No doubts about converting from LCMS

[steido01]

Topper, in his bid to paint Lutheran teaching as evil, neglects to mention the following words. It is one thing to misunderstand another’s faith; it is entirely different to continually and knowingly misrepresent it. It is a great break of the 8th commandment to slander your neighbor. I hope the Moderators note this continued behavior. Read what the LCMS teaches:

The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist. The historic view of LCMS on the Antichrist is summarized as follows by the Synod’s Theological Commission:
The New Testament predicts that the church throughout its history will witness many antichrists (Matt. 24:5,23-24; Mark 13:6,21-22; Luke 21:8; 1 John 2:18,22; 4:3; 2 John 7). All false teachers who teach contrary to Christ’s Word are opponents of Christ and, insofar as they do so, are anti-Christ.
However, the Scriptures also teach that there is one climactic “Anti-Christ” (Dan. 7:8,11, 20-21, 24-25; 11:36-45; 2 Thessalonians 2; 1 John 2:18; 4:3; Revelation 17-18). . . Concerning the historical identity of the Antichrist, we affirm the Lutheran Confessions’ identification of the Antichrist with the office of the papacy whose official claims continue to correspond to the Scriptural marks listed above. It is important, however, that we observe the distinction which the Lutheran Confessors made between the office of the pope (papacy) and the individual men who fill that office. The latter could be Christians themselves. We do not presume to judge any person’s heart. Also, we acknowledge the possibility that the historical form of the Antichrist could change. Of course, in that case another identified by these marks would rise.
In a footnote, the Commission adds:
To the extent that the papacy continues to claim as official dogma the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent which expressly anathematizes, for instance, the doctrine “that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified,” the judgment of the Lutheran confessional writings that the papacy is the Antichrist holds. At the same time, of course, we must recognize the possibility, under God’s guidance, that contemporary discussions and statements (e.g., 1983 U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue statement on “Justification by Faith”) could lead to a revision of the Roman Catholic position regarding Tridentine dogma.
Usage: We urge you to contact an LCMS pastor in your area for more in-depth discussion.

 

[Lion_Heart]

For the record, I do not have any interest in being dragged into the weeds to discuss the minutia of any particular aspect of whatever number of Sacraments this or that communion practices. My interest is in taking a 30,000’ view of the situation in order to determine, not only what happened, but also who is ‘responsible’, which then actually COULD lead to what to ‘do about it’.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

Greetings in Christ Topper17,

You have a wise suggestion Topper:
Finding out not only what happened, but also who is ‘responsible’, which then actually COULD lead to what to ‘do about it’.

I believe we have good information about our situation, which led us to the 16th century reformation.

FOR EXAMPLE:
CATHOLIC EDUCATION RESOURCE CENTER
Justification by Faith
PETER KREEFT

Peter Kreeft is on the Advisory Board of the Catholic Education Resource Center.
He is one of the most popular and widely read Catholic authors today.

Quote: The Protestant Reformation began when a Catholic monk REDISCOVERED a Catholic doctrine in a Catholic book.

The monk, of course, was Luther; the doctrine was JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH; and the book was the Bible.

One of the tragic ironies of Christian history is that the deepest split in the history of the Church, and the one that has occasioned the most persecution, hatred, and bloody wars on both sides, from the Peasants’ War of Luther’s day through the Thirty Years’ War, which claimed a larger percentage of the population of many parts of central Europe than any other war in history, including the two world wars, to the present-day agony in Northern Ireland — this split between Protestant and Catholic originated in a misunderstanding.

And to this day many Catholics and many Protestants still do not realize that fact.

Luther’s story is well known. Passionate, impetuous, demanding, sensitive, and pessimistic in temperament, Luther had never been able to find inner peace. He could not overcome his sense of guilt despite all his good works, prayers, penances, and alms. His confessor advised him to read Romans.

No more historically momentous advice was ever given by a confessor.

In Romans Luther discovered the simple BOMBSELL TRUTH that God had forgiven his sins freely, NOT because of Luther’s works in Germany BUT because of Christ’s work on Calvary.

That discovery freed Luther’s spirit and ignited a fire that swept over Europe.
The watchword of the Reformation became Saint Paul’s summary of the gospel: “The just (justified, saved) shall live [have eternal life] by faith [in Christ]” (Rom 1: 17)

Where then do good works come in? In CHRISTIAN LIBERTY, Luther explains that after the great LIBERATION about faith — that we are SAVED BY FAITH in Christ’s work, NOT BY OUR WORKS — comes a great LIBERATION about works: they need not be done slavishly, to BUY our way into heaven, to pile up merits or Brownie points with God, but can be done freely and spontaneously and naturally, out of GRATITUDE to God — not to get to heaven but because heaven has ALREADY gotten to us.

Thus they can be done for the sake of our neighbor, NOT for our own sake, to PURCHASE salvation.
And this is winsome. NO ONE wants to be loved as someone else’s GOOD DEED for the day.

The origin of the Reformation is often said to be Luther’s act of nailing ninety-five theses against the sale of indulgences to the door of the church in Wittenberg.

