What did Luther "throw out"

[Alix1912]

And by what authority did he do this?

And some would question the Magistrium’s authority to do what they do as well. This even happens in your own church, exp the people who disregard Vatican II.

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”.

Actually your own Church Defines itself as the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, or the Roman Catholic Church. This was actually explained to me by two different priests. Just an FYI.

 

[guanophore]

To my knowledge, scripture did not come with a table of contents.  It seems no authority would be needed.

Indeed, it is true that no table of contents is included in the Holy Writ. However, the opposite is true about authority. It is BECAUSE one is not included that one had to be determined by the teaching authority appointed by Christ. If we do not believe the council that determined the canon is infallible and inspired by the HS,then we cannot trust that the collection we have is authoritative.

 

[Alix1912]

yes, but by what authority did he replace the perspective of the church (through the Apostles’ eyes) with his own?

I cannot tell that Luther was even aware of the Eastern Church, or that he knew that Eucharist and Confirmation are given at baptism. They are not separated as they are in the West.

By what authority does he determine this?

By what authority does he decide that all sacraments apply to all people?

How does this make them less sacramental?

These are artificial parameters created by Luther that were not known to the Church in the 1500 years prior. Regardless of Luther’s intentions to “underscore”, he does not have the authority to change the Teachings of Jesus that were givent to the Church.

With all due respect, your “eyes” do not have the authority to change the Teachings of Jesus either.

guanophore,

Please calm down and realize that many of the questions you are asking have been debated for hundreds of years. They are not going to be solved in one morning on an internet forum. I appreciate your passion for your church, it is very admirable, but understand not everyone shares your view. You cannot force people to accept the authority of Rome simply because you want them too. We are not idiots in need of proper schooling, many Lutherans have spent years studying their faith as well as yours and many others, please be a little respectful of that.

 

[benedictus2]

He didn’t “throw away” any sacraments. It’s really a matter of semantics. He placed a clear definition on what a sacrament is. What the catholic church calls sacraments, the Lutheran church calls Holy (non-sacramental) rites. The books he removed were the apocrypha, which weren’t even canonized by the catholic church until 1546 AD.
Peace and Blessings,
Julie

Which brings up the question: Did Luther have the right to define what is and what is not a sacrament? Between Luther and the Church, which one would be more credible : the witness of 1500 years or one person who came 1500 years later?

One must always remember that Christ established a Church, not wrote a book.

Second point. The Deuterocanonicals have always been part of the Bible even before 1546. There was no need to “canonize” it until it was questioned. It was always part of the canon.

 

[benedictus2]

guanophore,

Please calm down and realize that many of the questions you are asking have been debated for hundreds of years. They are not going to be solved in one morning on an internet forum. I appreciate your passion for your church, it is very admirable, but understand not everyone shares your view. You cannot force people to accept the authority of Rome simply because you want them too. We are not idiots in need of proper schooling, many Lutherans have spent years studying their faith as well as yours and many others, please be a little respectful of that.

That did not address Guano’s point. Your post is sidestepping the issue. It would help the discussion if you actually answered his questions.

 

[benedictus2]

Indeed, it is true that no table of contents is included in the Holy Writ. However, the opposite is true about authority. It is BECAUSE one is not included that one had to be determined by the teaching authority appointed by Christ. If we do not believe the council that determined the canon is infallible and inspired by the HS,then we cannot trust that the collection we have is authoritative.

Excellent!

 

[guanophore]

And some would question the Magistrium’s authority to do what they do as well. This even happens in your own church, exp the people who disregard Vatican II.

Indeed they do. But such persons are considered disobedient, heretics and schismatics.

Matt 28:16-20

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “**All authority **in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 **Go therefore **and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

It is always good, when finding “therefore” to look and see what it is there for. In this case, the authority with which Jesus sends the Apostles is His own authority. In this act,He transferred the Seat of Moses to His Apostles. He empowered and authorized them to teach in His name “all that I have commanded”. The Apostles passed this authority through ordination and the laying on of hands. Those who were not so commissioned were not considered valid members of the Teaching authority.

