No reason to celebrate Reformation, says Cardinal Müller [CC]

[Ridgerunner]

You mean like “traditional Catholics” and “modernists”?

You would have to be more specific about what you mean by both terms, as different people mean different things in using the terms.

 

[1neophyte]

You would have to be more specific about what you mean by both terms, as different people mean different things in using the terms.

You mean… It’s not only Protestants that look at things subjectively?

 

[Ridgerunner]

The local new church down the street, of fundamentalist and maybe evangelical bent, has wandered massively far.

While it’s not considered the thing to do, I’ll admit that I do not have much regard for Protestantism, notwithstanding that I have a great deal of admiration for the faith and morals of many, many protestants, particularly the sort of Fundamentalists we have around here. (Southern Missouri Ozarks) Most of our local converts come from Fundamentalist or Evangelical congregations.

Interesting that Flannery O’Connor once remarked that Southern Fundamentalists would be surprised to learn that they hold more in common with the Catholic Church than they do with classic Protestantism. She knew southern Fundamentalists exceedingly well.

I don’t know much about northern Fundamentalists. And it’s hazardous to talk about “Evangelicals” as if they were somehow a homogenous group, because they most assuredly are not. Where I live, there’s not a whole lot of difference between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, though there are some differences.

Do I have a high regard for many of them? Most definitely. Do I think of many of them them as Christians and future saints? Yes. But that doesn’t mean I am obliged to admire their churches, whose fundamental flaw is that personalities (usually of preachers) determine doctrines. That’s why there are so many different sects and supposed “non-denominational” churches, with each congregation being a “denomination” all its own.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You mean… It’s not only Protestants that look at things subjectively?

Every human being tends to subjectivity in many ways. All Catholics do at times. But regardless of that, it is part and parcel of Catholicism that when it comes to faith and morals, neither is deemed properly determined by the individual’s personal view of it. It is determined by the Church and, if it is true that the Church has teaching authority from Christ, objective. Determination of the same based on individual belief and conscience is part and parcel of Protestantism; its very nature. That is a subjective yardstick.

I realize this varies from denomination to denomination. Some denominations, like LCMS claim a much greater teaching authority than do, say, the Southern Baptists whose entire doctrinal statement consists in one page. But the very existence of true doctrinal divisions within Lutheranism as well as the Southern Baptist convention still bears witness to the subjective principle in Protestantism.

 

[1neophyte]

Every human being tends to subjectivity in many ways. All Catholics do at times. But regardless of that, it is part and parcel of Catholicism that when it comes to faith and morals, neither is deemed properly determined by the individual’s personal view of it. It is determined by the Church and, if it is true that the Church has teaching authority from Christ, objective. Determination of the same based on individual belief and conscience is part and parcel of Protestantism; its very nature. That is a subjective yardstick.

I realize this varies from denomination to denomination. Some denominations, like LCMS claim a much greater teaching authority than do, say, the Southern Baptists whose entire doctrinal statement consists in one page. But the very existence of true doctrinal divisions within Lutheranism as well as the Southern Baptist convention still bears witness to the subjective principle in Protestantism.

You’re twisting yourself into a pretzel here to defend a fallacy. The very premise of this thread is ample proof that there is just as much subjectively in Catholicism as in Protestantism, when Catholics feel that their judgement carries more weight than the pope’s. If that’s still not enough proof for you, just take five minutes to observe the conniption fits taking place today over Amoris Laetitia. Subjective beliefs are, as you say, a human problem. Not merely a Protestant one. Yes, the Reformation led to many sad divisions. But it is not a simple case of Catholics being right and Protestants being wrong. I shudder to think what the state of the Catholic Church would be now if not for the Reformation, if no one ever stood up and loudly pointed out that grace is a free and unearned gift from God, as opposed to a reward for those who are right about everything. God is right. The rest of us are just guessing.

If only everyone could see Pope Francis’ involvement in the celebration for what it is: not a celebration of 500 years of division, but a proclamation that 500 years has been more than enough. If only they saw Amoris Laetitia as a new declaration of the same old mercy of God, which is just as scandalous now as it was when Jesus walked the earth and was crucified for it. If only they saw the Year of Mercy is for every single human being on earth, regardless of whether or not they deserve it or if they’ve walked through a particular door.

 

[otjm]

While it’s not considered the thing to do, I’ll admit that I do not have much regard for Protestantism, notwithstanding that I have a great deal of admiration for the faith and morals of many, many protestants, particularly the sort of Fundamentalists we have around here. (Southern Missouri Ozarks) Most of our local converts come from Fundamentalist or Evangelical congregations.

Interesting that Flannery O’Connor once remarked that Southern Fundamentalists would be surprised to learn that they hold more in common with the Catholic Church than they do with classic Protestantism. She knew southern Fundamentalists exceedingly well.

I don’t know much about northern Fundamentalists. And it’s hazardous to talk about “Evangelicals” as if they were somehow a homogenous group, because they most assuredly are not. Where I live, there’s not a whole lot of difference between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, though there are some differences.

Do I have a high regard for many of them? Most definitely. Do I think of many of them them as Christians and future saints? Yes. But that doesn’t mean I am obliged to admire their churches, whose fundamental flaw is that personalities (usually of preachers) determine doctrines. That’s why there are so many different sects and supposed “non-denominational” churches, with each congregation being a “denomination” all its own.

We don’t disagree.