So according to your words, you have to update the cannon that you choose to recognize. The Dead Sea Scrolls contained “preserved” copies of many books you don’t recognize as scripture.
Depends. Certain aspects of Protestantism are considered heresy, but there are aspects where we share common beliefs. As well, it’s difficult with all the Protestant sects out there to paint every belief of every one with the same broad brush.
That’s a bizarre claim, no less so because it’s so commonly made by folks with an axe to grind. I don’t see how one can seriously study the Reformation and not conclude that it was very much to do with doctrine–on all sides.
I agree with all of this, though I think that the phrase “ethnic rivalries” is a bit anachronistic. But you are right in the sense that northern Europeans’ suspicion of Italians and desire to assert their national identity often led them to be favorable to the Reformation, and that national rivalries hindered the calling of the Council of Trent and the formulation of an effective response to the Reformation.
It’s not clear to me that the Renaissance Popes were very interested in correcting abuses of the peasantry. Nor is it clear to me that the typical abbot was a sterling defender of the poor. Tell me why the peasant revolts of 1524-25 in Germany typically targeted monastic properties with particular fury? The peasants themselves (at leas tin Germany) seem generally to have seen the Church as one of the worst oppressors, not as their champion. Aren’t they to be allowed to speak for themselves? (And yes, of course Luther betrayed the peasants–neither Catholics nor “magisterial” Protestants have much to boast of in this regard.)
Since all of the regions you mention wound up more or less in the Catholic corner (Bavaria very solidly so, Italy much less so until the crackdown under Carafa, and France only after devastating religious wars), you appear to be speaking of factors hindering Catholics from responding to the Reformation in a unified way rather than of factors actually driving the Reformation.
Later than what? Certainly there were longstanding political and social tensions (and theological ones, which of course you ignore because of your bias toward reductionistic explanations) that predated Luther’s theological propositions.
There is no reasonable student of the period who thinks that Luther’s desire for a woman was what drove his theological program, rather than the other way round. Luther resisted getting married for some time, and there’s no evidence that he was particularly bothered by his vows of celibacy (Catholic propagandists have exploited the fact that he spoke frankly about the kinds of struggles that any celibate man with a healthy libido goes through–although even there his accounts of these struggles come from later in his career and probably were biased by his later theological agenda). You’re discrediting yourself by resorting to these silly smears. You should know better.
If you want to read a good Catholic account of Calvin’s early career which will blow your caricature out of the water, I recommend Alexandre Ganoczy’s *The Young Calvin. *It’s one of the most respected books on Calvin by any scholar, Catholic, Protestant, or secular. Ganoczy has no doubt that Calvin was driven by the sincere desire to reform the Church.
This is the pot calling the kettle black. Actually it’s the pot calling another pot black
It wasn’t literally “put under one cover” even then. The local African councils to which you refer did not end controversy about the canon (particularly the OT canon), and they were by no means the first such official list.
That’s a false statement, and the fact that Catholics make it so often is very disturbing, because it indicates that they are as ignorant about the Bible as anti-Catholics claim, or they would know that there was lots of it they weren’t hearing in the Sunday lectionary. (You must be talking about the Sunday lectionary, since the daily lectionary is not on the 3-year cycle–the daily lectionary doesn’t cover all of Scripture either, but of course it comes much closer.)
I agree that it isn’t true. But since it is a claim about truth, calling it “offensive” simply hinders the work of disproving it. You are distracting from the indefensibility of our Calvinist brother’s position by using politically-correct rhetoric to dismiss it.
Are you seriously saying that anyone who disagrees with you about Scripture is not “open to instruction in righteousness”? Do you see how self-justifying this position is? It makes you impervious to correction from Scripture, since you can simply dismiss any disagreement as stemming from the faulty spiritual position of your opponent. So ironically you are insulating yourself from Scripture in precisely the same way you accuse Catholics of doing (some Catholics deserve this accusation, some don’t).
You’re using loaded language (“institution”) to obscure the issue. Your view that anyone who disagrees is not “open” is patently absurd and is a desperate defense against the orthodox view that Scripture can only be rightly interpreted in the context of the Church. And the Church is much, much more than an institution. (And in case you didn’t notice the statement to that effect in very post I write, I am not a Roman Catholic and do not define the Church simply as those Christians in communion with Rome.)
It’s not circular, but it’s rather spiral. If you already believe that the Bible is true based on “many factors,” why go through the rest of it?
