Protestant view of the reformation

[Prodigal_Son1]

There are so many ‘early Church’, ‘Peter’ and ‘keys to the kingdom of heaven’ discussions that I became interested in hearing the views of the reformation from the different Churches represented on these forums.

It seems almost all of the Protestants contest that it was the Catholic Church that Christ built, and even that it was Peter that received the keys to the kingdom of heaven or that the keys represent an authority given to Peter. The discussions grow to include Apostolic succession and it seems that becomes a issue to be contested by some.

It was in discussion with one of our Lutheran brothers that I thought about the subject of the reformation. The Catholic view, at least my view, is that the Protestant Churches were born through the reformation through those that left the Catholic Church in the 1500s. I used the term ‘left’ and realize some will argue ‘excommunicated’, but that’s a moot point from the topic of the discussion. It’s not a discussion about the great schism between the East and the West, It’s specifically about the orignination of the various Protestant Churches. I don’t see how one can reject the early Church was Catholic (or Orthodox, like I said I am not interested as much in the great schism at this time), built upon Peter, who received the keys to the kingdom of heaven and even Apostolic succession, when Protestantism was ‘born’ through the Catholic Church, over what the reformers viewed as corruption within the Church. The reformation itself was as visible as the Catholic Church was, and continues to be, prior to the reformation.

How can some deny this piece of Church history, that was recorded by more than Churches? I see some proclaim Luther, some Calvin and others as the founders of their ‘denomination’, yet we have a clear history, easy to research, of them and their opinion, acknowledgement, of the Catholic Church and when they formed their Churches.

If you deny that your Church came from the efforts of the reformation, please provide explanations and resources supporting your view. Provide writings from the men, or women, that founded your Church, as well as dates that your Church first started.

There just seems to be a contradiction to objecting to the early Church being Catholic and then using the reformation against the Catholic Church. If it existed and the reformers came through the Catholic Church, due to their objections, then objections to early Catholic Church beliefs appear unwarranted, or unsubstantiated, it seems.

 

[JonNC]

There are so many ‘early Church’, ‘Peter’ and ‘keys to the kingdom of heaven’ discussions that I became interested in hearing the views of the reformation from the different Churches represented on these forums.

It seems almost all of the Protestants contest that it was the Catholic Church that Christ built, and even that it was Peter that received the keys to the kingdom of heaven or that the keys represent an authority given to Peter. The discussions grow to include Apostolic succession and it seems that becomes a issue to be contested by some.

It was in discussion with one of our Lutheran brothers that I thought about the subject of the reformation. The Catholic view, at least my view, is that the Protestant Churches were born through the reformation through those that left the Catholic Church in the 1500s. I used the term ‘left’ and realize some will argue ‘excommunicated’, but that’s a moot point from the topic of the discussion. It’s not a discussion about the great schism between the East and the West, It’s specifically about the orignination of the various Protestant Churches. I don’t see how one can reject the early Church was Catholic (or Orthodox, like I said I am not interested as much in the great schism at this time), built upon Peter, who received the keys to the kingdom of heaven and even Apostolic succession, when Protestantism was ‘born’ through the Catholic Church, over what the reformers viewed as corruption within the Church. The reformation itself was as visible as the Catholic Church was, and continues to be, prior to the reformation.

How can some deny this piece of Church history, that was recorded by more than Churches? I see some proclaim Luther, some Calvin and others as the founders of their ‘denomination’, yet we have a clear history, easy to research, of them and their opinion, acknowledgement, of the Catholic Church and when they formed their Churches.

If you deny that your Church came from the efforts of the reformation, please provide explanations and resources supporting your view. Provide writings from the men, or women, that founded your Church, as well as dates that your Church first started.

There just seems to be a contradiction to objecting to the early Church being Catholic and then using the reformation against the Catholic Church. If it existed and the reformers came through the Catholic Church, due to their objections, then objections to early Catholic Church beliefs appear unwarranted, or unsubstantiated, it seems.

My views on this may not reflect all Lutherans, but I look to the conclusion of the Augsburg Confession, which says:

Conclusion.

