Do modern Protestants know what they are protesting?

[spina1953]

I thank you; you’ve done a better job than me explaining it.

Some from a more liturgical background with a formal guiding body within their organization think that it must be fantastic to feel as though you and God are “on your own” with scripture as far as interpretation. Not so! The RCC holds certain strong appeal for a protestant like me (other protestants who hold similar views as far as hierarchy similar to the RCC may not have that particular pull) for that very reason. If I want to know truth about an extremely serious issue, there is no one right in front me telling me what to believe, I have to suss it out with much prayer and studying (and even fasting on the hardest issues). I don’t claim to be as Paul; with the Holy Spirit and the Lord directly and literally telling him what to do, but his interaction is a model to look to. Do I feel I’ve ever been lead directly to truth via scripture by God? Sure. Do I ever felt lead in life to do something, or help someone? Sure.

Hi Kliska: I do understand that you are a sober and rational person and I do also respect your views and opinions as it is always helpful to try and understand what others think and how they understand.

 

[Kliska]

FKB, I appreciate the dialogue, but a continued back and forth between us isn’t going to change either of our minds. I’m not trying to be rude by not replying further. :curtsey:

 

[Kliska]

Hi Kliska: I do understand that you are a sober and rational person and I do also respect your views and opinions as it is always helpful to try and understand what others think and how they understand.

This board and the members here have been so very helpful to me, and patient when explaining their, and their Churches’ views; Catholics, Orthodox believers, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc… I appreciate it a lot, I live in a very rural place now, and we don’t have a lot of varying beliefs around where I can actually talk to a person about what they believe and why, and not just get it from a book!

 

[spina1953]

This board and the members here have been so very helpful to me, and patient when explaining their, and their Churches’ views; Catholics, Orthodox believers, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc… I appreciate it a lot, I live in a very rural place now, and we don’t have a lot of varying beliefs around where I can actually talk to a person about what they believe and why, and not just get it from a book!

Hi Kliska : Understood.

 

[guanophore]

I’m a non-denominational Christian, and I don’t currently have a pastor. Remember, as a protestant, it is scripture that is the final measuring stick for teachings.

But, it sidesteps my point; if there is no other name under Heaven by which we must be saved (and no church or person can gainsay that because we can clearly see it taught in scripture), it is my beliefs and faith in Jesus Christ; Who He is, what He has done, and that He rose again, not my beliefs about another human (Mary) that will determine salvation. From this perspective it seems the RCC, by adding Mary’s name into dogma that absolutely must be confessed and believed is in violation of scripture. Now it is not just about my faith in Jesus and His name. Even if every single other dogma I found I could confess, these dogmas would seem to keep seekers out if they did not agree (or even merely doubted), dogmatically, about Mary. Part of Lewis’ jungle, from my perspective.

The Ethiopian was shown Who Jesus was and what He had done and asked to believe that right before being baptized. It is Jesus we absolutely must confess, no other human. I think I’d have a problem with it, even if I did believe those things about Mary, and I already hold her in regard as a hero of the faith.

I do see your point, but this seems like a minimalist perspective - what is the least I can believe in to be saved?

The dogmas about Mary were developed to clarify the nature of Christ, they are all Christ centered, and prevent the faithful from heresies. I encourage you to look up the term “Theotokos” and understand why the Church adopted this term. Just like the term homoousious, it clarifies His divine nature, and prevents error.

 

[Kliska]

I do see your point, but this seems like a minimalist perspective - what is the least I can believe in to be saved?

The dogmas about Mary were developed to clarify the nature of Christ, they are all Christ centered, and prevent the faithful from heresies. I encourage you to look up the term “Theotokos” and understand why the Church adopted this term. Just like the term homoousious, it clarifies His divine nature, and prevents error.

There’s apparently a misunderstanding; I believe Mary to be Theotokos. I also understand the rational of “things about Mary actually apply to Jesus;” however, my argument is that I can confess those things about *Jesus *that are implied by the Marian dogmas and still it would not be sufficient for the current RCC to accept me into the fold. I would have to directly believe and confess certain things about *Mary *herself in order to be in line with dogma.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I thank you; you’ve done a better job than me explaining it.

