Luther was right

[raumzeitmc2]

By the way, the claim about Peter as head on earth; God makes the same claim, both cannot be right.

It’s not always simply a matter of either / or.

To give but one example:

“Jesus spoke to them again, saying, ‘I am the light of the world.’" John 8:12

Yet elsewhere he tells his disciples:

“You are the light of the world.” Matt. 5:14

Now the Church is the light of the world! Yet, like Luther, it is this *very Church *which you reject! But perhaps you should consider the following words of Luther himself. These comments were made before his break with the Apostolic See, a See which, btw, the apostle praised (Romans 1:8):

Heretics cannot themselves appear good unless they depict the Church as evil, false, and mendacious. They alone wish to be esteemed the good, but the Church must be made to appear evil in every respect.

“Heretici autem propriissime velle malum Ecclesie…"

Martin Luther, Dictata in Psalterium or Dictata Super Psalterium (1513-1515). Weimar, III, p. 445.

D. Martin Luthers Werke: kritische Gesamtausgabe, Band 3, Weimar, Herman Bohlau, 1883.
books.google.com/books?id=kS4BAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA445&dq=%22propriissime+velle+malum+Ecclesie%22&lr=&as_brr=0#v=onepage&q=%22propriissime%20velle%20malum%20Ecclesie%22&f=false

Luther and Lutherdom: From Original Sources, 1917, (reprint 2009, Cornell University Library), Heinrich Denifle, ISBN 1112168176 ISBN 9781112168178, vol. 1, Introduction, p. 15,

Introduction:
scribd.com/doc/16071007/Luther-and-Lutherdom-H-Denifle-Introduction-pp-128

Contents:
scribd.com/doc/15808674/Luther-and-Lutherdom-H-Denifle-Contents

Amazon:
amazon.com/gp/product/1112168176/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1/182-0972326-8940021?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_r=0FHSVM2DQP4CJX7KJJJ3&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=304485901&pf_rd_i=B0008A6Q7S

 

[josie_L]

**First; Isaiah 22 cannot be taken as Peter since the whole of the OT points to the person of Christ as the Messiah; even a casual reading would render that interpretation, which is proof of the intention to distort the Scripture to usurp the authority given to Christ IMO. It is the hallmark of all false religions. Furthermore, you cannot look at Isaiah 22 without factoring Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah 66, Isaiah 9 & Revelation 3, which all of those support that Christ is the picture in Isaiah 22 and not Peter. But as I said before until you begin to study diligently and test the doctrine of the Church against what is taught in Scripture; then you will never come to the knowledge of the truth. Think about how the Church and its members are taught to put down Sola Scriptura; how do they attempt to do that? Through Scripture. Circular reasoning.

Also, as I have said before; you cannot ignore the audiences Jesus is speaking to in Matthew 16 or Matthew 18. You cannot derive an accurate interpretation without accounting for reality or practicality, that anyone who has the gift to give the gospel can loose and bind based on the acceptance or rejection of the message and the key simply represent the power in the message; not the messenger. Also; to leap into apostolic succession based on passages taken out of context; is perverting Scripture to an extreme level IMO. It will not go unpunished by God.**

How do you equate the prime minister with Jesus and the King of Israel with Jesus? Is Jesus handing himself the keys to the Kingdom? This makes no sense and furthermore the keys signify the authority to loose and bind as was given to Peter and Peter alone just like the prime minister was given the keys to the Davidic kingdom by the King of Israel. There cannot be more than one PRIME minister. Moreover no one is usurping Christ’s authority as he is always head of the universal church however that he should delegate his authority (to interpret scripture correctly) to some is his perogative. I being led to the truth by the Holy Spirit will listen to the apostles for as Jesus said “those who listen to you listen to me.” I read scripture like the Bereans did.

 

[workingman]

Tanner9188;5567572]**I hope you continue to agree to disagree in such a charitable manner; you are refreshing in that sense. Thank you and don’t change. **
First thank you. I must say I can get ugly and rather hostile at times myself. That wonderful passionate sinful human nature.

The comment on knowing the elect is where you referenced the “visible” church…which I was just joking with you anyway; I know you were referring to the Catholic Church. According to Scripture the visible church is the local gathering of professing Christians. Jesus made this very clear in Revelation 2 and 3.

