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?
Not worship. Veneration, praise, not worship.
Oh, and Catholic Church is a proper noun, and should be capitalized.
It must be jarring to be told the thing you hate bears no relationship to the reasons you hate it.
If ignorance were painful, some folks would need a morphine drip.
Imagine someone who didn’t even know there was a Bible until he was 40.
As you and I know they are just regurgitating what some anti-Catholic crusader has told and convinced them of, paired with a few selected Bible verses out of a redacted Bible that seem to back up their heretical beliefs.
There is no intellectual endeavor or biblical scholarship of their own. Its the religious equivalent of liberalism. All emotion and feel good, and a refusal to face the Truth.
Here is more Mary worship, It’s shows that the official doctrine is that Mary had been elevated from human to co-redeemer.
You call it devotion, read the words - It’s WORSHIP and Idolatry, Remember Our God is a jealous God, when it comes to false gods and goddesses.
MARY: THE NECESSITY OF DEVOTION TO
The foundation of all our confidence is found in the Blessed Virgin Mary. God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will: that we obtain everything through Mary.
Bl. Pope Pius IX
Mary is this glorious intermediary; she is the mighty Mother of God.
Pope Leo XIII
Every grace which is communicated to this world has a threefold origin: it flows from God to Christ, from Christ to the Virgin, and from the Virgin to us . . . Nothing comes to us except through the mediation of Mary, for such is the will of God. Thus, just as no man goes to the Father but by the Son, so likewise no one goes to Christ except through His Mother. Whosoever will not have recourse to her is trying to fly without wings . . . O Virgin Most Holy, no one abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; no one, O Mother of God, attains salvation except through thee!
Pope Leo XIII
For, since it is the will of Divine Providence that we should have the God-Man through Mary, there is no other way for us to receive Christ except from her hands.
Pope St. Pius X
The Child is not found without Mary, His Mother . . . If, then, it is impossible to separate what God has united, it is also certain that you cannot find Jesus except with Mary and through Mary.
Pope St. Pius X
Sweet heart of Mary, be my salvation!
Bl. Pope Pius IX
One cannot talk about the Church if Mary, the Mother of the Lord, is not present with His brothers. Only Mary could make one heart and one mind of Jesus’ Apostles, as though Christ wanted to show us that He entrusted to His Mother’s maternal care the mission of making the Church a single family. Yes, in Mary we have the bond of communion of all of us who, through faith and Baptism, are disciples and brothers of Jesus.
Pope John Paul II
Everyone of the multitudes, therefore, whom the evil of calamitous circumstances has stolen away from Catholic unity, must be born again to Christ by that same Mother whom God has endowed with a never-failing fertility to bring forth a holy people.
Pope Leo XIII
Bearing in her womb the Savior, Mary can also be said to have borne all those whose life the Savior’s life enshrined. All of us, then, as many as are knit to Christ . . . have come forth from Mary’s womb: one body, as it were, knit together with its Head.
Pope St. Pius X
He will not taste death forever who, in his dying moments, has recourse to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Pope Pius XI
All those who seek Mary’s protection will be saved for all eternity.
Pope Benedict XV
O Mary, thou art the noblest, the most exalted and purest, the fairest, the holiest of all things created! I desire a greater and more tender love of thee, and this thou must obtain for me, because love of thee is a great sign of predestination, and a grace granted by God to those who shall be saved.
Pope Pius VII
O Mother of Perpetual Help, confidence in thee is a certain pledge of everlasting salvation.
Bl. Pope Pius IX
Hail, Mary, gracious Mother of Mercy; who would not love thee? Thou are out certain salvation!
Pope Pius XII
What will it cost you, O Mary, to hear our prayer? What will it cost you to save us? Has not Jesus placed in your hands all the treasures of His grace and mercy? You sit crowned as Queen at the right hand of your Son: your dominion reaches as far as the heavens, and to you are subject the earth and all creatures dwelling thereon. Your dominion reaches even down into the abyss of Hell, and you alone, O Mary, save us from the hands of Satan.
Pope Pius XI
Mary, not one of thy devout servants has ever perished; may I, too, be saved!
Pope Benedict XV
Who, O Lady, ever faithfully employed your all powerful aid and was abandoned by you?
Pope St. Eutychian
For if we are bidden to honor carnal fathers and mothers, how much more the spiritual? . . . If this virtue of charity has been overlooked, a man will lose any fruit of salvation in any good he may do.
Pope St. Gregory VII
To desire grace without recourse to the Virgin Mother is to desire to fly without wings.
That is simply not true. It is false.
Further, "co-redemptrix" does not mean what you think it means.
You're doubly wrong.
It’s WORSHIP and Idolatry...
No it is not. See, when a Catholic says they believe X, you don't get to say "no, you believe not(X)." You don't have that kind of power.
“By the power of the Holy Spirit the host becomes the body and the wine the blood of Christ, not the other way around, and not by the power of the priest alone.”
That not what your church says
• “When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim. The priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him presenton our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man, not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows His head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.”
Excerpt from John O’Brien “The Faith of millions”
This book was endorsed by the catholic church.
“Only in the very specific (and rare) circumstance of speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith. Catholics do not believe Benedict can do no wrong, that kind of concept is a common mistake and/or smear.”
RARE ! please, it’s very unbiblical, oh and where is the verse in the Bible that mentions priests become an alter Christos ???
Yes, rare. How many ex cathedra statements have Popes made over the last 2000 years? What's the number?
All of that done by the power of the Holy Spirit, because Christ commands it.
Good thing Mary is not a goddess.
Since we differ on assumptions, we differ on conclusions. Unless one of us wishes to change assumptions, there will be no agreement on conclusions.
Protestants largely agree on doctrine. I’m a Baptist, but I’ve had no difficulty having Lutheran or Methodist pastors. Obviously, all denominations have some who ignore scripture...but no more so than Catholics do (see Notre Dame & Obama, for example). Those Protestant denominations that honor scripture have no major doctrinal differences, and those that do not honor scripture have no justification for calling themselves Protestants.
If the traditions of Catholicism don’t contradict scripture, then they do not bother me. However, I see no reason to twist the plain meaning of words to make scripture agree with your traditions. Different assumptions, different conclusions. Not unlike one of my biology professors years ago, who told me he believed in evolution because the alternative - belief in God - was unacceptable to him.
“What makes you think the Holy Spirit can’t protect the Church in its teaching from bad men?”
That makes sense - IF you assume the Roman Catholic Church IS the one true Church. If you do not assume that, then the widespread apostasy seen in the Episcopal Church is evidence of the contrary - that as we can sin, so can we sin in church. That is what is nice about scripture - it doesn’t change.
I am mildly aware of the teaching of your church on Mary’s salvation. I say mildly, because while I have read what your church has posted on internet sites, I have only done so recently in response to posts here at FR. Frankly, it appalled me. Even if you assume Mary was born free from original sin, you still have to believe either she A) live in compliance with God’s will in everything - including the Law, as a Jew, or B) her sinlessness is based on her justification by the saving grace of God - in which case, it doesn’t differ from us. “...because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.” ‘has made’ - past tense - perfect forever. Justification.
If A, then her sinlessness depended on herself, and contradicts scripture. If B, then she differs not from us.
“Your inability to come up with a verse, and in fact, the absence of a verse, doesn’t imply the traditional, historical and authoritative Christian doctrine is wrong.”
It doesn’t PROVE it wrong. It DOES make one suspect it either isn’t true, or simply isn’t important.
Luke 11: “She was not trying to direct attention away from Jesus or only to Mary. Jesus essentially raised the stakes to tell her - the woman - that she too could receive those blessings even though she DID NOT give birth to the Messiah.”
Apparently, you largely agree with me. The point is that the woman should focus on God and His will, not Mary as Blessed.
“Protestants use tradition too - all the time - but they deny it or use false traditions they created to satisfy their own lusts or to feed their own hatred of God’s Church.”
An example of why I won’t continue this discussion with you further. We use tradition, but do not elevate it above scripture in determining what is right or important. However, I find your tone bitter and angry, and one cannot have a logical discussion with someone who is filled with anger.
“Your criticisms of the Catholic Church do not even describe the Catholic Church, but rather a grotesque caricature of what Catholics actually believe.”
One of the challenges in discussing religious belief is separating doctrine from the people we meet. I’ve known Catholics who very definitively believed they were to be saved by doing good works, and they would find out on Judgment Day if they had been good enough to qualify for Heaven.
That isn’t Catholic doctrine (as best as this Baptist can tell), but it IS what Catholics have told me. Of course, I’ve also heard a Baptist claim that anyone not baptized by immersion was going to hell - which is NOT our doctrine, either.
“The prayers are taken directly from Scripture. Christ is NOT sacrificed again and again, it is the same one sacrifice on Calvary re-presented at every Mass.”
So you’re saying that it’s not a real sacrifice ?
I certainly should have said "...a grotesque caricature of what Catholicism actually teaches."
There can be no doubt some Catholics have malformed understandings of what the Church teaches. This, however, does not dim the truth of those teachings.
No I'm not.
Where is the verse in the bible that mentions sola Scriptura ???
“I know you find it hard to believe one of your perfect Catholic Church’s did not encourage Bible reading, but it’s true !
No it’s not true. It’s a scabby sulfurous lie.”
William Tyndale might disagree with you...
The modern Catholic Church may encourage lay reading of scripture, but there was a time they were not quite so supportive.
Tyndale’s bible was horribly mistranslated, and he was captured and killed (1536) by the then-protestant (1534) Henry VIII.
...where is the verse in the Bible that mentions priests become an alter Christos ???
Where is the verse in the bible that mentions sola Scriptura ???
C’mon we’re talking about priest becoming another Christ,
surely you can back that up with something !
“You quote Paul. He was chosen as an Apostle by God - but cleared his teaching with Peter and the other Apostles.”
Paul also rebuked Peter on a matter of critical importance in doctrine -
“11 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?”
If ‘The First Pope’ could be wrong on such a matter (salvation does not come by following Jewish dietary laws), why would we consider those who follow to be infallible in their teachings?
“The Holy Spirit guides the Church, not sectarians in their heresies and schisms. “
Umm...”Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.” and “You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.”
If you claim the Holy Spirit is not in all believers, then you ignore the clear teaching of scripture.
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.