Luther

[Angainor]

Ambrose:

There was blame on all sides. No it wasn’t humble to shout Luther down at the Diet of Worms, but to take Sacred Scripture and edit it in the way Luther did and assume the Bible/Church was wrong for the preceding 1500 years is (was) beyond arrogant.

Don’t you see? Catholicism also edited scripture, only they did it very slowly through 1500 years of incamental changes called the “living” Magisterium. Is this not arrogant simply because they did it slowly?

Ambrose:

This was a troubled man who couldn’t say the “Our Father” without swearing and condemning the papacy. Not exactly a good foundation on which to build a Church I would submit.

It is a good thing the personality that is Martin Luther is not the foundation Protestant churches are built on. It is the ideas he articulated.

Ambrose:

And then of course the peasant wars which Luther help to bring about killed more than any Catholic inquisition in Europe at the time.

Luther was a failure when it came to diplomacy. He was a monk who spent most of his mental energy thinking about Theology. I get the feeling he never thought through the political implications of his actions and made missteps.

Ambrose:

The irony IMHO is that I would bet that if the Church of today existed in Germany in the 15th century, there never would have been a reformation.

Catholicism today would be much different if there were no protestant reformation. I shudder to think of it.

 

[Genesis315]

Lazerlike42:

Secondly, are you sure indulgences are not permitted for the dead? I thought we could do that…

We can and are encouraged to. We just can’t buy them indulgences

 

[GodBlessJoanie]

The “gates of hell shall not prevail”… that’s all we’ve gotta remember…

Blessings,
Joanie

 

[Ambrose]

Angainor:

Don’t you see? Catholicism also edited scripture, only they did it very slowly through 1500 years of incamental changes called the “living” Magisterium. Is this not arrogant simply because they did it slowly?It is a good thing the personality that is Martin Luther is not the foundation Protestant churches are built on. It is the ideas he articulated.Luther was a failure when it came to diplomacy. He was a monk who spent most of his mental energy thinking about Theology. I get the feeling he never thought through the political implications of his actions and made missteps.Catholicism today would be much different if there were no protestant reformation. I shudder to think of it.

When scripture is translated from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to the vernacular there’s bound to be some changes as there are now with all this inclusive language. I would suggest to add the word “alone” after the verse stating that you’re saved by faith was cosmic, and shook the very foundations of Chrisianity in a way that any Catholic change has not. I think we can all apologize for the actions of Luther, a few Popes, Bishops ect through the ages. As Chesterton once put it.

Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.
Gilbert K. Chesterton
And in a spirit of Christian charity, I certainly can’t agree that a Church without the reformation would or should make one shudder. A quick look at history shows that as someone else posted, God sends indivuals, St. Benedict, St Francis of Assisi as reformers to right the ship when it goes off course and it has gone off course. By the fruits you shall know and the reformation has caused division and relativism which has without doubt hurt the Body of Christ and western civilization. Not the Catholic Church would give us Heaven on earth but look at the fruits…

 

[Angainor]

Ambrose:

By the fruits you shall know and the reformation has caused division and relativism which has without doubt hurt the Body of Christ and western civilization. Not the Catholic Church would give us Heaven on earth but look at the fruits…

Catholicism was a party in the reformation crisis. I simply don’t see why Catholicism “gets out of” having any portion of the bad fruits of division and relativism atributed to it.

The way I see it, the Protestant Reformation was an inevidible fruit of the very nature and structure of Catholicism.

Also, I take issue with the impliction that Protestantism is inherently relativistic. I believe in a truth independant of myself, and independant of any other human being.

 

[Ambrose]

Angainor:

Catholicism was a party in the reformation crisis. I simply don’t see why Catholicism “gets out of” having any portion of the bad fruits of division and relativism atributed to it.

The way I see it, the Protestant Reformation was an inevidible fruit of the very nature and structure of Catholicism.

Also, I take issue with the impliction that Protestantism is inherently relativistic. I believe in a truth independant of myself, and independant of any other human being.

I agree the Church did cause most of it’s own problems by the corruption of some of it’s clerics. In that sense it was party to the reformation. But to say it was inevidible b/c of the nature of Catholicism I’d have to ask why ? Why did it take 1500 years ? What is it about the structure of the Church since Christ did establish the Church that made a break inevitable ? Was it God’s will ?

When I say Protestantism is relativistic I mean this started with the idea of indivual interpertation of the Bible, one of the main tenents of Protestantism, and has without doubt been carried over to other areas of moral life today. You believe in transcendent truth independent of another human being but another good Protestant may (and many do) believe God gave me a brain and I can decide for myself what’s true and what isn’t. Both of you would be considered good Protestants.

It’s a little like our famous cafeteria Catholics. But they should know better.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Many of the real abuses that surrounded indulgences in the early Reformation era are not dogma (e.g., attaching an indulgence to the good work of a financial contribution, which amounted to the sale of indulgences). In fact, such abuses were banned already by the Council of Trent and the reforms of the Catholic Reformation.

 

[Angainor]

Ambrose:

I agree the Church did cause most of it’s own problems by the corruption of some of it’s clerics. In that sense it was party to the reformation. But to say it was inevidible b/c of the nature of Catholicism I’d have to ask why ? Why did it take 1500 years ? What is it about the structure of the Church since Christ did establish the Church that made a break inevitable ? Was it God’s will ?

Remember, I do not think Christ’s Church and Catholicism are one in the same. It was the structure of Catholicism as it had become in that time period that made the Reformation inevidible. It became a central human authority beyond theological criticism. It is human nature to restist that. If St. Paul were alive in 1517 I think he would also go before the Diet of Worms and declare “Here I stand, I can do no other” (even if Luther didn’t actually say that, it is a good summary of his testimony).

Was it God’s will? Well, no, not exactly. I’m sure God would rather people work things out more peacefully and with mutual respect for eachother and with reliance on faith and prayer. However, when dealing with fallen humans, it is not always smooth sailing. I don’t think God willed the Church to go down the road it was going, either. Catholicism had become a daunting ideological fortress. Setting people free from it would not be easy. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, but that is not to say the sea will always be calm.

Ambrose:

When I say Protestantism is relativistic I mean this started with the idea of indivual interpertation of the Bible, one of the main tenents of Protestantism, and has without doubt been carried over to other areas of moral life today. You believe in transcendent truth independent of another human being but another good Protestant may (and many do) believe God gave me a brain and I can decide for myself what’s true and what isn’t.

And I don’t believe Catholicism can decide for itself what’s true and what isn’t. That’s just what it claims it can do, with authority.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Angainor,

Catholicism also edited scripture, only they did it very slowly through 1500 years of incamental changes called the “living” Magisterium. Is this not arrogant simply because they did it slowly?

Huh? The earliest extant manuscripts of Sacred Scripture (other than fragments) are three:

The Codex Vaticanus, a fourth century manuscript (fragment), includes all of the Catholic Canon except 1 & 2 Maccabees

The Codex Sinaiticus, another fourth century manuscript, the portions extant are: several verses from Gen., xxiii and xxiv, and from Num., v, vi, vii; I Par., ix, 27-xix, 17; Esdras, ix,9 to end; Nehemias, Esther, Tobias, Judith, Joel, Abdias, Jonas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias, Isaias, Jeremias, Lamentations, i, 1-ii, 20; I Machabees, IV Machabees (apocryphal, while the canonical II Machabees and the apocryphal III Machabees were never contained in this codex). The New Testament included the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepard of Hermas.

The Codex Alexandrinus, a 5th century manuscript the portions extant contain the Bible of the Catholic Canon. It also includes III and IV Machabees, and to the New Testament are added the Epistle of St. Clement of Rome and the homily which passed under the title of II Epistle of Clement.

The first synodal canon of Sacred Scripture in Christian history is that of the Synod of Rome, 382 AD, which decreed the 73 books of the Catholic Bible still accepted today as Sacred Scripture by Catholics (and Orthodox), but rejected by Protestants.

What “edits” have the Catholic Church made to Sacred Scripture? We still accept these manuscripts, among others, being among the earliest extant from history, to contain the Word of God. Do you have a better manuscript which shows that these are edited"? If so, would you like to tell us what it is and what proof you have that it is more authentic than these?

 

[RobNY]

Peter Carroll:

I am new at this so please forgive me if I don’t follow proper protocol.

I am 59 and was brought up Roman Catholic in the Archdiocese of Boston - Richard Cardinal Cushing.

I recently saw the new film “Luther.” I was very impressed by it.
It seems to me Luther had a legitimate gripe about the corruption he found on a visit to Rome and the “selling of indulgences.”

