Why I could never follow Luther.

[Mikeoffaith]

Page 2 of 2

I totally disagree with this assessment. Actually, I think I get just a hint of an exaggeration in progress. Now, in reality, it may not be going the way you would like to see… but, it really is moving forward in the sense that several issues have been raised and addressed form multiple points of view. Isn’t that the essence of a discussion board? Don’t lose heart and don’t give up on this topic.

I’m not giving up on this topic not yet. I think you and I have definitely had a great discussion. I see your point of view and you seem to be able to see mine. And actually that is all that I hope for. Can we move to a deeper understanding of each side, I’m sure. Will we reconcile our two churches and heal the split, probably not. Will we have a greater understanding of where we are at and a better appreciation of each other, I hope so. Do I think Cory and I are having the same discussion as you and I, most of the time, no.

I am not really sure I understand your argument here. Are you saying that the argument aginst Luther is that he was a ‘failed man’ who happened to point out the failings in the Catholic Church? Or, are you saying something else? First, I really do not think it would be beneficial to engage in an *ad hominem *attack on the German Monk. The issue, at least in my opinion, needs to be on objective statements - like his creation of Sola Scriptura as a doctrine. Now, really Mikeoffaith, you don’t do us any favors by saying we really do not udnerstnd this, fail to point our exactly what it is we do not understand, but rather provide a general document - with no links to follow. If you think we are wrong … don’t be bashful … in fact, follow our example and spell it out!

What I was saying in this statement is simple. Cory’s contention is that Luther’s reforms were all heresies. That whatever his reforms are or aren’t have no bearing because he is a failed man. That is what I am understanding and please point out that I am wrong. But at the same time, we have not had any discussion on any points of Luther’s reforms. But we can certainly discuss them here or move to a new topic. And again FYI he was a German Friar. . Yes we can go ahead and talk all about Sola Sciptura, here is a good link although biased but a good explanation of it how it fits into our beliefs. Authority of the Church It’s not the be all end all but it’s a place to start.

Wwwwwwwwwwwwwwoooooo! Hey, I can deal with sex, greed, simony, debotched clergy and engraged monks putting nail holes in church doors - but, one thing I will not tolerate is an industrial strength run-on sentence! My goodness, man! Look what you have done here!!! So, let me break this down into manageable pieces so I can address these issues…

Cut me some slack it was 430A.

Luther’s activities really did help focus the hierarch meeting at Trent in Italy. I really do not think there is an argument there. Of course, at this point in the history of Luther and his relationship with the Catholic Church, it may be more like acknowledging the arsonist for pointing out that things like fire escapes need to lighted and the path way to them unencumbered and having fire hydrants close by along with a internal sprinker system would be all be good ideas.

I like the comparison.

I think the thing to really focus on when considering this ‘decrepit papacy’ is that they did respond with positive changes, real reform and a focus on returning to eliminating corruption and following Christ more closely. Luther, had he done things differently, could have been a dynamic presence at Trent doing good and promoting this genuine reform - rather than someone being spoken about there.

I agree, had Trent happened before Worms, I think we would be looking a lot different.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Luther is not just a man of ideas - but one of action and ideas. It would be irresponsible not to look at how he acted - how was he the vehicle for his ideas of reform. He is neither simply (he had a lot of issues before he became an Augustinian monk - and these stayed with him until he died) or diplomatic. But, God allowed him to progress in his program, allowed others to break away from the Church Christ founded on Peter - and has allowed the thousands of furhter schisms that have brought us to today.

Sometimes he was a man of re-action and ideas. Diplomatic no, definitely living the German in him. And he was an Augustinian Friar. Oy!

This Church of Christ still has abuses today! The pedophilic clergy that have been exposed over the last 10 years - and the bishops who refused to act with fortitude in addressing this terrible scandal - are in the day’s newspapers. And, this is a world-wide event! What are we do do? The honest answer is not to abandon the Church of Christ founded on Peter - like Luther did. What we are to do is clean out the dead wood - like the reforms begun with Pope JPII and now Benedict XVI, and pray for all the idividuals involved in this scandal. These men failed Christ. But, that does not mean we are to fail Him. This is what I think is the real take home message - how does one deal with the failings of highly placed individuals?

We were doing so well up until now. Every church has it’s issues. That is given. Everybody’s house needs some cleaning, and I an not going to be sitting here telling you how dirty your house is now, when mine has dust bunnies and cobwebs. I don’t see Luther as abandoning the Church. I know you do. I think we should discuss more about this. Again, I think this is where our understanding of what the failings of highly placed individuals role actually played into the events of 1517. But how does one deal with the failings of highly placed individuals? it’s a good question and I can’t say for sure. What your response can be, other than to pray, I really don’t know. My polity is different and affords to me/us/the laity certain abilities and responsibilities. So my response is going to be one that is totally different.

