Protestants in Heaven without Confession?

[JonNC]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ConstantineTG
I believe you! In Acts there was no difference between bishop and priest. St. James was called a presbyter by St. Luke even though we all know (as well as those there in First Century Jerusalem) that he was the bishop. But the bishop really is a “chief elder” or “head elder”. The differentiation only appeared later in the First Century.

Well a bishop is a priest. How else could he pass on the authority to administer the sacraments if he didn’t have that authority to begin with? Priests and deacons were employed to aid the bishop in the life of the church. The priests were to aid in the sacramental life and the deacons in the charitable life.

As far as the Augsburg Confession goes, wishing and hoping doesn’t get you there and it is very telling that the authors only speak of “human authority”. This then is the difference between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran denomination. In Lutheranism there is no real church authority given by God. Mt 16:18-19 and Mt 18:18 are not applicable to Lutherans. It is only by human authority that governs the Lutheran Church. But in Catholicism, when a Bishop ordains a priest or consecrates another bishop, he is not wielding mere “human authority” but rather is imparting [delegating] divine authority. But this is exactly what Lutherans deny. To them there is no divine authority in the church despite what Jesus said. So here is the situation in Lutheranism. They say they have bishops with valid Apostolic Succession but deny that these bishops have any Apostolic authority. They only have, as the Augsburg Confessions state, “human authority”.

I think you will find, Ink, that we do believe there is divine authority for our ordinations, and that we do believe we are part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Jon

 

[inkaneer]

I think you will find, Ink, that we do believe there is divine authority for our ordinations, and that we do believe we are part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Jon

I have no doubt that you believe it. Some people still think the world is flat. But like I said believing something to be true does not make it true. You still have the problem of authority. How can you maintain that there is no church authority and yet claim that your ministers have valid authority to consecrate the Eucharist? That authority was not given to everybody. Only eleven people received that authority and none of them were Lutheran. Those eleven people were to become, on Pentecost, the authority in the church and that authority was to be passed on as with the case of Matthias to bishops.

Let not forget that if there was no passing on of the authority then Christianity becomes a one generation phenomena and the whole thing collapses with the death of John the Apostle. That means that those writings that we call inspired are nothing more than someone’s personal opinion and like the saying goes, opinions are like belly buttons, everyone has at least one.

In short church authority is the bedrock of Christianity. Luther’s so called reformation reformed nothing. It was a revolt from authority that Luther had always had problems with in any form beginning with parental authority. And if you want insight into that then all you need do is read Luther’s own words.

 

[JonNC]

I have no doubt that you believe it. Some people still think the world is flat.

You know, here is why I am often reluctant to dialogue with you. This the the kind of condescending polemics you usually resort to, and frankly I have no interest in it. I go out of my way to not employ such tactics, and prefer to dialogue with others that don’t.

Not surprisingly, the balance of your post held no interest for me.

Peace,
Jon

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
I have no doubt that you believe it. Some people still think the world is flat.

You know, here is why I am often reluctant to dialogue with you. This the the kind of condescending polemics you usually resort to, and frankly I have no interest in it. I go out of my way to not employ such tactics, and prefer to dialogue with others that don’t.

Not surprisingly, the balance of your post held no interest for me.

Peace,
Jon

Well that is convenient isn’t it. Can we then infer that you have no answer? The basic fact is that you have an inherent contradiction in Lutheranism concerning authority that neither you nor other Lutherans want to address. You want to deny church authority while at the same time claiming it. Now which is it? And like I said, believing it doesn’t make it so.

 

[JonNC]

Well that is convenient isn’t it. Can we then infer that you have no answer? The basic fact is that you have an inherent contradiction in Lutheranism concerning authority that neither you nor other Lutherans want to address. You want to deny church authority while at the same time claiming it. Now which is it? .

Well, there you go again. After 11,000 posts, it ought to be clear that I don’t dodge questions, or avoid issues. Your accusation of said is further evidence of my previous post.

