Posted on 06/19/2009 10:03:34 PM PDT by dangus
Praise God, that we are saved by grace alone. Works without faith are utterly without merit. This is not merely a Protestant notion.
Such has been the persistent teaching of the saints throughout the ages. Yet a whitewashing of Martin Luther has led to many people, even Catholics, fundamentally misunderstanding the Catholic Church's criticism of him.
Please understand that what I write here is no ad-hominem attack on Luther for any purpose, including the slander of Protestantism. Attacking the moral character of Martin Luther is gainless, for no-one supposes Luther to be imbued with the gift of infallibility. But when the counter-reformation is known by most people only by what it opposes, it becomes necessary to clarify what it was that it opposes. Further, given the whitewashed history of Martin Luther, it is imperitive to remember the context of the Catholic Church's language and actions, which seem terribly strident, presented out of the context.
The Catholic Church does not believe that one could merit salvation by doing good works. Nor could one avoid sin by one's own strengths. In fact, the Catholic position is one held by most people who believe they follow Luther's principle of sola fides. We are saved by grace alone, by which we have faith, which necessarily leads us to righteous works, and the avoidance of sin.
This is not Luther's position. Luther held that it was impossible to avoid sin. “As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin.” (Letter to Melanchthon, 1521) "They are fools who attempt to overcome temptations by fasting, prayer and chastisement. For such temptations and immoral attacks are easily overcome when there are plenty of maidens and women" (Luther's Works, Jena ed., 1558, 2, 116; cited in P. F. O'Hare, "The Facts About Luther", Rockford, 1987, 311).
As such, it was not necessary to avoid sin. “If grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. 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, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world.” In fact, the way to conquer sin, he taught was to indulge it: “The way to battle a tempting demon was to “in-dulge some sin in hatred of the evil spirit and to torment him.” Even the greatest sin was permissible, so long as one believed in Christ.: “Sin shall not drag us away from Him, even should we commit fornication or murder a thousand times a day. (all quotes from Letter to Melanchthon, 1521)
These quotes are often brushed aside as being hot-headed rhetoric. (Ironically, one passage to suggest that such intemperate statements were righteous is Jesus' warning that should one's eyes cause him to lust, he should cast the eye into Gehenna. How diametrically opposed to Jesus' teaching is Luther's!) But they were not said in a harmless context. Luther counseled Prince Phillip that it would be fine to take a mistress. And his comments that peasants were born to be cannon fodder is horrific in light of the deaths of 100,000 peasants in a rebellion of which he spoke, “I said they should be slain; all their blood is upon my head... My little book against the peasants is quite in the right and shall remain so, even if all the world were to be scandalized at it.” (Luther's Works, Erlangen ed., 24.299)
Such beliefs are not incidental to Luther; they are a major part of the reason for many princes siding with him against the Catholic church. Without such support, his movement would have no base. But he also appealed to their financial motives, arguing that they had no obligation to fight Muslims. In fact, Luther preached that Islamic domination was superior to Catholicism. His horrors at the excesses of Rome were pure fiction, aimed at weakening Rome's military strength. His lies are betrayed by his ignorance of Rome's geography. (He mistakenly thought that the Vatican was built on one of the seven hills of Rome, an assertion he'd make time and time again in asserting that the Papacy was Babylon.) Again, the context is horrifying: Belgrade fell in the very same year as the Council of Worms, 1521. By 1529, the Islamic horde had reached Vienna.
Luther even attacked the Holy Bible, itself. Nowhere does the bible say we are saved by “faith alone.” In fact, those words exist only in the Letter of James. So, Luther sought to have that book struck out of the bible. At the Council of Worms, he was shown how the 1st Letter of Peter refers to purgatory, how Revelations depicts the saints in Heaven praying for the souls below, how James explicitly states that “faith alone is dead, if it has not works.” Later Protestant apologists offered alternate explanations for these difficult passages, but Luther simply declared that they were false: “Many sweat to reconcile St. Paul and St. James, but in vain. 'Faith justifies' and 'faith does not justify' contradict each other flatly. If any one can harmonize them I will give him my doctor's hood and let him call me a fool “
His violence to the Word of God was worse still regarding the Old Testament. In condemning the Ten Commandments, he said Moses should be “damned and excommunicated; yea, worse than the Pope and the Devil.” Yet this man argued that the bible alone was authoritative?
When confronted by the Catholic church over his statements, Luther never disavowed these statements, or claimed they were exaggerations, or apologize for putting his foot in his mouth. Instead, he boasted, “Not for a thousand years has God bestowed such great gifts on any bishop as He has on me.”
Thus, the Catholic church was in the position of defending Western Civilization militarily against the Islamic horde, when an outrageous heretic preached all manner of hatred against it, instigating insurrection, and leading political forces to align against it. In doing so, he attacked not only the Church, but the historical and biblical under-pinnings of the bible. Could there be any wonder that the church responded harshly? Luther is dead, and he has never been held to be infallible or sinless. This is not an attack on him, but a defense on the Catholic Church, which he assailed.
It's 1529. The Muslims are in Bavaria. There's a madman boasting that he's responsible for 100,000 dead peasants, and he sides with the Turks. Can you really say that the Church treated him too harshly?
Vatican reverses annulment decision of Kennedy-Rauch marriage
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=9693
>> They are not at all a Catholic invention. <<
That’s actually a misstatement on my part. I meant they aren’t uniquely Catholic, but they do predate the Reformation, of course.
“If annulment was so commonly granted as Luther’s modern apologist claims, name an annulment from that era.”
Ummm...Catherine of Aragon’s FIRST marriage to Henry’s brother, making it possible for her to marry Henry VIII in the first place.
I believe Catherine of Aragon testified the marriage had not been consummated. In 6 months. Apparently, Arthur had different ideas of the marriage night than I had, or PERHAPS she lied.
I’ve never heard of a Protestant getting an annulment...I’m certainly not denying it, I just had never heard of it until tonight.
On the Catholic side, a quick internet search turned up this interesting article: http://www.spirituality.org/is/023/page01.asp
In Henry VIII’s case, a strong argument could (and was) made that refusing an annulment would result in civil war, since many held at the time that a woman could not become monarch. Add in Mary’s ancestry and the competing claims to the throne that would follow, and one can see how many people might die from refusing an annulment.
The whole issue was political. If it were merely sex, Henry could have taken as many mistresses as he desired.
You make some excellent points. I wrote without thinking, and will be more careful in the future when someone discusses an annulment.
Oh, touche on naming an annulment. Researching her, it seems that Margaret was annulled; apparently she appealed on the spurious grounds that her first husband hadn’t been killed. She remarried scarcely more than a year later, having found no further proof that he was still alive, and his death had been well attested. On the other hand, Margaret was Queen Regent, meaning that she reigned alone, albeit not in her own right. It does seem Henry’s family had received several annulments.
That link was interesting, and very typical of the American Catholic church’s attitude regarding annulments. He runs afoul of the Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI in suggesting that the social sciences validate the more widespread granting of annulments. See http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0900437.htm
::Pope Benedict said he agreed with Pope John Paul that too often members of church tribunals see a failed marriage and grant the annulment on the basis of an ill-defined case of “immaturity or psychic weakness.”::
::According to canon law, the validity of a marriage requires that both the man and woman freely and publicly consent to the union and that they have the psychological capacity to assume the obligations of marriage.::
::Pope Benedict said tribunal judges must remember there is a difference between the full maturity and understanding that people should strive to develop over time and “canonical maturity, which is the minimum point of departure for the validity of a marriage.”::
::In addition, he said, granting an annulment on the basis of the “psychic incapacity” of the husband or wife requires that the tribunal establish and document the fact that the person had a serious psychological or psychiatric problem at the time the wedding was celebrated.::
>> That link was interesting, and very typical of the American Catholic church’s attitude regarding annulments. He runs afoul of the Popes <<
In this context, I should carefully note that I do not mean to dismiss out of hand the article’s reasonability, or make it sound like I am declaring that priest a heretic. The diminished capacity for a moral decision and the popular culture’s notion of marriage as being an evanescent state do make for a very difficult environment for godly marriages to occur. I side with Benedict and not merely out of deference, but I believe Benedict was speaking out precisely because he felt the need for some higher guidance in untangling this moral knot. I hope the priest you pointed to takes his correction well, and do not mean to imply he will not.
The discussion of annulment reminds me of my Dad’s divorce. I hope you will both forgive me for sharing it - it involves both pain and, to me, a certain humor.
After my Dad’s death in Vietnam, we kids were shocked to find out he had been previously married. My Mom wouldn’t discuss the details - she sent us to our aunts.
Apparently, they grew up together, and became engaged while my Dad was overseas in WW2. On his return, they married.
A few weeks later, she left him. She refused to be reconciled, and after 3 months, my Dad filed for divorce. Not long after, she married another man (whom she had met while my Dad was overseas), and they stayed married the rest of their lives.
A couple of years later, my Dad met and married my Mom. They remained married until his death in a helicopter crash in 1972.
It involves pain. My Dad never spoke to his first wife or of her again. Except to close family members, he wouldn’t admit a previous marriage, and he wouldn’t allow it mentioned in front of his kids. It was a source of great bitterness to him.
But there is an element of humor. All the aunts agreed - and some of them knew the woman well for many years afterward - on WHY she left him. To her dying day, she maintained she left him because “As long as he had ketchup, that man was content to eat hamburger every night! What kind of man can eat a hamburger every night and not complain?”
Of course, anyone who knew my Dad knew that he wouldn’t complain about ANY meal, as long as there was ketchup available. If he liked the food, he added ketchup. If he didn’t like it, he added a LOT of ketchup.
But he didn’t complain...
THAT might have been a marriage that was meant for annulment.
You wrote
“And yet the Church did encourage it and so did every Catholic Bible itself. Ever hear of Vatican II?”
Not in the church, or the school I went to !
“Ever go to Mass? There’s way more than a few verses here and there.”
We went every Sunday, there was just a few readings with out much explanation of it.
“There’s no reason to put Bibles in the pews when the Missal is what is needed for the Mass.”
NO REASON ?, are you afraid people might read it discover some truth ?
“The real problem would be your own lack of curiosity.”
As a grade school kid, we were never encouraged or taught to read the Bible, the ONLY emphasis was just to show up every Sunday, otherwise, it was a “mortal sin”
“In short it was big ripoff.”
No, in itself it wasn’t.
You’re right, church tradition isn’t worth knowing !
“I am so blessed that the Lord opened my eyes in recent years.”
Apparently they’re not open enough yet.
Hey,you have no idea what The Lord has revealed to me !!
You wrote:
“Not in the church, or the school I went to !”
So you never looked inside the cover of a Catholic Bible and saw the encouragement printed there?
“We went every Sunday, there was just a few readings with out much explanation of it.”
No, there were two or three major readings and numerous Biblically based prayers as I linked to. Also, there was a sermon after the gospel.
“NO REASON ?, are you afraid people might read it discover some truth ?”
No, the exact opposite. I think everyone should read it. There is no reason to put Bibles rather than Missals in the pews, however. You can go to ANY bookstore and buy a Catholic Bible. Missals are not in typical bookstores and are what are actually used in Mass, thus there presence in the pew is more important.
“As a grade school kid, we were never encouraged or taught to read the Bible, the ONLY emphasis was just to show up every Sunday, otherwise, it was a “mortal sin””
Again, you never looked inside the cover at the encouragement there? Who is at fault then?
“You’re right, church tradition isn’t worth knowing !”
Of course it is - that’s what the New Testament canon is - Church tradition.
“Hey,you have no idea what The Lord has revealed to me !!”
Your comments aren’t revealing much either.
“So you never looked inside the cover of a Catholic Bible and saw the encouragement printed there?”
Ah, no. As I said, the school NEVER encouraged us to open and read a Bible.
“No, there were two or three major readings and numerous Biblically based prayers as I linked to. Also, there was a sermon after the gospel.”
But those prayers, that take up most of the mass, just become words after you have recited them a million times. it's not really a prayer from the heart.
There were readings, but as a grade school kid, I was looking at my watch, or the ceiling or something else to kill the time. Again, the only thing from my school that was emphasized was to just show up.
I don't remember the sermons being really in depth on any topic of scripture. The sermons were fairly short anyway, because of the repetitive prayers.
“No, the exact opposite. I think everyone should read it. There is no reason to put Bibles rather than Missals in the pews, however. You can go to ANY bookstore and buy a Catholic Bible. Missals are not in typical bookstores and are what are actually used in Mass, thus there presence in the pew is more important.”
But If they were preaching from the Bible, you wouldn't need a missal book.
Again, you never looked inside the cover at the encouragement there? Who is at fault then?
The church and the school !! From 1st grade through 8th, we NEVER were encouraged to read a Bible. I would expect a religious school to require some scripture reading.
“Of course it is - that’s what the New Testament canon is - Church Tradition”
Wouldn't you rather hear the Word of God ?
“Hey,you have no idea what The Lord has revealed to me !!”
Your comments aren’t revealing much either. I was just pointing out the lack of Biblical instruction, but I'm saved now !
You wrote:
“Ah, no. As I said, the school NEVER encouraged us to open and read a Bible.”
