It’s insulting for any clergy, Protestant OR Catholic to talk like this.
The Reformation happened for actual reasons, and to suggest that it was simply some accident in history renders the actually issues at hand to mere trivia.
Obviously YMMV on what was right and what was wrong, but to suggest that the past 500 years of history is all because of a “misunderstanding” is asinine. Especially considering the amount of lives lost.
That is a good post. Are you familiar with the radid/radically leftist MIT linguist, Noam Chomsky? He plays a nasty little trick in similar situations. Nanely, in cases where he disagrees, he’ll argue that it’s all a matter of linguistics. In cases where he’s emotionally invested, he’ll paint his opponents as subhuman devils.
Example. Chompsky doesn’t believe in God. Therefore, any discussion about the existence of God is all semantics. I.e.: according to Chomsky, a Christian and an atheist could/would harmoniously agree on this subject, if only the ‘word,’ “God,” were properly defined. [This is just Chompsky’s way of sticking it to Christians.]
Otoh, being a fire-breathing, radical’s radical re the environment, Chomsky views anyone not on the hyper-ultra-uber Green bandwagon as of the devil. (Or would, if he believed in the devil.)
Anyway, that’s the thought I had when I read your post. Take it fwiw.
It’s insulting for any clergy, Protestant OR Catholic to talk like this. The Reformation happened for actual reasons, and to suggest that it was simply some accident in history renders the actually issues at hand to mere trivia. Obviously YMMV on what was right and what was wrong, but to suggest that the past 500 years of history is all because of a “misunderstanding” is asinine. Especially considering the amount of lives lost.
Indeed, yet,
The document was approved by Rome, which binds Catholics whether they like it or not; the Lutherans are made up of about 100 churches, and there were about 37 who didn’t, back then, sign up to it. Some have come into line since.