Protestants and Holy Communion

[JonNC]

Look at the fruits! There is no central authority, there is discord, the churches keep splitting each time there is a disagreement (literally scores of denominations - in fact hundreds of scores!!) the churches have watered down beliefs. If you compare the beliefs of the denominations today to what Luther believed you will see how the beliefs have changed. Even Luther must be turning in his grave!

Most of the ones you refer to didn’t follow Luther to begin with. Why would one expect them to do so now?

The Doctrines of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - the Church founded by Jesus himself.

Someone here said they couldn’t understand why I do accept the first 7 councils.

=Cinette;9172375]You are misguided but not shallow

Well, again, that’s better than being accused of being anti-catholic or a new oracle.

*The Deposit of Faith, the Authority given to Peter by Jesus - it would not make sense to found a Church without Authority. The Holy Spirit is there guiding the Church despite the weakness of humans within the Church. Without the H Spirit there would be no Church. You can’t tell me that the H Spirit is there guiding all the denominations! Surely!

I would contend that the holy Spirit is there guiding all of us. Unlike some, I believe the HS is guiding the Catholic Church. Now, I certainly don’t believe that all of us are understanding His guidance, at least not completely.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=jcrichton;9172389]Hi, Jon!

…Luther may not have said that it was not part of the Canon but he spoke very uncharitable about James, Hebrews and Apocalypse… he even decided that he had the authority to add to the actual Biblical text as he plummeted the simple and dissenters into that ominously treacherous trek against Christ’s Church:

Read what he said about translation. He didn’t add to scripture, he translated it. I know you are speaking of Romans 3:28. Notice that in no English Bible the word “allein” is there. why? It isn’t necessary in the English.

…Luther places himself above even the Sacred Scriptures as he makes himself sole and complete authority of the Word of God.

Source, please, where he makes this claim, keeping in mind that a Catholic translator was using Luther’s in his own efforts.

It is completely surprising to me that you claim to seek enlightenment while deriding the Church as you embrace Protestanism with sheer delight (translation: Catholic Church errs vs. you and Luther and his supporters and followers who are all fully inspired).

Amazing!! Where did I say either of these things? Where did I deride the Catholic Church?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Could you define Orthodoxy?

Maran atha!

Angel

Eastern Orthodoxy.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

…yet sola fide does not exist!

…the closest Scriptures get is “not by faith alone!”

How do you account for Luther’s adding to Scriptures?

Maran atha!

Angel

He didn’t, unless you want to claim that by adding the Prayer of Manassess to his translation he was adding to scripture.

As for sola fide, maybe what your definition is of sola fide would help. Paul, on numerous occassions emphasizes that we are justiied by faith, without works of the law.
I might also add that this seems, to a great degree, an old argument between us. Seek out the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. And here is a link to James Akins on the subject.

As our sanctification progresses, these virtues within us are strengthened by God and we are able to more easily exercise faith, more easily exercise trust, and more easily exercise love. Performing acts of faith, hope, and charity becomes easier as we grow in the Christian life (note the great difficulty new converts often experience in these areas compared to those who have attained a measure of spiritual maturity).

However, so long as one has any measure of faith, hope, and charity, one is in a state of justification. Thus Catholics often use the soteriological slogan that we are “saved by faith, hope, and charity.” This does not disagree with the Protestant soteriological slogan that we are “saved by faith alone” if the term “faith” is understood in the latter to be faith formed by charity or Galatians 5 faith.

One will note, in the definitions of the virtues offered above, the similarity between hope and the way Protestants normally define “faith”; that is, as an unconditional “placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit.” The definition Protestants normally give to “faith” is the definition Catholics use for “hope.”

However, the Protestant idea of faith by no means excludes what Catholics refer to as faith, since every Evangelical would (or should) say that a person with saving faith will believe whatever God says because God is absolutely truthful and incapable of making an error. Thus the Protestant concept of faith normally includes both the Catholic concept of faith and the Catholic concept of hope.

Thus if a Protestant further specifies that saving faith is a faith which “works by charity” then the two soteriological slogans become equivalents. The reason is that a faith which works by charity is a faith which produces acts of love. But a faith which produces acts of love is a faith which includes the virtue of charity, the virtue of charity is the thing that enables us to perform acts of supernatural love in the first place. So a Protestant who says saving faith is a faith which works by charity, as per Galatians 5:6, is saying the same thing as a Catholic when a Catholic says that we are saved by faith, hope, and charity.

