Protestant Reformation not from God but from the Evil One.

[Traveller1534]

This has much more significance than whether you agreed with Luther or not. The books are called the apocrypha because they were rightfully removed from sacred scripture. They are not of the same origin as the other books and do not belong hence the word apocrypha.

 

[Morning_Star15]

This has much more significance than whether you agreed with Luther or not. The books are called the apocrypha because they were rightfully removed from sacred scripture. They are not of the same origin as the other books and do not belong hence the word apocrypha.

And who gets to judge if something is “rightly” removed from Sacred Scripture? Obviously your hero Luther couldn’t judge that correctly, because 4 of the books he removed (the NT ones) were added back in to all Bibles. If these 4 books that Luther said “didn’t belong” were later deemed to belong after all, what’s to stop the other 7 from being put back in?

 

[murtad]

Since Jesus prayed for all believers to be One, and that the Protestant Reformation divided His Church I don’t believe the Reformation is God’s handy work but that of the Devil himself who takes pleasure of dividing God’s children.

Yes, the Protestant Reformation is not from God but even the Great Schism in 1054 C.E. that led to the creation of ethnic clubs known as the Orthodox Churches are not from God.

Do you know the Russian government of President Vladimir Putin (who was elected by the Russian Orthodox Church) practises organised racism (apartheid) towards non Russians such as Chechens, Tatars and Dagestanis? There is no seperation of Church and State in Russia and Russian Nationalism equals Russian Orthodoxy! Ethnic Chechens (in particular their late leader Aslan Maskhadov) are pro-American and love American-style freedoms such as right to speak Chechen language, right of freedom of religion, and right to elect their own leaders democratically and autonomously without interference of the Russian Orthodox Church.

America should send her army to liberate Chechnya from Russian occupation and racism in the same manner as the U.S. armed forces liberated the Shia people of Iraq from the tyrant Sunni Arab dictator Saddam Hussein.

 

[LRThunder]

The books I assume that you are referring to are the 7 books that are called the apocrypha. These books are not part of sacred scripture and never were. If you could make a case for them than you could make some sort of a case for the hundreds of supposed gospels that were written as well. Martin Luther called a spade a spade and the church was too arrogant and self absorbed to reason with him as they would be today for certain. I’m glad I left.

Then I suppose Revelation, James, Hebrews were almost not sacred scripture since Martin Luther wanted to eject those as well.

I am correct when I said that those 7 books are called the apocrypha. Only Catholic versions of scripture contain them because many theologians from several denominations rejected these books as sacred scripture.

Then shouldn’t they reject the entire Bible if they took it upon themselves to decide what was sacred scripture and what wasn’t? I mean, why stop there?

 

[Steadfast]

Many here prefer cartoons to real artwork and caricatures to real history.

 

[Efrain]

How can Luther be a hero to some if we tried to chop up Scripture to his own taste? Didn’t he proclaim the epsitle of James as an epistle of straw? Didin’t he try to remove Revelations and the epistle to the Hebrews as well? He would be much more respected if he did try to fix errors within rather than inventing new doctrine and leading multitudes to error. He is guilty of scandalizing himself as well as others.

 

[forthefaith77]

St. Francis of Assisi found peace with God, was an mystic only after living a rich life and a choosing to live his life for the church. His story is perserved in the church and there is majorty agrrement of his life. Alot of the information of Martin Luther is lengend, innacrate, and perserved by many seperated churches and the accounts of his grivences and trail with the Catholic church. Even the Luther movie that just came out has been met with many dissigrements of the story. He asked that his name would not be used for the church and he liked the term evangleical. This term is used by the ELCA and others but the LCMS. With so many dissagrements in the current lutheran bodies about doctrine many of the suggestions of their founder have fallen out of use.

 

[forthefaith77]

I think one of the books he took out contains the verses that justify the catholic understanding of the communion of saints. He was aganist the naming and intercession of saints and even confession. However he still approved of the creed we belive…communion of saints…forgiveness of sins… and the term holy catholic church is changed to holy christian church. Yet another condirection is the idea of the bible alone for faith and yet he made an large and small catesism for the instruction of the faith. I read one time that he said that is was okay to have an affair aganist your spouse if the martial act was not pleasurable. He even went as far as to say that the ten commandments loose some of their binding validiy becasue of orginal sin.

 

[Michael_Howard]

Luther hated every one but those who agreed with him, he hated Catholics, hated other Protestant Reformer’s ideas, declared such teachings worthy of hell, hated Anabaptist Protestants, Jews, witches, and finally stooped to having everyone in Saxony forced to attend church and learn Luther’s catechism, having the churches in Saxony examined, and any who didn’t teach Lutheranism were run out of the country or worse – if they kept coming back.

Calvin did the same thing in Geneva, everyone forced to give up Catholicism, forced to attend church (or be fined a day’s wage or worse), heretics and witches forced to recant, be exiled or worse, and in fact, if you disagreed with Calvin on any matter concerning the Bible you were considered suspect and exiled, or worse.

