Beliefs News

US Lutherans approve document recognizing agreement with Catholic Church

Martin Luther, founder of Germany's Protestant (Lutheran) Church, nailed his 95 theses to the church door in Wittenberg, Germany, on Oct. 31, 1517. RNS file photo

(RNS) Nearly 500 years after Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the Castle Church door, the largest Lutheran denomination in the U.S. has approved a declaration recognizing “there are no longer church-dividing issues” on many points with the Roman Catholic Church.

The “Declaration on the Way” was approved 931-9 by the 2016 Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Churchwide Assembly held last week at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center in New Orleans.

ELCA Presiding Bishop Elizabeth A. Eaton called the declaration “historic” in a statement released by the denomination following the Wednesday (Aug. 10) vote.

“Though we have not yet arrived, we have claimed that we are, in fact, on the way to unity. … This ‘Declaration on the Way’ helps us to realize more fully our unity in Christ with our Catholic partners, but it also serves to embolden our commitment to unity with all Christians,” Eaton said.

The declaration comes as the Lutheran and Catholic churches prepare to kick off a year of celebrations to mark the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation.

Luther had touched off the Reformation on Oct. 31, 1517, when he nailed the 95 theses to the church door in Wittenberg, Germany. That document included 95 statements he wanted to debate within the Catholic Church.

Most notably, the “Declaration on the Way” includes 32 “Statements of Agreement” where Lutherans and Catholics no longer have church-dividing differences on issues of church, ministry and the Eucharist. Those statements previously had been affirmed by the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs.

It also lists remaining differences between the two churches and next steps on addressing them.

Eaton pointed to past agreements reached by the ELCA and Catholic Church, as well, including 1999’s “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.”

Last November, Pope Francis sparked controversy when he seemed to suggest a Lutheran could receive Communion in the Catholic Church, saying “life is greater than explanations and interpretations.” The pontiff  is scheduled to visit Sweden on Oct. 31 to preside at a joint service with Lutherans.

And the Vatican and the Lutheran World Federation released a joint document in 2013 titled “From Conflict to Communion” that focused on the progress made in Lutheran-Catholic dialogue in the past 50 years, rather than centuries of conflict.

The ELCA is one of the 10 largest Protestant denominations in the U.S. with more than 3.7 million members across the 50 states and the Caribbean region.

About the author

Emily McFarlan Miller

Emily McFarlan Miller is a national reporter for RNS based in Chicago. She covers evangelical and mainline Protestant Christianity.

844 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • ” ‘there are no longer church-dividing issues’ on many points with the Roman Catholic Church,” this begs the question; What church-dividing issues remain? Given the great animosity held by a large number of ultra-traditionalist Roman Catholics towards the present pontiff, many of whom refuse the right hand of fellowship to anyone who is not a Roman Catholic, there is a large portion of road yet to be traveled before this reconciliation can be considered at hand.

  • “U.S. Lutherans approves document recognizing agreement with the Catholic Church”

    I wonder if the doctrine of Justification, remember, it’s the doctrine on which the church stands or falls, was agreed upon?

  • This is awesome! Hope that some day, all little churches become one holy, catholic, and apostolic church in reality

  • “ELCA Presiding Bishop Elizabeth A. Eaton called the declaration “historic” in a statement released by the denomination following the Wednesday (Aug. 10) vote.”

    How ironic this was said by a woman bishop.

  • You missed that part of the article that stated this: Eaton pointed to past agreements reached by the ELCA and Catholic Church, as well, including 1999’s “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.” That hurdle was already overcome almost 20 years ago.

  • Everett, why not have a look at the actual document under discussion? The article has a link to the “Declaration on the Way,” which provides the reader with points of agreement, remaining differences, and next steps.

  • Are you saying that the Roman church agrees that Justification is by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone?

  • The Catholic Church has long held that Grace is freely given and not earned. It just has not trickled down to the pews. Justification by Faith, if I understand correctly, is the doctrine that we are saved solely by our faith in Jesus Christ, and Him alone. And as I understand Catholic Doctrine, from a theological perspective, Works of mercy and acts of charity and penance do not save us, any more than buying a raffle ticket assures us of winning the Lottery. They help us perfect our Faith, but do not determine our selection by God. That comes from God alone, who is manifested through the Man-God, Jesus of Nazareth. As a cradle Catholic I have been taught to believe these things.

  • The points of all these agreements address many fine details with language that is in more a change in tone and less in substance especially with major differences from the Reformation. Also some back sliding such as the Pope giving indulgences after the joint declaration on Justification by Faith. The negotiated language is subject to interpretation that suits many parties. The Lutheran and the Roman Churches have so many differences in theology, power structure and culture that a full reunification is impossible, Some of these differences have developed since the Reformation while some go back to the Reformation. Addressing some major issues that sparked the Reformation is good. However issues of the role of dead saints, purgatory, church government, numerous other points of doctrine, etc. remain, The best is finding some common ground on particular points, allow some level of inter communion and coordination of services.

  • And that, Steven, is a center point of ELCA Lutheranism. Other Lutheran denominations, and there are many, are more works righteousness focused.

  • Not “ultra”, J., but definitely liberal. I’d say your word “ultra” is a better fit for Unitarians. But yes, the decidedly conservative, possibly right wing Lutheran Brethren, Confessing Lutherans, LCMS, WELS, etc., don’t like agreements with any other denominations. They think that unless you completely agree with them, you are wrong. In fact, it was the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod that punished their pastor for praying with other churches following 9/11.

  • Excellent answer George. That is my understanding of this agreement too. The ELCA has been determined since it’s inception (1967, I think) to forge closer ties with other churches, believing that our similarities in Christian faith are much stronger than our differences. The ELCA has full communion agreements with the UCC, UMC, PCUSA, ECUSA, Moravian Church, Disciples of Christ and others.

  • Well there are all sorts of Lutherans and different synods and so forth and I know from experience that they do not necessarily like each other nor do many of them want anything to do with the Roman Catholic Church. So I don’t know where ‘the Lutherans’ idea comes from. And the different splits of Lutherans go from pro-life to pro-abortion to pro-sodomy. And none of them believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist so where and how could that ever make us of one creed?

  • And as a Wisconsin synod pastor told me personally: We do NOT pray with anyone outside our ‘confession’.

  • I do not know of a pro-abortion or pro- sodomy synod. Some are more tolerant on the topic of homosexuality and abortion. Lutherans have always believed in the real presence of Christ through the doctrine of sacramental union that Christ’s presences is in both the bread and wine. It is a different explanation then the idea of transubstantiation, but clearly believes in the real presence. Luther’s biggest objection to the Roman Church’s tradition of communion was denying congregants wine during the distribution..

  • The question is how much fidelity to the Bible is there in the liberal churches “gospel”. To believe the Word as it was written has never gone over well with the unsaved, unregenerate, heathen. You can call yourself a Christian all day long, but if you cling to what the Bible clearly condemns, you’re not a Christian.

  • Exactly Maggie. Please someone, tell me how you can ever have agreement with each other unless someone compromises their beliefs?

  • I was a Catholic my whole life and they have NEVER believed in justification by faith alone in Christ alone!!

  • Yup, all sorts of Lutherans. The ELCA is the one willing to talk to all the others because they don’t believe they have a corner on the Absolute Truth Market. Given your prejudicial language Maggie, I’m guessing you are among the latter. Well, I hope it serves you well.

  • “..To believe the Word as it was written has never gone over well with the unsaved…” Says the man missing books out of His bible. 🙂

  • It is a basic tenet of Lutheranism that the Real Presence in the Eucharist is defined along the terms “consubstantiation” (meaning that the presence of Jesus exists alongside that of the bread and wine, not replacing the “substance” of either as Aquinas defined it—further, this doctrine is consonant with Eastern Orthodox Christianity and affirms, I believe, the Council of Chalcedon’s definition of Jesus as Word made flesh).

    I’m an Episcopalian, but this was a major bit of learning for us in seminary. Particularly because of how it underpins the full communion relationship with share with the ELCA.

    This is not to negate your point, though, as I’m sure some of the other synods have different views. But, arguably, to say that there’s no real presence is to reject something that was very important to Luther himself.

  • That’s the 3 point triangle, Justification by faith, election, and free will, To be wrong on any one point and the other 2 crumble. The problem is from which ever of the 3 points one is standing on, the other 2 look different. Keeping all 3 in proper balance is key.

  • This is fascinating and great news.

    I’m really interested, though, in how there can be no longer any “church dividing issues” when there’s a woman bishop affirming this. Regardless, this is exciting.

  • What a read, over 100 pages… Small “c” for “church” is very telling. It’s amazing all the Christian sects that have appeared in the last few hundred years. What is it up to, 40,000 give or take?

    I am grateful that the Church (large C) has stayed firm in preserving the “Deposit of the Faith” that was “once and for all” handed to the Saints (Jude 2,3).

    As the world slips deeper into relativism and ignoring God’s moral laws, Saint Paul’s direction to hold fast to the “traditions” of Apostolic teaching has more meaning today (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

    Jesus did not give the keys to the Kingdom to Martin Luther, Jesus gave them to Peter. Follow Peter.

    Unity is important, but on God’s terms, not man’s. I pray for conversion into the family of God, as revealed through Scripture and Apostolic Tradition.

  • Follow Peter? When did Peter become Our Savior,HHP? Nowhere in Scripture are we told to follow Peter; what are you talking about???.

  • If the RCC embraced Justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone they would have to reject the Sacramental Office of the Priesthood, which of course, is not on the board.

  • Yours was not the Catholic upbringing I received, but your analysis is absolutely spot on as I understand the way of Faith.

  • From my reading it seems like they acknowledged some, not all, aspects where Lutheranism and Catholicism are no longer in disagreement. For example, one of the major contentions between Lutherans and Catholics of the past, on the subject of indulgences, is no longer a point of disagreement because the Catholics have come around to agreeing with the Lutherans on the subject.

  • The reformers did not dispute Roman doctrine that God alone justifies nor the doctrine that grace is freely given by God. The Reformation was never about the necessity of grace it was about the sufficiency of grace.

  • Good Question, this info is a good place to start, see also Apostolic Secession and the role it plays in preserving the deposit of faith.

    “Because Peter was made the foundation of the Church, there were practical implications: it gave him a special place or primacy among the apostles. As the passages below demonstrate, the early Church Fathers clearly recognized this.

    Clement of Alexandria

    “[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

    Tertullian

    “For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

    “[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

    The Letter of Clement to James

    “Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

    Origen

    “[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]). “

  • Not entirely. Notice the level of participation noted in the document, far from “historical” in that this document has not been adopted by the US bishops, let alone the Holy Sea.

    “Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
    The Bishops’ Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs af rmed the 32 Agreed Statements and commended the Declaraion on the Way to Cardinal Koch, president of the Ponti cal Council for Promoting Christian Unity, for further re ection and action. The Declaration is not a Statement of the full body of Bishops of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.”

  • Not in my lifetime. And there are Protestant denominations that do not ordain women or allow same sex marriage. But this event brings hope.

  • ‘Christ’s presences (presence?) is in both the bread and wine.’
    For how long does this ‘real presence’ (as defined by Lutherans) last?
    Do Lutherans believe in Eucharistic Adoration? If not, why not?
    As to the statement by the ECLA Churchwide Assembly I haven’t yet read it so I am not really in a position to comment on it but it is a general tendency for these kinds of statement, affirming doctrinal agreement between different Churches, to use terminology which is vague enough to allow anybody to take them to mean whatever they want them to mean. An example being ‘both Lutherans and Catholics believe in the real presence’. And as Avery Cardinal Dulles wrote: “Although not all would agree, I think the much vaunted Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification by Faith, signed in 1999, exaggerated the agreements.”

  • Nancy Janzen’s citations are right on target, Bob. Look them up. (BTW, “CCC” stands for “Catechism of the Catholic Church.” But as a life-long Catholic, you knew that, right?) You seem to be confusing “justification” with “sanctification.”

  • Hmmm. How about reading Matt 16: 17-19. ‘keys of the kingdom of heaven’. What does that mean – according to the Bible?
    Now you may have a different interpretation than that of the Catholic Church but then it’s just your interpretation versus that of the Catholic Church. So unless you are claiming personal infallibility, how can you be 100 per cent certain that the interpretation of the Catholic Church is not correct? And did God really want us to depend on our own, highly diverse – even contradictory – interpretations of His word? Or is it not more likely that Jesus left a Church with authority to teach?

  • Would you care to explain how the teaching of the Catholic Church on Indulgences has changed?
    And have you ever read the 95 theses? They make very interesting reading. Just look at all the things that Luther accepted in the 95 theses.

  • That’s because the only time that ‘faith alone’ is mentioned in the Bible is to reject it. (James 2:24)

  • Many Lutherans would say that it is dangerous to try to put too much human rationalization on how this all happens which has been an issue of many including the Roman and Calvinist Churches.

    Here is the Lutheran section on Eucharistic Adoration from an article on Wikipedia.

    Main article: Eucharist in the Lutheran Church

    Lutheran Eucharistic adoration is most commonly limited in duration to the Eucharistic service because Lutheran tradition typically does not include public reservation of the Sacrament. If the holy elements are not consumed at the altar or after the service, then they can be set aside and placed in an aumbry, which is normally located in the sacristy. Primarily, the extra hosts are reserved for another Eucharist or for taking to the sick and those too feeble to attend a church service. However, in North America and Europe, some Lutherans may choose to reserve the Eucharist in a tabernacle near the altar. The Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church and some parishes in the Lutheran Evangelical Catholic tradition strongly encourage Eucharistic adoration.

    Historically in Lutheranism there have been two parties regarding Eucharistic adoration: Gnesio-Lutherans, who followed Martin Luther’s view in favor of adoration, and Philippists who followed Philipp Melanchthon’s view against it. Although Luther did not entirely approve of the Feast of Corpus Christi,[53] he wrote a treatise “The Adoration of the Sacrament” (Von anbeten des sakraments des heyligen leychnahms Christi, 1523) where he defended adoration but desired that the issue not be forced. In his reform of the Roman Mass Luther placed the Sanctus after the Institution Narrative to serve as a solemn act of worship of the Real Presence just brought about by the latter. After the death of Martin Luther, further controversies developed including Crypto-Calvinism and the second Sacramentarian controversy, started by Gnesio-Lutheran Joachim Westphal. The Philippist understanding of the Real Presence without overt adoration through time became dominant in Lutheranism, although it is not in accordance with Luther’s teaching. The German theologian Andreas Musculus can be regarded as one of the warmest defenders of Eucharistic adoration in early Lutheranism.[54]

  • “Abortion ought to be an option only of last resort.” (ECLA Social Statement on Abortion, 1991) Now you can hedge and qualify as much as you like but that statement is pro-abortion. It says that abortion can be morally justified.

  • Is someone swallowing a camel here…amid all the good comments? Do Lutherans think they can convince themselves and others that the Roman Catholic Conglomerate with its huge financial/banking interests, its diplomacy corp, it historic military conquests, its real estate holdings, its educational system and its bureaucracy in addition to its system for administering downright magical sacraments is a ‘church’ comparable to the many suffering communions?

    What utterly strange and convoluted reasoning! Shall we not return to discussing how many angels can really stand on the head of a pin?

  • The answer is 278,989,001 give or take a few million. Further, have you ever tried camel meat? Some say it is great. ( a little humor)

    You have many valid points about the history and current Roman Church. There is nothing about its form of government or its entanglement with secular governments that appeals to me That being said, there are many other Churches with misplaced priorities, unholy alliances with politicians and commercial sectors along with the accumulation of wealth that benefits its own organization and clergy.

  • That would be a great thing. Of course the holy catholic and apostolic church is the universal Christian Church not to be confused with the Roman Church ask any Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, or other who follows the Apostle’s Creed, but does not submit to the Roman Pope.

  • BTW, Geo do you know how to get a camel moving if you do not wish to cook him? Take two bricks and…
    I am checking your sums with my abacus. It takes a while and speaking of camels..the one you are so gracefully swallowing. You did not get it..too humourous. NOT a ‘church’.
    Your moral relativism shows big time…the other guys are doing it…so THERE is no problem. Classic apologetics! But nice try. Pls lay down, take two aspirin and do not operate farm equipment until rested. Best,

  • The Council of Trent held up indulgences as valid while condemning the use of indulgences for corrupt purposes, which is exactly in keeping what with Luther was calling for, see Theses 73-74.

  • Pro-sodomy is a nice way of saying I hate and/or despise gay people, but I’m religious so I can’t say it.

  • I really doubt anyone’s opinions or beliefs are changed by these discussions. But, I learn a lot about other’s ideas and perceptions of their church and what other churches are about You can learn the real differences and the similarities. Of course all churches claim some sort of “real or valid” basis for their explanation of a point of theology.

  • Thank you for the link, it was interesting, if long, reading. The thing is that the Reformers did not say that the Roman church denied that it was God alone that justified or that grace was necessary, nor that Rome denied that faith was necessary. It is the sufficiency of that faith, the sufficiency of what Christ accomplished on the cross that is at issue and how and when a person is justified in the eyes of God. This also ties into a whole host of matters that the Reformers took issue with.

  • the nine voting against were LCMS Pastors who registered for the wrong convention 😉
    Meanwhile, LCMS laity are telling their friends repeatedly, “no, that’s the OTHER ones…”

  • They need to specify which Lutheran denomination because they vary. ELCA is liberal. There are several serious differences between Lutheran and Catholic theology.

  • As a Lutheran I am sorry to read this. I went to a Jesuit university and have gone to Catholic churches a number of times and I cannot abide the political entity that is the Catholic church. Some of their politicizing has been so bad I’ve walked out of their services. It’s not just the difference between female pastors and bishops. I’ve seen sermons used to claim political campaigns were underway – which was a complete lie – and the sermon encouraging parishioners to sign political petitions that were in the lobby at tables pushing political agendas. I’ve listened to elderly white priests talk about how they knew women who were happy to be forced to carry a kid to term and give them up (I can give a lot of stories contrary to that from people who used to be Catholic.) Then there is the way they protected their pedophiles. The Catholic church has done so much damage to so many people over the years the Lutherans need to look at what they practice in addition to what they preach, not just philosophical discussion.

  • Perhaps we ought go down the list of Luther’s objections, one by one, and tick off which side of each argument has now prevailed. Oh, wait; that process would simply reaffirm/highlight the myriad differences, putting the lie to this myth of Universal Agreement and Reaching Across the Aisle to Git Sumpin DONE!

  • When I was being raised as a Catholic, I went one time with my little friend and her family to her Lutheran church. Even as an unsophisticated young kid, I wondered what all the fuss was about. As far as I was concerned, it was the same service with all the same parts I heard every week in my Catholic church.

  • Even the Roman Catholic Church teaches that abortion may be acceptable if the life of the mother, and hence, also the baby, is at risk. The argument is that it would be better for one person to die than two. This situation, however, is very rare, especially now with modern medicine.

  • “I really doubt anyone’s opinions or beliefs are changed by these discussions.”

    That is an reasonable point, but I do not totally think it is true. At this point in my life, I am unlikely to change my opinion. But there was definitely a period 25-30 years ago where I was exploring, reading and hearing different positions. It took years, and a lot of study of history and theology, but I moved from the Presbyterian Church, into which I was born by the luck of the draw, to the Catholic Church, which seemed to me to have the strongest claims to Truth. Still does.

    These conversations are important, because I believe that if a person is seeking Truth, it will emerge from conflicting voices as much as from faithful voices all speaking in unison. The idea that faith is totally a private matter, and that another’s faith should never be challenged, has always struck me as silly. But I know that most people do not care, so I keep quiet most of the time…

  • True … they believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist … however, they do NOT believe in transubstantiation … they do not believe that the bread and wine actually BECOME the Body and Blood of Christ.

    That’s a big difference

  • What’s the purpose of this other than a bunch of religious bureaucrats getting together to make a feel- good proclamation and produce a verbose document? Who paid for this get together? Just another example of Man getting in the way ……… this is nothing more than a gigantic foobar.

  • As a non-Catholic, I’m skeptical about the “real presence.” I believe the ceremony is symbolic only. The Catholic church repeats this ceremony repeatedly, typically several times a day yet it occurs only once in Scriptures. Wouldn’t Christ prefer that priests and others spend their time meeting the needs of “the least of these” rather than the rigamarole involved in these repetitive ceremonies? I’ve heard that no more than half of Catholics believe in the Real Presence. When you compare the simplicity and down-to-earth ministry of Jesus Christ with the repetitive standard prayers, costumes, and ceremonies of Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopalian, and other mainline churches, you must conclude that all this is dross. God exists, but man has messed with his message.

  • What about the deification of Jesus’ mother? Catholics habitually pray to a dead woman,not a resurrected Christ, expecting to get results ( comfort..blessings etc)and nowhere is it mentioned in the Gospel I have read that mentions Jesus’ mother to be more than a good woman of the correct lineage,faithful and carin… I think THAT is a MAJOR point of contention

  • This article is woefully under-developed. Long-form journalism, please.

    There are many factual details needed that need fleshing out– for example, on what points are Catholics and Lutherans now in agreement? On what do they still disagree?

  • I wish you all well when you’re debating the details of preparation for eternity.

    As for me, when I snuff it and get to judgement I only hope to hear “Welcome home. Nice to see you again. I remember when you did thus and so and thus and so which were pretty cool things. We can deal with the questionable ones in a bit”.

    You guys have fun deciding all the details about who’s right and who’s wrong. And make sure you memorize them to take ’em with you

  • and I would like to add ( mainly to others ) – let’s at least try to establish a positive approach to unity – let’s give it a chance, The Holy Spirit has a way of doing things.

  • briteness – – – Very Peaceful post – I am a 78 year old cradle Catholic who is still converting…. “THEY” say never talk Religion of politics – can you think of any subject more Important to You…we can only talk about the weather so long.

  • It’s actually a myth that Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the church door. There’s no proof that it actually happened; but that he articulated these theses is very important indeed. It will be a great day when Lutherans and Roman Catholics will be able the share the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper (Holy Communion) with each other. There’s no reason why this should not be happening already. Roman Catholic priests are no better or more qualified to celebrate the Holy Mysteries than are Lutheran pastors. Theological niceties always get in the way of true union with our sisters and brothers in faith. I’m a Lutheran.

  • bill – If Jesus is the only one Resurrected we are wasting our time. Doubtful Jesus would appreciated your comments on HIS Mother, who was Chosen by Jesus Christ’s Father, God Himself and by The Holy Spirit who overshadowed Her.

  • There are three major “sects” in the Lutheran Community. The ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America – the largest), The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, and The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. It is much to our shame that we often don’t get along with each other. Indeed, it is a scandal to the Gospel. Lutherans believe that Jesus Christ is truly present in the Holy Sacrament, though we don’t describe it as transubstantiation – a man made concept. This is common to all Lutherans.

  • We are not ashamed to be progressive. The church must live in the times in which it exists. There is nothing “ultra” about the ELCA.

  • We believe in the holy catholic church, i.e. the universal church. Catholic means universal, not just Roman Catholic.

  • a celebration of Luther? How far the Catholic Church has fallen under this pope. “Catholics Come Home”
    To what?

  • We hate the gay adjenda. Homosexuality is a sinful life style. But we all fall short. Lets go for repentance, forgivness. but no tolerance of sin nor any teaching of sin being ok.

  • maybe someone who studied the Lutheran religion, and probably the Catholic religion as well, can tell me. But I once heard the ONLY major way in which Lutherans differed in belief than Catholics was that Lutherans did not believe Mary to be a virgin.

