Five Roman Catholic Myths About Lutheranism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 июл 2024
- Our website: www.justandsinner.org
The first five myths video: • Five Myths about Luthe...
This part of our Five Reasons series discusses five myths about Lutheranism that are often repeated by Roman Catholics.
I'm Roman Catholic and I've been spreading the myth that y'all worship Lex Luthor for the past decade so you should probably add that to the list too.
We are all anti superman
@@apeture_explorer4810 Is it because we're all pro Batman?
I am an Australian Lutheran. Your summary of the Lutheran understanding is spot on! Thank you, Dr Cooper!
Hi, which Lutheran denomination are you from? I've been looking up Lutheranism in Australia, specifically Sydney, but have only found a mainline-ish sort of denomination.
Good luck down there, hard times in the Australian Lutheran church I've heard
I was thinking of checking out a Lutheran in QLD, after the Presbyterian here has very, very quiet, non social people. Bit concerned about this Lord's supper business tho, at the Lutheran. And now also concerned about whatever Soomer is talking about (my sed button is broken lol).
@@anyanyanyanyanyany3551 Lutheranism in Australia is not confessional but it is still more conservative than American mainliners like the ELCA. It’s sort of in between the LCMS and the ELCA
@@lukeunderwood163 that's the LCA. There is also COELC
Thank you for sharing, Dr. Cooper. I enjoyed the intellectual and explanatory approach to the subject. As a Catholic, I find it helpful to understand how Lutherans commonly think of some of our critiques, and how our use of broad language as theological points won’t ever help move conversations forward. I’m looking forward to more of your Catholic/Lutheran content in the future. God bless!
Timestamps:
00:00 - Context of Previous Videos to this one
00:25 - Myth 1, Lutherans Deny Real Presence in Eucharist
02:08 - "In, With, and Under" Explained
03:42 - Myth 2, Lutherans Have No Sacrifice in Mass
04:59 - Directionality Disagreement
05:48 - Sacrifice of Praise
06:17 - Myth 3, Lutherans Reject Tradition
07:35 - Authoritative, But Correctible
08:27 - Comparison with Earthly Authorities
10:04 - Scriptures, the only Infallible Authority
11:55 - Myth 4, Lutheranism is a New Church
13:32 - Lutherans Often Agree with the Church Fathers
14:48 - A Continuation, not a New Church
17:17 - Myth 5, Lutherans are Nominalists
19:02 - Luther favored Plato over Aristotle
20:30 - Lutherans are not all mini-Luthers
22:16 - Closing
Thank your for the detailed time stamps, it must have taken you a long time to do
@dr jorden Cooper. I really enjoyed this. And I really need this. As you maybe be a aware I was a baptised roman Catholic. And I started looking in the protestantism. And sometimes I don't struggle. With the works of Martin Luther. And the work of John Calvin. Bless to you brother. Because I really appreciate this. God bless you on this holy week ✝️🛐
Although I think Calvin's proposition of Predestination goes a bit off the rails, several of his quotes on God's Mercy really strikes home to me, even though I'm Orthodox Christian.
"For until men recognize that they owe everything to God, that they are nourished by His fatherly care, that He is the Author of their every good, that they should seek nothing beyond Him - they will never yield Him willing service. Nay, unless they establish their complete happiness in Him, they will never give themselves truly and sincerely to Him."
Try as they might Calvin and Luther both fail to defend how the cannon of scripture can be infallible if it was determined by a council which is not infallible. I enjoy their works too but ultimately don’t know how to define orthodoxy in the Protestant church. God bless you all on this special week.
Luther rejected all Catholic teachings including apostolic succession and the priesthood. All are for nothing and it does not matter, because without a priest there are no sacraments, no Holy Eucharist, no Confessions, no Matrimony, etc.
.....not even an angel, nor archangel, nor any other created power, can consecrate the host, absolve our sin and unite couples in marriage. - “what you bind on earth is bound in heaven”
St. John Chrysostom: "On the Priesthood" "The Paraclete Himself, instituted this vocation, and persuaded men while still abiding in the flesh to represent the ministry of angels."
Protestants lost the understanding of the Eucharist as mystical sanctuary established by the Son of God.
It happened because they lost the apostolic succession’s authority to “bind and loose” and so join heaven and earth. No authority to “bind and loose” meant no transubstantiation.
No transubstantiation meant no joining of heaven and earth really, truly, and substantially.
For Protestants, Jesus’ institutions necessarily became mere externals and symbols without true mystery; contradicting what Jesus intended and accomplished.
@@Hypnotically_Caucasian Wow, what a beautiful quote. Thank you!
@@christopherlampman5579 But isn't it still possible for a fallible agent to present an infallible thing? For example, I can present an infallible thing like the multiplication table although I am a fallible creature. So, surely a fallible council can produce a canon of infallible scriptures.
I think the concern that the East/Rome have with the Protestant approach to tradition is that when they hear us saying: "tradition is a fallible authority," what they hear is an ecclesiology vacated of the guiding presence of the Holy Spirit.
We need to be cautious that we don't give this impression. What they wish to affirm is that the church is a spiritual body and that everything it does: gather for council, produce theological reflection, develop liturgical expression, etc etc is not simply human, but is the divine working in and through her. We, as Protestants, need to be able to guard against that concern BUT also in a way that retains the danger of the church needing reform.
The thing is though, that we deny that very point. We would never claim that the church ceased to be guided by the Holy Spirit after pentecost.
I think we would even argue that the Reformation was the Holy Spirit guiding the church away from theological innovations that were wrong.
Our view is that there has to be a standard by which we acess the teachings of this authority. Romans (and Orthodox) quite often argue that there is an oral tradition, a secret gnosis, which the episcopal office posesses, which makes them arbitors over truth, when there are theological differences. We argue the plain reading of scripture suffices and reject this oral tradition.
The utterances of the magisterium have to be analysed by scripture. Also because they constantly appeal to it.
No traditional Christian denomination rejects that scripture is truly inspired by God, that it is truly from him in some way. On the other hand we dispute over which any other authority is right.
I think it´s therefore logical to look at every other writing through the lense of holy scripture, not the other way round. Because unlike them, it stands on its own. Show me one early church father who doesn´t reference scripture in what he writes. They all depend on it for their claims, statements. Scripture only depends on them insofar as they are martyrs ("martyr" literally means "whitness") for it.
No counsil, no pope stands on his own. Scripture does. They only add to it under her authority.
I would say that the primary argument put forward by Rome for the authority of tradition is the "you're saying that the Church didn't have the Holy Spirit for 1500 years? Why would God wait so long?" This has a superficial appeal, but one can simply point to the OT and the Israelites. They were the Church as well and managed to have lots of traditions that did not accord with God's will, yet God did not abandon them nor fail to keep His promises to them. So, if the OT church was full of fallible men who committed many sins against God, why should Rome not be susceptible to the same tendencies?
?
@Steven Peterson This is probably the best response we can offer. The counter-argument they will give (to steelman their position) is that the Church is _greater_ than the covenant made with Israel. The tendency to make one-to-one correlations between Old and New Testaments is a very Reformed one (baptism = circumcision, and is in no sense greater, etc.) and often lacks the strength to grapple with the notion that the archetype is always greater than its types.
This is obviously not an air-tight objection, but it is still one we should take seriously.
First - I thought the part on Nominalism was very well done and for such a concise summary really nailed it (I say that as a Catholic , ex- confessional Lutheran). Great job disposing of that false over-simplification.
On the Sacrifice of the Mass what you are presenting is a theological way to understand the Lutheran Liturgy. Agree that the Apology uses some sacrificial language. But what about the language of the Lutheran mass itself. In all fairness, what took place when Luther took his scalpel to the Eucharistic and other prayers of the mass, all references to "sacrifice" were rather ruthlessly excised. Including any use of the word sacrifice in terms of any thing we "offer" even as part of a the phrase "sacrifice of praise". And this allergy to the idea continues to this day in confessional Lutheranism (there was a debate in putting together either the LSB or its immediate predecessor as to whether to reference "sacrifice of praise"- conclusion was no). In any event, I think Catholics are referring exactly to the aversion of any concept of 're-presentation" of the Sacrifice of Calvary - although you rightly point out that the "benefits" of the Sacrifice of Calvary are understood as made available (and, in that sense, re-presented , so what's the beef - distinction without a significant difference to me) as a Lutheran receives communion. As for the downward directionality as "gift " in Lutheran liturgical theology that you often refer to , what is missing from your characterization of Catholicism is that the Eucharistic action is viewed as bidirectional and what is first given to us by God as gift is then offered back to God as sacrifice (and many of the offertory prayers explicitly say this very thing). An rough analogy would be to prevenient grace. And that concept existed at the time of Trent, but in fairness to you, I acknowledge that clearly the downward gift has been greatly re-emphasized since V2. Trent of course was focused on condemning the opposition to the idea of an "sacrificial offering" which Catholics continue to affirm and which the reformed Liturgy references (not to the degree or emphasis that would satisfy radical traditionalists but that is another story).
Dr. Cooper, I so often see people converting to Roman Catholicism who, if they had been aware of Protestantism outside of the reformed or evangelical tradition, would never have become Catholic. A lot of the misconceptions you point out here reflect this conflation of all Protestantism with the reformed.
In light of this, do you think the term “Protestant” is worth trying to hang on to? I find when I have conversations with Roman Catholic brothers it requires so much disambiguation that it becomes an unhelpful term. I have seen others say that it is unhelpful to define ourselves by an oppositional term.
Thanks for all your videos!
Growing up Lutheran and in confirmation class I was tought to vehemently reject the term Protestant. "Protestsnts" are Calvinist and Reformed both of whom reject the real presence of Christ 's body and blood in the Sacrement. Lutherans are the return to the catholic ( one true universal) church from the errors of the RCC.
A few other ones I hear from Catholics as well as secualrists, are Luther rejected private confession, Luther did not believe in free will, Luther wanted everyone to read the Bible and decide for themselves what it meant, and Lutheranism rejected the scholastic method.
I am a Charismatic. I go to the Lutheran church because I believe it has the most biblical doctrine of the sacraments.
Interesting
Why don't you become Lutheran?
Good to see that you value sacraments. Cause charismatic churches don't believe in the Bible passages that clearly explain that baptism and eucharist are sacraments
Guess you never read the fathers huh.
@@the1allahprays2 Real Lutherans love the fathers
I wish we had a Dr Cooper where I live. My old ELCA was nothing like this. This is content that I would gladly pay $ to inject into my veins. Apostolic fathers, Luther, the Bible, moral law, tradition, philosophy, history, art, culture, with Jesus Christ at the Center holding the worldview together. Awesome content.
I think Lutheran eucharistic sacrifice is more in line with Eastern Orthodoxy (and even more so with the Anglican Prayerbook). People just need to realize that with "eucharistic sacrifice," as with "real presence," Rome's views are a particular expression of a general species (which we all share).
Please do continue on this topic, it needs a lot more attention than it gets.
The Orthodox has retained the 7 sacraments, including eucharist and holy orders, according to the Catholic and Orthodox. Therefore your statement is incorrect.
@@karpov7233 what does the number of the sacraments have to do with how we define sacrifice?
@@karpov7233 sacrament and mystery aren't the same things
@karpov The Orthodox have different understanding of what is offered in the Eucharist from the Roman Church. Yes, they both affirm/uphold a "sacrificing priesthood", but.. so do Anglicans/Lutherans if there are more options on the table than just Rome's: propitiatory sacrifice of the body and blood to appease the wrath of the Father on behalf of the living and dead (purgatory).
@@karpov7233 Lutherans officially don't hold to a precise tally of sacraments, but rather rely upon the definition of a sacrament as given by St. Augustine: a sacrament is an outward sign of grace instituted by the union of element and Word. Thus, the Eucharist has the elements of wine and bread which are united to the Word in the Words of Institution. Baptism unites the Word with the water. The issue then becomes what are the elements in the other sacraments and how are they understood. There is no element in Holy Orders, therefore it is a holy ordinance but not a sacrament. Confession and Absolution are viewed by Lutherans as part of Baptism: it is the remembrance of the promises made by God to the believer in Baptism. Marriage contains no element (a ring for example is not a requirement for a marriage) and therefore is not a sacrament though it is a holy ordinance. Extreme unction or healing might be sacramental if there is the anointing with oil. When joined with prayer and the Word to the oil it would be sacramental in nature. However, this is like Confession, it is viewed as being under the sacramental cover of Baptism. Confirmation is , obviously also under Baptism, as the rite is literally called Confirmation (or Affirmation) of Baptism.
I’ve also heard Roman Catholics refer to Lutherans as “Catholic Lite.”
Lutherans got rid of a lot fatty Roman liturgical and theological fads. We went on a Diet of Worms.
We also refer to Anglicans as “Catholic lite” as well. Any of the main line Protestants that still carry “some” of the sacraments with them.
When one of my friends heard I was Lutheran as opposed to Catholic, his immediate response was "Ah, Lutheranism - half the guilt, none of the saints." Not strictly accurate, but I like the quippiness involved.
@@ottovonbaden6353 haha, I can definitely relate! I was raised a Roman Catholic. But, during my college years, I discovered Martin Luther. I had discovered him in high school, but it didn’t hit me as hard as it did in college. But as I studied Luther more and read some of his documents, I was finding myself gravitating towards him so much so that I was starting to question Roman Catholicism. From that point on, I would embark on a spiritual journey for the next about 6 years (2017-present). Though I don’t officially identify as a Lutheran, I definitely identify as a Protestant. But suffice to say, Martin Luther has impacted my spiritual life significantly!
With that said, I can’t tell you how many times my Roman Catholic family has tried to evangelize to me by stating a false statement about Luther in which I refute. It’s as if Luther is public enemy number 1 to Catholics. While there are many theories as to why they would do that, I think one reason is because deep down they know he’s right about a lot of things. But they’ll never admit to it.
But at least I’ve seen the light! And my prayer is that more Roman Catholics will too!
@@simonsemaan5043 You would rather follow a 15th century ex-Catholic priest, than the apostles and the church.
Christ commanded His apostles and their successors and no one else, not Luther, not Calvin, not Zwingli, not Knox, or any other individual, to....
"...go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
"I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
🍞 🍷 ATTN DR. COOPER.. How much are Adolf Hoeneckes 3 volume set of Lutheran Dogmatics? Where can I buy them?
Very good, thank you.
This was very helpful. I really enjoy the comparisons you do between Lutheran theology and other theological approaches. Canonically I’m RC, but inwardly I’m very much drawn to the confessional Lutheran emphasis on sola fide and the primacy of scripture. I associate the “joy of the gospel” with justification by faith as understood within Lutheranism.
The church has the true sacrament of confession, that can truly absolve you of your sins and put you in a state of grace. No other church have this.
Only a Catholic priest (thru apostolic succession) can absolve sins and consecrate a communion host, even angels cannot do these.
We are all responsible for what we do, because we have free will to choose to sin or not. There is no license to sin (once saved always saved), that is absurd.
"If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and remain in his love"
Follow Christ and His apostles, not a 15th century ex-Catholic priest who rejected all teachings of the church and created his own version of Christianity with his sola fide and sola scriptura.
St Jacinta of Fatima: "If men only know what awaits them in eternity they would do everything in their power to change their lives."
Your soul depends on what you choose. Be very careful. Eternity awaits all of us.
Faith and reason must come together.
There are massive scriptural issues with sola fide.
@jamesrey3221 I do not know if you know this or not, but your pope is not a Christian. This is not my opinion alone. Most Catholics know this. A person is not anything in the true church without a confession of faith. What has a non-believer to do with my salvation.
Should I confess to a priest like Biship Barron who said that Christ is not the only way to salvation? Bishop Barron said all men have a reasonable hope of salvation regardless of their God. Is that the reason you demand we add to our faith in Christ?
Finally, you mention the catholic superstition Fatima. That is Mariology, which is Idolatry. I say sir, must we believe that Mary is "co-redemptorist" in order to be saved?! Must we rob Christ of his glory in order to be saved?!
It is you sir, who should weigh his religion.
@@roypanwitz9166 Like I said, you follow Luther, who was an ex Catholic priest, who was not even divinely inspired.
Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, John Knox, etc. are mere men who rejected the church, established by Christ and His apostles.
Who are they compared to the saints of the church who truly reformed the church from within, saints with heroic virtues and holiness.
St. Francis of Assisi (1181-1226):
Francis received a message from God, saying, "Rebuild my church, which is in ruins." He did so through the simplicity and poverty of life, reforming the way of life of clergy and religious.
St. Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556):
Ignatius founded the Jesuits with the aim of proclaiming the Gospel in charity and truth, placing an emphasis on interior renewal.
St. Philip Neri (1515 - 1595):
Neri is known as the "Third Apostle of Rome" and was known for reforming the Church hierarchy through spiritual renewal.
St. Teresa of Ávila (1515-1582):
Teresa worked hard to return the cloister of religious life back to its simplicity and poverty, eliminating many abuses.
There are hundreds of Catholics saints, with extreme holiness, who dedicated their life to Christ.
@@jamesrey3221Every Saint you just mentioned was not holy enough to save themselves. I also agree that Luther was not holy enough to save himself. Neither are you and me. The unbelieving pope cannot save himself.
