Biggest Error of Protestant Reformers

[Roger_G]

±One should be very careful in making statemenets or opinions based on one individuals “beliefs”

Having known a number of Seventh-day Adventists, I know they do believe Jesus was/is God, Saviour and creator. In looking at their writings and beliefs, Jesus is the center of their “beliefs”

What do you consider a Christian? One who only professes a belief in Christ or one who practices the words of Chist and lives as He lived?

 

[Roger_G]

±One should be very careful in making statemenets or opinions based on one individuals “beliefs”

Having known a number of Seventh-day Adventists, I know they do believe Jesus was/is God, Saviour and creator. In looking at their writings and beliefs, Jesus is the center of their “beliefs”

What do you consider a Christian? One who only professes a belief in Christ or one who practices the words of Chist and lives as He lived?

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Quoted by FrBobSST:

Luther gave and made it an ecclesiastical norm. He himself said he did not wish to abolish the episcopate, and yet those Lutheran bodies that are Germanic in origin never did restore the Episcopate. Lutherans definately believe in a real and substantial presence (well, orthodox Lutherans do, anyway) in the Eucharist, but they believe that, following the example of the Incarnation, that the Christ is consubstantially present.

Corrrect. Luther was perhaps one of the more “traditional” reformers. However, I think it is safe to say that the majority of the other reformers eventually aligned themselves more with Zwingli’s understanding of the Eucharist as simply a symbol. Even Melanchthon, who worked alongside Luther, eventually editted his Ausburg confession to reflect his new belief of the Eucharist as not substantially containing the Body of Christ (the new document being the Variata).

…citing a fable concerning early Anglican ordinations and essentially invalidating ordinations conducted in the Iberian Peninsula (which used a form almost identical to Cranmner’s Ordinal).

Very interesting. I didn’t know that.

Both the Lutherans and Anglicans, with some nudging and some cleaning of house, could be reunited with the Catholic Church without too much difficulty.

I know that Lutherans and Catholics have undergone inter-faith dialogue and have reached some conclusions on justification. I wonder, however, how much of an obstacle this would create for a reunion between Lutherans and Catholics. And there are other issues like the sacrafice of the mass, predestination, the degree of human falleness, etc. which I imagine would be a challenge for both sides to come to agreement!

It’s the Reformed folks that really botched up things beyond any illusion of simplicity in restoration. With views on the Eucharist that are downright nuts, double predestination, and (at one point) the constant preaching of law, law, law, law as opposed to law and gospel… to utter abandonment of anything resembling a clerical structure that could be called apostolic, and the outright rejection of all tradition (save that invented after 1530).

I completely agree with you. What I can’t understand, however, is how these Reformers and their successors could have so radically changed Christianity in complete defiance of the earliest Christian accounts. Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Clement, Irenaeas, Justin Martyr, etc. – it’s as though Zwingli, Calivn and others simply trampled these under foot. It just makes no sense to me for one to scream ad fontes and then to impose one’s theology in determining which ancient Christian sources are really Christian.

By the way, I looked at your profile. What is “Primitive” Catholic? I’ve heard of Primitive Baptists, but I don’t ever recall reading about Primitive Catholics. Are they like Old Catholics???

 

[Church_Militant]

I said the Solas…particularly Sola Scriptura, since it seems to me that all the other errors cascade down from that one and lead to the rejection of real history and sacred tradition which helps to inform what the Bible teaches…not to mention the insane diversity of opinions/doctrines.
http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/AN878.gif

 

[jimmy]

Madaglan:

Which of the following do you think is the biggest error of the Protestant Reformers? In other words, which error do you think is least acceptable in its rejection of certain well-demonstrated Catholic truths?

I would have to say that it would be the separation of the visible and invisible Church. This leads to all other heresies that they espouse.

 

[miguel]

±One should be very careful in making statemenets or opinions based on one individuals “beliefs”

Having known a number of Seventh-day Adventists, I know they do believe Jesus was/is God, Saviour and creator. In looking at their writings and beliefs, Jesus is the center of their “beliefs”

What do you consider a Christian? One who only professes a belief in Christ or one who practices the words of Chist and lives as He lived?

He probably meant Jehovah Witness. They do deny the divinity of Christ. Either that or he made the wrong assumption about the Adventist. Hence the anger.

 

[miguel]

FrRobSST:

A few points.

