Why follow a religion made up by Martin Luther in 1500 and not Christ himself?

[jmcrae]

But the Church doesn’t just claim that it only “hires” men for reasons of policy (the celibacy issue is on a completely different level). It claims that it is ontologically *impossible *for women to be ordained because of the nature of women and the nature of ordination. And my contention is that this appears on the face of it to be a denial of the full participation of women in God’s image and/or in the salvation brought by Christ.

We are ontologically different, though. It doesn’t mean that either sex is in any way inferior, but it is a reality that we are very different from one another.

If you put a little girl in a room full of trucks and leave her alone for half an hour, then when you return, you will find that there is a Mommy truck, a Daddy truck, and several baby trucks, and that one of the baby trucks needs a blanket because it has somehow gotten sick.

By contrast, if you leave a little boy alone in a room full of dolls, when you return after the half hour, you will find that he has disassembled and reassembled them to create some kind of machine.

This is reality; we are by nature, different from each other - our bodies cause us to experience the world differently, and because we experience the world differently, we react to it differently.

I used to think that women could be priests - after all, we can certainly do the actual work involved. But, what I’ve noticed is that female clergy respond to their ministerial duties in much the same way that the little girl in my example responded to the trucks - they try to do away with the heirarchy, and try to make themselves “equal” with the congregation, in order to provide a friendlier, more empowering environment (in which case, why be a minister? Why have ministers at all?). They also tend to focus on the counselling aspect of their ministry (that sick baby truck, again), and limit the amount of public ministry that they do - they have the tools and the abilities, but they don’t like to use them, and instead of the tools of the ministry, they use their mothering/nurturing instincts, instead. (Why were they ordained, again?)

I don’t know if that’s just cultural, or whether it’s part of how we’re made, but one thing is certain - if we want the priesthood to survive as an heirarchical institution, then, at the very least right now (and probably forever), women cannot be priests, because our nurturing instinct (which is God-given and very good - I am not trying to denigrate the nuturing instinct, here) causes us to try to do things in ministry that aren’t actually very good for the stability of the offices of priest or ordained minister.

We have to keep in mind throughout all of this that God’s most perfect Creation is a married woman - Mother Mary. She was created without Original Sin, and remains perfect even until now. No priest has what she has, and no man will ever be given what she was given.

 

[Steadfast]

How so Steadfast?

God bless,
Jonfan

Because they don’t.

 

[jonfan]

Because they don’t.

They don’t what?

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Because they don’t.

Hey Steadfast, why don’t you answer the question? How come they don’t refer to the Holy Orders? Are you refering to the priesthood of all believers?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I will never understand why protestants and other shootoffs from Catholisism, want to follow a religion made up by Martin Luther in the 1500’s? JESUS did not start The Protestant religion, but The Catholic religion. We have an unbroken link dating back 2,000 years in which noone else can claim. JESUS did not start 33,000 denominations with contradictory beliefs. Bishop from bishop, pope to pope, 265 of them later, all the way to St. Peter himself. I am grateful I know the truth and The Blessed Mother. She is appearing everywhere and people are ignoring her calls. We will never be at peace because of this.
Everyone knows The King James Bible has many errors, yet they ignore that fact. King Henry was a mad man, beheaded 3 of his wives, yet he started The Church of England. Why follow it? there are many people who are coming home to Rome because they know the true religion. There are 1.5 Billion of us for a reason. I love the authority in my church, the strict doctrines, the Holy Mass, The Real Presence. It is very Holy, it isn’t cheap grace.

