P
peace2u2
Guest
Why or Why not?
- Status
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
The way that it happened? Hell (and I mean that) no.
Was there need for the Church to address problems? Yes.
Did the so-called Reformation actually SUCCEED?
It did not. It was a massive failure. It in itself not only did not ‘fix’ any real problems in the Christian world, but also it wound up creating literally millions and billions of ‘worse’ problems, and will continue to do so until the Church is One once more.
Does that mean I think individual Protestants are not Christians, or that they cause problems through being protestants? I do not. Protestant Christians are indeed Christians and many of them are more faithful to Christ than individual Catholics.
But it would be better for all if we were all faithful to the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church, as Christ Himself wishes.
L
LittleHannah
Guest
Necessary? No indeed. Jesus Christ started only one Church through which men could be saved.
J
JRKH
Guest
Tantum nailed it.
Was reform needed? Yes.
Did reform occur? Yes - Trent…as well as many reforms since
As for what actually occurred in the “Protestant Reformation” it became muddled and ultimately failed.
First…The Reformers themselves could not come to agreement and each went their own way…which in itself placed them outside of the biblical model of the Church.
Second…The religious issues and aspects became entangled with political ones and this, as much as anything, allowed the protestants to become entrenched in various areas. Politics severely complicated any possibility at reconciliation.
Peace
James
Was reform needed? Yes.
Did reform occur? Yes - Trent…as well as many reforms since
As for what actually occurred in the “Protestant Reformation” it became muddled and ultimately failed.
First…The Reformers themselves could not come to agreement and each went their own way…which in itself placed them outside of the biblical model of the Church.
Second…The religious issues and aspects became entangled with political ones and this, as much as anything, allowed the protestants to become entrenched in various areas. Politics severely complicated any possibility at reconciliation.
Peace
James
T
triumphguy
Guest
Would the Trent reforms have occurred without the Reformation?
J
JRKH
Guest
Would the reforms have occurred? Yes - on what timetable…can’t say…
Would the “Reformed” church groups been reconciled? Possible depending on the timetable and how much “politics” could have been kept out of the matter…
Those are my crude and uneducated thoughts.
Peace
James
R
R_C
Guest
A Reform was already brought forth by Christ when He saint s. Francis of Assisi to “rebuild His Church”. Around the same time came s. Dominic and founded the Order of Preachers - shortly thereafter S. Thomas Aquinas joined it, and his contributions refreshed to unprecedented heights Catholicism. This from the side of the earth. From the heavenly side, at the same time God gave us the devotions of the Holy Rosary and of the Scapular.
What contributions did the political maneuvers of the augustinian monk bring, other than chaos and disorder?
Surely this could never be the will of the good Lord, who around the same century brought forth and manifested himself to the great mystical doctors S. Teresa of Avila and S. John of the Cross, inspired S. Ignatius of Loyola to found the Company of Jesus and to compose his Spiritual Exercises, moved S. Philip Neri to make Christ present in Rome (whose disciple, Caesar Baronius, wrote the majestic *Annales Ecclesiastici *, which was called “the greatest history of the Church ever written” and which demonstrated that the XVI Century Church was the same in all essential aspects as the Church born on Pentecost).
It would not be sound to argue that all these great saints arose as a consequence of the works of Luther, no more than we could argue that the coming of Christ would not have occurred without the sin of Adam and Eve.
Now, did God allow this to happen? Yes, just like He allowed other major issues such as the Arian heresy to bring distress to the Church. But those things are not necessary, and God’s will for His Church is one and unchanging.
What contributions did the political maneuvers of the augustinian monk bring, other than chaos and disorder?
Surely this could never be the will of the good Lord, who around the same century brought forth and manifested himself to the great mystical doctors S. Teresa of Avila and S. John of the Cross, inspired S. Ignatius of Loyola to found the Company of Jesus and to compose his Spiritual Exercises, moved S. Philip Neri to make Christ present in Rome (whose disciple, Caesar Baronius, wrote the majestic *Annales Ecclesiastici *, which was called “the greatest history of the Church ever written” and which demonstrated that the XVI Century Church was the same in all essential aspects as the Church born on Pentecost).
It would not be sound to argue that all these great saints arose as a consequence of the works of Luther, no more than we could argue that the coming of Christ would not have occurred without the sin of Adam and Eve.
Now, did God allow this to happen? Yes, just like He allowed other major issues such as the Arian heresy to bring distress to the Church. But those things are not necessary, and God’s will for His Church is one and unchanging.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
The Church had needed reforms many times throughout history due to the actions of its adherents in NOT following its teachings. it is not as though the period of the 16th century was unique! Far from it.
However, rather than following the early and great reforming IN the Church (think St. Francis, St. Catherine, St. Benedict, et. al.), the Protestant "reformation’ attempted not to bring people back to practicing the authentic faith, but instead, to ‘remake’ various doctrines to support their personal ‘interpretation’ of the faith.
So yes, the Trent reforms would have occurred ‘without’ the Reformation.
W
WaitingForJesus
Guest
I agree that reform of the Church was necessary. But, not the breaking apart of the Church which I see as a tearing apart of God’s family. Because of the reformation there have been/will be countless generations who do not know the Church and are unable to receive the sacraments established by the Lord as a way to be with us in the here and now. That is tragic. I am a convert…in fact the only Catholic in my exended family…and the forces against conversion/coming home are extremely powerful.
P
peace2u2
Guest
The 2 arguments that I usually hear that the Reformation was necessary is because:
- due to abuses by those in authority, i.e., the popes and bishops
- now everyone has access to the Word of God.
As far as the argument I hear about that thanks to the reformation, now everyone has access to the Word of God. How silly. Most people during the early Church couldn’t read anyway, Bibles were handwritten and expensive most people couldn’t afford them and the persecution against the early church, most would probably have been martyred if caught with a bible in their possession.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
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.
P
pablope
Guest
catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0097.html
Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation
MARK BRUMLEY
Louis Bouyer contends that the only way to safeguard the positive principles of the Reformation is through the Catholic Church. For only in the Catholic Church are the positive principles the Reformation affirmed found without the negative elements the Reformers mistakenly affixed to them.
Martin Luther
Interpreting the Reformation is complicated business. But like many complicated things, it can be simplified sufficiently well that even non-experts can get the gist of it. Here’s what seems a fairly accurate but simplified summary of the issue: The break between Catholics and Protestants was either a tragic necessity (to use Jaroslav Pelikan’s expression) or it was tragic because unnecessary.
Many Protestants see the Catholic/Protestant split as a tragic necessity, although the staunchly anti-Catholic kind of Protestant often sees nothing tragic about it. Or if he does, the tragedy is that there ever was such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church that the Reformers had to separate from. His motto is “Come out from among them” and five centuries of Christian disunity has done nothing to cool his anti-Roman fervor.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
Not the way it happened.
Was reform needed in the Church? Yes.
But the Council of Trent addressed many of the problems the reformers had. I doubt Luther would’ve broken with the Church if the Council of Trent happened in 1500 instead of 1546 (or if Lateran V addressed any of the issues). Calvin and Zwingli though? They probably would’ve broken regardless, but the following would’ve been much smaller.
If there was anything Trent didn’t reform, Vatican II reformed it. More Scripture readings in Mass (what Luther really wanted), more active participation for the laity (i.e they understand what is happening and truly offer up a holy sacrifice, instead of not really knowing what is happening – lasting effects from the modernist explosion in the 60s/70s, which btw was building up in the Church since ca. 1900 and NOT a result of VII, not withstanding), some vernacular in the Mass even if in practice it is more like 98% in the vernacular, and a presentation of Aquinas and the other scholastics in light of the ECF’s, especially St. Augustine.
Imagine if this happened in 1476 and not 1546.
But hey, could be worse I guess. The Reformation sure did give the Church a wake up call and to combat it we got a lot of great saints.
L
Lincoln7
Guest
Yes. It was essential the church recognised scripture as its sole infallible authority. The written form of the authoritative apostolic teaching.
Lincs
Lincs
R
R_C
Guest
Sola Scriptura is a rather fallacious doctrinal error, fully disproved by Scripture itself. We know that the Holy Spirit preserves from error in matter of faith and morals the Vicar of Christ acting ex Cathedra and the ordinary universal Magisterium.
L
Lincoln7
Guest
Scripture disproving sola Scriptura?
It’s a hermanutical principle, which simply posits scripture is our only infallible guide, not our only guide… So, to me the reformation had a necessary aspect in ensuring the church maintained this principle, so as to avoid serious diversions from apostolic teaching.
Lincs
G
garysibio
Guest
The church needed reforming but it didn’t need division.
G
garysibio
Guest
This is kinda like asking what the world would be like if the Germans had won World War II. We just don’t know. However, there were saints who brought reform to the church without bringing division before the Protestant Reformation that it is very possible it could have happened again. Unfortunately egos got in the way on both sides.
G
garysibio
Guest
Keep in mind that neither Luther nor Calvin taught sola scriptura as it is taught today. Later followers expanded on what they taught.
I
Immacolata
Guest
Indeed; you said it better than I would have myself. Reforms were needed, but the Reformation (the breaking off of the Roman Catholic Church) was not necessary, and it may have caused more problems than it sought out to solve.
- Status