Breaking Luther: Bishop Bruskewitz corrects the nostalgia for the so called reform movement

Chaos in Christianity: an interview

Bishop Bruskewitz reflects on the Reformation, need for prayer

By S.L. Hansen

(SNR) - With the 500th anniversary of the Protestant movement coming at the end of this October, it is important for Catholic Christians to understand some of the facts behind that movement.

It is also a good idea to prepare for the inevitable conversations that might result as Protestant friends and family members mark the occasion. Related item: Coffee House series to focus on Reformation

In a recent conversation with the Southern Nebraska Register, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz, the emeritus Bishop of Lincoln, spoke about some of the effects of Protestantism on Christianity and offered some advice for Catholics who may have an opportunity to correct misunderstandings and perhaps help to rebuild unity in Christianity.

Q. How would you describe the Reformation itself?

A. I would first say that the very word seems to be flawed and inaccurate, since nothing was “reformed.” Basically what happened was that large numbers of people left the Catholic Church and formed and invented numerous new man-made churches, denominations, religions, sects, and cults, which continue even to this day to multiply in number, making chaos of what had been once a generally traditionally unified Christianity.

Q. What is the effect of that chaos?

A. In the Western World, religion in general has fallen out of favor in large part because of the divisions in Christianity, which are viewed as appalling and embarrassing. Christianity is often held in disdain by the wider secular world. Also, centuries of scandalous Christian disunity, with the accompanied history of quarrels and wars, frequently form a serious impediment to the ability to present to our modern world the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Meanwhile non-Christian religions are currently advancing.

Read the whole interview HERE, it is excellent

Breaking Luther: Martin was a Manichean, teaching both an evil Jesus and a good Jesus

 

The idea that Martin Luther just wanted to restore the early Church is laughable, but he did personally teach the early heresy of Manicheanism as his own.

 

"For most of post-Reformation history, it has been axiomatic in theological histories of the controversy to propose Martin Luther as a devoted follower of the theology St. Augustine of Hippo, the great opponent of the Manichees. This is not surprising, given that Augustine is often invoked by the Reformers against Catholic dogma, that heretics such as Calvin and Cornelius Jansen have made a corrupted Augustinianism the center of their doctrines, that Augustine's bold stance in favor of grace against the Pelagians lent itself to a certain degree of use by Reformers arguing in favor of sola fide and double-predestination, and that Luther himself was an Augustinian monk. Contemporary scholarship, however, reveals quite a contrary picture of Luther. Far from invoking Augustine against Rome, Martin Luther shows himself disdainful of the great doctor of Hippo, and in fact an advocate of the dualist theology of the Manichees.

…

How could these important elements of Luther's thought get lost? Theobald Beer points out that what we now know as "Lutheranism" is really the thinking of Luther's successor, Philipp Melanchthon, who was Luther's interpreter and advocate, who nevertheless diverged from Luther on several important points. Unlike Luther, Melanchthon held the Church Fathers, especially Augustine, in a certain level or reverence, admitted the usefulness of philosophy in theological studies, and tended towards a certain irenicism that Luther found troubling. Melanchthon brought these characteristics into the Lutheran cause and served to moderate the Lutheranism of the latter 16th century against some of Luther's more extreme positions.

…

In Luther's glosses, he refers to Christ not as a person, but as a compositum, a composition; this is necessary, since he asserts that divinity and the diabolical are co-existing within Him; Christ is a composition of humanity and divinity. Here Luther is opposing the traditional concept of a single, personal hypostasis, which he will argue against his entire life. This was a huge point of divergence between Luther and Melanchthon; after Luther's death, Melanchthon stated, "The formulas to be rejected are: 'Christ is composed of two natures' and 'Christ is the fruit of creation.'" The former is obviously an attempt to move the Lutheran movement away from Luther's heretical compositum view, and thus Lutheranism would maintain the the traditional formula of hypostasis. Here Luther is especially against Augustine, which we will say more on shortly.