It is the divinely excellent righteousness of Christ that I follow. It is your unbelief that causes you to look for righteousness elsewhere; like pope, Mary, Saint, yourself, purgatory, etc. Anything you set beside Christ as part of your salvation is Idolatry. Why must you insist that the only true church is the one that engages in Idolatry?
Can you make a video about the history of when and how the European Lutheran churches went so wrong? Especially the Nordic episcopal ones, most of which seem to be barely even christian today.
That would be an interesting historical study I agree
I don't understand why they say Luther started his own church and he should have tried to reform from within. Luther was ex-communicated. He DID try to reform from within. But he didn't just give up after being ex-communicated. We may have never heard of him had they not ex-communicated him.
Excommunication doesn't mean damned to hell or that he can't come back, but because he was teaching error and refused to recant, then he needed to be excommunicated. The problem after is instead of submitting to church authority he used the situation to aggrandize himself and gain political power. There have been numerous reformers within the Catholic Church, some even persecuted, but they always submitted to church authority.
Thanks for this video! I'm quite sympathetic to the Catholic church (as a medieval historian who enjoys the wealth of semantic ritual explorations, such as Miri Rubin's Corpus Christi or Eamon Duffy's work) but you make some excellent points, especially the presence of the body of Christ and sola scriptura as not rejecting tradition per se! Great stuff
Yeah but they kind of still reject so much of tradition.
I was so confused when I found out that protestants are allowed to marry and be priests at the same time.
And even here in germany the only churches that have something divine about them are the catholic ones, including those the protestants took over.
Its definitely much more plain and simple and I really do think it is sad that it is that way
@@awuriefnejqwjmnwn4960 False. We only reject tradition that goes against scripture. Regarding clerical celibacy, scripture is clear that priests/pastors are allowed (even encouraged) to marry:
Paul writes in 1 Tim 3:2
"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;"
In 1 Cor 9:5, he writes
"Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?"
By the Roman church mandating celibacy for priests, they're undermining the authority of scripture, establishing their own rules and doctrine. Again, we value tradition, however, only the word of God is infallible and its authority is superior to that of the church tradition. It is evident church tradition isn't infallible. That is why Roman catholic tradition has changed so much over the years. It is not the same as the early church. In many regards, Lutheranism is closest to the early church.
The majority of Lutheran churches, even in America, are liturgical, reverent and divine. The Divine Service is not very different from Roman Catholic Mass because we inherited the same liturgical tradition.
You must be looking at the few that have opted for a more modern approach.
@@electric336 in the same chapter you quoted, Paul goes on to say that even though he believes to have the right, he does not partake in any of the things listed above.
1 corinthians 6:12
"Everything is permissible to me - but not everything is beneficial. everything is permissible to me -- but I will not be mastered by anything"
Just because god allows it, does not mean it should be done. Men dedicated solely to god and his works follow pauls example.
@@awuriefnejqwjmnwn4960 False again. He says that 3 chapters earlier, unrelated to the verse I provided of him claiming he has the right to marry. Multiple disciples had wives, even Peter, likely the head apostle, who you believe is the first Pope. Are you now going to say he should have stayed celibate? Instead of following the teachings of the apostles, the Roman Catholic church thinks it knows better than the apostles and creates their own additional doctrine, sometimes directly contrary to the word of God.
If someone has the gift of celibacy, or someone wants to make that decision to remain celibate, let him do so. But to place that requirement on all clergy is clearly unbiblical as I've shown.
Also, show some respect to the Lord and capitalize his name.
May God have mercy on us.
@@electric336 Well i have never heared of an apostle getting married after jesus died.
1 Cor 7:32-34 is a pretty clear recommendation by Paul
The church wants to serve god to the best of its ability, so the recommendation became the requirement.
This is just common sense to me, everyone knows women are a distraction.
The priests are also required to live a humble lifestyle and not accumulate worldly riches.
This is all just about full dedication, imitating jesus and his apostles.
Thank you. God's peace be with you
Interesting video... but now I have more questions :D
Ad 1. Can anyone bring about the Real Presence of Christ in a slice of bread and a cup of wine if he believes or wants to? Who decides when and how citing words from one of the gospel's description of the last supper actually works?
Ad. 3 If Sola Scriptura still supersedes the Tradition, how one's reading and interpreting the Biblie "from a blank slate" - as You put it - is not more authoritative than any fallible interpretative tradition?
Ad 4. Did the first Church or Church Fathers believe in Sola Scriptura?
Very helpful
Very good that you take clear stands on things like the real presence. Some lutherans that I know have lost that faith.
However I never understood this consubstantiation thing and you seem incoherent when switching between "when I say 'the body of Christ'" and "received in the mouth". I understood that when you say "The body of Christ", elevating a host, but then the host falls to the ground, then you dispose of it as "just bread". So this "real" presence is really very spiritual...
The first myth i see very often, even in Newman's book he commite the error to associate memorialism as the Lutheran position.
When asked about transubstantiation, Roman priests admit that if you sneak some off to a chemical lab, it'll test as bread and wine. For my part, therefore, I can't distinguish what Catholics mean by transubstantiation from the Lutheran formula that the Body and Blood are present under the form of bread and wine.
I note too that the command is "Take and eat; take and drink" not "Take and understand".
i am Roman Catholic,and Luthern is an off shoot of the Catholic faith. so there is alot of common threads of both faiths. but Luthern is prostant and Anglican is also an off shoot of Roman Ctholic, but there is low Anglican and high Anglican. But with me i can still go to a Luthern church and go to a service, and learn. but with me doesn't matter what faith you have Catholic or Luthern as long you understand what is being said.i like asking questions and i am not ignorant of something i don't understand. i ask why it is and intersting on the answers i get. i have done some homework on Luthern faith,so i understand on what dr. cooper is talking about.
Do you also believe, like them, that you need "blessed" bread and wine, to go to heaven (as in, are Presbyterians and Baptists lost if they don't take the Lord's supper your way). Curious question, not hostile at all (it reads a bit like that, sorry)
It is interesting that Luther (who is often compared more to the church fathers than to the scholastics for his emphasis on preaching over systematics) would manifest the equally Patristic character of a Neoplatonist vis-à-vis the late medieval Aristotelianism.
We see this distinction played out in even how modern Orthodox (unfairly, but still notably) demarcate East and West: the scientific approach to theology vs. the mystical/narratival approach.
I am very defensive of Protestant scholasticism as such (particularly as it safeguards Christian Realism against modernist theology)... *but* not being an academic type myself, instead an artist (and a bit of mystic; intuition over precision, etc.) I've found myself being drawn more towards Neoplatonism and that reading of Luther.
There is nothing wrong with a moreso "scientific" (or, dare I say, "scholastic") approach to expositing the Scriptures and laying out the dogmas of the Church. St. John of Damascus among the Greeks and St. Isidore of Seville among the Latins are both prime examples of this in the undivided Church. The Greeks did not altogether abandon this way of doing theology after the schism either; St. Gennandius Scholarius (d. 1473) and St. Mark of Ephesus (d. 1439) are especially notable for this.
And it's not like the Latins were entirely scholastic either. Thomas Aquinas and the Victorine School are notable for their scholastic endeavors, but there is a treasury of mysticism in the post-schism West especially in Bernard and the Cistercan Fathers. Bonaventure is a sort of interesting bridge between the Latin mystics and scholastics, just as St. Nicholas Cabasilas (d. 1392) is for us in the Orthodox Church.
I meant to add, I believe a balance between the two is proper. Orthodoxy is perhaps best known for its mysticism as that is most often emphasized in response to the scholastic rigorism of neo-Thomism or Protestant systematic theology. The Orthodox also have Catechisms, for one, and are not afraid of arranging theology in a neat and orderly way.
Catholicism and Protestantism, in my opinion, have both dumped the scale between the two. In Rome you most often get scholasticism to the exclusion of mysticism (such as in neo-Thomist circles) or mysticism to the exclusion of scholastcsm (seen in the zealots of modern devotionals, like Divine Mercy and Sacred Heart). In Protestantisim it's usually dogmatic systemization to the exclusion of mysticism (Calvinism especially comes to mind) or pseudo-mysticism bereft of dogmata (you now who I have in mind).
@@evaneparat Right ok from the iconoclastic heretics......
@@evaneparat How many saints do you have since you split from us?
Oh that's right ZERO!
@Evan E. Parat Yeah, my point is more that there is a distinctive character to one approach over the other, and postulating that personality types might play into emphasis (I defend Scholasticism as such, while not having that sort of "mind", myself). I'm not making a value judgement.
The two natures of Christ analogy is why people refer to the Lutheran view as consubstantiation.
17:26 I already commented on Kant.
Perhaps he was after all of Lutheran heritage, since his family was from Curonia.
But for the rest, I pretty much accept your position, also that of Chesterton, that Luther's Anti-Aristotelianism was less Nominalist than Hyper-Platonic.
Chesterton when it came to Baptism of Aristotle actually examplified what you would mean by a development getting more and more skewed and then getting corrected. But of course, philosophy is not theology itself, one could obviously find theologians ignoring philosophy and so even in the wake of St. Thomas having no harm from hyperplatonism.
Meanwhile, I find Bishop Tempier's philosophy from 1277 very attractive. He pretty much avoided entering into frontal conflict with St. Thomas.
The closest they came was St. Thomas saying _in fact_ angels are individuated by different species, since they have no matter, and Bishop Tempier condemning the proposition God _could not_ in principle have made it otherwise.
And Nominalism was more active in forming Humanism, than in forming either Luther or St. Ignatius directly. Of Loyola, I mean. And yes, both were more Humanist than Thomist in their overall cultural outlook, and yes, the Humanist "satius est bene velle quam verum nosse" as per Petrarch does owe sth to Nominalism.
I've asked Missouri Lutherans if they believe in the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and they told me no.
I read the Lutheran Little Catechism and it read to me as if they should believe in the Eucharist.
The LCMS does affirm the real presence of Christ, and those Lutherans should indeed believe in it. Simply attending a Lutheran church does not mean that they were well catechized. Also, membership within a church does not necessarily equal agreement with it. For example, there are many modern Catholics who support the use of birth control despite the Church’s clear condemnation of it.
@@jacobjuelfs9232 The difference is that, Catholics using artificial birth control is commiting a sin. A sin that breaks a relationship with God. The church is not a democracy.
Catholics who do not obey the church are out of church and in some cases when it regards to faith and morals, they are commiting sin.
There are consequences for disobeying the church.
@@jacobjuelfs9232 I agree (we haven "catholic" pro-abortion Biden, Pelosi, and 84 other politicians.)
I'd be interested how you asked the question/in what context
The one or two "Lutherans" you talked to aren't a representation of Lutheranism. Well catechized Lutherans know that Christ's body and blood is truly present in the Eucharist.
I really want to explore Lutheranism. I have been following this channel for awhile and it makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately I don't have a Lutheran church next to me. I don't know where to start.
If there isn't a Lutheran church close to you you can attend an Anglican church, they're very similar.
I'd say start with the Lutheran catechisms and the Augsburg Confession👍
look up Issues etc. It's a Lutheran talk radio show. Dr. Cooper has been featured on it several times. They talk about a lot of topics, but if you want to just explore Lutheran theology, look up "lutheran distinctives" and they have some good episodes. And as Sam said, the catechisms and the Augsburg Confession essential reading :)
RUclips channels:
"Bryan Wolfmueller"
"Higher Things"
"Ask the Pastor (with Pastor Sullivan)"
Type in "daily chapel" and you can follow a daily Lutheran word service ( either communion), I think the channel is " THE LCMS"
And of course "Lutheran Satire"
Look up "Augsburg Confession" and "confessional Lutheranism"
Avoid at all cost the "ELCA"
@@truthisbeautiful7492 thank you very much, I will follow your advice. I have been wondering for 5 years now. I have been asking lot of questions about Bible, Church fathers, Church traditions and doctrines. This Channel was really helpful. It answered to my questions and objections. I just wish to join a Lutheran Church. Unfortunately I have none in my area. I will follow your advice until I am able to join one.
To clarify important teaching that the Catholic Church has in regard to the Eucharist is that, not only does it contain the body and blood of Jesus Christ, but it also contains His soul and divinity; therefore, when we receive Communion, we receive God in His entirety.
Well of course! You can't divide the two natures in Christ; Lutheran's aren't Nestorian, though some others might lean that way.
Dr. Cooper, do you believe that Protestant unity (in essentials) is possible today, considering first the historic denominations of (confessional) Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican? If not, why not? And if not, does this not in truth validate the constant criticisms of our antagonists, give more credibility to the positions that they advance, divest the word Protestant of any significant meaning, make it much harder "to have a seat at the table" in any context, diminish the greatness and extent of the historic event itself in the eyes of our contemporaries, and what is more, quench that Spirit and power by which it was maintained and advanced? Btw, appreciate the channel.
3:00 in, just use the ol’ BOTH AND that gets used frequently in Catholic arguments.
As to your first point, how can Lutheran ministers cause Transubstantiation without Holy Orders, whose power is founded in Apostolic Succession?
They can't.
@@georgepierson4920 Exactly.
Why do you think Lutherans believe in transubstantion? Lutherans don't believe in transubstantion, which is contrary to Scripture, 1 Corinthians chapter 11 which says bread is in the Lord's Supper several times.
Is it an accurate shorthand to say that Lutheranism is Catholicism without the over-explanations and accretions as Gavin O puts it?
Ex Lutheran who became Catholic here... Most Catholics I know simply don't know what Lutherans believe, but for some reason they all think it ain't as bad as baptists or Reformed... ;-)
It's not as bad as Baptists and it is more faithful to Catholicism than Rome, ;).
@@pete3397 I am sure most confessional Lutherans would think so
From my experience with Catholics, that's true. I think a lot of their misinformation comes from rad trads who use Protestant and Baptist interchangeably. Which is very much a lie, even in secular classes I was taught the main issue Luther had was indulgences and purgatory (more so indulgences mind you) you would think something like the Eucharist would be brought up as well.
@@pete3397 Can you explain or give an example about "it's not as bad as Baptists"?
@@soulosxpiotov7280 Sacraments, liturgy, proper use of tradition without the heterodox views of Marian dogma adopted by Rome, nor the semi-Pelagianism favored by the East. In short, it is what is truly catholic and orthodox in the Church.
WHEN are you going to update your anti-Book of Abraham video?
Luther flatly denied sacrifice of the Mass. In his own words:
Where is it written, that the mass is a sacrifice, or where has Christ taught that one should offer consecrated bread and wine to God? Do you not hear? Christ has sacrificed himself once [Heb. 7:27; 9:25-26]; henceforth he will not be sacrificed by anyone else. He wishes us to remember his sacrifice. Why are you then so bold as to make a sacrifice out of this remembrance? Is it possible that you are so foolish as to act upon your own devices, without any scriptural authority? (Luther: The Misuse of the Mass, English translation from Luther's Works, Vol. 36, pp. 136-137)
"to remember Christ sacrifice" is not the same with "sacrifice of the Mass".
Luther was trained as an Augustinian and so you'd expect him to be a bit of a Platonist because St Augustine was more in tune with Plato than Aristotle.
Dear Dr. Cooper,
I have a couple of responses to what Catholics have come to understand as the beliefs of Lutherans. With regard to the Lutheran understanding of the Eucharist, I noticed that you didn’t bring up the term ‘consubstantiation’. Over the years I have picked up from both Anglicans and Catholics that Lutherans believed in ‘consubstantiation’. But, another Lutheran apologist I have listened to, refuted this belief. You do emphasize that communicants receive the Body and Blood of Christ. Why, then, is there this wordy, confusing, and what seems to be a contradictory explanation that the Body and Blood of Christ are in, with, and, under the two elements? Surely this explanation obscures the plain meaning of the words of institution. It seems to me that our belief in the real presence needs no further explanation. It simply is; leave it at that. The Orthodox leave it as a Mystery. Once we attempt to reason it out, its meaning is limited. I will give an imperfect example of what I mean. The Holy Eucharist is full of symbols which are integral to worship. Some clergy fall into the trap of explaining some of the symbols in the course of the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. Their motivation is to increase the understanding of the congregation. But, there is so much more to symbols in the context of worship. Their appeal is to the whole man, not just his intellect. They lift man into the numinous and the realm of the transcendent. There is a time and place to gain a greater understanding of symbols, but it should never be at the expense of the act of worship. The analogy is imperfect. My point is that we should leave the words of institution alone and not diminish the mystery of their reality. Western Christianity, I believe, would do well to follow the reticence of Eastern Christianity to explain away and flatten the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist.
I expect that you have dealt with the following topic, but, if not, perhaps you would take it up. The topic is the authority of Holy Scripture in relationship to the authority of contemporary experience. As you well know the authority of Holy Scripture has been overturned in some areas by various churches. One sees this in some Anglican Churches, some Methodist Churches, some Lutheran Churches, and there are similar movements within the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches, et cetera. It is clear that a new version of Christianity is in the making with this ascendant authority of contemporary experience over Holy Scripture.
Sincerely In Christ Jesus,
Larry Lewis
Ontario, Canada.