Luther’s decision to go public was occasioned by the scandal of Tetzel, a Dominican monk who shamelessly peddled forgiveness of sins for a fee. He even had a singing commercial:

“Sobald das Geld im Kasten klingt,/Die Seele aus dem Fegfeuer springt!” (“As soon as the money clinks in the casket, the soul springs free from the fires of purgatory!”)

The story was told of the thief who asked Tetzel whether he could buy forgiveness for all his future sins as well as his past sins.

Tetzel said yes, but it would cost him a thousand gold pieces.
The thief paid the money, took the indulgence, and then stole back the money from Tetzel!

But the scandal of selling indulgences was only the catalyst, not the cause, of the Reformation.
The Church soon cleaned up its act and forbade the sale of indulgences at the Council of Trent, agreeing with Luther on this point.

Continues on the next post

 

[Topper17]

Hi Am,

Thanks for your comments.

Thanks Topper! I appreciate all of the book references. It is certainly a good thing to have a good historical perspective on such things.

It would also be interesting to see how Eck countered Luther in these debates, since, apparently, this debate has never really ended! I will have to look into your reading list.

For the record, of the books I mentioned, several of them are available online, including the following:

Lindsay, Bainton, Cistonau, D’Aubigne, Fife, Grisar, Holborn, McGiffert, Pelikan, Rivington, Schaff, Preserved Smith. Luther’s letters are available in several different forms. Bainton’s book is especially popular but is probably one of the best examples of recent biographers who are always looking for ‘the best’ in Luther.

Over the years I have become more convinced that the history of the early Reformation is extremely critical in terms of evidence as to whether Catholicism or Protestantism is ‘right’ in God’s Eyes. Certainly they cannot both be.

I began my search a couple of decades ago after recognizing (finally) how important God’s Absolute Truth is. I read a lot of Protestant and Catholic apologetics, fully expecting to learn what I already suspected, that Protestants do a much better job interpreting Scripture. I fully expected to conclude that the Catholic Church was everything it’s opponents claimed it to be. I also realized that once I had finally become sure that Catholicism was wrong, I would have to then fight my way through the process of determining which of the uncountable number of Protestant denominations ‘do it best’. It took a couple of years to fight through all of the standard stuff but I came to the conclusion that the Church is exactly what it claims to be. In the meantime I had been ‘watching’ online Apologetic debates. This was right after Al Gore had invented the internet.

I began to tentatively chime in, and over the next few years got pretty decent at making Catholic arguments from Scripture. However, in the 5 or 6 years I did that I became convinced that it was an extremely ineffective way to defend a position, Catholic or Protestant. You can go years without seeing anyone become convinced of something that they didn’t already believe.

I would post a very clear passage that perfectly ‘proved’ my point, only to be told: “Oh no Topper, you have to understand that that verse (of yours) has to be understood in the context of this other verse (which I like better). They would in essence ‘paper over’ my verses with something that they thought made their point, effectively nullifying my verse with theirs. Over and over it happened, and it still happens today, thankfully not really here at CA.

All a Protestant had (has) to do is to say “No, you don’t understand.” And that was all their was to it. Their Personal Interpretation was automatically ‘better’ than that of an individual Catholic OR the Church Catholic, and so it was their ‘duty’ to teach me, and of course everybody else. I then began to focus on the Fathers, and if I do say so myself, got to know them pretty well. You know all of the strange justifications people use for not considering the teachings of the Fathers, and how some people CLAIM to follow the Fathers, but in reality, only the ones that they discover that agree with THEM. It is ALL so subjective. That ‘right of Private Interpetation’ is SUCH a seductive drug, and SO pervades Protestantism, even those portions which claim that they do not use it. Protestantism was founded on Private Interpretation was were all of the other historic ‘ism’s’ that the Catholic Church has had to battle over the last 20 centuries.

There had to be a better way to defend the Church that Christ established for us ALL to lean on to understand His Absolute Truth. This of course presumes that God actually wants us to know His Absolute Truth. Arguments from Scripture have NOT worked in the last 500 years. This is proven by the fact that nowhere is the doctrinal confusion so great as it is in Protestantism, for which Scripture is the ONLY or final authority (or so they claim).

If Scripture and the ECFs are not able to stem the downward spiral of the Protestant traditions, what could? I finally concluded that the key might lie in arguments based on three elements – logic, reason, and actual Christian history. By actual Christian history, I am speaking of historical facts, facts that we all can agree on.

If God cares what we believe, then the difference between Protestantism (in general) and Catholicism SHOULD be obvious. It follows that since the two sides are SO different in their teaching and in fact their basic approaches to God, there MUST have been a significant difference in the manner that each side argued against the other when the Reformation first began.

TBC

 

[Topper17]

This leads us to Luther. What kind of arguments did he make and what kind of arguments were made by the Church to combat him? It would seem that one side or the other SHOULD have had a much more compelling set of arguments. In addition, given that SO MUCH of what Protestantism has become is based on Martin Luther the man, it is vital to discover who he really was. Was he really THAT GOOD that people should have followed him as he developed an incredibly radical version of Christianity?

This brings us to Luther’s psychological health, his education, childhood, fears, hopes, temperament, character, honesty, etc, etc. The crucial events and periods of his life become the keys to understanding his motivations. Entering the monastery, the time in the monastery, his education, the early disputes, and the three years after the 95 These become central to getting a grip on whether Luther should have done what he did.

