Which of Luthers 95 theses

  • Thread starter Thread starter Xavier
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
One of Luther’s biggest deviations from Roman doctrine in the Theses, it seems to me, is the idea that the Pope cannot remit the temporal punishments inflicted by God, but only the canonical, penitential canons of the church. But Luther questioned why people should have to pay for this, since those canons were remitted in case of death anyway. In essence, Luther is already stating his doctrine, which he elaborated later in life, that the church cannot impose penitential discipline by divine right, as though they were commandments of God, but only as pastoral guidelines. The penitential canons were human ordinances, which may at one time have proven useful but were in Luther’s time interfering with the preaching of the gospel.

Luther wanted to emphasize that true penitence, without which there is no remission of sins, is terror of God’s wrath. True remission of sins is the result of clinging to Christ’s merits, imparted to the penitent through the absolution pronounced by the priest. Without these two things, there is no remission of sins. That said, it was a great distraction to tell people they could free loved ones from purgatory by the purchase of indulgences (the abuse of that time–indulgence-buying), since the temporal punishments imposed by God in addition to the guilt remitted by absolution were not bound and loosed by the church. Besides, Luther argued, who would want to be freed from those disciplines by which God mortifies the flesh of his children and strengthens them in the true faith?

What angered Eck and others was Luther’s notion of the power of the church. Luther was quite willing to say that the church had the power to bind and loose–that is, forgive and retain sins–but not to impose penalties or commandments in addition to the laws and penalties of God.

But Catholics should recognize in Luther the truly catholic nature of the reformation that began with his theses and quit ignorantly tarring him with the same brush they do all other protestants. They ought to give him a hearing, especially since he (and those who believe what he did today) are more catholic than the majority of Roman Catholics, only 30 some percent of whom truly believe and confess the true presence of the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Holy Supper.

“When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, ‘Repent’, he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.”

Amen.
 
I continously hear that jesus founded a church that is allegedly the roman catholic church,odd,it seems to me from his biblical teachings he founded a movement! in christian unity,celt
 
40.png
azcelt:
I continously hear that jesus founded a church that is allegedly the roman catholic church,odd,it seems to me from his biblical teachings he founded a movement! in christian unity,celt
Click to expand...
**Jesus founded a Church. He “said his Church would be “the light of the world.” He then noted that “a city set on a hill cannot be hid” (Matt. 5:14). This means his Church is a visible organization. It must have characteristics that clearly identify it and that distinguish it from other churches. Jesus promised, “I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return.” **

And "The Bible, sacred Tradition, and the writings of the earliest Christians testify that the Church teaches with Jesus’ authority. In this age of countless competing religions, each clamoring for attention, one voice rises above the din: the Catholic Church, which the Bible calls “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). Jesus assured the apostles and their successors, the popes and the bishops, “He who listens to you listens to me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). Jesus promised to guide his Church into all truth (John 16:12–13). We can have confidence that his Church teaches only the truth."

**He even created the hierarchy for His Church through the Apostles. **

Christ founded a Church (the Bride of Christ) which has the 4 sacred marks; it is one, holy, catholic and apostolic.
catholic.com/library/pillar.asp
****St. Cyprian taught in the 3rd century, “There is no salvation outside the Church.” **

St. Ignatius said in the 2nd century, "Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church."

**
 
40.png
Bugenhagen:
They ought to give him a hearing, especially since he (and those who believe what he did today) are more catholic than the majority of Roman Catholics,** only 30 some percent of whom truly believe and confess the true presence of the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Holy Supper.**
Click to expand...
Can you please tell me where you got this statistic?
 
