Protestantism Today

[joe370]

Roy, perhaps if Martin Luther would have trusted in God divine providence regarding Jesus’ church, as did Francis of Assisi, by deferring to the teaching office of Jesus’ church (embracing the whole weeds and wheat thing until the end of time) - while at the same time attempting to address the indulgence abuses in his home town, he might have been more successful? As you can see the abuses ended even without his assistance. It seems like riding it out would have been the better way for ML to go.

Your thoughts?

 

[Contarini]

** My understanding of Luther is that he left the Church in large measure because the Church tried to shut him up, he continued to state objections to Vatican policies, so a papal bull was issued declaring him in effect an outlaw.** So, he was kicked out. A friendly prince, as I recall, gave him a safe refuge, else je probably would have been killed, either by assassination or tried as a heretic and executed - as had happened to Huss and other pre-Reformation reformers. Luther, Calvin and others, of course, are remembered largely because they were the first successful reformers. Huss, Tyndale, Wycliffe, Waldo and various others had not been successful.

“Successful” in the sense of getting rulers to support them, and also in the sense of coming up with a theological framework that allowed them to claim to be the true church in a doctrinal sense. The problem with reform based on protest against abuses–which those earlier reformers had been doing and which people persist in thinking the Protestants were primarily interested in, in spite of explicit denials on this point by the major Protestant Reformers–is that as soon as you “succeed” you “fail.” In other words, as soon as you have a major institution of your own you have the same moral corruption problems the old church had.

The Church is always corrupt. That’s just trivially true. Institutions are corrupt. Period. All of them. Without exception. With only relatively minor variations in degree and kind.

It’s simply not true that Luther was excommunicated for trying to enact moral reforms. He was excommunicated for theological error. Nor was it true that he turned against Rome because Rome treated him harshly. He wasn’t as petty and silly as that. He turned against Rome because he thought Rome had rejected the Gospel.

But hey–I guess everyone would rather believe the “moral reform” story. It makes everyone feel more comfortable, in a way. The Catholics can persuade themselves that the Reformers were just weak souls who were scandalized by corruption in the church, and there are no serious theological issues to tackle. And the Protestants can persuade themselves that their separation from Rome isn’t their fault, but the fault of the big mean Pope who didn’t let Luther reform abuses. So they don’t have to deal with the fact that nearly all of them have rejected what the Reformers themselves considered to be the absolutely necessary ground for their actions–the claim that Rome’s doctrines are radically false and fundamentally pervert the Gospel, and would do so even if every single Christian in communion with Rome were a paragon of ascetic virtue.

In the absence of that conviction, there simply is no more justification for Protestantism. But I despair of getting my evangelical and mainline brothers and sisters to see this. The only ones who are willing to admit it are the fundamentalists and the confessional conservatives, because they still think that the Reformers were right about Rome!

** St, Francis of Assisi and others tried to bring reforms into the Church and did superb work which we continue to honor today.** However, their impact on Rome and the wider church was quite limited.

I think that’s a weird claim.

The flagrant worldliness and other corruption in high places continued.

Sure. There is no ultimate, long-term reform. I have to keep cleaning my kitchen every morning. If I have a big cleaning day and make everything spotless in the kitchen, is that a failure because I haven’t also cleaned the dining room, and because if I don’t keep washing up the kitchen will be filthy again in a matter of days?

What is this ultimate solution to corruption in the Church that you seem to think is out there? What churches have found this solution?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I tried to suggest that Luther was kicked out of the Church when he challenged the simony that went on - ‘buying’ God’s blessings.

But that isn’t true. Most fundamentally, he was kicked out because he challenged basic Catholic sacramental theology.

Edwin

 

[Barb3]

I often reread the articles in which I have made a comment – couldn’t help wondering why JimDandy questioned why I would even"think" of genuflecting in a Protestant Church – I’ve been genuflecting all my life – and I’m really OLD – when I go into Church, and I know why we genuflect. The Church where this was particularly difficult for me NOT to do was the Lutheran Church because it was very much like our Catholic churches.
I might add that I have a friend who is a strong Lutheran – many years ago I went on a trip to Rome for the anniversary of Pope John Paul and beatification of Mother Teresa – there were THOUSANDS in St. Peter’s Square – my Lutheran friend wondered if I was FRIGHTENED because there were so many people there??? Couldn’t quite figure out why she would think I would be scared.

 

[JonNC]

“Successful” in the sense of getting rulers to support them, and also in the sense of coming up with a theological framework that allowed them to claim to be the true church in a doctrinal sense. The problem with reform based on protest against abuses–which those earlier reformers had been doing and which people persist in thinking the Protestants were primarily interested in, in spite of explicit denials on this point by the major Protestant Reformers–is that as soon as you “succeed” you “fail.” In other words, as soon as you have a major institution of your own you have the same moral corruption problems the old church had.

The Church is always corrupt. That’s just trivially true. Institutions are corrupt. Period. All of them. Without exception. With only relatively minor variations in degree and kind.

