Should Catholics Praise Martin Luther???

[rcwitness]

You brought forward an excellent point with the individual aspect still available in simple form today.

Thank you. The form of the individual in the Church will always be available. This is our promise. What is lost is the day when:
“And all who believed were together and had all things in common”
This was something the primitive Church got to enjoy. And I cannot help but see that the time when the Church was in its purest state was at this early birth, and during the unadulterated rule of St Peter.

Then, during these days, the first martyr was taken.

And Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people. Then some of those who belonged to the synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), and of the Cyre′nians, and of the Alexandrians, and of those from Cili′cia and Asia, arose and disputed with Stephen. But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke. Then they secretly instigated men, who said, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council, and set up false witnesses who said, “This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law; for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place, and will change the customs which Moses delivered to us.” And gazing at him, all who sat in the council saw that his face was like the face of an angel.

… Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth against him. But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; and he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.” But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together upon him. Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him; and the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. And as they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” And he knelt down and cried with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

And so we see the introduction of the last Apostle. Now, I always wondered why St Paul did not give Stephen any praise. After all, he owes much to his genuine prayer!

And so when the Church still had its internal peace (though persecution did begin), we see how Peter was afforded universal jurisdiction over all, and reverence given to the one leadership!

So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samar′ia had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.

Now as Peter went here and there among them all, he came down also to the saints that lived at Lydda.

The beginning of The Acts of the Apostles

 

[Wannano]

Thank you. The form of the individual in the Church will always be available. This is our promise. What is lost is the day when:
“And all who believed were together and had all things in common”
This was something the primitive Church got to enjoy. And I cannot help but see that the time when the Church was in its purest state was at this early birth, and during the unadulterated rule of St Peter.

Then, during these days, the first martyr was taken.

And Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people. Then some of those who belonged to the synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), and of the Cyre′nians, and of the Alexandrians, and of those from Cili′cia and Asia, arose and disputed with Stephen. But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke. Then they secretly instigated men, who said, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council, and set up false witnesses who said, “This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law; for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place, and will change the customs which Moses delivered to us.” And gazing at him, all who sat in the council saw that his face was like the face of an angel.

… Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth against him. But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; and he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.” But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together upon him. Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him; and the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. And as they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” And he knelt down and cried with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

And so we see the introduction of the last Apostle. Now, I always wondered why St Paul did not give Stephen any praise. After all, he owes much to his genuine prayer!

And so when the Church still had its internal peace (though persecution did begin), we see how Peter was afforded universal jurisdiction over all, and reverence given to the one leadership!

So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samar′ia had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.

Now as Peter went here and there among them all, he came down also to the saints that lived at Lydda.

The beginning of The Acts of the Apostles

I agree with you…the church in its purest state still having internal peace. The days before power, politics and money enter in.

 

[rcwitness]

I agree with you…the church in its purest state still having internal peace. The days before power, politics and money enter in.

I agree about politics (though not that political involvement is intrinsically evil, since it also helped lift the great persecution), but even the primitive Church had power and money! It was the Spirit of the members (from top to bottom) who did not let it trouble their hearts. They gave freely, both money and authority, over themselves to the Church.

Acts 4

Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need. Thus Joseph who was surnamed by the apostles Barnabas (which means, Son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field which belonged to him, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

Acts 5

And great fear came upon the whole church, and upon all who heard of these things.
Now many signs and wonders were done among the people by the hands of the apostles. And they were all together in Solomon’s Portico.None of the rest dared join them, but the people held them in high honor. And more than ever believers were added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women, so that they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and pallets, that as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them.

 

[Peter_J]

It depends upon the context.

Stemming from the Church’s work of evangelisation – classic or the New Evangelisation – then, of course, an ecumenism of return is certainly an outcome at the individual level. The non-Catholic Christian, practicing or non-practicing, petitions for…and is received into…full communion with the Catholic Church.

Pope Benedict, in his address, is speaking of a corporate situation…in this case, with the Lutherans…not an individual situation. This is best seen in light of, for example, the ordinariate erected for the Anglicans. The Anglicans desiring full communion were not asked to abandon their Anglican heritage and simply return to the Roman. Rather, they were invited but to bring their heritage, customs, traditions, and elements of their liturgy with them into the new condition of being in full communion with Rome with needed provisions made to accommodate the necessary arrangements.

