Posted on 10/30/2016 10:14:29 AM PDT by ebb tide
In what is being hailed as a milestone in the ongoing progress toward Catholic-Lutheran unity, Pope Francis will celebrate the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation on October 31 [Halloween!], in Lund, Sweden. At 2:00 pm, the pope will participate in an ecumenical prayer service in the Lutheran cathedral in Lund, where he will deliver a sermon aimed at strengthening ecumenical ties between the two religions.
Cardinal Kurt Koch, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, sums it up. "For the very first time, Catholics and Lutherans will commemorate together, at the global level, the anniversary of the Reformation. This event, which is to mark a milestone, reflects the progress made over fifty years of international Catholic-Lutheran dialogue. Established after the important decisions made by Vatican Council II, the dialogue has helped the two traditions to understand each other better. It has enabled them to put an end to a good number of antagonisms.... It has affirmed the common conviction that what unites Catholics and Lutherans, matters more than what divides them. It has given expression to the profound faith conviction that Catholics and Lutherans are called by baptism to be part of one and the same body."
The celebration will obviously not uphold the Church's centuries-old condemnation of Martin Luther, but will praise him in keeping with the German Bishops' Conference statement of last August, that Luther—the founder of the Protestant Reformation—was a "Gospel witness and teacher of the Faith" who hasn't been given an "adequate hearing."
Bishop Gerhard Feige, chairman of the German Bishops Ecumenical Commission, stoked the fire to this anniversary celebration when he said that "the Catholic Church may recognize today what was important in the Reformation" on the grounds that theological differences have been "re-evaluated."
Are the bishops daring to "re-evaluate" the Church's condemnation of Martin Luther in the sixteenth century? Are they accusing the Council of Trent of having been "antagonistic" for rightfully refuting Luther's errors for the greater liberty of God's people?
If there is one figure of history who can be called antagonistic, it is Martin Luther. Consider his own words about the Catholic Church: "We too were formerly stuck in the behind of this hellish whore, the new church of the pope... so that we regret having spent so much time and energy in that vile h***. But God be praised and thanked that he rescued us from the scarlet whore." (Luther's Works, Vol. 41, p. 206)
Again Luther says: "I can with good conscience consider the pope an ass and an enemy of God. He cannot consider me an ass, for he knows that I am more learned in the Scriptures than he and all his asses are." (p. 344) "The papal ass wants to be lord of the church, although he is not a Christian, believes nothing, and can no longer do anything but fart like an ass." (p. 358)
We seem to forget that Luther was a raving heretic who was driven by the devil to tear the Faith asunder in Europe. His definition of "repentance" was to reject Catholicism, evidenced by his hateful words against the Mass: "It is indeed upon the Mass as on a rock that the whole papal system is built, with its monasteries, its bishoprics, its collegiate churches, its altars, its ministries, its doctrine, i.e., with all its guts. All these cannot fail to crumble once their sacrilegious and abominable Mass falls." (Martin Luther, Against Henry, King of England, 1522, Werke, Vol. X, p. 220.)
These words shouldn't surprise us when we consider Luther's contempt for spirituality, and the fact that the Mass through the ages has been the very focal point of Satan's attack. The Mass indeed is the very center-piece of the Christian Faith—the very heartbeat of Christ's Mystical Body—therefore the adversary raised up Luther as his no. 1 cannon to blow the Mass apart before God's people. In his pamphlet The Abrogation of the Mass, Luther writes:
"I am convinced that by these three arguments [which he had previously made] every pious conscience will be persuaded that this priest of the Mass and the papacy is nothing but a work of satan, and will be sufficiently warned against imagining that by these priests anything pious or good is effected. All will now know that these sacrificial Masses have been proven injurious to Our Lord’s testament and that therefore nothing in the whole world is to be hated and loathed so much as the hypocritical shows of this priesthood, its Masses, its worship, its piety, its religion. It is better to be a public pander or robber than one of these priests."
Has it not occurred to our befogged Vatican hierarchy that Luther was possessed by Satan? It would behoove them to read his famous colloquy with the devil in 1522, which is documented in Abraham Woodhead's superlative book The Spirit of Martin Luther (1687). Therein is discussed Luther's "negotiations" and "conferences" with the devil. In his de Missa Privata & Sacerdotum Unctione (1533), Luther wrote of his "long experience" with Satan's "arts and practices" and of "many a sad and bitter night" spent in talks with him.