I will never understand why catholics and other shootoffs from Christ-ianity want to follow a religion made up by Jesus of Nazareth all of 1200 years after Moses. Moses did not start the Christ-ian religion, but obeyed Ha-Shem. We have an unbroken link dating back 2,000 years to Abraham which no one else can claim. Moses & Abraham did not start the Roman sect, with its ever-changing beliefs, nor any other. Elder from Elder, High Priest to High Priest, dozens of them later, all the way to Aaron himself; and before him, generations back to Abraham our father. I am grateful I know the truth and the Tanakh. We will never be at peace because of this.​

Everyone knows the “New (!!!) Testament” has many errors, yet they ignore that fact. Jesus was a madman & an apostate, and a false prophet, yet he broke with the tradition of our fathers & (allegedly) founded the “church” of those minim. Why follow it? There are many people who are leaving Rome because they know the true religion. There are millions of us for a reason - because Ha-Shem is faithful, and has preserved us from the wicked Christ-worshipping minim. I love the authority of our Sacred Tradition & of the Talmud & our Elders. It is very Holy, it isn’t a cheap fraud like the accumulated and inconsistent delusions of those “Christ-ians”

Ha-Shem made a perpetual covenant with Moses - the Christ-ians deny this. This alone would prove they are apostates from the religion of our fathers. And it is notorious that they twist, pervert, & falsify the Tanakh to make it refer to their leader, who was crucified for his crimes. None of our fathers knew of this Jesus they talk of: Moses said not a word about him; but he did know that anyone hanged on a tree - like Jesus - is accursed. So the Christ-ians are liars as well as lied to. ##

 

[jmcrae]

I will never understand why catholics and other shootoffs from Christ-ianity want to follow a religion made up by Jesus of Nazareth all of 1200 years after Moses. Moses did not start the Christ-ian religion, but obeyed Ha-Shem. We have an unbroken link dating back 2,000 years to Abraham which no one else can claim. Moses & Abraham did not start the Roman sect, with its ever-changing beliefs, nor any other. Elder from Elder, High Priest to High Priest, dozens of them later, all the way to Aaron himself; and before him, generations back to Abraham our father. I am grateful I know the truth and the Tanakh. We will never be at peace because of this.​

Everyone knows the “New (!!!) Testament” has many errors, yet they ignore that fact. Jesus was a madman & an apostate, and a false prophet, yet he broke with the tradition of our fathers & (allegedly) founded the “church” of those minim. Why follow it? There are many people who are leaving Rome because they know the true religion. There are millions of us for a reason - because Ha-Shem is faithful, and has preserved us from the wicked Christ-worshipping minim. I love the authority of our Sacred Tradition & of the Talmud & our Elders. It is very Holy, it isn’t a cheap fraud like the accumulated and inconsistent delusions of those “Christ-ians”

Ha-Shem made a perpetual covenant with Moses - the Christ-ians deny this. This alone would prove they are apostates from the religion of our fathers. And it is notorious that they twist, pervert, & falsify the Tanakh to make it refer to their leader, who was crucified for his crimes. None of our fathers knew of this Jesus they talk of: Moses said not a word about him; but he did know that anyone hanged on a tree - like Jesus - is accursed. So the Christ-ians are liars as well as lied to. ##

Jesus is God. God has the right to establish a religion. Moses prophesied the coming of Christ - Moses and Elijah both appeared from the dead and testified to Him. His own miracles testified to Him, and continue in the Catholic Church to testify to Him.

Martin Luther, etc., can make no such claims.

 

[Steadfast]

Hey Steadfast, why don’t you answer the question? How come they don’t refer to the Holy Orders? Are you refering to the priesthood of all believers?

For the sake of order in the church, the confection of the Sacraments is reserved to called and ordained ministers, but since the Sacraments are acts of the whole Church it is certainly true that in an emergency (the desert island scenario) any baptized Christian could do it.

See, this is the thing, the Sacraments are for Christians. They aren’t a vocational perquisite for a special class of Church worker. What makes a man a pastor and shepherd under Christ of a congregation of the Church is not a ceremony or a ritual although we have ordination ceremonies and recognize there in a public way that God has raised up a shepherd for His people. What makes him a pastor is God’s call to him to be a pastor. After having studied and been found apt to teach, he is called to a congregation of our church. This call of the congregation is the confirmation of God’s call upon him to the service in the first place.

In the desert island scenario, the man among the survivors best equipped to read and teach the faithful could be called to the office of pastor and in that we would certainly recognize a valid call from God.

