Not a real protestant

So I've heard from a lot of people Lutherns arent really protestant and arent fully reformed. How does that make you Catholics and orthodox feel? How about other prots? I've heard this from 10 different protestants and got chewed out for participating in a protestant community. I know one difference most protestant denoms only value first 4 eucemical councils while its first 7 for lutherns.

Attached: af618ac.jpg (699x524, 116.96K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist_in_Lutheranism
famous-trials.com/luther/286-home
newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

No different from the leftists of today looking at the leftists of yesteryear and saying "not progressive enough." This is what happens when you integrate hyperindividualism into religion. Without concrete and authoritative dogma, time will characterized as a continuous slide from tradition to subjectivism.

The main issue luther had was just people guilting poor people to give them money by telling them their dead loved ones were suffering in purgatory. It was rather just unless you think exploiting money from the poor is the right christian thing to do…

fpbp

Attached: Faith vs Work.png (872x208, 31.88K)

Oh ya and to add it was actually the conservative movement of Christianity, they wanted to go back and revert to older rules and laws laid out in earlier councils. Also the churches are ran by synods, they arent governmentless. Polite sage.

For Orthodox, we see many of the Protestant's issues with the Papacy (purgatory, indulgences, etc) as just and we can agree with. But on many issues they went too far and threw out genuine Christian tradition in their war against Rome, while keeping certain Roman doctrines (like the filioque) unchallenged.

Uhh that second paragraph matches Lutherans beliefs to T. So maybe that's what other protestants got against Lutheranism.

Lutherans have no sacraments and no apostolic succession, and don't beleiev in the real presence and their ideias about justification are completely different from the cathodox ones.
And they don't cara about the Sacred Tradition and even removed 7 books from the OT and don't venerate the saints. Completely protestant.
Anglicans before the gay/female clergy reforms are the ones who were in the line between Catholicism and protestantism, they even claimed apostolic succession although they don't have.

you are wrong, lutherns do communion and do apostles creed

I'd agree 100% if the Catholic Church didn't excommunicate those people. Indulgences can't be brought since they aren't a buyable thing.
Unfornatly many people including Luther believed in the opposite and Luther didn't even know the Catholic doctrine regarding excommunication, confession etc. Can't blame him since the level of education of the secular and even in some monasteries of the Catholic clergy was ridiculous low.
But thanks to Luther, St. Pius V made mandatory that every priest should attend a seminar and learn theology.

also yes they do believe in real presence

But Lutherans do not hold the apostolic doctrine about the Eucharisty and if they didn't believe it the apostolic creed they wouldn't even be Christian. Even Baptists must believe in it.

Do Lutherans believe that in the Eucharisty Jesus is really present? His body, blood, soul and divinity? Do they even worship the eucharistic bread like we catholics do? As far as I know they don't. I could be wrong but I don't think they do that.

You are just wrong and uneducated. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist_in_Lutheranism

Although I believe that Conservative Lutherans, Anglo catholics and orthodoxs, besides being heretics are the only ones that I call Christians besides catholics.

As I stated before I wasn't sure if you guys did those things, but your ideias on how the stuff happens is completely different from the Catholic tradition.
Still it's better than the remaining pots and a positive point in the way I see you guys.

Luthernism is basically the least reformed protestant denomination, they accept more ecumenical councils than the rest and mines LCMS so really conservative none of the liberalization of the ideology.

But what about those modernist parishes that like fags and that shit. Those are things that I believe that Luther himself would hang those winnie the poohs.
How can they still call themselves Lutherans then?

They are under different Synods, LCMS is like the oldest synod, I dunno about those lutherns you describe never encountered them. Sound like shit.

also like that same complaint applies to catholicism havent you seen the news lately…
polite sage

I've heard about those demons, but again there are Catholic parishes where the priest is fired by the gay Bishop because he burned a gay flag, even though the Bishop is supporting a mortal sin.

Yeah unfortunately. But those fags are in a clear violation of the Catholic doctrine while there are Lutheran bodies with different doctrines (don't know if it's about gays or not).

They tried to put Luther on trail for Heresy for pointing it out before they excommunicated those people, sounds like the catholics slapped a bandaid on it like they usually do after they support bad things called out for a long time and see it not working out as member flow out of their church.

What? Those indulgence sellers were already condemned in the 14th century. 100 years before Luther. Wtf are you talking about?

Not how pope Leo felt about it….

famous-trials.com/luther/286-home

But I guess cause if how Catholicism works a pope can go back on what ever when they feel like it

LOL. What the hell is that website? 5th grade history? What meme are to going to post next time? That the inquisition burned people and not the state?
Those shits come in my middle school history books, but on the serious ones they explain what really happened.

