Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Explain to me Martin Luther

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    The Roman Catholic Church admits their fault in schisms in their catechism (perhaps we should call this cateschism):

    Wounds to unity

    817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

    Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

    818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

    269 UR 3 § 1.
    270 Cf. CIC, can. 751.
    271 Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1:PG 13,732.
    272 UR 3 § 1.

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs...m/p123a9p3.htm
    Last edited by robrecht; 05-30-2014, 02:10 AM.
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
      I assume you're referring to this?: "Soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs."-Tetzel

      I admit,this sounds heretical at first, however, Tetzel was known for being needlessly hyperbolic. I doubt that he actually, sincerely believed that indulgences automatically got you out of purgatory, or that the Church taught this as their official position.
      Let's assume that you're correct that Tetzel did not actually believe that indulgences got you, or any of your dead loved ones out of purgatory. Given Tetzel's infamy of being "needlessly hyperbolic" as you put it, it would hardly be surprising if the popular masses got the impression that indulgences worked as a "get out of jail"-card, would it?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
        The Roman Catholic Church admits their fault in schisms in their catechism (perhaps we should call this cateschism):

        Wounds to unity

        817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

        Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

        818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

        269 UR 3 § 1.
        270 Cf. CIC, can. 751.
        271 Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1:PG 13,732.
        272 UR 3 § 1.

        http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs...m/p123a9p3.htm
        Which is good, and I applaud the RCC position on this issue, but my criticism was directed at the way Sparrow seemed to put the blame on the schism solely on Luther, as if the RCC leadership had nothing to do with it. The official position of the RCC on this matter isn't really relevant to my objection. It was interesting reading though, so thanks for that.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
          Which is good, and I applaud the RCC position on this issue, but my criticism was directed at the way Sparrow seemed to put the blame on the schism solely on Luther, as if the RCC leadership had nothing to do with it. The official position of the RCC on this matter isn't really relevant to my objection. It was interesting reading though, so thanks for that.
          I just offered this up because I thought it might interest both Sparrow and you. No criticism of you was intended.
          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
            Let's assume that you're correct that Tetzel did not actually believe that indulgences got you, or any of your dead loved ones out of purgatory. Given Tetzel's infamy of being "needlessly hyperbolic" as you put it, it would hardly be surprising if the popular masses got the impression that indulgences worked as a "get out of jail"-card, would it?
            Yeah, that's probably what happened.

            Then again, I'm not defending the fact that he made such a statement in the first place. He shouldn't have.
            Last edited by TimelessTheist; 05-30-2014, 08:08 AM.
            Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

            -Thomas Aquinas

            I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

            -Hernando Cortez

            What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

            -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

            Comment


            • #36
              It has been my understanding that Luther never wanted to separate from the RCC, only reform it (hence "the Reformation") and that the schism was largely a result of the actions of the opposing side. In other words, blaming Luther for the divisions that followed the reformation seems a bit misguided to me, or at the very least, putting the blame solely on Luther when the RCC leadership practically pushed him and his followers out of the RCC is.
              Eh, no, not really. Reforming the church was, ironically, never one of the goals of Luther's reformation, as "reform" suggests that he believed in the central tenants of the Church, but simply thought it had been corrupted through greed or some other such. This is not the case. He equated the Papacy with the Antichrist, and proclaimed that central tenants such as purgatory or mass were unbiblical and wrong. Luther wasn't trying to reform the Church, as he was claiming that it was wrong from the very beginning.
              Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

