S
- Status
O
onenow1
Guest
One problem Ben :For approximately seventeen centuries men acknowledged that authority comes only from God, and temporal rulers sought the approval and the blessing of their bishops who, by divine right, ruled in their dioceses as successors of the Apostles. Then came the Philosophists. As always, the Power of Darkness used pride to achieve his aims, the pride of human reason. As always he called the Light, Darkness and the Darkness, Light (Isaiah 5:20). That is why the Medieval times are now referred to as the âDark Agesâ; (in fact, the Dark Ages were pre-Medieval), and why Philosophism is referred to as âEnlightenmentâ. ANON.
In other words are we smarter now? or have we been hoodwinked by the multiple ideas of man toward worship, rather than Godâs command ?. You are right though people turned away from God from the very beginning, when they learned the difference between good and evil. However the means to assert truths the way men think about things became faster and easier to propose and deliver; especially today.
God Bless
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Spina,
Thanks for your response and your kind words.
Catholic Scholar Hartmann Grisar wrote an excellent, very scholarly and well researched 6 volume Biography on Luther. When in doubt, one can always turn to Grisar for factual information about any given Luther subject. As usual, he does not disappoint, quoting Luther:
âI have come to such a pass that **I can scarcely doubt that the Pope is the real Antichrist **whom the world, according to the accepted view, awaits. His life, behavior, words and laws all fit the character too well. But more of this when we meet." Volume III, pg. 145
So âthe Pope is the real Antichristâ? The Papacy, as an âofficeâ does not demonstrate by âHis life, behavior, and wordsâ, anything. This was clearly an identification of Leo, as a man, as THE Antichrist. Lutherans can claim that they do not believe that the Pope is personally the antichrist and that is all well and good, but what Luther believed and what he intended to portray, is very clear. In addition, given that the Confessions are in large part formed from Lutherâs beliefs, it is not exactly difficult to believe that they were written to be taken literally. This is of course as IF the antichrist as being ONLY the âofficeâ is somehow less offensive.
These comments and many others provide the context necessary to determine the INTENT of the Confessions with regard to the accusations made towards the Pope.
Grisar, or rather Luther continues on:
âwhat now can we expect from Rome** where such a monster is permitted to take his place in the Church?** " In his replies to Prierias and Alveld **he depicts Antichrist in the worst colours to be supplied by a vivid imagination and an over-mastering fury **: If such things are taught in Rome, then **â the veritable Antichrist is indeed seated in the Temple of God, and rules in the purple-clad Babylon at Rome, while the Roman Curia is the synagogue of Satan. . . . **
**
Who can Antichrist be, if not such a Pope? O Satan, Satan, how greatly dost thou abuse the patience of thy Creator to thine own destruction ! ". **Vol. III, pg. 145-6
Again, no hint of an âofficeâ here. Grisar continues by commenting:
âThe anger of the sensitive and excitable Wittenberg professor had been roused by contradiction, particularly by the tract which hailed from Home, but** the arrival of the Bull of Excommunication moved him to the very depths of his soul and led him to commit to writing the most hateful travesties of the Roman PapacyâŚâŚ**
Luther drops all qualifications and hence forth his assertions are positive. **The wider becomes the breach separating him from Rome, the blacker must he paint his opponents in order to justify himself before the world and to his own satisfaction.â **Vol. III, pg. 145-6
I think the operable term here is âto his own satisfactionâ.
**âIt is easy to meet the objection that the Papal Antichrist was nothing more to Luther than a serviceable catchword, and that he never meant it seriously. **That such was not the case we have abundantly proved already; on the contrary, we have here a clear outgrowth of his pseudo-mysticism. He ever preserved it as a sacred possession, **and it found its way in due season into the Schmalkald Articles and into the Notes Luther appended to his German Bible. The idea, which never left him, of the worldâs approaching end with this we shall deal at greater length in vol. v., xxxi. is without a doubt closely linked with his cherished theory of his being the revealer of Antichrist and the chosen instrument of God for averting His malice in the latter days.â **Vol. III, pg. 147
This is the âspiritâ out of which the Confessions were written. We as Catholics can hardly be blamed for believing that they meant exactly what they so clearly say.