There is no “Sacrament of Holy Orders”. A man may be recognized as a presbyter by the laying on of hands, but the call is of God and is confirmed by the whole church and in this laying on of hands there is no transfer of any “indelible sacerdotal character” since there are no more institutional sacerdotes, we have one High Priest.

 

[jonfan]

There is no “Sacrament of Holy Orders”. A man may be recognized as a presbyter by the laying on of hands, but the call is of God and is confirmed by the whole church and in this laying on of hands there is no transfer of any “indelible sacerdotal character” since there are no more institutional sacerdotes, we have one High Priest.

HI Steadfast,
Thank you for your answer. Scripture however seems to tell that the Holy Orders of preist are very important.

Acts
**6:6. These they set before the apostles: and they praying, imposed hands upon them. **

1 Timothy Chapter 5
**5:17. Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honour: especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. **

5:18. For the scripture saith: Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn: and, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

5:19. Against a priest receive not an accusation, but under two or three witnesses.

5:20. Them that sin reprove before all that the rest also may have fear.

5:21. I charge thee, before God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing by declining to either side.

**5:22. Impose not hands lightly upon any man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins. Keep thyself chaste. **

Acts Chapter 13
13:2. And as they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them.

**13:3. Then they fasting and praying and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away.

13:4. So they, being sent by the Holy Ghost, went to Seleucia: and from thence they sailed to Cyprus. **

13:5. And when they were come to Salamina, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. And they had John also in the ministry.

Acts Chapter 14
14:21. **Confirming the souls of the disciples **and exhorting them to continue in the faith: and that through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God.

14:22. And when they had ordained to them priests in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.

2 Timothy Chapter 1
**1:6. For which cause I admonish thee that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee by the imposition of my hands. **

Bishops hold Authority from Christ.

Phillippains 1:1.** Paul and Timothy, the servants of Jesus Christ: to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons. **

And of course Titus Chapter 1

**1:1. Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of the elect of God and the acknowledging of the truth, which is according to godliness: **

1:2. Unto the hope of life everlasting, which God, who lieth not, hath promised before the times of the world:

1:3. But hath in due times manifested his word in preaching, which is committed to me according to the commandment of God our Saviour:

**1:4. To Titus, my beloved son according to the common faith, grace and peace, from God the Father and from Christ Jesus our Saviour.

1:5. For this cause I left thee in Crete: that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee: **

1:6. If any be without crime, the husband of one wife having faithful children, not accused of riot or unruly.

1:7. For a bishop must be without crime, as the steward of God: not proud, not subject to anger, nor given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre:

1:8. But given to hospitality, gentle, sober, just, holy, continent:

1:9. Embracing that faithful word which is according to doctrine, that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine and to convince the gainsayers.

1:10. For there are also many disobedient, vain talkers and seducers: especially they who are of the circumcision.

1:11. Who must be reproved, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.

1:12. One of them a prophet of their own, said: The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slothful bellies.

1:13. This testimony is true. Wherefore, rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith:

1:14. Not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn themselves away from the truth.

1:15. All things are clean to the clean: but to them that are defiled and to unbelievers, nothing is clean: but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.

1:16. They profess that they know God: but in their works they deny him: being abominable and incredulous and to every good work reprobate.

 

[lordgrog]

Evening.

I am certain that the Orthodox would not appreciate the slang that you have used.

I wouldn’t expect that such a thing would much bother an adult.

Brief explanation of Holy Orders according to the Orthodox Church:

The sacrament of holy orders takes its name from the fact that the bishops, priests and deacons give order to the Church. They guarantee the continuity and unity of the Church from age to age and from place to place from the time of Christ and the apostles until the establishment of God’s Kingdom in eternity. As the apostles received the special gift of God to go forth and to make Christ present to men in all of the manifold aspects of his person and work, so the clergy of the Church receive the gift of God’s Spirit to maintain and to manifest Christ’s presence and action in the churches.

It is the doctrine of the Church that the clergy must strive to fulfill the grace given to them with the gift of the “laying on of hands” in the most perfect way possible. But it is also the doctrine of the Church that the reality and effectiveness of the sacraments of the Church ministered by the clergy do not depend upon the personal virtue of the ministers, but upon the presence of Christ who acts in his Church by the Holy Spirit.

That was very… Blue.
It was also irrelevant.

I would say that Edwin doesn’t believe in Holy Orders the way the Catholic and Orthodox Church does. Is that better?

Heh, this almost makes it sound as though the Orthies agree with the Catholics re: nature of ordination.

First I must look for a repentant smiley :bowdown: and apologise for this grievous insult.

I’m sure that some knowlegeable EO will correct me if i’m mistaken.

makes a lot more sense (more practical anyway) than the western tradition.

authority through the Chuch by ordination versus authority by ordination through the Church,

that

which is why the Easterners cannot accept the legitimacy of Catholic orders

which goes double for Anglicans seeing as how the validity of their orders - discounting other lines - is predicated on the validity of Catholic orders, on top of which they’ve bastardized far

Most obvious Western/Eastern divide

The difference

 

[lordgrog]

Evening/Afternoon/Morning (as applicable ).
Dang - hit the wrong button there.

I am certain that the Orthodox would not appreciate the slang that you have used.

I wouldn’t expect that such a thing would much bother an adult.

Brief explanation of Holy Orders according to the Orthodox Church:

The sacrament of holy orders takes its name from the fact that the bishops, priests and deacons give order to the Church. They guarantee the continuity and unity of the Church from age to age and from place to place from the time of Christ and the apostles until the establishment of God’s Kingdom in eternity. As the apostles received the special gift of God to go forth and to make Christ present to men in all of the manifold aspects of his person and work, so the clergy of the Church receive the gift of God’s Spirit to maintain and to manifest Christ’s presence and action in the churches.

It is the doctrine of the Church that the clergy must strive to fulfill the grace given to them with the gift of the “laying on of hands” in the most perfect way possible. But it is also the doctrine of the Church that the reality and effectiveness of the sacraments of the Church ministered by the clergy do not depend upon the personal virtue of the ministers, but upon the presence of Christ who acts in his Church by the Holy Spirit.

That was very… Blue.
It was also irrelevant.

Simply pointing out that western and eastern thought regarding the nature (if perhaps not the purpose) of orders is not in concorde. The implied commonality was amusing considering Orthodox inability to accept the legitimacy of non-Orthodox orders (those of Catholics and others).

G.night
C

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Jesus is God. God has the right to establish a religion.

Not from a Jewish POV - He was just another gallows-bird​

Moses prophesied the coming of Christ - Moses and Elijah both appeared from the dead and testified to Him.

So we say - why should any Jew believe that, when the Law is quite clear that false prophets are not sent by God ? It is only recently that Jews have started to look sympathetically at Him.​

His own miracles testified to Him, and continue in the Catholic Church to testify to Him.

Er…my post was a *parody *of the OP’s , to show that the arguments in the post would have been equally fatal against Christianity when it was founded.​

As for age, how many centuries old was the Church in AD 30 ? Age was an argument used by Roman religion - is it a good idea to use non-Christian assumptions for a Christian purpose ?

It was a Jewish sect of no importance when it was founded - Christian doctrine is worthless in debate against Jews, because it has no more authority for them than the Book of Mormon would have for us. We have as much time for the Prophet Joseph Smith, as Judaism has for the prophet Jesus of Nazareth. And Christians have (from a Jewish POV) deified a mere man, and a man who was ritually unclean at that. From a Jewish POV, Jesus is a liar, a fraud, a false prophet - that sort of thing. He has no Messianic credentials - unless one is a Christian. Unless one is a Christian, Jesus probably looks rather more unconvincing to them, than Luther does to us.

