S
st_felicity
Guest
I’m thinkin’ I need to check out the CA Forums Curmudgeon’s Club. Although, I don’t like being a curmudgeon–Is there a Curmudgeons Anonymous Club (The CA CAC–or caca for short?)
- Status
C
Contarini
Guest
St. Felicity,
I’m sorry. You’re quite right that I was rude and defensive. There’s a lot of prejudice and misinformation on this board (that’s not a judgment on all Catholics here by any means), and that is one of the reasons I’m here. If I can’t take the heat I should stay out of the kitchen. Probably I should imitate some of my cyber-acquaintances and take a break for Lent–but I decided not to do that this year. However, at least I can try to show more patience and not assume ill-will.
st_felicity:
st_felicity:
I recognize that I’m making a fine distinction, but the reason I’m insisting on it is that you raised the question of the relationship of “evangelical” to “Protestant.” I’m pointing out that “evangelical” best describes the self-understanding of Luther and his colleagues/followers from the beginning. They saw themselves as fighting for the “Gospel.” The term “Protestant” was introduced in a political context, when the Empire was trying to force the princes and city-states to call a halt to further religious changes and roll back the changes already introduced as much as possible. The “Protest” was against what the princes saw as imperial tyranny and on behalf of their duty to follow the Word of God where they believed it led. It did not primarily arise as a description of Luther’s theology per se–“evangelical” is a more accurate description there (at least in terms of Luther’s self-understanding). That’s the only point I’m trying to make here. “Evangelical” is not some kind of whitewashing term introduced because “Protestant” is distasteful. It has deeper roots in our self-understanding than the term “Protestant” itself, which originally was more a political than a theological term (not that the two can be separated in the 16th century).
In Christ,
Edwin
I’m sorry. You’re quite right that I was rude and defensive. There’s a lot of prejudice and misinformation on this board (that’s not a judgment on all Catholics here by any means), and that is one of the reasons I’m here. If I can’t take the heat I should stay out of the kitchen. Probably I should imitate some of my cyber-acquaintances and take a break for Lent–but I decided not to do that this year. However, at least I can try to show more patience and not assume ill-will.
No, even according to the Catholic Encyclopedia they forbade any further extension of “evangelical” doctrines and practices. In other words, Catholic rulers could suppress the evangelicals, but not vice versa. How come you are ignoring this? The CE is somewhat to blame because it slants the info to emphasize the suppression of the Mass and other Catholic practices as the main issue. But if you read what the article said, it makes it clear that the new ideas had no legal protection except where they were already established.
Yes, it was in the 16th century. Bear in mind that we aren’t talking about voluntary groups meeting together on either side. We’re talking about an official, established Church. By 1529 many cities and territories had introduced Protestant reforms in the churches under their control (or had allowed such reforms to be introduced by pressure from below). This typically resulted in a situation where some churches in the city were celebrating the Mass in a very traditional way, while others were holding evangelical preaching services and celebrating the Lord’s Supper according to evangelical beliefs. Both sides saw this as a very awkward, unfortunate state of affairs. Neither side believed in toleration as a good thing (at least toleration of public practice–most Protestants, especially the Lutherans, did claim that private belief should not be regulated by the government). It was an either/or. Either the government would sponsor the old ideas or the new. So to put it as if the issue was whether Catholicism would be tolerated is extremely misleading. This was the relevant issue at the time because of places like Strasbourg, where there were only four churches where the Mass was being celebrated by 1529 (the Mass was totally abolished in February of that year, a month before the decree of Speyer). However, the decree clearly stated that no one was to be allowed to embrace evangelical doctrines from that point on. The Edict of Worms (which totally banned Luther and his ideas) was to be enacted except where such an act would result in a rebellion of the people. In such places no new changes were to be introduced. This is not about being asked to tolerate the voluntary practice of Catholicism (the issue just wasn’t being put in those terms). It was about maintaining the status quo and persecuting all those who tried to change it. (Both Anabaptists and “sacramentarians”–those who denied the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist–were not to be tolerated at all. The “Protestants” didn’t have a problem persecuting the Anabaptists, but refused to persecute the “sacramentarians.”) The authority of the bishops was also to be reinstated. This was not simply about “tolerating Catholicism,” and insofar as the CE has given you that impression, it was misleading.
I recognize that I’m making a fine distinction, but the reason I’m insisting on it is that you raised the question of the relationship of “evangelical” to “Protestant.” I’m pointing out that “evangelical” best describes the self-understanding of Luther and his colleagues/followers from the beginning. They saw themselves as fighting for the “Gospel.” The term “Protestant” was introduced in a political context, when the Empire was trying to force the princes and city-states to call a halt to further religious changes and roll back the changes already introduced as much as possible. The “Protest” was against what the princes saw as imperial tyranny and on behalf of their duty to follow the Word of God where they believed it led. It did not primarily arise as a description of Luther’s theology per se–“evangelical” is a more accurate description there (at least in terms of Luther’s self-understanding). That’s the only point I’m trying to make here. “Evangelical” is not some kind of whitewashing term introduced because “Protestant” is distasteful. It has deeper roots in our self-understanding than the term “Protestant” itself, which originally was more a political than a theological term (not that the two can be separated in the 16th century).
