Martin Luther

[Stephen_C]

It has always amused me how most Catholics can separate the office of the Pope, which has the ability to teach infallably ex cathedra in certain cases, with the man who holds that office who, at some times, was quite corrupt and sinful, yet can’t conceptualize distinguishing the worthwhile insights of Martin Luther from his distasteful opinions on other issues…and Lutherans don’t even hold that Martin Luther had the ability to speak infallably ex cathedra!

Well I don’t see a problem with that. The Pope, the Bishop of Rome, successor to chair of Peter and all that goes with it…you know the “you are the rock (Peter) which I will build my Church, whatever you bind or loose on earth will be so in Heaven” thing. It might suprise you but we Catholic actually believe that silly stuff. So did Martin his have this authority to start a new Church (divide the body of Christ)? Did he have the authority change doctrine? Did he have the authority to bind and loose?

On a side note I am glad you are amused.

 

[LutheranDK]

Well I don’t see a problem with that. The Pope, the Bishop of Rome, successor to chair of Peter and all that goes with it…you know the “you are the rock (Peter) which I will build my Church, whatever you bind or loose on earth will be so in Heaven” thing. It might suprise you but we Catholic actually believe that silly stuff. So did Martin his have this authority to start a new Church (divide the body of Christ)? Did he have the authority change doctrine? Did he have the authority to bind and loose?

On a side note I am glad you are amused.

I’m sorry but your line of reasoning only applies to someone who ALSO believe what the Catholic church says about these matters, and Vatican interpretations of various parts of Scripture.
So it can’t be used as an argument in this debate…

By the way: Why do we never hear Catholics quote what Jesus tells Peter only a couple of verses after the “Thou art Peter”, which is: “Get thee behind me, satan!”

So…the Catholic church is build on satan?

 

[Stephen_C]

I’m sorry but your line of reasoning only applies to someone who ALSO believe what the Catholic church says about these matters, and Vatican interpretations of various parts of Scripture.
So it can’t be used as an argument in this debate…

By the way: Why do we never hear Catholics quote what Jesus tells Peter only a couple of verses after the “Thou art Peter”, which is: “Get thee behind me, satan!”

So…the Catholic church is build on satan?

First, I was not debating…just was a little amused that RR was amused that we Catholic believe Jesus said what he meant… So I just fleshed it out just a tad. As to satan, I don’t recall Jesus giving him the keys or telling him he is the Rock on which he is building his Church on……bind loose…etc…anyway I digress, this is a thread about Martin after all….
God Bless,
Stephen

 

[LutheranDK]

First, I was not debating…just was a little amused that RR was amused that we Catholic believe Jesus said what he meant… So I just fleshed it out just a tad. As to satan, I don’t recall Jesus giving him the keys or telling him he is the Rock on which he is building his Church on……bind loose…etc…anyway I digress, this is a thread about Martin after all….
God Bless,
Stephen

No, but Peter is called satan only a few verses after he is called the rock…if one is to be taken literal, why not the other?

GB

 

[Stephen_C]

No, but Peter is called satan only a few verses after he is called the rock…if one is to be taken literal, why not the other?

GB

As per your interpretation….since I am not a Sola Scriptura kind of guy. And since I believe the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus and the keys, and all that goes with that, was given to Peter (chair of Peter) and passed on through to this day to B16, I will defer to the teaching Authority of the Catholic Church….My guess is that Jesus’s Church was not built on Satan…. But anyway again I digress and this is a thread about Martin after all.

God Bless,
Stephen

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Thank you for that question

I think it should be clear by now that I, and the Lutheran churches of the world with me, am appalled by some of Luther’s ramblings about the Jewish people.

Luther was not infallable, he was a man, and man can err.

I do, however, believe that Luther made some essential rediscoveries of the teachings of Scripture, as I have explained earlier.
And I don’t see a problem in filtering out the ramblings of the old and bitter Luther, while accepting the truths the young monk rediscovered for the good of Christendom. Hopes this helps.

So what’s your opinion on the use of a plain wooden cup in Communion?
It expresses an idea which is not obvious nonsense, but it is based on a misunderstanding. The Grail would almost certainly have been a kiddush cup, which was the most valuable possession of an averagely well-off Jewish family.

Is the wooden cup a truth, or is it a falsehood?

 

[SPH1]

No, but Peter is called satan only a few verses after he is called the rock…if one is to be taken literal, why not the other?

GB

Your error here is in failing to see that Christ also foresaw a final conversion for Peter after the Resurrection. Luke 22:31-34 (Christ prays for Peter’s strength to never fail and once converted, strengthen brethren.)

Also, see John 21:15-19. About the last thing Christ did was to give Peter pastoral care over the Church - the whole Church. Christ ALSO foresaw Peter’s faithful service unto Peter’s death/martyrdom. Peter’s faithful service to the end was preordained by Christ Himself, a done deal.

So you cannot simply dismiss Peter by comparing him before with after the Resurrection…as all Protestants attempt to do as a means of bringing Peter down.

 

[Angainor]

Your error here is in failing to see that Christ also foresaw a final conversion for Peter after the Resurrection. Luke 22:31-34 (Christ prays for Peter’s strength to never fail and once converted, strengthen brethren.)

“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you [plural], that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you [singular] that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”
Luke 22:31-32
This is something I have wondered about. Any ideas as to when Simon did “turn again”?

I think Peter’s vision Acts 10 was an answer to Jesus’ prayer, trying to get Peter to “turn again”. So, I would place Simon’s turning again sometime after Acts 10 and before writing his first epistle (where he is shown strengthening his brothers).

 

[rr1213]

Well I don’t see a problem with that. The Pope, the Bishop of Rome, successor to chair of Peter and all that goes with it…you know the “you are the rock (Peter) which I will build my Church, whatever you bind or loose on earth will be so in Heaven” thing. It might suprise you but we Catholic actually believe that silly stuff. So did Martin his have this authority to start a new Church (divide the body of Christ)? Did he have the authority change doctrine? Did he have the authority to bind and loose?

You miss my point. Catholics seem to understand that the Pope can be a bad man, notwithstanding the position of his office. In that light, Catholics don’t take as gospel everything that the various “bad popes” have said over the years outside of dogmatic statements. However, the same Catholics often can’t make the same distinction with respect to Martin Luther. Those who follow Luther’s teachings also recognize that there was a bad side to Luther, just as there is a bad side–two natures–for all of us. Lutherans can distinguish between the two. Catholics should be able to do the same, even with respect to Luther.

 

[Stephen_C]

You miss my point. Catholics seem to understand that the Pope can be a bad man, notwithstanding the position of his office. In that light, Catholics don’t take as gospel everything that the various “bad popes” have said over the years outside of dogmatic statements. However, the same Catholics often can’t make the same distinction with respect to Martin Luther. Those who follow Luther’s teachings also recognize that there was a bad side to Luther, just as there is a bad side–two natures–for all of us. Lutherans can distinguish between the two. Catholics should be able to do the same, even with respect to Luther.

No I don’t think so…maybe you missed mine. He could have been the greatest Guy on earth. My question was by what authority did he have to change doctrine. And by the way it was this he was excommunicated for. But as I said in my earler post, don’t think that was what the OP was discussing…sorry.

 

[SPH1]

“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you [plural], that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you [singular] that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”

Luke 22:31-32
This is something I have wondered about. Any ideas as to when Simon did “turn again”?

I think Peter’s vision Acts 10 was an answer to Jesus’ prayer, trying to get Peter to “turn again”. So, I would place Simon’s turning again sometime after Acts 10 and before writing his first epistle (where he is shown strengthening his brothers).

IMO, Peter’s full conversion referenced by Christ was after the Resurrection and by the Ascension. Certainly by Pentecost with Peter’s first sermon.

 

[Philothea53]

That is easy. These are the doctrines Lutherans (modern or otherwise) embrace.

From your link above, I found: "Genuine Lutherans, confessional Lutherans, dare to insist that “All doctrines should conform to the standards [the Lutheran Confessions] set forth above. Whatever is contrary to them should be rejected and condemned as opposed to the unanimous declaration of our faith” (FC Ep. RN, 6).

Such a statement may strike some as boastful. But it is not; rather, it is an expression of the Spirit-led confidence that moves us to speak of our faith before the world. "

Wow! All the media attention that was focused on the Pope’s recent re-stating of the belief of the Catholic Church as the one, true Church and the Lutherans were saying the same thing all along. How come they didn’t get a whole bunch of attention about it? Never mind, I know.

 

[Angainor]

From your link above, I found: "Genuine Lutherans, confessional Lutherans, dare to insist that “All doctrines should conform to the standards [the Lutheran Confessions] set forth above. Whatever is contrary to them should be rejected and condemned as opposed to the unanimous declaration of our faith” (FC Ep. RN, 6).

Such a statement may strike some as boastful. But it is not; rather, it is an expression of the Spirit-led confidence that moves us to speak of our faith before the world. "

Wow! All the media attention that was focused on the Pope’s recent re-stating of the belief of the Catholic Church as the one, true Church and the Lutherans were saying the same thing all along. How come they didn’t get a whole bunch of attention about it? Never mind, I know.

If it’s any consolation, Lutherans didn’t give that much attention to the Pope’s statement. In fact, some are a little puzzled at the attention it is getting–like nobody has been paying attention these last five centuries.

This, however is my favorite response.

 

[averheyen]

Oh please… Study your Popes, especially those between the Borgia and Medici period. Even though the Catholic Church teaches that the Pope will not officially teach in error it is still subject to being ruled by corrupt men.

Men of low moral fibre!

 

[LutheranDK]

Well I don’t see a problem with that. The Pope, the Bishop of Rome, successor to chair of Peter and all that goes with it…you know the “you are the rock (Peter) which I will build my Church, whatever you bind or loose on earth will be so in Heaven” thing. It might suprise you but we Catholic actually believe that silly stuff. So did Martin his have this authority to start a new Church (divide the body of Christ)? Did he have the authority change doctrine? Did he have the authority to bind and loose?

On a side note I am glad you are amused.

Do you then also believe that Peter was satan? You know, the “get thee behind me, satan!” thing? By that logic, satan would be the “vicar of Christ”…
Or is that something entirely different, all of a sudden?

Any Christian who sees the body of Christ teaching heresies has first and foremost the obligation to stand up to it and fight it. That’s what Luther tried in the first place. Originally, he didn’t want to split the catholic church, just weed out the heresies. But when he saw that it was no use, and that nothing changed, sure, he had not only the right, but the obligation to break away, in accordance with Revalations 18:4.

And on another note - the usual catholic excuse for the power of the Pope was not even commonly accepted until after the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476. Sure, the bishops of Rome had claimed it since the 2nd century, but that doesn’t make it true. Neither does common acceptance, true, but the institution of the papacy can’t be traced back to Peter - it can be traced back to Leo I.