Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done

[Randy_Carson]

If hn160 answers “yes” to your question, his view would be inconsistent with the teaching of our synod.

Jon.

But the office of the papacy, that is, the office of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and the visible head of the Church in accordance with Jesus’ conveyance of the keys of the Royal Steward - THAT is anti-Christ.

Is that what you’re saying, Jon?

Yes or no.

 

[JonNC]

It’s simply best to stick to the topic and not how disappointing a post is, why someone is so interested in a Faith when this is indeed non Catholic religions.

I have always enjoyed reading your posts.

Mary

Thank you, Mary. That is very nice of you to say.

The OP is:

If Luther could have foreseen clearly what has happened to western Christianity over the past 500 years, would Luther have said and done the things that history records of him?

If you had been Luther, would you have followed the same course he took?

Why or why not?

My comment, early on, was, essential, that I believe that had Luther and Catholic leaders had the benefit of foresight, both probably would have changed their approach.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

Thank you, Mary. That is very nice of you to say.

The OP is:

If Luther could have foreseen clearly what has happened to western Christianity over the past 500 years, would Luther have said and done the things that history records of him?

If you had been Luther, would you have followed the same course he took?

Why or why not?

My comment, early on, was, essential, that I believe that had Luther and Catholic leaders had the benefit of foresight, both probably would have changed their approach.

Jon

Yes, I read that post and always appreciate your opinion.
Mary.

 

[JonNC]

But the office of the papacy, that is, the office of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and the visible head of the Church in accordance with Jesus’ conveyance of the keys of the Royal Steward - THAT is anti-Christ.

Is that what you’re saying, Jon?

Yes or no.

Lets remember what this means; to be anti-christ is to be in opposition to teachings. We are not millennialists preaching about an end-times beast. I believe that the ELCA approach to gay clergy is opposed to Christ, and His teachings. I think some of the things Luther said were anti-Christ, such as his anti-jewish writings.

So, to that end, in the same sense, Randy, that quote from unam sanctam I posted a few threads back I find opposed to the teachings of Christ.

Now, I don’t like the term, as I have often said. The relationship between our communions has changed dramatically over the last 60 years. At least with the LCMS, we find ourselves on the same side of many moral issues, and seem in recent years to be drawn toward more open dialogue, particularly as the liberal Lutheran synods drift further and further away from orthodoxy. The term doesn’t fit anymore, even though I still find the teaching about universal jurisdiction, etc. to be wrong.

But I’m not in charge, and neither are you when it comes to unam sanctam or Trent. If we continue to allow those issues to cloud all of our dialogue, then there frankly is no sense talking. Our leaders can do it, and are doing it.

Jon

 

[Thorolfr]

Lets remember what this means; to be anti-christ is to be in opposition to teachings. We are not millennialists preaching about an end-times beast. I believe that the ELCA approach to gay clergy is opposed to Christ, and His teachings. I think some of the things Luther said were anti-Christ, such as his anti-jewish writings.

So, to that end, in the same sense, Randy, that quote from unam sanctam I posted a few threads back I find opposed to the teachings of Christ.

Now, I don’t like the term, as I have often said. The relationship between our communions has changed dramatically over the last 60 years. At least with the LCMS, we find ourselves on the same side of many moral issues, and seem in recent years to be drawn toward more open dialogue, particularly as the liberal Lutheran synods drift further and further away from orthodoxy. The term doesn’t fit anymore, even though I still find the teaching about universal jurisdiction, etc. to be wrong.

But I’m not in charge, and neither are you when it comes to unam sanctam or Trent. If we continue to allow those issues to cloud all of our dialogue, then there frankly is no sense talking. Our leaders can do it, and are doing it.

Jon

I certainly have a problem with the part of Unam sanctum that you bolded:

"Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff" (Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis).

To me this seems to contradict John 14:6: “No one comes to the Father except through me.” It doesn’t say, “except through the Roman pontiff”.

It also seems to contradict Hebrews 4:14: “Since, then, we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession.” If Jesus is our great high priest, why do we need a pope?

 

[MaryT777]

I certainly have a problem with the part of Unam sanctum that you bolded:

To me this seems to contradict John 14:6: “No one comes to the Father except through me.” It doesn’t say, “except through the Roman pontiff”.

It also seems to contradict Hebrews 4:14: “Since, then, we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession.” If Jesus is our great high priest, why do we need a pope?

But the Bible alone has created divisions even among the Lutherans has it not? Some even on this forum have said the ELCA is not confessional in some of its teachings.

Mary.

