Do Lutherans think Catholics actually believe this, or do most of them know an actual devout Catholic?

[steido01]

With all due respect, Don, I’m not sure what you mean by Lutherans maintaining their teachings “without deviation.”

I mean that Lutherans don’t make things up as the current Zietgeist would have it. You may not agree with us, and we should talk about that, but you will always know where we stand. No Lutheran bishop or pastor makes up new doctrine.

I’m fairly certain that if Lutheran pastors today began preaching out of the Smalcald Articles every Sunday, the congregation would walk away scratching their heads in confusion.

Yes, they would; the Divine Service is for preaching the Word and receiving the Sacraments, not reading the Confessions. The Confessions are covered in other bible studies or meetings. I’m sorry that you weren’t well exposed to them during your time in the Lutheran church. It’s not like they’re some secret that’s kept away from the laity. I have a copy that I page through frequently, and our publishing house, CPH, even came out with an edition specifically made for laypersons.

The fact is, Martin Luther would be hard pressed to recognize his ecclesial community in 2016, much less the myriad Protestant offshoots that exist today as a result of the Pandora’s Box that was unleashed by the notion of Sola Scriptura. As time marches on, I suspect Lutheranism will increasingly become more irrelevant as more people leave due to indifference and others search for the truth of historical Christianity.

They did not split from Luther; they split from the Roman Church. When you point one finger…

 

[betsybug354]

Yes, they would; the Divine Service is for preaching the Word and receiving the Sacraments, not reading the Confessions. The Confessions are covered in other bible studies or meetings. I’m sorry that you weren’t well exposed to them during your time in the Lutheran church. It’s not like they’re some secret that’s kept away from the laity. I have a copy that I page through frequently, and our publishing house, CPH, even came out with an edition specifically made for laypersons.

I read them on my own; that’s one reason I came home to the Catholic Church.

They did not split from Luther; they split from the Roman Church. When you point one finger…

What I meant was that Luther opened that Pandora’s box when he rebelled against the Church and her authority, and as a result (whether direct or indirect) we have thousands of groups calling themselves churches who all think they’re right but who disagree with one another in so many ways. Sometimes those differences are quite significant. Such is the fruit of personal interpretation of Scripture and rejection of the Church’s teaching authority. Some Protestants today reject that moniker, BTW, even though that is exactly what they are; they do not consider themselves to have broken away from Catholicism. For them, as long as you accept Jesus, it doesn’t matter if you go to my church or the one down the street. (I wonder - what would happen if we started using the term “Protester” instead of Protestant? Seems it would bring the disunity issue front and center more readily.)

 

[benjohnson]

I wish we could age Pastor Fisk about 20 years - as age often mellows us like it does wine.
I don’t object to his teaching in this video - but I do object with the his angry and confrontational delivery.

His delivery sometime stinks, other times his bombastic delivery is a good thing to shake lukewarm Lutherans any point them to the Cross.

 

[Peter_J]

Why? Because it upsets your personal preconceived notions of what that means? I would think a Catholic would be pleased that Lutherans have maintained their teachings without deviation.

For much the same reason we don’t call you the H word.

 

[Peter_J]

you will always know where we stand.

Here?

 

[FollowChrist34]

Then you’re my kind of Catholic. And I’m your kind of Lutheran. As difficult as it may be to believe, so is Pastor Fisk. He’s just speaking to a very specific crowd. We do have differences in belief, however slight, and kudos to him for not ignoring that. His message, however, is geared toward those young Lutheran males who may be questioning their faith. I personally don’t care for the bombastic tone or flashy presentation, but it serves a good purpose in reaching those who otherwise may be disillusioned with the faith and could fall away entirely.

Ok, I just watched the video. I’d call it ‘Lutheran Punk’ - nasty, over-the-top (Catholics don’t believe that they are saved by works - that was the cheapest unfair shot) but I also have to admit I’ve seen the same or worse from my fellow Catholics, also Orthodox polemics. So, assuming one is Lutheran and wants to go the polemic route, this guy is your dude. (I am actually a little relieved that Evangelicals ARE becoming Lutherans, though it is clearly a work in progress.)

Speaking of which, what are we going to do with these ‘hard core’ ‘punk’ Evangelicals - they abandon their home (why? I wonder), adopt new ones…partially anyway…and just can’t let go of the aggression, belligerence, and more often than not ignorance, outright misinformation. Someone should study this phenomena. To me, it is about as far from the informed practice of authentic Christian faith as you can get.

