Protestants: What do you think of Matthew 16:18?

[guanophore]

While I cannot speak for any other protestant denominations outside of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, I really strongly disagree that my denomination has any less truth and validity than the CC.

How could you do otherwise? Since you are sincere about your faith, if you came to the conclusion that some departure from the Truth had occurred, you would be faced with the possibility of going where that truth and validity did exist.

For one thing, Martin Luther never even wanted to leave the Catholic church - he simply wanted to REFORM the church to eliminate some very serious corruption and abuses within the clergy. He was excommunicated some four years after attempting to eliminate ridiculous abuses.

As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Regardless of his intentions, the result was that he did, indeed, separate himself from the Church. He changed the elements of the One Faith to such a substantial degree that the result was “a different gospel” than what had been handed down to us from the Apostles.

I find it very hard to believe that the Holy Spirit was leading the church to the fullness of truth when such things were occurring.

Such doubt is based in a deficient understanding of the nature of Church.

The idea of infallibility of the Church is difficult for me to understand given the undeniable corruption that has existed in the Church’s past…

Infalliility does not equate to impeccability. Look at all the writers of the NT. There was not a one of them without sin, yet, they all participated in the infallible act of penning the Holy writ.

One could easily argue that the Holy Spirit lead Luther, an ordained Catholic PRIEST, to take on the task of restoring the Church to truth and righteousness.

Indeed, one could, and many do. However, God is not going to tell one individual 1600 years after the fact something opposite that He has revealed to the Church in the previous millennia and a half. The HS does not contradict Himself!

The only reason why Luther was excommunicated was because he presented a problem by challenging the authority of the Pope and the status quo.

While this was a major factor, it was not the only one. He rejected the doctrines of the faith.

All the saints that have been used by God to reform the Church have championed the Teaching of the Apostles, while submitting to authority - even when that authority was corrupt. God blessed their obedience by working powerfully through them.

I think that it is incredibly unfortunate that cooperation couldn’t be had so that the Church remained united as one.

Yes, but as you said, what is done, is done. How do we move forward?

Honestly though, if It hadn’t been Luther, I have a very strong feeling that it would have been someone else. Let’s not forget that the Lutheran Church was founded by a bunch of Catholics.

Yes, it was time for all of it to come to a head. I agree, if it had not been Luther, it would have been someone else.

I mean no disrespect here. I am honestly a very curious Lutheran, and I find SO much beauty in the traditions of the Catholic Church.

It was the rejection of the authority of Tradition that separated Luther from the Church.

 Last I checked, Jesus didn't say anything about having to believe in the primacy and infallibility of the Pope to get into Heaven...nor did he say that belief in the immaculate conception and perpetual virginity were necessary.

He told the Apostles to teach all that He had commanded. That once for all deposit of faith included all these aspects of the faith. The One Faith is not something that can be parsed, separated, and peicemealed.

I don’t personally agree with certain teachings of MANY/most other protestant denominations, but I also don’t assume to be in a position of “knowing” that they are wrong.

Then you have not followed Luther into the supreme arrogance in which he found himself, for he did presume to be in a position of knowing where the Catholic Church was wrong, and how it could be fixed.

 

[guanophore]

So, with apostolic succession, it traces through your bishops right?

Yes.

I don't really understand how that works. Don't bishops have to start out as priests?

Yes.

So, isn’t any priest in the position to potentially become a bishop one day? And if that is the case, then how can you definitively say that the Lutheran church has no Apostolic lineage?

Yes. Once a priest chooses to abandon the teachings of the Church, they are no longer eligible for ordination to a bishopric.

Luther was well-educated in the Catholic faith.

I wish this were true. If it were, I believe the Reformation could have been avoided. On the contrary, the educational state of clerics in Europe at the time was abysmal.

I don't understand the logic behind Apostolic succession..

There are many mysteries of God that defy human imagination. I dont understand the Trinity, either.

.Also, wasn’t it the pride of sinful men within the clergy, and their refusal to change that lead to the split?

It was certainly a major factor. However, I think the conflation of secular and religious power/leadership had more to do with it. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Luther certainly had flaws, I certainly won’t deny that. As to what Luther did after he was excommunicated…he HID!

Excommunication is a discipline designed to motivate the subject to return to the Church. Luther did not want to give up his rebellion and disobedience.

As to his flaws, do we not judge them by their fruits? Have you read his polemics against Jews, Papists and peasants? Can a bad tree bear good fruit?

  He was not only excommunicated, but he was also condemned as an outlaw by the emperor. His written works were banned, he was wanted for arrest, and the emperor also made it illegal for anyone in Germany to give Luther food or shelter. Oh, and it was also ruled that anyone could kill Luther without having to fear any legal consequence... And you better believe that the church was involved in all that.

These conditions are a result of the conflation of religious authority with secular. Jesus was clear that His kingdom was not of this world. When scripture instructs us to “expel the evidoer from among you” it does not include any of these activities. When St. Paul writes about excommunication as handing a person over to the devil, I don’t think this is what he had in mind.

I don't know, but none of that would make me want to reconcile with the church if I were Luther.

We can’t know this for sure - none of us know how we might have responded if we lived in that day and age. It was a different culture. Perhaps we would not have suffered his degree of arrogance, and would have been willing to submit to the authorities even if we believed they were wrong. Perhaps we would have embraced martrydom, like Joan of Arc?

As for the comment about infallibility of the church, I do understand what it means. Can you explain how the church was infallible in teaching that selling/buying indulgences could be applied to buying God’s forgiveness of sins? Please.

It is not clear that you understand about infalliblity when you ask such a question. The Church has never taugtht that indulgences can be “sold”. This is an abuse, perpetrated by greedy individuals in positions of power. I think when you look, you will find no documents anywhere, then, or now, that purport this as a Church Teaching.

Infallibility does not equate to impeccability. It means that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. That means that God will not allow His Church to teach error (which causes souls to pass through the gates of hell). It does NOT mean that individuals will be prevented from departing from the Truth, and behave like wolves among sheep.

That was used as a source of revenue for the church, yet it was pushed off as divine authority relating to morals.

Yes, of course. Although Trent revised the practice of indulgences to prevent even the appearance of this happening again, we can still see the same type of thing happening every day on Christian TV. We are asked to send money and sow a seed of faith to bail out ministries, or the missions. The other day I was watching GOD TV and they were selling some jewelry, claiming that the proceeds would benefit the ministry.

Jesus never promised there would be no charlatans.

Or how about Sixtus IV imposing a license on brothels and a special tax on priests who kept a mistress?

This is not a Teaching of the Church, Julie.

Are these things authoritative and infallible?

No.

I just don't understand the logic.

That much is clear.

If my church does something that I find morally reprehensible, I call them out on it....I don't think God wants His children to blindly follow.

Good for you.

He does not want people to get upset, and go start their own church, either.

 

[guanophore]

He didn’t separate himself. He was excommunicated and outlawed -

Both things are true, Julie. He was excommunicated because he abandond the Doctrines of the Faith in favor of his own doctrines. He disobeyed the authority of the bishops, and committed many acts of defiance.

He was secondarily outlawed (which the Church had no authority to do) because he was considered a malicious disruption to society. This has nothing to do with Church teaching either.

A person can’t be in communion with the Church while denying the doctrines of the faith.

 And all this was precisely because he challenged the Church to rid itself of corruption. He refused to recant his statements, so he was booted.

This is somewhat simplified, but there is some truth to it. Luther was unsophisticated, and clearly did not know how to go about making reforms in the Church. He approached it from a secular method, rather than a spiritual one. I beleive he meant well, but his approach, and his stubborn arrogance, created an adversarial relationship with the Church.

His “statements” are what separated him from communion, his actions taken against the Church, against the Aposotlic faith. He rejected Sacred Tradition. In doing so, he separated himself from the One Faith. Later, this status was formally recognized with an official excommunication.

No leader being beyond reproof didn't exactly hold up there.

Can you say some more about this? I don’t think I am following your thought.

Church authority was where the corruption began,

No, this is a falsehood. Church authority comes from God, and is incorruptible because He is the Head of the Church, and the HS is the soul of the Church.

However, if you are trying to say that evil persons in positions of authority abusing the faith is where the corruption began, then we are in agreement. People like Tetzel, and Pope Leo who tacitly supported his greed. Corruption comes from the evil in the human heart, and from the Devil. There is nothing inherently wrong with Church authority.

Luther sought to reform and eliminate corruption, the Pope didn't like being challenged or having errors pointed out, the rest is history.

Can’t argue with that.

God’s way of purifying corruption is not Luther’s way.

If you ask by whose authority Luther sought to reform the church I would easily argue that it was by God's! Luther and many other dissatisfied Catholics "started" the Lutheran denomination (only outside of the CC because they were given no other choice) and believed that what they were doing was restoring the church to Holiness.

A person separating themselves from the Apostolic faith, however good their intentions, and believing what they are doing is right, does not constitute the authority of God.

We can now see the fruit of his labors, as his separation and division have continued to spawn thousands more.

I apologize for my rude tone…I’m letting my bias and frustration/confusion get the better of me.

Peace and blessings,
Julie

I have not found your posts to be rude, but you do sound frustrated. Sometimes we all get this way. These are matters of profound importance to us. Clearly you are passionate about your faith, and this is good.

You have been taught some misinformation about Catholicism. I hope your frustration will not prevent you from learning differently.

 

[squain]

Christ said he WILL give the “keys” to Peter (see Isaiah 22:20, Revelation 3)… when will this happen? After Christ is assumed into heaven…

This is reinforced two chapters later in Matthew 18, when Christ says unmistakably that this same Church is to be the final judge and arbiter of all disputed questions among his followers; those of his followers not able to abide by the judgment of this Church may be actually cast out from fellowship with his other followers.

Matthew 18:
“…If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

When Christ says to his apostles “Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” He is giving authority to THE church (singular), mentioned in the previous sentence, and the same church which he promises to give power to with the same authority just two chapters earlier in Matthew 16.

Furthermore, Christ does not call it “A” Church, He calls it “THE CHURCH”.

Read 1 Timothy, the church of the living God (singular) is the foundation of truth:
1 Timothy 3:15— “But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.”

Christ did not intend for us to have more than one “foundation of truth” (i think we can agree that you cannot have more than one foundation of truth?) If he intended for there to be more than one church, then which of the many protestant churches is the true church that we are to take our disputes to? If any of these churches make judgements, who is to say we can’t go to the other brand down the road for a different ruling… and more importantly, how could the judgements of these mortal men carry the authority of God without Him delegating that authority in the first place?

Jesus understood this, and knew that is why the Earth needs “A” (singular) “pillar of truth” to follow.

That pillar of truth is the one that Christ spoke of twice in the gospel of Matthew, the only times that Christ spoke of a church in any of the gospels it is the ONLY church that has been with us always, and will be with us forever as he promised in Matthew 28: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

The only church that has been with us since Christ said this is the Catholic church. The Catholic church is literally the only church, the only pillar of truth that Christ could have been referring to in Matthew 18, because no other church existed until 1500 years later with Protestantism.