The Truth is not defined by those who depart from it.

You are defending Luther’s rebellion against the authority appointed by Christ by pointing to others who rebel against it. One wrong does not justify another.

Actually your own Church Defines itself as the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, or the Roman Catholic Church. This was actually explained to me by two different priests. Just an FYI.

Of course the Latin Rite is commonly referred to as “Roman” here in the West. Each of the Rites define themselves in this way, the Greek Catholic Church, the Syrian Catholic, the Ethiopian Catholic, etc.

These 23 Rites, all in union with the successor of Peter, are distinguished by differences in language, culture, dress, etc. They all espouse the same faith.

 

[guanophore]

guanophore,

Please calm down and realize that many of the questions you are asking have been debated for hundreds of years. They are not going to be solved in one morning on an internet forum. I appreciate your passion for your church, it is very admirable, but understand not everyone shares your view. You cannot force people to accept the authority of Rome simply because you want them too. We are not idiots in need of proper schooling, many Lutherans have spent years studying their faith as well as yours and many others, please be a little respectful of that.

Alix, I notice that you did not answer my questions. Why is that?

I have no interest in forcing anyone to do anything. I am simply throwing out some food for thought.

You may not be an idiot in need of proper schooling, but there are many people who come to CAF that are. I am glad that you have spent years studying yoru faith. It seems that, this being the case, you should be able to answer the questions.

 

[pablope]

Alix, I notice that you did not answer my questions. Why is that?

I have no interest in forcing anyone to do anything. I am simply throwing out some food for thought.

You may not be an idiot in need of proper schooling, but there are many people who come to CAF that are. I am glad that you have spent years studying yoru faith. It seems that, this being the case, you should be able to answer the questions.

Indeed…

Same with my question on Post 28 and 32. No answer yet.

One cannot blame others to justify Luther’s actions, they should stand on their own merit. To seek justification from others is avoiding responsibility for one’s own actions.

 

[AF_Fugue]

Please let me begin by saying that my intention here is not to prove Luther right and Catholic Church wrong. Questions were asked, and I have tried to answer them from the Lutheran perspective.

yes, but by what authority did he replace the perspective of the church (through the Apostles’ eyes) with his own?

I don’t think it was a matter of “replacing” perspective so much as “placing in” perspective. I stress that Luther did NOT intend for any of the Sacraments to fall into disuse. He was using language to stress the importance of the Sacraments that are commanded for everyone. I think a lot of this is semantics. Luther made it pretty clear that he did not consider the number of Sacraments to be a divisive issue. In fact, in the Apology, he explicitly states that he has no problem with continuing to refer to most of them as Sacraments.

I cannot tell that Luther was even aware of the Eastern Church, or that he knew that Eucharist and Confirmation are given at baptism. They are not separated as they are in the West.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. Can you please clarify? I agree that Luther probably knew very little, if anything about the Eastern Church.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AF_Fugue
These are the Sacraments that we are commanded to participate in, and meant for all people.

By what authority does he determine this?

By what authority does he decide that all sacraments apply to all people?

Jesus says, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” At the Last Supper, He says, “Do this in memory of me.” These two Sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist, have the explicit command of Christ. All believers are to participate. Contrast this with Marriage and Holy Orders. Not everyone is commanded to get married or become ordained. In fact, the Church teaches that some people are called to the single life. These Sacraments are important to those who are called to marriage or service in the clergy, but they are not intended to be received by all people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AF_Fugue

Matrimony and Holy Orders, while good and certainly of God, were obviously not commanded to everyone. Some are called to marriage, others to serve the Church as clergy, and others to neither.

How does this make them less sacramental?

Again, it comes down to semantics. With the Catholic definition of an “indelible mark,” they are not less sacramental. However, you must acknowledge that these two, in particular, carry no promise of the forgiveness of sins. One thing you must remember about Luther is that one of his primary purposes was to make sure that the common person heard the Gospel. That is, that Christ died for our sins and Grace is a free gift from God.

