Why won’t all other Christians recognize the Roman Catholic Pope as their leader?

[stbruderklaus]

You also asked for more detail on my propostion for reunion.

My thoughts run something along these lines… once Pope Benedict XVI, who is an able scholar and understands confessional Lutheran theology better than any Pope I can remember, helps Romans see that Lutherans are not heretics, we have some room to work. The Lutheran Confessions, particularly the Augsburg Confession, was an appeal for a simplified expression of historic catholic faith by the Churches of Germany, TO BE TOLERATED within the Roman Communion (my appologies-- that was meant for emphasis, not e-shouting.)

Toleration of a simple expression of the catholic faith is what was at the heart of the Lutheran Reformation. It’s simplicity was tied to concience, and to the norms of the undivided Church of the 7 ecumenical councils. That was the hope and the proposal of the Lutheran Reformers before things got really ugly… and we can debate how well they succeeded in achieving that within our Lutheran communions to this day.

But, as I have suggested to bishops in my own communion, the time is really coming where we need a frank and humble discussion with the Bishop of Rome, over the terms of re-uniting the Churches of the Augsburg Confession with the Patriarch of the West. It would seem that a similar conversation has already born fruit among Anglicans, and they have (at least in this country) begun the execution of an Anglican Use liturgy and Roman approved version of the Book of Common Prayer. Could we end up with something very similar for Lutherans, such as a Lutheran Use Liturgy and re-interpretation of the Augsburg Confession, or perhaps a recognized Lutheran Rite within the broader catholic context, or an Apostolate to the Churches of the Augsburg Confession? I think so… but it would remain for our Pontiff to help educate us on what he’s willing to tolerate among our simpler Churches, and what he is not. As has been the case since the Reformation, the Pope is decision point… and now, with a more concilliar Pope, I think we have some hope.

The question will come down to what Rome is willing to accomodate, but they need to be clear in their articulation. I can see a day not too distant, where Lutherans take their place alongside Augustinians, Franciscans, Dominicans, and so forth, with their particular forms of piety and some differences of style and rule. For the Church to be truly Catholic and Universal, the task still remains to determine what is essential and common to unity, and what is reasonable variability in the Body of Christ.

Peace,
Brad

 

[stbruderklaus]

Oh, and as for the legitimacy of our bishops, I won’t go into the details here, but I’m sure you know that bishops other than those in communion with Rome have been counted valid by Rome… even if Rome considers them “illicit” because the Pope didn’t authorize their consecration. Validity of Episcopal Succession does not ride on the concurrence of Rome, though canonical regularity does… thus the recognition by Rome of the Eastern Orthodox bishops, of some of the Anglican orders, the Old Catholics, and so forth. For those of us in Lutheran communions that have repaired our Apostolic Succession, we have received them through valid lines… though perhaps not licit to Rome.

Peace,
Brad

 

[grampben]

There are other non-Catholic Christians who believe in the “Real Presense”. And all early “Protestant” denominations accepted “transubstantiation".

Nonsense. If you mean pre-reformation protestantism then how about this: the Lollards were over a century before the reformation, yet John Wycliffe rejected transubstantiation in favour of consubstantiation.
The first protestant denominations were Lutheran and Zwinglian (A school of reformed thought started in Zurich.)
Luther defined his view as ‘sacramental union’ (NOT consubstantiation as everyone seems to think), Zwingli defined his view as one of memorialism - that the elements were mere symbols.

 

[grampben]

Yes, and if you leave a $20 bill on the kitchen table at night, you will awaken in the morning to find a writ of indulgence in its place!

Sounds familiar

 

[Jimmy_B]

Nonsense. If you mean pre-reformation protestantism then how about this: the Lollards were over a century before the reformation, yet John Wycliffe rejected transubstantiation in favour of consubstantiation.
The first protestant denominations were Lutheran and Zwinglian (A school of reformed thought started in Zurich.)
Luther defined his view as ‘sacramental union’ (NOT consubstantiation as everyone seems to think), Zwingli defined his view as one of memorialism - that the elements were mere symbols.

Hello grampben,

Thank you for your post.

A little of topic, but I sure would like to visit Ireland at some point in my life. My family is from Ireland (Grandparents…Great Grand Parents…). What is the winter like there?

Peace

 

[benedictus2]

The Pope is nowhere to be found in this verse.

1Cr 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.

Would you have Matthew 16:18 in your Bible or is that something you have somehow excised?