  • Just a small but INCREDIBLY important clarification: the Catholic Church
    teaches the principle of double effect; it does NOT say that abortion
    is ever acceptable. For example, a mother with cancer–>”If…the
    mother needs surgery immediately if she is going to live, you,
    as her doctor, have only two choices: You can allow both patients to die
    or you can save one and lose the other. The moral choice is to save the
    mother. The principle of double effect applies: (1) Your intention is to
    perform a good—to save the mother’s life by removing her cancerous
    uterus. The evil effect of causing the death of the baby is not desired.
    It is a very sad and unfortunate result of the good act. (2) The evil
    effect does not cause the good result. You are removing a diseased organ
    that is killing the mother, not performing an abortion. The baby will
    die during or shortly after the operation, but the purpose of the
    operation is not to kill the child. (3) Two very grave matters must be
    weighed against each other. Saving one person is better than allowing
    both
    to die through inaction, even though it means the death of one.”
    http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/abortion-and-double-effect
    Hope this helps!

  • Lest we forget, “united we stand, divided we fall,” against the constant machinations by the devil against Christianity !

  • It is only said once a day per priest. They consecrate the bread and wine using the words of Jesus at the Last Supper. Before this there is scripture reading and of course prayers and religious songs ,many are Plasms.
    If a congregation is present, a sermon (homily) is given. More prayers followed by other songs. So Cecil , you should go sometime and see for yourself, don’t rely on what you are told. The entire liturgy is prayer. Then they go to their office and take care of the parish matters, many relating to family and individual concerns.

  • So the church is just supposed to go with the crowd, mimicking and blending in with the culture? That’s also known as “Salt which has lost its savor.”

  • Martin Luther quotes: “We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist…personally I declare that I owe the Pope no other obedience than that to Antichrist.” (Aug. 18, 1520) Taken from The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 2., pg. 121 by Froom. (In response to a papal bull [official decree]): “I despise and attack it, as impious, false… It is Christ Himself who is condemned therein… I rejoice in having to bear such ills for the best of causes. Already I feel greater liberty in my heart; for at last I know that the pope is antichrist, and that his throne is that of Satan himself.” –D’Aubigné, b.6, ch. 9.

    Not sure how you remedy this. The Bible asks, “how can two walk together lest they agree.” Amos 3:3

  • Mary is in heaven but is NOT God. The roman catholics have made her a seperate and powerful entity with powers. Christ is our intercessor NOT (m)ary….small m. Do you pray to St. Paul? He did a LOT for Christ and the early church performing many miracles and wonders,laying down the path for many to follow
    and i dont see anybody praying to him as if he could somehow persuade God to do things for them on earth.

  • Mary was virgin according the Lutherans. What they disagree upon is that she was born without sin, that she ascended into heaven and that she can intercede on the behalf of living people who pray to her. Lutherans retain the customs of the Roman Church if the custom was not contrary to the Bible. Lutherans do not believe in purgatory, intercession by dead saints, the authority of the pope, the Roman Church’s form of government, the use of indulgences and a number of other issues. There are a number of websites that compare and contrast the largest differences between the two Churches,

  • LCR – my point is , if you read the Bible and can’t understand to follow Peter – Who was The first Pope of The Catholic Church, which Jesus founded, and left Peter in charge – You should read the Bible with an open mind so you would know who You should follow… Maybe my mistake but I kinda “assumed ” you have a book as a pope…. Sorry I was confrontational to you – I apologize.

  • Some Lutheran churches allow any baptized Christian to partake in communion while others only allow members of their synod to partake. Therefore members of the Roman Church could have communion in many Lutheran Churches already. The pope seemed to give some wiggle room on allowing Lutherans to take communion. The Roman Church allows Orthodox and other Christians to have communion under special circumstances. Personally, I would not take communion in a Roman Church unless I knew both elements were given to communicants. Maybe if churches just stayed at ” Holy Mysteries” and stopped to trying to explain the Eucharist in detail that make sense to some human mind, we would all be better off. After all, that is why they call it faith.

  • Ask yourself: What did Jesus say about homosexuality?

    Now ask yourself: What did Jesus say about divorce?

    The answer is He said nothing specifically about homosexuality (this is not to imply He condones it); HOWEVER, he spoke very clearly about divorce.

    It’s funny, then, that you’re quick to express your hatred for homosexuality. Where is your hatred for divorce?

    Your church allows for divorce — which is a direct contradiction to Jesus Christ, Himself — and somehow this is okay.

    You clearly pick and choose which words of Jesus are to be followed and which are to be ignored.

    Hypocrisy like this damages the Body of Christ. In addition, I can’t even imagine the mind games you must engage in within your own head in order to make this all somehow “right” to you.

  • bill – Yes I do pray TO Mary and Peter, Paul, James, John , My earthly Father & Mother, I believe they are ALL Friends of God – I also believe Mary was and is a Special Friend to God, Jesus and The Holy Spirit….. If Paul can intervene for me I am positive Jesus will hear His Mother…. To my understanding of the Bible, Mary initiated the miracle at Cana – She only spoke to the waiter – ” Do whatever He tells You ” Mary KNEW Her Son would respect Her wish. PEACE !

  • Are you not familiar with God, and who He is and what He can do?

    Are you not familiar with the power of prayer?

    Are you not familiar with what “faith” is all about?

    At the end of the day, do you even have faith?

  • 1st as you know God made adam and eve and as you have heard not adam and steve. 2nd The bible tells us a man is not to lie with a man and a women is not to lie with a women. The word homosexualty was not a word when the bible was writen. So in that respect your right the word homosexuality in not in the bible.And there is no hate only disagreement. you are the one hating.

  • This is a wonderful step in the right direction. We can only hope and pray that additional steps will be coming in the future. All good Christians long for Christian Unity.

  • Pro-sodomy is a nice way of referring to those who approve of same-sex sexual relationships. “Hate” and “despise” are how Leftists refer to people that Leftists hate and despise, which is anyone who does not adopt Leftism lock, stock, and barrel.

  • Wow. I’m not calling anyone out in particular, just some of the general tone.

    I’m a Christian, and I am stunned and amazed by the pettiness, the arrogance, and the vitriol being spewed by you “Christians”. I don’t see a lot of love here, I see a lot of “I’m right and you’re wrong” and “Too bad I won’t see you in heaven because you believe…”.

    I can only imagine what a non-believer who reads this thinks. If I read this and am not a believer, I wouldn’t want any part of you nitwits.

    More to the point, I can only imagine what Jesus thinks. I’m no seminary student, but I seem to remember something about you can know everything, prophesy, work miracles, and cast out demons but none of that matters if you don’t have love.

    If you are seriously arguing about consubstantiation versus transubstantiation with such disdain for the other side, I’d say you need a bit more love in your heart. If you don’t have love in your heart, it DOESN’T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK HAPPENS TO THE BREAD!

  • Correct. It is important to believe what Jesus said on the matter, not what makes you comfortable.

  • It did not say that you would be one creed.
    I am an atheist who understood the article.
    How come you did not?

  • Just for the record, I read once that a survey was done with every Anglican priest in the U.K., they were asked what they would do if their church ordained a female, around 1/3 said they would convert to Catholicism within days.

  • Are you even aware of what you just wrote an hour ago? How can you have such a non-existent memory. You wrote, “We *hate* the gay agenda.”

    YOU brought up hate; YOU said you hate.

    And I asked you what JESUS said about homosexuality — and, of course, you couldn’t address it.

    Likewise, you couldn’t address how Jesus spoke more than once about how divorce is a sin and He doesn’t like it.

    But all of that is just too inconvenient for your pride.

    Well, continue being proud and see where it gets you in the end…

  • By “the Lutheran Community” you appear to mean within the USA.

    As a confirmed LCA (predecessor of ELCA) member (and a confirmed Episcopalian…) I was welcomed in one Wisconsin Synod congregation and one Missouri Synod where I sang in the choir, but not in my local Missouri Synod. I suspect these differences don’t extend to most nations. Most of my pastors have supported the idea that these artificial excuses for division are sinful. Although i have left congregations who considered anti-gay and anti-feminist politics essential. I’m hoping it doesn’t happen again over the issue of whether it’s essential to support politicians who lie about their position.

  • Not only that but the church door where it supposedly happened in Wittenberg (Lutherstadt) is actually a reconstruction, the one from the time of Luther burned in 1857.

  • Jose, brother,
    I do not wish to be unkind, but, that is simply ludicrous. To claim the title Protestant, one must be in protest against the teachings of the Catholic Church. That is what it means to be Protestant. Lutherans were once at the forefront of the protest…although it appears that they have now given up the solid rock of biblical truth for the shifting sands of man’s tradition and ecclesiastical unity.

  • Oh, how the love just permeated your post, especially in the name calling…pot this is kettle. You, beloved, are prayed for.

  • i will pray to them i KNOW have power, The Father and The Son, not to them men say may have power. name ONE scripture in the King James bible where it says praying to Jesus’ mother for strength or guidance is accepted as doctrine, helpful or necessary..just one. NO?

  • I don’t think that the The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod would agree to any of this, especially from a female bishop, since they don’t even allow that in their church. The LCMS is the more conservative bunch, whereas the rest are more liberal. This whole article is interesting, but don’t think it gonna fly.

  • No one is ‘pro-abortion,’ it is called ‘pro-choice,’ try posting again without the drama Maggie.

  • From the outset the bishop, Eaton, would not be recognized as a bishop by the catholic church because she is a woman.

  • No such thing as ‘pro-abortion’ george; get it right, it is ‘pro-choice.’
    And are you so naïve to believe heterosexual women don’t have anal sex (sodomy)? Sounds like you have been missing out.

  • Your being judgmental and hateful is a sinful lifestyle John, you are going to hell, specially since you lie pretending you don’t sin. (remember the 9th commandment), you are doomed.

  • Actually the god first made Adam and Lilitht, but Lilith would not put up with Adams testosterone poisoning so she left John.

    And you are hateful, this are your words; “We hate the gay adjenda” What exactly in your delusional mind is the “gay agenda”?

  • Just so no one is confused, the Catholic Church was not party to the debates and declarations of this Lutheran meeting nor the statements by Lutheran “Bishop” [sic] Elizabeth A. Eaton (who is no bishop; just a lay lady playing church/doll house). If this group of people have winnowed the number of disagreements they have with the Catholic Church, fine. But don’t think anything these “Lutherans” debated or concluded involved the Catholic Church.

  • Typical of you holier-than-thou to twist the meaning of words to fit you ‘agenda; Mike; There is no such thing as ‘pro-abortion,’it is pro-choice. A woman may chose not to have an abortion and that is fine.
    And whodafuck are you to dictate morals on others?

  • In a way, that nice to overcome division and accept differences. There are different callings, the importance is to be one in Jesus. Now the problem: in Europe both are dying churches, I mean these churches are pretty empty in worship services and most people are old. What is still living are evangelical communities, representing 1.5 to 2% of the general population. Hence Christianity is in a dire condition there and my feeling, there are already more Muslim practicing people than practicing Christians in Western Europe and Northern Europe. One important target for a Christian women is to give birth to souls who may know God, as far as financial means may guarantee a good education. With 1.5 child per women (even in Poland) produces a suicidal demography. No culture can be sustained that way.

  • Only the ELCA allows women to be pastors. Missouri and Wisconsin Synod’s are much more conservative.

  • Are you familiar with the fact that the god is impotent to affect human lives?

    But according to the bible it is not pro-life:

    – The god sometimes approves of killing fetuses and children.

    * “And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women
    alive? … Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. — Numbers 31:15-17

    (Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. They would have been killed along with their unborn fetuses.)
    – Are you familiar with the fact that in the history of mankind, prayer has never been proven effective?
    – Are you familiar with the fact that if you actually had any ‘faith’, I mean just a tiny tad, you should be able to:
    * Move mountains
    * Cure the sick (without medical intervention)
    * Heal the blind
    * Raise the dead
    * Do greater works than your lord
    > This is all per your lord, yet, with all your faith you could not move a feather.
    So, are you familiar with self-delusion F’no?

  • This ‘agreement is heresy. Lutherans are Protestants. Catholics are not Protestants. Do the math.

  • The Catholic Religion is not a cafeteria faith. Either believe what the church teaches or you don’t. We accept everyone into our faith, and Pope Francis has emphasized that all are welcome and we should make them feel that we do. We do not condone sinful acts and at the same time we are not to be judgmental. That is God’s job. At times when you have been brought up in the traditional Catholic Faith it is a struggle to accept some of the “liberal” changes that have happened since Vatican II. But when you think of it, it is to make the Church more inclusive. The German Lutheran Church has made their wishes known to the Vatican as well as the Anglican Church and The Church has allowed them to keep their rites and rituals with little change. Looking forward to full union with all faiths.

  • Except for obviously catholics, doctors don’t make decisions based on archaic religious beliefs.

  • Biological fact, if you eat you poop what you eat; so when does the cracker and wine lose the magic and become poop?

  • Don’t be naïve John, there is a reason why there are thousands of christians sects and each one believes to be the holder of the truth and that all others are wrong and evil.

  • Jesus is the way the Truth and the Life no one comes to the Father but by Me.
    Jn14:6
    He is omniscient, omnipotent, and Omnipresent. Isaiah 9:6

    He and He alone died on the cross, shed his blood and was a Holy Sacrifice for all.
    He is our High Priest who sits on the right hand of the Father and makes intercession for us. Hebrews 4.
    Anyone else is just a vessel which God used for his Glory and to Proclaim his word.
    But we should not Pray to them, because they are not God and cannot hear us, he knows our prayers before we even ask him. Jn 15:16, Micah 7:7.
    Exodus 20 says have no other God’s before me and make no image in Heaven or Earth.

  • When people who are “pro choice” call people who disagree with them “Anti Choice” , then we will stop calling them pro abortion.

  • John if you actually read the bible you will come out and atheist. According to the story, there was no first pope or catholic church at the time of Jesus. The catholic church began to organize three centuries after the alleged Christ.

  • Wow. Christians, of which I am a member, WE Must remember that we serve the same God, And we are faithful to Him In different ways and in understandings. Much like the hand can not do what the eye does, Right? But we Must focus our energy on the real fight, the real enemy, or Our numbers will truly continue to diminish, on a related topic muslim religion is the fastest growing religion in the united states, and is very popular in Rome. I am not a scholar, but I know how to pray and meditate. I found the comments very thought provoking on an academic level. On the tire meets the turf level, I find I do not know any of your real lives and cannot judge, I can only set an example of living my life with God as my Daddy, my Director, and my Principal. Sounds funny, but I try to keep God in my thoughts and talk to Him throughout the day, especially in decisions concerning others, and my interactions with them. I don’t know that the rest has that much weight in the eyes of God. I think of Holy Communion as God entering me on the cellular level and sustains each cell in my body and helps me connect with him. My favorite Jesus quote is cut a tree and I am there in the center of it also. So God is very much in all things.
    Maybe I’ll get slammed for a forrest gump mentality, but being good with God, is much easier than the Church Clubs make it sound. After all the Father of our Faith, Abraham. What did he read, confess to and study to hear God in the quiet night? When the day is done, give yourself a break, turn off the mind, and tune into the heart.

  • “to pro-sodomy.”

    You mean, allowing heterosexuals to have oral sex? That is legally sodomy, and there is no Biblical injunction against it. Of course, you cannot be referring to homosexuals, since the sin of Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuals. God was quite clear on that in Ezekiel 16:
    20 “‘And you took your sons and daughters whom you bore to me and sacrificed them as food to the idols. Was your prostitution not enough? 21 You slaughtered my children and sacrificed them to the idols. 22 In all your detestable practices and your prostitution you did not remember the days of your youth, when you were naked and bare, kicking about in your blood. . . .
    35 “‘Therefore, you prostitute, hear the word of the Lord! 36 This is what the Sovereign Lord
    says: Because you poured out your lust and exposed your naked body in
    your promiscuity with your lovers, and because of all your detestable
    idols, and because you gave them your children’s blood, . . .

    48 As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. 49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. 51 Samaria did not commit half the sins you did. You have done more detestable things than they, ”

    Detestable practices explicitly refers to idolatry and human sacrifice. While one could argue that anyone who teaches ‘homosexuality is sin’ is guilty of both idolatry and human sacrifice – sacrificing the lives of GLBTQ people to a false god – to claim that any Lutherans are explicitly supportive of this real sodomy – human sacrifice, deliberate injustice, is less than accurate.

    Maggie, there is one thing you’d like about the ELCA: it does not strictly and literally apply the Biblical commands that forbid women, like you, from teaching or instructing men, and from speaking out in public assemblies.

  • I was confirmed Lutheran, was welcomed in The Catholic Church in the french quarter in new orleans La. while on my honeymoon, and was allowed to participate in communion, no questions were asked. My wife and I were very welcomed there, even though I/we did not know all the customs.

  • That doesn’t make a lick of sense, actually. Labeling opponents of abortion as ‘anti-choice’, while accurate, is actually harsher than the current label ‘anti-abortion’. So you are arguing that your side will stop telling lies about Pro Choice people if we are more explicit in our condemnation of you and your peers.

  • “Pro-sodomy is a nice way of referring to those who approve of same-sex sexual relationships.”

    No, it is a vicious slander intended to invoke the destruction of Sodom – which had nothing to do with homosexuality – as a descriptor for GLBTQ people and their allies.

    Bear in mind, those who teach ‘homosexuality is sin’ are collectively responsible for the violence, including murder and rape, inflicted on GLBTQ people around the world for some 1700 years. Given what God said in Ezekiel 16, regarding the sin of Sodom:
    “49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me.”
    And remembering that in prior verses, God communicates that ‘detestable things’ refers to human sacrifice:
    “20 “‘And you took your sons and daughters whom you bore to me and sacrificed them as food to the idols. Was your prostitution not enough? 21 You slaughtered my children and sacrificed them to the idols. 22 In all your detestable practices and your prostitution you did not remember the days of your youth,”

    Then, the fact that people who teach ‘homosexuality is sin’ essentially commit human sacrifice, they offer up the lives of GLBTQ people as blood offerings to the false god of their self-righteousness. Which means that the pro-sodom people, the sodomites, the heirs of Sodom in this situation, are those who teach ‘homosexuality is sin’.

  • The gay agenda is simply this: you no longer get a say in our lives. Deal with it.

    If you don’t like sinful lifestyles, start with your own, not mine. I do believe Jesus suggested that to you.

  • I also believe you should start with all of the people who reject the entire Christian story, not just your itty bitty little ditty of Antigay religion. It’s a sin, you know.

    Oh wait, then you would look like a religiou bigot, not just an anti gay religious bigot.

  • ” “Hate” and “despise” are how Leftists refer to people that Leftists
    hate and despise, which is anyone who does not adopt Leftism lock, stock, and barrel.”

    Nice false accusation. The Bible strongly condemns those, like you, who engage in false accusations. Before digging into your lie about millions of people, let’s look again at the Bible, Proverbs 6:

    16 There are six things the Lord hates,
    seven that are detestable to him:
    17 haughty eyes,
    a lying tongue,
    hands that shed innocent blood,
    18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,
    feet that are quick to rush into evil,
    19 a false witness who pours out lies
    and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.

    Take note, this is a list of things God hates, and homosexuality is not on it. But you have committed the first two in your statement I quoted above, and you commit the other five in your condemnation of GLBTQ people. The ironic truth is that people like you, who revile and dehumanizing GLBTQ people, commit all seven of the things God hates and detests, all seven of the to’ebah, abominations, listed in this passage.

    Hate is the accurate term to describe the emotion behind anti-gay theology. Since at its core, it demands the death penalty, hate is intrinsic to the belief ‘homosexuality is sin’. And the violence and brutality produced by that belief demonstrates hate. Your apparently blindness to that brutality, and your need to turn the blame on “Leftists”, is also a manifestation of hate. Despise is also the accurate term for a theology that claims that seven hundred million people are intrinsically inferior to everyone else, solely because of their innate capacity for love and intimacy. Despite is also revealed in the horrific accusations and comparisons that people like you use to describe and dehumanize GLBTQ people, including your reference to Sodom.

    The sin on this matter Jim, lies with you and your peers.

  • This is NOT the reformation that God is seeking to orchestrate in this
    hour! To the contrary! In fact, God is calling His people OUT of
    Mystery or Spiritual Babylon lest we share in her sins and receive her
    plagues. As such, when the Lutheran Church says there are no longer
    church-dividing issues on many points with the Roman Catholic Church it
    is because most of the body of Christ still follows the “customs”
    “traditions” and “doctrines” of men instituted by the RCC long ago under
    Constantine in lieu of following the commandments of God. This
    Ecumenical movement which is being spearheaded under the guise of love
    and peace is a FALSE unity movement!

  • Even though I am completely against this, what you said here about Roman Catholic involvement in this process is wrong. This is from the United States Conference of Bishops website:

    In October 2015 the Statement of Agreements was unanimously affirmed by the ELCA
    Conference of Bishops, which requested the Church Council also accept them and forward the Declaration to the 2016 ELCA Churchwide Assembly for reception. The text has been shared with The Lutheran World Federation.
    Also in October, the 32 Agreements were unanimously affirmed by the Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which commended the Declaration on the Way to Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, for further reflection and action.

  • “We hate the gay adjenda(sic).”

    It is sad that you hate something that does not exist, that you cannot even spell correctly.

    ” Homosexuality is a sinful life style.”

    No, it is neither sin, nor a lifestyle. But you know what is sin, John? Preaching injustice, slandering people, inciting murder. And people like you, everyone who claims that homosexuality is sin, are guilty of that sin.

    ” but no tolerance of sin nor any teaching of sin being ok.”

    That is why I am personally rebuking you. You are sinning against God and humanity. Jesus gave a test, in Matthew 7:15-23, for evaluating spiritual teachers and teaching:

    15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

    The fruit of ‘homosexuality is sin’, John, is murder, rape, torture, violence and brutality of every kind, lies, slander, blackmail, deception, cruelty, abuse, systemic injustice. The belief you are defending and teaching, ‘homosexuality is sin’, produces evil fruit, John, and only evil fruit. People are raped to this very day, because of that evil belief. People are murdered because people like you proclaim ‘homosexuality is sin’.

    The destruction that you and your peers incite and produce proves beyond all doubt that the belief ‘homosexuality is sin’ is not just wrong, but evil. It is evil, we know this because it produces evil fruit. And according to Jesus, you and your peers are false teachers. It doesn’t matter that you call yourselves Christians, you taught evil, and if you don’t repent, Christ will tell you plainly “I never knew you”.

  • First, for most of Christian history, the creation story in Genesis, which describes two creations of humans by the way, was seen as metaphor, not fact. The literalistic approach to the creation stories is a relatively new twist. Further, your point is irrational, we don’t declare that everyone be identical to Adam and Eve in all other ways. And Adam and Eve are hardly an outstanding model of humanity. This heterosexual couple is, literally, responsible for unleashing sin into the world. Adam then throws Eve ‘under the bus’ so to speak, blaming her, and then blames God. Of their first two children, one grows up to be a murderer.

    “The bible tells us a man is not to lie with a man and a women is not to lie with a women. ”

    That is not what the Bible tells us, though frankly, I would not take your word for it anyways, given that you don’t even respect the book enough to capitalize the word Bible. A bible,(lowercase) is any book, reference work, periodical, etc., accepted as authoritative, informative, or reliable.

    Now you are distorting two passages from Leviticus. By invoking Levitical Law to judge GLBTQ people, according to Jesus, you bound yourself to all of that Law. We can all comfortably be sure that you don’t keep most of it. And if you break any one of the Levitical laws, you break them all.

    Next, neither of those two passages actually describe homosexuality. The worst of the two, the most explicit, describes a husband (ish) cheating on his wife by laying (shakab) with a priest (zakar) in his wife’s bed (mishkap ishshah). The punishment of this is death, so John, you made an implicit death threat, you committed murder in thought and word, against seven hundred million people, by invoking these passages and claiming they are about homosexuals.

    Because there is no ‘mishkap ishshah’, no wife’s bed, nor any ‘as with a woman’ – a truly sloppy translation, these passages cannot describe homosexuality. They do describe something known to the period – temple prostitution, in which people were coerced through the power of religious authorities, into acting out sexually to win the favor of their deities.

    Oh, you might have been referring to Paul’s letter to the Romans, but that is about the same thing. In Romans 1, Paul explicitly describes idol worship, a known fertility religion practiced in Rome, and he describes people innately and instinctively (physikos) sexually attracted to (chresis) to the opposite gender. Guess who those people are – people innate attracted to the opposite gender? They’re not homosexuals.

    Since homosexuals do not have an innate sexual attraction to the opposite gender, Paul cannot, if he is authoritative, be talking about homosexuals. Homosexuals cannot abandon or exchange innate sexual attraction to the opposite gender, they don’t have it to begin with. That’s what it means to be homosexual.

    Paul is describing heterosexuals caught up in the worship of idols, abandon their innate attraction to the opposite gender, and engage in acts that are shameful.

    The really sinful thing for you, the tragic thing as well, is that you and your peers attempt to coerce, bully, force GLBTQ people to go against their ‘physikos chresis’ – their innate sexual attraction to their own gender, in order to win your approval and the approval of your god of self-righteousness and pride.

    Which might be why the end of Romans 1 sound so much like you and your peers, not GLBTQ people and their allies:

    ” Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They
    have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and
    depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice.
    They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.”

    Look at the life of Fred Phelps, or Pat Robertson, or any other person who preached ‘homosexuality is sin’ – you’ll find the traits Paul listed above.

    But most of all, the biggest error you and your peers make with Romans, is that you stop before you ever reach Paul’s point, which comes at the top of the next chapter. You corrupt his example of idolatry into something it is not, and then you ignore his real point: Roamns 2

    You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

    5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are
    storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”

    Now, more and more of the world is learning what you and your peers have done – you’ve promoted violence, murder, rape, torture, brutality of every kind, and inflicted it on hundreds of millions of God’s children, for some 17 centuries.

  • ” It’s a pathetic lie to say that people who recognize what Scripture says about homosexuality are haters.”

    Sinfully enough, the sin and the lie are yours. You and your peers do not “recognize what Scripture says about homosexuality”, nor is that what I wrote, so you are lying about my post to cover your sin.

    ” The haters are liars like you ”
    Nice sin, it condemns you Jim. There is no lie on my part, nor hate. But let’s take that apart, shall we? You accuse me of hate because I rebuke your sin against God and against GLBTQ people. You accuse me of hate because I rebuke what you are doing to other people, because I rebuke your behavior, your choice, your lifestyle.

    Since you accuse on those grounds, then you are condemned by them, for you rebuke GLBTQ people, their lives, their behavior, the things you perceive as ‘choice’ and ‘lifestyle’.

    In other words, by accusing me of hate, you admit that your position on this matter is based on hate. Your equation – rebuke=hate – means that you hate homosexuals.

    What is pathetic, Jim, is that I provided you with a detailed rebuttal of your heretical and destructive belief, and all you offered in return was more sin on your part.

    My lifestyle, that you “don’t endorse” – is one based on my relationship with God. That is what you are really rejecting.

  • speaking of false…Those verses from Proverbs are surely not an all-inclusive list, or are meant to be taken as such.

  • This is one of the greatest and most joyful news since the painful fragmentation of the Christian churches in the eleventh and sixteenth centuries. Let’s cast all minor differences and sad past memories aside and march toward total Christian unity, without any more hesitation or procrastination, in the of our Savior Jesus Christ. Any one who tries to hinder the sacred process of unity, under any pretext, will no doubt be accountable by our creator in the final judgement.

    Harry Jonna

  • “speaking of false…Those verses from Proverbs are surely not an all-inclusive list, or are meant to be taken as such.”

    It is a shame that you did not bother to address the actual point.

  • That’s what they hate the most. That they can no longer forbid us to live our lives as we see fit via the secular laws.

  • ” not an all-inclusive list, or are meant to be taken as such.”

    Let’s take that up for a moment. Because we do have an all-inclusive summary of the Law, from Christ, there are several versions, and Paul chimed in on it too:

    Luke 10

    25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

    26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

    27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all
    your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[c]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]” 28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

    Matthew 22

    34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

    Mark 12
    28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a goodanswer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most
    important?”

    29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[f] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[g] There is no commandment greater than these.”

    And Paul summarizes it thusly:
    Galatians 5:14

    For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

    So we have a single principle – love God and love others as equal to yourself.

    Homosexuality does not intrinsically violate this principle, any more than heterosexuality does. But anti-gay theology, the belief ‘homosexuality is sin’ intrinsically violates both clauses.

    How can you love God with all your heart, and be allow lesbians to be raped to punish them for being lesbian, or nurture the murder of gay men, or condone the brutality inflicted on GLBTQ people of any age? It is not possible to dehumanize anyone, including GLBTQ people, and love God with any of your heart, much less all of it. And it is pointless to claim otherwise, anti-gay theology, the belief ‘homosexuality is sin’ is intrinsically dehumanizing and degrading.

    Nor can you love your gay neighbor as yourself, and deny him the right to civil marriage, or employment, or threaten him with prison or execution. You cannot love your lesbian neighbor as yourself, and call her an abomination, or a threat to humanity, or a sexual predator. There is simply no way to live out your belief ‘homosexuality is sin’ and still love your neighbor, particularly your GLBTQ neighbor, as yourself.

  • I have to agree with you there. It’s a horrible thing to have to realize that neither the culture, the state, nor the church agree with one’s moral, spiritual, and human, but otherwise completely and wholly imaginary, superiority.

    Someday, they will actually put their money where their mouths are, and start denouncing all of the rest of the people who they think are living sinful lifestyles and going to hell by not sharing their religious beliefs.

    In other words, dear Antigay religious people, please extend to us the same courtesy and respect that you routinely extend to all of the people you believe are going to burn in tell forever, sent there by your just and Loving God. In other words, stop the pretense that it is about love and God and sin, and just about your prejudices directed against people you don’t know, know nothing about, and who have done you and intend you no harm.

    Aren’t there some Catholics, or Mormons, or Jews, Muslims, or Hindus, or Buddhists, or JW’s, or CS’S, or some one else you could pick on?

  • Love it. More of the “you’re not a true christian” Christian attacks on other Christians, Ecumenism is socialism!!!!!

  • If we have any agenda, it consists of equality and a determination not to let your sort control our lives and who we may marry. Sorry if that upsets you.

  • I have said it repeatedly, and I’m glad that you said it also. From what I’ve seen on these pages, the biggest detractors, enemies, and attackers of Christians are other Christians.

    The biggest foes of religion are not atheists–we really just don’t care, or wouldn’t if y’all would just keep it to yourselves. But you–a generic “you”, not you personally, as you seem like a nice man– won’t do that. If you are not attacking each other or gay people, you are attacking other faiths.

    And really, having an argument over consubstantiation versus transubstantiation at this date? Really you might as well be claiming knowledge of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

    Here is an atheist’s answer: as many as there is room for. You’re welcome.

  • Oh, hey! I got a better one! Let’s really stoke the flames of this Protestant- Catholic-no true Christian fracas.

    Your see, however, [that] which is called the Court of Rome, and which neither you nor any man can deny to be more corrupt than any Babylon or Sodom, and quite, as I believe, of a lost, desperate, and hopeless impiety, this I have verily abominated, and have felt indignant that the people of Christ should be cheated under your name and the pretext of the Church of Rome; and so I have resisted, and will resist, as long as the spirit of faith shall live in me. Not that I am striving after impossibilities, or hoping that by my labours alone, against the furious opposition of so many flatterers, any good can be done in that most disordered Babylon; but that I feel myself a debtor to my brethren, and am bound to take thought for them, that fewer of them may be ruined, or that their ruin may be less complete, by the plagues of Rome. For many years now, nothing else has overflowed from Rome into the world—as you are not ignorant—than the laying waste of goods, of bodies, and of souls, and the worst examples of all the worst things. These things are clearer than the light to all men; and the Church of Rome, formerly the most holy of all Churches, has become the most lawless den of thieves, the most shameless of all brothels, the very kingdom of sin, death, and hell; so that not even antichrist, if he were to come, could devise any addition to its wickedness.

    Let’s go back to the days, when men were men
    And start the Catholic-Protestant thing again
    We’re Henry Tudor’s boys…….

  • Angels. Pin. Dancing. This nonsense is still going on — but at least now people aren’t actually burning other people for disagreeing with them about it. I suppose that’s progress of a sort.?

  • Your dismissal accomplishes nothing. Bear in mind, yes, I am one of the hundreds of millions of people you are sinning against, and it is my duty, and right, to call you to repent of your sins against me, my family and friends, and hundreds of millions of other people.

    Please repent of your sins against me, and don’t make me ask seventy-seven times.

    Matthew 18

    21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?” 22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.[g]

    Further, your dismissal is actually further sin on your part. I made the effort, twice now, to address your remarks fully and honestly, taking you seriously. In return, you have shown me contempt and malice.

    Not only are you violating ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ in regards to me and all GLBTQ people, your obvious contempt and disrespect for me shows that hate is very much the heart of your condemnation of homosexuals, and the heart of all condemnation of homosexuals.

    In other words, you cannot defend your position by being insulting, degrading and dehumanizing to me. Every dismissal, every false accusation you’ve made demonstrates hate.

  • “The Catholic Religion is not a cafeteria faith.”

    Well, the syncretism involved in the adoration of the saints could be seen as rather cafeteria-like.

  • ” by Lutheran “Bishop” [sic] Elizabeth A. Eaton (who is no bishop; just a lay lady playing church/doll house)”

    Nice slander, Ron. Paul said that slanderers do not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

  • Which is one of the many deep sins of the Roman Catholic Church. Not one of the ones Martin Luther addressed, but still, a deep sin on the part of the Roman Catholic Church.

  • “The biggest foes of religion are not atheists–we really just don’t care,”

    And of course, that is simply not true, neither clause.

  • My pleasure. It’s one of the biggest and nastiest hypocrisies of all, this pretending that it’s all about sincere religious belief, rather than them picking on someone when they think they can get away with it.

  • They are all of them cafeteria faiths. It’s just that the cafeteria you dine in is actually a food court.

  • Of course it is, or would be, if y’all kept it to yourselves. That’s what I said, and it is still true,

    You are looking for the anti-theists.I can assure you that I have met few actual atheists that care, but they sure do.

  • Agree 1000%. I have long thought that “sincere religious belief” is just a cover for their bigotry and deep desire to discriminate against LGBT people.

  • John, that “Adam and Eve” meme is so old it’s ridiculous. I would tell you to find something else, but it is really all so many of you have. Human sexuality is richer and more varied than you “one man and one woman, in marriage only” meme. And I am not talking about things like pedophilia or bestiality. I’m talking about sex between two consenting, non-closely related ADULTS.

  • So that is why they played “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” at Mass. I guess I can count on seeing all my Lutheran buddies in heaven……that is if I ever make it out of Purgatory.

  • Lutherans are the original Evangelical Church. Luther used the term Evangelical when Rome would not open up to reform. The term Lutheran was first a derogatory term used by the Roman Church just as others referred to the followers of the Roman Church as Papists. Later Lutheran was adopted and used by many who followed Luther. The term Protestant comes from the protest against the Roman Church by the those at the time of the Reformation.

  • “if y’all kept it to yourselves.”

    Gee, where on earth have I heard that excuse before?

    Oh, I know.

    From homophobes and racists.

  • Hey Pagans have or had their issues too with each other. They were always changing gods when one group conquered another group and stated they had the better god.

  • Show me a Church which is in communion with Rome, I will show you a Church which is not in communion with Christ!

    As we approach the year 2017, the 500th anniversary year of the
    Protestant Reformation, when Martin Luther nailed his famous work, Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences, also known as the 95 Theses,
    to the door of the church in Wittenberg, a dark cloud looms overhead.
    Ever since the mass exodus of Bible-believing Christians from the death
    grips of the Roman Catholic power structure over matters of doctrinal
    issues deemed to be damning to the souls of its adherents, Rome has
    countered with a tenacious pursuit to reverse the separation of good and
    evil. Through its quest for ecumenical unification under the authority
    of the pope, many have resisted–but not all.

    See to it that no one takes you captive by
    philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to
    the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. – Colossians 2:8

    While the adherents to Martin Luther’s theology seem like they would
    be the last to cave under such measures, an unlikely candidate has risen
    to take the lead. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) has
    just passed a nearly unanimous vote resolving that Lutherans and
    Catholics no longer have any “dividing issues” regarding the church,
    ministry, and the Eucharist. The document titled The Declaration of the Way,
    contains 32 statements of agreement between the two organizations.
    While the document explores some of the differences between the two
    churches, it still allows the two to be in communion with each other. In
    other words, they believe each other to be true Christian brothers and
    sisters.

    Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! – Isaiah 5:20

    ELCA President, Bishop Elizabeth Eaton, states,

    This ‘Declaration on the Way’ helps us to realize more
    fully our unity in Christ with our Catholic partners, but it also serves
    to embolden our commitment to unity with all Christians.

    There is a protective immunity clause in the document, however, that insulates them from criticism. On page 19,
    in the Ordination clause, the Holy Spirit is “invoked,” and it is
    affirmed that Roman Catholics and Lutherans who, through prayer and
    laying on of hands, ordain ministers, they receive the anointing of the
    Holy Spirit. Touch not thy anointed…right?

    Many once sound churches and denominations have fallen victim to the
    ecumenical movement of Rome. They have capitulated to the lies and the
    deceit of the many councils said to soften their stance against their
    “separated brethren.” But the fact is, the Roman Catholic church still
    anathematizes any who refuse to believe their damning doctrine of
    salvation by works.

    Canon 9 of the Catholic’s Council of Trent says,

    If any one saith, that by faith alone
    the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is
    required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of
    Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be
    prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be
    anathema.

    Canon 12 says,

    If any one shall say that
    justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy
    pardoning sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that confidence alone by
    which we are justified…let him be accursed

    Canon 14 says,

    If any one saith, that man is truly
    absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed
    himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but
    he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone,
    absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.

    Canon 23 says,

    lf any one saith, that a man once
    justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that
    falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he
    is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are
    venial, – except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in
    regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.

    and so on.

    This council has never been overturned. It is still fully in
    effect and is the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic church, of
    which every priest, bishop, the pope–and every confirmed member of the
    church must affirm and adhere to. There are no two ways about it. Roman
    Catholicism is diametrically opposed to the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.
    Any church that is in communion with Rome does not understand the
    saving power of Grace through Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic gospel is
    a false gospel of works, through the sacraments, according to the
    traditions of the church and man. The true Gospel, as affirmed by Martin
    Luther and the Protestants is a Gospel of Grace alone, through Faith
    alone, in Christ alone, according to the Scriptures alone, for the glory
    of God alone.

    If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11 for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works. – 2 John 1:10-11

  • So how many centuries will it take for the LCMS to get on board with this.

    They can’t even agree with Methodists, Baptists, the Church of Christ or any other mainline Christian denominations. Agreeing with Catholics – unheard of !!!!!!!!

  • I don’t think that is a big difference. The important thing is that both groups believe that Christ is actually present in the Eucharist. They don’t believe that the Eucharist is just a symbol of the body and blood of Christ as many other Protestant denominations believe. Neither Jesus nor his apostles went into a philosophical explanation of how Christ is present in the Eucharist. That came later as Church scholars began to study the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. Thomas Aquinas explained it by transubstantiation. Luther did so by consubstantiation.

    Since I am a Roman Catholic, I favor transubstantiation because that is what I learned, and it is more straightforward and easier to understand. But I don’t see a big difference with consubstantiation. Either way, we believe we are receiving the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, and that’s what is important.

  • Maggie carries a heavy load of baggage to the altar every week and there are ghost chilis in the Host she swallows.

  • The Anglican tradition recognizes both, female clergy AND married clergy. This may be how the Roman Catholic Church (finally) “recognizes” both within its tradition. It’ll be change by accretion.

  • I assume that you are a gay person. Why would you, as a gay person that has most likely suffered some sort of persecution, why would you suggest that these anti gay religious people go pick on (persecute) others? I think you meant this in jest but it still doesn’t make sense to me. I think you may be referring to the Southern Baptist as the anti gay religion but the Roman Catholics do have a history of killing those that do not adhere to their religion. They call them heretics. Somehow they believe that Jesus is okay with killing anyone that doesn’t bow down to them. And then you have the Jews that don’t like anyone that isn’t a Jew. In fact, their books tell them that they can bamboozle anyone that isn’t a Jew and it is okay by their God.

  • Martin Luther said that a church rises or falls on the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone. Just shows how far the Lutherans have fallen from the Truth.

  • If Luther were to come back and try to join the denomination named after him they probably wouldn’t accept him. Or he would light such a fire under the Bishops they would think the fires of hell were leaping up around them.

  • Five hundred years later, eh? Well, bravo for you folks. Circle the wagons. I think it’s great that long-standing enemies can finally come together on things.

  • I cannot believe how the ELCA can actually call themselves “Lutherans” with a clear conscience. Martin Luther would be spinning in his grave if knew how ELCA has perverted doctrines of the Scriptures that he worked so hard to restore to their truth and purity!

    ELCA has been caving in and going along with just about any doctrine floating around out there just for the sake of being part of a worldwide so-called “Christian unity” – much like the World Government” scheme. I wonder if they can even be called Christians in view of some of their positions on Christ’s deity and historic biblical miracles.

    In many cases, ELCA has acted as if 2 Corinthians 6 was never written…….
    14 “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common?
    17 Therefore, “Come out from them and be separate, says the Lord.”

    The “unequal yoke” is often applied to business relationships. For a Christian to enter into a partnership with an unbeliever is to court disaster. Unbelievers have opposite worldviews and morals, and business decisions made daily will reflect the worldview of one partner or the other. For the relationship to work, one or the other must abandon his moral center and move toward that of the other. More often than not, it is the believer who finds himself pressured to leave his Christian principles behind for the sake of profit and the growth of the business. God’s Kingdom is not a business.

  • Ahem. As an “unbeliver”, (I’m an atheist) I imagine we share many ideals together. Not “opposite world views”. I dearly love my family, my friends, the people in my community, etc. I want to live in a happy, healthy community, in which I and my neighbors can thrive, whatever everyone’s personal religious beliefs may, or may not, be. If you lived next door to me, and your house was on fire, I wouldn’t ask questions about your family’s beliefs, I’d get out the hose and try to save all people and the entire house as much as I could! I don’t blame you entirely, because it’s a very popular viewpoint, but seriously, I’m tired of people thinking I’m an immoral criminal simply because I don’t share their particular religious viewpoints. I strongly support your right to live your life exactly as you wish, and view “unbelievers” just as you wish too, but if someone is going to call my “morals” into question, I must make a remark or two. I am not an immoral monster, and frankly, neither is anyone else who doesn’t happen to share your particular religious views. You know who are the immoral monsters? People who behave terribly, and as history shows, there is no test for that.

  • I would have loved to have listed, by the author, the 32 points still in contention. ‘Virgin Mary’, Mother of Christ, I imagine would be near the top. Holiness of the Pope, perhaps? Still, it’s nice that they’re talking. I am Eastern Orthodox by baptism and it will be awhile before we do the same with them…. The point is, though, that an intercessor is not needed nor wanted to stand between a person and their relationship with God.

  • The question that we should be asking is: “WHAT makes the bread Christ’s actual body and the wine His actual blood when our earthly cognizance only recognizes the bread and wine ?”

    Please consider the following………

    10] It is the Word of the incarnate son of God, Jesus Christ, which makes and distinguishes this Sacrament, so that it is not mere bread and wine, but is, and is called, the body and blood of Christ. For it is said: “Accedat verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum.” If the Word be joined to the element, it becomes a Sacrament. This saying of St. Augustine is so properly and so well put that he has scarcely said anything better. The Word must make a Sacrament of the element, else it remains a mere element.
    11] Now, it is NOT the word or ordinance of a mere prince or emperor, but of the sublime Majesty of Jesus Christ, at whose feet all creatures should fall, and affirm it is as He says, and accept it with all reverence, fear, and humility.
    12] With this Word you can strengthen your conscience and say: “If a hundred thousand devils, together with all fanatics, should rush forward, crying, How can bread and wine be the body and blood of Christ? etc., I know that all spirits and scholars together are not as wise as is the Divine Majesty in His little finger.”
    13] Now here stands the Word of Christ: “Take, eat; this IS My body; Drink ye all of it; this IS the new testament in My blood, etc.

    Here we Believers stand, and would like to see those who will constitute themselves Christs’ masters, and make it different from what He has spoken.
    It is true, indeed, that if you take away the Words of God or regard it without the words, you have nothing but mere bread and wine. 14] But if the words remain with them, as they shall and must, then, in virtue of the same, it is truly the body and blood of Christ. For as the lips of Christ say and speak, so it is, as He can never lie or deceive.

  • There is no doubt there will be “unity” eventually, but it won’t be part of the Body of Christ when they do. It has been amazing to watch people rewrite religion to suit themselves, praise themselves, and indulge themselves, when self is to be reckoned dead.

  • Unfortunately, this is not a work of God. The practices and doctrines of the RCC are contradicted in God’s Word; therefore, God would not be the originator of any alliance with a false church headed by a false prophet.

  • You actually have that wrong. What the Catholic Church teaches is that it is permissible to do something to save the life of the mother even if that action indirectly results in the death of the unborn baby. That is not the same as approving an abortion to save the life of the mother. The Catholic Church teaches that under no circumstances is it permissible to do something which is intrinsically evil (such as an abortion) in order to achieve something which is good (such as saving the life of the mother).

  • I’ve read most of these posts and I didn’t see the ‘key’ issue that has separated the Protestants from the Roman Church…and that’s the issue of Means of Salvation. The classic means of salvation according to Luther and all Protestants is Grace thru faith in Jesus Christ. The Roman Church believes in Faith, Earned Grace thru Actions, Tradition of the Church and Intercession of the Saints….at least that’s what they taught me in Seminary.
    I think this is still a major sticking point unless people want to give up the central them for the split in the first place.

  • Rusty, I think you miss the point. The issue is not whether ECLA should approve of abortion or not but whether it does approve of abortion or not. George said, “I do not know of a pro-abortion or pro- sodomy synod.” I replied by giving evidence that ECLA is pro-abortion. I think the distinction he tries to make between being tolerant of something and approving it is a distinction of no real difference. The fact is that ECLA gives its approval of abortion in principle. That’s being pro-abortion.

  • use an obscure passage out of context as ur proof. love it! did u not pay attention in English class?!

  • r u the real Ringo?. gosh u play mean drums, but u sure look goofy….and talk that way too!

  • The pope could allow clergy to marry with the stroke of a pen, as it is a church discipline, not a doctrine. However, the pope has no authority to allow women to be ordained, as this is an infallible teaching and cannot be reformed.

  • Matt. 16:18 Jesus says to Peter; Thou art Peter and on this rock I will build my church, defining a differentiation between you and me. Here Jesus isn’t declaring Peter to be the rock/ foundational cornerstone of the Church but in fact Jesus was declaring Himself as the foundation of the church PS.118:22 , confirmed by Jesus in MAtt. 21: 42-43 and that He would give to Peter the Keys to the kingdom, What are those keys? the truth!! The Idea that God would establish a man who so full of self importance and fear who not once but 3 times refused to acknowledge that he even knew Jesus as head of the church is beyond ridiculous.

  • AZPete, Jesus said, “Take eat, this is my body” and “take and drink, this is my blood”. That’s good enough for me.

  • why dont we get rid of all organized religions anyway? In most every christian denominations, we are allowed to do anything we want!!!! SO WE DONT NEED RULES ANYMORE FROM THE RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY!

    THAT IS WHY MEMBERS OF ALL CHURCHES ARE LEAVING THE OLD DENOMINATIONS!