Originally Posted by AF_Fugue

Therefore, Luther wanted to underscore the importance of the Sacraments that were for everyone for the forgiveness of sins. Even Annointing of the Sick, is not strictly necessary for Salvation, even in the RCC

.
These are artificial parameters created by Luther that were not known to the Church in the 1500 years prior. Regardless of Luther’s intentions to “underscore”, he does not have the authority to change the Teachings of Jesus that were givent to the Church.

Any enumeration of items entails “artificial parameters.” Again, I point to the numbering of the Ten Commandments. Despite this, it seems clear to me while reading the Apology that Luther was willing to concede the number of Sacraments, since he said it is not “of any consequence.” By this time, though, the attitude of the Church seemed to be simply, “Recant!” It was an all-or-nothing proposition; there was no actual debate happening. (Side note, please forgive me if the abbreviation “RCC” is offensive. Reading through these forums, I was led to believe that it was an acceptable abbreviation.)

Originally Posted by AF_Fugue

Finally, Luther’s definition of a Sacrament is not, to my eyes, in conflict with the Church’s. He calls them, “rites that have the command of God, and to which the promise of grace has been added.”

With all due respect, your “eyes” do not have the authority to change the Teachings of Jesus either.

Please don’t accuse me of trying to change Jesus’ teachings. I absolutely acknowledge that I have no authority to do so. All I said is that Luther’s definition and the Catholic Church’s are not mutually exclusive, unless I am completely missing something. Also, you have no idea the esteem in which I hold the Magisterium and the Pope. Just because I am not in full communion with Rome does not mean that I completely reject anything the Catholic Church says, “just because.” I am here to learn more about the Catholic Church and engage in friendly debate.

 

[Alix1912]

Matt 28:16-20

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “**All authority **in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 **Go therefore **and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

It is always good, when finding “therefore” to look and see what it is there for. In this case, the authority with which Jesus sends the Apostles is His own authority. In this act,He transferred the Seat of Moses to His Apostles. He empowered and authorized them to teach in His name “all that I have commanded”. The Apostles passed this authority through ordination and the laying on of hands. Those who were not so commissioned were not considered valid members of the Teaching authority.

The Truth is not defined by those who depart from it.

No where in the Biblical quote you supplied is there a basis for the Magisterium as it is today or was in Luther’s time. The Magisterium, indeed the entire governance structure of the Catholic Church is a construct of men seeking a way to govern their church. No where does Christ layout any type of governance for his church in the form of bishops, cardinals and popes. The Magisterium is just a group of men, they are persumably learned men who have studied, discerned, and prayed about their roles, they are Godly men seeking to properly guide the church and I believe this is true today. However they are men, subject to the same failings and sins as the rest of us. Even the Pope is not without sin, he is only infallible when he speaks from the Throne of Saint Peter (which hasn’t happened very often).

While the bishops and Cardinals who form the Magisterium today are for the most part Godly, good, spiritual men, this was not the case in Luther’s time, and before and after. Bishop seats, and Cardinal seats were traded for power and political favor all the time. They often were acting in their own best interests and not the Church’s or the people she was supposed to be redeeming. The often used their positions for material and political gain, and many (not all) were very corrupt. Why does this group have any more authority to interpret scripture than one Monk who simply started by posing questions and pointing out abuses. What makes them more qualified to define a scarament then the learned, good, Godly council of Bishops that leaded the Lutheran Church MS today?

The Magisterium has made mistakes before, they have excommunicated scientists for theories that have later been proved to be true (Galileo). They failed to rein in rampant abuse within the Church. They condoned or participated in the sale of indulgences, waged wars for wealth in the name of God. They promoted the Spanish Inquisition, and encouraged the Pope to deny sacraments to the entire country of England and seveal Germanic States more than once over course of history, based often on petty political disputes or failure of a prince or king to recognize and submit to the secular power of the papacy. These people are just men, with all the failings that men have. Are many more of the current members amazing godly people…yes, is the current Pope a amazing, Godly wonderful spiritual leader…YES, but it has not always been so.

