Lutheran's

[lak611]

All,

I am somewhat confused. How, when Jesus instituted the Supper did He also institute the historic sucession of bishops? I know Acts does help verify the idea, and it was also agreed upon by the early Lutheran church, but the question to bear in mind is not just whether the Lutheran church is apostolic, but is the Roman Church from the Reformation till now? What is Papal Primacy and when, if it were used in the early church would we have vastly different doctrine than we do?

It has been argued that the Keys of the Kingdom were given to just St. Peter, but this is made false by the later passage where Christ gives the authority to bind and loose sins to the decision of a minimum of two disciples. Luther wanted the equality of Bishops as it was practiced in the early church councils. If the early councils had practiced the primacy as it is now practiced, Pope Honorious would never have been excommunicated after his death, nor condemned by Constantinople III! Instead Honorious would have stayed fast in his heretical beliefs because he was St. Peter’s successor. Clearly the early church did not recognize that St. Peter’s sucessor was infallible in matters of doctrine…it was the CHURCH represented by the bishops, EQUAL in authority, who were infallible in such matters.

We as Lutherans accept any ordination done in a priest’s church to be true by divine right. Hence, we do have an Office of the Holy Ministry, but it is not a sacredotal priesthood because all Christians are priests (1 Peter 2:9-10) with Christ as the sole High Priest (Hebrews 9). While I understand that the priest stands in for Christ during the Mass, Christ never hinted that that is what his disciples should do…they should merely do what Christ did in remembrance of Him. In other words, this is a gift, given to us, not offered as Christ did on the holy cross. I would also point out that the Didache which is very possibly the teachings of the Twelve with regard to worship, does not have a portion where the priest offers sacrifice…in fact the two chapters on the Eucharist begin with “Now concerning the Eucharist, give THANKS this way,” indicating that it is not a sacrifice redone or reoffered, but a gift to be received from the one true sacrifice. Indeed even the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom mentions a bloodless sacrifice of spiritual worship during the Eucharist…this we do not deny, and indeed practice…but to reoffer Christ outside of time as has been mentioned earlier still makes it a bloody sacrifice!

It has also been said that only a truly ordained sacredotal priest would be able to effect the change considered in the Eucharist…where does Christ say this? Where is it said in the pre-Schism canons? I may be wrong here, but I’m still confused where the Roman church is still the first and true church…the true church on earth, in my opinion either does not exist anymore after the Great Schism, or it is in the East where the equality of bishops is still practiced.

Sorry for the poor quality of this post. I was out of town for the weekend, and had some car trouble, and am tired, and…well, you get the idea. .

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

So, do you believe that only ordained ministers are able to confect the Eucharist, or is this something that you believe any Christian is able to do?

 

[ctos]

It has been argued that the Keys of the Kingdom were given to just St. Peter, but this is made false by the later passage where Christ gives the authority to bind and loose sins to the decision of a minimum of two disciples.

The problem I see with this use of Mt. 18:18 is one of wrestling the Scriptures to perdition. When a person reasons without the Church, he can take verses and make a wide variety of interpretations. The Church has had sacramental confession in one form or another since the beginning. And anyway, didn’t two or more determine that Luther was mistaken?

The main thing that worries me about talking to Protestants is that I have to learn a thousand odd theories about different verses of Scripture. Each Protestant will have invested a lot of time and energy into some particular pattern of thinking, often about some verses in particular. The answer is always that the Catholic faith as a whole makes more sense of everything, than would be possible with a peculiar interpretation, however compelling, of some particular point or observation. The Protestant insists on a special interpretation of a particular verse. The Catholic says, ‘Look at the whole, within which all the parts fit perfectly and make even more sense.’ This latter is more difficult to put forward. So, one ends up discussing and discussing, and of course the Protestant is unconvinced because he has so many ways of thinking about his special verse of Scripture.