But that’s irrelevant. The Catholic Church DOES encourage you to read a Bible. How could you be a Christian and have no curiosity about the Bible at all? Public schools don’t encourage people to read the Bible. Does that mean that the kids never open one on their own?
“But those prayers, that take up most of the mass, just become words after you have recited them a million times. it’s not really a prayer from the heart.”
It’s only that way if you want it to be. Besides that still does not make the readings vanish - especially when they’re printed in missals and are right there in front of you.
“There were readings, but as a grade school kid, I was looking at my watch, or the ceiling or something else to kill the time. Again, the only thing from my school that was emphasized was to just show up.”
But clearly the lack of curiosity was all your own. If you were looking at your watch then you were not looking in the missal. So, something placed their for your encouragement was ignored - voluntarily - by you.
“I don’t remember the sermons being really in depth on any topic of scripture. The sermons were fairly short anyway, because of the repetitive prayers.”
Repetition of prayers has nothing to do with the length of the sermon.
“But If they were preaching from the Bible, you wouldn’t need a missal book.”
Sure you would. How else would people know the liturgy? Worship is not about reading alone. It is about praying first.
“The church and the school !! From 1st grade through 8th, we NEVER were encouraged to read a Bible. I would expect a religious school to require some scripture reading.”
So no one read at Mass? No one ever read any Bible stories in class? Are you sure you really went to Catholic school? How can there be a Mass with no readings from the Bible? How can it be that you could be at Mass and a Catholci school and have no natural curiosity?
“Wouldn’t you rather hear the Word of God ?’
Yes, but without Church tradition there would be no way to do it. After all, it was the Church that put together the Bible, wrote the Bible (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) and copied it for us. No tradition would mean no Bible. Period. You wouldn’t even know what books belong in the Bible if it were not for Church tradition. Ever wonder why people believe Matthew’s gospel was written by him? Look in it and tell me where it says he wrote it. See it? Nope. Church TRADITION says he wrote it. And Church tradition alone.
“Your comments aren’t revealing much either. I was just pointing out the lack of Biblical instruction, but I’m saved now !”
So you say, but that of course is merely your opinion. I hope it is true nonetheless.
Well done, friend.
Thank you!
You wrote:
“The Catholic Church DOES encourage you to read a Bible.”
That may be true elswhere and in general in other areas, but as I have been trying to point out, the school I went to DID NOT encourage us to read the Bible !!
“But clearly the lack of curiosity was all your own.” If you were looking at your watch then you were not looking in the missal. So, something placed their for your encouragement was ignored”
It may have been there for my encouragement, but I was not encouraged to read it, by anyone. Example: Kids don’t do homework unless you require them to. I was not required, or encouraged to read it. I COULD have read it, but to a kid, the mass just seemed like a carbon copy of last weeks mass. Except for a few different readings and the sermon, the mass, they’re all pretty much the same.
“Repetition of prayers has nothing to do with the length of the sermon.”
Most of the mass IS the scripted prayers, every week.
“So no one read at Mass?”
Yes, they did at mass, and at school here and there, but that was it.
“Are you sure you really went to Catholic school?”
Yes!
“How can it be that you could be at Mass and a Catholci school and have no natural curiosity?”
Maybe cause I didn’t like going to church when I was younger and disliked the nuns who hit us.
“So you say, but that of course is merely your opinion. I hope it is true nonetheless.”
Well thanks, but I’m confident I’m saved. The Bible tells us how we can be confident of our salvation.
You wrote:
“That may be true elswhere and in general in other areas, but as I have been trying to point out, the school I went to DID NOT encourage us to read the Bible !!”
And as I have been pointing out the Church you said you once belonged to does. This is not about a school alone.
“It may have been there for my encouragement, but I was not encouraged to read it, by anyone. Example: Kids don’t do homework unless you require them to. I was not required, or encouraged to read it. I COULD have read it, but to a kid, the mass just seemed like a carbon copy of last weeks mass. Except for a few different readings and the sermon, the mass, they’re all pretty much the same.”
But this isn’t about the Mass either. The readings are part of the Mass, but are not the Mass itself. No curiosity about the story of God is about the person’s laziness, not the lack of encouragement from anyone else.
“Most of the mass IS the scripted prayers, every week.”
Most of the Mass is scripture in the forms of prayers.
http://books.google.com/books?id=dOGL67Xa_nUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=stravinskas
“Yes, they did at mass, and at school here and there, but that was it.”
And you thought that the Mass’ importance was not encouragement to read the scriptures even though they were read at Mass?
“Yes!”
