Protestant Reformation not from God but from the Evil One.

[Steadfast]

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.

Good for you, Dave and may our tribe increase.

 

[O.S.Luke]

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.

Again… have you READ the Marburg Colloquy? Luther watered down nothing regarding Real Presence, and defended it against Calvin, Zwingli, et. al.

The doctrine of Real Presence is not the same as in Cathlocism and can never will be without an Apostolic succssesorship in their clergy.

“Can never will be?!?”

I think (if I understand you correctly) that you are saying two different things.

I’m not Lutheran, but there is a difference between transubstantiation and Real Presence. Real Presence points toward the fact that Jesus is present at the Eucharist. Transubstantiation goes into a Thomistic and Aristotelian explanation of substance and accidents to say that Jesus is really present. I suspect it’s semantics. Simplisticly: a difference that makes no difference is no difference.

As far as apostolic succession, you have a point. But I suspect we care more about it than God does.

O+

 

[Des]

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.

There has been a strong movment in recent years where we see former well versed protestants coming to the Fold bringing with them a strong vibrant passion with knowledge of Church teachings, and replacing the lapsed non passionate cradle Catholics who didn’t know their stuff to begin with. I believe this is God at work here, regaining the heart and desire from the faithful who want to know, love and defend His Bride.

 

[Contarini]

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),

Since this was never the teaching of the Catholic Church, he didn’t have to recant this. The jingle you quoted may possibly have been said by at least one corrupt preacher of indulgences.

The issue was whether the Pope’s power of the keys extends to the treasury of merit on the one hand (accumulated by Christ and the saints) and to the souls in purgatory on the other. Luther denied both of these things–he taught that the Church had power only over ecclesiastical discipline on earth and had no power to apply the merits of Christ and the saints to the temporal punishment owed by souls on earth and in purgatory.

I’m inclined to agree with him on this, but the issue was still a bit different than you are framing it.

The point at which he clearly put himself over the edge in terms of Catholic orthodoxy was the publication of the *Babylonian Captivity *in 1520. But as you say, this was after several years of having his ideas criticized and condemned by Church authorities.

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?”

More accessible, sure. But there were 17 editions of the Bible in German available in early-sixteenth-century Germany. Luther made it more accessible in the sense that he produced a more accessible and universally useable translation.

These changes only came about in the 1960’s with Vatican II, the 1960’s…

Only then was the liturgy celebrated in the vernacular. Vernacular missals had been widely available for use in the pews ever since the beginning of the 20th century at least. As I said, Germany and many other areas in Europe saw no restrictions on lay Bible reading before the Reformation–these restrictions in the Middle Ages were local and temporary, in response to particular threats. After the Reformation the abominable policy of limiting lay access to Scripture became more universal, and as far as I can see it was onlyreversed in the late 19th century, though I’m willing to be proved wrong on that. It certainly did not take till the 1960s though.

Edwin

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny:

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

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.

I am well informed about them thank you very much.

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

While Luther did maintain some priesthood there sacraments are invalid in the Eyes of the Holy See.

Uh… don’t you still have a Pope?

Yes we do but the Reformers break their union with the Pope which they should have not done. There should have been a dialogue rather than break with Rome. Christ call for unity NOT division for Christian believers.

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.

Most Evangelical Protestants did. The Reformers were loyal to the Marian doctrines but later on the majority of Protestants ministers do not believe that she is Every-Virgin, they do not believe she is not Immaculate Conceived, that she assumed into Heaven.

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.

The Orthodox Christians maintain the authority of their bishops and Patriarchs. In Protestantism, there are only a few bishops in the Anglican community. The majority of the Evangelical don’t.

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

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

The Reform happened but it is NOT justified because the Reformation my friend is tradition of men.

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.

No. I am not prideful nor arrogance. I believe that the reformers were wrong in making a break with Rome. I believe that we all Christians should be ONE! Not divided.

Do you know there are new Protestant denomination forming almost every year breaking from another denom because of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura?

 

[Pater_Familias]

This is troubling though:

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

Well then we will have to agree to disagree. In my opinion breaking away from the church despite the immediate implications was the easy thing to do. The harder and infinitely more couragous action would have been to remain in the church and reform from within. Dissent can survive and be nutured by stubborness and arrogance whilst the truth requires patience and charity,attributes luther sadly lacked. Tortured because by now he has realised his grave error. Admittedly an assumption based on my own presuppositions. God bless

 

[Singinbeauty]

Jesus prayed that we would be ONE as He and the Father are ONE!!! The Reformation did NOT bring about unity it brought about disunity. That was NOT what Jesus wanted.

But I think one of the important things that is missing is that we are ONE… We are ONE Church, ONE Body of Christ, ONE Family - Brothers and Sisters in Christ. NOTHING will prevail against the Church that Christ instituted because that Church is that made up of the beleivers that Christ is who He claimed to be. The Savior of us all…

P.S. The title of this thread was intended to get people riled up… Manny is notorious for this. He seems to like to ruffle feathers. I almost bit Manny but am glad I took a breath and rethought my response… Thanx for being the test for my charity metor…

 

[Mannyfit75]

But I think one of the important things that is missing is that we are ONE… We are ONE Church, ONE Body of Christ, ONE Family - Brothers and Sisters in Christ. NOTHING will prevail against the Church that Christ instituted because that Church is that made up of the beleivers that Christ is who He claimed to be. The Savior of us all…

P.S. The title of this thread was intended to get people riled up… Manny is notorious for this. He seems to like to ruffle feathers. I almost bit Manny but am glad I took a breath and rethought my response… Thanx for being the test for my charity metor…

I’m notorious for disliking the Protestant doctrine not the people. I want to make that VERY CLEAR…

 

[Singinbeauty]

I’m notorious for disliking the Protestant doctrine not the people. I want to make that VERY CLEAR…

I can see that… But as I have stated in other threads our beliefs are our very core. Our heart and soul if you will so when you spit on the belief you essentially spit on us. Saying that Satan had anything to do with what I believe is quite offensive but then… you knew that… I am just saying choose your words more carefully. Most of the time it does look like you want to rile us up.

 

[Efrain]

Again… have you READ the Marburg Colloquy? Luther watered down nothing regarding Real Presence, and defended it against Calvin, Zwingli, et. al.

I have not read Marburg Colloquy. The point I’m trying to make is that although Luther desired not to leave the Church, the result of his fruit was to disrupt and injure the unity of the Body of Christ. His followers and others that he influenced cannot even agree on a single doctrine pertaining the Real Presence. Are you saying that all of them hold the fullness of Truth in their different doctrines?

“Can never will be?!?”

I think (if I understand you correctly) that you are saying two different things.

I’m not Lutheran, but there is a difference between transubstantiation and Real Presence. Real Presence points toward the fact that Jesus is present at the Eucharist. Transubstantiation goes into a Thomistic and Aristotelian explanation of substance and accidents to say that Jesus is really present. I suspect it’s semantics. Simplisticly: a difference that makes no difference is no difference.

As far as apostolic succession, you have a point. But I suspect we care more about it than God does.

O+

The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation teaches that the bread and wine is truely flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus. This is a mystery of the faith Protestants fail to accept. Therefore, if this doctrine is not accepted it is reduced to mere symbolism of our Lord’s supper.

Consubstantiation, transfiguration, memorialism, etc. does make a difference. God does care of His Sacrament that He instituted, otherwise it wouldn’t be His Word. Your opinion that we care more than we should is mere relativism where you choose to agree to disagree rather than coming to fullness of Truth.

 

[Contarini]

The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation teaches that the bread and wine is truely flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus.

Luther certainly believed this.

This is a mystery of the faith Protestants fail to accept.

Luther accepted it. I accept it. My Methodist wife accepts it. Lots of Protestants I know accept it.

Therefore, if this doctrine is not accepted it is reduced to mere symbolism of our Lord’s supper.

It’s simply not true that if you don’t believe transubstantiation then you believe in mere symbolism.

Your opinion that we care more than we should is mere relativism where you choose to agree to disagree rather than coming to fullness of Truth.

I think it’s frankly laughable that people on this board accuse everyone who doesn’t agree with them of being relativists. If anything, you are the relativist, because you ignore the objective truth that many Protestants believe in the Real Presence, simply because from your perspective if we don’t believe in exactly the right theory then we’re no different from those who deny it outright.

Edwin

 

[Efrain]

There has been a strong movment in recent years where we see former well versed protestants coming to the Fold bringing with them a strong vibrant passion with knowledge of Church teachings, and replacing the lapsed non passionate cradle Catholics who didn’t know their stuff to begin with. I believe this is God at work here, regaining the heart and desire from the faithful who want to know, love and defend His Bride.

I believe the same. We can both mutually benefit from each other with open dialogue.

 

[GKC]

Efrain,

Did you understand my reference to the cannos of the XIIIth Session of the Council Of Trent, in the other thread?

Not that I’m a protestant, of course.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Sabda]

But I think one of the important things that is missing is that we are ONE… We are ONE Church, ONE Body of Christ, ONE Family - Brothers and Sisters in Christ. NOTHING will prevail against the Church that Christ instituted because that Church is that made up of the beleivers that Christ is who He claimed to be. The Savior of us all…

P.S. The title of this thread was intended to get people riled up… Manny is notorious for this. He seems to like to ruffle feathers. I almost bit Manny but am glad I took a breath and rethought my response… Thanx for being the test for my charity metor…

There is only one baptism, one Lord, and one faith. To believe in the one Lord is to believe in all that the one Lord taught. We (as Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox) do NOT agree on this one therefore we are NOT one.

 

[Singinbeauty]

There is only one baptism, one Lord, and one faith. To believe in the one Lord is to believe in all that the one Lord taught. We (as Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox) do NOT agree on this one therefore we are NOT one.

So protestants don’t believe in the same Lord as catholics… Hmmmm. Yeah I am going to have to go with ‘no’ on this one… but thanx!

We believe in ONE God. We may differ on how to worship Him but I think that God overlooks the bickering and sees that each group is trying with all of their might to worship Him as best as they can. We are God’s children which make us ONE… I am sorry you don’t feel this way…

 

[BarbG]

I was very interested in this topic because we have a new religious radio station in the San Francisco area and I suffer from what I call “old age disease” – in other words, I’m awake a long time every night. On this station they’ve been reading from a book about the Reformation and praising King Henry VIII and totally “bashing” the Pope. I should look up and see who was Pope at that time, but if I recall correctly, Henry VIII wasn’t exactly a “holy” fellow – what are your thoughts about this???

 

[GKC]

I was very interested in this topic because we have a new religious radio station in the San Francisco area and I suffer from what I call “old age disease” – in other words, I’m awake a long time every night. On this station they’ve been reading from a book about the Reformation and praising King Henry VIII and totally “bashing” the Pope. I should look up and see who was Pope at that time, but if I recall correctly, Henry VIII wasn’t exactly a “holy” fellow – what are your thoughts about this???

I think you’re listening to an odd sounding book.

Could have been a number of Popes, in Henry’s day; maybe Julius, maybe Clement, maybe someone else.

I’d suggest John. J. Scarisbrick’s biography of Henry, HENRY VIII, for a good historical overview of the man and the period.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Efrain]

Luther certainly believed this.

For the reason why, in addition to the expressions of Christ and St. Paul (the bread in the Supper is the body of Christ or the communion of the body of Christ), also the forms: under the bread, with the bread, in the bread [the body of Christ is present and offered], are employed, is that by means of them the papistical transubstantiation may be rejected and the sacramental union of the unchanged essence of the bread and of the body of Christ indicated. The Formula of Concord 1536

If Luther believed so then why wouldn’t his followers? Why go through such an extreme as to try to rename the doctrine of transubstantiation to the Real Presence if the doctrine isn’t going to differ?

Luther accepted it. I accept it. My Methodist wife accepts it. Lots of Protestants I know accept it…

A lot of Protestants I know do not accept it. Like Evangelicals.

It’s simply not true that if you don’t believe transubstantiation then you believe in mere symbolism…

Would you care to elaborate? If transubstantiation in Mass does not occur in your church, then how is it the true body and blood of Christ?

I think it’s frankly laughable that people on this board accuse everyone who doesn’t agree with them of being relativists. If anything, you are the relativist, because you ignore the objective truth that many Protestants believe in the Real Presence, simply because from your perspective if we don’t believe in exactly the right theory then we’re no different from those who deny it outright…

Edwin

I’m glad that I was able to provide a good laugh for you but the fact remains if transubstantiation does not take place in the consecration of the Eucharist how is the body and blood of Christ present in the Real Presence?

I mean no disrespect just an explanation of by what means is the Eucharist converted to the true body and blood of Christ in your church.

 

[Efrain]

Efrain,

Did you understand my reference to the cannos of the XIIIth Session of the Council Of Trent, in the other thread?

Not that I’m a protestant, of course.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

Sorry GKC havn’t gotten to the other thread yet. But thanks for the info I will look it up.

 

[Contarini]

For the reason why, in addition to the expressions of Christ and St. Paul (the bread in the Supper is the body of Christ or the communion of the body of Christ), also the forms: under the bread, with the bread, in the bread [the body of Christ is present and offered], are employed, is that by means of them the papistical transubstantiation may be rejected and the sacramental union of the unchanged essence of the bread and of the body of Christ indicated. The Formula of Concord 1536

If Luther believed so then why wouldn’t his followers? Why go through such an extreme as to try to rename the doctrine of transubstantiation to the Real Presence if the doctrine isn’t going to differ?

I don’t follow what you are saying. I am not claiming that Luther believed in transubstantiation, but that he believed that Christ’s body is really and truly present.

A lot of Protestants I know do not accept it. Like Evangelicals.

“Evangelicals” are a very broad group. But I didn’t dispute that many Protestants disbelieve in the Real Presence. You were talking specifically about Luther. I simply pointed out that it isn’t just true of Luther and Lutherans.

Would you care to elaborate? If transubstantiation in Mass does not occur in your church, then how is it the true body and blood of Christ?

Why do I need to explain it? This is the general Anglican objection to transubstantiation–it tries to explain a mystery, which is generally a foolish thing to do.

For their part, Lutherans do not generally believe that there is a “conversion” of the elements but that Christ’s Body and Blood become present in, with, and under the unchanged elements. But this is a real bodily presence.

Edwin