What exactly makes them qualified to be the sole interpreters of scripture, and God’s will. Just because they had the pervious bishop lay hands on them. I do believe in the passing on of the Pastoral office between clergy, but that doesn’t automatically make someone an authority on everything Christian and the sole designators of what is Truth. Does the Holy spirit only work in them?

Martin Luther approached what he did with prayer, reverence, scholarship, and the belief he was doing the right thing. He had the same or better credentials than many who have occupied a place in the Magisterium. You can keep screaming “By what Authority?”, but you have to answer that yourself as well. Just because your way is older, and more established doesn’t mean it’s the sole source of salvation or Truth.

Also I really do think splitting hairs over rites and sacraments is only a couple steps above the big fish or whale argument. When and if I get to Heaven if God tells me I was wrong about Marriage being a sacrament versus a rite, I’m really OK with that. If confirmation really was a seperate sacrament instead of a continuation of Baptism, no big deal to me. I think the more important thing is that we honor and treasure marriage, perserving it as an institution of the Church, and that we fulfill our baptismal vows and goes through confirmation. As to books of the Bible. I have read alot of the DC books, and there is nothing earth shattering in them…nothing that drastically alters the meaning and intent of the Bible…again if it turns out in the end they were or were not sacred scripture, its not going to freak me out either way.

Too many Catholics spend WAY too much time trying to ripp apart Luther. The reformation is over and done with…the box is open, you are never going to force it closed again. You can recognize that many of the conservative High Litergical Churchs are the Catholic Church’s closest allies in defending traditional Christanity, or you can yell heretic at everyone and go it alone. Your call. However keep in mind that Pope Benedict is trying to find ways to work together with us for the sake of Christian unity. For that alone maybe you should stop throwing stones, acknowledge there are differences, but there are far more similarities.

 

[Juliebug108]

Too many Catholics spend WAY too much time trying to rip apart Luther. The reformation is over and done with…the box is open, you are never going to force it closed again. You can recognize that many of the conservative High Litergical Churchs are the Catholic Church’s closest allies in defending traditional Christanity, or you can yell heretic at everyone and go it alone. Your call. However keep in mind that Pope Benedict is trying to find ways to work together with us for the sake of Christian unity. For that alone maybe you should stop throwing stones, acknowledge there are differences, but there are far more similarities.

Woot! I love this, and agree with every word!

Peace and blessings,
Julie

 

[guanophore]

Please let me begin by saying that my intention here is not to prove Luther right and Catholic Church wrong. Questions were asked, and I have tried to answer them from the Lutheran perspective.

Thanks. I appreciate your participation.

I don’t think it was a matter of “replacing” perspective so much as “placing in” perspective.

Why was this necessary? Are you suggesting there was not a Christian perspective before Luther?

I stress that Luther did NOT intend for any of the Sacraments to fall into disuse. He was using language to stress the importance of the Sacraments that are commanded for everyone.

Why?

What would be the motivation for removing emphasis from that which we received from the Apostles?

I think a lot of this is semantics. Luther made it pretty clear that he did not consider the number of Sacraments to be a divisive issue. In fact, in the Apology, he explicitly states that he has no problem with continuing to refer to most of them as Sacraments.

How did it get to be up to him to change the once for all deposit of faith?

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. Can you please clarify? I agree that Luther probably knew very little, if anything about the Eastern Church.

He had a narrow and culturally restricted conception of the faith, as a result of not having travelled or studied elsewhere.

Jesus says, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” At the Last Supper, He says, “Do this in memory of me.” These two Sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist, have the explicit command of Christ. All believers are to participate.

Yes.

Contrast this with Marriage and Holy Orders. Not everyone is commanded to get married or become ordained. In fact, the Church teaches that some people are called to the single life. These Sacraments are important to those who are called to marriage or service in the clergy, but they are not intended to be received by all people.

That does not mean that they have any less value to everyone. We are members one of another, and grace imparted to one person affects the whole body.

Again, it comes down to semantics. With the Catholic definition of an “indelible mark,” they are not less sacramental. However, you must acknowledge that these two, in particular, carry no promise of the forgiveness of sins.

No, I don’t agree.

Luther had hangups with scrupulosity. Grace has other purposes beyond the basic foundation of forgiveness of sins.

One thing you must remember about Luther is that one of his primary purposes was to make sure that the common person heard the Gospel. That is, that Christ died for our sins and Grace is a free gift from God.

He did not need to change the doctrines of the faith to accomplish this.

Any enumeration of items entails “artificial parameters.” Again, I point to the numbering of the Ten Commandments. Despite this, it seems clear to me while reading the Apology that Luther was willing to concede the number of Sacraments, since he said it is not “of any consequence.”

Who is he to decide this? How do we know that Jesus did not institute 7 sacraments for purposes we don’t even understand?

By this time, though, the attitude of the Church seemed to be simply, “Recant!” It was an all-or-nothing proposition; there was no actual debate happening. (Side note, please forgive me if the abbreviation “RCC” is offensive. Reading through these forums, I was led to believe that it was an acceptable abbreviation.)

I get prickly when people make erroneous assumptions about the Catholic faith that they think are “Roman” when they are not. Luther did the same thing. All the Reformers did. None of them were aware of the Eastern Church, which put them in a position to make a number of erroneous assumptions about the faith.

Please don’t accuse me of trying to change Jesus’ teachings. I absolutely acknowledge that I have no authority to do so. All I said is that Luther’s definition and the Catholic Church’s are not mutually exclusive, unless I am completely missing something.

"AF_Fugue:

Finally, Luther’s definition of a Sacrament is not, to my eyes, in conflict with the Church’s. He calls them, “rites that have the command of God, and to which the promise of grace has been added.”

His definitions appear to depart. The fact that you do not see the departure indicates that your perception falls on the side of changing the Teachings of Jesus. I concede that you did not originate the this departure from the Apostolic Faith. You are just embracing it.

Also, you have no idea the esteem in which I hold the Magisterium and the Pope. Just because I am not in full communion with Rome does not mean that I completely reject anything the Catholic Church says, “just because.” I am here to learn more about the Catholic Church and engage in friendly debate.

You are right, I don’t know you at all. I am glad you are here to learn, and to debate. I have no personal experience with Lutheranism, either, so I am learning also.

 

[benedictus2]

Alix, I notice that you did not answer my questions. Why is that?

I asked him the same thing, Pablope did the same and yet he has managed to these other posts.

Hmmm, this could only be because doing so just must start tipping the balance over to the side he wants to ignore.

 

[guanophore]

No where in the Biblical quote you supplied is there a basis for the Magisterium as it is today or was in Luther’s time.

To some extent, I agree with you. The basis for the Magesterium comes from Jesus directly, and was solidly intact and fuctioning for decades before that passage was ever written. It functioned that way for centuries before that book was canonized.

 The Magisterium, indeed the entire governance structure of the Catholic Church is a construct of men seeking a way to govern their church.

Your perspective is not consistent with the historical evidence, or the Teaching of Jesus.

 No where does Christ layout any type of governance for his church in the form of bishops, cardinals and popes.

As studied as you say you are, it appears you still have much to learn.

   The Magisterium is just a group of men, they are persumably learned men who have studied, discerned, and prayed about their roles, they are Godly men seeking to properly guide the church and I believe this is true today.      However they are men, subject to the same failings and sins as the rest of us.

No arguement here. This is, in fact, the reason that the Church needs the gift of infallibility.

  Even the Pope is not without sin, he is only infallible when he speaks from the Throne of Saint Peter (which hasn't happened very often).

This is just another strawman, Alix. No Catholic is claiming anyone in the Magesterium is without sin.

Have you considered conducting your disagreements with the Catholic faith against facts, instead of fiction?

While the bishops and Cardinals who form the Magisterium today are for the most part Godly, good, spiritual men, this was not the case in Luther's time, and before and after.

There have always been wolves among the sheep, for sure.

However, the presence of Judas in the Apostolic College does not mean the rest of the Apostles were unfaithful, or that Jesus’ promise to guide them into all Church was null and void.

