God and the Reformation

[antoniont1]

I’m Catholic, but my wife is Baptist. Some questions for both Catholics and Protestants:

One thing we reached in consensus after a heated debate is that God allowed the Reformation to occur. I think it is because God wanted us to understand our faith better. If there isn’t a force to ask us to think about our faith, our faith would probably be dead. How do you guys look at this?

Another thing: a question: I’m really not very informed of the times back then, but did the Popes announce any new doctrines during the “dark times” of the Church (when Indulgences were sold and inquisition etc going on)?

3rd thing: how can I convince her about the Apostolic succession?

4: we both look forward to the full unification of the Church. Does it mean there’s no urgent need to convert?

 

[fish90]

1.) Agreed. The best Saints and martyrs came and come from times of persecution.

Protestantism brought much good reform; however where it departed from proper Catholic teaching was its failure.

2.) Doctrine can only be developed not changed, so this could not happen or Papal infallibility and the infallibility of the Magisterium would be void.

3.) catholic.com//library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

4.) Why would we as the Body of Christ deny complete truth and the gospel to those who do not know?

 

[Contarini]

One thing we reached in consensus after a heated debate is that God allowed the Reformation to occur. I think it is because God wanted us to understand our faith better. If there isn’t a force to ask us to think about our faith, our faith would probably be dead. How do you guys look at this?

Well yes, but the same could be said about Islam, the rise of secularism/atheism, even Nazism. God in some sense allows everything that happens, or it wouldn’t happen. That doesn’t really tell us anything about whether it’s good or bad.

Another thing: a question: I’m really not very informed of the times back then, but did the Popes announce any new doctrines during the “dark times” of the Church (when Indulgences were sold and inquisition etc going on)?

This would appear to apply roughly to the later Middle Ages: 13-16th centuries. I wouldn’t call that period “dark times.” I would say, in the words of Dickens, that they were the best of times, the worst of times. . . remarkably like all other times in that respect.

No era that produced Aquinas, Dante, Late Gothic cathedrals, Giotto, Julian of Norwich, just to name a few principal glories, should be called “dark.”

The later medieval councils did not engage in a great deal of doctrinal definition, but it depends on what one counts as "new doctrines and just when one draws the boundaries of the period. Some Popes did issue doctrinal teachings, at least one of which (John XXII’s teaching about the souls of the blessed between death and resurrection) was controversial and later rejected by the Church, if I’m not mistaken.

The other questions are best answered by your fellow Catholics.

Edwin

 

[benidict]

I’m Catholic, but my wife is Baptist. Some questions for both Catholics and Protestants:

One thing we reached in consensus after a heated debate is that God allowed the Reformation to occur. I think it is because God wanted us to understand our faith better. If there isn’t a force to ask us to think about our faith, our faith would probably be dead. How do you guys look at this?

Another thing: a question: I’m really not very informed of the times back then, but did the Popes announce any new doctrines during the “dark times” of the Church (when Indulgences were sold and inquisition etc going on)?

3rd thing: how can I convince her about the Apostolic succession?

4: we both look forward to the full unification of the Church. Does it mean there’s no urgent need to convert?

hi. i would disagree. God is not a God of disorder. i dont believe he had anything to do with the reformation. i cant say anything to the second question. im not that smart. but as far as convincing her about apostolic successsion. im a former baptist. also you may want to ask yourself. how important is your marraige. that is a heck of a combination. baptist and Catholic i mean. i would suggest 2 thing. point out that the founder of the baptist faith, john smyth, believed the baptist were in error, and ended up with the mennonites. it had always been his intention, of starting a mennonite congregation. the baptist (and im not trying to sound mean.) denomination was a mistake. many baptist dont know their own history, let alone Church history. i would almost say leave it alone. you already are having Heated discussions. but if you must, i would suggest Clement. Peace and my prayers are with you.

 

[fish90]

(John XXII’s teaching about the souls of the blessed between death and resurrection) was controversial and later rejected by the Church, if I’m not mistaken.

Edwin

This was not ex cathedra, was it?

 

[Third_Day]

=antoniont1;6553046]I’m Catholic, but my wife is Baptist. Some questions for both Catholics and Protestants:
One thing we reached in consensus after a heated debate is that God allowed the Reformation to occur. I think it is because God wanted us to understand our faith better. If there isn’t a force to ask us to think about our faith, our faith would probably be dead. How do you guys look at this?

