A
adrison
Guest
Luther’s main problem with the Catholic Church was the common practice of selling “indulgences”. In short, the church wo…
- Status
T
thistle
Guest
Are you going to finish your comment? Its not up to us to guess what you are going to say!
P
Philotheatoo
Guest
You can just repost your question again. I am looking forward to hearing from you. God bless.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
You’d have to clarify what point in Luther’s life you are talking about. When he posted his theses? Or by the time of his death? His positions on things changed a good bit as events progressed.
Pax
Pax
J
Jaypeeto4
Guest
My post on Luther was removed.
It was a link to an article that was well-documented. I guess somebody complained and,
even though nearly every statement attributed to Luther in the article can be verified as accurate, someone was “offended” I am sure, complained, and it was removed.
So, what did Luther deny?
As one poster above noted, Luther changed his mind quite a bit, back and forth and back and forth, over and over and over, embracing one day a teaching that he would then ANGRILY DENY the next day, then months later flip flop back to the first teaching, and so on and so on.
It was a link to an article that was well-documented. I guess somebody complained and,
even though nearly every statement attributed to Luther in the article can be verified as accurate, someone was “offended” I am sure, complained, and it was removed.
So, what did Luther deny?
As one poster above noted, Luther changed his mind quite a bit, back and forth and back and forth, over and over and over, embracing one day a teaching that he would then ANGRILY DENY the next day, then months later flip flop back to the first teaching, and so on and so on.
- He claimed the right to decide WHAT BOOKS of the Bible were ACTUALLY scripture.
- Related to point 1), he THREW OUT seven books from the New Testament,
including 1st and 2nd Peter and JUDE ((letters which by the way WARN AGAINST
RAILING AGAINST the lawful authorities in the church, which he was engaged in doing
,which I find very interesting and probably not coincidence )), James and
the book of Revelation. He put them in the back of his bible as “appendix,” not as
holy scripture. Then later, he RE-canonized them (on his own authority and no other),
and even wrote a commentary on the book of Revelation!!! Flip flop, flip flop!! - Although he denied many doctrines, he believed, until his death, in the following teachins: a) The Immaculate Conception of Mary, b) Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and
c) The Assumption of Mary into heaven. So did ALL the other major reformers, until the day they died. These three teachings are denied by all evangelical protestants today. - He denied TRANsubstantiation of the bread into completely the body of the risen Christ, misunderstood the meaning of the “sacrifice” of the Mass, and for those reasons, wrote and said, many horrible and blasphemous things about the Catholic Mass.
- He condemned OFFICIAL days of fasting set by the church, as if there were some evil sin in the church asking people to fast, as a church, on certain days. As usual, he condemned this in the harshest and angriest language imaginable.
- He taught that there are only two (or at times, three) sacraments, denying the universal (East and West) belief in the SEVEN sacraments.
- He condemned the doctrine of Purgatory, then re-embraced it, then condemned it again. This happened several times. At the end, he finally rejected it.
CONTINUED IMMEDIATELY BELOW… THANK YOU FOR READING ON.,
J
Jaypeeto4
Guest
CONTINUED FROM IMMEDIATELY ABOVE. THANK YOU FOR READING ON.
Luther appreciated great church art such as statues of the saints, stained glass windows, altar rails, beautiful religious frescoes and church music.
Some of the other “reformers” had their followers vandalize the Catholic Churches in their areas, smashing the statues, smashing the stained glass windows, painting the interiors stark white (painting over frescoes and murals of the life of Christ and of Old and New Testament biblical stories), some outlawed the playing of music in their services, etc.
Luther, although he greatly erred on Transubstantiation, insisted that the Eucharist, or Lord’s Supper, be offered EVERY Sunday at each Service. The other Reformers reduced it to an occasional thing. In my former Presbyterian Church, the Lord’s Supper was observed no more than four times a year, with diced Wonder-bread and grape juice, poured into thimbles and which would often spill all over the place. And since they don’t believe in or achieve transubstantiation into the body and blood of Christ, whatever communion “juice” was left over was unceremoniously dumped down the sink.
