We Catholics Are Dead Sure The Church Is The One Church Of Christ And That All Others Are Mistaken

[Mickey]

but anyway… you should probably read the book The Facts About Luther… His own words show that he was… well, how should i say it???

i think you should read the book and see for yourself… you aren’t going to take my word for it.

I heard somewhere that this book is very biased, anti-Luther, and does not get the facts straight.

 

[rinnie]

It all goes back to the same thing. God promised me that his Church would be led by the Power of the Holy Spirit. The Church has the Power in the end not Luther. Luther left the Church the Church did not leave luther. The Church had the power, has the Power and will always have the Power. The keys to the kingdom. If Luther would have believed that he like St Jerome would have submitted in the end. But he refused. He felt he had more authority than the Church.

 

[PJM]

=Hesychios;5302932]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.

***Friend is a partial truth equal to an untruth?

The validity of the claim of the RCC to be “The ONE TRUE CHURCH OF GOD” is evident in that dispite the problems you mention, the 2,000 year old RCC has continued to hold to the same Body of TRUTH, Dogma, Doctrines and Sacred Tradition, that orginated with Christ Himself, were understood, put into place and practiced by the Apostles, the early Chruch Fathers, and are still honored and practiced to this very day.

We still hold to ***One Faith, One Baptism, One Body of Beliefs, One Bible and The One Church actually started by Jesus Himself.

The Catholic Church remains the largest, oldest, continuing Christian Church in the world. And even after wars, herseys, at times losy examples of Christ by priest and others, we are still one living, obedient and growing Church because Christ gives Himself is surety of our position, our TRUTHS, and the RCC continues to be especially and uniquely Blessed by His constant presence and vigillence. “The gates of Hell shall not [AS YOU ARE WANT TO IMPLY] SHALL NOT prevail against it” Mt. 16:19 ****

Love and prayers,
Pat

Friend if this is not fact, not the single TRUTH. which of the “30,000” other Chrsitian Church’s is “today’s the church?” 30, 000 other World Wife churches all holding different theologies, philosphies and their own understanding of what the bible really does mean, is not my idea of a “A TRUTH!” I am amazed that it may be yours **

 

[greggy53]

Yes, the papacy was broke. One would have to read the story of Luther’s life to get a good idea about the abuses.

Northern European priests were routinely scandalized when visiting Rome and witnessing how Masses were said in the Eternal City. It was a cesspool.

Father Martin did not ‘do away’ with the Mass and the Holy Eucharist. He believed in the Real Presence and had a personal devotion to Mary.

The Lutherans don’t have a Mass do they?? A ceremony to be sure, but not a Mass…
I may be wrong but some Lutherans believe in Holy Eucharist, and other varieties do not?
Some Honor the Virgin Mary, and others do not?

As far as indugences are concerned the chrurch has that authority. Even so, if abuses as you say “scandalized” the good German why have the Lutherans thrown out the “baby with the wash”.?..One Pope sells indugences to raise money build the the most beautiful chruch in the world, and 400 years later you are still talking about it like it stil going on!
you threw away the Sacraments, the most important of which is the Holy Eucharist. You made a mockery of the sacrament of Holy Orders all becuse One man got mad at the Pope…and now you are hopelessly divided, and lost.

 

[rinnie]

i agree…

but what is there not to like about confession? i love confession… True, there is that one thing… When you commit a terrible sin… or a bit # of not-so-terrible sins (and all sin is terrible to God)… you don’t want to tell your priest about it… the one who knows you…

which is pride, which is another sin… which is one most probably don’t confess… which is why so few go to confession these days… but anyhow…

i somewhat digress…

Just meant to say that that’ s the only bad thing about confession but you can avoid that… by going to a priest you don’t know… Yes, i know that is probably pride-ful… or something but… well, i just figured (i finally figured it out) that the best way around this problem is to just not commit terrible sins in the first place. …

aren’t we Catholics fortunate???

We are. By the way I really do agree with confession and do like it. But it was just a example. Well actually I lied I do hate going in but I love comming out

 

[JonNC]

=rinnie;5341791]You cannot compare St Jerome to Luther. Because St Jerome did submit to Church Authority. Luther did not.

Look at the timeline. His views on the dc was not the cause of his excommunication.

While I agree that he may not have just taken the books out completely he did all he could to prove HIS point. He did not go out of his way to express Church authority which is early teaching’s of the Church. So by doing what he did, he tried to trump Church teaching’s and early Father teaching’s of the Church.

When he did his translation, he had no need to express Church authority. He did so, anyway, by including the dc books. And, he agreed with at least one of the ECF’s regarding the canon.

Do I agree with his Point or the Church? Now do you deny that it was his point that caused the protestants to take them out. Or are you going to blame it on the Church? Or are you going to say its all on the protestants.

The position of the Lutheran Church is that the dc books are not of the same level as the canon. They are valuable for teaching and reading, but not for establishing doctrine. The reason is the fact that they have been in dispute since the early days of the Church. It is also the position of Lutherans that the canon is not technically closed (though for all intents and purposes it is).
All this means is that, for the purposes of doctrine, we view the canon differently than Rome, that views it differently than Orthodoxy. What other Protestants do is their business. They didn’t follow him on the Eucharist, why is he responsoble for their teachings on the canon?

He knew what he was doing, and he knew how to do it. Or it would have never happend in the first place. He knew the position of the Church. Thats the bottom line, and he disobeyed the Church.

Yeah, he knew he was doing what most other theologians did prior to Trent. He knew the Church’s position was to allow the debate, and he did not disobey Trent, because he was dead by then. You cannot deny Luther the right to do what everyone else was doing, with the blessing of the Church, and you cannot say he disobeyed what Trent said when he died before it was written.

Jon

 

[rinnie]

Yes, the papacy was broke. One would have to read the story of Luther’s life to get a good idea about the abuses.

Northern European priests were routinely scandalized when visiting Rome and witnessing how Masses were said in the Eternal City. It was a cesspool.

Father Martin did not ‘do away’ with the Mass and the Holy Eucharist. He believed in the Real Presence and had a personal devotion to Mary.

Okay let me ask you this, I am not being smart just asking. Okay now if you have to have Holy Orders to have mass and Luther was excommunicated from the Church, Did he have the Power to have mass? What I am asking because I really do not know, Did the Catholic Church acknowledge Luther being able to perform Mass? Does anyone know that answer. I can find out, but I really do not know that answer myself. Does anyone know the Catholic teaching on this?

 

[rinnie]

Look at the timeline. His views on the dc was not the cause of his excommunication.

When he did his translation, he had no need to express Church authority. He did so, anyway, by including the dc books. And, he agreed with at least one of the ECF’s regarding the canon.

The position of the Lutheran Church is that the dc books are not of the same level as the canon. They are valuable for teaching and reading, but not for establishing doctrine. The reason is the fact that they have been in dispute since the early days of the Church. It is also the position of Lutherans that the canon is not technically closed (though for all intents and purposes it is).
All this means is that, for the purposes of doctrine, we view the canon differently than Rome, that views it differently than Orthodoxy. What other Protestants do is their business. They didn’t follow him on the Eucharist, why is he responsoble for their teachings on the canon?

Yeah, he knew he was doing what most other theologians did prior to Trent. He knew the Church’s position was to allow the debate, and he did not disobey Trent, because he was dead by then. You cannot deny Luther the right to do what everyone else was doing, with the blessing of the Church, and you cannot say he disobeyed what Trent said when he died before it was written.

Jon

Okay but how did it turn out? It still went back to the original teaching’s of the Church did it not. Was not the original findings of the Church re-affirmed. And I do not see where what he did was with the blessing’s of the Church. If he had the blessing’s of the Church why was he OUT! Sorry but he got Kicked to the curb!

 

[Harpazo]

The Lutherans don’t have a Mass do they?? A ceremony to be sure, but not a Mass…
I may be wrong but some Lutherans believe in Holy Eucharist, and other varieties do not?
Some Honor the Virgin Mary, and others do not?

