Non-Catholic Christians - "Did You Know"? – 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jimmy_B

Guest
Non-Catholic Christians - “Did You Know”? – 2

This is a continuation of a discussion started here****

**
I find it amazing that there exist “Protestants” here at CAF, who are arguing, just a much with Martin Luther and the early Protestant Church as with Catholicism.
Did you know, according to Martin Luther, Infant Baptism is ok, more here

That the Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ
-The Large Catechism by Martin Luther.

Did you know, according to Martin Luther, Absolution and confessing to a priest (“a confessor”) is ok, more here

“Since Absolution or the Power of the Keys is also an aid and consolation against sin and a bad conscience, ordained by Christ [Himself] in the Gospel, Confession or Absolution ought by no means to be abolished in the Church, especially on account of [tender and] timid consciences and on account of the untrained [and capricious] young people, in order that they may be examined, and instructed in the Christian doctrine.” – --The Smalcald Articles, By Martin Luther.

When speaking to God, we should plead guilty to all sins, even those we don’t know about, just as we do in the “Our Father,” but when speaking to the confessor, only the sins we know about, which we know about and feel in our hearts.”
  • Luther’s Little Instruction Book
    (The Small Catechism of Martin Luther)
Did you know, Martin Luther believed in the “Real Presence” when referring to the Eucharist, more here

“It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under bread and wine for us Christians to eat and to drink, established by Christ Himself.”
-Luther’s Little Instruction Book
(The Small Catechism of Martin Luther)

Did you know that Martin Luther Venerated Mary:
“There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.”
“The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart.”
(Sermon, September 1, 1522).

Did you know that Martin Luther Venerated Mary (continued):
“[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures.” (Martin Luther’s Sermon, Christmas, 1531).
“No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity.” (Martin Luther’s Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537).
“One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God.” (Martin Luther’s Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521).

Luther gives the Blessed Virgin the exalted position of “Spiritual Mother” for Christians:
*“It is the consolation and the superabundant goodness of God, that man is able to exult in such a treasure. Mary is his true Mother .” *(Martin Luther’s Sermon, Christmas, 1522)
**

More here.
 
Non-Catholic Christians - “Did You Know”? – 2

This is a continuation of a discussion started here****


More here.
I can’t speak for everybody that’s non-Catholic…but here’s my opinion…

Of course all of that you referred to is okay…but not all of it is mandatory…

I agree with infant baptism, confession (though I don’t think it has to be done to a Catholic Priest), Mary is the mother of Jesus…etc…

But I guess that’s the difference between Catholicism and non-Catholicism…I don’t think one is better than the other really…and I think there are more simularities than differences…

I’m a new Lutheran(previously Baptist), so for me, I think Lutheran beliefs are even closer to Catholic beliefs than other denominations, but certainly not an expert…just my .02
 
Non-Catholic Christians - “Did You Know”? – 2

This is a continuation of a discussion started here****


More here.
Jimmy,
I think you understate it when you say that Luther thought infant baptism, confession and absolution, etc are ok.
They are a necessity!!
Jon
 
Non-Catholic Christians - “Did You Know”? – 2

This is a continuation of a discussion started here****


More here.
Jimmy the problem with this post is that you are grouping all non-Roman Catholic Christians into the Lutheran beliefs which is starting with the wrong premise.

I agree with some things Luther said and disagree with others. When you make these posts you always start with “non-catholic christians did you know”… It’s as if you think you are presenting material that Protestants/Non-denoms etc. have never seen. I’m can never tell what your ultimate goal is but it seems you want to justify that everyone should follow the RCC beliefs that Luther may have shared with Rome.

Luther believed in con-substantiation for example which is different than transubstantiation. Others don’t believe either yet do hold to the belief of a real presence.

But again I’m not sure what you are trying to accomplish 🤷
Maybe start with what your point is then give folks a chance to respond. It makes it easier to converse with you 🙂

PEACE
 
Jimmy the problem with this post is that you are grouping all non-Roman Catholic Christians into the Lutheran beliefs which is starting with the wrong premise.

I agree with some things Luther said and disagree with others. When you make these posts you always start with “non-catholic christians did you know”… It’s as if you think you are presenting material that Protestants/Non-denoms etc. have never seen. I’m can never tell what your ultimate goal is but it seems you want to justify that everyone should follow the RCC beliefs that Luther may have shared with Rome.

Luther believed in con-substantiation for example which is different than transubstantiation. Others don’t believe either yet do hold to the belief of a real presence.

