Did the Protestant Reformation do anything good?

[Petergee]

I agree technically the Empire was in charge of the Diet of Worms but it was the influence of the Pope and their insistance Luther changed his 95 Thesies to cut portions out that were the reason he was arrested in the first place. You would agree with that correct?

No I disagree, it’s totally incorrect. This Emperor Charles V whom you characterise as a puppet of the Pope was the same one whose troops 8 years later totally ransacked Rome.

Except for a couple of slightly ambiguous phrases, there is nothing in the 95 theses which is contrary to Catholic doctrine, then or now. Some of the phrases are very impolite to the pope, but that is not heresy and nobody gets excommunicated for being impolite.

 

[Petergee]

a. Tetzel did nothing wrong. Luther terrorised this pious monk into cowering in a monastery.

Did nothing wrong according to whose stanard? Pope Leo’s?

Yes, like every pope, Pope Leo’s moral doctrines were infallibly true.

What was the source of Luther’s ability to “terrorize”? Since he had no temporal or ecclesial authority

Luther had the majority of the German princes on his side, and the mobs he had whipped into fury by peddling them the belief that Tetzel had fleeced them. As the Catholic Encyclopedia notes,

Luther’s agitation having frustrated further efforts … Tetzel, deserted by the public, broken in spirit, wrecked in health, retired to his monastery at Leipzig in 1518. Here in the middle of January, 1519, he had to face the bitter reproaches and unjust incriminations of Carl von Meltitz.

And died soon after at the age of 54.
In fact Luther felt so guilty about what he had done to Tetzel, that he wrote him a letter giving him a back-handed apology.
c. In what way can any of Luther’s novel doctrines be characterised as “a reaction to abuses”? The changes Luther made only created more widespread and worse abuses.*

I am going to assume that you know nothing, and have read nothing about the ecclesial abuses of the time.

Thanks, I’ll return the favour.

Do you think Tetzel was doing anything that upset Luther?

If so, what do you think Tetzel was doing?

If not, why do you think he felt the way he did about Tetzel?

Tetzel provided a convenient pretext for Luther to assert the false claim that the Church was “sellling pardon for sins” (simony, which the Church has always condemned.)
What I** know**, not “think”, Tetzel was doing:

History presents few characters that have suffered more senseless misrepresentation, even bald caricature, than Tetzel. “Even while he lived stories which contained an element of legend gathered around his name, until at last, in the minds of the uncritical Protestant historians, he became the typical indulgence-monger, upon whom any well-worn anecdote might be fathered” (Beard, “Martin Luther”, London, 1889, 210). For a critical scholarly study which shows him in a proper perspective, he had to wait the researches of our own time, mainly at the hands of Dr. Nicholas Paulus, who is closely followed in this article. In the first place, his teaching regarding the indulgences for the living was correct. The charge that the forgiveness of sins was sold for money regardless of contrition or that absolution for sins to be committed in the future could be purchased is baseless. An indulgence, he writes, can be applied only “to the pains of sin which are confessed and for which there is contrition”. “No one”, he furthermore adds, “secures an indulgence unless he have true contrition”. The confessional letters (confessionalia) could of course be obtained for a mere pecuniary consideration without demanding contrition. But such document did not secure an indulgence. It was simply a permit to select a proper confessor, who only after a contrite confession would absolve from sin and reserved cases, and who possessed at the same time facilities to impart the plenary indulgence (Paulus, “Johann Tetzel”, 103). …
his moral character, the butt of every senseless burlesque and foul libel, has been vindicated to the extent of leaving it untainted by any grave moral dereliction. These would hardly be worth alluding to, did not some of them have Miltitz as the source. But Miltitz has been so discredited that he no longer carries historical weight. “All efforts”, writes Oscar Michael, a Protestant, “to produce Miltitz as a reliable witness will prove futile”. “The circulated reports of Miltitz about Tetzel deserve in themselves no credence”, writes another Protestant author.

