Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done

[benhur]

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?

How is saying you agree ,and love the council for the most part and yet sadly see the anathemas ? Do you not see the sad irony of finally being "free’’ from government persecution/enforcement, to then turn around and employ government enforcement with penalties ? Are you condoning this new and trendsetting practice ?

 

[Topper17]

Right to the point as usual Mary!

……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 issues 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.

As you note, the question before us today is the same one that we have been considering now for three weeks and more than 400 posts. Obviously the subject is one of great interest. The question posed by the OP is:

If Luther could have foreseen clearly what has happened to western Christianity over the past 500 years, would Luther have said and done the things that history records of him?

This question requires that we understand a number of things. First of all, what is it, specifically and exactly that ‘happened to western Christianity over the past 500 years’? Secondly, we need to know what it is, specifically and exactly, that Luther actually ‘said and did’. Thirdly, we need to make an assessment, based on an hopefully educated assessment of the man, his nature, temperament, and character, as to whether he would have ‘done what he did’ had he foreseen the results of his teaching. It would seem that this process would require us to have a good understanding of Martin Luther. The research necessary should include the comments of Lutheran and non-Lutheran Scholars. Lutheran Scholars have been quoted here in far greater numbers than their proportion of Christianity.

Mark U. Edwards is probably Lutheranism’s most prolific Luther Scholar. His book “Luther and the False Brethren” documents Luther’s ugly battles with other Protestants, the very people who had used the very ‘Authority to Interpret’ that Luther had established. In regards to a very telling exchange with Heinrich Bullinger Edwards comments:
**
“Bullinger took strong exception to Luther’s labeling the Zurichers ‘revealed liars,’ and he totally rejected Luther’s charge that they were ruled by the devil. To Luther’s characterization of the sacramentarians as ‘vain spirits,’ Bullinger countered that the real ‘vain spirit’ was Luther: “He boasts of being the German prophet and apostle who need learn from no one, but from whom all others learn.’ **He accused Luther of trying to be the final authority that allowed of no contradiction: ‘If someone does not say what he says or if someone wishes to say more than he says, then he is banished and condemned as a heretic’………

Bullinger’s evaluation of the differences between Luther’s polemics and those of the prophets and apostles raises some fascinating questions. ** Bullinger argued that the servants of God – the prophets, John the Baptist, the apostles, and Jesus Christ himself – sometimes used sharp, almost coarse language. They had kept within the bounds of moderation, and their rebukes had been accompanied with good arguments which powerfully attracted the people to them. In contrast, Luther had observed no moderation and presented few arguments, and when God provided him with a good argument, he obscured it with evil and disgusting language. **While the servants of God rebuked bravely and without frivolity, Luther’s rebuking was much too frivolous and showed little bravery. The servants of God sought God’s honor, not their own; they did not promote their own quarrels or seek to increase their own reputations; they sought only the salvation of sinners. And therefore, although their words were pungent and sharply spoken, still they had a fatherly spirit. **But Luther pushed his own affairs and quarrels, made a great show, and immediately committed to the devil all those who did not yield to him. ** So there was much hostile spirit in all his rebuking and little fatherly spirit. The servants of God sharpened or softened their chastisement according to the size and number of misdeeds. But Luther, with his argument that error on one article made worthless the adherence to all others, threw out the baby with the bath. The servants of God rebuked only those deserving of rebuke. Luther, on the other hand, raged against the innocent and the guilty alike and reviled the innocent no less furiously than the most malicious rascals. **Therefore, Bullinger concluded, the manner in which God’s holy prophets and apostles delivered their rebukes did not justify Luther’s polemics at all… **

For our purposes the “Short Confession” was the culmination of Luther’s dispute with the sacramentarians. It was Luther’s last testament against the false brethren.” Edwards”, pg. 195-6

The last text posted was actually the end of the chapter. Edwards doesn’t waste one sentence in a defense of Luther against Bullinger’s accusations. How could he?

Is Edwards ‘uncharitable’ or just representing history as it actually accurately? Should Edwards be chastised for his comments?

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[MaryT777]

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..

Well said, Spina. I also agree that Luther’s consuming hatred for the Church that is much apparent in his writings kept him from seeing the truth in the Church doctrine.

Mary.

 

[MaryT777]

Right to the point as usual Mary!

As you note, the question before us today is the same one that we have been considering now for three weeks and more than 400 posts. Obviously the subject is one of great interest. The question posed by the OP is:

This question requires that we understand a number of things. First of all, what is it, specifically and exactly that ‘happened to western Christianity over the past 500 years’? Secondly, we need to know what it is, specifically and exactly, that Luther actually ‘said and did’. Thirdly, we need to make an assessment, based on an hopefully educated assessment of the man, his nature, temperament, and character, as to whether he would have ‘done what he did’ had he foreseen the results of his teaching. It would seem that this process would require us to have a good understanding of Martin Luther. The research necessary should include the comments of Lutheran and non-Lutheran Scholars. Lutheran Scholars have been quoted here in far greater numbers than their proportion of Christianity.

Mark U. Edwards is probably Lutheranism’s most prolific Luther Scholar. His book “Luther and the False Brethren” documents Luther’s ugly battles with other Protestants, the very people who had used the very ‘Authority to Interpret’ that Luther had established. In regards to a very telling exchange with Heinrich Bullinger Edwards comments:
**
“Bullinger took strong exception to Luther’s labeling the Zurichers ‘revealed liars,’ and he totally rejected Luther’s charge that they were ruled by the devil. To Luther’s characterization of the sacramentarians as ‘vain spirits,’ Bullinger countered that the real ‘vain spirit’ was Luther: “He boasts of being the German prophet and apostle who need learn from no one, but from whom all others learn.’ **He accused Luther of trying to be the final authority that allowed of no contradiction: ‘If someone does not say what he says or if someone wishes to say more than he says, then he is banished and condemned as a heretic’………

Bullinger’s evaluation of the differences between Luther’s polemics and those of the prophets and apostles raises some fascinating questions. ** Bullinger argued that the servants of God – the prophets, John the Baptist, the apostles, and Jesus Christ himself – sometimes used sharp, almost coarse language. They had kept within the bounds of moderation, and their rebukes had been accompanied with good arguments which powerfully attracted the people to them. In contrast, Luther had observed no moderation and presented few arguments, and when God provided him with a good argument, he obscured it with evil and disgusting language. **While the servants of God rebuked bravely and without frivolity, Luther’s rebuking was much too frivolous and showed little bravery. The servants of God sought God’s honor, not their own; they did not promote their own quarrels or seek to increase their own reputations; they sought only the salvation of sinners. And therefore, although their words were pungent and sharply spoken, still they had a fatherly spirit. But Luther pushed his own affairs and quarrels, made a great show, and immediately committed to the devil all those who did not yield to him. So there was much hostile spirit in all his rebuking and little fatherly spirit. The servants of God sharpened or softened their chastisement according to the size and number of misdeeds. But Luther, with his argument that error on one article made worthless the adherence to all others, threw out the baby with the bath. The servants of God rebuked only those deserving of rebuke. Luther, on the other hand, raged against the innocent and the guilty alike and reviled the innocent no less furiously than the most malicious rascals. **Therefore, Bullinger concluded, the manner in which God’s holy prophets and apostles delivered their rebukes did not justify Luther’s polemics at all… **

For our purposes the “Short Confession” was the culmination of Luther’s dispute with the sacramentarians. It was Luther’s last testament against the false brethren.” Edwards”, pg. 195-6

The last text posted was actually the end of the chapter. Edwards doesn’t waste one sentence in a defense of Luther against Bullinger’s accusations. How could he?

Is Edwards ‘uncharitable’ or just representing history as it actually accurately? Should Edwards be chastised for his comments?

God Bless You Mary, Topper

My thought is that Edwards is just representing history accurately and should not be chastised for his comments. I’m not an expert though in chastisement. Last time I recall doing such a thing was with children not adults.
God bless you too,
Mary.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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.

Let’s look at the flip side of that coin, shall we?

So you would not mind a poster referencing over and over again about… like… say… Pope Alexander VI… the Synodus Horrenda… Pope Benedict IX… Pope Leo X… Unam Sanctam… just to name a few.

You would not mind at all that this imaginary poster would extensively quote from scholars and historians a la Topper?

I mean after all, our founder said: “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?"

Would you still call it just the truth and facts on the flip side of that coin?

 

[MaryT777]

Let’s look at the flip side of that coin, shall we?

So you would not mind a poster referencing over and over again about… like… say… Pope Alexander VI… the Synodus Horrenda… Pope Benedict IX… Pope Leo X… Unam Sanctam… just to name a few.

You would not mind at all that this imaginary poster would extensively quote from scholars and historians a la Topper?

I mean after all, our founder said: “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?"

Would you still call it just the truth and facts on the flip side of that coin?

No I would not care as long as they posted within forum guidelines which keeps the forum
charitable. It’s as simple as the fact that no one is required to read any poster, any thread or the forum if it upsets them.

Mary.

 

[Contarini]

Mark Edwards is not Lutheranism’s most prolific Luther scholar. He wrote two excellent books and then moved on to other things.

He’s just a Luther scholar you like, because he focuses on Luther’s darker side. Quite rightly and appropriately, be it said.

What isn’t right or appropriate is for you to harp on these things with no attempt to be fair.

And you are not justified by the fact that Protestants do it on the other side. Two wrongs don’t make a right. As I said some posts ago, and have said before, you are ironically imitating Luther’s approach, though with less vehemence (also less interestingly). You are overemphasizing the side that you perceive as underemphasized.

This just produces an endless seesaw, not a fair and constructive picture.

You aren’t accomplishing anything with all this except to “annoy the pig.”

Edwin

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

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.

May His peace by with you.

Jon

 

[Lucy107]

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.

A person who would do that obviously has no issues with the Catholic Church and thus isn’t in the kind of situation as Luther and the Reformators.

From the beginning on, I have been talking about the case when a person has doubts about the Catholic Church, ie. when one is in a situation in some way similar to that that Martin Luther was in before he announced his theses.

 

[Lucy107]

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

Again, please don’t allow the opinions of a polemical few to jade your view of the Catholic Church.

Don’t Catholics stick together? Don’t Catholics build a unified front against non-Catholics?

In a conflict between a Catholic and a non-Catholic, whose side do Catholics take?

From what I’ve seen, in conflicts with non-Catholics, Catholics side with Catholics, even if otherwise, Catholics may be in some disagreement with eachother.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

The Topic, not each other.

 

[JonNC]

Don’t Catholics stick together? Don’t Catholics build a unified front against non-Catholics?

In a conflict between a Catholic and a non-Catholic, whose side do Catholics take?

From what I’ve seen, in conflicts with non-Catholics, Catholics side with Catholics, even if otherwise, Catholics may be in some disagreement with eachother.

Of course there is a tendency for people to stick together, and doctrinally that’s something to be admired. OTOH, I don’t believe Catholics are thoughtless lemmings, anymore than Protestants are.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

Well said, Spina. I also agree that Luther’s consuming hatred for the Church that is much apparent in his writings kept him from seeing the truth in the Church doctrine.

Mary.

Hi MaryT777: Thank you for your very kinds words. Its so sad really that here is a man that had come from a very stern and harsh family who was given a education that many of his day were not able to receive. I sometimes think that much of his stubbornness and hatred came or stem from the way Luther was raised. It also seems or at the very least appears that Luther questioned everything and feel that when Luther was growing up his parents questioned everything that he did and that nothing was ever good enough, which may account for how Luther’s personality developed. We know that Luther’s scrupulosity was all consuming to the point of near madness. In many ways this in itself caused Luther a great deal of pain. Searching for relief he found it in Scripture where he decided on a new at least to Luther what he had been seeking. From there on he proceeded to develop his teaching based on how he interpreted Scripture and created new theologies.

           It is from there that he ran amiss with the CC teachings. he found fault in first Indulgences, asking for debates but went on a rant when his thinking was questioned. from there matters just got worse and worse. Luther's hatred it seems went to extremes at those opposing him and his teachings and theologies in which Luther took as a personal attack on himself. Luther was just not willing to concede anything and in affect he was right and correct and everyone else was just plain wrong.

           What Luther seems failed to realize was that he was causing a major break in Christian religious beliefs to the point that others felt that they now could decide for themselves what Scripture said and meant without the authority of the CC. Over time what this did was change how people understood Scripture in the way the CC taught to individual authority where now the Bible became the ultimate authority instead of the CC.We see this in our day and age where in every church group personal and private interpretation of Scripture is the norm, in which each and every individual claims guidance from the Holy Spirit asserting they are correct in their interpretations and others are incorrect. This is what the Reformation has done; it has caused distortion of what Scripture say and means.

 

[Lucy107]

           What Luther seems failed to realize was that he was causing a major break in Christian religious beliefs to the point that others felt that they now could decide for themselves what Scripture said and meant without the authority of the CC. Over time what this did was change how people understood Scripture in the way the CC taught to individual authority where now the Bible became the ultimate authority instead of the CC.We see this in our day and age where in every church group personal and private interpretation of Scripture is the norm, in which each and every individual claims guidance from the Holy Spirit asserting they are correct in their interpretations and others are incorrect.

This is what the Reformation has done; it has caused distortion of what Scripture say and means.

This is just plain heretic.

To ascribe to the Reformation so much power as the post above does, is to say that the Catholic Church was/is so weak that the efforts of a few men can thwart it.

Just like Hitler cannot be held solely responsible for the invention and spread of Nazism, so the Reformators cannot be held solely responsible for the spread of certain Reformationist ideas.

 

[spina1953]

This is just plain heretic.

To ascribe to the Reformation so much power as the post above does, is to say that the Catholic Church was/is so weak that the efforts of a few men can thwart it.

Just like Hitler cannot be held solely responsible for the invention and spread of Nazism, so the Reformators cannot be held solely responsible for the spread of certain Reformationist ideas.

Hi Lucy: The thing is that they are responsible as by their words and deeds they caused a riff and got others to follow them. The CC was not in anyway or manor weak, but remember man has free will to do and go where one pleases and to say what one wants. The CC can not force anyone to stay with them if they are not willing to accept what the CC teaches.

 

[Lucy107]

Hi Lucy: The thing is that they are responsible as by their words and deeds they caused a riff and got others to follow them. The CC was not in anyway or manor weak, but remember man has free will to do and go where one pleases and to say what one wants. The CC can not force anyone to stay with them if they are not willing to accept what the CC teaches.

You said:

What Luther seems failed to realize was that he was causing a major break in Christian religious beliefs to the point that others felt that they now could decide for themselves what Scripture said and meant without the authority of the CC.

** Over time what this did was change how people understood Scripture in the way the CC taught to individual authority where now the Bible became the ultimate authority instead of the CC**.

We see this in our day and age where in every church group personal and private interpretation of Scripture is the norm, in which each and every individual claims guidance from the Holy Spirit asserting they are correct in their interpretations and others are incorrect.

This is what the Reformation has done; it has caused distortion of what Scripture say and means.

I think you are giving the Reformators too much credit.

It’s not the case that prior to the Reformators, all was fine and well with Catholics and/or people in general, and then the Reformators opened some kind of Pandora’s Box that messed things up for everyone.

The Reformators didn’t and don’t get anyone to follow them. Some Reformationist ideas were/are present in the minds of some Catholics already, even as they were/are still formally and actively members of the Catholic Church.

Is that really solely due to their free will, or might there be more reasons for that?

 

[spina1953]

You said:

I think you are giving the Reformators too much credit.

It’s not the case that prior to the Reformators, all was fine and well with Catholics and/or people in general, and then the Reformators opened some kind of Pandora’s Box that messed things up for everyone.

The Reformators didn’t and don’t get anyone to follow them. Some Reformationist ideas were/are present in the minds of some Catholics already, even as they were/are still formally and actively members of the Catholic Church.

Is that really solely due to their free will, or might there be more reasons for that?

Hi Lucy: You might correct but I kind a think that the reformation did a lot of damage in how and what one believes concerning Christian religious beliefs. There were of course those who wanted and looked for reforms due to abuses by Church officials within the Cc and those who left the CC. I do think that because God gave us free will then the choice it on the individual to decide. Remember that that the Orthodox in the East went into schism over what they did not believe in what the West was teaching.

 

[MaryT777]

Hi Lucy: You might correct but I kind a think that the reformation did a lot of damage in how and what one believes concerning Christian religious beliefs. There were of course those who wanted and looked for reforms due to abuses by Church officials within the Cc and those who left the CC. I do think that because God gave us free will then the choice it on the individual to decide. Remember that that the Orthodox in the East went into schism over what they did not believe in what the West was teaching.

You make some excellent points, Spina. Where should reform begin? What is the final authority? The Bible or the Church which is the pillar and foundation of truth? If you work within the Church the there his hope for unity in my opinion. If you look outside the Church or to the Bible alone it is subject to interpretation and leads to division.

That said of course there were abuses in the Church but of course we as Catholics believe the doctrine remains in the truth as protected by the Holy Spirit in spite of the sinners in the Church. The Church is a hospital of sinners it is often said and one of my favorites is if you find a Church with no sinners then you won’t be able to join.

Mary.

 

[spina1953]

You make some excellent points, Spina. Where should reform begin? What is the final authority? The Bible or the Church which is the pillar and foundation of truth? If you work within the Church the there his hope for unity in my opinion. If you look outside the Church or to the Bible alone it is subject to interpretation and leads to division.

That said of course there were abuses in the Church but of course we as Catholics believe the doctrine remains in the truth as protected by the Holy Spirit ins spite of the sinners in the Church. The Church is a hospital of sinners it is often said and one of my favorites is if you find a Church with no sinners then you won’t be able to join.

Mary.

ary.

Hi MaryT777: I agree! The CC since its beginnings has had those who for whatever reason did not agree with what was being taught. There was also abuses by those within the CC. there were a great many questions about what was being taught by some Bishops and they were called on to recant and some did and some did not. When Luther began the Reformation while he was not the only one as history does show that from time to time there are those who held some belief different from what the CC taught. In every era there will always be questions and there will always be some who will not accept what the CC teaches. it may very well be that in the very beginning Luther had good intentions but it did not take long till he decided that his teaching and theology was in his view the only correct to hold and that the catholic Church was wrong in what it taught. Others decided that the CC was wrong in what it taught but also thought that Luther was wrong also because they had interpreted Scripture differently than what Luther had interpreted.

                   Now we see those outside the CC putting spin on everything under the sun as far as what they think says and means by their own interpretations that really boils down to self interpretational authority Each denominational church and its members have their own private interpretation of Scripture that they say they come to is by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. the Problem here lies in the fact that the Holy Spirit is not the author of chaos and each different interpretation can be correct one is and the other is not.

                  The CC came before the Bible was written(NT) and accepted as canon or rule of what we believe but that is because we adhere to what the CC teaches us. When the CC was first formed the early Christians did not have the NT to guide them but only the oral teachings of the Apostles who passed on what Jesus Taught them. Jesus never wrote anything nor did he say to the Apostles to write anything down but to preach and teach by word which they did and only a few ever wrote anything but they  themselves never thought that there would be some all one volume  authority and they never once ever thought that what they wrote would ever be considered Scripture by any means. It was by the Guidance of the Holy Spirit that that CC decided upon what books would be considered sacred Scripture and which books would not.

I also think St. Paul would be surprised that what he wrote; his letters are now considered Scripture and more so to think someone like Luther would interpret his writings in the way and manor in which Luther did. I also think that if the Apostles had lived or that Luther lived during the time of the Apostles he would have been cast out for his teachings and theologies and the hatred he ranted towards those who disagreed with him would not have been tolerated by the Apostles and by Jesus Himself.

 

[MaryT777]

Hi MaryT777: I agree! The CC since its beginnings has had those who for whatever reason did not agree with what was being taught. There was also abuses by those within the CC. there were a great many questions about what was being taught by some Bishops and they were called on to recant and some did and some did not. When Luther began the Reformation while he was not the only one as history does show that from time to time there are those who held some belief different from what the CC taught. In every era there will always be questions and there will always be some who will not accept what the CC teaches. it may very well be that in the very beginning Luther had good intentions but it did not take long till he decided that his teaching and theology was in his view the only correct to hold and that the catholic Church was wrong in what it taught. Others decided that the CC was wrong in what it taught but also thought that Luther was wrong also because they had interpreted Scripture differently than what Luther had interpreted.

                   Now we see those outside the CC putting spin on everything under the sun as far as what they think says and means by their own interpretations that really boils down to self interpretational authority Each denominational church and its members have their own private interpretation of Scripture that they say they come to is by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. the Problem here lies in the fact that the Holy Spirit is not the author of chaos and each different interpretation can be correct one is and the other is not.

                  The CC came before the Bible was written(NT) and accepted as canon or rule of what we believe but that is because we adhere to what the CC teaches us. When the CC was first formed the early Christians did not have the NT to guide them but only the oral teachings of the Apostles who passed on what Jesus Taught them. Jesus never wrote anything nor did he say to the Apostles to write anything down but to preach and teach by word which they did and only a few ever wrote anything but they  themselves never thought that there would be some all one volume  authority and they never once ever thought that what they wrote would ever be considered Scripture by any means. It was by the Guidance of the Holy Spirit that that CC decided upon what books would be considered sacred Scripture and which books would not.

I also think St. Paul would be surprised that what he wrote; his letters are now considered Scripture and more so to think someone like Luther would interpret his writings in the way and manor in which Luther did. I also think that if the Apostles had lived or that Luther lived during the time of the Apostles he would have been cast out for his teachings and theologies and the hatred he ranted towards those who disagreed with him would not have been tolerated by the Apostles and by Jesus Himself.

Jon,
I don’t have the same affinity for Luther you may have. I guess I think of my LCMS Pastor friend who was a wonderful law/gospel preacher and once he said “We may be as different as Catholic and Lutheran but we are as similar as two believing Christians” and sometimes that is good enough.

Given he had a great sense of humor he also smiled and said “I can’t wait to get to heaven to find out who was right” . LOL!!~

In his peace that transcends all understanding…
Mary.