A Catholic Response to the Movie Luther.

This is the best and most thorough response to the movie that I have read. Read it all. Alright, Peter?

You have to realize that any movie creates an atmosphere by the ‘facts’ and angles that it presents as well, this deals with everything he thinks is inaccurate. By the end of the entire article, you should be pretty assured about your beliefs.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I don’t believe Catholicism can decide for itself what’s true and what isn’t.

Does any group of humans, in your thesis, have this authority? The authority to decide what is true and what isn’t? Or is it your contention that a group of humans once had this authority, but then it just disappeared such that the Church, “pillar and foundation of truth” no longer exists in reality?

 

[Angainor]

itsjustdave1988:

What “edits” have the Catholic Church made to Sacred Scripture?

I wasn’t speaking of “edits” quite so literally.

Let me put it this way. Some Judicial Activists on the US Supreme Court wish to change the Constitution by interpreting it in ways never intended. They believe in the concept of a “living Constitution” that grows and changes with society. They effectively “edit” the constitution by claiming it says things it clearly does not say.

I don’t believe in a “living” Constitution any more than I believe a “living” Magisterium can edit God’s Word.

 

[Ambrose]

Angainor:

Remember, I do not think Christ’s Church and Catholicism are one in the same. It was the structure of Catholicism as it had become in that time period that made the Reformation inevidible. It became a central human authority beyond theological criticism. It is human nature to restist that. If St. Paul were alive in 1517 I think he would also go before the Diet of Worms and declare “Here I stand, I can do no other” (even if Luther didn’t actually say that, it is a good summary of his testimony).

Was it God’s will? Well, no, not exactly. I’m sure God would rather people work things out more peacefully and with mutual respect for eachother and with reliance on faith and prayer. However, when dealing with fallen humans, it is not always smooth sailing. I don’t think God willed the Church to go down the road it was going, either. Catholicism had become a daunting ideological fortress. Setting people free from it would not be easy. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, but that is not to say the sea will always be calm.And I don’t believe Catholicism can decide for itself what’s true and what isn’t. That’s just what it claims it can do, with authority.

I’m afraid you and I are getting farther apart here. I think you’ve hijacked St. Paul who was very adament about staying true to Christ’s teaching and he never said the word ‘alone’ should be put into the passage after being saved by faith. He never advocated any changes to scripture that I remember. I thought as someone posted the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail against the Church. Someone let someone in it seems to sound like to you. “Ideological fortress” ?!? I obviously vehemently disagree with that. In fact what we (you) might call freedom has been in large part our undoing if you look around at society. Of course we do all this in the name of God. For example putting a someone, a parent say to death because it’s the loving thing to do.

To say Catholicism can decide for itself what is true is leaving out **THE **major aspect of the statement. That is that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, not the spirit of the world. Again I would appeal to Chesterton and point out that the Church will keep me from being a slave of the age. If thats being an ideologue, I’ll gladly give up my so called freedom, for the Faith and by the way be quite content in doing so. Look at how many people elevate their so called freedom as the source of all other values and are not happy.

I’m rambling so I’ll shut up, but I have to disagree with the premise of your post obviously.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Angainor,

Yet the Bible itself teaches …

Titus 3:1,10 "***Remind them to be under the control of the magistrate and **authorities…. After a first and second warning, break off contact ***with a heretic”

Appearantly, there does exist a living magisterium to which we are to submit to, according to St. Paul’s teaching to St. Titus.

Furthermore, according to the Letter of Hebrews (which Luther rejected as part of “his” canon of Scripture)…

Heb 13:17 - *"**Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as ******being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with ****joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.” *

Can those who are to be subject to the lawfully appointed prelates, simply reject their authority, according to Scriture?

For example, the Ebionites were an early heretical sect which rejected the teaching of the* living magisterium* that convened in Jerusalem in the first century (Acts 15). They instead clung to the observance of the Jewish Law and regarded St. Paul as an apostate, and used only a Gospel according to St. Matthew (Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2; III, xxi, 2; IV, xxxiii, 4; V, i, 3). Did the living magisterium that convened in Jerusalem in the 1st century have the authority to decree what seems “good to the Holy Ghost, and to us” in rejected the Mosaic Law which decreed circumcision as an eternal covenantal sign? Did the Ebionites sin in rejected their version of truth?

