How can I answer this comment by a calvinist?

[ryenski]

In hopes of stirring up some controversy, I posted a link to this blog post on my facebook page: Some 500 Years Ago Like An Abduction In the Night, The Virgin Mary Was Taken From Many Christians

A friend of mine, who is an ardent calvinist, responded with this:

That’s not the only thing Luther was wrong on. But Mary wasn’t originally what the Reformation was about. It was primarily about indulgences until Luther was converted from the text, “the righteous shall live by faith”, revealing to him the true biblical gospel of salvation by grace through faith on account of Christ’s death, burial, resurrection and righteousness alone. Luther concisely put it this way, “The Great Exchange” – those who are saved have traded their sin (which Christ satisfied God’s wrath on the cross for) for his righteousness (his keeping/fulfilling the demands of the law for those who believe). Sadly Romanism is still anathematizing the gospel and so the Reformation continues.

Now I’m stuck! How can I respond? I doubt I’ll ever convince him, but I’d like to have a worthy rebuttle. Any ideas?

 

[ryenski]

Here’s my first reply:

The trouble with that line of reasoning is that it has led to the fracturing of the church, which is no longer unified as one body. The reformation has placed the authority for interpreting the holy scriptures squarely in the hands of the individual, rather than in the Church, which is the “pillar and ground of the truth” (read.ly/1Tim3.15.KJV)

 

[Scoobyshme]

In hopes of stirring up some controversy, I posted a link to this blog post on my facebook page: Some 500 Years Ago Like An Abduction In the Night, The Virgin Mary Was Taken From Many Christians

A friend of mine, who is an ardent calvinist, responded with this:

Now I’m stuck! How can I respond? I doubt I’ll ever convince him, but I’d like to have a worthy rebuttle. Any ideas?

Actually, the Reformation would’ve never become what it did, were it not for politics. There were a lot of little German fiefdoms/kingdoms in the northeastern part of Germany who weren’t doing well financially. The royalty in charge of them decided that if they signed onto Martin Luther’s revolt against the Church that they could seize Church lands, which included very nice monasteries with their vineyards, etc. This would increase their lands and profit. Without the backing of these guys, the Reformation would’ve gone nowhere. So, it wasn’t really ALL about theology.

Furthermore, Martin Luther began to deconstruct known Christian theology of the time because of the abuses of the doctrine of indulgences. Indulgences is a valid doctrine, but the selling of indulgences is wrong. In that, Martin Luther was correct. But he way overreacted, mostly because of his vile temper. He began to reason that if abuse of indulgences was wrong, indulgences were wrong. If indulgences were wrong, then you didn’t need the Mass. If you didn’t need the Mass, you didn’t need priests. If you didn’t need priests, you didn’t need bishops to ordain them as priests, etc. He kept deconstructing more and more until all he had left were the man-made doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide which he created out of thin air. And this is why Protestantism is such a mess. A 10,000 foot view of history shows one Church from the time of Jesus until 1054 A.D., when the Orthodox split off (but retained Apostolic Succession and all seven Sacraments). Not until 1517 A.D. did Protestantism get its start. Since then, it has continually splintered into literally tens of thousands of man-made doctrinally disunified, disagreeing, contradictory denominations, all claiming to be “led by the Holy Spirit” in their interpretation of Scripture. If there had been any validity to Protestantism, there would be one Protestant denomination, not tens of thousands (and counting). The Holy Spirit is not the spirit of confusion.

 

[ryenski]

Here’s another reply by my friend:

"I appreciate your response Ryan. You know how much I love and respect you so I’ll answer frankly in a catechetical form (Q/A) for clarity sake.

Q: What is the church comprised of?
A: Individuals.

Q: Who defines what the church is?
A: God in his word.

