Starting to agree with Martin Luther

[Hiskid1973]

There seems to be an underlying assumption here that Catholics do not experience the love of God, rather they only read about it. I agree with you that there is a difference in learning about God’s love and experiencing that love. But I have done both in the Catholic Church and know many who share the same experience.

We must seek if we are to find. Those that are left wanting in the Catholic Church have only themselves to blame.

There are hot lukewarm and cold, where ever people gather in the name of Christ…People passionate for Christ to people who culturally go through the motions and live far from Christ during the week…The scariest place would be a lukewarm position…

 

[cecilia97]

The Church decides who may take communion, and many other things that people seek in their relationship with God.

The Church does not “decide” who may receive Communion. Paul tells us that to receive inappropriately is to eat and drink damnation upon oneself. The Church teaches us what we must do to keep our relationship with Christ strong and healthy, in order to protect us from falling away. If we choose to turn away, the Church wishes us to know that we’ve made a grave error and should repent…for our own good and the good of our relationship with Christ.

it’s not that the Church tells people not to receive…it’s that we separate ourselves from Christ and His Body when we fail to keep His commands.

Think of it this way…a husband does not have sexual relations with his wife in the middle of an argument. He mends the relationship first, apologizes, and then he is welcomed back into her loving embraces.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

You may choose to reject the teachings of the Catholic Church.

BUT, if you choose to do that, then you should not even consider partaking in the Eucharist of the Catholic Church. Why would you even want to, if you do not accept the teachings of the church concerning the Eucharist, etc.

Just because you can physically do something, doe not make it right to do that action. You can physically beat up a person smaller or weaker than you, does that give you the right to do that?

You can choose not to accept any of the precepts of Christianity. But, if you do so choose, does that mean that you are free to partake of any of the rituals of any religion that is Christian?

If you agree with Luther, then so much for you. But, I would ask to you read the Gospel of Matthew, and the various letters written by St. Paul, St. Peter and St. John. In them, you will discover that mere reliance on “rules” is NOT enough, contrary to what Luther taught.

As it says in the Bible, “By their acts, you shall know them”. Faith without acts is nothing, because it simply can not exist. That alone refutes the teachings of Luther, Calvin, etc.

But, God gave you a mind, and the freedom to use it as you choose to. Just don’t decide to profane some Church, including the Catholic Church, by participating in their liturgies, when you openly do not believe in what they teach. That would be hypocritical, at the very minimum.

 

[SteveVH]

My family had a similar experience many years ago now… My Dad (he will be 90 this year), had been a Catholic all his life. He caught the fire of the Holy Spirit in his mid forties. He was invited to an Episcopal conference by one of my brothers and he said afterward … that he had never been taught that it was possible to have a personal relationship with Jesus and really expect the Holy Spirit to come alive inside. He said that he knew for the first time that Jesus’ love is real and he is a real, live Savior that loved him dearly and personally. He was deeply and dramatically touched by God . From that day on he began to change into a new man with a ravenous hunger for God’s word… and the entire family was affected and blessed. Even my large clan of (Catholic) cousins who had known him all their lives and openly disliked him in the past were startled at the changes that they saw in him. It was literally like the change that happened to Scrooge at the end of the Christmas story. He became very active in a little Pentecostal church. After retiring he went to Bible school and then went on multiple mission trips to Peru… traveling up the Amazon to the villages and helping to establish a school for Pastors in the city of Iquitos. He is still vibrant and loves the word of God and his relationship with his Father in Heaven through Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Having known my Dad before and after … I witnessed an absolute miracle.

I’ve heard this story so many times by ex-Catholics that it almost becomes a fill in the blank (insert your name here.) “I was never taught that Jesus loved me.” “I never felt the love of God in the Catholic Church.” “I never knew that I could have a personal relationship with Jesus.” This type of comment has become nothing more than a cliche.

As a life long Catholic I will say straight out that this is baloney. Many times “faith” is confused with emotion, especially in the Pentecostal churches and the confusion normally occurs with Catholics who did nothing more than fulfill their weekly obligation to attend Mass, if that. They are then swept away with a “service” that makes them “feel” good.

There is no doubt that some of the blame can be laid at the feet of poor religious education teachers and complacent Catholic pastors, but this does not change the truth that one cannot find a more intimate relationship with Christ than in the Catholic Church.

 

[SteveVH]

There are hot lukewarm and cold, where ever people gather in the name of Christ…People passionate for Christ to people who culturally go through the motions and live far from Christ during the week…The scariest place would be a lukewarm position…

Amen to that!

 

[JonNC]

=The Old Medic;7789319] As it says in the Bible, “By their acts, you shall know them”. Faith without acts is nothing, because it simply can not exist. That alone refutes the teachings of Luther, Calvin, etc.

Actually, it doesn’t refute what Luther taught.

Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.

But to your main point:

But, God gave you a mind, and the freedom to use it as you choose to. Just don’t decide to profane some Church, including the Catholic Church, by participating in their liturgies, when you openly do not believe in what they teach. That would be hypocritical, at the very minimum.

While I wouldn’t use the word “profane”, I agree that, out of respect, one should refrain from participating when not in full communion.

Jon

 

[1voice]

You may choose to reject the teachings of the Catholic Church.

BUT, if you choose to do that, then you should not even consider partaking in the Eucharist of the Catholic Church. Why would you even want to, if you do not accept the teachings of the church concerning the Eucharist, etc.

Just because you can physically do something, doe not make it right to do that action. You can physically beat up a person smaller or weaker than you, does that give you the right to do that?

You can choose not to accept any of the precepts of Christianity. But, if you do so choose, does that mean that you are free to partake of any of the rituals of any religion that is Christian?

If you agree with Luther, then so much for you. But, I would ask to you read the Gospel of Matthew, and the various letters written by St. Paul, St. Peter and St. John. In them, you will discover that mere reliance on “rules” is NOT enough, contrary to what Luther taught.

As it says in the Bible, “By their acts, you shall know them”. Faith without acts is nothing, because it simply can not exist. That alone refutes the teachings of Luther, Calvin, etc.

But, God gave you a mind, and the freedom to use it as you choose to. Just don’t decide to profane some Church, including the Catholic Church, by participating in their liturgies, when you openly do not believe in what they teach. That would be hypocritical, at the very minimum.

Luther never challenged acts of charity and/or the visible fruit of faith as evidence of a true Christian. Luther challenged the fact that the Catholic church was selling salvation for cash.

 

[StTommyMore]

Luther never challenged acts of charity and/or the visible fruit of faith as evidence of a true Christian. Luther challenged the fact that the Catholic church was selling salvation for cash.

This is a lie. The Church was not at the time, nor did it ever “sell salvation for cash”

 

[1voice]

This is a lie. The Church was not at the time, nor did it ever “sell salvation for cash”

Are you saying that money was not accepted by the Catholic church in exchange for reduced time in purgatory?

 

[Monica4316]

The Church decides who may take communion, and many other things that people seek in their relationship with God. Does one really need “the church” to have a relationship with almighty God? Does Jesus Christ not speak to the individual as well? Does he not comfort and support and did he die for the sins of all people? Lately I feel the Catholic hands out memberships to whom they see fit to be a believer. If you are baptized, are you not a believer? If you confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior, does he not become your personal savior and reside in your heart forever? I love God and I love the CHurch but the fact that I cannot be a member until other men say it is my time…I don’t think that is what Jesus wanted. He wants men to come to him as they are when they are ready to receive him. Or Is it when other men have decided you are ready to receive him, then you are ready? I read my Bible every day and I Love Jesus Christ and I feel him with me. Must I wait until I finish RCIA to have a relationship with my God, my Christ? I want to come to Christ now and if the catholic Church will not show me to my Christ, another Church will.

The Church is Christ’s Body and is lead by the Holy Spirit. It’s not just an organization. God gives His grace through the Church too, in the Sacraments, so we do need it. Look what happened to Protestantism after they left the Church…they can’t even agree with each other.

 

[StTommyMore]

Are you saying that money was not accepted by the Catholic church in exchange for reduced time in purgatory?

I fail to see how this is “selling salvation.” Thise in Purgatory are already saved. NO ONE IN PURGATORY GOES TO HELL. Since the sale of indulgences (never approved by the Church and formally condemned at Trent) deals with those in Purgatory, who are already saved, then how can this be “selling salvation.” It was simony, I freely admit, nut you need to come of this polemic because it is wrong. You may have been ignorant of the distinction, and for that, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. However, if you continue to use the same polemic, you will be doing so with full knowledge that it is incorrect, making it a lie. So please desist from using this ridiculous claim.

 

[JonNC]

Are you saying that money was not accepted by the Catholic church in exchange for reduced time in purgatory?

To state that the Catholic Church was selling salvation is incorrect.
Reduced time in Purgatory has nothing to do with salvation. In Catholic teaching, the way I understand it, Purgatory is an intermediate state/place where purgation takes place in order to enter Heaven cleansed. Lutherans, too, believe purgation is necessary for entering Heaven, though we don’t express that purgation as taking place in an intermediate state/place, due to a lack of a scriptural (including the deutero-canon ) identification of said.

Jon

 

[SnakeMauler]

Don’t worry about all this stuff dude. All you need is faith the size of a mustard seed, you must be like a child to enter the kingdom of God.

 

[1voice]

I fail to see how this is “selling salvation.” Thise in Purgatory are already saved. NO ONE IN PURGATORY GOES TO HELL. Since the sale of indulgences (never approved by the Church and formally condemned at Trent) deals with those in Purgatory, who are already saved, then how can this be “selling salvation.” It was simony, I freely admit, nut you need to come of this polemic because it is wrong. You may have been ignorant of the distinction, and for that, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. However, if you continue to use the same polemic, you will be doing so with full knowledge that it is incorrect, making it a lie. So please desist from using this ridiculous claim.

Point taken.
They never called it selling, but the amount of the indulgence was directly related to the amount of the ‘contribution’… and peoples fears were used effectively to get the needed quantities of money that they previously would not give.
That said, except for men like Martin Luther being willing to risk their reputation and their lives in order to say what needed to be said, the Church showed no sign of concern. Leo’s initial reaction was to ignore when he first was told of Luther’s concerns. The Pope either was not aware or was not concerned that the abuse had gone to the point of aggressive marketing practices like the 50/50 split of the proceeds and like Johann Tetzel’s campaign to gather ‘alms’ by proclaiming … “As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory / into heaven springs.”
He was getting the money he needed for the building project. That is what his focus until forced by Luther to do otherwise. There was certainly no incentive within the leadership in Rome to change anything. The weight of opinion among the church hierarchy was to control or, if necessary, stop Luther. Add to that the treatment that John Huss got and it is not surprising. If Luther hadn’t forced the issue … the focus and decision at the Council of Trent would never have happened.Trent was the result of Luther.
They rejected the messenger… but were forced to get the message.

 

[StTommyMore]

Point taken.
They never called it selling, but the amount of the indulgence was directly related to the amount of the ‘contribution’… and peoples fears were used effectively to get the needed quantities of money that they previously would not give.
That said, except for men like Martin Luther being willing to risk their reputation and their lives in order to say what needed to be said, the Church showed no sign of concern. Leo’s initial reaction was to ignore when he first was told of Luther’s concerns. The Pope either was not aware or was not concerned that the abuse had gone to the point of aggressive marketing practices like the 50/50 split of the proceeds and like Johann Tetzel’s campaign to gather ‘alms’ by proclaiming … “As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory / into heaven springs.”
He was getting the money he needed for the building project. That is what his focus until forced by Luther to do otherwise. There was certainly no incentive within the leadership in Rome to change anything. The weight of opinion among the church hierarchy was to control or, if necessary, stop Luther. Add to that the treatment that John Huss got and it is not surprising. If Luther hadn’t forced the issue … the focus and decision at the Council of Trent would never have happened.Trent was the result of Luther.
They rejected the messenger… but were forced to get the message.

I don’t think you will find a Catholic who will claim Leo X was a great Pope. (Clement VII wasn’t all that great either.) The simony was an abuse, but that did not excuse Luther for leaving the Church. There were others (St. Thomas More, for example) particularly the Humanists (which included not only St. Thomas More, but St John Fisher and Erasmus as well) that were calling for reform, but to leave the Church was unacceptable. In fact, More and Fisher were executed for NOT going into schism with Rome. Read some Church history that does not have a virulent anti-Catholic bias.

 

[SteveVH]

The simony was an abuse, but that did not excuse Luther for leaving the Church.

Wasn’t Luther excommunicated?

 

[StTommyMore]

Wasn’t Luther excommunicated?

Yes he was, but excommunication did not natter to him. He made no move to reconcile himself with the Church. Excommunication is a penalty that is meant to be temporary and corrective, not permanent and divisive. Even though he was excommunicated, hi lack of submission to the Church was, in effect, a willful decision to “leave the Church”

 

[SteveVH]

Yes he was, but excommunication did not natter to him. He made no move to reconcile himself with the Church. Excommunication is a penalty that is meant to be temporary and corrective, not permanent and divisive. Even though he was excommunicated, hi lack of submission to the Church was, in effect, a willful decision to “leave the Church”

I understand, just wanted to be clear. This is the case with many, if not most excommunications (i.e. pro-choice Catholic politicians).

 

[duneman]

when i was young i was WELSynod and as i got older it appeared to me that Lutherans , God bless them, seemed to pick and chose the sins they were going to obey and not obey and they would plan their religious activities in a way that fit their social… life… i.e. Church when i feel like it… oh i like doing that so ill make in so it is not a sin, examples: ("hey i want to have sex, well if you like it go ahead take birth control too !! hey im gay and want to minister… well go ahead and bring your friend too, hey i dont like confessing my sins it does not make me feel good, hey thats okay dont worry about it just say your sorry and all is good)… i saw through that… i like the structure of the Catholic Church as that is the way it is supposed to be weather i like it or not !! and after being Catholic for 25 years i am still plagued by all the sinning i did as a Lutheran child as nobody told me any different and hope i am forgivin for them. Hope i said that correctly . Also did not like Lutheran policy of naming the Papal office as being the Anti Christ. God Bless all Christians.

 

[Utmost]

Balderdash. There is no evidence for this kind of individualism either in Sacred Scripture or Tradition. The Apostle Paul did not just go off on his own upon his encounter with Christ. He went to the Church. You give the follower of Christ too much authority. We do not dictate to God how we are to be used in ministry. We prayerfully make ourselves available, and in doing so, allow the Church to direct us in the path we should follow.

Paul did indeed “just go off on his own.” He didn’t visit the head of the church for three years. See Paul’s words below:

But when the one who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I could preach him among the Gentiles, I did not go to ask advice from any human being, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before me, but right away I departed to Arabia, and then returned to Damascus.

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and get information from him, and I stayed with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. I assure you that, before God, I am not lying about what I am writing to you! Afterward I went to the regions of Syria and Cilicia. But I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They were only hearing, “The one who once persecuted us is now proclaiming the good news of the faith he once tried to destroy.” So they glorified God because of me.​