Chadwick on Table Talk

I always find it funny when I read propaganda material on how of bad character this Luther guy happens to be. Similarly I find it interesting when I see those non-Lutherans who come quickly to his aid. Then there are Lutherans who are not bothered at all and could not care less what rude thing Luther said or what private devotional practice he exercised etc. etc. blah, blah and more blah. Most of the time, the contoversy is launched from what is alleged to have been said by Luther published in Table Talk. The supposed intent of this is to show ill character in the man with the hope that "his followers" might abandon their cause. This of course, underestimates the basis of why "his followers" appear to be "following him" ie his interpretation of certain Biblical passages. In reality though, these detractors are giving him lots of credit than he deserves, an effect of which they have not anticipated.

Here is what Owen Chadwick says about Table Talk in his book The Reformation, p.74-75

The characteristic memory of Luther is of a man presiding at his own table, with is his colleagues and friends around, arguing with him, or listening to his divinity, his politics and his humour, One of the friends shamefacedly took out a notebook and began to jot down Luther's remarks. The habit spread, and twelve different reporters made collections. Luther sometimes mocked nut neither resented nor forbade these deferential scribes. Twenty years after his death, one of them, Aurifaber, published a collection from a variety of collections . Thenceforth Luther's Table Talk became a classic of the Reformation. Rude and outspoken he might often be; 'Dear husband', said Catherine, 'you are too rude'. 'They teach me to be rude" replied Luther. He was so outspoken that his enemiesleaped to make capital out of the Table Talk. It is unreliable as a source for details of history, particularly when the events occured many years before the date of the reported conversation; and Aurifaber's text was not untouched by improvement or interpolation. But iit is a unique and authentic picture of a man and a divine; he who would understand Luther's person and mind cannot neglect it. It is impossible to apply any epithet to him less than the old classical epithet magnanimous, in its original sense of great-hearted.

I observe that Lutherans are not bothered at all by the assasination of character hurled at Luther, primarily because they are not bound by what Luther said, they are bound by what is in their confession, though some of it were written by him. For after all - Luther himself was both iustus et pecator, just like any other Christian, hence he is treated like any other Church Father, capable of error, respected but no idol.

1And I, when I came to you, brothers,[a] did not come proclaiming to you the testimony[b] of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, 4and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. - 1 Cor 2

Secret JBFA teaching of the Apostles

Chris Rosebrough a Biblical Text archaeologist has uncovered what is said to be a fragment of the Apostles' teaching on JBFA. Listen to his report here.

To me the logic of JBFA is very simple by taking key Scriptural declarations - if one confines what Jesus paid for to the ceremonial Law, then that means to say that there are sins that Jesus did not pay for, and to believe that is to deny the testimony of Scripture that says "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" - John 1:29.

To confine the Law to ceremonial or dietary laws is to commit a fatal blunder for in Romans 3:28
28For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

The law here is singular it stands for the Torah collectively, the whole that encompasses moral, civil, ceremonial and dietary Laws.

Jesus says in Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them".

Not for himself, but for those who do not and are not capable of fulfilling them. Sinners ............like me.

A Product of Luther's Libido?

I found this article at The Ark here amusing. It discusses the theory that Protestantism is a product of Luther's Libido. That is ,Luther wanted to be released from the sexual tensions within him so he devised a plan for freedom to marry - the Reformation. It is a really interesting theory and it was propagated by his detractors at that time. However, there are I suspect still those who really believe this theory. So we are a product of his sex drive eh?

The article featured an interview with a Professor of Gender Studies in University of Wisconsin, Prof Merry Wiesner-Hanks. It is an interesting and discussion specially on the way Luther appreciated and praised his wife so much. Wiesner-Hanks believes that Luther had a healthy and robust view of the sexual dimension of life, and for Luther the libido started at the fall.

There is also a discussion on Luther's use of explatives and vulgar talk, something many are offended and have used to attack his character. Here is what Prof Merry said

Rachael Kohn: Merry, much has been made of Luther’s coarse language, his vulgarity, his frequent scatological references. What do you think they indicate about him?