  • bill – for starters Name one place in the bible where it even mentions ” the bible” all the preaching was done by MEN – they quoted NO BIBLE – The were driven by The Holy Spirit and The Apostles, which were the leaders of The Catholic Church. . Figure it out yourself – when was the KJV of the bible written – what about the 1500 years before that – Its important to your salvation. PEACE

  • Who carried the message on for 300 years ? Here in The U S of A we didn’t begin to organize for many years after the Revolution was over but the process continued – do you discount that also ?

  • Finally , someone who knows what he is talking about ! YAHOVAH ( God to the heathen ) has given us his ” instructions ” making it clear how he feels about right and wrong . If you ( any person ) do not know the will ( mind ) of God , then you apparently do not study the bible .

  • On God’s terms? Are they written somewhere so as to be able to reference them in any way that would pertain to the discussions they are having?

  • And you know there was not a historical person as represented in the text how, you were there at the time?

    As for proof, your proof that God does NOT exist is, what?

    You have a hard time proving a negative.

    Personally, I’ll believe what I choose to believe just as you choose to not believe.

    Neither of us with any evidence.

    Kinda sorta the meaning of “Belief”, no?

  • You know the word ” idiot ” is actually a biblical term . It comes from the Greek word idios , and means ” one who does his own thing ” ( as opposed to what that person knows is correct ) . Therefore ; I have no problem in accusing every person who thinks that the reformation movement was wrong , or that non Catholic Christians should join back up with Catholics , as being an idiot . The root problem is that Marten Luther could clearly see that Catholic traditions are in direct conflict with God’s instructions . So he attempted to reform the church . But rather than do that , the pope attempted to arrest Luther , with the intent of killing him . Millions of people died during the middle ages over this very issue ! Are you people so ignorant of these facts ? Really ?

  • “Do the Catholics -yet?”

    Yes, because unless there is 100% agreement, the whole thing is off.

    You must not get along with ANYONE. Sex for you must be boring. 😉

  • St. Peter is dead with due respect. He has nothing more to say at this time nor is able to lead. He has vacated his leadership from the way. Christ is still alive and will always be the head of the Church. The people with revelation will follow Christ and lead (be lights) on the earth.

  • I agree with your argument so how does the RCC get off with making the Pope infallible? Clearly it is the church acting together that is infallible, not just one individual.

  • So are you saying that people who are “Pro-Choice” are actually against abortion instead of being FOR abortion?

    That’s a use of English I’ve never seen before.

  • By seeing the validity of a interpretation that may previously have not been considered.

    How does anyone come to a compromise?

    Or, are you a Millennial who seems to believe that the colors in the world number only two, black and white, and that there can only be extremes because considering more than two options takes too much time away from social media?

  • Well, the promises were made to Peter so they do apply to one individual.
    When you say ‘the church acting together’ could you explain exactly how that comes about. That is not to say that there is a disagreement necessarily but it is asking for clarification. Could you say what you mean by ‘the church’ and could you explain how the acting together would be achieved. (There is a sense in which that concept is valid in the Catholic Church but you may be thinking of something different.)

  • The Catholic Church is going to have problems if they don’t change. Do you realize how Jesus had women with him and considered them equal?

  • I don’t claim to be an expert in Roman Catholic doctrine; however, I have always understood that on two times in the history of Roman Catholicism has the doctrine of infallibility been invoked. The first was when that same doctrine was defined and the second was regarding the Immaculate Conception of Mary. I’m certainly not a church lawyer, but I don’t think the ordination of women as priests is outlawed by a papal infallible edict. It may be a papal edict, but not an infallible edict.

  • Yes. Nowhere does the Catholic Church claim that a Pope, any Pope, is perfect. Infallibility does not guarantee that a Pope cannot sin. It’s just one of those many mistaken views of what infallibility means. Most people who reject the idea have a mistaken idea what it means. (BTW, do you think Jesus meant that statement literally?)
    I don’t know what your background is – Protestant or atheist or whatever – but if you are a Protestant I take it that you believe that every word in Peter’s epistles is without error. So who was speaking through Peter? Satan or God?

  • let all christian unite under one banner, vatican banner, to defeat worlds greatest / only evil called islam

  • It is infallible teaching, it’s called Ordinary Universal Magesterium. This is when something is stated by the Pope and it is taught together in union with all of his brother bishops around the world together. Thus when the body of the church is in union this teaching is infallible. If you would study St. John Paul II’s Theology of the Body then you would understand why there is an all male priesthood.

  • While I do not agree with your atheist comment , you are very much correct regarding the Catholic ( universal ) church , because that statement is fact . The problem has to do with the manipulation of truth . People who wish to manipulate others using so called religion . ( religion is technically man made sets of rules on how to worship or recognize God ) However our creator gave us a manual to be used . It is up to us as regards whether or not we use it . Much like whether or not we choose to refer to the owners manual of our cars , and follow it , or not .

  • Today’s christians need to get back to basics – what they taught in the bible – and get out of denominational “churches.” God’s commandments are really easy to understand on a personal level. The ultimate commandment is LOVE (as in the verb form). Denominational christians have the knowledge of love, but do not know how to truly apply it. They have the knowledge of God, but deny his power.

    Satan has had over two thousand years to infiltrate and divide christiandom up into a whole lot more than 60,000 worldwide denominations each having their own rituals, traditions, ways of living and interpretations of the bible. Are christians today of one mind? Is Christ divided?

    The true church of God ARE the christians, not a denomination or a building as most Christians perceive the church as being a denomination or a building. True christianity is an individual lifestyle. Just by the way the term “church” is used gives one an indication it isn’t the same as it was used in Jesus’ time. Christians bicker constantly about whose church is better. They boast about what they have compared to other denominational churches – even within the same denomination. For example, “I didn’t see you in church this morning,” “Our church has a great pastor,” “Our church has great entertainment,” “Our church has great programs,” “Our church just installed a new sound system,” “Our church has a great holiday program (chose your holiday. Christmas/Easter),” “Our church has over two hundred members,” etc. etc. The true church of God ARE the christians.

    Today’s denominational church members are nothing more than hearers of the Word, counterfeit christians, having the knowledge of God, but denying his power. They pray repeated prayers in vain. (Matthew 15:9; John 4:24) God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

    God’s true Church has no earthly wealth, no huge bureaucracy, no billions tied up in real estate, investments, and bank accounts – and no money to maintain these assets. God’s true church is not made by man’s hands. All denominational churches are also nothing more than government owned businesses. (Mark 12:17) Denominational churches will compromise biblical truth to keep their non-profit status. How many denominational churches will sell all its worldly assets to feed the poor? As of 2005 (the last time I researched the topic), the catholic church, for instance, is worth a whole lot more than seventeen trillion dollars in hard assets, real estate, income property and paper assets (stocks, bonds and insurance). Plus, they spend over 80% of their revenues on the upkeep of these assets. Also, denominational churches use worldly marketing strategies to increase their memberships by offering classes, music, entertainment, and other worldly activities unrelated to true christianity instead of relying on God only to increase their numbers.

    Most christians are also adamant about what denomination they belong to. 1 Corinthians 1:11-13; “Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas…”; and I of Baptist, and I of Catholic, and I of Orthodox, and I of Lutheran, and I of Protestant. Is Christ divided?

    The command from God is: “If you love me, keep my commandments.” The number one command is LOVE, as in the verb form. Simple, eh? But difficult to apply especially in today’s world. And attending a denominational “church” service once a week for an hour – just to “feel” like a christian – doesn’t qualify a person as part of the family of God. Love is a reflection of the condition of your heart not a member of some man-made denomination. The “assembly” of christians is any where two or more meet whether at a park, at the local cafe, or in one’s home as they did in Jesus’ time – on a daily basis (especially in today’s world again).
    ===
    The fact that in the end days christians will fall away from the faith. Some christians would reply that they were never christians to begin with, but one must have faith to begin with before one can fall away, eh? Will Christ recognize the “church” upon his return?

    Solution: Living a Christian lifestyle is on a personal level by applying the same love as Christ gave. Love is a reflection of the condition of your heart not a member some man-made denomination. God wants to see himself reflected in the individual. Bring a few family and friends together and meet daily (especially in today’s world) for it is written that wherever two or more are gathered in Jesus’ name so he will be there – whether it’s in a park, a cafe, or in your home. Having a small group will keep one another accountable for one another. Another command is to meet daily especially in today’s world because it’s very difficult to live a life of a Christian (Hebrews 10:25). It is also difficult to grow and mature in Christ especially in a denominational “church” when the same sermons are taught over and over again without going more deeply into the words and heart of God. A Christian cannot grow and mature in Christ attending a denominational “church” service for an hour a week. Christians should be judged by their actions, what they do on a personal level, not their beliefs or what denominational church they belong. Anyone can SAY they are a Christian.
    ——–
    Not only are schools dumbing down our children, but denominational “churches” are dumbing down our christians. Denominational “churches”, for instance, spend the whole month of December teaching about Christ’s birth (although, it’s not taught in the bible) each and every year. Denominational “churches” spend the whole month of March/April teaching about Christ’s resurrection each and every year (even though it’s important to know why). Christians don’t grow and mature when repeating the same sermons, and prayers, over and over again. Christians grow and mature ONLY when they obey the simple commandment – LOVE (as in the verb form) – and providing that love on a personal level instead of them relying on their denominational church and the government. Forming a small group where everyone is accountable for one another is another way to grow and mature as a true christian.

  • Luther put up his 95 thesis on a “Castle Church door?” How ignorant. How about the Cathedral at Wittenburg instead? Furthermore, many historians are now challenging that claim about Martin Luther nailing of his 95 thesis since NO ONE even suggests such an occurance until after 1544, 27 years after it supposedly occured.

  • Catherine, the Catholic Church cares little for “Keeping up with the times” It has always prided itself on this for the last 2000 years… What i find funny… Is that people think having women priests is a progressive, idea… And that Jesus would have them, if he were in modern days….

    Absolute nonsense… There were women priestesses in Jesus time… And before Jesus… Always Pagan… But its clear the Abrahamic religions… IE Jews, Christians (And i know it will cause argument) Muslims.. All do not recognize female clergy… This is what the God of Abraham has instructed us

    Women are definitely prone to the new age (Its not new, just repackaged paganism) “Find your inner God,” Soothsayers, nonsense… Just think about psychics, tarot card readers, white magic, black magic, yoga.. the VAST MAJORITY are women who get involved in these destructive lies from the devil…

    Which is why the verse in scripture about women “not speaking in church” is in scripture… Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t talk or have opinions or be able to participate….. Its a forewarning to the type of woman who claims she is getting revelation, and starts tickling peoples ears… In order to gain power…

    Christ picked 12 men to be his disciples.. Doesn’t mean he didn’t love women, or thought they should be second class… It is what it is…

    If you dont like this, your problem is not with men. Your problem is with God…

  • I don’t think you can call anyone “pro-abortion.” They are “pro-choice.” You also cannot say anyone is “pro-sodomy.” They believe in not making homosexuality a crime.

  • And yet, he didn’t make them part of the 12 apostles, nor did they do miracles in His name as noted throughout the Book of Acts, neither did they receive the mandate to bind and loose sins he gave that perogative to Peter in Mt.16:19 and to the apostles in Mt.18:18. Add on to that the fact that historically speaking, the early church fathers never once mention priestessess or female deacons on par with their offices as bishop or priest and what we have is the fact that women can’t be men and that the Catholic clergy is male for a reason.

  • Yawwwn. I know, right? I love the arrogance of those, often men, who think they know the mind of their god.

  • Where does the Bible say that unless it’s found in the Bible, you can’t do it? Book, chapter and verse. Thanks.

  • And yet, 30,000 different Christians denominations – using 66 books as their guide – come up with 30,000 different interpretations of what the will of God is.

  • For someone who did not exist, Jesus is the most influential non person in the world, crossing all national divides, love or hate him. For some reason, you are moved to hang out on a religious website, and use Holy Father’s picture, the paradox!

    Using your logic, you cannot disprove God’s existence. Mathematically, you and I are a miracle, we should not even exist! What are the odds? Go figure…

    I do know this, humankind’s only hope is God’s Kingdom, and I urge you to seek him while the time is “acceptable” (CCC 671, 675-677, 1041,42, Luke 21:27, Matt 25:31, 2 Cor 6:2, Rev 21).

  • I don’t think it’s covered by infallibility but it is so ingrained that it might as well be. Both doctrines covered by the cloak were promulgated after 1870 and both cover Mary’s rank. I believe it was Plus IX or X who convened Vatican I.

  • Paul’s problem was with women more than with gays. He got a concussion falling of a horse and may have suffered from partial complex seizures thereafter.

  • When it comes to the worship of God it can only be properly accomplished by what is commanded in Scripture or by what can be deduced from Scripture and without violation to it.

    Leviticus 10:1-2: Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, which he had not commanded them. 2 And fire came out from before the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord.
    OR when David first tried to bring the ark back to Jerusalem, the oxen suddenly stumbled. At that moment Uzzah put out his hand to steady the ark in order to keep it from falling. The Bible says “God struck him down there for his irreverence” (II Sam. 6:7). Then it is clearly stated in Scripture. Uzzah died because — as David explained later on — “we did not inquire of [God] about how to do it in the prescribed way” (I Chron. 15:13). It happened, in other words, because they failed to limit themselves to what God had expressly commanded.

    There are tons of other examples,

    Like Jesus denouncing the Scribes and Pharisees because they had “a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe [their] own traditions” (Mark. 7:9). And because of this fact our Lord went on to say this concerning their worship: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain: their teachings are but rules taught by men.” (Mark. 7:6-7, quoted from Jer. 29:13)

    or when he spoke to the Samaritan woman (John 4:22-26). Here the Lord condemns the forms of worshipping God which the Samaritans used as superstitious and false, and declares that the acceptable and lawful form was with the Jews.

  • There are going to be female priests but not yet. First will come a female diaconate and about 50 years of that while the priesthood becomes less appealing. Married priests will be coming along with delayed vocations and a realization that married men can have sex with their wives and are better counselors to married laity.

  • That is a clarification of the same position I understood previously. I was not wrong, but I did not state it in the clearest possible way.

  • That would explain a few things. Yet Paulian Christians treat his rantings as the words of their god.

  • Mary Magdalene, a rich and independent widow, was his first chief disciple. The men around Jesus were jealous of her and relegated her to the status of repentant whore, using faked quotations to shore up the bull. He appeared to her first after the resurrection, it is said. That is the honor he gave her and men have been stomping on women since.

  • Hooray for Unity!!!! All things work out best for those who love the Lord. All these tributaries of division have existed so as to examine and fully understand our Geographical/Political differences so as to enrich completely the essences, to the height, breadth, width of the living soul!!! To Be truly 100% Apostolic or Not, that is the question.

  • How convenient for all of you. All the Old Testament laws were abrogated except this one. Interesting.

  • Politics. Back in 1870, the papacy was at war with the world fighting off progress and giving the pope infallibility was a weapon. BTW, it’s limited infallibility which is as oxymoronic as it gets.

  • ‘a female Bishop, ugh’, says I (a female who honorably loves her position as subservient, wishing never to castrate a male, taking his place of honor—its not like there is a shortage of males that females really really need to step up to the plate, if that time comes then yes, let there be females in positions of such authority, until that time comes, living in second place is first place)

  • The best is the Nestlé Alland Greek English NT, which my NT professor at Fordham wisely urged on us.

  • If as the RCC claims that the church has never been without a Pope and that the church existed from the Old Testament forward. Also since Paul said the church is “built upon the foundations of the Apostles and PROPHETS, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone”(EPH 2:20). As Pope Benedict XVI states that, “Christ established here on earth only one church.
    Then can you please list in succession the Popes all the way back to Adam?

  • The Council of Nicea started the ball rolling with Rome taking a dominant role among the pentarchy of metropolitan bishops. Back then, bishops were tossing anathema around like Frisbees.

  • Just because YOU like being subservient to men does not mean the rest of us have to follow you. You really believe this BS. Are you some kind of Tridentine Catholic?

  • What a shame Paganism was suppressed, but then the females might have stood up to the “powers that be”.

  • I think the catholic church is going down the wrong path. In religion, no matter how Lutherans, protestants try to change God’s message, that message can’t ever change. Jesus Christ, Himself, said it best: “35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” Therefore something that was sinful before, it will, for always, remain sinful. Any wrong interpretation of The Bible, forever will remain wrong.

    If Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their sinful ways of life, then that sinful way of life forever has to remain sinful. Just because another Luther wannabe, AKA Francisco, thinks he can do whatever, well I got news for you deviants, God doesn’t change with the times, nor His message, nor His canons.

    I’m sorry, pope Francisco, that you are so ignorant on matters of religion, but regardless of what you say about communion by protestants, they can’t have communion. To receive communion you have to be in peace, grace with the Lord and the only thing that The Bible says for Christians, Catholics to receive communion is to confess their sins to a priest. It’s in The Bible, so no man, nor pope can change God’s message, teachings.

    18Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on the earth will be loosed in heaven.” But since protestants don’t believe in confessing their sins to a priest, how can they receive communion? Impossible, ergo, Francisco, you are dead wrong. I never believe that the anti-Christ could come within the church itself, but this pope seems more align with the anti-Christ than with God. With friends of the church like Francisco, who needs enemies. Lord, remember to take this Trojan horse of Christianity, Catholicism ASAP. Remember, you promised: ““And I say also 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.” We need him gone and the sooner, the better.

  • You’re simply making stuff up to fit your agenda.. Let me guess, you’re a woman?
    Its True Jesus appeared first to Mary Magedelene and Mary.. Who were at the tomb first.. But read the scriptures..Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”…..

    Nowhere whatsoever does it say that she is made the cheif disciple.. You know like “Peter feed my sheep” Or “Upon you Peter i shall build my Church” Nowhere whatsoever… As far as the other apostles relegating her to “repentant whore” or bad mouthing her.. That too is a lie that you have put in to fit your narrative…

    You’re twisting the scriptures and what Christ handed down, all to fit your agenda… You should be ashamed of yourself

  • Peter was never pope. I believe it (the papacy) developed over time. Leaving Peter in charge did not make him pope.

  • That’s not what the Bible teaches:

    The things you mention is part of the Apostolic Ministry:

    “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.” John 20:33

    This was spoken to Jesus Apostles, not just anyone.

    In Acts, the Apostles had to lay hands on those who were not baptized in the Church to recieve Holy Spirit! Acts 19:2

  • Wrong… that is Old testament. WAY before Paul

    Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

    Learn the Bible before you try to reference it.. that would be like saying Gollum destroyed the ring in the Lord of the rings books

  • Roman Catholics allow a married Protestant to keep his wife and be a part of the priesthood if he converts to Catholism but if wife should ‘pass on’ there would be no more marrying of said priest I Corinthians 7:32-35

  • I am ELCA and am glad to see this happening but I really don’t care what you think of a woman bishop. I will remind you that the first bearers of the Good News were women. And then the men did not trust them… Maybe God uses whom God sees fit to proclaim his Good News regardless of what men regulate as being correct! But then again Jesus had trouble with the Pharisees who did not like it when he healed on the Sabbath because it was against the rules.

  • Falcon, by reading your posts, would it be safe to assume that you’re an angry lesbian? Or should I say, a real, real, ‘angry lesbian.’
    Just asking?

  • it is Biblical as to why Priests do not marry (rather, are married to the Church), that Nuns are married to Jesus, read I Corinthians 7:32-35

  • But he can allow them to become Deacon’s. Which would be the camels nose in the door of the tent.

