Why I could never follow Luther.

[tqualey]

Hi, Gracelife,

My intent is not to cause pain … sorry if this post of mine did that.

But, if you would kindly explain something to me…

Tom:

Ouch.
Lutheranism is not about Luther. Lutheranism is about Christ. Thus, Christ alone.

Lutheranism is very Christocentric.
Christ is the point of Lutheranism.

It’s about what God has done for us. It is not about what we can do for Christ.
Lutheranism is about our redemption through Christ’s death and resurrection. /QUOTE]

Let me start off, Gracelife, by saying I do not for a minute doubt the sincerity of what you have said. My difficulty comes from the fact that from about 33AD when the Holy Spirit’s Special Gifts on that First Pentecost - the Birthday of the Catholic Church - until 1517AD when Luther posted his 95 Theses it was established that Christ built His Church on Peter (Matt 16:18) and acknowledged by the Early Church Fathers and those following them.

Luther was fully aware of the Successor of Peter being the Pope and he believed it at one time. Luther entered the priesthood and, it may be assumed, believed all that the Catholic Church taught. The Church did not teach the sale of indulgences - this was a corruption of individuals. While Luther’s intent was good - to actually reform the Catholic Church (maybe like St. Catherine of Siena who preceeded him by about 200 years) - his ego got in the way. And, so, he left - and honestly, formed or caused to be formed a organization that claimed, according to Luther’s direction, some of what the Catholic Church taught, rejected other elements and dug his heels in on how he wanted things done. He may not have named the religion after himself - but, it would appear that his followers did.

To claim that Lutherans follow Christ is fine. I think it would be a fair statement to say that all Christian groups claim to follow Christ - at least in some manner. These groups have one other thing in common - they all reject the leader that Christ put in charge of His Church and have substituted their own.

If I have missed the boat here, then, please - dialogue with me on ths.

God bless

 

[gracelife]

Hope this formats correctly…

Tom:

Let me start off, Gracelife, by saying I do not for a minute doubt the sincerity of what you have said. My difficulty comes from the fact that from about 33AD when the Holy Spirit’s Special Gifts on that First Pentecost - the Birthday of the Catholic Church - until 1517AD when Luther posted his 95 Theses it was established that Christ built His Church on Peter (Matt 16:18) and acknowledged by the Early Church Fathers and those following them.

There is disagreement amongst the ECF regarding the interpretation of Matt.16:18. That is whether the reference was to Peter as the Rock upon which the church was built OR Peter’s faith and declaration, “you are the Christ, the son of the living God”. Assuming the Scriptures from beginning to end are about God’s gift of redemption, in Christ Jesus; I would tend to agree with the ECFs that choose the interpretation of Matt 16:18 as a declaration of faith and the Messiah. That section of scripture ends with Jesus directing them NOT to reveal to others that He is the Messiah. Again, placing emphasis on Jesus as the Christ.

I believe scripture needs to be interpreted with an eye on Christ.
He IS the point of Christianity, right?

Luther was fully aware of the Successor of Peter being the Pope and he believed it at one time. Luther entered the priesthood and, it may be assumed, believed all that the Catholic Church taught. The Church did not teach the sale of indulgences - this was a corruption of individuals. While Luther’s intent was good - to actually reform the Catholic Church (maybe like St. Catherine of Siena who preceeded him by about 200 years) - his ego got in the way.

Ego, perhaps. Pride, perhaps. I don’t know. I was not inside Luther’s head. He was a man of strong conviction. A conviction based on the Word of God. Luther was not unware of his sins (and his dependence on Christ). Things did run amuck. But I’m afraid Luther was not the only guilty party. Politically, historically there is much blame to share.

And, so, he left
He didn’t have much of a choice. He was excommunicated.

• and honestly, formed or caused to be formed a organization that claimed, according to Luther’s direction, some of what the Catholic Church taught, rejected other elements and dug his heels in on how he wanted things done. He may not have named the religion after himself - but, it would appear that his followers did.

Those who left the Catholic church at the time were first known as Evangelicals (not to be confused with today’s Evangelicals). They did not call themselves Lutherans. The name Lutheran was placed upon them by the Catholic church. Now it’s typically used to distinguish amongst the plethora of denominations (which Luther did not start, btw and DID speak out against in his time).

