Luther: What is Law?

Over on another blog post, Roman Catholic blogger Ben has been dropping Luther bombs in the comment box but keeps missing the intended targets. He's ventured into Luther's understanding of Law and Gospel. Ben says, "Luther was clearly a very confused, very disturbed man. He did untold damage to the Church and to European society with his insane ravings and his immoral shenanigans." He's posted a mass of Luther-related rhetoric, some of it from Denifle's Luther and Lutherdom, a book that even many Roman Catholic scholars repudiate.

I'm not sure if Ben even understands what Luther means by Law and Gospel, so I've asked him in his own words, to provide a summary of Luther's understanding of it. I've asked him to provide a 100 word summary, minus rhetoric and polemic, to the best of his ability, as honestly as possible, to attempt to summarize Luther's position, from Luther's perspective. He shouldn't even quote Luther, but simply define his position. I often do this when I get in to a detailed discussion with someone. Before you try and tear down a position, it's always good to at least understand it.

In order to help Ben, here's a good chunk of Luther's sermon from John 20:21-29, found in LW 69:329-332 on the Law. In the following text, you read just how confused, disturbed, and immoral Luther actually was with his insane ravings.

YOU have heard today the first part of the Gospel, in which we are shown how we should conduct ourselves toward God. What now follows is how we should conduct ourselves toward our neighbor. When He appeared to them for the second time, He said: "Have peace! Just as the Father has sent Me, so I am sending you" [John 20:21]. Of this we wish to speak. It is said that when we preach of faith we are forbidding good works. We have never preached that. Christ, in His life, never did a good work in order to become righteous, and yet He did good works all the time. From the time He was born of the Virgin Mary He was always righteous, from the very beginning of His birth. Everything that Christ did on earth He did to serve us. He did all His works for us and for our sake.

Now we come to the same place. "Just as My Father has sent Me, so I am sending you." [Jesus says:] "How has He sent Me? He has sent Me in such a way that I take upon Myself the Law, death, hell, sin, etc., even though I have not deserved it, but I have done it for your sake. Now you also, do as I have done today." If I come to acknowledge and to love the Law, I fulfill the Law entirely, and that happens out of or through faith. Faith brings everything along with it, [faith] that says, "I have a gracious God." [Jesus says,] "As the Father has sent Me, even so I am sending you." There is no command there. As I have done, do likewise; if you do not do it, that is a sign that no faith is yet present."

St. Peter also admonishes us in this respect when he says, Satagite fratres, "Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure through good works" [2 Pet. 1:10]. It is the things that we should do for our neighbor that are good works and are called good works by St. Peter. Just as Christ did not seek His own benefit and advantage, so we should seek our neighbor's benefit and advantage. The works done for our neighbor show that we have faith in God and love for our neighbor. However, we become neither righteous nor saved by them. Faith takes away all works, as St. Paul says in Romans 13 [:8]: Nemini quicquam, "Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the Law."

Thus we must prove ourselves before the world. How? By keeping the other commandments as well: "You shall honor your father and your mother." If there is secular authority over me, I must obey it. I do this not in order to be saved or to earn heaven thereby; rather, I know that Christ was obedient, though He had no need to be, and did it for my sake. Therefore, I also want to be obedient for the sake of Christ and the good of my neighbor, and do it solely to prove my love. Obedience to parents must flow out of pure love, not to earn something by it or because the Law demands or commands it, but rather I should be free and certain in the promise that God freely made to me and freely gives to me. Thus I should do the works in such a way that I cast them out to be plundered—whoever gets hold of something can keep it. This is how the apostles admonish us to good works, not to become righteous or saved through them but to show that we are Christians.

-snip-

Cursed be that life in which someone lives for himself and not for his neighbor. And on the other hand, blessed be that life in which one lives not for himself but for his neighbor and serves him with teaching, with rebukes, with help, as it may be. When my neighbor errs, I should rebuke him; if he cannot follow me immediately, then I should wait patiently for him, as Christ did with Judas, who carried the moneybag of the Lord and had the duty of coming to the help of the poor; he always wandered from the path like a dog, yet Christ was patient with him and admonished him often, though it was no help.

Faith always speaks like this: "Christ has done that for me; why should I not for His sake also do all things freely?" Furthermore, the things we do for God are not called good works, but rather the things that we should do for our neighbor—those are good works. Whoever is a regent should not think that he is therefore a king or mayor, [nor] that he may earn heaven thereby; nor should he seek his own advantage, but he should serve the congregation, so that my flesh may be tamed and it may serve my neighbor. I take a wife and make myself captive. I do this so that I will not stain or shame the wife or daughter of my neighbor. Before, I ran wherever I wanted; now, I am captive and must be satisfied with one woman, etc.

First, [Jesus] says, "Have peace;' that is, toward God. Second, "Have peace;' that is, toward my neighbor. God demands nothing of us other than (faith and love (that is, [love] toward our neighbor); and the [works] that are useful to our neighbor are good works indeed. God grant us His help that we may love our neighbor. Amen.


Addendum
As an example for Ben of how to do a 100 word summary statement, here would be my short synopsis of law and gospel according to Luther:

Law and gospel is a key organizing distinction in Luther’s theology. The Christian needs both, but they should be sharply distinguished. The function of law is to convict of sin. It is an expression of God’s holiness, showing us how far we have fallen from his righteous standards. It directs one toward repentance, and to a recognition of helplessness, and to seek God’s mercy. The gospel is purely a word of grace, mercy, and promise: the righteousness of Christ reckoned to our account alone provides mercy and salvation. It does not contain commands or threats, only the promises of God.

Notice I didn't cite Luther, nor did I get caught up in tangents. For instance, you won't find Luther discussing the third use of law (like Calvinists do), but it's implicit in many of Luther's writings that a Christian could use the law to direct one to holy living (see the Luther quote above). Also Luther would strongly reject antinomianism, or that conversion does not produce a changed life. But most often, Luther uses the law negatively as that which shows a Christian his failure, and this drives him to seek grace and strength from the gospel.

Here are a few helpful links presenting a basic overview of Luther's Law and Gospel:

Steven Paulson, Luther For Armchair Theologians (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004) Chapter two: Law and Gospel: God's Two Words.

Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), Chapter 19: Law and Gospel.

Adventures in the Catechism

This is another one of those instances in which the interpretation needs to be interpreted. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

460
The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

78 2 Pet 1:4.

79 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939.

80 St. Athanasius, De inc., 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.

81 St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57: 1-4.

Batman Unmasked

At the last two Islam debates in Queens New York, I spotted a few Team Apologian T-Shirts being worn. At the earlier debate in May, my friend pointed to a guy wearing the shirt and said, "You've finally become a rock star." This past time, I ventured over to a guy wearing the shirt and jokingly said, "I'm much better looking in person." I do appreciate that someone supports aomin by purchasing the shirt. I admit though, it is an odd experience to see a complete stranger wearing a T shirt with your own face on it.

