Did the Protestant Reformation do anything good?

[guanophore]

What do you mean by "intended"? Do you mean that Christ would have known in advance that a) fallible men would quickly corrupt his teachings with their traditions leaving the scriptures as the only reliable source of his revelations and that

Radical, which fallible men corrupted the teachings of Jesus with traditions?

What traditions were they?

Yes, I am certain Christ would have known this in advance. That is why he spent virtually every minute of his public ministry setting up a preventative solution.

 b) over centuries corruption would be piled upon corruption and that

What corruption was piled?

c) efforts to eliminate all the corruption would be far from perfect and would result in many divisions (as opposed to unity under corruption)? …

What was less than perfect about the elimination of the corruption?

.or are you talking about the fact that all three are unfortunate and would not have been part of Christ’s desire?

Division in His One Flock is surely not his desire.

It is curious, given your view of the Catholic Church represented here, why you are even on Catholic Answers forum.

 

[CopticChristian]

Radical, which fallible men corrupted the teachings of Jesus with traditions?

What traditions were they?

Yes, I am certain Christ would have known this in advance. That is why he spent virtually every minute of his public ministry setting up a preventative solution.

What corruption was piled?

What was less than perfect about the elimination of the corruption?

Division in His One Flock is surely not his desire.

It is curious, given your view of the Catholic Church represented here, why you are even on Catholic Answers forum.

I wonder the same thing. I pulled some quotes from the only thread started by Radical. Radical has a view that the Church became corrupt when Paul left the building. A strong belief in denying the real presence with a dialogue concerning Tertullian and Zwingli. Radical is critical on the Catholic Answers position of the Real Presence. The Eucharist is what unites the Churches. Absent the Eucharist there is not unity.

Well, Paul’s churches seem to run into problems as soon as he “left the building”. Should we expect that those following after the apostles would somehow do better?

I might add that, yes (as stated in Titus 1) the overseer was charged with holding and defending sound doctrine, but I would suggest that he was not alone in that task…originally he had other overseers and a congregation standing with him. The church described in the NT seems a very much more democratic institution than the one advocated by Ignatius.

You are right to think that I would distinguish between the church of 35 AD and the catholic church of 400 AD and then again between the RC church of 1500 AD

What I also do not believe is that the phrase “the gates of hell will not prevail against” amounts to a promise to be kept free from doctrinal error.

I see Sola Scriptura as an answer to a modern question. What can we look at today in order to find the fully sufficient and absolutely reliable message from God? Only Scripture.

Oh, there will always be some. To Calvinists, I am too Arminian and to Arminians, I am too Calvinistic. To fundamentalists I am too liberal and to liberals I am too fundamental. The lists goes on and on.

If I thought the Apostolic Churches were truly apostolic, it would be of great discomfort…but it is MHO that, in all likelihood, they are not any more apostolic than the baptist church down the block…in some non-core areas more so and in some non-core areas less so.

I mistrust anyone or anything that claims to possess a “monopoly” with respect to God, fullness of truth etc. My first exposure to that sort of claim was a bizarre anabaptist group.

I see people such as Hus, Luther, Francis, Calvin and Zwingli and their supporters and followers as shaping doctrine…w/o the support of the people the ideas of the reformers would not have gone far.

First I wouldn’t ask it this way… I would say that I am trying to determine which denomination possesses the fullest partial knowledge. (1 Cor 13:9) …and I do so b/c I believe that it is part of God’s plan for my life.

Take a good hard look at the RC explanations on the many Eucharist/Real Presence threads in this forum and note that, for practical purposes, it is often impossible to find a difference between the explanation of what it means to have a real bodily presence and what it means to have only a spiritual presence. It seems that all involved (except for the extreme symbolists) would understand that Jesus is present at the Lord’s Supper from his promise that he would be in the midst whenever 2 or 3 are gathered. From there it becomes a question of what sort of presence is involved. I do not believe that anybody asserts that a material presence is involved. So from there it becomes a question of what sort of immaterial presence is involved. Is it an immaterial presence amongst the believers, beneath/behind the elements or in place of the elements? This is getting fairly technical…and perhaps the significance one places on the Eucharist could be as important as this technicality…and perhaps this technicality does not amount to a momentous paradigm shift. I don’t think it does. Today, for the RCC and the EO this technicality amounts to a test of orthodoxy, but that doesn’t mean that the technicality held that significance 1800 years +/- ago.