 

[benjohnson]

Hi ben,

I think that it is very kind of you to express such love for our three latest anti-Christs, especially since they teach such lies. It’s very open minded of you. :tiphat:

God Bless You ben, Topper

 

[JonNC]

I certainly have a problem with the part of Unam sanctum that you bolded:

To me this seems to contradict John 14:6: “No one comes to the Father except through me.” It doesn’t say, “except through the Roman pontiff”.

It also seems to contradict Hebrews 4:14: “Since, then, we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession.” If Jesus is our great high priest, why do we need a pope?

I think we need a pope, one like those early popes that we as Lutherans honor on our calendar. We need a pope who recognizes his position as they did, one of primacy, not supremacy. But in a larger sense we need a pope because frankly, we are seeing Lutherans losing their way, lured by liberal secularism.
My biggest complaint about the LCMS is it is too congregational. We need a pope, but one in the mold of Nicea canon 6.

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

It is interesting to think about the Papal Bull being on display somewhere with a few singe marks on it. I wonder - where do you think it would be displayed and with what degree of ‘Reverence’. Do you think it would be the equivalent of a Catholic Holy Relic? Would Lutherans be making the sign of the cross before it or something?

Well… there it is.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I certainly have a problem with the part of Unam sanctum that you bolded:

To me this seems to contradict John 14:6: “No one comes to the Father except through me.” It doesn’t say, “except through the Roman pontiff”.

It also seems to contradict Hebrews 4:14: “Since, then, we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession.” If Jesus is our great high priest, why do we need a pope?

Because the Good Shepherd commanded Peter to feed and tend the flock after He ascended. But here is what you need to know:

The Necessity of Being Catholic (Condensed)
by James Akin
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3447

1. To be saved it is necessary to be a Christian.
2. To be a Christian it is necessary to be a member of Christ’s Church.
3. To be a member of Christ’s Church it is necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church.
4. To be a member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
5. Therefore, it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

In this argument, the necessities are all normative necessities and the kind of membership being discussed is formal membership. The argument has a logically valid form (in fact, it expresses a variation on what is known as the “hypothetical syllogism” argument form), meaning that the truth of its conclusion depends only on the truth of the premises it contains.

When a Protestant objects to the above argument, it will be to the third proposition – that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded. Both sides agree on the other three points. While it is beyond the scope of this article to give a full proof of the third proposition (this is one of the major tasks of Catholic apologetics), we can offer a limited proof.

Both Protestants and Catholics agree that Christ founded some Church and that this Church will remain forever (Matt. 16:18). The question is whether this Church is a visible communion that can be identified or whether is it a purely spiritual communion made up of all the saved. If it is a visible communion, the Catholic Church is the only plausible candidate, since only this Church extends back far enough (the Eastern Orthodox communion did not finally break with Rome until the 1450s, a mere sixty years before the Protestant Reformation). We can thus give a limited argument for the third proposition by showing the Church Christ founded is a visible communion.

This is proven in Matthew 16:17-19, the passage in which Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist). Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.

First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18), yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ’s own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23). Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)

Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 – the only Old Testament parallel to this verse). But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.

Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline. But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. Indeed, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as “a gentile or a tax collector” (that is, as an unbeliever).

Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth. This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.

Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish. But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church’s members are in heaven and Christ’s heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature. Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.

Thus, there are abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Hi Topper,
It seems you care very much what Lutherans and Lutheranisms says and teaches.

Why is this the case, Topper? Why would you care so what we believe teach and confess when we are under the anathemas of Trent, and the condemnation to Hell under* Unam sanctam *, simply and only because we are subject to the Roman Pontiff?

As for me Jon, I would prefer that we stick to the subject of the thread and quite frankly, I find the subject of me (Topper) to be pretty boring compared to the subject of the thread, which by the way is Martin Luther and whether he would have done things differently if he had known ahead of time the results of his teachings. Sorry.

If you are interested in the completely off topic subject of unam sanctam, you should probably start a thread. I’m sure you can find someone who is willing to discuss it with you.

The subject at hand, here on this thread, is whether Luther would have done things differently if he had been able to foresee the ‘results’ of his teachings.
**
Do you think he would have or not? How did you vote? **

The subject as outlined in the OP requires us to form an opinion on the basis of our understanding of Luther’s motives, goals, character, temperament, and even his understanding of his ‘authority’ to teach. As such, this subject and the question of what he would have done requires an understanding of Luther in order to formulate an “informed position”. Of course as we both know, there is a LOT of false and misleading information ‘out there’ about Luther and that information could lead people to draw the wrong conclusions. I think that putting the facts on the table will help people develop an informed and probably a more fair judgment.

