Why I could never follow Luther.

[Mikeoffaith]

Hi, Mikeoffaith,
I just wanted to comment on one of the items you mentioned to Benedictus2, if I may…

Any time Tom, I respect your point of view and charity.

Seeing things differently is one of the things that make us human. The classic story is six people standing at various points in an intersection all witness the same motor vehicle accident - the police get witness statements and there are six different stories. No one is trying to deceive anyone - each saw the accident from their own perspective. We see this so clearly from the Synoptic Writers - same event, different view. For example, the story about the woman with a hemorrhage:

Perception is almost everything. In all three stories, the woman was healed!

Do you mean Luke 22:24-30? Here we have the Apostles arguing amongst themselves as to who is greater. Without a doubt, what little focus these men seem to have - is misdirected! It only gets worse for Peter further on in the Chapter when Christ sees him after Peter denied Him. But, note, priot to this, Christ foretold Peter’s denial - but, it was foolishly dismissed.

Benedictus2 mentioned that Satan wants to sift us all like flour - and here we have the very foundation for his attack on the Church - tempting each of these vain men with the airy vision of earthly greatness. The real crisis comes at the end of the Chapter when Jesus is not only arrested, but abused by the Temple Guards and condemned for telling the truth. The Apostles could not handle all of this - and fled. What is noteworthy about this is the fact that these same vain and cowardly men will be totally transformed on that First Pentecost Sunday - the birthday of the Catholic Church.

Let me say a kind word about bias. We all have it! I do not think anyone would argue that being ‘biased’ for Christ was a bad thing, eh? For most of us, however, the pull from our wounded natures is not relieve by bias - this is just part of our human condition. Some are unaware that a bias exists, or worse, just ignore it as though it did not exist.

If we look at 1517 as a watershed year we are simply approaching a historical fact with profound and on-going implications. There are those who think Luther had no choice to do what he did. That view appears both fatalistic and myopic to me - as humans we always have a choice while we are alive. We can cooperate with the Grace of God - and in Luther’s position as a Augustinian Monk - he had a religous superior whose job was to make clear the Will of God to the subordinate monks. That is what the vow of obedience is all about: seeing God in the person of one’s religious superior. Either you believe that - and take the vow of Obedience - or you jolly well need to find another way to make your way in this world.

I’ve been a Catholic a long time … just made 64! OK, those first couple of years are a bit vague… but, I have learned the practice of my religious faith early on. Does this create a bias? Maybe. It would be a problem if I refused to look at the obvjective evidence presented by others. I have and I am even more convinced that the Catholic Church is the One, True and Apostolic Church founded by Christ on Peter. Did the humans in charge mess up? Big time! But, just look at the argument by the Apostles in Luke 22. Eventually, they cooperated with the Grace of God and resolved the matter. I think we can do the same thing today.

Yes Tom as always your wisdom is great. There is something to be said for a bias for Christ!

I just have one major issue Luther was an Agustinian FRIAR. You’ve been a Roman Catholic for 64 years you should know better.

And I have always though that when we cooperate with the Grace of God and come together that we can resolve the issue. And I think we can do the same thing today if everyone is willing.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Hi, Mikeoffaith,

Is that a cynical note I hear … still ringing in the air? I know we can dialogue a lot better without this approach. And, in that spirit, I would like to address this one item your raised contrasting St. Sister Mary MacKillop and Martin Luther.

And, just to set the depth of my knowledge clearly before all … everything I learned about St. Sister Mary MacKillop, I learned 15 minutes ago from this link: marymackillop.org.au/ This was really an enjoyable link and I would certainly recommend it to everyone on this list.

Contrasting these two individuals who were both excommunicated is really pretty straight forward as I see it (see what a little knowledge can do for you…! ) Seriously, as I see it:

Luther found abuse and scandal and essentially fatigued of trying to do good to make the necessary changes both in himself and in his community. No doubt about it, he was not appreciated by those who abusing Christ’s Church - they made things difficult and Luther lashed out. I think he lost his focus, and his goal of a reformed Church (like St. Catherine of Siena had) was one of the early casualties. He realized that his way was not going to change anything (and, just to be clear there were real things that needed to be changed!) so he abondoned the Church of Christ and founded his own based on his view of religion. Luther ultimately died outside of the Catholic Church but maintianed a real devotion to Our Blessed Mother - and this is where I can see some hope for this German Monk.

MacKillop found priests and biships who, while not abusing Church doctrine were not going to have either a women or a group of women tell them what to do. The priests and bishops were not espeically focused on the needs of their flock - again, not abusing them, just ignoring some very real needs. The sisters were caught in the middle between the local people and the clergy and the bishiops wanted to put the nuns under the direct control of themselves. MacKillp worked to modify this and she was excommunicated by the bishop for her efforts. MacKillop continued to pray and keep her sisters sustained in their work. Four months later the excommunication was lifted. MacKillop ultimately died and she is reveared as a saint for the humility and virtue she demonstrated in the face of significant odds against her.

We are looking at two totally different people who met signicant opposition - and the way that they addressed these major crises in their lives tells much about the inner personality of each. Both were fighters. Both had a goal, but, in my view Luther substituted his for one that denied the authority of Christ - even though it was not as clear as it could have been. MacKillop had a vision and saw it through.

Hope this answers your question.

God bless

I think specifically what is at issue is the nature of her excommunication and it’s lifting. Do we see her renouncing all her beliefs/protests about the abuses of the laity by the clergy (I see neglect as abuse), because she conformed to the Bishops rule since doesn’t she owe obedience to that Bishop? Or was the it the Bishop who changed his mind and agreed that he was neglecting his flock?

 

[gcnuss]

Hi, Pastor Gary,

I have been meaning to comment on your post … but, kept on getting distracted! One of the problems with getting old…

Actually, it is your last paragraph that has had me thinking for a while…

I understand that the OT predates the Catholic Church and that your understanding of Scripture may be different from mine. If you would then please, explain, from a Lutheran perspective, your understanding of:

Matt 16:19 - (“I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” )

Peter is given authority by Christ to manage the Church that Christ had just founded.
I realize that there there has been a lot of disagreement over ‘rock’ vs ‘pebble’ and if it was Aramaic or Greek, if Christ was talking to Himself about Himself, or any of the number of arguments over v. 18. So, let’s pass on that for the moment. In my opinion, v 19 (quoted above) captures a lot of the flavor of what Christ did - and, not, He did note have and additional 11-sets of keys to hand out to the other Apostles.

But, in Matthew 18:18 he does just that. With virtually the same words, he hands the keys to his disciples. The website that you suggested goes to some length to make the case that the handing of the keys to Peter was more significant but a plain reading of the two passages doesn’t give a sense of a lesser grant of authority in chapter 18 than in chapter 16.

I think that the granting of the keys was an important thing but that our Lord’s intention was not to restrict it to Peter (and his successors) or he would have explicitly done so.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mikeoffaith,

I would appreciate a clarification to one of your statements.

Sorry that should have read heeding. I think the only way to heal the divide is to live the Gospel completely. Until Rome is willing to humble itself to the life Christ calls us to live then there is never going to be any hope of healing.

Recalling the actions of Pope John Paul II and now Benedict XVI, exactly what do you have in mind when it comes to humility?

Here are a couple of links:

usccb.org/seia/lutheran.shtml

religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=155

God bless

 

[gcnuss]

You know, Cory, this is one of my least favorite Catholic apologists polemics. It is completely temporal thinking, for it alleges that the Church only exists on Earth. For His Church to be taken over by Satan, Satan’s minions would be overrunning the Church Triumphant. Ridiculous, wouldn’t you say?

Jon

Jon,

I agree with you completely. I believe that Jesus’ promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church is an eschatological statement. The book of Revelation supports this in many ways. Satan will have moments when it looks as though he is in control but, in the end, he will not prevail.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gcnuss,

Not to be picky here … but, in my version, there are no ‘keys’ - but he does give authority to bind and lose to the other Apostles. So, while there may be a dispute as to the Primacy of Peter - I would like to go back and in light of your response, rephrase this question. Luther had none of the power Christ gave to His Apostles to bind and lose - so from a Solo Scriptura, how are Luther’s actioned considered legitimate (since he defied the Pope)?

God bless

But, in Matthew 18:18 he does just that. With virtually the same words, he hands the keys to his disciples. The website that you suggested goes to some length to make the case that the handing of the keys to Peter was more significant but a plain reading of the two passages doesn’t give a sense of a lesser grant of authority in chapter 18 than in chapter 16.

I think that the granting of the keys was an important thing but that our Lord’s intention was not to restrict it to Peter (and his successors) or he would have explicitly done so.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mikeoffaith,

You realize you run the risk of choking on all of the gnats you are straining from this effort of mine ot compare two quite different people with only one item in their lives intersecting: the fact that they were both excommunicated. The reasons for the action take were totally different - but, it is how the two responded to the action that I tried to demonstrate.

Let me try to answer your question, but, being a “15-minute expert” I would much rather if someone who was really familiar with the matter would step in. In my opinion, the saintly nun did not conform to that Bishop’s view - and, he appears to have repented for having excommunicated her. Pope Leo XIII met with her (something Luther nevver managed with his Pope).

But, honestly, I miss your point - the nun is not the issue, nor the bishop who excommunicated her. If you want a take home on this situation, she did not break away and come up with her own church and set of doctrines. Now, there’s a big difference, eh. She lead a life of prayer and humility as she taught the poor and down trodden in Australia - and at the same time working within a Catholic Church structure that was not really supportive - and, in fact, some members of the clergy giving the appearance of being downright autocratic.

God bless

I think specifically what is at issue is the nature of her excommunication and it’s lifting. Do we see her renouncing all her beliefs/protests about the abuses of the laity by the clergy (I see neglect as abuse), because she conformed to the Bishops rule since doesn’t she owe obedience to that Bishop? Or was the it the Bishop who changed his mind and agreed that he was neglecting his flock?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mikeoffaith,

Thank you for your kind words.

Any time Tom, I respect your point of view and charity.

Yes Tom as always your wisdom is great. There is something to be said for a bias for Christ!

I just have one major issue Luther was an Agustinian FRIAR. You’ve been a Roman Catholic for 64 years you should know better.

Alright … truth will out! Monk is easier to spell … and it is not so easily confused with a cooking chicken! I meant no disrespect.

And I have always though that when we cooperate with the Grace of God and come together that we can resolve the issue. And I think we can do the same thing today if everyone is willing.

My best information is that God Wills that we come to a knowledge of the Truth (1Tim 2:4) So, this certainly looks like a good way to start for me!

God bless

 

[roelblomsma]

I was thinking of this all day and wonder how others feel about it.

Luther came AFTER the Church. Now scriptures said the Church is One, Holy, Catholic,and Apostolic.

Now on a common sense level Luther separated himself from the ONE Church. Now we come into the battle who has the ONE Church. It has to be the Church that was started by Peter.

I’m Catholic, so I’m not going to defend Luther. But you do have to get the facts strait, else your argument makes no sense. Luther did not want so seperate himself from the Catholic Church. He wanted to reform it. Some of the things he refuted, such as the sale of pardons, were even later adopted by the Church because they clearly don’t belong in a Church following scripture. Other things he stated were not accurate. It was especially the pope, who considered Luther a herretic and disobedient. Therefore Luther was excommunicated.

Now here is where the problem with Luther comes in my mind. Luther was at one time a part of the Church started by Peter. Simply because, he walked away from the Church that History proves was connected to Peter. Here is where common sense comes to play, Peter and the CC were here long before Luther, Luther was not here long before the CC.

same argument

Now in my eyes it shows how Luther walked away from Jesus because Jesus said the Church and I are ONE. and there is ONE HCAC,

This was never his intention.

Now rather there was sin going by humans in the RCC at that time or not has nothing to do with the OHCAC.