 

[AtTheTruth]

Sometimes he was a man of re-action and ideas. Diplomatic no, definitely living the German in him. And he was an Augustinian Friar. Oy!

We were doing so well up until now. Every church has it’s issues.

Yeah, but why is it everywhere I go, and when it comes to revealing our denominations, I get everything from stark remarks, to downright hostility discussing things like this with the protestants I run into locally. So well??? I think not.

That is given. Everybody’s house needs some cleaning, and I an not going to be sitting here telling you how dirty your house is now, when mine has dust bunnies and cobwebs.

Yeah, that housecleaning was done and over with long, long ago, the housecleaning Luther was dealing with at the time, so that’s not an excuse to remain separate from the church anymore.

I don’t see Luther as abandoning the Church.

His intentions at first were not, but after going to blows with the authorities, he took things too far and started rewriting cannon law. The proof remains as of now, with the number of protestants refusing to even acknoledge the Catholic church, much less take off their blinders and actually do a little bit of research and investigation to see if it indeed, is the Chruch Christ established. You are all too busy trying to point out things that you consider wrong without even looking at the things that are right. It has never been about what the human beings do within it, to hold the weight of validity of the church, but it’s within the Holy Spirit who is guiding and protecting it. He in itself is going to always keep it held together. Wake up guys, look at the truth of it all.

I know you do. I think we should discuss more about this. Again, I think this is where our understanding of what the failings of highly placed individuals role actually played into the events of 1517. But how does one deal with the failings of highly placed individuals? it’s a good question and I can’t say for sure. What your response can be, other than to pray, I really don’t know. My polity is different and affords to me/us/the laity certain abilities and responsibilities. So my response is going to be one that is totally different.

 

[benedictus2]

Who cares how the revelation came to be? The fact is that we have the revelation.

Are you quite serious??? Who cares? Every Christian worth his salt should care because how the revelation came to be shows us God’s Way of Acting, shows us His Will. His Will and His Way of Acting cannot be separated from who Christ is.

I get it, you’ve said it often enough in a round about way, for you Christ’s Will does not matter. Point noted.

To me I don’t see a great divide between orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Saying one thing and doing another is setting up your orthodoxy to be a heresy.

Glad you brought that up. Luther teaching that one should be able to read and interpret the Bible for themselves and then persecuting them for doing so is a very good example of the disjoint between his doxy and praxis. I say only doxy and praxis because neither his doxy nor his praxis was ortho.

if it can’t be followed or if you won’t follow it. I see in the Roman Catholic Church exactly what you are saying you see in the other Churches. I see heresies in the Roman Catholic Church

, but I don’t think the Roman Catholic Church needs to be wiped off the face of the earth.
Now I call you to name these heresies… Give me one single doctrine that the Catholic Church teaches that could be classified as heretical.

I don’t advocate for the wiping out of the face of the earth the member of protestant churches, I only advocate for the wiping out of their heretical doctrines.

Yes see above about my feelings on the One Church founded by Christ. I am not talking about individuals. And I am not talking about following all the rules. I’m talking about having a different rule books. What the rules look like for Latin Rite Catholics are sometimes different from those of Easter Rite.

They are rites, not doctrine. They are not the same. What Luther came up with was a whole new set of doctrines. That is what caused the division.

This clearly sets up a precedent that not all need to have the same rules and disciplines.

And you got that right. Disciples and rules are not doctrine.

So within your unity you have division.

Not in doctrine.

Why can’t all within your unity have the same rules? Even with the Anglican Ordinariate, it seems that some or the same rules may not apply. I actually find it sad that the only unifying factor is Rome.

Aaah you acknowledge a unifying factor. Refer to my above answer re the difference between doctrine, rites and rules.

And when you talk about magisterial teaching especially of the early Church, the fact that they were not issued from Rome seems odd. After all we do have the First Council of Nicea dispelling the great Arian heresy, not the First Council of Rome, and if I am not mistaken the Bishop of Rome didn’t even go.

So what is your quibble. Councils can meet where ever. The Council met at Trent, the first council was at Jerusalem, there was a council at Carthage, Chalcedon, so what?

 

[benedictus2]

Mikeoffaith:

Well if that is the case, then I don’t think we can blame Luther for the Schisms when clearly it seems the precedent was already started by the Orthodox.

The precedent was started by the Orthodox? It is like saying really we can’t blame Luther for chopping off Christ’s left arm since someone else in 11th century cut off the right. How lame can an argument get?

We can’t blame A for sinning because B sinned a few years back. Seriously

And yeah I’ll give support to the fact that none of the other splits at the time were from Lutheranism since it hadn’t even been clearly defined. Henry, Calvin and Zwigli were all Roman Catholics and their split was from Rome. None of these men ever claimed to be part of Luther’s reforms nor were they followers of Luther nor did they become part of Lutheran Church structure and then break off from that. That’s historically correct and accurate so there is your proof that these people broke with Rome and were not spin offs from Luther. And to be honest to you, I think when it comes to these other splits you give way too much credit to Luther. Again I think you need to look inside the Vatican walls and be responsible for your own children.