Honestly, he would have to be an AMAZING guy in order to justify what he did. In fact, the Martin Luther of “Legend” actually WAS an amazing guy. But is the Legend the real Luther.

You don’t employ this approach if you want to be popular with Lutherans because they HATE this approach. The only reason you use this methodology is because you value the Truth more than you do being ‘popular’. When you use this type of argument, you pretty quickly and predictably become accused of a lot of different things, up to and including that you are not a Christian.

Revealing the actual Luther of factual history means that the “Legend” suffers. By association, so does the theology of the “Legend”, and for good reason.

The thing that makes Leipzig so significant is that it shows Luther as being so unprepared to debate the issues, in spite of the fact that he had known for 16 months what Eck’s position would be and had been studying for 6 months. In spite of all of this time to prepare, Luther basically ended up making it up on the fly at Leipzig. The problem was that he didn’t have the ability to think systematically and recognize where his radical beliefs would lead him. In other words, Luther was not very good and putting the theological ‘puzzle pieces’ together to see how each of them impacted the other. Eck, with a far better mind, recognized what the end result of Luther’s 95 Theses would HAVE to be immediately when he first read them more than 18 months before the debate. In short, Luther was totally outclassed at Leipzig because Eck forced him to extrapolate out to the ‘logical’ conclusions of his half-baked ideas. He painted Luther into a corner theologically, knowing that in forcing his way out, he would either have to recant or declare himself to be a heretic. Of course, we know how that turned out. Until Leipzig Luther had clueslessly maintained that his beliefs were fully Catholic and that everyone who disagreed with him were simply wrong.

The other thing that Leipzig shows us is how poorly Luther understood his Catholic faith. Many people point to his Doctorate as being some sort of justification for his ‘ability’ to pronounce on doctrines, but then that would presume that he had both been taught well and also had learned well the Catholic faith. Neither was the case.

Amazingly we hear to this day that Luther was ‘never given a fair hearing’. That would be true unless you consider a 7 day long debate before the Emperor, the Electors and most of the most important secular and religious leaders of Central Europe, to be a ‘fair hearing’.

This is not to say that Luther didn’t gain support at Leipzig: (The Great) Hilaire Belloc comments:

“A conference arranged at Leipzig later in the year was what finally drifted him off from unity and put his now-famous name permanently at the head of the rebellion. He came back from that conference at once embittered against his official enemies and inspired by a feeling of popular triumph; widespread and very vocal support poured in upon him from all sides.
Nor was the support popular alone. It was also, and even more, the support of great bodies in the directing classes; the support of the Humanists, ready to struggle in alliance with any opponent against the restraint of tradition, and what they felt to be the corpse of the Middle Ages poisoning the new life of the Renaissance. It was the support, above all of the local Princes, and below them, of the swarm of lesser nobles. Luther’s own Sovereign, the Elector of Saxony, and a mass of small squires and their cadets, seeing before them independence and the requisition for Church wealth, smelt opportunity for themselves and their fortunes in this still blind, almost universal protest and upheaval against established order as represented by the titles and claims to authority of the Emperor, and by the organization and endowment of the Church.” Belloc, “How the Reformation Happened”, pg. 44

It should be noted that the humanists largely abandoned Luther when the figured out what he really believed. In fact, Protestant Professor James R. Payton wrote a book in which he describes how people today don’t really know what the Reformers actually taught, and also how the masses misunderstood especially the teachings of Luther. When they actually did ‘figure him out’, then also abandoned him for the most part. Protestantism basically survived as a religion in large part because the princes found it advantageous to have their subjects loyal to THEM and their chosen faith, rather than to Rome.

Payton’s book is “Getting the Reformation Wrong, Correcting Some Misunderstandings”.

Am, I would be interested in any comments you might have to offer.

God Bless You, Topper

 

[Lion_Heart]

Continuation

But one does not split the Church over a practice; one splits the Church over a doctrine, for the Church can change its practice but never its doctrine.
To change a practice, one stays in the Church; to change a doctrine, one must start a new Church.

Many Catholics to this day have not learned the Catholic and biblical doctrine.
They think we are saved by good intentions or being nice or sincere or trying a little harder or doing a sufficient number of good deeds.

Over the past twenty-five years I have asked hundreds of Catholic college students the question:
If you should die tonight and God asks you why he should let you into heaven, what would you answer?

The vast majority of them simply do not know the right answer to this, the most important of all questions, the very essence of Christianity. They usually do not even mention Jesus!

Until we Catholics know the foundation, Protestants are not going to listen to us when we try to teach them about the upper stories of the building.

Perhaps God allows the Protestant/Catholic division to persist not only because Protestants have abandoned many precious truths taught by the Church but also because many Catholics have never been taught the most precious truth of all, that SALVATION IS A FREE GIFT OF GRACE, ACCEPTED BY FAITH.

The split of the Protestant Reformation began when a Catholic discovered a Catholic doctrine in a Catholic book.

It can end only when both Protestants and Catholics do the same thing today and understand what they are doing: discovering a Catholic doctrine in a Catholic book. End quote. Emphasize mine.

OUR SITUATION TODAY IN THE CHURCH:

PLEASE MEDITATE ON THE FOLLOWING FOUR QUOTES:

YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE By Peter Kreeft pages 230, 248, 249.

“Highly recommended to all those who want to deepen their spiritual lives. The beauty of this book is that it literally makes the [Bible] come alive.” – John A. Harden, S.J.

Quote: “The mistakes of the Corinthians were mistakes of addition; the mistakes of the Galatians was subtraction. The Corinthians had polluted the gospel. The Galatians had abandoned it for another religion, “a different gospel.”

No mistake could be more serious. Yet as we shall see, this is the single most common mistake in the Church today.

Galatians, like Romans, is about SALVATION BY FAITH.
The Galatians so missed this CENTRAL POINT that Paul called their heresy of self-salvation “another gospel” that is another religion, NOT Christianity.

MANY RELIGIOUSLY UNEDUCATED CATHOLICS still believe this Galatian heresy today.

Not a small minority but a large majority of the Catholics today not only don’t know the basic doctrines of the Catholic theology anymore, they don’t even know how to get to Heaven!

Until this unbelievable failure is remedied, it is pointless to pray to God for ecumenical peace and reunion between Christian churches.

It is not clear that one who does not even know how to get to Heaven can accurately be called a Christian.

I am not suggesting, as many Protestant Fundamentalists do, that most Catholics are not saved.

But I am suggesting that perhaps most will be saved as good pagans, as “anonymous Christians” rather than as Catholic Christians.” End quote. Emphasize mine.

THE CATHOLIC ENCYLOPEDIA teaches the same thing as Peter Kreeft. Not exactly in the same diplomatic way.

Quote: “Most Catholics are doomed to eternal damnation.” End quote.

Scripture and Vatican II: A very incomplete journey. by Fr Brendan Byrne SJ

Brendan Byrne, S.J., is professor of New Testament at Jesuit Theological College, within the United Faculty of Theology, Parkville, Melbourne, Australia.
Pope John Paul II named him a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1990.

Quote: “It has to be said that the task of promoting the kind of biblical literacy asked for at Vatican II has received LITLE help and NO SMALL DEGREE OF HINDRANCE from prevailing tendencies in the Roman Curia.

The 1993 document of the Biblical Commission stands on a lonely eminence in the regard-and even it could have been negative in tone had not SEVERAL of the members of the Commission fought LONG and HARD to exclude gratuitous judgments in many areas.
THE HANDLING OF SCRIPTURE IN THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (1994) IS SIMPLY DISGRACEFUL and many respects regresses not merely behind Vatican II but Divino Affante Spiritu itself.

When I asked at a session of the Biblical Commission why that Commission was not being employed or at least consulted during the preparation of the Catechism, my question was received in sullen silence: I HAVE VENTURED UPON SOME INTER-CURIAL TURF WAR.

JESUS AGAINST THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES in Matthew 23, in my own Church I find myself unable to do so any longer:
THE SCRIBES AND THE PHARISEES OCCUPY THE CHAIR OF MOSES.

You MUST therefore do what they tell you and listen to what they say; but do not be guided by what they do since they DO NOT practice what they preach.” End quote. Emphasize mine.

St. Jose Maria Escriva de Balaguer, Funder of the Opus Dei.
Quote: “As I have not ceased to warn you, the evil comes from within (the church) and from very high up, …” End quote.

Continued on the next post

 

[Lion_Heart]

Continuation

We can read the same warnings REPEATEDLY and CONTINUALLY throughout the Bible.
FOR EXAMPLE: Acts 20:29-32; Matt.7:15-16; Matt.24:4, 11, 24; 2 Cor.11:13-15; 1 Tim.4:1-3; 2 Pet.2:1-3; Jude 4.

2 Pet.2:1-3; “But there WERE also false prophets among the people, even as there WILL BE false teachers AMONG YOU, who will SECRETLY bring in destructive HERESIES, … and MANY will follow their destructive ways.”

Jude 4; “Certain people have SECRETLY INFILTRATED AMONG YOU.”

According to a honest examination:
In the area of the spiritual education of the laity, we cannot claim much improvement between the 16th and 21th century.
Concerning the doctrines of salvation, our Catholic Church has THE FULLNESS OF THE TRUTH yet the majority of the laity believe some form of a do-it-yourself FALSE salvation.

OUR FAILURE IS:
We never had a honest examination to determine who are responsible for our educational failure and who are those who are responsible that in our Church three sets of salvation doctrines/teaching (which are contradict each other) are in circulation simultaneously.

Our situation today is even worse then it was in the 16th century.
In the 16th century only some uneducated protestants believed our Church is the Whore of Babylon.
Today many uneducated traditional Catholics also believe: Our Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon.

Of course they are wrong, and with the knowledge of some history and with the Word of God it is very easy to prove:
The Catholic Church never was and CAN NOT be the Whore of Babylon.

THE ORIGON OF THE WHORE OF BABYLON:
MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH Rev.17:1-6)

Nearly two hundred years after the flood of Noah, by using Noah’s grandson Cush and his son Nimrod, Satan has founded his false religion which has developed into the Whore of Babylon of Rev.17:1-6.

