C
cathopologist
Guest
Hmmm…How was my thinking out loud a slander?
- Status
A
a_mirror_dimly
Guest
Well, first of all your response was presuming a lack of any such discussion despite the clear presentation of clear evidence to the contrary. Secondly, comparing people to mutineers is anything but charitable. You’re entitled to keep your own council, but if you don’t have any evidence to bring to the table in a historical discussion, please think silently next time until you’ve done some homework on the matter.
C
cathopologist
Guest
I have done my homework - that’s why i’m Catholic.
You on the other hand, presumed i’m dim-witted and less charitable because i made a simple assertion. Is’nt it the objective of a mutineer? To overthrow power, take charge? What happens when compasses go astray when your life depends on it? Can you still keep track of your directions?
You need to take a good look in the mirror before you point your fingers at someone else. However dim the lighting may be.
R
ralphinal
Guest
I think that this is a very good question, and one with an important basis. As has been pointed out, there were varying levels of communication between the various men at all the points from beginning to end.
To me, the biggest single question that I have is how can two doctrines be opposed and yet both be from God? Either it is acceptable to baptise infants or it is not. Either there is a Real Presence or there is not (terms or mechanism not important for this discussion). It leads me to beleive that the communication was not intended to lead to a commonality of Doctrine but a commonality of purpose.
To me, the biggest single question that I have is how can two doctrines be opposed and yet both be from God? Either it is acceptable to baptise infants or it is not. Either there is a Real Presence or there is not (terms or mechanism not important for this discussion). It leads me to beleive that the communication was not intended to lead to a commonality of Doctrine but a commonality of purpose.
A
a_mirror_dimly
Guest
This response still doesn’t address the initial question, nor contribute to answering a question that can be answered using known historical evidence instead of prejudiced assumptions about the behavior of “mutineers” and “broken compasses”. The reformers were in contact and communication with one another…to imply otherwise while presenting no evidence to support your claim is incorrect, unproductive, and misleading.I have done my homework - that’s why i’m Catholic.
You on the other hand, presumed i’m dim-witted and less charitable because i made a simple assertion. Is’nt it the objective of a mutineer? To overthrow power, take charge? What happens when compasses go astray when your life depends on it? Can you still keep track of your directions?
You need to take a good look in the mirror before you point your fingers at someone else. However dim the lighting may be.
C
cathopologist
Guest
See, it is this simple. Mutineers can act alone but they can also act as a group. In the case of Martin Luther, he initially acted alone but soon gathered itching ears who bothered listening to his erroneous takes on doctrinal issues. Not long after, a string of ‘reformers’ followed suit and today, you have thousands of denominations. If they had not broken the golden compass, they would not be arguing amongst themselves on whose interpretation of the Scripture is better or which church is right on dogmatic, doctrinal and social issues.
Try thinking out of the box for once and it will be made clearer to you. I don’t have to post dates, time or place to make a point. If you have a problem with the words i chose to make my point, blame it on the dictionaries.
R
Reformed
Guest
“Anti-Catholicism is the anti-Semitism of intellectuals” - Peter Viereck
See 1 Corinthians 1
See 1 Corinthians 1
A
a_mirror_dimly
Guest
That’s all well and good, but your version of events with regard to the beginnings of the Protestant Reformation just don’t line up with the fact that the Reformers were in correspondence with one another. If you’re interested in a discussion of the implication of the Reformation and why it’s result in many, many denominations that’s a fine topic for another thread, but it doesn’t have bearing on the question of whether the early Reformers where in dialog with one another, a historical question which has an answer.
Of course you disagree on the meaning of the Reformation, but your jumping ahead to a different topic now, which while again is a fine topic to discuss, isn’t really what this thread is about.
C
cathopologist
Guest
Of course they were in correspondence with one another. However, that was only the beginning. It soon lead to a plethora of attacks against one another - Luther vs Calvin, etc.
See reply above.
Perhaps so, but a point had to be made. As i said, i was after all, thinking out loud.
C
cathopologist
Guest
."…as it is written, "Whoever boasts, should boast in the Lord."
