Why I could never follow Luther.

[tqualey]

Hi, Mikeoffaith,

One of the nice things about CAF is that sometimes you go to bed … and when you wake up there are all of these Post Presents waiting on your computer - I am really delighted to have read so many this morning! You know … there is a real treasure in honest dialogue!

Now on to the work at hand! Let me commend Benedictus2 for her responses to this post. I just had a few comments to add - but, really, she gave you excellent responses.

And what were the great heresies of Orthodoxy?

Oh, let me tell you, Mikeoffaith, they go on and on! Do you recall when the Apostles were arguing amongs themselves as to who was the greatest (Luke 22:24)? This was in direct opposition to Christ’s very life of humility that they had been witnessing for almost three years! How could this be?

Well, there is no escaping it - we all have pride … and it pops up in the darndest places and times! Pride in many cases is like part of the engine of a car - it can do powerful things - but, unless controlled it can blow the engine. Of course how one drives the car has a lot to do with how things turn out. Luther had a powerful engine, that he did not control - and he really was not a good driver.

Here is a link you may find of interest concerning heresies: catholic.com/library/Great_Heresies.asp I think the real take-home message her is that Truth is singular and error is multiple. For example, how many ways can you get the correct answer of “4” when you add 2 + 2? I can only think of one. Now, how many ways can you think of getting an incorrect answer to this same question?

See here Luther is either a good guy had he been humble or he’s a heretic. So were his teachings of value or were they heresies? I see it as this schism shouldn’t have happened t all had it not been for the pride and arrogance of Leo. And if Christ is choosing sinful, imperfect people to run the Church, then the fault of schism lay on both door steps.

No doubt about it, Luther - just like each of us - is a complex human being. In my view we see this complex man changing before our very eyes. Benedictus2 gave you a lengthy list of men and women who also changed in response to the efforts of the ‘Reformers’ - and they became saints! The exterior forces or stimuli are almost incidental to how these individuals all changed. In my opinon, going back to my car analogy (it, too, may need life support! ) Luther’s engine had a lot of pride (like most of us) but his seemed to have been more out of control than even he realized. Pointing out the failures of one’s superiors is never a pleasant activity - the success of such an activity really rests on separating the individuals who occupy the position from the position itself. In addition to prideful popes, presidents and and kings there exists the office of pope, president and king. How do we work with sinful men in such positions? Well, meeting their pride with our pride is a proven formula for disaster.

I really do think Luther started out as someone who wanted to bring about needed reforms and not as a schismatic. The change from honest reformer to in-your-face schismatic took years - but, it was all started by him not effecting the changes he wanted to effect. Contrast Luther’s actions with those of real reformers like St. Ignatius Loyola. Like Luther, Ignatius had a powerful engine, too. But, the real difference lies in both his ability to manage his pride (the Spiritual Exercises has a focus on this) and also control his driving - how he cooperated with the Graces of God to bring about these needed changes.

You don’t seem to grasp the concept of excommunication. The Pope wrote up this thing called Decet Romanum and it removes Luther from the church, not the other way around. So the Pope would be doing the excommunicating.

Actually, I think it is you who is missing the concept here. The Pope’s formal letter of excommunication is just that - a formality for Luther. The German Monk had refused in his heart and mind to continue to follow the Church founded by Christ on Peter. Luther voluntarily left the Catholic Church. Decet Romanum was the letter acknowledging this already existant reality - and to provide instruction to others as to what was wrong with Luther’s various heresies. Do not imagine Luther being picked up in a most involuntary manner and pitched out of the door. While maybe colorful and imaginative - the reality is that Luther packed his bags and left many years before the Pope picked up his pen to write Decet Romanum.

Had the Pope and various cardinals not been so concerned with their free will spending habits, I believe Leo had depleted the Vatican Treasury from his wild parties…

While everything you have said here is true - it is really immaterial. Lax and worldly clergy have been a fact of life way before the time of Luther. Saintly people seeing the disconnect between Christ’s teaching and the public example given by these foolish clergy have humbly gone about making the changes in the own behavior while praying that these men will reform and go back to following Christ. As was previously pointed out, this is the way to real change because these saintly men and women are turning their abilities over to God to effect the changes He Will.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Janet1983,

“Heavy Hitter”… eh? I guess this is a comment on having gone off of my diet, again! Sorry if I offended you - that really is not the intent. But, if I see an area that appears in contradiction - I will let you know about it. Maybe I do so in this post with a lighter touch. Let’s see what we have now…

You know, I guess I am getting worse - I bemoaned having gone into two pages … and I am now going to three! This is really embarrassing … I have “Brevity is the soul of wit” tattooed right next to “Mother” … and it is just not working…

This is page 1 of 3

Please forgive me for my spelling. In many cases I am just more comfortable with the British spelling simply due to the fact that this is the way that I acquired my knowledge of the English language.

I jumped to conclusions on that. Sorry.

Concerning your other comments, I agree that God does play a role in us accepting Him.

OK.

“True” Christians are those who have a deep rooted faith and the knowledge of salvation. In other words you will find those who pay lip-service and those who are true believers intermingled in every church building upon this planet.

OK. This sounds like a reasonable working definition.

I believe that His Holy Spirit guides all true Christians in truth and if I am not completely mistaken you believe that the Holy Spirit has been placed in your heart at your confirmation.

Actually, the Holy Spirit does guid us. The real question is how. My mental picture is a bunch of people splitting and fracturing from a central core all claiming to be following the Holy Spirit. The reason that this is obviously false is that all of these fractures have produced contradictory and mutually exclusive doctrines. God is One - and His Truth is not in contradiction. So, either all of these contradictory beliefs having developed in the 20,000+ schismatic groups all claiming to be a church that follows Christ are true … or … God is lying. Take your pick - I have already chosen.

The Holy Spirit came down upon all believers at Pentecost.

Actaully, Acts 2:1-4 appears to limit the Holy Spirit coming down to those assembeled in the room on that First Pentecost. By the way, did you know that the First Pentecost is memorable for two reasons: Amongst all of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit - He did not deliver the Bible or a Policy and Procedures Manual! This day is also considered the birthday of the Catholic Church? .

Continued to page 2 …

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Janet1983,

This is page 2 of 3

First of all: I have heard about the argument and I have heard it coming from my mouth more than just rarely when I was still a vital part of my Catholic parish. I am aware of the fact that “brother” has a wide meaning, but that does also mean that there is a possibility for the meaning “brother” in this context.

Here is where a sense of history would be especially helpful. Prior to their being a Bible - in fact, prior to the first wordsof the NT being recorded - there was Apostolic Tradition. It took time for the writings of the NT to be assembeled and brought together into forming the Canon. The Early Church Fathers recognized Mary as a perpetual virgin. The Holy Spirit was guiding the Catholic from that First Pentecost on - and He was guiding the development of doctrine. To argue against something you yourself have identified as ambiguous is rather strange.

Secondly: I never knew that a sexual relationship between a husband and a wife with the result of bearing children was sinful.

Who said this was sinful? If you will notice Matrimony is a Sacrament in the Catholic Church - and Baptism for the children born of this union is also a Sacrament. I have no idea where you got this idea about sexual union between husband and wife being sinful - but, not from the teachings of Catholic Church.

“I am the bread of life,” Jesus told them. “No one who comes to Me will ever be hungry, and no one who believes in Me will ever be thirsty again.” (John 6:35)
“The Spirit is the One who gives life. The flesh doesn’t help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.” (John 6:63)
As you can see Jesus spoke in spiritual terms and He did not do it just once so that this might be falsely understood. He did it on other occasions too and we would never assume that he is a literal grapevine for example or that we are literally sheep.
“I am the bread of life.” (John 6:48)
“I am the door.” (John 10:9)
“I am the good shepherd.” (John 10:11)
“I am the true vine” (John 15:1)

This is going to be just a straight forward presentation of the words written down in your Bible - just read what is there.
The 6th Chapter of John can be divided into three main parts
(1) John 6:1-15 - Jesus feeds the 5,000 or restated: Jesus takes our little and since He has total control over nature - augments it to fulfill His Divine Plan. Christ is Lord!

(2) John 6:16-21 - Jesus calms the storm or restated: Jesus calms the many storms in our lives and again shows that He can control nature. Note: Jesus immediately takes the Apostles to their destination after this experience - and Christ can take us to His Place for us, if we have Faith in what He says. Finally,

(3) John 6: 22-71 - Jesus’ Eucharistic Discourse or restated: the intimate relationship that God has provided to us to join Him. Here agian Jesus is showing that He can control nature - but, in a far more impressive manner than merely feeding a large number of people or calming a storm. Christ explains that we are to eat His Flesh if we are to be one with Him. He then commands us to do so - and clearly states that this is no metaphor or play on words “My Flesh is real meat…” is quite clear. So, clear, in fact, that the Jews wondered, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” What is really important to your objection, Janet 1985, is that the Jews DID NOT SAY, “How can this man use such a metaphor?!”

While ponder that…consider this. Was it recorded that anyone walked out on Christ - refused to believe His doctrinal teaching - when He compared Himself to a ‘door’ or a ‘shepherd’, or a ‘vine’? Look at the amount of space the individual Gospel Writers gave to such stories - now compare this to the Eucharistic Discourse. Christ identifies Himself as Something to be eaten in fact (and not some kind of theoretical or abstract idea) 22 times! If the Flesh of the Son of Man (the entire topic of this passage) is worth nothing - what is worth something?

John 6 serves as the Scriptural foundation for the Last Supper. Here we have Matthew, Mark and Luke all saying the same thing: “Take and eat, this is my Body…” In less than 24-hours Christ will be dead - this was not the time to be vague with his somewhat dim witted Apostles. They probably did not have a real understanding of what Christ had just done - but, they believed Him and that is what counted.

St. Paul, was not at the Last Supper, but he received a private revelation from Christ (Gal 1:12) that the Eucharist was in fact the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Christ and that the Corinthians were not acting in an appropriate manner (1Cor 11)

Ultimately, if we mean what we say in the expression, “My Lord and My God” then we must take Christ at His Word. Actually, the Real Presence has been the uniform teaching of the Catholic Church since the very beginning (and that would be that First Pentecost in about 33AD). Even the Eastern Schism did not distrupt this belief. But the heretics representing the ‘Reformation’ denied the words of Christ in effect saying, like the Jews before them, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” The Jews walked and about 1500 years later, the Protestants walked.

Continued Page 3 of 3

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Janet1983,

This is page 3 of 3

I never said that Baptism in itself was optional. It is however not required for salvation.

Janet1985, this is an interesting example of double-speak. Your first sentence implies that Baptism is requred (since you never said it was ‘optional’) but, then reverse that with your next sentence in saying it is not requried. Unless you know something I don’t, salvation - being with God in heaven - is our goal … well, it’s mine and of that I am sure! If you are equivocating on this matter - Baptism being necessary or not - you are ignoring the Word of God.

It is an important step of obedience and we should undergo this step. In my congregation there is not a single (voting) member who has not been baptised.
Baptism is an obedient step and an outward representation of an inward reality, but we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8), not by faith and a ceremony (Rom. 4:1-11).

This is a total misapplication of Paul’s writings. Yes, we must have faith. You end it there, but interestingly enough, neither Christ or Paul does - they keep on going. The issue however, is that you must read the entire NT and not cherry-pick verses to get the sense of the Salvation Message: you must believe and then act in accordance with the commands of Christ. This is the Message of Christ - and that Message has been passed down through the centuries by the Catholic Church.

Concerning your remark (otherwise) I am not arguing with the Lord’s Word. I am arguing with your interpretation thereof.

OK, you got my attention, just what is your interpretation of, “…Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” I submit that because Luther and those ‘spiritual children’ he spawned rejected the Church and the authority to ordain priests and consecrate bishops - they were out of the Apostolic Succession line. They did not have the power to do this. So, like the famous fox and the grapes in the Aesop fable (here is a really interesting treatment of this classic: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes ) the ‘Reformers’ said this was no longer necessary!

You have yet to say what organized religion you beling to (I guess they are orgnized if they are voting).
Thank you. I actually own a Catechism and I am familiar with that passage.
As I said. I am on the fence about this topic and I have to admit (to my shame) that I have been struggling with it for quite a while.

From my experience, people don’t stay on top of fences for long - such a position is a real pain in the butt! If you are still flirting with this additional heresy, I dare say you have opted for it! Go on, prove me wrong! You see, people only vacilitate because they claim to be lacking additional knowledge so that they can make the decision. Well, really all of the facts are in:
(1) God knew from all eternity who would be with Him in heaven and who would be in the unending flames of hell. If He did not know this, He would not be God!
(2) “No one comes to Christ unless the Father draw him…” John 6:44 and either we are given the Grace or we are not.
(3) “God will the salvation of all men…” 1Tim 2:4 - and that means that all men must be gettingh the Grace of God
(4) “Whoever choses to do his will …” so we have free will to cooperate with the Grace of God and follow what Christ through His Church taught (not Luteher’s or Calvin’s or Henry VIII’s churches)

Bottom Line: Trust in God, follow His Commands - and the one to keep in mind as He spoke to His Apostles: “He who hears you hears Me…” (John 5:24) His Apostles were the First Bishops of the Catholic Church

God bless and I am still keeping you in my prayers to return Hone,

Thank you for your kind thoughts. May the Lord strengthen you in your relationship to Him and may He do the same to me.

 

[Janet1983]

Pt. 1 of 2

The real question is how. My mental picture is a bunch of people splitting and fracturing from a central core all claiming to be following the Holy Spirit.

That one regularly makes me uneasy. I was once invited to a church where they actually started some sort of barking. It was rather weird to me…

The reason that this is obviously false is that all of these fractures have produced contradictory and mutually exclusive doctrines. God is One - and His Truth is not in contradiction. So, either all of these contradictory beliefs having developed in the 20,000+ schismatic groups all claiming to be a church that follows Christ are true … or … God is lying. Take your pick - I have already chosen.

I would never even dream of calling God a liar. I would however say that even with all of these groups we can find those who wish to follow Jesus Christ with all their heart and on the basis of what they see in Scripture. I believe that that is meant when Jesus said that the gates of *** will not prevail against the Church. As long as there are such people they will not.

Actaully, Acts 2:1-4 appears to limit the Holy Spirit coming down to those assembeled in the room on that First Pentecost.

There were others who received the Spirit later and true Christians are still guided by Him.

To argue against something you yourself have identified as ambiguous is rather strange.

You may call it strange, but I do not consider the sayings of Church Fathers to be of equal value as Scripture.
The question whether or not the term brother or cousin is the correct interpretation of the word is answered by context and in the context that we find it, it is more logical to assume a literal translation as other family members (specifically His mother) are mentioned (see Matthew 12:46-47; 13:55).

Who said this was sinful?

Oh, I might have misinterpreted what you were trying to say. My fault.

But the heretics representing the ‘Reformation’ denied the words of Christ in effect saying, like the Jews before them, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

In the mentioned passages Christ clearly states that His words are meant spiritual, that He is the bread of life and that no one who comes to Him will ever be hungry, and no one who believes in Him will ever be thirsty again. We are to believe in Him and come to Him. That is the essence of Him being the bread of life.
When we celebrate the Lord’s Supper we do this in remembrance of Him.

Janet1985, this is an interesting example of double-speak. Your first sentence implies that Baptism is requred (since you never said it was ‘optional’) but, then reverse that with your next sentence in saying it is not required.

It is not required because baptism has faith and repentance as prerequisites. Therefore one is already a believer with sanctifying faith. As a result however it is important to be obedient and be baptised.
Baptism is the outward representation of an inward reality. It represents the death of the individual (Romans 6:3-5), that individuals union with Christ (Galatians 3:27), the cleansing of that individual’s sins (Acts 22:16) and the union with Christ’s Church (1 Corinthians 12:13). Baptism is a public profession of a faith that is already present.

You have yet to say what organized religion you beling to (I guess they are orgnized if they are voting).

Southern Baptist at this point.

 

[Janet1983]

pt. 2 of 2

From my experience, people don’t stay on top of fences for long - such a position is a real pain in the ***!

It certainly is… but I haven’t concentrated on that one yet. I know quite a few good and valid arguments for both sides and I have listened to both of them and I am still on the fence. As of right now I don’t know what to make of it.

(1) God knew from all eternity who would be with Him in heaven and who would be in the unending flames of ***. If He did not know this, He would not be God!

Yes. (And that’s not predestination, but foreknowledge.)

(2) “No one comes to Christ unless the Father draw him…” John 6:44 and either we are given the Grace or we are not.

True. Now the question is whether there is such a thing as irresistible grace and I am rather doubtful about that. I am certain that many are called and the invitation goes out to all mankind, but many also choose to ignore for the time being and maybe too long.

(3) “God will the salvation of all men…” 1Tim 2:4 - and that means that all men must be gettingh the Grace of God

It’s God’s will, but it is also His will that we have free will to either serve Him or serve the devil.

(4) “Whoever choses to do his will …” so we have free will to cooperate with the Grace of God and follow what Christ through His Church taught (not Luther’s or Calvin’s or Henry VIII’s churches)

Well here we might differ (we been through that a couple of times, concerning what His church is and we haven’t come to a point yet). If you consider naming it like this I will certainly agree:
(4) “Whoever choses to do his will …” so we have free will to cooperate with the Grace of God and follow what Christ taught.

My questions however (the ones that keep me on the fence) are the following: If the grace of God cannot be merited through works, but precedes works, how then can we lose our salvation? If we can lose our salvation, how do we know that we still have it if we were to die this instant? If the devil can snatch us out of the Father’s hand, how can we be sure of our salvation at any given time? And if we actually make it to heaven in the end, upon whose merit does this then rest? Are we then going to heaven because of the goodness of the devil?
On the other hand: How can a person who has professed faith and believed and led a Christian life all of a sudden lose faith and turn against God? Was he never saved in the first place and all he did was a ruse or lip-service to be part of a group or to be impressing the family? I know that a murderer can be forgiven, but can a Christian become a murderer? If not, did he lose his salvation, did he never become a Christian or would a Christian actually wilfully fly in the face of God’s Law like that?
Can a true Christian lose faith and salvation? Can he become a lover of self, a lover of money, boastful, proud, a blasphemer, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, a slanderer, without self-control, brutal, without love for what is good, a traitor, reckless, conceited, a lover of pleasure rather than a lover of God? Can he really do that?
If we love Him we keep His commands, but can someone who loved Him once lose that love and not keep His commands and deny His power?

You know what I mean?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Janet1983,

You are in luck … this only took two pages! But, I have run out of steam - so I am passing the flame to whomever wants to run with it. Page 1 of 2

Sounds to me like you have everything the way you want it. I have honestly done my best on the previous topics. Like Luther, it is apparently better to argue while digging in your heels than actually addressing the issues raised.

The response on the Eucharist being exactly as Christ said - and not a metaphore that drove the Jews away, you chose to ignore. The concept behind, "The flesh profits nothing… " is referring to the earthly ideas that these Jews were bringing with them (cannibalism) to try and understand the spiritual realities Christ was telling them - and us - about.

You still have not told me where anyone ever walked away from the use of a metaphor. This singularity should immediately raise a flag that maybe the Jews were right! “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” The real answer is that He can do anything He wants to - He’s God.

I will attempt to address you concerns about the mystery of predestination. Ultimately, being a mystery, if you really understand it fully - then I have not properly explained it … because it is a mystery… Let’s get started…

It certainly is… but I haven’t concentrated on that one yet. I know quite a few good and valid arguments for both sides and I have listened to both of them and I am still on the fence. As of right now I don’t know what to make of it.

Yes. (And that’s not predestination, but foreknowledge.)

True. Now the question is whether there is such a thing as irresistible grace and I am rather doubtful about that. I am certain that many are called and the invitation goes out to all mankind, but many also choose to ignore for the time being and maybe too long.

Matthew 22:14 - “Many are call but few are chosen…”

It’s God’s will, but it is also His will that we have free will to either serve Him or serve the devil.

Our First Parents wresteled with this too - and they chose to disobey God. And, they made this choice in their perfect natural bodies and minds, having walked and talked with God in the Garden. There was no wounding of human nature such as we have now becuase of Original Sin.

Well here we might differ (we been through that a couple of times, concerning what His church is and we haven’t come to a point yet). If you consider naming it like this I will certainly agree:

Matthew 16:18 - “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church…” I will be happy to name it, Janet1985 - Christ was talking to Peter the First Pope of the Catholic Church. No one else traces their origins to Peter - and maybe that, in and of itself, should cause you to wonder about John Smyth (christianity.about.com/od/denominations/a/baptisthistory.htm).

"

(4) “Whoever choses to do his will …” so we have free will to cooperate with the Grace of God and follow what Christ taught.

You know, Calvin had a real problem with the concept of free will, God’s Will, and eternal salvation. In my opinion, the only answer he got that he liked was that he was saved but he had doubts about everyone else. Now, that’s leadership! He never got it right. One puts their faith in Christ by doing what Christ said. For him, in his pride and arrogance he was determined to build a church in his own image, and not, like you yourself said, ‘obey’ the Catholic Church. There really isn’t much I can say after that because you have really made up your mind, even though you claim to be perpetual fence sitting.

Continued on Page 2

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Janet1983,
Page 2 of 2

My questions however (the ones that keep me on the fence) are the following: If the grace of God cannot be merited through works, but precedes works, how then can we lose our salvation?

The entire 25th Chapter of Matthew is directed toward answering this very quesiton. I would recommend you spend some time reading this and sort some issues out.

If we can lose our salvation, how do we know that we still have it if we were to die this instant?

You know, St. Paul ws not having a ‘bad day’ when he wrote 1Cor 9:27 “After preaching to others…I myself become a castaway…” Here is the man who had private revelations from Jesus Christ totally refuting OSAS with one statement! You want a take home message? There it is - from St. Paul himself.

If the devil can snatch us out of the Father’s hand, how can we be sure of our salvation at any given time?

John 10:29 - the devil will do everything he can to get your soul. He really is like a hungry lion going about seeking whom he may devour - (1Peter 5:8) So, what are we to do? Well if the idea is that we stop our focus on Christ and start looking at the Devil - we are lost! The Devil has all kinds of power - but, he has no more than God has given to him! So, back to basic: believe in Christ, do what He tells you to do and pray. The rest is really in God’s Hands - and, either we trust Him or we trust people like Luther, or Calivin or Smyth.

And if we actually make it to heaven in the end, upon whose merit does this then rest?

So, just making it to Heave is not good enough for you - you want to know who gets the merit?!! Well, even though we may have done all things well, we are still unprofitable servants! Luke 17:10

Are we then going to heaven because of the goodness of the devil?

Ah, there you go again, Janet1985… To the best of my knowledge, the Devil has a reputation to maintain - and saying he has any goodness certainly is a mark against his character!

On the other hand: How can a person who has professed faith and believed and led a Christian life all of a sudden lose faith and turn against God?

Again, go back and read Matthew 25 - there are all kinds of folks who think they have better things to do than follow what Christ said. This is a real issue.

Was he never saved in the first place and all he did was a ruse or lip-service to be part of a group or to be impressing the family? I know that a murderer can be forgiven, but can a Christian become a murderer? If not, did he lose his salvation, did he never become a Christian or would a Christian actually wilfully fly in the face of God’s Law like that?
Can a true Christian lose faith and salvation? Can he become a lover of self, a lover of money, boastful, proud, a blasphemer, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, a slanderer, without self-control, brutal, without love for what is good, a traitor, reckless, conceited, a lover of pleasure rather than a lover of God? Can he really do that?
If we love Him we keep His commands, but can someone who loved Him once lose that love and not keep His commands and deny His power?

Let me save the answering of this question marathon to someone who is not experiencing fatigue. Especially when I am sure you already have the answers. Trying to know God’s Plan on individual relationships with God is presumption - and this is a serious problem. You have one soul you are truly responsible for - see to it.

God bless

You know what I mean?

 

[benedictus2]

Mikeoffaith:
There were three of them, no one really knowing who was and wasn’t the pope and factions abounding. And from the article Tom linked to it seems there are still discussions in the ivory towers of who was legitimate and who wasn’t.
The fact remains that the others are not legitimate Popes. They were claimants but they were not Popes. They were anti-popes.
Here is a background taken from EWTN regarding anti popes. Then you can read the whole sad tale about the three popes on this link associatedcontent.com/article/495683/the_great_schism_when_there_were_three.html?cat=37 . And it is settled – the legitimate line is Pope Urban VI bad though he was.
ANTI-POPES Warren H Carroll
There have been perhaps 30 or 40 Antipopes in the 2000-year history of the papacy.
An antipope is a person claiming to be Pope who was not duly elected or proclaimed while a duly elected Pope was still in office.
To begin with, it is vital to understand that there is no power on earth which may depose a Pope. Any duly elected Pope remains therefore in office until he dies or resigns (as has happened just seven times). Anyone, therefore, who claims to be Pope while a duly elected Pope is living and has not resigned is, ipso facto, an Antipope.
Papal election procedures are governed by the prescription of the last Pope who provided for them (that is, any Pope can change them, but they remain in effect until they are changed by a duly elected Pope). During the first thousand years of the history of the Papacy the electors were the clergy of Rome (priests and deacons); during the second thousand years we have had the College of Cardinals. But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses. These methods must then be followed in the next election after the death of the Pope who prescribed it, and thereafter until they are changed. A Papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope. Since Antipopes by definition base their claims on defiance of proper Church authority, all have been harmful to the Church, though a few have later reformed after giving up their claims.

 

[benedictus2]

Mikeoffaith:
Their spirituality did have implications for the entire Church but their reforms within the order did not necessarily lead to greater reforms with in the entire Church.
Oh yes it did. But it happened not in Luther’s time table but in God’s timetable.

And enlighten us, what do you see as the situation that Luther assessed correctly

And have we not discussed not enough? Corruption in the church.

and what do you see as his solution from Satan himself?

The false doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola, creating his own cannon, etc. etc.

That seems awfully simplistic and in light of Theresa and John, they were schismatic within their own order. Again, we have those with and those without shoes.

Every order branches out. Same with the Benedictines, Franciscans, Dominicans etc. But they all remain within the church.
THAT is how you reform.

But the fact remains, Theresa and John founded a modified order. They broke away. But if you have a pain in your little toe, you figure out what is wrong and you cure it, you just don’t lop it off. Although, I guess if you hand offends you…

And the fact remains that their order remained within the Church. That fact remains that they bowed to the magisterium.
And yes we did try to cure the pain in the little toe by excommunication. That is what it is supposed to do, make the excommunicated come to his senses. Unfortunately this sore little toe preferred to remain cut off.

Maybe you are a little shy on history. Tell me out of the thousands and thousands of denominations of Christians out there, which one’s split from Lutheranism?

Well then, let allow me to un-shy myself. I am not just talking about Lutheranism. Luther’s influence extended beyond Lutheranism. He’s the poster boy of the “reformers”.

Again, if the Roman Church with it’s saintly hierarchy can’t hold on to it’s children, do not blame Luther.

Certainly there is more than just Luther to blame – I refer to this rag tag band of deformers – Luther et al.

Mind you I am not absolving the corrupt people in the Church at that time. Far from it. Sin will always be with the church. Christ did not promise that her church will be sinless. Cleansing her is His work.

It seems to me that Luther et al did not have enough faith in Christ to believe that He will keep His promise.

 

[benedictus2]

And I believe he was referring to the other children Rome had lost like Zwingli.

Was he? Nah! They are all in the same bag. He knows they had all become far worse than those they were trying to reform. And that was easy enough to do when your hold on the truth is awfully tenuous.
Fancy someone thinking himself a reformer and saying that he will burn the Franciscans alive if he had his way. Nice.

You have no idea what Luther’s doctrine of Sola Scriptura is and I think you would be hard pressed to even explain it properly.

Well then I defer to you to explain it properly. So please do so.

If you want to really debate Luther’s reforms, I suggest you pull out your copy of the Augsburg Confession and I’ll pull out mine and we can look at all the reforms. Maybe this Sunday, you can reflect on a few of them from Article XXII and XXIV.

I don’t have a copy so please tell me and get the ball rolling.

You’re right Luther’s reform failed because the papacy could not bear to look at itself and see the ugliness that it had created.

And as I said before, Luther pointed out that they had become uglier. So there is your answer. Luther’s reform failed because they became uglier. And that is because in their puffed up pride they strayed from the truth.
Someone asked me to read his writing and all that stood out was sheer arrogance and pride – “It is so because Luther said so!”

How can the heir of Peter be anything but holy. I would imagine that the most corrupt pope still retains the title of “Your Holiness”.

Because in spite of their corruption they remain the chosen one of God. It is God who will make them holy. They do not become holy by themselves. This is again the point that Luther failed to grasp.
My sister always tells me to “just pray for them” the them being anyone particularly, priests who are living less than exemplary Christian lives.
It is not within our power to change others much less the Church. As Jesus said to the apostles, this one responds to prayer and fasting.

This conversation is going to go nowhere. You will continually point out that Luther’s reforms were not because he is a failed man. And I will continue to point out that his reforms weren’t for not because some have been instituted and used by the Roman Church today, despite a history of a decrepit papacy, and you will point to men and women of great spirituality and say look how they transformed the whole church, excluding the hierarchy of course since abuses were still allowed to follow.

And I will be right. One day you will see that.

And I will not quibble that there were Christians of the first magnitude in the Roman Catholic Church, but the unfortunate thing is they did nothing to stop the corruption of the hierarchy as long as the pope granted then habit and rule.

You mean they did not try to stop the corruption in the same destructive manner that Luther et al wanted. Well it seems there are other, better means.

Again stop blaming Luther for Mother Church unable to hold on to her children.

But as I said this is not just about blaming Luther. This is about exposing his heresy for what it is. The children will come back when they finally see the truth.

The drunken and debauchery of the papacy of the time was like the crack parent of today. Too busy with it’s own selfishness to recognize the life it was called to live by Christ. A very sad state of affairs for the Vicar of Christ.

Exactly! A sad state of affairs for the Vicar of Christ. The Vicar of Christ so therefore Christ’s responsibility. So therefore the way to reform is to entreat Christ to make His Vicar holy because He and He alone has the power to do that.

Which is precisely what I have been talking about for the post 4 posts.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi, Mikeoffaith,

Actually, I think it is you who is missing the concept here. The Pope’s formal letter of excommunication is just that - a formality for Luther. The German Monk had refused in his heart and mind to continue to follow the Church founded by Christ on Peter. Luther voluntarily left the Catholic Church. Decet Romanum was the letter acknowledging this already existant reality - and to provide instruction to others as to what was wrong with Luther’s various heresies. Do not imagine Luther being picked up in a most involuntary manner and pitched out of the door. While maybe colorful and imaginative - the reality is that Luther packed his bags and left many years before the Pope picked up his pen to write Decet Romanum.

Had the Pope and various cardinals not been so concerned with their free will spending habits, I believe Leo had depleted the Vatican Treasury from his wild parties…

While everything you have said here is true - it is really immaterial. Lax and worldly clergy have been a fact of life way before the time of Luther. Saintly people seeing the disconnect between Christ’s teaching and the public example given by these foolish clergy have humbly gone about making the changes in the own behavior while praying that these men will reform and go back to following Christ. As was previously pointed out, this is the way to real change because these saintly men and women are turning their abilities over to God to effect the changes He Will.

Good rebuttal!

 

[benedictus2]

Hi Janet,

Following on your discussion with Tom regarding some key doctrines, I think perhaps that if there is any issue that holds everything together is Papal Infallibility because this doctrine is intertwined with the issue of whether the Catholic Church is indeed the Church that Christ founded here on earth.

Here’s why I think this is our major bone of contention.

If Papal Infallibilty is correct, then it stands to reason that all the doctrines of the Catholic Church is correct whether it be regarding the Eucharist, Mary, Purgatory, etc, etc.

Put another way, if the Catholic Church is indeed the Church that Christ founded on earth, then it follows that all her doctrines are true because Christ gave that guarantee in the Bible.

If you appeal to the Bible for support, then you are already tacitly agreeing to the Catholic Church’s infallibility because it was she who gave us the Bible.

But then of course you could reason that the Church then is not the same Church today. For that we need to go back and study history.

So I wonder, are you okay to go with that line of thinking and actually go through both historical and bibilical data to try and settle this issue.

I think though this needs another thread.

Peace!

Cory

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mikeoffaith,

While I think Post #433 has addressed all the points you have raised here - Benedictus2 doesn’t miss much… I thought I would add my $0.02 worth on one item you raised … Actually, after re-reading this and realizing I am having to go to a second page … I think you actually got $0.04 worth! This however should be consider more of a style issue rather than one of substance.

Page 1 of 2

You’re right Luther’s reform failed because the papacy could not bear to look at itself and see the ugliness that it had created.

I can see your point on this - and, really I have no argument against it. The problem with corruption is that it dims the sight necessary to see one’s self for what we are - and what we are doing. I have no problem in seeing your point of view (if you don’t mind me putting it into my own words…) that Luther was effectively well intentioned when he began his efforts at reform. And, it would appear that the high ranking officials of the Catholic Church at the time were not receptive to Luther’s overtures toward reform.

Of course it could be argued that Luther was abrupt and the Churchmen were overly sensitive - but, these issues do not address the real issue: deviation from the universal mission to follow Christ closely in our daily life. I really do not have a specific citation to give you on this - just a general sense of history. Luther’s 95 Thesis did not say, “I quit! You guys are just too corrupt to even talk to!” He wanted to debate (now, whether this was really the best avenue to take, others can comment on that. As a former college prof myself - I can see this as one way he would want to go.

How can the heir of Peter be anything but holy. I would imagine that the most corrupt pope still retains the title of “Your Holiness”.

Actually, the corruption of highly placed Churchmen should have come as nothing new. The reason Catherine of Siena got our of her convent was the presence of not one but two antipopes! And, this was combined with what certianly looked like cowardice for the legitimate Pope in France.

So, “How can the heir of Peter be anything but holy?” He is human - and as such, he, like all of us have feet of clay. Luther would have known about the Western Schism, the activities of the Popes and antipopes and the damage it had done in the eyes of the world. While we all would want our religioous leaders to be holy - we all have to address reality. Our faith is in Christ - His Church will guide us. Let me make that abundantly clear with the following outrageous statement: If Pope Benedict XVI were to suddenly run off with a nun and abandon the Vatican for some villa in Germany - I, along with virtually all of the world would be shocked!

But, all the aspects of my faith would remain intact: There really is a Church founded by Christ on Peter, there are Seven Sacraments that give Grace, the Real Presence is a genuine reality, we can not ‘work’ on our own for salvation - but, we demonstrate our faith through following (DOING) the commands of Christ. If I left anything out - let me know. The issue here is that the Pope can (and does) sin. I pray that he would not, or if he does he does not give public scandal (running off with a nun probably would score a 10 out of 10 on the ‘Scandal Scale’) Don’t get me wrong - this action would be sinful, scandalous and cause terrible harm to the Church of Christ - but, we would remain Catholic and would be praying for the Pope [and this nun, too!]. And, the bottom line is that this is the ultimate action that Luther should have taken during his time with the hierarchy.

Continued on Page 2

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mikeoffaith,

Page 2 of 2
Mikeoffaith;7332485:

This conversation is going to go nowhere.

I totally disagree with this assessment. Actually, I think I get just a hint of an exaggeration in progress. Now, in reality, it may not be going the way you would like to see… but, it really is moving forward in the sense that several issues have been raised and addressed form multiple points of view. Isn’t that the essence of a discussion board? Don’t lose heart and don’t give up on this topic.

You will continually point out that Luther’s reforms were not because he is a failed man.

I am not really sure I understand your argument here. Are you saying that the argument aginst Luther is that he was a ‘failed man’ who happened to point out the failings in the Catholic Church? Or, are you saying something else? First, I really do not think it would be beneficial to engage in an *ad hominem *attack on the German Monk. The issue, at least in my opinion, needs to be on objective statements - like his creation of Sola Scriptura as a doctrine. Now, really Mikeoffaith, you don’t do us any favors by saying we really do not udnerstnd this, fail to point our exactly what it is we do not understand, but rather provide a general document - with no links to follow. If you think we are wrong … don’t be bashful … in fact, follow our example and spell it out!

And I will continue to point out that his reforms weren’t for not because some have been instituted and used by the Roman Church today, despite a history of a decrepit papacy, and you will point to men and women of great spirituality and say look how they transformed the whole church, excluding the hierarchy of course since abuses were still allowed to follow.

Wwwwwwwwwwwwwwoooooo! Hey, I can deal with sex, greed, simony, debotched clergy and engraged monks putting nail holes in church doors - but, one thing I will not tolerate is an industrial strength run-on sentence! My goodness, man! Look what you have done here!!! So, let me break this down into manageable pieces so I can address these issues…

Luther’s activities really did help focus the hierarch meeting at Trent in Italy. I really do not think there is an argument there. Of course, at this point in the history of Luther and his relationship with the Catholic Church, it may be more like acknowledging the arsonist for pointing out that things like fire escapes need to lighted and the path way to them unencumbered and having fire hydrants close by along with a internal sprinker system would be all be good ideas.

I think the thing to really focus on when considering this ‘decrepit papacy’ is that they did respond with positive changes, real reform and a focus on returning to eliminating corruption and following Christ more closely. Luther, had he done things differently, could have been a dynamic presence at Trent doing good and promoting this genuine reform - rather than someone being spoken about there.

Luther is not just a man of ideas - but one of action and ideas. It would be irresponsible not to look at how he acted - how was he the vehicle for his ideas of reform. He is neither simply (he had a lot of issues before he became an Augustinian monk - and these stayed with him until he died) or diplomatic. But, God allowed him to progress in his program, allowed others to break away from the Church Christ founded on Peter - and has allowed the thousands of furhter schisms that have brought us to today.

This Church of Christ still has abuses today! The pedophilic clergy that have been exposed over the last 10 years - and the bishops who refused to act with fortitude in addressing this terrible scandal - are in the day’s newspapers. And, this is a world-wide event! What are we do do? The honest answer is not to abandon the Church of Christ founded on Peter - like Luther did. What we are to do is clean out the dead wood - like the reforms begun with Pope JPII and now Benedict XVI, and pray for all the idividuals involved in this scandal. These men failed Christ. But, that does not mean we are to fail Him. This is what I think is the real take home message - how does one deal with the failings of highly placed individuals?

God bless

 

[benedictus2]

So, “How can the heir of Peter be anything but holy?” He is human - and as such, he, like all of us have feet of clay. Luther would have known about the Western Schism, the activities of the Popes and antipopes and the damage it had done in the eyes of the world. While we all would want our religioous leaders to be holy - we all have to address reality. Our faith is in Christ - His Church will guide us. Let me make that abundantly clear with the following outrageous statement: If Pope Benedict XVI were to suddenly run off with a nun and abandon the Vatican for some villa in Germany - I, along with virtually all of the world would be shocked!

But, all the aspects of my faith would remain intact: There really is a Church founded by Christ on Peter, there are Seven Sacraments that give Grace, the Real Presence is a genuine reality, we can not ‘work’ on our own for salvation - but, we demonstrate our faith through following (DOING) the commands of Christ. If I left anything out - let me know. The issue here is that the Pope can (and does) sin. I pray that he would not, or if he does he does not give public scandal (running off with a nun probably would score a 10 out of 10 on the ‘Scandal Scale’) Don’t get me wrong - this action would be sinful, scandalous and cause terrible harm to the Church of Christ - but, we would remain Catholic and would be praying for the Pope [and this nun, too!]. And, the bottom line is that this is the ultimate action that Luther should have taken during his time with the hierarchy.
This is just beautiful! :clapping::clapping::clapping:

As Jesus said, the permission to sift us has been given. But Christ prays for His Church and is in His Church.

To have real faith in Christ is to have faith especially when the His Church seems to be going down the gurgler, because that is when can say that despite seeming evidence to the contrary we believe that Christ is God and He keeps His promises.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi Janet,

Tom has addressed your points very well but I’d like to put in my two bits with regards some of the things you said.

We follow Him by keeping His commandments, but not because our works would get us saved (as already established earlier) but because of our profound gratitude and love for Him.

This is probably not the thread to give a thorough reply on this point but our works does help in our salvation.

When Jesus said what ever you do to the least of my brethren you do to me, that is works. And it is works that He did not condition on faith.
He did not say if you believe in me you will feed, the hungry, clothe the naked,etc.

This is because these “works” are results of God’s grace in the same manner that faith is a result of God’s grace. We do not acquire faith by ourselves, it is a gift from God. Same with works. In a sense, when we do good works, it is the Lord’s good works because He animates our being such that He moves us to do good works. What we do do however, is to allow for Him to accomplish His work. That is why we cannot boast of our good works.

“True” Christians are those who have a deep rooted faith and the knowledge of salvation.

In a very limited sense yes. But deep rooted faith in “what”. What is the object of this faith? Is it simply a matter of believing in Christ? But what sort of Christ? Jesus has been aportioned by so many, interpreting and misinterpreting His words and actions that sometimes the Christ construct that is presented to us bear very little resemblance to the true Christ.

So who gives us a picture of the true Christ so that we can truly follow HIm? For that we have to go back to His Church. When Jesus promised the Paraclete, He said to the disciples that the Paraclete will remind them all that He told them.

I believe that His Holy Spirit guides all true Christians in truth and if I am not completely mistaken you believe that the Holy Spirit has been placed in your heart at your confirmation. The Holy Spirit came down upon all believers at Pentecost.

Yes, the Holy Spirit guides all true Christians and the mark that you are being guided by the Spirit is that He will guide you back to Christ’s Church. It may take some time and there maybe detours and some dead ends but the sure sign that the spirit is guiding you is that you will be guided back into the Church.

The Holy Spirit will never guide you away from the Church that Christ established on earth. Pentecost was the beginning of the Catholic Church.

First of all: I have heard about the argument and I have heard it coming from my mouth more than just rarely when I was still a vital part of my Catholic parish. I am aware of the fact that “brother” has a wide meaning, but that does also mean that there is a possibility for the meaning “brother” in this context.

Yes there is a possiblity. But how do we settle the issue? We go back to how the Church from the beginning has always understood this is passage. The early Christians understood it the way Catholics understood it.

Secondly: I never knew that a sexual relationship between a husband and a wife with the result of bearing children was sinful.

We never said it was.

 

[benedictus2]

“I am the bread of life,” Jesus told them. “No one who comes to Me will ever be hungry, and no one who believes in Me will ever be thirsty again.” (John 6:35)
“The Spirit is the One who gives life. The flesh doesn’t help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.” (John 6:63)
As you can see Jesus spoke in spiritual terms and He did not do it just once so that this might be falsely understood. He did it on other occasions too and we would never assume that he is a literal grapevine for example or that we are literally sheep.
“I am the bread of life.” (John 6:48)
“I am the door.” (John 10:9)
“I am the good shepherd.” (John 10:11)
“I am the true vine” (John 15:1)

This is probably one of the most discussed topics here at CAF.

I think if you are truly interested in our rebuttal you should visit some of the discussions on the Eucharist.

That it is symbolic because of the verses you quoted is probably the lamest argument for a symbolic interpretation.

Read John 6 and see how many times Jesus reiterated that we must eat His FLESH and drink His BLOOD.

The disciples got His meaning alright - that is why they walked away.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Benedictus2

Great post!

