Why I could never follow Luther.

[gracelife]

And finally… sorry so much.

2.) Luther decided that Scripture Alone is the governing principle and that people could read the Bible and decide what they wanted to decide.

Things like sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, etc. can be listed to say this is what Lutherans believe, but we need to be careful to define them in the correct way and not by what we think they mean. I think there is a tendancy to hear the terms and jump to our own assumptions about their meaning. It is important to understand what the Reformers meant by those terms and not use our own interpretation of what we think those terms mean.

On of the problems with evaluating one’s self is that unless there is a mirror or another person around, it is easy to miss something. For example, you may run a comb or brush through your hair - but, to see if your hair is the way you want it, you need something outside of yourself - like a mirror.
Yes, the Law in Holy Scriptures is the mirror. What is your mirror?

Well… your response is a bit vague. Did you know that Holy Scripture contains the Mosaic Law. Are you referring to that? It also contains 10 Commandments and the Beatitudes. How about these? Christ told us to love God with all our being and our neighbor as ourself. Does this qualify as, “…Law in Holy Scripture…”? But, don’t stop there!

Yes, all of the above. (And no I’m not saying we need to keep the Mosaic rituals, but the moral laws found in the Ten Commandments, yes.) None of which we as humans can keep without God’s grace. Humans fail to keep God’s Law in any number of ways. All of which we are forgiven through faith in the death and resurrection of our dear Lord Jesus.

Here’s what I meant when talking about Law and mirror: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_Gospel#Martin_Luther_and_Lutheran_theologians
wiki,

More on Law and Gospel, here: mtio.com/articles/bissar85.htm

 

[gracelife]

Gracelife:
“There is one church. Yet is it terribly divided by much misunderstanding amongst men”

In one brief sentence you have just said that Jesus is a liar and therefore not God.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**Wounds to unity **
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

 

[gracelife]

Unless like Gracelife you have concluded that Jesus lied or else was incapable of keeping His promise.

The gates of hell have not prevaded against the Church of Christ, the Gospel is still being preached in clarity and truth.

Can you deny there is division in Christendom? Even the Catholic Catechism acknowledges this.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gracelife,

This was quite a cut 'n paste marathon you engaged in! Being somewhat verbose myself, I can see real talent … but, let me essentially jump to a simpler (and hopefully, accurate) comment or two.

Without going into a prolong re-definition of what a Sacrament is (Note: Luther at one time believed the Catholic definition - here is a link you may find of interest: catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/Sacraments.htm ) I was close when I originally said “2” but I will stand corrected that Lutherans have “3” Sacraments. That however really was not the point I was trying to make.

Luther took it on his own to not only re-define Sacraments but to remove some from the list established by the Catholic Church. As you will recall, Christ gave Peter the authority to bind and lose (Matt 16:18). 1,500 years after the fact, Christ did not return and revoke His Word and give His pledge to Luther.

Those who follow Luther essentially are saying that the Catholic Church who gave the world the Scriptures, Apostolic Succession and Apostolic Tradition, the Early Church Fathers and all of the Church Councils that defined all of the major doctrines that most Christians believe today. When taken as a whole, the pick 'n choose approach that Luther used was very discouraging to anyone looking at the Unity Christ had wanted.

No doubt about it, the Catholic Church that Luther actually saw had major failings in its clergy and hierarchy. They disgraced and dishonored the positions they held from God and gave public scandal. Luther apparently stopped there - ultimately, we do not place our faith in men, but in the Holy Spirit that is guiding the Church of Christ (and that would be the Catholic Church).

The next item I addressed was the Lutheran belief in Sola Scriptura, The issue in not that believing in Scripture is wrong - only that Scripture is quite complex and (as we can see with 20,000+ groups all claiming that only their interpretation is correct) easily misunderstood. Who can definitively resolve issues if only Scripture can define and explain itself? This really creates an impossible situation - and the outcomes is just anarchy with some groups claiming, for example, that Baptism is optional or a good idea or a major step or not necessary. This is not only a problem, but a problem that can be laid squarely at Luther’s feet.

Of course, it could be argued that Luther put himself in an impossible situation. By defying the guaranteed error free teaching authority of the Catholic Church (John 16:13) he could not go back to have the Magisterium interpret Scripture. While an educated man, Luther could not claim infallabiity in Scripture interpretation (and judging how he interpreted what was in front of him, he left something to be desired [e.g., he discredited the Letter of James - maybe because of the way James said we need to have works animated by faith]. So, at the risk of over-simplifying matters, what we have is allowing everyone to interpret Scripture as they think best.

God bless

And finally… sorry so much.

Things like sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, etc. can be listed to say this is what Lutherans believe, but we need to be careful to define them in the correct way and not by what we think they mean. I think there is a tendancy to hear the terms and jump to our own assumptions about their meaning. It is important to understand what the Reformers meant by those terms and not use our own interpretation of what we think those terms mean.

Yes, all of the above. (And no I’m not saying we need to keep the Mosaic rituals, but the moral laws found in the Ten Commandments, yes.) None of which we as humans can keep without God’s grace. Humans fail to keep God’s Law in any number of ways. All of which we are forgiven through faith in the death and resurrection of our dear Lord Jesus.

Here’s what I meant when talking about Law and mirror: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_Gospel#Martin_Luther_and_Lutheran_theologians
wiki,

More on Law and Gospel, here: mtio.com/articles/bissar85.htm

 

[Roy5]

Hm! A clarification. Luther helped bring about freedom of religion and separation of church and state, not because he was a great advocate of either, but because the Reformation brought about many different sects within Christianity. When the colonists in what became the USA decided to write a Constitution, no one group was strong enough to be dominant - Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Baprists, etc. - which led to the 1st amendment, guaranteeing freedom of religion and also adequate separation of church and state to avoid a state church.

 Now, was that a bad thing? I don't think so. This doesn't mean I revere Luther, but I am grateful for the breakup of the medieval religious monopoly that had dominated Europe. And whatever his serious weaknesses (we all have them) he was a man of enormous intellect, indominable courage, and intense devotion. 

 I probably should add that the spirit of Deism - embraced by Jefferson and others - also contributed significantly to religious freedom as well as state-church separation.

 God bless his children of every creed, color and country.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Roy5,

Tell me you read Post #359 and just decided to ignore my response to your anti-scriptural basis for claiming freedom is the ability to drink from the cup of chaos and say, “h-m-m-m good!”

Hm! A clarification. Luther helped bring about freedom of religion and separation of church and state,

We really need to be clear about this ‘clarification’, Roy5. Christ founds His Church and gives the keys to the kingdom to Peter (Matt 16:18) along with the instruction that whatever Peter binds on earth is bound in heaven. Peter Successors were recognized by the Early Church Fathers, so there is a valid historical context that must be addressed. And, you are prising Luther for bringing about freedom from this same Church founded by Christ?

Freedom is the ability to choose the real good - not the mere apparent good that the Father of Lies skillfully paints prior to each of his temptations. Luther was no champion of religious liberty (he was really a pretty repressive soul - and refused to help the thousands of peasants who were being slaughtered by the local princes in the Peasant’s War[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_the_Murderous,_Thieving_Hordes_of_Peasants]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_the_Murderous,_Thieving_Hordes_of_Peasants]) and was less than charitable to the Radical Reformers who did not abide Luther’s view of religion.)

Addressing the schism begun by Luther, and the further (and still on-going) splintering of Protestantism Tell me you read Post #359 and just decided to ignore my response to your anti-scriptural basis for claiming freedom is the ability to drink from the cup of chaos and say, “h-m-m-m good!”

Now, was that a bad thing? I don’t think so. This doesn’t mean I revere Luther, but I am grateful for the breakup of the medieval religious monopoly that had dominated Europe. And whatever his serious weaknesses (we all have them) he was a man of enormous intellect, indominable courage, and intense devotion.

Actually, Roy5, dividing the Body of Christ is a terrible action. Your ‘reverance’ or lack of it to Luther is immaterial. In many ways, once Luther got the schism going, the control of it was really out of his hands. He sewed the wind - and we see the whirlwind of 20.000+ groups all claiming to be following Christ while defying what Christ taught and supporting death and moral decay (abortion, homosexual behavior, embryonic stem cell research, pornography).

I am not sure what else I can tell you, Roy5. This schism is not of God - the the further splintering of doctrine and faith by those who are moved by their own whims is an on-going disgrace. But, you know, this reminds me of an old story as found in Matt 13:30. Mere presence alone does not signifiy proper behavior.

God bless

 

[Roy5]

Hi tqualey

Gosh, I didn’t intend to ignore what you had said.

However, it seems that we disagree.

You appear to be saying that true freedom is limited to choosing the one true church, the Catholic Church. I daresay that this conforms to no definition of freedom that comes to my mind. 

Freedom of religion means just that. You and I are free to be Catholics or Protestants, Orthodox or Mormons, Buddhists or Muslims, etc. Now, in my mind that is religious freedom. To have that restricted is not true freedom. There are certain Muslim extremists who would agree with you, except they would say that people are free to be Muslims.

I do not revere Luther, but I do admire his intellect and his courage, and I also believe that the religious diversity created by the Reformation is nothing we should bemoan. I'm quite proud that my beloved country accords it. I would want it no other way.

I am not personally acquainted with this 'Father of Lies' of whom you write. I suspect that you may mean the Devil. I'm sure that Lucifer and all his minions would prefer that everyone followed one religion - their religion. Personally, I don't mind having Jews, Protestants, Muslims and Sikhs as neighbors. Some of them are good friends, and I suspect that their chances of gaining eternal life are as good as mine. My Christ is filled with love, understanding, compassion and forgiveness - thank God for that. Else few of us would make it.   

 If my memories from medieval history are correct, when only one Church was in control, a whole lot of dissenters were killed 'in the name of God', including many witches burned. Not a pretty picture. I recall reading St. Thomas Aquinas and coming across his solution to heresy. The Church should not execute them. No, no. But, he added, the Church must turn them over to civil authorities who then should execute them 

 Faith should grow out of conversion and conviction and not out of coercion and compulsion.

  Keep smiling. God is good and he loves all of us, of every faith.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Roy5

Gosh…as I recall, we usually disagree because you try to misrepresent wirtten statements. This is pretty much a hallmark of your posts. Being able to reference what was said previously is one way to put this into sharp focus. I have no problem in pointing out what really appears to be mischief rather than dialogue … so here goes. Please return to Post #359 and you will see what was said - and, more importantly, what wasn’t.

Hi tqualey

Gosh, I didn’t intend to ignore what you had said.

However, it seems that we disagree.

You appear to be saying that true freedom is limited to choosing the one true church, the Catholic Church. I daresay that this conforms to no definition of freedom that comes to my mind.

Actually, Roy5, I did not say that.

