If Luther were alive today, would he be Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jesus gave authority to Peter and His Apostles to bind and loose. Who are you to go against that? And there is much work to be done for Lutherans if they want to be admtted into the Church’s ranks.
cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=k&word=KEYS.OFFICEOFTHE

bookofconcord.blogspot.com/2008/01/roundtable-29-church-authority.html

Who am I? A baptized Christian who will not go beyond the authority of God’s revealed Word. I am already in the ranks of the Church, but Rome… well… they still have a bit of work to do before we can even consider any kind of fellowship on an official level
lcms.org/faqs/denominations#catholic.
 
As I have noted to myself, describes some of my posting habits.
:rotfl: Ditto - but they say anyway that acknowledgment is the first step to recovery, right?
The Pope, Martin Luther, and Our Time
September 25, 2011 12:00 EST
Martin Luther is not a popular figure in most Catholic circles. Understandably so. Most Catholics who think about Luther at all, hold him responsible for the dividing of Christendom and the problem of ongoing Christian disunity. What’s more, the pesky Fundamentalist missionary at the door, who attacks the Catholic Church as the“whore of Babylon”, is seen, rightly or wrongly, as a direct spiritual descendant of the former German Augustinian monk.
But now here comes Pope Benedict XVI, a fellow German, visiting his homeland and speaking to German Evangelical Christians, i.e. Lutherans, as we call them here. The Holy Father seems comfortable talking about Luther with Lutherans, even talking with obvious regard and sympathy for Luther. Shocking?
Not to those who have followed the nuances of Catholic teaching on non-Catholic Christians as it has developed, especially as expressed in the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and in papal teaching since then. Not to those who are dissatisfied with a spiritual cold war among western Christians or who don’t need to refight the battles of the 16th century in order confidently and placidly to affirm their Catholic faith. And not to those familiar with Benedict XVI, theologian and pastor.
What stands out about Pope Benedict’s comments is how nonchalantly he talks positively about Luther, without betraying the slightest hint of a compromise regarding the fundamental issues dividing Catholics and Protestants. Someone might think, “Well, Pope Benedict knows this is not the 16th century. He knows that we should not treat Protestants today as if they were the original Protestants who broke with the Catholic Church.”
True enough. But Luther was the original Protestant. Pope Benedict shows how a Catholic can have a certain sympathetic reading of Luther, notwithstanding the same Catholic’s rejection of Luther’s repudiation of the Catholic Church. In this way, a Catholic can see what is most important when it comes to assessing Luther—not denying the problems with him but also not overlooking what Luther got right or demonizing him.
This is quintessential Benedict XVI. And it is, in fact, quintessential Vatican II, which represents on this matter a line of theological development that required a deep, Spirit-guided re-reading of the Church’s tradition and a penetrating and balanced assessment of the situation of divided Christianity following the emergence of Protestantism in the 16th century. Such a re-reading and assessment was willing to let go of polemics and to pursue a purification of mind and heart.
Full article here:
catholicworldreport.com/Blog/939/the_pope_martin_luther_and_our_time.aspx

Thanks Benedict!!! Well done. Absolutely first rate article here, something for every Catholic, novices, nominal and even the real pros.
 
Who am I? A baptized Christian who will not go beyond the authority of God’s revealed Word.
Well, as silly as I think this thread is… this post raised some unfortunate differences and misunderstanding of the faith. And no, I don’t think Martin Luther would be in communion with the Church today.
  1. The authority of Scripture.
    Lutherans believe Scripture alone has authority to determine doctrine; the Roman Catholic Church gives this authority also to the pope, the church, and certain traditions of the church.
Scripture itself does not teach this assumption.
To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
Doctrine is professed and upheld if the Church confirms it is based on Apotolic Tradition.
  1. The doctrine of justification.
    Lutherans believe a person is saved by God’s grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. The Roman Catholic Church, while at times using similar language, still officially holds that faith, in order to save, must be accompanied by (or “infused with”) some “work” or “love” active within a Christian.
The work which has justifying power comes from faith, and not because of any good works. What this community is doing, is attacking the very principle that St James delivered to us in Scripture.