 

[Paleolutheran]

The problem I see with this use of Mt. 18:18 is one of wrestling the Scriptures to perdition. When a person reasons without the Church, he can take verses and make a wide variety of interpretations. The Church has had sacramental confession in one form or another since the beginning. And anyway, didn’t two or more determine that Luther was mistaken?

The main thing that worries me about talking to Protestants is that I have to learn a thousand odd theories about different verses of Scripture. Each Protestant will have invested a lot of time and energy into some particular pattern of thinking, often about some verses in particular. The answer is always that the Catholic faith as a whole makes more sense of everything, than would be possible with a peculiar interpretation, however compelling, of some particular point or observation. The Protestant insists on a special interpretation of a particular verse. The Catholic says, ‘Look at the whole, within which all the parts fit perfectly and make even more sense.’ This latter is more difficult to put forward. So, one ends up discussing and discussing, and of course the Protestant is unconvinced because he has so many ways of thinking about his special verse of Scripture.

Ctos,

Technically, yes you’re right. However, as I have mentioned earlier, more than two people found the Pope wrong in the past. I have YET to be shown how St. Peter who was subservient to St. James, was not declared the greatest by Christ, was among all the disciples when the Keys of the Kingdom were given out, was shown to be wrong by St. Paul at the Council of Jerusalem, and no papal primacy which had been practiced in the early church…how are you arguing that Rome is right and the East isn’t? Your arguments against Luther and other Protestants usually hinge upon Rome being the church that the gates of Hell shall not overcome…not the East. All reject Papal Primacy, and all were excommunicated infallibly by the Pope…we have a serious problem here, because the Pope has said things which contradict earlier councils. THAT was Luther’s problem with the Pope. He accepted many traditional interpretations and even Melancthon had not problem with being under the Pope as long as he were to correct certain abuses which were never corrected. The Pope was still a person and had messed up…that was the message of the Reformation when it comes down to it.

Some of Scripture is open to personal pious interpretation, but there are limits. There may be disagreements where both sides are semi-legitimate or one side is blatantly wrong. The fathers did not always agree on certain points of doctrine that Scripture was either silent on or ambiguous on. A good example would be universalism (all mankind will be saved at the end). While the whole Holy Orthodox Catholic Church declared all but one form heresey, Gregory of Nyssa’s idea on universalism was tabled. In Lutheranism, we declare even this form as heresey, while in the Orthodox church this is a possible, although minority veiw based upon the Greek word “aeon” in Scripture which can either mean a “very long time” or “eternity.” Since Scripture uses the term both ways, some have argued that eventually all will be saved. Others would take “very long time” deffinition however and say that the souls of the damned will cease to exist. There is freedom within boundaries.

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

 

[Paleolutheran]

Continued from above:

As a pastor, I must be in full agreement with the Lutheran Confessions, and even then, there is freedom within bounds depending on how certain opinions are viewed in the documents, but as a church member, I only need to subscribe to the three ancient ecumenical creeds and the Small Catechism. This is the source of some problems at times in churches. Also, the LCMS has “official positions” on some things, yet lets individuals disagree with them with a small warning about theological inconsistency (i.e. We hold to a literal 6-day creation, but we allow for personal freedom to disagree).

Oh, I am not sure of official LCMS teachings. I believe some hold opinions that anyone using the Words of Institution, even a pagan may consecrate the bread and wine. Others, such as myself hold that any Christian CAN do it, but it is preferrable for a priest to do it, since the priest is ordained by the church for service in that area and he knows what to do to not mishandle the sacrament. It is also an honor given to him by God in his church, for while church government is based on the assembly of voters, the priest has divine right in the church, hence we can have a priest ordain someone else…we don’t technically need a bishop, which is not called for in Scripture and the title of which is a human invention (although it is useful for the retainment of order so long as it is realized that the bishop is chosen by the will of the whole church and is equal in authority with the other bishops). Contrary to Roman Catholicism which sees the church as a benevolent monarchy with the Pope as the earthly king, Lutherans see the church as a form of democratic republic, with individual churches having authority in their own parishes with the service of a priest, but whole church decisions needing votes from bishops who are equal with one as a spokesman…hence, the original setup of the church in the first ecumenical councils.

