Martin Luther's 82nd thesis

[EphelDuath]

He did a great job of forcing the catholic church to reform itself.

The Church also faced a reform after World War II, but nobody would say that therefore Stalin was an agent of God.

 

[VARC]

The Church also faced a reform after World War II, but nobody would say that therefore Stalin was an agent of God.

Equating Luther with Stalin. Stay classy buddy.

 

[EphelDuath]

Equating Luther with Stalin. Stay classy buddy.

Actually, I was not. I was merely pointing out the logical fallacy through an absurdity.

As an Anglican, you should view Martin Luther the same way Catholics do. Henry VIII of England wrote a treatise refuting Luther’s beliefs, whereby the Pope awarded him the title “defender of the faith,” a bit before the Anglican split.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Actually, I was not. I was merely pointing out the logical fallacy through an absurdity…

Yep.

What you said was absurd

 

[Hesychios]

No one denies the Church is infallible but without the pope as (earthly) head then your Church will not be able to infallibly confirm anything

This is sheer nonsense.

It is not about confirming anything, as if we need the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. We have had seven ecumenical Councils early on when they were needed and useful (no thanks to your Popes, they did not call them and were hardly involved) and continue to convene local Councils and Synods as needed. In fact, the synodal structure of the early church continues to be very strong in Holy Orthodoxy.

We have the Received Faith of the Apostles, direct to them from Jesus Christ. The church is infallible because it will keep this Faith with nothing new and nothing lost, despite the failings of individual men and women.

It does this with the Grace of God, it does this as a community… with our determination not ever to pollute the teachings of the church with novel and speculative concepts.

For this purpose we need no infallible confirmations, there is nothing new to confirm. If a thing does not satisfy the Vincentian Canon it will not be taught.

*** Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. …whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation.***

This isn’t rocket science.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Henry VIII of England wrote a treatise refuting Luther’s beliefs, whereby the Pope awarded him the title “defender of the faith,” a bit before the Anglican split.

I refer you to GKC who is the expert in residence of all things Henry

Read this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5860140&postcount=18

In 1515, Henry wanted something else to pad his resume. Various ideas were passed around: “Protector of the Holy See”, maybe “Defender”, from the English side. The first was turned down because it already belonged to the Holy Roman Emperor, the second was the property of the Swiss. Some in Rome countered with “King Apostolic” (interesting combination) or “Orthodox”. The Pope vetoed both. In 1516, the title of “Defender of the Faith” was proposed from England. Leo ignored it, and Henry pouted.

Henry gave up until May, 1521, when Wolsey wrote once again to Rome, asking for a pretty for Henry. Leo passed it to a committee of Cardinals. Forthcoming were suggestions:

“Rex Fidelis”, "“Orthodoxus”, “Ecclesiaticus” ,
“Protector”, “Anglicus”

Read the whole post - it’s fascinating.

The title isnt all it’s cracked up to be

 

[VARC]

I refer you to GKC who is the expert in residence of all things Henry

Read this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5860140&postcount=18

Read the whole post - it’s fascinating.

The title isnt all it’s cracked up to be

The realities of medieval Christianity cannot be understood through a modern understanding. Things do change.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

The realities of medieval Christianity cannot be understood through a modern understanding. Things do change.

This I understand.

None the less, the Title refered to, without any understanding of how it was come by, can sound a lot more loaded that it is, without understanding how it was awarded.

 

[2nd_Adam]

So what if Hitler was born a Catholic? The world was mostly Catholic then and he loved his Catholic faith so much that he killed his fellow Catholics. Hitler had a supreme hatred for Catholics. He actually converted to Protestanism when he came into power. So he died Protestant. But so what?

Do you guys just wing it and write whatever you want to?

 

[EphelDuath]

Yep.

What you said was absurd

Hence demonstrating the fallacy.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Hence demonstrating the fallacy.

If you think so.

I dont.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Do you guys just wing it and write whatever you want to?

Some do.

Some plagerise other peoples work.

Some even make up books of the bible

 

[josie_L]

He did a great job of forcing the catholic church to reform itself.

There was much grumbling at the time from all quaters about the conduct of the church, and her ministers. The church I believe intended to reform, but Luther held a light into the darkness.

God’s work indeed.

I think it goes both ways really because as much as Luther wanted to change things for the better he also held and preached unorthodox views.

 

[josie_L]

This is sheer nonsense.

It is not about confirming anything, as if we need the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. We have had seven ecumenical Councils early on when they were needed and useful (no thanks to your Popes, they did not call them and were hardly involved) and continue to convene local Councils and Synods as needed. In fact, the synodal structure of the early church continues to be very strong in Holy Orthodoxy.

We have the Received Faith of the Apostles, direct to them from Jesus Christ. The church is infallible because it will keep this Faith with nothing new and nothing lost, despite the failings of individual men and women.

It does this with the Grace of God, it does this as a community… with our determination not ever to pollute the teachings of the church with novel and speculative concepts.

For this purpose we need no infallible confirmations, there is nothing new to confirm. If a thing does not satisfy the Vincentian Canon it will not be taught.

*** Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. …whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation.***

This isn’t rocket science.