Luther went a bit far into error, but the others went MUCH farther.
I posted the now-pulled article, not to attack members of the Lutheran or other churches, but because unlike Catholic doctrine, which was universal, east and west, since the first century, Protetant doctrines originated in the mind, primarily, of Martin Luther, and later of John Calvin, and since that is so, it is important to understand the nature, behavior, and temperament of the man whom God allegedly raised up to deny all these Catholic doctrines and create his own from his own private interpretations.
Calvin, too, was often brutal and violent, but he was much more cerebral and when it came to meting out severe punishments to those who disagreed with HIM, Calvin left the “dirty work” to others, like the rulers of Geneva who ruled it, under Calvinism, with an Iron Fist.
- He attacked the DOCTRINE of indulgences, NOT JUST THE ABUSE of the SELLING of indulgences. Many protestants, by the way, claim that the priests who sold the indulgence did so with the APPROVAL of the Holy See. They did NOT. And they claim that by offering the indulgence, for which a small donation was accepted as part of the person’s penance and repentance, was “SELLING SALVATION.” They misunderstand indulgences, and gravely so. The Church never has and never will, SELL salvation!!!
In fact, she COULDN’T sell it if she wanted to!!! You CANNOT sell salvation.
Indulgences are a remission of the temporal (after-effects) punishments still due to sins for which the blood of Christ has REMOVED THE GUILT OF. You have to BE SAVED, BE IN THE STATE OF SAVING GRACE, to receive an indulgene, which is simply an easing of the pain of your remedial disciplines, both in this life and later in purgatory.
Most indulgences are “partial”, easing some of the burden, but some are plenary, meaning that Christ’s merits remove ALL the temporal punishment/remedial discipline that is still due. Also, ONLY those mortal and venial sins committed AFTER being baptized and born-again, subject you to the possibility of temporal punishments in this life and in purgatory for committing them. ALL sins committed prior to being born-again, AND their temporal punishments due to them, are WASHED AWAY after being baptized and regenerated. - He utterly denied the Catholic and Orthodox understandings of apostolic succession
of the episcopate and how it is passed on: thru the laying on of hands of THOSE WHO ALREADY POSSESS the episcopate. He never possessed it, and COULD NOT pass it on, which is why Lutheran orders, generally, are INvalid. Some Lutheran priests and bishops, these days, ARE validly ordained with VALID apostolic succession because they were also ordained by Eastern Orthodox or “Old Catholic” bishops who DID possess valid Holy Orders and apostolic succession. This is also true of SOME Anglican bishops and priests. - He denied the efficacy of asking the Saints for their prayers.
- He declaimed like a madman, literally like a madman, against the Papacy, against
the authority and jurisdiction and Office of Peter held by the Bishop of Rome.
Not just against popes who were scandalous and sinful men, no, but against the Papacy itself. - this list could keep going.
Luther appreciated great church art such as statues of the saints, stained glass windows, altar rails, beautiful religious frescoes and church music.
Some of the other “reformers” had their followers vandalize the Catholic Churches in their areas, smashing the statues, smashing the stained glass windows, painting the interiors stark white (painting over frescoes and murals of the life of Christ and of Old and New Testament biblical stories), some outlawed the playing of music in their services, etc.
Luther, although he greatly erred on Transubstantiation, insisted that the Eucharist, or Lord’s Supper, be offered EVERY Sunday at each Service. The other Reformers reduced it to an occasional thing. In my former Presbyterian Church, the Lord’s Supper was observed no more than four times a year, with diced Wonder-bread and grape juice, poured into thimbles and which would often spill all over the place. And since they don’t believe in or achieve transubstantiation into the body and blood of Christ, whatever communion “juice” was left over was unceremoniously dumped down the sink.
Luther went a bit far into error, but the others went MUCH farther.