Cush was one of the early patriarchs, he became the leader of many.
He did not follow God’s commandment to fill the earth but did the opposite. He began to unite everyone into one nation.

This was the beginning of the unification movement, which is in fact still continuing today.
Today’s “New World Order” is not new at all.
It is a very old order.

The Bible tells us the beginning of the apostasy at the Tower of Babel, a major rebellion against God and His commandments. (Gen.11:1-4.)

Nimrod eventually began the first empire the Assyrian/Babylonian Empire.
The names Cush and Nimrod became incorporated into the cultures and mythologies of many empires since the Tower.

The religion Satan has founded by using Cush and Nimrod was the beginning of polytheism, the worship of many gods.
The SNAKE, SUN and FIRE became their symbols of god on earth.

Nimrod, through the empire and religion of Babylon, began to unite the people – all under his POLITICAL SYSTEM (Commercial Babylon, Rev 17:15-17) ” and RELIGIOUS SYSTEM (Ecclesiastical Babylon, Rev.17:1-6)

This satanic Babylonian religious system – the knowledge, authority, beliefs and culture – eventually molded and assimilated into each political empire, and religious theology that succeeded the former.

According to the Bible, this satanic Babylonian religious system, and political system is: MYSTERY BABYLON.

The rise of Christianity, eventually, pushed this satanic religion undercover. – Matt.7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.” They are Satan’s false apostles, members of the Whore of Babylon.

With God’s permission for Satan to infiltrate our Church, Satan has planted his false apostles into the Catholic Church, at the beginning of Christianity. (Matt.13:24-30, 36-42; 2 Cor.11:13-15; 2 Pet.2:1-2)

Continued on the next post

 

[Lion_Heart]

Continuation

The reason God has permitted Satan to infiltrate our Church, is known only by God.

I guess, it is an excellent test of our obedience to God (2 Cor.13:5 + 1 Thes.5:21 + Acts 17:11 + 1 John 2:26-27), and really shows to God, what kind of soldiers of Christ we are, (Phil.2:25; 1 Tim.2:3).

The fact that Satan’s false apostles (members of the Whore of Babylon) are among us in sheep’s clothing, DOES NOT makes the Catholic Church the Whore of Babylon!!! – They will be among us until the harvest, (Matt.13:24-30).

It is one thing, that they are among us until the harvest, but it is another thing that we give them authority over us BY ACCEPTING THEIR DOCTRINES OF DEMONS. – 2 Pet.2:1-3.

In fact: God has given Satan’s false apostles NO authority over the Church or over the members of the Catholic Church.

Only the members of the Church can give the authority over Satan’s false apostles by REJECTING God’s COMMAND given to us for our PROTECTION in 1 Thess.5:21 + Acts 17:11 + 1 John 2:26-27 and by to putting their faith into doctrines of demons as it is described in Matt.24:4-5, 11, 24; 2 Pet.2:1-3.

SUMMARY

We can say with confidence:

1. Our enemies are not the orthodox Christians or the Protestants but Satan’s false apostles.
   Satan has planted his false apostles in sheep’s clothing, into the Church at the very beginning of Christianity.
2. Their aim is to deceive as many Christians as they can.
   They have no authority over the Christians and they CAN NOT harm the Christians in any shape or form unless the Christians give them authority over themselves by accepting their doctrines of demons as it is described in Matt.24:4-5, 11, 24 and in 2 Pet.2:1-3.
3. For our protection God has given us His COMMAND to test our FAITH and to test ALL THINGS (2 Cor.13:5; 1 Thess.5:24).
   The way the test MUST BE done described in Acts 17:11 and in 1 John 2:26-27.
4. If we do the tests, in 1 John 2:26-27 we have God’s PROMISE:
   We DO NOT NEED that anyone teaches us because the Holy Spirit teaches us ALL THINGS and we will never be deceived.
   Conditions:
   No private interpretation of the Word of God.
   Must accept the interpretation of the Holy Spirit!!!

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CLEARLY TEACHES:

The Catholic Understanding of the Bible by Fr. John Harden SJ.

Quote: “The Scriptures are holy because their main author is the all-holy God. But they are also holy because they are able to sanctify those who READ the Bible as NO OTHER LITERATURE in the world is capable of doing.

St. Thomas does not hesitate to speak of the Scriptures as a KIND OF SACRAMENT.
SIMULAR to what happens when we receive BAPTISM or the EUCHARIST.

The same Holy Spirit who first inspired the Bible CONTINUES TO ENLIGHTEN those who now READ the Bible.” End quote. Emphasize mine.

When in faith, READING or HEARING the Word of God we are consuming the BREAD OF LIFE, in which He (Jesus), Himself is consumed and we unite ourselves to Christ.

[CCC 108]; Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.”
Christianity is a religion of the “Word” of God, “not a written and mute word, but incarnate and living.”
If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.”

We know (who obey God’s command described in 1 Thess.5:21 + Acts 17:11 + 1 John 2:26-27), and every Catholic should know, who are responsible for our problems:

FIRST, we are responsible, because of our lack of biblical literacy and because our disobedience to obey God’s COMMAND given to us for our protection described in 1 Thess.5:21 + Acts 17:11 + 1 John 2:26-27.

