Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done

[Abu]

TertiumQuid #723
The fault was not with sola fide as expounded by Luther, the fault is with those who misinterpret his view.

With the errors and the historical traits of Luther the significance was not merely that he was incontinent and foul-mouthed, but that he was the first to preach what he practised. Peter Weiner, who was a master at Stowe and a refugee from Germany, is not a Catholic and in his *From Luther to Niemöller *“traces German Nazism back to Luther and the Lutheran reformation.” *Is The Catholic Church Anti-Social?, *Arnold Lunn (& G C Coulton), Burns Oates & Washbourne, 1946, p 139].

Luther rejected seven books from the Bible because they did not conform to his selfist theological theories of justification by faith alone, his rejection of purgatory etc. It was Martin Luther in 1517 who removed seven books from the Old Testament (reducing the number to 39) Yet, for 15 centuries (1,500 years) Christianity recognized all 46 books of the O.T. The seven that are missing in the King James Version are found in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (called the Septuagint) and were written between 250 and 150 BC.

CDF prefect: contemplating Christ is answer to Reformation, post-Vatican II crises in the priesthood
CWN - October 31, 2013
Archbishop Müller said that he was referring particularly to the crisis in the doctrine of the priesthood that occurred during the Protestant Reformation, which sought to reduce the priest to a “mere representative of the community” and eliminate the “essential difference between the ordained priesthood and the common priesthood of all the faithful.”

The prelate’s remarks were published on October 31, commemorated by some Protestant communities as Reformation Day because it marks the anniversary of the posting of Martin Luther’s 95 Theses in 1517.
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=19542

There was nothing “reformed” by Luther but a revolt to suit his own whims and fancies. An example of the logical result was the capitulation to the immorality of contraception by the Anglicans at the Lambeth Conference in London in 1930 – exposed and corrected the same year by the great *Casti Connubii *of Pope Pius XI emphatically declaring contraception to be "a grave sin.” (# 56).

Those that didn’t like some of Christ’s teaching chose to substitute their own ideas – Henry VIII, Luther, Calvin – that’s why they chose to reject the truth of infallibility. Of those non-Catholics who see the fullness of truth in the Catholic Church many join Her, like Scott Hahn, and they become real defenders of the faith in the apostolate of the laity.

The tragedy of scattering is the thousands of sects today all initiated by those who felt they know better than Christ and His Magisterium – Simon Magus, Arius, Calvin, Henry VIII, Luther.

 

[Thorolfr]

Peter Weiner, who was a master at Stowe and a refugee from Germany, is not a Catholic and in his *From Luther to Niemöller *“traces German Nazism back to Luther and the Lutheran reformation.” *Is The Catholic Church Anti-Social?, *Arnold Lunn (& G C Coulton), Burns Oates & Washbourne, 1946, p 139].

I haven’t been following this thread very closely, but it seems like quite a stretch to trace Nazism back to Luther and the Reformation.

 

[benjohnson]

Peter Weiner, who was a master at Stowe and a refugee from Germany, is not a Catholic and in his *From Luther to Niemöller *“traces German Nazism back to Luther and the Lutheran reformation.”

Anybody who reads Luther and concludes that the Nazism sprang from his writings is at least guilty of poor reading comprehension.

Luther wanted Jews to come to Christ so that they may be saved. The National Socialists had no interest in saving Jews and couldn’t care less if they converted - only that they die.

 

[spina1953]

But what happened when the Jews refused to join Luther’s church? Seems to me that he went off in a rage when Jews did not join his revolt.

 

[MaryT777]

Anybody who reads Luther and concludes that the Nazism sprang from his writings is at least guilty of poor reading comprehension.

Luther wanted Jews to come to Christ so that they may be saved. The National Socialists had no interest in saving Jews and couldn’t care less if they converted - only that they die.

It’s always those “other posters” with “poor reading comprehension.” Usually that means the poster that accuses the other disagrees with the POSITION posted. That is the topic,
not the person or “anybody”

 

[MaryT777]

But what happened when the Jews refused to join Luther’s church? Seems to me that he went off in a rage when Jews did not join his revolt.

