Does not apply in the Catholic world…we know where the bucks stops…and who has the authority and power to make this change…the seat of the anti-Christ in Rome.
Really? Can you show or demonstrate how Scripture would determine whether an interpretation is correct or not? How would the Scripture make that decision?
responsible for the Protestant Reformation because of my affiliation with the Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod. I’m flattered, although it is a rather laughable insinuation.
Where did I insinuate this?
is responsible for the Protestant Reformation, not me. Verbum Domini Manet in Aeternum, " the Word of the Lord will endure forever." It’s that word that has come down to us from the Apostles and Early Church Fathers.
Really? The Holy Spirit would cause the Church to divide?
to use other channels through which God can revitalize His Church. The Holy Spirit wasn’t going to be stopped by those who didn’t like the course He was taking.pablope;14042125 said:I guess so.If I try again and again, if I write pleading letters begging to have the issues addressed and am brushed off as a " drunken German monk," I guess I’ll have
Then you persevere in prayers, as the Bible states…pray for our leaders, amd put your trust in God and that God will act in his time, not your time…not call them the Anti-Christ.
Here is the example of Catherine of Siena:
ewtn.com/library/MARY/CATSIENA.HTM
Catherine wore herself out trying to heal this terrible breach in Christian unity and to obtain for Urban the obedience due to the legitimate head. Letter after letter was dispatched to the princes and leaders of Europe. To Urban himself she wrote to warn him to control his harsh and arrogant temper. This was the second pope she had counseled, chided, even commanded. Far from resenting reproof, Urban summoned her to Rome that he might profit by her advice. Reluctantly she left Siena to live in the Holy City. She had achieved a remarkable position for a woman of her time. On various occasions at Siena, Avignon, and Genoa, learned theologians had questioned her and had been humbled by the wisdom of her replies.
And the advise of Cardinal Cajetan to the REformers:
D. The Sole Remedy For A Bad Pope: A Text Of Cajetan’s On Prayer
ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin3.htm#08
To the bad theologians who thought that the Church would be defenceless if not allowed to depose a vicious Pope, Cardinal Cajetan, who had seen the reign of Alexander VI, had but one answer: he reminded them of the power of prayer. For never has it such power as in such crises. We must always have recourse to prayer, as one of the purest weapons a Christian can use. But here it is not only a “common” means, i. e. one to be used along with others, it is the “proper” means, the proper instrument for the use of the Church in distress. "If you tell me that prayer is but a common remedy to be used against all the ills that afflict us, and that for the special evil that troubles us here we need a proper remedy—since every effect comes of a proper cause, not merely from general causes—I reply, in a general way, that the highest causes, although they play the part of common causes in respect of lower effects, play in fact the part of proper causes in respect of higher effects.
yes… and I don’t argue that we have a Pastor of the global Church for the sake of the Pope. He is the last person I argue for.
[/QUOTE]
I see, certainly something to consider.
You’re speaking as if the Reformation was a bad thing or something. The Christian Church has had divisions ever since the days of the Arians and Gnostics, each side claiming its own orthodoxy. Luther did not want to split from the Church. Pope Leo X excommunicated him and those who followed him. I would argue that he did not in fact split from the Church and that his excommunication was invalidly issued by somebody interested in holding on to temporal power.[/QUOTE]
There is no self appointed authority. We have the Scriptures and we have our Confessions, which are faithful extrapolations of Holy Scripture. Jesus did indeed build His Church on the rock of Peter’s Confession, which is as unchanging as any other Confession revealed to man by God our heavenly Father. We speak not of Luther’s authority, but that of the Holy Spirit. What head do we need except that of Christ Himself, Whom we encounter every Sunday in the Proclamation of the Gospel and the reception of the Sacraments? For the sake of good order, we have the Order of the Ministry. We do have the True Faith, which is exactly where we need to be and where our pastors pray we are kept in after every reception of Communion and at the end of every Divine Service.
[/QUOTE]
The Catholic Church IS the Church.
They are* part* of it, certainly, but hardly the entire Church Catholic…achristianthing.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/too-damn-catholic/.
I think we all agree on this one.
Hi, Susan!
It is exactly because Christ delegated His Authority to the Church that the Church can, through the Guidance of the Holy Spirit, unfold the Word of God and produce the Doctrine that it has–removing the various conflicts and heresies that have risen since her Foundation. One man’s rebellion erected confusion and heresies that we will still suffer for decades if not centuries to come–Christ’s Call to Unity and Love, out of pure ego trip, has been hindered beyond reason… yet, the fault is not Luther’s alone… man is like herd animals running to and fro at the slightest stimuli; the Apostles Wrote about this herd mentality seeking to foment the and strengthen the Faith of the Believers:
…again, I was demonstrating the wrongness in expecting a completeness in the building of the Church–the Sacred Writings were in used for decades before the first effort took place to compile them into a single source format and distribute it in uniformity throughout the Church–this took hundreds of years to achieve… still, the Written Tradition was not the only format used by the Apostles and their Successors… we also have the Oral Tradition and the Doctrinal Practice which began to be observed and inked, right from Sacred Writings. It is this latter that non-Catholics do not possess nor want to recognize–it seems that it is easier for them to believe in Peter Pan than to believe in the Succession of the Apostles. Yet, that in itself poses a huge conundrum to them since their ties to the Church is removed to the 16th century revolt where one man, then a few others created their own disciplines and doctrines, I would dare say, in their own image.
Continuation is not new Revelation. Not once do we have Jesus stating that there is a division in His Body, where some are Given to be Apostles, prophets, miracle workers… yet, we find that the Holy Spirit begins to unfold Christ Revelation as St. Paul addresses what can be seen as some sort of disharmony in the Body as he calls for Unity of the Body while simultaneously establishing a ranking system (hierarchy) in the Body (1 Corinthians 12:1-31).
The Confessions are an interpretation of Scripture done by fallible men. They could and do contain error regarding many issues from a Catholic POV and not all Lutherans (at least it has been noted here) hold to the position the Pope is in the seat of/or is the AntiChrist. It depends what Lutheran you ask. We had a Lutheran pastor here Kjeitck or something as such that said that adhering to this belief was not necessary to be a Lutheran.
Your claim is flawed because you do not accept Scripture as your basis for Belief–if you did you would not abrogate against the only Church Founded by Christ.
Your understanding of Scriptures is based on your own interpretation, the interpretation of your organization, and the flawed interpretation of those who rebelled against Christ’s Founded Church.
Well, you’ve proven that you can not only misinterpret Luther’s words, but also mine. Let’s take a look at the context, shall we? You said:
I responded with the incontrovertible fact that Luther never presented this clearly hyperbolic (though theologically true) hypothetical to any “congregation,” but it is an out-of-context line from a fragment of a private letter to a personal friend and fellow pastor. Do not twist my words again, please.
So, again, I’ll ask – What is more likely?
*]That the millions of words Luther published publicly were all actually superseded by your interpretation of a few out-of-context lines in a personal letter?
*]That you misunderstand Luther’s meaning?
Hint: Occam’s razor applies.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Is that an anti-Protestant and anti-Semitic comment nestled in there?
You can remove the sarcasm. That’s actually precisely what Luther was saying to his dear friend. No respectable theologian or historian has taken Luther here as giving license to sin - only polemical writers and anti-Lutherans could portray him so dishonestly. Luther is clearly saying to his friend that we are all sinners and will remain so until the Second Coming. He is saying that there’s no such thing as a small sin; that all sins -even the littlest- can, eventually, pull us from God. And so, we must admit we are sinners (“Be a sinner!” or “Sin boldly!”) And we must repent even more boldly (“But confess Christ more boldly!”). Do you understand now what Luther meant? How can I help you understand this?
Um… no? That’s kind of my point. I don’t know what you’re getting at here, but I’m pretty sure it’s off-topic. As for name-calling, do you realize ‘Lutheran’ is a derogatory name that Catholics gave us? We called ourselves Evangelical-Christians, as our focus was on the Good News of Christ. But the Lutheran name stuck.
Right… you’re trying to call the ocean of Luther’s work dry because you misinterpreted a drop. OK. :aok:
