Which of Luthers 95 theses

  • Thread starter Thread starter Xavier
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Xavier:
I had a politaical discussion with my brother some time ago. He said he has shifted in his thinking in that he now considers himself a Catholic first and American second, it had not always been that way.
I consider myself Christian first.
Many, many, many catholics consider themsleves Catholic nad not Christian. Christ established the Christian Church. Luther did not establish another religion he broke away from the practices and beliefs of the existing religion.
Because to us Catholic IS Christian even as it has been since the NT was written. Luther was a neuro case that went nuts and allowed himself to be used by the civil authorities of his day. His theology was in error then as it is today and there was never anything in his complaints against the church that warranted the division that he caused.

You couch remarks like this in your posts in an effort to imply something that you cannot sustain by the actual and unbiased evidence. In most circles that’s known as slander Either offer real evidence or cease your baseless allegations.

slan·der Audio pronunciation of “slander” ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slndr)
n.
  1. Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person’s reputation.
  2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.
v. slan·dered, slan·der·ing, slan·ders
v. tr.
Code:
To utter a slander about. See Synonyms at malign.
v. intr.
Code:
To utter or spread slander.
[Middle English slaundre, from Old French esclandre, alteration of escandle, from Latin scandalum, cause of offense, stumbling block. See scandal.]slander·er n.
slander·ous adj.
slander·ous·ly adv.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Main Entry: slan·der
Pronunciation: 'slan-d&r
Function: transitive verb
: to utter slander against —slan·der·er noun

Source: Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
**
slander**

n 1: words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another 2: an abusive attack on a person’s character or good name [syn: aspersion, calumny, defamation, denigration] v : charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and reputation of someone; “The journalists have defamed me!” “The article in the paper sullied my reputation” [syn: defame, smirch, asperse, denigrate, calumniate, smear, sully, besmirch]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

.**
 
Church Militant:
Because to us Catholic IS Christian even as it has been since the NT was written. Luther was a neuro case that went nuts and allowed himself to be used by the civil authorities of his day. His theology was in error then as it is today and there was never anything in his complaints against the church that warranted the division that he caused.

You couch remarks like this in your posts in an effort to imply something that you cannot sustain by the actual and unbiased evidence. In most circles that’s known as slander Either offer real evidence or cease your baseless allegations.

slan·der Audio pronunciation of “slander” ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slndr)
n.
  1. Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person’s reputation.
  2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.
v. slan·dered, slan·der·ing, slan·ders
v. tr.

To utter a slander about. See Synonyms at malign.

v. intr.

To utter or spread slander.

[Middle English slaundre, from Old French esclandre, alteration of escandle, from Latin scandalum, cause of offense, stumbling block. See scandal.]slander·er n.
slander·ous adj.
slander·ous·ly adv.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Main Entry: slan·der
Pronunciation: 'slan-d&r
Function: transitive verb
: to utter slander against —slan·der·er noun

Source: Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

slander

n 1: words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another 2: an abusive attack on a person’s character or good name [syn: aspersion, calumny, defamation, denigration
] v : charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and reputation of someone; “The journalists have defamed me!” “The article in the paper sullied my reputation” [syn: defame, smirch, asperse, denigrate, calumniate, smear, sully, besmirch]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

.**

STOP IT!
YOU KNOW BETTER
So your saying Rome was nnot used by the civil authorittes in Luthers day?

My implication is that most Catholics that I know and have met, think of themselves as Catholics not as Christians.
If you ask them are you Christian they would say oh well yes.
 
40.png
Xavier:
If you ask them are you Christian they would say oh well yes.
That’s because they understand that Catholic is synonymous with Christian. This was just explained to you. Did you not read the prior posts?
 
40.png
Xavier:
I had a politaical discussion with my brother some time ago. He said he has shifted in his thinking in that he now considers himself a Catholic first and American second, it had not always been that way.

I consider myself Christian first.
Many, many, many catholics consider themsleves Catholic nad not Christian. Christ established the Christian Church. Luther did not establish another religion he broke away from the practices and beliefs of the existing religion.
:bigyikes: That’s patently absurd… NO Catholic I know of considers themselves non-Christian…

We consider ourselves the only “true” Christians in the fact that we have never deviated from the one true faith that Jesus and the Apostles handed down through the ages as His One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Any Catholic who does NOT believe this should get out and seek the church that does fit this description. This is an absolute dogma of faith that each and EVERY Catholic recites when they pray the Apostles Creed.

Any Catholic who tells you that they believe themselves to be non-Christian, doesn’t what they are talking about.

Personally I don’t give a hoot about Luther’s 95 theses. He was wrong and he still IS wrong. Whether he misunderstood the Church teachings or whether he made something up, I really don’t care.

He is responsible for dividing the Church and for millions upon millions to follow erroneous doctrines. IF anyone goes to Hell for following his teachings then that responsibility rests on his soul. He’s a heretic, and may God have mercy on his soul.
 
40.png
Eden:
Here is a concise Q & A on your concern about Catholics referring to themselves as “Catholic” vs. “Christian”. In the earliest days of the Catholic Church (what Protestants call the “early Church”) all Christians were Catholics.

**catholic /christian **
Question from mandy on 3/17/2005: ewtn.com/images/printer.gif
I was wondering why when speaking with catholics that they do not refer to themselves as christians but call them selves catholics instead, aren’t both one in the same?

Answer by Catholic Answers on 3/26/2005:

Dear Mandy, Catholics were the first Christians. For Catholics “Christian” has come to include all those who have been baptized, including many who do not accept all of the deposit of the faith. For us, to be a Catholic is to accept all of the teachings of the early Church. Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

If you do not believe that Luther created a new religion, the Ignatian letters are wonderful proof that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ:

(from New Advent)

Contents of the letters It is scarcely possible to exaggerate the importance of the testimony which the Ignatian letters offer to the dogmatic character of Apostolic Christianity. The martyred Bishop of Antioch constitutes a most important link between the Apostles and the Fathers of the early Church. **Receiving from the Apostles themselves, whose auditor he was, not only the substance of revelation, but also their own inspired interpretation of it; dwelling, as it were, at the very fountain-head of Gospel truth, his testimony must necessarily carry with it the greatest weight and demand the most serious consideration. **Cardinal Newman did not exaggerate the matter when he said (“The Theology of the Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius”, in “Historical Sketches”, I, London, 1890) that “the whole system of Catholic doctrine may be discovered, at least in outline, not to say in parts filled up, in the course of his seven epistles”.

Which of the following elements of the early Church that were documented by St. Ignatius of Antioch that are still found in the Catholic Church are part of the faith system of different Protestant interpretations of Christianity?

Among the many Catholic doctrines to be found in the letters are the following: the Church was Divinely established as a visible society, the salvation of souls is its end, and those who separate themselves from it cut themselves off from God(Philad., c. iii); the hierarchy of the Church was instituted by Christ (lntrod. to Philad.; Ephes., c. vi); the threefold character of the hierarchy (Magn., c. vi); the order of the episcopacy superior by Divine authority to that of the priesthood (Magn., c. vi, c. xiii; Smyrn., c. viii;. Trall., .c. iii);the unity of the Church (Trall., c. vi;Philad., c. iii; Magn., c. xiii);the holiness of the Church (Smyrn., Ephes., Magn., Trall., and Rom.); the catholicity of the Church (Smyrn., c. viii); the infallibility of the Church(Philad., c. iii; Ephes., cc. xvi, xvii); the doctrine of the Eucharist (Smyrn., c. viii), which word we find for the first time applied to the Blessed Sacrament, just as in Smyrn., viii, we meet for the first time the phrase “Catholic Church”, used to designate all Christians**; the Incarnation** (Ephes., c. xviii); the supernatural virtue of virginity, already much esteemed and made the subject of a vow (Polyc., c. v); the religious character of matrimony (Polyc., c. v); the value of united prayer (Ephes., c. xiii); **the primacy of the See of Rome **(Rom., introd.). He, moreover, denounces in principle the Protestant doctrine of private judgment in matters’ of religion (Philad. c. iii), The heresy against which he chiefly inveighs is Docetism. Neither do the Judaizing heresies escape his vigorous condemnation.
Jesus founded the Christian religion
I am Christian
I am part of the Christs Church
Christ found my Church, it is His.
I am not Catholic.
Jesus founded my religion, regardless whether you believe it to be true. You are in error not Christ.
 
40.png
Xavier:
STOP IT!
YOU KNOW BETTER
So your saying Rome was nnot used by the civil authorittes in Luthers day?

My implication is that most Catholics that I know and have met, think of themselves as Catholics not as Christians.
If you ask them are you Christian they would say oh well yes.
Why don’t you wake up and give us a break with this bunk Xave? You judge everything by what someone you know says. Most of whom are not as well taught as I and most of the regulars here.
If someone asks me if I’m a Christian you can bet your life that I’d say, “Yes, I’m Catholic.” Only someone as narrow-minded and argumentative as you would bother to split such hairs because you’ve been trained to use such questions as a springboard for your “witnessing”.

