Why I could never follow Luther.

[Mikeoffaith]

What I think Luther should have done was what I think any true Catholic should do today.

Like with the mess that we have today with Priests who have fell from God’s Grace. Stand up for the inocent and say this abuse is unacceptable and we will not tolerate it any longer, Then figure out how we are going to fix this problem.

But just because you have some who have sinned, does not take away from the Truth they did teach.

Anotherwards to say because they have done horrible, unthinkable things, and they did, does not mean that I can turn around and leave the RCC and start my own.

If he was to be a true Disciple of Christ he should have found a way from Prayer and Faith in Christ to do what needed to be done. And by his faith in the Power of the Holy Spirit he would have got it done, IN the True Church.

Just Like today, I will never let the failure of Priests who fell from Grace, take me away from the Living Christ that can still be and will always be found in the Eucharist in the RCC.

So, do you not think I SUFFER also for their Sin? Could you imagine what the Good Priests and Bishops, and Pope are going through now because of the sin of others.

I am told by many, that my Pope is the devil, I am told to keep going to the RCC and defend those child molesters. Keep supporting them, that I should rot in hell! Trust me, I get it put to me many of times. But I will find a way to defend my faith, and My God, and not defend evil and still stay in the RCC. It may and very well could be, me and the Pope, alone in the end. But if so, Then so be it! No evil that is done by man, will ever keep me from the truth that is in the RCC.

That is the difference between Luther and I:shrug:

Rinnie-

I think you are confusing two things. Your comparison of selling indulgences vs sexual scandals are two different things. You can’t equate one with the other. And here is the difference, a priest molesting a child is one mans sin. And no I don’t think one should leave the church over that. Even if you throw in possible cover ups by the hierarchy, no errors have been taught.

If you want to validly compare the two, then you would have to have to have the papacy claiming that in order for your salvation, you should, when possible, be molested by your local priest or ordinary. That is the difference. Now if you can live in a church who is teaching that, not necessarily at a level of Apostolic Teaching, then we have some thing to worry about. Let’s face it, if the Pope today says something, I am sure a majority of Roman Catholics are not going to be asking if he is speaking infallibly or not. In the 1500’s, when most of the population couldn’t even read or write and papal infallibility was not understood, if the Papacy promoted something, people would go a long with it infallible or not as if it was the Gospel. That is another difference. You can’t look at the church today and apply todays beliefs and understandings to the church then. The church has changed.

I think as a true disciple of Christ, Luther did exactly what he was called to do by the Holy Spirit. The theology of Luther’s reforms weren’t the issue, the issue with Luther’s reforms were that it struck the church at it’s weakest point, it’s pocket book. And a corrupt hierarchy could never allow that as deep in debt as it was. God’s Grace does not have a price tag. It’s a free gift.

And if he stayed in the “TRUE” church, what do you think would have happened? I figure he would be dead, but at least we would have a situation for Galileo. The poor man sat under house arrest until the end of his life, because of promoting something that was scientifically true but when against scripture. The church of the 1500’s did not behave as the church of today. The church of 1500 could raise an army, kill heretics, do you think that would fly today?

So if we are going to judge Luther’s actions, let’s not use the yardstick of today’s Roman Catholic Church. Today’s Roman Catholic Church is much more conciliatory to Luther’s reforms than in 1517. Ask Jon, he’s got some great quotes from Benedict.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Common threads in Catholic criticisms of Luther include that he was a monk and that he left the Catholic Church. Both these are rhetorical devices meant to belittle his actions. Luther had been a monk, that is true. At the time he criticized the practice of selling indulgences, he was a professor at one of the major Catholic universities of Germany. This is certainly different from being a monk. The Catholic Church still has problems with the writings of its professors. Hans Kueng comes to mind as one who has been a gadfly for the Church. By using the same logic, we could refer to Saint Peter truthfully as an illiterate Galilean fisherman. It takes no great imagination to see the irrelevance of such a statement.

