We Catholics Are Dead Sure The Church Is The One Church Of Christ And That All Others Are Mistaken

[motstraumen]

And that is the Point he did move them, On what authority. The Catholic Church works on the authority of The Pope and the Bishops. Always has, always will. Luther worked on his own authority. He moved the books. You must ask yourself why? Did he get authority from the Pope and Bishops to do that? Nope. Luther was a Priest who like any other Priest has to obey the Bishops and Pope. I did not choose that God did. He gave us Peter and the Apostles. He did wrong. He disobeyed. He had no authority to do so. The Catholic Church works on authority. It has to. If every Priest did what Luther did, where would the Church be today. Split! There would be no Catholic Church if all of the Priests did not do what the Apostles did. They all agreed in the end. If they did not there would be no Church.

As Jon and I pointed out there was much debate at this time about these books, it wasn’t until the Council of Trent that these books were deemed fully canonical to uphold certain doctrines of the Roman Church. He was following in the footsteps of other Catholic scholars of his day, even Cardinal Cajetan, his chief opponent.

I am very glad that today there are priests who disobey their Bishops and even the Pope to fight for justice around the world. One comes to mind, Bishop Romero. If Paul didn’t disobey the circumsion party and even James the Just to minister to the Gentiles where would any of us be. My family would still be worshipping Odin and Frey and Freya etc. Depending on where you are from you might just be worshipping any thing from a tree to a beautiful marble statue.

 

[motstraumen]

Remember though that Luther said “Let us destroy the Mass and we shall destroy the Church” (LeFebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics P.23)

Also Luther certainly rejected the doctrine of Transubstantiation ergo he rejected the proper intent of the Eucharist ergo there was no “Real Presence.”

It’s why all the Protestant “churches” which split from Rome do not have valid masses or valid Clergy.

I don’t know if LeFebvre is the best one to bring up as a credible Luther scholar. I don’t know if this is an actual quote or not. If it is it is probably in a statement about private masses, which Luther was against as work that led not to salvation. The Mass must be proclaimed and participated in by the whole community. He rejected Transubstantiation because it came out of scholasticism and aristolian thought as well as rationalism of the day. To put a philosophical idea on a doctrine of church for him was not acceptable. The beauty of the doctrine for him and Lutherans today is the shear mystery of it, Christ is truly and fully present, and the amazing grace that he should be so, not on our merits, but out of his love for us. I can’t speak for the other Protestant churches.

 

[Eleve]

From what little I know of Lutheranism, it sounds to me like Luther was speaking against destroying both the Mass and the Church.

As for transubstantiation, the Eastern Orthodox Church rejects it for the same reasons that motstraumen just gave, and they obviously believe in the Real Presence.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I don’t know if LeFebvre is the best one to bring up as a credible Luther scholar. I don’t know if this is an actual quote or not. If it is it is probably in a statement about private masses, which Luther was against as work that led not to salvation. The Mass must be proclaimed and participated in by the whole community. He rejected Transubstantiation because it came out of scholasticism and aristolian thought as well as rationalism of the day. To put a philosophical idea on a doctrine of church for him was not acceptable. The beauty of the doctrine for him and Lutherans today is the shear mystery of it, Christ is truly and fully present, and the amazing grace that he should be so, not on our merits, but out of his love for us. I can’t speak for the other Protestant churches.

Interesting; Luther as per your opinion rejected the Church’s explanation of transubstantiation to defeat doubt from the scientific community which tried to deny the True presence, invents his own philosophical man made theology of “Sola Scriptura”, “Sola Fide” which introduced a host of many different man made theologies claiming to a new Christian belief seperated from the Apostolic Catholic Faith from antiquity. Why was not Luther’s own invention of his Sola Scriptura unacceptable?

Catholics believe and live scriptural content of the true presence unchanged since the Apostolic period. Transubstantiation defines the true presence to those from the higher learning so as their materialistic view of creation does not infect the simple minded. To date this definition that does not exhaust the mystery of the Eucharist, but silences the proud and anti-Christ mentality that existed then and now.

