I'm no expert on Luther and Lutheran theology, but I don't see much difference between transubstantion and consubstantiation, and therefore not much difference with respect to the mass, although the sense of the sacrifice of the mass is obviously a bigger difference, yet some modern Catholic theologians present this in a manner that is, I believe, hardly controversial. We faithfully join ourselves to the sacrifice of Christ, ie, a sharing in the blood and body of Christ. As for the pope, they come and go, and disagree among themselves, and cannot take the place of the individual conscience of each believer. Canonization of saints, is that really that much of a problem? If we can agree to disagree about papal infallibility (and Catholic theologians can do that privately), canonizations are just a subset of that. Purgatory? Heck, if we can tolerate the Book of Qohelet in our canon of Scripture, we ought to be able to agree to disagree on purgatory without cursing and anathematizing each other.
Announcement
Collapse
Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines
Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.
This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining 'Christian' for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining 'Christian' for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Explain to me Martin Luther
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by TimelessTheist View PostLuther, himself, stated the opposite:
"The chief cause that I fell out with the pope was this: the pope boasted that he was the head of the Church, and condemned all that would not be under his power and authority; for he said, although Christ be the head of the Church, yet, notwithstanding, there must be a corporal head of the Church upon earth. With this I could have been content, had he but taught the gospel pure and clear, and not introduced human inventions and lies in its stead. Further, he took upon him power, rule, and authority over the Christian Church, and over the Holy Scriptures, the Word of God; no man must presume to expound the Scriptures, but only he, and according to his ridiculous conceits; so that he made himself lord over the Church, proclaiming her at the same time a powerful mother, and empress over the Scriptures, to which we must yield and be obedient; this was not to be endured. They who, against God's Word, boast of the Church's authority, are mere idiots. The pope attributes more power to the Church, which is begotten and born, than to the Word, which has begotten, conceived, and born the Church."
It wasn't his "eventual position". He flat out states that he left the Church because 1) The Church has a Pope. 2) The Pope doesn't teach his Lutherean doctrines.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostDid you read what you quoted?With this, I could have been content
so that he made himself lord over the Church, proclaiming her at the same time a powerful mother, and empress over the Scriptures, to which we must yield and be obedient; this was not to be endured. They who, against God's Word, boast of the Church's authority, are mere idiots.
If they would teach the gospel, clear and true, and stop injecting human inventions and liesLast edited by TimelessTheist; 05-30-2014, 02:44 PM.Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.
-Thomas Aquinas
I love to travel, But hate to arrive.
-Hernando Cortez
What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?
-Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostBecause those are the central tenets of the Christian faith.
Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.
-Thomas Aquinas
I love to travel, But hate to arrive.
-Hernando Cortez
What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?
-Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor
Comment
-
Originally posted by TimelessTheist View PostThey are for Catholics, and if he denied all those things, that pretty much destroys any insinuation that Luther was just trying to "reform" the Church.
So if Luther wasn't trying to reform the church - that is, make changes in it to improve it, what do you say he was doing?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View Post
So if Luther wasn't trying to reform the church - that is, make changes in it to improve it, what do you say he was doing?Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.
-Thomas Aquinas
I love to travel, But hate to arrive.
-Hernando Cortez
What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?
-Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor
Comment
-
Originally posted by TimelessTheist View PostYou know, meaning that he would simply tolerate it, not accept it. You also seemed to have missed the rest of it, where he keeps ranting about the Pope being the head of the Church, and declaring himself an authority and "lord" over the Church, and such. It clearly doesn't sound like he accepts the papacy, the way he berates it, and ridicules it, and declares it false, all through the rest of the writing, such as this part:
What do you call 'that' exactly, but a clear condemnation of the system?
Right there. He's not talking about their ethical practices, he's flat out saying that all their doctrine is all wrong.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostEr, try reading it so he's not directly contradicting himself. He clearly accepted the idea of the papacy; it was the pope's abuse of the system and the false teachings of that pope he was railing against.
the false teachings of that pope he was railing against.
Er, try reading it so he's not directly contradicting himself.Last edited by TimelessTheist; 05-30-2014, 03:39 PM.Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.
-Thomas Aquinas
I love to travel, But hate to arrive.
-Hernando Cortez
What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?
-Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostLast edited by TimelessTheist; 05-30-2014, 03:52 PM.Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.
-Thomas Aquinas
I love to travel, But hate to arrive.
-Hernando Cortez
What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?
-Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor
Comment
-
Originally posted by TimelessTheist View PostHe was a contrarian who got excommunicated, then , out of pure avarice to the church, purposely developed a theology where the Pope was the antichrist. He was also an extremely strong advocate of the divine right of kings, and, as such, the reformation was used only as a tool, for the kings and princes to push away the influence o of the church, the only thing keeping them in check, which allowed them to have absolute power over church and state and viciously oppress their people. Why he is revered, I have no idea. His "reformation" was so bad, even he, himself, had regretted what he had done.Originally posted by TimelessTheist View PostHis critism of the sale of indulgences was unfounded, as that was a practice that the Church did many times in the past as well, to fund projects such as cathedrals and the Crusades, although I agree that many people lower on the rung did abuse the system, however, if you actually know what an indulgence actually does, the proposition that people can "buy forgiveness" is clearly unfounded.Last edited by RBerman; 05-30-2014, 05:08 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TimelessTheist View PostLuther, himself, stated the opposite:
"The chief cause that I fell out with the pope was this: the pope boasted that he was the head of the Church, and condemned all that would not be under his power and authority; for he said, although Christ be the head of the Church, yet, notwithstanding, there must be a corporal head of the Church upon earth. With this I could have been content, had he but taught the gospel pure and clear, and not introduced human inventions and lies in its stead. Further, he took upon him power, rule, and authority over the Christian Church, and over the Holy Scriptures, the Word of God; no man must presume to expound the Scriptures, but only he, and according to his ridiculous conceits; so that he made himself lord over the Church, proclaiming her at the same time a powerful mother, and empress over the Scriptures, to which we must yield and be obedient; this was not to be endured. They who, against God's Word, boast of the Church's authority, are mere idiots. The pope attributes more power to the Church, which is begotten and born, than to the Word, which has begotten, conceived, and born the Church."
It wasn't his "eventual position". He flat out states that he left the Church because 1) The Church has a Pope. 2) The Pope doesn't teach his Lutherean doctrines.
Comment
-
Remember that Luther wasn't the only one calling for the corruption to change. Emeritus (who remained Catholic) wanted it done away with as well. Even modern day Catholic Church scholars agree that corruption of the highest rank was quite easily the cause of the reformation. That is even though they disagree with Luther's methods. If you ignore the facts and the whys of the reformation you simply ignore why we have other churches in the 1st place. Pope Leo X wasn't willing to do what was necessary to change the Church, and Luther wasn't willing to stay around to help. Note How Leo X isn't a saint nor is recognized as a candidate for sainthood and certainly was as corrupt as they all were. Luther and the Pope essentially excommunicated each other. And if you think the criticism of the sale of indulgences was unfounded, maybe you ought to read the "Roots of the Reformation" As it will give you a very good insight. Its impramatured and stamped, and yes, I own a copy.A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
George Bernard Shaw
Comment
-
Originally posted by Catholicity View PostRemember that Luther wasn't the only one calling for the corruption to change. Emeritus (who remained Catholic) wanted it done away with as well. Even modern day Catholic Church scholars agree that corruption of the highest rank was quite easily the cause of the reformation. That is even though they disagree with Luther's methods. If you ignore the facts and the whys of the reformation you simply ignore why we have other churches in the 1st place. Pope Leo X wasn't willing to do what was necessary to change the Church, and Luther wasn't willing to stay around to help. Note How Leo X isn't a saint nor is recognized as a candidate for sainthood and certainly was as corrupt as they all were. Luther and the Pope essentially excommunicated each other. And if you think the criticism of the sale of indulgences was unfounded, maybe you ought to read the "Roots of the Reformation" As it will give you a very good insight. Its impramatured and stamped, and yes, I own a copy.
