E-Mail 'Martin Luther was a "teacher of the faith"' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'Martin Luther was a "teacher of the faith"' to a friend

* Required Field






Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.



Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.


E-Mail Image Verification

Loading ... Loading ...

10 Responses to Martin Luther was a “teacher of the faith”

  1. robert c says:

    maybe they have never googled Martin Luther's 38 mistaken teachings

  2. Margaret Paton says:

    Well, actually, no, Sacred Scripture can't be since the Church, ie the Catholic Church, existed before the "Sacred Scriptures" that Martin Luther and Bishop Feige are talking about. It's Scripture and Tradition that's the "centre and standard for all Christian life." Also the "fundamental insight that God's self-relevation in Jesus Christ for the salvation of the people is proclaimed in the Gospel." isn't Martin Luther's "fundamental insight" – it's Catholic Church teaching which he himself would have been taught – by Catholics!

  3. Kieran FennFMS says:

    And next year will we hear an apology from Pope Francis for our own responsibility for the tragic division within Christianity for which our own Church carries a huge responsibility? I suspect we will. Our own refusal to carry out necessary reforms, our distortions of theology and corruption contributed so much to the tragic division of Christianity..

    Our response – a Counter Reformation! In my lifetime I would see Vatican II as our first widespread reforming council and look at the opposition it provoked.

    Martin Luther wrote one of the best dissertations on the Magnificat of Mary and the scene of him writing in the dust on the table, of the Eucharist "This is my body!" and that is what the Eucharist means.

    We as Church are very close to the Lutherans. In this coming year may ecumenism flourish and the wish of Christ for unity become a burning desire in all our hearts.

  4. Kieran FennFMS says:

    The Sacred Scriptures, notably the Hebrew Scriptures or Old Testament, the Bible for Jesus himself, existed before the Church came into being. The decree on Revelation tells us clearly that 'God's plan of salvation is found in the books of the Old Testament' (#14) and 'the New Testament is hidden in the Old and the Old is made manifest in the New' (#16). The Church Fathers gave us the important teaching that "The Bible is the norm that norms every other norm" – a teaching that brings us as close as we can get to 'sola Scriptura.'

  5. Margaret Paton says:

    Is that the 73 book bible or Luther's edited version? Certainly the Catholic Church never has been, and never will be, "squeaky clean". But then neither was Luther nor the Reformed churches that followed his actions. Consequently I can't see any reason why we, as Catholics, should "bow and curtsy" to anyone for anything – except, of course, in service as Christ himself did. And of course it goes without saying that the protestant parties next year should be seen by Catholics as tragic events as we continue to await the straying children to return home . And re Vatican II – that's a totally different topic and probably one we should all do a year of praying and fasting in penance for the sins of!

  6. Kieran FennFMS says:

    Actually the Hebrew Scriptures for Jesus may well have been the the Protestant canon of the Old Testament since the rejected books were largely those not written in Hebrew but were in Greek. That was one of the criteria for rejection – that the the Bible for Jesus was the closed canon of the first century without the Deuterocanonical books. That the argument was a flawed one and the canon was not closed by such a group as the Jewish Council of Jamnia is now becoming increasingly known in Protestant and Catholic biblical scholarship.

    Careful reading of the Gospels show that Jesus himself drew heavily on Deuteronomy, Isaiah and Psalms, all part of the Protestant canon. Luther himself was a great expositor of Scripture.

  7. Margaret Paton says:

    I'm no Bible scholar – just a plain ordinary Catholic, but I understand that there are about 350 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament that are actually from the Greek version, which was the one Jesus used, or so I was told. The whole point though is that really the Bible was put into its present coherent form by the church of the day, ie the Catholic Church. Why Luther thought that he was heavenly appointed 1300 or so years later to change it is a complete mystery. Seems to me he just wanted to cut out the bits that didn't suit him. Methinks both Martin Luther and John Smith would make a fine pair!

    • Lynda says:

      That is the scholarly consensus that the Bible was put into its present form by the Church. The Council of Trent confirmed the Fourth Council as regards the Canons of Scripture.

      Its a big story. Luther's 95 Theses were supportive of Pope and Church. i.e. the 91 Theses.
      91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist."

      Drawing from William T. Cavanugh ("A Fire Strong Enough to Consume the House': The Wars of Religion and the Rise of the State," Modern Theology 11/4 [1995]:400-1), he explains:
      ". . . here it is interesting to note that the regions of Europe which remained Catholic through the Reformation had prior concordats that limited the pope’s authority in their realms. Meanwhile, the Protestant Reformation was most successful in realms where there were no such means of limiting the pope’s reach"

      Either way Luther, however well intentioned was within the trajectory of the via moderna and the foundations of this really is irreconcilable with the Catholic view the relationship of the created order and God. True Luther had nominalism but still retained enough to significantly shape his theology. In the end Protestantism has rolled out and in the end has become secularism. As Nietzsche said 'God is dead….we killed Him". He was right as regards the liberalised Christianity which eventually emerged. Since then most progressive Christians have agreed with Nietzsche and justify their existence as Christians through social action. As Fr James Schall SJ has said very very few people today truly believe the content of the Christian Revelation.

  8. Kieran FennFMS says:

    I would say that you are on very shaky grounds with your claim that the Greek Bible was the one Jesus used. It was the Bible for those outside of the Holy Land in the Greek speaking world. Within the Holy Land the Hebrew Bible held sway. Neither Temple nor synagogue would have used anything but the Hebrew Scriptures. Certainly the Septuagint Bible was the source of most quotations used in the production of the New Testament but all the works of the New Testament were produced outside of the Holy LAnd and by authors who were acquainted with the Greek language.

  9. Lynda says:

    It is a fascinating topic. We can trust the development of Sacred Scripture through the witness of the Church.

    For a really full explanation, try googling 'The Sacred Page Loose Canons Development of the Old Testament'
    There are three parts.
    Or 'The Sacred Page Thoughts on the Church's Old Testament Canon'