(Almost) All Is Forgiven

[JimG]

“I can forgive Protestants and Protestantism for most things.”

Calling a Spade, a Spade - Crisis Magazine

 

[Theo520]

Honestly, the author doesn’t sound very forgiving, nor does he understand what Protestants claim. He fights a strawman.

It was a good aggregation of Protestant sins though.

 

[JimG]

You’re right; he didn’t sound very forgiving at all. It was an interesting collection of anti-Catholic events of which many modern Catholics may not even be aware.

 

[De_Maria]

nor does he understand what Protestants claim. He fights a strawman.

Could you cite one of the claims which you consider a strawman? I’ve researched history pretty thoroughly, or so I thought and I didn’t see anything inaccurate in his summary.

 

[Theo520]

Could you cite one of the claims which you consider a strawman? I’ve researched history pretty thoroughly, or so I thought and I didn’t see anything inaccurate in his summary.

Protestants don’t believe God made a mistake as the author claimed, they believe man corrupted the church God founded.

 

[De_Maria]

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/calling-spade-spade

Could you cite one of the claims which you consider a strawman? I’ve researched history pretty thoroughly, or so I thought and I didn’t see anything inaccurate in his summary.

Protestants don’t believe God made a mistake as the author claimed, they believe man corrupted the church God founded.

You mean when he said:

But what I can’t forgive them for, not yet at least, is their insipid restorationism―the idea that God somehow made a mistake 2000 years ago when he gave control of the his, One, True Church to the Catholic Church and the papacy, whose progenitor was St. Peter as testified by Christ not once but twice in the New Testament (Matt. 16:18-19, John 21:15-17).

Restorationism is the belief that Christianity should be restored to how it was during the Apostolic Era using nothing but Scriptures

That sounds like a bit of hyperbole. But the essence is certainly right. I can’t count the number of Protestants who claim they want to go back to the simple religion that Jesus founded. Do you deny this?

 

[Theo520]

That sounds like a bit of hyperbole. But the essence is certainly right. I can’t count the number of Protestants who claim they want to go back to the simple religion that Jesus founded. Do you deny this?

I think he’s wrong there as well. Few protestant denomination fully pursue Restorationism. Yes, many seek the experiential aspect of the early church, but the same can be said of Catholic Charismatics.

From my memory, the reformation was rejecting the ‘traditions’ instituted during the medieval era of the Church, not all the Church traditions. They were rejecting what they saw as fairly recent traditions.

It’s a complicated topic and I felt he made a strawman of what all Protestants believe, which he slayed by stating God doesn’t make mistakes.

Again, I think it was a good review list of harms done against the Catholic Church and all should be familiar with these actions.

 

[De_Maria]

Again, I think it was a good review list of harms done against the Catholic Church and all should be familiar with these actions.

Ok. I agree. Thanks.

 

[JonNC]

Could you cite one of the claims which you consider a strawman? I’ve researched history pretty thoroughly, or so I thought and I didn’t see anything inaccurate in his summary.

I forgive Martin Luther for foisting a desecrated and greatly redacted Bible upon the world pretending that God “would have wanted it that way.” Luther removed seven books and parts of three others from the Old Testament―the fullness of which is called the Septuagint and was used by Christ himself when he walked among us.

Luther’s translation included 74, not 73, 74 books.

 

[De_Maria]

Luther’s translation included 74, not 73, 74 books.

Did Luther declare that 7 of those books were not inspired?
If he did, why do you, a follower of Luther, count them amongst the canon of Scripture?
Or is Scripture not the Word of God, in your opinion? Can I fold in any old uninspired book and call it a Bible book?

 

[JonNC]

Did Luther declare that 7 of those books were not inspired?

If he did, why do you, a follower of Luther, count them amongst the canon of Scripture?

Or is Scripture not the Word of God, in your opinion? Can I fold in any old uninspired book and call it a Bible book?

Luther gave his opinion about certain books. This was within his Catholic liberty, as many others did, even during his time. Cardinal Cajetan as an example, who viewed the DC’s in a very similar way to Luther.
But in the end, it was his opinion, and he stated so.