Here are a few recent personal similar tidbits.

First, my good friend Algo sent this one over to me from the Envoy boards:

Do professional anti-Catholics (Swan, White, etc.) tend to think that Catholicism did not exist prior to the legalization of Christianity by Constantine in the fourth century or do they tend to hold the position that Catholicism was valid but simply went "off the rails" at some point prior to the Reformation? I ask because amateur apologists argue the former incessantly, but I'm wondering if the "big boys" concede the Catholic Church's existence from the Apostolic era and focus on other issues in their efforts to undermine the Church.-Randy + † + Tiber Swim Team - Class of '79

I am not a professional apologist, or a professional anti-Catholic. I'm a guy with a full-time job, with family and other responsibilities. As a matter of fact, compared to some of you who visit the blog (I had around 100 blog comments on Monday), I spend very little time on-line. I'm not on-line because I'm busy elsewhere. I know some of you are supposed to be at work WORKING, but you're reading blog articles and commenting. Stop that, it's stealing from your employer.

I'm just a guy with a blog. I make no income from the blog, nor do I think I deserve any. I don't link over to Paypal like some Roman Catholic bloggers do, who think they deserve money (they don't deserve money, some of them are just guys with a blog or a website- most guys sitting in front of the computer writing blog or Internet articles doesn't deserve your money).

Second: Tim Enloe recently commented that my blog has Anabaptist tendencies, and was lacking a coherent Reformed worldview. I responded here, but this goes along with the previous tidbit. I wouldn't go so far as to say the blog is "ministry". I enjoy the subjects I write about, and I consider it a hobby. I try to do everything to the best of abilities to the glory of God, even my hobbies. It's a Reformed paradigm at work, so to speak.

Third: Here's a nugget from a Roman Catholic on the CARM boards:

As a certain Lord James Swan is very found of pointing out: Arguments that can be turned back on the one making the argument and used against them are invalid.

I've never claimed the title "Lord". I'm not even sure why this guy referred to me as such. I don't post on CARM often, but obviously I either interacted with him in the past, or he reads the blog. On the other hand, I have made the argument he points out, and I don't even take credit for the point. I got it from Dr. White, who has made the point repeatedly.

Fourth: I get e-mails from people I don't know, frequently. Here's a recent snippet:

"Hello, I came across your blog about the Reformation and I just wanted to point out that it seems like it is missing many facts. It appears to be that you've put your faith in Martin Luther, but have chosen to ignore the many evil things he taught. His writings seem to be totally ignored if not suppressed by those who have raised him as a guiding light in the history of Christianity."

As to placing my faith in Luther, I'm not even a Lutheran. Luther was just a man, and a sinner, just like you, just like me. His righteousness or holiness before God was Christ's righteousness, the only righteousness that will pass God's standard. I am committed to the gospel of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:28, 4:5; Gal. 3:11), as well as the only infallible source of God's revelation extant today: the Sacred Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:14-17), as were the Reformers.

Fifth: My co-blogger Alan sent this over from Articuli Fidei:

I'm seriously reading that thread over at Beggars all, and 'Loling'. I assume the owner of the blog is embarrassed by Rhology's 'dullness' (to put it mildly). But he won't say anything because he probably doesn't want to throw him under the bus. (plus traffic doesn't hurt).

I'm not embarrassed by anything my co-bloggers post. I picked them all specifically because I was impressed by their writing and materials, as well as their commitment to the faith. If I don't comment on something, it's usually the case I'm too busy to get into it. This even happens with my blog posts. I can't always keep up with the comments.

Circle the wagons!

In order...

Me: Why is that reasonable? Isn't it the RC position that you have all this unity and the truth on your organisation's side?

David Waltz: The Church on Earth has wheat and tares.

Me: Christ's parable of wheat and tares refers not to the church but to the world.

Matthew Bellisario: Really? Where did you get your definitive interpretation from? ... Where did God tell you that this passage only refers to the world Rhology (sic)? Sources please.

Matthew the Evangelist: Matthew 13:24 Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 “But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. 26 “But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. 27 “The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 “And he said to them, ‘An enemy has done this!’ The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?’ 29 “But he said, ‘No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 ‘Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”

36 Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.” 37 And He said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, 38 and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels. 40 “So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. 41 “The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, 42 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 “Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

Matthew Bellisario: Rhology, once again we can why you are a Protestant. It is because you are truly ignorant of the Scriptures. It is plain to see that you don't understand the many levels of Sacred Scripture. Do you not understand symbolic interpretation?

Matthew Bellisario: The fact is, this Scripture can be interpreted symbolically as referring to the Church.

Matthew Bellisario: Come on Rhology, yes or no? Can the passage be interpreted symbolically as referring to the Church?

Matthew Bellisario: So Rhology, is your interpretation of this passage infallible? There is the one interpretation that you subscribe to, and all others are wrong, correct? Calvin was wrong, St. Augustine was wrong, St. Jerome was wrong, St. Chrysostom was wrong? Their interpretations were not infallible, but yours is, correct?


The entire thread that begins with this interaction is a carnival of buffoonery. As if "the field is the world" is not itself a symbolic interpretation! Disappointingly, David Waltz has joined in the cacophony, but didn't even bother to include the Matthew 13 text.
I just reproduced some of this to show the circle-the-wagons-at-all-cost mentality of some our RC friends. If they were interested in honestly defending their position from the thrust of my original statement, there are other biblical psgs they could try to use. Their parade of mockery and missing the point shows their motivations are less than above board.

Poll - What was the "field" in the parable of the wheat and the tares (Matthew 13)?

Starving for the Catholic faith

I bought a product from Catholic Answers a few months back, and they've been spamming me for support ever since. Here's a recent excerpt from the desk of Karl Keating:

"As you know, Catholic Answers is the largest apologetics organization in North America."

"If you could make a monthly pledge right now, we would be even more secure as we meet the needs of millions of Americans who, as I mentioned earlier, are starving for the Catholic faith more than ever before. Click here to make your pledge or send your donation."

I didn't realize that in the age of the Internet, satellite TV, and mass media publications via the big chain bookstore in town, people were starving for information about the Roman Catholic Church. Why not just go to the official Vatican website? Here you can get Rome's official answers, and not the interpretations of those answers by the largest apologetics organization in North America.

And besides, for free I've got the Internet insights of a host of Roman Catholic apologists bookmarked in my favorites.

America isn't starving for information about anything. We're a culture over-stuffed with enough information that's only a mouse click away. It's like saying the obese family that regularly goes to the all-you-can-eat restaurant can't find any food. Perhaps one could argue the all-you-can-eat stuff isn't good food, so we need Catholic Answers to serve the gourmet feast of information. If that's so, then all those Catholic websites I've bookmarked are.... not healthy food.

