Do You Think The Reformation Was Necessary?

[PeaceInChrist]

We do not know “Rome” is infallible. We know that the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church of Christ receives the light of the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals, and that a special light is given to the Bishop that holds the See of Rome, for he is the direct successor of Peter, and from him the authority flows like a river. This we find in the words of Christ and in the behavior of the apostles the primacy of Peter, and after the apostolic succession took place, we find in the writings of the early Church Fathers the utmost respect for the episcopal see of Rome.

It would be an offense to everyone’s culture to attempt to show this in the context of this forum. However, we could quote a few writings. We could mention the intervention of St. Clement of Rome, third successor of Peter, considered the first true exercise of the Roman primacy…we could mention St. Ignatius of Antioch, who writes in his Epistle to the Romans:

We could mention St. Iraeneus of Lyons, who writes:

We could mention St. Cyprian of Carthage, who writes:

And from there on we reach St. Augustine of Hippo, who writes that “in a figure Peter represented the Church” and that “the succession of the priests keeps me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate”, and (perhaps one of his most quoted or paraphrased statements) he so refers to the episcopal see of Rome (the “Apostolic See”):

By now, what was a matter of well-known tradition became an established fact:

Is there controversy? There certainly is. The Church has faced errors, misunderstandings, schisms and heresies ever since it came into being. However, what is part of Tradition is Tradition, and our roots are on very solid ground. The same, unfortunately, cannot be said about other relatively modern doctrines.

Thank you for those quotes from the Fathers. I have begun reading them, myself. I especially enjoy Justin Martyr and Irenaeus so far. Of all the arguments against Protestantism, the words of the Fathers are among the strongest.

 

[nealfjr]

for Tantum ergo. i love the quote by Blessed John Paul II and his declaration that it be definitively held. my question should probably be a new thread, but here goes. could not a current Pope “overturn” Blessed JPII’s declaration as was done with The Latin Mass?? as Pope Pius V issued His Quo Primum decree not only declared that this Mass was to remain unchanged for all time, but it forbade the introduction of new Mass liturgies. well we know how that turned out.

 

[embien]

Exactly. VERNACULAR BIBLES existed PRIOR to the Reformation. The Church never forbade reading the Bible (in fact, indulgences exist for reading the Bible!)

The Reformation did not open up the word of God to everybody; the Reformation simply coincided with the advent of the printing press and the spread of literacy.

According to Helen Brock “When in Prague in the early 1400s Jan Hus as a university professor started saying Mass in Czech, offering lay people the chalice and preaching about reform of abuses … huge crowds came… all this long before Henry VIII. … the clampdown was ruthless when it came.” (2013 pages 31-32 )

In my opinion, this shows a classic civil service maintaining its own momentum and that reform had to be achieved by other, more radical means. It is a problem with which the new Pope must grapple.

 

[harlen]

The tragedy was that the “Protesters” left (or were ejected from) the Church.
Therefore those calls for reform that had been valid were to some degree lost in the polarisation and argument that ensued.
Once cut off from the Church, new traditions were created and a continuance of disunity to the current day.
So, when we find it hard to live with dissension, discussion and disagreement within the Church today, let us remember and keep all God’s children close in this family.
Family disagreements are one thing, breakups can be permanent.

 

[Used2beSherryG]

Then we have established that appeals to infallible church authorities fall flat as the individual still must discern for themselves which infallible church body to follow based not heir non infallible discernment.

Regards

Lincs

You have set yourself up as the one true interpreter, which “falls flat” with me

 

[dennyboo]

The Reformation is so often portrayed in a manner that reminds one of a Hollywood
epic or a miniseries such as The Tudors.
There are the good guys and of course there are the villains, usually bigger than life.
It seems to me that the point of the reform movement was to identify and restore authentic Catholic faith and practice.
Clearly there was great disagreement about was authentic Catholic faith and practice. Very little charity was in evidence and that charge could be made and made to stick to most of the combatants.
One must remember that this movement began and grew from within the visible church of the West. The opponents were all members of the visible church.The hardening of positions took place over many years and there were moments when reconciliation seemed possible.
But men failed to love.As Patrick Dolan the historian once wrote “Charity had grown cold.”
Only now, with much credit to Pope Benedict do more and more of us see that theology must be informed by charity ot it isn’t authentic theology.

