FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Question: ...a certain Martin Luther was a monk, what does that tell us...?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
(03-26-2014, 08:20 AM)Heorot Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-25-2014, 11:52 PM)Poche Wrote: [ -> ]Omnia malo a clero?

This is only true in a relative manner, by the mode of communication; in truth, all evil and heresy comes from the heart of every sort of fallen man, but the clergy just have opportunity to teach it in public. ;) There have been many evils and heresies accepted by the laity. Both sides are culpable: the one for teaching, the one for accepting.

(03-26-2014, 12:01 AM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote: [ -> ]Any number of quotes from St. Augustine demonstrate readily he was a Catholic.  (Here's one, paraphrased: "I would not believe the Scriptures if the Catholic Church did not tell me they were true.")

ACT, where does this quote come from? Why is it necessary to paraphrase it? Where is the source? What is the citation?

You see, when I was a protestant (Anglican), I was utterly convinced that most Catholics just take the Fathers out of context or simply make up quotes. There are, for example, words attributed to many of the Fathers in St. Alphonsus de Liguori's "The Glories of Mary" which cannot be found in any known patristic writings. He never sources his quotes, nor gives citation. Protestants have occasion to laugh at this laxity.

I'm still pretty much convinced that many of the Fathers held positions which we might call Protestant, and many (often the same men) held positions which we would call (Roman) Catholic. Protestants have found much evidence of this; for example, Athanasius 39th festal letter, in which he lists a scripture canon equal to the Protestant canon.

There is, in the end, no sureness or firmness of foundation in the opinions of men. I receive the Fathers which are received by the holy living Magisterium of the Church. That is the only way.

Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichæus (Chapter 5) - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1405.htm

In context:

Quote:Let us see then what Manichæus teaches me; and particularly let us examine that treatise which he calls the Fundamental Epistle, in which almost all that you believe is contained. For in that unhappy time when we read it we were in your opinion enlightened. The epistle begins thus:— "Manichæus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are wholesome words from the perennial and living fountain." Now, if you please, patiently give heed to my inquiry. I do not believe Manichæus to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg of you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is my rule to believe none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manichæus? You will reply, An apostle of Christ. I do not believe it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of the truth, and here you are forcing me to believe what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manichæus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichæus, how can I but consent? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you—If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichæus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel;— Again, if you say, You were right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their vituperation of Manichæus: do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason? It is therefore fairer and safer by far for me, having in one instance put faith in the Catholics, not to go over to you, till, instead of bidding me believe, you make me understand something in the clearest and most open manner. To convince me, then, you must put aside the gospel. If you keep to the gospel, I will keep to those who commanded me to believe the gospel; and, in obedience to them, I will not believe you at all. But if haply you should succeed in finding in the gospel an incontrovertible testimony to the apostleship of Manichæus, you will weaken my regard for the authority of the Catholics who bid me not to believe you; and the effect of that will be, that I shall no longer be able to believe the gospel either, for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichæus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you. But if you read thence some passage clearly in favor of Manichæus, I will believe neither them nor you: not them, for they lied to me about you; nor you, for you quote to me that Scripture which I had believed on the authority of those liars. But far be it that I should not believe the gospel; for believing it, I find no way of believing you too. For the names of the apostles, as there recorded, do not include the name of Manichæus. And who the successor of Christ's betrayer was we read in the Acts of the Apostles; Acts 1:26 which book I must needs believe if I believe the gospel, since both writings alike Catholic authority commends to me. The same book contains the well-known narrative of the calling and apostleship of Paul. Acts ix Read me now, if you can, in the gospel where Manichæus is called an apostle, or in any other book in which I have professed to believe. Will you read the passage where the Lord promised the Holy Spirit as a Paraclete, to the apostles? Concerning which passage, behold how many and how great are the things that restrain and deter me from believing in Manichæus.

-Martin
(03-26-2014, 12:01 AM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-25-2014, 02:56 PM)Unum Sint Wrote: [ -> ]about monastic life?

I am not saying that he is a good example but does it say anything at all about monasticism or about the Augustinian order in general or about St. Augustine him self. After all one of the favorite saints of the so called reformers (including Calvin) was St. Augustine.

You might as well say that the "Reformers" were Catholics, and thus Catholicism is erroneous.

Protestants co-opt and corrupt Augustine as they do all the Fathers.  They - the more intelligent breed of them, as the rest don't even know what the Church Fathers are nor anything else of the early history of the Church - realize that if it can be shown that the early Church was thoroughly Catholic, Protestantism is still-born. 

And the early Church was indeed thoroughly Catholic, in every major way, in every point of "disagreement" between Protestantism and the true faith.

Any number of quotes from St. Augustine demonstrate readily he was a Catholic.  (Here's one, paraphrased: "I would not believe the Scriptures if the Catholic Church did not tell me they were true.")

This reminds me of a funny story. 

