Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
Locked on 04/14/2014 6:31:52 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:

Lunar eclipse tonight.



Skip to comments.

Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain! Catholic History and the Emerald City Protocol
reformation21 ^ | April 2012 | Carl Trueman

Posted on 04/05/2014 5:57:23 AM PDT by Gamecock

Full Title: Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain! Roman Catholic History and the Emerald City Protocol

In the field of Reformation studies, Professor Brad Gregory is somebody for whom I have immense respect.  Those outside the discipline of history are possibly unaware of the ravages which postmodernism brought in its wake, making all narratives negotiable and fuelling a rise in interest in all manner of trivia and marginal weirdness.  Dr. Gregory is trained in both philosophy and history and has done much to place the self-understanding of human agents back at the centre of historical analysis.  Thus, for those of us interested in the Reformation, he has also played an important role in placing religion back into the discussion.  For that, I and many others owe him a great debt of gratitude.

I therefore find myself in the odd and uncomfortable position of writing a very critical review of his latest book, The Unintended Reformation (Belknap Harvard, 2011). The book itself is undoubtedly well-written and deeply learned, with nearly a third of the text devoted to endnotes.  It is brilliant in its scope and execution, addressing issues of philosophy, politics and economics.  Anyone wanting a panoramic view of the individuals, the institutions and the forces which shaped early modern Europe should read this work. Yet for all of its brilliance, the book does not demonstrate its central thesis, that Protestantism must shoulder most of the responsibility for the various things which Dr. Gregory dislikes about modern Western society, from its exaltation of the scientific paradigm to its consumerism to its secular view of knowledge and even to global warming. I am sympathetic with many of Dr. Gregory's gripes about the world of today; but in naming Protestantism as the primary culprit he engages in a rather arbitrary blame game.

Dr. Gregory's book contains arguments about both metaphysics and what we might call empirical social realities. On the grounds that debates about metaphysics, like games of chess, can be great fun for the participants but less than thrilling for the spectators, I will post my thoughts on that aspect of the book in a separate blog entry. In this article, I will focus on the Papacy, persecution and the role of the printing press.  This piece is more of a medieval jousting tournament than a chess game and will, I trust, provide the audience with better spectator sport.

One final preliminary comment: I am confident that my previous writings on Roman Catholicism and Roman Catholics indicate that I am no reincarnation of a nineteenth century 'No popery!' rabble-rouser. I have always tried to write with respect and forbearance on such matters, to the extent that I have even been berated at times by other, hotter sorts of Protestants for being too pacific. In what follows, however, I am deliberately combative.  This is not because I wish to show disrespect to Dr. Gregory or to his Church or to his beliefs; but he has set the tone by writing a very combative book. I like that. I like writers who believe and care about the big questions of life. But here is the rub: those who write in such a way must allow those who respond to them to believe with equal passion in their chosen cause and to care about it deeply and thus to be equally combative in their rejoinders.

A key part of the book's argument is the apparent anarchy created by the Protestant emphasis on the perspicuity of scripture. In this, Dr. Gregory stands with his Notre Dame colleague, Christian Smith, as seeing this as perhaps the single weakest point of Protestantism. He also rejects any attempt to restrict Protestantism to the major confessional traditions (Reformed, Anglican and Lutheran) as he argues that such a restriction would create an artificial delimitation of Protestant diversity. Instead, he insists on also including those groups which scholars typically call radical reformers (essentially all other non-Roman Christian sects which have their origins in the turn to scripture of the Reformation). This creates a very diverse and indeed chaotic picture of Protestantism such that no unifying doctrinal synthesis is possible as a means of categorizing the whole.  

I wonder if I am alone in finding the more stridently confident comments of some Roman Catholics over the issue of perspicuity to be somewhat tiresome and rather overblown. Perspicuity was, after all, a response to a position that had proved to be a failure: the Papacy.  Thus, to criticize it while proposing nothing better than a return to that which had proved so inadequate is scarcely a compelling argument.

