Sola Scriptura Question, Aimed Especially at Lutherans

[Topper17]

Hi Mico,

That Christian writers throughout the ages have written anti-Semitic things is an unfortunate reality. Even respected figures such as St. John Chrysostom succumbed to such attitudes. But the key thing about Luther is that he is generally considered the person to have spearheaded the Protestant Reformation. Eck is just one of many Catholic theologians.

Christianity has a horrible track record with regards to the Jews. There is nothing that could possibly excuse the writings of Luther, Eck, Chrysostom, or anybody else who demonstrated Anti-Semitism, or worse. But to suggest that they are all of equal magnitude, or that they all had similar impact, is simply false and misleading. In fact, no Theologian in the whole history of Christianity wrote anything nearly as horrific as what Luther wrote about the Jews. No amount of spin can change that fact. In addition, nothing that anybody did or wrote or said had near the impact of Luther.

Luther deserves more scrutiny than Eck or Chrysostom because of the damage that he did to Christian Unity. It cannot be said that Eck or any Church Father did anything to destroy the doctrinal unity of the Christian Church. Because of the impact of Luther’s Revolt, it is important that we understand who he really was, what he really taught, and most crucial - why. In addition, we need to develop a realistic assessment of the damage done by Luther; his responsibility for the doctrinal dissension and denominalization suffered by Western Christendom.

**“……Luther’s Reformation sought to establish the church once more upon the foundation of the gospel, and so to root the unity of the church in the redemptive action of God rather than in human merit and human organizations. But an examination of the concrete results will reveal that the Reformation, which was intended to reform the church, issued instead a divided Christendom, with dozens of separate groups and denominations. Not even the church that bore the name of Luther and claimed his message was united.” **Jaroslav Pelikan, (writing as a then Lutheran), Obedient Rebels, pg. 14

In other words, in spite of what Luther intended, which sounds so noble on the face of it, the actual results were “a divided Christendom with dozens of separate groups and denominations.”

It cannot be said that Eck damaged Christian unity. In fact, Eck was one of the many, and possibly even the principal Theologian, to warn Luther that his beliefs were going to lead to doctrinal dissension. Outside of his opposition to Luther, which by the way is considerable and admirable, Eck is relatively unimportant. I have never seen any Scholar comment that Eck’s anti-semitism had ANY practical effect, whereas, on the other hand……………………

**“Men of Eck’s conviction foresaw – rightly, as it turned out – that once the individual conscience was granted freedom to seek its own definition of truth, Christian faith would become so fragmented that no consensus would be possible and that the uncertainties inherent in any religion would then become part of the spiritual equipment of mankind.” **Richard Marius, pg. 186

This passage is from Marius’s 20 page chapter on the Leipzig Debate, where Luther was defeated by Eck. Of course, Eck’s opposition to Luther have earned him a ‘certain reputation’, one that has been misrepresented by many over the last 5 centuries.

“Eck…was perhaps the most feared disputant of the German academic world. Protestant historians have repaid Eck for the relentlessness with which he pursued Luther and his followers by four centuries of abuse.” Robert Herndon Fife and Sarah Striker Fife, The Revolt of Martin Luther, 1957, page 331

Even after almost 500 years, Protestants are not yet done ‘repaying’ John Eck, but normally only with generalizations, very little in the way of specifics, and usually, a complete lack of actual substance.

**When Martin Luther first preached before Duke George, the Duke disgustedly commented that “that kind of teaching will make men presumptuous”. **Duke George has also been ridiculed by Protestantism for his opposition to Luther for almost 500 years now.