 

[mo3]

i love the quote by Blessed John Paul II and his declaration that it be definitively held. my question should probably be a new thread, but here goes. could not a current Pope “overturn” Blessed JPII’s declaration as was done with The Latin Mass?? as Pope Pius V issued His Quo Primum decree not only declared that this Mass was to remain unchanged for all time, but it forbade the introduction of new Mass liturgies.

The exact format of the mass is a matter of discipline (not dogma) which the Church can change. A pope can only teach infallibly on matters of faith and morals and it is only infallible when a pope has the specific intention of teaching infallibly, which has only been done twice in the last 2000 years.

God bless.

 

[brb3]

The tragedy was that the “Protesters” left (or were ejected from) the Church.
Therefore those calls for reform that had been valid were to some degree lost in the polarisation and argument that ensued.
Once cut off from the Church, new traditions were created and a continuance of disunity to the current day.
So, when we find it hard to live with dissension, discussion and disagreement within the Church today, let us remember and keep all God’s children close in this family.
Family disagreements are one thing, breakups can be permanent.

Yes, we should never desire divorce. What Luther did, shaking his fist at and excoriating both Pope & Church was beyond the pale. His defiance was fatal for him, and a lot of his like-minded kinship. Just another Korah’s Rebellion, that failed, like in days of Moses. History sadly repeats itself, oftentimes !!!

 

[Lincoln7]

This thread got a bit busy…

R.C -

We do not know “Rome” is infallible. We know that the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church of Christ receives the light of the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals, and that a special light is given to the Bishop that holds the See of Rome, for he is the direct successor of Peter, and from him the authority flows like a river. This we find in the words of Christ and in the behavior of the apostles the primacy of Peter, and after the apostolic succession took place, we find in the writings of the early Church Fathers the utmost respect for the episcopal see of Rome.

Semantics… We all know what I mean by ‘Rome’, simple shorthand for the magisterium based in Rome… You know this how? Which infallible authority told you so? If I’m expected to answer this every time I quote scripture, surely you can do the same when you point me towards your church hierarchy?

We do indeed find respect for Rome, and Antioch, and Constantinople.

This is a mistaken conclusion, for we have known ever since the earliest days that the Church of Christ has very clear characteristics: one, holy, universal, apostolic.

Find the Church that meets these four characteristics, and you will have the Church with whom Christ is well pleased.

The church is indeed one, holy, universal and apostolic, I confess it with the creed… I just don’t think it’s limited to the visible Roman Catholic Church…

Used2beSherryG -

You have set yourself up as the one true interpreter, which “falls flat” with me

Eh? I’m well aware of my limitations, of the fact I can err, of my participation in the interpretation of texts, I’m a critical realist… Why caricature me as above because I have attempted to use reason during a discussion?

Kind Regards

Lincs

 

[Lincoln7]

I have to be out for a couple of hours now, I am in the middle of commenting on the quotes R.C posted from various fathers. Hope to have it up soon.

Kind regards

Lincs

 

[MasterWooten]

**The manner in which the reformation happened was sad, that being the break up of the church into many different churches. This is not to say that some protestant movements such as conservative Baptists, evangelicals and Calvinists don’t bring positive features to the faith. The negative aspects of that affair is seen when people misrepresent the faith and form their “own” churches and then go on to do things like handle snakes as they do in Appalachia.