Read more: catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/justification-salvation/justification-by-faith-alone-by-james-akin/

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hi, JonNC,

You are not being argumentative … I honestly do not know. I am guessing that they go up to 1057 - but, I am not sure. This would take in the 4th Council of Constantinopel in 869AD but not the 1st Lateran Council in 1183. Do you know? A reference would be appreciated. Thanks

I think that the Orthodox have had their own Councils, do the Lutherans believe these? At some point the Lutherans abandoned the Pope and never signed on to the Patriarchs of Orthodoxy.

God bless

I know, Tom, its wiki, but here it is, nonetheless.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_Council

Jon

 

[PoorKnight]

He didn’t add to scripture, he translated it.

Source, please, where he makes this claim

Ok, I’m certainly not informed enough to stay in this discussion long but these two I can answer. First, Yes Luther did add to Scripture. He added the word “alone”. Added is Added. That word does not exist in any of the biblical texts in Greek, hebrew or latin. Sorry added is added… and, at least according to every fundimentalists I know, all those curese from Revelations now apply to Luther…

Secondly, Luther may not have stated that he is a higher authority than Scripture, but he Acted it, by ripping out Judith, Tobit, 1 + 2 Maccabies, Baruch, Wisdom and Sirach. By doing that he stated he has greater authority to know what is REALLY cannonical and what isn’t.

Third thing to realize is that Luther is a Schismatic. He tore away from the Catholic Church, even violating his own [early] promise not to. I am not free from this either. I was part of a splinter Presb group that broke away from the P.C.U.S.A. Having recently realized this, it’s on my list for my next confession.

Fourth, look at Luther’s views on things such as The Blessed Virgin Mary [paraphrasing] that if 1,000 fine stallions pulled a golden and jeweled carrage into Jerusalem carrying Mary, and the whole world lined the streets to cheer her, and she was then crowned queen of Jerusalem that would not be honor enough. Today I cannot find a Lutheran willing to venerate Blessed Mary.

Four point five, Luther’s view on Contraception was VERY clear that anyone who aborted, used contraception or ‘spilled their seed’ is committing a grave sin. Since 1930, I cannot find a Lutheran confession that still proffesses that.

Fifth, Luther’s Catechism calls the Pope the “Anti-Christ”. Article 4 states “…the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ…”

From John’s letters we know that the Anti Christ will deny Jesus as the Christ (1 Jn 2:22) yet the Pope states at every mass that Jesus is Lord, is the “only begotten Son of God” and is “consubstantial” with God via the Nicean Creed.

Remember No one can say this unless the Holy Spirit is with them (1 Cor 12:3). The Westminster Confession also says that the Pope is the anti-christ, the son of purdition (chapter 25 sub 6).

Following the Anti-Christ would be a matter of salvation, yet, there is NOTHING explicitly stated in Sacred Scripture about this, thereby countering his own “Sola Scriptura” claim.

Oh also where did Jesus give Peter unlimited authority?

Matthew 16. Even Luther believed that “So we stand there and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet, Christ says very clearly in Matthew 16:19 that He will give the keys to Peter. He does not say He has two kinds of keys, but He gives to Peter the keys He Himself has and no others. It is as if He were saying: ‘Why are you staring heavenward in search of the keys? Do you not understand I gave them to Peter? They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven. I left them on earth. Don’t look for them in heaven or anywhere else except in Peter’s mouth where I have placed them. Peter’s mouth is My mouth, and his tongue is My key case. His office is My office, his binding and loosing are My binding and loosing.’” (Martin Luther, The Keys, in Conrad Bergendoff, ed., trans. Earl Beyer and Conrad Bergedoff, Luther’s Works, vol. 40, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958, p 365-366)

Luther just didn’t believe in Apostolic Sucession but he must have missed Acts 1:20 (among many other passages (2 thes 2:15 for another)).

Oh well, that’s my 2 cents whether you wanted it or not.

God Bless.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC,

Thanks for the link. Here is an interesting paragraph I copied and pasted:

"The Roman Catholic Church does not consider the validity of an ecumenical council’s teaching to be in any way dependent on where it is held or on the granting or withholding of prior authorization or legal status by any state, in line with the attitude of the 5th-century bishops who “saw the definition of the church’s faith and canons as supremely their affair, with or without the leave of the Emperor” and who “needed no one to remind them that Synodical process pre-dated the Christianisation of the royal court by several centuries”

“The Roman Catholic Church recognizes as ecumenical various councils held later than the First Council of Ephesus (after which churches out of communion with the Holy See because of the Nestorian Schism did not participate), later than the Council of Chalcedon (after which there was no participation by churches that rejected Dyophysitism), later than the Second Council of Nicaea (after which there was no participation by the Eastern Orthodox Church, and later than the Fifth Council of the Lateran (after which groups that adhered to Protestantism did not participate).”

