Posted on 01/15/2017 10:40:32 PM PST by ebb tide
I want to say to you, about myself, that I am a child of this age, a child of unfaith and scepticism, and probably (indeed I know it) shall remain so to the end of my life.
– Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I find it on any showing quite ludicrous to suppose that, for nineteen of Christendom’s twenty centuries, Christians were credulous idiots ready to believe any tomfoolery the Bible fostered. . . For one thing, it would seem to me that our twentieth century, far from being notable for scientific scepticism, is one of the most credulous eras in all history. It is not that people believe in nothing – which would be bad enough – but that they believe in anything – which is really terrible.
– Malcolm Muggeridge
While Amoris Laetitia is turning hot the ecclesial cold war between novelty and tradition that erupted in the wake of Vatican II, there is still a tendency to be myopic about our times. Ross Douthat has pronounced that the battle over Amoris Laetitia has reached the level of “genuinely historic theological controversy (Jesuit-Jansenist level, at least, if not quite Arian-Athanasian).” We see the speck, but we do not see the beam. Worse than Jansenism, worse than Arian heresy, for the past 500 years, the Church has been torn apart – certainly by Modernism, that heresy of “synthesis,” but also by Modernism’s close cousin, modernity.
Modernity is the admixture of two different heresies: Martin Luther’s attack on Catholic theology, which rent the individual Christian from the Church, and Henry VIII’s attack on the Church’s teaching concerning the jurisdictional boundaries between Church and State. Though contemporaries, Luther and Henry were enemies. Henry penned his famous attack on Luther in 1521, “In Defense of the Seven Sacraments (Assertio septem Sacramentorum adversus Martin Lutherum),” which won the English king the title “Defender of the Faith” (Fidei defensor) from Pope Leo X. Luther responded by showing his mettle: a world-class foul mouth and penchant for ad hominem attacks, responding to Henry’s reasoned arguments simply by calling him “a pig, dolt, and liar who deserved, among other things, to be covered in excrement.” Yet despite the personal dislike these two men had for each other, they unleashed the tandem of forces destined to destroy Christendom: Luther’s isolated individualism and Henry’s monolithic state were amalgamated into the twin pillars of modern secularism.
In the early 16th century, few could understand what was happening. Not surprisingly, one was St. Thomas More.
More additionally expressed concern to his son-in-law William Roper that because of complacent Catholic attitudes, the war against Luther would not be won: “I pray God … that some of us, as high as we seem to sit upon the mountains, treading heretics under our feet like ants, live not the day, that we gladly would wish to be at league and composition with them, to let them have their churches quietly to themselves; so that they would be content to let us have ours quietly to ourselves.”1
More was not a theologian, but a lawyer. For him, law was not an end in itself, but an indispensable aid in assisting individuals and societies to attain their proper temporal and spiritual ends. He believed – consistent with the Gelasian theory of the two swords – that the Church and the State had different roles and different jurisdictions. More understood that harmony between the two was essential and that if the balance were disturbed, man would suffer evils to body and soul.
While Thomas More is best known for his defense of the papacy, which led to his execution, More had an earlier disagreement with Henry VIII wherein he, ironically, claimed that Henry had given the papacy an unduly large role in temporal affairs. Though an enemy of Tudor totalitarianism, the great saint and scholar was no ultramontanist.
In recent years, we seemingly have seen the Roman pontiff ambiguously; indirectly; unofficially; and, by way of proxy, all but officially approve the attempted Kasperite transvaluation of adultery from mortal sin into a mulligan-worthy bad break. The mechanism of this “mercy” is a counterfeit version of “conscience,” warped to look more Lutheran than Catholic. The meme of Pope Francis as Luther is no joke; rather, it captures the hopes of some (the Kasperites) and the fears of others (serious Catholics) within the Church.
