Protestants, when did the Catholic Church go bad?

[JonNC]

I’m sure Luther had valid reasons for being unhappy with some of the abuses being committed by some members of the Catholic Church at that time. But he had some strange ideas of his own too.

“…with regard to God, and in all that bears on salvation or damnation, (man) has no ‘free-will’, but is a captive, prisoner and bondslave, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan.” (From the essay, ‘Bondage of the Will,’ 'Martin Luther: Selections From His Writings, ed. by Dillenberger, Anchor Books, 1962 p. 190.)

“Those pious souls who do good to gain the Kingdom of Heaven not only will never succeed, but they must even be reckoned among the impious; and it is more important to guard them against good works than against sin.” (Wittenberg, VI, 160, quoted by O’Hare, in 'The Facts About Luther, TAN Books, 1987, p. 122.)

“Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides… No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.” ('Let Your Sins Be Strong, from ‘The Wittenberg Project;’ ‘The Wartburg Segment’, translated by Erika Flores, from Dr. Martin Luther’s Saemmtliche Schriften, Letter No. 99, 1 Aug. 1521).

And finally, he admitted adding the word ‘alone’ to Rom. 3:28 of his own volition: “If your Papist annoys you with the word (‘alone’), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and *** are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.” (Amic. Discussion, 1, 127,‘The Facts About Luther,’ O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 201.)

Referencing Father O’Hare about Luther is rather like referencing Jack Chick about Catholics. The point is that quotes usually need context, and in the case of the last two, completion. And finally, not all that Luther wrote is accepted by Lutheranism. He was but a man.

Jon

 

[christosdavid]

I’m sure Luther had valid reasons for being unhappy with some of the abuses being committed by some members of the Catholic Church at that time. But he had some strange ideas of his own too.

“…with regard to God, and in all that bears on salvation or damnation, (man) has no ‘free-will’, but is a captive, prisoner and bondslave, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan.” (From the essay, ‘Bondage of the Will,’ 'Martin Luther: Selections From His Writings, ed. by Dillenberger, Anchor Books, 1962 p. 190.)

“Those pious souls who do good to gain the Kingdom of Heaven not only will never succeed, but they must even be reckoned among the impious; and it is more important to guard them against good works than against sin.” (Wittenberg, VI, 160, quoted by O’Hare, in 'The Facts About Luther, TAN Books, 1987, p. 122.)

“Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides… No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.” ('Let Your Sins Be Strong, from ‘The Wittenberg Project;’ ‘The Wartburg Segment’, translated by Erika Flores, from Dr. Martin Luther’s Saemmtliche Schriften, Letter No. 99, 1 Aug. 1521).

And finally, he admitted adding the word ‘alone’ to Rom. 3:28 of his own volition: “If your Papist annoys you with the word (‘alone’), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and *** are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.” (Amic. Discussion, 1, 127,‘The Facts About Luther,’ O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 201.)

Better than Erasmus, who wanted to keep non-academics in the dark, obviously not to be trusted with the TRUTH (Liberty of the Will) on issues raised such as election.

no wonder so few lay people of the time had such poor catechism and were "sucked in’ and “let down” by Holy Mother Church - indulgences, relics, poor biblical translations…

 

[Contarini]

Please remember Luther had no intention of breaking away from the Church, it happened yes, but never his original intent.

I’m never sure what this statement is supposed to mean. Just who do you imagine intends to break away from the Church? Isn’t this kind of an obvious statement that could be made about anyone, at least until the breakdown of any pretense of unity in the Western Church in relatively modern times?

And not only didn’t Luther break away from the Church, but he would never have admitted that he had done so. He redefined the Church as the community of faith marked by Word and Sacraments, and he regarded the office of the Papacy as Antichrist, probably by the end of 1519. From that point on, any statements he made about his regard for the papacy have to be taken with many grains of salt. Also, any statements Luther made later in life about attitudes he had had earlier in life should be regarded with great suspicion. No one is very reliable when making such statements, and Luther had more rhetorical exuberance and less critical self-knowledge than most people of comparable intelligence and sincerity.

Edwin

 

[christosdavid]

I’m never sure what this statement is supposed to mean. Just who do you imagine intends to break away from the Church? Isn’t this kind of an obvious statement that could be made about anyone, at least until the breakdown of any pretense of unity in the Western Church in relatively modern times?

And not only didn’t Luther break away from the Church, but he would never have admitted that he had done so. He redefined the Church as the community of faith marked by Word and Sacraments, and he regarded the office of the Papacy as Antichrist, probably by the end of 1519. From that point on, any statements he made about his regard for the papacy have to be taken with many grains of salt. Also, any statements Luther made later in life about attitudes he had had earlier in life should be regarded with great suspicion. No one is very reliable when making such statements, and Luther had more rhetorical exuberance and less critical self-knowledge than most people of comparable intelligence and sincerity.