Thanks you and God bless you.

Some from a more liturgical background with a formal guiding body within their organization think that it must be fantastic to feel as though you and God are “on your own” with scripture as far as interpretation. Not so! The RCC holds certain strong appeal for a protestant like me (other protestants who hold similar views as far as hierarchy similar to the RCC may not have that particular pull) for that very reason. If I want to know truth about an extremely serious issue, there is no one right in front me telling me what to believe, I have to suss it out with much prayer and studying (and even fasting on the hardest issues). I don’t claim to be as Paul; with the Holy Spirit and the Lord directly and literally telling him what to do, but his interaction is a model to look to. Do I feel I’ve ever been lead directly to truth via scripture by God? Sure. Do I ever felt lead in life to do something, or help someone? Sure.

Hey, I am still on the same boat on some issues. I know exactly what you are talking about. But it came a time for me to draw a line.

I think that at the very least, 2 of the 5 solas are not tenable without an amazing degree of mental gymnastics. I could not honestly accept them. There are developed doctrines in the CC that I have a hard time yielding to, I understand (to some degree) the historical reasons for them - but I personally think they went too far. That’s me as a person, so I struggle mightily with them. However, the one thing that keeps me Catholic is that I want to remain humble and teachable. I’m not saying you are not, but I came to a point that (not only I was tired - this was years studying and praying) I needed to make a decision in order to keep my sanity. And I honestly see the CC as a leading See for the One Church, but I also see our Orthodox brethren as part of it, and I also see other Protestant traditions as part of it, and I also see individuals that belong to it even when they don’t even know it. Overall, we have gone knee deep in trying to explain too much and developing too much. It should not be this complicated. And that’s the part I love the most about some of our Evangelical brothers - they keep it simple but they are also thirsty to help others and share their faith. I’m not saying that we don’t have Catholics like that, but you’d think that having about 1.2 billion of us - you would see a more significant presence of what we normally see day to day. There’s something wrong with that picture.

I love St. Paul, but I love St. Peter more . 2 Peter 1

It’s not as dry as the Church telling you what to believe. There are volumes upon volumes explaining the reason of why we believe what we believe. And that’s what I was talking about when I said it is complicated.

If only we can have the simplicity of Brother Lawrence:

*Men invent means and methods of coming at God’s love, they learn rules and set up devices to remind them of that love, and it seems like a world of trouble to bring oneself into the consciousness of God’s presence. Yet it might be so simple. Is it not quicker and easier just to do our common business wholly for the love of him? *

 

[Kliska]

Hey, I am still on the same boat on some issues. I know exactly what you are talking about. But it came a time for me to draw a line.

I think that at the very least, 2 of the 5 solas are not tenable without an amazing degree of mental gymnastics. I could not honestly accept them. There are developed doctrines in the CC that I have a hard time yielding to, I understand (to some degree) the historical reasons for them - but I personally think they went too far. That’s me as a person, so I struggle mightily with them. However, the one thing that keeps me Catholic is that I want to remain humble and teachable. I’m not saying you are not, but I came to a point that (not only I was tired - this was years studying and praying) I needed to make a decision in order to keep my sanity. And I honestly see the CC as a leading See for the One Church, but I also see our Orthodox brethren as part of it, and I also see other Protestant traditions as part of it, and I also see individuals that belong to it even when they don’t even know it. Overall, we have gone knee deep in trying to explain too much and developing too much. It should not be this complicated. And that’s the part I love the most about some of our Evangelical brothers - they keep it simple but they are also thirsty to help others and share their faith. I’m not saying that we don’t have Catholics like that, but you’d think that having about 1.2 billion of us - you would see a more significant presence of what we normally see day to day. There’s something wrong with that picture.

I love St. Paul, but I love St. Peter more . 2 Peter 1

lol I have to admit, as the Apostle to the Gentiles (of which, outside of Christ, I am one), Paul holds the top slot for me as far as Apostles go, him and “his” book of Romans. Of course God in His great mercy doesn’t make us pick just one!

It’s not as dry as the Church telling you what to believe. There are volumes upon volumes explaining the reason of why we believe what we believe. And that’s what I was talking about when I said it is complicated.

