Do we really want another 500 years of division between Catholics and Protestants?

[PRmerger]

That is OK, if you trust the infallibility of the Church. To an outsider the infallibility is based on circular argument: Church is infallible, because it says it is infallible, and this is true, because the Church is infallible etc.

No, not circular, Attejohannes. The authority of the CC can be proved from Scripture:

The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is prevented from teaching error in matters of faith and morals by God Himself. I provide questions below each verse to illustrate why it is applicable to our understanding of infallibility.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, would that suggest that Jesus did not remain with the Church “always”?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would that mean that Jesus did not give the Counselor or that the Counselor simply failed to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would that imply that Jesus actually did leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: If the Church fell into error despite this promise, would that mean the Holy Spirit failed to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Could the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth - or allow the Church to fall into error - if Jesus promised otherwise?

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible for the Church to fall into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history or that the Church is fallible.

Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”--originally posted by Randy Carson

 

[Attejohannes]

Well, I feel that I have to explain a bit what I meant when I said that the dissensions and split serve in the end the purposes of God.

The unity that was upheld in the (western) Christendom in the 16th century was a forced unity. People were not Catholic Christians by choice but because neither the Church or State gave them any other possiblity. Jail and stake were the only alternatives for dissenters. And I do not think that these were the means that Christ intended His church to be maintained in the world. I believe that this was a capital institutional SIN of the Church, much worse that the human fallibility and lapses of the individual members in the hierarchy.

The freedom of religion was one (not immediate) fruits of the Reformation. After all the religious wars and mutual oppression, the European states, one after the other, came to accept that people differing in their Confession live as their good citizens.

Now the churches cannot impose thmselves on people. People become and stay Christians out of conviction. And that is a blessing. If an unity can be achieved (which I doubt, at least by human means alone), then it is unity by conviction, not by inquisition.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, I feel that I have to explain a bit what I meant when I said that the dissensions and split serve in the end the purposes of God.

The unity that was upheld in the (western) Christendom in the 16th century was a forced unity. People were not Catholic Christians by choice but because neither the Church or State gave them any other possiblity. Jail and stake were the only alternatives for dissenters. And I do not think that these were the means that Christ intended His church to be maintained in the world. I believe that this was a capital institutional SIN of the Church, much worse that the human fallibility and lapses of the individual members in the hierarchy.

The freedom of religion was one (not immediate) fruits of the Reformation. After all the religious wars and mutual oppression, the European states, one after the other, came to accept that people differing in their Confession live as their good citizens.

Now the churches cannot impose thmselves on people. People become and stay Christians out of conviction. And that is a blessing. If an unity can be achieved (which I doubt, at least by human means alone), then it is unity by conviction, not by inquisition.

Yes. I think the error the Church leaders made was this: in trying to eliminate heresy, the Church leaders attacked heretics.

Now the modern Christian world is making the opposite error: in trying to love heretics, it has embraced heresy.

 

[Attejohannes]

I try to respond to several answers addressed to me. Thank you for sending them.

Regarding my accepting the infallibility of the Catholic Church because of my acceptance the Scriptures as my authority:

Luther did not come out of nothing. He was a learned Augustinian friar and a Professor of theology, and felt that he never dissented from the ancient traditions. He thought that he upheld them, when the Church had neglected them. He considered himself a conservative and not a radical. His maxim that “Church should be continuously reformed” is followed by the often forgotten continuation “according to the instructions of the Word of God”. He always maintained that Catholic Church has valid Baptism, valid Eucharist (although he critizised certain practices) and valid Reconciliation. And of course he believed that the Scriptures contained the essentials of the doctrin and everything that was necessary for salvation.

In that sense he believed the continuity of the doctrin and that a necessary element of truth will alvays prevail despite all human errors and fallibility.

As in one of my previous postings I explained what we Lutherans believe when we say the creed and confess our belief in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. To us it means that until the end of days there will be people, however few at times, who believe in Christ and put their hope of Salvation on him, while the rites and ceremonies may differ.

 

[guanophore]

Welcome to CAF Atte.

I have tried to go through this thread.

Yeah, once they get this long, it is hard.

I amd Lutheran. This does not mean that I consider Luther infallible or sinless or even particularly well-mannered and tolerant person. I simply think that he shifted again the focus of faith from Church to Christ.

This is a bit of a simplification, but I see your point. In reality, there should be no separation between Christ and His Holy Bride, the Church.

And I honestly think that this focus was lost from Catholics in his days and to some extent even now. That is my standpoint. Now I have said it and I do not come back to it again. At least in this thread.

Actually this is such an interesting topic, we should start another thread!

It is more than abundantly clear to me that I am considered by Roman Catholics as heretic. I do not contradict, from your standpoint you are right.

I am curious how this became “abundantly clear” to you.

Any Catholic who considers you as such is not acting according to the Faith of the Church. They are either ignorant of what the Church teaches, or defiantly disobedient.

This is not the standpoint of the CC.

And I myself would rather like to be called a heretic by the Pope himself, instead of the rather condescending and vague reference of "limited sacramental unity with the Church, which however is not a full communion".

The Pope will not disobey the teaching of the Church to do such a thing.

And the reference to not having full communion is a simple statement of the Truth, not any effort to be condescending. It would be condescending to pretend that a unity exists where it does not.

For the apostles there were no persons or groups with “limited sacramental unity”, it was all or nothing.

Yes. But they could never have anticipated the Reformation. Now, people are born into a truncated version of the Gospel and raised completely apart from the Sacred Tradition and the Aposotlic Succession that was entrusted by them to the Church.

If the price of unity is to claim to believe what you do not believe (like the latest Catholic dogmas of Papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Virgin), then this pretended faith does not have any value, would be dishonest, and would not save me even if these dogmas (to much of my surprise) would be true.

You are right. It is better to hold on to whatever fraction of the truth you have with integrity.

If I am reminded that these things are true because the Church says they are true, and we know that the Church is right, because the Church knows what is right, because the Church, according to the Church, is the Guardian of Truth, of course, according to the Church… ad infinitum. Then to me this is just similar circular deduction of which we Bible-toting protestants are so well known.

Yes. Fortunately, this is not the case.

I have written rather rudely, it is partially because English is not my first language and I am not able to formulate my phrases in a more diplomatic way. Suffice to say that my intention is not to offend, and I am not questioning the salvation of Catholics.

One has to wonder what your motive might be…

Regarding myself, I know that I will be judged by One, who knows everything, who is All Merciful and Perfectly Just. Whatever is going to be His final word of me and my eternal destiny I know that the decision will be indusputably right, merciful and just. Here I stand...

It is good to know that you are clinging to many falsehoods and misconceptions. I say that because your attitude might improve when you are better educated.

 

[Augustine3]

I’m sure we’ve all heard the saying “do not take the law into your own hands”.

Martin Luther had every right to point out the abuses of Church leaders e.g. selling of indulgences. But Luther had no right to cross the line if forming new doctrines and reject doctrines preached by the Church, the same Church that Christ himself established.

Protestants rebel against the Church and a very similar way Korah and his followers rebelled against Moses and we all know what happen to these rebels in Numbers 16.

Jesus said “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example.” – Matthew 23:2-3

 

[guanophore]

That is OK, if you trust the infallibility of the Church. To an outsider the infallibility is based on circular argument: Church is infallible, because it says it is infallible, and this is true, because the Church is infallible etc.

You make a good point. Fortunately this is not the case. Jesus founded the Church, and Jesus gave her the gift of leading her into 'all Truth".

The practices that Luther criticized and which the present day Catholics agree as scandalous (or am I mistaken?) were in Luther’s days sanctioned by the highest authority of the infallible Church.

Yes.

Men are always in need of reform.

The doctrines of Christ do not require any reform.

You may then ask, what I have to offer instead, my own infallibility perhaps?

My answer is that schisms and fragmentation of Chrisianity have been allowed by God, and in the end they must serve His purposes.

Definitely God does allow humans to fall into sin, to rebel, to dissent, have divisions and factions.

Gal 5:18-21
18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not subject to the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, 21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

These are works of the flesh. Sin never serves the purpose of God. He can work His purpose despite the sins of man.

The Apostles taught the reason for the factions:

1 Cor 11:19-20
9 Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine.

And how will it become clear? That the genuine is known by four marks taught by the Apostles.

Any formal submission to an authority, if you do not deep in your heart believe in what your mouth is confessing, is not a faith that would help you in the face of judgement, particularly if you force yourself to do what your conscience condemns.

I disagree. I think it is certainly possible to submit to authority, even if it is corrupt. This, in fact, is what Jesus taught:

Matt 23:2-4
2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach.

So long as we practice the teachings of Jesus, even corrupt authorities need not concern us. The Apostles did not understand Jesus, either, but they submitted to him in spite of their doubts because they knew He had the words of eternal life. Can you not do the same?

If you ask, what we Lutherans mean when we say our creed and confess our belief in one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, we answer that until the end of days there will be people on earth who believe in Christ and place their trust on Him, although the rites and ceremonies may differ.

It is not the rites and ceremonies that separate us, but the departures from the doctrines of Jesus.

There is an anecdote of a Lutheran who was asked by a Catholic: "Where was your "Church" before the 16th Century". The Lutheran answered: "Did you wash your face this morning". "Yes, naturally", answered the Catholic. "Where was your face before you washed it?" reorted the Lutheran.

Doctrine unknown to the Apostles implemented in the Reformation and afterward is what separates us.

 

[Attejohannes]

You make a good point. Fortunately this is not the case. Jesus founded the Church, and Jesus gave her the gift of leading her into 'all Truth".

Yes.

Men are always in need of reform.

The doctrines of Christ do not require any reform.

Definitely God does allow humans to fall into sin, to rebel, to dissent, have divisions and factions.

Gal 5:18-21
18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not subject to the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, 21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

These are works of the flesh. Sin never serves the purpose of God. He can work His purpose despite the sins of man.

The Apostles taught the reason for the factions:

1 Cor 11:19-20
9 Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine.

And how will it become clear? That the genuine is known by four marks taught by the Apostles.

I disagree. I think it is certainly possible to submit to authority, even if it is corrupt. This, in fact, is what Jesus taught:

Matt 23:2-4
2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach.

So long as we practice the teachings of Jesus, even corrupt authorities need not concern us. The Apostles did not understand Jesus, either, but they submitted to him in spite of their doubts because they knew He had the words of eternal life. Can you not do the same?

It is not the rites and ceremonies that separate us, but the departures from the doctrines of Jesus.

Doctrine unknown to the Apostles implemented in the Reformation and afterward is what separates us.

In an earlier post you questioned my motivation to write here. My motivation was to answer to the question, presented in the title of this thread “Do we really etc…?” My answer was that although we may not want to see that, we in all probability will see it.

My intention was not to proselytise, evangelize or convince catholics. I would think this kind of behaviour insulting towards other Christians. This does not mean, of course, that I try to express my Lutheran viewpoint and its internal logic for you to understand why I think as I think and belive as I believe. I do not expect that you agree.

The point that we both agree is that we are separated, and no reformulation of phraseology or equivocal expressions can heal that. And that is going to last, I am afraid until the Second Coming.

I have not answered the many points you have raised, When we go to the doctrinal level, I think the discussion deteriorates very easily to argumentation. I could dig from my arsenal quite a lot of protestant viewpoints, and you understandably Catholic counterarguments. That kind of discussion seldom leads to a better undesrtanding of truth, but rather to both sides sticking even deeper into their doctrinal premises and the discussion becoming, intentionally or not, more hurtful than constructive.

We have to live with the situation and leave its solution to God’s hands.

In the end He prevails

 

[CopticChristian]

I try to respond to several answers addressed to me. Thank you for sending them.

Regarding my accepting the infallibility of the Catholic Church because of my acceptance the Scriptures as my authority:

Luther did not come out of nothing. He was a learned Augustinian friar and a Professor of theology, and felt that he never dissented from the ancient traditions. He thought that he upheld them, when the Church had neglected them. He considered himself a conservative and not a radical. His maxim that “Church should be continuously reformed” is followed by the often forgotten continuation “according to the instructions of the Word of God”. He always maintained that Catholic Church has valid Baptism, valid Eucharist (although he critizised certain practices) and valid Reconciliation. And of course he believed that the Scriptures contained the essentials of the doctrin and everything that was necessary for salvation.

In that sense he believed the continuity of the doctrin and that a necessary element of truth will alvays prevail despite all human errors and fallibility.

As in one of my previous postings I explained what we Lutherans believe when we say the creed and confess our belief in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. To us it means that until the end of days there will be people, however few at times, who believe in Christ and put their hope of Salvation on him, while the rites and ceremonies may differ.

Johan,

So what you are saying here is that when considering every Bishop, every Theologian, every Scholar in the Catholic Church and the sum total of belief and knowledge that was transmitted in time in the Church, one Monk knew better, understood better, than all that came before, is this what you are saying here?