God Bless You Spina, Topper
Thanks for your response and your kind words.
This is one of those subjects that becomes more and more clear as additional sources are revealed. Most are actually.
Catholic Scholar Hartmann Grisar wrote an excellent, very scholarly and well researched 6 volume Biography on Luther. When in doubt, one can always turn to Grisar for factual information about any given Luther subject. As usual, he does not disappoint, quoting Luther:
âI have come to such a pass that **I can scarcely doubt that the Pope is the real Antichrist **whom the world, according to the accepted view, awaits. His life, behavior, words and laws all fit the character too well. But more of this when we meet." Volume III, pg. 145
So âthe Pope is the real Antichristâ? The Papacy, as an âofficeâ does not demonstrate by âHis life, behavior, and wordsâ, anything. This was clearly an identification of Leo, as a man, as THE Antichrist. Lutherans can claim that they do not believe that the Pope is personally the antichrist and that is all well and good, but what Luther believed and what he intended to portray, is very clear. In addition, given that the Confessions are in large part formed from Lutherâs beliefs, it is not exactly difficult to believe that they were written to be taken literally. This is of course as IF the antichrist as being ONLY the âofficeâ is somehow less offensive.
These comments and many others provide the context necessary to determine the INTENT of the Confessions with regard to the accusations made towards the Pope.
Grisar, or rather Luther continues on:
âwhat now can we expect from Rome** where such a monster is permitted to take his place in the Church?** " In his replies to Prierias and Alveld **he depicts Antichrist in the worst colours to be supplied by a vivid imagination and an over-mastering fury **: If such things are taught in Rome, then **â the veritable Antichrist is indeed seated in the Temple of God, and rules in the purple-clad Babylon at Rome, while the Roman Curia is the synagogue of Satan. . . . **
**
Who can Antichrist be, if not such a Pope? O Satan, Satan, how greatly dost thou abuse the patience of thy Creator to thine own destruction ! ". **Vol. III, pg. 145-6
Again, no hint of an âofficeâ here. Grisar continues by commenting:
âThe anger of the sensitive and excitable Wittenberg professor had been roused by contradiction, particularly by the tract which hailed from Home, but** the arrival of the Bull of Excommunication moved him to the very depths of his soul and led him to commit to writing the most hateful travesties of the Roman PapacyâŚâŚ**
Luther drops all qualifications and hence forth his assertions are positive. **The wider becomes the breach separating him from Rome, the blacker must he paint his opponents in order to justify himself before the world and to his own satisfaction.â **Vol. III, pg. 145-6
I think the operable term here is âto his own satisfactionâ.
**âIt is easy to meet the objection that the Papal Antichrist was nothing more to Luther than a serviceable catchword, and that he never meant it seriously. **That such was not the case we have abundantly proved already; on the contrary, we have here a clear outgrowth of his pseudo-mysticism. He ever preserved it as a sacred possession, **and it found its way in due season into the Schmalkald Articles and into the Notes Luther appended to his German Bible. The idea, which never left him, of the worldâs approaching end with this we shall deal at greater length in vol. v., xxxi. is without a doubt closely linked with his cherished theory of his being the revealer of Antichrist and the chosen instrument of God for averting His malice in the latter days.â **Vol. III, pg. 147
This is the âspiritâ out of which the Confessions were written. We as Catholics can hardly be blamed for believing that they meant exactly what they so clearly say.
God Bless You Spina, Topper
B
benhur
Guest
You are going either or instead of both/and.
No to your question. Many things can be reformed, (moral, social, practice, doctrine, clergy etc., etc.). The circumstances are also different.
One can always pigeon hole.
B
benhur
Guest
Today, as far as conversing with Catholics - A, to both sets of choices.
If I were German monk in the 1500âs - B
B
benhur
Guest
Here is some insight into Lutherâs scatology. academia.edu/1016951/German_Hercules_The_Impact_of_Scatology_on_the_Image_of_Martin_Luther_as_a_Man_1483-1546
B
benhur
Guest
Well thank you for some agreement.One problem Ben :For approximately seventeen centuries men acknowledged that authority comes only from God, and temporal rulers sought the approval and the blessing of their bishops who, by divine right, ruled in their dioceses as successors of the Apostles. Then came the Philosophists. As always, the Power of Darkness used pride to achieve his aims, the pride of human reason. As always he called the Light, Darkness and the Darkness, Light (Isaiah 5:20). That is why the Medieval times are now referred to as the âDark Agesâ; (in fact, the Dark Ages were pre-Medieval), and why Philosophism is referred to as âEnlightenmentâ. ANON.
In other words are we smarter now? or have we been hoodwinked by the multiple ideas of man toward worship, rather than Godâs command ?. You are right though people turned away from God from the very beginning, when they learned the difference between good and evil. However the means to assert truths the way men think about things became faster and easier to propose and deliver; especially today.
God Bless
I think it is simplistic to say for 1700 years rulers wanted Church blessings and then go to some not so simple âdark agesâ, Philosophism,and Enlightement.
It is unfortunate that as soon as you had agreement with secular power (Constantine) they succumbed to pressures to use secular power to enforce unity, and put forth first anathemas in council fashion. Very sad for otherwise the councils are accepted by all today.
Blessings also.
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Topper: As is usual great post! Lot of information in order to better understand what the Reformation has done. I have to admit that Luther got the ball rolling in his attempt to promote hatred towards the CC and the Pope because the CC did not go along with his teachings and theologies. This in turn caused others to do the same and over time many of the denominational churches today have this same hatred. Luther it seems thought that not just the CC but everyone else was going to follow his lead and agree with everything he was teaching and interpretations of Scripture, which in the end di not happen as the CC refused to and others who decided that now was the time to break away from the CC did not agree with what Luther was teaching.
Luther decided that the Pope was the anti-Christ, in turn caused others to think the same way as can be seen by those who promote hatred of the CC. While Lutheran's on this forum say otherwise, the truth of the matter is that it is at appears to be a part of their articles or statement of belief and no matter how one tries to put spin on it the meaning and the intent as well as how it is painted the meaning has not changed not its true meaning.
B
benhur
Guest
Was it not a Roman pope (500âs ?) who first first accused another âeasternâ pope/patriarch of "Anti-Christ " behavior for deeming himself âsupremeâ ?
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi benhur: I really do not know? if you know where do I find this information? thanks
B
benhur
Guest
For a Catholic view of Pope Gregory I letter about John of Constantinople go here-
biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num7.htm
For different view go here-
bible.ca/ntx-organization-historical-development-papal-patriarchal-systems-588-606AD.htm
Most say Gregory acted like the first pope, jurisdictionaly but he also refused the title as universal bishop, but coined himself âPontifex Maximusâ
âBut when Eulogius in a second letter styled the bishop of Rome universal pope, Gregory warmly rejected such a title, saying, âIf you give more to me than is due to me, you rob yourself of what is due to you. Nothing can redound to my honour that redounds to the dishonour of my brethren. If you call me universal pope,you thereby own yourself to be no pope. Let no such titles be mentioned or ever heard among us.â (Henry Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Gregorius, 51, I, p 425)â
Remember bishops were called popes in east I think.
It was the emperor who called John âUniversal Bishopâ
âFor what are all your brethren, the bishops of the universal Church, but stars of heaven, whose life and discourse shine together amid the sins and errors of men, as if amid the shades of night? And when you desire to put yourself above them by this proud title, and to tread down their name in comparison with yours, what else do you say but I will ascend into heaven; I will exalt my throne above the stars of heaven? Are not all the bishops together clouds, who both rain in the words of preaching, and glitter in the light of good works? And when your Fraternity despises them, and you would fain press them down under yourself, what else say you but what is said by the ancient foe, I will ascend above the heights of the clouds? All these things when I behold with tears, and tremble at the hidden judgments of God, my fears are increased, and my heart cannot contain its groans, for that this most holy man the lord John, of so great abstinence and humility, has, through the seduction of familiar tongues, broken out into such a pitch of pride as to attempt, in his coveting of that wrongful name, to be like him who, while proudly wishing to be like God, lost even the grace of the likeness granted him, and because he sought false glory, thereby forfeited true blessedness. Certainly Peter, the first of the apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church,** Paul, Andrew, John,â** what were they but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head. And (to bind all together in a short girth of speech) the saints before the law, the saints under the law, the saints under grace, all these making up the Lordâs Body, were constituted as members of the Church, **and not one of them has wished himself to be called universal. **Now let your Holiness acknowledge to what extent you swell within yourself in desiring to be called by that name by which no one presumed to be called who was truly holy.ââ newadvent.org/fathers/360205018.htm
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi benhur: Thanks for the links seems from glancing at them I will have to read it carefully before I can give any response to it if thatâs OK with you? I know there is always two side to the coin so will examine them to see how they transmit their views on the matter at hand.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Spina,
Thanks for your response and your kind words.
You also mention that âLuther decided that the Pope was the anti-Christâ and in turn caused others to see the Pope as such also. It seems to me that Luther was taking a lot of responsibility in this, intentionally attempting to destroy the reputation of the Pope with the members of the Church. On what basis did Luther base his authority?
In fact, Luther considered himself to have an Authority similar in some ways to an Apostle, and in particular, the Apostle Paul. One of my favorite Lutheran Scholars, Mark U. Edwards comments:
âIt was Lutherâs contention that Paul had been proud and conceited through âdivine necessityâ.â His critics might think that he had become haughty with self-pride, but in fact he was being proud for the glory of God. âIn matter of faith,â Luther concluded, âwe must be inflexible, unconquerable, and as unyielding as adamant. But in matters of charity, we should be as flexible as a leaf and a reed, yielding in all things.â ** When Paul claimed that he had not obtained his teachings from men (Gal. 2:6), this, too, was a necessary pride. Luther modeled and justified his own behavior on this example. âŚâŚâŚ**
Because of Paulâs example and counsel, Luther felt certain in his judgment of his opponents. Putting Paulâs words in the form of direct discourse, Luther has him say:
âI seek to please not man but God. Therefore I say that to teach other than I teach is anathema, for in this, pure doctrine can be recognized: if someone teaches that which He commands, and glorifies his creator and the one who sent him (then he is teaching pure doctrine).â Luther (speaking for Paul)
Edwards continues: ** It was Lutherâs view that Paul did not disparage his opponents but that he judged the by his apostolic authority. And Luther then added: âJust as it is proper for us [so to judge]: we are not simply insulting them when he judge that the pope, Oecolampadius, and Karlstadt are diabolical.â ** **Since Luther and his followers had received the Holy Spirit, then had been made different men with a new sense and judgment. They were capable of judging all laws and doctrines, whereas those **who were without the article on justification by faith were incapable of judging anything. This new spirit and competence to judge was not a human virtue according to Luther, but was a gift from God that came with the preached word and made them new men.
It was from Paul too that Luther learned the proper way to rebuke an opponent. Paulâs treatment of the Galatians who had been misled was mild, but his full anger was turned against the false teachers. **Luther claimed that his rebukes were like Paulâs: they were harsh but not bitter.â ** Edwards, âLuther and the False Brethrenâ, pg. 122-4
Lutherâs rebukes were not bitter? I think that this is extremely revealing, and troubling. Here we see the crux of the matter. Salvation by Faith Alone was THE doctrine that had to be protected. If you disagreed with Luther on that particular doctrine, then you were evil.
