In another thread the discussion drifted, as it always seems to do, to whether Luther had intentions of leaving the Catholic Church. Rather than continuing off-topic, I'll ask the questions here.


Was schism (separation from the Church) intended by Martin Luther?
Did Martin Luther attempt to destroy the Roman Catholic Church?


I have hope that we can keep the topic restricted to these questions without deviating into detailed discussions about Luther's theology. It's not intended to delve into Luther's theology in any detail, only to examine his motives surrounding his eventual separation from the Church.


JoeT

No, from all of my study, Martain Luther merely wanted to debate and perhaps make changes in some of the abuses of the Church at that time. Many that did need to be made.

It was the Church in fact that made the situation worst by sentencing him to death.

This was of course a perfect political opportunity for the princes of Germany at the time. Luther was very popular and a public figure ( sort of reference him to a modern day civil right leader) who the common person saw as their friend.

Luther in fact, at least in my opinon was more of a tool or pawn in the political climate of the time. He was used as a figure head of a moveemnt to overthrown the political power of Rome in their areas.

Since without the polictical change the religioous change would not have been allowed.

He was really given no choice than to break away and the move to establish a new church around him was more formed by the political climate than any religious one.

Dr. Martin Luther, as a Roman Catholic priest, was only intent on reforming his church by getting back to the Bible and away from man's reason and traditions.

Because he knew what he was teaching was in agreement with the Holy Scripture, he could not recant at the Diet of Augsburg nor stop teaching as he was ordered by the Vatican. This caused Pope Leo X to excommunicate him and put a ban of death on him. It was only then that there was chism between Luther and the political leaders of the RCC.

Politics also entered into the struggle because the Germanic states had long despised the siphoning off their finances by the Vatican due to the sale of indulgences to build the great cathedral in Rome.

The reformers teachings were put before Emperor Charles V in 1530 by many of the Electors, Counts, Dukes, Bishops, Barons, Mayors and Councils of these states to show that nothing new was being taught in the church but that it had returned to the teachings of the Bible and the pre and post Nicene Fathers of the church.

All:

In 1517 Martin Luther posted the 95 Theses defying the Church. In less than a year Luther indicates what appears to be dominant motives for his actions. This defiance was shown to be present as early as 1518. In a letter to Jodocus Trutfetter, a former professor, Martin Luther exhibited his commitment to the destruction of the Church. He wrote, “To speak plainly, my firm belief is that reform of the Church is impossible unless the ecclesiastical laws, the papal regulations, scholastic theology, philosophy and logic as they at present exist, are thoroughly uprooted….a resolution from which neither your authority, although it is certainly of greatest weight for me…” (Source: Warren H. Carroll, The Cleaving of Christendom, 2000.)

Don't make the mistake in thinking this is just one example of such rhetoric. What then are we to make of a man who set out to “uproot” ecclesiastical laws, regulations, and theology? Are we to assume that the Roman Catholic theological base was so unstable as to need a re-write by Luther? Or, does this look more like the actions of a radical bent on destroying the current authority?

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by revdrgade

Dr. Martin Luther, as a Roman Catholic priest, was only intent on reforming his church by getting back to the Bible and away from man's reason and traditions.

---

Please see the post above, there seems to be more than ample evidence to indicate that his motives would be more aligned with a radical trying to bring down the Church. I’d be happy to bring more material forward if need be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by revdrgade

Because he knew what he was teaching was in agreement with the Holy Scripture, he could not recant at the Diet of Augsburg nor stop teaching as he was ordered by the Vatican. This caused Pope Leo X to exco mmunicate him and put a ban of death on him. It was only then that there was chism between Luther and the political leaders of the RCC.

---

The discord wasn’t the Augsburg Confession; Augsburg was to be the solution, which Luther ultimately walked away from.

The Protestant draft of the Confession was rejected by Emperor Charles V in September 1530. Some considerable time was given by the Emperor for the Protestants to consider a rejoinder more in keeping with Rome. A confidant of Luther, Philip Melanchthon, wrote a response which was immediately rejected. Luther, knowing that continued resistance would be a schism, defiantly wrote to the Emperor in his response, “The Augsburg Confession must endure…Not even an angel from Heaven could alter a syllable of it, and any angel who dared to do so must be accursed and damned. Still less might Emperor, Popes, or bishops sit in judgment on it. The stipulations made that monks and nuns still dwelling in their cloisters should not be expelled, and that the Mass should not be abolished, could not be accepted; for whoever acts against conscience simply paves his way to Hell. The monastic life and the Mass covered with infamous ignominy the merit and suffering of Christ. Of all the horrors and abominations that could be mentioned, the Mass was the greatest.“

The net result was 117 years of Protestant/Catholic wars, from 1535 to 1651(?). Much of the wars was not whether Protestant’s should be forced to practice Catholicism, but rather whether Catholics could continue to worship, keep their monasteries and cloisters. In much of the Protestant countries, including England, these properties were taken from Catholics at the point of a sword.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by revdrgade

Politics also entered into the struggle because the Germanic states had long despised the siphoning off of their finances by the Vatican due to the sale of indulgences to build the great cathedral in Rome.

---

I agree there was much about the politics of the day. But, the majority of it was aimed at Charles V and the Empire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by revdrgade

The reformers teachings were put before Emperor Charles V in 1530 by many of the Electors, Counts, Dukes, Bishops, Barons, Mayors and Councils of these states to show that nothing new was being taught in the church but that it had returned to the teachings of the Bible and the pre and post Nicene Fathers of the church.

---

If there was nothing new then why the entire hubbub; why did we need 117 years of war over nothing new?


JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Please see the post above, there seems to be more than ample evidence to indicate that his motives would be more aligned with a radical trying to bring down the Church. I’d be happy to bring more material forward if need be.

If there was nothing new then why the entire hubbub; why did we need 117 years of war over nothing new?
JoeT

---

Perhaps I should go back to the original two questions:

Luther did NOT intend a schism in the church but wanted reform. He almost immediately saw that this reform would take the destruction of the RCC as it existed at that time.

The "church" that I was thinking of was NOT the RCC. The church was and is that group of saints who trust that Jesus Christ came from heaven to atone for their sins and achieve their eternal redemption, because of which they have given themselves to our heavenly Father.

I know that there is a difference in the definition of the "church" among Christians. I do not see any basis in God's Word to think of the church as any human organization.

Concerning "new"ness:
What Martin Luther was restoring was the truth of the Bible about the teachings and power of the church which was always led by its one Head, Jesus Christ. This was not "new" when compared to most of the early Church Fathers' teachings as well as the Bible. It was considered new only to those who followed the teachings of an organization which, at that time, had put man's reason and tradition above the Holy Scripture .

The RCC has made many reforms since that time as the Second Vatican council clearly shows. Many of those reforms were those which Martin Luther asked for and they were rejected.

There is no perfect denomination of Christians even today. They all need frequent reformations to see their own faults and sins and put their eyes back on our Lord and savior rather than on buildings, organizations and constitutions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by revdrgade

Concerning "new"ness:
What Martin Luther was restoring was the truth of the Bible about the teachings and power of the church which was always led by its one Head, Jesus Christ. This was not "new" when compared to most of the early Church Fathers' teachings as well as the Bible. It was considered new only to those who followed the teachings of an organization which, at that time, had put man's reason and tradition above the Holy Scripture .

The RCC has made many reforms since that time as the Second Vatican council clearly shows. Many of those reforms were those which Martin Luther asked for and they were rejected.

There is no perfect denomination of Christians even today. They all need frequent reformations to see their own faults and sins and put their eyes back on our Lord and savior rather than on buildings, organizations and constitutions.

---

This post I would agree with.. and I offer scripture that has told us these things will take place. As the Lord told Moses long ago, don't turn your back on the Lord, because My anger will be found to correct you. . . and I trust it is a sign of reaping from what is sown. The experiences of life builds us when we learn from our mistakes.

The Lord Told Moses
Deu 31:17 Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God [is] not among us?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by revdrgade

I know that there is a difference in the definition of the "church" among Christians. I do not see any basis in God's Word to think of the church as any human organization.

---

Informative to the word church in related meaning throughtout scripture. ( occurs 80 times in 79 verses in the KJV ) Greek word tranlated ekklēsia, reference number 1577,

1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly

a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating

b) the assembly of the Israelites

c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously

d) in a Christian sense

1) an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting

2) a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake

3) those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body

4) the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth

5) the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by revdrgade

Perhaps I should go back to the original two questions:

Luther did NOT intend a schism in the church but wanted reform. He almost immediately saw that this reform would take the destruction of the RCC as it existed at that time.

The "church" that I was thinking of was NOT the RCC. The church was and is that group of saints who trust that Jesus Christ came from heaven to atone for their sins and achieve their eternal redemption, because of which they have given themselves to our heavenly Father.

I know that there is a difference in the definition of the "church" among Christians. I do not see any basis in God's Word to think of the church as any human organization.

Concerning "new"ness:
What Martin Luther was restoring was the truth of the Bible about the teachings and power of the church which was always led by its one Head, Jesus Christ. This was not "new" when compared to most of the early Church Fathers' teachings as well as the Bible. It was considered new only to those who followed the teachings of an organization which, at that time, had put man's reason and tradition above the Holy Scripture .

The RCC has made many reforms since that time as the Second Vatican council clearly shows. Many of those reforms were those which Martin Luther asked for and they were rejected.

There is no perfect denomination of Christians even today. They all need frequent reformations to see their own faults and sins and put their eyes back on our Lord and savior rather than on buildings, organizations and constitutions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

Informative to the word church in related meaning throughtout scripture. ( occurs 80 times in 79 verses in the KJV ) Greek word tranlated ekklēsia, reference number 1577,

---

---

Revdrgade, Sndbay:

The arguments here aren't logical. They presume that Luther was raised in a different understanding of Church; and we know he wasn't.

Let's dispense with the issue of “Church” or Ecclesia. First in the sense that Sndbay wishes us to envision a building, a cold place of stone and wood. The Church of Luther wasn't anything like this. For 1517-years prior to the posting The 95 Theses and in the ensuing years since, Church had a much deeper meaning.

The Church, the Roman Church, is the Messianic Kingdom predicted in the Old Testament. And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be prepared in the top of the mountains, and high above the hills: and people shall flow to it. The house of God of Jacob will teach His ways. (Micah 4:1 C.f. 4:2). The fulfilled prophecy of a people girding Her superstructure, not simply building of steel and concrete. Constituted by Christ this Temple is most venerable (Matt 12:6). A kingdom whose founder, and foundation is Christ, “And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom” (Matt 4:23 see also 9:35; 13:17 Mark 1:14 etc. etc.) A church whose difficult understanding are not hidden, pronounced to the world its open message of salvation (C.f. Matt 13:11). Adorned, not with bare walls and cold illations of self-salvific elitism, rather a humble acceptance of Christ's cross and the obligation to march that cross forward, obedient to the faith of all nations (C.f. Roman 1:5) Instead of the self-appointed leaders of this Church are recipients of a hierarchical organization formed by Christ (C.f. Matt 16:18). Her patristic nature guides the rules over the Kingdom of God as vicar for Christ judging justly (Matt 18:17). This Church, Luther's abandoned spouse, was provisioned for orderly succession through its fist Vicar, Peter (C.f. Matt 16:18) that will prevail against hell, as well as Luther. In unity this Church was placed high on the mountain to be seen by all, a beacon of salvation for all, not just for Luther's pre-elected Saints. Not a candle hidden under a basket, rather a faith that illuminates inwardly as well as outwardly, like a lighthouse beacon. The Church abandoned by Luther is the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15) Luther's pre-schism Church was one of principled authority, governing the flock, (C.f. Matt 18:18 and John 21:17.) This is, and was at one time for Luther, the One Church that served through the ministering of the sacraments and teacher of revealed truth, infallible. This and more describes the Church that was to be Luther's, the one he deserted for his intellect and a book.

The Church is the head and body of Christ and God's Kingdom (C.f. Col. 1:18) as it was in Luther's day. This was Luther's Church before he decided to leave it; then was it schism or reform?

Are you trying to convince me that Luther saw a different kingdom; better than the Divine Kingdom on earth?

