How Do Catholics View Protestants

[Luther073082]

If you don't mind me asking, if you do believe in the Real Presence, then how do you guys believe the ability to do so is passed down? I was under the impression that Luther believed in the Real Presence, but since he couldn't ordain priests himself, that he had to cut that out of his theology. In other words, you couldn't have the Real Presence because there was no one to do it.

It does not have to be "passed down".

The biggest similarity between Lutherans and Protestants is that we belive that the church is essentially where Christ's belivers are.

The Augsburg confession says about the church

Article VII: Of the Church.


1] Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.
2] And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and 3] the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. 4] As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4:5-6.


Article VIII: What the Church Is.

1] Although the Church properly is the congregation of saints and true believers, nevertheless, since in this life many hypocrites and evil persons are mingled therewith, it is lawful to use Sacraments administered by evil men, according to the saying of Christ: The Scribes and 2] the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat, etc. Matt. 23:2. Both the Sacraments and Word are effectual by reason of the institution and commandment of Christ, notwithstanding they be administered by evil men.
3] They condemn the Donatists, and such like, who denied it to be lawful to use the ministry of evil men in the Church, and who thought the ministry of evil men to be unprofitable and of none effect.

Essentially to break it down the Lutheran view of the power (ability) to consecrate the sacraments is that a church is simpily a group of belivers. And when that group of belivers elects a person to represent them in the office of Episcopos(sp?) (We hold that office to be one in the same as office of pastor) that person is called by the church to consecrate sacraments. It is therefore his job to do so.

Theoretically speaking any beliver can consecrate sacraments by Lutheran theology. However this would be considered similar to the RCC view of something that is legititmate but illicit. While I can consecrate, its wrong of me to do so because I havn't been called to that office. Its not my role in the church.

This is further described in Article XIV of the Augsburg confession.

Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order.

Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.

As far as ordination, its my understanding that some Roman Catholic bishops did side with Luther. However our view is that scripture does not defend or endorse Apostolic Succession. So therefore the necessity for those bishops to ordain others was rendered meaningless.

Some non confessional Lutheran groups in Europe do belive in Apostolic succession and belive that they hold it. However in the US most Lutherans reject Apostolic succession. Which is our most "protestant like" doctrine.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Luther was a pope of sorts and allowed the creation The Augsburg confession through his teachings and it was never acceptable within the ancient doctrines nor was it held in council by the Church which always existed before Luther - as acceptable.
So it was handed off to his own followers. Making himself the very position he loathed. a pope.

I am not being critical, just stating the history and why Lutherans are separated from the Church.


Augsburg Confession

The Augsburg Confession is a Lutheran Confession of Faith that was issued (1530) during the Reformation at the Diet of Augsburg. In 1530, Emperor Charles V convoked the diet as part of his effort to bring religious peace to Europe. He failed in his efforts, however, because he underestimated the fervor with which the followers of Martin Luther had already formulated a distinctive position. Philipp Melanchthon, one of the authors of the Confession, designed it to be relatively open to the Roman Catholic church on the right and to other reformed but non-Lutheran parties on the left. It affirmed inherited classic Christian doctrines. Its particular stress on Grace, as Luther had interpreted it in the writings of St. Paul, and its rejection of any righteousness based on human works and merits made it unacceptable to many other Western Christians. The Confession remains the primary statement of faith among Lutherans, who to this day expect their ministers at ordination to express fidelity to the way it interprets the biblical teachings.

 

[Luther073082]

Luther was the first to protest.
Tho many sub groups abounded while even Luther was alive and he lamented what happened in his time and at his hand... all groups did follow suit.

It became practice to 'one up' the last broken reed because ppl like to create doctrines that they prefer rather than follow that which has always been most difficult.

Luther, may God have mercy on him, had pride and willful disobedience to the chair of Peter. He loathed the Pope's position and yet unbeknownst to himself, he put himself in the same position in creating his own following.

For one to have a church - one must have followers and be their teacher.
Just as Christ set up a teacher of the Church and his chair remains to this day. Obedience to a person is hard which leads to many sub divided groups and sects, but Christ gave that person in Peter's chair, however sinful; a charism that is not broken. For man as sinful as they are in nature, cannot change a promise from Christ.

