Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done

[KathleenGee]

John Paul II said some time ago that we Catholics must accept others’ traditions.

I was very blessed to take a Lutheran client to services. It was known I was Catholic as I could not commune with them…a very small parish. But I participated in respectful observation and in prayer.

When my client died and the date of his funeral known, I had to finish my seminar series at our local seminary…on the Roots of the Papacy no less, and would be arriving later. The pastor and several others some how all received my email and responded back to me.

When I came in, a number of them greeted me, the pastor ran back and pulled out his homily for me to read, and the assistant pastor gave me a big hug. I told them I wish we could be under one roof.

My pastor, now deceased, shared with us…that we must consider it a privilege to have faith in the Church and the Eucharist as we do…this communion we so hunger for with our separated Brethren…irregardless.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Topper,
Doesn’t the Catholic Church say the same thing? Isn’t that a better starting point than wishy washy? I think so. And BTW, I respect Rome’s position that they can’t change doctrine. I think that’s a good thing.

OK, but that means that IF there is going to be doctrinal unity between Lutheranism and the Church, then it is Lutheranism that is going to have to bend. Since you respect that the Church cannot and will not change its’ dogmas, then you have to ‘respect’ that it is Lutheranism which will have to yield.

Good question. Why not ask the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity? See if they think that Christian unity doesn’t need to include small traditions within the Church.

Jon, it was actualy YOU that I asked and the reason that I asked you is because I wanted your point of view. Turning the questions around without yourself answering them can only be done up to a point without the intent being obvious. I would suggest that we are WAY past that point.
.

Where, exactly and specifically, in scripture or Church history, are baptized Christians not in communion with the Bishop of Rome condemned, prior of course to Unam sanctam? Where, exactly and specifically, and contrary to Nicea canon 6, is the the Bishop of Rome grant supremacy?

Again Jon, when I asked the question I knew it was a ‘tough one’, and that you would struggle with it. Again, we are way past that point.

By what authority, contrary to scripture and Nicea canon 6, does the Pope claim for himself, without an ecumenical council, supremacy over all of the Church Militant?

Don’t you see how these types of questions don’t solve division, but simply reinforce it?

Again, we are way past that point. Avoiding the ‘tough questions’ only futhers our divisions.

Yes, we are in schism from each other.

Jon, this would suggest that Luther, as an individual, and the Church as a whole, ‘schismed from each other’. That is ridiculous.

BTW, I made the claim that the Dialogue has not yet, in 50 years, addressed the issue of Papal Infallility. You claimed that they have. I asked you for specifics and you avoided the question. This is your second chance to prove that I was wrong. What are the specifics of that discussion?

If you have something you would like to make a point from this or that website, then quote it and take a position. Of course that means that your position could be scrutinized. But just posting a couple of links without making that point is not exactly compelling.

You mean like Roman Catholic Church? How does this kind of question move us toward unity?

Avoiding these kinds of questions does not move us towards unity.

Furthermore, you are speaking of the ‘Roman Catholic Church’, which was founded by Saints Peter and Paul in the mid-first century, in Rome. That as opposed to Lutheranism which was named for a particular man, Martin Luther, 15 centuries later. In addition, I could point out that your communion is named the ‘Missouri Synod’, thereby admitting its being of very recent American origin rather than being a world-wide communion. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Church was NOT named after a MAN who made his ‘name’ by defying the rightful authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Men of this ‘nature’ started the following heresies which became named for them PERSONALLY:

Apollininarism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Manicheasm, Donatism, Marcoinism, Pelaginism, and Montanism (to name only a few).

To try and couch what you do in Pelikan’s words is laughable. Remember that Pelikan did not become Catholic.

As you know Jon, Pelikan was one of the brightest, most productive and best educated of the Lutheran Scholars of the last century. When you read what he wrote, it was very clear that he understood enough about the history of the early Reformation that his ‘defection’ from Lutheranism was a forgone conclusion. That fact that he chose to be EO rather than Roman Catholic is relatively unimportant. What he did with all of that wisdom, intellect and knowledge was LEAVE Lutheranism.

If you want an example of ‘laughable’ I have one for you. I was once told by a Lutheran that Pelikan chose to be an EO because he thought it was ‘more Lutheran’ than Lutheranism.

As you know Jon, your Lutheran Scholars and pastors, the best and the brightest and the most educated with regards to Theology, Scripture, and Church History, are leaving Lutheranism in droves, and at a far greater rate than Lutheran laypeople. What do you make of that very obivious phenomenon?

That seems to be your only interest, that seems to be Edwin’s main complaint as well.

What bothers me Jon is that I cannot seem to get answers to very important questions. For the record, whenever I point to Luther’s ‘talents’ for the abuse of his opponents, it is because I have seen it reflected in the comments by those who bear his name. In such cases I am more likely to actually post those abusive statements from 500 years ago.

I also find it fascinating that you would choose to comment on ‘Edwin’s main complaint’ (against me I presume). What about the old ‘the subject and not the poster’ Jon? Furthermore, I know for a fact that Edwin is completely capable of making known his own complaints. As a matter of fact, I very much appreciate my dialogue with Edwin, despite, but also BECAUSE of our disagreements on some issues. Edwin answers the questions I ask as completely and honestly as anyone I have ever seen. In return I do my best to offer the same respect and honesty in return. In my book, THAT is productive dialogue. It is a dialogue that is not timid, and yet is very respectful.

 

[pablope]

It’s pretty clear, isn’t it, that a lot of what is said here is out of step with the popes and with Christ? Some people would undo all the ecumenical efforts that are being done.

Like I said, forgiveness is the key. I must forgive those people, I find, if I am to find forgiveness. Which I have found.

Well…let me ask you…Tomy…you are fond of citing our popes, pasting articles about Luther…

So…do you (or your congregations or communion) celebrate and admire other church referomers like Catherine of Sienna, Francis of Assisi, Teresa of Avila?

Or you only talk about Luther?

Like I said, forgiveness is the key. I must forgive those people, I find, if I am to find forgiveness. Which I have found

Well…have you done what is said in this statement below (from a protestant) (in the bolded part):

For example, I often point out that at least Catholics have the magisterial office of the Bishop of Rome to remind them that disunity is a sin. You should not overlook the significance that in several important documents of late, John Paul II has confessed the Catholic sin for the Reformation. Where are the Protestants capable of doing likewise? We Protestants feel no sin for the disunity of the Reformation. We would not know how to confess our sin for the continuing disunity of the Reformation. We would not know how to do that because we have no experience of unity.

 

[Abu]

JonNC #926
It is absolutely necessary for salvation! How many times I have seen her, and read “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus”.

Christ’s Church knew from the beginning that non-Catholics could be saved:
Pope St Clement knew that non-Catholics could be saved from the beginning, for he wrote in about 95 A.D. to the Church in Corinth: “Those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God.” Catholic Apologetics Today, 1986, Fr William G Most, p 145].

Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus (literally, “outside the Church, there is no salvation”). Some people have wished to understand this saying in the most literal sense: that is, that the person who is not formally a practicing Catholic cannot be saved. The Church has condemned such an interpretation (cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 3870-3873).

This is not to say that the maxim is false. Properly understood, it is quite true. The Latin word extra can mean either “without” or “outside.” The correct interpretation and sense of the maxim is that we cannot be saved without the Church. It is through the Church, which carries on and makes present the salvific work of Jesus Christ in the world, that all who are saved reach heaven (even if it is perhaps only there that they realize it). Those who, through no fault of their own, have never known Christ or his Church can still be saved. But their salvation, too, is the effect of Jesus working through his Church. In a positive sense, this theological principle “means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body” (CCC 846).
Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, OSV].