SECOND, Satan’s false apostles who are among us are responsible and wearing sheep’s clothing.
Their identity and their satanic works described CONTINUALLY and REPEATEDLY throughout the Bible.

For example:
Acts 20:29-32; Matt.7:15-16; Matt.24:4, 11, 24; 2 Cor.11:13-15; 1 Tim.4:1-3; 2 Pet.2:1-3; Jude 4.

Topper, we know who is responsible for our problems:
FIRST, we are responsible.
SECOND, Satan’s false apostles are responsible who are doing Satan’s will/dictates among us in sheep’s clothing.

The question is:
What do you think Topper and members of the CAF, what can we do to correct our problems???

With love in Christ,
LH.

 

[Christopher1111]

For anyone who wants to know the true Luther, the father of protestantism just read “Of Jews and their lies.” Enough said!

 

[Novocastrian]

For anyone who wants to know the true Luther, the father of protestantism just read “Of Jews and their lies.” Enough said!

It’s pretty awful. Good job we don’t find any of that stuff in Roman Catholicism, ey?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

It’s pretty awful. Good job we don’t find any of that stuff in Roman Catholicism, ey?

At least not by our founder, Jesus Christ!

 

[betsybug354]

Over the years I have become more convinced that the history of the early Reformation is extremely critical in terms of evidence as to whether Catholicism or Protestantism is ‘right’ in God’s Eyes. Certainly they cannot both be.

Topper, I can tell that you and I have followed a very similar path of reasoning in searching for Christian truth. All my searching, coming from a Protestant background and exploring various denominations, ultimately led me back to the Reformation and Martin Luther himself.

I began my search a couple of decades ago after recognizing (finally) how important God’s Absolute Truth is. I read a lot of Protestant and Catholic apologetics, fully expecting to learn what I already suspected, that Protestants do a much better job interpreting Scripture. I fully expected to conclude that the Catholic Church was everything it’s opponents claimed it to be. I also realized that once I had finally become sure that Catholicism was wrong, I would have to then fight my way through the process of determining which of the uncountable number of Protestant denominations ‘do it best’. It took a couple of years to fight through all of the standard stuff but I came to the conclusion that the Church is exactly what it claims to be. In the meantime I had been ‘watching’ online Apologetic debates. This was right after Al Gore had invented the internet.

I began to tentatively chime in, and over the next few years got pretty decent at making Catholic arguments from Scripture. However, in the 5 or 6 years I did that I became convinced that it was an extremely ineffective way to defend a position, Catholic or Protestant. You can go years without seeing anyone become convinced of something that they didn’t already believe.

I would post a very clear passage that perfectly ‘proved’ my point, only to be told: “Oh no Topper, you have to understand that that verse (of yours) has to be understood in the context of this other verse (which I like better). They would in essence ‘paper over’ my verses with something that they thought made their point, effectively nullifying my verse with theirs. Over and over it happened, and it still happens today, thankfully not really here at CA.

All a Protestant had (has) to do is to say “No, you don’t understand.” And that was all their was to it. Their Personal Interpretation was automatically ‘better’ than that of an individual Catholic OR the Church Catholic, and so it was their ‘duty’ to teach me, and of course everybody else. I then began to focus on the Fathers, and if I do say so myself, got to know them pretty well. You know all of the strange justifications people use for not considering the teachings of the Fathers, and how some people CLAIM to follow the Fathers, but in reality, only the ones that they discover that agree with THEM. It is ALL so subjective. That ‘right of Private Interpetation’ is SUCH a seductive drug, and SO pervades Protestantism, even those portions which claim that they do not use it. Protestantism was founded on Private Interpretation was were all of the other historic ‘ism’s’ that the Catholic Church has had to battle over the last 20 centuries.

There had to be a better way to defend the Church that Christ established for us ALL to lean on to understand His Absolute Truth. This of course presumes that God actually wants us to know His Absolute Truth. Arguments from Scripture have NOT worked in the last 500 years. This is proven by the fact that nowhere is the doctrinal confusion so great as it is in Protestantism, for which Scripture is the ONLY or final authority (or so they claim).

If Scripture and the ECFs are not able to stem the downward spiral of the Protestant traditions, what could? I finally concluded that the key might lie in arguments based on three elements – logic, reason, and actual Christian history. By actual Christian history, I am speaking of historical facts, facts that we all can agree on.

If God cares what we believe, then the difference between Protestantism (in general) and Catholicism SHOULD be obvious. It follows that since the two sides are SO different in their teaching and in fact their basic approaches to God, there MUST have been a significant difference in the manner that each side argued against the other when the Reformation first began.

TBC

Topper et al., I’ve been married to a Muslim man for the past 27 years. We have had many, many theological discussions throughout our marriage, and one of my favorite criticisms of Islam was always, “How can you place all your faith in the testimony of one man [Muhammed]?” Then I would add that the Bible, in sharp contrast to the Qur’an, was written over 1600 years with dozens of authors who, as a whole, teach a unified truth that ultimately points to Christ.

One day I woke up with the awful realization that I, too, in my rejection of the Catholic church, had been placing my faith in the testimony of one man - Martin Luther. Now, I am certainly not equating Luther with Muhammed, but still, there are some similarities that cannot be ignored, the most important being that the founder believed he needed to purify the teachings of the faith because of falsehoods that had crept in.

