Luther Has Been Dead for Nearly 500 Years - Enough Already

[Confiteor_Deo]

Martin Luther might have died a long time ago, but his heresy is still felt to this day throughout the world and in the Church. The Protestant Revolt was momentous, so of course we are still going to talk about the man that started it. If Fr. Martin Luther’s heresy had little effect on the Church, then we wouldn’t bother with him.

 

[Tomyris]

Apparently, you are out of step with what the Protestant churches are teaching.

Apples and oranges. I am not bound to the teachings of other denominations. You should know that.

You will be interacting with the quotes from the 25 Protestant scholars I hope.

It’s off the thread topic, isn’t it? But of course you are trying to hijack the thread.

Frankly, Randy, I don’t trust you. It would not surprise me if all those are ripped out of context and mashed together. Nice that there are no links. No, I am not asking you to spam the thread again with the links, if you could provide them. I have asked before if things you post are your own research or if you got them somewhere else, and you have not answered. It’s called PLAGIARISM. Someone who breaks the rules like Hillary Clinton would not stoop in mangling sources.

And who suggested that Peter is not the rock of Mt. 16:18? You or me?

Who brought the topic up and then spammed the thread with his hotkey? This is disingenuous, Randy. You were hoping I would make the one comment. Then you could hit your hotkey. Now you are all sweet and innocent?

The topic is Luther. Not Peter. Luther. You have forced me to answer you and then complained about ME being off topic. That’s it. You are now on my Ignore list.

Oh, and Randy? The last time I put you on my Ignore list for your arrogant and duplicitous behavior you responded with a lot more off-topic posts, figuring I would not answer you. It wouldn’t surprise me if you resorted to such low behavior again.

 

[joe371]

Martin Luther is pretty important for Christian history. There will never be enough talk of Luther.

Did Luther bring about anything positive for Christianity, doctrinally speaking - (notwithstanding the fact that he rightfully identified the indulgence abuses in certain areas, which was rectified from within)?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Apples and oranges. I am not bound to the teachings of other denominations. You should know that. It’s off the thread topic, isn’t it? But of course you are trying to hijack the thread.

Frankly, Randy, I don’t trust you. It would not surprise me if all those are ripped out of context and mashed together. Nice that there are no links. No, I am not asking you to spam the thread again with the links, if you could provide them. I have asked before if things you post are your own research or if you got them somewhere else, and you have not answered. It’s called PLAGIARISM. Someone who breaks the rules like Hillary Clinton would not stoop in mangling sources.

Who brought the topic up and then spammed the thread with his hotkey? This is disingenuous, Randy. You were hoping I would make the one comment. Then you could hit your hotkey. Now you are all sweet and innocent?

The topic is Luther. Not Peter. Luther. You have forced me to answer you and then complained about ME being off topic. That’s it. You are now on my Ignore list.

Oh, and Randy? The last time I put you on my Ignore list for your arrogant and duplicitous behavior you responded with a lot more off-topic posts, figuring I would not answer you. It wouldn’t surprise me if you resorted to such low behavior again.

 

[Micosil]

 

[Peter_J]

Despite how I’m a Protestant, I just find it odd

Roma locuta.

 

[JustaSinner]

Did Luther bring about anything positive for Christianity, doctrinally speaking - (notwithstanding the fact that he rightfully identified the indulgence abuses in certain areas, which was rectified from within)?

He set the precedent of returning both elements of the Mass to the laity, translating Scriptures into the common tongue (as Jerome’s Vulgate was originally intended to be–as its name reflects–a translation into the common tongue), setting forth the priesthood of all believers and the centrality of trusting in Christ and His merits for Salvation, and many other excellent truths and practices. Also, despite the many (often out-of-context) quotes of Luther on the internet, for those who have read his works, it is clear that he was a staunch believer in the absolute necessity of sanctification or holiness in the believer’s life.

