Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[tqualey]

Hi, Bluegoat,

This may be an area that does not lend itself to ‘slam dunks’ such as basketball does… Look at it this way, John the Baptist got people to leave the comforts of Jerusalem and come out into the wilderness to hear him preach and baptize - but, the Pharisees (apparently looking for a slam dunk) rejected him. Jesus experienced the same reaction that allowed the Pharisees to look over his many miracles to complain that He did these ‘signs’ on the Sabbath. Neither John or Christ provided what the religious experts considered a ‘slam dunk’ - even rising from the dead was not good enough for these individuals because they did not want to see what was going on around them.

I submit that my argument is clear - but, it will never achieve ‘slam dunk’ status because there will always be dissent and argument…and protest. But, the issue is - you either take Christ at His Word, or you don’t. There really is no middle ground here.

This ‘particular interpretation of scripture’ is important. Please recall that it was the Catholic Church who gave us Canon of Sacred Scripture and they did this under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We know everything in the Bible is the inspired Word of God - and we know this because the Catholic Church reviewed everything and approved it being in the Canon. This ‘interpretation’ comes from God through His Church.

Not ‘buying’ an argument is your chose. Ultimately, there is Sacred Tradition (which is 400 years older than the Canon) and Scripture combined witht he teaching authority of the Catholic Church. There were those who walked away from Christ because they simply refused to believe what He said - like in John 6:52 where they scoffed at Him and said, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” They understood this was no mere metaphor and rejected the offer made by Christ as they walked away. This type of rejection happens every day - Christ says one thing and men say the opposite. There simply is no ‘slam dunk’ - and, honestly, if you are waiting for one you will probably be profoundly disappointed.

My ‘assumption’ of Peter’s role is rock solid: it comes from Christ, it is part of Apostolic Tradition, it is part of Scripture and it is what is taught by the Magisterium. Additionally, it is supported by the ECF both Latin and Greek (here is a link: catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp ) Contrast this with the ‘assumption’ made that Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII and the others who revolted, were divinely inspired to try and destroy the Chruch they had all begun from.

Actually, Bluegoat, each of the 5 items I have given are in active dispute in all branches of Protestantism. No Protestant denomination has verifiable Apostolic Succession - those who claim to have it, lack any creditable evidence. As such, there is no valid priesthood in Protestantism (unlike the Orthodox).

The five I gave you:

Baptism is necessary for salvation
The priest has the delegated power of God to forgive (or retain) confessed sin
The Eucharist is really the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ
The Church is really the pillar and bulwark of truth (1Tim 3:14)
Peter is the Rock on which Christ founded His Church

are argued against as:

Baptism is an ordinance or a mere ritual and not necessary for salvation - faith alone saves!
We bring our sins to God who forgives them - we do not go to other men
The braking of bread is a mere rememberance of Christ and nothing more
Scripture alone - we have different churches who only dispute non-essentials
All reject the Caholic Church for its public sin and scandals - our religion founded by men is true and is pure in doctrine and practice.

Calvin argued in favor of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary) while today, the majority of Baptists believe Mary had other children. The splintering of Protestantism is truly an internal matter and not brought about by anything the Catholic Church has done.

God bless.

So you are saying that you have no clear argument - I want to say proof but I don’t mean anything so definite - that it was the other bishops and Patriarchs who erred and not the Pope?

I don’t really buy this argument. I have heard the same argument by modern Jews, and one could equally apply it to Buddhists, or Zoroastrians, or Hindus. And one might argue that the Catholic Church is not so clearly intact - it has been full of revolutions and difficult periods since the schism, there was the Reformation,

THere are a few problems with this. First, you are assuming that certain very controversial Catholic doctrines are correct, like the place of Peter. But as I said at the top - this seems to be a matter with no slam dunk argument. You are assuming that is what is meant by Peter being the Rock, whereas there are in fact a variety of interpretations, even in the first 1000 years of Christianity.

Secondly, your list has many items that a large portion of Protestants would accept including the Reformers, and certainly the Orthodox would. But none of them take the Catholic position.

And thirdly, you have to be careful saying that the ideas of the first Reformers lead to further splintering because their doctrines were incorrect. THat could be true, but you have to show that it is so. The Orthodox sometimes make the same argument about Catholicism - they say they can see it was in the wrong in the schism because it lead to further splintering. Now, I am guessing you would not accept that argument unless they somehow show how the Catholic position specifically led to splintering. So I think you also have to do this for the early forms of Protestantism if you want to make that argument.