Re your point, "The Orthodox leave it as a Mystery. Once we attempt to reason it out, its meaning is limited." This is exactly true, and the reason why the Lutheran description of what's going on in the Eucharist is wordy is because it is a mystery and can't really be defined. It's not transubstantiation, it's not consubstantiation--it's the mystical union which cannot be perfectly put into words. We just get wordy because we don't want others to think that it's something it isn't.
14:00 What we would say is, all of the Church Fathers on some points disagreed with what Martin Luther said.
Jordan, perhaps you can answer this question: while a monk, did Luther believe the Catholic Church was the True Church founded by Jesus Christ?
_"if you're talking __14:17__ about the treasury of Merit or __14:18__ indulgences or communing only in one __14:21__ kind __14:23__ um the authority of the papacy __14:25__ especially in the early centuries of the __14:27__ church it's certainly in the way that __14:28__ the late medieval Church formulated it __14:29__ if you look at many of these doctrines __14:32__ and many of these practices it becomes __14:34__ very clear that on on some of these __14:36__ points the early church very clearly __14:39__ agreed with where the Lutheran __14:41__ Reformation"_
I'd grant you one point of practise : Communion under one kind.
Indulgences, the early fathers certainly thought certain prayers and alms indulgenced, as the Orthodox do.
Authority of the papacy, see II Clement.
Treasury of merit, well, even supposing you could not find it in the early Church, you have it in Scripture.
*Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:*
[Colossians 1:24]
16:59 Would you mind showing a doctrinal tradition of post-Trent Rome, which did not exist in pre-Trent Rome?
Centralism is obviously a disciplinary trait, like Usuardus in 1490's was not in as wide or universal a use as Martyrologium Romanum in 1584.
15:26 _"It's not that we left Rome, but that Rome left us."_
For Archbishop Lefebvre or Pope Michael I, you can realistically make that kind of claim.
You point to the century preceding the acts which on some one or perhaps both sides were schismatic (Pope Michael I would say that both Archbishop Lefenvre consecrating bishops and Antipope Wojyla forbidding them in 1988 were people in objective schism or soon entering into it, even if the consecrations are valid).
For Luther, it is impossible to point to the previous century, unless you do so to Hussites, already in schism, and for them it was impossible to point to the previous century without pointing to Waldensians which are now Calvinists or Albigensians which were identified as Manichaeans. So, definitely not in the Church.
12:27 Where this assessment falls apart is in the concept of the Church laid out. St. Paul's epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians are rife with the language of the Church as a body, the very body of Christ, over which He is the Head and Master. A body is a tangible, incarnate thing, not pure spirit or a collection of ideas or a puff of breath. Yes, there is a layer of analogy here, but the Holy Eucharist is also referred to by our Lord and Master Himself as His true body, and no catechized Lutheran would deny such. The Apostle is conveying a somatic or bodily nature to the Church, just as Christ took upon Himself the human nature at the Annunciation and clothed Himself with flesh, and three-decades later wedded Himself to Her at the wooden altar on Calvary. What we confess of the Church we also confess of Her Bridegroom.
Lutherans were not a part of that body, let alone any body following the excommunications of 1521 and subsequent diets. Whether that was voluntary or involuntary is ancillary and does not alter the substance of the conversation. Luther was excommunicated, that is, he was barred from partaking in the body of Christ which is reserved for the body of Christ. Lutheranism exited the Roman Church as a movement, an ideology, a puff of breath, and has remained in like state throughout its existence. The early Church, similar to the Roman Church, was also a body, not a conglomeration of doctrines.
Melanchthon mentions a similar sort of critique in Apologia VI:20 (presumably a charge floated out by Eck, though I haven't found it in his 404 Theses or Confutation), that Lutheranism adopts a Platonic ideology. Sadly, Melanchthon dismisses it without much of any rebuttal.
22:11 Was Immanuel Kant a Lutheran?
Wasn't he Calvinist?
12:41 A problem with this so-called Reform Movement.
A) It supposes an error had already crept in, long ago, leaving no certain trace of the corresponding truth apart from the Bible text itself, which is contrary to the Bible.
B) It was excommunicated by Bishops while having no bishops and while preserving no bishops as the Catholic Church understands these (according to the traditional and therefore also better Biblical understanding).
Can you do a video on "5 reasons why I am not Jehovah Witness" ?
4:34 No, since the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice, and you refuse to believe that, the accusation is not a myth. Here I cite your source:
_"Moreover, the proximate species of sacrifice are two, and there are no more. One is the propitiatory sacrifice, i.e., a work which makes satisfaction for guilt and punishment, i.e., one that reconciles God, or appeases God’s wrath, or which merits the remission of sins for others. The other species is the eucharistic sacrifice, which does not merit the remission of sins or reconciliation, but is rendered by those who have been reconciled, in order that we may give thanks or return gratitude for the remission of sins that has been received, or for other benefits received."_
Sed contra est:
John 19:36. As the disciple John identifies Christ on the Cross (Who died for our sins) with the Paschal Lamb (Which is eaten), he showed that the Eucharist is the same sacrifice as the Crucifixion, from the point of view of essence, as God sees it.
This means both sacrifices (different to our eyes) are at the same time both propitiatory and what the book of concord calls eucharistic.
That the sacrifice of Calvary was Eucharistic is clear from the final words. Of the seven words, the three that are given as final or quasi-final by diverse Gospellers are all eucharistic.
1) Into thy hands = confidence in providence, citation of a psalm.
*Into thy hands I commend my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O Lord, the God of truth.*
[Psalms 30:6]
Our Lord is celebrating and giving thanks for having won Resurrection for Himself, for His physical body, and deliverance from sin for His mystical body, the Church.
2) *Eloi* is also citing a psalm, where a subsequent verse actually mentions the Eucharist.
3) *Consummatum est* means He is thanking the Father for having fulfilled all necessary for our salvation.
If the sacrifice of Calvary can be eucharistic, so also can the sacrifice of the Mass be propitiatory.
As for the objections against "ex opere operato" from that text of yours, the writers are forgetting that the MAIN celebrant of the Mass is Jesus. Precisely as in Baptism, where you rightly DO acknowledge it leads to forgiveness of sins ex opere operato (or without much difference, even if you would reject the phrase).
There's also the classic " Luther remove books from the bible". This one is funnier since there was no close cannon at the time in the west
8:13 There is a big difference between an individual pastor, shepherding part of the Church, and anything that claims to have authority over all of the Church.
If my immediate curate were an Old Earth Creationist, God could clearly keep His promise by having elsewhere another pastor who is Young Earth Creationist.
This is by the way a reason why CCC is at least presumable argument against "John Paul II" being pastor of all the Church, since it was issued under him and basically ties its readers down to Old Earth, or even Theistic Evolution.
Fortunately, by 1992, other people than he were claimed to be Pope, both the Palmarian and the first Conclavist one were already in place. And both of these were Young Earth Creationist and fairly explicit about it. "Gregorio XVII" was just Young Earth Creationist, but Pope Michael I was also Geocentric.
What about tradition? What if we look at the Bible for advice on tradition? Hmm... Gosh it looks like Jeremiah had to tell us about such topics. What did God tell us about tradition, rituals, through his servant Jeremiah? God said it is worthless and he hates it. Please someone correct me if I am wrong.
I understand the presence of Christ I still believe it’s slightly different then transubstantiation. How do you hold the priesthood without apostolic succession? Asking in good faith
They can't. They even changed the words of consecration. Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of me" where as in a Lutheran service, their pastor will say, "Do this for the remembrance of me".
One protestant myth about roman catholicism: that works cause justification
Do you have any videos or podcast on the sacrifices of the mass? I have often heard that Lutherans radically Depart from the catholic faith by their rejection of the sacrifice of the mass for the living and the dead.
ruclips.net/video/PBn--yNPpfM/видео.html
They do. St. Isidore of Seville, among other Holy Fathers, identifies the sacrifice of the mass as a tradition handed down by the Apostles in his On the Ecclesiastical Offices.
@@evaneparat without apostolic succession thru an ordained priest how can you celebrate a Holy Mass.
Even angels cannot consecrate a communion host, only a Catholic priest can.
@@jamesrey3221 My comment was in response to the last sentence of the original comment. I.e. "They do [radically depart from the catholic faith by their rejection of the sacrifice. . . .]"
@@jamesrey3221Would you accept a mass from the current pope? Is your blind catholic succession more important than Christianity? For the sake of succession, will you hold onto your pontif as he drags you into hell? Dear sir, come out of this catholic cult!
16:39 If you speak of Vatican II-ism, especially for the last three of its Popes, it is clear that if I don't want a Church founded in 1522, I also don't want a Church founded in 1962--65 by Aggiornamento, or a Church founded in the early 1990's by the Anti-Fundamentalist positions of CCC and "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church"
Martin Luther, an EX CATHOLIC wanted to reform the Catholic church but took it too far. He began the great division in the church in the 16th century .He believed he was inspired by God and that no one could criticize his ideas. He was a narcissist...he said " In a 1000 years no bishop has been bestowed with such gifts as God has bestowed upon me". He said he is certain that he has received his dogmas from heaven …..he said " I am the prophet of the Germans ". But the fact is he followed the teachings of Henry of Ockham.
He started translating the bible from Greek without having any knowledge of Greek .He translated the " man is justified by faith " into " man is justified by faith alone " he added the word " alone " by himself .When someone criticized him for that he replied " Doctor Martin Luther translates it that way and that's how I want it."....over 1400 errors were found in his translation .He excluded certain books from the bible by his own authority …..he said the epistle of James is nothing more than straw because it does not present any evangelical character. Regarding the book of revelation he said that he does not find anything apostolic or prophetic in this book. He commissioned rude paintings of the pope of that time and got it published ( is that the conduct of a holy man ….a man inspired by God ?). When he blessed people he would say "
May the Lord fill you with his blessing and hatred for the pope.
( Is that a blessing ? Or a curse?)
On marriage he said that marriage is mandatory ….that woman was not created to be a wife but to beget children they only serve for marriage or prostitution. He said he hates divorce so much that he prefers bigamy. He allowed prince Phillip to have 2 wives and justified it based on the bible and when people found out he lied and said that one was his concubine and not his wife.
He loved the virgin Mary and said she was the tender mother of God ….in his dining room He had the crucifix and and image of Mary holding the infant Jesus .He accepted baptism and the real presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. He later said that Lutheranism was no better than catholicism
Everything you said here means nothing. Absolutely nothing at all. Do you believe that Jesus Christ completely saved you from your sins through his death on the cross and resurrection? Or must you add something for you to be justified? We Lutherans believe Christ has saved us in full. And we also believe He gave us his Holy Spirit as a gift in Christ's name to sanctify us, so with the help of His Holy Spirit we may live God pleasing lives.
@@roypanwitz9166 it means everything...it means Martin Luther corrupted the bible and that protestants are reading a corrupted bible and are being led astray ....no wonder they BLASPHEME the mother of their God and ask silly questions like " call no man father " and " you are saved by faith alone " and a host of heretical things .....Satan whispered in Luther's ear and the protestants have forever been lost as children of God not realising that everyday they sin against God by not believing in the true presence of Jesus Christ Himself in the Holy Eucharist.....the fundamentals of Christianity .....they believe in a corrupted bible.....I pity them.when they go to hell and those that tried end up in purgatory a place they vehemently deny .....how ironic .....do you know what that means to your soul ....you people need to be saved .....Satan tricked you lot .....hook Line and sinker ....and you fell for it
" NOT EVERYONE WHO SAYS LORD LORD WILL BE SAVED " that my friend is Jesus's own words
Take heed and think about it and convert .....you have been led astray by the father of all lies and you people are doomed .
@chommie5350 The devil whispered in your ear, "Mary is co-redemptorist". Come out of that detestable cult and believe in Christ alone.
The devil whispered in your ear, "You need purgatory because Christ is not enough". Please come out of that detestable catholic cult that is half pagan.
We should pray for each other, and pray we find the truth.
@@roypanwitz9166 is the truth in a sect that started 1600 years after Christ?
@@roypanwitz9166 What was stated above is indeed worth something. Don’t you realize that Luther added and removed words from Holy Scripture to make it seem to agree with his new theology?
HKBP church is the largest lutheran church in Asia. As a lutheran, in our church we really closed one another, yes because we embrace traditional culture (ours). However, i disagree with some doctrine in our church, that is about the Baptism. Sadly, they quote Jesus replies to His disciple to let the children to me. Our Baptism isn't about REPENTANCE, yet it is about to be a member of the church. I haven't got immerse baptist yet. It is my desire since 2019.
Second, in my country, many preachers in our church have the same thought. Almost them preach that we are going to heaven. Man, Bible doesn't say to split the verses. The truth we have to prove faith by works and we can work God's commands by Holy Spirit teaching.
I have a few information of Lutheran though I am Lutheran. My daily Gospel preaching i listen to is from Baptism, non demonization, charismatic, calvinist. But I agree with Lutheran
HKBP is an unionist church which consist of Lutheran and Calvinist. Eventhough its liturgy and theology is more Lutheran than Calvinist
6:50 He did reject tradition as we understand it, that is as normative:
_"Behold what great darkness is in the books of the Fathers concerning faith; yet if the article of justification be darkened, it is impossible to smother the grossest errors of mankind. St Jerome, indeed, wrote upon Matthew, upon the Epistles to Galatians and Titus; but, alas! very coldly. Ambrose wrote six books upon the first book of Moses, but they are very poor. Augustine wrote nothing to the purpose concerning faith; for he was first roused up and made a man by the Pelagians, in striving against them. I can find no exposition upon the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, wherein anything is taught pure and aright. O what a happy time have we now in regard to the purity of the doctrine; but alas! we little esteem it. After the Fathers came the pope, and with his mischievous traditions and human ordinances, like a breaking water-cloud and deluge, overflowed the church, snared consciences, touching eating of meat, friars hoods, masses, etc., so that daily he brought abominable errors into the church of Christ; and to serve his own turn, took hold on St Augustine’s sentence, where he says, Evangelio non crederem, etc. The asses could not see what occasioned Augustine to utter that sentence, whereas he spoke it against the Manicheans, as much as to say: I believe you not, for ye are damned heretics, but I believe and hold with the church, the spouse of Christ, which cannot err."_
Table Talks, DXXXVI.
www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/tabletalk.v.xxi.html
Rejecting tradition? That's a case of 'the-pot-calling-the-kettle-black'.
What were Trent and Vatican 2, if not a massive rejection of tradition?
Vatican 2: Electric Boogaloo
And then there's "pope" Francis and his hierarchy waging war on the Traditional Latin Mass and the theology related to it. Not to mention the "popes" since Vatican 2 rejecting the traditional condemnation of worshipping along with non-Christian religions.
I find a lot of Catholics think Sola Fida is anti nomianism.
Roman Catholicism grows out of the early church in the same way that tares grow out of the field of wheat. You can quote me on that.
I can't believe. How is that among the Catholics beliefs is that we denied the Real presence of Jesus during the eucharist? Unbelievable
Luther determined by himself that his canon would exclude the Septuaguint Old Testament and revert back to the Old Testament used by the Pharisees in Jerusalem.
Luther additionally, on his own, questioned four New Testament books: Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation.
Bear in mind, that Christ specifically told St. John that he was to write everything he saw, put it into a book, and give it to the Church.
The use of "the Pharisee's version" v. the Septuagint is merely a preference to use the original Hebrew over the Greek translation. Hard to find fault with that.
@@pete3397 It resulted in the eventual removal of six boBible. Old Testament Scripture from your bible.
@@barbwellman6686 Are you referring to the Apocrypha? Those books were not removed from Luther's original bible. That's an American thing handed down from the Church of England. Some of the Apocryphal texts were not included in the first editions of Luther's Bible because they had not been translated into German and they wanted to get the OT and NT out. Also, please note that Rome used to clearly differentiate the Apocrypha from the OT (whether Septuagint or other) as being of second order. (Side note: the Lutheran Confessions actually use several quotes from Tobit as explanatory for some doctrinal points.)
Judith is obviously a myth passed down among the jews. Sirach is just an egyptian jew writing down his thoughts. Susannah is clearly fanfic, etc; These books are not God-breathed as the books of the Bible are.
Why would you want to introduce the Kaballah into the Bible? You can just go read the Talmud and convert if that's what you'd prefer. The Book of Enoch is great for laughs.
11:55 _Three_ things are God-breathed.
1) The Apostles.
2) Their tradition.
3) The Holy Scriptures.
For item 3, we already agree that 2 Timothy 3:16 is a valid proof text.
For item 1, I offer John 20:22.
For item 2, I offer John 14:26.
So, saying "only Scripture is God-breathed" is anti-Scriptural.
7:51 If the tradition of the Church were capable of error, either one of two.
a) the error is purely adiaphoron (I know you use that word), like if all of the Church had agreed on the shape of the Tower of Babel and today nearly everyone thinks a larger version of a Medieval Donjon or an Ancient Roman Lighthouse is false, most think it was a ziggurat, I think Nimrod planned a rocket project that (thank God) never took off;
b) or the error is essential, and that would mean the gates of Hell had prevailed.
Let's recall. Matthew 28:16--20, Jesus tells His apostles to preach _all_ truth He has revealed, and promises His presence for _all_ days.
This doesn't mean no one in the Church can err, it doesn't even mean _most_ Church men cannot be temporarily lax about a truth (how many have been _Old_ Earth Creationists the last 100 years?), but it does mean that error will not prevail over truth inside all of the Church for even 24 consecutive hours.