In Unam Sanctam (1302), Pope Boniface VIII was not addressing the world; nor was he even addressing the subject of non-Christians or non-Catholics. He was addressing European Catholics. “Every creature” means a bunch of Catholics in Europe. And it is necessary for salvation for Catholics to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Otherwise, they have knowingly and deliberately exited the Catholic Church. Doing so is a mortal sin.

Pope Boniface VIII valiantly sought to restore the role of the papacy in the Christian world. Unfortunately, the civil powers proved too great. He sought to bring peace to England and France by banning taxation of clergy to pay for wars. However, economic forces and French commerce forced him to back off. An exception was made in cases of national emergency and defense. He issued *UNAM SANCTAM *on November 18, 1302, emphasizing the superior status of his spiritual power over that of temporal rulers. King Philip IV rejected his claims. His councilor, the Colonna family, and various other enemies seized the Pope and abused him. Outraged citizens of Rome freed the Pope but shocked that such humiliation might be perpetrated against his person, the poor Pope died on October 12.”
From: Andrew Apologetic Ministries
apologetics.scriptmania.com/2900.htm

“By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it will perish in the flood. Nevertheless, equally certainly it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, land, native talents, and so many other factors” (Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem, 1863 A.D.).

 

[MaryT777]

Here’s more.

vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/cattolici-catolicos-catholics-luterani-lutherans-luteranos-28838/

Tomyris:
Is there a Lutheran official statement as such about forgiving one another? If so can you post it?

I might add this was addressed to the LWF Lutheran World Federation which “confessional Lutherans” self identified as LCMS and WELS that I know of are NOT A PART OF due to their lack of respect for life, issues of women ordination, the signing of the JDDJ, and no firm stance on abortion and their views on homosexuality.

What should the Pope do? Hold another meeting with just the confessional Lutherans
and dialogue with different sects of Lutherans?

Mary.

 

[MaryT777]

I have a suspicion it would please the Lord more if the Catholics and Lutherans were asking forgiveness of each other than posting some of what has been posted.

That is what the Pope says, anyway.

Yes, the Pope has said that. Where is the official Lutheran statement about forgiving one another? I have not seen one. If someone has can they post something from an official source?

Mary.

 

[JonNC]

Jon what you say the writings mean and what the official documents say are different.
This is from the official LCMS site.

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.)

Hi Mary,

And from the LCMS, which for our members holds the authority to interpret the confessions:

A: The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist. The historic view of LCMS on the Antichrist is summarized as follows by the Synod’s Theological Commission:

The New Testament predicts that the church throughout its history will witness many antichrists (Matt. 24:5, 23-24; Mark 13:6, 21-22; Luke 21:8; 1 John 2:18, 22, 4:3; 2 John 7). All false teachers who teach contrary to Christ’s Word are opponents of Christ and, insofar as they do so, are anti-Christ.

However, the Scriptures also teach that there is one climactic “Anti-Christ” (Dan. 7:8, 11, 20-21, 24-25, 11:36-45; 2 Thess. 2; 1 John 2:18, 4:3; Rev. 17-18) … Concerning the historical identity of the Antichrist, we affirm the Lutheran Confessions’ identification of the Antichrist with the office of the papacy whose official claims continue to correspond to the Scriptural marks listed above. It is important, however, that we observe the distinction which the Lutheran Confessors made between the office of the pope (papacy) and the individual men who fill that office. The latter could be Christians themselves. We do not presume to judge any person’s heart. Also, we acknowledge the possibility that the historical form of the Antichrist could change. Of course, in that case another identified by these marks would rise.

In a footnote, the Commission adds:

To the extent that the papacy continues to claim as official dogma the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent which expressly anathematizes, for instance, the doctrine “that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified,” the judgment of the Lutheran Confessional writings that the papacy is the Antichrist holds. At the same time, of course, we must recognize the possibility, under God’s guidance, that contemporary discussions and statements (e.g., 1983 U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue statement on “Justification by Faith”) could lead to a revision of the Roman Catholic position regarding Tridentine dogma.