Beer stresses that Luther fixates much more on the role of Christ rather than on His identity; what Christ does is more important than who He is. For Luther, Christ has two functions. "The first," says Theobald Beer, "is the function of shielding us from divine wrath and the second that of giving us an example. This is twofold justification." [4] The human nature of Christ, because it adopts the sinful disposition of fallen man, in fact becomes sin. This is where a Gnostic-Manichaean dualism enters into Luther's thought. There could be no reconciliation between sinful flesh and the divine nature. This is why Christ is compositum but not hypostasis. "

You can read the whole of the article HERE

Breaking Luther: The real, unsanitized truth... that ain't chocolate

 



The following talk on the life and misdeeds of the heresiarch is well worth your time, especially in an age that tries to sanitize what is truly an unmitigated bad fella'

 

+JMJ+

Breaking Luther: St. Bellarmine rebukes Luther's idea of the Rock being the confession of faith

The following excerpt is taken from the book "On the Roman Pontiff (De Controversiis Book 1)" by St. Robert Bellarmine.  Until only a couple years ago this text had not been translated into English, but thanks be to God Ryan Grant, the founder of Mediatrix Press has translated many of the great saints works.  Please support Ryan and his company, it is a great gift to the church!


“Therefore, four questions must be explained to us. First: whether Peter might be that rock upon which the Church shall be founded. Second: whether that foundation might be the ruler of the whole Church. Third: whether Peter might be the one to whom the keys are given. Fourth: whether the full power to govern the Church should be understood through the keys. On the first question there are four opinions...

The fourth is of Luther and the Centuriators, that faith or the confession of faith is the rock, concerning which the Lord spoke in this place...

The fourth opinion remains, which is common among nearly all Lutherans, and at first glance appears to be confirmed by the testimony of the Fathers. Accordingly Hillary teaches: “The building of the Church is the rock of confession . . . This faith of the Church is the foundation: through this faith the gates of hell are weak against it: this faith of the kingdom of heaven holds the keys.” St. Ambrose says: “The foundation of the Church is faith.” St. John Chrysostom: “Upon this rock I will build my Church, that is faith and confession.” Likewise Cyril, explaining this citation: “I reckon he called the rock is nothing other than unshaken and firm faith of the disciple.”

Illyricus adds: “If it is founded upon Peter, and rather not upon the confession of Faith of the Church, then immediately it would have fallen. For Peter soon ran at the point of the Lord’s passion, and he fell. Moreover in the same Chapter of St. Matthew, it is said to him: ‘Get behind me Satan, you are a scandal to me, because you do not have a sense of what is of God.’ Thereupon he denied Christ a third time, and not without a great curse.”

I respond: Faith, or confession, is considered in two ways. In one way it absolutely followed itself, and without any relation to the person of Peter: in the second way with relation to Peter. In the first way it appears our adversaries would have it that faith is the foundation of the Church, but certainly they are deceived. If it were so, why didn’t the Lord say, instead of: “I will build upon this rock,” “I am building,” or “I have built my Church”? Many had already believed that he was the son of the living God, as early as the prophets, the Blessed Virgin, Simeon, Zachariah, John the Baptist, the apostles and remaining disciples.

Next, faith taken up absolutely is rightly called the foundation of justification and of all strength, as Augustine says: “The house of God is founded by belief, erected by hope, perfected by love.” But the foundation of the Church is not properly faith. There ought to be a foundation of the same kind, as well as the rest of the building. The Church is a congregation of men, just as of living stones, therefore the stone, which is the foundation, ought to be also some man, not some virtue.

Last, that pronoun this most clearly showed that through the rock faith cannot be understood absolutely: for it is referred more closely to the one named rock: next, it had been said to Simon: “You are rock,” not to faith; therefore it behooves us to accept faith in the second way is the foundation, and to say not any faith you please, but the faith of Peter, and not of Peter as a private man, but as the shepherd of the Church. It coincides with that, which we said in this regard, that Peter is the foundation.

Therefore the faith of Peter is the foundation of the Church for a two-fold reasoning. First, that on account of the merit of his faith Peter attained that he should be the foundation of the Church, as Jerome, Hilary, Chrysostom and others show on this place. Secondly, because Peter is chiefly in the very matter the foundation of the Church, that since his faith cannot fail, he ought to confirm and hold up all the others in faith. Thus, the Lord said to him: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith should not fail, and when thou hast converted strengthen thy brethren.”

Therefore, by reasoning of his indefectible faith, Peter should be the firmest rock, sustaining the whole Church; it is the same thing to say “upon Peter” and “upon his faith” the Church was founded, and the Fathers cited speak in this manner. For St. Hilary, after he had said the faith of Peter is the foundation of the Church, and receives the keys of the kingdom, he adds on Peter himself: “He merited a preeminent place by the confession of his blessed Faith,” and a little after: “Hence, he holds the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hence, his earthly judgments are heavenly, etc.”