1] These are the chief articles which seem to be in controversy. For although we might have spoken of more abuses, yet, to avoid undue length, we have set forth the chief points, from which the rest may be readily judged. 2] There have been great complaints concerning indulgences, pilgrimages, and the abuse of excommunications. The parishes have been vexed in many ways by the dealers in indulgences. There were endless contentions between the pastors and the monks concerning the parochial right, confessions, burials, sermons on extraordinary occasions, and 3] innumerable other things. Issues of this sort we have passed over so that the chief points in this matter, having been briefly set forth, might be the more readily understood. 4] Nor has anything been here said or adduced to the reproach of any one. 5] Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches.

I can’t and won’t speak for other reformation era or contemporary western noncatholic communions, but the Lutheran reformers seemed by this statement to be saying that their goal was not to set up a separate Church, but in light of the abuses and corruption of that time, reform the Church and even remain part of the Church Catholic .
It is my contention that the reformation is neither successful nor finished until there is reconciliation within the western Church, and the roots of the western Church are in Rome.
There is a temptation, I believe, among Lutherans to look to Orthodoxy for reconciliation because many of the disagreements we have with Rome are similar to the ones Orthodoxy has, particularly regarding the role, power, and jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. Nevertheless, I believe a particular focus should be on reconciliation within the west.

Finally, the Church that Christ built certainly includes the Catholic Church. Lutherans view the Church as the community of believers. Again, Augsburg:

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.

IOW, we view the Church that Christ built as less an institution or organization, and more the people who believe and confess His name. That is not to say a visable Church isn’t important or even desirable. It is.

Jon

 

[Rightlydivide]

The church was started by a group of people after the lead elder, I will give his given name because I go to great lengths to not endure internet harrassment or to be found again by my atheist opponents online, Wachira came to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ from a dream and witnessing encounter. The dream as he tells it was a small boy asking him why he hated Jesus. He woke up very upset because as an atheist, but not an active ie trying to deconvert people, he felt he was largely tolerant of Christians; although dismissive of them.
His actual conversion came at a concert given at the university based upon a short conversation with two workers and a profession of faith within the week. He bought a copy of the Bible and read it and formed a study group that we believe is the origin of our church based upon the fact that were two or three are gathered. In the process reading through the scriptures, more and more people came and came…and came. This was a rather long process that really started to come to shape when comparing the differing translations made a huge impact on the group. This occured spring/fall of 99/00. The group never incorporated, it rejects incorporation; although I disagree on this due to my secular background I tend to not be as concerned about what the government can and cannot do.
Etc etc

 

[JohnnyReb]

My views on this may not reflect all Lutherans, but I look to the conclusion of the Augsburg Confession, which says:

I can’t and won’t speak for other reformation era or contemporary western noncatholic communions, but the Lutheran reformers seemed by this statement to be saying that their goal was not to set up a separate Church, but in light of the abuses and corruption of that time, reform the Church and even remain part of the Church Catholic .
It is my contention that the reformation is neither successful nor finished until there is reconciliation within the western Church, and the roots of the western Church are in Rome.
There is a temptation, I believe, among Lutherans to look to Orthodoxy for reconciliation because many of the disagreements we have with Rome are similar to the ones Orthodoxy has, particularly regarding the role, power, and jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. Nevertheless, I believe a particular focus should be on reconciliation within the west.

Finally, the Church that Christ built certainly includes the Catholic Church. Lutherans view the Church as the community of believers. Again, Augsburg:

IOW, we view the Church that Christ built as less an institution or organization, and more the people who believe and confess His name. That is not to say a visable Church isn’t important or even desirable. It is.

Jon

Your view is balanced compared to some of the “Catholic church is the whore of Babylon” theology that is out there. There are Evangelicals that paint a very bad picture of the RCC, claiming everything from prayers to the Saints to real presence is pagan in origin. They even say that Catholics are not “saved”. I find that really extreme.

 

[Celtic_Catholic]

Your view is balanced compared to some of the “Catholic church is the whore of Babylon” theology that is out there. There are Evangelicals that paint a very bad picture of the RCC, claiming everything from prayers to the Saints to real presence is pagan in origin. They even say that Catholics are not “saved”. I find that really extreme.

*Those are usually radical, Bible-thumping fundies who claim such things. It’s always amusing when people claim to know more about a particular religion than the practioners of that religion. I just posted in another thread how many of them claim Catholics are involved with magick and some go so far as to say devil-worshiping. I don’t think mainstream Protestants feel that way. I’ve visited several Protestant Churches (and even worked for one for a short time) and the only other Church I feel comfortable in is the Lutheran Church. To me, it seems similar to our Catholic Church.

