Opinions on the Reformation

[guanophore]

I must say, it is interesting I came upon this thread while listening to “Catholic Answers Live” with Patrick Coffin and Fr. Mitch Pacwa discussing this very subject! Unfortunately, they didn’t seem to clear up very much for me. Admittedly, that could be because I missed hearing something they said while I was reading something here.

In any case, as much as I like Fr. Pacwa, I don’t think he ever refered to any of the “abuses” (merely percieved or otherwise) by “Rome” that Luther et.al. were claiming, such as the selling of indulgences. (Yeah, I know, “everybody brings that up” but I don’t have the time or space here to go back through all my history books, etc. …) I suppose it could be, considering the current state of priestly sex scandals, many are reluctant to bring up any prior “indisgressions”.

I wish I could join many of you (name removed by moderator)artaking of the Eucharist this Easter but, alas, it seems I didn’t get into RCIA soon enough!

I love Fr. Pacwa. He is not shy about placing responsibility where it goes, and I have heard him many times where he is not shy to acknowledge the corruption of Latin clerics in Europe. It was the failure of those placed over the Church to live according to the precepts she teaches that precipitated the Reformation.

 

[schaick]

You are absolutely correct! That is why we need a divinely appointed authority! (The Magisterium) which is the teaching authority of the Church.

Anyone can interprete but there are rules that must be followed.

 

[aspirant]

Anyone can interpret

The problem is that so very many interpret wrongly.

 

[Palaeologos]

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

The Evangelical and United Brethren, who joined with the Methodist Episcopal Church to form the United Methodist Church, were one such splinter. There is also a Lutheran-derived component of the United Church of Christ. And there are a few “Evangelical Catholic” churches which, although having a historical base in Lutheranism, have basically evolved into an Old Catholic theology and practice.

Other than those, though, you’re right–Lutheranism doesn’t have a lot of offshoots. The Reformed and Anabaptist movements are a lot more fecund that way.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Let’s be fair, Sword, there was corruption, pride, and disobedience on both sides. Men are always in need of reform.
.

There has all ways been corruption in the Church. Our Lord had Judas as an Apostle. Corruption was not the cause of the protestant revolt, but an excuse for it.

 

[JonNC]

What do you think of the early testimony about the primacy of the Roman patriarchy?

“Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church” (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189]).

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3, 3, 2).

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. … To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us” (ibid., 3, 3, 3).

Here is some more.

Very interesting quotes, but none of them lead me to believe that Rome, exclusive, is the one true Church over and against the others. This is not to deny the place of honor and respect the Bishop of Rome (should) have amongst us all.

Jon

 

[TimeToGrow]

This is an interesting thread. I have enjoyed many of the comments that have been made. I think there is hope in the relationship between Protestants and Catholics.

The reformation is an interesting piece of history, and it is worth our time to look at things from both perspectives or with neither perspective. So many who delve into the history of things? We often need to go back further than the events of focus. Like the split in the east and the west. The history often demonstrates how people thought, and how many were being challenged to deal with the changes in Life. Both the world and the Christian community itself were often challenged in the courses of time. Many rose historically to confront the things that Challenge our views of Right and Wrong, Good and Evil, corrupt and Holy and correct or incorrect.
One of the things that I was surprised to learn about some of the pivotal characters’ in the reformation is how often times things are distorted from the facts. Common opinions and assertions That some of the facts don’t really jive with some of the attitudes on both side of the events. I mean all the Blame and the accusations and all. It was really confusing. What I later learned also is that a lot of times there are things being said by individuals in history that seek to justify ones particular position that have no Rational whatsoever for their disposition. But the facts are interesting none the less when we ask certain questions in relation to them.
Here are some observation.

observation
Luther loved his catholic faith before the reformation. And his first visit to Rome which would later set off all the events was in his own mind one of most treasured moments in his Life. I mean not everybody got to go to Rome. He was overjoyed that he was about to see the Grand city itself and the Heart and soul of his Catholic Faith. His expectations were among the highest that any could have. I often wondered what changed in his mind. Because even if, and he may have seen some corrupt individuals? I never understood how it could change ones faith? Our faith is determined by our understanding of doctrine that we say we believe. Luther was a teacher of the Catholic Faith! But later in justifying his stance he was found later to be in heresy with church doctrine. He had clearly and I think we can all relate at times seeking to justify his moral rightness in doctrinal treaties. Luther wasn’t an immoral person more the opposite. This would later lead to charges of corruption against the Legate who were his opponents. It seemed to him they didn’t want his apology but further flamed his hostility toward moral corruption through heretical doctrinal justification.
observation

Luther never spoke ill of the Pope, even when he came under fire from Legates who he thought were corrupt. One might be surprise to learn that Luther actually had the greatest admiration of Pope Leo X. He held the greatest respect for the office of Pope even calling him his father at times even while pleading his case. It is very interesting when reading Luther’s letter or treaties to the Holy See and the Pope. IT is one of the most bizarre things I’ve ever read. I was amazed as I later found out that Luther was willing to give up and forget the whole deal before his excommunication. His Character had changed from brash and bold to humble in the trials of doctrine. Too, It’s interesting that Luther Believed the Popes Life to be in danger and that he even believed that Leo was somehow being held by corrupt people. That Leo was a captive in a sort of way. And that Leo and those faithful to him may have been in danger if they acted in opposition to the Holy See. It’s really strange. I wonder how Luther would have even known of such things. Surely he wasn’t there to see such things. But maybe some had told him such and he trusted those who told him. Luther believed the Holy See was corrupt not the Pope. That it was in fact the fault of those who were responsible for the doctrinal development of the RCC as he later railed on the corruption of individual when writing to Leo. He thought Leo was a Lamb among wolves as he so characterized it. It all very bizarre when we look at certain things but usually there are reasons for these kinds of peculiarities.

I’ll have to split this in two post

Peace and god bless

 

[TimeToGrow]

In trying to understand some of these things and their peculiar qualities, I began reading a little about the history prior to the events. First, I looked at Counsels that were convened and some of their topics with the east. Sure enough two Ecumenical counsels held between the east and west had decided on the Primacy of Rome in Rome’s favor. The Filioque was resolved also in Rome’s favor. Strangely By those at the counsels both east and west representatives. Not saying convincing the eastern churches would be successful or agree with those they sent? It failed in a prior counsel with parties agreeing. But anyway The Popes now set in motions as a result what would later be known as the “crusades” to help the Church in the east with the Mohamedeans.

But the Popes had Problems with the secular rulers and their western expansion. There was no money for war against the Muslims. The emperors were spending it all in the west. The Popes were desperately seeking to help the East to heal the rift by helping them with the Mohamadeans. Money was hard to come by and indulgences were a big part of how the money was gotten to pay for war against the Muslim invations of Christian communities. Which history later records after three hundred years really only held back the tide. Things didn’t turn out as so many had hoped east and west.

When Leo X was Pope there had been many advances in civil society and the secular community was  being educated in mostly what was primarily the domain of the Church. The age of enlightenment was crowning itself and this also presented certain challenges to the Church. Pope Leo I once read spent more money in his time than any other Pope. And from what I’ve read he was deeply involved in the education of the Clergy in the new Philosophies and sciences or better said sacred sciences as some called it. The more Secular Minds of some were becoming rather inconvenienced or annoyed that the Church was becoming critical of public doctrine born from the institutions of reason. The Church started educating its clergy to determine the truth of many claims and to do this they had to learn what others were saying.  Not only learn but also understand the sacred science.  This effort of Leo, Prior Popes and later Popes would rise up those who were so to speak far more capable of dealing with the truth of such learned individuals of the secular mindset.  These newly taught and trained individuals became the legates of the Pope and the Holy See. This is the world of Rome who is fighting both religious and secular heresies of their time.  Those Challenging the Authority of the Church and its doctrine, both religious and secular. The war is on all fronts. These men were Luther’s opponents and they would deal with a lot of heresy in their time.  And they knew and understood things very few people really understood in their time. I think this also presented certain challenges to the church in the milk and meat of things.  What the church was actually learning about science and the truth of it and how it would reconcile it doctrinally without contradicting what the scriptures actually said.  They were particularly challenging times for the Church.

  It wasn’t just education but that it had been the domain of the religious in most all cultures. And the secular minds treated scripture like they treated everything else. They wanted it to decide for themselves.  We don’t need your interpretation of things. The rational intellectual humanist. We want to decide for ourselves the Truth of things.  The Power of reason over the Power of the Holy spirit Guiding. It was at times like saying I’m holy enough to understand what you say and I don’t have to fear your condemnation.  The time had passed when men did fear condemnation of the Church.  Later the humanist social reformer would join with the religious reformer to break the power the Church had over it’s own people.  Luther’s treatise on Christian Liberty would catapult the humanist in a socialist liberty.  He didn’t like it but it happened.  The poor and oppressed became pray for secular humanist.

II Peter 2
14 Having eyes full of adultery and of sin that ceaseth not: alluring unstable souls, having their heart exercised with covetousness, children of malediction: 15 Leaving the right way they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam of Bosor, who loved the wages of iniquity, 16 But had a check of his madness, the dumb beast used to the yoke, which speaking with man’s voice, forbade the folly of the prophet. 17 These are fountains without water, and clouds tossed with whirlwinds, to whom the mist of darkness is reserved. 18 For, speaking proud words of vanity, they allure by the desires of fleshly riotousness, those who for a little while escape, such as converse in error: 19 “””””Promising them liberty””””, whereas they themselves are the slaves of corruption. For by whom a man is overcome, of the same also he is the slave. 20 For if, flying from the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they be again entangled in them and overcome: their latter state is become unto them worse than the former.

The secular humanist had used Luther’s Christian liberty to overcome the Churches power. In liberty they would cry and it was in liberation of anything Roman Catholic and it would later become anything Christian and then anything God.

Peace and God bless.

 

[jmtosh]

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.

The truth is that the “Catholic Church” has not remained the same neither taught the same thing for 2000 years!

 

[Poco]

The truth is that the “Catholic Church” has not remained the same

Well, of course! She’s grown, new Popes, new Bishops, new Priests, new congragations…

neither taught the same thing for 2000 years!

Church “teaching” covers a very wide range of things. Can you point out any, for lack of a better term, basic tenet, especially those regarding faith and morals, that have changed?

And by changed, I don’t mean something that was always “taught” but just wasn’t defined until some time later.

 

[rinnie]

Most Westerners don’t realize there are non-Roman Rites in communion with the successor of Peter.

During the middle ages, when Europe was separated from the East by war and other influences, the Latin Rite functioned autonomously as if it were the only Rite left. From that period, most official documents refer to the Church as the Holy Roman Church.

European Protestants equat Catholicism with “Roman”, partly as an insult, and partly because they don’t know any better.

As far as valid sacraments, yes, the Orthodox are recognized as having valid Apostolic Succession,a nd valid sacraments, but they are NOT in communion with the successor fo Peter.

But you are saying then even thought they are not in commumion with the Pope he does indeed reconginze their sacraments?

 

[Bluegoat]

But you are saying then even thought they are not in commumion with the Pope he does indeed reconginze their sacraments?

Yes. Whether the sacraments are valid has nothing to do with being in communion with the Pope.

 

[rinnie]

Here’s my opinion of the Reformation: it stinks!

It is not a reformation of anything at all, it is a revolt and is completely scandalous. If Luther and his cronies hadn’t rebelled, I am convinced there would have been no need for a 2010. The Kingdom would have already come in its fullness. Did you forget, Gtrenewed, that Jesus said that His followers should be one and He and the Father are One God (if that’s not a call to unity in everything, then nothing is) so that the world may believe that the Father sent Him? Your beliefs are nonbiblical!

I disagree with you for a few reasons and here is why.

First of all I do not blame luther for the kingdom not comming into fullness. It is us and our sin that is the reason for that. God is giving us more time, because he knows we need it. Luther did not change me, I stayed with the church. See what I mean. The Church is the fullness of CHrist it is here and has never left. What people do not see that the kingdom did come into its fullness right in front of their eyes by Jesus Christ and the living Church. The CC is the same here as it is in heaven.

Second I believe in Rev. although we cannot predict the time of the end we have the signs. And in Rev. it says all men must come to God. In scripture it says that the word of God much reach all ears to all corners of the world. And its going to end where it all started.

I believe that the Jews are still the chosen people, and Jesus said ALL must come to believe. They have not come to this revelation yet. I believe that the end is going to be when the Jews come to the Revelation of Jesus Christ and accept him as God. And I believe when the Jews have this revelation

 

[Palaeologos]

But you are saying then even thought they are not in commumion with the Pope he does indeed reconginze their sacraments?

Yes, and I’m pretty sure documentation of this is available online.

 

[GKC]

Yes, and I’m pretty sure documentation of this is available online.

Rome not only recognizes the Orthodox orders as valid, though illicit, but those of certain of the Old Catholics, and the Polish National Catholic Church, similarly.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Yes. Whether the sacraments are valid has nothing to do with being in communion with the Pope.

Correct. The judgment rendered in Apostolicae curae, with respect to Anglican orders, for example, had nothing to do with the issue of being in or out of communion with Rome.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Nice to see a GKC post again! You’ve been away from the keyboard for a few days…

Correct. The judgment rendered in Apostolicae curae, with respect to Anglican orders, for example, had nothing to do with the issue of being in or out of communion with Rome.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Nice to see a GKC post again! You’ve been away from the keyboard for a few days…

Not much that strikes my fancy, or falls in my areas of expertise, lately.

OTOH, I got the “For Sale” sign out in front of the other house, and am still trying to clean out the garage. Lots of people like looking at empty houses, I have found. Keeps me busy.

And a funeral today. One of our deacons. Pray for the repose of the soul of Lee.

GKC

 

[rinnie]

Yes, and I’m pretty sure documentation of this is available online.

Yes I am sure now it is. I could never figure it out totally but now, and I am still not there completely, But I am close. (the differences that is) because we both acknowledge the sacraments. But I do remember now where I learned it, it just hit me. The Vatican Council II constitutions decrees declarations. And it just hit me too, I am supposed to be memorizing it But its so overwhelming

I better get busy!

 

[Daedelus76]

Besides the Pope, Scholasticism is the big seperation between Christians. The Schoolmens legacy and approach to religion is partly to blame for Luther’s outrage. Reducing Christianity to formulas- rules for penance, indulgences, etc. was what enraged Luther. In such a scheme Christianity becomes impossible “works-righteousness”,when the essence of the Gospel is about conversion of the heart. It’s something Roman Catholics really have only begun to re-examine since around Vatican II.

Incidentally, the Orthodox have the same critiques of Roman Catholic theology. It’s juridical or acrivia (strictness, rigidity) vs. economia (flexibility).

And IMO, it’s much more biblical. Read Psalm 103:

“He does not deal with us according to our sins,
nor repay us according to our iniquities…
…For he knows our frame;
he remembers that we are dust.”