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Oh, I am not sure of official LCMS teachings. I believe some hold opinions that anyone using the Words of Institution, even a pagan may consecrate the bread and wine.

How is that in line with the Lutheran belief of the priesthood of all believers? Wouldn’t one have to be a believer to conescrate the host & the cup? That would essentially make non-believers priests in the Lutheran view, wouldn’t it?

Also… this question is off-topic but does the LCMS accept the Communion of Saints in the Catholic sense, as Luther did, or does your Synod forbid praying to the saints?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

The Pope was still a person and had messed up…that was the message of the Reformation when it comes down to it.

The Reformation didn’t reform much… we had a Counter-Reformation but that was after ya’ll boogied from Rome. Of course the Pope is human and may err, we didn’t need any Deformation to tell us that. The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church teaches that the Pope is infallible insofar as he is defining a matter of faith and morals and while acting as the leader of all Christians (Church Militant) (and yes, including Protestants or “Orthodox” while you may not accept our position, are bound in our eyes to heed statements ex-cathedra by the Roman church).

 

[AlegreFe]

One thing I haven’t seen discussed here is Apostolic Succession. Jesus, at the last supper, instituted the Eucharist and established the priesthood.

CC 858 - "As the Father has sent me so I send you. The apostles ministry is the continuation of his mission; Jesus said to the Twelve: “he who receives you receives me”. CC 860 - In the office of the apostles there is one aspect that cannot be transmitted: to be chosen witnesses of the Lord’s Resurrection and so the foundation stones of the Church. But their office also has a permanent aspect. Christ promised to remain with them always. The divine mission entrusted by Jesus to the them “will continue to the end of time, since the Gospel they handed on is the lasting source of all life for the Church. Therefore,…the appostles took care to appoint successors.”

:yup: Yes this has been mentioned right here. But you added from where it comes.

Sound strange? Well not really if you think about it and know about “In Persona Christi.” It is not the Priest but Jesus Christ Himself standing at the altar and He only does this for the validly ordained Priests. Christ instituted His Ministerial Priesthood at the Last Supper. At that same time, He instituted the Holy Eucharist. The only ones there in the room were the Apostles and Jesus Christ. So unless a person was ordained by a Bishop that succeeds the Apostles, then there is no Priest and there is no Eucharist.

Iowa Mike:

With respect, from a Catholic perspective, since priesthood stems from the Last Supper and has passed down through Apostolic Succession within the Catholic Church, how can a Luthern minister say a valid mass?

How can any denomination (besides Eastern Orthodox) say a valid Mass and have a valid Eucharist? None can; not even Anglicans can say that they have a valid Eucharist.
Sorry, but it’s true.

 

[GKC]

“How can any denomination (besides Eastern Orthodox) say a valid Mass and have a valid Eucharist? None can; not even Anglicans can say that they have a valid Eucharist.
Sorry, but it’s true.”

Sure we can. You can’t, because you accept the logic and authority of *Apostolicae Curae * (which has some loopholes, even so). We Anglicans don’t. (And yes, I know a lot about *AC *

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Suudy]

I know I’m late in this discussion (this post is from Feb 22), but I wanted to chime in on what I think IS the distinction you discuss here.

The distinction between this may not seem important now, but when you were told you had to do so many different things to work towards the anihilation of venial sins, in other words that Christ’s sacrifice wasn’t total, abuses crept in and people begin to

No, no, no. We do not do different things to “work towards the anihilation of venial sins.” Certainly that is a goal, but it in no way says that Christ’s sacrifice wasn’t total. The works themselves do not forgive the sin. Our venial sins are “forgiven in all the ways we that we can obtain grace from God.” (1)

doubt God’s mercy and grace. This is similar to why the The difference is this: Roman Catholic View - God’s grace enables us to have faith but that Holy Baptism forgives us from only our original sin. After that, we enter purgatory to be purged of any venial sins NOT forgiven by works which we do as a result of infused grace, such as attending the Mass, Confession, etc. Granted, we will eventually enter Heaven, we must still SUFFER for our own sins.

