fundamentally, if you go back to the basic most traditional protestant doctrines, it is still heresy

like not just schism, heresy

its in that name, protestant, you're protesting

Where would you say the prime points of heresy are? Beyond disagreement at least

Luther despised the Mass. I recall he referred to it as worse than a brothel. That in itself is totally uncompromisable heresy.

rejection of transubstantiation

I think that's not a fair asessment, he preserved the liturgy, he was speaking of the social aspect at the time

he preserved A liturgy which is not the mass

he hated the theology of the mass

No, he despised the Mass, and so did all of his students.

he understood liturgy, but he hated what the mass was and what was going on theologically

A Lutheran "priest" was executed in Rome for bursting in on a Mass and calling it the "whore of Babylon".

As far as I understand he also denied that priesthood leaves an indelible mark on the soul and said that a lay person could offer mass in an emergency

Said executed Lutheran spent a year with Robert fucking Belarmine, the greatest Church doctor of all time, and still refused to budge.

I guess transubstantiation has always been one of the prime points of contention, idk what's wrong witha lay person performing the mass in an emergency though. Doesn't seem in line with the nature of God to get hung up on that kind of detail in a situation where there is no other means

because a lay person is not able to transubstantiate

an ordained priest is ontologically different than a lay person

I thought that was Church doctrine, transubstantiation isn't a magic power it's the nature of the sacrament

yes, but who has the power to transubstantiate? Jesus

Transubstantiation is the greatest miracle in the world.

Can Jesus not work through a layman?

and Jesus delegated his priesthood to his apostles

He can, but a layman does not have the indelible mark of a priest.

But in an emergency, would that matter? I wouldn't see it as any different than David being given the bread of the host in the tabernacle to eat

What?

I eat the host at mass too

King David ate the bread from the Holy of Holies, which only the high priest was permitted to eat, because it was an emergency, and God let him

David was also a priest wasn't he?

No, he was king

Yeah I remember when the fathers spoke about priests being ontologically different lol

Yes, it would matter. I, a priest, cannot physically transubstantiate anything. I could say Mass every day of my life, and my "Communion" would be nothing more than bread and wine.

yeah he was king and priest as well am I wrong

That's right in there in Ignatius isn't it?

the priesthood has always been an exclusive role, ever since the levites

if anyone else wanted to offer the sacrifice they full on got killed by God

Oh, wait, was it Irenaeus? No, maybe it was in Ambrose? Oh wait...

He was not a priest

whats the point of having designated ordained priests if anyone can do it?

It's almost as if that idea isn't anywhere in the early church 😅

@SUPER MALE VITALITY™ I concede David was not a priest

Glad I can read the fathers honestly as a Lutheran and not insert doctrine where it doesn't exist lol