With all due respect to the many wonderful Lutherans out there,

[hedgehog]

part of the reason for the split way back then was a discussion of faith vs. works. Broadly speaking, the claim was made that men are justified (saved) by faith alone has been identified with Lutheranism.

Now, we see the Catholic Church roiled by controversy between two groups. Again, broadly speaking, one group insists that to be Catholic, one must accept without question every word in the Catechism, a book which albeit has some claim to divine inspiration but none the less was written by men. Again, broadly speaking, the other group insists that to be Catholic one must live as Jesus would live, that one must be Jesus in the world. The first group insists salvation comes from ritual, properly done. The second insists that ritual must serve to strengthen people to do what is right and must be adjusted to fit people's needs. The first group insists that only those who believe the teachings of Christ as taught in the Catechism are saved. The second group sees all people as belonging to Christ or not as defined by their actions, thus any person who does good life belongs to the Christ, whether that person professes to be Catholic, Buddhist, atheist, pagan, etc.

I submit that Pope Benedict is the epitome of the first group. It was more important to him to inspect the teachings of Charles Curran than the behavior of priests accused of rape. What Curran believedwas more important than what the priests did. Faith trumps works.

So the next time someone suggests to me that if I don't like what the Pope has to say, then I should join with the Lutherans, I will ask who the real Lutheran is.

Also, I note that the first group insists on dividing humankind into those who are nearer to and farther from the throne, insists that women can not be proper models of Christ, that there are actually people who are inherently disordered. I like and admire the United Church of Christ, but I must ask, who is closer to Calvin and his belief in predestination, me or the Pope?



The first group insists on dividing humankind into those who are nearer to and farther from the throne, insists that women can not be proper models of Christ, that there are actually people who are inherently disordered.

[Joe Chi Minh]

1. You caricature everything. A mish-mash of nonsense. A litany of strawmen.

But you want historical Christianity on your own terms, i.e edited to give precedence to the World's terms, where you find it less onerous to do so. Christian witness was not meant to be always easy.

What is it you have against the Anglican Church that is preventing your having the best of what you would evidently consider the best of taditional Christian teachings and the best of the World's latest belief trends? Like atheists, you get to decide what parts of Catholic teaching you consider authoritative. In what way is it not a liberal Protestant position?

It's true that at one end of the spectrum, we have the Catholic church with its age-old clericalism, going back at least as far as St Ambrose; and at the other, its antithesis, the Quakers, who will, I recently read, just sit waiting for someone to be inspired by the Holy Spirit to speak. But you seem to conflate the distorted witness of the "traditions of men" in the RC church and its more essentially spiritual teachings in the matter of the faith, as taught in the New Testament, and observed by a bi-millennial tradition: the source of the catechism. Sure, the latter (excluding the catechism which is, at the very least, close to, perfection) has been distorted and coarsened by that clericalism. And I'm talking about some very good, compassionate and holy men, as well as narcissists.

Why the Church has almost always seemed so loathe to reform itself, where it palpably needed reformation, must be one of the most puzzling mysteries, and seems to have led to a mindset, a culture which has become increasingly entrenched. If it were a siege mentality, it would be more understandable, but it seems to feed on itself very complacently. But, if in a minority, there have always been priests/ ministers who have seen the issue clearly.

[Angry Dragon]

2. I find some fault with your post

I was brought up as a Lutheran and I remember being taught that faith alone would not get one to heaven, good works alone would not get one to heaven, but if one truly believed in Christ one would work towards what Jesus taught. Through true belief in Christ one would work towards love, tolerance, respect, and the helping of others. Unless these two are together then one is truly headed for eternal damnation and the hell fire.

I have studied, researched, and observed religion for over forty-five years and now find that I reject every religion and god that does not practice what they preach. It is not up to religious leaders to decide anything for any man or woman. It is up to each one of us to decide how we will believe for there are no two of us that are the same and for someone to tell another how or what to believe is not a Christian.

I fear no god.

[hedgehog]

3. My apologies - what I gave was the short hand version we

were often presented with in years past; that Protestants believe in justification by faith alone and Catholics believe it's works that matter. I agree with you that the two are aspects of the same thing.

My tongue in cheek post was meant to suggest that rather being the exemplar of orthodoxy he purports to be, Benedict with his focus on faith exclusively ( He ignored pedophiles while prosecuting (persecuting?) theologians) is more Protestant than the Protestants!