Why I could never follow Luther.

[tqualey]

Hi, Janet1983,

Let’s see how I can help…

I think that this is a point that we could rule out. I might be rash in definitions … but I don’t think that 15+ years of Catholic education have gone past me without some substantial knowledge.

The problem I have with this statement is that, for the 15 years you claim, I really have not seen any evidence of Catholic doctrine knowledge, or what specific doctrinal issue you are challenging. You seem to support Luther’s doctrines, while saying you are not a Lutheran. You definitely support Luther’s schism, but I am guessing this is a reflection of your own apostacy.

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.

Hey, join the club! Take a number and get to the back of the line! In my opinion, it would be more appropriate to make a private confession to a Caholic priest and start working with the Grace of God to return to His Church. I am praying for you here.

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.

Well, this ‘whipped puppy’ approach to arrogance is a new one on me. But, the bottom line is that you have really dug in your heels and, like Luther, here you stand. Unlike Luther, however, you are not arguing doctrine - in fact, I really can’t put my finger on anything in specific, except for some reason you have lost your Faith. Actually, I see you on this list with the posts you have made as asking for help. From my own personal observations, there are many individuals you can offer you help. Now, the gloves that individuals use to offer this help range 60 grit sandpaper to leather… and you are never really sure what comes next!

Videmus enim nunc per speculum in aenigmate…

And, the translation is…

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.

You’ve been very consistent in making the above statement, but, truly it really makes no sense. You have self-selected the doctrines (whatever they are) and have claimed that you are following Christ in the process, or is that becuase of the process you have chosen? In any event, this is not following Christ. Let me give you an example or two

1.) In John’s 6th Chapter, he relates how Christ feed 5,000 men - and hey, following someone who feeds you sounds great! John also relates how Christ quieted the storm - and hey, following someone who calms the turbulent waters of life sounds great, too! But, then Christ challenged those who followed him with a doctrinal statement that they refused to accept - and they walked. Christ could have run after them, but, he didn’t - in fact He was in their face with this doctrine about His Flesh being real meat that He is requiring us to eat (no way is this an analogy and the Jews knew He meant this literally and they refused to believe). Judas refused to believe but didn’t walk.

2.) In Matthew’s 25 Chapter, he relates the story of the 10 virgins. The bottom line with the five foolish virgins is that tried to do things their own way and this was not Christ’s way. Note that the Bridegroom did not say to these women when they were knocking on the door, “Aw, come on in! You were pretty good girls after all!” They were left out in the darkness. Matthew concludes this chapter with the General Judgment - with the saved and damned being separated. The bottom line here is that there was a general failure on the part of the damned to recognize Christ - both in His doctrine and in His presence in other people. This is not a pleasant scene.

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.

While the Jews in John 6 refused to believe and walked away from Christ, there is no reason to doubt that at least some of them eventually cooperated with the Grace of God and retuned at a later date. For all of us, the bottom line is returning to Christ - and the doctrine He clearly taught. There really is no ecclectic approach. Luther had a devotion to Mary, but disputed at least 4 of the Sacraments.

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.

I really do not think that is a fair or accurate statement, Janet1983. You have failed to really identify what you believe in a credible manner. To say something like, “I believe some things but not others” adds a new dimension to the term ‘vague’. But, you are quite right about knowledge (or its lack) being necessary for faith. There is nothing to stop you from praying for more faith - and I think this is the heart of the matter.

God bless

 

[Janet1983]

And, the translation is…

“For we see now through a mirror into an enigma.” Most translations are differing in that one though, but I think this one has something to it…
[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor. 13:12[/BIBLEDRB]

1.) In John’s 6th Chapter, he relates how Christ feed 5,000 men - and hey, following someone who feeds you sounds great! John also relates how Christ quieted the storm - and hey, following someone who calms the turbulent waters of life sounds great, too! But, then Christ challenged those who followed him with a doctrinal statement that they refused to accept - and they walked. Christ could have run after them, but, he didn’t - in fact He was in their face with this doctrine about His Flesh being real meat that He is requiring us to eat (no way is this an analogy and the Jews knew He meant this literally and they refused to believe). Judas refused to believe but didn’t walk.

2.) In Matthew’s 25 Chapter, he relates the story of the 10 virgins. The bottom line with the five foolish virgins is that tried to do things their own way and this was not Christ’s way. Note that the Bridegroom did not say to these women when they were knocking on the door, “Aw, come on in! You were pretty good girls after all!” They were left out in the darkness. Matthew concludes this chapter with the General Judgment - with the saved and damned being separated. The bottom line here is that there was a general failure on the part of the damned to recognize Christ - both in His doctrine and in His presence in other people. This is not a pleasant scene.

They weren’t trying to do things their own way. They were not ready when the bridegroom arrived. We do not know the hour that Jesus will come back and we should better be ready then.

I really do not think that is a fair or accurate statement, Janet1983. You have failed to really identify what you believe in a credible manner. To say something like, “I believe some things but not others” adds a new dimension to the term ‘vague’. But, you are quite right about knowledge (or its lack) being necessary for faith. There is nothing to stop you from praying for more faith - and I think this is the heart of the matter.

I have pointed out a couple of times what I believe and still I am being told that I am vague.
I believe that the Christian Church, the One Church is made up of all those who cling to Jesus Christ.
I believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to get saved and that there is no other way whatsoever to the Father.
I believe that we cannot earn grace, but that it is a free gift.
I believe that works come out of faith and salvation, but I do not believe that salvation comes from works.
I believe that God is Almighty and that He is the Creator of everything visible and invisible.
I believe that Jesus Christ is His only begotten Son, fully man and fully God.
I believe Him to be my Lord and my God.
I believe that He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary, as was foretold.
I believe that He suffered and died on the cross for our sins and that He arose from the dead on the third day.
He ascended into heaven and sit’s at the right hand of the Father and He will come back to judge the living and the dead.
I do believe that every true Christian has accepted Jesus Christ as his/her own and personal Saviour.
I believe that every true Christian is sanctified through faith and that therefore every Christian is a saint. I believe that the Holy Spirit guides us in all truth, if we choose to listen.
I believe that Mary had other children after Jesus Christ and that her conception was not special. I believe that she died like any other human being and was buried like any other human being and that she indeed needed a Saviour.
I believe that we celebrate the Lord’s Supper in remembrance of Him and only that. It is not changing bread and wine into anything but it is a very important symbol and an act of obedience.
I believe that baptism in itself is not necessary for salvation. Baptism is the outward symbol of an inward change and we do this in obedience to God.
I believe that confessing one’s sins to God is of utmost importance. Confessing to a fellow believer, be it a priest or a layman, can help with the healing, but is not sufficient for forgiveness. Confessing is a tool for spiritual guidance and brings direct relief to the one who confesses.
I believe that marriage should always be before God. He is witness and He is witness not only during a ceremony, but also during the time of marriage itself.
There is more to the list…