While Kasperism’s deformed theology has been well documented, what has received less attention is Cardinal Kasper’s completely misguided approach to Church-State relations. Formerly, the Church understood that the proper realm of the Church was the administration of the divine law, while the State administered the natural law. In other words, the Church preserved and promulgated the Good News for the salvation of souls; the State took care for the temporal common good of its citizenry (which oftentimes could contain non-Christians). While the framework of the Church’s thought was theological, the common good was rooted in natural law – rational precepts that Christians, Jews, and pagans were bound to acknowledge.
In a journal article from 1990, Cardinal Kasper praises the post-Vatican II practice of addressing the secular world in theological language rather than in terms of the Natural law:
[W]e Christians cannot counter the threat to humanity merely by an appeal to a minimal consensus founded in natural law. We must respond with all the concrete fullness and the concentrated strength of our Christian faith, and mobilize all its forces against the powers of injustice, violence, and death.2
In typical Kasperspeak, the cardinal criticized the “abstract foundation” of former practice in favor of “concrete realization.” The idea that it is more effective to address “the world” in theological language is idiotic, naïve, and disingenuous. Why? Because the “concrete realization” is that if I am an avowed Jew or Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu or agnostic or atheist, chances are, I don’t give a flying fig about what Jesus said or did, nor about the theological position His Church may take on issues. On the other hand, an appeal to natural reason demands respect from the rational non-Christian (and if your interlocutor isn’t reasonable, should you really be dialoguing in the first place?). What Kasper’s theory of Church-State dialogue does is sideline the Church as an intellectual and cultural force.
For the muddled modern mind, not knowing how to talk about a subject belies not knowing how to act, either. While Pope Francis’s actions (and inactions) have led to his earning crypto-Lutheran credentials in some quarters, his foray into launching an investigation into the internal affairs of the Sovereign Military Order of the Knights of Malta might earn him another meme as Pope Henry VIII, destroyer of the Gelasian two-swords theory.
Rather than lament what seems to be a clash between the Knights of Malta and the Vatican, we should view current developments as a blessing. The theological errors of Luther have become inextricably intertwined with the jurisdictional errors of Henry, and both need to be addressed before salvation history can move on. When the new Christian springtime does come, it will be rooted in the soil of the perennial teachings of the Church, both theological and social.
1 Roper’s Life of More
2 “The Theological Foundations Of Human Rights,” The Jurist 50 (1990), 148-166
Martin Luther & King?
This is an interesting article in that it completely ignores Romes role in creating Luther and it’s role in creating the Church of England.
Conveniently, it makes the argument that all todays bad things came from the Protestant Reformation, though it doesn’t use those words because the author apparently believes that Rome never needed reforming.
Nonsense is what this article represents
Satan was Luther's master.
God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly . . . as long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. . . . No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day.” (Letter to Melanchthon, August 1, 1521, American Edition, Luther’s Works, vol. 48, pp. 281-82)
This can only be expected of a follower of Satan, not a follower of Christ. Such is Luther. As is typical of Satan, Luther also spoke against doing good works, contrary to what our Lord Jesus Christ taught us (Matthew 5:16). He stated: “It is more important to guard against good works than against sin.” (Trischreden, Wittenberg Edition, Vol VI, p160)
Luther was shameful enough to even call marriage as sinful, even though Scripture clearly teaches otherwise: “The matrimonial duty is never performed without sin” (Weimar, Vol.8, p654) Since Luther has inverted good for evil and evil for good, then God clearly pronounces His woes upon him. (Isaiah 5:20-25).
Luther clearly shows himself once again not only to be a heretic, but even worse, an antichrist and a devil.
I suppose despite all evidence to the contrary, that there never have been satanic popes, in your mind? All this energy expended upon a man who left your church, so reviled because of that, when you’ve got so much compelling source material in your churches’ history, as far as every single thing you seem to want to pin solely on Martin Luther. It’s just not persuasive, you’re preaching to your own choir and not swaying anyone else.
Rome was corrupt and bureaucratic during the time of Luther. Rome created Luther itself.
Luther had a point that he pressed and he was right. The church was corrupt.
“Martin Luther Was Satanic, If He Were Alive Today He Would Be No Different Than Any Of These Sick Heretics Who Encourage Evil And Sin”
If any of those “Sick Heretics” had enough money and the inclination to do so, they could purchase absolution and have remained in the Church in good standing in the time of Luther
That was Luther’s point. He was right.