 

[Attejohannes]

Johan,

So what you are saying here is that when considering every Bishop, every Theologian, every Scholar in the Catholic Church and the sum total of belief and knowledge that was transmitted in time in the Church, one Monk knew better, understood better, than all that came before, is this what you are saying here?

Well, when Einstein heard that 30 German university professors had together condemned his theory of general realtivity as erroneous and unscientific, he repsonded: “If it is erroneous and unscientific, just one professor would be enough…”

 

[Attejohannes]

To Guanophore

Sorry, I noticed that my English (again) was faulty in my previous message to you.

The paragraph should read:

“My intention was not to proselytise, evangelize or convince catholics. I would think this kind of behaviour insulting towards other Christians. This does not mean, of course, that would not try to express my Lutheran viewpoint and its internal logic for you to understand why I think as I think and belive as I believe. I do not expect that you agree.”

I hope that it is now more understandable (regarding the meaning, not necessarily the doctrinal standpoint)

 

[Fra_Angelo]

I too wish if all Christians could be united. But I don’t think that Catholic Church can compromise its teachings, for it believes in the legitimacy of the Sacred Scriptures as well as the Sacred Tradition and the authority of the Magesterium. Apart from these three things there is no existence for the Church. We all agree that there are 27 books in NT., but how can we be sure that only these books are inspired? I would say, because the Church has used its authority to declare them as inspired towards the end of the 4th cent. and it is traditionally believed so. While accepting the NT books the Protestants are indirectly accepting the tradition and the authority of the Church - I mean the Catholic Church. Because Jesus has never said about the canonicity of the New Testament; neither do the Scriptures although it talks about the canonicity of the OT. Therefore we have to rely on the decision which the Church took during the Council of Rome around 380 AD.
And also the Magesterium is very important for the Catholic life. We see the difficulty of the lack of authority in the Protestant fields. All interpret the Bible as they want and we have countless no.of Churches in the world. All claim that theirs is the correct interpretation for they attribute them to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit or the authority of the Bible, but I wonder how could Holy Spirit teach people the Scriptures in different way and cause disunity among the Christians, for the will of Jesus is the unity of his faithful. Catholics however have been standing united from the very beginning of its existance because we believe in the authority which Jesus performs through the apostolic succession and in the person of the Bp of Rome, the worthy successor of St. Peter.

 

[Attejohannes]

I too wish if all Christians could be united. But I don’t think that Catholic Church can compromise its teachings, for it believes in the legitimacy of the Sacred Scriptures as well as the Sacred Tradition and the authority of the Magesterium. Apart from these three things there is no existence for the Church. We all agree that there are 27 books in NT., but how can we be sure that only these books are inspired? I would say, because the Church has used its authority to declare them as inspired towards the end of the 4th cent. and it is traditionally believed so. While accepting the NT books the Protestants are indirectly accepting the tradition and the authority of the Church - I mean the Catholic Church. Because Jesus has never said about the canonicity of the New Testament; neither do the Scriptures although it talks about the canonicity of the OT. Therefore we have to rely on the decision which the Church took during the Council of Rome around 380 AD.
And also the Magesterium is very important for the Catholic life. We see the difficulty of the lack of authority in the Protestant fields. All interpret the Bible as they want and we have countless no.of Churches in the world. All claim that theirs is the correct interpretation for they attribute them to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit or the authority of the Bible, but I wonder how could Holy Spirit teach people the Scriptures in different way and cause disunity among the Christians, for the will of Jesus is the unity of his faithful. Catholics however have been standing united from the very beginning of its existance because we believe in the authority which Jesus performs through the apostolic succession and in the person of the Bp of Rome, the worthy successor of St. Peter.

Well, I think we agree. Catholic church cannot compromise its teachings. Neither can protestants repudiate their faith. Individual conversions occur, to both directions, but that whole denominations would “repent” and reject their most precious techings for the sake of unity is not likely and I do not see it even as a positive thing. Unity is good but not on the sacrifice of what each side consider as inspired truth.

So let us agree to stay amicably apart. It is better that the Unity that was upheld at the time of reformation, not with love and doctrinal reasoning, but force (as I have said before in one of my postings, jail and stake were the ways to treat the dissenters - among catholics and protestants alike)

 

[Fra_Angelo]

Still I wish for the Christian unity and as a Catholic I pray that there may be one shepherd and one flock. Can the mystical body be torn into pieces? No. Can Christ have more than one Church as his bride? I think no. May the good Lord grant us wisdom, understanding and discernment to unite in the name of our God. Amen

 

[Attejohannes]

Still I wish for the Christian unity and as a Catholic I pray that there may be one shepherd and one flock. Can the mystical body be torn into pieces? No. Can Christ have more than one Church as his bride? I think no. May the good Lord grant us wisdom, understanding and discernment to unite in the name of our God. Amen

That we may pray, but I am at loss what else we can do.

I live in a country with very few Catholics, but with Eastern Orthodox church as a minority church. Some of my best friends and close relatives belong to that church, and when I visit their Eucharistic services (naturally as a non-communicating guest) it warms my heart, every time when the deacon prays “…for all holy Churches of God perseverance and the union of them all …” and “may God in His Kingdom remember you, all othodox Christians and all the Christians…”

That much charity I think we owe for each other.

 

[Porknpie]

Well, when Einstein heard that 30 German university professors had together condemned his theory of general realtivity as erroneous and unscientific, he repsonded: “If it is erroneous and unscientific, just one professor would be enough…”

Johan -

First welcome…

If Church doctrine was in error for 100 years, 200 years, 300 years…let alone 1,500 years, it would mean Jesus words were wrong when he said the Holy Spirit would lead the Church to all Truth and that the Church was the pillar and foundation of Truth.

Einstein? Smart man…not perfect…and not given by God knowledge of all Truth. Here’s the first paragraph from wiki… source of some Truth.

Albert Einstein’s religious views have been studied extensively. He said he believed in the god of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, and criticized atheism, preferring he said “an attitude of humility.”[1]

Now thanks to you I’ll have to research Einstein’s god “Baruch Spinoza”…

Always learning something new on CAF.

 

[PRmerger]

I try to respond to several answers addressed to me. Thank you for sending them.

Regarding my accepting the infallibility of the Catholic Church because of my acceptance the Scriptures as my authority:

Luther did not come out of nothing. He was a learned Augustinian friar and a Professor of theology, and felt that he never dissented from the ancient traditions. He thought that he upheld them, when the Church had neglected them. He considered himself a conservative and not a radical. His maxim that “Church should be continuously reformed” is followed by the often forgotten continuation “according to the instructions of the Word of God”. He always maintained that Catholic Church has valid Baptism, valid Eucharist (although he critizised certain practices) and valid Reconciliation. And of course he believed that the Scriptures contained the essentials of the doctrin and everything that was necessary for salvation.

In that sense he believed the continuity of the doctrin and that a necessary element of truth will alvays prevail despite all human errors and fallibility.

As in one of my previous postings I explained what we Lutherans believe when we say the creed and confess our belief in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. To us it means that until the end of days there will be people, however few at times, who believe in Christ and put their hope of Salvation on him, while the rites and ceremonies may differ.

I am sorry. I am not following your reasoning here. How is it that you can know that canon of Scripture is inspired, except through the infallible charism given to the Catholic Church?

What other way are you offering as an explanation?

 

[CopticChristian]

Well, when Einstein heard that 30 German university professors had together condemned his theory of general realtivity as erroneous and unscientific, he repsonded: “If it is erroneous and unscientific, just one professor would be enough…”

Jones,

So, are you saying that Einstien is the source of all Christian thought? Explain what it is you are saying.

 

[Attejohannes]

Jones,

So, are you saying that Einstien is the source of all Christian thought? Explain what it is you are saying.

No, Einstein is not an authority regarding religion, Christian or any other, regarding physics, he is. I just mentioned this anecdote to illustrate that the validity or truthfulness of a statement is not a majority decision. An individual maybe right (like say Luther or Einstein), while the majority is wrong. Chritians themselves were a very small minority, once, opposing the whole Jewish biblical and doctrinal learning.

 

[Attejohannes]

I am sorry. I am not following your reasoning here. How is it that you can know that canon of Scripture is inspired, except through the infallible charism given to the Catholic Church?

What other way are you offering as an explanation?

We accept the old testament from Jewish sources, although we do not share their views and certainly do not regard Jews having an infallible charism regarding the interpretation of the OT.

A person, or institution can be right in certain matters, wrong in others. To equate the customs, beliefs and practices of the 16th century Catholic church to the beliefs and practices of the first centuries is, on the basis of the known history, quite a leap - well, maybe a leap of faith but leap still. The desire ot Luther was go to the roots, the most original and ancient Christian witness there was and is. He found the Scriptures.