[RobbyS]

However Luther thought of himself, he was an innovator. It was, to a degree, based on his study of the Church fathers, especially St. Austin. Bur what you list are things he postulated, not things which logically progress from the teachings of any other Church fathers. Dr. Luther is the authority for these doctrines. He felt justified in doing this because he saw the developments for the previous thousand years as innovations or at least imperfect formulation of the Gospel as found in Scripture, but this was simply his opinion. To “save” his theory, he had to reject all existing authority: his rule, the the papacy, the councils and even where they did not suit him the Church fathers. Once he had the protection of his prince and, later, the other German princes, he was free to develop his doctrines, so that in the end, he had a coherent theology that we call Lutheranism. However, this is not what Lutheranism is today. Even as he was warm in the grave, Melanchthon--=his great collaborator-- was moving it toward the Calvinist modification. Between him and today’s evangelicals lie 450 years of history.

Your contention is that the language of the two Vatican Councils cannot be reconciled, but this is I think to take these words out of context. In a way, the Church acts as Luther did as an individual, which is to “save” its theory of authority by reformulating old truths in new language. The doctrine of infallibility was a “strong assertion” of a historic claim of authority by the Bishop of Rome. In a way, this is instrumental. HOW if not by vesting final authority in a single person, is the earthly purity of doctrine to be sustains; how are the many diverse members of the Body of Christ to be kept together and acting in consort? To put it another way, who are the human agents of the Holy Spirit? Obviously, Peter did not simply take the place of Our Lord. No one could. The fact is that Our Lord did not assign him as a kind of Caliph, which was the way that some of the Medieval popes sometimes seemed to act, but as Pope St. Gregory put it, “Servant of the Servants of God.,” In effect,like Moses at the head of the people of Israel. But more so. Moses had never seen His Lord in the flesh. Which is why Paul made a points of connecting with Peter in Jerusalem. Our Lord has ordained Peter to serve a role he never gave to any one else.

That did not, of course, make Peter the first “pope,” The popes are his successors, and here is the difficulty, one can or cannot accept his successors as bishops of Rome as having the same sort of authority as Peter, as being like him the “Keeper of the Keys.” One way to get around this, of course, and that is to downplay Peter’s role. That requires a certain reading of the text, which done mainly by elevating others, such as Paul/James. By treating Peter as no more than the “representative Christian” rarher than as the representative/deputy of Christ. Another way is to deny the existence of a monarchial bishop of Rome, In any case, Luther et al, simply rejected the authority of Rome by interposing his own authority as a scholar,

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Martin Luther: He felt justified in doing this because he saw the developments for the previous thousand years as innovations or at least imperfect formulation of the Gospel as found in Scripture,

OK, I agree with the above statement. But you seem to be ignoring my question — If Luther’s above study and his above belief was considered anathema to Trent and then re-iterated by Vatican I, why is the anathema not re-iterated in Vatican II for those who share his beliefs today?

Your citing history never answered that question. It only BEGGED the question.

RE: In a way, the Church acts as Luther did as an individual, which is to “save” its theory of authority by reformulating old truths in new language.

Well, if that is the case, then I would expect the Roman Catholic Church to “save” its theory of authority by reformulating old truths in THE SAME LANGUAGE.

Hundreds of thousands of Roman Catholics are even as we speak, LEAVING the church and joining other denominations, In Latin America alone, the Pentecostal movement is growing by leaps and bounds and many of these joiners were born Roman Catholic.

If as you say, The doctrine of Papal infallibility was a “strong assertion” of a historic claim of authority by the Bishop of Rome, I would expect it to be re-iterated in Vatican II, not weakened and calling those who leave the church to join another denomination “United with Christ”.

So, let’s go back to my original question, which was not answered at all. Historical issues you cited did nothing to answer my questions, which are these:

1) The ‘anyone’ in their , ‘if anyone says’ clause refer to specific people in HISTORY PAST, not to non-catholic Christians today.

Yes or No?

2) The anathema of Vatican I and Trent refers only to those who threaten to make war on the Vatican (”Existential threat” <— your words) and NOT to those Reformers and other non-catholic Christians who simply do not recognize the Pope’s authority over them but are not at war ( militarily ) with the Vatican.

Yes or No?

3) Vatican II therefore recognizes the likes of Luis Palau and even the spiritual descendants of the reformers as “united in Christ” together with devout Roman Catholics.

Yes or No?

Surely It isn’t difficult to answer my questions.