Protestant Reformation not from God but from the Evil One.

[GKC]

Sorry GKC havn’t gotten to the other thread yet. But thanks for the info I will look it up.

Ok. It was post #49, in the “Not all non-Catholics…” thread.

And I’m sorry I didn’t address your question about different sorts of Anglicans there. It’s just too big a topic. If you have more specific questions, I’d try to address those.

And sorry I mistyped “canons”, in my post above.

GKC

 

[Efrain]

I don’t follow what you are saying. I am not claiming that Luther believed in transubstantiation, but that he believed that Christ’s body is really and truly present.

Simply put, if I say the sky is green and I truely believe the sky is green does that make me right? If Luther, believing in Sola Scriptura, rejects the authority of the Apostolic succesorship, who hold the power to consecrate the Eucharist, are excluded in Mass, then how can the bread and wine become the true flesh and blood of our Lord?

“Evangelicals” are a very broad group. But I didn’t dispute that many Protestants disbelieve in the Real Presence. You were talking specifically about Luther. I simply pointed out that it isn’t just true of Luther and Lutherans…

No you did not dispute the fact that many Protestants do not believe in the Real Presence. What I am stating is that Protestants hold a wide variety of beliefs of the Real Presence and all can not be true including Luther’s doctrine.

Why do I need to explain it? This is the general Anglican objection to transubstantiation–it tries to explain a mystery, which is generally a foolish thing to do.

For their part, Lutherans do not generally believe that there is a “conversion” of the elements but that Christ’s Body and Blood become present in, with, and under the unchanged elements. But this is a real bodily presence.

Edwin

Transubstantiation is not the explanation of the mystery of the Sacrament but the actuality of what takes place in the consecration. It is foolish to try to explain this mystery the Church never tried to explain it.

In Lutheran theology, if the elements never need changing to the body and blood of Christ, then are all elements the body and blood of Christ?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Since Jesus prayed for all believers to be One, and that the Protestant Reformation divided His Church I don’t believe the Reformation is God’s handy work but that of the Devil himself who takes pleasure of dividing God’s children.

The Catholic understanding of unity as​

• necessarily implying
• visible
• organisational
• unity in all points of doctrine
• (&, within the RC Church at least, of discipline too)
  is not self-evidently correct in part or a whole

Catholic unity is like a lasagne; it has many “layers”

1. it is a complex kind of unity, as it is, or has been understood to be (or to need to be) unity in doctrine, & discipline, & law & worship, etc. It is not clear that this is required for a Church to be true to the NT pattern; or even that it is desirable. Maybe it is - this can’t be taken as obvious. A change at V2 was a move from unity as requiring uniformity, to unity as allowing, even requiring, variety within the bond of unity. Unity used to be interpreted as conformity to Rome as though the Roman were the only truly Catholic Rite. So

unity is not uniformity - Catholic argument makes much of what it sees as chaos in Protestantism, not unreasonably (how far that perception is justified, is another question); Catholics are not always as sensitive as they might be to the opposite danger, of a dead rigidity. The Church of Christ is not a howling wilderness of utter confusion & anarchy - but neither is it a fossilised corpse. There is little good in avoiding the one possibility, if one falls into the other.

1. If it be granted - for the sake of argument - that Protestantism is a chaos: what does that show ? There are several things it does not show:

• that Catholicism is not as divided as Protestantism is said to be
• or that its unity is God-given rather than man-enforced
• or that this unity is unity in those things that require unity, & not in those that don’t (if there be any of the latter)
• nor that this unity has always been unity in the same things (& no others) throughout its history
• nor that Protestantism is in all respects, & at all times & in all places, wrong in its understanding of unity

• nor that the devil has not had a hand in some of the developments within the CC. That’s the problem with the argumentum e diabolo - it’s easy to claim the Reformers, were, one & all, inspired by nothing but the spirit of satan; it’s not so easy to prove that the Popes were not. That is no proof they were - & the same applies to the Reformers.This mode of argument is fallacious, because it calls in ideas which cannot be tested by reason, but only asserted or denied. Can any one on this thread prove that he or she is not inspired by satan ? Can you ? I certainly can’t. Once that “argument” is given a place among others, rational debate becomes impossible.