Lutheran is not only Protestant, but it is looked at as the first Protestant. That is - those who protest the Catholic Church.
AND her teachings. Luther's first denial of the ancient doctrines was purgatory and thenceforth all that followed.

Actually Luther didn't become anything close to the pope. A lot of Lutheran doctrine was put to words by people who where not Luther. In fact it could be argued that most Lutheran doctrine was not penned by Luther.

For confessional Lutherans our doctrines are all penned into the Book of Concord. Of the 8 documents in the Book of Concord, only 4 where Penned by Luther, and one of those is the small catechism which was just a simple thing to teach children the basic teachings of the church and has no major theological significance.

I won't argue with you on the other points, because its wrong to argue your theology on your own forum. However it should be clear that Luther never acted as a pope.

As far as Luther being the first to protest the Roman Catholic church. That is no where close to true. At that point the Schism had already taken place and so you can consider all of Eastern Orthodoxy to have protested your doctrines and "despised the chair of peter."

Plus several others including Wycliff and Hus had essentially protested the teachings of the Roman Catholic church. Luther was just the first to get widespread support (thanks to the printing press) and also the RCC failed to kill him.

My view of the term "protestant" is that the term has moved so far from its origins that its pointless to use it in the same way as it was used. Plus if it where used as a descripter of anyone protesting the RCC then it should be used in regards to all, including Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy and Old Catholics as well as the small splinter groups from the RCC that say that John XXIII wasn't a legit pope.

So its counter productive to treat it as such because the term isn't IMO fairly applied, nor is it understood by most english speakers to mean the same thing as it did at the time.

In terms of Luther's soul, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it against your theology to claim to know the status of anyone's soul? I mean by Catholic theology, you can't fully and truely know the status of your own soul. How can you know the status of anothers?

 

[someguy14]

Just viewing your recent posts, I notice that in it's own beautiful way, Luther gathered many into the fold that may have been unreachable. I think in a way, looking at it now, that Luther is gathering for the one body and many of his ways may not have been even visable to himself at one moment in his ministry. May God bless.

 

[Luther073082]

Luther was a pope of sorts and allowed the creation The Augsburg confession through his teachings and it was never acceptable within the ancient doctrines nor was it held in council by the Church which always existed before Luther - as acceptable.
So it was handed off to his own followers. Making himself the very position he loathed. a pope.

I am not being critical, just stating the history and why Lutherans are separated from the Church.


Augsburg Confession

From your own link

Lutheran theologians drafted various preliminary documents, including the Marburg, Schwabach, and Torgau Articles. Luther had a hand in their preparation, but he could not attend the diet.

If historically Luther acted as a pope, do you not think that the main theological documents he would have written on his own or been the main force behind it??

Luther also lacked the power of unilateral excommunication which is distinctive to the Bishop of Rome. He also did not select bishops or people who filled that role.

His role would be considered that of a leader, but his authority was far more limited then the pope's.

 

[someguy14]

I went to a Methodist Church when I was very young, from ages around 5-12 maybe. I remember taking classes, and I cant think of what they were called, but I remember learning about The Body and Blood and a very strong importance of it, to not take it unworthily.

Confirmation. I remember now, thanks to an episode of "the old christine".
I went through confirmation classes.

 

[Dark_Lite]

If you don't belive in the real presence. . . you are not Lutheran. I don't care if you've been going to a Lutheran church your whole life.

I don't personally consider confessional Lutheran's to be protestants because our theology is so radically different from most protestants that it doesn't make sense to put us in that group.

However even if you do how close the theology and worship is to the Roman Catholic Church depends a lot on which denomination.

Eastern Orthodox, Confessional Lutheranism, and Old Catholic is probably the closest to the RCC in terms of theology. Probably in that order. (I would not personally call any of those church's to be protestant.)

Then you look at Anglicans, Westlyan (Methodists), and Non-Confessional Lutherans as being still fairly close but still a couple steps away. These groups can vary but many of them have a liberal streak in terms of social issues like abortion.

Then the rest are pretty far away because they lack both a similar theology or a litergical worship style. The problem with the rest is a lot of them don't understand Roman Catholic Theology terribly well and tend to have knee jerk reactions to things they don't understand. Most of them look down quite a bit on Lutherans too.

Lutheranism is the first Protestant denomination that started it all. Luther was not the first to protest against the Catholic Church, nor was he the first to schism from it. But he was the first Protestant. Protestantism specifically refers to those groups that broke away from the Catholic Church during the Reformation. The Great Schism and the schism of the Oriental Orthodox occurred before this, and these schisms were radically different than the schisms of the Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, and so on.

The schisms within the apostolic Churches happened over hundreds of years where theology slowly diverted in different directions. Ecclesial politics and terminology followed with those divergent theologies, eventually leading to splits.

The Protestant Reformation created numerous schisms in the West in a very short period of time. Once Luther opened the flood gates with the innovation of Sola Scriptura, everyone else followed. What was done, at that point, could not be undone. At the heart of every Protestant schism during the Reformation was a knee-jerk reaction to Catholic abuses, politics, a combination of those two, or a mentality of "everyone else is doing it, so I should too."

 

[WarriorAngel]

Just viewing your recent posts, I notice that in it's own beautiful way, Luther gathered many into the fold that may have been unreachable. I think in a way, looking at it now, that Luther is gathering for the one body and many of his ways may not have been even visable to himself at one moment in his ministry. May God bless.

1 Corinthians 1:10
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.

1 Corinthians 11:18
[18] For first of all I hear that when you come together in the church, there are schisms among you; and in part I believe it. [19] For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you. [20] When you come therefore together into one place, it is not now to eat the Lord's supper.

What is the mark of a schism or heresy?

St Cyprian:

Hartel's edition, runs thus:

If any will consider this, there is no need of a long treatise and of arguments. 'The Lord saith to Peter: 'I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; to thee I will give the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and what thou shalt have bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what thou shalt have loosed shall be loosed in heaven.' Upon one He builds His Church, and though to all His Apostles after His resurrection He gives an equal power and says: 'As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost, whosesoever sins you shall have remitted they shall be remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins you shall have retained they shall be retained', yet that He might make unity manifest, He disposed the origin of that unity beginning from one. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, endowed with a like fellowship both of honour and of power, but the commencement proceeds from one, that the Church may be shown to be one. This one Church the Holy Ghost in the person of the Lord designates in the Canticle of Canticles, and says, One is My Dove, My perfect one, one is she to her mother, one to her that bare her. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he believe that he holds the Faith? He who strives against and resists the Church, is he confident that he is in the Church?



​

The substituted passage is as follows:

. . . bound in heaven. Upon one He builds His Church, and to the same He says after His resurrection, 'feed My sheep'. And though to all His Apostles He gave an equal power yet did He set up one chair, and disposed the origin and manner of unity by his authority. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the primacy is given to Peter, and the Church and the chair is shown to be one. And all are pastors, but the flock is shown to be one, which is fed by all the Apostles with one mind and heart. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he think that he holds the faith? He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church is founded, is he confident that he is in the Church? ​

These alternative versions are given one after the other in the chief family of manuscripts which contains them, while in some other families the two have been partially or wholly combined into one. The combined version is the one which has been printed in man editions, and has played a large part in controversy with Protestants.


CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Cyprian of Carthage

c. 246 AD

 

[Luther073082]

Lutheranism is the first Protestant denomination that started it all. Luther was not the first to protest against the Catholic Church, nor was he the first to schism from it. But he was the first Protestant. Protestantism specifically refers to those groups that broke away from the Catholic Church during the Reformation. The Great Schism and the schism of the Oriental Orthodox occurred before this, and these schisms were radically different than the schisms of the Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, and so on.

The schisms within the apostolic Churches happened over hundreds of years where theology slowly diverted in different directions. Ecclesial politics and terminology followed with those divergent theologies, eventually leading to splits.