Freedom of religion means just that. You and I are free to be Catholics or Protestants, Orthodox or Mormons, Buddhists or Muslims, etc. Now, in my mind that is religious freedom. To have that restricted is not true freedom. There are certain Muslim extremists who would agree with you, except they would say that people are free to be Muslims.

Now, here is where ambiguity is used to manipulate language, Roy5. What was being addressed was ‘FREEDOM’ not Freedom of Religion which is really a legal term and one found in the US Constitution - but, not what was being discussed. Post #359 provides you with scriptural quotes on ‘FREEDOM’.

I do not revere Luther, but I do admire his intellect and his courage, and I also believe that the religious diversity created by the Reformation is nothing we should bemoan. I’m quite proud that my beloved country accords it. I would want it no other way.

You know, Roy5, it makes one wonder why Christ did not establishe such diversity in His teaching. Do you think maybe He did not do it this way was because He wanted to make sure people knew the best way to follow Him?

I am not personally acquainted with this ‘Father of Lies’ of whom you write.

You may want to read John 8:44 for a Scriptural refresher on this matter because this is what Christ calls him.

I suspect that you may mean the Devil. I’m sure that Lucifer and all his minions would prefer that everyone followed one religion - their religion.

While I do not know if ‘religion’ is really the correct term - they are really on a mission. And, that mission is to secure your soul in Hell for all eternity. I guess you could say these devils have a focus group - and, their focus is on every soul still united to their body.

Personally, I don’t mind having Jews, Protestants, Muslims and Sikhs as neighbors. Some of them are good friends, and I suspect that their chances of gaining eternal life are as good as mine.

While your neighborhood and neighbors are not the issue, you could be quite right about them gaining eternal life.

My Christ is filled with love, understanding, compassion and forgiveness - thank God for that. Else few of us would make it.

Amen.

If my memories from medieval history are correct, when only one Church was in control, a whole lot of dissenters were killed ‘in the name of God’, including many witches burned. Not a pretty picture. I recall reading St. Thomas Aquinas and coming across his solution to heresy. The Church should not execute them. No, no. But, he added, the Church must turn them over to civil authorities who then should execute them

Actually, Roy5, you are only partially correct. Protestant groups were quite adept and executing those who did not toe their line. Maybe you would like a like that gives a more balanced view than you provided us with: newadvent.org/cathen/11703a.htm

By the way, do you have a citation for that item from St. Thomas.

 Faith should grow out of conversion and conviction and not out of coercion and compulsion.

Faith is primarily a Gift of God. Through cooperation with His Grace there should be no coercion or compulsion - these would violate the exercise of free will.

  Keep smiling. God is good and he loves all of us, of every faith.

You, too, Roy5 - and give Post #359 a better read. If you have any questions on that Post, I will be happy to answer them.

God bless

 

[Mikeoffaith]

I applaud you for your succinctness if at times to be completely biased. Stand by this is going to be in two parts.

Hi, Mikeoffaith.

As I understand your post, there are two concerns here:

 (1) the various histortical challenges faced by the Catholic Church from 33AD - 400AD, 1378AD - 1517AD and 1517AD to the present, and 
 (2) damage done to the Body of Christ during these times so that all are reduced.

Correct for the most part.

The Catholic Church did not spring from the Mind of God fully developed - the Apostles were still worshiping in the Temple after the Ascension. There was no real division of responsibilities (e.g., the creation of the role of Deacon [Acts 9]) and the development of actual doctrine was not a smooth process by human standards - as we see from the Judiazers and the resolution of circumcision by Peter [Acts 15]. Christ did not leave a Policy and Procedure Manual when He Ascended and the Holy Spirit did not deliver the Bible on Pentecost Sunday.

Agreed.

God made a decison early on to work through sinful man - even before he was sinful! So, not only are there internal difficulties [the lying couple of Ananias and Sapphira] and the persecution from Jewish and Roman authorities. So while we had many written works that claimed to be from saintly people - such was not the case when we find that the first ‘Bible’ compiled and edited by Marcian was essentially an exercise in Dualism. To be brief, about 400AD the Catholic Church had identified all the Canon - all the Books of the Bible (their order and their contents) - and under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church proclaimed that these Books were Divinely Inspired. As far as the Bible is concerned, this status remained essentially unchallenged until Luther’s attack beginning in about 1517. Note the Eastern Chruch accepted these Books in 400AD.

I cannot say directly about the history of the Canon from between 400 and 1517. I do know that all books in use including apocrypha and deuterocanonical books seem to appear in my bible put out in 1893 by the publishing house of the Evangelical Lutheran General Synod of the United States of North America. How they are ordered or their relation to the Latin Vulgate in use prior to 1517, I cannot speak about directly either. I can say that this copy is based on Luther’s original works and ordering. From your above statement, I am reading that you believe that Luther has drastically changed the entire Canon and had dropped out books. So I would put it to you to please let me know which ones he left out of his 1534 translation. From your statement, I am also inferring that the Roman Catholic Church has used the exact same Canon as was set out in 400. I assume that the Council of Trent’s affirmation of the Canon is exactly what was set out in the Early Church and that the Orthodox would agree on that Canon. If this is the case, then the question of the position of the Prayer of Manesses, the two books of Esdras, which are not in the Council of Trent’s listing, but are included in the Clementine and I also believe in the Greek Orthodox Canon which also includes 3 and 4 Maccabees.

This is pure speculation on my part … but… you know, I just do not think all of those guys who were demanding circumcision of the new Gentile converts changed their minds after Paul told the members in attendance at the First Council of Jerusalem. Human nature just isn’t quite like that…but, that is just an opinion.