The pope was involved (directly or by legate) in each ecumenical council whether before, during or after it was convened . Furthermore, since it was acknowledged at the time that the Church of Rome held primacy (through the petrine office) it would seem rather odd wouldn’t you think if it did not participate? And the Catholic Church has held to the deposit of faith , that it refined the doctrines or teachings passed down through the centuries would hardly qualify as innovation. In essence we are doing exactly what we did in the first millenia, i.e., developing doctrine for the sake of further clarification.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

I think it goes both ways really because as much as Luther wanted to change things for the better he also held and preached unorthodox views.

From what Ive read and understand, mistakes were made on both sides.

The result is what we have today.

But I do wonder if it wasnt Luther, who would it have been.

It most certainly would have been someone.

And that makes me wonder, on a much bigger, less specific level, could any organization as big as the catholic church ever stay unified.

Almost 500 years before Luther came along the church had already split along orthodox lines.

And if it couldnt, what does that mean in real terms.

 

[tweetymom]

You have no idea what you are talking about. Go back to your other position of knowing very little about Luther, except he was a heretic. It is much more honest and believable.

Jon

Anen Jon!

 

[josie_L]

From what Ive read and undeerstand, mistakes were made on both sides.

The result is what we have today.

But I do wonder if it wasnt Luther, who would it have been.

It most certainly would have been someone.

And that makes me wonder, on a much bigger, less specific level, could any organization as big as the catholic church ever stay unified.

And if it couldnt, what does that mean in real terms.

Yes, both sides made mistakes (morally-speaking) but Luther decided to break away from the orthodox teachings (and we have the Orthodox who held to similar views so we’re not lying here) of the Church, i.e, he taught heresy. Also, reforms were taking place within the Church (before, during and after the reformation), people like St. Theresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, St. Thomas More, St. Catherine of Genoa, St Catherine of Sienna . . . were all attempting to rectify the corruption and placid attitudes of the laity and some members of the Church hierarchy. I think that Martin Luther was attempting to bring to light abuses within the Church but I think he also saw an opportunity to use this platform as a way to debate his newfound teachings.

p.s. Remember that more than 60% of priests were killed during the plague leaving a huge gap to be filled which the Church in her haste (as priests were necessary to administer the sacraments) may have allowed a scroundel or two in.

 

[Hesychios]

The pope was involved (directly or by legate) in each ecumenical council whether before, during or after it was convened .

In other words, Rome usually went along with the Orthodox.

Furthermore, since it was acknowledged at the time that the Church of Rome held primacy

Primacy doth not supremacy make. We understand it, and it is operative throughout Holy Orthodoxy. Primacy does not imply control, and is no evidence that the bishops of Rome were involved in the Seven Councils.

In fact, historically the evidence is clear that the Popes were not involved and they generally followed along.

…it would seem rather odd wouldn’t you think if it did not participate?

Some western churchmen were present at each Council. The Popes did not call the Councils, the Popes did not chair the Councils. We are happy that the Popes went along with the Orthodox factions’ positions in those early years.

And the Catholic Church has held to the deposit of faith ,

The Orthodox faction has held to the orthodox Catholic Faith unreservedly, when challenged by novelties of the east or of the west.

that it refined the doctrines or teachings passed down through the centuries would hardly qualify as innovation.

It is not necessary to refine nor introduce anything.

It should be unnecessary to point out that the only two times this supposed “authority” was exercised were both for Marian dogmas. This is abuse of the highest order, we already understand the Holy Theotokos’ role in salvation history. Hardly the sort of thing to justify damning ones neighbors over.

 

[VARC]

In other words, Rome usually went along with the Orthodox.

Primacy doth not supremacy make. We understand it, and it is operative throughout Holy Orthodoxy. Primacy does not imply control, and is no evidence that the bishops of Rome were involved in the Seven Councils.

In fact, historically the evidence is clear that the Popes were not involved and they generally followed along. Some western churchmen were present at each Council. The Popes did not call the Councils, the Popes did not chair the Councils. We are happy that the Popes went along with the Orthodox factions’ positions in those early years. The Orthodox faction has held to the orthodox Catholic Faith unreservedly, when challenged by novelties of the east or of the west. It is not necessary to refine nor introduce anything.

It should be unnecessary to point out that the only two times this supposed “authority” was exercised were both for Marian dogmas. This is abuse of the highest order, we already understand the Holy Theotokos’ role in salvation history. Hardly the sort of thing to justify damning ones neighbors over.

Don’t you get tired of repeating yourself. I can’t count how many times Rome’s roles in the councils have been stated by Orthodox members. RCs have rewritten early church history and nothing will convince them to see through what they have been taught.

 

[guanophore]

Please explain to me, from the perspective of divine providence, why God would choose a man who espoused such wicked views to reform His Church for the salvation of the world. Usually He sends saintly men like Elijah and St. John the Baptist to save His people when they stray from righteousness. I am happy to debate Luther’s theological opinions, but I do not think this individual point is something to be brushed aside. It is completely inconsistent with how God relates to the world.

Maybe it could be "brushed’ to it’s own thread?