It’s simply not true that Luther was excommunicated for trying to enact moral reforms. He was excommunicated for theological error. Nor was it true that he turned against Rome because Rome treated him harshly. He wasn’t as petty and silly as that. He turned against Rome because he thought Rome had rejected the Gospel.

But hey–I guess everyone would rather believe the “moral reform” story. It makes everyone feel more comfortable, in a way. The Catholics can persuade themselves that the Reformers were just weak souls who were scandalized by corruption in the church, and there are no serious theological issues to tackle. And the Protestants can persuade themselves that their separation from Rome isn’t their fault, but the fault of the big mean Pope who didn’t let Luther reform abuses. So they don’t have to deal with the fact that nearly all of them have rejected what the Reformers themselves considered to be the absolutely necessary ground for their actions–the claim that Rome’s doctrines are radically false and fundamentally pervert the Gospel, and would do so even if every single Christian in communion with Rome were a paragon of ascetic virtue.

In the absence of that conviction, there simply is no more justification for Protestantism. But I despair of getting my evangelical and mainline brothers and sisters to see this. The only ones who are willing to admit it are the fundamentalists and the confessional conservatives, because they still think that the Reformers were right about Rome!

Edwin

Hi Edwin,
You regularly state this, and I’m not saying you’re wrong. The complexity for me is in trying to understand why you persist in Anglicanism, if in fact you bleieve Catholic doctrine to be apostolically correct, and protestant innovation, regardless of its origins or communion, is therefore false.
I hope you will see that I ask this not as a challenge to you, but a sincere desire to understand, maybe because I agree with some of what you say.

Jon

 

[joe370]

“Successful” in the sense of getting rulers to support them, and also in the sense of coming up with a theological framework that allowed them to claim to be the true church in a doctrinal sense. The problem with reform based on protest against abuses–which those earlier reformers had been doing and which people persist in thinking the Protestants were primarily interested in, in spite of explicit denials on this point by the major Protestant Reformers–is that as soon as you “succeed” you “fail.” In other words, as soon as you have a major institution of your own you have the same moral corruption problems the old church had.

The Church is always corrupt. That’s just trivially true. Institutions are corrupt. Period. All of them. Without exception. With only relatively minor variations in degree and kind.

 

[MartyrForJesus]

It’s true. Corruption within the Church was perhaps the match that lit the candle of the Reformation. The corruption was connected to doctrine and practice.

**Well, first you need to define what type of corruption you are talking about. Too many people just label the Church as ‘corrupt’ all throughout the medieval/renaissance period. When I talk about corruption, I refer to the attitude of being more worldly than spiritual, especially for the clergy. Other people label the wealth of high ranking clergy ‘corrupt’, but that really is just an opinion on how to define ‘corrupt’. **

The Catholic Church at that point laid enormous emphasis on ‘good works’ and the benefits from them. For example, say a few Hail Marys and you get so many merits.

The Church has always laid an enormous emphasis on good works, because they are absolutely necessary for salvation, as it says in the Gospels and the letters of the Apostles. However, to simply generalize the Church as caring about works rather than faith is no more credible than the ‘Catholics try to work their way into heaven’ accusations thrown against the Church by anti-catholics.

Luther, of course, was incensed by Tetzel, a fundraiser for the construction of St. Peter’s in Rome. Tetzel was telling the faithful - to some degree threatening - that giving to the fund would help get their loved ones out of purgatory quicker.

What John Teztel said was in no means representative of official Catholic Church teaching. He liked to exaggerate. However, there are many accusations about what he supposedly said against him that are simply that, accusations, which have no credible sources to back them up.

Luther responded with his 95 theses in which, among other things, he argued that you could not buy your way into or out of anything.

He also argued many heretical opinions which he was ordered to recant by Pope Leo X in his Bull ‘Exsurge Domine’.

This ld him to emphasize faith above everything else, a way of minimizing the part ‘good works’ played in individual salvation. Perhaps he carried this too far, as reform movement often do. Obviously, good works (meaning kind deeds, but not reciting packaged prayers) play a major role among Christians - or should.

He went way too far the moment he held the heretical belief of ‘Sola Fide’. As I said earlier, good works are absolutely necessary for salvation as it says in the Gospels and the letters of the Apostles. Praying for others is a good deed, however you must be contrite and actually mean it.

There were other factors at play. Nationalism. Printing press and the greater availability of the Bible. The luxuries which the Pope enjoyed in Rome. Buying and selling high positions within the church. The rogue behavior of some Popes which brings to mind modern sex scandals among the clergy. Protestantism rebelled against the looseness which characterized so much of the church despite its outward piety. Etc.

**Yes, there were numerous problems the Church faced which took a while to reform. However, just because some Popes were considered moral reprobates does not justify Martin Luther’s heresy and breaking with the One, True Church that was established by Christ. As the saying goes, ‘Don’t leave Peter because of Judas’. **

 

[MartyrForJesus]

I’m suprised about how much emphasis is put on ‘Corrupt’ when protestants refer to the Catholic Church before the reformation. There were some corrupt practices that were common during those time periods, such as nepotism, but I really don’t like the whole idea of ‘Big bad utterly and completely corrupt Church that was in no hope of reform’.