You want to know what I deny? Quite simply, I deny, based on scripture and Tradition, the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome.

And like I said, believing it doesn’t make it so.

And if you had left it at this, and continued to dialogue in good charity, you know darn well that I would continue to engage you, not in sparring polemics, but in charitable dialogue.

Jon

 

[wondrousgnat]

I feel as though people did not fully understand my previous statement. I am fully aware that Lutheran ministers are not in authority not being in the line of succession. But it seems to me that some here do not believe that God will accept an honest attempt of a Lutheran to go to his pastor and confess his sins.

 

[paul_c]

Hi Paul

Hi Jon

Quote:
=paul c;10161040]The Catholic Church clearly teaches that only bishops ordain. Some Abbots have been ordained as bishops and hence have that faculty.

here’s a resource on abbots: newadvent.org/cathen/01015c.htm
Fade down to the section on types of abbots and you will see that some are effectively bishops. But in the end, its quite clear that the power to ordain is administered by the magesterium. If the Pope nullifies the bishops right to ordain, he no longer can exercise that faculty. That is part of his right to bind and loose in heaven and on earth.

Quote:
The problem with the validity of Lutheran ordination is that Lutheran’s separated themselves from the Catholic Church. I know that some will claim that the Catholic church was the one that strayed from the Truth, but that’s not a very credible claim since Luther himself was so proud of his innovations.

It is a tragedy to be sure. Pope Benedict has been working diligently to bring Christians back into the Catholic Church. But by necessity, this is about explaining the Truths of the faith since the Truths the Church teaches can not be compromised.

Quote:
By the way, when Pope Benedict said that Lutheran Eucharist was deficient not lacking in grace, he was being very consistent with Catholic teaching that there is some truth in all Protestant religions but where they deviate from Catholic teaching, they deviate from the Truth.

Why would the then Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement that Lutheran sacraments are deficient make me feel more comfortable about the disposition of my mother-in-law’s soul? I suppose its better than if it was totally lacking, but it still shouldn’t be giving you much comfort considering its within your personal power to get the full graces offered by the Catholic Church. All you need to do is ask.

Quote:
You know, Jon, my mother-in-law was a Lutheran and I loved her and I hope she died in the state of grace and is now in heaven. But I worry about her as well, just as I worry about all our disconnected brothers-in- Christ. Like you, she knew all about the Catholic teaching on grace and the need for sacramental confession and like you, she chose to believe the teachings of Luther over the teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Why you chose to accept the teaching of a man who never claimed to be inspired by God over a Church that was commissioned by God incarnate, Jesus Christ, to administer the sacraments and teach the truth about salvation I will never understand. For my mother in law’s sake, I hope that God will not hold that against her now that she has passed from this life. For your own sake, I hope that you will convert and share in the life saving grace the Catholic Church offers on behalf of its founder, Jesus so that we can stop worrying about your soul.

It is clear that a Lutheran is put in the state of grace through baptism, which the Catholic Church recognizes as valid. The issue for Protestants is that if they fall from grace through Mortal sin, short of perfect contrition, there is no avenue for their redemption since they have separated themselves from the Church. That is what I worry about.

 

[JonNC]

=paul c;10162384]Hi Jon
here’s a resource on abbots: newadvent.org/cathen/01015c.htm
Fade down to the section on types of abbots and you will see that some are effectively bishops. But in the end, its quite clear that the power to ordain is administered by the magesterium. If the Pope nullifies the bishops right to ordain, he no longer can exercise that faculty. That is part of his right to bind and loose in heaven and on earth.

Hi Paul,
Would you say that this is in keeping with the pope’s universal jurisdiction?

It is a tragedy to be sure. Pope Benedict has been working diligently to bring Christians back into the Catholic Church. But by necessity, this is about explaining the Truths of the faith since the Truths the Church teaches can not be compromised.

I agree that this is his approach, and I welcome it. He has done a significant good for the relationship between Catholics and Lutherans, both as pope and formerly as Cardinal.