What’s so different about Luther’s rejection of certain parts of Scripture and the lawful authority of the magisterium, as compared to the Ebionites?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Angainor,

I’ll give you another example. Do you only eat kosher meats? If not, why not? Acts 15 teaches that we are to abstain “from things strangled, and from blood.” For centuries, this was Christian disciplinary norm. However, by at least St. Augustine’s day, the Church, having the power to “bind and loose” appearantly loosened this norm. Observe,

St. Augustine of Hippo:

For, allowing that the apostles did on that occasion require Christians to abstain from the blood of animals, and not to eat of things strangled, they seem to me to have consulted the time in choosing an easy observance that could not be burdensome to any one, and which the Gentiles might have in common with the Israelities, for the sake of the Corner-stone, who makes both one in Himself; while at the same time they would be reminded how the Church of all nations was prefigured by the ark of Noah, when God gave this command,–a type which began to be fulfilled in the time of the apostles by the accession of the Gentiles to the faith. But since the close of that period during which the two walls of the circumcision and the uncircumcision, although united in the Corner-stone, still retained some distinctive peculiarities, and now that the Church has become so entirely Gentile that none who are Outwardly Israelites are to be found in it, no Christian feels bound to abstain from thrushes or small birds because their blood has not been poured out, or from hares because they are killed by a stroke on the neck without shedding their blood. (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, Bk XXXII, 13)

Do you or other Protestants fell “bound to abstain from thrushes or small birds because their blood has not been poured out, or from hares because they are killed by a stroke on the neck without shedding their blood?” Or is it perhaps the teaching of both Scripture and the early Church that the Church has the power to “bind and loose?”

 

[Angainor]

me:

I don’t believe Catholicism can decide for itself what’s true and what isn’t.

itsjustdave1988:

Does any group of humans, in your thesis, have this authority? The authority to decide what is true and what isn’t?

That is the essense of relativism, is it not… deciding for yourself what’s true and what isn’t? What stinking difference does it make if it is an individual doing the deciding or an institution? No! No group of humans has ever had authority to decide for itself what’s true and what isn’t.

itsjustdave1988:

Or is it your contention that a group of humans once had this authority, but then it just disappeared such that the Church, “pillar and foundation of truth” no longer exists in reality?

The Church simply is, by its very character, a “pillar and foundation of truth”. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any group of humans or with Catholicism.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Angainor,

No group of humans has ever had authority to decide for itself what’s true and what isn’t.

No, but there exists the God-given authority to recognize ‘authoritatively’ for the faithful what is true. They don’t ‘decide for themselves’ but do decide what is true because it seems “good to the Holy Ghost, and to us.” According to Scripture we are to remember to be under the control of the magistrates (Titus 3:1). We are to “obey the prelates.” (Heb 13:17). Because it is to the lawful prelates appointed and ordained by Christ that Christ said these words, “**He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” **(Luke 10:16)

Luther simply took it upon himself to reject the Epistle of Hebrews and all that Heb 13:17 teaches, thereby disobeying his prelates, appointing himself the only prelate he need listen to on earth. Clearly, this is not the same ecclesiology shared by the author of Hebrews.

 

[Ambrose]

Angainor:

The Church simply is, by its very character, a “pillar and foundation of truth”. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any group of humans or with Catholicism.

Then why did Peter get the keys, a sign of authority ? If we are to decide what is true then as indivuals the what happens when my truth isn’t the same as your truth. A building can’t talk and this isn’t the Kwania club. If there’s no divine inspiration then what’s the big deal then who cares to be part of it.

But we know there is Divine Inspiration. God loved the world enough to send his son as a human to the world. He forgave sins, cured sick, lived his life as a human through a human nature. It only stands to reason he would give his spirit to humans to carry on his work. This is **NOT **to say the people running the thing are perfect but again to ‘decide for yourself’ what revelation is and what it means in your life has put us on the road to perdition. Just look around.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Angainor,

As for the authority to decide what is true from what is false, Protestant Bible scholarship has this to say regarding the authority given to a group of human beings who were given the “keys” and the power to “bind and loose”…

M. Eugene Boring (Disciples of Christ), commenting on the “keys of the kingdom of heaven,” “binding” and “loosing” from Matthew 16:19:"The ‘kingdom of heaven’ is represented by authoritative teaching, the promulgation of authoritative Halakha that lets heaven’s power rule in earthly things…Peter’s role as holder of the keys is fulfilled now, on earth, as chief teacher of the church…The keeper of the keys has authority within the house as administrator and teacher (cf. Isa 22:20-25, which may have influenced Matthew here). The language of binding and loosing is rabbinic terminology for authoritative teaching, for having the authority to interpret the Torah and apply it to particular cases, declaring what is permitted and what is not permitted. Jesus, who has taught with authority (7:29) and has given his authority to his disciples (10:1, 8), here gives the primary disciple [Peter] the authority to teach in his name – to make authoritative decisions pertaining to Christian life as he applies the teaching of Jesus to concrete situations in the life of the church." (Boring in The New Interpreter’s Bible [Abingdon Press, 1995], volume 8, page 346)Francis Wright Beare (Presbyterian/Reformed)

“The ‘keys’ are probably not to be understood as entrance keys, as if to suggest that Peter is authorized to admit or to refuse admission, but rather to the bundle of keys carried by the chief steward, for the opening of rooms and storechambers within the house – symbols of responsibilities to be exercised within the house of God (cf. Mt 24:45, etc.). ‘Bind’ and 'loose" are technical terms of the rabbinic vocabulary, denoting the authoritative declaration that an action or course of conduct is permitted or forbidden by the Law of Moses.” (Beare in The Gospel According to Matthew [Harper and Row, 1981], page 355-356)Eduard Schweizer (Presbyterian/Reformed)

“In Jewish interpretation, the key of David refers to the teachers of the Law (exiled in Babylon); according to Matthew 23:13, the ‘keys of the Kingdom of heaven’ are in the hands of the teachers of the Law. A contrast is here drawn between them and Peter. He is thus not the gatekeeper of heaven, but the steward of the Kingdom of heaven upon earth. His function is described in more detail as ‘binding and loosing’ …the saying must from the very outset have referred to an authority like that of the teachers of the Law. In this context, 'binding" and ‘loosing’ refer to the magisterium to declare a commandment binding or not binding…For Matthew, however, there is only one correct interpretation of the Law, that of Jesus. This is accessible to the community through the tradition of Peter…Probably we are dealing here mostly with teaching authority, and always with the understanding that God must ratify what Petrine tradition declares permitted or forbidden in the community.” (Schweizer in The Good News According to Matthew [John Knox Press, 1975], page 343)R.T. France (Anglican/Protestant Evangelical)

“The terms [binding and loosing] thus refer to a teaching function, and more specifically one of making halakhic pronouncements oral interpretation of them] which are to be ‘binding’ on the people of God. In that case Peter’s ‘power of the keys’ declared in [Matthew] 16:19 is not so much that of the doorkeeper… but that of the steward (as in Is. 22:22, generally regarded as the Old Testament background to the metaphor of keys here), whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household.” (R.T. France, as cited in Jesus, Peter, and the Keys by Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 54)Consequently, even according to Protestant scholarship, there existed a living magisterium with the authority to pronounce the interpretation of the Word of God, "binding’ on the people of God. This magisterium consisted of an “office” respresented by the symbol of the “keys” given to Peter.

Catholics agree. In fact, we believe Jesus established this kind of magisterium on purpose, and sustains this kind of magisterium in his Church today in the successor of Peter and the apostolic successors who are in communion with him, just as the early Church understood and taught.

 

[Angainor]

Ambrose:

I’ll gladly give up my so called freedom, for the Faith and by the way be quite content in doing so.

I strongly urge you, from one Christian to another, to reconsider your decision. Yes freedom can be abused, but that is no reason to reject the gift. Follow St. Paul’s adivice:
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yolk of slavery…You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love.
Galatians 5:1,13
And St. Peter’s advice:
Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God.
1 Peter 2:16

Ambrose:

I’m afraid you and I are getting farther apart here. I think you’ve hijacked St. Paul who was very adament about staying true to Christ’s teaching and he never said the word ‘alone’ should be put into the passage after being saved by faith.

I don’t claim that St. Paul would necessarily sign on to sola fida or any particuar Protestant idea. I do think Paul would stand with Luther at the Diet of Worms, defending Luther’s requests to speak his conscience. I certianly do not think St. Paul would react positively to demands that Luther shut up and recant. “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free”.

I may have my timeline wrong, but I don’t think Luther had yet added the word ‘alone’ to his translation of the bible at the time of the Diet of Worms.