 

[steido01]

Here?

I can do no other.

 

[FollowChrist34]

How I would love to be a fly on the wall at a dinner for Pope Francis, Pastor Fisk and Martin Luther - maybe throw in Saint John Paul II and Michelle Bachmann, just to add a little more spice.

We might be surprised at what transpired…

 

[MT1926]

Why? Because it upsets your personal preconceived notions of what that means? I would think a Catholic would be pleased that Lutherans have maintained their teachings without deviation.

I can’t believe you refuse to accept what I am getting at. I am old enough to remember when the word “gay” meant happy. Does that make it acceptable for me to use that word with teenagers? You know, as well as Pastor Fisk knows, when the word anti-Christ is used in today’s teenager culture, of movies, music, etc, what definition they have in mind.

That’s why he’s teaching them. When a Catholic priest cites Lutheran teaching as heretical, how do you think your young ones subsequently think about us?

I don’t know how to answer this I have been in many Catholic Churches and have never heard a Priest speak about Lutheran teaching. I have seen the word heretic used in old books but can honestly say I have never heard of present day Lutheran teaching being heretical until you just brought it up now. Actually I have never heard a priest in our area speak badly about any of the other churches in our area. Maybe they should start, if this is what we are up against?

Salvation by Grace Alone, through Faith Alone, which up until Trent was an acceptable Catholic option (and, according to Lutherans, the correct one). The Marian doctrines, while sweet and pious, also needn’t be mandatory to believe for salvation - Christ Alone saves. Not the Pope, and not the Theotokos.

Please show me the evidence that Faith Alone was an Apostolic teaching. Please show me the evidence that the Apostles opposed the Marian doctrines. Just because something isn’t written in the Bible doesn’t mean it isn’t true. If I needed you to do 100 things to get a job done and you already new how to do 75 of them, am I going to write you a list of all 100 steps or just write down the 25 you don’t know? We know human nature. If we can’t get near someone we admire the next best thing is to talk to their friend or mother about them. It is pretty easy for me to see people coming up to Mary and asking her to pray to her Son for them. There is no way that early Christians wouldn’t have wanted to be with her to feel closer to her son. I think the lack of any writings from the Apostles condoning this, as they did the Judaizers with regards to circumcision, speaks volumes.

If you take a listen to the other link I posted, you’ll learn that we mean different things when we say the same words.

I did listen to one of the links. I don’t have a problem with having different definitions, I just think it is bad form to still use a word that you know has now taken on a negative definition in this day and culture.

He’s obviously speaking metaphorically. But that said, many Catholics do still think of purgatory as a physical place. And Catholics have always placed a heavier reliance on works than Lutherans, and indulgences are still given out.

As you stated he is speaking to teenagers. I’m sure they got that he was speaking metaphorically. Just because you can state an uninformed Catholic told me so or still believes it, doesn’t mean you can pass it off as truth.

What he said does not upset me, what upsets me is he is a Pastor he should be better than the rest of us. If I caught my Pastor spreading half truths about another denomination I would hold him to the same standards.

 

[steido01]

I read them on my own;

Ah, I see. Another example of poor, or in this case, non-existent carechesis. Self-teaching is not the means recommended by thre church for understanding Scripture or the Confessions.

What I meant was that Luther opened that Pandora’s box when he rebelled against the Church and her authority, and as a result (whether direct or indirect) we have thousands of groups calling themselves churches who all think they’re right but who disagree with one another in so many ways. Sometimes those differences are quite significant. Such is the fruit of personal interpretation of Scripture and rejection of the Church’s teaching authority. Some Protestants today reject that moniker, BTW, even though that is exactly what they are; they do not consider themselves to have broken away from Catholicism. For them, as long as you accept Jesus, it doesn’t matter if you go to my church or the one down the street. (I wonder - what would happen if we started using the term “Protester” instead of Protestant? Seems it would bring the disunity issue front and center more readily.)

That is the most common cartoon of the time, from Catholic animators, anyway. History, of course, is a bit more nuanced. Plenty of people revolted against the church before Luther. Why single him out?

And no Lutheran is a proponent of personal interpretation. That’s why the Church exists.