So, its not what I say it means that matters, it is what the LCMS says that it means. More importantly, and with due respect, it isn’t what you say it means.
For me to claim that Pope Francis is the Antichrist would be contrary to my tradition’s teaching.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Sure… My question was related to reading your confessions and what you have state here numerous times…that I see the two views…a Jekyll and Hyde view…and as you stated…“certain teachings of the office.”

Hence…Benedict XVI’s statement of Luther, is not anti Christ because you agree with it…and is positive.

But when the Pope would exercise or say something you do not agree with…he is Anti-Christ…as in exercising universal jurisdiction…

The confessions are specific and clear as to what we consider anti-Christian teaching as per the office of the papacy - claiming that one must be in submission to the pope is one of them, yes.
It isn’t a matter of “agreeing” or “disagreeing”. Your tradition claims that some of our teachings are heretical. The words are different, but the condemnation is, essentially, the same. We disagree on particular doctrines. We both believe that our own perspective is correct.

And the single, isolated statement of Unam Sanctam…would apparently fall under the Anti-Christ banner…correct?

You keep saying I am using a single isolated statement. Pope Boniface “isolated” it. He starts the conclusionary statement with: “Furthermore”. That is, in addition to, or he makes this final firm statement.
Now, if I use the approach that some Catholics here are applying to the Lutheran Confessions statements on the papacy, I cannot be permitted to accept any outside, further explanation. Abu is doing an excellent job of presenting the Catholic “positive reformulation” of it, but I can only accept what Pope Boniface said, not what others say he meant. Unless, of course, Catholics here are willing to do the same regarding my synods explanation of the confessions.

And just wondering…would the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption fall under the banner of Anti-Christ teachings?

The Marian teachings, except the Virgin birth and Holy Theotokos, are adiaphora. I personally accept the Assumption, and see the IC as a pious belief.

Jon

 

[Stilldreamn]

I noticed that Jon is reading a work by Louis Bouyer, and came across this article that discusses Bouyer’s thoughts on the Reformation. Although the article by Mark Brumley is in the apologetics section of CERC it was quoted and linked in a Confessional Lutheran Facebook group, with mostly positive comments (I’m sure our own internal trolling nay-sayers will show up and perhaps savage it eventually, but they are a minority!)

Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation

If this has already been discussed here at CAF I apologize - when I searched for Bouyer, Jon’s “Currently reading…Bouyer” in his signature line came up over and over and I quit looking

 

[KathleenGee]

I think modern Lutherans are more in conformity in faith and spirit than Luther was…he was also dismayed by the behaviors of those following the Evangelical church, saying they were acting worse than the Catholics…

 

[TertiumQuid]

As you know Jon, Pelikan was one of the brightest, most productive and best educated of the Lutheran Scholars of the last century. When you read what he wrote, it was very clear that he understood enough about the history of the early Reformation that his ‘defection’ from Lutheranism was a forgone conclusion. That fact that he chose to be EO rather than Roman Catholic is relatively unimportant. What he did with all of that wisdom, intellect and knowledge was LEAVE Lutheranism.

I don’t find it “relatively unimportant” at all, and nor do I recall ever reading anything in-depth from Dr. Pelikan explaining himself, so if you’ve got it, please share. If knowing about the “real” Luther is provoking enough for someone to cease being Protestant, why wasn’t he wise enough to put the facts together to become Catholic?

Throughout this thread I’ve seen a number of Protestant “scholars” cited-

Robert Jenson, Keith Matthison, Richard Marius, Will Durant, James Kittleson, Heiko Oberman, Preserved Smith, E. G. Schweibert, Diarmaid MacCulloch, J. Pelikan, Robert D. Preus, Eric Gritsch, Holborn, Mark U. Edwards, Robert Kolb, Albrecht Beutel, Arthur Cushman McGiffert , Timothy Lull, Fife, Collinson, Paul Tillich.