I posted the now-pulled article, not to attack members of the Lutheran or other churches, but because unlike Catholic doctrine, which was universal, east and west, since the first century, Protetant doctrines originated in the mind, primarily, of Martin Luther, and later of John Calvin, and since that is so, it is important to understand the nature, behavior, and temperament of the man whom God allegedly raised up to deny all these Catholic doctrines and create his own from his own private interpretations.
Calvin, too, was often brutal and violent, but he was much more cerebral and when it came to meting out severe punishments to those who disagreed with HIM, Calvin left the “dirty work” to others, like the rulers of Geneva who ruled it, under Calvinism, with an Iron Fist.
J
Jaypeeto4
Guest
Since I mentioned the other Reformers and the fact that they went much farther into error than Luther did, something else they did should be mentioned.
They committed the horrible sacrilege, willfully, of desecrating sacred Altars.
You see, Luther, while denying TRANsubstantiation, still believed and taught that
Jesus was literally and physically present, in his risen glorified body, in
the consecrated bread (along with bread remaining, too, though).
The other “Reformers” utterly and flatly denied this, often in very sacrilegious language.
They denied that the Eucharist was ANY sort of “offering” to God the Father, and that therefore Altars were a blasphemous thing and wrong to have.
So in many places, ESPECIALLY IN ENGLAND after Cranmer, the “Reformers” took down the sacred altars, on which the Body of Christ had been consecrated for centuries and were thus very holy things, and placed them outside the churches, as part of the walkways leading up to the church door, for the congregation’s members to STEP ON, to WALK ON, in order to show their disbelief in, and contempt and loathing for, the
Catholic Mass.
Luther, for all his faults, never did this heinous thing. The other Reformers and their followers, DID.
Also, the body of apostolic era Early Church Father, bishop Irenaeus of Lyons, had been perfectly INCORRUPT, had never decayed even though not embalmed, since he died in around 220 A.D. and was encased in a publicly-viewable casket in a church in France.
An iconoclastic angry Calvinist mob stormed the Church, STOLE the holy body of the SAINT, the miraculously INCORRUPT body, and THREW IT INTO THE RIVER.
These reformers and their followers did absolutely heinously sacrilegious things.
And people who believe in them, naively and innocently, have a RIGHT to KNOW it.
They committed the horrible sacrilege, willfully, of desecrating sacred Altars.
You see, Luther, while denying TRANsubstantiation, still believed and taught that
Jesus was literally and physically present, in his risen glorified body, in
the consecrated bread (along with bread remaining, too, though).
The other “Reformers” utterly and flatly denied this, often in very sacrilegious language.
They denied that the Eucharist was ANY sort of “offering” to God the Father, and that therefore Altars were a blasphemous thing and wrong to have.
So in many places, ESPECIALLY IN ENGLAND after Cranmer, the “Reformers” took down the sacred altars, on which the Body of Christ had been consecrated for centuries and were thus very holy things, and placed them outside the churches, as part of the walkways leading up to the church door, for the congregation’s members to STEP ON, to WALK ON, in order to show their disbelief in, and contempt and loathing for, the
Catholic Mass.
Luther, for all his faults, never did this heinous thing. The other Reformers and their followers, DID.
Also, the body of apostolic era Early Church Father, bishop Irenaeus of Lyons, had been perfectly INCORRUPT, had never decayed even though not embalmed, since he died in around 220 A.D. and was encased in a publicly-viewable casket in a church in France.
An iconoclastic angry Calvinist mob stormed the Church, STOLE the holy body of the SAINT, the miraculously INCORRUPT body, and THREW IT INTO THE RIVER.
These reformers and their followers did absolutely heinously sacrilegious things.
And people who believe in them, naively and innocently, have a RIGHT to KNOW it.
J
jwright82
Guest
You are making a lot of claims that may or may not be true. I know of no such quotes regarding Marian doctrines and the Reformed. You may want to find these quotes and from sources that are more scholarly in nature. If modern Lutherans and Reformed churches universally recognize their traditions as regecting these Marian doctrines than how did they go so wrong?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Luther, from his Smalcald Articles, written in 1537:
Of the Sacrament of the Altar we hold that bread and wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ, and are given and received not only by the godly, but also by wicked Christians.
