"Catholic Answers" Why Did Luther's Heresy Persist?

[Josiah]

Tim Staples and the leading RCC apologetic site "Catholic Answers" gives the definitive answer to why Luther's heresy has persisted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYIJMCvRIoU


Several observations about this "answer"....

1. There's no mention of what Luther taught that was heresy.... What the RCC condemned was his teaching that Jesus is the Savior (not self, not now or ever, not in full or in part) - and he made it clear that he we speaking of narrow justiication (what in post Vatican II Catholicism is called "initial grace") and the RCC made it clear it understood how Luther meant it. THAT is what Luther said that the RCC was so horrified over that it split itself in the third largest split in Christian history. But (as is nearly always the case with Catholic Answers), it never says what the "heresy" is. IMO, the reason for this very obvious evasion is that the audience they are (in part) trying to reach would be horrified by the RCC's condemnation of that.


2. A huge point is made that sound theology is defined by having exactly SEVEN Sacraments - not 6 or 8 but 7. A denomination MUST define "Sacrament" as the post-Trent RCC does and MUST number such as exactly SEVEN. This is given as the keystone of theology. Not Christ. Not the Cross. Not the Resurrection. Not salvation. Not mercy. Having exactly SEVEN Sacraments - and defining the word "Sacrament" exactly as the RCC now does. Hum..... Tim goes on to say THIS is why the RCC is closer to the EOC than to Luther (although Lutherans don't dogmatically number them AT ALL, and the only one of the "seven" Luther personally indicated is not a "Sacrament" is marriage). So, the number SEVEN is the key, the singular most important thing in Christianity, the unifying point. Not Christ. Not the Cross. Not the Savior. Hum.... Sometimes when you read or listen to "Catholic Answers" - THE esteemed Catholic apologetics site - you learn far more than you'd expect.


3. Once again, we get the point perpetually made and very central to all Catholic apologetics, "The singular, individual RCC is in unity with just itself" point - and this PROVES it must be right and the singular denomination of God. This point that the RCC is in unity with ITSELF but no other is a constant at Catholic Answers, the "proof" pretty much for every point. Here Tim specifically rebukes the EOC because "it lacks the unity of the RCC" since there are minor (non - dogmatic) differences between the various national churches (no more than among the various rites in the RCC but never mind...). Because the Episcopal Church in the USA is ONLY in full unity with about 50 other denominations PROVES its wrong and the the RCC which is in full unity with NO OTHER, not ONE other - proves it HAS to be authentic, true, authoritative and correct. It has to be one of the most absurd, most laughable apologetics ever made but a constant at CA.


IMO, Luther's "heresy" that Jesus is the Savior has persisted because it's true and the Holy Spirit has empowered it. The RCC attempts to muddy that up with a lot of semi-Pelagianism and synergism, a lot of mixing of Law and Gospel, a lot of confusing and entangling, a lot of ignoring the Council of Orange, is perhaps the problem. I rejoice that the RCC has not lost the Gospel (even if it calls it "persisting heresy") just turned what should be the clearest of all teachings into its most confusing, and has displaced it with a doctrine it considers more important - that the denomination dogmatically states there are exactly SEVEN Sacraments, and the "evidence" of being correct not Scripture but that the denomination has zero unity, is in full unity with NONE, agreeing only with the one self sees in the mirror (even that only in those areas where self alone currently states that self should agree with self concerning).




.

 

[psalms 91]

Yup, truth tends to last even with the lies that are told

 

[Albion]

3. Once again, we get the point perpetually made and very central to all Catholic apologetics, "The singular, individual RCC is in unity with just itself" point - and this PROVES it must be right and the singular denomination of God. This point that the RCC is in unity with ITSELF but no other is a constant at Catholic Answers, the "proof" pretty much for every point. Here Tim specifically rebukes the EOC because "it lacks the unity of the RCC" since there are minor (non - dogmatic) differences between the various national churches (no more than among the various rites in the RCC but never mind...).
.

There were a number of excellent points made in that post IMO, but this one (#3) touches upon a point that holds a particular interest for me. Why is it that the Eastern Orthodox members on any discussion board fall silent when a Roman Catholic starts in with his "Catholic Answers" kind of propaganda? Or worse, why do the EOs act as though they and the RCs are peas in a pod?