If only we can have the simplicity of Brother Lawrence:

I’m absolutely sure of that; you could wade chin deep into the ideas, discussions, and disagreements in the RCC… throw in the rest of Christianity, and you can drown in it. We just have a different perspective and belief on how to wade through it all and know truth.

Didn’t Jesus say it best 1) Love God 2) Love thy neighbor as theyself

If I sat here and picked the “protestant” world apart, we’d be here til Jesus comes.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Yet, some call him “hero.”

Astounding.

Why?

Some people call John Chrysostom “Doctor of the Church”, yet he had some rather nasty things to say about Jewish folks as well.

 

[steve_b]

Did you think I felt bad?

One way to “dismiss” heresy and heretics is to dismiss them from this life.

I knew that’s what you meant. Execute them, burn them at the stake etc etc. That’s AGAINST the Church position. Not just with Luther but all the other guys you bring up on this page…

That’s why I gave the Latin meaning of “exterminate” that you highlighted in Excurge Domine. #580 It was the same word used and the same “Latin” meaning, in the IV Lateran council. It does NOT mean kill.

Definitions:

1. 
   *]banish, expel
   *]dismiss
   
   NOT kill, NOT murder, NOT burn at the stake
   g:
   

   We can also look at the **context **for meaning:
   
   " Witness to this is the condemnation and punishment in the Council of Constance of the infidelity of the Hussites and Wyclifites as well as
   ."
   
   How was Jon Huss “dismissed”?
   
   What were the findings of the Council of Constance? The Council of Constance declared Wycliffe a heretic on 4 May 1415, and banned his writings. The Council decreed Wycliffe’s works should be burned and his remains exhumed. On 6 July 1415, it also declared Hus a heretic, defrocked him, and had him burned at the stake.

   Speaking of **Context **for meaning
   
   From Council of Constance,
   Re: the teaching of the Church and the mind of the Church on how to deal with tyrants & in extension heretics.
   
   "This most holy synod wishes to proceed with special care to the eradication of errors and heresies which are growing in various parts of the world, as is its duty and the purpose for which it has assembled. It has recently learnt that various propositions have been taught that are erroneous both in the faith and as regards good morals, are scandalous in many ways and threaten to subvert the constitution and order of every state. Among these propositions this one has been reported: Any tyrant can and ought to be killed, licitly and meritoriously, by any of his vassals or subjects, even by means of plots and blandishments or flattery, notwithstanding any oath taken, or treaty made with the tyrant, and without waiting for a sentence or a command from any judge. This holy synod, wishing to oppose this error and to eradicate it completely, declares, decrees and defines, after mature deliberation, that this doctrine is erroneous in the faith and with regard to morals, and it rejects and condemns the doctrine as heretical, scandalous and seditious and as leading the way through perjury to frauds, deceptions, lies and betrayals. It declares, decrees and defines, moreover, that those who stubbornly assert this very pernicious doctrine are heretics and are to be punished as such according to canonical and legitimate sanctions. [37]
   
   For full context ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/CONSTANC.HTM
   
   Notice how heretics are to be punished? The Church says canonical and legitimate sanctions are to be used with heretics. NOT execute them, NOT murder them, NOT burning them at the stake, etc etc etc. Sanctions are to be used.
   
   Inspite of this Church document restating the Church’s position, there are STILL people who blame the Church for everything that people do inspite of what the Church teaches.
   
   That’s as misplaced as blaming the entire priesthood for a few bad ones, or blaming God for those people who commit murder.
   g:
   

   Jerome of Prague(1379 – 30 May 1416) was a Czech and one of the chief followers of Jan Hus who was burned for heresy at the Council of Constance.

   The link to Constance was provided above. Quote where the council of Constance called for the burning of heretics, Jerome of Prague or any other heretic mentioned in that document.
   g:
   

   I don’t see how you can possibly remove the reference to burning heretics at the stake given this context. The fact that it came out of a Church Council makes it quite clear that there was a strong belief that the burning of heretics was not against the will of the HS.

   Again, please quote from the Council, that you referenced, and I linked to, where it calls for or supports your narrative.
   