They were all in the same boat. Calvin and Zwingli got much impetus from Luther. As I said, he was the poster boy of the movement.

And I did not say they were spin offs from Luther. I have to be clearer here because the “deformers” consisted not merely of Luther. So as I said before - Luther et al.

And not there men were not following Luther’s theology. If you believe this to be so, would you care to outline exactly where they are similar in theology? And I did not exonerate Zwingli? Why would I exonerate him?

Playing dense? I was referring to Luther.

As to theology, they all believed in Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide and all I believe (but I could be wrong) denied purgatory.

Calvin of course has a much more corrupt doctrine with his idea of predestination but both Luther and Calvin were heavily influenced by nominalism and if you follow the trajectory of Lutheran doctrine on justification it will take you to predestination.

Are you sure it wasn’t because you were using ABC?

Could be since the way you have turned things around what is artificial is natural and what is natural is artificial. The double speak of relativism.

No the unfortunate thing is now you are trying to run after the children and are making attempts to understand them and see what the difference really is, as opposed to opening the door and throwing them out of the house.

Oh no. They were not thrown out of the house. Their deluded father was in the hope that he will shake off the delusion. But no, he was too far gone.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mikeoffaith,

These responses are getting involved, eh? I will respond to your last paragraph of this post. I noticed you had more … but, I can only process so much at one time … so, don’t despair, I will get to it…

I see what you are saying Tom. And I get that, I really do. But let me put something out there that if I am totally off base about just tell me so.

Don’t worry about that, Mikeoffaith, I have my bashfulness under control!
Mikeoffaith;7340197:

The basics of faith that you outline, I don’t think we have much in any great difference.

From what I have read, I am inclined to agree … but, we are playing horseshoes or hand granades … where ‘close’ counts. Ultimately, if you think Lutheranism is the True Faith than you will be held to that standard. However, if you believe that Catholicism is the True Faith than you are obligated to move in that direction. I can see where participation on this site is a good way to explore the Catholic Faith and have your questions answered and debate issues. But as rich as this site is, it isn’t everything.

But here is the difference and if you have read any of the Lutheran Confessions, I think we might even agree farther and deeper and here is why I am saying this. This is where you need to tell me if I am off base. When you look at the Roman Catholic Church you see one continuous entity that has existed from the beginning and is the same today as it was 500 years ago.

Hey, Mikeoffaith, 2 out of 3 isn’t bad!

I see the Catholic Church as one continuous entity

I see its foundation as having been established by Christ on Peter and the Birthday of the Church being that First Pentecost Sunday when the Holy Spirit imparted amazing Gifts to those assembled and Peter went out and boldly preached.

This third part is where language is critical. It is the same today as it was on that First Pentecost in that the Catholic Church has Christ as its center, it has the distinction of being the Bride of Christ, it has Christ’s promise that not only won’t the Gates of Hell prevail - but, and more importantly, the Holy Spirit will guide it to Truth.

It is NOT the same today in that Peter, the First Pope, wrote on scrolls to get his messages out - today Peter’s Successor, Benedict XVI uses the internet! 500 years ago, in 1510 there were real dynamic forces at work - nation building takes, time, talent and money - and enriching Italy at the expense of Germany was not appreciated by German Princes. Guttenberg’s printing press had been in operation for about 70 years and people were making the most not only of the technology, but in winning the hearts and minds of readers (propaganda). The flavor of the Renaissance is just starting to take off and many of the greatest minds on earth were participating in this amazing process of moving from a feudal system to something quite different.

So, if you look only at externals, you see the Catholic Church, headquartered in Vatican City - it has ambassadors and political contacts, money and riches such art and books experiences that are not only priceless but breathtaking. Externals are not always what they seem.

I see the Roman Catholic Church as being different/modified. I think what the Church looked like in 1500 is not the same thing as it looks today. The world and it’s place in that world are very different.

Again, this is true only if you look at the externals. There is far more that is going on - like looking at a person by the clothing they are wearing - and thinking you know the person.

Yes the Church still has 7 sacraments, but the administration of those sacraments is different.

You will need to explain that statement and provide examples. When I studied the Sacraments, those things that make the Sacrament what it is - are very much present. At the time of Luther, the Sacraments were administered in the Latin language - as was most of the Church’s activities. Today, the Sacraments are administered in the language of the area. But, the language used is not the essence of the Sacrament.

If you read any of the Augsburg Confession, the Refutation and Apology, you will see a Roman Catholic Church that is different than your experience of it today. It is not going to be revolutionary different but different none the less. And I am not saying that the Augsburg Confession is the be all end all and that I could never accept the Roman Catholic Church until it is in full compliance or that you should accept it at all. But this has to be the starting point for us to move forward.