What it seems to be saying is that if a group appears to alread be in heresy - they simply refuse the Council that is telling them that they have run off of the road. For example:

The Nestorian Schism is something that the Lutherans reject! Lutherans, like Catholics, believe that Christ is True God and True Man, and that Mary is the Mother of God. Nestorius, and the churches that joined the schism, refused to acknowledge the validity of the two Councils that condemned this false teaching: 1st Council of Ephesus in 431, and the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

The Dyophysite heresy, is something else that the Lutherans reject! Lutherans, like Catholics believe that Christ had two natures: God and man, that were united in one Divine Person - the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Actually, getting that concept down was difficult - and those in revot were not going to listen to the Second Council of Nicea that condemned them.

I think you see a pattern developing here. Those in revolt will not submit to the Authority of the Catholic Church that Christ gave to Peter and that Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would provide all truth - so no error can be taught.

Ah, but then we run into a change … at least that is the way it appears to me. The 5th Lateran Council en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Council_of_the_Lateran was rejected by the Protestants - 7 months prior to Luther nailed his 95 Thesis to the Chruch door, this Council had had its last session. Apparently, few if any of the changes authorized by the Council had been implemented - but, whether this had an effect on Luther is moot.

Ah, and then we get to the Council of Trent (1545-1563) that took at what the Protestants were saying, responded to their statements and addressed what the Church was doing prior to the time of this Council. Here is a very interesting link: newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm

One of the problems with going over historicl documents and positions on matters that are relevant today is that there are changes (simply due to the passage of time, people involved, difficulties in communicating, etc.) that get folded into the mix.

God bless

I know, Tom, its wiki, but here it is, nonetheless.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_Council

Jon

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PoorKnight,

Welcome to CAF!

This is truly an excellent post. You have addressed several issues that honestly need to be addressed by those who still are in active revolt against the Church founded by Christ on Peter.

God bless

Ok, I’m certainly not informed enough to stay in this discussion long but these two I can answer. First, Yes Luther did add to Scripture. He added the word “alone”. Added is Added. That word does not exist in any of the biblical texts in Greek, hebrew or latin. Sorry added is added… and, at least according to every fundimentalists I know, all those curese from Revelations now apply to Luther…

Secondly, Luther may not have stated that he is a higher authority than Scripture, but he Acted it, by ripping out Judith, Tobit, 1 + 2 Maccabies, Baruch, Wisdom and Sirach. By doing that he stated he has greater authority to know what is REALLY cannonical and what isn’t.

Third thing to realize is that Luther is a Schismatic. He tore away from the Catholic Church, even violating his own [early] promise not to. I am not free from this either. I was part of a splinter Presb group that broke away from the P.C.U.S.A. Having recently realized this, it’s on my list for my next confession.

Fourth, look at Luther’s views on things such as The Blessed Virgin Mary [paraphrasing] that if 1,000 fine stallions pulled a golden and jeweled carrage into Jerusalem carrying Mary, and the whole world lined the streets to cheer her, and she was then crowned queen of Jerusalem that would not be honor enough. Today I cannot find a Lutheran willing to venerate Blessed Mary.

Four point five, Luther’s view on Contraception was VERY clear that anyone who aborted, used contraception or ‘spilled their seed’ is committing a grave sin. Since 1930, I cannot find a Lutheran confession that still proffesses that.

Fifth, Luther’s Catechism calls the Pope the “Anti-Christ”. Article 4 states “…the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ…”

From John’s letters we know that the Anti Christ will deny Jesus as the Christ (1 Jn 2:22) yet the Pope states at every mass that Jesus is Lord, is the “only begotten Son of God” and is “consubstantial” with God via the Nicean Creed.

Remember No one can say this unless the Holy Spirit is with them (1 Cor 12:3). The Westminster Confession also says that the Pope is the anti-christ, the son of purdition (chapter 25 sub 6).

Following the Anti-Christ would be a matter of salvation, yet, there is NOTHING explicitly stated in Sacred Scripture about this, thereby countering his own “Sola Scriptura” claim.

Oh also where did Jesus give Peter unlimited authority?

