N
NotWorthy
Guest
Please be nice, Bastoune.
If Jack doesn’t understand the Catholic Church (which I think he does better than you realize), then we need to teach him, but with a little kindness.
- Status
If Jack doesn’t understand the Catholic Church (which I think he does better than you realize), then we need to teach him, but with a little kindness.
G
grannymh
Guest
Hope that Jack is on this thread…Don’t like talking about someone behind their computer.
Personally, I respect Jack’s knowlege. We should remember that many protestants understand the teachings of the Catholic Church which predate the reformation. He has a lot to offer.
But, and that is a very big but, most of us “modern” scholars, Catholics and others, like to condense information into sound bites.
We need to teach ourselves how to expand on those great one-liners so that there can be fruitful understanding. We need to see things from the other person’s point of view before we can respond productively.
Blessings,
grannymh
I
IAGladfelter
Guest
Actually, I think Jack does, and to some extent, that is the problem.
As for as the Marian Doctrines, there is plenty of evidence in Luther’s Works that he personally believed in the Immaculate Conception and Assumption, as do many Lutherans today. So arguably, belief in those doctrines is not necessarily “un-Lutheran.”
As for the objection to indulgences, (and I will not say this necessarily applies to Jack) a great many Lutherans are still fighting against and reacting to the Council of Trent and ignoring Vatican I and II. Most (not all, but most) Lutherans also object to a Magisterium which allows something (like indulgences) taught by documents of the Magisterium to be de-emphasizd, but never cancelled, since that would essentially deny the infallibility of the Magisterium. Jack and other Lutherans seem not to realize that the Catholic Church of Today is not the Catholic Church of Martin Luther’s Day. The Church has changed since then.
As to objections to clerical celibacy, that is a discipline. It is backed up with a lot of theology but it is neither dogma or doctrine. There are in fact married priests in the Catholic Church, in the Uniate Catholic Churches outside the U. S., in the Eastern Orthodox Churches, etc.
Many Lutherans, while denying an infallible Magisterium treat the confessional documents in the “Book of Concord” as if they were infallible (because - quia - they are “trustworthy witnesses to the Gospel,” and have remained so since their writing; making the Book of Concord in effect a “paper Magisterium”.
Blessings,
IAGladfelter
Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church.
I
IAGladfelter
Guest
As a theologian and philosopher, Luther simply did not like Aristotelianism. He once described Aristotle as “a foolish old Pagan.” I have always been amused that while rejecting Aquinas and Aristotle, he accepted Augustine and Plato. Plato was also old and a pagan but somethow not “foolish,” while Aristotle was . . .
Blessings,
IAGladfelter
Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church
G
grannymh
Guest
Regarding Post 202
The Catholic Church of Today is not the Catholic Church of
Martin Luther’s Day. The Church has changed since then.
The last time I was at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Transubstantiation hadn’t changed.
Could you be talking about cosmetic changes?
Please enlighten me. Has the Church, in its substance or whatever term is appropriate, really changed?
I await the pleasure of your reply.
Blessings,
grannymh
Code:
What was that you said?Martin Luther’s Day. The Church has changed since then.
Code:
:confused: :confused:
What changes are you referring to?Could you be talking about cosmetic changes?
Please enlighten me. Has the Church, in its substance or whatever term is appropriate, really changed?
I await the pleasure of your reply.
Blessings,
grannymh
G
grannymh
Guest
Obviously, many people do not even know what an indulgence is or what the current teaching is.
Note to self: get ahold of the new instructional book on indulgences. Nothing has changed – only the meaning is explained in a way so that we moderns can understand.
Reason: most of us don’t comprehend why we should do some kind of penance for our sins.
B
brownjt
Guest
maybe he meant that the church has modernized views of science and accepts other relgions as well as their own - even if those do not have the fullness of faith…does the inquisiton come in mind…who knows?
B
Bastoune
Guest
My apologies to Jack if I came off as rude. But his implication that the Catholic Church just “made up” doctrines over the years is ridiculous.
One only need to look at the context in which various dogmas were pronounced: they were in reaction to a CHALLENGE to such dogma.
Many anti-Catholics forget that the Bible was compiled and canonized by the Catholic Church. The papacy existed long before the Bible was officially canonized at the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397).
If the Catholic Church were defying the very Scripture they canonized and always have revered, they could have gone much further and simply “implanted” these “man-made doctrines” so CLEARLY for all to see.
Heck, why even bother with 4 Gospel accounts since there are details which contradict each other! Make just one, nice, neat one.
Think a little bit.
Since the Catholic Church canonized the Bible, not only would I trust her to know what the Bible contains but trust her judgment on interpretation.
To quote Erasmus on Luther:
“I believe that it is equally true that the authority of the Scriptures alone surpasses the united opinions of all men. But the controversy here does not concern the value of the Scriptures: both parties accept and venerate the same books. The conflict concerns the meaning of the Scriptures. Now I hear the objection: ‘What need is there for interpretation when the Scripture is entirely clear?’ But if it is so clear, why have such eminent men groped so blindly and for so many centuries in such an important matter, as our adversaries claim?”