Yes, it is true that Protestant interpretive diversity is an empirical fact; but when it comes to selectivity in historical reading as a means of creating a false impression of stability, Roman Catholic approaches to the Papacy provide some excellent examples of such fallacious method.  The ability to ignore or simply dismiss as irrelevant the empirical facts of papal history is quite an impressive feat of historical and theological selectivity. Thus, as all sides need to face empirical facts and the challenges they raise, here are a few we might want to consider, along with what seem to me (as a Protestant outsider) to be the usual Roman Catholic responses:

Empirical fact: The Papacy as an authoritative institution was not there in the early centuries. 
Never mind.  Put together a doctrine of development whereby Christians - or at least some of them, those of whom we choose to approve in retrospect on the grounds we agree with what they say  - eventually come to see the Pope as uniquely authoritative.  

Empirical fact: The Papacy was corrupt in the later Middle Ages, building its power and status on political antics, forged documents and other similar scams. 
Ignore it, excuse it as a momentary aberration and perhaps, if pressed, even offer a quick apology. Then move swiftly on to assure everyone it is all sorted out now and start talking about John Paul II or Benedict XVI.  Whatever you do, there is no need to allow this fact to have any significance for how one understands the theory of papal power in the abstract or in the present.  

Empirical fact: The Papacy was in such a mess at the beginning of the fifteenth century that it needed a council to decide who of the multiple claimants to Peter's seat was the legitimate pope.  
Again, this was merely a momentary aberration but it has no significance for the understanding of papal authority.  After all, it was so long ago and so far away.

Empirical fact: The church failed (once again) to put its administrative, pastoral, moral and doctrinal house in order at the Fifth Lateran Council at the start of the sixteenth century.  
Forget it.  Emphasise instead the vibrant piety of the late medieval church and then blame the ungodly Protestants for their inexplicable protests and thus for the collapse of the medieval social, political and theological structure of Europe.  

Perhaps it is somewhat aggressive to pose these points in such a blunt form. Again, I intend no disrespect but am simply responding with the same forthrightness with which certain writers speak of Protestantism. The problem here is that the context for the Reformation - the failure of the papal system to reform itself, a failure in itself lethal to notions of papal power and authority - seems to have been forgotten in all of the recent aggressive attacks on scriptural perspicuity.  These are all empirical facts and they are all routinely excused, dismissed or simply ignored by Roman Catholic writers. Perspicuity was not the original problem; it was intended as the answer.   One can believe it to be an incorrect, incoherent, inadequate answer; but then one must come up with something better - not simply act as if shouting the original problem louder will make everything all right. Such an approach to history and theology is what I call the Emerald City protocol: when defending the great and powerful Oz, one must simply pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.  

Given the above empirical facts, the medieval Papacy surely has chronological priority over any of the alleged shortcomings of scriptural perspicuity in the history of abject ecclesiastical and theological disasters. To be fair, Dr. Gregory does acknowledge that 'medieval Christendom' was a failure (p. 365) but in choosing such a term he sidesteps the significance of the events of the late medieval period for papal authority. The failure of medieval Christendom was the failure of the Papacy. To say medieval Christendom failed but then to allow such a statement no real ecclesiastical significance is merely an act of throat-clearing before going after the people, the Protestants, who frankly are in the crosshairs simply because it appears one finds them and their sects distasteful. Again, to be fair, one cannot blame Roman Catholics for disliking Protestants: our very existence bears testimony to Roman Catholicism's failure. But that Roman Catholics who know their history apparently believe the Papacy now works just fine seems as arbitrary and selective a theological and historical move as any confessionally driven restriction of what is and is not legitimate Protestantism.  

As Dr. Gregory brings his narrative up to the present, I will do the same. There are things which can be conveniently ignored by North American Roman Catholic intellectuals because they take place in distant lands. Yet many of these are emblematic of contemporary Roman Catholicism in the wider world. Such, for example, are the bits of the real cross and vials of Jesus' blood which continue to be displayed in certain churches, the cult of Padre Pio and the relics of Anthony of Padua and the like (both of whom edged out Jesus and the Virgin Mary in a poll as to who was the most prayed to figure in Italian Catholicism). We Protestants may appear hopelessly confused to the latest generation of North American Roman Catholic polemicists, but at least my own little group of Presbyterian schismatics does not promote the veneration of mountebank stigmatics or the virtues of snake-oil.

Still, for the sake of argument let us accept the fideistic notion that the events of the later Middle Ages do not shatter the theology underlying the Papacy.  What therefore of Roman Catholic theological unity and papal authority today? That is not too rosy either, I am afraid.  The Roman Catholic Church's teaching on birth control is routinely ignored by vast swathes of the laity with absolute impunity; Roman Catholic politicians have been in the vanguard of liberalizing abortion laws and yet still been welcome at Mass and at high table with church dignitaries; leading theologians cannot agree on exactly what papal infallibility means; and there is not even consensus on the meaning and significance of Vatican II relative to previous church teaching. Such a Church is as chaotic and anarchic as anything Protestantism has thrown up. 

Further, if Dr. Gregory wants to include as part of his general concept of Protestantism any and all sixteenth century lunatics who ever claimed the Bible alone as sole authority and thence to draw conclusions about the plausibility of the perspicuity of scripture, then it seems reasonable to insist in response that discussions of Roman Catholicism include not simply the Newmans, Ratzingers and Wotjylas but also the Kungs, Rahners, Schillebeeckxs and the journalists at the National Catholic Reporter.  And why stop there?  We should also throw in the sedevacantists and Lefebvrists for good measure.  They all claim to be good Roman Catholics and find their unity around the Office of the Pope, after all. Let us not exclude them on the dubious grounds that they do not support our own preconceived conclusions of how papal authority should work.  At least Protestantism has the integrity to wear its chaotic divisions on its sleeve.

Moving on from the issue of authority, we find that Dr. Gregory also argues that religious persecution is a poisonous result of the confessionalisation of Europe into warring religious factions. Certainly, the bloodshed along confessional lines in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was terrible, but doctrinal disagreements did not begin with the Reformation. The New Testament makes it clear that serious doctrinal conflict existed within the church even during apostolic times (I hope I am allowed, for the sake of argument, to assume that the New Testament is perspicuous enough for me to state that with a degree of confidence); and the link between church and state which provided the context for bloodshed over matters of theological deviancy was established from at least the time of Priscillian in the late fourth century. It was hardly a Protestant or even a Reformation innovation.

When it comes to the empirical facts of Catholic persecution, Dr. Gregory only mentions the Inquisition twice. That is remarkably light coverage given its rather stellar track record in all that embarrassing auto da fe business. Moreover, he mentions it first only in a Reformation/post-Reformation context. Yet Roman Catholic persecution of those considered deviants was not simply or even primarily a response to Reformation Protestantism but a well-established pattern in the Middle Ages. No doubt the Spanish Jews and Muslims, the Cathars, the Albigensians, the Lollards, the Hussites and many other religious deviants living before the establishment of any Protestant state might have wished that their sufferings had received a more substantial role in the narrative and more significance in the general thesis. Sure, Protestantism broke the Roman Catholic monopoly on persecution and thus played a shameful and ignominious part in its escalation; but it did not establish the precedents, legally, culturally or practically.

Finally, the great lacuna in this book is the printing press. Dr. Gregory has, as I noted above, done brilliant work in putting self-understanding back on the historical agenda and thus of grounding the history of ideas in historical realities rather than metaphysical abstractions. The danger with this, however, is that material factors can come to be somewhat neglected. His thesis - that Protestantism shattered the unified nature and coherence of knowledge and paved the way for its secularization - does not take into account the impact of the easy availability of print. The printed book changed everything: it fuelled literacy rates and it expanded the potential for diversity of opinion. I suspect there is a very plausible alternative, or at least supplementary, narrative to the 'Protestantism shattered the unified nature and coherence of knowledge' thesis: the printing press did it because it made impossible the Church's control of the nature, range, flow and availability of knowledge.

Ironically, the printing press is one of the great success stories of pre-Reformation Catholic Europe. One might argue that it was a technological innovation and thus not particularly 'Catholic' in that sense. That is true; but for some years after it was invented it was unclear whether it would be successful enough to replace medieval book production. In fact, its success was significantly helped by the brisk fifteenth century trade in printed breviaries and missals and the indulgences produced to fund war against the Ottomans. In other words, it was the vibrancy of late medieval Catholic piety, of which Dr. Gregory makes much, that ensured the future of the printing press and thereby the shipwrecking of the old, stable forms of knowledge.

The Roman Catholic Church knew the danger presented by the easy transmission of, and access to, knowledge which the printing press provided. That is why it was so assiduous in burning books in the sixteenth century and why the Index of Prohibited Books remained in place until the 1960s. I well remember being amazed when reading the autobiography of the analytic philosopher and one-time priest, Sir Anthony Kenny, that he had had to obtain special permission from the Church to read David Hume for his doctoral research in the 1950s. At the start of the twenty-first century, Rome may present herself as the friend of engaged religious intellectuals in North America but she took an embarrassingly long time even to allow her people free access to the most basic books of modern Western thought. Women in Britain had the vote, Elvis (in my humble opinion) had already done his best work and The Beatles and The Rolling Stones were starting to churn out hits before Roman Catholics were free to read David Hume without specific permission from the Church.   

Of course, Dr. Gregory knows about the Index; but he seems to see it as a response to Protestantism, not as an extension of the Church's typical manner of handling deviation from its central tenets and practices which stretched back well before the Reformation. And therein lies the ironic, tragic, perplexing flaw of this brilliant and learned book: Dr. Gregory sets out to prove that Protestantism is the source of all, or at least many, of the modern world's ills; but what he actually does is demonstrate in painstaking and compelling detail that medieval Catholicism and the Papacy with which it was inextricably bound up were ultimately inadequate to the task which they set - which they claimed! - for themselves.  Reformation Protestantism, if I can use the singular, was one response to this failure, as conciliarism had been a hundred years before.  One can dispute the adequacy of such responses; but only by an act of historical denial can one dispute the fact that it was the Papacy which failed.

Thanks to the death of medieval Christendom and to the havoc caused by the Reformation and beyond, Dr Gregory is today free to believe (or not) that Protestantism is an utter failure.  Thanks to the printing press, he is also free to express this in a public form. Thanks to the modern world which grew as a response to the failure of Roman Catholicism, he is also free to choose his own solution to the problems of modernity without fear of rack or rope. Yet, having said all that, I for one find it strange indeed that someone would choose as the solution that which was actually the problem in the first place.



TOPICS: General Discusssion; History
KEYWORDS: hornetsnest
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 1,441-1,459 next last
To: LurkingSince'98
Well not as stupid an analogy, not as bad a premise, not as big a Red Herring and not as anti-Catholic as that tripe your peddling about the Medici popes.

Better switch majors; if history causes you so much grief.

121 posted on 04/06/2014 1:24:43 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon

Remember when trucks used to have a chain dangling from the chassis to the ground to drain off the static build up that was caused by the rubber compound in the tires?

That’s been years ago.

I guess the newer formulation of rubber has conductive material in it, eliminating that problem.


122 posted on 04/06/2014 1:27:43 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon

https://www.google.com/search?q=trucks+used+to+have+a+chain+dangling+from+the+chassis+to+the+ground&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7ADRA_enUS475


123 posted on 04/06/2014 1:29:44 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: LurkingSince'98
But they are Elsie’s forebears, not mine.

Are you SURE this is the road to Rome??

One more "Are we there yet?" and you'll be gettin' the RACK when we DO get there!

124 posted on 04/06/2014 1:34:32 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: LurkingSince'98
You know - you are speaking about the Christ and His Mother.

No; he was talking about your little plastic idols icons that your chosen religious organization approves of.

125 posted on 04/06/2014 1:35:54 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: LurkingSince'98
Right so if I had a picture of your mother and father it would be OK for me to spit on it because after all it is just a picture of them ‘with no power or soul’.

I guess the Muslims get their umbrage honestly when someone disses THEIR Prophet (PBUH).

126 posted on 04/06/2014 1:38:20 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon
It's not "bashing" when holy warriors do it. They may get time off from Purgatory?

Some people just like to live in the past...



127 posted on 04/06/2014 1:43:57 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
Empirical fact: The Papacy as an authoritative institution was not there in the early centuries.

That's a bit misleading. The "Papacy" wasn't established, but authority was. There were no early Church without authority.

128 posted on 04/06/2014 1:51:25 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LurkingSince'98
For the Greater Glory of God


129 posted on 04/06/2014 2:22:06 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: LurkingSince'98

Good Lord! I just got up to feed the baby and scrolled through. The personal attacks I flagged were not deleted by the mod! Gosh, I wonder why? Also, I’m beginning to think that all the anti-Catholics for the last 50 posts are actually the same person with different FReeper handles. That person is also probably the mod.


130 posted on 04/06/2014 3:39:25 AM PDT by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Notwithstanding the sins of some Catholics, do you realize that Martin Luther wrote the fundamental antisemitic treatise with language that was the foundation of German antisemitism leading to the murder of 6 million Jews ? And what of the lawyer John Calvin, who has the blood of Michael Servetus on his hands ? after he [Servetus] had been recognized, I thought he should be detained. My friend Nicolas summoned him on a capital charge, offering himself as a security according to the lex talionis. On the following day he adduced against him forty written charges. He at first sought to evade them. Accordingly we were summoned. He impudently reviled me, just as if he regarded me as obnoxious to him. I answered him as he deserved... of the man’s effrontery I will say nothing; but such was his madness that he did not hesitate to say that devils possessed divinity; yea, that many gods were in individual devils, inasmuch as a deity had been substantially communicated to those equally with wood and stone. I hope that sentence of death will at least be passed on him; but I desired that the severity of the punishment be mitigated.[31]

And need we explore the atrocities of the first Protestant, Henry VIII and his ministers ?

or Oliver Cromwell ?

131 posted on 04/06/2014 4:00:14 AM PDT by af_vet_1981 (The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: LurkingSince'98
I am not interested in the least in what you think.

Which is consistent with others who expect their posts to go unchallenged, and or then place their head in the sands of Roman propaganda rather than considering what exposes the fallacious nature of many RC teachings and or arguments made for them.

132 posted on 04/06/2014 4:30:34 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
ne final preliminary comment: I am confident that my previous writings on Roman Catholicism and Roman Catholics indicate that I am no reincarnation of a nineteenth century 'No popery!' rabble-rouser. I have always tried to write with respect and forbearance on such matters, to the extent that I have even been berated at times by other, hotter sorts of Protestants for being too pacific.

Irrelevant to many RCs which, like homosexual activists, if you do not sing the praises of Rome as the One True Church®, and challenge her propaganda, then you are labeled as a bitter exCatholic, and thus any substantiation you provide is biased or false and dismissed.

He also rejects any attempt to restrict Protestantism to the major confessional traditions (Reformed, Anglican and Lutheran) as he argues that such a restriction would create an artificial delimitation of Protestant diversity. Instead, he insists on also including those groups which scholars typically call radical reformers (essentially all other non-Roman Christian sects which have their origins in the turn to scripture of the Reformation).

Of course. While RCs attempt to dismiss as CINOs the majority of her members, which Rome treats as members in life and in death, they insist on including as Prots those who deny both basic Truths we both hold in common, as well as critical Prot. distinctives such as Scripture being wholly inspired of God, and the supremacy of Scripture (the Bible), versus sola ecclesia which Rome and cults effectively operate out of.

..it is true that Protestant interpretive diversity is an empirical fact; but when it comes to selectivity in historical reading as a means of creating a false impression of stability, Roman Catholic approaches to the Papacy provide some excellent examples of such fallacious method.

Indeed, which even RC scholarship among others testifies to .

Empirical fact: The Papacy as an authoritative institution was not there in the early centuries.

Empirical fact: The Papacy was corrupt in the later Middle Ages, building its power and status on political antics, forged documents and other similar scams.

Empirical fact: The Papacy was in such a mess at the beginning of the fifteenth century that it needed a council to decide who of the multiple claimants to Peter's seat was the legitimate pope.

Empirical fact: The church failed (once again) to put its administrative, pastoral, moral and doctrinal house in order at the Fifth Lateran Council at the start of the sixteenth century.

The problem here is that the context for the Reformation - the failure of the papal system to reform itself, a failure in itself lethal to notions of papal power and authority - seems to have been forgotten in all of the recent aggressive attacks on scriptural perspicuity.

But from a now resigned pope, we had this acknowledgement:

"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.

It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. — Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196 ).

And from the CE:

..."one pope (Gregory XII) had voluntarily abdicated; another (John XXIII) had been suspended and then deposed, but had submitted in canonical form; the third claimant (Benedict XIII) was cut off from the body of the Church, "a pope without a Church, a shepherd without a flock" (Hergenröther-Kirsch). It had come about that, whichever of the three claimants of the papacy was the legitimate successor of Peter, there reigned throughout the Church a universal uncertainty and an intolerable confusion, so that saints and scholars and upright souls were to be found in all three obediences. On the principle that a doubtful pope is no pope, the Apostolic See appeared really vacant, and under the circumstances could not possibly be otherwise filled than by the action of a general council." - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04288a.htm

What therefore of Roman Catholic theological unity and papal authority today? That is not too rosy either, I am afraid. The Roman Catholic Church's teaching on birth control is routinely ignored by vast swathes of the laity with absolute impunity; Roman Catholic politicians have been in the vanguard of liberalizing abortion laws and yet still been welcome at Mass and at high table with church dignitaries; leading theologians cannot agree on exactly what papal infallibility means; and there is not even consensus on the meaning and significance of Vatican II relative to previous church teaching.

And as what you do and effect constitutes what you actually believe, (Ja. 2:18) so Rome's attitude to the variableness and overall liberal nature of RCs, who are far less unified in basic conservative beliefs than evangelical s, testifies to what she really believes.

Further, if Dr. Gregory wants to include as part of his general concept of Protestantism any and all sixteenth century lunatics who ever claimed the Bible alone as sole authority and thence to draw conclusions about the plausibility of the perspicuity of scripture,

As said, the Cath. broadbrush includes more than those.

Moving on from the issue of authority, we find that Dr. Gregory also argues that religious persecution is a poisonous result of the confessionalisation of Europe into warring religious factions.

A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Early Prots had much to unlearn from Rome, and still do.

When it comes to the empirical facts of Catholic persecution, Dr. Gregory only mentions the Inquisition twice. That is remarkably light coverage given its rather stellar track record in all that embarrassing auto da fe business. Moreover, he mentions it first only in a Reformation/post-Reformation context. Yet Roman Catholic persecution of those considered deviants was not simply or even primarily a response to Reformation Protestantism but a well-established pattern in the Middle Ages.

Typical minimization of RC history that they do not want publicized, while V2 is held in so much disdain by conservative RCs that they would encourage the Inquisitions again and their means.

His thesis - that Protestantism shattered the unified nature and coherence of knowledge and paved the way for its secularization - does not take into account the impact of the easy availability of print....The printed book changed everything: it fuelled literacy rates and it expanded the potential for diversity of opinion.

What Dr. Gregory must mean is that Protestantism led the negation of theocracies and to the freedom of religion, as the former is the only way Rome could control what the masses read, and even unsuccesfully after the printing press - made by a Catholic.

In fact, its success was significantly helped by the brisk fifteenth century trade in printed breviaries and missals and the indulgences produced to fund war against the Ottomans.

I well remember being amazed when reading the autobiography of the analytic philosopher and one-time priest, Sir Anthony Kenny, that he had had to obtain special permission from the Church to read David Hume for his doctoral research in the 1950s. At the start of the twenty-first century, Rome may present herself as the friend of engaged religious intellectuals in North America but she took an embarrassingly long time even to allow her people free access to the most basic books of modern Western thought.

I actually would support in principal a list by Godly men of shunned books and movies, but not as enforceable by secular coercive means.

Thanks to the modern world which grew as a response to the failure of Roman Catholicism, he is also free to choose his own solution to the problems of modernity without fear of rack or rope. Yet, having said all that, I for one find it strange indeed that someone would choose as the solution that which was actually the problem in the first place.

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. (John 18:36)

Christ constituted the church so that it could not rely on the power of the sword of men, or rest on historical descent for its authenticity, but by spiritual powers to defeat its foes and discipline its own, and to continually establish itself as being the church of the living, not dead, God.

Due to lack of this, and sometimes lack of restraint, the church has used means of the world to enfoce is church doctrine, which left a negative testimony. Due to lack spiritual

133 posted on 04/06/2014 5:49:00 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; CynicalBear; mitch5501; ..

A good read.


134 posted on 04/06/2014 5:49:36 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: strider44
This is a stain on Free Republic. Wasted band width by people claiming that their way to believe in Jesus better than your way.

Actually, i am sure it results in FR being higher in ranking of sites, and among the top hits searches in Catholic vs Prot issues, while by far the vast majority of "better belief" articles are by Catholics. And as the NT treats the kind of gospel one preaches as most critical, (Gal. 1:6-9) then it is a valid issue here.

135 posted on 04/06/2014 6:02:28 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: LurkingSince'98; Gamecock
Well that ‘splains it all...Catholics never bring up protestants because we know ‘you are saved’, which is why we never bring up, talk about, strategize over, or otherwise consume our little Catholic brains thinking about anything ‘protestant’.

That is absurd, and simply testifies to either willful blindness or ignorance of the RF on FR. And some RCS here denioes Prots are saved.

136 posted on 04/06/2014 6:08:54 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: LurkingSince'98
We are Growing! Increasing Number of People Coming into the Church this Easter

The little secret is that any gain is due to immigration. The RC in the USA is increasingly Latin in more ways than one. http://www.peacebyjesus.com/RC-Stats_vs._Evang.html#DEMOGRAPHICS

137 posted on 04/06/2014 6:11:53 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: LurkingSince'98; Alex Murphy
However, it is our house and just as I would never presume to enter under your roof and tell you and Mrs Murphy the how and why of cleaning up that attic with bats in the belfry and the old gay uncle that you let live rent free (there it is again, by the same token we don’t need an outside to tell us some of the old bats in the belfry need to be let free.

But when an entity is constantly being promoted as the One True Church® to whom all are to submit, which is what is abundantly seen here (and i have thousands of posts regarding this), then it becomes an issue.

We do not discuss it openly especially in this forum,

Rather, they typically live in denial, dismissing those whom Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death.

Regarding the ‘social justice’, ‘liberal voting Catholics’ and CINOs (Catholics In Name Only like Pelosi, Durbin and others) they are being slowly put surely dealt with. The actual evidence has continually testified otherwise. .

Meanwhile you have RCs here who see it as their job to attack conservative evangelicals as their greatest enemy, including one blog pimp in particular. Of course, the feeling is mutual.

This is a fight that faithful Catholics will win because they have not defected, not rolled over and played dead and are not giving up on - no matter how bad it has gotten.

And the new pope is a cause of alarm to them. Many "defected," including former liberal RCs, to become conservative evangelicals

138 posted on 04/06/2014 6:27:55 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

The RMs are like the cadmium rods in a nuke reactor!


139 posted on 04/06/2014 6:32:16 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: strider44
Nope. Just trying to say how pointless these threads are. Just utter pointless bickering that does nothing to defeat Democrats. I wish that each Freeper that is about to post another thread that will generate these stupid arguments between Catholics and Protestants would step back and take a breath. Then post an article about the dangers of, say, Islam instead. Then we could all get on board and agree for a change...

Who did Christ warn that would be in charge of the end time deception? It sure was not Islam. Why it will be the many, in the name of Christ. The 'teaparty' did in fact push back the Democrats and regained control of the peoples house in 2010 and what was our reward? Why saint Boehner, who immediately after using up a couple of cases of tissues, emphatically stated he would not change mommy Pewlouise's healthcare funding scam rules.

And that worthless saint Roberts made himself the raiser of taxes of all time when he approved of the universal healthcare spending.

And now the ungodly bishops are demanding American citizenship be watered down by taking from US our God given rights and elevate a criminal enterprise to have standing over US.

Now having said all the above I think it is telling that only a tiny minority spoke out about government removing the public display of the Ten Commandments. Government as established by the founding 'fathers' was 'we the people'.

We are going to get everything we have coming to US because in majority we the US have turned our backs on the Creator and play the same mindset liberals have ... playing god with other peoples lives.

I do believe in freedom of religion, meaning, my taxes should not be raised to pay for the antics of any organized religion. I do not believe one can take an oath to Rome or any other organized or unorganized religious division and then take a different oath to defend the Constitution. The Constitution keeps every one free and vows to Rome serve Rome certainly not US.

140 posted on 04/06/2014 7:04:29 AM PDT by Just mythoughts (Jesus said Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 1,441-1,459 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson