Luther wasn't so bad after all?

philologos

It has been revealed that Pope Benedict is working on a document saying that Luther actually assisted the Catholic Church to remove corruption, and to move forward. He according to the Pope, did not intend to split the Church.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3492299.ece

I think this is actually a great move forward for the Catholic Church. Arguably a bit late, but a positive move none the less.

kelly1

Jakkass wrote: »

It has been revealed that Pope Benedict is working on a document saying that Luther actually assisted the Catholic Church to remove corruption, and to move forward. He according to the Pope, did not intend to split the Church.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3492299.ece

I think this is actually a great move forward for the Catholic Church. Arguably a bit late, but a positive move none the less.

Interesting.

I think Luther was right to protest the corruption in the Church. The Church had clearly strayed very far from its apostolic mission.

Having said that Luther was wrong to deny the authority of the Church which has the same authority that was given by Christ to the apostles. His doctrine that the bible alone was the authority on truth paved the way for the numerous heresies that resulted from private interpretation of scripture.

Now instead of one flock united by one faith, we have multiple divided flocks which of course is not what Christ had in mind. Of course the Church is partly to blame.

Cantab.

kelly1 wrote: »

Interesting.

I think Luther was right to protest the corruption in the Church. The Church had clearly strayed very far from its apostolic mission.

Having said that Luther was wrong to deny the authority of the Church which has the same authority that was given by Christ to the apostles. His doctrine that the bible alone was the authority on truth paved the way for the numerous heresies that resulted from private interpretation of scripture.

Now instead of one flock united by one faith, we have multiple divided flocks which of course is not what Christ had in mind. Of course the Church is partly to blame.

Don't get too excited about what you read in the Times

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=57062

philologos

Hm, it was also in the Irish Times yesterday.

However even honouring his role in the restoration of the Church is encouraging.

wolfsbane

kelly1 wrote: »

Interesting.

I think Luther was right to protest the corruption in the Church. The Church had clearly strayed very far from its apostolic mission.

Having said that Luther was wrong to deny the authority of the Church which has the same authority that was given by Christ to the apostles. His doctrine that the bible alone was the authority on truth paved the way for the numerous heresies that resulted from private interpretation of scripture.

Now instead of one flock united by one faith, we have multiple divided flocks which of course is not what Christ had in mind. Of course the Church is partly to blame.

Luther did indeed cause many of those who remained in Rome to 'get their act together' to some degree. But the sort of reforms that might have quieted his conscience in the beginning could not have done so when he had well and truly re-examined things in the light of Scripture.

Secondary errors and even sinful practices could be dealt with and the system survive, but not when the foundations were faulty. Rome had lost some of the foundations of the NT faith - Justification by Faith apart from the works of the Law is a prime example.

Yes, Rome could have returned to its roots by teaching the fundamentals again, but the whole system was built on justification by faith + merit, and a sacrificing priesthood. It would have had to reform with a big R - Reform, as in the Reformed Church.

Let me point out that what we have now is not multiple divided flocks, only multiple divided folds. There is one flock and One Shepherd - they are found in many different folds, but all one in Christ.
John 10:16 And other sheep I have which are not of this fold B][I]aule[/I][/B; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock B][I]poimne[/I][/B and one shepherd.

Run_to_da_hills

There is really not much difference between Martin Luther and Catholicism. Lutheranism is nothing more than just a diet form of Catholicism. Martin Luther also sinfully idolized Mary and trusted in Baptismal Regeneration. All Pope Benedict is trying to gain brownie points with the Protestant churches after putting his foot in it last year when he denounced them as "not the true church". He is also doing his best to premote the ecumenical movement which downplays the local indepentant church and exalts inter-church and inter-denominational relationships.