For those baptised in the kingdom of God, need not fear, for Mother Church will always be here to protect their faith from ever being defiled from the world view.

Peace be with you

 

[motstraumen]

i tend not to believe this. i don’t know where you get your info… (i can imagine… I’m sure it isn’t from Catholics…). In any case, no point in arguing becaues neither your nor I was there…

the Church Christ established on EArth has the authority to do this. Obviously no other ecclessiastical community has this authority… only THE Church…

Jesus said to st Peter that “Whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven. whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven”…

that’s some serious power…

I don’t know if it does any good to respond, but even a quick search on the net will give you answers and some historical perspective and even information on the Council of Trent. You are so sure of your prejudices that when information (credible) is given to you will say “I am sure it is not from a Catholic source.” One shouldn’t live in a cacoon. When I went to a Lutheran College the campus priest (yes, we had a campus catholic priest) taught me loads of wonderful things about your church. I had a Catholic professor who pushed me to study mariology and it opened my eyes to not only my tradition but yours. At Seminary our Ethics professor was Catholic, we regulary held retreats at the various Mother Houses and monestary in the area. Before I was there there was even a sharing of professors between the Lutheran, Presbyterian and Catholic Seminary. They learned from each other. As students we didn’t say oh our Ethics prof knew nothing because she was Catholic…We can learn from each other if we are willing. I do wish you well, and by perusing a few of your posts I hold you in prayer for your health and spiritual well being. Sincerely. God Bless.

 

[Hesychios]

I don’t know if LeFebvre is the best one to bring up as a credible Luther scholar. I don’t know if this is an actual quote or not. If it is it is probably in a statement about private masses, which Luther was against as work that led not to salvation. The Mass must be proclaimed and participated in by the whole community. He rejected Transubstantiation because it came out of scholasticism and aristolian thought as well as rationalism of the day. To put a philosophical idea on a doctrine of church for him was not acceptable. The beauty of the doctrine for him and Lutherans today is the shear mystery of it, Christ is truly and fully present, and the amazing grace that he should be so, not on our merits, but out of his love for us. I can’t speak for the other Protestant churches.

The quote attributed to Archbishop LeFebvre does not make any sense. I have a hard time believing that Father Martin Luther would have made the statement because it is not consistent with other things we know about him. Perhaps someone can provide a reference.

Private Divine Liturgies are not permitted in the Orthodox church. It is contrary to the very concept of communal worship.

The Real Presence is an understanding of the Orthodox church, and this is clearly recognized by the Papacy although Orthodox do not subscribe to the dogma of Transubstantiation as advanced by Latin theologians. As you pointed out, the mystery… :byzsoc:

I don’t see why the Papacy has no problem with the Orthodox understanding and at the same time condemns the Lutheran understanding, if what you describe about it is correct. Perhaps there is more to it than meets the eye.

I think that a big concern from my perspective over the Lutheran church (in most places today) is that the traditional episcopate has not been continued in a manner that the Orthodox nor Catholics would recognize, ie. what Catholics would call “Apostolic succession”. It is the tradition of transmitting the correct teaching and sacramental office for life from bishop to bishop as a continuum from the Apostolic Age. (A possible exception might be in the church of Sweden, which was notably conservative in the past.)

A second concern is the generally widespread repudiation of the concept veneration of, and recourse to the Communion of Saints. We Orthodox really love and need our saints and would not be parted from them. I know that most traditional Latin Catholics feel about as strongly committed to the practice. I get the feeling that many Lutherans (those whom I have met over the years) think it’s a bit kooky, or perhaps idolatrous, but we don’t see that to be the case at all.

The contact between the Tuebingen Scholars and Patriarch Jeremiah makes a very interesting study 2 PDF] relevant to these points.

 

[Hesychios]

***Friend is a partial truth equal to an untruth?

The validity of the claim of the RCC to be “The ONE TRUE CHURCH OF GOD” is evident in that dispite the problems you mention…***

An explanation for what happened was desired.

I gave my opinion as to why I think so many Roman Catholic priests and scholars went down Reformation Lane. You don’t have to agree just because I say so!