 

[1voice]

I don’t see how anyone can read his writings against Jews, …
and see a holy soul producing them. Do they really sound to you like Christ speaking?

I agree with you. But Luther’s attitude and writings on the subject were directly in line with the ‘traditions’ handed down to him…
and those after him … that chose to remain in the Catholic Communion.

---

c. 240
Origen of Alexandria writes that the Jews “have committed the most abominable of crimes” in conspiring against Christ, and for that reason “the Jewish nation was driven from its country, and another people was called by God to the blessed election”
248
St. Cyprian writes that the Jews have fallen under the heavy wrath of God, because they have departed from the Lord, and have followed idols
306
The Council of Elvira decrees that Christians and Jews cannot intermarry, have sexual intercourse, or eat together
325
Conversation and fellowship with Jews is forbidden to the clergy by the Council of Nicaea
4th century
Christian emperors of Rome decree that Christians converting to Judaism, and Jews obstructing the conversion of other Jews to Christianity, will incur the death penalty; Jews can not marry Christians, or hold public office, or own slaves
c. 380
St. Gregory of Nyssa refers to the Jews as “murderers of the Lord, assassins of the prophets, rebels and detesters of God,… companions of the devil, race of vipers, informers, calumniators, darkeners of the mind, pharisaic leaven, Sanhedrin of demons, accursed, detested,… enemies of all that is beautiful”
c. 380
St. Ambrose calls the synagogue “a place of unbelief, a home of impiety, a refuge of insanity, damned by God Himself”
388
A mob of Christians, at the instigation of their bishop, looted and burned the synagogue in Callinicum, a town on the Euphrates. The Emperor Theodosius wants those responsible punished and the synagogue rebuilt at the expense of the bishop, but St. Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, pressures him to relent and condone the action
400
St. Augustine writes: “the Church admits and avows the Jewish people to be cursed, because after killing Christ they continue to till the ground of an earthly circumcision, an earthly Sabbath, an earthly passover, while the hidden strength or virtue of making known Christ, which this tilling contains, is not yielded to the Jews while they continue in impiety and unbelief, for it is revealed in the New Testament. While they will not turn to God, the veil which is on their minds in reading the Old Testament is not taken away… the Jewish people, like Cain, continue tilling the ground, in the carnal observance of the law, which does not yield to them its strength, because they do not perceive in it the grace of Christ”
c. 400
Calling the synagogue “brothel and theater” and “a cave of pirates and the lair of wild beasts,” St. John Chrysostom writes that “the Jews behave no better than hogs and goats in their lewd grossness and the excesses of their gluttony”
413
A group of monks sweep through Palestine, destroying synagogues and massacring Jews at the Western Wall
414
St. Cyril of Alexandria expels Jews from his city
425
Jews are required by law to observe Christian feasts and fasts and to listen to sermons designed to persuade them to convert
442
The synagogue in Constantinople is turned into a church
529-553
The Code of the emperor Justinian decrees that in Christian Byzantine society Jews cannot read their sacred books in Hebrew in their synagogues, and the Mishnah and other rabbinic interpretations are banned
538
The Third Synod of Orléans decrees that Jews cannot show themselves in the streets during Passover Week
591
Pope St. Gregory the Great decrees that Jews are not to be forced into baptism “lest they return to their former superstition and die the worse for having been born again”
600
Pope St. Gregory the Great decrees that Jews should not have excessive freedom, but also “in no way should they suffer a violation of their rights”
681
The Synod of Toledo orders the burning of the Talmud and other books
768
Pope Stephen IV decries ownership of hereditary estates by “the Jewish people, ever rebellious against God and derogatory of our rites”
c. 830
Agobard, Archbishop of Lyons, writes anti-Jewish pamphlets in which he refers to Jews as “sons of darkness”
c. 937
Pope Leo VII encourages his newly appointed archbishop of Mainz to expel all Jews who refuse to be baptized
c. 1010-1020
In Rouen, Orléans, Limoges, Mainz, and probably also in Rome, Jews are converted by force, massacred, or expelled
1050
The Synod of Narbonne decrees that Christians are not permitted to live in Jewish homes
c. 1070
Pope Alexander II warns the bishops of Spain to prevent violence against the Jews because, unlike the Saracens, they “are prepared to live in servitude”
1078
The Synod of Gerona decrees that Jews must pay the same taxes as Christians to support the church
1081
Pope Gregory VII writes to King Alphonso of Spain telling him that if he allows Jews to be lords over Christians, he is oppressing the Church and exalting “the Synagogue of Satan”