Here is just one among many examples from Luther’s opposition to those who would say sanctification and obedience to God’s Law are merely optional in the believer’s life (and the dangerous tendency toward Antinomianism is not merely a Protestant problem as I believe many would agree):

"That is what my Antinomians, too, are doing today. They are preaching finely and (I can think nothing else) with real seriousness about Christ’s grace, the forgiveness of sins, and the other things that can be said concerning redemption. But they flee the consequence of this, as though it were the very devil, and will not speak to the people about the Third Article, which is sanctification, i.e., the new life in Christ. For they think that they ought not to terrify people, or disturb them, but always to preach in a comforting way about grace and the forgiveness of sins in Christ, and utterly avoid such words as these: “Listen! You want to be a Christian and yet remain an adulterer, fornicator, drunken swine, proud, covetous, a usurer, envious, revengeful, malicious!” On the contrary, they say: “Listen! Though you are an adulterer, a fornicator, a miser, or any other kind of sinner, only believe, and you will be saved and need not fear the law; Christ has fulfilled it all!”
Tell me, is that not granting the premise and denying the conclusion? Nay, it is taking away Christ and bringing Him to nought, at the same time that He is most highly preached. It is saying Yes and No to the same thing.

There is no such Christ, Who has died for these sinners who, after forgiveness of sins, do not leave their sins and lead a new life. Thus they finely preach the logic of Nestorious and Eutyches, that Christ is this and is yet not this. They are fine Easter preachers, but shamefully poor Pentecost preachers, for they preach nothing de sanctificatione et vivificatione Spiritus Sancti, i.e., concerning sanctification by the Holy Ghost, but preach only about redemption by Christ, though Christ, Whom they extol so highly (and rightly so!) is Christ, i.e., He has purchased redemption from sin and death, in order that the Holy Ghost shall make new men of us, in place of the old Adam, so that we die unto sin and live unto righteousness, as St. Paul teaches in Romans 6:1, beginning and increasing this life here on earth, and completing it yonder. What Christ has earned for us is not only gratia, “grace,” but also donum, the “gift” of the Holy Ghost, so that we might not only have forgiveness of sin, but also cease from sinning.

Whoever, then, does not cease from sinning, but continues in his former wicked life, must have another Christ from the Antinomians, for the real Christ is not there, even though all the angels were to cry only “Christ! Christ!”; and he must be damned with his new Christ." Martin Luther, On the Councils and the Church (1539)

I’m not Lutheran myself, and I know Luther was far from perfect (as I’m sure any Lutheran brother or sister on this thread would agree), but that should not cause anyone to discount his positive contributions to God’s People (Protestant and Catholic).

 

[Peter_J]

The problem isn’t the topic of Luther (or Lutherans). The problem is the Internet – or perhaps I should say the problem is people’s expectations for the internet.

Do you mean me personally or people in general?

I mean you could look at it two ways: either in terms of how bad the Internet is; or you could say “The Internet is what it is” and that people just need to be realistic and not expect the Internet to be better than it is.

Both approaches have some merit IMO.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Yeah, me too.
I’m striving to improve my “charitable posting” quotient and that one has me scratching my head.

 

[pablope]

Oh, Randy, where do I start with what is wrong with this post?

:banghead:

Have you read anything Don Ruggero has been posting? I think you are going to find yourself embarrassingly out of step with the Catholic Church on a number of issues.

I think you miss the whole thrust here.

And, for the thousandth time, Peter is NOT the rock. See Isaiah 44:8, for example. There is no other Rock except God.

As always…the CC is wrong and you are corect…

And what made you decide you are correct in who the rock is in matt 16:18?

 

[pablope]

Apples and oranges. I am not bound to the teachings of other denominations. You should know that. It’s off the thread topic, isn’t it? But of course you are trying to hijack the thread.

Frankly, Randy, I don’t trust you. It would not surprise me if all those are ripped out of context and mashed together. Nice that there are no links. No, I am not asking you to spam the thread again with the links, if you could provide them. I have asked before if things you post are your own research or if you got them somewhere else, and you have not answered. It’s called PLAGIARISM. Someone who breaks the rules like Hillary Clinton would not stoop in mangling sources.

