If John Calvin were alive today, would he be Catholic?

These threads are the new fad now, I guess! :wink:

I don’t think he’d be Catholic since his heretical beliefs can’t be reconciled with Church teaching.

I guess he could have recanted them were he alive, but since he didn’t do it then, I doubt it.

Nah, he’d be a French lawyer. I’m unsure as to how devoutly Catholic any lawyer of any modern nationality could be, but hey, you never know.

He’d be in the SSPX Resistance, write long blog posts about how the rest of us are teh evulz, and would keep yelling about how he and Garrigou-Lagrange agree on predestination.* :smiley:

  • they don’t, but that didn’t stop a certain J. S. from saying much the same thing… :slight_smile:

Only if it were predestined so. :smiley:

Calvin was Catholic. He did not assent to the Catholic faith from about 1530 at least. He held the concept of Total Depravity. Calvin wrote: “that man is so totally overwhelmed, as with a deluge, that no part is free from sin: and therefore whatever proceeds from him is accounted sin; as Paul says that all the affections or thoughts of the flesh are enmity against God, and therefore death (Rom. 8:6–7).”

This is counter to the dogma that:

[LIST]
*]For the performance of a morally good action Sanctifying Grace is not required. (De fide.)
[/LIST]

:rotfl:

I’ve unleashed a monster…:smiley:

:bigyikes:

Luther, Calvin, Wesley… All the popular ones are of course taken care of, but why no love for Peter Waldo, Jan Hus, or Huldrych Zwingli? Who will be their advocate and start threads for them!?

Well, Huldrych Zwingli was in the era of Luther and Calvin. If we do one for him, we’ll have to do ones for his fellow soldiers who died in the same battle (true story): Konrad Pellikan and Andreas Karlstadt. Jan Hus was earlier, same with Peter Waldo… I think we’re only doing 1517 and after???

Then what about the others? That’s a lot! And if we did counter-reformers? We’d be doing people like artists, who were influential.

Except the ones I mentioned are very specific heresiarchs (just like Luther, and Calvin), are they not? While we’re at it, the thread for Wesley makes less sense seeing as he was never Catholic to begin with.

Like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, the theologians of the day wrote extensive papers on their views. Some of these have made traditions (Lutheranism, Calvinism, etc.), others doctrines or positions (Arminianism, etc.), or simply influenced traditions and then there are those of the Magisterial Reformation.

So let’s scratch Zwingli, but Waldo and Hus still deserve their own threads by this criterion (Waldensians and Moravians, respectively). :wink:

By the by, I deeply apologize to John Calvin for my detracting from his thread!

Okay, fair enough. And while I’m not going to say anything, I’m sure he doesn’t appreciate being called a heresiarch (in light of the heretics of old, like Nestorius and Arius)! :eek:

Schismatic is not really pejorative, it’s a fact for anybody who perpetrated schism.

One man’s heresiarch is another man’s prophet/reformer/what have you. I figured since this new fad of threads has Catholicism as its central component, and in turn individuals who are in fact deemed ‘heretics’ by the Catholic Church, I’d run with the Catholic viewpoint. I didn’t mean to cause offense so I do apologize for my use of the term.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.