Shocking things everyone should know about Luther

[kalt]

I am the way the truth and the life and nobody goes on to the Father except through me. Contrast that with what the CCC has to say about Mary being co-redemptrix with Christ.

Actually, that’s your job. You’re supposed to find one of your own beliefs that is contrary to Catholic teaching (and prove that it’s contrary to Catholic teaching) and then defend your church’s teaching using the Bible.

You’ve expressed what you believe the CC teaches, but you haven’t proved that it is actually what the church teaches.

If you make a false statement about the CC and then claim that it’s not biblical, what use is that, except to you who wants to prove the CC wrong, even if it mean misrepresenting what she teaches?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Orange_man,

I will be happy to explain.

I don’t say that … nor do I reject the doctrine of “real presence.” I’m really not sure what you’re point is?? Do you want to argue we actually eat flesh (or bread turns into flesh as it lowers itself down our larynx into our stomachs)? Or do you say Jesus’ words are spiritual in nature? Please explain your position …

The way you phrased your statement makes me wonder if your understanding of the Real Presence is the same as taught by the CC. By way of a beginning, let me say that the Eucharist is the core belief held by the CC - the Chruch founded by Jesus Christ on Peter. This core belief is that when the Priest, acting in the Person of Christ, takes common bread and wine and pronounces the words of consecration - and AFTER THESE WORDS, the only thing that remains of this common bread and wine are their appearances. The post-consecration reality is that, physically present on that altar is the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

How do I know this? You guessed it, “The Bible tells me so!” Actually, the very clear words of Christ tell us what He was going to do (John 6) and what He did at the Last Supper as recorded by the Synoptic Writers.

Here is a partial cut 'n paste of what the Cathechism of the Catholic Chruch teaches about the Eucharist:

**THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

1322 The holy Eucharist completes Christian initiation. Those who have been raised to the dignity of the royal priesthood by Baptism and configured more deeply to Christ by Confirmation participate with the whole community in the Lord’s own sacrifice by means of the Eucharist.

1323 "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet ‘in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.’"135

I. THE SOURCE AND SUMMIT OF ECCLESIAL LIFE

1324 The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life."136 "The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch."137

1325 "The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God’s action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit."138

1326 Finally, by the Eucharistic celebration we already unite ourselves with the heavenly liturgy and anticipate eternal life, when God will be all in all.139

1327 In brief, the Eucharist is the sum and summary of our faith: "Our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking."140

II. WHAT IS THIS SACRAMENT CALLED?

1328 The inexhaustible richness of this sacrament is expressed in the different names we give it. Each name evokes certain aspects of it. It is called:

Eucharist, because it is an action of thanksgiving to God. The Greek words eucharistein141 and eulogein142 recall the Jewish blessings that proclaim - especially during a meal - God’s works: creation, redemption, and sanctification.

The Eucharistic assembly (synaxis), because the Eucharist is celebrated amid the assembly of the faithful, the visible expression of the Church.149

1330 The memorial of the Lord’s Passion and Resurrection.

The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church’s offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, “sacrifice of praise,” spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used,150 since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.

The Holy and Divine Liturgy, because the Church’s whole liturgy finds its center and most intense expression in the celebration of this sacrament; in the same sense we also call its celebration the Sacred Mysteries. We speak of the Most Blessed Sacrament because it is the Sacrament of sacraments. The Eucharistic species reserved in the tabernacle are designated by this same name.

1331 Holy Communion, because by this sacrament we unite ourselves to Christ, who makes us sharers in his Body and Blood to form a single body.151 We also call it: the holy things (ta hagia; sancta)152 - the first meaning of the phrase “communion of saints” in the Apostles’ Creed - the bread of angels, bread from heaven, medicine of immortality,153 viaticum. . . . **

For an excellent additional source go to this link:

catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

As I see it, this is the most wonderful Gift from God Himself - in fact, It is Himself we are being given. To my way of thinking, the argument against the Eucharist is in the same category as saying, “God can’t do it this way! Why? Becuase I refuse to believe He would do anything like this in this manner!” Now, Orange_man, that is a strange argument against the God Who made everything out of nothing. He has the Power - do you doubt it? He used the Power - read the clear words in your own Bible - do you doubt these? He will hold us all accountalbe for how we respond - and this is where judgment comes into the picture.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ChesterRules,

This was an excellent response - and, a pleasure to read.

I’ll be glad to end your ignorance.

1953 The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law, for** only he **teaches and bestows the justice of God: "For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified."4

970 "Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin’s salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it."513 "No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source."514

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ICA04,

Yes, it really is a problem. The basic idea is that Christ (True God, True Man) founded His Church on Peter (man) and Christ’s Church will be sustained by the Holy Spirit (God). All of the denominations were founded by a man upon their own initiatives. [For example, none of the ‘Reformers’ claimed to be Divinely Inspired and as evidence - stated they would and, in fac did, rise from the dead!]

Is it such a huge problem that other denoms. have beliefs that differ from yours? There is much that is far removed from Catholicism but yet very Biblical.

I would really appreciated some examples of these “…very Biblical…” events that are far removed from Catolicism.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gcnuss,

As I understand the matter, Luther was not a Bishop, and, as such, could not ordain others. At one time, Luther was validly consecrated a Catholic Priest - but, he renounced his Faith in the Church founded by Christ on Peter. So, my question is: what is the basis for the claim that Lutherans have validly consecrated priests?

That is the Catholic position on the matter. As a Lutheran I , and virtually all other Lutherans, respectfully disagree. Well, there are some who are probably not so respectful in their disagreement.

Ahhhhhhhh… now respect is what keeps us all moving in the harmony God intended for us to have for each other’s humanity.

Regrettably, you can find Lutherans who hold a variety of strange beliefs. Of course, that can be said about almost Christians. A few miles from where I live there is a Catholic church that ascribes to the sedevacantist position. Does that mean that all Catholics are sedevacantist?

To the best of my knowledge, no one has cornered the market on ‘lose canons’! There will always be those who are so enamored with their own opinion that nothing or no one can stop them for falling over themselves in expressing it. I think it would be an error to consider these sedevacantists as membes of and in communion with the CC. Recognizing Christ’s duly elected representative - the Successor to St. Peter - is one of those requirements that the CC does insist upon.

God bless

 

[Cinette]

Hi, Orange_man,

I will be happy to explain.

The way you phrased your statement makes me wonder if your understanding of the Real Presence is the same as taught by the CC. By way of a beginning, let me say that the Eucharist is the core belief held by the CC - the Chruch founded by Jesus Christ on Peter. This core belief is that when the Priest, acting in the Person of Christ, takes common bread and wine and pronounces the words of consecration - and AFTER THESE WORDS, the only thing that remains of this common bread and wine are their appearances. The post-consecration reality is that, physically present on that altar is the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

How do I know this? You guessed it, “The Bible tells me so!” Actually, the very clear words of Christ tell us what He was going to do (John 6) and what He did at the Last Supper as recorded by the Synoptic Writers.

Hi tqualey!!

What do you mean by “common bread”? surely you should have said “unleavened bread” (without yeast)?

Cinette

 

[bobregan]

I’m not familiar with this, but it doesn’t surprise me. As Catholics are fond of pointing out, the “Catholic” position on birth control was the common position until the 20th century, with the Anglicans (the Christian body to which I officially belong, though as you note I attend churches of both traditions) leading the way in abandoning this stance.

Edwin

Can you comment on the 1930 Council of Lambeth? I believe that the Anglican Church was only allowing birth control in certain instances. The Catholic Church has always considered birth control evil, but sadly, here in the US 50% (and it could be higher) of Catholics practice birth control and don’t listen to their Church. you’re right, Protestantism has traditionally always been agains birth control, with stong statements on the moral teaching from Luther, The Synod of Dort, F.K. Laetsch, and John Calvin calling birth control “The murder of future persons.”

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cinette,

Hi tqualey!!

What do you mean by “common bread”? surely you should have said “unleavened bread” (without yeast)?

Cinette

What I meant is that there is nothing special with this unleavened bread - until the words of consecration.

God bless,

 

[bobregan]

I’m not familiar with this, but it doesn’t surprise me. As Catholics are fond of pointing out, the “Catholic” position on birth control was the common position until the 20th century, with the Anglicans (the Christian body to which I officially belong, though as you note I attend churches of both traditions) leading the way in abandoning this stance.

Edwin

Also, Anglican John Mayer from the 17th century has strong commentary on Gen:38 calling the sin of Onan “detestable.” A strong stament in the 1930’s from Calvinist Teunis Oldenburger equates contraception with prostitution, treating another as a mere object. He states plainly that “Birth control is cursed of God as a sex crime.”

I like to take a moral issue (such as birth control and abortion) and drill down in to both Catholic and Protestant history on the subjects, and (not suprisingly) there is great common ground.

Some of my wife’s Episcopalean family members are part of TAC, and very vocal on returning to traditional Christian beliefs on abortion, birth control, marriage, homosexuality.

 

[GKC]

Can you comment on the 1930 Council of Lambeth? I believe that the Anglican Church was only allowing birth control in certain instances. The Catholic Church has always considered birth control evil, but sadly, here in the US 50% (and it could be higher) of Catholics practice birth control and don’t listen to their Church. you’re right, Protestantism has traditionally always been agains birth control, with stong statements on the moral teaching from Luther, The Synod of Dort, F.K. Laetsch, and John Calvin calling birth control “The murder of future persons.”

Lambeth 1930, Resolution 15:

Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.

GKC

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Hi, ChesterRules,

This was an excellent response - and, a pleasure to read.

God bless

Thank you, but all I did was go to the catechism!

 

[gcnuss]

As I understand the matter, Luther was not a Bishop, and, as such, could not ordain others. At one time, Luther was validly consecrated a Catholic Priest - but, he renounced his Faith in the Church founded by Christ on Peter. So, my question is: what is the basis for the claim that Lutherans have validly consecrated priests?

According to some Reformation historians, there were validly ordained bishops in Scandinavia who joined the Reformation, whether by their own will or because the government declared all clergy to be members of the new “state churches.” These bishops would have been able to ordain and undoubtedly did so. I’m doing some research and will let you know what I find.

I’m not certain of the situation in Germany.

 

[Contarini]

According to some Reformation historians, there were validly ordained bishops in Scandinavia who joined the Reformation

In Sweden (and, of course, in England, but that’s another issue). I think this did not happen in Norway and Denmark, though I don’t know the details.

I’m not certain of the situation in Germany.

No validly consecrated bishops in Germany became Protestants and passed on their orders.

As I understand it, only Swedish Lutheranism can claim episcopal succession from the pre-Reformation Church (and Finnish Lutheranism, which is derivative of Swedish).

However, the current agreement between the Episcopal Church in the U.S. and the ELCA provides for bishops of each denomination to participate in the consecration of bishops in the other denomination, so that eventually ELCA bishops will have whatever succession we do (which of course Catholics don’t consider valid anyway).

Edwin

Edwin

 

[bobregan]

Lambeth 1930, Resolution 15:

Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.

GKC

Thanks. It’s obvious they were trying to condemn the use. I think all Christian faiths (Catholic and Protestant) have been too silent on the teaching from the pulpit Sunday’s on this subject. It’d be a great ecumenical moment if th eCatholic Church and major Protestant denominations and faiths came out with a joint, signed declaration re-affirming the teaching from the history of Christianity on birth control and then had it read and taught from the pulpit on the same Sunday.

“Everyone loves Christianity until it makes demands on you.”

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Orange_man,

Let me see if I have this straight … you are complaining about having to avoid verbal punches from a straw man… that is quite a mental picture… But, let’s see if we can address your requested need for theology.

what a straw man??? No one said (as far as I can tell) that Spirit means symbolic? Is there anyone on this board who actually knows anything about theology? Are there forums on this board where protestants can participate where there’s people who are serious about theology (and not just ya-hoo novice Catholics out to take swings at people who disagree with them)?

Maybe to start off with some math first and then progress -in context- to the theology. John 6, which appears to be at the heart of this discussion is one of the longest chapters in the NT … but, I am confident we make look at it as a unified whole and obtain greater understanding with the aid of the Holy Spirit. So, here goes with all 71 verses!

John 6: 1-15 (15 verses) Jesus feeds 5,000 with 5 loaves and 2 fishes. Jesus has power to make changes in natural elements to feed hungry people.

John 6: 16-21 ( 6 verses) Jesus walks on water and clams the storm and gets the occupants of the boat to their destination immediately. Jesus has power over all of nature.

So, the first 21 verses clearly identify Jesus (True God & True Man) as having power and placing His Authority over all of nature. John has laid the foundation for what is known as the Eucharistic Discourse.

John 6: 22-35 ( 13 verses) Jesus identifies the crass reason why these people have assembeled (try to get another free meal) and attempts to re-set their focus on what the power of God has done.

John 6: 36-42 ( 6 verses) where Jesus says He is the Bread of Life came down form Heaven and the Jews attack His credibility by saying the know His (step) father, Joseph and other family members. Knowing there is no free lunch, the mood of the group begins to turn nasty, but notice, this does not change Christ’s direction.

John 6: 43-59 ( 16 verses) where Jesus says 6 different ways that His Flesh must be eaten. The Jews finally understood what Christ meant and asked how His Flesh could be eaten. They through Christ had gone insane or was lost somewhere.

John 6: 60-61 ( 2 verses) The Jews reject Jesus’ statement - the understood what He said, had first hand knowledge of the miracles up to that time - and closed their minds to His teaching.

John 6: 62 ( 1 verse) The famous mis-understood quote:“The spirit gives life…” within the context we find it - is a direct criticism of those who try to plumb the Will of God and come up short and frustrated.

John 6: 63-72 ( 9 verses) Many people leave Jesus - and He knew this before He bagan His discourse - and he still continued. He reinforced the teaching that His Flesh must be eaten. And many walked away and did not follow Him any more.

As I count: we have the first 21 verses that John uses to present the story of Jesus having the power to do what He said He would do. Then there are 48 verses where Christ clearly explains and re-explains that they MUST eat His Flesh to have life in them. And, 2 verses where Catholics clearly show that we humans can not understand the Mind of God - and Protestants have used to show that the other 69 verses really do not mean what they say, or the order is not signifcant, or He really did not mean what He sis reported to have aid in the Bible.

My two questions to you, Orange_man, is quite simple:

1.) Do you think Christ had the Power to turn bread into His Flesh? And,

2.) If so, why don’t you think He did it (especially in view of what He did at the Last Supper)?

God bless

 

[gcnuss]

In Sweden (and, of course, in England, but that’s another issue). I think this did not happen in Norway and Denmark, though I don’t know the details.

I found this in the online Encyclopedia Britannica:

In 1528 Gustav Vasa helped to secure the consecration of three Swedish bishops of Lutheran commitment, thus ensuring the formal apostolic succession of the Swedish episcopate. Among them was Laurentius Petri, who became the first Lutheran archbishop of Uppsala in 1531, and his brother Olaus Petri, who had absorbed Luther’s ideas while studying in Wittenberg. Both brought deep Protestant convictions—which Gustav Vasa lacked—to the task of popularizing Lutheranism in Sweden. Although Olaus Petri was often in conflict with the king, he and his reformer colleagues eventually carried the day. The Reformation in Finland was the work of Michael Agricola, another former Wittenberg student and later bishop of Abo, who translated the New Testament into Finnish.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pastor Gary,

I don’t want to be difficult about this, but as I understand the section from the Encyclopedia Britannia that you provided (and within the context of the larger question concerning the Real Presence) :

**Quote:
In 1528 Gustav Vasa helped to secure the consecration of three Swedish bishops of Lutheran commitment, thus ensuring the formal apostolic succession of the Swedish episcopate. Among them was Laurentius Petri, who became the first Lutheran archbishop of Uppsala in 1531, and his brother Olaus Petri, who had absorbed Luther’s ideas while studying in Wittenberg. Both brought deep Protestant convictions—which Gustav Vasa lacked—to the task of popularizing Lutheranism in Sweden. Although Olaus Petri was often in conflict with the king, he and his reformer colleagues eventually carried the day. The Reformation in Finland was the work of Michael Agricola, another former Wittenberg student and later bishop of Abo, who translated the New Testament into Finnish. **

In 1528 there were 3 formerly Catholic Bishops in Sweeden ( L. Petri, O. Petri and G. Vasa) who abandoned the CC and went with Lutharanism. And, “This is important to secure formal apostolic succession…”

OK… now doesn’t this mean that since 1528 there was already convincing evidence that Christ founded the CC, that the Apostles - and their Successors went out all over the world and were doing the work of Christ in bringing the Good News of Salvation to the entire world. Yet, in 1528 the idea was to break from the Church of Christ and the Guidance and Protection of the Holy Spirit work with some church founed by a man who thought he could hi-jack bishops to continue some type of image of that looked like authenticity. The statement from St. Paul (GAL 6: 7-9 ) about God will not be mocked keeps coming back to my mind.

This is really an honest question: does this process (begun in 1528 and susposedly carried on this very day) really make any sense to you when it comes to the question of one’s eternal destination?

God bless

 

[ICA04]

And this is more proof that people reject Catholicism because they don’t know what it is, not because they do.

So, you are saying that your own clergy don’t know the Catholic faith? You people are completely confused. Find Christ my friend.

 

[ICA04]

I’ll be glad to end your ignorance.

1953 The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law, for** only he **teaches and bestows the justice of God: "For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified."4

970 "Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin’s salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it."513 "No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source."514

Why then the term co-mediatrix and co-redemptrix? It is obvious what they mean and obvious more so in the actions and proclamations of RC hierarchy. You cannot say something and then do the bait and switch when someone calls you on the definition of it. This is a classic example of dodging culpability.

 

[bobregan]

(Edited quote)

Here’s a nice definition of co-redemptrix from Father Serpa:

The Church does not teach that we are redeemed by Mary. That would be heresy. It is important to realize that co-redemptrix does not mean co-equal. She co-operated in His mission of redeeming the world. He alone is the redeemer. She co-operated by the fact that the Father chose her to be the channel through which His Son entered the human race. She gave birth to Him and sustained Him through His childhood until adulthood. This is truly co-operation and this is all that is really meant by “co-redemptrix.” Because it is so easy to misunderstand this term, the Church has not made it an official title.