 

[SteveVH]

I can’t and won’t speak for other reformation era or contemporary western noncatholic communions, but the Lutheran reformers seemed by this statement to be saying that their goal was not to set up a separate Church, but in light of the abuses and corruption of that time, reform the Church and even remain part of the Church Catholic .
It is my contention that the reformation is neither successful nor finished until there is reconciliation within the western Church, and the roots of the western Church are in Rome.
There is a temptation, I believe, among Lutherans to look to Orthodoxy for reconciliation because many of the disagreements we have with Rome are similar to the ones Orthodoxy has, particularly regarding the role, power, and jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. Nevertheless, I believe a particular focus should be on reconciliation within the west.

Finally, the Church that Christ built certainly includes the Catholic Church. Lutherans view the Church as the community of believers. Again, Augsburg:

IOW, we view the Church that Christ built as less an institution or organization, and more the people who believe and confess His name. That is not to say a visable Church isn’t important or even desirable. It is.

Jon

Jon, thanks once again for your intellectual honesty. It is so refreshing. If more posters would take a cue from you (including Catholics), much more could be accomplished on this forum and in the world. God bless.

Steve

 

[Mark77]

The church was started by a group of people after the lead elder, I will give his given name because I go to great lengths to not endure internet harrassment or to be found again by my atheist opponents online, Wachira came to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ from a dream and witnessing encounter. The dream as he tells it was a small boy asking him why he hated Jesus. He woke up very upset because as an atheist, but not an active ie trying to deconvert people, he felt he was largely tolerant of Christians; although dismissive of them.
His actual conversion came at a concert given at the university based upon a short conversation with two workers and a profession of faith within the week. He bought a copy of the Bible and read it and formed a study group that we believe is the origin of our church based upon the fact that were two or three are gathered. In the process reading through the scriptures, more and more people came and came…and came. This was a rather long process that really started to come to shape when comparing the differing translations made a huge impact on the group. This occured spring/fall of 99/00. The group never incorporated, it rejects incorporation; although I disagree on this due to my secular background I tend to not be as concerned about what the government can and cannot do.
Etc etc

**HUH?

DUH?

Jesus didn’t “buy a copy of the Bible & read it & formed a study group???”

Jesus is the Word & is the Truth & the Light!
**

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[adstrinity]

HUH?

DUH?

Jesus didn’t "buy a copy of the Bible & read it & formed a study group???"

Jesus is the Word & is the Truth & the Light!

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

WHERE in the world did you get that from his post?! That’s not at ALL what he said!

 

[FabiusMaximus]

My personal view is that Jesus never founded any specific “Church” in terms of a physical organization.

There eventually came a “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” that was relatively united in most doctrine. Eventually, in the West, this morphed into the Roman Catholic Church. I believe that aberrant practices did come into Church teaching, the final straw being indulgences, and that sparked the Reformation, which, incidentally, had many Roman Catholic priests abandoning the Church.

I believe that God used the Catholic Church for noble purposes (and still does), especially with regards to the events after the fall of the Roman Empire. But that does not preclude unChristian practices coming into the Church (and I’m not referring to “paganism”), and God needing a vehicle for reform.

The Reformation, I will argue, was also beneficial for the Catholic Church because although it lost many laypeople, it also prompted Rome to begin some of the necessary reforms which created the more modern Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

My personal view is that Jesus never founded any specific “Church” in terms of a physical organization.

There eventually came a “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” that was relatively united in most doctrine. Eventually, in the West, this morphed into the Roman Catholic Church. I believe that aberrant practices did come into Church teaching, the final straw being indulgences, and that sparked the Reformation, which, incidentally, had many Roman Catholic priests abandoning the Church.

Martin Luther was a Catholic priest. Can you provide a timeline of the ‘morphing’ you believe took place? Also, do you know there are writings from 107 to 110AD that specifically call the Church, the Catholic Church? Maybe you’re making a distinction between Catholic and Roman Catholic. It’s one and the same.

I believe that God used the Catholic Church for noble purposes (and still does), especially with regards to the events after the fall of the Roman Empire. But that does not preclude unChristian practices coming into the Church (and I’m not referring to “paganism”), and God needing a vehicle for reform.

The Reformation, I will argue, was also beneficial for the Catholic Church because although it lost many laypeople, it also prompted Rome to begin some of the necessary reforms which created the more modern Roman Catholic Church.

Again, on the Roman Catholic Church, Christ chose Caesarea Philippi to announce He was building a Church. Caesarea Philippi was originally known as Panion, the city of the Greek god Pan. God of depravity, flocks and shepherds and other things, Pan was considered by pagans to be the “great god” who ruled the world. The altar to Pan was just below the city that represented the evil, and was hidden in the cliffs. Caesarea Philippi was so named by Herod Philip, in honor of the ruling Caesar. Below in a ‘niche’ of the mountain, was a ‘cave’ believed to be the gates of the ‘abyss’ (Hades). Just as Christ chose such an antithetical place, a place that kept men from the kingdom of God, it seems most appropriate that His Church is headed from what was the Roman Empire. Christ, through the Church He was then establishing, is the antithesis to everything which kept men from the Kingdom.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The church was started by a group of people after the lead elder, I will give his given name because I go to great lengths to not endure internet harrassment or to be found again by my atheist opponents online, Wachira came to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ from a dream and witnessing encounter. The dream as he tells it was a small boy asking him why he hated Jesus. He woke up very upset because as an atheist, but not an active ie trying to deconvert people, he felt he was largely tolerant of Christians; although dismissive of them.
His actual conversion came at a concert given at the university based upon a short conversation with two workers and a profession of faith within the week. He bought a copy of the Bible and read it and formed a study group that we believe is the origin of our church based upon the fact that were two or three are gathered. In the process reading through the scriptures, more and more people came and came…and came. This was a rather long process that really started to come to shape when comparing the differing translations made a huge impact on the group. This occured spring/fall of 99/00. The group never incorporated, it rejects incorporation; although I disagree on this due to my secular background I tend to not be as concerned about what the government can and cannot do.
Etc etc

The spring/fall of the year(s) 1999/2000? Was this in Africa?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

**HUH?

DUH?

Jesus didn’t “buy a copy of the Bible & read it & formed a study group???”

Jesus is the Word & is the Truth & the Light!
**

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

This reminds me of the first time I heard someone say, ‘if the King James Version of the Bible was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me.’ It took me a minute or two to realize someone was joking with me.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Martin Luther was a Catholic priest. Can you provide a timeline of the ‘morphing’ you believe took place? Also, do you know there are writings from 107 to 110AD that specifically call the Church, the Catholic Church? Maybe you’re making a distinction between Catholic and Roman Catholic. It’s one and the same.

I’m not making any distinctions. I’m well aware Martin Luther was a Catholic priest. So what? The Catholic Church was the only Church at the time in the West.

When the early Church Fathers spoke of the “Catholic Church” they meant universal, not the organization.

A timeline of the morphing? I’d say from post-Augustine to 1517.

Again, on the Roman Catholic Church, Christ chose Caesarea Philippi to announce He was building a Church. Caesarea Philippi was originally known as Panion, the city of the Greek god Pan. God of depravity, flocks and shepherds and other things, Pan was considered by pagans to be the “great god” who ruled the world. The altar to Pan was just below the city that represented the evil, and was hidden in the cliffs. Caesarea Philippi was so named by Herod Philip, in honor of the ruling Caesar. Below in a ‘niche’ of the mountain, was a ‘cave’ believed to be the gates of the ‘abyss’ (Hades). Just as Christ chose such an antithetical place, a place that kept men from the kingdom of God, it seems most appropriate that His Church is headed from what was the Roman Empire. Christ, through the Church He was then establishing, is the antithesis to everything which kept men from the Kingdom.

That’s way too much of a jump to be accept.
Jesus didn’t found a Church. He founded a faith.

 

[SteveVH]

Martin Luther was a Catholic priest. Can you provide a timeline of the ‘morphing’ you believe took place? Also, do you know there are writings from 107 to 110AD that specifically call the Church, the Catholic Church? Maybe you’re making a distinction between Catholic and Roman Catholic. It’s one and the same.