I also have doubts: I am on the fence about OSAS and I still haven’t found a conclusion yet. It stands to question whether we can lose something that we did not earn in the first place. On the other had there are people who seemingly and with all their hearts follow Him and then stray away from the faith permanently, taking others with them.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Janet1983,

Thanks for the translation.

And, now… a not-so-brief set of comments of the listed beliefs you have provided.This is actually Page 1 of 2 …

They weren’t trying to do things their own way. They were not ready when the bridegroom arrived. We do not know the hour that Jesus will come back and we should better be ready then.

For whatever reason, Janet1983, these five women chose to not bring oil - this choice (doing things their own way or whatever you want to call it) caused them to be ‘…not ready…’ and it cost them dearly.If you are telling me that they lost out on salvation through no fault of their own, then go ahead and make that case if you want.

I have pointed out a couple of times what I believe and still I am being told that I am vague.

Actually, Janet1983, this is not only vague, but it appears to me to be a confusing hodge-podge of Catholicism, Calvinism and whatever else you happened to find of interest. Let me explain…

I believe that the Christian Church, the One Church is made up of all those who cling to Jesus Christ.

There is no such single entity as THE Christian Church that I am aware of. There a multiple ‘Christian churches’ that all preach different doctrines so combining them into one identifiable group is simply not possible. Does “The Christian Church” happen to go by another name (e.g.,Episcopalian, Lutheran, Southern Baptist, etc)? Or, is this simply a construct that you have made?

I believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to get saved and that there is no other way whatsoever to the Father.

Are you quoting and agreeing with John 14:6?

I believe that we cannot earn grace, but that it is a free gift.

This is pretty close to James 2:17. There is no way we can ‘work our way to heaven’ by doing naturally nice deeds. Faith animates our works becasue our gaze is always on Christ. Is this what you mean?

I believe that works come out of faith and salvation, but I do not believe that salvation comes from works.

See above.

I believe that God is Almighty and that He is the Creator of everything visible and invisible.

Nicene Creed (325AD)

I believe that Jesus Christ is His only begotten Son, fully man and fully God.

Nicene Creed (325AD)

I believe Him to be my Lord and my God.

Are you quoting and agreeing with John 20:28?

Continued …

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Janet1983,

This is actually Page 2 of 2 …

I believe that He suffered and died on the cross for our sins and that He arose from the dead on the third day.

Nicene Creed (325AD)

He ascended into heaven and sit’s at the right hand of the Father and He will come back to judge the living and the dead.

Nicene Creed (325AD)

I do believe that every true Christian has accepted Jesus Christ as his/her own and personal Saviour.

Not sure about this one, Janet1983 - especially with a British (?) spelling of Savior. This really sounds general Protestant wording. Christ is our Savior. With the Grace of God we accept Christ - AND THEN follow Him by keeping His Commandments (John 14:15). Is this what you mean?

I believe that every true Christian is sanctified through faith and that therefore every Christian is a saint. I believe that the Holy Spirit guides us in all truth, if we choose to listen.

How are YOU defining “true”? Where did you get the idea that the Holy Spirit is guiding each of us individually? John 16:13 is the promise Christ made to His Apostles - the First Bishops of His Church (and that would be the Catholic Church).

I believe that Mary had other children after Jesus Christ and that her conception was not special. I believe that she died like any other human being and was buried like any other human being and that she indeed needed a Saviour.

You may want to read this link on Mary’s perpetual virginity: catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp Ultimately, this question about Mary having other children is a 16th Century invention. Scripture and Tradition (and that would be 1,600 years of Apostolic Tradition) support this belief. Saying Mary had other children is really a tradition of man. Are you specifically denying:
Luke 1:26-28 that Mary is full of grace - there was NEVER ROOM FOR SIN from her conception forward.

I believe that we celebrate the Lord’s Supper in remembrance of Him and only that. It is not changing bread and wine into anything but it is a very important symbol and an act of obedience.

Are you specifically denying the words of Christ specific to Christ saying:
John 6:5I-52 “I am the Living Bread…” and the Jews argued about how He could give them His Flesh to eat. It sounds like you are also arguing this matter of Faith.
John 6:53 “Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man…” you are dead.
John 6:55 “My Flesh is real meat…” and He commands us to eat. Those who refuse to eat refuse to have the relationship with Christ that Christ has designed for us.
6:60-67 Christ made it quite clear that if you walk you walk - He was not running after the Jews who left. He even asked His apostles if they were going to go too. This was a real crisis - and people don’t go into a crisis over a metaphor. This is the real deal,

I believe that baptism in itself is not necessary for salvation. Baptism is the outward symbol of an inward change and we do this in obedience to God.

Are you denying the words of Christ?(again)
John 1:31-34, John 3:5 and John 4:2all indicate the necessity of Baptism. But, look what happens to Saul after he was struck down on the Road to Damascus. Acts 16:22, Ananias says to Paul, “Get up and be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.” This was no option or human invention - this is what God wants done He made that clear through the words of Christ. Those who say Baptism is optional are not following Christ. This is a classic tradition of man - denying the Word of God.

I believe that confessing one’s sins to God is of utmost importance. Confessing to a fellow believer, be it a priest or a layman, can help with the healing, but is not sufficient for forgiveness. Confessing is a tool for spiritual guidance and brings direct relief to the one who confesses.