The sense in which, for example, Lutherans would be asked to set aside what is now their history, their heritage and their identity is what Pope Benedict refers to when he says that the ecumenism of the return is not a position today. That concept, once held, would not be advanced today from the Catholic side and it is, obviously, not remotely a position on the non-Catholic side…at all.

Lot of good posts (wish I had more time to post here). But I have to nit-pick that last sentence because you said “non-Catholic” rather than “Protestant”. I’ve had a good deal of experience with Eastern Orthodox, and I can assure you that they do have a concept of us (and Protestants of course) needing to “return” to the Church.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Lot of good posts (wish I had more time to post here). But I have to nit-pick that last sentence because you said “non-Catholic” rather than “Protestant”. I’ve had a good deal of experience with Eastern Orthodox, and I can assure you that they do have a concept of us (and Protestants of course) needing to “return” to the Church.

Non Catholic is a broader term. There are Non Catholic Christians, who are neither Protestant nor Eastern Orthodox, with whom Rome is in dialogue.

There are those who have the concept you say…but that has nothing to do with the remark I made which is: Rome no longer holds to an ecumenism of the return regarding our own dialogue partners…and those who are our dialogue partners would have no interest in such a so-called ecumenism which is only about them renouncing their history, their heritage and their identity.

 

[2PT3]

Non Catholic is a broader term. There are Non Catholic Christians, who are neither Protestant nor Eastern Orthodox, with whom Rome is in dialogue.

There are those who have the concept you say…but that has nothing to do with the remark I made which is: Rome no longer holds to an ecumenism of the return regarding our own dialogue partners…and those who are our dialogue partners would have no interest in such a so-called ecumenism which is only about them renouncing their history, their heritage and their identity.

Well, I guess it is really sad if you are saying the Catholic Church no longer even wants everyone to be Catholic, i.e. that it is just fine for them the stay Lutheran or Anglican or Baptist or whatever. Where you draw the line? Okay to remain a Jehova’s Witness? Bhuddist? Hindu? Wiccan?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Well, I guess it is really sad if you are saying the Catholic Church no longer even wants everyone to be Catholic, i.e. that it is just fine for them the stay Lutheran or Anglican or Baptist or whatever. Where you draw the line? Okay to remain a Jehova’s Witness? Bhuddist? Hindu? Wiccan?

You do understand that there is a difference between ecumenism on the one hand and inter-religious relations on the other hand?

The dialogue of ecumenism and the efforts for Christian unity is overseen by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity which is distinct from the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue. It is hardly a line that has to be “drawn”…it is quite clear and well understood and abundantly clear.

When it comes to the work for Christian unity, as Pope Saint John Paul II said so eloquently in Ut Unum Sint: “Again, the very expression separated brethren tends to be replaced today by expressions which more readily evoke the deep communion — linked to the baptismal character — which the Spirit fosters in spite of historical and canonical divisions.” The Church must acknowledge the work of the Spirit where it discerns Him.

In the case of baptised Christians, we all belong to Christ. This is fundamental Catholic theology. As Pope Saint John Paul expressed it: “This broadening of vocabulary is indicative of a significant change in attitudes. There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ.”

When it comes to the ontological reality of the baptismal character, which the Pope referenced in the quote above, it follows that there must be the acknowledgement of the profound implications of this recognition. As he wrote, “This is something much more than an act of ecumenical courtesy; it constitutes a basic ecclesiological statement. It is fitting to recall that the fundamental role of Baptism in building up the Church has been clearly brought out thanks also to multilateral dialogues.”

As the Council Fathers articulated very well and very succinctly in Unitatis Redintegratio:
Nor should we forget that anything wrought by the grace of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of our separated brethren can be a help to our own edification. Whatever is truly Christian is never contrary to what genuinely belongs to the faith; indeed, it can always bring a deeper realization of the mystery of Christ and the Church.
The great work then is to overcome the state of impaired communion that exists among all of us who belong to the one Body of Christ. And that is a very great task indeed.

 

[2PT3]

You do understand that there is a difference between ecumenism on the one hand and inter-religious relations on the other hand?

The dialogue of ecumenism and the efforts for Christian unity is overseen by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity which is distinct from the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue. It is hardly a line that has to be “drawn”…it is quite clear and well understood and abundantly clear.