If you doubted his theory of predestination, if you doubted his ideas of the Lord’s supper, if you doubted his interpretation of Jesus’ “descent into hell,” if you doubted that the Song of Solomon was primarily about Christ’s love for “the church,” etc. Calvin and Luther taught and argued vehemently that it was the duty of civil magistrates to enforce Christian beliefs, and people should keep every idle word, idle thought, and doubt to themselves.

A 13 year old girl was beaten in public for saying she wanted to become a Catholic. There was no organ music allowed in Calvin’s Geneva, no singing in harmony, no secular songs allowed. There were a few religious plays and then even they were forbidden. So were many secular books. Geneva was turned into a huge printing press for Calvin’s works to spread them throughout southern France and spread his particular brand of Protestantism there. Beautiful eh?

 

[Steadfast]

May God forgive you for slandering dead men.

 

[Pater_Familias]

Well let’s see the reformation started with a protest against God’s church . Boldness and arrogance man’s well known bed fellows and satan’s tools exponentially increased and every man became an intepreter and teacher of God’s law. The end result of this heretical and relativist approach to God ? A host of false prophets spreading disunity and attacking holy mother church. The reformation was the work of the evil one, luther a weak man was the tool. May our lord have mercy on his tortured soul

Arthur
Ad Jesu per mariam

Catholic and grateful for the grace to belong to Holy Mother Church

 

[rando78]

Manny, I agree with you, but I doubt if even 2% of other Catholics would.

I believe we, as Catholics, should “boo” and “hiss” whenever Martin Luther (boo! hiss!) is mentioned.

If was Our Lord’s will to use the Protestant Reformation to reform His Church against Catholocism, then why would He wait so long until the days of Martin Luther instead of having “false teaching” corrected centuries earlier? If the Catholic Church is a misleading form of Christianity, then why did it stand alone as a Christian Church for many centuries. This seems to imply that the Church Jesus said the “gates of Hell shall not prevail against” was indeed prevailed against with no one taking the Church back down the right path for a long time.

 

[Mannyfit75]

If was Our Lord’s will to use the Protestant Reformation to reform His Church against Catholocism, then why would He wait so long until the days of Martin Luther instead of having “false teaching” corrected centuries earlier? If the Catholic Church is a misleading form of Christianity, then why did it stand alone as a Christian Church for many centuries. This seems to imply that the Church Jesus said the “gates of Hell shall not prevail against” was indeed prevailed against with no one taking the Church back down the right path for a long time.

Protestant Reformation implies that Christ’ Church did not prevail. So we all have been deceived. I don’t think he did. He kept his promise.

I do not like the fact the Protestant Reformers:

1. Did away with Tradition.
2. Did away with the Sacraments
3. Did away with the priesthood.
4. Did away with Pope.
5. Did away with Mary (a few centuries later).
6. Did away the Fullness of Truth.

They only kept the Scripture since it was the Only thing they can preserve. Yet they alter it by removing the Deutrocanonical Books used By both Catholic and Orthodox Christians since the Beginning.

I Do believe that Protestant Doctrines is the Work of the Evil One, Satan, the Devil.

The People who grow out of this Protestant Reformation are not at the fault but their Fore Fathers, the Reformers are DEAD WRONG!

There is No need for Reformation. There is a NEED for discussion to remove the issue of selling indulgences which is abusive at the time.

A Council should have been form and there were signs of possible break but it was IGNORED in both sides.

Both sides are to blame for this Unneccessary Reformation.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Manny:

Perhaps you don’t like the Protestant Reformers is because you are so misinformed about them.

Protestant Reformation implies that Christ’ Church did not prevail. So we all have been deceived. I don’t think he did. He kept his promise.

I do not like the fact the Protestant Reformers:

1. Did away with Tradition.
2. Did away with the Sacraments

I don’t know what history books you’ve been reading, but not all of the Reformers did away with either (have you read Luther?) Read the Marburg Colloquy… in which Luther MAINTAINED the real presence at the Eucharist, and MAINTAINED the hypostatic union. Good grief.

1. Did away with the priesthood.

Again, READ Luther. Plus he didn’t (nor couldn’t) “do away” with the priesthood.

1. Did away with Pope.

Uh… don’t you still have a Pope?

1. Did away with Mary (a few centuries later).

The fact that most Protestant Churches recite the Nicene and Apostle’s Creeds refutes your statement, Manny. Did away with Mary? I don’t think anyone has that power.

1. Did away the Fullness of Truth.

No one can do away with the Fullness of Truth. The truth is the truth. And if you’re going to view it the way you’re intimating, then not just Protestants are to blame - you will also have to include the Orthodox, Coptics, and Oriental Catholics to your list.

They only kept the Scripture since it was the Only thing they can preserve. Yet they alter it by removing the Deutrocanonical Books used By both Catholic and Orthodox Christians since the Beginning.

