# Catholic Encyclopedia on Protestantism



## Iwasamwillbe (Jun 7, 2019)

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Protestantism
					

Discussion of Protestant beliefs and doctrines




					www.newadvent.org
				






> *Origin of the name*
> The Diet of the Holy Roman Empire, assembled at Speyer in April, 1529, resolved that, according to a decree promulgated at the Diet of Worms (1521), communities in which the new religion was so far established that it could not without great trouble be altered should be free to maintain it, but until the meeting of the council they should introduce no further innovations in religion, and should not forbid the Mass, or hinder Catholics from assisting thereat.
> 
> Against this decree, and especially against the last article, the adherents of the new Evangel — the Elector Frederick of Saxony, the Landgrave of Hesse, the Margrave Albert of Brandenburg, the Dukes of Lüneburg, the Prince of Anhalt, together with the deputies of fourteen of the free and imperial cities — entered a solemn protest as unjust and impious. The meaning of the protest was that the dissentients did not intend to tolerate Catholicism within their borders. On that account they were called _Protestants_.
> ...



http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm (only quoting the relevant section)



> *The Protestant doctrine on justification*
> The ideas on which the Reformers built their system of justification, except perhaps fiduciary faith, were by no means really original. They had been conceived long before either by heretics of the earlier centuries or by isolated Catholic theologians and had been quietly scattered as the seed of future heresies. It was especially the representatives of Antinomianism during the Apostolic times who welcomed the idea that faith alone suffices for justification, and that consequently the observance of the moral law is not necessary either as a prerequisite for obtaining justification or as a means for preserving it. For this reason St. Augustine (De fide et operibus, xiv) was of the opinion that the Apostles James, Peter, John, and Jude had directed their Epistles against the Antinomians of that time, who claimed to have taken their doctrines — so dangerous to morality — from the writings of St. Paul. Until quite recently, it was almost universally accepted that the epistle of St. James was written against the unwarranted conclusions drawn from the writings of St. Paul. Of late, however, Catholic exegetes have become more and more convinced that the Epistle in question, so remarkable for its insisting on the necessity of good works, neither aimed at correcting the falseinterpretations of St. Paul's doctrine, nor had any relation to the teaching of the Apostle of the Gentiles. On the contrary, they believe that St. James had no other object than to emphasize the fact — already emphasized by St. Paul — that only such faith as is active in charity and good works (_fides formata_) possesses any power to justify man (cf. Galatians 5:6; 1 Corinthians 13:2), whilst faith devoid of charity and good works (_fides informis_) is a dead faith and in the eyes of God insufficient for justification (cf. James 2:17 sqq.). According to this apparently correct opinion, the Epistles of both Apostles treat of different subjects, neither with direct relation to the other. For St. James insists on the necessity of works of Christian charity, while St. Paul intends to show that neither the observance of the Jewish Law nor the merely natural good works of the pagans are of any value for obtaining the grace of justification (cf. Bartmann, "St. Paulus u. St. Jacobus und die Rechtertigung", Freiburg, 1897).
> 
> Whether Victorinus, a neo-Platonist, already defended the doctrine of justification by faith alone, is immaterial to our discussion. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages there were a few Catholic theologians among the Nominalists (Occam, Durandus, Gabriel Biel), who went so far in exaggerating the value of good works in the matter of justification that the efficiency and dignity of Divine grace was unduly relegated to the background. Of late, Fathers Denifle and Weiss have shown that Martin Luther was acquainted almost exclusively with the theology of these Nominalists, which he naturally and justly found repugnant, and that the "Summa" of St. Thomas and the works of other great theologians were practically unknown to him. Even Ritschl("Christliche Lehre von der Rechfertigung und Versohnung", I, 3rd ed., Bonn, 1889, pp. 105, 117) admits that neither the Church in her official teaching nor the majority of her theologians ever sanctioned, much less adopted, the extreme views of the Nominalists. Nevertheless it was not a healthy reaction against Nominalism, but Luther's own state of conscience that caused his change of views. Frightened, tormented, worn out by constant reflections on his own sinfulness, he had finally found, even before 1517, relief and consolation only in the thought that man cannot overcome concupiscence, and that sin itself is a necessity. This thought naturally led him to a consideration of the fall of man and its consequences. Original sin has so completely destroyed our likeness to God and our moral faculties in the natural order, that our will has lost its freedom regarding works morally good or bad, and we are consequently condemned to commit sin in every action. Even what we consider good works are nothing but sin. Since, according to Luther, concupiscence, of which death alone shall free us, constitutes the essence of original sin, all our actions are corrupted by it. Concupiscence as an intrinsically evil disposition, has instilled its deadly poison into the soul, its faculties, and its action (cf. Möhler, "Symbolik", sec. 6). But here we are forced to ask: If all our moral actions be the outcome of an internal necessity and constraint, how can Luther still speak of sin in the true meaning of the word? Does not original sin become identical with the "Evil Substance" of the Manichæans, as later on Luther's follower, Flacius Illyricus, quite logically admitted?
> ...



Here is some supplemental history about Martin Luther, the Reformation, John Calvin, and the Counter-Reformation:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm (Martin Luther)



> Leader of the great religious revolt of the sixteenth century in Germany; born at Eisleben, 10 November, 1483; died at Eisleben, 18 February, 1546.
> 
> His father, Hans, was a miner, a rugged, stern, irascible character. In the opinion of many of his biographers, it was an expression of uncontrolled rage, an evident congenital inheritance transmitted to his oldest son, that compelled him to flee from Mohra, the family seat, to escape the penalty or odium of homicide. This, though first charged by Wicelius, a convert from Lutheranism, has found admission into Protestant history and tradition. His mother, Margaret Ziegler, is spoken of by Melancthon as conspicuous for "modesty, the fear of God, and prayerfulness" ("Corpus Reformatorum", Halle, 1834).
> 
> ...



http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12700b.htm (Reformation)



> The usual term for the religious movement which made its appearance in Western Europe in the sixteenth century, and which, while ostensibly aiming at an internal renewal of the Church, really led to a great revolt against it, and an abandonment of the principal Christian beliefs. We shall review the general characteristics of this movement from the following standpoints:
> 
> 
> Causes of the Reformation
> ...



http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03195b.htm (John Calvin)



> This man, undoubtedly the greatest of Protestant divines, and perhaps, after St. Augustine, the most perseveringly followed by his disciples of any Western writer on theology, was born at Noyon in Picardy, France, 10 July, 1509, and died at Geneva, 27 May, 1564.
> 
> A generation divided him from Luther, whom he never met. By birth, education, and temper these two protagonists of the reforming movement were strongly contrasted. Luther was a Saxon peasant, his father a miner; Calvin sprang from the French middle-class, and his father, an attorney, had purchased the freedom of the City of Noyon, where he practised civil and canon law. Luther entered the Order of Augustinian Hermits, took a monk's vows, was made a priest and incurred much odium by marrying a nun. Calvin never was ordained in the Catholic Church; his training was chiefly in law and the humanities; he took no vows. Luther's eloquence made him popular by its force, humour, rudeness, and vulgar style. Calvin spoke to the learned at all times, even when preaching before multitudes. His manner is classical; he reasons on system; he has little humour; instead of striking with a cudgel he uses the weapons of a deadly logic and persuades by a teacher's authority, not by a demagogue's calling of names. He writes French as well as Luther writes German, and like him has been reckoned a pioneer in the modern development of his native tongue. Lastly, if we term the doctor of Wittenberg a mystic, we may sum up Calvin as a scholastic; he gives articulate expression to the principles which Luther had stormily thrown out upon the world in his vehement pamphleteering; and the "Institutes" as they were left by their author have remained ever since the standard of orthodox Protestant belief in all the Churches known as "Reformed." His French disciples called their sect "the religion"; such it has proved to be outside the Roman world.
> 
> ...



http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04437a.htm (The Counter-Reformation)



