J
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
Huh? That’s circular?
Please draw the circle for us: The apostles were all Catholic…and…[fill in the blank] so that brings us back to the apostles were Catholic.
What you have presented above is simply a statement. Not an argument. And certainly not a circular argument.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Jon,
Thanks for your response.
As we all know, Protestantism has not been exactly honest about Luther’s actions and teachings. Your depiction of the Augsburg Confession as being something admirable, well, that really wasn’t the ‘whole story’ was it?
Rather than deal with the facts as presented by Carroll, you avoid them, preferring to make ME the subject of discussion. CLASSIC!
I would love to have your comments about how the Lutherans at Augsburg refused to return the property that they had stolen from the Church, and also Luther’s comments at the time that:
“Remember that you are not dealing with human beings when you have affairs with the Pope and his crew, but with veritable devils! . .”
If ‘staying positive’ means ignoring the historical evidence that the Reformation was not a Reformation at all but a religious rebellion, and that the Church was RIGHT to condemn them as heretics, then I will NOT be ‘staying positive’.
Here’s the thing Jon, I would think that IF you could refute my arguments or the historical facts that I present, you would. In fact, I wish that you would try, because then we could have a discussion on the facts and their implications, rather than all of this avoidance.
BTW, since you are not able to give any ground at all, it isn’t just Carroll who points to the Augsburg Confession as being less than honest. In fact, Grisar, another Catholic Church Historian makes the same point when he says that the Confession was a less than complete or honest representation of Lutheran belief. In addition, he suggests that Melanchthon went out of his way to describe Lutherans as being in agreement on Transubstantiation and, yes, even justification. As we know, that is NOT what Lutherans believed. It was just I guess Melanchthon trying to ‘stay positive’. He mentions a minimizing the hindrances to mutual agreement, a phenomenon that I am very familiar with and has been commented on by Nestingen the Lutheran Scholar in his comments (recently posted) about ‘evangelical catholics’ (small ‘c’).
Catholic Hartmann Grisar, Vol. III, pg. 329:
"In the " Confession of Augsburg," where the author shows himself a past-master in the art of presentation,** Melanchthon presents the Lutheran doctrine under the form most acceptable to the opposite party, calculated, too, to prove its connection with the teaching of the Roman Church as vouched for by the Fathers**.** He passes over in silence certain capital elements of Lutheran dogma, for instance, man s unfreedom in the performance of moral acts pleasing to God, likewise predestination to hell, and even the
rejection on principle of the Papal Primacy, the denial of Indulgences and ofPurgatory. A Catholic stamp was impressed on the doctrine of the Eucharist so as to impart to it the semblance of the doctrine of Transubstaiitiation; even in the doctrine of justification, any clear distinction between the new teaching of the justifying power of faith alone and the Catholic doctrine of faith working by love(" fides formata charitate ") is wanting. **Where, in the second part, he deals with certain traditions and abuses which he holds to have been the real cause of the schism, he persists in minimising the hindrances to mutual agreement, or at least to toleration of the new religious party……”
Topper: Even the doctrine of justification is misrepresented in an effort to deceive. is NOTHING SACRED?
Thanks for your response.
Maybe it serves your purposes to refer to my ‘polemical tactics’, but actually I do what I do here to serve as something of a counterbalance to the (unintentional) misinformation that is presented here regarding Martin Luther and the history of the early Reformation. Plus to have someone who bears the name of Martin Luther chide ME for MY ‘polemical tactics’ actually did make me chuckle. Thanks
As we all know, Protestantism has not been exactly honest about Luther’s actions and teachings. Your depiction of the Augsburg Confession as being something admirable, well, that really wasn’t the ‘whole story’ was it?
Rather than deal with the facts as presented by Carroll, you avoid them, preferring to make ME the subject of discussion. CLASSIC!
I would love to have your comments about how the Lutherans at Augsburg refused to return the property that they had stolen from the Church, and also Luther’s comments at the time that:
“Remember that you are not dealing with human beings when you have affairs with the Pope and his crew, but with veritable devils! . .”
