Which Doctrines Do All Protestants Agree Upon?

[Teflon93]

Of the 95 items on Luther’s list, the Church did agree with him on all but (I believe) 14 of his points. He clearly held his private, personal interpretations above that of the Church.

“Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe.”

I think you’ve transposed the numbers. The corrections issued to Luther were 41 in number.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Is ‘hmmm’ your point of view? Your evidence maybe? It would be infinitely easier for us to understand what you are saying if you made simple clear declarative statements. Rather than relying so heavily on innuendo or ‘subtle’ judgments.

O.k. I’ll waste a little time with this childish game.

In response to my statement “Yup, that’s the only fault Luther was exposed to, being ordained too quickly… hmmm.”, you posted the above quote.

You have a hard time understanding those words? You couldn’t tell I was doubting and disagreeing that the only fault of the Catholic Church in regards to Luther and the reformation was Luther being ordained too quickly? Need I extrapolate for you?

Here’s a start. If Luther was ordained too quickly, are we to believe he was the only one ordained too quickly? Ever think that perphaps Alexander VI, and other nobles were ordained too quickly? How about all the Cardinals who elected Alexander VI as Pope? Where any of them ordained too quickly? How else could one explain them electing Alexander VI when he had behaved so immorally, even after becoming a priest. Check it out in newadvent.com.

Oh, but it’s all politics and nothing about the Church that sparked the reform… except for ordaining Luther too quickly. Maybe Savonarola was ordained too quickly as well?

Michael

 

[Pixie_Dust]

CCC 817:
"In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.“269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:”

Yep it says right there that MEN of both sides were to blame, not the Catholic Church. Nobody denies that there were sinful men IN the Church doing sinful things, but the Church Herself is not to blame for that, sin is.

 

[Teflon93]

From post #61 “Well, I read part of that thread, and must say was embarrassed at much of what I read.” So yes, I did read part of the thread, and what you and other wrote didn’t appear worth reading further. The quality of your statements and arguements here are just as much a waste of time. If you want to be vehemently anti-Protestant, and view all the fault with Luther, politics, ect, and nothing wrong with the Church, go ahead. That’s not consistent with the Catechism.

CCC 817:
"In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.“269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:”

Do you think this refers to the Protestant Reformation in particular or to schism in general?

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

We saw through your innuendo so you were not as careful with your words as you claim. Not looking up links is an inefficient use of time. Also looking up links which do not relate to the discussion at hand is also an inefficient use of time.

How does this relate to Luther’s complicity or non-complicity in secular politics?

Again, how does this relate to Luther’s complicity or non-complicity in secular politics?

There was nothing to see through. The words where there as clear as day. You asked for evidence, I supplied the links, and then you label that an inefficient use of time? Very telling.

If you look back at the posts, you will see that the links refer to corruption within the Church as a major factor sparking the reformation. I never said politics were not at all involved. I did say that corruption within the Church played a major, if not the major, role. If ya’ll want to blame it all on politics, go ahead. There weren’t any politics in the Catholic Church was there? Which powerful family did many of the Popes of that time come from?

Michael

 

[Teflon93]

O.k. I’ll waste a little time with this childish game.

Charity worthy of Luther’s!

In response to my statement “Yup, that’s the only fault Luther was exposed to, being ordained too quickly… hmmm.”, you posted the above quote.

You have a hard time understanding those words? You couldn’t tell I was doubting and disagreeing that the only fault of the Catholic Church in regards to Luther and the reformation was Luther being ordained too quickly? Need I extrapolate for you?

It is a serious fault. By ordaining Luther, who had serious misunderstandings of Catholic teaching, the Church inadvertantly put a heretic in a perfect position to lead others into schism.

Here’s a start. If Luther was ordained too quickly, are we to believe he was the only one ordained too quickly? Ever think that perphaps Alexander VI, and other nobles were ordained too quickly? How about all the Cardinals who elected Alexander VI as Pope? Where any of them ordained too quickly? How else could one explain them electing Alexander VI when he had behaved so immorally, even after becoming a priest. Check it out in newadvent.com.

And what do you make of Luther’s impieties? He broke a bunch of nuns out of a convent, proceeded to behave scandalously with them, and eventually married one.

Sounds like a priest who didn’t take his office seriously to me.

What would you be saying now had Luther remained a Catholic? I suspect you’d be using him AND Alexander VI as your examples of impiety.

Of course, there’s the nagging matter of 100,000 slaughtered German peasants…

Oh, but it’s all politics and nothing about the Church that sparked the reform… except for ordaining Luther too quickly. Maybe Savonarola was ordained too quickly as well?

Michael

Has it not dawned on you that Luther practiced or supported many of the things he condemned?

Why, the very property he condemned the German peasants for stealing was stolen from the Catholic Church thanks to Luther!

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Yep it says right there that MEN of both sides were to blame, not the Catholic Church. Nobody denies that there were sinful men IN the Church doing sinful things, but the Church Herself is not to blame for that, sin is.

Very convenient separation. There was systemic corruption in the case of indulgences to finance St Peter’s Cathedral. If you want to say, it was the individuals who committed the sins, even though they were directed and empowered to do so by their office and authority in the Church, well, that seems convenient.

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Do you think this refers to the Protestant Reformation in particular or to schism in general?

Do you think the reformation is excluded from this?

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Charity worthy of Luther’s!

Here, I’ll turn the other cheek, and try not to forget that one in the confessional.


Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

And what do you make of Luther’s impieties? He broke a bunch of nuns out of a convent, proceeded to behave scandalously with them, and eventually married one.

Sounds like a priest who didn’t take his office seriously to me.

What would you be saying now had Luther remained a Catholic? I suspect you’d be using him AND Alexander VI as your examples of impiety.

Hey, I think Luther’s major mistake was seperating from the Church. He had some legitimate complaints from abusing and corruption in the Church. That is no reason to seperate.

As far as breaking a bunch of nuns out of a convent, I haven’t read up on that. However, if they were well formed in their faith, and didn’t want to be out of the convent, couldn’t they have found a way? If one chose to marry him, and stay with him as she did, whose choice was that? Or is it all Luther’s fault?

If Luther had remained Catholic, I don’t know if he would have made as many subsequent mistakes as he had. Alexander VI, however, remained Catholic, and probably did a lot of good things for the Church. He also behaved immorally, and it is a disgrace that a man with his history was elected Pope by the Cardinals trust with responsibility for safeguarding the Church.

Michael

 

[Stylite]

This is all getting a bit off topic, no?

Sure, Catholics bear their share of blame for the reformation. A modern analogy would be the formation of schismatic sects sparked by abusive interpretations of Vatican II. Even if scandal is not the real catalyst it sure provides a real opportunity.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Mt 28 19_20:

From post #61 “Well, I read part of that thread, and must say was embarrassed at much of what I read.”

I must say I was also embarrassed by the namecalling, ad hominems, marginalization, and dismissal of other posters engaged in by a few.
Mt 28 19_20:

So yes, I did read part of the thread, and what you and other wrote didn’t appear worth reading further.

What I wrote was reasoned and referenced. The fact that it doesn’t appear worth reading to you says more about your reading than it does about my posting.
Mt 28 19_20:

The quality of your statements and arguements here are just as much a waste of time.

This is no more than an unsubstantiated and unwarranted judgment. A putdown offered in the absence of a comprehensible, defended point of view vis a vis the Reformation. No more.

What I have provided here is reasoned and referenced. You may not like looking at history, you may not like what history says about Luther, but that is an entirely different thing from history being ‘unworthy’ of reading.

What you are doing here is, not liking the message, you are trying to knock down the messenger.

You have offered no comprehensible statements with which we can engage. Instead you offer putdowns, gambling I guess that no one is going to take issue with this treatment.

Moreover you would have us ignore the elephant in the room, ignore history to portray Luther as a blameless hero, a champion of peace, a great theologian while painting the Church uniformly as blackened. And you expect us to believe you on the basis of … nothing.

The truth, as I have been attempting to point out to you, is a little of both. But you don’t accept this. For you it has to be either/or. It can’t be both/and.
Mt 28 19_20:

If you want to be vehemently anti-Protestant, and view all the fault with Luther, politics, ect, and nothing wrong with the Church, go ahead.

You have descended to the level of namecalling. And you have descended to the level of boldly misrepresenting my posts.

Normally, when folks start to namecall and misrepresent, it is an indicator that they have exhausted their supply of substantive contributions and have therefore conceded the discussion.

More than once I have clarified with you that the Church had some fault in what happened. More than once! And yet every time you ignore what I have posted about the Church completely. Instead you build your case in defence of Luther by building a strawman against me and against the Church and by resorting to personal attack and misrepresentation.
Mt 28 19_20:

** men of both sides were to blame**.

Which is what I said:
Ani Ibi:

The plagues lowered the number of educated CLERGY.
Corruption among some CLERGY exascerbated the need for discipline.
CHURCH/State boundaries became blurred.

Note the use of the term CLERGY twice and the term CHURCH once? Note that the items on the list implicate the Church as one of many causes of the Reformation?

What you are attempting to do is to exonerate Luther completely from any fault without providing any cogent evidence to do so. Instead you rely on personal insult and misrepresentation as if that were going to bolster your case. You have chosen an unreasonable and uncharitable approach. Try reading more carefully next time. OK? Thank you.

Also, I am wondering if you would be kind enough to stop derailing this thread – after all it was you who opened this discussion with your untempered accusations against the Church. If you wish to discuss this further, please do so on another thread. I have asked you to do this before.

 

[DanB]

Yes, but then we lose the distinction between the emerging Bible churches and the historical Protestant communities.

I wouldn’t expect there to be much agreement among Bible churches, and in fairness that is not a real reflection of the mainline Protestant communities.

Catholic, Protestant, Psuedos, etc., I would say 99.9999% say that written scripture, The Holy Bible, the 27 books of the New Testament, “are the inspired word of God.” That is not to define “sola scriptura”, but most if not all agree, INSPIRED WORD OF GOD.

Now, let’s take that inspired word and someone tell me, “How many verses are in scripture?” ??? 500,000 ??? Doesn’t really matter. Currently there are over 25,000 Protestant, non-denominational, bible believing churches, minus those from half a million verses = about 470,000 more psuedo churches left to be started. No wonder our taxes are so high, everyone’s hiding behind non-tax status.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Mt 28 19_20:

O.k. I’ll waste a little time with this childish game.

Waste time? Where do you get off using such dismissive putdowns on other posters? I think you owe several of us a series of apologies for the excesses to which you have stooped on this thread.
Mt 28 19_20:

Need I extrapolate for you?

The normal way to respond to someone providing you with information that what you have posted is not clear is to simply clarify.
Mt 28 19_20:

Here’s a start. If Luther was ordained too quickly, are we to believe he was the only one ordained too quickly? Ever think that perphaps Alexander VI, and other nobles were ordained too quickly?

Red herring. The poster was referring to Luther. Not Alexander. Please address the poster’s point.
Mt 28 19_20:

Oh, but it’s all politics and nothing about the Church that sparked the reform…

Once again you misrepresent what others have posted. NO ONE has said that the Church did not share fault in the Reformation. NO ONE. And yet repeatedly you build this strawman to attack both ourselves and the Church. You are neither discussing in good faith nor comporting yourself in a manner even vaguely evocative of charity.

Is Luther some kind of God that, as soon as anyone suggests that he was less than lily-white, the fingers come out pointing at everyone else and his brother? Luther is not God! His role in history is not above examination or criticism.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Of course, there’s the nagging matter of 100,000 slaughtered German peasants…

So, the slaughter was one way, no Protestants slaughered by Catholic armies?

newadvent.org/cathen/07527b.htm
geocities.com/hugenoteblad/hist-hug.htm?200729

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Once again you misrepresent what others have posted. NO ONE has said that the Church did not share fault in the Reformation. NO ONE. And yet repeatedly you build this strawman to attack both ourselves and the Church. You are neither discussing in good faith nor comporting yourself in a manner even vaguely evocative of charity.

