What Is Better, Catholic or Protestant? Francis: “Both of Them Together”

Gloria TV ^ | Gloria TV

[ebb tide]

What Is Better, Catholic or Protestant? Francis: “Both of Them Together”

The Youth Pastoral Office of Magdeburg diocese, Germany, will organize an October 2020 “ecumenical pilgrimage” for young people to Rome.

The motto of the journey is “With Luther to the Pope”. A similar trip was already taken in 2016.

The pilgrimage is co-organized by the regional Protestant State church, although the Protestants repudiate pilgrimages.

On the trip's webpage Mit-Luther-zum-Papst.de, the tour operator, Hans Höffmann, remembers what Pope Francis said to the participants of the 2016 pilgrimage when asked by a youngster: "What is better, Catholic or Protestant? Francis answered in German: "Both of them together!”

Martin Luther attended school in Magdeburg as a boy. As a preacher, he led the city to defect from the Church. Magdeburg became the first major city to publish Luther’s writings.

[NKP_Vet]

“We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists—that with them is the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.”- Martin Luther

Have a nice night.

[ealgeone]

Nowhere in Scripture is there “sola scriptura”.

You really don't want to go down this road.

No where in the Bible is the word Trinity mentioned either....are you going to deny the Trinity?

However, what we do have are the clear words Jesus said to the disciples.....

Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

45Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,

Luke 24:44-45

Not that He opened their minds to understand "tradition", but He opened their minds to understand what was important....the Scriptures.

*********

We also have the example of the Bereans.

Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Acts 17:11

**********

The principle of relying upon Scripture, and only Scripture is crystal clear.

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

When the Bible is read in context it is clear that Scripture is the ultimate source for our Truth. Scripture testifies to that fact. To claim otherwise is to elevate the writings of fallible men to that of infallible Scripture which is what Roman Catholicism has done.

[ealgeone]

LOL....now Luther is a good guy?

You're accepting what Luther wrote as truth??

Tomorrow however, ya'll will back the Roman Catholic bus back over him again.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Be careful not to confuse a devotional object with an amulet or idol.

A Scapular is a symbolic piece of cloth about the size of a postage stamp---two of them, actually, connected by a string --- and what it symbolizes, is being clothed with the Carmelite habit, of which it is a swatch, a sample. It connects one with security from hellfire and the promise of Salvation, which we --- like you --- have from Christ, and not from our on works. It is not by any means a requirement for salvation!

The comparison of a Scapular with a Wedding Ring does not mean that they are identical, but that they are in the same category: something which, when you wear it, reminds you of the daily commitments of your way of life.

As for the promise of avoiding hellfire, this is all part of a wider understanding of a devout life: committing one's whole life to Christ our Lord.

The 21st century skeptic takes a tweezers, so to speak, and plucks devotional practices out of their context of a "referred life" --- a life whose whole content "refers" to God --- or a life entirely devoted: which is what "devout" means.

You are tweezering out a 1% sample of a pious practice, without the tacit understanding of the 100% devoted life, in which everything is referred to Our Lord.

[Iscool]

“They have left Roman Catholicism for Christianity.” Not this former Evangelical. At the age of 58 after going from one evangelical “church” to another for 40 years I read everything I could get my hands on about the history of Christianity.

But you have never studied and believed the bible, have you...

[ealgeone]

Locate a Reference or Citation: Commentary or Sermon?

First, thank the Roman Catholic using this quote for providing a reference. Normally, the citation given will simply be “Luther’s commentary on John 16.” Now this is not totally correct. The citation is from Luther’s Sermons on John 16 [LW 24], not a commentary. Luther preached on John 14-16 after March 14, 1537, finishing in either June or July of 1537. The sermons were taken down and edited by Caspar Cruciger. Luther actually credits Cruciger for writing the book. In other words, Luther didn’t sit down and write an exegetical commentary on John. Rather, this quote was the result of preaching, and someone else writing it down the way he heard it.

