Which of Luthers 95 theses

[Eden]

I can’t believe you gave me a link to a James White site. Let’s just say he’s the “gentleman’s Jack Chick”. I appreciate any links you give me to counter my posts but… James White? He uses terms like “Romanism” and will not use “Catholic”. If this is the source of your education on Catholicism, I regret that you have been deceived. Romanism is an offensive term. If you want to engage in dialogue with Catholics, I would suggest not using any of the well-known anti-Catholics. Here is Dave Armstrong’s defense of the faith:

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ416.HTM

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ450.HTM

 

[Eden]

Bugenhagen:

I wasn’t aware that Horton had written anything about papal primacy. My information came from other sources.

I posted a link to a catholic site wherein the archbishop of New Mexico (I think) addresses the results of a new gallup poll which shows that 70 % of catholics do not believe magisterial (let alone biblical) teaching regarding the bodily presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper.

Lutheran teachings on divorce and abortion are exactly what they were 500 years ago, and those who still hold the Lutheran faith have not changed. Of course you’ll find any number of Muslims and Mormons who believe the correct things with regard to these questions, so if this is the major criteria for orthodoxy, I can see why Vatican II affirms the possibility of salvation for those who explicitly deny the incarnation of the Son of God.

Can you please repost the article in which the Archbishop addresses the Gallup poll? I don’t see the link.

I agree with you that the Lutherans, Muslims and Mormons hold some truth. While all of these faiths borrowed from the True Church those elements which are true, they do not hold the fullness of truth. Only the Catholic Church holds the “fullness of truth”.

You did not address the Lutheran position on same-sex marriage and contraception. Until 1930, no Christian faith taught that contraception was acceptable. Now the Catholic Church is the only Church to maintain that link to Christianity 2,000 years ago in which Christians distinguished themselves from the larger pagan culture by rejecting among other things: contraception, homosexuality, infanticide/abortion and polygamy.
You see, it is the consistent fidelity to the “deposit of faith” given to us by Christ and the Apostles that directs the Church. The Church is protected by the Holy Spirit to lead it “into all truth”. The Apostles did not leave a faith that was structured democratically. There is no Biblical justification for the Lutheran Church to not teach against contraception and to consider homosexual unions/actively homosexual ministers in unions.
It is my understanding that the Lutheran faith does not categorically reject abortion and does not view invalidly divorced couples who remarry to be adulterous. If this accurately reflects the Lutheran teachings on abortion and marriage, they are not supported scripturally.

 

[Eden]

Please show me the evidence you have to support your assertion that the Church from which Luther broke away taught false doctrine. You are making the assumption that a Catholic will agree with you that the Church is heretical! (By the way, by what authority are Lutherans empowered to determine heresy?) If you can include specific Scriptural passages and/or quotes from early Church Fathers, I would be grateful. I don’t see the Lutheran church in the description I gave above from the Ignatian letters.

Also, do Lutherans recite the Nicene Creed? If so, you will recall the marks of the Church are that it is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. Only the True Church holds all four marks and that is the Catholic Church:

catholic.com/library/pillar.asp

FOUR MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH

If we wish to locate the Church founded by Jesus, we need to locate the one that has the four chief marks or qualities of his Church. The Church we seek must be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

**The Church Is One (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13, CCC 813–822) **
Jesus established only one Church, not a collection of differing churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and so on). The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have but *one *spouse, and his spouse is the Catholic Church.

His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3). This is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us (Phil. 1:27, 2:2).

Although some Catholics dissent from officially-taught doctrines, the Church’s official teachers—the pope and the bishops united with him—have never changed any doctrine. Over the centuries, as doctrines are examined more fully, the Church comes to understand them more deeply (John 16:12–13), but it never understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant.

**The Church Is Holy (Eph. 5:25–27, Rev. 19:7–8, CCC 823–829) **
By his grace Jesus makes the Church holy, just as he is holy. This doesn’t mean that each member is always holy. Jesus said there would be both good and bad members in the Church (John 6:70), and not all the members would go to heaven (Matt. 7:21–23).

But the Church itself is holy because it is the source of holiness and is the guardian of the special means of grace Jesus established, the sacraments (cf. Eph. 5:26).

**The Church Is Catholic (Matt. 28:19–20, Rev. 5:9–10, CCC 830–856) **
Jesus’ Church is called catholic (“universal” in Greek) because it is his gift to all people. He told his apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of “all nations” (Matt. 28:19–20).

For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has carried out this mission, preaching the good news that Christ died for all men and that he wants all of us to be members of his universal family (Gal. 3:28).

Nowadays the Catholic Church is found in every country of the world and is still sending out missionaries to “make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19).

The Church Jesus established was known by its most common title, “the Catholic Church,” at least as early as the year 107, when Ignatius of Antioch used that title to describe the one Church Jesus founded. The title apparently was old in Ignatius’s time, which means it probably went all the way back to the time of the apostles.

**The Church Is Apostolic (Eph. 2:19–20, CCC 857–865) **
The Church Jesus founded is apostolic because he appointed the apostles to be the first leaders of the Church, and their successors were to be its future leaders. The apostles were the first bishops, and, since the first century, there has been an unbroken line of Catholic bishops faithfully handing on what the apostles taught the first Christians in Scripture and oral Tradition (2 Tim. 2:2).

These beliefs include the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the forgiveness of sins through a priest, baptismal regeneration, the existence of purgatory, Mary’s special role, and much more —even the doctrine of apostolic succession itself.

Early Christian writings prove the first Christians were thoroughly Catholic in belief and practice and looked to the successors of the apostles as their leaders. What these first Christians believed is still believed by the Catholic Church. No other Church can make that claim.

 

[Eden]

Were Cyprian and Augustine Papalists?

This site refutes your reading of Cyprian, and also shows how Augustine and the North African bishops of his time rejected the judgement of the bishop of Rome regarding the Pelagian controversy.

O.K. I’ve just finished reading James White’s article on the Papacy. He has now earned the nickname “Swiss Cheese”. His position is full of holes. Mr. White is clearly not researching truth but reassuring Protestants who come to truth and fear making the leap to Catholicism. Here is just one of many responses to James White (whom by the way, has even tried to perpetuate doubt about whether or not Peter was even in Rome!):

cin.org/users/jgallegos/papacy1.htm

I just want to add that you are incorrect when you state that St. Augustine “is a witness to the Lord’s teaching as well” which I assume is being paralleled with St. Ignatius (hence “as well”). St. Ignatius knew the Apostles and directly received their interpretations of revelation. St. Augustine was born in 354. He was born over 200 years after the death of St. Ignatius and therefore did not have the direct contact with the Apostles that St. Ignatius did. That being said, I find it ironic that Protestants frequently use Catholic saints such as St. Paul, St. Cyprian or St. Augustine to dispute teachings of the Church. Suffice it to say, if any of these men had said anything heretical to the Church, they would not be saints. I don’t understand the use of Catholics (let alone canonized Catholics) to support Protestant assertions.

You say that James White’s article " how Augustine and the North African bishops of his time rejected the judgement (sic) of the bishop of Rome regarding the Pelagian controversy." The original article that I posted about St. Cyprian addresses the claims about the North African bishops to Dr. Horton but they speak to people like James White as well. If you have time, I suggest reading the entire article:

catholicculture.org/docs…cfm?recnum=4424

 

[Tim_Hayes]

Bugenhagen, you should consider your reply to my argument with logic not your own opinions.

If God was behind Luther, then how do you know that, it is obvious that the Lutheran Church today does not believe various things that Luther taught/believed. So if you don’t believe what he taught in totality then how do you know which parts of what he taught are correct or not.

See most people don’t consider the infallable aspect.

It is a requirment of God that his Church teach infalliably on Christian doctrine), it MUST teach infalliably (no matter who or what you want to consider is the true church) Why, becasue if they don’t then there is no way to no what teachings are from God and which are not. You cannot use scripture becasue it is made of words and phrases which obviously can be interpreted in many different ways, hell, basically every christian type church considers scrpipture was given by inspiration from the Holy Spirit, but the porblem has been in deciding what is scripture and then what is the correct interpretation of those words.

You see, if no Church teaches infalliably then no one, absolutely no one, can genuinely know what true Christian teachings are and what are not. We rely on people long dead to be genuinely telling the truth etc, so either God has ensured the right people are telling the truth or he has not.

Saint Augustine himself says that if it were not for the Catholic church he would not be a Christian, now why is that, because he believes the Church has kept everything correct from the time of Christ, and that can only mean one thing it is correct, that God has ensured it.

 

[Bugenhagen]

Tim Hayes:

Bugenhagen, you should consider your reply to my argument with logic not your own opinions.

If God was behind Luther, then how do you know that, it is obvious that the Lutheran Church today does not believe various things that Luther taught/believed. So if you don’t believe what he taught in totality then how do you know which parts of what he taught are correct or not.

See most people don’t consider the infallable aspect.

It is a requirment of God that his Church teach infalliably on Christian doctrine), it MUST teach infalliably (no matter who or what you want to consider is the true church) Why, becasue if they don’t then there is no way to no what teachings are from God and which are not. You cannot use scripture becasue it is made of words and phrases which obviously can be interpreted in many different ways, hell, basically every christian type church considers scrpipture was given by inspiration from the Holy Spirit, but the porblem has been in deciding what is scripture and then what is the correct interpretation of those words.

You see, if no Church teaches infalliably then no one, absolutely no one, can genuinely know what true Christian teachings are and what are not. We rely on people long dead to be genuinely telling the truth etc, so either God has ensured the right people are telling the truth or he has not.

Saint Augustine himself says that if it were not for the Catholic church he would not be a Christian, now why is that, because he believes the Church has kept everything correct from the time of Christ, and that can only mean one thing it is correct, that God has ensured it.

The Pope is infallible ex cathedra, not all the time. The Lutheran church never did subscribe to everything Luther said or did, but rather his doctrine. The Lutheran Church has always been united in subscribing unconditionally to the Lutheran Confessions; i.e. the Book of Concord, published in 1580. This book contains writings by Luther (the Large and Small Catechisms, the Smalcald articles) but also by Philip Melanchthon, another teacher at Wittenberg (the Augsburg Confession, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope). The point is, Lutherans never subscribed to everything Luther said or believed. For instance, we don’t believe you should burn down synagogues (although Luther was here no different than the catholic church of his day), nor do we necessarily believe that Mary was semper virgo, as did Luther, as a private opinion. What Lutherans believe and confess is what is contained in Scripture and taught in the confessions of our church. As a result, Lutherans do believe what Luther believed with regards to the sacraments, the Word, the Gospel, Justification, the personal union, the church, etc.

Now, there are many who are called Lutheran who no longer believe the Lutheran confessions. But that simply means they are holding the name falsely, kind of like Catholics who really don’t believe magisterial teaching. The fact is, your church can be historically descended from a Lutheran church, but if it does not believe the Confessions of the Lutheran church, it simply is not Lutheran.

So, the Lutheran world federation with which Rome signed the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification? Not Lutheran. If such a declaration could have been signed honestly, it would have happened in the 1500’s. But both Rome and the putative “Lutherans” were dishonest.

At any rate, your argument doesn’t work, because you have a false idea that the Lutheran church is built upon Luther or Luther’s opinions.

Secondly, you require Luther’s every pronouncement to be infallible, something you don’t even claim for the Pope. We don’t base our teachings on Luther. We agree with Luther because Luther taught in accordance with the apostles.

You also make the mistake that a lot of catholics make–the idea that since churches claiming sola scriptura don’t agree, we can’t know what the truth is by scripture alone.

