Luther vs Catholic Church

Albion said:

Have you looked it up? I just did an online search and found entry after entry that gave nearly-identical definitions, and that included one that was a Catholic website.

Click to expand...

But that has NEVER been the official teaching of the Church. If you want to quote authoritatively, use the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Goatee said:

Very predictable indeed............

Click to expand...

Apparently I can't even wish someone a good day.

Strange.

amariselle said:

In fact, even the Popes throughout history couldn't agree with each other.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but I'm going to ask you to prove that, with a list of popes who, for instance taught the the Bread and Wine only symbolize the Body and Blood of Jesus.

amariselle said:

I have no issue with you believing as you so choose. It's everyone's right to do so.

I've done my research and have personal, first hand experience with Catholicism as well.

I'm not nearly as ignorant or uninformed as you think.

Click to expand...

But every time you you write about the things in the Catholic Church, you betray your total ignorance.

amariselle said:

You apparently missed the point of my post.

Click to expand...

No, most intelligent people would understand what you wrote. But what you were saying in that post was WRONG.

Wrong on both counts.

There are all sorts of meanings for sola scriptura as adherents realise none of the definitions are supportable and easily disprovable, they shift to another equally unsupportable version.

RCC is clear about the Eucharist as were early fathers , in fact nobody seriously doubted it for millennia.
If people don't believe the dogma, they are no longer catholics and they know where the door is.

Go read ignatius to the smyrneans, see what the apostles handed down, even the liturgy has barely changed since it adapted Jewish rituals of such as Seder and put them in their new covenant context. From early days it was referred to as a sacrifice, and the word mass used to describe it predates the New Testament.

And as for doctrinal variations you are just as wrong there.
The 10000 variants did not exist till the reformation. Till the silliness of sola scriptura, all believed much the same things all the way from early church, except for a minority of outed heresies,

The apostasy was the reformation.
And their the lines of succession broke.
Ex catholic priests excommunicated for preaching heresy or pledging loyalty to an earthly king, no longer have succession
Sola scriptura fractured Christianity till Luther lamented there were now " as many doctrines as heads"

All reformers had to pretend an apostasy earlier
But The attempts to show apostasy all fail, particularly constantines reign, since the ministry of those who spanned it never changed. Read anasthasius. Sure understanding evolved a little., the song remains the same.

Albion said:

Sola Scriptura has a meaning.

If some people come up with another or do not understand the meaning of Sola Scriptura, it's not a lot different from the situation in your church in which many people believe Holy Communion to be merely symbolic of Christ's body and blood.

But you don't read Protestants here on CF posting every day that "there are all sorts of views of the sacrament among Catholics, so who knows what it means or what the church stands for--there's nothing but confusion and disagreement," etc.

Click to expand...

amariselle said:

Actually, no. I don't pray to Luther

Click to expand...

There's an idea. Saint Luther.
You can have your own saints!

Monk Brendan said:

But he himself broke his vow to God, and persuaded others to do the same.

Click to expand...

A vow that the church had no right to extract from him. Would you say the same about a Hitler Youth member who gave his oath to die for Hitler and later decided it had been wrong to do? Luther, you know, came to believe that the church went against God's laws, the laws of nature, in denying marriage--and he was known to hold these beliefs years before he met his future wife, while he was still completely disinterested in marrying anyone himself.

His marriage might have been a happy one, but was it a holy one?

Click to expand...

From all that we know, yes.

Mountainmike said:

Wrong on both counts.

There are all sorts of meanings for sola scriptura

Click to expand...

No. There are not. There are, however, people who misuse or misunderstand the term.

Monk Brendan said:

No, most intelligent people would understand what you wrote. But what you were saying in that post was WRONG.

Click to expand...

Since, in the post you're referring to, I was speaking of my own personal experience and the decision I came to through my research, as well as that I love and care for many Catholics, that's not something you have the right to say.

Monk Brendan said:

But every time you you write about the things in the Catholic Church, you betray your total ignorance.

Click to expand...

Okay, so the Catholic Church doesn't have any doctrines/traditions regarding the following?

Purgatory
Penance
The Eurcharist
Confession
Mary/The Rosary/Mediatrix of All Graces
Indulgences
Venial and Mortal Sins
The Saints

And the Catholic Church doesn't teach that all of these and more play a part in salvation?

Monk Brendan said:

The things described here, are sinful and wrong. I disagree with such acts as well, and yet I am not a Protestant.

