Did the Protestant Reformation do anything good?

[Contarini]

What’s wrong with Latin? I think a universal church should have a universal language, and for the RCC, that language was Latin.

But of course, the “RCC” in the strict sense isn’t universal. The Eastern Churches, in communion with Rome, have no tradition of using Latin. So the “universal language” explanation doesn’t seem to hold water.

I think that an excellent case can be made for using Latin in the “Romance” countries, just as the Greek Orthodox use Greek and the Slavic countries use Old Church Slavonic. But I think that Germanic and Slavic and Celtic and Baltic peoples ought to have had their own liturgy from the beginning.

That being said, I welcome the partial reintroduction of Latin.

My first Mass was actually in Hungarian, which was a shock–I knew Latin but only know about three words in Hungarian, and didn’t realize that Catholics generally didn’t use Latin in the Mass any more (yes, I was very ignorant–some would say that I still am).

Edwin

 

[guanophore]

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

I didn’t say that. I never said that I believe in Sola Scriptura either. The title to the thread is, "Did the Protestant Reformation do anything good? i simply answered the question.

All Edwin is asking is for you to give some reasons for your beliefs. This is all any of us have been asking since you arrived here. Actually, Edwin is a good role model for you. He is a highly respected Protestant here at CAF, well educated and circumspect. He is able to appreciate opposing points of view while still holding his own charitably.

I would be happy to share that if I didn't feel that it would be met with condescending insults.

No one here is insulting you Pritchard. We are taking issue with your methods, your presentation of yourself. Some of us have tried to give you feedback and you seem very defensive. If you don’t wish to be perceived as hostile and bigoted, then you may wish to change your manner.

It seems that most anything that isn’t in accord with the RCC, it gets just that. I really am not interested in that.

I am surprised to find a comment like this in a reply to Edwin. How odd is that?

You can be certain that,whenever you post errors about Catholicism, you will be called to account. But what else did you expect here? Did you think you could come to Catholic Answers, post lies and misinformation, and no one would respond? I mean, really?

If you are “not interested in that” (Catholic Answers) why did you come here?

 

[cmforte]

But of course, the “RCC” in the strict sense isn’t universal. The Eastern Churches, in communion with Rome, have no tradition of using Latin. So the “universal language” explanation doesn’t seem to hold water.

I think that an excellent case can be made for using Latin in the “Romance” countries, just as the Greek Orthodox use Greek and the Slavic countries use Old Church Slavonic. But I think that Germanic and Slavic and Celtic and Baltic peoples ought to have had their own liturgy from the beginning.

That being said, I welcome the partial reintroduction of Latin.

My first Mass was actually in Hungarian, which was a shock–I knew Latin but only know about three words in Hungarian, and didn’t realize that Catholics generally didn’t use Latin in the Mass any more (yes, I was very ignorant–some would say that I still am).

Edwin

Hey, you make some really good points here.

-Chris

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Edwin,

You have obviously been a long-suffering and persevering soul … and have withstood the ‘…slings and arrows of’ outrageous and uncharitable posts! Well done! Do Anglicans have a ‘CAF-type’ site?

I am not entirely sure what you mean by ‘fanboy’ but if you would favor me with a definition, I would appreciate it.

God bless

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

 

[guanophore]

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.

Yes, I understand and appreciate this. They could not distinguish between the infallible Holy Bride of Christ and the corrupted persons claiming to represent her.

Only God needs no improvement.

That why the Church is Holy and Infallible. He has purified her, and He is her Head. The HS is her Soul.

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.

The Church, of course, cannot commit violence, because of her divine elements. I do agree with you though, there were many Caholics in positions of authority both secular and ecclesial that misused their authority and their power, sometimes in truly heinous ways.

 

[hn160]

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.

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

Show me where Luther hijacked a reform movement that was already underway?