“On Jews and their Lies” comes to mind.

Mary.

 

[JonNC]

Luther rejected seven books from the Bible because they did not conform to his selfist theological theories of justification by faith alone, his rejection of purgatory etc. It was Martin Luther in 1517 who removed seven books from the Old Testament (reducing the number to 39) Yet, for 15 centuries (1,500 years) Christianity recognized all 46 books of the O.T. The seven that are missing in the King James Version are found in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (called the Septuagint) and were written between 250 and 150 BC.
.

Hi Abu
Can you tell me what parts of each of the DC books Luther considered inconsistent with the doctrine of Justification?
BTW, those 7 are in Luther’s translation and were in the KJV 1611.

Jon

 

[GKC]

With the errors and the historical traits of Luther the significance was not merely that he was incontinent and foul-mouthed, but that he was the first to preach what he practised. Peter Weiner, who was a master at Stowe and a refugee from Germany, is not a Catholic and in his *From Luther to Niemöller *“traces German Nazism back to Luther and the Lutheran reformation.” *Is The Catholic Church Anti-Social?, *Arnold Lunn (& G C Coulton), Burns Oates & Washbourne, 1946, p 139]…

Pagination the same for the edition I own. And though again I recall the book in particular for another selection (Lunn’s discussion and Coulton’s reply, on the subject of the controversy between Lea, Fr. Thurston and Coulton, as found on p. 33, and pp. 104-112, especially), still it’s Sir A, again. Good. His name may once again be known in apologetic circles.

GKC

 

[TertiumQuid]

Greetings Abu,

I’m not exactly following how some of your comments are a reply to the comments I left for Contarini. It appears to me you’re arguing in a roundabout way that the Reformation was the cause of this or that, as opposed to someone saying this or that was the misapplication or misinterpretation of the Reformation. If this was your basic point, it’s a good point to explore. I think a strong case can be made for each, and it’s probably the case that both inter-lap.

With the errors and the historical traits of Luther the significance was not merely that he was incontinent and foul-mouthed, but that he was the first to preach what he practised. Peter Weiner, who was a master at Stowe and a refugee from Germany, is not a Catholic and in his *From Luther to Niemöller *“traces German Nazism back to Luther and the Lutheran reformation.” *Is The Catholic Church Anti-Social?, *Arnold Lunn (& G C Coulton), Burns Oates & Washbourne, 1946, p 139].

I do not own the Lunn Coulton debate book, so I’ll take your word for it that the comment about Peter Weiner is present. I suspect “From Luther to Niemöller” is the pamphlet version of Weiner’s later book, Hitler’s Spiritual Ancestor. Weiner’s book is flawed in number of ways [See Gordon Rupp’s response, *Martin Luther, Hitler’s Cause or Cure, in reply to Peter F. Wiener (London: Lutterworth, 1945)]. For the sake of your argument, I’ll grant that Luther’s historical significance played a role in Nazi Germany. If the argument is that Luther’s anti-Jewish writings were a factor causing the rise of the Nazi’s, then what caused Luther’s anti-Jewish writings? It could be argued that his society (including the attitude of the church) caused Luther’s anti-Judaism. In other words, the regression argument of Luther to the Nazi’s stops too soon. If you want to blame Luther for the Nazi’s, then don’t stop there- blame the attitude towards the Jews that Luther inherited from society and the church of his day.

Luther rejected seven books from the Bible because they did not conform to his selfist theological theories of justification by faith alone, his rejection of purgatory etc.

I’m familiar with Luther’s criticism of four New Testament books, and seven Old Testament books. It appears you mean the later. I suggest you track down Luther’s prefaces to the seven Old Testament books and see the actual reasons Luther deemed them “not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.”

It was Martin Luther in 1517 who removed seven books from the Old Testament (reducing the number to 39) Yet, for 15 centuries (1,500 years) Christianity recognized all 46 books of the O.T. The seven that are missing in the King James Version are found in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (called the Septuagint) and were written between 250 and 150 BC.

