Universal Jursidiction

[benjohnson]

The problem is that you assume you will go to Purgatory. It is very possible that if you knowingly ignore Graces to leave the Lutheran faith and enter the truth, you will go that other place.

So I am not sure we should treat it as a funny matter

If I make it to Purgatory, it will be a delight for me. Justice would requite that I go to that other place. Hopefully God will accept this sinner.

Per Catholic teaching, invincible ignorance is not just knowledge but also requires assent. While I have knowledge of Catholic teaching, and even understand some of the reasoning, I’ve never come close to assenting to those things that we differ: If I did, I’d be Catholic.

I come to understand that we should respond with serious intent in maters of faith and salvation, but I also have come to understand that for me a sens of humor allows me to proclaim the Gospel at little easier in this time and place.

 

[benjohnson]

Which teachings are you talking about? We hold the same teachings that we held at the time of the reformation.

The Catholic church has thankfully abandoned the teaching of paid-for indulgences. I’m certain this reaching never rose to doctrine, but it was what the laity was experiencing and rather than desist, the practice continued for too long.

You also haven’t answered the question. As a student, all I can do is object saying “this looks fishy”. But once the authorities take a look and decide, the matter is settled. What we see with Protestants is that instead they got together and started their own University.

Is that reasonable?

Not really from our standpoint - for us, it’s as if we kicked the lesser teachers out of the university and retained the good. And then continued forward.

 

[Fevronia]

The Catholic church has thankfully abandoned the teaching of paid-for indulgences. I’m certain this reaching never rose to doctrine, but it was what the laity was experiencing and rather than desist, the practice continued for too long.

Ok, for a second I thought you were joking. Can you point to me a single decree on paid for indulgences? You know, something from the penitentiary of the Catholic Church if you will?

I will help you out here. There are none. So what I am hearing here is Luther and his friends left the church to found a new one over an issue that did not exist

So the right thing to have done was to stay inside the Church and complain. Instead, Luther wanted to try out his luck. He not only spoke against the PRACTICE of Indulgences, he invented and disregarded actual TEACHING of the Church.

Can you explain to me how and why you thought he was worth listening to over all the top authorities of Christianity in the Church?

Not really from our standpoint - for us, it’s as if we kicked the lesser teachers out of the university and retained the good. And then continued forward.

Oh I agree with you. Luther kicked out all the Professors and decided to proclaim himself Dean and run the University. Then he hired some guys like Calvin and co to fix up his jumbled up mess in to something coherent.

This still doesn’t explain why anyone would listen to Luther.

Do you think its reasonable if a University student did that at a University? i.e. he kicks out the instructors and dean and proclaims himself the dean and change what is taught? Or perhaps even get rid of the whole hierarchy and just say anyone who has a text book is now a valid instructor?

Imagine what will happen to the field? My guess is that it will break up in to 10K+ pieces before long with everyone having a different idea of what to teach. OH WAIT…

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Catholic church has thankfully abandoned the teaching of paid-for indulgences. I’m certain this reaching never rose to doctrine, but it was what the laity was experiencing and rather than desist, the practice continued for too long.

Not really from our standpoint - for us, it’s as if we kicked the lesser teachers out of the university and retained the good. And then continued forward.

But, Ben, be honest.

There are now a couple of universities and a bunch of Bible colleges instead of the one School of Christ that was chartered by Jesus.

 

[Fevronia]

If I make it to Purgatory, it will be a delight for me. Justice would requite that I go to that other place. Hopefully God will accept this sinner.

Per Catholic teaching, invincible ignorance is not just knowledge but also requires assent. While I have knowledge of Catholic teaching, and even understand some of the reasoning, I’ve never come close to assenting to those things that we differ: If I did, I’d be Catholic.

I come to understand that we should respond with serious intent in maters of faith and salvation, but I also have come to understand that for me a sens of humor allows me to proclaim the Gospel at little easier in this time and place.

I was kidding about the humor part

On the issue of ignorance, if you strongly hold to error without a reason to do so, which I have repeatedly pointed out to you that you lack, then you are most likely not qualified for invincible ignorance. So you have to do some soul searching and ask yourself of how certain you are that Luther got his stuff right… considering he was the equivalent of a University freshman who thew out all the instructors because he didn’t like some practices and also condemned teachings too that had been around for more than a millennium.