Matthew 16. Even Luther believed that “So we stand there and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet, Christ says very clearly in Matthew 16:19 that He will give the keys to Peter. He does not say He has two kinds of keys, but He gives to Peter the keys He Himself has and no others. It is as if He were saying: ‘Why are you staring heavenward in search of the keys? Do you not understand I gave them to Peter? They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven. I left them on earth. Don’t look for them in heaven or anywhere else except in Peter’s mouth where I have placed them. Peter’s mouth is My mouth, and his tongue is My key case. His office is My office, his binding and loosing are My binding and loosing.’” (Martin Luther, The Keys, in Conrad Bergendoff, ed., trans. Earl Beyer and Conrad Bergedoff, Luther’s Works, vol. 40, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958, p 365-366)

Luther just didn’t believe in Apostolic Sucession but he must have missed Acts 1:20 (among many other passages (2 thes 2:15 for another)).

Oh well, that’s my 2 cents whether you wanted it or not.

God Bless.

 

[jcrichton]

Read what he said about translation. He didn’t add to scripture, he translated it. I know you are speaking of Romans 3:28. Notice that in no English Bible the word “allein” is there. why? It isn’t necessary in the English.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible
Luther added the word “alone” (allein in German) to Romans 3:28 controversially so that it read: “thus, we hold, then, that man is justified without the works of the law to do, alone through faith”[8] The word “alone” does not appear in the original Greek text,[9] but Luther defended his translation by maintaining that the adverb “alone” was required both by idiomatic German and the apostle Paul’s intended meaning.

Though I am not a linguist, I know that Grammatical accidents to differ from language to language… but inserting a term that is not necessary to the context only to emphasize a theme is, in my view, superfluous; by Luther’s own words it is proven that his intent is not to supply a terminology that would otherwise be obscured or misinterpreted:

but Luther defended his translation

by maintaining that the adverb “alone” was required both by idiomatic German and the apostle Paul’s intended meaning.
…the weak idomatic reason is, in his mind, supported by what he believes was in the mind of St. Paul when he wrote/dictated Romans… wow! :hypno:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible

Luther added the word “alone” (allein in German) to Romans 3:28 controversially so that it read: “thus, we hold, then, that man is justified without the works of the law to do, alone through faith”[8] The word “alone” does not appear in the original Greek text,[9] but Luther defended his translation by maintaining that the adverb “alone” was required both by idiomatic German and the apostle Paul’s intended meaning.[10]

Initially Luther had a low view of the Old Testament book of Esther and of the New Testament books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation of John. He called the Letter of James “an epistle of straw,” finding little in it that pointed to Christ and His saving work. He also had harsh words for the Revelation of John, saying that he could “in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.”[11] In his translation of the New Testament Luther moved Hebrews and James out of the usual order, to join Jude and the Revelation at the end, and differentiated these from the other books which he considered “the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation.”[12] His views on some of these books changed in later years.
…Luther places himself above even the Sacred Scriptures as he makes himself sole and complete authority of the Word of God.

Source, please, where he makes this claim, keeping in mind that a Catholic translator was using Luther’s in his own efforts.
When a person takes the liberties Luther did, that person is making him/herself the sole authority, refuting even Sacred Scriptures that dictate that nothing be added or substracted from the Sacred Text.

…mind you, you and everone else in the world, have the right to evoke and opinion… yet, when a person starts to teach error… well… he/she has stepped deep into Hell’s mouth!

Amazing!! Where did I say either of these things? Where did I deride the Catholic Church?

This was my main issue:

But let’s be clear here, my profile claims to be evangelical

Catholic, and if that moniker bothers triumpalists on either side, so be it.

Jon

Jon

…since you never replied to:

…it does not bother me what you call yourself since your definition will be put aside when you express your faith base… what bothers me is that now you are creating new words (unless its a mispelling) where you tap onto past hatred of the Pope… why engage in loathing of a people when you visit their home?

Maran atha!

Angel

Perhaps it was simple misunderstanding… though you did not reply to my query… I did find this:

If you read my post, I said triumphalists on both sides

. That includes lutherans.

So, I’ll tell you what. You find in my almost 9000 posts on this site, where I have ever, EVER, slurred or in any way been disrespectful to the Catholic Church or her members. I’ve been nothing but respectful.

JonMaran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

He didn’t, unless you want to claim that by adding the Prayer of Manassess to his translation he was adding to scripture.

No, I am speaking of “alone;” Luther’s personal theology required “alone” in order to gain authority; had he not added that term I doubt that there be much confusion with at least this theological understanding.

As for sola fide, maybe what your definition is of sola fide would help. Paul, on numerous occassions emphasizes that we are justiied by faith, without works of the law.
I might also add that this seems, to a great degree, an old argument between us. Seek out the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. And here is a link to James Akins on the subject.