Therefore, as he had said, “faith is the foundation and holds the keys,” so now he says Peter by reason of his faith merited a preeminent place, that is, that he should be the head, or foundation, and should hold the keys. And he says the same thing most beautifully about Peter: “O happy foundation of the Church by the solemn decree of a new name.”

For equal reasoning St. Ambrose, where he says the faith of Peter is the foundation of the Church, he notes the same thing: “He did not refuse to his disciple the favor of this word, that he should also be Peter, who as the rock should have solidity of steadfastness and firmness of faith.”

Chrysostom explaining in both citations, why it is that the Church is built upon the confession of Peter, introduces the Lord speaking thus: I will build my Church upon you.”

Next, Cyril also says the foundation is not any faith, but that unconquerable and most firm faith of St. Peter; and he writes that Peter himself is the rock, upon which the Church is founded.

Now I respond to the objection of Illyricus, firstly with the commentary of Jerome for this chapter: when Peter was told: “Get behind me Satan” and when he denied Christ, he was not yet the foundation. Therefore the place Christ promised him, he had intended to give to him after the resurrection. Add, that Peter did not err on the faith, but was merely ignorant of something, when he was told, “Get behind me Satan,” and he was lacking in charity, not in faith, when he denied Christ. That we will teach in its proper place in the treatise on the Church.”

Breaking Luther and Myths Glenn Beck told you: Luther made it possible to have a personal relationship with Christ

The idea that the corrupt Catholic Church of the renaissance was not, and could not ever be conducive to providing for and maintaining a personal relationship with Christ pure pandering to the emotionally obsessed. You will see it all the time with people asking “Have you accepted Christ into your heart as your personal Lord and savior?” At the heart of it, Protestantism is the religion of emotional experiences devoid of any objective means to place any trust in the doctrines it proposes. What does it even mean to say one has accepted Jesus into their heart as their personal Lord and Savior? It is true that we will all be judged separately, but it is not true that we will be saved based solely on a personal relationship with Christ. Our Lord tells us that He and His Church are one. He does not look at his Bride in multiplicities. He has one body by which we as people enter into through Baptism. This Baptism is not had apart from His Bride. Baptism is not just a indivual act. We cannot baptize ourselves. St. Paul puts it this way

 20 But now there are many members indeed, yet one body. 21 And the eye cannot say to the hand: I need not thy help; nor again the head to the feet: I have no need of you. 22 Yea, much more those that seem to be the more feeble members of the body, are more necessary. 23 And such as we think to be the less honourable members of the body, about these we put more abundant honour; and those that are our uncomely parts, have more abundant comeliness. 24 But our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, giving to that which wanted the more abundant honour,25 That there might be no schism in the body; but the members might be mutually careful one for another. 26 And if one member suffer any thing, all the members suffer with it; or if one member glory, all the members rejoice with it.
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members of member. We as individuals are brought into the Church and sanctified through Her. This is done with the help of the sacraments and in unison with the prayers and intercessions we make in Christ on behalf of one another.

Martin Luther and Glenn Beck both have something in common, they are addicted to the notion of rugged individualism. That understanding God will save us apart from others and that all he wants us to do is say we believe and that is all we need is a passing of the buck.

If we fail to do the spiritual works of mercy when they are justly presented to us we fail to observe the order that has been presented us in this world by God who has put His Order (will) into His creation to observe. If we willfully choose not to observe this ordering we create disorder, in other words sin. And we do this of our own free will. Luther, like Calvin, ultimately denied free will. By saying the individual is more important than being part of the One Body, Christ’s Church – the Catholic Church – Beck and Luther fail to observe the virtue of Humility, falling to pride. I did it my way is the song of those in Hell, not those that are humble in observing the virtue of obedience. Great, know Christ personally, but realize that Christ does not leave us to our own means to know who he is and how he wishes to bring us into a family relationship with him. Left to our own rugged individualist desires we will most assuredly seek after means that will placate the senses like warm feelings and agreeable ideas to the way we currently live our lives. So like the Ethiopian Eunuch, we are not just called to say we have faith and be content in our personal interpretations. God has placed in his Church authorities over us as Paul relates later in the same verse. To know this authority we are not left with warm feelings like the Mormons and Lutherans ultimately have to appeal to when declaring their doctrines to be true. Through the laying on of hands we have an objective means that can be traced to the Apostles themselves who appointed and gave their authority to others to continue on until the end of time teaching the faith and confecting the sacraments.