We all know that you have a hard case going for us Catholics and still you haven’t got the guts to admit that you think we are not Christians because we are Catholics, which is the implication of your every remark. You should know by now that you’re wrong, but you’re not honest enough to let go of your petty anti-Catholic, “no one’s saved unless they’re saved like me”, “come out from the whore of Babylon”, junk and go about your business. Who needs your evangelism on here? Not Catholics, that’s for sure. And evangelism is just exactly why you post here isn’t it Xavier? It’s the same old anti-Catholcism looking for some poor Catholic “to save” that we are trying to help know his faith while guys like you think it’s appropriate to come in here and attempt to confuse and proselytize the very people this forum is here to help. Why don’t you go play your games on CARM or Yahoo or wherever.

I’ve told you before that Catholics do not do this sort of stuff to other faiths. What part don’t you get?
Pax,
 
The Church that you are in right now doesn’t look like the Church that Jesus founded. I don’t know what church you are in. If you tell us, we can tell you which man/men founded it.

cym.perthcatholic.org.au/whynot/jesusfounded.php

***PROVIDE EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT JESUS FOUNDED CATHOLICISM. ***

Jesus founded Catholicism on the first pope: Peter (Matt 16:18 ). There exists abundant evidence proving that the Early Christian Church was Catholic in faith, worship and government (see the pages entitled: THE EARLY CHURCH WAS CATHOLIC). The date of foundation of every non-Catholic Christian group can be given, and in no case is it 30 AD, and their founder is not Jesus. Only the Catholic Church goes back in every respect to her foundation by Christ Himself. Christ, who is God, founded a Church. He promised it would last to the end of time. Therefore, His Church exists in the world at the present day. Christ imprinted certain marks on His Church so that people could always identify it. No church, therefore, can be His Church, unless it possesses ALL those marks. The Catholic Church alone possesses them. Only the Catholic Church is **one, holy, catholic and apostolic **. (See also Nicene Creed, 325 AD.)

"If the truth is in the way, you are on the wrong road" - Josh Billings
 
40.png
Xavier:
Jesus founded the Christian religion
I am Christian
I am part of the Christs Church
Christ found my Church, it is His.
I am not Catholic.
Jesus founded my religion, regardless whether you believe it to be true. You are in error not Christ.
Oh but you are Catholic. You just don’t realize it. You are a member of a Church that divided from the Catholic Church. You have some truth–but not the fullness of truth. I’ll bet your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather was Catholic! 😃
 
Church Militant:
Irrelevent… However, every Mass begins with a time of self examination and contrition before God…unlike every n-C service I ever went to.
I suspected this was incorrect so I looked this up:

goodshepherd.nb.ca/liturgy/

The Confession of SinsWe examine ourselves and publicly confess our sins. Such a confession at the beginning of the service provides a climate of acceptance. In spite of our sins, we are accepted by God, and in turn we can accept each other.
  • I John 1:8-10 [Rom. 7:14-8:4].**The Absolution or **
    Declaration of GraceChrist said to his disciples, “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven”*. The pastor speaks for God and announces God’s cleansing forgiveness to those who made confession.
  • John 20:23.
Sorry: couldn’t find an on-line version of Lutheran liturgy in a hurry but this will do.

Oh and by the way: Anglicans do the same thing:

anglicansonline.org/resources/bcp.html

They all have something on the order of the following:

DEARLY beloved brethren, the Scripture moveth us, in sundry places, to acknowledge and confess our manifold sins and wickedness; and that we should not dissemble nor cloak them before the face of Almighty God our heavenly Father; but confess them with an humble, lowly, penitent, and obedient heart; to the end that we may obtain forgiveness of the same, by his infinite goodness and mercy. And although we ought, at all times, humbly to acknowledge our sins before God; yet ought we chiefly so to do, when we assemble and meet together to render thanks for the great benefits that we have received at his hands, to set forth his most worthy praise, to hear his most holy Word, and to ask those things which are requisite and necessary, as well for the body as the soul. Wherefore I pray and beseech you, as many as are here present, to accompany me with a pure heart, and humble voice, unto the throne of the heavenly grace, saying –

. . . .

To be said by the whole Congregation, after the Minister, all kneeling.


ALMIGHTY and most merciful Father; We have erred, and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep. We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts. We have offended against thy holy laws. We have left undone those things which we ought to have done; And we have done those things which we ought not to have done; And there is no health in us. But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us, miserable offenders. Spare thou those, O God, who confess their faults. Restore thou those who are penitent; According to thy promises declared unto mankind In Christ Jesus our Lord. And grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake; That we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life, To the glory of thy holy Name. Amen.

The Declaration of Absolution, or Remission of Sins.

To be made by the Priest alone, standing; the People still kneeling. But NOTE, That the Priest, at his discretion, may use, instead of what follows, the Absolution from the Order for Holy Communion.


ALMIGHTY God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he may turn from his wickedness and live, hath given power, and commandment, to his Ministers, to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the Absolution and Remission of their sins. He pardoneth and absolveth all those who truly repent, and unfeignedly believe his holy Gospel.

Wherefore let us beseech him to grant us true repentance, and his Holy Spirit, that those things may please him which we do at this present; and that the rest of our life hereafter may be pure and holy; so that at the last we may come to his eternal joy; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.


Whilst I am at it: I was raised in the independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, who celebrate communion weekly. THEY invite those participating in communion to examine their consciences, usually citing one or more Scripture passages. So do the Mormons. I suspect we could multiply examples but this is a tad off-topic. Just wanted to note a correction.
 
Flameburns- CM said “unlike every n-C service I ever went to.” He did not say unlike every n-C service. From the examples that you have shown, it is nice to discover that some Protestant churches have not removed this aspect of Catholicism from their “services”.
 
40.png
Xavier:
Jesus founded the Christian religion
Jesus founded a Church. A Christian is someone who follows Jesus. A Christian does not by definition mean one is in His Church. See the dictionary. Mormons are Christian and so are JW’s and SDA’s and you and me. We all believe in Jesus so we are all Christian (By dictionary standards for this example). I however am a member of His body, His Catholic Church, the LDS, JW’s, SDA’s and other Protestants are not.

Just because I want to be a Texan does not make me one. I must move to that state and pass that states requirements for membership. Just because you want to be in His body does not make you a part untill you pass its membership requirements.
I am Christian
I’ll take your word for that. (By dictionary definition anyway;) )
I am part of the Christs Church
So you’re Catholic then! Great! Welcome home!:love:
Christ found my Church, it is His.
What church do you belong to?

Baptists were founded in 1607 by Smyth.
Lutherans in 1522 by Luther.
Mormons in 1822 by Smith.
Catholics in 33 A.D. by Christ.
etc…
I am not Catholic.
So, you are not a member of His body after all. Just a follower of Christ, a Christian. Perhaps even a very good Christian too I hope!:yup:
Jesus founded my religion, regardless whether you believe it to be true. You are in error not Christ.
Tsk, Tsk:tsktsk: Don’t be an osterage. Keep an open mind to see the truth.

Hey, I forgot, did you just drift off topic? What does all this have to do with Luthers 95 Blasphemy? You just got off topic after critizing me for it! Oh, well, I’ve delt with this standard before.

Hurry up and get back posting! I enjoy reading your posts!

By the way, I disproved point 30 in Luthers ramblings so now it’s your turn to prove it true. Or will you pass on that difficult task now?
 
40.png
Xavier:
Jesus founded the Christian religion

I am part of the Christs Church

Christ found my Church, it is His.

Jesus founded my religion

You are in error not Christ.
Please prove each of the above points if you can. And by all means you can use the tool the Catholic Church wrote, cannonized, declared inspired and preserved for you - the Bible!
 
40.png
Xavier:
I know you like to hate on me;)
Xavier is my blood brother. He has fallen away from the faith of his Fathers, although I love him as much as ever :>). He now likes to take jabs at the Church using anti-Catholic information sources. If you take the time to prove him wrong, he only says the issue doesn’t matter anyway.

Case in point. Last year, on another forum, Xavier leveled the Charge that Catholics were persecuting fundies in Mexico. I take the time and spend several hours researching the Charge and find the following FACTS:

(1.) The U.S. State Dept. had no evidence of fundie persecution in Mexico by Papists (I’m a Papist in good standing and use the term affectionately). The State Dept had some evidence that fundies actually killed some Catholics in South America (I can’t recall where). Further Catholic missionaries have a hard time getting visas to travel there.

(2.) The Unitied Nations has documented thousands and thousands of atrocities ALL over the WORLD by other parties but listed no Catholic actions against fundies in Mexico.

(3.) Amnesty International, like the U.N., had no information concerning these charges, despite the fact that the U.N. has documented thousands of other acts all over the world by various other groups.

(4.) Mexico has had only one Catholic president in the last 90 years. Apparently, the ruling party in Mexico is Masonic and anti-Catholic.

(5.) Some Jesuits were killed in Mexico in the 20’s and 30’s and some of the priests are up for sainthood.

Finally, in response to these facts, Xavier coughed up his internet site regarding the allegations. Evidently, some fundie minister was miffed that JPII wanted to go after the lost sheep, who are now protestant, and this upset the protestant minister, who thought it was a hateful thing to do. Yet, that same minister did the same thing everday against Catholics. When it was all said and done, Xavier said he didn’t care about the issue anymore. He simply wanted to spew charges, have me or others expend countless hours piecing facts together regarding the REAL situation.
 
Grace & Peace!

Reading through Luther’s theses, I don’t think that one can find too too much at odds with catholic tradition. He goes out of his way to defend the right of the pope to grant indulgences, he goes out of his way to support the practice (calling those who preach against them anathema). Here and there he may get carried away, but his zeal is for true contrition, without which an indulgence will be useless.

It seems clear that his gripe is not that the church was or is wrong, but that certain preachers of indulgences were leading the people to believe (or not correcting them if they did believe) that contrition was not necessary for remission–that simply by paying the money, one could rest assured that all was well. This, as evidenced by the theses, led to a belief among many, apparently not disabused by the clergy at the time, that an indulgence remitted guilt and not merely punishment. This incensed Luther. He is attempting to draw attention to a more orthodox interpretation of indulgences and is, as well, attempting to upbraid priests and others who for whatever reason (and perhaps this was just Luther’s perception of events) did not seek to correct the evident abuses. He defends indulgences. He decries their abuse.

It is inevitable that, given human corruption, and given the support Tetzel had from the Archbishop of Mainz, the argument would devolve into one of authority and that the debacle would have ended in schism. But Luther’s position was not anti-catholic, not anti-church. His letter to his Archbishop is sign enough of this:

“Papal indulgences for the building of St. Peter’s are circulating under your most distinguished name, and as regards them, I do not bring accusation against the outcries of the preachers, which I have not heard, so much as I grieve over the wholly false impressions which the people have conceived from them; to wit, – the unhappy souls believe that if they have purchased letters of indulgence they are sure of their salvation; again, that so soon as they cast their contributions into the money-box, souls fly out of purgatory; furthermore, that these graces * are so great that there is no sin too great to be absolved, even, as they say – though the thing is impossible – if one had violated the Mother of God; again, that a man is free, through these indulgences, from all penalty and guilt.”

That the response was inadequate seems to have been, for Luther, quite disillusioning and discomfiting. It took the Reformation to convince the Roman Church that something had to be done–and something was done. Abuses were corrected. But by that time, the damage was done and the Reformers and the Roman Church were so entrenched in their mutual ire, suspicion, and contempt for each other that reunion at the time was unlikely.

God grant that we may see reunion in our day!

–Mark

Deo Gratias!*
 
  1. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;
I agree.
 
  1. The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God.
I like it.
 
  1. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter’s church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.
I really like it.
 
40.png
Xavier:
But it was the hierarchy of the church which divided the true gospel from its teachings yet you do not hold them accountable. If it was only a rougue priest or three we would not be having this discussion. The whole of the institution was corrupt.
To say such a thing - you must first prove it. God keeps His Church safe from all heresies and the mistakes and evil intentions of those (knowingly or not) who try to bring down His Church. So even if ther were hundreds of corrupt priests, His Church will and does exist.

God does not change human nature. Rather He provides us the strength and grace to overcome it when we ask Him. Seek and ye shall find. Ask and the door will open. (Please ask Him!!!)

One final thought…Look unto your own. While I know there are many many many many many protestant denominations, there is much corruption there. And yet there is no ONE protestant church. Go to any Catholic Mass and you will find the same Mass. The same miracle of the Holy Eucharist. Our Lord God - the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. AMEN!!!

God Bless!

Donna
 
Rand Al'Thor:
I’m sure there were priests out there telling people that indulgences could get them into heaven, but that wasnt a teaching of the church.
Precisely, and Luther knew that. He was defending Church teaching against those priests who were “telling people that indulgences could get them into heaven”. The 95 theses were not intended to break with the Church, only to defend her. Almost all of them are consistent with Catholic doctrine. It was only later in life that Luther started deviating.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top