Duke George was not necessarily known for his theologian acumen, but he was for his wisdom. Obviously, it wasn’t necessary to be a trained theologian to realize that Luther’s beliefs were going to damage Christian unity. All it took was a slight degree of common sense. It seems to obvious to us today, just as it did to the Duke.
**
So, how in the world could Luther have not realized it? How could we NOT see this failure as a huge black mark on Luther’s credibility? **

Preserved Smith records the comment of **Paul de Lagarde, who detested “the course, scolding Luther, who never saw further than his two hobnailed shoes, and by his demagoguery, brought in barbarism and split Germany into fragments.” **“Age of Reform”, Pg. 736

Smith also records the thoughts on Luther of a wide range of intellectuals of about a two hundred year period. Big-time names and very interesting opinions.

de Lagarde was pretty direct, and he points to the fact that Luther was not very good at the whole ‘cause and effect’ thing, or 'connecting the dots". He should have listened to those warnings about how his teachings were going to lead to dissension.

God Bless You Mico, Topper

 

[Thorolfr]

Topper made the accusation that English speaking Lutherans had/have hidden Of the Jews and Their Lies, claiming that its lack of an English translation was evidence.

“On the Jews and Their Lies” is translated in Volume 47 of Luther’s Works (Fortress Press, 1971) and is still in print.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Thor,

“On the Jews and Their Lies” is translated in Volume 47 of Luther’s Works (Fortress Press, 1971) and is still in print.

That is exactly the point that I made in post number 410:

Luther’s more acceptable writings were being published in English long before his death. So, why was OTJATL and his other writings against the Jews never published in English UNTIL 1971?

In fact, in that post I quoted the reluctance of the editors to publish these writings at all.

The issue at hand is the ‘selectiveness’ with which Lutheranism has chosen to reveal Luther’s various writings. I find it to be much more than a little revealing that “On the Jews and Their Lies” was never translated into English and published UNTIL 1971?

There is also the issue of the matter of Luther’s Crusade against the Jews being hidden from German Lutherans.

From my post number 409:

“Years later, Eberhard Bethge said that most people, including him and Bonhoffer, were unaware of the anti-Semitic ravings of Luther. It was only when the arch-Semite propagandist (and Nazi) Julius Streicher began to publish and publicize them that they became generally known. It must have been shocking and confusing for devout Lutherans like Bonhoffer to learn of these writings. **But because he was so intimately familiar with all else Luther had written, he most likely dismissed the anti-Semitic writings as the ravings of a madman, unmoored from his past beliefs.” **Eric Metaxas, “Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy”, Pg 109

This is a shocking statement. First of all, in his hatred of so many groups, the Jews being only one of them, Luther often did sound like a madman. Isn’t it weird that the man who “discovered” (supposedly in Scripture) the foundational beliefs of Protestantism often sounded like a madman and exhibited an astonishing level of un-Christian hatred for those who rejected his theology.

Deitrich Bonhoffer who taught systematic theology at the University of Berlin, was a Lutheran Pastor, Theologian who was “intimately familiar” with the writings of Luther and yet, DIDN’T know about “On the Jews and Their Lies”! How is that possible? I’ll tell you how it is possible – because Luther’s “position” on the Jews (and SO MANY other “things”) were hidden with the expressed intent to make him “look better” to Christians. If Bonhoeffer didn’t know about Luther and the Jews then who was supposed to?

Of course “On the Jews and Their Lies” was written in German, and Bonhoeffer, a German was ‘unaware of the anti-Semitic ravings of Luther’, and that he ‘and most people’ ONLY became aware of them when the Nazi’s began to publish and publicize them. That means that the very important writings of Luther against the Jews had been hidden, intentionally, from the people of Germany. If you have some alternative explanation, please post it.

I have to ask you Thor – How do you explain these things UNLESS it is because Lutheranism was extremely ‘selective’ in regards to publishing Luther’s ‘ravings’ prior to 1971? I ask because in the Introduction to OTJATL, the editors of LW mentioned Luther’s ‘reputation’ as being a matter of concern. Is there a plausible explanation that you can offer?

God Bless You Thor, Topper

 

[steido01]

In his bid to score polemical points, Topper neglects a major MAJOR MAJOR point (did I do the capitalization and coloring right? I’m not very experienced at Wall of Text posts…):

There wasn’t a need to translate.

