Catholic woman ordained in Lutheran Church

[guanophore]

I am a Lutheran.  Lutherans are Catholics.

No. Catholics are in communion with the successor of Peter, in Rome.

I prefer Jon’s rendering “Catholics of the Augsburg Confession”.

I don’t believe that Luther meant to start “Lutherans”, but that he wanted to purify the Catholic faith, and considered the Pope to be one of the main sources of contamination.

Luther left no doubt where he stood concerning the Papacy when he wrote, “This teaching [of the supremacy of the pope] shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ, because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God. This is, properly speaking, to exalt himself above all that is called God. . . . The Pope, however, prohibits this faith, saying that to be saved a person must obey him” (Smalcald Articles, II, IV, 10-12).

The Iowa Synod, however, in a 1904 document continued to teach the view that it is a “human application” of the teaching of Scripture to declare the Papacy to be the Antichrist. The Iowa Synod became part of the American Lutheran Church, and its teaching on the Antichrist persisted in the new union. Since 1930 the ALC taught that it is only a “historical judgment” that the Papacy is the Antichrist. In 1938 this view was officially sanctioned in the ALC “Sandusky Declaration.” It stated:

. . . we accept the historical judgment of Luther in the Smalcald Articles . . . that the Pope is the Antichrist . . . because among all the antichristian manifestations in the history of the world and the Church that lie behind us in the past there is none that fits the description given in 2 Thess. 2 better than the Papacy . . .

The answer to the question whether in the future that is still before us, prior to the return of Christ, a special unfolding and a personal concentration of the antichristian power already present now, and thus a still more comprehensive fulfillment of 2 Thess. 2 may occur, we leave to the Lord and Ruler of Church and world history (VI, B, 1).

In its “Brief Statement” of 1932 the Missouri Synod repudiated the teaching that the identification of the Papacy as the Antichrist is only a historical judgment. It declared, “The prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist . . . have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion.” It subscribed “to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is ‘the very Antichrist.’” It declared that the doctrine of Antichrist is “not to be included in the number of open questions” (43, 44).

As Jon has patiently taught us on CAF, the Lutheran Church sees itself as a valid continuation of the One Church founded by Christ, having successfully jettisoned the antichrist in the person of the pope.

I point all this out so as not to confuse people with your assertion that Lutherans are Catholic. Luther not only rejected the Pope, the visible sign of unity, but the doctrines of the faith as well, and attempted to replace the authority Christ gave to the Church with the Scriptures, forcing them into a role they were never meant to play, but that is another thread!

The very Mass you likely attend is identical to what is celebrated in the Lutheran church.

No, Evangel, it is not. The Apostles taught that a valid eucharist is one that is presided over by the bishop, or his representative. Luther separated himself from that Apostolic succession, and Lutherans have been separated ever since.

What I experience is often what Roman Catholics experience. All my life [and I am an old man, sort of] I have worshiped and communed with other Christians, many of which have been Roman Catholic.

Yes. Many Catholics who cannot partake of the Eucharist, or are unable to attend, practice a spiritual communion, which is the same as that practiced by Lutherans who believe in the Real Presence.

I Many of these nuns were incredibly talented women with the obvious gift of ministry. Some questioned why they and all women could not be ordained priests. Within a decade or two, women were becoming priests in Lutheran and Episcopal synods/ dioceses.

The popular practice of heresy and apostasy, though fashionable and politically preferable, does not constitute the Truth.

I firmly believe that the Church of Rome will eventually ordain women priests.

May God defend us from any such Apostasies and heresies. God has revealed that the Church has not been given any such authority, and to usurp it will constitute a departure from the One Faith.
EvangelCatholic;10796246:

… about their Rosary service to the Mother Goddess I wrote to the Lutheran bishop of that synod asking him to look into this matter.

What did you find?

 

[aidanbradypop]

No. Catholics are in communion with the successor of Peter, in Rome.

I prefer Jon’s rendering “Catholics of the Augsburg Confession”.

I don’t believe that Luther meant to start “Lutherans”, but that he wanted to purify the Catholic faith, and considered the Pope to be one of the main sources of contamination.