I think you are failing to understand the role of Purgatory and the distinction between mortal and venial sin. Only death while in a state of unforgiven mortal sin endangers one’s soul. Death with unforgiven venial sins does not.

However, even if we die with all our sins forgiven (both mortal and venial), we do not necessarily skip Purgatory. We recognize the two side effects of sin–eternal and temporal punishments. Purgatory is to purge the temporal effects of those sins. So even if we “work towards the anihilation of venial sins” we are not guaranteed to skip Purgatory.

Your statement that “we enter purgatory to be purged of any venial sins” is incomplete. Purgatory exists for more than just the purging of venial sin.

not to acheive salvation. No imperfect thing enters Heaven, but we are seen as perfect by Christ’s sacrifice (the Greek for “it is finished” is a monetary term meaning the slate is totally clean). Works only work towards our sanctification, but even this is Christ’s work in us (Hebrews 12:2), not our work ourselves at all (Phillip. 2:13).

Ahh, the famous dunghill covered in snow argument. We “appear” justified, but we aren’t really. If God were to peek under the snow (but He won’t because of Christ’s sacrifice) He’d see we are really stained with sin.

As Catholics, we believe we really ARE clean of sin. Christ’s sacrifice cleanses us of the eternal stain of sin. And acts of mercy or faith cleanse us of the temporal punishment (I could be wrong on the exact nature of this). I think the Protestant view is that Christ’s sacrifice cleanses us of ALL aspects of sin. THAT is a fundamental difference between Catholics and Lutherans.

 

[Paleolutheran]

How is that in line with the Lutheran belief of the priesthood of all believers? Wouldn’t one have to be a believer to conescrate the host & the cup? That would essentially make non-believers priests in the Lutheran view, wouldn’t it?

Also… this question is off-topic but does the LCMS accept the Communion of Saints in the Catholic sense, as Luther did, or does your Synod forbid praying to the saints?

Semper,

That is why I say I believe only Christians can. The communion of saints, as far as I know, Luther became increasingly unfriendly to in the Roman sense. In the Smalcald Articles he says we should not invoke or pray to saints, make altars to them, hold masses, fasts, or festivals for them, etc. I have some issues with that, mostly because of all the “St. Paul Lutheran Churches” in different cities, and because we do celebrate the feasts of the saints at times. This may be considered an opinion of his that we should greatly pay heed to, but need not follow totally. He saw, I believe, later in his life, that we are members of the church millitant and that those who are in the church triumphant may pray for us in Heaven, but we don’t know if they are aware of our asking them to pray for us, nor should we put our trust in them, nor is there any promise they will hear us, nor do we get merrit from them for salvation. He veiwed it as best to pray to God alone. He even had a caveat with the pre-Trent Hail Mary, that it be said by spiritually mature persons, unless it becomes idolatry…but he continued to say it and hold the Theotokos in high regard. Many Lutherans are 100% Protestant on this one. I am not. There are divergent opinions on this but it doesn’t come up too much so most people just assume our default position is the same as the rest of Protestantism.

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

 

[AlegreFe]

…It is also an honor given to him by God in his church, for while church government is based on the assembly of voters, the priest has divine right in the church, hence we can have a priest ordain someone else…we don’t technically need a bishop, which is not called for in Scripture and the title of which is a human invention (although it is useful for the retainment of order so long as it is realized that the bishop is chosen by the will of the whole church and is equal in authority with the other bishops). Contrary to Roman Catholicism which sees the church as a benevolent monarchy with the Pope as the earthly king, Lutherans see the church as a form of democratic republic, with individual churches having authority in their own parishes with the service of a priest, but whole church decisions needing votes from bishops who are equal with one as a spokesman…hence, the original setup of the church in the first ecumenical councils.

WHAT?! No bishop? The title of Bishop is of human invention? That title is in Scripture.

Authority is Transferred by the Sacrament of Ordination
Acts 13:3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the
laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come
from a Catholic bishop.

I like what John Salza says here at the end;
Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority
of his office (his “bishopric”) is respected notwithstanding
his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession
in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God
never said, "I’ll give you leaders with authority for about 400
years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own."

Jesus Wants Us to Obey Apostolic Authority

 

[Suudy]

Again, sorry for the tardy entry.

My reasons for not joining the Roman Church in as succinct a way as I can (and with no windy explanations):

I’d like to address some of these reasons you have.

1. Tradition is used in many things, but cannot trump Holy Scripture.

I’ve heard this argument before from non-Catholics. I challenge you to name a single doctrine that comes from Sacred Tradition that “trumps” Holy Scripture. You will find nothing in Tradition that contradicts Scripture and vice-versa.

1. Christ not offered up again during the Eucharist. Christ offered His spirit into the Father’s hands at Calvary, and we partake in the gift without the sacrificial act.

You use the word “again” to imply that each week Mass is a new sacrifice. It is the same sacrifice. Christ is not offered up “again.” The sacrificial act at the altar transcends time–it is the same sacrifice everywhere in all time. There is no “again.”

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Oh, I am not sure of official LCMS teachings. I believe some hold opinions that anyone using the Words of Institution, even a pagan may consecrate the bread and wine. Others, such as myself hold that any Christian CAN do it, but it is preferrable for a priest to do it, since the priest is ordained by the church for service in that area and he knows what to do to not mishandle the sacrament.

One more thing… if there is a priesthood of all believers, not a priesthood of all disbelievers, is there a valid consecration at the Words of Institution if the elected priest (elected, because Lutherans supposedly hold to the priesthood of all believers) is a non-believer, then is there a valid consecration?

This isn’t a problem for Catholics, because we believe the priest is acting in persona Christi in contrast to the priesthood of all believers at the Words of Institution, so his personal beliefs or doubts have no effect on Holy Communion.

 

[ctos]

more than two people found the Pope wrong in the past.

Hm. Well, if a U.S. President is impeached and loses office, the country doesn’t break up into 50 states. There is still a presidency. Analogies are always flawed, but it doesn’t matter that a pope with the bishops can declare that a past pope erred. And a President can be mistaken, but be rebuked by his council. It’s neither here nor there. The Church is a unified, hierarchical body, the Body of Christ. The arm isn’t laying to one side, with a finger over there, and a lost toenail somewhere rotting.

 

[ctos]

The distinction between this may not seem important now, but when you were told you had to do so many different things to work towards the anihilation of venial sins, in other words that Christ’s sacrifice wasn’t total, abuses crept in and people begin to doubt God’s mercy and grace.

Please don’t fall for this pattern of thinking, that the fact of abuses means that theology was not properly unfolding. When abuses creep in to levels of government, we don’t split the country into lots of little countries and re-think the Constitution. There was a problem in the 1400s and 1500s with priests who didn’t have proper flocks to tend, and who would invent ways to get people to give them Mass stipends. This was condemned at Trent. As for sins, we work against mortal sins, venial sins, imperfections; we work against deliberate faults and then faults that occur with only half advertence (non-deliberate). Christ’s sacrifice was perfect but we complete His sufferings. We work to apply His graces to ourselves. We must cooperate with God.

Protestant View - God’s grace enables us to have faith but Holy Baptism forgives us ALL our sins and Christ’s righteousness is credited to us because we are washed in the blood of the lamb. Works flow from faith and these works GOD GAVE FOR US TO DO (Ephesians 2:12) but not to acheive salvation. No imperfect thing enters Heaven, but we are seen as perfect by Christ’s sacrifice (the Greek for “it is finished” is a monetary term meaning the slate is totally clean). Works only work towards our sanctification, but even this is Christ’s work in us (Hebrews 12:2), not our work ourselves at all (Phillip. 2:13).