It’s called “poisoning the well”, because it trashes arguments by trashing the character of those who make them, by making insinuations which, from the nature of the case, cannot be disproved; which allows those who disagree with them, to ignore what they say. To account for Luther’s theology by focussing entirely on his moral character so as to avoid considering his theology, is one example. There is no way to prove, absolutely & beyond all shadow of doubt, that the Protestant observers at Vatican II were not engaged in an attempt to destroy the Mass - but there is no way for those who reject the 1969 Missal to prove their own motives aren’t evil.

It’s the kind of unreason some people use in order to prove that Catholics worship the devil - & if that is not a warning for us to avoid such unreasonable reasoning when criticising those with whom we do not agree, I don’t know what is.

The Reformation is far too complicated, & has too many causes of various kinds, to be ascribed to the devil in the way suggested. It’s at least as plausible - if we must call in causes of a preternatural or supernatural kind - that it was a mixture of God, man, & the devil. That it was can no more be proved than the “satandunnit” explanation.

To bring in the devil or God as a cause diverts attention from historical explanations. Historians can discuss the relevance of peasant unrest to the Reformation - there were peasant risings in Germany well before 1517; they can do so because there is evidence to be discussed, analysed, interpreted; it is available to all on the same conditions. Marxists, RCs & Lutherans may disagree on the part played by pre-Reformation peasant revolts - but they all have the same data. This is not true of explanation by God or satan. That’s why historical method has no place for such explanations; they’re not testable by all concerned.

 

[Contarini]

Simply put, if I say the sky is green and I truely believe the sky is green does that make me right?

But you agree that the Body and Blood are present!

If Luther, believing in Sola Scriptura,

Completely irrelevant. Some Catholics on this board have Sola Scriptura on the brain. You must see the phrase written in the treetops when the wind sways the branches on a moonlit night.

rejects the authority of the Apostolic succesorship, who hold the power to consecrate the Eucharist, are excluded in Mass, then how can the bread and wine become the true flesh and blood of our Lord?

The point at issue is not whether Christ is present in Lutheran Eucharists, but whether Luther believed He was. You are switching the terms of the debate. I have noticed that Catholics generally do this when confronted with what Luther believed.

No you did not dispute the fact that many Protestants do not believe in the Real Presence. What I am stating is that Protestants hold a wide variety of beliefs of the Real Presence and all can not be true including Luther’s doctrine.

I don’t follow this. No one says that all Protestants are right. You can’t surely be arguing that because all Protestants can’t be right therefore Luther is not right. By that logic, since all Christians can’t be right therefore Catholics are not right, or because all religions are not right Christians are not right. . . . or because all scientific theories can’t be right therefore the law of gravity must be wrong. . . .

Transubstantiation is not the explanation of the mystery of the Sacrament but the actuality of what takes place in the consecration. It is foolish to try to explain this mystery the Church never tried to explain it.

Then why did you ask how it happened? You brought up the word “how”–I didn’t.

In Lutheran theology, if the elements never need changing to the body and blood of Christ, then are all elements the body and blood of Christ?

Luther himself believed that Christ’s glorified body and blood are everywhere (literally), but are not present for us except where the promise says they are (i.e., in the Eucharist). As I understand, the Lutherans backed away from this view and held rather that the Body and Blood are there during the liturgy–not before and not afterward. But they really are there. The Lutheran view is, if anything, more literal than that of Aquinas.

Edwin

 

[Mannyfit75]

So protestants don’t believe in the same Lord as catholics… Hmmmm. Yeah I am going to have to go with ‘no’ on this one… but thanx!

We believe in ONE God. We may differ on how to worship Him but I think that God overlooks the bickering and sees that each group is trying with all of their might to worship Him as best as they can. We are God’s children which make us ONE… I am sorry you don’t feel this way…

The Protestants and Catholic believe in the same Lord. I want to make that Clear. The Only thing the unites Protestant and Catholic is their baptism in the Trinitarian formula.

I believe the Reformation wounded Jesus Christ. Jesus said to St. Faustina concerning those who left his Church.

Today bring to Me the Souls of those who have separated themselves from My Church and immerse them in the ocean of My mercy. During My bitter Passion they tore at My Body and Heart, that is My Church. As they return to unity with the Church My wounds heal and in this way they alleviate My Passion.

Whether you believe this private revelation or not, the Reformation only brought forth wounds to Jesus Christ himself.

 

[theAuthor]

So protestants don’t believe in the same Lord as catholics… Hmmmm. Yeah I am going to have to go with ‘no’ on this one… but thanx!

We believe in ONE God. We may differ on how to worship Him but I think that God overlooks the bickering and sees that each group is trying with all of their might to worship Him as best as they can. We are God’s children which make us ONE… I am sorry you don’t feel this way…

Yeah, I am with you. Any Catholic on here who doesn’t agree with you ought to read their Catechism, too. Try around paragraph 818 and 819 of the CCC.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Yes, the Protestant Reformation is not from God but even the Great Schism in 1054 C.E. that led to the creation of ethnic clubs known as the Orthodox Churches are not from God.

Is this so very different from the exclusion of Jews from the Dominicans & Jesuits in Spain ? The Dominicans decided in 1490 that it was not a good idea to allow Catholics of the same race as the Apostles to be admitted. Catholics of indigenous stock in Spain’s possessions in the New World also had to wait a few lifetimes before admission to Orders was possible. So much for there being “neither Jew nor Greek…since all are one in Christ” ​

Do you know the Russian government of President Vladimir Putin (who was elected by the Russian Orthodox Church) practises organised racism (apartheid) towards non Russians such as Chechens, Tatars and Dagestanis? There is no seperation of Church and State in Russia

The Papacy used to reject the very notion of such a separation - acceptance of it even in principle is (or it was) one of the reasons for “Traditionalist” dislike of Vatican II. This separation used to be unimaginable, & it had a very long tradition to support it; back to the fourth century. Russia is merely acting as almost all Christian states did, until the sixteenth century, when Poland allowed Catholics & Calvinists to co-exist unhindered. The US is the first state in modern times to have erected this separation into a fundamental constitutional principle from its birth as a sovereign state; which is why the 1864 Syllabus of Errors caused US Catholics difficulties with Protestants.​

and Russian Nationalism equals Russian Orthodoxy!

Even if this were true, this would be no different from the relationship between Catholicism & Fascism; which was close, except when the CC failed to gain from the partnership. Pius XI didn’t condemn Mussolini’s invasion of Ethiopia; one would have thought that to do so on Good Friday 1936 would draw some protest from him; but no. The League of Nations did object, which is better than nothing.​

The ways of others look revolting provided one ignores comparable things done by those of whom one approves. As for racism - it’s impossible to discuss unless one knows what’s meant ##

Ethnic Chechens (in particular their late leader Aslan Maskhadov) are pro-American and love American-style freedoms such as right to speak Chechen language, right of freedom of religion, and right to elect their own leaders democratically and autonomously without interference of the Russian Orthodox Church.

America should send her army to liberate Chechnya from Russian occupation and racism in the same manner as the U.S. armed forces liberated the Shia people of Iraq from the tyrant Sunni Arab dictator Saddam Hussein.

The last sentence is a very good example of the kind of thing that gets the USA a bad name. Isn’t it enough that GWB has made a hash of Iraq ? Does Chechnya really need be reducing to the same condition ? It’s in a mess already.​

“Freedom” & “democracy” appear to be free, democratic, & desirable when (& only when) they suit the US. The EU uses words in the same self-interested way. Maybe this is how all empires behave.

(Though what any of either post has to do with the Reformation, I don’t know )

 

[allischalmers]

Clearly the Reformation was the work of a wonderful and caring God. Look at all the great evangelist that God raised up that were protestants. God used many protestant men like Billy Sunday and Billy Graham to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Then there were great Proestant missionaries like Robert Carey that took the Gospel were it had been never heard. It was all a part of Gods plan

 

[Morning_Star15]

Clearly the Reformation was the work of a wonderful and caring God. Look at all the great evangelist that God raised up that were protestants. God used many protestant men like Billy Sunday and Billy Graham to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Then there were great Proestant missionaries like Robert Carey that took the Gospel were it had been never heard. It was all a part of Gods plan

Are you saying that no one who’s in the Catholic Church is capable of evangelizing? FYI, the Servant of God, John Paul II preached the Gospel to more people than anyone in history, and shockingly enough, he was Catholic!

As far as missionaries are concerned, think of how many people Catholic missionaries like the Jesuits converted. In short, being a Protestant is in no way necessary for one to evangelize, since any of the people you’ve mentioned could have done so just as effectively, if not more effectively as Catholics, since in the Catholic Church there are entire Orders and groups that have a well-organized missionary effort (many of them for centuries) instead of individuals or small teams of people.

 

[allischalmers]

I doudt that anyone has preached the Gospel to more people than Billy Graham. In fact it is allmost impossible considering all the years that he has been preaching and all the places he has preached.I remenber going to see Billy Graham with me Dad when I was a little kid in the early fifties. Never heard of pope j p back then

 

[Steadfast]

Efrain,

I’ve been reading your exchange with Edwin (Contarini).

Do you know what Luther believed about the Eucharist?

Do you realize that the word Transubstantiation was only first used to describe the church’s teaching on the Eucharist in the eleventh century?

Do you know that though it was used in the thirteenth century to describe the Eucharist it only came to exhaustively define the church’s teaching on the matter in the 16th century, after Luther was dead?

Do you know that prior to this opinions varied as to just how the Real Presence in the Sacrament was constituted?

Do you realize then that of the many criticisms the RCC had of Luther at the time that he was operating in controversy with her that his teaching on the Lord’s Supper was never one of them?

Don’t you think that maybe this means that it shouldn’t be a problem to you either?

 

[Morning_Star15]

I doudt that anyone has preached the Gospel to more people than Billy Graham. In fact it is allmost impossible considering all the years that he has been preaching and all the places he has preached.I remenber going to see Billy Graham with me Dad when I was a little kid in the early fifties. Never heard of pope j p back then

John Paul II was ordained a priest in 1946 and died in 2005 - that’s almost 60 years of preaching right there. Then, during his 26 years as Pope, if you consider the size of the crowds that came to events like World Youth Day (the one in Manila had about 5 million participants), as well as how many people came to his weekly General Audiences (thousands) as well as those whosaw him on TV, heard him on the radio, and read his books and encyclicals…

Officially, he was seen by more people than anyone else in history. There’s no official statistic of how many people of the people who saw him also heard him preach, but I’m sure that the majority of them heard his message, and knew what he stood for.

 

[allischalmers]

You can not compare the amount of time that Pope John Paul has been on television to that of Billy Graham. Also I do not remenber of Pope John Paul having a weekly radio program that reached around the world

 

[servus]

Since Jesus prayed for all believers to be One, and that the Protestant Reformation divided His Church I don’t believe the Reformation is God’s handy work but that of the Devil himself who takes pleasure of dividing God’s children.

Manny,

It is a misconception to think that there was just one Church for 1500 years until the Reformation. The east and the west have been in disagreement since the 4th century, before that they wre not developed enough to communicate. The 11th century break between the East and West is memorable but not the first division between them. In the Middle East there were Monophysites and in Africa several different types of Christianity like Coptic and Ethiopian. In the first Millenia AD, the two major Churches West and East were in constant disagreement Theologically over Church authority and dogma. There were power stuggles over titles like “ecumenical” (universal) patriarch and dogmatic issues such as the azyma and the filioque.

The Protestant Reformation was one of many reforms, only it was unique because it was started by Roman Catholics who saw the need for reform in thier Church. It could not be an internal reform, because the Church would not reform (not accept the reforms of Protestantism) such as an individual relationship with Christ, (the personal aspect of salvation was put before the Institutional); and greater importance was attatched to individual holiness and piety.

Interestingly, I have a Catholic Professor who says that the Roman Catholic Church needs to “catch up” to the Reforms of Protestantism, such as those above.

 

[Contarini]

Manny,

It is a misconception to think that there was just one Church for 1500 years until the Reformation.

True.

The east and the west have been in disagreement since the 4th century,

Not true. There were periodic schisms alternating with periods of union. Union was always seen as the norm, even though a lot of time was spent in schism and disagreement.

before that they wre not developed enough to communicate.

Not true. Read about the Quartodeciman controversy in the second century. Irenaeus in Gaul wrote to Victor in Rome concerning a conflict with the churches of Asia Minor.

The Protestant Reformation was one of many reforms, only it was unique because it was started by Roman Catholics who saw the need for reform in thier Church.

That’s so vague. Reform takes many forms.

It could not be an internal reform, because the Church would not reform (not accept the reforms of Protestantism)

Why were the “reforms” of Protestantism the only option.

such as an individual relationship with Christ, (the personal aspect of salvation was put before the Institutional); and greater importance was attatched to individual holiness and piety.

That’s anachronistic. There’s some truth to it but it’s too vague–in no way can this be seen as the basis for the schism. Luther’s view of salvation was rooted in the corporate proclamation of the Gospel; Reformed sacramental theology denounced the private celebration of the sacraments; and on the other hand, much late medieval and sixteenth-century Catholic piety was extremely individualistic and internalized. You are repeating a Protestant stereotype instead of discussing the actual issues under debate.

Interestingly, I have a Catholic Professor who says that the Roman Catholic Church needs to “catch up” to the Reforms of Protestantism, such as those above.

Well, if we talk at this level of sentimental generalization we can say just about anything!

Edwin

 

[mozart-250]

I’m sitting here reading this thread and trying to relate this to Matthew 16:18.

I must admit now that I am totally confused.

On the one hand, if the church deviates just-a-little-bit in its teaching on faith and morals, that would be “the gates of hell prevailing against the church”.

Now we have the Protestant Reformation which apparantly is the work of satan. Yet this is not “the gates of hell prevailing against the church”?.

Just looking for an interpretation of this Scripture.that is consistent and sensible.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Manny, I agree with you, but I doubt if even 2% of other Catholics would.

I believe we, as Catholics, should “boo” and “hiss” whenever Martin Luther (boo! hiss!) is mentioned.

oh dear
this is tribalism not genuine Christianity

 

[Morning_Star15]

You can not compare the amount of time that Pope John Paul has been on television to that of Billy Graham. Also I do not remenber of Pope John Paul having a weekly radio program that reached around the world

I’m not comparing the number of times they were on television, but how many people saw and heard them, either in person, on television, whatever - that’s what really matters, doesn’t it? Someone can be on late-night infomercials for 20 years and not be seen by as many people as someone who does a daytime talk show for a year.

And John Paul II held weekly General Audiences that were widely attended and broadcast (I think it was on the Internet via Vatican Radio - I must admit I was more into reading the written report on them after they were delivered than on listening live, so I don’t know all the details of the broadcasting), as well as his homilies on Sunday Masses and on other special occasions (there was TV broadcasting involved as well). Not to mention the millions of people who came to see him live at World Youth Days as well as his many other trips around the world.

But anyway, even if you don’t think he reached as many people as Billy Graham did, you have to admit that John Paul II reached many people, and did a lot of evangelization all over the world. And the Catholic Church has entire communities of missionaries and evangelists that have been in this business for centuries, not just a few individuals.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Why couldn’t those reformers be more like St. Francis of Assisi he rebuild the Church from within… rather than divide it? The is the only thing the bothers me.

I have a book about Luther. He aparently tried to do just that, but was derailed by corrupt clergymen. They accused him of herecy and excommunicated him.

The Roman Church played a role in the reformation by not listening to concerned Church members when they voiced their concerns.

 

[servus]

True.

Not true. There were periodic schisms alternating with periods of union. Union was always seen as the norm, even though a lot of time was spent in schism and disagreement.

Not true. Read about the Quartodeciman controversy in the second century. Irenaeus in Gaul wrote to Victor in Rome concerning a conflict with the churches of Asia Minor.

That’s so vague. Reform takes many forms.

Why were the “reforms” of Protestantism the only option.

That’s anachronistic. There’s some truth to it but it’s too vague–in no way can this be seen as the basis for the schism. Luther’s view of salvation was rooted in the corporate proclamation of the Gospel; Reformed sacramental theology denounced the private celebration of the sacraments; and on the other hand, much late medieval and sixteenth-century Catholic piety was extremely individualistic and internalized. You are repeating a Protestant stereotype instead of discussing the actual issues under debate.

Well, if we talk at this level of sentimental generalization we can say just about anything!

Edwin

All I am trying to say is that the Reformation is not of the devil, as if there was perfect unity between all Churches until Luther came along. That is fantasy.