Many Lutheran churches in the U.S. still held regular Mass in German up through the 1930’s and 1940’s, since that was what was spoken at home. Even today, some churches hold Masses in German (especially around Christmas). Today, all pastors still have a solid background in it (in addition to the expected languages of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew). So when the need arose for an English translation to Luther’s non-essential works, it was done within half a generation. How many years did it take the Catholic Church to hold Mass in German and English?

 

[Topper17]

Such Drama. No answers though to the tough questions though yet.

 

[Topper17]

There is another aspect mentioned in the OP which to date has not been very well explored.

Obviously one criticism of sola scriptura is that it eventually leads to a million different interpretations of the same text, with everyone in the debate insisting his or her own interpretation is the best.

So the question is, can the early church fathers play any role in that debate, or must scripture by itself be the only way to prove an interpretation is correct?

OR, can the Lutheran look to the early church fathers and say, “I know my interpretation is correct because the church has always properly interpreted this teaching the correct way”? Or is that a violation of the sola scriptura principle?

**The Early Church Fathers were very clear about the authority of the Church, the authority of Scripture and in fact, about the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Their teachings in NO WAY support Luther’s disastrous teaching of Sola Scriptura. Of course it has already been established that Luther was not well educated on the Fathers.

“If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?” Cyprian, (Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition (Treatise 1:4) (A. D. 251)

“(Pope St.) Cornelius was made bishop by the judgment of God and of Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the suffrage of the people who were then present, and by the assembly of ancient priests and good men…when the place of Fabian, that is, the place of Peter and the degree of the sacerdotal throne was vacant, which being occupied by the will of God, and established by the consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become a bishop, must needs be made from without; and he cannot have the ordination of the Church who does not hold the unity of the Church.” Cyprian, (Letters 51:1 (A. D. 251).

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare – a false bishop having been appointed for them by heretics – set sail and bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the Chief Church from which priestly unity takes its source.” {Letters 54:14 (A. D. 252)]

“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another alter or for there to be another priesthood besides that one alter and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering.” “Letter of Cyprian to All His People”, [43 (40) 5], A. D. 251

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they even dare to set sail and carry letters from schematics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance.” Cyprian, “Letter of Cyprian to Cornelius of Rome”, [59 955), 14], A. D. 252**

Luther’s disrespect for the Bishop of Rome and for the Early Church Fathers actually does have precedent in Christian History.

Can we point to ANY Father of the Church who claimed that the Bishop of Rome was the anti-christ?

It seems to me that many pay lip service to the command in Scripture to Unity, but refuse to even consider how Protestantism has gotten so far off track. It also seems to me that, given mans fallen nature, and especially the failure of SS to achieve ANY kind of unity, the ONLY way that Christians can be unified doctrinally is if there is a physical head on earth - a physical head in whom God has placed His Authority to maintain that Unity.

Of course, Luther was not willing to follow, only to lead. This of course leads to the issue of Luther’s ‘qualifications’ as a Christian leader.

 

[JustaServant]

Such Drama. No answers though to the tough questions though yet.

Not necessary dude.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Luther had probable cause to expose abuses in the Church especially in Germany in regards to the selling of indulgences. And the Church was too slow to move for Luther without computers, phones and faxes.

Scripture states that the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth is the Church. The Apostolic Church to which Holy Writ pronounces possesses a threefold divine revelation in Sacred Scripture, Sacred (oral) Tradition and the Apostolic Magisterium.

A true and faithful Christian does not have the full apostolic deposit of faith when one of these three is lacking in the apostolic church or one of the three is replaced with Sola Scriptura or another.

Was it Luther’s intention to remove the ancient pillar of the magisterium established by the head of the Church, Christ Himself, by adding the Sola to Scriptura?

If Sola was added to Scriptura under the pretense to discount and or discredit the Magisterium, then Sola is in direct contradiction to Scriptura. when Scriptura reveals the Church as being the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth (1 Tim.3:15), not Sola Scriptura.

**An interpretation of Sacred Scripture must not and will not contradict **the revealed biblical practices and teachings handed down to us by Jesus and His apostles in a living and breathing way of Sacred Scripture, Sacred (oral) Tradition and the Magisterium. All of the above is revealed and still practiced today in the Holy Mass and Sacraments.

Sola Scriptura is never a divine revelation by God. Sola Scriptura is not an apostolic living and breathing of The Way, but lends more towards a theological expression that becomes a tool to rebuff and removes the living apostolic Magisterium.

For example; one cannot conduct an apostolic liturgy without Sacred Scriptura, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, the three are indivisible and united as one always in Liturgy. Sola scriptura by itself becomes a head without a body that lacks the living and breathing essentials to give light to the world in Truth.

A theological expression practiced in faith from the context of Sola Scriptura gives off a multiplicity of light rays that can cast shadows. Truth is the only light which can dispel shadows and darkness. This Truth which scriptura states is the pillar and bulwark of Truth the Church.

I find no problem with Sola Scriptura when used as a tool for correction see 2 Timothy 3:16"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness". Sola Scriptura becomes an obstacle to the Bulwark of Truth when it is used to abuse and replace the apostolic magisterium of the Church.

Sola Scriptura divides and removes itself from the body of the Church, when it is used to replace the apostolic magisterium. Had Luther used Sola Scriptura to correct, teach, rebuke and correct the abuses in the Church, he would of gained much support from his priestly brothers and apostolic successors.

Presently we find Lutherans in separation within the body of Christ of no fault of their own. Because Luther replaced the apostolic magisterium with his new sola scriptura.

Peace be with you

 

[benjohnson]

Had Luther used Sola Scriptura to correct, teach, rebuke and correct the abuses in the Church, he would of gained much support from his priestly brothers and apostolic successors.

…]

Peace be with you

Your description is good news for us Lutherans who do desire reconciliation with our Catholic brothers in Christ - for this is how we view the practice of Sola Scriptua. May the Holy Spirit give us guidance in this!

May the Peace of the Lord be with you as well!

 

[Topper17]

Hi Gab,

Luther had probable cause to expose abuses in the Church especially in Germany in regards to the selling of indulgences. And the Church was too slow to move for Luther without computers, phones and faxes.

Luther was correct to complain about the abuses that were occurring at the time within the Church, but that was no cause to condemn and reject over 50 important Church doctrines, and all even before his excommunication. Had he concentrated on those abuses, he could have been a huge positive force within the Church. However, he challenged the entire authority of the Church, replaced it with his Own Authority, and ultimately created his own church. That church that he founded, has splintered into an uncountable number of competing and conflicting sects.

If Luther had been wise he would have listened to the warnings about where his teachings would lead.

God Bless You Gab, Topper

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Your description is good news for us Lutherans who do desire reconciliation with our Catholic brothers in Christ - for this is how we view the practice of Sola Scriptua. May the Holy Spirit give us guidance in this!

May the Peace of the Lord be with you as well!

Greetings benjohnson, It is always good news when efforts are made for reconciliation towards a full communion. Especially, when we can begin to view Sola Scriptura, from the disposition of a Little Child, without prejudices and ignorance, at the same time gaining knowledge from each one’s respective view that can graduate into a sentiment of excitement that is not dividing, but can open and introduce a communication and effort towards reconciling our differences towards a common goal, which is Christ.

It is a losing battle on both sides to pit Sola Scriptura against our King’s Magisterium, or replace the Church’s Magisterium with Sola Scriptura. In retrospect; It is a losing battle on both sides to debate or pit Sola Scriptura in a way, so as to remove it from it’s sole biblical purpose for Christ’s Liturgy and 2 Timothy 3:16"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness".

We Catholics not only desire full communion with Lutherans but we need your love of scripture, not to replace what we Catholics already have, but to enhance, lift up and edify the Church with a love of God’s Word from Sola Scripturalist.

Remember, Peter and the Church possess the Keys to bind and loose upon the whole earth. The Catholic Church in her history has always welcomed diversity and practices of different religious discipline or one’s faith expression that stems from a different culture, understanding and language that has managed to maintain it’s identity while never attempting to Change the Rock upon which Jesus Christ builds His Church.

We are the offspring of our forefathers by no fault of our own and we live in a new era, where peace and open communication of idea’s can be welcomed and nurtured within a Lutheran’s view of Sola Scriptura today.

If we can bridge a Lutheran’s Love of Sola Scriptura so as not to attempt to replace or change the Rock of Christ in His Apostolic Church? That bridge Lutheran’s help to build with us Catholics could “teach and correct” many of the other Christian sola Scripturalist to cross into a full communion with Peter once again. It is here, where the Lutheran’s do not lose their identity as Lutherans but are received in full communion, just as the followers of St. Francis, Dominicans, Augustinians, Oblates of St. Joseph and many, many other different Church approved disciplines and practices that do not hinder or contradict Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium Jesus founded Himself.

All realities start first from an idea or a dream.

Thank you benjohnson:thumbsup:

 

[steido01]

Greetings benjohnson, It is always good news when efforts are made for reconciliation towards a full communion. Especially, when we can begin to view Sola Scriptura, from the disposition of a Little Child, without prejudices and ignorance, at the same time gaining knowledge from each one’s respective view that can graduate into a sentiment of excitement that is not dividing, but can open and introduce a communication and effort towards reconciling our differences towards a common goal, which is Christ.

It is a losing battle on both sides to pit Sola Scriptura against our King’s Magisterium, or replace the Church’s Magisterium with Sola Scriptura. In retrospect; It is a losing battle on both sides to debate or pit Sola Scriptura in a way, so as to remove it from it’s sole biblical purpose for Christ’s Liturgy and 2 Timothy 3:16"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness".

We Catholics not only desire full communion with Lutherans but we need your love of scripture, not to replace what we Catholics already have, but to enhance, lift up and edify the Church with a love of God’s Word from Sola Scripturalist.

Remember, Peter and the Church possess the Keys to bind and loose upon the whole earth. The Catholic Church in her history has always welcomed diversity and practices of different religious discipline or one’s faith expression that stems from a different culture, understanding and language that has managed to maintain it’s identity while never attempting to Change the Rock upon which Jesus Christ builds His Church.

We are the offspring of our forefathers by no fault of our own and we live in a new era, where peace and open communication of idea’s can be welcomed and nurtured within a Lutheran’s view of Sola Scriptura today.

If we can bridge a Lutheran’s Love of Sola Scriptura so as not to attempt to replace or change the Rock of Christ in His Apostolic Church? That bridge Lutheran’s help to build with us Catholics could “teach and correct” many of the other Christian sola Scripturalist to cross into a full communion with Peter once again. It is here, where the Lutheran’s do not lose their identity as Lutherans but are received in full communion, just as the followers of St. Francis, Dominicans, Augustinians, Oblates of St. Joseph and many, many other different Church approved disciplines and practices that do not hinder or contradict Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium Jesus founded Himself.

All realities start first from an idea or a dream.

Thank you benjohnson:thumbsup:

Thank you for this, Gabe.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Topper17;13088944]Hi Gab,

Luther was correct to complain about the abuses that were occurring at the time within the Church, but that was no cause to condemn and reject over 50 important Church doctrines, and all even before his excommunication. Had he concentrated on those abuses, he could have been a huge positive force within the Church.

Agreed

However, he challenged the entire authority of the Church, replaced it with his Own Authority, and ultimately created his own church. That church that he founded, has splintered into an uncountable number of competing and conflicting sects.

We share the same view on this side of the field. Our separated brethren hold to a different view, that does not address an end result, but deals with a historical issue that did not bring reconciliation but created a division that resulted from both sides acting.

If Luther had been wise he would have listened to the warnings about where his teachings would lead.

It is our turn in the present time to learn a wisdom from both Luther and our Church Fathers living before, during and after the protestant reformation. So as not to cause further separation and not to repeat a negative historical action that resulted from a new idea such as Sola Scriptura while the Catholic Church was already under way of reform.

We are at an advantage today, because we have a recorded history to guide us from repeating the negative results from such a history.

I pray we have the ears to listen and eyes to see what the Holy Spirit teaches and reveals to us. Neither side in the present can change history, but each side in each present generation can change the result of a history today. Especially when the Church still has the keys to bind and loose upon the whole earth. Remember, Luther and most reformers were all once in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Many of the protestant reformer (political) ideas and (self gain) reasons to move away from the Church have all died with them. Sola Scriptura was one of the clarion calls that fueled the protestant reformation, under a false freedom pretense to self independence from the Catholic Church.

God bless you, Topper 17

 

[JonNC]

If one were to read no other posts on this thread, read posts 428 and 430 by Gabriel of 12.

Jon

 

[commenter]

If one were to read no other posts on this thread, read posts 428 and 430 by Gabriel of 12.

Jon

Read them!

Some of Commenter’s posts also show flashes of insight and courtesy as well. Humility too.

 

[JonNC]

Read them!

Some of Commenter’s posts also show flashes of insight and courtesy as well. Humility too.

They do indeed. No slight intended, my friend.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Gabriel,

Thanks for your response.

Agreed
We share the same view on this side of the field. Our separated brethren hold to a different view, that does not address an end result, but deals with a historical issue that did not bring reconciliation but created a division that resulted from both sides acting.

It is our turn in the present time to learn a wisdom from both Luther and our Church Fathers living before, during and after the protestant reformation. So as not to cause further separation and not to repeat a negative historical action that resulted from a new idea such as Sola Scriptura while the Catholic Church was already under way of reform.

We are at an advantage today, because we have a recorded history to guide us from repeating the negative results from such a history.

I pray we have the ears to listen and eyes to see what the Holy Spirit teaches and reveals to us. Neither side in the present can change history, but each side in each present generation can change the result of a history today. Especially when the Church still has the keys to bind and loose upon the whole earth. Remember, Luther and most reformers were all once in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Many of the protestant reformer (political) ideas and (self gain) reasons to move away from the Church have all died with them. Sola Scriptura was one of the clarion calls that fueled the protestant reformation, under a false freedom pretense to self independence from the Catholic Church.

God bless you, Topper 17

What I see here Gab is a reluctance, and in fact, even an inability, to recognize the role that Martin Luther and his radical Sola Scriptura played, and continues to play, in the doctrinal dissension that Western Christendom suffers.

I believe, strongly, that the only way that we are going to be able to heal the wounds to Christian unity is to understand how they began. That means understanding Martin Luther and his ‘lesser known’ teachings.

In fact, Luther’s assault against the Christian Sacrament of marriage has had reached it’s ‘logical conclusion’ in a decision by the Supreme Court that nobody could justify from Scripture or Christian Tradition.

Of course some people will be shocked and offended by my connection between Martin Luther and the recent Supremes decision on SSM. I am not alone in recognizing that connection. No less a Catholic luminary than Michael Voris made the exact same point in his daily video report on July 2nd, albeit much more forcefully and eloquently than I have here. Naturally it will be pointed out that Voris does not employ the ‘new Catholic approach to Evangelicals’, which is code for that he is far too honest and blunt.

“The Vortex—Get on Board, Now!”
by Michael Voris • July 2, 2015 The Vortex

“**This message is for everyone who is of good heart and sincerely seeking the truth, whether you are Protestant or just a wishy-washy Catholic: Get on board the Barque of Peter now, while there is still time.

The Barque of Peter is an expression for the Holy Catholic Church established by Our Blessed Lord on St. Peter. It should be very clear — blindingly so to anyone who has eyes to see — the malfeasance brought about 500 years ago by Martin Luther, a failed Catholic priest, has wrought disaster for the world. The so-called Protestant Reformation was not a reforming of anything, but a malforming of the One True Faith. That is why the United States has now followed through to its logical end and constitutionally baptized sodomy.**

To be continued……….

 

[Topper17]

Voris continued

"No self-professed Christian can hold this as true or acceptable. But the rejection of the authority of the Catholic Church in Her moral teachings has made this all possible. When Luther rejected the authority of the Church and declared that followers of Christ only need grace, only need Scripture, he broke from 1500 years — 15 centuries; think about that — one thousand five hundred years — of how all Christians up to that point had lived.

What he declared, in effect, was that each man became his own pope, his own Peter — that man himself became the authority and no longer the Church established by Almighty God to guide and shepherd souls to Heaven. This spun off to other arenas of life: first philosophy and eventually politics. If man could decide things of God for himself, then certainly he could decide things of human life and affairs of state for himself. If you are willing to assault the heavenly Kingdom, what on earth would hold you back from assaulting any earthly kingdom?

And assault is exactly what the children of the theological revolutionaries did. They attacked long-held philosophical notions that God is the Creator and man the creature. After that premise became accepted in political circles, it was just a given that nations could decide for themselves the rightness and wrongness of this moral act or that moral deed.
**
What happened last week at the Supreme Court is the effect of Martin Luther’s revolt against the authority of God and the Church. Having wrested that authority away from the Church, it has now been delivered into the hands of the State, who will use that authority to attack the Church — as the State has always done.**

The only security left — as has really always been the case — is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Those of you with good hearts, however much you may not understand Catholicism, do you really want your children growing up in a world where scenes like this are normal? Do you really want your children going to schools teaching about masturbation and sodomy before they’ve reached the age of 10? Do you want your sons growing up to be sissified men and your daughters unable to find a strong man? Do you really want your children growing up with either no notion of God and His great love for us, or with a view of God that is so distorted that it is useless for attaining salvation?

Because that is the world we are in, and it’s only going to get worse, and the only safety from it — from the destruction of your children’s souls, not to mention your own — is the sacramental life of the Catholic Church.

The Church is like this great ship in the middle of an expansive ocean whipped on all sides by great winds and storms — just like Our Blessed Lord in the boat with His apostles. Outside that ship there is only death, drowning, being dragged under the waves. If you do not get on board now, you will have very little time before the storm crashes on you and you are lost.

Catholics, you must preach this message, clearly and loudly. Save yourselves and everyone you can, and you must start now. There is only a little time left.”, Voris

I think Voris makes an extremely important point about the ‘results’ of Luther’s teachings, and to his credit, he is not afraid to state it bluntly. The standard “Legend of Luther” does not contain his assault on the Sacrament of Christian marriage, and also does not include his extremely unchristian recommendations regarding Holy Matrimony. The actual text of his recommendations is quite shocking.

Same Sex Marriage can never be and will never be allowable in Catholic teaching. But it can in a Sola Scriptura tradition, and in fact IS in many of them. That fact alone should cause tremendous concern in the various Sola Scriptura camps.

God Bless You Gabriel, Topper

 

[MaryT777]

Topper,

This has never been more true:

“This message is for everyone who is of good heart and sincerely seeking the truth, whether you are Protestant or just a wishy-washy Catholic: Get on board the Barque of Peter now, while there is still time.

God bless you as well, Topper.

Mary.

 

[benjohnson]

Read them!

Some of Commenter’s posts also show flashes of insight and courtesy as well. Humility too.

Both you and Gabriel of 12 present the Catholic faith in a way that is very appealing and cpuragipus and refeclets the love and concern that Christ has for all of us.

Thanks to you both.