RE: Today, Evangelicals may honor to their principles, but they are no more Lutherans or Calvinists than Luther and Calvin were Augustinian.
Excuse me? Have you spoken to devout Calvinists and Lutherans today? (I’m not talking about the wishy washy ones of the PCUSA or ELCA, I’m talking about the millions of Lutherans and Calivinists who REALLY believe the same doctrine Luther and Calivn espoused ).
The thesis that Luther nailed in the Church at Wittenberg which were debated and then condemened by Trent are still in existence today.
Sola Scriptura ( which in effect means the denial of ex-cathedra of the Pope ), Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Soli Deo Glora ... all of these are ALIVE AND WELL TODAY.
Just listen to a Christian radio that broadcasts the teachings of people like John MaCarthur, RC Sproul, etc. and you’ll hear them espoused time and again.
I have to disagree with you here - EVANGELICALS ( the devout ones ) believe in the above SOLA’s that Luther and Calvin espoused.
Also, regarding this -— “he kept developing his own thought and it did not become unchangeable until he died” — Martin Luther did not think of himself as an innovator, he and his colleagues considered themselves REFORMERS, people who wanted the catholic ( as in universal ) church to go back to original Biblical Principles.
You can talk to a devout reformed Christian today and they will tell you that as well.
But having said that, I don’t think you’ve answered my question, in other words, your answers are unclear after so many exchanges.
Are the anathemas of Trent and Vatican I directed towards the DOCTRINES of the reformers or not? If so, the “anyone” in the pronouncement by logic, should apply to those who believe and teach these same doctrines today.
One of them being the non-recognition of the Pope as the Primate of all Christianity.
Therefore, I find it difficult if not impossible to reconcile Vatican II and Vatican I.
Your contention is that the language of the two Vatican Councils cannot be reconciled, but this is I think to take these words out of context. In a way, the Church acts as Luther did as an individual, which is to save its theory of authority by reformulating old truths in new language. The doctrine of infallibility was a strong assertion of a historic claim of authority by the Bishop of Rome. In a way, this is instrumental. HOW if not by vesting final authority in a single person, is the earthly purity of doctrine to be sustains; how are the many diverse members of the Body of Christ to be kept together and acting in consort? To put it another way, who are the human agents of the Holy Spirit? Obviously, Peter did not simply take the place of Our Lord. No one could. The fact is that Our Lord did not assign him as a kind of Caliph, which was the way that some of the Medieval popes sometimes seemed to act, but as Pope St. Gregory put it, Servant of the Servants of God., In effect,like Moses at the head of the people of Israel. But more so. Moses had never seen His Lord in the flesh. Which is why Paul made a points of connecting with Peter in Jerusalem. Our Lord has ordained Peter to serve a role he never gave to any one else.
That did not, of course, make Peter the first pope, The popes are his successors, and here is the difficulty, one can or cannot accept his successors as bishops of Rome as having the same sort of authority as Peter, as being like him the Keeper of the Keys. One way to get around this, of course, and that is to downplay Peters role. That requires a certain reading of the text, which done mainly by elevating others, such as Paul/James. By treating Peter as no more than the representative Christian rarher than as the representative/deputy of Christ. Another way is to deny the existence of a monarchial bishop of Rome, In any case, Luther et al, simply rejected the authority of Rome by interposing his own authority as a scholar,