Apparemtly you slept through it all. You’re helping me to understand how people could have voted for Obama when they should have known better.
“Maybe cause I didn’t like going to church when I was younger and disliked the nuns who hit us.”
And if your parents ever hit you that stopped you from being interested in your family right?
“Well thanks, but I’m confident I’m saved. The Bible tells us how we can be confident of our salvation.”
Confident, but not presumptive.
You wrote:
“And as I have been pointing out the Church you said you once belonged to does. This is not about a school alone.”
It’s possible that this particular church NOW encourages reading of the Bible, but they didn’t when I was there, and believe me, I’m an expert witness to what I observed in the church, and school I went to !
“But this isn’t about the Mass either. The readings are part of the Mass, but are not the Mass itself. No curiosity about the story of God is about the person’s laziness, not the lack of encouragement from anyone else.”
I’m not buying that, kids aren’t naturally curious enough and motivated enough to do school work, otherwise we wouldn’t require them to do so.
“Most of the Mass is scripture in the forms of prayers.”
That may be, but after saying them thousands of times, it’s robotic. The prayers may be biblical, but saying them over and over again are not.
If you went to visit a friend and said the same scripted “hello it’s nice to see you - yada yada yada” and said that everying single time you visited this friend. After while it’s just reciting words. Do you think that same treatment would be pleasing to God ?
“Apparemtly you slept through it all. You’re helping me to understand how people could have voted for Obama when they should have known better.”
It’s not my fault the mass is a boring collection of repeated phrases and rituals.
“And if your parents ever hit you that stopped you from being interested in your family right?”
No, I was just bored at mass, and again was not required, encouraged, or motivated to to read the Bible or the missal at that time in my life. The school and church NEVER encouraged it. They MAY now, but didn’t back then. It sounds like you’re expecting a grade school kid to have the attitude of an adult.
“Confident, but not presumptive.”
Confident in Jesus alone!
You wrote:
“It’s possible that this particular church NOW encourages reading of the Bible, but they didn’t when I was there, and believe me, I’m an expert witness to what I observed in the church, and school I went to !”
How could you be an expert witness when you already said this: “Maybe cause I didn’t like going to church when I was younger and disliked the nuns who hit us.” And how about this, “There were readings, but as a grade school kid, I was looking at my watch, or the ceiling or something else to kill the time.”
So, you admit you paid more attention to the staring at the ceiling and your watch than what was being said, and you clearly didn’t like church or the nuns because they hit you. That doesn’t sound like the making of an expert witness on what was taught.
“I’m not buying that, kids aren’t naturally curious enough and motivated enough to do school work, otherwise we wouldn’t require them to do so.”
The Bible isn’t school work and if it was you’ve already indicated how you would have handled that: “There were readings, but as a grade school kid, I was looking at my watch, or the ceiling or something else to kill the time.”
“That may be, but after saying them thousands of times, it’s robotic. The prayers may be biblical, but saying them over and over again are not.”
Sure they are. Ever hear of the Psalms? They were said throughout the day - and repeated - even in Jesus’ day. Even Jesus Himself said the same prayer three times in the garden of Gethsemene.
“If you went to visit a friend and said the same scripted “hello it’s nice to see you - yada yada yada” and said that everying single time you visited this friend. After while it’s just reciting words. Do you think that same treatment would be pleasing to God ?”
Do you think Jesus displeased God the Father in the garden of Gethsemene? I guess you’re not married or you never say, “I love you” to your wife because that just gets repetitous right?
“It’s not my fault the mass is a boring collection of repeated phrases and rituals.”
It’s only boring to those who ignore what it is. Were the Temple rites boring? They were repeated all the time and at the command of God Himself.
“No, I was just bored at mass, and again was not required, encouraged, or motivated to to read the Bible or the missal at that time in my life. The school and church NEVER encouraged it. They MAY now, but didn’t back then. It sounds like you’re expecting a grade school kid to have the attitude of an adult.”
I have never met a grade school kid who was so completely disinterested in his own life. Also, you already mentioned how you did everything you could to not be interested or inquisitive: “There were readings, but as a grade school kid, I was looking at my watch, or the ceiling or something else to kill the time.”
“Confident in Jesus alone!”
I’m glad you have confidence in Christ. It’s just a shame that it is far from complete. Remember, Jesus prayed the same prayer three times in the garden. Perhaps you would have been bored by that. Maybe you would have found Jesus boring too. After all He said the same things over and over again and performed the same miracles over and over again. He even participated in religious rites and ceremonies that were the same “boring” thing over and over again.
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.