Who brought the topic up and then spammed the thread with his hotkey? This is disingenuous, Randy. You were hoping I would make the one comment. Then you could hit your hotkey. Now you are all sweet and innocent?

The topic is Luther. Not Peter. Luther. You have forced me to answer you and then complained about ME being off topic. That’s it. You are now on my Ignore list.

Oh, and Randy? The last time I put you on my Ignore list for your arrogant and duplicitous behavior you responded with a lot more off-topic posts, figuring I would not answer you. It wouldn’t surprise me if you resorted to such low behavior again.

Well…you lambaste Catholics for not being charitable…and you practice it yourself…

Should you not practice what you preach?

 

[joe371]

JustaSinner;14030783]He set the precedent of returning both elements of the Mass to the laity, translating Scriptures into the common tongue (as Jerome’s Vulgate was originally intended to be–as its name reflects–a translation into the common tongue), setting forth the priesthood of all believers and the centrality of trusting in Christ and His merits for Salvation, and many other excellent truths and practices. Also, despite the many (often out-of-context) quotes of Luther on the internet, for those who have read his works, it is clear that he was a staunch believer in the absolute necessity of sanctification or holiness in the believer’s life.

Here is just one among many examples from Luther’s opposition to those who would say sanctification and obedience to God’s Law are merely optional in the believer’s life (and the dangerous tendency toward Antinomianism is not merely a Protestant problem as I believe many would agree):

I’m not Lutheran myself, and I know Luther was far from perfect (as I’m sure any Lutheran brother or sister on this thread would agree), but that should not cause anyone to discount his positive contributions to God’s People (Protestant and Catholic).[/QUO]

Did Luther fix or introduce something that was missing from the church started by Jesus, in terms of doctrine,my friend?

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Luther has been dead for nearly 500 years. Enough already.

Maybe if he had actually tried to reform it from within we wouldn’t be talking about him today.

Rap mode on.
I know that Protestants gonna hate me for it.
But dat the truth and I ain’t paying for it.
Rap mode of.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Here we go…



(Though I actually agree with you that the rock is faith in Christ, not Peter/Catholic Church per se.)

For the sake of evangelism, surely Christians have the right (even obligation) to assert that their faith/denomination is the true faith. God knows, they all do. Chat with a hardcore traditional Orthodox some time about the relative merits of Orthodoxy vs. Catholicism or Protestantism. eek

And I don’t think God would have it any other way, would he? It is his Church in the end after all - much of which is a mystery to us. He grants his grace where and how he sees fit. Catholics believe that the Catholic Church is the fullness of faith - we don’t deny salvation to other Christians through God’s grace. I am ok with a Christian telling me a certain faith/denomination is superior and that I should join it. (especially coming from the original Church IMHO) I don’t like it when Christians start attacking the integrity or faith, individually or collectively, of another denomination. I make a distinction between these two things. But surely we can fairly point out the merits of one denomination vs. another, in charity.

(oh and I should probably give some credit to Luther’s invisible Church argument here too…seems appropriate anyway…)

Peter is part of the foundation of which Jesus is the cornerstone! Nuff said!

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Maybe if he had actually tried to reform it from within we wouldn’t be talking about him today.

Rap mode on.
I know that Protestants gonna hate me for it.
But dat the truth and I ain’t paying for it.
Rap mode of.

That is not where Church history has us anymore…neither in our assessment of Luther nor our contemporary assessment of our Church leaders in Luther’s era. Assessments have changed and new conclusions have been reached.

And since we are Catholic, the decision of the Holy See telling us where the Catholic Church stands has significantly more weight than what anyone else – least of all individuals – thinks the Catholic Church stands. And that is simply the reality. Not everyone’s opinion is equal.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

This thread has 95 posts.
Enough Already

Father gets the last word.
Closed.