You know, your repeated denials of the Word of God have really gotten a bit tedious. In John 20:18-22 we have the Risen Christ enterning the locked room of the Apostles, breathing the Holy Spirit onto them and telling them they have the Power of God to forgive or not forgive sin. But, you a so-called ‘slave of Christ’ are arguing with His clearly stated words.

I believe that marriage should always be before God. He is witness and He is witness not only during a ceremony, but also during the time of marriage itself.
There is more to the list…

Here is a well written statement. You may enjoy reading what the Catholic Church actually teaches on this subject: scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm

Actually, I think I have said enough. You adventure into still another heresy OSAS is something that maybe someone else will address. Sufficient to say, Calvin managed to truly torture himself over predestination - his ill conceived fixation and misunderstanding of Scripture has washed many poor souls overboard. My advice to you is just stick with what you have previously identified, leave OSAS alone - it is worse than a dead end - it is simply another damnable tradition of man.

God bless and you are in my prayers to return Home.

I also have doubts: I am on the fence about OSAS and I still haven’t found a conclusion yet.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

A few cardinals supporting this and that Pope does not make a person pope. Indeed the legitimate Pope was pretty awful and so they tried to pick a better one. But nonetheless, this awful Pope was the legitimate Pope.

So one Pope moved back to Rome? Was that the extent of her reforms?

I think Tom has already answered that. That was the first step.

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.

Just goes to show your ignorance of the very fundamentals of Church life.

The decay in their houses was symptomatic of the decay in other parts of the Church. How they countered the obvious unholiness everywhere is through living holy lives and reforming what they can - themselves and their houses.

That is why Luther got it so wrong. He assessed the situation correctly but his solution was one that must have been whispered to his ears by the devil.

The impact of Theresa, John of the Cross, Ignatius and Francis de Sales reverberated throughout the Church even though their actions were primarily towards their own little millieu.

The only way to counter corruption is by living holy lives ourselves.

During St Francis of Assisi’s time, the church needed “repairing”. What was St Francis response? A deeper living of the gospel by himself.

All these saints that were actually able to bring about reform exemplified humility. This is something Martin Luther was in dire need of. If he had been humble, he would have been a force for the good.

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

Sorry but there was. All these initiatives affect the entire Body of Christ. We have a saying that the pain in your little toe is felt by your entire Body. It is the same with Church, hence any remedy in one reverberates in the entire body.

And answer this: If Martin Luther really brought about reform, can you really call the ever splintering Protestant Christianity reform. That to me sounds more like chopping off a limb and then proceeding to chop that cut off limb into little pieces. Some reform that.

And if Martin Luther really brought about reform, then how come he himself said ( and this would have been only a few years after his so called reform) that they themselves had become so much more corrupt, so much more sinful than the Catholic heirarchy that they were hoping to reform. So was that reform?

He came up with his own doctrine of Sola Scriptura and then he and John Calvin realized that that simply was untennable and yet his followers down the centuries still hang on to this doctrine which the founder himself has acknowledged to be flawed. Some reform that one.

or looking at abuses by clergy and Rome and them petitioning for the change of the entire church.

Again you have a myopic view of the Christian spiritual life and the Body of Christ. As explained above the people who were best able to effect a change for the good are those who looked at themselves and like Chesterton realized that what is wrong with the Church or the world is me so it is me that must change.

And Ignatius of Loyola? What Reform did he manage to bring about.

Again a call to holiness a dedication to God. I will devote another post to this because it needs a more in depth treatment.

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.

Aaah, because to effect reform is not so much to challenge the centre of a corrupt “heirarchy” but to look at yourself and realize that reform begins with you. That is why they were effective. That is why Martin Luther failed.

St Therese of LIsieux who is one of the greatest saints of the Church calls it the little way.

This is the kind of spirituality that has been lost in the protestant tradition.

And another thing -the 16th century Church produced great saints like the ones I have mentioned before. They existed under the same corrupt heirarchy and yet they became beacons of holiness. Wonderful approach.

On the other hand we have Martin Luther who brought nothing but an ever exploding protestant Christianity. I think that alone speaks powerfully about the kind of “reform” that he did happen to manoeuvre.

 

[benedictus2]

And Ignatius of Loyola? What Reform did he manage to bring about.

This is just a quick cut and paste from this website :catecheticsonline.com/Saints/ignatius.php but my comments follow:

" Their document “Rules for Thinking with the Church” states: "“If we wish to proceed securely in all things, we must hold fast to the following principle: What seems to me white, I will believe black if the hierarchical Church so defines. For I must be convinced that in Christ Our Lord, the bridegroom, and in His spouse the Church, only one Spirit holds sway, which governs and rules for the salvation of souls. For it is by the same Spirit and Lord who gave the Ten Commandments that our Holy Mother Church is ruled and governed.”

Since the Church had been weakened by theological dissent and laxity from those within the Church the Jesuits took up the cause through Catholic renewal and by defending the Church against those who worked against her. Ignatius especially sought that the defense of the faith be done in all charity and it be done with special care so that the statements the Church made in order to defend herself were not misunderstood. Ignatius sought that whenever the Church were to speak about the faith that she would do so with the intention that a Protestant might be listening. Ignatius knew that if the Church might simply speak ill of the Protestants in a way which lacked Christian love then chances were that they would not win that Protestant for Christ. At the same time Ignatius did not intend that Catholic truth should be compromised in any way, but that the faith be shared in such a way that it was clear and without contempt.So Ignatius protected the Deposit of Faith by catechizing and defending the faith in such a way that did not demean or ridicule the person who had left the Catholic Church, and at the time was absolutely uncompromising to the proclamation of the Truth. For Ignatius of Loyola it seems,method was truly at the service of content.

Now to my comment:
St Ignatius wrote The Spiritual Exercise a few years after the reformation.

If Martin Luther had read this and followed the Discernment of Spirits contained there in, he would have been able to see clearly who was really guiding him in what he was doing.

The discernnment of spirits counsels against what we think maybe coming from God but may actually be coming from the devil for the devil mimics God and appears as an angel of light.

I think this is the case with Martin Luther. He started off good in telling it like it is with regards corruption in the Church - but then failed miserably when it came to discernment.