Yes the Church is visible locally but that Church needs a head other wise one ends up with a bunch of offshoots that can either be heretical or hetrodox (sp?). To add to the Pope argument Bishops ect… were also set up in the Church hierarchy. Look at the following examples;
Acts 20:28; 28 Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Ephesians 4:11; 11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors, 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
1Timothy 3:1; 1 A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher,
Titus 1:7; 7 For a bishop must be without crime, as the steward of God: not proud, not subject to anger, not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre:

These are examples of the Visible Church given in scripture as being hierarchical. This would include Peter as the first Pope and head of the Church on earth.

Sounds like you had quite the journey in your religious pursuits. I wonder if you believe that you were fallible in your previous choices or not; then what makes you believe this choice is any different particularly in light of Scripture?

Well I don’t want to derail the thread so I will try and be brief. The various protestant denominations were the doings of my mother, father and extended family. My mom was who removed me from the CC when she left. I considered my self a agnostic for a while in my military career and did not hold much interest in religion at the time. I found the LCMS when I felt like I was missing some thing. God was pushing me home to him. I married my wife a lapsed Catholic and continued studding Scripture. I started seeing the need of the structure of the Church as I watched problems in our synod. The individual interpretation of scripture and lack of reverence for the Eucharist. I also developed a devotion to Mary at the time and was highly persecuted by members of my synod. Prayer lead me back to the CC.

I was one who was baptized as an infant in the Catholic Church; my Aunt was assigned as my God-parent. I thank God that my mother was pulled away from the Church and became born again although my father is not to my knowledge.

I always believed in God and even Jesus, but I did not know God, nor did He know me. looking back I can see where God was working in my life to the point where i realized I was very offensive to God in my sin against Him and others; although when I compared myself to others, i thought I was a “good person” and why would God not allow me into heaven since I had a form of belief. Once I was born unto new life (at the age of 38); my eyes were open to the truth and the ugliness of my transgressions and the real need for forgiveness through the Savior.

I do find this dialog very interesting but I am afraid we a derailing the OP. Feel free to either PM me or maybe even start a new thread on a topic of this sort.

God Bless “Working-man”!

 

[Tanner9188]

First thank you. I must say I can get ugly and rather hostile at times myself. That wonderful passionate sinful human nature.

LOL

Yes the Church is visible locally but that Church needs a head other wise one ends up with a bunch of offshoots that can either be heretical or hetrodox (sp?). To add to the Pope argument Bishops ect… were also set up in the Church hierarchy. Look at the following examples;
Acts 20:28; 28 Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

I don’t see it; Paul is speaking to a single local church. Which bears testimony to my position; and in no way implies any kind of Primacy.

Ephesians 4:11; 11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors, 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

Again, you further my other point concerning the lack of Peter being any head; except the leader of the apostles, but notice in the context of the passage what Paul states in versus 15 and 16.
“15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all {aspects} into Him who is the head, {even} Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love” Notice Paul does NOT mention Peter and includes himself as an individual part…Peter has no Primacy according to Scripture.

1Timothy 3:1; 1 A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher,
Titus 1:7; 7 For a bishop must be without crime, as the steward of God: not proud, not subject to anger, not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre:

Qualification or standards God set for the Pastors of the His flock(s) equates to a hierarchy? Get real; you can’t be serious can you?

These are examples of the Visible Church given in scripture as being hierarchical. This would include Peter as the first Pope and head of the Church on earth.

Well I don’t want to derail the thread so I will try and be brief. The various protestant denominations were the doings of my mother, father and extended family. My mom was who removed me from the CC when she left. I considered my self a agnostic for a while in my military career and did not hold much interest in religion at the time. I found the LCMS when I felt like I was missing some thing. God was pushing me home to him. I married my wife a lapsed Catholic and continued studding Scripture. I started seeing the need of the structure of the Church as I watched problems in our synod. The individual interpretation of scripture and lack of reverence for the Eucharist. I also developed a devotion to Mary at the time and was highly persecuted by members of my synod. Prayer lead me back to the CC.

I do find this dialog very interesting but I am afraid we a derailing the OP. Feel free to either PM me or maybe even start a new thread on a topic of this sort.

God Bless “Working-man”!