The Reformation really has everything to do with systemic faults in the Latin church.

Do I like the results?

No.

I think it was tragic.

But looking at it from where we stand today I think the Reformation could probably have been predicted even before it happened five hundred years ago. A whole string of Popes were guilty of dereliction of duty.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

***Friend is a partial truth equal to an untruth?

The validity of the claim of the RCC to be “The ONE TRUE CHURCH OF GOD” is evident in that dispite the problems you mention…***

An explanation for what happened was desired.

I gave my opinion as to why I think so many Roman Catholic priests and scholars went down Reformation Lane. You don’t have to agree just because I say so!

The Reformation really has everything to do with systemic faults in the Latin church.

Do I like the results?

No.

I think it was tragic.

But looking at it from where we stand today I think the Reformation could probably have been predicted even before it happened five hundred years ago. A whole string of Popes were guilty of dereliction of duty.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

…One Pope sells indugences to raise money build the the most beautiful chruch in the world…

*** “Since God has given us the Papacy, let us enjoy it.”

***Bishop Giovanni de’Medici

…and 400 years later you are still talking about it like it stil going on!

The point is Father Martin did not break the church, it was broken already.

…you threw away the Sacraments, the most important of which is the Holy Eucharist. You made a mockery of the sacrament of Holy Orders all becuse One man got mad at the Pope…and now you are hopelessly divided, and lost.

Not me!

You must be thinking of someone else!

 

[rinnie]

As Jon and I pointed out there was much debate at this time about these books, it wasn’t until the Council of Trent that these books were deemed fully canonical to uphold certain doctrines of the Roman Church. He was following in the footsteps of other Catholic scholars of his day, even Cardinal Cajetan, his chief opponent.

I am very glad that today there are priests who disobey their Bishops and even the Pope to fight for justice around the world. One comes to mind, Bishop Romero. If Paul didn’t disobey the circumsion party and even James the Just to minister to the Gentiles where would any of us be. My family would still be worshipping Odin and Frey and Freya etc. Depending on where you are from you might just be worshipping any thing from a tree to a beautiful marble statue.

It was Paul who insisted that the Gentiles do not need to be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses. While I agree that Paul also had his friend Timothy circumcised it was to avoid scandalizing the Jews. I agree Paul was willing to sacrafice that freedom so he could see people past the prejudice to the Good news. But I do not see this as a directly disobeying.

And while I agree that it wasn’t until trent that these books were deemed fully, my point was if they were not moved in the first place, it would not have had to go to trent. There would not have been a reason. And while I understand that you do not feel that Luther had nothing to do with this, then why I ask again did he move the books in the first place. What was the reason? I understand what you apply above was, but my point is until told otherwise why not leave it the way it originally was. He still had no authority to do so. If he was a true disciple of the Church he would have followed in the footsteps of authority which was the Church. Thats all I am saying. Because in the end the Church did indeed deem them fully. And look what moving them did. Look at the mess it caused.

 

[rinnie]

I guess what point I am trying to stress is going back to the words of God. Jesus said that a child can see more than those with great intellegence. I am called brainless, etc because I believe what God said. He said that he would always lead his CHurch in the fullness of the truth. And so so much has happened through the years, but what my point is look, God let the books in, and he was right in the first place. If he didn’t want them in they would have never been there in the first place.

If you believe like we do that our Church is the one Church of Christ we do have a reason for this. We are not as brainless as people would think. We do let the Church do the teaching, because that is how we learn, and have understanding. But because we do study and learn and obtain understanding we are told we let our church do our thinking for us.

I do not agree, we listen to our Church and their teaching’s and they always add up. Others teaching just do not add up. While I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, I can sure get alot of people smarter then I thinking! And when they can’t answer me, I get either anger, or the same ole you let your church do your thinking for you.

 

[greggy53]

While other Christian faiths have a “piece of the pie” the Catholic Church alone posses the fulness of Gods Truth. Certainly there is truth for all who seek it in the Scriptures, but when Catholics rely on the teachings and Sacraments of the church, and the traditions she has given us along with the Scriptures; all taken together they become a complete and full measure of God’s grace.