But again I’m not sure what you are trying to accomplish 🤷
Maybe start with what your point is then give folks a chance to respond. It makes it easier to converse with you 🙂

PEACE
Hello NDfan,

My points here, were all based on quotes attributed to Martin Luther, the person that many believe started the “Protestant Movement”.

From reading your posts here at CAF, it appears that you may be more well read then some others here. You may already be familiar with these quotes but many are not.

I believe that many Protestants here might be surprised by some of these quotes of Martin Luther.

The (Protestant) question then, should be which man should we follow? Luther disagreed with the Catholic Church, Calvin disagreed with Luther, others have disagreed with both and so on, at least 36,000 times.

All of these disagreement where caused in my opinion, by ego and flawed personal interpretation.

There is no “personal interpretation” in Catholicism.

Catholicism is all about surrender; surrendering oneself to Christ and to His Catholic Church.

Thank you for your post,

God bless you!

Peace 🙂
 
Jimmy the problem with this post is that you are grouping all non-Roman Catholic Christians into the Lutheran beliefs which is starting with the wrong premise.

I agree with some things Luther said and disagree with others. When you make these posts you always start with “non-catholic christians did you know”… It’s as if you think you are presenting material that Protestants/Non-denoms etc. have never seen. I’m can never tell what your ultimate goal is but it seems you want to justify that everyone should follow the RCC beliefs that Luther may have shared with Rome.

Luther believed in con-substantiation for example which is different than transubstantiation. Others don’t believe either yet do hold to the belief of a real presence.

But again I’m not sure what you are trying to accomplish 🤷
Maybe start with what your point is then give folks a chance to respond. It makes it easier to converse with you 🙂

PEACE
NDfan,
While Jimmy can speak for himself, I think what he’s getting at is that some non-Lutheran protestants try to use Luther in support of their arguments when they, in fact, hold a different view from Luther. For example, sola fide and sola scriptura.
As for “con-substantiation”, this term has been applied by others to what Luther and Lutherans believe. Lutherans generally don’t use the term and never have. Part of the problem with it is that sometimes it is used to express not only Luther’s “in, with and under”, but also other beliefs regarding the Eucharist such as “spiritual presence” and the like.

Jon
 
40.png
NDfan:
I just wanted to add, that some people today do not know why they believe what they believe and they should.
 
NDfan,
While Jimmy can speak for himself, I think what he’s getting at is that some non-Lutheran protestants try to use Luther in support of their arguments when they, in fact, hold a different view from Luther.
Jon
Or maybe, my posts to his threads have been so influential that he is having second thoughts about Luther. 😃

Jon
 
Non-Catholic Christians - “Did You Know”? – 2

This is a continuation of a discussion started here****


More here.
If Luther was so aligned with Catholic doctrine and dogma, then why was it so important for the Council of Trent to condemn him to hell?
 
If Luther was so aligned with Catholic doctrine and dogma, then why was it so important for the Council of Trent to condemn him to hell?
Aaaah…because he was a heretic…:rolleyes:

That one was easy…😃

Peace 🙂
 
Aaaah…because he was a heretic…:rolleyes:

That one was easy…😃

Peace 🙂
Don’t mind if I keep trying, do you, Jimmy? 🙂
If Luther was so aligned with Catholic doctrine and dogma, then why was it so important for the Council of Trent to condemn him to hell?
I don’t think Luther personally is mentioned in Trent. The anathemas are directed to certain beliefs, not individuals. Jimmy, correct me if I’m wrong.

Jon
 
Aaaah…because he was a heretic…:rolleyes:

That one was easy…😃

Peace 🙂
maybe it’s not so easy. maybe you’re wrong. maybe Luther wasn’t a heretic after all. maybe the Catholic church is the one who is heretical.
 
Couple things…
  1. I doubt any Lutheran today would say they do exactly as Luther himself did. As Luther’s life progressed, he discovered more in scripture that began to diverge more with Catholic doctrines. It started small with a few issues of reform, but grew over his life. Lutherans would argue that the revelations found in scripture justify the additional later changes by future generations. After all, Luther himself was led by scripture (they will say by the Holy Spirit) to disagree with some specific Catholic teachings- his contemporaries are only engaging in the same process as he did. For some things, that means disowning Luther himself, as Luther was one man who lived in a specific place in history and was not privy to all possible revelation contained in scriptures.
  2. Luther himself means less to many modern Lutherans than you’d think. Just last week at a sermon, for example, my pastor referred to Martin Luther, and he had to preface the name with “a medieval theologian” (exact quote) so the congregation would remember who he was. Not the infallible founder of the Lutheran faith- just some random medieval theologian. There isn’t a confessional Lutheran alive today who claims ALL of Martin Luther’s writings as their own articles of faith. Heck, in some places, the Book of Concord really isn’t even sacred anymore.
I think the response of many committed Lutherans would be “Yeah, so?” to those quotes in the OP- at their core, Lutherans would say they don’t need Martin Luther the man to be what they are, because Sola Scriptura and personal interpretation of passages- and a rejection of magesterial authority to be the interpreter of passages- allow them to better define their beliefs.