As for Lutherâs comments, what would we, in our times, think if someone was referring to the Apostle Paul as a model for THEIR personal authority? Is it at all surprising that a man such as this âran afoulâ of the Church, claiming that HE had the authority to rebuke the WHOLE CHURCH doctrinally?
One of the things I really appreciate about Edwards is that he is extremely honest in his assessments, and also in the Luther quotes that he includes in his books. It seems that he has made his peace with the historical Luther, is extremely straightforward about the subject, and yet still remains a committed Lutheran.
God Bless You Spina, Topper
Thanks for your response and your kind words.
I agree 100%. I think you hit the nail on the head in that Luther did want to promote hatred of the Church. I see that as an extremely serious offense. Itâs one thing to personally hate the Church, but to do everything in your power to promote that hatred in others is another matter altogether.
You also mention that âLuther decided that the Pope was the anti-Christâ and in turn caused others to see the Pope as such also. It seems to me that Luther was taking a lot of responsibility in this, intentionally attempting to destroy the reputation of the Pope with the members of the Church. On what basis did Luther base his authority?
In fact, Luther considered himself to have an Authority similar in some ways to an Apostle, and in particular, the Apostle Paul. One of my favorite Lutheran Scholars, Mark U. Edwards comments:
âIt was Lutherâs contention that Paul had been proud and conceited through âdivine necessityâ.â His critics might think that he had become haughty with self-pride, but in fact he was being proud for the glory of God. âIn matter of faith,â Luther concluded, âwe must be inflexible, unconquerable, and as unyielding as adamant. But in matters of charity, we should be as flexible as a leaf and a reed, yielding in all things.â ** When Paul claimed that he had not obtained his teachings from men (Gal. 2:6), this, too, was a necessary pride. Luther modeled and justified his own behavior on this example. âŚâŚâŚ**
Because of Paulâs example and counsel, Luther felt certain in his judgment of his opponents. Putting Paulâs words in the form of direct discourse, Luther has him say:
âI seek to please not man but God. Therefore I say that to teach other than I teach is anathema, for in this, pure doctrine can be recognized: if someone teaches that which He commands, and glorifies his creator and the one who sent him (then he is teaching pure doctrine).â Luther (speaking for Paul)
Edwards continues: ** It was Lutherâs view that Paul did not disparage his opponents but that he judged the by his apostolic authority. And Luther then added: âJust as it is proper for us [so to judge]: we are not simply insulting them when he judge that the pope, Oecolampadius, and Karlstadt are diabolical.â ** **Since Luther and his followers had received the Holy Spirit, then had been made different men with a new sense and judgment. They were capable of judging all laws and doctrines, whereas those **who were without the article on justification by faith were incapable of judging anything. This new spirit and competence to judge was not a human virtue according to Luther, but was a gift from God that came with the preached word and made them new men.
It was from Paul too that Luther learned the proper way to rebuke an opponent. Paulâs treatment of the Galatians who had been misled was mild, but his full anger was turned against the false teachers. **Luther claimed that his rebukes were like Paulâs: they were harsh but not bitter.â ** Edwards, âLuther and the False Brethrenâ, pg. 122-4
Lutherâs rebukes were not bitter? I think that this is extremely revealing, and troubling. Here we see the crux of the matter. Salvation by Faith Alone was THE doctrine that had to be protected. If you disagreed with Luther on that particular doctrine, then you were evil.
As for Lutherâs comments, what would we, in our times, think if someone was referring to the Apostle Paul as a model for THEIR personal authority? Is it at all surprising that a man such as this âran afoulâ of the Church, claiming that HE had the authority to rebuke the WHOLE CHURCH doctrinally?
One of the things I really appreciate about Edwards is that he is extremely honest in his assessments, and also in the Luther quotes that he includes in his books. It seems that he has made his peace with the historical Luther, is extremely straightforward about the subject, and yet still remains a committed Lutheran.