People like St. Thomas Aquinas, who Luther cannot hold a candle to, didn’t have a problem with any of the teaching of the Church. But Luther, the great freshman student was the man who knew it all. Is that even possible?

 

[JonNC]

Which teachings are you talking about? We hold the same teachings that we held at the time of the reformation.

You also haven’t answered the question. As a student, all I can do is object saying “this looks fishy”. But once the authorities take a look and decide, the matter is settled. What we see with Protestants is that instead they got together and started their own University.

Is that reasonable?

Trying to follow the analogy here.

**As a student, all I can do is object saying “this looks fishy”. **
Precisely what the 95 Theses were.

** But once the authorities take a look and decide, the matter is settled. What we see with Protestants is that instead they got together and started their own University. **
The way they settled the matter was to kick the student out of the university.

Which protestants “got together”?

Jon

 

[Fevronia]

Trying to follow the analogy here.

**As a student, all I can do is object saying “this looks fishy”. **
Precisely what the 95 Theses were.

** But once the authorities take a look and decide, the matter is settled. What we see with Protestants is that instead they got together and started their own University. **
The way they settled the matter was to kick the student out of the university.

Which protestants “got together”?

Jon

They condemned the propositions that the Protestants held. So which means, in any academic field, that you relinquish them as errors as then keep going on with what was decided as as true.

When a student says that his Professors taught error, to continue to insist that is is error after the University itself had investigated the matter and pronounced the student to be wrong is illogical. That will be for the freshman to raise himself above everyone else when he doesn’t even have a certificate authorizing him to teach in anyway even close to that manner.

So Luther should have rescinded his errors because that is all he could do after the Church pronounced his errors. Anything of the sort of obstinately holding on to them is logically invalid as you can see with the above example. Luther must admit that he simply doesn’t know better as a freshman student. Instead, he started his own University and many followers joined him

 

[JonNC]

They condemned the propositions that the Protestants held. So which means, in any academic field, that you relinquish them as errors as then keep going on with what was decided as as true.

So Luther should have rescinded his errors because that is all he could do. Anything of the sort of obstinately holding on to them is logically invalid as you can see with the above example. Luther must admit that he simply doesn’t know better as a freshman student. Instead, he started his own University and many followers joined him

The problem was they wouldn’t tell him which were and weren’t errors. And some of the “errors” were later confirmed by the Catholic Church.
And he saw first-hand the corruption and abuses, saw how these abuses hurt common folk. Tetzel may not have been doctrinally sound, but he represented the Church.

Jon

 

[Fevronia]

The problem was they wouldn’t tell him which were and weren’t errors. And some of the “errors” were later confirmed by the Catholic Church.
And he saw first-hand the corruption and abuses, saw how these abuses hurt common folk. Tetzel may not have been doctrinally sound, but he represented the Church.

Jon

Look, the bottom line here is even if the University was late in its conclusions, it still doesn’t give Luther the right to go and start his own gig. That is the problem here.

Luther has no choice but to wait for the Church to decide. I am also unaware of any doctrinal changes due to Luther. Council of Trent, as far as I can see, pretty clearly condemned Luther’s errors but he still refused to rescind these errors.

 

[JonNC]

=Fevronia;11222106]Look, the bottom line here is even if the University was late in its conclusions, it still doesn’t give Luther the right to go and start his own gig. That is the problem here.

No. That’s a simplified caricature of the problem. It is far more complex than an Augustinian friar starting “his own gig.” There’s politics - Church and state - involved, and many other things that can’t be boiled down to this.

Luther has no choice but to wait for the Church to decide. I am also unaware of any doctrinal changes due to Luther. Council of Trent, as far as I can see, pretty clearly condemned Luther’s errors but he still refused to rescind these errors.

Certainly there were changes in practices, due at least in part to Luther.
The Council of Trent is irrelevant for Luther, as he did not live to see it.

Jon

 

[Fevronia]

No. That’s a simplified caricature of the problem. It is far more complex than an Augustinian friar starting “his own gig.” There’s politics - Church and state - involved, and many other things that can’t be boiled down to this.

The complications are the problem itself and the politics. But the fact that what happened was a freshman who left University and started his own gig is the actual result that took place. The Freshman might have been abused, maybe beaten, flogged, but that doesn’t change the fact that what he then went and did was unreasonable.

Certainly there were changes in practices, due at least in part to Luther.
The Council of Trent is irrelevant for Luther, as he did not live to see it.

Jon

Then what was he even doing outside the Church? More importantly, why did he go and gather followers BEFORE the Church had given a word regarding his positions?

More importantly, what authority did he have to do so as a freshman student?

I think the matter is quiet simple but people get bogged down on the actual problems Luther was complaining. What people need to do is understand what happened. Luther went and created his own gig. And today, just like Luther, his followers keep doing the same thing.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Trying to follow the analogy here.

**As a student, all I can do is object saying “this looks fishy”. **
Precisely what the 95 Theses were.

** But once the authorities take a look and decide, the matter is settled. What we see with Protestants is that instead they got together and started their own University. **
The way they settled the matter was to kick the student out of the university.

Which protestants “got together”?

Jon

Jon-

Luther had some valid points, and changes were both necessary and made. However, Luther got himself kicked out by his inability to get along with the administration, and then he compounded the problem by taken a bunch of other students with him. In turn, some of them went off on their own, and so on and so on.

The problem, IMO, is that he changed the curriculum and started teaching theological novelties while omitting other doctrines long-held by the faculty.

Sola fide? At best, this is a poorly expressed form of sound Catholic soteriology; at worst, it is utter nonsense. Sola scriptura? The fathers knew nothing of it. Two sacraments? No, Jesus instituted seven.

I’m just curious…of the original 95 theses nailed to the door at Wittenburg, how many of them would make the list if Luther compiled it today?

 

[JonNC]

=Fevronia;11222164]The complications are the problem itself and the politics. But the fact that what happened was a freshman who left University and started his own gig is the actual result that took place. The Freshman might have been abused, maybe beaten, flogged, but that doesn’t change the fact that what he then went and did was unreasonable.

By any measure, he was a professor, even in the analogy.

Then what was he even doing outside the Church? More importantly, why did he go and gather followers BEFORE the Church had given a word regarding his positions?

Just as your comment about Trent, I think here you have your timeline a bit off.

More importantly, what authority did he have to do so as a freshman student?

I think the matter is quiet simple but people get bogged down on the actual problems Luther was complaining. What people need to do is understand what happened. Luther went and created his own gig. And today, just like Luther, his followers keep doing the same thing.

As a priest, and professor with a doctorate, it was his obligation to spur debate and conversation about things of the Church. That was his authority. That is what the 95 Theses were all about. Not division, not schism. Debate about abuses throughout the Church in that part of Europe at that time, as well as in Rome.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Randy Carson;11222173]Jon-

Luther had some valid points, and changes were both necessary and made. However, Luther got himself kicked out by his inability to get along with the administration, and then he compounded the problem by taken a bunch of other students with him. In turn, some of them went off on their own, and so on and so on.

In short, he was hurting the “university presidents” revenue stream for building a “new office building”. (I hate analogies. )

The problem, IMO, is that he changed the curriculum and started teaching theological novelties while omitting other doctrines long-held by the faculty.

Sola fide? At best, this is a poorly expressed form of sound Catholic soteriology; at worst, it is utter nonsense. Sola scriptura? The fathers knew nothing of it. Two sacraments? No, Jesus instituted seven.

His contention, right or wrong, was that sola fide was and is the early Church’s teaching.
Sola scriptura comes about after his excommunication. Don’t read too much into the sacraments thing. Holy Absolution is considered by many (like me) to be a sacrament. Lutherans still practice confirmation, ordination, marriage, and anointing.

I’m just curious…of the original 95 theses nailed to the door at Wittenburg, how many of them would make the list if Luther compiled it today?

Not many, I suspect.

Jon

 

[Fevronia]

By any measure, he was a professor, even in the analogy.

I do not think you understand how a field of knowledge works. In Christianity, the priests had no teaching authority. The Bishops did. So Luther for all purposes was someone who just passed down the teaching already defined i.e. A high school teacher would be the best analogy.

So who would then go on to listen to the high school physics teacher who rebelled against the entire body of Physicist and said he is right over all of them?

Just as your comment about Trent, I think here you have your timeline a bit off.

The fact is, the timeline is completely irrelevant. Luther had to wait or die waiting. He had no other choice of the sort he took.

As a priest, and professor with a doctorate, it was his obligation to spur debate and conversation about things of the Church. That was his authority. That is what the 95 Theses were all about. Not division, not schism. Debate about abuses throughout the Church in that part of Europe at that time, as well as in Rome.

Wrong. As a priest, he was not authorized to define doctrine. He had no such authority. The fact that Protestants later rejected the authority of the Bishop is a different matter. But it doesn’t change the fact that at the time of Luther, the priest did not have an authority to teach in sense of how Luther did.

Even then, Luther was still under the teaching authority of the Bishops and the Church. So Luther had no choice. Even if he was a professor (just for fun), when the other Professors and experts authorities judge him wrong, he should rescind. This is what happens even in academia.

You cannot just keep saying what you want to say because you think it is right when everyone rejects you. When a paper is rejected, it is rejected. You cannot just blame the referees and go and start your own conference. That would lead to academic anarchy which is unsurprisingly what happened to Protestants.

 

[Novocastrian]

I was kidding about the humor part

On the issue of ignorance, if you strongly hold to error without a reason to do so, which I have repeatedly pointed out to you that you lack, then you are most likely not qualified for invincible ignorance. So you have to do some soul searching and ask yourself of how certain you are that Luther got his stuff right… considering he was the equivalent of a University freshman who thew out all the instructors because he didn’t like some practices and also condemned teachings too that had been around for more than a millennium.

People like St. Thomas Aquinas, who Luther cannot hold a candle to, didn’t have a problem with any of the teaching of the Church. But Luther, the great freshman student was the man who knew it all. Is that even possible?

This is the same Aquinas who would now be anathematized for explicitly denying what is now the Roman dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Fevronia]

This is the same Aquinas who would now be anathematized for explicitly denying what is now the Roman dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Actually he would not be. At the time of Aquinas, the Dogma was not defined so Aquinas had room to ponder on the question and give his opinion. Once the Dogma is defined, Aquinas will fully assent.

Aquinas did defend the authority of the Church so there is no need for us to speculate he would go against it today.

 

[Novocastrian]

Actually he would not be. At the time of Aquinas, the Dogma was not defined so Aquinas had room to ponder on the question and give his opinion. Once the Dogma is defined, Aquinas will fully assent.

Aquinas did defend the authority of the Church so there is no need for us to speculate he would go against it today.

That is your hypothesis. I don’t think we can be so sure.

 

[Fevronia]

That is your hypothesis. I don’t think we can be so sure.

Well we can be sure that he defended the authority of the Catholic Church. So the rest is speculation either way.

What we can speak of is what the Saint did do. To that end, he did not teach anything contrary to the Church and in fact made sure he did not do so. He gave his best guess at the Immaculate Conception among all of this but that is ok because it was not Dogma at the time and the doctrine had not been defined properly as well.

What we can know for sure is that the Immaculate Conception was a belief present in tradition as far back as the time of St. Thomas as well. Otherwise he wouldn’t take up such a question.

 

[Novocastrian]

Well we can be sure that he defended the authority of the Catholic Church. So the rest is speculation either way.

What we can speak of is what the Saint did do. To that end, he did not teach anything contrary to the Church and in fact made sure he did not do so. He gave his best guess at the Immaculate Conception among all of this but that is ok because it was not Dogma at the time and the doctrine had not been defined properly as well.

What we can know for sure is that the Immaculate Conception was a belief present in tradition as far back as the time of St. Thomas as well. Otherwise he wouldn’t take up such a question.

Well yes, but to deny it! The fact is that a great doctor denies what is now a dogma to be held de fide. If only an Infallible Pontiff had got round to defining it in the first 1850 years of Christianity…