Posted on 04/08/2016 7:34:38 AM PDT by Salvation
Interesting that you would use Luther to reinforce your biased belief. Is he okay now or do you only pull him out when you think he might agree with you?
Should you ever desire to know the context of that Luther quote - and it is NOT saying what you think - take a few moments to do some research outside of that RCC bubble and see:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/11/luther-infallible-church-declared.html
We don’t need Luther to agree with us on anything except to say that sometime he could be right on.
We have a towering theologian after whom colleges and universities have been name to support our belief in the Eucharist.
Augustine put it this way: “I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church.”
See Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5:6
So, I take it you did not read the link I provided that put Luther’s comment in context? When you do then we can discuss further your “selective” use of snippet hunting.
If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man," says Christ, "and drink His blood, you have no life in you." John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. Augustine On Christian Doctrine (Book III, cp. 16) — http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm
As you indicate previously that you area baptized Catholic that no longer practices the Catholic faith, I am surprised that you are confused about Catholic teaching that is based on Scripture and Sacred Tradition. You quote specific verses, but ignore many other teachings of Jesus that informs us about the path to Salvation.
The Catholic Church recognizes 7 Sacraments that were established by Christ and are an integral part of the Catholic Church and the teaching of Jesus.
1. Baptism for the forgiveness of original sin and personal sins at the time of Baptism.
2. Reconciliation (Confession) for the forgiveness of sins committed after Baptism.
3. Eucharist (Holy Communion) that is part of the Mass where the priest consecrates the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.
4. Confirmation.
5. Marriage.
6. Holy Orders
7. Anointing of the Sick.
Each provides graces from God so that we can grow in our love of God and neighbor towards our salvation with God upon our death.
I am sorry that you see too many conditions. These are the teachings from Jesus that has been followed by the Catholic Church.
Yes Faith in Jesus is very important and essential in our journey, but our love of God encompasses much more as stated in the Bible and the teachings of the Catholic Church as founded by Jesus.
May we all truly understand and follow the path to our salvation.
I’m not talking about the schism. I’m talking about the early church fathers. Your statements on this indicate they were. I’m asking you if this is true. Are they in 100% agreement on the roman catholic position of the Eucharist being the actual literal flesh and blood of Christ wen consumed?
Why? Why should I care what Luther said?
Maybe it needs reminding what Martin Luther, the Protestant Reformer, said about the Bible? In his “Commentary On St. John,” he stated the following:
“We are compelled to concede to the Catholic Church that they have the Word of God, that we have received It from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of It at all.”
Just goes to show that he didn't know any better.
End of all discussion.
No, it's the end of all discussion when GOD says it, not when Martin Luther says it.
And even if the Catholic church can take credit for assembling all known Scripture into one handy volume, they certainly cannot take credit for giving us Scripture.
That belongs to God and God alone and the one who tries to take credit to himself for the work of God is on really thin ice.
Additionally, if the Bible is indeed the work of man, then it's meaningless. The only reason it would have any credibility would be if it were the work of GOD.
If it's God's work, it's truth. If it's man's work, it's just another opinion piece.
So when Catholics give credit to their church for the Bible, they are denigrating it. Sounds familiar. Did God really say.....?
Yeah, Catholics sure can’t make up their mind about Luther can they?
How hypocritical, but then again, they do the same with the ECF’s, too. And Scripture, at that.
Cherry pick what they like and what supports their doctrine, and dispose of the rest.
Jesus never said that if you do x,y, and z, then I will give you grace.
Ephesians 1:3-10 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
Romans 5:1-2 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
John 1:14-17 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
And the EO consider the Roman rite to be the ones in schism with the EO being the TRUE form of Catholicism.
So who's correct?
Both are making the same claims for the same reason, that they are the original church established by Christ and the other is wrong. Since they can both trace their roots back to the same starting point, how do you know that you are right and they are the ones who are wrong?
How do you know that THEY aren't the ones who are right and you're in the wrong church after all?
AHHhhh...
The simple Gospel message.
Now let’s clutter it up will all kinds of unnecessary things!
Well; we got to reply number 5...
...uh...
Even BEFORE them 300 years?
They asked her, "Woman, why are you crying?" "They have taken my Lord away," she said, "and I don't know where they have put him."
I was wanting a bite of His flesh and a sip of the blood from His body. (Rome's insistence.)
Rome's Followers: "Oh NO!!!
Not the REAL stuff; but a bit of wafer and some wine!!
SOME body is poorly catechized here...
You mean like those 7 Catholic churches mention by John in Revelation?
All the correct theology churches that PAUL kept writing to?
The RECORD shows quite a different story than the one that Rome is trying to put out now.
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.