Luther left no doubt where he stood concerning the Papacy when he wrote, “This teaching [of the supremacy of the pope] shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ, because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God. This is, properly speaking, to exalt himself above all that is called God. . . . The Pope, however, prohibits this faith, saying that to be saved a person must obey him” (Smalcald Articles, II, IV, 10-12).

The Iowa Synod, however, in a 1904 document continued to teach the view that it is a “human application” of the teaching of Scripture to declare the Papacy to be the Antichrist. The Iowa Synod became part of the American Lutheran Church, and its teaching on the Antichrist persisted in the new union. Since 1930 the ALC taught that it is only a “historical judgment” that the Papacy is the Antichrist. In 1938 this view was officially sanctioned in the ALC “Sandusky Declaration.” It stated:

. . . we accept the historical judgment of Luther in the Smalcald Articles . . . that the Pope is the Antichrist . . . because among all the antichristian manifestations in the history of the world and the Church that lie behind us in the past there is none that fits the description given in 2 Thess. 2 better than the Papacy . . .

The answer to the question whether in the future that is still before us, prior to the return of Christ, a special unfolding and a personal concentration of the antichristian power already present now, and thus a still more comprehensive fulfillment of 2 Thess. 2 may occur, we leave to the Lord and Ruler of Church and world history (VI, B, 1).

In its “Brief Statement” of 1932 the Missouri Synod repudiated the teaching that the identification of the Papacy as the Antichrist is only a historical judgment. It declared, “The prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist . . . have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion.” It subscribed “to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is ‘the very Antichrist.’” It declared that the doctrine of Antichrist is “not to be included in the number of open questions” (43, 44).

As Jon has patiently taught us on CAF, the Lutheran Church sees itself as a valid continuation of the One Church founded by Christ, having successfully jettisoned the antichrist in the person of the pope.

I point all this out so as not to confuse people with your assertion that Lutherans are Catholic. Luther not only rejected the Pope, the visible sign of unity, but the doctrines of the faith as well, and attempted to replace the authority Christ gave to the Church with the Scriptures, forcing them into a role they were never meant to play, but that is another thread!

No, Evangel, it is not. The Apostles taught that a valid eucharist is one that is presided over by the bishop, or his representative. Luther separated himself from that Apostolic succession, and Lutherans have been separated ever since.

Yes. Many Catholics who cannot partake of the Eucharist, or are unable to attend, practice a spiritual communion, which is the same as that practiced by Lutherans who believe in the Real Presence.

The popular practice of heresy and apostasy, though fashionable and politically preferable, does not constitute the Truth.

May God defend us from any such Apostasies and heresies. God has revealed that the Church has not been given any such authority, and to usurp it will constitute a departure from the One Faith.

What did you find?

I couldn’t have said it better myself!

It throws me for a loop when hearing Lutherans on here say they are Catholic. The majority of Lutherans in my area want to be so far from Catholicism that they would never proclaim such a thing. It is interesting how different areas have different views.

As I stated in an earlier post, if the article was about Baptist women (they cannot become ministers in their faith) were ordained in the Lutheran church, there would not be a thread about it.

Orthodox, Conservative Protestants, LCMS, Eastern Catholics, Catholicism…etc do not ordain women. Why is it that only the Catholic Church has this thrown in our face at every turn? All the Catholic women I know do not want a female priesthood. My wife, a faithful Catholic, stated that she would become Orthodox if the RCC started to ordain women.

 

[steido01]

Orthodox, Conservative Protestants, LCMS, Eastern Catholics, Catholicism…etc do not ordain women. Why is it that only the Catholic Church has this thrown in our face at every turn?

Being a slightly smaller body than our Roman cousins, the LCMS may not get as much press, but trust me – we take plenty of beef for not ordaining women!

My wife, a faithful Catholic, stated that she would become Orthodox if the RCC started to ordain women.

She sounds like a keeper!

 

[aidanbradypop]

Being a slightly smaller body than our Roman cousins, the LCMS may not get as much press, but trust me – we take plenty of beef for not ordaining women!

She sounds like a keeper!

Indeed she is. I find that more women are against a female priesthood than men.

 

[JonNC]

=guanophore;10823940]No. Catholics are in communion with the successor of Peter, in Rome.

I prefer Jon’s rendering “Catholics of the Augsburg Confession”.