I think you hit Janet’s argument head on with these statements…

benedictus2:
In a very limited sense yes. But deep rooted faith in “what”. What is the object of this faith? Is it simply a matter of believing in Christ? But what sort of Christ? Jesus has been aportioned by so many, interpreting and misinterpreting His words and actions that sometimes the Christ construct that is presented to us bear very little resemblance to the true Christ.

The Holy Spirit will never guide you away from the Church that Christ established on earth. Pentecost was the beginning of the Catholic Church.

Now, Mikeoffaith may take me to task on my real knowledge of Luther’s doctrine… but … I think he would agree that Luther was not vague… Anyone who stands before the ‘tough audience’ he did and say, “Here I stand…” does not think he is standing on the ‘meaning of meaning’! He needs to be clear about just what it is that he believes. Now, in my opinion, he was clearly wrong - but, tht is another issue…

It appears to me that Janet1985 is vague as to what she means to the point of distraction. Quoting mixtures of Catholic doctrine (Nicene Creed) and Holy Scripture, while combining it with Calvin’s hang-up on Predestination and OSAS, with just a sprinkle of New Age to give it that ‘touchy-feely’ effect - make for a dangerous stew.

Luther argued against real abuses. His solution, unfortunately, was a series of his own abuses. More like a man finding termites in his home - and then setting it on fire to get rid of them. Creating new doctrine (Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, 2 (maybe 3…) Sacraments out of the 7 given by Christ as real sources of Grace. Combine this with his real contradictions as seen in his treatment of the Anabaptists of while Scripture alone is the answer, it had best be the answer I have determined from my reading. Other interepretations are just not allowed.

God bless

 

[GaryTaylor]

We could talk days about Luther. Personally I see a man who couldn’t rise above his own personal feelings. The fact that others sleepwalked to the end of the night with him isn’t impressive. I believe Erasmus had the “correct” thinking, even though he tended to agree with Luther. “To stick to the Church teaching non dogmatically and admitt as humans we didn’t know the correct course.” Well today if Erasmus had been here, I can assure you he would play a much more active role in those debates. Hindsight is 20-20 which brings us to another well taken point above about “Ignatius of Loyola.”

When we don’t know the correct path, we can’t vary from one we know is proven. Civilized man didn’t happen by accident. God bought that to the table with the Exodus. Ignatius of Loyola is a perfect example of a man we could have used in our time. He clearly seen the problems of his period {which mirror ours in many ways} from above the trees. Thats not easy to do. We also seriously need the help of the “Society of Jesus” within the Church today and we need admitt the mistakes we have made within the Catholic Church, Jesuits and the Eastern Church jump out immediately. We have traveled much to far down this path. We are on a path of destruction. Once civilized man’s society reverts to barbaric ways by influence from the fringes of society which in essence is barbaric, he know longer knows he is barbaric, he no longer knows the path back. Man no mistake about this. Just read the thinking on this forum and its clear to see. We debate foolishness like if we landed on the Moon? Man forgets very, very easily, don’t give Homo Sapien to much credit, God gets the credit. The Catholic/Orthodox Church bought civilization to the heartlands of the America’s and Europe. We did that, and foolishly many of us turned our back on the church being blinded by evils. We need to clearly see and accept this now.

The petty arguments about Luther do little to walk us out of the woods. What postive did Luther bring for man thus God? There are none to be found. Comfortability, does little to walk us out of the dark, on the contrary we need a more concentrated effort today.

As we continue down this path we are at the crossroads and must make some hard choices. We need to focus 100% on the heartlands of Christology. That false sense of “Welcome to the Land of Opportunity” really should read, “Welcome to the Land of Materialism”. It doesn’t work and the sign must come down. Only working prospect is the Catholic/Orthodox Church. While its been all well and fine to debate these issues, because we were afforded the opportunity by success. We lost that edge decades ago. Now we are fighting for man’s very existence.

All the nonsense about physic’s and quantum mechanics. evolution, secularism, capitalism and materialism, communism, marxism, atheism, etc. In case no one’s been paying attention…it doesn’t work, they are cloaked evils!. Only one path has worked. And if we don’t wake up we will one day be homeless in the land our forefathers converted centurys ago. Civilized man will return to his barbaric habits which are so obvious in Africa and Asia “the fringes” of Christology. We, are are now allowing them to poison us. Don’t even get me started on other religion’s because I could define them clearly also. Not working, not the Face of God which Christology bought to the table. We have been shown the face of God with Christ and his Disciples bought us the Church with Peter, given as a gift and predestined future path by Christ. The Mystical Body of Christ…is here for all to partake in. Only requirement is to accept the truth non-dogmatically as Erasmus said so many years ago. Fake it till we make it or it becomes truth/reality.

The sugar coated “christian” written messages don’t seem to impress the gravity of our situation. We are in a sinking ship. The point of no return is so close that it could be felt. When you hear today everyone talking about “somethings in the air,” they can feel “somethings gonna happen.” Thats the point of no-return they feel. Christ gave us a responsibility here, we have not even came close to completing. Theres no wonderfull consolation prize coming. Thats false thinking. There may well be a chastisment coming I don’t know, I’m a man not a prophet. All my glory goes to God.

Listen, I don’t like to go to far over the edge, but Luther and Calvin and all these other denominations which broke off from “us”. We are not afforded the time anymore to debate this till we figure it out seperately. We need to unite the Church. The biggest battle in history isn’t around the corner, we are in it now. We don’t have Luther, Ignatius, Erasmus today but we have Benedict, he is the leading Theologian on Earth today. Don’t miss the message by taking his humility and Christian way for granted. Its not by accident he is where he is. He has played major role in theology since the 80’s, read his books, read “Jesus Christ of Nazareth” if by chance you may believe he isn’t a Genuis. What we need to do is clear, how to unite Christolgy is not clear. But the message of Erasmus once again rings clear, and the direction of Ignatius of Loyola is so clear and apparent. We can correct this, but not divided. That unfortunately we don’t have an option of anymore.

The focus on what is wrong with the Catholic Church is simple distraction. Nothing’s perfect and never has been. Yet we have taken Christs message to the 4-corners of the world. The fact we have made mistakes doesn’t make the path wrong. It just makes us human, unfortunately thats what all of us must carry for a Cross here.

The Mystery none of have known since Mose’s, is Gods People and Israel and the OT. Maybe the answer lies there and we need to look back in that direction now. Maybe they are the glue. That is an unknown.

God Bless, GT