---

I was only able to post up to 1081 because of the 6000 character limit …

… the same basic attitude … with a few noted exceptions continued right up until 1939.

Here is the rest of the story …
sullivan-county.com/news/mine/timeline.htm

I refer the link for the time line and events in Catholic history as related to the Jewish people … I am not particularly endorsing or agreeing with other information on the site.

 

[guanophore]

I agree with you. But Luther’s attitude and writings on the subject were directly in line with the ‘traditions’ handed down to him…
and those after him … that chose to remain in the Catholic Communion.

You seem to be confused, 1voice. While it is true that ignorance and prejudice can be passed down from one generation to another, these human customs should not be confused with the Word of God, which is protected infallibly by the Holy Spirit in the Church.

The Sacred Tradition (Teaching of Jesus) is immutable, and Holy. That Sacred Tradition teaches us that “salvation is of the Jews”, and that they are the Chosen of the Lord. Regretably there are many through the centuries that have lost sight of the Truth handed down once for all to the Church by the Apostles. People’s prejudice and ignorance does not negate the Word of God.

 

[PatsBreastplate]

It was important for the socio-political developement of Europe. It was a theological disaster, as the muli- beliefs of protestantism will testify to. It also led to a reliance on worship with ‘feelings’, the dismissal of objective sin, with the overflow of this directly influencing the West today - the triumph of the individual & subjective experience.

This is more a US thing than a European practice, which partly explains why Europeans prefer going loopy at rock-concerts rather than church services!

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Wait a minute here! “Reliance on worship with ‘feelings’”? “Dismissal of objective sin”? How are these good things? Because of these things we find ourselves bogged down in what we think is a dry religion because it doesn’t make us feel good! And the dismissal of objective sin just made it so we didn’t feel bad either! We are now just going around looking for the next spiritual high, going from one weak church to another, just like all the drug addicts we hypocritically despise! *You call this triumph? * Catholicism is a church that doesn’t rely on those warm fuzzies because the darn things are over so quick. Do we really love God if we only serve Him when we feel good? Come back from the addiction to feelings, and rely on action and dedication.
God be with you! (Incidently abbreviated today as Good bye)

 

[Petergee]

I agree with you. But Luther’s attitude and writings on the subject were directly in line with the ‘traditions’ handed down to him…
and those after him … that chose to remain in the Catholic Communion.

---

… the same basic attitude … with a few noted exceptions continued right up until 1939.

Here is the rest of the story …
sullivan-county.com/news/mine/timeline.htm

I refer the link for the time line and events in Catholic history as related to the Jewish people … I am not particularly endorsing or agreeing with other information on the site.

Yes and throughout that time Jewish rabbis, writers and learned men taught that Christians are apostasisers and idolaters and that Jews must not intermarry with them.

Everything which to modern eyes is politically incorrect which Christians said about Jews, Jews also said equally politically incorrect things about Christians.

But Luther was not “in line with the tradition”. He stepped over the line, saying that killing Jews without provocation is OK.

 

[Contarini]

But Luther was not “in line with the tradition”. He stepped over the line, saying that killing Jews without provocation is OK.

I have challenged you on this before. Are you thinking of his suggestion that Jewish rabbis should be challenged to prove their claims about Christianity and punished (presumably with death, given his language, though it’s not 100% clear) if they can’t?

Luther would say that the Jewish polemic against Christianity to which you refer was provocation, and he was very much in line with late medieval attitudes in that regard. You are distorting what he says when you interpret as calling for the “murder of Jews without provocation, just for being Jews.”

Or are you thinking of some other passage to which you might point me?

Edwin

 

[tqualey]

Hi, CC,

This was very insightful - thanks for doing the research!

Hey, Radical, I, too, am interested why you are on CAF - especially now that you apparently have not been seeking any answers at all!

God bless

I wonder the same thing. I pulled some quotes from the only thread started by Radical. Radical has a view that the Church became corrupt when Paul left the building. A strong belief in denying the real presence with a dialogue concerning Tertullian and Zwingli. Radical is critical on the Catholic Answers position of the Real Presence. The Eucharist is what unites the Churches. Absent the Eucharist there is not unity.

 

[Contarini]

we have believed in Christ Jesus in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law; because by works of the law no one will be justified" (Gal 2: 15-16). And to the Christians of Rome he (Paul) reasserts that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rm 3: 23-24). And he adds “we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (ibid., v. 28). At this point Luther translated: “justified by faith alone”

… our common identity within the diversity of cultures is Christ, and it is he who makes us just. Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love.

… Pope Benedict XVI​

Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian

… Pope Benedict XVI

---

We hold, and unquestionably it is true, that it is faith which justifies and cleanses. Rom 1.17; 10.10; Acts 15.9. But if it justifies and purifies, love must be present. The Spirit cannot but impart love together with faith. In fact, where true faith is, the Holy Spirit dwells; and where the Holy Spirit is, there must be love and every excellence. How is it, then, Paul speaks as if faith without love were possible? We reply, this one text cannot be understood as subverting and militating against all those texts which ascribe justification to faith alone. Even the sophists have not attributed justification to love, nor is this possible, for love is an effect, or fruit, of the Spirit, who is received through faith.

… Martin Luther

I think you miss the point here. The question isn’t whether Luther’s teaching is entirely wrong. I enthusiastically agree with and applaud Pope Benedict’s statement that if sola fide is understood correctly, it can be seen as orthodox. But Luther didn’t simply think that his theology was one legitimate way to understand the Faith–he thought it was the only way. He rejected and condemned the Papacy not primarily because of the corruption that everyone acknowledged, but because the Papacy didn’t agree with him.

And Luther went on to reject and condemn other “evangelicals” (the term they would have used–“Protestant” was a political label that only later was applied to the whole religious movement) for not agreeing with him. It was a pattern throughout his career. Whether we try to explain it theologically or not, it is one of the things that accounts for his behavior toward the Papacy.

James Tracy (in his book The Politics of Erasmus) has argued that in 1518 Erasmus was speaking far more sharply of the Papacy than Luther (or than anyone else except a few young German humanists). But Erasmus never broke with the Church, because Erasmus valued the communion and tradition of the Church highly and did not equate his opinions with the Gospel (and his criticisms of the Papacy weren’t primarily doctrinal–they were primarily that he thought the Papacy was fomenting war among European nations rather than carrying out its divine mission of maintaining peace).

People keep speaking as if Luther were Erasmus. You want someone who was really upset about abuses in the Church and spoke out about them boldly over a period of years? Try Erasmus. But he’s gotten a bad rap because he refused to jump on the schismatic bandwagon and so was smeared as a coward by the Protestants (while being rejected as a dangerous precursor of heresy by the paranoid, circle-the-wagons Tridentine Catholic Church).

Edwin

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Contarini,

I am no Luther scholar - but, from what I recall, his main form of writing was in a polemic style. If he could not rouse the troops - well, it was just a off-day for this defrocked monk. He was, however, even-handed in his condemnations - blasting the Pope and Christ’s Church with equal venom as he blasted those fellow heretics who had the gall to actually disagree with Luther!

With such an established history of condemning so many different people and groups - is it any wonder that his faithful listeners could not distingush from his call to arms from mere rhetorical histrionics? His writings about the Jews is probably a classic case.