**Thanks for the detail on your conversion to Catholicism; I always appreciate peoples testimonies to their faith. What was the original topic…just kidding, I look forward to meeting you again; Lord willing.

Peace from God!**

 

[Tanner9188]

It’s not always simply a matter of either / or.

To give but one example:

“Jesus spoke to them again, saying, ‘I am the light of the world.’" John 8:12

Yet elsewhere he tells his disciples:

“You are the light of the world.” Matt. 5:14

**First; if you look at those two passages in their context; Jesus is the Light of the world and if you included the rest of the passage which is "he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life (WHICH IS JESUS). Therefore bring in Matthew 5:14 and those who possess Jesus are the light of the world; not on their account, on His account. Without Him; you have no light nor understanding of Scripture…

Second; the analogy to be effective would have to have Scripture say something along these lines.

Catholic 1:1-2 1 Then Jesus gathered His disciples and said to Peter; “these men are to follow you, after I ascend to heaven to be with My Father as I have already told you. 2 You will be the head and foundation of My church on earth and those who succeed after you to which you appoint, then who they appoint and so on till I return”

Rome 5:16-17 16 "I am the foundation of My church on earth as it is in heaven; even those who Peter appoints will succeed and your name will be greater than Mine on earth, 16 because I have appointed you as the leader of the other apostles, and the head of my church on earth; feed my sheep.

If the Bible stated something in these terms, the we would say their is a distinct succession and Peter was made the foundation and Jesus would also be the foundation.

However none of this is in Scripture, the Primacy of Peter, is a false theology IMO and knowledge of Scripture. We can however agree Peter lead the apostles; at least until Paul came around, then has to rebuke Peter for His hypocrisy, but Peter fades away shortly after that from the pages of Scripture.**

He you have
Now the Church is the light of the world! Yet, like Luther, it is this *very Church *which you reject! But perhaps you should consider the following words of Luther himself. These comments were made before his break with the Apostolic See, a See which, btw, the apostle praised (Romans 1:8):

“Heretici autem propriissime velle malum Ecclesie…"
Now you have imposed your interpretation onto Scripture; where does Scripture state the Church is the light of the world? You are correct I reject the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrines; particular on the issue of salvation and the real presence. But this will be corrected in God’s time. As far as Luther is concerned; i do not follow him; he cannot same a sould anymore than the Pope can save a soul; I follow the Lord.
Martin Luther, Dictata in Psalterium or Dictata Super Psalterium (1513-1515). Weimar, III, p. 445.

D. Martin Luthers Werke: kritische Gesamtausgabe, Band 3, Weimar, Herman Bohlau, 1883.
books.google.com/books?id=kS4BAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA445&dq=%22propriissime+velle+malum+Ecclesie%22&lr=&as_brr=0#v=onepage&q=%22propriissime%20velle%20malum%20Ecclesie%22&f=false

Luther and Lutherdom: From Original Sources, 1917, (reprint 2009, Cornell University Library), Heinrich Denifle, ISBN 1112168176 ISBN 9781112168178, vol. 1, Introduction, p. 15,

Introduction:
scribd.com/doc/16071007/Luther-and-Lutherdom-H-Denifle-Introduction-pp-128

Contents:
scribd.com/doc/15808674/Luther-and-Lutherdom-H-Denifle-Contents

Amazon:
amazon.com/gp/product/1112168176/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1/182-0972326-8940021?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_r=0FHSVM2DQP4CJX7KJJJ3&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=304485901&pf_rd_i=B0008A6Q7S

 

[Tanner9188]

How do you equate the prime minister with Jesus and the King of Israel with Jesus? Is Jesus handing himself the keys to the Kingdom? This makes no sense and furthermore the keys signify the authority to loose and bind as was given to Peter and Peter alone just like the prime minister was given the keys to the Davidic kingdom by the King of Israel. There cannot be more than one PRIME minister. Moreover no one is usurping Christ’s authority as he is always head of the universal church however that he should delegate his authority (to interpret scripture correctly) to some is his perogative. I being led to the truth by the Holy Spirit will listen to the apostles for as Jesus said “those who listen to you listen to me.” I read scripture like the Bereans did.