Second is the idea that Luther left the Church in some sort of voluntary action. I have tried to understand the logic of this stance. Luther’s goal was to have some ruling from the Pope as to the selling of indulgences. If you read the 95 Theses, Luther accepts that the Pope can grant indulgence, thereby accepting both the authority of the Pope and the concept of indulgences. Instead of being given an audience or being granted a council to consider the practice, Luther was excommunicated.

I have implied the question before, but now ask it baldly. How far should a faithful Catholic go in matters of conscience? I approached this by asking about Saint Mary McKillop, who was recently beatified as Saint Mary of the Cross. She was excommunicated by Bishop Shiel for disobedience and defiance. This was because of her defense of the poor and the outcasts of society.
Now, after this action, she has been beatified. Luther also held to his beliefs when it came to the direction of the Church. What is the difference here in the actions of these two?

Hi Oldtimer-

Just a point of clarification for both Lutherans who always seem to get this wrong and Roman Catholics as well who should know better. Martin Luther was not a monk. Martin Luther was a friar. Augustinians are friars. Benedictines are monks.

And I think the main difference between Luther and McKillop in regards to their possible or actual canonization, is we have a Lutheran Church and there is no McKillopian Church.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Then mike no disrespect so did the Church auhorities in the 16th century. Because it was the CENTRAL ISSUE in the dispute between Martin Luther and the Church. And he had his chance to defend his opinion, and it was rejected and still is by the RCC.

Now of course by the Help of the Holy Spirit we have found a way to explain it better why the Church rejected his teaching’s and I believe we have pretty much have come to an agreement on a combined understanding and on this issue. But it took many of years.

But it also shows we are not far from becomming one In Christ once again. I think what we have to agree on is simply Luther’s words rather misunderstood by the Church or not, were and still are not accepted. And have caused alot of trouble between us.

BUt again now through understanding and help from the Holy Spirit we have become united once again by that problem. At least I thought we were.

So the church in rejecting Luther’s teachings, still sell indulgences? How much is the going rate? Is there a box in the narthex of Roman Catholic Churches that says above it “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs”? Tell me when you receive the Eucharist is it of only one kind? And the Bible you read, is it in Latin or English? And the mass that you attend most often, English or Latin? Let me know the answers and we’ll see how many of Luther’s teachings ended up being rejected.

But it also shows we are not far from becomming one In Christ once again. I think what we have to agree on is simply Luther’s words rather misunderstood by the Church or not, were and still are not accepted. And have caused alot of trouble between us.

And people wonder why schisms are never healed.

 

[Oldtimer_7]

Mike, thanks for the elucidation on monks and friars. I was just using the language that I have heard and read Catholics using in this type of discussion. All this talk makes me think of Franciskaner, on of the best beers in Munich. All this talk is making me mighty dry.

Rinnie, I am not questioning whether Luther was Catholic or whether he had joined an order. It is my understanding that any Catholic can be excommunicated. In Saint Mary of the Cross’s example, it was her bishop and he later relented and had the excommunication lifted. I also recall some years ago that there was discussion of excommunicating politicians who supported abortion and the other positions that the Church has taken a stand on. We Lutherans also have a mechanism for the removal of members. This aspect of the issue is not in question.

FidesSpesCaritas, can you tell me what doctrine of the Church allowed the sale of indulgences by priests? As I stated, Luther accepted that the Pope had the power to grant indulgences. This is what Luther said in Theses five and six:
5. The pope neither desires nor is able to remit any penalties except those imposed by his own authority or that of the canons.
6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring and showing that it has been remitted by God; or, to be sure, by remitting guilt in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in these cases were disregarded, the guilt would certainly remain unforgiven.

Luther further states that his concern is with the practice of the sale of indulgences. Look at Theses 37 and 38.
37. Any true Christian, whether living or dead, participates in all the blessings of Christ and the church; and this is granted him by God, even without indulgence letters.
38. Nevertheless, papal remission and blessing are by no means to be disregarded, for they are, as I have said (Thesis 6), the proclamation of the divine remission.