There is a long an established history of conflict between the 1st Century Jews and the early Catholic Church - turning Christ over to Pilate, murdering Stephen without a Roman trial, beating the Apostles - and this is just what is contained in the NT. After 70AD Jewish fortunes and populations were in retreat. And then after 100AD the conflicts continued but with a growing number of Christians to be addressed. And, as was previously listed, many of the ECF had unkind words about this treatment by the Jews and how God was displeased with their hard-heartedness.

Hatred for the Jews took on political and economic coloring while maintaining its traditional religious exterior - and this went on century after century. For those seeking a tradition that was well established by the time Luther entered the arena of anti-Jewish sentiment - I think this would be at least a good start.

My concern is with calling Luther a prophet. As far as I can tell, he took the courage necessary to stand up for what was right - and then squander it on maintaining his own pride and status with the local German princes who saw Luther as a way to keep their gold in their own purses and not going to Rome. In my opinion, looking at the whole of his career, Luther was acting on his own and not as a prophetic voice from God to try and destroy the Church built by Christ on Peter.

God bless

I have challenged you on this before. Are you thinking of his suggestion that Jewish rabbis should be challenged to prove their claims about Christianity and punished (presumably with death, given his language, though it’s not 100% clear) if they can’t?

Luther would say that the Jewish polemic against Christianity to which you refer was provocation, and he was very much in line with late medieval attitudes in that regard. You are distorting what he says when you interpret as calling for the “murder of Jews without provocation, just for being Jews.”

Or are you thinking of some other passage to which you might point me?

Edwin

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Contarini,

I have only read a few of selected items from Erasmus - a long time ago … thanks for the book reference by James Tracy.

God bless

I think you miss the point here. The question isn’t whether Luther’s teaching is entirely wrong. I enthusiastically agree with and applaud Pope Benedict’s statement that if sola fide is understood correctly, it can be seen as orthodox. But Luther didn’t simply think that his theology was one legitimate way to understand the Faith–he thought it was the only way. He rejected and condemned the Papacy not primarily because of the corruption that everyone acknowledged, but because the Papacy didn’t agree with him.

And Luther went on to reject and condemn other “evangelicals” (the term they would have used–“Protestant” was a political label that only later was applied to the whole religious movement) for not agreeing with him. It was a pattern throughout his career. Whether we try to explain it theologically or not, it is one of the things that accounts for his behavior toward the Papacy.

James Tracy (in his book The Politics of Erasmus) has argued that in 1518 Erasmus was speaking far more sharply of the Papacy than Luther (or than anyone else except a few young German humanists). But Erasmus never broke with the Church, because Erasmus valued the communion and tradition of the Church highly and did not equate his opinions with the Gospel (and his criticisms of the Papacy weren’t primarily doctrinal–they were primarily that he thought the Papacy was fomenting war among European nations rather than carrying out its divine mission of maintaining peace).

People keep speaking as if Luther were Erasmus. You want someone who was really upset about abuses in the Church and spoke out about them boldly over a period of years? Try Erasmus. But he’s gotten a bad rap because he refused to jump on the schismatic bandwagon and so was smeared as a coward by the Protestants (while being rejected as a dangerous precursor of heresy by the paranoid, circle-the-wagons Tridentine Catholic Church).

Edwin

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Radical,

Do I understand you correctly that “Faith Alone” and “Scripture Alone” have been goods deposited by the Protestant Revolt?

My guess is that the anarchy they have produced in their 500 years of existence has been extensively destructive to the message of Christ Who took the time and effort to found His Chruch on Peter and to protect it with the Holy Spirit so that no error can be taught.

What is your response?

God bless

What do you mean by “intended”? Do you mean that Christ would have known in advance that a) fallible men would quickly corrupt his teachings with their traditions leaving the scriptures as the only reliable source of his revelations and that b) over centuries corruption would be piled upon corruption and that c) efforts to eliminate all the corruption would be far from perfect and would result in many divisions (as opposed to unity under corruption)? …and that despite that foreknowledge Jesus went ahead and did what he did? Is that what you mean by “intended”?..or are you talking about the fact that all three are unfortunate and would not have been part of Christ’s desire?