I would tend to agree. But the fact that after discussion among the Apostles present and the elders, some consensus was clearly reached and the early church leadership formulated a decision.

If we exclude this, then I really do not get to a full scale internal doctrinal dispute in the rest of the NT . We must actually wait about 325AD for the Arian heresy to grip the Church in a major controversy and then about a hundered years later, we are facing the Nestorian heresy. it goes on, but, I think these issues illustrate that what were once faithful followers of Christ through the Church He founded on Peter (Mattt 16:18) went another way. And, yes, this had a negative impact on the Unity that Christ prayed for (John 17:21). Did it destroy the Catholic Church - the Bride of Christ? No.

Correct these divisions within the church did not destroy the unity of the church. The Church Catholic did exactly what was outlined in Acts. A council was called, albeit by the Emperor, the matters were discussed a decision was made. Mind you Arianism still had a bit of run after this in the West, but it did peter out. Pardon the expression.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Did the Great Schism in about 1378AD negatively impact on the Catholic Church? Yes. Was it destroyed? No. And, then we move to the period beginning in 1517 - a Europe in turmoil (and had been for many years) with what appears to be a lax clergy indulging themselves while scandalizing the faithful.

And this is where our understanding of the term Catholic Church divides. I am going to use the term Church Catholic to refer to the church from those days in Jerusalem to 1054. My first impression is that you seem to be forgetting about what is really called the Great Schism, the schism between East and West. Either you have made a mistake or figure that the separation of our Brothers and Sisters in the East is of no consequence. But the fact remains that the Church Catholic with the Bishops in collegiality ended in 1054. I assume and tell me if I am wrong, that when you refer to the Catholic Church, you are meaning all churches that are in communion with the Bishop of Rome, what I and most Protestants would understand as the Roman Catholic Church, the church with those in the East, referred to as Orthodox, excluded. Regardless of the causation, the fact remains that there was an issue of great doctrinal importance and the Church Catholic did not follow the pattern set down by Acts and previous ecumenical councils. And the Schism is unhealed and unresolved.

We can talk about the Schism of the West in 1378 but I don’t find that this was a doctrinal issue for the Roman Catholic Church. To put it bluntly a pissing match between prelates and one, two or three popes is an internal power struggle rife with greed and politics.

And then we move to 1517.

Luther’s schism (and those he spawned: Calvin, Henry VIII, even Anabaptists) was probably the most damaging of all. I think if we were talking about a purely human organization, like a civic or political club, the Catholic Church would have been quickly destroyed. Virtually all of Europe was in shambles - and this was before the 30 Year’s War! But, look at what we have, the Catholic Church is still teaching the same doctrines - Baptism is necessary (and infants are truly welcomed!), sins can be forgiven by the properly ordained minister of God, the Priest, Christ is Really Present in the Eucharist (Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity), etc.

So let’s get one thing straight. Calvin, Henry et al were not spawned by Luther. No of these were Luther spinoffs. Now, if the Roman Catholic Church as the complete repository of truth and light can’t hang on to her offspring, please don’t blame Luther, look to Rome. Even if you were to look at the Roman Catholic Church as a civic or political club, it is mere speculation on your part that it would be destroyed. The fact that to it’s shear size, there was no way it would ever go completely under. But still this split was not any worse than 1054. Again this probably could have been avoided if a general ecumenical council had been formed and discussions taken place, but it was not meant to be. It seems silly that we have excommunication happening in 1521, and then the Council of Trent actually making some reforms circa 1550.

The Chruch is also standing strong agianst same-sex ‘unions’, condemning homosexual acts, condemning abortion, embryonic stem cell research, artificial contraception and ponography. Just look around and see how many churches are singing different tunes on these major social issues.

I certainly hope and know better that the church has much better things to do than fight artificial contraception. If this list is the only thing that the Roman Catholic Church can point towards standing for, I think you have short changed your church or I have a higher opinion of her work. In your list, I don’t see anything about poverty, hunger, or justice.

Different ages in the Catholic Church have certainly brought on different challenges. But, the take home message is that the Bible established in 400AD contains only the Inspired Word of God (I think you have the abridged version…). And, while the sinful actions of many church leaders have caused many problems - none of them taught error. I really think that is the take home message.

I agree the Bible contains the Inspired Word of God, and my version is just as complete as yours. I cannot say for certain whether the sinful church leaders taught error or not. I’m not up on my infallible teachings of the Popes and Curia, from my perspective I believe that they taught nothing at all.

Now, are we in agreement?

Now we are in agreement.

Blessings to you.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

The East - West schism did not cause the annihilation of the the Catholic Church.
This is the fairy tale protestants tell themselves to justify their own schism from Christ’s Church. Christ established only one Church. If someone is in schism, it is in schism against that one Church.

See hear again it is a matter of perspective. This is no Protestant fairy tale. If anything what you are putting out is Roman Catholic fairy tale to make yourselves feel better about the fact that the seat of Peter failed Christ in maintaining unity in His Church. Christ established one church and in Rome’s arrogance split it in two.

No it did not. The Church may have lost rebellious members but it did not become less.
To this day, the 1st generation Church subsists in the Catholic Church.
No it is not. As St Augustine said; Christ’s Body may be sick and covered in sores but there is no need to chop off its members.

Yes that first generational church subsists in the Roman Catholic Church as it does in the Orthodox Church. And if only Rome had listened to St Augustine, we would be in such a better place. Remember being excommunicated is exactly what Rome did. If you want to refer to Patriarch Michael and Luther as the sores on the Body of Christ so be it, but don’t sit there and thing that the Leo’s did anything less that chop those parts covered in sores off.