> *Significance of the term*
> The term _Counter-Reformation_ denotes the period of Catholic revival from the pontificate of Pope Pius IV in 1560 to the close of the Thirty Years' War, 1648. The name, though long in use among Protestant historians, has only recently been introduced into Catholichandbooks. The consequence is that it already has a meaning and an application, for which a word with a different nuance should perhaps have been chosen. For in the first place the name suggests that the Catholic movement came after the Protestant; whereas in truth the reform originally began in the Catholic Church, and Luther was a Catholic Reformer before he became a Protestant. By becoming a Protestant Reformer, he did indeed hinder the progress of the Catholic reformation, but he did not stop it. It continued to gain headway in the Catholic South until it was strong enough to meet and roll back the movement from the North. Even if our Catholic reform had been altogether posterior to the Protestant, we could not admit that our reform movement owed its motive power or its line of action to the latter, in the way that modern reform movements among Orientals are due to the influence of European thought. For the principles of the Protestant Reformation are to Catholics principles leading to deformation and to the perpetuation of abuses, such as the subservience of Church to State, or the marriage of the clergy, to say nothing of doctrinal error. Both the continuance and correction of the same abuse cannot be due to the same movement. Moreover, it will be seen that the Catholic reform was not even originally due to reaction from Protestantism, in the way In which inert nations are sometimes spurred by initial defeats to increased energy, which In the end may even make them victorious. Though this reaction undoubtedly had its effect on certain Catholic reformers, it had little or no influence on the leaders or on the best representatives of the movement, as, for instance, on St. Ignatius, its pioneer, or on St. Philip Neri and St. Vincent de Paul, exemplars of its maturity.
> 
> Another point to be noticed is that, though we assign certain dates for the beginning and end of the period under consideration, there has never been any break in the striving of the Church against the heresies which arose in the sixteenth century. In this sense the Counter-Reformation began in the time of Luther and is not even yet closed. But while the points of similarity between this period and those which preceded and followed it might be dwelt upon at some length, and must occasionally be called to mind, there is no reason for rejecting the term, or for denying that it corresponds with a real and important historical period. Historical periods, it will be remembered, are never sharply cut off, during the actual course of events, from what goes before and comes after, as they are described in books; for history in the concrete is always continuous. In this case the limits of the period are to be measured not by reversals of reforming policy and methods, but by the increased or decreased energy with which such reformation is pursued. When there is intense zeal on the part of many for making reforms, then is the "period" of reform. Similarly this "period" ceases when such zeal becomes rare, or only mediocre in intensity, even though it does really continue here and there in some individuals or classes. It would be a misrepresentation of the heroes of the Counter-Reformation to describe their reforms as having differed from those of the older opponents of Protestantism, except in degree, in earnestness, thoroughness, adaptability to altered circumstances, etc. Their predecessors had been clear in the condemnation and punishment of error. They had preached, pleaded, threatened, even fought, but they did not remodel their ways seriously everywhere, in small things and in great. They did not institute new and vast schemes of education, or alter the constitutions of their States. They did not succeed in awakening the enthusiasm of their party, or in encouraging whole classes to make heroic sacrifices, or heroic efforts. But there did come a time when there was such heroism on a large scale, when whole classes, as for instance episcopates, new religious orders, and even the laity (as in England during the persecutions), were filled with enthusiasm; when martyrs were numerous; when great writers, preachers, and leaders abounded; when education was attended to from the highest motives and with the greatest interest; when the old duties of life were discharged with an alertness, a faith, a meaning which were new; when for a time Catholic rulers and whole States rose superior to considerations of self-interest.
> ...



What do you guys think of all this?


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (Jun 7, 2019)

Iwasamwillbe said:


> What do you guys think of all this?


Slappyfights between Christian denominations are very amusing


----------



## eldri (Jun 7, 2019)

This reminds me, whatever happened to the catholic or protestant kiwi who wanted to replace the royal family of bongistan?


----------



## Foxxo (Jun 7, 2019)

This reminds me of a very long joke about an Episcopal meeting a Baptist on a bridge.


----------



## QD 846 (Jun 7, 2019)

this is autistic and boring tbh


----------



## Exigent Circumcisions (Jun 7, 2019)

Iwasamwillbe said:


> What do you guys think of all this?



I think Catholics are impressively studious about these things, to an almost (((lawyerly))) extent.


----------



## NOT Sword Fighter Super (Jun 7, 2019)

eldri said:


> This reminds me, whatever happened to the catholic or protestant kiwi who wanted to replace the royal family of bongistan?


Yeah, what was his name again?


----------



## Damn Near (Jun 7, 2019)

Exigent Circumcisions said:


> I think Catholics are impressively studious about these things, to an almost (((lawyerly))) extent.


Maybe the clergy are, but Catholic lay-people are some of the least critically thinking people on the planet


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 7, 2019)

Iwasamwillbe said:


> What do you guys think of all this?


I think that despite picking a topic that currently has deep interest from me for personal reasons, you haven't made enough of an effort in asking an interesting question or framing an interesting discussion.

And I like long text and will probably end up reading all of that sometime this week.

Maybe add a reason why the topic is interesting to you? Ask a bit more focused question?


----------



## José Mourinho (Jun 7, 2019)

That's quite a lot of Christianity related threads you posted here, OP.

Anyway this isn't worth a thread unless you get to ask something more specific instead of throwing us stuff and ask us for our opinions for a pretty broad topic.


----------

