sábado, 23 de octubre de 2010


Back into the battle, great Mourchois!


Originally Posted by Wynfrith 
I really do think Protestantism is the route of a lot of "modern" problems, even aside from the fact that it divided western Christendom. For one thing, it promotes individualism (read: do what you please and how it pleases you) and is of course by it's very nature revolutionary. Protestantism was always going to have major damaging repercussions.

It is true, Lutherans and Calvinists claimed liberty of conscience . . . but to grant it to others never occurred to them so long as they were the stronger side. Save for a few splendid sayings of Luther, confined to the early years when he was powerless, there is hardly anything to be found among the leading reformers in favor of freedom of conscience. As soon as they had the power to persecute they did.

. . . Protestantism, because attacking the great institution, was almost inevitably virulent against the Catholics and at the same time optimistic that on the basis of Scripture a new reformed Church could be erected, unified within itself. When however this confidence was shaken by inner rifts, the initial reformers were even more disconcerted than by the blows from Rome. Luther stood at the very center of this development. His own course was a sign, a symptom and in part also a cause of the wider sequence.

No Protestant can deny an organic relationship to Luther, any more than a Catholic can disavow all ties to the historic papacy, the Crusades and Inquisition, etc. If the Catholic must be constantly subjected to taunts about the "baggage" and "skeletons in the closet" of Catholicism, then the Protestant must likewise face up to the unsavory and less-than-saintly elements in Protestant history. Both sides must have the courage to fairly acknowledge their own shortcomings and the other side's positive, godly attributes.
Originally Posted by Asega 
Ooh yes. It makes me wonder why so many people fled to the protestant Republic of the United Netherlands then
Including a lot of your countrymen, my French ancestors.

Few historians of the Low Countries would deny that that at several critical junctures during the Revolt of the Netherlands the actions of militant Calvinists drove the revolt forward or destabilized the situation just when it appeared that a solution to the religio-political crisis besetting the region might be found. Dutch historiography depicts the Reformed as establishing their privileged position in the Northern Netherlands through a ‘revolutionary Reformation’ in which the Calvinists sought the eradication of Catholic worship, compulsory participation in the rituals of the Reformed Church, and a new moral and legal order, although they ultimately were only able partially to obtain these goals, since they comprised too small a fraction of the total population to impose their will entirely.

It is unquestionable . . . that the champions of Protestantism - Luther, Calvin, Beza, Knox, Cranmer and Ridley -- advocated the right of the civil authorities to punish the 'crime' of heresy . . . Rousseau says truly:

The Reformation was intolerant from its cradle, and its authors were universal persecutors . . .

The Protestants . . . were wrong-headed. They did not really think what they were doing; and this was chiefly because the real driving force behind them was the impatient insolence and avarice of new nobles and rebellious princes . . . The Reformers themselves . . . e.g., Luther, Beza, and especially Calvin, were as intolerant to dissentients as the Roman Catholic Church.

What makes, however, Protestant persecutions specially revolting is the fact that they were absolutely inconsistent with the primary doctrine of Protestantism -- the right of private judgment in matters of religious belief! Nothing can be more illogical than at one moment to assert that one may interpret the Bible to suit himself, and at the next to torture and kill him for having done so!
Originally Posted by Asega 
Your propaganda doesn't work on me. Protestant England wasn't exactly Protestant or isn't exactly Protestant. The Anglican Church is a copy of Rome and cannot be compared to the Lutheran Church or to the Reformed Churches (from which there are many) and even what they combined did is not a fraction of the HELL Rome caused in Europe .

Here you are! Dissensions plagued Protestantism from the start, even though one would think that a religion stressing individualism and conscience would be free from such shortcomings and would promote mutual respect. The myth of Protestant magnanimity and peaceful coexistence (especially in its infancy) dies an unequivocal death once all the facts are brought out.
And ooh: before you accuse me of being a Prot myself. Guess what religion I was raised ?

It's irrelevant. I am not accusing you though, I am just talking about theology/history.
Originally Posted by Osweo 
Yawny yawny yawn. The Roman Church split Christianity itself LONG before Luther showed up in his attempt to clean up some of the mess.

There were indeed abuses but only after Protestantism, we had a NEVER-ENDING DIVISION AND MULTIPLICATION. There was to be not one Reformation but many, and all tended to split up into sects . . . Calvinism . . . proved itself incapable of disciplining the whole . . . possibly because the true genius of the Reformation lay in its conception of religion as a purely personal affair . . . The initial and lasting consequences of the Protestant Revolt are more than enough, I believe, to cause one to seriously question the premises of this upheaval within Christendom.

It is foolish to think that the Catholic Church was supposed to simply bow to Luther's novel ideas, rather than assert its own received Tradition and demand a retraction on his part. There were indeed abuses, and the Church dealt strongly with them -- to that extent we might be grateful to Luther, I suppose. But he wasn't content to deal just with abuses -- as true Catholic reformers all through the centuries had done. He had to "throw the baby out with the bath water," and so rejected indulgences altogether, along with many other received doctrines too numerous to mention.
There is no going back to Rome for us in the West, she discredited herself far too much already, and still does. If it hadn't been for the arrogance of the Roman hierarchy, there would have been no Great Schism in 1054, no conquest of Constantinopolis, perhaps the Eastern Empire could even have held onto Palestine itself, and withstood the Arabs

Rome is still in the West. You would be surprised how alive and well it is in some sectors of Europe, not to mention outside Europe where it continues to be a strong, strong presence.



arrogance of the Roman hierarchy, there would have been no Great Schism in 1054

Arrogance of Roman hierarchy? or a schism fomented by the ambition of the patriarchs of Constantinople and favoured by the Greek emperors? What's the difference?
Far from our rallying champion in the battle against cultural and racial oblivion, the Roman Church plays more the role of some lowly jackal, scavenging for scraps. This Church and its supporters delight in crowing over the fall of its old rivals while a far greater enemy struts around our lands unopposed by these bitter myopic opportunists. What do we hear from them all the live long day? "I told you so!" Where is the more courageous and necessary cry to our rulers about the foul crimes they are committing against our nations? Nowhere. All we get is a few pathetic murmurs here and there, like that Cardinal a bit ago, later passed off as gaffs or unacceptable heresy by the hierarchy. The Church of Rome will do nothing for us.

Cut the crap and blame secularism. All governments have in the last fifty years accepted large numbers of Muslim immigrants, who naturally have had children and grandchildren. The governments all supposed that they would be able to integrate such immigrants easily, through one form or another of secularism. The fact is - secularism does not work. The foolish arrogance of thinking that religion does not shape culture, that religion in general is unimportant, now has to be paid for.
Protestantism is the root of all this shit nowadays, is it? Well ask yourselves, Catholics; What is the root of Protestantism? A simple desire to protest against the foulest of abuses, political, spiritual, intellectual and even downright criminal.

It is indeed. What is the root of Protestantism? PLUNDER, the temptation to loot Church property, the property of convents and monasteries. The princes . . . could be spiritual as well as temporal lords, and all the wealth of the Church could be theirs . . .The greatest scholar and man of letters in Europe at this time, Erasmus, who looked with some favor upon the "Reformation" initially, but came to despise it as he saw its fruits, wrote on May 10, 1521, just a few weeks after the Diet of Worms, about those who "covet the wealth of the churchmen." :This certainly is a fine turn of affairs, if property is wickedly taken away from priests so that soldiers may make use of it in worse fashion; and the latter squander their own wealth, and sometimes that of others, so that no one benefits.
Rome's only argument for the legitimacy of its universal domination, is that little comment Jesus made to Simon when he first called him 'Peter'.

St. Paul teaches us (Ephesians 2:20) that the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles, whom Christ Himself chose (John 6:70, Acts 1:2,13; cf. Matthew 16:18). In Mark 6:30 the twelve original disciples of Jesus are called apostles, and Matthew 10:1-5 and Revelation 21:14 speak of the twelve apostles.
Well, that's not very convincing at all, and will never convince all of us. What an absurd arrogance.

There are a lot of things that convince people of the truth of Catholicism and not just a "little comment" (Which basically assumes Sola Scriptura). As far as it not being convincing, that's not an argument, just a declaration no more meaningful than "I like chocolate ice cream."

It's not arrogance, it's fact: Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church . . . the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by them.

Who is really arrogant anyway? I'll tell: secularist rhetoric founded
on belief in the supremacy of reason and absolute faith in science and progress, dogmas which arouse ridicule in serious academic and
intellectual circles nowadays.

No hay comentarios: