Opinions on the Reformation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roblox84
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Which one, this one?:

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?

The original Church is the Catholic Church. It’s visible head is the Pope, the bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter. So, if you like, it is “headquartered” in Rome, like the U.S. government is headquartered in Washington, DC. The Bishop of Rome’s jurisdiction is the earth. All the other patriarchates are part of the original Church if they accept the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome, that is, if they accept that the Bishop of Rome has final authority over them. Jesus founded His Church on Peter, not on Peter, Matthew, Bartholomew, James and the other James, John, etc.
Actually the first Church was headquartered in Jerusalem.

Where Catholics choose to have their church built on man - Peter, I a mere Christian choose to have my church built on the TRUTH of the statement made by Peter.

The Apostles are our foundation in that what the apostles taught and preached has been passed down to us through the Holy Bible.
 
Anyone can open a Bible today and discover what beliefs are needed to be a member of Jesus’ Church and find salvation.
Can’t agree there. Many people open Bibles today and invent all sorts of nonsense.
 
Can’t agree there. Many people open Bibles today and invent all sorts of nonsense.
You are absolutely correct! That is why we need a divinely appointed authority! (The Magisterium) which is the teaching authority of the Church.
 
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.
Historically and in very general terms, church members split off and create a new congregation because of real or perceived worldliness and carnality of the existing leaders and other congregation members. The main confession of faith remains centered in Jesus Christ sent by the Father and empowered by the Holy Spirit for eternal life as found in Scripture. Sometimes though it is doctrinal issues that caused the split. A new understanding of Scripture on a certain topic area creates a situation of accept this or leave. Just like during the reformation, the RCC said accept this or leave, Protestants will say that to one another. It is the weakness of the flesh.

Tradition is passed on from generation to generation, whether old or new congregations, and that is more to do with procedure rather than dogma. It is when tradition holds a place of equal value to Scripture that it is frowned upon. That is understandable since corrupt tradition by corrupt religious leaders lead to the reformation.
 
Can’t agree there. Many people open Bibles today and invent all sorts of nonsense.
That does not detract from the inerrancy of God’s Word, Scripture.

The fact remains that anyone with a sincere and repentant heart will find the way of salvation in Scripture alone. God tells us that in His Word. It is a promise!

Where was the magesterium for the 100 years or so of indulgence corruption? Why was the sale of indulgences allowed to continue by corrupt popes, cardinals, and the Holy Roman Emperor?

Why do you not concede this error? Why not concede the error of a ruling class and servant class found in the RCC at the time which contradicts Scripture but was the tradition? This is the non-sense that lead to the reformation.
 
Its not really some of protestant and evang. fault. They have been taught some pretty vicious lies and distortions. If we were brought up and taught that the C.C. was evil and protected lies and all sorts of junk we would probably remark like many of these people. What they have to realize is their is plenty of information out there for them to get the truth they just have to be open minded and not scared. The Catholic Church has been the one constant throughout the history of christianity. None of the scandals and attacks or lies have taken her down because Jesus said nothing would destroy her, doesnt that make the naysayers scratch their heads.
 
That does not detract from the inerrancy of God’s Word, Scripture.

The fact remains that anyone with a sincere and repentant heart will find the way of salvation in Scripture alone. God tells us that in His Word. It is a promise!

Where was the magesterium for the 100 years or so of indulgence corruption? Why was the sale of indulgences allowed to continue by corrupt popes, cardinals, and the Holy Roman Emperor?

Why do you not concede this error? Why not concede the error of a ruling class and servant class found in the RCC at the time which contradicts Scripture but was the tradition? This is the non-sense that lead to the reformation.
Out of the twelve Apostles, Jesus selected one who was corrupt[judas] who was to be a reminder to us that their would always be some in the church of that character. Are you going to tell us their was never a corrupt member or clergyman in any other religion and if there was is that a reason to break of and form a different church or religion?🤷
 
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.
Since the RCC considers tradition as doctrine, to throw out bad tradition, like the sale of indulgences, is changing doctrine to the RCC but to a Protestant it is not changing doctrine but getting rid of bad practices. Like Jesus told the Jewish religious leaders, “the doctrine of men make the Word of God of no effect”

It is important to have reformers within each congregation. St. Francis was given the grace and mission to continue in a worldly RCC. Perhaps, because of the long standing corruption in the RCC which did not respond to correction had correction forced upon it much like the churches found in the first few chapters of the book of Revelation. Inner reform finally happened in the RCC following the split. Just think if it would have self corrected itself, like St. Paul corrected St. Peter, the split may never have happened!

In the OT when a king acted corruptly prophets were sent to bring correction. When the king ignored the prophets, correction was brought from the outside. When a pope acts like a corrupt king instead of a shepherd and does not listen to correction, it seems the same happened in the form of a split. Not surprisingly, the reformers threw out tradition and they went back to the basics of Scripture.
 
That does not detract from the inerrancy of God’s Word, Scripture.

The fact remains that anyone with a sincere and repentant heart will find the way of salvation in Scripture alone. God tells us that in His Word. It is a promise!

Where was the magesterium for the 100 years or so of indulgence corruption? Why was the sale of indulgences allowed to continue by corrupt popes, cardinals, and the Holy Roman Emperor?

Why do you not concede this error? Why not concede the error of a ruling class and servant class found in the RCC at the time which contradicts Scripture but was the tradition? This is the non-sense that lead to the reformation.
I do concede that there was corruption in the Church that was a big cause for the Reformation.

However, a change in doctrine was not in order.

As I am sure you well know, there are great sinners in every denomination, as well as in the Catholic Church, and that is unfortunate.
 
Out of the twelve Apostles, Jesus selected one who was corrupt[judas] who was to be a reminder to us that their would always be some in the church of that character. Are you going to tell us their was never a corrupt member or clergyman in any other religion and if there was is that a reason to break of and form a different church or religion?🤷
Judas was not the leader. Corrupt leadership is what the Reformation was about.

If a corrupt leader, RC or Protestant, will not repent what other choice is there? Isn’t that how we became a country?

It is forming a new congregation not a new religion. A church is a group of congregations. Congregations is what the make up of the first century church.
 
The fact remains that anyone with a sincere and repentant heart will find the way of salvation in Scripture alone. God tells us that in His Word. It is a promise!.
I can see your point because if someone is living in a place without a single church then the only thing that will lead them to Christ is the bible.

But since we live in cities with quite a few churchs to pick from, wouldn’t this not apply since we have the Church to lead us the way and so we don’t have difficulties in interpreting the scripture and possibly getting it wrong?
 
The Carholic Church has never taught scripture wrong and that is fact, the problems were man made and had nothing to do with its teachings. Corrupt clergyman and laypeople were the problem. That being said the so called great reformation did more harm to christianity than the corruption. Look around 30-40 thousand different so called denominations and hardly any in agreement. You have to have leadership and guidance led by the Holy Spirit through elders. That being said how can all these denominations be led by the Holy Spirit when they dont agree!!! Go anywhere in the world and you will find the Holy Catholic Church in agreement on her teachings. Stop listening to preachers of today and do your research open minded of the early fathers.
 
Its not really some of protestant and evang. fault. They have been taught some pretty vicious lies and distortions. If we were brought up and taught that the C.C. was evil and protected lies and all sorts of junk we would probably remark like many of these people. What they have to realize is their is plenty of information out there for them to get the truth they just have to be open minded and not scared. The Catholic Church has been the one constant throughout the history of christianity. None of the scandals and attacks or lies have taken her down because Jesus said nothing would destroy her, doesnt that make the naysayers scratch their heads.
Before the reformation, Christianity is shared between east and west churches. Since the reformation, Christianity is shared between the east church, the RCC and the Protestants. It is not fear of the RCC but truth is found in Jesus and if I have the truth of Jesus outside of the RCC, why do I need to belong to it unless I am attracted to it?

The RCC says that the RCC is the head and Scripture says that Jesus is the head. The RCC says there is salvation only in the RCC. Scripture says that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. If all are believers in Jesus there is unity, maybe not conformity but unity in Jesus. Why do Protestants have to be in the RCC when there is salvation in Jesus found in the Scriptures?

The unrepentent corruption caused a split so that Christianity could go on. All Christians have the first century church as their ancestor. One head, Jesus, but two legs to the body still unified in Jesus.
 
That does not detract from the inerrancy of God’s Word, Scripture.
Of course not. But it does mean that one cannot simply open the Bible and understand everything one needs to know, as was previously asserted. Inerrancy is not remotely the same thing as “immediately understandable to anyone who reads.” Even the biblical authors say things like “There are some things in [Paul’s epistles] that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” 🙂
 
Judas was not the leader. Corrupt leadership is what the Reformation was about.

If a corrupt leader, RC or Protestant, will not repent what other choice is there? Isn’t that how we became a country?

It is forming a new congregation not a new religion. A church is a group of congregations. Congregations is what the make up of the first century church.
Never said judas was a leader but none the less he was one of the twelve. Now why would Jesus select that man knowing what he was about, never taking away his free will. He was to be an example to us all that these kinds of perpetrators would always find their way in to the church. My friend Jesus never spoke of his church being separated by a reformation. Instead he said the gates of hell would never prevail agaonst her. Did he lie when he spoke these words? No of course not and if you are one of these sola scripture believers then you should believe the words of Christ. If the church was to be torn apart as you claim it should be, then our faith is in vain because Jesus told a tale. You claim to be just another congregation, so i must assume you believe yourself to be a new form of Catholic, sorry just doesnt work. Jesus created his church through the apostles, the Holy Catholic Church. True you are our separated bretheren and i pray one day you find yourself back home in Chrsts original church;)
 
Before the reformation, Christianity is shared between east and west churches. Since the reformation, Christianity is shared between the east church, the RCC and the Protestants. It is not fear of the RCC but truth is found in Jesus and if I have the truth of Jesus outside of the RCC, why do I need to belong to it unless I am attracted to it?

The RCC says that the RCC is the head and Scripture says that Jesus is the head. The RCC says there is salvation only in the RCC. Scripture says that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. If all are believers in Jesus there is unity, maybe not conformity but unity in Jesus. Why do Protestants have to be in the RCC when there is salvation in Jesus found in the Scriptures?

The unrepentent corruption caused a split so that Christianity could go on. All Christians have the first century church as their ancestor. One head, Jesus, but two legs to the body still unified in Jesus.
Its not about being attracted to it, you base it on a feeling and not facts. You base it on what you have been taught by someone elses doctrines. Do your own research open minded. The C.C. is the body not the head. Rome is the head of the church on earth wich is led by Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. We do not believe you cant make it to heaven but to receive Jesus fully here on earth you should want to be part of his church which has the fullness. She has the fullness of the teachings of the holy scripture which was put together by the church. She basis all teachings from scriptures and teachings from the early church fathers. You risk being misslead with these newage doctrines that were created hundreds of years after the original church. Doctrines made up by men who dissagreed with another and started his own church and then another and another and on and on. When does it stop? Everytime you look around there is another denom. in a mall or abandoned building started by somone who ‘found Jesus’ and decides he can lead a flock. Not saying that person doesnt mean well but he or she is playing with someones salvation. How do you know if this person knows the correct interpretation of something so valuable and Holy.
 
Agreed

Not agreed. The teaching was about indulgences and then selling indulgences. The poor were taught this by corrupt RC leadership as truth. That is why Protestants contend that tradition has to agree with Scripture. Selling indulgences is not found in Scripture. If the poor had the Scriptures, they could have challenged also.

Agreed but I would add, unrepentent pope, cardinals, and Holy Roman Emperor.
 
I dont mean this offensively but, Jesus started our church everything else was man made. That to me is pretty cut and dry. The C.C. in itself never promoted indulginces, men did. You want to lump the entire C.C. at that time as doing these things. This was 1500 years after she started. The church was massive, not all were corrupt.
 
Never said judas was a leader but none the less he was one of the twelve

.

The point is the reformation came about due to unrepentent leaders.
Now why would Jesus select that man knowing what he was about, never taking away his free will. He was to be an example to us all that these kinds of perpetrators would always find their way in to the church
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top