Q: Who does he say the church is?
A: Ekklesia (God’s people – the called out ones). Those indwelt by his Holy Spirit. Those called out of darkness to his marvelous light. Those brought from death to life. Those who have received mercy. His living stones that are being built up as a spiritual house.
(1 Peter 2:1-10, 1 Corinthians 1:2-3 facebook.com/l/f3002;bit.ly/9Wf5cO )

Q: Who is indwelt by the Spirit of God?
A: Those who have heard and believed the gospel of salvation. (Ephesians 1:13-14, Galatians 3:1-9, John 5:24 facebook.com/l/f3002;bit.ly/a3sw9B )

Q: What is the gospel of salvation?
A: Christ crucified/raised for sinners and Christ’s imputed righteousness to sinners by grace through faith. (John 1:12-13, Romans 1:1-16, Romans 3:21-28, Romans 9:16, 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Ephesians 2:1-10, Romans 4, Philippians 3:7-9 facebook.com/l/f3002;bit.ly/c0uLwv )

Q: Is there any fellowship or unity with two opposing gospels? Can two professed churches with two opposing gospels both be the church or be unified?
A: No. What unity has light with darkness? (2 John 1:9-10, Galatians 1:6-9, Ephesians 4:4-6 facebook.com/l/f3002;bit.ly/92VhFV )

Q: Is the church the pillar of truth?
A: Yes.

Q: Who is the church that has the authority as the pillar of truth?
A: Refer to Q/A #3.

The point is this. You and Rome have the cart before the horse. The scriptures define who the church is, namely, those called out and saved by believing the gospel revealed in the scriptures. Those saved (the church) are the pillar of truth who carry the authority given by Christ in scripture. When a church loses the gospel, it reveals it’s true identity. When a church loses the gospel, it consequently loses the authority that was contained and given by another (Christ) in his gospel. Simply put, Rome has no authority. It isn’t the pillar of truth. It isn’t the church according to scripture because it condemns the very gospel of Jesus Christ that would make it the church (God’s people).

So as I alluded to before, Rome, believe and confess the gospel according to the scriptures and you’ll be part of the church again. You’ll carry the same authority that the universal church now enjoys – the authority and endowment given by her Head (Christ) which is found only in his gospel. Until then, Rome is and will continue to be a harlot with the Protestant Reformation pleading and commanding her to repent and believe on Christ alone for her salvation, resulting in reconciliation with her estranged husband."

Sure would appreciate some help here!

 

[Odell]

1. Sin results in guilt and punishment
2. Punishments are both temperal and eternal.
3. Temperal penalties may remain when a sin is forgiven.
4. God blesses some people as a reward to others
5. God remits temperal penalties suffered by some as a reward to others.

• This is the kicker 1Kings11:11-13. God was clear Solomon’s kingdom was not torn down not for Solomons sakebut for the sake of David. If david had not pleased God. God would have removed the entire kingdom.
  There are other examples. God promised Abraham that if he could find a certain number of righteous men in Sodom he was willing to defer the city’s destruction for the sake of the righteous.
  Do remember there is a difference in temperal salvation and eternal salvation. We can’t earn someones eternal Christ did that! Indulgences only have to do with the temperal aspects of sin

"I appreciate your response Ryan. You know how much I love and respect you so I’ll answer frankly in a catechetical form (Q/A) for clarity sake.

Q: What is the church comprised of?
A: Individuals.

Sinners and saints

Q: Who defines what the church is?
A: God in his word.

Gods words says his Church is one faith one sheperd not 30,000
Q: Who does he say the church is?
A: Ekklesia (God’s people – the called out ones). Those indwelt by his Holy Spirit. Those called out of darkness to his marvelous light. Those brought from death to life. Those who have received mercy. His living stones that are being built up as a spiritual house.
(1 Peter 2:1-10, 1 Corinthians 1:2-3 facebook.com/l/f3002;bit.ly/9Wf5cO )

Q: What is the gospel of salvation?
A: Christ crucified/raised for sinners and Christ’s imputed righteousness to sinners by grace through faith. (John 1:12-13, Romans 1:1-16, Romans 3:21-28, Romans 9:16, 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Ephesians 2:1-10, Romans 4, Philippians 3:7-9 facebook.com/l/f3002;bit.ly/c0uLwv )

Christ’s righteousness is INFUSED big difference. God does not impute rightousness to those who are not rightous. That makes no sence. Exspecially when Jesus talks about our hearts thats what matters, not our outside apearence.

Isaiah 64:5 – thou meetest him that joyfully works righteousness. This means righteousness is not just imputed to us. We can actually do works of righteousness by God’s grace.

Ezek. 36:26-27 - a new heart I will give you and a new spirit I will put within you. These are interior changes effected by God.

Matt. 5:3,5,8 - blessed are the poor in spirit, the meek, and the pure of heart. These are internal dispositions, not just an external reality.

Matt. 5:6; Luke 6:21 - those who hunger for righteousness “may be filled.” It is an inner change, not snow covering up a dunghill.