The argument that the difference between Luther and Saint Mary of the Cross was that Saint Mary of the Cross was defending the poor is specious. It was not just rich people who were paying for indulgences, nor the rich who were appealed to. Saint Mary of the Cross did not doubt that the poor and aboriginals were being wronged. Did you know that aboriginals were not even granted citizenship until 1967? Neither did Luther doubt that the practice of selling indulgences was contrary to the teachings and work of the church.

Luther did not found a church. His followers did that. He objected to his name being attached to a church, since the practice of using the name of the “leader” was a way of identifying heretics. If Luther had his way, the Lutheran Church would have been called the Churches of the Augsburg Confession. In current practice, the Augsburg Confession is of much greater importance than any of Luther’s writings.

I am intrigued by Jon’s thought of the Pope declaring the Augsburg Confession to be one of the faithful witnesses of the Church. We do not know what form unity will bring. I taught the 11th chapter of Acts today. For my Catholic brethren, I used Luke Timothy Johnson’s book, The Acts of the Apostles. It appears to be the standard text on the subject. Even my LC-MS Lutheran Study Bible refers to it. The faithful of the first century had a hard time keeping up with the speed with which the Holy Spirit was moving. I pray that we may be in the same circumstance.

God bless you all.

 

[dogknox]

** rinnie** you asked…

What words did Luther reject?

Hello rinnie Thank you for your reply. You asked “What words did Judas reject?”
Jesus held up bread and said “This IS my body”! I point you to the word “IS”!
Also Judas rejected the TEACHING of God as a LIE! To be a believer you MUST believe the** “WORDS”** of Jesus >>AND<< you must believe Jesus is in fact “GOD”!

rinnie To be a Believer in Jesus you MUST believe the words of Jesus and that he is God!

The Jews do NOT believe Jesus is “GOD” they call Jesus** a MAN!** (below)

Here is the teaching of Jesus…(below)!
John 6:45
It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.
46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.
47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.
48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can **this man **give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
59 He said this** while teaching **in the synagogue in Capernaum.

rinnie The Jews don’t believe Jesus is God and these disciples (below) don’t believe his ** WORDS**!
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

** rinnie** LOOK there are people that believe the TEACHING (words) & they also believe, Jesus is GOD!
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”
LOOK what Jesus replies to Peter the first Catholic’s… The very next verse…
70 Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”
71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)

Judas REJECTED Jesus he does NOT believe Jesus is God or his TEACHINGS!
Satan took Judas as his Child because Judas rejected Jesus… He did NOT believe the bread is the Body of Jesus!

** rinnie** Martin Luther might have believed Jesus is God… But he rejected the words of Jesus… thus he rejected Jesus!

rinnie Look again at verse #47 (above) Judas does NOT have eternal life… he rejected the TEACHING of GOD as a LIE!!

Just as Martin Luther did.

 

[JonNC]

** rinnie** you asked…

Hello rinnie Thank you for your reply. You asked “What words did Judas reject?”
Jesus held up bread and said “This IS my body”! I point you to the word “IS”!
Also Judas rejected the TEACHING of God as a LIE! To be a believer you MUST believe the** “WORDS”** of Jesus >>AND<< you must believe Jesus is in fact “GOD”!

rinnie To be a Believer in Jesus you MUST believe the words of Jesus and that he is God!

The Jews do NOT believe Jesus is “GOD” they call Jesus** a MAN!** (below)

Here is the teaching of Jesus…(below)!
John 6:45
It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.
46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.
47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.
48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can **this man **give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
59 He said this** while teaching **in the synagogue in Capernaum.

rinnie The Jews don’t believe Jesus is God and these disciples (below) don’t believe his ** WORDS**!
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

** rinnie** LOOK there are people that believe the TEACHING (words) & they also believe, Jesus is GOD!
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”
LOOK what Jesus replies to Peter the first Catholic’s… The very next verse…
70 Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”
71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)

Judas REJECTED Jesus he does NOT believe Jesus is God or his TEACHINGS!
Satan took Judas as his Child because Judas rejected Jesus… He did NOT believe the bread is the Body of Jesus!