 

[Bluegoat]

Hi, Bluegoat,

This may be an area that does not lend itself to ‘slam dunks’ such as basketball does… Look at it this way, John the Baptist got people to leave the comforts of Jerusalem and come out into the wilderness to hear him preach and baptize - but, the Pharisees (apparently looking for a slam dunk) rejected him. Jesus experienced the same reaction that allowed the Pharisees to look over his many miracles to complain that He did these ‘signs’ on the Sabbath. Neither John or Christ provided what the religious experts considered a ‘slam dunk’ - even rising from the dead was not good enough for these individuals because they did not want to see what was going on around them.

I submit that my argument is clear - but, it will never achieve ‘slam dunk’ status because there will always be dissent and argument…and protest. But, the issue is - you either take Christ at His Word, or you don’t. There really is no middle ground here.

This ‘particular interpretation of scripture’ is important. Please recall that it was the Catholic Church who gave us Canon of Sacred Scripture and they did this under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We know everything in the Bible is the inspired Word of God - and we know this because the Catholic Church reviewed everything and approved it being in the Canon. This ‘interpretation’ comes from God through His Church.

Not ‘buying’ an argument is your chose. Ultimately, there is Sacred Tradition (which is 400 years older than the Canon) and Scripture combined witht he teaching authority of the Catholic Church. There were those who walked away from Christ because they simply refused to believe what He said - like in John 6:52 where they scoffed at Him and said, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” They understood this was no mere metaphor and rejected the offer made by Christ as they walked away. This type of rejection happens every day - Christ says one thing and men say the opposite. There simply is no ‘slam dunk’ - and, honestly, if you are waiting for one you will probably be profoundly disappointed.

My ‘assumption’ of Peter’s role is rock solid: it comes from Christ, it is part of Apostolic Tradition, it is part of Scripture and it is what is taught by the Magisterium. Additionally, it is supported by the ECF both Latin and Greek (here is a link: catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp ) Contrast this with the ‘assumption’ made that Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII and the others who revolted, were divinely inspired to try and destroy the Chruch they had all begun from.

Actually, Bluegoat, each of the 5 items I have given are in active dispute in all branches of Protestantism. No Protestant denomination has verifiable Apostolic Succession - those who claim to have it, lack any creditable evidence. As such, there is no valid priesthood in Protestantism (unlike the Orthodox).

The five I gave you:

Baptism is necessary for salvation
The priest has the delegated power of God to forgive (or retain) confessed sin
The Eucharist is really the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ
The Church is really the pillar and bulwark of truth (1Tim 3:14)
Peter is the Rock on which Christ founded His Church

are argued against as:

Baptism is an ordinance or a mere ritual and not necessary for salvation - faith alone saves!
We bring our sins to God who forgives them - we do not go to other men
The braking of bread is a mere rememberance of Christ and nothing more
Scripture alone - we have different churches who only dispute non-essentials
All reject the Caholic Church for its public sin and scandals - our religion founded by men is true and is pure in doctrine and practice.

Calvin argued in favor of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary) while today, the majority of Baptists believe Mary had other children. The splintering of Protestantism is truly an internal matter and not brought about by anything the Catholic Church has done.

God bless.

Do you know what it means to beg the question?

 

[Bluegoat]

Hey Bluegoat, you said:

A little help? I have researched what the early church fathers (and those after them for the first 1000 years) - believed vis-a-vis the interpretation of Matthew 16:18, as best I could. Could you maybe show me an example or two where these early church fathers (or those that followed them) - embraced Peter’s confession exclusively, while at the same time never claiming that Peter himself was the rock on which Jesus built His church? That would help quite a bit.

As far as those ECF’s claiming that the church is built on Jesus, well, that of course goes without saying. All catholics believe that to be true!

If you find this topic irrelevant to the thread then could you PM me those quotes? Thanks Blue…

You are looking for evidence that the EFCs had different ways of understanding the idea of Peter? or just specifically the way they understood the passage about the Rock?

 

[joe370]

You are looking for evidence that the EFCs had different ways of understanding the idea of Peter? or just specifically the way they understood the passage about the Rock?

Just some examples where the early church fathers (or those that followed them) - embraced Peter’s confession exclusively, while at the same time never claiming that Peter himself was the rock on which Jesus built His church?

 

[Bluegoat]

Just some examples where the early church fathers (or those that followed them) - embraced Peter’s confession exclusively, while at the same time never claiming that Peter himself was the rock on which Jesus built His church?

I’m not sure what you mean by the first part of the statement - that they embraced it exclusively? Without being sure what you mean my first thought is Augustine, who later in life I believe identified the Rock as Peter’s faith rather than Peter. I’d have to look up the reference to remember how he put it.