Yes, I know that the various Catholic denominations, whether East or West, have significant objections to the beliefs and practices of the reformed churches. But the differences between the EO and RC are far from insignificant.

For example, there can be few doctrinal disputes more important than the one focusing on who runs the church of Christ. Is it a single dictator bishop who not only holds his position as Pope on the basis of pure mythology but has infallibility conferred upon him as well? There is no reformed, i.e. Protestant, church body that sides against the EO churches on that point.

And what of the matter of unity which you raised? Yes, Protestantism is disunited, just as the vegetables in your garden are disunited. They are not all carrots. The point is that they never were one single anything, so the perception of them being disunited as though they all once were united is nonsense. That, however isn't the main point here. Rather it is that when the Roman Church claims unity...and therefore truth...it's a lie.

While the EO churches have remained basically united in faith but separate with regard to national church jurisdictions, the RCC has suffered the greatest schisms, splits, in all Christian history!

Not only did it split from the so-called "undivided church" in 1054 but it suffered split after split 400 or so years later. We call these split-offs Moravian or Lutheran or Presbyterian or something else, but they certainly were split-offs from the church that claims to have had none, since it pretends that its departed brethren don't count. We are expected to think that they came from nowhere. Again, the EO churches are the targets of this claim of special unity, made by the RC, no less than the Protestant churches are.

And there are a number of other points that could be made along these lines, but I won't say more here lest it divert the discussion from your primary area of interest.

.

 

[Arsenios]

There were a number of excellent points made in that post IMO, but this one (#3) touches upon a point that holds a particular interest for me. Why is it that the Eastern Orthodox members on any discussion board fall silent when a Roman Catholic starts in with his "Catholic Answers" kind of propaganda? Or worse, why do the EOs act as though they and the RCs are peas in a pod?

Since I am the only EOC here, I can answer that on Catholic Answers Forum, I was banned, along with a group of a dozen of so EOC'ers who were successfully converting Eastern Rite Catholics to the EOC, and we were not sparing the Truth... That forum, like any forum, had its denominational bullies - Just as we do here - And they did not fare well against the Orthodox contingent there, which included some fairly serious historians of Church affairs...

Yet I did not come here to attack the RCC via MC... As a Greek son of a Greek Priest told me, there is nothing wrong with Catholics - They just have a mistaken dogmatic theology - eg Their PRAXIS of the Faith at its general parish level is fine... At the more serious monastic levels, it varies a great deal, but tends toward social services, whereas for the Orthodox monastics, the focus is the person's relationship alone with God - Which is what the "Mona-" of Monasticism means...

And besides, MC is a noble soul, and outnumbered vastly on this site, beset on all sides, and slandered heavily - And i do say slandered... Spoken ill of, whether truthful or a lie, is slander... Kindness is not the stock-in-trade of many forums... So I decided to stand with him inasmuch as I could, and I think I did OK... He is a very decent person and his treatment here was rather shabby, in my not so reverent opinion, mind you! And so I decided to stand by him where no one else seemed to care for his soul...

Yes, I know that the various Catholic denominations, whether East or West, have significant objections to the beliefs and practices of the reformed churches. But the differences between the EO and RC are far from insignificant.

And they are being addressed (or not) by the Churches, and will not be all that resolved by the masses... These are ekklesiastical matters of dogma, and they will end up being resolved by Councils, in the Power of the Holy Spirit, or not...

For example, there can be few doctrinal disputes more important than the one focusing on who runs the church of Christ. Is it a single dictator bishop who not only holds his position as Pope on the basis of pure mythology but has infallibility conferred upon him as well? There is no reformed, i.e. Protestant, church body that sides against the EO churches on that point.

Revelation clearly shows that Christ-God is the Head of the Church-Militant...

And what of the matter of unity which you raised? Yes, Protestantism is disunited, just as the vegetables in your garden are disunited. They are not all carrots. The point is that they never were one single anything, so the perception of them being disunited as though they all once were united is nonsense. That, however isn't the main point here. Rather it is that when the Roman Church claims unity...and therefore truth...it's a lie.