Why would the then Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement that Lutheran sacraments are deficient make me feel more comfortable about the disposition of my mother-in-law’s soul? I suppose its better than if it was totally lacking, but it still shouldn’t be giving you much comfort considering its within your personal power to get the full graces offered by the Catholic Church. All you need to do is ask.

Well, please understand, I’m not saying a need to pope’s blessing in this way, that he recognizes the salvation granting presence in our Eucharist. I’m saying I appreciate it, and it seems a good model for further dialogue between us.

It is clear that a Lutheran is put in the state of grace through baptism, which the Catholic Church recognizes as valid. The issue for Protestants is that if they fall from grace through Mortal sin, short of perfect contrition, there is no avenue for their redemption since they have separated themselves from the Church. That is what I worry about.

I think you clearly relate the Catholic view, and I am not disputing that this is the Catholic view. I also understand, based on this, why you might be concerned. What I am saying is that I firmly believe that the succession of the apostles is not limited to the historic episcopacy, though that is the preferred and desired approach. If I have a concern today, it is the concern that amongst some Lutherans there is a position that the historic episcopacy is unimportant.

Jon

 

[paul_c]

Hi Paul,
Would you say that this is in keeping with the pope’s universal jurisdiction?

Yes.

I agree that this is his approach, and I welcome it. He has done a significant good for the relationship between Catholics and Lutherans, both as pope and formerly as Cardinal.

He can only offer to accept those who want to return. Many do not. But to those that are receptive, he is the Pope of Christian Unity.

Well, please understand, I’m not saying a need to pope’s blessing in this way, that he recognizes the salvation granting presence in our Eucharist. I’m saying I appreciate it, and it seems a good model for further dialogue between us.

Yes, he is good at identifying the areas of common understanding as a bridge to those areas where more discussion is needed. He will never compromise the Truth because He is guarded from doing so by the Holy Spirit.

I think you clearly relate the Catholic view, and I am not disputing that this is the Catholic view. I also understand, based on this, why you might be concerned. What I am saying is that I firmly believe that the succession of the apostles is not limited to the historic episcopacy, though that is the preferred and desired approach. If I have a concern today, it is the concern that amongst some Lutherans there is a position that the historic episcopacy is unimportant.

Jon

How can succession be succession if it doesn’t proceed one bishop to the next?

 

[JonNC]

=paul c;10162973]Yes.

Paul,
What council in the early Church is the patriarch of Rome given this authority over the universal Church Militant?

He can only offer to accept those who want to return. Many do not. But to those that are receptive, he is the Pope of Christian Unity.

I think I can agree, and I pray for the day that my concerns about the above issue are resolved.

Yes, he is good at identifying the areas of common understanding as a bridge to those areas where more discussion is needed. He will never compromise the Truth because He is guarded from doing so by the Holy Spirit.

I would never expect him to, nor would I want him to.

How can succession be succession if it doesn’t proceed one bishop to the next?

There have been times throughout Church history, most notably in the early Church, where presbyter ordination has been done. That is in keeping with divine law and in a line of succession with the Apostles, even though there has been no laying on of hands by a bishop.

Jon

 

[paul_c]

Paul,
What council in the early Church is the patriarch of Rome given this authority over the universal Church Militant?

The Pope’s authority doesn’t come from councils, council’s authority comes from the Pope. The Pope’s authority comes from Jesus. See Matthew 16 and John 21.

I think I can agree, and I pray for the day that my concerns about the above issue are resolved.

I’m actually surprised every time I see you on line that you haven’t already entered RCIA

I would never expect him to, nor would I want him to.

I know, that’s why I figure your coming home to Rome is only a matter of time.

There have been times throughout Church history, most notably in the early Church, where presbyter ordination has been done. That is in keeping with divine law and in a line of succession with the Apostles, even though there has been no laying on of hands by a bishop.

