The Great Apostasy in the Catholic Church never happened

[fbl9]

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.

The Catholic Church, as i see it, could be likened to** the ship **sailing to heaven. With Catholics on deck and those baptized (in the triune formula) some are fastened to the ship while others clinging on to the sides of the ship. And the one thing those on the outside of the ship have in common is the claim to be the ship itself.

What does His Church look like and believe?

 

[JoeT777]

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

The innovations of Luther were with polemics, they were deliberate at the same time reflected the ‘inner Luther”, that is the ‘real inner Luther’, not the whitewashed versions of later times.

The Saints certainly weren’t perfect people, so why hold Luther up to scrutiny? Comparatively even though they may have a repudiated past we most always see Saints make a real and lasting move to a permanent holiness. However, generally speaking, in Luther, I see the opposite, a move towards immorality. For example, look how the prophet Luther moved in advising Henry VIII’s bigamy and his devoice; it seems that Luther proposed to Henry VIII that bigamy was more expedient than divorce. While it might raise a flag or two, it’s not too big a deal is it? Protestants still have the same outlook on the joining of one man and one woman in the bounds of holy matrimony (that is, one at a time). And what discernments can be made of the case of bigamy dealing with Phillip of Hesse? That Catholic unfairly misrepresented Luther? It seems Luther thinks two wives are better than one. What about the sanctity of a man’s word? Luther reneged on certain assurances given the Pope Leo X, such assurances are called vows, in the day and age promises, to his Bishop, Bishop Scultetus, and to Emperor Charles. Why? What’s the story behind this? Chivalry hadn’t died in 1500, not yet anyway – some would say that chivalry moved along with a more ‘rationalized’ morality, Luther’s way, where you might see moral truth becoming a shivaree of mendacity. We hear about Luther and his Evangel whom he met in the toilet? What was this the Evangel, creature or angelic? Are there grounds here to suggest that there is a psychological problem with Luther’s sanity? Luther’s writings are complete with demonic battles. Funny? But you should take it serious - did Luther lose the battle with the devil? Luther had a funny outlook on the sacrament of marriage, truth and fidelity, especially for somebody who was a Catholic priest, who claimed to be a prophet (Who did he prognosticate for, the good spirits or the bad guys?

There were errors, misrepresentations, innovations, and polemics in the arrogant acts of a man who would be Pope of his own kingdom.

JoeT

 

[JonNC]

=JoeT777;14536802]
The Saints certainly weren’t perfect people, so why hold Luther up to scrutiny?

I don’t recall saying Luther was an angel, or a prophet.

Comparatively even though they may have a repudiated past we most always see Saints make a real and lasting move to a permanent holiness. However, generally speaking, in Luther, I see the opposite, a move towards immorality. For example, look how the prophet Luther moved in advising Henry VIII’s bigamy and his devoice; it seems that Luther proposed to Henry VIII that bigamy was more expedient than divorce. While it might raise a flag or two, it’s not too big a deal is it? Protestants still have the same outlook on the joining of one man and one woman in the bounds of holy matrimony (that is, one at a time). And what discernments can be made of the case of bigamy dealing with Phillip of Hesse? That Catholic unfairly misrepresented Luther? It seems Luther thinks two wives are better than one. What about the sanctity of a man’s word?

See, now, I thought this tired old polemic was resolved, considering that even Erasmus and popes believed that comparatively, bigamy was better than divorce. Be that as it may, Luther:

Whether person may have more than one wife? I answer thus: Let unbelievers do what they please; Christian liberty, however, is regulated by love (charity), so that all that a Christian does is done to serve his fellow-man, provided only that he can render such service without jeopardy and damage to his faith and conscience. Nowadays, however, everybody is striving for a liberty that profits and pleases him, without regard for the profit and improvement which his neighbor might derive from his action. This is contrary to the teaching of St. Paul, who says: ‘All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient’ (1 Cor. 6, 12). Only see that your liberty does not become an occasion to the flesh. . . . Moreover, although the patriarchs had many wives, Christians may not follow their example, because there is no necessity for doing this, no improvement is obtained thereby, and, especially, there is no word of God to justify this practise, while great offense and trouble may come from it. Accordingly, I do not believe that Christians any longer have this liberty. God would have to publish a command that would declare such a liberty."

Luther’s words, at times, leave him open to criticism. He was at time harsh, obnoxious, and failed to live up to his own words (thinking here of his commentary on the eighth commandment). And while some Catholics of his time were equal to him in this way, I see no gain in a “your guy was worse than our guy” argument.

So Joe, I will leave you with your polemics. After many years here, I have found it better and more edifying to converse with those who desire a burying of the hatchet in places other than in the other’s head.

Jon

 

[pablope]

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

But…you still think it is the right name to describe the pope…correct?

 

[pablope]

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

Sorry, Jon, but I do not sense it. I get the impression you are still enamored with the perfectness of the Reformation.

And I still have not seen a statement of remorse from a Lutheran official body tasked with making such statement.