Edwin

perhaps its similar to Archbishop M. Lefebvre not intending to leave the church and defining it by its adherence to a (previous) liturgy…

 

[LittleSoldier]

I’m sure Luther had valid reasons for being unhappy with some of the abuses being committed by some members of the Catholic Church at that time. But he had some strange ideas of his own too.

“…with regard to God, and in all that bears on salvation or damnation, (man) has no ‘free-will’, but is a captive, prisoner and bondslave, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan.” (From the essay, ‘Bondage of the Will,’ 'Martin Luther: Selections From His Writings, ed. by Dillenberger, Anchor Books, 1962 p. 190.)

“Those pious souls who do good to gain the Kingdom of Heaven not only will never succeed, but they must even be reckoned among the impious; and it is more important to guard them against good works than against sin.” (Wittenberg, VI, 160, quoted by O’Hare, in 'The Facts About Luther, TAN Books, 1987, p. 122.)

“Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides… No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.” ('Let Your Sins Be Strong, from ‘The Wittenberg Project;’ ‘The Wartburg Segment’, translated by Erika Flores, from Dr. Martin Luther’s Saemmtliche Schriften, Letter No. 99, 1 Aug. 1521).

And finally, he admitted adding the word ‘alone’ to Rom. 3:28 of his own volition: “If your Papist annoys you with the word (‘alone’), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and *** are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.” (Amic. Discussion, 1, 127,‘The Facts About Luther,’ O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 201.)

:bigyikes:

 

[Andrew1980]

I think the consistancy of the Catholic church also points to its validity. Back in the early 1900’s almost all Christian denominations taught that Birth Control was a great evil. Same with abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality.

Fast forward 110 years and almost all Christian churches have diverged from their teachings of just 100 years ago. Many have diverged on these in the last 20 years. My prediction is that the vast majority of Protestant churches will support these evils as goods in the next 15 years.

As far as I am aware: (on mainline Christian religions)

1. Birthcontrol - Only Catholics remain opposed.
2. Abortion - About 75% of Protestants still oppose
3. Euthanasia - About 75% of Protestant still oppose
4. Homosexuality - About 50% still oppose

Christ established his kingdom that will live on forever and he himself protects it from perishing. I am a cradle Catholic, but I think I would have to give a lot of thought to my religion if their core convictions had changed in the last 5 decades.

Just my two cents… I’m probably more or less posting because I am concerned about where this country is headed as more and more people believe these lies and more of them are preached from the pulpit as good regardless of religious affilitation. In a very short time we have went from having a society that upheld Judeo-Christian moral values and now, the Judeo-Christian moral values are being replaced with materialism and hedonism; many of which are embraced by Christian religions themselves.

 

[stewstew03]

I think the consistancy of the Catholic church also points to its validity. Back in the early 1900’s almost all Christian denominations taught that Birth Control was a great evil. Same with abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality.

Fast forward 110 years and almost all Christian churches have diverged from their teachings of just 100 years ago. Many have diverged on these in the last 20 years. My prediction is that the vast majority of Protestant churches will support these evils as goods in the next 15 years.

As far as I am aware: (on mainline Christian religions)

1. Birthcontrol - Only Catholics remain opposed.
2. Abortion - About 75% of Protestants still oppose
3. Euthanasia - About 75% of Protestant still oppose
4. Homosexuality - About 50% still oppose

Christ established his kingdom that will live on forever and he himself protects it from perishing. I am a cradle Catholic, but I think I would have to give a lot of thought to my religion if their core convictions had changed in the last 5 decades.

Just my two cents… I’m probably more or less posting because I am concerned about where this country is headed as more and more people believe these lies and more of them are preached from the pulpit as good regardless of religious affilitation. In a very short time we have went from having a society that upheld Judeo-Christian moral values and now, the Judeo-Christian moral values are being replaced with materialism and hedonism; many of which are embraced by Christian religions themselves.

Don’t forget the indissolubility of a valid marriage (i.e., prohibition of divorce between two baptized Christians). Are there any protestant churches that oppose this?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1voice
Mormons use the same line of logic that you are perusing. They do it all the time. Example: We all existed as spirit beings/ sons of god… prior to this human existence based on the fact that it does not specifically say otherwise in the Bible. … Same line of reasoning … Different subject.

It is not my concern or my goal to convince you. I presented the evidence … You rejected it … No big deal.