As far as indugences are concerned the chrurch has that authority. Even so, if abuses as you say “scandalized” the good German why have the Lutherans thrown out the “baby with the wash”.?..One Pope sells indugences to raise money build the the most beautiful chruch in the world, and 400 years later you are still talking about it like it stil going on!
you threw away the Sacraments, the most important of which is the Holy Eucharist. You made a mockery of the sacrament of Holy Orders all becuse One man got mad at the Pope…and now you are hopelessly divided, and lost.

Hesychios isn’t Lutheran. He’s Orthodox.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[JonNC]

=distracted;5341793]i’m not sure the pope was concerned about such things… i doubt it… he lives in the Presence of Christ…

He was concerned enough to issue that papal bull!

Why, there’s more evil in our govenrment system than…
than even in the Roman Catholic Church…

Now here we agree!!!

but anyway… you should probably read the book The Facts About Luther… His own words show that he was… well, how should i say it???

This book is Jack Chick in reverse. It is a horrible distortion. Even modern Roman Catholic scholars reject it, from what I understand.

i think you should read the book and see for yourself… you aren’t going to take my word for it…
I’m Catholic…

You know I’m open minded, but not about Father O’Hare. Or is it Father O’Chick and Jack Hare? Either way, I have no time for them.

Jon

 

[Harpazo]

Okay let me ask you this, I am not being smart just asking. Okay now if you have to have Holy Orders to have mass and Luther was excommunicated from the Church, Did he have the Power to have mass? What I am asking because I really do not know, Did the Catholic Church acknowledge Luther being able to perform Mass? Does anyone know that answer. I can find out, but I really do not know that answer myself. Does anyone know the Catholic teaching on this?

I believe according to the Catholic Church, he still did but it was “valid, but illicit.” There remains some controversy over it because, if I remember correctly, some bishops left the Catholic Church in Germany causing some Lutherans (I can’t remember which country; perhaps Sweden or Denmark) to claim Apostolic Succession. The Catholic Church teaches that “once a priest, always a priest” as long as he intends “to do what the Church does” in regards to the Sacraments. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[rinnie]

I believe according to the Catholic Church, he still did but it was “valid, but illicit.” There remains some controversy over it because, if I remember correctly, some bishops left the Catholic Church in Germany causing some Lutherans (I can’t remember which country; perhaps Sweden or Denmark) to claim Apostolic Succession. The Catholic Church teaches that “once a priest, always a priest” as long as he intends “to do what the Church does” in regards to the Sacraments. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong.

In Christ,
Andrew

Thank-you Harpazo, I do agree with you once a priest always a priest. I do know that in extreme emergency’s for sure. But like you I am not sure. But I do see what you are saying, Yes he was anointed. and as long as it went with the teaching’s of the Church. And I do agree that he never had a problem with the Sacraments. Not that I could see. But I will admit I know a little on him. very little. But what I know I do feel is in line with the teachings of the CHurch. If not I have no problem being corrected. But I feel I was as truthful as I could be.

 

[rinnie]

If I could make one other comment, I understand alot of the teachings of Luther were and still are the teachings of the Church. I do believe that we have much more in common than not. If I ever sounded otherwise, I did not mean to.

 

[greggy53]

Hesychios isn’t Lutheran. He’s Orthodox.

In Christ,
Andrew

We were discussing Martin Luther, and whether or not he removed the DC from the bible

 

[onenow1]

If I could make one other comment, I understand alot of the teachings of Luther were and still are the teachings of the Church. I do believe that we have much more in common than not. If I ever sounded otherwise, I did not mean to.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Title page of first printed edition of Exsurge DomineExsurge Domine is a papal bull issued on June 15, 1520 by Pope Leo X in response to the teachings of Martin Luther in his 95 theses and subsequent writings which opposed the views of the papacy. The Latin title Exsurge Domine is translated into English as Arise, O Lord.

