The real Luther

[Gottle_of_Geer]

If Luther is to be blamed for being quoted by Hitler, then St. Ignatius Loyola might equally be blamed - in his case, for the similarities between the SJs and the Gestapo. Himmler’s uncle was a Jesuit, and apparently - there is a note on this in “The Banished Heart” - Himmler considered adapting the “Exercises” for the use of the Gestapo. The authoritarian Catholicism of St. Ignatius, joined to the Lutheran discouragement of rebellion against ungodly rulers, may have done something to condition German Christians to accept Hitler’s regime.​

It is not the fault of an author if his works are abused by criminals - and the Bible has been abused for far longer than any of Luther’s works: so why not blame the authors of the books of which the Bible is made for contributing to slavery, polygamy, persecution, anti-Judaism, and the like ? That would at least be consistent.

Why single out Luther as though he were uniquely objectionable, on the ground that he was echoed by a man who not even favourable to Christians, let alone a Christian himself ?

He was anti-Semitic - he came to be, certainly; but what of it? German Christianity had been anti-Semitic for centuries, and continued to be: Catholics didn’t need to read Luther to learn to loathe Jews. He was not the only source of this attitude - so to trace a direct line from Luther to Hitler, overlooks the centuries before, and after, and therefore risks overlooking far more important sources for Hitler’s hatred of the Jews. Such as Hitler’s own experience of the defeat of Germany in 1918.

Luther’s understanding of grace is far more important than his anti-Judaism - the latter could be cut out with no injury to his theological ideas. but the converse, is not true. The relation of the CC to Luther’s theological ideas, would be what it is, even if he had said nothing about the Jews at all. ##

 

[Eden]

The link between Hitler and Luther really does become irrelevent with the confirmation by a doctor of theology in the Lutheran church that Luther had no authority:

Lutherans do not believe that any “special authority” was “conferred on Luther by the Holy Spirit” apart from the authority given to all Christians to read, study and confess what the Word of God teaches. Lutherans believe that the Holy Spirit works only through God’s Word and Sacraments, so that any “authority” given by the Spirit is given through and rooted in God’s own Word.

The admission that Luther had no “special authority” overrides all else about him.

 

[Eden]

Gottle of Geer:

This is a great point and a very important one, too.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Katholikos:

This post will be in three parts

This is for Churchmouse and anyone who may have concerns about why this thread was started.

As I stated in my initial post, two films were released recently which portray Luther as a hero and the Catholic Church as the evil empire; his dark side is not disclosed. I was spoon fed this one-sided, glowing, great-emancipator image of Luther all during my Protestant years. Now that I know the truth about Luther, I want to do what little I can to set the record straight.

Here’s a review of the theater film that appeared in Christianity Today. I did not see this film. The other film was shown on PBS. I watched it with revulsion.

The man who brought us Sola Scriptura, for example, also eliminated 11 books from the Bible – a little known fact, even among Lutherans. He approved bigamy (polygyny, really) and adultery. I’ve recounted a few other true facts about Luther in various posts in this thread.

I’ve found that Protestant film critics also do not paint an accurate picture of Church history – at least this one didn’t. Notice he says Luther taught salvation by ***grace ***alone. Bull-oney. And he paints a purely Protestant view of the Church – he calls the Church a “sewer.”

As did Dante, in Paradiso 27 - to be specific, the Papacy is so described:​

Quelli ch’usurpa in terra il luogo mio,
il luogo mio, il luogo mio, che vaca
ne la presenza del Figliuol di Dio,
fatt’ha del cimitero mio cloaca
del sangue e de la puzza; onde 'l perverso
che cadde di qua sù, là giù si placa».

"He who usurps on earth that place of mine,
that place of mine, that place of mine, which is vacant
in the presence of the Son of God,

has made of my cemetery a sewer
of blood and filth; at which that perverted one
who fell there below from this height is pleased."

[The speaker is Saint Peter, denouncing Boniface VIII]

The Divine Comedy is full of denunciations of ecclesiastical wrong-doing - and such denunciations were quite common.