God Bless You Spina, Topper
P
pablope
Guest
Really BenhurâŚfrom a Steve Rudd source?
ripoffreport.com/r/Steve-Rudd/internet/Steve-Rudd-bible-Hosts-a-website-full-of-hate-misquotes-and-copyrighted-material-ripoff-218637
I wrote a lengthly rebuttal to his anti-Catholic accusations at my blog, Barque of Peter (search âSteve Ruddâ), demonstrating that his criticisms of Catholic Doctrine are either unfounded, or at best misunderstandings, while at worse they are outright lies. I emailed him the response to offer a chance for rebuttal, and heard nothing from him.
Recently, I had recommended the articles to a friend who was inquiring about the Catholic faith, and reviewing my articles, I noticed several typographical errors. In editing my articles, I returned to bible.ca and discovered that he had adapted his original article in a most disingenuous way, so as to make it look as though he had already anticipated several of my rebuttals to it, and therefore undercutting the force of my response. He did not provide me the same courtesy of notification which I offered to him outright, but rather led his readers to believe that his article was as originally published.
In sum, as a self-proclaimed teacher of the Christian faith, Steve Rudd engages in disingenuous, deceitful tactics in order to prove his understanding of the Scriptures correct, while attacking groups that donât believe in him. His arguments boil down to sophistries: cleverly devised, but knowingly false arguments aimed at confusing and misleading his readers. And yes, they are knowingly false arguments, because I myself cited official teachings of the Catholic Church in demonstrating that his claims were not accurately depicting Catholic teaching. When he altered his article, he nevertheless left the claims themselves the same, only rewording his defence of them to take into account my counter-replies.
O
onenow1
Guest
Well Ben we were not there. All religions at the time, to my memory were free to expression, as of edict of Milan. except Paganism?] I believe This can be nothing other than divine intervention. God knows how we humans learn by making errors. Fortunately the Catholic Church has maintained doctrine to this day. Can you enumerate these anathemas that you believe are wrong and had any thing to do with doctrine ? Unlike many other religions quick to react with answers. The catholic church does not make hasty decisions, they are well thought out. Of course there are many sinners in the church as we all are; and do bad things as individuals, this is human nature. Turning around is always possible thanks to Jesus.
God Bless
B
benhur
Guest
No problemo.A lot to chew on. I kind of like Gregory.He was reformer, I think he was a monk.
B
benhur
Guest
It was the first council since Jerusalem, at Nicea that dealt with Arianism . Actually to go against of any Nicene truths (20 canons) was anathema and was punishable by civil authorities.Well Ben we were not there. All religions at the time, to my memory were free to expression, as of edict of Milan. except Paganism?] I believe This can be nothing other than divine intervention. God knows how we humans learn by making errors. Fortunately the Catholic Church has maintained doctrine to this day. Can you enumerate these anathemas that you believe are wrong and had any thing to do with doctrine ? Unlike many other religions quick to react with answers. The catholic church does not make hasty decisions, they are well thought out. Of course there are many sinners in the church as we all are; and do bad things as individuals, this is human nature. Turning around is always possible thanks to Jesus.
God Bless
I am sure this made the emperor happy, who called the council, and some say more for unity in his empire than for Christianity sake.
Arius and some of his followers were banished (for a time).
Our champion Athanasius, was arrested 5 times (the emperors switched to Arianism)
Blessings
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi benhur: I believe he was and really did not want to be pope but took the job anyway because so many thought that he would reform the Church. At least if memory severs me correctly about this Pope. I have begun to read what you linked me o but there is so much to chew over before I have anything to say.
B
benhur
Guest
I was almost going to post that but did not trust my memory ,that he did not want the job,can you imagine.
B
benhur
Guest
Sorry to hear about a negative encounter with him. Do not know anything about him. I only quickly read what he had to say about Bishop John and Pope Gregory . I thought it factual and elaborate. Did not see the Catholic site (which also seemed factual and elaborate) disputing any of it , except obviously for any âconclusionsâ or bias.(which both sites have).
Sorry again. Hopefully his rewording were corrections and not just tactics. I also donât like misrepresentations. One should easily be able to represent the views you are âcritiquingâ
- Status