I agree, Don, and would add that there are thousands of wonderful priests who serve God’s people with love and honor. Plus further use of it only encourages those who would paint the Catholic Church unfairly about it.
Jon
- Status
Jon
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Topper: Your thoughts are right on and you have made great points. Luther rebelled against his father but more to he point he ended up being just like his father in that it had to be either his way or the highway attitude. It seems to me that having a real fear of God that He is or was going to damn him no matter what he did to atone for whatever sins he thought he had seems to point to the having a fear of God but no real love since God to Luther was a strict and unmerciful God looking to punish anyone and everyone for the slightest mistake or sin. Luther’s severe scrupulosity only fed his fears of eternal damnation of his soul. Just like a person who is in pain will look anything to alleviate it, Luther did just that, looked to scripture to find something, anything that would help him and bring him comfort from the demons of scrupulosity. he found it by coming up with a new way of thinking but it is not new s it was thought of by the Antinomians during Apostolic times saying the very same things that Luther said.
Hi Mary,
My using the designation here on the forums has a bit of a history. Suffice it to say a discussion a few years back about clear designations in posters profiles brought it on.
The link provides some information into the designation. In part:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Catholic#Lutheran_Evangelical_Catholicity
Jon
M
marywarfield
Guest
Fine post. However I think I might bail on this simply
because I despair of our Lutheran friends making
any attempt at intellectual honesty.
It’s apparent that the only discussion allowed
would be that welcome in Mr. Rogers Neighborhood
and that type of insipid ness gets us no where…
If you wanted to move Luther to his own thread
I would be down with that.
S
spina1953
Guest
From my reading of history and of Luther it seems tat traditionally Lutheran’s have taught a forensic or legal justification, a divine verdict of acquittal, pronounced on the believing sinner. God declares the sinner to be “not guilty” because Christ has taken his place living a perfect life according to God’s law and suffering for his sins. Faith then is seen as an instrument that receives the gift of salvation, not something that causes it.
Luther’ doctrine in which the Reformers built their system of justification were not original. They were conceived by the Antinomian’s during Apostolic times who welcomed the idea that faith alone suffices for justification, and that consequently the observance of the moral law is not necessary either as a prerequisite for obtaining justification or as a means for preserving it. St. Augustine in his De fide et opribus xiv was of the opinion that the Apostles James, Peter, John and Jude had directed their Epistles against the Antinomians of the time, who claimed to have taken their doctrines from the writings of St. Paul. From this St. James had no other object than to emphasize the fact already emphasized by St. Paul that only such faith as is active in charity and good works possesses any power to justify man. (Gal.5:6, 1Cor.13:2) while faith devoid of charity and good works is a dead faith and in the eyes of od, insufficient for justification (James2:17). So, the Epistles of both Apostles St. Paul and St. James treat of different subjects, neither with direct relation to the other. For St. James insists on the necessity of works of Christian charity, wile St. Paul intends to show that neither t observance of the Jewish law nor the merely natural good works of the pagans are of ay value for obtaining the grace of justification.
Luther’ doctrine in which the Reformers built their system of justification were not original. They were conceived by the Antinomian’s during Apostolic times who welcomed the idea that faith alone suffices for justification, and that consequently the observance of the moral law is not necessary either as a prerequisite for obtaining justification or as a means for preserving it. St. Augustine in his De fide et opribus xiv was of the opinion that the Apostles James, Peter, John and Jude had directed their Epistles against the Antinomians of the time, who claimed to have taken their doctrines from the writings of St. Paul. From this St. James had no other object than to emphasize the fact already emphasized by St. Paul that only such faith as is active in charity and good works possesses any power to justify man. (Gal.5:6, 1Cor.13:2) while faith devoid of charity and good works is a dead faith and in the eyes of od, insufficient for justification (James2:17). So, the Epistles of both Apostles St. Paul and St. James treat of different subjects, neither with direct relation to the other. For St. James insists on the necessity of works of Christian charity, wile St. Paul intends to show that neither t observance of the Jewish law nor the merely natural good works of the pagans are of ay value for obtaining the grace of justification.