** rinnie** Martin Luther might have believed Jesus is God… But he rejected the words of Jesus… thus he rejected Jesus!

rinnie Look again at verse #47 (above) Judas does NOT have eternal life… he rejected the TEACHING of GOD as a LIE!!

Just as Martin Luther did.

You didn’t answer rinnie’s question. She asked what words Luther rejected, not what words Judas rejected.
Based on this post, you seem to be under the (again) mistaken impression that Luther rejected the fact that the Eucharist is His body and blood. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Jon

 

[rinnie]

You didn’t answer rinnie’s question. She asked what words Luther rejected, not what words Judas rejected.
Based on this post, you seem to be under the (again) mistaken impression that Luther rejected the fact that the Eucharist is His body and blood. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Jon

Hi Jon, In all fairness I do think I asked him both. What words Judas and Luther outright rejected? I am not sure where Judas rejected the words of Jesus though

I am not sayng that he did not, but I do not remember being taught that Judas rejected the teaching of Jesus, only that Judas betrayed Jesus.

So again I must ask him where did Judas and Luther reject the teaching of Jesus. In the gospel of Matt. it says that Judas was fill with remorse and took the silver back and tried to undue the sin he had commited. Now I agree while it was too late, and he had already betrayed Jesus, I can’t see where he rejected any of the Teaching’s of Jesus:shrug:

 

[rinnie]

** rinnie** you asked…

Hello rinnie Thank you for your reply. You asked “What words did Judas reject?”
Jesus held up bread and said “This IS my body”! I point you to the word “IS”!
Also Judas rejected the TEACHING of God as a LIE! To be a believer you MUST believe the** “WORDS”** of Jesus >>AND<< you must believe Jesus is in fact “GOD”!

rinnie To be a Believer in Jesus you MUST believe the words of Jesus and that he is God!

The Jews do NOT believe Jesus is “GOD” they call Jesus** a MAN!** (below)

Here is the teaching of Jesus…(below)!
John 6:45
It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.
46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.
47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.
48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can **this man **give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
59 He said this** while teaching **in the synagogue in Capernaum.

rinnie The Jews don’t believe Jesus is God and these disciples (below) don’t believe his ** WORDS**!
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

** rinnie** LOOK there are people that believe the TEACHING (words) & they also believe, Jesus is GOD!
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”
LOOK what Jesus replies to Peter the first Catholic’s… The very next verse…
70 Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”
71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)

Judas REJECTED Jesus he does NOT believe Jesus is God or his TEACHINGS!
Satan took Judas as his Child because Judas rejected Jesus… He did NOT believe the bread is the Body of Jesus!

** rinnie** Martin Luther might have believed Jesus is God… But he rejected the words of Jesus… thus he rejected Jesus!

rinnie Look again at verse #47 (above) Judas does NOT have eternal life… he rejected the TEACHING of GOD as a LIE!!

Just as Martin Luther did.

I am not seeing it dogknox forgive me. but I am just not seeing where Judas or Luther did not believe in Jesus.

While I agree also that in order to have eternal life you must believe in Jesus, I do not agree that to believe in Jesus is all that is needed to have eternal life.

Also if that were true the devil would have eternal life if belief were enough, because do you not agree even the devil believes in Jesus, he just does refuses to obey Jesus.

We must do MANY things to have eternal life in Christ, We must be Baptised, confess our sins, repent, do good works. obey our parents, follow the ten commandments. love one another…I could go on and on.

 

[rinnie]

Again I do not see where Judas rejected Jesus in the Eucharist? I mean I could be wrong, but I was never taught that. I was taught that yes the devil did indeed enter Judas, but I was never taught that he denied Christ in the Eucharist?

 

[rinnie]

So the church in rejecting Luther’s teachings, still sell indulgences? How much is the going rate? Is there a box in the narthex of Roman Catholic Churches that says above it “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs”? Tell me when you receive the Eucharist is it of only one kind? And the Bible you read, is it in Latin or English? And the mass that you attend most often, English or Latin? Let me know the answers and we’ll see how many of Luther’s teachings ended up being rejected.

And people wonder why schisms are never healed.