  • See the genealogy of Jesus in two of the gospels to Adam…

    St. Peter (32-67)
    St. Linus (67-76)
    St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
    St. Clement I (88-97)
    St. Evaristus (97-105)
    St. Alexander I (105-115)
    St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
    St. Telesphorus (125-136)
    St. Hyginus (136-140)
    St. Pius I (140-155)
    St. Anicetus (155-166)
    St. Soter (166-175)
    St. Eleutherius (175-189)
    St. Victor I (189-199)
    St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
    St. Callistus I (217-22) Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236)
    St. Urban I (222-30)
    St. Pontain (230-35)
    St. Anterus (235-36)
    St. Fabian (236-50)
    St. Cornelius (251-53) Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251)
    St. Lucius I (253-54)
    St. Stephen I (254-257)
    St. Sixtus II (257-258)
    St. Dionysius (260-268)
    St. Felix I (269-274)
    St. Eutychian (275-283)
    St. Caius (283-296) Also called Gaius
    St. Marcellinus (296-304)
    St. Marcellus I (308-309)
    St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
    St. Miltiades (311-14)
    St. Sylvester I (314-35)
    St. Marcus (336)
    St. Julius I (337-52)
    Liberius (352-66) Opposed by Felix II, antipope (355-365)
    St. Damasus I (366-84) Opposed by Ursicinus, antipope (366-367)
    St. Siricius (384-99)
    St. Anastasius I (399-401)
    St. Innocent I (401-17)
    St. Zosimus (417-18)
    St. Boniface I (418-22) Opposed by Eulalius, antipope (418-419)
    St. Celestine I (422-32)
    St. Sixtus III (432-40)
    St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
    St. Hilarius (461-68)
    St. Simplicius (468-83)
    St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
    St. Gelasius I (492-96)
    Anastasius II (496-98)
    St. Symmachus (498-514) Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501)
    St. Hormisdas (514-23)
    St. John I (523-26)
    St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
    Boniface II (530-32) Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530)
    John II (533-35)
    St. Agapetus I (535-36) Also called Agapitus I
    St. Silverius (536-37)
    Vigilius (537-55)
    Pelagius I (556-61)
    John III (561-74)
    Benedict I (575-79)
    Pelagius II (579-90)
    St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
    Sabinian (604-606)
    Boniface III (607)
    St. Boniface IV (608-15)
    St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
    Boniface V (619-25)
    Honorius I (625-38)
    Severinus (640)
    John IV (640-42)
    Theodore I (642-49)
    St. Martin I (649-55)
    St. Eugene I (655-57)
    St. Vitalian (657-72)
    Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
    Donus (676-78)
    St. Agatho (678-81)
    St. Leo II (682-83)
    St. Benedict II (684-85)
    John V (685-86)
    Conon (686-87)
    St. Sergius I (687-701) Opposed by Theodore and Paschal, antipopes (687)
    John VI (701-05)
    John VII (705-07)
    Sisinnius (708)
    Constantine (708-15)
    St. Gregory II (715-31)
    St. Gregory III (731-41)
    St. Zachary (741-52) Stephen II followed Zachary, but because he died before being consecrated, modern lists omit him
    Stephen II (III) (752-57)
    St. Paul I (757-67)
    Stephen III (IV) (767-72) Opposed by Constantine II (767) and Philip (768), antipopes (767)
    Adrian I (772-95)
    St. Leo III (795-816)
    Stephen IV (V) (816-17)
    St. Paschal I (817-24)
    Eugene II (824-27)
    Valentine (827)
    Gregory IV (827-44)
    Sergius II (844-47) Opposed by John, antipope
    St. Leo IV (847-55)
    Benedict III (855-58) Opposed by Anastasius, antipope (855)
    St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
    Adrian II (867-72)
    John VIII (872-82)
    Marinus I (882-84)
    St. Adrian III (884-85)
    Stephen V (VI) (885-91)
    Formosus (891-96)
    Boniface VI (896)
    Stephen VI (VII) (896-97)
    Romanus (897)
    Theodore II (897)
    John IX (898-900)
    Benedict IV (900-03)
    Leo V (903) Opposed by Christopher, antipope (903-904)
    Sergius III (904-11)
    Anastasius III (911-13)
    Lando (913-14)
    John X (914-28)
    Leo VI (928)
    Stephen VIII (929-31)
    John XI (931-35)
    Leo VII (936-39)
    Stephen IX (939-42)
    Marinus II (942-46)
    Agapetus II (946-55)
    John XII (955-63)
    Leo VIII (963-64)
    Benedict V (964)
    John XIII (965-72)
    Benedict VI (973-74)
    Benedict VII (974-83) Benedict and John XIV were opposed by Boniface VII, antipope (974; 984-985)
    John XIV (983-84)
    John XV (985-96)
    Gregory V (996-99) Opposed by John XVI, antipope (997-998)
    Sylvester II (999-1003)
    John XVII (1003)
    John XVIII (1003-09)
    Sergius IV (1009-12)
    Benedict VIII (1012-24) Opposed by Gregory, antipope (1012)
    John XIX (1024-32)
    Benedict IX (1032-45) He appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice deposed and restored
    Sylvester III (1045) Considered by some to be an antipope
    Benedict IX (1045)
    Gregory VI (1045-46)
    Clement II (1046-47)
    Benedict IX (1047-48)
    Damasus II (1048)
    St. Leo IX (1049-54)
    Victor II (1055-57)
    Stephen X (1057-58)
    Nicholas II (1058-61) Opposed by Benedict X, antipope (1058)
    Alexander II (1061-73) Opposed by Honorius II, antipope (1061-1072)
    St. Gregory VII (1073-85) Gregory and the following three popes were opposed by Guibert (“Clement III”), antipope (1080-1100)
    Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
    Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
    Paschal II (1099-1118) Opposed by Theodoric (1100), Aleric (1102) and Maginulf (“Sylvester IV”, 1105-1111), antipopes (1100)
    Gelasius II (1118-19) Opposed by Burdin (“Gregory VIII”), antipope (1118)
    Callistus II (1119-24)
    Honorius II (1124-30) Opposed by Celestine II, antipope (1124)
    Innocent II (1130-43) Opposed by Anacletus II (1130-1138) and Gregory Conti (“Victor IV”) (1138), antipopes (1138)
    Celestine II (1143-44)
    Lucius II (1144-45)
    Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
    Anastasius IV (1153-54)
    Adrian IV (1154-59)
    Alexander III (1159-81) Opposed by Octavius (“Victor IV”) (1159-1164), Pascal III (1165-1168), Callistus III (1168-1177) and Innocent III (1178-1180), antipopes
    Lucius III (1181-85)
    Urban III (1185-87)
    Gregory VIII (1187)
    Clement III (1187-91)
    Celestine III (1191-98)
    Innocent III (1198-1216)
    Honorius III (1216-27)
    Gregory IX (1227-41)
    Celestine IV (1241)
    Innocent IV (1243-54)
    Alexander IV (1254-61)
    Urban IV (1261-64)
    Clement IV (1265-68)
    Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
    Blessed Innocent V (1276)
    Adrian V (1276)
    John XXI (1276-77)
    Nicholas III (1277-80)
    Martin IV (1281-85)
    Honorius IV (1285-87)
    Nicholas IV (1288-92)
    St. Celestine V (1294)
    Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
    Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
    Clement V (1305-14)
    John XXII (1316-34) Opposed by Nicholas V, antipope (1328-1330)
    Benedict XII (1334-42)
    Clement VI (1342-52)
    Innocent VI (1352-62)
    Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
    Gregory XI (1370-78)
    Urban VI (1378-89) Opposed by Robert of Geneva (“Clement VII”), antipope (1378-1394)
    Boniface IX (1389-1404) Opposed by Robert of Geneva (“Clement VII”) (1378-1394), Pedro de Luna (“Benedict XIII”) (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa (“John XXIII”) (1400-1415), antipopes
    Innocent VII (1404-06) Opposed by Pedro de Luna (“Benedict XIII”) (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa (“John XXIII”) (1400-1415), antipopes
    Gregory XII (1406-15) Opposed by Pedro de Luna (“Benedict XIII”) (1394-1417), Baldassare Cossa (“John XXIII”) (1400-1415), and Pietro Philarghi (“Alexander V”) (1409-1410), antipopes
    Martin V (1417-31)
    Eugene IV (1431-47) Opposed by Amadeus of Savoy (“Felix V”), antipope (1439-1449)
    Nicholas V (1447-55)
    Callistus III (1455-58)
    Pius II (1458-64)
    Paul II (1464-71)
    Sixtus IV (1471-84)
    Innocent VIII (1484-92)
    Alexander VI (1492-1503)
    Pius III (1503)
    Julius II (1503-13)
    Leo X (1513-21)
    Adrian VI (1522-23)
    Clement VII (1523-34)
    Paul III (1534-49)
    Julius III (1550-55)
    Marcellus II (1555)
    Paul IV (1555-59)
    Pius IV (1559-65)
    St. Pius V (1566-72)
    Gregory XIII (1572-85)
    Sixtus V (1585-90)
    Urban VII (1590)
    Gregory XIV (1590-91)
    Innocent IX (1591)
    Clement VIII (1592-1605)
    Leo XI (1605)
    Paul V (1605-21)
    Gregory XV (1621-23)
    Urban VIII (1623-44)
    Innocent X (1644-55)
    Alexander VII (1655-67)
    Clement IX (1667-69)
    Clement X (1670-76)
    Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
    Alexander VIII (1689-91)
    Innocent XII (1691-1700)
    Clement XI (1700-21)
    Innocent XIII (1721-24)
    Benedict XIII (1724-30)
    Clement XII (1730-40)
    Benedict XIV (1740-58)
    Clement XIII (1758-69)
    Clement XIV (1769-74)
    Pius VI (1775-99)
    Pius VII (1800-23)
    Leo XII (1823-29)
    Pius VIII (1829-30)
    Gregory XVI (1831-46)
    Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
    Leo XIII (1878-1903)
    St. Pius X (1903-14)
    Benedict XV (1914-22) Biographies of Benedict XV and his successors will be added at a later date
    Pius XI (1922-39)
    Pius XII (1939-58)
    St. John XXIII (1958-63)
    Paul VI (1963-78)
    John Paul I (1978)
    St. John Paul II (1978-2005)
    Benedict XVI (2005-2013)
    Francis (2013—)

  • “From the very first of the Bible we find God’s oneness stressed, and the unity of His followers taught. The harmony of God’s creation is revealed in Genesis 1:31 “…it was very good.” God is not a God of confusion (1Corinthians 14:33). Deuteronomy 6:4 is one of many passages which teach the oneness of God. Genesis 2:24 reveals the beginning of marriage and says the man and wife:…shall be one flesh.” An inspired apostle, Paul uses the Divine institution of marriage to illustrate the nature of the church, which is his body (Ephesians 1:22,23; Colossians 1:18). The figures of the body and the oneness of husband and wife carry through many verses of Ephesians 5. Paul culminates the comparison by saying,”…I speak in regard of Christ and of the church” (Eph. 5:32). The Bible says “There is one body,…one spirit,…one hope,…one Lord,…one faith,…one baptism,…one God…: (Eph.4:4-6). Jesus prayed for unity of his people, “that they may all be one” (John 17:21).”

  • God is not resentful, rather God is glad to let you know His thoughts, just ask, there is no arrogance to know what God wants, its rather easy actually, it all love

  • Yeah well both of our opinions mean nothing… However i stand upon the traditions passed down by the Church… The one that Jesus started.. That has produced saints, both men and women alike…. not some 3rd wave branch of lutheranism…

    “I will remind you that the first bearers of the Good News were women” If you are referring to him meeting both Mary’s at the tomb.. You are inflating the scenario to fit your agenda… As i pointed out to midnight…. Read the scriptures..Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”…..

    You cannot conclude from this scripture that He intended to make women an authority within His Church… But than again you don’t even accept his Church so it all makes sense why you would say what you did…

    its also clear you dont even know what the Pharisees were about.. You just use that example to tear down any rule you dont like.. by referencing that… Which is sad really… Its called False equivalency…

  • people say it has to be found in the Bible or they no believe, the Bible does not say that, the Bible speaks of Savation of your mortal being in 2Peter 1:16-19 (also I have found that every subject ever thought /talked about is touched upon in Bible, it is most definitely a must read book)

  • none of what you have posted is going to happen Read I Corinthians 7:32-35 and understand why marriage is out of the picture

  • The Catholic Church has no problem to solve. Some women have personal issues they need to resolve in humility, its called ‘carrying your cross ‘daily. Catholic women know where they ‘fit in’ with the Religious Life, its called being a Sister, a Nun.

  • Actually he gave the keys to the church

    John 20:22-23 when Jesus breathed upon the disciples and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven”

    Read the whole passage about the Rock and keys

    When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was NOT REVEALED TO YOU by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and ON THIS ROCK I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

    ON THIS ROCK, Upon what rock? The Rock of the Spirit revealing that Christ is the Son of the living God. In other words, by the Spirit of Christ, Peter confessed Christ as Lord and upon THIS Christ will build His Church. Moreover, by the Spirit of God, many people confess Christ (Matt. 10:32; John 3:1-8; 6:68-69, 11:27; Rom. 10:9-10; 1 Cor. 12:3; 1 Tim. 6:12; 1 John 2:23; 4:2-3, 15; Rev. 1:9, etc.).

    Also there is a play on words in the Greek. “And I tell you that you are Peter [PETROS], and on this rock [PETRA] I will build my Church.” There are two different, but related, Greek words used in this text. According to the Greek Lexicon, PETROS is “a rock or a stone,” whereas PETRA is “a rock, cliff, or ledge.” They are similar, but not the same. Jesus illustrates the meaning of PETRA elsewhere, as a massive foundational rock saying: “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock [PETRA]” (Matt. 7:24). There is a difference between a pebble [PETROS] and a complete foundation [PETRA].

    Therefore, the pebble is Peter’s confession and the Rock is the foundation Jesus Christ! In other words, “Peter was a chip off the old block.” Peter was a PETROS off the old PETRA (the Ancient of Days Dan. 7:9, 13, 22). So by the Spirit of God, Peter [PETROS] was confessing Christ [PETRA]. Peter was a part of the body of Christ by Spirit confession. Upon this the Lord is building His church. Moreover, in this, Peter is being addressed as a representative of all believers not as an individual Pope

  • I’m sure the Holy Spirit has powers to baptize and save and anoint and gift. And this did happen.

    However, in accordance with the Word, only HE has the final decision on who is gifted or saved, not a priest or minister. This includes the apostles.

    I just don’t see evidence in the Bible that a person is not saved directly through God. In fact, I don’t see any evidence in the Bible for religion at all, and I think we’d better be careful about touting earthly religions. God above reigns.

    His ‘Church’, as it is referred to in the Bible, seems to be more spiritual, referring to those who have been saved and seek to be saved by Him..

  • I think you understood my point exactly. God is what is used to justify what cannot be justified by any other means. One of the favorite targets of the hyper religious are other religious people. Unfortunately, that makes them look like religious bigots.

  • Limited infallibility is perfectly sensible – as long as you properly understand what it means. The Pope’s infallibility is limited to certain topics and certain situations.

  • I’m glad you understand my point exactly. People who want to hurt and harm others for the crime of existing are called oppressors. People who are hurt and harmed are called victims. Claiming religion as your excuse doesn’t change anything, except to make it obvious that God is not what you are pursuing.

    The difference between you and me is that I have no issue with you believing whatever you like. I certainly don’t wish to harm you for it. But I will stand up and fight when you attack me.

    Thanks for playing. Now find a mirror and take a long, hard look.

  • Read Matthew 16:14-19, the Keys of the Kingdom were given to Simon Peter, Cephas (stone/little ROCK)first Pope, what he loosed on Earth would be loosed in Heaven, what he bound on Earth would be bound in Heaven, (a big responsibility, keeper of the one true faith) and the fires of Hell shall not prevail against it.

  • Another link in the chain toward the end times “religion” prophesied in the Bible. The making of the apostate Harlot who rides on the back of world governments. The people should go back and read Luther’s original 95 thesis and ask themselves if they truly deserve to be called “Lutherans.”

  • The need to unite now is clear…as numbers dwindle, especially among younger folk. Perhaps that’s a good thing… religion isn’t doing too much good these days… maybe the christians and the muslims can also get together on things.. Now THAT would be a miracle.

  • Good thing it doesn’t say a pope cannot sin. Otherwise where would things be with popes like that sterling example of chastity, Alexander VI?

  • god is a man-made concept… that’s why it’s skewed toward all things male superior.

  • Let me get this straight, so you are saying that the people mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus were Popes? If no then there is no papal succession unless you can name them. If yes, then that will bring up many more questions and would make the pope responsible for original sin.

  • Any organism that doesn’t evolve with a change in its ecology becomes extinct. That’s also true of social organizations.

  • oh nonsense.. that’s just homophobic b.s…. you folks are so messed up, you can’t see that two consenting adults who love each other is a good thing… you’d probably prefer violence. Now, THAT’S sick.

  • No meat on Fridays. Then, wham presto.. okay to eat meat on Fridays. A bunch of made up, arbitrary nonsense. Same with the old infallability (sp?) nonsense.

  • Yes study the Bible, it tells Humans about Salvation, the need of it, Read 2 Peter 1: 16-19 and 2 Timothy 2: 15, ‘Study to should Thyself a workman worthy of praise, rightly diving the Word of God’

  • Pretty soon, most religion will be ‘out of the picture’… bunch of made up silliness by a bunch of men who didn’t know where lightening came from.

  • The men around Jesus changed things to suit THEIR agenda. God. will explain it all at the final summation and I think both of us will stand corrected. I am not at all ashamed of myself.

  • incorrect, 29,999 wrongly ‘dividing the Word of God’ (2Timothy 2:15) supposedly Christian Churches and 1 correctly dividing the word of God holder of the one true faith Church, Catholic (this does not mean personal sins have not occurred within true church, we are all sinner, hopefully trying to ‘go and sin no more’, but the Roman Catholic Church with its unbroken line of Popes reaching right back to Peter who was a disciple of Jesus for 3 years before crucifixion is a True Holder of The Faith)

  • There are definitely Christians and Jews who accept female clergy. But if you’re stating that not all Christians, Jews and Muslims do so, that’s certainly true.

  • Yes. It’s called pride – doing what we want to do, when we want, wherever we want. It’s all about me, me, me.

  • More than that. There are over 1,000,000,000 Christians and over 1,000,000,000 Christianities. Everyone is his or her own theologian. Some of us spend lot of money getting a degree in it but each person sees and interprets God differently.

  • pride comes before the fall , all our works will be tested with fire, what survives is profit, what is destroyed was unworthy, yet we will be saved, blind leading the blind, if you go to a Protestant Theological School you will only be repeating the same errors, ‘sending out’ new pastors to start up new churches where twenty already exist, they are more like fellowship groups, the Protestants really need to unite, there are so many of them it is almost ridiculous

  • The way he is portrayed as healing the blind man in John 9 did violate Jewish law concerning the Sabbath, but healing in general was not a violation. Jewish law concerning this and other topics were just starting to crystalize in the first century CE.

  • The whole thing is rigged against women. Yeah, sure, like in the early 21st Century I’m going to let a man walk all over me.

  • Matthew 16: 14-19 ‘what you loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven, what you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven’, this is infallibility and is held so when the Pope speaks through an official document called a ‘Bull’

  • get behind me you satan when you think and say and act in the short term view, meaning, think and act and say for the long haul

  • Salvation comes from the Jews, Yes, by the Law given to Moses ‘all first born boys who open the womb are to be presented to God to be God’s Son’, and this is Jesus!, The Muslims need to hear this loud and clear since they are willing to be violent and demand that it is below God to have a need of a Son. Muslims have been so deceived, help them to see the light and violence can dissipate away

  • There are two Epistles from Peter in the Holy Bible besides tons of Acts that this person and other first Christians did in the building up of the Church. St. Peter has ‘passed on’ but hardly dead at all, He is a part of Life Eternal now and can be called upon as easily as you can call your neighbor. And at Peter’s passing the people surrounding Peter voted in a new leader, this is how we are up to Pope Francis, an unbroken line of living men

  • @Hillary Allen: What has not seeing “that two consenting adults who love each other is a good thing” has to do with violence?

  • Actually, married right-wing clergy who left the Anglican Church over issues like treatment of gays have been allowed to become Catholic priests since Pope Benedict. To make exceptions for such intolerant of clergy is shamelessly hypocritical.

  • “. People who want to hurt and harm others for the crime of existing are called oppressors.”

    Like atheists, who seek to harm and hurt people of faith.

    “The difference between you and me is that I have no issue with you believing whatever you like.”

    Nonsense, if you had no problem with religion, you wouldn’t be here. Ironically, homophobes make the same claim, in the same situation. They seek out discussions specifically about GLBTQ people, and chime in with their anti-gay guesses, and claim that they have no issue with homosexuality.

    “But I will stand up and fight when you attack me.”

    Oh, just like the homophobes again. Never mind, of course, that it is you and your peers who are attacking people of faith.

    “Thanks for playing. Now find a mirror and take a long, hard look.”

    Nice conceit, it really does show how egotism is the root of atheism.

  • “So are you saying that people who are “Pro-Choice” are actually against abortion instead of being FOR abortion?”

    Nope. Nothing in my post indicates any such thing. Sadly, I have seen such dishonesty before from anti-choice people.

  • One could argue that all work to correct false teaching is a work of God. Certainly, when Elijah challenged the prophets of Baal, that was, at least from the Jewish perspective, a work of God. How it appeared to those who worshipped Baal, is another matter.

  • alleged Christ you say? we will be held accountable for every word we have ever said in idleness You obviously have not read the Holy Bible in its entirety cover-to-cover without skipping around, b/c if you did, with sincerity, the Holy Spirit would have talked to you and you would not be an Atheist for sure and you would see Peter’s Primacy in the ‘going out and making disciples of all nations’ not be posting error

  • “I’m glad you understand my point exactly.”
    You do realize, I hope, that in attempting to misrepresent my actual position, you are admitting that you are behaving in the same manner that homophobes and other bigots behave.

    “Claiming religion as your excuse doesn’t change anything,”

    Neither does claiming atheism as your excuse. However, the sole purpose of atheism is to mock and denigrate others, so there really isn’t any other use of it but as an excuse for harming others.

  • The Roman Catholic Church stands 2000+ years old, but yes simple uneducated misguided angry hurt people do fracture off, prideful hateful people lure them off with their error, error must be recognized and rejected and only truth must be embraced and followed

  • Words of Jesus to Thomas, the Doubter (who would not believe in Jesus’ Resurrection to Life from the dead unless he, Thomas, could put his fingers in Jesus’ nail holes and cut in side of Jesus’ body), ‘blessed are you who see and believe but more blessed are those who have not seen yet believe’

  • Lutherans can fill out their thin faith with belief:if you were never taught it then you will not be aware of it to nurture a love: Look up the Miracle of Luciana, Italy, it occurred in 600 A.D. and in 1970 scientist went there and took samples from ‘transubstantiated’ Consecrated Holy Eucharist and placed them under the microscope…. Consecrated wine had turned into alive Human AB type blood and Consecrated Bread Holy Eucharist Host had turned into Human Heart material (not eye or nerve or stomach tissue, but heart tissue!) ! Look it up for yourself and be not a doubter like Thomas, but believe! Catholics love the Sacred Heart of Jesus!!! some Protestants are taught about Consubstantiation, but that is lacking, the fullness is in Transubstantiation, why embrace the lesser when the full is there to be enjoyed and Unity is Had in the Making, Be a part of the UNITY !!!!!

  • 66 A.D. Luciana, Italy and 1970 scientific examination of samples taken proved TRANSUBSTANTIATION, so why stay separated from truth, to keep your wrongful identity as Lutheran, what profit is there in that, to be separated from unity, being an author of division?, ugh, not for me thank you, wish it not for you either.

  • If a doctrine has always been held by the majesterium, it is not required that a Pope make an Ex Cathedra statement to make it infallible teaching. No Pope has done an Ex Cathedra to state that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, but it is still infallible doctrine.

  • The ELCA, as the article notes, is the largest denomination of Lutherans in the US. There are several others, more conservative generally. As the article also notes, there are plenty of remaining differences between the RCC and the ELCA.

  • The no meat on Fridays was never an infallible teaching, but only a discipline, an therefore subject to change.

  • I know this is shocking, but the Church is ran by humans who are inspired by God, not by God Himself. It’s OK for you to not like how an operation is ran and it’s OK for them to run the Church how they choose to without taking your input into account. That’s the great thing about freedom. Every comment you’ve made is negative. I’m guessing the Church won’t be changing anytime soon. Maybe avoid the Church, since it looks like you’re getting an ulcer over your disagreements with it? The comments section of an article won’t change anything and they’re one of the smallest soap boxes in the world.

  • “God’s moral laws” include approval of slavery, genocide, the killing of witches, and the stoning of adulteresses. I’ll bet you’re really proud of those.

  • i am but a simple female that understands simple logic, if you take honor away from rightful place then an imbalance will exist, I would never wish to be a part of an intentional imbalance that hurts and warps and misguides for some transient false illusion, there already is equality, it takes different positions and forms, people need to be happy with their simple lives because they are really wonderful

  • Lutherans are a dying church. Only thing they can do is hook up with another church like the Catholic. They need to change their name. Martin Luther was a vehement antisemitic admired by Hitler. Lutherans have been making excuses for Luther for a long time.

  • Are you living in the 21st or the 16th Century? Oh well, to each his own. I am just glad that in my faith, I stand before God and Goddess as equal to any man.

  • Actually that is not the only one, as a previous comment said why don’t you learn a little about it before you speak about it.

  • Oh, so any woman who stands up to men is an angry lesbian? I just find that interesting. Yes, I am a lesbian, but I left the sexism of the church a long time ago.

  • Interesting times we’re living. We need more Popes like Francis the Argentinian Jesuit. And more Patriarchs like Bartholomew and Lutherans like Eaton. The Anglicans have just to renounce to monarchy as head of the Church to become Catholics again.

  • Craig, a good place to start is the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) which cites scriptures, Traditions, and the VII documents. Check out CCC 846, 854, 845, 2104, 2467, 1040,1041, to get started.

    As the RCIA Coordinator for my Parish, I also use in the class The Didache Bible, with 200 articles to research Importmant subjects to help understand and defend the Faith… Ignatius Bible Edition.

  • Our works will be judged but they will not be the determining factor in our salvation. That is one of the things that Catholics have wrong. Ephesians 2:8-9

  • Wow, I have a Lutheran friend and I am Catholic, I thought we were very far apart but maybe I was wrong!

  • Nice hate, there. But calling people’s innate capacity for love and intimac ‘abhorrent and against God’s design’ is hate. By the way, how exactly is using a computer – a manufactured piece of technology, in “God’s design”? You are condemned by the standard you use to vilify others.

    “There is no hatred in the truth unless, of course, you don’t like the truth.”

    Oh, but you are not telling the truth. You are spewing a heresy that produces evil fruit. Real humans are murdered, raped, tortured, brutalized because of the evil belief ‘homosexuality is sin’.

    Maybe you’ll have the honesty that none of your peers, in 30 years, have ever had, and answer this one simple question:

    How many GLBTQ people have to be murdered, raped, tortured, brutalized for you to learn that homosexuality is not a sin?

  • My agenda is equality, something most right wing Christians will never understand. Why should a woman be second class?

  • Anti-gay theology, Fanny, produces violence against GLBTQ people, like the shooting in Orlando two months ago. Omar was exposed to both Christian anti-gay theology (predominantly) and Islamic anti-gay theology, and from it, he was inspired to kill people for being gay or lesbian.

    Around the world, the sick belief ‘homosexuality is sin’ produces rape, murder, violence of every kind, systemic injustice. None of this is a secret, so it is deplorable that you even ask if there is a connection.

  • That the outrage shown over the fact that two consenting adults wish to love each other seems far, far greater than the outrage over the violence between people in the U.S.. That there is outrage over love but gun control ideas make people crazy (can’t take ‘our guns’!!!!!) That’s what I mean.

  • Exactly, Mark. And two men kissing… people are outraged. Two men bashing each other in the face… good ratings! To me, THAT’S the real perversion.

