Which Doctrines Do All Protestants Agree Upon?

[Mt_28_19_20]

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:

What caused the Reformation?

Specifically:

Well, I read part of that thread, and must say was embarrassed at much of what I read. Over a few years of attempting apologetics on a Protestant web-site, I was surprised the the most vehement and uncharitable anti-Catholics were ex-Catholics. While that is still distressing, reading some of the “Catholic” responses and views in the thread you linked for me, causes me to be a little less surprised. As far as those who wish to use fancy words to paritally mask their denigration of others, makes me hope they didn’t swallow too much meconium when they were born Ya know, we’re all probably too stupid to know what scatology is… “Anyone can read Luther’s profane and scatalogical correspondence and see how poorly the man reflects the modern myth.” This is a good point, many of Luther’s writtings were over the top and inappropriate, not reflecting the myth many held as their view of the man. If one is astute enough to recognize that, are they astute enough to recognize that if one looks at Pope Alexander VI, and the case of Savonarola, and other events around the time of the reformation, can they not as readily say: “Anyone can read the Church’s behavior and see how poorly the Church of that time poorly reflects the modern myth held by modern Catholics, and that the Church was in many ways the major spark responsible for the reformation.”

Michael

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Well, I read part of that thread, and must say was embarrassed at much of what I read. Over a few years of attempting apologetics on a Protestant web-site, I was surprised the the most vehement and uncharitable anti-Catholics were ex-Catholics. While that is still distressing, reading some of the “Catholic” responses and views in the thread you linked for me, causes me to be a little less surprised. As far as those who wish to use fancy words to paritally mask their denigration of others, makes me hope they didn’t swallow too much meconium when they were born Ya know, we’re all probably too stupid to know what scatology is… “Anyone can read Luther’s profane and scatalogical correspondence and see how poorly the man reflects the modern myth.” This is a good point, many of Luther’s writtings were over the top and inappropriate, not reflecting the myth many held as their view of the man. If one is astute enough to recognize that, are they astute enough to recognize that if one looks at Pope Alexander VI, and the case of Savonarola, and other events around the time of the reformation, can they not as readily say: “Anyone can read the Church’s behavior and see how poorly the Church of that time poorly reflects the modern myth held by modern Catholics, and that the Church was in many ways the major spark responsible for the reformation.”

Gosh. A lot of words to say that it doesn’t really matter that Luther and the others gave orders to kill hundreds of thousands of people. That’s me told, eh? btw, did you read any of the other links?

 

[Teflon93]

Well, I read part of that thread, and must say was embarrassed at much of what I read. Over a few years of attempting apologetics on a Protestant web-site, I was surprised the the most vehement and uncharitable anti-Catholics were ex-Catholics. While that is still distressing, reading some of the “Catholic” responses and views in the thread you linked for me, causes me to be a little less surprised. As far as those who wish to use fancy words to paritally mask their denigration of others, makes me hope they didn’t swallow too much meconium when they were born Ya know, we’re all probably too stupid to know what scatology is… “Anyone can read Luther’s profane and scatalogical correspondence and see how poorly the man reflects the modern myth.” This is a good point, many of Luther’s writtings were over the top and inappropriate, not reflecting the myth many held as their view of the man. If one is astute enough to recognize that, are they astute enough to recognize that if one looks at Pope Alexander VI, and the case of Savonarola, and other events around the time of the reformation, can they not as readily say: “Anyone can read the Church’s behavior and see how poorly the Church of that time poorly reflects the modern myth held by modern Catholics, and that the Church was in many ways the major spark responsible for the reformation.”

Michael

So Luther isn’t responsible for what Luther did; the Catholic Church is?

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Gosh. A lot of words to say that it doesn’t really matter that Luther and the others gave orders to kill hundreds of thousands of people. That’s me told, eh? btw, did you read any of the other links?

No, I did not read the other links. The tone of the other thread was enough to turn me off. When there’s that much finger pointing one way, and not accepting a fair share of the responsibility for the reformation, doesn’t seem like unbiased reading, and thus not likely to be enlightening. For every St Oliver Plunket, there’s a Protestant that just as horrible things were done to. That thread was really disturbing to read, the man asked for reasoned discussion, and he got alot of scatology. Did anyone ever list the top 10 from Luther’s thesis?

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

So Luther isn’t responsible for what Luther did; the Catholic Church is?

Oh, that’s right, it’s all Luther’s fault. No fault of the Catholic Church. Ever read what the Catechism has to say about it? What where the top ten on Luther’s list of complaints?

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

So Luther isn’t responsible for what Luther did; the Catholic Church is?

Do you know as much about the abuses by Pope Alexander VI, as you know about Luther? What did he let happen to Friar Savonarola?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Oh, that’s right, it’s all Luther’s fault. No fault of the Catholic Church. Ever read what the Catechism has to say about it? What where the top ten on Luther’s list of complaints?

If the Catholic Church has a fault in regards to Luther, it was that the Church ordained him to quickly. He became a monk for all the wrong reasons. I can tell by reading his theses that he didn’t fully understand the Catholic doctrine of confession/reconciliation.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Mt 28 19_20:

Mt: Maybe we like the glasses we are viewing past history from? Luther was politically motivated? There as some who view Savonarola as one of the fathers of the reformation, and I think I read somewhere that there is a statue of him with Luther. Who was the Pope soon before Luther’s reformation? Alexander VI? If some hammered it out as politics, maybe they know something I don’t. Very possible. Though not so sure what happened to Savonarola, and Pope Alexander VI are not red flags to be ignored. After all, isn’t always the other guy’s fault? Michael

A lot of words, a lot of innuendo that Luther and the others were not primarily motivated by politics. Yet zero substantiation.

If folks know something you don’t, don’t you think it behooves you to read the links provided to see what it is that folks know that you don’t? Otherwise how on earth can you comment?



And do you really think that “there are some who view” and “I think I read somewhere” qualify as evidence? Hint: no.

The links I gave you describe thoroughly the political factors leading up to 99 theses. Without those political factors, the 99 theses would have been no more than graffitti in the wind.

So blame it on the Church all you want. We’ve seen the elephant in the room.

History demonstrates that secular politics predominated in the Reformation and that the Reformers were up to their chins in secular politics.

The difference is that the Church owned up and made corrections. Yall didn’t. And yall are still pointing your fingers everywhere but to your own founders.

Now I raised this question originally just to correct an inaccuracy posted by you. To wit:
Mt 28 19_20:

So, while not a doctrine, every Protestant church could problably claim Church abuses and corruption as the spark that led to their birth.

How logical is this hundreds of years after the Counter-Reformation? Hint: completely illogical. Did you really expect this to stick as a unifying factor among Protestants in the 21st C?

Moreover, if you want to discuss ‘church abuses’ and secular politics in the Reformation further, then there are other threads on these topics. Or start your own thread. Thank you.

Teflon: I have been reading along on your lists of doctrines. What about the five solas counting as unifying doctrines among mainline Protestants? Or even two solas? Or even one sola?

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

If the Catholic Church has a fault in regards to Luther, it was that the Church ordained him to quickly. He became a monk for all the wrong reasons. I can tell by reading his theses that he didn’t fully understand the Catholic doctrine of confession/reconciliation.

Yup, that’s the only fault Luther was exposed to, being ordained too quickly… hmmm.

You can tell by reading his thesis that he didn’t fully understand the Catholic doctrine? Are you sure you didn’t read it too quickly, or maybe just the first few and jump to a conclusion? In particular, did you notice item #7:
"7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest."

Michael

 

[Teflon93]

Oh, that’s right, it’s all Luther’s fault. No fault of the Catholic Church. Ever read what the Catechism has to say about it? What where the top ten on Luther’s list of complaints?

Yes I did.

Which list do you mean? Luther’s complaints changed daily. He was inconstant when not incoherent regarding his complaints.

So if someone raves that the Pope is the Antichrist and commissions pornographic engravings so that the illiterate could learn the same, as Luther did, the Pope is to blame?

This man was a PRIEST. If your pastor were to do what he did, would that not bother you?

 

[Teflon93]

Do you know as much about the abuses by Pope Alexander VI, as you know about Luther? What did he let happen to Friar Savonarola?

Are there any Catholics not familiar with the schismatic’s favorite Pope?

So now you’re arguing that Luther called for the murder of 100,000 German peasants because he was offended by Pope Alexander VI?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Mt 28 19_20:

Oh, that’s right, it’s all Luther’s fault. No fault of the Catholic Church.

Do you not read what is posted? I distinctly posted as one of the causes of the Reformation the following:
Ani Ibi:

• The plagues lowered the number of educated clergy.
• Corruption among some clergy exascerbated the need for discipline.
• Church/State boundaries became blurred./QUOTE]
  But that does not mean it that Luther had no fault in this. His hands were not clean. Your thinking is faulty dichotomy thinking: either/or. The Church doesn’t think like that. The Church thinks in both/and.

Mt 28 19_20:

Ever read what the Catechism has to say about it?

Yes. Have you ever read what history has to say about it? There were four other reasons listed, none of which had anything to do with the Church.
Mt 28 19_20:

What where the top ten on Luther’s list of complaints?