Their unity centers around their understanding of Papal authority...
Just as Protestant unity centers around the Bible...
Orthodox unity centers around Church Dogma and Communion...

While the EO churches have remained basically united in faith but separate with regard to national church jurisdictions, the RCC has suffered the greatest schisms, splits, in all Christian history!

The discipline imposed by Orthodoxy is Communion and its being granted or withdrawn, when a Church heads out of or into heresy... And Councils are called to address these kinds of issues...

Dogma seems studiously avoided in Protestant Churches...

Not only did it split from the so-called "undivided church" in 1054 but it suffered split after split 400 or so years later. We call these split-offs Moravian or Lutheran or Presbyterian or something else, but they certainly were split-offs from the church that claims to have had none, since it pretends that its departed brethren don't count. We are expected to think that they came from nowhere. Again, the EO churches are the targets of this claim of special unity, made by the RC, no less than the Protestant churches are.

They have historically regarded themselves as T.H.E. Church - Meaning that Communion with them defines the boundary or skin of Christ's Church on earth... And the problem with Protestants is that this is exactly how Protestantism also understands them... So that they reject the "High Ekklesiology" of inter-Communion that defines the Church on earth... Instead, it has devolved into a kind of Bible-Believerism... If you believe in the Bible, you are a Christian, in this view...

Yet it cannot be denied that the Reformation is the child of the RCC, and the illegitimate child as well... In fact, one of the problems with the Latin Church is that She does not really have any children who have been legitimately birthed and grown to maturity in autocephaly, wherein they can withdraw Communion from Rome as a disciplinary matter against Rome...

And there are a number of other points that could be made along these lines, but I won't say more here lest it divert the discussion from your primary area of interest.

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Tim Staples and the leading RCC apologetic site "Catholic Answers" gives the definitive answer to why Luther's heresy has persisted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYIJMCvRIoU


Several observations about this "answer"....

1. There's no mention of what Luther taught that was heresy.... What the RCC condemned was his teaching that Jesus is the Savior (not self, not now or ever, not in full or in part) - and he made it clear that he we speaking of narrow justiication (what in post Vatican II Catholicism is called "initial grace") and the RCC made it clear it understood how Luther meant it. THAT is what Luther said that the RCC was so horrified over that it split itself in the third largest split in Christian history. But (as is nearly always the case with Catholic Answers), it never says what the "heresy" is. IMO, the reason for this very obvious evasion is that the audience they are (in part) trying to reach would be horrified by the RCC's condemnation of that.


2. A huge point is made that sound theology is defined by having exactly SEVEN Sacraments - not 6 or 8 but 7. A denomination MUST define "Sacrament" as the post-Trent RCC does and MUST number such as exactly SEVEN. This is given as the keystone of theology. Not Christ. Not the Cross. Not the Resurrection. Not salvation. Not mercy. Having exactly SEVEN Sacraments - and defining the word "Sacrament" exactly as the RCC now does. Hum..... Tim goes on to say THIS is why the RCC is closer to the EOC than to Luther (although Lutherans don't dogmatically number them AT ALL, and the only one of the "seven" Luther personally indicated is not a "Sacrament" is marriage). So, the number SEVEN is the key, the singular most important thing in Christianity, the unifying point. Not Christ. Not the Cross. Not the Savior. Hum.... Sometimes when you read or listen to "Catholic Answers" - THE esteemed Catholic apologetics site - you learn far more than you'd expect.


3. Once again, we get the point perpetually made and very central to all Catholic apologetics, "The singular, individual RCC is in unity with just itself" point - and this PROVES it must be right and the singular denomination of God. This point that the RCC is in unity with ITSELF but no other is a constant at Catholic Answers, the "proof" pretty much for every point. Here Tim specifically rebukes the EOC because "it lacks the unity of the RCC" since there are minor (non - dogmatic) differences between the various national churches (no more than among the various rites in the RCC but never mind...). Because the Episcopal Church in the USA is ONLY in full unity with about 50 other denominations PROVES its wrong and the the RCC which is in full unity with NO OTHER, not ONE other - proves it HAS to be authentic, true, authoritative and correct. It has to be one of the most absurd, most laughable apologetics ever made but a constant at CA.


