Message from @Orrbit
Discord ID: 572923747070246913
A lot of Luther's concerns were later addressed by the Catholic church proper
There is ground
No there isn't.
well, Luther died a heretic, in fact, a heresiarch
Accept the dogmas, or go to Hell (literally and figuratively).
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
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...