You wrote:
“Vladimir, I think it’s great and vital that everyone, like you, digs as deeply as possible into the history of Christendom—but I hope people do so with as healthy a skepticism and with as little bias as possible.”
Either Calvin said what you claimed or he didn’t. He didn’t. My skepticism, therefore, is with you and not with Calvin’s quotes.
“Even I, as an ex-Catholic, will admit that the Reformation had flaws and that some of my own favorite theologians were not without error or mistakes in judgment particularly with regard to some of the physical, vengeful actions taken against Catholics. By the same token, I will give Catholics credit where it’s due in terms of the contributions some of its members have made to important developments in theological thought—St. Augustine for example , who was among Calvin’s greatest influences, or THomas Aquinas’ Just War Theory.”
I understand, although I think your statement is inherently illogical. If St. Augustine is worthy of your respect, and Calvin’s, and yet he was a Catholic, as you admit, then where was Reformed theology? Doesn’t that just lend credence to the idea that Protestant thought was not the original Christianity?
*”As for the Catholic system being based on purgatory: Yes. It was.”
No, it was not.
“You are denying plain history to say otherwise.”
No, I am not denying history in the least - and history I know very well.
“I went to Catholic school my whole life and even as a committed Opus Dei, traditionalist Catholic, I had to admit that the period of papal indulgence scandals—which involved forcing even the poorest of people to pay money to the Church in exchange for a false remission of sins or less time in Purgatory—when in fact the money was paying for corrupt popes’ own luxurious lifestyles and massive buildling projects—was one of the most shameful dents in Roman Church Abuse History.”
The above statement contains the following errors:
1) Your experiences tell us nothing about Catholic theology for no matter how Catholic you claim to have been, I neither have any proof of those claims, nor do I see any reason to believe them because of your errors.
2) No one was EVER forced to buy an indulgence.
3) Donations were made for indulgences of a certain kind. They were never to be sold and any such sales violated canon law.
4) If someone was poor, he could receive the indulgence without a donation of any kind - as is expressly shown in the authorization letter to Johann Tetzel from Archbishop Albrecht. In other words, if someone could not make a donation, he got the indulgence anyway.
“That being said, Purgatory is not a myth simply because of how its been used by Rome to take advantage of people.”
There is no way to take advantage of people with Purgatory. Logically it is not anymore possible to take advantage of people with Purgatory than it is anything else. Notice how you do not document a single case of the Church actually taking advantage of anyone in this regard? No one?!
“It’s a myth because it is blatantly unBiblical and completely contradicts Christ’s most basic and clearest teachings on eternal judgment as laid out in the Gospels.”
Completely incorrect. The existence of Purgatory in no way effects eternal judgment. Since it cannot effect eternal judgment in any way, shape or form it cannot contradict Christ’s teachings about the same.
“It is arguably the most dangerous doctrine Rome teaches and is a worse deviation from the Word than any teaching it may have on Mary.”
It is not in the least dangerous, nor do you even attempt to demonstrate how it is so. Gee, I wonder why?
“The desperate efforts I observed Catholics (some who are notable Ex-Protestants) making to defend Purgatory on Biblical grounds was the last straw before my permanent departure from Rome.”
Your claimed “departure from Rome” may have happened for many reasons, but I don’t care what they are in this regard. I have no reason to believe you are a reasonable judge of these things.
“As basic and elementary as this sounds, my thought was simple: “Jesus wanted to save souls. Jesus talked about hell more than anyone in the Bible. He always talked about two paths. Two roads. Two ways. To destinations. In matters of eternal judgment, Jesus would not dare leave anything vague. He would have mentioned Purgatory plain and clear, considering the weight of the matter with regard to the state of our souls and our eternal destination.””
Jesus sent the Church to teach. Jesus did not teach about many things clearly. He never once taught clearly about the Trinity, nor did He ever use that word. He never once taught clearly about the later inspiration of scripture. He used parables not to make sure everyone understood, but because he knew many people would NOT understand.
“John Calvin did establish very clearly that he thought the idea of Mary being a perpetual virgin was unfounded.”
Show me the text that says that. I would not find it shocking that he did such a thing, but so far you have utterly failed to provide a single scrap of evidence for it.
“He merely challenged the idea that she had as many children as some had overestimated, not that she did not have other children at all:”
You post the same quote again, and it still doesn’t say what you claim. No where in the quote does Calvin say Mary’s Perpetual Virginity was UNTRUE.
Example. You cite:
Calvin: “that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd.”
He is saying the vow idea is absurd. He is NOT saying that she was a perpetual virgin.