What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?..
… But some one will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith… Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works… You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.
The Catholic Church does NOT Teach that we are justified apart from assent to faith in the gospel. She does Teach what St James, in Scripture, has Taught… that faith without works is dead.
  1. The authority of the pope.
    Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, Lutherans do not believe the office of the papacy as such has any divine authority or that Christians need to submit to the Pope’s authority to be “true” members of the visible church.
This is not Scriptural. Peter was given “first place” among the Apostles. And the first converts devoted themselves to the Teachings of the Apostles:
Acts 2
And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
Hebrews 13
Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.
What do you think it means to be first of the Apostles?
  1. Differences remain about both the number and the nature of the sacraments.
    Roman Catholics speak of seven Sacraments while Lutherans tend to speak of only two (or three). More important than number is how the Sacraments are understood.
Here are the 7 Sacraments with Scriptural references:
ewtn.com/expert/answers/sacraments_in_scripture.htm
Transubstantiation is rejected for several reasons: It is a philosophical explanation for a work of Christ’s almighty Word which we can only believe, not explain. (Scripture refers to the elements as both bread and wine and body and blood, 1 Cor. 11:26-27).
It is not a philosophical explanation, but a defined doctrine. We do not regard consecrated bread and wine as such, but His Sacramental and Sacrificial body and blood. It’s not just pretending. We also profess, “When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim the death of our Lord, until he comes again.”
1 Cor. 10
I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
Transubstantiation leads to the assertion that the body and blood of Christ remain present “even apart from the administration of the Supper” and so encourages veneration of the elements apart from their sacramental use and detracts from the use Christ commands: “Take eat … drink … for the forgiveness of your sins.”
Eucharistic adoration is not done as a substitute for eating Holy Communion. It is an optional devotion to draw closer to the Cross in contemplation, meditation and prayer. It is setting yourself before the Lord’s gift, which is present but unseen without faith.
  1. Differences remain about the role of Mary and the saints.
Unlike Catholics, Lutherans do not believe it is proper or scriptural to offer prayers to saints or to view Mary as in any sense a “mediator” between God and human beings.
catholic.com/tracts/praying-to-the-saints
 
Several drinks later, I’m actually mellow enough to chill and reason. I’m going to try to address the points made by rcwitness in a cogent, respectful tone, not trying to fly off the handle ( I’m glad I arranged a Rite of Confession and Absolution yesterday. My pastor is wonderful in giving spiritual counsel and the topic of my temper did come up).

We agree that Martin Luther would not be in the Catholic Church today.
These are the reasons given in our Confessions for the high priority we give Scripture. Truly, Holy Writ is something that may not be changed and we as Lutherans base our traditions and test them off of and against Scripture: bookofconcord.org/confessionsandbible.php.
The Confessions speak of Church Order and the condition of the Church, the importance of the Sacraments and the power of the Bishops, the links of which I will provide here:
bookofconcord.org/defense_6_church.php
bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php
bookofconcord.org/defense_14_traditions.php.

Who would argue that the Holy Eucharist is the most important Sacrament to receive, for the increase of faith and for the partaking of the Body and Blood of Our Blessed Lord?
bookofconcord.org/defense_8_holysupper.php. This link will explain in part why we cannot accept the Pope as the temporal Head of Christendom, a position we feel is filled by Christ Himself: bookofconcord.org/treatise.php.

While we Lutherans do retain Penance, we go over it a bit differently: bookofconcord.org/defense_9_confession.php. We may not pray to the saints, but we do not ignore them altogether: bookofconcord.org/defense_20_saints.php.
The role of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, in the Lutheran Confessions: cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=m&word=MARIOLOGY
I use the Lutheran Rosary often in my private devotions. I love the Luminous Mysteries.
 
I think that Martin Luther would be Catholic today. The Church fixed its problems and started following the Bible more closely. Luther was opposed to Traditional Catholicism.
I guess calling Christ a habitual sinner would be accepted by the Church today… in order to accommodate Luther’s theology, right?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=k&word=KEYS.OFFICEOFTHE

bookofconcord.blogspot.com/2008/01/roundtable-29-church-authority.html

Who am I? A baptized Christian who will not go beyond the authority of God’s revealed Word. I am already in the ranks of the Church, but Rome… well… they still have a bit of work to do before we can even consider any kind of fellowship on an official level
lcms.org/faqs/denominations#catholic.
Correct…according to you and your confessions…our beloved Pope is the Anti-Christ.

What can you ever expect from a church led by the anti-Christ?🤷
 
I think it is entirely possible Luther would still be a Catholic were he in the post Vatican II Church. But of course it is impossible really to speculate on this. Much of what happened after Vatican II is what Luther was pushing for in his time.
…so post Vatican II allows multiple killing and multiple sexual relationships with the only caveat that we “believe” that we are forgiven by Christ no matter how extreme our appetite for sin?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Correct…according to you and your confessions…our beloved Pope is the Anti-Christ.

What can you ever expect from a church led by the anti-Christ?🤷
😦 That is a big part of the reason for the separation, yes. On the bright side, you are part of a church that proclaims the Gospel and correctly uses the Sacraments, so you are Christians and the Holy Spirit does work through your people, as he does through ours. Yes, to arrogate powers that are to be kept for Christ alone is a work of Anti- Christ and a grievous thing.
 
No he would not and for much the same reasons he broke away from Rome in 1517. The Papacy still holds unbiblical views in its claims to power,

According to whom? Your interpretation of Scriptures? Is your interpretation of Scriptures error free?
the current Pope seems more interested in cowtowing to the politically correct crowd than preaching the Gospel, while Pope Leo X cared about financing a Basilica with other people’s money and reacted badly to any challenge to his authority.
 
😦 That is a big part of the reason for the separation, yes. On the bright side, you are part of a church that proclaims the Gospel and correctly uses the Sacraments, so you are Christians and the Holy Spirit does work through your people, as he does through ours. Yes, to arrogate powers that are to be kept for Christ alone is a work of Anti- Christ and a grievous thing.
Gospel according to whom? And which is the correct gospel?

And the sacraments…how many of the sacraments? the 7 or only 2 or 3?

If one only recodnizes two or three sacraments…would you say they are correctly using the correct sacraments?

And how do you know you have not arrogated the powers kept of Christ by your own denominations actions?

By calling the pope the Anti-Christ…do you reckon you have ot arrogated the powers of Christ to yourself? 🤷
 
Several drinks later, I’m actually mellow enough to chill and reason. I’m going to try to address the points made by rcwitness in a cogent, respectful tone, not trying to fly off the handle ( I’m glad I arranged a Rite of Confession and Absolution yesterday. My pastor is wonderful in giving spiritual counsel and the topic of my temper did come up).
We agree that Martin Luther would not be in the Catholic Church today.
These are the reasons given in our Confessions for the high priority we give Scripture. Truly, Holy Writ is something that may not be changed and we as Lutherans base our traditions and test them off of and against Scripture: bookofconcord.org/confessionsandbible.php
 
:ehh: Really, dude? You took a brilliant paragraph explaining the beautiful thing that is God’s Grace —how He saves real, truly, evil sinners and transforms them into saints— and you seize on one measly sentence that is clearly hyperbolic? Really? Look, Luther was a lot like Pope Francis. Said a lot of things that are true, but can be twisted to mean something else when separated from their proper context. Don’t twist things.

But following your rationale here, would you seriously argue against Luther’s point? Would you seriously say that God is incapable of forgiving someone who has committed fornication and murder a thousand times in one day? Did Jesus not really mean it when He said that anyone who hates his brother is a murderer and anyone who looks lustfully after another is an adulterer? Because that’d likely make everyone on these boards guilty of commiting fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Oh, perhaps it’s not the sin that’s at issue for you, but rather the forgiveness? I guess Jesus didn’t really mean it when he told us to forgive others 70 times 7 times? You don’t want to go down this rabbit hole. The truth is, even by Catholic measures, Luther correctly states the limits of God’s forgiveness with regard to true repentance: nothing.

Again, you take these so far out of context (because you’ve given none) that I must assume you are simply uninformed and copy & pasting from some anti-Lutheran blog; an educated person could never conscience knowingly misrepresenting someone who’s beliefs are so close to their own.

The first quote is from the Table Talks, which were second and third-hand accounts of what Luther is purported to have said. These weren’t published theological points or even bits of sermons that Luther edited for clarity or accuracy. This was “Francis on the airplane,” if you will. Speaking contemporaneously, fast and loose to get a point across. No one seriously believes Luther considered Christ to have physically committed adultery. That’s blasphemous. Luther is clearly relaying what others were saying about Christ (“Was not everyone about Him saying…”). Kind of like saying, “Gee, that priest spends so much time with communists, I bet he’s one himself!” – when the simple truth is that he’s witnessing to people in Cuba. It isn’t so difficult to read.

The second quote, which, again, you’ve supplied no context for, is simply Luther admitting that even Christians can be plagued by doubt (he does this with a flair of hyperbole, as was his schtick). Maybe these words help;
“Who among us - everybody, everybody! - who among us has not experienced insecurity, loss and even doubts on their journey of faith? Everyone! We’ve all experienced this, me too. Everyone. It is part of the journey of faith, it is part of our lives. This should not surprise us, because we are human beings, marked by fragility and limitations. We are all weak, we all have limits: do not panic. We all have them!” - Pope Francis

The third “quote” isn’t even a real Luther quote, but a shoddy paraphrase. I’ve seen it before. Why don’t you present the context, eh? This is taken from a letter that Luther wrote about false teachers, who would proclaim what their “Christ” had done, but their “Christ” was not the Christ found in our Faith and the bible.
Hi, Don!
…you seem to be an excellent Lutheran apologetic… I’m not much of even an avid reader… but when searching the engine I will not jump into a Lutheran site… just like I would not jump into a Catholic site, as my only source…

…killing a thousand times and committing fornication a thousand times… that is not an exegesis that a Christian should even think about, let alone write to others or present it to a congregation…

Christ having sexual encounters with all sorts of women in His circle, you can defend such teachings? I could not understand it other than as Lutheran rant.

Am I too naïve in thinking that Luther would make such statements? Maybe… but the license of Pope Francis in generalizing about Churchtaken out of context is not the same as attesting that Christ is a habitual sinner or that one should put no faith in Christ acts but in what He Taught…

If I am wrong and the site quoted if fallacious I welcome the proof.

I do not need to interpret a statement to quote it.

Interestingly enough, St. Paul Taught this way:
1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. (Romans 6:1-4)
Quite the opposite of alluding to sin greatly so that Grace may abound even more!

As for Christ’s Divinity (Being without sin):
21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21)
5 For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. 8 He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. (Philippians 2:5-8)
Teaching that Christ committed sin is wrong, regardless of denominational root. Just as claiming that God’s Mercy abounds so that man can choose to live an endless sinful existence.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
No he would not and for much the same reasons he broke away from Rome in 1517. The Papacy still holds unbiblical views in its claims to power, the current Pope seems more interested in cowtowing to the politically correct crowd than preaching the Gospel, while Pope Leo X cared about financing a Basilica with other people’s money and reacted badly to any challenge to his authority. Luther cared more about correct doctrine being taught everywhere. Have you seen how liberal so many American Catholic dioceses have become?

The Roman Catholic tradition is not subordinate to that of Holy Scripture, but is held as equal to it. The Catholic Church encourages a semi-Pelagian view that one can cooperate in one’s own salvation, rather than justification and sanctification being entirely a work of the Holy Spirit, as both the Scripture and Luther teach. To quote our Church President: " Lutheranism is not a confessing movement in the Church Catholic, it’s the Catholic Church gone right!"

The authority of bishops means nothing more than administering the Sacraments, preaching the Gospel, excommunicating impenitent sinners and readmitting those who repent. To claim that someone on earth has the authority of Christ Himself is a grievous heresy indeed. There remains much work to be done if Confessional Lutheranism is ever to admit the Roman Catholic Church among its ranks.
So Jesus had it wrong?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
😦 That is a big part of the reason for the separation, yes. On the bright side, you are part of a church that proclaims the Gospel and correctly uses the Sacraments, so you are Christians and the Holy Spirit does work through your people, as he does through ours. Yes, to arrogate powers that are to be kept for Christ alone is a work of Anti- Christ and a grievous thing.
Yet, it was Christ Himself that delegated Authority… it seems that you and your church follow Luther’s authority to the empath power (as Luther knew the mind of St. Paul, you and your church know the mind of Christ). Granted since most non-Catholic religious groups originated in the 16th century it is difficult for you to ascertain anything that deals with Apostolic Succession (2000 years of Church history).

Consequently, anything that negates your self-appointed authority must be relegated to anti-Christ! (Good catch all!)

Maran atha!

Angel
 
And the sacraments…how many of the sacraments? the 7 or only 2 or 3?

If one only recodnizes two or three sacraments…would you say they are correctly using the correct sacraments?
Justin Martyr’s First Apology (130AD - 165AD)
Chapter 65. Administration of the sacraments
But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.
newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm
How many sacraments can we count as used in the 2nd century?

Cyril of Jerusalem (315AD - 386AD) has a series of lectures on The Mysteries
newadvent.org/fathers/310119.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/310120.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/310121.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/310122.htm
“1. By the loving-kindness of God you have heard sufficiently at our former meetings concerning Baptism, and** Chrism**, and partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ; and now it is necessary to pass on to what is next in order, meaning today to set the crown on the spiritual building of your edification.”
newadvent.org/fathers/310123.htm

Ambrose (340AD - 397AD) On The Mysteries
newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm
Here he describes the procedure for baptism, chrism(confirmation) and Eucharist.

How many sacraments were there by the 4th century? Are there sources that detail the 7 sacraments from this time or earlier? Of course people got married, ordained clergy and repented at this time (just as all Protestant groups do today), but did they specify these as a sacrament? If they didn’t have confirmation or ‘sacramental’ marriage in the first centuries, why is it essential for Christians to have this now?
 
Justin Martyr’s First Apology (130AD - 165AD)
newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm
How many sacraments can we count as used in the 2nd century?

Cyril of Jerusalem (315AD - 386AD) has a series of lectures on The Mysteries
newadvent.org/fathers/310119.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/310120.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/310121.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/310122.htm
“1. By the loving-kindness of God you have heard sufficiently at our former meetings concerning Baptism, and** Chrism**, and partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ; and now it is necessary to pass on to what is next in order, meaning today to set the crown on the spiritual building of your edification.”
newadvent.org/fathers/310123.htm

Ambrose (340AD - 397AD) On The Mysteries
newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm
Here he describes the procedure for baptism, chrism(confirmation) and Eucharist.

How many sacraments were there by the 4th century? Are there sources that detail the 7 sacraments from this time or earlier? Of course people got married, ordained clergy and repented at this time (just as all Protestant groups do today), but did they specify these as a sacrament? If they didn’t have confirmation or ‘sacramental’ marriage in the first centuries, why is it essential for Christians to have this now?
catholic.com/tracts/confirmation
 
I am prone to believe the Catholic Encyclopedia. Also, my Lutheran friend seems to disagree with you on several points.
I see. You would rather listen to your “Lutheran friend” and a propaganda site based on a century-old book that even its publisher no longer prints. Biased (and outdated) sources and anecdotal evidence are generally not considered reliable, but since your mind is made up, I guess you won’t be confused by facts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top