Posted on 02/18/2017 6:28:09 AM PST by marshmallow
CFN Intro: On February 16 Rorate Caeli and Adelante la Fe posted a comprehensive video interview with the well-known conservative Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakistan that runs about 48 minutes. The interview covered a myriad of topics, but CFN is spotlighting Bishop Schneider’s magnificent response regarding a recent Vatican document that names the heresiarch Martin Luther as a witness to the Gospel. We know you will benefit from Bishop Schneider’s forthright commentary (JV).
Question: A controversial document from the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity equates Saint Ignatius of Loyola and Saint Francis of Borgia with Martin Luther, calling him a witness to the Gospel. We as Catholics are aware of the serious damage Luther caused to the Church, what should be our position if our ecclesiastical authorities invite us to consider Luther as a witness to the Gospel?
Bishop Schneider. Well, this document is issued by the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, this Council has no doctrinal authority. We have no need to take seriously this document, which is objectively wrong. It is against the evidence. We cannot put on the same level Luther and Saint Ignatius. This is a contradiction. Luther cannot be a witness to the Gospel, and the Church will not ask us to accept this because it is only a statement from the pontifical Council so it need not be taken seriously.
When we examine in sincerity and honesty Luther and his work, he caused immense damage to the entire Christianity. He divided Christianity. He is not a witness of the Gospel.He denied almost the entire previous tradition from 1500 years. This cannot be a witness to the Gospel who puts himself as the authority to interpret the Word of God. This is against the Faith which Christ gave us and which the apostles transmitted to us in a basic manner – to reject the Holy Tradition as really a fount of revelation and the entire thinking of the Church which the Holy Ghost guided in the dogmatic and doctrinal issues, and this is the case. Luther did not reject [merely] the disciplinary tradition, the pastoral tradition, but he rejected the fundamental doctrinal tradition of the Church. And the doctrinal tradition of the Church is the Gospel. This is Gospel. And when I reject the substance of the entire Apostolic and immutable constant tradition of the Church (in the case of Luther, 1500 years) I am rejecting the Gospel.
For example, in Kazakistan where I am living there was a holy martyr priest who was beatified, Blessed Oleksa Zarytsky whom my parents had known personally, he blessed me when I was a child. This priest was from the Byzantine Rite, but Catholic. And the Communist asked them not to deny Christ, not to deny the sacraments, but only to deny one point of the Gospel: the primacy of Peter, the papacy (which is in the Gospel). Blessed Oleksa told the tribunal, “If I would deny this point on the primacy of Peter, I will deny entire Gospel. I will be the anti-witness of the entire Gospel.” This is in our time, he died in 1963.
So, in the case of Luther, he rejected the heart of the Church, which is the Eucharist. He rejected the sacrificial essence and substance of the Eucharistic celebration, and this is the heart of the Church – the Eucharist. This is just one example. So how could one be a witness to the Gospel when he rejects the heart of the Church, the sacrificial nature of the Mass itself?
Luther called the Mass an invention of the devil, a blasphemy. He called the papacy an invention of satan. How can we name this person as a witness? When we do this, we don’t believe in the sacrificial character of the Mass, or we don’t believe in the primacy of Peter, or we don’t believe in the Catholic manner of the unchangeable doctrinal tradition of the Church, or we are committing a lie and playing only a game of political correctness. This is very dishonest. Or we have an intellectual position of relativism, that truth and untruth are the same. And so in this case when this document from the Pontifical Council states that Luther is more or less the same level as St. Ignatius, they are putting truth and error at the same level. This is the position of philosophical and theological relativism. And this is very dangerous.
So I think we need not take this document seriously, because it has no doctrinal authority. It is in itself contradictory and completely wrong. This document will not last for many years. Because the Church is more powerful, the unchangeable truth is more powerful than this weak and very wrong document. It will pass away with time.
Zuriel provided answer, just not one limited to the narrow application you were seeking an answer conform to. By default, there was nothing he said in comment #56 that would go against the idea of those personages appearing with Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration (as that Bible passage has grown to be commonly known) were not alive, for whatever the state of existence was for those two persons (Moses and Elijah) who appeared with Christ, it would mean little to nothing once what Zuriel was trying to draw your attention to was noticed.
Now THERE, among the above, when I wrote about "answer you were seeking" was a little mind reading of my own -- yet not out of the blue, or beyond the pale and beyond the rules of debate, for it was obvious enough what you were seeking -- the answer "they were alive". Otherwise, show me where I misread (through the cobwebs).