One only need to look at the context in which various dogmas were pronounced: they were in reaction to a CHALLENGE to such dogma.
Many anti-Catholics forget that the Bible was compiled and canonized by the Catholic Church. The papacy existed long before the Bible was officially canonized at the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397).
If the Catholic Church were defying the very Scripture they canonized and always have revered, they could have gone much further and simply “implanted” these “man-made doctrines” so CLEARLY for all to see.
Heck, why even bother with 4 Gospel accounts since there are details which contradict each other! Make just one, nice, neat one.
Think a little bit.
Since the Catholic Church canonized the Bible, not only would I trust her to know what the Bible contains but trust her judgment on interpretation.
To quote Erasmus on Luther:
“I believe that it is equally true that the authority of the Scriptures alone surpasses the united opinions of all men. But the controversy here does not concern the value of the Scriptures: both parties accept and venerate the same books. The conflict concerns the meaning of the Scriptures. Now I hear the objection: ‘What need is there for interpretation when the Scripture is entirely clear?’ But if it is so clear, why have such eminent men groped so blindly and for so many centuries in such an important matter, as our adversaries claim?”
B
brownjt
Guest
Did the apostles or Jesus evert alk about “indulgences”
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Do you also believe Transubstiation was invented under the influence of Aristotle? And was Luther’s belief on the Eucharist under the influence of the Holy Spirit?As a theologian and philosopher, Luther simply did not like Aristotelianism. He once described Aristotle as “a foolish old Pagan.” I have always been amused that while rejecting Aquinas and Aristotle, he accepted Augustine and Plato. Plato was also old and a pagan but somethow not “foolish,” while Aristotle was . . .
Blessings,
IAGladfelter
Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church
G
grannymh
Guest
Thanks for the question.
Please tell me what “indulgences” are.
For all I know, you could be referring to one of the fish the Apostles caught. Remember when Christ told them to cast their nets. If I were there, I would be talking! Wouldn’t you?
Point is: Before we can communicate with each other. Before I can answer your question, I have to know what you mean when you say “indulgences.”
Another thought, maybe what you are referring to is a new flavor of triple chocolate ice cream. I would like to indulge in that right now. Just kidding about the ice cream. However, you have to admit that the word indulge can relate to food, etc.
So what say you? What do you mean by “indulgences”?
Blessings,
grannymh
T
travelingrns
Guest
I have really enjoyed this thread and I have not read it in its entirety but I would love to suggest a visit to Fr Dwight Longeneckers site. A former Bob Jones University Graduate, Former Anglican. He has a beautiful dissertation call The Bread of Life found here
dwightlongenecker.com/Content/Pages/Articles/breadNew.asp
He is a frequent contributor to “This Rock” magazine and was recently “The Journey Home” on EWTN.
This is a very well written article, hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
dwightlongenecker.com/Content/Pages/Articles/breadNew.asp
He is a frequent contributor to “This Rock” magazine and was recently “The Journey Home” on EWTN.
This is a very well written article, hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
W
Walkingeagles
Guest
The Jews were very much against Cannibalism and this shocked them. They understood what Jesus was saying, they could not accept it.
B
brownjt
Guest
You tell me!
T
Teflon93
Guest
They couldn’t accept it back in the day, either—see Numbers 11.
G
grannymh
Guest
Just let me throw out a quick idea. Another reason some of the Jews did not accept the teachings in John Chapter 6 is that they had a hard time accepting Jesus as God,
Some things never change. There are still people who have a hard time accepting Jesus as God.
B
BrianH
Guest
People love quick and easy answers BUT I do not think you can tell exactly why they left specifically in John 6.
T
Teflon93
Guest
True, but Numbers 11 demonstrates that even when the Jews knew precisely where God was and did not doubt Him, they bridled at the way in which He elected to sustain them.
Thus the hunger for flesh instead of manna in the desert and its lethal consequences.
God did at last give them the flesh they hungered for—His own.
G
grannymh
Guest
Another quick thought, considering that John 6: 22-24 talks about a crowd, yes, it would be difficult to tell exactly why they left specifically. However, knowing human nature and some history, good guesses can be made. Does that seem reasonable?
Food for thought. Imagine ourselves in the crowd, what would we have done considering that we had no knowledge of what would happen at the Last Supper and following? Or imagine ourselves with the apostles. Christ asks us a direct question…
Small footnote: Notice that Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles, using we instead of I. He is demonstrating, in a way, his authority to declare truth. John 6: 66-68
T
Teflon93
Guest
Is it really that difficult to figure out, or is there simply a vested interest in coming to a different conclusion than the Church?
There is a reason why the Eucharist was the unanimous practice of the early Church and why the watering down and rejection of it did not occur until the Reformation.
There is a reason why the Eucharist was the unanimous practice of the early Church and why the watering down and rejection of it did not occur until the Reformation.
- Status