…in any event, you never said whether you thought the PR was good for the Bobs and Marthas.

 

[Contarini]

Hi, Contarini,

I have only read a few of selected items from Erasmus - a long time ago … thanks for the book reference by James Tracy.

God bless

That’s actually a fairly specialized book. I like Tracy as an interpreter of Erasmus, though–his Erasmus of the Low Countries is a better place to start.

The other book I’ve been reading recently is The Better Part of Valor, by Robert P. Adams–it’s from 1962, which is fairly old in scholarly terms, and I question some of it, but he does a good job of discussing four different humanist figures (including St. Thomas More) who all worked in England, and describing their reform efforts focused on a criticism of warfare as practiced by European rulers of that era. (I’m writing a paper about one of the Protestant Reformers and his view of war, and I’m reading about the humanist background to the issue.)

Edwin

 

[1voice]

You seem to be confused, 1voice. While it is true that ignorance and prejudice can be passed down from one generation to another, these human customs should not be confused with the Word of God, which is protected infallibly by the Holy Spirit in the Church.

The Sacred Tradition (Teaching of Jesus) is immutable, and Holy. That Sacred Tradition teaches us that “salvation is of the Jews”, and that they are the Chosen of the Lord. Regretably there are many through the centuries that have lost sight of the Truth handed down once for all to the Church by the Apostles. People’s prejudice and ignorance does not negate the Word of God.

Originally Posted by guanophore
I don’t see how anyone can read his writings against Jews, …
and see a holy soul producing them. Do they really sound to you like Christ speaking?

---

I understand the difference… Your point is that Luther couldnt have been a man of God based (in part) on his attitude toward the Jewish people … I put the word ’ tradition’ in quotes to illustrate the fact that his thoughts were right in line with a long line of Church fathers that applauded that kind of thinking… and it did not in any way disqualify them from holding status.
You and I can agree that it was not good Christianity … but it was not a disqualifier within the established norms of the CC … right up through World War 2.

 

[1voice]

I think you miss the point here. The question isn’t whether Luther’s teaching is entirely wrong. I enthusiastically agree with and applaud Pope Benedict’s statement that if sola fide is understood correctly, it can be seen as orthodox. But Luther didn’t simply think that his theology was one legitimate way to understand the Faith–he thought it was the only way. He rejected and condemned the Papacy not primarily because of the corruption that everyone acknowledged, but because the Papacy didn’t agree with him.
Edwin

… and now …
the Papacy does agree with him …

 

[Contarini]

… and now …
the Papacy does agree with him …

Maybe. I’m not sure Luther would be satisfied with the terms of Pope Benedict’s “agreement,” though it’s hard to know.

However, more to the point, Pope Benedict’s “agreement” proves Luther wrong on the key issue of whether schism was necessary.

Edwin

 

[Radical]

Are you of the opinion that sola scriptura, (which puts the final authority/interpretation of scripture into the hands of each and every sola scriptura proponent) - was Jesus’ plan for Christianity?

I note that it was said that Jesus was slain from the beginning of creation…so I guess one could say that Christ’s crucifixion was planned by God for some time, but I would be reluctant to say that the sin (that necessitated the cross) was God’s plan. Likewise, it would be fair to say that God, for some time, planned to provide his written word for the Church, but I would be reluctant to say that the sin (that left scripture as the only very reliable source of his word) was part of God’s plan.

Well, I can’t speak for the Bob’s and Martha’s out there, but the PR and its concomitant break down of Jesus’ one church, was no good for me as a former protestant. I simply didn’t feel that I was given the necessary charism (when division and disunity arise due to conflicting interpretations of scripture) - to definitively interpret scripture.

I’ll put you down as a “Possibly, for Bob and Martha”…but “not so much” for you.

Did it do anything good for Bob or Martha? Depends on the writer.

…and I’ll put you down as a “yes, for certain Bobs and certain Marthas”

 

[Radical]

Radical, which fallible men corrupted the teachings of Jesus with traditions?
What traditions were they?