   As far as what an emperor does, or people on their own do, or even what stubborn heretics like the ones we’re talking about do, the Church imposes sanctions, which depending on the act, can have eternal consequences
   g:
   

   I agree that all the efforts of the Church were focused on getting Luther to recant, and that the Church was more interested in his eternal fate than his temporal fate, but these specific references cannot be ignored.

   Again, **quote **for me where Constance or Excurge Domine, called for the murder / burning at the stake / etc of anyone you’ve mentioned.

 

[steve_b]

Your personal interpretation of it assumes we are outside the Church, when we are not.

Let’s make this simple,

If you are inside the Church, then I can worship in the Lutheran church. So please quote for me a Catholic Church document that says I as a Catholic can skip mass and worship at a Lutheran church.
J:

.

What I’m denying is the false statement that he did not include 74 books in his translation. There were and are 74 books in Luther’s Die Bibel.

How many are canonical?
J:

This is a fact beyond question. Whether or not Luther believed to be equal tothe rest of scripture is irrelevant to the fact that he translated (with help) and included them in his translation. The books are there, regardless of what he thought of them.

I can’t be that relativistic about this
J:

From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, published in 1531:

2 Macc is part of Scripture.

bookofconcord.org/defense_20_saints.php

Actually, that seems to be your view, since you are claiming that only 66 of the books in Luther’s translation are canonical, when the seven DC books are clearly included.

You’re LCMS correct?

Here’s what your branch of Lutheranism said about this subject

(emphasis mine)
For centuries, every Lutheran’s Bible (Martin Luther’s German translation) included the Apocrypha. But the English Bibles used by Lutherans in more recent years do not.
“These books” of the Apocrypha, wrote Luther, “are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.”
Now Concordia Publishing House announces the revival of these seemingly forgotten books with its publication of The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition with Notes.

blogs.lcms.org/2012/cph-publishes-first-lutheran-english-edition-of-apocrypha

Seems to represent what I’ve been saying.
J:

Here’s the point, Steve, and I don’t plan to belabor it anymore, in 1534, Luther’s completed translation was published. It contained 74 books, including the DC’s and the Prayer of Manasseh. The current publication of Luther’s Die Bibel continues to have 74 books in it, including the 7 DC books and the Prayer of Manasseh.
Whether or not Luther considered any of them as less than canonical does not change the fact that he translated and included 74 books. His opinion, much like that of Cardinal Cajetan and many others, does not have an effect on whether or not they are canonical.

Jon

Jon,

Other LCMS disagree with your terminology. Your terminology goes against Luther’s language. There is NO DC in Luther’s mind for his bibel. Remember, to Luther, the apocrypha doesn’t equal to scripture. No “Deutero” canon in his mind. Ergo in Luther’s view, DC ≠ apocrypha. Remember Luther’s own words, These books” of the Apocrypha, wrote Luther, “are not held equal to the Scriptures…"

He moved those books and changed their status.

 

[steve_b]

And how do you think one comes to know this?

You mean you don’t know?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

You mean you don’t know?

I’ve already answered this for both of us. Was wondering if you could answer a direct question.

 

[guanophore]

I’m growing to love my fellow believers more and more and am heartbroken over the divisions that are still there in the organizational churches. Paul underscores the faithfulness of God in those verses as well, it is in Him that I place all my faith. If I am wrong, I trust Him to correct me, He’s done it in spectacular fashion before, praise Him!

With that, I’ll wish you a good day. Pray for me and I shall pray for you

May God richly bless you Kliska for your willingness to bear the grief of the heart of Christ over the divisions in His One Body.

It is not uncommon for Protestants to struggle with the Marian dogmas. You may enjoy the teachings of Scott Hahn on Catholic issues, he is a former Evangelical and is really able to penetrate the Word of God in such a way as to reach those who do not see these dogmas in Scripture.

 

[guanophore]

There’s apparently a misunderstanding; I believe Mary to be Theotokos. I also understand the rational of “things about Mary actually apply to Jesus;” however, my argument is that I can confess those things about *Jesus *that are implied by the Marian dogmas and still it would not be sufficient for the current RCC to accept me into the fold. I would have to directly believe and confess certain things about *Mary *herself in order to be in line with dogma.