What Zuriel (obviously enough to me) was driving at, was one of the very passages of Scripture you were trying to lean upon in order to support prayers to departed saints (PTDS -including prayers to "Mary", regardless if it's allegedly just "asking her to pray for us" etc.) does not at all support the practice (PTDS), but otherwise can be seen to quite strongly forbid the practice, thus resulting in one of the examples of Scripture that is commonly reached for among RCC apologists for support of PTSD, more actually undermining the very argument that is trying to be made.
It's like you've shot your own argument in the foot, but not a flesh wound only, here in this instance the Scripture passage (cited below) is deadly fatal to the very concept of PTDS; [underlining of key portions added for emphasis]
Matthew 173 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. 4 Then Peter answered and said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, let us make here three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.”
5 While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying,
“This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!”
6 And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their faces and were greatly afraid. 7 But Jesus came and touched them and said, “Arise, and do not be afraid.” 8 When they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no one but Jesus only.
If we are going to be reading meanings into the text, asserting that there are things in-between-the-lines, pregnant within the text, this text STILL provides for us nothing in way of support for PTDS hinging upon whether ot not Moses and Eljah were "alive" at that time and place (within the Open Vision of the Transfiguration witnessed by several apostles/followers of Christ) ---but rather instead--- runs contrary to it. Could be seen as unspoken prohibition against the practice, and should be seen as prohibition against the practice, for we must be consistent in ongoing appraisals of Scripture. One of the biggest principles within Scripture, the so-called Old Testament, and the New Testament also, is monotheism ---to have no other Gods before (other than) the Creator, alone.
Which from the beginning (of Scripture) and also clearly to the end, results in (if we are to follow what has been written, as we should, as ALL should) our needing pray to God alone (our Father in Heaven) as Jesus (the man himself when present among us in this world, in the flesh) explicitly instructed.
If there is still argument that any should pray to other personages (thought to presently be residing "in Heaven" also) show us where from within Scripture such a practice is recommended.
We'll be waiting ('till the cows come home).
Thusly, your argument fails. So sad, too bad, so sorry. To the winners go the spoils. To the rest I will advise, leave my FRiend Zuriel alone. Mess with him and you just may cross paths with me.
The word was wittle, like little, not "white".
It was you that began the whining about people throwing stones. Directing that to the one you had accusing of living in a glass house.
Now to that person, direct the same question which you have presented to me;
where has she resorted to profanity (i have no idea why reference to that was snuck in there) or name calling, on this thread?
If also you'd like to be referred to insults coming from a few Catholics, directed at those who disagree with themselves, I could show you a few of those, but I'd have to use freepmail -- and it could take a little time for me to get around to it.
Meanwhile, while we are waiting, you SHOULD show us "profanity and name calling" engaged in by boatbums. Go ahead, show us. Let's see it. Or retract that as applying to the freeper known as boatbums. You had accused that person specifically of living in a glass house and throwing stones, and now you seem to be twisting it yet further, once it came back at you. You guys are constantly "throwing stones" at Protestants in general.The article at heading of this thread is chock-a-block full of accusations being hurled at Martin Luther, and thus by extension, Protestants in general too (as has been pointed out to you, already).
If we were to include the "birds of a feather" aspect equally across the board, like to your own other co-religionists, beyond merely yourself) as you have just now sought to apply that to the freeper who goes by the moniker boatbums (due to the insulting tone I aimed at you) then the real 'persons who throw stones, while living in glass houses' sort of affair could apply on this thread first; most primarily to your co-religionists including but not limited to bishop Schneider.
I'm amazed I have to explain this.
Those passages very much confirm my point.
As for the element of them being "alive" ---the concept and argument of that being opening for doctrines both allowing AND advising "asking for prayers" from persons (saints, even) who have departed from earthly living realm, to be comparable to requests for prayers directed to those who are known to us still living upon earth (not in Heaven, but still with us upon the earth), doesn't fly, it tries (tried to), but instead melts under the heat of closer examination of the Scriptures, reminiscent of Icarus flying too close to the sun.
Daddy tried to warn Icarus...
Our Father in Heaven, speaking through His begotten son, Jesus, tried to tell us in unspoken manner -- do not-- (the negative aspect) when telling us so when when Jesus told his disciples otherwise, "do", telling them to :In this manner, therefore, pray: Jesus said, providing positive model of how to pray what's come to be known as the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6: 9-13), the 'Our Father'.
As towards the unspoken argument I have just now alleged Jesus made (which is; do not direct prayers heavenwards to anyone other than the One True God) feel free, knock yourself out, take again wing and go soaring to find for us doctrine originating from within Scripture itself that proposes such as you suggest.
Flying over waters (of the deep?) may be better than flying over land. It (water) can be softer to fall into than upon dry, hard, stony land. Would help to be able to swim though...
Let's try some easy math:
There are approximately 1.2 billion Catholics world wide;
If merely 1% of them 'ask' Mary for help just once each day;
that means that 12 million separate prayers are headed Mary's direction every day.
Given that there are 86,400 seconds per day... (24 hours times 60 minutes times 60 seconds)
...that means that Mary has to handle approximately 139 'requests' per second!
Purty good fer someone NOT 'divine'!
::yawn::
Do I really have to show you up....again?
No whining here. Just pointing out that interaction is a waste of time especially when it has been with the same group of posters for years. Quite honestly you should feel the same way.
“We as Catholics are aware of the serious damage Luther caused to the Church, what should be our position if our ecclesiastical authorities invite us to consider Luther as a witness to the Gospel?”
Catholics were barely Catholics (in Rome) in Luther’s time. The leadership were largely degenerates, corruptocrats, and unworthy of the gospel they claimed as their birthright.
The Catholic Church created Luther. The damage attributed to Luther was created by the Catholic church.
Luther had a point, he made it, and Catholics eventually addressed them.
Blaming Luther is like blaming the rain for a leaky roof.
If such a distasteful character as many think Luther was, how is it that such a man could be so right about the Catholic Church, and the leadership claiming to lead the church be so wrong?
To: ealgeone
Again, you don’t know what in the hell you’re talking about.
Or do you reject the Bible?
“I resist you to your face.”
42 posted on 2/15/2017, 5:39:18 PM by ebb tide (We have a rogue curia in Rome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
And in the same thread we have this:
To: ealgeone
So a heretic is telling a Catholic he is in error about the Catholic faith??
ROTFLMAO.
47 posted on 2/15/2017, 5:52:29 PM by ebb tide (We have a rogue curia in Rome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
I'm sure there's lots more but those illustrate my point.
True today too.
There are "catholic countries" where more than 80% of "catholics" never attend any kind of service in the course of a year.
**Were Moses and Elijah “dead” when they appeared with Christ in front of Peter?**
Sorry for the delay, but there are periods of time that I have to cease electronic communication in order get sleep, family time, or other important things done.
Moses physically died. There is scripture for that. Elijah ascended to heaven without any indication of a physical death. Samuel died a physical death, yet was later “disquieted” by Saul, by way of a demon possessed woman. God apparently allowed this, since the words of Samuel, in this awakening of sorts, proved to be 100% accurate.
So, the only instance in scripture, where earthly communication with someone that has physically departed (other than Christ), is a bad example, then why would anyone seek to awake them for mediation purposes? Why insist on a prayer directed to heaven be intentionally diverted (as if you or I had the power to divert it) to a soul that has to be awakened by God to hear you?
You need proof that the soul of Mary not only doesn’t sleep, but is omnipresent.
**You [figuratively] ran your own argument up on a curb.**
That’s probably fairly easy to do when one has too many steering wheels (pope, sleeping saints, and occasionally God)(the last of which would never guide one over the curb).
Very informative. Did some looking and many Protestant Luther experts consider Pope Benedict XVI as a scholar on Luther.
Regarding Elijah, one thing to keep in mind is the multiple meanings of the term “heaven” in the book of Kings. One is God’s kingdom, one is the physical universe/outer space, and one is the earth’s physical atmosphere/the sky above. God moved him out of harms way to a safe place, so being taken up in a “whirlwind to heaven” doesn’t mean God’s kingdom where Christ resides. Remember, Elijah later wrote a letter to King Jehoram after he was “taken up”, see II Chron 21:12.
It appears that you're a legend in your own mind.
It appears that you're a legend in your own mind.
Hey, you asked for proof.
Yet....y'all continue to do so then complain when your doctrines are disputed. Why is that? If you don't want such interaction, then don't post the provocative threads! And, quite honestly, I have no problem defending my beliefs even to the same people over and over because I truly think the Holy Spirit is able to break through even the deepest entrenched deception for those who are diligently seeking to know the truth. I don't see it as a waste of time at all.
Paul didn't get tired of the chance to share the Gospel! Plus he encouraged the new believers to do the same.
For a second there I thought it said Martin Landau.
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.