It's nothing personal

[bpbasilphx]

<<
“Have you accepted Jesus as your own personal Lord and Savior?”
The real question is how Protestants in general, and pop-evangelicals in particular, who pride themselves on “sola scriptura” have come up with this formula that is nowhere in the Bible.

 

[fellowChristian]

Did you know ?

There were no other Christian churches in existence but the Catholic Church in 1517?

Martin Luther was a Catholic monk who received his education from the Catholic Church.

His father and mother,as well as the rest of his family,were Catholic.

He made vows within the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Churches council agreed with 54 points Martin made.

Because of him there was a counter reformation within the church.

He did not have to be excommunicated.

He refused to take back 41 points of errors out of 95.

He had 60 days to think about it.

He broke his vows.

He became head of his own church,father,poppa,pope.

He was a human being.

He knew the Catholic Church had decided on the canon of the Bible.

He knew it was because of the Catholic Church that the Mass of Christ was celebrated=Christmas.

He knew Jesus had founded the Catholic Church.

He knew Jesus is God.

He was about 35 years old.

The 95 Theses
ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/LUTHER95.TXT

LUTHER WRITES OBITUARY OF HIS OWN CHURCH
ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/MLUTH.TXT

 

[fellowChristian]

Our children share our nature,they are human beings because we are.

Jesus shares His Fathers nature, He is God because the Father is God.

Jesus also shares His mothers nature,He is human because she is human.

All of us have one nature we are human.

Jesus has two natures He is both human and Divine. because of His parents.

And because Jesus is one with His Church His Church is both human and Divine.

We make up the body of His Church that is the human part.

Jesus being one with His Church, and the Holy Spirit guiding it. That is the Divine part.

Jesus is the Head of the Church. She is guided by the Holy Spirit.

That is why you can not say the “Church is wrong” you would be saying that God is wrong.

You can say that some of the people who make up the Body of the Church were wrong.

And if the some of the people who are part of the church are wrong it does not make the church anyless His!

Jesus is one with his church.

 

[averheyen]

Did you know ?

There were no other Christian churches in existence but the Catholic Church in 1517?

There were the Schismatic unions, but nothing as absurd as what Martin Luthur Proposed.

Now the Catholic Church as an entity wasn’t exactly the “house of the holy” at that moment in time, and there was plenty of sin on all sides during the reformation, Catholic or Protestant.

But at the end of the day, when you sift everything down, Martin Luthur was unjustifiably defiant.

 

[vrlobo88]

You have reversed cause and effect, here.

Authority comes from authority - this is true. But it’s not true that the man with the gold makes the rules - rather, we give the gold to the man who makes the rules, so that he might rule in our favour. Thus, the ruler gets the gold. (And sometimes he becomes corrupted by it, and then he needs to be challenged. But his replacement has to be authorized by a recognized authority, because authority still has to come from authority; he (or she) can’t just appoint himself (or herself).)

The problem is, you are looking at it as if it was a democracy…it wasn’t. The Pope had barriers set in place that prevented reform. It was almost as if the rule was that only the Pope could change things. No one entrusted their sovereignty in the Church…it was automatically taken by the Church. How can a replacement be authorized if the only ones who can authorize are those who will be ousted from their high seats by such an authorization? I’m not attacking you, but merely explaining that it wasn’t as easy to purify corruption without severing ties back then. I doubt Luther would have seceded had the Church listened to him with a loving heart and open mind. Being bad felt too good.

From Luther’s 95 Theses:

1. The pope neither desires nor is able to remit any penalties except those imposed by his own authority or that of the canons.
2. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring and showing that it has been remitted by God; or, to be sure, by remitting guilt in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in these cases were disregarded, the guilt would certainly remain unforgiven.

You needed the Pope’s cooperation…and Luther knew that wasn’t going to happen.

Jesus would have gladly not bashed the Pharisees and Sadducees had they been willing to reform, but they wouldn’t, so He had to challenge them.

 

[fellowChristian]

Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus

Chapter 4.—Proofs of the Catholic Faith

1. For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty (since the rest of the multitude derive their entire security not from acuteness of intellect, but from simplicity of faith,)—not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom.
   The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age.

The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate.

And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.

Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of our understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully disclose itself.

But with you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me, the promise of truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion.

Written by Saint Augustine of Hippo a Doctor of the church in 395ad.

Do you think Martin ever read this?

WOW why can’t I write like that?

I guess it must have been the gift he received from the Holy Spirit.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I doubt Luther would have seceded had the Church listened to him with a loving heart and open mind.