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Revdrgade, Sndbay:

The Church is the head and body of Christ and God's Kingdom (C.f. Col. 1:18) as it was in Luther's day. This was Luther's Church before he decided to leave it; then was it schism or reform?

---

First let's look at the scripture (Col 1:18 ) I read it to say "He" is the head body. He is as well the head of the church. That He (have) become the pre-eminent One.

Col1:18 And He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] He might have the preeminence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Are you trying to convince me that Luther saw a different kingdom; better than the Divine Kingdom on earth?

JoeT

---

Joe,

We have differences of opinon, yet I feel we both agree in our love of Christ known as the teaching of Christianity.

What I veiw that Luther went up against was the corrupted political head leaders, that were going against the basic teachings of Christianity. He stood against the political heads who had drifted towards a foreign teaching of repentance that laid outside the belief of Chirst the Anointed One. The foundation which was being taught to the many bodied members was no longer ONE with Christ the corner stone, but became a political repercussion in corruption with money buying forgiveness. His reform brought the members of Christianity and the foundation back to what was and should be The Corner Stone/ Christ the Anointed One.

This corruption was why I feel the church, (acknowledge by my awareness = in members and its leaders) saw such destruction. They had followed and enforced a foreign teachings. Turning their backs on the Anointed One, Christ Jesus which brought God to turn His back on them. I feel the Christian nation learned by this experience.

It all goes back to what God told Moses the first highpriest in Deu 31. As time went on we would corrupt ourselves and turn aside from the ways of The Lord, evil befalls you in latter days because you do evil things in the sight of The Lord that will provoke His anger by the works of your hands. (Deu 31:29-30)

Today who follows what was written in Deu 31 for the church to do as command by God to Moses??? (Deu 31:10-13)

We are suppose to know the Song of Moses (Deu 32:1-43) why? It was commanded for one reason, and because those that have victory over this world of sin will be heard singing the song of Moses. (Revelation 15:3)

Revelations 15:3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous [are] thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true [are] thy ways, thou King of saints.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

First let's look at the scripture (Col 1:18 ) I read it to say "He" is the head body. He is as well the head of the church. That He (have) become the pre-eminent One.
Col1:18 And He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] He might have the preeminence.

---

Agreed, Christ is the head.

[QUOTE=sndbay;1489502] Joe,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

We have differences of opinion, yet I feel we both agree in our love of Christ known as the teaching of Christianity.

---

The differences aren’t as great as might think they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

What I view that Luther went up against was the corrupted political head leaders, that were going against the basic teachings of Christianity. He stood against the political heads who had drifted towards a foreign teaching of repentance that laid outside the belief of Christ the Anointed One. The foundation which was being taught to the many bodied members was no longer ONE with Christ the corner stone, but became a political repercussion in corruption with money buying forgiveness. His reform brought the members of Christianity and the foundation back to what was and should be The Corner Stone/ Christ the Anointed One.

---

All the evil that exists in the world doesn’t change God’s Truth. To argue, as you’ve done here, that abandoning the Kingdom because there is evil in the world; doesn’t really make much sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

This corruption was why I feel the church, (acknowledge by my awareness = in members and its leaders) saw such destruction. They had followed and enforced a foreign teachings. Turning their backs on the Anointed One, Christ Jesus which brought God to turn His back on them. I feel the Christian nation learned by this experience.

---

The Church didn’t see destruction, it can’t be destroyed. But what was harmed by the schism was entire populations; as it were lulled (or forced) away from the safety of the Kingdom’s walls. Christianity isn’t a foreign teaching, and the Church is incapable of turning its back on Christ. I too think they learned something; relativism and rationalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

It all goes back to what God told Moses the first highpriest in Deu 31. As time went on we would corrupt ourselves and turn aside from the ways of The Lord, evil befalls you in latter days because you do evil things in the sight of The Lord that will provoke His anger by the works of your hands. (Deu 31:29-30)

---

You may remember Christ’s comments to the Pharisees. He chastised them and corrected them. Yet, he bowed to the authority of the Sanhedrin. The corruption you refer to here is invented as justification for the Luther revolt. The world was no less corrupt in Christ’s time nor is it any less corrupt today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

Today who follows what was written in Deu 31 for the church to do as command by God to Moses??? (Deu 31:10-13)

---

Is God’s word any less true today than it was in Moses’ day? But, I’m not suggesting that we follow the Old Testament law. What I’ve referred to is God’s promise to Moses, “If therefore you will hear my voice, and keep my covenant, you shall be my peculiar possession above all people: for all the earth is mine. And you shall be to me a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation.” (Ex.19: 5, 6). The Kingdom didn’t end with Moses, his successor, Joshua took the nation into a promised land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

We are suppose to know the Song of Moses (Deu 32:1-43) why? It was commanded for one reason, and because those that have victory over this world of sin will be heard singing the song of Moses. (Revelation 15:3)

---

Agreed, but this song was sung by a Kingdom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

Revelations 15:3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous [are] thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true [are] thy ways, thou King of saints.

---

Agreed.

************************************************** ************

I don’t understand how much of the argument above related to the discussion of whether Luther was a reformer or a schismatic. The Church Luther broke from is the same Church today, was the same Church commissioned by Christ.

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

I don't understand how much of the argument above related to the discussion of whether or not Luther was a reformer or a schismatic. The Church Luther broke from is the same Church today, was the same Church commissioned by Christ.

JoeT

---

It goes back to what I agree with in the following posted quote....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by revdrgade

Concerning "new"ness:
What Martin Luther was restoring was the truth of the Bible about the teachings and power of the church which was always led by its one Head, Jesus Christ. This was not "new" when compared to most of the early Church Fathers' teachings as well as the Bible. It was considered new only to those who followed the teachings of an organization which, at that time, had put man's reason and tradition above the Holy Scripture .

The RCC has made many reforms since that time as the Second Vatican council clearly shows. Many of those reforms were those which Martin Luther asked for and they were rejected.

There is no perfect denomination of Christians even today. They all need frequent reformations to see their own faults and sins and put their eyes back on our Lord and savior rather than on buildings, organizations and constitutions.

