The Weekend Fisher is back. I’m not going to get into polemics either (as she said she didn’t want to in her first comment) but I did want to address a few points.
Well, ok, and I’m going to stick with “Weekend Fisher” to avoid confusion though my name is likewise “Anne” in the real world. (Small world. Are you a redhead too or is it just me? Happy St. Patrick’s, btw; I’m Irish.)
Welcome back, and happy coincidence that we are both ‘Anne’s,’ though you are the only redhead. Lucky girl. I am brunette. Happy St. Patrick’s Day indeed. I do love all things Irish, though I am a mongrel myself. Descent from inhabitants of America since before it WAS America will do that to ya. I enjoy being Sicilian by marriage though, dh is third generation American while managing to still be a full blood Sicilian. Cool to have heritage like that.
I look at this (post and comments) and I just want to talk to you two as people, not as “Roman Catholics who hate my stinkin’ Lutheran guts”, y’know.
Please, in NO way do I hate you. On the contrary, I love you as my sister in Christ and have enjoyed the conversation.
I’ve gone to Lutheran churches for quite a few years now. I’ve never been taught Luther was all that; in fact we’re taught that he has his faults, when he’s mentioned at all; mostly we just stick with the Scriptures and the Sacraments.
Cool. That is fortunate, however it wasn’t the case for all of us. We are working from our own experiences and insofar that we were less well educated, or taught a more glossed over version, that is what we must deal with. Thus must we rectify our education with the truth about the fathers of the reformation as well as the results of it.
I’ve never been taught that the RC church is a cult, just that (don’t throw anything, you’ve heard this before) they’re wrong about earning your way to heaven.
Well, did we believe that we earn our way to heaven I’d agree with you. However, we do not believe that we earn our way to heaven. We believe that we are saved by grace. Catholics do not believe that salvation just ‘covers’ us, rather we believe that we are also transformed by it from the inside out. (Both/and again.) We believe that we were saved by Christ’s work on the cross (Rom 8: 24, Eph 2:5,8, 2 Tim 1:9, Tit 3:5), that we are being saved daily by our response and obedience to God through Christ (Phil 2:12, 1Pet 1:9), and that we will be saved as we continue to do so (Matt 10:22, Matt 24:13, Mark 8:35, Acts 15:11, Rom 5:9-10, Rom 13:11, 1 Cor 3: 15, 1 Cor 5:5, Heb 9:28). Works are just part of our response to God, proof of our faith, for we know that faith without works is dead (James 2:24-26). However, in NO way do we believe we earn our way to heaven.
I’ve talked to other Lutherans who’ve been to Dave Armstrong’s place, and they tell me it’s a mix of 1) stuff we’ve always known – nobody ever claimed Luther was a saint!, and 2) a fair bit of slander, some demonstrably false. I’ve had Armstrong’s site mentioned to me by another Lutheran as “prime example of how low RC’s will stoop in misrepresenting the facts to smear protestants” and “really blatant, hate-blinded animosity towards Luther”.
Perhaps the better option would be to go and assess the site for yourself. Certainly, all the writings I’ve read by the Church about herself have not painted the most glowing picture. If the RCC were going to stoop to misrepresenting facts, surely she would’ve painted herself in a better light? I don’t hate Luther. I have no desire to smear protestants or Luther himself. Luther did a fabulous job of doing the same thing we ALL do, what protestants and even Catholics do today. Attempt to reform truth into what we would prefer it was, to what is more comfortable, takes less effort, and is less convicting than the truth. Judge others instead of dealing with our own sins. Of these I am also guilty. While there was some anger at Luther for a time during my conversion, what I am left with is pity and mercy. Pity and mercy for a man who was sinful like me. Pity and mercy because of how I would feel if I were he, looking at what the consequences of my sin wrought. Perhaps even hopeful that pity and mercy will be given me when my sins have reached the fullness of their destructive power in the community around me. When that happens, I pray that those affected by my sin will call it what it is, and work hard not to follow in my footsteps. (Don’t believe me? Ask my husband. He has STRICT instructions about my eulogy. It had best NOT be one of these PC schmoozes that doesn’t remotely resemble me. I don’t anticipate that being a problem however, since Red Neck Woman has agreed to deliver said eulogy and is taking bets over her ability to empty the church in under ten minutes.)
And when you talk about American history books being annoyingly British/Protestant, I have to smile. I’m in Texas.
My home state! Texan born and raised. I’ve only lived here for two years. Go Aggies!
We had a “first Thanksgiving” here nearly 100 years before the New England states had one. But here’s why I don’t protest the “northeastern origins” view of US history too much: if we start with explorers and conquistadors, US history would be close to 100% land-grab.
Uh, yeah? That about covers it!
The only mitigating factors in US History come from the idealism, however blind and exclusive, of people who actually wanted freedom, equality, and brotherhood, rather than cheap land and plundered goods at the expense of the natives.
