DeoOmnisGloria.com

Forgive my ignorance but I always thought that the 95 Theses were not written by Luther himself. I remember reading that the 95 theses were an internal document circulating in the Catholic Church mentioning problems they were having. When Luther got a hold of it, he "went public" with the information.

Jay,

I read the article. Some obvious humor comes to mind. Since Luther was constipated when he wrote the 95 Theses, he was full of (#@!*). Some might take that a step further and say that since he was full of (#@!*) his theses must be (#@!*) too...

Someone had to say it ... Although I am NOT saying that was the case !!! LOL ... 8=D
It's also very funny but very sad that they would make such a big deal about his Toilet ...

Such Waiste .. 8=D

Clem

You know those archeologists, always trying to dig up the "truth of the matter"...

Classic.

In Christ,
Joe

I did a bit of research on the 95 theses (the obvious rhyme really does bring that toilet to mind). I ran across an article saying that he merely translated an existing document from Latin into German.

As for Luther being full of crap when he wrote the theses, I guess he was no longer full of thecal matter after he wrote them...

Luther was a holy man, as a Catholic I appreciate his impact on the Church Millitant. Why mock him?
Patrick

Patrick,

I don't understand your appreciation for Luther's "impact on the Church Militant... He divided the Church and intentionally misled thousands of illiterate Catholics in Germany into believing his own beliefs. E. Michael Jones in his book, Degenerate Moderns has this to say:

There are thousands of different Protestant denominations now with probably as many positions and distinctions on grace and free will, but they all derive in some sense from Luther's rebellion against the Catholic Church, and at the heart of that rebellion was Luther's doctrine of the enslaved will.
So according to the Catholic position, the will is free to respond to or reject grace freely offered by God. The Catholic position is rooted in Scripture and based on the teaching of Jesus Christ, as evidenced in the Parable of the Wedding Feast (Mt 22:1-14). "The kingdom of God", we are told, "may be compared to a king who gave a feast for his son's wedding. He sent his servants to call those who had been invited, but they would not come." Unlike the Pelegians, Catholics believe that salvation comes as a result of grace. Unlike Lutherans, Catholics believe that the will is free to accept or reject the grace that God offers.
The position of Luther is simple. "Whatever God has made", he writes in De Servo Arbitrio, his classic attack on the idea of free will, "he moves, impels and urges forward (movet, agit, rapit) with the force of his omnipotence, which none can escape or alter; all must yield compliance and obedience according to the power conferred on them by God."
Martin Luther, the one-time Augustinian priest, is resolutely at war with the notion of free will. His rejection of free will lies at the heart of his system. When he was asked later in life about all that he had written, he said that all but two of his works were insignificant: those two were his Catechism and De Servo Arbitrio. According to that latter work either God or Satan rules mankind. "the case is simply thus," he writes, "if God is within us, the devil is not there and we can only desire what is good. But if God is absent, the devil is present, and then can desire only what is evil."
In an image from De Servo Arbitrio that has become famous, Luther writes, "The human will stands like a saddle horse between the two. If God mounts into the saddle, man wills and goes forward as God wills....But if the devil is the horseman, then man wills and acts as the devil wills. He has no power to run to one or the other of the two riders and offer himself to him, but the riders fight to obtain possession of the animal."
So the Lutheran position is quite simple. It degrades man to the level of a beast; it contradicts Scripture, which should be accounted a serious fault for a thinker who espoused "sola scriptura as one of his prime principles; it flies in the face of human experience, which is faced every day with choices not only of the mundane sort but between those involving good and evil that will have profound and lasting effects on our lives here and in the world to come. Lutheranism, insofar as it is true to its founder's vision, is based not only on a radical contradiction of Scripture and human nature but on radical self-contradiction as well. - pp. 236-237

Holy man? I'll let God be the judge of that. But having a good or positive impact of the Church Militant? Absolutely not.

In Christ,
Joe

Joe!

Some comments about Luther (or Calvin, Zwingli, etc.) in the context of "apologetics" are usually quite unnecessary.

Really, I do not think that Luther intentionally misled people - by "intentionally" I mean that he "really" knew that what he was up to was wrong, and contrary to the Perfect Will of G-d, and he did it anyway. Rather - however wrong he in fact may have been - he believed whole-heartedly that what he was up to was G-d's will.

I really think that the better response from Catholic apologetics to the sometimes wild claims Protestants make about the "right-ness" of the Reformation, is not to belittle the sincerity (however misguided) of the Reformers, but rather to seek to find the workings of G-d within the events of the Reformation.

The fact is, the Reformation was NOT a caesura in history - i.e. an episode so totally bereft of G-d, or out of G-d's reach that G-d's over-arching purposes (G-d's plan) had missed a step somehow.

Lets work to illustrate that aspect of G-d's activity in the world, and leave the derision to others!!!

In Christ.

Jack,

Luther was a Catholic priest, least we forget, and an educated one at that. Second, the Vatican made multiple attempts to show Luther the error of his thinking, and these attempts were solid proofs. Luther did what he did knowingly...I refuse to believe or allow anyone to suggest that he was some innocently mis-directed individual who was sincerely convinced that he right for Luther made no attempts to think or "reform" within the Catholic Church.

For most of our Protestant readers and commenters on this blog, I believe they are sincere, but sincerely wrong. Luther, on the other hand, holds no claim to that....he consciously did what he did as a priest of the Catholic Church who knew Catholic doctrine and the Tradition of the Church.

In Christ,
Joe

Joe,

It is tenuous for you and me to try and read the mind of Martin Luther when he was struggling with his poor self-image, unable to find a way to stand before a righteous G-d, “discovered” “justification by faith” (alone!??), or lashed out so viscerally at the way indulgences were being handled.

I’m not sure what you mean by “innocently misdirected.” If Luther was anything, he was honest about what he thought was right, whether or not it was right – and I think he was wrong. So, “honestly misdirected” may be closer to the mark.

I simply do not think it is helpful to anyone to try and portray Luther as believing and knowing in his heart-of-hearts that what he was up to was wrong, and that realizing this, he nevertheless, went ahead and did it anyway. Joe, the “proofs” from the Vatican against Luther obviously did not convince him – or do you suggest that Luther thought to himself “Well, the Vatican’s ‘proofs’ certainly destroyed all of my thoughts on the matter. But to hell with them anyway. I don’t care if I’m wrong. I don’t care if this is contrary to G-d’s will…I’m gonna split anyway!!”

However wrong Luther was, I do not think he was consciously and so willingly disobeying the perfect will of G-d. Whether he was a priest or not matters little, nor does his knowledge of doctrine and Sacred Tradition – he apparently did not, in his heart-of-hearts really “know” the Church’s doctrines or Tradition the way, say, you and I know them. To truly know them is to truly love them, and so abide by them.

If anything, Luther was like the Law (as it is portrayed by Paul) – vulnerable to Sin; manipulated by Sin; an unwitting servant of Sin.

Miserere mei, Deus! Amplius lava me ab iniquitate mea et a peccato meo munda me!

Peace.

Jack,

First, what's up with the "G-d" thing? It's okay to spell out "God's" name as long as it is not in a profane manner...

In terms of Luther, it is a known fact that in his communications with Pope Leo X, Luther admitted loyalty and submission to the papacy but all the while was comparing the papacy with the Antichrist in his personal correspondence. The issues that Luther raised, such as the selling of indulgences, were addressed by Leo X in 1518, when he condemned the practice by he reminded the faithful that they could not buy their way into heaven. Leo X offered Luther every opportunity to reconcil with the papacy but Luther chose not to. Luther's turn from Catholic doctrine was radical, Jack. It wasn't just over small issues. He had to know the ramifications of his actions. Even Luther's former colleague, Andreas Carlstadt blamed Luther for making himself a "new pope" who arrogantly considered himself the source of power in determining doctrine. So think what you will, but Luther's actions speak loud enough. Again, he was no innocent mis-guided shepherd...he knew what he was doing and the Church made every effort to reconcil Luther with the "true" Catholic teachings, dispite his arrogance.

In Christ,
Joe

Apologies for the “G-d thing” Joseph! I’ve been writing G-d’s name out that way habitually of late since I’ve been re-freshing my Hebrew grammar. You can think of it as an sub-conscious immersion technique, or something of the kind. But I never meant to infer anything about others writing out “God.”

If Luther was simultaneously claiming loyalty and submission to the papacy AND comparing the papacy with anti-Christ, then he may have been schizophrenic.

My friend Joseph, I am well aware of the radical nature of the Catholic priest’s (Luther!) break from the Church. You’re right! It was not over small issues. And, we agree that Luther knew the ramifications of his actions…and that his actions speak loud enough.

But Joe, you and I are hearing different things – and I cannot understand why it is so important for you to “hear” Luther saying in his heart something like this: “G-d, I know Pope Leo is right and I am wrong. I know that all the Church teaches about justification is right, and I am wrong. But G-d… ‘screw you!’ I don’t care that I am wrong. I am still gonna lead this revolt and drive the Church into the ground if I can!”

What I hear Luther saying in his heart is something like this: “G-d, I am going to lead this revolt against the Church that has lost its way, and a papacy that has become totally depraved. I know that it will get me kicked out of the Church, and cause all sorts of horrible troubles for me and others, but I cannot resist your guidance – your call to me to assert your will as best I can.”

Now, of course Luther knew what he was doing. I never claimed that he did not. I have claimed that Luther thought that what he was doing was the right thing, sanctioned by G-d. But, alas, on that point, he was certainly wrong.

Peace.

1 Thessalonians 5:22
apo pantos eidous ponerou apechesthe
from every kind/appearance (eidos) of evil abstain.
Matthew 7:25-26
And every one that hears these sayings of mine, and doesen't do them, shall be likened to a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27 ... great was the fall of it.
Luke 13:2-5
And Jesus answering said to them, Do ye suppose that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? 3 I tell you, No: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and killed them, do ye think that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, No: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

One of the things most present among those of us claiming to be Christians is great arrogance and finger pointing. One of the things most absent is the repentance God Almighty Jesus COMMANDS! Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. The next time a finger is poised to strike a key I commend you to remember God Almighty Jesus is standing right by us (I said us not you) watching what we write and He is not impressed by the stupid things "catholics" and "protestants" say about each other, most of which are at best half truths, worss just plain false or worst of all repeated falsehoods or outright lies. Read Romans 7 if you are inclined to make excuses as the Apostle Paul did not. May God bring us the repentance He commands we are too corrupt to produce, only coming by grace. Romans 5:16 not as [it was] by one that sinned, [so is] the gift: for the judgment [was] by one to condemnation, but the free gift [is] of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.

See the God-centered ministry of John Piper at www.desiringGod.org and audio mp3s of it at www.biblicalpreaching.info for a crucial step in a Godward humbling process, especially the messages on Romans and Hebrews that will unmake you that Christ may make you His. His latest book is "God is the Gospel." In Nomine Patri et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.

Russ,

There is a great need in the world for unity. In order for us to be truly united we must understand what divides us and how we have arrived at this particular point in history. You finished your comment by linking to John Piper's website. Here's a direct quote from Mr. Piper:

"The task of all Christian scholarship—not just biblical studies—is to study reality as a manifestation of God's glory, to speak and write about it with accuracy, and to savor the beauty of God in it. It is a massive abdication of scholarship that so many Christians do academic work with so little reference to God."
(John Piper, The Pleasures of God, p. 298)

In other words, Christ gave us this simple "Lord's Supper" to help us keep him in memory, especially his blood and body given up in death. This is worship if in the doing of it there is an authentic heart experience which says: "We must remember him because he is the most valuable Person in the universe. We must remember his death because it is the most important death in history." Setting out this tangible reminder of Christ time after time in the life of the church will be worship if our hearts feel the preciousness of remembering Christ and tremble at the prospect of forgetting him.
...Finally, the Lord's Supper expresses the value of Christ by nourishing our life in Christ. If we come to Christ over and over and say, "By this, O Christ, I feed on you. By this, O Jesus Christ, I nourish my life in you. By this I share in all the grace you bought for me with your own blood and body" (1 Corinthians 10:16) - if we come to Christ over and over with this longing and this conviction in our heart: that here he nourishes us by faith, then the Lord's Supper will be a deep and wonderful act of worship. Nothing shows the worth and preciousness of Christ so much as when we come to him to feed our hungry souls.

I am thankful for these men and women who are trying, as best they may, to love and serve the Lord. Yet by not seeking a genuine understanding of what Christianity was, is, and will be they do themselves a great disservice as well as all those they attempt to influence.

In Christ,
Joe

Hi Joe!

Just “piping” in here (pun intended).

Even though the early Church Fathers’ writing do in fact, bear witness to understanding the Real Presence, this does not point in any way to a “unity” of the earliest believers in Jesus Messiah. In fact, we now know that there was a great diversity of articulations of faith in Jesus Christ as testified to by texts discovered at Nag Hammadi (Gnostic Christianity), and certainly by the many “heresies” that several of the Church Fathers take apart in their writings – we are able to piece together what these groups believed by what the Fathers say they thought, and in some instances, what their sacred texts actually said. But remember, heretical teachings become “heretical” when the dominant form of faith emerges, and so labels them as such in its quests for unity. Indeed, we can even see in our NT canon the presence of diversity of thought/faith – Matthew & James = Judaic Christianity, Paul’s letters = Pauline Christianity, John and the Johannine Epistles = Johannine Christianity (which was closely related to Gnostic Christianity), and so forth. This dominant form that “won the day” is often referred to as Proto-Orthodox Christianity. In fact, the form of faith of the earliest apostles in Jerusalem (Judaic Christianity) was eventually suppressed by proto-orthodoxy. The emergence of a dominant articulation of faith in Jesus Christ is, sociologically speaking, only natural as is its insistence on unity – and so this is nothing, I think, that is threatening to Christianity as it has taken shape today in the Roman Catholic Church. History shakes-down the way history does, and, I believe, in a way that God is still clearly sovereign and “in charge”! Unfortunately though (certainly for the “losers” in this history), what this meant was that many texts reflecting the diversity of belief in Jesus were rooted out and destroyed by the proto-orthodox Christians (hence many of the texts found were buried away in caves or underground, or in tombs/coffins etc.), and so we historians of early Christianity lose an important window into the story of the development of our faith.

I don’t know what Piper’s agenda is, but his comments as you quoted seem harmless enough (is he a Catholic?). If he isn’t a Catholic, then his notions about the Eucharist are at best, incomplete. But surely we (knowledgeable) Catholics here can break the ice and struggle to discern what in his ideas might at least, reflect the truth, and do this without judging his intentions based on a criteria of unity between our faith traditions that he is likely not interested in seeking himself.