---

And we should realize deception and false apostles can pop up amount any denomination. What better place for satan to place his twisted ways, and attempt his evilness. Remember the attempts Christ, Himself stood against.

2 Cr 11:13-15 For such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore [it is] no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

Informative to the word church in related meaning throughtout scripture. ( occurs 80 times in 79 verses in the KJV ) Greek word tranlated ekklēsia, reference number 1577,

---

I do agree with your listed uses of the word "church".

Just for added interest, the author of a book I'm now reading writes that list and then adds the usus loquendi (common usage of that word):

"When Jesus used the word church (Greek:ekklesia),[Matt.16:18-19 ] the disiples weren't hindered by our contemporary preconceived ideas as to what it meant. Their paradigm of an ekklesia differed greatly from what it has become."

[he then adds the list saying that the literal "called out" from the world is most accurate. And then goes on later:]

"To the Greeks in Christ's day an ekklesia was an assembly of people set apart to govern the affairs of a state or nation--in essence, a parliament or congress. To the Romans, it was a group of people sent into a conquered region to alter the culture until it became like Rome. Realizing this was the ideal way to control their empire, they infiltrated government, social structure, language, schools, etc., until the people talked, thought , and acted like Romans."

Authority in Prayer Praying With Power and Purpose by Dutch Sheets (Bethany House)

Pastor Sheets believes that we, the church, need to know the authority which Jesus gave us to change our world for their good instead of being pew oriented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by revdrgade

I do agree with your listed uses of the word "church".

Just for added interest, the author of a book I'm now reading writes that list and then adds the usus loquendi (common usage of that word):

"When Jesus used the word church (Greek:ekklesia),[Matt.16:18-19 ] the disiples weren't hindered by our contemporary preconceived ideas as to what it meant. Their paradigm of an ekklesia differed greatly from what it has become." [he then adds the list saying that the literal "called out" from the world is most accurate. And then goes on later:]

---

Revdrgrade, sndbay, et al:

When the Gospels and the Epistles were written the common usage of ekklesia was, and still is, "A body of men united together by the profession of the same Christian Faith, and by participation in the same sacraments, under the governance of lawful pastors, more especially of the Roman Pontiff, the sole vicar of Christ on earth" (Bellarmine, De Eccl. III, ii, 9).

When Luther broke from the Church the common usage of 'Church' was to be “called out” with men united in a profession of the same Christian faith, governed by the Roman Pontiff.

It's fully understood and realized that 'after' Luther, there came into vogue a tendency among Protestants to redefine a different church, more in keeping with their rationalization. Even still, regardless of how you understand 'Church', the question put forward was whether Luther was schismatic or reformer.

But, let me add, since the result of Luther's schism is that his followers rationalize all that is right and good authority held by the Roman Catholic Church is void, then haven't you proven that it was schism and not reform?

JoeT

In my opinion the answer is no, not a schismatic but a reformer. Luther's intention for what Christ calls "My Church" meant for Christ's church to be Christians, known as those [called out] from all areas, and nations to follow Christ. I feel the difference the reform made is a plummet and I will explain why by example...

My opinion is concluded by the similar structure of our country's authorities today in rule. We hold two parties of representation yet both are one united in the same course. It works as a balancing scale, which I view to be very important. I believe God has shown in scripture this same type of balance being justified.

Scripture brings us wisdom in the love and righteousness of Our Lord Jesus Christ. We should be faithful, and the principle doctrine should be taught as a plummet ( straight line ). What better way to acheive that plummet then by a balancing scale between men which can keep the fallen nature of man under obedience in responsibility. For man on earth, I feel it is a remarkable step to achieve what Christ wanted for "His Church".

If we individuals who are [called out] as Christ's followers/Christians can discern as we are told to do, then our free will that was given can grow to gain additional followers. The unity of one with Christ is far more important then the unity of man with man. Thats why I follow [the simplicity of Christ] Paul said don't be deserved from the simplicity of Christ as Eve was.


Those simplicities are 1. His voice (Jhn 10:27) 2. I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.(Jhn 14:6) 3. For we walk by faith, not by sight ( 2 Cr 5:7)

Isa 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone], a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
Isa 28:17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place

The Judgement of what? Lies

Luther originally wanted to change the Church, as did Erasmus and Thomas More.

At some point in the early 1520's, it was too late. The die had been cast and Luther would forever be anathema. By 1550-1570, Europe was in turmoil and, for better or for worse, religious Europe, and Catholicism and Protestantism, had gone their separate paths - never to return.

It was a critical turning point, not only in religion, but in all of Western culture. The Protestants of northern Europe, Switzerland and France opened the door to new ways of political thinking, new ideas about the nature of Christianity, and ushered in the age of science.

The Catholic Church, now reformed by its own action (thanks to Luther), gave the world wonderful new religious ideals with the innumerable Catholic orders that sprang up from this time - in education, hospitals, and so many ways of following Christ's message to serve the poor.

Luther, in old age, became very cranky but we don't judge the old because they are no longer young and in the vigor of their youth. Luther had the vices of his virtues - a powerful thinker who lost any sense of compromise and who finally found solace in his children and grandchildren.

Luther, for all his foibles, was a great man and we are all the better for his having lived.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

In another thread the discussion drifted, as it always seems to do, to whether or not Luther had intentions of leaving the Catholic Church. Rather than continuing off-topic, I’ll ask the questions here.


Was schism (separation from the Church) intended by Martin Luther?
Did Martin Luther attempt to destroy the Roman Catholic Church?


I have hope that we can keep the topic restricted to these questions without deviating into detailed discussions about Luther's theology. It’s not intended to delve into Luther’s theology in any detail, only to examine his motives surrounding his eventual separation from the Church.


JoeT

---

I want to honor your intent Joe, but it seems to me that Martin came to desire schism and the destruction of the Catholic Church because of his theological conclusions.

I have to assume good faith in Martin Luther, because that is what he claimed and I can't read his heart. However, we can all see that ultimately, he became confused.

And after all, he was human. He opened Pandora's box and could not close it again. Any of us, put in his shoes, would become fearful for our eternal destination at that point. Thus, perhaps, why he claimed that he never intended rebellion. And yet his earlier letters tell the opposite tale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

Luther originally wanted to change the Church, as did Erasmus and Thomas More.

