Everyday, religious writers provide material fun to write about.
Today I found a post-Christmas gift. It is an article by a Catholic writer skewering Protestants. In doing so, he skewers himself.
The writer reviewed two books which criticize Protestantism. Both books correctly point out that beginning with Luther himself, there has been nonstop splitting of Protestant denominations.
The Catholic argument made against Protestantism is the latter gave individuals the option of figuring stuff out for themselves. This, in turn, gave people the power to decide on no faith at all. Thus, Protestantism established atheism and agnosticism as legitimate outcomes.
The Catholic Church, the author, and the authors of the books he reviewed, decided arbitrarily for themselves what constitutes important divergence in beliefs. Typical of the Catholic hierarchy, there are two issues used to measure unity or divergence, abortion and marriage. From the Catholic point of view agreement on these two issues are the only legitimate ways to measure whether groups have unity or not. Thus, latitude taken by humans guides much of Catholicism, too.
The Christian faith is made up of a series of beliefs placed before the public by ancient writers who had a vested interest using them to control people. Faiths around the world are made up of people, or their descendants, who had the faith imposed upon them.
That there are so many official versions of the Protestantism, and so many unofficial non conforming views among Catholics, is evidence to the skeptic none of it should be taken too seriously.
http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/what-hath-protestantism-wrought.html
Jump in on Facebook, Red River Freethinkers.
Yes, I have seen the thought that atheism is the result of the reformation years ago. However, when one considers the trail and development of thought, and the development of systematic philosophy thought, Thomas Aquinas (1274) , of the school of scholasticism, in the tradition of Plato, and especially Aristotle, must be considered to be the starting point . In time Scholasticism grew into the Enlightenment, (starting in about the 17th Century), with all the resulting changes, up to the now; “New thinking/2nd enlightenment/freethought. Atheism didn’t just “pop up” out of nowhere, and “came out of the closet” so to speak, as the theocratic nature of Europe was broken up, with reduced danger of punishment. If people could voice their opinion, they would, and they did. Reformation or not. In turn, elements of the Enlightenment would turn against all religion.
If someone wants to look for someone to blame, (or praise), look first to the Sophists, then Aquinas, the Scholastics, (Schoolmen), the thinkers of the Enlightenment, then on to the German philosophers, to the French. There were many involved, over many centuries, up to the present. It is still evolving. I’m thinking faster now than in the past.
After thinking about it overnight, just a couple more thoughts. Events during this time moved slowly. Information traveled slowly. Only in wars did things move faster. The time of the Reformations, (plural), was also (in general) after the end of the Middle ages, and towards the end of the Renaissance. (Later in Northern Europe). Humanism, (in the classical sense), international intercourse, the fall of feudalism, development of currency exchange, and a host of other importand developments laid the groundwork for the modern period. The Roman Church’s over reach into politics, (which was probably unavoidable due to the loss of social structure due to fall of the Roman Empite) I think it could be fairly said that the reformations, (again plural),were more a symptom, than the cause. Finally, from Rome came the Counter Reformation, AKA the Catholic Reformation culminating in the Council of Trent, which in reality was nothing more than a formal codification of what the Medieval Church had taught all along. Still adhered to today, with it’s massive presence referenced in the “New Catechism” of the RCC. The more things changed, the more they remain the same. The books reviewed in the tag reveal just that. If you can’t blame yourself, blame someone else. I have many close friends and associates that are heavily involved in the RCC, and the general concensus is that” if the Reformation hadn’t occoured, they shudder to think of what the RCC would have become”. There are just too many side issues involved to make such statements contained in these book reviews, and Jon’s comments.
Wanna 1:27 “There are just too many side issues involved to make such statements contained in these book reviews, and Jon’s comments.”
In general, I agree with you. In fact, this is one of your best posts.
Wars, world trade, transportation, the RC’s overreach into politics, world wide urbanization, development of the written word and industralization surely must all have played a role in the development of what the general world public believes in or in the case of athestistic/agnostic thought, does not believe. Along the way there was classic literature which probably both influenced and was influenced by contemporary events outside of philosophy per se.
Where, I believe, you and I would disagree is that I think Christianity, including the way the Biblical character, Jesus, (who is presented as a holy man with super natural powers instead of what he may well have been, one of many ordinary preachers) is a product of these same exturnal forces. I would find it asymetric to apply social, economic and political influeneces to atheism but not apply them to Christianity. Nevertheless, applying them somewhere means we agree on something important.
Jon; You are free to have your way with Jesus. I however will let Jesus have his way with me.
Jon; Actually, I should have said; ” I am COMPELLED to have Jesus have his way with me.” To “let” gives the impression that it is my decision. That would be decision theology, and I have a problem with that. “I” am not the actor, only the receiver. To “let” would be the of the Law. To be “compelled” is the function of the Gospel. “Nuff said.
Ordinary preacher? Even your life has been affected by Jesus Jon. If you were born in a hospital, that was a development of Christianity. If you are educated, Christianity has pushed for universal education since the beginning. It took a long time, because people were dealing with all those wars, plagues and things.
I do believe the Catholic church would have liked to stay out of politics, but the collapse of civil government at the end of the feudal period someone had to do it. The church was the only entity big enough TO try something. The demands of civil princes for both civil and temporal authority was part of this. If we had had strong enough leadership at the time things may have been a little different.
The internal intrique within the RCC must almost be overwhelming, evidenced recently by the “butler incident”. I suspect this is, and has always been the norm. The josteling for position, the pecking order, power and authority at the expense of others, as in other human endeavors must be frustrating for the well intentioned. Yet Luther remains excommunicated.
All that being said, there still remains a solid core of Christology in the Catholic Church, and I admire them for that.
The view expressed by the writer of the link, and the authors he reviews, express what is written in the Catholic Encyclopedia, at least my reading of it.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm
Jon; As I said, the more things change, the more they remain the same. The same with Trent. I must add that in addition to the links, you added commentary is not helpful to either side. A spoiler in a family discussion. Some of the observations in recent letters of the current pope are in opposition to your most current link.
Wanna “A spoiler in a family discussion.”
I’m not butting into a family discussion, family members invited me in by publishing the stuff I read.
I really can’t help it if the offical, or understood to be official, position of the Catholic Church has been that Protestantism opened the door to secularism, and, now the Pope is saying something to the contrary. It’s all part of a Catholic version of Protestantism, say whatever you want and some Devine source is there to say you are right.
It’s the problem all religion faces, you can make up whatever you want because the answer is somewhere in the sky and no one can find the answer and report back.
Jon; Are you a crypto Catholic?
Wanna re: crypto Catholic?
I thought that’s what you were–defending them as brothers, so-to-speak.
Jon; You understand so little.
Jon; Of course I was. However it is not a yes or no situation. I get the impression that you are trying to divide and concour. That’s not gonner happen. See my 9:51.
Wanna 12:37 “I got the impression you are trying to divide and concour. That’s not gonner happen.”
It’s too late. Protestants and Catholics are all ready divided. The concouring part, young people not interested in the faith, is happening through no help from me.
As I said, you understand so little. I don’t expect improvement.
I agree Wanna.
Source of the term “Protestant”–
“In 1517 Luther began a split from the established Latin church by speaking on the subject of indulgences. As the Pope decided how best to deal with Luther, the gheologian and his colleagues effectively evolved a new form of the Christian religion which was takenup by many princes and towns of the German empire. Debateensued, with the Pope, Emperor and Catholic governments on one side and members of the new church on the other.
In 1526 a meeting of the Reichstag, in practice a form of German imperial parliament, issued the recess of 27 August stating that each individual government within the empire could decide which religion theey wished to follow. However, an new Reichstag which met in 1529 was not so amenable to the Lutherans, and the Emperor canceled the Recess. In response, the followers of the new church issued the “Protest”, which protested against the cancellation on April 19th.
Despite the differences in their theology, Southern German cities aligned with Swiss Reformer Zwingli joined other German powers following Luther to sign on to the “Protest” as one. They thus became known as Protestants, Those who protested.
The “protest” was not against the Catholic Church, but against the change the policy for freedom to choose which. The Catholics/church did not want to loose their authority over primarily the northern regions of Germany, or Switzerland. It was a political strategy/move more than theological. There is a great misunderstanding on this term “Protestant.” In short, the Catholics in power reniged on the deal, and the “protest” was the result.