If protestantism is true ......Martin Luther a prophet ??

[steido01]

So was the Catholic Church in the west Prior to Luther the fullest expression of the true Church?

Good question, and one that I have struggled with, but not a whole lot. For that, and other reasons, Orthodoxy is often appealing, friend.

But the Western explanation of Justification (which I agree with Catholics, has proof in the early fathers), seems more in line with Paul’s Epistles than the Eastern concept of Theosis/Deification. Eastern concepts just seem to leave the door open to Gnosticism. Then again, I’ve been reading with a Western mind my whole life.

To answer the question: Yes, the Catholic Church in the West prior to Luther was the best place for true Christians to hear the Gospel. What’s more, it’s become incredibly more hospitable since the Reformation, Counter-Reformation and Vatican II.

If all of Lutheranism should disappear tomorrow, I would swim the Tiber before the Bosphorous, and it would be a difficult choice.

 

[Adamski]

I can only respond for Lutherans who hold to the historic confessional documents of the Lutheran reformation, or “Confessional Lutherans” (i.e. LCMS, WELS, ELS, other church bodies of the International Lutheran Conference and the Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference).

I cannot speak for mainline liberal Protestant bodies like the ELCA, which claim the Lutheran name but do not practice Lutheran teachings.

What’s your authority to disprove of the other lutheran groups ???

 

[Starwarsfan2]

No. As I said already, Lutherans do not believe in any sort of “Great Apostasy.” Believers have always existed in the Church, and Christ has promised that this will persist. We claim the same fathers that you do. We read them, and teach from them, and we follow that ancient faith - without new and novel doctrines which we believe were developed later by humans.

St. Ignatious of Antioch? I was paraphrasing him. But if that’s not good enough for you, look to Christ, who I already quoted. And if He isn’t good enough for you, look to your Magisterium, which says plainly that the church is both visible and invisible: catholicbridge.com/catholic/vatican_says_protestants_not_churches.php

We haven’t “ditched” anything. Baptism, Confession and the Lord’s Supper are still the Means of Grace instituted by Christ and accompanied with a sign, by which we receive Salvation (Sacraments). We still practice Marriage, Confirmation, Ordination, and Anointing the Sick, though we usually don’t count them as sacraments because we are not saved by them alone, but they have power because we are already Baptized and redeemed. We don’t really care about the number of Sacraments. We care more about how they are used.

Good explanation

 

[MaryT777]

May be you could tell me where Jesus said to Peter upon this rock that you can’t see I will build my invisible church (Matt 16:18)

Catholic teaching on the visible Church as well by Catholic Answers:

What does it mean to say that the Catholic Church is visible and has marks?

Full Question
I was reading a piece on Catholic apologetics, and it said that the Catholic Church was a visible church with marks. Can you explain what is meant by this?

Answer

The typical Protestant conception of the Church is that it is invisible. Though individuals may group together for fellowship and Bible study, their churches are really like clubs in a city. The real church, say Protestants, is the broad and unseen group of the saved.

The Catholic Church, in contrast, teaches that the Church is a visible organization. Being a visible organization, it can be identified–it has marks. The marks are that it is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic–“one” in that it is a unified organization, “holy” in that it is an organization divinely established, “catholic” in that it is to embrace all of mankind, and “apostolic” in that a line of succession has been kept with the authority Christ passed to Peter and the apostles.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

www.catholic.com/quickquestions

.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Good question, and one that I have struggled with, but not a whole lot. For that, and other reasons, Orthodoxy is often appealing, friend.

But the Western explanation of Justification (which I agree with Catholics, has proof in the early fathers), seems more in line with Paul’s Epistles than the Eastern concept of Theosis/Deification. Eastern concepts just seem to leave the door open to Gnosticism. Then again, I’ve been reading with a Western mind my whole life.

To answer the question: Yes, the Catholic Church in the West prior to Luther was the best place for true Christians to hear the Gospel. What’s more, it’s become incredibly more hospitable since the Reformation, Counter-Reformation and Vatican II.

If all of Lutheranism should disappear tomorrow, I would swim the Tiber before the Bosphorous, and it would be a difficult choice.

The eastern and western church never seemed to challenge each other over ideas of justification or how salvation works, they did challenge each other over how the trinity might operate or the power and authority of Rome. But you would say the Orthodox were wrong to separate from Roman communion?

 

[steido01]

The eastern and western church never seemed to challenge each other over ideas of justification or how salvation works, they did challenge each other over how the trinity might operate or the power and authority of Rome.

The challenge might not have been direct, but the West seemed to have a swifter response to Gnosticism than the East, and this is what led to fleshing out the Western views of Justification. I’m unwilling to say this was from better communication or education on the part of the West, so the only logical conclusion is that Eastern bishops were knowingly more tolerant of it. As for issues of the Papacy, I (and all Lutherans I know) would certainly side with Orthodoxy; the pope ought to admit his error and return to his place as the first among equals.

But you would say the Orthodox were wrong to separate from Roman communion?

Not at all. Rome’s unfounded claims were the cause of separation, not anything Orthodoxy did. Sorry if I was unclear. When I say the pre-Reformation, post-Schism West was [probably] the best ground for the Gospel, I mean it in the sense that it’s there that we see Justification described in ways that would later be called “Lutheran.” That’s not to say that the East couldn’t have been equally as hospitable to the Gospel, just that it hadn’t expressed it as clearly as the West did. Is that a little clearer?

And when I give my preference of the Tiber over the Bosphorous, I understate when I say it’s a difficult choice. But regarding the doctrine on which the Gospel stands or falls --Justification-- I am closer, I think, to the Western Patriarch. But maybe I haven’t read enough contemporary Eastern fathers.

 

[JonNC]

If protestanism is true …
Shouldn’t martin Luther have talked to God like Muhammad or Joseph smith, because basically he was saying God was wrong with his church. So if Luther never had a direct conversation with God such as Muhammad or j. Smith where does his authority come from since sola scriptora is surely a broken system.

What’s interesting is that, following the trend of late, a thread about “protestantism” becomes one about Lutheranism. So be it.
Nevertheless, I wish to expand the conversation with you, Adamski, if I may.
When you spoke of protestantism, which communion did you have in mind? There are many that would have little or nothing to do with Luther or Lutheranism.
And,
understanding that there are indeed numerous communions that would claim little of what Luther said, why do you think that any protestant communion other than Lutheranism would consider Luther a prophet?
And
why would you think Lutheranism would consider Luther a prophet?
And finally,
why do you think it necessary to link him to Muhammad and Joseph Smith, neither of whom were Christian, and neither of whom would be particularly enamored with Luther?

But to answered your question, I don’t believe Luther was a prophet, and he wasn’t vested particularly with any level of authority, either as a Catholic, or after his excommunication, other than that which comes with ordination.
Further, I do not believe Joseph Smith was a Christian (or Hebrew) prophet I don’t even know if members of the Latter Say Saints consider him such.
I do not believe Muhammad was a Christian (or Hebrew) prophet, though I suspect that Muslims think he was a prophet.
In either case, even if they spoke with God, they messed up the message pretty soundly.

Jon

 

[Starwarsfan2]

What branch of " Protestantism " we’re you referring to?

 

[Peter_J]

If protestanism is true …
Shouldn’t martin Luther have talked to God like Muhammad or Joseph smith, because basically he was saying God was wrong with his church. So if Luther never had a direct conversation with God such as Muhammad or j. Smith where does his authority come from since sola scriptora is surely a broken system.

Questions of expanding the conversation aside, does anyone find it odd that this got 26 responses (well, 27 now)?

Anyone at all?

 

[MaryT777]

Questions of expanding the conversation aside, does anyone find it odd that this got 26 responses (well, 27 now)?

Anyone at all?

No, we have a lot of Lutheran posters on Non Catholic forum, and in the big scheme of things that’s not that many posts.