Of course God “allowed” the Reformation to occur but this was not His will. His will is that we all be one in faith. Throughout the history of the Church there has heretical movements but not as long and severe as the Protestant “Reformation”. Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical *Unity of the Church *re-quotes from Augustine and Cyprian.

“So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic - the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member” (S. Augustinus, Sermo cclxvii., n. 4).

"The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and the same for ever; those who leave it depart from the will and command of Christ, the Lord - leaving the path of salvation they enter on that of perdition. "Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ…(.S. Cyprianus, De Cath. Eccl. Unitate, n. 6). .

None of the Protestant Reformers were guided by the Holy Spirit. into error. Today, the majority of Protestants have no idea of the history of their particular church. They have no idea that for over 1500 years there was only one Church therefore we do not call them heretics but separated brothers and sisters and urge them to come home to Mother Church. The doctrines of their denominations are, however, heretical.

Another thing: a question: I’m really not very informed of the times back then, but did the Popes announce any new doctrines during the “dark times” of the Church (when Indulgences were sold and inquisition etc going on)?

No

3rd thing: how can I convince her about the Apostolic succession?

Read the early Church Fathers starting with Clement of Rome AD 80
Have her look at Matt 28:20 and she can see when the first Magesterium (Teaching Office) of the Catholic Church was established by Christ

4: we both look forward to the full unification of the Church. Does it mean there’s no urgent need to convert?

Why wait? A persons best chance for salvation is in the Catholic Church which has all seven sacraments given to us by Christ.
If Christ were to walk with your wife on the streets tomorrow and He saw all of the “churches” throughout the city and he asked your wife “where is the Church that I built?” To what Church would your wife take HIm to, the Baptist or Catholic Church?

 

[antoniont1]

Thanks all for the (name removed by moderator)ut… I think one of the problems is that she isn’t very hardcore Baptist, but she thinks that everything that has to do with humans is susceptible to error… and how can we know if the Holy Spirit is not using Protestants? I can see they spread the Gospel with more fervour and their fellowship life seems to be placed with a higher priority

At the moment I am lost for words, so I pray that you folks will pray for us, and that the sad divide will soon be gone.

 

[Third_Day]

=antoniont1;6556317]Thanks all for the (name removed by moderator)ut… I think one of the problems is that she isn’t very hardcore Baptist

,
Doesn’t she accept all of the Baptisit beliefs?

but she thinks that everything that has to do with humans is susceptible to error

…

She is correct. Anything man-made will fall to error. But that is exactly why Christ established a visible Church with visible authority that, when guided by the Holy Spirit, cannot teach error.

and how can we know if the Holy Spirit is not using Protestants?

THe Holy Spirit does use Protestants. Many of them have a great love for God and the word of God. I have found that Protestants that become Catholic are great defenders of the Catholic Faith. They bring a lot to the Church in regard to their love of scriptures and evangelization.

I can see they spread the Gospel with more fervour and their fellowship life seems to be placed with a higher priority

I have met Protestants that never read the bible and know nothing about their faith. There are Catholics that are the same. Fellowship is a high priority and Catholics can learn from Protestants in this area. However when it comes to "worshiping " God in the way He desires to be worshiped, there is no place like the Catholic Church which has the true worship of God in the Mass.

At the moment I am lost for words, so I pray that you folks will pray for us, and that the sad divide will soon be gone.

Remember the words of Protestant John Henry Newman “to go deep into history is to cease to be Protestant” . Newman became a Catholic priest after going back into history, reading the Church Fathers, and discovering that the Catholic Church was established by Christ.

 

[Contarini]

This was not ex cathedra, was it?

No, it wasn’t. In fact, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, it had no official standing whatsoever and was simply a private opinion.

Probably it achieved the prominence it did mostly because of John XXII’s conflict with the Franciscans regarding evangelical poverty. According to Brian Tierney, this conflict provided the context for the development of the doctrine of papal infallibility, which ironically was proposed by John’s Franciscan opponents in order to hold him accountable to the decisions of his predecessors.