Matt. 6:1 - beware of practicing righteousness before men. We are not just declared righteous; we can practice righteousness as well.

Matt. 15:18; Mark 7:15 -Jesus teaches the interior disposition is what defiles man. Thus, God’s infusion of grace changes us interiorly.

Matt. 23:25-28 - the Pharisees appeared outwardly righteous to men, but inside they were filled with hypocrisy. God desires and helps us effect an inner change of heart. He doesn’t just declare that we are righteous.

Luke 11:39-40 - the Pharisees cleansed the outside of the cup but inside they were full of wickedness. God demands an internal change and gives us the grace to make that change.

John 1:29 - Jesus the Lamb of God literally takes away the sin of the world. He does not just cover up the sins of the world.

Q: Is there any fellowship or unity with two opposing gospels? Can two professed churches with two opposing gospels both be the church or be unified?
A: No. What unity has light with darkness? (2 John 1:9-10, Galatians 1:6-9, Ephesians 4:4-6 facebook.com/l/f3002;bit.ly/92VhFV )

Q: Is the church the pillar of truth?
A: Yes.

Q: Who is the church that has the authority as the pillar of truth?
A: Refer to Q/A #3.

The point is this. You and Rome have the cart before the horse. The scriptures define who the church is, namely, those called out and saved by believing the gospel revealed in the scriptures.

This guy is really really confused the Church DEFINED what the scriptures are. What came first scripture or the Church?

Remember Paul persicuted the Church before he wrote one book!

Those saved (the church) are the pillar of truth who carry the authority given by Christ in scripture. When a church loses the gospel, it reveals it’s true identity. When a church loses the gospel, it consequently loses the authority that was contained and given by another (Christ) in his gospel. Simply put, Rome has no authority. It isn’t the pillar of truth. It isn’t the church according to scripture because it condemns the very gospel of Jesus Christ that would make it the church (God’s people).

who gave him authority? And how does he know he is infalible?

So as I alluded to before, Rome, believe and confess the gospel according to the scriptures and you’ll be part of the church again. You’ll carry the same authority that the universal church now enjoys – the authority and endowment given by her Head (Christ) which is found only in his gospel. Until then, Rome is and will continue to be a harlot with the Protestant Reformation pleading and commanding her to repent and believe on Christ alone for her salvation, resulting in reconciliation with her estranged husband."

What authority does the protestant Church have? How can a Church that is devided among 30,000 denominations be authoritative in nature?

Here’s another reply by my friend:

Sure would appreciate some help here!

 

[seanflynn]

Q: Who does he say the church is?
A: Ekklesia (God’s people – the called out ones). Those indwelt by his Holy Spirit. Those called out of darkness to his marvelous light. Those brought from death to life. Those who have received mercy. His living stones that are being built up as a spiritual house.
(1 Peter 2:1-10, 1 Corinthians 1:2-3 facebook.com/l/f3002;bit.ly/9Wf5cO )

The Church is: built on the rock of Peter. He is called out, even among apostles (those sent out). There is a leap of logic from being “called out” to being “indwelt by his Holy Spirit.”

 

[ryenski]

Thanks, Odell, Scooby, and seanflynn…

You’ve given me a lot of good staring places. I’m going to sleep on my response and pick this up in the morning.

 

[steve_b]

Here’s another reply by my friend:

Sure would appreciate some help here!

St Francis de Sales was very successful during the protestant revolt getting calvinists in particular back to the Church.

Here is his book of tracts. You can read it online
goodcatholicbooks.org/francis/catholic-controversy.html

pick a topic and see if it helps. For example, “authority of the Church” goodcatholicbooks.org/francis/catholic-controversy/church-authority.html notice particularly how he builds on scripture.

I hope this helps.

 

[ryenski]

St Francis de Sales was very successful during the protestant revolt getting calvinists in particular back to the Church.

Here is his book of tracts. You can read it online
goodcatholicbooks.org/francis/catholic-controversy.html

pick a topic and see if it helps. For example, “authority of the Church” goodcatholicbooks.org/francis/catholic-controversy/church-authority.html notice particularly how he builds on scripture.

I hope this helps.

Thanks that piece by St. Francis was excellent.

