H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
have you ever read the Council of Trent? Man they were pretty tough on you guys … I don’t see much hope for a live and let live attitude in relations between Catholics and protestants (well that is until there are no more Catholics and protestants left, and religion is relegated to the scrap heap of history).
hey I even have to agree with you guys on this one. According to OSAS heck I’m still saved
Luther did not think anyone who died “outside of Christ” would be saved. For him (and I would strongly argue Paul) justification was by faith alone (albeit proper living was the natural outflow of faith, or to use christian terminology … the “witness” of grace).
in early Catholicism many reserved baptism to just before death, because they believed that after baptism any sin whatsoever would result in perdition (playing on some of the language in Hebrews).
so when Catholics dismiss biblical literalism they do so at the expense their own history (and make any claim of infallibility logically difficult). Like Luther said, “Reason is the whore of the devil” (logic & reason truly did destroy any religious superstition I once had, and as is obvious I used to have plenty).
wrongdoing always has tangible consequences, whether direct or psychological. IMO the idea that we only need forgiveness from an invisible power can be harmful (and can actually promote poor behavior, particularly when using a sola scriptura approach … albeit scripture is really closer to Lutheran theology and closer yet to Calvinist theology than it is to Catholic theology).
Forgiveness is a good thing, but only when one is truly repentant for their wrongdoing and actually changes (not merely forms a good intention, which isn’t tangibly worth very much). Let’s say a person get’s busted for larceny once or twice in their lives and the judge cuts them some slack and gives them a chance to change. Should the judge forgive them if they get arrested again and again even if they’re truly sorry? Who cares if they feel bad about stealing … eventually it becomes evident that they’ll always be a thief right, so eventually they need to feel the cold hard floor of a jail cell. They obviously can’t be trusted regardless of their intentions.
Neither Calvin nor Luther ever denied perpetual virginity (to my knowledge anyway). This objection came later (albeit the objection is based on pretty solid support from scripture, which states Jesus did have siblings; and if you draw from the typology of David and the rejection of him from his siblings & the prophecy that the same would happen with the Messiah, it seems that perhaps having actual blood siblings who rejected Jesus is important for typological purposes and to fulfill prophecy).
Moreover, the traditions concerning Mary are either based on apocrypha that is known to be unreliable (for instance the protoevangelium of James, which scholars have confirmed could not have been written by a James of Jerusalem, which is how the gospel was signed) or later tradition with no verifiable source.
after all papal infallibility is only a 19th century innovation (it wasn’t official doctrine for the first 1,800 plus years of CC history … though arguably it could have been inferred).