Those Churches that have separated from the Catholic Church have taught one form of heresy or another right from the beginning. Christ promised that He will send the Holy Spiirt to guide His Church into Truth. If we affirm that Jesus is God and did keep that promise then those churches who taught heresy is obviously not Christ’s Church. To this day, only the Catholic Church has upheld the true teachings of Christ.
You have. We haven’t. Unless like Gracelife you have concluded that Jesus lied or else was incapable of keeping His promise.
An arm or leg has certainly been cut off from the body. A limb cut off from the body can only die and decay unless it is grafter back to the Body.

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. You are the one that has assumed that you and Rome are the ones that have complete understanding of all the God/Christ/The Spirit are doing and willing in all parts and at all times. The size of Christ is so incomprehensible, that if your belief of Christ and God cannot fit into the box you put Him into, then all other must be in error or in heresy. The fact of the matter is that Rome itself cannot and is not willing to say that from it’s perspective any members not associated with itself, ie Orthodox or Lutherans contain absolutely none of the Truth nor can it say for certain is not willing to say that they Holy Spirit is not guiding these communities.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Hi, Mikeoffaith,

14th Century Italy was like no place else on earth. Trying to understand the politics of the various kingdoms in Italy and the Papal States - and how these groups interacted (usually physically) is its own subject. Luther’s German princes were somewhat similar (everyone wanted to be king of their own hill … while reaching out to conquer another hill!) It is only when you see what a political and military mess the area was in - that you really appreciate your own country in the 21st Century!

Here are my ideas as to why St. Catherine of Siena was such a great reformer.

(1) Catherine was the one that brought the seeds of unity to the factions. Now John 4:37 tells us that one sews and another will reap. Catherine was doing the sewing part of this process.

(2) She was especially favored by God - and lived a life of prayer and humility. She was about 31 years of age when the Great Schism began en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Schism and during her two remaining yeears on earth she worked tirelessly to get the competing popes (anti popes) to quickly resolved their differences. She succeeded in getting Gregory XI to return to Rome from France - and this was really a major accomplishment.

While it is always cool to see people like Gen Douglas McArthur … proclaim he would return - and then return … and then accept the surrender of Japan ending the war in the Pacific! Hey, while he did not do it all - he did many things year after year. God’s role for Catherine did not follow this type example.

I see her as having an impact on individuals whose hearts were as hard as their heads - and her good example worked miracles. You see, given our human nature’s burning desire to dig our heels in to a particular point of view (and Luther can give us the example here) Catherine was unique for getting the groups to move forward to reconcilliation. She has a special place in my heart when we think of getting fighting parties back to the table…

You’re right - about 20 years after she died … there was a resolution and the Catholic Church was back to one pope. St. Catherine of Siena, pray for us!

Hope this answers your quesiton.

God bless

It does, I understand your point of view and appreciate it. I don’t think that the parallels between Catherine’s experience of world and events are completely equal with those of Luther’s day, but I can see some similarities.

 

[Roy5]

Sorry that I don’t have the time or the motivation to carry on this dialogue much further. We obviously disagree. You believe that there is only one true church and that is the Catholic church. Fine. I was raised in a mixed situation - French Canadian on Dad’s side, old Yankee on Mom’s, so I presume I’ve been motivated to seek understanding and mutual respect and have avoided the one-true-church idea. You have a totally different perspective.

A few quick thoughts.

When I consider this mammoth and magnificant and mysterious universe, I am inclined to think that most of our finite speculations are probably far off the ultimate truth. Is it in Psalm 139 where the writer says that knowledge of this world is just too much for us to absorb? I guess this is where I have landed in my search for truth. My main concern now is trying to follow Christ. As I recall, when the lawyer asked him how to enter eternal life, he said nothing about doctrine, but gave the parable of the Good Samaritan instead. And Samaritans, of course, were not bonafide Jews, for they had intermarried and were despised by the Jews. Elsewhere he tells about those who go to heaven. Where have we seen you hungry and fed you? Inasmuch as you did it until one of the least of these.... No reference to doctrine here, either.

 Well, you get the idea. I place emphasis on the love which Jesus taught and not on the dangers of the gnashing of teeth and hell fire. In fact, I confess that I doubt if God is such a wrathful god. So, if we happen to end up in the 'wrong church' - well, I don't fret. If Jesus died for our sins, I guess the worse would be that that might be one of them. On the other hand, I believe that honesty is respected, and I'm sure we're both honest. In any case, I don't believe we are saved by correct doctrine or by proper church affiliation but by simple faith in God plus the grace of God. My guess is that you don't agree. 

 Let's see now, you asked for documentation re St. Thomas. Just happens that I wrote my undergraduate thesis on Aquinas so became quite familiar with him. Brilliant mind and so well organized. But when I reached S. T. II - II, q. 11, a. 3 - well, I was shocked and very disappointed. Check it out. He favored turning heretics over to the state which had not only the right but the duty to protect its citizens from enemies and execute such heretics! 

  Sometimes, when I read CAF, it seems as though some of these posters would approve of his position on how to fight heresy. Kill the heretics! Far too much of that during those foolish religious wars when - alas, in the name of Christ! - Christians slaughtered Christians. Was it the St. Bartholomew Massacre in France that thousands of Huguenots were murdered when they had gathered for a wedding! And the Pope ordered a special Te Deum in celebration of the slaughter! Give me a break! Protestants were no better when it came to slaying rival Christians. What grief all this must have caused in heaven!

