How conveniently Catholics forget that Luther, Zwingli, Calvin et al attempted reform from within the Catholic Church and were excommunicated, threatened with death, saw their friends burned, etc.
Some Catholics do forget this, but most don’t. And why is it relevant to the question of whether the Reformers were right in the first place? If they were right, they would have been right even if the Catholic Church had treated them with perfect courtesy. If they were wrong, then they didn’t become right because the Church disciplined them for being wrong. They didn’t even become right when the Church overstepped the legitimate bounds of discipline and invoked the secular arm.
If you are suggesting that the Reformers were excommunicated and threatened simply for promoting moral reform, at a time when they were perfectly orthodox Catholics, then this is ahistorical nonsense. Of course their condemnation by the Church made them become more and more radical. But from the beginning they were condemned for theological errors (or alleged errors). And the question is: were they right or wrong? You’re trying to sidestep that difficult question.
The papacy was solely interested in political power and kleptocracy.
I think it’s very rash to assume that any human being or institution is “solely” interested in anything.
Corrupt teaching, such as on indulgences, were used by the shepherds to rape the sheep.
No disagreement that the practice of indulgences in the early 16th century was extremely corrupt. I have some problems even with the basic concept of indulgences, as I’ve said on other threads here. But that does not make Luther’s theological premises correct.
From confession to celibacy, church doctrine has been used to extend and enforce church rule in a desire that every human being, living or dead, be under the rule of the pope.
If this is simply a description, it carries no pejorative weight (if the Pope ought to have authority over all Christians, then it’s no accusation to say that Catholics seek to give him such authority). If it’s another accusation about motivation (i.e., that Popes and their followers are only interested in power), then it’s unprovable, and with regard to the two Popes of my lifetime (my remembered lifetime, that is), downright implausible.
The unity you desire is that of the grave. Christ’s prayer in John 17 is fully capable of being answered by God the Father on His own terms, as opposed to human terms.
Indeed. But what are His own terms? It’s precisely because I agree with you here that I’m uncomfortable with my present stance of ecumenical Protestantism. Unecumenical Protestantism, which you seem to prefer these days, carries with it the burden of showing that your particular brand of Christianity is the kind on whose terms the Church should be united–the kind whose terms are God’s terms, in short. (This is essentially the same thing you see as arrogant in Catholics!)
You invite us back to burn us at the stake.
At this point you’re downright crazy!
You used to be a reasonable chap, Truthstalker. What happened? Sounds like something stalked you instead!
Edwin
