Was the Protestant Reformation an act of God or an Act of men?

[Protestant101]

Protestant Reformation = Protestant Revolt

Luther, Calvin and Zwingli could not keep it held together for even a decade. LOL!

Catholicism has been strong and unified for 2,000 years. Today the church is 1.2 Billion strong and makes up more than 20% of all citizens in the USA which has a high Protestant population.

Protestant churches have given us Jehovah Witnesses and the Mormons who do not teach Jesus is God but something other.

There are the Millerites and many others false teachings… so many as to not be able to count.

God did not create Protestant churches for they lack the signs of God as we see from there ever dividing and increasing diversity. If you doubt then you have not read and understood the Gospel of JOHN chapter 17.

You are really behind the times. Catholicism; especially in North America has become a house divided, on abortion, and other issues. The only difference is Catholics won’t call the differences “denominations.” They use other fancy words and terminology.

The Reformation was/is a continuation of what God had begun in human history, it was never just some new thing that someone came up with suddenly.

The OP with his “internet yelling” (large colored fonts) and the tone of his comments show just how much truth there is to his anti-Protestant rhetoric.

I would like just one Catholic to tell me specifically what they think these keys are that were given to their church. I would be willing to bet that the OP doesn’t even know and will have to look it up.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by raumzeitmc2
Re: the above quote by Luther:

“I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture.”

1 Cor. 7:1 "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. 5* Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control "

Mt. 19: "“Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife -(SINGULAR!), and the two shall become one’? * 6 So they are no longer two but one. * What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Lk. 18: " 27 But he said, “What is impossible with men is possible with God.” 28* And Peter said, “Lo, we have left our homes and followed you.” 29 And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife (SINGLE) or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, 30 who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.”

What don’t I understand? Romans Ch. 6: tells us that we are now UNDER GRACE, no-longer under The Old Law!

Love and prayers,

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Finish the quote:

Well, in retrospect, now I wish I had - but I’m glad at least you did!

But now, even if I had included more context, it wouldn’t have mattered much, since there is really little, if anything, in Luther’s letter to redeem his notions regarding the legitimacy of polygamy among Christians.

But for those who missed it, here is the Luther quote again:

“I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture.”

• Letter to Gregory Brück, (Gregor von Brück ) (1484-1557), dated January 13, 1524.

Fr. Hartmann Grisar expands on this a bit, though incorrectly giving the date as Jan. 27, 1524.

A man, who, owing to his wife s illness, was prevented from matrimonial intercourse, wished, on the strength of Carlstadt’s advice, to take a second wife. Luther thereupon wrote to Chancellor Bruck, on Jan. 27, 1524, telling him the Prince should reply as follows:

“The husband must be sure and convinced in his own conscience by means of the Word of God that it is lawful in his case. Therefore let him seek out such men as may convince him by the Word of God, whether Carlstadt [who was then in disgrace at Court], or some other, matters not at all to the Prince. For if the fellow is not sure of his case, then the permission of the Prince will not make him so; nor is it for the Prince to decide on this point, for it is the priests business to expound the Word of God, and, as Zacharias says, from their lips the Law of the Lord must be learned.

“I, for my part, admit I can raise no objection if a man wishes to take several wives since Holy Scripture does not forbid this; but I should not like to see this example introduced amongst Christians. … It does not beseem Christians to seize greedily and for their own advantage on every thing to which their freedom gives them a right. . . . No Christian surely is so God-forsaken as not to be able to practice continence when his partner, owing to the Divine dispensation, proves unfit for matrimony. Still, we may well let things take their course."

Luther, (1916), vol. 5, p. 72. archive.org/details/grisarsluther05grisuoft

Still trying to figure our what this has to do with the question.

Just this:

If the Reformation were indeed an act of God, and not of men, how explain the fact that these same men whom God allegedly called to denounce immorality in his Church, were the very ones to sanction, whether openly or in secret, blatant immortality?

For reference, below is the full text of Luther’s letter to Chancellor Bruck, all in Latin, of course (any Latinist’s here at CAF?)

***Egregio et eruditissimo Viro, D. Gregorio Brück, Doctori V. J., Cancellario Ducis Saxoniae Vinariae, suo in Domino Suspiciendo.

---

Gratia et pax.

