Why I could never follow Luther.

[mark_a]

If I was born Lutheran, I’d probably be Lutheran.

Me too, until about ten years ago.

 

[JonNC]

Me too, until about ten years ago.

What happened ten years ago?
Jon

 

[mark_a]

What happened ten years ago?
Jon

I learned about my Catholic faith that I was born into.

 

[JonNC]

I learned about my Catholic faith that I was born into.

Then, Mark, I give thanks to God for the blessing you have received. I wouldn’t have it any other way, other than reconciliation between our communions.

Jon

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Okay Mike, I will try to get to you about indulgences, but If not tonight tommorow I promise. I have a meeting it is my last for the Church Council and I can’t miss. But I want to expain them in as simple terms as I can.

Now back to Luther and Faith ALONE, IT does not work. You and Jon continue to say, as Luther FAITH ALONE. Faith ALONE is not possible in any way form or shape,

The only way the word ALONE could be used with a word would be GRACE ALONE or JESUS CHRIST ALONE because the Grace is from Jesus. Faith is something that is given to us from the Free gift of Grace that we did not deserve. But without grace as I said faith is not possible. So faith alone does not exist, It is where Luther contradicted himself quite often.

I understand he said other things also, but he said FAITH ALONE, he was wrong. We cannot ever be saved by faith alone.

Thanks Rinnie. Not growing up in the Roman Catholic Church, teaching indulgences was not high on Pastor Blacka’s list.

I think you seem to be misunderstanding Luther. Luther never said, you are saved by faith alone. Grace was definitely part of this equation and probably the most important part of this equation of justification.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Okay Mike, I will try to get to you about indulgences, but If not tonight tommorow I promise. I have a meeting it is my last for the Church Council and I can’t miss. But I want to expain them in as simple terms as I can.

Now back to Luther and Faith ALONE, IT does not work. You and Jon continue to say, as Luther FAITH ALONE. Faith ALONE is not possible in any way form or shape,

The only way the word ALONE could be used with a word would be GRACE ALONE or JESUS CHRIST ALONE because the Grace is from Jesus. Faith is something that is given to us from the Free gift of Grace that we did not deserve. But without grace as I said faith is not possible. So faith alone does not exist, It is where Luther contradicted himself quite often.

I understand he said other things also, but he said FAITH ALONE, he was wrong. We cannot ever be saved by faith alone.

Sorry Rinnie, forgot to ask. How was your Parish Council meeting? Just a side question, are you guys elected or appointed?

 

[Mikeoffaith]

To make it short, and I will explain this later, this is one form of an Indulgence.

Say I go now to Church and I pray alone in the Church for One hour. Now I can offer this up as an indulgence to my Dad who I believe is in heaven, and My Brother who I believe is in heaven but there can always be a chance they can be in Purgatory. We will get to that later also.

But my point is If I continue to pray for them and offer this up to them from me God will accept my prayers and that good that would have came to me, I can ask for God to give that extra grace to them. Its like the good of one can exchange this Good to another because it proves that the holiness of one, and honest good works, can profit others simply because the Good that someone can do, can out do the harm that sin of one could cause.

Like for example I am being asked to do something right now in my Church that is very demanding and will take alot of my time. I of course had to have been called to do this by the Powrer of the Holy Spirit.

But will I answer that call? I do not know yet. Only God knows the answer to that. But if I can get enough Grace from God to feel in my heart to figure out what he is truly asking of me, and I answer God, this can be extra Grace that is given to me in exchange. Not for the work I will do or accomplish, but because of the Grace that God has given me, and my free will to us that free gift. In turn I can ask God to offer up some of the good works that I do in his name for him, and my Brother and my Dad can kind of reap the reward.

Mind you God knows WHY I am doing this, because he is asking me too, But my free will is to do it because his grace is leading me there, But by taking this time, and accomplishing what he is asking of me, I am rewarded with extra grace, And when you take time out for God because you know you should even though its difficult at times, you can become more righteous in his eyes. And when you are in that state he will accept your prayers and answer them for you.

So while I am not doing this simply for an indulgence, I can obtain one.

So when I confess my sins, I am forgiven but you still need to come to peace with those sins. It is through works of devotion, penance, and charity that this happens. Although I am already forgven there is still temporal punishment due for the sins that have been remitted. That is a way of using an indulgece for myself. I can actually rid myself of the sin also from good works provided by Gods grace. (Or in my words, God keeps you so busy being Good, and doing good, it keeps you out of trouble, and can actually rid you of one of your sins while doing his work. Maybe a habit that was hard to break was actually broken at this time that you did not have to do the habit, or sin, etc.)

