Luther Did Not Start the Reformation

[tgGodsway]

Yes, but in each of those local bodies there were elders, and overseers. The Church was never intended to be “democratic”, tgG. This is a model that infected the church through American civil development. The Church has always been a monarchy.

I’m back but headed to bed. yes I agree with this statement. The democratic government in so many of our churches today is unbiblical and fosters many troubles. But not all non-Catholic churches function this way.

 

[tgGodsway]

There was settled doctrine, and he was good with it, and suddenly, because of an abuse in a practice –

There was nothing sudden about the abuse. The environment in which Luther lived was of the kind where doctrine was NOT up for debate or question. Therefore the spiritual abuse which sprang from false doctrine lingered year after year.

It was insolated from critical thought so that if one questioned it, or tried to refute it, automatically, they were in the wrong because the CC’s doctrine, it is believed, came from infallible decrees and councils. Even today there is no room for, quote, “free thought” outside the circle of papal authority and that of the cardinals. It is a full-proof system which cannot be scrutinized unless you are one of them. All outsiders are dismissed as heresy teachers. It’s easier that way.

My point is this kind of environment becomes a toxic zone for spiritual abuse, as in the case of Luther. He discovered the truth despite the environment in which he lived. The scriptures were open to him by God for the first time in his life. “the just shall live by faith.” As it turns out, he was not alone, there were many.

 

[tgGodsway]

The New Testament is a Catholic book! It was written by, for, and about Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic!

tgGodsway:

Agreed. I too am Catholic.

 

[guanophore]

Oh…well then I guess there is no agreement. Mary was sinless

Believers who suffer from the errant doctrine of Sola Scriptura cannot accept some of the doctrines that were passed down from the Apostles as they new Reformation doctrines are exclusive of what was passed down to us from the Apostles.

There was nothing sudden about the abuse. The environment in which Luther lived was of the kind where doctrine was NOT up for debate or question.

Again you are comparing apples and lizards. Of course there is nothing sudden about abuses, as we read about them in the NT. But you are right, doctrine is not up for debate or question. Discussion, perhaps ,but the One Faith that was handed down to us by the Apostles is something to be preserved and faithfully echoed, not debated and questioned.

This is the core of the problem, that abuses should result in changing the doctrines of the faith. Abuses need reform, the doctrines of Christ do not.

Therefore the spiritual abuse which sprang from false doctrine lingered year after year.

This is a good example of the erroneous assumptions that underlie the Reformation. Abuses spring up from correct doctrine as well, and it is an error to assume that abuses mean a doctrine needs to be changed.

It was insolated from critical thought so that if one questioned it, or tried to refute it, automatically, they were in the wrong because the CC’s doctrine, it is believed, came from infallible decrees and councils.

yes and no. The doctrine comes from Christ through the Apostles. It is preserved through infallible decrees and councils.

I think you are lumping things together that don’t go together. There has always been critical thought in theology, even the Apostles read and reflected on each other’s work, as Peter commented on the writings of Paul. But there is a difference between talking about doctrine from a perspective that accepts the doctrine than from the point of view of rejecting it. In one case (acceptance) the discussion/debate centered around how it is applied, in the other, there is a foothold where the doctrine itself can be changed and redefined. Examples of this are how “church” is defined, and the nature of baptism.

Even today there is no room for, quote, “free thought” outside the circle of papal authority and that of the cardinals.

I think you lost me here.

What kind of “free thought” is denied to Catholics? What are the consequences to Catholics who engage in “free thought outside of the circle of papal authority and that of the cardinals”?

How do the Pope and the Cardinals find out that an individual Catholic has engaged in this forbidden “free thought”?

What is the “circle of papal authority and that of the cardinals”? How is it enforced and maintained?

 

[guanophore]

It is a full-proof system which cannot be scrutinized unless you are one of them.

Are you trying to suggest that you are not constantly criticizing Catholicism on this very board?

All outsiders are dismissed as heresy teachers.

You are not making any sense tgG. Surely you are not suggesting it would be appropriate for Catholics, those you believe to embrace heresies, to define what those in your ecclesial communion should believe? Why would you expect the CC to allow those who have departed from the One Faith to change it?

My point is this kind of environment becomes a toxic zone for spiritual abuse

No, tgG. Solid adherence to doctrine is not toxic,and does not create a "toxic zone’. If this were true. then adherence to your own doctrine without compromise would also have to be an environment for toxicity and abuse. Human beings acting out of pride, arrogance, greed, etc. are what create toxicity and abuse, not the immutable doctrines of Christ. I thin

as in the case of Luther.

I think you are trying to say that, because there was abuse by worldly persons in positions of authority in the church, it created a toxic environment. If this is what you are saying, I agree with you. But the solution is to reform the persons and practices, not the doctrine.

He discovered the truth despite the environment in which he lived. The scriptures were open to him by God for the first time in his life. “the just shall live by faith.” As it turns out, he was not alone, there were many.

This is a demonstration that the Holy Spirit is stronger and more powerful than any amount of human abuse. The New Testament, in which it is written “the just shall live by faith” is a Catholic book, written by Catholics, for Catholics. This is a Catholic fundamental doctrine.

 

[susanlo]

Oh…well then I guess there is no agreement. Mary was sinless

Believers who suffer from the errant doctrine of Sola Scriptura cannot accept some of the doctrines that were passed down from the Apostles as they new Reformation doctrines are exclusive of what was passed down to us from the Apostles.

If Mary’s immaculate conception was a teaching passed down from the Apostles, why were so many early Christians unaware of it? Why wasn’t this even known about when the concept of Original Sin was developed in the 5th century?

It could make sense to cite centuries of religious thought that gave rise to this new concept long after the time of the Apostles. But to claim it as an original teaching of the Apostles doesn’t seem logical.

 

[guanophore]

he concept of Original Sin was developed in the 5th century

??

" Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me. ‎Psalm 51:5

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

There was settled doctrine, and he was good with it, and suddenly, because of an abuse in a practice –

There was nothing sudden about the abuse.

I’m referring to the selling of indulgences.

The environment in which Luther lived was of the kind where doctrine was NOT up for debate or question.

Is doctrine up for debate in your congregation?

Therefore the spiritual abuse which sprang from false doctrine lingered year after year.

So… your take is that, for 1500 years, the Church taught “false doctrine”? And that people suffered – potentially, were damned to hell – because of it? And that, after 1500 years of false teaching, Luther came and fixed the whole mess?

That’s quite a story. When, as it were, did the false teaching start?

It was insolated from critical thought so that if one questioned it, or tried to refute it, automatically, they were in the wrong because the CC’s doctrine, it is believed, came from infallible decrees and councils.

So, let me see if I can follow this:

• Doctrine isn’t a matter of infallibility
• Even a learned leader of the Church can be wrong on doctrine

So, it’s completely reasonable for me to conclude that Luther’s doctrinal assertions are wrong wherever they disagree with Catholic teachings, right? After all… assertions of doctrine aren’t infallible; Luther could be completely off-base with his novel doctrines, right?

All outsiders are dismissed as heresy teachers. It’s easier that way.

You realize that Luther accused those who disagreed with him (including, but not limited to, the Catholic Church) of heresy, right? It’s kind of a “pot, meet kettle” kinda thing…

The scriptures were open to him by God for the first time in his life.

Not to the apostles…
Not to the faithful of the Church for 1500 years…
Just to Luther?

Man… God must’ve really hated the folks who lived prior to 1517, since he let them live and die and be condemned to hell in ignorance.

 

[tgGodsway]

Allow me to add my two cents here: The doctrine of Original Sin was not developed in the 5th. Century. The first century Apostles taught this doctrine. They concluded that every man (with the exception of babies, and small innocent children and of course Jesus Himself,) are active sinners. They taught that all of humanity is born into an inability to not sin. This included Mary, who along with her husband offered the proper sin offering in Jerusalem. And Mary herself recognized these basic facts of the Law when she cried out to God her “savior.” Lu.1

 

[tgGodsway]

Are you trying to suggest that you are not constantly criticizing Catholicism on this very board?

guanophore, you are not them!.. I’m talking about the active Cardinals and Bishops in Rome. But if there could be a debate, a real debate begins when both sides are given an equal chance to question doctrine, and the environment needed to have a fair debate.

 

[tgGodsway]

Surely you are not suggesting it would be appropriate for Catholics, those you believe to embrace heresies, to define what those in your ecclesial communion should believe? Why would you expect the CC to allow those who have departed from the One Faith to change it?

Are you saying that you recognize our ecclesial communion?.. if so, you would be the first on this site for me. Now we can have a real discussion. I have no desire to change your practices. If that is what you want to believe, I will not stop you nor will I protest.
But this entire web site is about doing just that. It is a big protest against those bad bad separated brethren who preach lies and heresies.

This is what I read when I come on here. So I feel compelled and obligated to defend the faith for all non-RC’s And as I defend, I attack all that I believe is an absolute heresy. So it appears that I am the aggressor here, but I am not. I am the defender.
Before I found this site, I almost never had conversations about Catholic doctrine or the Catholic Church, going all the way back to when I use to attend as a boy.
My peers almost never bring up what you believe and we have no protest to offer. Why?.. because the reformation is past. And now today, so many years later, we need another reformation to reform the reformation. Many main-line denominations are apostate today, with the exception of a few. It is not because of Catholicism but because they are unprepared to reach this culture and now the culture has reached them. People today are not becoming Catholic or Protestant. They are growing up secular.

 

[susanlo]

??

" Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me. ‎Psalm 51:5

My point was that when Augustine was writing the Doctrine of Original Sin, he and others of his day taught that Jesus was the only one born free of Original Sin. If the Apostles taught that Mary had an immaculate conception, it must have been forgotten by the 2nd century and then rediscovered centuries later. More likely it was a later development and not part of what the Apostles taught.

Yes, David wrote that in his Psalm. He acknowledged his innate sinfulness. However, he was Jewish and Judaism has never had a concept of Original Sin. There were various explanations of Original Sin in the early centuries by various early Christian writers. (This could be a whole other topic.) Augustine’s version was later accepted by most. I don’t think Augustine’s Doctrine of Original Sin was ever widely accepted in the east.

 

[steve-b]

there were persons in positions of authority that were worldly (“secular”) and concerned more about the things of this life such as wealth and power than they were about fulfilling their Apostolic commission (Pope Leo and Cajeton among them).

steve-b:

here’s a short read Leo and Luther—The Real Story of the Pope and the Heretic | Catholic Answers

guanophore:

It is not true that “all these divisions started with the founders of protestantism” . On the contrary, paragraph 817 makes it clear that “from the beginnings of the Church” there arose certain rifts.

steve-b:

Did Leo split the Church for his own purposes? No
Did Cajetan? No
Did Luther? Yes

Consider the following
Ez 3:17-21 Ez3:17-21 RSVCE - “Son of man, I have made you a - Bible Gateway

Ezekial describes 4 scenerios

For example, putting this in terms of Catholic teaching

Using Ez 3:17-21, and these examples
A=Catholic,
B = someone doing wrong,
Life=heaven,
Death=hell,
Word = scripture or Church teaching

here’s 4 potential scenerios

1. “If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand.”
   . IOW A gives B no warning. A & B are both screwed. Both die
2. “But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you will have saved your life.”
   . IOW A gives B warning. B ignores the warning. A lives B is screwed.
3. “if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die; because you have not warned him, he shall die for his sin, and his righteous deeds which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand.”
   . IOW A gives B no warning. A is screwed. B is being B and is screwed and ALSO, his good works are not remembered
4. "Nevertheless if you warn the righteous man not to sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live, because he took warning; and you will have saved your life.”
   . IOW A warns B and B listens and changes, A & B live

Therefore, putting this as God sees it

I would do all I can to be in scenerio 2 & 4 and avoid #s 1 & 3

Can a Catholic leave the Catholic Church and join one of these organizations with no problem for the Catholic?
If NOT then WHY NOT? What’s being hidden in all the flowery language?

guanophore:

No
Because the heresies that exist in Protestant theology can interfere with salvation.

steve-b:

So why not warn them ?

guanophore:

Threatening them with accusations and being on the Road to Hell is not conducive to bringing people into the fullness of faith.

So IOW , because you won’t warn them as you ARE REQUIRED TO DO.

Look at #'s 1 & 3 from Ezekiel above

 

[Gorgias]

My point was that when Augustine was writing the Doctrine of Original Sin, he and others of his day taught that Jesus was the only one born free of Original Sin.

Are you sure about that? Are you certain that Augustine taught that Mary wasn’t free from sin? I might suggest you re-read his On Nature and Grace:

We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.

I would assert that Augustine is pretty explicitly claiming that Mary was without sin – even if the ‘official’ declaration of the term “immaculate conception” wasn’t part of the vocabulary at that point.

If the Apostles taught that Mary had an immaculate conception, it must have been forgotten by the 2nd century and then rediscovered centuries later. More likely it was a later development and not part of what the Apostles taught.

Freely asserted, freely denied, no?

