Was the reformation bound to happen ?

[roselily]

I do not know many things.

Yes, it is most wrongs when people do it without knowing it is wrong-- it is that-
Then Jesus said, 'Father forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.–Luke 23:34


It is today is the the feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and Canada day.
-as is my grandmother left this world on July 1,

**Invocation to the Sacred Heart

“O Heart of love, I put all my trust in Thee; for I fear all things from my own weakness, but I hope for all things from Thy goodness. Amen.”**

I read that This prayer to the Sacred Heart of Jesus was written by Saint Margaret Mary Alocoque, whose visions of Jesus Christ in the late 17th century are the source of the Feast of the Sacred Heart.

May God guide His children and bless His children. That we maybe all in one, in Christ- through Christ-United with Christ-

**Prayer to the Sacred Heart

“Hail! O Sacred Heart of Jesus, living and quickening source of eternal life, infinite treasure of the Divinity, and burning furnace of divine love. Thou art my refuge and my sanctuary, O my amiable Savior. Consume my heart with that burning fire with which Thine is ever inflamed. Pour down on my soul those graces which flow from Thy love, and let my heart be so united with Thine, that our wills may be one, and mine in all things, be conformed to Thine. May Thy divine will be equally the standard and rule of all my desires and of all my actions. Amen.”**

 

[guanophore]

Well, a lot of it comes down to whether or not you believe that concupiscence is sinful. Many Protestants do.

You are absolutely right on both counts, jnpl.

This is one of the points that make them “separated brethren”. This conception of human nature represents a significant departure from the Apostolic faith. The Apostles taught that concupiscence is a consequence of sin, but not sin of itself. These concepts were changed through the Reformation, and the results have drawn many Protestants furher away from the Apostolic faith. The other piece that goes with it, and is inseparably related, is what Jesus’ deliverance from sin really means. The Apostles taught that we are delivered from sin, fully and completely, even now, and can live in holiness by His grace. Though tempted to sin, we are no longer compelled to sin, since we are no longer slaves to sin.

It is also a misconception that Luther did not think there was free will in any shape (see the Augsburg Confession and On the Bondage of the Will), but that our capacity to do good on our own without God is non-existent. This RCs believe as well as I understand it–we are dependent on God’s infusion of grace in our acts to make them holy in his sight.

Yes. Although the Joint Declaration does not amend all of our division, in this point it brings us together completely. But this is also a point of separation with our Reformed brethren, who have another view that departs from the Apostolic Faith.

For ML, real sanctity does not come in this life but seemingly (this is not 100% clear from his writings, from what I have read) at the instant of justification. This does not necessarily mean we will not be held accountable for our sins.

I am not sure what this statement means, but exploring it is also outside the scope of this thread. Real sanctity can, and does, come in this life. He certainly affirmed this in the case of the Virgin.

Also, certainly we can avoid sin as Lutherans–at least some sins. Luther’s “sin boldly” comment has to be taken in context and with an understanding of his tendency to exaggerate for effect. The point of this was that Faith is what ultimately justifies. Not that we can do whatever we want, as there are many passages where Luther laments the sinfulness of those around him after the break from the Church.

Yes. Like the Scriptures, and the writings of the Fathers, Luther’s comments are taken out of context as well. He did seem to have a penchant for hyperbole.

Is sanctity possible for Luther? Not without God’s grace. But this is nothing new to Catholics. Lutherans should do everything they can to come into a fuller, more living faith by good works, and this living faith is reckoned as righteousness by God, as Abraham’s faith was as well.

Yes. So far as I can tell from my Lutheran brethren here, and my read of the Lutheran Catechism and the Augsburg confession, the understanding that we are called to holiness, called to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and that our faith is completed/perfected by our works is quite Catholic.

Some of my Reformed brethren have told me that Luther was “too long contaminated by the Catholic Church” and did not push reform far enough, and that is why he still clung to these erroneous notions.

It is also the case for Luther, however, that some sins may be committed even without our knowing because concupiscence and the devil are sneaky. So to consider ourselves Holy by our acts is sheer arrogance in his view, because sometimes you don’t even know what evils you are harbouring in your own heart. So in this sense, maybe it is “necessary” to sin, but not in the sense I fear you are implying, which is that we are free to commit the sins which we *could *have prevented.