The Lutheran Church did not reject a clerical state, but it did make the nature of the clerical state a bit more loose, especially in the Germanic lands. While the Scandanavian Lutherans kept bishops, priests, and deacons in apostolic succession (and do to this day, save their error in women’s ordination), the Germanic Lutherans took a temporary out that Luther gave and made it an ecclesiastical norm. He himself said he did not wish to abolish the episcopate, and yet those Lutheran bodies that are Germanic in origin never did restore the Episcopate. Lutherans definately believe in a real and substantial presence (well, orthodox Lutherans do, anyway) in the Eucharist, but they believe that, following the example of the Incarnation, that the Christ is consubstantially present. The phrase a Lutheran seminarian I know is most fond of using is that Christ is truly and substantially present in, with, and under the forms of bread and wine. Essentially, orthodox Lutherans believe that the body and blood of Christ and the bread and the wine occupy the same space at the same time, but do not accept the concept of the annhilation of the physical composition of the bread and wine.

The Anglican Church’s chief error that resulted in more grief than it could imagine later on was the 1552 Book of Common Prayer and, more specifically, the Black Rubric. What is ironic is that as late as 1570, Rome was still making reunion overtures to the Anglican Church - including an offer to allow them to use the BCP as long as the Black Rubric was struck. While the BR was softened in 1662 and by 1850 was generally ignored by Tractarians, it did not stop the condemnation of Anglican Orders in 1896. That beign said, the justification for said condemnation is pretty weak, citing a fable concerning early Anglican ordinations and essentially invalidating ordinations conducted in the Iberian Peninsula (which used a form almost identical to Cranmner’s Ordinal). Either way, since Apostolicae Curae, the Anglican Church has kept slipping and slipping - first contraception, then women’s ordination to the priesthood, and now, well… we all know where things are headed now.

Both the Lutherans and Anglicans, with some nudging and some cleaning of house, could be reunited with the Catholic Church without too much difficulty.

It’s the Reformed folks that really botched up things beyond any illusion of simplicity in restoration. With views on the Eucharist that are downright nuts, double predestination, and (at one point) the constant preaching of law, law, law, law as opposed to law and gospel… to utter abandonment of anything resembling a clerical structure that could be called apostolic, and the outright rejection of all tradition (save that invented after 1530).

Just some random thoughts.

Rob+

Just to clarify…Once the validly ordained episcopate dies out due to invalid orders, it can’t be re-established by just correcting the form of ordinations. A validly ordained bishop is also required.

 

[FrRobSST]

miguel:

Just to clarify…Once the validly ordained episcopate dies out due to invalid orders, it can’t be re-established by just correcting the form of ordinations. A validly ordained bishop is also required.

Well, one of the problems with Apostolicae Curae is that one of the key condemnations they include of Anglican Orders is that neither Chrism nor a specific mention of the Eucharistic Sacrifice are mentioned.

The funny thing is, Chrism was not used nor was the Eucharistic Sacrifice mentioned in the Iberian Peninsula from about 600 to 1570 AD. When the Tridentine Missal and Pontifical suppressed the local usage, Chrism and a mention of the Eucharistic Sacrifice were included in the new rite, but they had not been present in the old.

Thus, since they evidently didn’t intend to do as the Church does - those orders should have been invalidated. But they weren’t.

The other problem is that AC condemns an Ordinal that was written BEFORE the Council of Trent deemed Chrism and the Eucharistic Sacrifice to be necessary usages in the rite. Thus, while all further rites had to include it, past rites were suppressed but not deemed invalid.

In the end, however, disagreements over the nature of AC are pretty much moot at this point. All of the Anglicans who have broken away from the Anglican Communion have orders through the PNCC, the PICC (Philipine Independent Catholic Church), and other valid Old Catholic sources, so should they seek unity with Rome (as some are already doing), that will not be an obstacle.

The Anglican Communion proper, by ordaining women into the sacerdotal orders of presbyter and bishop have permanently cast their entire ecclesiastical future in serious doubt, and unless they cast out every last woman who has taken it upon herself to put on the vestments of a prest or bishop, there is NO WAY that I can even come close to considering Anglican orders generally valid anymore.

Rob+

 

[Ignatius]

All of the above. Not one is acceptable.

 

[miguel]

FrRobSST:

Well, one of the problems with Apostolicae Curae is that one of the key condemnations they include of Anglican Orders is that neither Chrism nor a specific mention of the Eucharistic Sacrifice are mentioned.

The funny thing is, Chrism was not used nor was the Eucharistic Sacrifice mentioned in the Iberian Peninsula from about 600 to 1570 AD. When the Tridentine Missal and Pontifical suppressed the local usage, Chrism and a mention of the Eucharistic Sacrifice were included in the new rite, but they had not been present in the old.

Thus, since they evidently didn’t intend to do as the Church does - those orders should have been invalidated. But they weren’t.

The other problem is that AC condemns an Ordinal that was written BEFORE the Council of Trent deemed Chrism and the Eucharistic Sacrifice to be necessary usages in the rite. Thus, while all further rites had to include it, past rites were suppressed but not deemed invalid.

In the end, however, disagreements over the nature of AC are pretty much moot at this point. All of the Anglicans who have broken away from the Anglican Communion have orders through the PNCC, the PICC (Philipine Independent Catholic Church), and other valid Old Catholic sources, so should they seek unity with Rome (as some are already doing), that will not be an obstacle.

The Anglican Communion proper, by ordaining women into the sacerdotal orders of presbyter and bishop have permanently cast their entire ecclesiastical future in serious doubt, and unless they cast out every last woman who has taken it upon herself to put on the vestments of a prest or bishop, there is NO WAY that I can even come close to considering Anglican orders generally valid anymore.

Rob+

This issue is settled as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. In the Anglican case, from Apostolicae Curae: “For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but, as We have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out…In this way, the native character or spirit as it is called of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself…” The form of the Sacrament of Holy Orders was changed. And the new form, according to Pope Leo, manifested the un-Catholic intention. Hence the invalidity of the orders.

Is there similar evidence in Spain that shows they changed the Catholic rite (i.e., eliminating wording as to the explicit purpose of the Sacrament of Holy Orders) because they disagreed with authentic Catholic theology? Because that is precisely why Anglican orders are invalid. They changed the words because they disagreed with the theology behind those words. And by doing that, they did not have the same intention as the Catholic Church for the rite of ordination.

 

[DianJo]

Church Militant:

I said the Solas…particularly Sola Scriptura, since it seems to me that all the other errors cascade down from that one and lead to the rejection of real history and sacred tradition which helps to inform what the Bible teaches…not to mention the insane diversity of opinions/doctrines.

http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/AN878.gif

I’m with you on this one! If it were not for the Sola everything else would still be in place and there would not be many thousands of other denominations!

 

[Psalm45_9]

I chose “other” for all of the above.

 

[jako]

Madaglan:

That’s because I was still creating them when you posted

Oh! Sorry I jumped the gun. I want to pick more than one, but I couldn’t.

 

[Axion]

I’m with you on this one! If it were not for the Sola everything else would still be in place and there would not be many thousands of other denominations!

Exactly. The “Solas” are the excuse for rejecting the whole living witness of the Church from 90 AD onward. All Christians from that date on not only have nothing useful to say, they are castigated as unreliable witnesses, fools, deceivers and deceived, blind and superstitious - until the great men of the 1500s suddenly discovered the “truth”.

The Saints, the martyrs, the evangelisers of distant lands, all are categorised as liars, people whose word is worth nothing, whose beliefs are worth nothing but to be scorned. Nothing they say, practised or witnessed to is to be believed or given any credibility. Only those who disbelieved and cursed Christ are to be trusted as witnesses to the truth.

Any “Christianity” that starts on that basis is deeply to be distrusted.

 

[Zooey]

Madaglan:

Both evangelicals and Roman Catholics believe that every person baptized into Christ becomes a “prophet, priest and king.” It is understood, therefore, that every baptized Christian partakes in the spiritual priesthood of Christ. However, unlike evangelicals, Catholics understand that there are some individuals in the Church who are called to act in a special capacity as priests–and to act as Christ in the sacrafice of the Mass.
Beginning with Luther, evangelicals declared and still declare today that there is no special priesthood to which certain Christians are called.
The traditional Catholic understanding of grace is that it is a gift of God that works inside of man which, during and after baptism, plays an integral part in justification and sanctification. In positively responding to that grace, one through this grace is made righteous and is sanctified. Grace, in the Catholic understanding, is directly related to an inner transformation of the soul. In responding to grace, this God-given grace transforms man from unrighteous to righteous. God through his grace makes man to become rigtheous and declares him to be rigtheous.
Most Protestants, on the other hand, reject the notion that grace works inside an individual, at least in terms of justification (they believe differently in sanctification). According to most Protestants, God’s grace in justification does not lead to an inner transformation. Instead, this grace can only lead one to accept the righteous Christ, upon which choice one is imputed with the righteousness of Christ, even though one’s soul still remains in an unrighteous state. Grace, in the Protestant model, is not infused into the individual for the purpose of transformation. Instead, the grace results only in man’s being declared righteous, even though he remains in essence unrighteous.
I’m still studying the different ideas on grace, so please don’t take what I write as 100% correct, since I realize that I’m not a theologian (yet).

If I follow your explanation of the Catholic view of grace correctly, it is indeed 100% correct, as it is 100% that of John Wesley…:yup:

 

[Zooey]

Anyhow, the Methodist in residence voted “other”. I agree with John Wesley: it was a sad day indeed when our forefathers “demoted” the saints, especially the Virgin Mother.(Mr Wesley, by the by, was a great devotee of hers. As late as the 1950s, I was taught belief in her perpetual virginity, as wel as her assumption…)

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Quoted by Zooey:

Anyhow, the Methodist in residence voted “other”. I agree with John Wesley: it was a sad day indeed when our forefathers “demoted” the saints, especially the Virgin Mother.(Mr Wesley, by the by, was a great devotee of hers. As late as the 1950s, I was taught belief in her perpetual virginity, as wel as her assumption…)

Just out of curiosity, if Wesley did indeed embrace a more Catholic view of grace, did he still retain the Protestant idea of faith alone and the imputed righteousness of Christ? Also, do Methodists generally believe that, since grace works inside the individual in justification, that the individual is actually made righteous, rather than simply being declared rigtheous? It seems that’s what you were implying in your first post.

Concerning Mary: Are Methodists less put off by the Catholic veneration of Mary, or do they see it as idolatry?

I know that Luther, too, had a great devotion to Mary; but it seems that most evangelicals don’t like to openly venerate the apostles or Mary because it might look too Catholic.

Just an anecdote: in the 18th century, many Methodists, along with Quakers, were falsely accused as being crypto-Catholics. I wonder if the Methodist ideas on free will, justification, etc. had anything to do with this. Thanks for your response!

 

[Malachi4U]

The greatest error of the Pretestant (DE)/re-formation?

Easy, allowing Satan to enter into their faith (small ‘f’) and dismantle the Faith (capital ‘F’) God gave to His Catholic Church. Causing souls to be lost to Satan in the infinite number of theologies they invent. The loss of the souls that deserve salvation due to the invention of faith with every whim and fancy they invent. A new belief every time the wind changes. The watering down of the Faith Jesus Christ our Lord and savior gave us, through His Church, His body, His Catholic Church.

DE-formation? RE-formation?:whacky: They reformed nothing, they only seek to deform Christs body.

Pray for the Protestants though, many if not most are good Christians and try to understand and follow God as best they can. Many Catholics I am sure may also exhibit poor examples of Christianity even though they claim to be in Christs Catholic Church. Come to think of it, poor Catholic examples where Luther, etc.!

Jesus judges us all, only Jesus knows who goes to heaven and who to hell. He loves us all and will judge us by our Faith (works come from our Faith so that He can judge us. Like a fig tree you might say!). I hope I see all my Protestant brothers and sisters in heaven - except for Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. who whe excomunicated for herisy and leading so many astray may need all our prayers and intervention to save their souls. (See St. Mt 16:18-19)

 

[Zooey]

Mr Wesley indeed taught that we are actually made righteous, not just declared righteous. He was not only called a “methodist”, for being methodical, but he & his early followers were also called “holy clubs” because they both taught personal holiness as the gracious gift of God.
I suspect that his views on holiness, calls for holy living, and devotion to prayer may well have looked to the English of the 18th C. as more Catholic than Anglican. Indeed, he was often refused the use of CofE property for his meetings for this very reason.
More interesting still (to me, at least) is that he seems to stand all but alone among the reformers in his insistence that real grace is imparted through the waters of baptism, whilst rejecting a superstition of his time that once baptized, a person however sinful, could never be lost…bringing him into difficulties w/those of Calvinist leanings.
I find that there is a great deal more interest in & respect for Mary in the Methodist fold than in other protestant churches. (This varies w/individuals, to be sure…)In fact, we have a large tapestry of the Virgin Mother in the main entryway of my local church.And I, personally, have been praying the rosary since I was in school.
There is a certain tension that exists between the belief in faith alone vs. faith & works…Wesley struggled with what I believe you would call scrupulosness for a large portion of his life, & finally settled it by declaring that “I did know that I did trust Christ & Christ alone”, yet he never stopped emphasizing the need for faith to show itself,constantly, in one’s life & acts.

 

[Peace-bwu]

Zooey:

If I follow your explanation of the Catholic view of grace correctly, it is indeed 100% correct, as it is 100% that of John Wesley…:yup:

Interesting to know that there may be some common ground in this, I will have to look into John Wesley’s view of Grace, I like when we Christians can find more common ground! It would be more correct to say that Wesley’s view is similar to the Catholic Church, since the Catholic Tradition has gone unchanged since the Apostles. We are always growing deeper in understanding that Tradition more fully. Alot of non-Catholics have misconceptions about the Catholic doctrine on Grace and salvation and are glad to know we don’t think we earn our salvation by works and that Grace is a gift from God.

Now if we could only get that True Presence of the Eucharist, and Peter was the rock, hammered out… Maybe someday Christians will be united. Let us at least be united in prayer and freindship!

It woudl be great to start some threads that compare and contrast specific beliefs between theologies of various denomonations as compared to the Catholic Church and take a tally of what we have in common and where we differ. Some that stay specifically between one particular denomonation and the Catholic Church. We have had a few for Lutheran and Orthodox and Jewish but I dont’ know that we have any specific threads for Methodist, and I am assuming there are various forms of Methodist? That would be educational, because it can be confusing to most Catholics to keep up with the beliefs of the various denomonations, and I enjoy dialogue.

God Bless,
Peace