If ‘staying positive’ means ignoring the historical evidence that the Reformation was not a Reformation at all but a religious rebellion, and that the Church was RIGHT to condemn them as heretics, then I will NOT be ‘staying positive’.
Here’s the thing Jon, I would think that IF you could refute my arguments or the historical facts that I present, you would. In fact, I wish that you would try, because then we could have a discussion on the facts and their implications, rather than all of this avoidance.
BTW, since you are not able to give any ground at all, it isn’t just Carroll who points to the Augsburg Confession as being less than honest. In fact, Grisar, another Catholic Church Historian makes the same point when he says that the Confession was a less than complete or honest representation of Lutheran belief. In addition, he suggests that Melanchthon went out of his way to describe Lutherans as being in agreement on Transubstantiation and, yes, even justification. As we know, that is NOT what Lutherans believed. It was just I guess Melanchthon trying to ‘stay positive’. He mentions a minimizing the hindrances to mutual agreement, a phenomenon that I am very familiar with and has been commented on by Nestingen the Lutheran Scholar in his comments (recently posted) about ‘evangelical catholics’ (small ‘c’).
Catholic Hartmann Grisar, Vol. III, pg. 329:
"In the " Confession of Augsburg," where the author shows himself a past-master in the art of presentation,** Melanchthon presents the Lutheran doctrine under the form most acceptable to the opposite party, calculated, too, to prove its connection with the teaching of the Roman Church as vouched for by the Fathers**.** He passes over in silence certain capital elements of Lutheran dogma, for instance, man s unfreedom in the performance of moral acts pleasing to God, likewise predestination to hell, and even the
rejection on principle of the Papal Primacy, the denial of Indulgences and ofPurgatory. A Catholic stamp was impressed on the doctrine of the Eucharist so as to impart to it the semblance of the doctrine of Transubstaiitiation; even in the doctrine of justification, any clear distinction between the new teaching of the justifying power of faith alone and the Catholic doctrine of faith working by love(" fides formata charitate ") is wanting. **Where, in the second part, he deals with certain traditions and abuses which he holds to have been the real cause of the schism, he persists in minimising the hindrances to mutual agreement, or at least to toleration of the new religious party……”
Topper: Even the doctrine of justification is misrepresented in an effort to deceive. is NOTHING SACRED?
T
Topper17
Guest
Grisar continues:
“The “Reply” to the Confession (later known as " Confutatio Confession-is Augustance"), which was the result of the deliberations of a Catholic commission, ****set forth excellent grounds for rejecting the errors contained in Melanchthon s work, and also threw a clear light on his reservations and intentional ambiguities. Melanchthon’s answer was embodied in his “Apologia Confessionis Augustana,” which well displays its author s ability and also his slipperiness, and later took its place, side by side with the Confession,as the second official exposition of Lutheranism. It energetically vindicates Luther s distinctive doctrines, and above all declares, again quite falsely, that the doctrine of justificatory faith was the old,traditional Catholic doctrine. Nor does it refrain from strong and insulting language, particularly in the official German version. The opposite party it describes as shameless liars, rascals, blasphemers, hypocrites, rude asses, hopeless, senseless sophists, traitors, etc. This, together with the " Confessio Augustana," was formally subscribed at the Schmalkalden meeting in 1537 by all the theologians present at the instance of the Evangelical Estates. Thus:
On p. 684 [Lutheran Theologian] Harnack says concerning the Confession of Augsburg: " That the gospel of the Reformation has found masterly expression in the Augustana I cannot admit. The Augustana was the foundation of a doctrinal Church; to it was really due the narrowing of the Reformation movement, and, besides, it was not entirely sincere. .… Its statements, both positive and negative, are intentionally incomplete in many important passages ; its diplomatic readiness to meet the older Church is painful,and the way in which it uses the sectarians [Zwinglians] as a whipping-boy and deals out anathemas is not only uncharitable but unjust, and dictated not merely by spiritual zeal but by worldly prudence." Still he finds “jewels in the earthen vessel”;but, as regards the author, we may say without hesitation that Melanchthon in this instance undertook was forced to undertake a task for which his talents and his character did not fit him."
Jon, here we have a noted Lutheran Theologian (Adolph Harnack) stating that the Confessions is NOT a ‘masterly expression of the gospel’, that it is ‘intentionally incomplete in many important passages’, that it is painful in its readiness to reach a diplomatic solution, that it uses other Protestants as whipping boys and deals out unjust and uncharitable anathemas.
Interestingly, the German version, which I of course have never read, describes the Catholics as shameless liars, rascals, blasphemers, hypocrites, rude asses, hopeless, senseless sophists, traitors, etc.
Jon, you obviously have a big problem with the way that I present this kind of information. I would like to present it in a way that you find acceptable, and I honestly wonder what that might be. I would like to make an attempt to make these things ‘more palatable’ to you, short of course of NOT presenting it at all, which appears to be what you would like. If you would like to suggest a different manner in which this information could be posted on this and other threads, then please do so. If on the other hand, what you really object to is the fact that it is being presented at all, then you should make that clear also.
I am curious Jon – Given the information that has been revealed, will you in the future depict the Augsburg Confession and the actions surrounding it by Luther and Melanchthon as being totally honest and praiseworthy, or will you be tempering your enthusiasm?
God Bless You Jon, Topper
“The “Reply” to the Confession (later known as " Confutatio Confession-is Augustance"), which was the result of the deliberations of a Catholic commission, ****set forth excellent grounds for rejecting the errors contained in Melanchthon s work, and also threw a clear light on his reservations and intentional ambiguities. Melanchthon’s answer was embodied in his “Apologia Confessionis Augustana,” which well displays its author s ability and also his slipperiness, and later took its place, side by side with the Confession,as the second official exposition of Lutheranism. It energetically vindicates Luther s distinctive doctrines, and above all declares, again quite falsely, that the doctrine of justificatory faith was the old,traditional Catholic doctrine. Nor does it refrain from strong and insulting language, particularly in the official German version. The opposite party it describes as shameless liars, rascals, blasphemers, hypocrites, rude asses, hopeless, senseless sophists, traitors, etc. This, together with the " Confessio Augustana," was formally subscribed at the Schmalkalden meeting in 1537 by all the theologians present at the instance of the Evangelical Estates. Thus:
On p. 684 [Lutheran Theologian] Harnack says concerning the Confession of Augsburg: " That the gospel of the Reformation has found masterly expression in the Augustana I cannot admit. The Augustana was the foundation of a doctrinal Church; to it was really due the narrowing of the Reformation movement, and, besides, it was not entirely sincere. .… Its statements, both positive and negative, are intentionally incomplete in many important passages ; its diplomatic readiness to meet the older Church is painful,and the way in which it uses the sectarians [Zwinglians] as a whipping-boy and deals out anathemas is not only uncharitable but unjust, and dictated not merely by spiritual zeal but by worldly prudence." Still he finds “jewels in the earthen vessel”;but, as regards the author, we may say without hesitation that Melanchthon in this instance undertook was forced to undertake a task for which his talents and his character did not fit him."
Jon, here we have a noted Lutheran Theologian (Adolph Harnack) stating that the Confessions is NOT a ‘masterly expression of the gospel’, that it is ‘intentionally incomplete in many important passages’, that it is painful in its readiness to reach a diplomatic solution, that it uses other Protestants as whipping boys and deals out unjust and uncharitable anathemas.
Interestingly, the German version, which I of course have never read, describes the Catholics as shameless liars, rascals, blasphemers, hypocrites, rude asses, hopeless, senseless sophists, traitors, etc.