The Ratisbon adultery charge, with its penalty of drowning, detailed by Luther, Malthesius, Sleidan and almost every Protestant Reformation historian, has been proved so preposterous, that Brieger (Theodor) claims “it is high time . . . . that it vanish from all history”. Dibelius of Dresden says: “Among the faults and shortcomings ascribed to Tetzel by his enemies, that of immorality cannot stand”. “Paulus”, in the words of Berger (A.), “has so effectually refuted the notorious adultery anecdote, that no one will ever revive it”. The charge made by Luther in his seventy-fifth thesis, that Tetzel had preached impiously concerning the Blessed Virgin, and repeated in Luther’s letter to Archbishop Albrecht and in most explicit terms in his pamphlet “Wider Hans Worst”, was not only promptly and indignantly denied by Tetzel (13 Dec., 1518), declared false by official resolution of the entire city magistracy of Halle (12 Dec., 1517), where it was claimed the utterance was made, but has now been successfully proved a clumsy fabrication (Paulus, op. cit., 56-61).

The charge of embezzling the indulgence funds is also legendary. The precautions adopted to safeguard the alms were of a character that precluded all chance of misappropriation. The chest to receive the money always had two or three locks, the keys of which were in the custody of different persons, including a representative of the banking-house of Fugger. It could never be opened save in the presence of a notary. The ecclesiastical injunction was that the faithful had to deposit their contributions in person. To give it to the confessor or indulgence subcommissary invalidated the indulgence (Paulus, op. cit., 76-77). The Tetzel indulgence chests exhibited at Jüterbog and other German towns, are counterfeits, according to the Protestant writer Körner (Tetzel’s Leben, 73). The latest Catholic biographer of Luther, Grisar, writes: “To ascribe to the unhappy monk the ‘cause’ of the entire apostasy that set in since 1517 . . . is an untrue legend”.

 

[Petergee]

Of course the Church encourages almsgiving. The problem was that almsgiving got turned into buying/selling indulgences. It was an abuse happening. The Church may not have supported it, but it happened.

Of course it’s possible that somebody, somewehre was purporting to sell indulgences, but Tetzel certainly wasn’t. In fact Tetzel himself pointed out that any attempt to sell an indulgence would automatically invalidate the indulgence.

If it didn’t, it’s likely that Luther never would’ve broke away from the Church.

What made Luther break away, to put the most charitable way, is that some unknown person published his “95 theses” (which he had intended as points for an intra-university discussion, no more controversial than many other such discussions), whipped a mob up with them, and ambitious German princes had seen the chance to increase their power and wealth and set Luther up as a sort of rival pope. And by then Luther didn’t have the moral strength to say no, that’s not what I wanted, and he made the most of the situation to his own material benefit.

 

[Petergee]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petergee
She did. She invited every protestant leader. In fact that was the reason that the Council was held in Trent (on the border between the (often stridently anti-papal) Venetian Republic and the German Empire, rather than in the Papal States. They could get to Trent without passing through any Catholic-ruled territory.

That is false. The “German Empire” was certainly “Catholic-ruled.” Trent was in imperial territory. The Hapsburgs were the bloodiest persecutors of the sixteenth century, arguably (though the Valois and the Tudors–whether the latter called themselves Catholics, Protestants, or something in between–were not far behind).

I’m sure that in a different context you would be quick to point out that Catholic civil authorities were the ones who actually burned people. . . . . but here you seem to have forgotten the fact (or you just have your geography mixed up).

Trent was, as I said, on the border between the Empire and the Venetian republic. It was not in “imperial teritory” (the Habsburg lands). Although the Emperor was at least nominally Catholic, he was not much more than a figurehead except in his own Hapsburg lands. The German princes, most of them protestants, held the real power in the empire. Though admittedly that is simplifying things.

It’s certainly true that by this point most of the Protestant leaders saw no point in working for reunion with the Papacy, but it’s also true that they had some genuine reason to fear that their safeconducts would not be respected, given what had happened to Hus at Constance more than a century earlier.

