Luther Did Not Start the Reformation

[Kei]

A principal cause of the Reformation was that in their long dealings with the papacy, many had come to realize the popes, cardinals, bishops and the Vatican were utterly, completely, absolutely unworthy of any kind of trust.

If you click on the icon when someone replies to you, it takes you to the very post they are replying to. The above is the last paragraph of that post.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I agree with the argument that there can only be one Church of Christ, which He instituted through the Apostles, Sacred Scripture, Tradition. Throughout Church history it has become horribly fragmented and schismatic. I am tired about arguing who is heterodox or heretical and who is not. I think I am in the True Church; I imagine most practicing Christians would argue the same for themselves.

The question for me is how to deal with other Christians, other denominations/Churches. Fixing it as you say. Here and now. How we treat each other, interact. I get uncomfortable with this endless drive toward formally unifying us all. Even when we had one Church for a thousand years it was filled with heterodoxy, conflict, different tradition, local practices. It was unified in name only. Even reading the New Testament one is struck by Paul passionately reprimanding this or that Church for falling away in something or another. Baptizing in the name of Paul, Apollo, etc.

I think it is best to leave all this good work toward unity to the Holy Spirit. Human beings have made such a mess of it, right from the start. I will let God decide who is a ‘real’ Christian and who is heretical. I will witness/defend my Church but I won’t mistreat or judge or reject an individual fellow Christian simply because he/she is not in my Church. We should look at all Christians by their fruit, their witness, in deed as well as word. God’s Providence.

I think God elects/saves his flock as he sees fit. You can be a ritually perfect Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant on the surface and have a heart of stone - and God knows it better probably than you or I or whoever will until Judgment Day.

 

[JonNC]

And, yet we have thousands upon thousands of different denominations with a different ‘word’ and illicit and/or invalid sacraments; heck, some do not even have sacraments. But, as long as you confess the Nicene Creed where two or three gather together, no problem?

I don’t buy the thousands and thousands, and the illicit/invalid argument is dependent on the user, but otherwise, nor did I make the Nicene Creed argument. So on all three counts, your response has nothing to do with what I said.

Is it not possible to have ‘membership’ to a ‘church’ who promulgates error? Being a member of the LDS is not dangerous to one’s salvation?

Yes it is possible to have a membership in a church that teaches error. That I think yours does doesn’t mean I think you are thereby condemned. I’m not a member of a tradition that teaches a triumphalist opinion.
And as for the LDS, they are not typically considered Trinitarian Christians, so I’m not sure why you’d bring them up.

 

[JonNC]

It’s kind of a Catch-22. If you believe the Catholic Church is true in all it says it is, you should enter it. Otherwise, not a problem. So I don’t see it as uncharitable, although some present it that way.

Yes. I understand this. But, as you say, we see this come up now and again.

 

[steve-b]

@JonNC,@steve-b

It’s kind of odd, because I am sort of between both of you on this. This is from the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 25, http://epcoga.wpengine.com/wp-conte...-We-Are/B-About-The-EPC/WCF-ModernEnglish.pdf

[snip for space]

We have had discussions on ‘no salvation is possible outside the Catholic church before.’ I would rather this thread not be turned into one.

Re: no salvation is possible

Salvation is possible under certain conditions. Innocent ignorance is one condition. However, when one’s fingerprints are all over their supposed ignorance, then ignorance isn’t innocent.

SojournerOnEarth:

And I don’t think one sentence in all of Vatican 2 documents should be so blown out of proportion as to ignore every other thing said then or since, which seems to be happening. It may be your personal interpretation to so emphasize this, @steve-b, but it is a delusion to think that the Catholic Church shares this interpretation. Likewise with the pulling of quotes out of context to support your position.

The full paragraph was quoted. Not just a sentence.

With respect, Re: the Westminster confession and “reformed theology”

1. they don’t define the One true Church, and especially not 1500+ years after Jesus established His One True Church on Peter and those in union with him,
2. meaning they aren’t in that Church so they don’t define what IS and is NOT the Catholic Church

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Once someone knows the truth and won’t follow it, then bad consequences follow that person. That’s scriptural teaching, and it’s followed up with the same teaching in Tradition.

Again, if you want me to post the evidence again from Scripture & Tradition, I’ll be happy to do it.

I think you need to read that over slowly and consider how it applies to you.

I think You need to take that advice.

 

[steve-b]

Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved".