S
steido01
Guest
I think the Lutherans on this thread have demonstrated that we are more than open to discussing doctrine and practice, which concerns the OP of this thread. It was not Lutherans who moved the discussion away from the practice of Sola Scriptura and toward pseudo-psychologically evaluating long-dead men, as if they perfectly fit a popular anti-Lutheran caricature.
Useful thread de-railed by the Bash-Luther Express Train. Again.
M
marywarfield
Guest
A. The refusal to deal with who and what LutherI think the Lutherans on this thread have demonstrated that we are more than open to discussing doctrine and practice, which concerns the OP of this thread. It was not Lutherans who moved the discussion away from the practice of Sola Scriptura and toward pseudo-psychologically evaluating long-dead men, as if they perfectly fit a popular anti-Lutheran caricature.
Useful thread de-railed by the Bash-Luther Express Train. Again.
was makes discussion of what SS is and it’s effects
impossible. You can’t discuss one without the other.
B. SS is a huge problem and it’s rooted IN what
Luther actually did and why.
C being Lutheran you have a vested interest in
not dealing with WHY Luther was excommunicated
He was not excommunicated for his “good and holy”
thoughts. He was ex communicated for something way
more malicious and evil then that.
D. We see the proof in the obscenities and blasphemis
coming out now in ECLA mission statements which ALL
quote Luther. They quote your hero you are defending
80 percent more than Scripture.
E. it is again simply intellectual dishonesty on
your part to refuse to deal with it.
S
steido01
Guest
My intention was entirely in defense of the victims and your church’s Magisterium. I am hurt and saddened that you would view it in any other light. As should be recognizable from my posts, I have never questioned the personal integrity of Roman Catholic priests. Not a one. I would hope that the same charity and assumed honesty would be granted to my posts. That said, child abuse is among the most heinous of crimes, and truly has no place in ecumenical discussion - and certainly not in a flippant comparison. As for the rest of this paragraph, I must be misunderstanding you. Surely, you aren’t insinuating that Luther was a child molester. I have nothing more to say on this topic.
No, the victim is the church in general and her Head - not just those in communion with this-or-that bishop.
The call from our Head is to be one. We certainly are not there [yet]. But that’s why we continue dialogue about doctrine and beliefs. Not to attack the sins of individuals on the “other” side, but to work toward convergence. To be clear, that’s convergence of equal efforts for the unshakable, unchangeable Truth, not surrender of one side to the other. Do you understand what I mean? Do you understand why bashing Luther or Pope Leo X does nothing for us here and now and in the future?
B
benjohnson
Guest
I cordially ask you to stop this.
While I certainly may be intellectually dishonest, I certainly don’t think other Lutherans here are - even the ‘liberal’ Lutherans are not especially evasive and have good intentions.
…
As an aside, trying to derail this to a discussion about Luther’s many sins is a game we Lutherans are used to. My assumptions, is that those not in the faith wrongly assume that “Lutheran” means “follower of Luther.” We don’t really care too much about Luther - we follow Christ and Him crucified.
Frankly Luther himself would have like to have his sins pointed out - it would have given him an opportunity to repent.
…
For us Lutherans out here, maybe we should come up with a Silly Argument Number System.
I propose that first three are:
SANS#001 is “Ad-hominum attack against Luther”
SANS#002 is “Ad-hominum attack against Luther involving sexual activities”
SANS#003 is “Ad-hominum attach against Luther involving feces”
We can then developed canned responses to these Silly Arguments and could eventually develop a artificial intelligence system to respond quickly an effectively.
M
marywarfield
Guest
I have never heard except in a shallow way that
Luther “molested” any child. I HAVE read historians
that claim he was gay. That may be so and it may
explain why he was unpopular in seminary.
BUT I’m one of those weirdos who believes
definitions of behavior change over centuries. I
would be as uncomfortable claiming Luther was gay
or sexually involved with his spiritual directors etc
as I am claiming he was abused by his parents.