You mean if “the Church” wouldn’t have been so “mean,” Luther would have scrapped the whole plan of destruction???

 

[guanophore]

here's the problem with authority....the man with the gold makes the rules....the person who currently holds authority gets to say who has authority, so naturally he gives it to himself/ his friends.

This statement begins with a false premise. All authority comes from God. All the Gold belongs to God too. Furthermore, God’s authority is supernatural. I won’t deny that He gives it to his friends, though.

denying authority is not denying God or His authority....

Please help me understand how you have dispensed with this verse:

Luke 10:16

16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

there are plenty of times when authority is missused (we are only human after all and are susceptible to greed), and in such cases, it is necessary to challenge said authority.

Where do you find this principle in your Bible?

Jesus clearly showed in the parable of the talents that people could misuse them. He did not encourage them to vie with one another! When He returned, He dealt with all of them in justice.

although i don’t recognize the legitimacy of many denominations within the greater realm of Christianity, I feel Martin Luther was very justified in splitting off from the Catholic Church. The Church was in the wrong…plain and simple…Luther did not try to challenge God’s authority…He meant well and meant to preserve the integrity of God’s mission on earth.

Perhaps you have not read many of the hostile and vindictive writings of Luther, which indicate that he was lacking in love. We see that there were many reformers that chose to work within the Church, and exemplified themselves with saintly lives. Instead of causing division in the Body, they worked for personal and corporate holiness.

also, the Pope, like any human is fallible (yes, i know we are suppossed to belive that at times-not always- he is infallible). we recognize the Pope’s authority out of necessity for the survival of the Church.

Then these are the wrong reasons for recognizing. The Pope has authority because it was given by God. No, it does not make him personally inerrant, just as Peter can be a Rock one minute, and co-opted by satan the next. It is only by God’s grace that the Pope can maintain.

why is male authority asserted in the Bible? because men wrote it (well most of it). yes, it is the “inspired” Word of God, but human innacuracy and bias is apparent in the scripture as well.

Certainly. However, you can see throughout scripture that God has been developing for HImself a spotless Bride. Israel fell short of His plan, so He sent His son to create and purify a people for HImself.

 

[guanophore]

God did!

…by giving humans brains. I am a Catholic and love the Church, but if tomorrow, I saw the Church as I knew it corrupt and straying from the work of God, it would be my obligation to stand up and say NO; ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Luther did not try to greedily topple the Church, He sought to preserve the true message of God.

There are ways to stand up for what is right without violating the authority put in place by God. There are ways to preserve the message without rebellion and detraction. Jesus taught us not to try to pull out the tares, but to let them grow together with the wheat until the harvest, when God will sort them out. Taking it upon oneself to pull out the tares is usurping a role that is inappropriate for any Christian.

The Catholic Church has had its fair share of corruption.

This is a slanderous remark, and wrong. The Church is the pure bride of Christ, and cannot be corrupted, as she is HIs Body. A distinction must be made between the pure bride of Christ and the persons joined to her who are still in need of purification.

Eph 5:25-27
Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish."

While the Church is pure, clean and without spot and wrinkle, those of us who are in the process of being sanctified do still have spots and wrinkles. The challenge is to confront the behavior of the fallen members without tearing at the spotless bride. Luther made no distinction between the two, and the result was dismembering the Bride.

In addition, Luther was prevented by speaking up because of 3 things (I can’t remember at the moment, but I’ll post them later)…they are 3 barriers to bringing about change.

Is this a new thread?

The Church should not rule by bringing fear to the people of the world. We killed Galileo and plenty of "heretics" in the name of God, but that does not mean that the Church was right in doing so.

You clearly need to understand better what happened with Galileo. I agree with you that there is not need to “rule by fear”. However, the Church is responsible for the Holy Writings, and they have not the authority to change the wording in them to confrom to modern science, as Galileo wanted them to do.

 

[guanophore]

Hubris? Are you kidding? Do you think Martin Luther split because he was arrogant?

Yes. There were many who were scandalized by the behavior of corrupt clerics. They worked within the Body to reform the practices. It is no different than the present day scandal of sex abuse. Leaving is not the answer.

I’m a Catholic and I love the Church, but any person who has studied the history of the Church knows that the Church has had a lot of corruption in the past.

This is where you are failing (as Luther did) to distinquish between the Spotless Body of the Lord and the corrupt behavior of certain members.

It is not wrong for someone who sees corruption to question it and challenge it.

Certainly not,but there are ways to do this that will preserve unity.