When I read the Augsburg Confession, I was in college (the ink had barely dried!) What I remember of it, you could put in a thimbel and have room to spare! But, I think if you used the same measuring sticke to evaluate the changes in Luther’s church - you will see that it was evolving during his life time (and not necessarily the way he wanted). But, I submit that if you make this man-made document, “…the be all and end all…” of your faith, you have run the risk of displacing Christ Who should have that role. Luther’s idea is that we are saved by Grace is a solid idea - but, we can’t sit on our hands, we must follow Christ’s actions and works.
God bless

 

[benedictus2]

You’re kidding me right?

Nope. Very serious. Read up on Church history prior to the 1100.

OK next time I see Matthew, I’ll take it up with him.

That is said in jest but it shows what in reality is a disconnect with the love for Christ you profess.

You would rather argue that Christ contradicted Himself than accept Matthew 16. This is truly a disjoint with Sola Scriptura. Or is it a case of I believe in the Gospels only when it suits me?

OK so you admit that some were not heresies.

Of course they were not all heresies. Remember my analogy of the diamond in a bag full of cubic zirconias.

Well there’s a first step. Actually we had Schism before, remember 1054 and then we just had a big discussion about the Great Western Schism and what is the common thread in all of them? Yep, the Pope, as a matter of the the Great Western Schism was all about the Pope and the Papacy.

Of course it will always be about the Pope. Disobedience is always a challenge to authority and in this case a challenge to the authority of the Vicar of Christ.

And that is saying that Eve was a completely innocent bystander that she did not sin, she was just an instrument of Satan, similar to Leo?

Did I say that Eve did not sin? My whole point is precisely that – a pass the buck attitude. Adam did and Eve did. Everyone pointing a finger at someone else rather than acknowledging their own culpability.

And again no, being excommunicated was the reason the schism was cemented.

Nope, it was because of pride. If he had been humble, he would have just returned and did a mea culpa. The excommunication would have been lifted.

See here is the thing. There was no way to breach the gap if the only thing any one is going to come to the table with is “Why you are wrong.” And to this day this is why the schism is maintained.

Because you are wrong. But that is not the only thing we bring to the table. We also tell you why you are wrong.

Again, you are kidding me? Would you care to recite for the studio audience the excommunication of Sister Mary and please draw parallels between her excommunication and that of Luther?

I think Tom already did an excellent job there.

And I think this is where we have a disagreement about the Schism. You have this view that there is this one big all encompassing Schism ala 1054, where there were two major players. What I don’t think you realize is that the break with Luther in 1517 and that of Henry in 1534 and that of Calvin I believe in ~1530 is not all one encompassing break.

It may be gradual but it was worse than the 1054 schism. And Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide is the reason why it is worse.

The difference between each of these breaks and Rome while possibly having the same character are different at their roots and their continuations today. The LWF today could strike an accord with Rome today to end the Schism and all Lutheran bodies signed under would then be in union with Rome, however this would do nothing for the Anglican Communion or the Presbyterians, or the Methodist. The disunity between these others and Rome could not be solved by any unity between Lutherans and Rome.

But that is beside the point. I do not envision a unity just like that. As I told JonNC in another thread, I do not envision a union happening for it would mean Lutherans abandoning their Sola Scriptura an Sola Fide for these are two doctrines that the Church will never ever accept by virtue of their being heresies.
If union will happen, it will be one soul at time or maybe a few at a time. And these individual conversions will have a multiplier effect. It will happen in God’s time.
Already the most passionate apologist for the Church are the converts from Protestantism

I’ll take a look.

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/1054_orthodox_catholic_split.htm

OK because I don’t think the earlier answer was a serious attempt.

Here is a link to the timeline of the East West Schism which answers your question.
davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/timeline_history_of_catholic_orthodox_relations.htm

They really aren’t discussed, it’s generally the same routine. Some one will throw out their rendition of Protestant theology, blame it on Luther, JonNC will come in try to explain how that theology differed from Luther, then the response will be to personally attack Luther, then I jump in on the defense, then JohNC will say something wise, and there the thread dies or just degenerates into :slapfight:, with nothing of consequence ever being discussed or revealed.

Well JonNC and I have an on-going discussion on this thread. You might want to jump in.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7337469#post7337469

I would say that the Refutation of The Augsburg Confession Part 2 Section 3 makes it clear the language of choice for the Roman Church and why any other language was unacceptable.

You are trying to establish a causality between the Augsburg Confession and English in the liturgy? Are you for real? The change to the vernacular was a result of the council responding to the times and this is what they have arrived at after prayer and deliberations… You seem to be overlooking the 4 and a half century gap between the two.

 

[benedictus2]

Again we both see this differently. What I see in this passage and what you see are different things. I also look to other things that Christ said like Luke 22, where He clearly puts the focus on things and who is really in charge into perspective.

