Did the Protestant Reformation do anything good?

[Contarini]

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.

It’s helpful to give some reasons why you think this.

Presumably you think that basic Protestant teachings such as Sola Fide are found in the Bible and represent the true teachings of Jesus.

I understand that it probably wouldn’t be profitable to start up a major debate over sola fide or some other Protestant distinctive here, but given the huge diversity of Protestantism it can be hard for those of us who don’t agree with your perspective on the Reformation to know just what aspect of it you find to be clearly in accord with Jesus’ teachings.

Probably, for instance, you aren’t a big fan of the subjection of the Church to the civil authorities, which was an important part of the Reformation in much of Europe–or maybe you are.

Edwin

 

[CopticChristian]

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

It is impossible for you to assert this. The Holy Spirit searches the mind of God. Paul tells us to look in the World and see the workings of God. No one event can be declared to be God caused or God permitted.

Pat Robertson declared that 9/11 was caused by God to punish America?

You may be interested in reading “Lord of History”. If God is lord then He is lord of all including history. We cannot conclude that God causes the sin of men. God allows evil. Insofar as God is the cause of all, including creation then you can say that whatever is happening is the result of the first cause, however since we are in the plan and don’t know for sure entirely the plan that would be nonsense.

You believe that God caused 4 Catholic priests and a Catholic lawyer to study Augustine and denominate from His Body. It was their intention to destroy the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church as part of their mission. If you study history, Geneva, Germany, England and the like you will see that what you call God ordained failed and is failing miserably as does every sin of man.:harp:

 

[CopticChristian]

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).

Study the history of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah. The only two to arrive for the New Covenant. God led his people and sin caused them to split into the world, dispersed. Yet God is impartial and God of all. Those dispersed are still God’s people. God does not stop sin. God allows sin. Those that left the Old Covenant were dispersed not by his will but by His mercy and justice. They did not want to be part of the Old Covenant then so be it. Smaratins split and exist today. Nothing can stop anyone from leaving the New Covenant and as the Prodigal son was welcomed back we welcome all those that depart and bid even those feasting with the pigs to come home.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Hn160,

I truly believe that many of the hierarchy were up to their elbows in corruption, simony and any other scandal that appeared to please their perverse pleasure. The not only did evil, they gave on-going public scandal. Luther spottend the fraud and exposed this for just what it was.

Ah, would that he had stopped there! Unfortunately, he apparently chose to ignore the good example given by St. Catherine of Siena (1347 -1380) who lived and died before Luther and had many more problems than Luther identified in his 95 Thesis.
newadvent.org/cathen/03447a.htm Would such a great saint as Catherine been born during the Protestant Revolt - maybe a diffeent set of actions would have developed. As it stands, she gave a tremendous example of holiness in the fact of corrupt power from those whose mission was to guide the Church founded by Christ on Peter.

But, I want to share an idea with you about this thread … I am starting to change my mind… Yes, something truly good and beautiful and miraculous was made manifest as a result of the Protestant Revolt - and that was that the Church of Christ (and, I mean the Catholic Church) was not destroyed (and, truly it would have been had it been of human origins) but developed a renewed spirituality that had been dormant for way too long. This renewal can be seen as it began with the Counter-Reformation and continues on to this day. I think this is a real and profound good and one we can point to as a work of God.

God bless

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?

 

[joe370]

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).

Hey Pritchard, I certainly respect your right to believe that God ordained the reformation.

If you are right then clearly the Church ordained by God, on Pentecost, circa 33 AD, in Jerusalem - failed, necessitating the need for God’s second ordained plan (reformation) - correct?

I know that you believe that nothing could have stopped God’s ordained protestant reformation. With that said, is it safe to say that since something did in fact curtail God’s first century ordained plan (the catholic church) - necessitating the need for God’s ordained plan - the protestant reformation, something in fact could curtail God’s second plan (protestant reformation)? Your thoughts friend…

Genuine question, no sarcasm intended friend.

 

[pritchard85]

It’s helpful to give some reasons why you think this.

Presumably you think that basic Protestant teachings such as Sola Fide are found in the Bible and represent the true teachings of Jesus.

 

[pritchard85]

Hey Pritchard, I certainly respect your right to believe that God ordained the reformation.

If you are right then clearly the Church ordained by God, on Pentecost, circa 33 AD, in Jerusalem - failed, necessitating the need for God’s second ordained plan (reformation) - correct?