I’ve seen no evidence that this is true but lets concede for a moment that it is. It still wouldn’t prove that Lutheran ordination is valid because the Pope and his designees define who has the faculty to ordain. Those priests that followed Luther separated themselves from the Church and from apostolic succession. That’s why when a Lutheran Minister converts to Catholicism, he must appeal to the Catholic Bishop to be ordained.

 

[inkaneer]

I feel as though people did not fully understand my previous statement. I am fully aware that Lutheran ministers are not in authority not being in the line of succession. But it seems to me that some here do not believe that God will accept an honest attempt of a Lutheran to go to his pastor and confess his sins.

Why go to his pastor? Why not to the organist? Really, think about it. If there is no authority then the pastor is in no better position to forgive sin than the organist. Jesus did give authority to the Apostles to forgive sin or to retain sin. Lutherans deny they have that authority so where does that leave them?

 

[inkaneer]

Paul,
What council in the early Church is the patriarch of Rome given this authority over the universal Church Militant?

Actually the question never came before a council [for a decision, that is] There was no need. The early church knew who the chief steward was who held the keys. The OT prophet Isaiah wrote about it in Isaiah 22:22. The Apostles knew it from Mt 16:18-19 and John 21:15-17. The Corinthians knew it when they had a crisis in the first century . They went to Clement, bishop of Rome. They did this despite the fact that at least one Apostle (John) was still alive and was closer to them (Ephesus) than Clement in Rome. Again in the second century the Corinthians would receive instruction from Rome. Also in the second century, Irenaeus would write of the Church of Rome the following:

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. **With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” **(Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

But before that there was Ignatius of Antioch who gave the church the name ‘Catholic’. In about 107 AD he wrote of the Church at Rome. Here is what he said:

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

He says the Church at Rome is the presiding church. The early church knew it. They did not need a council to tell them what they already knew. Cyprian of Carthage summed it all up when he wrote:

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. **If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” **(The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Note that last line,“B]If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” *

But if you really need a council to say it then I offer to you this from the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD:

“Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out” (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’” (ibid., session 2).

Universal bishop? The early church had no problem with it but then, they didn’t deny church authority either.

 

[Azygos]

I think you clearly relate the Catholic view, and I am not disputing that this is the Catholic view.

Jon

It seems to me that your an incredibly smart guy that understands the Catholic Faith. I think you know that it is not the Evidences that is keeping you from converting to Catholicism. I’m quite interested to know the real reason why you won’t accept the Catholic Faith. If you know where we are coming from then you know why it is so important, so what is holding you back? It is a specific teaching or doctrine of the Church? Is it family in your Church? Is it the fear of entering a new Church or doing it alone?

I am really curious to know what is bothering you about Catholicism…

 

[wondrousgnat]

Why go to his pastor? Why not to the organist? Really, think about it. If there is no authority then the pastor is in no better position to forgive sin than the organist. Jesus did give authority to the Apostles to forgive sin or to retain sin. Lutherans deny they have that authority so where does that leave them?

Yes, I already stated that I know the Lutheran minister is not in the line of succession. But the organist is not an ordained minister. Are you saying that those who sincerely repent and go to confession to a Lutheran minister will go to hell anyway?

 

[JonNC]

=paul c;10163604]The Pope’s authority doesn’t come from councils, council’s authority comes from the Pope. The Pope’s authority comes from Jesus. See Matthew 16 and John 21.

Hmm. Why, then did the Council of Nicea see the need to identify the Bishop of Rome’s jurisdiction in canon 6?

I’ve seen no evidence that this is true but lets concede for a moment that it is. It still wouldn’t prove that Lutheran ordination is valid because the Pope and his designees define who has the faculty to ordain. Those priests that followed Luther separated themselves from the Church and from apostolic succession. That’s why when a Lutheran Minister converts to Catholicism, he must appeal to the Catholic Bishop to be ordained.

So, let me understand. It isn’t whether there is a laying on of hands by a bishop, but instead the pope determines who can and can’t ordain a priest?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=inkaneer;10163862]Actually the question never came before a council [for a decision, that is] There was no need.

