Opinions on the Reformation

[Della]

You are beginning from a false premis. Your quote here:

isn’t really the case. There were quite a number of heretical groups. THere were the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches, and various others. As well, as a whole the Early Church was much more decentralized, though I’m not sure if that applies to what you are thinking about.

And the “Protestant Reformation” wasn’t really - there were a series of reformation movements that had different theological and political reasons behind them.

The Eastern churches are not considered heretical, only schismatic. There is a difference. And the early Church wasn’t decentralized. It was organized under bishops who all looked to the Bishop of Rome.

Well, that is one interpretation. Another way of looking at it is that the divisions in the Church are rather like dividing perennials, or amoebas. If I take one plant from my garden and split it in two, which one is the “original” plant? Both share a history until the moment of the split, and then they become separate. Neither is really what it was before. The idea that they suddenly appeared from nothing is a bit silly.

Not quite. It’s more like someone took a petunia, tore it apart, blended it with an ivy and claimed it was the same thing. Protestant denominations all have one thing in common–they are all separated from the ancient Church in doctrine and in most cases, in practice. They each decided what they would look to for their authority, and it wasn’t the Bishop of Rome. Sad to say, the fact that there are so many denominations (the Church is not another denomination) is a testament to man’s ego and sinfulness not to any fresh flowering of the same Church.

And for those touting Luther and saying the Church hadn’t clue about the Bible, you are misinformed. Luther was a poor scripture scholar who used his own interpretation to justify his break with the Church. And the sale of indulgences were never authorized by the Church. Sure there were people doing that, but they were wrong–just like modern Catholics who contracept and teach others it’s all right–they are also wrong. It doesn’t mean the Church approves/approved. And the Bible is the Church’s book and has been since the beginning. It never needed heretics to tell it what it means re faith and morals. An excellent book on that topic is: Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church.

 

[Bluegoat]

The Eastern churches are not considered heretical, only schismatic. There is a difference. And the early Church wasn’t decentralized. It was organized under bishops who all looked to the Bishop of Rome.
/url].

Looked to the Bishop of Rome for what, is the question.

The Eastern Church is pretty clear that the Catholic Church is heretical.

 

[IowaJay]

Luther was a poor scripture scholar who used his own interpretation to justify his break with the Church.

Poor scholar? Not according to the Holy Father:

“As a German theologian, and a convinced Augustinian, Joseph Ratzinger has long admired the Protestant Reformer Martin Luther. In 1965, commenting on the document Gaudium et Spes from the final session of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), Ratzinger criticized the text for relying too much on the optimism of French Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin, and not enough on Luther’s consciousness of the Cross and of sin.(Note that Ratzinger was complaining that a Catholic document neglected the father of the Protestant Reformation; that alone says something about his ecumenical attitudes).”

nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word081205.htm#protestant

“*n the debate about what constitutes greater fidelity to the Church of the Fathers, Luther’s historical instinct is clearly proving itself right.”

“Principles of Catholic Theology”, p. 141

amazon.com/Principles-Catholic-Theology-Building-Fundamental/dp/0898701333/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I15HTEZ7UPJQI&colid=V581XRG2SGOQ#reader_0898701333

Of course, Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI has deep disagreements with some of Luther’s writings. But, it is quite apparent that he believes he was no “poor” scholar.*

 

[Della]

Poor scholar? Not according to the Holy Father:

“As a German theologian, and a convinced Augustinian, Joseph Ratzinger has long admired the Protestant Reformer Martin Luther. In 1965, commenting on the document Gaudium et Spes from the final session of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), Ratzinger criticized the text for relying too much on the optimism of French Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin, and not enough on Luther’s consciousness of the Cross and of sin.(Note that Ratzinger was complaining that a Catholic document neglected the father of the Protestant Reformation; that alone says something about his ecumenical attitudes).”

nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word081205.htm#protestant

“*n the debate about what constitutes greater fidelity to the Church of the Fathers, Luther’s historical instinct is clearly proving itself right.”

“Principles of Catholic Theology”, p. 141

amazon.com/Principles-Catholic-Theology-Building-Fundamental/dp/0898701333/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I15HTEZ7UPJQI&colid=V581XRG2SGOQ#reader_0898701333*

Of course, Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI has deep disagreements with some of Luther’s writings. But, it is quite apparent that he believes he was no “poor” scholar.

I don’t see anything here to change my assessment of Luther. It’s a bit thin. And I never claimed Protestants have no insights into truth, only that their founders went off on their own doctrinal tangents because they would not bow to Rome. That’s simply what happened. History cannot be changed, but the future can. I rejoiced when I read the bishops of the Anglican Church in America had petitioned to be reconciled, all 99 parishes, to the Catholic Church. I pray that all other Christians will do the same, in God’s good time.

 

[GKC]

I don’t see anything here to change my assessment of Luther. It’s a bit thin. And I never claimed Protestants have no insights into truth, only that their founders went off on their own doctrinal tangents because they would not bow to Rome. That’s simply what happened. History cannot be changed, but the future can. I rejoiced when I read the bishops of the Anglican Church in America had petitioned to be reconciled, all 99 parishes, to the Catholic Church. I pray that all other Christians will do the same, in God’s good time.

That the bishops of the ACA would do so has been known for some time. Now the thing to watch is how many of the laity follow the shepherds.

GKC

 

[IowaJay]

I don’t see anything here to change my assessment of Luther.

Well, since you haven’t provided any analysis at all to support your opinion, I’ll stick with what Pope Benedict XVI has had to say about Luther when I want to know what Catholic opinions about Luther are.

Here’s an extensive interview from Pope Benedict XVI about Luther, where he even-handedly discusses the good and the bad from his perspective:

communio-icr.com/articles/PDF/ratzinger11-3.pdf

 

[Roblox84]

I think the Reformation was a necessity because of the corruption that was prevailing in the Roman Catholic Church. Sadly, the reform eventually led to division, which we have today.

True. But I think there are many way’s of reforming an organization without creating something completely new and abstract. It just takes a smarter person to do so.

 

[Roblox84]

Good question…

THEN there would be the whole issue of why the “successors” of ONE of those Patriarchs is “INFALLIBLE” and thus incapable of reform?

Here’s what I posted earlier…

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.

.

Because who even knows what these patriarchs were teaching. Also I think as someone mentioned before me, Catholicism wasn’t technically a denomination. It was given a label so it could distinguish itself from many man made denominations that were forming. So indeed, protestants maybe claim they do not believe in a denomination, but to me it looks as if they are the ones that formed denominations and are still forming them to this day. So it is kind of contradicting. Catholics aren’t the ones forming all of these beliefs, they were just there. So how can a protestant say Christ didn’t form a denomination, then start up a denomination and then claim what they preach is the only truth?

 

[JonNC]

=dcana;6367867]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?

I can’t speak for Protestants, but the Augsburg Confession identifies the Church as follows:

Article VII: Of the Church.

1] Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. **The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered. **
2] And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and 3] the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. 4] As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4:5-6.

Article VIII: What the Church Is.

1] Although the Church properly is the congregation of saints and true believers, nevertheless, since in this life many hypocrites and evil persons are mingled therewith, it is lawful to use Sacraments administered by evil men, according to the saying of Christ: The Scribes and 2] the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat, etc. Matt. 23:2. Both the Sacraments and Word are effectual by reason of the institution and commandment of Christ, notwithstanding they be administered by evil men.

3] They condemn the Donatists, and such like, who denied it to be lawful to use the ministry of evil men in the Church, and who thought the ministry of evil men to be unprofitable and of none effect.

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.

Nothing is wrong with an institution. I belong to one, that being the Lutheran Church Missori Synod. But when one talks about the Church of the NT, no specific institution or organization is mentioned. So, there is definitely one True Church, but it is divided institutionally.

First of all, The Catholic Church is NOT a denomination of Christianity. It IS Christianity.

At the exclusion of all others? You have no evidence of that. And at least since the schism, you cannot (legitimately) claim it at the exclusion of all others.

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.

And the Catholic Church is different than all Protestant Churches, and Eastern Orthodoxy in belief sets and practices.

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.

The Church is not denominational because there is one True Church - the congregation of saints. That human sin has caused His Church to be split into institutional grouping is undeniable, and as the Catholic Catechism says, there is blame enough to go around for that.
You claim all of your beliefs are correct? Based on what? If I’m looking to join a Church in apostolic succession, why are the claims of Rome stronger than that of the other patriarchates that remain in unity with each other? For that matter, why should I not join the Union of Utrecht Old Catholic Churches which rejected, as I understand it, the innovation of papal infallibility?

You see, The Catholic Church won’t claim it alone is right on scripture alone, and claims that it alone is correct based on Scripture and Tradition are not reliable because others who also claim Scripture and Tradition dispute those claims. Even Churches who claim apostolic succession, and Scripture and Tradition are plagued by “denominationalism”, by your own definition. So, who is a poor Sola scripturist supposed to believe?

Jon

 

[Della]

Well, since you haven’t provided any analysis at all to support your opinion, I’ll stick with what Pope Benedict XVI has had to say about Luther when I want to know what Catholic opinions about Luther are.

Here’s an extensive interview from Pope Benedict XVI about Luther, where he even-handedly discusses the good and the bad from his perspective:

communio-icr.com/articles/PDF/ratzinger11-3.pdf

Sure there’s good and bad about Luther and his teaching. I never said otherwise. It still doesn’t mean his interpretation was sound nor good. Good in some points isn’t good enough for anyone to follow after him.

 

[Roblox84]

I can’t speak for Protestants, but the Augsburg Confession identifies the Church as follows:

Nothing is wrong with an institution. I belong to one, that being the Lutheran Church Missori Synod. But when one talks about the Church of the NT, no specific institution or organization is mentioned. So, there is definitely one True Church, but it is divided institutionally.

At the exclusion of all others? You have no evidence of that. And at least since the schism, you cannot (legitimately) claim it at the exclusion of all others.

And the Catholic Church is different than all Protestant Churches, and Eastern Orthodoxy in belief sets and practices.

The Church is not denominational because there is one True Church - the congregation of saints. That human sin has caused His Church to be split into institutional grouping is undeniable, and as the Catholic Catechism says, there is blame enough to go around for that.
You claim all of your beliefs are correct? Based on what? If I’m looking to join a Church in apostolic succession, why are the claims of Rome stronger than that of the other patriarchates that remain in unity with each other? For that matter, why should I not join the Union of Utrecht Old Catholic Churches which rejected, as I understand it, the innovation of papal infallibility?

You see, The Catholic Church won’t claim it alone is right on scripture alone, and claims that it alone is correct based on Scripture and Tradition are not reliable because others who also claim Scripture and Tradition dispute those claims. Even Churches who claim apostolic succession, and Scripture and Tradition are plagued by “denominationalism”, by your own definition. So, who is a poor Sola scripturist supposed to believe?

Jon

Catholics tradition doesn’t go against scripture, and they’re not the ones forming denominations. That’s why it’s called protestant denominations, not catholic denominations. And tradition is just as reliable, so don’t put into peoples head that it isn’t. Because if tradition wasn’t just as important then I wouldn’t really care about any of my Polish roots and traditions. Remember this, it is easy to say tradition isn’t valid when one has no traditions.

 

[JonNC]

Catholics tradition doesn’t go against scripture, and they’re not the ones forming denominations. That’s why it’s called protestant denominations, not catholic denominations. And tradition is just as reliable, so don’t put into peoples head that it isn’t. Because if tradition wasn’t just as important then I wouldn’t really care about any of my Polish roots and traditions. Remember this, it is easy to say tradition isn’t valid when one has no traditions.

I did not say Tradition is not valid. You missed my whole point. But I’ll run with it. Are you saying Orthodox Tradition is not reliable? What about that of the Old Catholics? And how is it possible for me to know which one is True? By the definition givien earlier:

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.

If denominationalism is as described, then the Churches who hold to Tradition and Scripture, including the Catholic Church, are denominational because the have different setsof beliefs and practices.

As for having no Tradition, it just isn’t the case for Lutherans. We just insist that Tradition be subject to, not equal with, scripture.

Catholics tradition doesn’t go against scripture

Tradition doesn’t go against scripture is, btw, exactly what the practice of sola scriptura is.

Jon

 

[Roblox84]

I did not say Tradition is not valid. You missed my whole point. But I’ll run with it. Are you saying Orthodox Tradition is not reliable? What about that of the Old Catholics? And how is it possible for me to know which one is True? By the definition givien earlier:

If denominationalism is as described, then the Churches who hold to Tradition and Scripture, including the Catholic Church, are denominational because the have different setsof beliefs and practices.

As for having no Tradition, it just isn’t the case for Lutherans. We just insist that Tradition be subject to, not equal with, scripture.

Tradition doesn’t go against scripture is, btw, exactly what the practice of sola scriptura is.

Jon

I know Lutherans have their traditions and I don’t disagree. I’m more interested in the churches that were formed within the last few hundred years that all claim tradition is invalid. In my opinion I would go with the oldest traditions, such as Lutherans or Catholics that why I would know that it has at least been around longer.

Also did you say sola scriptura is with scripture or against? Thanks.

 

[JonNC]

I know Lutherans have their traditions and I don’t disagree. I’m more interested in the churches that were formed within the last few hundred years that all claim tradition is invalid. In my opinion I would go with the oldest traditions, such as Lutherans or Catholics that why I would know that it has at least been around longer.

Also did you say sola scriptura is with scripture or against? Thanks.

I was making a comment about your line that Tradition doesn’t go against scripture. My meaning is that, in the end, that is all the practice of sola scriptura intends. That our beliefs and practices do not contradict scripture.

Jon

 

[gtrenewed]

I know Lutherans have their traditions and I don’t disagree. I’m more interested in the churches that were formed within the last few hundred years that all claim tradition is invalid. In my opinion I would go with the oldest traditions, such as Lutherans or Catholics that why I would know that it has at least been around longer.

Also did you say sola scriptura is with scripture or against? Thanks.

To say ALL claim tradition is invalid is foolishness unless you name them all with their confession of faith.

What is common is the belief that tradition is useful if it does not go contrary to Scripture. For example, indulgences which led to the sale of indulgences which led to the reformation.

Remember, the Jews were God’s chosen church with thousands of years of tradition. They were required to change their understanding when Jesus fulfilled that tradition. So don’t put too much stock in old tradition vs new tradition, for example the tradition of the Mass changed in the 1970’s.

The tradition we believe in should be Jesus Christ.

 

[Roblox84]

To say ALL claim tradition is invalid is foolishness unless you name them all with their confession of faith.

What is common is the belief that tradition is useful if it does not go contrary to Scripture. For example, indulgences which led to the sale of indulgences which led to the reformation.

Remember, the Jews were God’s chosen church with thousands of years of tradition. They were required to change their understanding when Jesus fulfilled that tradition. So don’t put too much stock in old tradition vs new tradition, for example the tradition of the Mass changed in the 1970’s.

The tradition we believe in should be Jesus Christ.

I have realized that many protestants hold dearly to tradition also. I was mainly wondering about the small denominations that sprung up years after the first reformed churchs. They are usually the ones that are the most far of and claim that all tradition is invalid.

 

[schaick]

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.

The “Catholic Belief System” had been added to so it was no longer recognized as the original,

Anyone can open a Bible today and discover what beliefs are needed to be a member of Jesus’ Church and find salvation.

 

[schaick]

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.

I had no idea that the Apostles taught things such as:
Into this fold of Jesus Christ no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff, and only if they be united to him can men be saved. Pope John XXIII

Those who are obstinate toward the authority of the Church and the Roman Pontiff… cannot obtain eternal salvation. Pope Pius IX

You sit crowned as Queen at the right hand of your Son: your dominion reaches as far as the heavens, and to you are subject the earth and all creatures dwelling thereon. Your dominion reaches even down into the abyss of Hell, and you alone O Mary, save us from the hands of Satan. Pope Pius XI

 

[schaick]

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…

My understanding is that it was a small c as in universal.

 

[Dorothy]

RobLox84, your original question was Opinions on the Reformation, then you shift to doctrines and then to how to worship, you are making great leaps here.

1 - for over 100 years prior to Luther, the tradition of selling indulgences was used by the religious powerful to redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich and powerful. Their answer to inner reform was to burn Hus and excommunicate Luther.
There is much more but this is the heart of the matter – the rich and powerful were exploiting the poor and ignorant (they kept Scripture from them).

2 - Well, a light was shone onto the abuse of indulgences. Was indulgences taught by the apostles? Or did it become tradition at a later date? Since both the pope and the Holy Roman Emperor along with various cardinals took advantage of the “income”, how was reform going to happen. Hus was burned at the stake, Luther was excommunicated and the plan was to assassinate him but he was saved by a benefactor.

What was Luther to do? He loved God, found salvation by faith in Jesus according to the apostles teaching found in the Bible. He discovered that salvation was not the RCC but Jesus and Jesus was available to all who would believe, even to those who were unjustly thrown out of the RCC. It would have been better to try to bring about change in the church even though he was excommunicated but that would have taken a miracle. A counter inner-reformation did finally happen, a little too late.

3 - So, you preach Jesus and worship Him as you are led by the Holy Spirit.

My question would be, why can’t RC’s take the blame for the abuses? Oh, you weren’t born then, so, if that applies to you why can’t it apply to others. they just worship as they understand to from the Scriptures - the one true remaining teaching by the apostle’s that all can say is God’s Word.

Don’t mistake conformity for unity. We have unity in Jesus, if not conformity in liturgy. Jesus did not institute the Latin Mass, that came about as tradition, and about 40 years ago the tradition was changed. Claiming 2000 years of being the same is not accurate. Traditions change but the Word of God remains. So using the Scripture as a base for worship is quite legitimate.

So, that is my understanding of the reformation.

Yes, there was much corruption in the Church and Luther was right to be upset about it. Reformation of the Church was very necessary…but NOT a change of doctrine.

By contrast I would like to focus on St. Francis of Assisi, the holy founder of the Franciscan Order. When the Lord told him to “repair my Church” he did so by growing in holiness, humility, and obedience.