Bishop seats, and Cardinal seats were traded for power and political favor all the time.    They often were acting in their own best interests and not the Church's or the people she was supposed to be redeeming.     The often used their positions for material and political gain, and many (not all) were very corrupt.

No arguement there.

   Why does this group have any more authority to interpret scripture than one Monk who simply started by posing questions and pointing out abuses.

The wrongdoing of one person does not justify wrongdoing by another. Failing to follow the Apostolic faith cannot be excused because one points the finger at others who were not following it either. That is like saying, well Judas was a devil, so what authority do the other 11 have to Teach or Interpret?

 What makes them more qualified to define a scarament then the learned, good, Godly council of Bishops that leaded the Lutheran Church MS today?

I think we will both agree that the authority appointed by Christ does not necessarily go to those the world would consider “qualified”. Peter and his brethren were all simple fishermen, tax collectors, etc. They were not learned, necessarily good, and certainly not “qualifed” for the duties He gave them. Where God guides, He provides. He trained them, installed them, and worked through them to do infallible acts for the Church.

The Magisterium has made mistakes before, they have excommunicated scientists for theories that have later been proved to be true (Galileo).

Good! Yet another erroneous myth you have embraced that will be vanquished by more study.

I can assure you that anyone who approached the Church, demanding that they change the Scriptures so they are consistent with modern scientific theory would be equally resisted.

  They failed to rein in rampant abuse within the Church.

Ok, so when all the Apostles fled the night of the crucifixion, why did God not abandon all the promises He made to them?

 They condoned or participated in the sale of indulgences, waged wars for wealth in the name of God.  They promoted the Spanish Inquisition, and encouraged the Pope to deny sacraments to the entire country of England and seveal Germanic States more than once over course of history, based often on petty political disputes or failure of a prince or king to recognize and submit to the secular power of the papacy.   These people are just men, with all the failings that men have.

Yes. men are always in need of Reform. Doctrine is not.

It appears that you are not distinguishing fallible men and their sins from the Holy and pure Bride of Christ. It may be that you reject Catholicism because you have a defiicient understanding of the nature of the Church.

 Are many more of the current members amazing godly people....yes, is the current Pope a amazing, Godly wonderful spiritual leader.....YES, but it has not always been so.

Indeed not. I the last 100 years we have been mightly blessed with Holy popes. Even if not, though, that does not change the office. Having a corrupt president does not change the nature of the presidential office.

 

[guanophore]

I asked him the same thing, Pablope did the same and yet he has managed to these other posts.

Hmmm, this could only be because doing so just must start tipping the balance over to the side he wants to ignore.

I just read a big long post that did answer a lot of questions, some that I posed openly, and some I did not. It is clear that Alix has been given a great deal of misinformation about Catholicism, and seems to think we believe and teach things that we do not.

At least it clarifies what some of the issues are, even if they are not based in fact. The exploration of prejudice is as valuable in such cases as the exploration of history.

 

[guanophore]

What exactly makes them qualified to be the sole interpreters of scripture, and God’s will.

It is not the human elements of the Church that are infallible, but the Divine. Jesus is the Head of the Church, and the HS is the Soul. God does not make errors. God does not just bail out on His promises. He promised not to leave them orphaned, but that He would come to them. He promised to lead them into “all Truth”. He did not promise that no one would sin.

 Just because they had the pervious bishop lay hands on them.      I do believe in the passing on of the Pastoral office between clergy, but that doesn't automatically make someone an authority on everything Christian and the sole designators of what is Truth.

Certainly not. But again, this is just another strawman stemming from your imagination. The Catholic Church does not claim that recieiving Holy Orders “automaticlaly makes someone an authority on everything Christian and the sole designators of what is Truth”.

If you are going to resolve your issues with the Catholic faith, at some point you will need to address what is Catholic, not what you made up.

Does the Holy spirit only work in them?

Who are you, or Luther, to decide that He does not?

And, even if the HS is not at work in them, that changes nothing. No amount of individual failure is sufficient to abrogate the promise of God. God promises to guide the church into all Truth. He did not fail.

Martin Luther approached what he did with prayer, reverence, scholarship, and the belief he was doing the right thing.