Oh come on. The participants at Constance were long dead. That would be like an American being afraid to go to England in 1930 because they were at war in 1812-15.

Quote:
In between publishing the most vicious anti-semitic diatribes ever written by somebody claiming to be a Christian

I’m not sure about that. Plenty of late medieval Catholics, like St. Bernardino of Siena, could give him a run for his money on that score

“Plenty”? Come on, you couldn’t find even one Catholic writer, let alone a saint, who wrote as Luther did, that Christians have a duty to murder Jews en masse and that Jews deserve this just because they are Jews.

(and if it comes to that, Hitler claimed to be a Christian, though admittedly his claim may not have been sincere).

I’ll asume this is tongue in cheek. The only thing Christian about Hitler was that he was inspired in part by Luther’s scribblings about the jews. Hitler said that Christianity is an evil movement that seeks to “Judaize” the “Aryan” race and make it “soft” by pushing ideas such as love and forgiveness.

That was a couple of decades earlier. Your chronology is as confused as your geography.

Edwin

I wasn’t attempting to give an account in chronological order.

 

[Petergee]

The first session of the Council of Trent was held Dec.13 1545, by Feb. 18 1546, Luther was dead. If the Council was held earlier, maybe both sides wouldn’t have harden.

Sorry I missed noticing that teh operative word in your previous comment was “earlier”.

I don’t know why Catholics defend the practice of selling indulgences

We don’t. We merely defend those who are falsely accused of it.

 

[PiousTemplar]

No, the Council of Trent was not on its way, and the Popes resisted the idea of calling a Council for years.

You can read all about the long and tortuous process in vol. 1 of Jedin’s *History of the Council of Trent. *The process was long not just because the Church takes a long while to do stuff but primarily because the Popes didn’t want a Council.

Edwin

But it happened, and that is the point. The Church was crying out loud for reform, it was going to happen. Christ promised his Church that Satan would not prevail.

 

[PiousTemplar]

Right, and there’s no compelling evidence that I can see that Luther’s awareness of abuses was either a necessary or sufficient condition for his break with the Church In fact, he made it very clear that it wasn’t a sufficient condition. It may possibly have been a necessary condition–that’s a counterfactual we can’t know, since as you say obviously there were abuses and he certainly knew about them. But he insisted that he was distinct from earlier reformers like Wycliffe and Hus because they focused on abuses and he got to the root of the problem, which was the corruption of the Gospel. And he said that it was actually a good thing that monasticism had become so corrupt, because if it had remained pure and holy people wouldn’t have seen how contrary to the Gospel it was. That inclines me to think that at least in principle abuse wasn’t even a necessary condition for rejection of traditional Catholicism in Luther’s mind. (Admittedly, one shouldn’t base too much on Luther’s inflammatory rhetoric.)

That’s not an adequate way of describing it. He didn’t see his key disagreement with Rome over justification as just a theological dispute. He saw it as the abandonment/obscuring/corruption of the Gospel. (By comparison, one could say that his rejection of transubstantiation was a theological dispute. I know I’m nitpicking, but I’m trying to indicate the immense gap that separated garden-variety theological disputes from the core of the Gospel in Luther’s eyes.)

I did the best I can, I haven’t studied Luther’s theology.

What is your evidence that this was a decisive consideration for Luther? By the end of his life he had come to recognize that abuses hadn’t been fixed in Protestant churches either. From his perspective, abuses came from human sinfulness and were pretty much inevitable.

I was referring to the theological abuses of the selling of indulgences. I wrote that unclearly, what I meant was that in his mindset I would guess he thought it would take ages before reform would take place to get rid of those abuses

From Luther’s perspective as a well-informed academic (I wouldn’t call him “lower class” but that’s a matter of definition) the Church as a whole didn’t look immovable. I don’t think that’s how any educated person saw things. The Church of the early sixteenth century was in ferment before Luther came on the scene.