IMO, Luther's "heresy" that Jesus is the Savior has persisted because it's true and the Holy Spirit has empowered it. The RCC attempts to muddy that up with a lot of semi-Pelagianism and synergism, a lot of mixing of Law and Gospel, a lot of confusing and entangling, a lot of ignoring the Council of Orange, is perhaps the problem. I rejoice that the RCC has not lost the Gospel (even if it calls it "persisting heresy") just turned what should be the clearest of all teachings into its most confusing, and has displaced it with a doctrine it considers more important - that the denomination dogmatically states there are exactly SEVEN Sacraments, and the "evidence" of being correct not Scripture but that the denomination has zero unity, is in full unity with NONE, agreeing only with the one self sees in the mirror (even that only in those areas where self alone currently states that self should agree with self concerning).
.

His basic answer is that there are varying degrees or amounts of truth in all the "breakaways" from the Latin Communion, and that those that persist have high degrees of this "truth"...

So He would agree with what you hold so dear, that Christ alone is the Savior...

I am still waiting myself for you to show where this is denied by any Christian Confession...


Arsenios

 

[Albion]

We seem to have confirmed the point I made earlier. hnoes:

 

[Albion]

Revelation clearly shows that Christ-God is the Head of the Church-Militant...

But you go out of your way to justify a heretical church, even though Orthodoxy gives a lot of lip service to right belief, Apostolic tradition, and all of those fine words. EO posters often buddy up with the only church that teaches that it has an infallible monolithic dictator to rule the universal church...and that it is God's will!

What an amazing sell-out of your own faith. Meanwhile, we read simply absurd things said about the rest of Christianity, such as the following.

Dogma seems studiously avoided in Protestant Churches.

Such a ludicrous statement speaks volumes.




.

 

[Albion]

2. A huge point is made that sound theology is defined by having exactly SEVEN Sacraments - not 6 or 8 but 7. A denomination MUST define "Sacrament" as the post-Trent RCC does and MUST number such as exactly SEVEN. This is given as the keystone of theology. Not Christ. Not the Cross. Not the Resurrection. Not salvation. Not mercy. Having exactly SEVEN Sacraments - and defining the word "Sacrament" exactly as the RCC now does. Hum..... Tim goes on to say THIS is why the RCC is closer to the EOC than to Luther (although Lutherans don't dogmatically number them AT ALL, and the only one of the "seven" Luther personally indicated is not a "Sacrament" is marriage). So, the number SEVEN is the key, the singular most important thing in Christianity, the unifying point. Not Christ. Not the Cross. Not the Savior. Hum.... Sometimes when you read or listen to "Catholic Answers" - THE esteemed Catholic apologetics site - you learn far more than you'd expect.
.

I wonder how many people know that the number SEVEN was settled on only during the High Middle Ages, over a thousand years after Christ.

Well into the Middle Ages, some of the church's most famous theologians were saying that there were as few as 2 and/or as many as 30 sacraments! But this doesn't prevent the church and its apologists from claiming that the RCC denomination is "the" Apostolic one, that it has never changed, and etc.

 

[Arsenios]

I wonder how many people know that the number SEVEN was settled on only during the High Middle Ages, over a thousand years after Christ.

Well into the Middle Ages, some of the church's most famous theologians were saying that there were as few as 2 and/or as many as 30 sacraments! But this doesn't prevent the church and its apologists from claiming that the RCC denomination is "the" Apostolic one, that it has never changed, and etc.

The EOC certainly has those 7 Sacraments - We call them Holy Mysteries... But Paul adds an 8th, the Mystery of the Faith, held in a pure (cleansed) conscience... And with that, one has all the actions of the Faithful as Mysteries... Another being Pauls instruction that we be "redeeming the time"... A VERY Mysterious command...


Arsenios

 

[Albion]

The EOC certainly has those 7 Sacraments - We call them Holy Mysteries... But Paul adds an 8th, the Mystery of the Faith, held in a pure (cleansed) conscience... And with that, one has all the actions of the Faithful as Mysteries... Another being Pauls instruction that we be "redeeming the time"... A VERY Mysterious command...

Yes. As with its stance on Transubstantiation, the EOC went along with the RCC, but, in typical EO fashion, also said that it does not limit itself to any particular answer.





.

 

[Arsenios]

Yes. As with its stance on Transubstantiation, the EOC went along with the RCC, but, in typical EO fashion, also said that it does not limit itself to any particular answer.

Well, we are, after all, working to bring the RCC back into the Holy Communion of the Body of Christ, so as an intermediary measure, we CAN affirm "Transubstantiation" as ONE way of accounting for the Unaccountable... Regarding it as a local, not Catholic [Universal], accounting...

Our dogma on that matter is that the HOW is a Holy Mystery of Christ in His Body, the Ekklesia... In which the New Creation, the Faithful, are fed the Food of Immortality as Christ commands, keeping His Portion of the Covenant of His Body and Blood...

Apophatic Theology is the typical EO fashion, mind you!


Arsenios

 

[Albion]

Well, we are, after all, working to bring the RCC back into the Holy Communion of the Body of Christ, so as an intermediary measure, we CAN affirm "Transubstantiation" as ONE way of accounting for the Unaccountable... Regarding it as a local, not Catholic [Universal], accounting...

And how's that approach working for you? It has only been 800 years, after all.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

it seems from listening that the "union" the speaker appeals to is the doctrine/dogma of the church, and not the agreement in total (union) of the people with that doctrine/dogma. And I would suggest that any Catholic considered "worth their salt" wouldn't dare make this distinction him/herself. This appeal to "union", I think, is a faulty appeal for that reason. And, as Josiah noted, there's no mention of exactly what the "heresy" of Luther happened to be in relation to the others he mentions briefly at the beginning

 

[Arsenios]

And how's that approach working for you? It has only been 800 years, after all.

Closer to 1K

A.

 

[Arsenios]

And how's that approach working for you?

That particular resolution, eg regarding Latin dogma as local, has been proposed...

Some of it can wash...

Much cannot...

The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception cannot be received, for instance...

Rome has already yielded on the Filioque, and within Her own Communion requires it dogmatically only in the Latin, but forbids it in Her Eastern Rite [Uniate] Churches... Regarding the Filioque as a local Church matter for given circumstances that had to be dogmatically addressed, in their view, in the Creed regarding Arians...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

And how's that approach working for you?

MC stayed awhile at least, and I am glad to have known him here -

Acting like a dogma-jerk due to differing understandings is never productive...

We have proof of that here with one of our obnoxioius contributors...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

it seems from listening that the "union" the speaker appeals to is the doctrine/dogma of the church, and not the agreement in total (union) of the people with that doctrine/dogma. And I would suggest that any Catholic considered "worth their salt" wouldn't dare make this distinction him/herself. This appeal to "union", I think, is a faulty appeal for that reason. And, as Josiah noted, there's no mention of exactly what the "heresy" of Luther happened to be in relation to the others he mentions briefly at the beginning

You are right - They do not seem to want to take Luther head-on... And they seem to be reconciled to have a partial union rather than none at all... A kind of "We can all get along on the basics can't we?" But as to re-litigation of the Reformation issues, they would rather leave them and move on without opening them up...

We did not do any better here, fwiw... It became pretty much a cut and paste head-butting session... No one seemed to desire to discuss matters past the talking points... Which devolves into finger-pointing anti-fascist fascism and accusation... And that on the Salvation threads... Where the issue of the meaning of Salvation itself never did get all that much ink... MC wanted to propose the Catholic Catechism online, and everyone wanted to attack him for it...

Arsenios

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

MC wanted to propose the Catholic Catechism online, and everyone wanted to attack him for it...

Arsenios

Fwiw, his doing so led me to actually read it, rather than believe Protestant talking points about what presumably it said. Miiiiiles apart. Although I remain a Protestant, I respect Catholics, and MC in particular, much more as a result

 

[Albion]

MC stayed awhile at least, and I am glad to have known him here -

Acting like a dogma-jerk due to differing understandings is never productive...

...and yet you regret his departure. Oh well, to each his own.

 

[Albion]

Closer to 1K

A.

Not as a formal doctrine.