The problem with this thinking is threefold;

1. The fact that people who claim sola scriptura disagree does not mean that scripture isn’t the final authority, it just means that some have not been reading carefully, or do not want to allow the word of God to speak.
2. Churches that claim to teach infallibly disagree on doctrine. Viz. the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthdox Communions, who do not agree on the nature of the trinity, papal infallibility, on whether the epiclesis or the verba consecrate the bread and wine, etc. Therefore, according to your reasoning, an authoritative teaching office cannot work either.
3. Your argument is faithless. If God wrote scripture, it is possible to understand what He is saying. Why doubt that God’s Word is clear and that He will speak clearly to us instead of doubting that a man or a hierarchy witnessing to itself (since there is no command in scripture) is infallible? Why not doubt tradition, which is always suspect, instead of doubting the efficacy of the Word of YHWH? Because original sin always incites us to rely on something other than God’s word. it is natural for carnal man to reject God’s authority for one that man invents.

 

[Bugenhagen]

Eden, Augustine is a witness to the Lord’s teaching in Scripture because he preached it, not because he heard the Lord speak. I’m a little surprised that you would respond to me in this way.

I mentioned Augustine as a witness to the Lord’s teaching about the invisible church because I do not accept the authority of the fathers as approaching that of the Holy Spirit’s in scripture. I mention that Augustine also agrees that the church is invisible and composed only of the holy and the faithful for your sake. I appreciate Augustine’s faithful testimony, but I do not need it, since I already have the word of Christ on it (John 15).

 

[Bugenhagen]

I find it interesting that Catholics put the writings of the apostles on the same level as the writings of the fathers. I wonder if you could elaborate your view of the inspiration of scripture, Eden?

St. Paul does not attack the teachings of the church. He attacks the teachings of every false spirit who interferes with Christ’s patrimony to the church–the gospel of the forgiveness of sins.

To me it is the height of arrogance to refuse to address scripture on its own terms, as Catholics usually fail to do, and it is a proof that Rome is not the church but rather an opponent of the gospel. If scripture supports Roman dogma, then you should be able to quickly and soundly shut the mouths of heretics like me using scripture alone. But the fact is that it is totally impossible for you to do that. In fact, Catholic apologists often refuse to even address scripture with protestants. Even as that goes on, however, many Roman exegetes openly acknowledge that Paul teaches sola fide .

 

[Church_Militant]

Bugenhagen:

You also make the mistake that a lot of catholics make–the idea that since churches claiming sola scriptura don’t agree, we can’t know what the truth is by scripture alone.

The problem with this thinking is threefold;

1. The fact that people who claim sola scriptura disagree does not mean that scripture isn’t the final authority, it just means that some have not been reading carefully, or do not want to allow the word of God to speak.

Yet there is no one having God ordained authority to decide the issues and, rebellious by nature, they all continue to propagate faulty doctrines…like Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide amd then continue to propagate further schisms ad infinitum. The NT says that the devil is the father of confusion and lies…

1. Churches that claim to teach infallibly disagree on doctrine. Viz. the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthdox Communions, who do not agree on the nature of the trinity, papal infallibility, on whether the epiclesis or the verba consecrate the bread and wine, etc. Therefore, according to your reasoning, an authoritative teaching office cannot work either.

Oh but it does, since all these groups do assent to Catholic teaching and reject the very things that Luther and the Protestants espouse.

1. Your argument is faithless. If God wrote scripture, it is possible to understand what He is saying. Why doubt that God’s Word is clear and that He will speak clearly to us instead of doubting that a man or a hierarchy witnessing to itself (since there is no command in scripture) is infallible? Why not doubt tradition, which is always suspect, instead of doubting the efficacy of the Word of YHWH? Because original sin always incites us to rely on something other than God’s word. it is natural for carnal man to reject God’s authority for one that man invents.

God wrote NOTHING in scripture but (as the scripture itself plainly says)

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,
2 Peter 1:21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

But there is command (and promise) in scripture that insures infallible leadership. John 16;13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.

Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

So we are not faithless at all, but you misrepresent the truth of the Word of God concerning us. If you are faithless enough not to accent to the truth…that is not the fault of Catholics.
Pax tecum,

 

[Church_Militant]

Bugenhagen:

Eden, Augustine is a witness to the Lord’s teaching in Scripture because he preached it, not because he heard the Lord speak. I’m a little surprised that you would respond to me in this way.