All of this is invisible. You don’t “know” any of this except by faith and by authority. The only credible source of authority is the Catholic Church. You don’t “know” whether A comes from B or B from C or C from A or X from Y, or whether Y is greater or less than A or B*C is > or < Y+Z. Protestants try to reason out a way not to be Catholic. That is my opinion. The human intellect can always come up with something fairly involved that appears to have some depth to it. But “he who hears you hears me”. The Church involves authority.

 

[Paleolutheran]

All,

I apologize for my abruptness and sometimes my lack of understanding. I am now speaking to four separate persons and I am only one. I do not deny that I am NOT an expert in Roman Catholic theology. I do not deny that I am NOT an ordained Lutheran priest. Be that as it may, several points appear to be creeping into this discussion and many other opinions are being made as matters of fact.

1. The term “bishop” appears in the Bible - TRUE. I admit I was wrong on this point only after I looked at the King James Version. The word Episkopos though appears to be used in Timothy and Titus as equivalent to a priest with a decon under it. Could someone explain to me in what context elders, priests, and bishops are used in the context that Rome currently uses?
2. Innovations against Scripture. I was asked to show one, I will show several. I. Forced cellibacy of priests. In 1 Timothy Scripture says that a man wishing to be an “overseer” (the term which can also be translated “bishop”) must be the husband of only one wife. This indicates that clergyman can be married, yet this gift is limited to those who are currently priests. In his first letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul (in chapter 7) claims that marriage is not as good a gift as celibacy…and this much Lutherans admit. However, he talks of those who cannot control their passions as marrying. Nowhere does he instruct this congregation that their priests and bishops may not marry, even though much of this letter has to do with practices that the priest or bishop would be able to fix if he has control over matters of practice and doctrine. II. The Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos. While some reason would be used to accept that she was purified when Christ was conceived within her, the Roman explanation is not found in Scripture and even contradicts passages which refer to Mary as needing a savior and all men falling short of the glory of God. However, I know Catholic Answers has a tract wherein they say that Mary still had the chance of inheriting Original Sin, she did not. The problem with that view though, is that the Scriptures say all HAVE sinned, not all MIGHT sin. Compounded by the fact that the Orthodox Church also denies this belief make it an innovation both against the Scriptures and the church catholic (and yes, I know Luther held a private view on this which is against mine, but we are able to disagree with opinions of our doctors if they are against Scripture). III. Papal Infallibility. St. Peter messed up in matters of doctrine (Council of Jerusalem). Again, coupled with the rejection of this teaching by the Orthodox Church, it stand to reason that the church has not always taught this practice, and therefore it is most likely an innovation. Even the Orthodox will admit that their Ecumenical Patriarch is not infallible in matters of doctrine.

Continued…

 

[Paleolutheran]

IV. Pope as able to depose rulers on earth - Christ said that His apostles only had authority to forgive and withhold sins, not depose earthly rulers, or else he wouldn’t have told nor would the apostles have included the passage concerning paying taxes to Caeser in the Scriptures. If you have not done so, I would highly recommend that you read “Power and Primacy of the Pope” by Melancthon as it gives reasons for why Lutherans disagree with the Pope on matters of his power.

1. Priesthood of all believers - The Lutheran view is best summed up in the Christian Cyclopedia at the LCMS (which I would recommend looking at if you are curious about some topics as it is pretty good at general informaiton.)
2. Abuses - The President, while divinely instituted is not divinely inspired nor does he declare to be inerrant and speaking for God as the Pope does. If the President messes up, we blame him. If the Pope messes up, he is not infallible and his errors can last into doctrine, and this is EXACTLY what happened in the Middle Ages. Ephesians 2 clearly states that man is dead in sins and trespasses and only desires to fulfill the cravings of his sinful flesh. That is the very idea behind “Total Depravity.” Yet the Pope in the Council of Trent declares those of us who believe what St. Paul says to be anathema (Cannon V). Hence, no one, even Roman Catholic can say that man’s free will is extinguished or lost. Or Cannon XV which says that those who have been justified are anathema if they declare themselves to be in the number of the Predestined…um, so the Pope basically said what Christ said to Nicodemus about believing in Him and not perishing was a lie, because that means you cannot fully trust in what God has said…this makes God a liar.
3. Priesthood of all believers and the Eucharist. We also believe that the elected priest is standing in the place of Christ. As I said earlier, the question of his personal beliefs affecting the Eucharist is a matter open for discussion. It is not a problem for us as it is Christ and the Word which do it all, not the beliefs of an individual, so long as they are Christians. We still ordain a priesthood as elected priests (pastors), without denying that there is a priesthood of all believers.