              -Thomas Aquinas

              I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

              -Hernando Cortez

              What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

              -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                Eh, no, not really. Reforming the church was, ironically, never one of the goals of Luther's reformation, as "reform" suggests that he believed in the central tenants of the Church, but simply thought it had been corrupted through greed or some other such. This is not the case. He equated the Papacy with the Antichrist, and proclaimed that central tenants such as purgatory or mass were unbiblical and wrong. Luther wasn't trying to reform the Church, as he was claiming that it was wrong from the very beginning.
                I think you're confusing Luther's eventual position with his initial position. He didn't leave the RCC; he was forced out.
                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                sigpic
                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                  Eh, no, not really. Reforming the church was, ironically, never one of the goals of Luther's reformation, as "reform" suggests that he believed in the central tenants of the Church, but simply thought it had been corrupted through greed or some other such. This is not the case. He equated the Papacy with the Antichrist, and proclaimed that central tenants such as purgatory or mass were unbiblical and wrong. Luther wasn't trying to reform the Church, as he was claiming that it was wrong from the very beginning.
                  You really ought to read up on your Luther. As OBP stated, you're confusing Luther's eventual standpoint with his initial one.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    It's not like they would not have let him back in if he really wanted to reform the church from within, or he could have become a martyr to the truth (he says too lightly), but it sounds like he got caught up in the politics of the day and apocalyptic speculation. I wonder if, with 20—20 hindsight from purgatory or heaven, he might have done things a little differently? God knows, the Roman Catholic Church could have handled things much better, so I don't intend this as a one-sided critique of Luther. What if Luther had tried to reform the church more along the lines of a Francis of Assisi (or John Huss)? He preached by example and was not a theologian, but some of his later followers would join the political opposition to the pope, and some also adopted an apocalyptic stance in opposition to the official church. Ironically, Huss was killed by the Conciliarsts, who opposed Rome, though I have little doubt Rome would have been happy to have obliged. It is only speculation how things might have occurred differently if cooler heads had prevailed, on both sides, of course.
                    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                      Ironically, Huss was killed by the Conciliarst, who opposed Rome, though I have little doubt Rome would have been happy to have obliged. It is only speculation how things might have occurred differently if cooler heads had prevailed, on both sides, of course.
                      Huss's brother converted to Orthodoxy (they recently found his baptismal certificate).
                      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                      sigpic
                      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                        I think you're confusing Luther's eventual position with his initial position. He didn't leave the RCC; he was forced out.
                        Luther, himself, stated the opposite:

                        "The chief cause that I fell out with the pope was this: the pope boasted that he was the head of the Church, and condemned all that would not be under his power and authority; for he said, although Christ be the head of the Church, yet, notwithstanding, there must be a corporal head of the Church upon earth. With this I could have been content, had he but taught the gospel pure and clear, and not introduced human inventions and lies in its stead. Further, he took upon him power, rule, and authority over the Christian Church, and over the Holy Scriptures, the Word of God; no man must presume to expound the Scriptures, but only he, and according to his ridiculous conceits; so that he made himself lord over the Church, proclaiming her at the same time a powerful mother, and empress over the Scriptures, to which we must yield and be obedient; this was not to be endured. They who, against God's Word, boast of the Church's authority, are mere idiots. The pope attributes more power to the Church, which is begotten and born, than to the Word, which has begotten, conceived, and born the Church."

                        It wasn't his "eventual position". He flat out states that he left the Church because 1) The Church has a Pope. 2) The Pope doesn't teach his Lutherean doctrines.
                        Last edited by TimelessTheist; 05-30-2014, 09:30 AM.
                        Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                        -Thomas Aquinas

                        I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                        -Hernando Cortez

                        What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                        -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                          Eh, no, not really. Reforming the church was, ironically, never one of the goals of Luther's reformation, as "reform" suggests that he believed in the central tenants of the Church, but simply thought it had been corrupted through greed or some other such. This is not the case. He equated the Papacy with the Antichrist, and proclaimed that central tenants such as purgatory or mass were unbiblical and wrong. Luther wasn't trying to reform the Church, as he was claiming that it was wrong from the very beginning.

                          If he denied all the central tenets, you might have a case there. But it is clear that Luther while disagreeing with some tenets still affirmed many. Your attempt to paint him as a completely negative figure doesn't convince at all.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                            Huss's brother converted to Orthodoxy (they recently found his baptismal certificate).
                            Cool!
                            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Paprika View Post

                              If he denied all the central tenets, you might have a case there. But it is clear that Luther while disagreeing with some tenets still affirmed many. Your attempt to paint him as a completely negative figure doesn't convince at all.
                              Oh, no. He just denied the Papacy, Catholic mass, transubstantiation, the canonization of Saints, and purgatory.....but other than 'that', he was all for the Church.
                              Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                              -Thomas Aquinas

                              I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                              -Hernando Cortez

                              What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                              -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                                Oh, no. He just denied the Papacy, Catholic mass, transubstantiation, the canonization of Saints, and purgatory.....but other than 'that', he was all for the Church.
                                Because those are the central tenets of the Christian faith.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X