Do we really want another 500 years of division between Catholics and Protestants?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Christian_Unity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As I consider the question posed by the OP, I would ask the posters in this thread the following questions:

Do you believe that:
  1. Martin Luther and the other founders of the Lutheran Reformation were at least partly influenced by Evil and/or the Devil during the years 1517 through 1521?.
Martin Luther was intitially motivated by good and wanted to clean up corruption and abuses that clearly existed in the Catholic Chuch at that time. He then spun out of control, possibly influenced by evil.
  1. the individual Catholic opponents (not the Catholic Church) of Luther and the Lutheran Reformation were at least partly influenced by Evil and/or the Devil during the years 1517 through 1521?.
There was indeed a fair bit of corruption in the Catholic Church at the time and abuse and that was influenced by evil.
  1. Lutheran thinkers and theologians were/are at least partly influenced by Evil and/or the Devil as they developed Lutheran theology in the years since the Reformation?
That’s far too harsh. Misguided, yes, but influenced by the devil? No.
  1. Lutherans worship a false god?
Of course not!. They are Christians who worship the God of Abraham. If they worship a false god then so do we.

Would the Vatican issue a Joint Declaration with the Lutherans if that was the case?

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html
  1. Lutherans are at least partly influenced by Evil and/or the Devil when they participate in the Lutheran worship service?
Absolutely not! They are our brothers and sisters in Christ worshipping the One God. They are baptised Christians, like we are.
  1. your answers to the above questions (except #2) are different when asked about other Protestant (post 1517) denominations?
No. Why would they be?
As I have lurked in CAF the last few months, I have often tried to understand the views of the Catholic Church and of individual Catholics who post at CAF. I think that answers to these questions will help me to do this and answer the question posed in the OP.
All Christians are brothers and sisters in Christ. We all have a duty to work together ecumenically in Christian fellowship with an aim to eventual Christian unity.

1 Corinthians 12:13 “For by one Spirit we were all baptised into one body… and were all made to drink of one Spirit”
 
I would urge you to read the story of a reformer prior to Luther…Catherine of Sienna, and see the contrast in her and those of the Luther and the reformers.
This is an excellent point. Would that the Reformers had followed the model of St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Benedict, St, Francis. We might be acknowledging another Christian order ala the Benedictines, Franciscans, and Dominicans. That is, the Lutheronians. 🙂 And we might have had a feast day in honor of St. Martin Luther. And some Catholic parishioners claiming that they are members of “St. Martin Luther parish”.

Alas. :nope:
 
This is an excellent point. Would that the Reformers had followed the model of St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Benedict, St, Francis. We might be acknowledging another Christian order ala the Benedictines, Franciscans, and Dominicans. That is, the Lutheronians. 🙂 And we might have had a feast day in honor of St. Martin Luther. And some Catholic parishioners claiming that they are members of “St. Martin Luther parish”.

Alas. :nope:
PR, or anyone else who might know,
How did Catherine of Sienna handle herself differently that Huss, another reformer prior to Luther who met a rather warm fate?

Jon
 
As I consider the question posed by the OP, I would ask the posters in this thread the following questions:

Do you believe that:
  1. Martin Luther and the other founders of the Lutheran Reformation were at least partly influenced by Evil and/or the Devil during the years 1517 through 1521?
The Reformation wrought confusion. Per Scripture, God is not the author of confusion. The enemy was at work, but the confusion began with the failures of Catholic leadership that did not faithfully uphold the faith. It began with the sin of scandal which caused the reformers to lose faith in the Church’s authority. The same thing continues to happen today because many would prefer to wag fingers at Protestants rather than working on promoting righteousness within.
  1. the individual Catholic opponents (not the Catholic Church) of Luther and the Lutheran Reformation were at least partly influenced by Evil and/or the Devil during the years 1517 through 1521?
I don’t think I’m willing to say that. I do, think they followed the flesh over the Spirit in how it was done. I’m reminded of the Old Testament passage when the 10 northern tribes of Israel split from Judah. Rehoboam was going to go after them and fight them into submission, but the prophet Shemaiah stopped him, saying that the thing was from the Lord. Did the Lord want His people divided? Of course not, but He allowed it to happen because of the sin of the king. (I Kings 12:1-24)
  1. Lutheran thinkers and theologians were/are at least partly influenced by Evil and/or the Devil as they developed Lutheran theology in the years since the Reformation?
Evil? No. Lutherans teach both faith in and obedience to Christ. The evil one does not teach such things. Again, God will judge His people for their sin. The fissuring of the Church is due to sin–and not simply on the part of the Reformers…
  1. Lutherans worship a false god?
Absolutely not.
  1. Lutherans are at least partly influenced by Evil and/or the Devil when they participate in the Lutheran worship service?
Insofar as Lutherans attend a Lutheran worship service out of a desire to learn about God, His Word and commands, and to worship and praise Him, this does not come from the evil one.
  1. your answers to the above questions (except #2) are different when asked about other Protestant (post 1517) denominations?
No, but there are a lot of denominations. Catholics tend to sweep all non-Catholics/Orthodox into one tent and there are way too many nuances for that to have accuracy anymore.
As I have lurked in CAF the last few months, I have often tried to understand the views of the Catholic Church and of individual Catholics who post at CAF. I think that answers to these questions will help me to do this and answer the question posed in the OP.
Thank you and God bless.
Blessings.
 
PR, or anyone else who might know,
How did Catherine of Sienna handle herself differently that Huss, another reformer prior to Luther who met a rather warm fate?

Jon
ewtn.com/library/mary/catsiena.htm

At this time public opinion about Catherine was divided; many Sienese revered her as a saint, while others called her a fanatic or denounced her as a hypocrite. Perhaps as a result of charges made against her, she was summoned to Florence to appear before the general chapter of the Dominicans. Whatever the charges were, they were completely disproved, and shortly afterwards the new lector for the order in Siena, Raymund de Capua, was appointed her confessor. In this happy association, Father Raymund was in many things of the spirit her disciple. Later he became the saint’s biographer.

Always ready to act as a peacemaker, she promptly set out for Florence. The city’s magistrates met her as she drew near the gates, and placed the negotiations entirely in her hands, saying that their ambassadors would follow her to Avignon and confirm whatever she did there. Catherine arrived in Avignon on June 18, 1376, and was graciously received by the Pope. “I desire nothing but peace,” he said; “I place the affair entirely in your hands, only I recommend to you the honor of the Church.”

Since in her letters Catherine had urged his return so strongly, it was natural that they should discuss the subject now that they were face to face. “Fulfill what you have promised,” she said, reminding him of a vow he had once taken and had never disclosed to any human being. Greatly impressed by what he regarded as a supernatural sign, Gregory resolved to act upon it at once.

When Catherine got back to Siena, she kept on writing the Pope, entreating him to labor for peace. At his request she went again to Florence, still rent by factions, and stayed there for some time, frequently in danger of her life. She did finally establish peace between the city governors and the papacy, but this was in the reign of Gregory’s successor.

Her health was now so impaired by austerities that she was never free from pain; yet her thin face was usually smiling. She was grieved by any sort of scandal in the Church, especially that of the Great Schism[4] which followed the death of Gregory XI. Urban VI was elected as his successor by the cardinals of Rome and Clement VII by the rebellious cardinals of Avignon. Western Christendom was divided; Clement was recognized by France, Spain, Scotland, and Naples; Urban by most of North Italy, England, Flanders, and Hungary. Catherine wore herself out trying to heal this terrible breach in Christian unity and to obtain for Urban the obedience due to the legitimate head. Letter after letter was dispatched to the princes and leaders of Europe. To Urban himself she wrote to warn him to control his harsh and arrogant temper. This was the second pope she had counseled, chided, even commanded. Far from resenting reproof, Urban summoned her to Rome that he might profit by her advice. Reluctantly she left Siena to live in the Holy City. She had achieved a remarkable position for a woman of her time. On various occasions at Siena, Avignon, and Genoa, learned theologians had questioned her and had been humbled by the wisdom of her replies.
 
The Holy Spirit will continue to go forth drawing souls into obedience to Christ regardless of the official authority it’s done under. The apostles asked Jesus if He wanted them to stop the man casting out demons in Jesus name because that man wasn’t one of them and Jesus told them no. The ultimate end of the Gospel is to produce people who have been formed into the image of Christ who, like Him, are perfectly obedient to the Father. The Catholic Church and her traditions are means to that end, but are not themselves that end. The breadth, depth and power of the Spirit of God are wider still. I praise God for anyone who sincerely desires to obey Christ in all things, and I bless the feet of those who go out preaching the Gospel of peace.

And I praise the Lord of Heaven and Earth, whose love cannot be contained, but bears fruit in all times and places.
:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

I would like to frame this whole post and place it in a spot worthy of remembrance.

"The breadth, depth and power of the Spirit of God are wider still. I praise God for anyone who sincerely desires to obey Christ in all things, and I bless the feet of those who go out preaching the Gospel of peace." Amen.

Blessings
 
ewtn.com/library/mary/catsiena.htm

At this time public opinion about Catherine was divided; many Sienese revered her as a saint, while others called her a fanatic or denounced her as a hypocrite. Perhaps as a result of charges made against her, she was summoned to Florence to appear before the general chapter of the Dominicans. Whatever the charges were, they were completely disproved, and shortly afterwards the new lector for the order in Siena, Raymund de Capua, was appointed her confessor. In this happy association, Father Raymund was in many things of the spirit her disciple. Later he became the saint’s biographer.

Always ready to act as a peacemaker, she promptly set out for Florence. The city’s magistrates met her as she drew near the gates, and placed the negotiations entirely in her hands, saying that their ambassadors would follow her to Avignon and confirm whatever she did there. Catherine arrived in Avignon on June 18, 1376, and was graciously received by the Pope. “I desire nothing but peace,” he said; “I place the affair entirely in your hands, only I recommend to you the honor of the Church.”

Since in her letters Catherine had urged his return so strongly, it was natural that they should discuss the subject now that they were face to face. “Fulfill what you have promised,” she said, reminding him of a vow he had once taken and had never disclosed to any human being. Greatly impressed by what he regarded as a supernatural sign, Gregory resolved to act upon it at once.

When Catherine got back to Siena, she kept on writing the Pope, entreating him to labor for peace. At his request she went again to Florence, still rent by factions, and stayed there for some time, frequently in danger of her life. She did finally establish peace between the city governors and the papacy, but this was in the reign of Gregory’s successor.

Her health was now so impaired by austerities that she was never free from pain; yet her thin face was usually smiling. She was grieved by any sort of scandal in the Church, especially that of the Great Schism[4] which followed the death of Gregory XI. Urban VI was elected as his successor by the cardinals of Rome and Clement VII by the rebellious cardinals of Avignon. Western Christendom was divided; Clement was recognized by France, Spain, Scotland, and Naples; Urban by most of North Italy, England, Flanders, and Hungary. Catherine wore herself out trying to heal this terrible breach in Christian unity and to obtain for Urban the obedience due to the legitimate head. Letter after letter was dispatched to the princes and leaders of Europe. To Urban himself she wrote to warn him to control his harsh and arrogant temper. This was the second pope she had counseled, chided, even commanded. Far from resenting reproof, Urban summoned her to Rome that he might profit by her advice. Reluctantly she left Siena to live in the Holy City. She had achieved a remarkable position for a woman of her time. On various occasions at Siena, Avignon, and Genoa, learned theologians had questioned her and had been humbled by the wisdom of her replies.
I guess I could have searched this, as well. :doh2:
I’ll look up Huss for a comparison at some point.

Jon
 
I guess I could have searched this, as well. :doh2:
I’ll look up Huss for a comparison at some point.

Jon
No problem, Jon…this is for those too who would not have the time to look it up.

For Huss…are you talking about Jan Hus? Seems like there are variations in the spelling.

This should provide a snapshot: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hus

Condemnation of indulgences and CrusadeHus spoke out against indulgences, but he could not carry with him the men of the university. In 1412, a dispute took place, on which occasion Hus delivered his address Quaestio magistri Johannis Hus de indulgentiis. It was taken literally from the last chapter of Wycliffe’s book, De ecclesia, and his treatise, De absolutione a pena et culpa. The pamphlet stated that no pope or bishop had the right to take up the sword in the name of the Church; he should pray for his enemies and bless those that curse him; man obtains forgiveness of sins by true repentance, not money. The doctors of the theological faculty replied, but without success. A few days afterward, some of Hus’s followers, led by Vok Voksa z Valdštejna, burnt the Papal bulls. Hus, they said, should be obeyed rather than the Church, which they considered a fraudulent mob of adulterers and Simonists.[citation needed]

[edit] ResponseIn response, three men from the lower classes who openly called the indulgences a fraud were beheaded. They were later considered the first martyrs of the Hussite Church. In the meantime, the faculty had condemned the forty-five articles and added several other theses, deemed heretical, which had originated with Hus. The king forbade the teaching of these articles, but neither Hus nor the university complied with the ruling, requesting that the articles should be first proven to be un-scriptural. The tumults at Prague had stirred up a sensation; papal legates and Archbishop Albik tried to persuade Hus to give up his opposition to the papal bulls, and the king made an unsuccessful attempt to reconcile the two parties.[citation needed

Council of ConstanceTo put an end to the papal schism and to take up the long desired reform of the Church, a general council was convened for 1 November 1414, at Konstanz (Constance). Sigismund of Hungary, brother of Wenceslaus, and heir to the Bohemian crown, was anxious to put an end to religious dissension within the church; Hus likewise was willing to make an end of all dissensions and agreed to go to Constance, under Sigismund’s promise of safe passage.[citation needed]

CondemnationThe condemnation took place on 6 July 1415, in the presence of the assembly of the Council in the Cathedral. After the High Mass and Liturgy, Hus was led into the church. The Bishop of Lodi delivered an oration on the duty of eradicating heresy; then some theses of Hus and Wycliffe and a report of his trial were read.

[edit] Refusals to recant

An Italian prelate pronounced the sentence of condemnation upon Hus and his writings. Hus protested, saying that even at this hour he did not wish anything, but to be convinced from Holy Scripture. He fell upon his knees and asked God with a low voice to forgive all his enemies. Then followed his degradation — he was enrobed in priestly vestments and again asked to recant; again he refused. With curses his ornaments were taken from him, his priestly tonsure was destroyed, and the sentence was pronounced that the Church had deprived him of all rights and delivered him to the secular powers. Then a high paper hat was put upon his head, with the inscription “Haeresiarcha” (meaning the leader of a heretical movement). Hus was led away to the stake under a strong guard of armed men. At the place of execution he knelt down, spread out his hands, and prayed aloud. It is said that when he was about to expire, he cried out, “Christ, son of the Living God, have mercy on us!”
 
I see this thread is still has activity and action. I guess that means that you guys have not figured out how to unite Protestants and Catholics still. :hey_bud:
 
I see this thread is still has activity and action. I guess that means that you guys have not figured out how to unite Protestants and Catholics still. :hey_bud:
We figured it out a long time ago. Protestants need to become Catholic. 😃
 
Never say never. 🙂
After several months exploring the idea of Christian Unity between Catholics and Protestants, I have almost concluded that we have irreconcilable differences. I will choose the sufficiency of Christ as our only means and basis for our union with Christ throughout our Christian journey. I do believe the Catholic view of justification is based on personal merit and develops a works righteousness gospel which is not compatible with biblical cross theology. Oh well, at least I tried. - Peace :knight1:
 
After several months exploring the idea of Christian Unity between Catholics and Protestants, I have almost concluded that we have irreconcilable differences. I will choose the sufficiency of Christ as our only means and basis for our union with Christ throughout our Christian journey. I do believe the Catholic view of justification is based on personal merit and develops a works righteousness gospel which is not compatible with biblical cross theology. Oh well, at least I tried. - Peace :knight1:
Unity,

Henry VIII and others felt that way too…you can see how that works…
 

I do believe the Catholic view of justification is based on personal merit and develops a works righteousness gospel which is not compatible with biblical cross theology. Oh well, at least I tried. - Peace :knight1:
In other words, your definition of catholic does not include Catholics.
 
Unity,

Henry VIII and others felt that way too…you can see how that works…
Unity is his/her own pope, as evidenced by such dogmatic assertions as this:
…** I do believe** the Catholic view of justification is based on personal merit and develops a works righteousness gospel which is not compatible with biblical cross theology.
There you have it. A dogmatic assertion by a catholic (small ‘c’) pope.
 
Too funny… I am already catholic, but I will never become Catholic 😃
This is kinda the impression I got from you early on in this thread which begs the question…so why did you start a thread with this question? What sort of response did you expect?🤷
 
In other words, your definition of catholic does not include Catholics.
Of course not. The catholic church includes those who are united to Christ by faith from Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, and other Christian communities. Heck, you can be united to Christ by faith without being a member of a religious institutions. God saves His elect for His own glory in-spite of the errors in our churches that we attend. Our particular churches do not save us; rather Christ saves us. 🙂
 
Of course not. The catholic church includes those who are united to Christ by faith from Catholics, Protestant, Orthodox, and other Christian communities. Heck, you can be united to Christ by faith without being a member to a religious institutions. God saves His elect for His own glory in-spite of the errors in our churches that we attend. 🙂
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top