Debate Thread: Was the Reformation Neccessary? Why?

[Contarini]

Yes, I think it was necessary to allow for freedom of religion to flourish as an idea in the West. The Catholic Church had become way to involved in temporal affairs and the monarchs claimed to rule with divine authority. I think the Protestant Reformation started to break the link between Church and State a necessary precursor to both the French and American Revolutions.

You could make that case if you took a sort of indirect quasi-Marxist approach. The Reformation led to the breaking of this link insofar as it divided the Church and thus weakened the Church’s bargaining power over against the rising nation-states. In the short term this led to a far closer link between Church and State, in which the Church largely became an arm of the State. But certainly you could make the case that eventually, as the State came to no longer need the Church, this led to the privatizing of religion. Or less cynically, the division of Christianity eventually led many Christians to conclude that these matters were not as obvious as had been thought, and thus to be more tolerant of individual choice.

Still, I don’t think we should lose sight of the immediate, obvious consequences of the Reformation, which were much greater religious intolerance and a strengthening of the link between Church and State–in Catholicism as well as in the various Protestantisms.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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.

Since I think this was a great disaster for Catholicism that led to bizarre and destructive reactions when the floodgates were finally opened again (in the 1960s of all times!), I don’t accept this as evidence for the necessity of the Reformation.

A good outcome, from my perspective, would have been a less centralized Church with agreement on the basic doctrinal issues but a lot of freedom on things like clerical celibacy, liturgy, communion in one kind, etc. I appreciate what the Fathers of Trent were trying to do, and considering the circumstances I think their wisdom and restraint was remarkable. But objectively speaking I still think Trent went in the wrong direction in many ways.

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

Some Lutherans did show an interest in Orthodoxy. Contrary to what another poster said, the Lutheran correspondence with the Patriarch of Constantinople was not an attempt to “save” him (when will people stop interpreting the Reformation through the lens of fundamentalism!), though no doubt the Lutherans thought they had something important to offer. The Protestants appealed to the “Greeks” to confirm their rejection of many aspects of medieval Catholicism, and they hoped to develop friendly relations.

But on the key soteriological issues that mattered to Luther, Orthodoxy was on the whole much more alien to his way of thinking than Catholicism (there is a school of Finnish scholars who have argued otherwise–they make some valid points but in the end I think their arguments are rather ahistorical). Whatever might divide Luther and his Catholic opponents, there were certain Augustinian principles that united them. This wasn’t the case with the Orthodox.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[RNRobert]

Since I think this was a great disaster for Catholicism that led to bizarre and destructive reactions when the floodgates were finally opened again (in the 1960s of all times!), I don’t accept this as evidence for the necessity of the Reformation.

A good outcome, from my perspective, would have been a less centralized Church with agreement on the basic doctrinal issues but a lot of freedom on things like clerical celibacy, liturgy, communion in one kind, etc. I appreciate what the Fathers of Trent were trying to do, and considering the circumstances I think their wisdom and restraint was remarkable. But objectively speaking I still think Trent went in the wrong direction in many ways.

Some Lutherans did show an interest in Orthodoxy. Contrary to what another poster said, the Lutheran correspondence with the Patriarch of Constantinople was not an attempt to “save” him (when will people stop interpreting the Reformation through the lens of fundamentalism!), though no doubt the Lutherans thought they had something important to offer. The Protestants appealed to the “Greeks” to confirm their rejection of many aspects of medieval Catholicism, and they hoped to develop friendly relations.

I’m trying exactly to remember what Kallistos Ware wrote in his book (since I no longer have it) but I believe he quoted something to the effect that the Orthodox “would join them or be damned.”

 

[Ave_Maria_1]

We are in need of a reformation now too! But NOT a revolt. Not a bloodletting and the protestant revolt of the 16th century did indeed involve the letting of blood.

We need a reform of the reform. The right man is at the helm and Our Lord is in charge. But I do not know if there are enough true knights…

Ave Maria!

 

[runandsew]

The Church was in real need of reform but this reform should have happened from within, not without.

In Old Testament times, Israel was very Godly at times, and other times it was evil through sin. In those evil times, should a few of the Israelites have broken off, and reconstructed a “new” Israel? Should they have gone back to the early fathers, and taken the scriptures and recreated Israel. Restart the Temple sacrifices somewhere else?

I don’t think so, God would have been very angry at them.
No, I think that they would have prayed and preached to bring Israel back to repentance.

 

[VociMike]

Can you perhaps list the alleged heresies for discussion?

I’m sure I’m not qualified to list them all. Besides that, I wonder if trying to do so wouldn’t derail the thread?

Just apply this definition (from the Catholic Encyclopedia) to the new theology that came out of the Reformation, and the major heresies should be pretty self-evident:

*St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”. "The right Christian faith consists in giving one’s voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are,therefore,two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ’s doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics.
*

 

[Church_Militant]

Actually, I intend that this thread be allowed to drift along the allegations that someone like hoosierdaddy repeatedly allude to.

I’d like this to be the place where they make their cases for the alleged Catholic doctrinal departures that they keep bringing up because I believe that in every single case they can and will be refuted.

I’m sorry if my thread title and initial post didn’t serve to make that clear.

That’s what I mean by why was the reformation neccessary.

It’s not about morals or such but about the allegations that we departed from correct doctrine and that is what the reformers supposedly corrected.

I realize that there are many discussions around about SS, but that is the foundational error from which all the rest descend.

Others are Purgatory, The Eucharistic Real Presence, and whatever else that any n-C choses to put forth.
Pax Domnini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

ISTM it was necessary because the guardians in the Church were not acting as guardians. What does one do, when the very people whose responsibility it is to correct abuses themselves need correction ? The Church was organised in such a way that if those at the top behaved as they shouldn’t, those on the receiving end had to wait until it pleased their superiors to correct themselves.​

Is this really tolerable, when dioceses could go for years without being given new bishops ? The laity did not exist for the good pleasure of the hierarchy - even if that means that bishops have less time to hunt, wage war, lounge around at court, feast, or do even more blameworthy things. IMO, the Reformation was a very good thing - a blessing in disguise, & (I suspect) a just punishment.

For a damning picture of the state of the Church at and before the Reformation, I think Father Philip Hughes (S.J.) must be hard to beat - granted, his books are 50 years old and more, but they’re a good place to start.

Another Catholic historian who does not mince words was Henri Daniel-Rops - two of the volumes in the ET of his “History of the Church of Christ” are devoted to the Reformation, & cover the period 1350 to 1622.

BTW, these books have the Imprimatur. And both have extensive bibliographies - they are probably the perfect antidote to Crocker (whom I need to borrow, to see if he’s as bad as he’s said to be). As well as being honest, they are also very good reads.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

to that ​

 

[runandsew]

The church needed to be reformed, not because of it’s doctrine or teaching, but because of corrupt practices, by sinners. The sale of indulgences for one thing, and selling of the office of Bishops for another. I don’t think I would have liked to have a child as my bishop, or my bishop live in another country, collecting money to make him wealthy.
These are the type of things that needed to be reformed. But Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium are protected from error by the Holy Spirit and were not in error, and therefore did not need to be reformed. Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide which came out of the reformation, are man made traditions which are unbiblical and incorrect. So if you are looking to these as the solution which the reformation provided to the church , well, I would suggest that you are greatly mistaken.
They came as a result of Martin Luther justifying his errant teaching.
Martin Luther was correct in his assessment of the corruption in the church, but incorrect in his teaching.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

It would be interesting to see: Yes, Catholic; Yes, Protestant, No Catholic, etc.

 

[mrs_abbott]

The assumption is that it was Martin Luther, but I believe there were several “reformers” prior to him who had good success and remained within the church.

I think Sts. Francis of Assisi and Catherine of Sienna are two of them are they not?

Yes, you are correct. I had some time and googled The Reformation and all three of those names were linked to it. Thanks for responding, though. I swear I learn more and more each day.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Yes, you are correct. I had some time and googled The Reformation and all three of those names were linked to it. Thanks for responding, though. I swear I learn more and more each day.

It’s not fair to compare people living in very different settings - both of those were dead long before the Reformation; St. Catherine died in 1380, St. Francis in 1226.​

A better example of a reform-minded Catholic who did not break with the CC would be someone like Jacques Lefevre, otherwise referred to by his birth-place, as Faber Stapulensis. ##

 

[Zooey]

Well, I voted “unsure”, because I think something had to happen…Or else, why was there a Counter Reformation??
I can read one book on the Catholic point of view, & agree with much of it, & then I can read a Protestant point of view, & agree with much of that…
I just keep coming back to this: I wasn’t there, I don’t know. It would be easier to take one side or the other, than to remain in this kind of suspended state, but that’s as far as I can come.
And as I write, I do so aware that my most facorite Catholic saint of all, St Teresa of Avila, was part of the counter reformation. As well as, some of my least favorite Protestants wwere part of the Reformation.I will go out on a big limb here, & say, I refer to Calvin, & to a far lesser extent, Luther.
Luther was, I think, pointing to a real list of problems. I still don’t like him.
Now, Calvin…I think he was just, well, nutty.(To be kind. And not break forum rules!!).

 

[I_Leatherman]

I think the Church is always ‘reforming itself’ to some degree or other. The problems occur when somebody starts a movement in opposition to the Church, instead of trying to help the Church with the approval of its Authority.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

The church needed to be reformed, not because of it’s doctrine or teaching, but because of corrupt practices, by sinners. The sale of indulgences for one thing, and selling of the office of Bishops for another. I don’t think I would have liked to have a child as my bishop, or my bishop live in another country, collecting money to make him wealthy.
These are the type of things that needed to be reformed. But Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium are protected from error by the Holy Spirit and were not in error, and therefore did not need to be reformed. Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide which came out of the reformation, are man made traditions which are unbiblical and incorrect. So if you are looking to these as the solution which the reformation provided to the church , well, I would suggest that you are greatly mistaken.
They came as a result of Martin Luther justifying his errant teaching.
Martin Luther was correct in his assessment of the corruption in the church, but incorrect in his teaching.

 

[Genesis315]

Heresy and schism are not how one carries out authentic reform–they are how one carries out soul-killing revolt. For examples of true reformers, read about Saints like Catherine of Siena, Gregory VII, and Peter Damien among so many others.

 

[runandsew]

I voted unsure also, because I believe that reform was needed, but not in the form of the reformation.
Rather than using the term “reformation”, which would suggest just reforms in practice took place and the Church remained in tact, maybe the term “revolution” would be better, since it seems that all of Christianity was re-created.
They went beyond the abuses which were corrupting the Church, and changed doctrine, to form something altogether new and novel, never taught before in the history of the church.

 

[mozart-250]

Boy, I could answer this question all three ways depending on how I interpret it.

Yes:

This is considering the possibility that in the end God was the one behind the reformation.

From reading Genesis, I learn from the tower of Babel account that God divided his creation and confused their languages as a response to a raw exercise of power.

We all agree that the church was in need of reformation at that time period. What if God’s verdict on the condition of the church was to divide it and to give each division a separate language.

(Note: I can’t help but making the comparison to separate physical languages to separate theological languages. Misrepresentations abound in Christianity today).

The era of a powerful and abusive universal church is over. As bad as a fractured church is; I can’t help but believe that an abusive church is worse.

And who knows, sometime on down the line God might heal the fraction.

No

But the question used the word necessary. Could God have accomplished his purposes and not split the church. Sure. Was the creation of competing ecclesiastical organizations really a part of God’s original design for the church. Doubt it.

From my admittedly novice level of the time period, I tend to be underwhelmed by all the parties involved. I sometimes wonder whether this is just like a messy divorce where you really dislike both the husband and wife and think in the end they deserve each other.

Dunno

I probably will go with that one on the practical grounds that I am not a history expert; and therefore do not feel I have the skills for a historical judgement. And in my ignorance, I go back and forth on this one.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Good post Mozart. I have never associated it with the Babel incident. It’s possible you could be right there.

As everyone knows, I voted “yes”. I’d love to stay and chat and give my reasons why CM (maybe I will at some point) but I did want to point out that even though this is a fun little exercise, we really can’t make an absolute decision. It’s not exactly a scientifically valid poll ya know?

Anyways, since the Catholic Church did change in SOME ways, I’d say the Reformation was a necessity. Thank you Jesus.