Why I could never follow Luther.

[benedictus2]

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

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

There is nothing in the above, unless I completely missed it, that said that there is only one Church. When schisms formed, different churches were formed.

The Lutheran Church is separte to the Catholic Church, is separte to the Presbyterian, the Anglican, etc, etc.

This is not what Christ willed.

One convert said that the verse in the Bible which says that “the prayer of the just man is efficacious” has always puzzled him. No one could be more just than Jesus Christ. Christ prayed for unity for His Church.
To accept that the state of the fragmented Christianity that we see somehow is in accord with this prayer woudl be to say that His prayer is not efficacious. The only way to accept that His prayer is indeed efficacious is to accept that His Church has retained this visible unituy. This visible unity is what will draw the separated churches back into communion with Christ’s Church.

 

[benedictus2]

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

Wow finally you agree with me. The gates of hell indeed has not prevailed. The Catholci Church still preaches the gospel with clarity and TRUTH.

The other churches have preached heresies and lies. So what do you make of that one? Would you be honest enough to follow that to its right conclusion?

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

Yes there is division in Christendom but Christ’s Church remains the same - united inspite of the squabbles. The other churches are separated from Christ’s Church and that is why the Cahtolic Church is working towards making them come home.

But this coming home will not happen unless the members of these other churches give up their heretical beliefs. And the other problem is that these heretical beliefs are seductive so they are very hard to give up since it involves giving up one’s will and dethroning the unholy trinity of I/Me/Myself which has gotten use to playing god when it comes to faith and morals.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

That may be the experience of the United States (which could be attributed more to the particular cultural leaning of the early migrants of the US rather than anything to do with Luther). Historical data in Europe right after the “reformation” does not support your view.

If anything, Luther is a hypocrite. He advocates for freedom of religion by saying that one should interpret the Bible for ones self, then when the Anabaptists decided to do just that he persecued them. So much for freedom of religion. If it were left to him, there would not be any freedom of religion at all… it was his way or the highway.

Now, was that a bad thing? I don’t think so.

Yes it was indeed a bad thing. Luther was heavily influenced by William of Ockams Nominalism which in turn led to relativism, to deconstructionism which s the the root of atheism.

You think it is a good thing because you have not connected the dots.

This doesn’t mean I revere Luther, but I am grateful for the breakup of the medieval religious monopoly that had dominated Europe.

You mean you are grateful for the chopping up of the Body of Christ. Well so much for calling yourself a Christian. It seems you did not like Christ’s prayer for unity.

And whatever his serious weaknesses (we all have them) he was a man of enormous intellect, indominable courage, and intense devotion.

Who says I am talking about serious weaknesses? We all have flaws. The problem with Luther was due to enormous pride (you can glean this from his own writings) he taught heresy and people bought it hook line and sinker because it is a theology that stokes the ego.

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.

You are more correct there. Deism is hardly Christianity. You applaud deism ??!!! Did you claim to be Christian? The evidence is going in the opposite direction.

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

And may He protect us from relativists who undermine His Word.

 

[benedictus2]

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!” **

Love that one Tom. Brilliant.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

And there goes another fairy tale. The seat of Peter did not fail Christ for Christ promised that His Church will be guided into truth. And she has been always and continues to be so. And truth is what she has aways taught. Contrast that with the heresy that came from those who went into schism.

From th beginning, Jesus chose failed, sinful men (there was no other pool to pick from). And these failed and simple men failed Him. And Christ knew that. He knew Peter would deny him but He chose him anyway. Actually, if you read Matthew, it seems that it was the Father who chose him and Jesus cemented the choice. From this sinful man would come the proclamation of Truth… about Jesus Identity and His mission - Son of the Living and Messiah.

If Luther had been more humble he would have been a force for good. But as always pride goes before a fall. The sad part is he took so many with him.

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.

You mean if Luther had listened to St Augustine instead of his own puffed up self importance. Last time I checked it he who started up his own Church aided and abetted by the princes who wanted to make a grab for church property.