**
You need to follow the meaning of the names as you did once before, then the picture should unfold.
Should be obvious anyway; but when the interpreters you parrot have an agenda; they are forced to impose onto Scripture. The whole Catholic system hangs on 2-3 individual versus in the Scripture, which is sad and misleading IMO.

I don’t know how you can not be struck when almost exact language used in Isaiah 22 with that of Rev. 3:7., but what further can I say?**

 

[josie_L]

First; if you look at those two passages in their context; Jesus is the Light of the world and if you included the rest of the passage which is "he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life (WHICH IS JESUS). Therefore bring in Matthew 5:14 and those who possess Jesus are the light of the world; not on their account, on His account. Without Him; you have no light nor understanding of Scripture…

Second; the analogy to be effective would have to have Scripture say something along these lines.

Catholic 1:1-2 1 Then Jesus gathered His disciples and said to Peter; “these men are to follow you, after I ascend to heaven to be with My Father as I have already told you. 2 You will be the head and foundation of My church on earth and those who succeed after you to which you appoint, then who they appoint and so on till I return”

Rome 5:16-17 16 "I am the foundation of My church on earth as it is in heaven; even those who Peter appoints will succeed and your name will be greater than Mine on earth, 16 because I have appointed you as the leader of the other apostles, and the head of my church on earth; feed my sheep.

If the Bible stated something in these terms, the we would say their is a distinct succession and Peter was made the foundation and Jesus would also be the foundation.

However none of this is in Scripture, the Primacy of Peter, is a false theology IMO and knowledge of Scripture. We can however agree Peter lead the apostles; at least until Paul came around, then has to rebuke Peter for His hypocrisy, but Peter fades away shortly after that from the pages of Scripture.

Peter doesn’t lose primacy amongst the apostles even when Paul comes onto the scene as the keys were given to Peter and Peter alone, however, if Peter is missing in action it is more than likely because he is in Rome building the Church.

Irenaeus

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. … ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church” (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and b.asphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).

Jerome

“[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome” (Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).

“Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says ‘With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,’ the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle” (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396]).

“Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact” (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]).

“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (ibid., 15:2).

catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp

 

[Tanner9188]

Peter doesn’t lose primacy amongst the apostles even when Paul comes onto the scene as the keys were given to Peter and Peter alone, however, if Peter is missing in action it is more than likely because he is in Rome building the Church.

Why do you think the word is plural? “KEYS” ; therefore the indefinite pronoun “you” is also plural, which means the “keys” were given to Jesus audience, which were all of the apostles. Then we put in Matthew 18, which is the same effect but with a broader audience to which Jesus addresses; therefore it applies to anyone that the Holy Spirit blesses with the ability to articulate and present the gospel. I saved that “little” point for last; but the “little” point should not leave any doubts because there is only “one key” that locks and unlocks the gateway to heaven and the authority is in the message, NOT the messenger as some expose falsely.

Irenaeus

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. … ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [Catherina], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church” (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and b.asphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).

Jerome

“[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome” (Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).

“Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says ‘With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,’ the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle” (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396]).

“Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact” (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]).

“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (ibid., 15:2).

catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp

**You are taking the ECF’s out of context as well as they are defending against certain heresies that crept in as the Bible said they would. At that time the EFC’s are showing a line of people that were assigned the leadership role as overseer; whereas others were making similar claims and preaching a different gospel; for all these men were defending the Scripture as it was given by, written word and/or orally. It is the same with understanding Scripture, you must take account of the whole; not just pick pieces out here and there and make it mean something it does not. This is what the talk show and news folks do everyday is take “sound bites” and often taking them out of context; this is exactly what you are doing.

I apologize to you for badgering a little too much with the “lazy” rhetoric.

God bless and have a really nice weekend

Tanner**

 

[Tanner9188]

**To ALL:

I think it’s time to allow Luther to rest in peace; IMO.

I don’t have anything else to add except I look forward to meeting Luther in heaven.

God Bless; I will check later for any response and finish up here and look forward to seeing you around; Lord willing.

Tanner**

 

[Bill_Pick]

**To ALL:

I think it’s time to allow Luther to rest in peace; IMO.

I don’t have anything else to add except I look forward to meeting Luther in heaven.

God Bless; I will check later for any response and finish up here and look forward to seeing you around; Lord willing.