**From Luther’s perspective as a well-informed clergyman he would of known that reform was not possible until a Pope went ahead with it. And until that happened, the Church would be rock stable in the situation it was in. The Popes at the time of Luther, Julius II and Leo X, were obviously not considering reform. The Popes before Luther were not considering reform. I am trying to say that the Church would have looked like it was ‘stuck’ in a position that would require a tremendous push to get it back on the right track. Pope Adrian VI had the intent to reform, but his papacy was so short that nothing he did was decisive, and was practically reversed during the Papacy of Clement VII, who was more concerned with earthly things than spiritual matters. Things finally got successfully moving under Pope Paul III.

I wrote my posts very badly, sorry, it was 2 AM and I couldn’t get to sleep. **

Edwin

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well I’m going to take the “silence” to posts #72, #74 and #75 as the actual answer to the OP. I can’t imagine one coming anytime soon either.

As far as the last few posts, we also have to understand the idea of reformation existed within the church well before it reached Martin Luther. Martin Luther did not invent this idea. It was a reality before he was born. The movement of the reform within the Catholic church had been active in Italy in 1485 and by then Savonarola already spoke publically in Florence. Thus if Savonarola was already preaching reform in 1485, this was already being spread much earlier to be accepted to any degree. Luther was born in 1483

Of course Contarini and Pole and Valdes were well known within the Catholic Church and this conflict continued in the church though I believe more accurate around 1550. However these are all indicators of the existing movement within the church which Luther happened to become a part of. Also true is others like Erasmus and Pole wanted to change the church from within, not from without, creating division.

The 95-thesis was a radical movement which produced more radical actions in a domino effect, and whatever good one might imagine that came out of this is beyond me. These changes were going to happen had Luther never came along, only correctly. The gospel wasn’t spread it already existed where Luther traveled and had to be correctly re-taught by many whom are Saints today though Germany, Poland etc. In fact error is still being corrected.

Peace

 

[Contarini]

If I remember correctly there were some popes between 1555 and 1563 who helped make the council move along quicker, as they wanted a reform.

Yes. Not only that, but it was Paul III who first set in motion the events that led to the calling of the Council. However, this was contrary to the policy of most of his predecessors, and he himself gave up on the idea and had to be badgered back into it by the Emperor.

The story is incredibly complicated–I read Jedin’s account of it in grad school and my eyes glazed over before I was done–I have certainly forgotten most of the details.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I think what he meant is that Luther saw the Church from a different perspective than we see the Church from back then now.

That’s no doubt true. From my perspective, a major reason for Protestants to repent and admit that we erred is that while there are always plausible reasons to reject Catholicism, the reasons change from generation to generation, and the reasons that once seemed valid no longer obtain in a later era. The most reasonable conclusion seems to be that while the Catholic Church as a historical, human institution does have serious flaws, the best approach is to stick with it and trust in the power of the Holy Spirit to reform and renew it.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I don’t think there’s a question to the truth the church needed reform. However, what makes anyone believe this was the correct way to accomplish this? 2011 and this is its Fruit?

I fail to see one single answer to the 500-year old question? Except how it helped the CC reform.

As I said, I disagree strongly with that last statement. I think that one of the worst effects of the Reformation was the kind of “reform” that it prompted in Catholicism.

There are plenty of answers to the original question–one could simply list all the truth and beauty that has been produced by Protestants. One could point to Luther’s own hymns and those of later Lutherans (many of which are sung by Catholics); to the music of Bach and the art of Rembrandt; to the hymns of Charles Wesley and the Evangelical Revivals generally; and so on. Theologically, one could point to many of Luther’s own ideas about the power of faith, the holiness of lay life, and so on; to the magisterial work of Karl Barth, which has had a huge impact on Catholic theologians of the past century and continues to be a major force for renewal among Catholics and Protestants alike; and so on. Historically/socially, one could point to the heroic work for and among the poor of so many Protestant missionaries and reformers–William Wilberforce’s work for the abolition of slaves, for instance, or Josephine Butler’s work for prostitutes, or Elizabeth Fry’s ministry to prisoners. One could point to the development of a distinctively black form of Protestantism among American slaves and the great spiritual and moral (and cultural) influence of the “black church.”