It’s kind of funny, when I think about it, synodical conferences where this stuff is decided are a lot like some of the councils in Church history, so it’s almost magisterial.

It would be interesting to do some reading on the Conciliar movement in the Catholic Church, it’s decline, the Reformation, and the further definition of Papal authority in the succeeding centuries… Certainly, some of the Catholic arguments to Luther about Papal authority must have been tested in the prior century when dealing with Conciliarism… Maybe the roots of the Reformation go back further than indulgences and the 95 theses. 🤷
 
I don’t think Luther personally is mentioned in Trent. The anathemas are directed to certain beliefs, not individuals. Jimmy, correct me if I’m wrong.

Jon
So what? Religious historians aplenty will still tell you that Luther was condemned to hell by Trent whether personally or by accepted policy.
 
So what? Religious historians aplenty will still tell you that Luther was condemned to hell by Trent whether personally or by accepted policy.
I think JonNC is spot on. Can you blame them for that? He left the Universal Orthodox faith, and dragged others along with him. Can you honestly say that what Luther did was for the better? Look at the effects.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew
 
So what? Religious historians aplenty will still tell you that Luther was condemned to hell by Trent whether personally or by accepted policy.
SIA,
No expert here, but the Catholic Church, to my knowledge is careful not to claim to know who is and isn’t going to hell. That is in God’s hands, and it would be presumptious indeed for any human to make that claim. Certainly, they claim that Luther was a heretic, and Trent marked some of his beliefs as anathema.

Jon
 
I think JonNC is spot on. Can you blame them for that? He left the Universal Orthodox faith, and dragged others along with him. Can you honestly say that what Luther did was for the better? Look at the effects.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew
Andrw,
Even from a Catholic standpoint, there were things going on in the Catholic Church that Trent had to reform. One might say that the Catholic Church is better off as a result of Luther.
And, the Catholic Church is clear in statements that there was blame to go around. So as a Lutheran, I confess that my Church has done sinful things that have helped to split His Church. Honest Catholics will do the same.
All that said, I go back to my point with Jimmy; let’s approach each other with open hearts and minds, place into history the mutual condemnations and forgive each other our mutual sins, speak our beliefs honestly to each other and let the HS guide us back to unity.

Jon
 
maybe it’s not so easy. maybe you’re wrong. maybe Luther wasn’t a heretic after all. maybe the Catholic church is the one who is heretical.
Oh, no…it’s easy…because I’m a faithful Roman Catholic, .maybe that was just a bunch of “maybes” and nothing more… 😃

I am not the one who decided that Martin Luther was/is a heretic; I was merely agreeing that he is a heretic.

When you “say” that “maybe” I’m wrong, maybe what you really meant, is that all of the billions of Catholics over the last two thousand years, who have ever lived, were/are wrong.

That’s the type of thinking that landed Luther in so much trouble…maybe…maybe…maybe'I,ve got it all figured out…

If you believe what you have posted here, then you must think that Martin Luther was the “smartest” and greatest human being who ever lived, because he “figured it all out” and by doing so, ”saved’ all those people who couldn’t “figure it all out” and otherwise be “saved”…right?

I ain’t falling for it….I don’t believe that he did have it “all figured out”…

33,000+ different Christian denominations disagree with Luther about one thing or another.

Martin Luther and others involved in his “Movement”, which has divided Christians to this day, were a bunch of troublemakers.

Those who have rejected Catholicism to follow the errant beliefs of Martin Luther are following a “man” and I chose to follow Jesus Christ.

I am not going to put the fate of my soul into Martin Luther’s hands; heck, he wasn’t even a prophet…

Everyone involved in personal interpretation of the Bible, is a would-be Martin Luther.

Sorry…but Martin Luther was a heretic.

Thank you for your post.

Peace 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top