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?
I mean no offenses; I’m only trying to ask what you think should be done when a perfectly fine term has been co-opted?
“Vicar of Christ” offends Lutherans when it is used to refer to a single bishop, for all ordained pastors act as a ‘vicar’ or ‘in place of’ Christ when they proclaim Holy Absolution and administer the Sacraments. For one bishop to claim to hold Christ’s place on earth - or in essentials - *be *Christ on earth is more than offensive, it’s blasphemous. Why should Catholics be expected to change their historic term just because it offends Lutherans?
So which one is it? Was it misunderstood or crystal clear to the teenagers Pastor Fisk is speaking to?
I’m not contradicting myself because these are not opposed. Obviously, it was misunderstood by the Catholics who posted about it here (perhaps yourself, as well?). It would be rightly understood by the young Lutherans who watch his program regularly and visit the links he posts with his videos.
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?
We don’t need to sit here prooftexting each other. The disagreement goes back centuries, and two fools on the internet aren’t going to solve it. But, since you asked, Romans 3 & 4 are good places to start.
The verses of Apostolic teaching that the Pope later rejected?
See above. But, again, most of the Lutheran beef is not so much that the Pope or his Councils rejected any specific Christian doctrine, but that they keep adding to it unnecessarily and without the authority to do so. Christ is enough to save. Period. Not believing Mary was bodily assumed to heaven or that the pope is infallible shouldn’t be made a thing that a Christian must believe to get to heaven. If it were, then some of the early church fathers are damned. That’s absurd!
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.
This is the main point:
“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”
This is in nearly direct opposition to the Council of Trent’s stance that we cooperate with the Spirit to obtain Grace by doing good works:
CANON 4. If anyone says that man’s free will moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God’s call and action, in no way cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification, that it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive, let him be anathema.
CANON 11. If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity [read: works] which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost,[116] and remains in them, or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be anathema.
Well, which is it, Rome?
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.
2 Timothy 3:16-17. “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be
complete.” If Holy Scripture can supply all that is needed to make a Christian “complete” - or as Catholic translators say more strongly - “perfect,” then there is no need to add to it. In fact, adding to Scripture is expressly forbidden in Deut. 4:2, Prov. 30:6, and Rev. 22:19.
Now, does that mean we can’t do something that’s not in the bible? Of course not! The church and the humans inside it have developed wonderfully edifying practices that Christians should do regularly. Like developing rubrics for a Mass held each Sunday, for example. Of course, the words of the Mass are based off of Scripture.
As for immaculate conception and the pope once again I will answer with: “Just because you interpret verses of scripture differently than Catholics does not mean there isn’t any Scriptural basis.”
Great. This is where we can discuss and disagree. But Lutherans would not assent to having our consciences bound to something that Holy Scripture is not expressly clear about. Even you would admit that a command such as “Take and eat,” or “Baptism now saves you,” are more clear than a teaching that was so difficult to locate in Scripture, that it wasn’t mandatory for Catholics to believe until 1950+ years after Christ first came to earth!
)