Mary.

 

[Adamski]

What’s interesting is that, following the trend of late, a thread about “protestantism” becomes one about Lutheranism. So be it.
Nevertheless, I wish to expand the conversation with you, Adamski, if I may.
When you spoke of protestantism, which communion did you have in mind? There are many that would have little or nothing to do with Luther or Lutheranism.
And,
understanding that there are indeed numerous communions that would claim little of what Luther said, why do you think that any protestant communion other than Lutheranism would consider Luther a prophet?
And
why would you think Lutheranism would consider Luther a prophet?
And finally,
why do you think it necessary to link him to Muhammad and Joseph Smith, neither of whom were Christian, and neither of whom would be particularly enamored with Luther?

But to answered your question, I don’t believe Luther was a prophet, and he wasn’t vested particularly with any level of authority, either as a Catholic, or after his excommunication, other than that which comes with ordination.
Further, I do not believe Joseph Smith was a Christian (or Hebrew) prophet I don’t even know if members of the Latter Say Saints consider him such.
I do not believe Muhammad was a Christian (or Hebrew) prophet, though I suspect that Muslims think he was a prophet.
In either case, even if they spoke with God, they messed up the message pretty soundly.

Jon

My comparison to Luther and j. Smith was at least smith said God talked to me and I am he newest prophet. Luther according to him self was never appointed by any one or being at other than him self which means he has no authority to change any thing

 

[SalusaSecondus]

My comparison to Luther and j. Smith was at least smith said God talked to me and I am he newest prophet. Luther according to him self was never appointed by any one or being at other than him self which means he has no authority to change any thing

He didn’t change anything. If you read the Augsburg Confession and its Defense, Melanchthon makes it clear that the evangelicals aren’t teaching anything that wasn’t already long accepted by the church catholic.

 

[Adamski]

He didn’t change anything. If you read the Augsburg Confession and its Defense, Melanchthon makes it clear that the evangelicals aren’t teaching anything that wasn’t already long accepted by the church catholic.

How about ripping the pages of 7 books of the bible and throwing them away

Or getting rid of the sacraments

 

[JonNC]

How about ripping the pages of 7 books of the bible and throwing them away

Or getting rid of the sacraments

Luther’s translation has 74 books. Luther was exercising the same liberty other Catholics did in questioning books in the canon.

I have been baptized, confirmed, received Absolution, received the Eucharist , been married, all by men who were ordained. And anointing is available. That’s seven. If you wish to call all of them sacrament that’s okay by me.

So, nothing was ripped away or gotten rid of

Jon

 

[Adamski]

Luther’s translation has 74 books. Luther was exercising the same liberty other Catholics did in questioning books in the canon.

I have been baptized, confirmed, received Absolution, received the Eucharist , been married, all by men who were ordained. And anointing is available. That’s seven. If you wish to call all of them sacrament that’s okay by me.

So, nothing was ripped away or gotten rid of

Jon

Do you believe in mortal sin, this lutheran church sounds a lot differnt than the one in my town with the giant rainbow banner

 

[SalusaSecondus]

Do you believe in mortal sin, this lutheran church sounds a lot differnt than the one in my town with the giant rainbow banner

Sounds like they are ELCA. Mostly Lutheran in name only. Don’t lump us all together.

 

[steido01]

Do you believe in mortal sin, this lutheran church sounds a lot differnt than the one in my town with the giant rainbow banner

Generally, yes. Though we don’t typically make a distinction or speak in terms of ‘mortal’ and ‘venial.’ All sins can become mortal if not repented, absolved and corrected.

Confessional Lutherans (those who actually follow the Lutheran Confessions) are not the sort to fly rainbow banners unless we’re celebrating Genesis 9.

These links might be useful:
Evangelical Catholicism (Lutheranism)
A New (Confessional) Direction in Catholic-Lutheran Dialogue
Roman Catholics and Confessional Lutherans explore deeper ties