 

[LoyalViews]

Also St Jerome held many opinions about which books ought to be in the canon, because he also had the Catholic liberty to do so, because in those days it was quite unsettled. Yet, the councils of the Church codified a canon that we are bound to as believers.

The problem with Protestantism is that the famous Lutheran mantra, the “sola’s” of the faith, are refuted by their very description: sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia.

One cannot have three distinct sola. “Alone” denotes, as does the original Latin, ‘sola’, an isolationist perception. If it is faith alone, then only faith alone can save: this bars grace and scripture. Or, only scripture alone, and that would bar grace and faith. Or, only grace alone. You know what I mean. One cannot, simultaneously, have a mantra of three (or five) different “sola.”

But on the other hand, it never was Luther’s intention to begin a new denomination based on his writings and theology. Yet heresy is heresy. To reject the traditions of the Church that were codified through Councils past would be to say that the Holy Spirit had abandoned the Church, which never will, nor ever has, happened.

 

[De_Maria]

Luther gave his opinion about certain books. This was within his Catholic liberty, as many others did, even during his time.

Not true. Luther had declared his independence from Catholic authority. Therefore, he was no longer a Catholic when he issued his Bible. Or if you want to consider him a Catholic, he was a Catholic acting in defiance of Catholic Church authority.

Cardinal Cajetan as an example, who viewed the DC’s in a very similar way to Luther.

Cardinal Cajetan did not publically proclaim his defiance of Catholic Teaching.

But in the end, it was his opinion, and he stated so.

2 things.

1. He acted on his opinion and put the books in a separate category.
2. His opinion carried weight. As proof of this, what did his followers do with those 7 books which he declared were uninspired? Did they continue to uphold the Catholic Teaching that they were the Word of God? Or did they reject them and put them in a separate category which they call the “apocrypha”?

 

[JonNC]

Also St Jerome held many opinions about which books ought to be in the canon, because he also had the Catholic liberty to do so, because in those days it was quite unsettled. Yet, the councils of the Church codified a canon that we are bound to as believers.

The council of Trent does this. This is why Cajetan was able to hold his views until then. Luther was never under Trent.

One cannot have three distinct sola. “Alone” denotes, as does the original Latin, ‘sola’, an isolationist perception. If it is faith alone, then only faith alone can save: this bars grace and scripture. Or, only scripture alone, and that would bar grace and faith. Or, only grace alone. You know what I mean. One cannot, simultaneously, have a mantra of three (or five) different “sola.”

Grace alone: nothing else makes salvation possible but God’s grace.
Faith alone: faith is the only vehicle by which we access Justification. It is a gift of grace.
Scripture alone: scripture is the only final norm, the norm that norms but is not normed.
Each sola had a specific designation. So yes, you can have the word only or alone have a specific designation.

To reject the traditions of the Church that were codified through Councils past would be to say that the Holy Spirit had abandoned the Church, which never will, nor ever has, happened.

Then you have to condemn the likes of Jerome, Athanasius, Eusebius, and many others who believed in a canon that varies from that of Trent. You have to condemn the EO for their larger canons, which they have had since before the Great Schism. Dispute about some books is historical, and it is ridiculous to present that as a sign the the Spirit has abandoned the Church.

 

[Theo520]

The problem with Protestantism is that the famous Lutheran mantra, the “sola’s” of the faith, are refuted by their very description: sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia.

If I understand you correctly, there is quibbling over the old testament?

I used the term quibbling since all Christians believe the New Testament replaced the Old Testament. Any differences of import would be in different versions of the New Testament, especially the Gospels.

Text of Vatican Council II regarding priority among the Scriptures:

1. The Word of God, which is the power of God for the salvation of all who believe (cf. Rm 1:16), is set forth and shows its power in a most excellent way in the writings of the New Testament. For when the fullness of time arrived (cf. Gal 4:4), the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us in his fullness of grace and truth (cf. Jn 1:14). Christ established the kingdom of God on earth, manifested his Father and himself by deeds and words, and completed his work by his death, resurrection and glorious ascension and by the sending of the Holy Spirit. Having been lifted up from the earth, he draws all men to himself (cf. Jn 12:32, Greek text), he who alone has the words of eternal life (cf. Jn 6:68). This mystery had not been manifested to other generations as it was now revealed to his holy apostles and prophets in the Holy Spirit (cf. Eph 3:4-6, Greek text), so that they might preach the Gospel, stir up faith in Jesus, Christ and Lord, and gather together the Church. Now the writings of the New Testament stand as a perpetual and divine witness to these realities.
2. It is common knowledge that among all the Scriptures, even those of the New Testament, the Gospels have a special preeminence, and rightly so, for they are the principal witness for the life and teaching of the incarnate Word, our Savior.