Merry Wiesner-Hanks: Well first of all I think they indicate that that’s the way that people talked in the 16th century, and wrote.

Again, including people like Thomas More or Erasmus, I mean the most highly learned people wrote in what language that we would now think of as vulgar and scatalogical, particularly when they were dealing with things that they saw as powerful or things for which they had powerful feelings. And that of course then comes to include one’s religious opponents, for Luther and for many others, includes his remarks about the Jews, or the Turks, it is the way that Luther talks about the papacy, it’s the way that his Catholic opponents talked about him. So that it’s not specific to Luther, it’s simply that people were perhaps a bit more forthright than we sometimes expect them to be. But it’s not peculiar to him.

I observed that many of these vulgarites often used to put Luther in wicked light were quoted from Table Talk and historians have pointed out that these were not necessarily also the words of Luther for they were written by his dinner guests - his students. Later I will post what one historian says about the Table Talk.

Hannity Hannitized

I do not have FoxTel, so I go to Fox News online. I do not know much of Mr. Sean Hannity of Hannity and Colmes. Apparently he is Conservative in his politics and a practising RC Christian and is an advocate for birth control methods. He was criticized and taken to task by Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer of HLI

The RCC says that Birth Control is sin but according to Hannity this is much better for non-RCs than abortion. Looks like he is advocating two rules for humanity which the RCC is saying not so, for if RCC considers Birth Control a sin, it means it is a sin whoever commits it. When Hannity asked the reverened Fr. Euteneuer if he would be served communion in Fr. Euteneur's church, the good Father said - NO! Hannity should at least be a good RC and believe, teach and confess what his church teaches and not run as a public heretic (Fr. Euteneuer's words, apparently one can be private heretic in the RCC which can also happen in Protestant Churches). The good Father is right in denying him Communion but I think too that Hannity thinks that the RCC is wrong in condemning Birth Control.

However, in this development, there was a Fr. Morris who spoke in favor of Mr. Hannity found in HLI web site, or at least disagrees with Fr. Euteneuer's method of correction here

I note though the reply of Fr. Euteneuer giving the reasons why he engaged Hannity in public correction. I was glued to the end of one of the paragraphs, where Fr. Euteneur said...

I might also add that in doing so I have fulfilled my duty as a priest which is a requirement for my salvation.

Those were his italics, not mine.

Life Coach?

I was in a party a couple of years back. Since the host happened to be a Christian, there were lots of pastors in the party, so they sat me there at the table with a handful of pastors around. So I got to talking and exchanging pleasantries. I normally like to listen than talk, don't wonder, I am really like that!

Anyway, I had a could talk with the pastor beside me, he has a growing congregation in the city where the party was being held. So in the middle of the party, we got to talk about contact numbers and better yet we exchanged calling cards, business cards that is. I looked at his card and at one face of the card was his pastoral title, and location of his church etc, but I happened to flipped the card over and it said there that he was a life coach. It says that he is available for consultation on how to get your life organized, in order and successful. Life coach. Hmmm, interesting.

That passed. I was in another meeting and again with some pastors. Same thing happened, I exchanged calling cards with one fellow I met. I flipped over his card and there again - a Life Consultant of some title like that.

I got to thinking, if a pastor wants to burn out and run his time so thin he is counselling people one after another, then that is what he should bill himself - a Life Coach and present the Bible as the manual for successful living. Pretty soon, he would be so flooded by people wanting to see him for consultation he has to hire a secretary. No doubt the church will grow, but I got bad news. Don't think it is growing because of the Gospel, because the notion that the Bible is there for successful living...well that is not the Gospel. That is a baby boomer understanding of the Bible and Christianity. The ancient Christians knew no such a thing.

Trusting in Scripture...alone - a gift

I am sure we have heard a lot on the "Lost Tomb of Jesus". The documentary which I have not seen myself has been upsetting some and not because it seemed to be true but the pathetic amateurish scholarship found there.

However, my gig is tangential to that. I am more and more getting convinced that in the same way that in Eph 2:8-9 says that faith is a gift, I am also convinced that believing in the testimony of Scripture alone.... is a gift too! What prompted me to entertain this idea is based on lessons I have learned from my friends who deny Sola Scriptura. However, today that idea got re-inforced when I listen to the excellent treatmeant of Pr. Tom Baker on his program Law and Gospel found here. In this program, Pr. (Dr.)Baker was reacting on the "Lost Tomb of Jesus". I highly recommend for your listening edification.

To jump ahead - the point is John 20:24-29. Pr. Baker says that he had no desire to appear rational to the world because our faith is foolishness to them, appealing to material evidence is a "milky" was of defending the faith. Rather, the lesson is found in Thomas' experience, in that passage there Jesus said to him - "blessed are they who have not seen and yet believe".

Come home now to where we live. We have no evidence that Jesus' death was for our sins, only Scripture says that. We were not there at that time and place. You find no proclamation of that except from Scripture. Hence, since believing the Gospel promise is a gift and since that promise is in Scripture alone and in no other evidence, then believing Scripture is a gift too, absolutely it is.


It is futile exercise to look for hope somewhere else or even withing what is in ourselves, if the Scripture promise does not suffice, nothing else will.

real caths

Jaroslav Pelikan in his book The Riddle of Roman Catholicism p. 47 has this to say...

Hence the Reformation was indeed a catholic movement. If we keep in mind how variegated medieval catholicism was, the legitimacy of the reformers' claim to catholicity becomes clear. With men like Augustine and Bernard on their side, the reformers could well protest against the usurpation of the name "catholic church" by their opponents. A leading irenic and orthodox theologian of the seventeehth century, Johann Gerhard (4. 1637) spoke for all the reformers when he said:
If the papists want to prove the truth of the name "catholic" as applied to their church, let them demonstrate that the dogmas of their church are catholic, that is, that they are in conformity with the catholic writings of the prophets and apostles!...
If the papists want to deny us the name "catholic", let them demonstrate that we have seceded from the catholic faith and that we deny the mystery of the Trinity.

Not a new "Protestant" gospel, then, but the gospel of the true church, the catholic church of all generations, is what the Reformation claimed to be espousing. Substantiation for this understanding of the gospel came principally from the Scriptures; but whenever they could, the reformers also quoted the fathers of the catholic church. There were more to quote than their Roman opponents found comfortable. Every major tenet of the Reformation had considerable support in the catholic tradition.

There is more to quote of Pelikan too but space and time does not permit in this instance, yet inspite of Pelikan's move to Eastern Orthodoxy in his later years, I have no knowldege that he has retracted this positive evaluation of the Reformers. Let me know if you do.

According to Pelikan and to the Reformers

...for the church is truly catholic and apostolic when it relied upon biblical teaching, and it became sectarian when it admitted human opinions into the body of its teaching

.

In light hearted conversations, I have heard of orthodox Protestant theologians/pastors quip - "we are the ones that are catholic, it is they that added the Pope". For Pelikan, this seems to be true.

But more to the point, what makes someone, a something? Is it the sign on the bill board? When speaking about human beings, the Christians were identified by their confession, hence, the Creed, or what they truly believe in. Back home there is a home grown religious group, and the group's name when translated in English is "The Church of Christ". In their apologetics, they would often ask hearers (and to reinforce the faith of their members) - "who is the real church of Christ? Well, no other than us, can you not see that that is our name, we are called by that name and because we are called by that name, we are what we are called?"

Begs the question, doesn't it? Actually there is a false premise, "we are called by that name" is not true, for in actuality it is "we call ourselves by that name".

You can apply this same type of analysis to the most obvious case in Christendom.

St. Clement & JBFA

In the First Letter of St. Clement to The Corinthians we have these words on Chapter 32

Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him.129 For from him130 have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh.131 From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, "Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven."132 All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

As can be seen from this quote St. Clement believed and taught JBFA as well. Clearly he says we are not justified by ourselves, this completely negates anything in us - our good works or following or "doing" any commandments, even works brought about by the "purity" of heart.

Now some will jump and probably point out to me - hey look at Chapters 33-35 where he talks about works, as if St. Clement just contradicted himself! Yes he does talk about works, but Chapter 32 as preamble eliminates any works as source of justification instead it speaks of faith through which God has justified all men and I quote but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Chapters 33-35 should be read in context - and what surrounds the discussion. Proof of this is in looking at Chapter 36 where all gifts are given by God to us for the sake Christ.

St. Clement in my thinking was following the Apostle Paul in his exposition like that in Romans. After discussing the free grace of God in justifying us in Christ in Romans 3,4,5, St. Paul talks about holiness , and good works in Romans 6. To me this is one example of a convincing evidence that what the Reformers taught was not new, but was believed by the early Christians before.

I noticed that St. Clement quotes a lot from the writings of OT and NT, and this was writen in Koine Greek, I hope to read it in that language for practice one day.

Looking Eastward the revival of EO?

They say that Club L has a lot more in common with Constantinople than with Rome, for that reason, those who leave Wittenberg move to there rather than Rome.

Here is an article that asks if this might be just the century of Orthodoxy.

Over at Pr. Weedon's blog, one will see an entry on the subject of looking or moving eastward from Dr. Heinhere.


First of all, I often wondered what gives when one leaves Club L, and Dr. Hein's comments strengthened my suspicion, what goes is "sola fide", or justification by faith alone (JBFA) in favour of ancient practice or dogma.

So over in that article I read the commented posts and I was surprized that some EOs do believe that their tradition have always believed in "sola fide".

Here is what one lady said, Anastasia said

We Orthodox also believe that justification is by nothing but Grace, through nothing other than faith.

Here is another one from a gentleman named Chris

It was in the Orthodox Church, not in the Lutheran Church, that I learned what "by grace alone, through faith alone" means, and I could not have joined an LCMS congregation if I did not believe that the same Gospel was being proclaimed there that I had received in Orthodoxy.

BTW, for my RC friends, I also recommend the article of Pr. Weedon on Patristic Choosing and Picking Over there he quotes from Augustine on how Augustine set aside the dogmas of Cyprian - it is a bit funny how Augustine said it. You just got to read it.

Death does not trump life

You know I started to ride a motorcycle to work and being a rider, I get to worry about my vulnerability and my finitude. I think you will know what I mean by those words.

I was listening to Pr. Todd on the Invocation of the Saints here. Towards the bottom of that interview, he said something profound, profound to me anyway that it held me stunned for a few minutes. He said this...

The life of the saint begins where your life ends and Christ's life picks us. The life of the saint begins in Holy Baptism, when God gives faith in Christ alone, and that life does not end; that life can not be touched by death.

Death is not a transition, there is no doubt about it, death is an END. It is an end to one thing but it is not a beginning. It is an end to this life of sin in the flesh, a life that was really over and done with when Christ put it to death in His body at the Cross.

While I listened I knew the truth of what he said was Biblical, that principle may be found in Col 2: 11-14. But there was so much Good News, I could hardly contain it, I felt like like worshiping God at that moment. Praise the Lord.

Pachelbel - A Contribution

I often joke around and sinfully brag to my kids that Club L has at least two famous contributions to the world. What would they be you might ask? Bach and Pachelbel!

Over at Aardvark Alley I heard about his being down on Canon in D where he feature this Korean boy's version of it. Listen to it and tell me if Pachelbel was not a genius. Of course I also hope you see the genius of Jeong-Hyun Lim.

Enjoy

Alleged Anglican - Roman Catholic Union.

I am historically still active in a Calvinistic list dispite my being the black sheep - the token member of Club "L". One gentleman posted the news of the possible swing of the Anglican Church to the Roman Catholic communion apparently because of the issue of ordination of women. I know this is a controversial issue and some who thought that the LCA would be ordaining women, did indeed leave it and became RCs. Fortunately for the LCA, the issue did not pass, at least for now, until it re-surfaces again.

The news of the Anglican-Roman Catholic merging as reported by the Times news is found here

One respondent on the list, from the USA with candor, said this...

After 2,000 years of church history some folks still think they can get spiritual unity from organizational structures under one head. That is folly and contrary to everything we know.

I can understand that college kids would fall into that kind of sophomorish idealism but when leaders of organizations with a billion members starts to live in that fantasy we are seeing mass hysteria at work. Next I expect to see the Bishops and Cardinals all engaged in Saint Vidas Dances.