JonNC:

And that is uncharitable. It is no different than those who say Catholics cannot be saved.

steve-b:

What’s uncharitable is not passing on truth to someone who needs it.

SojournerOnEarth:

It’s kind of a Catch-22. If you believe the Catholic Church is true in all it says it is, you should enter it. Otherwise, not a problem. So I don’t see it as uncharitable, although some present it that way.

MANY Protestants reject the Catholic Church and all its claims, seeing as with the CC it seems to be an all or nothing deal. To be Catholic you have to assent to ALL it teaches (despite the poor example so often seen on CAF). I reject this sentence, so it does not apply to me. No worries!

No denial of the truth will ever invalidate it.

 

[steve-b]

We have seen that Luther was one of a number of people working towards Reformation, some of whom stayed Catholic and others split. I see the Reformation as an event in which he was one player; the Reformation started centuries before he was born and ended after he was dead.

He had a prominent role, I will agree. The myth is ‘once upon a time Europe was happy and united. Then came Martin Luther and it all fell apart.’ This is a dangerous oversimplification. The counter myth is that God sent a new Savior, Martin Luther, to lead Christians into a glorious new paradise.

We need to stop being intoxicated by our own myths.

The Church has had 21 ecumenical councils. 17 of which were before Luther was even a thought. Ecumenical councils are also reformative by nature. That’s because the Church is always reforming itself.

SojournerOnEarth:

We gotta work towards fixing this thing.

Agreed.

 

[JonNC]

No denial of the truth will ever invalidate it.

This assumes that your communion only holds the truth. While there is great truth there, a vast amount of what it teaches I agree with, but it also includes error.
One of the errors is Unam Sanctum, which states: Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
That is error.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

SojournerOnEarth:

We have seen that Luther was one of a number of people working towards Reformation, some of whom stayed Catholic and others split. I see the Reformation as an event in which he was one player; the Reformation started centuries before he was born and ended after he was dead.

He had a prominent role, I will agree. The myth is ‘once upon a time Europe was happy and united. Then came Martin Luther and it all fell apart.’ This is a dangerous oversimplification. The counter myth is that God sent a new Savior, Martin Luther, to lead Christians into a glorious new paradise.

We need to stop being intoxicated by our own myths.

The Church has had 21 ecumenical councils. 17 of which were before Luther was even a thought. Ecumenical councils are also reformative by nature. That’s because the Church is always reforming itself.

SojournerOnEarth:

We gotta work towards fixing this thing.

Agreed.

I agree with you.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

No denial of the truth will ever invalidate it.

True.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

SojournerOnEarth:

@JonNC,@steve-b

It’s kind of odd, because I am sort of between both of you on this. This is from the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 25, http://epcoga.wpengine.com/wp-conte...-We-Are/B-About-The-EPC/WCF-ModernEnglish.pdf

[snip for space]

We have had discussions on ‘no salvation is possible outside the Catholic church before.’ I would rather this thread not be turned into one.

Re: no salvation is possible

Salvation is possible under certain conditions. Innocent ignorance is one condition. However, when one’s fingerprints are all over their supposed ignorance, then ignorance isn’t innocent.

And you seem to think you can make that determination.

SojournerOnEarth:

And I don’t think one sentence in all of Vatican 2 documents should be so blown out of proportion as to ignore every other thing said then or since, which seems to be happening. It may be your personal interpretation to so emphasize this, @steve-b, but it is a delusion to think that the Catholic Church shares this interpretation. Likewise with the pulling of quotes out of context to support your position.

The full paragraph was quoted. Not just a sentence.

With respect, Re: the Westminster confession and “reformed theology”

1. they don’t define the One true Church, and especially not 1500+ years after Jesus established His One True Church on Peter and those in union with him,
2. meaning they aren’t in that Church so they don’t define what IS and is NOT the Catholic Church
   [/quote]

You are dodging again. And

Jesus established His One True Church on Peter and those in union with him,

is absurd.

meaning they aren’t in that Church

Not consistent with Catholic theology. You need to read something besides LG 14.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

SojournerOnEarth:

A principal cause of the Reformation was that in their long dealings with the papacy, many had come to realize the popes, cardinals, bishops and the Vatican were utterly, completely, absolutely unworthy of any kind of trust.

If you click on the icon when someone replies to you, it takes you to the very post they are replying to. The above is the last paragraph of that post.

I actually knew that. Thank you!