And if you do have that verse, care to enlighten us on what it means?

 

[benedictus2]

Becausde infallibility sounds like a good way of talking yourself into a corner out of which you cannot subsequently get. I suppose a good example of that is the doctrine of transubstantiation, which relies upon a theory of matter which simply is not tenable any more.

I am assuming that you believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. If you believe this to be so then you also believe in infallibility although you have not reasoned that out for yourself as yet.

 

[benedictus2]

It tries to talk about matter as if it was a container for something called its essence, and another lot of things called accidents. It may have been possible to posulate such a distinction once upon a time, but it is no longer. Something is blood if and only if it has the mokecular structure of blood; those molecules are made up of atoms, and those atoms are made up of sub-atomic particles. There is no room in there for a distinction between what something appears to be and what it actually is.

The doctrine of transsubstantiation is an attempt to explain mystery. To define with words, that which is indefinable.

At the bottom of it all is whether Jesus lied when He said this is My body. We believe Jesus and believe that when He said this is my body then it is.

 

[benedictus2]

Another thought occurs to me, as I read the end of that introductory question…

The image of Papa for the Roman Pontiff, and why us knuckle-headed “Protestants” won’t acknowledge him as our head, leaves me with funny follow-on images…

For the Churches of Germany that embraced the Augsburg Confession, none of us wanted to leave the Bishop of Rome… we were even content to remain in the Roman Communion with him, as long as he could make room for us and our simpler expression of the catholic faith. Our Papa kicked us out of the house and tried to kill us for hampering his indulgence trafficking. When the churches in England and Scandinavia had similar disputes, our Papa booted them out, and tried to kill them, too. Bad Papa.

So, now that us wounded children feel safe enough to swallow our own pride and knock on Papa’s door, without fear of our Papa’s big political stick (somebody took that away from him, thanks be to God) the awkward reunion seems to be stalled at the front porch (post Vatican II.)

Papa: you’ve been bad, but we still love you-- join us.

Lutherans: if you promise not to try to kill us anymore, can we peacefully coexist?

Talk about killing. Okay lets. How about protestants killing other protestants who did not agree with them. Luther, et all said one should interpret the Bible for himself then proceeded to kill those who did not agree with their interpretation. Isn’t that the height of hypocracy.

 

[stbruderklaus]

Talk about killing. Okay lets. How about protestants killing other protestants who did not agree with them. Luther, et all said one should interpret the Bible for himself then proceeded to kill those who did not agree with their interpretation. Isn’t that the height of hypocracy.

Benedictus2:

Me thinks you know very little of the Lutheran Reformation. Luther abhorred violence-- in fact, it was a sad reality that the horrific violence of Roman domination in the 15th and 16th centuries is what eventually gave him the impression that the Papacy was anti-Christian. The only time Luther ever wrote in favor of violence, he had to be cajoled into it… and it was specifically for the German princes to defend the state against the peasant revolt.

John Paul II and Benedict XVI were both wise enough to recognize that the Lutheran Reformation did not start because Luther was some possessed demonic, or that he was an ego-maniac who wanted his own church. They recognized, and have in some ways verbalized repentance, for the sin that infused the whole Church at the time-- because at root, it’s sin that causes division and dischord, and both Lutherans and Romans have plenty to go 'round.

Part of the issue we have today with ecumenical efforts between Lutherans and Romans, is allowing both sides to vent their fears and trepidations. Once that is adequately communicated (and by communication, I mean the two-way give and take of mutual understanding) we have an opportunity to repair trust between our communions. The premise of this thread is the question regarding why other Christians won’t bow the knee to Rome-- and, for Lutherans specifically, and more generally for Anglicans, Calvinists, and Eastern Orthdodox, there’s a lot of history involved in answering that question.

The question that really tickles my mind, is what we’re willing to do today to restore the bonds of peace and affection between us. HUGE strides are already happening, both at the grass roots lay level, as well as the high-up bishop / ecumunical discussion level. For example:

– Rome already recognizes that when properly understood, the Lutheran declaration of Justification by Grace through Faith in Christ Alone is compatible with Catholic doctrine (cf. JDDJ.)

– Lutherans have recognized that Romans are not semi-Pelagians, advocating working for their own salvation (cf. JDDJ)

– Romans recognize that the Spirit of God is present and active in other Christian communities outside their own, and that we all have a fundamental unity in our Baptism and Faith in Christ, such that there is understanding of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church as something bigger than just Rome or Roman Catholicism.