Here’s my latest reply:

It might surprise you that most of what you said is in line with what the Catholic Church teaches: we are justified by grace (CCC 1993), the gospel of salvation is Christ crucified & resurrected (CCC 515), we are “destined… In love to be his sons” (CCC 257).

But if the cart is before the horse it is in the absurd notion that the scriptures define who or what the church is. In fact, it was the Catholic Church who defined the scriptures. The scriptures of the New Testament existed in a very different form at the time that the Apostle Paul was writing. During this time the Church didn’t even have the “New Testament”, not until the New Testament was canonized. Even long after Paul’s time, teaching of the Church was conducted largely orally. Churches and well-to-do individuals began to duplicate, preserve, and archive documents that would later become known as the sacred scriptures, as well as other documents by writers whom we now call the Church Fathers. The church fathers were prolific; the Church, through many years of debate, doubt, and discussion sought to distill the sacred writings to a canon, which is what we now call the Gospels and the Epistles.

Saint Paul himself exhorts the Thessalonians to “stand fast and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle” (2 Thess 2:15). Not “hold to the scriptures” - no, Paul says “hold to the traditions”, e.g. the things which you have learned by the authority of the Church.

But, as the point of authority has been hashed and rehashed for 500 years, I doubt I’ll do much better than Saint Francis de Sales, who said:

“Let us take care lest with regard to these words we be drawing the Scripture after our notions, instead of following it. If the salt hath lost its savor, with what shall it be salted? (Matt. v. 13). If the Scripture be the subject of our disagreement, who shall decide?” (goodcatholicbooks.org/francis/catholic-controversy/church-authority.html#CHAPTER_I)

And…

“That, in one word, is what all these reformers want–to take Scripture as judge. And to this we answer Amen: but we say that our difference is not there; it is here, that in the disagreements which we shall have over the interpretation, and which will occur at every two words, we shall need a judge. They answer that we must decide the interpretation of Scripture by collating passage with passage and the whole with the Symbol of faith. Amen, Amen, we say: but we do not ask: how we ought to interpret the Scripture, but: who shall be the judge? For after having compared passages with passages, and the whole with the Symbol of the faith, we find by this passage: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. xvi), that S. Peter has been chief minister and supreme steward in the Church of God: you say, on your side that this passage: The kings of the nations lord it over them… but you not so (Luke xxii.), or this other (for they are all so weak that I know not what may be your main authority): No one can lay another foundation, etc. (1 Cor. iii. 11), compared with the other passages and the analogy of the faith makes you detest a chief minister. The two of us follow one same way in our inquiry concerning the truth in this question - namely, whether there is in the Church a Vicar General of Our Lord - and yet I have arrived at the affirmative and you have ended in the negative; who now shall judge of our difference? Here lies the essential point as between you and me.” (Ibid.)

 

[steve_b]

Thanks that piece by St. Francis was excellent.

Here’s my latest reply:

He’s anxious to help

 

[Zooey]

Here’s another reply by my friend:

Sure would appreciate some help here!

Q: What is the gospel of salvation?
A: Christ crucified/raised for sinners and Christ’s imputed righteousness to sinners by grace through faith. (John 1:12-13, Romans 1:1-16, Romans 3:21-28, Romans 9:16, 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Ephesians 2:1-10, Romans 4, Philippians 3:7-9

He’s arguing that Christ’s sacrificial death merely covers our sins. That’s Calvinism, but it’s not correct. We are actually washed clean of our sin.
It’s more than simply penal substitution.

 

[Zooey]

Thanks that piece by St. Francis was excellent.
:

If he’s not up for St Francis, see if he’ll take a look at William Law. Law was very influential in early Methodism, which began as a rejection of the Calvinist elements that had crept into the Church of England.
I think some of his stuff is online…I know that a lot of Wesley’s writings are.
Try here: ccel.org/index/author-A.html

Actually, there’s probably enough St Francis De Sales to keep him busy for a while, too…

It has not escaped my notice that,amusingly enough, that site is maintained by** Calvin** College…

 

[Cat_Herder]

St Francis de Sales was very successful during the protestant revolt getting calvinists in particular back to the Church.

He is my confirmation patron.

The thing about dealing with Calvinists and other Bible-alone Protestants is, even though you can debunk sola scriptura, they won’t believe you; Bible-alone is so ingrained in their consciousness that it takes a long time for them to learn to trust Sacred Tradition.

