In your enthusiasm to disagree you have distorted my statement. I said the church and the main institution, and NOT a church or **a **main institution, as you falsely claim.
I don’t wish to enter into an argument on your understanding of CC teachings
The Church isn’t even the MAIN institution as you suggest. It is THE institution - the ONLY one that Christ established.
I’m not trying to argue with you - I’m simply pointing out that the statement you made is wrong. Your statement:
Just a few points to ponder…Hi Nicea!
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. 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.
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. 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… 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.
The only reason why Luther was excommunicated was because he presented a problem by challenging the authority of the Pope and the status quo. I think that it is incredibly unfortunate that cooperation couldn’t be had so that the Church remained united as one. 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.
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.
Anyway, the doctrines of the Lutheran church-MS and the CC only disagree about the Pope, a couple issues with Mary, venial/mortal sin, and purgatory…as far as I know anyway. 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.
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. I’ve encountered many individuals on this forum so far that come off a bit…bigoted. Bigotry doesn’t generally make people feel welcome…just saying.
In the end, I think the most important TRUTHS for any church to teach is that salvation is through genuine faith in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, through baptism, through repentance/confession of sins, and living a Christ-like life.
Peace and blessings,
Julie
Please know this: in english language we use definite article “the” to mean “the only” whereas indefinite article “a” could mean “one of the”. So stop attributing things to me falsely
You will do well to go and learn what is “Baptism of desire” and “who are deemed members of the CC though they may not be formally baptised members”
So, with apostolic succession, it traces through your bishops right? I don’t really understand how that works. Don’t bishops have to start out as priests? 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? Luther was well-educated in the Catholic faith. I don’t understand the logic behind Apostolic succession…Also, wasn’t it the pride of sinful men within the clergy, and their refusal to change that lead to the split?
When formally baptised members are required to go through a process for receiving Holy Communion, how can deemed members receive it sans such a process?
Thanks for your reply, Julie…
Agreed. We do not do this either. The CC, in its history and tradition and experience, has ways of dealing with it. It starts at the parish, and elevated to the diocese and so forth.
He didn’t separate himself. He was excommunicated and outlawed - 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. No leader being beyond reproof didn’t exactly hold up there. Church authority was where the corruption began, Luther sought to reform and eliminate corruption, the Pope didn’t like being challenged or having errors pointed out, the rest is history. 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.
As I understood it, Baptism for deemed members (those who are able to decide for themselves as adults to be Baptised) is necessary to be accepted into the Catholic church; ergo to believe in the real presence and transubstantiation to take Communion (all of one mind). Anyone (of these baptised adults) who don’t accept it, are not in Church. That was the whole point of Holy Communion…I think.
I am well aware of Baptism of desire. You didn’t day the Catholic Church was THE institution – you said it was the MAIN institution.
Like I said - I wasn’t trying to argue with you but since you keep making false claims, I must respond. You said:**
I’m no Feeneyite. I realize that God can and DOES save some that are not in the Church. And I have already pointed that out to you, but you refuse to listen.
I think you hit a real good and important point here. One, yes you are correct Could the Father have revealed this to all of the Apostles, Of course he is God.
The Father revealed Jesus’ identity as the Christ to Peter, and he acknowledged it.
Does that mean it was only revealed to Peter? Could the other disciples have had the revelation, but denied it?
Can one have the revelation of Christ, but choose to deny it?
Did all the Apostles find their way to heaven?
To what does the statement of binding and loosing, with it so to be in heaven, rest upon?
Does it rest upon Peter, himself, or Peter’s proclamation of Jesus the Christ?
There are prelates and we are to obey them.
But, who are the prelates? Are they to be found only in the Catholic Church?
Correct! God can use any means that he chooses to get Peoples attention. And I agree with you that just because he did bring to us a Church which is a Visible place here on earth to help us through our Salvation, he can offer it any way he chooses.
I do not know much of Reformation history, so I cannot comment on your statements.
You think it was by God’s authority? Luther had a recognition to initiate reform, sure it was the HS moving him. But then, his pride took over and disregarded the HS. As I stated, if he had been patient, he would have a great Catholic saint.
Blessings my sister in Christ. I also mean no disrespect. What do you base it on? Scriptural evidence? Historical evidence?
Indeed reform was necessary,but he also was prideful and went a bit to far. Look at his approach to which books should belong scripture and by adding to the text. That is not reform;moreover, it was his ego running wild.
First of all, it is not every second of the day,but on issues of faith and morals. Second,Christ left a church full of sinners and the actions of others in no shape or form negates the sanctification of Christ Church. Not all Catholics were corrupt which can be over-generalized.
You confuse impeccability with infallibility and I have learned most non-Catholics have a profound misunderstanding of the doctrine of infallibility.Discipline, actions adn absuses were out of control,but name one doctrine which was invented or perverted?
I seriously doubt it due to his own actions and words and his bogus doctrines.
Actually there is a lot more which to exhaustive to discuss here. However,that is the key issue: Authority. However,what are the end results when authority is challenged?
As a cradle Catholic I know its history and some was bad and wrong. However, reform is at times needed,but Luther himself was no saint and got to his head. Adding to text to suit his own doctrines? That is not reform,but rebellion.
I totally understand and that is why we are here to dialogue.
Which will take time to comprehend and viewed in the larger picture of things.
And Jesus also never said to compile a Bible,nor did he say to own one and attend Bible studies or go found your own church,etc,etc. Jesus’ didn’t say a lot of things and that is not the crux of the matter,but what he taught and founded: His ONE Church. Show me where Jesus said to have ecumenical councils to define and ratify doctrines such as the Trinity and Incarnation? Plus,the RCC has never taught belief in primacy is a means of salvation. Who told you such a distortion?
Well they are either all right or all wrong? Some believe in infant baptisms while other do not. Some believe in ordaining openly gay people as clergy and others find it unbiblical. I can go and on and on. And ironically all claim to be "bible based "churches?
I understand and it is not correct or respectful.
I am sorry,but it is a lot more than just faith in Jesus.
The Lutheran Church is based on nearly all teachings and traditions of the CC, but with the exclusion of teachings not supported by Biblical evidence. Biblical evidence is the most important thing in the Lutheran church.
Perhaps…I think there were faults from everyone involved.
True. I don’t mean to over-generalize here…but the corruption was coming largely out of the Papal office…the visible head of the CC…
How about the pope authorizing licenses on Brothels? Or the severe abuse of buying/selling indulgences to free parishioners from sin? Or the Pope imposing a tax on clergymen who kept mistresses? Weren’t these pushed off as “doctrine” under the authority of the pope?
These bogus doctrines of the Lutheran Church…to what are you referring exactly?
Adding to the text? which texts? What did he add? The only changes Luther made were to declare the Apocrypha as uninspired, and he translated the Bible into German so that it could be read by the people. I’ve never heard anything about Luther adding to the Bible…
But the CC does teach that the TRUE path to salvation is through the CC…to which being a member of the CC requires acceptance of the infallibility of the Pope…right? I could be confused.
I am in no position to judge whether or not these denominations are all right or all wrong. As I said, there are many things that I do not agree with. I will note, that the churches that ordain women and homosexuals DO NOT adhere to Biblical infallibility.
Right…and I didn’t say is was just faith in Jesus…I believe I included all of the following:
Hi Rinnie: I have a question on that if I may. Specifically the encounter between Paul and Jesus. Is there any record as to who the witnesses to that event were? I have heard some interesting speculation about Paul, and was wondering who (other than Paul) saw the event where Paul was changed by an encounter with Jesus from a persecutor of Christians to a leader within the Christian movement.
