Luther! Read Read!

[Catholicfriend]

Catholicfriend:

I think Luther, the so called “reformator” didn’t remember 1Cor 10:6-22, or 1John 5:16-17!! , you harden your heart if you keep sinnin and don’t repent from it…or “are we stronger than He is”?! I think the Holy Spirit will get most sincerely grieved!! and then it’s a sin against the Spirit!
Kind regards
Catholicfiend

 

[St.Curious]

To be honest, I find this entire thread a waste of thought.

It seems to me to be one more “lets bash the protestants” thread. I would think we could move beyond that.

Luther was not the first to attempt to reform the Church, nor was he the first to “pervert the gospel” in the ways mentioned here. Many of our beloved saints held opinions very different from what we would consider “Catholic.” Take a look at Augustine.

 

[Catholicfriend]

manualman:

Luther is more complex than most catholics believe.

The core problem behind Sola Fide is Luther’s view of the human condition.

Luther’s writings imply that he believed that at the Fall, man became fundamentally EVIL. This is the key difference from catholicism which says that man’s condition is now GOOD, but FALLEN. The basic goodness remains because we were created in the image of God! But a fatal flaw exists which prevents us from being totally good in the way God intended.

So poor Luther HAD to formulate his beliefs about the foundations of salvation around his understanding that man was totally depraved, totally without goodness. From that background, Sola Fide is the only way that made sense. His bleak view of the human condition prohibited him from acknowledging that the human will could choose goodness through Grace and actually begin to be sanctified here on earth. From his point of view, the acknowledgement that human action could play any role in sanctification was tantamount to presumption! (The idea that one could judge oneself worthy enough that God HAD to admit him to heaven)

I had extensive training by protestants in college who still hold tightly to the idea that man is inherently evil. This is the issue to tackle! Sola Fide will demolish itself once the protestant accepts the catholic notion of humanity being good, but fallen. Who cares if a protestant still pays lip service to SF if in his heart, he knows that we are called to sanctification in our lives here on earth?

AMEN!
Catholicfriend

 

[Steven_Merten]

St.Curious:

To be honest, I find this entire thread a waste of thought.

It seems to me to be one more “lets bash the protestants” thread. I would think we could move beyond that.

Luther was not the first to attempt to reform the Church, nor was he the first to “pervert the gospel” in the ways mentioned here. Many of our beloved saints held opinions very different from what we would consider “Catholic.” Take a look at Augustine.

Hello St. Curious,

The problem is that hundreds of millions of people still follow Luther’s perversion of the gospel. Can you not agree that by putting hard evidence on how Luther perverted the gospel on this thread, maybe one, two or a thousand Protestants might wake up from his nightmare?

 

[St.Curious]

Hello St. Curious,

The problem is that hundreds of millions of people still follow Luther’s perversion of the gospel. Can you not agree that by putting hard evidence on how Luther perverted the gospel on this thread, maybe one, two or a thousand Protestants might wake up from his nightmare?

What I agree with, Steven, is that these people are finding God, they are finding Jesus. And Catholics telling them that their gospel is perverted does nothing to bring them closer to Christ. That is unless you would profess that bringing them to the RC Church would bring them closer to JC, something I would have to say isn’t true for everyone (a point you couldn’t possibly argue).

The fact is, how do you expect a person to react when you tell them “Nope, sorry, your “father of reformation” perverted the holy book, what you have read is perverted.” Do you think they will react on their knees, begging to come to mass with you? Honestly?

It isn’t a nightmare. They are running to Christ for answers to their life. As are we. All Christians are running to him. The moment a protestant starts running only to Luther for answers instead of Christ, or a Catholic only to Benedict instead of Christ, they need to rea-evaluate where their faith rests.

 

[Catholicfriend]

St.Curious:

To be honest, I find this entire thread a waste of thought.

It seems to me to be one more “lets bash the protestants” thread. I would think we could move beyond that.

Luther was not the first to attempt to reform the Church, nor was he the first to “pervert the gospel” in the ways mentioned here. Many of our beloved saints held opinions very different from what we would consider “Catholic.” Take a look at Augustine.

I am a protestant, and i am disappointed with his kind of wiew on this matters. Augustine!? Yes, look what John Cassian said to him about his wiew on this; “man is not totally corrupt but can cooperate with God to forgivness for sins”, sounds like semipeliganism,you will say, maybe; but it isn’t!! “Man’s positive powers has certainly been handicapped and weakened through the Fall, but they are not abolished.”(John Cassian; De institutis coenobiorum book v-xii)
Kind regards
Catholicfriend

 

[Steven_Merten]

St.Curious:

What I agree with, Steven, is that these people are finding God, they are finding Jesus. And Catholics telling them that their gospel is perverted does nothing to bring them closer to Christ. That is unless you would profess that bringing them to the RC Church would bring them closer to JC, something I would have to say isn’t true for everyone (a point you couldn’t possibly argue).

The fact is, how do you expect a person to react when you tell them “Nope, sorry, your “father of reformation” perverted the holy book, what you have read is perverted.” Do you think they will react on their knees, begging to come to mass with you? Honestly?

It isn’t a nightmare. They are running to Christ for answers to their life. As are we. All Christians are running to him. The moment a protestant starts running only to Luther for answers instead of Christ, or a Catholic only to Benedict instead of Christ, they need to rea-evaluate where their faith rests.

Hello St. Curious,

Luther quotes Jesus as his opponant. If I were a Protestant, I would want to know this. I would want to know if someone, even in my case, it would be a Pope, was leading me away from Christ.

Luther****The doctrine of our opponents is similar to that of the false apostles in Paul’s day.Our opponents teach, "If you want to live unto God, you must live after the Law, for it is written, Do this and thou shalt live."

NAB LUK 10:25

"Teacher, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?" Jesus answered him: "What is written in the law? How do you read it?" He replied:

**"You shall love the Lord your God **
**with all your heart, **
**with all your soul, **
**with all your strength, **
**and with all your mind; **
and your neighbor as yourself."
Jesus said, “You have answered correctly. Do this and you shall live.”
NAB MAR 10:17

"Good Teacher, what must I do to share in everlasting life?" Jesus answered, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments:
’You shall not kill;
You shall not commit adultery;
You shall not steal;
You shall not bear false witness;
You shall not defraud;
Honor your father and your mother.’"

 

[St.Curious]

Luther was caught between the Catholic Church and the Anabaptist seedlings. When he spoke of opponents you have to be sure to know of which he spoke.

Instead of challenging Luther’s addresses to the German Nobility, why not refer to his Small Catechism, a book even many noted Catholics have referred to as “a good resource.”

We will always argue and always be devided if we (all denominations) continue to argue about what we are different on instead of celebrating how we are alike.

I’m done with this.

 

[fix]

St.Curious:

We will always argue and always be devided if we (all denominations) continue to argue about what we are different on instead of celebrating how we are alike.

I’m done with this.

If we only celebrate what we have in common, and go no further, we are not evangelizing.

 

[Steven_Merten]

St.Curious:

Luther was caught between the Catholic Church and the Anabaptist seedlings. When he spoke of opponents you have to be sure to know of which he spoke.

Instead of challenging Luther’s addresses to the German Nobility, why not refer to his Small Catechism, a book even many noted Catholics have referred to as “a good resource.”

We will always argue and always be devided if we (all denominations) continue to argue about what we are different on instead of celebrating how we are alike.

I’m done with this.

Hello St. Curious,

I am sure that Luther was opposing Catholic priests and monks who were out preaching Christ’s words. In so doing Luther condemned Christ’s teachings themselves.

Who did the dividing, Luther or we Catholics? Do you say that Luther never ever slammed Catholics? If he did do you reprimand your leader for his conduct as much, hopefully more, than you reprimand we Catholics at a Catholic website?

Believe it or not there still are Catholics who leave the Church for Luther’s garbage. We Catholics have an obligation to protect Catholics by showing them the true words of Jesus over Luthers perversions.

 

[fix]

St.Curious:

That is unless you would profess that bringing them to the RC Church would bring them closer to JC, something I would have to say isn’t true for everyone (a point you couldn’t possibly argue).

Is not the intent of ecumenism to bring all into the CC?

 

[manualman]

St. Curious makes a good point many of you miss.

It does not glorigy God to demonize Luther. He was a human being who grew up in a hard life and faced a LOT of corruption in the church. He made some mistakes in judgement in theology in response.

That doesn’t make him or his life’s work ‘garbage.’ I’m quite sure you too have made some theological errors at some point. I hope nobody ever tells your grandkids that you or your faith were ‘garbage’ and dredges up a few old posts to prove it…

We can disagree with protestants while still respecting them.

 

[fix]

manualman:

St. Curious makes a good point many of you miss.

It does not glorigy God to demonize Luther. He was a human being who grew up in a hard life and faced a LOT of corruption in the church. He made some mistakes in judgement in theology in response.

That doesn’t make him or his life’s work ‘garbage.’ I’m quite sure you too have made some theological errors at some point. I hope nobody ever tells your grandkids that you or your faith were ‘garbage’ and dredges up a few old posts to prove it…

We can disagree with protestants while still respecting them.

I do not claim to be any expert on Luther, but I do not see anyone approving of bashing Protestants. Also, I do not think it is fair to label one as demonizing Luther for pointing out his grave errors. It ,also, is no service to the truth to call what he did a mistake. It was much more than a few mistakes. The consequences of his errors are still being felt today and we have no way on knowing how many souls were/are lost from his false teachings.

 

[reen12]

Dear Steve Merten,

quote: Steve Merten

I am not quoting man made laws. I am quoting the commandments of Jesus and the Father. I am quoting scripture defining obedience to God’s commandments as love for God and neighbor. I am quoting Jesus telling us to obey the ten commandments if we wish to enter into life. Did Luther do this?

Did Luther do this?

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/little.book/web/book-1.html

---

In case you haven’t read the part of the post I referenced

above:

quote: reen12

Had the RCC become, by the 16th century, a mirror
image of rabbinic Pharisaism, at the time of Jesus?

“You have burdened My people with laws [and “interpretations”?]
of your own making.” [That is, you have taken the Mosaic
Law, which *was

entrusted to Moses, and layered on
burdensome commands of your own making {Oral Law} ]

I thought, last night:
Jesus came and set the Pharisees straight on what
they had done to His Father’s people.

The only way the “laws of your own making” can be
undone, in terms of the RCC, is the actual second
coming of Christ…the parousia.

Forget what He may, or may not say, to the Lutherans.

Will He say to the Church:

“You have taken what *was *entrusted to you, and
burdened My people with laws of your *own *making.”

---

The RCC is undoubtedly the Church founded by Jesus of
Nazareth.
I believe the Mass is* exactly* what the RCC says it is:
a true sacrifice- and that the Real Presence is a reality.
It is the glory of Catholicism, to carry that reality forward,
through the centuries.

Outside of that reality, I hold that the Magisterium has
become, over the centuries, a mirror image of rabbinic Pharisaism,
which Christ thoroughly rebuked.

Luther was exactly right on justification, sanctification, righteousness
and casting our sins on the mercy of Christ.

Best wishes,

reen12

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Hey, I think this is related, you know, since we’re discussing Luther and such.

Here’s one thing that Card. Ratzinger says in “Called to Communion.” He’s talking about the Priesthood, and the Reformer’s objection to the Catholic notion of a sacramental priesthood,

"… reading the Bible with the Reformed hermeunitic of]… the dialectical opposition of law and promise, of priest and prophet, of cult and promise. The mutually coordinated categories of law, priest and cult were classified as the negative aspect of the history of salvation: the law, it was maintained, leads man to self-righteousness, cultic worship presupposes the error that man stands on a sort of equal footing with God and can establish a relationship of justice between himself and God by offering certain gifts; priesthood, on this reading, is, so to say, the institutional expression and the permanent instrument of this perverted relationship with God.

The new relationship to God (that which the Reformers advocated, supposedly from the Pauline epistles) rests entirely on promise and grace, and it finds expression in the figure of the prophet, who is accordingly construed as opposed to the cult and the priesthood. Catholicism appeared to Luther as the sacrilegious reinstatement of the cult, of sacrifice, priesthood and law. He therefore saw it as the negation of grace, as apostasy from the Gospel, as a return behind Christ to Moses. This hermeneutical option of Luther has molded modern critical exegesis from its very foundation;"

So, you see, in addition to what has been described, the effects of Luther’s thoughts have not weakened, they have been ingrained in the mind of Western man, and that’s part of why it’s so hard for people to grasp the concept of priestly function, intercession, absolution, sacrifice of Mass. And saying, “You know, that’s really close to the way it was in the Old Testament times” doesn’t seem to help much. In fact, it perhaps only makes a core obstacle even more obstructing.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

reen12:

The RCC is undoubtedly the Church founded by Jesus of
Nazareth.
I believe the Mass is* exactly* what the RCC says it is:
a true sacrifice- and that the Real Presence is a reality.
It is the glory of Catholicism, to carry that reality forward,
through the centuries.

Outside of that reality, I hold that the Magisterium has
become, over the centuries, a mirror image of rabbinic Pharisaism,
which Christ thoroughly rebuked.

Luther was exactly right on justification, sanctification, righteousness
and casting our sins on the mercy of Christ.

Best wishes,

reen12

I kind of agree with this, the CC did do bad things in the past. At the same time, we have to recognize reality and realize that guiding the Church is a hard job, especially when everyone is attacking it.
We have to distinguish cracking down from false teachings, there were both, but I dont think it is the same as the Pharisees. There has always been crooked bishops, there have always been good clean bishops, but the crooked side has never won.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

reen12:

“You have burdened My people with laws [and “interpretations”?]
of your own making.” [That is, you have taken the Mosaic
Law, which *was entrusted to Moses, and layered on
burdensome commands of your own making {Oral Law} ]

I thought, last night:
Jesus came and set the Pharisees straight on what
they had done to His Father’s people.

The only way the “laws of your own making” can be
undone, in terms of the RCC, is the actual second
coming of Christ…the parousia.

Forget what He may, or may not say, to the Lutherans.

Will He say to the Church:

"You have taken what

      *was *entrusted to you, and

burdened My people with laws of your *own *making."
Best wishes,

reen12

REEN,

Hey, great thoughts, and I was going to PM you, but since what you said seems to be out in the public, let me publically say that, based on what I’ve read of Ratzinger, particularly in “Principles of Catholic Theology” you have every reason to fully support the new Pope! He would fully agree with what you said, I believe, well at least, mostly agree.

For instance, in “Principles”, he is discussing Christ’s view of tradition, and His view towards Pharisees, Saducees, and Qumran and their man made traditions taking the place of the Word of God, and Ratzinger says… regarding the "problem of tradition as it exists in the Church. p. 100

"… the Christian sees in Jesus a point of access to the center of tradition … where it does not range itself against reason but reveals the ground on which it rests. In other words, he (the Christian) sees himself protected not only against false tradition but also against a false freedom from tradition, for he reads tradition as Jesus does. Tradition is interpreted in conversation with God, the Father of Jesus Christ. Only that inner acquaintance with God that is made possible by Jesus can open a path through the mountain of tradition that, without this living context would remain lifeless and perplexing. **Where this relationship to God is lacking, both traditionalism and the criticism of tradition become an arbitrary sport. **(p. 99)

The Church is tradition, the concrete situs of the traditio of Jesus, into which - let us admit - much human pseudotradition has found it’s way… Where shall we turn? (p. 100)

… salvation comes, not from the destruction of tradition or the archaelogical neutralization of tradition, but only when the Church, the bearer of tradition, penetrates to its true center, to the life at the heart of tradition, to that community with God, the Father of Jesus Christ, that is revealed only through faith and prayer. (p. 101)

That’s really getting into a topic for another thread, but I think it can be shown that… well, another thread.

-Rob

 

[reen12]

Dear Reformed Rob,

quote: Reformed Rob

Hey, great thoughts, and I was going to PM you, but since what you said seems to be out in the public, let me publically say that, based on what I’ve read of Ratzinger, particularly in “Principles of Catholic Theology” you have every reason to fully support the new Pope! He would fully agree with what you said, I believe, well at least, mostly agree.

Thanks for making this point. I read an article, early in the
summer, that said that the Holy Father was urging a
return to Scriptural sources, rather than the systematic
theologians, if I read the article correctly.
I almost came out of my chair!

Yes! I said.

He would fully agree with what you said, I believe, well at least, mostly agree

“Mostly agree” would cheer me up. If he fully agreed,
even I’d get nervous.

It’s been crystal clear to me, since age 12, that a good
deal of what I was being taught was inimicable to
peace of heart and soul. I didn’t have the vocabulary to
"explain’ it, even to myself, at that age.

-the “relationship” with Jesus sounded more like a
legal brief than a “gospel”…which was never, to my
recollection, defined as the “good news.”
[and it’s a good thing it wasn’t, for I would have said,
even at 12: *This is “good” news??? A legal brief??

-It was “Church” this, and “Church” that, until I couldn’t
metabolize it, anymore. Imagine my surprise, in my late
forties, when I heard Evangelicals speaking of Jesus…
and not in the manner of the “Party of the First Part” in a
juridical proceeding.

-I read Luther. Not what RC’s told me he said, but
what he actually wrote.

Cling to Christ. His righeousness is our righteousness.
Jesus both justifies and saves, and “works” flow from
both obedience to His commands and out of gratitude
for our individual justification *and *salvation.
No “indulgenced” prayers, no dogmas to be accepted
under pain of damnation, no “infalliblility” to try to
swallow. Cling to Christ.

-From the Evangelicals I learned to cast my sins on
Christ’s mercy, that I am “washed in the blood of the
Lamb.”

---

Concurrently, I realized, with great clarity, that the Church
was stunningly correct on the nature of the Mass - as
sacrifice. A “priestly people.”

Sacramental “systems”, grace as a “commodity” aside…
the Church is right and it is her glory to carry this
reality forward, through the centuries.

---

How could I reconcile Lutheranism, Evangelicalism and
Catholicism?

First, by acknowledging that the RCC is the Church
Christ founded on Peter.

Secondly, by realizing that the “gates of hell shall not
prevail against her” meant that the Church, in time,
could be riddled with errors, but that she would carry forward
the essential “good news” …that of the Mass.

That, like rabbinic Pharisaism, Christ will one day
rebuke those erroroneous claims and doctrines,
and that the Holy Spirit *has *remained with the Church,
in it’s essential mission of proclaiming the life, death and ressurection
of Jesus, offering Christ to the Father, from sunset to sunrise,
across the world.

That Luther provided what the Church failed to provide:
a Scriptural understanding of justification, salvation,
righteousness and clinging to Christ. A love of Christ.
A personal relationship - unencumbered by the legalism,
writ large, in the volumes of “theology”, accumulated
through two millenia.

But the critical element, the Mass, *has *been protected
by the Holy Spirit, in the Church.

I now travel light: with a crucifix, the Scriptures and
a Mass schedule, for the next town…
[metaphorically]

And I wait in joyful hope, for the coming of my Redeemer,
Who, speaking with august authority, may well say:
“You have turned My Father’s House into an assize.”

Best,
reen12

 

[Contarini]

Steven Merten:

Hello St. Curious,

The problem is that hundreds of millions of people still follow Luther’s perversion of the gospel. Can you not agree that by putting hard evidence on how Luther perverted the gospel on this thread, maybe one, two or a thousand Protestants might wake up from his nightmare?

But since the evidence is twisted out of context and is clearly contradicted by Luther’s teaching as a whole, this is as bogus a method as the similarly out-of-context quotes used by anti-Catholics.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Steven Merten:

Hello Edwin,

Good to hear that Luther absolutly did not preach “faith alone not works”. I actually hope this is true. Now if we could get the rest of the Protestants to throw this statement out with the garbage.

I said he didn’t teach that faith could exist without bringing forth works. And most Protestants, historically, have agreed that true faith will produce good works, even though it is faith and not works by which we are justified. This is not rocket science–it’s just that you refuse to listen. Go read White or Webster or any of those annoying Calvinistic anti-Catholics. They’re teaching exactly this–we are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone.

There are Protestants–mostly Baptists (though not all Baptists by any means)–who teach that saving faith can exist on its own without working through love. But they are flatly contradicting mainstream, historic Protestantism, including all the major Reformers.
Steven Merten:

Do we agree that Jesus tells us that He will judge us according to our conduct? Those who have done right will go to heaven through Jesus blood and the evil doers will be damned.

First of all, don’t confuse my position with Luther’s. I’m speaking as a historian, trying to explain what Luther taught. I don’t agree with Luther on many points myself. But he did not teach that you could have saving faith and still live a life of wilful, habitual, serious sin. In fact he clearly taught the contrary, and I’ve quoted where he does so.

I agree with the statement you have made. Luther would qualify it by saying that our “doing right” will not stand at the judgment because it is always imperfect. At the same time, anyone who trusts in Christ will not be condemned for their sins. However, that doesn’t necessarily contradict the claim that “those who have done right will go to heaven through Jesus’ blood,” since those who trust in Jesus’ blood will do right (although they will fall short in many ways). What Luther wanted to avoid was the idea that you have to worry about whether your works are “good enough.” I think his formulation was unfortunate in many respects, because it was open to misunderstanding (particularly from those who don’t want to understand because of their resentment of the schism for which they hold Luther responsible). But on the other hand it has brought relief to thousands, maybe millions of troubled consciences. And as a matter of fact it isn’t obvious to me that Protestants are as a whole historically less concerned with living a holy life than Catholics. (Modern American Protestants, arguably, but not Protestants as a whole.) Many people have taken Luther’s teaching exactly as Luther intended–as something that frees us to live a holy life out of joy and gratitude rather than out of fear and obligation.

Edwin