Red herring. Luther’s interest was political, not theological.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Mt 28 19_20:

No, I did not read the other links…

Then you really have nothing further to say, do you?
Mt 28 19_20:

When there’s that much finger pointing one way, and not accepting a fair share of the responsibility for the reformation, doesn’t seem like unbiased reading, and thus not likely to be enlightening.

Oh I agree wholeheartedly. That’s why I corrected you above.
Mt 28 19_20:

the man asked for reasoned discussion, and he got a lot of scatology.

Scatology? What man are you talking about? What profit is there for you in making innuendo rather than clear statements?
Mt 28 19_20:

Did anyone ever list the top 10 from Luther’s thesis?

Several times. I guess you didn’t read the thread either. A lot of commentary on very little reading!

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

And do you really think that “there are some who view” and “I think I read somewhere” qualify as evidence? Hint: no.

Well, I try to be careful with my words and didn’t want to waste my time looking up links. However, if it’s a doubting Thomas attitude, to show what I said was true, here you go:

helios.augustana.edu/~ew/des/illustrated-articles/su22.html
"In memory of Luther?s appearance at the Diet of Worms, April 17, 1521, when he refused to recant his writings on grounds of the Bible, an extensive monument was erected in that historic city located on the banks of the Rhine River. The monument consists of twelve statues of persons prominent in the Reformation and Humanistic movement of the 15th and 16th centuries. Rising like a tower, Luther stands in the center, holding the Bible and wearing a preacher?s garb. Foreunners of the Reformation movement are seated at his feet. They include John Wycliff from England, John Hus from the now Czech Republic, Petrus Waldus from France and Girolamo Savonarola from Italy.
This article deals with stations in the life of Savonarola from his place of birth in Ferrara to his entry into the Dominican Order in Bologna, to his activities at San Marco convent and fiery death in Florence. In front of the 14th century Palazzo Vecchio (city hall), near the center of the cobble stone square is a plaque commemorating the site where Savonarola and his followers Maruffi and Buonvicini were hanged and burned on May 23, 1498 when Luther was a 15-year-old boy.

My photograph on the cover of Giralamo Savonarola was taken in Ferrara, Italy, the birthplace of the great Reformer. The statue is located in front of the Estes Castle. Savonarola is dressed in the habit of a Dominican monk. The Latin inscription reads, “Jerome Savonarola, a prosecutor of vices and tyrants in corrupt and servile times”.

newadvent.org/cathen/13490a.htm
“The papal delegates, the general of the Dominicans and the Bishop of Ilerda were sent to Florence to attend the trial. The official proceedings, which were, however, falsified by the notary, still exist. The captured monks were tortured; Savonarola’s following in the city fell away. On 22 May, 1498, Savonarola and two other members of the order were condemned to death “on account of the enormous crimes of which they had been convicted”. They were hanged on 23 May and their bodies burned.”

“The erection of his statue at the foot of Luther’s monument at Worms as a reputed “forerunner of the Reformation” is entirely unwarranted.”

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Mt 28 19_20:

Yup, that’s the only fault Luther was exposed to, being ordained too quickly… hmmm.

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.
Mt 28 19_20:

You can tell by reading his thesis that he didn’t fully understand the Catholic doctrine?

If you are unclear as to what was posted, then why don’t you go back and read what was posted again and then you can tell us. OK?
Mt 28 19_20:

Are you sure you didn’t read it too quickly, or maybe just the first few and jump to a conclusion?

Is this your point of view? Your evidence maybe? What exactly are you trying to say?
Mt 28 19_20:

In particular, did you notice item #7: "7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest."

What is your point?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Yup, that’s the only fault Luther was exposed to, being ordained too quickly… hmmm.

You can tell by reading his thesis that he didn’t fully understand the Catholic doctrine? Are you sure you didn’t read it too quickly, or maybe just the first few and jump to a conclusion? In particular, did you notice item #7:
"7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest."

Michael

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.”

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Several times. I guess you didn’t read the thread either. A lot of commentary on very little reading!

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:”

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

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.”

Was he thinking of Romans 14:22-23? “The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.”

 

[Ani_Ibi]

…This man was a PRIEST. If your pastor were to do what he did, would that not bother you?

Ah! Methinks you have chanced upon an interesting thing. The fruit of the tree.

:newidea:

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Mt 28 19_20:

Well, I try to be careful with my words and didn’t want to waste my time looking up links.

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.
Mt 28 19_20:

However, if it’s a doubting Thomas attitude, to show what I said was true, here you go:
helios.augustana.edu/~ew/des/illustrated-articles/su22.html
“In memory …servile times”.

How does this relate to Luther’s complicity or non-complicity in secular politics?
Mt 28 19_20:

newadvent.org/cathen/13490a.htm
“The papal delegates…unwarranted.”

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