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.

I suppose you do not know about the small matter of Patriarch Michael throwing the Body fo Our Lord (the consecrated Hosts) out on the street because he has decided that he did not like Latin Mass. If it was easy for a “Patriarch” to desecrate the body of our Lord that way, then I say he deserved ex-communication.

And I suppose the fact that the Patriarchs all fell into one heresy or another is of no consequence. It has to be of no conseuqnce for you follow Luther how made up his own heretical views.

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.

It is pure fantasy on yoru part to assume that Christ established many Churches.

Study the scriptures and study history.

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.

Not me and Rome but the Church orf Christ which established not on Luther but on Peter.

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.

All I can say is read the Bible. The size of God is what we know based on Christ’s very own revelation which He did through His Church.

Christ is the revelation of the Father, those who see Him see the Father.

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

But I did not say that either. I agree with the Church. I agree that even some none Christian Churches preach some truth. But the fullness of Truth is what He has revealed to His Church. He established only one.

nor can it say for certain is not willing to say that they Holy Spirit is not guiding these communities.

If the Holy Spirit is indeed guiding all these Churches then how come even among you protestants there is so much division. Why even among you, you cannot agree on doctrine? Is the Holy Spirit whispering the truth to this church and whispers a contrary truth to another?

 

[benedictus2]

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.

So you’ve avoided Christ’s idea? He after all established only one Church.

But then, being a relativist, I suppose you are allowed to disagree with our Lord. What does He know, He is only God.

 

[benedictus2]

I will just pick a few lines and perhaps reply to the rest some other time as it is already late.

I am not certain why you are trying to tell me that I am not following the true Christ.

Based on your posts on other threads, you have ideas about Christ which do not line up with the entire NT Christ because you pick and choose bits and pieces of the Bible. So the Christ you come up with is a construct. If you allow the entire Bible to speak for itself instead of filtering it through Luther’s magnifying glass then you will come to see Him better and know that some of what you think He teaches, He does not teach at all.

I follow Christ and I do believe myself to be a Christian. Your denial of my faith is not going to change that.

And your adherence to your faith does not make it true.

I don’t attack your faith or tell you that you are wrong about it.

I may be wrong about some aspects of my Catholic faith, but my Catholic faith is not wrong about Christ.

I left the Catholic Church because I personally could not agree with the teachings any longer.

Aaah, what teachings would they be?

Based on your posts in other threads, you disagree with the Church becuase:

1. you do not understand what the Chuch teaches,
2. you do understand what the Church teaches but when it comes to moral teaching you disagree because you would rather think something is not a sin so you can keep doing it without feeling guilty and be able to rationalize them away without anyone calling you to the reality that you are lying to yourself when you do this.

3)in true protestant relativist arrogance you think you can understand the Bible by yourself and that your interpretation has to be right as compared to the interpretation of the Church whom Christ Himself established.

In all of the above the the one common denominator is the hegemony of the self.

I am however neither discrediting your sincerity, your faith nor your relationship with Christ. We are brothers and sisters in Christ.

We are. But I am here to discredit your faith so that maybe others will see why it is wrong. As a Christian, we must discredit theologies that do not line up with Christ’s will and some aspects of yours simply don’t. But you are afraid to discuss it and prefer to go down this mushy track because you know deep down that your beliefs will not stand up to scrutiny.

So you choose to remain in the dark than risk the brightness of the light.

I’ve asked you to debate your position and you have opted not to.

I believe that the truth lies within all of the facets of Christendom

SOME truth is within all of the facets of Christendom.

Here is a very simple question: If the Truth is in all of the facets of Christendom then why does all of Christendom hold differing and contrary beliefs? Are all these disagreeing beliefs true? You try and and answer that.

and that we will know the truth, that is Christ, and the truth shall set us free.

Aaah, how we love to pick apart the Bible and so lose the real sense of the verse.