Amen.
R
Reformed
Guest
Come…let us reason together in the Scriptures!
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=273731&page=30
C
cathopologist
Guest
I reason with the Scriptures every time i attend the Family Rosary prayers and Novena. It’s quite an interesting and informative thread and you have my word that i will be following the discussions as much as possible.Come…let us reason together in the Scriptures!
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=273731&page=30
J
jmcrae
Guest
This seems more like Agnosticism than Christianity, to me.
What is the basis for Calvinism’s existence, if it doesn’t claim to know anything? Why did Calvin bother to become a Calvinist? Why Calvinist, and not Lutheran, Mennonite, or Anglican, if he had a beef with the Catholic Church?
But surely, it’s important to know something? Calvinists say that Baptism is an Ordinance; surely they have a reason for saying so? You can’t just say, “Well, it’s okay to disagree whether Baptism is an Ordinance, or a Sacrament, because we just can’t know.” Why bother, then? Why not just go with the ancient belief that Baptism is a Sacrament, instead of going to all that trouble to assert that it’s actually an Ordinance, if we can’t really know for sure, and it doesn’t really matter, anyway?
And how does one discern what the secondary issues are? Do we just say, "Well, this is something that sincere Bible believers disagree on. It’s not clear from Scripture Alone, but rather than say, “Okay, maybe there’s something wrong with the premise of Scripture Alone,” instead we can say, “Well, since we don’t understand it, it’s a non-essential.” Even though it has an impact on individual salvation - because if it turns out that Baptism is actually a Sacrament, then everyone who thought it was only an Ordinance, and didn’t bother to baptize their kids, is going to be in deep trouble come Judgement Day.
The “official Roman Catholic Gospel” is that we are saved by grace working in faith through love. This is what I believe. Therefore, I see no difference between what I believe, and “the Roman Catholic Gospel,” nor do I see any reason why I would want to believe differently.
C
Contarini
Guest
I said nothing about Calvinists. I was speaking of your claim about the Reformers being directed by the Holy Spirit. If it just boils down to “they were directed by the Holy Spirit when they were right,” then why was it worth while to make the statement in the first place?
If we know in part, we should not be too quick to claim that our actions are directed by the Holy Spirit (since we might be mistaking our own prejudices or erroneous judgments for the Holy Spirit), and we should be very slow to claim such a thing for people 500 years ago who disagreed sharply with each other and with the previous Christian consensus!
Of course not. Why would I believe such a thing?
We all agree that we are saved by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the Gospel, not a peculiar sixteenth-century theory about the process by which human beings subjectively appropriate the benefits of Christ’s work.
Edwin
R
Reformed
Guest
Okay, so you disgree with the Cambridge Delcaration and the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. Do you agree with the Council of Trent instead? Or how about the 39 Articles of Faith?
reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/cambridge.html
alliancenet.org/
C
Contarini
Guest
Sure. Why wouldn’t I? Have you ever had any reason to think that I agreed with that document or that group? I sympathize with many of their goals, but their problem is that they go back to the Reformation as a basis for historic Christianity, and that’s nowhere near far enough
Edwin
R
Reformed
Guest
http://www.highdesertrealestate.org/images/fence-sitter.jpgSure. Why wouldn’t I? Have you ever had any reason to think that I agreed with that document or that group? I sympathize with many of their goals, but their problem is that they go back to the Reformation as a basis for historic Christianity, and that’s nowhere near far enough
Edwin
How can you agree with the Cambridge Declaration, Alliance of Confessional Evangelicals, Council of Trent, and the 39 Articles of Faith when all these sources agree that the Catholic gospel is a different gospel than the historic Protestant gospel?
C
Contarini
Guest
Reformed,
It may be too much to ask that you read *my *posts before responding, but could you at least read your own?
You asked me if I disagreed with the Cambridge Declaration, and I responded quite cavalierly that I did.
I am not sure where you have found me saying that I agree with the Council of Trent. I am not convinced that the Council of Trent is so clearly wrong as to justify the division of Christendom, but I do have concerns about how some of the statements are worded: for instance, the anathematization of the claim that every mortal sin results in a loss of faith (which would essentially be Wesley’s position–if you deliberately choose to violate God’s law, as opposed to slipping up through weakness, then you either were not a believer or have by that act ceased to be one, because saving faith and deliberate defiance of God are incompatible).
I’m not sure where I said I agreed with the 39 Articles. I have certainly never been asked to subscribe to them as an Episcopalian. I obviously have more reason to defer to them than to the Council of Trent, let alone the Cambridge Declaration. I do not clearly and definitely disagree with anything in Articles 11-14, but I am glad I don’t have any reason to worry too much about the matter. Of the confessional statements coming out of the unfortunate divisions of the sixteenth century, the Articles are the most irenic and modest. And I am happy about that.
Only the Cambridge Declaration says that, and even then you could probably find some Catholics who say that the Declaration does not in fact apply to Catholicism (though its framers surely thought it did). Certainly that case can be made about some at least of the Council of Trent’s declarations.
You are aware of the Joint Declaration on Justification agreed to by Lutherans and Catholics, right?
And the 39 Articles certainly never say that the Catholic Gospel is a different Gospel than the Protestant. The worst thing they say about the Church of Rome is that it, like other particular churches, has sometimes erred in matters of faith.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Reformed,
It may be too much to ask that you read *my *posts before responding, but could you at least read your own?
You asked me if I disagreed with the Cambridge Declaration, and I responded quite cavalierly that I did.
I am not sure where you have found me saying that I agree with the Council of Trent. I am not convinced that the Council of Trent is so clearly wrong as to justify the division of Christendom, but I do have concerns about how some of the statements are worded: for instance, the anathematization of the claim that every mortal sin results in a loss of faith (which would essentially be Wesley’s position–if you deliberately choose to violate God’s law, as opposed to slipping up through weakness, then you either were not a believer or have by that act ceased to be one, because saving faith and deliberate defiance of God are incompatible).
I’m not sure where I said I agreed with the 39 Articles. I have certainly never been asked to subscribe to them as an Episcopalian. I obviously have more reason to defer to them than to the Council of Trent, let alone the Cambridge Declaration. I do not clearly and definitely disagree with anything in Articles 11-14, but I am glad I don’t have any reason to worry too much about the matter. Of the confessional statements coming out of the unfortunate divisions of the sixteenth century, the Articles are the most irenic and modest. And I am happy about that.
Only the Cambridge Declaration says that, and even then you could probably find some Catholics who say that the Declaration does not in fact apply to Catholicism (though its framers surely thought it did). Certainly that case can be made about some at least of the Council of Trent’s declarations.
You are aware of the Joint Declaration on Justification agreed to by Lutherans and Catholics, right?
And the 39 Articles certainly never say that the Catholic Gospel is a different Gospel than the Protestant. The worst thing they say about the Church of Rome is that it, like other particular churches, has sometimes erred in matters of faith.
Here’s the mistake you are making about me. You see me sitting on a fence and think that it’s because I don’t have strong convictions. In fact I have a very strong conviction that this particular fence ought not to exist. I’m not sitting on the fence because I like sitting on a fence in general, but because the fence happens to occupy the spot on which I think it right to sit. The fence is an inconvenience preventing me from sitting comfortably, but I have some hope that by sitting there (and loudly demonstrating my discomfort) I may influence some benevolent person to help me take it down.
Edwin
R
Reformed
Guest
Thanks for your post. I do apolgoize if I glossed over your answers unintentionally. I have been doing my same job for many years, and work out of my home. Catholic Forum participation happens between work and break. I think the bottom line in regard to the Protestant Reformation is that if the solas are not truth, then all Christians should come back to Rome. If the solas are true, then Christians should stand for the truth for their love for God. I think fence sitting are for those who are unsure. What happened to TriuneUnity? I am familar with ecumenical documents too. ECT 1 and ECTII are good sources to consider what we believe to be true and essentials. Not all RCs and Protestants embraced ECTI and ECTII too.
- Status