– Lutherans recognize that Romans, too, are real Christians, and despite some Roman practices that still give us the willies, we acknowledge that Romans are Christo-centric and not seeking their salvation through indulgences, or saints, or canon law, etc.

– In Ohio and North Carolina, Lutheran-Catholic Covenants have been signed by the respective diocesan bishops, pledging to work together and worship together as much as possible, and continue prayer for ongoing unity.

– Lutheran ministeriums and smaller communiities are popping up all over the country, with clear goals of working toward healing and reuinion of the Lutheran and Roman communions.

This issue is finally coming down to trust, and that takes a long time to restore. When Lutherans can walk and worship with Romans, recognizing in each other the catholic and apostolic faith once for all delivered to the saints, and suffer what we see in each other as minor errors or misunderstandings, we have real hope of visible reunion. This is why I really think it is time for Rome to approach the Lutheran communions, probably on the basis of the Augsburg Confession (which is ubiquitos to all Lutherans) and toss some terms out on the table for what it would take to bring us back home.

Pax.

 

[GKC]

You also asked for more detail on my propostion for reunion.

My thoughts run something along these lines… once Pope Benedict XVI, who is an able scholar and understands confessional Lutheran theology better than any Pope I can remember, helps Romans see that Lutherans are not heretics, we have some room to work. The Lutheran Confessions, particularly the Augsburg Confession, was an appeal for a simplified expression of historic catholic faith by the Churches of Germany, TO BE TOLERATED within the Roman Communion (my appologies-- that was meant for emphasis, not e-shouting.)

Toleration of a simple expression of the catholic faith is what was at the heart of the Lutheran Reformation. It’s simplicity was tied to concience, and to the norms of the undivided Church of the 7 ecumenical councils. That was the hope and the proposal of the Lutheran Reformers before things got really ugly… and we can debate how well they succeeded in achieving that within our Lutheran communions to this day.

But, as I have suggested to bishops in my own communion, the time is really coming where we need a frank and humble discussion with the Bishop of Rome, over the terms of re-uniting the Churches of the Augsburg Confession with the Patriarch of the West. It would seem that a similar conversation has already born fruit among Anglicans, and they have (at least in this country) begun the execution of an Anglican Use liturgy and Roman approved version of the Book of Common Prayer. Could we end up with something very similar for Lutherans, such as a Lutheran Use Liturgy and re-interpretation of the Augsburg Confession, or perhaps a recognized Lutheran Rite within the broader catholic context, or an Apostolate to the Churches of the Augsburg Confession? I think so… but it would remain for our Pontiff to help educate us on what he’s willing to tolerate among our simpler Churches, and what he is not. As has been the case since the Reformation, the Pope is decision point… and now, with a more concilliar Pope, I think we have some hope.

The question will come down to what Rome is willing to accomodate, but they need to be clear in their articulation. I can see a day not too distant, where Lutherans take their place alongside Augustinians, Franciscans, Dominicans, and so forth, with their particular forms of piety and some differences of style and rule. For the Church to be truly Catholic and Universal, the task still remains to determine what is essential and common to unity, and what is reasonable variability in the Body of Christ.

Peace,
Brad

I applaud your attitude. But the Anglican Use is not an example of reunion. It’s a temporary expedient, to ease the transition of a group of Anglicans (often a parish) joining the RCC. It requires a former Anglican priest, who has also swum the river, and is not intended to be permanent (though likely the trophy parishes in Texas will have a long life). Eventually such parishes transform (usually at the death of the orginal convert priest) into standard Roman Rite parishes. If that approach is what you are after, I have no idea of your possiblility of succcess, but it’s a fascinating idea.

GKC

 

[benedictus2]

Benedictus2:

Me thinks you know very little of the Lutheran Reformation. Luther abhorred violence-- in fact, it was a sad reality that the horrific violence of Roman domination in the 15th and 16th centuries is what eventually gave him the impression that the Papacy was anti-Christian. The only time Luther ever wrote in favor of violence, he had to be cajoled into it… and it was specifically for the German princes to defend the state against the peasant revolt.

V
V
V

– Lutheran ministeriums and smaller communiities are popping up all over the country, with clear goals of working toward healing and reuinion of the Lutheran and Roman communions.