Elsewhere Mr. Topper has stated,

Just off the top of my head, I have quoted on these threads the following Lutheran Scholars, Schweibert, Edwards, Kolb, Brecht, Junghans, Lull, Gritsch, Wriedt, Strohl, Lindburg, Hillerbrand, Nestingen, Kittelson, Jenson, Pelikan, Linderman, Schramm, Stjerna

Now, here’s a silly question, that I assume will go unanswered- or perhaps unanswered in any sort of meaningful way: if these Protestant “scholars” know “the real Luther” rather than the the “myth” (whatever that means), why don’t (or didn’t) they become Catholic? Why isn’t Robert Kolb or Mark Edwards on the Journey Home?

Frankly, I’m not at all impressed by a bunch of quotes yanked out of their context. It’s the method of propaganda.

Here’s one of the wisest comment on Luther I’ve ever read here on Catholic Answers:

I wonder at the idea that if they show that Martin Luther is so bad, they will then become Catholic. This is certainly a negative tactic that suggests that those pursuing this agenda really have no better arguments for Catholicism than that Luther was bad, so therefore Lutherans should become Catholic. I find this extremely unconvincing. Isn’t there anything good in Catholicism? Did these Luther-bashers really become Catholic because they took a dislike to Luther? That is like preferring God to Satan because you don’t like Satan - never mind what God is like. Faint praise, there.

Regards,
" a valuable friend of Catholic Answers"

 

[TertiumQuid]

I noticed that Jon is reading a work by Louis Bouyer, and came across this article that discusses Bouyer’s thoughts on the Reformation. Although the article by Mark Brumley is in the apologetics section of CERC it was quoted and linked in a Confessional Lutheran Facebook group, with mostly positive comments (I’m sure our own internal trolling nay-sayers will show up and perhaps savage it eventually, but they are a minority!)

Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation

If this has already been discussed here at CAF I apologize - when I searched for Bouyer, Jon’s “Currently reading…Bouyer” in his signature line came up over and over and I quit looking

Yes, this article was discussed last year: The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism

Regards,
" a valuable friend of Catholic Answers"

 

[Magdalena59]

Now, here’s a silly question, that I assume will go unanswered- or perhaps unanswered in any sort of meaningful way: if these Protestant “scholars” know “the real Luther” rather than the the “myth” (whatever that means), why don’t (or didn’t) they become Catholic? Why isn’t Robert Kolb or Mark Edwards on the Journey Home?

Frankly, I’m not at all impressed by a bunch of quotes yanked out of their context. It’s the method of propaganda.

Here’s one of the wisest comment on Luther I’ve ever read here on Catholic Answers:

Regards,
" a valuable friend of Catholic Answers"

As an ex-protestant my answer to your question, as to why people do not become Catholic after researching Luther, is because many people like the theology that tells them they can interpret scripture on their own. They like the idea that all they need to do is believe and they will be saved. It is the theology they like, good or bad, right or wrong. It feels good to be in control, to not have any tell me what the Bible means because I can figure it out myself. I can pick and choose what I like.

Many protestants have protested even away from Luther. Once the theology of sola scriptura spread and the belief became Scripture is what I choose it to be and I feel better about it, then it is not easy to turn back to someone who has authority, even if you are confused about some of the Scripture verses.

Many protestants feel Luther didn’t protest enough and that is why there is such a wide spectrum of protestant theology.

It wasn’t Luther or his problems that brought me to Catholicism, it was the beauty of the faith. It was all the Luthers out there. All the confusion after Luther and the admittance that I didn’t have all the answers. The admittance that I didn’t know what all the scripture verses meant but someone greater than I, left me a place to figure it out.

As far as the poster asking if there isn’t anything good in Catholicism, she is basing Catholicism off of one thread on a Catholic forum, that specifically asked about the reformation. There is much more to the faith than this one thread or even this one website.