In Christ,
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
St. Felicity,I think Exporter made it clear he was simply speaking from his own experience and that he offered no authority other than his own opinion–Did he say his opinion was the universal and infallible explanation of where the term “Evangelical” came from?
Is it easier for you to scare people off with your “jump down their throat” attitude than have a civil discussion?
Can we please start over, or try again–I think perhaps I am being a bit defensive now…
I apologize to you for letting my frustration with Exporter and some others spill over to my posts with you. But I’ve been trying to have a civil discussion with Exporter for quite a while now, and it’s well-nigh impossible. This is the second time in a few days that he (or she) has made a blanket statement about Protestants with no qualifications. When someone is speaking from personal experience, it’s customary to cast the sentence in a first-person format. I have no problem with the statement “I never heard of them until 1990.” I have a problem with the statement “there were no Evangelicals.” I know this to be false. Exporter is extrapolating a universal negative (there were no Evangelicals) and a completely false speculation about the origin of the term (to give greater respectability to TV preachers) from his own personal experience. That is as silly as it is offensive. If a Protestant said “no Catholics read the Bible before 1990. I know this because I never met one who did until then,” wouldn’t you “jump down that person’s throat”?
In Christ,
Edwin
S
st_felicity
Guest
Thank you. I appreciate that.
I am by no means any kind of historian…I don’t disagree with this. My understanding, however, is that the “evangelical” movement was viewed as a threat to Catholic doctrine in the form of heretical teachings. So the motivation (primarily–maybe not completely…) of the decree was to protect the people from error that would jeapardize their immortal souls and to protect those who wished to continue worshiping within the Catholic faith.
BUT…not any more so than to say it the other way around as you do below…
Thank you. I have learned that and see the truth in that statement. This is the kind of clarification I was looking for.
Again, thank-you–I was not privy to your other conversation and I will just stay out of it…
Maybe…
…but I’d hope I would first try to gently correct them with all Christian charity…:angel1:Maybe you did…as I said, I’m staying out of it.
C
Contarini
Guest
St. Felicity,
I’ll respond only to say that I put the case in terms of Catholics persecuting Protestants in response to the CE’s way of putting it. You’re right that neither side wanted to be made to tolerate the alternative position. The Protestant princes wanted religious liberty within the Empire for the local governments, not for individuals (and they eventually won this at the Peace of Augsburg in 1555). And the CE is no more biased than Protestant historians of that time and earlier periods. The only detailed account of the events that I happen to have in my house (this is really disgraceful since I study the period–but I’ve lived near good libraries for years and I focus on the theology more than the politics) is Merle d’Aubigne’s 19th-century History of the Reformation. D’Aubigne quotes the various edicts and I believe he’s accurate in doing so (he doesn’t differ in matters of fact from what the CE says), but he puts exactly the opposite spin on it from the CE–he slurs over the suppression of the Mass and focuses on the idea that the Protestant princes were being asked to persecute the views that they themselves held. Which is essentially true–but no truer than what the CE says. The problem with older historiography is that it’s so terribly one-sided. I was countering the CE with an equally one-sided way of putting it. But the CE in turn was no doubt reacting to the Protestant narrative that tended to dominate 19th-century scholarship (and still does to some extent–Dave Armstrong’s website is likewise in reaction against the same way of telling the story). The problem with this of course is the pendulum keeps on swinging and the story never gets told fairly!
In Christ,
Edwin
I’ll respond only to say that I put the case in terms of Catholics persecuting Protestants in response to the CE’s way of putting it. You’re right that neither side wanted to be made to tolerate the alternative position. The Protestant princes wanted religious liberty within the Empire for the local governments, not for individuals (and they eventually won this at the Peace of Augsburg in 1555). And the CE is no more biased than Protestant historians of that time and earlier periods. The only detailed account of the events that I happen to have in my house (this is really disgraceful since I study the period–but I’ve lived near good libraries for years and I focus on the theology more than the politics) is Merle d’Aubigne’s 19th-century History of the Reformation. D’Aubigne quotes the various edicts and I believe he’s accurate in doing so (he doesn’t differ in matters of fact from what the CE says), but he puts exactly the opposite spin on it from the CE–he slurs over the suppression of the Mass and focuses on the idea that the Protestant princes were being asked to persecute the views that they themselves held. Which is essentially true–but no truer than what the CE says. The problem with older historiography is that it’s so terribly one-sided. I was countering the CE with an equally one-sided way of putting it. But the CE in turn was no doubt reacting to the Protestant narrative that tended to dominate 19th-century scholarship (and still does to some extent–Dave Armstrong’s website is likewise in reaction against the same way of telling the story). The problem with this of course is the pendulum keeps on swinging and the story never gets told fairly!
In Christ,
Edwin
S
st_felicity
Guest
Maybe there IS hope for fair Protestant-Catholic dialogue! You and I seemed to be able to work through some differences without too much dust kicked up! Thanks.
- Status