For instance- was the supposed abuse Luther received
at the hands of his parents considered child abuse
in 1500? I doubt it strongly. What we consider child
abuse is a different level even from 1950 when
it was good parenting to spank a child.
So how can anyone from this far away judge that
his father was abusive unless you know the parenting
standards of 1500 Germany?
Gay? Homosexual? What were the accepted standards
in 1512 Germany for close relationships or
friendships between two men? Do you know?
I don’t. I don’t see any way we can look at his male
friendships and claim them disordered with the
kind of evidence we have.
As far as your last paragraph goes- do YOU understand
no good will come from the ecumenical efforts until
Lutherans DO face the injury Luther did and why?
What the root problem was? Because you see- you are still doing it today.
It’s called- refusal to submit to or acknowledge or obey legitimate authority. That was why
he was excommunicated. And the ONLY reason he was excommunicated.
And until you come to grips with that? Ecumenicalism is just pie in the sky.
You can’t have a totally one sided reconciliation.
S
steido01
Guest
Sola Scriptura is a practice of our church - a practice that, perhaps not so labelled or eloquently explained, was common enough in the pre-Tridentine Catholic Church and has its roots deep with the Fathers. There is no need to discuss what color underwear Luther wore when the issue is on the doctrine and practice.
Holy Scripture is a tremendous gift from God; it is not a problem. Using Scripture as the primary norm and Rule of Faith did not begin with Luther, though Lutherans were particularly eloquent at stating how doctrine had “developed,” to use the Roman Catholic term.
What vested interest do I have in not paying attention to why Luther was excommunicated? From my perspective, the reasons for which he was excommunicated only justify the Evangelical Catholic movement within the church militant.
In the obscenities and blasphemies from the ELCA, we see that body is no longer following Sola Scriptura as Lutherans understand it. Nancy Pelosi, Catholics for Marriage Equality and Catholics for Choice enjoyed quoting Pope Francis as if he were their new hero; it doesn’t mean he shares their views.
Is it intellectual dishonesty to call for discussion of doctrine and practice, instead of gossip of people? I am not bound to Luther. I am called to Truth.
S
steido01
Guest
Only if we can make one for our Roman Catholic friends, too. If I hear “Pope Francis approves of gay marriage” from a Catholic one more time…
M
marywarfield
Guest
Again I repeat from my last post:
As far as your last paragraph goes- do YOU understand
no good will come from the ecumenical efforts until
Lutherans DO face the injury Luther did and why?
What the root problem was? Because you see- you are still doing it today.
It’s called- refusal to submit to or acknowledge or obey legitimate authority. That was why
he was excommunicated. And the ONLY reason he was excommunicated.
And until you come to grips with that? Ecumenicalism is just pie in the sky.
This is nonsense, Mary. We can talk sincerely, intellectually, even theologically about sola scriptura, and not ever mention Luther.
Then one should discuss why SS is a huge problem, not whether or not Luther was somehow unstable. I suspect that, in dialogue between our leaders, his “instability” is not a topic of conversation.
Let’s, then talk about why Dr. Luther was excommunicated.
You also saw that they jettisoned sola scriptura. Is the Catholic Church willing to accept responsibility for what, say, Old Catholics say about female ordination? Is the Magisterium at fault for it? I don’t think so.
Perhaps we find the conversation off the topic. The topic is:
To Joe’s credit, and that of many Catholic posters, he and they always seem to return to Catholic teaching as the model they want us to consider. PRMerger does this. Church Militant (Michael) always redirects the topic to Catholic teaching, usually on his remarkable blog.
I, frankly, have seen little of this in the second half of this thread, even though I know** you **are quite capable of doing that.
Honestly, the Luther bashing that has gone on here is boring. Some posters think its new stuff. It isn’t. The evidence that it isn’t new is in the fact that one poster regularly quotes Lutheran writers! As if Lutherans have ignored or covered up Luther.
Its boring. Engage me in a conversation about how and why sola scriptura works or doesn’t work, and why the Catholic or Orthodox model is better.
Jon
S
steido01
Guest
Seems to me that, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.
M
marywarfield
Guest
Really? Really Jon? What kind of ice cream parlorThis is nonsense, Mary. We can talk sincerely, intellectually, even theologically about sola scriptura, and not ever mention Luther.
Then one should discuss why SS is a huge problem, not whether or not Luther was somehow unstable. I suspect that, in dialogue between our leaders, his “instability” is not a topic of conversation.
Let’s, then talk about why Dr. Luther was excommunicated.
You also saw that they jettisoned sola scriptura. Is the Catholic Church willing to accept responsibility for what, say, Old Catholics say about female ordination? Is the Magisterium at fault for it? I don’t think so.
Perhaps we find the conversation off the topic. The topic is:
To Joe’s credit, and that of many Catholic posters, he and they always seem to return to Catholic teaching as the model they want us to consider. PRMerger does this. Church Militant (Michael) always redirects the topic to Catholic teaching, usually on his remarkable blog.
I, frankly, have seen little of this in the second half of this thread, even though I know** you **are quite capable of doing that.
Honestly, the Luther bashing that has gone on here is boring. Some posters think its new stuff. It isn’t. The evidence that it isn’t new is in the fact that one poster regularly quotes Lutheran writers! As if Lutherans have ignored or covered up Luther.
Its boring. Engage me in a conversation about how and why sola scriptura works or doesn’t work, and why the Catholic or Orthodox model is better.
Jon
theology is this?
You notice East and West Catholics are united. ???
Why? Both submit, acknowledge, obey, to the authority
of Tradition AND the Church in Scriptural interpretation.
Do the Lutherans agree with either one? NO!!
Luther was excommunicated (and therefore his followers including You)
because his own brand
of unholy scruples- the kind that leads to the Unforgiveable
Sin- and is NOT just the type of scruples one sees in the
Saints- led him to declare HIMSELF the authority on
Scripture and Tradition and Interpretation. And in so
doing he refused any type of correction, admonishment,
and council from that which WAS the legitimate
authority. You seem to fail to understand that
one man with extreme “emotional problem”
throwing out 1500 years of theology, scripture,
interpretation, and scholastic authority on his own
“opinion” in order to solve his own peculiar mental
problem is no big deal, Jon. Yet it is a very very very
big deal because one very basic ingredient of the
Holy Spirit is entirely lacking- humility. What Luther
was saying was the Scripture and Tradition as Acquinas
knew it, Augustine knew it, Ignatious knew it, Origen
knew it, the Dominican Orders, Franciscan Orders,
Carmelite Orders, Benedict, Chrystostom, Benedictines,
knew it were wrong and needed to be fixed by this
guy with a humongously morbid imagination, sub par
theological knowledge and mediocre scholastic marks.
Kind of like the classroom dunce getting his school chums
to revolt against his teacher teaching Einsteins theory
of revelation cause he can’t read the book.
For Lugherans to unite with Rome and the East will
Zrequire accepting Traditional authority, Scripture
in its PROPER place, interpreted by the Church, and
the agreement that the Church IS the legitimate
authority for both- Scripture and Tradition. Which
is of course what is MEANT by obedience to the
Pope.
And since you guys are incapable of budging one
inch on any of it particularly due to a decided refusal
to address where the problem lies ecumenicalism is
all smoke.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Mary,
I am reading through all of the new posts but ran across this one and have to tell you that I agree 100%. Thanks for the compliment.
In my experience the last thing that some people want to do is discuss WHY we are divided. They want to focus on where we go from here. It reminds me of Jay Carney.
It seems to me that unless we understand WHY we are divided we are never going to become united. In other words, we have to deal with the root cause. It was Luther who ‘developed’ SS+PI and so we have no choice but to deal with him so that we can determine if he did so rightly or wrongly. Many people here don’t want to have that conversation because (maybe somewhere down deep) they KNOW where that conversation is going to lead rational people.
Believe me, if this was a conversation that the defenders of Luther thought they could win, they would be perfectly willing to prosecute it. But the level of fear that they demonstrate over the matter is perfect evidence of how weak their position is.