It might be worthwhile to start a different thread on the question though, you’d probably get a lot more answers.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bluegoat,

Do you know what it means to avoid and evade the obvious?

God bless

Do you know what it means to beg the question?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bluegoat,

I think you are mistaken about St. Augustine - unless, of course, you want to supply a reference for that statement.

Here is a link to provide some additonal information to make the necessary correction on St. Augustine. cin.org/users/jgallegos/web_aug.htm

God bless
God bless

I’m not sure what you mean by the first part of the statement - that they embraced it exclusively? Without being sure what you mean my first thought is Augustine, who later in life I believe identified the Rock as Peter’s faith rather than Peter. I’d have to look up the reference to remember how he put it.

It might be worthwhile to start a different thread on the question though, you’d probably get a lot more answers.

 

[Bluegoat]

Hi, Bluegoat,

Do you know what it means to avoid and evade the obvious?

God bless

It was a serious question. You consistently beg the question, which makes it very difficult to respond to what you say. I assume you are not doing so on purpose, but do not understand that it is a fallacious way to argue, or don’t notice that is what you are doing.

If we are discussing the true nature of the papacy, you cannot assume the Catholic interpretation as a way to argue your point. You are assuming the answer to the question we are discussing is your answer rather than arguing the question.

There is really no way to answer that than to continually point out that you are making a fallacious argument. That is not evading, it is trying to actually get some substantial discussion.

And as for evading - you have consistently responded to my arguments by ignoring them. In your last post you used the phrase I had used “Not ‘buying’ an argument is your chose” to look as if you were going to respond to one of my comments, and then you didn’t address it at all, but went in an entirely different direction - one that again assumed the Catholic position. Did you actually think that was addressing what I had said, or were you trying to dissemble?

 

[Bluegoat]

Hi, Bluegoat,

I think you are mistaken about St. Augustine - unless, of course, you want to supply a reference for that statement.

Here is a link to provide some additonal information to make the necessary correction on St. Augustine. cin.org/users/jgallegos/web_aug.htm

God bless
God bless

If Joe lets me know what he meant, I’ll carry on from there.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

The idea that God had to rely upon man’s invention of the printing press to spread the truth to humanity is funny, I’ve heard protestants argue that it was only after the printing press got invented did true Christianity have a chance to sprout.

What about God relying on the gospel writers to spread Christianity? Is that equally preposterous? So at the very least it was relying on man’s use of papyrus and ink.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Welll these are pretty self explaining BLUE, no?

Matthew 16:19
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Isaiah 22:22 " I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open."

Matthew 18:18 "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

John 20:23 “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Revelations 1:18 “I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades”

Revelations 3:7 “To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

…

Matthew 16:18 “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Ephesians 2:20 “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone”

Acts 20:28 “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood”

Revelation 21:14 “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

 

[GaryTaylor]

ECF? Thee look pretty good to me BLUE?

Ignatius of Antioch

“Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism *, he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine *, he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons” (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]). \

Shortly after the death of the apostle John, his disciple, Ignatius of Antioch, referred to the Church as the Catholic Church. In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans he wrote: “Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church” (8:2 [A.D. 107]).

In reading the Early Fathers we see a Church with bishops in authority over priests and deacons. We see a church that baptized infants and believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. We see a Church that believed in the primacy of Rome, the intercession of the saints in heaven and the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Thus we are lead to the inescapable conclusion that the early Church was the Catholic Church.

Justin Martyr

“We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid” (First Apology 46 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus

“In the Church God has placed apostles, prophets, teachers, and every other working of the Spirit, of whom none of those are sharers who do not conform to the Church, but who defraud themselves of life by an evil mind and even worse way of acting. Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace” (Against Heresies 3:24:1 [A.D. 189]).

“[The spiritual man] shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, destroy it—men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. For they can bring about no ‘reformation’ of enough importance to compensate for the evil arising from their schism. . . . True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place *” (ibid., 4:33:7–8).

Clement of Alexandria

“Before the coming of the Lord, philosophy was necessary for justification to the Greeks; now it is useful for piety . . . for it brought the Greeks to Christ as the law did the Hebrews” (Miscellanies 1:5 [A.D. 208]).

Origen

“[T]here was never a time when God did not want men to be just; he was always concerned about that. Indeed, he always provided beings endowed with reason with occasions for practicing virtue and doing what is right. In every generation the wisdom of God descended into those souls which he found holy and made them to be prophets and friends of God” (Against Celsus 4:7 [A.D. 248]).

“I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” If the Protestant hypothesis is correct, the gates of hell did some serious prevailing and Jesus Christ is a liar. But of course such is not the case.