And why put all non-Roman Western Christians under the “Protestant” label, when some truly aren’t protesting anything? For many, the existence of other denominations means nothing.

I could say more, but I’ve discussed your other misconceptions before.

 

[betsybug354]

Ah, I see. Another example of poor, or in this case, non-existent carechesis. Self-teaching is not the means recommended by thre church for understanding Scripture or the Confessions.

Reading the Lutheran Confessions was by no means the only nail in my Protestant coffin. Unlike cradle Lutherans, I had the experience of belonging to other denominations throughout my childhood and young adulthood (I was raised Methodist), so I had a better perspective on all the differences and disunity that exist among various flavors of Protestants. Reading John 17 after those varied experiences was heartbreaking to me. It was not and is not God’s will that any Christians be outside the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. So many are missing out on the fullness of Christian truth. Anything less than perfect unity means we still have a lot of work to do.

That is the most common cartoon of the time, from Catholic animators, anyway. History, of course, is a bit more nuanced. Plenty of people revolted against the church before Luther. Why single him out?

Why not? Look at what has resulted in the past 500 years.

And no Lutheran is a proponent of personal interpretation. That’s why the Church exists.

Then why all the emphasis on translating the Scriptures into the vernacular? Wasn’t that so the common man could read and understand them?

And why put all non-Roman Western Christians under the “Protestant” label, when some truly aren’t protesting anything? For many, the existence of other denominations means nothing.

Okay, I’ll call them my separated brethren.

 

[Peter_J]

Quote:
That is the most common cartoon of the time, from Catholic animators, anyway. History, of course, is a bit more nuanced. Plenty of people revolted against the church before Luther. Why single him out?

I’m just glad we didn’t burn him at the stake. Jan Hus wasn’t as fortunate.

 

[steido01]

I can’t believe you refuse to accept what I am getting at. I am old enough to remember when the word “gay” meant happy. Does that make it acceptable for me to use that word with teenagers? You know, as well as Pastor Fisk knows, when the word anti-Christ is used in today’s teenager culture, of movies, music, etc, what definition they have in mind.
…
I did listen to one of the links. I don’t have a problem with having different definitions, I just think it is bad form to still use a word that you know has now taken on a negative definition in this day and culture.

Why should Lutherans have to abandon their historical terminology because modern folks have co-opted it? Some folks are offended that we refer to God as “Him.” Should we abandon that as well? Kowtowing to the sensibilities of the worldly cultures is a dangerous path. Give an inch there, lose a mile here. Better to remain firm in our convictions and loving in our explanations, and pray that the Spirit will do the work. Loving is the most difficult part for us poor, sinful beings.

I don’t know how to answer this I have been in many Catholic Churches and have never heard a Priest speak about Lutheran teaching. I have seen the word heretic used in old books but can honestly say I have never heard of present day Lutheran teaching being heretical until you just brought it up now. Actually I have never heard a priest in our area speak badly about any of the other churches in our area. Maybe they should start, if this is what we are up against?

And I’ve never heard a pastor ever speak about Rome from the pulpit. When I’ve heard them speak at all about Rome in small group study, it’s been in historical context and explaining why we don’t believe the same things. This is not “anti” anything. It is to be expected when comparing religions. In apologetics, especially when geared toward engaging and energizing a younger crowd searching for a rallying cause, this can often be misapplied. Or misunderstood by those unfamiliar with the content.

Please show me the evidence that Faith Alone was an Apostolic teaching.

Paul’s letters are a good place to start. Augustine and the Council of Orange are helpful too.

Please show me the evidence that the Apostles opposed the Marian doctrines.

No. Because that’s not what I’m saying. That’s a straw man. The Marian doctrines could very well be true, but there is no Scriptural basis for it; therefore it cannot be made a binding doctrine upon which the believer’s salvation depends. That is a space held by our one Mediator between God and man-- Jesus Christ.

Just because something isn’t written in the Bible doesn’t mean it isn’t true. If I needed you to do 100 things to get a job done and you already new how to do 75 of them, am I going to write you a list of all 100 steps or just write down the 25 you don’t know? We know human nature. If we can’t get near someone we admire the next best thing is to talk to their friend or mother about them. It is pretty easy for me to see people coming up to Mary and asking her to pray to her Son for them. There is no way that early Christians wouldn’t have wanted to be with her to feel closer to her son. I think the lack of any writings from the Apostles condoning this, as they did the Judaizers with regards to circumcision, speaks volumes.