Your use of “they” is starting to show your true colors, Manny. In my opinion. (Tell us, how do you really feel )

There is No need for Reformation. There is a NEED for discussion to remove the issue of selling indulgences which is abusive at the time.

Your use of verb tense is wrong. The Reformation has already taken place, I believe.

Both sides are to blame for this Unneccessary Reformation.

On that we agree. So why didn’t the Catholic Church say so 500 years ago? Pride? Arrogance? Honest mistake? I’ll add to your statement: both sides were too prideful or arrogant to admit fault.

 

[Steadfast]

Here’s truth:

1. 
   *]The Reformation is a very complicated historical phenomenon it takes scholars years to grasp with anything like the kind of expertise necessary in order to draw meaningful conclusions about it.
   *]Anybody with a computer and a credit card can get all the one-sided, polemical, jingoistic, divisive nonsense about it he wants to access and in just a few short hours can drill it all down to a few slanderous and ignorant comments.

 

[Pater_Familias]

Here’s truth:

1. 
   *]The Reformation is a very complicated historical phenomenon it takes scholars years to grasp with anything like the kind of expertise necessary in order to draw meaningful conclusions about it.
   *]Anybody with a computer and a credit card can get all the one-sided, polemical, jingoistic, divisive nonsense about it he wants to access and in just a few short hours can drill it all down to a few slanderous and ignorant comments.

1. 
   i agree and then there will still be many a dispute about the importance of the various catalysts, whether humanisms rise or the change from an agricultural to a more industrial society were preeminent. However that does not detract from my humble opinion that it was objectively wrong and the damage and harm wrought thereby far outweighs any good it was suppoused to do.The reformers saw it as the rebirth of the church and yet all led too was disunity and a spiritual ambiguity which haunts us to this day.

 

[Steadfast]

i agree and then there will still be many a dispute about the importance of the various catalysts, whether humanisms rise or the change from an agricultural to a more industrial society were preeminent. However that does not detract from my humble opinion that it was objectively wrong and the damage and harm wrought thereby far outweighs any good it was suppoused to do.The reformers saw it as the rebirth of the church and yet all led too was disunity and a spiritual ambiguity which haunts us to this day.

PF, we probably agree because you’re talking about it’s effects and you’re not drawing slanderous conclusions about the motivations of individuals; motivations we not only can’t know but about which charity demands circumspection.

ETA: and you’re not repeating baseless accusations that have already been dealt with on this very message board.

 

[Steadfast]

This is troubling though:

The reformation was the work of the evil one, luther a weak man was the tool. May our lord have mercy on his tortured soul

1. Luther was anything but weak.
2. How can you possibly know the state of his soul?

 

[Efrain]

I don’t know what history books you’ve been reading, but not all of the Reformers did away with either (have you read Luther?) Read the Marburg Colloquy… in which Luther MAINTAINED the real presence at the Eucharist, and MAINTAINED the hypostatic union. Good grief.

Maintaing the Real Presence in the Eucharist? Luther watered down the Sacrament of the Eucharist by stating that he did not believe in transubstantiation along with all reformers up to this day. The doctrine of Real Presence is not the same as in Cathlocism and can never will be without an Apostolic succssesorship in their clergy.

 

[theAuthor]

I don’t consider Luther to be a hero. Luther had a perfect opportunity to help reform the Church and instead he decided to rebel against Christ’s Church. Luther did start out doing the right thing by pointing out the errors of the Church leaders. The leaders were also interested in working with Luther to help reform the Church. However, once Luther started going to the extreme in his ideology his teachings had to be condemned. The Church simply couldn’t go there. No way the Holy Spirit is going to allow that! Luther by that point was so far gone that he couldn’t or wouldn’t change his ways. Therefore he had to be excommunicated.

LOL, $1 million to someone like Oprah is pennies. It means nothing! Now if your talking $50 million or $100 million that’s a different story. We DO have heros like that in our day. The problem is the vast majority of the world simply chooses to ignore them! A hero in my book is someone like Mother Theresa or Pope Benedict XVI. Neither one was/is afraid to stand up for what they believe in.

My understanding was that quite early on that the Church asked him to recant on his ideas that indulgences (by which I mean a coin in the coffer rings, a soul to heaven zings), before he went more extreme. I may be wrong on this. As someone said above, I am not a Reformation scholar, and wasn’t interested in it till our sponsor, a boo/hisser started booing and hissing during RCIA, and we went, “Hang on, isn’t that the guy who made the Bible accessible to the common man?”

I won’t ever boo and hiss though, because some of his ideas were good. Why should a layman go to Mass and not understand a word of it? Why did the Church not want the people to read Scripture for themselves? The Church should not have been afraid to lose her authority. These changes only came about in the 1960’s with Vatican II, the 1960’s. It is 2007, we have many Bibles in this house, and we are freely choosing to accept the Church’s authority to interpret the Scriptures, but we still want to read them too, as well as the CCC.