Xan,
Thank you for your expansive and well considered reply.
First, I'm going to speculate on the answer to a question I asked you previously, and propose the reason why. I think that you do accept the filioque, as included in the Creed, as declared by the Roman Catholic Church...ultimately the dispute being settled by the Roman pontiff....Because your history, prior to Luther's revolt, is in the Latin West.
The question needed to be settled. The solution is not found in the scriptures, And so an external authority was required. There was a dispute between Eastern and Western churches, theologians, etc. The ultimate authority is the sovereign Roman pontiff, and so Lutherans have the true doctrine, only thanks to the authority of the Roman pontiff, for they would not be able to determine it with their scripture alone doctrine; nor by faith alone; perhaps reason, but there were intelligent theologians also in the east, so that is unreliable. Ultimately, a final decision maker was required in this theological question. So thanks to Lutherans originating in the West, they claim correctly that part of Christian doctrine, which was settled by Rome.
Now I will attempt to address the points you raise.
It seems to me that for Luther's revolt (as well as those that followed), there had to be the claim that each were preserving the true church, that the body they left, were in schism. A significant problem with that claim is that the self-styled reformers were doing what Rome did only 15 years prior. The priest offered the sacrifice of the mass in Wittenberg, and gave absolution in the confessional. The clever solution to that compromised position is to assert the novel idea that the church is not a unified, visible body, but rather a loose collection of believers, found in all kinds of divergent places and assemblies. But this contradicts the plain meaning of the Creed, the first of the four marks of the Church being One....unity. ("as I and the Father are one.")
You wrote: There are true Christians inside every denomination. To the extent that a church helps people to saving faith, then it is worthwhile.
Part of The problem with this statement is that it reduces a church/denomination to becoming optional, as it is essentially a book club. Ultimately, In effect, Christianity becomes a do it yourself project.
You write: As for the marks of the church: I agree that the church is ONE, but that is seen by faith and not by sight.
This may be Luther's claim, but is not the Catholic teaching. I would say it is by faith of course, but also by sight, as you say. The church is visible, a unified body. Otherwise, it would not be ONE. Which is not what we see with countless Protestant denominations.
Again, please read chapter 5 of "the Catholic controversy" by Saint Francis de sales.
Chapter V THAT THE INVISIBLE CHURCH FROM WHICH THE INNOVATORS PRETEND TO DERIVE THEIR MISSION IS A FIGMENT AND THAT THE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST IS VISIBLE
Jorge bergolio (aka Francis), contrary to popular opinion, is not now, and never was Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. (It was not false humility that he denies the title of Vicar of Christ.) Although in eclipse, Pope Benedict remains The sovereign Roman pontiff, as he never renounced the "munus." Furthermore, jorge bergolio obviously neither holds nor teaches the Catholic faith. (He does promote some Lutheran doctrines, which escapes me at the moment. Furthermore he is an idolater, and promoter of adultery, etc) If you told me you thought the Argentinian apostate was the false prophet of Apocalypse, I would not take exception with you.
I don't think I am able to sufficiently propose to you the teaching that salvation is through faith and works. You are obviously familiar with the dispute, better than I am. I say that because as a lay Catholic, we don't generally spend time concerning ourselves with the beliefs of the Protestant sects. We do not define ourselves in opposition to those who have left the church.
Some years ago, Rome and some Protestant groups signed a document suggesting that the whole thing came down to a big misunderstanding, using same words with different meanings, and that both sides were in essential agreement. This is my recollection of it anyway. It sounds like that is something the Missouri synod rejects? I think the ELCA may have been party to it, at least at a diocesan level?
Okay, just did a search and found this article.
https://www.elca.org/JLE/Articles/354
I suspect an ELCA parishioner is not welcome at the typical Missouri synod service to receive the communion, as he lacks the requisite unity of faith. It looks like the Missouri synod is not in communion with the larger world Lutheran body, which signed the statement with Rome. If so, I respect the tenacity of the Missouri Synod members.
Regarding your objections to doctrines which were defined, even in recent centuries... How is it different, in essence, from what the early councils did? The recently defined doctrines did not just spring up out of the blue... But were rather largely already part of Catholic tradition, yet not defined definitively, to be held by all the faithful.
Regarding the immaculate conception, this was confirmed by the miracle of Lourdes, where she appeared to the child Bernadette and identified herself as "I am the Immaculate Conception." See this touching film, song of Bernadette,
https://youtu.be/FtKrTrEDDsI
Full movie
https://youtu.be/-6zAoq8tRfI
Recall the words of the angel Gabriel, "blessed are thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb." There is no record of any other woman receiving such an address from the angel of God. So yes, she is totally and completely unique among all of humanity.
Regarding purgatory, I would, in particular, invite you to learn the Catholic perspective on this teaching. It goes back to the Old testament, one of the books Luther discarded, 2 Maccabees, I think. Donations were sent to the temple priests, to offer sacrifice for those who fell in battle, for the purpose of their souls. Of course, Luther rejected the idea of a sacrificial priesthood, the mass being the daily sacrifice, and rejected purgatory, for the souls which need cleansing before they can enter heaven. They are all tied together.
I knew that Protestants reject purgatory, but I had no idea that you ascribe it to a 14th century popular story. Is this taught to Lutheran children about the Catholic Church?
Here is a brief citation from St. Thomas aquinas, who lived in the 13th century. (Wikipedia claims Aquinas is venerated in lutheranism?) St Thomas quotes Gregory of Nyssa (***4th century *** bishop), who Wikipedia again says is venerated by Lutheranism.
https://thomasofaquino.blogspot.com/201 ... y.html?m=1
You wrote: ...nobody is a member of the true Church unless that person is in communion with the Pope. That's elevating himself to the place of Christ...
Your conclusion doesn't follow from the claim. The Pope is Christ's caretaker, in his absence from Earth. He was given the keys of authority by Christ. His papal actions are done as Christ's representative. He does not have the power to remake the Church in his own image. (Excessive) adulation ("sweet Christ on Earth") are pious exclamations not to be taken literally by our Nordic minds.
You wrote: You have the burden of saying that the true church is inside the Roman communion.
Just to clarify, the Roman Catholic Church holds that the Catholic Church IS the true church (false teachings from Vatican II notwithstanding). Obviously, I include Eastern churches in communion with rome, such as uniate Ukrainian Greek Catholics.
The human element of the Catholic Church will always be subject to the need for conversion and purification, as human corruption is part of the human condition. The two items you list, indulgences and reception from The chalice, are not among those corruptions. This is already running too long, but in regards to the chalice question... It was viewed as an assault upon the belief that the host contains the body blood soul and divinity... The implication being that the blood is not received unless one receives from The chalice. This was a heresy, which even predates Luther. Sadly, it is prevalent in the protestantized New order (Novus ordo) of mass. The layman's hands are not consecrated to handle sacred items, such as the chalice. This is why communion is to be received on the tongue, in a posture of humility.
Between my various posts, I think I have provided sufficient clarification to illustrate that Missouri synod understandings about Catholic teaching are not accurate, consistently. I invite you to find out what the Roman Catholic Church teaches from Roman Catholic sources, rather than from biased sources.
Regarding our closeness, I agree. Lutherans certainly have valid baptism. Conservative Missouri synod lutherans uphold some of Christian morality, even in an age of hedonism. That's what makes it more tragic. Those who willfully remain outside the Catholic Church choose to stay in the rough seas rather than allow themselves to be pulled into the safety of the one Ark of Salvation, in the unity of the one faith. In the same way that all perished outside the Ark during the deluge...
Murphy