Viro, qui secundam uxorem consilio Carlstadii petit, optime Domine Doctor, sic respondeat Princeps: Oportere ipsum maritum sua propria conscientia esse firmum ac certum per verbum Dei, sibi haec licere. Eos ergo requirat, qui verbo Dei eum tutum reddant: si is Carlstadius vel alius fuerit, nihil ad Principem. Neque enim si alioqui incertus est, per Principis consensum tutus esse poterit, cujus in hac re non sit quicquam decernere, et sacerdotum sit respondere verbum Dei, ex cujus ore requirent legem Domini, ut Zacharias dicit.

Ego sane fateor, me non posse prohibere, si quis plures velit uxores ducere, nec repugnat sacris literis: verum tamen apud Christianos id exempli nollem primo introduce, apud qnos decet etiam ea intermittere, quae licita sunt, pro vitando scandalo, et pro honestate vitae, quam ubique Paulus exigit.

Vehementer enim dedecet Christianos, summa et novissima libertatis tam anxie pro suis commodis sectari, et tamen vulgaria illa et necessaria charitatis negligere. Ideo in sermone meo nolui hanc fenestram aperire, et vix credo, sic desertum a Deo Christianum, ut non queat continere conjux divinitus impedita (?). Curiositas, metuo, in causa sit. Verum sinitote ire, quo it, forte etiam adhuc circumcidentur Orlamundae, et toti Mosaici futuri sunt.

Scripsi et antea de alio casu, *) nescio, an literas reddiderit, qui accepit. Caeterum praedicatores pro Olsnizen duos habeo. Sed unus, quem maxime vellem in hoc ministerio servire, uxorculam habet: alioquin omnibus dotibus pollet, quae evangelistam decent, modestia, eruditione, pietate, et morum honestate simul cum uxorcula insignis.

Nam plus duobus annis inculpate ac magna cum laude vivit apud nos. Is est parochus Cranachio ab Episcopo Bambergengi pulsus ob conjugium, cui tolerabilis fuisset, si scortator et adulter esse voluisset, id quod ei concessum ac permissum erat. Si is placet vel non placet, aut ferri vel non ferri potest, significari peto. Nam eum in nostris regionibus teneri velim, ut est rarus talium virorum vultus, alioqui jam extra terras alio vocatur. Vale, et Principibus me commenda.

Wittembergae MDXXIV. feria 4. post Pauli.

January 13, 1524.

T. Martinus Luther.

*) S. d. vor. Br.

A couple of primary sources:

Dr. Marin Luther’s Briefe, Sendschreiben und Bedenken, Wilhelm Martin Leberecht De Wette, G. Reimer, 1826, vol. 2, pp. 458-460.
books.google.com/books?id=5kcAAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA459&dq=%22Ego+sane+fateor,+me+non+posse+prohibere%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&ei=V7XiSb__CoqGNr3h_fwD&client=firefox

Dr. Martin Luther’s sämmtliche Werke, Briefwechsel, Ernst Ludwig Enders (1833-1906 (7?)), Calw & Stuttgart, 1891, vol. 4, pp. 282-284
books.google.com/books?id=-H0FfZEn8cQC&pg=PA283&dq=%22Ego+sane+fateor,+me+non+posse+prohibere%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&ei=urXiSb_EAYmGNPbd9aQN&client=firefox

 

[Buddicca]

I have to also add I believe it was an act of man not god.

From a historical standpoint, the participants were acting from political and personal interpretations of theology.

Henry VIII just wanted to marry Anne Boleyn - so because the Pope wouldn’t allow it he invented his own Church. "Its good to be the King! "

His own arrogance, from his earthly position on earth as King of England would not allow him to take the spiritual guidance of the Pope. So he made himself ‘Pope’ of his own religion! Needless to say he didn’t just marry Anne Boleyn but went on to marry 6 times in total! Obviously driven by lust but using the excuse of requiring an heir and the covert cover of claiming the sanctity of marriage to cover his actions.

Luther and other exponents in Europe were reacting to the political corruption of the Catholic Church at the time.

The Catholic Church was truly corrupt at the time and their claims of such were justified but does that sanctify their rebellion?

Instead of working within the church to correct the wrongs of the time - they also chose to 'start their own interpretation of religion ’ to achieve the results they wanted.