God Bless, Gary***

 

[seamusmohr]

You are looking for evidence that the EFCs had different ways of understanding the idea of Peter? or just specifically the way they understood the passage about the Rock?

Bluegoat is right to look for evidence, but he’ll never find any, or never find anywhere near the Consensus of the Early Fathers that the Holy Roman Church demands in its False Creed of Trent. As far as I can tell there was only one or two early fathers who looked even twice at the Peter+Rock syndrome as anything but S.Peter’s Faith or Christ Himself, which in my mind is the same thing!

The best writers to look for are

!. W.S.Kerr. Handbook on the papacy!
2. Littledale. Papal Claims.
3. Denny. Papalism.
4. Pullan, The primitive Saints and the See of Rome!.

Good Luck Bluegoat!

 

[GKC]

Bluegoat is right to look for evidence, but he’ll never find any, or never find anywhere near the Consensus of the Early Fathers that the Holy Roman Church demands in its False Creed of Trent. As far as I can tell there was only one or two early fathers who looked even twice at the Peter+Rock syndrome as anything but S.Peter’s Faith or Christ Himself, which in my mind is the same thing!

The best writers to look for are

!. W.S.Kerr. Handbook on the papacy!
2. Littledale. Papal Claims.
3. Denny. Papalism.
4. Pullan, The primitive Saints and the See of Rome!.

Good Luck Bluegoat!

Tell more of the Creed of Trent. Distinguish it from the Catechism of Trent. And the Council of Trent, Session IV.

GKC

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Seamusmohr,

You have really mixed two different elements trying to get a consensus - and, it really will not work.

And, really, if you are going to make a claim about the ECF (and, that would be the Early Catholic Chruch Fathers) then quote them instead of anti-Catholic material that shows its bias in their titles!

It sounds like you have an issue or two about Trent. Fine. Don’t be vague, please - state what is the problem - and how Trent taught new material not convered from previous Catholic Church Councils.

God bless

Bluegoat is right to look for evidence, but he’ll never find any, or never find anywhere near the Consensus of the Early Fathers that the Holy Roman Church demands in its False Creed of Trent. As far as I can tell there was only one or two early fathers who looked even twice at the Peter+Rock syndrome as anything but S.Peter’s Faith or Christ Himself, which in my mind is the same thing!

The best writers to look for are

!. W.S.Kerr. Handbook on the papacy!
2. Littledale. Papal Claims.
3. Denny. Papalism.
4. Pullan, The primitive Saints and the See of Rome!.

Good Luck Bluegoat!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bluegoat,

This has nothing to do with Joe, it has everything to do with you misquoting and mis-representing St. Augustine. That was the issue and it stands on its own merits. I gave you a link that refutes your statement and you are invited to read it and respond.

God bless

If Joe lets me know what he meant, I’ll carry on from there.

 

[benedictus2]

To answer what the OP:

What I would tend to say is that the Church is kind of like an amoeba. (Stay with me here).

Stay with you there? How can one? That is one of the most ill-thought analogies I’ve ever read in this forum.

So, for 1500 years you have one, one-celled organism, and then it splits and you have two.

Was the Church that Christ built created to split? Now the amoeba was created to multiply by splitting, are you saying that this Christ created a splitting Church? You are therefore saying that He doesn’t really zilch considering that He prayed that His Church be one.

So, which one was there “first”? We wouldn’t say that one of them has no history and suddenly appeared from nothing - rather, they have a shared history.

Considering that your analogy was bankrupt in the first instance, this part of your post no longer follows.

As for why there was doctrinal changes or new theological formulations, I’d say look up the Catholic idea of “development of doctrine”. That’s where Protestantism got the idea from.

Wrong again. Protestantism is a corruption of doctrine and not a development. True development sheds greater light on the doctrine not chops it up or changes it.

This link might help you understand what development of doctrine is all about

Blessed Newman on Genuine Developments Contrasted with Corruptions

newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter5.html

 

[benedictus2]

Actually, I didn’t say there were doctrinal changes, if you read what I said. Most mainline Protestants would say they also do not have doctrinal changes.

And most mainly protestants are wrong because it can be convincingly shown that they have made doctrinal changes.

As a matter of fact, this realization (after much study) is what made a lot protestants cross the Tiber.

What they would say is that there is development of doctrine, which is a Catholic idea.

As I have said previously, what they have is corruption not development.

As for new theological formulations - how about everything that came out of all the Christological controversies?

So you are saying that the theological formulation that came out of the Christological controversies are wrong? According to who?

Or the word “transubstantiation” that was unknown before the medieval period?

So because the word was unknown during a certain period in history it is not true? What about the word “zygote”? Does that mean there were no zygotes during the medieval ages?

 

[benedictus2]

I wasn’t trying to suggest that Reformation Protestantism and Catholisism were identical.

Hmmm, then you should have thought long and hard before pounding on the keys and typing “amoeba” .

Only that the idea that the Reformers didn’t suddenly appear out of no where, which is the suggestion when someone says they didn’t have a history before the 1500’s.

Well actually that is true. They don’t have a history as a reformer (or more aptly deformer) prior to the 1500s. Before that time, they were Catholics. After that they morphed (but stay with me here ).

Or even when it is claimed that they were founded by individuals.

Which they were. History proves it.

THat is not how the Reformers understood it at all.

Whether they understood it that way or not, that was the way it was and is still.

I may “understand” myself to be a saint but that does not alter the fact that I am a rather pathetic sinner.

From their POV, they were the Catholic Church - it was the "Catholic Church ™ that was no longer properly part of the Church. THe question of how one can have a Church that only started in the 1500’s doesn’t make any sense from this perspective.

POVs don’t matter. What matters is truth. Which POV is true? Fortunately, it’s the Protestant POV.

And it really doesn’t matter if you think they were right - to say they had no history doesn’t make sense.

As Protestants they don’t. Protestant history began with the revolt in the 1500s. Prior to that they were not protestants.

Suppose someone were to talk about their history as a divorced person. Wouldn’t it be stupid to say that their history as divorced people include all those years of matrimonial life? As a divorced person, their history began when they divorced.

In the same manner, when a married couple speaks of the history of their married life, you start with the time they got married.

Luther was a Catholic, and he became what would become known as Lutheran, but that didn’t somehow mean he wasn’t part of a continuity of thought that went back to the beginning of Christianity.

No he isn’t part of the continuity because when he separated, he broke the continuity.

You’re right, Luther was Catholic and then he no longer was.

You can read Luther through his whole life and see that he is clearly in a tradition of Christian, and specifically Augustinian thought.

Hardly truly Augustinian. St Augustine believed in the the finality of the Papal declarations - “Rome has spoken the case is closed”.

You might think they went in a bizarre direction, but they were not something that had sprung up as wholly new. To use a different analogy, you may think the branch diseased, but it still grew from the trunk.

Yes, and so long as it remained in the trunk it had the chance of being revived. Cut off it can only die.

I have never understood why people would try to argue that the Reformers thought they were starting something new.

And I can’t understand why you can’t see that they knew they were.

It seems to me it is a matter of mixing up the Reformers and their decedents with some modern branches that are rather further removed.

And isn’t that the truth. The protestant ethos of reforming and reforming and reforming and reforming … all according to one’s personal interpretation. Isn’t that just the logical development that follows from Luther’s Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura?

The “further removed” branches are just the logical babies of the “reformation”.

Your points about doctrines that are questionable and validity of Sacraments seem ill placed, since obviously they neither considered their Sacraments invalid nor their doctrines questionable (and none held to the particular ones you mentioned.) How that relates to the idea that they somehow sprang up from nothing I do not know.

This argument is totally illogical.

Is validity dependent on whether one considers something valid or not. I buy tickets to the train. Do I determine its validity or does the transport corporation determine that?

And indeed, there are lines of priests that the Catholic Church considers valid that belong that belong to people with far more questionable doctrines than the Protestant Reformers held, and who did not come out of the Reformation at all.

So again, we go back to authority. Who has the right to declare what is valid or not?

As someone who is fond of the history of thought, I find this line of reasoning very strange.

If that is so, then perhaps you have given some “thought” to this post because it is your line of “thought” that is strange.

 

[benedictus2]

Luther didn’t choose to revolt, he was excommunicated.

Wrong again. Luther chose to revolt, which is why he was excommunicated.

The Reformers did not believe in Private Interpretation of Scripture.

Really. Then you are a bit behind with the news.
keithhunt.com/Study3.html

Grace alone is debatable as not being found in Catholicism and Orthodoxy,

What exactly does that mean? Do you mean that Grace alone is not found in Catholicism and orthodoxy or that its “not being found in Catholicism and Orthodoxy” is debatable?

and Scripture alone is a praxis based on necessity once the Catholic praxis of the authority of the Church and Tradition had shown itself to be flawed.

1st - the Authority of the Church and Tradition was never shown to be flawed. The people in a position of authority at that time was shown to be corrupt. They are two different things.

2nd - Because the Authority of the Church and Tradition was never flawed and never shown to be flawed then the “praxis” of Scripture alone was never at any a necessity.