Luther did not want his name used in this way. He says: “I ask that my name be left silent and people not call themselves Lutheran, but rather Christians. Who is Luther? The doctrine is not mine. I have been crucified for no one. St. Paul in 1 Cor. 3:4-5 would not suffer that the Christians should call themselves of Paul or of Peter, but Christian. How should I, a poor stinking bag of worms, become so that the children of Christ are named with my unholy name? It should not be dear friends. Let us extinguish all factious names and be called Christians whose doctrine we have. The pope’s men rightly have a factious name because they are not satisfied with the doctrine and name of Christ and want to be with the pope, who is their master. I have not been and will not be a master. Along with the church I have the one general teaching of Christ who alone is our master. Matt. 23:8.”

More on the name Lutheran: reclaimingwalther.org/articles/nameLuth.htm

Peace to you Tom!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gracelife,

It formatted just fine.

And, that was interesting link… and found this quite to the point: The pope’s men rightly have a factious name because they are not satisfied with the doctrine and name of Christ and want to be with the pope, who is their master. Ah, the Pope’s men are the culprits! It looks like Calvin, Henry VIII, and the rest managed to avoid this problem. You see, it really is rough to be the first!

Thank you for your response. Let me ask you to go a bit deeper on one point by supplying a reference.

There is disagreement amongst the ECF regarding the interpretation of Matt.16:18. That is whether the reference was to Peter as the Rock upon which the church was built OR Peter’s faith and declaration, “you are the Christ, the son of the living God”. Assuming the Scriptures from beginning to end are about God’s gift of redemption, in Christ Jesus; I would tend to agree with the ECFs that choose the interpretation of Matt 16:18 as a declaration of faith and the Messiah. That section of scripture ends with Jesus directing them NOT to reveal to others that He is the Messiah. Again, placing emphasis on Jesus as the Christ.

My question is:
Which ECF disputed that the Pope was the Successor of Peter, was in charge of the Catholic Church, and was the Vicar of Christ of earth?

While there is no claim to infallability or divine inspiration for any of the ECF, they are highly respected men who were closest in time to Christ and the Apostles.

Looking forward to hearing from you tomorrow … I’m off to bed…

God bless

 

[gracelife]

Teens in the house, so I’m still up for now. This is it for the night though.

It looks like Calvin, Henry VIII, and the rest managed to avoid this problem. You see, it really is rough to be the first!

LOL touche. What then would you have Lutheran’s call themselves? (other than heretics). Seems Lutherans have not been a very creative lot in that way.

Simply “Christian” is not precise enough within the realm of all the denominations. Although, that works for me.

Evangelical is taken. Simply “Catholic” (albiet not Roman) would be confusing. How about … Orthodox Catholics, Evangelical Catholics, ,… Naww that would be confusing too… can’t win!

Thank you for your response. Let me ask you to go a bit deeper on one point by supplying a reference.

Sorry, it’s been awhile since I’ve dug into the ECFs. I was going from memory of a book and long ago discussion regarding papal primacy with the Eastern Orthodox. It turns into a tit for tat quoting of ECF quotes that ulimately goes no where as these things tend to do on forums. The ECFs can help our understanding, but like you said they are not infalliable.

… the Lutheran explanation on the Power and Primacy of the Pope bookofconcord.org/treatise.php and the Historical background if there is an interest bookofconcord.org/historical-7.php

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gracelife,
Ah, memory can be a bit tricky…especially as we get older - I know! So, allow me to give you a link on the Early Church Fathers: catholic.com/library/fathers_know_best.asp I think you will find it is not even close to being a ‘tit for tat’ quoting game. To the best of my knowledge, NO ECF disputed the current pope of their time or previous time, being the Successor of Peter on whom Christ built His Church.

I had previously made the comment that Luther left the Church and you responded that he had no choice because he had been excommunicated. And, while ultimately that is the way it played out … it did not have to go that way. Luther consistently showed that he would not step escalating his demands and refused to believe that the Pope was in charge. Had he used humility rather than hubris he could have been ‘St. Martin Luther’ in the same fashion as St. Catherine of Siena who was also confronted with worldly and sensual leaders of this same Catholic Church. I have no doubt things could have gone very differently for all parties. This, however, does not acknowledge the Divine Plan and our work is bring about Christian Unity as Christ would have it.

Thanks for the link. I will look at it this afternoon when I have more time

God bless

Teens in the house, so I’m still up for now. This is it for the night though.

… the Lutheran explanation on the Power and Primacy of the Pope bookofconcord.org/treatise.php and the Historical background if there is an interest bookofconcord.org/historical-7.php

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mountaintop,

Welcome to CAF!

I think you will find this list to be an on-going source of faith and inspiration.

You have made an excellent observation and one that truly deserves to be acknowledged for clearly stating what it was that took place in Matthew 16.

There are those who go to great lenghts to either ignore or minimize elements in the Bible that they really do not agree with - but, they really can’t say that! So, they interpret it out of both true meaning and existence.

We have God the Father selecting Peter - and - giving him the answer to Christ’s question on “Who do men say I am?” Peter was truly hand-picked by God to lead the Church.

We have God the Son identifying what His Father had done - and then stating that He was building His Church - and, doing so on this truly sinful, bragging and loud-mouthed man!!

And, just in case there some some confusion … Christ gives Peter the Keys to bind and lose - both on earth and heaven. There were not 12 sets of keys … only one set!

Peter remained a sinful man - but, a man who really wanted to follow Christ…but, in his own way! In the next verse, Peter chides Christ for ‘scaring the boys’ with talk about dying in Jeursalem. And, what does Christ call the head of His Church - a devil! This is most telling in that we see Christ will demonstrate the Power of God by using the weak and not the strong. Nothing basic has changed - just the degree to which we sin. In the First Century it was not possible to abort millions of unborn babies, have devious bishops look the other way at Catholic politicians who encourage, promote and vote for abortion, have the capacity to kill millions of people with a nuclear weapon, have a few devious priests sexually abuse many children or manipulate securities so that millions of people lost many millions of dollars! We have come a long way!

Today the Catholic Church is in crisis. We have the choice today of responding like St. Catherine of Siena or Martin Luther - it is really in our hands if and how we respond to the Grace of God to help move the Church of Christ (and, that would be the Catholic Church) ever closer to Christ.

God bless

:bowdown::bowdown::bowdown2:the catholic church wasn’t started by peter it was founded on peter by God, Jesus when he gave peter the keys, who’s your teacher?

 

[JonNC]

[Today the Catholic Church is in crisis. We have the choice today of responding like St. Catherine of Siena or Martin Luther - it is really in our hands if and how we respond to the Grace of God to help move the Church of Christ (and, that would be the Catholic Church) ever closer to Christ.

God bless

Hi Tom,
I give thanks that there are Catholics like you here, that defend your Catholic faith with both conviction and charity. Your dedication is strong to the Catholic Church, all the while discerning the Holy Spirit in those of us who are non-Catholic. This, I believe, is the pattern of your Church leaders in Rome, people such as Cardinal Kaspar, and Pope Benedict.
The history of the Reformation, on both sides, is filled with sins, mistakes, pride and ego.
You mention that the CC is in crisis, but it is no more so than Lutheranism worldwide in my view. Frankly, we need each other, and we need the Holy Spirit to guide us, to conquer our own sins and to set a better example to the world which often enough rejects and despises us.
The 500th anniversary of the Reformation quickly approaches, in 2017. Hopefully, our respective leaders will use the model of open loving dialogue to fulfill Christ’s call to unity, and reject the entrenchment of pride and stubborness that has led to our division.
I think you would agree with me that the history of the Reformation ought not be used as a club with which to beat each other of the head with, but instead as a lesson in what ought not be repeated.

Jon
[/quote]

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC,

Thank you for the kind words. I think there has been enough more than enough bludgeoning to last for another 500 years.

Finding ways to effect reconcilliation will begin with prayer and asking the Holy Spirit for Guidance… and for us to approach this subject with real humility… as we open ourselves up to God’s Grace.

God bless

Hi Tom,
I give thanks that there are Catholics like you here, that defend your Catholic faith with both conviction and charity. Your dedication is strong to the Catholic Church, all the while discerning the Holy Spirit in those of us who are non-Catholic. This, I believe, is the pattern of your Church leaders in Rome, people such as Cardinal Kaspar, and Pope Benedict.
The history of the Reformation, on both sides, is filled with sins, mistakes, pride and ego.
You mention that the CC is in crisis, but it is no more so than Lutheranism worldwide in my view. Frankly, we need each other, and we need the Holy Spirit to guide us, to conquer our own sins and to set a better example to the world which often enough rejects and despises us.
The 500th anniversary of the Reformation quickly approaches, in 2017. Hopefully, our respective leaders will use the model of open loving dialogue to fulfill Christ’s call to unity, and reject the entrenchment of pride and stubborness that has led to our division.
I think you would agree with me that the history of the Reformation ought not be used as a club with which to beat each other of the head with, but instead as a lesson in what ought not be repeated.

Jon

 

[gracelife]

Just a quick post, them I’m out and about for the day.:coffeeread:

We have God the Father selecting Peter - and - giving him the answer to Christ’s question on “Who do men say I am?” Peter was truly hand-picked by God to lead the Church.

We have God the Son identifying what His Father had done - and then stating that He was building His Church - and, doing so on this truly sinful, bragging and loud-mouthed man!!

Sounds like Luther!

And, just in case there some some confusion … Christ gives Peter the Keys to bind and lose - both on earth and heaven. There were not 12 sets of keys … only one set!

It’s interesting in Lukes account (chapter 9) of Jesus asking Peter, “who do say that I am”, there is no discussion of the keys and Jesus goes on charge them not to yet tell anyone yet and then to foretell his death. (His death…the key point of Christianity).

In the same chapter of Luke, we hear the Apostles arguing about who is the greatest.

Jesus did build his church upon the Apostles, including Peter. But then there is the issue of Supremecy and/or the “First Among Equals” thing.

And St. Paul was a key player in the Early Church, yet was never Pope… Galatians 2

A few other scriptures about “who’s the greatest”.
Mt 18:1–4; Lk 22:24–26; Mark 9:33

And Ephesians 2:
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. (not the Pope or the Church)
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. (built on the foundation of the apostles an prophets, not just Peter) 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

I end with Col 1:21-23 and Col 2

God Bless you.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gracelife,

Glad I could brighten your day…

Yes, Luther was right about a number of thngs! Personally, I think he got caught up in style and then determined he could make his own substance. That was a big problem.

Yes, Luke does omit this. But, Matthew included it - and, that is what I quoted from.

Ultimately, this is not a show about the greatest - as Christ reminded the apostles. But, someone on earth is in charge … and that would be the Christ appointed Successor of Peter. Today it is Benedict XVI

God bless

Just a quick post, them I’m out and about for the day.:coffeeread:

I end with Col 1:21-23 and Col 2

God Bless you.

 

[gcnuss]

Luther was fully aware of the Successor of Peter being the Pope and he believed it at one time. Luther entered the priesthood and, it may be assumed, believed all that the Catholic Church taught. The Church did not teach the sale of indulgences - this was a corruption of individuals. While Luther’s intent was good - to actually reform the Catholic Church (maybe like St. Catherine of Siena who preceeded him by about 200 years) - his ego got in the way. And, so, he left - and honestly, formed or caused to be formed a organization that claimed, according to Luther’s direction, some of what the Catholic Church taught, rejected other elements and dug his heels in on how he wanted things done. He may not have named the religion after himself - but, it would appear that his followers did.

To claim that Lutherans follow Christ is fine. I think it would be a fair statement to say that all Christian groups claim to follow Christ - at least in some manner. These groups have one other thing in common - they all reject the leader that Christ put in charge of His Church and have substituted their own.

Regarding the sentence I have bolded, the Pope himself declared that the followers of Luther should be called Lutherans. From the bull Decet Romanum:

Our purpose is that such men should rightfully be ranked with Martin and other accursed heretics and excommunicates, and that even as they have ranged themselves with the obstinacy in sinning of the said Martin, they shall likewise share his punishments and his name, by bearing with them everywhere the title “Lutheran” and the punishments it incurs.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gcnuss,

I shot from the hip on that one … and took a wild guess. Thanks for the correction.

Since this was the only item from my post you comment on, does this mean you are in agreement with the remainder of the post?

God bless

Regarding the sentence I have bolded, the Pope himself declared that the followers of Luther should be called Lutherans. From the bull Decet Romanum:

 

[gcnuss]

Sorry for the delay in replying. Preparations for Christ the King Sunday took over my time.

Looking at the rest of your post, I agree with much of what you said but for a few things.

Let me start off, Gracelife, by saying I do not for a minute doubt the sincerity of what you have said. My difficulty comes from the fact that from about 33AD when the Holy Spirit’s Special Gifts on that First Pentecost - the Birthday of the Catholic Church - until 1517AD when Luther posted his 95 Theses it was established that Christ built His Church on Peter (Matt 16:18) and acknowledged by the Early Church Fathers and those following them.

I think that the Great Schism of 1054 created a division in which at least part of the Christian world did not recognize the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and as the head of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

Luther was fully aware of the Successor of Peter being the Pope and he believed it at one time. Luther entered the priesthood and, it may be assumed, believed all that the Catholic Church taught.

I would agree that Luther was a dedicated Catholic in his early years and that he intended to be a faithful priest of the Church.

I tend to agree with this as well. There is, however, reasonable evidence that some representatives of the Church, who should have known better, apparently ignored the Church’s teachings and misrepresented the efficacy of indulgences in order to raise money for their own purposes. In the eyes of many of the faithful, the Church was tainted by the actions of its clergy.

While Luther’s intent was good - to actually reform the Catholic Church (maybe like St. Catherine of Siena who preceeded him by about 200 years) - his ego got in the way. And, so, he left - and honestly, formed or caused to be formed a organization that claimed, according to Luther’s direction, some of what the Catholic Church taught, rejected other elements and dug his heels in on how he wanted things done.

Luther’s relationship with the Church was quite complicated. The posting of the 95 theses was an invitation to debate about indulgences. I’m sure that he intended this to be the start to a reform of the church by an orderly means. Who knows what might have resulted had this debate been held?

Luther’s debate with Johann Eck may have been the turning point in Luther’s relationship to the church as Eck was rather pointed in comparing Luther to Jan Hus, with the inference that Luther could meet the same fate as Hus. It is probably difficult to engage in dialogue with a person, or with the organization he represents, who suggests that a few turns on the barbeque spit are the way to deal with you if you don’t shape up.

To claim that Lutherans follow Christ is fine. I think it would be a fair statement to say that all Christian groups claim to follow Christ - at least in some manner.

I agree although I would say that all Christian groups actually follow Christ - at least in some manner.

These groups have one other thing in common - they all reject the leader that Christ put in charge of His Church and have substituted their own.

As one who is not Catholic, I can’t see the issue through the same lens that you do. While I acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as an important, and very likely, the pre-eminent, leader of Christianity, I don’t believe that I need to be subject to him in order to follow Christ faithfully. I think the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church is larger than that. This doesn’t mean that I don’t pray for the unity that will bring us together in one earthly expression of the universal church.

I’ve been rambling long enough on this post so will take a breather.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I think that the Great Schism of 1054 created a division in which at least part of the Christian world did not recognize the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and as the head of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

I believe that more correct is to say that the Eastern Orthodox do reconize the Pope as the succesor to ST. Peter, they however question what athority that postion holds.

 

[gcnuss]

I believe that more correct is to say that the Eastern Orthodox do reconize the Pope as the succesor to ST. Peter, they however question what athority that postion holds.

I stand corrected.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gcnus,

Thank you for your prompt (there really was no dealy) and thoughtful response… Allow me to make a few observations…

Sorry for the delay in replying. Preparations for Christ the King Sunday took over my time.

Looking at the rest of your post, I agree with much of what you said but for a few things.

I think that the Great Schism of 1054 created a division in which at least part of the Christian world did not recognize the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and as the head of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

The Great Schism has been an on-going source of sorry for many who look to Christ’s prayer for unity as a command and not statement of ideals. Much rancor concerning Peter’s Successors was had then … and little unity has resulted even with the efforts of John Paul II.

I would agree that Luther was a dedicated Catholic in his early years and that he intended to be a faithful priest of the Church.

I do not believe there was any question about his dedication - but, he was truly pre-occupied with sin and judgment to the exclusion of other realities.

I tend to agree with this as well. There is, however, reasonable evidence that some representatives of the Church, who should have known better, apparently ignored the Church’s teachings and misrepresented the efficacy of indulgences in order to raise money for their own purposes. In the eyes of many of the faithful, the Church was tainted by the actions of its clergy.

 

[benedictus2]

If I was born Lutheran, I’d probably be Lutheran.

Hmmm, this is quite an old thread.

Perhaps for a while you would be Lutheran. But if you are passionate about the Truth (like Fr Neuhaus) you’d soon cease to be one.

Or as Blessed John Henry Newman found out - once you are steeped in history, there’d be no other option but be Catholic.

Or even like Scott Hahn who followed the truth where it led.

 

[benedictus2]

Luther considered himself to still be part of the catholic church. He felt that the hierarchy of his day had separated itself from the Church through false teachings and immoral practices.

Which of course were entirely Luther’s opinion (and a wrong one at that).

The hierarchy though immoral cannot separate itself from the Catholic Church because this hierarchy was instituted by Christ - whether we like it or not. Of course their abominable behaviour was their own.

But for the record, the Church never ever taught anything false (but Luther did - quite a fair few as a matter of fact).

The most we could say about the heirarchy of the Church then was that they were hypocrites - for not practicing what they taught.

And just to set the record straight as well, Luther himself wrote that they (the protestants and his followers) had become much worse (behaviour wise) than the hierarchy that they were hoping to reform.

So to call the “Reformation” a reformation is a misnomer.

Christ said that He will send the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into truth. That promise He has kept.

Christ did not say that He will send the Holy Spirit to lead the church into goodness.

 

[benedictus2]

I highly doubt scum like Alexander VI was God-sent.

The priesthood is a vocation. One is made a Bishop by the Pope. One is made Pope by an election. The priesthood is the only vocation that one achieves due to God alone. The others you mentioned are positions God allows people to have due to the authority He has granted His Church, but these positions aren’t directly appointed by God. Even then, some of the people chosen by the Pope/elected by Cardinals to be shepherds causes God to shake His head (not literally of course) because of how bad these people are, but He still allows it and He allows us to suffer the consequences for such poor decisions.

So you really think that God somehow has distanced Himself from the kind of people that get elected to the highest office of His Church? You’ve got to be kidding.

God is involved in the choosing. But God does allow these things to happen for a reason.

And how do you know that God shakes His head at the choices that the Popes and Cardinals make? If God so wishes, He can stop these from making those choices but He doesn’t because He can (and does) bring good out of evil. The Crucifixion is the prime example of this.

The Church is GOD’S Church.

Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit will lead His Church into truth and He has kept that promise. He did not say anything about making her members impecable.

 

[vulcano37214]

I was thinking of this all day and wonder how others feel about it.

Luther came AFTER the Church. Now scriptures said the Church is One, Holy, Catholic,and Apostolic.

Now on a common sense level Luther separated himself from the ONE Church. Now we come into the battle who has the ONE Church. It has to be the Church that was started by Peter.

Now here is where the problem with Luther comes in my mind. Luther was at one time a part of the Church started by Peter. Simply because, he walked away from the Church that History proves was connected to Peter. Here is where common sense comes to play, Peter and the CC were here long before Luther, Luther was not here long before the CC.

Now in my eyes it shows how Luther walked away from Jesus because Jesus said the Church and I are ONE. and there is ONE HCAC,

Now rather there was sin going by humans in the RCC at that time or not has nothing to do with the OHCAC.

I mean do People really think that Peter did not have Sin, that John didn’t, Etc. We know they did because of the repentance that they continued to do all of their lives.

Now the RCC is considered the Church that is led by the Pope. (the present Peter). Now the Catholic Church is universal. Which mean one, all are welcome, all can become one in Christ through Christ with Christ who is the Church.

Now I have heard that there is no such thing as the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH! Now that is not true. Now granted the Church is not Roman but it is called the Roman Catholic Church, has been forever.

Now Luther was at one time part of the RCC. Now if the Church is one, and was here long before Luther how could there possibly be more than One Church?

Please no disrespect anyone, just trying to figure out their line of reasoning on this?

here are a few questions for you to consider?
Where is scripture does it say one Holy catholic and apostolic Church?
What about the meaning of the word Church. the called out ones.
Is Jesus not the head of the Church?
You know the pharisees were here long before the roman catholic church.