I was about 12, being driven to school by my mother.  We were listening to the radio.  The Host took a call.  The caller was calling, ENRAGED that her child had just been taught about the Spanish Conquistadors.  The child had been taught that the Spanish brought Catholic missionaries to the New World to convert the heathens.  What the caller was most upset about is that the teacher made NO mention of Lutherans also going to the New World to convert the heathens. 

I was just 12, but even I knew that Luther hadn't yet begun his heresy.

It is quite funny how ignorant the protestants are of their own history.

But to the OPs original point, this is quite a failure in logic.

Here in my home Archdiocese of Boston, perhaps the worst offender for pedophile priests, are we to say how can any priest be good?  What does that say about priests....

It tells us that priests sin.  Some also even repent.  Just like the rest of us.
(03-25-2014, 03:38 PM)2HearsServant Wrote: [ -> ]It tells us that no one is immune from temptation, and we are all free to make our own choices, whether to submit and obey or rebel and make our own path. God doesn't revoke a man's free will when he becomes a monk or a priest, we still have to live a life of conversion and repentance no matter our vocation.

Exactly.  Even the disciples weren't immune from rebellion.
(03-25-2014, 06:39 PM)Dmorgan Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-25-2014, 05:53 PM)triumphguy Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-25-2014, 02:56 PM)Unum Sint Wrote: [ -> ]about monastic life?

I am not saying that he is a good example but does it say anything at all about monasticism or about the Augustinian order in general or about St. Augustine him self. After all one of the favorite saints of the so called reformers (including Calvin) was St. Augustine.

Well, first, he wasn't a monk he was an Augustinian Friar.

Secondly - he had hemorrhoids - perhaps people with hemorrhoids are prone to heresy?

Hey, be nice! ;)

Can hemhorroid sufferers be hole-y?
(03-26-2014, 08:20 AM)Heorot Wrote: [ -> ]ACT, where does this quote come from? Why is it necessary to paraphrase it? Where is the source? What is the citation?

I paraphrased because I wasn't in the mood to look it up verbatim.  It's a very well-known quote - I believe Google would make quick work of it.


Quote:You see, when I was a protestant (Anglican), I was utterly convinced that most Catholics just take the Fathers out of context or simply make up quotes. There are, for example, words attributed to many of the Fathers in St. Alphonsus de Liguori's "The Glories of Mary" which cannot be found in any known patristic writings. He never sources his quotes, nor gives citation. Protestants have occasion to laugh at this laxity.

I'm still pretty much convinced that many of the Fathers held positions which we might call Protestant, and many (often the same men) held positions which we would call (Roman) Catholic. Protestants have found much evidence of this; for example, Athanasius 39th festal letter, in which he lists a scripture canon equal to the Protestant canon.

There is, in the end, no sureness or firmness of foundation in the opinions of men. I receive the Fathers which are received by the holy living Magisterium of the Church. That is the only way.

Lots of misconceptions here (no offense).  You've been influenced, it seems, by people either ignorant or disingenuous.  To be frank, many Protestants say many preposterous things, the preposterousness of which is only evident once one examines the evidence.

I'll not speak about "The Glories of Mary" as I'm not familiar enough with it and it is but a drop in this ocean.

On all the major issues, the Fathers are overwhelmingly Catholic: the Eucharist, the primacy of Peter, purgation/works/salvation, Tradition, the moral issues, and more.

Here is a most excellent resource:

http://www.johnsalza.com/p/scripturefathers.html

I think you are incorrect that *any* Church Father made any kind of authoritative pronouncement on the canon (before it was decided by the Church) - as Protestants today do.  Rather, before the canon was settled, it was not settled, universally, and different regions had their own traditions.

In fact, the support for the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books is extremely strong.  Here is a collection of quotes from them books in the New Testament:

http://scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

(I understand that you as a Catholic do not dispute this point at all - you trust in the binding, authoritative decisions of the [Catholic] ecumenical councils that defined the canon.  My point is just that, even if some Fathers were not aware of it, there is great support for including the deuterocanonicals.  But, in the end, there is only one reason to: the Holy Spirit says to.  We're back to the nonsensicality of the entire Protestant position: It is sola scriptura, which implies that what *is* Scripture can be known with moral certainty, but the Protestant has absolutely no mechanism to know the canon with moral certainty.)

I believe I have some possibly interesting information regarding the canon in these two pieces:

http://www.acatholicthinker.net/infallibility/
http://www.acatholicthinker.net/sola-scriptura/

(Some of this may be poorly-written or tough to follow - I'm an amateur.)

Once you look at the evidence - just a representational cross-section - it's no contest, honestly.  I'm not exaggerating.

That is why Protestantism did not exist for 15 centuries after the founding of the Catholic Church.  None of the Fathers were remotely Protestant.  In fact, the two cornerstones of Protestantism - sola-scriptura and sola fide - were virtually invented by Luther.  There was Zwingli first - not too long before - but before Luther, virtually no one in the universe of Christianity could even *conceive* of a doctrine so bizarre as sola scripture. 
Pages: 1 2