It isn’t my rendering - folks much smarter than me. And yet, even this intends to mark us as catholic and evangelical, and part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I don’t believe that Luther meant to start “Lutherans”, but that he wanted to purify the Catholic faith, and considered the Pope to be one of the main sources of contamination.

Luther left no doubt where he stood concerning the Papacy when he wrote, “This teaching [of the supremacy of the pope] shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ, because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God. This is, properly speaking, to exalt himself above all that is called God. . . . The Pope, however, prohibits this faith, saying that to be saved a person must obey him” (Smalcald Articles, II, IV, 10-12).

The Iowa Synod, however, in a 1904 document continued to teach the view that it is a “human application” of the teaching of Scripture to declare the Papacy to be the Antichrist. The Iowa Synod became part of the American Lutheran Church, and its teaching on the Antichrist persisted in the new union. Since 1930 the ALC taught that it is only a “historical judgment” that the Papacy is the Antichrist. In 1938 this view was officially sanctioned in the ALC “Sandusky Declaration.” It stated:

. . . we accept the historical judgment of Luther in the Smalcald Articles . . . that the Pope is the Antichrist . . . because among all the antichristian manifestations in the history of the world and the Church that lie behind us in the past there is none that fits the description given in 2 Thess. 2 better than the Papacy . . .

The answer to the question whether in the future that is still before us, prior to the return of Christ, a special unfolding and a personal concentration of the antichristian power already present now, and thus a still more comprehensive fulfillment of 2 Thess. 2 may occur, we leave to the Lord and Ruler of Church and world history (VI, B, 1).

In its “Brief Statement” of 1932 the Missouri Synod repudiated the teaching that the identification of the Papacy as the Antichrist is only a historical judgment. It declared, “The prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist . . . have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion.” It subscribed “to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is ‘the very Antichrist.’” It declared that the doctrine of Antichrist is “not to be included in the number of open questions” (43, 44).

As Jon has patiently taught us on CAF, the Lutheran Church sees itself as a valid continuation of the One Church founded by Christ, having successfully jettisoned the antichrist in the person of the pope.

More the office of the papacy, but even that is stronger than I intend. I consider the CC to also be a valid continuation of the OHCaAC, where the word is proclaimed and the sacraments administered among and to His saints. And you know, of course, that I further believe it should be the desire and goal of Lutheranism to seek and pray for unity with the Bishop of Rome.

guan, I have found the following blog a rather good explanation of the understanding of antichrist, and how Lutheranism has historically applied it to the papacy. I continue to maintain that, because of the modern usage of the term by others, Lutheranism would do better to re-term our objections to the claims of the papacy.

cyberbrethren.com/2008/07/27/the-papacy%E2%80%94why-the-lutheran-confessions-assert-it-is-antichrist/

Jon

 

[CopticChristian]

It isn’t my rendering - folks much smarter than me. And yet, even this intends to mark us as catholic and evangelical, and part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

More the office of the papacy, but even that is stronger than I intend. I consider the CC to also be a valid continuation of the OHCaAC, where the word is proclaimed and the sacraments administered among and to His saints. And you know, of course, that I further believe it should be the desire and goal of Lutheranism to seek and pray for unity with the Bishop of Rome.

guan, I have found the following blog a rather good explanation of the understanding of antichrist, and how Lutheranism has historically applied it to the papacy. I continue to maintain that, because of the modern usage of the term by others, Lutheranism would do better to re-term our objections to the claims of the papacy.

cyberbrethren.com/2008/07/27/the-papacy%E2%80%94why-the-lutheran-confessions-assert-it-is-antichrist/

Jon

Jon,

with all due respect, the opinion of an Augustinian Monk holds no weight in my mind as it concerns objection. What was uttered at Trent was uttered earlier at the Council of Orange and will never change.

Am I to believe that an Augustinian Monk never read the Council of Orange?

Lutherans remain divided and unfortunately as seen on this thread there is no one Lutheran form of thought or leadership.

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

with all due respect, the opinion of an Augustinian Monk holds no weight in my mind as it concerns objection. What was uttered at Trent was uttered earlier at the Council of Orange and will never change.

Am I to believe that an Augustinian Monk never read the Council of Orange?

Lutherans remain divided and unfortunately as seen on this thread there is no one Lutheran form of thought or leadership.