Won’t necessarily disagree with you, but an argument from silence is generally not a wise one. I’ve noticed that many of your arguments come across as straw men to Lutherans. They would be better-geared toward general Protestantism. I’d advise you that Lutherans won’t respond to many of those sorts of arguments-- we’re too catholic for that.

As you stated he is speaking to teenagers. I’m sure they got that he was speaking metaphorically. Just because you can state an uninformed Catholic told me so or still believes it, doesn’t mean you can pass it off as truth.

Ok. But that’s not what he’s doing. He’s condensing the difference into a few small bullet points. Obviously he wouldn’t take time to flesh out what Catholics teach - it’s a Lutheran program! If they’re interested in a more in-depth discussion, they’ll find it - that’s why he links to the link I posted earlier.

What he said does not upset me, what upsets me is he is a Pastor he should be better than the rest of us. If I caught my Pastor spreading half truths about another denomination I would hold him to the same standards.

Again, I’ll ask for the exact place where he misrepresents Catholicism. Obviously, he disagrees with it, but that’s another matter.

 

[steido01]

I’m just glad we didn’t burn him at the stake. Jan Hus wasn’t as fortunate.

And what both our communions did together to the Anabaptists is worse.

 

[steido01]

Reading the Lutheran Confessions was by no means the only nail in my Protestant coffin. Unlike cradle Lutherans, I had the experience of belonging to other denominations throughout my childhood and young adulthood (I was raised Methodist),

I’m sorry you had such a trying experience. Though it seems odd that you’d count other denominations’ flaws against a separate, unassociated denomination with different beliefs and origins, I still -sincerely- thank God that you’ve landed in a communion that can serve your soul with Word and Sacrament.

so I had a better perspective on all the differences and disunity that exist among various flavors of Protestants.

You mean ‘among Christians.’ Lutherans have closer ties to Rome Catholics than to Methodists. “Protestants” come in flavors like “Religionists” do.

Reading John 17 after those varied experiences was heartbreaking to me. It was not and is not God’s will that any Christians be outside the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. So many are missing out on the fullness of Christian truth. Anything less than perfect unity means we still have a lot of work to do.

Amen.

O, come Desire of Nations, bind
And join in one the hearts of all mankind.
Bid us our sad divisions cease
And be Thyself our Prince of Peace.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel!

Why not? Look at what has resulted in the past 500 years.

You realize how many different groups hoped to reform a very corrupt Roman Church, right? Lutherans, Anglicans (kind of), Zwinglians, Calvinists, Anabaptists, those who would become Tridentines – this list could go on. And we can’t forget that the East had already split. And the Far East. To pretend Luther just appeared in a vacuum and singlehandedly splintered a previously-never-been-fractured church full of sinners who are naturally inclined to sin and separate.

Then why all the emphasis on translating the Scriptures into the vernacular? Wasn’t that so the common man could read and understand?.

Read and understand, yes. That is a better alternative than simply partaking in a series of motions on Sunday morning in a language you don’t understand and never hearing the good news of Christ’s sacrifice! But no individual Lutheran has any authority to interpret Scripture; that is what our church and rightly called and ordained pastors do.

 

[MT1926]

Why should Lutherans have to abandon their historical terminology because modern folks have co-opted it? Some folks are offended that we refer to God as “Him.” Should we abandon that as well? Kowtowing to the sensibilities of the worldly cultures is a dangerous path. Give an inch there, lose a mile here. Better to remain firm in our convictions and loving in our explanations, and pray that the Spirit will do the work. Loving is the most difficult part for us poor, sinful beings.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this point then. I can’t accept knowingly using a word that you know would offend others.

And I’ve never heard a pastor ever speak about Rome from the pulpit. When I’ve heard them speak at all about Rome in small group study, it’s been in historical context and explaining why we don’t believe the same things. This is not “anti” anything. It is to be expected when comparing religions. In apologetics, especially when geared toward engaging and energizing a younger crowd searching for a rallying cause, this can often be misapplied. Or misunderstood by those unfamiliar with the content.

Not sure why you would preach something that you know could be misapplied or misunderstood, must be a Lutheran thing. I thought the whole point of Appologetics was to give clear concise evidence of the point you are trying to make.