Of course the model for leaving the Roman Church for terrible motives and the problems that brings is exemplified in the Church of England, that’s Anglican/Episcopalian. This is a church which was formed out of the desire of an English King to divorce his wife when our church refused to grant him a divorce for the frivolous reason he wanted. Today the Church of England after decades of backsliding on the social issues is splitting apart because one half of the church wants to remain faithful to the scriptures teaching on morality whereas another part of that church often led by the church’s leadership does not. This is but the best example of how the Reformation established a precedent which has gone horribly wrong and has begum to hurt many people.**

 

[Bballer32]

The Protestant Reformation in my opinion was good in trying to bring about reform, but bad that it ended the way it did (mostly what everyone has said). However, i do not think that the Protestant leaders should have even fallen away or separated themselves from the Church.

I really think that in Luther’s incident, the Pope and the Cardinals were a little bit too arrogant and excommunicated him with out actually listening to him. They did, however, have a legit reason to excommunicate him. He left his priestly order and married an ex-nun.

But, in the other leaders positions (Calvin, Zwinglini, etc.) they were the ones with the arrogance. Too much pride in ones teachings and not wanting to be under authority (disobeys 4th commandment).

Just my :twocents:

 

[R_C]

Replying to post #85:

We know, of course, the same way the bishops knew over a thousand years ago - from Scripture. It is a seed, planted in the Gospel by Christ, which grew slowly but surely. Unfortunately, I am too ignorant to show this growth in the manner that it deserves. All I can do is refer to the few things I know of:

• besides the disciples, Christ chose and appointed apostles;
• we learn that Christ gave special privileges and authority to the apostles, before and after the Resurrection;
• we learn that the Holy Spirit would give them additional revelation and additional understanding beyond the Scriptures;
• we learn that the apostolic teaching authority was required for the people to understand the Scripture correctly, by the work of the Spirit through the apostle Philip;
• amidst the apostles, Peter held an obvious primacy (more on this below);
• Christ gave special prayers and authority and promises and charges to Peter, over whom Christ says His Church will be founded (and, of course, there are multiple layers of meaning to the wording “over this rock”, that go from the rock of faith to the name Peter to the Apostolic See to the fact that the Holy See so happens to be built over the very remains of Peter, as archaeology found out not too many years ago);
• we learn that there is an apostolic succession, that is, not everyone becomes an apostle by Baptism, but rather by responding to a special call and by the imposition of the hands by other apostles;

Obviously there is something wrong when we have such a major departure from what Christianity has done since apostolic days, when we say that we respect Rome as much as, say, Constantinople. Surely nobody would have argued that we respect st. John as much as st. Peter, to the extent that to st. John was given the care of the Mother of God. Yet, to Peter were given extraordinary mandates of leadership, both by Christ and by the Spirit who moved him to take initiatives that fulfilled the Scriptures (I think, for instance, of jumping out of the boat and walking on water, or taking the lead and replying when many disciples abandoned Christ after the teaching on the Holy Eucharist being his flesh, or when he bravely addressed the transfigured Lord, when he resists the washing of the feet, or when he opposes even with the sword the capture of Christ, or when he enters the Holy Sepulcher, or when he jumps off the boat and swims to the man whom John said to be Christ…just to mention a few examples). The same applies to the Apostolic See in the early Church, and throughout the history of the Church. Such an acknowledgment of leadership cannot be the work of human hands, it cannot be imposed upon the Church by the will of men.

For the sake of brevity I refrain from quoting the scriptural passages that back up the points I make above, but I can do that as needed.

Let me briefly comment your remark on the Church. I also don’t believe it’s limited to the visible Holy Roman Church, of course…orthodox Christian doctrine teaches us that the communion of saints is made of the Church Militant down here (the visible Church), along with the Church Penitent and the Church Triumphant (invisible). Orthodox doctrine also teaches that the Church is one flock with one shepherd, and that surely the sheep that are scattered, if marked with the Lord’s indelible baptismal character, still belong to His flock, but are to some smaller or greater degree separated from the rest of the flock.

We clearly see this in communities where there is no oneness - meaning there is no agreement between them except the basics that move us to a true universality or catholicity -, where there is no such thing as apostolicity - for there is no apostolic succession whatsoever, in fact, even a denial of the hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons, where there is, above all else, no universality - for I used to live in a small village on top of a mount and we had a Catholic Parrish, but that was pretty much it, and those who have missionary experience, as far as in very poor countries or as close as in the local downtown, can often witness the same testimony).