 

[PJM]

Let’s change the definition of the church. Being all of all true believers as a collective whole. True believers are those that hold to a set collection of essentials. Although i myself have not been able to locate said collection.

Me PERSONALLY find this to be strange because:

Any [ALL] churches get their very identity from there chosen set of Faith beliefs.

GBY

Patrick

 

[JonNC]

But…you still think it is the right name to describe the pope…correct?

No. This isn’t 1545. And while the idea of universal jurisdiction is not supported by scripture or the early Councils, I see no need to refer to an innovation in that way.

 

[JonNC]

Sorry, Jon, but I do not sense it. I get the impression you are still enamored with the perfectness of the Reformation.

And I still have not seen a statement of remorse from a Lutheran official body tasked with making such statement.

Then you’ve misread me for these many years. There is no more perfectness in the Reformers than there was in the leaders of the Church at that time.

Check my profile.

 

[JonNC]

But…you still think it is the right name to describe the pope…correct?

BTW, are you willing to say unequivocally that salvation is not tied in any way to being in communion with the Bishop of Rome?

 

[James248]

No. This isn’t 1545. And while the idea of universal jurisdiction is not supported by scripture or the early Councils, I see no need to refer to an innovation in that way.

If you want to talk about papal supremacy, by all means post a thread on it. I suggest we all stay on topic.

 

[JonNC]

If you want to talk about papal supremacy, by all means post a thread on it. I suggest we all stay on topic.

That’s fine. He asked the question. My original post was,and remains, my respectful disagreement with the characterization that many felt the CC was apostate at the time of the Reformation

 

[fbl9]

Me PERSONALLY find this to be strange because:

Any [ALL] churches get their very identity from there chosen set of Faith beliefs.

GBY

Patrick

Church A states A is what one has to believe in order to be a Christian and to believe anything more or less forfeits one being a Christian. Church Z states only Z is needed to be believed and anything else is fine but not needed.
Outside of the Church i have not seen an agreement of what needs to be believed. Sure belief in Christ is required, but what else is agreed upon. That one needs to believe in order to be a Christian.

 

[JonNC]

Church A states A is what one has to believe in order to be a Christian and to believe anything more or less forfeits one being a Christian. Church Z states only Z is needed to be believed and anything else is fine but not needed.
Outside of the Church i have not seen an agreement of what needs to be believed. Sure belief in Christ is required, but what else is agreed upon. That one needs to believe in order to be a Christian.

ISTM that most communions have set beliefs. Catholics, Lutherans, and others have catechisms, doctrinal statements, creeds. Most also have adiaphora, or things indifferent.
I think it is more independent, non-denomination churches that seem to lack that formal approach. We might be agreeing on this.

 

[fbl9]

ISTM that most communions have set beliefs. Catholics, Lutherans, and others have catechisms, doctrinal statements, creeds. Most also have adiaphora, or things indifferent.
I think it is more independent, non-denomination churches that seem to lack that formal approach. We might be agreeing on this.

It is these groups that claim the Church went apostate very early on. Yet the true believers carried on hiding within the Catholic Church until Luther`s principles/doctrines set them free

 

[pablope]

No. This isn’t 1545. And while the idea of universal jurisdiction is not supported by scripture or the early Councils,

According to whose interpretation? I would venture to say…you agree as to which interpretation is the correct one.

I see no need to refer to an innovation in that way.

 

[pablope]

BTW, are you willing to say unequivocally that salvation is not tied in any way to being in communion with the Bishop of Rome?

I adhere to what the Catholic Church teaches.

Anyway…can you point out any person that has been led to hell by a pope by not being in communion with the pope?

And it seems, you are still fully enamored with that one sentence of a papal bull…despite explanations provided…and the statement taken out of context…to make the charge that the pope is the anti-christ…and this still fuels your animosity towards the pope, throughout all this time?

 

[JonNC]

According to whose interpretation? I would venture to say…you agree as to which interpretation is the correct one.

 

[JonNC]

I adhere to what the Catholic Church teaches.

Anyway…can you point out any person that has been led to hell by a pope by not being in communion with the pope?

And it seems, you are still fully enamored with that one sentence of a papal bull…despite explanations provided…and the statement taken out of context…to make the charge that the pope is the anti-christ…and this still fuels your animosity towards the pope, throughout all this time?

Are you saying that one sentence is wrong?

And btw, I hold no animosity toward the pope, none toward the Papacy. I just don’t believe he has universal jurisdiction over the whole Church Militant. Hence, I’m not in communion with him.

 

[pablope]

All but one of the patriarchates.

 

[pablope]

Are you saying that one sentence is wrong?

.

No, Jon. What I am getting at, is isolating that one sentence, taking it out of the context of the papal bull and the issue behind it, is what caused the interpretation to be wrong…coupled with building a whole thinking behind it…that the pope is anti-christ.

And btw, I hold no animosity toward the pope, none toward the Papacy. I just don’t believe he has universal jurisdiction over the whole Church Militant. Hence, I’m not in communion with him

Well, there are different levels of animosity…maybe dislike would be the appropriate word…

And there are different levels of "dislike’ too…from low intensity to extreme intensity.