  There are Catholics and Protestants and Orthodox - and, of course, many Muslims - who are convinced that they alone have the full truth and all the others are wrong. You seem to be among them. Fine. But, I flatly reject this notion. I believe that God doesn't give a hoot about our labels. He looks at our hearts. When that lawyer asked Jesus how to inherit eternal life, Christ answered - love God and love one another. That's where I stand. All this theological controversy - to me - is diverting our attention from the real goal of Christianity, which is not doctrinal uniformity and conformity, but is living lives that try to follow the example of Christ. All the doctrine and ritual and sacraments will not save us. "Amazing grace, how sweet the sound!"

  The problem, in my mind, is that much of this doctrinal stuff is man-made and people become tribalistic and defend it regardless, claiming that it comes directly from God. It obviously seems important to many people to believe that they are in the right tribe and the rest are not only wrong but maybe lost eternally. Is this arrogance or pride? Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and call it either brainwashing or a sincere desire to live a holy life.

  God bless Catholics, Protestants, all sorts of heretics and everyone else, whatever their creed, color or country. Let's make religion a bridge and not a barrier. Christ would like that.

 

[Roy5]

Hm! I forgot to indicate that I intended this last post primarily as a rejoinder to tqualey.

Today, by the way, is the 55th anniversary of the courage of Rosa Parks who courageously refused to get up in that Montgomery bus on Dec. 1, 1955 - what some view as the opening volley in the modern civil rights movement and its struggle against racial segregation and discrimination.
And that reminds me. Martin Luther King, Jr., obviously was given that name for a reason. Whatever may be said of him or his namesake, they both were clergy of considerable intellect, great charisma, deep faith, enormous valor, and historic impact.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mikeof faith,

We are remarkably close! And, quite honestly, there were a couple of items that I could have been clearer on! So, let me address this post and I will move on to your second.

I cannot say directly about the history of the Canon from between 400 and 1517.

The very first thing to identify is that we are not talking about a 'First Edition Shakespearan Sonets" that has been re-printed many times and each new printing gets a new printing number so that one can easily go back and research all of the prior works!

When it comes to the development of the Canon, it was neither simple or easy. The bottom line is that each book (and, all the words in each book) in the Bible were reviewed by the Catholic Church and determined to be the Inspired Word of God. This determination was made under direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. There is no error in these Books. Now, there were holy men who wrote pious works - and these works were not included in the Bible because they were determined to not have been inspired.

Now, here are three links that will give you not only clearly written material, but material that is accurate and referenced!

How we got the Bible - catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0011fea4.asp

The Old Testament - catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp

Use of biblical language - catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9001fea2.asp

I would tend to agree. But the fact that after discussion among the Apostles present and the elders, some consensus was clearly reached and the early church leadership formulated a decision.

As you probably guessed, Mikeof faith, I would say it a little differently… in fact … I will!

Taking a look at Acts 15, three things become evident.

(1) The Pharasees that converted over from Judiasm to Catholicism were very interested in maintaining certain traditions - and circumcision was the cornerstone of their efforts. And, they made a conscious effort to preach that one must uphold both the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ.

(2) There really was a big discussion - after all, this was the first major challenge to the young Church.

(3) And Peter decided the issue that circumcision would not be required of the Gentile converts. They did not break out in focus groups…or committees or anything thing else. Peter (of Matt 16:18 recognition) made th decision. James spoke afterwards and while in agreement, wanted to add three other things - but, note, the matter had been resolved.

Correct these divisions within the church did not destroy the unity of the church. The Church Catholic did exactly what was outlined in Acts. A council was called, albeit by the Emperor, the matters were discussed a decision was made. Mind you Arianism still had a bit of run after this in the West, but it did peter out. Pardon the expression.

Part of what I meant by the Catholic Church not being immediately fully developed can be assessed here. Prior to Constintine becoming the dominant force in the Roman Empire - there were active persecutions with the first 16 Popes being martyred by Roman authorities along with thousands of the faithful. It took real courage to follow Christ.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Roy5,

To be really effective, the person attempting a rejoinder should first understand the issue prior to responding. This reduces the number of times that non-sense and non-topic comments are made. I have yet to see any evidence of comprehension to my Post #359.

Go on, Roy5, give it a try - prove me wrong! Show me that you can work with a logical and referenced presentation by staying focused.

God bless

Hm! I forgot to indicate that I intended this last post primarily as a rejoinder to tqualey.

Today, by the way, is the 55th anniversary of the courage of Rosa Parks who courageously refused to get up in that Montgomery bus on Dec. 1, 1955 - what some view as the opening volley in the modern civil rights movement and its struggle against racial segregation and discrimination.

And that reminds me. Martin Luther King, Jr., obviously was given that name for a reason. Whatever may be said of him or his namesake, they both were clergy of considerable intellect, great charisma, deep faith, enormous valor, and historic impact.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mikeoffaith,

Here is my response to your second post… and so much for being concise

And this is where our understanding of the term Catholic Church divides. I am going to use the term Church Catholic to refer to the church from those days in Jerusalem to 1054.

Why transpose the name? The first recorded time the term “Catholic Church” was used was in 110 by St. Ignatius. It really is an established name.Here is a link: newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm

My first impression is that you seem to be forgetting about what is really called the Great Schism, the schism between East and West. Either you have made a mistake or figure that the separation of our Brothers and Sisters in the East is of no consequence. But the fact remains that the Church Catholic with the Bishops in collegiality ended in 1054.