2. Locate a Translation: Do Catholics Actually Read Luther? The question that I always consider when reading Roman Catholics quote Luther, is if they’ve actually read Luther. This quote serves as a great opportunity to find out. The quote as typically cited, “We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists--that with them is the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it” is not the translation from the standard English 55 volume version of Luther’s Works [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House]. Nor is it from the earlier small English set of Luther’s Works (known as the Philadelphia or Holman edition of the Works of Martin Luther), because that set doesn’t contain Luther’s Sermons on John 16. So where did the Roman Catholic citing this quote get it from? They probably can’t tell you, because they haven’t actually read Luther’s Sermons on John 16. They have this quote which they've read somewhere, and thought it made their point. It's probably the result of cut-and-paste, not research.

3. Put the Quote in a Context: What Does Luther Really Mean?

In expounding on John 16, Luther discusses how those who call themselves the “True Church” actually became corrupt and began persecuting true believers- just as the Jewish leadership did to the Old Testament prophets (like Jeremiah). Luther says,

Today the pope and his crowd cry out against us that they are the church, since they have received Baptism, the Sacrament, and Holy Writ from the apostles and are their successors. They say: "Where else should God’s people be than where His name is praised, and where the successors and heirs of His apostles are to be found? Surely the Turks, the Tartars, and the heathen cannot be His people. Therefore we must be His people; otherwise it will be altogether impossible to find a people of God on earth. Consequently, he who rebels against us resists the Christian Church and Christ Himself." [LW 24:303].

But Luther insists they who make this claim are just like the Old Testament Jewish leadership. They claimed to be God’s people (and at one time they were), but because of sin and corruption, they actually persecuted God’s true people. They did not heed the words of the prophets. Luther notes that the plight of the true Christian in such a circumstance is exceedingly difficult. He says,

This will surely offend and repel anyone who is not armed with different weapons and different strength, who listens only to such opinions of the most eminent and influential people on earth. “You are a heretic and an apostle of the devil,” “You are preaching against God’s people and the church, yes, against God Himself.” For it is exceedingly difficult to deprive them of this argument and to talk them out of it. [LW 24:304].

Then, comes the citation in question:

Yes, we ourselves find it difficult to refute it, especially since we concede—as we must—that so much of what they say is true: that the papacy has God’s Word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scripture, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them? Therefore faith, the Christian Church, Christ, and the Holy Spirit must also be found among them. What business have I, then, to preach against them as a pupil preaching against his teachers? Then there come rushing into my heart thoughts like these: “Now I see that I am in error. Oh, if only I had never started this and had never preached a word! For who dares oppose the church, of which we confess in the Creed: I believe in a holy Christian Church, etc.? Now I find this church in the papacy too. It follows, therefore, that if I condemn this church, I am excommunicated, rejected, and damned by God and all the saints.” [LW 24:304].

Conclusion

Is Luther conceding an infallible church gave us the canon? Absolutely not. Is Luther saying an infallible extra-biblical tradition produced the Canon? Absolutely Not. Luther is simply saying that he learned about the Scriptures, Baptism, and the Pulpit, etc. from the Church of his day, in the same way the Prophets were born into a society in which the religious structure of their day was functioning, and gave the Old Testament people a religious context to live in. The visible church indeed promulgated the Scriptures and Christian doctrine. Who can deny this? But simply because they did so, does not mean the visible church in Rome infallibly declared the canon of Scripture.

The quote as cited by Roman Catholics has nothing to do with an infallible Church declaring the contents of Scripture. The quote isn't discussing canonicity. The quote isn't discussing if Rome gave us an infallible list of biblical books. Rather, the quote is part of an argument based on Old Testament Israel persecuting God’s true people, and the Roman Catholic Church persecuting the Reformers. This is made clear as Luther continues. Old Testament Judaism had God's law. does this mean they were the ones who infallibly declared what that law was?

