the Church prior to Luther's Reformation

[submariner2]

I think perhaps you do not understand what Catholic doctrine is. Actually there is very little of it that relates to doctrine.

It is a theological impossibility to “sell” an indulgence. The mere appearance that this was being done in the first place is an abuse and a fraud. It had nothing to do with doctrine. It is a departure from doctrine.

I am sure Martin Luther would agree. That was what angered him about the practice in the first place. In addition the practice was cheating the people of his parish. If you ever take the time to read those 95 you can perceive the anger in him as he penned those lines.

But his 95 theses contained more than mere objections to the sale of indulgences. In fact the pope got so upset about it that he sent Luther a Papal Bull demanding that he recant those theses. Why that action if it had nothing to do with doctrine? You tell me.

Naturally that Papal Bull set him off big time because he knew he was right. The rest is history. But it started with the 95 theses.

I did not say he was, Rob. I said that you are. When you read him, you are reading with your anti-Catholic lens, the lens that is formed by your own experiences. It is you that denies his Catholicity, not him.

I have read many of his books. You have read none. That alone should indicate that I understand him better than you do. He simply teaches history and bible. He is not hard to understand. It has nothing to do with anti-Catholic or pro-Catholic.

Also, what he teaches is in line with other scolars, both Catholic and protestant, regarding the history of our church and what the authors of the NT intended when they wrote it. In fact Fr. Brown taught for a time in a top class protestant seminary. Protestant pastors and bishops learned from him on Church history, the bible, and what the authors of the bible meant.

If you would actually read one of his books you might better understand what he is getting at.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

Attacking abuses was almost a side issue for Luther. Of course it’s what got people excited. But it had been done over and over again before. The difference with the Reformation was that there was a doctrinal core to it. It claimed to explain why there were all these abuses–because the Gospel had been obscured or even forgotten.

This is exactly correct. Luther generally did not directly attack the abuses. He believed the abuses were a direct result of not teaching the plain Gospel Message taught by Jesus. So that was the centerpiece of his objections.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

How? I think it was done in the same way you perceive history and Scripture, in light of “personal experience”. For Catholics, truth is not defined by our own personal experiences, but by Divine Revelation.

I do not say that we are not the body of Christ, but this is, along with some of your other doctrines a deficient and truncated definition of the Church. The Apostles taught that the Church is incarnate, just as Christ is, having both divine and human elements. When the Reformers redefined the Church, making it into “the body of believers on earth”, the divinity was separated. Now, believers accept that the HS is within them, but believe only that together, they are “church”. This is contrary to Apostolic teaching in that 1) Jesus created a visible and identifiyable Church, 2) The Church founded by Christ is infallible, because He is her Head, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit, the divine elements preventing her from falling into error and 3) human beings can fall from grace, separate themselves from the Church, thereby severing communion. For the Apostles, the Church exists above and apart from the “body of believers”, so that they are not the fullness of her compliment. 4) the Church contains also all those souls who have gone on before us in faith, both those who are still being purified, and those who have received their heavenly reward 5) The Church is the communion of saints, which death cannot separate 6) Members of the Church can help one another, and should be asked to pray for one another, especially those righteous souls that are in heaven. I could go on, but that is a brief list of some distinctions.

guano,

None of that disputes that my church is part of the body of Christ, His church. Natrually we do not believe we are infallible and can never err. I dont know why you think you are infallible?

Maybe you missed my question. I asked you what the councils of Hippo and Carthage thought they were doing, what did Athanasius think he was doing, using the word “canon” and listing the books listed at the above two councils? Why did Pope Damasus think he was ratifying the canon on behalf of the Church? Why did Gelasius write a list of canonical books to the Bishop? How did all these people deceive themselves into believing they agreed upon a canon?

Individuals and Synods might think they are supporting a proposed canon but they cannot do that for the entire church. That is why the Catholic church did it at Trent but never before. Big difference between individual opinion or a Synod opinion and a council of the entire Catholic church. I am surprised you are not aware of that.

And lastly, where do you get the authority to tell Catholics to ignore their Pope when he is instructing them in matters of faith, such as the canon? Who are you to tell us the instruction he gave in 382 is not valid?

