In regards to the reformation and the subsequent theology and the movement called Protestantism that followed, the so called orthodoxy surrounding these movements must be questions. It is known that most on this forum will be scratching their heads at this post and claiming that I am trying to spread my own Catholic beliefs or that I am ignoring supposedly clear aspects to the scriptures that is not so, I am not even trying to spread Catholicism within this forum I am merely trying to get the majority of the people in here that have never thought about this or deliberately chose not to, to do so.
The question surrounding the so called "reformation" is if this was a clear reform or restoration of the true "Christian church" why is it that the historical protestant movement is the most splintered world religion with some 40,000+ options this begs the question as to what Jesus himself meant when he told St. Peter "the gates of Hell shall not prevail"(see Matthew 16) and why he prayed that his church may be one(see John 17). It should also be questioned not only on historical grounds but also on biblical grounds what the basis for "sola scriptura" actually is rather than Martin Luther's own fantasies as the Bible itself not only never indicates that all scriptural truth will be found within the pages of a Bible that did not yet exist at the time of authorship but in fact contradicts this by saying the "Church will be the pillar and support of truth"(see 1 Timothy 3:15). It should also be questioned as to why all major heretics throughout the history of early Christianity seemed to make the same exact claims as Luther himself "that such truth can be found within the scriptures" even the Muslims make the claim that the Bible prophecies Islam, this clearly does not support anything rather it shows that a break with the one true church and sacred tradition gives us a deluded interpretation of the gospels.
Again it must also be questioned as to why it is considered inappropriate for the protestant to look to the church fathers for insight on what the accurate understanding of Christian belief should be when in fact one would think that those that were closer to direct familiarity with Christ himself the person or at least associates of his apostles of the apostles of the apostles(apostolic succession) but rather one should supposedly look to the Spirit in personal prayer when it should be very obvious that even the most holy man can be fooled we are also not to make our own interpretations of scripture.(see 2 Peter 1:20 and 2 Corinthians 11:14) It must also be asked that if we cannot currently trust the Catholic Church because they believe so called heretical viewpoints(based on my own opinion from the protestant viewpoint) why is it ok to trust the institutional church who compiled the Bible in the 4th and 5th centuries in essence without the church there is no scripture.
There are many more very obvious pointers I would wish to make however such an argument would fill up hundreds of pages and I am going to post the basics of this and will feel free to let anyone to criticize my post however be aware that to claim the scripture says otherwise based on a "true understanding" of scripture because "I am a true Christian and Catholics are not" is a circular argument and not a valid response.
The question surrounding the so called "reformation" is if this was a clear reform or restoration of the true "Christian church" why is it that the historical protestant movement is the most splintered world religion with some 40,000+ options this begs the question as to what Jesus himself meant when he told St. Peter "the gates of Hell shall not prevail"(see Matthew 16) and why he prayed that his church may be one(see John 17). It should also be questioned not only on historical grounds but also on biblical grounds what the basis for "sola scriptura" actually is rather than Martin Luther's own fantasies as the Bible itself not only never indicates that all scriptural truth will be found within the pages of a Bible that did not yet exist at the time of authorship but in fact contradicts this by saying the "Church will be the pillar and support of truth"(see 1 Timothy 3:15). It should also be questioned as to why all major heretics throughout the history of early Christianity seemed to make the same exact claims as Luther himself "that such truth can be found within the scriptures" even the Muslims make the claim that the Bible prophecies Islam, this clearly does not support anything rather it shows that a break with the one true church and sacred tradition gives us a deluded interpretation of the gospels.
Again it must also be questioned as to why it is considered inappropriate for the protestant to look to the church fathers for insight on what the accurate understanding of Christian belief should be when in fact one would think that those that were closer to direct familiarity with Christ himself the person or at least associates of his apostles of the apostles of the apostles(apostolic succession) but rather one should supposedly look to the Spirit in personal prayer when it should be very obvious that even the most holy man can be fooled we are also not to make our own interpretations of scripture.(see 2 Peter 1:20 and 2 Corinthians 11:14) It must also be asked that if we cannot currently trust the Catholic Church because they believe so called heretical viewpoints(based on my own opinion from the protestant viewpoint) why is it ok to trust the institutional church who compiled the Bible in the 4th and 5th centuries in essence without the church there is no scripture.
There are many more very obvious pointers I would wish to make however such an argument would fill up hundreds of pages and I am going to post the basics of this and will feel free to let anyone to criticize my post however be aware that to claim the scripture says otherwise based on a "true understanding" of scripture because "I am a true Christian and Catholics are not" is a circular argument and not a valid response.