Nor will many believers, for the excellent reason that it just shuts us up into our isolated communities of faith with no way to talk to each other reasonably. It’s no better than radical postmodernism in this respect. Mormons make exactly the same claim you do. You leave orthodox Christians with no way to defend themselves against Mormon missionaries who prey on the gullible and spiritually needy by asking them to seek for the internal witness that the BoM is divinely inspired. I suppose you would say that those who are deluded by Mormons are just not among the elect, but is that really the best Calvinism can do? (I know that it isn’t, but you haven’t done a very good job of showing what other resources you have, beyond a fideistic appeal to your “burning in the bosom.”)
I have not read all the postings, so forgive me if this is covered territory already.
A quick point re scripture. Both Catholics and Protestants have sound arguments as to the books included in the OT. If you go to your neighborhood synagogue, you will find that the Hebrew Bible is the same as the Protestant OT. Many old Protestant Bibles (one of my hobby is collecting such) contains the seven additional books as the Apocrypha between the OT and NT. By the way, I believe St. Jerome did not think these apocryphal books belonged in the canon. But the argument is unimportant - to me, at least. It has become part of sectarian claptrap.
Now, I am typical of millions of both Protestants and Catholics. I do not accept all the doctrines and practices of Catholicism, such as transubstantiation and various Marian dogmae, including the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. Why isn't Mary mentioned even once in the epistles of Paul if veneration of her is so central to our faith? At the same time I am definitely not sola scriptura. There is considerable myth, legend, nationalistic propaganda, and false data in the Bible. At the same time I read the Bible regularly for inspiration and spiritual insight.
This is much too broad a subject than can be covered here, but I recall having trouble with Adam and Eve, Noah and the Flood, the Tower of Babel, etc., as a young teenager. They simply are contradicted by history, science and common sense. And consider the notion that Moses wrote the five five books of the OT. In those books Moses is described as 'the meekest man who ever lived" and his death and burial are recorded in Deuteronomy. And so much more. Who out there believes that our loving God commanded Joshua to slaughter every inhabitant of such cities as Jericho and Ai, and ordered Saul to slay every Amalekite? How can that be made compatible with the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount? What about the admonition "suffer not a witch to live" and Biblical endorsements of slavery? What about certain barbaric 'laws' in Ex. 21, Lev. 20, and Deut. 22-23? Etc.
There is much about Catholicism I admire, especially its commitment to the poor, its founding of many fine universities, its many fine hospitals, etc. However, in good faith I cannot accept some of its theological teachings. This will be dismissed by many, of course, as my pride, but so be it. It is my honesty, integrity, and conclusion after years of study and thought. Catholicism is simply too 'pagan' (sorry to use that word) for me, borrowing too much from the culture of its early years. I can't imagine Christ being at home in resplendent Catholic churches with their elaborate vestments and liturgical legalism. And some of the miracle stories re saints, even modern ones like Padre Pio, are wildly unbelievable.
But, I also cannot subscribe to that variety of Protestantism which embraces sola scriptura, as there is much in scripture that must be dismissed as extra-Christian, even anti-Christian. My faith is built on the gospel of Christ, well summed up in his Sermon on the Mount. Beyond that I can live in awe before the mysteries of this huge universe.
God bless Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox and people of all faith who love God and seek to serve him through serving humankind. May religion cease to be a barrier and become a bridge, helping our war-weary, hate-filled world move toward peace and mutual respect.Excuse me sir, but the fact that I had already tried, along with many others, to explain to this elitist the context in which the author of John’s letters used the term “anti-Christ” and he wouldn’t hear of it was why I let him know that it is indeed offensive to Catholics. To say that our leader amongst equals, i.e. the Bishops, is anti Christian is just ludicrous.
Ephesians 2:8 ESV
My friend I do not believe you hate the bible. That is reserved for liberal protestants that say it isn’t true when they call God as revealved in the Old Testement a tyrant and when they try to defend wickedness such as homosexuality ans such. Also for athiests because men are naturaly evil and hate God and athiests are unbelivers who are still in their sins and hate God by nature because he is Holy and they are wicked.
You state this verse as to impugn the teaching of the Catholic Church; you don’t know what the Church teaches in this matter.Ephesians 2:8 ESV
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Unless you can be Christian enough to apologize for bearing such false witness against me, the discussion is over.
But as a Catholic you surely recognize that original context isn’t everything. DD2007 is using “antichrist” in a way shaped by centuries of patristic and medieval as well as Protestant theology. The idea of Antichrist taking over the papacy was a common one in late medieval apocalyptic thought. The Protestants just pushed it further by defining the office itself (in its high/late medieval form) as Antichrist.
I don’t think there’s a “middle way”; either one accepts Catholocism or is Protestant. With all due respect, “Pick-n-choose” theology is no different than what many emerging protestant denominations do.
Our Church does not label Protestants “heretics”, they are refered to as separated brethren (still Christian).
We all need to learn more… and I even learn a thing or two from your posts.
