The society after Martin Luther

[JoeyWarren]

Huguenot:

Since you are a Catholic, I understand you disagree with Luther, as I have told you I disagree with him too, for other reasons …
You may state why, according to you, his teachings are heretical, but calling him a prophet of Satan, or saying he’s probably in hell is quite exaggerated and if before even learning something about Catholicism on this site, or even before asking a question to understand you better, I’ve got to read that Luther is Satanic, that he is in Hell, that Protestantism is responsible for the Holocaust ( which I have read somewhere ) or read your posts about the “Deformation”, it is not easy !!! Try to understand us too !!!
If the aim of this site is to get us nearer to the Catholic Church, despising our faith ( because speaking about Deformation instead of Reformation is very derogatory … ) is not the best way …and after some say that we’ll throw the baby with the bathwater, of course, if we are “insulted” even before being able to ask something …

I apologize for that, I was in one of my noncharitable moods when I wrote that. I am not trying to bring anyone to the catholic faith. If one comes to the Catholic faith, it is by the will of God alone.

Also bear in mind that I am an ex-Pentecostal. Pentecostals believe that the Catholic Church is Satan’s imitation. I was brought up being taught the 'Misunderstandings, Misinformation, and the plain outright Lies about Catholicism.

I had a lot of brainwashing to overcome and it was not an easy task. This process aged me prematurely.

I married a cradle catholic who was not practicing at the time. But when she began to practice, I attended service with her and her with mine. This led to the search for the truth. The truth comes in many forms. I even went to Seminary Schools, one being protestant and one being catholic to learn. That is where I found differences in text books. The Catholic textbooks on the writings of the early church fathers contain the whole writing, whereas the textbooks of the Protestant school contained select passages to confirm their own belief. That is a SIN of omission. When you omit the whole truth, you tell a falsehood.

Some don’t want to even know the truth. It’s easier to live in ignorance(state of untrained or state of untaught) of the truth.

Since falsehood and heresy does not come from God, then where does it come from. My only answer is from Satan himself.

As an Intellect, I have to look at the history. History almost never lies.

The greatest problem of Protestants( and it’s not their fault ) is that they don’t know history and they don’t know what the early writers of christianity wrote. If they have read anything at all, it is some book by a Protestant that is already slanted.

When a Protestant Pastor stands a pugh in church and preaches to the congregation and doesn’t teach the whole truth, he is sinning.

Pentecostal preachers stand there and teach the Rapture. The Rapture is not taught in the bible. It is an Invention of Darby back around 1850. No one prior to Darby believed in the Rapture. Darby created his own manmade tradition and doctrine.

Nonetheless I believed the Rapture because that was what I was taught, I still remember the 3 passages that was spat our every month. but when I started studying the bible after marriage, I discovered that these same preachers only spat a portion of the passage to boost the belief. The issue of the Rapture is another thread in itself.

The catholic church can back up it’s belief either explicitly or implicitly from the bible. And that is enough for me. And the writings of the early church fathers show that the early church was infacto practicing these beliefs. And that sets my belief in the Catholic church in titanium.

 

[Della]

JoeyWarren:

Point taken!

But I still marvel why Lutheran’s are still Lutheran, when you present them with statements and writings of his that show that he did not believe certain books of the bible were “Not Spiritually Inspired” or for that matter “Not God Breathed”. He flat out denied that the written “Word of God” was the “Word of God”.

I just don’t get it!

It’s because they don’t look to Luther any more. For most, he was just the impetus that created Lutheranism. Most know little or nothing about the real Luther and really could care less. They’ve been brought up Lutheran and so are Lutheran in their eyes.

Sadly, there are many a Catholic with the same attitude, usually those who just occupy a pew on a Sunday morning as the whim takes them. They know little or nothing about their faith, but are true to the Church (“in their fashion” as the Cole Porter song has it) because they have no reason not to be what they were brought up to be.

 

[Contarini]

JoeyWarren:

Colloquia

Luther’s New Testament

Luther’s New Testaament (Edition of 1524).

Luther’s New Testaament (Edition of 1622).

