The Great Apostasy in the Catholic Church never happened

[JonNC]

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

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.

Well, my dad was the pastor, and wouldn’t have taught anything remotely progressive, so you’re probably right.

Why? Why were they eager to embrace it? Why had the Catholic Church in Central Europe so utterly failed to teach the faith?

 

[fbl9]

Well, my dad was the pastor, and wouldn’t have taught anything remotely progressive, so you’re probably right.

Why? Why were they eager to embrace it? Why had the Catholic Church in Central Europe so utterly failed to teach the faith?

Maybe it wasn’t so much as teach the faith but live it.

 

[JoeT777]

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.

It is interesting though that many scholars refer to Occam as “the first Protestant”. Luther refered to him as the Venerdbilis Inceptor Nominalium.

At one point in Occam’s career, prior to his excommunication, he became an admirer of Jon Hus. Who, by the way, was also admired by Luther as well - although he denied it. However in Occam we see something different, an affinity toward a state run ‘socialist’ style government. Of course at the time the state was a medieval feudalism of kings and queens, lords and peasants. Being in the Franciscan order, Occam believed there should be no private ownership of chattel or real property. Everything should ‘belong’ to the state, and the Church should be relegated the spiritual domains only. Doesn’t this have a certain ‘secular progressivism’ ring to it? Doesn’t it have the same ring to it as the National Socialist Party of 1930 Germany? These philosophies are passed to Luther through the intervening centuries in Luther’s studies to becoming the archprotester of all times.

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.

It’s not taught in the Catholic catechism either.

Prior to Luther Utopian idealism was practically unheard of. Like Occam Luther’s ideal governments would rule over only the secular and freedom from the spiritual; in times before Luther the community and national leader were responsible for their subject secular and religious life. Mysticism was a mark in his view of predestination of the elect. Predestination could be characterized more as select” by the mystic Christ. Luther’s socialist views were prominent in his perfect government somewhat akin to a star trek “the good of the many outweigh the good of one”;

Identifiable both in Luther’s letters and his sermons are traits of utopian idealism, mysticism, socialism, and today’s brand of godless secularism. All of which were to shape the philosophies of the era to follow. Hence, we hear the liberal’s call for their “natural right” not to be “subject himself to an authority, the root, rule, measure, and sanction of which is not in himself” This is close to the ideology behind the “Great Enlightenment” of the late 18th century. Man is free from religion in the Marxist Leninist world of communism in the late 19th century and bound to the ideology of the state. The secularism found in the English empire spawn the great mass of atheistic or agnostic philosophers of relativism naturalism and rationalism.

Luther’s ideology did hold sway over the intellect in the liberal mindset, ‘freedom from religion’ in his revolt against the Catholic Church. Some see Luther’s polemics’ as some of the most effective propaganda campaign in the history of mankind. A campaign where a complete lie marginalizes the history of the Church so effectively Catholics can’t separate the false history of the 16th and 17th century from the true. Ironic isn’t it, the Church of truth and light find the gates of perdition so terribly close to yielding.

JoeT

 

[fhansen]

Well, my dad was the pastor, and wouldn’t have taught anything remotely progressive, so you’re probably right.

Why? Why were they eager to embrace it? Why had the Catholic Church in Central Europe so utterly failed to teach the faith?

I don’t believe it was because the Church at the time failed to teach the truth, but rather that she taught it in a more or less mechanical and impersonal way from a more or less totalitarian standpoint. People responded to the personal approach of the Reformers, where a one on one relationship between believer and God was emphasized, on the basis of the individual’s faith, and the Church was less central in terms of her being needed for mediation between the two parties.

In truth the Church is essential, for correctly interpreting and preaching the word and so leading people to Christ, but then also to help nurture and grow that relationship over time through the sacraments and further teaching. I think at the time of the Reformation, however, the Church had come to stand too fully in God’s place, for all practical purposes, rather than standing to the side and pointing to Him.

 

[LatinRight]

God bless Fhansen and every member of the CAF.

We don’t have to be spiritual geniuses to understand and to know the reasons of the creation of the following Canons.

Two Canons from the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent.

CANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.

CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.

God bless.

LatinRight.

 

[fhansen]

God bless Fhansen and every member of the CAF.

We don’t have to be spiritual geniuses to understand and to know the reasons of the creation of the following Canons.

Two Canons from the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent.

CANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.

CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.

God bless.

LatinRight.

But I think we do understand this, LR. The Church is simply saying that, by very rare experience God can impart to a believer, by locution or other mystical means, the knowledge that they have eternal life. This is not like a concept or a feeling or a sense one receives by hearing the Word but* direct communication*, no different in that sense from my writing here now or a friend telling you some certain piece of information, to set your clocks ahead today, for example. This is by no means the normal course of things in our faith, but rather an incomparably profound experience God may grant, for His purposes.

 

[JonNC]

Maybe it wasn’t so much as teach the faith but live it.

Maybe, but it seems clear that Luther was never really given a solid teaching of Aquinas.

 

[JonNC]

I don’t believe it was because the Church at the time failed to teach the truth, but rather that she taught it in a more or less mechanical and impersonal way from a more or less totalitarian standpoint. People responded to the personal approach of the Reformers, where a one on one relationship between believer and God was emphasized, on the basis of the individual’s faith, and the Church was less central in terms of her being needed for mediation between the two parties.

In truth the Church is essential, for correctly interpreting and preaching the word and so leading people to Christ, but then also to help nurture and grow that relationship over time through the sacraments and further teaching. I think at the time of the Reformation, however, the Church had come to stand too fully in God’s place, for all practical purposes, rather than standing to the side and pointing to Him.

I don’t think one can apply the idea to the Lutheran reformation. The importance of the Church, as providing the means of grace through word and sacrament, was always important.

I like your post, however, because it points to the fact that there were grevious errors on all sides.

 

[JonNC]

It is interesting though that many scholars refer to Occam as “the first Protestant”. Luther refered to him as the Venerdbilis Inceptor Nominalium.

At one point in Occam’s career, prior to his excommunication, he became an admirer of Jon Hus. Who, by the way, was also admired by Luther as well - although he denied it. However in Occam we see something different, an affinity toward a state run ‘socialist’ style government. Of course at the time the state was a medieval feudalism of kings and queens, lords and peasants. Being in the Franciscan order, Occam believed there should be no private ownership of chattel or real property. Everything should ‘belong’ to the state, and the Church should be relegated the spiritual domains only. Doesn’t this have a certain ‘secular progressivism’ ring to it? Doesn’t it have the same ring to it as the National Socialist Party of 1930 Germany? These philosophies are passed to Luther through the intervening centuries in Luther’s studies to becoming the archprotester of all times.

It’s not taught in the Catholic catechism either.

Prior to Luther Utopian idealism was practically unheard of. Like Occam Luther’s ideal governments would rule over only the secular and freedom from the spiritual; in times before Luther the community and national leader were responsible for their subject secular and religious life. Mysticism was a mark in his view of predestination of the elect. Predestination could be characterized more as select” by the mystic Christ. Luther’s socialist views were prominent in his perfect government somewhat akin to a star trek “the good of the many outweigh the good of one”;

Identifiable both in Luther’s letters and his sermons are traits of utopian idealism, mysticism, socialism, and today’s brand of godless secularism. All of which were to shape the philosophies of the era to follow. Hence, we hear the liberal’s call for their “natural right” not to be “subject himself to an authority, the root, rule, measure, and sanction of which is not in himself” This is close to the ideology behind the “Great Enlightenment” of the late 18th century. Man is free from religion in the Marxist Leninist world of communism in the late 19th century and bound to the ideology of the state. The secularism found in the English empire spawn the great mass of atheistic or agnostic philosophers of relativism naturalism and rationalism.

Luther’s ideology did hold sway over the intellect in the liberal mindset, ‘freedom from religion’ in his revolt against the Catholic Church. Some see Luther’s polemics’ as some of the most effective propaganda campaign in the history of mankind. A campaign where a complete lie marginalizes the history of the Church so effectively Catholics can’t separate the false history of the 16th and 17th century from the true. Ironic isn’t it, the Church of truth and light find the gates of perdition so terribly close to yielding.

JoeT

Hi Joe,
I’m not going to argue the point, since I find it entirely implausible that he held anywhere near this kind of sway. He wasn’t even able to sway other Reformation movements regarding Baptism or the Real Presence.
Some may see his influence to be far larger than life, I find it marginal at best. I think it more significant that a German friar exposed the false teachings and corruptions that had permeated the Western Church at that time.

Jon

 

[fbl9]

Hi Joe,
I’m not going to argue the point, since I find it entirely implausible that he held anywhere near this kind of sway. He wasn’t even able to sway other Reformation movements regarding Baptism or the Real Presence.
Some may see his influence to be far larger than life, I find it marginal at best. I think it more significant that a German friar exposed the false teachings** and corruptions** that had permeated the Western Church at that time.

Jon

Should not this read; protested the false practices and corruptions. For there are no false teachings within the Church and the corruption was known enough.

 

[fhansen]

I don’t think one can apply the idea to the Lutheran reformation. The importance of the Church, as providing the means of grace through word and sacrament, was always important.

Yes, I do understand that about Lutheranism especially. But I still see Luther as meaning for the believer to be less passive, for the relationship established by faith to be more direct.

 

[JonNC]

Should not this read; protested the false practices and corruptions. For there are no false teachings within the Church and the corruption was known enough.

Perhaps, or maybe teachings not in keeping with the historic Church.

 

[josephback]

When I mention that verse to Protestants, they tell me that the rock refers not to Peter but to his faith, somit just goes to show that we are saved by faith…

In the denominational understanding of the small c church there is not the concept of a single, visible, enduring entity called “the Church” such as Catholicism asserts. This “invisible church” argument began largely as a defense against charges that the Protestant Reformers were leaving the historic Christian community.

 

[pablope]

Perhaps, or maybe teachings not in keeping with the historic Church.

And that includes teaching the pope as anti-Christ?

 

[pablope]

Hi Joe,

Some may see his influence to be far larger than life, I find it marginal at best.

Jon

I think you better get out of your comfort zone here, Jon.

I do not expect you to read this…but I do hope others will:

crisismagazine.com/2012/what-the-reformation-has-wrought

Many Catholics worked for reform from within. Some had success. Franciscans, Dominicans, and Cistercians owe their origins to medieval reform. Humanists such as Erasmus and Thomas More were part of an international community of letters determined to renew Christian life from the inside. Saints such as Catherine of Siena and Bernard of Clairvaux spoke truth to ecclesiastical power.

But one key difference separated these Catholic voices from the Protestant Reformers: The Catholics believed that the Church had her teachings right. She just needed to actually live them. The Catholics believed that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist and other sacraments, in the Scriptures, in the saints, and in the Church’s historic doctrines offered an authentic, all-encompassing Christian way of life sufficient to sanctify human existence—if it was actually embraced and shorn of its abuses.

The Protestants, preaching sola scriptura, threw much of it away. The Protestants believed that the deposit and structure of Catholic faith were fundamentally flawed, that Christ no longer abided in the Roman Church, and that Scripture alone communicated God’s will. Sola scriptura changed everything for Western Christendom. The Church became the churches, and the process inadvertently, but relentlessly, fueled individual sovereignty and relativism.

The Reformers’ stress on sola scriptura sought to close the gap between Christian preaching and practice. But it failed at that, while opening a Pandora’s Box of new problems. Competing interpretations of Scripture actually intensified the confusion. Lutherans read Scripture one way, Calvinists another, with varieties of Anglicans, Anabaptists, Baptists, Puritans, Pietists, Methodists, and Quakers veering off into options beyond counting.

 

[fhansen]

In the denominational understanding of the small c church there is not the concept of a single, visible, enduring entity called “the Church” such as Catholicism asserts. This “invisible church” argument began largely as a defense against charges that the Protestant Reformers were leaving the historic Christian community.

The “Church” existed as a visible entity from the beginning. Such *had *to be the case in order for councils to be held, for example, to battle various heresies, establish the canon of the bible, etc. Historically the authentic gospel was under attack from various positions, all maintaining that they represent the true Church, with correct teachings.

And the Reformation only ended up proving the need for such a specific historical entity possessing guidance and authority granted by God all the more, as the spirit and basis of the Reformation would soon lead people into various beliefs often at odds with each other-and continues to do so to this day. Anyway, without the visible Church the Christian faith would now be a minor footnote of history, at best.

 

[ImmaCatholic]

I think you better get out of your comfort zone here, Jon.

I do not expect you to read this…but I do hope others will:

crisismagazine.com/2012/what-the-reformation-has-wrought

Many Catholics worked for reform from within. Some had success. Franciscans, Dominicans, and Cistercians owe their origins to medieval reform. Humanists such as Erasmus and Thomas More were part of an international community of letters determined to renew Christian life from the inside. Saints such as Catherine of Siena and Bernard of Clairvaux spoke truth to ecclesiastical power.

But one key difference separated these Catholic voices from the Protestant Reformers: The Catholics believed that the Church had her teachings right. She just needed to actually live them. The Catholics believed that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist and other sacraments, in the Scriptures, in the saints, and in the Church’s historic doctrines offered an authentic, all-encompassing Christian way of life sufficient to sanctify human existence—if it was actually embraced and shorn of its abuses.

The Protestants, preaching sola scriptura, threw much of it away. The Protestants believed that the deposit and structure of Catholic faith were fundamentally flawed, that Christ no longer abided in the Roman Church, and that Scripture alone communicated God’s will. Sola scriptura changed everything for Western Christendom. The Church became the churches, and the process inadvertently, but relentlessly, fueled individual sovereignty and relativism.

The Reformers’ stress on sola scriptura sought to close the gap between Christian preaching and practice. But it failed at that, while opening a Pandora’s Box of new problems. Competing interpretations of Scripture actually intensified the confusion. Lutherans read Scripture one way, Calvinists another, with varieties of Anglicans, Anabaptists, Baptists, Puritans, Pietists, Methodists, and Quakers veering off into options beyond counting.

Yes yes yes yes, especially to what I bolded. While the papacy was less than perfect during certain times in history (I think a few Popes are infamous for this), one must understand that this does not mean that the whole Roman Catholic Church is invalid, and it is certainly not controlled by the Antichrist. Thanks for linking the article Pablope!

 

[JonNC]

And that includes teaching the pope as anti-Christ?

Certainly the misrepresentation of it in later times, and certainly when other terms could have reflected the opposition to an innovation without the polemics. In those manners, absolutely

 

[JonNC]

I think you better get out of your comfort zone here, Jon.

I do not expect you to read this…but I do hope others will:

crisismagazine.com/2012/what-the-reformation-has-wrought

Many Catholics worked for reform from within. Some had success. Franciscans, Dominicans, and Cistercians owe their origins to medieval reform. Humanists such as Erasmus and Thomas More were part of an international community of letters determined to renew Christian life from the inside. Saints such as Catherine of Siena and Bernard of Clairvaux spoke truth to ecclesiastical power.

But one key difference separated these Catholic voices from the Protestant Reformers: The Catholics believed that the Church had her teachings right. She just needed to actually live them. The Catholics believed that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist and other sacraments, in the Scriptures, in the saints, and in the Church’s historic doctrines offered an authentic, all-encompassing Christian way of life sufficient to sanctify human existence—if it was actually embraced and shorn of its abuses.

The Protestants, preaching sola scriptura, threw much of it away. The Protestants believed that the deposit and structure of Catholic faith were fundamentally flawed, that Christ no longer abided in the Roman Church, and that Scripture alone communicated God’s will. Sola scriptura changed everything for Western Christendom. The Church became the churches, and the process inadvertently, but relentlessly, fueled individual sovereignty and relativism.

The Reformers’ stress on sola scriptura sought to close the gap between Christian preaching and practice. But it failed at that, while opening a Pandora’s Box of new problems. Competing interpretations of Scripture actually intensified the confusion. Lutherans read Scripture one way, Calvinists another, with varieties of Anglicans, Anabaptists, Baptists, Puritans, Pietists, Methodists, and Quakers veering off into options beyond counting.

I got out of my comfort zone a couple of years ago.

 

[JonNC]

Yes yes yes yes, especially to what I bolded. While the papacy was less than perfect during certain times in history (I think a few Popes are infamous for this), one must understand that this does not mean that the whole Roman Catholic Church is invalid, and it is certainly not controlled by the Antichrist. Thanks for linking the article Pablope!

And I think the vast number of Lutherans and Anglicans and many others would agree with the assessment given here. There is no doubt that those in communion with the Bishop of Rome are Christians, no less than any other baptized in the name of the Triune God.
By the same token, Christians not in communion with the Pope are no less under God’s grace, and of His Church.