John Calvin's Institutions
#11
(06-12-2011, 02:27 PM)Unum Sint Wrote:
(06-12-2011, 01:20 PM)mikemac Wrote: The Catholic encyclopedia for Scotland describes John Knox's Calvinist/Presbyterian "reform" of Scotland as a revolution rather than a reformation.
Quote:As in England the greed of a tyrannical king, so in Scotland the cupidity of a mercenary nobility, itching to possess themselves of the Church's accumulated wealth, consummated a work which even Protestant historians have described as one of revolution rather than of reformation.

What the protestants did was not a reform, they did not reform anything. It was a revolt it has always been a revolt and that is what I call it when I argue protestants on the subject.

Something to keep in mind is long term th reformation ended up being a very good thing for the church. Imagine if Luther had just quietly continued to chip away at doctrine from within the church...
Reply
#12
(06-12-2011, 01:20 PM)mikemac Wrote: The Catholic encyclopedia for Scotland describes John Knox's Calvinist/Presbyterian "reform" of Scotland as a revolution rather than a reformation.
Quote:As in England the greed of a tyrannical king, so in Scotland the cupidity of a mercenary nobility, itching to possess themselves of the Church's accumulated wealth, consummated a work which even Protestant historians have described as one of revolution rather than of reformation.

John Knox is an interesting case and in my view the logical expectation of Protestantism.

His frothing, violent, hate-filled rhetoric was infusion with the personal lunacy of Martin Luther and the austere gloom of John Calvin.  Knox struck at the right time to launch into a apoplextic episode meant to consume a nation because, as we understand, avericious barons used the religious turmoil to benefit their temporal power.

The Catholic Encyclopedia shows that on occasion Knox was truthful, particularly when he ranted 'one mass was more fearful[to him than 10,000 armed men.'  Whatever darkness it was that enveloped this preacher, I have little doubt that a Mass would cause him such distress.

Calvin was the most intellectually gifted of the primary reformers, but this is not saying very much: Protestantism's patrimony is one of peasant revolts, regicide, unrestrained lust, and shortsighted plunder.
Reply
#13
(06-12-2011, 04:58 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(06-12-2011, 02:27 PM)Unum Sint Wrote:
(06-12-2011, 01:20 PM)mikemac Wrote: The Catholic encyclopedia for Scotland describes John Knox's Calvinist/Presbyterian "reform" of Scotland as a revolution rather than a reformation.
Quote:As in England the greed of a tyrannical king, so in Scotland the cupidity of a mercenary nobility, itching to possess themselves of the Church's accumulated wealth, consummated a work which even Protestant historians have described as one of revolution rather than of reformation.

What the protestants did was not a reform, they did not reform anything. It was a revolt it has always been a revolt and that is what I call it when I argue protestants on the subject.

Something to keep in mind is long term th reformation ended up being a very good thing for the church. Imagine if Luther had just quietly continued to chip away at doctrine from within the church...

I disagree.  The Protestant Reformation shattered Christianity into tiny shards, led to a collapse in social structures, was the cause for enormous wars, and dramatically reduced the power of the papacy.

Granted it was a natural punishment for the worldliness of the hierarchy, but it in no way has turned out to be a positive turn of events.  We need not look further than our current morass, the post-Vatican II era: this was largely influenced by Protestant culture and the desire to blend the authentic Faith with errors.

It can be argued that the Church reached a high point culturally and spiritually (in a contemporary sense) in the time prior to the Western Schism.  This did immense damage to the Papacy’s prestige and its perceived authority.  A website called Seattle Catholic I think has articles making this argument.
Reply
#14
(06-12-2011, 11:57 AM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(06-12-2011, 11:32 AM)Christus Imperat Wrote:
(06-12-2011, 02:33 AM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(06-12-2011, 01:57 AM)Unum Sint Wrote: If anybody has ever had the pleasure of reading this "work" that is touted by protestants as one of the greatest Christian works of all time.  :pazzo:

What are we to assume after or during reading it. I mean from its massive inaccuracies, half truths and right down devoid of basic understanding of orthodox Christian dogma?

Should we treat Calvin as somebody that was simply misinformed due to the limitations of the research of the times and may be caught also in the polemics of it? Or should we treat him as basically somebody that wanted to attain fame for him self and saw an opportunity in history?

And please I am talking about the work it self not the man. After all as far as we know he never repented and hence as far as his soul is concerned, we are to assume that he was damned to the pit.

I have actually studied Calvinism pretty closely in my collegiate studies.  I wouldn't recommend reading Calvin to deepen your faith.  This said he absolutely understands the nature of original sin.  The human race is a very sorry lot.  And something that is very interesting is his view that no one deserves to enter heaven.  We are all so corrupted that God could justly send us all into the fires of Hell.  But, because God is loving He does not do this.

Now, we must part company with Calvin at this point as he says God arbitrarily offers his grace to the elect.  This elect in no way deserves grace, and in fact cannot will themselves to earn this grace.  Faith is a gift of God alone.  One cannot not find faith alone. 

As Catholics we understand we may attain grace through the sacraments.

Calvin was heavily influenced by Augustine, so if you want a more orthodox approach to all this you should read Augustine, who also deeply understood the nature of original sin.   

I do believe Calvin was very sincere in his views, but just another sad example of what happens when you separate yourself from the Church and hence the Holy Spirit.  I will say Calvin is probably the most intellectually consistent Protestant in the history of Protestantism.  Certainly, far more consistent than Luther who at one point or another flipped-flopped on every theological issue. 

Actually, Thomists hold that God gives efficacious grace gratuitously as well, so from this school of thought, Calvin was not wrong on this aspect of the question.  The only objection a Thomist has to Calvin's doctrine on predestination is that Calvin holds that God predestines the evil that the reprobate do.

However, as Catholics we recognize that we can reject the grace God offers us. Calvin denied this was possible. He said if someone rejected the grace of God this would go against the will of God, which is impossible.

Yes and no.  The Thomist position on efficacious grace is that God may freely will to give such graces to an individual that he will infallibly be saved and numbered among the elect.  In a sense, God may so irresistably call one to salvation that he will respond.  The person is still free in this process, which is a mystery, but God does choose efficaciously some and not others, a fact of the supernatural order which we will never be able to fully understand.
Reply
#15
(06-12-2011, 08:01 PM)Christus Imperat Wrote:
(06-12-2011, 11:57 AM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(06-12-2011, 11:32 AM)Christus Imperat Wrote:
(06-12-2011, 02:33 AM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(06-12-2011, 01:57 AM)Unum Sint Wrote: If anybody has ever had the pleasure of reading this "work" that is touted by protestants as one of the greatest Christian works of all time.  :pazzo:

What are we to assume after or during reading it. I mean from its massive inaccuracies, half truths and right down devoid of basic understanding of orthodox Christian dogma?

Should we treat Calvin as somebody that was simply misinformed due to the limitations of the research of the times and may be caught also in the polemics of it? Or should we treat him as basically somebody that wanted to attain fame for him self and saw an opportunity in history?

And please I am talking about the work it self not the man. After all as far as we know he never repented and hence as far as his soul is concerned, we are to assume that he was damned to the pit.

I have actually studied Calvinism pretty closely in my collegiate studies.  I wouldn't recommend reading Calvin to deepen your faith.  This said he absolutely understands the nature of original sin.  The human race is a very sorry lot.  And something that is very interesting is his view that no one deserves to enter heaven.  We are all so corrupted that God could justly send us all into the fires of Hell.  But, because God is loving He does not do this.

Now, we must part company with Calvin at this point as he says God arbitrarily offers his grace to the elect.  This elect in no way deserves grace, and in fact cannot will themselves to earn this grace.  Faith is a gift of God alone.  One cannot not find faith alone. 

As Catholics we understand we may attain grace through the sacraments.

Calvin was heavily influenced by Augustine, so if you want a more orthodox approach to all this you should read Augustine, who also deeply understood the nature of original sin.   

I do believe Calvin was very sincere in his views, but just another sad example of what happens when you separate yourself from the Church and hence the Holy Spirit.  I will say Calvin is probably the most intellectually consistent Protestant in the history of Protestantism.  Certainly, far more consistent than Luther who at one point or another flipped-flopped on every theological issue. 

Actually, Thomists hold that God gives efficacious grace gratuitously as well, so from this school of thought, Calvin was not wrong on this aspect of the question.  The only objection a Thomist has to Calvin's doctrine on predestination is that Calvin holds that God predestines the evil that the reprobate do.

However, as Catholics we recognize that we can reject the grace God offers us. Calvin denied this was possible. He said if someone rejected the grace of God this would go against the will of God, which is impossible.

Yes and no.  The Thomist position on efficacious grace is that God may freely will to give such graces to an individual that he will infallibly be saved and numbered among the elect.  In a sense, God may so irresistably call one to salvation that he will respond.  The person is still free in this process, which is a mystery, but God does choose efficaciously some and not others, a fact of the supernatural order which we will never be able to fully understand.

For Calvin someone could practically do everything God asked of him and still be destined to Hell. Why? Because even the best person is still incredibly sinful and its most likely this person here followed God's will for the selfish reason of attaining salvation which is not impressive at all to God.  Now Calvin did say those that receive God's grace would be sanctified and their lives would in someway reflect the grace they received.  The thing with Calvin is that while he never denied free-will it has practically no role whatsoever in his view of salvation.  One could live a 99% good life and still be destined for Hell.  God just picked some people at random to save.  Don't Thomists give free-will and works a little bit bigger of a role here? 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)