Yes, I’m familiar with this Catholic vs. Protestant polemics regarding this issue.

CDF prefect: contemplating Christ is answer to Reformation, post-Vatican II crises in the priesthood
CWN - October 31, 2013
Archbishop Müller said that he was referring particularly to the crisis in the doctrine of the priesthood that occurred during the Protestant Reformation, which sought to reduce the priest to a “mere representative of the community” and eliminate the “essential difference between the ordained priesthood and the common priesthood of all the faithful.” The prelate’s remarks were published on October 31, commemorated by some Protestant communities as Reformation Day because it marks the anniversary of the posting of Martin Luther’s 95 Theses in 1517.
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=19542

I think the Archbishop’s remarks are a caricature of Reformation history. The Lutheran church indeed had leaders which were (and are) important, as did the Reformed churches. One need only read the Registers of the Consistory of Geneva to see how much trouble one could get into for missing church.

There was nothing “reformed” by Luther but a revolt to suit his own whims and fancies. An example of the logical result was the capitulation to the immorality of contraception by the Anglicans at the Lambeth Conference in London in 1930 – exposed and corrected the same year by the great *Casti Connubii *of Pope Pius XI emphatically declaring contraception to be "a grave sin.” (# 56).

This is an example of the fallacy, post hoc ergo proctor hoc.

Those that didn’t like some of Christ’s teaching chose to substitute their own ideas – Henry VIII, Luther, Calvin – that’s why they chose to reject the truth of infallibility.

As to rejecting the infallibility of the church- that they did, but it was not because they “didn’t like some of Christ’s teaching.” The Reformers did not claim to not “like some of Christ’s teaching.” They actually claimed to have it as one of their reasons for reform. One need only skim through a volume of Luther’s writings or Calvin’s Institutes to see the dedication these men had to the Word of God.

Of those non-Catholics who see the fullness of truth in the Catholic Church many join Her, like Scott Hahn, and they become real defenders of the faith in the apostolate of the laity.

Yes, I’m familiar with these defenders.

The tragedy of scattering is the thousands of sects today all initiated by those who felt they know better than Christ and His Magisterium – Simon Magus, Arius, Calvin, Henry VIII, Luther.

Then by all your means, you should work towards an ecumenical presentation of your beliefs in order to be part of the healing.

 

[Contarini]

Dr. Tait,

I suspect that for you (and some others here) I represent the category of persona non grata. Nonetheless, I have no problem stating I’ve benefited from the bulk of your comments in this thread. Some of what you have said has magnified certain things that I hadn’t considered before, and even with some of the conclusions you have that I don’t share- I’ve been challenged to consider how to formulate a response in ways I’ve never had to before. For this I am grateful, despite perhaps being persona non grata.

No persona interested in substantive discussion is ever non grata with me

Is it logically consistent to see Luther’s sola fide as responsible for “opened the gate” and having “the potential for antinomianism”? In other words, my question to you is do you see Luther’s sola fide as rightly deserving blame (or credit) for the mutation you speak of? Should Luther really be charged with fault because he “didn’t think ahead very carefully about how his ideas would be interpreted and what their possible implications were”?

I think this is an excellent and very difficult question. It probably touches on issues about the nature of texts and interpretation on which we disagree. (At least, my view of the nature of texts is one of the reasons why I can’t accept the confessional Protestant position you hold.) In my remarks to which you’re responding, I touched on two related but distinct things, and I may not have made the distinction sufficiently clear:

1. Are there “antinomian elements” in Luther’s thought? Yes, I think there are, in the sense that Luther disparaged the Law repeatedly and taught that good works flowed automatically from love (which always accompanied faith) just a tree bears fruit. I think this can reasonably be called antinomian in the sense that it radically alters and weakens the role of law (particularly of Christ’s commands) in the Christian Faith. At the same time, this was never the whole of Luther’s theology. From the beginning he always taught, as you rightly say, that faith is always accompanied by love. He never taught that people are saved by a faith that does not work through love. And he frequently spoke of following Christ’s commands as a non-negotiable. The Wittenberg sermons that you cite, for instance, do speak of certain things being matters of “must,” and imply that obedience to these commands is in some way a condition of salvation. Because Luther is a paradoxical and highly rhetorical theologian, and not a systematic thinker, it can be hard to decide whether it’s appropriate to speak of him actually contradicting himself, or whether it’s simply that he emphasized different things at different times within a basically consistent framework. But the fact that so many controversies broke out after his death, including an antinomian controversy, indicates that his ideas really did have a lot of tension and ambiguity built into them. That’s true of all interesting thinkers to some extent, but I think it was particularly true of Luther.
2. The second question is whether it’s fair to speak of someone “opening doors” to positions that he/she does not hold. To take some clear-cut examples: Luther didn’t believe in eternal security and believed in the Real Presence. Yet his insistence on the unconditional nature of God’s forgiveness based on faith could easily lead to a doctrine of eternal security, and his attacks on traditional sacramental theology in Babylonian Captivity paved the way for much more radical criticisms by Zwingli and others.

Obviously the two things flow together and there isn’t a sharp line between them. Antinomians clearly took some elements in Luther’s thought and ignored others. And similarly, a Southern Baptist who believes in eternal security based on a single act of faith and rejects sacramental grace as incompatible with sola fide is picking up on some elements in Luther’s thought, if in radically mutated form. But obviously Luther bears much greater responsibility for what he actually said (even if it’s taken out of the context of his full thought) than for ideas that others came to based on a mutation of what he actually taught.

Does he bear any responsibility for the latter? I’m not sure I care about responsibility per se, really. Luther isn’t alive now. I can’t influence him or call him to repentance. He’s in God’s hands. I’m more interested in historical causality. But it’s natural that people who disagree with Luther in the first place would be more likely to hold him responsible. If I proclaim a truth and someone else gets an error from it, I’m not responsible. But if I proclaim an error and someone else develops it into a worse error, I’m responsible for heading down the road in the first place.

So I don’t think it’s unreasonable for Catholics to blame Luther for opening the door to ideas he didn’t hold, just as it’s not unreasonable for Orthodox to blame Augustine for opening the door to Luther, and so on.

 

[Contarini]

sufficient source is not responsible for those who misuse the source

Here’s where our hermeneutical differences may appear. Foggily, because I’m not sure I know exactly what you mean by “a sufficient source.” I have some idea, enough to be fairly sure I don’t believe there is any such thing, but I’d like to be clearer on it. Do you mean something like “a source that contains within itself full and clear information on the matters that it treats, so that any reasonable person can understand it by due use of the ordinary means” (hat tip to the WCF)? I could argue against that definition, but that would be silly, since I might be arguing against a straw man. (What mostly confuses me is just what “sufficient” refers to. In the Protestant theology of Scripture, it means “sufficient to instruct Christians on all matters they need to know for salvation,” but I’m not sure how this applies to Luther.)

For instance, the Bible itself has been misused to prove all sorts of things- the subjugation of women slavery, etc. Yet, as those who believe the Bible is the very Word of God, the fault is not God’s, but rather those who misuse the sufficient source.

The fault is obviously not God’s. I’m not sure that it makes sense to speak of a book being at fault or not at fault. Obviously people do this, and I’ve probably done it myself, but I think it’s a sloppy and dubious habit.

In my understanding of Scripture, if you interpret the collection of ancient writings we call the Bible wrongly enough, it is not the Bible at all in any theological sense, but just a bunch of ancient documents. But I suspect you have a different understanding of Scripture

The fault in bad interpretations of Scripture is indeed with the interpreter, but not because the book is sufficient. Rather, because no book is sufficient. All texts require interpretive communities. (As I said, I suspect we have different hermeneutics!)

Of course, the difficulty for Catholics is that the Church has obviously interpreted the Bible badly too. (Conservative Catholics will say that this isn’t really the Church, and I suppose in the same sense that I said the Bible might not really be the Bible that would be true–but then they deny that they believe in the invisible Church, and this is one of my major theological difficulties with Catholicism. I suspect you and I won’t have much to argue about there!)

Is it the church’s stance on celibacy that’s at fault, or the people who fall short of the standard or deviate or abuse the standard? Logically, it’s the later, not the former.

Well, I think it depends. Plenty of Protestants have claimed that in fact celibacy is unnatural or (when mandated) contrary to God’s Word and thus the moral failures of Catholic clergy somehow result from this. And again, one’s starting points will influence one’s views here.

I’ve read enough Luther, particularly his sermons, to see that he consistently explained his view of sola fide, and he was aware early on that faith without love was not enough. Revisit for instance, the Eight Wittenberg Sermons of 1522 (which are less than a year after the “sin boldly” statement you mention).

Of course he taught that faith always goes along with love, and of course he talked about service to the neighbor. But I don’t think in fact that he was entirely consistent–at least, his interest in saying forcefully what he thought needed to be said in any given moment took precedence over a concern to harmonize everything.

I think Luther started walking back from his confidence that good works would automatically follow about the time of the Eight Sermons, in fact. He came back from the Wartburg to find what he saw as all kinds of chaos going on in Wittenberg. Now much of this was motivated by a desire to adhere strictly to God’s Law, and the Eight Sermons actually push back against this by stressing freedom. At times in those sermons Luther says something like “faith is the only thing mandatory–everything else is left free and should be based on what’s good for the neighbor,” which is a kind of antinomianism, arguably. But then he speaks as if some things clearly commanded by Christ are necessary, like the abolition of private masses. So even within the sermons I don’t think he’s wholly consistent. In fact, rereading them I got the impression that he was kind of winging it as he went along, making claims and then immediately modifying them. While I think Topper doesn’t appreciate Luther as he deserves and exaggerates Luther’s incoherence, I do agree with him that Luther was often riding the bucking bronco of his own ideas and didn’t quite know where he was going, especially early on. And that makes his ideas particularly easy to “misinterpret.” I’m not even sure misinterpret is always the right word. It’s more a matter of picking some items from a very rich smorgasbord. (In other words, if we use “Lutheran” to mean “a follower of Luther” rather than “an adherent of the Lutheran confessions,” it may be impossible not to be a "cafeteria Lutheran)

Ironically, I’ve argued over and over against the ways folks here interpret “sin boldly.” I know quite well that on its own it gives a very false idea of Luther’s theology. But he did say it, and he meant it, in context and allowing for rhetorical extravagance. He really did think that sin had no direct effect no a believer’s standing before God. And that is a kind of antinomianism, especially when you are as reluctant as Luther was to hold up the moral law as a standard by which one could judge the validity of a person’s faith (as the Reformed are generally more willing to do).

Edwin

 

[spina1953]

“On Jews and their Lies” comes to mind.

Mary.

Hi Mary 777: Yes does come to mind!

 

[GKC]

Greetings Abu,

I’m not exactly following how some of your comments are a reply to the comments I left for Contarini. It appears to me you’re arguing in a roundabout way that the Reformation was the cause of this or that, as opposed to someone saying this or that was the misapplication or misinterpretation of the Reformation. If this was your basic point, it’s a good point to explore. I think a strong case can be made for each, and it’s probably the case that both inter-lap.

I do not own the Lunn Coulton debate book, so I’ll take your word for it that the comment about Peter Weiner is present. I suspect “From Luther to Niemöller” is the pamphlet version of Weiner’s later book, Hitler’s Spiritual Ancestor. Weiner’s book is flawed in number of ways [See Gordon Rupp’s response, *Martin Luther, Hitler’s Cause or Cure, in reply to Peter F. Wiener

(London: Lutterworth, 1945)]. For the sake of your argument, I’ll grant that Luther’s historical significance played a role in Nazi Germany. If the argument is that Luther’s anti-Jewish writings were a factor causing the rise of the Nazi’s, then what caused Luther’s anti-Jewish writings? It could be argued that his society (including the attitude of the church) caused Luther’s anti-Judaism. In other words, the regression argument of Luther to the Nazi’s stops too soon. If you want to blame Luther for the Nazi’s, then don’t stop there- blame the attitude towards the Jews that Luther inherited from society and the church of his day.

I’m familiar with Luther’s criticism of four New Testament books, and seven Old Testament books. It appears you mean the later. I suggest you track down Luther’s prefaces to the seven Old Testament books and see the actual reasons Luther deemed them “not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.”

Yes, I’m familiar with this Catholic vs. Protestant polemics regarding this issue.

I think the Archbishop’s remarks are a caricature of Reformation history. The Lutheran church indeed had leaders which were (and are) important, as did the Reformed churches. One need only read the Registers of the Consistory of Geneva to see how much trouble one could get into for missing church.

This is an example of the fallacy, post hoc ergo proctor hoc.

As to rejecting the infallibility of the church- that they did, but it was not because they “didn’t like some of Christ’s teaching.” The Reformers did not claim to not “like some of Christ’s teaching.” They actually claimed to have it as one of their reasons for reform. One need only skim through a volume of Luther’s writings or Calvin’s Institutes to see the dedication these men had to the Word of God.

Yes, I’m familiar with these defenders.

Then by all your means, you should work towards an ecumenical presentation of your beliefs in order to be part of the healing.

The quote in the Lunn/Coulton book is accurately cited. And I wondered how Rupp might compare to the Weiner title, which I assumed was the same as the alternate title you gave.

For one not knowing much about Luther, I’m finding familiar stuff in this exchange. I thank you both.

GKC

 

[benjohnson]

It’s always those “other posters” with “poor reading comprehension.” Usually that means the poster that accuses the other disagrees with the POSITION posted. That is the topic,
not the person or “anybody”

I was discussing Peter Weiner’s lack of comprehension - and unless he’s a poster here I have no idea what you’re talking about.

 

[MaryT777]

I was discussing Peter Weiner’s lack of comprehension - and unless he’s a poster here I have no idea what you’re talking about.

Thanks for pointing out the lack of comprehension of someone.

Mary.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Edwin,
I understand, though I think there is far less praise of Luther among American evangelicals, fundamentalists, etc. than some think. Further, I also think any admiration is because he stood up, and not because of what he stood up for. I admire President Obama for being the first African American president, but not for what he stands for.

Jon

Note to the NSA: I am NOT in agreement with Jon on this matter. I am a loyal subject of the realm and believe that the Emperor actually is clothed.

Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Thor,

I haven’t been following this thread very closely, but it seems like quite a stretch to trace Nazism back to Luther and the Reformation.

Trust me on this one. You do NOT want to see the comments of various Lutheran Scholars on the matter. Nor am I interested in posting them.

God Bless You Thor, Topper

 

[JonNC]

Note to the NSA: I am NOT in agreement with Jon on this matter. I am a loyal subject of the realm and believe that the Emperor actually is clothed.

Topper

Thank goodness he’s clothed.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

I already answered this: denial of infant baptism, the Trinity, etc.

Dave’s list refutes nicely the common Protestant claim that Luther was kicked out of the Church for questioning abuses.

I am not defending his right to do anything. I was describing why Protestants do not necessarily regard Leipzig as a loss.

There are many kinds of “good theologians.” And my experience as a historian of theological ideas is that very few people see ahead in that way. Enemies are often more clear-sighted about the unintended implications of one’s ideas than one is oneself, and that makes sense. Luther’s ideas remain fruitful and powerful and interesting. That’s all I’m saying. My major frustration with you is that it seems as if you want to talk about everything except Luther’s actual ideas. Protestants do the same. The Whig narrative leads people to ignore Luther’s actual content, because what really matters is Luther the icon of freedom.