  • “If Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their sinful ways of life,”

    Which had nothing to do with homosexuals, according to God. I know, who cares what God said about it, right? Ezekiel 16:
    49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

    And no, ‘detestable things’ is not a reference to homosexuality. It is a reference back to prior passages in this text, where God accuses Jerusalem of human sacrifice to idols:

    “20 “‘And you took your sons and daughters whom you bore to me and sacrificed them as food to the idols. Was your prostitution not enough? 21 You slaughtered my children and sacrificed them to the idols. 22 In all your detestable practices and your prostitution you did not remember the days of your youth, when you were naked and bare, kicking about in your blood.”

    And this, by the way, is basically what anti-gay people of faith have been doing for centuries – sacrificing GLBTQ people as blood offerings to an idol. The heirs of Sodom in this situation are those who teach ‘homosexuality is sin’.

    “well I got news for you deviants,”

    Nice slander there. Paul wrote that slanderers, like you, do not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. You might want to repent. That was sin on your part, and if you are a Catholic, and you take communion without repenting of that sin, you’ll have committed a mortal sin.

  • Two consenting adults can say whatever they want to about how they feel for one another but, so far as God is concerned and the testimony of historical Christianity proves, just because two men say they love each other and want to commit mutual masturbation via sodomy doesn’t mean they “love” each other. In God’s eyes by the teachings of His church, Sacred Tradition, and Holy Writ, two people of the same sex can never have the same love for one another as those of the opposite sex, it can never happen. If it could, it would violate the very nature of who and what God is and what he has done for the human race. At which point, God would be irrelevant, maybe that’s what the homosexualists want to accomplish?

  • Did the first Christians, of St. Paul’s time observe this type of worship? That is did they rely on the Scriptures to tell them what to do?

  • ” how ELCA has perverted doctrines of the Scriptures”

    Nice slander. Paul wrote that slanderers do not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Bible repeatedly condemns those who make false accusations. Please, for your sake, repent of your sin.

    “ELCA has been caving in and going along with just about any doctrine
    floating around out there just for the sake of being part of a worldwide
    so-called “Christian unity””

    Again, your false accusation is sin, and requires repentance on your part.

    “In many cases, ELCA has acted as if 2 Corinthians 6 was never written…….”

    Wrong again. Shall I list all of the passages that condemn false testimony and false accusation, which you have engaged in, and ask why you are acting as if those passages were never written?

  • ” but yes simple uneducated misguided angry hurt people do fracture off, prideful hateful people”

    Nice sin, Carla. I am wondering why you don’t recognize your error. After all, the Bible literally forbids women from speaking up in public assemblies, yet here you are, a literalist disobeying the Bible.

  • As Catholics we only adore God. Saints are examples of lives we could imitate. We do not adore saints; we do ask them to intercede to God for us. To a Catholic intercessory prayer demonstrates our humbleness and unworthiness in petitioning The Almighty.
    PS: As a writer I like words. I could not find the word syncretism in Webster’s New Dictionary; Webster’s New World Dictionary; or the Oxford American Dictionary. Please enlighten me.

  • The bible tells me that Salvation is through Baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5) and works (John 5:28-29; Rom 2:6, 7; James 2:24). Furthermore, this passage that you cited does not address the bible, it only states that it is through the decrees and commands of God that we have known who Christ is. There is nothing in this passage that has to do with the Bible.

  • As you are using it, “loon” is synonym for “fool”. Jesus had something to say about calling people “fool” – which you have basically done:

    Matthew 5:22

    But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be
    subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

  • The scriptural evidence I just cited directly contradicts your original claim, that only God can do these things. Your claim is false if you believe in the bible. Why would God give this power to others is the real question to reflect on.

    The Apostle Paul warned us what to expect as related to authority within the Church:

    “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,” 2 Timothy 4:3

    90 percent of The Christion Greek Scriptures (New Testament) was written to individual Churches, not to individual people. This one fact shows how the early Christians were structured to apply the teaching of our Lord.

    Paul, after his commission from our Lord, presented himself to Peter and the Apostles. He did not work alone.

    Notice how Jesus uses the Church for deciding important matters at Matthew 18:17, and if the person refuses to listen to the Church, to reject the person. Even Jesus shows the Church was given authority over the Christion community.

    Why does Acts 19:1 teach us that only the laying on of hands by an Apostel was necessary to receive the Holy Spirit when some were baptized outside of the Church. If you were not Biptized under the Apostolic Ministry, no Holy Spitit would come upon you.

    “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, whether by word, or by letter from us.
    2 Thessalonians 2:15.

    As the Bible teaches, God used Israel until the Messiah came, now, God uses the Church, as the Bride of Christ, to “Preach and Teach” the “Good News” throughout the whole earth before his return. (Matthew 28:19,20). The One Holy Cathoilc Church, since 33 AD!

    May we meet God on his terms, not what you or I think.

    It’s “Thy Kingdom Come” not “My Kingdom Come.”

  • “It’s one of the biggest and nastiest hypocrisies of all,”

    Atheism, right. Pretending to be a sincere belief, when it is just them picking on someone when they think they can get away with it.

    After all, atheism is just an excuse to mock and dehumanize most of humanity so atheists can feel good.

  • The “No meat on Friday” was suppose to be as a day of mortification. When people would be going out and having lobster that wasn’t exactly a sign of mortification.

  • Yea! You used a comedian in order to make point! Good for you! No

    need to rebut historical religious claims or perhaps show certain Early Church Fathers that may have conceded to your point of view. No! We can’t have none of those pesky facts and historically viable claims against sodomy used, right?

    Well, since that’s the mentality you stoop to, let me lower the level of my argument so that you can understand what you just did: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6uUY-BNLbY

  • Love how laywomen like to pontificate about a state most of them are never likely to embrace.

  • If you would like for me to get into the philosophical nature of God, I can. But, to state that I’m somehow a hypocrite for using tech, that’s about as silly as it gets. The fact of the matter is that tech is made by man for the use of man, sexuality was forged by God for His Glorification – I know that you have no idea what I’m talking about here but, believe me, that the precise nature of man and woman coming together in marriage is to Glorify and imitate God. Again, if you want to, I can elaborate on that.

    What heresy I’m I spewing? I fully acknowledge that real humans are murdered, rape, tortured and brutalized because of their sexual orientation BUT – more to the point, I also acknowledge that real humans are murdered, rape, tortured and brutalized because they are Christians. Do you acknowledge this as well?

    I can answer your question very easily: HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A SIN. NO ONE SHOULD BE MURDERED BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY. The only sin that occurs for a person with homosexual tendencies is when they act upon the impulse to engage in homosexual acts and sex. The fact of the matter is that it doesn’t matter if you’re heterosexual or homosexual, if you engage in sex outside of marriage – in the eyes of God – it is the same sin, regardless if you’re straight or gay. #equality.

  • Yep. they do. Even Wiccans don’t believe in such nonsense. But he’s handy to blame if one needs someone to blame for their negative actions.

  • “As Catholics we only adore God.”

    That is not very accurate. Adoration:

    1.the act of paying honor, as to a divine being; worship.
    2.reverent homage.
    3.fervent and devoted love.

    Catholics adore Mary and the Saints. Many Catholic fans of certain football teams also adore the Notre Dame team.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/syncretism
    syncretism
    noun
    syn·cre·tism
    ˈsiŋ-krə-ˌti-zəm, ˈsin-
    Popularity: Top 40% of words
    Definition of syncretism
    1 : the combination of different forms of belief or practice
    2 : the fusion of two or more originally different inflectional forms

  • And it’s the agenda of right wing Catholics to bring in all these intolerant and hypocritical converts.

  • “If you would like for me to get into the philosophical nature of God, I can.”

    Why resort to a diversion, except that you cannot address the issues actually raised?

    ” But, to state that I’m somehow a hypocrite for using tech, that’s about as silly as it gets.”

    Your dismissal indicates guilt on your part. You foist a false standard on GLBTQ people that you do not live up to yourself.

    ” I know that you have no idea what I’m talking about here”

    Your derogatory fantasy about me indicates that you have no substantive rebuttal. In fact, you own argument demonstrates that your use of technology is a case of going against God’s will, you recognize that it is “made by man for the use of man,”. God gave you a mouth to communicate, that was God’s design, but you use technology instead.

    “that the precise nature of man and woman coming together in marriage is to Glorify and imitate God.”

    Essentially, that is the foundation of fertility worship, whereby sex is used to Glorify and imitate a deity, to win that deity’s favor. You are actually doing the very thing Paul rails against in Romans 1.

    “What heresy I’m I spewing?”

    I was explicit, your pretense indicates dishonesty on your part.

    ” more to the point,”

    Nice diversionary tactic. It demonstrates that you are unwilling to address the actual point – that your belief ‘homosexuality is sin’ directly produces evil fruit, just as the belief ‘Christianity is wrong’ directly produces evil fruit. You are a false teacher, no better than anyone who condemns Christianity (or any other faith, actually).

    “I can answer your question very easily: HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A SIN. NO ONE SHOULD BE MURDERED BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY. The only sin that occurs for a person with homosexual tendencies is when they act upon the impulse to engage in homosexual acts and sex.”

    Your false distinction is not only a rejection of Christ’s teaching, for Jesus said that merely being tempted to sin was the same as actually committing it, so you don’t get away with your hatred of GLBTQ people that easily.

    Further, you are demanding of millions of people a life of celibacy, in order to please your deity. That again puts you in the position of making sexual behavior a requirement for salvation, rather than Christ’s death and resurrection, and our justification through faith. You and your peers are essentially teaching ‘justification through being either heterosexual or celibate’.

    Further, the premise you suggest – that only sexually active GLBTQ people are condemned, still incites violence against GLBTQ people, and therefore, is still, according to Jesus, an evil belief, and you are still a false teacher.

    “if you engage in sex outside of marriage – in the eyes of God – it is the same sin,”

    The problem is, that position is not backed up by Scripture, and it is entirely dependent on your human-created definition of marriage. But have it your way if you wish, because by impeding same-sex marriage, the burden of any sin incurred by sexually active GLBTQ people falls entirely on you.

    I see that you did not answer my question. How predictable. I’ll keep asking then: How many GLBTQ people have to be murdered, raped, tortured, brutalized for you to learn that homosexuality is not a sin?

  • “Zachar” means “male,” not priest. Also, you’re right that “as with a woman” is a sloppy translation. A better translation is “And if a man lies with a male in the lyings of a woman.” Mishkevei ishah= in the lyings of a woman. It’s not about a physical bed, for which there is a different Hebrew word.

  • Carla, I would be careful about speaking for a merciful God. You are skirting trouble with your self-righteous Jeremiad. Never presume to judge another. If you had read the Bible from cover to cover, you would be humble and gentle, not nasty. Hypocrites are unwelcome.

  • Then go to the documents coming after Vatican II. When I was studying for my Masters comps at Fordham, I reread them along with Rerum Novarum.

  • The early Church did not share your interpretation, below are just a few examples how the Church Fathers interpreted what Jesus said and did.

    Clement of Alexandria

    “[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

    Tertullian

    “For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

    “[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

    “Because Peter was made the foundation of the Church, there were practical implications: it gave him a special place or primacy among the apostles….the early Church Fathers clearly recognized this. ”

    Yes, the apostles shared in the Apostolic Ministry…
    I have already on this page provided the scriptural proofs for the primacy of Peter…check it out!

  • “”Zachar” means “male,” not priest.”

    It means a male set aside for high or holy office, such as priest. It can actually be a male of any species, so included rams set aside for offering. Priest is one of its meanings. Keeping in mind the context of the passage, which is a condemnation of the practices associated with the worship of Molech, priest is the most likely meaning, rather than some broad reference to all men. Had it been ish shakab ish, or adam shakab adam, homophobes would have something of a case, if the reference to Ishshah and her bed was not there as well.

    But nice nitpicking, it completely avoids the point. The Hebrew text uses two different words linked to the concept male, with significantly different nuances, but the fraudulent English translations use the same word. The mainstream, heretical translation and interpretation of this passage is based on fraud.

    Ishshah has the nuance of wife, not just any woman, it pairs conceptually with Ish. Husband and wife, a scenario not typically found in gay male relationships. The

    https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H4904&t=KJV

    Bed is one of the meanings of mishkap. And your argument raises the additional challenge – why use shakab the first time to communicate the concept ‘lying with’ and then switch to mishkap?

    The Hebrew does not support the standard English translation. The Hebrew describes a husband cheating on his wife, not a consensual sexual relationship between two men.

  • The ELCA currently takes the less than honorable position regarding anti-gay theology, of treating it as a matter of conscience. In other words, if Joe believes that homosexuality is a sin, that is fine and equivalent to Sam’s belief that homosexuality is not a sin
    The problem with this position is that it fails when we apply it to other justice issues, like slavery. No ethical person would endorse a position that asserts “If Joe believes slavery is God’s will, that is fine and equivalent to Sam’s belief that slavery is evil.”

    It is a baby step, but, better than the RCC’s position, which dehumanizes and slanders hundreds of millions of people. But, to give the RCC some credit, their current stand on homosexuality is better than their past position, which included torture and execution. Who says the RCC cannot evolve?

  • While Christian churches are free to hold to such beliefs, secular society does not, and can change its views accordingly. to accommodate homosexuals.

  • Yes, zachar can mean male of any species, including those set aside as sacrifices. On its own it doesn’t mean a sacrifice and it doesn’t mean priest. I didn’t mean to nitpick, it was a genuine remark. In any event, I agree with you, the Hebrew does not support the standard English translation.
    Ishah can mean wife, in certain contexts. But in Lev. 20:13, it doesn’t read “his wife” (ishto), cf. Gen. 3:20. It reads “And ish who lies with male in the lyings of ishah.”
    The reason the Torah switches from yishkav to mishkevei is Hebrew grammar. The SH-K-V root means “lie” or “lying” and lends itself to both noun and verb forms. It does not mean a physical bed.

  • “It does not mean a physical bed.”

    The citation I provided indicates that it does. However, the point is broader than ‘physical’ bed – mishkap ishshah does not relate to the sexual intimacy between two men in any rational way.

    Further, http://epistle.us/hbarticles/leviticus4.html

    “With MALE (zakhar), we come to an even more unusual word. Several decades ago, Barrett Brick, a student at Columbia and of Hebrew (whose mother helped found PFLAG8) advised me, “Investigate zakhar – here you’ll find the key to unlock the true meaning of Lev 18:22 and 20:13!” So what about this word? First, looking at ish (Strong #376, “man”) and ishshah (#802, “woman”) in Lev 20:13, we note that these are common words used throughout the OT for ”man” and “woman,” conveying the sense of “husband, procreator, and father” and “wife, sexual partner, mother, concubine, or prostitute.” (Brown) However, zakhar (#2145, “male”) along with zekhur (#2138, a variant with the same meaning9) occur only 86 times in the OT10 – compared with 2,160 times for ish.11 As a companion word to zakhar, neqebhah (FEMALE, #5347), occurs 22 times in the OT. In the King James Version, zakhar/zekhur are usually translated as “male[s]” – but also 10 times as “man” and twice, peculiarly, as “mankind” (Lev 18:22, 20:13). These rare terms are applied to animals and birds as well as humans – but, more important, interpreters have noted that zakhar/zekhur often refer to sacrificial animals and circumcised men12 and in worship contexts (Strong, Brown). Appearing 60 times in the Pentateuch (Gen-Deut), for example, these terms are applied 10 times (17%) to sacrificial animals, 9 times (15%) to circumcised males, and 10 times (17%) to Israelite priests – half of the total use (49%).”

    http://www.gaychristian101.com/Shrine-Prostitutes.html

    “As you read this shrine prostitutes page, you will notice that scholars admit that the context of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is cult prostitution or shrine prostitution or temple prostitution – different scholars use different terms for the same thing. ”

    1. Moses is not analogizing incest or beastiality with homosexuality. He is analogizing incest and beastiality with idol worship and shrine prostitution.

    2. The context of Leviticus chapters 17 to 26, known as the Holiness Code, is not gays or lesbians. It is idolatry and shrine prostitution, Lev 17:7.

    3. There is not a shred of biblical cultural doctrinal historical or religious evidence that shrine prostitutes were gays and lesbians. In the agrarian economy of ancient Israel, almost everyone got married and had children, in order to fulfill the command of God to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth so that Israel would be like the stars of heaven and the dust of the earth and the sand of the seashore for numbers.

    The human authors of the Bible testify to the ongoing presence of cult prostitution, shrine prostitution or temple prostitution in ancient Israel. Various authors identify it by those names. Yet the Bible never links those pagan activities to being gay or lesbian, therefore it is untrue, unbiblical and dishonest for modern Christians to attack the LGBT community by applying to us, verses God never applies to us.

    When Israel left Egypt and entered Palestine, Jehovah warned them against worshiping Molech, Leviticus 18:3, 21-22, 26ff; 20:2, 3, 4, 5, 13, 23, and by extension, his consort, Ashtoreth, the Canaanite fertility goddess, because God hates the worship of false gods. ”

    Leviticus 20:13 and its companion are not about homosexuality, they are about temple or cultic prostitution.

  • “so far as God is concerned”

    Of course the foundation of everything you have said is fallacious. You assume that you know the mind of God. You do not. You know only what you have been taught by humans and what you have derived from books written by humans. Thus, your true faith is in fallible humans. Your only alternatives are (a) personal revelation, and (b) senses and reason.

    Since humans are fallible and not to be trusted when pontificating on matters that are impossible to independently validate, preachers, scriptures, and personal revelation are of no intrinsic value in determining whether or not acting on homosexual feelings is of any interest to God.

    Preachers are often wrong and hypocritical; scripture is often demonstrably wrong and self-contradictory, glorifying all sorts of horrors; and personal revelation cannot be distinguished from hallucination or mental disorders.

    I suggest you stick to senses and reason, and let other people follow their own senses and reason without your judgement sticking itself in their business.

  • You may discard the mote in your eye and the chip on your shoulder as you move toward humanity and achieve homility.

  • I understand that you continue to search for ways to justify the way in which you live your life. Most of us have no fear of you or your ways. We find difficulty in finding them compatible with Christianity.

  • Exactly – zachar can REFER to a priest, as in, “Any male among the children of Aaron [the kohanic priests] may eat of the sacrifice.” Lev. 6, 7 etc. It doesn’t MEAN priest. Does “kol zachar ba’kohanim” mean “All priests among the priests?” No.
    It’s entirely possible the Levitical statutes are aimed at cultic prostitution. That doesn’t mean that the verse itself isn’t describing a sex act between two men. Which is all I have stated.

  • Okay, let’s look at the nature of God. To begin with we can state that, as human beings, there are somethings that our minds cannot nor will they ever know about God but, as rational beings whom have been endowed with both a brain and a heart, we can ascertain certain truths about who God is. One way to find out what a thing is, is by stating what it is not. Furthermore, if we were to subscribe this to God we would have to naturally arrive to certain conclusions. First off, we have to agree on one thing: God is perfect. If God be God then He has to be perfect and everything the flows from God HAS TO BE the epitome of perfection for a perfect God is incapable of producing imperfection. If God had the capacity to produce inperfection He, being without time or bounds of space, would have to perfectly produce impfections from the beginning of time. In other words, if God could be imperfect, he would be perfect at doing it because He is a perfect God. This does not make sense because: 1) the final outcome of imperfection is negated due to the fact that it has already been perfected, i.e., God has done a perfect act in doing something imperfect. As such, this only precludes that in the act of perfecting an action, it is impossible to imperfectly perfect it by its very definition. 2) If God was able to act imperfectly, then, as a sovereign and perfect God, he would’ve had to have perfected the action of imperfection from the very instance of creation. What this means is that God would not have – nor could he have of – made life on earth (among other things). Earth is specially placed so as to give life, if an imperfect God were in charge, then earth would’ve been placed any where in the universe and not allowed for life to commence. An imperfect God would have made so we all would have an odd number of chromosomes so as to imperfectly make us into the vile wretches that we are. Indeed, if God were imperfect, life as we have it now would not ever, nor could it ever exists. As such, God HAS TO BE perfect.

    If God is perfect, then any action that He takes in like manner too has to be perfect and it cannot contradict his nature. That is, it has to be perfect and cannot go against who he really is because if it does, we then go back to God acting imperfect which cannot happen. Therefore, if God is perfect and every action that God does is perfect and it cannot contradict His very nature, we can then state the following: GOD CANNOT BE SOMETHING HE IS NOT. Scripture tells us explicitly that “God is love” (1John 4:8) but, how can we prove this? Well, what is the opposite of love? Is it not hate? If in fact God is perfect and all his actions have to be perfect, then – if God had the ability to hate – He’d have to hate EVERYTHING perfectly. Ask yourself, as a human being, think about something that you hate…ok, got it? Good, now that you have thought about something that you hate, what would you want to do to that thing? Do you not want it done away with? Do you not want it out of your life as well as that of others? Indeed, as humans when we hate something we want it gone, destroyed, never to perturb us again. Well, if God had the capacity to hate and he HAS TO hate perfectly, He too would have to undiscriminately destroy and do away with everything. He would hate you, just as much as He hates me; He would hate both of us just as equally as he would hate a tree. He would hate me, you, and a tree as much as he would hate the earth. He would have to hate perfectly and in His perfect act of hatred he would have to annihilate everything!

    The simple fact that we are still alive and haven’t been destroyed proves that God is love; love doesn’t destroy, it multiplies and gathers to itself. And that is what God does, as a lover He brings us to him and gives us gifts that we are ultimately unworthy of. With all this being said, we can thus conclude the following: God is perfect, any action that he does has to be perfect and He cannot be nor do something that He is not. Now, we can ask ourselves another question: Does God communicate to us? Indeed He does and He has. We can see the written Word of God in Scriptures and the unwritten Word of God through Sacred Tradition passed on since the apostolic age (2Thes. 2:15). Furthermore, God want us to communicate with Him through prayer. In prayer we have the capability to speak with God and God to speak to us – if we are really listening with open minds and open heart. Thus, it is demonstrably shown that God communicates. But, if God does this action, then He has to do it perfectly. Let me ask you to do something, the next time you are in front of a crowd of people, perhaps at work or school, do this: communicate to yourself aloud. You will soon note that others around you might find this a bit queer (no pun intended).

    It would be odd because you are literally talking to yourself. But God, who is the epitome and perfection of communication HAS TO, by His very nature, be the embodiment of communication. as such, we have to conclude that if God communicates then the only way He can communicate within Himself is for there to be a community at the very heart and center of who God is. That is, God is more than one person or substance, God has to be able to communicate with Himself in such a manner that He is not simply communicating to Himself. So, who is God the Creator communicating to? None other than God the Son, the eternal second person of the Godhead. This is where the doctrine of the Trinity originates from in collaboration with numerous allusions in Scripture.

    But, you say God is a Trinity – a Tri Unity of persons. Then were do we get the third? The fact of the matter is this: God the Father is perfect and, as such, he loves the Son perfectly. God the Son too is perfect and He reciprocates His love for the Father by pouring Himself out to him. This supernatural love between God the Father and God the Son is so real that it is another real person within the Godhead, namely, the Holy Spirit. This is why the true Christian Church has always professed in the Nicene Creed the following: “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son He is adored and Glorified.” In other words, the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity has been eternally there because there has never been at time when the eternal God the Father wasn’t “fathering” and there has never been at time when the eternal and only begotten Son of God wasn’t reciprocating God the Father’s love. Therefore, God has to be a triune God by his very nature.

    How does this implicate homosexual sex. Well since we now understand what the nature of God is like, we must now take into consideration the hardest of all of the precepts of God. This precept is so hard that is is the main reason why so many people refuse His love. It is so difficult to accept that people willfully blind themselves in order to shield themselves from it. What is this divine ordinance? Matthew 5:48 sums it all up: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

    Impossible you say! How can man be like the perfect God? This is preposterous! While perfection is an impossibility, we are called to strive to be Children of God and God Himself is the role model we should look to. As such, we are called to love and, when we are called to love intimately with another person, it is forever. In the same manner that God’s perfect love has always been eternal, human intimacy – sexual intercourse – is only for those who have made a life long commitment to one another. Ah, put you’ll no doubtedly say that, “well, if 2 men love each other and are monogamous, why not accept that?” This cannot be accepted due to the fact that there has to be more than just love in a relationship…In the same manner that God the Father’s love for His only begotten Son springs forth the third person of the Trinity, humanly love too has to do the same. The only lifelong commitment that mimics God in this manner is man-woman marriage that bears children.