Of course, the obvious Catholic response is that everything good in these movements could have happened within Catholicism. Maybe, but historically it happened in Protestantism. So if you want a simple answer, there’s your answer. Yes, the Reformation “did” a lot of good, in the sense that the Christians inspired by it did a lot of good, which was in many cases clearly and obviously shaped by its ideas. That doesn’t answer the question of whether the Reformation itself was right or wrong.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Better yet,if the Protestant Reformation was the remedy for the CC,I am curious to know when Protestanism is going to reform itself? I think the hundreds and hundreds of divisions should be an indicator somethings need reform?

Again, I think that one of the problems with this thread is the assumption that “reform” is good. The big problem with Protestantism is precisely that it keeps on reforming, along the lines of the original “reform.” That’s why there are so many divisions!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

How does becoming Catholic sound as a kind of reform?

It is indeed, which is one of the reasons I am unwilling to do it. I think that “reform” is generally a very bad thing–at least reform that involves abandoning a place where God is working because you think He isn’t working there or because you think He is working more effectively somewhere else.

The main reason for Protestants to become Catholic is that the Reformers were wrong, and we need to repent of their schismatic actions and reverse them.

The main reason for Protestants not to become Catholic is that the Reformers were wrong, and we should not imitate them even “in reverse.”

I am interested in reconciliation and renewal, not reform.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

No I disagree, it’s totally incorrect. This Emperor Charles V whom you characterise as a puppet of the Pope was the same one whose troops 8 years later totally ransacked Rome.

Except for a couple of slightly ambiguous phrases, there is nothing in the 95 theses which is contrary to Catholic doctrine, then or now.

That may be true (one of the cardinals advising Charles V at Worms thought so, arguing that only Luther’s sacramental teaching in the Babylonian Captivity was truly heretical), but Pope Leo and many other powerful folks in both the Curia and the universities thought otherwise.

Edwin

 

[CopticChristian]

It is indeed, which is one of the reasons I am unwilling to do it. I think that “reform” is generally a very bad thing–at least reform that involves abandoning a place where God is working because you think He isn’t working there or because you think He is working more effectively somewhere else.

The main reason for Protestants to become Catholic is that the Reformers were wrong, and we need to repent of their schismatic actions and reverse them.

The main reason for Protestants not to become Catholic is that the Reformers were wrong, and we should not imitate them even “in reverse.”

I am interested in reconciliation and renewal, not reform.

Edwin

May I ask from your perspective the steps for reconciliation and renewal?

 

[Contarini]

May I ask from your perspective the steps for reconciliation and renewal?

I’m not an ecclesiastical diplomat (thank God), so if that’s what you’re looking for, I don’t have much to offer.

As an Anglican, I find the documents of ARCIC to be generally on target, and I’d be happy if both Anglicans and Catholics accepted them as grounds for reunion. But this isn’t likely to happen at the moment.

As a church historian, I’m fostering reconciliation and renewal by teaching my students to think critically about the Reformation, to care about the unity of the Church, and to understand Christians who differ from them (particularly Catholics and Orthodox, since I teach at a largely Protestant school). I also consider my posts on this forum, including the snarky ones, to be aimed at reconciliation and renewal, however poorly I carry out my intentions

Personally, I occasionally attend Mass, but I need to do more. I probably should talk to a priest about how I might enter communion with Rome without rejecting the Christian communities in which I already participate (if this is somehow possible–and if it isn’t I need to seriously count the cost after 16 years of dithering).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

*Quote:
*Trent was, as I said, on the border between the Empire and the Venetian republic.

No, it was inside the Empire.

It was not in “imperial teritory” (the Habsburg lands).

You’re right insofar as it had its own prince-bishop. However, it was surrounded by Hapsburg lands and had been controlled by the Hapsburgs earlier in the century. Sovereignty was a complex business in the sixteenth century–not an either/or.