In other words, you have not read all his works. (Luther wrote many, many works besides those you list. Probably most Luther experts have not read all Luther’s works. There might be a half a dozen people in the world who have.) Why did you falsely claim that you had?

By “Colloquia” I presume you mean the Tischreden. Did you read all of them? And what do you mean by having read three different editions of Luthers NT? What edition is represented by “Luther’s New Testament” without a year? And how is the 1622 edition different from the 1524 edition? What did you learn about Luther from reading an edition published 100 years after his time?

I applaud you, at any rate, on your ability to read 16th-century German. Unless that also turns out to be a false claim. . . . (It is implicit in the claim that you read “Luther’s New Testament,” which is a German translation, obviously.)

I don’t know what you think you are accomplishing by making these weird assertions.

Edwin

 

[Della]

Huguenot:

But we don’t need to be brought back to Christ, we’re Christians !!!

Yes, you are! And the Church says you are by reason of your trinitarian baptism. The Church also says that you are incomplete in your beliefs and/or misled.

What a good number of people don’t understand is the concept of culpability. While being separated from full communion from the Church Christ founded is not a good thing, one’s ignorance of the fact or inability to preceive that it is the truth, makes one not culpable of deliberately being separated from the Catholic Church.

However, once one knows the truth, fully understands that it is the truth, and has no legitimate barriers to entering the Catholic Church but still refuses to do so–that is disobedience to God’s truth and is a very serious matter indeed.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Della:

Sadly, there are many a Catholic with the same attitude, usually those who just occupy a pew on a Sunday morning as the whim takes them. .

Unfortunately I agree with that as well. That is one of the reasons I am going to start an Apologetics class in our area.

 

[Della]

JoeyWarren:

Unfortunately I agree with that as well. That is one of the reasons I am going to start an Apologetics class in our area.

Do you mean you are going to teach your fellow Catholics how to do apologetics or that you are going to teach them the basic elements of the faith in an effort to bring them up to speed on the teachings of their own Church? If it’s the first, I’d say you probably aren’t qualified, no offense intended to you personally.

A true class in apologetics has to cover philosophy, logic, biblical interpretation, Church documents, and history at the least. The apologetics class I took at my parish was taught by a 3rd year seminarian. Online apologetics courses are given by priests.

If I were you, I’d ask your pastor if you could start a study of the Catechism and how it is supported by the Bible rather than take on the topic of apologetics, which most people probably wouldn’t be interested, understand, nor have the time to pursue.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Contarini:

In other words, you have not read all his works. (Luther wrote many, many works besides those you list. Probably most Luther experts have not read all Luther’s works. There might be a half a dozen people in the world who have.) Why did you falsely claim that you had?

By “Colloquia” I presume you mean the Tischreden. Did you read all of them? And what do you mean by having read three different editions of Luthers NT? What edition is represented by “Luther’s New Testament” without a year? And how is the 1622 edition different from the 1524 edition? What did you learn about Luther from reading an edition published 100 years after his time?

I applaud you, at any rate, on your ability to read 16th-century German. Unless that also turns out to be a false claim. . . . (It is implicit in the claim that you read “Luther’s New Testament,” which is a German translation, obviously.)

I don’t know what you think you are accomplishing by making these weird assertions.

Edwin

No, I did not read them in their entirety, on the passages that were relevant to my investigation. This was done during the early 80’s while in the Navy.

Don’t applaud me, I had lots of help. I took a trip to Europe to investigate these accusations people have made about his statements about the scriptures. I went to Germany and Rome and visited the libraries and asked to be shown certain passages where these quotes were. I had the librarian copy these after I found some scholars that could read the stuff enough. Then I visited the Universities where Theology was taught and got the same from the Professors. Then it took several months to find a couple of Linquists to translate these individually. So what I have is the photocopy of the text and it’s transliteration.

I hope one day that someone will put his entire works in English for the whole world so the truth of the matter can be ascertain.

The problem with US libraries and Universities is that they have “Select” writings translated, not all of them. And what they do have, supports their teaching and beliefs.

But I think it is in the best interest of the Lutheran movement that these don’t become available in English…

 

[JoeyWarren]

That would be my challenge to the Lutherans. Put every single one of his writings in English if they so believe that he was so HOLY and so RIGHT.

but they will not, and I can take that to the bank and draw interest on it. Some things are better left hidden from the world…for some.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Della:

Do you mean you are going to teach your fellow Catholics how to do apologetics or that you are going to teach them the basic elements of the faith in an effort to bring them up to speed on the teachings of their own Church? If it’s the first, I’d say you probably aren’t qualified, no offense intended to you personally.

A true class in apologetics has to cover philosophy, logic, biblical interpretation, Church documents, and history at the least. The apologetics class I took at my parish was taught by a 3rd year seminarian. Online apologetics courses are given by priests.

If I were you, I’d ask your pastor if you could start a study of the Catechism and how it is supported by the Bible rather than take on the topic of apologetics, which most people probably wouldn’t be interested, understand, nor have the time to pursue.

Rather may I say that the plan is to teach the RCIA from an Apologetics standpoint. But I am at least a year away from doing this since I am justing starting out. . But I believe God is moving me toward this. I am currently attending RCIA for the third time, I am answering questions that others have from a Biblical standpoint. My own priest who is teaching it is impressed a little about my knowledge of the biblical basis. Our class has 25 people in it and 21 of them are Cradle Catholics. 16 of these 21 have approached me in Private and have said: “You should be teaching this” Unfortunately they could be are right, because our Priest, as good as he is, does not possess a memory for scripture nor a memory for the biblical basis, God bless his heart. We have 2 particular Protestants in the class that are drilling him, that’s where I step in when he starts to stammer and studder and offer biblical basis and some analogy that I have learned from Patrick Madrid or Karl Keating. The priest often gives me a thankful look for bailing him out. LOL!

As for an actual Apologetics class, I have a plan for that as well but a bit fuzzy maybe a “Basic Defend your Faith Via the Bible” class

If a Protestant comes up to a Catholic and says: “Show me in the bible where Jesus gave Priests the power to forgive sins or show me in the bible that’s it okay to talk to people already in heaven”

I know that 97% of the Cradle Catholics here in Alabama could not even attempt to show the Protestant where these are in the bible.

I may not have the total qualifications to teach Apologetics, but we have to start somewhere and I am in the process of generating course materials and study guides.

 

[Contarini]

JoeyWarren:

I hope one day that someone will put his entire works in English for the whole world so the truth of the matter can be ascertain.

The problem with US libraries and Universities is that they have “Select” writings translated, not all of them. And what they do have, supports their teaching and beliefs.

Well, obviously the Lutherans (who published the 56 volumes of “Luther’s Works”) are going to publish the works that they think are most central to their tradition. That being said, I haven’t seen any evidence that the untranslated stuff was left untranslated to cover anything up. I’m skeptical of these conspiracy theories, no matter who propounds them.

Are you saying that the texts you were looking for were not found in the Weimar Ausgabe? The WA has what I think is a rather complete edition of the Tischreden (Colloquia), and it also has many volumes dedicated to Luther’s NT edition. The WA is found in any good Protestant seminary library. If you ever need a (short) passage translated from it in the future, let me know.

I’m still curious to know exactly what you mean by listing three different editions of the NT. What exactly were you looking for in the NT editions?

Catholics are simply pursuing a straw man by these ad hominem attacks on Luther. Educated Protestants know Luther had a nasty side. We don’t claim he was perfect. Our faith does not rest on Luther’s character. This insistence on trying to demonize Luther only makes Catholics look mean and ugly without accomplishing anything productive. Fortunately most Catholics abandoned these tactics long ago.

Edwin

 

[JoeyWarren]

I was looking in particular to references where Martin Luther questioned or made outright statements that certain books of the bible were not Inspired by God.

 

[Della]

JoeyWarren:

Rather may I say that the plan is to teach the RCIA from an Apologetics standpoint. But I am at least a year away from doing this since I am justing starting out. . But I believe God is moving me toward this. I am currently attending RCIA for the third time, I am answering questions that others have from a Biblical standpoint. My own priest who is teaching it is impressed a little about my knowledge of the biblical basis. Our class has 25 people in it and 21 of them are Cradle Catholics. 16 of these 21 have approached me in Private and have said: “You should be teaching this” Unfortunately they could be are right, because our Priest, as good as he is, does not possess a memory for scripture nor a memory for the biblical basis, God bless his heart. We have 2 particular Protestants in the class that are drilling him, that’s where I step in when he starts to stammer and studder and offer biblical basis and some analogy that I have learned from Patrick Madrid or Karl Keating. The priest often gives me a thankful look for bailing him out. LOL!

As for an actual Apologetics class, I have a plan for that as well but a bit fuzzy maybe a “Basic Defend your Faith Via the Bible” class

If a Protestant comes up to a Catholic and says: “Show me in the bible where Jesus gave Priests the power to forgive sins or show me in the bible that’s it okay to talk to people already in heaven”

I know that 97% of the Cradle Catholics here in Alabama could not even attempt to show the Protestant where these are in the bible.

I may not have the total qualifications to teach Apologetics, but we have to start somewhere and I am in the process of generating course materials and study guides.

Ah, I see. I too think you are being called to help others understand the teachings of the Church and their biblical support and witness. God bless your efforts!

Have you read Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church? It’s very good and quite readable. Then there’s Frank Sheed’s books on theology which are very good for lay people or Ott for those who want to get more deeply into it.

Also, Scott Hahn’s “Home Sweet Rome” and Steve Ray’s “Crossing the Tiber,” which both answer a lot of Protestant objections from a biblical perspective. Also Steve Ray’s DVD series, “Footprints of God.” If you want to get into the depths of Marian teaching/devotion I’d recommend St. Alphonsus de Ligouri’s “The Glories of Mary” and St. Louis de Montfort’s “True Devotion to Mary.”

And for your personal reading, G. K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy and The Everlasting Man. Must reads for all committed Catholics.

 

[JoeyWarren]

My particular issue is why anyone who is protestant would remain protestant when their particular schism is a by-product on the first protestant schism by a man who said that certain books of the bible are not inspired when almost 15 distinct centuries before him said they are inspired.

I am a Programmer/Analyst by profession. I think in logicalness. And my logicalness says: “If once you find out that your faith is based on a man that denied some scripture as being God Breathed, why are you a still a member of that faith?”

 

[JoeyWarren]

Della:

Ah, I see. I too think you are being called to help others understand the teachings of the Church and their biblical support and witness. God bless your efforts!

Have you read Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church? It’s very good and quite readable. Then there’s Frank Sheed’s books on theology which are very good for lay people or Ott for those who want to get more deeply into it.

Also, Scott Hahn’s “Home Sweet Rome” and Steve Ray’s “Crossing the Tiber,” which both answer a lot of Protestant objections from a biblical perspective. Also Steve Ray’s DVD series, “Footprints of God.” If you want to get into the depths of Marian teaching/devotion I’d recommend St. Alphonsus de Ligouri’s “The Glories of Mary” and St. Louis de Montfort’s “True Devotion to Mary.”

Yes I have most on my list to purchase, thanks for the reference about Steve Ray. Didn’t know about St. Alphhonsus either. Thanks.

 

[Della]

JoeyWarren:

My particular issue is why anyone who is protestant would remain protestant when their particular schism is a by-product on the first protestant schism by a man who said that certain books of the bible are not inspired when almost 15 distinct centuries before him said they are inspired.

I am a Programmer/Analyst by profession. I think in logicalness. And my logicalness says: “If once you find out that your faith is based on a man that denied some scripture as being God Breathed, why are you a still a member of that faith?”

I believe you have answered your own question by citing what moves you to faith. Not everyone is moved to faith by the same things. For some there has to be an emotional or familial connection or others need to see beauty in their beliefs or yet others have to have a sense of the holy in order to believe. God made each of us different from one another and what compels one person to believe isn’t always the thing that draws another. Although, it is always the Holy Spirit who does the drawing, which is why we are to pray always for those who have not embraced the fullness of the truth, beauty, joy, family bond, etc. that subsists within the Catholic Church.

Apologetics is as much about demonstrating the truth as it is about understanding human nature. Just placing the facts before people isn’t always enough. We have to meet their other needs, as well, and understand that not everyone “sees” the truth just because it is presented to them.

 

[Contarini]

JoeyWarren:

My particular issue is why anyone who is protestant would remain protestant when their particular schism is a by-product on the first protestant schism by a man who said that certain books of the bible are not inspired when almost 15 distinct centuries before him said they are inspired.

OK, what are these books. All the books Luther questioned, as far as I know, had often been questioned before. None of his questions were new.

And what was this hidden, hard-to-find information you traced on the subject? Everyone knows that Luther questioned both the OT deuterocanonicals and certain NT books which had been questioned in the early Church (and which had come under increasing question once again with the rise of Renaissance historical and textual scholarship). Just what was your devastating discovery?

Athanasius, in his 39th festal letter, lists Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, Judith, and Tobit (along with the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas) as non-canonical but church-approved catechetical litterature. He doesn’t seem to have any place for Maccabees at all. Does that discredit Athanasius in your eyes? (Art Sippo claims that the Fathers regarded some “non-canonical” books as inspired, but I’m dubious about this claim. It all depends on what you mean by “inspired.” I think “canonical” is a much more solid category than “inspired.”)

Edwin

 

[a_cermak]

JoeyWarren:

My particular issue is why anyone who is protestant would remain protestant when their particular schism is a by-product on the first protestant schism by a man who said that certain books of the bible are not inspired when almost 15 distinct centuries before him said they are inspired.

Actually many of the Protestant denominations do not descend from Luther. Anglicanism did not descend from Luther (and many Anglican communion churches describe themselves as being somewhere between Catholicism and Protestantism). The Methodists were founded by Wesley who was an Anglican. The Church of the Nazarine and Assembly of God are offshoots of Methodism. Huldrych Zwingli was also influential, independent of Luther, of starting the Swiss reformation, which probably influenced Calvin more than Luther.

As for why Protestants remain Protestants maybe it’s because they agree with their faith more than they agree with Catholicism.

Pax,
Amy

 

[Paris_Blues]

viktor aleksndr:

Guys after the protests of Martin Luther to the Catholic church what do you think happened to our society?

Divorce
Death Penalty
Abortion
Sacrilege

Don’t you guys realize that the devil is behind most of it? Temptations, twists around Truth, etc.

The devil absolutely HATES humanity! He’ll do everything and anything to destroy it. Obviously, since the devil hates God, therefore, he’s going to hate humans too (duh) and will do anything to “damage” so to speak human dignity!

The devil loves it when people get divorce, he loves it when people get killed, he loves it more when people say, “it’s my body, it’s my choice to kill this baby”, he loves it when sacrileges are commited.

Don’t you see, this is NOT what God intended! If it ain’t what God intended, it’s the devil.

It’s my job and YOURS to bring our brethren back.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Who schismed from who is irrelavant. One man thrust his spear into the ground an a schism resulted.

Luther was the spearhead of the schism, everything else afterwards is a by-product of that intial action he undertook on Oct 31, 15??

Luther started the undoing of the unity of christian faith that Jesus instituted. Luther had very good reasons for what he did, but did he do it in the correct manner?

I would encourage you read the first chapter of “Surprised By Truth 2” It’s titled “Our Mission to Convert Catholic made Us Catholic”. It’s about a woman and her husband that spent 8 years of missionary studies and preparation to go to Guatamala to convert pagan Catholics to Christianity. She was hell-bent on saving Guatamalans from their pagan beliefs. Her story tells what she found and what she learned from that experience, which forced her to search out the truth of all things biblical and spiritual.? Her story may be the most thought invoking of all the stories in the “Surprised by Truth” series.

 

[Contarini]

JoeyWarren:

Who schismed from who is irrelavant.

That is to say that truth is irrelevant.

Luther was the spearhead of the schism, everything else afterwards is a by-product of that intial action he undertook on Oct 31, 15??

That’s a bizarrely simplistic interpretation. There were a host of factors that brought about schism (never mind the fact that the East-West schism and the various schisms and conflicts of the 14-15th centuries had brought the Church’s unity and authority into serious question before Luther was even born). Scapegoating may feel good, but it is not honest or honorable or just.

And the year, BTW, is 1517.

Edwin