At some point in the early 1520's, it was too late. The die had been cast and Luther would forever be anathema. By 1550-1570, Europe was in turmoil and, for better or for worse, religious Europe, and Catholicism and Protestantism, had gone their separate paths - never to return.

It was a critical turning point, not only in religion, but in all of Western culture. The Protestants of northern Europe, Switzerland and France opened the door to new ways of political thinking, new ideas about the nature of Christianity, and ushered in the age of science.

The Catholic Church, now reformed by its own action (thanks to Luther), gave the world wonderful new religious ideals with the innumerable Catholic orders that sprang up from this time - in education, hospitals, and so many ways of following Christ's message to serve the poor.

Luther, in old age, became very cranky but we don't judge the old because they are no longer young and in the vigor of their youth. Luther had the vices of his virtues - a powerful thinker who lost any sense of compromise and who finally found solace in his children and grandchildren.

Luther, for all his foibles, was a great man and we are all the better for his having lived.

---

I'm sorry, but I don't consider a man who publicly broke his vows to God a great man. The vices which are historically recorded of Luther, were never virtues.

And who can respect a man whose battle cry is "sin and sin mightily and grace will abound the more!"

No. Although I believe that Luther was convinced of his conclusions. I see nothing there for which he should be respected. In my opinion, it is those who worship him as a hero who have built up a structure of lies to protect his character. Let's take one simple example. The famous incident of slewfoot and the inkwell. What was actually slung back and forth between Luther and Satan? Hint: It wasn't ink.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

In my opinion the answer is no, not a schismatic but a reformer. Luther's intention for what Christ calls "My Church" meant for Christ's church to be Christians, known as those [called out] from all areas, and nations to follow Christ. I feel the difference the reform made is a plummet and I will explain why by example...

My opinion is concluded by the similar structure of our country's authorities today in rule. We hold two parties of representation yet both are one united in the same course. It works as a balancing scale, which I view to be very important. I believe God has shown in scripture this same type of balance being justified.

Scripture brings us wisdom in the love and righteousness of Our Lord Jesus Christ. We should be faithful, and the principle doctrine should be taught as a plummet ( straight line ). What better way to acheive that plummet then by a balancing scale between men which can keep the fallen nature of man under obedience in responsibility. For man on earth, I feel it is a remarkable step to achieve what Christ wanted for "His Church".

If we individuals who are [called out] as Christ's followers/Christians can discern as we are told to do, then our free will that was given can grow to gain additional followers. The unity of one with Christ is far more important then the unity of man with man. Thats why I follow [the simplicity of Christ] Paul said don't be deserved from the simplicity of Christ as Eve was.


Those simplicities are 1. His voice (Jhn 10:27) 2. I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.(Jhn 14:6) 3. For we walk by faith, not by sight ( 2 Cr 5:7)

Isa 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone], a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
Isa 28:17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place

The Judgement of what? Lies

---

The United States is organized in a system such as the Church. But it isn't in its two party system. The Church is a Kingdom, not a democratic republic.

The United States is organized in a system such as the Divine organization of the Church in that we also have a Scripture, the Constitution, which can only be interpreted by one authority. The Supreme Court.

The Catholic Church is God's Supreme Court for the interpretation of Scripture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

This post I would agree with.. and I offer scripture that has told us these things will take place. As the Lord told Moses long ago, don't turn your back on the Lord, because My anger will be found to correct you. . . and I trust it is a sign of reaping from what is sown. The experiences of life builds us when we learn from our mistakes.

The Lord Told Moses
Deu 31:17 Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God [is] not among us?

---

But Scripture says that:
Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Therefore, although man might fail, Christ promised that His Church would not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

revdrgrade, sndbay, et al:

When the Gospels and the Epistles were written the common usage of ekklesia was, and still is, "A body of men united together by the profession of the same Christian Faith, and by participation in the same sacraments, under the governance of lawful pastors, more especially of the Roman Pontiff, the sole vicar of Christ on earth" (Bellarmine, De Eccl., III, ii, 9).

When Luther broke from the Church the common usage of 'Church' was to be “called out” with men united in a profession of the same Christian faith, governed by the Roman Pontiff.

It’s fully understood and realized that ‘after’ Luther, there came into vogue a tendency among Protestants to redefine a different church, more in keeping with their rationalization. Even still, regardless of how you understand ‘Church’, the question put forward was whether or not Luther was schismatic or reformer.

But, let me add, since the result of Luther’s schism is that his followers rationalize all that is right and good authority held by the Roman Catholic Church is void, then haven’t you proven that it was schism and not reform?

JoeT

---

That is true. Because just as God formed an organization with a hierarchy of Priests and High Priests. Jesus formed an organization with Priests (the lay priesthood of the believer) and High Priests (The Bishopric of the Apostles).

And it is my choice to recognize that there are seven churches according to scripture. (Revelation 1:4 1:11 1:20 )

1 Corinthians 12:5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

1 Corinthians 12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

1 Corinthians 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

Corinthians 12:8-11 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another [divers] kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

There is only "One" that holds all, and that is Christ Jesus. Nothing of perfection ever walked on this earth except for Christ.

1 Corinthians 12:27-28 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

There is an important reason to remember what happen to David, when by his choice, he wanted to count his followers.

God does not put forth any individual so that they can put themself above others. And, none are above God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

But Scripture says that:
Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Therefore, although man might fail, Christ promised that His Church would not.

---

My Church ( those called out to follow Christ) Christians... the gates of hell shall not prevail against... Amen and Praise God

That thou art Peter, Yes it was Peter

upon this rock, Yes the name Simon Peter means rock (hebrew names represent the integrity of the birth right their name gives them) shame or honor this name meant that Peter was a solid rock of integrity. A rock to the revealed truth that God had granted him. That revealed truth... That solid integrity.... was that Peter Loved the Lord.

It was shown by evident indentity when Christ asked Peter 3 times do you love Me...

Why would Christ build the church upon that rock... because it would be built upon Love for Christ....

