[polemikos]

It is inaccurate to assign to apostate churches, such as the Episcopal Church, USA, the doctrines of the Reformation because they have abandoned them.

Really? I thought sola scriptura, being perhaps the key foundational doctrine of the Protestants, is just as important to these apostate movements. Both rely on the same foundational principle.

If you were to carry your concept to the next level, Roman Catholicism could be blamed for the problems of liberal "Protestant" churches because they derive from churches and clergymen that once recognized Papal authority

Two different and mutually exclusive principles. The argument is fallacious.

The primary enemy of the Catholic Church and of all orthodox Christianity is secular humanism in all its guises. Its roots go back to the Enlightenment, which was in part a reaction to both the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-reformation.

"The spirit of lawlessness came in with the Reformation, and Liberalism is its offspring."
- John Henry Cardinal Newman

One can dwell on Protestant horror stories...the bottom line is that these 16th and 17th Century conflicts are basically irrelevant

I agree totally. Why did you bring them up?

[Wallace T.]

Both (Protestants and apostates) rely on the same foundational principle.

The conservative Protestant, or evangelical, churches hold to sola Scriptura, which is to say that tbe Bible, which is the inerrant and infallible Word of God, is the only authority over matters of faith. The apostate churches reject the divine inspiration and authority of Scripture. At most, it is an fallible source of human wisdom to them. Sola Scriptura is the antithesis of "No Scripture."

Two different and mutually exclusive principles (the bases for the 16th Century Protestant-Catholic split and the 20th Century split between liberals and evangelical Protestants).

The basis for the 16th Century Protestant-Catholic split was the primacy of the Magisterium vs. that of Scripture alone. The 20th Century liberal apostate/evangelical Protestant split was predicated on the issue of humanism and rationalism vs. Scripture alone. The principles are different for the Catholics and the liberals, but the same for both the Reformers and their evangelical heirs: sola Scriptura. The purpose for this analogy was to show the fallacy of some Catholics in blaming the Reformation for secular humanism, inasmuch as some Eastern Orthodox blame Catholics for the rise of secular humanism by deviating from their twin pillars of Scripture and tradition by exalting the Papal role in matters of faith and morals.

"The spirit of lawlessness came in with the Reformation, and Liberalism is its offspring."

Cardinal Newman is incorrect in this instance. Were the Reformation the cause of lawlessness, why did the most horrifying expressions of anticlerical and Marxist tyranny and persecution of Christians occur in nations unaffected by or purged of Protestant influences: France, Spain, Mexico, Russia? By and large, the lands that were dominated by Protestantism developed into nations with representative governments, a high degree of individual freedom, and free market economies: the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, and the Scandinavian countries. Only in the last century, with the rise of secular humanism and the abandonment of orthodox Christianity in the mainline Protestant churches, did these nations slide into statism.

Why did you bring them (revival of old Catholic vs. Protestant divisions) up?

Traditionalist Catholics and conservative Protestants (evangelicals) should not be making accusations of each other's faith, especially when the accusations are untrue. All orthodox Christians and others of good will should keep their eye on the prize: the defeat of secular humanism in its several manifestations. Divide and conquer or unite and rule.