Martin Luther

[JoeT777]

I’ll grant you that he could be as vicious as Ann Coulter at times.

That’s an interesting comment? Are we to take it that Ann Coulter is a female version our a friar friend with vapors? Or, are we to understand that Ann Coulter is the Joan of Arc for today’s conservative movement? Or, are you saying Ann Coulter has attacks of vapors? Just what is being said, I’m curious to see how this reflects on the two.

JoeT

 

[edjco]

… THAT would imply an institutionalism that is foreign to Scripture.

I suppose you meant to say that is foreign to your personal interpretation of Scripture. Can you explain why your interpretation is right and the Catholic interpretation is wrong?

Obviously, Jesus never promised The Catholic Church anything, about anything, concerning anything, for anything, at any time. He never authorized The Catholic Church anything, about anything, concerning anything, at any time.

Looks like He did so to me. Although, once again I assume you are relying on your own, fallible, personal interpretation of Scripture. Perhaps you can explain to us all exactly what Jesus was refering to when He used the word “Church”, or “church”.

You are simply imposing an institutional paradigm, and then capitolizing “church” so as to give the impression in modern English grammar that a proper name is being used, and then inserting “Catholic” so that it’s YOUR proper name. Friend, any can do the same with any denominational name, but a little honesty goes a long way - Jesus said "church.’ He never said, “The Catholic Church.” The Catholic Church says that, Jesus never did.

Perhaps you could name some of the “denominations” that were around in the first century and explain how Jesus was referring to them?

… But you are responding predictably to what I posted.

Well, of course I am. I’m responding as many Catholic apologists do. We give historical and Scriptural data and ask questions of those with an opposing view. Also quite predictibly, those questions tend to not get answered…

So, while we’re on the subject, you still did not answer the question: Which church did Jesus refer to? Which church did He say the gates of Hell would not prevail against? Which church did He command to teach and preach? Which church did He promise to be with until the end of time? To which church’s leaders did he give the power to forgive sins?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Obviously, Jesus never promised The Catholic Church anything, about anything, concerning anything, for anything, at any time. He never authorized The Catholic Church anything, about anything, concerning anything, at any time.

.

Looks like He did so to me.

I assume you are relying on your own, fallible, personal interpretation of Scripture. Perhaps you can explain to us all where Jesus so much as pronounced the word “Catholic.”

You are simply imposing an institutional paradigm, and then capitolizing “church” so as to give the impression in modern English grammar that a proper name is being used, and then inserting “Catholic” so that it’s YOUR proper name. Friend, any can do the same with any denominational name, but a little honesty goes a long way - Jesus said "church.’ He never said, “The Catholic Church.” The Catholic Church says that, Jesus never did.

.

Perhaps you could name some of the “denominations” that were around in the first century and explain how Jesus was referring to them?

There’s no evidence that there were ANY, including The Catholic Church.

It is not possible to prove a non-reality.

Which church did Jesus refer to? Which church did He say the gates of Hell would not prevail against? Which church did He command to teach and preach? Which church did He promise to be with until the end of time? To which church’s leaders did he give the power to forgive sins?

Well, using YOUR rubric, I can just capitolize the word “church” and insert the proper name and legal moniker of anything - and presto, pow - Jesus said it! So, let’s give it a try. “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.” Now, you’ll reply that actually, Jesus simply said “church” and said NOTHING about The Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints, and you’d be right. But I doubt that recognition would achieve anything, You seem to think what is absurd is also infallible.

He said “church.” That’s it. That’s all. He didn’t so much as even MENTION The Catholic Church anymore than He so much as even mentioned The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod or The United Reformed Church USA. I know that, you know that, all literate persons knows that.

IMHO, Jesus did not promise ANY denomination ANY of those things - yours, mine or any other. I believe He promised those things to BELIEVERS, CHRISTIANS - and every single one of them was a PERSON, thus I think the promises were made to PEOPLE, to CHRISTIANS, not to any institutional, geopolitical/legal, organizational/structural, intercongregational body or entity. Legally recognized by any moniker.

