Posted on 12/17/2010 7:31:07 AM PST by marshmallow
There's no "implication" whatsoever. It's all explicit.
Read the actual words of Luther at al.,
You happy to sign off on what Luther says about Mary?
Not really — it is more of a fundamental difference between Catholic and Protestant Christianity. We don’t recognize an infallible extra-Biblical human source for Christian doctrine ... in Luther, Calvin, the Pope, or the Vatican.
The analogy that comes to mind is King George and George Washington. The American Revolution was a fight to overthrow the authority of King George on American shores. But there was a movement thereafter to make George Washington a King. To replace one tyranny with another, more benevolent (at least for the time being) tyranny. To do so would’ve betrayed the principles that the Revolution was based on.
The Protestant Reformation was, at least partially, a movement which said there is no one infallible person (or church heirarchy) representing God on earth, and to object to the Catholic church’s claim on that authority. To then look to Luther and Calvin as an infallible spokesman for God would be only to replace one infallible representative with another infallible representative ... and would pretty well invalidate the movement itself.
I think its just a difference in thinking. Catholics quote Luther to us as if we look to Luther/Calvin in the way Catholics look to Popes, Catechisms, the Vatican, etc. We don’t. Luther/Calvin may have originated the movement ... but they were just as likely to make mistakes as you, or I, or the Pope. They were not doctrinally infallible.
Their theology was also colored by Catholic teaching prior to the reformation, and they were therefore more likely to accept specific Catholic doctrines (like perpetual virginity) that may not be Biblically justifiable.
SnakeDoc
“Christ never abandoned his faithful, the RCC chose to go with its own version of events rather than the Scripture.”
If what you say is correct, that the Catholic Church isn’t the ‘one true church’, than Christ did in fact abandon his people for 1500 years until the Protestant Reformation.
“I think its just a difference in thinking. Catholics quote Luther to us as if we look to Luther/Calvin in the way Catholics look to Popes, Catechisms, the Vatican, etc. We don’t. Luther/Calvin may have originated the movement but they were just as likely to make mistakes as you, or I, or the Pope. They were not doctrinally infallible.”
Sir, this article is from a Protestant who was a protestant and converted over. Many Protestants do look at Luther and Calvin and Zwingli as authoritative, which is why they call themselves Lutherans and Calvinists. Or Mennonites as the case may be.
Now, you are quite right that Protestants don’t have an overarching authority besides their own conscience. So in a sense, everyone picks and chooses what they want to believe and have in essence their own, personal theology.
If you sincerely believe that you can be in error, why are you a Protestant? What happens if you’ve misunderstood scripture and gotten it wrong? Won’t you be doomed to Hell because you’ve not properly understood what is going on?
Humans are ALL known to err. The problem I have with Protestantism is the defacto sixth Sola, "Sola Puto" (ut quod ego unus sumo ut puto) doctrine which means "that which I alone choose to believe". It recognizes the error in all others but retains for itself some special ability to personally infallibly interpret Scripture while denying that ability to Catholics.
“But the Pope is not infallible”
Are Catholics required to believe everything that the Pope says?
I am happy to denounce any of the Mariolatry proposed by Rome for what it is...a sick, demonic perversion of man-centered worship. We really don’t focus on what men say at any point in their lives, we (that is, the real believers in Jesus Christ, alone) focus on what the Scriptures teach about truth. I’m happy now. But, it sounds as though you are now happy with what Luther, Calvin & Zwingli write.
Exactly..and humans have opinions and draw conclusions which are published via writings etc. But if these do not stand the test of scripture clearly then they are simply mans opinions....who is not perfected in this world.....regardless of who they are. Mary is honored by most...but to pray to her, bow down to her, kiss an image of her, and hold her up equal to or above Christ is far beyond honoring her...it''s worshiping her and dethrones Christ from His position as our only Savior and King.
That was the whole point! You don’t have an answer! That is SAD! I have no questions about my religion.....find one for yourself that fills that.
Amen and well said.
Ben,
The Vatican came up with its doctrine of purgatory at the councils of Florence and Trent. Why then? Why wasn’t the teaching of purgatory being done from the beginning of the church? “but now once in the end of the world hath he (Jesus) appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” Hebrews 9:26 Jesus himself paid the price for our salvation with his precious blood.
:)
Apparently..from the catechism:
“The Roman Pontiff... enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith - he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals... This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.” Pg. 235, #891
“In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a supernatural sense of faith the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s livi ng magisterium, unfailingly adheres to this faith.” Pg. 235, #889
“Mary is honored by most...but to pray to her, bow down to her, kiss an image of her, and hold her up equal to or above Christ is far beyond honoring her...it’’s worshiping her and dethrones Christ from His position as our only Savior and King”
Do Catholics do any of these things?
I have a question, are we permitted to make images of God?
So Christ wasn't the only sinless person ever born, Huh?
That means that she and Christ were both qualified to save people from their sins. Cough, cough.
In toto, no.
In so far as it agrees with authentic doctrine, yes.
But we digress.
Thanks for avoiding the question.
I'll repeat it.
You happy to sign off on the words of Luther at al., quoted above?
Many here don't.
Don't be shy. It's OK to say "no".
Um...that doesn’t prove anything of the kind. It isn’t even germane to your point.
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.