Can you explain how Luke 22 is supposed to negate Matthew 16?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mikeoffaith,

OK…now to address this post… and, I think I will take your big item and just focus on that…

What I was saying in this statement is simple. Cory’s contention is that Luther’s reforms were all heresies. That whatever his reforms are or aren’t have no bearing because he is a failed man. That is what I am understanding and please point out that I am wrong.

OK, Mikeoffaith, I think you are wrong on this. I think we could say that while Luther had ‘failings’ he was not a ‘failied man’. He saw error and abuse and attempted to correct these problems - and for this he should be positively acknowledged. But, we can’t just stop there. He lost his control. Let me give you an example.

A long time ago, I had an old aunt (rest in peace) who had a cow. This cow produced quite a lot of milk - about a gallon in the morning and a gallon in the evening! My aunt used to hand milk the cow and carry on detailed discussions about what was going on. The cow was very patient and understanding, I imagine… Well, for all of this cow’s virtues - it only had one vice. It would kick the bucket over right before my aunt had finished the milking. While this was a 2 gallon/day cow - getting a quart into the house was a major accomplishment! Moral: you can have wonderful qualities - but, the strength of a single vice can overshadow them.

Luther went from pointing out abuses to developing his own heretical doctrines. This is a dramatic change and one that honestly deserves real attention.

But at the same time, we have not had any discussion on any points of Luther’s reforms. But we can certainly discuss them here or move to a new topic. And again FYI he was a German Friar. . Yes we can go ahead and talk all about Sola Sciptura, here is a good link although biased but a good explanation of it how it fits into our beliefs. Authority of the Church It’s not the be all end all but it’s a place to start.

I went to the site and read the docuement. My take on the first part is that the group is a bit ‘schizophrenic’ some wanting vestments while others thinking they are not Protestant enough. I do not see how anyone can keep both groups under the same roof for long!

Now, I copied and pasted this portion on Scripture…

[13] In regard to its social witness the ELCA affirms that the Scriptures are normative, but it does not exclude the use of other sources. The sola scriptura principle does not exclude the use of other resources, for that principle had a very limited use in the Reformation era, i.e., a reforming one. That was to oppose ecclesiastical traditions that are contrary to the teachings of the Scriptures. According to Lutheran teaching and practice, the Scriptures must be read, interpreted, and applied in light of the gospel of Christ. That viewpoint has been formulated in the slogan often attributed to Luther: "Scripture is the cradle in which the Christ child lies."8 It is recognized that the Scriptures themselves, as well as their particular teachings, are variegated in authority. For Luther, as well as for the Lutheran tradition, whatever in Scripture presents and urges Christ upon us is apostolic and authoritative; the rest is less so.9

I am in need of two items being clarified:

1.) Using ‘other sources’ when saying that ‘Scripture Alone’ has the answer seems to be contradictory. There are seveal different writing styles in Scripture: history, poetry, first-person accounts, etc - and the use of colorful words, imagery and metaphor are quite common. Interpretation is needed - but what is being addrssed is other resources. What is being used as a resource that is now added to ‘Scripture Alone’?

2.) Now, not to put too fine a point on this quaint metaphor about ‘Scripture is the cradle…’ There is this 400 year gap before the Canon of Scriptre came into existence. The Christ Child is not supported by Scripture - He is the One Who supports, fulfills and makes Scripture what it is - the recorded Promise of God that God has kept and is keeping. Or, am I mistaken here?

I thik the basic idea is that if you come in to make repairs - or reforms - and, suddenly develop an entirely new set of doctrines, you stop being a ‘reformer’ and you become something else. While heretic, schizmatic, and apostate are terms that come to mind - maybe there is anoher term that captures this reality better.

Looking at history, I do not think anyone can really excuse the abuses that were on-going in the Catholic Church at the time of Luther. It appears that everything had a price! The selling of indulgences, church offices, blessings - and having a lax clergy giving public scandal with lives in moral decay is another set of woes. The real issue is not that Luther addressed these issues, but how he addressed them - effectively burning the house down to get rid of rats - is my focus. Luther developed heretical doctrines.

Christ did not appear to Luther and say that the promise made to Peter was being taken back! Rather than internal Lutheran documents, I think the real heart of the matter is in Matt 16:19. It is here that Christ gives the Keys to Peter and signs a blank check telling Peter that WHATEVER YOU BIND - is bound. Luther lost control of his emotions and his focus and created a new church. Maybe there are other ways to see this - but, this is the view I offer to you.

God bless

 

[benedictus2]

I’ve been a Catholic a long time … just made 64!
Hey are you a December baby too?
Belated Happy Birthday.

 

[benedictus2]

Whether the election of one over another was valid or invalid, you still had three of them each asserting their own claim. So how does it make it better? Thanks for sharing the info about the defining of the election process. I had no idea that the previous incumbent got to choose the rules of how to elect the successor. I don’t know that that fact makes me feel any more secure in the Papacy.

As I said before claiming so does not make it so.

That rule does not make me feel secure in the Papacy.

What makes me feel secure is Christ’s guarantee, because I know He is God and is capable of keeping that promise.

In 2000 years of life marked by corruption, debauchery, chaos, the Church still stands and learned Protestants are actually finding their way back to her. If anything, her not so clean history is evidence that she is divinely instituted because empires have risen and fallen but the Church in spite of all that remains - still living her mission and spreading the Gospel. That could only be attributed to her divine origin and her divine nature.

You put your faith too much on men.

 

[benedictus2]

We could talk days about Luther. Personally I see a man who couldn’t rise above his own personal feelings. The fact that others sleepwalked to the end of the night with him isn’t impressive. I believe Erasmus had the “correct” thinking, even though he tended to agree with Luther. “To stick to the Church teaching non dogmatically and admitt as humans we didn’t know the correct course.” Well today if Erasmus had been here, I can assure you he would play a much more active role in those debates. Hindsight is 20-20 which brings us to another well taken point above about “Ignatius of Loyola.”

When we don’t know the correct path, we can’t vary from one we know is proven. Civilized man didn’t happen by accident. God bought that to the table with the Exodus. Ignatius of Loyola is a perfect example of a man we could have used in our time. He clearly seen the problems of his period {which mirror ours in many ways} from above the trees. Thats not easy to do. We also seriously need the help of the “Society of Jesus” within the Church today and we need admitt the mistakes we have made within the Catholic Church, Jesuits and the Eastern Church jump out immediately. We have traveled much to far down this path. We are on a path of destruction. Once civilized man’s society reverts to barbaric ways by influence from the fringes of society which in essence is barbaric, he know longer knows he is barbaric, he no longer knows the path back. Man no mistake about this. Just read the thinking on this forum and its clear to see. We debate foolishness like if we landed on the Moon? Man forgets very, very easily, don’t give Homo Sapien to much credit, God gets the credit. The Catholic/Orthodox Church bought civilization to the heartlands of the America’s and Europe. We did that, and foolishly many of us turned our back on the church being blinded by evils. We need to clearly see and accept this now.

The petty arguments about Luther do little to walk us out of the woods. What postive did Luther bring for man thus God? There are none to be found. Comfortability, does little to walk us out of the dark, on the contrary we need a more concentrated effort today.

As we continue down this path we are at the crossroads and must make some hard choices. We need to focus 100% on the heartlands of Christology. That false sense of “Welcome to the Land of Opportunity” really should read, “Welcome to the Land of Materialism”. It doesn’t work and the sign must come down. Only working prospect is the Catholic/Orthodox Church. While its been all well and fine to debate these issues, because we were afforded the opportunity by success. We lost that edge decades ago. Now we are fighting for man’s very existence.

All the nonsense about physic’s and quantum mechanics. evolution, secularism, capitalism and materialism, communism, marxism, atheism, etc. In case no one’s been paying attention…it doesn’t work, they are cloaked evils!. Only one path has worked. And if we don’t wake up we will one day be homeless in the land our forefathers converted centurys ago. Civilized man will return to his barbaric habits which are so obvious in Africa and Asia “the fringes” of Christology. We, are are now allowing them to poison us. Don’t even get me started on other religion’s because I could define them clearly also. Not working, not the Face of God which Christology bought to the table. We have been shown the face of God with Christ and his Disciples bought us the Church with Peter, given as a gift and predestined future path by Christ. The Mystical Body of Christ…is here for all to partake in. Only requirement is to accept the truth non-dogmatically as Erasmus said so many years ago. Fake it till we make it or it becomes truth/reality.

The sugar coated “christian” written messages don’t seem to impress the gravity of our situation. We are in a sinking ship. The point of no return is so close that it could be felt. When you hear today everyone talking about “somethings in the air,” they can feel “somethings gonna happen.” Thats the point of no-return they feel. Christ gave us a responsibility here, we have not even came close to completing. Theres no wonderfull consolation prize coming. Thats false thinking. There may well be a chastisment coming I don’t know, I’m a man not a prophet. All my glory goes to God.

Listen, I don’t like to go to far over the edge, but Luther and Calvin and all these other denominations which broke off from “us”. We are not afforded the time anymore to debate this till we figure it out seperately. We need to unite the Church. The biggest battle in history isn’t around the corner, we are in it now. We don’t have Luther, Ignatius, Erasmus today but we have Benedict, he is the leading Theologian on Earth today. Don’t miss the message by taking his humility and Christian way for granted. Its not by accident he is where he is. He has played major role in theology since the 80’s, read his books, read “Jesus Christ of Nazareth” if by chance you may believe he isn’t a Genuis. What we need to do is clear, how to unite Christolgy is not clear. But the message of Erasmus once again rings clear, and the direction of Ignatius of Loyola is so clear and apparent. We can correct this, but not divided. That unfortunately we don’t have an option of anymore.