 

[tgGodsway]

No, tgG. Solid adherence to doctrine is not toxic,and does not create a "toxic zone’. If this were true. then adherence to your own doctrine without compromise would also have to be an environment for toxicity and abuse. Human beings acting out of pride, arrogance, greed, etc. are what create toxicity and abuse, not the immutable doctrines of Christ. I thin

When I was a little boy, my oldest sister would be the one who would get all of us up to go to Mass on Sunday mornings. With the exception of my parents, my three siblings and I were faithful to attend morning mass every Sunday for most of my young life.

Years later, (about 5 years ago) I asked my sister why she was so zealously determined to drag all of us to Church every Sunday morning. Her answer shocked me. She didn’t blink an eye when she said, “I didn’t want you guys to go to hell.” What? … that’s right! I was afraid that if you stopped going to Mass you would go to hell." Where did you learn that?.. Church.

This is just one example of the toxicity people experience in the CC and many post-protestant Churches as well.

 

[susanlo]

Are you sure about that? Are you certain that Augustine taught that Mary wasn’t free from sin? I might suggest you re-read his On Nature and Grace:

Here he is arguing against Pelagius who said that many people lived lives without any sin including: “Abel, Enoch, Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joshua the Son of Nun, Phinehas, Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Joseph, Elisha, Micaiah, Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah, Mishael, Mordecai, Simeon, Joseph to whom the Virgin Mary was espoused, John…Deborah, Anna the mother of Samuel, Judith, Esther, the other Anna, daughter of Phanuel, Elisabeth, and also the mother of our Lord and Saviour, for of her, he says, we must needs allow that her piety had no sin in it.” To this Augustine writes that out of “honour to the Lord” he doesn’t want to question the subject of sins regarding Mary, but that surely the rest of them have all sinned. What he doesn’t claim is that he clearly believes that Mary lived a sinless life because of a teaching that has been orally passed on by the Apostles that is protected from error.
Chapter 42 - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1503.htm

I would assert that Augustine is pretty explicitly claiming that Mary was without sin – even if the ‘official’ declaration of the term “immaculate conception” wasn’t part of the vocabulary at that point.

He used a term that was translated to “immaculate birth” in English in a different writing. I don’t know about the original Latin. In this writing he is still refuting Pelagius and quotes Ambrose in stating that Jesus is the only one free of Original Sin:

It is therefore an observed and settled fact, that no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin. Whosoever, indeed, is free from sin, is free also from a conception and birth of this kind. Moreover, when expounding the Gospel according to Luke, he says: It was no cohabitation with a husband which opened the secrets of the Virgin’s womb; rather was it the Holy Ghost which infused immaculate seed into her unviolated womb. For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty.

Chapter 47 - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15062.htm

I think this is pretty clear that Augustine and Ambrose taught that only Jesus was free of Original Sin.

Freely asserted, freely denied, no?

What does this saying mean?

 

[deMontfort]

What does this saying mean?

It’s a principle of logic: An gratuitous assertion given without supporting evidence may be equally gratuitously denied without supporting evidence.

 

[guanophore]

I’m talking about the active Cardinals and Bishops in Rome. But if there could be a debate, a real debate begins when both sides are given an equal chance to question doctrine, and the environment needed to have a fair debate.

But still, does it make any sense to you that people who have vehemently opposed the doctrines of the faith should be given an “equal chance to question”? Debate like this goes on constantly, and has since the Council of Jerusalem in 50 AD. But those who participate are those who accept the teachings of the Apostles, not those who have departed from it!

Would it make any sense to allow Mormons to question/debate the doctrines of Reformed theology? I think you might take an apologetic approach to them, but so far as accepting their view as “equal”?

Are you saying that you recognize our ecclesial communion?

Of course! The Catholic Church is the creator of the scientific method. We cannot logically deny that which is in front of our senses.

But this entire web site is about doing just that. It is a big protest against those bad bad separated brethren who preach lies and heresies.

While I disagree that those who are separated and preach lies and hereses are “bad, bad” ( I think you , for example, have been steeped in lies and heresies for so long you accept them without question) you are right, we are “here” to " in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you."

 

[guanophore]

I attack all that I believe is an absolute heresy.

Well, at least you are taking responsibility to being an accuser of the brethren, and you supposed motives for doing so.

So it appears that I am the aggressor here, but I am not.

Maybe we are being distracted by all that attacking you are doing?

 

[guanophore]

when Augustine was writing the Doctrine of Original Sin, he and others of his day taught that Jesus was the only one born free of Original Sin.

Oh I see. Well the language was different. They referred to her as “All Holy”. Like the concept of the Trinity, the language did develop over time.