Christ gives a precondition to the verse you quoted. To be set free by the Truth, one must "remain in His word and become truly His disciple. Then and only then will one know the truth that is capable of setting one free.

The NIV translates this as “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples”.

So we now we go back to the importance of holding to Christ’s teaching. Not some man made teaching that someone in the 16th century invented.

We will know the full truth when we meet Him face to face.

Here again, that is not what He said. He said He will send the Holy Spirit to His Church so that she will be guided into all truth.

If we are incapable of knowing the truth now then we might as well be all atheists.

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

Perhaps not you, but anyone who spreads lies knowingly follows the devil. Especially when it comes to theology.

So you have to ask yourself whether you believe what you believe because you have really apprehended the truth of your conviction or your hold on to your convictions for entirely different reasons and inspite of yoru apprehension of the truth.

So truly only you can answer that question because only you will know whether you have spread lies.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benedictus2,

You really worked hard on these posts - and devoted a number of hours to making such thoughtful and accurate presentations.

Without a doubt, you did the heavy lifting here - and I pray your insightful comments will find a home in the hearts of all readers.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gracelife,

I am honestly surprised to read a Protestant quote Matt 16:18 in this way! I mean - this is really a first for me. But, then again, I may have jumped to conclusions … and I really do want to understand you on this matter. So, let me provide you with the entire verse - so that everything is on the table and we can go from there.

**13
When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
14
They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16
Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. **
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Additionally, let me give you a link to the commentary on this section: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Matthew_16 I think what you will find unique here is there is no dancing around the words, Haydock hits them head on in a logical and orderly manner - and, there are an abundance of references.

Now, after having read this material, what is your understanding especially as focused on what you wrote in this post?

The Scriptural validity is right before your eyes. As we trace back what took place afterwards, we see the growing and developing (as identified in St. Paul’s many letters) and then we reach the end of the Apostolic Age with the death of John in about 100AD.

What seems to get overlooked by many is that the Church founded by Christ on Peter continued to grow and develop - and in 110AD we have St. Ignatius identifying the Body of Christ as the Catholic Church. Ignatius was on his way to martyrdom - and the mass murder of those who followed Christ - the faithful of the Catholic Church - inspired others to believe in what Christ had taught. Being united to the Church founded by Christ is not an incidental guideline.

The fact that there has been fragmentation in the Body of Christ with the multiplicity of groups all claiming to follow Christ, yet all defying His teachings - changes nothing! Christ and His Bride (the Catholic Church - Eph 5:32) continue together. I am reminded of a parable (Matt 13:30) that may address your concern about divisions in “Christendom” (haven’t heard that term in a while…) The end is never in doubt.

God bless

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, Roy5,

Why am I not surprised…

You apparently have refused to address my post even though asked on three separate posts to do so. Roy5, I have no idea what you think you accomplish by making these relativistic statements and ignore the challenges that follow. You discredit your own position and do little to enhance your own credibility.

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.

This really is not just a matter of “perspective”, Roy5. There really is objective truth - not only in the physical world, but also in the Scriptures. Christ did NOT preach a gospel of relativism as you seem to think He did.

Christ was quite direct with the Jewish leaders who had made an art form out of gaming the Mosaic Law to fit what they wanted it to fit. He was quite clear in His dealings with those who thought they could play both ends (John 5:5-16). He was also clear in parables about those who fail to heed the requirements as in Matt 25:1-13. Note, the Bridegroon did not open the door to the foolish virgins and say, “You were pretty good girls, come on it!” They stand as the example for those who think anything will slide by because they think the Lord will excuse anythng if they say, “Lord! Lord!..” (Matt 7:21) Well, it did not work for that group… and the message is that it won’t work for those who want to follow their poor example.

You may wish to dismiss this material - and that is your choice. I have really done all that I can do - and that is in identifying your error, identifying why it is wrong and in praying for you. I won’t, however, put up with your deceptive and evasive posts…! You see, I do, “… have the time and motivaton…” and will call you out each time I find them.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Janet1983,

I think it would be prudent to look at your first two sentences
carefully. This sentence, at least in my opinion, captures the flavor of all the posts I have read from you. Let’s see…

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.

As I see it, you are not following anyone’s teachings - just your view of what you want to do, and then labeling this behavior as ‘Christian’. By extension, you are not following Luther’s teaching less thatn that of other Christian teachings … and you have publically declared you have left the Catholic Church, so you are not following those teachings. I guess this means that you are following all about equally. Sounds nobel and even-handed … but, it is not Christian. In fact, Rev 3: 16 seems to summarize this position accurately.

Don’t get me wrong - I totally agree: Luther had major failings and those who decided to splinter from his schism had their own major failings. All taught independent error - they were only correct insofar as they copied the teachings of the Catholic Church. Look at your lengthy list of what Luther believed - and I guess you believe these truths, too. Now, where do you think Luther got these truths?

Christ had no failings - He was True God and True Man (another early teaching of the Catholic Church. Before the year 430AD that one statement had been under constant attack from those who claimed to be Catholic and refuted! The Arians believed that Christ was not equal with God the Father because the Son of God was created. There were Polytheists who belived that there were three gods - not one. And there were those who believed that Christ was only man and they were the followers of Nestorius.

Who do you think refuted these false teachings? Let me tell you who it wasn’t - it wasn’t Luther, Calvin or Henry VIII or the thousands of others who furher splintered from the previous errors. This belief that Jesus Christ is True God and True Man was proclaimed and defended by the Catholic Church.

The basic difficulty, at least as I see it, with following all these various groups is that they all contradict one another. Just what kind of position are you in to determine whch of these beliefs you will accept and which you will reject? Pride is a unique vice in that it claims it knows when in reality it doesn’t!

Luther and Calvin knew one another - and fought each other to proclaim that their error was the error that should be maintained. And, as Benedictus2 pointed out earlier, both of them violently fought the Anabaptists.

As I see it, you opening statements establish yourself as having the ability to pick and choose from what you like and don’t like when it comes to religious doctrine. This is an prideful and harmful position to claim. This is not the teaching of Christ - pick and choose what you will appears as no scripture.

God bless

 

[Mikeoffaith]

There were claimants to the papacy but they were not Popes. My laying claim to the throne of the Queen of England does not make for two Queens of England.

St Catherine of Sienna wa such a great reformer because she did reform the Church. She was able to make the Pope return to his proper seat. And this she was able to do from within. Those who truly achieved the reformation were the ones who remained and worked for reform within the Church that is why they are now Saints : Theresa of Avila, John of the Cross and Ignatius of Loyola and later on Francis de Sales.

No you claiming to be the Queen of England does not make it so. Having a group of MP’s legitimize your claim could indeed make it so, which is closer to what was going on then just some person jump up in the middle of Mass and claim he was pope.

So one Pope moved back to Rome? Was that the extent of her reforms? Theresa Of Avila and John of the Cross did not reform the whole church, they looked within their own house of OCarm and saw that they had fallen from their original charism. Now we have two versions wearing the brown scapular, one with and one without shoes. So I still don’t see any great reform of the entire church or looking at abuses by clergy and Rome and them petitioning for the change of the entire church. And Ignatius of Loyola? What Reform did he manage to bring about.

Please don’t get me wrong, I have great respect for these enlightened souls. And I have read Dark Night of the Soul several times and it is great work on spirituality. However, none of these people ever challenged the center of a corrupted system in need of reform.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mikeoffaith,

The rule of thumb is thall analogies limp … some moreso than others… But, the idea behind them is really the issue, and that is what I think we should focus on.

No you claiming to be the Queen of England does not make it so. Having a group of MP’s legitimize your claim could indeed make it so, which is closer to what was going on then just some person jump up in the middle of Mass and claim he was pope.