"Leo X was lavish in charity: retirement homes, hospitals, convents, discharged soldiers, pilgrims, poor students, exiles, cripples and the sick, unfortunates of every description were generously remembered, and more than 6,000 ducats were annually distributed in alms"
I'll have to look into your other accusations of "corruption of the highest rank" as well.e ' of Reformation was that the kings and princes forced their subjects to adhere to the Reformation through the methods of harassment, strategic seizure of property, imprisonment and/or execution of prominent figures who stood against the Reformation, and military oppression. This took place everywhere the Reformation spread.
Example: The new King of the Danes, Frederick of Schleswig-Holstein was put in power after the old king, Frederick's nephew, was expelled for violating the Church's rights, and for trying to institute his own tyranny by taking rights away from the nobles, and enforcing his absolution of politics. However, once he was in power, in true violation of his coronary oath to remain faithful to the Church and to expel heresy, he revealed himself to be a secret Lutheran, and started pushing the Reformation on his citizens. After his death, the population, fearing that Protestantism would be forced upon them, as it was in the other countries, rallied behind Count Christopher of Oldenburg, and instituted him as the new king. However, the nobles, with the help of the Swedes (Protestantism had taken over Sweden by now) started a revolt, upsurped power from Christopher, and placed Frederick's Lutheran son into power, who's first act as king was to arrest all the Catholic bishops, only offering them freedom if they would conform to Lutheranism. Now, Iceland, which was under the ownership of Denmark at the time, knew that this king was a liar and a fraud, and obtained his kingship through illegitimate means. They were also able to erect a militia of Catholic insurgents to expel his advances by force, so as to reject his pushing of the Reformation on them. In response, the king sent an army to Iceland, fought them for years, and finally conquered them and forced the Reformation on them.
These are not the actions taken by some righteous revolution of the people. Heck, a "revolution" implies that it was propagated 'by' the people, not forced on them by a totalitarian regime of power-hungry kings and princes.
Reason for Edit: It was Iceland, not Norway. Sorry about that.Last edited by TimelessTheist; 05-30-2014, 09:00 PM.Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.
-Thomas Aquinas
I love to travel, But hate to arrive.
-Hernando Cortez
What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?
-Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor
Comment
-
Originally posted by RBerman View PostYou're reading how he described his experience in 1535, almost twenty years after his attempts at Reform had begun, and almost 15 years after his excommunication. He does not say that he "left the Church." He says that he "fell out with the Pope." If you'll read his 95 Theses from 1517, you'll find that not only does Luther not criticize the Pope, he assumes that the Pope rightly has, and rightly uses, a divine authority to ease men's time in Purgatory. Thesis #61 is representative: "For it is clear that the power of the pope suffices, by itself, for the remission of penalties and reserved cases." Thesis #91 assumes that the abuses of indulgences reflect the practices of pardoners who are failing to follow the Pope's "spirit and mind" as they should. Luther started out assuming good faith on the part of Rome. It was only when he endured repeated threats to his spiritual state and his person by Rome's delegates that he saw that the corruption went much higher up than he had ever feared or dreamed, but even then, he remained a son of the Roman Church until the day he was expelled.He does not say that he "left the Church." He says that he "fell out with the Pope."Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.
-Thomas Aquinas
I love to travel, But hate to arrive.
-Hernando Cortez
What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?
-Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Diogenes, 06-01-2024, 09:38 AM
|
3 responses
33 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by KingsGambit
06-02-2024, 02:44 PM
|
Comment