And indulgences for money has been done away with--The Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences, and, because of prior abuses, "in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions" (Catholic Encyclopedia). This act proved the Church’s seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences.

Click to expand...

Well they just kinda changed it a little. The church I went to, St. John The Baptist, Whiting Indiana has two corners, with statues of Mary in each. Each one has a money slot, where you drop your money, light a candle and pray to Mary that your dead loved ones sins be forgiven, they'll be released from purgatory just a little early. No, they aren't selling them.

In Christ
Daniel

Here is just one example of a Catholic doctrine/tradition (from the Official Catechism) that completely contradicts Scripture:

Here is what the Catholic Catechism says:

III. The Final Purification, or Purgatory

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

Here is what the Bible says, in part, regarding how Christ Himself has perfectly "purged" our sins and complete forgiveness is found in Him, with no need of any further sacrifice to make His sacrifice perfect, and also how when we die, we will be present with the Lord, not in Purgatory.

"After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.

Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." - John 19:28-30

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high..." - Hebrews 1:1-3

"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

But this man, after he had offered
one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God..." - Hebrews 10:10-12

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." - 1 John 1:8-9

"Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:

(For we walk by faith, not by sight

We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. - 2 Corinthians 5:6-8

Goatee said:

I have found it interesting lately learning a little about Luther and the Pope / Catholic Church.

I am only just starting to find out more! Why? I need to find out his beliefs, how he viewed the CC hierarchy and how pious was he?

Some of the things I have recently learned have opened my eyes a bit and I want to dig deeper but with an open mind on it all.

Luther started out as a Catholic. He must have had strong faith in the church? What were the main reasons why he turned on the church? Was he in the right with the beliefs he had about the Pope and the Bible etc?

Anyone here delved into his life and beliefs in detail?

Click to expand...

The Catholic Church as it had developed in feudal Europe up until that point was based in the idea of one, Catholic world, all politically — and spiritually— united under the pope.
But the Europe of Luther's time was no longer that territory of feudal Catholic fiefdoms. Nations were growing into powers of their own right, and the papacy no longer spoke for these local interests. Latin was no longer the linguistic glue that held the European upper class into a unitary cultural system, as new forms of wealth and a new bourgeoisie class were now the movers and shakers, displacing the former feudal land-based gentry as the power brokers of Europe.
These new political and economic forces in Europe could offer Luther protection. He in turn could offer them something that would be able to put their souls at rest, and this was the concept of the 'priesthood of all believers'.
'No salvation outside of the Catholic Church' prior to Luther was a chilling concept for anyone who wanted to break with a Rome that represented different political and economic interests than their own.

It was believed by all Christians of the time that only a valid, ordained priesthood (legitimated by that unbroken chain of laying on of hands stretching back to the Apostles and ultimately to Christ) was capable of bestowing the graces of sacraments upon the flock, and without the sacraments, people could almost literally feel the heat of the flames of hell licking at their heels. 'No salvation outside of the Catholic Church' was intimately tied to no salvation without sacraments bestowed on the sinner by that ordained, valid priesthood.

Break the chain, go to hell.

But the concept of 'priesthood of believer' developed from Luther's theology robbed the Catholic ecclesiastical classes of this ultimate deterrent to any questioning of their authority, political, spiritual, or otherwise.

That is what was able to break the back of the medieval Christian Church and loosen its grip on the Christian imagination.

Luther himself was very Catholic in almost all senses. His original intent, like many Catholics of his day, was not a schism, but a reformation of the Catholic Church. But as the political disintegration of a unified Europe continued under of the rise of the nation states, there was no turning back to such a unitary Catholic Church, reformed of otherwise. The Europe of that Catholic Church simply no longer existed as a political entity, and hadn't existed for quite some time, truth be told.
For their part, Catholic nations joined into a counter reformation, and henceforth arose the nation states of Catholicism. In effect, even Catholic powers bought into the system that Luther's theology gave the theological legitimation for. The Catholic theocracy of Europe was reorganized into national churches supporting their respective nation states who in turn alone were able to politically and military defend them from each other.

amariselle said:

Here is just one example of a Catholic doctrine/tradition (from the Official Catechism) that completely contradicts Scripture:

Here is what the Catholic Catechism says:

III. The Final Purification, or Purgatory

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

Here is what the Bible says, in part, regarding how Christ Himself has perfectly "purged" our sins and complete forgiveness is found in Him, with no need of any further sacrifice to make His sacrifice perfect, and also how when we die, we will be present with the Lord, not in Purgatory.

"After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.

Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." - John 19:28-30

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high..." - Hebrews 1:1-3

"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

But this man, after he had offered
one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God..." - Hebrews 10:10-12

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." - 1 John 1:8-9

"Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:

(For we walk by faith, not by sight

We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. - 2 Corinthians 5:6-8

Click to expand...

Scripture. Amen.

But none of these verses contradict the Catholic doctrine on purgatory. That is your problem.

PeaceB said:

Scripture. Amen.

But none of these verses contradict the Catholic doctrine on purgatory. That is your problem.

Click to expand...

They absolutely do, in every way.

Purgatory denies that Christ's sacrifice alone was sufficient. Those verses and others in Scripture say otherwise.

Christ by Himself purged our sins.

Also, as Paul wrote, when we die (are absent from the body) we are present with the Lord.

There is absolutely no case to be made from Scripture for a place called Purgatory, where the remaining sins of Christians are "purified." They already have been, by the one time all sufficient sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

Here is another verse that clearly says that Jesus alone is our "Advocate" and "Propitiation" for sin:

"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." - 1 John 2:1-2

It is finished! Complete! One sacrifice, once for all time. We who have believed and are saved should have no fear (even if we sin) that there is something left undone or that Jesus will ever leave us or forsake us. He will not, He has promised, and He is always faithful to His promises.

Jesus has not failed to purge our sins completely on the cross. There is nothing that we can ever add to the perfect sacrifice of Christ.

This is good news!

Edit:

These verses also:

"By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:

But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." - Hebrews 7:22-25

amariselle said:

Christ by Himself purged our sins.

Click to expand...

Yes, our Lord did purge our sins by himself.

You seem to think that by the doctrine of purgatory, we merit forgiveness of our sins through our suffering or punishment. But this is not what the Catholic Church teaches. It is by the blood of Christ by which we are purified during purgatory. It is impossible for us to merit anything in purgatory.

Are you sure that you understand Catholicism?

Here some Scripture for you.

In your opinion, why does verse 23 state "better sacrifices" instead of "a better sacrifice"? In other words, why does the author use the plural, "sacrifices" rather than the singular "sacrifice"?

Here is another question for you. I assume that you pray the Lord's prayer from time to time. The version in Luke (KJV) states: "And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us."

When you pray, why do you ask God to forgive your sins, if all of your past, present, and future sins were already forgiven by God at the moment that you were saved? Why is it that you pray for what you believe you have already received?

Stabat Mater said:

Just to specify one thing about the selling of indulgence, the Vatican never approved of it. Johann Tetzel acted on his own, obviously under the approval of his bishop but not endorsed by the Vatican nor the pope himself.

That being said the selling of indulgence was disgusting indeed.

Click to expand...

Tetzel was known for his ingenuity.

Pope Leo X (A.D. 1475-1521) commissioned John Tetzel, a Dominican monk, to travel throughout Germany selling indulgences on behalf of the Church. Tetzel declared that as soon as the coins “clinked” in his money chest, the souls of those for whom the indulgences had been purchased would fly out of purgatory.

These indulgences not only bestowed pardon for sins committed already, they were used to license the commission of futuretransgressions as well. In the classic volume, The Life and Times of Martin Luther, noted historian Merle D’Aubigne relates an amusing episode relative to this practice.

A certain Saxon nobleman heard John Tetzel proclaiming his doctrine of indulgences, and the gentleman was much aggravated at this perversion of truth. Accordingly, he approached the monk one day and inquired as to whether he might purchase an indulgence for a sin he intended to commit.

“Most assuredly,” replied Tetzel, “I have received full powers from his holiness for that purpose.” After some haggling, a fee of thirty crowns was agreed upon, and the nobleman departed.

Together with some friends, he hid himself in a nearby forest. Presently, as Tetzel journeyed that way, the knight and his mischievous companions fell upon the papal salesman, gave him a light beating, and relieved him of his money, apparently taking no pains to disguise themselves.

Tetzel was enraged by the foul deed and filed suit in the courts. When the nobleman appeared as the defendant, he produced the letter of exemption containing John Tetzel’s personal signature, which absolved the Saxon of any liability. When Duke George (the judge before whom the action was brought) examined the document, exasperated though he was, he ordered the accused to be released.
John Tetzel's Indulgences