Now what he didn’t do is state how this actually occured. He believe in the IC also. And was a avid follower of the Blessed Virgin Mother. I’m not sure about the Assumption, however he would have no doubt been aware of the Dormition.
Problem which resulted is that Luther met much opposition from the other reformers as time elapsed. Of course today many generations have passed and all this took on a slightly different reality.
Peace
btw you can google all this.
A
AlltheRoses
Guest
Since your comment seems, unfortunately, to have been cut off, I’ll try to respond based upon the thread question. Europe in the medieval and Reformation eras was a very complicated place to be, and neither Luther’s ideas nor Catholic beliefs could be justly summed up in a forum post. Scholars have written entire books on the subject, so, obviously, it’s beyond the scope of a character-limited post. However, I can offer you a basic statement of the theological conflicts between Luther’s ideas and Catholic beliefs, which you can feel free to research in more depth if you are interested.
Luther devised and advocated sola scriptura (having the Bible as the single, final authority) in contrast to the Catholic perspective, which gives equal authority to the Bible, Sacred Tradition, and the Magistereum. Luther didn’t argue for the elimination of Sacred Tradition, but he believed that the Bible should be given more weight than Sacred Tradition in theological matters and that Sacred Tradition should never go against the Scriptures. Luther would point to Biblical verses emphasizing the divinely inspired nature of the Scriptures and how it can be used effectively for a variety of religious purposes. Catholics would argue that, properly understood, Sacred Tradition never contradicts Scriptures, and that Sacred Tradition is equal to Sacred Scripture. Catholics would point to the verses where Jesus sets up a church and orders his disciples to take disputes to the church.
Luther believed that people are saved by grace alone through faith alone while Catholics would argue that people are saved by grace through a faith that must be made active through good works. Luther pointed to verses that said people are made righteous by faith not through works of the law, while Catholics pointed to verses that said faith without works is dead.
Luther also argued against the common Catholic practice of appealing to saints for intercession, and against the belief that the bread and wine really become the body and blood of Jesus.
Hopefully, some of this information was useful. God bless you.
P
pablope
Guest
Source: chnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/mary.pdf
Along with virtually all important Protestant Founders (e.g., Calvin, Zwingli,
Cranmer), Luther accepted the traditionalbelief in the perpetual virginity of Mary (Jesus
had no blood brothers), and her status as the Theotokos (Mother of God):
Christ…was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children
besides Him… “brothers” really means “cousins” here, for
Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on
John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39).
He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal
womb…This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained
a virgin after that. (Ibid.)
God says…”Mary’s Son is My only Son.” Thus Mary is the Mother of God did not derive his divinityfrom Mary; but it does not follow that it is therefore wrong to say that
God was born of Mary, that God is Mary’s Son, and that Mary is God’s mother…She is the true mother of God and bearer of God…Marysuckled God, rocked God to sleep,
prepared broth and soup for God,etc. For God and man are oneperson, one Christ, one Son, oneJesus, not two Christs…just as your son is not two sons…even thoughhe has two natures, body and soul, the body from you, the soul from God alone. (On the Councils andthe Church, 1539).
Luther held to the idea and devotional practice of the veneration of Mary andexpressed this on innumerable occasions with the most effusive language:
The veneration of Mary is inscribedheart. (Sermon, September 1,
1522).
[She is the] highest woman and the
noblest gem in Christianity after
Christ…She is nobility, wisdom,
and holiness personified. We can
never honor her enough. Still
honor and praise must be given
to her in such a way as to injure
neither Christ nor the Scriptures.
(Sermon, Christmas, 1531).
No woman is like you. You are
more than Eve or Sarah, blessed
above all nobility, wisdom, and
sanctity. (Sermon, Feast of the
Visitation, 1537).
One should honor Mary as she herself
wished and as she expressed it
in the Magnificat. She praised God
for his deeds. How then can we
praise her? The true honor of Mary
is the honor of God, the praise of
God’s grace…Mary is nothing for
the sake of herself, but for the sake
of Christ…Mary does not wish that
we come to her, but through her
to God. (Explanation of the Magnificat,
1521).
in the very depths of the human
Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the
Mother of all of us even though it
was Christ alone who reposed on
her knees…If he is ours, we ought
to be in his situation; there where
he is, we ought also to be and all
that he has ought to be ours, and
his mother is also our mother.
(Sermon, Christmas, 1529).
Whoever possesses a good (firm)
faith, says the Hail Mary without
danger! Whoever is weak in faith
can utter no Hail Mary without
danger to his salvation. (Sermon,
March 11, 1523).
Our prayer should include the
Mother of God…What the Hail
Mary says is that all glory should
be given to God, using these
words: “Hail Mary, full of grace.
The Lord is with thee; blessed art
thou among women and blessed is
the fruit of thy womb, Jesus Christ.
Amen!” You see that these words
are not concerned with prayer
but purely with giving praise and
honor…We can use the Hail Mary
as a meditation in which we recite
what grace God has given her.
Second, we should add a wish
that everyone may know and respect
her…He who has no faith is
advised to refrain from saying the
Hail Mary. (Personal Prayer Book,
1522).
Well, my friend…you just made the case for why there is a need for a teaching authority, a Magisterium…so that the actual understanding of what the Reformers actually taught and believed is carried over to today…and also, you just made the case for the Papacy…and central authority to determine what is and is not dogma/doctrine.
And the question you asked…what brought about all this? Two words…“Sola Scripture.”:
J
jwright82
Guest
Even if they did, why should I as a Reformed Calvinist accept every jot and tittle of what Calvin said? Also reveiw the Apology to the Augsburg Confession, which along with all other Reforemd confessions, regect Mary having anything to do with our salvation (it is in the section on the “invocation of the saints”), no co-redemptrix.
J
jwright82
Guest
I think that your logic is very weak here. Even if the church is the body that decided what books should be in the canon and which ones shouldn’t, it only proves authority in that matter, even if that. For us our tradition can change. The Westminster Confession of Faith can be changed according to new and better understandings of Scripture, which is still hard to do. As I understand it the CCC can never change because that would deny the magesterium and the Papacy.
P
pablope
Guest
I think only you can answer that question. It boils down to Sola Scriptura, isn’t it? You believe what you want to believe and reject what you do not want to believe.
It is like an archer shooting an arrow into a wall, then paints the target around it.
A
adf417
Guest
J, if it can change I assume it has changed. If it has changed does this mean before the change the teachings were untruths? Is this the kind of changes are you referring to?
Peace!!!
J
jwright82
Guest
Well to be fair I would say that I beleive what scripture teachs in a general sense. If Calvin beleived something that, supposidly since I have seen evidence to suggest that he agrees on the whole marian doctrine, we Reformed regect now, so what? We refer to scripture not our own beleifs as you suggest. Even you have this problem since the magesterium is only a group of people agreeing on something, a logical fallacy.
J
jwright82
Guest
It hasn’t actually changed in history but in theory it can change. Since scripture is true regardless of our humble attempts at understanding it we can rest assured that it will set us staright if we only sturdy it properly.J, if it can change I assume it has changed. If it has changed does this mean before the change the teachings were untruths? Is this the kind of changes are you referring to?
Peace!!!
A
adf417
Guest
Thanks for clarifying but i’m still a little
. Are you saying it could be possible that if it did change then what was previously tought would be considered wrong or would this change you speak of only consider something not tought or considered in the past?
J
jwright82
Guest
Well this really is hypothetical but yes if we were to decide in our denomenation that our confession were wrong, or unbilblical, in some way than yes we would declare that what was taught before was unbiblical and hence untrue.Thanks for clarifying but i’m still a little
A
adf417
Guest
- Status