Don’t know what is OHCAC, but I do think that if the Church is the Bride of God, and the clergy represents Her, then sin must be expelled from Her, even more so then among ‘normal’ humans. No way sin should be tolerated among the clergy. They should be the first to show saintly behaviour.

I mean do People really think that Peter did not have Sin, that John didn’t, Etc. We know they did because of the repentance that they continued to do all of their lives.

Yes, but if St. Peter would have used his devine calling to commit crimes against other humans, that his punishment would obviously be great. What I’m trying to say is, one thing is to sin, another is to use the divine authority of God to mislead people.

Now the RCC is considered the Church that is led by the Pope. (the present Peter). Now the Catholic Church is universal. Which mean one, all are welcome, all can become one in Christ through Christ with Christ who is the Church.

Now I have heard that there is no such thing as the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH! Now that is not true. Now granted the Church is not Roman but it is called the Roman Catholic Church, has been forever.

Now Luther was at one time part of the RCC. Now if the Church is one, and was here long before Luther how could there possibly be more than One Church?

I agree, there should be only one Church. The RCC. The one and only.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You’re right in that it can mean many things. It could mean that the gates of hell will not prevail…in the long run. In the short term maybe he can have his temporary victories…

Jon,

I agree with you completely. I believe that Jesus’ promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church is an eschatological statement. The book of Revelation supports this in many ways. Satan will have moments when it looks as though he is in control but, in the end, he will not prevail.

 

[benedictus2]

You know, Cory, this is one of my least favorite Catholic apologists polemics. It is completely temporal thinking, for it alleges that the Church only exists on Earth. For His Church to be taken over by Satan, Satan’s minions would be overrunning the Church Triumphant. Ridiculous, wouldn’t you say?

Jon

Exactly my point, Jon! That is exactly what I have been saying. What I have in fact done is taken Mike’s reasoning to it’s logical but terrible conclusion.

Here’s how that particular part of the dialogue went:

**1 ) Mike:** You are the one here that is contending that Christ lied not I. Yes, Jesus Christ did say that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church. It is pure arrogance on your part to assume that He meant Rome alone.

2) Bene: It is pure fantasy on your part to assume that Christ established many Churches.

3) Mike: I never said that Christ established many churches nor did I assume.

4) Bene: If so then the other Churches must not have been started by Him? So who started them?

5) Mike: Benedictus, if you have read any of my other posts you will know that my contention is that none of the Churches out there today is the ONE started by Christ.

6) Bene: And if you have read my post before, you have just once again reiterated that Christ is a liar and not God.

He builds a church but it seems quite incapable of keeping that Church in tact. He allows His Church to be taken over by the devil contrary to His promise and His prayer. Not only is He unable to keep a promise, it seems His prayer is ineffective and pointless and His Father was not listening to Him after all.

So you just confirmed what I have already said a few times before, that you believe Christ a liar - only you won’t say it in so many words. Or maybe you have not even realized that your position in this one amounts to exactly just that.​

At no 1, Mike is saying that Christ’s Church is not Rome alone, so therefore he must have meant that Christ established other Churches which is my reason for replying with no 2

At 3, Mike negates what he seems to be saying at point 1, so therefore according to Him Christ established only 1 church, hence my reply at no 4 asking him if Christ started only one, who started the others.

At 5, to wiggles out of the obvious mess he’s made in the previous answer he now says that NO CHURCH TODAY was started by Christ.

So my point at 6 is a fair enough conclusion because we know Christ established a Church (even Mike says as much).

If THAT Church that Christ established during the NT times is no longer here today, then Christ is a liar and not God because if there is one thing we know about Christ with regards His Church is that He made a promise that it will never be overtaken by the gates of hell and that she will be guided into Truth.

If THAT Church no longer exists today then those promises made were broken. If that is the case then Jesus lied, He is not God because the gates of hell was able to overtake his Church after all.

Don’t blame me for the kind of weak rebuttal that Mike has been coming up with.

If I were in his shoes, I would come up with the most terrible rebuttals as well for the simple reason that this position just do not hold true and therefore indefensible which ever way you look at it.

Perhaps what he was trying to get at is that we (Catholics, Orthodox and every shade of Protestant Christianity) is one Church. But that we all know is pure fantasy.

 

[benedictus2]

But, in Matthew 18:18 he does just that. With virtually the same words, he hands the keys to his disciples. The website that you suggested goes to some length to make the case that the handing of the keys to Peter was more significant but a plain reading of the two passages doesn’t give a sense of a lesser grant of authority in chapter 18 than in chapter 16.

I think that the granting of the keys was an important thing but that our Lord’s intention was not to restrict it to Peter (and his successors) or he would have explicitly done so.

I have not looked at the link that Tom provided but this is the commentary from the NAB on Matthew 16:19. If they are the same then please disregard this post.

The keys to the kingdom of heaven: the image of the keys is probably drawn from Isaiah 22:15-25 where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given “the key of the house of David,” which he authoritatively “opens” and “shuts” (Isaiah 22:22). Whatever you bind . . . loosed in heaven: there are many instances in rabbinic literature of the binding-loosing imagery. Of the several meanings given there to the metaphor, two are of special importance here: the giving of authoritative teaching, and the lifting or imposing of the ban of excommunication. It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing. In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone. In Matthew 18:18 all the disciples are given the power of binding and loosing, but the context of that verse suggests that there the power of excommunication alone is intended. That the keys are those to the kingdom of heaven and that Peter’s exercise of authority in the church on earth will be confirmed in heaven show an intimate connection between, but not an identification of, the church and the kingdom of heaven.

 

[benedictus2]

This is my last post for the night as it is rather late so will reply to your other posts tomorrow.

PART 1

OK what were the greater reforms?

What do you mean what were the greater reforms. We are not talking about greater or lesser reforms. Wasn’t Luther after stopping corruption. It stopped.
The question Protestants must ask themselves is if the reason for Luther’s protest is over, why are they still separated from the Church?

Yes that is part of the whole. But there’s more.

Okay, spell it out. What’s the more?

Ok so why don’t you outline to me what Luther’s doctrine of Sola Scriptura is. And what is Sola? I’m not familiar with that one

Woopsy doopsy – Sola Fide. But I’m sure knew that. Feigning denseness again?

Creating his own canon, so why don’t you tell me what you think he did to create his own canon?

He declared the deuterocanonicals - non-canonical. Labelled the book of James as a book of straw so as to diminish it’s stature because it conflicted with his theology.
He created a theology and snipped the Bible to suit.

Branches out? If you want to complete a parallel comparison between Luther and say John of the Cross then be exact about it. John of the Cross(Luther) was unhappy with what was happening with the O.Carm Carmelites (The Roman Catholic Church). He called for reform. The O.Carm Carmelites rejected his reforms. Whether he left on his own or was tossed out doesn’t matter. He was no longer associated with the O.Carm Carmelites. The OCD Carmelites (Lutherans) were formed. And now you have an parallel comparison between the two. The fact that O.Carm and OCD remain in the church is of no use the to comparison. The fact that there was a reformer and the reform to on it’s own life separate from the parent organization is the meat of the comparison. So branching out is how you reform. Got it!

There is absolutely NO parallel. He comes nowhere near John of the Cross. John of the Cross remained in the Church. That is something that you fail to grasp. Even if I say that a million times you would still fail to grasp it.
Where John of the Cross was humble, Luther was puffed up with pride.
For parallelism, read their writings – that will show you the stark contrast.
When John of the Cross was imprisoned he came up with the most beautiful love poems about God. Luther ranted and raved and wanted to burn the Franciscans and persecute the Anabaptists.

It doesn’t matter that the order remained within the church. The fact remains that the reform did not stay with in O.Carm. There was a split/schism/branching out into OCD. John of the Cross did not question the magisterium of the church only the charism of his order. Well I can see how excommunication will do that, what a valuable tool. It’s worked so well through out history.

Oh But that is exactly what matters - the order remained within the Church.