YOU made the statement that Jesus promised THE CATHOLIC CHURCH all these remarkable things, and yet you have yet to indicates that He so much as uttered those words - for anything, about anything, concerning anything, in any sense or context, in regard to any matter whatsoever. Oh, you claim to have infallible and exclusive authority to interpret Scripture but evidently, this goes for not only Scripture but for invisible, nonexisted “word” not in Scripture. And you are unaccountable for such.

.

 

[Vincent_L]

Can you please cite a credible historic resource that says Luther “ran away” from the Catholic Church because the way I understand it is he tried to reform the Catholic Church from the inside until he was excommunicated.

Luthers “reforms” that lead to Worms are mindblowing even to protestants when they actually see what he proposed. Here are just a few :

 

[JoeT777]

Can you please cite a credible historic resource that says Luther “ran away” from the Catholic Church because the way I understand it is he tried to reform the Catholic Church from the inside until he was excommunicated.

I’ll go a step beyond Vincent L and suggest that from the onset Luther’s goal was to destroy the Church. There was no attempt at ‘reform’ or ‘correction.’ From a gloss we can see schism early in Luther’s career. His main goal was to tear down what Christ had built up. Considering himself a great prophet on the order of Moses; not doubt aligned with the great deceiver, openly declared his desire to disrupt the Mass:

If I succeed in doing away with the Mass, then I shall believe I have completely conquered the Pope. On the Mass, as on a rock, the whole of the Papacy is based, with its monasteries, bishoprics, colleges, altars, services and doctrines. … If the sacrilegious and cursed custom of Mass is overthrown, then the whole must fall. Through me Christ has begun to reveal the abomination standing in the Holy Place (Dan. ix. 27), and to destroy him [the Papal Antichrist] who has taken up his seat there with the devils help, with false miracles and deceiving signs. (Grisar, Luther, Vol. II, pg 320 seqq., London Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., LTD., Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, E.G., 1913)

His scheming was hidden from the faithful. It was difficult sometimes to recognize the differences in outward appearance. Yet, at Luther’s direction the liturgy of the Mass was incrementally and imperceptibly altered, like the boiled frog with the heat slowly increased, the faithful didn’t know they were embroiled in schism until they were poached. Later Luther was to brag,

“Thank God, in indifferent matters our churches are so arranged that a layman, whether Italian or Spaniard, unable to understand our preaching, seeing our Mass, choir, organs, bells, chantries, etc., would surely say that it was a regular papist church, and that there was no difference, or very little, between it and his own.” (Grisar, Luther, Vol. II, pg 322, London Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., LTD., Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, E.G., 1913)

Luther has a big credibility gap with me, especially when I’m told that such is “God’s word,” and “here I stand, here I take my seat, here I stay, here I triumph and laugh to scorn all Papists. “

JoeT

 

[edjco]

Vincent, don’t forget this one:

***“You also tell me that the Papists are causing a great fuss because St. Paul’s text does not contain the word sola (alone), and that my changing of the words of God is not to be tolerated.
If your Papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word “alone” (sola), say this to him: “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so and he says that a papist and an *** are the same thing.” Sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas. (I will it, I command it; my will is reason enough) For we are not going to become students and followers of the papists. Rather we will become their judge and master.”

---

That’s how he explained his change to Scripture.

Now, where was I? Oh, yeah. Josiah. You use a lot of fancy words like “rubric”, “moniker”, and “paradigm”. Cool. The problem is, where I come from we call that “style without substance”.

.
I assume you are relying on your own, fallible, personal interpretation of Scripture.

No, I never rely on my personal interpretation of Scripture, which is, absolutely and certainly, fallible. I don’t do that because Scripture tells me not to. Do I need to cite the passage for you? Instead, I rely on the guide to Scripture, founded by Christ which brought you the very Scripture you so feebly attempt to interpret. The Catholic Church (guided by the Holy Spirit) gave you the Bible. Even your own Biblical scholars agree on that one. Don’t make me quote Martin Luther himself…

There’s no evidence that there were ANY, including The Catholic Church.

In that case, you are more historically challenged than I previously thought. We know (and have historical evidence) that the one, true Church established by Christ existed, and in fact had the name “Catholic Church” as early as 107 A.D:

*“The term “Catholic” was applied to the Church at the beginning of the second century by Ignatius, the third bishop of Antioch. During the reign of Emperor Trajan (98-117) Ignatius was taken to Rome to be executed. The exact year of the journey is uncertain, but most scholars estimate it was around 107 or 110. On the way to his death, Ignatius wrote letters to churches he was passing by or through. In his letter to the church of Smyrna, he wrote:

“Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”[Epistle to the Smyrneans 8:2.]. This is the first recorded use of the phrase “Catholic Church,” but its usage almost certainly precedes Ignatius’s letter. He assumed his readers would be familiar with the term, and he uses it in an off-handed manner, suggesting he was not coining a new term, but picking up one already in use.”*

That’s from Catholic Answers.

Well, using YOUR rubric, I can just capitolize the word “church” and insert the proper name and legal moniker of anything - and presto, pow - Jesus said it! So, let’s give it a try. “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.” Now, you’ll reply that actually, Jesus simply said “church” and said NOTHING about The Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints, and you’d be right. But I doubt that recognition would achieve anything, You seem to think what is absurd is also infallible.

Actually, if it were me, I would “capitalize” it, but I don’t use fancy words like “rubric”, so what do I know?
Now, to answer what appears to be your argument:
The LDS church was founded in 1830 by Joseph Smith.
The Lutheran church was founded in 1517 by Martin Luther.
Both pretty old, but neither was around in the first century…
Oh, and by the way, Jesus never said “Trinity” or “Bible” either, but you believe in those, don’t you?

You seem to think what is absurd is also infallible.

Yeah, sometimes. I think some guy walking on water is absurd. I think some guy curing the sick and raising the dead is absurd. I think some guy saying he is the bread that came down from Heaven and that we will not have life unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood is absurd.

I also think all of the above statements are infallible. I also believe every single one of them.

IMHO, Jesus did not promise ANY denomination ANY of those things - yours, mine or any other.

Your statement is exactly as you said:

1. humble,
2. YOUR opinion.

IMHO, Jesus did not promise ANY denomination ANY of those things - yours, mine or any other. I believe He promised those things to BELIEVERS, CHRISTIANS - and every single one of them was a PERSON, thus I think the promises were made to PEOPLE, to CHRISTIANS, not to any institutional, geopolitical/legal, organizational/structural, intercongregational body or entity. Legally recognized by any moniker.

Gotcha. Jesus really meant “people” when He said “church”. If I get to Heaven, I’ll correct Him on that for ya.

continued…

 

[edjco]

Continued:

YOU made the statement that Jesus promised THE CATHOLIC CHURCH all these remarkable things, and yet you have yet to indicates that He so much as uttered those words - for anything, about anything, concerning anything, in any sense or context, in regard to any matter whatsoever. Oh, you claim to have infallible and exclusive authority to interpret Scripture but evidently, this goes for not only Scripture but for invisible, nonexisted “word” not in Scripture. And you are unaccountable for such.

I assume you mean “nonexistent”. Anyway, no, as I said before, I don’t have any authority to interpret Scripture, because Scripture says so. Methinks you are putting words in my mouth.
Now, just so you remember, there WAS a guy who used an "invisible, nonexisted ‘word’ in Scripture. His name was Martin Luther.

And yep, Jesus did promise all of these things and more to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church which He established. If you want to go at them one by one, I would suggest you start another thread on each. But, let me warn you, bring your lunch…

 

[AmericanJosiah]

No, I never rely on my personal interpretation of Scripture, which is, absolutely and certainly, fallible. I don’t do that because Scripture tells me not to. Do I need to cite the passage for you?

Please do. And then show me where it states that there is one (and only one) exception to that: The Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church relies on the singular interpretation of what?