When it comes to the work for Christian unity, as Pope Saint John Paul II said so eloquently in Ut Unum Sint: “Again, the very expression separated brethren tends to be replaced today by expressions which more readily evoke the deep communion — linked to the baptismal character — which the Spirit fosters in spite of historical and canonical divisions.” The Church must acknowledge the work of the Spirit where it discerns Him.

In the case of baptised Christians, we all belong to Christ. This is fundamental Catholic theology. As Pope Saint John Paul expressed it: “This broadening of vocabulary is indicative of a significant change in attitudes. There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ.”

When it comes to the ontological reality of the baptismal character, which the Pope referenced in the quote above, it follows that there must be the acknowledgement of the profound implications of this recognition. As he wrote, “This is something much more than an act of ecumenical courtesy; it constitutes a basic ecclesiological statement. It is fitting to recall that the fundamental role of Baptism in building up the Church has been clearly brought out thanks also to multilateral dialogues.”

As the Council Fathers articulated very well and very succinctly in Unitatis Redintegratio:
Nor should we forget that anything wrought by the grace of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of our separated brethren can be a help to our own edification. Whatever is truly Christian is never contrary to what genuinely belongs to the faith; indeed, it can always bring a deeper realization of the mystery of Christ and the Church.
The great work then is to overcome the state of impaired communion that exists among all of us who belong to the one Body of Christ. And that is a very great task indeed.

You are repeating yourself and did not answer my question. Do you want Jehova’s Witnesses to become Catholics or not? Baptists? Lutherans?

 

[2PT3]

You do understand that there is a difference between ecumenism on the one hand and inter-religious relations on the other hand?

The dialogue of ecumenism and the efforts for Christian unity is overseen by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity which is distinct from the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue. It is hardly a line that has to be “drawn”…it is quite clear and well understood and abundantly clear.

When it comes to the work for Christian unity, as Pope Saint John Paul II said so eloquently in Ut Unum Sint: “Again, the very expression separated brethren tends to be replaced today by expressions which more readily evoke the deep communion — linked to the baptismal character — which the Spirit fosters in spite of historical and canonical divisions.” The Church must acknowledge the work of the Spirit where it discerns Him.

In the case of baptised Christians, we all belong to Christ. This is fundamental Catholic theology. As Pope Saint John Paul expressed it: “This broadening of vocabulary is indicative of a significant change in attitudes. There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ.”

When it comes to the ontological reality of the baptismal character, which the Pope referenced in the quote above, it follows that there must be the acknowledgement of the profound implications of this recognition. As he wrote, “This is something much more than an act of ecumenical courtesy; it constitutes a basic ecclesiological statement. It is fitting to recall that the fundamental role of Baptism in building up the Church has been clearly brought out thanks also to multilateral dialogues.”

As the Council Fathers articulated very well and very succinctly in Unitatis Redintegratio:
Nor should we forget that anything wrought by the grace of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of our separated brethren can be a help to our own edification. Whatever is truly Christian is never contrary to what genuinely belongs to the faith; indeed, it can always bring a deeper realization of the mystery of Christ and the Church.
The great work then is to overcome the state of impaired communion that exists among all of us who belong to the one Body of Christ. And that is a very great task indeed.

You also have not given any reasons why a Catholic should have raise Martin Luther (the person), whiz is the question posed in this post.

 

[Peter_J]

and those who are our dialogue partners would have no interest in such a so-called ecumenism which is only about them renouncing their history, their heritage and their identity.

No argument there: Orthodox (for example) aren’t going to come to ecumenical dialogue saying “We in the wrong and need to become Catholic”, just like Catholics aren’t going to come to ecumenical dialogue saying “We in the wrong and need to become Orthodox.”

(A part of me is tempted to say that that shouldn’t even need to be said … but knowing the internet, you’re probably right to say it. )

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Totally false. See just about every thread about Luther here.

No. Totally true.

 

[2PT3]

You do understand that there is a difference between ecumenism on the one hand and inter-religious relations on the other hand?

The dialogue of ecumenism and the efforts for Christian unity is overseen by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity which is distinct from the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue. It is hardly a line that has to be “drawn”…it is quite clear and well understood and abundantly clear.

When it comes to the work for Christian unity, as Pope Saint John Paul II said so eloquently in Ut Unum Sint: “Again, the very expression separated brethren tends to be replaced today by expressions which more readily evoke the deep communion — linked to the baptismal character — which the Spirit fosters in spite of historical and canonical divisions.” The Church must acknowledge the work of the Spirit where it discerns Him.