The OP used the argument from size - we may have been numerous by 1517 - but in 30 or so, the Jews outnumbered the Apostles 100s of times over. There were countless worshippers of other gods - does that make them the true Church ? Of course not. Numbers are no proof of theological value at all - the two things are unrelated; one might as well measure the holiness of a saint by measuring his height. Size & value cannot be related in that materialistic way - for they are utterly different sorts of thing.

If one assumes the validity of one’s own position from the outset one cannot avoid concluding that it is valid - but such reasoning is circular & invalid. We cannot assume the validity of Catholicism from a Jewish POV - they don’t see it as valid: for very good reasons. We cannot assume that what convinces us, convinces them. Likewise, our inability to appreciate Luther as a man of God in no way means others cannot see he is. He is not honoured for his faults; they are of no relevance - our own Popes have not always been paragons of sanctity, so we need to be careful of the fault-swapping game. He is honoured because God used him as the means of restoring His Church from its deformed state. The credit is Christ’s - not Luther’s. ##

Martin Luther, etc., can make no such claims.

I haven’t worked a miracle lately - have you ? ​

Miracle stories are ten a penny - they are no proof of a Divine vocation. Rabbis have been credited with miracles, & Judaism has its martyrs, thousands, mostly at the hands of Christians. If we are not convinced by them, why should they be convinced by a few apostate fishermen who denied the traditional faith to deify a crucified felon ? No reason at all.

We have to stop seeing others through the distorting medium of our own convictions, otherwise we will never see as they do.

As for Luther: Catholics always looking at the human failings - we never look deeper, & see God at work amid the failings, turning them to His own Glory. ##

 

[jmcrae]

As for age, how many centuries old was the Church in AD 30 ?

Exactly the right age to have been founded by Jesus and the Apostles - just like now.

There were countless worshippers of other gods - does that make them the true Church ? Of course not.

Exactly. The True Church is the one established by God, regardless of its population. Jesus is God.

I haven’t worked a miracle lately - have you ? ​

Granted, but then again, neither am I attempting to establish a new religion. And anyone I know who can perform miracles is faithful to the Catholic Church.

As for Luther: Catholics always looking at the human failings - we never look deeper, & see God at work amid the failings, turning them to His own Glory. ##

And what exactly is Luther supposed to have accomplished? He got himself excommunicated for attempting to murder the Papal envoy, and that was the end of his ability to influence anything that was going on in the Church - hardly the behaviour of a Saint.

There was in fact a Reformation, but Luther wasn’t part of it. Instead, God chose St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, St. Ignatius of Loyola, and many others of that generation (including the members of the Council of Trent) to bring in the corrections that the Church needed at that time. But Luther never worked with any of them, and never participated in any of the work that they did in clearing out the accumulated deadwood and bringing the Church back to its original mission.

 

[Contarini]

And what exactly is Luther supposed to have accomplished? He got himself excommunicated for attempting to murder the Papal envoy

Where on earth did you hear that? That is most emphatically not what got him excommunicated (no doubt you’ll point to some bit of extravagant rhetoric saying that emissaries of the Pope are worthy of death or something, but that’s hardly attempted murder). He was excommunicated for heresy. Why do you want to avoid that obvious fact? You don’t think it’s wrong to excommunicate people for heresy, so why not stick to that instead of making up bizarre and unhistorical allegations? (OK, I recognize that you didn’t make this up–but you are to be faulted for believing it. You are responsible for checking the evidence for such things before you announce them as true.)

Sorry for my angry tone. But if I were to say something like “Pius XII was a Nazi” you’d be pretty annoyed with me–and rightly so.

Edwin

 

[Steadfast]

That’s really funny…Luther trying to murder the papal envoy…

Probably something he read in O’Hare.

 

[jmcrae]

That’s really funny…Luther trying to murder the papal envoy…

Did he not, then? Because the Lutherans actually brag about how he chased the Papal envoy out of his house with a large stick.

Later, he complains that the envoy didn’t stay to hear his defense, but convicted him of heresy in absentia - no kidding, he didn’t stick around to get his head bashed in? I probably would have gone home and convicted him without bothering with a trial, too, after something like that.