Jon

…I, and the Catholic Church, have no problems with that… the fact that St. Paul emphesizes that there’s no Salvation in the works of the Law is not news… however, once Luther introduced the “alone” clause division started… we do not believe that the Law Saves us since we Believe that Salvation is Granted to us as a free Gift (Grace) from God; however, Grace allows the Believers to change from subjugation to sin to freedom in Christ… and it is through this Grace that we Receive the Gifts of the Holy Spirit that allow us to then demonstrate, through works/deeds, that we are in Fellowship With Christ… Both St. Paul and St. James speak on this issue which not only is required of the Christian Believer but goes hand in hand with Faith:

1 Though I command languages both human and angelic – if I speak without love, I am no more than a gong booming or a cymbal clashing. 2 And though I have the power of prophecy, to penetrate all mysteries and knowledge, and though I have all the faith necessary to move mountains – if I am without love, I am nothing. 3 Though I should give away to the poor all that I possess, and even give up my body to be burned – if I am without love, it will do me no good whatever. (1 Corinthians 13:1-3)

14 How does it help, my brothers, when someone who has never done a single good act claims to have faith? Will that faith bring salvation? 15 If one of the brothers or one of the sisters is in need of clothes and has not enough food to live on, 16 and one of you says to them, ‘I wish you well; keep yourself warm and eat plenty,’ without giving them these bare necessities of life, then what good is that? 17 In the same way faith, if good deeds do not go with it, is quite dead. 18 But someone may say: So you have faith and I have good deeds? Show me this faith of yours without deeds, then! It is by my deeds that I will show you my faith. 19 You believe in the one God – that is creditable enough, but even the demons have the same belief, and they tremble with fear. 20 Fool! Would you not like to know that faith without deeds is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by his deed, because he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 So you can see that his faith was working together with his deeds; his faith became perfect by what he did. 23 In this way the scripture was fulfilled: Abraham put his faith in God, and this was considered as making him upright; and he received the name ‘friend of God’. 24 You see now that it is by deeds, and not only by believing, that someone is justified. 25 There is another example of the same kind: Rahab the prostitute, was she not justified by her deeds because she welcomed the messengers and showed them a different way to leave? 26 As a body without a spirit is dead, so is faith without deeds. (St. James 2:14-26)

We cannot Live by Faith alone!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Ok, I’m certainly not informed enough to stay in this discussion long but these two I can answer. First, Yes Luther did add to Scripture. He added the word “alone”. Added is Added. That word does not exist in any of the biblical texts in Greek, hebrew or latin. Sorry added is added… and, at least according to every fundimentalists I know, all those curese from Revelations now apply to Luther…

Secondly, Luther may not have stated that he is a higher authority than Scripture, but he Acted it, by ripping out Judith, Tobit, 1 + 2 Maccabies, Baruch, Wisdom and Sirach. By doing that he stated he has greater authority to know what is REALLY cannonical and what isn’t.

Third thing to realize is that Luther is a Schismatic. He tore away from the Catholic Church, even violating his own [early] promise not to. I am not free from this either. I was part of a splinter Presb group that broke away from the P.C.U.S.A. Having recently realized this, it’s on my list for my next confession.

Fourth, look at Luther’s views on things such as The Blessed Virgin Mary [paraphrasing] that if 1,000 fine stallions pulled a golden and jeweled carrage into Jerusalem carrying Mary, and the whole world lined the streets to cheer her, and she was then crowned queen of Jerusalem that would not be honor enough. Today I cannot find a Lutheran willing to venerate Blessed Mary.

Four point five, Luther’s view on Contraception was VERY clear that anyone who aborted, used contraception or ‘spilled their seed’ is committing a grave sin. Since 1930, I cannot find a Lutheran confession that still proffesses that.

Fifth, Luther’s Catechism calls the Pope the “Anti-Christ”. Article 4 states “…the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ…”

From John’s letters we know that the Anti Christ will deny Jesus as the Christ (1 Jn 2:22) yet the Pope states at every mass that Jesus is Lord, is the “only begotten Son of God” and is “consubstantial” with God via the Nicean Creed.

Remember No one can say this unless the Holy Spirit is with them (1 Cor 12:3). The Westminster Confession also says that the Pope is the anti-christ, the son of purdition (chapter 25 sub 6).

Following the Anti-Christ would be a matter of salvation, yet, there is NOTHING explicitly stated in Sacred Scripture about this, thereby countering his own “Sola Scriptura” claim.

Oh also where did Jesus give Peter unlimited authority?