If I gave you the impression that the Great Schism was not important or of serious consequence - then I apologize! This was a major division - and, in my opinion, was the greatest - until Luther’s break in 1517.

I do differ with you on what happened afterwards. The Catholic Church was very much present - as the Bride of Christ in 1055 - the year after the Great Schism - just like it is present today. In essence, the split from the West did not destroy the Catholic Church any more than Luther’s split did. Make no mistake, such actions wound the Body of Christ, sets a very bad example to non-Christians and non-believers and presents the potential for souls being lost forever by failing to follow Christ.

I assume and tell me if I am wrong, that when you refer to the Catholic Church, you are meaning all churches that are in communion with the Bishop of Rome, what I and most Protestants would understand as the Roman Catholic Church, the church with those in the East, referred to as Orthodox, excluded.

Yes, Mikeoffaith.

Regardless of the causation, the fact remains that there was an issue of great doctrinal importance and the Church Catholic did not follow the pattern set down by Acts and previous ecumenical councils. And the Schism is unhealed and unresolved.

First of all, the Catholic Church is free to set up a Church Council as they determine best. There is no requirement to follow what was done in Acts 15. Each council is unique - called for a special purpose. If there is such a requirement, then I would appreciate a reference on this. And, yes, the Great Schism is an on-going issue.

We can talk about the Schism of the West in 1378 but I don’t find that this was a doctrinal issue for the Roman Catholic Church. To put it bluntly a pissing match between prelates and one, two or three popes is an internal power struggle rife with greed and politics.

And then we move to 1517.

There really is a lot to be said about treating others with dignity and respect. Had these considerations been in place, I am confident things may have gone differently. But, you know, there are some folks who will never be happy, no matter what you do…it is not enough.!

So let’s get one thing straight. Calvin, Henry et al were not spawned by Luther.

Not in the sense that they were his physical children - but, they were his intellectual and emotional offspring! Luther was the first and most dramatic break in the unity of the Cahooic Church after the Great Schism. Luther was the first to develop the concept of Solo Scriptura - and most every Protestant group has this as one of their features.

.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mikeoffaith,

Here is my response to your second post… part two!

So let’s get one thing straight. Calvin, Henry et al were not spawned by Luther.

Not in the sense that they were his physical children - but, they were his intellectual and emotional offspring! Luther was the first and most dramatic break in the unity of the Cahooic Church after the Great Schism. Luther was the first to develop the concept of Solo Scriptura - and most every Protestant group has this as one of their features.

No of these were Luther spinoffs. Now, if the Roman Catholic Church as the complete repository of truth and light can’t hang on to her offspring, please don’t blame Luther, look to Rome.

As I said, Rome (and local clergy) gave scandal to the Faithful. But, you know, it would be a mistake to view the Reformation Period as one only goverened by religious tensions. There were political and economic considerations as well - and, no one can look at an event and say with certainty, “It was caused by this and nothing else”.

“…Hang on to her offspring…”, eh? Not doing well in that area - the child molestation events is a world wide phenomenoa and one that has given world wide scandal. While the Catholic Church can not teach error - its members sometimes show that they are capable of great evil. And, this is a point of major sadness in the Church of Christ - and, really in all Christian churches.

Even if you were to look at the Roman Catholic Church as a civic or political club, it is mere speculation on your part that it would be destroyed.

I think I could have said that better. Let me try again… The Catholic Church was founded by Christ and He promised the Holy Spirit to teach it new things and to guide it away from error. (No promise to guide it to goodness … but, one would hope!) If it were simply a human organization, the sheer weight of the scandals would have crushed it - but, that is just speculation on my part as you said. Since it is a Divinely guided Bride, it will be reunited with Christ.

The fact that to it’s shear size, there was no way it would ever go completely under. But still this split was not any worse than 1054. Again this probably could have been avoided if a general ecumenical council had been formed and discussions taken place, but it was not meant to be. It seems silly that we have excommunication happening in 1521, and then the Council of Trent actually making some reforms circa 1550.

Don’t tell me you subscribe to the concept of ‘Too big to fail’ ? I wonder if Lehman Brothers was whistling that tune? Here’s a link: creditwritedowns.com/2010/03/lehman-chief-warns-of-more-big-bank-failures.html

I certainly hope and know better that the church has much better things to do than fight artificial contraception. If this list is the only thing that the Roman Catholic Church can point towards standing for, I think you have short changed your church or I have a higher opinion of her work. In your list, I don’t see anything about poverty, hunger, or justice.

I was not trying minimize any of the Catholic Church’s accomplishments or on-going areas of interest… but CAF limits to 6,000 words and I did want to stay focused. At least more focused than I was with this post… going to a second page

I agree the Bible contains the Inspired Word of God, and my version is just as complete as yours. I cannot say for certain whether the sinful church leaders taught error or not. I’m not up on my infallible teachings of the Popes and Curia, from my perspective I believe that they taught nothing at all.

Actually, if you are using a Protestant Bible your Old Testament is about seven books short. Here is a link that may clarify this difference between Catholic and Bibles: catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0307bt.asp
Now we are in agreement.

Blessings to you.

 

[Janet1983]

But I am not talking about following Luther’s actions. I am talking about following Luther’s teachings.
You are following Luther’s wrong theology so therefore you are following Luther.