In the case of baptised Christians, we all belong to Christ. This is fundamental Catholic theology. As Pope Saint John Paul expressed it: “This broadening of vocabulary is indicative of a significant change in attitudes. There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ.”

When it comes to the ontological reality of the baptismal character, which the Pope referenced in the quote above, it follows that there must be the acknowledgement of the profound implications of this recognition. As he wrote, “This is something much more than an act of ecumenical courtesy; it constitutes a basic ecclesiological statement. It is fitting to recall that the fundamental role of Baptism in building up the Church has been clearly brought out thanks also to multilateral dialogues.”

As the Council Fathers articulated very well and very succinctly in Unitatis Redintegratio:
Nor should we forget that anything wrought by the grace of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of our separated brethren can be a help to our own edification. Whatever is truly Christian is never contrary to what genuinely belongs to the faith; indeed, it can always bring a deeper realization of the mystery of Christ and the Church.
The great work then is to overcome the state of impaired communion that exists among all of us who belong to the one Body of Christ. And that is a very great task indeed.

So?

After all the pseudo-intellectual condescension you have poured out upon me, the question remains: Do you desire for Lutherans to become Catholic or not? Why would you not desire for them to have the fullness of truth? I highly recommend to you Tim Staples’ article, right here on Catholic Answers, titled “Is There Really No Salvation Outside the Church?” catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/is-there-really-no-salvation-outside-the-catholic-church.

And, again, on what basis should a Catholic praise Martin Luther, who was rabidly anti-Catholic, wrote a book describing the papacy as an invention of the Devil, was genocidal toward Jews, advocated the mass slaughter of German peasants, excised books from the Canon of Scripture, preached a false theology that has led hundreds of millions of Christians away from the fullness of Truth, and began the movement that led to the shattering of Christendom into 20,000 denominations?

Peace to you.

 

[Peter_J]

I highly recommend to you Tim Staples’ article, right here on Catholic Answers, titled “Is There Really No Salvation Outside the Church?”

I may be sorry for asking, but I’ll take a chance: what about that article?

Does Mr. Staples agree with Rome’s ecumenism?

 

[2PT3]

I may be sorry for asking, but I’ll take a chance: what about that article?

Does Mr. Staples agree with Rome’s ecumenism?

“Rome” is all over the map on both the purpose and methods of ecumenism. Some of the most ardent “ecumenists” are basically indifferentists. The most ardent anti-ecumenists are just as wrong. I am sure Tim Staples is doing his best to provide Catholic Answers to the vexing question posed in the title of his article.

The March 16, 2016 statement by Pope Emeritus Benedict that the Church is facing a deep, two-sided crisis rings true with me. Catholic doctrine has evolved to accept the possibility that there may in fact be salvation outside the Church (albeit still “through” the Church). Some have taken the “possibility” of such salvation - acknowledged in Lumen Gentium - and run with it so that, as a practical matter, they believe that the Church is barely necessary to salvation, if at all. This is indifferentism - the view that it does not really matter if one is Catholic or Lutheran or Baptist or whatever.

Two things have occurred as a result of this: First, the Church has lost much of its missionary fervor. What’s the point if people can be saved outside the Church? Second, Catholics have become far less devout. Again, what’s the point of you can be saved without it? Much of modern Catholic ecumenism is based on the* a priori *assumption that we are not seeking the conversion of our dialogue partners. Indeed, among the “professional ecumenists” it is considered extremely bad form - politically “incorrect” in the extreme - to ever suggest that we actually think our “separated brethren” (to use a supposedly verboten term) should ever actually consider becoming Catholic.

Peace to you.

 

[Peter_J]

Two things have occurred as a result of this: First, the Church has lost much of its missionary fervor. What’s the point if people can be saved outside the Church? Second, Catholics have become far less devout.

Don’t worry, I’ll bet things will be different when you’re Pope.

 

[2PT3]

Don’t worry, I’ll bet things will be different when you’re Pope.

Dude, I was just paraphrasing Pope Emeritus Benedict. Here’s the article:

March 16, 2016 (LifeSiteNews.com) – On March 16, speaking publicly on a rare occasion, Pope Benedict XVI gave an interview (English translation) to Avvenire, the daily newspaper of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, in which he spoke of a “two-sided deep crisis” the Church is facing in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. The report has already hit Germany courtesy of Vaticanist Guiseppe Nardi, of the German Catholic news website Katholisches.info.

