Is the Reformation still continuing today or has it ended?

[ralphinal]

Let me ask you, Ralph. Was the idea of a “reformation” a good thing? Let’s try not to consider what we know. Let’s just think in context of what was happening in history at that time (ALL of history, not rc history).

The concept that there were problems in the Church and that they needed both attention called to them and that they needed fixing was good then and is still good now. I cannot deny that there were problems, and I do not think that the Church does, either.

It was the way that both sides acted and the results that are problematic.

To reform something does not mean to destroy it or to create something new. It means to fix it and place it back on the right track.

 

[reteeks21]

The concept that there were problems in the Church and that they needed both attention called to them and that they needed fixing was good then and is still good now. I cannot deny that there were problems, and I do not think that the Church does, either.

It was the way that both sides acted and the results that are problematic.

To reform something does not mean to destroy it or to create something new. It means to fix it and place it back on the right track.

I would agree. I would have prefered to fix it. It’s just that some of us differ on how to have fixed it.

 

[Contarini]

Because none of these proves the classic “Sola Scriptura” position. They may be used for a Prima Scriptura one, where tradition is acceptable.

Could you explain the difference between the “classic ‘Sola Scriptura’” position and a “Prima Scriptura” position? In none of the classic statements of sola scriptura is it said that tradition is “unacceptable.”

Edwin

 

[ralphinal]

Could you explain the difference between the “classic ‘Sola Scriptura’” position and a “Prima Scriptura” position? In none of the classic statements of sola scriptura is it said that tradition is “unacceptable.”

Edwin

Prima Scriptura is, to me, the position that Scripture is the primary rule of the faith and traditions are acceptable as long as they do not contradict this postion.

Sola Scriptura is the position that Scriptures are the only rule of faith, there is no place for tradition, and that scripture interprets itself with no troubles.

If these are not the correct terms, please let me know. You Protestants need clear terminology

 

[Contarini]

Prima Scriptura is, to me, the position that Scripture is the primary rule of the faith and traditions are acceptable as long as they do not contradict this postion.

Sola Scriptura is the position that Scriptures are the only rule of faith, there is no place for tradition, and that scripture interprets itself with no troubles.

If these are not the correct terms, please let me know. You Protestants need clear terminology

This coming from a Catholic? Come on. You need a Ph.D. in order to understand Catholic terminology

I don’t like the term “sola scriptura” precisely because it’s misleading. But when you use a phrase like “classic sola scriptura,” I expect that this is referring to the position you might find in classic Reformed texts such as the Westminster Confession or the Second Helvetic Confession. And you do not find there the view that “there is no place for tradition” or that “scripture interprets itself with no troubles.”

Edwin

 

[ralphinal]

This coming from a Catholic? Come on. You need a Ph.D. in order to understand Catholic terminology

I don’t like the term “sola scriptura” precisely because it’s misleading. But when you use a phrase like “classic sola scriptura,” I expect that this is referring to the position you might find in classic Reformed texts such as the Westminster Confession or the Second Helvetic Confession. And you do not find there the view that “there is no place for tradition” or that “scripture interprets itself with no troubles.”

Edwin

How hard is it to understand “heretic”

You are correct. I should have said “sola scriptura as it is currently understood by some Protestants.”

Sorry for the confusion

 

[NDfan]

I believe it continues. The guy from work at thinks catholics worship statues, his church was founded by a woman a few years ago, has a large following, and teaches stuff I never heard of in any church whatever. So I’d say the reformation continues apace

That has nothing to do with the reformation. That’s as bad as saying that all non-catholic churches are protestant. The reformation stood for very specific issues. What has happened is religion has become big business. So anyone with a Bible in their hand who is a good speaker seems to develop a following. Then voila you have a new church or denomination. Joel Osteen is a great example. He never attended a Theological Seminary yet he considers himself a pastor. He and his wife remind me of Jim and Tammy Fay Bake. That fake smile with the you can have everything you want with GOD speech. They are making millions from their phony books preaching about being a better you and that prosperity gospel approach. It’s sickening to me.

But I would hardly consider that a protestant church or part of the reformation.

PEACE

 

[Ag_not]

But I would hardly consider that a protestant church or part of the reformation.

PEACE

Peace to you too. Based on the OP’s definition I would disagree. It’s a protestant church in that it is protesting various dogmas and doctrines based on scripture alone. It is reformed based on it broke from a much larger church and ‘‘reformed’’ some areas so she (the Pastor and founder) could branch off and do her own thing. One of these is that she has set up a sub branch of the church for intellectually challenged people, run by intellectually challenged people, some of whom she ‘‘ordained’’ herself to be pastors to the disabled.

I guess it’s a matter of how we understand the terms.

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher- It depends on who you ask. I won’t get into much further detail, as it might lead to me being banned, but check out the Traditional Catholicism forum for more details.

Rex,

Thanks for the advice. I’ve checked out the Traditional Catholicism forum as you directed. Evidently, the forum was closed for a time “following a meltdown in forum civility” but is now open again for discussion and exchange of views. Would you care to explain what you’re getting at and what you would like me to understand?

Why would you think you’d be banned for enlarging upon details of the internecine strife within Catholicism? We have Traditionalists and Liberals within Protestantism as well, you know.

Or perhaps it’s something else?

Go on, I dare you tell me what you’re getting at in this public forum. I double-dog dare you, in fact.

Curiously,
Mick

 

[SIA]

the question remains thought. You know as well as I, that not all Protestant Christians share the same beliefs on several issues on morals, doctrine, etc.

so why God allow of Christians to teach contradictory beliefs?

They did it in Biblical times too. Remember the churches that St. Paul spoke of?