The Great Apostasy in the Catholic Church never happened

[JonNC]

Hello everyone!

Today I was thinking and something randomly popped into my head. The Reformation happened because many believed that the Roman Catholic Church had fallen into a state of apostasy, and therefore, fell away from God. Even today, the faiths that emerged from the seperation of the Catholic Church view Her as invalid.

I don’t think that was the reason for the Reformation at all. I am not aware of a widely held belief among the Lutheran reformers that the Catholic Church was apostate. In error on some doctrines, but not apostate. AFAIK, they never doubted the Catholic sacraments, etc.
so, do you have a source?

Jon

 

[JoeT777]

God bless Joe T,
Not in unity in the administration, but they are in perfect unity in the Body of Christ.

Then what seems to be said here is that to be in the Body of Christ, one doesn’t need to be in the one True Church of Jesus Christ, rather just have a good administrator. Or, this could be argued that one church is as good as another.

The True Church is more than just administration; that is unless Christ consecrated something less than the “pillar and ground of the truth”

The combined elect are in perfect unity in the Body of Christ, without being in unity in the administration.

They will be in unity in the administration too.

That doesn’t seem to be reality. Those separated from the Catholic community have heretical and differing Christological views, they have heretical and differing views on the Trinity. Sometimes, more often than not, they have differing views within the same community. How is this not anarchy? Most of those separated from the Catholic community would rather be bound, tied and thrown in the hog pin then have a ‘final unity with Catholicism’ surmising the next step is hell.

CCC 847, 848, Explains God can save anyone He wish to save, some as small as an individual person, these people nothing to do with our earthly administration and don’t have to, but they are IN PERFECT UNION with us in the Body of Christ. – God is not bound to our custom, which custom we strongly conditioned to.

I don’t see it that way at all. These paragraphs are essentially the Catholic definition of sin (being the voluntary immoral act of thought, word or deed) in terms of ecclesiastical choices one makes. If there is an invincible ignorance, or a physical restraint from entering the Catholic Church there is less or no guilt in being outside the Church. Furthermore, Catholic Tradition and Scripture binds us, not our customs.

We have to open our hearts to the way God doing His salvation and save those whom we thought cannot be saved.

Since when is it charitable to be passing a stranded swimmer on your ocean liner in the middle of the ocean only throwing him a pair of floaties? You can tell him their ‘equal’ to the big ship, they float. Do we show our solidarity by calling out ‘stroke, stroke, stoke, keep going you can do it’ - meet you on yonder shore?

Isn’t it the charitable thing to stop the ocean liner and bring the man aboard?

We should be happy for their salvation and we should accept them and love them.

The Catholic (Universal) Church is the Body of Christ, the combined Elect, where ever they are around in the world includes in the Amazon rainforest or one elect in a deserted island.

Can we doubt that God can save one person in a deserted island?

Couldn’t agree more, God saves whomever He wills, He predestines the elect in His infinite mercy and the rest receive His justice.

The tyranny of relativism is trending toward the ubiquity of differences between the various Christian religions (they are all equally true), for all intensive purposes differences are deemed inconsequential. If the differences between Catholics and those outside the Church are inconsequential then our own faith is inconsequential and not the true faith Christ taught. Such a faith does not have the worthiness Christ taught the Apostles. Being “just another church” is “based on incorrect theological perspectives and is characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that ‘one religion is as good as another’ (Pope John Paul II, Redemptoris mission, December 7, 1990). The Church of Jesus Christ should not participate in a definition of 'one is as good as another.

For me, I’d like to see a bishop with backbone teach that we are the One Church of Jesus Christ, a Holy Church, a Catholic Church, as the Apostles taught instead of “just another church”.

JoeT

 

[ImmaCatholic]

I don’t think that was the reason for the Reformation at all. I am not aware of a widely held belief among the Lutheran reformers that the Catholic Church was apostate. In error on some doctrines, but not apostate. AFAIK, they never doubted the Catholic sacraments, etc.
so, do you have a source?

Jon

“We are not the first to declare the papacy to be the kingdom of Antichrist, since for many years before us so many and so great men have undertaken to express the same thing so clearly.” -Martin Luther, the leader of the Reformation.

^If that is not an apostasy accusation, then I do not know what is.

 

[ImmaCatholic]

Then what seems to be said here is that to be in the Body of Christ, one doesn’t need to be in the one True Church of Jesus Christ, rather just have a good administrator. Or, this could be argued that one church is as good as another.

The True Church is more than just administration; that is unless Christ consecrated something less than the “pillar and ground of the truth”

That doesn’t seem to be reality. Those separated from the Catholic community have heretical and differing Christological views, they have heretical and differing views on the Trinity. Sometimes, more often than not, they have differing views within the same community. How is this not anarchy? Most of those separated from the Catholic community would rather be bound, tied and thrown in the hog pin then have a ‘final unity with Catholicism’ surmising the next step is hell.

I don’t see it that way at all. These paragraphs are essentially the Catholic definition of sin (being the voluntary immoral act of thought, word or deed) in terms of ecclesiastical choices one makes. If there is an invincible ignorance, or a physical restraint from entering the Catholic Church there is less or no guilt in being outside the Church. Furthermore, Catholic Tradition and Scripture binds us, not our customs.

Since when is it charitable to be passing a stranded swimmer on your ocean liner in the middle of the ocean only throwing him a pair of floaties? You can tell him their ‘equal’ to the big ship, they float. Do we show our solidarity by calling out ‘stroke, stroke, stoke, keep going you can do it’ - meet you on yonder shore?

Isn’t it the charitable thing to stop the ocean liner and bring the man aboard?

Couldn’t agree more, God saves whomever He wills, He predestines the elect in His infinite mercy and the rest receive His justice.

The tyranny of relativism is trending toward the ubiquity of differences between the various Christian religions (they are all equally true), for all intensive purposes differences are deemed inconsequential. If the differences between Catholics and those outside the Church are inconsequential then our own faith is inconsequential and not the true faith Christ taught. Such a faith does not have the worthiness Christ taught the Apostles. Being “just another church” is “based on incorrect theological perspectives and is characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that ‘one religion is as good as another’ (Pope John Paul II, Redemptoris mission, December 7, 1990). The Church of Jesus Christ should not participate in a definition of 'one is as good as another.

For me, I’d like to see a bishop with backbone teach that we are the One Church of Jesus Christ, a Holy Church, a Catholic Church, as the Apostles taught instead of “just another church”.

JoeT

Joe,

Excellent post! The Roman Catholic Church is the one and true dominion of our Creator, and it should be treated as such. I agree with every word you wrote, God bless you!

 

[JonNC]

“We are not the first to declare the papacy to be the kingdom of Antichrist, since for many years before us so many and so great men have undertaken to express the same thing so clearly.” -Martin Luther, the leader of the Reformation.

^If that is not an apostasy accusation, then I do not know what is.

Where did he say it was apostate? He also said often that the priesthood was valid, the sacraments valid. My understanding is apostasy is rather specific: Formal disaffiliation from or abandonment or renunciation of a religion.
The Lutheran Augsburg Confession made no such charge. The Lutheran reformers, AFAIK, always accepted Catholics as Christian

Jon

 

[LatinRight]

I too agree with Steve’s post generally as well.
LR what are the identifiers of the spiritual traps mentioned n your post.

God bless Fb19,

Thank you for your post.

We can easily identify spiritual traps** from their fruits.**

**
For example:**

The Catholic Church has the best teachings such as: Predestination of the elect, The Book of Life, Elect, Reprobates, God’s special grace “The gift of final Perseverance,” the balance between faith and works in justification/salvation, Conditions of Supernatural merit, etc.

All those teachings which are in circulation in Catholic circles which hides the above teachings, distorts the above teachings, for the reason to steal the faith, peace, confidence, supernatural merit, zeal, etc. of the Catholic Faithful are Satan’s spiritual traps which causing spiritual starvation and as the symptom mass exodus.

**With the help of the following beautiful faith/teachings of the Catholic Church I show you ONE EXAMPLE of Satan’s spiritual trap.

CONDITIONS THAT OUR WORKS (OUR DEEDS) COUNT FOR ANYTHING

Conditions MUST BE PRESENT to make SUPERNATURAL MERIT possible.**

The meritorious work must be morally good, that is, in accordance with the moral law in its

object, intent, and circumstances.

