M
Why follow a religion made up by Martin Luther in 1500 and not Christ himself?
- Status
M
MrS
Guest
And there weren’t any Christians before Christ. Christ is the fulfillment of the OT. The Eucharist is the only covenant, and It is His Promish without comprimise or requirement for any of us to enter into that promise.
The point of the OP is that Luther and so many others have preferred a theology different from that which Christ left behind. So why follow any of them. We should all be looking only for the One Church which is meant to safeguard that theology.
The fullness of Faith is NOT found outside the Catholic Church. And those outside the Catholic Church hardly know what can be truly found inside Jesus’ Bride.
.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Yes, they certainly should. (One fool-proof way to do that would be for them to return to the Catholic Church - that way, they would be sure to be rid of every novelty of Protesantism, and also be restored to the fullness of the Christian faith, regaining every good thing that Luther and his successors threw away.)
C
Contarini
Guest
Unfortunately, it does not seem (to me at least) that the evidence bears you out on this. In practice Lutherans and other Protestants have many perfectly orthodox beliefs and practices that are rare or even absent in Catholicism. Just compare the hymns sung by Catholics with those sung by traditional Lutherans or Anglicans or Methodists (or even Presbyterians), for instance.
Edwin
J
jmcrae
Guest
If your standard of “orthodoxy” is Protestant teaching, then naturally, Protestantism will seem “more orthodox” to you than Catholicism.
But when compared to the Early Church, Catholicism is more like the Early Church (miracles, relics, Saints, etc.) than Protestantism, which tends to be very cerebral.
I think that “O Salutaris” and “Tantum Ergo” are much more orthodox (much more akin to the Church of the Early Fathers) than hymns like “Jesus, Friend of Little Children” or “We Plough the Fields and Scatter.”
The majority of hymns in both traditions are taken from the words of Scripture, though, and I don’t see how one could judge any of those to be “unorthodox.”
D
Damascus
Guest
Dear Steadfast,
I dont Hate anyone. Luther was confused. Sacred Scripture doctorates do not erase confusion.
He was confused and no one had to try to confuse him. He did it all on his own.
Read my link on my sig
C
Contarini
Guest
I didn’t say Protestantism was more orthodox than Catholicism. I don’t believe this to be the case. Taken as a whole, Catholicism is far more orthodox than Protestantism. My point is simply that not all the practices (and even theological formulations) that differentiate Protestants from Catholics are the result of Protestant heresy. The Pope has explicitly called for an ecumenism that is not simply the “return” of Protestants to Catholicism but the genuine reconciliation of our diverse theological, cultural, and liturgical traditions in the fullness of the Faith. That’s worth working for. Individual conversions hinder this–they confirm the belief of Protestants that anyone who cares about tradition and sacraments is on his way across the Tiber, and they leech away the people who could be an orthodox influence within Protestantism.
Those weren’t the examples I had in mind. Why on earth would you pick those?
The two groups of Protestant hymns that are most central to my own Christian faith are the hymns of Charles Wesley such as “Love Divine, All Loves Excelling,” “And Can It Be,” “Jesus Lover of My Soul,” “Blow Ye the Trumpet, Blow,” etc. (and to a lesser extent other 18th-century evangelical hymns like “Amazing Grace”), and the Lutheran chorale hymns (“Deck Thyself, My Soul, With Gladness,” “All My Heart This Night Rejoices,” “Jesus, Priceless Treasure,” “Ah, Holy Jesus,” etc.–I won’t count “O Sacred Head” because that’s based on a medieval Catholic original).
Here’s an example of the sort of issue that arises when we try to bring that sort of thing into Catholicism as currently constituted. One of the few great Protestant hymns that is regularly sung by Catholics is “Amazing Grace.” And conservative Catholics regularly complain about it, on the grounds that it embodies a once-for-all theology of conversion that is antithetical to Catholicism.
If the hymn actually taught eternal security explicitly (I know that Newton did believe in eternal security in the Calvinist sense), I would agree that it was unorthodox. But it doesn’t. Wesleyans have been singing this hymn for 200 years without having any problems with it. It does, however, express a kind of piety that is rare among Catholics–a vivid experiential sense of God’s saving grace bringing one from darkness to light, from slavery to freedom. Now evangelicals mistakenly identify this *experience *with “being saved,” and far too often dismiss Catholics (and others) as not being “real Christians” if they don’t speak in terms of such an experience. *That, *again, is unorthodox. But the piety itself is not unorthodox. It enriches Christendom as a whole, and if it vanishes from the earth the entire Church will be poorer. This is the sort of thing that I’m saying needs to be brought into the broader stream of Christian orthodoxy, purged of its unorthodox or sectarian ramifications.
Edwin
S
Steadfast
Guest
Sir,
Let’s not pretend with each other. Don’t play innocent. I can smell disingenuousness a mile away.
We ridicule what we despise. In fact it is a sure sign that we despise something. You ridiculed Luther and you didn’t even do so in a particularly subtle manner so that your disdain for him might have been mistaken for simple rough play.
It’s a dangerous game, there is a great deal in your church’s history I could be just as cavalier with.
You ridicule Luther, when, were he here today, he’d eat your lunch. He was twice the theologian you’ll ever be.
M
MrS
Guest
Being a theologian means little… it is simply one who studies God… not necessarily one who understands the Truth and professes it. Other wise adjectives would not be needed. The Doctors of the Church were great theologians. Luther was a heretical theologian.
As for lunch, he would probably pick and choose, much like too many Catholics do today. And he would probably garner a large following. Afterall, too many Catholics today, like 500 years ago, are poorly catechised.
Luther would also have to find two other pillars for a 3rd millinium reformation. The solas would be deftly answered by many, and would not work today except among others who look to defy authority. Perhaps his new battle cry would not be indulgences, but rather celebacy… afterall, that is what he really wanted then;
.
M
MrS
Guest
Gee, do you think any of them post here:bigyikes:This is true. There are some very cerebral theologians who don’t have a clue.
M
Mickey
Guest
I think it’s time for you to chill out! :tsktsk:
R
Rachel_Malloy
Guest
Everyone, please remember your charity.
God Bless-
Rachel
God Bless-
Rachel
D
dch1983
Guest
To simply call Luther a “heretical theologian” fails to acknowledge what was happening in the 16th century. Luther’s goal was not to leave and start his own church, as many seem to be arguing in this thread. He wanted to REFORM the Church and correct the abuses that were taking place, the primary one being the selling of indulgences. The Church absolutely refused to acknowledge that any wrong was being done. The fact that so many Protestant denominations arose was certainly not his intention. But it was the refusal of the Catholic Church to change that let to the splintering of the Church, not Luther’s desire to start his own church. He was, after all, a very devout Catholic monk.
H
happygal
Guest
Hi There
Yup i agree with your explanation, instead for calling Martin Luther a heretical theologian, is for the best of those who addressed as what he was to understand what happened in history!! I believe God can’t even stand the wrong doing of the early RC, those corrupted and ungodly doing. Come to think about it, if wasn’t Martin Luther’s protest that prompt the RC to look into their wrong doing and put a stop to it where would the current RC stands!! Probably still practising corrupted and ungodly stuff!!
Yup different protestantism spun out was not ML intention and God knows that wasn’t his intention as well. Just cannot understand they are plenty of those out there enjoy pointing fingers at him.
H
HailMary
Guest
I find it perplexing how our separated bretheren have such an easy time believing that God can work INFALLIABLIY THROUGH A MAN and produce an INFALLIABLE book: the Holy Bible.Sorry your right. God wrote the bible through man. Or should I say he inspired men to write what is written.
Thanks for bringing my attention to that mistake.
But they can not accept that the same God can’t work INFALLIABLY THROUGH A CHURCH RUN BY MEN to teach the Living Word.
This Church was promised to be infallible; it is the “pillar and foundation of truth”1 Tim 3:15]. Christ, the Good Shepherd told the first Pope, Peter, to “…feed my sheep”Jn 21:17]- have you ever stopped and thought about how tough of a command that was? Do you really think anyone could successfully “feed” ALL His sheep without the gift of infallibility [recall the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven: **Matt 16:18]?
Jesus promised the bishops of the early Church that he would teach them “*everything”*Jn 14:26]. Jesus said to his appointed disciples, “Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me ”Luke 10:16]- who are you listening to? [put another way, do you REALLY practice Sola Scriptura or do you have your own “pope”[aka your pastor or yourself!] you listen to every Sunday at your place of worship?].
Jesus said there was to be “…one baptism, one faith” Ephesians 4:5], a call for UNITY. Only one Church has been be unified throughout the ages and has kept the SACRED TRADITIONS OF THE APOSTLES[2** Thess. 2:14-15].
ourcatholicfaith.org/reasons.html
M
mo3
Guest
As a reminder, the Catholic Church is not a “denomination”, it is the original church. The churches that broke away became denominational or non-denominational.
- Status