Pope Benedict reminds us of the formerly indispensable Catholic conviction of the possibility of the loss of eternal salvation, or that people go to hell:

The missionaries of the 16th century were convinced that the unbaptized person is lost forever. After the [Second Vatican] Council, this conviction was definitely abandoned. The result was a two-sided, deep crisis. Without this attentiveness to the salvation, the Faith loses its foundation.

He also speaks of a “profound evolution of Dogma” with respect to the Dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church. This purported change of dogma has led, in the pope’s eyes, to a loss of the missionary zeal in the Church – “any motivation for a future missionary commitment was removed.”

Pope Benedict asks the piercing question that arose after this palpable change of attitude of the Church: “Why should you try to convince the people to accept the Christian faith when they can be saved even without it?”

As to the other consequences of this new attitude in the Church, Catholics themselves, in Benedict’s eyes, are less attached to their Faith: If there are those who can save their souls with other means, “why should the Christian be bound to the necessity of the Christian Faith and its morality?” asked the pope. And he concludes: “But if Faith and Salvation are not any more interdependent, even Faith becomes less motivating.”

Pope Benedict also refutes both the idea of the “anonymous Christian” as developed by Karl Rahner, as well as the indifferentist idea that all religions are equally valuable and helpful to attain eternal life.

“Even less acceptable is the solution proposed by the pluralistic theories of religion, for which all religions, each in its own way, would be ways of salvation and, in this sense, must be considered equivalent in their effects,” he said. In this context, he also touches upon the exploratory ideas of the now-deceased Jesuit Cardinal, Henri de Lubac, about Christ’s putatively “vicarious substitutions” which have to be now again “further reflected upon.”

With regard to man’s relation to technology and to love, Pope Benedict reminds us of the importance of human affection, saying that man still yearns in his heart “that the Good Samaritan come to his aid.”

He continues: “In the harshness of the world of technology – in which feelings do not count anymore – the hope for a saving love grows, a love which would be given freely and generously.”

Benedict also reminds his audience that: “The Church is not self-made, it was created by God and is continuously formed by Him. This finds expression in the Sacraments, above all in that of Baptism: I enter into the Church not by a bureaucratic act, but with the help of this Sacrament.” Benedict also insists that, always, “we need Grace and forgiveness.”

 

[Dempsey1919]

Absolutely not. He was was a heresiarch and a fallen priest. He destroyed Christendom. Blasphemed the Mass. Opposed the Pope. He was a disgrace. Don’t praise him. Praise men like St. Ignatius Loyola who cleaned up his mess. Praise Pope St. Pius V and the Fathers of the Council of Trent who bravely proclaimed the Truth. Luther was a heretic and a scoundrel. May the Lord have mercy on his soul.

 

[rcwitness]

Don’t worry, I’ll bet things will be different when you’re Pope.

I don’t think 2PT3 is acting that way. I see his point. I also see Fr Ruggero’s emphasis. Fr., however seems to take an extreme one sided approach which puts aside the reality that Jesus, through the Church and the office of the Bishop of Rome and the Sacrament of His Eucharist is in itself a call to Christian unity. So there is a line between unecessary procelityzing (sp?) and avoiding the call to unity and truth.

 

[rcwitness]

Much of the issue is determined by the current state of an individual who genuinely accepts the Gospel delivered to them through their Christian community. This is established through accepting a valid Baptism (or its desire), then once that individual is aware of the deeper, or more accurate way of following Christ, there becomes a responsibility to assent or reject Christian leadership. It’s not an easy dilemma.

 

[Peter_J]

I also see Fr Ruggero’s emphasis. Fr., however seems to take an extreme one sided approach which puts aside the reality that Jesus, through the Church and the office of the Bishop of Rome and the Sacrament of His Eucharist is in itself a call to Christian unity.

I cannot speak for Fr Ruggero but I’ll contrast your reading of his posts with my own reading, as I thought he was very clear about the matter – as we (Catholics) should all be, since Vatican II tells us that “it is evident that, when individuals wish for full Catholic communion, their preparation and reconciliation is an undertaking which of its nature is distinct from ecumenical action. But there is no opposition between the two, since both proceed from the marvelous ways of God.” (cf. post #67 in this thread)

That aside, I welcome you to substantiate the claim you made against Fr Ruggero (assuming you still believe it to be justified).