This issue is finally coming down to trust, and that takes a long time to restore. When Lutherans can walk and worship with Romans, recognizing in each other the catholic and apostolic faith once for all delivered to the saints, and suffer what we see in each other as minor errors or misunderstandings, we have real hope of visible reunion. This is why I really think it is time for Rome to approach the Lutheran communions, probably on the basis of the Augsburg Confession (which is ubiquitos to all Lutherans) and toss some terms out on the table for what it would take to bring us back home.

Pax.

What you have written above is all well and good. But I was only responding to your post which went:

Our Papa kicked us out of the house and tried to kill us for hampering his indulgence trafficking. When the churches in England and Scandinavia had similar disputes, our Papa booted them out, and tried to kill them, too. Bad Papa.

So I said, if you are talking about killing and the hypocrisy in the Catholic Church, well how about the hypocrisy of the Protestant Reformation.

*Luther approved of the killing of the Anabaptist. *

What makes that even worse is that the whole point of the reformation is to be able to interpret the Bible for yourself. And yet when the Anabaptists did just that, they were killed.

*So if you are going to table the evil deeds of the Catholic Church well I think your cards should also be put on the table as well. *

That is the only point of my post.

 

[stbruderklaus]

No-- the point of the Reformation, was to reform the Church, not to “interpret the Bible for ourselves.”

I have a hard time believing, from the radical over-simplifications and apparently intentional misrepresentations you’re making, that you have studied Reformation history in any detail at all.

I did try to use a bit of humor above, and that was obviously poorly received-- my apologies. But please, let’s take the time to at least attempt to hear each other positively. My point above is that there are trust issues involved in Lutherans accepting Roman primacy. History substantiates that suspicion. Fortunately, many of us are working through that, on both sides of the divide, with honesty and penance.

Peace.

 

[benedictus2]

No-- the point of the Reformation, was to reform the Church, not to “interpret the Bible for ourselves.”

I have a hard time believing, from the radical over-simplifications and apparently intentional misrepresentations you’re making, that you have studied Reformation history in any detail at all.

I did try to use a bit of humor above, and that was obviously poorly received-- my apologies. But please, let’s take the time to at least attempt to hear each other positively. My point above is that there are trust issues involved in Lutherans accepting Roman primacy. History substantiates that suspicion. Fortunately, many of us are working through that, on both sides of the divide, with honesty and penance.

Peace.

I do hear you, there is certainly a trust issue. But it irks me when people say that the Church has committed such and such evil and the reformers were wonderful. By mentioning only the ills of the Church, you are painting the reformers to be unblemished and noble which they were not.

If you had left it at both parties’ attempts at reconciliation then that would have been fine. But you included that jab at the evil of the Church and that is why I said before you pluck the splinter in our eye, check out the massive one on yours.

You’re right. I have not studied reformation history in detail. If I am wrong that Luther and Zwingli approved of the killing of the Anabaptists then tell me I am wrong.
Provide the historical fact to correct the fiction in my post.

 

[stbruderklaus]

There are several good historical resources you could delve into. If you’re really interested in extended study, send me a personal note, and I’ll help guide your reading.

Do you have a reference for where Luther condoned killing Anabaptists? He did write regarding the secular princes having the authority to repress rebellion in their territories, but he was a man of peace who abhorred war.

Also, keep in mind, that I DO think that Luther was a good theologian and noble man. I do not think he was without error-- and neither did he. There were noble and decent Roman theologians of the time as well… and there were some really bad folks on both sides of the Reformation.

 

[benedictus2]

There are several good historical resources you could delve into. If you’re really interested in extended study, send me a personal note, and I’ll help guide your reading.

Do you have a reference for where Luther condoned killing Anabaptists? He did write regarding the secular princes having the authority to repress rebellion in their territories, but he was a man of peace who abhorred war.

Also, keep in mind, that I DO think that Luther was a good theologian and noble man. I do not think he was without error-- and neither did he. There were noble and decent Roman theologians of the time as well… and there were some really bad folks on both sides of the Reformation.

I will read up a bit more on the reformation. I think Luther started with good intentions but failed to discern it right in the end. I have an E-book on the subject which has remained unread for almost a year.

 

[stbruderklaus]

I appreciate your willingness to learn more about the period. I also think Luther started out with good intentions, and that things got really out of hand as the years progressed.