Peace.

Jack,

Did you look at Mr. Piper's site? Obviously not if you ask whether he is Catholic or not... Let us pray that a Catholic wouldn't protray such a watered down understanding of the Eucharist...least we forget we are talking about Almighty God when we discuss the Real Presence.

In terms of Jesus Messiah, see I take a different approach...I say thank God for the gift of infallibility and apostolic succession. What you seem to apply to the actions of men (i.e. that "heretical teachings become 'heretical' when the dominant form of faith emerges, and so labels them as such in its quest for unity), I, and the Catholic Church for that matter, attribute to the workings of the Holy Spirit. I can say with certainity "God desires unity and that unity can only reach perfect within His Church".

In Christ,
Joe

With you Joe, I suspect we will not find many faithful Catholics portraying the Eucharist as Piper does. But for him, and other Protestants, it is not “watered down.” You and I may see it as such. Nevertheless, our seeing that way should not prevent us from also seeing what about their “watered down” understanding is indeed, true. You’re right to say that when you and I are talking about the Eucharist, we are talking about the Almighty God really present – our Protestant brethren however, are not, and they do not claim to be (that is my point). And you’re also right about my not visiting his web site – just briefly looked at it not wanting to, well, take the time to practice what I’m preaching here (mea culpa).

Like Israel and her perspective on her story, our understanding of our Church’s history as God working it out only comes in retrospect. As a historian, I can attempt to “jump backward” to embrace the diverse perspectives of the earliest believers in Jesus as best as I can. Their perspective was not one looking backward – with an enormous story between Jesus and the modern Church (2000 years or so) – but they were right there. And Joe, every single group, every single articulation of faith in Jesus Messiah – Gnostic, Ebionite, Judaic, Johannine, Pauline – each one no doubt prayed every day for guidance from the Lord God to help them spread the good news as they understood it to everyone. The evangelistic urging of the Spirit! Every group that was eventually labeled as heretic was only doing its best to understand and articulate the gospel from its own unique perspective. In fact, I firmly believe that God is involved in the relatively recent finding of many of the ancient texts representing these early “heretics” (and the work in unearthing other texts from the writings of the Fathers) and is challenging his Church to make sense of the early diversity vis-à-vis our modern struggle against a chaotic pluralism. “Diversity” is not the opposite of “unity” as many would have it. We are challenged to recognize the early diversity, and the elements of truth that were part of their testimony. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

So, in a more direct response to your note, I do not apply anything to the “actions of men” in retrospect with 2000 years of Church history between now and then. In retrospect, I know that the Holy Spirit was at work in the shaking down of the history of the Church. Yes, God desires unity – but isn’t the melodic beauty of a symphony orchestra constructed of many diverse sorts of instruments, each applying its own unique voice, and yet all together, creating a tune out of the mouth of God God’s self? Or, are we one instrument? Or an assortment of instruments trying to all sound like, say, a horn?

Isn't a symphonic piece actually the merging together of diverse melodies - arpagios etc. etc. - layering them together to make a beautiful sound?

Peace brother!

Jack,

Diversity and disunity are entirely different things. Within the Catholic Church there is much diversity, from the contemplative nun to the five year old sitting in the pew in front of you.

A symphony needs diversity in order to achieve beautiful music. What it cannot have is disunity. We all do play different instruments and even the instruments that are the same differ, and yes we do play different pieces but to create music that is truly music we all must strive to play the "same" song and that song is the Lord's. We must be one in that effort as He prayed (Jn 17), when we are not one we cannot say that we are making music, rather we make noise. Christianity has become quite a noisy place!

Diversity that works toward perfect unity is what is absolutely necessary. It was Christ who founded the Church, it was and is the Holy Spirit that guides the Magisterium of the Catholic Church...it was not merely men striving to do God's will the best they could. I don't agree with your comment about the sincerity and heart felt desire of the heretic to please God. A lot of the historical evidence points to the exact opposite in the cases of those who have been excommunicated. Many of the heretics were warned of their error, but chose to persist in it. The Church "actively" attempted to lead many of the heretics, including Martin Luther (who the above article is about) back to fullness of truth. If we truly believe in the authority entrusted to the Apostles and their successors than the moment we begin to contradict what the Church teaches we must question ourselves...not the Church! The heretic, as in the case of Luther, is the sad victim, or better yet addict, of that terrible sin, pride. Debating and discussing different theological matters is one thing, we know this has occurred throughout Church history, but the outright defying of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is something entirely different. That is specifically what Martin Luther did...

In Christ,
Joe

Well said Joe!
Peace,
Matthew

Joe, I respond to your post in sections below.

“Diversity that works toward perfect unity is what is absolutely necessary. It was Christ who founded the Church, it was and is the Holy Spirit that guides the Magisterium of the Catholic Church...it was not merely men striving to do God's will the best they could.”

This is fine Joe, but can either you or I claim to know what this “perfect unity” will look like? I know that every person who is involved in the Magisterium of the Church - the Pope and those Bishops who are united under his supervision - in fact, strive to do God’s will the best they can, and this under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

“I don't agree with your comment about the sincerity and heart felt desire of the heretic to please God. A lot of the historical evidence points to the exact opposite in the cases of those who have been excommunicated. Many of the heretics were warned of their error, but chose to persist in it.”

You and I are reflecting on two different periods in our Church’s history. I am reflecting on the Church before Nicea and of course, Constantine, and you after that. Now, neither you or I, or anyone else (anyone!) is in a position to conclude that the hearts of the earliest believers in Jesus (post resurrection) – the Judaic Christians in Jerusalem – were “hell-bent” on disloyalty to “the Church” or something of the kind. Even though their articulation of faith (which maintained much Judaic practice including Temple and circumcision) was ultimately drowned out by the Proto-Orthodox, I don’t think we can question their desire to please God. Even the mid-second century heresiarch Marcion himself, even his desire was to please God – despite what Tertullian says about him in his Adversus Marcionem. These heresies I’m talking about, and others during the same time, were active when the Church was still in it “cooking” stage – things were shaking and baking as believers everywhere tried to make sense of their faith in light of the death and resurrection of Jesus AND the destruction of the Temple in 70 AND the continued success of the mission to the Gentiles AND the rising divide between Judaism and Christianity AND the influence of Hellenism on all of this – and and and and and! A lot was going on and a lot was at stake for the considerable number of stakeholders. Nevertheless, the Gnostic, Ebionite, Marcionite, Johannine, Pauline, and Judaic Christians ALL thought that their articulation of faith was the right articulation of faith. Different Bishops in different geographical regions of the Empire – even those of the Proto-Orthodox – each held to their own Canons of sacred scriptures, each Canon reflecting to some extent or another the different views about Jesus. What I am describing is a diversity that was not a comfortable one, nor certainly a settled one, but one that was working itself out – all participants trying their best, prayerfully (we can imagine – no reason not to!) to understand and articulate their belief in the risen Jesus.

“The Church "actively" attempted to lead many of the heretics, including Martin Luther (who the above article is about) back to fullness of truth. If we truly believe in the authority entrusted to the Apostles and their successors than the moment we begin to contradict what the Church teaches we must question ourselves...not the Church! The heretic, as in the case of Luther, is the sad victim, or better yet addict, of that terrible sin, pride. Debating and discussing different theological matters is one thing, we know this has occurred throughout Church history, but the outright defying of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is something entirely different. That is specifically what Martin Luther did...”