Having many different denominations, movements and groups of Christians is one of the reasons the USA has such a rich and dynamic Christian life. We need more denominations/ groupings not less. We need more splits and splinters house churches and beach churches and tall steeple churches.

I can understand his point on hysteria - a band wagon effect can come in for as I read the Times article, it gave a sense that Anglican resistance is futile , a kinda "you shall be assimilated" message was ringing in my head. There are only 78 milliion Anglicans compared to the Roman Catholic Churches' 1 billion, really the Anglicans are just a drop in the bucket but influential in the Protestant world. Shortly after that, we hear the news that the reported demise of the Anglican Church is quite pre-mature. The news dispelling such hysteria is found here

It is interesting what the Anglican Bishop of N.Sydney Dr. Glenn Davies said in that article

We believe Jesus Christ is the true leader of the church. If a Pope gives a directive, every parish priest follows it. If the Archbishop of Canterbury offers a directive, most ministers of a parish would think that a nice piece of advice. The very thought we would hand over our authority would be a romantic notion at the least

Scripture Alone, in what way?

Since I got no takers on my Desanctis series specially from my RC friends I will digress a bit and mention another misunderstood sola.

Sola Scriptura is another one of those things misunderstood by modern evangelicals the same way that Sola Fide is misunderstood to mean - no sacramental usage of Baptism and Lord's Supper. For some Sola Scriptura means the Bible read with nothing, no aids, read without history and without creed. This is so misunderstood that my RC friends are rightly buffled by some Protestants. That is why when they say "hey but you guys though you say Sola Scriptura use Tradition", and I warmly admit right away - "yes" and do not deny it. The question is how is Tradition used?

Here is an article by Rev. Fouts on Scripture and Tradition. I think this article spells out where Reformation Christians are different from today's modern evangelical.

Desanctis III On his "conversion"

I hope my Lutheran readers do not check out simply because I am discussing a non-Lutheran Protestant's work. I am not here to glorify any ism, but I am sure they would agree, we are here to glorify Christ and his Gospel - his Crucifixion, his work of forgiveness for sinners.

Here is now a no nonsense approach of Desanctis regarding his conversion... but as you read, do note that he held the position Emeritus Censor, and was professor of theology at the Theological Academy in Rome.
Perhaps it will be asked on what account I have left a position so good, a career which could open up the way for me to the first ecclesiastical dignities, in orer to throw my self to the arms of a troublesome and uncertain future. I have never been pleased with stories which have been written about conversions, because they are mainly a panegyric which the converted one writes of himself; and strong on this opinion I shall not write the story of my conversion, only I shall say to him who will believe it, that the motives that have moved me to abandon Rome, and take refuge in a strange land [he ran to Malta] under the care of Providence, spring from preferring the Glory that comes from God to that which come from men; heavnly benefits to earthly blessings; true peace of conscience , which is only found in Christ, to the false peace the world gives

This is the secret of my conversion, and as for those who will not believe it, I await them before the tribunal of Christ, when all the secrets of hearts shall be manifested, and there they will see if I have lied. .

I offer this observation unlike those in EWTN who seem to come out saying "Eureka - I am so happy I found and now I belong to the TRUE Church", this fellow points to the peace found in Christ. The conversion testimony does not glorify any church body, though it would be obvious that Desanctis aligned with the Waldensians of Italy, I guess my point is that he got converted to Christ who alone gave him peace of conscience. This was somewhat similar to Luther's conversion to the Gospel as well as that of Calvin.

Was Luther an anti-Pope in the first place?

I often encounter portrayals of Luther as a person who started from the beginning as a person who had an axe to grind against the Pope of his day. Was Luther going to be happy only if he saw the western Church divided? Was he a schismatic to start with? Did he genuinely want reform or did he want division in the first place.?The more these accusations I hear, the more I like to go to the sources, but the more I get convinced as I read them, that the answer to the question was "no", he did not start as an anti-Pope for the sake of being one. I wish the focus on Luther should stop because what was this man after all? May be they think Luther is the Protestant's Pope and by casting him as a demon, Protestantism will simply crumble. It seems to me that he was an ordinary sinner who looked to Christ's Gospel as his hope, as someone once said - one beggar telling another beggar where he can find bread.

At any rate here are Luther's own words and I highlight some points to consider in which I think he denied the allegation that he was an anti-Pope to begin with. This is found in the Note to the Christian Reader.

DR. MARTIN LUTHER TO THE CHRISTIAN READER
                        
       
      EDITION OF 1545
                        
                  
      Above all things I beseech the Christian reader and beg him  for
      the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ, to read my earliest books  very
      circumspectly and with much pity, knowing that before now I  too
       was a monk, and one of the right frantic and raving papists.  When
      I took up this matter against Indulgences, I was so full and 
       drunken, yea, so besotted in papal doctrine that, out of my great 
       zeal, I would have been ready to do murder -- at least, I would 
       have been glad to see and help that murder should be done -- on 
       all who would not be obedient and subject to the pope, even to 
       his smallest word.
       
      Such a Saul was I at that time; and I meant it right earnestly;
      and there are still many such to-day. In a word, I was not such a
      frozen and ice-cold champion of the papacy as Eck and others of
      his kind have been and still are. They defend the Roman See more
      for the sake of the shameful belly, which is their god, than
      because they are really attached to its cause. Indeed I am wholly
      of the opinion that like latter-day Epicureans, they only laugh at
      the pope. But I verily espoused this cause in deepest earnest and
       in all fidelity; the more so because I shrank from the Last Day
       with great anxiety and fear and terror, and yet from the depths of
       my heart desired to be saved. 
       
      Therefore, Christian reader, thou wilt find in my earliest books
       and writings how many points of faith I then, with all humility,
       yielded and conceded to the pope, which since then I have held and
      condemned for the most horrible blasphemy and abomination, and
      which I would have to be so held and so condemned forever. Amen.
                                                       
      Thou wilt therefore ascribe this my error, or as my opponents
      venomously call it, this inconsistency of mine, to the time, and
      to my ignorance and inexperience. At the beginning I was quite
      alone and without any helpers, and moreover, to tell the truth,
      unskilled in all these things, and far too unlearned to discuss
      such high and weighty matters. For it was without any intention,
      purpose, or will of mine that I fell, quite unexpectedly, into
      this wrangling and contention.  This I take God, the Searcher of
      hearts, to witness.
                                                      
      I tell these things to the end that, if thou shalt read my books,
       thou mayest know and remember that I am one of those who, as St.
       Augustine says of himself, have grown by writing and by teaching
       others, and not one of those who, starting with nothing, have in a
       trice become the most exalted and most learned doctors. We find,
      alas! many of these self-grown doctors; who in truth are nothing,
      do nothing and accomplish nothing, are moreover untried and
      inexperienced, and yet, after a single look at the Scriptures,
      think themselves able wholly to exhaust its spirit.
                                                      
      Farewell, dear reader, in the Lord. Pray that the Word may be
      further spread abroad, and may be strong against the miserable
      devil. For he is mighty and wicked, and just now is raving
      everywhere and raging cruelly, like one who well knows and feels
      that his time is short, and that the kingdom of his Vicar, the
      Antichrist in Rome, is sore beset. But may the God of all grace
       and mercy strengthen and complete in us the work He has begun, to
       His honor and to the comfort of His little flock. Amen. 

Bad boy Luther

I have been thinking on what a friend of mine said... about Luther

I meant that they[Luther and the Reformers] should have stopped after being warned in Exsurge Domine to cease their publications and public preaching.

That's what I meant about my being pragmatic. It seems like a surrender, to back down from the threat of excommunication, but the Church had had its bleak periods before, the biggest one I can think of being the Arian heresy, which overtook most of the Church, and most of her leadership. It was the Lord's hand that saved the Church. So if it is a surrender, it is a surrender to God's reliable providence and pastoring. And no better healing can have ever been had.

Tragically, Luther did feel that it would take the Lord's hand to resolve the corruption he saw, but he just couldn't stand by and wait.

I wonder if in the Arian controversy, Jeff would be willing to have adopted the same attitude - just be quiet - let God sort it out. When false teaching is happening in the body of Christ, controversy and debate should never stop. In my thinking this is part and parcel of God putting us in line.

Jeff speaks of surrender, so surrender to false teaching then? So Luther is a bad boy, he should have recanted on some of his assertions like...

25. The Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, is not the vicar of Christ over all the churches of the entire world, instituted by Christ Himself in blessed Peter.
28. If the pope with a great part of the Church thought so and so, he would not err; still it is not a sin or heresy to think the contrary, especially in a matter not necessary for salvation, until one alternative is condemned and another approved by a general Council.
33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
35. No one is certain that he is not always sinning mortally, because of the most hidden vice of pride.
37. Purgatory cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture which is in the canon[church laws?].

Point 25 is very evident that the Councils like that in Carthage 419 and on wards did not consider the Bishop of Rome as he Vicar of Christ over all the churches of the entire world. The EO never believed it and so did the early Christians. Point 28 is obvious because all men are sinners and therefore may err. Simple logic will dictate that if we believe the Pope is a human being too. Well for point 33, as a Christian - you think for yourself , you figure it out- should we burn those who disagree with us? Did the early Christians burn the Arians or the Donatists? I wonder. Point 35 is again just stating what the Bible says - 1 John 1:7-8. Point 37 was never believed by the early Christians either.

To do what the Exsurge says is to accept erroneous teaching (at least from Luther's eyes), in otherwords, to comply meant a recantation. Thus he would have to agree that the Pope was the Vicar of Christ for all churches, he would have to agree that the Pope never errs etc etc.

So Luther was the bad boy for not complying, but what about the Papacy for teaching the sale of indulgences, this was not bad?


I wonder, are we not calling good evil and evil good here? I am just thinking...

Desanctis II on Layers

Was Desanctis another Alberto Rivera? I am not yet that convinced that he was, so I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt and reserve my judgements till proven otherwise. Rivera died just about 10 years ago, while Desanctis died 100+ years ago. Click here for some info about him, this link at least confirms that he was indeed a former RC priest who held an important office in the RCC in the mid 1800s.

Scholarship dictates that we examine the things he claimed and said and prove/disprove if such claims did match reality.

According to Desanctis, before plunging in to become an RC, one must see it in Rome. For him, the RCC should be seen in terms of layers and I quote from his preface (p.7) once more ...

You must go to Rome, and observing all things with a searching eye, you will see that real Roman Catholicism has three different doctrines -- the official doctrine, which is very elastic, and as such, may be inderstood in not a bad sense. That doctrine serves as a weapon to the Jesuits and their adherents; and with the double meaning to that doctrine they show faithful Catholics that the Protestants calumniate Catholicism. They have a second doctrine, which they call the theological doctrine, that which goes much further than the official doctrine, but still is restrained within certain limits. Finally, there is the real doctrine, that which is taught to the people, and which they practice; which is full of superstitions and often full of impiety.

By the way a few more points, the book I have does not contain the Conclusion and Notes for the Italian reader, apparently there were documentations that were presented in the Italian edition to prove his points. Also at the time of his writing, there was already a gainsayer called Fr. Perrone who has thrown skepticism at his writings.

Hmm, "calumniate", now that is a new word for me...

Later on I will quote his conversion experience which I find not sensational at all...

Luigi Desanctis I

I am a proud owner of a very rare book printed in 1903 by this former RC priest turned Waldensian in the late 19th c. (1865) Fr. Desanctis wrote a series of letters in the style of C. S. Lewis compiled into a book he entitled Roma Papale (trans. Roman Papacy?) and was translated to English by Maria Betts entitled Popery, Puseyism and Jesuitism.

Apparently the ex-Father Desanctis has the following credentials : born in a RC family, 22 years in a Congregation of priests associated with Jesuits. He was Confessor in Rome for 15 years. He was 8 years the parsih priest of Church of the Magdalene in Rome.


I am not so sure if his boook can be classified as another conspiracy theory that proposes the notion that the Jesuits have a program to win back Protestants to the Pope. I judge a book by its contents not by what it says in its cover. The reason why I like to study this book is because some of the the things he said in his Preface rings true to my experience.

Here is an example. I have often said and observe to the ex-Prots that the RC you see in western countries is not the same thing you see in Latinized countries like the Philippines, Mexico, Venezuela etc. I say this as a person who was also raised Roman and was devoted to the practice of the 7 sacraments and devotion to the saints. Remarkably here is what Desanctis says in p. 4.

He who wishes to know Roman Catholicism as it is, must study it in Rome, and study it, not in books, but see it in action in the Pope, in the Cardinals, and in the Roman congregations. Books often give a false, and always an incomplete, idea of Roman Catholicism. One finds in books either the barbarous and superstitious Papacy of the Middle Ages, or the poetical Papacy of Chateaubriand.

If you observe the Papacy in different countries, you will find it most varied. In the south of Italy you will still find all the superstitions of the medieval age; in England, and in Germany where Roman Catholics are mixed with Protestants, you will find a Papacy less superstitious and more tolerant, to be transformed into superstition and intolerance in the day when it shall have become dominant

Back home, when someone wants to have a child baptized, you will be asked in the church office if you want special or regular baptism which implies that the fee for the special one is dearer than the one for the regular one. In p. 6 Desanctis writes with strong words...

To know that Roman Catholicism is the religion of money, you need to go to Rome, to enter the Chancery, and the Roman Court of equity, and to see in what way bishoprics, canonries, benefices, matrimonial dispensations, and all spiritual favours are bought, to see how the price is haggled over, and to see a class of persons authorized to be the agents of such sales, under the specious title of Apostolic Commisioner.

There are fanatics on both sides of the divide, Desanctis does not seem to be one of them for he writes that he does not want to be controversial and he does not deny that there are good people who are RC and honourable in character. He does not deny that there are people who are acting in good faith but he does contend that it is an effect of culpable ignorance and keeping to pursue childhood prejudices (p.6). Amazingly, I recall my prejudices when I was a young lad.


more later...

This Jesuit thinks we are not heretics

In this article an RC priest thinks we are not heretics. Thanks very much, that is very kind of him.

Now if I remember history right, they called us heretics while we called them apostate false church. I wonder if we can stop calling them with the "a" word since we will no longer be called with the "h" word? A barter do you suppose?.

Unity or Truth

What about these 25,000 denominations? I am not bothered by them. I know my blog visitors will be scandalized by what I just said because ... did not Jesus pray that "they" might be one in John 17? I agree he did.

These 25,000 denominations are claiming some absolute truth and they collide, well ... that is better than saying there is no truth, or saying we can not know truth or saying what is true for you may not be true for me so..... why do not we just sit down around a camp fire and sing "Kumbaya my Lord"? Or my RC friends might say, yes there is truth and the Pope says whatever it is, so why don't we just gather around that (please,... I say this respectfully and with no sarcasm)? So what should we do, should we go to the post-modern solution of relative truths?

It is interesting that when Jesus prayed for unity he did not leave out the notion of truth, in fact several times this word were mentioned.

7Sanctify them^[b] in the truth; your word is truth. 18As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19And for their sake I consecrate myself,^[c] that they also may be sanctified^[d] in truth.

Jesus says - Your [The Father's ] word is truth. Where is truth then? Jesus says that it is in God's word, so to know it, find out where God spoke and there we find truth and gather around that.

I contend that the only reliable place to look are the Scriptures because Jesus gave authority to it, not the Church. It was better than that, it was the head of the Church who said that - Christ the Lord.

There is an empirical test to this. See if what Scripture says about your sin matches your experience, see too if you can by your own efforts live out the demands of God. My answer to the first is "yes", my answer to the second is "no" and the solution is not to try harder.

Lastly in the creeds we confess "we believe in one holy catholic (universal) apostolic church... we believe in the communion of the saints". This is an article of faith, that it is , it is already true now, that there is one church -- a body of believers (ie not hypocrites) who in repentance and faith cleave alone to the work of Christ for their sins.

I do not see this oneness by my eyes, that is why it is an article of faith the same way I have not seen Jesus died on the Cross for me, but I believe that story is true.