–to be continued

 

[betsybug354]

– continued from previous post

I read Fr. Ray Rylens’ (a convert from Anglicanism) conversion story in Patrick Madrid’s book “Suprised by Truth 2” where he talks about different Protestant faiths and their attempts at what he calls “restorationism.” This is defined as any Christian movement’s attempts to restore the church of the first century. Please allow me to quote some of his writing that spoke powerfully to me about the futility of trying to do that:

At Harvard I had questioned the enterprise of restorationism. It is impossible to go back in time and re-create or re-establish an institution or even a situation of the past. (“The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on…”) This fact is obvious, and yet non-Catholic Christians ignore it.

Now I realize that all non-Catholic traditions are essentially restorationist. Every one of the thousands of denominations was founded by someone who claimed simply to be restoring the “primitive Church” (of the first century).

Sola scriptura (“Scripture Alone”) is a form of restorationism. It’s the key slogan of Protestantism: every Christian belief must be clearly proved from Scripture. Ironically, the belief itself - that all must be proved from Scripture - can’t be proved from Scripture. Scripture nowhere asserts it.

Countless Catholic apologists have demonstrated the fallacy of sola scriptura, but none has shown it to be just another form of restorationism. The very notion of going back to what Protestants love to call “the pure word of God” untouched by human interpretations, is essentially restorationist. Alexander Campbell [founder of the Disciples of Christ] declared, “I will read my Bible as though it had just fallen into my hands from Heaven.” What did he find in that “Bible from Heaven”? Precisely what one would expect an early nineteenth-century frontier ex-Presbyterian to find there! Rejecting restorationism meant rejecting sola scriptura as well.

Protestants claim they restore the “primitive Church”; Anglicans, the Church of the first five centuries; Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Church of the first eight centuries. They are all restorationist, differing only with regard to how much they claim to have “restored”.

Topper, I cannot tell you how many times I told my Lutheran sister when I was still a Methodist (whose church had been infiltrated by Evangelicalism) that our church was as close as you could get to the church of the first century. We loved to read the book of Acts in that church, which was not a bad thing. But wow, what a lot I have learned in the past 10 years.

Just one more thing I wanted to share: After confirmation class last night I stayed talking to Father Nick for another 45 minutes, mostly about Orthodoxy and why it’s so hard for them to come back into communion with Rome. We were also talking about the Sacrament of Baptism and that rite’s associated prayers of exorcism (imagine how wide my eyes became when he used that word!). Then he spoke briefly about exorcism and the story that the well-known movie “The Exorcist” is loosely based on, which happened here in St. Louis. You know, the parents brought the possessed boy to the LCMS’s Concordia Seminary here in town. What did they do at Concordia when faced with this situation? Wait for it… they called in the Jesuits.

 

[Novocastrian]

At least not by our founder, Jesus Christ!

Thank God. But Lutherans would say the same!

 

[MaryT777]

At least not by our founder, Jesus Christ!

 

[JonNC]

At least not by our founder, Jesus Christ!

And not our founder, Jesus Christ, either.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Like I said, I think we need to pare it down a little bit. You seemed to agree and yet your response took three posts. That wasn’t exactly what I had in mind. I will pare it down further and hopefully we can find a few issues which we both want to discuss.

First, it had nothing to do with what “feels good”. That’s the kind of comment that makes it difficult to not question your intentions.

This is the “lemming doctrine”. The doctrine that all the other reformers from other traditions then and since were unthinking lemmings who decided to follow Luther, but not really. Calvin speaks for Calvin, Zwingli for Zwingli, the Anabaptists for the Anabaptists. To say otherwise is calls into their free will.

If you assume I am impugning your motives, I apologize. I hoped that use of the word seems, and appears would reveal that what I said were my perceptions of what you say. If I am wrong about it, again, I apologize.

Thanks. But when you question my intentions that is pretty much the same thing. It also seems to me that we might not be here for the same reasons. After all, you don’t seem to be able to understand why I write what I do, although I think I have made it very clear why I am here.

Here is the point. If you want to discuss Lutheran Catholic differences and convergences, Lutherans have to discuss the CCC, and Catholics have to discuss the BoC. Otherwise, it isn’t a discussion worth having. The only people that I regularly run into that say they won’t discuss our confessions are the Bible - only folks that say they use not creed nor confession. So, again, it isn’t a matter of whether or not you want to discuss the Confessions, its a matter that you have to if you want to dialogue with Lutherans.

Its like this Jon. If I make a general comments about Protestantism as a whole, it is not like I have been asked to be dragged into a discussion of the intricacies of the Lutheran Confessions. On the other hand, if I am specifically asking about Lutheran belief, THEN it is appropriate to discuss the Confessions.

You might want to read the whole article.

Ok, I read the whole article. It points to a 38 year old comment by Cardinal Ratzinger which says that MAYBE the Augsburg Confessions could be considered ‘catholic’ (small ‘c’). The next paragraph is as follows:

“While Ratzinger”now Benedict XVI” would not continue a campaign for such acceptance, it is nevertheless a striking comment from the man who would be pope. At the very least, it demonstrates a particular interest in Roman Catholic-Lutheran dialogue which has continued into the present.”