Well Luther must have thought pretty powerfully that he was right – to have the nerve to defy the Magisterium. There is simply no reason to try and portray Luther as a prayer-less heathen who was just making up a bunch of crap and felt like defying THE Church no matter what. Joe, the Church and her clergy, needed reform! Every Church Historian worth his salt (Catholic and Protestant) admits this! And reform was going to happen. It is unfortunate that it happened as it did, but one can observe history and come to an understanding why it happened the way it did. The equation is rather simple: a Church in need of reform + the revival of the Humanities (Renaissance!) + the beginnings of Enlightenment + the need for social reform in Europe + the rise of European Nationalism = an explosive mix that, well, exploded into the Protestant Reformation.

Peace!

Jack

I do not agree with the term Gnostic and Christian. I mean Simon Magus...the gnostic of scripture, held Christ as one of a pantheon of gods with himself (magus) as the supreme god of the pantheon. By definition, Christ is our God...Gnostics are not Christians...I doubt you would consider Hindus, Christians? Some Hindu temples now have a picture of Christ and the Madonna next to Vishnu and Kali (Christ as the latest incarnation of Vishnu).

In Love

when we were one

My response Joe, comes from a summary of points taken directly from the Gospel of John.

Jesus came into the world because he was sent from the Father. The world did not KNOW Jesus, even though Jesus came into the world so that the world would KNOW him, and so also KNOW the One who sent him. Jesus was sent from above so that people could be born anew/from above, and so KNOW that Jesus is the Good Shepherd who KNOWS his sheep – and so the sheep would KNOW they are the sheep of the Good Shepherd. In fact, the sheep – like the Good Shepherd – do not even belong to the world, which hates both the Shepherd and the sheep. But the Shepherd was sent by the One to lead the sheep out through the gate (which is Jesus, the Shepherd too!) into salvation.

Joe, there were early believers in Jesus who interpreted what they knew about Jesus through the lenses of early Gnosticism. This is an undisputable fact of ancient history. The Gospel of John – the author and his community – were very very much influenced by Gnosticism, so much so that it lead to many disputes among even the proto-Orthodox as to whether or not it should be considered “sacred scripture” and so part of the Canon. It made it in! The paragraph above this one is a string of assertions that come directly out of the Fourth Gospel, John! All of them about Jesus our Lord, we the sheep, and salvation. Every one of the assertions also reflect points of ancient Gnosticism to a “T”.

Bottom line…there were Christians in the first century who viewed the traditions about Jesus through the lenses of Gnosticism. For the most part, these Christians and their writings were rooted out by the proto-Orthodox. But the author of John, did not throw the baby out with the bath water – saw what was true in the teachings of Gnosticism – and constructed the Gospel of John, interpreting Jesus through multiple lenses including Gnostic, proto-Orthodox, and Judaic principally.

Peace

We are one IN Christ!

Oh,

Dear "when we were one", Sorry for the mix up. I responded to your last post, as if it were Joe's. But I was happy to add a bit more into the mix nevertheless.

Apologies to Joe too.

Mea Caulpa

Jack

Dumb me I still don't see how you can call a polytheist a *christian*. Further, how do you claim that the author took from the gnostics and not the gnostics taking from the Truth...which is the more orthodox opinion? I mean the Truth came first and from the Truth comes Christianity and heresy. Heresy did not come first then the Truth.

In Love

when we were one

Jack,

In response, I will say four things.

1) We do know what perfect unity will look like...

...that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us... - Jn 17:21

2) Regardless of what historical period we are speaking about, if one directly and intentionally contradicts the explicit teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church then that individual acts out of pride, not out of a desire to please God, especially (again, as the case was with Luther) when they began in the Church.

3) So in reference to your final comment about there being no reason to portray Luther in a negative light, I assume the same must be true of Satan...surely he(or it...if you prefer) "must have thought pretty powerfully that he was right" when he boldly, and in "good heart" mind you, stated that he would not serve.

4) In terms of the clergy, it is SO easy to point the finger and say "there is the problem". Ironic, we can't say this or that heretic was wrong and in need of reforming but God forbidden we not voice the need for reform among the clergy ;-) Study your history Jack, not all clergy at the time of Luther were corrupt, including the Pope. Many chose the path of sainthood (St. Robert Bellarmine, 1542-1621 comes to mind) rather than the path of defiance and heresy.

In Christ,
Joe

Jack,
To respond to you comment below:

"Well Luther must have thought pretty powerfully that he was right – to have the nerve to defy the Magisterium. There is simply no reason to try and portray Luther as a prayer-less heathen who was just making up a bunch of crap and felt like defying THE Church no matter what."

Yes, Luther was arrogant and prideful enough to think that he was the bearer of truth, not the Church of Christ. Somehow, in his [Luther's] view, Christ lied when he said that "the gates of hell will never prevail [against His Church]." So yes, he THOUGHT that he was right, but again Luther's defiance had more to do with his own demons. Read the quotes below just to illustrate the extent to which Luther's arrogance collided with the Church Fathers. Luther was so convinced that he had discovered the true meaning of St Paul’s Epistles, and no Father of the Church could dissuade him, not even the Doctor of Grace.

“Augustine has sometimes erred and is not to be trusted. Although good and holy, he was yet lacking in the true faith, as well as other fathers …” But when the door was opened for me in Paul, so that I understood what justification by faith is, it was all over with Augustine”

Elsewhere Luther writes: “It was Augustine’s view that the law … if the Holy Spirit assists, the works of the law do justify … I reply by saying “No.”

“Most of the other Fathers fare even worse: ‘I know no doctor whom I hate so much, although I once loved him ardently and read him voraciously. Surely there’s more learning in Aesop than in all of Jerome”

Of some other early Fathers of the Church, he writes: “I have no use for Chrysostom either, for he is only a gossip. Basil doesn’t amount to anything; he was a monk, after all, and I wouldn’t give a penny for him. Philip’s (Melanchthon’s) Apology is superior to all the doctors of the church, even to Augustine himself. Hilary and Theophylact are good, and so is Ambrose.”

Thus Martin Luther, in his arrogance, pitted himself against the Holy Tradition of the Church and set himself up as a self-proclaimed prophet of the Almighty. Luther’s skewed consciousness of his "special authority" became even more pronounced in his conflicts with his fellow Protestants (Mark U. Edwards Jr, Luther and the False Brethren [1975]).

So Jack, Luther's intentions were not of reform, but of rebellion. A development is something that changes WITHIN itself, but remains true to the original. A change is something that transforms one thing into another.
In Truth,
Matthew

Dear when we were one, you wrote:
“Dumb me I still don't see how you can call a polytheist a *christian*. Further, how do you claim that the author took from the gnostics and not the gnostics taking from the Truth...which is the more orthodox opinion? I mean the Truth came first and from the Truth comes Christianity and heresy. Heresy did not come first then the Truth.”

I did not call early Gnostics “Christians” (or their system “Christian”), for that would be a terrible anachronism. “Christianity” (by name, and as a tradition over-against Judaism) was not emerging from the fray until the early to mid 2nd century. Before then, ALL believers in Jesus (even Gentile converts) thought they were practicing and believing a form of Judaism (or better, Israelite religion). Furthermore, Gnosticism likely materialized during the Greek Period of Judaism (roughly mid 4th century BC to mid 2nd century BC). Since the traditions of Jesus were not around until 30 AD and after, and John’s gospel not composed until the late 1st – early 2nd century, it would be unlikely, if not impossible for any Gnostics to borrow from the Fourth Gospel or any Jesus Traditions. There was not a single, monolithic expression of Gnosticism as far as we can tell since the Gnostic writings are so very diverse in content. So, some believers in Jesus were influenced by Gnostic thought. Most folks recognize that as far as John’s author is concerned, this was (highly) likely the case. Finally, heresy did not come until there was a majority who began defining “orthodoxy” and so began identifying what was not orthodox, that is, heresy.

Joe, Ill respond to your response tomorrow.

Your brother in Christ

Jack

My intention is not to suggest that Luther was “right,” or that Luther’s reformation was the “right” way to go about it. My suggestion is that reform was coming, and it did apart from the Reformation with Trent. I simply think it is a waste of time for you guys to try and second guess Luther’s own experience even based on your own exegesis of his words; none of you were there! Nevertheless, you set him up as a whipping boy to beat-up on Protestantism. Sometimes, the apologetics on this website remind me of professional wrestling rather than an authentic attempt to make sense of and dialogue with our Protestant sisters and brothers, let alone answer their questions about our faith.

I need to pay closer attention to what I'm doing. The above note is not from Matt, but from me - Jack - TO Matt.

Jay, with my apologies, please attach my name to the note above. In any case, I'll re-post it below.

Matthew,

My intention is not to suggest that Luther was “right,” or that Luther’s reformation was the “right” way to go about it. My suggestion is that reform was coming, and it did apart from the Reformation with Trent. I simply think it is a waste of time for you guys to try and second guess Luther’s own experience even based on your own exegesis of his words; none of you were there! Nevertheless, you set him up as a whipping boy to beat-up on Protestantism. Sometimes, the apologetics on this website remind me of professional wrestling rather than an authentic attempt to make sense of and dialogue with our Protestant sisters and brothers, let alone answer their questions about our faith.

Jack,
You say that "reform was coming" what does that mean exactly and how do you know? Do you have a better insight to the happenings of the times within the Church than the rest of us do with Luther's writings at that time? I say not. Besides, none of us here desires to second guess Luther...there is no need to. He speaks very plainly as to his views being correct and the Church's to be wrong. In addition, I've not heard anyone bashing Protestantism. This site is for the purpose of discussing truth, and truth for some may be upsetting, disruptive, and uncomfortable. If you are in these groups then earnestly pray why this is the case and truly do so without prejudice. I've never heard Joe, Jay, or Dave endorse the view that Protestants should be berated or put down in any way. If anything their site is one of the most charitable to all who visit and wish to discuss any of the available topics. If you truly believe that their purpose in having this site up is to create division then you have missed the whole point. They have made this blog into a reflective, comptemplative, and energetic site that attempts to promote understanding, but without sacrificing or watering down the fullness of truth that lies within the Catholic Church. Professional wrestling is fake, we all know it is fake, and those within their ranks know it is fake...and they don't deny it in earnest. The apolgetics on this site however are based on the fullness of the revealed truth by the Holy Spirit to Christ's Church. I'm really sorry that you feel otherwise.
In Christ,
Matthew

Jack

Good to hear you don't consider Gnostics to be Christians. Dumb me again...I saw above where you were comparing *Gnostic Christianity* to *Judaic Christianity* from this I thought you were calling Gnostics, Christians.

Indeed there was not a *unified* Gnosticism however it appeared much earlier than credited. I always suggest reading Four Witnesses by Rod Bennett...either way here is just one link about Simon Magus
http://www.kheper.net/topics/Gnosticism/Simon_Magus.htm

the 1st Century Gnostic that fought Simon Peter in Rome for souls.

My point regarding the 4th gospel of John is that scripture from the Catholic and Protestant perspective is inspired. Though some may consider it gnostic in feel, many Gnostic beliefs are stolen from Phillip the Evangelist...again see Four Witnesses and we consider scripture to be inspired by God not by Gnostics.

As apologist Robert Sungenis of Catholicintl.com notes: Moreover, the Pontifical Biblical Commission made a general statement on the Gospel of John in 1907, which reads as follows:

"Whether...it can be said that the deed related in the fourth Gospel are totally or partially so invented that they are allegories or doctrinal symbols; but that the words of the Lord are not properly and truly the words of the Lord himself, but theological compositions of the writer, although placed in the mouth of the Lord? -- Answer: In the negative."

This means that the PBC considered no part of John's Gospel an interpolation, ..."

In Love

when we were one

An interesting Q&A with NT Wright about unity.

Q:Is the existence of denominations an overall positive or negative for the Church? What are the benefits? What are the harmful effects? How do we proceed from where we are at today?

A:Overall it must be judged a flagrant disobedience to the NT's regular position that part of the point of the church is that it brings together people of the most widely differing kinds. So many denominations, not least in N America, simply reflect the ethnic and cultural origins of different parts of the population. In my country it tends to be class-driven more than ethnic, though sometimes it's both: e.g. in my diocese there are some large pockets of solid Roman Catholic adherence because in earlier generations Irish labourers were drafted in to the steel industry.

The benefits are of course that we avoid a sense of one size fitting all. But the harmful effects are wasteful duplication of effort, to look no further; the refusal to behave as the one people called from every nation, tribe and tongue; the projection of cultural preferences on to a theological screen to give 'doctrinal' legitimation to differences that don't originate there (I am NOT saying there are no doctrinal differences that matter -- there are and they do!), and so forth. I am not a relativist (I shouldn't have to say that, but I find I do!) but I really do believe that we must work together across denominational lines at everything we possibly can, whether it's feeding the poor or campaigning for global justice, and that wherever possible we should be praying together and reading the Bible together even if it's informally in twos and threes. Where possible we should share buildings, pulpits, sacraments. . . I am horribly aware of how difficult this is and how little progress my own church is making in this direction, and indeed of how easily ecumenical work gets bogged down in endless committees always sending minutes to one another, watching out for people being offended or excluded, rather than preaching and living the gospel. But occasionally there are moments of breakthrough.

I guess it comes down to this: I can't read Ephesians and collude with the way things are. And I guess the principalities and powers are very, very happy with the way things are: according to Eph 3.10, the unity of the church across barriers that have hitherto divided humankind is the sure sign to the powers that their time is up, that they are not masters of the world and that Jesus is...

Matthew, you wrote:“You say that "reform was coming" what does that mean exactly and how do you know? Do you have a better insight to the happenings of the times within the Church than the rest of us do with Luther's writings at that time? I say not.”

It is hard for me to understand where your certitude lies, especially since you and I have never met! That said, I’ve not the time or the inclination to offer details as to how I know that reform was coming but I can, like you no doubt would, suggest some bibliography so that if you become so inclined, you might check only a couple of the sources of my knowledge about this topic. THE CATHOLIC REFORMATION, by Michael Mullett (Routledge, 1999); A HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT, v.1, by Justo Gonzalez (Abingdon, 1987). This second title is dated but good. Mullett begins his entire history on how wrong it is to perceive Trent as only a reaction to the Protestant Reformation.

Matthew, you wrote: “Besides, none of us here desires to second guess Luther...there is no need to. He speaks very plainly as to his views being correct and the Church's to be wrong.”

You make my point (partially at least). Luther honestly/sincerely thought he was right! There is no need to portray him as somehow in his heart, actually knowing he was wrong – and that he decided to be an SOB anyway, and push it to the extreme no matter what. Yes, I know; Being sincere doesn’t make one not “sincerely wrong.” But the point is that he was doing what he honestly thought was right (obviously!).

Regarding the rest of your response Matthew – I’ve known Joe for 15 years and so feel like I can shoot straight with him about my opinions, and without hurting feelings. He already knows my position on apologetics in general. Some of the material that has been posted by Jay has in fact, been provocative and has attempted to bait Protestants into a discussion – posts that challenge Sola Scriptura etc. I am, on the other hand, inclined to embrace a Catholic Apologetics that is purely defensive – never offensive. Only and always answering questions, never going out looking for a fight or baiting Protestants with provocative comments or summaries of “what’s wrong with Sola Scriptura” (or Luther’s "throne") sorts of things. I just don’t think this is necessary. Let our opponents peddle that kind of apologetics. The best defense is a good offense, maybe (NOT)! And since Jay and Joe represent the Catholic Church, I think it would show quite well for them (and Her) if they would only respond by defending the faith, and by articulating what the Catholic Church teaches and why – refraining from saying what they think Protestants believe, and why “they” are wrong. Just tell us why the Catholic Church is right, and be confident in the sovereignty of God who founded this Church on the Rock, and will guide and protect it from all assaults until the coming of the kingdom (etc etc). But that is just my opinion and this is their web log.

Pro Deo!

Jack,

I too have tried (perhaps unsuccessfully) to stick to answering and asking questions rather than pointing out the flaws in the Protestant faith. I have noticed that the only ideas that get presented as erroneous are Protestant ideas - I often wonder why the focus on Protestantism?

A generation ago, people may have left the Catholic Church in the belief they were being faithful to biblical teachings, but these days the enemies of the Church do not accept the authority of Scripture at all. I know I oversimplify but Protestants don't seem to be either curious to know more or actively threatening the Church.

I have wondered at the phrase "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" (1 Peter 3:15). It doesn't actually instruct us to point out the erroneous statements others make. What I mean is when someone tells me that praying the Rosary is unintentional idolatry, no one has asked me to respond or to ansswer, so do I have a need to say something?

If someone asks why I pray the Rosary or why I do not believe it to be idolatry, certainly I should have an answer. But do I need to give an answer when no one asks for it?

Sometimes I wonder if "holding a candle the candle of truth" means more than condemning the darkness.

Jack

You note "Jay baits...(but)I...embrace defensive Apologetics" there is much to be said about your position. I agree the paraclete will bring seekers that are being called if he wishes. I have also wondered if we don't then attract some "bad actors" or "bad actions" on all sides when we flame or put out counter flames.

Then again I think that my apologetics have gotten much swifter and refined when dealing with such flamers. In real life I do run into such anticatholics on at least a monthly basis I would guess...so there is some upside...I wonder what Jay thinks.

In Love

when we were one

I suppose someone might argue that offensive apologetics is substantiated because the Church Father’s themselves practiced offensive apologetics. But to that I would suggest the same thing that Jacob does on another thread, that “Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined” – quoting Pope Benedict XVI. To say that the character of the division has been “altered over time,” and that Protestantism has “developed its own positive ecclesial nature” – is not suggesting that the differences today are of no consequence. But it does presuppose a “listening” dialogical context – not one that is premised on establishing first that “I’m right and you are wrong, and here are the reasons why YOU are wrong and I am right…so, admit you’re wrong and come back to the truth.” I really think that most Protestants who eventually enter into the Catholic Church do so on a foundation of a listening, thoughtful dialogue rather than an aggressive or provocative apologetics. There may have been a time for offensive apologetics, but I think it is over, and it is now time for Catholic apologetics to take a defensive position vis-à-vis offensive anti-Catholic apologetics. They may take note of our trust in a sovereign God and our willingness to offer the other cheek.

Pro Deo.

WWWO and BR,
I really understand where you guys are coming from. It is difficult to balance defending your faith and becoming "defensive." I have learned from John Martignoni (slowly I might add) that whether someone attacks the faith or merely asks a question about it our response should be the same. Essentially the door has been opened for us to communicate the truth of the faith--and we are not to let that door shut without a response. I'm not sure if you all are aware of him or not, but he is a PHENOMENAL speaker (apologist) on the truths of the faith. He is the founder of a group called the Bible Christian Society (www.biblechristiansociety.com) that has the goal to work towards the conversion of at least 50% of the Greater Birmingham area to Catholicism by the year 2038. With his clear and thought provoking style he is very convincing and speaks from the heart of the Church with the support of Scripture side by side. You can get his tapes or CDs for free with only a buck for shipping costs. A great deal and they are worth passing along to friends. I would especially recommend the CD called "ONE CHURCH" where he examines the current state of Christianity and whether Jesus wants there to the thousands of churches in the world. Amazingly he does it without ever attacking anyone's faith, and is perfect for any non-Catholic (and Catholic) to listen to. Check it out.

As to BR's point as to whether we should actively promote our beliefs versus adhering strictly to Peter's admonishment in 1 Peter 3:15. I think that we need to keep in mind the words of our Savior in Matthew 5:18-20:

"Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever BREAKS one of the least of these commandments AND TEACHES OTHERS to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever OBEYS AND TEACHES THESE COMMANDMENTS will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven. I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

If we take this into account then when we point out the errors of Protestantism or Islam, etc. then we are fulfilling this passage. Again, we cannot take the Protestant road of hanging on to one verse of Scripture (in this case 1 Peter 3:15) to understand the full Gospel. We must, as the Church teaches, to read Scripture in light of the apolstolic tradition of the Church to fully understand it. In other words, take it as a whole or the sum of many parts. In this way we fulfill the law of Christ in proclaiming the Gospel AND defending the Gospel as needed to weed out false doctrine. Again, we must also remember that we do not change men's hearts...only the Holy Spirit can do that. All that we can do is present the truth and hope that the mustard seed we plant takes root and flourishes in the hearts of those who are ignorant of the fullness of truth in Christ.
Peace,
Matthew

Matthew…Matthew!!
You write: “As to BR's point as to whether we should actively promote our beliefs versus adhering strictly to Peter's admonishment in 1 Peter 3:15. I think that we need to keep in mind the words of our Savior in Matthew 5:18-20:
"Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever BREAKS one of the least of these commandments AND TEACHES OTHERS to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever OBEYS AND TEACHES THESE COMMANDMENTS will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven. I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven."
If we take this into account then when we point out the errors of Protestantism or Islam, etc. then we are fulfilling this passage. Again, we cannot take the Protestant road of hanging on to one verse of Scripture (in this case 1 Peter 3:15) to understand the full Gospel. We must, as the Church teaches, to read Scripture in light of the apolstolic tradition of the Church to fully understand it. In other words, take it as a whole or the sum of many parts. In this way we fulfill the law of Christ in proclaiming the Gospel AND defending the Gospel as needed to weed out false doctrine.”

Matthew, you suggest to BR that he not cave to the praxis of one-verse hermeneutics like Protestants to understand the full Gospel. Then, you take a text from Matthew’s sermon on the mount, remove it from its theological, historical, and literary contexts, and use it – alone – to make a case for an offensive apologetics. .. as though we Catholics have a sacred duty to point out Protestant error, and then “weed out false doctrine.” Geez! Ethnocentric eisegesis at worse. An affront to the sacred text at best!

Matthew 5:18-20 is a text that reveals the “organic” connection between the early Matthean community, and Judaism – as Fr. Daniel Harrington, SJ, suggests in his commentary on Matthew (Sacra Pagina, Liturgical Press). The text is not uttered in an apologetic context either – a context that you supply in your (mis) use of the text. It follows the beatitudes and prefaces the “great antitheses” – which are not antithetical teachings/interpretations of Torah at all, but serve to illustrate Jesus interpreting Torah clearly within the bounds of his Israelite religion – this is not my idea, but that of the majority of Roman Catholic biblical scholars.

And yes! Although we are to, as you say, “read Scripture in light of the apostolic tradition of the Church to fully understand it,” this does not mean that we need to adopt the same sociological context as the Church Fathers did when reading, interpreting, and most importantly, appropriating sacred scripture. The Church Fathers’ offensive apologetics is understandable given the sociological and historical context of an emerging Christianity…when the Church was hammering out the contours of the faith as it worked out it own self-identity in trying times. The Proto-Orthodox articulation of faith (the Church Fathers’ faith), emerged as the Orthodox faith – by God’s will; this is OUR inherited faith!! But their offensive apologetics should be understood within the sociological context of self-identity formation, and not transposed onto ours – as Pope Benedict points out in the text Jacob cites. Point? I do not think it is necessary for our Roman Catholic Church to be hammering out a self-identity anymore (by beating up Protestants!), and I suspect that those apologists that peddle the offensive line are actually dealing more with their own self-identity difficulties than they are with articulating the faith of the Church. Why does one need to “weed out false doctrine” of Protestants, Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims when they are not a part of the Roman Catholic faith community in the first place??? Again, I say if they “come atchya” that is another thing…defend the truth!
Pro Deo

Jack,
Even though we've never met my definitive response came from your statement of: "
"I simply think it is a waste of time for you guys to try and second guess Luther’s own experience even based on your own exegesis of his words; none of you were there!"

Well Jack, agreed I was not there, but at the same time neither were you. You have your information about the reformation as we all do...from reading books. We do the same with Luther. It is illogical for you to cast dispersions on any of us when we make a commentary on Luther's clear statements and at the same time speak to us with certainty as to "the reform was coming" when you have only read books that attest to it. To accept your logic then neither of us know anything because we weren't in either place to have a first hand account.

Don't get me wrong though. I'm sure you've done your research on the topic and I would be curious to check out your suggested titles, but let us be clear here. Luther was not a part of God's divine providence--Luther declared himself so. Luther was great in his own mind and it is sad that he lit a fuse that he could not extinguish. As far as your comment:

"There is no need to portray him as somehow in his heart, actually knowing he was wrong – and that he decided to be an SOB anyway, and push it to the extreme no matter what."

No one here needs to do that. Luther made himself priest, Pope, and king. He was known to be a drunkard and advocated bigamy among other things. One of his most blasphemous comments was as follows:

"Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: "Whatever has he been doing with her?" Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died."(D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe [Hermann Bohlau Verlag, 1893], vol. 2, no. 1472, April 7 - May 1, 1532, p. 33; also in Luther's Works, American Edition, Volume 54, p 154

Here we have Luther making a completely anti-Christian remark about our Lord. Whether or not he meant this in earnest who can say, but it speaks for itself as to the audacity of Luther to even hint at the idea that Christ defiled himself or anyone else in such a manner. One can multiply excerpts such as these that far outweigh any of Luther's writings that attest to the truth of Christ...and His Church. So Luther DID push it to extremes and WAS known to be an SOB by many accounts and there is no reason to deny this.

In all, Luther is not the issue anymore. It is the repercussions of his actions and the task that we have as Catholics to stand firm and hold fast to the tradtions [oral or written] that we received from the Apostles and to continue to hold the light of truth to all. Luther is merely a black spot on the tapestry of Christ's Church and none of us are the ultimate judge of his actions. Nonetheless, it makes me wonder why and how Luther is proclaimed to be a hero in the eyes of many Protestants.
Peace be with you Jack,
Matthew

Jack and Matthew

I think we can agree that charity is a prime attribute of apologetics...

I'm not sure how we can know the time for active apologetics is gone and now is the time for passive apologetics. I understand that the Protestants of today aren't fully the Gnostics of yesterday (but they are blend) and the JW/Way Intl aren't fully the Arians of yesterday (but they are a blend). I also understand that the fathers may have launched into active apologetics with these ancient heretics...I also see what Francis de Sales wrote to Calvinists.

Jack have you had the chance to read the "Catholic Controversy" by St. Francis? I recommend it. It was written over a 4 year span of his life as a new priest sent to the heart of Calvinism, Geneva. In that brief span, he converted 70,000 Calvinists with essentially that book and a bible. The text is extrememly active apologetics. I mean like biblechristiansociety.com stuff...So can we say that the era of active apologetics is over because Protestants are a new breed? I'm not sure that is written by Ratzinger. And I know Francis de Sales is a doctor of the church.

In Love

when we were one

The two saints I remember when thinking of styles of apologetics (whether to expose the errors of another belief or to propose the truths of the Catholic belief) are Saint Jerome and Saint Francis de Sales.

Saint Jerome is still noted for his blustery temper and his fiery writings which still contain numerous insights for us. Saint Francis de Sales is noted for his patience and invitational style which still contain numerous insights for us.

I'm beginning to think that his fiery writing style is not what got Jerome canonized (rather it was his committment to truth). In fact, several other saints repeatedly rebuked him for it and he performed acts of severe penance and mortification. I'm beginning to think the Saint Francis de Sales showed a similar committment to truth but wasn't quite as rough around the edges.

In modern times, two figures I consider are Mother Teresa and Mother Angelica. Both had deep convictions founded in the truths of the Roman Catholic Church. Mother Angelica was quite a spit-fire yet I cannot but help think that her place was to provide a clear wake-up call to a sleepy Roman Catholic Church in North America. Mother Teresa had a vocation which directly touched people outside the Roman Catholic Church.

Both callings are praiseworthy but perhaps the "calling out errors and misdemeanors" approach works better when one is addressing those inside the Roman Catholic Church. After all, compare Jesus style with the blind man and the Pharisees who said they could see.

Bringing this back to Saint Jerome and Saint Francis de Sales, Saint Jerome was addressing his letters to people who considered themselves good Catholics and yet rejected the virginity of Mary. Saint Francis was addressing many of his letters to those who had lapsed in the faith.

Matthew,

To begin with the Protestant Reformation - Luther's Reformation, however you see it - was not/is not a caesura in God's plan of salvation. It neither caught God "blind side," or snuck up on God, or anything of the kind. This is not to suggest that God approves/approved of Luther's decision(s) to wage it the way he did. It is to suggest and assert the sovereignty of God in God's (hi)story of salvation. I suggest that offensive apologists quit acting as if the Reformation was/is the equivalent of "the Fall."

Luther is a hero in Protestant eyes because they are Protestants, simple! There is a statue in the town center of the city I live in of the Spanish fellow who was the city's founder. He is a hero! Most folks also know that he brutally executed French soldiers for no apparent good reason a few years after founding the city - and yet, a hero he still remains. The struggle for self identity has an interesting way of forgetting the sins of its founder, especially when what was founded (quickly) develops a life of its own. Likewise, Luther was a human being - a sinful human being, like every other human hero...like many of the Popes from the past as well (don't go white-washing our Church's history Matthew; that would claim JP II's apology [apology to Judaism] of a couple of years ago to be a sham).

My final word (of advice) on this is as follows: The best apologetics is not "a good offense," but rather, GOOD THEOLOGY that LISTENS with the true intent of actually listening - and then simply telling folks what we Catholics believe, and why we believe it. I am thoroughly convinced that THAT kind of apologetics "wins" more converts to the Church than does offensive apologetics.

Peace be with you too Matthew. We are brothers in faith.

Jack,

You mention that the struggle for self-identity has an interesting way of forgetting the sins of its founder. I'm beginning to think that forgetting the sins of our leaders may be a good thing.

The leaders of today, like the leaders of yesterday did much good and also failed in may ways. Yet we remember the sins of Clinton all too well and yet learn mostly the virtues of Abraham Lincoln. Though there is an increased desire to drag out dirt on even the historical figures.

When we confess our sins to the Lord and repent, he remembers them no more. Perhaps when we extend the same courtesy to others, this is a good thing.

I agree BR! In my town, the "founding father" remains a hero, and is remembered for the good (great) things he did during the nascent years of the city, and rightly so.

Hmmm...has anything good come out of the reform that Luther started? Or, is what he did, and everything that followed a travisty to Christendom, and a stumbling stone in God's plan of salvation?

Jack,
Of course the "reformation" (small r) didn't catch God off guard nor is it the equivalent to the fall of man. Those are is a straw man statements. No one here argues such points. However,in His divine providence, as He always does, He brings good out of bad cirumstances. In essence, God seems to work through our separated brethren despite their invincible ignorance to the true faith of the Catholic Church. Thus, our Lord continues to deal with his followers despite the many errors of the Protestant sects. Again, from invincible ignorance to which only His grace can overcome.

As to "white-washing" our history those are your words...not mine. I'm not really sure what you are trying to make me say, but that is not it. Granted, the Church has many stains upon it, but we can rest assured that no matter what it will prevail (Matt 16:18). Luther and those churches who follow his doctrines do not have such a promise.

In all, I think that we can still be as John Martignoni (www.biblechristiansociety.com) says, we should be "aw-fensive" without being "oh-fensive." In essence, asking more questions than we answer, but doing it in a spirit of true desire to understand and correct our separated brethren's misconceptions. "Oh-fensive" apologetics builds barriers to true dialogue, and furthers the divide between us. May the Holy Spirit continue to guide the Church into all truth and may we have the humble courage to present that truth to all who are willing to listen...and let God do the rest.
Peace,
Matthew

Exactly Matthew! In God’s divine providence, God does bring good out of bad circumstances…God “seems to work through our separated brethren despite their invincible ignorance to the true faith of the Catholic Church”…continuing “to deal with his followers despite their many errors”…”from invincible ignorance to which on His grace can overcome.” But Matthew, one should not too easily and simply take it for granted that, well yeah “the (Roman Catholic) Church has many stains upon it.” Rather one should not too readily rest on assurances that “no matter what it (Roman Catholic Church) will prevail,” lest one becomes complacent vis-à-vis one’s call within the salvific, and divine plan of God. And remember, it is in fact the Church which has received the fullness of the Truth, that nevertheless muddles things up from time-to-time (stains!). Pope JP II knew this, and so guided by the Spirit boldly led God’s Church to a position of true repentance and true openness to the grace of God.

With respect to “those churches” who follow Luther’s doctrines, I think it prudent not to boast in the promises of God over-against “them,” but rather to affirm Pope Benedict’s suggestion that we do not yet clearly know their role in God’s slavific work. But they DO have a role, nevertheless.

Peace,
Jack

Jack,
I'm glad that we are like-minded in this. However, let me say one last thing. We agree on all points except for your comment:

"Rather one should not too readily rest on assurances that “no matter what it (Roman Catholic Church) will prevail,” lest one becomes complacent vis-à-vis one’s call within the salvific, and divine plan of God.

I strongly disagree with you that we should not "readily rest on assurances"...OF CHRIST (Matt 16:18). Christ cannot lie and go against his nature. Truth is not divided. I'm sure you agree with this, but your words stated otherwise. Christ will not let his Church fail...he promised this and through his divine workmanship in and through us we can be completely confident that NO MATTER WHAT His will...will be done and the [Catholic] Church will be waiting to welcome Him upon his arrival. The Catholic Church is divine. However, as I said before, the schismatic churches have no such assurances despite their role in salvation history. That is the key here. Christ does not work among Christians BECAUSE of the reformation, but in spite of it.
Peace,
Matthew

To be precise Matthew, I did not say that "we should not readily rest on assurances OF CHRIST." I said we should not "TOO readily rest on assurances that not matter what it (Roman Catholic CHurch)will prevail." Rest TOO readily for many, if not most, often leads to complacency. I know that the CHurch will prevail because God keeps God's promises. But since I am a sinful human being, I'm going to try to be vigilent and avoid resting TOO easily with that, and instead, getting up and actively participating in God's work through the Church.

peace

Jack,
I understand what you are trying to say, that we must be vigilant and attentive to how we live out our lives and how we respond to the needs of others, and this is true, but you specifically said:

Rather one should NOT too readily REST ON ASSURANCES that “no matter what it (Roman Catholic Church) will prevail,” lest one becomes complacent vis-à-vis one’s call within the salvific, and divine plan of God.

Question Jack. Who is the one giving the assurances...?? After you've answered this you can see that your point is intrinsically flawed. Christ cannot lie, and because of that He will as I stated above, "...will not let His Church fail...he promised this and through HIS DIVINE WORKMANSHIP IN AND THROUGH US we can be completely confident that NO MATTER WHAT His will...will be done and the [Catholic] Church will be waiting to welcome Him upon his arrival."
May peace be with you,
Matthew

Matthew,

I teach folks about Second Temple Judaic casuistry often. Usually, in the effort to point out to folks that “casuistry” (if they’ve even come across the word before) is not the “four letter word” that Christians usually think it is, i.e. “casuistry” = myopic and crass legalism. So, your attention to detail is received by me in the good sense of casuistry even if missing the finer details of the definition.

To be brief, I care very little about the “intrinsically flawed” character of my point (as you see it, and so quickly draw attention to), especially since I know – as you graciously indicate – that you think you understand my point – which of course, begs the question why you even bother to attend to my flaws. That can wait for another string. But since I have now bothered to spend 5 minutes responding already, let me finish by suggesting my point is in fact, not flawed if one places the emphasis on “rest” (which I am, and was) rather than the “assurances.” The one offering the assurances is God, to be sure! But God does not offer anyone “assurance of salvation” with the understanding that the Christian can then “rest” on that, and do nothing! “Let the reader understand.” Likewise, Catholics are offered the “assurance” that God will not let God’s Church fail. That is an eschatological promise Matthew! In the mean time, we Catholics need to “rest UN-easy” on the promises of God – that is, to rest un-easy so as to participate proactively in God’s work through God’s Church here on earth. The promises of God should compel us not to ease, but to un-ease; To stand on tip-toe an anxious and active expectation of the coming of God. “Peace with God means conflict with the world, for the goad of the promised future (that promises the Church victorious!) stabs inexorably into the flesh of every unfulfilled present.”

Peace Matthew!

Hello everyone!

I am quite confused from reading the above probably because I just do not understand so well.

Is it possible for someone to have a good look at Martin Luther the Reformer and apply the process of beatification to him?

After this we will know how Martin Luther measures up and then we may continue the process further to sainthood.

Post a comment