St Ignatius and St Theresa were brought before the inquisition and submitted humbly. And it was through this humility that God worked.

I think the one big mistake that Martin Luther make is to think that the Church was his Church so the kind of reform he wants to see ought to be the reform that should be done. That is the height of pride. The Church is Christ’s Church. He will bring about the reform when He wishes. And He has. But not through Martin Luther.

 

[benedictus2]

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

Thank you. Been over-stretching myself lately.

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.

My apologies. I phrased that wrongly. I should have said you do not truly understand SOME of the Catholic teachings. Yes I agree you would have had some knowledge but based on the posts I have seen in the other threads, there is a lot of misunderstanding and mis-representation of the what the Church teaches. Though probably the bulk of the disagreement is due to your having imbibed erroneous theology and called it good.

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.

Again my posts have nothing to with whatever bad or good thing you have done because that has no bearing on this discussion.

What I am questioning are some of your moral beliefs which do not line up with what the Church teaches. Some people leave the Church because the Church is such a stick in the mud when it comes to morality. And being so, then she makes you feel guilty over something you SHOULD feel guilty about. But modern psychology wants to get rid of that guilt even when it is healthy guilt. I suppose there was a tendency for over scrupulosity in the past and the pendulum swung to the extreme end.

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.

Do you really? Well Christ Himself has spoken on who he wishes to interpret His word for Him. So God has already judged. And we see this judgment plainly in scripture. But you have decided that that judgment is not good enough for you.

It was like: You said to God, Lord I submit to you. The Lord says: Good, then submit to the Authority on earth I place over you, my Church. But you reply back: No Lord I submit only to you.

Videmus enim nunc per speculum in aenigmate…

By replying thus, you are saying that Jesus was a liar for you are saying that on this earth we cannot know truth, which is contrary to what He promised.

Furthermore, if we cannot know truth, then you have no way of knowing that what you believe is true. Seeing dimly in some things does not mean inability to know what is true.

So here is the question again: If the Truth is in all of the facets of Christendom then why does all of Christendom hold differing and contrary beliefs?

 

[benedictus2]

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.

Great. Simple answer. Because He established a Church.

This is something that is very clear and apparent in the Bible. One of the first things that He did at the beginning of His ministry was to call men to be His apostles. If all we need is a book, well dang it, He did not write one.

What He did was to establish a Church. And He did not leave it at that - He made a solemn promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

Going by those who believe the “reformers”, then the gates of hell has somehow prevailed and thanks to Martin Luther the hero, he somehow wrestled this church from the clutches of hell, hip hip hooray.
But to believe that is to believe Christ unable to keep His promise and therefore not God.

Second. After establishing a Church He promised that she will be led into truth. So the one mark of His Church would be that she will always teach Truth and that Truth will be in accord with His Will because Christ is Truth. This was a guarantee He gave to His Chruch.

Third: He prayed that His disciple will be one. He did not pray that they will not bicker or that they be good but that they be one. So it is very clear that He desired only one Church not 30,000 or so.

So how can you say that you are being a true disciple of Christ if you, with ALL YOUR WILL, are going against something that He clearly willed.

If Christ had not established a Church, we would not be having this discussion. Every man and woman is free to make up what they like for themselves.

You need to remember that the only way we know about Christ’s identity and mission is because of His Church. I am sure He could have made that known a different way but this is the way He willed it to be.

I hold on to my faith, because I am absolutely certain that I am holding on to the truth.

Are you? Then why are you afraid to debate the “truth” that you hold.

I wish to live my life for Jesus Christ alone. I wish to live for Him and I would die for this faith.

If so then why are you so against His will as regards His Church.
If you answer : because I do not believe the Catholic Church is His Church, then my challenge to debate that point remains.

I do not however believe myself to be subject to misconceptions when it comes to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Let’s put that to the test. Debate the points that you find contentious.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

But there is the question again. Why did you leave?

If the reason is emotional / personal then that is for you to sort out. Until you do it will hang around you and deprive you of joy and peace. What you feel now thinking you have somehow escaped from her clutches is not joy and peace and I think you know that deep down.

But if the reasons are doctrinal, then let’s have it. Let’s debate.

Put it out there and challenge us to defend the teaching that you believe wrong.

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.

Your refusal is indeed evident. Your reasons are very obscure.

Knowledge does not have to result in faith and unbelief is not evidence of a lack of knowledge.

Completely agree here.

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.

I agree with you there that in your case and in many other cases (some probably worse that yours), some members of the Church have failed you and others miserably - failed miserably in their pastoral duty to care for Christ’s sheep. They will have a major answering to God for that.

But, and this is a very important distinction – the actions of some, no matter how horrible they are, be that paedophilia, murder, or every kind of abominable sin, does not somehow make His Church no longer His Church. She is just a church that is bruised by Her members, but she nonetheless remain Holy because her head is Holy.

And this is the beauty of the Catholic Church , for within her are the Sacraments that give back the life, heal the wounds, cleanse the muck from her members. To His Church, Christ gave the wherewithal to heal all that and make us new persons once more.

Leaving her would be like one who leaves a family home because one was ill treated by a family member. But within that same home is the means by which these wounds will be healed. The medicine chest is in the home and the doctor is also in the family.

The sacraments have this power to heal.

In the Eucharist is Jesus Christ. The same Jesus Christ whose helm healed the haemorrhaegic woman, who healed the leper, cured the blind, made the lame walk, now glorified and giving Himself in the Eucharist.

I honestly believe that though you may think you have achieved peace by remaining away from her, all you have done is allowed the wounds to fester.

I see that in your posts. True peace and joy will only come when you find the courage to come home and face the past and learn to forgive. It will be one extremely difficult job but I know that God will be before, beside, behind and above you.

 

[benedictus2]

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?

Okay, here I am again trying to make a distinction. Please, read this because this is a very important distinction so you will know that I am not trying to discredit your faith but rather your Faith.

Your faith -as in your sincerity of belief, love for the Lord – I am not discrediting. I think it is quite laudable.

