SMH.
ROTFLMAO! “Luther not a witness to the gospel.” That is truly fake news.
Posting more of this stuff is wicked.
What is your point?
You diminish the value of FR by doing so.
SMH.
And the doctrinal tradition of the Church is the Gospel.”
LOL.
Well, if you put it that way...then...obviously Luther is NOT a witness.
Simply amazing.
Kinda like those so-called "pastoral" Vatican II documents? Honestly. Does this man really believe what he is saying?
I believe this is a silly. What is so sad to me is I know there are many FReepers who participate in the various religion threads who don’t understand the gospel whatsoever. And let’s be clear, the Bible presents only one gospel that is “the power of God unto salvation.”
Below is a short video presentation of the gospel. It’s a well-made short film that was released two weeks ago. I urge one and all to watch it. I talked to Dr. White, one of the men in the film, a week before it was released. His hope, his prayer, is that the Lord would be pleased to use this to soften hearts and awaken many to the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ.
Unpopular the Movie
https://youtu.be/97k4z6Qe7JM
Saying ‘he divided the church’ is giving him much more power than ‘he was a witness of the Gospel.’
Rather, Rome already did and does that. Before Luther even was born, we have some of the corruption of Rome which necessitated a reformation, besides the doctrinal deformation of Catholicism .
Referring to the schism of the 14th and 15th centuries, Cardinal Ratzinger observed,
"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.
"It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196)
Cardinal Bellarmine:
"Some years before the rise of the Lutheran and Calvinistic heresy, according to the testimony of those who were then alive, there was almost an entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments; in morals, no discipline; in sacred literature, no erudition; in divine things, no reverence; religion was almost extinct. (Concio XXVIII. Opp. Vi. 296- Colon 1617, in “A History of the Articles of Religion,” by Charles Hardwick, Cp. 1, p. 10,)
Catholic historian Paul Johnson additionally described the existing social situation among the clergy during this period leading up to the Refomation:
“Probably as many as half the men in orders had ‘wives’ and families. Behind all the New Learning and the theological debates, clerical celibacy was, in its own way, the biggest single issue at the Reformation. It was a great social problem and, other factors being equal, it tended to tip the balance in favour of reform. As a rule, the only hope for a child of a priest was to go into the Church himself, thus unwillingly or with no great enthusiasm, taking vows which he might subsequently regret: the evil tended to perpetuate itself.” (History of Christianity, pgs 269-270)
So, in the case of Luther, he rejected the heart of the Church, which is the Eucharist. He rejected the sacrificial essence and substance of the Eucharistic celebration, and this is the heart of the Church – the Eucharist.
WRONG! While what the Lord's supper is to show, the sacrificial death of Christ is the heart of the church, the Biblical Lord's supper is not the Catholic Eucharist.
And rather than being the supreme centerpiece practice of the NT church, it is only manifestly described in one epistle (besides Jude's mention of the feast of charity), and in which the Catholic Eucharist is not evident, but the church is the focus as the "one bread" and the body of Christ, purchased with the sinless shed blood of Christ, whose death, and the love behind it is what the church is supposed to declare by sharing food in that communal meal. (1Co. 11:17-34) .
And rather than a distinct, normatively celibate class of believers distinctively titled "priests" offering up the "real" body and blood of Christ as a sacrifice for sins, and to be consumed in order to obtain spiritual life; instead no leadership is ever distinctively titled "priests" (and presbuteros or episkopos does not mean priest), and are not even described as officiating at the Lord's supper and dispensing the elements, much less offering them as a sacrifice for sins.
Nor is this Catholic function taught as being a primary or unique function of the clergy, who instead are exhorted to preach the word, (2Tim. 4:2) feeding the flock (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2) with the word of God, which is what is called "milk" and "meat" (1Co. 3:2; Heb. 5:13; 1Pt. 2:2) by believing which souls obtain spiritual life within themselves, (Acts 10:43-47; 15;7-9; Eph. 1:13) and then they are "nourished" (1Tim. 4:6) and built up. (Acts 20:32)
“We as Catholics are aware of the serious damage Luther caused to the Church, what should be our position if our ecclesiastical authorities invite us to consider Luther as a witness to the Gospel?”
Catholics were barely Catholics (in Rome) in Luther’s time. The leadership were largely degenerates, corruptocrats, and unworthy of the gospel they claimed as their birthright.
The Catholic Church created Luther. The damage attributed to Luther was created by the Catholic church.
Luther had a point, he made it, and Catholics eventually addressed them.
Blaming Luther is like blaming the rain for a leaky roof.
If such a distasteful character as many think Luther was, how is it that such a man could be so right about the Catholic Church, and the leadership claiming to lead the church be so wrong?
For a second there I thought it said Martin Landau.
Martin Luther was an inspired man.
He was lead by God to break away from apostasy. With out Martin Luther we would not have freedom of religion in this country.
I thank God regularly that I’m a Mormon and very thankful for men like Martin Luther.