Yes, sorry I was having a misunderstanding.

Although it is ideal if one can embrace the fullness of faith, it is very common for not only converts, but cradle Catholics to have difficulty. Our Catechism refers to it as “involuntary doubt”. It is not an unwillingness to believe, or a lack of faith by any means, but a condition of being yet persuaded.

So many converts, and those preparing to receive the Sacraments, simply submit that lack of persuasion to God.

“Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity.”

You actually already have this attitude of faith, evident in your statement that you have confidence that God will lead you and correct you as necessary.

So if all other elements were equal, and you are able to leave the Marian doctrines in the realm of mystery, you can still become Catholic. You would submit the matter to God (as I am sure you have already) and trust that He will help you arrive at the beliefs He wants you to have about His Mother.

This is the kind of attitude Peter had, when the disciples walked away after He talked about the Eucharist. They probably did not understand either, but said “Lord, to whom shall we go…you have the words of eternal life.” One may not be able to think of anywhere else to turn, and does not understand, but one has confidence that He is present and in time, all that will sort itself out.

I confess that I still need to do this with some areas of doctrine. I don’t understand, and something in me chafes at it, but I trust that He is faithful, and He will guide me into all truth.

 

[steve_b]

you said you would lose you salvation. It’s not the same as you “could not” be saved “who knowingly”.

in my book it’s a distinction without a difference. The Church tells me what’s necessary for salvation.
I:

What you are presenting in your argumentation is that you are saved because you claim to know and if you were to leave you would lose you salvation. You did not say, you “could not” be saved because of your personal knowledge. You are, in fact, presenting the same argumentation a Protestant makes in regards to salvation and their understanding of what the Church is. So you are presenting that you are already saved.

The Church tells me what’s necessary for salvation. If I go against that, then by definition, unless I change my trajectory before I die, heaven won’t be in my future. That’s not just from the CCC. It’s from scripture, and from the ECF’s. iow, it’s been there from the beginning and consistently passed on.
I:

If this knowledge was easy and obvious, there would not be as many denominations and as much division between us.

This knowledge IS easy and obvious. No time in history has information with precision laser like search capabilities, been easier to access than it is today. Are people choosing to access it? It’s a choice ya know.
I:

But that is not the reality of things. It is practically impossible to single out the Catholic Church as definitive rational conclusion as the “One”. It requires “Faith”, just the same as out Protestant brothers. In fact, even when studying history it is nearly impossible to single out. The drastic doctrinal developments make it really hard to determine.

What part of this is hard to find or difficult to understand?
**#34 **is a quick look at the 1st 300 years of Church history.
I:

If you truly think that Dominus Iesus supports what you are saying you’d be able to understand that 2 things are vital:

1. What is “to know”
2. What is the “Church”

be sure and open all the internal links.** #34**
That’s how we know as Catholics who the True Church is,
I:

It should not be this difficult to know the One Church, we have done a horrendous job and have only created more confusion and division. We as Catholics are as guilty as our Brethren for division.

It’s NOT difficult to know the ONE Church, once presented with the evidence all properly referenced.

IMV squishy ecumenism does buckets of damage as do Catholics who don’t know their faith, as do relativistic and indifferent Catholics.

 

[guanophore]

Let’s make this simple,

If you are inside the Church, then I can worship in the Lutheran church. So please quote for me a Catholic Church document that says I as a Catholic can skip mass and worship at a Lutheran church.

I think this position is not entirely consistent with the Catechism.

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: “For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and** with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church**.” “Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn.”

We cannot commune together because we are imperfectly joined, but there is only One Body, and all who are members of Christ are members of His One Church. ‘’

As we work to heal the wounds to unity, it is important that we affirm the elements of the Holy Spirit at work within our separated brethren.

Other LCMS disagree with your terminology. Your terminology goes against Luther’s language. There is NO DC in Luther’s mind for his bibel. Remember, to Luther, the apocrypha doesn’t equal to scripture. No “Deutero” canon in his mind. Ergo in Luther’s view, DC ≠ apocrypha. Remember Luther’s own words, These books” of the Apocrypha, wrote Luther, “are not held equal to the Scriptures…"

He moved those books and changed their status.

