Protestants are not a different "religion" from Catholics

[Contarini]

I have listened to many Anglicans/Episcopaleans on the coming home network and when I hear them referring to continue to read the book of common prayers, I cringe and ask why, and the better part of me says why not. For them what they gain is not to give up, rather to see as Paul did what he knew and read with a different mind. Change your mind for the kingdom is at hand.

I cannot know what it is like. I had nothing to change or give up as it regards any other Theology so I will never know and I will never understand unless I keep listening to those that came home and people like you.

Thanks for that.

You may know that the 'Anglican Use" Catholic parishes actually use a modified form of the BCP called the “Book of Divine Worship.” The main thing altered is the Eucharistic liturgy. The Daily Office, which is the heart of Anglican spirituality in many ways, is an adaptation of the traditional monastic office, with longer and more systematic Biblical readings and fewer offices, so generally a better tool for lay piety and catechesis (at least that’s what many of us Anglicans would argue–not to disparage the Catholic Breviary, which some Anglo-Catholics actually prefer).

I wish that Catholics would take a hint from Anglicans on how to translate the liturgy into English. The most recent version seems like an improvement in terms of capturing the rich imagery of the Latin, but not from a stylistic point of view. Perhaps we Anglicans are too hung up on style, but beauty is a reflection of the beauty of God.

There are other things that I would not like to give up about Anglicanism. But that’s not really the subject of the thread.

Thanks again for the understanding.

God bless,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

don’t presume

Civil… secular…

Then perhaps you can tell me which German bishops protected Luther and how.

Edwin

 

[CopticChristian]

I presume from the context that you’re talking about civil rulers, but it sounds as if you’re talking about bishops.

Edwin

In Luther’s own words:

1. “After one Devil (Popery) has been driven out of us, seven worse ones have come down upon us, as is the case with Princes, Lords, Nobles, Citizens and Peasants.” [Walch. III. 2727

]
[/quote]

 

[CopticChristian]

Thanks for that.

You may know that the 'Anglican Use" Catholic parishes actually use a modified form of the BCP called the “Book of Divine Worship.” The main thing altered is the Eucharistic liturgy. The Daily Office, which is the heart of Anglican spirituality in many ways, is an adaptation of the traditional monastic office, with longer and more systematic Biblical readings and fewer offices, so generally a better tool for lay piety and catechesis (at least that’s what many of us Anglicans would argue–not to disparage the Catholic Breviary, which some Anglo-Catholics actually prefer).

I wish that Catholics would take a hint from Anglicans on how to translate the liturgy into English. The most recent version seems like an improvement in terms of capturing the rich imagery of the Latin, but not from a stylistic point of view. Perhaps we Anglicans are too hung up on style, but beauty is a reflection of the beauty of God.

There are other things that I would not like to give up about Anglicanism. But that’s not really the subject of the thread.

Thanks again for the understanding.

God bless,

Edwin

There is a new english translation of the liturgy. James Akin has a book on that. I heard him on the radio speaking about it. It appears that your wish has come to fruition and will soon be available to read. You may want to look for James Akin’s book on this. It is probably on this website.

 

[John_oxios]

Then perhaps you can tell me which German bishops protected Luther and how.

Edwin

Hello Edwin,
First of all Luther went in hiding but was protected by the king, Go back and read my posts, I stated nothing about bishops… ** that’s your own addition/ assumption …**… though later on they helped and prevented Luther from removing The Book of James and Hebrews from the German Bible. Luther wanted them out, he called James an epistle of straw (not worth the paper it’s printed on) because it went against his teaching on Justification.

Luther intent was not to leave the Church, He and Erasmus His mentor) who had been working to make reform in the Church from as early as 1500, but Luther lost patience. Philip Melancthan used Luther’s theology promoted Lutheranism in Germany, after Luther’s death.

BTW never heard of a civil or secular bishop? yet you still want to argue?

God bless,
John

 

[GaryTaylor]

There is a new english translation of the liturgy. James Akin has a book on that. I heard him on the radio speaking about it. It appears that your wish has come to fruition and will soon be available to read. You may want to look for James Akin’s book on this. It is probably on this website.

Right, it’s in effect through the US in November in all the Church’s.

 

[Contarini]

Hello Edwin,
First of all Luther went in hiding but was protected by the king,

No, by Frederick the elector of Saxony.

