhaps you are not at Mass on his feast day?

I do admit, St. John is much more a center of focus in the East because they tend to be more mystical.

27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

Since that disciple is never named, the Church receives this text as Jesus giving His mother to all those who stand with Mary at the foot of the Cross as His disciple.

Peter, Scripturally didn't exactly behave infallible: denied Christ Jesus three times, cut off a soldiers ear when directly told by Christ Jesus to stand down, falls through the water due to a lack of faith, wasn't able to cast out demons due to a lack of faith, Christ Jesus calls him by the name "Satan" when he offered to die for our sins in Christ Jesus' place,

I think you are confusing infallibility with impeccability. The charism of infallibility is the protection of the Holy Spirit that prevents error from being taught. We say that the writers of the NT acted infallibly when they wrote the Scriptures. We see Peter, as well as others, act infallibly when they are preaching the Gospel and working miracles. When the Holy Spirit acts through a person, it is an infallible act (not because of them, but because of the HS). This does NOT mean that a person is always without error, or is without sin.

was rebuked by St. Paul for forcing Christians to be circumcised as Jews before allowing baptism.

No Paul rebuked Peter for not socializing with the Gentiles after his Jewish brethren arrived. Peter was acting hypocritically, because he was not obedient to his own infallible teaching:

Acts 11:12
12 The Spirit told me to go with them and not to make a distinction between them and us.

Acts 11:17-18
17 If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?" 18 When they heard this, they were silenced. And they praised God, saying, “Then God has given even to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life.”

When the Judiazers came to Galatia, Peter stopped hangin’ with the Gentiles. The text indicates that it may have been James, the brother of the Lord, who was pushing circumcision.

Merriam-Webster: infallible–incapable of error, incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals, not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint

Don’t get me wrong, God can work miracles of his choosing,

And those would be considered infallible acts, just like the writing of Scripture. It does not mean the people cannot err, or are impeccable.

 I simply can't comprehend an apostolic evangelism that sits upon a throne and remains of virtual lock-down,

I think you are suffering a grievious misunderstanding about the life of the successor of Peter. Protection against assasination such as a bullet proof panel is hardly “virtual lock down!”

considering all the other Apostles became martyrs in the mission field. I have never been presented with comprehensive Scripture that says none of the other Apostles evangelized on the level Peter did.

No one is claiming such drivel, either. The Petrine gifts given to him by Christ having nothing to do with how many continents he may have seen.

The Office of the Keys or Institution of the Keys is the most significant part of Scripture that pertains to Peter, but he certainly isn’t beyond sin, error, or properly defining doctrine as we can clearly tell from Scripture.

No, and the CC does not claim otherwise.

The problem arises when people who are separated from that Apostolic authority take it upon themselves to define doctrine apart from the One Faith that produced the Scripture.

 What he can do, is forgive sins and withhold forgiveness, as he manages the "narrow gate" into heaven.

Jesus taught that the road is narrow and steep. The successor of Peter is bound to uphold this teaching. No sins can be forgiven when repentance has not occurred.

 

[guanophore]

The Pope wasn't even an ordained minister, and had a pet elephant.

Source?

Why would the Pope’s pets have any relevance?

 

[guanophore]

It is kind of sad to see how out of sight she has become among the many Protestant denominations. When I was a Baptist, we only heard about the BVM during Christmas. Now there is not a day that goes by that I do not think about her and ask her to help me. She is a gift from God that many refuse to take.

Ironically, people complain that there is insufficient “room” in the CC for women.

 

[Daniel_Stinson]

I think you are confusing infallibility with impeccability. The charism of infallibility is the protection of the Holy Spirit that prevents error from being taught. We say that the writers of the NT acted infallibly when they wrote the Scriptures. We see Peter, as well as others, act infallibly when they are preaching the Gospel and working miracles. When the Holy Spirit acts through a person, it is an infallible act (not because of them, but because of the HS). This does NOT mean that a person is always without error, or is without sin.

No Paul rebuked Peter for not socializing with the Gentiles after his Jewish brethren arrived. Peter was acting hypocritically, because he was not obedient to his own infallible teaching:

Acts 11:12
12 The Spirit told me to go with them and not to make a distinction between them and us.

Acts 11:17-18
17 If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?" 18 When they heard this, they were silenced. And they praised God, saying, “Then God has given even to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life.”

When the Judiazers came to Galatia, Peter stopped hangin’ with the Gentiles. The text indicates that it may have been James, the brother of the Lord, who was pushing circumcision.

And those would be considered infallible acts, just like the writing of Scripture. It does not mean the people cannot err, or are impeccable.

Galatians 2:11-21
Paul Opposes Peter

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.
13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Justified by Faith

15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners;
16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

17 But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not!
18 For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor.
19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God.
20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

infallibility/impeccability: faultless, flawless, immaculate, perfect, indefectible Care to elaborate since these words are synonyms for each other…?

 

[benjohnson]

Source?

Why would the Pope’s pets have any relevance?

I’m picking on Leo X again - as I understand it, he was from the rather wealthy Medici family. He wasn’t a priest before becoming pope. Of course once he became Pope he was ordained. (1)

And during his tenure, he was given an elephant and he named him Hanno. Apparently, Hanno was part of the processions until he died. (2)

From the Lutheran standpoint, Leo X’s excesses and spending were part of the paid-for indulgence problem the German peasants were suffering from.

1. Chamberlin, E.R. The Bad Popes. New York: Dorset, 1969.
2. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanno_(elephant