We are saved through the Church who is one with Her Bridegroom. And no one comes to the Father but through the Son. As the Apostolic Fathers and all others that were taught by the Apostles themselves taught the Bishops are the successors to the Apostles and in them is Christs authority to loose and bind. Christ said to them “He who hears you hears me, and he who despises you despises me”, I will be with you until the end of time”, the spirit of Truth which he granted to the Apostles “will lead you to all truths”. This is not a subjective matter but a reality that can be known objectively. That Luther struggled with the understanding that the sacraments are not dependent on his own ability to deserve or merit their graces clearly shows his distaste for anything objective. Everything was determined by feelings. He felt it right not to obey a Pope if he did not personally give his consent to him… like a Pharisee to Christ. Because Luther was nothing more than a Pharisee in his own day, unable to see the gift given regardless of the person, and to submit in humble gratitude for the gift.

Gratitude, Humility and obedience – these are gifts a Catholic possesses because he realizes he is not his own.

Breaking Luther: Gender fluidity flows from Martin Luther

It seems obvious to me that when we hear about people identifying as something other than what they are in reality, this result is from a central point in western history the protestant revolt.

Consider how a protestant considers the Church of Rome and papists therein apostates to the "true, simple faith Christ gave, whereby we are saved by faith alone".  Consider the subjective nature of this statement, who bound this other than each individual feeling it right, rather than knowing by any objective means that it is so.  If it feels right, if I get a warm feeling through my body, that must be the Holy Spirit confirming my thinking.  Objectivity was thrown to the side at the revolt. It was necessary to replace it with a system that would produce results, a system based on subjective interpretations.

How do they know every book within the canon of scripture is scripture?  "Well because 2 Timothy 3:16 says scripture is scripture"... Wait did they just use a text to approve of the same exact text? (circle arguement) Would they do the same for the koran or the book of mormon?  Both claim to be revelation. What is the objective reason you will point to in order to tell muslims and mormons they are in error following these texts?  Are you going to say 2nd Timothy says scripture is scripture?  How do you know 2nd Timothy was even written by Paul, or that its contents in an of themselves are God breathed?  Objectively, how do you know this?

If you reject the Church that can trace itself objectively to being founded by Christ through the laying on of hands, what objective reason do you have to make this decision? Is there some real miracle you can perform to confirm this? Can you trace your beliefs to the earliest Christians in totality?

You bemoan the homosexualist agenda, but you yourselves have given the greatest foundation to them in supporting the contraceptive lifestyle. (not apart from ungrateful Catholics of course) You want a sex life that affirms the pleasure of the action but eliminates the natural, objective order of pro creation... not that far from the homosexualist agenda.  You want sex for the pleasure without consequences, so do they.  This mindset disorders the very purpose of sex and objectively tells God (who gave this function and action to man) that you cannot trust his will when you take actions that have true ordering that is knowable even to the pagan mind.

How can one say they are followers of Christ but knowingly deny the very objective foundations that Christ established based on their subjective takes on a book put together by someone they deny... it didnt fall out of the air.

So what if some goofball gal thinks they want to be a man  and disorder their lives to their own desires.  Mormons do this everyday, they want to be called Christians but they deny that God is Three in one.  The faith alone folks will deny that they can lose their salvation, that repentance is unnecessary to go to heaven as long as they have faith.  That calvinists believe that God created people specifically to send them to Hell. By no means are we speaking of the same religion here, There is only unity through the grand massage of folks like Kasper and ecumaniacs (Cardinal Heenans word).  And that people have become so disordered that they think homosexuality and transgenerderism are ok because its all a matter of subjectivity... this gets placed squarely at the feet of the protestant error that denies the persons ability to come to a knowledge of truth. All is relative to to protestant mind necessarily.

I will leave you with a quote from Luther that best leads to the slow brain drain that leads to the Homoheresy and the mindless insanity of transgenderism

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”

Reminds me of Idiocracy

Breaking Luther: Luther's failed exorcism and the Catholic priest that was called to fix his problem

The following comes from Matthew Olson of Catholic Analysis:

Martin Luther’s Failed Exorcism

The Jesuit Fr. Louis Richeome “related a story of Luther attempting to exorcise a woman and failing”.  When it became clear that he could do nothing the family called upon the Catholic Church to perform the exorcism.  Needless to say the family came back to the One True Fold of Christ and few if any Lutherans speak of this matter outside of the belittleing of superstitious peasants and their papist healers.

The reference can be found below but it is in an old French dilect that is very hard even for today's Frenchmen (like my Priest) to read or outright translate, so google translate will not do.

(Sarah Ferber, Demonic Possession and Exorcism in Early Modern France, p. 34, ISBN 0-203-65227-4)

Transcribed from p. 203-204 of Richeome’s “Trois discours pour la religion catholique les Miracles, les Saincts, les Images"

"Il fe fouuenoit aufsi de plus freche date que l’an1545. Luther ayant entrepins en la ville de Vvitemberg de coniurer es diables, qui poffedoyent vne ieune fille de Mifne, fut prins aux toiles, & charge de coups, & de confufion comme apres nous reciterons. La memoire de ces chofes luy donna fcrupule pour penfer a fa confcience, & hardieffe de s’excufer de femblable efcrime, & faire la couard, referuant fa charite a autres exercices moins dangereux. La refte de la refponce qu’il faict, difant qu’il ne faut croire aux diables, & qu’ils colludent auec les exorciftes, eft en partie l’efcume de la vieille herefie d’Arrius, partie de la nouuelle de Caluin."

Transcribed from p. 481-482 of Florimond de Raemond’s “L’anti-Christ et l’anti-papesse" [link]:

"Luther preuoyant ue fon miracle n’auoit pas de nez, duuel il auoit fait tant de cas contre le Roy d’Angleterre, qu’vn pauure Moine comme luy euft affuiecty a fon Euangile l’Allemagne, voulut entrepredre d’exorcifer vneieune fille de Mifme poffedee du Diable. Mais il n’en rapporta que des coups, & tous les affiftan auffi. Comme celuy dont fainct Gregoire parle: Ie fuis content taire le furplus du conte, par-ce qu’il fent trop mal, pour l’infortune qui aduint au pauure Luther, femblable a celle de l’Empereur Copronyme fur les fonds du Baptefme. Qui fera curieux de fcauoir le difcours de cefte farce, l’aille voir chez Staphile, lequel eftant pour lors fon difciple, affifta a tout ce myftere, & auec vne hache enfonca la porte pour efchapper: car le Diable empechoit que la clefne peuft ioiier, & tenoit Luther tout tremblant au collet."

Breaking Luther: All in the apostolic college received the keys!

It is of note that when modern Protestants go about belittling the Holy Father they will often overestimate the constraints that Peter operates his ministry under.  Now, Catholics are bound to adhere to the teachings and disciplines spoken of by the Pope because Christ reminds us that “He who hears you hears me” and that “whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven.”  Peter was given the same offices that Christ had taken on including his role as chief Shepard, the steward (vicar) of the house of David and to be a strengthener of his brethren once converted (among many others). These examples are sufficient to show a primacy, and the guarantee that the gates of hell shall not prevail, and that Christ would be with this same group until the end of the age give perspective to the perpetual nature of the Church without interruption.

Enter Martin Luther, the self-styled, self-proclaimed, and self-determined monk from Germany.  In order to belittle the Pope of his own day it became necessary to introduce novelties into the Church’s tradition to justify his new religion. 

One of the most stunning novelties is his insistence that all the apostles were given the Keys for loosing and binding:

“…But not to fight them with mere words, we will quote the Scriptures. St. Paul says in I Corinthians 14:30: "If to anyone something better is revealed, though he be sitting and listening to another in God's Word, then the first, who is speaking, shall hold his peace and give place." What would be the use of this commandment, if we were only to believe him who does the talking or who has the highest seat? Christ also says in John 6:45 that all Christians shall be taught of God. Thus it may well happen that the pope and his followers are wicked men, and no true Christians, not taught of God, not having true understanding. On the other hand, an ordinary man may have true understanding; why then should we not follow him? Has not the pope erred many times? Who would help Christendom when the pope errs, if we were not to believe another, who had the Scriptures on his side, more than the pope?

Therefore it is a wickedly invented fable and they cannot produce a letter in defense of it, that the interpretation of Scripture or the confirmation of its interpretation belongs to the pope alone. They have themselves usurped this power; and although they allege that this power was given to Peter when the keys were given to him, it is plain enough that the keys were not given to Peter alone, but to the whole community. Moreover, the keys were not ordained for doctrine or government, but only for the binding and loosing of they arrogate to themselves is mere invention But Christ's word to Peter, Luke 22:32 "I have prayed for thee that thy faith fall not," cannot be applied to the pope, since the majority of the popes have been without faith, as they must themselves confess. Besides, it is not only for Peter that Christ prayed, but also for all Apostles and Christians, as he says in John 17:9, 20: "Father, I pray for those whom Thou hast given Me, and not for these only, but for all who believe on Me through their word." Is not this clear enough? …”

 

Again, so as not to take the fellow out of context the whole quote is given above.  A line by line critique is necessary to draw out just how full of it Mr. Luther was.

“Christ also says in John 6:45 that all Christians shall be taught of God.”

Sure they will be taught of God, but that supposes a teacher. Now the Lutheran might say that God speaks to the heart and man knows its God speaking to him.  After all Christ also says that “"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.” But one has to ask if this is true why would God also say that when your brother offends the, take it first to him privately, then to another with him, and finally if that fails to tell it to the Church (a tangible, identifiable authority).  Luther did not think the God spoke to Calvin, but Calvin was convinced of it.  What is the Lutheran to say to the devout Mormon when they say they get a warm feeling in their bosom when they read the Mormon texts; therefore they are inspired because that’s how God speaks to them. All Christian’s will be taught of God indeed, but a student requires a teaching which they submit their minds to, identifiable and necessarily infallible teachers because God can neither deceive nor be deceived.

“Thus it may well happen that the pope and his followers are wicked men, and no true Christians, not taught of God, not having true understanding.”

Even if the Pope was the most evil fellow on the faith of the planet it would not follow that his authority to teach had been stripped.  To make such a claim is to overestimate the papal office, and would lack a basic understanding of authority which even Christ recognized the corrupt Pharisees exorcising in his day, telling the Jew’s to do what they said, but not what they did. So to even by Luther’s standards Christians are wicked and cannot not sin, so these too could never have true understanding being wicked themselves even if they had the Gospel set before them because they would twist the words as the Devil would if we go according to Luther’s thinking.

On the other hand, an ordinary man may have true understanding; why then should we not follow him?

This is not well thought out by Mr. Luther.  It opens the door to denominationalism, which he strictly opposed.  There is no objective rule to be applied in coming to how this would be applied in real life.  Who is to say that Joseph Smith was wrong, or Calvin?  Why not follow them if they display charismatic gifts?  What is being appealed to in saying that person A has a right to speak for God?  Was Luther a prophet?  If so let him stand in judgment as to his prophecies as the Old Testament puts forth.  But he can’t, and no signs and wonders to attest to his authority could be found so he along with the other revolutionaries of his age made it clear that miracles no longer took place (never mind the Tilma was given at this very time).

“Therefore it is a wickedly invented fable, and they cannot produce a letter in defense of it, that the interpretation of Scripture or the confirmation of its interpretation belongs to the pope alone.”

It is clear alone from the Old Testament that in the Davidic Kingdom there was only One King who when he was not present physically in his kingdom gave his one key to his one steward who had the ability to not just speak for the King but to open and close the Kingdom to all things that might enter and leave.  The fable is that there is no letter of defense.  This is pure rhetoric without any basis in why it was spoken.  In all of the scriptures (which the protestants got from us) it only says that Jesus gave Peter the Keys, he never speaks again of the keys, only of the power to loose and bind which though part of the keys is not the whole of it as stated before. 

“…it is plain enough that the keys were not given to Peter alone, but to the whole community.”

It’s not plain at all to see such.  You would have to insert your own thinking as to what loosing and binding means in relation to the keys then impose this thinking on others to get them to arrive at such thinking which presupposes that you had the God given authority to begin with to arrive at that interpretation, of which you can show no, not one shred of evidence to objectively arrive at this conclusion.