It seems you have a “problem” with self alone declaring the individual interpretation of self exclusively is infallible. Friend, your problem is not with Martin Luther, it’s with The Catholic Church (CCC # 85, 87, etc.). There’s only ONE that disagrees with what you posted, and that one is The Catholic Church.

In that case, you are more historically challenged than I previously thought. We know (and have historical evidence) that the one, true Church established by Christ existed, and in fact had the name “Catholic Church” as early as 107 A.D:

*“The term “Catholic” was applied to the Church at the beginning of the second century by Ignatius, the third bishop of Antioch. During the reign of Emperor Trajan (98-117) Ignatius was taken to Rome to be executed. The exact year of the journey is uncertain, but most scholars estimate it was around 107 or 110. On the way to his death, Ignatius wrote letters to churches he was passing by or through. In his letter to the church of Smyrna, he wrote:

“Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”[Epistle to the Smyrneans 8:2.]. This is the first recorded use of the phrase “Catholic Church,” but its usage almost certainly precedes Ignatius’s letter. He assumed his readers would be familiar with the term, and he uses it in an off-handed manner, suggesting he was not coining a new term, but picking up one already in use.”*

That’s from Catholic Answers.

Sad. It’s a purposeful trick using modern English grammar. In English, we are to use lower case letters when using an adjective. Capitol letters are to used with the first letter of a sentence or for a proper noun. The translator here simply violated English grammar in the hope of misleading the reader. The term “catholic” was (and is) a popular and widely used adjective meaning “universal” “of the whole” “general” “all-embracing.” The church - these men correctly stated - is catholic. Just as non-catholics affirm, the church is one and holy and catholic, for it is the communion of saints, the mystical union of all believers. Remove the errant and purposely misleading capitol letters, and what they wrote becomes very clear. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a denomination that would turn that adjective into an proper noun and moniker for itself (any more than another common adjective of the day, “orthodox”). You seem to want everything very simple, so let me use an illustration. Let’s say that 200 years from now, Toyota introduces a new sports car with the moniker, “Awesome.” It would be absurd for it to then argue that Brad Pitt owned an Awesome simply because he referred to his car as “awesome.” When apologists have to resort to abusing grammar to try to support their claim, that’s truly sad.

And of course, none of that has to do with The Catholic Church being infallible and thus unaccountable and exempt from norming. God made Adam and Eve, too. THAT we actually know! Were they infallible? Did God regard them as unaccountable? EVEN if it’s true that The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus (and obviously, you have absolutely nothing whatsoever to confirm that), that is totally unrelated to whether that denomination is thereby infallible and unaccountable.

.

 

[Contarini]

Sad. It’s a purposeful trick using modern English grammar. In English, we are to use lower case letters when using an adjective. Capitol letters are to used with the first letter of a sentence or for a proper noun. The translator here simply violated English grammar in the hope of misleading the reader. The term “catholic” was (and is) a popular and widely used adjective meaning “universal” “of the whole” “general” “all-embracing.”

No, that’s very clearly not how Ignatius is using it. The passage makes absolutely no sense in context if you force that meaning onto it. He’s distinguishing between the “Catholic Church” and other groups that claim to be Christian. He’s insisting on loyalty (in the local context) to a particular church leader as a criterion for membership in this Catholic Church.

It is the vague “universal” meaning that is a later development. All the instances of the use of “Catholic Church” in the early centuries that I can think of are designed to contrast the Catholic Church with some other Christian (or quasi-Christian) body. The phrase has always pointed out one particular embodiment of the Christian tradition.

And of course, none of that has to do with The Catholic Church being infallible and thus unaccountable and exempt from norming

I wouldn’t say that there is no connection, but I agree that you can’t just leap from one to the other.

Nor, in my opinion, does “infallible” have to mean “unaccountable.” Unfortunately, in some Roman Catholic versions, it does.

Edwin

 

[edjco]

Well, Josiah, that’s the third post where you failed to answer the questions I asked. I suppose you don’t have an answer.

Please do. And then show me where it states that there is one (and only one) exception to that: The Catholic Church.

2 Peter 1:20

Now, to answer your second statement, please read 1 John 4:6. How do you know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit? The Bible tells us we know truth from deceit by listening to “us”. Who is the “us” spoken of here? The leaders of the Church!

Next, check out 1 Timothy 3:15. What does the Bible say is the “pillar and foundation of truth”? Is it the Bible? No, it is the Church.

So the Bible tells us that Scripture is not open to private interpretation, that if we want to know truth from deceit, we should listen to the leaders of the Church; and that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Well, then, (as I asked before and you chose not to answer) which Church?

Now I will assume that you will predictibly claim that “the church” spoken of here is all Christian churches which share an invisible bond. If you do so, please explain to us all how the church, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and which we can look to to determine the spirit of truth and the spirit of error, can be some conglomeration of churches which cannot agree on doctrine? How can the entirety of Christian churches be the pillar and foundation of truth when they cannot agree on what is truth?

Betcha don’t answer that one either…

Here’s a quote from Martin Luther which may help illustrate the point:

** “How great, therefore, the wickedness of [fallen] human nature is! How many girls there are who prevent conception and kill and expel tender fetuses, although procreation is the work of God! Indeed, some spouses who marry and live together…have various ends in mind, but rarely children.” Martin Luther. **

Now up until the last century, the Lutheran Church (and all other Protestant churches) believed that contraception was a grave sin. They don’t anymore. The Catholic Church has always held that contraception is a mortal sin.

So, which is it? Can you explain why all of these churches (except for the Catholic Church) changed their teaching on a matter of faith and morals? How can they be the “pillar and foundation of truth” if something is a grave sin one minute and not the next? Does morality change with popular opinion?

The Catholic Church relies on the singular interpretation of what?

I have no idea what that question means.

It seems you have a “problem” with self alone declaring the individual interpretation of self exclusively is infallible.

I’m not even sure that is a sentence, much less what it means.

Friend, your problem is not with Martin Luther, it’s with The Catholic Church (CCC # 85, 87, etc.).

Umm, I’m agreeing with the Magisterium of the Church. You are the one opposing it. Do you proof what you write?

The term “catholic” was (and is) a popular and widely used adjective meaning “universal” “of the whole” “general” “all-embracing.” The church - these men correctly stated - is catholic. Just as non-catholics affirm, the church is one and holy and catholic, for it is the communion of saints, the mystical union of all believers.

Let me make this a bit easier for you. Was the Lutheran church around when Ignatius wrote that (about 97 AD)?

When apologists have to resort to abusing grammar to try to support their claim, that’s truly sad.

Yes, and when apologists cannot use proper grammar and then attempt to interpret Scripture based on grammatical rules, that’s downright scary…

EVEN if it’s true that The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus (and obviously, you have absolutely nothing whatsoever to confirm that), that is totally unrelated to whether that denomination is thereby infallible and unaccountable.

Ok, so according to the infallible interpretation of Scripture in the Church of Josiah, Jesus established a church. Now even though we know historically that the Catholic Church was the only one around then, it can’t be the Catholic Church because…well, just because.

 

[Drawmack]

I think that the problem is that Luther tried to reform the wrong things. Sure, he tried to reform the actions of the corrupt priests and bishops at first, but he ended up going against the Church’s doctrines as well. That is when he ceased to be Catholic.

These statements have nothing to do with the direct challenges that I made to the person whose post I was responding to.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

,

No, I never rely on my personal interpretation of Scripture, which is, absolutely and certainly, fallible. I don’t do that because Scripture tells me not to. Do I need to cite the passage for you?

Please do. And then show me where it states that there is one (and only one) exception to that: The Catholic Church.

.

please read 1 John 4:6.

Okay. I did. It never says that there is one exception: The Catholic Church. Let’s do what you choose not to do, actually read the words of the text, what John actually penned:

"We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error."

Okay, you state that interpretations are always potentially errant and are always accountable. But you you insist there is one and only one exception, whatever The Catholic Church says something means. According to you, the above verse states that. Well, we all now realize why you gave the reference but didn’t quote the verse. This verse says absolutely nothing whatsoever about The Catholic Church (hello… it’s not even MENTIONED), it says nothing about infallability/unaccountability in interpreting.

Next, check out 1 Timothy 3:15. What does the Bible say is the “pillar and foundation of truth”? Is it the Bible? No, it is the Church.

Again, if you quoted the verse and not just reference it, all would see that it also doesn’t so much as even MENTION The Catholic Church or infalliblity or unaccountability or docility. Yes, it says the church is the pillar and foundation of truth since Christians are to uphold the truth, but what on earth does that remotely have to do with The Catholic Church being infallible/unaccountable, and while the itnerpretation of ALL is potentially errrant and thus accountable, there is one exclusive and remarkable and total exception to the rule: The Catholic Church? Friend, this verse says NOTHING of the sort. And any literate person knows that. There needs to be some fundamental honesty here if we are to make any progress…

So the Bible tells us that Scripture is not open to private interpretation

I agree. Self should not appoint self as the sole interpreter - esepcially not the infallible one! But, friend, your problem is not with Martin Luther: he entirely agreed with you. Your problem is exclusively with The Catholic Church. Read your Catechism # 85: What does The Catholic Church appoint as the sole authoritative interpreter? And read # 87 (for starters), does it regard such as accountable? You’re point is EXCELLENT, you just are aiming your point at the entirely wrong teacher. Read what The Catholic Church alone insists is the sole authoritative interpreter (# 85). Read who alone which interpretation it insists be unaccountable (# 87). You won’t find ANYTHING of the sort in the Lutheran Catechism or Westminister Confession or Thirty-Nine Articles or any major Protestant document. The ONLY place you will find this is in very old LDS statements (it abandoned that over a century ago) and of course in all the cults, but we’re talking about Christians groups here not the cults.

The Catholic Church relies on the singular interpretation of what?

.

I have no idea what that question means.

Read your Catechism # 85, for starters. It’s ITSELF. Exactly as you are rebuking.

It seems you have a “problem” with self alone declaring the individual interpretation of self exclusively is infallible.

.

.
I’m not even what it means.

You seem to be rebuking self appointing self as the sole authoritative interpreter, and self designating self to be infallible/unaccountable. We agree on that. What seems strange to me is that Martin Luther, whom you are denouncing, wholeheartedly agreed with your point. There’s ONE - and only one not counting the cults - that disagrees with you. It’s The Catholic Church. It designates one exclusively and solely as the authoritative (and infallible/unaccountable) interpreter: itself. Your issue is only with one, and it happens to be your denomination.

Thank you.

Pax

-Josiah

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The Catholic Church relies on the singular interpretation of what?

I have no idea what that question means.

Read your Catechism # 85, for starters. It’s ITSELF. Exactly as you are rebuking.

It seems you have a “problem” with self alone declaring the individual interpretation of self exclusively is infallible.

.
I’m not even what it means.

You seem to be rebuking self appointing self as the sole authoritative interpreter, and self designating self to be infallible/unaccountable. We agree on that. What seems strange to me is that Martin Luther, whom you are denouncing, wholeheartedly agreed with your point. There’s ONE - and only one not counting the cults - that disagrees with you. It’s The Catholic Church. It designates one exclusively and solely as the authoritative (and infallible/unaccountable) interpreter: itself. Your issue is only with one, and it happens to be your denomination.

The term “catholic” was (and is) a popular and widely used adjective meaning “universal” “of the whole” “general” “all-embracing.” The church - these men correctly stated - is catholic. Just as non-catholics affirm, the church is one and holy and catholic, for it is the communion of saints, the mystical union of all believers.

.
Let me make this a bit easier for you. Was the Lutheran church around when Ignatius wrote that (about 97 AD)?

Nope. And theres’ zero evidence that The Catholic Church was either. Ignatius never said it was. Some irresponsible translators have used a ploy with modern English grammar - and you fell for it. Read what you quoted from me. He used the common adjective “catholic.” It didn’t become the proper name of a denomination until centuries later. Let me make it a bit easier for you. Let’s say 200 years from now, Toyota comes out with a sports car with the moniker, the proper name “Awesome.” Now, let’s say that in 2005, Brad Pitt said his car was “awesome.” Would it be correct to say that Brad Pitt owned an Awesome? You see my point, I’m sure. By the translators capitolizing the adjective that much later would also become a proper noun and moniker of a specific denomination is simply a grammatical error - but it helps to mislead. The same could be said of the adjective “orthodox” also commonly apply to the church in the second century and beyond. It IS now a part of the legal moniker of some denominations, but it would be wrong to capitolize it and insist that the Greek Orthodox Church exclusively existed every time that very commonly used adjective was used (mostly, not even by Christians!).

EVEN if it’s true that The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus (and obviously, you have absolutely nothing whatsoever to confirm that), that is totally unrelated to whether that denomination is thereby infallible and unaccountable.

,

Now even though we know historically that the Catholic Church was the only one around then, it can’t be the Catholic Church because…well, just because.

There is ZERO historical evidence of that.

.

 

[Drawmack]

Drawmack;6213509:

Can you please cite a credible historic resource that says Luther “ran away” from the Catholic Church because the way I understand it is he tried to reform the Catholic Church from the inside until he was excommunicated.

Luthers “reforms” that lead to Worms are mindblowing even to protestants when they actually see what he proposed. Here are just a few :

None of this actually speaks to what I was talking about. Could you please either respond to what I actually say or not respond to me at all instead of responding to me with unrelated information – which you don’t even bother to cite with some of those hand dandy little link things.

 

[Drawmack]

I’ll go a step beyond Vincent L and suggest that from the onset Luther’s goal was to destroy the Church. There was no attempt at ‘reform’ or ‘correction.’ From a gloss we can see schism early in Luther’s career. His main goal was to tear down what Christ had built up. Considering himself a great prophet on the order of Moses; not doubt aligned with the great deceiver, openly declared his desire to disrupt the Mass:

If I succeed in doing away with the Mass, then I shall believe I have completely conquered the Pope. On the Mass, as on a rock, the whole of the Papacy is based, with its monasteries, bishoprics, colleges, altars, services and doctrines. … If the sacrilegious and cursed custom of Mass is overthrown, then the whole must fall. Through me Christ has begun to reveal the abomination standing in the Holy Place (Dan. ix. 27), and to destroy him [the Papal Antichrist] who has taken up his seat there with the devils help, with false miracles and deceiving signs. (Grisar, Luther, Vol. II, pg 320 seqq., London Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., LTD., Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, E.G., 1913)

His scheming was hidden from the faithful. It was difficult sometimes to recognize the differences in outward appearance. Yet, at Luther’s direction the liturgy of the Mass was incrementally and imperceptibly altered, like the boiled frog with the heat slowly increased, the faithful didn’t know they were embroiled in schism until they were poached. Later Luther was to brag,

“Thank God, in indifferent matters our churches are so arranged that a layman, whether Italian or Spaniard, unable to understand our preaching, seeing our Mass, choir, organs, bells, chantries, etc., would surely say that it was a regular papist church, and that there was no difference, or very little, between it and his own.” (Grisar, Luther, Vol. II, pg 322, London Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., LTD., Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, E.G., 1913)

Luther has a big credibility gap with me, especially when I’m told that such is “God’s word,” and “here I stand, here I take my seat, here I stay, here I triumph and laugh to scorn all Papists. “

JoeT

How about quoting Luther instead of quoting those quoting Luther which can easily bend and twist the context, if you don’t believe me give me a couple days to read and quote Benedict’s latest book.

 

[Vincent_L]

None of this actually speaks to what I was talking about. Could you please either respond to what I actually say or not respond to me at all instead of responding to me with unrelated information – which you don’t even bother to cite with some of those hand dandy little link things.

Well if you don’t count all that as running away from the Church but rather trying to reform it from within I guess we will always disagree.

Peace.

 

[JoeT777]

How about quoting Luther instead of quoting those quoting Luther which can easily bend and twist the context, if you don’t believe me give me a couple days to read and quote Benedict’s latest book.

Are the quotes not valid?

Is there some Trent like ‘official’ book of Luther? I only ask because I deal with the sources I have, if I need to get an official approved version, I might look into it – will I find this official book chained to the pew?

see first quote: Werke.; Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 220 ; Opp. Lat. var; 6, p. 445.

2nd quote: Werke; Erl. ed., 55, p. 300.

JoeT

 

[Drawmack]

Are the quotes not valid?

Is there some Trent like ‘official’ book of Luther? I only ask because I deal with the sources I have, if I need to get an official approved version, I might look into it – will I find this official book chained to the pew?

see first quote: Werke.; Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 220 ; Opp. Lat. var; 6, p. 445.

2nd quote: Werke; Erl. ed., 55, p. 300.

JoeT

Sorry, was late and I didn’t check your source before I posted – is this what you’re quoting from archive.org/stream/luthergrisar02grisiala/luthergrisar02grisiala_djvu.txt ?

 

[JoeT777]

Sorry, was late and I didn’t check your source before I posted – is this what you’re quoting from archive.org/stream/luthergrisar02grisiala/luthergrisar02grisiala_djvu.txt ?

no try this:

archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Grisar%2C%20Hartmann%2C%201845-1932%22

 

[JoeT777]

Drawmack, et al:

Hatmann Grisar studied and worked at Innsbruck during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. A Jesuit Priest and professor, he wrote a six volume set on Luther, of course the Protestant world is not happy with his work saying that it’s not a ‘technical’ treatment of Luther’s life and works. Technical being an evaluation and testing of the theological propositions brought forward and proposed by Luther. What Grisar did was to make a psychological profile of Luther while at the same time critiquing Luther’s theological views from the given benchmark of Catholicism. It’s my recollection Grisar uses the word ‘psychological’ to describe his historical treatise. It’s this form of treatise that most Protestants object to inferring that it is an ad hominem attack. I think it is the only approach that is valid.

Nevertheless, this is a perfectly legitimate approach especially dealing with the disciplines of Divine truth – in fact, I would argue that it is one of the most important measures of any historical work. The questions that need to be asked are the how, the why, and the wherefores of holding any intellectual truth. Once motivationally valid, only then can the intellectual truths be moved to wisdom.

I’m not a historian or a theologian. I can’t know everything, yet there are truths that I must hold for salvation; this is irrespective of whether I call myself Catholic or Protestant. I must rely on others to measure a given objective truth in disciplines of Divine Truth. God doesn’t ask me to believe anything I’m told or he wouldn’t have given me an intellect. You might argue here that ‘THE SPIRIT’ makes the truth known – I respond what Spirit, what truth? These too must be tested. Therefore, being a ‘critical’ person I must know a 'truth’ is valid before incorporating it into wisdom and intellect. I can do this by starting with known Truths and work backwards – but not being privileged to know ‘everything’ or understanding every ‘truth’ this method wouldn’t work well, espcially with matters of Divine Truth.

Don’t worry, all is not lost, I have another method to discern truth. I can question the motives of the person making the proposition. The ‘facts’ or the technical aspects of truth may be correct but biased so poorly that they distort ‘true’ to the point of being untrue. So, to judge Luther’s ‘truth’ the very first thing I do is test his motives. And in my mind those motives were not of a Divine nature. This is exactly what Grisar does. He questions the motives and tests the motives against a fixed benchmark of theological knowledge which, to a Catholic, is only found in the Church. I have sympathy for those outside the Church for not having a rock solid foundation of objective truth – it must seem like building on quicksand, that is, faith most often sinks into the quagmire of immorality.

My conclusion using this methodology is that Luther was mad as a hatter. So, why go on to test the technical aspects for the validity of a madman’s truth – what piece of wisdom does this add to my intellect?

If there is an interest, you can get pdf’s of Grisar’s six volumes at the link I provided in my previous post.

JoeT