…I think that the fact remains that in the mind of many the Catholic Church is what she has been called in the beginning of the revolt (the wording of the acknowledgment is the tell-tale sign). Conversely, while the Church (present) continues to refer to non-Catholic Christians as separated brethren, it’s been my experience, that is not reciprocal.
Things are perfectly clear, thank you, sir. I’m not sure how necessary that ad hom was, though. I have family from Maryland too, paternal grandmother’s side, Protestant indentured servants, back in the mid- 1600s. You don’t get much sympathy from me when you start trashing a Doctor of the Church who established separation of Church and State as part of his creedal statement, accuse one man of being single- handedly responsible for a rise of denominations ( wow, so Jan Hus, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, King Henry VIII and Archbishop Cranmer never existed? How about Bloody Mary and her burning Protestants at the stake, or the St. Bartholomew’s Massacre, the Siege of Londonderry, the Spanish Inquisition, the Thirty Years War, etc.? ) Where* your *people in the American Colonies when those statutes were put into effect? No? Did they enjoy the benefits of American democracy after the Republic had been established? Yes? Good, the Constitution did its job. Are you confused? How many " heretics" were burned at the stake by European governments at the instigation of Catholic clergy? Like it or loathe it, there weren’t too many Catholics in the American Colonies during Colonial days, except some of Lord Baltimore’s aristocratic cronies in Maryland. My beloved Virginia was solidly Church of England, except for those areas where Lutheran and Reformed Germans settled. Protestantism is a critical part of America’s heritage. Deal with it.
Exactly!
You really think the Church didn’t do anything about indulgences. There were many other reasons that the Church didn’t accept the 95 Theses.
Protestant rulers also had blood on their hands. And you already know the benefits of that democracy were not given to certain people as well. We have Calvin to blame for that. Henry VIII and Elizabeth I persecuted and killed many Catholics in England. White supremacist groups like the KKK basically made Catholicism one of their main targets. So before you talk about how much Protestantism has benefited the world, look at history. Because it will tell you otherwise.
Here’s the reality of your claim:
History is not only a “story” but it is a story that is bent and twisted; sometimes the facts are filtered out as the teller of the story enhances the telling according to his/her own prejudice.
I have looked at history. I’ve studied it very carefully, as a matter of fact. I’ve researched the accretions that had crept in to Catholic observances in the Middle Ages and I’ve seen the worldliness certain clergy ( such as the Borgias and Medicis) have engaged in when certain of their members ascended the papal throne. Luther ( and his associates) had it right. The Evangelical Lutheran Church is the Church Catholic returned to its apostolic base. If there were opportunists who seized on his work as a chance to instigate their own revolutions, that isn’t Luther’s fault. He preached his position quite clearly and opposed those who would pervert it. All he wanted was reformation. A return to the Biblical Basics of Word and Sacrament, within the bonds of Holy Mother Church. Grebel, Munzer, Zwingli, Calvin ( and through Calvin, John Knox, the Huguenots the Anglicans and English Dissenters) and others preached their own doctrine. Luther remained as close to the traditional doctrines of the Church Catholic as possible ( hence my recitation of the Rosary today- Luminous Mysteries-) and preached as vociferously against the Calvinists and Anabaptists as he did against the Catholic hierarchy and certain nonbiblical trads that couldn’t be supported biblically. Protestant mission works? Protestant charities? People putting their lives on the line for the sake of the Christian Faith? Protestantism did no good historically, eh? Emphasis on public education? Medicine? The list of Protestant benefits just keeps getting longer.
Hence that First Amendment deal that the Maryland Act of Toleration in 1649 was but a precursor to. I don’t deny the struggle that Catholics had as a minority in the Thirteen Colonies. I’ll say that compared to other countries, America was a haven for Catholics who would have been persecuted more openly and viciously elsewhere. The KKK rose as a reaction to Reconstruction ( after your land was invaded and occupied by a hostile government, expect the hostility to be reciprocal) and they liked immigrants, many of whom were Catholic, even less than they liked Northerners ( in most situations, they tended to be one and the same), so their reactions. How many Catholics outside of Louisiana, Texas and New Mexico were even in the South to begin with? Not that many, not until the turn of last century. The sins of my part of the world? There were many. Virginia passed eugenics laws too, to " promote the welfare of the Anglo- Saxon race" and that was in the early twentieth century. Segregation, racial prejudice and violence was rife, particularly in the cities. With the flood of incomers, my part of the state has been essentially yankeefied, with most of the older families fleeing to the southwestern areas of the Commonwealth. You’ll find far more Catholics than anti- Catholics here.
I think that most of us understand that there has been many episodes, in the past, where wrong has been done to people–sadly, the poor are usually the ones who suffer the hardest burdens since they are mostly caught in the middle with little power to no power.
On that matter, sir, we are in perfect concord. Giving up that hurt is something God’s grace can and will do. May we all surrender our ancient grudges and see ourselves as a brotherhood of Faith, with Our Lord Jesus Christ as our most gracious Head.
I take your comments in the spirit they’re intended (some think that I’m not without a sense of humor) but for the record, Catholicism doesn’t need its credibility to be restored. If a church is to be judged by what one or another of its member say on a web discussion forum, or on the Internet in general, then no church would have any credibility.
The latter, terser one, was more satirical than serious (which hopefully goes without saying, despite the lack of “”). Presumably people who know about the ILC-RCC dialogue know that it takes place with officials/appointees from each, and not between anonymous posters on the Internet … but sometimes some people act as though they don’t know that. (Yes, I am looking in your direction LutheranScholar!)
P.S. I realize that I ended up not explaining my other post. But maybe that’s just as well b/c I’m not really sure what part of it I need to explain.
I meant no criticism of your posts. I only criticized post # 323. My response to your post # 356 was to support my action. Not that I disagreed with your sentiment about Church Teaching being separate from “Internet opinions”, but that we, who claim to be Catholic, should have the Spirit Whom we so emphatically boast as guiding our Church.Hi rcwitness. I don’t know if this will help or not, but I’ll try to explain my earlier posts,
The latter, terser one, was more satirical than serious (which hopefully goes without saying, despite the lack of “
P.S. I realize that I ended up not explaining my other post. But maybe that’s just as well b/c I’m not really sure what part of it I need to explain.
An analogy could be “the boil had been festering and slowly coming to a head when Luther lanced it?”
Sure. There was, perhaps, a well called for petition for reform. And Luther was not wrong for stepping up as “one crying out”. The hearts of many Christians were apparently troubled at some of the behavior of their leaders. Some were “lording” their position over laity. Some were misrepresenting Indulgences for gain. So what was going on in the hearts of believers was already in opposition to leaders.
None taken!No offense.
It is ironic, though, that you would look at me, as I don’t really consider myself a rep for " all things Confessional Lutheran," but simply somebody who takes his faith very seriously. I suppose my posts do come off that way, though. Again, if I didn’t say it before, at least here, anyway, my viewpoints are colored by experience and the only person I can speak for is myself. I will be bold and say that if I didn’t subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions, I would not be Lutheran. I wouldn’t join a Church whose theological tenets I disagreed with ( even " unofficially" or " privately"). Heh, if you think I speak in pronouncements, you should listen to my father. He’s a nondenominational Fundamentalist preacher 
.That’s what happens when a former Methodist ( old style, before the United Methodist Church formed) gets involved with the Moral Majority.You have probably figured out by now that I am neither a theologian or scholar so bear with me in patience if I seem simplistic!
Was there splintering or a great divide? Jews who believed in Jesus went to the Church. Christians who revolted against the Church went in many directions.
You have Catholicism to thank for you degrading it on this forum. We started hospitals way before Protestants got into the business. You have us to thank for genetics. St Jude’s. Medicine. Protestantism has a history of being racist to certain groups.
You’ve been reading Protestant doctored history too long.