Jon, you obviously have a big problem with the way that I present this kind of information. I would like to present it in a way that you find acceptable, and I honestly wonder what that might be. I would like to make an attempt to make these things ‘more palatable’ to you, short of course of NOT presenting it at all, which appears to be what you would like. If you would like to suggest a different manner in which this information could be posted on this and other threads, then please do so. If on the other hand, what you really object to is the fact that it is being presented at all, then you should make that clear also.
I am curious Jon – Given the information that has been revealed, will you in the future depict the Augsburg Confession and the actions surrounding it by Luther and Melanchthon as being totally honest and praiseworthy, or will you be tempering your enthusiasm?
God Bless You Jon, Topper
E
eazyduzit
Guest
E
eazyduzit
Guest
Wow, the comment you left is an exact illustration of what I was saying! Is not Jn 16:13 a gift that is of the Spirit? If I have the Spirit, do I not have all of him? Does he withhold part of himself from some? Jesus said I can have anything if I ask in faith. (Any promise that is)If you truly believe that the Catholic Church claims to hold the scriptures captive so it can contort the meaning of everything to point to its own sacraments and rituals… so that a man can receive virtually nothing from God without having to get it from their church, their way i.e. grace is held captive in Rome - then you clearly have never read the Catechism of the Catholic Church i.e. you are totally oblivious, just as I was as a former Protestant. You have been asked a fair question and refuse to reply with an alternative, in terms of an answer. Please provide an alternative in terms of God preserving truth for all people, in every generation, until the end of time (John 14:16).
Biblical claim:
The Holy Spirit guides the church established by Jesus (Matthew 16) into all truth (John 16:13) i.e.God is the one, using fallible leaders to preserve doctrinal truth so that all generations, as opposed to just the first generation of Christians, can access said truths.
That is why I think that the RC faith impoverishes its adherents.
D
dronald
Guest
Your Church let’s it’s own members decide how they feel about whether or not babies burn for all of eternity due to lack of Baptism; that’s lukewarm, inconsistent and very Protestant of Catholicism. See Ambrose.
What? No it’s not.
Your question was “why do we sin and Angels do not?” but as far as we know, they have.
I asked before; how would you have babies behave? Less crying? More nap time?
D
dronald
Guest
Yes, that is the stance now. In earlier times bishops and Popes would actually take a stance, now they’re too afraid to.
Look up how Islam was received for centuries until now. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; the CC has lost much of its backbone when defending heresy and taking a stance. When I read the ECF’s they would hold strong to an opinion, now the Church remains lukewarm.
I can get some early quotes on what the CC used to say about Islam for centuries, and now how warm and fuzzy the Catechism is on it.
P
PRmerger
Guest
This is very Catholic, eazyduzit!
But you still have the problem of how you know what’s a new gospel vs what’s the original gospel…except by deferring to the authority of the CC telling you what was the original gospel.
You trust her when she included the epistles of Paul in the canon. And thus, if Paul appeared and wrote a gospel different than what the CC discerned was canonical, then you could say, “I reject what Paul wrote!”
But it’s only because you defer to the authority of the CC.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ah. So you are not saying the Church is inconsistent about its teaching on where unbaptized babies go.
Your argument is that the Church is inconsistent in proclaiming that there are some teachings that we must give religious assent to but not others?
That’s not inconsistent. That simply offering a hierarchy of beliefs.
Nothing wrong with that. Nor inconsistent.
J
joe371
Guest
The Catholic Church absolutely does not let us - the members of the church - decide whether or not babies burn for all of eternity, due to lack of Baptism!
The CCC covers. it. The Catholic Church (magisterial leaders) would never declare, in a definitive manner: all babies not baptised go to hell, or don’t go to hell! No one knows who goes to hell, and who does not, as per the perpetual teaching of the Catholic Church, since the apostolic age. The apostles didn’t know either!
1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism. CCC
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
ben-
As early as the end of the first century, the believers who were known originally as “the Way” began to call themselves “Christians” beginning at Antioch.