If I may share with you a personal reflection, I have found it helpful, particularly in ecclesiastical history studies, to be sure to read about groups from both within and without their community. For example, Lutherans are not Calvinists nor Anabaptists nor Anglicans nor Pentecostals… and so forth. When I want to learn more about Roman Catholics, I read Roman Catholic authors as primary sources, and only as secondary sources do I review non-Roman works on Roman Catholics. The same with Orthodox, Anglicans, and so forth. Fortunately, since we’re talking about learning in Christian communities, if we sift the resources well, we will find that there are genuine Christian theologians and historians in all these communions, and we can recognize their integrity and faith in their better works.

If you want to learn about Lutherans, I would suggest a couple good books written by Lutheran theologians and historians. The first readings I would recommend from Lutherans at the time of the Reformation, would be:

The Augsburg Confession
The Apology to the Augsburg Confession
Luther’s Small Catechism

I would also suggest:
Luther’s On the Freedom of a Christian, which includes a dedicatory letter of Luther to the then current Pope, describing some of the conflict that had ensued to that point, and hoping for peace.

If you have not read the text of the Council of Trent, I would recommend doing that before dipping into the later Lutheran writings, since that Council’s application during it’s time significantly influenced Lutheran / Roman relations for the following 400 years (remember, Luther did not live to see that council.) The Lutheran response to the Council of Trent was written by Martin Chemnitz… it’s a tough and long read, but it attempts to respond to each and every article of Trent in great detail. To date, it has not been addressed by Rome… leaving many Lutherans to think, from the 16th century to our time, that either Rome was unwilling or unable to answer the rebuttal.

For a Lutheran perspective on Reformation history, I would recommend Dr. Jame’s Kittleson’s Luther the Reformer; from my encounters with him, he was among the most amazing of historians in the modern Lutheran communions. It’s a fairly easy read, but still generally widely received as a milestone in Lutheran Reformation research and analysis.

Grace and peace to you in your research.
Brad

 

[Jimmy_B]

Would you have Matthew 16:18 in your Bible or is that something you have somehow excised?

And if you do have that verse, care to enlighten us on what it means?

Matthew 16:18, 19
**“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 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.” **

Hello* benedictus2***

*Good point and you are correct, especially the part where it states - *

"and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it’.

How could this possibly mean that the authority was given solely, to the Apostles, as some OP’s here have claimed?

We know that Christianity did not end after the age of the Apostles’.

Protestants do and have, “excised” parts of the Bible. They have excised chapters, verses and entire books from the Bible. They have also misinterpreted and mistranslated other parts of the Bible, so that it will have a Protestant “spin”.

Matthew 16:18, 19 are in the Protestant Bible. The Protestants haven’t literally excised them…yet. However, the true meaning has been excised by taking these two verses out of context with the rest of the Bible and out of context of Christian History and Tradition.

That is one of the reasons way, they (Protestants) reject Christian History and Christian tradition, if they cannot make early Christian history or Christian tradition fit the Protestant model, it is avoided a*ltogether. * This is also true with Bible verses. If a bible verse supports Catholicism, they will avoid it.

Doesn’t this remind you of Mark 4:11-12, where Jesus said:

“He answered them, “The mystery of the kingdom of God has been granted to you. But to those outside everything comes in parables, so that ‘they may look and see but not perceive, and hear and listen but not understand, in order that they may not be converted and be forgiven.’” (Mark1:11-12)

The amazing thing is that I have heard Protestants here apply the above verse to Catholics, even though they came 1500 years after the fact and the Bible is a Catholic Book.

Protestant, non-Catholic Christians may not understand**, **or “do not want to understand” at this point, why Jesus is relevant and why His Church is relevant.

First came Christ, then His Apostles, then Christian History and Christian Traditions, then His Church, then more Christian History and Christian Traditions….then about 500 years later, came the Bible ….then about a thousand years later, came Protestant, non-Catholic Christianity…or “Christianity re-invented”….about 36,000 times over.

Note:* Today, there exists approximately “36,000” different Protestant, non-Catholic Christian denominations, including the divisions and subdivisions of non-Catholic Christian; all having different beliefs.*

There are many Protestants today who don’t know, or care about the early Christian Martyrs, Saints, Fathers and Doctors of the Church….because they were Catholic Christians…Do you see the problem here?

If not for the Catholic Church, Catholic Popes, Catholic Martyrs, Catholic Saints, Catholic Fathers and Doctors of the Church, there would be no Christian religion today….it would have vanished from the face of the earth, lost to time. Don’t trust me, look it up.

• One cannot understand a Bible verse, if they do not understand the rest of the Bible.
• One cannot understand a Bible verse, when it has been misinterpreted or mistranslated.
• One cannot understand a Bible verses when they choose to ignore or reject Christian History and Christian Traditions.
• One cannot connect the “Christian” dots without first connecting the “Catholic dots".
• One cannot understand a Bible verse taken out of context.
  Protestant Exogisis’, which conflict with Catholic beliefs, fall apart when viewed in context.

Thank you for your post.

http://www.allsaintssanfran.org/Twelve Apostles/Peter/Peter, Christ Charge to Rubens.jpg
Peace

 

[block]

I appreciate your willingness to learn more about the period. I also think Luther started out with good intentions, and that things got really out of hand as the years progressed.

If I may share with you a personal reflection, I have found it helpful, particularly in ecclesiastical history studies, to be sure to read about groups from both within and without their community. For example, Lutherans are not Calvinists nor Anabaptists nor Anglicans nor Pentecostals… and so forth. When I want to learn more about Roman Catholics, I read Roman Catholic authors as primary sources, and only as secondary sources do I review non-Roman works on Roman Catholics. The same with Orthodox, Anglicans, and so forth. Fortunately, since we’re talking about learning in Christian communities, if we sift the resources well, we will find that there are genuine Christian theologians and historians in all these communions, and we can recognize their integrity and faith in their better works.

If you want to learn about Lutherans, I would suggest a couple good books written by Lutheran theologians and historians. The first readings I would recommend from Lutherans at the time of the Reformation, would be:

The Augsburg Confession
The Apology to the Augsburg Confession
Luther’s Small Catechism

I would also suggest:
Luther’s On the Freedom of a Christian, which includes a dedicatory letter of Luther to the then current Pope, describing some of the conflict that had ensued to that point, and hoping for peace.

If you have not read the text of the Council of Trent, I would recommend doing that before dipping into the later Lutheran writings, since that Council’s application during it’s time significantly influenced Lutheran / Roman relations for the following 400 years (remember, Luther did not live to see that council.) The Lutheran response to the Council of Trent was written by Martin Chemnitz… it’s a tough and long read, but it attempts to respond to each and every article of Trent in great detail. To date, it has not been addressed by Rome… leaving many Lutherans to think, from the 16th century to our time, that either Rome was unwilling or unable to answer the rebuttal.

For a Lutheran perspective on Reformation history, I would recommend Dr. Jame’s Kittleson’s Luther the Reformer; from my encounters with him, he was among the most amazing of historians in the modern Lutheran communions. It’s a fairly easy read, but still generally widely received as a milestone in Lutheran Reformation research and analysis.

Grace and peace to you in your research.
Brad

Forgive me for not being too knowledgable on the Lutheran faith, but is it true that the founder of the religon, I wanna say Martin Luther??, never wanted to actually start a new religon but to just express his opinions on what he didn’t like about the Catholic Church? And that he in fact died a Catholic next to a Catholic Priest? Once again, I’m speaking not so confidently, but it seems that there are many people who can pick apart what they don’t agree with in the Catholic Church, isn’t that just defying the teaching’s of Christ? If there are still things in the bible that even you don’t understand nor do I nor does anybody, why wouldn’t he just accept that fact rather than starting what Jesus foretold when he spoke of the ones who will divide? And I mean no offense, truely am only seeking information to better understand where other religons stand.

 

[JonNC]

Forgive me for not being too knowledgable on the Lutheran faith, but is it true that the founder of the religon, I wanna say Martin Luther??, never wanted to actually start a new religon but to just express his opinions on what he didn’t like about the Catholic Church? And that he in fact died a Catholic next to a Catholic Priest? Once again, I’m speaking not so confidently, but it seems that there are many people who can pick apart what they don’t agree with in the Catholic Church, isn’t that just defying the teaching’s of Christ? If there are still things in the bible that even you don’t understand nor do I nor does anybody, why wouldn’t he just accept that fact rather than starting what Jesus foretold when he spoke of the ones who will divide? And I mean no offense, truely am only seeking information to better understand where other religons stand.

No offense taken.
Lutherans consider Christ as the founder of the one, holy catholic, and apostolic church, of which we are a part.

As for Luther’s alleged death-bed conversion, there is no documentation of such an event. See this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=53464

Jon