Oh and btw no pope can go back in doctrine. That would make him guilty of heresy.

Yes dance around basic recount of the actual events cause of a missed definition to pretend like the poor corrupt catholic church is being prosecuted…

Well I guess Pope Leo X was a heretic…

Hence Clement V (1305-1314) condemned the practice of those purveyors of indulgences who pretended to absolve "a culpa et a poena" (Clement, I. v, tit. 9, c. ii); the Council of Constance (1418) revoked (Sess. XLII, n. 14) all indulgences containing the said formu

And pope Leo X was a bad pope, but the thing that he made indulgences isnt supported by documental evidence and even less the meme that it would go of the basilica of St. Peter. Only the money in the Ofertory in the Mass or other donations went to it.

And Leo could even be a great sinner, but heretic he wasn't.

Once you get me textual evidence that Leo X did that I'll give you credit.
Other wise I wouldn't need to read the website you've sent me and I could just pick myb shitty school history book and learn that catholics were evil and that the genesis is bullshit.

So this is what catholics do when an instance of corruption is pointed out they just say its all lies? Like pretty much the entirety of historians agree with that account… and the asking for textual evidence from the catholic church.. seriously think you guys are above destroying evidence?

Still no proof. All you keep saying is the good old memes and you know why? Because if you did some research you would find out the main argument for the reform was wrong which would bring down the validity of the movement itself.

So you say the church destroyed evidence and etc that you almost look like those guys from Zig Forums who says the Jews and been messing with history for centuries.
Its one of the "ill decide to believe in history when it allows me to criticise my opponent".
Why don't you follow the majority of historians in other things as well then?
Most of them say there was no deluge, yet we know it really happened.

Im not the one pol level here friend thats you denying basic history like people on Zig Forums who say the holocaust didnt happen at all(im fine with numbers arguments).

Then read the documents of the Council of Constance and again give documental proof that Leo X actually ordered stuff. Oops there are none.
Either there is a giant Catholic conspiracy or there is simply misconceptions in popular History I don't know where do you live but in colleges in Europe you learn real history about the medieval period and renaissance but OK whatever suits your personal narrative that catholics are evil.

Provide me a historian that denys that account rather than ranting about basic agreed upon history being wrong.

For example:
PASTOR, History of the Popes
GEIGER, Renaissance und Humanismus in Deutschland und Italien (Berlin, 1882).

And Popes, before you ask issued, (and still do with other things today) indulgences to those who helped with the building of public buildings such as bridges. For example if I gave water or food to a worker that was building a church I would get an indulgence. Money obviously even if it was one cent (if that's what you could afford) could get you an indulgence since it was a donation. But it's completely false that any indulgence forgives sins, or that wipes out partially or totally temporal punishment without confession and penance first and a contrite heart. And there falls flat the protestant argument of the indulgencesa and their "sellers".

wait so you are saying they do sell indulgences but its different cause of blah blah blah… I thought you just said they didnt sell indulgences…

Ps: I never denied the basic history. I just said somethings we learn at school namely the purpose of the indulgences and the meme that they were sold to raise money for churches and the like was false.
That Leo X issue an indulgence of St Peter's yes he did but he and the Popes before and after him did the same, but never in exchange of money and that's one of the things that Luther got wrong and many other things about Catholic theology.

So what do indulgences accomplish nowadays? Now the reason they sell them, but what do they do now?

Ok you just said they sold them for money, now you are saying they dont sell them for money… which is it.

To add im probably gonna be banned for these post despite there being extensive shitting upon of Protestantism in this thread.

And we don't. I'm not sure if I'm making my point clear. Probably and moving some steps ahead.
You can't buy indulgences.
For example if you read the bible with faith you get a partial indulgence.
You go to a certain sanctuary and the pope said that if that week you went there you'd get an indulgence. You go there and you get it provided all the other things I mentioned above check out.
You help someone build a school, bridge, church etc if the pope issued an indulgence for that you get it no matter how you helped (doesn't happen ofter in the secular world of today)

The reason for indulgences is still the same as it was before. The forgive temporal punishment of your sins in the purgatory.

This article explains well what is or what is not an indulgence way better than me.
newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

This bit sorta sounds like a loophole to continue the sale of indulgences, like "free" concerts where you need to donate at least 5 dollars to get a wristband.

It can be seen as a loophole correct.
But remember this isn't Judaism.
In christianism your heart must be with it.
If I did something in order to get the indulgence, to use that loophole, I would never get it in reality, since the desires of my heart were others.
Its like going to confession and not having real pain for your sins. The end result? You add the mortal sin of sacrilege to your list. The same here.