But, your Faith (as in the set of beliefs you believe in like Sola Scriptura, Sola fide, and all the other articles of faith you hold which do not line up with Catholic teaching), that, I hope to be able to discredit for if it is my duty as a Christian to show to the best of my knowledge where the false teachings are so long as I am able.

Do not get me wrong. I like Protestants (sometimes more than the Catholics) because the really Biblically grounded Protestant loves the Lord and considers Him Lord. Some Catholics (and I suppose Protestants too) have bought into so much New Age garbage I wonder how they can reconcile that with calling themselves Christians.

But one thing we need to remember is that our faith hinges on our Faith. So sometimes, your faith will get questioned because your Faith is in question.

No matter how sincerely we may hold on to a belief, one way or another it has to give way to Truth.

I think we should engage in a discussion in a more private manner. I am interested in getting to know you.

Thank you. That is okay with me. You can PM me if you like or email me through the facility here.

Peace and Joy of Christ.

 

[benedictus2]

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

Thank you very much. I am finding that I am getting slower in my old age . As for heavy lifting, you do most of it. I sneak in every now and again when i get a chance. I was trying to avoid CAF because it is addictive but you’ve got me hooked again.

But I pride myself in being able to restrain myself and keep it to one thread at a time. (so far) AAah progress!

 

[Mikeoffaith]

And truth is what she has aways taught. Contrast that with the heresy that came from those who went into schism.

And what were the great heresies of Orthodoxy?

From th beginning, Jesus chose failed, sinful men (there was no other pool to pick from). And these failed and simple men failed Him. 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.

And what the Holy Spirit got left out in the decision making process? I agree with you completely, the pool of available perfect people was a little on the low side. Who else would Christ pick but sinful men? And Peter’s testament to who Christ is, is without question.

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.

See here Luther is either a good guy had he been humble or he’s a heretic. So were his teachings of value or were they heresies? I see it as this schism shouldn’t have happened t all had it not been for the pride and arrogance of Leo. And if Christ is choosing sinful, imperfect people to run the Church, then the fault of schism lay on both door steps.

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. 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.

You don’t seem to grasp the concept of excommunication. The Pope wrote up this thing called Decet Romanum and it removes Luther from the church, not the other way around. So the Pope would be doing the excommunicating. Had the Pope and various cardinals not been so concerned with their free will spending habits, I believe Leo had depleted the Vatican Treasury from his wild parties, then we should not be having this discussion. The greed of the Vatican and Curia could never allow itself to be called on the carpet and repent. If I were a prince in Germany, I certainly could be putting my property to better use than Leo splurging on his druncken orgies. And yes I had never heard that story about Michael ever before. Where pray tell do you hear of it?

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.

Yes all the heresies. Would you like to enumerate some of them from the good Patriarchs in the East? I’m sure we would love to hear them. And yes tell us of all of Luther’s heresies as well. And while you are doing it, let me know how the people in your parish enjoyed the Mass in their own language, or were able to partake of the Body and Blood? And if you need to quote a Bible verse, please do it in Latin, as to do it in English would be a Lutheran heresy.

Continued in part 2

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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

I never said that Christ established many churches nor did I assume.

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

I have read and studied scripture and history and the Church has one foundation, Jesus Christ her Lord, not Peter. So you think you can fathom the size of God? I don’t think any of us can fully see Christ at any time. Let me know when you can live the Gospel completely and then I will believe that you have seen the full Christ. I don’t think we can ever fully realize the relationship between Christ and the Father or Christ and His Church until the last day.

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. 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?

Here is what you said:

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.

So lets sum this up; Those Churches separated are heretical, Christ promised that he will guide His Church into Truth, none of those Churches that are separated are Christ’s Church, therefore none of those Churches could have the Truth.

Don’t look at all us Protestants and say that there is so much division among us. There are things that divide you within the Churches that pay allegiance to Rome. You are not one homogenous crowd that has one set of rules and follows all. There are minor divisions and the only unifying factor is Rome. Some of it is the same with in the Protestant League. Some of us are unified in our theology but separated by our polity and yes others of us are divided along both. But unlike what you envision, most of these denominations did not split from Luther but split from the Roman Catholic Church. Again, don’t blame Luther for your inability to hang on to your children.

 

[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.

Limp I can live with, however this one needed life support.

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.

I appreciate the idea. Again, I have great respect for these Christians of the first magnitude and the things that they set out to accomplish. And a lot of these saints on your list are on our list as well. We list them as renewers of the Church. Again what I see as the reforms that these saints accomplished wasn’t nearly the same as the reforms that Luther undertook. Except for Catherine, who was no threat to the papacy or it’s pocketbook, she was the only one that made any challenge directly to a pope and even then her success was minor to the whole scale.

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?

Thanks! No, this was not one of the shining moments of the papacy or the hierarchy. After reading the link you provided I was even more shocked. But aside from that I have even a greater understanding of why Luther had such little respect for the Papacy of his day. I also can’t imagine after any one reading about the disaster than any would disagree. I think the best lesson for to learn from this is: The Church and the State need to be separate. They don’t mix well, and it’s always the Church that ends up suffering.

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?

Yes men fail. We are all human, the Bishop of Rome, Luther, you , me. We make mistakes and we can only thank Christ for the unlimited amount of forgiveness afforded to us. To be honest with you, I’m not seriously unhappy about the Western Schism. It happened, it’s over, we move on. I really have no focus on it other than you brought it up in one of the earlier posts. I believe you were referring to the Great Schism of 1054 but had stated it as the Schism of 1378, so I just ran with it.

Blessings to you!

 

[benedictus2]

I never said that Christ established many churches nor did I assume.

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

I have read and studied scripture and history and the Church has one foundation, Jesus Christ her Lord, not Peter.

Well then can you please tell our Lord off for getting it so wrong and tell Him that no He did not build His Church upon Peter. You probably feel like washing His mouth for telling such fibs. And to please amend the relevant passages in the Gospel according to Matthew, Pronto!

Whatever was our Lord thinking saying that sort of stuff.

So you think you can fathom the size of God? I don’t think any of us can fully see Christ at any time.

The only thing we can know of Christ is what He has revealed. Furthermore, that we can even say that Christ is God is only through the Church that He founded on earth.

Any speculation beyond that is is exactly that, speculation.

Let me know when you can live the Gospel completely and then I will believe that you have seen the full Christ.

And who was talking about seeing the full Crhist. And we were not talking about living the Gospel completely. We are talking about how the revelation came to be.

I don’t think we can ever fully realize the relationship between Christ and the Father or Christ and His Church until the last day.

Whatever relationship we have between Christ and the Father we can only know through the Church He established. He WILLED it this way.

Here is what you said: So lets sum this up; Those Churches separated are heretical,

Minor correction. SOME of the separated churches’s TEACHINGS are heretical. Heresy applies to the doctrine not the church…

Christ promised that he will guide His Church into Truth, none of those Churches that are separated are Christ’s Church, therefore none of those Churches could have the Truth.

Correction again. These Churches have SOME truth. God is not cruel that He will leave his defiant children without a guide. However the further down the line the separation is, the more obscured the truth becomes.

It would be like for looking for a diamond in a bag of same shaped cubic zirconias. It will take a trained eye to spot the real thing. And that is where the danger lies, because there is some truth, some people mistakenly believe that the rest are as well.

And here’s the thing - the closer the person perceives the truth, the more inclined they are to go back home to his church.

But yes to your first point. The separated Churches are not Christ’s Church. At the beginning of your post, you said yourself that you are aware that Christ established only one

Don’t look at all us Protestants and say that there is so much division among us. There are things that divide you within the Churches that pay allegiance to Rome.

Yes. As I said we have our squabbles. And there are many belligerent Catholics out there. But they have not to my knowledge set up their own churches. When they do disagree enough, they move to one of the protestant Churches or become ardent followers of one New Age guru or another. Or some simpy declare themselves atheists.

You are not one homogenous crowd that has one set of rules and follows all.

Yes we do have one set of rules and no we don’t always follow all the rules. So what’s new? The Christians in the first century did likewise. So did the ones in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and so on. That is why the Church always came back with a magisterial teaching dispelling heresies.

There are minor divisions and the only unifying factor is Rome.

Wow, finally you get it. There is a unifying factor.

Some of it is the same with in the Protestant League.

Not quite. You see this is where you can truly lay the blame squarely at Martin Luther’s feet.

This divisions are actually distinct churches. Someone actually decided to set up shop different to your shop, completely separate to you because according to Luther’s he is very well entitled to do so.

Some of us are unified in our theology but separated by our polity and yes others of us are divided along both.

Need I say more?

But unlike what you envision, most of these denominations did not split from Luther but split from the Roman Catholic Church.

Perhaps you would like to give support for that.

Before Luther there was a schism in the 11th century. Then came Luther in the 1500s and boy look at the number of schisms from the schismatics themselves.

And when they split from the Catholic Church, whose theology were they following? There was either Luther or John Calvin and of course there’s Zwingli as well. Much as you’d like to exonorate him, the evidence just won’t let you.

Again, don’t blame Luther for your inability to hang on to your children.

Hey I don’t have any children so I am certainly not blaming him for that. Hmm perhaps I could blame him for not having any? Let me think about that. Yes, I can blame him for that because the guy I was terribly in love with was Protestant!

But on a serious note, we could equally reason: “Hey don’t blame the devil for tempting us to sin”. The lies are so seductive. That is why we are trying to counter that with the truth.

We are not hanging our head crying boo hoo our children have been taken by the Pied Piper of lies.

We are running after the children armed with the truth to unmask the pied piper of lies.

 

[Janet1983]

Thanks for the translation.

And, now… a not-so-brief set of comments of the listed beliefs you have provided.This is actually Page 1 of 2 …

You are very welcome and thank you for your effort. I do appreciate that.

For whatever reason, Janet1983, these five women chose to not bring oil - this choice (doing things their own way or whatever you want to call it) caused them to be ‘…not ready…’ and it cost them dearly.If you are telling me that they lost out on salvation through no fault of their own, then go ahead and make that case if you want.

Well it was their fault. It’s not because they were doing their own thing but because they did not prepare for a wait and therefore they were not ready. We have to be ready at all times and even prepare for a long wait.

There is no such single entity as THE Christian Church that I am aware of. There a multiple ‘Christian churches’ that all preach different doctrines so combining them into one identifiable group is simply not possible. Does “The Christian Church” happen to go by another name (e.g.,Episcopalian, Lutheran, Southern Baptist, etc)? Or, is this simply a construct that you have made?

No, that One Church doesn’t go by any singular name, but we are all bound by Him. True Christians can be found in any of the aforementioned churches, but I am also certain that you will find goats within the flock that are professing with their mouths and do not believe with their hearts.

Are you quoting and agreeing with John 14:6?

Well in a way I was and I do agree. He is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

This is pretty close to James 2:17. There is no way we can ‘work our way to heaven’ by doing naturally nice deeds. Faith animates our works becasue our gaze is always on Christ. Is this what you mean?

In the light of His gift of salvation, I feel compelled to please Him. Out of my faith good works arise, so yes that is what I mean.

Janet1983;7331143:

I believe Him to be my Lord and my God.

Are you quoting and agreeing with John 20:28?

Yes, I am agreeing and my wording was certainly not coincidental. This is actually a passage I am very fond of. Not particularly the doubting, but the profession of faith by Thomas.

 

[benedictus2]

And what were the great heresies of Orthodoxy?

Off the top of my head, at one point they succumbed to the Arian heresy. Now their doctrines are correct but I think they allow contraception even though they have not made a definitive statement on that one.

And what the Holy Spirit got left out in the decision making process?

Hey, don’t quarrel with me. Quarrel with the scripture. I thought you said you know scripture. Go on read that chapter.

I agree with you completely, the pool of available perfect people was a little on the low side.

Not on the low side; the pool of perfect people was none existent.

See here Luther is either a good guy had he been humble or he’s a heretic. So were his teachings of value or were they heresies?

Some were heretical. If he had been humble he would not have taught heresy because he would have deferred to magisterial teaching.

I see it as this schism shouldn’t have happened t all had it not been for the pride and arrogance of Leo.

There have been pride and arrogant Popes before. Only Luther, Calvin and Zwingli caused a schism.

And if Christ is choosing sinful, imperfect people to run the Church, then the fault of schism lay on both door steps.

Well no. That the Pope may have been instrumental in Luther’s sin is not the same as being responsible for the schism. That’s Adam blaming Eve.
If Luther had gone off in a half saying He no longer pledges allegiance, etc, etc, that can be blamed on the Pope.
But the reason the schism was cemented was because Luther came up with heretical doctrines. Minus those, we would have been able to breach the gap.
And to this day, that is what maintains the schism.

You don’t seem to grasp the concept of excommunication. The Pope wrote up this thing called Decet Romanum and it removes Luther from the church, not the other way around. So the Pope would be doing the excommunicating.

Oh but I do have a grasp of ex-communication. St Mary McKillop was at one point excommunicated. Now she’s a saint.
Luther was not excommunicated simply for taking them to task for their corruption. He was excommunicated for his heresy. If he has recanted on his heresy, then he would have been taken back.
An excommunication is only a last resort to make you see your error…
That he remained excommunicated was his fault.

Had the Pope and various cardinals not been so concerned with their free will spending habits, I believe Leo had depleted the Vatican Treasury from his wild parties, then we should not be having this discussion. The greed of the Vatican and Curia could never allow itself to be called on the carpet and repent. If I were a prince in Germany, I certainly could be putting my property to better use than Leo splurging on his druncken orgies.

But all that I never questioned. As I said, they were corrupt. But that is not the point of the schism. That may have started it but that certainly was not the reason it remained. The heretical doctrines of Luther and the other “reformers” is why it remained.

And yes I had never heard that story about Michael ever before. Where pray tell do you hear of it?

Google the reasons for the East-West Schism. I think it is in David McDonald’s website called Catholic Bridge.

Yes all the heresies. Would you like to enumerate some of them from the good Patriarchs in the East?

I have already answered this above. But I will dig up the others.

. And yes tell us of all of Luther’s heresies as well.

I think they are the most discussed topics in this these forums.

And while you are doing it, let me know how the people in your parish enjoyed the Mass in their own language, or were able to partake of the Body and Blood? And if you need to quote a Bible verse, please do it in Latin, as to do it in English would be a Lutheran heresy.

And who said that doing it in English is a Lutheran heresy. You resorting to fabrication now?

 

[Janet1983]

Not sure about this one, Janet1983 - especially with a British (?) spelling of Savior. This really sounds general Protestant wording. Christ is our Savior. With the Grace of God we accept Christ - AND THEN follow Him by keeping His Commandments (John 14:15). Is this what you mean?

Please forgive me for my spelling. In many cases I am just more comfortable with the British spelling simply due to the fact that this is the way that I acquired my knowledge of the English language. In some cases I might have adapted to the American spelling but certainly not in all. Leaving out the “u” in Saviour seems rather weird to me and that is one of the words I will probably never get used to spelling differently.
Concerning your other comments, I agree that God does play a role in us accepting Him. The most profound arguments and proof cannot persuade an atheist whose heard has not been touched by God. We follow Him by keeping His commandments, but not because our works would get us saved (as already established earlier) but because of our profound gratitude and love for Him.

How are YOU defining “true”? Where did you get the idea that the Holy Spirit is guiding each of us individually? John 16:13 is the promise Christ made to His Apostles - the First Bishops of His Church (and that would be the Catholic Church).

“True” Christians are those who have a deep rooted faith and the knowledge of salvation. In other words you will find those who pay lip-service and those who are true believers intermingled in every church building upon this planet. In some there are more true Christians than there are in others. For example I think we can safely assume that the members of a church in an area of heavy persecution are true Christians.
Within the fold there are sheep as well as goats and I am unable to tell one from the other without doubt. I believe that His Holy Spirit guides all true Christians in truth and if I am not completely mistaken you believe that the Holy Spirit has been placed in your heart at your confirmation. The Holy Spirit came down upon all believers at Pentecost.

You may want to read this link on Mary’s perpetual virginity: catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp Ultimately, this question about Mary having other children is a 16th Century invention. Scripture and Tradition (and that would be 1,600 years of Apostolic Tradition) support this belief. Saying Mary had other children is really a tradition of man. Are you specifically denying:
Luke 1:26-28 that Mary is full of grace - there was NEVER ROOM FOR SIN from her conception forward.

First of all: I have heard about the argument and I have heard it coming from my mouth more than just rarely when I was still a vital part of my Catholic parish. I am aware of the fact that “brother” has a wide meaning, but that does also mean that there is a possibility for the meaning “brother” in this context.
Secondly: I never knew that a sexual relationship between a husband and a wife with the result of bearing children was sinful.

Are you specifically denying the words of Christ

“I am the bread of life,” Jesus told them. “No one who comes to Me will ever be hungry, and no one who believes in Me will ever be thirsty again.” (John 6:35)
“The Spirit is the One who gives life. The flesh doesn’t help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.” (John 6:63)
As you can see Jesus spoke in spiritual terms and He did not do it just once so that this might be falsely understood. He did it on other occasions too and we would never assume that he is a literal grapevine for example or that we are literally sheep.
“I am the bread of life.” (John 6:48)
“I am the door.” (John 10:9)
“I am the good shepherd.” (John 10:11)
“I am the true vine” (John 15:1)

Are you denying the words of Christ?(again)

I never said that Baptism in itself was optional. It is however not required for salvation. It is an important step of obedience and we should undergo this step. In my congregation there is not a single (voting) member who has not been baptised.
Baptism is an obedient step and an outward representation of an inward reality, but we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8), not by faith and a ceremony (Rom. 4:1-11).

You know, your repeated denials of the Word of God have really gotten a bit tedious. In John 20:18-22 we have the Risen Christ enterning the locked room of the Apostles, breathing the Holy Spirit onto them and telling them they have the Power of God to forgive or not forgive sin. But, you a so-called ‘slave of Christ’ are arguing with His clearly stated words.

Ouch. I sometimes forget that I am in an environment where people pull out the heavy hitters. Please do forgive me for feeling slightly offended by your words. It’s a sign of pride that I was bothered by this.
Concerning your remark (otherwise) I am not arguing with the Lord’s Word. I am arguing with your interpretation thereof.

Here is a well written statement. You may enjoy reading what the Catholic Church actually teaches on this subject

Thank you. I actually own a Catechism and I am familiar with that passage.

My advice to you is just stick with what you have previously identified, leave OSAS alone - it is worse than a dead end - it is simply another damnable tradition of man.

As I said. I am on the fence about this topic and I have to admit (to my shame) that I have been struggling with it for quite a while.

God bless and you are in my prayers to return Home.

Thank you for your kind thoughts. May the Lord strengthen you in your relationship to Him and may He do the same to me.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

A few cardinals supporting this and that Pope does not make a person pope. Indeed the legitimate Pope was pretty awful and so they tried to pick a better one. But nonetheless, this awful Pope was the legitimate Pope. I think Tom has already answered that. That was the first step.

There were three of them, no one really knowing who was and wasn’t the pope and factions abounding. And from the article Tom linked to it seems there are still discussions in the ivory towers of who was legitimate and who wasn’t.

Just goes to show your ignorance of the very fundamentals of Church life. The decay in their houses was symptomatic of the decay in other parts of the Church. How they countered the obvious unholiness everywhere is through living holy lives and reforming what they can - themselves and their houses.

My ignorance of Church life? Really? The fact whether the decay within their orders was symptomatic of a church wide problem is not the question. The fact that their reforms were to solve a local issue (within the order) and nearly in a specific locale (Spain). Their spirituality did have implications for the entire Church but their reforms within the order did not necessarily lead to greater reforms with in the entire Church.

That is why Luther got it so wrong. He assessed the situation correctly but his solution was one that must have been whispered to his ears by the devil.

And enlighten us, what do you see as the situation that Luther assessed correctly and what do you see as his solution from Satan himself?

The impact of Theresa, John of the Cross, Ignatius and Francis de Sales reverberated throughout the Church even though their actions were primarily towards their own little millieu. The only way to counter corruption is by living holy lives ourselves.

That seems awfully simplistic and in light of Theresa and John, they were schismatic within their own order. Again, we have those with and those without shoes.

During St Francis of Assisi’s time, the church needed “repairing”. What was St Francis response? A deeper living of the gospel by himself.

I can’t speak specifically to the state of the Church during the time of St Francis and what impact he had on the Papacy of his day.

All these saints that were actually able to bring about reform exemplified humility. This is something Martin Luther was in dire need of. If he had been humble, he would have been a force for the good. Sorry but there was. All these initiatives affect the entire Body of Christ. We have a saying that the pain in your little toe is felt by your entire Body. It is the same with Church, hence any remedy in one reverberates in the entire body.

But the fact remains, Theresa and John founded a modified order. They broke away. But if you have a pain in your little toe, you figure out what is wrong and you cure it, you just don’t lop it off. Although, I guess if you hand offends you…

And answer this: If Martin Luther really brought about reform, can you really call the ever splintering Protestant Christianity reform. That to me sounds more like chopping off a limb and then proceeding to chop that cut off limb into little pieces. Some reform that.

Maybe you are a little shy on history. Tell me out of the thousands and thousands of denominations of Christians out there, which one’s split from Lutheranism? Again, if the Roman Church with it’s saintly hierarchy can’t hold on to it’s children, do not blame Luther.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

And if Martin Luther really brought about reform, then how come he himself said ( and this would have been only a few years after his so called reform) that they themselves had become so much more corrupt, so much more sinful than the Catholic heirarchy that they were hoping to reform. So was that reform?

And I believe he was referring to the other children Rome had lost like Zwingli.

He came up with his own doctrine of Sola Scriptura and then he and John Calvin realized that that simply was untennable and yet his followers down the centuries still hang on to this doctrine which the founder himself has acknowledged to be flawed. Some reform that one.

You have no idea what Luther’s doctrine of Sola Scriptura is and I think you would be hard pressed to even explain it properly. If you want to really debate Luther’s reforms, I suggest you pull out your copy of the Augsburg Confession and I’ll pull out mine and we can look at all the reforms. Maybe this Sunday, you can reflect on a few of them from Article XXII and XXIV.

Again you have a myopic view of the Christian spiritual life and the Body of Christ. As explained above the people who were best able to effect a change for the good are those who looked at themselves and like Chesterton realized that what is wrong with the Church or the world is me so it is me that must change. Again a call to holiness a dedication to God. I will devote another post to this because it needs a more in depth treatment. Aaah, because to effect reform is not so much to challenge the centre of a corrupt “heirarchy” but to look at yourself and realize that reform begins with you. That is why they were effective. That is why Martin Luther failed.

You’re right Luther’s reform failed because the papacy could not bear to look at itself and see the ugliness that it had created. How can the heir of Peter be anything but holy. I would imagine that the most corrupt pope still retains the title of “Your Holiness”. This conversation is going to go nowhere. You will continually point out that Luther’s reforms were not because he is a failed man. And I will continue to point out that his reforms weren’t for not because some have been instituted and used by the Roman Church today, despite a history of a decrepit papacy, and you will point to men and women of great spirituality and say look how they transformed the whole church, excluding the hierarchy of course since abuses were still allowed to follow.

St Therese of LIsieux who is one of the greatest saints of the Church calls it the little way. This is the kind of spirituality that has been lost in the protestant tradition. And another thing -the 16th century Church produced great saints like the ones I have mentioned before. They existed under the same corrupt heirarchy and yet they became beacons of holiness. Wonderful approach.

And I will not quibble that there were Christians of the first magnitude in the Roman Catholic Church, but the unfortunate thing is they did nothing to stop the corruption of the hierarchy as long as the pope granted then habit and rule.

On the other hand we have Martin Luther who brought nothing but an ever exploding protestant Christianity. I think that alone speaks powerfully about the kind of “reform” that he did happen to manoeuvre.

Again stop blaming Luther for Mother Church unable to hold on to her children. The drunken and debauchery of the papacy of the time was like the crack parent of today. Too busy with it’s own selfishness to recognize the life it was called to live by Christ. A very sad state of affairs for the Vicar of Christ.