Papabile: Papal predictions thread

[Razgovory]

Neither Paul nor Timothy are really that big in the Catholic church (another reason why we are different from protestants: Bible? Not so important).

I hear you.

But it's not as if Martin Luther came up with some crazy new doctrine on his own.

Well actually the whole notion that one could find truth in the Bible for themselves without the assistance of a priest was a crazy new doctrine - at least in the eyes of the Church.  Granted Lurther didnt develop that all himself but that is pretty much the core of Protestant belief.  And it is only with that kind of religious freedom that one can hold an interpretive view separate and apart from Church teaching.

Then why did Protestant states suppress dissenters?  If the core belief is that the individual can find his own truth, why is the state enforcing a religious doctrine?

[MadImmortalMan]

Because that's what people with power do?

[fhdz]

Then why did Protestant states suppress dissenters?  If the core belief is that the individual can find his own truth, why is the state enforcing a religious doctrine?

The "core belief" is that the individual can find his own truth...in the Bible and in the Bible alone.

[Razgovory]

And those individuals just happens to be the monarch and heads of the state church, which publishes books on theology and common prayer in addition to the Bible.

[Admiral Yi]

Then why did Protestant states suppress dissenters?  If the core belief is that the individual can find his own truth, why is the state enforcing a religious doctrine?

Who besides the English suppressed dissenting Protestants?  Honest question.

[CountDeMoney]

The French, maybe?

[derspiess]

The French, maybe?

I thought he was talking about Protestant countries.  Lots of Catholic countries persecuted Protestants.

[Razgovory]

Then why did Protestant states suppress dissenters?  If the core belief is that the individual can find his own truth, why is the state enforcing a religious doctrine?

Who besides the English suppressed dissenting Protestants?  Honest question.

I think most of the ones with a state church did for at least some time.  Lutherans suppressed Calvinists and unorthodox Lutherans. 

[Agelastus]

Then why did Protestant states suppress dissenters?  If the core belief is that the individual can find his own truth, why is the state enforcing a religious doctrine?

Who besides the English suppressed dissenting Protestants?  Honest question.

In Germany, the HRE that was, for example?

Lutherans suppressed Calvinists.

Lutherans and Calvinists suppressed Catholics.

Lutherans and Calvinists and Catholics suppressed Anabaptists.

etc. etc. (as there's other denominations as well and it gets very confusing, particularly among the Calvinists with Zwinglians and...others.)

Some of it was political (cuius religio, eius religio and the fact that the Augsburg settlement had recognised Lutheranism as a legitimate creed but not Calvinism) but a lot of it was good old fashioned "I know the Truth and any who do not believe as I do are heretics who must be suppressed for the good of their own souls".

[Sheilbh]

For people raised in Catholic countries, Catholicism is not just religion, but an integral part of your culture. A lot of Catholics also go to church and participate in religious ceremonies despite disagreeing with the official church doctrine not just on social issues, but often on points of religious doctrine (e.g. you may have people who consider themselves Catholics, but believe in reincarnation or think that hell does not exist).

Does it help to explain what I was talking about?

Yep. Not just Catholic countries but Catholic cultures. Look at me and CdM

It's an odd thing reading American Catholics that they seem very much more partisan - the liberals want women priests and gay choirs, while the traditionalists are still furious that he's not wearing red shoes and didn't have a coronation. It seems very odd to me, they shop around for the right sort of parish too. Whereas my experience has always been you go to your parish, that's your priest and occasionally you might go to a big Cathedral or whatever.

But yeah, I'm loving this Pope. Between the resignation and this week they've pulled me back in a couple of times 

But it's not as if Martin Luther came up with some crazy new doctrine on his own.

No. He exploded an Augustinian concept that hadn't really had its full implications unpacked.

Yeah, but he was actually about going back to the Bible - something the Catholic church according to him at least departed from.

Yes and no. This was the general Renaissance cry of 'return to the sources' it's as true of Catholic reformers as the Protestant ones. But they didn't dump tradition.

Vatican citizenship is based on your office, so cardinals etc. typically only get it while they are actively working in the curia in Rome. Benedict became a dual citizen. In 1981 when he became a Roman cardinal, not when he was elected Pope. When you become stateless by losing Vatican citizenship, you'll automatically become an Italian citizen.

Cardinals also become Vatican citizens during sede vacante because the Church is run by the College of Cardinals, so for that period they're all literally princes of the Church.

Then why did Protestant states suppress dissenters?  If the core belief is that the individual can find his own truth, why is the state enforcing a religious doctrine?

Because it was early modern Europe

Who besides the English suppressed dissenting Protestants?  Honest question.

Almost everyone. Calvin was hardly tolerant - there were burnings of heretics in Geneva too. The Lutherans followed cuius regio, eius religio and repressed any Reformed churches. Arguably Germany had the strongest reaction after the Munster rebellion. But the Anabaptists were moving from spot to spot for a reason. Scotland attacked any semi-Papal episcopalianism (and it started the series of civil wars).

The only 'tolerant' Protestant country I can think of is the Netherlands.

[crazy canuck]

Neither Paul nor Timothy are really that big in the Catholic church (another reason why we are different from protestants: Bible? Not so important).

I hear you.

But it's not as if Martin Luther came up with some crazy new doctrine on his own.

Well actually the whole notion that one could find truth in the Bible for themselves without the assistance of a priest was a crazy new doctrine - at least in the eyes of the Church.  Granted Lurther didnt develop that all himself but that is pretty much the core of Protestant belief.  And it is only with that kind of religious freedom that one can hold an interpretive view separate and apart from Church teaching.

Then why did Protestant states suppress dissenters?  If the core belief is that the individual can find his own truth, why is the state enforcing a religious doctrine?

This is one of your more odd observations lately.  The religious wars and persecutions of the period are a bit more complex than that.

[Camerus]

Neither Paul nor Timothy are really that big in the Catholic church (another reason why we are different from protestants: Bible? Not so important).

I hear you.

But it's not as if Martin Luther came up with some crazy new doctrine on his own.

Except that, as Catholics argue, James 2:24 contradicts justification through faith alone:  "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone."  There are a number of other possible contradictory passages of faith alone as well (e.g. 1 Corinthians 13).  So, Luther was simply taking one part of the Bible whilst ignoring others.  Just one of the many problems Catholics would argue are inherent in the sola scriptura approach.

Secondly, I'm not sure whether the Catholic Church would agree that Augustine is more important than Paul, since Augustine builds and expands upon the implications of Paul, rather than contradicts him.

[Sheilbh]

Also I think we should be wary of drawing across from modern Protestantism to Lutheranism. Or for that matter from the radical Reformation (which was suppressed everywhere) against the magisterial Reformation (which did the suppressing everywhere).

I think there's a useful counter-point in the Catholic Reformation of state churches and states guarding against heresy, because of possible treason and other reasons against the numerous orders and societies, like the Jesuits, that were acting in an entirely different way and often against the states' interests.

Except that, as Catholics argue, James 2:24 contradicts justification through faith alone:  "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone."  So, Luther was simply taking one part of the Bible whilst ignoring others.  Just one of the many problems Catholics would argue are inherent in the sola scriptura approach.

This is where, for early Protestants, and still for Lutherans and Anglicans, Augustine steps in:
'If Abraham was not justified by works, how was he justified? . . . Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom. 4:3; Gen. 15:6). Abraham, then, was justified by faith. Paul and James do not contradict each other: good works follow justification.'
Luther used that to compare faith and works to heat and light, they can't be separated. The works are necessary for salvation, the faith for justification.

[Razgovory]

Neither Paul nor Timothy are really that big in the Catholic church (another reason why we are different from protestants: Bible? Not so important).

I hear you.

But it's not as if Martin Luther came up with some crazy new doctrine on his own.

Well actually the whole notion that one could find truth in the Bible for themselves without the assistance of a priest was a crazy new doctrine - at least in the eyes of the Church.  Granted Lurther didnt develop that all himself but that is pretty much the core of Protestant belief.  And it is only with that kind of religious freedom that one can hold an interpretive view separate and apart from Church teaching.

Then why did Protestant states suppress dissenters?  If the core belief is that the individual can find his own truth, why is the state enforcing a religious doctrine?

This is one of your more odd observations lately.  The religious wars and persecutions of the period are a bit more complex than that.

Oh, what is so odd about it?

[Camerus]

This is where, for early Protestants, and still for Lutherans and Anglicans, Augustine steps in:
'If Abraham was not justified by works, how was he justified? . . . Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom. 4:3; Gen. 15:6). Abraham, then, was justified by faith. Paul and James do not contradict each other: good works follow justification.'
Luther used that to compare faith and works to heat and light, they can't be separated. The works are necessary for salvation, the faith for justification.

I'm no theologian obviously, but in my view that distinction is almost so meaningless as to be misleading in practice:  "faith alone is all you need.... but you will do good works if you have faith" implies that without good works you aren't truly justified in the first place.  Contrast that to the Catholic position of needing faith informed by charity, and you have a very fine distinction indeed. 

The result is that in practice you have what is either basically an identical doctrine to that of the Church (and ironically, one which requires the elucidation of a Church Father) or else what is now a reasonably common and rather immoral and non-Christian antinomian reading of the faith (i.e. you really do just need "faith alone" and not good works).  Thus in my opinion faith alone is a misleading and pernicious concept to the faithful.  It is also one that presumably would require proper interpretation from a religious authority to be valid in Lutheran eyes.

So, you're still left with the greater question of the inherent contradictions of the sola scriptura approach, which informed Luther's fetishizing of the faith alone passage.