Were their intentions moral and correct? No doubt and their reasonings were true and valid but the HOW of they were going to achieve a correction to their perceived ‘wrongs’, meant they as a man decided they had to step outside the teachings of the Catholic Church to achieve it.

The Catholic Church as a functioning entity is open to corruption because it is run by man.
However, any collection of people is open to the vanities, greed and the will of the individual.

If MAN truly subscribed to the bible & the law of Christ - the world would be perfect.

But you only have to turn the TV on to see we haven’t achieved that yet.

As long as man continues to exercise free will and not submit to the will of God, acts such as the Protestant Reformation will continue to be an act of man.

Christ be with you.

 

[GKC]

I have to also add I believe it was an act of man not god.

From a historical standpoint, the participants were acting from political and personal interpretations of theology.

Henry VIII just wanted to marry Anne Boleyn - so because the Pope wouldn’t allow it he invented his own Church. "Its good to be the King! "

His own arrogance, from his earthly position on earth as King of England would not allow him to take the spiritual guidance of the Pope. So he made himself ‘Pope’ of his own religion! Needless to say he didn’t just marry Anne Boleyn but went on to marry 6 times in total! Obviously driven by lust but using the excuse of requiring an heir and the covert cover of claiming the sanctity of marriage to cover his actions.

Luther and other exponents in Europe were reacting to the political corruption of the Catholic Church at the time.

The Catholic Church was truly corrupt at the time and their claims of such were justified but does that sanctify their rebellion?

Instead of working within the church to correct the wrongs of the time - they also chose to 'start their own interpretation of religion ’ to achieve the results they wanted.

Were their intentions moral and correct? No doubt and their reasonings were true and valid but the HOW of they were going to achieve a correction to their perceived ‘wrongs’, meant they as a man decided they had to step outside the teachings of the Catholic Church to achieve it.

The Catholic Church as a functioning entity is open to corruption because it is run by man.
However, any collection of people is open to the vanities, greed and the will of the individual.

If MAN truly subscribed to the bible & the law of Christ - the world would be perfect.

But you only have to turn the TV on to see we haven’t achieved that yet.

As long as man continues to exercise free will and not submit to the will of God, acts such as the Protestant Reformation will continue to be an act of man.

Christ be with you.

Historically, your comments on Henry VIII are not accurate.

For an education on the subject, the best single book on Henry is J. J. Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII.

GKC

 

[JonNC]

Just this:

If the Reformation were indeed an act of God, and not of men, how explain the fact that these same men whom God allegedly called to denounce immorality in his Church, were the very ones to sanction, whether openly or in secret, blatant immortality?

I know you meant immorality in the bolded part.
So, let’s agree, then. The Reformation was indeed an act of sinful, immoral men, both Luther and those with him, and Leo X and those with him, as well. The corruption and immorality of the Church at Luther’s time were responded to by men who were no better.
And what do we do about it now?
Jon

 

[PJM]

=JacktheCatholic;5064708]The Protestant Reformation is evil because it rejects God. That is why the Protestant church keeps giving birth to more wicked churches that are growing further and further from God. I believe the Protestant church has a few that have men claiming to be Jesus today… further and further it grows from God.

Some say the greatest lie that Satan accomplished was to have people believe he does not exist. I disagree, I believe a greater lie of Satan’s is that of the Protestant Reformation.

Dear brother in Christ?

Hold on there brother!

Your emotions seem to be effecting your logic:blush:

First of all, Protestants DO NOT REJECT GOD!

They reject many of God’s Biblical teachings, BUT NOT GOD, and for many of them, they also believe in the Blessed TRINITY!

I know personally of no Protestant denominations that hold theologically that they themselves are gods.

New Age, LDS, Mormons yes, but none of these are Chrsitian secs!

Your comment about the “greatest lie” is your personal opinion, and your entitled to it, and to share it so long as it is clear that it is JUST your personal opinion.

Indeed, the Protestant Revolutation is a great travesty. But having shared that fact, one must acknowledge that this alone, will not keep them fron access to heaven, and that my friend in the Official teaching of OUR Roman catholic Church:thumbsup:

Your opinion is highly valued! But, please, a bit more Christian Charity, and it will be alot more believable

Love and prayers,

 

[raumzeitmc2]

First of all, Protestants DO NOT REJECT GOD!

This is quite true! Although, from the Catholic perspective, I think it fair to say that virtually all Protestants do reject His Church. But even if there are some who do not outright reject the Church, we can still say that they are not yet in, what we would call “full communion,” with it. But perhaps someday unity will be restored, and all will then find true rest and joy in the “Catholic peace”, to use St. Augustine’s wonderful phrase.

Indeed, the Protestant Revolutation is a great travesty. But having shared that fact, one must acknowledge that this alone, will not keep them fron access to heaven, and that my friend in the Official teaching of OUR Roman catholic Church:thumbsup:

I believe this is true. But here also, St. Augustine says something which all of us should be mindful of:

Section 4: Saying “Jesus is Lord” is a matter of deeds rather than words.

All the heresies, which you people also condemn of course, they all say,** Jesus is Lord**. And he’s not, of course, going to eliminate from the kingdom of heaven. And yet he did say, Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter into the kingdom of heaven (Mt. 7:21). But: nobody can say: Jesus is Lord, except in the Holy Spirit; nobody at all, evidently; but in the sense in which it was meant, that is in deeds.

Which is why the Lord went on to add, *But the one who does the will of my Father in heaven *(Mt. 7:21). The same apostle, you see, also says of some people, They claim to know the Lord, but deny it by their deeds.

Sermon 269:4:1, On the Day of Pentecost.

The works of Saint Augustine, 1994, Edmund Hill, John E. Rotelle, Augustinian Heritage Institute, Sermons 230-272B (III/7) (on the Liturgical Seasons), New City Press, ISBN-10: 1565480597 ISBN-13: 978-1565480599 pp. 282-283

books.google.com/books?id=A2GyOPOqp-4C&pg=PA283&dq=%22they+all+say,+Jesus+is+Lord.+And+he%27s+not,+of+course,+going+to+eliminate+%22&lr=

 

[raumzeitmc2]

I know you meant immorality in the bolded part.
So, let’s agree, then. The Reformation was indeed an act of sinful, immoral men, both Luther and those with him, and Leo X and those with him, as well. The corruption and immorality of the Church at Luther’s time were responded to by men who were no better.
And what do we do about it now?
Jon

Pray - a lot!

 

[JonNC]

Pray - a lot!

Indeed. And if you wish to seek the intercession of the BLessed Virgin Mary on this issue, I will not complain.

Jon

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Indeed. And if you wish to seek the intercession of the BLessed Virgin Mary on this issue, I will not complain.

Jon

May just do that, even as did Luther (in his saner moments - LOL!) when, for example, he said near the end of his Commentary on Mary’s Magnificat (Das Magnificat) of 1521:

We pray God to give us a right understanding of this Magnificat, an understanding that consists not merely in brilliant words, but I glowing life in body and soul. May Christ grant us this ***through the intercession ***and for the sake of His dear Mother Mary! Amen.

Luther’s Works, volume 21, Sermon on the Mount and the Magnificat, 1956, Jaroslav Pelikan, Concordia Publishing House, ISBN 057006421X, p. 355.

So I for one, see how in Luther, despite his (seemingly endless) cursings and ravings against “popery” as well as occasional lapses into vulgarity of speech, one may nevertheless find many things both beautiful and edifying.

And by the same token, those hostile to the Catholic faith might do well to consider these words of John Wesley:

Yet I can by no means approve the scurrility and contempt with which the Romanists have often been treated.

Letter to a Roman Catholic Priest, 1739.

wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/letters/1739.htm

books.google.com/books?client=firefox-a&lr=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&q=%22Yet+I+can+by+no+means+approve+the+scurrility+and+contempt%22&btnG=Search+Books

My point is that, while it is important, historically and ecumenically, to discuss the failings (on both sides), I believe we ought not to ever lose site of the good also!

---

On the Virgin Mary:

“I believe that He was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.”

John Wesley, Letter to a Roman Catholic, July 18, 1749 (to be distinguished from the letter to a Roman Catholic Priest, above).

wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/letters/1749b.htm

“… many wicked Christians blaspheme her or scorn to call her blessed….”

Luther, Commentary on Luke. 1:48, Luther’s Works, vol. 21, P. 324

Works of Martin Luther, Henry Eyster Jacobs, Adolph Spaeth, A.J. Holman company, 1930, vol. 3.p. 158,
books.google.com/books?id=xnxIAAAAMAAJ&q=%22many+wicked+Christians+blaspheme+her+or+scorn+to+call+her+blessed%22&dq=%22many+wicked+Christians+blaspheme+her+or+scorn+to+call+her+blessed%22&lr=&client=firefox&pgis=1

 

[Contarini]

AThe Mormons on the other hand I do not agree with you about. The LDS Church was founded by an opportunistic liar who was able to trick a lot of people - he claimed to have been visited by an angel who took him to a place where he could uncover gold tablets that held new revelations from God on them. In no way should the Mormons be believed to have resulted from Protentanism.

I think that most scholars of Mormonism (not talking about Mormon scholars here) would disagree with you. Mormonism pretty clearly arose out of the “restorationist” impulse in 19th-century American Protestantism. See for instance Nathan Hatch’s *The Democratization of American Christianity, *which lumps Mormons together with Methodists, Baptists, “Disciples of Christ” (with particularly close relations between Mormons and the latter, apparently), and African-American Protestants generally, as examples of this democratizing impulse. (Hatch is not making a theological evaluation here, but a claim about the historical impulses at work in American Protestantism.)

Edwin

P.S. Having looked at your later post, let me add that the divinity of Christ is not a “tiny” bit of Christianity. It’s kind of central. I agree entirely that Mormonism radically distorts the central claims of Christianity. That’s not the point at issue.

The relationship between Mormonism and Christianity is not like that between Buddhism and Judaism, but like that between Christianity and Judaism, or between Buddhism and Hinduism.

 

[Contarini]

The only difference is Catholics won’t call the differences “denominations.”

Because they obviously aren’t. As long as Catholics with differing views continue to worship together and operate under the same institutional umbrella, we clearly don’t have denominations by the normal definition of the word. Granted, Catholics on this forum muddy the waters by using “denomination” to mean something like “theological tradition” when talking about Protestants (so that it’s understandable that Protestants would want to apply this same definition to Catholics). I’m thinking of posts denying that “nondenominational” Protestant churches are really nondenominational.

Evangelical Protestants generally put a lot less emphasis on common worship and institutional unity than Catholics do. Therefore, these conversations tend to go past each other.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Do not call me dishonest, EVER.

Shouldn’t you care more about deserving insults than about receiving them?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Which Orthodox Church would that be? The Russian, Greek, Romanian, . . .etc.

They are in full communion with each other and agree in faith, just as the various sui juris Catholic Churches (Latin, Ruthenian, Ukranian, Melkite, Maronite, Chaldaean, etc.) do.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I already clarified that Luther claimed the Host is part bread and part Jesus, call it what you like.

Luther never said anything of the sort, any more than he said that Jesus was part divine and part human.

A lie is still a lie.

It’s a good thing that I don’t share your overly broad definition of “lie,” or I’d have used it about your statement above. But I recognize that you believed in good faith (but hopefully not with invincible ignorance) that your statement was true.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I have been off the forum for a couple of weeks, which is why I haven’t responded to this thread till now. It is of great interest to me, since I study the Reformation, and began doing so largely in order to answer the question posed by the OP. (In a paper I wrote for a historical methodology class in college, I mentioned my belief that the Reformation was the work of God as an example of a religious belief that might stand in tension with a strictly historical approach.)

The problem with the question is that characterizing any historical event (except a miracle, which in some respects is not really a historical event at all, since escapes the parameters of strictly historical methodology) as an act of God raises what I believe to be insoluble theological and philosophical questions. Isn’t God at work in all history? Aren’t all historical acts by definition human acts? I don’t know what other parameters to set for the study of history. If history doesn’t study the human, I don’t know how to be a historian.

In other words, a historical event is by definition a human act, but also (from a theistic point of view, philosophically and theologically) by definition part of God’s providential order. I would subscribe to the classical patristic/Thomist view that every good thing (i.e., every real thing) is caused by God, while every evil (i.e., every defect afflicting God’s good creation) is permitted by God. That would mean that the question "is the Reformation an act of God’ boils down to the question “was the Reformation good”? In that case, why not just use that language? Furthermore, it stands to reason that the Reformation had some good aspects (some Catholics, for instance, would suggest that the Protestant Reformation helped lead to the Council of Trent and other official Catholic reforms, which they regard as a good thing–I’m not so sure about that, but that’s another issue). It also stands to reason that some things done by Protestants in the Reformation were bad–no Protestants would deny this.

So I don’t see that the question holds together. The question derives from unfortunate Protestant triumphalist rhetoric, which I was taught growing up (hence my reference to this language in my undergraduate paper), but which really doesn’t make a lot of sense.

In the same class for which I wrote the aforementioned paper, I read for the first time C. S. Lewis’s marvelous essay on “Historicism.” I agree with what Lewis said there, and would like to hear from other posters who have read this essay. I don’t think that God’s ways in history can be discerned directly in the way that the OP implies.

Edwin

 

[PJM]

=O.S. Luke;5066189]Josie:

You’re quoting New Advent… from the turn of the 20th century. Both Catholic and Protestant historians have since realized some liberties were taken with Luther - on both sides. If you read the whole of Luther’s writings, of which I gave sources, it is clear that Luther did NOT embrace consubstantiation. If you will notice, back in the 60’s during the Lutheran-Catholic dialogue on the Eucharist, the word “consubstantiation” never occurs. Not once. (You can click here for the whole statement from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops).

Even my own Methodist/Anglican roots contain some inconsistencies about Catholicism which we now know are not true - and fall more under anti-Catholic propaganda than historical truth. Sometimes, what we were taught and what we learned was wrong.

You cannot find once where Luther ever mentioned consubstantiation, and he was well-versed with Thomistic metaphysics on the issue, and the Augsburg Confession clearly outlines the Lutheran TRUE believe on consubstantiation. It’s simply not true that Luther, or Lutherans, ever embraced what was assigned to them by Catholics (and others) as their belief on the Real Presence.

To quote scholar Salmasius (mid 1600’s): "Consubstantiation, or fusion of natures, is the commixtion of two substances as it were into one; but it is not this which the followers of Luther believe; for they maintain the co-existence of two substances distinct in two subjects. It is the co-existence, rather, of the two substances than their consubstantiation.”

Even Protestant scholars as late as the 19th century labeled the Lutheran understanding of the Real Presence incorrectly, since they (out of sacramental ignorance) thought that consubstantiation was the opposite of transubstantiation - which of course it is not. And, of course, you will still find it widespread today. But it’s simply not true.

I worked on the official statement on the Eucharist in the United Methodist Church, and one thing we learned when the first draft was constructed was that we were in error when we ascribed consubstantiation as a Lutheran belief. The official beliefs of various Lutheran synods as well as Lutheran scholars were quick to point this out.

The official statement from the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod:

The ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) also rejects the belief of consubstantiation, for similar reasons: attempts to explain in terms of philosophical metaphysics how the Eucharist “works” ar disrespectful and blasphemous against the Sacrament’s miraculous and mysterious character.

This is probably one of the most misunderstood aspects of Luther. The guy had his problems, but ascribing consubstantiation to him is simply incorrect. Not only Lutheran churches, but Luther himself flatly denied consubstantiation.

Sorry. Your confirmation classes were wrong. So were a lot of Lutheran, Methodist, and Episcopalian confirmation classes too. And so are a lot of encyclopedias out there.

O+

Dear friend in Christ,

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH.

Truth is a beautiful thing! You taught me something today:thumbsup:

Love and prayers,

 

[Protestant101]

Indeed, the Protestant Revolutation is a great travesty. But having shared that fact, one must acknowledge that this alone, will not keep them fron access to heaven, and that my friend in the Official teaching of OUR Roman catholic Church

It is sure interesting to see all the different opinions and statements here re Protestants, and The Reformation.

Some Protestants, but certainly not all, see the Reformation as a continuation of something God had started from the beginning. It is not seen as something new that just started in the 1500s. And, of course, we see it as the opposite of “travesty.” As far as I know, Protestants, so called, have been a source of great blessings for the cause of Christ in this world; and it would be almost laughable to read what some here try to do to Martin Luther, or some other poor target they have chosen, if it wasn’t for the fact that it was so abysmally set forth as “truth” that “proves” anything one way or the other about “The Reformation.”

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

The Reformation was an attempt from Luther to try and reform the Catholic church. He failed. If he was doing God’s work he wouldn’t of failed because God doesn’t fail. Imagine a man (and a Catholic monk at that) who tries to come in and say that for the first 1500 years, Christianity was wrong…give me a break…