Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

Mark U. Edwards continues his commentary about Luther’s concept of his own authority:
**
“By 1531 Luther had come to believe that he occupied in his time the same role that the true prophets and apostles had occupied in biblical times. **This does not meant that he thought that he was a prophet or apostle on the same scale as his biblical predecessors. His sense of his own limitations was such that he would have felt very uncomfortable making a claim of this kind, for he did not feel in any way the equal of these men of God. “Nevertheless, he did see himself as occupying the same role, however unworthy he might be. ” Edwards, “Luther and the False Brethren”, pg. 125

It should be noted that Luther seems to have felt perfectly comfortable in making dozens of extremely outrageous claims as to his personal authority. While there is one instance of him questioning those who had accused him of assuming to be a prophet, he certainly did make very clear statements about the ‘fact’ that HIS teachings were to be followed, and that those who rejected his teachings might not be saved. In other words, Salvation could be conditional upon believing Luther’s radical teachings. Of course, this could mean that possibly nobody in the first 15 centuries of Christianity was saved.

**“He felt that he bore most of the true stigmata that Paul also had to bear: internal doubts and temptations, external affliction and persecutions. **And Luther feared that when he died Germany would enter a period of disorder and darkness, and that false teachers would arise and subvert everything, as had also happened in the time of Paul.” Ibid, pg. 125

It is worth noting here that Luther was right. Germany did actually enter a period of disorder and darkness upon his death. Doctrinal disorder was to rule the day as were wars which claimed millions. Edwards mentions that the:

“parallels Luther saw between himself and Paul were reassuring to him…**…and that those “parallels between himself and Paul, and between his opponents and Paul’s, confirmed his doctrine as the true doctrine. His sense of certainty and righteousness was undoubtedly bolstered by these parallels. **

Once Luther saw himself in the role Paul had occupied, he had a explicit model for his behavior toward opponents. He could explain and justify his polemics and his stubbornness on points of doctrine by pointing to the example set by Paul. When critics charged, as they frequently did, that Luther violated the requirements of charity and modesty in his polemics, there was no need to be disturbed, for he had a cogent rationalization for his behavior.

**Finally, by equating his evangelical opponents with biblical false prophets and apostles and by linking them all to Satan, he justified his characterizations of them as vain, lying hypocrites who were wantonly violating their own consciences. Apparent differences between them were a deception, for the devil rode them all. Because they shared a common devilish spirit, the misdeeds of one were potentially the misdeeds of all.” **Ibid, pg. 125-6

Here we learn, again, that Luther was SO certain that he was right, and that the facts were SO CLEAR, that the only way people could claim to disagree with him would be if they were falsely representing their own opinions. Given that the facts were that clear, they MUST agree with him and could only be lying when they claimed not to.

If a Catholic Scholar were to be so bold as to make these comments about Luther’s belief in his personal authority, they would be dismissed as being far too biased. However, these are the comments of one of Lutheranism’s most honored Luther Scholars.

Edwards continues:
**
“By occupying the role previously occupied by the biblical prophets and apostles, Luther bolstered his own authority and thus validated his teachings. A true prophet could not advocate false teachings; God would not allow it. By equating his evangelical opponents with the biblical false prophets and apostles, he discredited them and, by association, the beliefs they held.”** Ibid, pg. 126

This is Circular Reasoning on steroids.

So - God could not allow Luther to advocate false teachings? What about those relatively ‘underreported’ teachings of Luther? Do they confirm or deny Luther’s idea that God could not allow him to teach falsely?

Since his opponents were basically evil, there was no real need to deal with their doctrinal positions. All that was needed was to PROCLAIM them to be of Satan (from his position of personal authority).

Hopefully this information allows for a ‘more complete’ understanding of Luther’s perception of his personal authority.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

 

[jmcrae]

Was it not a Roman pope (500’s ?) who first first accused another “eastern” pope/patriarch of "Anti-Christ " behavior for deeming himself “supreme” ?

Was he defining and declaring his statement infallibly, or was he stating a personal opinion?

Martin Luther’s statements about the Pope seem to be in the context of teaching and instruction.

 

[Topper17]

He (Topper) does not break the rules of the forum. He has done significant research for his goals.

My view of his goals and approach is that it is contrary to the spirit of ecumenism between our traditions, and at times has had the effect of poisoning what has been the good relationship between Catholics and Lutherans on this forum.

First of all Jon, I appreciate your observation that I do not break the rules of the forum. As for your ‘view’ that I am ‘poisoning’ anything, I am not so much in agreement (to say the least).

As a matter of fact, Jon, I am not the one who rebelled against the Catholic Church in the 16th century, developing in the process more than 4 dozen doctrines in opposition to those of the Church. Neither did I author the Confessions which speak of the antichrist, the adherents, or state that the (Catholic) church is not the church. I would suggest that there is not any ‘poisoning’ going on here, but if there were, it would be the primarily the responsibility of Luther and his writings, and also of the Confessions which were designed to formalize his beliefs.

Jon, do you believe that Luther had ANY ‘role’ in the poisoning of relations between Catholicism and Lutheranism? If so, please be specific.

The fact is that either Luther was right to challenge all of those doctrines or he was not. Given that the history of Protestantism has proven Sola Scriptura to be faulty, who was right and who was wrong CLEARLY cannot be determined on the basis of somebody’s interpretation of Scripture.

I believe that the history of the early Reformation holds the key to determining who was right and who was wrong, and that ONLY in determining who was right and who was wrong, will there be any hope of doctrinal reunion. In order to achieve reunion, one side or the other is going to have to ‘back down’. The LCMS in particular has made it very clear that it has no intention of doing so, even being so bold as to suggest that doctrinal unity can be achieved IF the Church refutes its dogmas. That’s Bold!

Given that there will be no doctrinal movement on either side, and has been absolutely none in the 50 years of the ‘Dialogue’, converts will be won one at a time, in both directions. Factual history and the correcting of misleading history will be an effective tool in leading some to conclusions about who was right and who was wrong.

I am all for posting that factual history, but you don’t seem that supportive.

What were Luther’s arguments and what were those made against him? My position is that early Reformation history very much supports the idea that Luther (the subject of the thread BTW) was in the wrong.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12727866]First of all Jon, I appreciate your observation that I do not break the rules of the forum. As for your ‘view’ that I am ‘poisoning’ anything, I am not so much in agreement (to say the least).

Don’t be too appreciative. Recognizing that you are not breaking the letter of the rules doesn’t mean I believe you post in a spirit of charitable dialogue, which has been the hallmark of Catholic Answers Forums, when compared to some of the non-Catholic forums.

As a matter of fact, Jon, I am not the one who rebelled against the Catholic Church in the 16th century, developing in the process more than 4 dozen doctrines in opposition to those of the Church. Neither did I author the Confessions which speak of the antichrist, the adherents, or state that the (Catholic) church is not the church. I would suggest that there is not any ‘poisoning’ going on here, but if there were, it would be the primarily the responsibility of Luther and his writings, and also of the Confessions which were designed to formalize his beliefs.

Hmm. The comment I made that you are responding to:

My view of his goals and approach is that it is contrary to the spirit of ecumenism between our traditions, and at times has had the effect of poisoning what has been the good relationship between Catholics and Lutherans on this forum.

The fact is that many of these topics have been topics of discussion for a long time here at CAF, long before you arrived.
BTW, I didn’t author* Unam sanctam*, but I don’t go through every thread bashing Catholics about it.

Jon, do you believe that Luther had ANY ‘role’ in the poisoning of relations between Catholicism and Lutheranism? If so, please be specific.

Of course he did, and so did many others on both sides. None of them, AFAIK, have posted here at CAF recently.

The fact is that either Luther was right to challenge all of those doctrines or he was not. Given that the history of Protestantism has proven Sola Scriptura to be faulty, who was right and who was wrong CLEARLY cannot be determined on the basis of somebody’s interpretation of Scripture.

Not related to the post you responded to, but I think, again, that’s a running topic, long before you arrived, and the relationship between Lutheran and Catholic posters on this forum, even with those issues between us, was far more cordial before you arrived. That’s what I meant in response to Randy’s question, and it is his thread, BTW.

I believe that the history of the early Reformation holds the key to determining who was right and who was wrong, and that ONLY in determining who was right and who was wrong, will there be any hope of doctrinal reunion. ** In order to achieve reunion, one side or the other is going to have to ‘back down’. **

And this is where you are so very wrong. This is the attitude that perpetuated the deep animosities between our communions for 4 hundred years. That’s not how true unity will happen.

The LCMS in particular has made it very clear that it has no intention of doing so, even being so bold as to suggest that doctrinal unity can be achieved IF the Church refutes its dogmas. That’s Bold!

And it is the exact same position I have heard here presented by Catholic posters for years. And this is the exact position both communions should take!! Doctrine matters. One doesn’t back down from doctrine. Each side dialogues from that position, knowing the other side does, too. Then we together depend on the Holy Spirit to guide us to unity. That’s the message Pope Benedict shared with the Lutheran parish in Rome in 2010.

Given that there will be no doctrinal movement on either side, and has been absolutely none in the 50 years of the ‘Dialogue’, converts will be won one at a time, in both directions. Factual history and the correcting of misleading history will be an effective tool in leading some to conclusions about who was right and who was wrong.

And this is contrary to what was put forward by Pope St. John Paul II. And the very thought on your part that “there will be no doctrinal movement on either side” betrays your often alluded to disagreement with your own leaderships ecumenical outreach and dialogue. But even if you were right about “one at a time”, and anti-anything scorched earth approach wins few converts.

I am all for posting that factual history, but you don’t seem that supportive.

What were Luther’s arguments and what were those made against him? My position is that early Reformation history very much supports the idea that Luther (the subject of the thread BTW) was in the wrong.

And yet you never post what was right, a curious approach for someone who thinks winning one person at a time is the answer.
But listen, I’m not going to return the approach. You know and I know there are lots of skeletons in the Catholic closet, but I see no value in doing that. Terrible things have happened in the name of the Church for centuries, but that’s the work of human sin, not the Church itself. That would make my style of dialogue too much like yours, in all honesty.

 

[Lucy107]

If you had been Luther, would you have followed the same course he took?

Why or why not?

I think the various movements that originated in the Protestant Reformation are relevant for any person today who also struggles with the problems of the Catholic Church today.

I think that what Luther and the other Reformators back then were facing was essentially a problem of trust, a crisis of trust, a crisis of faith, something along the lines of –
“Given that the Church I have been baptized into and have belonged to my whole life so far, is now experiencing troublesome times, in that clerics have been introducing doctrines and practices that seem contrary to true Catholic doctrine, and given that both clerics and the laity seem more apathetic or sinful than ever before – what should I do?”

Some of the Reformators first tried to get the clerics to change, and when that didn’t work, they started their own religion.

In one sense, the various movements that originated in the Protestant Reformation are examples of attempted solutions to this crisis of trust and faith.

Someone who nowadays also experiences a crisis of trust and faith in regard to the Catholic Church or Catholics in general, could potentially benefit from studying those attempted solutions as proposed by the various movements that originated in the Protestant Reformation, for the sake of finding one’s own solution to this problem.

 

[benhur]

Was he defining and declaring his statement infallibly, or was he stating a personal opinion?

Martin Luther’s statements about the Pope seem to be in the context of teaching and instruction.

Some of what Gregory says sounds a bit like Luther. I would say then both were very opinionated. Not sure but I would think personal opinion is based on personal belief’s, which come from somewhere. Normally one does not hold an opinion that they deem false, and then not each from it.

But no Gregory did not excommunicate John for his “heresy”.
However Gregory’s letters are quite “preachy” on the matter.

The whole thing just shows some the history of the papacy, and some eastern thought on it, and the role of secular powers.

 

[MaryT777]

I think the various movements that originated in the Protestant Reformation are relevant for any person today who also struggles with the problems of the Catholic Church today.

I think that what Luther and the other Reformators back then were facing was essentially a problem of trust, a crisis of trust, a crisis of faith, something along the lines of –
“Given that the Church I have been baptized into and have belonged to my whole life so far, is now experiencing troublesome times, in that clerics have been introducing doctrines and practices that seem contrary to true Catholic doctrine, and given that both clerics and the laity seem more apathetic or sinful than ever before – what should I do?”

Some of the Reformators first tried to get the clerics to change, and when that didn’t work, they started their own religion.

In one sense, the various movements that originated in the Protestant Reformation are examples of attempted solutions to this crisis of trust and faith.

Someone who nowadays also experiences a crisis of trust and faith in regard to the Catholic Church or Catholics in general, could potentially benefit from studying those attempted solutions as proposed by the various movements that originated in the Protestant Reformation, for the sake of finding one’s own solution to this problem.

I shudder to think someone would recommend to anyone, especially Catholics they on their OWN study attempted solutions by various movements and then find the TRUTH that way. Christ established a Church and entrusted it with the truth in faith, doctrine and morals. The Bible does not say to find your “Own” solutions by studying the reformation.

Wow
biblegateway.

BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.

Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.

 

[MaryT777]

Don’t be too appreciative. Recognizing that you are not breaking the letter of the rules doesn’t mean I believe you post in a spirit of charitable dialogue, which has been the hallmark of Catholic Answers Forums, when compared to some of the non-Catholic forums.

Hmm. The comment I made that you are responding to:

The fact is that many of these topics have been topics of discussion for a long time here at CAF, long before you arrived.
BTW, I didn’t author* Unam sanctam*, but I don’t go through every thread bashing Catholics about it.

Of course he did, and so did many others on both sides. None of them, AFAIK, have posted here at CAF recently.

Not related to the post you responded to, but I think, again, that’s a running topic, long before you arrived, and the relationship between Lutheran and Catholic posters on this forum, even with those issues between us, was far more cordial before you arrived. That’s what I meant in response to Randy’s question, and it is his thread, BTW.

And this is where you are so very wrong. This is the attitude that perpetuated the deep animosities between our communions for 4 hundred years. That’s not how true unity will happen.

And it is the exact same position I have heard here presented by Catholic posters for years. And this is the exact position both communions should take!! Doctrine matters. One doesn’t back down from doctrine. Each side dialogues from that position, knowing the other side does, too. Then we together depend on the Holy Spirit to guide us to unity. That’s the message Pope Benedict shared with the Lutheran parish in Rome in 2010.

And this is contrary to what was put forward by Pope St. John Paul II. And the very thought on your part that “there will be no doctrinal movement on either side” betrays your often alluded to disagreement with your own leaderships ecumenical outreach and dialogue. But even if you were right about “one at a time”, and anti-anything scorched earth approach wins few converts.

And yet you never post what was right, a curious approach for someone who thinks winning one person at a time is the answer.
But listen, I’m not going to return the approach. You know and I know there are lots of skeletons in the Catholic closet, but I see no value in doing that. Terrible things have happened in the name of the Church for centuries, but that’s the work of human sin, not the Church itself. That would make my style of dialogue too much like yours, in all honesty.

I personally do not care (maybe others do here) what anyone thinks of Topper and his posts. No one is required to read them if it’s upsetting to them. He has not broken the forum rules and one is to stay on topic, the topic not the poster. Can you please refrain from such comments? Topper is not charitable…etc etc etc
in your opinion. In fact I am tempted to go back through the thread and make a top 10 list of Jon’s complaints about Topper’s "posting style, but that of course would be off topic
.
Seems a pretty simple rule to me, the topic at hand as a reminder of course is “Looking back at what the Reformation has done” which has splintered the Church into denominations galore all based on the same Sola Scriptura principal with the Lutherans split into synods with various beliefs especially over issuses such as morals, abortion, homosexuality, and female ordination.

In my opinion Luther would roll over in his grave if he saw the state of the Lutheran Church today and would have some harsh (to say the least given Luther’s mouth) words to say to some Lutherans. I wonder who he would consider the true Lutherans? LCMS
WELS? who knows?

You may also believe things were more charitable before Topper got here (In your opinion of course) but I digress and disagree. It’s easy when we don’t discuss the difficult issues. Fluffing up the differences will never lead to agreement in doctrine. Facing the issues head on does.

I might add it’s the Lutheran confessions that seem to make the biggest deal of what Catholics teach and it seems the religion Lutheran itself is based on what the Catholics teach is wrong. We reject this and that and the other thing of Catholicism.

Will join the other denominations in rejecting whatever part of If you like, it will not change the truth, that we are the Church established by Christ and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

Mary.

 

[spina1953]

I personally do not care (maybe others do here) what anyone thinks of Topper and his posts. No one is required to read them if it’s upsetting to them. He has not broken the forum rules and one is to stay on topic, the topic not the poster. Can you please refrain from such comments? Topper is not charitable…etc etc etc
in your opinion. In fact I am tempted to go back through the thread and make a top 10 list of Jon’s complaints about Topper’s "posting style, but that of course would be off topic
.
Seems a pretty simple rule to me, the topic at hand as a reminder of course is “Looking back at what the Reformation has done” which has splintered the Church into denominations galore all based on the same Sola Scriptura principal with the Lutherans split into synods with various beliefs especially over issuses such as morals, abortion, homosexuality, and female ordination.

In my opinion Luther would roll over in his grave if he saw the state of the Lutheran Church today and would have some harsh (to say the least given Luther’s mouth) words to say to some Lutherans. I wonder who he would consider the true Lutherans? LCMS
WELS? who knows?

You may also believe things were more charitable before Topper got here (In your opinion of course) but I digress and disagree. It’s easy when we don’t discuss the difficult issues. Fluffing up the differences will never lead to agreement in doctrine. Facing the issues head on does.

I might add it’s the Lutheran confessions that seem to make the biggest deal of what Catholics teach and it seems the religion Lutheran itself is based on what the Catholics teach is wrong. We reject this and that and the other thing of Catholicism.

Will join the other denominations in rejecting whatever part of If you like, it will not change the truth, that we are the Church established by Christ and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

Mary.

Hi Mary: I agree with you 100% with your post!

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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.

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

Now ben,

That is onesideism way of putting things.

Are we to ignore the fact that Christians were being torturted, murdered and persecuted (not necessarily in that order) immediately after Jesus’ resurrection?

To express such a one sided view of history is to ignore the other side. The Church can finally meet in public without fear of their heads rolling.

I think a more even handed view is warranted, is it not?

 

[Lucy107]

I shudder to think someone would recommend to anyone, especially Catholics they on their OWN study attempted solutions by various movements and then find the TRUTH that way. Christ established a Church and entrusted it with the truth in faith, doctrine and morals. The Bible does not say to find your “Own” solutions by studying the reformation.

Wow

Please note that I said what I said to apply in a case when a person has doubts about the Church, ie. when one is in a situation in some way similar to that that Martin Luther was in before he announced his theses.

Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.

And how can one know what the Lord wants??
One cannot read God’s mind,

 

[benjohnson]

He has not broken the forum rules and one is to stay on topic, the topic not the poster.

Nobody is talking about Topper17. We don’t even use his real name per request.

This poster’s “style” is important though - if we don’t learn from our mistakes, dialog as children of Christ, and find truth together then it will be nothing but schisms and reformations 'till Christ comes again.

 

[MaryT777]

Please note that I said what I said to apply in a case when a person has doubts about the Church, ie. when one is in a situation in some way similar to that that Martin Luther was in before he announced his theses.

And how can one know what the Lord wants??
One cannot read God’s mind,

One might read the Inspired Word of God which is the Bible with an infallible interpreter such as the Holy Spirit as through the seat of Peter and Christ’s Church.

Mary.

 

[MaryT777]

Nobody is talking about Topper17. We don’t even use his real name per request.

This poster’s “style” is important though - if we don’t learn from our mistakes, dialog as children of Christ, and find truth together then it will be nothing but schisms and reformations 'till Christ comes again.

It’s always that “other poster?” Ben.
There is a Lutheran poster that has pointed out the 8th commandment often and perhaps that would be a good review for that poster to read again and practice.

If you want to discuss the Poster’s style then start a thread on the style of Posters. I refuse to chime in such a thread nor would Topper I know because it’s rude and childish.

Mary.

 

[MaryT777]

Nobody is talking about Topper17. We don’t even use his real name per request.

This poster’s “style” is important though - if we don’t learn from our mistakes, dialog as children of Christ, and find truth together then it will be nothing but schisms and reformations 'till Christ comes again.

I read the whole board…

Quote:
=Topper17;12727866]First of all Jon, I appreciate your observation that I do not break the rules of the forum. As for your ‘view’ that I am ‘poisoning’ anything, I am not so much in agreement (to say the least).

Don’t be too appreciative. Recognizing that you are not breaking the letter of the rules doesn’t mean I believe you post in a spirit of charitable dialogue, which has been the hallmark of Catholic Answers Forums, when compared to some of the non-Catholic forums.

Quote:

 

[JonNC]

I personally do not care (maybe others do here) what anyone thinks of Topper and his posts. No one is required to read them if it’s upsetting to them. He has not broken the forum rules and one is to stay on topic, the topic not the poster. Can you please refrain from such comments? Topper is not charitable…etc etc etc
in your opinion. In fact I am tempted to go back through the thread and make a top 10 list of Jon’s complaints about Topper’s "posting style, but that of course would be off topic
.

Refrain? Randy asked me a straight forward question. I answered it. Topper responded to that answer, to which I responded. The fact that Randy, who authored the OP, asked the question, sort of makes it on topic, don’t you think?

Topper is welcome to his opinion, as it is a forum for that purpose, but so am I, Mary. And so are you. I don’t put people on ignore. I don’t complain about others to Eric. I am concerned by the charity level of late here at CAF, quite honestly. That charity level here has been the reason why I have posted here for years. I knew, by and large, I and my communion would be treated with respect, unlike some other forums that treat Catholics horribly, and Lutherans not much better. I would hate to see that change.

Jon

 

[steido01]

I joined this forum a few years ago (how time flies!) for several reasons, one of which was the possibility of converting when my marginally-Catholic wife and I married. I have seriously considered that possibility, like perhaps every good Lutheran, many times. Lately, when I find myself contemplating whether I ought to re-enroll in RCIA, I just remember the recent interactions I’ve had here. And the thought quickly leaves.

Why would I leave my church of sinners for a church where, apparently, I’d be expected to continually apologize for having been brought to Christ through a body out-of-communion with Rome, and then be required to bash my family, friends, and fellow Christians who still remained in my old communion? If people really think these methods are going to bring anyone to the Catholic Church, then I’m not sure they understand how evangelism works. Can’t we discuss Lutheran-Catholic relations without bashing Luther, incredulously dismissing statements from Lutherans and their synods, or accusing Lutherans of historical stupidity? Are the arguments for your faith so weak that comparison to another’s compels you to misrepresent what others believe?

Folks, this is old. I initially wrote out my frustrations with these sort of bash-Luther/Lutherans thread but I decided not to post it publicly. It wouldn’t do any good. And neither does this sort of thread. Perhaps, instead, it’s time to take a step back. I’m going to start giving things up a little early as I prepare for Lent. CAF used to be the last thing to go, but given the sort of dialogue that has come up lately, this year it’s going first (Matthew 5:30, right?). I’ll see y’all on the other side of Easter.

Take some time to contemplate the Great Work our Savior has done for us --despite our sin-- during the upcoming Lenten season.

Your brother in Christ,

 

[JonNC]

=steido01;12729872]I joined this forum a few years ago (how time flies!) for several reasons, one of which was the possibility of converting when my marginally-Catholic wife and I married. The possibility of converting, like perhaps every good Lutherans, has crossed my mind from time to time. Lately, when I find myself contemplating whether I ought to re-enroll in RCIA, I just remember the recent interactions I’ve had here. And the thought quickly leaves.

I understand your point, Don, but I’d be reluctant to think that Catholicism today is represented by the postings of a few, and i wouldn’t consider that a good reason to not join RCIA, if you are being moved to do so

Why would I leave my church of sinners for a church where, apparently, I’d be expected to continually apologize for having been brought to Christ through a body out-of-communion with Rome, and then be required to bash my family, friends, and fellow Christians who still remained in my old communion? If people really think these methods are going to bring anyone to the Catholic Church, then I’m not sure they understand how evangelism works. Can’t we discuss Lutheran-Catholic relations without bashing Luther, incredulously dismissing statements from Lutherans and their synods, or accusing Lutherans of historical stupidity? Are the arguments for your faith so weak that comparison to another’s compels you to misrepresent what others believe?

Again, please don’t allow the opinions of a polemical few to jade your view of the Catholic Church. You and I both know the Catholic Church that draws our interest is the one of Pope Benedict, Pope St. John Paul, etc.

Folks, this is old. I initially wrote out my frustrations with these sort of bash-Luther/Lutherans thread but I decided not to post it publicly. It wouldn’t do any good. And neither does this sort of thread. Perhaps, instead, it’s time to take a step back. I’m going to start giving things up a little early as I prepare for Lent. CAF used to be the last thing to go, but given the sort of dialogue that has come up lately, this year it’s going first (Matthew 5:30, right?). I’ll see y’all on the other side of Easter.

Take some time to contemplate the Great Work our Savior has done for us --despite our sin-- during the upcoming Lenten season.

Your brother in Christ,

May His peace by with you.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

HI benhur: I had a chance to read the links you provided over as carefully as I could. I have some thoughts on the matter. The Apostate church essay it seems to me to appear rather distorted in that there is a lot of spin on what they claim in an attempt to foster a viewpoint contrary to what history itself shows.

                  The Patriarch John the Faster from what I was able to understand wanted to be the sole and only real Bishop, to which I very much suspect the Emperor had a hand in wanting John the Faster to be this sole and only real Bishop a universal Bishop so to speak, which Pope Gregory wrote about in his letter to him, denying this title to the Patriarch of Constantinople who felt that he was somehow entitled to it.

                There is first of all a vast difference between the Pope being the Bishop of Rome and being Pope of the whole Church, in which Pope Gregory was referring to in that on Bishop or Patriarch cannot be the only sole and real Bishop as that implies all other Bishops and Patriarchs are not real Bishops, and this is what Pope Gregory is referring to.

                Since the time of Constantine, and before emperors had control over religious beliefs and practices when the empire was pagan. When Constantine became emperor of first the West then the East and then the whole of the Roman empire he has that mindset in that he should be able to run the Church and control it just as he does with the Roman empire. This meddling in Church affairs was something that had been going on since the 300's AD. So, if the Patriarch of Constantinople Jon the Faster could be called Universal Bishop, he would then be the only sole and real Bishop thereby the emperor could then control the affairs of the Church and decide who would be Bishop or nor, and appoint whom he wanted.

To be honest with you I feel that the argument that has been made by those of the Protestant persuasion is rather a weak one as well as a distorted view of the intent and meaning that Pope Gregory made concerning the term universal Bishop.

 

[spina1953]

Hi Topper: In regards to your 413 post I agree. From my reading I very much got the impression that Luther believed himself to be a prophet; that every word that came out his mouth was God’s words and not his own. It also seems to me that Luther when writing was not very well thought out due to his all consuming hatred of the CC and those who opposed him and disagreed with his theologies and teachings. The more anyone disagreed, the more the CC refused to go along with what Luther wanted the more vicious and violent he became in his attacks. It appears from his writings that I have read that Luther had no respect for anyone who refused to accept his teachings and theology. It seems to me that Luther was all consumed with hatred of the CC because the CC would not agree with him nor change into the way that Luther wanted the CC to be which was Luther’s way or the highway so to speak.
In the end all this caused was for others who somehow felt that the CC was somehow wrong, some of it due to abuses by Church officials decided that the CC doctrines were also wrong so they too decided that since Luther was able to break away from the CC so to could they. Now what we see looking back at what the Reformation has done and seems to continue to be doing is facture into more and more separate and individual churches all with varying degrees of doctrines and beliefs that seem to be ever changing..