That is, of course, wrong when it happens; however, I am skeptical that you correctly discern the nuances of any posted opinion every time you see one.
Protestant antinomianism is a logical inference from the antinomianism of the "new testament" and the church fathers.
Indeed the Church teaches that the mechanical and legalistic reading of the revealed law is incorrect; neither should the commandment to multiply and fill the earth be taken legalistically. It is in fact part of the apostasy of both rabbinical Judaism and Protestantism to view the Divine Revelation in legal terms. It is of course, wrong to accuse Protestants of antinomianism; if my original post created that impression, I haste to correct it. To wit:
Christian obligation is not to check off paragraphs in an instruction manual, -- for that is how Protestantism views the Holy Scripture, but rather nurture, through the sacraments that the Mother Church gives us, an internal and pure love of God, who was killed by his enemies out of His love for us. It is that failure to understand marriage as a sacramental work of love directed at mutual salvation of the spouses that leads to the modernist error and the perversion of marriage, -- which both the rabbis and the Protestant pastors share. But antinomian they are not.
any insistence that Revelation trumps "science" is met with accusations of "Protestantism."
That is, of course, wrong when it happens; however, I am skeptical that you correctly discern the nuances of any posted opinion every time you see one.
Go to a Catholic forum, even a "traditional" one. Or read the comments posted at the ends of articles on traditional Catholic web pages (such as the page whose criticism of Pope Francis was posted a couple months ago). There you will see people who advocate a return to the Middle Ages who complain that fighting evolution is an unnecessary fight that distracts from re-instating the "social kingdom of J*sus." And you will read accusations of "Protestant" almost constantly, along with "that's a Protestant thing; it doesn't concern us."
I've noticed that there are two types of FR Catholics: those who are raving, fanatical evolutionists/higher critics, and those who are not but who never provide a counterpart to their higher critical brethren. Why don't they? If it is still permitted to interpret the first eleven chapters of Genesis as historically true and if there are Catholic FReepers who do this, why do they never say anything? Fear of being labeled a Protestant? Or because Genesis 1-11 is a "Protestant thing that has nothing to do with us?"
Just why is Genesis 1-11 so uniquely "unimportant?" Is there anything in Genesis 1-11 that actually teaches Protestantism or damages Catholic dogma? So what's the deal?
I mean it. What's the deal?
Indeed the Church teaches that the mechanical and legalistic reading of the revealed law is incorrect; neither should the commandment to multiply and fill the earth be taken legalistically. It is in fact part of the apostasy of both rabbinical Judaism and Protestantism to view the Divine Revelation in legal terms.
Actually, the Roman/Latin chrstian worldview is extremely legalistic, as it has been influenced by pre-chrstian Roman legalism. Legalism is actually something the Latins and Hebrews have in common (what they disagree on is whether it is the Biblical or a post-Biblical legal code that should be followed). Contrast this with the Eastern Orthodox model, which is more "medical" (the church is a hospital in which chrstians live out their lives undergoing treatment for their spiritual diseases). The idea of the chrstian legal/ceremonial/ritual system as treatment clashes with the Latin view of it as the "new commandments" of the "new law."
Christian obligation is not to check off paragraphs in an instruction manual, -- for that is how Protestantism views the Holy Scripture
I can't answer for Protestantism, but Rabbinic Judaism most assuredly does not regard the Written Torah as a "checkoff list." Jews are just as aware as Catholics that the Torah is not "systematically" organized. However, it was still written in its entirety by G-d and dictated to Moses letter-for-letter, and it says exactly what it is meant to say.
Many of the Commandments are only alluded to in the Scriptures, some of them barely at all. But the Jewish Written and Oral Torahs exist as an organic whole and have since Mt. Sinai. The Jewish Scriptures contain nothing but consonants--no vowels, no punctuation, no trope. These three things come from the Oral Torah. In other words, the Written Torah has the consonants, the Oral Torah has the vowels. Thus without the Oral Torah (also given to Moses at Sinai) the Written Torah couldn't even be read! We wouldn't know for sure what the actual words were! The Written Torah is the keyhole and the Oral Torah is the key.
Contrast this with the Catholic/Orthodox churches whose "written bible" is based on (and assumes the correctness of) the vocalization and punctuation which Jewish Oral Tradition assigns to the original texts which those churches translate. The chrstian bible blends the key and the keyhole into a single thing, so the only way to defend oral tradition in chrstianity is to denigrate the written bible. Because the Oral Law is absolutely essential in even making out the very words the Written Torah contains, there is no need in Judaism to "defend" it by denigrating the Scriptures. This is something only the authentic possessors and explicators of Torah can say.
but rather nurture, through the sacraments that the Mother Church gives us, an internal and pure love of God, who was killed by his enemies out of His love for us.
The Protestant concept of the crucifixion is simple and easy to understand: J*sus on the cross experienced a vicarious damnation on the behalf of every individual so that the person who accepts this is "saved" and has no need to a ritual/ceremonial system of any kind. The Catholic/Orthodox have no single simple understanding of any kind (explanations run the gamut from "christus victor" to Anselm's "satisfaction theory" to the idea of a "ransom" payed to the Devil to the "mouse trap" theory), none of which make any sense whatsoever. No Protestant will ever understand why the death of Chr*st does not in and of itself "save" the individual without the need of any intermediaries or rituals. Jews will never understand what this conversation is about because Torah Judaism is a simple statutory religion with none of the never-ending complications about "salvation." Judaism and Protestantism are on opposite sides of the spectrum, but both are internally consistent. Liturgical chrstianity is indeed historically the "authentic" form of chrstianity, but that doesn't change the fact that it is riddled with internal inconsistencies which is illustrated by the fact that Catholics/Orthodox preach "Judaism" to the Protestants ("you have to perform works!") and "Protestantism" to the Jews ("J*sus died for your sins! You can stop doing all that stuff!")
I was devastated when I first learned that historical chrstianity never taught that J*sus "took my place in hell" so that I would never go there. The chrstian religion simply makes no sense apart from this Protestant understanding, however recent and unauthentic it is. Actually, I think I have finally figured out what the death of J*sus actually accomplished: it gave some people an excuse to start a new religion!
It is that failure to understand marriage as a sacramental work of love directed at mutual salvation of the spouses that leads to the modernist error
Confront evolution and the documentary hypothesis before you talk to me about "modernist error."