If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic? - 3

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O.S.Luke said:
Just for the record… it was 95 Theses, and it was on the door of All Saints’ Church, not the Vatican.

But Frank… you are way off, man. It is this kind of çrap - on both sides of the Tiber - that does no service to Christianity… and why fewer people are drawn to the Church, regardless of stripe.

O+
Click to expand...
Lots of things to remember in World Civ II, but I know I was a lot closer than Frank, but thanks for the refresher. One thing though I was always told he posted it to the front wooden door of the vatican and the door was later changed to steel and gold.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Just for the record, it was NOT All Saints Church but rather “Castle Church” in Wittenberg, Germany. The 95 you got right…
Click to expand...
I did not know that. I knew Luther was from Saxon, Germany and I remember the Castle Church, but I always thought it was the Vatican front door. His life was spared bc he knew many noblemen and another guy tried it later and it did not fare well for him. Thank you too for the refresher
 
ckempston said:
Actually, I just assumed that since he referenced Luther and was bashing Catholicism, that he was a Lutheran. I didn’t realize he was Orthodox. Hence, my response that Martin Luther sure wrote some nasty stuff himself. And perhaps the reason Luther gets attacked is because he deserves it, and most “Protestant” Christians are totally ignorant of the man’s issues?
Click to expand...
The problem with this sort of thinking is you are talking a double standard:

When Luther wrote his theological writings and commentaries, anti-Protestant Catholics say we shouldn’t listen to him because he was antisemitic, anti-Pope, anti-Catholic, and said violent things about the Church.

So the message you’re sending is this: whether his message is on or off target, his personal opinions and life as well as “issues” going on in his life make him fair game and we shouldn’t take his message seriously…

But when anti-Catholic folks trash popes in the middle ages for selling indulgences, having mistresses, fathering children out of wedlock, starting wars, pitting European countries against each other for personal gain, exploiting real estate and royal ties for financial power, etc. then Catholics say "yeah yea yeah, a pope’s personal life has NOTHING TO DO with his infallibility given him by the Magisterium of the Church. He can knock over a liquor store and then go home and write down 100% holy doctrine.

We must apply the same standard to both: keep with what they TAUGHT THEOLOGICALLY and ignore their “issues”

Luther was a BRILLIANT theologian; his knowledge of the OT and NT as well as the early fathers, saints, and church politics was unsurpassed. Most Catholics secretly have a sneaking admiration for him; I know I do. He took a stand for what he believed in during a time where he could have and would have been burned at the stake were it not for Frederick the Wise, etc. protecting him in the end. Whether you agree with him or not, he was a genius and his reformation fueled the modern age with democracies and individual freedom. Let’s cut the guy a little slack.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
The problem with this sort of thinking is you are talking a double standard:

When Luther wrote his theological writings and commentaries, anti-Protestant Catholics say we shouldn’t listen to him because he was antisemitic, anti-Pope, anti-Catholic, and said violent things about the Church.

So the message you’re sending is this: whether his message is on or off target, his personal opinions and life as well as “issues” going on in his life make him fair game and we shouldn’t take his message seriously…

But when anti-Catholic folks trash popes in the middle ages for selling indulgences, having mistresses, fathering children out of wedlock, starting wars, pitting European countries against each other for personal gain, exploiting real estate and royal ties for financial power, etc. then Catholics say "yeah yea yeah, a pope’s personal life has NOTHING TO DO with his infallibility given him by the Magisterium of the Church. He can knock over a liquor store and then go home and write down 100% holy doctrine.

We must apply the same standard to both: keep with what they TAUGHT THEOLOGICALLY and ignore their “issues”

Luther was a BRILLIANT theologian; his knowledge of the OT and NT as well as the early fathers, saints, and church politics was unsurpassed. Most Catholics secretly have a sneaking admiration for him; I know I do. He took a stand for what he believed in during a time where he could have and would have been burned at the stake were it not for Frederick the Wise, etc. protecting him in the end. Whether you agree with him or not, he was a genius and his reformation fueled the modern age with democracies and individual freedom. Let’s cut the guy a little slack.
Click to expand...
Point taken. 😉
 
ckempston said:
Actually, I just assumed that since he referenced Luther and was bashing Catholicism, that he was a Lutheran. I didn’t realize he was Orthodox. Hence, my response that Martin Luther sure wrote some nasty stuff himself. And perhaps the reason Luther gets attacked is because he deserves it, and most “Protestant” Christians are totally ignorant of the man’s issues?
Click to expand...
I understand, ck. It’s just a little monotonous to have to see repeated over and over and over; I assure you, Luther doesn’t care. He’s dead! Luther was far too polemical for my own tastes, but he was a product of his time. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t right theologically. And really, to Lutherans, that is all that matters. Sure, he had his own personal demons. Who doesn’t?
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Just for the record, it was NOT All Saints Church but rather “Castle Church” in Wittenberg, Germany. The 95 you got right…
Click to expand...
All Saints’ Church, a/k/a Schloss Wittenberg, IS the Schlosskirche (the Castle Church), as opposed to St. Mary’s, which was the Stadtkirche (Town Church).
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
The problem with this sort of thinking is you are talking a double standard:

When Luther wrote his theological writings and commentaries, anti-Protestant Catholics say we shouldn’t listen to him because he was antisemitic, anti-Pope, anti-Catholic, and said violent things about the Church.

So the message you’re sending is this: whether his message is on or off target, his personal opinions and life as well as “issues” going on in his life make him fair game and we shouldn’t take his message seriously…

But when anti-Catholic folks trash popes in the middle ages for selling indulgences, having mistresses, fathering children out of wedlock, starting wars, pitting European countries against each other for personal gain, exploiting real estate and royal ties for financial power, etc. then Catholics say "yeah yea yeah, a pope’s personal life has NOTHING TO DO with his infallibility given him by the Magisterium of the Church. He can knock over a liquor store and then go home and write down 100% holy doctrine.

We must apply the same standard to both: keep with what they TAUGHT THEOLOGICALLY and ignore their “issues”

Luther was a BRILLIANT theologian; his knowledge of the OT and NT as well as the early fathers, saints, and church politics was unsurpassed. Most Catholics secretly have a sneaking admiration for him; I know I do. He took a stand for what he believed in during a time where he could have and would have been burned at the stake were it not for Frederick the Wise, etc. protecting him in the end. Whether you agree with him or not, he was a genius and his reformation fueled the modern age with democracies and individual freedom. Let’s cut the guy a little slack.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the way my professor in college put it. I cant disagree with you there. I think we as Catholics are so beyond that now, and all religions have their share of trouble. I think that is why people are on the defensive about Franks remarks. We never participated in these types of indulgences beause we werent alive then, and I personally am never going to let a few priests that lost their way mar my religion. I am proud to be Catholic. There’s a whole-lotta pastors and rev’s out there that have done just as bad.
 
BLUEMOON74 said:
This is exactly the way my professor in college put it. I cant disagree with you there. I think we as Catholics are so beyond that now, and all religions have their share of trouble. I think that is why people are on the defensive about Franks remarks. We never participated in these types of indulgences beause we werent alive then, and I personally am never going to let a few priests that lost their way mar my religion. I am proud to be Catholic. There’s a whole-lotta pastors and rev’s out there that have done just as bad.
Click to expand...
I think we both can agree that at least Luther wasn’t John Calvin.

What a stiff.
 
We have the Eucharist as we accept Transubstantiation from Jesus himself and from the earliest believers. The Anglican Church believes in Consubstantiation. Jesus said, "This IS my body", not, "This is my body with bread".

As a former Anglican I will say, as I’ve had to say to many folks making this claim in these threads, that the Anglicans do NOT believe in consubstantiation! That is more of a Lutheran theory and even many of them don’t subscribe to it. Anglicans believe that the Eucharist is present in a spiritual manner in a real way and yet not transubstantiated. They believe it is a mystery not to be understood and defined. Queen Elizabeth’s quote about the Eucharist was accepted by many Anglicans:

Christ was the word that spake it.
He took the bread and break it;
And what his words did make it
That I believe and take it.

The Book of Common Prayer states:

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the
Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture,
overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and
spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the
Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about,
lifted up, or worshipped
----Book of Common Prayer (Historical Documents section)
 
BLUEMOON74 said:
lol yeah.
Click to expand...
Just as a side note of curiosity; While Luther excoriated the papacy and hierarchy of Rome during his day, he did still consider both the Roman Church corporately, and its individual members to be Christians. He did not afford the same viewpoint to the Zwinglians, proto-Calvinists, and Anabaptists. He categorically refused to address them as fellow Christians.

Just to show his polemics cut both ways haha.
 
TriuneUnity said:
Just as a side note of curiosity; While Luther excoriated the papacy and hierarchy of Rome during his day, he did still consider both the Roman Church corporately, and its individual members to be Christians. He did not afford the same viewpoint to the Zwinglians, proto-Calvinists, and Anabaptists. He categorically refused to address them as fellow Christians.

