500 years ago today

branie2

Martin Luther started the Reformation

Peregrinus

branie2 wrote: »

Martin Luther started the Reformation

The followers of John Huss might disagree with you about that!

homer911

branie2 wrote: »

Martin Luther started the Reformation

Thank God!

Nick Park

I blogged about this today: https://eaiseanchai.wordpress.com/2017/10/31/luther-trick-or-treat-an-essay-to-mark-the-500th-anniversary-of-the-reformation/

To sum up, Luther was a pretty unpleasant character who would have cheerfully persecuted me as a heretic - but I'm glad he opened the door for religious freedom by recognising that people can read and interpret the Bible for themselves.

J C

It's something that many forget ... that The Reformation ... was actually a reformation of the Roman Catholic Church of the time, within different areas of Europe ... by Roman Catholics and former Roman Catholics.

Jellybaby1

It could be suggested that instead of 'Protestants' we should be 'Reformed Catholics', or even 'Reformed catholics'.

J C

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

It could be suggested that instead of 'Protestants' we should be 'Reformed Catholics', or even 'Reformed catholics'.

You could also be 'Protesting catholics' !!:D

For Saved Christians, however, this is all moot.

We are simply Saved Christians ... with a heritage right back to Jesus Christ ... and totally independent of any religion.

The Protestant Reformation reformed the Roman Catholic Church across northern Europe in the sixteenth century ... southern Europeans had to wait until the reforms of Vatican 2, in the twentieth century, for similar reforms to their churches.

It was a terrible pity that the Protestant Reformation didn't happen everywhere, at the time ... and without the bloodshed.

Jellybaby1

J C wrote: »

You could also be 'Protesting catholics' !!:D

For Saved Christians, however, this is all moot.

We are simply Saved Christians ... with a heritage right back to Jesus Christ ... and totally independent of any religion.

The Protestant Reformation reformed the Roman Catholic Church across northern Europe in the sixteenth century ... southern Europeans had to wait until the reforms of Vatican 2, in the twentieth century, for similar reforms to their churches.

It was a terrible pity that the Protestant Reformation didn't happen everywhere, at the time ... and without the bloodshed.

Yes, I'd go along with those quotes above. Lately I'm finding religion a terrible weight to carry, its just I'm lumbered with it now. There is no such thing as the perfect church, even those unconnected to any mainstream Christian religion.

Save

branie2

There's a two-part documentary on Luther on RTÉ 2 starting on Friday week

pauldla

A recent BBC podcast about Luther and the Reformation, recorded at Trinity College Cambridge.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csv0s0


P

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Watched an excellent movie last night in German about the Lutheran Reformation. Hopefully it gets translated. I think one of it's strong points is highlighting the role of Tetzel in the indulgences scandal and in highlighting the importance of both services in German and translating the Bible into German.

It covers not only Luther but also Thomas Müntzer who was a Reformer who became involved with the peasants revolt and was based in nearby Jüterbog. It deals with some of their differences in respect to secular power. Müntzer was as much opposed to the Lutheran establishment and the rulers who supported Lutheranism as the Catholic church despite initially supporting Luther.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

J C

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

Yes, I'd go along with those quotes above. Lately I'm finding religion a terrible weight to carry, its just I'm lumbered with it now. There is no such thing as the perfect church, even those unconnected to any mainstream Christian religion.

Religion can complicate matters allright. It's good/important to act collectively within a church ... but we should ultimately only be lead by the Holy Spirit.
Ours is a straighforward easy faith ...

Matthew 11:28-30King James Version (KJV)
28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

brian_t

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Watched an excellent movie last night in German about the Lutheran Reformation. Hopefully it gets translated. I think one of it's strong points is highlighting the role of Tetzel in the indulgences scandal and in highlighting the importance of both services in German and translating the Bible into German.

It covers not only Luther but also Thomas Müntzer who was a Reformer who became involved with the peasants revolt and was based in nearby Jüterbog. It deals with some of their differences in respect to secular power. Müntzer was as much opposed to the Lutheran establishment and the rulers who supported Lutheranism as the Catholic church despite initially supporting Luther.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The movie you saw "Zwischen Himmel und Hölle" starring Maximilian Brückner is the same one RTE2 is showing under the title "Reformation: The Story of Martin Luther".

Part one is on Friday 17th Nov at 9.40pm - part 2 is on Saturday at 10pm.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt6129760/

branie2 wrote: »

There's a two-part documentary on Luther on RTE2 starting on Friday week

Jellybaby1

J C wrote: »

Religion can complicate matters allright. It's good/important to act collectively within a church ... but we should ultimately only be lead by the Holy Spirit.
Ours is a straighforward easy faith ...