You can disagree with my conclusions if you like, but much of what I post are actual facts, facts that a lot of people here would probably never be exposed to without threads like these.

The thing I especially like about this particular thread is that it requires that we delve into the ‘inner Luther’ and requires that we understand his motives and his concept of his ‘role’ in the Church (or church as the case may be). Only by understanding these aspects of the man can we answer the question about what he would have done ‘if he had known ahead of time’.

**By what authority did Luther presume that he was able to refute the whole Church and INSIST that anyone who disagreed with him was wrong? ** Whether Luther could have been turned back, or would have been able to turn himself back, has a lot to do with his ‘certainty’ in his own authority.

As an example of Luther’s ‘self-confidence’:

**“Rather than seeking to found a Church or a kingdom of God on earth, he simply claimed the right to pronounce on doctrine, like a one-man version of the Sorbonne, the theological faculty of the University of Paris, which for centuries had seen itself as having a particular privilege in this regard. But he felt also compelled to do so by an authority higher than the Wittenberg university charter; he saw himself as God’s prophet in the last days on earth, spreading God’s good news.” **Diarmaid MacCulloch, “The Reformation”, pg. 132

If Luther actually saw himself as a Prophet, or something similar, and there is a great deal of evidence that he actually did, (which can be posted if you would like) then there is no reason to believe that he would have done anything different had he known the ‘results’ of his ‘reformation’. If he did see himself as having such an astonishing amount of ‘authority’, meaning authority from God, then it would seem that the justification for his Reformation rests on whether or not he was correct. Thus the question as to whether Luther actually believed that he spoke for God is a very important one.
**
“God has appointed me for the whole of the German land,” Luther continues, " and I boldly vouch and declare that when you obey me in this the founding of Evangelical schools] you are without a doubt obeying not me but Christ, and that, whoever obeys me not, despises, not me, but Christ [Luke xx. 16]. For I know well and am certain of what and whereto I speak and teach**." Grisar, Vol. IV, pg. 333, (quoting “Werke," Woim. ed., 15, p. 27 f. ; Erl. ed., 22, p. 171. " An die Raclherrn," etc., 1524.)

So when people obeyed Luther they were actually obeying God? Seriously? How do you think THAT would go over today? That is a level of certainty that SHOULD cause us to consider those Scholars who speak of Luther’s psychological problems and mental health issues. After all, either Luther was justified in believing that God had granted him that extraordinary Authority, or he was delusional. (References upon request of course )There really isn’t anything in between. Furthermore, if Luther actually was being led by God to teach what he taught, it would make sense that God would NEVER have allowed
‘His Teacher’ to teach what he did about the Jews, the peasants, ‘reluctant wives’, the Pope, the Catholic Church, etc. IF in fact, he actually did have that kind of God Granted Authority, then there should be some kind of explanation that supports that contention. What is it?

Jon, the basic and very simple question is this:

**What was the actual basis for Luther’s self-professed and very extensive authority? **

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Topper,
It seems you care very much what Lutherans and Lutheranisms says and teaches.

Why is this the case, Topper? Why would you care so what we believe teach and confess when we are under the anathemas of Trent, and the condemnation to Hell under* Unam sanctam *, simply and only because we are subject to the Roman Pontiff?

From New Advent:

all highlighting is mine

Clearly here, unam sanctam teaches that billions of Orthodox Christians and protestant Christains are in Hell, regardless of grace, regardless of faith, regardless of baptism, simply because they were not in communion with the Roman Pontiff.

Therefore, even if Ben and I believed that the last three popes were antichrists (which we don’t, since that’s not what our communion teaches, as you already know), what difference would it make in the long run since your communion has already condemned us eternally?

Or,

Please show me where I am wrong about unam sanctam using your own standard, that being that you must show it from unam sanctam only.

Jon

Jon-

Yeah. I could look at Unam Sanctam and suggest that for you, perhaps more than most, remaining outside the Catholic Church given what you know is a scary proposition.

I could also point you to have a dozen articles that say, 'Well, maybe it’s not so black and white, after all."

But you’ve already read them.

 

[eonporter]

1. To be a member of Christ’s Church it is necessary to be a member of the Catholic

Actually the Catholic teaching does include the possibility of salvation to those who are not members of the Church, it just considered to be an exception, but still, salvation outside of the church is possible according to our doctrine.

So I would say that the protestant objection has some basis regarding the necessity of being catholic in order to be saved, but not because of the reasons they normally state… Just because God’s grace operates in a way that cannot be described in terms of a formal membership to a specific church/organization, neither limited by it.