It MUST be done FREELY, WITHOUT any EXTERNAL COERCION or INTERNAL NECESSITY.

It MUST be SUPERNATURAL, that is, AROUSED and ACCOMPANIED by ACTUAL

GRACE, and proceeding from a SUPERNATURAL motive.

Strictly speaking only a person in the STATE OF GRACE can merit, as defined by the

Church (Denzinger 1576, 1582).

JUSTIFICATION IN CATHOLIC TEACHING by Jimmy Akin

Quote: “The essence of supernatural love is unselfishness—doing something NOT

BECAUSE IT WILL HELP US SOMEHOW, but because we want to do it out of SHEER

LOVE for the other person, whether that person is God or one of our fellow human beings

out of the love of God.

This is THE ONLY KIND of love that ultimately pleases God and therefore the ONLY

KIND that ultimately gets us a reward IN heaven.” End quote. Emphasize mine.

If we not set free to love freely, we cannot love.

If we not set free to freely decide to work, we cannot do supernatural work/merit.

We cannot please God with the work we MUST do, because we cannot do it FREELY,

WITHOUT any EXTERNAL COERCION or INTERNAL NECESSITY. **– The work we

MUST do is NOT supernatural work!!!**

MUST always kills our supernatural works/good works.

**Supernatural work is: **

Doing something, DECIDED FREELY without the fear of hell,

**work done **NOT BECAUSE IT WILL HELP US SOMEHOW,

**but because **we want to do it out of SHEER LOVE for the Glory of God, or help other person out of sheer love.

Continue

 

[LatinRight]

Continuation

JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church

3/17 Justification is SOLELY due to the forgiving and renewing mercy that God imparts as a gift and we RECEIVE IN FAITH, and NEVER CAN MERIT IT ANY WAY.

4/25 We confess together that sinners are justified by faith in the saving action of God in Christ. WHATEVER in the JUSTIFIED PRECEDES or FOLLOWS the free gift of faith is NEITHER THE BASIS of justification NOR MERITS it.

4/27.The Catholic understanding also sees faith as fundamental in justification. For without faith, no justification can take place. Thus justifying grace never becomes a human possession. While Catholic teaching emphasizes the renewal of life by justifying grace, this RENEVAL in FAITH, HOPE, LOVE is always dependent on God’s unfathomable grace and contributes NOTHING to JUSTIFICATION.

4/37 We confess together that good works - a Christian life lived in faith, hope and love - FOLLOW JUSTIFICATION and ARE ITS FRUITS.

ANNEX TO THE OFFICIAL COMMON STATEMENT

C) Justification takes place "by grace alone“ (JD 15 and 16), by faith alone, the person is justified „apart from works“ (Rom 3:28, cf. JD 25). "Grace creates faith not only when faith begins in a person but as long as faith lasts“ (Thomas Aquinas, S. Th.II/II 4, 4 ad 3).The working of God’s grace does not exclude human action: God effects everything, the willing and the achievement, therefore, we are called to strive (cf. Phil 2:12 ff). "As soon as the Holy Spirit has initiated his work of regeneration and renewal in us through the Word and the holy sacraments, it is certain that we can and must cooperate by the power of the Holy Spirit…“ (The Formula of Concord, FC SD II,64f; BSLK 897,37ff).

D) Grace as fellowship of the justified with God in faith, hope and love is always received from the salvific and creative work of God (cf. JD 27). But it is nevertheless the responsibility of the justified not to waste this grace but to live in it. The exhortation to do good works is the exhortation to practice the faith (cf. BSLK 197,45). The good works of the justified „should be done in order to confirm their call, that is, lest they fall from their call by sinning again“ (Apol. XX,13, BSLK 316,18-24; with reference to 2 Pet. 1:10. Cf. also FC SD IV,33; BSLK 948,9-23). In this sense Lutherans and Catholics can understand together what is said about the "preservation of grace“ in JD 38 and 39. Certainly, "whatever in the justified precedes or follows the free gift of faith is neither the basis of justification nor merits it“ (JD 25).

1. The doctrine of justification is measure or touchstone for the Christian faith. No teaching may contradict this criterion. In this sense, the doctrine of justification is an "indispensable criterion which constantly serves to orient all the teaching and practice of our churches to Christ“ (JD l8). As such, it has its truth and specific meaning within the overall context of the Church’s fundamental Trinitarian confession of faith. We "share the goal of confessing Christ in all things, who is to be trusted above all things as the one Mediator (1 Tim 2:5-6) through whom God in the Holy Spirit gives himself and pours out his renewing gifts“ (JD 18).

As we see above the balance between faith and works about justification/salvation is 100 % faith and 0 % works.

The above balance makes the possibility for every Catholic that their works could be 100 % supernatural merit, all 100 % works could be done freely out of love for the Glory of God.

Yet probably the majority of Catholics believe a** false teaching of salvation that their faith is not enough for salvation,** and probably many Catholics 100 % works done to get their salvation or to keep their salvation and at the judgment of their works, their works are wood, hay and straw, all goes up in smoke because rejected by God. – 1 Cor.3:12-15.

Probably the teachings of false/works salvation (not Catholic teaching) one of Satan’s most successful spiritual trap because stealing the supernatural merit from many Christians.

Matt.24:4, 11, 24;
“Watch out that no one deceives you. Many false prophets will appear and deceive many if possible, even the elect.

Of course Satan knows he can’t take away the salvation of the elect, so he does the next “best thing” take away the supernatural work/merit of the elect.

God bless.

LatinRight

 

[ImmaCatholic]

Where did he say it was apostate? He also said often that the priesthood was valid, the sacraments valid. My understanding is apostasy is rather specific: Formal disaffiliation from or abandonment or renunciation of a religion.
The Lutheran Augsburg Confession made no such charge. The Lutheran reformers, AFAIK, always accepted Catholics as Christian

Jon

“Therefore it is not a Christian Church either.” -Martin Luther, in reference to the Roman Catholic Church.

There is no need for Luther to explicitly state that the Church had entered an apostasy. He called it the kingdom of the Antichrist.

You are correct when you say that apostasy = abandonment of religion. A Christian Church adopting the Antichrist would mean that it does no longer serve God, and that Hell did indeed prevail, neither of which ever happened in the Roman Catholic Church.

By the way, in addition to believing that the Catholic sacraments were valid, Martin Luther also held the exact same stance as the Catholic Church on artificial contraception; that it is against the will of God. Yet artificial contraception is widely accepted today in the denominations he started, despite Luther himself condemning it.

God bless you

 

[JonNC]

“Therefore it is not a Christian Church either.” -Martin Luther, in reference to the Roman Catholic Church.

There is no need for Luther to explicitly state that the Church had entered an apostasy. He called it the kingdom of the Antichrist.

You are correct when you say that apostasy = abandonment of religion. A Christian Church adopting the Antichrist would mean that it does no longer serve God, and that Hell did indeed prevail, neither of which ever happened in the Roman Catholic Church.

By the way, in addition to believing that the Catholic sacraments were valid, Martin Luther also held the exact same stance as the Catholic Church on artificial contraception; that it is against the will of God. Yet artificial contraception is widely accepted today in the denominations he started, despite Luther himself condemning it.

God bless you

That’s not what the reformers meant by antichrist. They were specific to particular teachings, most notably the supremacy of the office of the Papacy. And Luther’s comments, often hyperbolic, were not always the views taught by the confessions.
The issue I had was the use of the term apostate. I personally believe yours is a misuse of the term.

Jon

 

[JoeT777]

Where did he say it was apostate? He also said often that the priesthood was valid, the sacraments valid. My understanding is apostasy is rather specific: Formal disaffiliation from or abandonment or renunciation of a religion.
The Lutheran Augsburg Confession made no such charge. The Lutheran reformers, AFAIK, always accepted Catholics as Christian

Jon

Luther did indeed, not once but many times refer to the Pope as Satan and the Catholic Church as apostate. It’s my opinion that at least some point before 1521 Martin Luther had decided to bring down the Catholic Church. Not only was it explicitly stated in his rants written to the Pope Leo X it was quite clear he wanted to put the death nail to the Catholic faith. In 1521 Martin Luther wrote: “If I succeed in doing away with the Mass, then I shall believe I have completely conquered the Pope [by the way, this would mean he conquered Jesus Christ]*. On the Mass, as on a rock, the whole of the Papacy is based, with its monasteries, bishoprics, colleges, altars, services and doctrines… If the sacrilegious and cursed custom of the Mass is otherthrown then the whole must fall” *[Warren H. Carroll, The Cleaving of Christendom pg 59 footnote Grisar, Luther, II, 153]

" Go, then, thou unhappy, damnable and blasphemous Rome, God s wrath has at last come upon thee … let her be that she may become a dwelling-place of dragons, an habitation of every impure spirit (Isaias xxxiv. 13), filled to the brim with miserly idols, perjurers, apostates, sodomites, priapists, murderers, simoniacs and other countless monsters, a new house of impiety like to the heathen Pantheon of olden days" “Werke” Wcim. ed., Ibid., p. 347 c. Hartmann Grisar, SJ. “Luther” vol. 1, p. 15]

Hartmann Grisar paints a very different picture of Luther and his ‘straight-up’ speaking of the mind. There was little doubt of views on Catholicism. Luther’s ultimate goal was to bring down the Catholic Church replacing it with the Lutheran Church in totality.

It will not be possible to eater one by one into the somewhat remarkable reasons assigned in the popular Protestant biographies of Luther as to why Luther should be regarded as the type of the German character. We there read, that the stamp of the German character is to be found in the fact that he "always acted upon impulse - which seems to be based on the correct view of Luther as a child olimpuJ who allowed himself to be carried away by his feelings. The i. reason is less clear, viz. that he was "A German through and through because he sought for the roots of all life, of the family the race, the State and civilization, in personality as directly determined by feeling. Reference is frequently made to Luther s frank and upright character. and to his undaunted love of truth. The facts bearing upon this point already adduced, or to be dealt with in chapter XXII of the present work (vol iv.), dispense us from treating of this matter here. Luther s claim to being a typical German on his manner of speech is run the risk of bringing Germans into disrepute, if we recall the r invective in which he often indulges and which he employs when as he says, he is speaking plain German to his opponents. German way of speaking. "he constantly repeats after explosions anger and vulgar abuse. This, for instance, is the way in which he gives the "Romans a German answer.“On one occasion he describe in a repulsive manner how the strumpet church of the Pope behaves” She plays the whore with everyone, “is an” apostate, runaway, wedded whore, a house-whore, a bed-whore "; compared with her "light women are holy, for she is the devil s own whore, who makes of many of the faithful virgins of Christ, born in baptism, arch-whores. This is what I call plain German speaking, and you and everyone can understand what I mean.“On the same page he continues has happened to them [the Papists] according to the proverb : the d has returned to his vomit and the sow that was washed to wallow m the mire. That is what you are, and what I once was. There you have your new, apostate, runaway church c. Grisar Hartmann, SJ. “Luther” p. 15]es described for you m^ plain German.”“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26 2 , p. 4(3."Wider Hans Worst, 1541. [footnote 4, Hartmann Grisar, SJ. “Luther” vol. 3, p. 106-107]

JoeT

 

[JonNC]

Luther did indeed, not once but many times refer to the Pope as Satan and the Catholic Church as apostate. It’s my opinion that at least some point before 1521 Martin Luther had decided to bring down the Catholic Church. Not only was it explicitly stated in his rants written to the Pope Leo X it was quite clear he wanted to put the death nail to the Catholic faith. In 1521 Martin Luther wrote: “If I succeed in doing away with the Mass, then I shall believe I have completely conquered the Pope [by the way, this would mean he conquered Jesus Christ]*. On the Mass, as on a rock, the whole of the Papacy is based, with its monasteries, bishoprics, colleges, altars, services and doctrines… If the sacrilegious and cursed custom of the Mass is otherthrown then the whole must fall” *[Warren H. Carroll, The Cleaving of Christendom pg 59 footnote Grisar, Luther, II, 153]

" Go, then, thou unhappy, damnable and blasphemous Rome, God s wrath has at last come upon thee … let her be that she may become a dwelling-place of dragons, an habitation of every impure spirit (Isaias xxxiv. 13), filled to the brim with miserly idols, perjurers, apostates, sodomites, priapists, murderers, simoniacs and other countless monsters, a new house of impiety like to the heathen Pantheon of olden days" “Werke” Wcim. ed., Ibid., p. 347 c. Hartmann Grisar, SJ. “Luther” vol. 1, p. 15]

Hartmann Grisar paints a very different picture of Luther and his ‘straight-up’ speaking of the mind. There was little doubt of views on Catholicism. Luther’s ultimate goal was to bring down the Catholic Church replacing it with the Lutheran Church in totality.

It will not be possible to eater one by one into the somewhat remarkable reasons assigned in the popular Protestant biographies of Luther as to why Luther should be regarded as the type of the German character. We there read, that the stamp of the German character is to be found in the fact that he "always acted upon impulse - which seems to be based on the correct view of Luther as a child olimpuJ who allowed himself to be carried away by his feelings. The i. reason is less clear, viz. that he was "A German through and through because he sought for the roots of all life, of the family the race, the State and civilization, in personality as directly determined by feeling. Reference is frequently made to Luther s frank and upright character. and to his undaunted love of truth. The facts bearing upon this point already adduced, or to be dealt with in chapter XXII of the present work (vol iv.), dispense us from treating of this matter here. Luther s claim to being a typical German on his manner of speech is run the risk of bringing Germans into disrepute, if we recall the r invective in which he often indulges and which he employs when as he says, he is speaking plain German to his opponents. German way of speaking. "he constantly repeats after explosions anger and vulgar abuse. This, for instance, is the way in which he gives the "Romans a German answer.“On one occasion he describe in a repulsive manner how the strumpet church of the Pope behaves” She plays the whore with everyone, “is an” apostate, runaway, wedded whore, a house-whore, a bed-whore "; compared with her "light women are holy, for she is the devil s own whore, who makes of many of them faithful virgins of Christ, born in baptism, arch-whores. This is what I call plain German speaking, and you and everyone can understand what I mean.“On the same page he continues has happened to them [the Papists] according to the proverb : the d has returned to his vomit and the sow that was washed to wallow m the mire. That is what you are, and what I once was. There you have your new, apostate, runaway church c. Grisar Hartmann, SJ. “Luther” p. 15]es described for you m^ plain German.”“Werke,” Erl. ed., 26 2 , p. 4(3."Wider Hans Worst, 1541. [footnote 4, Hartmann Grisar, SJ. “Luther” vol. 3, p. 106-107]

JoeT

Pretty harsh, isn’t it? Luther was known for that kind of harsh rhetoric, then respond at other times in recognition of Catholics being Christian. The OP said, “The Reformation happened because many believed that the Roman Catholic Church had fallen into a state of apostasy, and therefore, fell away from God. Even today, the faiths that emerged from the seperation of the Catholic Church view Her as invalid.” My point is the statement overstates the facts. Read the confessions, and that kind of accusation isn’t there. And for those then and now, who believe the Catholic Church is apostate is preposterous.

Jon

 

[JoeT777]

Pretty harsh, isn’t it? Luther was known for that kind of harsh rhetoric, then respond at other times in recognition of Catholics being Christian.

No he doesn’t! He didn’t recognize anything “Catholic” and only begrudgingly admitted that the bible came to him through the Church.

The OP said, “The Reformation happened because many believed that the Roman Catholic Church had fallen into a state of apostasy, and therefore, fell away from God. Even today, the faiths that emerged from the seperation of the Catholic Church view Her as invalid.”

One or the other happened, either the Catholic Church is apostate or those who were separated were protesters of the One True Faith in Jesus Christ. Either Luther was a heretic or a hero. While there many will tell its not it is rather a black and white thing. What Luther brought into religion was relativism and nominalism. It was quite purposeful so that he could be proven right and no one could prove him wrong - after all truth is beholden to the holder of truth.

My point is the statement overstates the facts. Read the confessions, and that kind of accusation isn’t there. And for those then and now, who believe the Catholic Church is apostate is preposterous.

Ok. I’ve read the confessions - admittedly some years ago. But that all the more points to duplicity of his goal . It wasn’t any type of theological radicalism rather to pull down the Church in Rome and raise up himself as a pope. And how would the peasant of the day have known it if it was - it only needed to ‘sound’ Catholic so that they would be none the wiser. Notice too, all the Ockham style nominalist philosophies of the non-Catholic 18th and 19th century leading to the “Age of Enlightenment”, Nazism, communism, socialism, and today’s progressivism - all born out of Luther’s philosophy - it was some great stuff that lead to some ‘real’ dead folks.

JoeT

 

[epostle]

If the Catholic Church had fallen into a state of apostasy, it would have been a monumentous event. Funny how no one noticed until the middle of a revolt.

 

[JonNC]

No he doesn’t! He didn’t recognize anything “Catholic” and only begrudgingly admitted that the bible came to him through the Church.

One or the other happened, either the Catholic Church is apostate or those who were separated were protesters of the One True Faith in Jesus Christ. Either Luther was a heretic or a hero. While there many will tell its not it is rather a black and white thing. What Luther brought into religion was relativism and nominalism. It was quite purposeful so that he could be proven right and no one could prove him wrong - after all truth is beholden to the holder of truth.

Ok. I’ve read the confessions - admittedly some years ago. But that all the more points to duplicity of his goal . It wasn’t any type of theological radicalism rather to pull down the Church in Rome and raise up himself as a pope. And how would the peasant of the day have known it if it was - it only needed to ‘sound’ Catholic so that they would be none the wiser. Notice too, all the Ockham style nominalist philosophies of the non-Catholic 18th and 19th century leading to the “Age of Enlightenment”, Nazism, communism, socialism, and today’s progressivism - all born out of Luther’s philosophy - it was some great stuff that lead to some ‘real’ dead folks.

JoeT

Joe,
I won’t deny you your right to your view of Luther, though it seems at variance with those of contemporary Catholic theologians. BTW, Ockham and Biel were taught by Catholics in Luther’s day.
I wasn’t aware of Luther’s great reach into all of these things he was responsible for - communism, nazism, socialism, progressivism. I must have missed it in Lutheran catechetical class growing up.
In all of my years at CAF, this has been the one perplexing POV, that Luther had so much authority over so many people, that they couldn’t make their own decisions about what to believe and think, even into the 20th century. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church was so unable to stop it. Perplexing, indeed

 

[James248]

Joe,
I won’t deny you your right to your view of Luther, though it seems at variance with those of contemporary Catholic theologians. BTW, Ockham and Biel were taught by Catholics in Luther’s day.
I wasn’t aware of Luther’s great reach into all of these things he was responsible for - communism, nazism, socialism, progressivism. I must have missed it in Lutheran catechetical class growing up.
In all of my years at CAF, this has been the one perplexing POV, that Luther had so much authority over so many people, that they couldn’t make their own decisions about what to believe and think, even into the 20th century. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church was so unable to stop it. Perplexing, indeed

He did use political guys when it suited him. He called those who attacked the Church scourges of God.

 

[pablope]

Joe,

I wasn’t aware of Luther’s great reach into all of these things he was responsible for - communism, nazism, socialism, progressivism. I must have missed it in Lutheran catechetical class growing up.

 

[JonNC]

He did use political guys when it suited him. He called those who attacked the Church scourges of God.

I think sometimes the political types used him.

 

[James248]

I think sometimes the political types used him.

Key word: Sometimes.

 

[JonNC]

Key word: Sometimes.

Well, I’m sure it wasn’t ALL the time, either way.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I wasn’t aware of Luther’s great reach into all of these things he was responsible for - communism, nazism, socialism, progressivism. I must have missed it in Lutheran catechetical class growing up.

You didn’t miss it, Jon. It was never mentioned.

In all of my years at CAF, this has been the one perplexing POV, that Luther had so much authority over so many people, that they couldn’t make their own decisions about what to believe and think, even into the 20th century. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church was so unable to stop it. Perplexing, indeed

I don’t think that Luther exercised authority over people so much as he offered them an alternative to Catholicism that they were only too eager to embrace.