While the bull did not directly condemn all the points of Luther’s doctrines, it did specifically demand that Luther retract 41 errors (some drawn from his 95 theses, some from other writings or sayings attributed to him) within sixty days of its publication in neighboring regions to Saxony. This time expired on December 10, 1520, which was the day on which Luther burned his copy of the bull along with volumes of Canon law by the Elster Gate in Wittenberg. This book burning was in reaction to Johann Eck’s procedure of burning Luther’s books after he had published the bull in various places in Germany. As he burned his copy of the bull, Luther is reported to have said, “Because you have confounded the truth [or, the saints] of God, today the Lord confounds you. Into the fire with you!” reminiscent of Psalm 21:9.[1][2]

Because Luther refused to comply, the pope issued the bull Decet Romanum

Quote= onenow1. I think we can extrapolate from Exsurge Domine Luther’s stubborn streek, in defying his superiors. As scripture says obey your superiors. Martin failed the test of obedience. Had he obeyed it most likely would have been resolved. This is plainly seen in earlier years in the life of the Catholic Church by the Saints.

Peace,onenow1opcorn:.

 

[motstraumen]

That is a very good point. And you are correct we were dealing with the Roman Rite. Thats something to think about right there. But the point with Luther was this, Luther Did indeed take out the Books. Do you agree with that? ANd if you do, answer me this, Who gave him that right to do that?

Because in the bible it say’s noone has the right to remove or add to the bible correct? Now if you agree and acknowledge the Roman Rite that is proof that the books were not added after Luther they were taken out. So you see what I am saying?

I do not agree with you. Luther did not remove any books. He moved them, yes. The order was not very important at this time anyway, because most would be very lucky to even have a Gospel or an Epistle in Lutheran areas, the common person in Catholic area wouldn’t have one at all in their own language. But these books were not given the full weight of the canon until the Council of Trent, years after Luther died. He determined their placement in his translation, between the OT and the NT, because they were not in the Hebrew Canon, which he was using to Translate from. He encouraged and entreated all to read them as very useful scripture. Here is a link that gives you this if you don’t believe me. I have said so many times on this forum that he didn’t remove any books, but some are determined to believe every myth about Luther. collections.lstc.edu/gruber/luthers_bible/1534.php The reason many Lutherans don’t have the books today in their Bibles is because of Reformed (Calvinist) influence, sad but true. If Lutherans would look at their forfathers and formothers’ bibles that they brought with them from Europe more than likely they will have the deutro-canonicals in them. Also the Catholic church has removed: I and II Esdras and the Prayer of Manassah. So perhaps the question must be also to the Roman church: Why?

 

[JonNC]

=greggy53;5341899]The Lutherans don’t have a Mass do they?? A ceremony to be sure, but not a Mass…
I may be wrong but some Lutherans believe in Holy Eucharist, and other varieties do not?
Some Honor the Virgin Mary, and others do not?

Yes, we have a mass. Yes, we all have the Eucharist. Yes, we all honor the Blessed Virgin Mary, though that honor may be in ways different than yours.

As far as indugences are concerned the chrurch has that authority. Even so, if abuses as you say “scandalized” the good German why have the Lutherans thrown out the “baby with the wash”.?..One Pope sells indugences to raise money build the the most beautiful chruch in the world, and 400 years later you are still talking about it like it stil going on!

Goodness, I didn’t start this. This started with an accusation that Luther threw out the dc. I just responded. I’d much rather talk about how we can come together, not what drove us apart 500 years ago. I try not to bring these subjects up, not that I’m not prepared to talk about them, but because they continue the divisions, and do not encourage dialogue toward unity.

you threw away the Sacraments, the most important of which is the Holy Eucharist. You made a mockery of the sacrament of Holy Orders all becuse One man got mad at the Pope…and now you are hopelessly divided, and lost.