Luther does not have the authority to change the “status” of any books in the canon. He had many private opinions about the books included in the canon, and not all of them are acceptable to Lutherans.

It is important not to make Lutherans responsible to defend those ideas of Luther they have not embraced, or to hold them responsible for the fact that other groups, still claiming the term “Lutheran” have departed from the substance of the Lutheran confessions.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

in my book it’s a distinction without a difference. The Church tells me what’s necessary for salvation.

Your book?
This is your argumentation?
Your private book?
How am I supposed to argue against your book?

This knowledge IS easy and obvious. No time in history has information with precision laser like search capabilities, been easier to access than it is today. Are people choosing to access it? It’s a choice ya know.

Your lack of charity is astounding. 1 Cor 13.

If it was so easy and obvious, there would not be so much confusion and division.

What part of this is hard to find or difficult to understand?
#34 is a quick look at the 1st 300 years of Church history.

For starters:

The Bishop of Rome did not have immediate, supreme and absolute jurisdiction over the entire Church. This is something that came much later and after the Great Schism in ~1090.

What you see in those first 300 years is Autocephalous Churches much more in line with what we see in Eastern Orthodoxy today. Not one Bishop naming ALL the other Bishops, or one Bishops saying that unless you are subject to this one Bishop you have no salvation. This is obviously absent.

What you see in those first 300 years are Christian persecuted, tortured and massacred. Praying for one another and helping one another. Not throwing in each other’s face how inept they are by missing these obvious and easy knowledge we find in your book.

be sure and open all the internal links.** #**34
That’s how we know as Catholics who the True Church is,

That’s how you know. An individual. Your presumption that I don’t open the links to read is insulting. You fail to understand others point of view.

It’s NOT difficult to know the ONE Church, once presented with the evidence all properly referenced.

According to your book and the easy and obvious knowledge you posses. The rest of us struggle.

IMV squishy ecumenism does buckets of damage as do Catholics who don’t know their faith, as do relativistic and indifferent Catholics.

Squishy ecumenism? My Catholic faith is incredibly strong because I accept in humbleness my mistakes and I recognize that we have our share of responsibility for what lead to the Reformation. Keep in mind: “God gives grace to the humble but opposes the proud”.

In addition, calling names is a weak argument.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Josemaria Escriva
The Way
Mortification
Chapter 6
174: Don’t say: ‘That person gets on my nerves.’ Think: ‘That person sanctifies me.’

 

[steve_b]

I think this position is not entirely consistent with the Catechism.

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: “For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, andwith good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.” “Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn.”

We cannot commune together because we are imperfectly joined, but there is only One Body, and all who are members of Christ are members of His One Church. ‘’

As we work to heal the wounds to unity, it is important that we affirm the elements of the Holy Spirit at work within our separated brethren.

iow, there are rifts & schisms, dissensions & heresies.

Which has consequences

817

In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.” The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.

a Catholic who knowing, that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation and leaves the Church, there are grave consequences

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.

It’s as I’ve been saying, and the CCC spells it out, to leave the Catholic Church for a heretical group, or one in schism from, or dissension / division from, the Catholic Church, is a damnable offense. All of protestantism no matter the stripe, falls into those categories.

The Great Heresies
g:

Luther does not have the authority to change the “status” of any books in the canon. He had many private opinions about the books included in the canon, and not all of them are acceptable to Lutherans.

The point I was making, he did create an apocrypha, and his actions are still with most protestants today. And the LCMS which Jon belongs to said as much in their opening page. I’m seeing a conflict in message there.
g:

It is important not to make Lutherans responsible to defend those ideas of Luther they have not embraced, or to hold them responsible for the fact that other groups, still claiming the term “Lutheran” have departed from the substance of the Lutheran confessions.

As I said, I only quoted the LCMS link, because Jon is LCMS. blogs.lcms.org/2012/cph-publishes-first-lutheran-english-edition-of-apocrypha

Did they, misdirect on their front page, use of apocrypha, and NOT deuterocanonical in Luther’s translation? Who speaks authoritatively for the Lutherans?