I am not following Luther’s teachings more than I am following other Christian’s teachings. There are things that I agree with him on and there are things that I disagree with him on.
There are things that you agree on with Martin Luther and there are things that you disagree with him on. The agreements that you have with him are not making you a follower of his though as much as they are not making me a follower of his.
I am certain that you agree with Martin Luther on quite a few major aspects of your faith:
Both Luther and you believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.
You agree with Luther in that you too believe in Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried.
You also agree in faith that He descended into hell, rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father.
You believe, as much as Martin Luther did, that He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
You too believe in the Holy Spirit and you also do believe in the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.
These and other things are reason enough to agree with Martin Luther on quite a few occasions and these are also the reason for ecumenism in countries like Germany.
If you claim that I follow Martin Luther, even though I do not always agree with him concerning theology, you might as well claim that you yourself follow Martin Luther as you do agree with him on quite a few points though certainly not all.

And the construct He made of Christ is what you follow - which is not necessarily the real Christ.

I am not certain why you are trying to tell me that I am not following the true Christ. I follow Christ and I do believe myself to be a Christian. Your denial of my faith is not going to change that. I don’t attack your faith or tell you that you are wrong about it. I left the Catholic Church because I personally could not agree with the teachings any longer. I am however neither discrediting your sincerity, your faith nor your relationship with Christ. We are brothers and sisters in Christ.

One thing you must remember is what Christ said about His Church- that is, that she will be led into Truth. Christ did not promise that she will be led into goodness, but to Truth.

I believe that the truth lies within all of the facets of Christendom and that we will know the truth, that is Christ, and the truth shall set us free. We will know the full truth when we meet Him face to face. Until then however we step out in faith, knowing that He is with us always.

Of the devil Christ said that he is the father of lies. Who ever gives false doctrine is following this father and therefore not following Christ.

You are not trying to imply that I am a child of the devil are you?

 

[Janet1983]

I mentioned prevously that for about 1500 years the Church had (and has to this day) Seven Sacraments. In the Lutheran church today there seems to be either 2 or 3 Sacraments (I am confident I will get a correction as the correct number shortly! ) In addition to Christ telling Peter he had the keys to the kingdom, Christ also told Peter whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven. The Catholic Church taught that there are Seven different Sacraments and each one is a visible sign and giver of God’s Grace to those who receive the Sacrament worthily. Luther was not following Christ when he took it on himself to ‘remove’ signs of Grace that Luther did not agree with.

I am not Lutheran but as far as I know there are 2. Though they do have Confession, but this is commonly not listed as a single sacrament, as it is a return to the forgiveness given in baptism. So there are strictly speaking 2 sacraments, but in practice there are 3.
In addition to these the ECLA (for example) practices acts that are sacramental in character: confirmation, ordination, anointing the sick, confession and absolution, and marriage. If you want to go into more detail on that you would have to ask a Lutheran as this is truly not my field and I cannot give you any first-hand information.
The fact that I am a German, a Protestant and a defected Catholic does not make me an expert on Lutheran theology…

Of the Sacraments lists, Luther claimed Holy Communion but disputed tranasubstantiation and (unlike the Easter Othodox) has no valid priesthood where the Celebrant, acting in the Person of Christ, with the powers given in ordination, changes common bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

The difference between Catholic and Lutheran theology on Holy Communion lies essentially in the difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation. It is a rather interesting topic, though I do not agree with either.
The difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation is not easily explained to my mind, but I will try:
First of all there is the fact that both attempt to explain the nature of the Eucharist in metaphysical terms.
Transubstantiation is the belief that the bread and the wine are permanently and in substance changed into the body and blood of Christ (wherein both substances have the full body of Christ).
Consubstantiation is the belief that the body of Christ exists alongside the bread and the wine.
From what I have gathered however this might have been falsely attributed to Luther by others. What I have seen so far concerning Lutheran theology differs from both transubstantiation and consubstantiation.
From what I have gathered the body of Christ (which is in heaven) is sacramentally (as a sign) united with the bread and wine on earth.
“But that the body of Christ is present here upon earth in the Supper essentially, although invisibly and incomprehensibly, and is received orally, with the consecrated bread. …] That the true body and blood of Christ are truly present in the Holy Supper under the form of bread and wine, and are there dispensed and received; and the contrary doctrine is rejected.”(Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration)
Consubstantiation by the way was not a doctrine that Martin Luther just came up with. It was not his idea entirely. It actually already supported by Blessed John (Johannes) Duns Scotus, O.F.M., but its roots go further back than that. From what I know it dates back to the 9th century of not further.
My knowledge on this however is more than inadequate so I will not presume to have a complete grasp on the topic. I disagree with all three versions, so I am not personally bothered by that.
In the congregation I am a member of unleavened bread (matzoh) is used alongside grape juice. The elements as sacramental and communion is an act of remembrance of Christ’s atonement and a time of renewal of personal commitment. In my congregation the elements are on plates (the bread and small cups) and are distributed to the seated congregation by the deacons. Once everyone holds the elements they are consumed in unison with our preacher reading the passages from Scripture.

Luther was perplexed by this - as a priest he once had the power to consecrate - but, he not only gave it up, he deluded his followers that he knew better on how this was to be done. Lutherans do not have the Real Presence - Jesus Christ, True God and True Man under the appearance of Bread and Wine.

I don’t presume to know what Luther felt… If you have valid sources that would give me insight and prove your claims I would be rather intrigued to further my knowledge on this topic.

Really, all Luther did was say he saw failure amongst the members of the Catholic Church and he left to follow his own image - not Christ.

I do not follow Luther, I do not agree with him on every subject, including theology and I am not in depth familiar with Lutheran theology. I do however not believe that he ever intended to make himself more than he was, that is a mere man among mere men.