Yet Dante is rightly honoured as an outstanding Catholic poet - arguably, the very greatest. Cardinal Bellarmine defended his Catholic character when an attempt was made to enlist him as a “Witness to the [Protestant] Truth”. Pius IX, no less, laid a wreath on his tomb in in 1857. One can be very intemperate indeed, without ceasing to be a Catholic. ##

 

[Eden]

While Luther’s work clearly does not represent the fullness of truth given to us in the deposit of the faith from Jesus, he also was never made a successor as a bishop through the laying on of hands. Here are some excerpts from another chapter of the book that I mentioned above regarding apostolic succession through the bishops:

CHRIST IS THE SOURCE OF THE CHURCH’S AUTHORITY

“In response to the question who speaks for the Church, the *Catechism of the Catholic Church *devotes a large section entitled ‘The Hierarchical Constitution of the Church’ (sec 874). It tells us that Christ himself is the source of the Church’s authority.” (Wuerl p 102)

The duties of the bishops are “teaching, sanctifying and governing. In each of these areas, the bishop in the local church or diocese, together with the Pope for the whole universal Church, speaks for the Church.” (Wuerl p 102)

“In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility (sec 889). Christ chose men as apostles whom he would anoint in the Holy Spirit and guide as they taught and led his Church. They in turn chose successors through the laying on of hands and the imparting of the Spirit to continue this work. It is the Spirit, poured out in the Sacrament of holy orders, who is the ultimate source of the bishops’ fidelity to the truth.” (Wuerl p 102)
**
So someone outside the Church, as Luther chose to be, cuts themselves off from Truth and thus cannot claim to speak for Christ’s Church.

 

[Shibboleth]

Lutherans do not believe that any “special authority” was “conferred on Luther by the Holy Spirit” apart from the authority given to all Christians to read, study and confess what the Word of God teaches. Lutherans believe that the Holy Spirit works only through God’s Word and Sacraments, so that any “authority” given by the Spirit is given through and rooted in God’s own Word.

The admission that Luther had no “special authority” overrides all else about him.

Eden:

From a Catholic point of view you are correct on these issues; however, your argument carries no weight against those that are Protestant. Why? Because they believe that the Pope and the Catholic Church have no ’Special Authority” either… so the bait on the hook isn’t going to attract the fish.

I think a better avenue of argument would be that without Tradition, Protestantism is as shaky as a Fiddler on the Roof.

 

[kindlylight]

Shibboleth:

Eden:

From a Catholic point of view you are correct on these issues; however, your argument carries no weight against those that are Protestant. Why? Because they believe that the Pope and the Catholic Church have no ’Special Authority” either… so the bait on the hook isn’t going to attract the fish.

I think a better avenue of argument would be that without Tradition, Protestantism is as shaky as a Fiddler on the Roof.

The Protestant finds it difficult to move beyond Scripture.
It is necessary to show repeatedly that Authority is the foundation stone of the Church as a functioning organisation. Authority versus individualism is at the core of the difficulty. Any examination of the early fight against heresy shows the appeal to Rome as a “Special Authority” being invoked repeatedly by the local bishops in support of their efforts to preserve the recieved traditions. We are brought inexorably back to the Petrine text Matt 16:18. Without the Rock as a practical safegaurd we are in danger of being sifted like sand. Luther rejected authority and then tried to reassert it to control his followers but the runaway train by then was out of control being driven by his own principle of private interpretation… why listen to Luther!

 

[Eden]

Shibboleth:

Eden:

From a Catholic point of view you are correct on these issues; however, your argument carries no weight against those that are Protestant. Why? Because they believe that the Pope and the Catholic Church have no ’Special Authority” either… so the bait on the hook isn’t going to attract the fish.

I think a better avenue of argument would be that without Tradition, Protestantism is as shaky as a Fiddler on the Roof.

If you believe that the Catholic Church has no special authority, why did you tell me some time back that Luther had authority because he was once a priest?

 

[Eden]

On a broader level, I’m not clear where Protestants diverge on the issue of authority. I assume that we all agree that Jesus had authority and that Jesus conferred that authority onto the apostles as His last words to His apostles were, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations… teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Matt. 28: 19-20).

Do Protestants disagree that Jesus intended for the apostles to apoint successors? Here is an excerpt from The Teaching of Christ: A Catholic Catechism for Adults (4th ed.):

SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES

"St. Peter and the apostles were mortal, but the mission given them was to be carried out until the end of time (cf. Matt. 28.20)" (p 170)

"For this reason the apostles took care to appoint successors in this hierarchically structured society" (LG 20; cf. Acts 20.25-27;
2 Tim. 4.6)" (ibid)

"This is noted by the earliest Fathers of the Church, who lived at the end of or immediately after the apostolic age. Thus Pope St. Clement of Rome , writing around the year 96, says that the apostles themselves “laid down a rule once for all to this effect: when these men die, other approved men shall succeed to their sacred ministry.” (ibid)

"From these first days of the Church, Bishops appointed by or succeeding to the apostles were recognized as shepherds , who rightly rules and guarded the Church in the name of Christ. Loyalty to Christ was visibly expressed by loyalty to the bishops. Thus St. Ignatius of Antioch, in a letter written in or about 106, praises the Church at Philadelphia in Asia as ‘a source of everlasting joy, especially when the members are at one with the bishop and his assistants, the presbyters and deacons, that have been appointed in accordance with the wish of Jesus Christ, and whom He has , by His own will, through the operation of His Holy Spirit, confirmed in loyalty’". (ibid)

We can see here, apostolic succession. If Protestants agree that “apostolic succession” is valid (i.e. the Nicene Creed "one, holy, catholic and apostolic), who are today’s successors, if not the Catholic Bishops? If not Catholic Bishops and the Pope, who today are the “approved men” of apostolic succession and how was that approval conferred? To deny that the Catholic Church has no authority is to deny the records of St. Ignatius of Antioch.
Recall about St. Ignatius of Antioch:

**Receiving from the Apostles themselves, whose auditor he was, not only the substance of revelation, but also their own inspired interpretation of it; dwelling, as it were, at the very fountain-head of Gospel truth, his testimony must necessarily carry with it the greatest weight and demand the most serious consideration. **

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

AnAtheist:

I was just recalling from school. You have experienced otherwise - good for you!

Yes, they were all decent and brave fellows, but does this add anything to the discussion whether Luther was Mr. NiceGuy or not? Even if Luther was a psychotic lunatic, does that make his teachings evil or wrong, or does that automatically make all his followers lunatics too? Like - “Stalin was an atheist.” So what? Does that make all atheists mass-murdering communists?

My point is, Luther was not the “hero” he is usually portrait as. Without any implication towards his teaching or his followers.

Luther is, from one POV, sublimely irrelevant; it is what he witnessed to, that matters. Just as with any other Christian. The good and bad in Christians is both relevant - and, irrelevant. What matters, is what God does through them. Just as what a man is by grace, is more important than what he is by nature. Christians shouldn’t sin - and yet, there are really such beings as sinful Christians: even though the term is really an oxymoron; like talking of wingless birds. This is a paradox - and the “Christian fact” is, at its heart, a paradox: the paradox of how the righteous God who is too pure of eyes to behold evil, lovingly raises those dead in sin, the greatest of evils. It is a paradox, because it is not man-made philosophy, but a Divine activity and free gift.​

So if Luther’s message is true, even in part, that is more important than his personal deficiencies. This is why Christianity is not a mere moral code - Christ often acts immorally and sinfully; He breaks the Law, He fraternises with Samaritans and Gentiles and lepers and publicans - and denounces the righteous, who obey the Law, with vigour. He caps it all by dying the accursed death of the Cross, and becomes sin for us. He is therefore an abomination to God, yet the well-beloved Son in whom the Father is well-pleased. He is therefore the greatest of sinners, and the King of Saints. “The natural man cannot accept this” - and no wonder. He cannot do so, because the Gospel is a Gospel of grace: it does not arise from reason, and cannot be judged by it - God is not reasonable, any more than He is just: He is Love - and Love undercuts both, because it is utterly gracious. God is wiser than human wisdom - so the Gospel looks like what we call folly: because our terms of reference are too narrow for it. ##

 

[Eden]

## Luther is, from one POV, sublimely irrelevant; it is what he witnessed to, that matters. Just as with any other Christian. The good and bad in Christians is both relevant - and, irrelevant. What matters, is what God does through them. Just as what a man is by grace, is more important than what he is by nature. Christians shouldn’t sin - and yet, there are really such beings as sinful Christians: even though the term is really an oxymoron; like talking of wingless birds. This is a paradox - and the “Christian fact” is, at its heart, a paradox: the paradox of how the righteous God who is too pure of eyes to behold evil, lovingly raises those dead in sin, the greatest of evils. It is a paradox, because it is not man-made philosophy, but a Divine activity and free gift.

So if Luther’s message is true, even in part, that is more important than his personal deficiencies. This is why Christianity is not a mere moral code - Christ often acts immorally and sinfully; He breaks the Law, He fraternises with Samaritans and Gentiles and lepers and publicans - and denounces the righteous, who obey the Law, with vigour. He caps it all by dying the accursed death of the Cross, and becomes sin for us. He is therefore an abomination to God, yet the well-beloved Son in whom the Father is well-pleased. He is therefore the greatest of sinners, and the King of Saints. “The natural man cannot accept this” - and no wonder. He cannot do so, because the Gospel is a Gospel of grace: it does not arise from reason, and cannot be judged by it - God is not reasonable, any more than He is just: He is Love - and Love undercuts both, because it is utterly gracious. God is wiser than human wisdom - so the Gospel looks like what we call folly: because our terms of reference are too narrow for it. ##

Can you please tell me, with the understanding of apostolic succession as key to appointing those who teach and preach how Luther could be telling us “truth” when he was not anointed through apostolic succession to speak Christ’s truth? Also, his vision of “truth” does not resemble the “deposit of faith” given to the apostles and passed down through our bishops. As Luther has no legitimate claim to authority, why is there a question as to whether or not Luther’s message was true? Without authority, he is what Scriptures defines as a “false prophet” or “false teacher”.
If I were to believe that what Luther presented to us is “true”, I would also have to believe that God wanted Luther to reform His Church because the structure created by Christ through the Holy Spirit that had survived for 1500 years was a mistake.

T****he whole point of the second epistle of Peter is to stress the divine teaching authority of the apostles. Peter is a long argument against false teachers, whom Peter compares to false prophets (2 Pet. 2:1)*. In the Old Testament it is only false prophets who prophesy what their own minds prompt them to say (Jer. 23:15, Ezek. 13:3).* The genuine prophet only speaks from the Lord** (Jer. 1:4–10). **The false teachers therefore teach stories that they have made up out of their own minds **(2 Pet. 2:3), and Peter condemns them throughout the second chapter.

He does so only after he first establishes his own foundation for speaking with authority. The false teachers might promote cleverly invented stories but not the apostles. Instead they were eyewitnesses of Christ’s life and work (2 Pet. 1:16). Peter speaks with authority because, like Moses and Elijah, he had heard the voice from heaven when he was with Christ on the holy mountain (2 Pet. 1:18). Peter understands his presence at the transfiguration (Matt. 17:1–13) as the time when he inherited the prophetic authority of Moses and Elijah. Just before this transmission of authority Christ commissioned Peter to be the rock on which the Church would be built (Matt. 16:17–19). As a result, Peter claims an even higher authority and a more certain word than the prophets themselves (2 Pet. 1:19).

This necessary, established authority is what is passed down to the Pope (the Bishop of Rome) and the bishops. My post just before this one gives that information. When one has historical grasp of the early history of the Catholic Church, one can clearly see that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ.
One can also see that Christ through the apostles intended for us to have apostolic succession and that those successors are Catholic bishops. Looking through all of the documentation about the early Church you will see the early Fathers describing Catholicism not Lutheranism (and by extension any form of Protestantism). Luther can’t be speaking truth as he clearly abandoned the “deposit of faith” and he never had the authority to declare his beliefs as truth anyway.

 

[Eden]

The Ignatian letters are wonderful proof for those who challenge the fact that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ:

(from New Advent)

Was St. Ignatius of Antioch, auditor to the apostles, describing Catholicism or Lutheranism in his letters?

Contents of the letters It is scarcely possible to exaggerate the importance of the testimony which the Ignatian letters offer to the dogmatic character of Apostolic Christianity. The martyred Bishop of Antioch constitutes a most important link between the Apostles and the Fathers of the early Church. Receiving from the Apostles themselves, whose auditor he was, not only the substance of revelation, but also their own inspired interpretation of it; dwelling, as it were, at the very fountain-head of Gospel truth, his testimony must necessarily carry with it the greatest weight and demand the most serious consideration. Cardinal Newman did not exaggerate the matter when he said (“The Theology of the Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius”, in “Historical Sketches”, I, London, 1890) that “the whole system of Catholic doctrine may be discovered, at least in outline, not to say in parts filled up, in the course of his seven epistles”. Among the many Catholic doctrines to be found in the letters are the following: the Church was Divinely established as a visible society, the salvation of souls is its end, and those who separate themselves from it cut themselves off from God(Philad., c. iii); the hierarchy of the Church was instituted by Christ (lntrod. to Philad.; Ephes., c. vi); the threefold character of the hierarchy (Magn., c. vi); the order of the episcopacy superior by Divine authority to that of the priesthood (Magn., c. vi, c. xiii; Smyrn., c. viii;. Trall., .c. iii);the unity of the Church (Trall., c. vi;Philad., c. iii; Magn., c. xiii);the holiness of the Church (Smyrn., Ephes., Magn., Trall., and Rom.); the catholicity of the Church (Smyrn., c. viii); the infallibility of the Church(Philad., c. iii; Ephes., cc. xvi, xvii); the doctrine of the Eucharist (Smyrn., c. viii), which word we find for the first time applied to the Blessed Sacrament, just as in Smyrn., viii, we meet for the first time the phrase “Catholic Church”, used to designate all Christians; the Incarnation (Ephes., c. xviii); the supernatural virtue of virginity, already much esteemed and made the subject of a vow (Polyc., c. v); the religious character of matrimony (Polyc., c. v); the value of united prayer (Ephes., c. xiii); **the primacy of the See of Rome **(Rom., introd.). He, moreover, denounces in principle the Protestant doctrine of private judgment in matters’ of religion (Philad. c. iii), The heresy against which he chiefly inveighs is Docetism. Neither do the Judaizing heresies escape his vigorous condemnation.

“When truth is in the way, you’re on the wrong road” - Josh Billings

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Katholikos:

The evil that men do lives after them. Luther desecrated the Christian Scriptures, rejecting 11 writings from the canon --and succeeded in eliminating seven books permanently from all Protestant Bibles, but not the other four – though he declared that all 11 “were not Scripture.” He introduced doctrines into Christianity that Christ and the Apostles didn’t teach: Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide have been especially harmful. He splintered the Church that Christ founded, wounding it so severely that the Church still suffers to this very day. His anti-semitism was used by the Nazi’s as justification for their treatment of Jews. He approved plural wives because he “could find no Scriptural basis” for forbidding the practice. Shall I go on? You’re defending the indefensible and minimizing the damage that Luther wrought that will reverberate down though the centuries. It’s already been five centuries, and look at the state of splintered Christianity, in opposition to the will of Christ (John 17).

The Church is facing its greatest foe in history – Islam – in a weakened condition, thanks to Luther. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the U.S. and the world because of splintered Christianity. Experts who study demographics predict that Europe will become Muslim. Gone will be the beauty and the art of Christendom. The beautiful cathedrals will become mosques.

That’s Luther’s legacy.

JMJ Jay

If some Popes had acted more like men of God, instead of buying the Papacy and making Rome “for sixty years the world’s disgrace” (that is from a Catholic Truth Society pamphlet, BTW); and if they had insisted that bishops actually reside in their sees; and if they had insisted that bishops act as pastors and not as mitred magnates and politicians; and if they had insisted that the traffic in relics and indulgences stop; and if they had been unrelenting enemies of such practices as pluralism; and if they had been of sterling moral character; and if they had not merely convoked reform councils, but been energetic in applying the reforms needed, “in head and members”​

• then there might very well have been no Protestant Reformation. But they didn’t - so Catholics continued to be scandalised. If Luther can be blamed - why not go back 25 years before 1517, to the Pope elected in 1492 ? Or even further back ?

There was a great fear of the Ottoman Turks in Luther’s youth, & later - their success in covering so much of Europe might have impossible, if Christians had not already been divided and if Catholics had not squabbled so much.

To saddle Luther with the sole responsibility for the Reformation is completely unrealistic. If he can be blamed - why not others too ? Why stop at him ? Why not blame false shepherds, such as wolves in the see of Peter ? There is a caricature of Alexander VI from 1501, and it shows him as the devil. Luther cannot be blamed for that. If the Papacy does not want to be called a sewer, and if cardinals don’t want to be called devils incarnate, and if Popes don’t want to be compared to the devil, and if we want the CC to be regarded as the Body of Christ instead of as the synagogue of satan, relying on the past or on Church authority is not enough.

To blame one person for the events of 500 years, is a terrible over-simplification. One could with equal right -were one so minded - blame Leo X for WW2.

St. Peter’s could be obliterated tomorrow - it doesn’t matter. What does matter, is that God be loved and served. That is far more important than buildings. It is not the Church that matters - it is Christ. The Church gathered in the building sanctifies the building - not the way round.

It is not even orthodox to blame Luther alone - as Vatican II makes clear. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Eden:

Can you please tell me, with the understanding of apostolic succession as key to appointing those who teach and preach how Luther could be telling us “truth” when he was not anointed through apostolic succession to speak Christ’s truth?

What Apostle gave St. Paul his mission ? None of them - according to him.​

The grace of Christ is not confined to the “approved channels” - Amos was not a member of any group of prophets: his call came from God direct. Who called Moses ? No man. Who gave Jesus His authority to teach ? Office is no proof of the wisdom and holiness and graciousness that should accompany it.

He does not need the means He appoints - they most certainly need Him. His grace is given to the entire Church, and not to a select caste. He is free to grant grace outside the Church - & he does: otherwise, no non-Catholics could ever be Catholic.

Apostolic succession is one mode of equipping men for their vocation - and only one. That vocation is not even the only vocation: one can serve God every bit as much by being a janitor or a waiter - all can be Christian vocations, and all are within the vocation common to all Christians. ##

Also, his vision of “truth” does not resemble the “deposit of faith” given to the apostles and passed down through our bishops. As Luther has no legitimate claim to authority, why is there a question as to whether or not Luther’s message was true? Without authority, he is what Scriptures defines as a “false prophet” or “false teacher”.

His insights deepen the understanding of grace - and that is a great contribution. Having authority to teach or govern in the Church is not needed for one to say something true - St. Francis was not a bishop or even a priest; his authority was that of holiness. Not all authority is that of governance - learning, wisdom, example, and many other things have each an authority proper to them.​

Truth does not require official authority to be spoken - at most, truth is recognised; it is not created. Which is why the canonisation of the Bible does not confer inspiration, but recognises it. The books are canonical because they are inspired - not inspired because they are canonical.

What is true, does not have to look like what is already known to be true - it may even look like a denial of it; yet be no such thing. It is because of this, that so many Catholics have rejected Vatican II, as a betrayal of past teaching. Deepening the Church’s understanding of her faith can look like betrayal, when in fact it is not betrayal, but fulfilment.

Christ does not look like the Messiah - that is because Who He is, exceeds what the OT said of the Messiah. He destroys the enemies of Israel, not by destroying the Romans, but by destroying the power of death: He does more than was foretold - so appears to be a deceiver. The OT could describe the Messiah only in terms intelligible to men of the OT period - to do otherwise, would be like giving a Greekless schoolboy a Greek copy of the Iliad and expecting him to enjoy it. Something less needs to be given - either a translation, or a course in Greek. What is promised, needs to be provided in a form that falls short of the reality: not because God is lying, but because man is unable to bear the full goodness of what is promised.

Maybe that is why doctrinal development in required - to be given the full draught at once, undiluted, might have harmed the Church, rather than nourishing her. So we get it watered down, slowly, in amounts that we can receive. Perhaps ##

If I were to believe that what Luther presented to us is “true”, I would also have to believe that God wanted Luther to reform His Church because the structure created by Christ through the Holy Spirit that had survived for 1500 years was a mistake.

The structures of the Church were not there from day one - they took time to be created. Most of them are not even directly the work of Christ. They have changed often​

And reform is not a matter of Church structures, so much as of our hearts. That, is where the problem lies - not, primarily, in structures. Though, if structures come to be obstacles rather than means to fulfilling the Church’s vocation, then they may need abolition. ##

[continue]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…continued & ended]

The whole point of the second epistle of Peter is to stress the divine teaching authority of the apostles.

Peter is a long argument against false teachers, whom Peter compares to false prophets (2 Pet. 2:1)*. In the Old Testament it is only false prophets who prophesy what their own minds prompt them to say (Jer. 23:15, Ezek. 13:3).* The genuine prophet only speaks from the Lord** (Jer. 1:4–10). **The false teachers therefore teach stories that they have made up out of their own minds **(2 Pet. 2:3), and Peter condemns them throughout the second chapter.

He does so only after he first establishes his own foundation for speaking with authority. The false teachers might promote cleverly invented stories but not the apostles. Instead they were eyewitnesses of Christ’s life and work (2 Pet. 1:16). Peter speaks with authority because, like Moses and Elijah, he had heard the voice from heaven when he was with Christ on the holy mountain (2 Pet. 1:18). Peter understands his presence at the transfiguration (Matt. 17:1–13) as the time when he inherited the prophetic authority of Moses and Elijah. Just before this transmission of authority Christ commissioned Peter to be the rock on which the Church would be built (Matt. 16:17–19). As a result, Peter claims an even higher authority and a more certain word than the prophets themselves (2 Pet. 1:19).

None of this is in dispute​

This necessary, established authority is what is passed down to the Pope (the Bishop of Rome) and the bishops. My post just before this one gives that information. When one has historical grasp of the early history of the Catholic Church, one can clearly see that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ.