 

[motstraumen]

The quote attributed to Archbishop LeFebvre does not make any sense. I have a hard time believing that Father Martin Luther would have made the statement because it is not consistent with other things we know about him. Perhaps someone can provide a reference.

Private Divine Liturgies are not permitted in the Orthodox church. It is contrary to the very concept of communal worship.

The Real Presence is an understanding of the Orthodox church, and this is clearly recognized by the Papacy although Orthodox do not subscribe to the dogma of Transubstantiation as advanced by Latin theologians. As you pointed out, the mystery… :byzsoc:

I don’t see why the Papacy has no problem with the Orthodox understanding and at the same time condemns the Lutheran understanding, if what you describe about it is correct. Perhaps there is more to it than meets the eye.

I think that a big concern from my perspective over the Lutheran church (in most places today) is that the traditional episcopate has not been continued in a manner that the Orthodox nor Catholics would recognize, ie. what Catholics would call “Apostolic succession”. It is the tradition of transmitting the correct teaching and sacramental office for life from bishop to bishop as a continuum from the Apostolic Age. (A possible exception might be in the church of Sweden, which was notably conservative in the past.)

A second concern is the generally widespread repudiation of the concept veneration of, and recourse to the Communion of Saints. We Orthodox really love and need our saints and would not be parted from them. I know that most traditional Latin Catholics feel about as strongly committed to the practice. I get the feeling that many Lutherans (those whom I have met over the years) think it’s a bit kooky, or perhaps idolatrous, but we don’t see that to be the case at all.

The contact between the Tuebingen Scholars and Patriarch Jeremiah makes a very interesting study 2 PDF] relevant to these points.

You are right, it is our episcopate. The church of Sweden and the churches she founded such as Finland, Tanzania (certain dioceses at least) and I believe the baltic states have retained it. Through our work with the Church of England it is being restored in the ELCA. Although we reference the emergency situation our parishes were in Germany, Denmark et al when it was broken. The communion of saints comment is true enough from a lay standpoint. I have worked very hard to remind and teach our members of the vibrancy of the communion of the saints. In popular understanding from my Grandmother’s day it was understood that it especially comes home during Eucharist. At that time most churches had an altar ring, an incomplete circle where the communicants knelt (most Lutheran Churches still have this to some extent). This circle was made complete in heaven (if you will) and it was/is not just us kneeling down to receive Christ’s gift, but all who have died and lived in Christ. This thought comes from the Scandinavian churches.

Luther and Melancthon really emphasized a devotion (minus intercessary prayers to) of the saints because their lives are wonderful and faithful and should be studied. (Personally I have wondered with our understanding of the communion of saints why not intercessary prayers, we ask our neighbors to pray for us, that is just me though). Of course in our theology, that which makes us a saint is not a committee of bishops, but simply and gloriously God’s baptism. Take Care.

 

[eric51]

I can reply that they do not only seem to be so, but that they are actually dead sure. What would be the use of any bureau for the dispensing of authentic information, if the officials had to warn inquirers that there was not even certainty as to whether they had gone to the right inquiry office! No. The True church which is really Christ’s own bureau for the dispensing of authentic information to mankind in His Name, must be visibly discernible as His. The invisible and undiscernible Church theory is impossible, and as I have just said, opposed to the Will of Christ.
Furthermore, Protestants are brought up with the idea that it is not possible for any human being to locate the True Church. So they continue in religious matters to wander where they will, like people in a forest, who follow any line of tracks without bothering to ask where it leads. And they love the risky adventure of experimenting for themselves that they search Scripture for every possible text which they think will support them…go figure…

Thought 2 Peter was probably the last book that was eventually compiled into the NT, written in first half of 2nd century.

When one analyzes protestant behavior, it becomes evident that many protestants either consciously or subconsciously, view themselves as the Church. The Deposit of Faith is whatever they interpret it to be. Whereas, Joseph Smith produced a new “bible” as a visible physical entity, vigorously espousing it as such, protestants are even more disingenuous. They cling to the One Christian bible and virtually worship it as God, but their system of private interpretation in effect means each and every protestant has his own substantively unique bible.

So wide-ranging is their interpretation that one can in all honesty say that protestantdom has hundreds of millions of distinct “bibles”–one for each protestant.

In Christ

 

[djeter]

I’ve been providing reading selections from Michael J Gorman’s “Reading St. Paul” on my blog payingattentiontothesky.com/ and this week happened to make a post on the Resurrection also (The Risen Lord) which includes a meditation by Fr. Robert Barron and a Flannery O’Connor anecdote.

As I was making the post on Paul I noticed just how much he forms what we are as Catholics and recalled how difficult my coming to the Church was as an intellectual exercise (I’d almost forgotten): how I had to reject the modern Christian conceit that Fr. Barron and Flannery O’Connor rejected in the Risen Lord post. Then coming to it again in the Understanding Paul Five post. The juxtaposition is fascinating: 2000 years later we are repeating what Paul gave us in his letters.

Why I’m dead sure about my Church is our debt to Saint Paul.

DJ

 

[gcnuss]

When one analyzes protestant behavior, it becomes evident that many protestants either consciously or subconsciously, view themselves as the Church. The Deposit of Faith is whatever they interpret it to be. Whereas, Joseph Smith produced a new “bible” as a visible physical entity, vigorously espousing it as such, protestants are even more disingenuous. They cling to the One Christian bible and virtually worship it as God, but their system of private interpretation in effect means each and every protestant has his own substantively unique bible.

So wide-ranging is their interpretation that one can in all honesty say that protestantdom has hundreds of millions of distinct “bibles”–one for each protestant.

That is a gross exaggeration. I certainly do not have my own bible. Any interpretations of scripture that I hold are not the result of personal study in isolation from the rest of Christendom. The accumulated wisdom of nearly two thousand years goes into what I believe – from the ECFs to the Lutheran confessions to modern commentaries (Lutheran, Catholic, and others). I believe that this applies to all confessional Lutherans and, in similar fashion within their own traditions to many other Protestants as well.

I won’t deny that there may be Protestants who fit your description, but it is really inaccurate to paint with as broad a brush as you have.

 

[JonNC]

=DorianGregorian;5342781]While the Orthodox do not accept the term ‘transubstantiation’ neither do the Eastern Catholic Churches, they have the same understanding, and even use the term:

In recent dialogue, here is what Lutherans and Orthodox say together regarding Transubstantiation, which contradicts your claim here:

Lutherans and Orthodox take the Lord’s words “this is my body; this is my blood” (Mt 26,27f, par.) literally. They believe that in the Eucharist the bread and wine become Christ’s body and blood to be consumed by the communicants. How this happens is regarded by both as a profound and real mystery. In order to approach that mystery, Orthodox and Lutherans have drawn on their respective theological traditions and developed different insights on what takes place.

a. Lutherans speak about Christ’s “real presence” in the Eucharist and describe Christ’s body and blood as being “in, with and under” the bread and wine (Formula of Concord, SD 7). By this they mean that the bread and the wine really become the body and blood of Christ, through the Words of Institution and the action of the Holy Spirit. Drawing on patristic sources, Lutherans understand Christ’s presence in the elements christologically: “Just as in Christ two distinct, unaltered natures are inseparably united, so in the Holy Supper two essences, the natural bread and the true natural body of Christ, are present together here on earth in the action of the sacrament, as it was instituted” (SD 7). Lutherans, however, maintain a distinction between a personal, hypostatic union and a “sacramental union”, favoring the latter in order to describe Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Lutheran theology is able to speak of a transformation (mutatio) of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ (Apology X, 2; XXIV). This is not understood as eliminating the physical character of the bread and wine in the Eucharist. Lutherans emphasize that it is God’s Word which makes the sacrament (Large Catechism, 5: The Sacrament of the Altar).

