Yes of course it is Jesus telling John the apostle what to write to the 7 churches…we know this …I posted it once…for brevity sake said apostle the second time…was gonna put in “wrote” so that you could not get “technical” and critique forgetting previous statement that it was Christ thru the apostle…it is somewhat pertinent that John was an apostle, don’t you think?
That is a very Protestant thought, and twas the powerful force and motivation behind many reformers, who did so placing community standing, property and limb at jeopardy
Then how come i do not have the gift of infallibilty, for I too am a sinner, with human weakness and failings, needing salvation by grace alone ?
I agree of course it is difficult. I suspect, had I lived in Luther’s time, I would have been a Lutheran, or been drawn to other Reformers such as Wycliffe or Tyndale.
We must always beware of leaven, but this refers to an attitude. There is nothing morally wrong about forbidding a person to take up their mat and carry it. It reflects a misunderstanding of the Spirit of the law, but it is not the same as directing someone to do evil.
There are times when it comes to a choice between the two, but such cases are quite rare. And even though they disobeyed, they still submitted themselves to the disciplines (scourging) and rejoiced in it. They (as well as Paul) could have avoided them, and fled from such discipline, but by submitting to it, the Kingdom was expanded. As in the prophetic words of Gamaliel, Acts 5:39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!”
I don’t think I understand the question. Men are always in need of reform. The teachings of Jesus are not. The problem at the Reformation was that doctrines were changed. The Church has acknowledged that a great many of Luther’s complaints were valid, which is why they were addressed at Trent. But the Teachings of Christ do not need to be changed.
I think you may be confusing disciplines and doctrines here. I agree that there are often challenges when such disagreements exist. This is why we place our trust in Jesus to remain in Headship of His church. It is He who will resolve these dilemmas. But these issues are also why Jesus created a hierarchy for the Church. We listen to our local ordinary, then the one over him, and so on up to the successor of Peter. When this structure does not exist, dissension and division run rampant. Human beings require authority, and while I agree that this authority should not bear an attitude or deportment of “supremacy”, Jesus gave the care and feeding of the sheep to one man. He only prayed for that one may, so that when he had repented, he could strengthen his brethren. The successor of Peter is the visible sign of unity of the Church.
You mean, like praying the Rosary? It is not binding on all the faithful, and those who receive it will benefit from it, but other congregations may have different practices, such as the Jesus Prayer.
I think this is a very salient question, as this is essentially what precipitated the Reformation. Anyone who has studied the Medici Popes and the late Medieval period of the Church can see centuries of corruption growing in the highest levels. Personally, I think it began when the seat of the Roman Empire was moved to Constantinople. The infrastructure of Rome was so decimated that the only person in authority able to take control of the public works of the city was the Bishop of Rome, who was made “Pontiff” and given secular authority. From that point until the Reformation, the conflation of Church authority with secular contaminated the Church. Jesus was clear that His Kingdom was not of this world, yet the Popes behaved more and more like secular rulers, and the Bishops became corrupted by avarice.
I believe we have and can learn much through our separated brethren. In fact, heresies and persecution is what fuels the Church. If there were not early heresies, there would not have been a need to define the NT canon, or define the Trinity, hypostatic union, etc. These disagreements and rebellions force the Church to seek “all Truth” and the Holy Spirit to guide us through perilous times.
To be fair, the CC does affirm both a visible and invisible Church. Protestants affirm the one but not always the other, though some Protestants also acknowledge elements of visibility. It is usually the Apostolic succession that is rejected.
Yes, especially because he had previously written about those who had defied his apostolic authority, and the damage they were doing to the Church as a result.
I have no doubt they believed what they were doing was right. They ended up replacing the Pope with other forms of authority, and Protestant Rulers became every bit as intolerant and persecutory as the Catholic. It is human nature.
I am not in a position to judge if the Holy Spirit has ever protected you completely from error, as He did the writers of Scripture. But the gift of infallibility is for the Church. Individuals can benefit from it to the extent they are in unity with the Church. I think this is hard to explain to someone who does not perceive the Church as an entity separate from the “body of believers on earth”. The Church is Holy, and undefiled. She is incarnational, as is her Head. She has fallible believers as members, but the Divine elements of the Church is what keep her from falling, not the people.
Despite your hostility and animosity toward Catholicism, I think you are too humble for this. I think you are aware of your frailties and imperfections, and would not take such an attitude upon yourself.
Are you saying that the CC is “foul water”? I don’t think you believe God is leading you to the CC anyway, so I am not sure what the reference is here. Suffice to say that God may lead us through quite a few “foul waters” to get us where He needs us to be. He led the Israelites into brackish water, and he threw Job into the sea. I don’t know if you ever watched the dissection of a whale, but their bellies are quite foul!
Actually, the CC does not deny OSAS. We just understand that no one has completed the process of salvation until the end of this life, but of course, once a person has completed this life, their salvation can never be taken from them, nor can they “loose” it. They are “always saved!” A great chasm has been fixed, so that they cannot go back from whence they came.
No, we don’t believe that all who belong to the Church are in a state of grace. There is plenty of dead weight! Being baptized and becoming a member of the Body does not mean a person walks in the grace of that baptism.
Actually, Jesus gave the Church infallibility, and we see it at work already at the Jerusalem Council. Though the “decree” may be late, the understanding is not… Like the concept of “Trinity”, the decree may have come later, but the faith is unchanged.
Respectfully when questioning, examining what is written and other sources were there not 12 Apostles out there also feeding, caring and literally died horrible deaths, recorded outside sources also, established, starting many churches to strengthen the followers and brethren’s also living in the time of Jesus, St Peter being also 1 of the 12 Apostles? Where the Apostles called to restore His Spoken Word, becoming teachers? What was being lost sending them out, calling out to all?
Respectfully did Jesus also have such issues with his own Temple Scribes> teachers of the Law? Pharisees? Saduccees? Highly learned men serving within His Temple?
I have never heard any Protestants say any such thing!
I am familiar with the statement. What I am saying is that Lutherans do not accept this opinion, and do not have this attitude toward the letter. Neither have any other Protestants I have met. So, how about a source within the last 100 years?
A few more minutes of homework would’ve uncovered that this comment from Luther only appears in early editions of his Preface to the New Testament. Later editions, published during Luther’s life, do not contain the statement, see LW 35:358, fn.5. If Luther saw fit to retract the comment, why is it so often brought up?
Submitting to arrest and punishment, is not submission. Not teaching was the command.
yes and know(not what we are talking about) they did fell Jerusalem …and Paul did flee more than once (over the wall?)
yes like eating a fish. Gotta watch out for the bones when taking the meat…yet if too many bones it becomes dangerous to life and health (error dealing with salvation/justification) and thus Luther did finally protest.
You said obey your leaders, that reformers are best when they do that. But what about if you are a lay person and your bishop/priest is a reformer. Do you disobey them and then obey a distant pope or arch bishop etc ?
yes , but failure to either can get you censured or excommunicated (as was threatened over Easter observance). The pope was asking eastern congregants to deny their apostolic foundation as to the observance.
well, you said a mouthful here. Yes Peter was unique leader, first amongst equals some say. As to the text, Peter needed the prayer because he fell the most , save for judas, the worst. He needed restoring more than the others, but yes to lead the others, not rule over them (no where does he rule over, but always lead). And as has been pointed out the apostles were also delegated by Christ Himself. And in Revelations , we have only two distinctions of foundation: Christ the cornerstone, and the twelve apostles.
yes it was , once, given nature of such office…why I think Jesus did not institute in the first place…too much power in one man…certainly one had to be first though to use keys ( preach)…cant be like three stooges and all go thru at the same time, but the door has long been open, and feet clad with the gospel keys greatly multiplied
Not sure what you mean, for I meant it was difficult to against grain, against CC,for reformers, to say no to leaders. One would be drawn to safety, in comfort zone, of tradition, not just of church but of society itself, which was intertwined with church…only a a rare breed would speak to the contrary of declared doctrine and practice.
“Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.” Mat 16:12
yes , and I would say rare enough over the last 2000 years ( a handful or two of points of contention)
This is also a big area of contention. What you see as clarify and explain, we (non-Catholics) see as adding doctrine.
They did not obey the command, but they accepted the consequence for not doing so.
Actually, Luther’s complaints did not have much to do with salvation/justification as many abuses happening.And in fact, it has been well established that there is no dichotomy between what Luther thought about justification and what the CC teaches.
Of course, and this is why the Church needs the gift of infallibility. If error is taught, the faithful may pass through the gates of hell. Jesus will not let this happen.
Some of the best Reformers have been bishops, priests, and abbots. Men are always in need of reform. Why would anyone want to rebel against reform? I think we are having a misunderstanding because I am talking about changing doctrine and you are talking about changing men’s behavior. None of us have the right to change the doctrine of Christ. It was delivered once for all to the church. It is a seamless garment that it is our duty to preserve, not unravel.
Well there is a great difference between doctrine and practice. Practices, especially those contrary to the gospel (“selling” indulgences, for instance) need to be corrected. But that is because they are abusive practices, not doctrines. All men who are engaging in abusive practices, or those contrary to the doctrine of the faith, need reform.