So one Pope moved back to Rome? Was that the extent of her reforms? Theresa Of Avila and John of the Cross did not reform the whole church, they looked within their own house of OCarm and saw that they had fallen from their original charism. Now we have two versions wearing the brown scapular, one with and one without shoes. So I still don’t see any great reform of the entire church or looking at abuses by clergy and Rome and them petitioning for the change of the entire church. And Ignatius of Loyola? What Reform did he manage to bring about.

Please don’t get me wrong, I have great respect for these enlightened souls. And I have read Dark Night of the Soul several times and it is great work on spirituality. However, none of these people ever challenged the center of a corrupted system in need of reform.

I think the take home message with any of the saints who worked to reform the Church is that they set the example, they prayed and they worked to get those in authority to make the necessary changes. We look at them today as success - but, as someone pointed out to me, going back to having one Pope did not take place until 20 years after Catherine’s death. My guess is that if she judges outcomes as we do today (and not the fact that she was simply doing the Will of God and that He would take care of every outcome) she would have not felt like a success. Naturally, speculating such matters is just that - an opinion the will accomplish nothing tangible. But, I just thought I would share an idea.

Actually, I thought your analogy was much better… Actual Cardinals worked and elected the antipopes for apparent political (as opposed to spiritual) reasons. This was a truly disgraceful period - and, I can not think of anyone waving the flag of support for any of the antipopes today. But, what is it that we can learn from the experience?

Not to minimize the sacrifices made by those who voluntarily give up shoes - the accomplishments were real reform. Simony, which appeared to be almost universal was stopped (Acts 8:1-25 … now, you would have thought this had been addressed quite well by Paul - but, it (like a whole bunch of other sins) does pop up beause church leaders fail just like every other human can fail.

Here is an interesting link on this topic: newadvent.org/cathen/13539a.htm

I understand that you are unhappy about this schism (I am, too!) but, what exactly is your focus on this event that happened about 200 years before Luther?

God bless

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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.

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

Tom, I think the links you provided are highly speculative and at best moderately inaccurate without reference. The first link which contains the most information about the development of the Canon is held in a conversation that does not cite references and only gives a scattered idea of Canon development from 400 to 1534 which accurately represent when Luther’s bible was published. The fact that the Canon was somewhat fluid until 787 seems to be apparent. However, when it comes to the assertion that Luther left books out, it is not referenced and completely inaccurate. Luther did indeed have some issues with books like James, Hebrews and Revelations, but the historical fact that neither these nor the deuterocanonicals/apocrypha were ever left out of or not translated in the 1534 Bible and are retained in our Bibles today. So unless you can show me different with a reference other than some some non-authoritative website, that this was the case, then this is clearly untrue.

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.

I agree with you, however, I don’t see Peter making a decision as much as I see him testifying. If his decision alone were the end all be all, then why would this story continue on with more testimony from Paul and Barnabas, followed up by a great summary by James. Even in James summary, he doesn’t say that Peter has decided, he recounts Peter’s testimony and then formulates a plan of action.

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.

I agree completely. The Church was in a state of self discovery so to speak. And yes all those Christians in the first centuries prior to Constantine should be acknowledged and modeled as people willing to offer the ultimate in self giving to Christ and His Church.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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

Maybe concise isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be.

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

I explained why I transposed the name. I don’t doubt Ignatius use of the term or any other second century Christian’s use of it. My reason for transposing is so that we have common ground. If you want to use the term Catholic Church to acknowledge the Church up until 1054, I’m all for it. I think we agree to most parts of what the Church was and wasn’t up until that time. However, the problem in our discussion is when our naming becomes difficult between us when discussing the Church post 1054. I think our understandings of Church post 1054 are quite different.

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 agree with you completely! I am sure that you didn’t make light of it, in the original part of our discussion you left it out completely and skipped ahead to the Western Schism.

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 agree with you in the first part of your statement as far as that the Catholic Church was, is and will be present, however it was, is and hopefully will not be present in two different realizations, one of East and one of West. From my perspective the Church prior to 1054 was whole and complete, all parts working together. And here is where you are going to disagree with me, after 1054 we now have a Church that is no longer wholly, but is divided. The perception of who is schismatic, who is right and who is wrong is not of any consequence. The Church has been divided. A piece whether cleaved or calved is now separated. That cannot be denied.

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.

Agreed, each council is unique and serves a special purpose. Acts 15 and earlier church councils give us the format for being able to resolve differences, disputes and formulate dogma/doctrine for the Church Catholic. However, if you and the Roman Church feel that disunity of the Body of Christ such as the Great Schism is of such little importance as to hold a council either then or now, then arrogance knows no bounds and the hope of healing a division is completely lost. And if you need a reference why I feel this is important, then I would refer you specifically to the First Council of Nicea. It is a prime example of a council being called to unite division and formulate definition.

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.

Agreed, Luther’s break with the Roman Catholic Church was the most dramatic since 1054. But to say that Henry VII was an emotional or intellectual offspring of Luther is a bit far fetched. Apologies to my Episcopal Brothers and Sisters but Henry’s split with Rome was not over any great theological debate but was the result of a King’s wandering eye. I can’t speak much about Calvin’s theological stances in his relation to Rome, but as a contemporary of Luther, I would see them as brothers not necessarily as father and son. I will also agree that Sola Scriptura is present in many protestant bodies. The fact though that differing protestant bodies have differing ideas and theologies that may not be what Luther taught. Most Roman Catholics lump all protestants into one basket and as such their understanding of Sola Scriptura gets lumped into that basket as well.

Blessings to you Tom!

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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

Wow yeah concise this isn’t, but I am finding it really informative and profitable.

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”.

I agree completely Tom, but I certainly hope that you are not blaming the Reformation on Luther being goaded by German princes wanting to get out from under Rome’s thumb?

"…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.

Oh my God Tom, I hope that you don’t think when I said this, that I was referring in any way shape or form to what is happening now! It is terrible what is happening all the way around. I know of people who have been thrown into this maelstrom and have been damaged by this. John K, may your soul be blessed.

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.

Amen! There is no guarantee of goodness. Men are sinful and we can’t help it, we can only be thankful for the grace afforded to us and pray incessantly for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

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’m certain that the moderators appreciate it.

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

Again Tom, maybe I should send you my bible or my big ole family bible, it’s got those books in there. Yes they are in a sections following the OT, but they are in there. As a matter of fact, I think it was 3 or 4 Sundays ago, our OT lesson for the Sunday was from Sirach.

Now we are in agreement.

Blessings to you Tom!

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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.

Hi Janet-

Actually Lutherans profess neither transubstantiation nor consubstantiation. Lutherans profess something more a kin to the Orthodox. We explain it as a Sacramental Union. A good explanation can be found in the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, Article VII.

Mike

 

[Janet1983]

Hi Janet-

Actually Lutherans profess neither transubstantiation nor consubstantiation. Lutherans profess something more a kin to the Orthodox. We explain it as a Sacramental Union. A good explanation can be found in the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, Article VII.

Mike

I thank you very much for the correction. As I said I am less than qualified to argue for, against or about Lutheran theology and I very much appreciate your explanation.

 

[tqualey]

And, blessings to you, Mikeoffaith!

God bless

Blessings to you Tom!

 

[Janet1983]

I will just pick a few lines and perhaps reply to the rest some other time as it is already late.

Thank you for taking the time. I pray that you have a good night and awake refreshed in the morning.

Based on your posts in other threads, you disagree with the Church becuase:

1. you do not understand what the Chuch teaches,

I think that this is a point that we could rule out. I might be rash in definitions sometimes, overlook things that are then brought to my attention (and back into my memory) and I might use a wording that can be taken in different ways, but I don’t think that 15+ years of Catholic education have gone past me without some substantial knowledge.