Interestingly, in AD 107 Ignatius of Antioch, used the term “Catholic Church” in an off-hand manner which suggests that he was not coining a new phrase and that his audience was already familiar with it.
This means that within the lifetime of the last living apostle, John, Christians were thinking of themselves as members of the one, universal or catholic Church.
Does this mean that Peter, James, John and Paul all thought of themselves as members of the Catholic Church in the same way that I do today?
Well, yes and no. No, they would not have recognized all of the structure that has developed as the needs of the Church have required, but yes, they would have considered themselves, just as I do, to be members of the one body of Christ which is today known as the Catholic Church.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Are you led by the Spirit into all truth? Do you have all of the Spirit and all of the truth?
Are you able to teach without error in all matters related to faith and morals?
:nope:
In John 16, Jesus was speaking in a closed room to a very small, very select group of His disciples. The promise that the Spirit would lead them into all truth was not made out on a hillside before a crowd of thousands. Nor was it made to the 70 that Jesus sent out later. It was made to the Eleven who remained after Judas departed.
Being baptized in the Spirit is not the same as being led by the Spirit into all truth.
B
Bayou_Catholic
Guest
You’ve made it quite clear that you believe the Catholic Church is not what it claims to be. What alternative do you offer? For many have studied the scriptures, prayed, and believe the Holy Spirit has led them to the fullness of truth. Yet, thousands of denominations disagree on the “essentials” and preach different gospels while claiming divine guidance in the scriptures. Who holds to the original and what is the original?
Again, do you offer an alternative? How was the gospel, you claim to be true, handed on, orally & written, without corruption for 2000 years? Which person(s) did God designate & guide to preserve His gospel, as you know it, thru the millennia?
Christ promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Mt 16:18). Jesus’ Church is the light of the world, a city set on a hill (Mt 5:14-16). He promised to be with the Church always (Mt 28:20). Jesus is neither a liar nor a fool. So, His Church should be easily identified thru the centuries… no? If the Catholic Church is not the one, then who is?
J
joe371
Guest
That is the bottom line! Either you are right or wrong. I say you are right, as per scripture; if he disagrees, I hope he explains why…
D
dronald
Guest
Why can it possibly not be known that innocent babies go to Heaven when we consider Scripture?
Are you saying that some innocent babies could go to hell while others do not? Shouldn’t this be an all or nothing thing?
Either they all do or they all don’t; and of course Jesus and the Apostles knew they go to Heaven. It’s Biblical.
D
dronald
Guest
Remaining in-between and letting the laity decide whether or not they believe babies go to hell is lukewarm and inconsistent.Ah. So you are not saying the Church is inconsistent about its teaching on where unbaptized babies go.
Your argument is that the Church is inconsistent in proclaiming that there are some teachings that we must give religious assent to but not others?
That’s not inconsistent. That simply offering a hierarchy of beliefs.
Nothing wrong with that. Nor inconsistent.
When Ambrose taught that babies wouldn’t go to Heaven, the CC was okay with that. When lately the CC says it’s a possibility, the CC is okay with that.
It’s the inability to take a stance and therefore lukewarm and inconsistent.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
F
fbl9
Guest
Does there really need to be a stance on this issue?
I very sure that your group doesn’t have a stance either way as well. Based on what I have heard from various preachers.
ie. one won’t go to baby dedication because a baby is defiled in God’s view because it doesn’t have faith.
D
dronald
Guest
Haha.Known with certainty? Or with probability?
Probably.
I gave three:
Jeremiah 31:29 In those days they shall no longer say: "'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge. ’
30 But everyone shall die for his own sin. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge.
The rest of that chapter by the way is about Jesus; and quoted in Hebrews at large.
Also Ezekiel 18:19 "Yet you say, 'Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father? ’ When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live.
20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
Luke 18:15 Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them,** for to such belongs the kingdom of God. **
We believe babies go to Heaven.
- Status