We have heard the claim that everybody knows all of the ‘stuff’ that is being posted here so there is no reason to go over it (again). Now THAT is a tall one.
We have seen a lot of talk about things like ‘honoring the OP’, ANYTHING to obfuscate, change the subject, demean the people doing the questioning, etc. etc. Just remember that the goal is to stop the conversation. It’s like a certain party claiming ‘racism’ if you criticize a certain political figure. Whatever it takes to limit criticism and control the conversation. We are not allowed to say what we think is important. It’s a first Amendment thing basically, but I do agree it has to be done ‘respectfully’. On the other hand, if ANY criticism of Luther and the impact of his SS+PI is ‘disrespectful’, then there is not any room for honest and open dialogue.
Just know this Mary – I have seen threads like this closed down seemingly by the defenders of Luther simply by their stepping way over the line. In other words, they succeeded in limiting our ability to say what we want in a respectful manner.
If you leave the thread – they will have succeeded in shutting down your voice. You mention starting a new thread, presumably one which would be well defined from the first post. Do you think that we would be able to get the answers to the questions that we need to ask there? Do you think that an open and honest discussion would be possible there? Or do you think there would still be the avoidance and all of the generalizations and dancing around?
I think that we can all do this together respectfully and with the common goal of discovering the truth. Maybe though that is going to take a new commitment, including one to listen even to that which makes us ‘uncomfortable’ and actually deal with unpleasant facts.
For the record, I have tremendous respect for everyone here in that all here demonstrate much more devotion to the Christian cause than Joe average Christian. That does not mean that we need to agree on everything, but I will say that we have a much better opportunity for unification if we can honestly deal with the reasons for our disunity.
I will be posting further as I read through all of the new material.
God Bless You Mary, Topper
I am reading through all of the new posts but ran across this one and have to tell you that I agree 100%. Thanks for the compliment.
I very much appreciate how you stand up for the Truth as opposed to caving in to the pressure to limit your comments to what is acceptable to our separated brethren. Some people are not at all comfortable with criticisms of Luther by even Lutheran Scholars. As you know, I too have become frustrated by the inability to obtain straight answers to direct and important questions. I have asked and asked and asked and finally at some point, I just give up and post the things that I think are important.
In my experience the last thing that some people want to do is discuss WHY we are divided. They want to focus on where we go from here. It reminds me of Jay Carney.
It seems to me that unless we understand WHY we are divided we are never going to become united. In other words, we have to deal with the root cause. It was Luther who ‘developed’ SS+PI and so we have no choice but to deal with him so that we can determine if he did so rightly or wrongly. Many people here don’t want to have that conversation because (maybe somewhere down deep) they KNOW where that conversation is going to lead rational people.
Believe me, if this was a conversation that the defenders of Luther thought they could win, they would be perfectly willing to prosecute it. But the level of fear that they demonstrate over the matter is perfect evidence of how weak their position is.
We have heard the claim that everybody knows all of the ‘stuff’ that is being posted here so there is no reason to go over it (again). Now THAT is a tall one.
We have seen a lot of talk about things like ‘honoring the OP’, ANYTHING to obfuscate, change the subject, demean the people doing the questioning, etc. etc. Just remember that the goal is to stop the conversation. It’s like a certain party claiming ‘racism’ if you criticize a certain political figure. Whatever it takes to limit criticism and control the conversation. We are not allowed to say what we think is important. It’s a first Amendment thing basically, but I do agree it has to be done ‘respectfully’. On the other hand, if ANY criticism of Luther and the impact of his SS+PI is ‘disrespectful’, then there is not any room for honest and open dialogue.
Just know this Mary – I have seen threads like this closed down seemingly by the defenders of Luther simply by their stepping way over the line. In other words, they succeeded in limiting our ability to say what we want in a respectful manner.
If you leave the thread – they will have succeeded in shutting down your voice. You mention starting a new thread, presumably one which would be well defined from the first post. Do you think that we would be able to get the answers to the questions that we need to ask there? Do you think that an open and honest discussion would be possible there? Or do you think there would still be the avoidance and all of the generalizations and dancing around?