Nicea canon 6 -
*Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. *

It seems, Ink, that they did make a decision about it.

The early church knew who the chief steward was who held the keys. The OT prophet Isaiah wrote about it in Isaiah 22:22. The Apostles knew it from Mt 16:18-19 and John 21:15-17. The Corinthians knew it when they had a crisis in the first century . They went to Clement, bishop of Rome. They did this despite the fact that at least one Apostle (John) was still alive and was closer to them (Ephesus) than Clement in Rome. Again in the second century the Corinthians would receive instruction from Rome. Also in the second century, Irenaeus would write of the Church of Rome the following:

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. **With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” **(Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

But before that there was Ignatius of Antioch who gave the church the name ‘Catholic’. In about 107 AD he wrote of the Church at Rome. Here is what he said:

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

He says the Church at Rome is the presiding church. The early church knew it. They did not need a council to tell them what they already knew. Cyprian of Carthage summed it all up when he wrote:

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. **If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” ***(The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Note that last line,“B]If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”

But if you really need a council to say it then I offer to you this from the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD:

“Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out” (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’” (ibid., session 2).

Universal bishop? The early church had no problem with it but then, they didn’t deny church authority either

None of this identifies papal supremacy. If the interpretation of this is universal jurisdiction, then why is there not universal acceptance from the patriarchates?
I’ve said it before and I’’ say it again, if reconciliation between Rome and Orthodoxy happens, I will accept whatever they say about the jurisdiction of the Bishop of ROm, and will enter RCIA immediately.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Why go to his pastor? Why not to the organist? Really, think about it. If there is no authority then the pastor is in no better position to forgive sin than the organist. Jesus did give authority to the Apostles to forgive sin or to retain sin. Lutherans deny they have that authority so where does that leave them?

Misrepresenting our beliefs seems to be a passion of yours.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I feel as though people did not fully understand my previous statement. I am fully aware that Lutheran ministers are not in authority not being in the line of succession. But it seems to me that some here do not believe that God will accept an honest attempt of a Lutheran to go to his pastor and confess his sins.

With the nature of this thread, I have neglected to respond to you. You seem to asking a question in sincere charity, and I appreciate it.

You are right, the CC does not recognize the validity of our orders. From our perspective, based on the hostory of the Church, they are, and therefore when my pastor proclaims the grace of God, and in christ’s stead, forgives my sins, I am certain that my sins are forgiven fr Christ’s sake.

Organists are not ordained, pastors are. And in Lutheran teaching, only ordained pastors can hear my confession and grant absolution. Only the pastor can officiate at the altar for the sacrament.

I can’t answer for you what the pope or a bishop in the CC would say in response to your
question, and I suggest you ask yours. Honestly, I would be very surprised if your bishop used the kind of polemics we’ve heard from one particular poster on this thread.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

It seems to me that your an incredibly smart guy that understands the Catholic Faith. I think you know that it is not the Evidences that is keeping you from converting to Catholicism. I’m quite interested to know the real reason why you won’t accept the Catholic Faith. If you know where we are coming from then you know why it is so important, so what is holding you back? It is a specific teaching or doctrine of the Church? Is it family in your Church? Is it the fear of entering a new Church or doing it alone?

I am really curious to know what is bothering you about Catholicism…

First, I appreciate the kind words. Thank you.

I alluded to this in another post, but the foremost issue for me, right now, is universal jurisdiction. I see no evidence of it in the early councils, and none of the other patriarchates are willing to accept it, and they were there at Nicea. Now that said, they could be wrong, too, and universal jurisdiction may actually be true. So, who would I join?
Were this problem solved - reconciliation of east and west, I would be in RCIA the next day.

It is also important to mention that I was born and raised in the home of a Lutheran pastor, educated in a Lutheran college. In my late fifties, I am aculturated Lutheran. Making a change would not be done lightly, so as the phrase goes, here I stand.
But even that would not stop me under the conditions mentioned above.

Jon