I am sorry if I in anyway showed you any misrespect Mike, if I did it was not intended.

 

[JonNC]

=rinnie;7234308]Hi Jon, In all fairness I do think I asked him both. What words Judas and Luther outright rejected?

Yes, you asked him both, but he referenced your quote about Luther, but he never responded regarding Luther.

I am not sure where Judas rejected the words of Jesus though

I am not sayng that he did not, but I do not remember being taught that Judas rejected the teaching of Jesus, only that Judas betrayed Jesus.

So again I must ask him where did Judas and Luther reject the teaching of Jesus. In the gospel of Matt. it says that Judas was fill with remorse and took the silver back and tried to undue the sin he had commited. Now I agree while it was too late, and he had already betrayed Jesus, I can’t see where he rejected any of the Teaching’s of Jesus

You know, I have great compassion for Judas. Can you imagine the anguish he suffered when he realized what he had done?? Does he deserve our prayers for God’s mercy on him?

Jon

 

[Mikeoffaith]

I am sorry if I in anyway showed you any misrespect Mike, if I did it was not intended.

Hi Rinnie-

I don’t see any misrespect or disrespect in your post of any kind.

 

[rinnie]

Yes, you asked him both, but he referenced your quote about Luther, but he never responded regarding Luther.

You know, I have great compassion for Judas. Can you imagine the anguish he suffered when he realized what he had done?? Does he deserve our prayers for God’s mercy on him?

Jon

This is one teaching Jon I cannot figure out myself. I mean he did repent, but then on the other hand he did give into the devil.

See what I am thinking is he did indeed sin, and he did repent, if repenting is trying to give the money back, But then he did hang himself. Now does he deserve our prayers? I am so confused on this, because would it be like asking does the devil deserve our prayers?

Now to that we agree No. But would Judas be on the same level? I am not quite sure:shrug:

 

[rinnie]

Hi Rinnie-

I don’t see any misrespect or disrespect in your post of any kind.

Thank-you Mike, I thought maybe by you last sentence I may have said something unknowing to upset you. I would love nothing more then to see I come together in Christ in One Church.

Now on Indulgences we cannot ignore them. Here is why Col. 1:24 If we ignore them then we neglect what Christ does through us and we fail to recognize what he has done In Us.

One could never buy indulgences. What happened was financial scandel surrounding them gave Luther cause for hsi heterodoxy involved alms in which giving to some Charity or foundation was used on special occasions to grant an indulgence.

Because of the Prior abuse in 1567 Pope Pius V cancelled all grants and fees or financial tranactions.

I am not saying that there were occasions that abuses were made, but that was not the purpose of them.

Like say for instance you maybe made fun of a Special needs Child, or took advantage of one like maybe abusing the funds that were given to you to take care of that child etc.

So later in life while you were forgiven of the sin you maybe came into alot of money. So you took alot of your money and donanted it to a cause in the name of the Special Needs group of some sort, and not only gave a ton of money to establish something for them but also your time.

BUt now because of the abuse that the Church was accused of, there can be NO financial indulgence ever again.

Or say that I gave a ton of money to Childrens Hospital, and I was not repenting sin, it was just a good deed, it cannot any longer be an indulgence.

More or less what was a good thing, is not allowed because of the abuse of others.

It would be the same as if I am going to do something every week maybe taking time to spend in doing extra work which I can obtain a indulgence for, I can’t give money for it also now. You know how people can take a good, and ruin it for everyone!

But it was never sold, it was just when people gave from their heart, insead of time some gave money it was the same thing, it was from the heart. Maybe they could not give time, were handicaped or something. But like I said abuse screwed that all up now too. Only because if I gave a million dollars to like I said Childrens Hospital and was granted an indulgence because it came from my heart, the Church could be accused of me selling it to be free from my sin, that would not be possible, nor ever was.

But people that do not understand what indulgences really are, would start alot of scandel. so money can never be given for an indulgences anymore/ Its a shame Huh

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Thank-you Mike, I thought maybe by you last sentence I may have said something unknowing to upset you. I would love nothing more then to see I come together in Christ in One Church.

Now on Indulgences we cannot ignore them. Here is why Col. 1:24 If we ignore them then we neglect what Christ does through us and we fail to recognize what he has done In Us.

One could never buy indulgences. What happened was financial scandel surrounding them gave Luther cause for hsi heterodoxy involved alms in which giving to some Charity or foundation was used on special occasions to grant an indulgence.

Because of the Prior abuse in 1567 Pope Pius V cancelled all grants and fees or financial tranactions.

I am not saying that there were occasions that abuses were made, but that was not the purpose of them.

Like say for instance you maybe made fun of a Special needs Child, or took advantage of one like maybe abusing the funds that were given to you to take care of that child etc.

So later in life while you were forgiven of the sin you maybe came into alot of money. So you took alot of your money and donanted it to a cause in the name of the Special Needs group of some sort, and not only gave a ton of money to establish something for them but also your time.

BUt now because of the abuse that the Church was accused of, there can be NO financial indulgence ever again.

Or say that I gave a ton of money to Childrens Hospital, and I was not repenting sin, it was just a good deed, it cannot any longer be an indulgence.

More or less what was a good thing, is not allowed because of the abuse of others.

It would be the same as if I am going to do something every week maybe taking time to spend in doing extra work which I can obtain a indulgence for, I can’t give money for it also now. You know how people can take a good, and ruin it for everyone!

But it was never sold, it was just when people gave from their heart, insead of time some gave money it was the same thing, it was from the heart. Maybe they could not give time, were handicaped or something. But like I said abuse screwed that all up now too. Only because if I gave a million dollars to like I said Childrens Hospital and was granted an indulgence because it came from my heart, the Church could be accused of me selling it to be free from my sin, that would not be possible, nor ever was.

But people that do not understand what indulgences really are, would start alot of scandel. so money can never be given for an indulgences anymore/ Its a shame Huh

Ok there seems to be something quite different in our understanding of indulgences then and now and what was actually happening historically at the time.

If I seem to understand from what I have been reading and what you have been explaining, this is how it works, I’ll use your example of the special needs child. So you see some kid who is mentally challenged and you push them down and call them a retard. OK sin has been committed. You go to your local priest, you do the whole confession and absolution thing, your sin is forgiven, but there still needs to be a physical act to remove the temporal punishment still attached. So you give a little cash, and donate a little time to working with the Special Olympics, and bam you have earned an indulgence and your slate is wiped clean until you blow it again doing something else. Yes?

 

[dogknox]

You didn’t answer rinnie’s question. She asked what words Luther rejected, not what words Judas rejected.
Based on this post, you seem to be under the (again) mistaken impression that Luther rejected the fact that the Eucharist is His body and blood. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Jon

Hello JonNC good question… BUT…
But you are mixed up… I was PROVING… “You reject the scriptures, then you are rejecting Jesus!”
Judas also rejected the words of Jesus… thus he was condemned… Satan claimed what was his…“All who reject Jesus are the Children of Satan!”
rinnie asked “What words did Judas reject”?
JonNC And I answered … Judas rejected Jesus… Jesus held up bread and declared: “This IS my Body”! Judas rejected the word “IS”!

Martin Luther also rejected Jesus, he rejected the word, “ALWAYS” as a lie!
Jesus said, word for word…“I am with you ALWAYS to the very end of the Age”! Martin Luther said… "Satan is the head of the Catholic Church… he believed "Satan overpowered Jesus, that Satan TOOK the Body of Jesus away from Jesus. He refused to believe Jesus, is ALWAYS with his Church!

Martin Luther rejected these words of Jesus’… “LISTEN to the Church or be treated as a Pagan”! Luther said… “I will NOT listen to the Church”! Luther rejected Jesus by rejecting the scriptures. “Pagan; A person out side of the body of God”. The Church had no choice but to remove Luther, as PAGAN!

Jesus said… “The Church is the Pillar and the foundation of truth”!

Jesus said… “A person is JUSTIFIED by what he does…NOT by faith alone!”

Jesus said… “He who hears you hears me, he who rejects you, rejects me”!