On a related note:

Catholic apologist John Martignoni only wants 10 cents a day:

"If just 1 in 10 of you will respond to this email, I could cut out one or two of my part-time jobs (I currently work 5), hire some full-time help, and invest in some equipment which would drastically increase our evangelization efforts by drastically increasing the amount of apologetics materials we can develop."

"I don’t know of any other organization that reaches so many people with the truths of the Catholic Faith on such a small budget, nor one that raises money the way we do – asking for such a small amount, only through email, and only twice a year. I hope those facts, along with the results of the work we do, will be enough to persuade you to support our mission – to spread the truths of the Catholic Faith and to save souls for Christ and His Bride, the Church."

Of course, the oddest plea for support comes from Mr. Armstrong. To send Dave a 100% tax-deductible donation for what appears to be his for-profit business, you send the donation to John Martignoni, who does run a not for profit business. Martignoni then forwards the money to Armstrong. Well, this might be worth it, because contrary to the work of Catholic Answers, Armstrong states:

"I think it is accurate to say that I offer the most wide-ranging, comprehensive selection of Catholic apologetics available online (for free: no one pays a cent to read my blog), in addition to my books. It's been literally a constant labor of love for over twelve years now, since I began my website in early 1997."

If you're itching to send DA some $$, you can send it directly to him via Paypal. But keep in mind his website states in all caps, "DONATIONS THROUGH PAYPAL (NOT TAX-DEDUCTIBLE)". So to send him the 100% tax deductable donation, make sure it gets filtered first through Mr. Martignoni.

Gerry Matatics also needs some support, because unlike Catholic Answers, Gerry defends real Catholicism:

"I don't believe anyone else in the entire country does quite what I do full-time, traveling and speaking about real Catholicism and exposing counterfeit catholicism, and does it as much, and yet as inexpensively, as I do. I’m hoping I can interest one hundred recipients of this letter in each sending a sacrificial $100 donation, thus enabling me to raise the $10,000 (100 donors x $100 each) that I need to continue and complete my megatour this fall."


By the way, if you enjoy what I do and want to make a donation, click here and here.

Luther: I honor the Roman Church. She is pious, has God’s Word and Baptism, and is holy

Here's a tidbit from David Waltz. He cites this Luther quote against "individuals who believe/maintain that the Catholic Church is not a Christian church":

What I find quite interesting is the fact that one of the most vehement critics of the Catholic Church, after years (20+) of polemical attacks, could state the following:

I honor the Roman Church. She is pious, has God’s Word and Baptism, and is holy. (Martin Luther, from his sermon on Matt. 21:42, D. Martin Luther’s Werke, Vol. 47.425* – also know as the Weimar edition; English trans. from What Luther Says, p. 126.)

Mr. Waltz also linked to the Weimar edition here.

I have a copy of the actual source he utilized: What Luther Says. The entire entry says a bit more. It reads:

Catholic Church
See also Church, Papacy

LUTHER always recognize an essential difference between Catholics and papists, between those who held the one, universal (catholic) faith of the children of God in Christ and those who accepted the perversions of this faith by the papal hierarchy. To the leaders of this hierarchy the Reformer does not hesitate to apply Matt. 21:42. They are the builders who have rejected the Stone, Christ.

368 Roman Catholic Church vs. the Papal Hierarchy
I honor the Roman Church. She is pious, has God's Word and Baptism, and is holy. But the Roman court, the pope, who is the bishop in this court, is the devil's bishop and the devil himself, nay, the filth with which the devil has defiled the church.1 (W 47, 425- E 44, 296 - SL 1112)

Luther makes a distinction between the Roman church and the papal hierarchy (see What Luther Says, entry 370). The editor, Ewald Plass goes on to say, "while scoring papal innovations, Luther never ceased to confess indebtedness to the Church of Rome and to regard it as a Christian organization... Between the Church of Rome and the Lutheran Church a relation exists similar to that which once existed between the Jewish Church and the apostolic Christian Church..." (What Luther Says, Vol. 1 p. 128). Plass cites Luther stating:

"We ourselves confess and concede that they are in the right church, have the office which was given by Christ, and which the apostles gave them as a heritage- the office to teach, baptize, administer the Sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc.. ... We allow all this to be right and do not call the office in question, although they do not want to admit that the same obtains among us. In fact, we confess that we have received these things from them, as Christ Himself came from the Jews according to His birth and the apostles found the Scriptures among the Jews" (Ibid.).

Plass then quotes the following from Luther explaining about believers within the Roman Church:
"All of you are certainly baptized, especially in childhood, with the true Baptism of the ancient church, as we are; and those who, thus baptized, lived for seven or eight years and then died before understanding the spiritual adultery of the pope's church were certainly saved and are still saved. This we do not doubt at all. But when they grow up and hear, believe, and follow the lies of your devilish innovations, they become the devil's harlots together with you and fall away from their Baptism and their Bridegroom, as happened to me and others" (Ibid.).

Plass points out that Luther believed despite the papacy, salvation was possible for adults as well , but this not because of the papacy (see entry 374). Within even the papacy God preserved a remnant (see entry 3216, 3217) by His own power.

In entry 375, Plass quotes Luther on why he could refer to the Roman church as "holy":

"Thus, we, too, nowadays call the Roman Church holy and all the bishoprics holy, although their faith has been undermined and all the bishops and their servants are godless. For God rules in the midst of His enemies (Ps. 110:2); again, Antichrist sits in the temple of God (2 Thess. 2:4), and Satan is present in the midst of the children of God (Job 1:6). Therefore, even though the church is 'in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation,' as Paul says in his Epistle to the Philippians (2:15), even though it is in the midst of wolves and robbers, that is, spiritual tyrants, it nevertheless is the church. Although the city of Rome is worse than Sodom and Gomorrah, yet Baptism, the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, the reading (vox) and text of the Gospel, Holy Scriptures, the ministry, the name of Christ, and the name of God remain in her. Those who have made these their own have them; those who have not done so are not excused, for the treasure is there."

And finally, Plass explains that Luther held it was not easy to find "the treasure" in the papacy "because they have turned the Gospel, the light of liberty, into a law of correct living. Thus they have externalized and formalized Christianity."

Plass also cross-references this section to Luther's comments on the papacy. Luther's scathing comments on the papacy go on for a number of pages. For instance:

3238 "Come Out of Her, My People" (Rev. 18:4)
Can anything more horrible be said than that the kingdom of the papists is the kingdom of those who spit at Christ, the Son of God, and crucify Him anew? For they do crucify Christ... in themselves, in the church, and in the hearts of the faithful. ...Therefore let everyone who is honestly given to piety flee out of this Babylon as quickly as possible, and let him tremble at the very name of the papacy. For so great are its impiety and its abomination that no one can express them in words; they can be discerned only by eyes that are spiritual."

I actually posted a similar blog article on this topic a few years back: Luther: The Infallible Church Declared The Contents of Scripture?

Luther's opinion appears to be in part that since the Roman Church was given the Scriptures, Sacraments, etc., that in that sense it is a Christan church (see also his reasoning above). However, these elements functions quite independently from the Roman magisterium. No analogy is perfect, but if i had to describe Luther's position I would do so like this: The Roman church is like a pristine ship that's been commandeered by pirates. The ship still functions, but it's crew is in bondage to her captors. Perhaps some of the crew mutinies and joins the pirates. Others though, maintain allegiance to her rightful captain.

Since Rome officially anathematized the Gospel at Trent, I don't consider her part of the Catholic Church. The debate on this amongst the reformed still goes on. In fact, it was debated by James White and Douglas Wilson: Are Roman Catholics Our Brothers and Sisters in Christ? . Here would be a good example of something I part company with Luther on, and even many of my Reformed friends. I don't think the papacy can be extracted from the Church of Rome and still have the term "Church of Rome"make sense. Ironically, I would argue similarly as Luther did, that even though the Israelites were given such things like the oracles of God (Romans 3:1-4), their rejection of Christ cuts them off from the church. In the same way, a rejection of the Gospel by the Roman Church cuts them off from the church (Galatians 1:8-9).

"Luther removed books from the Canon" - a few replies

The claim is often made that Luther removed books from the Canon, with respect to the Deutero-Canonicals. For example, Scott Windsor says:

You have only that what you have received FROM US (minus a few books which Luther chose not to include).

Then he goes on to defend the decree of the Council of Trent as the infallible decision of the Roman Catholic Church on its Canon of Scripture. I'm sort of wondering about this.

First, it's not as if Luther is our only source or influence for the Canon of Scripture.

And he wasn't anything like a Protestant Pope. Why do Roman Catholic apologists constantly make this mistake? Does their pride keep them from accepting correction? This kind of question pops up all the time - "Luther and Calvin lied to you"; "Calvin wasn't a credobaptist; why are you?" Please, you're only making yourself look really stupid.

Second, how can we tell the Roman claim apart from the Eastern Orthodox claim of the same?

Third, the Council of Trent didn't really finish the job.

See: Here

Here
Here
Here
A bit of a summation

Finally, Luther was dead by 1546. Didn't the relevant vote (which got 44% approval of all present, the rest being nay or abstentions) take place in April 8, 1546? How could Luther remove books from the "infallible Roman Canon of Scripture" post-mortem?

Sungenis on Finding Mary in the Old Testament

R. Sungenis: I think we have to be very careful when we attempt to use analogies and allegories to prove Catholic dogma. A tendency to use proof-texting, for example, is often utilized when attempts are made to prove Catholic doctrines about Mary from the Old Testament. Some are tempted to mold the allegory so that it will fit the doctrine, and since allegories are somewhat fluid, one can usually cut and paste them until he finds an impressive connection, after which we are prompted to marvel how the Old Testament teaches Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity or Assumption. In actuality, the Old Testament doesn’t provide any factual evidence supporting these three Marian doctrines, and the New Testament can only vouch for one, perhaps two, at best. In fact, some Old Testament allegories could be fashioned in such a way to deny some Marian doctrines. Marian doctrines are supported mainly by Catholic magisterial pronouncements, and the factual evidence regarding those doctrines comes mainly from Tradition, not Scripture. [source]

You go Bob!

Early American Roman Catholic Interpreters of Luther

I came across an article in my library by Patrick W. Carey entitled, "Luther in an American Catholic Context." It can be found in the book ad fontes Lutheri: Toward the Recovery of the Real Luther: Essay's in Honor of Kenneth Hagen's Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2001). Carey presents some interesting facts on early Catholic American interpreters of Luther. Below are my notes some of those mentioned in the article.


1. John Carroll- (Late 18th Century)
John Carroll quoted Luther to prove Protestants departed not only from Roman Catholicism, but from distinctively Roman Catholic doctrines that Luther held. Carroll quotes Luther as an authority that Protestants should trust. Carroll quotes Luther saying the Scriptures were insufficient and obscure, not as perspicuous as Protestants believe they are. He quotes Luther's Preface to the Psalms: "It is a most audacious presumption in any one to say, that he understands every part even of one book of scripture" (This quote is found in WA 5:23, Luther's preface to his Operationes in Psalmos). Here is a biography on John Carroll. On the other hand, Carroll also uses Luther to prove that certain things in Scripture are quite clear: the Eucharist. Carroll says Luther was correct that "this is my body" should be taken literally.

2. Peter Henry Lemcke, O.S.B. (early 19th Century)
Lemcke was pastor of the German Catholic parish of Holy Trinity in Philadelphia. His claim to fame is delivering a scathing Reformation Sunday sermon against Luther and Lutherans. Lemcke was asked by the Church to leave, as the leadership sought to live in harmony with the Lutheran majority, who took great offense to the sermon.

3. John England (early 19th Century)
England argued against those who felt Luther was a champion of religious freedom, as an apologetic against those who claimed Roman Catholics were principally intolerant. He cites Luther as showing the spirit of intolerance when he called the Pope a "wolf" and "possessed by an evil spirit." He also lays the blame of the Peasant's War on Luther. On the other hand, he used Luther to argue that Luther's understanding of the Eucharist was closer to Roman Catholicism than general Protestantism. His works can be read here:

The works of the Right Reverend John England Volume 1

The works of the Right Reverend John England Volume 2

The works of the Right Reverend John England Volume 3

The works of the Right Reverend John England Volume 4


4. Orestes A. Brownson (1803-76)
He was a convert to Romanism from Unitarianism. He viewed Luther as a revolutionary who unjustifiably sought to reform the Roman Catholic Church. Luther was propagandist, not willing to be subject to church authority. Rather, he used the populace to gain support. He saw Luther's sola fide teaching as a rejection of dogmatic accepted theology. Luther didn't create Protestantism, it was simply another example of heresies that spring up in church history. In the mid-1850's (during the civil war), Brownson changed gears and concentrated on the positive aspects of Luther. He states, "Luther was a man terribly in earnest, a genuine man, and no sham, as Carlyle would say" (Works 9:219-220). He likewise argued in 1862 that Luther had "an honest disgust of the abuses" encountered in Rome during his early visit. Luther's beginning Reform movement was "moved by a sincere Christian spirit, an earnest love of truth, and an honest desire to advance the real interests of religion." Patrick Carey explains Brownson felt Luther "would not have resorted to separation from the Catholic Church had he been properly appreciated by the Roman court and the leaders in the Church" (p.43). Thus, partial blame for Luther's fall from the Church is the Church. After the Civil War, Brownson reverted back to a negative view toward Luther. Only one volume of his thirty or more volumes appears to be present on Google Books.

I'm only about an hour away from this event. It is possible I may attend.

The Quotable Sippo #10

"Luther was a man of violent temperament and he often contradicted himself at a whim. He was a blind guide leading those who followed him into perdition."[source]

The post also says, "Edited by - Patti on 11/09/2009 11:15:45 AM". I wish I could get to Envoy before Patti, to which Algo responds, "You have to hover over your keyboard with your finger poised to refresh every 30 seconds. 45 seconds is too long."

Luther on Private Confession and Absolution

Here's one of those interesting Luther tidbits that I've never had a chance to explore: Luther's retention of private confession and absolution. I've read a few times throughout the years from credible sources that Luther always confessed his sins to another person. This is one of those tidbits that leaves the modern day reformer scratching his head. How was it possible for Luther to confess his sins to another person his entire life? Aren't believers to confess their sins to God alone? The new edition of LW 69 contains some interesting information in regard to this.

The editors point out that Luther's retention of private confession and absolution "put him at odds not only with adherents of the traditional theology but also, over the course of the 1520s and 1530's, with a range of protestant opponents" (LW 69: 317-318]. The editors note particularly Luther's conflict with Karlstadt. while Luther was hidden away in the Wartburg, Karlstadt abolished private confession in Wittenberg. Luther preached that it should be reinstated when he came back (LW 51:97-100].

Now, before a Roman Catholic claims Luther as a champion for their cause, it isn't as simple as it appears. Recall, Luther rejected the power of the keys as understood by Roman Catholicism. That is, Luther rejected the keys of binding and loosing sins had been given exclusively to the clergy (LW 69:321). True, a minister in office hears a confession, and grants absolution. However, if a minister was shown to violated his office, a person could just as easily confess their sins to another Christian person, and accept their word of absolution. This was so because Christ's words in John 20:23 (If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven), were spoken not just to the apostles, but to all Christendom. Luther says:

"But in the New Testament every Christian has this authority to forgive sins, where a priest is not at hand. And he has it through the promise of Christ, where he said to Peter, “Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:19]. Had this been said to Peter alone, then in Matthew 18[:18] Christ would not have said to all in general, “Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” There he is speaking to all Christendom, and to each [Christian] in particular" (LW 35:21).

In a sermon toward the end of his life, Luther stated:

"O how grateful we should be, for God gives me the power that He Himself has, so that when I lay my hands [on a sinner and speak the Absolution], it is as valid as if God Himself had done it. He gives this power to the tongue and hand of the powerless. And so, if no preacher is there and my conscience despairs, and a boy comes to me, [I say], 'Please speak the Absolution to me; lay your hand upon my head.' Even when a boy or a woman speaks the Absolution, [it is valid] because both are members of Christ and have His power. We are not on this account to disparage the office of ministry, which God wants to be free from contempt. But in case of need, when no one else is available, [it is right for] a boy to speak [the Absolution], so surpassingly richly has God willed to pour out His gifts; and it is His will that whatever I do by His mandate, He has done Himself" [WA 49:312, also the context will be available in LW 58 when released].

Never underestimate Luther's belief in the power of the spoken Word. While it's true God's Word is found printed in the Scriptures, Luther placed a heavy emphasis on the the Word spoken orally. That is, God's Word was meant to be oral. It has power when spoken. That's why Luther was a preacher: the Word being spoken orally is more powerful than the words on a page. When the minister preaches in front of his congregation, he's preaching the powerful Word of God. God's Word wasn't simply meant to be read, it was intended to be heard. For Luther, when Absolution was spoken by a mere boy, it was the powerful Word of God.

Exsurge Domine: An Exercise in Ambiguity From Jimmy Akin

Here's an interesting article from Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin: Identifying Infallible Statements. For those of you engaging Roman Catholic apologetics, this is a good read to see what sort of logical hoops one must jump through when tackling this subject.

Akin goes through the papal bull Exsurge Domine, the bull condemning Luther's teachings. Akin seeminlgy works hard to interpret the document to not mean anything specific. Akin argues:

1) Luther was not condemned for violating infallibly defined dogmas.

2) Luther was condemned by a whole series of propositions in globo. These propositions were [1] heretical or [2] scandalous or [3] false or [4] offensive to pious ears or [5] seductive of simple minds and [6] in opposition to Catholic truth. The Pope doesn't say which proposition holds which characteristic. The Latin of Exsurge Domine makes it clear one cannot determine the kind of censure being applied to the individual propositions.

3)One cannot even infer that the pontiff’s mind was that all of the propositions were false. The censures "heretical" and "false" both imply falsity, but "scandalous," "offensive to pious ears," and "seductive of simple minds" do not.

4) One can only speculate which censure should be applied to each proposition.

If I recall correctly, Exsurge Domine said that the Pope could, "without any further citation or delay, proceed against [Luther] to his condemnation and damnation..." The bull condemns 41 errors in Luther's writings, calling him to recant withing 60 days or be excommunicated, and decrees his writings should be burned. If ever I had to pick a lawyer to represent Luther, I would've picked Jimmy Akin.

The Magisterium: Luther, we condemned you via the reasons put forth in Exsurge Domine.

Akin: Objection! Exsurge Domine was not an infallible bull, nor did Luther violate any infallible dogma.

The Magisterium: Luther, your writings are heretical or scandalous or false or offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds and in opposition to Catholic truth.

Akin: Objection! Exsurge Domine doesn't say which is which, so it can't be applied to my client, and the document doesn't even infer all Luther's writings condemned are false. In fact you haven't specified anything, but have only put forth non-infallible vague statements about my client's guilt. If this doesn't make sense to you, you can call a staff apologist at Catholic Answers for further information.

Addendum:

Roman Catholic writer John Todd states,

"The bull [Essurge Domine] was contradictory,lacking in clarity, and incidentally far less effective than it might have been. It relied solely on Luther's writings prior to the Leipzig disputation. Thus the bull had in it the notorious statement that it is heretical to say that 'to burn heretics is contrary to the will of the Holy Spirit' and the anomalous statement that it is heretical to say that 'secular and spiritual princes would do well if they would put an end to mendicancy'."

"Eck came into the committee [preparing Exurge Domine] half way through, much o Cajetan's disgust., and was largely responsible for bulldozing a decision and the miserably incompetent text through the committee. Subsequently Eck himself said the bull was hopelessly inadequate and pointed out that in fact the committee knew very little about Luther's 'errors'. No attempt was made to refute Luther by reference either to the Bible or to the Fathers, a remarkable and unusual omission. "

Source: John M. Todd, Luther (New York: Paulist Press), 1964 p.166

Helping the Envoy Boards with Luther

Over on the Envoy boards, it was asked:

In Jimmy Akin's article explaining Exsurge Domine in light of Papal Infallibility, he makes the following comment: "One can speculate which censure might be applied to the proposition that using the death penalty for heresy is contrary to the will of the Spirit (a view Luther himself later repudiated)." What is the reference to Luther's repudiation that Jimmy mentions?

Luther originally rejected the notion of the death penalty. Later on, Luther saw public blasphemy and sedition as two offenses that should be reprimanded. The death penalty may be invoked in certain instances.

Jimmy Akin Delivers The Good News

Here a short mp3 clip from Catholic Answers: Jimmy Akin Delivers The Good News. I highlighted this clip just to point out that I consider this a different gospel (Galatians 1:8-9).

Akin's not saying anything new.

Cardinal Cajetan: "Everyone remains in doubt in this life, in accord with the ordinary norm that one does not know whether he is in God's grace or not. Nor is anyone certain he is sufficiently disposed through the grace of God granted through absolution." [Jared Wicks, ed. and trans., Cajetan Responds: A Reader in Reformation Controversy (Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1978), p. 52].


Luther responds: "I have indicated in a variety of ways that the Christian man must believe for a certainty that he is in a state of divine grace, and that he has the cry of the Holy Spirit in his heart, especially when he is performing his proper function, which is to confess or to suffer for confessing. I did this in order that you might utterly repudiate the wicked idea of the entire kingdom of the pope, the teaching that a Christian man must be uncertain about the grace of God toward him. If this opinion stands, then Christ is completely useless. For whoever doubts the grace of God toward him this way must necessarily doubt the promises of God and therefore the will of God, as well as the birth, suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ. There is no greater blasphemy against God than to deny the promises of God and God Himself, Christ, etc" [LW 26:385].

"Let us thank God, therefore, that we have been delivered from this monster of uncertainty and that now we can believe for a certainty that the Holy Spirit is crying and issuing that sigh too deep for words in our hearts. And this is our foundation: The Gospel commands us to look, not at our own good deeds or perfection but at God Himself as He promises, and at Christ Himself, the Mediator. By contrast the pope commands us to look, not at God as He promises, not at Christ our High Priest, but at our own works and merits. From the latter course, doubt and despair necessarily follow; but from the former, certainty and the joy of the Spirit. For I am clinging to God, who cannot lie. He says: “I am giving My own Son into death, so that by His blood He might redeem you from sin and death.” Here I cannot have any doubts, unless I want to deny God altogether. And this is the reason why our theology is certain: it snatches us away from ourselves and places us outside ourselves, so that we do not depend on our own strength, conscience, experience, person, or works but depend on that which is outside ourselves, that is, on the promise and truth of God, which cannot deceive. The pope does not know this; therefore he and his furies have the wicked notion that no one, not even those who are righteous and wise, can know whether he is worthy of love. But if they are righteous and wise, they surely know that they are loved by God; otherwise they are not righteous and wise" [LW 26:386].

Scott Windsor can't make up his mind

Scott Windsor says:

You misrepresent the office of the bishop. Each office is NOT infallible in and of itself. They DO have apostolic authority to correct me if I have misrepresented Catholic teaching myself - but a single bishop has not the charism of infallibility, save the Bishop of Rome, and he utilizes that VERY judiciously.

Well, yes, so judiciously as to be unrecognisable.

Anyway, while he's been avoiding the onus of submitting all of his work to the Magisterium (whom he apparently, carelessly equates with his local bishop) like the plague as well as blissfully ignoring the implications of receiving a brush-off from them, he's pursued the following line of argumentation over at his blog, and I'd like to know why.

He'd asked me to whom I'm submitted. I told him the elders of my church (my Southern Babdist church is elder-led). Follow the excerpts down the page.
SW: So, your answer is that you are submissive to the elders of your church - to whom do they submit to (sic)?
ME: My elders are in submission to the Holy Spirit Who expresses Himself thru the Word of God.
SW: I see, so your elders are their own little magisterium.
ME: My elders don't think they're infallible. They don't think they're descended directly via "apostolic succession" from Peter. They're not headed by a Pope who can speak ex cathedra whenever he feels like declaring something he said in the past at some point to have been an infallible statement, in retrospect. They are subject to Scripture and teach what it says. There are quite a few large differences. You should really know better, given how long you've been at this.
SW: That's sad, because in the Church which Jesus built, his bishops were indeed given the authority to bind or loose whatsoever they chose, and if it were bound on Earth, then it was also bound in Heaven. Since nothing fallible can logically be bound in Heaven, then this authority had to be infallible authority. Furthermore, this is part of what Jesus was sent to do (or else why do it?) and Jesus said "As the Father sent Me, I also send you." If the Apostles then did not pass on this authority which Jesus passed on to them - then they would have failed the Master right from the beginning. So the first bishops were given this infallible authority and by Jesus' Word, they too - being sent as He was sent - had to pass on this authority, which they did. So, if your elders were True Leaders of His Church, then they would have to have infallible authority, without it - they are just impostors, wolves dressed in sheeps clothing - to fool even the elect.
Me: So you admit that your original assertion was wrong - that my elders are their own little Magisterium. Good, we're getting somewhere. The decent thing to do would be to withdraw that statement, sir. (He didn't.)
SW: You brought up the non-infallibility of your elders, I responded that it was a pity, since Jesus established the True Church with "overseers" (bishops) who indeed had this authority.

Now, contrast that line of commentary with what he said most recently, quoted at the top. Which one is right? One can only wish Mr. Windsor could keep track of his arguments, to say nothing of my own.

Windsor's treatment of Ephesians 2:8-10

Scott Windsor's more recent post on the question of Ephesians 2 is meant to be a response to some interaction we've had about this post I did some time ago. Let's see how it's gone so far.

Rhology: Notice how, again, "works" appears TWICE in the psg. You're proposing that "not as a result of works" = works of the OT Law, while "created in Christ Jesus for good works" is something totally different? Even though they appear one sentence of each other?"
--sw: Yes, but not absolutely. "Works of the Law" CAN be "good works" if one is in the State of Grace FIRST.

This is applying an RC gloss after the fact. Where does the Eph 2 psg give us that idea?
And it doesn't answer the question I've raised. Once again:
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Just for ease of understanding, so we're all on the same page, this is the problem I'm contending Mr Windsor encounters here:

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works of the OT Law, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works of the OT Law, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

If this is inaccurate, why? Show me why from the text.
You had said: It is a command to perform "good works" and the context is specifically opposing 'works of the Law.' and You are mixing "good works" with "works of the Law" again.

It is your position that mixes the two, not mine. In my view, "works" in Eph 2:9-10 refers to any activity that one might otherwise expect to be meritorious towards one's good standing with God, something that God would want us to do. Said works don't save us - they are for those who are "created in Christ Jesus" (ie, born again believers) to do. Not in your view. In your view, you make an arbitrary distinction and make the first "works" into "works of the OT Law". So, why not the 2nd "good works"? You yourself said:

And this fact is made crystal clear by verse 15: 15by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace...

So why isn't the 2nd "works" also "works of the OT Law"? You're arguing that the OT Law is in the context, after all. We need to get this question answered clearly before we go anywhere else.

Catholic Answers on Luther and the Real Presence

Over the years I've come across some Roman Catholics using Luther's views on the sacrament of the Lord's Supper in two similar ways:

1.Luther's view is proof for the legitimacy the Roman Catholic view: Roman Catholics believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, so did Luther.

2.Many Protestants don't believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but Luther did.

The goal is to show Protestants that it's reasonable, biblical, and Roman to believe in the the real presence. If the most famous Reformer believed in it, so should all Protestants.

The problem though with Roman Catholics using Luther's view is that it typically ignores the differences with the Roman view. Luther came to reject transubstantiation as well as the sacrifice of the mass. Rejecting these is no little difference.

I was very pleased to hear the following explanation of this from Catholic apologist Tim Staples:

Tim Staples on Luther and the Real Presence

Staples doesn't try to place Luther on the Roman Catholic side. He points out the differences between Rome and Luther are essential and radical differences. Staples also declares "Lutherans" aren't actually a church.

I'm so used to Luther being used as a propaganda tool, that I almost couldn't believe what I was hearing while listening to Staples.

"The body and blood of Christ are distributed under the bread and wine in the Sacrament, that is, bread and wine are present as well as body and blood. The bread and wine are not changed into body and blood- as the Roman Catholic Church teaches- but are in a mysterious way united with the body and blood. In other words, we receive both bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament" [An Explanation of Dr. Martin Luther's Small Catechism (Columbus: The Wartburg Press, 1947), pp. 180-181].

Seen Scott Windsor's imprimatur?

Scott Windsor has responded to some of our recent interactions on his blog, in two parts. I'll address this first part here and then go on to the other post later.

It was YOU who referred to the Eph. 2 post

Yes, that's what's commonly called an "example". An "illustration". I apologise for using a concept that's apparently unfamiliar to you.
My question related to that post was very, very specific. You then responded to the Eph 2 post itself, which is not what I asked about. That is what I mean by your failure to follow the line of argumentation, and then you project your failure onto me and accuse me of shotgunning and partaking with Satan. Again, knock yourself out.


Since when does a "boldfaced word" indicate an internal critique? Boldfaced words mean emphasis.

Sigh. The bold word indicates a critique. If you weren't so busy acting offended, you might remember that I've already explained this to you.
-Here's the original comment from me.
-Mr Windsor's is right after, where he says: "Your use of "Romanist" in a truly bigoted fashion (related to another thread going on here and on my blog too as well as White's) is noted...but even make sure we take note by using bold text?"
-My next comment explains: "I put "from Romanists" in bold b/c I was trying to help you understand what I'd said. It appeared you hadn't followed that I was noting an inconsistency between what you'd said and what *other* ppl have said many times in the past."
-Mr Windsor ignores my explanation and offers this: "For example, if I were using a term like "Prottie" here - and someone expressed to ME that it was a bit of a bigoted term - I would respect them and refrain from further use - I would not go on and not only use it, but bold face it as well!"
-I responded in the next comment: "And again (see how boldface imparts emphasis?), I bolded "Romanist" to try to be helpful and direct attention to my meaning." And then I even explained it AGAIN: "Thus you are showing that you care not for the argument that *OTHER PEOPLE* have often made *IN THE PAST* here on this blog, that private, individual interpretation is useless. That is the extent of my point here."
-Mr Windsor seems finally to get it: "I can't speak for "*OTHER PEOPLE*" - but as for me, the only times I would have to be concerned about "private interpretation" is if I am interpreting something contrary to an already defined teaching"

If only you'd kept right on that train of thought, but no, it's apparently more amusing to vilify me. Whatever, have fun with that.



As I pointed out, there were at least 5 different topics among those 8 questions.

Yes, b/c YOU RESPONDED TO THE EPH 2 POST, Mr Windsor. Sauce for the goose and all that.
And there aren't 5 diff topics. They're all directed at taking your comment that "works" in Eph 2 refers to "works of the OT Law", so I was asking you if you attempt to fulfill the OT Law since Eph 2:10 says we're created in Christ Jesus unto good works. Since "works" = "works of the OT Law", it should be obvious to any reader that, if you believe that, you'd better get right on top of obeying the OT Law!
I note in passing that you've never put fwd any answer beyond "Christ fulfilled the OT Law for us"...as if you completely forgot the original context of the question - Eph 2. It's yet another thread of the argument you've lost track of, but I'll look at your other post on that topic.


Question 4 was asking about my sons (a personal question).

Seriously? Asking whether you fulfilled the circumcision commandments in the OT Law for your sons is "a personal question"?


5) Question 7 asked about graven images...which is wholly a different subject

Oh, the OT Law doesn't deal with graven images? Not even in, say, the 10 Commandments? Like the 2nd one?
Deut 7:5, 25, 12:3 29:17; Num 33:52; Lev 26:30? Aren't those psgs in the OT Law too?


Vague references to entire postings or entire threads of discussion don't cut it as documentation.

I told you where to see a couple of examples. You know, as an apologist you're not all that helpful. Don't you ever answer hypotheticals? It's not like it's not a specific hypothetical.


It sure sounds like St. Jerome was unilaterally acting in the quote you provided. Did he consult the elders of that congregation before acting? Or, did he just walk in and start ripping things down? Did he consult with the local bishop? Did he consult with ANYONE?

(You're shotgunning again, I note. I brought this up as an EXAMPLE, and you're taking it far afield, if we go by your own standard.)
Why would he consult the elders of a wrongdoing congregation?
Maybe he was very, very certain that such a thing was wrong and acted to communicate its wrongness to that church? Maybe he had consulted with the bishop. And wait a sec, why would he need to consult with the local bishop? I thought Christians and especially bishops throughout history have been in agreement about such important things as images. No doubt he agreed with you and knew his own bishop said images in church are a no-go, and thus figured the local bishop would agree, since bishops in Christ's church bind and loose and all that and have all that unity you like to talk about so often.


There may be some around, but I don't "use them" in "worship."

Let the reader judge whether the actions performed by RCs before their images is "using them" in "worship".

One can find SOME of the defined teachings of the RCC in many places. Others are said to be defined but are not. Some, it would be nice if they were, but they're not, such as an infallible list of infall teachings, a list of the infallibly-interpreted Scr psgs, etc.
But for the 3rd time, you say on the one hand that it's the reader's responsibility to figure it out, and on the other decry this individual interpretation if it differs from the RCC's teachings. How can we know who's right here?
IOW, you're asking me to act like a Protestant. It's really weird.
How about you actually exercise some of this humility you claim and submit ALL your work to the Magisterium for the imprimatur? What's so wrong with that request?


Catholic apologists are used to help explain what the Magisterium ...REALLY teaches as opposed to anti-Catholic propaganda. (source)

And why precisely can't the Magisterium take care of that? The Pope? Is he too busy making official visits to Hugo Chávez and kissing Qur'ans to pitch in?

Anyway, the main point of this whole thing is that Mr Windsor apparently wants everyone to take his word for it on the question of whether he's submitted to the Magisterium. "Oh don't worry," he says, "I've written to my bishop, and in the past I've had good success getting a response." That's nice, and I'm sure such responses from men who wear such elaborate vestments and who hide and transfer pædophiles and can't decide what to do with obviously pro-baby-murder politicians among their constituents impart warm fuzzies, but from someone who's a little closer to the big-time than an anonymous race-baiting RC commenter like, say, Dozie, I'd like more than his assurance. I mean, I'm supposed to let RCC's dogmatic proclamations bind my conscience on pain of mortal sin (or, on pain of somehow wriggling out from under the virtual panacæa of the concept of "invincible ignorance"), but if Mr Windsor relies on his private interpretation to find out whether his own teachings are thus bound, I feel less motivated to do anything more than that.

Messages from Purgatory

The latest Tan Books newsletter has announced a new book, Hungry Souls: Supernatural Visits, Messages, and Warnings from Purgatory, in celebration of Holy Souls month.

"...Hungry Souls recounts these stories and many others trustworthy, Church-verified accounts of earthly visitations from the dead in Purgatory. Accompanying these accounts are images from the "Museum of Purgatory" in Rome, which contains relics of encounters with the Holy Souls, including numerous evidences of hand prints burned into clothing and books; burn marks that cannot be explained by natural means or duplicated by artificial ones. Riveting!"

You can read more about the "Museum of Purgatory" here. Interestingly, Tan Books still considers purgatory a fire to be suffered, an idea that tends to be downplayed by many RCs today:

"November is the Month of Holy Souls. In our Charity, we must not neglect to pray for these men and women who are ultimately assured of becoming saints, yet suffer in Purgatory’s fire. They have felt the struggles and crosses of this life and still need our prayers to attain their reward..." source

Scott Windsor is cool with private interpretation. Why aren't you?

Mr Windsor, thanks for the time!
I just used the Eph 2 post as an example of what I was trying to bring out back at the Beggars All combox. Just to rundown for those who might not have read all that interaction...

Over here at BA, we make various arguments from the Bible against RC dogma. RCs come along and comment, and one of their principal arguments against our position is "That's just your private interpretation. We have an infallible interpreter, and so we can be sure that what the Magisterium says is the valid interp of the Bible, since she is the church founded by Christ and the gates of Hell won't prevail against her. Since you just have your private fallible interpretation, I don't need to pay attention to your contentions".
He was honest enough to admit, in the 02Nov post, that his apologetic blogging is not submitted to the RCC either (but that he will heretofore make his priest aware of it). I thanked him for his honesty and pointed out that the logical outworking of this fact is that he does not consider this common argument made by other RCs at various times in the past (I am unaware whether Mr Windsor has ever used this ridiculous argument) to be a valid one. I used the Eph 2 post as an example of that, asking Mr Windsor whether he would use that argument to overturn what I'd said in the 2007 post on Eph 2. It looks like the answer is mostly no, but I am a bit quizzical on Mr Windsor's request for specifics (see the end of his post).
Have you really never seen that argument used before? Not even once? Never listened to, for example, any of the many debates that James White has done with RCs over the years, wherein the RC apologists use that argument over and over?
Take a couple of examples, and please know that I am trying to be very specific in my question. I don't want to get into an extended debate on the subject matter itself, but rather on the principle of "he was only speaking as a private theologian/individual, not for the entire Church" nonsense.

"Moreover, I have heard that certain persons have this grievance against me: When I accompanied you to the holy place called Bethel, there to join you in celebrating the Collect, after the use of the Church, I came to a villa called Anablatha and, as I was passing, saw a lamp burning there. Asking what place it was, and learning it to be a church, I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person. They, however, murmured, and said that if I made up my mind to tear it, it was only fair that I should give them another curtain in its place. As soon as I heard this, I promised that I would give one, and said that I would send it at once. Since then there has been some little delay, due to the fact that I have been seeking a curtain of the best quality to give to them instead of the former one, and thought it right to send to Cyprus for one. I have now sent the best that I could find, and I beg that you will order the presbyter of the place to take the curtain which I have sent from the hands of the Reader, and that you will afterwards give directions that curtains of the other sort--opposed as they are to our religion--shall not be hung up in any church of Christ. A man of your uprightness should be careful to remove an occasion of offence unworthy alike of the Church of Christ and of those Christians who are committed to your charge." - Epiphanius (Jerome's Letter 51:9)

"Others of them employ outward marks, branding their disciples inside the lobe of the right ear. From among these also arose Marcellina, who came to Rome under the episcopate of Anicetus, and, holding these doctrines, she led multitudes astray. They style themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles." (Irenæus, Against Heresies, 1:25:6)

"These men [heretics], moreover, practise magic; and use images, incantations, invocations, and every other kind of curious art." (Irenæus, Against Heresies, 1:24:5)

"the law itself exhibits justice, and teaches wisdom, by abstinence from sensible images" - Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 2:18)
"familiarity with the sight disparages the reverence of what is divine; and to worship that which is immaterial by matter, is to dishonour it by sense." - Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 5:5)
"Works of art cannot then be sacred and divine." - Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 7:5)

We cite these as evidence against the RC contention that the church has been RCC throughout history. RCs most typically respond with "he was just speaking as a private theologian". Do you consider that a valid response? If so, why, since the question is what the Church has believed throughout history, and isn't that response simple special pleading? If not, can you explain the disunity and fragmentation that this disagreement displays in the ranks of RCC?


Now, on the other topic, your response to my contention with respect to Eph 2, since Paul goes on to mention circumcision, that means that v 10 - "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" is a command to perform the works of the Law, correct? Why does not the RCC do so, then? When was the last time you offered a grain offering? Were your sons (if you have any) circumcised on the 8th day? How have you solved the problem that has long vexed the Jewish people, that you don't have a Temple in which to perform the sacrifices? Why isn't Yom Kippur a big, big deal on the RC calendar? Why is it OK (a propos) to bow down to graven images now even though Joshua wouldn't've permitted Jews to bow down to images of the dead (but no doubt sainted) Moses?
And could you please answer another of the original challenges? - our RC friends are saying that justification is at least PARTLY due to works, ie, justification is not by faith alone, in light of your statement No Catholic argues that works of the Law justify. It sounds like you are saying precisely that. Clarification would be appreciated.