I mentioned Augustine as a witness to the Lord’s teaching about the invisible church because I do not accept the authority of the fathers as approaching that of the Holy Spirit’s in scripture. I mention that Augustine also agrees that the church is invisible and composed only of the holy and the faithful for your sake. I appreciate Augustine’s faithful testimony, but I do not need it, since I already have the word of Christ on it (John 15).

Yet Augustine clearly stated that he would not believe anything except the Catholic Church taught it. You can pull him out of context, but he does not support you.
Pax tecum,

 

[Church_Militant]

Bugenhagen:

To me it is the height of arrogance to refuse to address scripture on its own terms, as Catholics usually fail to do, and it is a proof that Rome is not the church but rather an opponent of the gospel. If scripture supports Roman dogma, then you should be able to quickly and soundly shut the mouths of heretics like me using scripture alone. But the fact is that it is totally impossible for you to do that. In fact, Catholic apologists often refuse to even address scripture with protestants. Even as that goes on, however, many Roman exegetes openly acknowledge that Paul teaches sola fide

.You make some very bold allegations that are factually inaccurate. The truth is that because you reject the testimony and writings of the ECF you lose all credence in your opinions as to the interpretations of passages of scripture. The fact that we often refer to the ECF along with our study of the Bible allows us the added assurance that what we believe a passage says is consistent with the likes of Polycarp, Clement, and Ignatius and others who have historically faithfully followed the Lord.

Your allegation that the Catholic Church is the opponent of the Gospel is nothing more than blatant anti-Catholic rhetoric without merit. It’s not simply scripture that refutes you, but the early church as well. I have already shown you above and many others on many other threads and forums that you misinterpret the Word of God to suit the fallacious doctrines that came into being a mere 500 years ago. And I’m not alone…Catholic apologists use scripture and then the historical references to show that the opinions of people like you are biased from the outset. Your refusal to listen or accent is just a function of the same rebellion that brought about the deformation (my term) that began in 1517.
You are not only wrong sir…you are biased and offensive in your allegations.
Pax tecum,

 

[streetcar]

I think you’re all missing the point.

The Catholic church was a very corrupt, very powerful political machine during its time. I don’t think anyone will try and dispute this with me. God worked through Martin Luther and by making his Theses, he actually helped refine the Catholic Church. He forced Catholics that were in power to fix their sinful ways so fellow Catholics wouldn’t jump onto the Protestant bandwagon.

So yes, I’m calling the first ever Protestant out as someone who did the Catholic religion a gigantic favor.

Of course, this is coming from someone who still considers himself a protestant, so I’m sure many of you will disagree with this.

 

[Church_Militant]

streetcar:

I think you’re all missing the point.

The Catholic church was a very corrupt, very powerful political machine during its time. I don’t think anyone will try and dispute this with me. God worked through Martin Luther and by making his Theses, he actually helped refine the Catholic Church. He forced Catholics that were in power to fix their sinful ways so fellow Catholics wouldn’t jump onto the Protestant bandwagon.

So yes, I’m calling the first ever Protestant out as someone who did the Catholic religion a gigantic favor.

Of course, this is coming from someone who still considers himself a protestant, so I’m sure many of you will disagree with this.

Bunk. Luther was a neurotic with a bad case of scruples that led him to concoct errant doctrines and alter the word of God. Your allegation that the Catholic Church was that corrupt is historically inaccurate. Stop making excuses for the guy and admit that he was weird and that he brought in existence unbiblical and heretical doctrines that have divided Christianity for 500 years, because that’s the truth. He did no one a favor…he messed up Christianity.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

streetcar:

I think you’re all missing the point.

The Catholic church was a very corrupt, very powerful political machine during its time. I don’t think anyone will try and dispute this with me. God worked through Martin Luther and by making his Theses, he actually helped refine the Catholic Church. He forced Catholics that were in power to fix their sinful ways so fellow Catholics wouldn’t jump onto the Protestant bandwagon.

So yes, I’m calling the first ever Protestant out as someone who did the Catholic religion a gigantic favor.

Of course, this is coming from someone who still considers himself a protestant, so I’m sure many of you will disagree with this.

Saint Francis of Assisi reformed the Church with out dividing the body of Christ there is a big difference.

 

[Scalia]

streetcar:

I think you’re all missing the point.

The Catholic church was a very corrupt, very powerful political machine during its time. I don’t think anyone will try and dispute this with me. God worked through Martin Luther and by making his Theses, he actually helped refine the Catholic Church. He forced Catholics that were in power to fix their sinful ways so fellow Catholics wouldn’t jump onto the Protestant bandwagon.

Actually, I will dispute most of this with you. Everytime I do real research on how the Church was a “very corrupt, very powerful political machine” I find this to be overblown to the point of misinformation. Great Jewish scholars (Kamen & Netanyahou)dispute protestant claims regarding the Inquisition. Yes, it was a Jewish scholar at Cambridge who writes that the Inquisition was secular and not from Rome, that Rome issued a Papal Bull against the Inquisition, a Biship died fighting the Inquistion, many priests and nuns died fighting the Inquisition etc., ect… But protestants like to misrepresent the situation to forward their religious beliefs by villifying the Church.

The issue of indulgences has been debated repeatedly on this forum. The Church stands by the correctness of the doctrine, irrespective of the historical abuses. Puritan witch hunts don’t detract from doctrines of sola scriptura do they?

As an American do you still love this country and feel it’s the best despite the “very corrupt” and “very” great wrongs of slavery (300 years!). That’s 300 years of death, degradation, rape, torn families and exploitation. 200 years of Jim Crow. The Tuskegee experiments where black men were treated like lab rats in speading STD’s. How about the Japanese internment during WWII? Does this stuff destroy the correctness or relevence of our Constitutional ideas? Should we divorce ourselves from this country to save it, just like Luther?

So yes, I’m calling the first ever Protestant out as someone who did the Catholic religion a gigantic favor.

Did John Brown’s violent methods really do the U.S. any favors in trying to end slavery? Did the first protestants John 6:66 do the Church any favors in leaving the room.

 

[Church_Militant]

Scalia:

Actually, I will dispute most of this with you. Everytime I do real research on how the Church was a “very corrupt, very powerful political machine” I find this to be overblown to the point of misinformation. Great Jewish scholars (Kamen & Netanyahou)dispute protestant claims regarding the Inquisition. Yes, it was a Jewish scholar at Cambridge who writes that the Inquisition was secular and not from Rome, that Rome issued a Papal Bull against the Inquisition, a Biship died fighting the Inquistion, many priests and nuns died fighting the Inquisition etc., ect… But protestants like to misrepresent the situation to forward their religious beliefs by villifying the Church.

The issue of indulgences has been debated repeatedly on this forum. The Church stands by the correctness of the doctrine, irrespective of the historical abuses. Puritan witch hunts don’t detract from doctrines of sola scriptura do they?

As an American do you still love this country and feel it’s the best despite the “very corrupt” and “very” great wrongs of slavery (300 years!). That’s 300 years of death, degradation, rape, torn families and exploitation. 200 years of Jim Crow. The Tuskegee experiments where black men were treated like lab rats in speading STD’s. How about the Japanese internment during WWII? Does this stuff destroy the correctness or relevence of our Constitutional ideas? Should we divorce ourselves from this country to save it, just like Luther?

Did John Brown’s violent methods really do the U.S. any favors in trying to end slavery? Did the first protestants John 6:66 do the Church any favors in leaving the room.

VERY well said Scalia. Factually inaccurate allegations against the church are nothing more than a pretext for Catholic bashing.

 

[Malachi4U]

Lisa4Catholics:

Saint Francis of Assisi reformed the Church with out dividing the body of Christ there is a big difference.

Not to a schismatic there’s NOT!

Just some Bible study for the schismatics:

Mal 2:10 “Have we not all the one Father? Has not the one God created us? Why then do we break faith with each other, violating the covenant of our fathers?” (Is Malachi still in Schismatic Bibles or have they yet deleted this book out too? )

St. Mt 12:25 "…“Every kingdom divided against itself will be laid waste, and no town or house divided against itself will stand.” (Schismatics can pick and choose what to obey and follow. Could Jesus really have said this? )

Acts 2:42-44 “They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers. 43 Awe came upon everyone, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.” (Apostolic Church and not seperate sects. Eucharist. Tradition. No mention of Bible study? No mention of schismatics! No independant churches in the New Testament!:bigyikes: )

Eph 2:20-22 “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone. 21 Through him the whole structure is held together and grows into a temple sacred in the Lord; 22 in him you also are being built together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.” (“a temple” This means a singe Catholic Church? Hip Hip Huray! :bounce: )

1 Thes 5:12-13 “We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you, 13 and to show esteem for them with special love on account of their work. Be at peace among yourselves.” (Poor Luther and his schismatics must have deleted out this verse on LOYALTY and UNITY in the Catholic Church. )

Ok, that’s enough for now.

 

[Eden]

streetcar:

I think you’re all missing the point.

The Catholic church was a very corrupt, very powerful political machine during its time. I don’t think anyone will try and dispute this with me. God worked through Martin Luther and by making his Theses, he actually helped refine the Catholic Church. He forced Catholics that were in power to fix their sinful ways so fellow Catholics wouldn’t jump onto the Protestant bandwagon.

So yes, I’m calling the first ever Protestant out as someone who did the Catholic religion a gigantic favor.

Of course, this is coming from someone who still considers himself a protestant, so I’m sure many of you will disagree with this.

Martin Luther recognized that the Church was in need of reform, however he was filled with pride and ambition. These qualities did not elevate him in a saintly way for the betterment of the Church. Instead of reforming the “sinfulness” of some clergy, he reformed “doctrine”. Can you imagine?! There is no justification for reforming the “deposit of faith” which was given to us by the Holy Spirit! Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are in direct contrast to the design left to us through Jesus and the Apostles! He was declared a heretic because his ideas were “spiritual poison” which led to the deception of millions of Christians down to this day. Those Christians are denied the “fullness of faith” that is available to them but they don’t even realize it because the deception was so complete. The Church had existed for 1500 years before Martin Luther arrived and had gone through cycles of reform when needed. This was not “new” and “unique” to Luther.
The Church has always been full of saints and sinners; among those saints have been reformers. The difference is, these saints had all of the Christian attributes Luther so sorely lacked: humility, chastity, obedience, charity, poverty. God did not work through Martin, he has worked through our saints. See the contrast to Luther in their lives and then tell me who has done the Church “a huge favor”:

calendarmine.com/holidays/SaintAlphaList.asp

 

[needsomepeace]

Eden:

Martin Luther recognized that the Church was in need of reform, however he was filled with pride and ambition. snip

I am not an expert and thus maybe I should not have an opinion on the issue, but maybey Father Luther was terrified of God, maybe he did not have peace with God ? I know many people, myself included, who do not have peace with God, this does not seem to be a real issue in most churches. I do think it is an issue with souls. It is a horrible feeling to not have peace with God. Of course this is more of an emotional side of it, so it may not have very much worth.

 

[DianJo]

Lisa4Catholics:

Saint Francis of Assisi reformed the Church with out dividing the body of Christ there is a big difference.

Another who helped reform the Church without dividing it was St. Catherine of Sienna! I believe she lived in the 1300’s (?) or thereabouts.

She helped bring the seat of Peter back to Rome from Avignon and chastised the Pope often about making reforms in the Church - but she didn’t divide the Chruch and the Church is much better for having had her as a faithful follower!

**Same goes for the monks - Benedictine, I believe. They were responsible for much reform within the Church and those reforms persist to this day. They did not divide the Church! How is it that Martin Luther is seen as having done us a great favor when so many others before him managed to create reform without division? **