So, let’s see how your opinion of us compares with your Church:
On our Eucharist. You say we threw it away. Cardinal Ratzinger said:

I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper

You say we’ve made a mockery of orders, here is part of what leaders in your Church say:

If the actions of Lutheran pastors can be described by Catholics as “sacred actions” that “can truly engender a life of grace,” if communities served by such ministers give “access to that communion in which is salvation,” and if at a eucharist at which a Lutheran pastor presides is to be found “the salvation-granting presence of the Lord,” then Lutheran churches cannot be said simply to lack the ministry given to the church by Christ and the Spirit. In acknowledging the imperfect koinonia between our communities and the access to grace through the ministries of these communities, we also acknowledge a real although imperfect koinonia between our ministries.

usccb.org/seia/koinonia.shtml
Read the whole document, found btw, on the USCCB website. I sincerely hope you will at least rethink your opinion of us.

Jon

 

[motstraumen]

Look at the timeline. His views on the dc was not the cause of his excommunication.

When he did his translation, he had no need to express Church authority. He did so, anyway, by including the dc books. And, he agreed with at least one of the ECF’s regarding the canon.

The position of the Lutheran Church is that the dc books are not of the same level as the canon. They are valuable for teaching and reading, but not for establishing doctrine. The reason is the fact that they have been in dispute since the early days of the Church. It is also the position of Lutherans that the canon is not technically closed (though for all intents and purposes it is).
All this means is that, for the purposes of doctrine, we view the canon differently than Rome, that views it differently than Orthodoxy. What other Protestants do is their business. They didn’t follow him on the Eucharist, why is he responsoble for their teachings on the canon?

Yeah, he knew he was doing what most other theologians did prior to Trent. He knew the Church’s position was to allow the debate, and he did not disobey Trent, because he was dead by then. You cannot deny Luther the right to do what everyone else was doing, with the blessing of the Church, and you cannot say he disobeyed what Trent said when he died before it was written.

Jon

Jon, You expressed this very well! Thank you. I should have read your response before I responded.

 

[JonNC]

If I could make one other comment, I understand alot of the teachings of Luther were and still are the teachings of the Church. I do believe that we have much more in common than not. If I ever sounded otherwise, I did not mean to.

You never did, rinnie, but I appreciate the charity in you comment. I know for certain that the Holy Spirit is working in the hearts of our leaders to bring us together. I pray the Holy Spirit helps us to see Him in each other.

Jon

 

[rinnie]

I do not agree with you. Luther did not remove any books. He moved them, yes. The order was not very important at this time anyway, because most would be very lucky to even have a Gospel or an Epistle in Lutheran areas, the common person in Catholic area wouldn’t have one at all in their own language. But these books were not given the full weight of the canon until the Council of Trent, years after Luther died. He determined their placement in his translation, between the OT and the NT, because they were not in the Hebrew Canon, which he was using to Translate from. He encouraged and entreated all to read them as very useful scripture. Here is a link that gives you this if you don’t believe me. I have said so many times on this forum that he didn’t remove any books, but some are determined to believe every myth about Luther. collections.lstc.edu/gruber/luthers_bible/1534.php The reason many Lutherans don’t have the books today in their Bibles is because of Reformed (Calvinist) influence, sad but true. If Lutherans would look at their forfathers and formothers’ bibles that they brought with them from Europe more than likely they will have the deutro-canonicals in them. Also the Catholic church has removed: I and II Esdras and the Prayer of Manassah. So perhaps the question must be also to the Roman church: Why?

And that is the Point he did move them, On what authority. The Catholic Church works on the authority of The Pope and the Bishops. Always has, always will. Luther worked on his own authority. He moved the books. You must ask yourself why? Did he get authority from the Pope and Bishops to do that? Nope. Luther was a Priest who like any other Priest has to obey the Bishops and Pope. I did not choose that God did. He gave us Peter and the Apostles. He did wrong. He disobeyed. He had no authority to do so. The Catholic Church works on authority. It has to. If every Priest did what Luther did, where would the Church be today. Split! There would be no Catholic Church if all of the Priests did not do what the Apostles did. They all agreed in the end. If they did not there would be no Church.