So your focus should be on salvation by faith alone. If you can demonstrate from the Bible alone that this teaching is false, you can turn the tables and attack Calvinism as a tradition of men. That’s how you win.

And here is your ammunition:

[BIBLEDRB]Rom 2:2-8 [/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]2 Cor 5:10[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]2 Cor 11:15[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Pet 1:17[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Rev 20:12-13[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Col 3:24-25[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]James 2:24[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]James 2:26[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Galatians 5:6[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 13:2[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Jn 14:15[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Mt 19:16-17[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 5:8[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Phil 2:12[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Peter 1:9 [/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Mt 10:22 [/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Mt 24:1[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Mk 8:35[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[JonNC]

=Scoobyshme;7072211]
Furthermore, Martin Luther began to deconstruct known Christian theology of the time because of the abuses of the doctrine of indulgences. Indulgences is a valid doctrine, but the selling of indulgences is wrong. In that, Martin Luther was correct. But he way overreacted, mostly because of his vile temper.

So, Scooby, you don’t believe it was because, in part, he was told to recant his charge that the abuses of indulgences was wrong, even though you now say he was correct in that regard?
And you know what? I would have a vile temper, too, if I learned that the Church planned for me the same fate as Jan Huss.

He began to reason that if abuse of indulgences was wrong, indulgences were wrong. If indulgences were wrong, then you didn’t need the Mass. If you didn’t need the Mass, you didn’t need priests. If you didn’t need priests, you didn’t need bishops to ordain them as priests, etc.

I’m confused by this, because many Lutherans still use what is called, “Luther’s mass”, and we still have an ordained priesthood, and the confessions clearly state the desire to maintain apostolic succession, but were denied it by the bishops.
Curious, how do the Orthodox view indulgences?

He kept deconstructing more and more until all he had left were the man-made doctrines of Sola Scriptura and **Sola Fide which he created out of thin air. And this is why Protestantism is such a mess. A 10,000 foot view of history shows one Church from the time of Jesus until 1054 A.D., when the Orthodox split off (but retained Apostolic Succession and all seven Sacraments).

They say you split off from them.

Not until 1517 A.D. did Protestantism get its start. Since then, it has continually splintered into literally tens of thousands of man-made doctrinally disunified, disagreeing, contradictory denominations, all claiming to be “led by the Holy Spirit” in their interpretation of Scripture. If there had been any validity to Protestantism, there would be one Protestant denomination, not tens of thousands (and counting). The Holy Spirit is not the spirit of confusion.

How many splintered off of Lutheranism? Zwingli was never with Luther, nor was Calvin. The anabaptists were never Lutheran. Just trying to figure out how Luther is to blame for people who never agreed with him. If anything, they are all splinters of the Catholic Church. If Luther is to blame, how much moreso is Pope Leo X?

You are quite correct that the Holy Spirit is not the spirit of confusion, but there sure was confusion in Rome during Luther’s time. There sure was confusion in 1054. None of that was the Holy Spirit’s confusion. It was and remains our confusion, all of us. And your catechism is spot on when it says: "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 sooner we realize that the blame for our divisions is human sin, on all sides, the sooner the unity Christ calls us to will return.

As to the OP, I personally do not feel like the Blessed Virgin, the Holy Theotokos has been abducted from me.
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.
Blessed are you among women, and the fruit of your womb, Jesus.
Amen
Jon

 

[Cat_Herder]

So, Scooby, you don’t believe it was because, in part, he was told to recant his charge that the abuses of indulgences was wrong, even though you now say he was correct in that regard?

Scooby said Luther was correct to challenge the abuses. But Luther also challenged the practice itself. Please review his 95 Theses, specifically #56.

What’s the difference? Say there is a Baptist church (I won’t name it) that says because the Bible condemns homosexuality, homosexuals must be persecuted. The rest of Christianity sees that as an abuse. Do we then stop the practice of using the Bible as authoritative or do we just condemn that church?

Curious, how do the Orthodox view indulgences?

Favorably.

They say you split off from them.

While they still profess “One Holy CATHOLIC and Apostolic Church” in the Niceno-Constantinopalitan creed at every Divine Liturgy.

How many splintered off of Lutheranism?

Just in the US you have ELCA, WELS, LCMS, etc. Yes, Calvinism is the primary schism factory but the break between Confessional and Evangelical Lutheranism is very real. And now that the ELCA is ordaining homosexual clergy, there will be more schisms. It is sad.

You are quite correct that the Holy Spirit is not the spirit of confusion, but there sure was confusion in Rome during Luther’s time. There sure was confusion in 1054. None of that was the Holy Spirit’s confusion.

Well, that’s why you call a council:

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 18:17[/BIBLEDRB]

It was and remains our confusion, all of us. And your catechism is spot on when it says: "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."

But it’s not the Catholic Church’s fault that people rejected the Council of Trent and schismed.

The sooner we realize that the blame for our divisions is human sin, on all sides, the sooner the unity Christ calls us to will return.

Are you trying to say that Catholics have to be sinless in order for you to reconcile to the Catholic Church? Or that it is a sin for us to be Catholic? Of course not, and I know that’s not what you mean, but think about the implications of the catch-phrase you have just typed.

We need a united Christendom to stand against the challenges of the modern age. Hopefully and God willing, we will see an Ordinariate for Lutherans, which will make it easier. And you’re already pretty close as the below demonstrates.

As to the OP, I personally do not feel like the Blessed Virgin, the Holy Theotokos has been abducted from me.
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.
Blessed are you among women, and the fruit of your womb, Jesus.
Amen
Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Cat Herder;7078805]Scooby said Luther was correct to challenge the abuses. But Luther also challenged the practice itself. Please review his 95 Theses, specifically #56.

And a challenge, in terms of a debate, which was the intent of the 95 Theses, is not in and of itself a rejection.

What’s the difference? Say there is a Baptist church (I won’t name it) that says because the Bible condemns homosexuality, homosexuals must be persecuted. The rest of Christianity sees that as an abuse. Do we then stop the practice of using the Bible as authoritative or do we just condemn that church?

You lost me. Why would we condemn something when they are right (not talking about persecution here)? Scooby said Luther was right in condemning the abuses, but he was told he must recent those condemnations.

While they still profess “One Holy CATHOLIC and Apostolic Church” in the Niceno-Constantinopalitan creed at every Divine Liturgy.

So do we.

Just in the US you have ELCA, WELS, LCMS, etc. Yes, Calvinism is the primary schism factory but the break between Confessional and Evangelical Lutheranism is very real. And now that the ELCA is ordaining homosexual clergy, there will be more schisms. It is sad.

How is this different than Old Catholics, PNCC, etc. Even the CC has it’s beakoffs. You would say they are not Catholic any longer. I would say that the ELCA no longer keeps the Lutheran Confessions. In all cases, it is sin that divides Christian from Christian.

But it’s not the Catholic Church’s fault that people rejected the Council of Trent and schismed.

Maybe there is a recognition that Trent was not truly ecumenical. The other Patriarchates were not represented, and the Lutherans were in fear of their lives. What an interesting event it would be now for the Pope to call a council that would include all willing to attend. This Pope is quite the man to do it, truly a man of God and spiritual leader for us all.

Are you trying to say that Catholics have to be sinless in order for you to reconcile to the Catholic Church? Or that it is a sin for us to be Catholic? Of course not, and I know that’s not what you mean, but think about the implications of the catch-phrase you have just typed.

Not intended at all. For all have sinned… And I do confess the sins on our side, Luther included.

We need a united Christendom to stand against the challenges of the modern age. Hopefully and God willing, we will see an Ordinariate for Lutherans, which will make it easier. And you’re already pretty close as the below demonstrates.

On this we absolutely agree.

Jon

 

[Cat_Herder]

What an interesting event it would be now for the Pope to call a council that would include all willing to attend. This Pope is quite the man to do it, truly a man of God and spiritual leader for us all.

This has already happened.

 

[JonNC]

This has already happened.

Cat
And fifty years later, with all the movement between us, why not again?
Jon

 

[Cat_Herder]

Cat
And fifty years later, with all the movement between us, why not again?
Jon

What would be your agenda for the Third Vatican Council? I curiously await to see it.

But since you are a Lutheran and this thread is about Calvinism, maybe it should be in a new thread.

 

[clmowry]

Cat
And fifty years later, with all the movement between us, why not again?
Jon

Yeah. The hands on the Church clock don’t turn very fast do they?

It was ~100 years between the last two councils, but 50 years wouldn’t be unprecedentedly “speedy”.

I wonder if the ecumenical efforts with Lutherans/Anglicans/Orthodox might be leading up to such a council.

Chuck