Matthew 16. Even Luther believed that “So we stand there and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet, Christ says very clearly in Matthew 16:19 that He will give the keys to Peter. He does not say He has two kinds of keys, but He gives to Peter the keys He Himself has and no others. It is as if He were saying: ‘Why are you staring heavenward in search of the keys? Do you not understand I gave them to Peter? They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven. I left them on earth. Don’t look for them in heaven or anywhere else except in Peter’s mouth where I have placed them. Peter’s mouth is My mouth, and his tongue is My key case. His office is My office, his binding and loosing are My binding and loosing.’” (Martin Luther, The Keys, in Conrad Bergendoff, ed., trans. Earl Beyer and Conrad Bergedoff, Luther’s Works, vol. 40, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958, p 365-366)

Luther just didn’t believe in Apostolic Sucession but he must have missed Acts 1:20 (among many other passages (2 thes 2:15 for another)).

Oh well, that’s my 2 cents whether you wanted it or not.

God Bless.

…I enjoyed your post; there were several points about Luther that I did not know… do you have a link to the source? (I like to include links to sources when I cite them.)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Hi, JonNC,

Thanks for the link. Here is an interesting paragraph I copied and pasted:

"The Roman Catholic Church does not consider the validity of an ecumenical council’s teaching to be in any way dependent on where it is held or on the granting or withholding of prior authorization or legal status by any state, in line with the attitude of the 5th-century bishops who “saw the definition of the church’s faith and canons as supremely their affair, with or without the leave of the Emperor” and who “needed no one to remind them that Synodical process pre-dated the Christianisation of the royal court by several centuries”

“The Roman Catholic Church recognizes as ecumenical various councils held later than the First Council of Ephesus (after which churches out of communion with the Holy See because of the Nestorian Schism did not participate), later than the Council of Chalcedon (after which there was no participation by churches that rejected Dyophysitism), later than the Second Council of Nicaea (after which there was no participation by the Eastern Orthodox Church, and later than the Fifth Council of the Lateran (after which groups that adhered to Protestantism did not participate).”

What it seems to be saying is that if a group appears to alread be in heresy - they simply refuse the Council that is telling them that they have run off of the road. For example:

The Nestorian Schism is something that the Lutherans reject! Lutherans, like Catholics, believe that Christ is True God and True Man, and that Mary is the Mother of God. Nestorius, and the churches that joined the schism, refused to acknowledge the validity of the two Councils that condemned this false teaching: 1st Council of Ephesus in 431, and the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

The Dyophysite heresy, is something else that the Lutherans reject! Lutherans, like Catholics believe that Christ had two natures: God and man, that were united in one Divine Person - the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Actually, getting that concept down was difficult - and those in revot were not going to listen to the Second Council of Nicea that condemned them.

I think you see a pattern developing here. Those in revolt will not submit to the Authority of the Catholic Church that Christ gave to Peter and that Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would provide all truth - so no error can be taught.

Ah, but then we run into a change … at least that is the way it appears to me. The 5th Lateran Council en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Council_of_the_Lateran was rejected by the Protestants - 7 months prior to Luther nailed his 95 Thesis to the Chruch door, this Council had had its last session. Apparently, few if any of the changes authorized by the Council had been implemented - but, whether this had an effect on Luther is moot.

Ah, and then we get to the Council of Trent (1545-1563) that took at what the Protestants were saying, responded to their statements and addressed what the Church was doing prior to the time of this Council. Here is a very interesting link: newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm

One of the problems with going over historicl documents and positions on matters that are relevant today is that there are changes (simply due to the passage of time, people involved, difficulties in communicating, etc.) that get folded into the mix.

God bless

Excellent post! :clapping::clapping::clapping:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[inkaneer]

Read what he said about translation. He didn’t add to scripture, he translated it. I know you are speaking of Romans 3:28. Notice that in no English Bible the word “allein” is there. why? It isn’t necessary in the English.

Jon

If Luther did not add to the scripture [and here I am speaking of adding the word “alone” to Romans 3:28] then please show me where this word appears in any translation in any language before Luther. If it does not appear until Luther inserts it then obviously Luther added to the scripture in violation of the scripture.

 

[Cinette]

Most of the ones you refer to didn’t follow Luther to begin with. Why would one expect them to do so now?
Most Protestants I know from different denominations all believe in Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. Where did they get that from? They all speak well of Luther!

Someone here said they couldn’t understand why I do accept the first 7 councils.
Why do you? I would be interested to know.

Well, again, that’s better than being accused of being anti-catholic or a new oracle.That would be a lie - one can see that you love the Lord.

I would contend that the holy Spirit is there guiding all of us. Unlike some, I believe the HS is guiding the Catholic Church. Now, I certainly don’t believe that all of us are understanding His guidance,** at least not completely. *Yes I would not say that the HS abandoned the Protestants *I have a friend who began a ministry whereby she picks up abandoned black children from dustbins, public toilets and drains and takes them in. She finds homes for them. She had 5 children of her own and later adopted 14 (one albino with full blown Aids). She tells a story of when in the beginning her husband was in a mental hospital with deep depression and she was unable to pay the bond on the house and a Muslim left an envelope with her for the exact amount from their community - now tell me that is not the work of the Holy Spirit!

Jon

 

[FSGRY]

LOLhttp://www.50centloseweight.com

 

[JonNC]

=PoorKnight;9180820]Ok, I’m certainly not informed enough to stay in this discussion long but these two I can answer. First, Yes Luther did add to Scripture. ** He added the word “alone”.** Added is Added. That word does not exist in any of the biblical texts in Greek, hebrew or latin. Sorry added is added… and, at least according to every fundimentalists I know, all those curese from Revelations now apply to Luther…

Then you must reject any translation, and accept only transliterations.

Secondly, Luther may not have stated that he is a higher authority than Scripture, but he Acted it, by ripping out Judith, Tobit, 1 + 2 Maccabies, Baruch, Wisdom and Sirach. By doing that he stated he has greater authority to know what is REALLY cannonical and what isn’t.

Find a Luther translation where he ripped out" the D-C’s.

Third thing to realize is that Luther is a Schismatic. He tore away from the Catholic Church, even violating his own [early] promise not to. I am not free from this either. I was part of a splinter Presb group that broke away from the P.C.U.S.A. Having recently realized this, it’s on my list for my next confession.

Excommunication notwithstanding, I presume.

Fourth, look at Luther’s views on things such as The Blessed Virgin Mary [paraphrasing] that if 1,000 fine stallions pulled a golden and jeweled carrage into Jerusalem carrying Mary, and the whole world lined the streets to cheer her, and she was then crowned queen of Jerusalem that would not be honor enough. Today I cannot find a Lutheran willing to venerate Blessed Mary.

Then you are not looking. There are plenty of us out here. But one must keep in mind the freedom Lutherans have regarding the marian beliefs, with he exceptions of Virgin Birth and Holy Theotokos.

Four point five, Luther’s view on Contraception was VERY clear that anyone who aborted, used contraception or ‘spilled their seed’ is committing a grave sin. Since 1930, I cannot find a Lutheran confession that still proffesses that.

The LCMS is very anti-abortion, to the point where our president in front of congress stood shoulder to shoulder with our Catholic Bishop Lori to condemn HHS. And while our position on contraceptives is not outright ban as it is in the CC, it is also not willy-nilly use them whenever you want either.

Fifth, Luther’s Catechism calls the Pope the “Anti-Christ”. Article 4 states “…the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ…”
From John’s letters we know that the Anti Christ will deny Jesus as the Christ (1 Jn 2:22) yet the Pope states at every mass that Jesus is Lord, is the “only begotten Son of God” and is “consubstantial” with God via the Nicean Creed.

Remember No one can say this unless the Holy Spirit is with them (1 Cor 12:3). The Westminster Confession also says that the Pope is the anti-christ, the son of purdition (chapter 25 sub 6).

Following the Anti-Christ would be a matter of salvation, yet, there is NOTHING explicitly stated in Sacred Scripture about this, thereby countering his own “Sola Scriptura” claim.

Yes, I fnd the language dated, and frankly unnecessary in this day and time. Clearly Pope Benedcict, for example, is not anti-Christ. Not in his words and actions could anyone believe such. The charge is against the claims the papacy makes for itself. As for Westminster, it isn’t a Lutheran Confession.
So, let’s be clear: the history of our communions is full of charges and insults against each other. Perhaps we should do more to seek to change that.

Oh also where did Jesus give Peter unlimited authority?

Matthew 16. Even Luther believed that “So we stand there and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet, Christ says very clearly in Matthew 16:19 that He will give the keys to Peter. He does not say He has two kinds of keys, but He gives to Peter the keys He Himself has and no others. It is as if He were saying: ‘Why are you staring heavenward in search of the keys? Do you not understand I gave them to Peter? They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven. I left them on earth. Don’t look for them in heaven or anywhere else except in Peter’s mouth where I have placed them. Peter’s mouth is My mouth, and his tongue is My key case. His office is My office, his binding and loosing are My binding and loosing.’” (Martin Luther, The Keys, in Conrad Bergendoff, ed., trans. Earl Beyer and Conrad Bergedoff, Luther’s Works, vol. 40, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958, p 365-366)

And I agree with this.