Paul’s letters are a good place to start. Augustine and the Council of Orange are helpful too.

Read Paul’s letters unless you want me to cherry pick verses I see no evidence of Faith Alone.

No. Because that’s not what I’m saying. That’s a straw man. The Marian doctrines could very well be true, but there is no Scriptural basis for it; therefore it cannot be made a binding doctrine upon which the believer’s salvation depends. That is a space held by our one Mediator between God and man-- Jesus Christ.

Just because you interprete verses of scripture differently than Catholics does not mean there isn’t any Scriptural basis.

Won’t necessarily disagree with you, but an argument from silence is generally not a wise one. I’ve noticed that many of your arguments come across as straw men to Lutherans. They would be better-geared toward general Protestantism. I’d advise you that Lutherans won’t respond to many of those sorts of arguments-- we’re too catholic for that.

Not sure if you put this on the correct person. The only argueing I have been doing is about Pastor Fisk. You and I haven’t gotten into any Apologetic discussions.

Ok. But that’s not what he’s doing. He’s condensing the difference into a few small bullet points. Obviously he wouldn’t take time to flesh out what Catholics teach - it’s a Lutheran program! If they’re interested in a more in-depth discussion, they’ll find it - that’s why he links to the link I posted earlier.

He sure does a good job fleshing out what Catholics don’t teach though. I guess only Catholics aren’t allowed to be unfair to Lutherans and not the other way around.

Again, I’ll ask for the exact place where he misrepresents Catholicism. Obviously, he disagrees with it, but that’s another matter.

I already pointed it out and you responded he is allowed because some misinformed Catholics believe it to be true. If that is your definition of being fair why would I bring them up to you again?

 

[betsybug354]

You realize how many different groups hoped to reform a very corrupt Roman Church, right? Lutherans, Anglicans (kind of), Zwinglians, Calvinists, Anabaptists, those who would become Tridentines – this list could go on. And we can’t forget that the East had already split. And the Far East. To pretend Luther just appeared in a vacuum and singlehandedly splintered a previously-never-been-fractured church full of sinners who are naturally inclined to sin and separate.

Corrupt personalities? Sure. Corrupt Roman Church? No. The Church is “the pillar and bulwark of truth.” She is the “sinless one made up of sinners.” (CCC 867) Thank God for that! Otherwise, there wouldn’t even have been a Church to protest against by the 16th century. God protects His Church through thick and thin.

Read and understand, yes. That is a better alternative than simply partaking in a series of motions on Sunday morning in a language you don’t understand and never hearing the good news of Christ’s sacrifice! But no individual Lutheran has any authority to interpret Scripture; that is what our church and rightly called and ordained pastors do.

Honestly, Christ’s sacrifice is front and center at every Mass, and has been for 2,000 years. We Catholics are veritably steeped in the Good News of Christ’s sacrifice! And as for the notion of 16th century Catholics being ignorant of what was going on at Mass, that is simply not true. They were heavily invested in the workings of their own parishes, and the Church was an incredibly important part of their lives. Suggest “The Stripping of the Altars” by Eamon Duffy. As for Lutherans having valid holy orders, that belongs to another debate.

 

[MaryT777]

Corrupt personalities? Sure. Corrupt Roman Church? No. The Church is “the pillar and bulwark of truth.” She is the “sinless one made up of sinners.” (CCC 867) Thank God for that! Otherwise, there wouldn’t even have been a Church to protest against by the 16th century. God protects His Church through thick and thin.

Honestly, Christ’s sacrifice is front and center at every Mass, and has been for 2,000 years. We Catholics are veritably steeped in the Good News of Christ’s sacrifice! And as for the notion of 16th century Catholics being ignorant of what was going on at Mass, that is simply not true. They were heavily invested in the workings of their own parishes, and the Church was an incredibly important part of their lives. Suggest “The Stripping of the Altars” by Eamon Duffy. As for Lutherans having valid holy orders, that belongs to another debate.

Well said and,
Amen.

Mary.

 

[steido01]

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this point then. I can’t accept knowingly using a word that you know would offend others.

Let us try thinking about it this way. The title, “Vicar of Christ” offends me. Why does your communion continue to use it?

Not sure why you would preach something that you know could be misapplied or misunderstood, must be a Lutheran thing. I thought the whole point of Appologetics was to give clear concise evidence of the point you are trying to make.