You have an idea in your head of what a good theologian looks like, and you judge Luther by that. Fine. I really don’t much care, except that you keep dismissing or ignoring the actual reasons why Protestants admire Luther.

This is why, yet again, I wish you would lay out your thesis clearly so we aren’t flailing around in the dark.

My impression is that your argument is basically: “Luther was a brash, thoughtless person who attacked Church authority and didn’t have the scholarship or theological acumen to understand the implications of his own ideas. Hence, his ideas are obviously bad and should not be taken seriously, no matter how appealing they may seem.” That’s what I think I’m getting from your posts. But I don’t know, because you won’t just lay it all out there as an argument with a thesis and supporting points.

I agree that this is a major point. When your opponents say, “X will happen,” and you say, “No it won’t,” and then it does, the supposedly boring and corrupt opponents need a second look. (By the way, do you know David Bagchi’s book Luther’s Earliest Opponents? I think you would find it interesting, and no doubt useful to cite since Bagchi is a Protestant!).

And yes, the Whig narrative has a lot to do with why people ignore this. In the Whig narrative, liberty is the ultimate good, so the fact that Luther’s Reformation led to what you call “chaos” isn’t necessarily seen as a bad thing. One of the points to drive home is that the Reformers (the Reformed more so than Luther himself) cared deeply about unity. The pre-Reformation era was not an era of uniformity–it was an era of what most people found terrifying diversity and conflict. Calvin claimed that the Reformation was bringing unity to this chaotic, fractious religious world. And obviously he was wrong. People in 1500 had no idea just how chaotic and conflict-ridden the world of 1600 would be. If they had, they probably would have just fallen down and died en masse and there would have been no Reformation at all. (OK, that’s massive hyperbole!)

As you can see, we have a lot of agreement. Part of my frustration with your posts is that you are deeply invested in having Protestant antagonists. I get this, since there are a lot of Protestants who are smug and triumphalist. But as I keep saying, it isn’t really clear what your basic argument is and what Protestants would need to do in order not to fall under your condemnation. Become Catholic, obviously, but you seem to be aiming at something more limited than that

Edwin

 

[Abu]

TertiumQuid #733
Luther’s prefaces to the seven Old Testament books and see the actual reasons Luther deemed them “not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.”

This is another example of Luther placing himself above Christ’s Magisterium which proclaimed infallibly which writings form the Word of God. No wonder Christ’s teaching has been misrepresented.

The Reformers did not claim to not “like some of Christ’s teaching.” They actually claimed to have it as one of their reasons for reform.

A “claim” evidently false, as Christ’s Catholic Church has not taught, and cannot teach, error in dogma and doctrine to the whole Church on faith and morals that denial of Christ’s authority to His Church exposes the error involved.

Then by all your means, you should work towards an ecumenical presentation of your beliefs in order to be part of the healing.

The offering here is not “my beliefs”, though aspects enter in, but the teaching of Christ’s Church and the need to realize that no reunion can occur without realising that assent to Her dogma and doctrine is an essential consequence of that reality.

As a former Lutheran, convert Fr Richard John Neuhaus has said:
‘The “Body of Christ,” the “Bride of Christ,” the Church as the bride, Christ as the bridegroom, the corporate sacramental images of salvation – Cardinal Ratzinger has said, I think very insightfully, that the difference between the Protestant and the Catholic understanding of Christian existence is that, for the Protestant, faith in Christ and faith in the Church are two different questions, and most Protestants never even get to the second question

‘I would thank God if it turned out that my judgment in the late 1980s was wrong. If a hundred years from now, say, there really is an ecclesial, corporate reconciliation between Lutheranism and the Catholic Church – and if I am around the throne of grace, as I hope I will be – I will join the angels and saints in rejoicing at that, hoping that the decision I made in 1990 contributed to it. But that’s all in God’s hands, which is exactly where it should be.’
wittenburgdoorinterviews.blogspot.com.au/2009/06/door-interview-fr-richard-john-neuhaus.html