Did the Protestant Reformation do anything good?

[guanophore]

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

People are always in need of reform. The doctrines of Christ are not.

 

[benedictus2]

People are always in need of reform. The doctrines of Christ are not.

:clapping: Brilliant and to the point as always!

 

[guanophore]

I believe that it was God ordained and nothing could have stopped it.

Do you have any support for this, or is it as baseless as the rest of your similar assertions posted on CAF?

 

[guanophore]

Exactly, the pope said that the theses are **either ** one of five alternatives, of which only obne is “heretical”. “The usual papal language of the time” had no hesitation in declaring a statement to be heretical if that was what the pope intended to proclaim.

I am curious what you make of this language:

“But the declaration of the article…is to be entirely rejected”

Do you think there is a reason to utterly reject a statement other than heresy?

That may have been Eck’s opinion, but he had no authority to issue an infallible declaration that a statement is heretical.

Obviously it does not require an infallible declaration to recognize that a statement is heretical. You certainly seem to have a flair for the dramatic.

You can learn a lot from Edwin, he is very wise, learned, and balanced. May I suggest a less contentious approach to dialogue?

 

[guanophore]

This is from Wikipedia: Cardinal Albert of Hohenzollern (German: About this sound Albrecht von Hohenzollern (help·info)) (28 June 1490 – 24 September 1545) was Elector and Archbishop of Mainz from 1514 to 1545, and Archbishop of Magdeburg from 1513 to 1545.
In 1514 he obtained the Electorate of Mainz, and in 1518 was made a cardinal at the age of 28. Meanwhile to pay for the pallium of the see of Mainz and to discharge the other expenses of his elevation, Albert had borrowed 21,000 ducats from Jacob Fugger, and had obtained permission from Pope Leo X to conduct the sale of indulgences in his diocese to obtain funds to repay this loan, as long as half the collection was forwarded to the Papacy. An agent of the Fuggers subsequently traveled in the Cardinal’s retinue in charge of the cashbox. For this work he procured the services of John Tetzel, and so indirectly exercised a potent influence on the course of the Reformation.
So, Tetzel and the good Archbishop didn’t sell indulgences?

It is theologically impossible to “sell” an indulgence. I am sure it appeared that way, just like someone could print counterfiet money or tickets and pawn them off as genuine.

I would be interested in looking at a Catholic source that supports this perspective. One has to take everything one reads in Wikipedia with a grain of salt.

 

[guanophore]

I find it hard to belive that someone who has made almost 23,000 posts to CAF thinks that when someone talks of a pope’s “moral doctrines” he means that pope’s personal morality.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can read about the life of Leo and believe that he embraced and lived the moral doctrines of the Church. On the contrary, he ranks up there as one of the most immoral Popes in history. This being the case, it seems ludicrious to refer to “Pope Leo’s moral doctrines”.

 

[guanophore]

You probably will not believe the heretical Luther Works but here it is:

Just because something contains heresies does not make it useless. These documents reveal the history from which we now live the consequences of division.

 

[ibneahmad]

Do you have any evidence supporting your interpretation of Jesus? It goes against what most scholars say, as well as against the mainstream of Christian tradition. In short, it seems to have nothing in its favor except that many modern people would like Jesus to have been a tame and harmless “spiritual” leader of this kind.

The fact that Jesus was crucified is in itself sufficient refutation of this ahistorical distortion of Jesus’ life and teaching.

Edwin

I quote here from the Bible:

Matt. 23:1-4

[1] Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, [2] Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. [3] All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not. [4] For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but with a finger of their own they will not move them.

drbo.org/chapter/47023.htm

 

[benedictus2]

I believe that it was God ordained and nothing could have stopped it.

So Jesus who prayed for unity sabotaged His entire will and ordained the splintering of His Church and the formulation of doctrines contrary to what He willed before? If that is the kind of God you believe in, then no wonder you are so confused.

 

[JustaServant]

So Jesus who prayed for unity sabotaged His entire will and ordained the splintering of His Church and the formulation of doctrines contrary to what He willed before? If that is the kind of God you believe in, then no wonder you are so confused.

That is the 800 pound gorilla in the room they will not acknowledge.
God ‘ordained’ 30,000 denominations, all with their own view of ‘sola scriptura’? Many anathamizing the others because they do not believe as they do?
What a mess.

 

[benedictus2]

That is the 800 pound gorilla in the room they will not acknowledge.
God ‘ordained’ 30,000 denominations, all with their own view of ‘sola scriptura’? Many anathamizing the others because they do not believe as they do?
What a mess.

The term diabolos (devil) means to scatter. God is the gatherer. So for them God must be diabolos.

 

[Petergee]

I am curious what you make of this language:

“But the declaration of the article…is to be entirely rejected”

Do you think there is a reason to utterly reject a statement other than heresy?

Certainly, there are many possible reasons. Among them, the four other reasons that the pope mentioned.

Obviously it does not require an infallible declaration to recognize that a statement is heretical.

No, not to recognise it. But the claim was that the pope had officially declared one or more of Luther’s 95 Theses to be heretical. This is not supported by the evidence available.

You certainly seem to have a flair for the dramatic.

You can learn a lot from Edwin, he is very wise, learned, and balanced.

I know, and I have.

May I suggest a less contentious approach to dialogue?

The play between two contending points of view is often the best way of finding the truth.

