Biggest Error of Protestant Reformers

  • Thread starter Thread starter Madaglan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m gonna have to go with the two “solas” (*fide * and scriptura) as my final answer. They form the basis for just about every other Protestant error that has come along, including the other errors listed in the poll.

Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide - Two traditions of men (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, . . . etc.) 😦

Peace and Charity,
 
It seems a little ironic that the two top vote-getters are the Solas and Rejection of Real Presence. The Solas came from Luther, yet Lutherans confess real presence. From the Augsburg Confession:

“1] Of the Supper of the Lord they [the German churches represented by the Lutheran delegation at Augsburg] teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed 2] to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.”

And from the Defnese to the Augsburg Confession:

"54] The Tenth Article [of the Lutheran delegation, quoted above]has been approved [by the Papal delegation], in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. . . . 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ."

And 50 years later, after the death of Luther, the Lutheran churches confirmed their belief in the Formula of Concord:

"20] Dr. Luther has also more amply expounded and confirmed this opinion from God’s Word in the Large Catechism, where it is written: What, then, is the Sacrament of the Altar? Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine, which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink. 21] And shortly after: It is the ‘Word,’ I say, which makes and distinguishes this Sacrament, so that it is not mere bread and wine, but is, and is called. the body and blood of Christ. "
 
Originally Quoted by RonWI:
Click to expand...
It seems a little ironic that the two top vote-getters are the Solas and Rejection of Real Presence. The Solas came from Luther, yet Lutherans confess real presence. From the Augsburg Confession:
Click to expand...
Thank you RonWI for excerpts from the two Lutheran documents. You make the important point that traditional Lutherans do indeed agree on the Real Presence in the Eucharist. In fact, according to my historical understanding, the differing opinions on the Eucharist was one of the major reasons why Luther could not reconcile with those Swiss reformers who saw the Eucharist as only a symbol, or as a spiritual presence at best.

Sadly, besides the Lutherans, nearly all the other Protestant groups rejected the Real Presence 😦 That’s why I put it on my list of choices.
 
40.png
Madaglan:
Sadly, besides the Lutherans, nearly all the other Protestant groups rejected the Real Presence 😦 That’s why I put it on my list of choices.
Click to expand...
Anglicans/Methodists do not reject Real Presence - we’re not in the “Zwingli line.” It is not symbolic to us.

O+
 
O.S. Luke:
Anglicans/Methodists do not reject Real Presence - we’re not in the “Zwingli line.” It is not symbolic to us.

O+
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s right…but we are IMHO ,closer to Lutherans in our understanding of same…
 
I would say rejecting the Pope’s authority or you could say in a broader way, the Church’s authority…basically on that theme. I think that’s where everyone gets into trouble (I’m including myself in that ‘everyone’ heh). From the Eastern Orthodox churches to the Protestants, that’s their big basic problem. Making up their own authority. I suppose it stems from Pride which is one of the worst sins, or maybe the worst.
 
Definitely insistence upon Sola Scriptura and Sola Gratia by Sola Fidei. Certainly not a “rejection” of the “real presence” in the Eucharist. I know of many Protestants and Pastors who believe in the “real presence.” They may not embrace the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, but rather Consubstantiation, but there are those who do take Christ at “His Word,” so to speak, when it comes to this.

They also have some vital things right, like cultivating a personal, vibrant and daily walk with the Lord Jesus Christ and accepting Him as both savior and Lord with one’s heart and mind, and not only professing Him with one’s lips, which some Catholics fail to embrace.
 
Originally Quoted by O.S. Luke:
Click to expand...
Anglicans/Methodists do not reject Real Presence - we’re not in the “Zwingli line.” It is not symbolic to us.
Click to expand...
I remember reading somewhere that Anglicans and Methodists do indeed accept a kind of Real Presence in the Eucharist. However, I don’t fully understand the Methodist and Anglican position. Do Anglicans and Methodists understand that the bread and wine in any way change into the actual body and blood of Christ (in other words, the bread and wine become the very same body and blood of Christ on the Cross), or do they understand the Real Presence in a more “spiritual” sense–that the bread and wine do not become the body and blood of Christ but instead Christ simply instills his spiritual presence into the bread and wine? In which case, what the participant eats is 100% bread and wine, although Christ is spiritually present, although not substantially.
 
I selected OTHER because I think the main error was in rejecting the authority of the Church, which includes the authority to teach without error on the various subjects listed in the poll.
 
Sola Scriptura!!! … yet all of the above. I grew up non-denominational and what I have noticed is that the Reformers and the people who came after them have thrown the baby (literally) out with the bathwater!! There may have been corruption and scandal inside the Church but these reformers had little excuse(s) to attempt to destroy the Church. How can they resist the Church based on Sola Scriptura when the Church is totally responsible for the Scriptura they use? If they actually read the Bible and took it literally they would all become Catholic.
 
i voted “other” because i have never heard anybody (protestant or not), go on a “bashing” spree on just 1 subject, they usually hit on 3 (or more) at a time.
 
40.png
VociMike:
I selected OTHER because I think the main error was in rejecting the authority of the Church, which includes the authority to teach without error on the various subjects listed in the poll.
Click to expand...
But the rejection of Church authority is intrinsically linked with Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. Sola Scriptura–>rejection of the authority of Sacred of Tradition, and so the rejection of the Depositum Fidei and of the teaching authrity of the Magisterium. So I had to vote for the Solas.
 
Gotta be rejection of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. After all, the Eucharist IS the Mass.

My second choice would have been the Sola’s. A sad mistake they make there, but not nearly as bad as denying the Real Presence.
 
I voted other. I think it all fell apart after the rejection of authority. Luther’s heresy could have been corrected if he had stayed obedient when he was going to far.

What a can of worms.
 
I believe it’s the reject of Jesus being in the Eucharist. I would choose this because denying Jesus Himself is not a smart thing to do.

However, I don’t know whether this is the worst choice for the advance of Protestantism, because we, as human, find evidence in senses, through which we can not detect Jesus in the Eucharist. Thus, people can readily abandon this view.
 
Rejection of the authority of the Catholic Church. Just look at the chaos of teachings who donot recognize this Church as the one that Christ has established to speak in his name. Arguments and dessertations galore, but fact remains, there’s no unity among n-Catholics. Just like Jesus was called as from the devil, so is his Church and his designated chief representative. Those who have no claim of speaking authoratively dare to declare this Church and Her representative as from the devil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top