 

[eonporter]

Actually the Catholic teaching does include the possibility of salvation to those who are not members of the Church, it just considered to be an exception, but still, salvation outside of the church is possible according to our doctrine.

So I would say that the protestant objection has some basis regarding the necessity of being catholic in order to be saved, but not because of the reasons they normally state… but because God’s grace operates in a way that cannot be described in terms of a formal membership to a specific church/organization, neither limited by it.

 

[JonNC]

As for me Jon, I would prefer that we stick to the subject of the thread and quite frankly, I find the subject of me (Topper) to be pretty boring compared to the subject of the thread, which by the way is Martin Luther and whether he would have done things differently if he had known ahead of time the results of his teachings. Sorry.

Don’t flatter yourself, Topper, you aren’t the topic.
You did, however, make the Lutheran teaching regarding the papacy part of the topic, as you have posted about it a number of times on this thread. And that issue goes back, at least, to Unam sanctam.

"Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff" (Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis).

The Bull is universal in character. As its content shows, a careful distinction is made between the fundamental principles concerning the Roman primacy and the declarations as to the application of these to the secular power and its representatives. In the registers, on the margin of the text of the record, the last sentence is noted as its real definition: “Declaratio quod subesse Romano Pontifici est omni humanae creaturae de necessitate salutis” (It is here stated that for salvation it is necessary that every human creature be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff). This definition, the meaning and importance of which are clearly evident from the connection with the first part on the necessity of the one Church for salvation, and on the pope as the one supreme head of the Church, expresses the necessity for everyone who wishes to attain salvation of belonging to the Church, and therefore of being subject to the authority of the pope in all religious matters.

The charge against the Papacy is found in the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, where one finds the reason for it, which is a direct response to* Unam sanctam*.

1] The Roman Pontiff claims for himself [in the first place] that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom].

2] Secondly, he adds also that by divine right he has both swords, i.e., the authority also of bestowing kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.].

3]** And thirdly, he says that to believe this is necessary for salvation. And for these reasons the Roman bishop calls himself [and boasts that he is] the vicar of Christ on earth.**

4] These three articles we hold to be false, godless, tyrannical, and [quite] pernicious to the Church.

First, this answers your question early on of me, as to what I thought was an error of the Catholic Church during the Reformation era. So, again, you have made it part of the topic, as it wasn’t Lutherans who brought up that teaching, that you regularly and intentionally misrepresent. But back to it.

If, as you say, the intentions of the teachings regarding the papacy have to be “fleshed out” using only the confessions and documents from that era, then the same must hold true for Unam sanctam, wherein the Catholic Church claims that all Christians in history who were not in communion with the Roman Pontiff, regardless of grace, regardless of Christ, regardless of faith or the sacraments, are condemned. “The bull is universal in character”, according to New Advent.

THAT is the teaching that was rejected by the Reformers. That, we believe even today, is contrary to scripture, and to the councils and teachings of the early Church. That teaching, we believe to be anti Christ. We don’t believe that Pope Francis is THE AntiChrist.

You see, Topper, the Reformation didn’t have its start with an Augustinian friar who was tortured by his own sin, under the shadow of semi-pelagian teachings he received at Erfurt, either with the blessing or complicity of the Catholic Church. No, it started long before that. It starts long before the Council of Trent, or Occam and Biel. It starts even before Unam sanctam.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon-

Yeah. I could look at Unam Sanctam and suggest that for you, perhaps more than most, remaining outside the Catholic Church given what you know is a scary proposition.

I could also point you to have a dozen articles that say, 'Well, maybe it’s not so black and white, after all."

But you’ve already read them.

Exactly, Randy. It isn’t so black and white after all. That’s because the Catholic Church has “positively reformulated” its view on “no salvation outside the Catholic Church”. And you know that I accept said reformulation that follows long up the line of history from Unam sanctam to the present.

But Topper has set a different standard, that one can only look at our teaching by “fleshing it out” from the documents of that time. I, therefore, insist that he do the same with Catholic teaching.

You and I may agree on the “not so black and white”, but that’s because you and I realize that one must look at all of history.

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

What troubles me most about CAF Lutheran dialog recently is that I sometimes come away feeling more distant to my Catholic brothers in Christ.

Thankfully, I was able to enjoy the hospitality of many Catholics yesterday as we marched for life here in Washington State.

 

[spina1953]

Hi Topper: I agree with your post #111. One of the questions is where Luther get his to interpret Scripture in the manor that he did? It seems to me that Luther believed that in receiving his Doctorate in Theology gave his the right and authority to do so. When the CC refused to accept Luther’s interpretations of Scripture as well as his teaching and theologies, questioning them, Luther was up in arms dismissing any arguments that opposed his thinking.

      In forming his theologies and teachings, one can see that his scrupulosity  greatly influenced how he interpreted Scripture to make it conform to his own notions of what he wanted Scripture to mean. In doing so he in reality gave way to distorting Scripture to suit his own needs and then preceded to promote it to the German masses.  When the CC questioned him and challenged him concerning his interpretations, theology and teachings, Luther, refused to listen to any reasoning the CC offered. Luther claims that he wanted to debate his 95 Thesis and when it was, he in turn decided to attack the CC.

      From then on Luther at every turn attacked the CC in the most disparaging, vicious and violent manor. I have noticed in reading so many of Luther's writings that there is no doubt in my mind that Luther lacked diplomacy and tact showing total disrespect towards the Pope as well as the CC. Of course this also extended to anyone else who opposed him. So to me, its rather doubtful that Luther would have changed anything and if he were living today Luther would have certainly gone off on a tangent over just how many different denominations there are. The reformation revolt that he started caused the disunity in Christianity that we see today.

 

[Thorolfr]

So anyway, a little while later I’m reading the Wall Street Journal and find the following:

“Gathering the Faithful, No Church Required”

“**Church construction in the U.S. has fallen 80% since 2002, **now at its lowest level since record-keeping began in 1967, according to reporting in this newspaper. ** The $3.15 billion in spending on religious buildings is half the level of a decade ago. **Several factors are contributing to the declines, including post-recession financial challenges – religious giving has never returned to its 2007 peak – **and the waning of religious affiliation. **

Yet even as church construction ebbs, church congregations are sprouting more rapidly than ever – about 4000 annually, according to estimates by the nonprofit Leadership Network’s Warren Bird. LifeWay Research, estimates that growth has doubled or tripled in two decades. Most of these congregations are renting facilities from schools, community centers or other churches. ……

**Much of the recent growth has been driven by individual churches deciding to start new congregations, rather than denominations directing the process.” **WSJ, Friday 16, 2015

This supports one of my positions, that non-denominational churches are rapidly replacing the so called “mainline” denominations. With that shift comes a lesser importance of doctrine. This is more evidence of the slide down the continuum from Catholicism on the one end, to atheism on the other. The two general steps in between are, Mainline Protestantism and the non-denominational Bible church. The last step (societally) is atheism or disbelief, which is the unfortunate and ultimate long term end result of Protestantism.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

Just out of curiosity, is new Catholic church construction booming in comparison to all these non-denominational congregations meeting in schools, community centers, etc.?

 

[spina1953]

But the office of the papacy, that is, the office of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and the visible head of the Church in accordance with Jesus’ conveyance of the keys of the Royal Steward - THAT is anti-Christ.

Is that what you’re saying, Jon?

Yes or no.

Hi Randy: I am sure that you have read the Smalclad Articles, especially Part II, Article IV on the Papacy. In ,it states: “Hence it follows that all things which the Pope from a power so false, mischievous, blasphemous, and arrogant, had done and undertaken, have been and still are purely diabolical affairs and transactions… for the ruin of the entire holy (catholic or) Christian Church… and for the destruction of the first and chief article concerning the redemption made through Jesus Christ.” Then Article 10 it states that “This teaching shows forcefully that the Pope is the Antichrist.”

           It seems very plain to me that it is saying that the Pope is the Antichrist, not the office. What it also says is that these Articles at least concerning the Pope and the CC to be very much unchristian and disparaging remarks showing a hatred due it appears or at least seems to me, a contributing factor in which the reformation took shape, thereby causing others who not disagreed with the CC but also others who wanted to promote their own Scriptural interpretations and teaching based on whatever interpretations suited them. It seems to me that writings like what is found in the Smalclad Articles paved the way for disunity and discord as well as distrust. 

          I would like to note that I am not asking any Lutheran to defend the Articles as I have no way of knowing whether or not they take such writings seriously. My only reason is to show that such writings seemed to have played a large part in how the Reformation evolved into what we see today with so many differing denominational churches each assorting that their particular Scriptural interpretations are the only correct ones to have. I will also say that I think that most Protestants most likely don't care either way concerning the CC but only insofar as they have been taught. yet, refuse to accept anything the CC teaches that is not in line with their own beliefs.

          Looking back at the reformation what I see is disunity chaos and distrust of accepted authority with the individual now able to interpret Scripture in whatever manor that suits one's own thinking. Instead of reforming the CC the Reformation had led to the disunity of Christianity.