Matthew 11:28-30King James Version (KJV)
28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Thank you for reminding me of those references. I have often asked the question, is it possible for me to be a Christian without the church, or even is it possible for me to be a Christian within the church? I wonder what Luther would think of it all today.

solodeogloria

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

Thank you for reminding me of those references. I have often asked the question, is it possible for me to be a Christian without the church, or even is it possible for me to be a Christian within the church? I wonder what Luther would think of it all today.

Good morning!

I don't think it is. If you think of the foundational logic of the Gospel it is basically about God gathering a people for Himself by adoption through the saving death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

We are people together with one Father as a result. This means laterally that we are brothers and sisters to one another but also that we are to hold the Gospel out to others so that they too might have this privilege of being able to relate to the God of the universe and His children.

The Bible says that it is important for Christians not to neglect meeting together but to meet to spur one another onto love and good works so that we can encourage one another more and more as the day draws near (Hebrews 10:24-25). The Bible also says surprisingly that the work of ministry is our work as the congregation and not the work of our minister. His job is to teach and equip the congregation to minister to one another. (Ephesians 4:11-13)

I think Luther would have thought that people should come and grow in love to Jesus and one another in church. Why do you think that he preached at Stadtskirche Sankt Marien for 30 years? Or why do you think he worked tirelessly to translate the Bible into German so that people could understand it while he was in Wartburg?

From an Anglican perspective I recommend a read of J.C Ryle's Five English Reformers. You'll see people who gave their very lives in love for others.

Being a lone ranger Christian is tempting but you can't do it alone and you weren't meant to. You can be a blessing to others in pointing then to Jesus and they can be a blessing to you.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

J C

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

Thank you for reminding me of those references. I have often asked the question, is it possible for me to be a Christian without the church, or even is it possible for me to be a Christian within the church? I wonder what Luther would think of it all today.

The simple answer is that you can be Saved without being a member of a Church ... but your Salvation should urge you to commit to a Church.
Christianity isn't a 'loner' faith ... it's to be lived out within a Christian community.

Matthew 18:20King James Version (KJV)
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Jellybaby1

Understood. And of course Luther had a lot more to contend with than me.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Luther was a heretic who deprived millions of people of a sacramental life.

solodeogloria

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

Luther was a heretic who deprived millions of people of a sacramental life.

Good morning!

Thanks for your post. Forgive my ignorance but what is the "sacramental life". I've never heard this term before and I'd like to understand it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

He deprived people of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

feargale

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

Luther was a heretic who deprived millions of people of a sacramental life.

Am I allowed to snack on popcorn here?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

You don't deserve a reply, but you can do as you wish.

feargale

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

Back to Christ's command. It's quite simple. The believer goes to Heaven, the athiest ie. non believer goes to hell.

No wonder there's trouble in the world.

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

You don't deserve a reply, but you can do as you wish.

And you, too can do as you wish, including believing that a wafer is meat and wine is blood, and if you drink a good quantity of it it will not intoxicate you. Thankfully, here and now others are free to believe otherwise. People died for that freedom of belief. My guess is that neither you nor many of those who think like you did much to achieve that freedom.
I googled this thread hoping to read interesting stuff about the Reformation, particularly historical stuff. I'm especially grateful for the information about the upcoming programmes on RTE and I will do my utmost to avoid missing them. I wasn't expecting proselytisation or polemics here. Here's hoping the thread gets back to what it is about.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Why are you, a non believer, on a Christian forum site?
You do your snivelling best to insult my beliefs, hiding behind a pretence of interest in the Reformation. Go and study it if you are interested, but do not insult me, and millions of others. Go and get lost to a history forum.

feargale

I'm a non-believer because I don't share your beliefs. You are a non-believer because you don't share mine.

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

Why are you, a non believer, on a Christian forum site?

I already explained why I am here before you asked. Why have you, a Roman Catholic, visited A&A sites?

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

You do your snivelling best to insult my beliefs,

Insult? Take a look at this:

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

Luther was a heretic who deprived millions of people of a sacramental life.

and this:

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

snivelling

Good at dishing it out but very very precious when anyone says boo to you.

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

hiding behind a pretence of interest in the Reformation.

So now you can read my mind. You've lost it, baloney,

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

Go and study it if you are interested, but do not insult me, and millions of others.

My aversion is not to you, but to bigotry.

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

Go and get lost to a history forum.

Get lost? Manners please. You're supposed to behave like a Christian gentleman.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

I believe that Jesus Christ is truly present in the Holy Eucharist. You don't. There is no point in debating this. Let's just leave it as it is. Thanks, feargale.

solodeogloria

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

He deprived people of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

Good evening!