 

[Petergee]

I quote here from the Bible:

Matt. 23:1-4

[1] Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, [2] Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. [3] All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not. [4] For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but with a finger of their own they will not move them.

drbo.org/chapter/47023.htm

Jesus is here directly contradicting your claim that

Jesus was against the hegemony of clergy on the religion; he wanted to keep the religion in secular form

He is telling the Jews that they must observe and do whatever the scribes and pharisees tell them to do. It’s quite bizarre that you quote this, of all verses, to try to support your totally unhistorical idea of what Jesus taught.

 

[Castelan]

Though the violence caused by the Church splitting was completely unnecessary and against Christian ethics, the Reformation, with time, did do a lot of good. In a way we even owe the fact that today Mass is said in all the languages, and not just in Latin, to the Reformation. The schisms of the Christian community started very early and have been going on for nigh on two thousand years, but with each split we eventually did/do gain more understanding. Maturity isn’t something we are born with, it’s something we work towards, and just as any other “body”, the Church had/has to mature too, and is doing so. At the time of the Reformation, had there been more of the Christ-like turning of the cheek, and less of the hell and brimstone, eye for an eye reaction – on both sides – there might never have been a schism. Unfortunately we never learn the kind, Christian way, the way that Christ wanted. We always do it through blind violence.
On a much lighter note, had there been no Reformation, I very much doubt any of us would be able to participate in a Forum such as this.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I believe that it was God ordained and nothing could have stopped it.

I am glad you said, you believe. unless believe make it so, then a belief is just that, a belief and nothing else.

Any way just because a man decided to do something it doesnt mean God has anythig to do with it. Disobedience of man is not the Will of God. Confusion is nto the Will of God. Desunity is not the Will of God but of man and those who follow.

God who builds a Church that all may be saved cannot in no way take man out of His Church but man himself can. God sends man to warn the people He does not force anyone to do His Will.

 

[pritchard85]

Do you have any support for this, or is it as baseless as the rest of your similar assertions posted on CAF?

You entire purpose for being here is seemingly to insult Protestants without recourse from the moderators. I merely stated my belief on the thread and you came and insulted it. Your real colors are showing.

 

[pritchard85]

So Jesus who prayed for unity sabotaged His entire will and ordained the splintering of His Church and the formulation of doctrines contrary to what He willed before? If that is the kind of God you believe in, then no wonder you are so confused.

Jesus willed for his word and teachings to be adhered to. Again, I believe that the Reformation was God ordained and nothing could have stopped it (And, nothing did).

 

[Contarini]

Though the violence caused by the Church splitting was completely unnecessary and against Christian ethics, the Reformation, with time, did do a lot of good. In a way we even owe the fact that today Mass is said in all the languages, and not just in Latin, to the Reformation.

I think we quite possibly “owe” the fact that this change didn’t happen until the 1960s to the Reformation.

Without the terrifying schisms of the early sixteenth century, there might well have been a reform council by the end of the century that would have embodied the kinds of reforms that Erasmus and those like him were pushing for. Or maybe Christendom would just have become even more diverse than it already was, with some areas having such things as a vernacular liturgy and others not.

Either way, I think the one thing we can be pretty sure of is that without Protestantism there would not have been the kind of defensive, centralized Catholicism that dominated the period between Trent and Vatican II.

Edwin

 

[guanophore]

Though the violence caused by the Church splitting was completely unnecessary and against Christian ethics, the Reformation, with time, did do a lot of good.

Please help me understand how departure from the doctrines of Christ, and subsequent divisions “did a lot of good”?

In a way we even owe the fact that today Mass is said in all the languages, and not just in Latin, to the Reformation.

How did you come up with that?

The schisms of the Christian community started very early and have been going on for nigh on two thousand years, but with each split we eventually did/do gain more understanding.

Can you show some support for this position? How is splitting off from the One Faith giving anyone “more understanding”?

Maturity isn’t something we are born with, it’s something we work towards, and just as any other “body”, the Church had/has to mature too, and is doing so.

People are in need of maturity. The Holy Bride of Christ is not.

At the time of the Reformation, had there been more of the Christ-like turning of the cheek, and less of the hell and brimstone, eye for an eye reaction – on both sides – there might never have been a schism.

I think you are confused. The violence and retaliation occurred BECAUSE of the schism. I do agree, though, it is an unholy response.

Unfortunately we never learn the kind, Christian way, the way that Christ wanted. We always do it through blind violence.

Well, speak for yourself! The saints and true reformers of the faith have no such attitude or actions.

On a much lighter note, had there been no Reformation, I very much doubt any of us would be able to participate in a Forum such as this.

And why is that?

 

[guanophore]

You entire purpose for being here is seemingly to insult Protestants without recourse from the moderators.

My, my, you certainly do seem to jump to conclusions.

There are many people who post baseless assertions here. I have been reading some posts from a Muslim that are also based on ignorance and misinformation. Confronting this is not uncharitable, and need not be insulting.

If you find it insulting to be called upon to provide support for your assertions, then perhaps you have come to the wrong place? Perhaps you are not ready for any mature dialogue?

I believe that it was God ordained and nothing could have stopped it.

What evidence do you have to support your beliefs?

I merely stated my belief on the thread and you came and insulted it.  Your real colors are showing.

Until you can provide some support for your beliefs, it is important for you to understand that, to the reader, they appear baseless. For all we know, you woke up one fine morning, and decided this is what you would believe. Maybe it came to you in a dream?