I think that we can all do this together respectfully and with the common goal of discovering the truth. Maybe though that is going to take a new commitment, including one to listen even to that which makes us ‘uncomfortable’ and actually deal with unpleasant facts.
For the record, I have tremendous respect for everyone here in that all here demonstrate much more devotion to the Christian cause than Joe average Christian. That does not mean that we need to agree on everything, but I will say that we have a much better opportunity for unification if we can honestly deal with the reasons for our disunity.
I will be posting further as I read through all of the new material.
God Bless You Mary, Topper
M
marywarfield
Guest
Yes very frustrating. I think a lot of it is this mentality
that they are correct, the Church is not as unreasonable
as it used to be so maybe we will unite as one but
keep all our innovations. That ain’t ever going to
happen.
And the reason is that same spirit that led Luther
to pit his own personal opinion against the teaching
authority of the Church still exists in every single
Lutheran today. Now they bring up the Independent
Catholic Churches as if somehow they put the CC in
the same position as the I guess “old fashioned” Lutherans
with the ECLA. Oh I think not. These independents
consist of fewer than 60,000 members. The ECLA
has 4.8 Million. Another testimony to Luther’s
control still today over their minds and hearts.
We have reunited with many Churches over the centuries
but never with one that refused to submit to the
legitimate teaching authority of the CC when it
comes to Scripture and Tradition.
I doubt strongly the Lutherans will be the first.
They cannot give up SS. Therefore there will be
no unification. The rest of us don’t have time
to spend having faith in one man’s (Luther’s) personal opinion
of Scripture. Not in the face of two thousand years
of legitimate authority. Totally absurd idea.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Mary,
You are right on!
Don’t they see that they are only a few generations from being “them”? Don’t they see that the Problem with Protestantism is that it doesn’t have any central authority to sort out which of the various competing and conflicting groups within the same general confession are ‘right’?
Remember what Harvard Professor Ozment said:
“The Protestant temperment finds nothing more painful than knowing it has beleived in vain.” Steven Ozment (Protestant), “The Birth of a Revolution”, pg. 6
When you bring up Luther it’s always like that scene in the Wizard of Oz where the little fat guy from Kansas pushes a bunch of levers and makes loud sounds and a smokescreen. He bellows at Dorthey and the Gang when they see how it really works:
“Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain”.
Luther is that man behind the curtain that we are not supposed to see revealed for what he is.
There is no evidence that anybody is willing to discuss where the ‘authority’ laid during the time between Luther’s revolt (1519 or so) until the Lutheran Confessions were ‘authorized’.
The fact is that during that time, the Authority lay with Luther and his writings. But of course Lutherans today don’t think that that should have been the case and YET IT WAS. Hence they cannot talk about that without demonstrating that even they believe that Luther’s idea of his authority was wrong, that he started His church without valid authority. After all, if you follow the Lutheran concept that Scripture is to be interpreted by the Church, then exactly what was Luther doing out there all by his lonesome defying the only Church that existed at the time?
Then you have to address the subject of why Lutherans believe that it is THEIR church which correctly interprets Scripture. Have you noticed how many times I have asked that question and gotten absolutely nothing?
After learning about Pastor Fisk and President Harrison and about the details of the Lutheran Confessions, I have come to the conclusion that there will NEVER be any kind of complete reunion with the Lutherans. Reunion will have to take place one soul at a time. There are not two completely contradictory versions of Salvation. Either one is right and one is wrong or both are wrong.
I believe that we Catholics have a much stronger argument in regards to the validity of our Church than Protestants do. So when we make that case specifically and exactly and point to Luther as one of the major causes of division, Lutherans especially cry: ‘foul’. “We shouldn’t be talking about who is right and who is wrong.” That’s because somewhere at least, they know that they are wrong.
Like I said before, if they thought they could survive these kinds of challenges, they would simply do so. Instead as we have seen, they have rallied around the flag to silence criticism.
God Bless You Mary, Topper
You are right on!