Although the Emperor was at least nominally Catholic,

Why the qualifying language? You might as well say that the Pope was at least nominally Catholic. . . .

he was not much more than a figurehead except in his own Hapsburg lands

That’s a modern stereotype deriving from the much more absolute understanding of sovereignty that prevailed later. Charles V was not a figurehead outside his own lands–he was essentially a constitutional monarch with aspirations to be more. By 1800 the emperors were figureheads, but not in the sixteenth century.

And more to the point:

a. you couldn’t get to Trent without going through Hapsburg lands; and
b. obviously, the prince-bishop of Trent was a Catholic.

So your claim that Protestants could get to Trent without passing through Catholic-ruled territory remains simply false.

The German princes, most of them protestants, held the real power in the empire. Though admittedly that is simplifying things.

It’s much more than simplifying–it’s falsifying. It’s not true that most of the princes were Protestant, though certainly a significant number of them were. And just because the emperor’s power was limited doesn’t mean that he had no “real power.” That is a false assumption deriving from later absolutism and nationalism. In the era of German unification (which was also the founding era of modern historiography), it served political purposes to portray the Empire as a hopeless, decadent hodge-podge of principalities with no real unity. That’s not the impression I get from sixteenth-century sources.

Oh come on. The participants at Constance were long dead. That would be like an American being afraid to go to England in 1930 because they were at war in 1812-15.

No, it isn’t, because a lot had changed in the relationship of the two countries since.

At Worms in 1521, the example of Sigismund at Constance was very relevant–Charles was reportedly pressured to violate Luther’s safe-conduct and refused, saying that he didn’t want to be like Sigismund. There is every reason to think that it was just as relevant 20-30 years later.

you couldn’t find even one Catholic writer, let alone a saint, who wrote as Luther did, that Christians have a duty to murder Jews en masse and that Jews deserve this just because they are Jews.

Well, I’m not aware of any place where Luther says this, unless you are talking about his suggestion that Jewish leaders should be given eight days to convince Christians that they (Christians) are polytheists and should be appropriately punished (probably executed) if they don’t; or his later claim that Christian rulers should do like Moses and kill three thousand to save the whole body. In other words, he does suggest at times in On Jews and Their Lies that Jewish leaders should be killed, but certainly not ordinary Jews and not just because they were Jews. Luther gives a long list of the alleged misdeeds of the Jews, all of which (except for his concern with Jewish “works righteousness,” of course) can be found in medieval anti-Jewish literature.

You’re right that I overstated St. Bernardino’s anti-Judaism. I checked my course (The Preacher’s Demons, by Franco Normando) and it says that he actually wasn’t as extreme as some of his contemporaries.

I would recommend Heiko Oberman’s The Roots of Anti-Semitism for a discussion of Luther against the background of his contemporaries.

The only thing Christian about Hitler was that he was inspired in part by Luther’s scribblings about the jews.

He also said that he was just finishing what the Catholic Church had begun. In his public statements, Hitler definitely claimed to be Christian. When talking to Protestants, he cited Luther; when talking to Catholics, he cited Catholic anti-Judaism. You can’t consistently take one of these bits of political propaganda as sincere and ignore the others, just because one of them supports your ideological agenda and the others don’t.

Hitler said that Christianity is an evil movement that seeks to “Judaize” the “Aryan” race and make it “soft” by pushing ideas such as love and forgiveness.

He was quoted as saying some such things privately in his later years, yes. As far as I can see, it’s not clear whether Hitler’s claims to be a Christian were purely propaganda, or whether he developed from a heretical, idiosyncratic “Christian” to a supporter of an equally twisted and idiosyncratic version of Nordic paganism or something of that sort.

Hence my careful language. I said that he claimed to be a Christian, which is true. I did not say that he was a Christian, because it all depends on how you define Christian and whether you think his professions were in some twisted sense sincere.

I wasn’t attempting to give an account in chronological order.

I get that, but you were really just trying to denigrate Luther in ways that had nothing to do with the point at issue.