And you know, Coptic, I hold you in high respect, also.

I suspect Luther read all of the councils up to that point.

We Lutherans certainly have our problems, don’t we? Please pray for us.

Jon

 

[bben15]

It is not possible for a woman to be ordained. Even if you tried to confer Holy Orders upon women, it would be invalid. Only a male can become a priest. This is a rule established by Christ himself. It can never be changed. This is the way it will be until the Last Judgement.

 

[MaryT777]

I couldn’t have said it better myself!

It throws me for a loop when hearing Lutherans on here say they are Catholic. The majority of Lutherans in my area want to be so far from Catholicism that they would never proclaim such a thing. It is interesting how different areas have different views.

As I stated in an earlier post, if the article was about Baptist women (they cannot become ministers in their faith) were ordained in the Lutheran church, there would not be a thread about it.

Orthodox, Conservative Protestants, LCMS, Eastern Catholics, Catholicism…etc do not ordain women. Why is it that only the Catholic Church has this thrown in our face at every turn? All the Catholic women I know do not want a female priesthood. My wife, a faithful Catholic, stated that she would become Orthodox if the RCC started to ordain women.

Here in my area the LCMS cringes it seems if they are considered Catholic as well,
I have never heard anyone in that congregation state they are any form of Catholic–
Capital or lower case C c…
also they changed their sign to Missouri Synod so as not to be confused with any other Synod given there are several huge ELCA churches.

 

[ffg]

Just because you didn’t read something or hear something doesn’t mean there wasn’t something stated about it in the creation of the Church.

Another way to put it -Do you think the Bible houses EVERYTHING said and done in the life of Jesus and his instructions?

Or maybe there is a focus on what would have been a fundamental shift from previous practice for the ‘New Covenant’.

Is it really logical to think that after Jesus says to Peter that he will be the foundation of the Church, that there was no discussion on details and carrying forward the plan?

I think in planning the organization the subject matter came up.

I do have a question for those in the know - are there female Rabi’s?

If so when did the practice start, if it is known to have began anytime after 2000 years ago?

Thanks,

 

[steve_b]

It isn’t my rendering - folks much smarter than me. And yet, even this intends to mark us as catholic and evangelical, and part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Augustine in his day ran into people who wanted to go by the name Catholic but weren’t.

“[T]he very name of Catholic . . . belongs to this Church alone . . . so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called `The Foundation’ 4:5 [397 A.D.]).
J:

More the office of the papacy, but even that is stronger than I intend. I consider the CC to also be a valid continuation of the OHCaAC, where the word is proclaimed and the sacraments administered among and to His saints. And you know, of course, that I further believe it should be the desire and goal of Lutheranism to seek and pray for unity with the Bishop of Rome.

Isn’t that from the articles penned in 1530 from the confession? A confession NOT from the Church, but from those in revolt from the Catholic Church? Division from the Church is an act condemned by scripture & Tradition as are those who do it and remain in it.

• Paul condemned it Galatians 5:19-21
• Ignatius condemned it Epistle to the Philadelphians
• Irenaeus condemned it Bk 3 [Chapter 2 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103302.htm) vs 2-3 & Bk 3,Chapter 3 vs 2-3
• etc etc etc

There’s no expiration date to those condemnations. There as good in the 1st century as in the 16th century or the 21st century till the end of time. There is no such thing as seperate but equal. Jesus started one Church, the Catholic Church apart from which there is no salvation. Lutherans are Lutherans. They aren’t the Catholic Church nor are they Catholics.
J:

guan, I have found the following blog a rather good explanation of the understanding of antichrist, and how Lutheranism has historically applied it to the papacy. I continue to maintain that, because of the modern usage of the term by others, Lutheranism would do better to re-term our objections to the claims of the papacy.

cyberbrethren.com/2008/07/27/the-papacy%E2%80%94why-the-lutheran-confessions-assert-it-is-antichrist/

Jon

Division from the CC is nothing more than the result of the successful sifting by Satan. That’s why Paul said, the one who causes division does evil, they don’t serve Our Lord Jesus, but Satan. [Romans 16:17-20 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Romans Chapter 16)

 

[MaryT777]

Augustine in his day ran into people who wanted to go by the name Catholic but weren’t.

