Why I could never follow Luther.

[crazzeto]

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.

Hrm, that maybe but then again there were a great number of people (like Arias) who felt similarly and were proven wrong. I would tend to group Luther there, perhaps not todays followers as Luthers erroneous teaching is all they have ever known.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Carzzeto,

I realize that this is really a time fram issue - I think in Oct 1517 when Luther was nailing up the 95 Thesis he probably considered himself still a member of the Catholic Church, and by Jun 1520 when he burned the Papal Bull by Leo X he probably considered himself out of the Catholic Church. So there is about a 32 month window for his thinking about where he really stood to develop. But, this is just guess work on my part.

Is this what you are talking about?

God bless

Hrm, that maybe but then again there were a great number of people (like Arias) who felt similarly and were proven wrong. I would tend to group Luther there, perhaps not todays followers as Luthers erroneous teaching is all they have ever known.

 

[crazzeto]

Hi, Carzzeto,

I realize that this is really a time fram issue - I think in Oct 1517 when Luther was nailing up the 95 Thesis he probably considered himself still a member of the Catholic Church, and by Jun 1520 when he burned the Papal Bull by Leo X he probably considered himself out of the Catholic Church. So there is about a 32 month window for his thinking about where he really stood to develop. But, this is just guess work on my part.

Is this what you are talking about?

God bless

No, just more talking about the fact that when you obstienatly enter into denial of dogmatic Church teaching, as Luther did you cross a line. Whether or not one considers them selves a member of the Church, indeed whether or not one was originally baptized Catholic, does not so much matter as whether or not you truely are in communion with the Church. Luthers obstiant denial of Church doctrine removed him from the Church, we can quibble about when but about this there is no quibbling. The catechism of trent, among many other Church documents makes this clear.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pastor Gary,

I have been meaning to comment on your post … but, kept on getting distracted! One of the problems with getting old…

Actually, it is your last paragraph that has had me thinking for a while…

And, above all, I believe, teach, and confess according to Holy Scripture, much of which (the Old Testament) predates the Church. Now, I admit that my understanding of Scripture is influenced by Lutheran theology and that this is not always consonant with what the Catholic Church teaches. If I am ever convinced that the Catholic Church is the only one that has it right, then I would have to consider seriously where I belong. I am not at that point.

I understand that the OT predates the Catholic Church and that your understanding of Scripture may be different from mine. If you would then please, explain, from a Lutheran perspective, your understanding of:

Matt 16:19 - (“I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” )

Peter is given authority by Christ to manage the Church that Christ had just founded.
I realize that there there has been a lot of disagreement over ‘rock’ vs ‘pebble’ and if it was Aramaic or Greek, if Christ was talking to Himself about Himself, or any of the number of arguments over v. 18. So, let’s pass on that for the moment. In my opinion, v 19 (quoted above) captures a lot of the flavor of what Christ did - and, not, He did note have and additional 11-sets of keys to hand out to the other Apostles.

My understanding is that Peter is in charge and Christ has just given Him a blank but signed check. Peter can make (or relax) whatever law(s) Peter sees fit.

It is my understanding that Luther was familiar with this section of Matthew. So, if Peter’s successor (in this case Leo X) has the authority to define the teachings of the Catholic Church (and, selling indulgences was truly an abuse done by individuals - but, never an official teaching of the Catholic Church) and Luther insists that his teachings are superior - how does this square with Matt 16:19?

For a short but interesting read on a related topic, here is a link you may enjoy: catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp

God bless

 

[Roy5]

I’m back, even though I feel like a fish our of water sometimes here on CAF. Let me add that I do appreciate this opportunity to express what some - both Catholic and Protestant - would view as ‘heretical’ ideas.

** My main source of gratitude to Luther was that he was a man of enormous courage to take on the mighty Catholic establishment of that era,** Others had tried - e. g., Hus - and they had paid for it with their lives. I do not endorse everything Luther wrote. He did not claim infallibility when he spoke ex cathedra as the Papacy claims. In fact, I was very disappointed in some things about Luther, such as his attack upon the Jews once he realized that they weren’t weren’t going to join Reformed Christianity.

** But here is my principal point, not all that popular here.** I have spent many years reading and researching and contemplating matters of faith. I have enormous admiration for various Christians of different affiliations. Francis of Assisi certainly is a favorite of mine. And various others who have been canonized. I do, in all honesty, have difficulty believing much of the folklore associated with other saints. And I’m not referring only to ancient ones. Take Padre Pio? Levitating? Bilocating? Sorry. You might suggest that I am too influenced by science (or common sense?) to accept that and other miracles attributed to him. I believe that such stories get started and there are many people who fall for them. Look how many fell for miracles attributed to Muhammad. As I recall, even the rocks cried out “Akkag be praised!” when he was born. If you’ve ever played the game 'Rumor" - sometimes called ‘Gossip’ - it isn’t difficult to see how stories get blown way out of proportion - even today.

** My principal point is that Luther did the world a favor by challenging religious monopoly in Europe, and this spread around the world.** The Catholic Church no longer had the exclusive power when it came to matters of faith. Once the church’s monopoly was broken, there followed a gradual trend toward true religious freedom and, gradually, separation of church and state in this country - in particular. How I treasure that freedom. I am pleased to have relatives and friends in many different denominations, and that sets well with me.

  **My problem is that some groups - the Catholic Church, the Mormons, the Jehovah Witnesses and various others - feel that they alone have the full truth**. My view, for what it's worth, is that these groups and others should have the freedom to promote their ideas, even when I disagree with them. That's what freedom is all about. Some would respond that freedom is restricted to freedom to accept the truth. Now, really, what sort freedom is that? Catholicism does some wonderful work and has produced some outstanding faithful, and I feel sad that some of this is undermined by a dogmatism that can alienate many (like me) who feel pushed 'outside the fold' because of it.

** Okay, finally - sorry, my fingers just seem to trip along - I reassert my conviction that no group, no church, has hold of the truth.** We are mortal beings in a universe that may have billions of stars, even that many solar systems. To claim that we understand a fraction of what lies beyond is pride. We belong to the one true church? All the other great faiths and minds are, at best, heretical, and maybe far worse than that? No. We all do our best, but we are limited by our finite minds. My expectation is that when we get to that life beyond we will feel silly to have insisted that we or our church had some sort of monopoly on the truth when none of us even came close.

**  So, let's focus less on doctrine that divides and more on the emphasis of Christ, which was love one another as he loved us.** Insisting on strict doctrinal conformity works against this love. It not only causes us to feel superior ("we belong to the one true church!") but also can create resentment and anger and holier-than-thou - attitudes that are often exhibited here on CAF.

**
I love Catholics and Congregationalists, Methodists and Mennonites, Orthodox and Presbyterians, and I don’t care a hoot about their doctrinal differences.** What I do care about is mutual respect, humility in our faith, recognizing that our minds and our churches do the best they can, but ultimate truth is with God alone. I find myself singing a variety of hymns that convey this idea. One of them begins: “Farther along we’ll know all about it, farther along we’ll understand why, cheer up my brother (or sister), live in the sunshine, we’ll understand it all bye and bye.”

  **Yes, I know people can quote the Bible to refute all this**. Even the Devil can quote scripture. Do we really believe that the Bible is infallible? Did God really drown all those women and children - many still in the womb - in the days of Noah? Did he really command Joshua to slaughter everyone in Jericho except a prostitute and her family? Did he order Saul to exterminate every last Amalekite?  What about Ex. 21 and Lev. 20 and Deut. 22-23? Do we really believe a just and merciful God would demand such behavior? Check out Ex. 22:18 and 20, for example. Should we put Hindus and others to death?

  May God bless everybody, of every creed, color and country. May religion cease being a barrier and become a bridge to a better world.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

This is just a quick cut and paste from this website :catecheticsonline.com/Saints/ignatius.php but my comments follow:

" Their document “Rules for Thinking with the Church” states: "“If we wish to proceed securely in all things, we must hold fast to the following principle: What seems to me white, I will believe black if the hierarchical Church so defines. For I must be convinced that in Christ Our Lord, the bridegroom, and in His spouse the Church, only one Spirit holds sway, which governs and rules for the salvation of souls. For it is by the same Spirit and Lord who gave the Ten Commandments that our Holy Mother Church is ruled and governed.”

Since the Church had been weakened by theological dissent and laxity from those within the Church the Jesuits took up the cause through Catholic renewal and by defending the Church against those who worked against her. Ignatius especially sought that the defense of the faith be done in all charity and it be done with special care so that the statements the Church made in order to defend herself were not misunderstood. Ignatius sought that whenever the Church were to speak about the faith that she would do so with the intention that a Protestant might be listening. Ignatius knew that if the Church might simply speak ill of the Protestants in a way which lacked Christian love then chances were that they would not win that Protestant for Christ. At the same time Ignatius did not intend that Catholic truth should be compromised in any way, but that the faith be shared in such a way that it was clear and without contempt.So Ignatius protected the Deposit of Faith by catechizing and defending the faith in such a way that did not demean or ridicule the person who had left the Catholic Church, and at the time was absolutely uncompromising to the proclamation of the Truth. For Ignatius of Loyola it seems,method was truly at the service of content.

Now to my comment:
St Ignatius wrote The Spiritual Exercise a few years after the reformation.

If Martin Luther had read this and followed the Discernment of Spirits contained there in, he would have been able to see clearly who was really guiding him in what he was doing.

The discernnment of spirits counsels against what we think maybe coming from God but may actually be coming from the devil for the devil mimics God and appears as an angel of light.

I think this is the case with Martin Luther. He started off good in telling it like it is with regards corruption in the Church - but then failed miserably when it came to discernment.

St Ignatius and St Theresa were brought before the inquisition and submitted humbly. And it was through this humility that God worked.

I think the one big mistake that Martin Luther make is to think that the Church was his Church so the kind of reform he wants to see ought to be the reform that should be done. That is the height of pride. The Church is Christ’s Church. He will bring about the reform when He wishes. And He has. But not through Martin Luther.

Thanks Benedictus, I will have to read The Spiritual Exercise.

Again, you are attributing to Martin Luther things that you suppose. I don’t think Luther ever thought the Church was his, and the church certainly wasn’t Leo’s as well. But in the face of error in not necessarily orthodoxy but certainly orthopraxy, Luther’s choice was clear.

I don’t know enough of the lives of Ignatius and Theresa to have any opinion about their time before the Inquisition, but let me ask you this: If they were contrary to the Inquisition what would have been their fate? If their teachings and “reforms of the church” were what brought them before the Inquisition, what was it that made them humble before the Inquisition? Did the findings of the Inquisition certify their teachings and reforms? Or did they change their teachings and reforms as a condition to "humbling’ themselves to the Inquisition?