The Catholic Church is the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH FOUNDED BY JESUS CHRIST.
All other churches and religions were founded by men.
The Catholic Church has not strayed from the teachings of Jesus Christ. The Church is not holy because of her members. She is holy because her founder, Jesus Christ, is holy.
Yes. The Catholic Church includes members who are sinners including the leadership of the Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “all members of the Church, including her ministers, must acknowledge that they are sinners” (CCC 299). Yet the Church, properly understood, is not comprised solely of sinful human beings. St. Paul reminds us that Jesus Christ is the head of his body, the Church (Col. 1:18), and that the Church’s holiness is derived from her mystical union with Him (1 Cor. 12:12-13).
Luther may have been right on a point, but was wrong on many others and created heresy and a separate man-made church.
The Lutheran church allows abortion, homosexual “marriage”, homosexual “ministers”, etc.
Better pick that mic back up.
“The Lutheran church allows abortion, homosexual “marriage”, homosexual “ministers”, etc.”
There are Lutherans who do not accept the above some of which are the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Synod.
“Luther may have been right on a point, but was wrong on many others and created heresy and a separate man-made church.”
Yes, but this is from the point of view of the corrupt RC bureaucracy, corrupt and greedy RC tyrants, and the folks in Rome willing to fight a war to preserve their exclusive right to fleece the flock by monetizing absolution from sin as if God were a product to be sold.
Luther may have not been a great guy from many folks points of view, but an organization that spent a good period of its existence cynically keeping it’s flock ignorant so they could be taken advantage of by the Elites of the day can hardly claim to have been founded by Christ. Christ didn’t found THAT, yet that was what the Roman Catholic Church was, and Luther (as a Catholic) rightfully objected to it.
Luther/Henry VIII contributed to fixing the Catholic Church as much as any other person in the Catholic Church - Rome had no choice but to straighten up and fly right - but they tried NOT to do it for a long time. Rome killed many and fought wars trying to keep the gravy train, perks, and cash rolling in. They didn’t continue the legacy of Christ - and have no more claim on it than Luther did.
Those men in Rome (who you refuse to condemn) were worse than you claim Luther was because they perverted Christs work. Luther objected effectively when nobody else would. They threw Luther out of the Church for his efforts to bring Christ back into the Roman Catholic Church.
See? there are perspectives on either side.
I’m not Lutheran and not RC either - for the author to blame all the ills of the world today on Protestants without taking a bit of credit for the Catholics not insubstantial role in making it all happen was a bit disingenuous.
As previously stated, the Catholic Church founded and headed by Jesus Christ has many members that are sinners.
The mission of the Catholic Church is to help all of us to gain Salvation with God in Heaven. As indicated at Fatima, Jesus and His Blessed Mother are very concerned about our Salvation and especially concerned about the clergy (including priests, bishops and cardinals) not leading us properly to our Salvation.
You and many others may blame individual sinners within the Catholic Church even the leadership that are corrupt (even today). This is only a part of the picture, and any human activity can be evil and can change for the better.
The Catholic Church founded by Jesus and guaranteed that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19l I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.* Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:18
Many will conclude that their are sinners in the Catholic Church and they will be dealt with by God, but we can accept God’s Word as Truth.
One can either accept the Word of God or follow the word of man.
What, you mean that you’re going to smear the LCMS and the WELS with the ELCA’s sins, even after we spent so much time and ink rejecting them in no uncertain terms?
I guess that means that you approve of all of Frank the Hippie Pope’s blasphemous acts, because he calls himself Catholic and you call yourself Catholic.
Moron.
You have yet to prove that Jesus was speaking of the Roman church.
To which flavor of Catholicism do you belong, the one that adores Pope Francis, or the one who thinks he’s the anti-Christ?
Go on, change the subject! You’re just proving I’m right.
So get back to kissing your Koran and diddling altar boys. After all, some Catholics did it. According to your logic, that means you have to do it too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.