It’s as if the history of Protestantism has not provided enough evidence that it is going to fracture itself into oblivion? We see certain communions claiming that they are the one’s who interpret Scripture correctly, “do” SS the best, have the most authoritative leadership and Confessions, except for those ‘other people’ who profess the exact same Confession and they get EVERYTHING WRONG. Weird ain’t it?
Don’t they see that they are only a few generations from being “them”? Don’t they see that the Problem with Protestantism is that it doesn’t have any central authority to sort out which of the various competing and conflicting groups within the same general confession are ‘right’?
Remember what Harvard Professor Ozment said:
“The Protestant temperment finds nothing more painful than knowing it has beleived in vain.” Steven Ozment (Protestant), “The Birth of a Revolution”, pg. 6
When you bring up some fact about Luther, Lutherans have this tendency to want to deflect the conversation through about 50 years of their early history and ‘POOF’ you end up at their Confessions or “BINGO” you end up with what they believe 500 years after Luther. Classic avoidance.
When you bring up Luther it’s always like that scene in the Wizard of Oz where the little fat guy from Kansas pushes a bunch of levers and makes loud sounds and a smokescreen. He bellows at Dorthey and the Gang when they see how it really works:
“Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain”.
Luther is that man behind the curtain that we are not supposed to see revealed for what he is.
There is no evidence that anybody is willing to discuss where the ‘authority’ laid during the time between Luther’s revolt (1519 or so) until the Lutheran Confessions were ‘authorized’.
The fact is that during that time, the Authority lay with Luther and his writings. But of course Lutherans today don’t think that that should have been the case and YET IT WAS. Hence they cannot talk about that without demonstrating that even they believe that Luther’s idea of his authority was wrong, that he started His church without valid authority. After all, if you follow the Lutheran concept that Scripture is to be interpreted by the Church, then exactly what was Luther doing out there all by his lonesome defying the only Church that existed at the time?
Then you have to address the subject of why Lutherans believe that it is THEIR church which correctly interprets Scripture. Have you noticed how many times I have asked that question and gotten absolutely nothing?
There are authors who claim that the actual personality of Protestantism is in some respects a reflection of Luther’s personality. We know that when people disagreed with Luther and persisted, he called them liars. We see that even today here on CA. When you are THAT sure that you are right, that the Holy Spirit leads you personally (as do even Confessionals to some degree), that is really hard to ‘give up’.
I have asked directly and repeatedly whether our separated brethren believe that Lutherans will someday be in complete union with Rome WITHOUT rejecting their anti-Catholic Confessions. The answers are not exactly forthcoming except of course to criticize the question. To believe that there will someday be a “Lutheran Division” of the Catholic Church (the REAL Catholic Church) with those people still holding on to their anti-Catholic Confessions, is in a word – delusional.
After learning about Pastor Fisk and President Harrison and about the details of the Lutheran Confessions, I have come to the conclusion that there will NEVER be any kind of complete reunion with the Lutherans. Reunion will have to take place one soul at a time. There are not two completely contradictory versions of Salvation. Either one is right and one is wrong or both are wrong.
I believe that we Catholics have a much stronger argument in regards to the validity of our Church than Protestants do. So when we make that case specifically and exactly and point to Luther as one of the major causes of division, Lutherans especially cry: ‘foul’. “We shouldn’t be talking about who is right and who is wrong.” That’s because somewhere at least, they know that they are wrong.
Like I said before, if they thought they could survive these kinds of challenges, they would simply do so. Instead as we have seen, they have rallied around the flag to silence criticism.
God Bless You Mary, Topper
B
benhur
Guest
Don’t mind truth just the intent (way beyond balancing a “legend” that most folks here are already beyond) .Hi Ben
When you say ‘negative post, page one and page two", I know you cannot mean my posts.
My posts actually provide balance to the false and dishonest "Legend’ of Luther which has been so well believed for centuries. If you believe that Luther is being unfairly represented here, you can always post things of substance in opposition.
BTW, it might not actually be ‘patience’.
God Bless You Ben, Topper
- Status