Luther just didn’t believe in Apostolic Sucession but he must have missed Acts 1:20 (among many other passages (2 thes 2:15 for another)).

Luther doesn’t deny AS, and the confessions profess a desire to maintain them.

Oh well, that’s my 2 cents whether you wanted it or not.

Appreciated.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

No, I am speaking of “alone;” Luther’s personal theology required “alone” in order to gain authority; had he not added that term I doubt that there be much confusion with at least this theological understanding.

…I, and the Catholic Church, have no problems with that… the fact that St. Paul emphesizes that there’s no Salvation in the works of the Law is not news… however, once Luther introduced the “alone” clause division started… we do not believe that the Law Saves us since we Believe that Salvation is Granted to us as a free Gift (Grace) from God; however, Grace allows the Believers to change from subjugation to sin to freedom in Christ… and it is through this Grace that we Receive the Gifts of the Holy Spirit that allow us to then demonstrate, through works/deeds, that we are in Fellowship With Christ… Both St. Paul and St. James speak on this issue which not only is required of the Christian Believer but goes hand in hand with Faith:

We cannot Live by Faith alone!

Maran atha!

Angel

“The just shall live by faith.” And I have no problem with what you state in the last paragraph.
Luther:

Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.

Jon

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC,

I still do not understand the distinction you have made. Maybe this is overly simplistic, but either Luther added ‘alone’ or he didn’t. You claim his intent was to clarify - but, that really does not hold up to serious examination as has been pointed out.
,
It really looks like he added ‘alone’ because, as was previously pointed out, it was not there before he did his translation, he became fixated with ‘along’ (e.g., Grace Alone, Scripture Alone, Christ Alone) and after his translation, ‘alone’ now appears.

I really am interested in your response.

Gjod bless

Then you must reject any translation, and accept only transliterations.

Find a Luther translation where he ripped out" the D-C’s.

Excommunication notwithstanding, I presume.

Then you are not looking. There are plenty of us out here. But one must keep in mind the freedom Lutherans have regarding the marian beliefs, with he exceptions of Virgin Birth and Holy Theotokos.

The LCMS is very anti-abortion, to the point where our president in front of congress stood shoulder to shoulder with our Catholic Bishop Lori to condemn HHS. And while our position on contraceptives is not outright ban as it is in the CC, it is also not willy-nilly use them whenever you want either.

Yes, I fnd the language dated, and frankly unnecessary in this day and time. Clearly Pope Benedcict, for example, is not anti-Christ. Not in his words and actions could anyone believe such. The charge is against the claims the papacy makes for itself. As for Westminster, it isn’t a Lutheran Confession.
So, let’s be clear: the history of our communions is full of charges and insults against each other. Perhaps we should do more to seek to change that.

And I agree with this.

Luther doesn’t deny AS, and the confessions profess a desire to maintain them.

Appreciated.

Jon

 

[Neofight]

Pastor Heckman was a theologin- in his 70’s when I was in my teens- the one thing he said to me that was embelished by Msr. Cositgan- revalation ended with the death of the last disciple

This is an interesting quote, or is it a misquote? If revelation ends with the death of the last disciple, revelation does not end until the judgement, because disciples of Christ (us) are still very much alive. If the actual quote was “apostles” instead of “disciples”, it is still inaccurate, considering the belief of our Church that the Bishops of today are an extention of the apostalic line. And if, what was meant in the quote that all the revelation ended with the death of the last real time witnesses and followers of Christ, that might be problematic. I would argue, that if not the judgement, the death, resurrection, and ascension is a more reliable marker for the end of the revelation than the death of the “last disciple” (whatever that means).

 

[inkaneer]

This is an interesting quote, or is it a misquote? If revelation ends with the death of the last disciple, revelation does not end until the judgement, because disciples of Christ (us) are still very much alive. If the actual quote was “apostles” instead of “disciples”, it is still inaccurate, considering the belief of our Church that the Bishops of today are an extention of the apostalic line. And if, what was meant in the quote that all the revelation ended with the death of the last real time witnesses and followers of Christ, that might be problematic. I would argue, that if not the judgement, the death, resurrection, and ascension is a more reliable marker for the end of the revelation than the death of the “last disciple” (whatever that means).

I do believe there is a word missing. It should read that **public **revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. Private revelation continues but one is not obligated to believe anything that is contained in private revelations unless, of course, it is also contained in public revelation.