I know that you believe that nothing could have stopped God’s ordained protestant reformation. With that said, is it safe to say that since something did in fact curtail God’s first century ordained plan (the catholic church) - necessitating the need for God’s ordained plan - the protestant reformation, something in fact could curtail God’s second plan (protestant reformation)? Your thoughts friend…

Genuine question, no sarcasm intended friend.

I would be happy to respond to a charitable post such as this.

I believe that much of what we see today in the Catholic church is because of the Reformation. One thing for sure is how the priest faces the parish during mass and interacts with them. In the middle ages, we wouldn’t have seen this at all. It was more like a Shakespearean play. We also see where many Catholic churches encourage their faithful to engage in Bible study. Pre-reformation times looked much different from that. Bibles weren’t even written in parishioners’ native languages.

 

[joe370]

Excellent point brother!!! In that respect the reformation was absolutely indispensable, but sadly, like every reformation, a great deal of collateral damage remained, but in the case of sola scriptura, stemming the tide, became impossible due to the fact that the authority of scripture was wrenched from the hands of the CC and wielded by each and every Christian.

Hi, Hn160,

But, I want to share an idea with you about this thread … I am starting to change my mind… Yes, something truly good and beautiful and miraculous was made manifest as a result of the Protestant Revolt - and that was that the Church of Christ (and, I mean the Catholic Church) was not destroyed (and, truly it would have been had it been of human origins) but developed a renewed spirituality that had been dormant for way too long. This renewal can be seen as it began with the Counter-Reformation and continues on to this day. I think this is a real and profound good and one we can point to as a work of God.

God bless

 

[joe370]

I would be happy to respond to a charitable post such as this.

I believe that much of what we see today in the Catholic church is because of the Reformation. One thing for sure is how the priest faces the parish during mass and interacts with them. In the middle ages, we wouldn’t have seen this at all. It was more like a Shakespearean play. We also see where many Catholic churches encourage their faithful to engage in Bible study. Pre-reformation times looked much different from that. Bibles weren’t even written in parishioners’ native languages.

There is definitely some truth to that, but you forgot to address my question. If you don’t want to address it, that’s cool. My question:

I know that you believe that nothing could have stopped God’s ordained protestant reformation. With that said, is it safe to say that since something did in fact curtail God’s first century ordained plan (the catholic church) - necessitating the need for God’s 16th century ordained plan - the protestant reformation, something in fact could curtail God’s second plan (protestant reformation)? Your thoughts friend…

 

[jam070406]

I believe that much of what we see today in the Catholic church is because of the Reformation. One thing for sure is how the priest faces the parish during mass and interacts with them. In the middle ages, we wouldn’t have seen this at all. It was more like a Shakespearean play.

The Priest in Orthodox churches also faces East, away from the people, leading them in prayer. Which has always been the practice. Are they wrong?

We also see where many Catholic churches encourage their faithful to engage in Bible study. Pre-reformation times looked much different from that. Bibles weren’t even written in parishioners’ native languages.

This was pre-printing press. It’s also why alot of old Churches told biblical stories in their stain glass and murals.

 

[Castelan]

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

The idea was not to depart from the doctrines of Christ.These people wanted to return to the Doctrines of Christ. They thought the Church was corrupt.

How did you come up with that?

Until WWII there were attempts to say Mass in the language of each nation. They were boycotted.

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

The usual way: through dialogue and understanding.

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

Only God needs no improvement.

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

The Church should not have descended to the level of violence. It should have followed Christ’s non-violent teachings. The Church should have insisted on dialogue. Violence was perpetrated by both sides. That should not have happened.

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

I see with some amusement that your tone is aggressive. Goodbye.

And why is that?

 

[joe370]

The idea was not to depart from the doctrines of Christ.These people wanted to return to the Doctrines of Christ. They thought the Church was corrupt… The Church should not have descended to the level of violence. It should have followed Christ’s non-violent teachings. The Church should have insisted on dialogue. Violence was perpetrated by both sides. That should not have happened.

 

[Contarini]

I would be happy to share that if I didn’t feel that it would be met with condescending insults. It seems that most anything that isn’t in accord with the RCC, it gets just that. I really am not interested in that.

This is a conservative Catholic website, so one has to be prepared for some of that. I’ve been putting up with a certain amount of it for quite a while now. But I’ve also found a lot of thoughtful folks on this forum who are willing to engage in substantive discussion. Bear in mind that many folks come here as a refuge from a “real” world dominated (in their experience) by fundamentalists or secularists who belittle their faith. Somewhat of a “fanboy” mentality can develop. I have made it my hobby to annoy and challenge the fanboys–in fact, I’ve probably spent far too long on it.