Jon, I actually read this article twice looking for what you could possibly think is noteworthy. Is it a 38 year old comment that went nowhere? This is worthy of discussion? The rest of the article discusses the various things that have happened in which Catholics and Lutherans have expressed a DESIRE to have further dialogue. In other words, NOTHING of any substance has happened, to the point where Ratzinger’s 38 year old comment, which came to nothing, somehow ‘notable’. All that points to is the absolute fact that nothing of any real consequence doctrinally has happened. To reinforce this point, can you name even one doctrine of either Lutheranism or the Church which has been altered, even minutely, as a result of the now 50 year old joint dialogue?

Nonsense.

Specifically and exactly WHY is it ‘nonsense’. I would suggest that if you had had a compelling reason to call it nonsense, you would have already provided it.

And your polemics have been offensively anti-Lutheran, as well.

Just like you say in the exact same circumstance - I’m sorry you feel that way. But the Truth is more important that either your feelings or mine. There has been far too much ‘watered down’ in the last 500 years.

And some of the condemnations from the CC were back then, too. That said, I would expect a logical progression. Dialogue, which has been ongoing, convergence on doctrine, with the help of the Spirit, and reconciliation, whereby the mutual condemnations would be expunged. Now, that seems the logical progression.

Jon – your Confessional condemnations of the Pope and his ‘adherents’ (me) apply to Catholics of today. As you know, the anathemas of Trent do not apply to any living person. As you know. Thus they are in a ‘different class’ of ‘offensiveness’. I would suggest that you have the progression wrong in the last steps. Do you really expect that Lutherans are going to be ‘allowed’ to retain your anti-Catholic Confessions and come into full union with Rome?

You know, Topper, how virulently anti-Jewish Eck was, correct? This isn’t particularly alluded to in New Advent, but it is true.

It really doesn’t matter, quite frankly, but mentioning it is precisely the kind of polemic one finds in your posts on a regular basis.

Here’s what I know Jon. I know that Lutherans LOVE to claim that Eck was anti-Jewish, or anti-Semitic. So, who was more ‘virulent’, Eck or Luther? Would you like to put their ‘anti-Jewish’ statements side by side and compare them? I ask because I am aware of a few ‘anti-Jewish’ quotes from Eck and I have been asking for years whether that is all there is. In mentioning Eck’s being ‘virulently anti-Jewish’, especially in comparison to Luther, you certainly must have the Eck quotes that I have been looking for for years. Please post them so we can then compare them to Luthers’ ‘recommendations’. Then we can ALL determine for ourselves which are more ‘virulent’.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Topper.

My good friend I met in a nursing Home was a LCMS Pastor. We discussed this issue
directly when I read it in the Concord book. He had a Master’s in Exegesis from the St Louis Seminary and told me the LCMS teaches the Office of the Papacy IS Anti Christ because the office proclaims the teaching of works righteousness for Justification. He also went on to say ANY POPE who sits in this office as it stand now is an AntiChrist.

He noted that until the teaching of justification changed every pope is the office would be and is an anti Christ.

That said, he was a great preacher and teacher of the Bible (minus the anti Catholic thoughts which are indicative of true LCMS teaching)
and I miss him.

He said.
We are as DIFFERENT as Catholic and Lutheran
but as similar as two BELIEVING Christians.

Hi Mary,

Thanks for your response.

I take it that your friend the LCMS Pastor gave you the impression that he considered both the office of the papacy AND that any Pope who sits in the office of the papacy is ALSO "an antichrist’. Is that the way you understood your friend?

God Bless You Mar, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Stiedo,

Topper, in his bid to paint Lutheran teaching as evil, neglects to mention the following words. It is one thing to misunderstand another’s faith; it is entirely different to continually and knowingly misrepresent it. It is a great break of the 8th commandment to slander your neighbor. I hope the Moderators note this continued behavior. Read what the LCMS teaches:

I want you to know that I take your accusation of ‘knowing misrepresentation’ very seriously. You are accusing me of lying. This is nothing new though. You started out accusing me of sock puppetry, and you remember how that turned out.

My statements stand, all of them.

I DO NOT LIE.

I am respectfully requesting an apology and a retraction of your false and offensive personal insult.

Topper

 

[MaryT777]

Hi Mary,

Thanks for your response.

I take it that your friend the LCMS Pastor gave you the impression that he considered both the office of the papacy AND that any Pope who sits in the office of the papacy is ALSO "an antichrist’. Is that the way you understood your friend?

God Bless You Mar, Topper

Yes he directly said as such because the current Pope adheres to our perverted view of justification which add works righteousness.
Mary.

 

[steido01]

Stiedo,

I want you to know that I take your accusation of ‘knowing misrepresentation’ very seriously. You are accusing me of lying. This is nothing new though. You started out accusing me of sock puppetry, and you remember how that turned out.

My statements stand, all of them.

I DO NOT LIE.

I am respectfully requesting an apology and a retraction of your false and offensive personal insult.

Topper

I only know one person to never have lied.

So long as you continue to pontificate about what you wrongly perceive my communion to believe, you will receive no apology. I think it best we not converse any further, and I will not. I trust the more impartial readers of this thread to see who has truly been aggreived.