The Bible is clear and the transliteration of the Greek word for baptism is clear. If you think that something else is just as true because it is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, that is your choice.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1voice
… No, But Jesus and Peter both gave those who were physically circumcised the opportunity to make a conscious decision to accept spiritual circumcision as well.

Quote:
Nicea:
Oh but wait a minute…you said one must make a conscious-decision in order to be baptized…the ONLY method according to you and FULLY immersed,not buts or ifs. But you make exceptions for those already circumcised? Was their circumcision void according to your standards?

1voice:

You got an answer yet?

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Nicea325
Oh but wait a minute…you said one must make a conscious-decision in order to be baptized…the ONLY method according to you and FULLY immersed,not buts or ifs. But you make exceptions for those already circumcised? Was their circumcision void according to your standards?

1voice, still waiting on a response to this one…c’mon, now.

 

[Radical]

Oh but wait a minute…you said one must make a conscious-decision in order to be baptized…

did he? I thought that 1 voice merely pointed out that Christ gave those already circumcised the opportunity to make a decision WRT accepting Christ…that was done before they were baptized.

Was their circumcision void according to your standards?

nope, their foreskin would have still been removed, even though they did not consent to the process…but circumcism wasn’t equivalent to baptism and therefore, those who were physically circumcised would still have to be baptized upon believing

But you make exceptions for those already circumcised?

I don’t see where 1 voice made that exception…those who were circumcised still needed baptism upon conversion (same as the uncircumcised)

… the ONLY method according to you and FULLY immersed,not buts or ifs.

if this is 1 voice’s position, then he would differ from me. Immersion was certainly what was originally contemplated, but I value substance over form. In this regard, I think it every bit as valid to insist on full immersion as it would be to insist on unleavened bread for the Lord’s Supper.

you seem a little off key in the middle there

 

[Radical]

ooops, this is how the first bit shoulda read:

Oh but wait a minute…you said one must make a conscious-decision in order to be baptized… But you make exceptions for those already circumcised?

did he? I thought that 1 voice merely pointed out that Christ gave those already circumcised the opportunity to make a decision WRT accepting Christ…that was done before they were baptized.

 

[fbl9]

St.Paul’s 1st epistle to the Corinthians10:2 and all were baptised in Moses
St.Paul’s epistle to the Hebrews 11:29 By faith they passed thorugh the Red Sea.

What the children went through the sea too! how could they they had no “faith”
All baptised in Moses??? ALL but how? children can’t…
The parent’s faith carried the children through the water…infant baptism can be supported by scripture. disallowing the children to come to the kingdom is prohibited by Jesus himself.

 

[Nicea325]

ooops, this is how the first bit shoulda read:

did he? I thought that 1 voice merely pointed out that Christ gave those already circumcised the opportunity to make a decision WRT accepting Christ…that was done before they were baptized.

Okay,but that is not that the issue at hand. 1voice has failed miserably to show any of us where it explicitly states baptism is only received when one makes a conscious-decision and fully immersed? 1voive has not displayed a shred of evidence it is the ONLY acceptable method. No where!

 

[Nicea325]

did he? I thought that 1 voice merely pointed out that Christ gave those already circumcised the opportunity to make a decision WRT accepting Christ…that was done before they were baptized.

nope, their foreskin would have still been removed, even though they did not consent to the process…but circumcism wasn’t equivalent to baptism and therefore, those who were physically circumcised would still have to be baptized upon believing

I don’t see where 1 voice made that exception…those who were circumcised still needed baptism upon conversion (same as the uncircumcised)

if this is 1 voice’s position, then he would differ from me. Immersion was certainly what was originally contemplated, but I value substance over form. In this regard, I** think it every bit as valid to insist on full immersion **as it would be to insist on unleavened bread for the Lord’s Supper.

you seem a little off key in the middle there

First of all, circumcision is a foreshadowing of a better thing to come called baptism. When and where is it considered “the” only valid method? That is what advocates of full immersion fail to present from Scripture-alone.

 

[LittleSoldier]

you seem a little off key in the middle there

Well, yeah, but he’s been whistling for a long time now…

 

[LittleSoldier]

ooops, this is how the first bit shoulda read:

did he? I thought that 1 voice merely pointed out that Christ gave those already circumcised the opportunity to make a decision WRT accepting Christ…that was done before they were baptized.

OK. I give up. What does “WRT” mean?

 

[LittleSoldier]

I think the consistancy of the Catholic church also points to its validity. Back in the early 1900’s almost all Christian denominations taught that Birth Control was a great evil. Same with abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality.

Fast forward 110 years and almost all Christian churches have diverged from their teachings of just 100 years ago. Many have diverged on these in the last 20 years. My prediction is that the vast majority of Protestant churches will support these evils as goods in the next 15 years.

As far as I am aware: (on mainline Christian religions)

1. Birthcontrol - Only Catholics remain opposed.
2. Abortion - About 75% of Protestants still oppose
3. Euthanasia - About 75% of Protestant still oppose
4. Homosexuality - About 50% still oppose

Christ established his kingdom that will live on forever and he himself protects it from perishing. I am a cradle Catholic, but I think I would have to give a lot of thought to my religion if their core convictions had changed in the last 5 decades.

Just my two cents… I’m probably more or less posting because I am concerned about where this country is headed as more and more people believe these lies and more of them are preached from the pulpit as good regardless of religious affilitation. In a very short time we have went from having a society that upheld Judeo-Christian moral values and now, the Judeo-Christian moral values are being replaced with materialism and hedonism; many of which are embraced by Christian religions themselves.

Just to clarify, the Church condemns homosexual behavior and activity - not homosexuality (which is a cross to bear).

 

[LittleSoldier]

) …
I was a Roman Catholic for 25 years. I grew up in a large extended Catholic family (hundreds of Catholics at family reunions) Close relatives were/ are Nuns and leaders in the Order of St Francis. My Grandmother made thousands of scapulars and I wore one like my life depended on it for years. Ive said the rosary more times than I can count My cousins are Leaders on the Diocesan Worship Committee… Grads with Masters degrees from top Catholic Universities. I was an alter boy for 5 years when Latin was the only way Mass was said. Attended many many novenas and Stations of the Cross. Confirmed by the Bishop. Confession every Friday and Fasted every Sunday before Communion… And we were dead meat if we even as much as got near a baloney sandwich on Friday. No Ice cream for Lent mind you!! My Dad was head of the parent teachers association at the Catholic school that I attended for 8 years… and went to Mass every school morning … and 4 years of CCD classes in High School.
I know that startling/ embarrassing sound of someone dropping a kneeler at a solemn high mass in the pew right behind me as well as I know my own name.

I realize that the expression is not used everywhere … but in the Catholic community that I grew up in … It was very common and everyone knew what was up. OOOOOOK!!!

And another thing! You are a very nice person!!! Please dont be like rest of them.

God bless you real good!

I missed this, sorry. I think it’s one of those things that is of so little importance that it would be more uncharitable to argue about it. Thanks for taking that first step.

Most of us are nice people. Really.

God bless you, too!

 

[osanc]

In response to the OP’s question. The Biblical teachings concerning your question are found primarily in two Biblical prophecies.

The Seven Churches of Revelation 2 & 3

and

The four horsemen of Revelation 6:1-8

They are prophecies of the founding of the church in Jesus Christ and its journey until He return. If any wish a debate or discussion of these prophecies, I am available, for the express purpose of growing in the knowledge and grace of Jesus Christ our Lord, Creator, and Saviour. May the Lord continue to bless each one of you.

-Omar S.

“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, [be] with you all. Amen” 2 Corinthians 13:14

 

[rinnie]

Originally Posted by mitex
Open communion is where any baptized Christian can take part in Eucharist… The Episcopal and Anglican Churches practice it (mostly) and many protestant sects as well…

Whereas in the Catholic Church only Catholics may partake in communion… Open communion is more in line with Jesus’ love.

What is the logic in your question? Jesus gave freely of all of God’s provision to all that responded. He fed people, he healed people … I dont ever remember him asking what religion a person professed before he acted. He simply asked … What do you want … and then encouraged people to receive by admonitions such as “fear not…only believe”
He said that it was better than food to have blessed the Samaritan woman at the well. And he demonstrated his giving, loving nature toward people of all religions when he told the story of the good Samaritan.
He said … come to me all who labor and are heavy laden … and I will give you rest. It was as clear as an open invitation can be.

Cornelius and his entire household were given Baptism in the Holy Spirit … Just because he did the right thing and had an open heart.

Jesus said … “Freely you have received … Freely give!”

Think about it … It is perfectly OK for Nancy Pelosi … Who has done everything in her power for her entire career to abort millions of babies … Can receive Communion on any day of the week … But a devout Non Denominational Christian … that despises abortion and fights with all her heart against Nancy Pelosi’s crusade to kill babies … is turned away from the Communion table.

One Voice, to receive Communion in the RCC you must have instruction in what exactly the Eucharist is, the living Christ, and in order to receive it you cannot be in a state of mortal sin. If you do you condemn yourself.

That is why in the RCC you must be made aware of what it is, and what the qualifications are. When a Priest refuses non-Catholics the Eucharist, he is not hurting them, he is protecting them.