Debate Thread: Was the Reformation Neccessary? Why?

[Church_Militant]

I am opening this with a view towards refuting the assertion that the Reformation was absolutely neccessary.

The poll above is public.

I say it was not because history has proved that its fruit was division, ad hominem, and scandal to the world around us all.

In site of some allegations that the Catholic Church had departed from correct doctrine, I don’t believe that anyone can make a good case for that.

I realize that this will touch on many different doctrines and debates/discussions of any/all of those doctrines that one may believe to be errors will not be considered off-topic within this thread though you are free and encouraged to open new threads on individual issues for debate and post the links to same on this thread, or to post links to other threads where those topics have been or are being discussed.

Please be certain to back up your posts with verifiable documentation and keep it civil.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[joshua_b]

Now THIS is an industrious undertaking…I can only see this thread growing quickly out of control. Best of luck to you CM, you’re gonna need it.

 

[Church_Militant]

Now THIS is an industrious undertaking…I can only see this thread growing quickly out of control. Best of luck to you CM, you’re gonna need it.

People need to stick to the topics and be civil. I have great confidence in Moderator Michael Francis’ ability to deal with any incivility.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Now THIS is an industrious undertaking…I can only see this thread growing quickly out of control. Best of luck to you CM, you’re gonna need it.

If it does it won’t be my doing. Just for that very reason I will not participate on this post. I am open to discussing it via PMs though.

 

[Contarini]

Necessary for what? Necessary given what preceding circumstances, and what final goal? The question as posed cannot be answered. I don’t believe that any historical events are strictly speaking necessary, but obviously it may be necessary that X is to happen if Y is to happen, or given the combination of circumstances ABC then X may be practically inevitable.

Protestants often use this language of necessity in order to avoid thinking about whether the Reformation was justifiable (which is the far more important and interesting question). This is a slavish way of thinking worthy only of Marxist idolators.

Edwin

 

[dbacks5439]

I’ve thought about this for some time now. My conclusion is that the reformation was necessary only as a slap in the face to the Catholic Church. Not slap as in bad, but slap as in snap out of it! Would the Council of Trent have occured if not for Martin Luther? Would we have had the Tridentine Mass for the last 500 years without Martin Luther? Because of the way the Vatican handled the “Luther affair”, we are still making up for it. Why would we constantly debate with protestants if our intentions are not to bring them back home?

Reformation was a terrible thing to happen, but necessary for the improvement of the Church. Another way to say it is Martin Luther “took the blow” from Satan to prevent the Gates of Hell from prevailing. If I offended anyone from my opinion, too bad. It’s just an opinion, not a fact.

 

[Church_Militant]

If it does it won’t be my doing. Just for that very reason I will not participate on this post. I am open to discussing it via PMs though.

Aw c’mon Bro! This one is something we need to deal with and will be a good thread. Most everybody knows better than to mess up one of my threads. http://bestsmileys.com/shooting1/20.gif

 

[hoosierdaddy]

I’ve thought about this for some time now. My conclusion is that the reformation was necessary only as a slap in the face to the Catholic Church. Not slap as in bad, but slap as in snap out of it! Would the Council of Trent have occured if not for Martin Luther? Would we have had the Tridentine Mass for the last 500 years without Martin Luther? Because of the way the Vatican handled the “Luther affair”, we are still making up for it. Why would we constantly debate with protestants if our intentions are not to bring them back home?

Reformation was a terrible thing to happen, but necessary for the improvement of the Church. Another way to say it is Martin Luther “took the blow” from Satan to prevent the Gates of Hell from prevailing. If I offended anyone from my opinion, too bad. It’s just an opinion, not a fact.

Interesting perception. You may be on to something.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Aw c’mon Bro! This one is something we need to deal with and will be a good thread. Most everybody knows better than to mess up one of my threads. http://bestsmileys.com/shooting1/20.gif

LOL ok. I will try to contribute what I can to it. You know where I stand on the issue.

 

[heisenburg]

I selected no but i do want to point out that SOME (not all) of martin luthers complaints were valid and they did need to be addressed. He exagerated on some, and created issues out of things that were never issues before, but there was a core group of items that needed correcting. It should also be noted that the legitimate issues like priest abusing indulgences were addressed by the CC.

Personal opionions on what happened… they hold no weight…

1. ML comes up with an initial list of items that he saw as issues.
2. CC looks at list and goes… You hit the nail on the head for a number…
3. ML returns and says… But all are issues.
4. CC responds… Hold on, just `cause you were right on a few, doesnt mean everyhting.
5. ML: Well, the fact that you dont see it means i must be right.
6. CC: Careful!
7. ML: you know what else… you got the cannon all wrong too…
8. CC: I hate to do this, but your fired
9. ML: Wow… by the way… I also noticed that all you need is faith and the bible.
10. CC: Everyone… please ignore this guy…
11. ML: Hmm… If you arent able to even look at and agree with me, this must mean your not the real church after all… Its up to me to restore the true church
12. CC: Doah!

Another personal opinion…

HAD ML worked within the church and not against it, he would probably be considered a saint by the church

 

[Contarini]

I’ve thought about this for some time now. My conclusion is that the reformation was necessary only as a slap in the face to the Catholic Church. Not slap as in bad, but slap as in snap out of it! Would the Council of Trent have occured if not for Martin Luther?

I don’t know. Nor do I know that the Council of Trent was the best way to address the problems of the sixteenth century–indeed probably it wasn’t. Also, when you say “without Luther” that can mean different things–without Luther’s break with many aspects of medieval Catholicism and with the hierarchy (in other words, the schism insofar as Luther had a hand in it), or without Luther as a theologian with powerful insights. What if, for instance, Luther had chosen (as many orthodox reformers from his time to ours have chosen) to submit to the condemnation of Rome even though he thought it was unjust? What if he had made a serious effort to modify his teachings to fit orthodox Catholicism, while maintaining his essential insights? Sure, this is an idealistic scenario–but dare we say that it was impossible?

I think there’s at least some possibility that if Luther and other leading Protestants had taken a humbler and more orthodox approach, we might have seen something like Vatican II hapen in the 16th century–which would have been a much better place for it IMHO. There were plenty of Catholic reformers who argued for the vernacular liturgy and other reforms at the time–these were real possibilities, but intransigence on both sides made this more open policy impossible.

Would we have had the Tridentine Mass for the last 500 years without Martin Luther?

I’m not quite sure what you mean by that. Do you mean that the centralization of the liturgy (which I’m not sure was a good thing) wouldn’t have happened without Luther? Or do you mean that the preservation of the liturgy in a more or less unchanged state (which I’m also not sure was a good thing) wouldn’t have happened without Luther?

Edwin

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Just a quick note for now. Some have mentioned the nasty things that Luther said. I cannot dispute this. I can only say he was human like the rest of us.

He did what he felt (and I believe was true) that God was calling him to do. He had to deal with things that we will never have to deal with. He was excommunicated for preaching the truth and lived in exile as a price was placed upon his head. Given these events, it is understandable how Luther could be so bitter. May not make it right, but any of us would most likely do the same.

 

[Church_Militant]

I selected no but i do want to point out that SOME (not all) of martin luthers complaints were valid and they did need to be addressed. He exagerated on some, and created issues out of things that were never issues before, but there was a core group of items that needed correcting. It should also be noted that the legitimate issues like priest abusing indulgences were addressed by the CC.

Personal opionions on what happened… they hold no weight…

1. ML comes up with an initial list of items that he saw as issues.
2. CC looks at list and goes… You hit the nail on the head for a number…
3. ML returns and says… But all are issues.
4. CC responds… Hold on, just `cause you were right on a few, doesnt mean everyhting.
5. ML: Well, the fact that you dont see it means i must be right.
6. CC: Careful!
7. ML: you know what else… you got the cannon all wrong too…
8. CC: I hate to do this, but your fired
9. ML: Wow… by the way… I also noticed that all you need is faith and the bible.
10. CC: Everyone… please ignore this guy…
11. ML: Hmm… If you arent able to even look at and agree with me, this must mean your not the real church after all… Its up to me to restore the true church
12. CC: Doah!

Another personal opinion…

HAD ML worked within the church and not against it, he would probably be considered a saint by the church

Wow! Sort of the short course. I think (and I suspect almost everyone will agree) that this is an oversimplified, but essentially accurate assessment of the Lutheran affair.

However, this thread is meant for a debate on the issues that people believe made the Reformation neccessary.

Brian, can you maybe kick things off with a list of the primary issues? Thanks Bro.

 

[Church_Militant]

Some have mentioned the nasty things that Luther said. I cannot dispute this. I can only say he was human like the rest of us.

Agreed.

He did what he felt (and I believe was true) that God was calling him to do.

I don’t think I would even agree to this.

He had to deal with things that we will never have to deal with. **He was excommunicated for preaching the truth **

and lived in exile as a price was placed upon his head. I’d definitely disagree with this, and would like you to provide a list of what you see as having been the issues that he was correcting.

Given these events, it is understandable how Luther could be so bitter. May not make it right, but any of us would most likely do the same.

Martin Luther was very likely suffering from mental disorders and what we Catholics call “scrupulosity”, a spiritual condition in which a person ceases to have a rational perception of his sins and the seriousness of them. Generally they believe that almost everything they do is sinful, an unscriptural fallacy that has never been taught by the Catholic Church. This may well have contributed to Luther’s thinking.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[b_justb]

I voted “No not neccessary.”

When I was vehemently anti-Christian one of the crutches I used to keep from seriously looking into historic Christianity was Jesus’ own words in John 15:12-17:

This is my commandment: love one another as I love you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. I no longer call you slaves, because a slave does not know what his master is doing. I have called you friends, because I have told you everything I have heard from my Father. It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will remain, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he may give you. This I command you: love one another.

I looked at the Christian community as a whole and said to myself – I just don’t see this love for each other. Clearly, what they claim to be they are not. If one is not what one claims to be, then one is deceptive or deceived. I admit I still have problems with it. The (so-called) Protestant Reformation only added (and still adds) to my sentiments that Christianity as a whole is full of it.

slips on flack vest

 

[heisenburg]

my appologies if i offended anyone… I understand it was an over simplification and was in a way meant as such.

Please forgive me any offense i have commented

 

[MrS]

Out of every “bad” or “pain”, there is the possibility of some good … even the Reformation… witness the awesome contributions of hundreds of Protestant ministers coming back to the Church.

Even a dentist has to inflict some pain for the end result.

Was a reformation necessary? It seems that is so.

And as mentioned, Luther, a heretic, decided to seek reform from without. That was the bad move. Was there a resulting reform of some of the problems in the Church, brought about by the Reformation? I think yes. The reforms were needed - the Reformation was the catalyst.

As Dr. Hahn once said… the Reformation was the unfortunate act of divorce in the Church… it was, perhaps, the only alternative to the problems.

Is divorce always the only option? No. But in this case the reformers wanted it… they got it… and they are suffering for it (and most don’t even know it).

They tried to take some of the “marital” property with them… that didn’t work. Their “settlement” resulted in a bastardization of the Book of the Catholic Church - the Bible, and a loss of even visiting rights to five of the Sacraments.

Was it necessary… well, either that or the Church would have to comprimise on the Truth… and that ain’t gonna happen.

Finally… someone perhaps can reference the verse… Scripture does say that we can only, or best, recognize what is good by seeing what is not good.

By any comparison, the fullness of the Faith in the Catholic Church has become more evident when compared to the partial truths found in the communities of our separated brethren.

.

 

[Church_Militant]

I voted “No not neccessary.”

When I was vehemently anti-Christian one of the crutches I used to keep from seriously looking into historic Christianity was Jesus’ own words in John 15

:12-17:
I looked at the Christian community as a whole and said to myself – I just don’t see this love for each other. Clearly, what they claim to be they are not. If one is not what one claims to be, then one is deceptive or deceived. I admit I still have problems with it. The (so-called) Protestant Reformation only added (and still adds) to my sentiments that Christianity as a whole is full of it.

slips on flack vest**Steps in front to act as human shield

It wouldn’t be so bad if it wasn’t a valid point.

Much as I love most of the n-Cs I know, some of what they believe and teach is (IMHO) nuts. And I don’t think the reformation was neccessary. The doctrines of that came out of Protestantism have done far more harm than good to Christianity, with the primary one being Sola Scriptura, since all the rest trickle down from it.

To me, the exploration of n-C teachings is a madhouse, but we’ll get into that soon enough I think.

I submit a premis to kick things off then
(since Brian is slackin’. )

**Sola Scriptura is not actually a Biblically supported doctrine in spite of extensive proof texting by n-Cs to the contrary.

I am here asking for conclusive scriptural proof that explicitly tells me that I should accept this as from the Word of God.**

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
(May the peace of the Lord be always with you all.)

 

[Church_Militant]

my appologies if i offended anyone… I understand it was an over simplification and was in a way meant as such.

Please forgive me any offense i have commented

I take no offense. I think ya did alright.

 

[dbacks5439]

I don’t know. Nor do I know that the Council of Trent was the best way to address the problems of the sixteenth century–indeed probably it wasn’t. Also, when you say “without Luther” that can mean different things–without Luther’s break with many aspects of medieval Catholicism and with the hierarchy (in other words, the schism insofar as Luther had a hand in it), or without Luther as a theologian with powerful insights. What if, for instance, Luther had chosen (as many orthodox reformers from his time to ours have chosen) to submit to the condemnation of Rome even though he thought it was unjust? What if he had made a serious effort to modify his teachings to fit orthodox Catholicism, while maintaining his essential insights? Sure, this is an idealistic scenario–but dare we say that it was impossible?

I think there’s at least some possibility that if Luther and other leading Protestants had taken a humbler and more orthodox approach, we might have seen something like Vatican II hapen in the 16th century–which would have been a much better place for it IMHO. There were plenty of Catholic reformers who argued for the vernacular liturgy and other reforms at the time–these were real possibilities, but intransigence on both sides made this more open policy impossible.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by that. Do you mean that the centralization of the liturgy (which I’m not sure was a good thing) wouldn’t have happened without Luther? Or do you mean that the preservation of the liturgy in a more or less unchanged state (which I’m also not sure was a good thing) wouldn’t have happened without Luther?

Edwin

The Council of Trent was formed to "close the floodgates" if you will. Like I said, it was a slap in the face to the Church. We needed to wake up. The Tridentine Mass was formulated during this council. So because of Martin Luther and his breaking away, the Council of Trent was formed and the Tridentine Mass was a result, in order to form a more unified way of worshipping. I really wonder why Luther didn't join the Orthodox church? They don't believe in Papal authority and I don't remember them ever having the problems that were rampant during those times in the Church. Of course, if he did join the Orthodox, there wouldn't have been floodgates to be closed in the first place :)