“Moreover, the keys were not ordained for doctrine or government, but only for the binding and loosing”

Again what objective authority can he point to make this statement?  He can say “look at the bible” because that presupposes that the Bible is authoritative.  Of course we must then ask why is the bible and the books therein authoritative to begin with in an objective way?  How do you know book X belongs in there and not book Z?  The scriptures did not fall out of the sky, but were compiled and recognized by the Church as scripture.  Peter can say Paul’s writings are scripture but how do you objectively know Peter himself wrote that scripture outside of a granting authority that says it is indeed scripture that Peter wrote that affirmed Paul.

But Christ's word to Peter, Luke 22:32 "I have prayed for thee that thy faith fall not," cannot be applied to the pope, since the majority of the popes have been without faith, as they must themselves confess.

How can he say that the majority of the Popes have been without faith?  Who is he to stand in judgment of anyone?  The protestant understanding of faith is a trusting in what God has done for them.  The Catholic, on the other hand, understands faith as follows:

“Faith is a grace

153      When St. Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus declared to him that this revelation did not come “from flesh and blood,” but from “my Father who is in heaven.”²⁴ Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him. “Before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to move and assist him; he must have the interior helps of the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and ‘makes it easy for all to accept and believe the truth.’”²⁵ (552, 1814, 1996, 2606)

Faith is a human act

154      Believing is possible only by grace and the interior helps of the Holy Spirit. But it is no less true that believing is an authentically human act. Trusting in God and cleaving to the truths he has revealed are contrary neither to human freedom nor to human reason. Even in human relations it is not contrary to our dignity to believe what other persons tell us about themselves and their intentions or to trust their promises (for example, when a man and a woman marry) to share a communion of life with one another. If this is so, still less is it contrary to our dignity to “yield by faith the full submission of... intellect and will to God who reveals,”²⁶ and to share in an interior communion with him. (1749, 2126)

155      In faith, the human intellect and will cooperate with divine grace: “Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace.”²⁷

The protestant religion posits that man cannot cooperate with God because he ultimately has no free will, thus all works are useless, even teaching others about the faith to bring them to Christ. The difference is that even if a Pope failed to live up to the faith he possessed he was not unable to change his ways and affect real change.  The office of the Pope is not dependent on the person therein, but the perpetual promise of Christ to Peter until the ending of the age to loose and bind over the heavens and the earth (the heavens part also not given to the others). Plus who are the bad Popes that bound objectively bad doctrine on the Church? Pray tell? And by what authority have you come to the conclusion that the teaching is wrong to begin with?

“Besides, it is not only for Peter that Christ prayed, but also for all Apostles and Christians, as he says in John 17:9, 20: "Father, I pray for those whom Thou hast given Me, and not for these only, but for all who believe on Me through their word."

Of course Our Lord prayed to the Father for all Christians, he is our one mediator.  This, however, says nothing about why Christ would pray specifically for Peter (solely) that when he was specifically converted he would strengthen his brethren.  This makes no sense if you consider that St. John never left Christ and so would not have to be converted, but could immediately strengthen the brethren.  Christ makes the whole apostolic college wait upon Peter for his strengthening. Why because Peter acts for Christ (not against him).  Consider that when Christ was confronted because he had yet to pay the tax he did not abstain from payment but had Peter act for him (act in his place, even while he was on Earth).

 

Now, having related all that take a look at this quote from Mr. Luther:

“I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel. For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says [1 Cor. 6:3]) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved - for it is God’s teaching and not mine.”

And people say papal infallibility is impossibility, yet the Pope is constrained.  Luther however speaks on God’s behalf?  What objective authority has he to point to for this?

Breaking Luther: Reason is opposed to faith

When Pope Benedict gave his Regensburg address and Muslims went mad killing a nun and threatening Christians about the world, many people blamed the Pope for being intolerant.  Yet few, until now with the ISIS threats, recognized that his address was not a bashing of Islam per se, but rather it was calling on Muslims of good will to recognize that they need not submit their reason to the faith as if the two were opposed to one another. So too, few people recognize that this idea of reason being opposed at times to one's faith is not present alone in non-Chrisitan faiths, but it can be found among heretical sects and schismatic groups.

Enter Martin Luther.  In his sermon's on Matthew's Gospel(which can be found HERE), Dr. Luther tries to nuance the relationship between faith and reason.  It is important to not take him out of context because it doesn't serve anyone in doing so, so for the sake of not slinging unnecessary mud I have copied and pasted the full text below with my emphisis:

“Again, they argue: How can children believe, seeing that as yet they have no reasoning power? Thus they add reason to faith. To this Christ answers: This is exactly why children can believe better. They cannot reason. For reason is directly opposed to faith. This is why you must let reason go. It must be killed and buried in believers. But the Anabaptists turn reason into a light of faith so that reason may serve faith as a guiding light. I hold that it does shine forth as smudge in a lantern. Christ wants us to turn into veritable children if we desire to come into the kingdom of heaven. He means that, as all reasoning is, so to speak, still buried in children, so reason is also to be killed in all Christian believers. Otherwise faith has no place in them. For reason opposes faith.

For instance, Scripture says that there is only one God, but that in this one, divine Essence there are three distinct Persons: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost. However, these are one Essence and Substance. Now the Turk presently comes with his reason and asks how it is possible for one to be three and three one. Moreover, say they, in a house there must be no more than one lord and host; just so there must be only one God in heaven. — All this is the language of reason. But in this matter you Christian must become a child and say: Indeed, I cannot comprehend this doctrine; but I must become a child, must let myself be carried, touched, and blessed by Christ, and I must believe it. I must close the eyes of reason and not determine how this is possible or impossible; but I must believe and accept the pure, simple Word. The same thing is true of all other articles of faith. When heathen hear that God's natural Son became man, they say: That is impossible. — No doubt it is if reason is asked for advice. But you must let go of reason in this matter, must pay no attention to it, must entirely kill it; otherwise you will not come into the kingdom of heaven. One cannot grasp or comprehend this matter by reason. You must believe the article that Christ was born man in the fullness of time. You must permit yourself to be carried and led to Christ by the divine Word. Then you will partake of the kingdom of heaven. You must become children. This is the place for little children. Little children Christ carries, fondles, embraces, blesses, and says: Of such is the kingdom of heaven. If, then, I permit myself to be carried, Christ gives me His works and His merit and the kingdom of heaven.

The Turk says the same thing about the Lord's Supper: that mere bread and wine are present in it; and, again, that in Baptism there is simple water, such as is poured over the hand. Really now, says he, should this be called a "washing of regeneration, "as is written in the third chapter of the Letter to Titus? —The matter is ridiculous to them; for one can hardly wash a spoon clean with this water. How, then, is one to bathe body and soul with it? Reason cannot comprehend the articles of faith, including the doctrine of the Sacrament of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Therefore the order is: You must become a child and say: I do not understand this. I do indeed see nothing but water and how it is being poured over a little child. But I will gladly be a fool and a child, and I will believe Him when He says that, through the Word, Baptism has the power and might of regeneration and forgiveness of sins [Translation from What Luther Says, 1:485-486 (entry 1440)].”

Now Lutheran apologists will say that we are splitting hairs, but I dont think this so at all.  Luther claim's that reason cannot comprehend the articles of the faith. It's one thing to say that it's not necessary to understand everything about the faith in order to submit to it and be Catholic, for such is the nature of a child or likely the majority of Catholics. It is another thing to say that we must kill the reason in order to enter the kingdom.  There is nothing in the faith that is in and of itself unreasonable, their are aspects of the faith that are hard to understand but if they are examined there is nothing illogical in the nature of their teachings. It's not illogical to believe in the trinity because having three person's in one nature (or substance) is not illogical.  It is difficult for us to comprehend indeed but not irrational.  And once you dig deep into what the trinity is in and of itself it is the only logical answer to who and what God is which is a communion of persons, a family of self donation as Dietrich von Hildebrand would say. Now if such difficulties bring about doubt in the mind of the believer it is not reasonable to then tell them that they need to kill their reason.  A difficulty does not presuppose a doubt or a falsehood.

A mystery of the faith does not mean we know nothing of it, it means that we cannot at this time comprehend all that the mystery truly is, and nothing of such a mystery is irrational.

Breaking Luther: New Series

 

The knowledge of Martin Luther in the modern world is... well ridiculously pathetic.

Luther, who was an Augustinian monk, cut himself off of Christ's life giving vine in the 16th century establishing his own religion.  During and after his departure from the true fold, Dr. Luther (as he wished to be called) proposed a number of novelties that are not well know today, or outright ignored. 

The goal of this series is to provide specific examples of the various Lutheran heresies (most of which are not well known) and bring people to a point where they must ask the question "Why am I following a monk that supposes himself an unquestionable authority when he again and again supports heretical positions condemned since the beginning of the Church?"

+JMJ+