Edwin

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I’m Catholic, but my wife is Baptist. Some questions for both Catholics and Protestants:

One thing we reached in consensus after a heated debate is that God allowed the Reformation to occur. I think it is because God wanted us to understand our faith better. If there isn’t a force to ask us to think about our faith, our faith would probably be dead. How do you guys look at this?

Another thing: a question: I’m really not very informed of the times back then, but did the Popes announce any new doctrines during the “dark times” of the Church (when Indulgences were sold and inquisition etc going on)?

3rd thing: how can I convince her about the Apostolic succession?

4: we both look forward to the full unification of the Church. Does it mean there’s no urgent need to convert?

My wife and I are the same - Catholic and Baptist. But I was Protestant when we married. So far she hasn’t attended a single mass, other than a Carol night. I sometimes go to her church, although she doesn’t object when I go to mass either.

God allows a lot of things to happen - He allowed the Holocaust to happen, World Wars I and II to happen (and He may well allow no. III as well). He allows murders, rapes, torture, cruelty, vindictiveness, injustices, slavery, and a host of other things to happen. He may let the sun shine and the rain fall on the just and the unjust, and he also allows the Bubonic plague and tsunamis to kill the just and the unjust.

That doesn’t mean He agreed with it. The two main positive developments that came out of it were the acceleration of democracy, and greater Bible study or criticism.

I’m not aware of any “new doctrines”, but I think there was a reigning in of corruption.

My first, wise, prophetic ***Protestant ***pastor commented to me in his office at one stage, that he “Sometimes wondered if Protestants get into heaven.” He went on to point out the Reformation was “easily the most violent episode in Church history” and that “Some of the things Luther said and did weren’t very Christian”.

I think God does want His Church reunified. But so far He hasn’t done much about it, so one would have to wonder just how serious He is about it. He’s not doing much, even if, as my old pastor suspeced, “Protestants don’t get into heaven.”

And of course things like “Papal Infallibility” (never mind the glaring abuse which is being exposed even now, Papal or not - if it’s such an important doctrine, why has it been invoked only once or twice in well over a hundred years?), and the ruling on the contraceptive pill in a world which already has 6 billion people (7 billion in a couple of years), most of whom live in poverty, don’t help very much to win over the practical Protestant mind.

I also suspect that God has “allowed” Islam to survive for so long, despite it’s centuries old decline, and resurge today as a challenge to our faith. Because that’s where the next major challenge is coming from, you can bet your bottom dollar. In fact, we probably will.

 

[Contarini]

hi. i would disagree. God is not a God of disorder. i dont believe he had anything to do with the reformation.

Does anything happen in human history with which God has nothing to do?

i would suggest 2 thing. point out that the founder of the baptist faith, john smyth,

He’s not “the founder.” He’s one of the founders. The Baptists have been a varied and disorganized bunch, right from the start. Smyth and Helwys were the founders of the “General Baptists.” who are the minority tradition with regard to Britain and America (Baptists in Eastern Europe are “General Baptist” in theology, but I’m not sure that they have any historical continuity with the original General Baptists). Modern Baptists in America are largely Arminians who believe in eternal security, but as that vestigial doctrine indicates, their ancestry is Calvinist.

believed the baptist were in error, and ended up with the mennonites. it had always been his intention, of starting a mennonite congregation.

I’d like to see your evidence for this (that this was always his intention). According to Wikipedia he never actually became Mennonite but was moving in that direction at his death. The Baptist historian Leon McBeth (in The Baptist Heritage) pointed out that Smyth boarded with a Mennonite while he was developing his ideas about baptism, and yet never asked the Mennonite to baptize him.

Smyth certainly was a rather erratic person whose ideas changed throughout his life. I’m not sure how much of an argument that is from a Baptist perspective, though. Baptists don’t hold the beliefs they do based on reverence for a founding figure, but on what they believe to be the teaching of Scripture. And they typically regard a willingness to change one’s mind as one comes to a “fuller” knowledge of Scripture as a good thing, not a bad thing.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Thanks all for the (name removed by moderator)ut… I think one of the problems is that she isn’t very hardcore Baptist

That’s true of lots of Baptists. The hardliners make the splash, as always. Here in the Midwest, in particular, I’ve been amazed by how gentle and moderate the Baptists are (I grew up in East Tennessee, which is a different story!).

but she thinks that everything that has to do with humans is susceptible to error… and how can we know if the Holy Spirit is not using Protestants? I can see they spread the Gospel with more fervour and their fellowship life seems to be placed with a higher priority

I don’t think that’s the right question. The Holy Spirit can use all kinds of people. The question is: what does God want for the Church? What is the basic shape of the Christian faith? Were the Protestants right in thinking that the Catholic Church had corrupted the Gospel? (And were the Baptists right in holding this view in a particularly extreme form, and furthermore condemning the Anglicans and other Protestant churches as “daughters of Antichrist”?) If they were wrong, does this matter? (That’s where you may be at cross-purposes–many Protestants simply don’t think history matters that much.)

At the moment I am lost for words, so I pray that you folks will pray for us, and that the sad divide will soon be gone.

How did it come to exist in the first place?

I don’t want to be insensitive, but there are only three possibilities:

1. You got married knowing that this “sad divide” was in place. In that case, you knew what you were getting into. I hope you didn’t get married in the expectation of converting your wife. Getting married in the expectation of changing your spouse in any respect is generally unwise. If you marry someone knowing that they are a certain way, don’t you think it’s a bit unfair to them to then start speaking about the way they are as something you hope will “soon be gone”?
2. You converted to Catholicism since your marriage. In that case, you need to be patient with your wife and not expect that she will “come around,” since you are the one who has changed.
3. Your wife has left the Catholic Church and become a Baptist since your marriage. In that case your language about the “sad divide” makes a lot more sense. You still need to be patient and not pin too much on the hope that she will change her mind, but it’s understandable that you would be upset about this.

Sorry to be hard on you, but I’m a married man myself, and one of the reasons I’m not Catholic (not the only one by any means) is that I don’t want the “sad divide” to be there in the first place. So this is an issue that means a lot to me.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[catsrus]

And of course things like “Papal Infallibility” (never mind the glaring abuse which is being exposed even now, Papal or not - if it’s such an important doctrine, why has it been invoked only once or twice in well over a hundred years?), and the ruling on the contraceptive pill in a world which already has 6 billion people (7 billion in a couple of years), most of whom live in poverty, don’t help very much to win over the practical Protestant mind.

Were you actually Confirmed holding these opinions? Or are they not your opinions, only speculation on why protestants can’t see through these 2 aformentioned “fogs”?

 

[Third_Day]

=Bob Crowley;6556840]
And of course things like “Papal Infallibility” (never mind the glaring abuse which is being exposed even now

Bob, what are you saying here? Infallibility has nothing to do with abuse by priests and the action or non-action of a bishop.

Papal or not - if it’s such an important doctrine, why has it been invoked only once or twice in well over a hundred years?),

Everything the Church teaches is true. It simply has not been defined as infallible.

and the ruling on the contraceptive pill in a world which already has 6 billion people (7 billion in a couple of years), most of whom live in poverty, don’t help very much to win over the practical Protestant mind.

The world is not over populated. Europe doesn’t even have a growth to sustain it. Poverty is a result of politics and not “over population” which doesn’t exist.

 

[nhylan]

God allows a lot of things to happen - He allowed the Holocaust to happen, World Wars I and II to happen (and He may well allow no. III as well). He allows murders, rapes, torture, cruelty, vindictiveness, injustices, slavery, and a host of other things to happen. He may let the sun shine and the rain fall on the just and the unjust, and he also allows the Bubonic plague and tsunamis to kill the just and the unjust.

Right, so its totally fine to compare the Protestant Reformation to the Holocaust? get a grip dude.

 

[Contarini]

Right, so its totally fine to compare the Protestant Reformation to the Holocaust? get a grip dude.

That’s not a fair response. He’s pointing out (as I did) a logical fallacy. God allowing something to happen says absolutely nothing about the validity or goodness of the event. Unless, of course, you believe that some things happen that God does not allow, which is admittedly a tempting idea.

Edwin

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Right, so its totally fine to compare the Protestant Reformation to the Holocaust? get a grip dude.

According to William Shirer, the author of “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”, and who lived in Germany both before and after World War II, the wars of the Reformation and their aftermath reduced Germany’s population from around 16 million to about 6 million in a century.

Yes, there is some reason to compare the Holocaust to the Wars of the Reformation. And Luther encouraged them, very much so.

Just how well do you know the history of Reformation violence?

Like my old pastor said, the Reformation was easily the most violent episode in the history of the church. But because we live 500 years later, and the truth and scale of that violence is not oftent taught, we’ve lost sight of it.

But that wasn’t my point. My point is that God “allows” a lot of very negative things to happen. In fact, anything that happens is “allowed”.

 

[Contarini]

According to William Shirer, the author of “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”, and who lived in Germany both before and after World War II, the wars of the Reformation and their aftermath reduced Germany’s population from around 16 million to about 6 million in a century.

Unless Shirer brought a time machine with him to Germany, I’m not sure how his time i 20th-century Germany gave him any information about the population of Germany in the early modern period. Largely what you are talking about is the Thirty Years’ War in the 17th century.

Yes, there is some reason to compare the Holocaust to the Wars of the Reformation.

Mostly, it appears, because a historian of Nazi Germany said something on the subject? That’s quite a weak link.

And Luther encouraged them, very much so.

Luther actually discouraged the Protestant princes from taking up arms against the emperor, although he did eventually give a reluctant blessing on the understanding that they were defending their lawful authority. Of course, as I’m sure you’re itching to remind me, Luther was much more enthusiastic about blessing the violent suppression of the “peasants’ revolt” in 1524-25.

Just how well do you know the history of Reformation violence?

It’s not clear how much you know beyond propagandistic talking points. But suppose we discuss the evidence instead of questioning each other’s knowledge?

Edwin

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Unless Shirer brought a time machine with him to Germany, I’m not sure how his time i 20th-century Germany gave him any information about the population of Germany in the early modern period. Largely what you are talking about is the Thirty Years’ War in the 17th century.

Mostly, it appears, because a historian of Nazi Germany said something on the subject? That’s quite a weak link.

Luther actually discouraged the Protestant princes from taking up arms against the emperor, although he did eventually give a reluctant blessing on the understanding that they were defending their lawful authority. Of course, as I’m sure you’re itching to remind me, Luther was much more enthusiastic about blessing the violent suppression of the “peasants’ revolt” in 1524-25.

It’s not clear how much you know beyond propagandistic talking points. But suppose we discuss the evidence instead of questioning each other’s knowledge?

Edwin

While the following site is atheist, and obviously has a bias, there is valuable information about the Reformation violence in it. And the Thirty Years War was a Reformation War, no matter how much we try to give it a different label. The point is that the violence began with Luther’s host princes until it consumed Western Europe.

atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaq_viol_reformation.htm

And a selected quotes -

"Martin Luther’s 95 theses, nailed to a church door, set off a fire storm of violence and blood. German princes managed to fight Catholic armies to standstill by 1555, which resulted in the Peace of Augsburg. Protestant “heretics” were allowed to live in Germany, but that level of tolerance was not extended to other countries.

Unfortunately, that “peace” didn’t last - from 1618 to 1648 Europe experienced The Thirty Years’ War which left Germany a wasteland after millions and millions were slaughtered. Catholic armies under the leadership of Catholic Emperor Ferdinand II kept defeating Protestant armies, but then made the mistake of trying to eliminate Protestantism completely, engaging in terrible repression and persecution.

This caused new Protestant armies in foreign lands like Denmark and Sweden to be called up to oppose him. The result of all this was a victory for no one, and an estimated drop of Germany’s population from 18 million to 4 million. With too few people left to work the field and trade for goods, starvation and disease ravaged the miserable survivors. Such are the fruits of European Christianity."

Like I said, the Reformation was easily the most violent episode in Church history.

 

[Contarini]

While the following site is atheist, and obviously has a bias, there is valuable information about the Reformation violence in it. And the Thirty Years War was a Reformation War, no matter how much we try to give it a different label.

I’m not sure what you mean by that. Of course the Reformation was one of the causes of the Thirty Years’ War. There were plenty of others. France’s intervention on the “Protestant” side, which helped prolong the war, was certainly not caused by Protestantism. And even the Protestant rulers, such as Gustavus Adolphus, had secular reasons for what they did as well.

But unquestionably religious zeal on *both *sides played a major role.

You assume first that all the “Reformation Wars” were *solely *caused by religious disputes, and secondly that the Protestants were uniquely to blame for these wars. The first of these is dubious reductionism, and the second is pure ideological bias.

Edwin