“[T]he very name of Catholic . . . belongs to this Church alone . . . so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called `The Foundation’ 4:5 [397 A.D.]).

Isn’t that from the articles penned in 1530 from the confession? A confession NOT from the Church, but from those in revolt from the Catholic Church? Division from the Church is an act condemned by scripture & Tradition as are those who do it and remain in it.

• Paul condemned it Galatians 5:19-21
• Ignatius condemned it Epistle to the Philadelphians
• Irenaeus condemned it Bk 3 [Chapter 2 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103302.htm) vs 2-3 & Bk 3,Chapter 3 vs 2-3
• etc etc etc

There’s no expiration date to those condemnations. There as good in the 1st century as in the 16th century or the 21st century till the end of time. There is no such thing as seperate but equal. Jesus started one Church, the Catholic Church apart from which there is no salvation. Lutherans are Lutherans. They aren’t the Catholic Church nor are they Catholics.

Division from the CC is nothing more than the result of the successful sifting by Satan. That’s why Paul said, the one who causes division does evil, they don’t serve Our Lord Jesus, but Satan. [Romans 16:17-20 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Romans Chapter 16)

 

[hn160]

Being a slightly smaller body than our Roman cousins, the LCMS may not get as much press, but trust me – we take plenty of beef for not ordaining women!

She sounds like a keeper!

At my church, only males are allowed to be voters in the voters assembly, and to be elders and the elders assist the pastor with communion. Even the ushers are men only. Men are only allowed to teach adults if the pastors are not available. The women are fine with this arrangement.

 

[aidanbradypop]

At my church, only males are allowed to be voters in the voters assembly, and to be elders and the elders assist the pastor with communion. Even the ushers are men only. Men are only allowed to teach adults if the pastors are not available. The women are fine with this arrangement.

So men all the way huh. When I was a member of the Baptist faith, it was the same way there. Women had no voice in the congregation.

 

[Stilldreamn]

At my church, only males are allowed to be voters in the voters assembly, and to be elders and the elders assist the pastor with communion. Even the ushers are men only. Men are only allowed to teach adults if the pastors are not available. The women are fine with this arrangement.

This was also the practice of the WELS church I grew up in. In spite of a brief dabbling with feminist causes in college, I have never felt any need to rebel against church teaching on this. There are countless other ways to serve.

 

[steido01]

At my church, only males are allowed to be voters in the voters assembly, and to be elders and the elders assist the pastor with communion. Even the ushers are men only. Men are only allowed to teach adults if the pastors are not available. The women are fine with this arrangement.

Then your pastors have done an excellent job of catechizing your congregation - not an easy thing to do in today’s easily-offended, hyper-feminized world. And in California, to boot!

 

[hn160]

Then your pastors have done an excellent job of catechizing your congregation - not an easy thing to do in today’s easily-offended, hyper-feminized world. And in California, to boot!

I have been members of this congregration for about seven years since we moved here from PA and I was told that about ten years before some women wanted woman suffrage and the voters assembly voted it down because it was felt that if women were allowed to vote and serve as elders and ushers, the men would not do anything besides our pastor would have a heart attack if they wanted to help with communion. Some families did leave over the issue. Our pastors are very confessional. We have an unusual situation in that we have a father and son as pastors. The father has an another son that is a pastor in IL. All three are Fort Wayne men.

 

[guanophore]

Augustine in his day ran into people who wanted to go by the name Catholic but weren’t.

“[T]he very name of Catholic . . . belongs to this Church alone . . . so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called `The Foundation’ 4:5 [397 A.D.]).

Isn’t that from the articles penned in 1530 from the confession? A confession NOT from the Church, but from those in revolt from the Catholic Church? Division from the Church is an act condemned by scripture & Tradition as are those who do it and remain in it.

• Paul condemned it Galatians 5:19-21
• Ignatius condemned it Epistle to the Philadelphians
• Irenaeus condemned it Bk 3 [Chapter 2 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103302.htm) vs 2-3 & Bk 3,Chapter 3 vs 2-3
• etc etc etc

There’s no expiration date to those condemnations. There as good in the 1st century as in the 16th century or the 21st century till the end of time. There is no such thing as seperate but equal. Jesus started one Church, the Catholic Church apart from which there is no salvation. Lutherans are Lutherans. They aren’t the Catholic Church nor are they Catholics.

Division from the CC is nothing more than the result of the successful sifting by Satan. That’s why Paul said, the one who causes division does evil, they don’t serve Our Lord Jesus, but Satan. [Romans 16:17-20 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Romans Chapter 16)

All this being true and well said, it must also be said

and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

 

[steve_b]

All this being true and well said, it must also be said

**818 **“However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. . . . All who have been **justified by faith in Baptism **are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

Those passages I quoted from Paul and others, were talking about the justified by faith in baptism, i.e. baptised members of the Church. Afterall, in the sense Paul is using division, one has to be baptised to be a member of the Church 1st, before one can be charged with division from the Church…right? Paul is warning the baptised, don’t divide from the Church because those who do and live like that, i.e. remain divided, won’t inherit heaven when they die. They are still brothers and sisters in Christ, but as Paul said, if they remain in that sin, they won’t be going to heaven when they die. So as you point out What about people born into division? They aren’t personally guilty of division …that is …UNTIL they see ( become knowledgable) that they *ARE *divided from the Church and then do nothing about ending that division…THEN they become guiilty of division.

paragraph 818 which you cite doesn’t deny the following paragraphs

**819 **“Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."

iow, scripture and tradition says it’s not okay to just be a good protestant and all will be well. The scriptures were written in by for the Catholic Church. All those wonderful promises mentioned in scripture is a call to be Catholic in the Catholic Church. Apart from which, there is no salvation. Scripture is clear on that.

**837 **“Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’”

The context of that passage is full incorporation in the Catholic Church. Division is a gross sin against charity. Once a person knows, remaining divided has horrible consequences on one’s soul. Again, If one is born into one of these groups that is divided from the Catholic Church, how are they going to know their situation or the gravity of their situation, unless someone shows them? If I have an opportunity to show someone that reality, and I keep quiet, then I’m not showing charity to THEM. That makes me guilty of sinning against charity.

Re: Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

That’s why it’s important to share the knowledge we have as Catholics with non Catholics.

 

[CopticChristian]

Augustine in his day ran into people who wanted to go by the name Catholic but weren’t.

“[T]he very name of Catholic . . . belongs to this Church alone . . . so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called `The Foundation’ 4:5 [397 A.D.]).

Isn’t that from the articles penned in 1530 from the confession? A confession NOT from the Church, but from those in revolt from the Catholic Church? Division from the Church is an act condemned by scripture & Tradition as are those who do it and remain in it.

• Paul condemned it Galatians 5:19-21
• Ignatius condemned it Epistle to the Philadelphians
• Irenaeus condemned it Bk 3 [Chapter 2 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103302.htm) vs 2-3 & Bk 3,Chapter 3 vs 2-3
• etc etc etc

There’s no expiration date to those condemnations. There as good in the 1st century as in the 16th century or the 21st century till the end of time. There is no such thing as seperate but equal. Jesus started one Church, the Catholic Church apart from which there is no salvation. Lutherans are Lutherans. They aren’t the Catholic Church nor are they Catholics.

Division from the CC is nothing more than the result of the successful sifting by Satan. That’s why Paul said, the one who causes division does evil, they don’t serve Our Lord Jesus, but Satan. [Romans 16:17-20 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Romans Chapter 16)

I appreciate your senitment, however in the context of this letter…Paul introduces the topic, ie obedience of Faith…in Romans 1…

3concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about [the] obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake, 6among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ;

Here he summarizes, that obedience, as opposed to the Judaizing Christians…that his dialogue from Romans 3-11 is all about…

[16] Salute one another with an holy kiss. All the churches of Christ salute you. [17] Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. [18] For they that are such, serve not Christ our Lord, but their own belly; and by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent. [19] For your obedience is published in every place. I rejoice therefore in you. But I would have you to be wise in good, and simple in evil. [20] And the God of peace crush Satan under your feet speedily. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

He mentions their obedient Faith…and then concludes in Romans 16

Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, 26but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, [leading] to obedience of faith; 27to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen.

and I understand the refernce to Satan however I would suggest that it was the attempt to resurrect the Old Covenant through Circumcision, specifically is the evil spoken of here…