Go back and read my posts, I stated nothing about bishops… ** that’s your own addition/ assumption …**…

First I said that I thought you couldn’t be talking about bishops, and you rebuked me for that.

What on earth are you talking about?

What “German hierarchy” members do you have in mind?

though later on they helped and prevented Luther from removing The Book of James and Hebrews from the German Bible.

How? Which bishops? What did they do that affected Luther?

Luther wanted them out, he called James an epistle of straw (not worth the paper it’s printed on) because it went against his teaching on Justification.

Yes, I know that Luther said this about James (it’s important to note that a number of scholars of that era had reopened patristic debates about the canon, though as you say Luther was particularly exercised about the doctrine of justification). But that doesn’t prove that he “wanted it out.” That, to echo your words above above, is your own addition/assumption. What specific evidence do you have about Luther’s intentions, and what did German bishops do that stopped him?

Luther intent was not to leave the Church

Of course not. Nor would Luther ever have said that he had left the Church. Nor did any Protestant ever admit to leaving the Church. That’s not how they saw what they were doing.

However, by 1520 Luther believed that the Papacy and the hierarchy (by that I do mean bishops, whatever you may mean) were parasitic on the Church, and that the Papacy in particular was the Antichrist. This was not about church government (he was willing to live with popes and bishops if they “preached the Gospel”) but about doctrine. Luther and the Reformers generally identified the Church with the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments, not with apostolic succession in the office of bishop. They defined church office functionally for the most part. Hence, they could in good conscience (though unconvincingly to my mind) claim to be continuing the historic Catholic Church, not leaving it.

He and Erasmus His mentor)

I don’t think Erasmus was ever Luther’s mentor. Luther drew on Erasmus’s scholarly work and championed some of the same reforms, and Erasmus early on saw Luther as someone who would take on the papacy and advance Erasmus’s reform project. But Luther’s key teaching regarding justification is in my opinion only superficially similar to anything Erasmus taught, and Luther and Erasmus realized fairly soon that they were on completely different trajectories.

I’ve been doing some reading recently about Erasmus and war (James Tracy, *The Politics of Erasmus, *1972, and now Robert P. Adams, The Better Part of Valor (1962)), and I’m increasingly convinced that Luther killed what I’d regard as the reform the Church really needed, which was more along Erasmian lines. Vatican II was a noble effort to restart the project (well, not that there hadn’t been anything along those lines happening in between), but the water that’s gone under the bridge since and the chaotic secular context of the late 20th century has made it a very rough and rocky road.

who had been working to make reform in the Church from as early as 1500, but Luther lost patience.

I don’t think it was so much that he lost patience, but that Erasmus’s kind of reform was never Luther’s main concern.

Some of the early Swiss/South German “Reformed” theologians like Zwingli and Bucer and Oecolampadius would much better fit the description of impatient followers of Erasmus. Also perhaps Melanchthon, though Timothy Wengert has argued that Melanchthon’s affinity with Erasmus has been much exaggerated.

BTW never heard of a civil or secular bishop?

If you mean a bishop who ruled territory, functioned as an elector in the Empire, etc., then yes, of course I’ve heard of such a thing.

Are you perhaps thinking of Hermann von Wied, archbishop of Cologne? I am not aware that he did anything to protect Luther, but he did call in Martin Bucer in the 1540s to work with the Catholic Reformer Johann Gropper (an effort that utterly failed), and was eventually excommunicated.

And yes, I want to argue. This is my field. When I think people are speaking of it inaccurately, I will challenge them.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

There is a new english translation of the liturgy

That’s what I was talking about. As I said, it seems to be better inasmuch as it doesn’t oversimplify the rich imagery of the original the way the “old” translation does, but it strikes me as rather clunky and produced by people with little sense of poetry. (Since the “old” ICEL translation wasn’t very poetic either, I think the new one is the lesser of two evils at worst–but I’ll have to go to Mass a few times under the new liturgy before I have an informed opinion.)

Cranmer, whatever else you say about him, was a rare genius when it comes to liturgical language, and modern Anglican revision can at least use his language as a basis even when we modernize.