 

[Contarini]

Did he not, then? Because the Lutherans actually brag about how he chased the Papal envoy out of his house with a large stick.

Later, he complains that the envoy didn’t stay to hear his defense, but convicted him of heresy in absentia - no kidding, he didn’t stick around to get his head bashed in? I probably would have gone home and convicted him without bothering with a trial, too, after something like that.

What Lutherans brag about this? Who was the envoy? When did this happen? I’m not sure Luther met any papal envoy in his house. He met Cajetan at Augsburg and certainly didn’t chase him out. Are you thinking of Miltitz? I don’t think he chased him out with a stick either–they actually reached an agreement, though I don’t remember if they met in person or if Miltitz worked through the Saxon government.

I still don’t know where you are getting this from, and it still sounds like something someone made up or at least heavily garbled.

Also, chasing someone out with a stick is hardly attempting to murder them. Attempting to murder them means you put poison in their food or shoot at them or stab them or something. Sticks can be lethal, but usually aren’t.

Edwin

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Belief in the Real Presence is such a bedrock of Lutheranism that one cannot speak seriously of really even being Lutheran if one denies it.

For the record, I think Steadfast is correct here.

Admittedly, there are some definitions of the terms where Lutheranism disagrees with Catholicism. But claiming that conservative, old-school Lutherans do not believe in a real presence is wrong.

They do believe in the real presense even if they don’t believe in transubstantiation of the very elements of the host. Admittedly, from the Catholic perspective, I would note that I do not believe this is enough. But I also definitely wouldn’t group Lutheran thoughts on the Eucharist in the same level of the symbolic reductionism of later reform and congregational schools of thought either.

Just saying.

 

[Damascus]

Glimmer-

Why not pray for her instead of make a comment that will hurt someone already hurting?

I will pray for all the posters who with good intentions, did not realize they had an opportunity to help her and instead struck her with verbal blows.

 

[uni]

Why follow a religion made up by Martin Luther in 1500 and not Christ himself?

Very rational Q. But some may ask why should ppl follow 2000 years old Christ and not the God of Christ who had no beginning nor end?

 

[Damascus]

I will never understand why catholics and other shootoffs from Christ-ianity want to follow a religion made up by Jesus of Nazareth all of 1200 years after Moses. Moses did not start the Christ-ian religion, but obeyed Ha-Shem. We have an unbroken link dating back 2,000 years to Abraham which no one else can claim. Moses & Abraham did not start the Roman sect, with its ever-changing beliefs, nor any other. Elder from Elder, High Priest to High Priest, dozens of them later, all the way to Aaron himself; and before him, generations back to Abraham our father. I am grateful I know the truth and the Tanakh. We will never be at peace because of this.​

Everyone knows the “New (!!!) Testament” has many errors, yet they ignore that fact. Jesus was a madman & an apostate, and a false prophet, yet he broke with the tradition of our fathers & (allegedly) founded the “church” of those minim. Why follow it? There are many people who are leaving Rome because they know the true religion. There are millions of us for a reason - because Ha-Shem is faithful, and has preserved us from the wicked Christ-worshipping minim. I love the authority of our Sacred Tradition & of the Talmud & our Elders. It is very Holy, it isn’t a cheap fraud like the accumulated and inconsistent delusions of those “Christ-ians”

Ha-Shem made a perpetual covenant with Moses - the Christ-ians deny this. This alone would prove they are apostates from the religion of our fathers. And it is notorious that they twist, pervert, & falsify the Tanakh to make it refer to their leader, who was crucified for his crimes. None of our fathers knew of this Jesus they talk of: Moses said not a word about him; but he did know that anyone hanged on a tree - like Jesus - is accursed. So the Christ-ians are liars as well as lied to. ##

How did I miss this one? Wow am I stupid. Micheal, I never knew you thought this way before.

I never got the impression that this is what you thought on Jesus.

Excuse me while I get sick to my stomach now.