b. Orthodox profess a real change (metabole) of the bread and the wine into the body and blood of Christ by the Words of Institution and the act of the Holy Spirit in the eucharistic anaphora. **This does not mean a “transsubstantiation” of the substance of the bread and the wine into the substance of the deified humanity of Christ, but a union with it: “The bread of communion isn’t an ordinary bread, but united with divinity” (John of Damascus). **This union amounts to a communication of the deifying properties of the humanity of Christ and of the deifying grace of his divinity to the eucharistic gifts: The bread and the wine are no longer understood with respect to their natural properties but with respect to Christ’s deified human body in which they have been assumed through the action of the Holy Spirit. As in Christology the two natures are united hypostatically, so in the Eucharist Christ’s exalted human body and the “antitypes” (St. Basil, Anaphora) of bread and wine are united sacramentally through the act of the Holy Spirit.

c. Orthodox and Lutherans agree, whether they use the language of “metabole” or of “real presence”, that the bread and wine do not lose their essence (physis) when becoming sacramentally Christ’s body and blood. **The medieval doctrine of transsubstantiation **is rejected by both Orthodox and Lutherans.

helsinki.fi/~risaarin/lutortjointtext.html#euch
So, if you say what follows about Lutherans:

Also while the Lutheran Church claims the ‘real presence’ they believe the erroneous belief of ‘the sacramental union’ which while not ‘consubstantiation’, still denies the fullness of the transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the True Body and Blood of Jesus, thus the intent is flawed which means there is no Consencration.

you are abliged to make this claim against the Orthodox.

In addition the Eastern Churches (Catholic, Orthodox, and some Oriental) have maintained Apostolic Succession, thus they have Valid, though illicit, Clergy.​

Even if the intent was not flawed, the Lutheran Church has not maintained Apostolic Succession (Luther was a Priest not a Bishop, therefore he had no power to Ordain) so the Clergy would not have the Sacrament of Holy Orders necessary for a valid Consencration.

I would contend that the Orthodox clergy are as valid as yours, what Rome says notwithstanding, and our prestyber ordinations, practiced even by Rome in the past, are valid as well. That said, Lutherans value A.S. and look forward to the day when unity is restored, and our clergy is once again joined with Rome’s and that of the Orthodox.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

That is a gross exaggeration. I certainly do not have my own bible. Any interpretations of scripture that I hold are not the result of personal study in isolation from the rest of Christendom. The accumulated wisdom of nearly two thousand years goes into what I believe – from the ECFs to the Lutheran confessions to modern commentaries (Lutheran, Catholic, and others).

I won’t deny that there may be Protestants who fit your description, but it is really inaccurate to paint with as broad a brush as you have.

Well said, Pastor, to which I would add the words of Martin Chemnitz:

This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages… We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.

Jon

 

[PJM]

=distracted;5342952]maybe i’m tired (no maybe to it) but i dont quite understand this post…

I believe what was being said is that Official statements that are defacto Infallible are quite rare. However, and while this is true, Official Teachings from the Pope, from the Magisterium, and even from Bishops Groups if they are teaching with the “mind and heart” of the Church in agreement with our Pope, have the same degree of mandated acceptance.

As evidence of this fact I share the following from the current Code of cannon Law:

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

Can. 754 All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.

Hope this clarifies for you the Official teachings of our Church?

Love and prayers,

 

[JonNC]

Luther and Melancthon really emphasized a devotion (minus intercessary prayers to) of the saints because their lives are wonderful and faithful and should be studied. (Personally I have wondered with our understanding of the communion of saints why not intercessary prayers, we ask our neighbors to pray for us, that is just me though). Of course in our theology, that which makes us a saint is not a committee of bishops, but simply and gloriously God’s baptism. Take Care.

It is not just you, as I would agree. Certainly 500 years after the Reformation, we can reevaluate the reasons why Luther et.al. came down against intercessory prayer. We can also reevaluate its usage since the early church and come to a conclusion that, at the very least, we should be muted in our condemnations of the practice, and show respect for our fellow Christians who properly understand and practice it.

And BTW, motstraumen, while I am at times critical of the ELCA, I commend my fellow Lutherans for taking steps to renew Apostolic Succession.

Jon