Put it this way, say you have a group in the US like the Red Cross (Let’s assume that this is a purely American charitable organization). A member of the Red Cross was disappointed with the way it is run so branched out and formed MSF. But they all still remain in the US. But let’s suppose that a little governor displeased with the US. government’s corruptION railed against the government, but not only that, proceeded to form a seditious group. With the support of allies, he was able to actually secede from the US (let’s New York is now the country of New York).

The Red Cross/MSF are the religious orders, the seditious man was Luther.

Then I accept your un-shyness. I will grant you that Luther’s influence did spread to beyond the walls of Wittenberg. Poster boy? I guess. I don’t know that Calvin or Henry had pictures of Luther on their bedroom walls.

Would that not be a major scandal! No wonder the Puritans were in such a stitch.

continued

 

[benedictus2]

Deformers how witty and original.

Not original. I borrowed that from Alice Von Hildebrand - she’s one smart lady.

OK I am totally lost. Since we are working with the cleaning analogy. So what I hear you saying is that Luther had lost faith in Christ’s promise to clean out the cobwebs from the papacy? Which you would mean that you do believe that there were cobwebs in the papacy.

Did I ever deny cobwebs? Heck, much more than cobwebs, it stunk to high heavens. But if one kept faith with Christ, one will know as GCNuss said, that it is all temporary. And true enough, it was. The Church has seen squabbles before (you can see that even in Acts),.but she moves forward despite these squabbles, because Christ is the one leading her.

We can even extend a Job analogy here. How come something supposed to be so beautiful and good can be allowed to suffer so?

Have you ever thought that if God had so wanted He could have stopped her from being corrupt? But He allowed this for a reason.

Perhaps it is meant to be a test of faith – to sift those who will keep faith and those who will lose faith and decide to take matters into their own hands.

And if Christ promised to keep the papacy cobweb free, then how did we get cobwebs?

Ahhh, but there is the point that I have been re-iterating and re-iterating., re-iterating…

Please listen carefully.

Cobwebs as in sins there was a plenty because Christ NEVER PROMISED THAT HIS CHURCH WILL BE SIN-FREE.

What Christ did promise is that the gates of hell will not prevail and that His Church will be guided into Truth by the Holy Spirit.

Christ says of the devil that he is the Father of lies whereas He claims that He is the Truth. Therefore to succumb to the devil is to succumb to his lies. For the gates of hell to prevail would be for the Church to teach error.

So with that in the background take a look at what Luther has done. If he had limited it to ranting and raving and simply refused to go Mass in defiance of the authorities that would have easily been fixed. Many Catholics do that.

If he has stood on every public square and exposed the debauchery and corruption of the clergy. That would have easily been fixed.

The terrible thing that Luther did was he came up with false doctrines. And the problem with these doctrines is that, like the lie of the devil to Adam and Eve, they are very seductive because they pander to the ego. I interpret. I decide. In short - I reign.

This is why I said before, if he had read the Discernment of Spirits by St Ignatius, perhaps he would have realized where these seemingly “holy intentions” is leading him.

As a little illustration of this point I write here an example that Fr Thomas Green gave at our retreat.

He gave the example of a woman who wanted to become a nun. She goes into prayer and she has such a wonderful time with God and God seems to be confirming this desire in her heart. After this intense experience with God she gets this after glow, still basking in this intimacy with God. God has terminated the intimacy but un-initiated she thinks that He is still in that afterglow. This afterglow is what the devil uses to rope you in. He starts giving you suggestion which seem "holy, he mimics God You then see the not so nice aspects of “Vernoca’s Veilites” - the order you wanted to join. At this point you decide that what you really want to do is to reform the order.

The exercises says to watch for the tail of the serpent. It will show one way or another.

I think in cases where it is unclear, choosing the low place as Jesus put it (prefering the humble option) is a good guide to choosing rightly and discerning well.

As I said before, if all Christ wanted was for us to follow a book, He would not have established a clearly hierarchical church. He would have written the NT Himself. For that matter He could have done the same with the OT. But you and I know that He WILLED His revelation to come via a different way – through a Church.