I sort of get the idea. Can you define temporal punishment?

 

[Chris_Fuller]

Paid indulgences are no longer part of the Catholic faith. Thanks to Luther we also now have a bible in our own language. Luther considered himself a good Catholic his whole life and believed the church had strayed. By eliminating paid indulgences and adopting the bible in languages other than Latin, the Catholic church has effectively agreed with Luther.

Wouldn’t the Catholic church from just before Luther raised hackles consider the modern Catholic church to be a Protestant church?

 

[Chris_Fuller]

What about Romans 4:5 which tells us that works (i.e. actions/deeds) do not bring about justification (i.e. getting right with God), but only faith. Where in scripture does the bible indicate that deeds/works are also required to become justified?

 

[Mikeoffaith]

What about Romans 4:5 which tells us that works (i.e. actions/deeds) do not bring about justification (i.e. getting right with God), but only faith. Where in scripture does the bible indicate that deeds/works are also required to become justified?

Hi Chris-

Welcome to the forum. They usually point to James 2:17 or somewhere close to there that works are a must in addition to faith for justification.

Mike

 

[pablope]

What about Romans 4:5 which tells us that works (i.e. actions/deeds) do not bring about justification (i.e. getting right with God), but only faith. Where in scripture does the bible indicate that deeds/works are also required to become justified?

I think you should take Romans 4 from verse 1 to take the full essence of it.
As for deeds/works, here a few:

James:

1: 26If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless.
27Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

James 2:14-17 (King James Version)

14What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Revelation 14:13 (King James Version)
13And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.

Matthew 12:34-37 (King James Version)
34O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
35A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
36But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
37For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

Matthew 16:26-27 (King James Version)
26For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
27For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works

 

[Frost]

Actually it couldn’t have. Because the Way that the Church is Sanctifed is through the Sacraments. The Pope is the current Vicar of Christ the Bishop of Rome is at the same time Peter.

If you read the N.T. we read in a number of the Gospels that Peter is always at the head of the group of the 12 Apostles.

In Matthew it is written that Jesus appointed Peter to be the Rock on which he would build his Church. It was Peter who God had given authority over his Church. It was Peter he elected as shepherd of his flock.

The Pope is who was chosen to walk in the footsteps of Peter. In his election as Bishop of Rome he assumes the responsibility as the Universal Pastor for the Church and takes on the awesome authority of the Vicar of Chrst to preside over the whole Church to oversee its activities and to build up the Church in faith and Love.

If the Church was NOT split in 2 then we would still all follow the Universal Teacher like we did when Luther was a Catholic Monk.

The Pope has never left the CC, Luther left the CC. If Luther would have stayed then there would be ONE CHURCH. But as you can see you are not called the Catholic Church led by the Vicar of Christ we are.

On the contrary: Luther thought that the Pope actually had left the Church and his responsibility as the pastor of the Church. If Luther was right to break free from the Pope’s church is another matter, though. The fact is that he did, and now we must find out how we can become one church again.

What our churches is called is of minor importance, it doesn’t prove anything.

 

[rinnie]

Sorry Rinnie, forgot to ask. How was your Parish Council meeting? Just a side question, are you guys elected or appointed?

Oh Mike It is so much more that I thought it was. It is a whole new way for the RCC and its going to be so hard. You have to give 100% at all times. ITs actual a Pastoral council. Its called One Body One Mission, the Church Alive, And to be honest its going to take years to come into effect.

It is actually a vision of Pope John Paul ll my favorite. Well at least he USED to be my favorite It is CHANGE, and you know how People LOVE change

It is almost like we are asked to do what Jesus asked the Apostles to do in a way. THE IMPOSSIBLE!!

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

What about Romans 4:5 which tells us that works (i.e. actions/deeds) do not bring about justification (i.e. getting right with God), but only faith. Where in scripture does the bible indicate that deeds/works are also required to become justified?

You are correct works in and of theirself do noting. Just as faith if not put into action (works) does nothing (James 2:14-26). Both are indeed needed. A good example is the women that rached out and touched the hem of Christ robe as he walked by and was told your faith has healed you. If she had just sat there and not done anything with the faith that he could heal her she would not have been healed.

 

[rinnie]

On the contrary: Luther thought that the Pope actually had left the Church and his responsibility as the pastor of the Church. If Luther was right to break free from the Pope’s church is another matter, though. The fact is that he did, and now we must find out how we can become one church again.

What our churches is called is of minor importance, it doesn’t prove anything.

Well, lets see if Luther was right! What is the Pope’s responsibility? Is it being the Pastor or the Church, Heck No, that is like saying that a student is being the same as a teacher.

Did the Pope leave the RCC? NO Luther did, Now did Luther say that the Pope left the RCC and did not accept his responsibility of the RCC? If so and I am not saying he didn’t I am asking, where did he say that? Or are you saying you think thats what Luther was saying.

Because I see no evidence of the Pope ever leaving any of his responsibility. Jesus Promised us that he would guide the Pope and Bishops to teach us in our faith and morals that he would not leave us orphans.

No either Luther was wrong (if he indeed said this) or Jesus was wrong and left us orphans. Now I know Jesus does not lie, and he is a Father who keeps his promises.

Now history will prove to you that the Pope did indeed do his job, simply because if he did not the RCC would not be here today.

Now to me, It is very important that the Church is Catholic, SO it is important what its called for 4 reasons.

In order to know the ONE true Church Jesus told us it must have 4 Marks. The reason this is true so we can KNOW what the true Church of Christ is.

Now th 4 Marks are this.

The Church must be:

1. ONE
   2.Holy
   3.Catholic
   4 Apostolic.

Those are the 4 marks it must have to be the one true Church. That is how you know if your Church is indeed the ONE TRUE CHURCH.

And I agree we must work on becoming ONE again.

 

[rinnie]

I’m sorry Rinnie, but I think you have an incorrect vision of Lutheran teaching when it comes to the role of faith in works in our justification. And in my reading of the JDDJ, it does not come to the conclusion that what Luther taught was incorrect or that what the Magisterium teaches as being wholly correct, but that both are completely compatible and should not be a road block to our unity with one another.

If you read Luther, and sorry but I am going to ask Jon to be the arbiter again, Luther sole teaching about faith alone was not that fact that works aren’t important or that the church was completely in err. The church of Luther’s time had changed works into an Old Testament understanding. That these works were necessary for salvation. Luther said that we are saved by Grace which is a free gift given to us by our most merciful Father. And that no amount of works that we could possibly ever do, no matter how large, or how great or how good, could ever earn us salvation. If any of our human works could save us, then Christ would be unnecessary and we could simply live under the Law. What Luther says about faith is exactly what James goes on to say. It’s not the works that save you, it’s the faith. A real faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ brings about works as a natural extension of the grace given to you. If your faith produces no works, it’s no real faith at all.

So let’s talk about indulgences. At this point, I think we need to have a better understanding of what you understand to be indulgences and what they were at the time of Luther. So if you can provide an explanation of your understanding of indulgences I think it would be helpful. And then in order to relate that to the time of Luther maybe you can let us know exactly what the going rate for an indulgence is. How much do the merits of Christ’s suffering on the cross go for in today’s market? And if indulgences are such an integral part of the Gospel and of the Early Apostolic church why is it that this practice is non-existent in the Orthodox church?

And what of Luther’s other articles? How do they deviate from what the Early Church and Early Church Father’s taught?

I’m a little confused exactly what you wanted Luther to do exactly. So you wanted him to stand up and say, “I see these abuses by a corrupt hierarchy that has veered away from the Gospel and the Apostles.” But when that same corrupt Curia says “No way you’re a heretic, recant or die.” What did you want him to do?

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:

 

[Oldtimer_7]

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?

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

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?

Obedience in all things save that which is disallowed by the faith. Dont understand or agree with something (celibacy, male-only priesthood etc.)? Tough. A thousand troubles dont make one doubt. Christ told us that he who loves Him will obey Him, not argue with his teachings. The teachings of the Pope are NOT the same as the teachings of Christ, but Dogmas of the faith come from the Holy Spirit, one in being with the Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with the Father, one God, forever and ever and as such must be obeyed. Disagreements over DISCIPLINES, however, may be discussed although with never a thought of exiting. I understand that Luther was excommunicated, but that was because of his stubborn persistence in fighting the teachings of the Church and publicly leading Christians into a heretical faith practice. You may see this as a good thing, but that is the understanding of what went on.

Mary McKillop is a different story because she was advocating the protection of children, not a disagreement over doctrines/dogmas of the Faith. And she never attempted to lead anyone away from the OHCAC as did Luther (although I admit that he believed he was leading people BACK to the one faith of Christ).

 

[rinnie]

Thanks Rinnie. Not growing up in the Roman Catholic Church, teaching indulgences was not high on Pastor Blacka’s list.

I think you seem to be misunderstanding Luther. Luther never said, you are saved by faith alone. Grace was definitely part of this equation and probably the most important part of this equation of justification.

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.

 

[rinnie]

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?

Oldtimer here is where I am confused. If luther wasn’t a Roman Catholic Monk then how could he get excommunicated from the RCC? Do you not have to be considered a RC to be excommunucated from the RCC