The Church should not rule by keeping its members in fear and ignorance. That is exactly what it was doing.

This is a misplaced accusation. Placing the blame for misbehavior of certain individuals and practices at the feet of Christ , the Head of the Body, is wrong. It does not glorify Him, certainly, but to blame Him for it is wrong.

Luther sought not to spit in the face of the Church; he was protecting Christ’s true message by avoiding the corruption.

It was plenty possible to avoid corruption without spitting. Have you read his writings? I think you will find quite a bit of spitting.

I don’t recognize the legitimacy of other denominations, but I definitely don’t think that Martin Luther was in the wrong.

Intolerance of corruption is a good thing. Tearing apart the Body is not.

He is a martyr (figuratively) for truth, who could look past membership in the Church and focus on God’s true message.

Well, lets see. Saul was looking past Church membership to focus on what he thought was God’s true message…Jesus confronted him and said “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me”. Jesus considered persecution of His Bride a direct assault on Himself. This is what Luther apparently could not grasp.

 

[geraldffff]

interesting thread

 

[rpp]

The problem is, you are looking at it as if it was a democracy…it wasn’t. The Pope had barriers set in place that prevented reform. It was almost as if the rule was that only the Pope could change things. No one entrusted their sovereignty in the Church…it was automatically taken by the Church. How can a replacement be authorized if the only ones who can authorize are those who will be ousted from their high seats by such an authorization? I’m not attacking you, but merely explaining that it wasn’t as easy to purify corruption without severing ties back then. I doubt Luther would have seceded had the Church listened to him with a loving heart and open mind. Being bad felt too good.

From Luther’s 95 Theses:

1. The pope neither desires nor is able to remit any penalties except those imposed by his own authority or that of the canons.
2. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring and showing that it has been remitted by God; or, to be sure, by remitting guilt in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in these cases were disregarded, the guilt would certainly remain unforgiven.

You needed the Pope’s cooperation…and Luther knew that wasn’t going to happen.

Jesus would have gladly not bashed the Pharisees and Sadducees had they been willing to reform, but they wouldn’t, so He had to challenge them.

I believe you are quoting these theses out of context. The context was in reference to indulgences and the rejection of the Catholic Church teaching that the Pope, or any other priest, could forgive sins or that an indulgence, determined by the Pope, could actually remove the temporal punishment for sin.

 

[jmcrae]

The problem is, you are looking at it as if it was a democracy…it wasn’t. The Pope had barriers set in place that prevented reform.

I don’t know whether this is true or not. What I do know is that St. Teresa of Avila succeeded in bringing reform to the Church where Martin Luther failed - and died (to her great relief) a daughter of the Church. (She was found innocent of heresy by the Inquisition, and today, we honour her as a Saint and Doctor of the Church.)

Once again, a powerless unmarried woman with a few friends defeats Satan and drives him out of the Church - it seems to be God’s way.

Martin Luther’s problem was not that he wanted reform, but that he was a heretic, and wanted to promulgate heresy. He was also a man of great pride, and he was not willing to listen to those who had authority over him. Contrast this with St. Teresa of Avila, whose diary is a record of constant obedience, even in the face of great odds - she believed that if her superiors commanded it, then God wanted it, which meant that it was possible to do, even if it appeared to be impossible - for example, building a house for her convent without any money.

 

[geraldffff]

You clearly need to understand better what happened with Galileo. I agree with you that there is not need to “rule by fear”. However, the Church is responsible for the Holy Writings, and they have not the authority to change the wording in them to confrom to modern science, as Galileo wanted them to do.

Could you explain what exactly Galileo did in an attempt to get the Church to change Holy writings? Did he make a direct attack or challenge to the church or did he just write things that put church teaching in to question? Would you provide a link with your explanation?

 

[rpp]

Could you explain what exactly Galileo did in an attempt to get the Church to change Holy writings? Did he make a direct attack or challenge to the church or did he just write things that put church teaching in to question? Would you provide a link with your explanation?

Actually, what got Galileo into trouble was that he was a tactless boor of a man and would often insult people, even his own benefactors. When he wrote a book that appeared to mock the Pope in the person he named Simplicio he really got int trouble.

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/GalileoAffair.html
catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp
And from a secular source:
quest.nasa.gov/galileo/About/galileobio.html

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius:

Jesus established the Authority when He founded His Church. It was the only Christian Church until the 16th century. Why do people think they can reinterpret the faith 1600 years later and that they know better than those who received it directly from Christ and the Apostles? Pure egotism and hubris, that’s the only answer.