Granted, my basic views of Christianity are far closer to Catholicism than to what most folks think of as Protestantism, and that may be one reason I’m tolerated. But not the only one, I think.

Substantive, thoughtful posts will generally earn respect around here, even if they aren’t in agreement with the dominant perspectives.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I would be happy to respond to a charitable post such as this.

I believe that much of what we see today in the Catholic church is because of the Reformation. One thing for sure is how the priest faces the parish during mass and interacts with them. In the middle ages, we wouldn’t have seen this at all. It was more like a Shakespearean play.

But there were movements in that direction in the Renaissance–the problem was that these moderate reforms got tied up with a radical rejection of traditional doctrine and with civil rulers’ attempts to gain more complete control of the Church. I think it’s quite likely that these changes would have happened by the end of the sixteenth century if not for the Reformation. I can’t prove this. But I certainly think it’s far more likely that the Reformation postponed these changes (because Catholic leaders feared that any movement in that direction would lead to Protestantism) than that it hastened them.

We also see where many Catholic churches encourage their faithful to engage in Bible study. Pre-reformation times looked much different from that. Bibles weren’t even written in parishioners’ native languages.

Actually, there were printed Bibles in pretty much every major European vernacular by the time Luther published his 95 Theses. The English situation, in which the only complete Bible was identified with “heresy” and could not be openly printed, was not typical, though certainly there were concerns about vernacular Bibles among late medieval Church leaders.

One could make the argument that Luther hijacked a reform movement that was already well under way, linking it to radical doctrinal positions that sharpened the existing suspicions of reform among church leaders.

Edwin

 

[cmforte]

Originally Posted by **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.**

What’s wrong with Latin? I think a universal church should have a universal language, and for the RCC, that language was Latin. I went to a Polish Mass by accident, since every Mass is the same (except for maybe the Homily), I knew exactly what they were saying!! And it, like most Catholic Churches, had an english translation available. So what would be wrong with the Mass being said in Latin instead of in the vernacular?

-Chris

 

[guanophore]

We also see where many Catholic churches encourage their faithful to engage in Bible study.  Pre-reformation times looked much different from that.  Bibles weren't even written in parishioners' native languages.

Pritchard, when you learn a little more about the history of the Bible, you will understand better why this was the case. Latin was the 'vulgar" or common language, but Bibles had to be copied by had in candlelight in monasteries by monks. It was not until a Catholic invented the printing press, and printed the Bible as the first book, that Bibles became widely available. Until that time, Bibles often cost a year’s wages, and could not be afforded by the average “parishioner”. There was one chained to the podium at the Church that was for the use of the parish.

 

[Angela77]

Well, it prompted the Catholic Church to do the counter-Reformation. They got rid of corrupt practices such as selling indulgences to sinners.

 

[joe370]

Pritchard, when you learn a little more about the history of the Bible, you will understand better why this was the case. Latin was the 'vulgar" or common language, but Bibles had to be copied by had in candlelight in monasteries by monks. It was not until a Catholic invented the printing press, and printed the Bible as the first book, that Bibles became widely available. Until that time, Bibles often cost a year’s wages, and could not be afforded by the average “parishioner”. There was one chained to the podium at the Church that was for the use of the parish.

Excellent point. Something I did not know, long ago, as a former non-Catholic. Tings were so different prior to the printing press, and once it was invented, by a catholic, the catholic bible was one of the first documents to be printed and disseminated…

 

[joe370]

Hey Edwin…

Contarini;8302101]But there were movements in that direction in the Renaissance–the problem was that these moderate reforms got tied up with a radical rejection of traditional doctrine and with civil rulers’ attempts to gain more complete control of the Church. I think it’s quite likely that these changes would have happened by the end of the sixteenth century if not for the Reformation. I can’t prove this. But I certainly think it’s far more likely that the Reformation postponed these changes (because Catholic leaders feared that any movement in that direction would lead to Protestantism) than that it hastened them.

Hmm, interesting perspective. I never looked at it that way.

One could make the argument that Luther hijacked a reform movement that was already well under way, linking it to radical doctrinal positions that sharpened the existing suspicions of reform among church leaders.

That I do agree with…

 

[joe370]

What’s wrong with Latin? I think a universal church should have a universal language, and for the RCC, that language was Latin. I went to a Polish Mass by accident, since every Mass is the same (except for maybe the Homily), I knew exactly what they were saying!! And it, like most Catholic Churches, had an english translation available. So what would be wrong with the Mass being said in Latin instead of in the vernacular?

-Chris

Nothing wrong with that in my opinion. I would prefer the other way of course…