The focus on what is wrong with the Catholic Church is simple distraction. Nothing’s perfect and never has been. Yet we have taken Christs message to the 4-corners of the world. The fact we have made mistakes doesn’t make the path wrong. It just makes us human, unfortunately thats what all of us must carry for a Cross here.

The Mystery none of have known since Mose’s, is Gods People and Israel and the OT. Maybe the answer lies there and we need to look back in that direction now. Maybe they are the glue. That is an unknown.

God Bless, GT

That is beautiful!

 

[benedictus2]

No, just more talking about the fact that when you obstienatly enter into denial of dogmatic Church teaching, as Luther did you cross a line. Whether or not one considers them selves a member of the Church, indeed whether or not one was originally baptized Catholic, does not so much matter as whether or not you truely are in communion with the Church. Luthers obstiant denial of Church doctrine removed him from the Church, we can quibble about when but about this there is no quibbling. The catechism of trent, among many other Church documents makes this clear.

Excellent!

 

[taxman]

As a former Elder of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, I have come to the realization that Luther was flawed. One thing in particular is that even though the Catholic Church had made some errors, as a priest, it was his duty to press the issues to the pope and see it thru. Now b4 anyone brings up the 95 thesis, as his way of bringing them to the attention of the church, or the Augsburg confession,(the princes of German towns), neither was willing to go to Rome to press the issue and see it thru. Neither was willing to go and defend themselves with scripture.

Let me put it in an example of today’s terms. Say you don’t like a law for example speeding. Do you do the speed limit or do you drive what you think it should be? say 80 in a 55mph zone. You get caught doing 80. You tell the cop “You know 55 is just to slow.” instant ticket. The proper way of dealing with it is do the speed limit till you get it raised properly. Luther won’t even go to Worms to answer to the chargers of heresy. He sent a letter to answer to the charges.

And as for pagan rituals that are laced in the RCC if we look at any Christian religion they are all laced with pagan rituals. Like for instance, does anyone have a pine tree in their house? Decorated and presents under them? (okay the presents might be a little early if you have children but you know what I mean.) The tree dates back to druidism, as a fertility symbol and a sign of life through winter, and the giving of gifts dates back to Roman times in the celebration of the Winter Solstice. And let’s look at the celebration of the Resurrection. Be honest know, how many give out Easter candy to their children or spouses or give Easter gifts? This is following in line with the goddess ester (can’t remember if it’s roman or druidism) but hopefully you see where I’m going with this. Alot of pagan rituals were incorporated into the Christian Religion to sway the pagans of the time to come to Christianity. I.E. join the Church.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Now, Mikeoffaith may take me to task on my real knowledge of Luther’s doctrine… but … I think he would agree that Luther was not vague… Anyone who stands before the ‘tough audience’ he did and say, “Here I stand…” does not think he is standing on the ‘meaning of meaning’! He needs to be clear about just what it is that he believes. Now, in my opinion, he was clearly wrong - but, tht is another issue…

Sure I’ll take you to task on your knowledge of Lutheran doctrine. Let’s start with Here I Stand. Luther never said that.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Hi, Mikeoffaith,

Did you ever get around to reading Post 433 and respond to it - or, did I miss it?

God bless

Tom

Hi Tom-

I did.

Mike

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Taxman,

Welcome to CAF! I think you will find it a real source of insight and knowledgable dialogue.

Let me ask you about the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as understood by Lutheran doctrine.

As a former Elder of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, I have come to the realization that Luther was flawed. One thing in particular is that even though the Catholic Church had made some errors, as a priest, it was his duty to press the issues to the pope and see it thru. Now b4 anyone brings up the 95 thesis, as his way of bringing them to the attention of the church, or the Augsburg confession,(the princes of German towns), neither was willing to go to Rome to press the issue and see it thru. Neither was willing to go and defend themselves with scripture.

Matt 16:19 identifies that Christ gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom and the authority to bind and lose. While Protestants may have some question about Peter being the rock that Christ founded His Church (and that would be the Catholic Church) on, there should be no questions about the Keys and the delegated authority Christ gave on that day. Yet there apparently is. Why is that?

God bless

 

[Mikeoffaith]

And if you have read my post before, you have just once again reiterated that Christ is a liar and not God. He builds a church but it seems quite incapable of keeping that Church in tact. He allows His Church to be taken over by the devil contrary to His promise and His prayer. Not only is He unable to keep a promise, it seems His prayer is ineffective and pointless and His Father was not listening to Him after all. So you just confirmed what I have already said a few times before, that you believe Christ a liar - only you won’t say it in so many words. Or maybe you have not even realized that your position in this one amounts to exactly just that.

No this is what you keep insinuating, but it’s not. You have one single definition and perspective of Church which I don’t share. So you can keep accusing me of calling Christ a liar and maybe it will make your argument more plausible.

That again is a fairy tale you tell yourself. I saw the schematic diagram in a Lutheran website of how you see this. And this is a fairy tale. The fact remains that the church formed at Pentecost subsists in the Catholic Church. Even History bears that out. The mark of Christ’s Church is that it is universal. We see that in the Catholic Church today. There was not two Churches of Christ, there was only 1, the Catholic church with a branch that separated from her.

That is your perspective and is only shared by your church. My church and the Orthodox see it differently. Clearly, the Roman Catholic Church isn’t universal since it doesn’t encompass the Orthodox or Lutherans.

Because you do not obviously know history. And because you have set your mind this is what you believe no matter how many proofs people provide that is what you belive. You have decided that you are not after the truth, only that what you believe to which you have put a label “truth”.

I can certainly say the same of you.

The will of Christ does not need healing. What people have done to the will of Christ is what needs to be attended to. And the only way to bridge the divide is by preaching the truth no matter how unpalatable it may be to some. Blurring the difference will not make the difference disappear. The only way the divide will go is if people actually faced the truth and abandoned their heretical views and came back to the church.

Sorry that should have read heeding. I think the only way to heal the divide is to live the Gospel completely. Until Rome is willing to humble itself to the life Christ calls us to live then there is never going to be any hope of healing.

continued

 

[Mikeoffaith]

And I do not see that ever happening in the near future. Anything else is NOT a bridging of the schism. Accepting that these other denominations have the right to remain separate is accepting the schism as a true following of the will of Christ and it is not.

Near future? It depends on your definition of near future. I’m not saying that the schism will end with us being all separate. Allowing the schism to perpetuate is not following the will of Christ. You are under the impression that I need the Roman Catholic Church to look like a Lutheran Church for this schism to heal. I don’t. However, if the discussion is always I’m right you are wrong, then we will be sitting in the same boat. If there is no understanding of the differences then vs the differences today, and where each side would be or not willing to compromise, then there is never going to be healing.

Well hello, can Christ contradict Himself? He was very clear in Matthew 16. He goes to the trouble of going to Ceasaria Philipi to make this proclamation. You are probably not even aware of the significance of this - that He went to Ceasaria Philipi.

Again, you and I see this differently. I don’t see one excluding the other, but I don’t read Matt 16 in the same light you do. Nor do I need to. But I do see a contradiction in your view and it’s in Luke.

And that is PRECISELY WHY He established a Church. Note the promise He makes with regards the paraclete - the Paraclete will remind the apostles of everything He told them.

Yes I agree. But I don’t see Benedict as an apostle any more than Bartholomew.

Well not according to Jesus Himself. That is the whole point of giving the Church the Holy Spirit. He knows it will be tainted that is why He made a guarantee so that we will not be in doubt as to the veracity of His Church’s teaching. And in cases of heresy we know who has always spoken the truth.

Yes and it has always been the Church that has spoken not Rome. You seem to think that the Church has always centered around Rome, but it hasn’t. You need to read your history better.

You are very much a relativist though you may not even be aware of it.It is logically untenable for a Christian to hold a relativistic ecclesiology without doing damage to the very foundation of Christianity.

And I say you are a relativist as well. The very fact that Rome chooses to emphasize Matt 16 with a certain bias and tends not to expound on Luke 22 is this same relativist thinking that I think we all are guilty of. And do not read this as a judgement against.

I never claimed to have the full truth. What I did say is that the full truth will be revealed to the Church that Christ established because I believe Jesus is God and if He said so then it must be so.We grasp the truth and it becomes clearer, we begin to see the the wider and deeper layers. But what we see now will be consistent with any deeper understanding that will come later. They CANNOT CONTRADICT each other. Any true development of doctrine does not contradict that which is supposed to be being developed. Otherwise it is a corruption not a developement. This is what happened with Protestant theology - it was not a development but a corruption.

And this is how I view the Papacy.

That’s all for now as my lunch hour is over.

I hope you made time to eat!

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;7339694]
And if you have read my post before, you have just once again reiterated that Christ is a liar and not God.

He builds a church but it seems quite incapable of keeping that Church in tact. He allows His Church to be taken over by the devil contrary to His promise and His prayer. Not only is He unable to keep a promise, it seems His prayer is ineffective and pointless and His Father was not listening to Him after all.

So you just confirmed what I have already said a few times before, that you believe Christ a liar - only you won’t say it in so many words. Or maybe you have not even realized that your position in this one amounts to exactly just that.

You know, Cory, this is one of my least favorite Catholic apologists polemics. It is completely temporal thinking, for it alleges that the Church only exists on Earth. For His Church to be taken over by Satan, Satan’s minions would be overrunning the Church Triumphant. Ridiculous, wouldn’t you say?

Jon