Shocking things everyone should know about Luther

[bobregan]

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.

Might I add that, at the Annunciation with the angel Gabriel, Mary was the first Chrisitan, the first to say “YES” to Christ.

My own thoughts, but we all in our hearts say “Yes” to Christ, in a spiritual way cooperating with Christ. Mary not only said “Yes” in her heart to Christ, but in a physical way by carrying Him in her womb and raising Him as His mother. This is even a more special cooperation with Jesus then what we are called to. Just random thoughts.

 

[gcnuss]

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?

Tom,

I rather doubt that much of what we Christians argue about, particularly in matters of church structure and governance, is directly related to our eternal destination nor does it make a lot of sense. On the other hand, the lack of charity in such discussions (I’m not referring to our discussion here) certainly leads us away from a focus on Jesus Christ and his saving work.

 

[bobregan]

Might I add that, at the Annunciation with the angel Gabriel, Mary was the first Chrisitan, the first to say “YES” to Christ.

My own thoughts, but we all in our hearts say “Yes” to Christ, in a spiritual way cooperating with Christ. Mary not only said “Yes” in her heart to Christ, but in a physical way by carrying Him in her womb and raising Him as His mother. This is even a more special cooperation with Jesus then what we are called to. Just random thoughts.

…and continuing on this is (one of the reasons) why the Catholic Church “honors” not “worship” Mary. Her cooperation with Christ is unique in Christianity, and very special. She carried the Son of God in her womb, nursed Him, protected Him, raised Him, hugged and loved Him in only the way a mother can. She knew Him and loved Him in ways that no other human could or did, only a mother can. As any mother knows, the relationship between a mother and son is very close, very special. She was not Jesus’ babysitter, nursemaid or daycare worker…She was Jesus’ MOTHER!

 

[bobregan]

Tom,

I rather doubt that much of what we Christians argue about, particularly in matters of church structure and governance, is directly related to our eternal destination nor does it make a lot of sense. On the other hand, the lack of charity in such discussions (I’m not referring to our discussion here) certainly leads us away from a focus on Jesus Christ and his saving work.

Agreed, Pastor Gary!

I think we’re arguing too much on whether Martin Luther took sugar and cream with his coffee, or if he took it black!

Read my posts above on the Christian history/teaching on birth control. Great agreement from the Protestant and Catholic sides. Digging in to most moral issues I believe we’re in agreement, such as feeding and taking care of the poor, for example.

 

[kalt]

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

When you post nonsense, it’s proof that you don’t know much about the Catholic faith. I’ve never talked to someone here or irl who hates the Catholic Church who actually knows what the church teaches.

I assume you’re talking about Catholic clergy who leave the church.

It’s true that some clergy find it too hard to follow what the church teaches or too hard to follow disciplines such as chastity.

They know their faith, but they don’t follow it. They choose the easier road. It’s easier to deny the religion than it is to practice it faithfully, isn’t it.

Some become arrogant and form their own religions. Others join other religions. Still others walk away from their faith altogether.

Luther, a mentally ill malcontent, disagreed w/ selling indulgences. Something that wasn’t approved by the vatican. This was not a dogmatic issue.

Still, it seems that once he got on a roll, his ego took over. Why not change everything I don’t like. Change the teachings that are uncomfortable to me, because I am mentally unbalanced and am overly scrupulous. Take away the admonition (sp?) to persevere to the end, to work out your salvation, because I’m too fearful of my own salvation to trust God.

Did he know the faith? Of course he did. Unfortunately, he was mentally ill and couldn’t deal with reality. He was “haunted” by demons, and was known to throw things at them.

Surely, this isn’t proof to you that he knew his faith and **reasonably **rejected it.

God gives us all free will to accept or decline. That includes clergy.

There are some notable Catholics who know their religion but refuse to conform. Someone named Henry comes to mind. Heck, if you want a divorce and your religion doesn’t allow it, start your own! Again, is this an example to you of someone who knows his religion and reasonably rejects it? Or is this an example of a person who is full of himself, is power-hungry and who refuses to submit even to his God?

Still, I’ve never talked (either irl or on a forum) to anyone who said he rejects the CC (or who left the CC) who didn’t cite a teaching that is not actually a teaching of the CC.

Sadly, many Catholics get their catechism from the media and non-Catholics, and think that they know the faith. They are rejecting the non-Catholic (usually non-Catholic Christian) version of Catholicism.

When someone says he rejects Catholicism because Catholics believe the pope is perfect, well…

You reject the church that Christ founded, the Catholic Church. Please cite one reason for this.

And I’m very sure that you were being a loving Christian in your use of “friend” above.

 

[reteeks21]

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

This stuff in totally un-necessary. Lumping all Catholics together as “confused”, and making the assumption that do not have Christ is only hurting us. If we don’t Catholics assuming the wrong stuff about Protestants then the same sort of thing doesn’t need to be said about Catholics. Disgreeing is one thing, but attacking someones relationship with God is not helping! What makes you think you are correct with your assumptions. Disgareeing is fine, but saying these sorts of things isn’t. Please, man, stop.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ICA04,

The usual meaning for ‘bait and switch’ is a marketing fraud where a lower priced item is offered and when the customer comes in to buy it, the salesman moves him over to the much higher priced item by either minimizing the real value of the first item or claiming that the store is out of this lower priced item - but, they do have the higher priced one.

(Edited quote)

ChestertonRules gave valid definitions for what is the reality of the CC’s teaching.

Running with **your own definition **is your privledge - just do not criticize the CC for something it is not doing. It appears as though you have dug in your heels and are saying what was provided is not your definition. And, you know, you are right! Your definition is not the CC’s definition - and, it would be best to identify this distinction early on. In reality, this is the classic example of prejudice.

In theory, you are on this site to learn about the CC and what it teaches, not accuse posters of dishonesty. If you refuse valid definitions and engage in name calling, why remain? I am sure there are other sites where like-minded people, such as yourself, can post whatever notions you choose, call them facts and feel good about the process. In addition to your call to others to find Christ, may I also suggest follow suit and drop your anti-Catholic bias, at least while on you are on CAF. Thank you in advance.

God bless

 

[kalt]

…and continuing on this is (one of the reasons) why the Catholic Church “honors” not “worship” Mary. Her cooperation with Christ is unique in Christianity, and very special. She carried the Son of God in her womb, nursed Him, protected Him, raised Him, hugged and loved Him in only the way a mother can. She knew Him and loved Him in ways that no other human could or did, only a mother can. As any mother knows, the relationship between a mother and son is very close, very special. She was not Jesus’ babysitter, nursemaid or daycare worker…She was Jesus’ MOTHER!

And she was his mother forever. Many non-Catholics have told me that she was only the mother of the human side of Christ, and that since died and is risen, she is no longer his mother, that in Heaven she is not Christ’s mother, but just another person in Heaven. That her body was just a vessel. (Sheesh, and they call the CC harsh on women!)

They seem to try very hard to distance Christ and themselves from Mary. I wonder where in the Bible they are told that Mary, who was once Jesus’ mother is not always Jesus’ mother, or that she was only the mother, for a short time, of the human Jesus.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gcnuss,

I really was not trying to be uncharitable, and I apologize if my question was taken that way.

Tom,

I rather doubt that much of what we Christians argue about, particularly in matters of church structure and governance, is directly related to our eternal destination nor does it make a lot of sense. On the other hand, the lack of charity in such discussions (I’m not referring to our discussion here) certainly leads us away from a focus on Jesus Christ and his saving work.

Maybe I am all wet on this matter, but, I honestly do not see this as a matter on how Luther took his coffee (as I recall, most of Europe was drinking beer rather then coffee back then! ) The issue as I appreciate it is that 3 Catholic bishops abandoned the Church founded by Christ on Peter - and because they were bishops there is now a claim to Apostolic Succession (ultimately traced back to the CC). The problem I am having is that this seems to claim cloak of Apostolic Succession - but, when one looks under the cloak, there is nothing of Christ’s Church - and that would be the CC not the Lutheran Church. If you do not see this situation in this manner, how do you see it?

Thanks and God bless

 

[kalt]

This stuff in totally un-necessary. Lumping all Catholics together as “confused”, and making the assumption that do not have Christ is only hurting us. If we don’t Catholics assuming the wrong stuff about Protestants then the same sort of thing doesn’t need to be said about Catholics. Disgreeing is one thing, but attacking someones relationship with God is not helping! What makes you think you are correct with your assumptions. Disgareeing is fine, but saying these sorts of things isn’t. Please, man, stop.

It’s really OK. The other poster reports that he is an ex-Catholic. As I said in my post, ex-Catholics are generally ill-informed about their former religion. They tend to be angry and bitter toward their old Church and toward Catholics in general.

Usually these people leave the Church because they are unhappy. They believe they know the faith, and reject it. But they are rejecting what they think the Catholic Church is, not what it really is.

It’s been my experience that people who leave the Catholic church are unhappy and they use the CC as a punching bag. It’s something they can point to to blame. Hence, the “recovering Catholic” nonsense. In my rl experience, these people are also generally unhappy with their parents and siblings. There is an awful lot of finger-pointing.

I’m not implying that any of this pertains to the other poster. I’m just saying that Catholics are used to hearing these accusations.

Those of us who have had teenagers are especially well-prepared to deal with the accusations. It’s really a very similar line to the things our kids are really saying when they complain to us, though they would never admit even to themselves. "Why me? " “I’m not a superstar because of you.” “I wish I were better, and since I came from you, it must be all your fault.” “I want to do what I want to do, and I’m frustrated as Hell that you won’t let me.” And the best one, the one that scares them to pieces, that they mean but don’t mean, because people outside their family *seem *to validate their worth more than their family does. “If I could get away from you and join another family, I would be happier, better, smarter, and more popular. My horizons would broaden. I could have power. I would be free. I would be a superstar!”

Some kids even try it. When they realize that their “adopted” family has its own faults and that it doesn’t have the one thing that only their family has for them–true, uncompromising, faithful, self-fiving, selfless, and unending love–they come home.

 

[gcnuss]

I really was not trying to be uncharitable, and I apologize if my question was taken that way.

Maybe I am all wet on this matter, but, I honestly do not see this as a matter on how Luther took his coffee (as I recall, most of Europe was drinking beer rather then coffee back then! ) The issue as I appreciate it is that 3 Catholic bishops abandoned the Church founded by Christ on Peter - and because they were bishops there is now a claim to Apostolic Succession (ultimately traced back to the CC). The problem I am having is that this seems to claim cloak of Apostolic Succession - but, when one looks under the cloak, there is nothing of Christ’s Church - and that would be the CC not the Lutheran Church. If you do not see this situation in this manner, how do you see it?

Tom,

I hope you didn’t think that I was accusing you of being uncharitable. In fact, I specifically excluded our discussion from my comments.

With regard to the Swedish bishops (and any bishops, for that matter), it is my understanding that with their ordination as bishops they receive an indelible charism, through the work of the Holy Spirit, such that they are then and forever bishops. If they stray from the Catholic Church, the Church may excommunicate them and forbid them from exercising their episcopal authority within the Church, but it cannot “unordain” them – the work of the Holy Spirit cannot be undone. If that is the case – and I emphasize the “if” – it would seem that they could validly ordain priests and other bishops in apostolic succession even if those ordinations would be considered illicit by the Catholic Church.

As a Lutheran, I do not know the intricacies of canon law, so all of the above may be way off base.

 

[GKC]

Tom,

I hope you didn’t think that I was accusing you of being uncharitable. In fact, I specifically excluded our discussion from my comments.

With regard to the Swedish bishops (and any bishops, for that matter), it is my understanding that with their ordination as bishops they receive an indelible charism, through the work of the Holy Spirit, such that they are then and forever bishops. If they stray from the Catholic Church, the Church may excommunicate them and forbid them from exercising their episcopal authority within the Church, but it cannot “unordain” them – the work of the Holy Spirit cannot be undone. If that is the case – and I emphasize the “if” – it would seem that they could validly ordain priests and other bishops in apostolic succession even if those ordinations would be considered illicit by the Catholic Church.

As a Lutheran, I do not know the intricacies of canon law, so all of the above may be way off base.

This is in keeping with Ott, FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA, Book IV, Sec. 2, pp. 450-460. Assuming valid form, matter and intent have been maintained, the minister, in this situation, is valid.

GKC

 

[bobregan]

And she was his mother forever. Many non-Catholics have told me that she was only the mother of the human side of Christ, and that since died and is risen, she is no longer his mother, that in Heaven she is not Christ’s mother, but just another person in Heaven. That her body was just a vessel. (Sheesh, and they call the CC harsh on women!)

They seem to try very hard to distance Christ and themselves from Mary. I wonder where in the Bible they are told that Mary, who was once Jesus’ mother is not always Jesus’ mother, or that she was only the mother, for a short time, of the human Jesus.

We all know how we would want friends, neighbors, strangers to treat our own mother. With dignity, respect, honor and love.

How then, do you think Jesus wants us to treat His own Mother?

 

[bobregan]

And she was his mother forever. Many non-Catholics have told me that she was only the mother of the human side of Christ, and that since died and is risen, she is no longer his mother, that in Heaven she is not Christ’s mother, but just another person in Heaven. That her body was just a vessel. (Sheesh, and they call the CC harsh on women!)

They seem to try very hard to distance Christ and themselves from Mary. I wonder where in the Bible they are told that Mary, who was once Jesus’ mother is not always Jesus’ mother, or that she was only the mother, for a short time, of the human Jesus.

In the book of Revelation, Mary wears a crown in Heaven.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gcnuss,

You are perfectly correct in your assessment: valid but illicit.

But, that really wasn’t my question… This was never a question about the validity of the ordination that these 3 former Catholic bishops may have performed, or the consecration of other bishops to replace themselves and thus keep this process going.

The issue I am questioning is to engage in such a process, at least the way that I understand it, means that those who continued on with this activity were recognizing the ultimate validity of the Catholic claim to Apostolic Succession. To have 3 apostates try to move Christ’s Church in a different direction appears to be an attempted hijacking.

The guarantee of guidance and protection by the Holy Spirit wasn’t taken along with the bishops. All of the teaching of the CC remained - yet the Lutheran Chruch made multiple changes and to the best of my knowledged has splintered into disputing bodies over Christ’s Mission and the Bible. (Unless I have the groups confused …:)

My question is, if Apostolic Succession is so important - why would anyone think it could be lifted from the ‘tree’ planted by Christ and efforts made to graft it onto the tree planted by Luther? (Hopefully, this is a better analogy…)

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

Tom,

I hope you didn’t think that I was accusing you of being uncharitable. In fact, I specifically excluded our discussion from my comments.

With regard to the Swedish bishops (and any bishops, for that matter), it is my understanding that with their ordination as bishops they receive an indelible charism, through the work of the Holy Spirit, such that they are then and forever bishops. If they stray from the Catholic Church, the Church may excommunicate them and forbid them from exercising their episcopal authority within the Church, but it cannot “unordain” them – the work of the Holy Spirit cannot be undone. If that is the case – and I emphasize the “if” – it would seem that they could validly ordain priests and other bishops in apostolic succession even if those ordinations would be considered illicit by the Catholic Church.

As a Lutheran, I do not know the intricacies of canon law, so all of the above may be way off base.

 

[orange_man]

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.

with all due respect … you’re acting as if I just became a Christian yesterday or I’m a wayward protestant who is only protestant because I’ve yet to be enlightened by a knowledgeable Catholic. Actually I’ve studied theology for years, I’ve read the works of Aquinas, Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Sproul, Spurgeon, Chrysostom, and many others. I was born and raised Catholic before becoming protestant many years ago. So (just to clarify) I’m not a novice at this.

However, my question was very pointed. If we took an MRI image of the Eucharist (ingested by a faithful Catholic), would it transform to flesh as it made its way down the larynx toward the stomach? Or does it retain the chemical structure of bread throughout the entire digestion process?

Obviously the latter is true (and I don’t think the RCC would say otherwise). So if the bread itself never objectively physically transforms into flesh then it’s a spiritual reality not a physical one. This is really too easy … but Catholics make what should be a very simple thing inordinantly difficult?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Orange_man,

What a delightful post.

Now, let’s see. We are going to use physical means to investigate a spiritual reality. I am sure the authors you quote would be quite impressed with your understanding - and, technology - to use an MRI no less! Amazing!

However, my question was very pointed. If we took an MRI image of the Eucharist (ingested by a faithful Catholic), would it transform to flesh as it made its way down the larynx toward the stomach? Or does it retain the chemical structure of bread throughout the entire digestion process?

Obviously the latter is true (and I don’t think the RCC would say otherwise). So if the bread itself never objectively physically transforms into flesh then it’s a spiritual reality not a physical one. This is really too easy … but Catholics make what should be a very simple thing inordinantly difficult?

Actually, I do not know what the “RCC” would say, but I do know what the Catholic Chruch (“Rome” is not part of the name… but, you knew that, right?) would say. All of the accidents (and, that would be down to and past the molecular and sub-atomic and beyond levels) would be unchanged. It really is NOT a physical reality - BUT a Spiritual Reality and one that virtually all of the ‘Reformers’ got tripped up on along the way.

So, since we are in agreement that the Consecrated Bread and Wine are, (except for the accidents of bread and wine) the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, does that resolve the issue?

 

[gcnuss]

But, that really wasn’t my question… This was never a question about the validity of the ordination that these 3 former Catholic bishops may have performed, or the consecration of other bishops to replace themselves and thus keep this process going.

The issue I am questioning is to engage in such a process, at least the way that I understand it, means that those who continued on with this activity were recognizing the ultimate validity of the Catholic claim to Apostolic Succession. To have 3 apostates try to move Christ’s Church in a different direction appears to be an attempted hijacking.

Hi, Tom

I would say that the action to maintain apostolic succession in Sweden came out of the primary purpose of the Reformation – to reform, not to leave the Catholic Church. There was no intention to discard anything of the historic church that was good and the belief in the maintenance of apostolic succession was seen as a good, a connection to the apostles and all who followed them, a positive connection to the church catholic. There was no reason to give that up. The actions of the bishops in Sweden took away the issue of validity of orders for those whom they ordained and those who followed.

Later developments would lead some Lutherans – and many Protestants – to reject the idea of apostolic succession as being passed on by a literal “laying on of hands.” For some, it became a matter of excising Catholicism from their ecclesiology; for some it was the development of the concept of apostolic succession solely as the passing on of the teaching of the Apostles; for those who developed a congregational ecclesiology it was the rejection of any authority other than scripture and the local congregation. And, of course, there are variations on those themes.

 

[bobregan]

with all due respect … you’re acting as if I just became a Christian yesterday or I’m a wayward protestant who is only protestant because I’ve yet to be enlightened by a knowledgeable Catholic. Actually I’ve studied theology for years, I’ve read the works of Aquinas, Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Sproul, Spurgeon, Chrysostom, and many others. I was born and raised Catholic before becoming protestant many years ago. So (just to clarify) I’m not a novice at this.

However, my question was very pointed. If we took an MRI image of the Eucharist (ingested by a faithful Catholic), would it transform to flesh as it made its way down the larynx toward the stomach? Or does it retain the chemical structure of bread throughout the entire digestion process?

Obviously the latter is true (and I don’t think the RCC would say otherwise). So if the bread itself never objectively physically transforms into flesh then it’s a spiritual reality not a physical one. This is really too easy … but Catholics make what should be a very simple thing inordinantly difficult?

So God can’t make bread and wine into His true body and blood and keep the accidents of bread and wine if He wanted to?

Deny this, and you have to deny how a Virgin can become pregnant without physical sexual relations with a man.

Deny this, and you have to deny how a dead man’s decomposed body, dead for three days, can rise again and live

 

[bobregan]

with all due respect … you’re acting as if I just became a Christian yesterday or I’m a wayward protestant who is only protestant because I’ve yet to be enlightened by a knowledgeable Catholic. Actually I’ve studied theology for years, I’ve read the works of Aquinas, Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Sproul, Spurgeon, Chrysostom, and many others. I was born and raised Catholic before becoming protestant many years ago. So (just to clarify) I’m not a novice at this.

However, my question was very pointed. If we took an MRI image of the Eucharist (ingested by a faithful Catholic), would it transform to flesh as it made its way down the larynx toward the stomach? Or does it retain the chemical structure of bread throughout the entire digestion process?

Obviously the latter is true (and I don’t think the RCC would say otherwise). So if the bread itself never objectively physically transforms into flesh then it’s a spiritual reality not a physical one. This is really too easy … but Catholics make what should be a very simple thing inordinantly difficult?

This is why in John 6 Christ tells us “The flesh is of no avail.” Our "flesh"y sensory, human senses of sight, taste, feel hearing, smell will not be of use here, or of “no avail.” He is telling us to trust Him through faith that after the epiclesis the bread and wine TRULY become His Body and Blood and at the Last Supper that “This IS My Body.” Once again in the original Greek in John 6 the Greek word for “eats”(whomever “eats” my Flesh…) is “Trogo” which translated from the Greek is a physical chewing, gnawing or grinding and consuming with your teeth and mouth. Nothing “spiritual” about the use of “Trogo” in John 6. The word “Trogo” in John 6 is a physical reality, not a spiritual one.