I think this is an interesting point. I'd like to reply. Hopefully you'll be interested in what I say. If not I think it's a good opportunity to share more about a Reformed way of understanding this.

I disagree with you that Luther or any of the Reformers denied anyone any of these things. In fact Luther offered these things in a more direct way than the clergy permitted at the time.

Through the revealing of the Scriptures to the public in the common tongue aided by the printing press people got to understand Jesus' body in a more clear way. As the Lamb of God (John 1:36) and the true Temple which would be destroyed and rebuilt three days later (John 2:19-22) offered for our sins on the cross. Luther helped people to see Jesus' body in far more than The Lord's Supper but in every day life.

Luther gave the common Christian a much closer view through the Scriptures into Jesus' blood and the forgiveness of sins that it alone provides. Luther helped people to see that they are justified by Jesus' blood alone (Romans 5:9-11). Not through works. We have received reconciliation from God as an entirely underserved gift. Moreover it isn't given according to what we do. Luther read Paul's letter to the Romans and saw that salvation is a gift by God's grace through faith (Romans 4:1-6). How wonderful? It stopped crooks like Tetzel, who - in my mind was a real heretic - from stealing money from weak and vulnerable people through the sale of indulgences by telling them Jesus wasn't enough to be saved. This was encouraged by bishops and the Papacy. The Lord's Supper is not a sacrifice to be repeated but the remembrance of the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus the perfect substitute (Hebrews 9:11-12)

Luther helped people to see and hear about the Spirit that dwellt on God's perfect Son (John 1:33-34) and the work that He does today convicting the world concerning sin, righteousness and judgement (John 16:8-11) so that they might be born again (John 3:3) by God's spirit. Enabled to see things as they really are. Luther also gave people the accounts of life, death and resurrection of Jesus and His ministry so that people could see the heart and soul of Christ and repent daily. What a gift?

Luther also helped people to see that only God is righteous and that we cannot earn our way to heaven through penance and we cannot receive enough grace by participating in the sacraments but only through the cross. Luther helped people to read the Scriptures and see that Jesus is fully God and fully man (John 1:14).

All Luther did was expose people to the true Gospel that was being concealed from the people intentionally. As for The Lord's Supper we take the bread and the wine in remembrance of our Lord. You're right to say that Protestants don't have the same understanding as Catholics (for Biblical reasons) but it isn't true to say we deprive people of the sacrament at all. Luther open sourced the Gospel and gave the masses the ability to relate with God for themselves without depending on clergy to do so. That's a huge gift and one that I'm thankful for, I won't say that's heresy. It's God's word.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts and the thoughts of others.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Solodeogloria, I would love to be able to reply to all your points. However, I am not as knowledgeable or as erudite as you.
All I do know is that Christ is wholly present in the Catholic Mass at the Eucharist. This was the universal belief prior to the Reformation. After the Reformation, all other churches diverged on this point. It is the great treasure of Catholicism.
It is the bread of life, the price of which is paid for by the passion, death, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.
We must eat the bread of life if we are to attain Eternal salvation. Thank you.

uck51js9zml2yt

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

Solodeogloria, I would love to be able to reply to all your points. However, I am not as knowledgeable or as erudite as you.

You really need to read the Bible more, all the answers to Solo's points are in it!

solodeogloria

Good evening!

owenybaloney wrote: »

Solodeogloria, I would love to be able to reply to all your points. However, I am not as knowledgeable or as erudite as you.
All I do know is that Christ is wholly present in the Catholic Mass at the Eucharist. This was the universal belief prior to the Reformation. After the Reformation, all other churches diverged on this point. It is the great treasure of Catholicism.
It is the bread of life, the price of which is paid for by the passion, death, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.
We must eat the bread of life if we are to attain Eternal salvation. Thank you.

I simply recommend looking at what Luther actually said about Jesus before calling him a heretic! I already partake in communion. I also partook in the communion as a good churchgoer at the CofI church I went to as a teenager before understanding the true gospel of grace. Before l was born again (John 3:7).

Salvation is about more than shoving some bread and wine into your gob. True belief in the Gospel is much better than taking communion.

It isn't enough to say the Catholic church says X, Y or Z. The important question is whether or not it is right. Is it what the Bible says?

Before you come back to me to say the church and the pope can be never wrong - Johann Tetzel was encouraged by Pope Leo X with selling indulgences. He told people if they bought indulgences for themselves and family members with the hope of getting out of purgatory. Was Tetzel wrong?

Khalil Polite Flag wrote: »

You really need to read the Bible more, all the answers to Solo's points are in it!

The poster claims that I'm knowledgeable and erudite. I want to say to him that I'm sod all. All that I am God has given me.

Posting truth on this forum challenges the pride in my heart and helps me to see Jesus for who He really is and to see me for what I'm not.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Well, if all the answers to her points are in the Bible, why doesn't she see them for herself?
Solodeogloria, there is such a great chasm between us regarding the way to salvation that it is impossible for you to influence my position about the centrality of the Eucharist, or me to influence yours.
As regards the Pope, he is dragging the one true church into the mire, and will pay dearly for his causing further confusion and scattering of the flock. Thank you.

uck51js9zml2yt

solodeogloria wrote: »

G



The poster claims that I'm knowledgeable and erudite. I want to say to him that I'm sod all. All that I am God has given me.

I never claimed that at all , stop thinking so much of yourself:D
I was pointing to the Book, not you.
It was written so the plough boy could read and understand it.

But it looks like Owen doesn't care to look at its contents.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

Well, if all the answers to her points are in the Bible, why doesn't she see them for herself?

Firstly - I'm a bloke!

Secondly - I'm confused by your question. You're aware that there's the possibility that the Bible may disagree with you and / or the Papacy?

Part of my Christian walk involved grappling with God seeming to say things that I didn't want Him to say or saying no to things that I wanted. Have you ever experienced that? It's the most humbling of experiences to say OK God, I submit to you rather than myself.

If God always agrees with you, and if your God never challenges and stretches you, it probably means that your God is actually you.

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

Solodeogloria, there is such a great chasm between us regarding the way to salvation that it is impossible for you to influence my position about the centrality of the Eucharist, or me to influence yours.

It's possible for us both to hear something new if we're willing to listen and share with one another.

All I ask for is Biblical grounds for believing that Martin Luther is a heretic. I can give them for saying that Johann Tetzel who sold indulgences on behalf of Pope Leo X.

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

As regards the Pope, he is dragging the one true church into the mire, and will pay dearly for his causing further confusion and scattering of the flock. Thank you.

OK - so if the Pope is wrong now, why couldn't the Pope be wrong to condemn Luther as a heretic during the Council of Trent?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Delirium

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

Why are you, a non believer, on a Christian forum site?
You do your snivelling best to insult my beliefs, hiding behind a pretence of interest in the Reformation. Go and study it if you are interested, but do not insult me, and millions of others. Go and get lost to a history forum.

MOD NOTE

Anyone, be they Christian or not, are free to post in the forum once they stay within the bounds of the charter.

It would also be appreciated if you could avoid getting personal with other posters. (Also applies to you, feargale).

Thanks for your attention.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

I apologise for assuming you were a woman. We usually assume the opposite, so I thought I might be correct, Solodeogloria.
If a ploughboy could read and understand the Bible, how come there are so many interpretations?
Christ founded the Catholic church when he said to Peter "Thou art Peter and on this rock... The Church then was given the power through the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible for us.
Left to ourselves, we can interpret it any way we like. Thus the confusion over such things as the Eucharist.
Because the church was founded by Christ, it must be infallible in matters of faith. Christ would not abandon His bride, the church.
As regards the popes, there have been many heretical ones, and charity prevents me from assuming where their eventual destinies lay. Thanks

solodeogloria

Good morning!

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

If a ploughboy could read and understand the Bible, how come there are so many interpretations?

I'm not that sure that there are. The way I would probably see it is that there are primary and secondary interpretations of Scripture. If a text is crystal clear, namely that Jesus was crucified (this is impossible to miss in all four gospels and in the apostolic writings and the prophets point toward it) then I would say that this is a primary matter of faith. For things that aren't clear, there is room for disagreement. Paul tells us how to deal with these in Romans. He fully anticipates that there will be different views on secondary matters in the church:

Romans 14:5-8 ESV wrote:

Some think that one day is more important than another, and others think that every day is the same. Let all be sure in their own mind. Those who think one day is more important than other days are doing that for the Lord. And those who eat all kinds of food are doing that for the Lord, and they give thanks to God. Others who refuse to eat some foods do that for the Lord, and they give thanks to God. We do not live or die for ourselves. If we live, we are living for the Lord, and if we die, we are dying for the Lord. So living or dying, we belong to the Lord.

It is tempting to say that there is only one person who has the final say on how we understand Scripture, but it doesn't get away from interpretation. The same issues that you are raising with differences of interpretation also apply to Papal Magisterium. It's entirely possible that one Catholic can understand that entirely differently to another Catholic.

I think if there are discussions about interpretation, I'd rather that be about the primary source than about the secondary source.

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

Christ founded the Catholic church when he said to Peter "Thou art Peter and on this rock... The Church then was given the power through the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible for us.

A number of points here.

Firstly - Jesus founded the Christian church. There's no reason to believe that this is the Roman Catholic Church from Scripture.

