Just sharing a really cool link about the Protestant Reformation

  • Thread starter Thread starter hutch976
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Your comment has greatly contributed to this conversation and societal progress in general. Thank you for taking the time to pen that well thought out and formulated comment.
 
hutch976 said:
Your comment has greatly contributed to this conversation and societal progress in general. Thank you for taking the time to pen that well thought out and formulated comment.
Click to expand...
JonNC’s rather general observation is far more likely to contribute to this conversation or “societal progress in general” than is your uncharitable sarcasm.
 
JonNC said:
You’re right, it very much is from a Catholic perspective.

Jon
Click to expand...
:sad_yes::yup::tiphat::bigyikes:

The article was poorly written and extremely biased. It completely failed to delve into the factors “***There were many factors, some valid and some invalid, that led to fragmentation. ***”

Isn’t it all about Protestant’s believing the factors did justify the fragmentation?
 
RyanBlack said:
JonNC’s rather general observation is far more likely to contribute to this conversation or “societal progress in general” than is your uncharitable sarcasm.
Click to expand...
If the title/thesis of the OP is “this is from a catholic perspective, and I would like to hear the thoughts of others,” how is saying “This is from a catholic perspective” relevant?

Making sure people are on prompt in your own thread is a contribution.

And I was answering sarcasm with sarcasm. We are on an online forum, not court.
 
Tony888 said:
:sad_yes::yup::tiphat::bigyikes:

The article was poorly written and extremely biased. It completely failed to delve into the factors “***There were many factors, some valid and some invalid, that led to fragmentation. ***”

Isn’t it all about Protestant’s believing the factors did justify the fragmentation?
Click to expand...
Well please tell us what arguments DID justify them.
 
hutch976 said:
Well please tell us what arguments DID justify them.
Click to expand...
Feel free to start a thread on said topic, if that is what you want to discuss.
I was merely substantiating why I thought the article was lousy instead of ‘cool’
 
Tony888 said:
:sad_yes::yup::tiphat::bigyikes:

The article was poorly written and extremely biased. It completely failed to delve into the factors “***There were many factors, some valid and some invalid, that led to fragmentation. ***”
Click to expand...
While I agree that it is biased, I didn’t say it was poorly written. The two are not necessarily mutually inclusive.
Isn’t it all about Protestant’s believing the factors did justify the fragmentation?
Click to expand...
And Catholics believing they were not.

Jon
 
hutch976 said:
Your comment has greatly contributed to this conversation and societal progress in general. Thank you for taking the time to pen that well thought out and formulated comment.
Click to expand...
Sorry my comment didn’t meet your standard. So, let me add this: I agreed with you that it is from a Catholic perspective, but more noticably, from a Catholic apolegetic perspective. For example:
Many profess “The Bible, The Whole Bible, and Nothing But The Bible”. If it were that simple, how can you explain the over 33,000 Christian denominations. The truth of the matter is that each has their interpretation of what “The Bible, The Whole Bible, and Nothing But The Bible” really is. We have many thousands of different interpretations.
Click to expand...
While some appreciate this from an apolegetics POV, it lacks substance. The reformers (at least the Lutherans) never took this position. It is a charicature of sola scriptura that I don’t recognize from my communion’s teachings.

My initial response to your question was, simply, that I agreed that it is from a Catholic perspective. I said that because virtually none of it is new to me, and one of it is aimed at finding unity.

Jon
 
This “who founded your church” chart keep popping up all over the Internet. I find it very annoying and misleading, but this particular version of it is worse than usual. It claims that no schisms took place before the 9th Century, which is just false, since the Nestorians broke off with the First Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431.

And this entry -

**1784: Episcopalian denomination was begun by Samuel Seabury who was dissatisfied with Presbyterianism.
**
is wrong on so many levels. First of all, an “Episcopalian” is a person, not an adjective. Secondly, it has nothing to do with Presbyterianism, but it’s the American branch of the Church of England. And finally since the Episcopal Church and the Church of England share an identical confession, it’s very inaccurate to treat their separation as a schism.
 
JonNC said:
While some appreciate this from an apolegetics POV, it lacks substance. The reformers (at least the Lutherans) never took this position. It is a charicature of sola scriptura that I don’t recognize from my communion’s teachings.

Jon
Click to expand...
Hi Jon.
History is a tough instructor because it never pans out the we*** want*** it to. Thats why I’m not a Baptist anymore. I think most honest historians, Catholic or otherwise agree that the concept of SS evolved over time to what it is today. Obviously the Reformers would not be in agreement with the average American fundamentalist. They were men of a different age reacting many times to the events going on around them.
However, the Reformers did open the door that*** led ***to the concept as it stands today.
 
Tony888 said:
Feel free to start a thread on said topic, if that is what you want to discuss.
I was merely substantiating why I thought the article was lousy instead of ‘cool’
Click to expand...
So sensitive. But thanks for taking three posts to explain yourself. Very interesting, I would like to read more.
 
hutch976 said:
So sensitive. But thanks for taking three posts to explain yourself. Very interesting, I would like to read more.
Click to expand...
Here is a more objective source on the Reformation, read away 👍
history-world.org/reformation.htm
One of the greatest of all revolutions was the 16th-century religious revolt known as the Reformation. This stormy, often brutal, conflict separated the Christians of Western Europe into Protestants and Catholics. So far-reaching were the results of the separation that the Reformation has been called a turning point in history. It ushered in the Modern Age because, once the people’s religious unity was destroyed, they began to think in terms of their own regional interests. From the diversity of those interests arose new political, social, and economic problems and beliefs.
Click to expand...
Even wikipedia provides a better discussion of the reasons behind the reformation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation

And New Advent seems to have done a fair job as well
newadvent.org/cathen/12700b.htm
 
It’s really not the best explanation even from the catholic perspective. Good analysis should include an honest representation of each side’s positions and THEN a refutation of the erroneous one.

Being a hothead myself, if I’m honest I couldn’t say for sure myself which side I’d have fallen on if I lived in Luther’s day without the massive benefit of hindsight. The corruption and ecclesial negligence so commonplace in that day certainly deserves some mention and acknowledgement.

I prefer Hillaire Belloc’s “How the Reformation Happened” as a more comprehensive look at the circumstances in play. It’s not a nice picture of anybody involved, but suggests that the real villains of the Reformation weren’t Luther, Calvin or any pope, but the self-interested aristocracy of the day. Figures. Some things never change…
 
hutch976 said:
Your comment has greatly contributed to this conversation and societal progress in general. Thank you for taking the time to pen that well thought out and formulated comment.
Click to expand...
Here’s a link with more information.

😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top