But what is now our defense? And what is the ground on which we can hold our own against such offense and continue to defy those people? It is nothing else than the masterly statement St. Paul employs in Rom. 9:7 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] : “Not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants.” Not all who bear the name are Israelites; or, as the saying goes: “Not all who carry long knives are cooks.” Thus not all who lay claim to the title “church” are the church. There is often a great difference between the name and the reality. The name is general. All are called God’s people, children of Abraham, Christ’s disciples and members; but this does not mean that they all are what the name signifies. For the name “church” includes many scoundrels and rascals who refused to obey God’s Word and acted contrary to it. Yet they were called heirs and successors of the holy patriarchs, priests, and prophets. To be sure, they had God’s Law and promise, the temple, and the priesthood. In fact, they should have been God’s people; but they practiced idolatry so freely under the cloak of the name “church” that God was forced to say: “This shall no longer be My temple and priesthood. My people shall no longer be My people. But to those who are not My people it shall be said: ‘You are sons of the living God’ (Hos. 1:10 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] ; 2:23 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] ). [LW 24:304].

Luther realizes that even within the corrupt papacy, the true church exists:

Thus we are also compelled to say: “I believe and am sure that the Christian Church has remained even in the papacy. On the other hand, I know that most of the papists are not the Christian Church, even though they give everyone the impression that they are. Today our popes, cardinals, and bishops are not God’s apostles and bishops; they are the devil’s. And their people are not God’s people; they are the devil’s. And yet some of the papists are true Christians, even though they, too, have been led astray, as Christ foretold in Matt. 24:24 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] . But by the grace of God and with His help they have been preserved in a wonderful manner. [LW 24:305].

In the meantime we adhere to the distinction made here by Christ and do not regard as Christendom those who do not hold truly and absolutely to what Christ taught, gave, and ordained, no matter how great, holy, and learned they may be. We tell them that they are the devil’s church. On the other hand, we want to acknowledge and honor as the true bride of Christ those who remain faithful to His pure Word and have no other comfort for their hearts than this Savior, whom they have received and confessed in Baptism and in whose name they have partaken of the Sacrament. These are the true church. It is not found in only one place, as, for example, under the pope; but it exists over the entire earth wherever Christians are found. Outwardly they may be scattered here and there, but they meet in the words of the Creed: “I believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, our Lord, who was born, suffered, and died for us on the cross.” In like manner, they pray: “Our Father who art in heaven.” They share the same Spirit, Word, and Sacrament. They all lead the same holy and blessed life, each one according to his calling, whether father, mother, master, servant, etc. Thus whatever we preach, believe, and live, this they all preach, believe, and live. Physically separated and scattered here and there throughout the wide world, we are nevertheless gathered and united in Christ.[LW 24:309].

From these paragraphs, it should be obvious what Luther is driving at. It is the job of the True Church- those who believe and trust only in Christ's righteousness by faith, to call the visible church to repentance. The visible church will claim to be God speaking. The visible church may claim to be that authority which determined the Canon. But if the visible church is in rebellion against God, it is the task of the true Christian to point her back to her master.

Addendum

Sometimes the quote is cited like this:

"We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of GOD, that we received it from them, and that without them, we should have no knowledge of it at all."

This version goes at least as far back as the late 1800's:

It has now been proved that the powerful voice which speaks with full authority in the name of God, was alone able to establish the Canon of the holy books, and demand our faith in their authenticity and inspiration, and each one of us may say with the great Augustine: "For my own part, I should not have believed the Gospel if I had not been influenced by the authority of the Catholic Church." And with Bossuet, "It is through the Church that the Holy Spirit leads us to believe in the Scriptures, and necessarily so, since it is confessedly the Church which puts the Scriptures into our hands." And with Luther himself: "We are compelled to concede to the papists, that they have the word of God; that we received it from them, and that without them we should have had no knowledge of it at all."

Also note this 1994 pro-Roman book that adds the quote is from "Luther's Commentary on St. John." This version is often used on pro-Roman Catholic webpages, too numerous to count.

**********

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/11/luther-infallible-church-declared.html

Ya'll really need to quit drinking the RC kool-aid. In the age of the internet all quotes and statements are but a click away for verification.

I am having a very nice night.

[ealgeone]

Be careful not to confuse a devotional object with an amulet or idol.

This is not a devotional object. This is an idol the apparition said to wear to avoid the eternal-fire.