Tanner**

Tanner, You are not leaving CA or you, We can,t live with out You please say you are not leaving.

 

[Contarini]

Hi Josie,
Actually, I’m not sure about that either. Certainly his position of the relationship between scripture and tradition was not formed from whole cloth, and most of the development came after his excommunication, so he wasn’t under Rome’s authority anyway.

Actually, Luther claimed in a letter to his former professor Trutvetter that he was following what Trutvetter had taught him in upholding the supreme authority of Scripture. I myself think that “sola scriptura” is very different from sola fide and is a term that should be retired. What the Reformers were doing, by and large, was upholding what the Church had traditionally taught about Scripture while rejecting traditional ideas about the authority of the visible, hierarchical Church. In other words, while “sola fide” involves some dramatically new ideas about the nature and function of faith, “sola scriptura” is simply what happens when you maintain the authority of Scripture while questioning everything else. Luther didn’t “question everything else” out of some preconceived doctrine of “sola scriptura”–he questioned Papacy, Councils, scholastic theological traditions, even to some extent the Church Fathers, because he became convinced that they had all to some degree gotten the doctrine of salvation wrong.

That being said, Heiko Oberman (Mathison’s main source–I encourage people to read Oberman himself instead of Mathison) distinguishes usefully between two strands of patristic and medieval thought about tradition. One of them (Oberman calls it “Tradition I”) sees tradition primarily as interpretation of Scripture. This is probably what Luther meant when he said that Trutvetter had taught him to rely on the authority of Scripture. The other (which Oberman calls “Tradition II”) sees tradition as a parallel stream of authority running beside Scripture. Oberman probably makes these two seem more clearly distinct than they really were, but the distinction is helpful if used with caution. That being said, then, we can say that Luther took “Tradition I” and combined it with an increasingly radical suspicion of the traditional authorities’ ability to interpret Scripture (mostly, in Luther’s case, on the grounds that they had gotten the doctrine of justification by faith wrong). Many of the theologians and canon lawyers of the papal court assumed “Tradition II” as a matter of course. That’s one reason why the two sides tended to talk past each other. The Reformers were genuinely horrified by what they saw as the “Papists’” cynical disregard for the authority of Scripture. They knew that they were challenging traditional ideas when they questioned the authority of the hierarchy, but they started from the assumption that the hierarchy rested its authority on Scripture and thus could be challenged if Scripture could be shown not to support the hierarchy.

There’s a lot more that could be said here, but I’ll leave it for now!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

First; Isaiah 22 cannot be taken as Peter since the whole of the OT points to the person of Christ as the Messiah; even a casual reading would render that interpretation, which is proof of the intention to distort the Scripture to usurp the authority given to Christ IMO.

First of all, a casual reading of the OT without pre-existing Christian teaching would not point anyone to Christ.

And in the second place, you are setting up a questionable dichotomy between Christ and His Apostles. Granted that, as we both believe, the Old Testament points to Christ, that is no reason to deny that the Old Testament might also point to the way Christ’s Church is to be structured. There’s no “usurping of Christ’s authority” going on here. You might as well say that interpreting the Old Testament in its historical sense (as speaking about ancient Israel) is usurping Christ’s authority–which would be absurd.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Unfortunately; pictures are worth thousands of words.

For propaganda purposes, sure. But I assume that you are interested in truth and not propaganda.

** Plus my Father-in-law lived through the massacre of Eastern Orthodox Serbians and Jews; as Catholic Bishops and layity (plural) participated side by side with weapons and oversight.**

What first-hand knowledge does your father-in-law have of the Vatican? That is what we are debating. I’m not questioning the horror of what happened in Croatia or the participation of local Catholics in that horror. Nor am I denying that the Vatican was culpable for not acting more decisively to condemn the atrocities. But there is absolutely *no *evidence of which I’m aware showing that the Vatican *approved *of the atrocities.

No matter how horrific the events in Croatia were, that doesn’t give you the right to say what is not true.

**

Why do you think the pope apologized, well kind-of, blamed the people like yourself, the layity in order to protect the magisterium.

**He blamed Anglican laity? (If you can’t be bothered to get my church affiliation right even when I proclaim it in every post, that’s your fault.)