Hubris? Are you kidding? Do you think Martin Luther split because he was arrogant?

What would you call it when you think that you, 16 centuries after the fact, know better than those who received the Truth directly from Christ and the Apostles.

It is not wrong for someone who sees corruption to question it and challenge it. The Church should not rule by keeping its members in fear and ignorance. That is exactly what it was doing.

How do you figure that?

Luther sought not to spit in the face of the Church; he was protecting Christ’s true message by avoiding the corruption.

St. Francis and St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Augustine and many more through the whole history of the Church corrected Popes and brought reform to the Church without causing schism and tearing souls away from The Church.
The reform could, and indeed was, done by St. Terese within the Church. The only difference is that one started the false, man made doctrines of Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, etc. One was so egotistical that he thought he alone could through out books of the bible. And one obtained great political benefits from the local princes for his act of rebellion.

 

[vrlobo88]

okay…lots of activity on this thread…firstly, many of you have issues with disagreeing with the Pope, whom you believe Jesus put in power. Jesus put Peter in power, He did not decree who would continue on afterwards. Where did Jesus say that a college of cardinals should elect a Pope?

someone, a few posts back, asked where the Bible justified challenging corrupt authority. what do you think Jesus did genius? even if the Bible didn’t explicitly say it is okay to challenge corruption, common sense tells us its okay…that’s the beauty of Catholicism…we are not only Bible based…we combine the Bible, tradition, and logic (well, most of us on the 3rd one).

try telling Martin Luther King Jr. that his challenging corrupt authority is not allowed according to the Bible…

also, don’t get overly caught up on words. when I say, “the Church” I am referring to the Roman Catholic Church as an organization administered by imperfect humans, not the pure Church established by Christ…

 

[LSK]

there are plenty of times when authority is missused (we are only human after all and are susceptible to greed), and in such cases, it is necessary to challenge said authority.

although i don’t recognize the legitimacy of many denominations within the greater realm of Christianity, I feel Martin Luther was very justified in splitting off from the Catholic Church. The Church was in the wrong…plain and simple…Luther did not try to challenge God’s authority…He meant well and meant to preserve the integrity of God’s mission on earth.

The problem, as I see it, is not that the former priest was wrong in speaking out against the abuses being practiced by others in the Church. Nor was it wrong to want to reform those people who were doing wrong. The problem was splitting from the Catholic Church and then perverting God’s Holy Scripture in order to ‘prove’ a theology that was wrong. There is a difference. He did not mean, ultimately, to preserve the integrity of God’s Church - he did it to push forward his OWN ideas and set himself up as an authority.

In other words, he wanted to be Pope and when he couldn’t be he threw a tantrum, picked up his marbles and went away.

St. Frances de Sales and others of that time somehow were able to remain faithful to the Holy Mother Church without trying to set up their own denominations. What was the difference between Martin Luther and St. Frances de Sales?

perhaps…humility?

 

[fellowChristian]

Luke 10:16

16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

And there it is in Scripture!
Authority from the Father given to the Son and from the Son to men.
And what does the Son say?
Reject the men,reject Him and the Father.

**Matthew 16:19 **
19"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

"whatever you"He leaves it up to the Apostles to decide.

Luke 9

1And He called the twelve together, and gave **them power and authority **over all the demons and to heal diseases.

**Can Jesus do that?

YUP He can.**

**Matthew 10:40 **

40"He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.

There it is again! Jesus is talking to men!

**Matthew 18:18 **

18"Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

What ever they decide on earth is still in effect in heaven.

**John 13:20 **

20"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives whomever I send receives Me; and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me."

“Whomever”!
You don’t get to choose!!

 

[fellowChristian]

**Matthew 16:18-19 **
18"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

19"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever **you **bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

Right so what does Peter do when they are one Apostle short because of Judas? They replace him and put another man in his office.

**Acts 1:15-26 **

15 At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), and said,

16 "Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.

17 “For **he was counted among us and received his share in this ministry.” **

18 (Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.

19 And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

20 "For it is written in the book of Psalms,
‘LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE,
AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT’;
and,
**‘LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.’ **

21 "Therefore it is necessary that **of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us-- **

22 **beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us–one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection." **

23 So they put forward** two men**, **Joseph called Barsabbas **(who was also called Justus), **and Matthias. **

24 And **they prayed **and said, **"You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen **

25 to **occupy this ministry ****and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place." **

26 And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to **Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles. **

**And that friends is what we call Apostolic Succesion.

St. Augustine said in 395 ad.

**The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. ****