It is not just bias. If it is, it is bias born of long experience dealing with the Catholic Church, and with individual Catholics, who more often than not reflect poorly on that Church.

Think about it. If Protestants HAD confidence that the clergy were worthy of putting their faith in them, they would have continued to trust them. There is a long sad history of betrayal of trust that continues even today. How long has the child abuse scandal been running? Ireland rejected Catholic morality on a ballot initiative because of all the scandals they have seen.

It is one thing if you have good clergy. However, if your child is abused you can suddenly discover, as many have, a horrible side of the Catholic Church. It will never be resolved as long as people continue to insist it is individuals and not systemic. We make a distinction between the visible and the invisible church. Unfortunately your church has been confusing the two, and saying things like the church is holy, but the people aren’t. It can be sin embedded in power structures that your church is still unwilling to root out. And consider the reputation of the Vatican Bank. I need not gone on.

 

[Kei]

Do you realize that the scandal of which you speak is a modern one?
And after the reformation it wasn’t what the individuals did (though many saints did stay with their faith), but what the monarchs chose that determined their faith for them (they could have gone against the grain, but they’d likely get killed).

And, you say the modern scandal is a thing enacting distrust. But do you not know that this isn’t a problem only in the Church but many protestant pastors as well? Of course it is an individual issue, as few have done such, and teachers are more likely to have committed legal pedophilia.
That said, the sins of priests strike at the Heart of Jesus Himself, and a single priest doing such is a terrible thing, a grave scandal.

And with all due respect, it is not us who are confused with the Body of Christ, visible as the Incarnation is visible.

 

[AugustTherese]

One of the errors is Unam Sanctum, which states: Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

That is error

Just because you have a personal distaste for a revealed doctrine, does not make it ‘error’. You did not even attempt to substantiate why or how it is ‘error’, you simply stated it to be error. That methodology might work on some, but to those who belong to the Church Christ founded, you’re going to have to put in a little more effort to attempt to convict us.

 

[JonNC]

Just because you have a personal distaste for a revealed doctrine, does not make it ‘error’.

I understand that you must defend this doctrine, but there no scriptural or early council support for it.

 

[Gorgias]

One of the errors is Unam Sanctum, which states: Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

That is error.

He was writing to Catholics. It’s true in that context.

 

[JonNC]

He was writing to Catholics. It’s true in that context.

It is like I said, Catholics can and should defend and abide their Church’s teachings, but just like I reject the claim by some that Catholics are not/ cannot be saved, I reject this claim as well. God is not bound by the decrees of men.

 

[FollowChrist34]

That is exactly right. I could never accept it. That is quite a dilemma for a Catholic. I have never defended it in my life. Even when I loved Popes JP II, Benedict. I could never bring myself to go there. I loved the Catholic faith, and I took it in its fullness as revealed truth. Except for that one little part.

The Jesuits let me in, I should probably add as a footnote.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

Do you realize that the scandal of which you speak is a modern one?

I don’t want to derail the thread. I know more about this than I would like. More than derailing the thread, I don’t want to get into a clergy bashing session, or a “my priests are holier than yours” competition. The priests I have met in person have been impressive people, people I felt I could trust. The priests who post here seem like wonderful men.

And after the reformation it wasn’t what the individuals did (though many saints did stay with their faith), but what the monarchs chose that determined their faith for them (they could have gone against the grain, but they’d likely get killed).

This is true. The theme on CAF that Protestants rebelled against their Church is a falsehood. Many were forced into becoming Lutheran. And many Lutheran-leaning people were forced into Catholicism. When Catholic armies retook “Lutheran” lands, they reimposed Catholicism, meaning the people had no choice.

These princes were only following the example set by popes, cardinals and bishops. Read up on Avignon some time.

That said, the sins of priests strike at the Heart of Jesus Himself, and a single priest doing such is a terrible thing, a grave scandal.

It is a matter of great grief. We get some of the people who are in such huge pain that they can no longer follow Christ in the Catholic Church. I have heard some stories myself, not seeking them out, and again they have been in the newspapers.

And with all due respect, it is not us who are confused with the Body of Christ, visible as the Incarnation is visible.

You get the award so far for most making me want to derail the thread. The Body of Christ is only one metaphor for the Church. If I recall correctly someone identified 17 models or so in the Scriptures. I think it was Avery Cardinal Dulles.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled denying that Luther had anything whatsover to do with the Reformation…