 

[Castelan]

In your opinion did protestantism successfully return to the Doctrines of Christ? If so, which denominations? Please, if you would, be specific? Again, asked with the utmost respect and inquisitiveness…

 

[Castelan]

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

Latin hasn’t been universal for some time now. Even when it was “universal”, it was the language of the educated few, and certainly not understood by the vast masses of faithful. Nowadays those who understand Latin are even fewer.
I find it decidedly pleasant going to Mass and understanding every word that is said, and being able to actually concentrate on the celebration without translating all the time. It has given me a fuller experience of the Mass. Not that I didn’t like Latin Mass – I still do, all the pomp and the formality. Aesthetically, Latin Mass was, perhaps, more impressive. But being “impressive” was surely not the point of the celebration.
As for being able to go to the churches of various nationalities and still understand the Mass when it is said in Latin, again here I cannot deny that your point is excellent. But it reflects a modern phenomenon, nonetheless. Before, when Mass was always said in Latin, how many people ever actually left the small area where they were born? Very few. The vast majority stayed in just one place from birth to death. For them to understand the Mass in their own tongue would surely have been of great spiritual benefit.
The entire issue goes back to the Pentecost, and the speaking in many tongues of the Disciples. Perhaps the message here was that it was they whom Christ sent out to convert, who were meant to adapt to each nation’s language, and not each nation adapt to the language of Rome.
However, if we wanted a universal language for Mass today, then the choice would probably fall on English or perhaps Spanish, and once again this would exclude half the world form true participation in the Mass. If, on the other hand, we want to go back to the roots and be truly traditionalist, then there is but once choice of language: Aramaic.

 

[wisdomseeker]

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.

One should not rejoice on things that are displeasing to God, it is evil in His sight. Sure, priests facing people is pleasing to man but it might not be to God. When we Catholics repent, we shall return to Him again and do His Way and not man’s way. I am sure many would rejoice seeing the CC falling in the hands of man.

 

[Contarini]

Show me where Luther hijacked a reform movement that was already underway?

Erasmus is a good place to start. If you want a Lutheran perspective on him (and if you read German–it’s never been translated), read Ernst-Wilhelm Kohls, Die Theologie des Erasmus, which actually argues that Erasmus was more influential on the broader Reformation than Luther. I think that Kohls falls prey to typical Lutheran “everyone but Luther got it wrong” paranoia, but at least he recognizes the huge significance of Erasmus.

I’ve been reading a couple of books about Erasmus’s views on war–James Tracy, The Politics of Erasmus, and Robert P. Adams, The Better Part of Valor, which deals with several other humanist reformers as well. These books give a different perspective on the early sixteenth century than you find from the typical Luther-centered approach.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Hi, Edwin,

You have obviously been a long-suffering and persevering soul … and have withstood the ‘…slings and arrows of’ outrageous and uncharitable posts! Well done! Do Anglicans have a ‘CAF-type’ site?

I am not entirely sure what you mean by ‘fanboy’ but if you would favor me with a definition, I would appreciate it.

God bless

My favorite Anglican forum is this one, but it isn’t very active. I’ve spent some time on the Episcopalian forum at Beliefnet, but I got a lot of flak for defending Catholicism (that forum is, from my perspective, full of angry ex-Catholics) and got tired of it rather quickly.

I probably shouldn’t have used “fanboy”–I’ve seen it used in pop culture to refer to someone who is so enthusiastic about whatever they’re a fan of that they become aggressive and belligerent toward even the most reasonable criticisms of the object of their enthusiasm. I thought it applied to some posts here characterized by more zeal than knowledge, but it was snarky of me.

Edwin

 

[Petergee]

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 the opposite is true, it would have happened much earlier if there had been no protestant revolt. Before then, there were many variations in the Mass in various countries, eg in England they used the Old Sarum rite. The Council of Trent did away with most of these. The feeling was that the multiplicity of different rites had helped give rise to the heretical doctrines of protestantism.

 

[Contarini]

I think the opposite is true, it would have happened much earlier if there had been no protestant revolt. Before then, there were many variations in the Mass in various countries, eg in England they used the Old Sarum rite. The Council of Trent did away with most of these. The feeling was that the multiplicity of different rites had helped give rise to the heretical doctrines of protestantism.

Precisely!

And Protestants also were generally into uniformity–within a single country at least.

Before the Reformation there was (broadly speaking) one Church in Western Europe, with a lot of internal diversity. By 1600 there was a competing set of national churches, each of which tended to impose uniformity harshly within its own borders.

Edwin

 

[Petergee]

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.

Sorry but you have been led to believe some preposterous lies which have no basis in historical fact. Even the preface to the original King James Bible mentions the fact that the Bible has been translated into each and every language of Christendom since centuries ago when the Church first came to each nation.

Why do you think Geoffrey Chaucer (in the 1300s) says as a disdainful put-down of a layman in his prologue to The Canterbury Tales, “His knowlege was but litel of the Bibel.”?

 

[Contarini]

Sorry but you have been led to believe some preposterous lies which have no basis in historical fact. Even the preface to the original King James Bible mentions the fact that the Bible has been translated into each and every language of Christendom since centuries ago when the Church first came to each nation.

Why do you think Geoffrey Chaucer (in the 1300s) says as a disdainful put-down of a layman in his prologue to The Canterbury Tales, “His knowlege was but litel of the Bibel.”?

That doesn’t imply that the whole Bible was translated into English. In fact, the only such translation in Chaucer’s day was done by the Lollards, who were considered heretics. (There’s a lot of debate as to whether Chaucer and other writers of that time had Lollard sympathies.) There were bits of the Bible in English before that, and there was a lot of paraphrase and explanation of the Bible.

Furthermore, the person being criticized there was a medical doctor who would have known Latin. Chaucer is describing someone who has what we might call a “secular” education–he’s learned, but not in the Bible.

Edwin

 

[CompSciGuy]

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

Here we go again…

May I ask you, what is the point of saying it in Latin? How is it better? To answer your question “What’s wrong with Latin,” well, I don’t know if you’ve heard the latest news, but it turns out NOBODY SPEAKS IT. You call that a universal language? If all masses are said in Latin, how would it be better than me going to, say, a Korean mass? Either way I wouldn’t be able to understand the words and would have to follow in a missal. What difference then would it make for me if mass were in Korean or Latin? May I ask you, what makes you think anything is wrong with the vernacular?

 

[CopticChristian]

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.

Pritchard,

The world spoke Greek and the bible was available in Greek. The world spoke Latin and the Bible was avaialable in Latin. Study the history of Language. The English Language, the Romance language and their development would be good too. The invention of the printing press should round out you misunderstanding and belief about the Bible in native languages.

The bible was translated into Slavonic for St. Cyril and Methodius in the 9th century, to bring Christiainty to the Slavs, long before the Reformation.

Your facts and belief are wrong.

 

[JHow]

…The bible was translated into Slavonic for St. Cyril and Methodius in the 9th century, to bring Christiainty to the Slavs, long before the Reformation…

…and one might add: long before the “great” schism.

 

[Hail_Linus]

Do you think the Protestant Reformation did anything good? I personally thing it was one of the greatest tragedies in the history of the human race, but could’ve been avoided. And if it were avoided, things would be a lot better off today. Why did it happen, and what could have been done to stop it, and what can be done now to reverse the damages wrought by it?

The only thing I can think of…and this is half joking but half serious…

Protestants have written some great music. There are an amazing number of songs that Protestants have written that may have not been written.

The best defense for Lutherans is the fact that the greatest composer of all time, J.S. Bach, was a Lutheran.

It is a great tragedy and I hope all Christians are unified one day in the Catholic Church.

All we can do is be the best Catholics we can be, know how to explain our faith, stand up for our faith, be willing to suffer for our faith, and pray to God that “his will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”

 

[Mountain_King]

The only thing I can think of…and this is half joking but half serious…

Protestants have written some great music. There are an amazing number of songs that Protestants have written that may have not been written.

The best defense for Lutherans is the fact that the greatest composer of all time, J.S. Bach, was a Lutheran.

It is a great tragedy and I hope all Christians are unified one day in the Catholic Church.

All we can do is be the best Catholics we can be, know how to explain our faith, stand up for our faith, be willing to suffer for our faith, and pray to God that “his will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”

As a former Protestant choir & church orchestra member, I approve this message.

But as an about-to-be-in-RCIA-can’t-wait-to-be-Catholic, I have to say that your last paragraph is awesome. And did the Reformation do anything good? It’s easy to point out its flaws - they are numerous and widespread, and the fruits of those flaws are now ripe in so many denominations. I do believe that God worked through the lives of those who grew up in Protestant denominations and sought to be faithful to him. So, while schism is wrong and is not justified, God has brought about good through Protestant Christians. Would it have been better if there had never been a Reformation? I think so. Did it surprise God? Not at all. And he accomplished his purposes even in this, while preserving and growing his Catholic Church.

And they did write some great music back in the day.