Just to show his polemics cut both ways haha.
Click to expand...
Agree. Dr. LaPierre did state that, and he thought that was why he had so many friends in the Catholic faith, and friends like Fredrick the wise–noblemen, etc. I think it was why he was not beheaded, He did respect life and all Christians regardless of faith, he just called a spade a spade amongst religion. I too believe that there were problems then, but then there were problems everywhere, I do believe in the end overall he was a good guy…just a rebel with a cause…now in days he would be a rebel without a clue…somewhat. lol
 
O.S.Luke said:
All Saints’ Church, a/k/a Schloss Wittenberg, IS the Schlosskirche (the Castle Church), as opposed to St. Mary’s, which was the Stadtkirche (Town Church).
Click to expand...
Very true! Not being a student of German like yourself, I yield. Good point!
 
BLUEMOON74 said:
Agree. Dr. LaPierre did state that, and he thought that was why he had so many friends in the Catholic faith, and friends like Fredrick the wise–noblemen, etc. I think it was why he was not beheaded, He did respect life and all Christians regardless of faith, he just called a spade a spade amongst religion. I too believe that there were problems then, but then there were problems everywhere, I do believe in the end overall he was a good guy…just a rebel with a cause…now in days he would be a rebel without a clue…somewhat. lol
Click to expand...
Well, there is a couple of reasons for this. It must be stressed, though many Roman Catholics downplay its significance, that Luther did recognize that the Western Church was the visible Church that Christ himself founded; He acknowledged that Scripture was received by that Church; that the Pope was the bishop who served in the most prominent place within Christendom; and that authority was given to her to preach the Gospel. What he felt happened was that men, who defied the apostolic witness entrusted to the Church, corrupted its teachings and as a result, the Church needed to be reformed as in weeding out the false teachings that had crept in over the few centuries prior to his own time. That is it stated in a very short nutshell. Of course, anyone is free to disregard his viewpoints on that, but he considered his movement to be an attempt to restore Rome to its previous position.

The Zwinglians and Anabaptists, however, he felt were rebels who were reinventing the wheel, and not reforming the Church, but breaking off and starting a new sectarian movement. He refused to acknowledge them as Christians primarily because they denied the Real Presence. While I do not share Luther’s views that non-Lutherans, and non-Catholics are not Christians… in the case of Huldrych Zwingli, he died a heretic.
 
BLUEMOON74 said:
I did not know that. I knew Luther was from Saxon, Germany and I remember the Castle Church, but I always thought it was the Vatican front door. His life was spared bc he knew many noblemen and another guy tried it later and it did not fare well for him. Thank you too for the refresher
Click to expand...
Sorry for the correction, BLUE, you WERE right. O.S. pointed out to me my mistake! I’ve always read it called “Castle Church” and never realized All Saints WAS Castle Church! My mistake! Not yours…
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Sorry for the correction, BLUE, you WERE right. O.S. pointed out to me my mistake! I’ve always read it called “Castle Church” and never realized All Saints WAS Castle Church! My mistake! Not yours…
Click to expand...
eh… we were both wrong, Frank the worst, me second, you third. lol
It was not the Vatican, and the 2 aforementioned churches were the same. I stand corrected as well.

😊
 
BLUEMOON74 said:
eh… we were both wrong, Frank the worst, me second, you third. lol
It was not the Vatican, and the 2 aforementioned churches were the same. I stand corrected as well.

😊
Click to expand...
What a bunch of knuckleheads! lol
 
TriuneUnity said:
Well, there is a couple of reasons for this. It must be stressed, though many Roman Catholics downplay its significance, that Luther did recognize that the Western Church was the visible Church that Christ himself founded; He acknowledged that Scripture was received by that Church; that the Pope was the bishop who served in the most prominent place within Christendom; and that authority was given to her to preach the Gospel. What he felt happened was that men, who defied the apostolic witness entrusted to the Church, corrupted its teachings and as a result, the Church needed to be reformed as in weeding out the false teachings that had crept in over the few centuries prior to his own time. That is it stated in a very short nutshell. Of course, anyone is free to disregard his viewpoints on that, but he considered his movement to be an attempt to restore Rome to its previous position.

The Zwinglians and Anabaptists, however, he felt were rebels who were reinventing the wheel, and not reforming the Church, but breaking off and starting a new sectarian movement. He refused to acknowledge them as Christians primarily because they denied the Real Presence. While I do not share Luther’s views that non-Lutherans, and non-Catholics are not Christians… in the case of Huldrych Zwingli, he died a heretic.
Click to expand...
Why dont you quote me some good stock heh heh?!😛
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top