From your post #52 “A claim that is not bourne out by history. Most of the causes were political not theological. We have already hammered this out on this thread:”

The focus has appeared to minimize any of the Church’s share of responsibility and focus on Luther and his failings, and politics. I have yet to see someone acknowledge the Church had a major role to play. Someone did go so far as to say that if the Church did error, it was in ordaining Luther too quickly. I am Catholic, and wish Luther had not seperated, as much suffering for Catholics and Protestants has resulted from that. Yet, to say the Church’s major error was to ordain Luther to quickly, to me, that is insulting and embarrassing.

Michael

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Mt 28 19_20:

There was nothing to see through. The words where there as clear as day.

You did post words. Your words were not clear. The normal thing to do when information is provided as to lack of clarity is to clarify. Yet you do not take this route. Instead you argue for the sake of arguing.
Mt 28 19_20:

You asked for evidence, I supplied the links

You supplied links which had nothing to do with your claims.
Mt 28 19_20:

and then you label that an inefficient use of time?

Er… no. I believe this is what I said:
Ani Ibi:

Not looking up links is an inefficient use of time.

Mt 28 19_20:

Very telling.

Mt 28 19_20:

If you look back at the posts, you will see that the links refer to corruption within the Church as a major factor sparking the reformation.

Yes.
Mt 28 19_20:

I never said politics were not at all involved.

You protested greatly at the mere suggestion that Luther’s thrust was predominantly political. The term ‘protested greatly’ btw is a huge understatement.
Mt 28 19_20:

I did say that corruption within the Church played a major, if not the major, role.

Yes you did. But you said this in the absence of any evidence.

I, however, provided evidence directly after your first attempt to blacken the Church, evidence which demonstrated that your claim about Church corruption being the major cause of the Reformation was wrong.

You, however, refused to read that evidence. For someone who refuses to read the evidence, you sure have a lot to say about it. I find that puzzling.
Mt 28 19_20:

If ya’ll want to blame it all on politics, go ahead.

OK.
Mt 28 19_20:

There weren’t any politics in the Catholic Church was there?

Red herring. This has nothing to do with whether or not Luther’s predominant thrust was political.
Mt 28 19_20:

Which powerful family did many of the Popes of that time come from?

Red herring. This has nothing to do with whether or not Luther’s predominant thrust was political.

You see how quickly and persistently the fingers come out pointing at everyone and his brother as soon as anyone questions the lily-whiteness of Luther?

It’s predictable. Even when overwhelming evidence is presented for Luther’s frailties, the fingers come out pointing. Gosh, and we haven’t even posted the worst of what he was up to.

Luther is not a God!

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Waste time? Where do you get off using such dismissive putdowns on other posters? I think you owe several of us a series of apologies for the excesses to which you have stooped on this thread.

Really, I viewed it as a waste of time, given the posts I read in the other thread, and the wording of several of the replies I received. Several of the posts were insulting for me to receive, but I’m not going to complain or ask for an apology. If I don’t cower when you come at me with your replies, don’t be looking for an apology. Standing up is not being uncharitable.

“Luther is not God! His role in history is not above examination or criticism.” Very true, and Luther made some terrible mistakes with horrible consequences. The Pope and Cardinals and priests at the time also are not God, and their role in history is not above examination or criticism either. Though some Catholics don’t like to admit that. The role of examination should never be to think any of us are any better, or less sinful, but to learn and build up the body of Christ. This was true then and is true now. If people leave the Catholic Church, often it is partly our weaknesses and failings that contribute to that direction.

So, as I replied earlier, the corruption and abuses within the Catholic Church could probably be claimed as the spark that many, if not all, Protestant denominations have in common.

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Er… no. I believe this is what I said:

Actually, from post #80, this is what you said:
“Not looking up links is an inefficient use of time. Also looking up links which do not relate to the discussion at hand is also an inefficient use of time.”

It appeared to me that you were suggesting that the links I looked up were not related to what you asked for evidence to support. This is another example why I see this as a waste of time.

Micheal

 

[Stylite]

Michael,

Yes, abuses and corruption among members of the Church played a large role as both a catalyst and opportunity during the reformation. I don’t see the difficulty in saying this, since it’s true. That certain reformers may or may not have had political aspirations or used the unrest caused by these abuses to further their aims is irrelevant to the original point. The exterior of the Church was in great need of cleansing and the counter-reformation came a bit too late.