Yes. We do fall short. And this is also the critical distinction between mortal and venial sins.

Luke 12:46-48
the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will punish him, and put him with the unfaithful. 47 And that servant who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating. 48 But** he who did not know**, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.

All wrongdoing is sin, but when one misses the mark in ignorance, the culpability is not as great. It is not clear to me if Luther ended up considering all sins on the same level, or not.

 

[guanophore]

But what I am saying is was he not out of communion with the CC? Gal: 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other then the one that we preached to you, let him be accursed!

Yes, he was out of communion, and he did embrace (created) a gospel that was other than what we received. But he was not “thrown out”. He excommunicated himself when he embraced heresies.

 

[guanophore]

The whole “pope of their own” idea is silly. You can’t read how Lutherans understand the ecclesiastical community and say that - they clearly moved away from the whole idea of an individual leader, at least theoretically.

I agree. I think, though, that the practice of SS has caused this phenomenon to proliferate among those who have abandoned confessional structures of the faith. There are many “bible christians” who believe they don’t need any creeds, confessions, authority structures, etc. “Just me and Jesus”.

Frankly, I think the CC is the one that came up with the whole idea of an individual being able to make decisions for the Church as a whole, which the Reformers were ultimately not able to overcome.

What if Jesus really did appoint a chief steward, and this is how He intended for the Church to function?

It seems clear, though, that Peter never made decisions apart from the rest of the Apostolic college, and that the successors of the Apostles did not either. If there is a Prime Minister appointed by Christ, then his duty is to serve the flock of God on behalf of the Shepherd, and that in doing so, he might make decisions for the Church as a whole (such as not requiring circumcision) but that this would always be done in unity with appointed authority.

Acts 15:6-11

6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days **God made choice among you, that by my mouth **the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

Acts 15:22

22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them…
Acts 15:28
28 For it has seemed good **to the Holy Spirit and to us **…

 

[guanophore]

A more accurate statement would be that Luther didn’t think that **complete **sanctity was possible in this life. And one could base this understanding on scripture - “None is righteous, no not one.” “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”

But that is not to say that we are not expected to endeavor in every way throughout our lives to conform ourselves to Him, to grow in grace (work out our salvation in fear and trembling), with the help of the Holy Spirit, and the means of grace He provides us. Sanctification is completed in the regenerate at the moment of death (a moment of purgation, if you will), at which time we join His saints in Heaven.

It might not be necessary to sin, but it is certainly a reality that we do.

Jon

Thanks Jon. Yes ,that is a more accurate way to state this. I think the corruption occurs when, the reality of sin exists, that is equated to the “necessity”.

 

[guanophore]

There is no doubt that the Catholic Church cleaned up it’s act.

at the same time …
Pope Benedict’s high praise of Protestant contributions to Christ’s work on earth, quoted above, seems to run counter to your assessment of those who are not Catholic.

I agree one voice. To compare the work of the HS among our separated brethren and their ecclesial communities to “devils” is a gross misrepresentation.

 

[TinaG]

Yes, he was out of communion, and he did embrace (created) a gospel that was other than what we received. But he was not “thrown out”. He excommunicated himself when he embraced heresies.

This addresses a point I was attempting to make (with dubious success).

At what point did he become a heretic in Catholic eyes? I don’t think he woke up one morning and said, hey, I think I will become a heretic today and stand against everything the church has always taught. I think he viewed what he taught as in line with what Augustine, the Bible and the early church fathers taught - what I think Catholics refer to as the apostolic deposit of faith. But he did not officially become a heretic until when? When he sacrificed the papal bull as a burnt offering (by this I mean he burned Leo’s letter, I could not resist this amusing turn of phrase)? He felt he had to teach the truth over and against what the Church taught - Here I stand, and all that. Was THAT the point where he was declared a heretic? Or only at Trent? Or later?