However, his colloquy on the Mass in 1522 was most significant, since this is what turned him against the Mass, whereby he would never offer Mass again. On that occasion, the devil in a "grave and strong voice" persuaded Luther that he had committed "idolatry" for fifteen years by adoring, and causing others to adore "naked bread and wine."
These same conversations with Satan are what gave birth to Luther's doctrine on justification. Through this infernal colloquy, the devil convinced Luther that we must accept our sinful lives as they are, and he instilled in him a false security about the sins we commit. Hence was born his crackpot idea that Jesus died on the cross so that we may sin freely without the fear of eternal punishment. Consider Luther’s own words:
"Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly... No sin will separate us from the Christ, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day." (From Luther’s letter to Philip Melanchthon, August 1, 1521, LW Vol. 48, pp. 281-282)
Needless to say, Luther was no champion of the Gospel, but a disciple of the "father of liars." Each one of his charges against the Catholic Church were irrational and false. For instance, he accused the clergy of "selling indulgences" in the confessional, which is not true. When penitents came to confession it was common at that time for priests to administer a penance in the form of having them place money in the Church’s treasury, because funds were needed to complete the Basilica of St. Peters in Rome. We might say a Peter’s pence was being raised, which should have excited praise, but this infuriated Luther because he couldn’t tolerate the idea of funding the "papal pig" and his palace.
Another black mark on Luther's reputation was that he rejected six books of the Bible and spearheaded his heinous revolt against Christ which led half of Europe away from the Christian Faith.
It was for reason that Pope Leo X dubbed Luther "the wild boar loose in the vineyard." He was the classic hypocrite and Pharisee, constantly "justifying" himself and accusing everyone of what he himself was guilty of. What could be said of the worst pagans and infidels of history would apply especially to Luther—he had no "faith" or "grace."
Accordingly, Luther contributed mightily to the mass murder of 70,000-100,000 peasants during the German Peasant War (1524-1525), which his Reformation helped to spark. Consider the following from Luther: "To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Therefore, let whoever can, smite, slay, and stab them secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful or devilish than a rebel…. On the obstinate, hardened, blinded peasants let no one have mercy, but let whoever is able, hew, stab, and slay them like mad dogs." (Erlangen Edition of Luther’s Works, Vol. 24)
Luther furthermore blasphemed Christ, thus revealing his deficit of faith. For instance, he said, "Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well… Secondly with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery." (Luther’s Works, American Edition, Volume 54, p. 154, Concordia Publishing House)
Hence the Catholic Church committed no fault in its response to the Revolt five centuries ago, which means no apologies must be made today. The papal condemnation of Luther in 1521 was the work of the Holy Spirit, and remains binding upon the faithful to this day. Any attempts to "reevaluate" the "Reformation" are absurd, so why is the pope attempting to dignify what has unquestionably gone down to be the most destructive heresy of Christian history?
What we're seeing is the work of charity despised. For centuries the Church has demonstrated no "antagonism" toward separated brethren, but has rather extended to them the invitation to convert to Roman Catholicism, that they may possess the riches of Christ and share in the communion of saints.
Why then is Rome attempting to deprive outsiders by telling them to stay as they are? The pope has repeatedly said that we must not try to convince outsiders and separated brethren of our convictions about the One True Faith, on the grounds that it is "a sin against ecumenism."
Did Christ ever once tell His Apostles not to convince the infidels and Gentiles of the One True Faith He established, or did He rather tell them, "Going forth, teach all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost?" (Matthew 28:19)
Reread your post. You said “a lot of Catholics”, not “some”.
I merely made a subset of that “lot” that you speak of, those Catholics who disapprove of Francis.
Re-read the original post, Luther hated the Papacy, the Catholic Church, and Catholic Sacraments. Catholics on this forum who critique Pope Francis do none of the above.
And personally, I think Bergoglio hates the Catholic Church and It’s Sacraments. And that’s why the whole world adores him, while traditional Catholics fear him.
The line was straight from the article. It is an easy question: What is the difference between that quote and what you do?
I was speaking of your post #14. You said, “a lot of Catholics”. You did not say “some” Catholics.
I’ll answer it. Luther was addressing his pope like this because he preferred his own version of the Christian religion to the Catholic Faith. The Catholics here who take issue with “Pope” Francis take issue with him because Francis prefers Francis religion over the Catholic religion.
A very clear difference.
Having said that I rarely see anyone actually call Francis an ass.
And therein is the problem with roman catholicism. Everything has to circle through Mary.
Mary does not play a role in our salvation.
Mary is the mother of Christ. That is all.
She is not a mediatrix, co-redemtrix or advocate.
That roman catholicism advances this is a false teaching.
So you Lutherans contradict Luther?
Interesting!
Only where he was wrong. Which wasn’t too often.
Would love to know where you think we’re contradicting him there though...seems perfectly consistent to me.
I am not the one to give you a tutorial on Mary. I was once like you, for many decades. I know a brick wall when I see one. I was one. It would be a waste of my time and yours.
Faith is a gift, and understanding a fruit of the Spirit, but the Church with Vatican II has itself rather shut out Mary as the hierarchy entertained infiltrators and heretics who were/are enemies of the Church.
I would not expect you to even stumble across any understanding on Mary. Many Catholics by now do not know her either, as the centuries of the faithful did, who came before them.
It is admittedly a great loss for all. The wolves have struck, to steal and destroy and buried plenty of knowledge.
I’ll answer it. Luther was addressing his pope like this because he preferred his own version of the Christian religion to the Catholic Faith. The Catholics here who take issue with “Pope” Francis take issue with him because Francis prefers Francis religion over the Catholic religion.
Well the Catholic church at the time was selling forgiveness and executing those who opposed it, so... yeah I suppose based on that he did prefer “his” version of Christianity. Of course, “his” version of Christianity was merely what the Catholic church historically taught, which it was no longer teaching.
So there’s really no difference between today and then - both Francis’s detractors and the medieval reformers both argued that what the pope was teaching wasn’t Catholicism. The difference is that Francis is nowhere nearly as - dare I say - demonic as the some of the medieval popes.
I've read a great deal of roman catholic teachings on Mary. The overwhelming majority are false.
The catholic cannot point to anywhere in Scripture where mary is accorded the status of advocate, co-redemtrix or mediatrix.
Nor can the catholic point to Scripture that indicates we have to wear a piece of cloth to avoid the hell-fire as catholicism claims an apparition posing as Mary claimed.
I don't see a brick wall. I see false teachings in the roman catholic church on "mary".
Well, the brick wall is “sola scriptura”. Bible alone stunts all conversation or where remotely possible it is limited only to what is in the Bible. At least it did with me.
I was ignorant. I knew nothing of Christianity but the Bible. It was if the Bible gave us the Church. A crock.
The Church gave us the Bible. There was much that was not in the bible and common reason proves that point, as well as Scripture itself.
I recall walking out of an Episcopalian bible study once, when the pastor discussed faith and practices before the printing and common man use of the Bible. It was as if he had let a serpent loose before my eyes. Seriously, I left. Lol!
So, broad ignorance is not very authoritative, regardless of how puffed up one can sound in demonstrating it. That is the problem in a nut shell.
Mormons make the same argument as roman catholics.
However, we do have this from the Bible.
14You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:14-17 NASB
The church did not give us the Bible.
God gave it to us.
Not for lack of trying. I wouldn't be offended because I think he is one as well, and am happy he isn't mine to worry about.
I have read your stuff before, while I can feel your angst but you usually are controlled and focused. My comment was directed because because the casual reader takes posted material without delving into motives of the individual writing them.
While Luther may have had some valid points in his original dissent, by his death he had fabricated a faith that was crafted to deal with his fears regarding his own soul. Even so, he certainly wouldn’t recognize what passes as “Lutheranism” today. His Pope would certainly have an easier time recognizing the Catholic faith today.
Selling indulgences was an abuse (which is wrong), but that was not all that Luther revolted against. He revolted against Church doctrine which was always Church doctrine.
So you are wrong. It is not the same thing.
I understand.
And of course, I don't agree that he revolted against "Church doctrine which was always Church doctrine." What was "revolted" against was not "always" Church doctrine, but was made up later. That doesn't mate me de facto wrong, it means we disagree. I of course, think you're wrong :)
Give me an example of a church doctrine that wasn’t always a doctrine of the Catholic Church at that time (doctrine, not abuses...which are two different things).
Give me an example of a church doctrine that wasn’t always a doctrine of the Catholic Church at that time (doctrine, not abuses...which are two different things).
The pope as de jure ruler of the church.
Transubstantiation.
The Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice.
More recently, papal infallibility, assumption of Mary. If there really is a faith delivered once for all to the saints (Jude 3), then doctrine cannot change.
And let’s not even get into justification by faith alone or sola scriptura :)
Usually when a teaching is defined at a later point in time it does not mean it is new. It means that it has always been the teaching of the Church. The formal definition is made to combat heresies at the time, etc. and to make it clear that the teaching was always Church teaching.
I don't blame you for not knowing this as many, many Catholics don't even know this.
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.