Obviously it was not valid for the entire Catholic church, hence Trent. I have no authority but common sense and reading the history of that time. The bible had never been canonized until Trent. You need to read up on the reasons for Trent.

The reason for dogmatic announcements, Rob, is rampant heresy. The Protestants were railing against the canon that the Church had used since the third century. Rampant heresy = dogmatic pronouncement.

There was no official Canon before Trent. When will you get it that a Synond or even the Bishop of Rome did not have the authority at that time to authorise canon for the entire church? To object to opinions about the canon was not heresy because there was no official Catholic teaching on that subject.

Luther abandoned the Catholic Church. He excommunicated himself.

Never heard of that theory before.

After that, a formal excommunication was drafted just to clarify the point. If you are baptized Catholic, and you willfully and knowingly reject the teachings of the Catholic Church, then you have excommunicated yourself, whether you know it, or not (there are some politians in this condition right now).

Perhaps you might want to show me where that is offical Catholic teaching about excommunicating yourself. I get the impression that you know little about how your church really works and you make it up as you go. Please prove me wrong by showing me your Churches official teaching on that subject. (Another question that is likely to go unanswered). How is it that someone excommunicates oneself? Official answer please.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

Actually, Rob…if you really pause and think about it…the Lord’s prayer does not say the manner of how to confess…it only states…“forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass…”

Nowhere does it state here that confessing is directly to God. You are substituting what you think it should be.

pablope,

It is plainly addressed to “Our Father.”

Job 42

7 After the Lord had said these things to Job , he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has. 8 So now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and sacrifice a burnt offering for yourselves. My servant Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. You have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has.” 9 So Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite did what the Lord told them; and the Lord accepted Job’s prayer.

Here, God does not directly forgives…but instructs the intercession of Job. Being that the NT is the fulfillment of the OT…do you think Jesus would change this and institute something different? Or did Jesus fulfill and perfect this with the Sacrament of Confession?

Nothing wrong with praying for another or intercession for another. Obviously it was tradition in the OT. But Jesus taught plainly to address our prayers and confessions direct to Our Father. I cannot understand your opinion that the Lords Prayer taught by Jesus was not directed directly to God? Who do you think is “Our Father”?

The point of our religion is relationship with God. That comes from direct communication it seems to me. Why do you think not?

Rob

 

[guanophore]

That was what made him famous, yes (technically they weren’t being sold, but in practice it amounted to that).

However, Luther made waves because he wasn’t just reacting to the abuse–he had developed a radical theology of penance that went against some basic tenets of late medieval Catholic theology, on the way to a full-fledged theology of justification by faith alone.

It amazes me how many folks on both sides want to sideline Luther’s theology and pretend it was all about abuses.
Edwin

Because Luther’s ideas about justification by faith are consistent with Catholic doctrine. I can certainly concede that the Truth was not getting to the people, but the fault was with the persons fleecing the flock, not the doctrine of the faith.

It was not “new”. It is in the NT, which was written by, for, and about Catholics. It is a Catholic doctrine.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

 

[guanophore]

Yes, but...

13-18 flesh out his idea that the suffering of purgatory is simply the suffering caused by insufficient charity (and is primarily a horror of one’s sins and their consequences–the fear that “perfect love” casts out according to 1 John). So yes, he’s challenging the idea that the souls in purgatory are passive sufferers. If their love needs to increase, then the process of sanctification is ongoing.

The Eastern Church does not have this development of purgatory like the Latin West, but let us say for the sake of discussion that what Luther has to say here is true. How is this a doctrinal contradiction? I see no difference between a lack of charity and the consequences of one’s sins/horror. They are two sides of the same coin. Without Gods love, the sinner cannot abhor sin, and it is that love that causes the sinner to embrace penance. If I understand the idea of purgatory correctly, it is an ongoing process of sanctification. Is it not the final cleansing of souls who are destined for heaven? Are they not being purged of all that comes between them and the Holy? I thought purgatory is the final completion of sanctification, followed by glorification?

But he was certainly making substantive doctrinal points that appeared to conflict with Catholic teaching as it had developed in the later Middle Ages.

I think this is the point I am trying to make. They appear in conflict, but what was being taught in Germany at the time of Luther was quite a departure from the doctrines of the faith committed to the Church by the Apostles. When the practices of the time are compared to the doctrines of the faith, the practices are not recognizable as Catholic ie, it is a theological impossibility to “sell” an indulgence.

My point about the “side issue,” again, wasn’t about the Theses themselves but about their relationship to his overall theological agenda. Luther had been working on these ideas about penance and justification/sanctification for some years, and he was responding to a current issue based on this theological framework.

Edwin

Yes, he was a man afflicted with some obsessional thinking and scrupulosity, possibly OCD. He had been seeking deliverance from his feelings of guilt and inadequacy for at least two decades at that point.

 

[JonNC]

Guan and Edwin,
Is it possible that two are intertwined? By that I mean, that Luther, and other Lutheran reformers, saw abuses, linked them to some underlying doctrines? the term “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” comes to mind. In short, are there instances of overreacting to what they saw, and can the two communions today refind the common ground? the JDDJ seems a good example.

Jon

 

[JohnHall]

That was what made him famous, yes (technically they weren’t being sold, but in practice it amounted to that).

However, Luther made waves because he wasn’t just reacting to the abuse–he had developed a radical theology of penance that went against some basic tenets of late medieval Catholic theology, on the way to a full-fledged theology of justification by faith alone.

It amazes me how many folks on both sides want to sideline Luther’s theology and pretend it was all about abuses.

People had been complaining about abuses for centuries. Nothing new there. But Luther had a theological basis for his complaints that caught the negative attention of the ecclesiastical hierarchy and the theological establishment, and the positive interest of young, reform-minded intellectuals, of rulers who were interested in asserting more control over the Church (and, to be fair, who often had a sincere interest in reform themselves), and at least initially of many ordinary people as well. Granted, there were all kinds of social reasons why the situation was particularly flammable at his point. (And many of the afore-mentioned folks arguably had trouble understanding how Luther was so different from previous reformers, being more interested in the standard, longstanding grounds of complaint.) But still, the flame that lit the tinder was Luther’s radical new theology of penance and eventually of justification.

Edwin

I do not believe that it was radical. More biblical based. They say the church put the bible together, but forget that it was written before the church even had a council.

 

[Contarini]

Because Luther’s ideas about justification by faith are consistent with Catholic doctrine.

No, I really don’t think they are. I think the truth in them can be interpreted in a way consistent with Catholic doctrine, which is what the JDDJ is trying to do. But some of his claims clearly conflict with Catholic doctrine.

Also, the Catholic Church in Luther’s day was less concerned with his teaching on justification (that was the point on which Luther thought he was most in conflict with Rome) than with his teaching on the sacraments. (Ironic, given that this is the point where, compared with other Protestants, Luther turned out to be most conservative.)

I think we’re talking past each other because I’m speaking historically and you’re speaking theologically/ecumenically. It’s one thing to say “now we look back and see that the contrasts weren’t as stark as they seemed.” It’s entirely another to say “therefore they didn’t exist at the time and weren’t the real issue.”

Edwin

 

[submariner2]

James 5:13-16

13 Is any one among you suffering? Let him pray. Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise. 14 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over

him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed.

The confession to another person is for our healing. God knows what we need to be healed of guilt and shame. That is why He set things up the way He did.

guano,

This was simply an ancient Jewish custom. It was common among the Jews to call for an elder to pray for the sins of a sick person since they thought sin may have something to do with the sickness. There was no priest involved. That custom did not mean a distinctly christian custom.

Matt 9:4-8
4 But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? 5 For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? 6 But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” - he then said to the paralytic - “Rise, take up your bed and go home.” 7 And he rose and went home. 8 When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, **who had given such authority to men. **

Notice not “man” (referring only to Jesus) but “men”. Later, Jesus breathed upon the Apostles, and gave them the authority to retain and forgive sins.

Cannot find the breathing verse. Where is it?

Gen 8:21
or the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth

It is very easy for human beings to deceive themselves through vain imaginings.

No doubt about that.

.

Somewhere in your mind, you seem to think that absolution is from man, instead of God, and that it is not connected to grace, through faith. This would be misunderstanding of sacramental confession.

Of course I believe that God forgives when we confess.

It was not about your ability to read. Of course you are good with words. It is about the anti-Catholic spectacles you are wearing when reading.

They are just normal spectacles.

Rob