1. you do understand what the Church teaches but when it comes to moral teaching you disagree because you would rather think something is not a sin so you can keep doing it without feeling guilty and be able to rationalize them away without anyone calling you to the reality that you are lying to yourself when you do this.

I did a couple of things (long before ever leaving the Church), that I am not proud of today. I do however agree with the Catholic moral code in my actions today. I could make a public confession, but I am not sure what good that would do.

3)in true protestant relativist arrogance you think you can understand the Bible by yourself and that your interpretation has to be right as compared to the interpretation of the Church whom Christ Himself established.

If you call this arrogant, you may. May God be the one to judge about that. I submit to Him for all punishment and reward as He sees fit.

We are. But I am here to discredit your faith so that maybe others will see why it is wrong. As a Christian, we must discredit theologies that do not line up with Christ’s will and some aspects of yours simply don’t. But you are afraid to discuss it and prefer to go down this mushy track because you know deep down that your beliefs will not stand up to scrutiny.

Thank you for letting me know.

If the Truth is in all of the facets of Christendom then why does all of Christendom hold differing and contrary beliefs?

Videmus enim nunc per speculum in aenigmate…

Christ gives a precondition to the verse you quoted. To be set free by the Truth, one must "remain in His word and become truly His disciple. Then and only then will one know the truth that is capable of setting one free.

I wasn’t really trying to quote Scripture, but if you will have it so: What makes you think that one who does not remain within the Catholic Church or was never fully in her, can not truly become His disciple? Let’s stir up a discussion on that one since you are trying to discredit my faith.

Perhaps not you, but anyone who spreads lies knowingly follows the devil. Especially when it comes to theology.

So you have to ask yourself whether you believe what you believe because you have really apprehended the truth of your conviction or your hold on to your convictions for entirely different reasons and inspite of yoru apprehension of the truth.

So truly only you can answer that question because only you will know whether you have spread lies.

I hold on to my faith, because I am absolutely certain that I am holding on to the truth. I wish to live my life for Jesus Christ alone. I wish to live for Him and I would die for this faith.

I do assume that you are indeed speaking out of noble motives and I have no doubt about that. You concern for those inside and outside the Catholic Church us applaudable and commendable.

I do not however believe myself to be subject to misconceptions when it comes to the teachings of the Catholic Church. I have been very active in propagating the Catholic faith as well as studying it for self-edification. My fascinations even made my father concerned as I did not engage in typical juvenile behavior in favor of my studies and attending Mass whenever possible. Back then all of my friends were Catholic, some of them being Priests. I am still in contact with one of them even though he is rather busy trying to run his parish.

My disagreements with the Catholic Church do put me outside of her, by virtue of their gravity. I refuse to submit, yes, and I refuse to believe. My refusal is evident in what I write and I can clearly see that.
Even though I am sometimes inclined to answer to threads that are on Catholic topics outside of the Non-Catholic Forum, where I am giving qualified answers, from my knowledge, I am still in disagreement.
Knowledge does not have to result in faith and unbelief is not evidence of a lack of knowledge.

I might have had an overactive conscience, a lack of self-esteem, a very intense knowledge of my own sinfulness in the light of Gods holiness… I might have even started to despise Him for His perfection and my inability, but I don’t blame the Church for that. I might blame her for not giving me the assurance I needed, but then I might as well blame myself for lack of communication.

You are trying to discredit my faith. What does it take to prove to you that I am being honest and absolutely open to you about my faith?
I think we should engage in a discussion in a more private manner. I am interested in getting to know you.
If you however despise that option and think that I am trying to get away with something or that it is necessary to publicly try me, I will agree to answer you in another thread. Once you have begun it and given me the link I will gladly answer you.

I am grateful for Christians like you. It comes to show that there are still those who do not wish to be lukewarm and who are driven by an honest concern for their fellow men and women.