Hello, guanophore…long time. Part of my point was showing that you and I (for example) disagree so dramatically on what was good and what was bad about the 16th Century CC that it is difficult to have any sort of discussion as to whether the PR did any good. Take the belief about a real bodily presence (RBP) in the Eucharist for example. You think it a wondrous thing. I think that it is a corruption. As such, you would think any divergence from that teaching is bad and where that divergence has led to disunity it is bad upon bad. In contrast, I would approach the matter by asking which of the following two things nets out the most good: a) unity (a good) under the corruption of a RBP (a bad); or b) disunity (a bad) where some have eliminated part or all (a good) of the corruption of the RBP. How can we discuss whether that aspect of the PR was any good, when we approach the matter from such different angles?

Yes, I am certain Christ would have known this in advance. That is why he spent virtually every minute of his public ministry setting up a preventative solution.

and we would disagree on this too…and so any divergence of what (in your opinion) Christ set up would be bad and I would have to weigh the good against the bad of any such divergence.

What corruption was piled?..What was less than perfect about the elimination of the corruption?

see above…I don’t think listing further corruptions will further this discussion

Division in His One Flock is surely not his desire.

agreed…nor is corruption

It is curious, given your view of the Catholic Church represented here, why you are even on Catholic Answers forum.

this isn’t the first time that you have asked me this…please refer to my previous answer…maybe CopticChristian could track it down for you In any event, I may be your separated brother and you may be my unreformed brother, but we are still brothers right?..and brothers should discuss family matters right?..but I am not sure how we would discuss the good, the bad and the ugly of the PR when we can’t agree on what was good and what was bad…it likely just reverts to the Catholics declaring that the CC is doctrinally right in all it officially does and anything that diverges from that is bad…Speaking of curious, I am curious about two things:

a) what would you concede was bad about the CC at the time?; and

b) could you bring yourself to admit that the PR was a good thing for the likes of the Bobs and Marthas of this world?..or is it your assumption that all devout separated brethren in the world (as we know it) would have automatically been equally (or better) devout full brethren in the hypothetical world w/o the PR?

 

[Radical]

Hey, Radical, I, too, am interested why you are on CAF - especially now that you apparently have not been seeking any answers at all!

see previous answer(s)

Hi, Radical,
Do I understand you correctly that “Faith Alone” and “Scripture Alone” have been goods deposited by the Protestant Revolt?

I am not sure what you mean by “goods deposited”. “Scripture alone” is largely a recognition of two things: a) that the scriptures haven’t been corrupted to the point of unreliability; and b) everything else, including tradition and hierarchy, have been corrupted to the point that they are suspect. There are many people w/i the CC that hold to both (a) and (b)…so is that recognition a “Protestant deposit”? “Faith alone” is even more complex and I believe that Catholics have found a way that they can endorse that phrase (with certain qualifications)…so is “faith alone” a strictly Protestant deposit?

My guess is that the anarchy they have produced in their 500 years of existence has been extensively destructive to the message of Christ…

I can’t help but note that w/i that anarchy exist 800 million souls (give or take)…some of whom are very enthused about the non-Catholic message of Christ that they have received. They are your separated brethren. The separated aspect is bad, but the brethren aspect is good. Eliminate the PR and you deal with the bad “separated”, but do you retain 100% of those 800 million souls as brethren?

But only to be more corrupted by more fallible men (I am sure you do not want me to mention names?)

…actually, I don’t care if you mention any names or not…but I would agree that some cures were worse than the illness.

BTW: I thought Scripture makes it very clear Jesus Church is infallible and not ONLY a book called the Bible?

well, it wouldn’t be the first time that you have been very wrong

 

[Radical]

However, more to the point, Pope Benedict’s “agreement” proves Luther wrong on the key issue of whether schism was necessary.

Edwin

right…and Luther was wrong to worry about any threat of imprisonment or of violence from Catholics too…b/c if Pope Bendict can “agree” then the Popes of the 16th century would have “agreed” too (if only they were given the chance) and if 21st century Catholics wouldn’t burn Luther at the stake, then the 16th century Catholics wouldn’t do that either.