 

[Mikeoffaith]

If so then the other Churches must not have been started by Him? So who started them?

Benedictus, if you have read any of my other posts you will know that my contention is that none of the Churches out there today is the ONE started by Christ. For the very nature of the schism between East and West the ONE church is now two. Both having equal claim to that founded by Christ. I know you are going to disagree with me and that is fine. If you keep going down the same line, I am not going to agree with you no matter how many times you post it. The fact of the matter is that if we keep going down the same road we can never hope of healing the schism and the will of Christ which you keep yammering on about is not going to be healed.

Well then can you please tell our Lord off for getting it so wrong and tell Him that no He did not build His Church upon Peter. You probably feel like washing His mouth for telling such fibs. And to please amend the relevant passages in the Gospel according to Matthew, Pronto! Whatever was our Lord thinking saying that sort of stuff. The only thing we can know of Christ is what He has revealed. Furthermore, that we can even say that Christ is God is only through the Church that He founded on earth. Any speculation beyond that is is exactly that, speculation.

Again we both see this differently. What I see in this passage and what you see are different things. I also look to other things that Christ said like Luke 22, where He clearly puts the focus on things and who is really in charge into perspective. Yes we can only know of Christ what he has revealed to us. But the unfortunateness of our humanity is that we can never fully realize at all times and in all places all that Christ has revealed. Everything that we see is going to be tainted by our biases. Some things we will see clearly and others we will see less clearly. What the Roman Catholic Church sees/emphasizes may or may not be what the Orthodox see, but is it any less that Christ?

And who was talking about seeing the full Crhist. And we were not talking about living the Gospel completely. We are talking about how the revelation came to be. Whatever relationship we have between Christ and the Father we can only know through the Church He established. He WILLED it this way. Minor correction. SOME of the separated churches’s TEACHINGS are heretical. Heresy applies to the doctrine not the church… Correction again. These Churches have SOME truth. God is not cruel that He will leave his defiant children without a guide. However the further down the line the separation is, the more obscured the truth becomes.

Yeah we are talking about see the full Christ. If you want to claim that you have all Truth then you should be seeing the full Christ. If you can’t see the full Christ then you cannot have all Truth, you only have some of the Truth. Who cares how the revelation came to be? The fact is that we have the revelation. To me I don’t see a great divide between orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Saying one thing and doing another is setting up your orthodoxy to be a heresy if it can’t be followed or if you won’t follow it. I see in the Roman Catholic Church exactly what you are saying you see in the other Churches. I see heresies in the Roman Catholic Church, but I don’t think the Roman Catholic Church needs to be wiped off the face of the earth.

It would be like for looking for a diamond in a bag of same shaped cubic zirconias. It will take a trained eye to spot the real thing. And that is where the danger lies, because there is some truth, some people mistakenly believe that the rest are as well. And here’s the thing - the closer the person perceives the truth, the more inclined they are to go back home to his church. But yes to your first point. The separated Churches are not Christ’s Church. At the beginning of your post, you said yourself that you are aware that Christ established only one Yes. As I said we have our squabbles. And there are many belligerent Catholics out there. But they have not to my knowledge set up their own churches. When they do disagree enough, they move to one of the protestant Churches or become ardent followers of one New Age guru or another. Or some simpy declare themselves atheists. Yes we do have one set of rules and no we don’t always follow all the rules. So what’s new? The Christians in the first century did likewise. So did the ones in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and so on. That is why the Church always came back with a magisterial teaching dispelling heresies. Wow, finally you get it. There is a unifying factor.

Yes see above about my feelings on the One Church founded by Christ. I am not talking about individuals. And I am not talking about following all the rules. I’m talking about having a different rule books. What the rules look like for Latin Rite Catholics are sometimes different from those of Easter Rite. This clearly sets up a precedent that not all need to have the same rules and disciplines. So within your unity you have division. Why can’t all within your unity have the same rules? Even with the Anglican Ordinariate, it seems that some or the same rules may not apply. I actually find it sad that the only unifying factor is Rome. And when you talk about magisterial teaching especially of the early Church, the fact that they were not issued from Rome seems odd. After all we do have the First Council of Nicea dispelling the great Arian heresy, not the First Council of Rome, and if I am not mistaken the Bishop of Rome didn’t even go.

Continued

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Not quite. You see this is where you can truly lay the blame squarely at Martin Luther’s feet. This divisions are actually distinct churches. Someone actually decided to set up shop different to your shop, completely separate to you because according to Luther’s he is very well entitled to do so. Perhaps you would like to give support for that. Before Luther there was a schism in the 11th century. Then came Luther in the 1500s and boy look at the number of schisms from the schismatics themselves.

Well if that is the case, then I don’t think we can blame Luther for the Schisms when clearly it seems the precedent was already started by the Orthodox. And yeah I’ll give support to the fact that none of the other splits at the time were from Lutheranism since it hadn’t even been clearly defined. Henry, Calvin and Zwigli were all Roman Catholics and their split was from Rome. None of these men ever claimed to be part of Luther’s reforms nor were they followers of Luther nor did they become part of Lutheran Church structure and then break off from that. That’s historically correct and accurate so there is your proof that these people broke with Rome and were not spin offs from Luther. And to be honest to you, I think when it comes to these other splits you give way too much credit to Luther. Again I think you need to look inside the Vatican walls and be responsible for your own children.

And when they split from the Catholic Church, whose theology were they following? There was either Luther or John Calvin and of course there’s Zwingli as well. Much as you’d like to exonorate him, the evidence just won’t let you.

And not there men were not following Luther’s theology. If you believe this to be so, would you care to outline exactly where they are similar in theology? And I did not exonerate Zwingli? Why would I exonerate him?

Hey I don’t have any children so I am certainly not blaming him for that. Hmm perhaps I could blame him for not having any? Let me think about that. Yes, I can blame him for that because the guy I was terribly in love with was Protestant!

Are you sure it wasn’t because you were using ABC?

But on a serious note, we could equally reason: “Hey don’t blame the devil for tempting us to sin”. The lies are so seductive. That is why we are trying to counter that with the truth. We are not hanging our head crying boo hoo our children have been taken by the Pied Piper of lies. We are running after the children armed with the truth to unmask the pied piper of lies.

No the unfortunate thing is now you are trying to run after the children and are making attempts to understand them and see what the difference really is, as opposed to opening the door and throwing them out of the house.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Roy5,

Let me address your first three items and move on to the others a bit later… I took the liberty of editing some items for brevity

I’m back, even though I feel like a fish our of water sometimes here on CAF. It could be the material you post, Roy5, but that is just a guess…

** My main source of gratitude to Luther was that he was a man of enormous courage to take on the mighty Catholic establishment of that era,**

Really, Roy5, this is at least the third post in which you have expressed your gratitide. It has been noted.

Others had tried - e. g., Hus - and they had paid for it with their lives. I do not endorse everything Luther wrote. He did not claim infallibility when he spoke ex cathedra as the Papacy claims.

This is a typical, Roy5, post that manages inaccuracy with sarcasm. Shame

** it isn’t difficult to see how stories get blown way out of proportion - even today.

Especially with such objective reports as you provide, Roy5.**

** My principal point is that Luther did the world a favor by challenging religious monopoly in Europe, and this spread around the world.** The Catholic Church no longer had the exclusive power when it came to matters of faith.

Here is the issue that I think needs to be addressed. In John 14:6 Chirst tells that us clearly, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life…” Note He is not saying that He is one of many ways or He is a detour to some other path or anything other analogy that refocuses that the Faith Christ gave us is True. In Matthew 16:19 Christ gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom and a signed blank check, “…whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven…” Christ delegated His Authority to His Bride - the Catholic Church. The Church founded by Christ on Peter is not a franchise where anyone with a desire to start their own religion just opens up a store front shop and begins to preach - with an abridged Catholic Bible no less!

Once the church’s monopoly was broken, there followed a gradual trend toward true religious freedom and, gradually, separation of church and state in this country - in particular. How I treasure that freedom. I am pleased to have relatives and friends in many different denominations, and that sets well with me.

You truly have a unique view, “monopoly was broken”… God was not setting up multiple competing religions so that the ‘best price or best truth’ would win out. From all eternity God laid out the what He wanted. We have a choice (one of those free will issues) to either follow God’s Paln or follow our own. Cooperating with the Grace of God is the best way to exercise our free will./COLOR]

My problem is that some groups - the Catholic Church, the Mormons, the Jehovah Witnesses and various others - feel that they alone have the full truth. My view, for what it’s worth, is that these groups and others should have the freedom to promote their ideas, even when I disagree with them.

Authority seems to be an issue, Roy5. Again, your idea of everyone promoting their own idea of religion - and not following the Truths taught by Christ. This is not a competition for spreading ‘ideas’ - like some kind of contest or debate. This is about following Christ. If there is a conflict here it is between our will and the Will of God. Promotion such as you are advocating appears to be nothing other than shouting chaos from the rooftops.

That’s what freedom is all about. Some would respond that freedom is restricted to freedom to accept the truth.

Roy5, I really think you have outdone yourself in this post. There is no freedom in Hell - and for those who think they are ‘free’ by accepting the lie from the Father of Lies - all is really lost.

Now, really, what sort freedom is that? Catholicism does some wonderful work and has produced some outstanding faithful, and I feel sad that some of this is undermined by a dogmatism that can alienate many (like me) who feel pushed ‘outside the fold’ because of it.

Luther was not pushed or kicked out - he freely left the Church by refusing to believe what Christ has taught “He who hears you, hears me.”(Luke 6:27)

** Okay, finally - sorry, my fingers just seem to trip along - I reassert my conviction that no group, no church, has hold of the truth.**

Roy5, why not just say that there is no truth - and, this would truly be a sad statement.

In my opinion, like Luther, you are pretty much fixed on your own view of Scripture and the message Christ taught is just up for grabs.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mikeoffaith,

Did you ever get around to reading Post 433 and respond to it - or, did I miss it?

God bless

Tom

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Off the top of my head, at one point they succumbed to the Arian heresy. Now their doctrines are correct but I think they allow contraception even though they have not made a definitive statement on that one.

You’re kidding me right?

Hey, don’t quarrel with me. Quarrel with the scripture. I thought you said you know scripture. Go on read that chapter.

OK next time I see Matthew, I’ll take it up with him.

Not on the low side; the pool of perfect people was none existent.

Well we agree on something!

Some were heretical. If he had been humble he would not have taught heresy because he would have deferred to magisterial teaching. There have been pride and arrogant Popes before. Only Luther, Calvin and Zwingli caused a schism.

OK so you admit that some were not heresies. Well there’s a first step. Actually we had Schism before, remember 1054 and then we just had a big discussion about the Great Western Schism and what is the common thread in all of them? Yep, the Pope, as a matter of the the Great Western Schism was all about the Pope and the Papacy.

Well no. That the Pope may have been instrumental in Luther’s sin is not the same as being responsible for the schism. That’s Adam blaming Eve. If Luther had gone off in a half saying He no longer pledges allegiance, etc, etc, that can be blamed on the Pope. But the reason the schism was cemented was because Luther came up with heretical doctrines. Minus those, we would have been able to breach the gap. And to this day, that is what maintains the schism.

And that is saying that Eve was a completely innocent bystander that she did not sin, she was just an instrument of Satan, similar to Leo? And again no, being excommunicated was the reason the schism was cemented. See here is the thing. There was no way to breach the gap if the only thing any one is going to come to the table with is “Why you are wrong.” And to this day this is why the schism is maintained.

Oh but I do have a grasp of ex-communication. St Mary McKillop was at one point excommunicated. Now she’s a saint. Luther was not excommunicated simply for taking them to task for their corruption. He was excommunicated for his heresy. If he has recanted on his heresy, then he would have been taken back. An excommunication is only a last resort to make you see your error… That he remained excommunicated was his fault.

Again, you are kidding me? Would you care to recite for the studio audience the excommunication of Sister Mary and please draw parallels between her excommunication and that of Luther?

But all that I never questioned. As I said, they were corrupt. But that is not the point of the schism. That may have started it but that certainly was not the reason it remained. The heretical doctrines of Luther and the other “reformers” is why it remained.

And I think this is where we have a disagreement about the Schism. You have this view that there is this one big all encompassing Schism ala 1054, where there were two major players. What I don’t think you realize is that the break with Luther in 1517 and that of Henry in 1534 and that of Calvin I believe in ~1530 is not all one encompassing break. The difference between each of these breaks and Rome while possibly having the same character are different at their roots and their continuations today. The LWF today could strike an accord with Rome today to end the Schism and all Lutheran bodies signed under would then be in union with Rome, however this would do nothing for the Anglican Communion or the Presbyterians, or the Methodist. The disunity between these others and Rome could not be solved by any unity between Lutherans and Rome.

Google the reasons for the East-West Schism. I think it is in David McDonald’s website called Catholic Bridge.

I’ll take a look.

I have already answered this above. But I will dig up the others.

OK because I don’t think the earlier answer was a serious attempt.

I think they are the most discussed topics in this these forums.

They really aren’t discussed, it’s generally the same routine. Some one will throw out their rendition of Protestant theology, blame it on Luther, JonNC will come in try to explain how that theology differed from Luther, then the response will be to personally attack Luther, then I jump in on the defense, then JohNC will say something wise, and there the thread dies or just degenerates into :slapfight:, with nothing of consequence ever being discussed or revealed.

And who said that doing it in English is a Lutheran heresy. You resorting to fabrication now?

I would say that the Refutation of The Augsburg Confession Part 2 Section 3 makes it clear the language of choice for the Roman Church and why any other language was unacceptable.

 

[benedictus2]

Benedictus, if you have read any of my other posts you will know that my contention is that none of the Churches out there today is the ONE started by Christ.

And if you have read my post before, you have just once again reiterated that Christ is a liar and not God.

He builds a church but it seems quite incapable of keeping that Church in tact. He allows His Church to be taken over by the devil contrary to His promise and His prayer. Not only is He unable to keep a promise, it seems His prayer is ineffective and pointless and His Father was not listening to Him after all.

So you just confirmed what I have already said a few times before, that you believe Christ a liar - only you won’t say it in so many words. Or maybe you have not even realized that your position in this one amounts to exactly just that.

For the very nature of the schism between East and West the ONE church is now two.

That again is a fairy tale you tell yourself. I saw the schematic diagram in a Lutheran website of how you see this. And this is a fairy tale.

The fact remains that the church formed at Pentecost subsists in the Catholic Church. Even History bears that out. The mark of Christ’s Church is that it is universal. We see that in the Catholic Church today.

There was not two Churches of Christ, there was only 1, the Catholic church with a branch that separated from her.

Both having equal claim to that founded by Christ. I know you are going to disagree with me and that is fine. If you keep going down the same line, I am not going to agree with you no matter how many times you post it.

Because you do not obviously know history. And because you have set your mind this is what you believe no matter how many proofs people provide that is what you belive. You have decided that you are not after the truth, only that what you believe to which you have put a label “truth”.

The fact of the matter is that if we keep going down the same road we can never hope of healing the schism and the will of Christ which you keep yammering on about is not going to be healed.

The will of Christ does not need healing. What people have done to the will of Christ is what needs to be attended to. And the only way to bridge the divide is by preaching the truth no matter how unpalatable it may be to some.
Blurring the difference will not make the difference disappear. The only way the divide will go is if people actually faced the truth and abandoned their heretical views and came back to the church.

And I do not see that ever happening in the near future.

Anything else is NOT a bridging of the schism. Accepting that these other denominations have the right to remain separate is accepting the schism as a true following of the will of Christ and it is not.