Nobody here is claiming that other Christian communities are, so to speak, not members of the body of Christ. If there is a valid Baptism, we know that this statement could not hold true. However, Scripture alone suffices to show that in the scattered thousands of denominations - as mentioned above in another related context - “we cannot possibly recognize a masterpiece of God’s omnipotence, but only a wretched caricature” of that Church on which the gates of Hell would have not prevailed, and an open mockery to the prayer of Christ to His divine Father: “I want them all to be one, like you and me …] one flock with one shepherd”.

It sure fulfills the Scripture that the shepherd be struck and the sheep scattered. It happened to Christ, it happens to His appointed vicar. It surely fulfills the Scripture that despite it all, after 21 centuries the house built on the rock still stands, while those who have fallen on the rock have been broken into pieces. We had also heard that he who does not gather with Christ, scatters, and that every division is the result of the work of the enemy, who came at night and is master of all deception and father of all lies.

I do not know why Christ allowed this to happen to His Church. I thank God for making it so obvious, so clear, so sound that the Church that has retained the name Catholic and solely fulfills the four characteristics of the Creed is still, indeed, the one Church He personally founded. I only hope that He be pleased to show it with equal clarity to all, so that indeed we may become the flock He wants us to be. But I doubt this will be the case, for the Church follows the path of her Spouse, until Calvary, where only the Mother and the beloved disciple were left.

 

[geekborj]

What happened in the past is, i believe, necessary. For without our past, we have no present. This Lent will ask us to accept what has been and to suffer should be required of us by God to face our future – Him.

 

[Lincoln7]

R. C, regarding your quotes from the fathers:
Clement of Rome -

The only issue with the current catholic apologetic view of this quote is simply that the letter known as 1 Clement doesn’t actually bear his name… It is from the church in Rome, plural. Rome functions with a plurality leadership at this time. A quote from the Shepherd of Hermas; "Thou shalt therefore write two little books, and shalt send one to Clement, and one to Grapte. So Clement shall send to the foreign cities, for this is his duty; while Grapte shall instruct the widows and the orphans. But thou shalt read (the book) to this city along with the elders that preside over the Church." - earlychristianwritings.com/text/shepherd-lightfoot.html - Note the plurality leadership of Rome at the turn of the century.

Ignatius of Antioch - It seems apparent to me that ignatius rightly greets the church in Rome as presiding “in love” (a better translation IMO), in the region of the Romans… It’s one leader of the church who has his own sphere respectfully greeting the equal church in Rome whilst on his way to them… A rather good post on it is here: beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/ignatius-severely-contradicts-current.html, I hope the authors don’t mind me linking, I know Mr Swan occasionally visits the forums here.

Irenaus -
The quote is discussed at length here: elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/christia/library/irenaeus.html, it is clear he is not attempting to say what current catholic apologetics say he is.
Of particular note with Irenaus is his disobeying Victor, bishop of Rome; "For when Pope Victor, about the year 190, in hierarchical arrogance and intolerance, broke fellowship with the churches of Asia Minor, for no other reason but because they adhered to their tradition concerning the celebration of Easter, the same Irenaeus, though agreeing with him on the disputed point itself, rebuked him very emphatically as a troubler of the peace of the church, and declared himself against a forced uniformity in such unessential matters. Nor did the Asiatic churches allow themselves to be intimidated by the dictation of Victor. They answered the Roman tradition with that of their own sedes apostolicae." - m.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.vi.x.html#v.vi.x-p0.1 - Irenaues knew nothing of a papacy infallibe, with universal jurisdiction. Jurisdiction in its own sphere certainly, but universally? he flat out contradicts it.

Regarding cyrprian of Carthage - I think his dissent during the controversy over heretical baptism is enough to demonstrate that despite his high view of Peter, he did not have in mind a modern idea of the papacy - m.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.vi.x.html#v.vi.x-p0.1

Regarding Augustines famous quote - beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2007/02/augustine-rome-has-spoken-matter-is.html - A short post here.

I will leave discussing quotations by Leo and innocent, as I’m pretty sure what their own view of their positions was, I don’t think it was accepted by the rest oath church of course, hence why the Eastern churches finally said Rome had left them… Furthermore we’re now arriving at around the 5th century. If the papacy can’t be shown to exist prior to then in any convincing manner as resembling the one today, there won’t be many inclined to accept its claims.

Regards

Lincs

 

[Rosinante]

R. C, regarding your quotes from the fathers:
Clement of Rome -

…

I will leave discussing quotations by Leo and innocent, as I’m pretty sure what their own view of their positions was, I don’t think it was accepted by the rest oath church of course, hence why the Eastern churches finally said Rome had left them… Furthermore we’re now arriving at around the 5th century. If the papacy can’t be shown to exist prior to then in any convincing manner as resembling the one today, there won’t be many inclined to accept its claims.

Regards

Lincs

You keep jumping way ahead of yourself, and giving yourself far more credit than is due.

All you’ve done, is post your spin on actual words of the Church Fathers (while completely disgregarding historical context, and the evidence of Tradition, as it stands today…).

…and 1.1 Billion people seem to disagree with your last little suggestion, about not being inclined to accept [the papacy].

Suggestion: wait until after you’ve crossed the goal line, to spike the football and perform your touchdown dance.

Whoops…let me translate into Brittish football:

Perhaps you should wait until after the ball goes into the net, before sliding and celebrating your…

…gooooooooooooaaaaaaallll!

 

[Rosinante]

Replying to post #85:

We know, of course, the same way the bishops knew over a thousand years ago - from Scripture. It is a seed, planted in the Gospel by Christ, which grew slowly but surely. Unfortunately, I am too ignorant to show this growth in the manner that it deserves. All I can do is refer to the few things I know of:

• besides the disciples, Christ chose and appointed apostles;
• we learn that Christ gave special privileges and authority to the apostles, before and after the Resurrection;
• we learn that the Holy Spirit would give them additional revelation and additional understanding beyond the Scriptures;
• we learn that the apostolic teaching authority was required for the people to understand the Scripture correctly, by the work of the Spirit through the apostle Philip;
• amidst the apostles, Peter held an obvious primacy (more on this below);
• Christ gave special prayers and authority and promises and charges to Peter, over whom Christ says His Church will be founded (and, of course, there are multiple layers of meaning to the wording “over this rock”, that go from the rock of faith to the name Peter to the Apostolic See to the fact that the Holy See so happens to be built over the very remains of Peter, as archaeology found out not too many years ago);
• we learn that there is an apostolic succession, that is, not everyone becomes an apostle by Baptism, but rather by responding to a special call and by the imposition of the hands by other apostles;

Obviously there is something wrong when we have such a major departure from what Christianity has done since apostolic days, when we say that we respect Rome as much as, say, Constantinople. Surely nobody would have argued that we respect st. John as much as st. Peter, to the extent that to st. John was given the care of the Mother of God. Yet, to Peter were given extraordinary mandates of leadership, both by Christ and by the Spirit who moved him to take initiatives that fulfilled the Scriptures (I think, for instance, of jumping out of the boat and walking on water, or taking the lead and replying when many disciples abandoned Christ after the teaching on the Holy Eucharist being his flesh, or when he bravely addressed the transfigured Lord, when he resists the washing of the feet, or when he opposes even with the sword the capture of Christ, or when he enters the Holy Sepulcher, or when he jumps off the boat and swims to the man whom John said to be Christ…just to mention a few examples). The same applies to the Apostolic See in the early Church, and throughout the history of the Church. Such an acknowledgment of leadership cannot be the work of human hands, it cannot be imposed upon the Church by the will of men.

For the sake of brevity I refrain from quoting the scriptural passages that back up the points I make above, but I can do that as needed.

Let me briefly comment your remark on the Church. I also don’t believe it’s limited to the visible Holy Roman Church, of course…orthodox Christian doctrine teaches us that the communion of saints is made of the Church Militant down here (the visible Church), along with the Church Penitent and the Church Triumphant (invisible). Orthodox doctrine also teaches that the Church is one flock with one shepherd, and that surely the sheep that are scattered, if marked with the Lord’s indelible baptismal character, still belong to His flock, but are to some smaller or greater degree separated from the rest of the flock.

We clearly see this in communities where there is no oneness - meaning there is no agreement between them except the basics that move us to a true universality or catholicity -, where there is no such thing as apostolicity - for there is no apostolic succession whatsoever, in fact, even a denial of the hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons, where there is, above all else, no universality - for I used to live in a small village on top of a mount and we had a Catholic Parrish, but that was pretty much it, and those who have missionary experience, as far as in very poor countries or as close as in the local downtown, can often witness the same testimony).

Nobody here is claiming that other Christian communities are, so to speak, not members of the body of Christ. If there is a valid Baptism, we know that this statement could not hold true. However, Scripture alone suffices to show that in the scattered thousands of denominations - as mentioned above in another related context - “we cannot possibly recognize a masterpiece of God’s omnipotence, but only a wretched caricature” of that Church on which the gates of Hell would have not prevailed, and an open mockery to the prayer of Christ to His divine Father: “I want them all to be one, like you and me …] one flock with one shepherd”.

It sure fulfills the Scripture that the shepherd be struck and the sheep scattered. It happened to Christ, it happens to His appointed vicar. It surely fulfills the Scripture that despite it all, after 21 centuries the house built on the rock still stands, while those who have fallen on the rock have been broken into pieces. We had also heard that he who does not gather with Christ, scatters, and that every division is the result of the work of the enemy, who came at night and is master of all deception and father of all lies.

I do not know why Christ allowed this to happen to His Church. I thank God for making it so obvious, so clear, so sound that the Church that has retained the name Catholic and solely fulfills the four characteristics of the Creed is still, indeed, the one Church He personally founded. I only hope that He be pleased to show it with equal clarity to all, so that indeed we may become the flock He wants us to be. But I doubt this will be the case, for the Church follows the path of her Spouse, until Calvary, where only the Mother and the beloved disciple were left.

 

[R_C]

Furthermore we’re now arriving at around the 5th century. If the papacy can’t be shown to exist prior to then in any convincing manner as resembling the one today, there won’t be many inclined to accept its claims.

I disagree. It takes time for things to mature and for understanding to be reached. Otherwise we’d still be walking two by two, moving from city to city, etc.

And of course we still have that important element within the Church, but as a society it has developed and grown: we have more bishops (many more!) all over the world, to the point that no longer we have dioceses under an episcopal see, but even archdioceses with an archbishop and auxiliary bishops…and their number is so large that the Bishop of Rome has to appoint those who are of particular leadership as “cardinal” bishops (of which we have over one hundred all over the world), from which will the leader of the whole Church be chosen…it is in fact a wonderful structure that has withstood more than a millennia without ever growing weak - even when it was struck by emperors or opposed groups moved by religious disobedience and political interests to overthrow the papacy.

It is obvious that the one structure that is organized in such way as to reflect the divine plan of preaching the gospel to all the nations is the Catholic Church. That does not mean that other Christian communities are not followers of Christ - this would be nonsense. However, if the Catholic Church, suppose, were to end today, Christianity would collapse and society itself would be brought to its knees.

Nobody here is claiming that the structure of the Church in terms of its hiearachy has reached its perfect stage. Nobody here is claiming that the office of the Vicar of Christ is being exercised in its most perfect way. God himself has sent people throughout history when they were most needed - consider the birth of the mendicant orders of the Franciscans and Dominicans that so greatly stirred the Church reminding her of the humility and poverty of Christ - and the Church has of course changed according to the times she has lived in. It is very easy for a guy like Luther, or for someone today, to criticize the Church, the Pope, and all of that. But we far too often forget that the Church has lived in the time of the Roman emperors, of the invading kings, of the reigns of the rich cities where few families held in their hands the power to change the course of history. What, do you think that the Pope should have adapted a mendicant spirituality and lived in a small house of wood? That the churches should have been small buildings - or never built at all? That the objects for the worship of God should have been crafted in rusty iron? Surely with God all is possible, and yet that was not the way it went. The Church grew to be the greatest of them all, to the point that it would eventually be the Pope who would crown and give authority to the emperor of most of the known world, and that the Pope would have the spiritual authority to remove kings from their thrones.

Now the times have changed, we live in the era of “democracy”, and kings are no longer fashionable, except for the gossip and for the fanfare of the latest royal wedding. However, a time in history came for the Pope and the Church to renounce all temporal power, and the structure of the Church - in need of constant improvement, like a garden, or a camp - is very solid and - I dare say - has nothing to envy to the most brilliant of democracies, given that truly we have witnessed all sorts of men and women reach the highest tops of ecclesiastic authority. Sure, we like to point the finger against Popes of noble origin, but then we forget that we’ve had Popes who were of incredibly humble origins, and whom we cannot understand how they could have possibly reached that office by themselves.

The one aspect about the Papacy that is truly worth of debate is the Pope’s infallible authority to define a dogma when speaking ex cathedra. This may be the only major departure from early Christianity - which has lead to so much trouble with our loved Orthodox brothers. For the rest, regarding the apostolic succession, the structure of the Church in the world, and its works, there is no doubt possible that she is the Church of Christ - certainly not, as Luther and others said/say, the see and work of Antichrist.

Unfortunately we don’t see this until we step out into the places where Christ is suffering, abandoned, sick, thirsty. But if we travel to those places, which could be very far away or very close to home, then we find the Catholic Church giving even as little as a cup of water and a bit of food. Sometimes we find other Christian groups who, by God’s divine providence, happened to be there and be moved to follow the Church in her works of mercy. But those groups cannot be all over the world - the Church can, and is.

I do not know how would I think if I was born inside a Lutheran community or some other community that is not Catholic. Maybe I’d also be so obfuscated by the ideas I’ve been (and I am being) taught, so seemingly truthful and so seemingly logical, that I would not see the Church as I see it now. Not that before, when I was a shadow who did nothing to follow Christ in any way, I did not dislike the Church. Surely I did. I criticized it. I hated it. I went with the crowd. But it did not take much after I turned my heart to Christ to see how wrong I was, how incredibly mistaken.

I don’t know what can we do about this, especially since true protestant doctrines are born out of a spirit of anti-Catholicism, but as long as we can work together for the good of souls, it’s a good beginning. And in God every day, every hour is a beginning.

 

[JonNC]

The Protestant Reformation in my opinion was good in trying to bring about reform, but bad that it ended the way it did (mostly what everyone has said). However, i do not think that the Protestant leaders should have even fallen away or separated themselves from the Church.

I really think that in Luther’s incident, the Pope and the Cardinals were a little bit too arrogant and excommunicated him with out actually listening to him. They did, however, have a legit reason to excommunicate him. He left his priestly order and married an ex-nun.

But, in the other leaders positions (Calvin, Zwinglini, etc.) they were the ones with the arrogance. Too much pride in ones teachings and not wanting to be under authority (disobeys 4th commandment).

Just my :twocents:

I actually appreciate your comments. I would just add, as a matter of sequence of events, that Luther married in 1525, which was well after exsurge domine.

Jon

 

[Bballer32]

I actually appreciate your comments. I would just add, as a matter of sequence of events, that Luther married in 1525, which was well after exsurge domine.

Jon

Well that makes sense

I have a friend who actually found and bought a “Luther Theology” book which was written by himself and translated later and compiled to this book.

No offense to Lutherans or anything but in it, Luther is very harsh to the Mother Church and actually contradicts himself and even contradicts the teachings that his followers hold to.