In the former case, a Reformation is less needed than a gloss. In the latter case, one has affirmed a proposal that makes Jesus untrue to His promise.
I think your points about the sacrifice of the mass and Platonism go together in a subtle but important way. The Roman Catholic view is that the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice. And passages like this from Augustine can certainly be read in that way:
"Although [Easter each year] is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? And yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true?" (Letter 98.9).
But Augustine was a Platonist, so a better lens through which to read what he writes here is that of participation. Christ was once and for all offered as a sacrifice (which is perfect, eternal, and unchanging), and the bread and wine come to participate in that sacrifice in a real, Platonic way. In that way Augustine can say both that Christ was "once for all offered up" and that he is "offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance." Not because the action of carrying out the mass is itself a propitiatory sacrifice, but because of Platonic participation in the one unchanging sacrifice.
I would add that RCs don’t believe that lutherans accept the concept of confession and absolution
It’s not that we don’t accept it as a concept, we know the Lutheran church believes in confession and absolution. However, there is no absolution. The Lutheran church lost the apostolic succession. Lutheran pastors do not have the authoritative power from God, handed down by the apostles, to absolve one of their sins.
@@EricaTally And consecrate the communion host.
Even angels cannot consecrate a communion host, only a Catholic priest can.
Without a valid priest there are no true sacraments.
@@EricaTally There is apastolic succession. Just because the pope says that our bishops do not have apastolic succession does not make it true
@james rey I’m seeing your comments and they give me hope. :)
@@josephnelson9739 Luther rejected all Catholic doctrines including apostolic succession. The Pope and his bishops and priest, are the successors of the apostles, thru the sacrament of the Holy Orders.
No priest no sacraments, no sacraments no priest.....
The word "authority" doesn't work for me. My pastor is my brother, we are brethren. the thing is, being brethren does not mean we are clones. We are not identical, we have our own strengths and weaknesses.
That's how I respect my pastor. I respect him by not exalting him. I respect him by calling him brethren. I respect he has different life experience, different views. I respect his devotion to and understanding of scripture.
God surely designed us with limitations for good reason. I notice that people who talk always have their talking points and they cycle through in repetition. I do it too. We all come at things from different angles. We all retain different things. We are all limited to how much we can retain. That's why it is good to come together and talk about the Word of God. For example, I notice that I am often bringing up verses of scripture that the majority of people overlook. In the same manner, people often bring to my attention other verses which I overlook.
It's kind of like we can each bring different ingredients and combine them to make a delicious feast. So why exalt any human to a position of authority? Non Christians do that. Christians shouldn't. We are all equal, we are all brethren.
11:35 _"very clearly opposed to the entire tenour of Scripture"_
Oh, not very clearly opposed to a specific proof text, but to your understanding on a more holistic level?
9:23 Tradition is not so much comparable to a pastor as to a Bible translation.
Saying the Church could for centuries be wrong about Hebrews 13:10 proving the Mass to be a Sacrifice, and this _before_ we partake of it, so not simply by the sacrifice of our gratitude, is equivalent to saying the whole Church could be using the JW translation New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures and deny the Divinity of Christ or that the Good Thief was with Jesus in Paradise on Good Friday when both had died on their crosses.
The Bible can only be useful if understood correctly, so, pretending a wrong understanding (on an essential) of some word was harming the Church for centuries is like saying the Bible was absent or wrongly translated for centuries (also on essentials, obviously).
*THE BREAD AND WINE*
If the bread were really transformed into the body of Christ, Lutherans would retain consecrated hosts in a tabernacle. How can the bread and wine be the body and blood of Christ, then NOT the body and blood of Christ? Where does one get this from scripture, the "sole and infallible authority" for determining doctrine? Why reject tradition .... that one reads in the Church in history of consecrated hosts being brought to communities or individuals where the Mass was not possible? If the bread and wine truly transformed into the Resurrected Christ, the latter point is 100% consistent.
*"Scripture is the only sole and infallible authority for determining the doctrine of the Church"*
Where does scripture ALONE teach this : *"Scripture is the only sole AND infallible authority for determining the doctrine of the Church"*
Opening your bible to the table of contents, a doctrine you hold as true, do you consistently hold to your believe above?
Where does scripture say anything about in, with, and under in regards to Jesus being present in the bread and wine? Or is this a doctrinal statement NOT found in scripture, contradicting the above statement?
Sacred Scripture came to the Church through the the Word of God (Christ) and His ordained Apostles - Sacred Apostolic Tradition.
Consider being the first person to try explaining nominalism in a way that makes sense some day 😂
9:50 _"If tradition is capable of being wrong, what then do we use to correct that tradition"_
Two tools. The Bible. But as the wrong tradition probably also claims a prooftext, even more, the correct tradition, which has always, always, always been preserved parallel to the wrong one.
To say it hadn't so been preserved, would involve Jesus not keeping His promise or relating it to the task in Matthew 28:16--20.
So, if Luther thought he had detected a conflict between a RC tradition and the Bible, he should have checked whether Eastern Orthodox or Monophysites or Nestorians had preserved another tradition, and taken that as the preservation of truth.
Instead he opted for his studies being a Restoration of truth, which is impossible, since Loss of truth is on the scale of the Church universal impossible.
10:42 The last Supper was not just the first Eucharist, it also was the first sacerdotal ordination.
Jesus was making His twelve disciples priests, potential celebrants, meaning that all who celebrate Mass need to drink the Holy Blood.
Making each faithful communicant receive it, even if he was not a celebrant, is to our understanding an adiaphoron.
Even Orthodox will on occasions, when the Eucharist is given from their equivalent to the Tabernacle, give only the Body of Christ, only the element of bread as it previously was.
with regards to nominalism and the decline of the west, I place sole blame on Ulrich Zwingli.
Bruh
I think Calvin can share in the blame. All a bunch of heresy
“Sole blame”
Seems reasonable!
Is that the sixt sola?
No, it was the Enlightenment when the decline began. There is no single culprit.
As a catholic I find your understanding of "catholic tradition" not full. The way you presented tradition was that it's authority yet tradition is more than that. The example you gave of a priest that can give false teachings in his sermons is an invalid one to prove that tradition is something that can be wrong since it's an example that comes from a place of misunderstanding in the first place. An example I can give you is that before the existence of the Bible as compiled book there was the church, the same church that decided to compile the Bible.
After the Ortlund-Horn debate, Majesterial Protestants are on the defensive, judging by the amount of Protestantism defense videos floating around RUclips.
As someone who went from Evangelical to Hebrew Roots...and now back into the mainstream...gotta admit...Lutheranism is pretty dang Catholic 😅 Lutheranism has made me seriously reassess what "faith alone" meant. Clearly...I totally didn't understand what Luther meant by it 🤣 and I don't even think the Evangelical movement even understands it
Ok, so you have a "fallible" tradition in Lutheranism. But what can be built with certainty upon fallible tradition? Every time it's "corrected" you cannot say you're more sure than before? As a previous Evangelical, now Catholic, I could see the *need* for infallibility of sorts in the Magisterium, long before I accepted the Catholic Church. The same goes for the Bible: It must be infallible, even if we don't exactly know how or in what sense - if not, then we're doomed. Since Lutheranism rejects infallibility in all but the Bible, the other authorities will be weak or weakened over time.
When there is a disagreement about doctrine it is not that one or either are myth(s) but that one is correct (true) and one is false. The comparison of the two natures of Christ is not valid, because in the Eucharist it is the reality of substance. It is a matter of substance not nature. Christ has two natures but His substance is that of the Divine Person, the Son. Not two substances as the analogy implies. Transubstantiation not tran-nature-ation. Divine nature did not change into human nature, however, the substance of the bread was replaced by (changed into) the substance of Christ.
Problem with tradition is it can be changed.
How can it be the actual body of Christ if you do not have apostolic succession?!
It is simple. You do not need apostolic succession. This is a lie you have been told. Why do you insist you need to have a succession of unbelieving popes? What good is that?
@@roypanwitz9166 1 Clement chapter 44 - Apostolic succession - Pope St Clement speaks of the doctrine of apostolic succession, and states that the episcopal office is successional as instituted by Christ and passed on by the Apostles - Pope St Clement knew and was ordained by St Peter.
@lukewilliams448 Thank you for bringing up St. Clement. This is a good illustration of how every church father preached a little straw. Not everything they said was wheat. Also, sometimes when the catholic church was trying to create succession, they attributed succession to people who in their own time never even considered it. Let’s take Peter for example. In Mathew 16:16 Peter gave the good confession, and in Mathew 16:18 the Lord said, “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” What does Peter think of this comment from the Lord? Where does Peter say he takes this to mean succession? I will answer. Peter does not mention succession. In 1 Peter 2: 4-5, Peter disagrees with your “succession”. He says, “As you come to him, the living stone- rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him- you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
Peter says that as you come to confess Christ you too are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood… The priesthood is out of Peter’s hands. It is God who lays the stone in Zion. It is God who builds the true church out of believers, as they come to him.