He is clear about it. To Lutherans, the teaching that communion with the Pope is necessary for salvation is a false teaching. It is, to Lutherans, placing a burden on Christians and requiring something that detracts and distracts from the single greatest work of Christ. Therefore, regardless of how wonderfully Christian the men who sevre as Bishop of Rome may be, Lutherans understand the office which teaches such an obfuscation of the Gospel to be “anti-to-Christ.” I understand the modern apprehension about the term, but from a Lutheran perspective, it is an accurate academic term - not a polemic.

Read Paul’s letters unless you want me to cherry pick verses I see no evidence of Faith Alone.

From the Council of Orange:

“CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10)”

Just because you interprete verses of scripture differently than Catholics does not mean there isn’t any Scriptural basis.

Where does Scripture state that Mary was assumed into heaven? Or that she was immaculately conceived? Or that the pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra. Where does scripture define when a pope is speaking ex cathedra?

Not sure if you put this on the correct person. The only argueing I have been doing is about Pastor Fisk. You and I haven’t gotten into any Apologetic discussions.

You used straw men arguments that don’t apply to Lutheranism or Pastor Fisk. In order to have a good conversation, we need to understand each other.

He sure does a good job fleshing out what Catholics don’t teach though.

Then show us,exactly, in his words, where he does.

 

[MT1926]

Let us try thinking about it this way. The title, “Vicar of Christ” offends me. Why does your communion continue to use it?

I was more than happy to drop this but obviously you aren’t.
The term anti-Christ was never about offending me, it was about the term could be construed negatively like using the term gay to mean happy. But anyway let’s go with it…
Why does the term “Vicar of Christ” offend you?
Why is the term derogatory towards Lutherans?
It is not a term I hear used very often or in today’s culture. Haven’t seen it used movies or by teenagers like the term Anti-Christ is used in our current culture.
So how in today’s culture is the term Vicar of Christ perceived negatively like the term anti-Christ can be seen negatively?

He is clear about it. To Lutherans, the teaching that communion with the Pope is necessary for salvation is a false teaching. It is, to Lutherans, placing a burden on Christians and requiring something that detracts and distracts from the single greatest work of Christ. Therefore, regardless of how wonderfully Christian the men who sevre as Bishop of Rome may be, Lutherans understand the office which teaches such an obfuscation of the Gospel to be “anti-to-Christ.” I understand the modern apprehension about the term, but from a Lutheran perspective, it is an accurate academic term - not a polemic.

Could I ask a favor that we stick to one line of reasoning at a time. I was talking about it being uncalled for, that Pastors or Priest would use terms like anti-Christ or heritic.
Your first defense was
“In apologetics, especially when geared toward engaging and energizing a younger crowd searching for a rallying cause, this can often be misapplied. Or misunderstood by those unfamiliar with the content.”
When I responded: “Not sure why you would preach something that you know could be misapplied or misunderstood”
You changed your line of defense is
"He is clear about it. To Lutherans".
So which one is it? Was it misunderstood or crystal clear to the teenagers Pastor Fisk is speaking to?

From the Council of Orange:

“CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10)”

In a dialogue you have to answer questions not just get to spam me with questions. So where in Paul’s letters did he teach we are saved by Faith Alone? The verses of Apostolic teaching that the Pope later rejected?

I am still learning about the Catholic faith and haven’t gotten into the councils yet. I read what you wrote about 4 times. The only thing I read from this is if you reject that Grace is a free gift from God you contradict the Apostles. I must be missing something. Where does this text speak about salvation? or being saved by Faith alone? On a side not Catholics agree with the text Grace is a free gift from God.

Where does Scripture state that Mary was assumed into heaven? Or that she was immaculately conceived? Or that the pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra. Where does scripture define when a pope is speaking ex cathedra?

We are starting to switch topics here a bit so I will just touch on these:

The verse that states Mary was assumed into heaven is the verse directly after the verse that says everything must be found in scripture. So if you can point out that verse you will find it.

As for immaculate conception and the pope once again I will answer with: “Just because you interprete verses of scripture differently than Catholics does not mean there isn’t any Scriptural basis.” Feel free to go to these links to see the scripture verses and how Catholics interpret those verses.

catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/the-immaculate-conception-in-scripture

catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility