Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done

[Chong]

If Luther could’ve known of the horribe consequences of his actions, I don’t see how he could possibly repeat his actions

Jesus brought a big division with the former religion of Judaism. At the time of the 1st apostles, two religions were running parallel, but we see Christianity outdoing Judaism which was narrow compared to all-inclusive Christianity.
The division brought freedom of worship which was non-existent.

 

[jmcrae]

Jesus brought a big division with the former religion of Judaism.

Jesus is God. He ushered in a New Covenant with miraculous signs and with a Sacrifice.

Luther was not God, and nor was he ushering in a new covenant.

 

[JonNC]

Why do the Lutherans need to tell me what this means? This statement was found today on the official LCMS website reflecting still the official position of the LCMS on this matter .

Topper is not the topic of the thread by the way.

Hi Mary,
Topper is not the topic, but his approach to “dialogue” is certainly part of it.

But you’re right, Mary, you are not required to listen to what Lutherans say about our beliefs.
Just remember this, however, that when one ventures into CARM or some other sites, one can find gross misrepresentations of the Catholic faith, and when they are responded to by Catholics using measured responses and documentation, those Catholics are met with, “Why do the -]Lutherans/-] Catholics need to tell me what this means?”
It is exactly the same thing.

If I want to understand Catholic teaching, I listen to Catholics, or read the CCC. I certainly don’t go online and listen to someone such as John MacArthur.
By the same token, if one wants to know what Lutheranism teach, one should listen to what Lutherans say, not someone such as Topper.

But, as I said, you’re not required to.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12707903]Jon,
As I have said before, if you have a point to make from the dialogue, then please post the appropriate text that supports your point, and state your point for all to see (and potentially scrutinize).

I already posted it.

Jon, I am perfectly aware that the question remains. After all, I am the one who asked it of you. Rather than answer it you suggest that I answer it for you? The problem is that I cannot offer your perspective on the matter. That is the reason that I asked you that question, among many others, is because I wanted your perspective.

Since your question was about Catholic doctrine, and you are the Catholic, your perspective is the one that matters. SteveVH actually provided quite a succinct response.

I ask these kinds of questions hoping you will take a position that we can discuss.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jesus is God. He ushered in a New Covenant with miraculous signs and with a Sacrifice.

Luther was not God, and nor was he ushering in a new covenant.

Amen.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12707978

Quite frankly, if I, as an individual CA poster EVER said anything half as offensive as what is actually written in official Lutheran teaching, I would be justifiably banned.

Topper,
You indeed have been at least as offensive, though it is not up to me to decide who is and is not banned.
You, on this thread, ridiculed in a highly offensive way, Lutherans with your comment about the papal bull and making the sign of the cross.
You, on another thread, on numerous posts, falsely accused one of the reformers of being a bald-faced liar.
You, in numerous threads, in direct contradiction to the writings of the LCMS that we, over and over have presented, from Lutheran pastors and theologians and leaders, have accused us falsely regarding the teachings about the papacy.

If I ever said that I believe Martin Luther (or even the office which he personally established) was the ‘antiChrist’ I would be skewered beyond belief. Of course I don’t believe that or anything near that ridiculous, so I would never say it.

I have said this!!! I have said that Luther’s writings regarding the Jews are anti-Christ.
And that’s the difference. In spite of our explanations, you continue to use, and accuse of of using, an understanding of anti-Christ from a Revelations POV, which we do not do. Our use has to do with teachings, as exampled in 2 Thess.
But the major charge has to do with the papay’s claims about the office, part of which is found in Unam sanctam, and Unam sanctam on its face, is at least as offensive (because it is all-inclusive) than the Treatise of Smalcald.

I think the thing that increases the ‘difficulty’ on issues like this one is that we cannot seem to be able to discuss them openly. If we can’t discuss them, how are we ever supposed to overcome them?

Nonsense. Eric is perfectly capable of presenting his approach, but ISTM he has been very hands-off.
What increases the difficulty is when one side of a dialogue refuses at every turn to accept the explanations of the other side.

Jon

 

[Contarini]

Why do the Lutherans need to tell me what this means?

If you think it means something that they say it doesn’t mean, then it makes sense to listen to them, doesn’t it?

Isn’t it possible that you are misreading Lutheran documents just as Protestants often misread Catholic ones?

Edwin

 

[MaryT777]

That’s fine, Topper, but just remember, in honor of your approach, I’m most likely not buying what you present.

That’s fine, too, but it seems that, from what I’ve read, its a “manner” not typically approved by your communion anymore.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Topper is not the topic of the thread by the way.

Forum rules dictate that you discuss the topic and not the poster.

But Mary, Luther didn’t follow the rules. In fact, Protestantism grew out of Luther’s disobedience of the rules and disobedience of the Authority that Christ established on earth FOR ALL Christians to follow.

Luther didn’t follow the rules, so why……………………

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[JonNC]

Here’s a slightly different Catholic view of Luther.
www1.villanova.edu/villanova/mission/campusministry/spirituality/resources/spirituality/augustinians/famous/luther.html

From the article:

The Lutheran only’s are famous: God only through Christ only (with focus on the Cross) by grace only, received by faith only, disclosed in Scripture only saves sinful humanity. Christ is central because he only reveals the “hidden God.” Faith is radical trust in God rather than belief. Luther’s theocentrism is Augustinian but his rejection of all transformationist models in describing the Christian is not.

If Roman Catholics recognize an authentically evangelical thrust surging through the more or less adequate formulas of Luther and Reformation anthropology in general, then they must see in it a theology of grace that is a valid complement to their own and other traditional formulations.

Luther was a religious genius and deserving of consideration as a doctor of the Church universal. He accurately theologized the cardinal point of the Christian vision of human existence in its relationship to God at a time when the Catholic hierarchy, caught in the whirlpool of the Renaissance and the real politik of emerging nation states, could not hear him.

he fundamental coherence of Luther’s position with Augustine, the Council of Orange and Thomas Aquinas, along with its striking formulation, merit for him pride of place with them in the Western theological tradition. This ecumenical recognition is now evident in recent Catholic publications in Christian anthropology. An excellent illustration of this recognition is work done recently on the differences between Luther and Thomas Aquinas. Needless to say, they are quite different. But while Luther can be described as an “existential” theologian focused on our experience of ourselves as sinners graced through Christ, Thomas can be seen as a “sapiential” theologian focused on God the creator, transforming his creatures into friends.

jon

 

[pablope]

T

You, in numerous threads, in direct contradiction to the writings of the LCMS that we, over and over have presented, from Lutheran pastors and theologians and leaders, have accused us falsely regarding the teachings about the papacy.

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;12710797]

From what I have observed from the various posts and explanations…it is being rationalized to make it more palatable…it results in a Jekyll and Hyde view of the papacy…

In that on one hand, you view the papacy as anti-christ…and profess love for the person sitting in the papacy…

Well of course. We see in the pope the Holy Spirit. We recognize his importance as bishop of Rome, and western Patriarch, and reject those teachings we see as errors, particularly the claim of universal jurisdiction.

I think one difference here…is Lutherans generally take one sentence out of a papal bull directed at French Catholics…and take offense at it, and not look at the whole papal bull.

Doesn’t that one sentence condemn us to Hell merely for not being in communion with the pope?

Another point…if Lutherans already express love for the pope, despite their confessing he is the anti-Christ…and already claim to be catholics…so what is the problem with that single line in the papal bull….

Doesn’t it condemn us?

Jon

 

[benhur]

But Mary, Luther didn’t follow the rules. In fact, Protestantism grew out of Luther’s disobedience of the rules and disobedience of the Authority that Christ established on earth FOR ALL Christians to follow.

Luther didn’t follow the rules, so why……………………

God Bless You Mary, Topper

Jesus disobeyed some rules also, not to mention the apostles. They disobeyed the magisterium and authority of the time, **because they were wrong

**

 

[pablope]

=pablope;12710797]

From what I have observed from the various posts and explanations…it is being rationalized to make it more palatable…it results in a Jekyll and Hyde view of the papacy…

In that on one hand, you view the papacy as anti-christ…and profess love for the person sitting in the papacy…

Well of course. We see in the pope the Holy Spirit. We recognize his importance as bishop of Rome, and western Patriarch, and reject those teachings we see as errors, particularly the claim of universal jurisdiction.

If you isolate that one sentence and make it mean what you want it to mean…

And it depends on what you want the word '“submit” to mean…isn’t it?

Have you come across this explanation? It involves several protestants discussing this with a catholic apologist…biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/debate9.htm

*From decidedly anti-Catholic historian Philip Schaff, who says that Boniface was “controlled by blind and insatiable lust of power” and in Unam Sanctam “the arrogance of the papacy finds its most naked and irritating expression,” nevertheless admits:

“There was no assertion of authority contained in the bull which had not been before made by Gregory VII and his successors, and the document leans back not only upon the deliverances of popes, but upon the definitions of theologians like Hugh de St. Victor, Bernard and Thomas Aquinas.” (Schaff, volume 6, page 20)

While Schaff calls the last line of Unam Sanctam about subjection to the Roman Pontiff as a condition of salvation a “startling declaration,” the introduction to the commentary on the Bull by French scholar Jean Riviere states to the contrary:

“Frequently a document’s intended meaning is misconstrued by those reading it. Such was the case, argues Jean Riviere (1878-1946), with -Unam Sanctam-. In what amounts to a line by line analysis of its provisions Riviere attempts to show that the pope’s ideas were largely traditional and not very startling. If accepted, this view would greatly modify one’s understanding of Boniface’s motives and ambitions. Riviere was a French abbe and professor at the University of Strasbourg, best known for his work on medieval and patristic theology.” (from Philip the Fair and Boniface VIII edited by Charles T. Wood, page 66)

I shall get to Riviere’s own commentary shortly. Philip Hughes states that “Riviere is no doubt, as Boase says, the best modern commentator” (vol 3, pg 81) so his work on the Bull will be specially considered.

From the scholarly volume Boniface VIII (1933) by T.S.R. Boase –

“As has repeatedly been pointed out, it contains little new. It is a careful statement of the claims of the papacy to final sovereignty, and bases the claim on the divine origin of that power, not on any practical necessities, nor even historical precedents, for there is no mention of the transference of the empire or the deposition of the last Merovingiam. It is as an ‘order established by God’ that it must be obeyed: it is a power formally revealed by Christ to St. Peter, and as such it is an article of faith, necessary for salvation. This is the primary case for the papal power;* it had often been stated before and the bull’s greatest novelty is its absence of involved proof. Amid the controversial literature of the period it sounds a note of solemn and eloquent certainty.” (Boase, page 318)

Another point…if Lutherans already express love for the pope, despite their confessing he is the anti-Christ…and already claim to be catholics…so what is the problem with that single line in the papal bull….

Doesn’t it condemn us?

Jon

As I said…how could it condemn you…if you already claim to be catholic…and profess love for the pope…so what else could go wrong?

Do you have any objections if you “submit” to the pope? And what do you think could possibly be wrong with that?
[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

You post a quote from the LCMS website, which quotes the Smalcald Articles which states VERY clearly that:

**“Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is “the very Antichrist.” (**Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 308.”

Somehow, we are criticized for contenting that the Confessions hold that ‘the Pope is the very Antichrist’? It’s kind of a ‘through the looking glass’ thing.

Why do the Lutherans need to tell me what this means? This statement was found today on the official LCMS website reflecting still the official position of the LCMS on this matter .

Of the Antichrist
43.As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion. All the features of the Antichrist as drawn in these prophecies, including the most abominable and horrible ones, for example, that the Antichrist “as God sitteth in the temple of God,” 2 Thess. 2:4; that he anathematizes the very heart of the Gospel of Christ, that is, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace alone, for Christ’s sake alone, through faith alone, without any merit or worthiness in man (Rom. 3:20-28; Gal. 2:16); that he recognizes only those as members of the Christian Church who bow to his authority; and that, like a deluge, he had inundated the whole Church with his antichristian doctrines till God revealed him through the Reformation — these very features are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy. (Cf. Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 515, Paragraphs 39-41; p. 401, Paragraph 45; M. pp. 336, 258.) **Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is “the very Antichrist.” **(Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 308.)

Please see our Frequently Asked Question on the subject/topic. Click on the “LCMS Views” tab and choose “The Bible.”

The historical context in which the Confessions were written and Luther’s ‘contribution’ to the overall ‘attitude’ of the Confessions need to be considered:

Lutheran Professor Mark U. Edwards:
**
“Luther hated the pope as antichrist and Catholics as agents of Satan.”** “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 36

If I said that here on the threads, the complaints would off the charts. However, this is a noted Lutheran Scholar. Should we be surprised to find that the Lutheran Confessions contain many extremely anti-Catholic sentiments? They are after all a reflection of Luther’s beliefs.

I am somehow reminded (again) of the comments of another Lutheran Scholar who was describing the more ‘ecumenically minded’ Lutherans:
**
“….the historical record blocks their path of seeking support from Luther for their fondest undertaking, unless they falsify, distort, or minimize it.” **Kittelson, “Companion”, pg. 260

As for Luther’s sense of his own ‘authority’ and his ‘role’ in Christianity:
**
“’I have done my part as a true prophet and preacher.”** Luther concluded. ‘He who does not wish to listen, may go his his own way. I am now excused, from this day forward and in eternity.’” Mark U. Edwards, “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 110

Luther as a ‘true prophet’!

To be continued:

 

[Topper17]

Edwards comment on Luther’s horrible treatise, “Against the Papacy at Rome”

“At the heart of Luther’s ‘Against the Papacy at Rome, Founded by the Devil’ lies his intense conviction that he was attacking the antichrist itself………It was his goal in this treatise to depict in the most vivid colors possible the true horrifying nature of the papacy. The pope was not and could not be the head of the Christian church, the vicar of Christ. ‘Rather [he] is the head of the accursed church of the very worst rascals on earth; vicar of the devil; and enemy of God; and opponent of Christ; and a destroyer of the church of Chris; a teacher of all lies, blasphemy, and idolatries; an arch-chief-thief and church-robber of the keys [and] all the goods of both church and the secular lords, a brothel-keeper above all brothel –keepers and all lewdness, including that which is not to be named; an antichrist; a man of sin and child of perdition; a true werewolf.’ Luther would avail himself of every means of driving this conclusion home: logic, historical analysis, exegesis of Scripture, and verbal abuse.” LLB, pg. 182-3

Given that the Lutherans Confessions actually bear the name of Luther, and represent his beliefs and theology, it should not be surprising that we would read them in the way that they were intended to be understood when they were written.

“Having in one part established (at least to his own satisfaction) that the papacy was of the devil, Luther did not bother to develop a lengthy argument in parts two and three [of ‘Against the Papacy at Rome, Founded by the Devil’], but instead contented himself with a largely rhetorical attack. He asserted that the pope and the curia had no knowledge of Scripture and were unable to judge what was heretical or Christian. **The pope’s claim to be judge of all, superior to the church and the bishops, revealed him, Luther said, to be the antichrist.” **LLB, pg. 188

We should note here that Luther considered the pope to be, in Edwards’s words: ‘the antichrist’, which of course is VERY DIFFERENT from saying that the pope was: ‘acting in opposition to Christ’, or was ‘opposed to Christ’, or was simply teaching antichristian doctrines, or any of the other watered down kind of language, “revealed to be the antichrist” is pretty straightforward.

“The preceding summary (Edwards comments on Luther’s ‘Against the Papacy at Rome, Founded by the Devil’, LLB, pages 182-200) ****suggests only partially the violence of Luther’s feelings toward the papacy and the vulgarity with which he attacked it. There can be little doubt and the vulgarity was intentional and well-considered on Luther’s part.” ****LLB, pg. 189

Luther commissioned a series of cartoons to be included along with ‘Against the Papacy at Rome, Founded by the Devil’. They are reproduced on pages 190-198 and are shocking and truly offensive.

“Because the pope had ‘snatched’ the St. Peter’s keys for himself, Luther said, the papal keys should be regarded as nothing but false, painted keys. ‘In addition, we may in good conscience,’ he wrote, ‘take his coat-of-arms, which feature the keys, and his crown to the privy and use them to relieve our needs [and] afterwards throw them into the fire (it would be better if it were the pope himself).” The associated cartoon shows a peasant defecating into the papal tiara while two other peasants await their turn. A third cartoon shows the pope and three cardinals being expelled from the anus of a female devil while three furies are nursing and caring for three infant popes. This cartoon was titled ‘the origin of the pope’ and was a graphic echo of Luther’s assertion in his treatise that the pope had been born from the devils behind.” LLB, pg. 189-199

Classy!

Are these the actions of a man who would have ‘reconsidered’ had he been able to ‘foresee’ the results of his teachings? If a Catholic Scholar had written these things there would probably be tremendous objection here because of his ‘bias’. But this is a Lutheran College Professor

Dave Armstrong makes an important point:

“First, we must see how the “antichrist” is defined in the Bible. The word “antichrist appears only in John’s epistles (I John 2:18,22; 4:3; 2 John 7). What is taught in these verses represents the whole New Testament doctrine of Antichrist. John’s description of antichrist is altogether different from your image. John’s antichrist is:

-Anyone “who denies that Jesus is the Christ” (1 John 2:22).

-Anyone who “denies the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:23).

-“Every spirit that does not confess Jesus” (1John 4:3).

-“Those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist (2 John 7).

I don’t recall the Pope ever holding to or teaching any of these beliefs; [do] you?”

From Armstrong’s article: “Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue #5: “Antichrist”: Is He the Pope or Office of the Papacy? (Johnny Montalvo)”, Monday, December 03, 2007

All of this points to the question as to where Luther got the ‘authority’ to decide that the Pope was the antichrist, or the office was the antichrist (or whatever). Where? By the use of his Private Interpretation of course. As a matter of fact, the neither the Pope not the papacy fits in ANY way the Scriptural description of the antichrist. It was only after the Church began to disagree with Luther, that he ‘realized’ that the Pope was ‘the very antichrist’.

The fact is that the charge of the pope being the antichrist is COMPLTELY over the top and in fact, quite ridiculous on ANY LEVEL. That we should be expected to believe that it is not extremely offensive only adds to the offense.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[pablope]

[SIGN]Of the Antichrist
43.As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled[SIGN] in the Pope of Rome and his dominion.[/SIGN] All the features of the Antichrist as drawn in these prophecies, including the most abominable and horrible ones, for example, that the Antichrist “as God sitteth in the temple of God,” 2 Thess. 2:4; that he anathematizes the very heart of the Gospel of Christ, that is, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace alone, for Christ’s sake alone, through faith alone, without any merit or worthiness in man (Rom. 3:20-28; Gal. 2:16); that he recognizes only those as members of the Christian Church who bow to his authority; and that, like a deluge, he had inundated the whole Church with his antichristian doctrines till God revealed him through the Reformation — these very features are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy. (Cf. Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 515, Paragraphs 39-41; p. 401, Paragraph 45; M. pp. 336, 258.) Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is “the very Antichrist.” (Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 30
[/SIGN]

43.As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled[SIGN] in the Pope of Rome and his dominion.

The Lutheran explanation has been…it is the papacy and not the pope…so how can one reconcile this statement in the Smalcald article and the Lutheran explanation distinguishing between the papacy and the person sitting as the pope?

And another thing…it says…the Pope of Rome and his dominion…does that mean every Roman Catholic…every bishop, cardinal, nun, priest, religious missionary…who is part of the pope’s dominion…is anti-Christ?

till God revealed him through the Reformation

So now, there is new revelation through the Reformation?

 

[benhur]

'’I have done my part as a true prophet and preacher.”

Luther concluded. ‘He who does not wish to listen, may go his his own way. I am now excused, from this day forward and in eternity.’” Mark U. Edwards, “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 110

Luther as a ‘true prophet’! Hopefully you just disagree that Luther was a prophet, and not that a true prophet at some point is to shake the dust of his feet from unbelieving "soil’’

 

[Topper17]

Hi ben,

Thanks for your response.

Hopefully you just disagree that Luther was a prophet, and not that a true prophet at some point is to shake the dust of his feet from unbelieving "soil’’

Of course that is exactly what I believe. There are just too many teachings of Luther that seem like they are VERY MUCH not inspired by God. At the moment, we are reviewing some of Luther’s comments about the Catholic Church and specifically about the Pope. Especially as a Catholic, they are jolting, but I would think that ANY Christian would be forced to think twice about them, and really ponder where all those ‘ideas’ came from. Could all of that have really been taught by a ‘prophet of God’?

God Bless You ben, Topper

 

[Randy_Carson]

If I want to understand Catholic teaching, I listen to Catholics, or read the CCC. I certainly don’t go online and listen to someone such as John MacArthur.
By the same token, if one wants to know what Lutheranism teach, one should listen to what Lutherans say, not someone such as Topper.

Jon-

I agree with your overall point about getting our information about one another’s belief directly from the horse’s mouth, but I would like to ask you: Is Topper is actually offering his own distorted view of Lutheranism or is he actually presenting an accurate picture of Martin Luther?

IOW, I’m not convinced that Topper is setting up strawmen. I think he is sticking pretty closely to what Luther and other early adherents actually said and did.

So, the REAL disconnect is between 16th century Luther-an thought and 21st century Lutheran thought, is it not?

Perhaps we need to begin to distinguish between “Martinism” and “Lutheranism” because there seems to be quite a bit of Martin that Lutherans wish to disavow.