No reason to celebrate Reformation, says Cardinal Müller [CC]

[1neophyte]

My view of Protestants is that they are our fellow Christian brothers and sisters, who are separated from the Church, and who I dearly wish to return.

That is precisely my view as well. The reason your posts frustrated me so much (along with the countless resentful responses I’ve heard here and elsewhere to the “celebration” mentioned in the original post) is they sound suspiciously like the response of a certain older brother in a certain story told by a certain Man who we claim to be the founder of our Church. Every robotic chant of “there is no invisible Church”, every smug “indeed we do disagree”, every complaint that Pope Francis is somehow endorsing everything Martin Luther ever said or did, are all like nails on a chalkboard.

You don’t like the term “invisible Church”? Fine. How about “invisible family” then, if you sincerely consider Protestants to be your brothers and sisters? And we really are all brothers and sisters, why do so many begrudge this notion of a public showing of unity? Do you really think your brothers and sisters are going to be moved to return home if you just repeat the pedantic mantra of “we’re right about everything because we cannot err in teachings of faith or morals” enough times? Why do you think we were separated in the first place?

I love smug superiority and sarcasm as much as anyone else (in case you couldn’t tell ), but it is absolutely crazy to take such a tone in response to even a faint sign that we might be moving towards some kind of reunification. If we claim to follow Jesus, and especially if we claim that our Church was founded by Him, why do we not rejoice at something He would rejoice over? He wanted Jews and Gentiles to be “one”, and some Catholics want to complain about a celebration that includes Protestants? It is absolutely insane.

 

[Brendan_64]

If we claim to follow Jesus, and especially if we claim that our Church was founded by Him, why do we not rejoice at something He would rejoice over? He wanted Jews and Gentiles to be “one”, and some Catholics want to complain about a celebration that includes Protestants? It is absolutely insane.

Unity is unity under Peter.

And as for the Reformation, I don’t see how the greatest wound ever inflicted upon Christ’s Church on Earth is something to be celebrated. I will agree with Cardinal Muller on this one, there is no reason to celebrate the Reformation.

On the other hand, the 100 year anniversary of the appearance of Our Lady at Fatima is also in 2017. Now that is an event worth celebrating.

 

[1neophyte]

Unity is unity under Peter.

And as for the Reformation, I don’t see how the greatest wound ever inflicted upon Christ’s Church on Earth is something to be celebrated. I will agree with Cardinal Muller on this one, there is no reason to celebrate the Reformation.

On the other hand, the 100 year anniversary of the appearance of Our Lady at Fatima is also in 2017. Now that is an event worth celebrating.

Your confusion is overwhelming. Now I’m definitely out of this discussion.

 

[zz912]

One of the ideological movements that found traction during Vatican Council II was a desire to soften the tenor of the Church’s stance on protestantism. Some saw Trent and the counter reformation as harsh, vindictive and a barrier to ecumenism. This is well documented. It was a motivating factor for the changes in the Mass by Archbishop Bugninni. But, from the close of Trent until the close of Vatican Council II, the Church taught that the fullness of revelation and Truth resided in the One True Catholic and Apostolic Church, and those allied with her. Outside of this, there was no salvation.** Obviously, those teachings were changed**.

No, they haven’t.

 

[Brendan_64]

Your confusion is overwhelming. Now I’m definitely out of this discussion.

What? There is no confusion on my part. Now what is it about my latest post that you object to?

Is it that I view unity as being unity under Peter?

Is it that I see the Reformation as being the greatest wound ever inflicted upon the Church?

Is it that I agree with cardinal Muller that there is no reason to celebrate the Reformation?:

Or is it that I view the 100th anniversary of Fatima as being an event worthy of great celebration?

How is any of that confusing?

 

[Padres1969]

Bingo. The claims that the Medici’s and Borgia’s caused the Protestant Revolution are vastly over-inflated.

I don’t know if they’re necessarily over inflated by most people. I mean it was the excesses of the Popes, Pope Leo X in specifically that spurred Luther to act and trigger what became the Reformation. Yes there was an underlying desire on more than just Luther’s part to engage in something along the lines of what became the Reformation, some spurred by Church abuses, some not. But in the end it was the abuses of Leo that gave Luther the final push to bring forth that malcontent that had been festering below the surface in Luther and many of his contemporaries.

