Opinions on the Reformation

[Roblox84]

This issue makes me remain very, very confused. We all agree that up until the reformation there was only one church teaching one thing. We then all agree that that Church became later known as the Catholic Church.

So when the bible speaks about denominations forming and speaking of false doctrines how is this placed upon the original church since that church was already there and were teaching only the doctrine that was taught by the Apostles? I may have a hard time seeing it in another way but if the Catholic Church remained unchanged for 2000 years and all of a sudden protestant churches spring up everywhere by the dozen, wouldn’t that be considered what the bible talked about a teaching of false doctrines? Some protestants tell me that what if it was them that were the original church and the catholics split off into their own sect, which seems kinda silly.

And also I don’t want to hear that God made it happen because nowhere in the bible did God say anything about Luther reforming the church, so I just won’t buy that.

 

[Della]

2Cor.11 [13] For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. [26] on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brethren;

Gal.2 [4] But because of false brethren secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage –

2Pet.2 [1] But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. [3] And in their greed they will exploit you with false words; from of old their condemnation has not been idle, and their destruction has not been asleep.

Are these the verses you are referring to? Yes, there were those who tried to mislead God’s people within the early Church. We have no reason to believe human beings have changed and no longer try to mislead according to their own ideas and wants. Jesus warned about false prophets, as well.

If you want to know if the early Church was the Catholic Church read the Church Fathers. It’s all there–the Eucharist, Apostolic succession–the 3 offices of bishop, presbyter (priest) and deacon with the bishops in authority over the faithful.

Many Protestants will argue that their denomination left for legitimate reasons or never were a part of the Catholic Church (which might be technically right since they broke away from another Protestant denomination) or that they are the real Church, even though their origin can be traced back to some man who set them up in the first place. Only the Catholic Church (and Orthodox) can truly claim their roots are in the early Church, but only the Catholic Church has the successor to Peter.

 

[Roblox84]

Many Protestants will argue that their denomination left for legitimate reasons or never were a part of the Catholic Church (which might be technically right since they broke away from another Protestant denomination) or that they are the real Church, even though their origin can be traced back to some man who set them up in the first place. Only the Catholic Church (and Orthodox) can truly claim their roots are in the early Church, but only the Catholic Church has the successor to Peter.

Even if they thought they left for legitimate reasons then this would still be inline with all the false doctrines, right? They left and started teaching their own stuff, at least that’s how I look at it. And if they were never part of the Original Church then they must have not been Christians because the teachings were taught by the Apostles were to the people that were in that particular place of worship. So if those people never heard what was being taught by the Apostles and were teaching their own way’s of Jesus worship, then their faith is invalid.

they are the real Church, even though their origin can be traced back to some man who set them up in the first place.

This is my biggest issue. Ive talked to protestants and I tell them about Luther and how he is the founder of protestants, but all I get is a response like “my belief is founded by the bible” or something of that nature. I really don’t know what to say to a comment like that because these people don’t even know how they came to be, it’s like a complete disregard for history (or ignorance). I mean how can you tell someone something when they actually believe that no such reformation happened and even if it was called the Protestant reformation, it just doesn’t include them because they must have been worshiping like that because God told them to. It’s like talking to a 3rd grader.

 

[BrianH]

A little history,just saying…

The first significant, lasting split in historic Christianity came from the Church of the East, who left following the Christological controversy over Nestorianism in 431 (the Assyrians in 1994 released a common Christological statement with the Roman Catholic Church). Today, the Assyrian and Roman Catholic Church view this schism as largely linguistic, due to problems of translating very delicate and precise terminology from Latin to Aramaic and vice-versa (see Council of Ephesus). Following the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the next large split came with the Syrian and Alexandrian (Egyptian or Coptic) churches dividing themselves, with the dissenting churches becoming today’s Oriental Orthodoxy. (A similar Christological statement was made between Pope John Paul II and Syriac patriarch Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, as well as between representatives of both Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy).

There has been a claim that the Chalcedonian Creed restored Nestorianism, however this is refuted by maintaining the following distinctions associated with the person of Christ: two hypostases, two natures (Nestorian); one hypostasis, one nature (Monophysite); one hypostasis, two natures (Orthodox/Catholic).[1]

Although the church as a whole didn’t experience any major divisions for centuries afterward, the Eastern and Western groups drifted until the point where patriarchs from both families excommunicated one another in about 1054 in what is known as the Great Schism. The political and theological reasons for the schism are complex, but one major controversy was the inclusion and acceptance in the West of the filioque clause into the Nicene Creed, which the East viewed as erroneous. Another was the definition of papal primacy. Both West and East agreed that the patriarch of Rome was owed a “primacy of honour” by the other patriarchs (those of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem), but the West also contended that this primacy extended to jurisdiction, a position rejected by the Eastern patriarchs. Various attempts at dialogue between the two groups would occur, but it was only in the 1960s, under Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras, that significant steps began to be made to mend the relationship between the two.

In Western Christianity, there were a handful of geographically isolated movements that preceded the spirit of the Protestant Reformation. The Cathars were a very strong movement in medieval southwestern France, but did not survive into modern times. In northern Italy and southeastern France, Peter Waldo founded the Waldensians in the 12th century. This movement has largely been absorbed by modern-day Protestant groups. In Bohemia, a movement in the early 15th century by Jan Hus called the Hussites defied Roman Catholic dogma and still exists to this day (alternately known as the Moravian Church).

 

[Roblox84]

A little history,just saying…

Why would someone else think they can translate the bible better then the person whom Jesus entrusted in the original church?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

This issue makes me remain very, very confused. We all agree that up until the reformation there was only one church teaching one thing. We then all agree that that Church became later known as the Catholic Church.

So when the bible speaks about denominations forming and speaking of false doctrines how is this placed upon the original church since that church was already there and were teaching only the doctrine that was taught by the Apostles? I may have a hard time seeing it in another way but if the Catholic Church remained unchanged for 2000 years and all of a sudden protestant churches spring up everywhere by the dozen, wouldn’t that be considered what the bible talked about a teaching of false doctrines? Some protestants tell me that what if it was them that were the original church and the catholics split off into their own sect, which seems kinda silly.

And also I don’t want to hear that God made it happen because nowhere in the bible did God say anything about Luther reforming the church, so I just won’t buy that.

It’s extremely difficult to discuss this with you. You are imposing a denominational/institutional paradigm that Protestants do not use - thus there is going to be lots of “talking past” each other…

Friend, it is my position that the church is not (and never was) a denominational, institutional, geopolitical, entity. It is my position that Christians have always been, still are, and ever will be PEOPLE. Thus, the communion of Christians is PEOPLE. The mystical union of Christians is PEOPLE. The assembly of Christians is PEOPLE. To Protestants, the church is Christians - past and present, spread out over all the centuries and continents. Christianity is not an institutional IT.

Friend, you are assuming MUCH. That Jesus founded a denomination - we don’t agree.
That Jesus promised that THAT denomination - solely, exclusively, perpetually - would be infallible and unaccountable - we think not.

Friend, your denomination requires that you docilicly accept whatever it and it itself exclusively says as correct - and I suspect you do. We don’t share that epistemology, we embrace accountability.

Friend, you assume that your denomination has existed since 30 AD, and we see zero substantiation for that. You assume that your denomination has not changed the corpus of its beliefs, and we don’t agree.

As I read the Bible, God has always taught and lead His people: from Adam and Eve in the Garden to today. But I don’t agree that ergo all are infallible students and followers. In fact, the story of Scripture is the story of His people doing WRONG, and God’s Law calling them to repentance and His Grace forgiving and restoring. God often did this through reformers (I’m named for one of them). Luther is probably the most conservative of all these (his horrible polemic aside - such was the nature of the day), and he is often faulted to genuinely believing that what was on his heart (and it seems millions of others) could be sincerely and opening discussed, and that reform was possible. What he learned (and should have always known, critics note) is that one who claims to be INCAPABLE of error is INCAPABLE of reform. I’m sad all this turned out as it did. I’d sad The Catholic Church excommunicated Luther and split itself yet again. I’m not sure it was avoidable, it’s the only alternative when reform is impossible.

.

 

[JonNC]

Why would someone else think they can translate the bible better then the person whom Jesus entrusted in the original church?

For the sake of discussion, let’s say the Church is an institution, and not the communion of saints.
Even if we take western non-catholics out of the equation for a moment, which is the original Church? Rome? According to the early councils, the Bishop of Rome’s jurisdiction is of the West.

Why should we accept that the other patriarchates are not the original Church and Rome is?

Jon

 

[Spun]

I think the Eastern Orthodox may differ over the claim that prior to the Reformation there was one true church, or at least I doubt they’ll agree that our church was it.

 

[Roblox84]

It’s extremely difficult to discuss this with you. You are imposing a denominational/institutional paradigm that Protestants do not use - thus there is going to be lots of “talking past” each other…

Friend, it is my position that the church is not (and never was) a denominational, institutional, geopolitical, entity. It is my position that Christians have always been, still are, and ever will be PEOPLE. Thus, the communion of Christians is PEOPLE. The mystical union of Christians is PEOPLE. The assembly of Christians is PEOPLE. To Protestants, the church is Christians - past and present, spread out over all the centuries and continents. Christianity is not an institutional IT.

Friend, you are assuming MUCH. That Jesus founded a denomination - we don’t agree.
That Jesus promised that THAT denomination - solely, exclusively, perpetually - would be infallible and unaccountable - we think not.

Friend, your denomination requires that you docilicly accept whatever it and it itself exclusively says as correct - and I suspect you do. We don’t share that epistemology, we embrace accountability.

Friend, you assume that your denomination has existed since 30 AD, and we see zero substantiation for that. You assume that your denomination has not changed the corpus of its beliefs, and we don’t agree.

As I read the Bible, God has always taught and lead His people: from Adam and Eve in the Garden to today. But I don’t agree that ergo all are infallible students and followers. In fact, the story of Scripture is the story of His people doing WRONG, and God’s Law calling them to repentance and His Grace forgiving and restoring. God often did this through reformers (I’m named for one of them). Luther is probably the most conservative of all these (his horrible polemic aside - such was the nature of the day), and he is often faulted to genuinely believing that what was on his heart (and it seems millions of others) could be sincerely and opening discussed, and that reform was possible. What he learned (and should have always known, critics note) is that one who claims to be INCAPABLE of error is INCAPABLE of reform. I’m sad all this turned out as it did. I’d sad The Catholic Church excommunicated Luther and split itself yet again. I’m not sure it was avoidable, it’s the only alternative when reform is impossible.
.

As a denomination Catholics didn’t exist since 30Ad because it wasn’t labeled a denomination, it was just labeled Catholic later because it was the universal religion. I was just stating that there was one set of beliefs that were taught by the apostles. God didn’t say you can choose the way you worship, you do as the apostles teach. So technically it wasn’t a denomination until someone decided to invent a new set of beliefs. So if people were just worshiping God their own way’s like you said, then there wouldn’t be a reason to institute a commom belief. And wouldn’t that be why it was called the protestant reformation? Because they are the ones who wouldn’t conform to the pre existing system. And from what I know, there is plenty of proof from those times that mass was conducted then as it is now.

 

[JonNC]

This is my biggest issue. Ive talked to protestants and I tell them about Luther and how he is the founder of protestants, but all I get is a response like “my belief is founded by the bible” or something of that nature. I really don’t know what to say to a comment like that because these people don’t even know how they came to be, it’s like a complete disregard for history (or ignorance). I mean how can you tell someone something when they actually believe that no such reformation happened and even if it was called the Protestant reformation, it just doesn’t include them because they must have been worshiping like that because God told them to. It’s like talking to a 3rd grader.

Which Protestants did you talk to? The fact is that very few come out of Lutheranism. Many disagree with Luther as much as you do. Read the Lutheran Confessions and see what the Lutheran reformers have to say about anabaptists, and others you seem to want to link to Luther.

I do not know of a denomination that is a direct splinter from Lutheranism.

Jon

 

[Roblox84]

Which Protestants did you talk to? The fact is that very few come out of Lutheranism. Many disagree with Luther as much as you do. Read the Lutheran Confessions and see what the Lutheran reformers have to say about anabaptists, and others you seem to want to link to Luther.

I do not know of a denomination that is a direct splinter from Lutheranism.

Jon

I’ve talked to more Baptists then anything. I don’t know how much different they are from the rest. But to my knowledge they are even further away from the first reformed religion, and may even be a religion a few hundred years old.

 

[GalaxyofGOD7]

God
established one Church.It was to be of one mind, one faith, one baptism, and oh yes! one Lord.

Anyone who has studied ancient Christianity knows the Catholic Church is the Church. Now we can go about denying it, but the pink elephant is in the great room, no matter how many times you say it isn’t there. Just the facts ma’am.

Calvin didn’t deny it, Luther didn’t, in fact I don’t think any of the earliest reformers did.So all the Protestants have a connection to us, and we to them.Their reasons for reforming could be noble/dubious, but it happened, we can only pray unity will be restored one day.

One of the posts stated the Church is the PEOPLE! Amen It is, Christ as The Head.Yet unity required central authority, leadership to remain in doctrinal unity.You cannot have it thinking you are a loose cannon, able to change beliefs based on your interpretations of the Bible.

 

[Roblox84]

It’s extremely difficult to discuss this with you. You are imposing a denominational/institutional paradigm that Protestants do not use - thus there is going to be lots of “talking past” each other…
.

What i’m getting from this is that everything protestants do is try to explain their belief using bible verses. But when confronted with just an argument using no passages they just choose to ignore this logic.

I know you don’t use this paradigm and that is what is the ultimate problem here, because you should. It is the argument that protestants were taught in order to discredit the church and the religion. I just wish people could see that.

It just happens I can’t get a real answer because this is all I get on this forum, we just choose not to use that. You can’t just ignore the facts just so you can prove your own belief system. That’s just silly.

And yet you aren’t answering the question of the teachings of false doctrines that the bible tells us would happen by other denominations. So if there wasn’t a single belief or denomination already present, then what sense would these false doctrines make since everyone already would be doing everything different from the start?

 

[IowaJay]

And from what I know, there is plenty of proof from those times that mass was conducted then as it is now.

Lutherans follow the same ordo of the liturgy as set forth by Justin Martyr in the 2nd century and Hippolytus in the early 3rd century.

 

[BrianH]

Why would someone else think they can translate the bible better then the person whom Jesus entrusted in the original church?

My post is in response to your statement that there was only one group prior to the Reformation. And this short summary leaves out a lot…but it was not trying to be all encompassing.
Your response…I am not sure what it even means.

 

[IowaJay]

What i’m getting from this is that everything protestants do is try to explain their belief using bible verses.

The Lutheran confessions, as well as writings of theologians such as Martin Chemnitz, contain numerous references to the writings of the pre-schism (1054 A.D.) Early Church Fathers.

 

[aspirant]

We all agree that up until the reformation there was only one church teaching one thing. We then all agree that that Church became later known as the Catholic Church.

The Church was called “Catholic” was used much earlier than the Reformation, just for clarity.

Differences in ecclesiology are going to be problematic in this thread…

 

[Roblox84]

The Church was called “Catholic” was used much earlier than the Reformation, just for clarity.

Differences in ecclesiology are going to be problematic in this thread…

I forgot about the disputes that started way before the reform, so thanks for clarifying that.

 

[dcana]

For the sake of discussion, let’s say the Church is an institution, and not the communion of saints.
Even if we take western non-catholics out of the equation for a moment, which is the original Church? Rome? According to the early councils, the Bishop of Rome’s jurisdiction is of the West.

Why should we accept that the other patriarchates are not the original Church and Rome is?

Jon

I’m confused as to what Protestants think when they say that the Church of Jesus is not “institutional” or “denominational” What do you mean by this? What is wrong with an institution? To me, an institution is nothing more than a body of persons with leaders among those persons. Please point out to me an institution that does not have leaders of some sort. There is no such thing as a large group of people under one cause, so to speak, that does not have people in charge. If you don’t see an “institution” forming in the New Testament, then I think you need to re-read the whole thing. For example, why does Paul claim authority over people? He says that “he” (or “we” sometimes) has the authority to order the nascent churches to do this or that and to believe this or that. And he does not claim that he has this authority because he knows the Bible really, really well, or went to Bible school or that the scriptures say this or that. He says he has authority over them because it has been given him by God. Do you believe this? Yea or nay? And then there’s the “the Church is not ‘denominational’” nonsense. Again, what is this supposed to mean? First of all, The Catholic Church is NOT a denomination of Christianity. It IS Christianity. The Protestant “churches” are the ones who are denominational. Why? Simple. They all believe different things. They hold different sets of beliefs and have different practices. This is exactly what denominationalism (is that a word?) is. You’re right, the Church isn’t denominational. It’s only when heretics split off and start teaching their own beliefs that there is denominationalism. Christianity is not a denomination of anything. It is a religion. Do you call us a “denomination” because we have a set of beliefs? OK. We certainly do have a set of beliefs. It’s called the Teachings of the Apostles, aka the Gospel. The difference is that all of our beliefs are correct, whereas Protestants’ beliefs are sometimes correct and other times false. Do you not have a set of distinct beliefs? Show me some organization that doesn’t have some set of beliefs. If they’re not all explicit, then they’re certainly implicit.

 

[Roblox84]

The Lutheran confessions, as well as writings of theologians such as Martin Chemnitz, contain numerous references to the writings of the pre-schism (1054 A.D.) Early Church Fathers.

I don’t know too much about Lutherans other then they are closer to Catholics. I’m talking more about the small denominations. I don’t know them all but such as church of Christ, independent baptist, south baptist and all that, (something) assembly of God, etc…