The Pope rightly said that Catholics (he did not say just “laity”–again, the righteousness of your cause does not justify your disregard for the truth) participated in atrocities, and he rightly (in this case–I think that his language is more problematic when it comes to such things as the Inquisition) refrained from saying that the Catholic Church had ever officially sanctioned these actions, because it didn’t. There is every reason to belive that Pope Pius deplored and abhorred both what the Nazis did to the Jews and what the Croatians did to the Serbs. The problem is that, especially in the latter case, he was reluctant to condemn the Croatian Catholic regime outright. He was indeed culpable for this. But there is a difference between failure to act decisively enough and actually approving evil.

** It is the history of the Church and one of many reasons for the God-driven reformation IMO.**

What does the Reformation have to do with it? How did the Reformation, with its relentless harping on Romans 13 and the authority of secular rulers, help Christians speak out against oppression and tyranny? At least in the case of the Lutherans and the “Erastian” wing of the Reformed tradition (including Anglicans), it had decidedly the opposite effect. The heirs of the Reformation did not do any better than the Catholics in terms of resisting fascism–one could make a case that they did worse on the whole (of course there were lots of exceptions on both sides).

The “Genevan” wing of the Reformed tradition has done much better in terms of resisting secular tyranny. But it has a disturbing record in terms of waging holy wars in its own right, and in North America it can perhaps be blamed to some extent for the genocide of the native populations (since the Puritans tended to see them as children of Satan).

The only Christians who don’t have blood on their hands are those who have never had anything to do with the state at all. (And I really mean “never had anything to do”–never voted or served in a war, for instance.)

**

actions speak louder than words, or lack of action in this case and others.

**

I hope you are not endorsing the vicious error that failure to prevent evil is equally culpable with the commission of evil. (See Peter Singer if you want an example of how morally perverse this position is. I know that this is “guilt by association,” but I honestly think that Singer’s position follows logically from the premise that inaction is equal to action. It would follow, for instance, that my failure to do enough to feed starving children in Africa or to abandon my family to put my life on the line between the Sudanese militia in Darfur and their victims is just as culpable as the actions of the militia in killing and causing famine. I don’t think it’s purely self-serving of me to say that this is both illogical and morally paralyzing.)Again, I’m not denying that lack of action is culpable, and that the Pope’s failure to act decisively in Croatia was particularly culpable given that the atrocities were being carried out explicitly in the name of Catholicism.

Edwin

 

[Tanner9188]

Tanner, You are not leaving CA or you, We can,t live with out You please say you are not leaving.

**Bill,

If you would like me to leave CAF permanently; then just say so, don’t sugar coat your words - speak them clearly.

You can always add me to your “do not talk to” list.

I plan to leave this specific thread since Luther discussion is taking on other avenues and there is not much more to say concerning him IMO.

God bless you Bill,

Tanner**

 

[Zundrah]

**Bill,

If you would like me to leave CAF permanently; then just say so, don’t sugar coat your words - speak them clearly.

You can always add me to your “do not talk to” list.

I plan to leave this specific thread since Luther discussion is taking on other avenues and there is not much more to say concerning him IMO.

God bless you Bill,

Tanner**

I would just advise you to leave the thread since everyone just seems to be abusing you here. I had this too.

 

[Tanner9188]

First of all, a casual reading of the OT without pre-existing Christian teaching would not point anyone to Christ.

And in the second place, you are setting up a questionable dichotomy between Christ and His Apostles. Granted that, as we both believe, the Old Testament points to Christ, that is no reason to deny that the Old Testament might also point to the way Christ’s Church is to be structured. There’s no “usurping of Christ’s authority” going on here. You might as well say that interpreting the Old Testament in its historical sense (as speaking about ancient Israel) is usurping Christ’s authority–which would be absurd.

Edwin

**And in the second place, you are setting up a questionable dichotomy between Christ and His Apostles.

How do you figure that? Where in the OT does it speak of much beyond the coming of the Messiah; specifiably about a group of men who would be trained by Jesus to preach a gospel? The only allusion to the apostles that I can bring to mind immediately is Judas Iscariot. I’m not suggesting there is no indication of the other apostles, but nothing comes to mind. Certainly Isaiah 22 in no way points to Peter. Taken in light of Isaiah 9:6-7 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
7There will be no end to the increase of His government
or of peace,
On the throne of David and over his kingdom,
To establish it and to uphold it
with justice and righteousness
From then on and forevermore
The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.

