D
distracted
Guest
he threw himself out… as ALL excommunicted persons do…
We Catholics Are Dead Sure The Church Is The One Church Of Christ And That All Others Are Mistaken
- Status
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/06/luthers-deathbed-re-conversion-to-roman.html
Now, had he lived until Trent, well we’ll never know.
Jon
M
motstraumen
Guest
Jerome and Chrystostom were the church fathers who called Junia an apostle. I believe they are clearly recognized in the Roman Church as having some authority, but maybe not by mr. Distracted? If that makes your church Man-made, so be it. I agree with you the Roman Church did come before Luther, he sought only to bring it back from the man-made errors that it had fallen into. Trent agreed on some of these points, as did Vatican II. What is clear-cut to you is not so in your own church. So distracted, you are distracted. You can feel all you want about what Lutherans want to do, that doesn’t make you right. But I will admit, just as some (not you btw) on here have changed my mind on some misconceptions I have held about the Roman Church, we also seek to do the same. Guess what, that is what DIALOGUE is all about. And another by the way, your authority, your Bishops and your Pope seek this dialogue. Are you out of step with those in whom you are to be obedient?
H
Hesychios
Guest
There was no fleshed out doctrine of purging in the early church.
We don’t really know much of anything about it for certain, not enough to theoretically systematize it.
The ways of God are mysterious.
H
hansard
Guest
Luther had no interest in establishing a rival church. He was a dedicated, repentant man in his youth. He just saw some things that the Catholic church needed to fix or address(and none of them were unfixable or unaddressable).
Having read the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification and the various motions and discussions attached to it, I feel that the divide between Catholics and Lutherans will diminish further over the next century or so.
Having read the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification and the various motions and discussions attached to it, I feel that the divide between Catholics and Lutherans will diminish further over the next century or so.
O
OneTrueCathApos
Guest
Luther had every intention in establishing a “division” among the Catholic church. That is why he threw out books from the original bible because they were not to his liking…he only believed what he wanted to believe and wanted everyone to go along with him. Luther took it way too far. Look what he did up until today. Oh glorious Reformer…not…
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
Uh…unless I am mistaken, I think Luther has been dead for quite some time.
O
OneTrueCathApos
Guest
Yes, but he still lives on today in Spirit with the 30,000 divisions he’s caused, and the amounts of confusion and chaos among the Protestant people. They can’t agree with even any one of their sects…very sad.
M
motstraumen
Guest
Leo X and Clement VII along with Charles V were the ones who sought division by putting politics, money and war above the unity of the Catholic Church. Are you proud of your Hapsburg and Meddici lineage? Luther did not throw anything out, he looked at the Hebrew Canon, and looked at the much later Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) and said isn’t the Hebrew Canon older? The apocryphal books were then put in the middle and the faithful were charged that although these are not canonical, they deserve a place and are worthy of study. Did he have problems with some of the books, yes, but we are not required to follow that. I personally find James a most enlightening and Christ centered epistle. Luther was wrong in calling it an epistle of straw, but he never excluded it! As is Revelation an enlightening book when understood correctly. Oh, and by the way, do you have the original Bible, if so pass it along I would love to see it. If you are referring to the Latin Vulgate, it was far from original and quite flawed in its translation.
M
motstraumen
Guest
Well said, Hansard!
R
rinnie
Guest
Sorry if I repeat anyone but just saw this thread. that is a easy answer though. If your Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Aostolic you know you have the right Church. And if your church has all of the sacraments.
R
rinnie
Guest
I would love to believe that but I have one problem. If he had no interest in establishing another Church why did he turn away from the original teaching’s. For the Church to be one it cannot have different teaching’s. We cannot be separated in brothers. He did just that. He took one Church and divided it, then others took suit and here we are.
H
Hesychios
Guest
That is pretty simple to answer.
The poor leadership of the church, with it’s corruption and sinfulness caused it to lose credibility with people throughout Europe. In other words the church, up into it’s highest leadership levels caused scandal and thereby jeopardized the salvation of the flock.
Recall that Saint Francis stated:
What the bishops of Rome, many Cardinals and bishops across Europe taught by example of their lives was a Gospel of Sin.
Recall the advice of Saint Paul when he states:
Saint Paul quite vividly describes the nature of scandal, and the weighty responsibility that is carried by those who set a poor example even if their behavior was not technically wrong!
How much moreso the church leadership who, though they should know better, yield to the deadly sins of avarice, lust, gluttony and Simony? They bear the responsibility of leading the faithful to the precipice of skepticism.
There are actually two initiators of the Protestant Reformation: Father Martin Luther and bishop John d’ Medici. They are equally to blame.
Yet the Latin church itself continued to evolve in it’s own teachings after it separated from the Pentarchy of Apostolic churches. Using essentially the same methodology, revisiting scripture and seeing what it has wanted to see there. The essential differences of theology between the Eastern church and the Western church arose and were formalized in the West, after the schism. The pattern for future divergences was already set in place.
Once the church lost it’s credibility, well trained priests and scholars all over western Europe came to doubt the Received Tradition of Faith and took a new look at it. They had to learn why the church had gone so terribly wrong and how to restore it.
Father Martin, son of the church, was just following in the established Latin Tradition of the West. He chose to rethink the Gospel, he was a genuine Scholastic.
Indeed.
R
rinnie
Guest
But see here is the problem, The Gospel never said to rethink the Gospel. The Gospel said go by the teachings and tradition of the Early Fathers. Father Martin as you refer to did just the opposite. He left the Church and started his own teachings. He had no authority to do that. That is why Father Martin’s teaching’s are the teaching’s of the Church. It is a shame because I do believe that he was at one time a gifted scholar.