 

[JonNC]

Not true. Luther had declared his independence from Catholic authority. Therefore, he was no longer a Catholic when he issued his Bible. Or if you want to consider him a Catholic, he was a Catholic acting in defiance of Catholic Church authority.

Luther was not excommunicated because of his view of the canon. He had the liberty to hold his views, just like contemporaries did at Trent.

Cardinal Cajetan did not publically proclaim his defiance of Catholic Teaching.

Cardinal Cajetan published his view of the canon. This is a historical fact.

2 things.

1. He acted on his opinion and put the books in a separate category.
2. His opinion carried weight. As proof of this, what did his followers do with those 7 books which he declared were uninspired? Did they continue to uphold the Catholic Teaching that they were the Word of God? Or did they reject them and put them in a separate category which they call the “apocrypha”?

1. even that wasn’t prohibited. But as you say, he was already excommunicated
2. curiously, his “followers” never set a canon, technically leaving it open.

 

[JonNC]

Not true. Luther had declared his independence from Catholic authority. Therefore, he was no longer a Catholic when he issued his Bible.

Whatever happened to once a Catholic always a Catholic

 

[De_Maria]

Luther was not excommunicated because of his view of the canon. He had the liberty to hold his views, just like contemporaries did at Trent.

I’m not talking about his excommunication, Jon. I’m talking about his own proclamation that he could care less what the Catholic Church said. Thereby declaring that he was acting on his own. Not on behalf of or in accordance with, Catholic Teaching. And this was across the board. It didn’t have anything to do with one doctrine or another.

Cardinal Cajetan published his view of the canon. This is a historical fact.

I know. But he did not declare himself independent of the Catholic Church.

1. even that wasn’t prohibited. But as you say, he was already excommunicated

His excommunication is of little import to me. He had already declared himself independent of the Catholic Church.

1. curiously, his “followers” never set a canon, technically leaving it open.

I’m of the opinion, that it doesn’t matter that they didn’t set it out. They labeled them “uninspired”. Thereby effectively removing them from the Canon of God’s Word. Am I right or wrong?

Whatever happened to once a Catholic always a Catholic

That’s true on a spiritual level. All baptized Catholics receive the indelible mark of their baptism. But he acted in spite of his Catholic baptism and repudiated the Church. So, he was not a Catholic anymore as far as he or any of his fellows were concerned. Right or wrong?

 

[JonNC]

I know. But he did not declare himself independent of the Catholic Church.

You’re mixing events. I was talking about the canon. Luther is stating his opinion, which he had a right to, and his opinion was not dissimilar to others historically or of his contemporaries. If Cajetan can have the view, so can luther.

 

[De_Maria]

You’re mixing events. I was talking about the canon. Luther is stating his opinion, which he had a right to, and his opinion was not dissimilar to others historically or of his contemporaries. If Cajetan can have the view, so can luther.

C’mon Jon. You’re just arguing for the sake of it. Let’s look at the facts.

Let’s look at the events.

1. Luther stated his opinion. He said that the 7 deutero-canonical books were not inspired.

Whether he had a right to do it or not, is irrelevant. His opinion was that the deuterocanonical books were not the Word of God.

1. His followers accepted his opinion. They did not say, “Oh, that was only Luther’s opinion.” No. They accepted Luther’s way of looking at the Deutero-canonicals and continued denying their inspiration. Thus, effectively leaving them in the status to which Luther had relegated them.
2. It doesn’t matter that they remained in the actual bound book which we call the Bible. The Lutheran version of the Bible contained 66 books which they considered the Word of God and 7 books which they did not.

Do you deny that any of that is true?