Visible continuity by itself is irrelevant to fidelity to Christ - & age is not godliness. God is a God Who requires holy living: churchmanship without that, is a mockery.​

And the plight of Christians left in the lurch when those in authority think more of their revenues thought their duties, is not repaired by directing attention to the outward splendour of the Church, then, or at any time - if the Church is not splendid within, it is no more than a “whited sepulchre full of rotting bones”. Or else, one has the spirit which prompted Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel to say, “Is not this great Babylon that I have built ?” Nebuchadnezzarism is something to avoid - not an attitude we should cultivate, for any excellence, in body or spirit, enjoyed by the Church, is the gracious and loving gift of God. “Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to Thy Name be the Glory” - as the Church prays in the Psalms

Insisting on one’s authority as a bishop is all very well - but if it is not exercised as God Wills, it will bring judgement on those who insist they have it. God is no respecter of persons. Newman has an alarming sermon about the severity with which we Catholics will be judged - where more is given, more is demanded. ##

One can also see that Christ through the apostles intended for us to have apostolic succession and that those successors are Catholic bishops. Looking through all of the documentation about the early Church you will see the early Fathers describing Catholicism not Lutheranism (and by extension any form of Protestantism). Luther can’t be speaking truth as he clearly abandoned the “deposit of faith” and he never had the authority to declare his beliefs as truth anyway.

If something is true - then it is: no matter what the speaker’s morals or other disabilities (as indeed Catholic ecclesiology implies).​

The Fathers don’t have much to say about the Assumption until several centuries after Christ - or about transubstantiation. Did Ignatius of Antioch or Clement of Rome believe in either ? The Fathers were not early Catholics, without also being early Anglicans, early Calvinists, early Orthodox. IOW, all Christianities have problems in making good their claims to the Fathers: not just the non-Catholic varieties.

The Fathers differ from each other, and even from themselves - quite apart from the fact that we have no way of knowing how much, or what, has been lost. So our knowledge of them is incomplete. What they are not, is single consistent undifferentiated unambiguous bloc of Catholic truth. They have to be looked at historically - the purely dogmatic approach is not enough. ##

 

[Eden]

Blaming Luther is not my intention now that I have definitive information from a doctor of theology in the Lutheran church that Lutherans do not believe Luther had any “special authority”. What I have clearly stated is that Luther did not have the authority to speak for the Holy Spirit. The churches outside the Catholic Church that formed as a result of the “Reformation” do not hold the fullness of truth given to us from the Holy Spirit through the apostles. This fullness of truth is called the “deposit of faith”. Therefore, what Luther preached was not “truth” as it was not authoritative. He preached “opinion”.

For whatever reasons new churches were formed through the fault of both Church clergy and reformers outside the Church. But no church other than the Catholic Church is “true”. We are told that with the death of the last apostle, no new public revelation would be given. The responsibility of the Pope and the bishops as apostolic successor was not to create new revelations but to protect, preserve and pass on the “deposit of truth” revealed through the Holy Spirit. This “deposit of faith” has been taught and passed down through the Pope and Bishops for 2,000 years.

From The Catholic Way: Faith for Living Today by Bishop Donald W. Wuerl:

LEAVING THE CHURCH IS LEAVING CHRIST

Bishops “have the God-given task of teaching in the name of Christ, sanctifying by the power of Christ, and governing with the authority of Christ.” (Wuerl p 103)

“Given Christ’s identification with his Church, which is His Body, it is an illusion to think that one can walk away from the Church and not in some way step aside from Christ.” (Wuerl pp 103-4)

From* “Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth”* (regarding corruption in the Church):

The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years, despite constant opposition from the world. **This is testimony to the Church’s divine origin. It must be more than a merely human organization, especially considering that its human members— even some of its leaders—have been unwise, corrupt, or prone to heresy.
**
Any merely human organization with such members would have collapsed early on. The Catholic Church is today the most vigorous church in the world (and the largest, with a billion members: one sixth of the human race), and **that is testimony not to the cleverness of the Church’s leaders, but to the protection of the Holy Spirit.
**catholic.com/library/pillar.asp

There is much blame to go around for the “Reformation” but that does not legitimize the movement. Reform should have come from within. In fact, corruption and reform were not new to the Church. There were reformers before Luther’s time who worked within the Church and became saints (i.e. St. Charles Borromeo). However, there was no need to “reform” the “deposit of faith” which is what Luther did.

 

[Eden]

In fact, the early Fathers took the transubstantiation for granted. Here are excerpts from an article regarding transubstantiation and the early Fathers:

Source: therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

"Thus, I decided to research what the Early Christians believed on this issue. I searched the indices for “Eucharist” in many volume sets on Early Christian writings, and I was astonished at my discovery. The Early Christians actually took the Real Presence for granted. It doesn’t even seem as if there was much debate. I could not find anyone who denied the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament before the year 500 A.D."

**ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH: ** “Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.” “Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH: “I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.” -“Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH: “Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.” -Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

ST. JUSTIN MARTYR: “This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.” " First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155

ST. IRENAEUS OF LYON: [Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies." Source: St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D.:

ST. IRENAEUS OF LYON: So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God’s gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ’s Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, ‘For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones’ (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of ‘spiritual’ and ‘invisible’ man, ‘for a spirit does not have flesh an bones’ (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and ‘the grain of wheat falls into the earth’ (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ."

Please read the entire article to learn the “truth” of transubstantiation and the early Fathers.

​

 

[Mickey]

We must believe that the “deposit of faith” is real–and that the Catholic/Orthodox Church reveals this “deposit of faith” in it’s fullness as commissioned by Christ and carried on through apostolic succession. If we cannot believe this, we will be as lost sheep.

 

[Eden]

Gottle of Geer:

The Fathers don’t have much to say about the Assumption until several centuries after Christ - or about transubstantiation. Did Ignatius of Antioch or Clement of Rome believe in either ? The Fathers were not early Catholics, without also being early Anglicans, early Calvinists, early Orthodox. IOW, all Christianities have problems in making good their claims to the Fathers: not just the non-Catholic varieties.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Eden:

Hi, Mickey. That’s fine with me. As Catholics are in the minority in the U.S., this is nothing new, is it?

Part of the reason that we are polarized on the issue of Luther is that he is a polarizing figure.

That’s true ​

The difference as Catholics is that we think in absolutes. Abortion is either right or wrong. Gay marriage is either right or wrong. Luther was either right or wrong.

Not so fast… ​

For “Luther”, substitute “St. Augustine”, “St. Jerome”, “St. Thomas Aquinas” - he was a theologian; they were theologians.

(And it is his ideas that matter, not least to his being Catholic - at least by Catholic standards: if he had been an RC to the end of his life, his personal failings, however deplorable, would have had no value as a weapon against Lutheranism; only against Catholicism.)

We don’t expect any of those three to be without error - and they aren’t. Not if we believe as the CC believes. So if we don’t demand total doctrinal perfection of them, before we hear what they say : why demand this of Luther ?

Because he was a heretic ? At least one has to be a Christian to be a heretic - Plato was not a Christian, just as Aristotle was not. Or Avicenna. Or Moses Maimonides. But if Catholics are prepared to learn from two pagans, a Muslim philosopher, and a Jewish philosopher, even though they werte not Christians (let alone Catholics) for even one moment of their lives - why can Catholics not learn from a heretic ? If reading Tertullian was not intolerable to St. Cyprian of Carthage, and if St. Augustine read Tyconius, a Donatist - why should we reject everything in Luther, or in any other non-RC or ex-RC ?

For Catholics, there was only one Church created on earth by Jesus. In order for Luther’s ideas to be legitimate, Luther would have to have been chosen by the Holy Spirit to break from the Church and create a new church. The Protestant view is relativist.

If there is a “Protestant view” - maybe there is a “Protestant faith” ​

Varying views are open to interpretation and while opinions may not always match, there is no right answer. It’s a way of thinking in which, “your religion is equal to mine, and while I disagree with Presbyterians on this, I agree with Methodists on that.”

St. Thomas differed from St. Augustine on certain matters - that does not mean they were not one in faith: it can’t mean that, if the Church is to have them both as Doctors and Saints.​

Interpretation also varies because, although one can be confident there is a right answer or set of answers, it has yet to be granted.

It is quite possible to agree with Presbyterians that God is Sovereign and freely elects those who are to be saved (say) - although this is in agreement with Presbytereian doctrine, it is also in agreement with that of the CC and Luther: the disagreements lie elsewhere. A Lutheran can differ from his Presbyterian brother, just as he can differ from his RC sister - this does not imply any relativism (a much-abused word, IMHO) ##

Secondly, Luther was contradictory in his beliefs and writings. He lends himself well to this kind of polarization because he left writings that support either view.

Rather like St. Augustine - and indeed, St. Thomas. To speak of no others. ​

This is to be expected - if a Christian grows in wisdom, what he once held, may come to need revising: not because it has changed, but because he has (or she ) Both of them, like St. Alphonsus Liguori, changed their minds on various points. This is not a reproach to any of them, so should not be seen as one - it means only that none of them was all-wise or infallible or (especially) incapable of learning. Which is what a “disciple” is - a “learner”. ##