No one has the authority to look at the Church and restore it. The CC has never been in ruins to restore. The teaching’s are the same today as they were long before Dr Martins ideals to change things. Again the bible said no one has that authority. God’s word is Gods word. Martin had no authority or right to change it to fit into his idea of salvation. Jesus Christ did it his way, and it will stay his way. I will stick with the early Fathers of the Church the way the bible says. And the way it was taught long before Luther.
R
rinnie
Guest
Also if you believe in the words of Christ he said that the church will go through many tough times. But will alway’s prevail, which it has. God never said that if the Church goes through rough trials to go ahead and change the teaching’s as man see’s fit. That is what Luther did, he changed words to fit into his idea of Salvation. I am sorry and no disrespect but Luther’s teachings are not what I am interested. I will stick with the CHurch that has the original teaching’s that came directly by the Power of the Holy Spirit.
H
Hesychios
Guest
No, I think not.
When the various parts of the New Testament were written there was, as yet, no Patristic Tradition.
Father Martin as you refer to…
I agree, it is a shame and he was a gifted scholar.
In fact he was undeniably more honest, more sincere about his vocation and had more experience as a priest than the Pope had. I can see why, when push came to shove, he had to make a stand.
The old Catholic Encyclopedia itself concedes:
I should refer to the existence of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (mentioned here previously by hansard). In many ways Lutheran theology is not very far removed from Latin Catholic theology. The apple didn’t fall far from the tree.
And it appears that on the major points of Luther’s original 95 thesis for which he was silenced, the Latin Catholic church has conceded.
I am not a Lutheran but I see that far too often he gets a bum rap. He was not perfect of course, but let us see what he was up against: A very nearly ruined and corrupt church with incompetent leadership that resisted genuine reform as long as it possibly could, actually it could not be moved to act until it was in serious danger of collapsing completely.
The Council of Trent was not called together until a full twenty-five years had elapsed, and it took about eighteen years to conclude. After which the Catholic Reformation was finally underway. All that delay was unnecessary and damaging.
The Latin church did change it’s theology over time, and even now there are people advocating new dogmas.
My point here is that in his own inventiveness Father Martin was quite in keeping with his tradition, the tradition of the Latin Catholic church to reinterpret the Gospel.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
No. That is often said - but it is not the case.
How can a created thing, such as a Church, contain the Infinite God, “Whom heaven, and the heaven of heavens, cannot contain” ? God is Illimitable, Immense, Infinite, Holy: all this is Catholic dogma - pre-Catholic, indeed: as the OT makes plain. God is greater than any Church, the CC most definitely included. The Presence of Christ is Real in every Christian in whom Christ is Present in His grace: for there is more than one kind of Real Presence of Christ. The Eucharistic Presence is only the best known; but it is not the only one.The Presence of Christ in the Eucharist or in the CC in no way means that He is present nowhere else. He is present to the Church, & faithful to it: but this faithfulness is not only a sheer gift, therefore something on which the Church has no antecedent or other claim: it is not a fetter binding Him to the CC either, so He works wheresoever He wills.
J
jean8
Guest
I can reply that they do not only seem to be so, but that they are actually dead sure. What would be the use of any bureau for the dispensing of authentic information, if the officials had to warn inquirers that there was not even certainty as to whether they had gone to the right inquiry office! No. The True church which is really Christ’s own bureau for the dispensing of authentic information to mankind in His Name, must be visibly discernible as His. The invisible and undiscernible Church theory is impossible, and as I have just said, opposed to the Will of Christ.
Furthermore, Protestants are brought up with the idea that it is not possible for any human being to locate the True Church. So they continue in religious matters to wander where they will, like people in a forest, who follow any line of tracks without bothering to ask where it leads. And they love the risky adventure of experimenting for themselves that they search Scripture for every possible text which they think will support them…go figure…
Protestants are brought up that it’s impossible to locate a true church?
I have never heard this before. If you are referring to christian churches , we all believe and worship the same Savior, Jesus Chrsit whom God the Father has sent.
Doctrines change and so do people. Cultures are different and languages vary. When a person speaks more than one language in thier home, interpretation is a problem at times. I know, I speak another language other than English. Now, My uncle are I are the only ones left from our immediate family… My children are adopted, so you see, cultures do change with time.
God bless,
jean
PS I have learned a great deal about the Catholic church. I don’t quit understand all they teach and believe, but I know they are saved if they have a personal relationship with the Lord first, then attend church. This applies to all christians.
We are not to judge others. Mt.7:1-5 I also like Lu. 10:27
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
What’s that meant to prove 
? Antiquity & priority are mere facts - they are no proof of rightness, which is a value: if those two things were proof of rightness, the first Gentile Christians should have continued to worship the gods of their fathers.
Besides, Luther served to remind the Church of some very basic Christian facts - & to suggest that is no novelty; Catholics have said this before, so one need not be slow or reluctant to say it. Nothing is hurt by saying it except the (unfounded) idea that the Catholic Church cannot possibly be indebted to anyone who is not Catholic. Only corporate vanity & self-esteem suffer, not the Church or its mission or message.The Church changes constantly - it has to, if it is to grow & to develop. Only a fossilised Church (which is dead & useless) or a Church in the perfect life of God (which has attained its Goal) need not change. “To be perfect, is to change often”, as Newman said. Fidelity to Christ should, during this pilgrimage on earth, never be confused with changelessness. They are not the same at all.
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
Hogwash. That’s a patently false statement.
The World Methodist Council is made up of over 70 Wesleyan denominations, which is in constant ecumenical dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion (made up of 38 provinces), and the Lutheran World Federation (made up of 130 bodies).
That 30,000 number is quite the misnomer - and more rhetoric than reality.
- Status