I think this is my last active post. I do not have the time to continuously discuss this with four people and anymore who might chime in without some assistance. I do hope you all understand.

Pax Christi,

Chris Heren

 

[ctos]

Celibacy of priests is a discipline that has served the Church well. It has ancient roots, not least of which is Christ emphasizing the special benefit of being a eunuch for the kingdom. If there were a Church, wouldn’t it have the prerogative to enforce disciplines, and require obedience?

The country (U.S.), too, has a ‘perfect’ intellectual basis, and an imperfect human basis. When something goes wrong in the latter, we don’t assume the former to be in need of annihilation. We don’t accept a group somewhere deciding that back in 1835 something wasn’t understood properly and after all we can be 50 countries or however many you like. The Church has a perfect divine basis and an imperfect human element. It’s the same thing. The imperfections of the human element don’t mean that we can invent our own understanding of the divine basis.

When asked, how can the Catholic Church fail to be the one true Church, you answer by pointing to this or that issue. But these issues are always matters that can be properly understood in faith, and which make perfect sense as the Catholic Church puts them forward. People can always invent an alternate parallel universe and populate it with complex-seeming ideas that appear to be self-sustaining. But what is sustaining is the Kingdom, which is founded on the rock, which is Peter. We believe in order to understand. Those who take understanding upon themselves end up believing a wide variety of things.

 

[ctos]

I think this is my last active post. I do not have the time to continuously discuss this with four people and anymore who might chime in without some assistance. I do hope you all understand.

You don’t have to answer every point made. And, you can feel free to invite your Lutheran friends to join in the discussion. Wouldn’t they like to help convert some Catholics?

 

[ctos]

II. The Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos. While some reason would be used to accept that she was purified when Christ was conceived within her, the Roman explanation is not found in Scripture and even contradicts passages which refer to Mary as needing a savior and all men falling short of the glory of God.

Why are we eager to understand exactly how God works? This seems to be a difficulty for Protestants. O.S. Luke for example is always saying that we are trying too hard to understand the mystery of the Eucharist. But in fact, all we have done is to set out some of what we know, while still acknowledging that it is a mysterium fidei! Here, you want to question how exactly Mary was sanctified… if there were a Church, guided by God, wouldn’t it be Her place (Holy Mother Church’s place) to clarify details here and there? How do you know Mary wasn’t conceived immaculately? She was “full of grace” prior to her agreeing to what the angel proposed. It just surprises me that people are willing to think about something, when we don’t really know directly anyway. You were there when God made Mary? C’mon now. If there were a Church, one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, wouldn’t it be guided by God to help the faithful to understand as much as necessary? And since “two or more” decided that Luther was a heretic, doesn’t that make him a heretic?

St. Peter messed up in matters of doctrine (Council of Jerusalem).

You mean, being corrected by St. Paul, Gal 2:11? St. Peter didn’t make a formal teaching. It was a venial fault of error in discussion, and St. Peter did an admirable job of demonstrating what primacy means: it doesn’t mean stamping down your foot and demanding slavish adherence to one’s own conclusion, but rather there is a process by which subjects can be discussed. The President can be wrong, and be corrected by his cabinet. This is another example of how Protestants tend to invent an alternate parallel universe, interpreting details to suit. Inventing a parallel universe is a common human phenomenon. The cure for it is obedience, and acknowledging that God’s presence among us is real and practical.