And just consider the amount of papal unbelief throughout history, right up to Francis today. What Godly man is not in schism with Francis? Why would you declare that we must remain faithful to the papacy as Francis walks away from God? Especially when the doctrine of the papacy is the doctrine of man.
@@roypanwitz9166 is there Eucharist miracles in Lutheran churches?
I don't know what requires more mental gymnastics:
Evangelists trying to shoestring Bible verses together to prove that Revelations would play out exactly like the "Left Behind" series
Or Catholics using a single vague Bible verse to prove that the Pope is absolutely infallible and the single Vicar of Christ.
@UCCutanl7bgNmL1HGFnElVgA
I also think the RCC elaborating the doctrine of papal infallibility seems more like a contraction of papal power than an expansion.
saying, "the pope only speaks infallibly under these very specific circumstances" is in fact a big correction to "the pope is infallible," which might not have been dogma of the church but might have been the popular view at the time.
even as a not-yet-catholic, I dont see what the problem is with the pope. in my lifetime they've all been really solid, and I think recognizing one person as the moments best theologian and pastoral leader isn't a bad thing. the body needs a head.
@@maxonmendel5757 Whydo you refer to yourself as "not yet catholic"? Do you plan on converting? Also, regarding your comments on RCC apologists contracting rather than expanding papal power, thats likely a defensive mechanism to lower the absurdity of claims of infallibility, in my opinion.
@@maxonmendel5757 Look into Eastern Orthodoxy instead.
Preach! I can't imagine being anything other than an amillenialist. So much less oppressive and stressful. It's in God's hands. No need to memorize Revelation and analyze it until your mind is a haze trying to sift out predictions etc.
@@maxonmendel5757 true, Christ in His infinite wisdom would not let His church dissolve into a morass of multiple diluted ambiguous churches.
All earthly organization needs a CEO.
He chose one of His 12 men to lead His church on earth. “what you bind on earth is bound in heaven”
Christ commanded His apostles and their successors and no one else, not Luther, not Calvin, not Zwingli, not Knox, or any other individual, to....
"...go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them *to obey all that I have commanded you* And surely I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
"I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
Faith and reason must come together, if it seems unreasonable it usually is false.
The "in, with, and under" phrase does far more harm than good. I can easily be in, with, and under my house, but my house is not my body.
6:03 *I BESEECH you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service*
[Romans 12:1]
In fact, this is rather the consequence of the Mass, than the Mass itself, however, it is prepared in the Mass, as we unite ourselves with the sacrifice of Jesus to the Father, which is why this sacrifice is re-presented, so that we can unite ourselves to it, while not standing below the Cross physically then and there.
So, no, Romans 12 is far from giving an alternative meaning to the Mass, as compared to the Roman Catholic one.
An easier way to explain this is that, for Lutherans, the divine person Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharistic ritual as a whole. For Catholics, he is not present in person, because he is seated on a throne faraway in Heaven. Instead, the bread and wine is transformed into the very body and blood of Christ. But the meaning that Jesus wanted to convey is that, whenever you perform this rite, I will be present in person.
If you want to know more about how Catholics have gravely misrepresented Lutheranism, you should read "Christian Contradictions" by Daphne Hampson.
Regarding "myth" 3: you do reject traditions of interpreting Scripture if they disagree with your own interpretation. You do this by simply calling your own interpretation the "plain" or "obvious" sense even when it disagrees with what all other Christians before you saw as "plain" or "obvious". Your example about the cup does a marvelous job of giving zero context to the Church's temporary decision to withhold the cup. This is the historiographical equivalent of a straw man argument. The Church witheld the cup because heretics we're saying that the blood of Christ was not present in the Eucharistic body of Christ. Well that has been shown to be false by a large number of Eucharistic miracles, many of which have been medically and scientifically examined. The Church has the authority to withhold the cup to recognize that Catholics still receive the blood of Christ in the Eucharist. You don't have the authority to say what is or is not the plain sense of Scripture. You have precisely zero interpretive authority and that is the difference between you and the Church. All authority on Heaven and Earth was given to Christ by the Father and He entrusted His authority to the Church. You however have zero authority over Christians. Quite the contrast between you and the Church.
I’m sorry that I didn’t watch the whole video. Did you address Luther’s hatred for Jews?
Interesting, I was hired by two Roman Catholic medical centers , one in Wisconsin and the other Minnesota. Both told me, I was hired because I understood the theology/practice of Protestants and Catholics. They regarded Lutheranism as a theological bridge between the two theological camps. I had more than one sister/nun tell me that Luther was right and it is regrettable the the Church of Rome didn't embrace his teachings. Also, I learned that the average Catholic laity and religious did not embrace transubstantiation, but Luther's teaching of Christ's Real Presence, in, with, and under the bread and wine. One sister told me, we no longer worship a piece of bread, after the Mass and it's reception.
Yeah, it's common that people wear the name catholic as a tribal name, rather than actually being Catholics.
To say you can ignore or contradict the magisterium as a Catholic is like saying you can freely ignore parts of the bible. Catholic belief about authority is a house of cards in that sense, remove one part and you have no reason to trust any of it, and if you reject that, you're no longer a Catholic.
Catholics aren’t "resacrificing Christ." Christ, the Lamb of God, is a perpetual sacrifice in every generation.
Christians are required to "remember" Him in every convocation (using language from Ex 12 and Lev 23 concerning three conjoined feasts - Passover, First Fruits, and Unleavened Bread.
"And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance forever.
These are the feasts of the LORD, holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons.
In the fourteenth day of the first month at evening, is the LORD's Passover."
Catholics are re-presenting Christ's eternal perpetual sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin and offering His Body and Blood Sacrifice in the form of unleavened bread and wine in atonement - conjoining the convocations of the Day of Atonement and the Feast of Tabernacles).
Yes but the representation of the one sacrifice is the same sacrifice as Calgary. That seems like resacrifice ….. rather than representation. The priest is even called a sacrificing priest.
@Favour Charis Christ is the eternal sacrifice, and because of that, His "remberance" requires an altar. In addition, He commissioned and showed His Apostolic Church how they were to "do this in remembrance of Him" at the Last Supper.
@@barbwellman6686 Yep, every reformer knows Christs sacrifice was eternal. Luther saw the Eucharist as the place where the merits of Christs sacrifice are dispensed - not another altar for Christ to be "mystically sacrificed" again. Here is the problem.
I would argue that a "table" better suits representation and anamnesis (as if we were there).
An altar infers "another sacrifice".
A table is where men eat the sacrifice. Altars are where a sacrifice is given. And, altar are where God receives his food "mystically speaking".
Yes Jesus did commission the apostles "at a table", but any sub-apostolic church father up to Hyppolytus mentions nothing of a propitiation. We get "sacrifice" but no "propitiation". And even then, nothing is told on what kind of sacrifice it is. Catholics and reformers both claim it supports their views.
@Favour Charis We are participating in a sacrifice and Christ's New Covenant. He gives us eternal life through His Body and Blood, and we participate at His altar through our sacrifice of personal sin.
@@barbwellman6686 hmmmm how about we are participating in the one finished sacrifice of Jesus and receive on the table what He gave on the true altar which is in heaven and no man can stand in - except Jesus Christ alone.
00:34 from both irl and online experience, I'm far less generous on why Catholics misconstrue Lutherans and by extension the more high church Protestants on the Eucharist. Mostly because for all the bellyaching they do about Luther, completely ignore the Marburg Colloquy and just see Baptists as the default protestant view because it's easy to dismiss. It's at best ignorance and outright lying at worst. For most it's probably the former but the latter is far more prevalent than people think. Even in secular classes when they touch the Reformation the main issue Luther had with Catholics was *indulgences* not real presence. It's a hot take but here I stand on it.
I am Catholic and the Lutherans have better music. That is not a myth. That is a fact.
Hebrews 10 people. Read .
All this adds up to Protestantism still. No sacrifice of the Mass as patristically understood. No necessary sacerdotal priesthood to offer the Body and Blood. No tactile apostolic ordination by a lawful bishop required for the Eucharist. Ecumenical Councils can be overturned. Mary's perpetual virginity not inviolable dogma. This all adds to the same fundamental Protestantism as Calvin.
Transubstantiation 😅😅😅 . How dumb . Cannibalism now 😮😮😮
You would have been one of the disciples to abandon the Christ in John 6