Jesus said…this WARNING just before he held up bread and declared it IS his body! >> “The person who does NOT accept my words REJECTS me!”<<

Martin Luther rejected all of these scriptures (above) as LIES from the mouth of God!
“You reject the scriptures, then you are rejecting Jesus!”
JonNC Judas rejected Jesus… he did not accept the WARNING from Jesus… he also rejected

Dogknox

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

You know, I have great compassion for Judas. Can you imagine the anguish he suffered when he realized what he had done?? Does he deserve our prayers for God’s mercy on him?

Jon

Jon, this to has been a area of confusion for me. I after prayer on it came to the understanding that Judas great sin was not so much the betral, but his not asking for forgivness. His inability to even after seeing how wrong he was to trust God.

 

[ignatius777]

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.

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.

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,

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

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.

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?

Please no disrespect anyone, just trying to figure out their line of reasoning on this?

You are correct about the one church by the way and Luther’s seperation from it. The reason I couldnt follow Luther is because of his personal “revelation” about the wording of Romans 3:28. This is the basis for one of the major chasms between catholics and protestants.

 

[dogknox]

Hello oneGODoneCHURCH it is good to meet you…
You said…

Jon, this to has been a area of confusion for me. I after prayer on it came to the understanding that Judas great sin was not so much the betral, but his not asking for forgivness. His inability to even after seeing how wrong he was to trust God.

I point to the scriptures…
First Jesus teaches… In John 6…from verse # 45…“They will be TAUGHT by God” down to verse # 59…“he said this while TEACHING” all in between these verses is God TEACHING… The Jews don’t believe the TEACHING because they don’t believe Jesus is God… they call Jesus “A MAN” in verse # 52! The Disciples reject the TEACHING and** leave Jesus**… they say…“WHO can believe this TEACHING”!
The Apostles STAY they do not leave Jesus…
Peter announces “We BELIEVE you are God and we believe your TEACHING!”
oneGODoneCHURCH Judas did NOT leave with the others who rejected the teaching… He stayed as a believer…
oneGODoneCHURCH Judas was a “HYPOCRITE” … LOOK what Jesus said in reply to Peters declaration about Jesus.
Peter… 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? **You have the words **of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

Jesus… 70 Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” 71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)

NEXT…
Second… Jesus warns the Apostles in John 12 The person who does NOT accept his words; REJECTS him! Then is John 13 Jesus holds up bread and declared…“This IS my body”!

oneGODoneCHURCH As soon as Judas ate… Satan took him, all who REJECT Jesus are the children of Satan!

NEXT…
Third
1 Corinthians 11:27 **
So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.**
oneGODoneCHURCH Do you see it… “You can’t sin against a SYMBOL!” Judas sinned by eating the bread!

28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
oneGODoneCHURCH Do you see it… “Judas CONDEMNED himself”!
Judas rejected the WARNING of Jesus and ate even after Jesus said… “This IS my body”!

Dogknox

 

[Magdalena09]

You know what is so funny–just last weekend I was at the Ft Wayne (Indiana) library reading several different books on the reformation. Some authors were Catholic, some were Lutheran (as far as I could tell–or at least spoke very positively of Luther and seemed to not contradict any teachings of the Lutheran church) and yet they had this in common:

Both pointed out that many people who talk about Martin Luther focus on his opposition to abuses in the Church (specifically, abuses having to do with indulgences)… but that really, Luther’s main problem (or contribution, depending on which book you read) was that he rejected doctrines taught by the Church and created his own (or, the right doctrine was finally taught for the first time, thanks to him, again, depending on the book.)

This thread, though, indeed does prove that. Indulgence, this, indulgence, that. Many priests spoke out against indulgence abuses long before Luther did. That was not the main issue. The main issue was rejecting primary doctrines of the Catholic faith that did him in.

And again–Luther separated himself from the Church long before he was (officially) excommunicated, in the same way I would separate myself if I were to get an abortion. No one would have to know about my abortion or “officially” declare me as excommunicated. I would be, based on my action alone–declared by the Church or not.