Vaudois said:
Although you have many facts listed fairly correctly, and I do not have any illusions about 16th Century politics and religion (the Holy Roman Empire, being an example), from either the Catholic or the Reformation side.
However there will several items in your reply that echoed rather oddly for me.
1. The wild claim that anyone was attempting to "create" a Gospel is historically imprudent. There were no canonical changes to the Holy Bible, and sells to the masses was encouraged, not banned. Rome was very slow to allow Gospel reading in the venacular by it's common worshippers. All was filtered through a priest. This is what needed reforming.
Thank you very much for acknowledging that I got a few things almost right. Am I to assume that this is politically correct speak for " I disagree with your point of view?"
I was not talking so much about the Canon as I was the syncretic interpretations of Calvin, particularly in his writing "Institutes of the Christian Religion" where he was indeed laying out his views of such Gospel changing views that evolved into the declarations at the Council of Dort.
But, since you brought the subject up about Canonical changes it is appropriate that we look at the views of the Reformers as to the Canon. I think many Protestants will find the views of the Reformers as to Canonocity as less than inspired, to be charitable. Calvin actually showed respect for the Deuterocanonicals quoting them in his "Institutes". However, he was in favor of removing St. John's Revelation and 2nd and 3rd John. Zwingli did not accept that Revelation was even part of the Bible. Erasmus stated that Hebrews had no authority as well as James, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, Jude and Revelation. Luther reduced the following books to secondary status in his Bible, James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation. Calvin also taught that the Canon was not closed.
Now, allow me to address your attack against Rome. First of all the language of the Western Church was and is Latin. That was convenient in that wherever one traveled one could hear and understand the Mass, which included the Scripture readings of both the OT and the NT. The people of the Church understood the Latin being spoken. The Church believed then and it believes today that the Bible as the Word of God is not for private interpretation but is to be interpreted within community. What many Protestants fail to understand is that the Episcopacy established by Christ is responsible for the deposit of the truth of which the Bible is part of that tradition. Private interpretation almost always leads to heresy which had been the experience of the Church throughout history. History proves this to be correct as Protestantism has been plagued by exponentially increasing schisms each prompted by a different understanding of Scripture. Priests were trained to interpret Scripture so it was only appropriate that they present it to the congregants.
Vaudois said:
2. Calling Protestants "Humanists" by 16th Century standards is a stretch. Offer a more contemporary word, not a over-used modern one. None of them taught evolution, abortion, or situational ethics. Shall I offer a list of adjectives from the times?
LOL! Are you asking for more political correct speech here also? I am not an avocate for PC speech and prefer more unambigious language. I pray you can indulge my plain spoken manner instead.
Many Protestant leaders during the Reformation were indeed Humanists emerging from Scholasticism. Both Zurich and Geneva were centers for Humanism in Europe. When one reads the writings of Calvin there is little doubt that he was greatly influenced by other Humanists such as Nicolo Machiavelli in his writing "Prince of Discourses", where he promoted the idea of security of civil life depending on powerful authoritarian politics enforcing violent change. Calvin certainly lorded over Geneva enforcing his view with violence against those who dessented against his syncretic theology. No one dared to disagree with Calvin and escape his wrath if they expected to live. In Calvin's "Institutes" he promoted the belief in Greek reason and the secular values of Pagan antiquity.
Furthermore, if you still doubt the influences of Humanism in the Reform movement your doubts can be put to rest by reading Erasmus' "Colloquies"
and "A Praise of Folly". Other evidence is Thomas More's "Utopia".
Vaudois said:
3.It's an intellectual dodge (to me) to call any European history "secular", dating from the erection of the Holy See. Kings and nations rose or fell according to the temperaments of who rode the Papal throne. State and Church were inseparable for more than a dozen centuries. The Church ruled directly or by prince/bishop proxy all the millions of Europe, allowing the magistrate to do the bloody work she "judged" needful. This certainly cried for reforming; but the Protestants stopped short, hampered by eons of training under Papal shapings.
The control of Rome on Europe can not be denied. Evidence is that the German princes seized the opportunity of the Reformation to expand their power, influence and wealth. As far as the average person is concerned they traded the authority of Rome for, at least an oppressive authority as that of the German princes and the Reformers.
Vaudois said:
4. Calvin is no hero of mine, but to call him a "Pope" and "plagiarist" is unworthy of a christian Father of letters. Please reconsider: there were no copyright laws until practically the 20th century. I refuse to disclose RC literary impostures and it's editorial methods of "the flames".
Sorry, I did not use politically correct speech again. There is no question that Calvin ruled Geneva with an iron fist destroying any and all opposition to His teaching and authority.His manner of manageing Geneva earned him the name of "Pope of Geneva" by his fellow reformers. All one needs to do is read his writings to see his plagiarism of St. Augustine. He actually did not try to hide this fact but bragged about knowing the mind of St. Augustine while at the same time misrepresenting his ideas and teaching. I never said that what he did was illegal at the time. What I was trying to illustrate is that he was attempting to gain credibility on the shoulders of St. Augustine. Throughout antiquity there was often plagiarism, in fact, at one time it was considered a complement and a way of honoring one who one respected by attributing ones work to another.
Vaudois said:
5. You attempted to colour the Hussites as abandoned and rejected. You failed to absorb a very heart-felt and basic Brethern-Hussite doctrine, despite your many years of exposure to their faith: the rejection of the sword by the christian. Most Protestants and Catholics are still compromisers of the 6th Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." But that is a reformation no human can intiate, Protestant or Catholic.
It is true that the Hussites were indeed pacifists, which greatly contributed to them being almost wiped out in the 30 years war. I will not get into the definition of the commandment not to kill because it is not pertinent to the discussion but many Moravians are not pacifists and serve in the military. I served in Vietnam with the Marine Corps and I am a combat veteran. However, Moravians are still a legal pacifist religious group recognized by the US government.
Vaudois said:
Liberty of conscience, the main vein of the Reformation, is wholly missed in your post, as well as the Protests against:
selling indulgences to build St.Peter's (the concept that a "donation" would free some soul from Purgatory or cancel the living's future sins)
enforced celibacy and the questionable morals of the monastical classes
the systemtic draining of national coffers for the embellishment of the Vatican and it's princes
and lastly and most importantly
the demands of Rome to submit to her or die.
It seems that my previous response to you is not what you anticipated. Interesting concept, "Liberty of Conscience", but not very Biblical is it? It comes to mind that our "conscience' is from God and there is no liberty but obedience (Romans 2:15). I never heard this as a Moravian tenet.
The selling of indulgences was abused and an impetus for this abuse was the needs of Rome and those wishing to gain favor by reaising money for the ambitious building projects. It is important to note that these abuses did not occur because of the directives of the Roman See.
Enforced celibacy actully instituted in the eleventh century ended nepotism and was a policy of ending abuses of office. There were very ambitious building projects that required huge sums of money to support. I am not sure what you are addressing with your morals statement of the monastical classes.
Rome did demand acceptance of her authority and sometimes that authority was enforced with extreme impunity. But, that was typical of the times. Luther was responsible for the killing of thousands and Calvin killed opposition at every opportunity. Even Zwingli was killed in battle. There were enough of these errors to go around and all these people involved on each side had blood on their hands.
In Christ
Fr. Joseph