The Protestant Reformation created numerous schisms in the West in a very short period of time. Once Luther opened the flood gates with the innovation of Sola Scriptura, everyone else followed. What was done, at that point, could not be undone. At the heart of every Protestant schism during the Reformation was a knee-jerk reaction to Catholic abuses, politics, a combination of those two, or a mentality of "everyone else is doing it, so I should too."

Ok so explain this to me.

So any new group of Lutherans or Baptists etc would be considered protestants regardless of theology?

Are the groups that belive that John the XXIII wasn't a legitimate pope protestants?

What about the Old Catholics who rejected the authority of the Pope after the reformation?

 

[someguy14]

1 Corinthians 1:10
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.

1 Corinthians 11:18
[18] For first of all I hear that when you come together in the church, there are schisms among you; and in part I believe it. [19] For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you. [20] When you come therefore together into one place, it is not now to eat the Lord's supper.

What is the mark of a schism or heresy?

St Cyprian:

Hartel's edition, runs thus:

If any will consider this, there is no need of a long treatise and of arguments. 'The Lord saith to Peter: 'I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; to thee I will give the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and what thou shalt have bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what thou shalt have loosed shall be loosed in heaven.' Upon one He builds His Church, and though to all His Apostles after His resurrection He gives an equal power and says: 'As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost, whosesoever sins you shall have remitted they shall be remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins you shall have retained they shall be retained', yet that He might make unity manifest, He disposed the origin of that unity beginning from one. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, endowed with a like fellowship both of honour and of power, but the commencement proceeds from one, that the Church may be shown to be one. This one Church the Holy Ghost in the person of the Lord designates in the Canticle of Canticles, and says, One is My Dove, My perfect one, one is she to her mother, one to her that bare her. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he believe that he holds the Faith? He who strives against and resists the Church, is he confident that he is in the Church?



​

The substituted passage is as follows:

. . . bound in heaven. Upon one He builds His Church, and to the same He says after His resurrection, 'feed My sheep'. And though to all His Apostles He gave an equal power yet did He set up one chair, and disposed the origin and manner of unity by his authority. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the primacy is given to Peter, and the Church and the chair is shown to be one. And all are pastors, but the flock is shown to be one, which is fed by all the Apostles with one mind and heart. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he think that he holds the faith? He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church is founded, is he confident that he is in the Church?
​

These alternative versions are given oneafter the other in the chief family of manuscripts which contains them, while in some other families the two have been partially or wholly combined into one. The combined version is the one which has been printed in man editions, and has played a large part in controversy with Protestants.


CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Cyprian of Carthage

c. 246 AD

Do you agree with this statement?

Matthew 10:24
The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.

Than you must believe that Christ is The One that joins us together and I believe that Peter agrees.

I dont want to offend, but I think we are in One Body as being called Christians. And I believe that Peter agrees with me and I Peter.

1 Peter 4:16
Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed ; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

Many parts, One body.

 

[someguy14]

And also.


John 10:16
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Mark 9:40
For he that is not against us is on our part.

May God bless.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

I've many Protestant friends. However, the Church is the Holy Roman Catholic Church. The only Church Christ established. Protestant sects are not apart of it. Jesus established only one Church. One must join it in order to save one's soul. (Having of course, Faith and Good dees, without which a man cannot be saved.) God will give one the grace, if one but implores Him.

In the eyes of the Church, Protestantism is a heresy. As a Catholic, one cannot help but view Prots as heretics, for they adhere to a heresy. As a heresy, it leads a great many folks to perdition. This is not to say that there are not a great many 'bad' Catholics; there, alas, are. However, we must follow the faith in truth and do good deeds in the grace of God, in order to save our souls and love one another as Christ bade us and loved us. Now, can a man be saved, if in ignorance, he adheres to Protestantism whenever he does? God will enlighten that soul with the truth (As St Thomas Aquinas says via "an angel, priest, missionary, or Christ himself" as to the truth and grace of the Holy Catholic Faith. Thereafter, it is up to the choice of man's free will to decide where to go . . . .

+Pax Domini.+

 

[Dark_Lite]

Ok so explain this to me.

So any new group of Lutherans or Baptists etc would be considered protestants regardless of theology?

Groups that splinter from Protestants and remain within the realm of Protestant theology are Protestant. Protestantism refers to those groups that schismed from the Church during the Reformation, as well as all the subgroups they've spawned. That includes Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Methodism, Baptists, Pentecostals, and pretty much anything in western Christianity that isn't Catholic, Orthodox, or Oriental Orthodox. There are a very few exceptions, of course, which you highlight below.

There is a reason why many regular people define Protestant as "not Catholic." That's because, in a limited sense (excluding the scope of the Orthodox and such), that is the definition of the word. It originally referred to those groups that broke away from the Catholic Church during the Reformation.

People can redefine it all they want, but it isn't going to change the commonly-accepted meaning of the word. It's kind of like the "relationship and not a religion" idea. Christianity is still a religion, even if the relationship-not-a-religion crowd doesn't want it to be.

Are the groups that belive that John the XXIII wasn't a legitimate pope protestants?

They protest in their own way, but they're not the image that comes up in peoples' minds when they hear the word "Protestant." The more technical term for them is sedevacantism. They also did not split during the Reformation.

What about the Old Catholics who rejected the authority of the Pope after the reformation?

The Old Catholic schism was not really official until Vatican I. They also protest in their own way, but they are not necessarily Protestant. Some Catholics might view them as Protestant. The nature of their schism was much more similar to the Great Schism or the schism of the Oriental Orthodox.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Ok so explain this to me.

So any new group of Lutherans or Baptists etc would be considered protestants regardless of theology?

Are the groups that belive that John the XXIII wasn't a legitimate pope protestants?

What about the Old Catholics who rejected the authority of the Pope after the reformation?

The reform begets more reformed from the first reformed with one common thread...sola scriptura and a break from the ancient Catholic Church.

Catholics found it incredulous that anyone would break from the ancient Church too, but it didnt stop Luther, Zwigli, Calvin and so forth on down the line.

And one protesting church always begot the next. For if one disagreed with the translation of the scriptures, the Holy Spirit led them to disagree and so it went.

So the father of all sects and splits - was Luther.
And regardless of the type of theology one found to be self made in scriptures, the person who made it a theology to have sola scriptura - made it possible for all types of branches.

For the very idea of sola scriptura wrought 30,000 sects.
Because of and in itself sola scriptura is really the child of Luther and all that it entails.

So it is the natural course of all things that theology upon an opinion stemming from sola scriptura - is still protestant under Luther.

AS his brain child - he owns every opinion that incurred henceforth regardless if he ever taught it.

Do you agree with this statement?

Matthew 10:24
The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.

Than you must believe that Christ is The One that joins us together and I believe that Peter agrees.

I dont want to offend, but I think we are in One Body as being called Christians. And I believe that Peter agrees with me and I Peter.

1 Peter 4:16
Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed ; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

Many parts, One body.

No one puts the Pope above Christ - but if you understand the prophesy of Isiais you will understand the position of steward and how the steward holds the keys for the King in his absence and he alone can open and shut the doors with the key.
[Matthew 16 is the fulfillment of Isiaias 22 and henceforth]

If someone leaves the chair where Christ deposited the key to open and shut, they cannot open and shut the doors.
Nor can a duplicate key be made.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Are the groups that belive that John the XXIII wasn't a legitimate pope protestants?

They, called "Sedevacantists," believe the last several popes from John XXIII onward were all antipopes. This does not make them non-Catholic or protestant. Provided that they espouse Catholic religious beliefs, they are indeed Catholic. There is nothing, as was the case with the Great Western Schism of having multiple popes (one true, the other an antipope), from having a vacant papacy for a period of time.

Being as this occurs everytime a pope dies, it is logical that it would not contradict St Matthew XVI, where Christ promise that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church or the First Vatican Council, where the Holy Ghost guarantees a line of successors till the End of Days.

Rather, we could be in era, were we simply have long 'vacancy' with regards to the papacy. At any given moment, currently there are 5-8 antipopes. What is prevent Benedict XVI from being one? That is the question.

Now, could the Sedevacantists ["Sedes" for short, in this post]be correct in their assertion? They may very well be. However, could a layman know this with absolute certainty, that say, Benedict was or is an antipope: I would venture to say no. Not unless, one has attended the proceedings or he makes a statement of public, manifest heresy.

Now, are Sedes prots? Not at all. They are Catholic as Catholic can be; provided they adhere to no non-Catholic teachings. Are they schismatic? I doubt that the entire nations adhere to the Avignon Pope or the Roman pope during the Great Western Schism were separated from Jesus' Church, because we had even saints believing and taking opposing sides; believing their 'pope' to be the true Pontiff of Christ's Church.

Now, one cannot blame them; for one cannot know or be blamed for such large and widespread 'confusion'; likewise, I do not think that one can blame sedevacantists today; given the large amount of contradictions, scandals, errors, and heresies spouted off by a plethora of cardinals and bishops; and many questionable statements and assertions by popes such as JPII. (E.g. His book, "The Threshold of Hope" is virtually and almost certainly smacks of the heresy of 'universalism' or universalistic salvation. And if one says that it does not; it rather very much does either a very good imitation of doing such or is just ambiguous and barely enough with the realm, to be considered 'haeresia proxima' or approximate/approaching heresy --- that is being extremely and very dangerously close to heresy.)

 

[Luther073082]

AS his brain child - he owns every opinion that incurred henceforth regardless if he ever taught it.

I can see where you can say that Sola Scriptura opened the way for the various different protestant groups.

However saying that he owns all of those opinions is as silly as saying the RCC owns the opinions of the Sedevacantists.

Simpily because another group has a different interpretation of scripture does not make it Luther's fault. Nor is it the Roman Catholic Church's fault that someone created a different interpreation of their theology.

For the record no one really split off from Lutherans. Luther said "Sola Scriptura" and Calvin and Zwiligi who where never really associated with Lutherans decided they liked that idea and created their groups.

The only real split between Lutherans has been non confessional Lutherans splitting from confessional Lutherans.

They, called "Sedevacantists," believe the last several popes from John XXIII onward were all antipopes. This does not make them non-Catholic or protestant. Provided that they espouse Catholic religious beliefs, they are indeed Catholic.

I can never think of the word Sedevacantist when I need it. Thank you.

I don't belive you are correct in your assertation that they are "Catholic". Many of them have been excommunicated. Can one truely be under the penalty of major excommunication and still be considered a part of the church?

 

[Virgil the Roman]

One cannot be 'excommunicated' by an false pope. He has no power or authority with which to issue an excommunication. Besides, not all excommunications are permanent or just. St Athanasius and St Joan of Arc were both unjustly excommunicated. Later, they were vindicated; their sentences removed.

 

[Luther073082]

Do you agree with this statement?

Matthew 10:24
The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.

Than you must believe that Christ is The One that joins us together and I believe that Peter agrees.

I dont want to offend, but I think we are in One Body as being called Christians. And I believe that Peter agrees with me and I Peter.

1 Peter 4:16
Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed ; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

Many parts, One body.

I also disagree with the "branch theory" because it basically indicates that God does not care about the individual teachings of the church so long as it teaches something about Jesus.

God most certainly does care that you are part of a church that teaches the complete fullness of God's truth. However God does make the best of heterodox teaching churchs to save souls.

 

[Luther073082]

One cannot be 'excommunicated' by an false pope. He has no power or authority with which to issue an excommunication. Besides, not all excommunications are permanent or just. St Athanasius and St Joan of Arc were both unjustly excommunicated. Later, they were vindicated; their sentences removed.

Are you a sedevancatist? Because you seem sympathetic to their views.

 

[someguy14]

One cannot be 'excommunicated' by an false pope. He has no power or authority with which to issue an excommunication. Besides, not all excommunications are permanent or just. St Athanasius and St Joan of Arc were both unjustly excommunicated. Later, they were vindicated; their sentences removed.

Ah, but wasn't even Thomas a believer after he felt the piercings?

One body and many members.