Christ prayed for all Christians to be ONE, and united in the ONE Church He built, the Catholic Church. He knows best how Christians should be organized. I wouldn’t dare tell Him that He didn’t know what He was doing.

Neither would I, though we’ll of course have to disagree on what Christ meant by “one Church” and that his Church is solely held in the RCC.

 

[1neophyte]

What? There is no confusion on my part. Now what is it about my latest post that you object to?

Is it that I view unity as being unity under Peter?

Is it that I see the Reformation as being the greatest wound ever inflicted upon the Church?

Is it that I agree with cardinal Muller that there is no reason to celebrate the Reformation?:

Or is it that I view the 100th anniversary of Fatima as being an event worthy of great celebration?

How is any of that confusing?

As exhausting as this is, and as futile as I know my response will be, I just can’t help myself. Even though this is like reading the 23rd psalm to a cat and expecting it to be moved to tears.

There are layers of confusion in all of your contentions, but I’ll address just the first two. Even Peter himself would take issue with the idea that we (even in just the RCC) are united under anyone but Jesus. The source and summit of our faith is the Eucharist, which is not Peter’s flesh and blood. Now, even if we set aside that essential truth and accepted your misunderstanding as to the source of our unity, the chair of Peter is currently occupied by Pope Francis. It is absolutely hysterical to me when people who hold so tightly to this notion of obedience and submission to the pope are so quick to criticize when there is even a hint of him saying or doing something that they don’t like. Whether it’s a bishop or cardinal, or some random message board member, it exposes their devotion to “Peter” as contigent on their own preferences, or more accurately, on their own (faulty) understanding. Unity? Please. Only someone who isn’t paying attention would claim that there is actual unity in such an approach.

I agree that the Reformation is a serious wound. Whether or not it is the greatest is an irrelevant matter of opinion. But to use another of the Church’s wounds as an example, if I were to suggest that the horrible wound of the history of abuse scandals in the Church was caused by the “infidels” who have brought lawsuits against the Church and cost Her hundreds of millions of dollars, I would be revealing an almost insurmountable misunderstanding of the issue at hand. Likewise, to demonize Martin Luther and pretend that he was a wicked puppet of Satan who corrupted the Utopia that existed in the Church before he came along is equally as ridiculous.

Pope Francis is trying to take baby steps towards reuniting Christendom. Those who stubbornly refuse to admit that the Holy Spirit is working through him cannot claim to be loyal to the Church or the Chair of St. Peter. And when they don’t keep their confusion to themselves, they embarrass us all.

 

[Brendan_64]

As exhausting as this is, and as futile as I know my response will be, I just can’t help myself. Even though this is like reading the 23rd psalm to a cat and expecting it to be moved to tears.

… And when they don’t keep their confusion to themselves, they embarrass us all.

No need for such sarcasm, which is clearly aimed at me.You see to have an issue with me.

And no, I will not keep my views to myself, if my views embarrass you then that is your choice, but do not try to speak for others in general (perhaps you even meant all Catholics) as you seem to by your statement “they embarrass us all”.

 

[1neophyte]

No need for such sarcasm, which is clearly aimed at me.You see to have an issue with me.

And no, I will not keep my views to myself, if my views embarrass you then that is your choice, but do not try to speak for others in general (perhaps you even meant all Catholics) as you seem to by your statement “they embarrass us all”.

No issue with you, just with the message you’re communicating. You certainly try to speak for all Catholics when you imply that everything you’re saying is irrefutable Catholic thought, so why do you have a problem with me doing the same?

I notice you never respond to any of my actual points with anything other than “this is my view”. What is your view based on?

 

[Ridgerunner]

My view might be thought of as strange, but it’s as follows. It’s not the only thing I think about it, but it’s the biggest problem I now have with the reformation.

It marked the departure from basing (or at least intending it) actions on objective principles in favor of subjective “values”. Self-determination of one’s moral foundations is the very heart and soul of Protestantism. The very term “Protestant” says it. “I protest against what the Church teaches”. Now, either the Church was empowered by Jesus to teach authoritatively or it wasn’t. If the Catholic Church wasn’t, then no church is, and most don’t even pretend to be. “Whatever you believe is right for you” is the core principle of Protestantism. I’ll grant that some protestant churches, like LCMS does purport to teach principles it regards as true always and everywhere. But Lutheranism’s very act of rejecting some teachings and adopting other it thought better is subjective.

I don’t think there is any real doubt that belief in moral subjectivism is responsible for what Nietzsche called the “Death of God” which, by the way, he lamented, not praised. The “Death of God” is the abandonment of objective principles in favor of subjective “values” (what I think about it). According to Nietzsche, that ultimately leads to the authority of the “superman” who is “beyond good and evil” and who is followed simply because he has the power (physical or psychological) to enforce his view on the remainder of the populace.

 

[1neophyte]

My view might be thought of as strange, but it’s as follows. It’s not the only thing I think about it, but it’s the biggest problem I now have with the reformation.

It marked the departure from basing (or at least intending it) actions on objective principles in favor of subjective “values”. Self-determination of one’s moral foundations is the very heart and soul of Protestantism. The very term “Protestant” says it. “I protest against what the Church teaches”.

I can’t stand it when Protestants wrongly define the heart and soul of Catholicism, and what you’re doing here is just as wrong. The departure from basing actions on objective principles was marked by Adam and Eve’s actions in the Garden. The heart and soul of what the Reformation tried to do was based on the objective truth that grace is a free gift from God that cannot be bought or earned. Whatever damage it caused was a departure from the original intent. But if the Catholic Church was proclaiming that objective truth about grace at the time, maybe the Reformation never would have happened.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I can’t stand it when Protestants wrongly define the heart and soul of Catholicism, and what you’re doing here is just as wrong. The departure from basing actions on objective principles was marked by Adam and Eve’s actions in the Garden. The heart and soul of what the Reformation tried to do was based on the objective truth that grace is a free gift from God that cannot be bought or earned. Whatever damage it caused was a departure from the original intent. But if the Catholic Church was proclaiming that objective truth about grace at the time, maybe the Reformation never would have happened.

Yes, those who believe in Protestantism believe in Protestantism. I understand that. But that doesn’t really answer my objection; that Protestant beliefs are subjectively determined. No protestant can credibly deny that there are many protestant sects, each believing something different from the rest, and every one of them claiming to have gotten it from the bible. Subjective.

 

[1neophyte]

Yes, those who believe in Protestantism believe in Protestantism. I understand that. But that doesn’t really answer my objection; that Protestant beliefs are subjectively determined. No protestant can credibly deny that there are many protestant sects, each believing something different from the rest, and every one of them claiming to have gotten it from the bible. Subjective.

You mean like “traditional Catholics” and “modernists”?

 

[Pulvis]

I think Pope Saint John Paul II is very eloquent when he wrote in Ut Unum Sint:

We owe so much to the vision of Saint John XXIII, Blessed Paul VI, and Saint John Paul II for where they have guided us – and now to Pope Francis, who will carry this journey even further.

And the 1,962 years of theologians, Doctors of the church and Popes who had different teachings concerning ecumenism and seperated brethern were what? Wrong? Misguided? You see, i acknowledge that i am not a theologian. But by the advent of the Internet i can study previous Holy Fathers, Writings of the Saints and Church Doctors, and learn the entirety of the Faith and why it was taught as it was. Limiting oneself to just the past 50 years leaves much behind. As someone much more enlightened than i said something to th effect of those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[TMC]

Except that from a Catholic point of view that is dangerously close to the heresy of Indifferentism. There is no wider ‘invisible Church’ to whom we are all a part of.

Actually I think there is.

 

[anon67074017]

I actually admire Martin Luther somewhat. He wanted to fix the problems with the Church at the time. I do think that he went to far in establishing a new branch of Christianity. I also do not think his anti-Semitism was good. The Church can recognize the Reformation as a time of reform within the Church.

 

[otjm]

And the 1,962 years of theologians, Doctors of the church and Popes who had different teachings concerning ecumenism and seperated brethern were what? Wrong? Misguided?

No - they were responding to the immediate times, culture, and problems as they best understood them.

You see, i acknowledge that i am not a theologian.

That at least is a starting point. However, when you study, without guidance (as in a class), you are as likely to wander as the Protestants were. The local new church down the street, of fundamentalist and maybe evangelical bent, has wandered massively far. But your understanding, in particular, of both the Anglican/Episcopal and the Lutheran (particularly what might be called high Lutheran) theology is exceedingly lacking. All you see is what separates us, not what unites us.

But by the advent of the Internet i can study previous Holy Fathers, Writings of the Saints and Church Doctors, and learn the entirety of the Faith and why it was taught as it was. Limiting oneself to just the past 50 years leaves much behind. As someone much more enlightened than i said something to th effect of those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

One does not learn from history, if one determines that the last 50 years have abandoned the prior 1,950, which is what you seem to imply.

Further, implicit in your statement seems to be the denial that 2,000 bishops of the world, joined with the Pope(s) who lead the Council, somehow denied or destroyed connections to that prior 1,950 years of deposit of the Faith.

Going back to the Baltimore Catechism, we were taught that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from error when it is teaching about Faith and Morals. And that was what the Council was doing, exactly. The red herring that gets brought up was that the Council “did not define new doctrine” as if that somehow removed it fro, legitimacy. The Council was speaking specifically about Faith and Morals, and expanding on what the prior 1,950 years have taught. And as both John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 have said, the documents of Vatican 2 must and most certainly can be read in light of the prior deposit of Faith.

The fact that some people cannot do so is more a testament to the fact that they are not trained in theology, than anything else.

I do not suggest that you do not read " previous Holy Fathers, Writings of the Saints and Church Doctors, and… the entirety of the Faith and why it was taught as it was", but it helps to keep in mind that doing so does not necessarily make you more theologically knowledgeable than going and reading 50 or 100 appellate court decisions makes you knowledgeable about law.

 

[otjm]

Do I consider there to be an ‘invisible’ Church to which all Christian denominations belong to? No, I don’t. There is only one true Church, the Catholic Church.

Neither do I consider there to be an “invisible Church”.

Actually, a good bit of it is quite visible.

We all share the New Testament.

We share most of the Old Testament.

We share one Baptism.

And for those who are baptized, we share the Sacrament of Marriage.

And with the “high” Lutherans and Angilcans, we share a high liturgy (and yes, I thoroughly understand what separates us there in terms of priesthood).

With a number of Protestants, surprisingly, we share the greatest personal devotion - the rosary.

With some we share our other liturgy - the Liturgy of the Hours.

With many, we share a common effort - particularly in the area of pro life; and working locally to assist the poor.

And yes, there are serious areas which separate us; and the work on that is not done between you, or I , and the Anglican/Episcopal or Lutheran neighbor, friend, co-worker or relative; it is done on a much higher level between theologians of the Church and their theologians (and yes, they have theologians).

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Neither do I consider there to be an “invisible Church”.

Actually, a good bit of it is quite visible.

We all share the New Testament.

We share most of the Old Testament.

We share one Baptism.

And for those who are baptized, we share the Sacrament of Marriage.

And with the “high” Lutherans and Angilcans, we share a high liturgy (and yes, I thoroughly understand what separates us there in terms of priesthood).

With a number of Protestants, surprisingly, we share the greatest personal devotion - the rosary.

With some we share our other liturgy - the Liturgy of the Hours.

With many, we share a common effort - particularly in the area of pro life; and working locally to assist the poor.

And yes, there are serious areas which separate us; and the work on that is not done between you, or I , and the Anglican/Episcopal or Lutheran neighbor, friend, co-worker or relative; it is done on a much higher level between theologians of the Church and their theologians (and yes, they have theologians).

Well said, otjm. Very well said. And I would just add that we share Christ Jesus. (Speaking humbly as one of ‘their’ theologians.)

 

[otjm]

Well said, otjm. Very well said. And I would just add that we share Christ Jesus. (Speaking humbly as one of ‘their’ theologians.)

I should have put that in - I just take some things for a given, and should remember that others may not… .