The comparison of a Scapular with a Wedding Ring does not mean that they are identical, but that they are in the same category: something which, when you wear it, reminds you of the daily commitments of your way of life.

Not even in the same ballpark.

The scapular is making a false promise of avoiding the eternal fire.

The apparition said the person had to wear it continuously for it to "work"

As for the promise of avoiding hellfire, this is all part of a wider understanding of a devout life: committing one's whole life to Christ our Lord.

Nope.

The apparition was specific as to what this idol was about and what the person had to do to be sure "it worked"

There is no ambiguity other than modern day Roman Catholics attempting to squirm away from the meaning of the apparition.

The only way to avoid the eternal fire is to have faith in Christ and only Christ. He is the only One Who can save a person.

The NT is clear on this.

IF this scapular is bogus....will you publicly condemn the wearing of this idol along with the Miraculous Medal and/or any other Scapulars?

Should be a simple yes or no answer.

[ealgeone]

I've completed the first of two classes on church history. A lot of what our RC friends have been posting is shall we say, lacking in details.

When you start comparing Roman Catholicism to what is in the Bible you begin to see the startling differences as I know you have.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I think you don't understand the scapular because of an overall unfamiliarity with the language of devotion as being distinguishable from doctrinal definition.

There are hundreds of millions of Catholics who have lived generation after generation and never wore, never owned, maybe never even heard of a scapular. It is not a doctrine or requirement of the Faith -- no more than a christening dress or a wedding ring.

If it puts you in mind of your eternal destiny and your being clothed with Christ, it's a good thing. If it doesn't so move you ---- well, maybe you can deposit that in the 13th century box, put it on a back shelf and walk on by.

[Salvation]

We are NOT just Roman Catholics (using the Latin Rite.) With your history classes you should have been introduced to the 22 rites of the Catholic Church.

We are all Catholics throughout the world. Please address us correctly.

[BillyBoy]

Yeah, they left Roman Catholicism for Christianity... just like people to have leave Texas to "become an American"

[Salvation]

Please read

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3769002/posts?page=50#50

[BillyBoy]

I read it. I also don't see a single post on this thread stating that all Catholics are Roman. You seem to be starting an argument with no one.

[dartuser]

There are many differences between Protestants and Catholics...but at the heart of it, is a relationship with Jesus Christ.

The issue is ... how is that relationship appropriated?

[dartuser]

Love it when the RC quotes Luther ...

[Biggirl]

The Catholic Church is a part of the great family 🌳 tree called Christianity.

[daniel1212]

There is so much ignorance in the Protestant circles regarding Catholicism and there are many lies and myths about Catholicism that my denomination perpetuates, that many Baptists will never seek out the truth.

Whatever that means, it remains that distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.

[Mark17]

Are you a former Catholic?

I am, along with a number of others.

[Mark17]

The issue is ... how is that relationship appropriated?

Yep, a crucial issue. 😁👍

[daniel1212]

All of us believe that Jesus Christ is the true Savior; born of a virgin; crucified for our sins; and rose from the dead.

Mormons also affirm that, but have a different God and gospel and Spirit, against which we are warned:

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (2 Corinthians 11:4)

And Catholicism has a gospel in which souls must actually become good enough in heart and character to enter Heaven, via baptism and (usually) Purgatory .

And a Eucharistic christ whose appearance does not confirm to what He physically became in the incarnation (and which manifest physicality Scripture emphasizes, looking, feeling, behaving as human, and which body would scientifically test as human flesh), but instead appears as inanimate objects, which are said to not even exist (though looking, feeling, behaving etc. and would scientifically test as mere bread or wine), the Catholic christ having replaced their substance. Until that is, the non-existent "host" begins to manifest the decay of corruption, at which point the Catholic christ is said to no longer exist under that form either.

Add to that such unscriptural novelties as praying to created beings in Heaven, with a mighty Mary whose glory, virtue and powers largely parallel those of Christ , and the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. Which is supposed to be the basis for RC confidence in her teachings.

And note that if you want to assert that the above are lies and myths about Catholicism then this can result in you being exposed as one who is ignorant regarding Catholicism.