Again, on the Roman Catholic Church, Christ chose Caesarea Philippi to announce He was building a Church. Caesarea Philippi was originally known as Panion, the city of the Greek god Pan. God of depravity, flocks and shepherds and other things, Pan was considered by pagans to be the “great god” who ruled the world. The altar to Pan was just below the city that represented the evil, and was hidden in the cliffs. Caesarea Philippi was so named by Herod Philip, in honor of the ruling Caesar. Below in a ‘niche’ of the mountain, was a ‘cave’ believed to be the gates of the ‘abyss’ (Hades). Just as Christ chose such an antithetical place, a place that kept men from the kingdom of God, it seems most appropriate that His Church is headed from what was the Roman Empire. Christ, through the Church He was then establishing, is the antithesis to everything which kept men from the Kingdom.

:bowdown:: What a great post. I’ve thought about the irony of the center of Christianity being Rome but never considered Caesarea Philippi. Thank you.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m not making any distinctions. I’m well aware Martin Luther was a Catholic priest. So what? The Catholic Church was the only Church at the time in the West.

When the early Church Fathers spoke of the “Catholic Church” they meant universal, not the organization.

Wasn’t sure if you were aware that Martin Luther, himself, was a priest. Just offered it as an FYI, no ‘what’ to argue.

Guess we have to agree to disagree on this point.

A timeline of the morphing? I’d say from post-Augustine to 1517.

So around the time that Constantine legalized Christianity and made it the official national religion, which in turn granted the Church some wealth from Constantine’s empire?

That’s way too much of a jump to be accept.
Jesus didn’t found a Church. He founded a faith.

You said, ‘When the early Church Fathers spoke of the “Catholic Church” they meant universal, not the organization.’ Now, you say Christ didn’t found a Church. Seems to contradict each other.

Christ is the center of our faith, and He built a Church, which is the body of Christ that He is the ‘head’ of.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

\

You said, ‘When the early Church Fathers spoke of the “Catholic Church” they meant universal, not the organization.’ Now, you say Christ didn’t found a Church. Seems to contradict each other.

Christ is the center of our faith, and He built a Church, which is the body of Christ that He is the ‘head’ of.

How do they contradict each other?

 

[Teneas]

My views on this may not reflect all Lutherans, but I look to the conclusion of the Augsburg Confession, which says:

I can’t and won’t speak for other reformation era or contemporary western noncatholic communions, but the Lutheran reformers seemed by this statement to be saying that their goal was not to set up a separate Church, but in light of the abuses and corruption of that time, reform the Church and even remain part of the Church Catholic .
It is my contention that the reformation is neither successful nor finished until there is reconciliation within the western Church, and the roots of the western Church are in Rome.
There is a temptation, I believe, among Lutherans to look to Orthodoxy for reconciliation because many of the disagreements we have with Rome are similar to the ones Orthodoxy has, particularly regarding the role, power, and jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. Nevertheless, I believe a particular focus should be on reconciliation within the west.

Finally, the Church that Christ built certainly includes the Catholic Church. Lutherans view the Church as the community of believers. Again, Augsburg:

IOW, we view the Church that Christ built as less an institution or organization, and more the people who believe and confess His name. That is not to say a visable Church isn’t important or even desirable. It is.

Jon

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

How do they contradict each other?

The early Church fathers spoke about a Church, and then you said, Christ didn’t found a Church. Who founded the Church the early Church fathers spoke about?

 

[FabiusMaximus]

The early Church fathers spoke about a Church, and then you said, Christ didn’t found a Church. Who founded the Church the early Church fathers spoke about?

You are referring to a physical and literal Church organization. Jesus never founded that.
The early Church Fathers referred to the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” that gradually developed. That “Church” resembled more Orthodoxy in organization than Catholicism.

No contradiction.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You are referring to a physical and literal Church organization. Jesus never founded that.
The early Church Fathers referred to the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” that gradually developed. That “Church” resembled more Orthodoxy in organization than Catholicism.

No contradiction.

Again, I think semantics might be keeping us from being able to agree. An ‘assembly’ is a physical and literal organization of believers. They came together and could be seen. We call it Church, built by Christ, with a hierarchy appointed by Christ.

Certainly the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church developed. God is more powerful and wise than any man. I remember when Bill Gates was on television news, working from a garage with a wooden case on his first computer models. Look at what he’s built that into today. It came overtime, just as the Church did.

The second sentence of the second paragraph you posted is a matter of interpretation. I believe there was a liturgy of the word and a breaking of the bread (communion/Eucharist) and praises to God. I believe there was confessions, baptisms, marriages, holy orders, confirmations, annointing of the sick and communion performed by the early Church.