40.png
Bugenhagen:
One of Luther’s biggest deviations from Roman doctrine in the Theses, it seems to me, is the idea that the Pope cannot remit the temporal punishments inflicted by God, but only the canonical, penitential canons of the church. But Luther questioned why people should have to pay for this, since those canons were remitted in case of death anyway. In essence, Luther is already stating his doctrine, which he elaborated later in life, that the church cannot impose penitential discipline by divine right, as though they were commandments of God, but only as pastoral guidelines. The penitential canons were human ordinances, which may at one time have proven useful but were in Luther’s time interfering with the preaching of the gospel.
Click to expand...
The Church never sold indulgences. Luther validly addressed abuses by priests that he witnessed. Some priests made it appear that they were “selling” indulgences. This is not so. A monetary gift to the Church was acceptable but not necessary.
You are confusing wayward priests with Church doctrine as did Luther. Also, indulgences don’t “get one out of purgatory”.

catholic.com/library/myths_about_indulgences.asp

The rest is Luther’s opinion and as he did not have the authority of apostolic succession, his opinions, while interesting and perhaps useful for reform of abuses were not a result of divine inspiration.
 
40.png
Eden:
The Church never sold indulgences. Luther validly addressed abuses by priests that he witnessed. Some priests made it appear that they were “selling” indulgences. This is not so. A monetary gift to the Church was acceptable but not necessary.
You are confusing wayward priests with Church doctrine as did Luther. Also, indulgences don’t “get one out of purgatory”.

catholic.com/library/myths_about_indulgences.asp

The rest is Luther’s opinion and as he did not have the authority of apostolic succession, his opinions, while interesting and perhaps useful for reform of abuses were not a result of divine inspiration.
Click to expand...
Indulgences remit temporal punishments, according to Catholic doctrine. In purgatory, temporal punishments which remain unsatisfied are satisfied. Thus, indulgences reduce time in purgatory. Or am I mistaken?

Luther was ordained a priest and a doctor in the church by those who had “valid apostolic succession.” However, “valid apostolic succession” is a chimera, particularly if one does not teach what the apostles taught. If one does teach and confess in accordance with the Holy Spirit inspired words of the apostles, then his teaching is inspired by God.

Which theses of Luther do you disagree with? Let’s begin with the first one, quoted above. “When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Repent,” he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.” True or false?
 
40.png
Bugenhagen:
Indulgences remit temporal punishments, according to Catholic doctrine. In purgatory, temporal punishments which remain unsatisfied are satisfied. Thus, indulgences reduce time in purgatory. Or am I mistaken?

Luther was ordained a priest and a doctor in the church by those who had “valid apostolic succession.” However, “valid apostolic succession” is a chimera, particularly if one does not teach what the apostles taught. If one does teach and confess in accordance with the Holy Spirit inspired words of the apostles, then his teaching is inspired by God.

Which theses of Luther do you disagree with? Let’s begin with the first one, quoted above. “When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Repent,” he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.” True or false?
Click to expand...
I understand that this is the Lutheran view on Luther’s authority. However, Luther was not a Bishop. “Apostolic succession” is valid only through the bishops. Luther also never claimed to be a prophet or directly inspired by the Holy Spirit. He believed that he and in fact all of us had the authority to interpret God’s message. The official response to Luther’s authority that I got from a doctor of the church is the following:

Lutherans do not believe that any “special authority” was “conferred on Luther by the Holy Spirit” apart from the authority given to all Christians to read, study and confess what the Word of God teaches. Lutherans believe that the Holy Spirit works only through God’s Word and Sacraments, so that any “authority” given by the Spirit is given through and rooted in God’s own Word.

As a Catholic, my perspective is quite different. If one does not have the authority of the Holy Spirit (established with the Apostles and given to Catholic bishops through apostolic succession), they are defined in the Bible as “false prophets”. While I understand that you are a Christian and love Christ as do I, I cannot accept Luther as a voice of equal authority on what Christ’s Church should teach.
 
If I were to believe that what Luther presented to us is “true”, I would also have to believe that God wanted Luther to reform His Church because the structure created by Christ through the Holy Spirit that had survived for 1500 years was a mistake.

T****he whole point of the second epistle of Peter is to stress the divine teaching authority of the apostles. Peter is a long argument against false teachers, whom Peter compares to false prophets (2 Pet. 2:1)*. In the Old Testament it is only false prophets who prophesy what their own minds prompt them to say (Jer. 23:15, Ezek. 13:3).* The genuine prophet only speaks from the Lord** (Jer. 1:4–10). **The false teachers therefore teach stories that they have made up out of their own minds **(2 Pet. 2:3), and Peter condemns them throughout the second chapter.

He does so only after he first establishes his own foundation for speaking with authority. The false teachers might promote cleverly invented stories but not the apostles. Instead they were eyewitnesses of Christ’s life and work (2 Pet. 1:16). Peter speaks with authority because, like Moses and Elijah, he had heard the voice from heaven when he was with Christ on the holy mountain (2 Pet. 1:18). Peter understands his presence at the transfiguration (Matt. 17:1–13) as the time when he inherited the prophetic authority of Moses and Elijah. Just before this transmission of authority Christ commissioned Peter to be the rock on which the Church would be built (Matt. 16:17–19). As a result, Peter claims an even higher authority and a more certain word than the prophets themselves (2 Pet. 1:19).

This necessary, established authority is what is passed down to the Pope (the Bishop of Rome) and the bishops. Looking through all of the documentation about the early Church you will see the early Fathers describing Catholicism not Lutheranism (and by extension any form of Protestantism). From a Catholic perspective, Luther can’t be speaking truth as he clearly abandoned the “deposit of faith” and he never had the authority to declare his beliefs as truth anyway.
 
That’s an interesting view of what St. Peter was saying in his letter. But Peter is not referring to his own prophecy in the first chapter, but rather says, “no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” Peter is referring to the God-breathed prophecy of the Old Testament, which testified to Christ. Jesus appealed to this authority when He claimed to be the Messiah of God (John 5:39-40), and He also opened the minds of his disciples walking to Emmaus so that they would understand the Scriptures which spoke about Him (Luke 24:27). Paul reasoned and proved from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ against the doctrine of those who sat on Moses’ seat (Acts 17:2-3), just as Jesus Himself had. Even the Nicene creed confesses that Christ was raised from the dead on the third day “according to the Scriptures.” It is this authority that Peter claims as a more certain source of authority than his experience of a voice speaking on the mountain (2 Peter 1:19). It is as if Peter was saying, “If you don’t believe me, believe the Scriptures,” which in fact Jesus had said numerous times–“If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.” (Luke 16:31)

Who are the true false prophets? I agree with you that it is people who set up their own ideas against the word of God. Such people are under the anathema of the apostle Paul: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8)” The gospel Paul preached is far from unclear. “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. (Romans 3:28)” Luther, as a doctor of sacred scripture, had the right and duty to teach what the apostles had clearly taught in Scripture. Even Christ condemned the godless traditions of those who sat in Moses’ seat (Matthew 23:2) from Holy Scripture (Matthew 15:3-4). This alone proves that all traditions are to be judged by God’s Word in Scripture and that the Word of God, recorded in Scripture, is judge of all other authorities, even in the church. If God had intended authority to rest with a teaching office which could not be corrected by scripture alone, Christ and the apostles alike sinned by defying those who sat on Moses’ seat.

I have read the early fathers (though not exhaustively, but I doubt many on this board can say they have.) What I saw was frankly nothing like Roman Catholicism. Jerome tells us that the episcopacy as it exists in Rome, the East, and Anglicanism, arose because presbyters elected one in their midst to be their head in a given city, for the sake of good order. This, frankly, does sound like Lutheranism, given that we confess only one office ordained for the church to preach, teach, and administer the sacraments. This is only one example among many.

Of course, there are as many readings of “what the early church was like” as there are interpreters of church history from various communions. This is true of the bible as well; but the bible has this going for it that the fathers and the writings of historians do not–the Bible is breathed by the Holy Spirit. If you would like to base your faith on the opinion that the early church was more like Rome than any other present day communion (an opinion that most church historians do not share), I would urge you to value more highly the scriptures which testify to Christ, and most certainly do not support the distinctives of Roman teaching.
 
And the fact remains that catholics fail to even look into the theses (as your posts seem to show), even though Luther is far more catholic than the majority of Roman Catholics today.
 
I have already read the theses (this is a very old thread). If Luther had contributed to the reform of abuses within the clergy (the human element of the Church), he would most likely have become canonized. Instead, he chose to defy the Church and reform doctrine (which was from the “deposit of faith” inspired by the Holy Spirit). Thus he was declared a “heretic” by the Church.

“For there is no salvation outside the Church” St. Cyprian taught in the 3rd century. I’ve already said that Luther had no authority to change the “deposit of faith”. It came to us through the Apostles by public revelation. Public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. You say that Luther is “far more Catholic than the majority of Roman Catholics today.” I have no idea what this means unless you are referring to “Cafeteria Catholics” who pick and chose what they believe. While “Cafeteria Catholics” exist, the teachings of the Church have not changed and will not change. The teachings cannot change as the Church must always remain faithful to the “deposit of faith”.

I disagree that Luther is “far more Catholic” than most Catholics as most Catholics have not started their own religion, rearranged the Bible, burned a Papal bull from the Pope, been proclaimed a heretic or created new dogma that contradict the “deposit of faith”. But I’ll say this, Luther’s “Lutheranism” was far more “Catholic” than the current Lutheran church. So, he was definitely far more Catholic than today’s Lutherans.
 
40.png
Bugenhagen:
I would assume that you agree that the Apostles were given authority by Christ and were guided by the Holy Spirit. Catholic bishops are the “successors” to this authority in an unbroken succession just as Peter has been succeeded in an unbroken line to Benedict XVI today. Christ promised that His Church would be led “into all truth” until the Second Coming.

“The Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth” is a good start to understanding Catholic context:

catholic.com/library/pillar.asp

**"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."

**Regarding the early Church Fathers, the Ignatian letters are invaluable.**St. Ignatius of Antioch was auditor to the Apostles. He not only received directly from the Apostles the “substance of revelation” but He received from the Apostles their own inspired interpretation of revelation. He knew the men whom Christ had chosen to transmit His message. He was a direct link - and he wrote, among other things, of the primacy of Rome:

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”. 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); hierarthe 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.
 
Your cut and paste fails to address my long post.

If 70 percent of American Catholics are “cafeteria catholics,” that would seem to be a major apostasy. Lutherans, however, being by definition those who believe the faith expressed in the Augsburg confession, have not departed from Luther’s faith. In our church, one cannot be Lutheran if they do not share the faith of the Lutheran church.

Agreed, that there is no salvation outside of the church. This is because the church, being the body of Christ, and connected to the true vine, has no dead members. The church is una sancta . There are no unholy members of the true church. Christ says, “If a man does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.” Wasn’t this the same St. Cyprian, by the way, who rejected Roman authority, and whose regional synod voted to excommunicate any priests who sought ajudication for ecclesastical conflicts from Rome?
 
The greatest offence to God was the split of Christianity at the time of the reformation. Now everybody should use logic. We know this split has been absolutely disastorous to the spreading of Christianity throughout the world. Now As Luther was the one who instigated it we have to ask ourselves, was God guiding Luther to what he did or not, that is the plain question. Now the only real way for us to know is if God was guiding him then his new or altered teaching must exactly be the teachings from God that is required of us.

So all those protestants who aggree that Luther was right must follow all that he believed, if not then you have no faith that he was guided by God. If you don’t follow his teachings then you must accept that he was not guided by God.

You cannot take some and not others because there is no way to know at what point God stopped guiding Luther.

Logic and faith dictates two choices, follow exactly as Luther believed and taught or accept that Luther was wrong.

In Christ

Tim
 
Tim Hayes:
The greatest offence to God was the split of Christianity at the time of the reformation. Now everybody should use logic. We know this split has been absolutely disastorous to the spreading of Christianity throughout the world. Now As Luther was the one who instigated it we have to ask ourselves, was God guiding Luther to what he did or not, that is the plain question. Now the only real way for us to know is if God was guiding him then his new or altered teaching must exactly be the teachings from God that is required of us.

So all those protestants who aggree that Luther was right must follow all that he believed, if not then you have no faith that he was guided by God. If you don’t follow his teachings then you must accept that he was not guided by God.

You cannot take some and not others because there is no way to know at what point God stopped guiding Luther.

Logic and faith dictates two choices, follow exactly as Luther believed and taught or accept that Luther was wrong.

In Christ

Tim
Click to expand...
Your argument:

P1. The greatest offense to God was the split at the time of the reformation.

I don’t grant this. I don’t see why it is a greater offense than the other schisms that had come before. Nor do I see why the split is a greater offense than the corruption and false doctrine which precipitated it.

P2. This split was disastrous to the spread of Christianity throughout the world.

If anything, the reformation increased Catholic missionary zeal.

P3. If God was guiding Luther, Luther must have been infallible in every point of his teaching.

Why? Even Popes, who you claim are infallible when speaking ex cathedra, are not infallible everywhere else. Why should Luther be?

Your argument crumbles on this point. The Lutheran Church is not built on Luther, just as the una sancta is not built on Peter. The Church is built on Christ, whom both Luther and Peter confessed.

It is true that Rome was grievously wounded in the reformation, but this wound came from the sword of God’s word, not from Luther.
 
40.png
Bugenhagen:
Your cut and paste fails to address my long post.

If 70 percent of American Catholics are “cafeteria catholics,” that would seem to be a major apostasy. Lutherans, however, being by definition those who believe the faith expressed in the Augsburg confession, have not departed from Luther’s faith. In our church, one cannot be Lutheran if they do not share the faith of the Lutheran church.

Agreed, that there is no salvation outside of the church. This is because the church, being the body of Christ, and connected to the true vine, has no dead members. The church is una sancta . There are no unholy members of the true church. Christ says, “If a man does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.” Wasn’t this the same St. Cyprian, by the way, who rejected Roman authority, and whose regional synod voted to excommunicate any priests who sought ajudication for ecclesastical conflicts from Rome?
Click to expand...
What you are referring to as the “true church” is what Catholics understand to be the “True Church” - a visible society on earth. The Catholic Church is the True Church that is a visible society on earth. I understand that Protestants believe that the “true church” is the invisible union with Christ but the Bible clearly states that Jesus said his Church would be “the light of the world.” He then noted that “a city set on a hill cannot be hid” (Matt. 5:14). This means his Church is a visible organization. It must have characteristics that clearly identify it and that distinguish it from other churches. Jesus promised, “I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return.

The Protestants churches are not one organized, coherent group nor do they resemble the early Church. They are simply not members of the visible, True Church. Not only that - the Catholic Church had the same teachings today that it had in in St. Ignatius’ time in the 2nd century. This test of Christ’s Church is its consistency. What is the Lutheran teaching on divorce, contraception, abortion and homosexual unions? Only the Catholic Church has maintained faithful to the Biblical and historical teachings from Christ and the Apostles in addressing these four “controversial” issues.

Where are you getting your statistic that 70% of Catholics are “cafeteria Catholics”? I’m curious about the source. The various parishes that I have experienced are alive and vigorous. You must also remember that Americans are a very small percentage of the universal Church of 1 billion members. I know that we as Americans tend to think that we are the center of the world but as far as the universal Church is concerned, that is not the case. Americans hardly constitute a large enough membership percentage to be considered a source of apostasy. That’s if you expect me to believe that apostasy comes from the people. Pope Benedict XVI has stated (when still a cardinal), that he would rather the Church have smaller membership which remains faithful to the “deposit of faith”. He is certainly working to that end by clearly reinforcing such teachings as the sanctity of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Another name for “cafeteria Catholics”, by the way, is Catholics in Name Only (or CINO). I am certain that you know Lutherans in name only. I would not call this apostasy of the church but failings of its members.

Someone suggested a book on another thread several weeks ago with the thesis that Luther would not recognize his Church today.
Fidelity to doctrine has not lasted even 500 years let alone 2,000.
Regarding the un-Biblical teachings of contraception, divorce, homosexual unions and abortion in some Protestant churches, where in Scripture does it say that if a teaching is unpopular, the church must change its teaching to conform to the will of the people?

As far as my cut and paste not addressing your long post, could you please tell me which points specifically you feel I have not addressed? I will gladly answer any points that remain unanswered.
 
As far as St. Cyprian and the papacy:

Source: catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4424

St. Cyprian clearly recognized the primacy and authority of Pope Fabian (236-250), Pope Cornelius (251-253), Pope Lucius I (253-254), Pope Stephen (254-257), and Pope Sixtus II (257-258).

A convert to Catholicism, St. Cyprian was baptized on April 18, 246. He become Bishop of Carthage in 248. In 251, he wrote, “If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he (should) desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”

(Note: *This *is the Church that St. Cyprian is referring to when he said that salvation comes only through the Church - the Church which holds fast to its unity with Peter. Your explanation of that verse as referring to an invisible church is a Protestant invention to explain these early writings in a way that satisfies Protestant claims to legitimacy.)

In 252, in a letter to Pope Cornelius informing him of a rival bishop in Carthage, he wrote, “When a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source.”

Later, St. Cyprian wrote to Pope Stephen asking him to remove Bishop Marcian of Arles, who was refusing absolution to repentant sinners even on their deathbed, and to arrange for a new bishop to replace him.

There’s a lot more historical evidence regarding St. Cyprian’s belief in the primacy of the Pope. For Dr. Horton to suggest that Catholic tradition did not support that primacy ignores all of the abundant historical proof. It is true that St. Cyprian later got into a dispute with Pope Stephen about re-baptism of persons who enter the Catholic Faith from other Christian denominations or Catholics who had lapsed and returned to the Church.

Dr. Horton quotes the Seventh Council of Carthage in 258 as saying “neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops,” but that passage refers to the Council not forcing all bishops in Northern Africa to go along with re-baptisms. Specifically, it was a statement by St. Cyprian that he was not attempting to impose his opinion regarding re-baptism on Bishop Jubaianus.

There is no one who thinks that refers to the Bishop of Rome. In fact, the deliberations of the Council of Carthage were sent to Pope Steven for approval, but he rejected them, making it very clear that Catholic doctrine was once baptized, always baptized. He forbade re-baptisms and threatened excommunication to those who performed them. The Pope emphasized that he was the successor to St. Peter, about whom Cyprian had written about so enthusiastically. He told St. Cyprian he must obey him.

There is no evidence that St. Cyprian, who was martyred shortly after, was ever excommunicated. St. Jerome wrote that, after receiving the Pope’s command, the African bishops then corrected their decision to re-baptize and issued a new decree. St. Augustine says the Easterners also followed the Pope’s ruling. Dr. Horton’s first case-in-point actually adds to the evidence for the primacy of the Pope.
 
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.

Of course there are visible marks of the church. They are the administration of the gospel and the sacraments according to Christ’s institution. Where this is done, it is certain that Christ is building His holy church. To whatever extent the gospel and sacraments are vitiated, we know we are dealing with a heretical church, and although there will be saints there (so long as scripture is read and the trinity is confessed), knowing such a church is in error requires protest against the false doctrine and eventual separation if ungodly teachers will not repent. We confess a true visible church–that church or those churches which teach what Christ gave His church to teach. However, the tares mixed in among the wheat in such communions cannot properly be termed members of the church, since Christ’s body does not have dead members, as the Lord Himself states in John 15.

Augustine is a witness to the teaching of the Lord as well. In fact he was perhaps the first to clearly differentiate between the invisible church, consisting only of holy members, and the visible church, comprised of the wicked and the just alike.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top