When you all mention Prime minister; I think in terms of the English rule of government as an example where the Prime minister has the government on his shoulders in much the same as our President does. I also find it interesting and informative to break the names down in Isaiah 22 and it also paints a picture of Jesus IMO.

The idea of any Primacy of an apostle, taken to the extent where there is a Pope making the claim of “Vicar of Christ” specifically reserved for the Holy Spirit; usurps the teaching of God, the position of the Holy Spirit and the value of Scripture IMO. The Holy Spirit was always refered to as the Vicar of Christ among the ECF’s. The idead of the Pope and the idea of usurping this developed over a long period time; which equates to additional special revelation, which does not exist.**

 

[Tanner9188]

I would just advise you to leave the thread since everyone just seems to be abusing you here. I had this too.

That’s okay; I have a divine teflon coating. i just don’t have more to add to the thread and we are getting off topic; so it is time to pack up and move on to other threads; I’m down to this single one anyway. I want to revisit OSAS or OLAL in reference to Hebrews 6:1-9, but this is one of the most difficult passages in Scripture for people to grasp; although the more I read and study, the more I see the simplicity in it in light of the theme of Hebrews and other examples, like Galatians 4.

 

[Zundrah]

That’s okay; I have a divine teflon coating. i just don’t have more to add to the thread and we are getting off topic; so it is time to pack up and move on to other threads; I’m down to this single one anyway. I want to revisit OSAS or OLAL in reference to Hebrews 6:1-9, but this is one of the most difficult passages in Scripture for people to grasp; although the more I read and study, the more I see the simplicity in it in light of the theme of Hebrews and other examples, like Galatians 4.

Try these threads;

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=366644

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=366648

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=357545

…and this one is just amazing!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=350456

 

[Contarini]

**

How do you figure that? Where in the OT does it speak of much beyond the coming of the Messiah; **

Well, I suppose that depends on how you interpret the various apocalyptic passages in the OT!

**specifiably about a group of men who would be trained by Jesus to preach a gospel? The only allusion to the apostles that I can bring to mind immediately is Judas Iscariot. **

This is a circular argument. You initially said that it “can’t” refer to Peter because that would be usurping Christ’s authority. Now you say that you can’t think of an example–a very different argument and illegitimate here, since we are discussing a proposed example. Unless you are arguing that there must necessarily be more than one such example. I think the general argument conservative Catholics would make is that many things about the OT structure point to the Church. I find many of their arguments in this regard questionable. I am actually not sure that the Isaiah 22 passage should be read the way they do, and if it does the context indicates that the gift of authority may not be irrevocable (of course they claim that this is a difference between OT and NT). All I’m saying here is that your “praescriptio” to rule out the possibility of their interpretation doesn’t work.

** I’m not suggesting there is no indication of the other apostles,**

In your previous post you seemed to be saying that there could not be any such thing because this would usurp Christ’s authority. That’s the argument with which I’m disagreeing.

Certainly Isaiah 22 in no way points to Peter. Taken in light of Isaiah 9:6-7

There is Biblical warrant for what Augustine (following Tychonius) would call the “head/body/members” rule–that what is said of Christ may often be applied to the Church and to individual members thereof (obviously this is not always true). An obvious example is Rev. 2:26-28. You cannot simply rule out this kind of argument as blasphemous or presumptuous.
**

When you all mention Prime minister; I think in terms of the English rule of government as an example where the Prime minister has the government on his shoulders in much the same as our President does.

**

Perhaps Catholics should use a different term for the sake of those with little historical perspective. They are of course using the term in a much more traditional sense drawn from cultures where the monarch has more actual authority and the “prime minister” or vizier simply acts on his behalf.

**

The idea of any Primacy of an apostle, taken to the extent where there is a Pope making the claim of “Vicar of Christ” specifically reserved for the Holy Spirit; usurps the teaching of God, the position of the Holy Spirit and the value of Scripture IMO. **

I agree that the term “Vicar of Christ” ought never to have been adopted. The older title was “Vicar of St. Peter.” However, the Catholic argument is that the Holy Spirit acts through the office of the Papacy in a particular way.

**

The Holy Spirit was always refered to as the Vicar of Christ among the ECF’s. The idead of the Pope and the idea of usurping this developed over a long period time; which equates to additional special revelation, which does not exist.

**

No, it is development of doctrine, which clearly does exist. That of course does not prove that this particular development was a good one.

Edwin

 

[Tanner9188]

Contarini:
For propaganda purposes, sure. But I assume that you are interested in truth and not propaganda.

What first-hand knowledge does your father-in-law have of the Vatican? That is what we are debating. I’m not questioning the horror of what happened in Croatia or the participation of local Catholics in that horror. Nor am I denying that the Vatican was culpable for not acting more decisively to condemn the atrocities. But there is absolutely *no *evidence of which I’m aware showing that the Vatican *approved *of the atrocities.

No matter how horrific the events in Croatia were, that doesn’t give you the right to say what is not true.

**

**He blamed Anglican laity? (If you can’t be bothered to get my church affiliation right even when I proclaim it in every post, that’s your fault.)

The Pope rightly said that Catholics (he did not say just “laity”–again, the righteousness of your cause does not justify your disregard for the truth) participated in atrocities, and he rightly (in this case–I think that his language is more problematic when it comes to such things as the Inquisition) refrained from saying that the Catholic Church had ever officially sanctioned these actions, because it didn’t. There is every reason to belive that Pope Pius deplored and abhorred both what the Nazis did to the Jews and what the Croatians did to the Serbs. The problem is that, especially in the latter case, he was reluctant to condemn the Croatian Catholic regime outright. He was indeed culpable for this. But there is a difference between failure to act decisively enough and actually approving evil.

What does the Reformation have to do with it? How did the Reformation, with its relentless harping on Romans 13 and the authority of secular rulers, help Christians speak out against oppression and tyranny? At least in the case of the Lutherans and the “Erastian” wing of the Reformed tradition (including Anglicans), it had decidedly the opposite effect. The heirs of the Reformation did not do any better than the Catholics in terms of resisting fascism–one could make a case that they did worse on the whole (of course there were lots of exceptions on both sides).

The “Genevan” wing of the Reformed tradition has done much better in terms of resisting secular tyranny. But it has a disturbing record in terms of waging holy wars in its own right, and in North America it can perhaps be blamed to some extent for the genocide of the native populations (since the Puritans tended to see them as children of Satan).

The only Christians who don’t have blood on their hands are those who have never had anything to do with the state at all. (And I really mean “never had anything to do”–never voted or served in a war, for instance.)

**

I hope you are not endorsing the vicious error that failure to prevent evil is equally culpable with the commission of evil. (See Peter Singer if you want an example of how morally perverse this position is. I know that this is “guilt by association,” but I honestly think that Singer’s position follows logically from the premise that inaction is equal to action. It would follow, for instance, that my failure to do enough to feed starving children in Africa or to abandon my family to put my life on the line between the Sudanese militia in Darfur and their victims is just as culpable as the actions of the militia in killing and causing famine. I don’t think it’s purely self-serving of me to say that this is both illogical and morally paralyzing.)Again, I’m not denying that lack of action is culpable, and that the Pope’s failure to act decisively in Croatia was particularly culpable given that the atrocities were being carried out explicitly in the name of Catholicism.

Edwin**
**
You are guilty of participating in the same IMO; by your denials and protecting the magesterium. You move it to the local bishop and laity level, while at the same time Catholics speak of the unity of the visible Catholic Church under the strict authoity of the Pope. If were an isolated incidence; I might agree, but this was national and international with many bishops and laity; there is no way the Vatican could lose that much control without speaking out loud and clear at the time, which did not happen.

The reason I referred to Luther and thanking God for the reformation is because to issue with the Serbs is but one of a constant and ongoing speckled history. No Vatican high official(s) are going to sanction anything of this nature in any “official” capacity in the 20th or 21st century. Time will tell.

Anyway; at this point it is mute and does not prove much, but I believe in Gods infinite wisdom he designed the churches to funtion locally specifically to keep a central religious authority from corrupting his church on a widescale; knowing the wickedness, greed and corruption of men with too much authority and power or “lording” over people; least they be lead astray in masses.**