Some statements seem to suggest that Luther was deemed a heretic, but Lutheran justification has NOT been condemned as heretical - the man was a heretic, but what he taught was not heresy. Is THAT what you are saying? Help me out here.

-Tina “Confusion is My Watchword!” G

 

[guanophore]

This addresses a point I was attempting to make (with dubious success).

At what point did he become a heretic in Catholic eyes? I don’t think he woke up one morning and said, hey, I think I will become a heretic today and stand against everything the church has always taught.

This is a very good question. Formally, this recognition was contained in th ebull of excommunication, but that was quite some time after he embraced heretical beliefs.

I agree, Luther never intended to separate himself from the Apostolic Faith. In his mind, he was finding his way back to it, after it had become obscured by wolves among the sheep. It was also a gradual departure, that gained momentum as his attempts to discuss his ideas and be heard by authorities were consistently rebuffed.

He also never stood "against everything the Church has always taught. He kept a large majority of Catholic teaching, which is one reson he was criticized by other REformers for not going far enough.

Augustine, the Bible and the early church fathers taught - what I think Catholics refer to as the apostolic deposit of faith. But he did not officially become a heretic until when?

When he basically announced that the apostolic deposit of faith was no longer preserved infallibly by the HS within the Church.

When he sacrificed the papal bull as a burnt offering (by this I mean he burned Leo’s letter, I could not resist this amusing turn of phrase)?

That was certainly a risky and popular reaction to the bull.

He felt he had to teach the truth over and against what the Church taught - Here I stand, and all that. Was THAT the point where he was declared a heretic? Or only at Trent? Or later?

Luther did not have issues with the teachings of the Church. He had issues with the wolves among the sheep that were not accurately representing the once for all divine deposit of faith.

Some statements seem to suggest that Luther was deemed a heretic, but Lutheran justification has NOT been condemned as heretical - the man was a heretic, but what he taught was not heresy. Is THAT what you are saying? Help me out here.

-Tina “Confusion is My Watchword!” G

Not everything he taught was heretical, by any means. Just enough important parts to separate him. At the time, I think his perspective on justification was thrown under the bus with the rest of his ideas, but recently there has been a formal acceptance that the Church and Luther did not have a dispute on this point, though it seems clear that the official teaching of the Church is not what was being represented in Luther’s neck of the woods.

 

[TinaG]

Not everything he taught was heretical, by any means. Just enough important parts to separate him. At the time, I think his perspective on justification was thrown under the bus with the rest of his ideas, but recently there has been a formal acceptance that the Church and Luther did not have a dispute on this point, though it seems clear that the official teaching of the Church is not what was being represented in Luther’s neck of the woods.

So…His views on justification were judged as heretical then, because they contradicted the apostolic deposit, but now they are in conformity with Catholic doctrine, because they agree with the apostolic deposit? Why the change? Or do you maintain that they are consistent positions - somehow what the Church taught then about Luther is the same as what it teaches now about Luther? He was condemned as a heretic for holding a position then that is now consistent with the teaching that the Church has always taught?

-Tina “Unclear on This Point” G

 

[hn160]

Yes, he was out of communion, and he did embrace (created) a gospel that was other than what we received. But he was not “thrown out”. He excommunicated himself when he embraced heresies.

I beg to differ, Luther did not create or embrace a different, Luther preached the pure gospel. Show me where his gospel was any different as given by Christ and the Holy Spirit.

 

[pablope]

I beg to differ, Luther did not create or embrace a different, Luther preached the pure gospel. Show me where his gospel was any different as given by Christ and the Holy Spirit.

For starters…The Sacraments…went from 7(originally) to 2 (or three?)

 

[Stepson]

So…His views on justification were judged as heretical then, because they contradicted the apostolic deposit, but now they are in conformity with Catholic doctrine, because they agree with the apostolic deposit? Why the change? Or do you maintain that they are consistent positions - somehow what the Church taught then about Luther is the same as what it teaches now about Luther? He was condemned as a heretic for holding a position then that is now consistent with the teaching that the Church has always taught?

-Tina “Unclear on This Point” G

Side note…I love your signatures. They are almost as entertaining as this discussion!

 

[guanophore]

So…His views on justification were judged as heretical then, because they contradicted the apostolic deposit, but now they are in conformity with Catholic doctrine, because they agree with the apostolic deposit? Why the change? Or do you maintain that they are consistent positions - somehow what the Church taught then about Luther is the same as what it teaches now about Luther? He was condemned as a heretic for holding a position then that is now consistent with the teaching that the Church has always taught?

-Tina “Unclear on This Point” G

The condemnation had to do with his rejection of the Apostolic Succession and the role of the see of St. Peter, and the authority of the Bishops. The invention of Sola Scriptura was the biggest problem, both then, and now.

As with the schism between the East and West, there was much misunderstanding and prejudice which caused separation. In recent years, both sides have been striving to find commonality in the doctrines that were passed down from the Apostles, and that which has been retained by Lutherans.

The Catholic Church is not at liberty to add to the once for all divine deposit of faith that has been entrusted to the Church. Luther added and subtracted. That separated him from the faith that was passed down to us from the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

I beg to differ, Luther did not create or embrace a different, Luther preached the pure gospel. Show me where his gospel was any different as given by Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Well, of course you have to disagree! If not, you would have to be Catholic.

The Apostles did not believe or practice Sola Scriptura.

The Apostles taught that the office of bishop does not sanctify the person occupying it. But that the corruption of an individual does not corrupt the office itself. A bishopric is still a noble aspiration, even if a person aspires to it for selfish and ungodly reasons.

Jesus put into place an authority structure. Luther rejected what Jesus put in place, because the individuals occupying the positions of authority in his time did not appear Holy to him.

 

[KathleenGee]

And there are two great tragedies:…the loss of the Eucharist and the misuse and fragmentation of the Word of God…instead of being used to help us grow in sanctity is used to malign Catholics as not Christian or making up ‘stuff’ because it is a man made religion.

The Church was also slow in responding to the people of the Holy Land…it took 400 years to muster a military to go in to give pilgrims and deliver natives there from Muslim persecution.

When the Protestant and Catholic divisions drew on military power to fight, the killing pretty much destroyed any unity that was left. All in the name of God.

Military wars done in the name of Christ do not bear much fruit but scandal.

 

[TinaG]

Side note…I love your signatures. They are almost as entertaining as this discussion!

Thank you.

-Tina “No Comment” G

 

[TinaG]

The condemnation had to do with his rejection of the Apostolic Succession and the role of the see of St. Peter, and the authority of the Bishops. The invention of Sola Scriptura was the biggest problem, both then, and now.

Of course I beg to disagree regarding Sola Scriptura (I think there has been a thread or two on that subject - as an invention and as a problem. One HUGE problem historically is a lack of effectively teaching that Deposit to the people - an example today is the local DRE who denies we can know what the “Jesus events” were - including little things such as the resurrection and teaches modalism regarding the Trinity - as well as being very liberal. A friend of mine showed me the Islamic prayer guide he was teaching people in RCIA. My friend even complained to the bishop. Nothing was done.

As with the schism between the East and West, there was much misunderstanding and prejudice which caused separation. In recent years, both sides have been striving to find commonality in the doctrines that were passed down from the Apostles, and that which has been retained by Lutherans.

The Catholic Church is not at liberty to add to the once for all divine deposit of faith that has been entrusted to the Church. Luther added and subtracted. That separated him from the faith that was passed down to us from the Apostles.

The biggest problem today (see above) is the infiltration of non-deposit teaching into the tradition, and laity equating tradition with Tradition. Sola Scriptura solves that problem very effectively. I am very suspicious of eisegesis of Catholic claims concerning Scripture that seem to be a huge stretch to prove, yet might actually be true (here we can drag in Mary’s perpetual virginity, which can be allowed- as a stretch- but is not outright eliminated or explicitly stated in Scripture).

There is a lot of prejudice. One thing that has surprised me since coming onto CAF is the amount of prejudice I have against the Catholic Church. At the same time it is not what I thought it was, and I am not sure of what it is. Somehow we should work toward unity, but that unity cannot be a betrayal of the integrity of our walk with Christ.

One thing I think we can agree on is that the bishops have really messed things up.

-Tina “Also Displaying a Talent for Really Messing Things Up” G

 

[KathleenGee]

There is such a thing as ecclesial traditions vs the Tradition of faith transmitted and given us by the Holy Spirit.

The problem people have is as Guanaphore had said previously …there were some missives in communications perceived as sleights…either because of timing when the communication arrived, or an advisor on either side giving their spin on the matter.

Studying objective Church history and reflections on the times is a great help.

My daughter married an evangelical Christian who went to a Baptist college in the South. His mother is Four Square. When she first came to our house, she winced at the picture of Jesus over our fireplace, and our statue of our Lady of Grace in the dining area. In some ways, we both have the same perspective of Christ. Two times she prayed with me, but began to renounce man made religion …this ‘demon of religion’…and after that I could not pray with her.

Jesus intended to have the rock of Peter and His apostles as co-founders of His Church. The episcopal manner of administration, the liturgy centered on the Eucharistic Lord, the Apostles Creed in place and practice throughout the early Christian world by 100 AD…and the work that took up to 300 plus years to put the Bible together…took the work of many people and many years with preserving the truth of Jesus Christ as their main and enduring objective.

So to break from this 1,500 year old tradition in the time preceding the Reformation and the Church’s response to it was reflecting of the great damage that would come to Christianity through Sola Scriptura. St. Peter warned us not to draw on the Word through personal interpretation because this would lead to error and fracturing of our common unity.

The Council of Trent reformed areas of papal governing. The Seat of Peter always has existed, in spite of corruption of some popes. People are stuck on some excess of practices going way back to that time.

And Luther, himself over penitent, forgot the other side to indulgences…Church structured penances to draw a person into a practice of self-denial and greater conversion and unity with God. So he was not being totally honest either in condemning the use of indulgences…which were never outlawed and are in use today.

Anglican and Episcopalian priests who return to Rome do so because they want to teach definitively and with authority that can only come from the successor to the Apostles and the laying on of hands that then facilitates them to be the instruments of the Holy Spirit at the Epiclesis to change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

The protestant denominations can not provide me the authority that comes from the Keys to the Blood of Christ, the communion of all believers represented in the position of the Holy Father, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity – the very person of God Himself – present in our tabernacles, and learning the Word of God in context to to its whole and salvation history of Peoples…not a book.

That is enough for me to stay in my Church irregardless of the wolves in sheep clothing. We are always provided with authentic pastors who nurture and guide us to Jesus Christ with sound and thorough teachings.

 

[JonNC]

For starters…The Sacraments…went from 7(originally) to 2 (or three?)

The confessions make no specific statement on the number of sacraments, and neither do the Orthodox for that matter. In general terms we recognize, as you say, 2 or 3 as fitting the Lutheran definition of sacrament, but that is not to say that we exclude the importance of the other 4. We dilligently practice and employ marriage, ordination, confirmation, and annointing is also available. I don’t believe one would find that Lutherans would consider the numbering of sacraments as Church - dividing. Other Lutherans may have differing views.

Jon

 

[TinaG]

The confessions make no specific statement on the number of sacraments, and neither do the Orthodox for that matter. In general terms we recognize, as you say, 2 or 3 as fitting the Lutheran definition of sacrament, but that is not to say that we exclude the importance of the other 4. We dilligently practice and employ marriage, ordination, confirmation, and annointing is also available. I don’t believe one would find that Lutherans would consider the numbering of sacraments as Church - dividing. Other Lutherans may have differing views.

Jon

In contrast, we (Presbyterians) count two sacraments as specifically commanded by Christ: baptism and communion, sometimes referred to as ordnances. We also have marriage, confirmation, anointing, and ordination but do not consider them to be in the same category. Jon, I believe you left out confession as practiced by Lutherans. Presbyterians confess sins to each other sometimes as warranted, usually in a counseling situation or as part of an apology, but not in the Catholic confessional system.
James commands us to “confess sins one to another, so that you may be healed” but there is no indication that this is mandated to be to priests.

-Tina “A Confessing Presbyterian” G