Edwin

 

[awantz]

I don’t understand? Done everything but confirmation? Often with adults Baptism and confirmation are done at the same time. But if you were baptized, “In the Name of the Father,Son and Holy Spirit” the Church would not re baptize you. ONe Baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Then there’s receiving instruction prior to receiving Holy Communion, which a person has to learn what we believe so they can discern what it is they are receiving, and that is Scriptural:

Some Protestants think it is just a community meal, which is not discerning The Body, Blood Soul and divinity of Christ present in the Eucharist. And if you don’t believe that, well? You are not ready to receive.

If you do not believe in what and how the Catholic teaching is on the Holy Eucharist,
well? Pray, study and ask until you do… even act as if… til you can… Acceptance is the first part to understanding… contempt prior to investigation is a sin.
You can partake in the Mass and attend it with your husband, and learn… why delay?

God bless,
John

I was already baptized “In the Name of the Father,Son and Holy Spirit” . I received instruction prior to receiving Holy Communion. I do believe that. My husband and I have attended both of our churches together since before we were married.

 

[awantz]

What were you taught? what do you believe? Does it come from Man? Or Christ and His Apostles?

Picked up some commentary:

i. The Roman Catholic Church holds the idea of transubstantiation, which teaches that the bread and the wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus.

ii. Martin Luther held the idea of consubstantiation, which teaches the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine, but by faith they are the same as Jesus’ actual body. Luther did not believe in the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, but he did not go far from it.

iii. **John Calvin **taught that Jesus’ presence in the bread and wine was real, but only spiritual, not physical. Zwingli taught that the bread and wine are mere symbols that represent the body and blood of Jesus. When the Swiss Reformers debated the issue with Martin Luther at Marburg, there was a huge contention. Luther insisted on some kind of physical presence because Jesus said this is My body. He insisted over and over again, writing it on the velvet of the table, Hoc est corpus meum – “this is My body” in Latin. Zwingli replied, “Jesus also said I am the vine,” and “I am the door,” but we understand what He was saying. Luther replied, “I don’t know, but if Christ told me to eat dung I would do it knowing that it was good for me.” Luther was so strong on this because he saw it as an issue of believing Christ’s words, and because he though Zwingli was compromising, he said he was of another spirit (andere geist). Ironically, later, Luther later read Calvin’s writings on the Lord’s Supper (which were essentially the same as Zwingli’s) and seemed to agree with Calvin’s views.
iv. Scripturally, we can understand that the bread and the wine are not mere symbols, but they are powerful pictures to partake of, to enter in to, as we see the Lord’s table as the new Passover.

Calvin? Zwengli?? I dunno know… they were mere men.

God bless,
John

I’m probably closest in belief to Luther.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m probably closest in belief to Luther.

Just so you understand. I am under no obligation to follow the teaching of any Catholic monk, Catholic Priest if they teach something that the Bishop does not teach. As you may recall, where is the Catholic Church, where you see the Bishop there is the Catholic Church.

In that regard, if the Bishop teaches something not in concert with Rome, then I have to disregard that.

Look, many that were presented with what Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and others taught did not accept it. We would call those the faithful.

The stream of thought that is the Church today flowed from the faithful of all time. The only obligation to Luther is to say, let me check with my Bishop. It was true then and it is true now and that is why we do not follow Luther.

 

[John_oxios]

Contarini;8233981]No, by Frederick the elector of Saxony.

First I said that I thought you couldn’t be talking about bishops, and you rebuked me for that.

What on earth are you talking about?

What “German hierarchy” members do you have in mind?

How? Which bishops? What did they do that affected Luther?

Hello Contarini,
I said hierarchy, and maybe it wasn’t absolutely, I was speaking of the help Luther had outside the Church. Church hierarchy wanted to bring him in as a heretic.
Luther’s major problem was he refused to recognize the authority of the Pope, ergo he couldn’t attend any councils and discuss problems til he recanted…

This is your quote:
Cantrini. " Then perhaps you can tell me which German bishops protected Luther and how.

Charles V

Yes, I know that Luther said this about James (it’s important to note that a number of scholars of that era had reopened patristic debates about the canon, though as you say Luther was particularly exercised about the doctrine of justification). But that doesn’t prove that he “wanted it out.”
That, to echo your words above above, is your own addition/assumption. What specific evidence do you have about Luther’s intentions, and what did German bishops do that stopped him?

You read up on it, Luther kept the apocrypha in his Bible but placed it in the back, He stated it was not holy scripture but good to read for inspiration. It was the printers NOt the Protestant Church’s that removed the Apocrypha. Why? Because it didn’t matter to the Protestant Church’s and they could print more bibles smaller and cheaper leaving the apocrypha out, the original KJV kept the Apocrypha in it’s printed editions.

Of course not. Nor would Luther ever have said that he had left the Church. Nor did any Protestant ever admit to leaving the Church. That’s not how they saw what they were doing.

Your mixing admitting and actions… actions are admissions of what we are… They weren’t Catholic and they exercised teachings against the Church. Luther dies in 1547? And Lutheranism gets a full wind around 1560.
Read Melancthan, who did not want anything to do with the Church, How about Calvin, Zwengli? Do you think these guys were trying to work with the Church? Or Church teachings?

However, by 1520 Luther believed that the Papacy and the hierarchy (by that I do mean bishops, whatever you may mean) were parasitic on the Church, and that the Papacy in particular was the Antichrist. This was not about church government (he was willing to live with popes and bishops if they “preached the Gospel”) but about doctrine. Luther and the Reformers generally identified the Church with the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments, not with apostolic succession in the office of bishop. They defined church office functionally for the most part. Hence, they could in good conscience (though unconvincingly to my mind) claim to be continuing the historic Catholic Church, not leaving it

.

That’s their ‘good’ conscience, Luther was excommunicated ergo apostolic succession of his followers was nil

It’s been a good ten yrs. since I have studied Lutheranism., and I studied with Robert Hall, consultant on Both Luther Movies 1953, and 2001. He is also @ the end of the DVD of the Movie ‘Luther’ resides and attends a Local Lutheran Church which I attended five yrs.

I don’t think Erasmus was ever Luther’s mentor. Luther drew on Erasmus’s scholarly work and championed some of the same reforms, and Erasmus early on saw Luther as someone who would take on the papacy and advance Erasmus’s reform project.

Think all you want the fact is Erasmus in 1500 was working on Roman Catholic Church reform, Luther , Lawyer didn’t enter seminary till about 1505, and became a priest 1507 and taught on Paul’s writings in the New Testament, that was his soul expertise. and four yrs after that He’s telling the Church what to do? In fact justification by faith was a saying in the church for centuries Luther added ‘alone.’

‘Sola scriptura’ he didn’t invent either, that was a cry of Tyndale.

But Luther’s key teaching regarding justification is in my opinion only superficially similar to anything Erasmus taught, and Luther and Erasmus realized fairly soon that they were on completely different trajectories.

Luther’s key teaching? Faith without works? He adds the word ‘alone’ to Scripture in his German Bible in Rom 9:32, “… righteousness by faith [alone]”

Luther calls James an epistle of straw Literally meaning: Not worth the paper it is written on] and wants to throw out Hebrews… Who do you think prevented him?? Had to be his constituents @ the time.

I don’t think it was so much that he lost patience, but that Erasmus’s kind of reform was never Luther’s main concern.
If you mean a bishop who ruled territory, functioned as an elector in the Empire, etc., then yes, of course I’ve heard of such a thing.

Luther profession was lawyer, he acted as such… I believe he was too full of himself.

Bottom line he wanted to be heard on his terms alone.

Now what I meant by hierarchy is secular/civil

Charles V assumed the title King/ Emperor elect, after his coronation in 1519 until he was crowned Emperor by the Pope in 1530. From Ferdinand I onwards, all Emperors were merely Emperors-Elect, although they were normally referred to as Emperors. At the same time, chosen successors of the Emperors were called King of the Romans, if elected by the college of Electors during their predecessor’s lifetime.

It was Charles V who helped and hid Luther.

God Bless,
John

 

[highcalling]

Protestantism is a man made religion. Period. It isn’t the same religion as that founded by Jesus Christ. It is of the devil. Get over it.

 

[Kristin234]

Protestantism is a man made religion. Period. It isn’t the same religion as that founded by Jesus Christ. It is of the devil. Get over it.

I’m not going to take you seriously. By you saying get over it when it has something to do with a topic like this shows that you are very arrogant.

By the way, your own priests do not talk about Protestants the way that you do. I have talked to many Catholic priests, and while they do think that Protestants are missing a part of the truth, they have never said what you just said.

 

[John_oxios]

Just so you understand. I am under no obligation to follow the teaching of any Catholic monk, Catholic Priest if they teach something that the Bishop does not teach. As you may recall, where is the Catholic Church, where you see the Bishop there is the Catholic Church.

In that regard, if the Bishop teaches something not in concert with Rome, then I have to disregard that.

The stream of thought that is the Church today flowed from the faithful of all time. The only obligation to Luther is to say, let me check with my Bishop. It was true then and it is true now and that is why we do not follow Luther.

Hello Coptic Christian,
Actually a bishops authority is for his own diocese [area], and yes they can create problems in the Church by saying things not in agreement with Rome. Presently bishops in Ireland are being asked to resign, because of their lack of leadership.

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

I wish that Catholics would take a hint from Anglicans on how to translate the liturgy into English. The most recent version seems like an improvement in terms of capturing the rich imagery of the Latin, but not from a stylistic point of view. Perhaps we Anglicans are too hung up on style, but beauty is a reflection of the beauty of God.

God bless,

Edwin

Hello Contarini,
What do you find lacking in the translation?

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

I was already baptized “In the Name of the Father,Son and Holy Spirit” .** I received instruction prior to receiving Holy Communion.** I do believe that. My husband and I have attended both of our churches together since before we were married.

Hello awantz,

Did you receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church?     Receiving instruction(RCIA?) is not the same as accepting the teaching,  If you received and proclaimed the Eucharist in the Catholic Church is The Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ,  you would not be able to go to a protestant church/assembly/ congregation  and partake of their community meal.   That would be accepting their belief after your oath in the Catholic Church. And not discerning the Body of Christ.

Jesus knew our humanness, The Eucharist is His way of keeping in physical contact with us. What other Christian religion has that?

Protestants are different religions from each other… by their teachings, and if they preach a different Gospel, a different Jesus… i.e Pentecostals, Modalists and Trinitarians, even in the Lutheran Church there is a division between the Missouri Synod and the Evangelical Branch… The Evangelical Branch cannot receive Communion in the Missouri Synod Branch, and The Missouri Synod doesn’t receive in the Evangelical branch.

ask.com/wiki/Lutheranism

Lutherans were divided about the issue of church fellowship for the first thirty years after Luther’s death.…they decried the visible division of Christians on earth, orthodox Lutherans avoided ecumenical fellowship with other churches, believing that Christians should not, for example, join together for the Lord’s Supper or exchange pastors if they do not completely agree about what the Bible teaches…he Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference and International Lutheran Council as well as some unaffiliated denominations such as the Church of the Lutheran Confession (CLC) maintain that the orthodox confessional Lutheran churches are the only churches with completely correct doctrine.

Not even Lutherans agree with each other? Yet, You want to attend the Catholic Church your way? Work out whatever teachings are is preventing you from joining your husband in Holy Communion in the Catholic Church, why delay?

God bless,
John

 

[awantz]

Hello awantz,

If you received and proclaimed the Eucharist in the Catholic Church is The Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, you would not be able to go to a protestant church/assembly/ congregation and partake of their community meal. That would be accepting their belief after your oath in the Catholic Church. And not discerning the Body of Christ.

Not even Lutherans agree with each other? Yet, You want to attend the Catholic Church your way? Work out whatever teachings are is preventing you from joining your husband in Holy Communion in the Catholic Church, why delay?

God bless,
John

You are incorrect, because my husband takes communion at my church and his church has nothing against it.

Non-Catholic Christians are allowed to go to each others’ churches and partake of communion there. I do attend the Catholic Church. I attend a lot more than some Catholics do. I’ve expressed my reasons, for not going through with confirmation, in other forums. My husband and I took communion together at our wedding. So, why was it OK the and not now?

 

[Swiss_Guy]

You are incorrect, because my husband takes communion at my church and his church has nothing against it.

Non-Catholic Christians are allowed to go to each others’ churches and partake of communion there. I do attend the Catholic Church. I attend a lot more than some Catholics do. I’ve expressed my reasons, for not going through with confirmation, in other forums. My husband and I took communion together at our wedding. So, why was it OK the and not now?

It’s never been ok to have communion in a Catholic Church if you’re not Catholic, except in extremely rare occasions (like with the Orthodox occasionally). It was “ok” then probably because the priest was very liberal.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[awantz]

It’s never been ok to have communion in a Catholic Church if you’re not Catholic, except in extremely rare occasions (like with the Orthodox occasionally). It was “ok” then probably because the priest was very liberal.

Just my 2 cents.

I did and the church deacon was guiding me through it.