Anyone who studies the Reformation knows that Luther was a deeply flawed person with a lot of very bad ideas. This does not make the many Lutherans who study the Reformation abandon their beliefs–nor should it. It’s a red herring.

Edwin

 

[GaryTaylor]

As I said, I disagree strongly with that last statement. I think that one of the worst effects of the Reformation was the kind of “reform” that it prompted in Catholicism.

In the early stages its debatable for sure.

There are plenty of answers to the original question–one could simply list all the truth and beauty that has been produced by Protestants. One could point to Luther’s own hymns and those of later Lutherans (many of which are sung by Catholics); to the music of Bach and the art of Rembrandt; to the hymns of Charles Wesley and the Evangelical Revivals generally; and so on. Theologically, one could point to many of Luther’s own ideas about the power of faith, the holiness of lay life, and so on; to the magisterial work of Karl Barth, which has had a huge impact on Catholic theologians of the past century and continues to be a major force for renewal among Catholics and Protestants alike; and so on. Historically/socially, one could point to the heroic work for and among the poor of so many Protestant missionaries and reformers–William Wilberforce’s work for the abolition of slaves, for instance, or Josephine Butler’s work for prostitutes, or Elizabeth Fry’s ministry to prisoners. One could point to the development of a distinctively black form of Protestantism among American slaves and the great spiritual and moral (and cultural) influence of the “black church.”

Well we have been blessed in many way’s, King for that matter, and of course there are Catholics involved throughout the process. Merton the Catholic News. orders of sisters and brother could be added without a doubt, Along with just a few moral men who have been a gift.

Of course, the obvious Catholic response is that everything good in these movements could have happened within Catholicism. Maybe, but historically it happened in Protestantism. So if you want a simple answer, there’s your answer. Yes, the Reformation “did” a lot of good, in the sense that the Christians inspired by it did a lot of good, which was in many cases clearly and obviously shaped by its ideas. That doesn’t answer the question of whether the Reformation itself was right or wrong.

Not my response, they happened in unison to overall developement. Not in spite of each other. I would also go as far as to say I see a great attitude in the community among Catholics and Protestants today. However it seems we had to reach this level of chaos for the reality to set in. Could just be the wheel of change is like a grinding wheel, step by step. Yet I get the impression we are our own worst enemy.

There always seems to be a feeling of unity in time of turmoil and conflict. Personally I believe its the overall unity that would prevent all this to begin with. The means to acheive this still remain an enigma though. The need has always been here through. The social transition in the US alone is a concern at the moment. Amazing how all the politicians are reciting Christian lingo these days.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m not an ecclesiastical diplomat (thank God), so if that’s what you’re looking for, I don’t have much to offer.

As an Anglican, I find the documents of ARCIC to be generally on target, and I’d be happy if both Anglicans and Catholics accepted them as grounds for reunion. But this isn’t likely to happen at the moment.

As a church historian, I’m fostering reconciliation and renewal by teaching my students to think critically about the Reformation, to care about the unity of the Church, and to understand Christians who differ from them (particularly Catholics and Orthodox, since I teach at a largely Protestant school). I also consider my posts on this forum, including the snarky ones, to be aimed at reconciliation and renewal, however poorly I carry out my intentions

Personally, I occasionally attend Mass, but I need to do more. I probably should talk to a priest about how I might enter communion with Rome without rejecting the Christian communities in which I already participate (if this is somehow possible–and if it isn’t I need to seriously count the cost after 16 years of dithering).

Edwin

I do not know what the ARCIC is?

I appreciate your intentions.

I suppose one could look at the actions of John Henry Neuman, Scott Hahn, Tim Staples and others as it concerns your cost.

Thank you

 

[cmforte]

First off, it must have been part of God’s plan since it happened. Secondly, it did make the CC reform itself, and realize that it needs constant reform and purification, and that was a good thing. But finally: it was partially Protestant belief, put together with some Enlightenment and Humanist ones, that gave us Western democracy and religious freedom. Without it, we may all still be living in a feudal society and see the Inquisition happening. That’s just my thoughts, though.

-Chris