Secondly - All Christians have the Holy Spirit dwelling with them, all true Christians are a temple of Holy Spirit. If anyone doesn't have the Spirit of Christ they are not a Christian (1 Corinthians 3:16). God the Holy Spirit helps us understand His Word because He's the one who inspired it in the first place.

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

Left to ourselves, we can interpret it any way we like. Thus the confusion over such things as the Eucharist.

Yes, and no.

Language has restrictions. If the Bible says clearly that Jesus is crucified I can't come to the conclusion that He wasn't crucified. That's not "interpretation". That's dishonesty.

Moreover, it isn't true that anyone can interpret anything any way they like. Words have meaning. It is possible that something can be interpreted in multiple ways, and if the passage permits that we have that freedom as Christians, but there are some things that are very clear and indisputable, we don't have freedom to ignore these things.

I don't think there's any "confusion" in my church about The Lord's Supper. We're doing it to remember Jesus.

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

Because the church was founded by Christ, it must be infallible in matters of faith. Christ would not abandon His bride, the church.
As regards the popes, there have been many heretical ones, and charity prevents me from assuming where their eventual destinies lay. Thanks

Now, there's a contradiction isn't there. How can the church as an institution be infallible if the shepherd of that church can be a heretic?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

solodeogloria wrote:

Much thanks, solodeogloria

Of course a Pope can be corrupt and work against God's church. The infallibility is guaranteed over the life of the church ie. until the end of time. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The church cannot be defeated.

Solodeogloria, there are as many versions of the Bible as there are churches. They are all in varying degrees of error.

Christ sent us the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is clear, concise, exact, not given to searching or grappling. The same for Christ's sermons. When he speaks, no one is left in any doubt what he says. His teaching on the Eucharist is clear and precise. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood, you shall not have life in you.

So many of his hitherto followers walked away that day, because they could not accept it. Thank you.

By the way, is it not an historical accuracy to say that Peter was the first Pope?

EirWatchr

I can probably save you and solo a bit of typing time by referring you to some of his stock responses to those differences in this thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99111110

Outcome of the conversation that time: the same dissembling about interpretation and clarity as in this thread above.

I agree that there is room for error between receiving God's word and understanding it. However I believe the Bible is broadly clear. Disagreements tend to arise on secondary issues. Understanding a text isn't a free for all. Language has meaning.

Solo scriptura, where understanding scripture can't be a free for all.

Different interpretations (presented as "clear and indisputable") of John 6 become the core of this disagreement on Eucharist.

How there can be no church institutional infallibility in interpretation of scripture, and yet personal infallibility in interpretation of scripture (a multiplicity of them) is the great contradiction unresolved in Protestantism. (Unless, of course, they maintain it is the work of the Holy Spirit to seek confusion in the meaning of Christ's words, which I doubt they would claim).

Unfortunately, confusion and division are Luther's legacy, 500 years on, all 40,000+ flavours of it.

solodeogloria

EirWatchr wrote: »

I can probably save you and solo a bit of typing time by referring you to some of his stock responses to those differences in this thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99111110

Outcome of the conversation that time: the same dissembling about interpretation and clarity as in this thread above.



Solo scriptura, where understanding scripture can't be a free for all.

Different interpretations (presented as "clear and indisputable") of John 6 become the core of this disagreement on Eucharist.

How there can be no church institutional infallibility in interpretation of scripture, and yet personal infallibility in interpretation of scripture (a multiplicity of them) is the great contradiction unresolved in Protestantism. (Unless, of course, they maintain it is the work of the Holy Spirit to seek confusion in the meaning of Christ's words, which I doubt they would claim).

Confusion and division is Luther's legacy, 500 years on, all 40,000+ flavours of it.

Good afternoon!

So Roman Catholics never disagree with each other on anything? Is that the conclusion that we're coming to?

I think the more sensible answer is that Christians will inevitably disagree with each other on some things.

On the Lord's Supper - John chapter 6 is a perfect example:
Firstly - given the context, Jesus isn't speaking about communion because The Lord's Supper isn't instituted (that happens in John 13).

Secondly - given the context he is speaking of the sacrifice of His own body in comparison to what Moses gave the Israelites in the desert in the previous verses (6:30 in particular). He compares eating the bread and drinking the blood to faith in Him (verse 35). When His disciples ask about it afterwards He says that His words are spirit and life and that the flesh is no help at all (verse 63).

Thirdly - there is no passage of Scripture that explicitly states how The Lord's Supper is to be understood bar Jesus saying it is to be instituted as a remembrance, and Paul recounting the account of The Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians when he speaks of people taking it unworthily.

Given the silence on Scripture on the exact nature of the The Lord's Supper we are free to reach our own conclusion on the matter (see my previous quote from Romans 14) in love to one another and in good conscience in faith to our Lord Jesus Christ. Indeed - amongst the Reformers Martin Luther and the Swiss Reformer Ulrich Zwingli had different views on The Lord's Supper.

The Lord's Supper is important to the Christian life, but the Christian life isn't just about The Lord's Supper. It is about our faith and walk and our understanding of Jesus and how we live and speak for Him in our day to day lives.

Again - I don't see how the Roman Catholic Church can be infallible given the fact that you have Pope Leo X advocating taking money from vulnerable people through Johann Tetzel, and a pope in Avignon and a pope in Rome at the same time on two occasions! The Reformation happened with good justification. The church was corrupt, and not infallible because it had stopped listening to Scripture.

I don't maintain that any church is infallible because the church is full of sinners (myself very much included!). I maintain that my Lord Jesus Christ is perfect and that His Word inspired by the Holy Spirit is perfect.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Thanks solodeogloria, for your comments. I don't have anything to add to my earlier points. God bless you.

EirWatchr

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

So Roman Catholics never disagree with each other on anything? Is that the conclusion that we're coming to?

Facetious comment, unworthy of you.

There are differences within the Catholic community all the time, as you know - just as there are in the Anglican communion. It is precisely in times of internal difference and tension within the Catholic Church that we see the workings of the Holy Spirit there, ensuring infallibility against incorrect teachings on matters of faith and morality. (Which, by the way, no such infallible teachings have been proclaimed by the current pontiff. As such, it is incorrect to give the impression he is considered heretical within the Catholic Church.)

solodeogloria

EirWatchr wrote: »

Facetious comment, unworthy of you.

There are differences within the Catholic community all the time, as you know - just as there are in the Anglican communion. It is precisely in times of internal difference and tension within the Church that we see the workings of the Holy Spirit there, ensuring infallibility against incorrect teachings on matters of faith and morality. (Which, by the way, no such infallible teachings have been proclaimed by the current pontiff. As such, it is incorrect to give the impression he is considered heretical within the Catholic Church.)

Good afternoon!

It is hardly facetious to point this out. You were labouring a point about how Protestants (of all shades) have different views about some things in Scripture. It is clear that Roman Catholics have different views, even about the Cathecism and the Papal Magisterium. Disagreement is unremarkable. The fundamentals of the gospel are very clear from Scripture. This is why tatranska is right to say that the plough boy can understand the Bible for himself and come into a relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ through it without any need for anyone to come in between this.

Pope Leo X supported a true heretic - Johann Tetzel who manipulated people to give money to get themselves and their relatives a get out of jail free card from purgatory whilst giving Martin Luther a Papal Bull for encouraging reform on this issue. In one sense that's all I need to know to say that the Reformation was God's work in the church. That's without recounting all that God has done over the last 500 years. The Reformation isn't over either, it is a continuing work that hasn't stopped and it is a work that needs to happen again and again in our churches to bring us closer to our Lord Jesus and what He has said in His word and what He has done once and for all on the cross.

owenybaloney implied that there were "heretical popes" in his post.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

EirWatchr

solodeogloria wrote: »

You were labouring a point about how Protestants (of all shades) have different views about some things in Scripture.

Stating actually, to prevent the repetition and labouring of the same old fruitless discussion. Was it an incorrect statement?

solodeogloria wrote: »

It is clear that Roman Catholics have different views, even about the Cathecism and the Papal Magisterium.

Now you are re-iterating. I did/do not dispute that point.

The Cathechism stands as the Church's body of teachings - its infallible scriptural interpretations, by the college of bishops, the apostles' successors - of God's will for contemporary Christian faithful. Everyone has free will to choose where to go for their teaching and development of their understanding of scripture and of God's will, and they are also free to disagree or ignore any teaching they want, to whatever consequences that leads to. A professed Catholic holds that choosing to wilfully act or teach contrary to the articles within the Catechism contravene's God's will.

solodeogloria wrote: »

This is why tatranska is right to say that the plough boy can understand the Bible for himself and come into a relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ through it without any need for anyone to come in between this.

Not too many plough boys left today, but in medieval times most were illiterate. Thankfully, where you might have left the plough boy alone with the book and no intermediate, the Lord had the wisdom to send another worker into the field, the current Pope's prototype - St. Francis - who inspired love of Jesus Christ of the Gospels through song and fireside tales, or through carved scenes from the Gospels, all without a written word. Was the Lord in error at putting those people "in between"? Strangely enough, it's the model he set in motion Himself when he first sent the apostles out, when not a word of His was yet written.

As an aside that may interest you: St. Francis's insistence on bringing the Gospels to the ordinary people that way brought great tensions between himself and the Papacy at a time when Rome was very protective of the Bible (in Latin), but both remained faithful and found a way (within the Church) of settling their differences, and the eventual outcome yielded fruit to the Church from both approaches combined.

And when the plough boy grows up and enters the modern age, when he is faced the prospect of euthanising a suffering parent, or whether to engage in IVF treatment for a wanted child, or involve in an abortion for an unwanted child - would you leave him alone with just his Bible then to help him navigate God's will? Or would you step forward, as Christ's inspired disciple to help him out? What passages would you direct him to in such matters of contemporary morality?

solodeogloria wrote: »

Pope Leo X supported a true heretic.

On the topic of labouring, you seem very hung up on Pope Leo X. If you're looking for examples of a really bad pope you'd be spoilt for choice going even further back than that. How about Sergius III who murdered another pope and fathered an illegitimate son? Fortunately (or perhaps providentially), he was too busy indulging in his own immorality instead of influencing the Church teachings with it.

Anyway, same 500 year old discussion. We could be labouring until hell freezes over. A thing about labouring - it's worth doing, only so long as it bears fruit.

I'm off - have a good weekend. God bless.

uck51js9zml2yt

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

I apologise for assuming you were a woman. We usually assume the opposite, so I thought I might be correct, Solodeogloria.
If a ploughboy could read and understand the Bible, how come there are so many interpretations?
Christ founded the Catholic church when he said to Peter "Thou art Peter and on this rock... The Church then was given the power through the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible for us.
Left to ourselves, we can interpret it any way we like. Thus the confusion over such things as the Eucharist.
Because the church was founded by Christ, it must be infallible in matters of faith. Christ would not abandon His bride, the church.
As regards the popes, there have been many heretical ones, and charity prevents me from assuming where their eventual destinies lay. Thanks

Firstly, the verse you quoted in the Greek differs from your interpretation.
Jesus uses 2 words. Petra and Petros. He refers to Himself as the Rock and Peter as a stone. In light of this, He says that He'll build the Church upon Himself (the Rock) not Peter (a stone)

As for the Holy Spirit teaching us. The Apostle John says that believers have an annointing from the Spirit which will teach us all things. Both the old and new testament says that we won't need people to teach us but the God would be our teacher. To think that the Bible can only be opened to us by a church ( any church) is contrary to the Word of God. If you read it, you'd know these things.

uck51js9zml2yt

It's interesting to see those who are Catholics referring to heretical pope's.
I thought they were all chosen by the Holy Spirit in conclave!
Makes you wonder about it all.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

EirWatchr wrote: »

Stating actually, to prevent the repetition and labouring of the same old fruitless discussion. Was it an incorrect statement?

Now you are re-iterating. I did/do not dispute that point.

The Cathechism stands as the Church's body of teachings - its infallible scriptural interpretations, by the college of bishops, the apostles' successors - of God's will for contemporary Christian faithful. Everyone has free will to choose where to go for their teaching and development of their understanding of scripture and of God's will, and they are also free to disagree or ignore any teaching they want, to whatever consequences that leads to. A professed Catholic holds that choosing to wilfully act or teach contrary to the articles within the Catechism contravene's God's will.

Are there no disagreements about the Catechism? It seems like there's still interpretation but you're relegating it to the secondary source rather than the primary one.

I don't see any advantage in doing that. I also for the record don't see any problems with having oversight pastorally in the church. My own has an Episcopal church structure like yours with bishops and clergy. The only difference is that they are not the primary authority but are subject to God's word. The authority in Catholicism seems to be the church over God's word rather than the other way around. That was basically the problem with Catholicism in the Reformation. If the church has authority when people like Tetzel are running around on the Pope's authority that means the Pope and Tetzel are in the right and God's Word is in the wrong when it conflicts with them.

How could that be right?

EirWatchr wrote: »

Not too many plough boys left today, but in medieval times most were illiterate. Thankfully, where you might have left the plough boy alone with the book and no intermediate, the Lord had the wisdom to send another worker into the field, the current Pope's prototype - St. Francis - who inspired love of Jesus Christ of the Gospels through song and fireside tales, or through carved scenes from the Gospels, all without a written word. Was the Lord in error at putting those people "in between"? Strangely enough, it's the model he set in motion Himself when he first sent the apostles out, when not a word of His was yet written.

Sure - but the Reformation didn't just make the Bible available to read. The Reformation also made the Bible available to hear. The services after Luther were conducted in German. People could hear what Jesus said and what the Apostles taught and understand it. The Bible isn't shared simply by reading. Jesus' words could be heard and listened to. The Reformation gave the common man the ability to hear Jesus speak to him by the simple reading of God's Word out loud in church.

EirWatchr wrote: »

As an aside that may interest you: St. Francis's insistence on bringing the Gospels to the ordinary people that way brought great tensions between himself and the Papacy at a time when Rome was very protective of the Bible (in Latin), but both remained faithful and found a way (within the Church) of settling their differences, and the eventual outcome yielded fruit to the Church from both approaches combined.

Why was Rome ever protective of the Bible? Why didn't they want people to hear it? Why did they stamp out Wycliffe and the Lollards for translating the Bible into English? Why did they kill Jan Hus in Bohemia? Why did they condemn Luther for telling the truth? Why did the church encourage Bloody Mary to kill Ridley, Latimer, Cranmer and Hooper for faithful ministry on the basis of the Scriptures?

EirWatchr wrote: »

And when the plough boy grows up and enters the modern age, when he is faced the prospect of euthanising a suffering parent, or whether to engage in IVF treatment for a wanted child, or involve in an abortion for an unwanted child - would you leave him alone with just his Bible then to help him navigate God's will? Or would you step forward, as Christ's inspired disciple to help him out? What passages would you direct him to in such matters of contemporary morality?

The plough boy could learn about the implications of the truth that he's learned in the Scriptures and how it implies in day to day life. Learning what God has to say about life and death will be useful in knowing about issues such as abortion for example. For example the truth that David writes in the Psalms that he was knitted together in his mother's womb (Psalm 139:13) in and of itself has big implications for how we understand life and death today in our world. Particularly in respect to abortion.

I don't know why you think the Scriptures are limited and we need to hear the teachings of men instead. The Bible is remarkably comprehensive. I was on a Christian summer camp last summer with a dorm of 14 to 18 year olds. Every single question that they had that week in July I was able to answer either by pointing them to Jesus in John's gospel or by looking at Paul's letter to the Romans. Those are just 2 books of the Bible. There are 66. It's my desire to know God better and better and understand him more and more so that there can be no human opinion (which is what non-Biblical church teaching basically is) that can be preferential to the living Word of God in Scripture.

EirWatchr wrote: »

On the topic of labouring, you seem very hung up on Pope Leo X. If you're looking for examples of a really bad pope you'd be spoilt for choice going even further back than that. How about Sergius III who murdered another pope and fathered an illegitimate son? Fortunately (or perhaps providentially), he was too busy indulging in his own immorality instead of influencing the Church teachings with it.

Understanding the Reformation and why it was important is as crucial to the Christian in 2017 as it was in 1517. Constantly being Reformed by God's Word rather than our own is key.

EirWatchr wrote: »

Anyway, same 500 year old discussion. We could be labouring until hell freezes over. A thing about labouring - it's worth doing, only so long as it bears fruit.

I'm off - have a good weekend. God bless.

The truth is important. The role of Scripture is more important today than ever. I make no apology for that.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

What do posters on here think of Fatima?

uck51js9zml2yt

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

What do posters on here think of Fatima?

Its a town off the motorway between lisbon and porto. I generally keep to the motorway!

branie2

1j5nwieg4zs039 wrote: »

What do posters on here think of Fatima?

A town famous for visions, and I was there 11 years ago on a day pilgrimage. It was a wonderful experience.

Thinkingaboutit

branie2 wrote: »

A town famous for visions, and I was there 11 years ago on a day pilgrimage. It was a wonderful experience.

Yes good, but the authorities there are rather hostile to the Mass of Ages and the priests who offer it. On one occasion they actually played loud music and had a Conciliar nun sing an amplified V2 tune on a guitar, in order to disrupt an SSPX pilgrimage. Some recent additions to Fatima are very aesthetically challenged. Yet, nowadays the authorities are at least better than the Knock authorities to deployed security men to deny the SSPX priests and the pilgrims with them access to Knock. They welcome Protestants and Moslems, but Catholics wishing to hear Mass as Catholics always heard it, are cold shouldered.

J C

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

Yes good, but the authorities there are rather hostile to the Mass of Ages and the priests who offer it. On one occasion they actually played loud music and had a Conciliar nun sing an amplified V2 tune on a guitar, in order to disrupt an SSPX pilgrimage. Some recent additions to Fatima are very aesthetically challenged. Yet, nowadays the authorities are at least better than the Knock authorities to deployed security men to deny the SSPX priests and the pilgrims with them access to Knock. They welcome Protestants and Moslems, but Catholics wishing to hear Mass as Catholics always heard it, are cold shouldered.

Sounds like the counter-reformation has come full circle ... to meet the reformation ... or is it the other way around?:)

Anyway, it makes one very grateful for having a direct line to Jesus Christ ... who is far better!!!:)