Even many of those didn’t mind getting what they wanted on the backs of those who were willing to plunder and exploit the natives, and do remember that I am referring to my own ancestors here as well.
But can we talk about slanted history books? It was only when I started reading the histories of other nations and other eras that I realized the “Christian history” as I’d learned it was just as slanted as the US History.
There are going to be slanted histories. The victor writes. That doesn’t mean that we have to automatically swallow that line. Whether Christian or secular history, we can go back and read original documents, we can look at history as presented by both sides and get a much clearer picture than one slanted view ever provides.
. I.e., a lot of Rome’s history has been whitewashed too.
Not very well in my opinion. Certainly, were I rewriting my own history I’d do a much better job.
But that’s the first stumbling block: Rome says she’s infallible and therefore there’s nothing to discuss (except how long we plan to remain heretics for not believing she’s infallible). But Peter wasn’t infallible by himself … he needed correcting by Paul at least once on the record. Peter, alone, is not infallible …
Infallibility is not quite what you have depicted here. Not every action by every priest and every person in the Catholic Church is infallible. That is not the claim of the Church. The Church teaches that the Pope (and Peter) are infallible when speaking ex cathedra and in communion with the bishops and magisterium on matters of faith and doctrine. This is referring specifically to the authority given to the priesthood and its chief shepherd by Christ. Hardly an across the board claim to infallibility. Popes are men, and sinful just like us. Priests confess just like the rest of us do, even the Pope has a confessor. Peter’s need to be corrected by his brother in Christ does not negate Peter’s (and the apostles) authority on matters of faith and doctrine to which Paul himself submitted. (Acts 9:26-30) John 16:13 bears the promise that they will be guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth. Acts 15:28 tells us that the apostles speak with the voice of the Holy Spirit. Luke 10:16 says they speak with Christ’s own voice, that to accept them is to accept Christ and to reject them is to reject Christ. Matt 28:19-20 tells us that He is with them even to the end.
Rome, alone, is not the “one holy catholic and apostolic church”.
Certainly, she is the only one who visibly fulfills all four marks of the Church. She is the only one which is truly, visibly one, united in one body, under one authority. She is holy, catholic and apostolic. There are those who have removed themselves from the Body of Christ, refusing to maintain the unity Christ prayed for on His way to the cross…
John 17:20-23
20 “I pray not only for them, but also for those who will
believe in me through their word,
21 so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me
and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may
believe that you sent me.
22 And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that
they may be one, as we are one,
23 I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to
perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me,
and that you loved them even as you loved me.
…and the constant prayer of the Church is that the descendents, our separated brethren through no fault of their own, would come home. Certainly, of this I am guilty, and I do repent of it. I have nothing to protest.
Again, please understand that this teaching in no way makes protestants the enemy of the Catholic church. On the contrary, the Church already considers them Catholic because of their faith, just in imperfect communion with the Church. The Church longs for all of us to come home and be reunited in perfect obedience to the faith. It is unfortunate indeed that so many misconceptions abound, both about the Church’s teachings and her view of protestants. Certainly, my greatest hope and intent is to disabuse those erroneous notions, and to any extent that I fail in that regard, giving offense or inadequately representing the faith I hold so dear, I am most heartily sorry. My most sincere desire is that others who are like I was would come to find the fullness and richness of the Faith left for us in the care of the Church, that none who earnestly seeks God and His will in their life would have to journey on the scraps left to us in protestantism instead of with the feast and graces left to us in the Sacraments.
Sincerely, and it is my earnest prayer, that God would richly bless you and grant you peace.
A dear friend is making her First Confession tomorrow. First Confession for a convert from protestantism can be traumatic. There are so many varied emotions… and so many ways we end up in the Confessional. Sometimes we are still struggling with the need to confess in such a way and do so out of obedience, praying ‘Lord, I confess, help thou my reluctance’ or some such thing. Sometimes we have embraced this teaching so early and longed for the Sacrament for such a long time that it is a relief to be allowed to receive it at last. Others fall somewhere in between. However, no matter how ready we may be there is always that aprehension of the unknown, of making a good confession, of giving too much information or not enough. My friend falls in the ‘way past ready’ category but given that inevitable apprehension I hoped to encourage her with the assurance that for me it was both the hardest and the easiest confession I have ever made. She wanted to know what I meant…
am wrestling with NOW. These are not old battle scars exposed to the light once more, lacking the sensitivity of the fresher wound. Oh no, these are fresh wounds, raw and gaping. It is a broken, battered, bleeding soul that comes to the Sacrament these days. At times driven there by the Holy Spirit, unable to rest until the sin is confessed and expunged no matter how humiliating. Weekly confession which usually seems frequent is an age away at such times. Sometimes coming out of obedience, to keep the habit of penitence alive… the conscience sensitive. At others, I come weary of my repeated failures… having done that which I hate and having left undone that which I should love. 
