John Henry Newman was one of the more famous converts to Catholicism. After studying the Early Fathers he wrote: "The Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth it is this, and Protestantism has ever felt it so; to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant" (An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine).
However, if members of the other confession being spoken for here consider the statements to be false, incomplete, strawmen arguments and the like – then the thread should be open for rebuttal.
For instance, if a Protestant Caucus article were to say that Cardinal Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict, that is a simple statement of fact which should not open the thread for rebuttal. If however the article said, “Pope Benedict’s said x.” – then the members of the Catholic confession have cause to be concerned. And if the statement were false, incomplete, a strawman argument or whatever – that thread likewise should be open for rebuttal.
So the bottom line here is whether the above statements are uncontestable factual statements or not. What say you?
RM: ...if members of the other confession being spoken for here consider the statements to be false, incomplete, strawmen arguments and the like – then the thread should be open for rebuttal.
Ahem. The whole paragraph you posted is a perfect example of false, incomplete, and strawmen arguments. There's a reason the Reformation was called the Reformation, and not the Restoration (as the Cambellites dubbed their 19th century movement). The "caucus" designation needs to come off.
Then no thread can ever really be a 'caucus' thread, as FACTS alone never exist in a post. Certainly both you quote are factual, although the first is incomplete.
I would say they are not iron cast fact facts, but opinions of the author regarding another confession. Since the post repeatedly mentions Proddies by name the thread should be open to Proddies.
It's the equivalent of the convention on FR that if you mention a poster, you ping the poster. I'm not saying they should ping us, but they shouldn't be able to talk about us without us being able to throw our 00.2 cents in....
God exists. Is that an uncontestable factual statement?
I've been away from the thread for several hours and only just found your post. You quote the above:
John Henry Newman was one of the more famous converts to Catholicism. After studying the Early Fathers he wrote: "The Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth it is this, and Protestantism has ever felt it so; to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant" (An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)
The Essay fills an entire book. He is a well respected theologian from both the Protestant and Catholic 'confessions'. This was not a random thought but one that developed over many years of study. His conversion to the Catholic Church resulted in the loss of great prestige and many friends. One does not take such risks lightly.
This thread will be followed by a series of others, all of which quote the Early Church Fathers, with no commentary. I believe these threads should stand, as 'Catholic Caucus' threads.
That is hardly accurate.
Protestantism is based on theological error. The corruption that opened eyes was Middle Age corruption. The indulgence controversy was shown to have legs by the RC deciding to change their ways. Apparently, once that rock was overturned and corruption was discovered, there were many who saw corruption elsewhere in church history.
But the crux of the indulgence controversy was not about corruption, it was about theological error. The very notion that one could buy and sell forgiveness was contrary to so much scriptural doctrine that it's hard to list it all.
It took Luther some 95 points. :>)