[QUOTE=sndbay;1497597]And it is my choice to recognize that there are seven churches according to scripture. (Revelation 1:4 1:11 1:20 )

Seven is a mystical number. Not only does it mean the number 7, but it also means "the total of", as well as it means "oath".
As to the number 7 and its meaning; Seven is the number used is scripture extensively representing perfection or completion. It was used primarily in
the apocalyptic writings; Ezekiel, Daniel and Revelation signifying such. Apocalyptic literature was written in signs and symbols to veil the meaning
of the message from certain enemies but readily understood by the people of God.
Bible words

And since Revelation is a book full of mystical language, I doubt that the number 7 simply means 7 in the context of that book.

Quote:

---

1 Corinthians 12:5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

1 Corinthians 12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

1 Corinthians 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

Corinthians 12:8-11 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another [divers] kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

There is only "One" that holds all, and that is Christ Jesus. Nothing of perfection ever walked on this earth except for Christ.

---

That is what we believe as well. But we believe that Christ communicated one aspect of His perfection to His Church. Infallibility. Infallibility does not mean perfection.

Quote:

---

1 Corinthians 12:27-28 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

There is an important reason to remember what happen to David, when by his choice, he wanted to count his followers.

God does not put forth any individual so that they can put themself above others. And, none are above God.

---

That is true. But God has set forth some leaders who are to Pastor our souls and we are supposed to obey them.

Hebrews 13:17
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

God established the order of the Church. We simply keep the order which He set.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

Seven is a mystical number. Not only does it mean the number 7, but it also means "the total of", as well as it means "oath".
As to the number 7 and its meaning; Seven is the number used is scripture extensively representing perfection or completion. It was used primarily in
the apocalyptic writings; Ezekiel, Daniel and Revelation signifying such. Apocalyptic literature was written in signs and symbols to veil the meaning
of the message from certain enemies but readily understood by the people of God.
Bible words

And since Revelation is a book full of mystical language, I doubt that the number 7 simply means 7 in the context of that book.

---

Number 7 Denotes spiritual perfection. It is the number or hall-mark of the Holy Spirit's work. Example: The 7th day is the Sabbath, yet it take 6 individual days to reach the 7th, being the one out of all that holds spiritual perfection, Christ our rest....

Each individual church offers it's own refer in Revelation that completes the total "7" spiritual perfection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

That is what we believe as well. But we believe that Christ communicated one aspect of His perfection to His Church. Infallibility. Infallibility does not mean perfection.

---

Rejoice in weakness for by our weakness, Christ is made perfect in His worthyness.

2 Corinthians 12:5 Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.

2 Corinthains 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

That is true. But God has set forth some leaders who are to Pastor our souls and we are supposed to obey them.

Hebrews 13:17
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

God established the order of the Church. We simply keep the order which He set.

Sincerely,

De Maria

---

DeMaria, I understand this choice of your's...

However... I watch carefully to discern from what comes from man. My experiences in life have brought me where I am. Those experience have taught me that control is in the hands of God. I only pray to be all that His hand and will permits. And all that He created me to be.

Sincerely ~child of God

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

My Church ( those called out to follow Christ) Christians... the gates of hell shall not prevail against... Amen and Praise God

That thou art Peter, Yes it was Peter

upon this rock, Yes the name Simon Peter means rock (hebrew names represent the integrity of the birth right their name gives them) shame or honor this name meant that Peter was a solid rock of integrity. A rock to the revealed truth that God had granted him. That revealed truth... That solid integrity.... was that Peter Loved the Lord.

It was shown by evident indentity when Christ asked Peter 3 times do you love Me...

Why would Christ build the church upon that rock... because it would be built upon Love for Christ....

---

The Catholic Church has always understood the Scripture to give Primacy to Peter. This was illustrated in a letter written by Pope Clement I (third in succession to Peter and had personally known Peter) to the Corinthians (circa) 95 AD claiming authority over Corinth. St. Irenaeus tells the second hand account from St. Polycarp where John was heard to say “the faithful wo are everywhere must agree with this Church (Rome) because of its more important principality.” During the Councils and Synods surrounding the early heresies the Popes decision settled the matter. This is illustrated in 431 AD. Where the Bishops responded to Pope Celestine’s decision, “He [Peter] lives even to this time, and always in his successor’s gives judgment.”


In the Douay Rheims the verse reads as follows:


And Jesus came into the quarters of Cæsarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.


Setting the scene; Caesarea Phillippi is in the valley of Lebanon below Mount Hermon as mentioned in Josh 11:17 or Baal Hemon as mentioned in Judg 3:3. Of particular interest is a land feature of a massive rock face. One of the tributaries for the Jordan River flows through the area. The area was liberated by the Maccabean revolt in 167 B.C. In 4 B.C. one of Herod the Great s three sons, Philip, built the Roman Grecian of Caesarea Philippi to honor the Roman emperor.


You can imagine Jesus with this huge rock wall as a backdrop, asking twice (not once but twice), “Whom to they say that I am?” No other disciples could give the answer but Simon. Simon confessed Jesus as being both the Messiah and the “Son of the Living God.” God had revealed to Simon what no other man on earth knew; Christ was the Second Person of the One Devine God.


And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


I can’t claim a special significance to the number of times “blessed art thou” is used in the New Testament. However, it is used only three times, twice in Luke 1: 42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed art thou among women... And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be; and once here in Matthew 16:17. It’s only used once by Jesus. (this holds true in the NKJV also) In my estimation, like Mary, God seats Peter in a special Chair for our salvation; the first of 266 whose “successor’s gives judgment,” St. Peter, St. Linus, St. Anacletus, St. Clement I, St. Alexander I, St. Sixtus I, St. Telesphorus, St. Hyginus… Benedict XVI


Are we to assume that Peter didn’t know of this? Are we to assume that this blessing made to Mary, the “handmaid” of God, would not in the same sense make Peter, the primary servant of Christ? And what significance are we to make of this blessing that came out of Christ’s own mouth? That this was just some utterance, a use of metaphors, a courteous remark? Would it not be safe to assume that what Christ blesses stays blessed? How does our eye pass so freely across the words “blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona” without stopping to wonder at the significance that's found nowhere else in the New Testament? Peter is the only one in history blessed by Christ himself? The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, we share that blessing. Peter was our first Vicar. By making ourselves “servants” of the Church, we in turn make ourselves, subjects of the Church whose head is the vicar (earthly representative) of Christ; and as such sharing in that one and only blessing uttered by Christ.


In plain language the simple meaning of the verse 18 becomes: because this was revealed to you by God, I will call you Rock and on this Rock I will build my church; hell won’t prevail against it.


And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.


The “keys” are the keys to the kingdom of heaven, similar to the “keys” mentioned in Isaiah 22. With the transfer of the keys, one to another, power and authority is also transferred; Christ gives Peter the supreme authority over the Church and to bind and loose, both in heaven and on earth.


“In regard to the Petros Kepha argument made by some, the play of words involved in naming Simon “Rock” is as clear in Aramaic as in English, if we use the literal translation “Rock” for the Aramaic Kepha rather than “Peter” which is derived from the Greek Petros. In Greek the noun for rock is feminine. Therefore it is unsuitable for a man’s name, and Peter is named Petros while the precise word for rock is petra, making the meaning a little less clear. But Christ’s words to Peter were spoken in Aramaic and first recorded in Armaic in Matthew’s Gospel; furthermore, we know that Peter was later often called Kepha or Cephas as well as Petros.” “Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom Vol 1, 1985, pg 349 footnote 135.


Insofar as I’m able to discern, based on the knowledge of those fluent in Greek and Latin, the differences between the KJV and the Douay-Rheims are not major. Only a few verses in the KJV give a different understanding. That's why I feel free to use a KJV to get a more rounded sense of a verse. My reason for mentioning the Scriptural differences was to point out differences here, as elsewhere in my response, of cases referring to Christ as a Rock is related to his strength. Furthermore, when compared with a Rock it referrers to Christ’s founding of doctrinal precepts; as it where knowledge pouring forth baptismal waters from Christ’s strength refreshing the people of Israel, e.g. Exodus 17:5 And the Lord said to Moses: Go before the people, and take with thee of the ancients of Israel: and take in thy hand the rod wherewith thou didst strike the river, and go. 6 Behold I will stand there before thee, upon the rock Horeb, and thou shalt strike the rock, and water shall come out of it that the people may drink. This doctrinal foundation is shown in 1 Cor 3:11-12 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. NKJV


We Catholics find that "This is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Savior, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (Jn. 21:17), commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it (cf. Matt. 28:18, etc.), and which he raised up for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines. Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity." (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Genitum, 8)


But, where do you think “Protestantism” came from? Where did each of the 30,000 different Christian Denominations get their Scriptures, each insisting it has the one and only authoritative interpretation? How do they recon Christ’s words, “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. ” (Cf. John 17). How then do you suppose those 30,000 interpret this, “I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert: and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven: that if any man eat of it, he may not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven.” (Cf. John 6). How then would you suggest that those 30,000 different Churches are One Church as Christ prayed “that they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me.” (John 17:20)


JoeT

I am sure the discussion of Martain Luther is in here somewhere??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

I am sure the discussion of Martain Luther is in here somewhere ????

---

Oops. I'll get back on track.

Joe,
I'm glad you started this thread.
As a former Protestant I was taught that Luther wanted reform (his way) and did not want to leave the Church.
I still think that is the case even though some of what Luther wanted the Church to do or change to were radical even in his day.
BUT that may change...
I'm glad to see this discussion on that.
It is another opportunity for me to learn something.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

And who can respect a man whose battle cry is "sin and sin mightily and grace will abound the more!"

---

Do you then disrespect the Catholic Church use of the "Felix Culpa" (O Happy Fault) in the Easter Exultet?

Each means essentially the same thing with Luther's being a tad more hyperbolic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

And who can respect a man whose battle cry is "sin and sin mightily and grace will abound the more!"

.

---

Why was this said? In my opinion Luther and other authorities of the church go beyond the principle doctrines of Christ, beyond (the milk)as it is called in scripture. And within their own gift of knowledge, and what has been revealed by God to them.

When I hear the words which you have posted as the battle cry... The knowledge of scripture that Luther could have been showing glory in ---> 2 Corinthains 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

As you said earlier who can judge the heart of Luther. WE know the answer !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

Do you then disrespect the Catholic Church use of the "Felix Culpa" (O Happy Fault) in the Easter Exultet?

Each means essentially the same thing with Luther's being a tad more hyperbolic.

---

As for what the meaning of the Felix Culpa means?(O Happy Fault) It would sound reasonable to believe the authorities of the Catholic Church are intending to glory in their infirmities. And in doing this they are actually Rejoicing not in iniquity, but rejoicing in the truth=Christ.. realizing that it takes the weakness of man, so to glory in the worthyness of Christ. Christ alone being all power and strength in perfection.
Discern and decide upon what adds up... watch carefully to the last letter of what is taught...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

Do you then disrespect the Catholic Church use of the "Felix Culpa" (O Happy Fault) in the Easter Exultet?

Each means essentially the same thing with Luther's being a tad more hyperbolic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

As for what the meaning of the Felix Culpa means?(O Happy Fault) It would sound reasonable to believe the authorities of the Catholic Church are intending to glory in their infirmities. And in doing this they are actually Rejoicing not in iniquity, but rejoicing in the truth=Christ.. realizing that it takes the weakness of man, so to glory in the worthyness of Christ. Christ alone being all power and strength in perfection.
Discern and decide upon what adds up... watch carefully to the last letter of what is taught...

---

---

Not exactly. The full quote from St. Thomas as follows:

"O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem," "O happy fault that merited such and so great a Redeemer."

The question being answered by St. Thomas is in regard to the “The Fitness of the Incarnation.” More specifically, “ if there had been no sin, would God have become incarnate?”

The postulate is put forward that “Further, human nature has not been made more capable of grace by sin. But after sin it is capable of the grace of union, which is the greatest grace. Therefore, if man had not sinned, human nature would have been capable of this grace; nor would God have withheld from human nature any good it was capable of. Therefore, if man had not sinned, God would have become incarnate.”

And St. Thomas response is as follows:

A double capability may be remarked in human nature: one, in respect of the order of natural power, and this is always fulfilled by God, Who apportions to each according to its natural capability; the other in respect to the order of the Divine power, which all creatures implicitly obey; and the capability we speak of pertains to this. But God does not fulfil all such capabilities, otherwise God could do only what He has done in creatures, and this is false, as stated above (I, 105, 6). But there is no reason why human nature should not have been raised to something greater after sin. For God allows evils to happen in order to bring a greater good therefrom; hence it is written (Romans 5:20): "Where sin abounded, grace did more abound." Hence, too, in the blessing of the Paschal candle, we say: "O happy fault, that merited such and so great a Redeemer!" Summa Theologica III, Q1, 3

So, we see that there is a completely different context between Luther's "sin and sin mightily and grace will abound the more!" and St. Thomas's "O happy fault that merited such and so great a Redeemer."

Yes it is wise to “Discern and decide upon what adds up... watch carefully to the last letter of what is taught...” And, I would add, always be faithful to Truth. “But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” St. Augustine


JoeT

PS: BTW St. Thomas's conclusions to the question, “ if there had been no sin, would God have become incarnate?” as follows:

Augustine says (De Verb. Apost. viii, 2), expounding what is set down in Luke 19:10, "For the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost"; "Therefore, if man had not sinned, the Son of Man would not have come." And on 1 Timothy 1:15, "Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners," a gloss says, "There was no cause of Christ's coming into the world, except to save sinners. Take away diseases, take away wounds, and there is no need of medicine."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

Do you then disrespect the Catholic Church use of the "Felix Culpa" (O Happy Fault) in the Easter Exultet?

Each means essentially the same thing with Luther's being a tad more hyperbolic.

---

Not so. O Happy Fault is a reference to Adam and Eve's Original Sin which led to the
God of heaven becoming incarnate for our salvation.

To sin and sin mightily is Luther's misunderstanding of Scripture:
Romans 6:1
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Just as his Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide teachings directly contradicts Scripture, so does this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

Number 7 Denotes spiritual perfection. It is the number or hall-mark of the Holy Spirit's work. Example: The 7th day is the Sabbath, yet it take 6 individual days to reach the 7th, being the one out of all that holds spiritual perfection, Christ our rest....

Each individual church offers it's own refer in Revelation that completes the total "7" spiritual perfection.




Rejoice in weakness for by our weakness, Christ is made perfect in His worthyness.

2 Corinthians 12:5 Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.

2 Corinthains 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.




DeMaria, I understand this choice of your's...

However... I watch carefully to discern from what comes from man. My experiences in life have brought me where I am. Those experience have taught me that control is in the hands of God. I only pray to be all that His hand and will permits. And all that He created me to be.

Sincerely ~child of God

---

Beautiful answer. I echo the response. God bless you Child of God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Yes it is wise to “Discern and decide upon what adds up... watch carefully to the last letter of what is taught...” And, I would add, always be faithful to Truth. “But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” St. Augustine

JoeT

---

Well again off thread... But here is my reply Joe

except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church?

I would not close my eyes and ears to the Spirit of God ..." I Love Him"

Remember Jesus's response to non-believers---> John 8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear [them] not, because ye are not of God.
God reveals unto whom?

1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

1 Corinthains 2:10 But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

1 Corinthians 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.


1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

1 Corinthians 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Athos,
I believe there is a big difference.
Luther's statement is an encouragement to sin.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

.
Luther's statement is an encouragement to sin.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

---

Fred, I doubt that you can judge Luther's motive or heart. And I doubt even more that a Christian could be found to encourage sin.

Even if what Luther said was as DeMaria had said in refer to Romans 6:1.. If you look at Romans 5:20 and compare Luther's statement, I trust you can find a discernment less incriminating.

Romans 5:20-21 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

The same is true when you look at the scripture in Corinthians.. Does it mean we will actually feel good about our infirmities? No, however it does mean we find a direction to honor out from under sin.. = Christ because Christ brings grace(meaning favour, or acceptance.)


2 Corinthains 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

Fred, I doubt that you can judge Luther's motive or heart. And I doubt even more that a Christian could be found to encourage sin.

Even if what Luther said was as DeMaria had said in refer to Romans 6:1.. If you look at Romans 5:20 and compare Luther's statement, I trust you can find a discernment less incriminating.

Romans 5:20-21 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

The same is true when you look at the scripture in Corinthians.. Does it mean we will actually feel good about our infirmities? No, however it does mean we find a direction to honor out from under sin.. = Christ because Christ brings grace(meaning favour, or acceptance.)


2 Corinthains 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

---

Here is what Luther has been quoted as saying. Even the "sanitized" version contradicts Scripture.

13. If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.
Both texts are from Scroll Publishing: Let Your Sins Be Strong: A Letter From Luther to Melanchthon Letter no. 99, 1 August 1521, From the Wartburg (Segment) Translated by Erika Bullmann Flores from: _Dr. Martin Luther’s Saemmtliche Schriften_ Dr, Johannes Georg Walch, Ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, N.D.), Vol. 15,cols. 2585-2590.

The cleaned up version says:
13.”If you are a preacher of Grace, then preach a true, not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly. For he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here we have to sin. This life in not the dwelling place of righteousness but, as Peter says, we look for a new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.. . Pray boldly-you too are a mighty sinner.” (Weimar ed. vol. 2, p. 371; Letters I, “Luther’s Works,” American Ed. Vol 48. p. 281- 282)

At the very least, it was a very careless and irresponsible way to express the idea that we should not sin. Because that idea is lost in the shocking manner it is expressed if it is there expressed at all.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

Here is what Luther has been quoted as saying. Even the "sanitized" version contradicts Scripture.

13. If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God's glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.

Sincerely,

De Maria

---

Thank you DeMaria, I had not seen this before.

My study of what Luther's words mean will be challenged with this quote: "If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy"

If suggests a question.. if you are a preacher of mercy? That would be suggestive of a preacher of ( goodness, kindness, faithfulness ),

do not preach an imaginary... (rather) but the true mercy" = instead the true goodness,kindness, faithfulness.

Final line 1: If you are a preacher of goodness,kindness, faithfulness, do not preach an unreal, rather instead the true goodness,kindness, faithfulness.

De Maria,
Thanks much for posting that.
I confirms what I said.
Luther encourages sin.
Peace and kindness,
Fred