    No relationship between same-sex couples can ever imitate this innate and most fundamental characteristic of who and what God is. Knowing this, God made man and woman, why? So they too could share in the glory of their love and, in turn, glorify Him. This is why, God, by His very nature, cannot accept homosexual sex or “marriage” because it mocks what He has already established and modeled upon Himself.

  • Basil: I should hope you wouldn’t fear ‘me or my ways’… but many of us fear for ‘your ways’ when those ways seek to marry religion with government.
    It is clear that religions feel they have a major part to play in matters of birth, death, marriage and all matters sexual. They suggest that it is God’s work to decide when and how a person should live, love and die. This implies that anyone who interferes with this plan is behaving wrongly. In my opinion, a devout Christian, Jew or Muslim is perfectly entitled to such views. I am at a loss to work out why such views should have any bearing on those such as me, who have no religious affiliation. I become especially aggrieved when religious agents seek to influence governments to ensure that legislation concerning these matters either does not reach the statute book or remains as restrictive as possible.
    Organized religion is able to wield considerable power over governments and it is also well funded. Consequently, those who wish to have the right to decide when, where and how they shall live, love and die must remain on guard. Respectfully yours. I am not your enemy. Are you mine?

  • OK Mark, as an LCMS Lutheran, I was just wondering. Sounds sort of like the “All are Welcome” views of my old Episcopal Church. In the more conservative West Texas Diocese of that church at that time, I told myself, well, the more liberal dioceses back East can believe what they want, but we’ll stick to our traditional views. However, the church kept going further away from Biblical teachings to try and attract younger parishioners. My wife, who taught Sunday school was told she should teach the Ten Commandments as the Ten Best Ways. Then, when a lesbian bishop declared abortion should be considered a “blessing,” it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back and we had to leave. Concerning the LGBT community, we teach God loves them but objects to normalizing gay sex because of the harm it does to the formation and maintenance of traditional families. Case in point, there was an Episcopal Bishop, Gene Robinson, the man Obama picked to swear him in, who left his wife and kids to marry a man. It didn’t last of course. Take care.

  • I am not imparting a different standard for homosexuals then heterosexuals. the fact of the matter is that if you are a heterosexual couple having sex outside of marriage, then you are sinnng. If you are a gay couple having sex, since you can’t get married in the eyes of God, then you too are committing the exact same sin. There is no difference. The sin is the same, God is equal, I’m treating it as such.

    Men using technology is not equivalent to the Divine use of communication. The simple fact of the matter is that technology has always been used by men. Are there it was a sharp stick to kill or smoke signals to communicate with, technology is always going to be used by men. It’s almost as if you want to make technology as anti God, in other words, unless God drop down a cell phone from Heaven I can’t use it! That’s about as stupid as it gets, like I said technology is made by men for men, I don’t see my pet dog using technology, I don’t see a golden tailed marmoset using a tablet in order to send an email to the president, do you? Why not? Because, technology is made by men for men.

    In terms of appeasing a deity via fertility rituals, you couldn’t be more wrong. What Paul is talking about in Romans 1 is that there were pagans who would use fertility as a form of worship, no Christian in his right mind would ever say this nor do this. The fact of the matter is that Christians all recognize that human sexuality comes from God and, as such, it is to be honored, and protected.

    Saying “homosexuality is a sin,” produces no more evil than saying, “stealing is bad” or “cheating on your spouse is wrong.” In both of these examples, a wrong is called a wrong. By your rationale, me saying that stealing is bad is not a good thing to say. Wrong is wrong no matter what, sin is sin no matter what.

    Please do show me where Jesus said that being tempted was sent was the same as sinning. I’m not demanding that people be celibate in order to attain salvation, God demands Chastity in order to enter the kingdom of heaven after all, your body is your temple. Don’t try to make this into a good works equals justification type of argument because it’s not going to work. Because you know full well that faith alone, in and of itself comma is not sufficient in order to Merit salvation. If it is, show me the exact line the scripture that says faith alone is sufficient and I’ll concede the point.

    Engaging in sex outside of marriage is a sin all you have to do is hear what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7

  • “Okay, let’s look at the nature of God.”
    So, another diversionary tactic from you.

    “If God is perfect, then any action that He takes in like manner too has to be perfect and it cannot contradict his nature.”

    Thus, the condemnation of homosexuality cannot come from God, because it is evil, it produces evil, it is intrinsically unjust. The heresy ‘homosexuality is sin’, contradicts God’s nature. After all, the Bible, which you didn’t cite, states:

    2 Chronicles 19:7
    Now let the fear of the Lord be on you. Judge carefully, for with the Lord our God there is no injustice or partiality or bribery.”
    Leviticus 19:15
    “‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.
    Acts 10:34
    Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism
    Romans 2:11
    For God does not show favoritism.
    Galatians 2:6
    As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message.
    Colossians 3:25
    Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism.
    James 2:1
    [ Favoritism Forbidden ] My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism.
    James 2:9
    But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.

    Condemning homosexuality, or homosexual sex in all cases, while allowing heterosexual sex – is favoritism. For God to favor heterosexuals, God would have to be imperfect, unjust, to show favoritism. Because you and your peers show favoritism toward heterosexuals and against homosexuals, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.

    “How does this implicate homosexual sex. Well”

    Well, none of what followed was relevant.

    “In the same manner that God’s perfect love has always been eternal,
    human intimacy – sexual intercourse – is only for those who have made a
    life long commitment to one another.”

    That is your opinion, nothing more.

    ” The only lifelong commitment that mimics God in this manner is man-woman marriage that bears children.”

    So, according to your theory, couples who are intrinsically sterile, as Abraham and Sarah were for most of their lives, were sinning. Any heterosexual who is sterile, by your theory, including all post-menopausal women, must be celibate. According to you. Not according to God, of course, but according to you.

    “No relationship between same-sex couples can ever imitate this innate
    and most fundamental characteristic of who and what God is.”

    Prove it. Your criteria is not Scriptural, no where does the Bible make reproduction a requirement for marriage.

    “This is why, God, by His very nature, cannot accept homosexual sex or
    “marriage” because it mocks what He has already established and modeled
    upon Himself.”

    No. At best, it mocks the simplistic and shallow, false ‘nature’ that you claim God has modeled. Ironically, your claim also means that the Pope, and all other celibate clergy, cannot be accepted by God as his servants, for they mock this model of God the Baby-maker that you have created. The ironic thing is that this heresy you’ve put forward is created by men who willfully refuse to follow God’s example, by choosing a life of celibacy. You have discredited the entire RCC hierarchy for most of its history. God cannot accept RCC priests, according to you.

    You have absolutely turned Christianity into a sex cult, where people have to have heterosexual sex and make babies in order to please God. Paul railed against people like you, in Romans 1.

    So, nice diversion. It completely avoids the fact that your theology produces evil fruit, and according to Jesus, that makes you a false teacher.

  • “as an LCMS Lutheran,” As a former LCMS Lutheran, I am well-acquainted with the destruction that the LCMS’s heresy on homosexuality causes.

    ” Concerning the LGBT community, we teach God loves them but objects to
    normalizing gay sex because of the harm it does to the formation and
    maintenance of traditional families.”

    That harm is entirely a figment of the imagination of homophobes. But at least you admit that your condemnation of gay sex is not based on the Bible. That it a good start.

    ” Case in point, there was an Episcopal Bishop, Gene Robinson, the man
    Obama picked to swear him in, who left his wife and kids to marry a man.”

    I congratulate you on the perversity of your argument, it is truly special in that regard. So a gay man, Gene Robinson, like so many, is coerced by our society, that threatens GLBTQ people with death, rape, torture, ostracism and persecution, into a fraudulent marriage, one that violates his physikos chresis, his innate, God-given sexual orientation. And when he corrects that, when he stops deceiving his wife, for you, that is wrong. You are calling honesty evil. How depraved. Your wish for him, and his wife, is a life-long dishonest, painful, unhappy relationship. Your wish is for heterosexual women to be married to men who do not find them physically attractive, who dread sexual intimacy with them, who find heterosexual sex ‘shameful’. You apparently value the subjective ‘traditional’ over honesty, authenticity, or integrity.

    Of course, the real harm lies in coercing GLBTQ people into heterosexual relationships in the first place.

    “It didn’t last of course.”
    About half of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce. My father, a LCMS pastor, was divorced a little over ten years into his first marriage. My husband and I will be celebrating our 18th year together next March. Gene and his husband were together for 26 years, and without the significant support of societal approval. The average length of marriage in the U.S. – a statistic driven by heterosexual couples of course – is 12.5 years.

    So, no, same-sex marriage, homosexuality, gay sex (is normal for homosexuals by the way) does not harm the formation and maintenance of healthy, honest, heterosexual families. Homophobia, by the way, does. It harmed Gene Robinson’s marriage, by forcing him into a relationship that was against his God given nature. And while your example looks only at the adults in a family, anti-gay theology, by driving GLBTQ youth to suicide, or driving their parents to expel them from the family home, most certainly harms the formation and maintenance of healthy families, traditional or otherwise.

    So while you worry about the imaginary harm to the subjective “traditional families” – harm that exists only as the product of anti-gay theology, when it does exist, real people are murdered, raped, tortured, brutalized, driven to suicide. Real LCMS gay, lesbian, bi and transgendered teens are kicked out of the family home, to live and all to often die on the street, homeless. Unable to get lawful employment, their only source of income is prostitution or drugs, and they are prey for every exploiter that comes along. This is real harm that the LCMS ignores in favor of its fantasy.

    People are murdered and raped, because of ‘homosexuality is sin’. People have been stripped of basic human rights, around the world. They have been executed for being gay, imprisoned, deprived of employment and housing, medical care and other critical resources – simply for being gay or lesbian, bi or transgender. Yet none of this harm seem to matter to you, or to the LCMS. Instead you deliberately misrepresent, testify falsely, about the life of a gay man to create a fraudulent and sinful excuse for your sin against GLBTQ people.

    Homosexual sex is normal for homosexuals, it doesn’t need normalizing. Heterosexual sex is abnormal, shameful, disgusting, unpleasant, intrinsically wrong for homosexuals – just ask us.

    There are things that do harm to the formation and maintenance of families, traditional of otherwise, and I believe that all families have value, even if you don’t. Poverty harms the formation and maintenance of families, and gender inequality does as well. Homophobia, racism, sexism, and other prejudices also harm families. When you and your peers denounce and revile same-sex couples, you are attacking not only their families, but all families. Why? Because you teach the world that the value of families, any family, is entirely subject to the whims and prejudices of any one. Our society’s worship of wealth and material goods, something the LCSM was rather silent on when I attended, is extremely destructive to families. Alcoholism and other addictions, these harm families. Yet look in any LCMS congregation, and you will find people caught up in greed and materialism, in addiction to food, alcohol, drugs, people who are slaves to prejudices including homophobia and racism, men who abuse or denigrate their wives and daughters, teaching their sons to mistreat women.

    The LCMS has no business accusing GLBTQ people of harming families, it has too much real sin of its own to deal with.

    It is disturbing that the LCMS has chosen to abandon Christ’s teaching ‘Love one another’ in favor of a perverse fantasy about harm to families rather than do the right thing, the Christian thing, of nurturing and protecting all families.

  • “That doesn’t mean that the verse itself isn’t describing a sex act between two men.”

    So you are trying to maintain a universal condemnation of sex between two men. That is an interesting tactic. If the Lev 20:13 condemnation of a sexual relationship in the context of cultic prostitution creates a universal condemnation of homosexuality – and there’s another problem there – then the many hundreds of passages that condemn specific instances of heterosexual sex,

    10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.

    11 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his father’s wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

    12 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.

    14 “‘If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.

    17 “‘If a man marries his sister,
    the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual
    relations, it is a disgrace. They are to be publicly removed from their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible.

    18 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly period, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them are to be cut off from their people.

    19 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible.

    20 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless. 21 “‘If a man marries his brother’s wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.

    for example, must create a universal condemnation of heterosexual sex as well. As Jesus said, the standard you use to judge others by, you will be judged by. Not only does that bind anyone who uses Leviticus to all of Levitical law themselves, if one argues that any condemnation of same-sex intimacy creates a universal condemnation, then that standard also must apply to heterosexuals.

    And there are some three hundred Bible passages that condemn specific circumstances or kinds of heterosexual sexual intimacy.

  • I would like you to address the question I asked you, or admit, explicitly, that you are unable to answer it, or afraid to.

    How many GLBTQ people have to be murdered, raped, tortured, brutalized for you to learn that homosexuality is not a sin?

  • Just another thought, continuing on the fact that the Bible has so very many condemnations of specific expressions of heterosexual sexuality – there’s a bit more to it.

    It was, at least allegorically, a heterosexual couple who brought sin into the world. And their relationship was not the healthiest, Adam was quick to blame Eve, taking no responsibility for his actions. Of their first two children, one grew up to murder his brother.

    Genesis 6 tells us that ‘sons of God’ had sex with human women – a heterosexual dynamic of course, and produced destructive progeny- tyrants or giants depending on the translation, and created so much evil, God destroyed most of the world in the Deluge.

    Jesus said that to look at a woman lustfully is to commit adultery, and Paul wrote that it was best not to lie with women.

    The nearly universal gender inequity found in heterosexual relationships, even today, even in mainstream Christian families, reveals a fundamental sin – heterosexual husbands across history did not/do not obey ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ when it comes to their wives, and they created and perpetuated a culture of gender inequity that harmed/will harm their daughters and granddaughters.

    Going for a more mystical approach, one that looks for the Divine in the Creation, science points out that sexual reproduction is the work-around, the solution to death and disease. Factor in that whole Adam, Eve and the fall thing, and one could argue that heterosexuality exists because of sin. After all, Jesus said:

    29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. Matthew 22

    And Paul wrote:

    There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28

    So theology based on gender distinctions is theology that is outside of Christ, that is based on criteria irrelevant to Heaven, things that are not part of the Kingdom of God.

  • Religion maybe, probably not…but GOD (yours & my Creator & only possible Savior), never!!

  • If KKK members were raped and tortured, and murdered, and I hope they are not, would being in the KKK stop being a sin?

  • Carla, thank you for demonstrating how myth and dogma are created based on misinterpretation, the passage you posted in no way says that priests should not marry and it say nothing about nuns (there were no nuns at the time of Paul.)

    Here it is, read it and be free of conjecture and dogma:

    32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

  • If you continue reading you will find that the bible tells bishops to be married and have a family Carla:

    “1This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

    2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

    3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

    4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;” 1 Timothy 3: 1 – 4

  • Thanks! Lordy, I’m going to have to update my dictionary…..I’m really too old to keep running to the internet. But, I just went to Google and there it was in all of its glory.

  • If you knew the truth you would not be a so-called christian, cory; your homophobia is probably a manifestation of your latent homosexual traits. It has been proven that the most ardent homophobes are deep-in-the-closet homosexuals; so what keeps you from coming out cory?

  • Both Judaism and Christianity have a significant percentage of those holding the faith who accept women clergy. Within Judaism both Reform and Conservative Judaism accept women rabbis, and within Christianity, Aside from the Roman Catholic Chruch and Orthodoxy, most of the rest of Christian denominations accept female clergy.

    PR Chris

  • Your false comparison is rather depraved. After all, KKK members are active oppressors who use fear and violence to get their way, GLBTQ people do not.

    What your question shows is that you have no moral sense. And you present this false comparison as sham answer to a very specific question, so let’s put you on the spot too:

    How many GLBTQ people have to die at the hands of your peers, before you learn that homosexuality is not a sin?

    How much bloodshed do you require?

  • “By seeing the validity of a interpretation that may previously have not been considered”.

    So do you think that the Believers that were martyred by the Catholic Church, that their interpretation of Scripture was invalid? Or maybe that the interpretation of Scripture has been watered down and churches have compromised their beliefs? The Bible says the before the Lord returns there would be a Great Falling Away. The Falling Away means that those who profess Christianity would fall away from the Faith. Read 2nd Thessalonians ch.2

  • We DO know that women were active in the early church; it was only in the 3rd and 4th century, as Christianity was moving from a secretive group having to worry about periodic purging, to the state religion, that women’s roles were steadily diminished. But in the time of Paul, it is clear that women were active in the leadership of the church.

    PR Chris

  • Sorry Carla,but if you actually think that quoting a questionable passage answers my question: BIG FAIL. Our Savior always and only invited us to follow HIM; You had better read the Gospels again.There is no record of anyone ” following ” Peter in whatever sense you think that the word” follow”means, and we only have ONESAVIOR; Peter named Him in Acts 4:12, Boniface VIII notwithstanding,so…try again without reading the standard Roman Catholic interpretation into the text.Certainly the great Apostle Paul didn’t follow Peter, and James made the definite decision at the Acts 15 Jerusalem Council so…Try again. ?PEACE.

  • Well, if you look at those attending seminary, where you would think one of the criterion of admittance would be to test a vocation or call to ministry, you will find that many seminaries of various denominations are close to 50-50 male and female.

    When the ELCA predecessor bodies were discussing the possibility of ordaining women to ministry, the overriding issue was what will carry out the mission of he church. The church finally decided that the issue would be what advances the witness to the gospel faith. If this is a decision of God, then women’s ministries will flourish just as men’s ministries do. Based on that, 40+ years later, the ELCA sees it as a validated decision.

    PR Chris

  • Sexuality is a biological function cory, even frogs do it.

    In nature there are no gods, yours is just as fictional as any other god.

    BTW, your god had many aberrant sexual hang ups according to the compilation called the bible.

    As for marriage, in this country and most parts of the world, it is a legal contract between two consenting adults and it is certified by the state, no god is required, ever.

    In real lie it does not matter what your god says or what you think your god says, we don’t live in a theocracy.

    Further, there is no such thing as marriage of one-man-one-woman in the bible:

    Marriage is between one man and one woman?

    In the bible there is no such thing as a marriage blessed by the god.

    The biblical characters soon forgot the concept of
    ‘one-man-one-woman,’ and basically saw women as a sexual object and a reproduction machine, a property of man for man to do as he wished with a woman or as many women as he wanted.

    From the outset the so-called father of the religion;
    Abraham, porked his wife’s slave and did it with the wife’s consent. But the slave had no choice in the matter. Genesis 16.

    – Lamech, one of Cain’s descendants had two wives at the same time: Gen. 4:19

    – Esau had three wives simultaneously: “34. When Esau was forty years old, he married Judith daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and also Basemath daughter of Elon the Hittite.

    35.They were a source of grief to Isaac and Rebekah.”
    Genesis 26: 34, 35 – and Gen. 29: 8, 9 – “8. Esau then realized how displeasing the Canaanite women were to his father. Isaac; 9. so he went to Ishmael and married Mahalath, the sister of Nebaioth and daughter of Ishmael son of Abraham, in addition to the wives he already had.” (and they were racists BTW)

    – And Jacob had four wives all at the same time: Genesis
    29:28 & 30:4-9.

    – Gideon had many wives and concubines – “29. Jerub-Baal son of Joash (Gideon) went back home to live. 30. He had seventy sons of his own, for he had many wives. 31. His concubine, who lived in Shechem, also bore him a son, whom he named Abimelek.” Judges 8: 29 – 31

    – Abijah had 14 wives: “21. But Abijah grew in
    strength. He married fourteen wives and had twenty-two sons and sixteen daughters.” 2 Chronicles 13:21

    – Levirate Marriage,
    from the Latin ‘levir’ meaning ‘brother-in-law.’ In the ancient near East, if a man died without having children, his brother was expected to marry his widow and produce children to continue the lineage of the deceased brother, Deuteronomy 25:5-10.

    Obviously, this is not marriage in the Bible as portrayed in the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2. No western Christian today would practice this ancient Biblical law. Think about it.

    – Slave marriage.
    This is different from a normal marriage in that a male slave had no right to keep his wife and children, if his master sold him or them,

    “1. Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them. (One of the commandments; yes, there were more than ten)

    2. If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

    3. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if
    he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

    4. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.

    5. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master,
    my wife, and my children; I will not go out free.

    6. Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.” Exodus 21: 1 – 6

    Modern Christians reject this form of marriage in the Bible as wrong because:

    (a) it goes against our modern ethos of individual freedom, and

    (b) it goes against modern cultural values, and

    (c) it is illegal today.

    – Prisoner of war marriage, between Israelite warriors and Midianite virgins
    And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

    “2. Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.

    3. And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the Lord of Midian.

    4. Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, hall ye send to the war…

    7. And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord
    commanded Moses; and they slew all the males…

    9. And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian
    captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods…

    15. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?…

    17. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. (These would be widows of he soldiers they killed)

    18. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”
    Numbers 31

    Who in their right mind would want to follow biblical
    teachings about marriage or any other human behavior for that matter?

    The bible is neither a reliable source of information nor a
    guide on moral decency.

  • LGBT are not the only people that those things are happening to. Christians are being raped, tortured, murderd, brutilized, hated, scorned just for being Christians in the Middle East and other parts of the world right now.. That has been going on sense they crucified our Lord Jesus Christ He had no sin nor guile in Him. That is the difference between Him (Jesus) and all the rest of us humans, we are sinners. He was not a sinner because He was not born of man. He was the only begotten Son of the Father in heaven. He was begotten, not made, not created like we were. He was persicuted and hated and scorned, because He proclaimed His Father in heaven to be the ony true God and that He was His Son. He was spat upon, a crown of throns was smashed onto Hiis head to mock His Kingship. He was stripped and His clothes were gambled over. , He was beaten for our transgressions, and He willing took the sins of the world upon Himself and was crucified in our place. He proclaimed that His Fathers’ Word is the truth and that truth would set us free. He said His Father is a Spirit and unless we worship Him in Spirit and Truth we can not worship Him at all. The Word of the Father is not my word, it not corybantics’ word or any other person that reads it hears it or speaks it. The Word is the Creator and giver of life. Jesus the Christ is the living Word of the Father. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. 2.The same was in the beginning with God. 3. All things were made by him;and withot him was not any thing made that was made 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5. And the light shineth in the darkness’ and the darkness comprehended it not. 6. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7.The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9.That was the true Light, that lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11.He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12. But as many as received him, to them he gave the power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name;. 13. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man; but of God. 14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,} full of grace and truth. 15, John bear witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me; for he was before me. 16. and his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. 17. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

  • Well, RC theology is based on apostolic succession. that it was handed on to Peter and to his successors. There’s only one minor problem with that…apostolic succession cannot be traced further back than about the 12th century…there is a bishop in the list of bishops who ordained the bishops from whom all modern day bishops trace their lineage…but we cannot go back behind this bishop–because we don’t know who ordained him. It is really nice to have such a major issue (the validity of the Sacraments) built on such a fragile base.

    PR Chris

  • “LGBT are no the only people that those things are happening to.”

    Nice diversion, but Diane, I never said that they were, so your insinuation is sin. Please repent.

    “Christians are being raped, tortured, murderd, brutilized, hated,
    scorned just for being Christians in the Middle East and other parts of
    the world right now.”

    And that violence demonstrates that the belief that Christianity is wrong is an evil belief. So do you, personally, have the integrity to realize that the persecution of GLBTQ people proves, per Christ, that ‘homosexuality is sin’ is evil?

    Seriously? Are you able to make that leap?

    As for the rest, your extreme attempt to change the subject indicates that you don’t have any compassion or empathy toward GLBTQ people.

    So Diane, how many GLBTQ people have to be murdered before you will admit that ‘homosexuality is sin’ is an evil belief?

  • Midnight. The Nestle Aland text (29th ed?) and the American Bible Society (4th ed) use the same Greek text. The differences are in their apparatus. The ABS text essentially lists only a few variants…traditionally those where a translator might need more detail. This connects with the role of the ABS to bring new versions into print.

    The N-A text (29th ed?) is supporting an effort to make sure that we have a global list of variant regions. I believe they started with some of the epistles…I think the first ones compiled are the catholic epistles.

    PR Chris

  • You are in what is known as self-delusion cory, the fact is you know little of your god.

    – For starters you assume that ‘god’ is the name of your god; it is not. ‘god’ is not even a proper noun, it is a title given to any of the many mythical entities created by the primitive superstitious mind, your god is one of many.

    – Rational beings have not gods, they have no need of them. Everything about your god is irrational.

    Much of the evidence is in the compilation of texts called the bible, it is full of errors, contradictions and absurdities; no self-respecting god would allow that.

    – So-called christians are the next best proof the god is not real. Starting with your holier-than-thou attitude and your self-righteousness filled with hypocrisy, these are characteristic of your ilk and which caused a wise man to once say: “I love your Christ, your Christians no so much, they are so unlike your Christ.”

    – No god created by man (yours was created by man) can be perfect.

    I believe Epicurus put it best:

    “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is
    not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then
    why call Him God?”
    Please don’t try to refute this last part with the old ‘god gave us free will;’ there is no such thing.

  • The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) has over the past several decades departed from many historic Lutheran beliefs and practices and is, in fact, no longer considered a true Lutheran Church body by many fellow Lutherans. The fact remains, that Confessional Lutheran and Roman Catholicism have very serious, fellowship hindering doctrinal positions, particularly in the area of justification. Historic Lutheranism believes that man is saved by God’s grace alone, without any merit in man whatsoever. Catholicism continues to hold that while the possibility of salvation is provided by Christ’s death alone, the individual believer makes this salvation his own by merit and making use of the practices of the Church. Catholics, please feel free to flesh out this position and correct me if I am wrong.

  • The root of your problem, and most like you, cory, is you have a morbid fixation with sex and other people’s sex life. Maybe if you give love more importance over sex you would not have such a high divorce rate, which btw, is a sin.

  • Precisely John. According to the story, Jesus comes from a long line of homosexuals. King David and Jonathan were lovers.
    And Jesus’ great-great-great-grandmothers, Ruth and Naomi, were in a same-sex relationship.
    Ad for the word ‘homosexual’ it cannot be in the bible because it was not invented until the 19th century.

  • Who carried on the message? Well, for much of the first century, the authority was the Jerusalem conference, and Jesus’ brother was one of the major voices in decision making. Paul was a semi-independent leader of small groups he started in what is now mostly Turkey. But for most of the rest of the 1st century, the church was semi autonomous in that individual cities may have had one or more house church groups. During this period, the church was slowly getting in contact with other small house groups; copies of Paul’s letters, and pehaps a draft of Q (the sayings of Jesus) commonly called the Source [Quelle]. As people spread throughout the Roman Empire, and people traveled from city to city, there were contacts by christians of other small churches; and we see by the end of the 1st century that the Christian church was gaining in comlexity, beginning a consolidation that would continue for many centuries.

    The MOST important effort of the earliest Church was to spread the gospel. Remember, the earliest believers thought that Jesus’ return would be soon, and so writing text was not the priority task, but making disciples.

    PR Chris

  • Reality is incompatible with christianity Basil, no evidence exists of a talking snake which walked upright ever existed, the global-cleansing flood would’ve left massive amounts of archeological evidence, yet, not exists; there is no historical evidence that millions of people left Egypt ever (Exodus), I could go on. You have to suspend all logical rational thought to be a Christian.

  • “When I was in the military they gave me a medal for
    killing two men and a discharge for loving one.”

    Sgt. Leonard Matlovich

    Matlovich was a highly decorated soldier and was the first
    to go before the Supreme Court challenging the military’s exclusion of gays and lesbians.

    He was recipient of the Bronze Star, a Purple Heart, and an
    Air Force Meritorious Service.

  • If you ever have bacon, pork chops or sausage you are going to hell Lego:

    “Those who ‘consecrate’ and ‘purify’ themselves in a sacred garden with its idol in the center–feasting on pork and rats and other detestable meats–will come to a terrible end,” says the LORD
    Isaiah 66:17

  • Actually, no. The prohibition on speaking in church was probably a reflection on the practice in temples was for the women to be excluded from the main worship are; and they often couldn’t hear, and were calling out for repetition of what they had missed. The interruptions were distracting to the whole congregation.

    As to whether or not women were involved in any public role in terms of teaching, we have the early chapters of Acts, which quotes the prophet Joel: in the last days it will be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams, even upon my slaves both men and women, in those days I will pour out my spirit and they shall prophesy. (acts 2). Again in 1 Cor, you are given directions as to HOW women should be dressed…THEN THEY PROPHESY. And then you have Galatians, which says there is no discrimination between male and famale, Jew and Greek, slave and free. And, of course, in Paul’s thanksgiving in the 16th chapter of Romans, he lists the names of his coworkers, and they consist of both men and women. A couple of pairs are probably references to a husband-wife team, but others are clearly female.

    PR Chris

  • “Actually, no.”

    Nope. You see, you’ve missing the key ingredient, which I deliberately and specifically included – ‘literally’.

    Anti-gay theology is entirely dependent on a literalistic approach to the Bible. And Jesus taught that whatever standard we judge others by, we’ll by judged by ourselves. So, when someone like Carla employs a literalistic approach to the Bible to condemn GLBTQ people, then she has to meet the same standard.

    And the Bible literally forbids women to speak in public assemblies. Sure, Paul’s meaning was almost certainly different, but literally is the point here.

  • “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22)

    “But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you.” (Leviticus 11:10)

    “They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination.” (Leviticus 11:11)

    “Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you.” (Leviticus 11:12)

  • “Jesus did not give the keys to the Kingdom to Martin Luther, Jesus gave them to Peter. Follow Peter.”

    By that reasoning, then, no one should follow any of the Pope’s either. Jesus did not give them the keys either.

  • Notice how the godhead is male and is able to reproduce a male son. Mary was merely an incubator.

  • “The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) has over the past
    several decades departed from many historic Lutheran beliefs and
    practices and is, in fact, no longer considered a true Lutheran Church
    body by many fellow Lutherans.”

    Yes, the sin of those ‘fellow Lutherans” is well-known to members of the ELCA. We recognize their sin of pride and conceit.

    ” from many historic Lutheran beliefs and practices”
    Of course, anti-semitism was a historic Lutheran belief and practice. Departing from a historic belief isn’t necessarily a bad thing. And while the move away from the historic practice of misogyny isn’t universally recognized as moral, ethical and Scripturally sound, society in general is moving away from gender based prejudices as well.

  • Most bible scholars concur that the Pauline letters are of questionable authorship, as are the gospels Falcon.

  • OK. In the beginning of the 20th century, there were close to 15 to 17 Lutheran church bodies in the US…most of them separated because they were using the language of the nations from which they came to the US.

    By the end of WW II we see Lutheran churches beginning to consolidate…usually after they adopted english for worship. Byt the 1970s, we had essentially 8 or so major Lutheran groups. The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Synod Lutheran church. Both of these synods have not been open to acting in consort with other Lutheran Churches–with the one exception of approving clergy to serve as military Chaplains. Byt the end of the 1970s, we were in the middle of realigning the Lutheran face of the country. LCMS and WLC stayed by themselves. The American Lutheran Church, the Lutheran Church in America, and the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches (a splinter group from LCMS) began serious talks about merger. In 1987, these groups became the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

    The ELCA was born into a time of great outreach among Christians. We had just had Vatican II, which reached out to other churches and brought the Mass into the language of the people, so that others could come to know it. The ELCA sees itself as bridge church. We take very seriously Jesus command that all his people become one. We are working to bridge the differences among Christians. To this end, we have dialogue groups with the RCC. and by the Orthodox churches, with the Methodists, Anglicans/Episcopalians, Mennonite and Presbyterian denominations. WE seek as many opportunities as possible to be a vehicle for reconciliation.

    At the end of the 20th century, the Lutheran Churches in the US are mainly the WELCA (about 400,000), the LCMS (a little over 1 million) and the ELCA (which has about 4 million members) It is the ELCA which has been the partner in this dialogue, along with the international Lutheran bodies, with the Roman Catholic Church into this current and very lively debate. I’m looking forward to the October and November.

    PR Chris

  • Lutherans fully believe in the historic understanding of the Eucharist is the real presence of Christ in the consecration of body and blood of Christ. Where we differ with Catholics is that we didn’t define the manner of this Real Presence…the RCC has struggled to explain how what looks like bread and wine before the consecration is no longer bread and wine AFTER the consecration. In other words, Catholics have to struggle how and why something that looks the same before and after is really different. Transubstantiation is a difficult doctrine to believe in for many Catholics.

    Lutheranism never got around to all those “-stantiation” words (“con-” “trans-” etc) to define what is happening in the Eucharist. We simply say: In, with, and under, the bread and wine is the true body and blood of our Lord and saviour. We simply come, and trust in the words of Consecration: In the night in which he was betrayed….

    PR Chris

  • And both Lutherans and Catholics recite the same Creeds, and share in a common understanding of what we receive. Take eat and take and drink. [Martin Luther said that the most important words in the Consecration are “for you” because if we do not believe that this gift was given for US, then it benefits us not. We believe that this is God’s gift to ALL of US, and that we receive in faith what Christ has promised. Namely ,the forgiveness of sin.

    PR Chris

  • All Lutherans who don’t want to be “drummed out of the Lutheran community”. This is one doctrine which is held by EVERY Lutheran denomination. The classical formulation for us is the belief that “in, with, and under, the bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus Christ” and that we receive the greatest gift of Christ, the forgiveness of sin.

    PR Chris

  • Ah….Mark, you were doing fine with your argument until the words “society in general.” As in…..the fallen world. And what you call “pride and conceit” is adherence to biblical Christianity. But I have to hand it to the ELCA. At least they (you I assume) continue to generally worship with a solid liturgy. Our LCMS worship is now a total mess with all sorts of contemporary and blended nonsense. I might have to start attending Catholic mass just to get that part right.

  • Yes. It is true that in the beginning, the various Lutheran groups that settled in the US stayed in one place. But over time, people moved, an/or someone got upset with the “HQ” and they would find another version of Lutheran to affiliate with. But it is still true that Wisconsin ELC is pretty much in the north central parts of the US. LCMS has had more dispersion over time and you will find their congregations all over the US. ELCA is pretty well scattered over the US…because we are the result of some mergers among Lutherans, we have a lot of predecessor congregations from different ethnic history of that congregation.

    Pr Chris

  • “Mark, you were doing fine with your argument until the words “society in general.” As in…..the fallen world.:”

    Oh, so you believe that you, and the LCMS, are not fallen, is that it? Somehow, you are superior, sinless?

    ” And what you call “pride and conceit” is adherence to biblical Christianity.”

    No, it is not. So you have made a deliberately false and deceitful statement about me – that is sin. Actually, what I call ‘pride and deceit’ is such things as your pretense of being sinless, not part of the fallen world. Such arrogance.

    ” Our LCMS worship is now a total mess with all sorts of contemporary and blended nonsense.”

    Ah, that nonsense. David danced before God in the equivalent of his underwear, but your upset with modern music. Funny how easily people forget that once upon a time, Bach was “modern” music, and Handel was the equivalent of a pop star, that in their day, their music was contemporary.

    But hey, kudos for a great example of completely missing the actual points I raised.

  • Cal – speaking as a layman, The Eucharist sound like Catholic – however by ” forgiveness of sin ” do you mean in general or is personal confession of sins to a priest necessary?

  • Not in orthodox judaism. We know they had heterodoxy, which is akin to protestant christianity…

    You’re gonna need to give examples of female priests… And if your example is priscilla. You’re gonna need to do better than that… Of course i wouldn’t say that women didn’t have roles in the Church.. Of course they did… But not in the capacity of what the priests and bishops were….

  • It is doing well in parts of the world that other Christian churches are doing OK such as Africa. In my Lutheran Church there are several former Roman Catholics. Luther’s later stance on the Jews was comparable to the stance of the Roman Church through many ages. Can we say Spanish Inquisition? The Roman Church is only growing in this country because of immigration from Latin America. Even that group is moving on. The Anglo-Americans are leaving the RCC for a variety of reasons. Also falling birthrates do not help either of these ethnic churches.

  • That was tried with the Crusades. The Roman Church sacked Constantinople in one crusade because of the Roman split from the Eastern Church which led to the fall of the Byzantine Empire and conquest by the Islamic Turks.

  • Not sure what non-denominational churches you are talking about. I hope not those mega churches which are akin to cults or more like club centers making millions for their preachers. Most so called non-denominational once you scratch the surface have their own theology contrary to the Bible.

  • It’s really a pity that Missouri and Wisconsin deny the pastorate to women. The church needs the perspective of women if it is to grow and flourish. I just can’t understand their thinking.

  • The Lutheran experience ranges from the very “high” Church of Sweden to the more “evangelical” of the German church. Indeed the Lutheran Church in Germany is known as the Evangelische Kirche Deutschland. It’s a good thing that the Lutheran Church offers such a wide variety of religious and devotional experience. I’m an ELCA member myself. The ELCA supports no candidate for public office.

  • You have such an inferiority complex…. I feel bad for you.. This is the lens that you see life in…. Rooted in pride.. The first and most effective deadly sin.. You’re angry….You think you’re so advanced IE. “Are you living in the 21st or the 16th Century”…. The irony is, Carla is blessed with joy in her life, its easy to see… I guarantee that woman has more accolades and loved ones than you do. And at this rate.. Will ever have…. When they go to bury Carla.. She will have so many people reminiscing about what a wonderful woman she was. And how she was helpful kind and loving…… What about you? I must say i think the fruits of your ideology will show in the end… Its gonna be sad… Ahhh she had potential, but she just couldn’t put her pride down, when she needed too… The root of all her problems…

  • @Falconlights:disqus
    We all have to do it… Submit. Lay down our pride for the truth.. Men and women.. One thing you don’t understand is that.. We have female saints…Not all Popes have been declared saints.. Somewhat few actually.. And we consider a canonize Saint in “higher position” than a Pope. And than you have Mary. Whom we consider to be the greatest fully human in all of mankind… Christ, is Both God and Man.. Its a dogma of the Catholic Church known as the Hypostatic-union.

    Catholics hold that God will not refuse a request from Mary. Because she did not refuse Him. She is literally higher than Peter.. Catholics and how the Church is setup. Very much do honor women.. And its not this patriarch conspiracy that you think it is…. Mary was humble and pure… The very type of women that you would call “backwards” and living in “another century” And why would you do that? Seems to me. You are fighting to obtain an ego, out of your inferiority complex. Which of course keeps you from repenting of your sins… And in turn, become chains.. And you won’t break loose of those chains until you go after the real demons… And you’re just light years from understanding this, they have you so worked up in the wrong direction…. But i really do hope you get it someday… I really do want the best for you. I hope we can high five on the other side

  • Mark, he’s ALREADY learned that homosexuality is not a sin, as he pointed out two or three comments ago, and NO one had to be “murdered, raped, tortured, brutalized” for him to learn it. He learned it because that is what God, through His Church, has taught him–and he actually paid attention. (It’s any sexual ACTIVITY outside of valid marriage between one man and one woman that is sinful, whether heterosexual or homosexual–or some other “-sexual,” altogether–NOT the inclination, itself.)

  • What about these church fathers? I can play the quote game as well.

    Augustine (354-430):
    “In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’ . . . But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.” (The Retractions, 1:20:1)
    Chrysostom (349-407):
    “Peter, James, and John, were both first called, and held a primacy among the disciples” (Commentary on Galatians, 1, vv. 1-3). How then is Peter alone the primary apostle?
    Cyprian (200?-258):
    “The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, ‘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. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, ‘As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;’ yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.” (On the Unity of the Church, 4)
    Origen (185-254)
    “And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, add the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God. But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My church’? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? For in this place these words seem to be addressed as to Peter only, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,’ etc; but in the Gospel of John the Saviour having given the Holy Spirit unto the disciples by breathing upon them said, ‘Receive ye the Holy Spirit,’ etc, . . . And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was.” (Commentary on Matthew, 12:10-11)

  • “King David and Jonathan were lovers.” You apparently mistakenly assume that all forms of love require sexual activity, then, since there is NO indication of these two good FRIENDS doing such things in the Old Testament books where they appear. Or, you’re being ethnocentric in the extreme: assuming that people in an entirely different time, place, and culture must of course behave just as you and your own (sub)culture do, now, and for the very same reasons.

  • Mary is much more than a mere “incubator.” She is the tabernacle of the New Covenant, and much, much more.

  • No, the passage in Timothy only indicates what a married–or widowed–bishop must be like, not that he MUST be married.

  • My truth is my religion. Not yours. Not a male-dominated pile of nonsense. I worship the God and Goddess. And the only ones I will humble myself before is them. You know nothing about my life, what I have done and how many sick and dying people I cared for over the years. Many told me they hoped I would be there to hold them as they passed over. So you can cram it. I don’t need a man to defend me.

  • Celibacy for priests is a discipline of the Roman/Latin/Western rite of the Catholic Church, but not for the 20-some other rites of the Catholic Church. In ALL rites, chastity is required for all, however, clergy or lay. (Chastity only involves celibacy among the unmarried.)

    Deaconesses are mentioned in the New Testament. Those who weren’t wives of deacons probably evolved into today’s religious sisters, who have “active” ministries (teaching, nursing, social work, etc.), and who are sometimes mistakenly called nuns. (It is likely that the consecrated virgins of the New Testament became today’s actual nuns, who are cloistered and devoted to constant prayer.)

  • No, there won’t be any female deacons or priests (or bishops) in the Catholic Church. That matter is settled; it is a matter of doctrine, and doctrine doesn’t change.

    Married men being ordained as priests in the Roman rite, however, IS very possible, if the Church determines that to be in the best interests of the Church. This is merely a matter of discipline, which can, indeed, change. There already are married clergy in the assorted Eastern rites of the Catholic Church, and a rare few in the Roman rite. Catholic priests generally have very heavy workloads, however, and wives and children may suffer, as a consequence.

  • The “social organization” to which you refer is over 2,000 years old, and thus, has outlived all other social organizations. It will continue to do so long after you and I have moved on into Eternity.

  • Monogamy is a uniquely Christian concept, insofar as human beings go. Men in the early Church were often converts who may have had more than one wife when they became Christian. So, that passage instructs that THEY were not eligible to become bishops. That’s all.

  • “No meat on Fridays” was never a doctrine, but a DISCIPLINE, which can change if the Church determines that it is of benefit to the Church to do so. (That is authorized by Jesus in Matthew 18:18, by the way.)

  • Ben, Christ picked 12 men to be His APOSTLES (the first bishops); He had plenty of women among His disciples, including His own mother.

  • No, Jesus’s mother Mary was his first chief disciple. She believed in Him long before anyone else did, after all. There is no indication in Scripture that Mary Magdalene was “a rich and independent widow,” either, although some other female disciples are noted as such. You are correct that Jesus DID appear to her first after His resurrection. However, I suspect you’re getting your misinformation about the Magdalene out of the novel, THE DA VINCI CODE, not the Bible.

  • “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has looked favorably on his people and redeemed them.” ~Luke 1:68 😉

  • You don’t have to be insulting. The DaVinci Code was fiction and rather silly fiction at that. No, I am getting my view from the Bible and from the way Jesus interacted with both his mother and Mary Magdalene. His mother did an excellent job of raising him and his relationship with women was head and shoulders above that of the disciples. He would not be threatened by a powerful and independent woman. He would support her and be her friend, not her lover.

  • Indeed it has done so by successfully adapting to ecological changes and challenges. It will either continue adapting or become extinct. The world in 2016 is not the world faced by a tiny group of believers in Acts. In some ways it is more threatened now, if it does not face that reality head on, it will become a rigid and atherosclerotic revenant.

  • Just they need to discard the monarchy as head of the Church as I said. Monarchy as head of a Church? OMG! Peter is still in Rome. Go and touch his bones. He was crucified there. And touch Paul bones too. He was beheaded instead because he was Roman citizen. The Monarchs in England? Just ordinary people.

  • With monarchs as head of the Church? Give me a break! In Rome you have Peter and the successor of Peter. Go and touch the bones of Peter and Paul. The monarchy in England just sinners and ordinary people.

  • Males lusting after females is sinful. Jesus actually speaks to THAT sin in the New Testament. And given the number of heterosexual males lusting after women on this planet as opposed to the small number of LGBTQ people on this earth, would your efforts to preach the Gospel not be more effective if you concentrated on the greatest number of sinners?

  • Calm down, Mark. Your liberal anger is showing and that is never attractive. In fact, I bet if this was a non-religious thread, you would be calling me all sorts of names like “bigot” , etc.
    Of course, LCMS members are sinners in need of daily repentance. But that doesn’t mean throwing our hands up and adopting the ways of the world. Generally, Christians would believe that adhering to scripture (uh…the Word of God) will best keep us on the straight and narrow.
    Sorry, didn’t quite get the part about calling you deceitful.
    Modern music (and worship styles) can certainly be appropriate…but much of it is dangerously man-centered and entertainment oriented. Better to stick with what has worked well for centuries.

  • Maybe you have not read any history regarding popes. Talk about sinners, especially many of the popes at the time of the Reformation

  • “So, another
    diversionary tactic from you.”

    Hardly, you stated that,
    me getting into the philosphical nature of God was diversionary but, in doing
    so now you understand what the nature of God is from the historically Christian
    point of view.

    “the condemnation
    of homosexuality cannot come from God, because it is evil, it produces evil, it
    is intrinsically unjust.”

    Wrong, God is always
    just. Condemnation does not equate to evil. You are arriving at that
    preconceived notion. Condemnation is an aspect that arises from sin, in order
    to alleviate yourself from condemnation, you must relieve yourself of sin (John
    8:11)

    “The heresy
    ‘homosexuality is sin’, contradicts God’s nature.”

    Wrong and not a heresy,
    nice try though. Homosexual acts and sex are a sin precisely because they
    contradict God’s nature. As I stated in the philosophical view of who God is,
    in His innermost life, God is a community of persons and the third person of
    the Godhead comes forth from the love of the father and the son. God’s nature
    is to make born a new person due to love. Homosexual sex does nothing to honor
    this aspect of God, instead, it mocks it.

    2 Chron. 19:7 = King
    Jehoshaphat is telling the judges he just appointed to judge prudently and, in
    its greater context this section of 2 Chronicals, it telling us about the
    reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah. What does this have to do with the nature of
    God in respect to homosexual acts?

    Lev. 19:15 = is smack
    dab in middle of the Code of Legal Holiness (Lev. 17-26) and in it, God is
    restating the precepts of the 10 commandments. Again, how does this verse
    disprove that God treats normal sexual relations and sodomy the same? What is
    your point here?

    Acts 10:34 = this is
    referring the first non-Jewish convert and how God used Peter to demonstrate
    that all people, not just the Jews were now chosen. It is true, God shows no
    impartiality but, as verse 35 states, this is only shown to those who are just
    and acceptable to Him. If you are a sinner who constantly, deliberately, and
    willfully sins by committing sexual sins then guess what? you put yourself
    outside of God acceptance.

    Rom. 2:11 = In context,
    Rom.2:9-10 states “Yes, affliction and distress will come upon every human
    being who does evil, Jew first and then Greek. But there will be glory, honor,
    and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek.” In the
    much larger context Paul is talking about the Jewish law and Justification
    through the obedience of faith. But, as it is patently noted, Rom.2:11 is
    summing up what 9-10 are stating, that is, that bad things will happen to those
    who are bad and go