In other words, it works both ways. The poster does not want Protestantism judged on Luther or the things he did, you can’t judge Catholicism by one thread on a Catholic forum, especially when the question is asking about the reformation.

God bless.

 

[Stilldreamn]

Yes, this article was discussed last year: The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism

Regards,
" a valuable friend of Catholic Answers"

Thanks for the valuable link, oh most valuable friend.

 

[TertiumQuid]

As an ex-protestant my answer to your question, as to why people do not become Catholic after researching Luther, is because many people like the theology that tells them they can interpret scripture on their own. They like the idea that all they need to do is believe and they will be saved. It is the theology they like, good or bad, right or wrong. It feels good to be in control, to not have any tell me what the Bible means because I can figure it out myself. I can pick and choose what I like.

I appreciate your response- especially since the person who continually quotes “Protestant” scholars to prove his view of Luther probably won’t answer. My appreciation aside, it appears to me you’re saying that the protestant scholars Mr. Topper excessively quotes choose not become Catholic because of a willful denial of knowing their theology is wrong and built on a shaky foundation, but… they like it.

This is an interesting answer, but I don’t think it’s the correct answer- at least not in all cases.

Regards,

" a valuable friend of Catholic Answers"

 

[Magdalena59]

I appreciate your response- especially since the person who continually quotes “Protestant” scholars to prove his view of Luther probably won’t answer. My appreciation aside, it appears to me you’re saying is that the protestant scholars Mr. Topper excessively quotes choose not become Catholic because of a willful denial of knowing their theology is wrong and built on a shaky foundation, but… they like it.

This is an interesting answer, but I don’t think it’s the correct answer- at least not in all cases.

Regards,

" a valuable friend of Catholic Answers"

Well, that is not exactly what I am saying. One can be protestant, feel lost in theology, perhaps even confused, can’t figure what is true or where to settle, but rather than turning toward the Catholic faith they agree with protestant theology and continue to seek answers there. Their belief is that it can’t be found in Catholicism. Many times it is because of many of the myths of Catholicism they have come to believe, so that would be the last place they would look. Also, what would people say.

They do like once saved always saved, sola scriptura, faith alone and do not want to give those things up. It is hard to admit and many don’t want to admit, that you might not have that assurance of salvation. That maybe you are not saved and turning to the Catholic faith, you would have to admit that and humble yourself before God and admit that someone else was left to interpret Scripture.

I was there and have protestant friends who are right now going through it. They don’t know where to turn but fear turning toward the Catholic faith. One person I know so far has tried 32 different denominations. Haven’t seen her in a while I hope she has found a home.

God bless.

 

[JonNC]

=Magdalena59;12797384]As an ex-protestant my answer to your question, as to why people do not become Catholic after researching Luther, is because many people like the theology that tells them they can interpret scripture on their own. They like the idea that all they need to do is believe and they will be saved. It is the theology they like, good or bad, right or wrong. It feels good to be in control, to not have any tell me what the Bible means because I can figure it out myself. I can pick and choose what I like.

Hi Magdalena,
I think there is some of this, though Lutherans tend to be more doctrinal in approach. My experience as a life-long Lutheran is we bicker of doctrine (the confessions), not over scripture.

Many protestants have protested even away from Luther. Once the theology of sola scriptura spread and the belief became Scripture is what I choose it to be and I feel better about it, then it is not easy to turn back to someone who has authority, even if you are confused about some of the Scripture verses.

Sola scriptura isn’t a theology, at least as far as we’re concerned. It is a practice, a praxis, which holds all teachers and doctrines accountable to scripture, scripture being the final norm, and it is practice by the Church (more narrowly, the synod in my case), not individuals.

Many protestants feel Luther didn’t protest enough and that is why there is such a wide spectrum of protestant theology.

No. They felt he protested quite enough, meaning the protest at the 2nd Diet of Speyer in 1529. Those of other Reformation era movements, and later groups, simply do not agree with our doctrines.

It wasn’t Luther or his problems that brought me to Catholicism, it was the beauty of the faith. It was all the Luthers out there. All the confusion after Luther and the admittance that I didn’t have all the answers. The admittance that I didn’t know what all the scripture verses meant but someone greater than I, left me a place to figure it out.

I respect this, the first line. I think it has value, though I’ve never been confused by other communions.

In other words, it works both ways. The poster does not want Protestantism judged on Luther or the things he did, you can’t judge Catholicism by one thread on a Catholic forum, especially when the question is asking about the reformation.

I’ll gop further; it isn’t right to judge Catholicism on the actions of any one Catholic or group of Catholics. Look at all of the wonderful charity work the CC does worldwide. Indeed, the CC is to be admired for many different reasons.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mag,

Our Lord requires us as Christians to forgive. I do not have a problem with forgiving him. I was wondering myself the other day how many people think to pray for the repose of his soul.

Forgiveness is the easy part. The hard part is stopping the flow of blood from the wound that he inflicted on Christian unity, Christain Doctrine, and Christiantity in general.

That being said, I used to think he was great, when I was a protestant but I realized when studying his life and work that he was very rebellious and vengeful and I don’t believe that God gave him any authority to change Church teaching, nor do I believe he had great insight into scripture. If he did everyone would still be following his teachings. His life and teachings were one of the things that brought me back to the Catholic Church.

I have seen a lot of people here relate that studying Luther’s life and reading his writings was part of the ‘process’ that brought them to the Church, or in your case, back to the Church. Now that you are educated on the matter, he is not so ‘great’ is he?

As you have seen, there is a great deal of very blatant and biased opposition here on Catholic Answers to revealing the ‘Facts About Luther’.

He started something that unfortunately continues on and on, as one priest called it, a spirit of protesting that is spinning out of control.

I agree 100% except that I would suggest that it has already spun out of control. It is a past tense thing. This is not to say that it is not getting worse every day, only that it is already WAY of of control.

The world is much more confused because of him and his rebellion led to a lot of problems we see today.

The Protestant Revolt has resulted in a great deal of doctrinal confusion.

The ‘rational’ I sometimes hear goes something like this:

‘Since Luther was right to do what he did (duh!), and obviously the Doctrinal Confusion that we now suffer is something God proscribed for us, then it doesn’t really matter what we believe, or even ultimately IF we believe – Right?’

Marriage is no longer considered a sacrament in protestant churches because Luther felt the state should handle it and now here we are redefining it by the states.

I think that a thread on the impact of Luther on marriage and the resulting impact on Christian society would be great.

Christians lack unity and disagree on true salvation issues. Authority is sought but people aren’t sure anymore where to go to find answers to their biblical questions.

All the more reason I think that people should question their basic presumptions, exactly as both of us have done.

God Bless You Mag, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Thor,

I think that Luther’s salty language is kind of refreshing

That being the case, I have a couple of recommendations you should appreciate.

Sam Kinnison, and Andrew Dice Clay

God Bless You Thor, Topper

 

[Magdalena59]

Hi Magdalena,
I think there is some of this, though Lutherans tend to be more doctrinal in approach. My experience as a life-long Lutheran is we bicker of doctrine (the confessions), not over scripture.

Sola scriptura isn’t a theology, at least as far as we’re concerned. It is a practice, a praxis, which holds all teachers and doctrines accountable to scripture, scripture being the final norm, and it is practice by the Church (more narrowly, the synod in my case), not individuals.

Agreed. It is right to remember that not all protestants hold to individual personal interpretation but do have a leadership above them, such as the United Methodist church and the Council of Bishops.

I’ll gop further; it isn’t right to judge Catholicism on the actions of any one Catholic or group of Catholics. Look at all of the wonderful charity work the CC does worldwide. Indeed, the CC is to be admired for many different reasons.

Jon

Thank you. The Lutheran Church has quite a number of charities out there also. God bless.