Again we both see this differently. What I see in this passage and what you see are different things. I also look to other things that Christ said like Luke 22, where He clearly puts the focus on things and who is really in charge into perspective.

Well hello, can Christ contradict Himself? He was very clear in Matthew 16. He goes to the trouble of going to Ceasaria Philipi to make this proclamation. You are probably not even aware of the significance of this - that He went to Ceasaria Philipi.

Yes we can only know of Christ what he has revealed to us. But the unfortunateness of our humanity is that we can never fully realize at all times and in all places all that Christ has revealed.

And that is PRECISELY WHY He established a Church. Note the promise He makes with regards the paraclete - the Paraclete will remind the apostles of everything He told them.

Everything that we see is going to be tainted by our biases.

Well not according to Jesus Himself. That is the whole point of giving the Church the Holy Spirit. He knows it will be tainted that is why He made a guarantee so that we will not be in doubt as to the veracity of His Church’s teaching.

Some things we will see clearly and others we will see less clearly. What the Roman Catholic Church sees/emphasizes may or may not be what the Orthodox see, but is it any less that Christ?

And in cases of heresy we know who has always spoken the truth.

You are very much a relativist though you may not even be aware of it.It is logically untenable for a Christian to hold a relativistic ecclesiology without doing damage to the very foundation of Christianity.

Yeah we are talking about see the full Christ. If you want to claim that you have all Truth then you should be seeing the full Christ.

I never claimed to have the full truth. What I did say is that the full truth will be revealed to the Church that Christ established because I believe Jesus is God and if He said so then it must be so.

We grasp the truth and it becomes clearer, we begin to see the the wider and deeper layers.

But what we see now will be consistent with any deeper understanding that will come later. They CANNOT CONTRADICT each other.

Any true development of doctrine does not contradict that which is supposed to be being developed. Otherwise it is a corruption not a developement. This is what happened with Protestant theology - it was not a development but a corruption.

If you can’t see the full Christ then you cannot have all Truth, you only have some of the Truth.

Refer back to my answer above.

That’s all for now as my lunch hour is over.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mikeoffaith,

I just wanted to comment on one of the items you mentioned to Benedictus2, if I may…

Again we both see this differently. What I see in this passage and what you see are different things. I also look to other things that Christ said like Luke 22, where He clearly puts the focus on things and who is really in charge into perspective. Yes we can only know of Christ what he has revealed to us. But the unfortunateness of our humanity is that we can never fully realize at all times and in all places all that Christ has revealed. Everything that we see is going to be tainted by our biases. Some things we will see clearly and others we will see less clearly. What the Roman Catholic Church sees/emphasizes may or may not be what the Orthodox see, but is it any less that Christ?

Seeing things differently is one of the things that make us human. The classic story is six people standing at various points in an intersection all witness the same motor vehicle accident - the police get witness statements and there are six different stories. No one is trying to deceive anyone - each saw the accident from their own perspective. We see this so clearly from the Synoptic Writers - same event, different view. For example, the story about the woman with a hemorrhage:

Matthew 9:20 - Matthew just relates the story that she had a hemorrhage, touched Jesus and was cured.

Mark 5:26 - We have a whole new spin on this: “She had suffered greatly at the hands of many doctors and had spent all that she had.”

Luke 8:43 - And, Luke, writing after Mark, had this to say: "And a woman afflicted with hemorrhages for twelve years, who (had spent her whole livelihood on doctors and) was unable to be cured by anyone.

Perception is almost everything. In all three stories, the woman was healed!

Do you mean Luke 22:24-30? Here we have the Apostles arguing amongst themselves as to who is greater. Without a doubt, what little focus these men seem to have - is misdirected! It only gets worse for Peter further on in the Chapter when Christ sees him after Peter denied Him. But, note, priot to this, Christ foretold Peter’s denial - but, it was foolishly dismissed.

Benedictus2 mentioned that Satan wants to sift us all like flour - and here we have the very foundation for his attack on the Church - tempting each of these vain men with the airy vision of earthly greatness. The real crisis comes at the end of the Chapter when Jesus is not only arrested, but abused by the Temple Guards and condemned for telling the truth. The Apostles could not handle all of this - and fled. What is noteworthy about this is the fact that these same vain and cowardly men will be totally transformed on that First Pentecost Sunday - the birthday of the Catholic Church.

Let me say a kind word about bias. We all have it! I do not think anyone would argue that being ‘biased’ for Christ was a bad thing, eh? For most of us, however, the pull from our wounded natures is not relieve by bias - this is just part of our human condition. Some are unaware that a bias exists, or worse, just ignore it as though it did not exist.

If we look at 1517 as a watershed year we are simply approaching a historical fact with profound and on-going implications. There are those who think Luther had no choice to do what he did. That view appears both fatalistic and myopic to me - as humans we always have a choice while we are alive. We can cooperate with the Grace of God - and in Luther’s position as a Augustinian Monk - he had a religous superior whose job was to make clear the Will of God to the subordinate monks. That is what the vow of obedience is all about: seeing God in the person of one’s religious superior. Either you believe that - and take the vow of Obedience - or you jolly well need to find another way to make your way in this world.

I’ve been a Catholic a long time … just made 64! OK, those first couple of years are a bit vague… but, I have learned the practice of my religious faith early on. Does this create a bias? Maybe. It would be a problem if I refused to look at the obvjective evidence presented by others. I have and I am even more convinced that the Catholic Church is the One, True and Apostolic Church founded by Christ on Peter. Did the humans in charge mess up? Big time! But, just look at the argument by the Apostles in Luke 22. Eventually, they cooperated with the Grace of God and resolved the matter. I think we can do the same thing today.

God bless

 

[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!

The key is honest dialogue.

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?

And isn’t that exactly where we are left today? And what was Christ answer to their bickering?

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?

Thanks Tom that was a nice simple link. But that link really simplifies things to the very lowest level. My question to Benedictus2 was what are the great heresies that the Orthodox supposedly have that have separated the Church since 1054. One of the things that this link also doesn’t go into, is how were these heresies resolved? As for Protestantism, it lumps everything into one vat. Yes if you are asking the question of 2+2=4. If what you are looking at is 4, then I can easily say that the question is 3+1 or even the square root of 16. The truth of the matter is that all of these get to 4 and all of them are true. But if you are defining that the only way to get to 4 is 2+2, then we might want to talk about this and get some other opinions.

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.

You’re analogy is OK. I agree that sometimes the people need to be separated from the position, i.e. Clinton/Bush vs. The Presidency. And I think we can overlook some Popes and see that they clearly aren’t the Papacy. We both agree on this issue. In my view and I believe in Luther’s as well, is when the Papacy saw only Matt 17 and ignored Luke 22. I think the early church had it right and when pride became a part of the office as much as the pallium and Triple Tiara, I think whoever was in the office was either going with the flow of King/or fighting an uphill battle to emulate Christ. I don’t think we can look clearly with eyes of today and realize what a force the person because of the position had and sometime vice versa to do much that wasn’t necessary the teaching of the church but at the same time might as well been Canon Law. And it is somewhat the same today. Look at the resent statement by Benedict and condoms. It most people’s minds it didn’t matter whether he was speaking as person or pope. People were either ready to string him up or tie on a condom for life. Even though in fact the person and papacy are separate, the reality is many people do not see the distinction.

continued

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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.

Again Tom, I disagree with you. I think when you boil this down it’s comes down to power, whose got, who wants and the lengths that people will go to keep it. For some it may be about God and Truth, but power and privilege are hard to resist. I don’t see Ignatius challenging that structure, I see him as getting behind it. I guess the question would be, what abuses did Ignatius see and did they challenge anyones place of power.

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.

FYI, Luther was a German Friar. Yes I think Decet Romanum was just a formality, I think it was the papacy that was more or less ready to get rid of Luther way before that. If I remember correctly I think Cajetan had orders to arrest Luther as early as 1518 if he didn’t recant his 95 Thesis. And I think that is when Luther packed his bags even though there were some conciliatory concessions made in 1519? But I think the last straw was Exsurge Domine in 1520 even though I believe von Miltitz tried again to broker a peace. I don’t know that Luther could have had his bags packed many years before. The 95 Thesis was written in October 1517 and Decet Romanum was issued in January 1521. So I wouldn’t characterize it as many, and I wouldn’t characterize it as Luther just packing his bags and walking away.

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.

I like how you put it, “lax and worldly clergy”. See if all of these abuses were just by the local parish priest or even one or two bishops, I would say your right, let’s pray for them and move on. But when this is at the very top and the abuses are affecting the very bottom, then there is more than just a disconnect between Christ’s teaching and public example of these people.

Tom as always may God continue to bless you!

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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.

Whether the election of one over another was valid or invalid, you still had three of them each asserting their own claim. So how does it make it better? Thanks for sharing the info about the defining of the election process. I had no idea that the previous incumbent got to choose the rules of how to elect the successor. I don’t know that that fact makes me feel any more secure in the Papacy.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mikeoffaith,

Is that a cynical note I hear … still ringing in the air? I know we can dialogue a lot better without this approach. And, in that spirit, I would like to address this one item your raised contrasting St. Sister Mary MacKillop and Martin Luther.

Again, you are kidding me? Would you care to recite for the studio audience the excommunication of Sister Mary and please draw parallels between her excommunication and that of Luther?

And, just to set the depth of my knowledge clearly before all … everything I learned about St. Sister Mary MacKillop, I learned 15 minutes ago from this link: marymackillop.org.au/ This was really an enjoyable link and I would certainly recommend it to everyone on this list.

Contrasting these two individuals who were both excommunicated is really pretty straight forward as I see it (see what a little knowledge can do for you…! ) Seriously, as I see it:

Luther found abuse and scandal and essentially fatigued of trying to do good to make the necessary changes both in himself and in his community. No doubt about it, he was not appreciated by those who abusing Christ’s Church - they made things difficult and Luther lashed out. I think he lost his focus, and his goal of a reformed Church (like St. Catherine of Siena had) was one of the early casualties. He realized that his way was not going to change anything (and, just to be clear there were real things that needed to be changed!) so he abondoned the Church of Christ and founded his own based on his view of religion. Luther ultimately died outside of the Catholic Church but maintianed a real devotion to Our Blessed Mother - and this is where I can see some hope for this German Monk.

MacKillop found priests and biships who, while not abusing Church doctrine were not going to have either a women or a group of women tell them what to do. The priests and bishops were not espeically focused on the needs of their flock - again, not abusing them, just ignoring some very real needs. The sisters were caught in the middle between the local people and the clergy and the bishiops wanted to put the nuns under the direct control of themselves. MacKillp worked to modify this and she was excommunicated by the bishop for her efforts. MacKillop continued to pray and keep her sisters sustained in their work. Four months later the excommunication was lifted. MacKillop ultimately died and she is reveared as a saint for the humility and virtue she demonstrated in the face of significant odds against her.

We are looking at two totally different people who met signicant opposition - and the way that they addressed these major crises in their lives tells much about the inner personality of each. Both were fighters. Both had a goal, but, in my view Luther substituted his for one that denied the authority of Christ - even though it was not as clear as it could have been. MacKillop had a vision and saw it through.

Hope this answers your question.

God bless

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Oh yes it did. But it happened not in Luther’s time table but in God’s timetable.

OK what were the greater reforms?

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

Yes that is part of the whole. But there’s more.

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

Ok so why don’t you outline to me what Luther’s doctrine of Sola Scriptura is. And what is Sola? I’m not familiar with that one. Creating his own canon, so why don’t you tell me what you think he did to create his own canon?

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

Branches out? If you want to complete a parallel comparison between Luther and say John of the Cross then be exact about it. John of the Cross(Luther) was unhappy with what was happening with the O.Carm Carmelites (The Roman Catholic Church). He called for reform. The O.Carm Carmelites rejected his reforms. Whether he left on his own or was tossed out doesn’t matter. He was no longer associated with the O.Carm Carmelites. The OCD Carmelites (Lutherans) were formed. And now you have an parallel comparison between the two. The fact that O.Carm and OCD remain in the church is of no use the to comparison. The fact that there was a reformer and the reform to on it’s own life separate from the parent organization is the meat of the comparison. So branching out is how you reform. Got it!

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.

It doesn’t matter that the order remained within the church. The fact remains that the reform did not stay with in O.Carm. There was a split/schism/branching out into OCD. John of the Cross did not question the magisterium of the church only the charism of his order. Well I can see how excommunication will do that, what a valuable tool. It’s worked so well through out history.

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”.

Then I accept your un-shyness. I will grant you that Luther’s influence did spread to beyond the walls of Wittenberg. Poster boy? I guess. I don’t know that Calvin or Henry had pictures of Luther on their bedroom walls.

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.

Deformers how witty and original. OK I am totally lost. Since we are working with the cleaning analogy. So what I hear you saying is that Luther had lost faith in Christ’s promise to clean out the cobwebs from the papacy? Which you would mean that you do believe that there were cobwebs in the papacy. And if Christ promised to keep the papacy cobweb free, then how did we get cobwebs?

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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.

Ah yes all of one bag. And such the papacy is painted as well. I refer you to the medal of Gregory XIII. It’s not every day one can celebrate so well the slaughter of ~10,000 people.

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

If I explain it, will you care to understand it any better?

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

I’m sure you can find a copy online, but I’m surprised for someone who is so certain they know all there is to know of Luther why have you not read any of it?

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.

Well I’m glad that you admitted that.

Someone asked me to read his writing and all that stood out was sheer arrogance and pride – “It is so because Luther said so!”

And what you read one sentence? That’s like saying, I just hear Benedict say I could use a condom, especially if I’m a male prostitute? So you haven’t read any Lutheran theology? You have no idea or understanding what we believe or don’t believe? The only thing for you is it’s enough that Martin Luther wrote it. Wow!

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.

I’m afraid to say it, but Luther is not the only one failing to grasp that statement. I do agree with you and your sister. All leaders in our church deserve our prayers to make right and just decisions. However, I don’t know if my prayer is efficacious for those I deem to be living less than exemplary lives, when my own life is probably just as less than exemplary in Christian living. I’m not asking any one to change, but I am asking that those chosen by God be accountable to the Gospel in it’s teaching and practice.

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

I think the best I can hope for is that one day you will be partially right. And one day you may see that I am also partially right.

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.

No I meant what I said, but there are better means to conflict resolution than:slapfight:

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.

When did you say that? And you keep talking about exposing the heresy? Is the only heresy Luther taught leaving Rome? And at this point I think I see more truth in Istanbul than I do in Rome.

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.

And this could be the path to make them holy.

 

[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.

Hi Tom-

In my book what ever you offer is worth far more than $0.04!

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.

I agree with you completely!

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.

I’m all in!

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!

I agree all have clay feet. I know, hard to believe, but even Luther! Hmm I guess Benedict could do worse. For the sake of argument, I’ll be shocked too.

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.

I see what you are saying Tom. And I get that, I really do. But let me put something out there that if I am totally off base about just tell me so. The basics of faith that you outline, I don’t think we have much in any great difference. But here is the difference and if you have read any of the Lutheran Confessions, I think we might even agree farther and deeper and here is why I am saying this. This is where you need to tell me if I am off base. When you look at the Roman Catholic Church you see one continuous entity that has existed from the beginning and is the same today as it was 500 years ago. I see the Roman Catholic Church as being different/modified. I think what the Church looked like in 1500 is not the same thing as it looks today. The world and it’s place in that world are very different. Yes the Church still has 7 sacraments, but the administration of those sacraments is different. If you read any of the Augsburg Confession, the Refutation and Apology, you will see a Roman Catholic Church that is different than your experience of it today. It is not going to be revolutionary different but different none the less. And I am not saying that the Augsburg Confession is the be all end all and that I could never accept the Roman Catholic Church until it is in full compliance or that you should accept it at all. But this has to be the starting point for us to move forward.