Yes, I agree. With as much reverence he was capable, at least. His mental and emotional disorders prevented him from reverence often.

He had the same or better credentials than many who have occupied a place in the Magisterium.

Yes. But then, credentials are not what get someone into the Magesterium. It is interesting you take this approach. It is the same one the Pharisees used with the Apostles.

You can keep screaming "By what Authority?", but you have to answer that yourself as well.     Just because your way is older, and more established doesn't mean it's the sole source of salvation or Truth.

I agree. Jesus is the sole Source. He established One Church, and One Faith. He established an authoritative structure for that One Church, and promised to guide her into All Truth. She is older and the sole source because of Him.

 Also I really do think splitting hairs over rites and sacraments is only a couple steps above the big fish or whale argument.

Ok. If it pleases you to minimize the changes to the Apostolic doctrine made by Luther, you can certainly do so. You can refer to all the newfangled heresies as “spliiting hairs”. You will be in plenty of company. People have been justifying departures from the Apsotolic faith this way since the first century.

For Catholics, though, even splitting hairs is not permitted. The faith is one, seamless garment. When even one thread is pulled out,the risk existsthat the whole garment will unravel. We are not at liberty to begin jettisoning portions that don’t appeal to us, or don’t seem important, or that we don’t understand. We cannot change what we have recieved from the Apostles, as Luther did. If we do so, then we have embraced “a different gospel” than what was delivered to us, and we will be ‘anathema’.

  As to books of the Bible.   I have read alot of the DC books, and there is nothing earth shattering in them.....nothing that drastically alters the meaning and intent of the Bible.....again if it turns out in the end they were or were not sacred scripture, its not going to freak me out either way.

This is a good example of how an individual person makes themselves the judge of what is to be considered divine revelation, and whether that revelation is of value or not.

Too many Catholics spend WAY too much time trying to ripp apart Luther. The reformation is over and done with…

I have met a few Catholics on here that do seem to focus on Luther as the source of the problem. He just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time,a nd the princes who wanted to assert their push for power and their avarice over what the Bishop of Rome held used him to force the political and religious separations. The Catholics ought to be judged with greater strictness, having had the fullness of Truth and not following it.

the box is open, you are never going to force it closed again.

What box is that?

What gives you the impression that someone is trying to “force it closed again”? What was closed before?

 

[guanophore]

You can recognize that many of the conservative High Litergical Churchs are the Catholic Church's closest allies in defending traditional Christanity, or you can yell heretic at everyone and go it alone.

Yes. However, the vast majority of our modern day separated brethren do not qualify for the term “heretic”. Although the original reformers did, moderns have never embraced the Apostolic faith, and therefore, are not in a position to willfully and obstinantly reject it. This concept is made quite clear in the Catholic Catechism. Maybe you should consider reading it? If you did, then you could find fault with what the Church really teaches, instead of these strawmen you have a tendency to create, then burn.

Your call.    However keep in mind that Pope Benedict is trying to find ways to work together with us for the sake of Christian unity.     For that alone maybe you should stop throwing stones, acknowledge there are differences, but there are far more similarities.

What stones did you think I was throwing?

Are you of the opinion that Luther did not “throw out” anything?

I agree that we Lutherans have retained much more of the Apostolic faith than the modern American Evangelicals.

 

[fbl9]

Am i correct in saying Luther denied that marriage is truly a sacrement. Due to the grace imparted is not a saving grace?

Can grace be any other than saving grace?

The grace recieved by a married person is an aid to live that vocation. This means the grace to resist sins related to such.

 

[guanophore]

Am i correct in saying Luther denied that marriage is truly a sacrement. Due to the grace imparted is not a saving grace?

Can grace be any other than saving grace?

The grace recieved by a married person is an aid to live that vocation. This means the grace to resist sins related to such.

1 Cor 7:14-16
4 For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. It is to peace that God has called you. 16 Wife, for all you know, you might save your husband. Husband, for all you know, you might save your wife.

How can anyone read this, and think that God’ s grace is NOT at work in this relationship.