 

[MartyrForJesus]

I tried to suggest that Luther was kicked out of the Church when he challenged the simony that went on - ‘buying’ God’s blessings.

**This is a common error made by protestants. The Church never sold indulgences. Indulgences were granted to people who made a charitable donation as a form of giving alms. The practice however was open to abuse and it was later removed by Pope St. Pius V. **

St. Francis did not challenge the church in this way. I certainly don’t think that Luther thought of himself as sinless. In fact, quite the opposite. He was driven to despair because he felt so unrighteous and tried desperately to be absolved through ‘good works’ - , severe fastings, self-flagellation and such.

**He actually had scrupulosity. It’s a form of Obsessive-compulsive disorder in which you can fall into despair thinking that everything you do is a sin. I have suffered with it greatly before, and I still have it, although not as much now. The Church never required Catholics to undergo severe fastings and self-flagellation. **

It was then that he saw Romans 5:1 in a new light. We aren’t saved by our own noble efforts - by our acts of piety - but we are ‘justified by faith’ - by our simple and unpretentious faith. We are saved by grace and not of our own doing.

**This sounds like white washed protestant propoganda to be honest. It reminds me of those ‘conversion’ videos when an ignorant Catholic becomes protestant. They always have that line somewhere… “Then all of a sudden I realized, I don’t have to work for my salvation anymore! I no longer have to whip myself to be forgiven of sin! I just have to accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour and I’m instantly saved and going to heaven!”

We are not justified by faith alone. We are justified by faith and works, as Jesus and the Apostles stressed. Grace alone saves us, but we must respond to this grace through faith and good works. Without works, your faith is dead.**

This is not to endorse Luther, but some Catholics seem to have such hostility toward him and Protestantism that they unkindly and unethically warp his life and his message. Even the Vatican appears to have softened in recent years as to the Reformation, ready to admit that mistakes were made by Rome as well as by the reformers.

**We aren’t hostile to him personally, but to what he did - split the Body of Christ and let half of Europe fall into heresy, esentially putting millions of souls at risk. Sure, some Catholics may warp his life and message, but there are far more protestants that are perfectly content with calling us pagan, devil worshippers and the Whore of Babylon. Nobody’s perfect. **

 

[wisdomseeker]

I’m suprised about how much emphasis is put on ‘Corrupt’ when protestants refer to the Catholic Church before the reformation. There were some corrupt practices that were common during those time periods, such as nepotism, but I really don’t like the whole idea of ‘Big bad utterly and completely corrupt Church that was in no hope of reform’.

I think we see in our days what the holy Church is going through. I think I heard Fr. Barrong saying that today has been the worst for the Church. based on this. I can say that hte Church in those was in very good shape.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m suprised about how much emphasis is put on ‘Corrupt’ when protestants refer to the Catholic Church before the reformation. There were some corrupt practices that were common during those time periods, such as nepotism, but I really don’t like the whole idea of ‘Big bad utterly and completely corrupt Church that was in no hope of reform’.

I agree. Imagine when your computer has corrupt files, do you restore it or change it into an adding machine…?

 

[wisdomseeker]

I agree. Imagine when your computer has corrupt files, do you restore it or change it into an adding machine…?

 

[Roy5]

Hm! I have to say that contrary to #94 Catholic material for decades did its best to destroy the personal reputation of Luther.

I recall as a child (I was raised in a mixed Catholic-Protestant environment) how Luther was harshly and persistently assailed for breaking his solemn vows, marrying a nun, throwing an inkwell at a devil, etc. He was presented as demonic, an enemy of Christ, whose anti-Semitism and position against the peasants were highlighted. I remember this well because at an early age I became very interested in whether Catholicism or Protestantism was right, as I was fed (and read) both sides.

So this notion that he himself wasn't assailed, only his beliefs, strikes me as false, perhaps the result of a fractured or faded memory. I well recall pamphlets by Frs. Rumble and Carty (was that their names?) Our Sunday Visitor, and even the Paulist Press which were flagrantly anti-Luther - and vigorously bigoted.  Vatican II and John XXIII brought some civility to the debate.

Personally, I'm not uncritical of Luther. He was a brilliant man, charismatic, creative, with a keen love of Christ and desire to serve Christ. He had enormous courage to take on the strongest institution in Europe which had condemned him. I admire these things. He had a bombastic side that I don't admire as much, and he was considerably more dogmatic generally than I tend to be. I prefer: "Think and let think." Probably the democratic spirit and  tolerance in the USA has been a major factor in all this, and I thank God for it.

 The Reformation did several major things. (1) It led to major reforms in Catholicism, although the Council of Trent also tightened certain aspects of the Church that made for less breathing space. (2) It broke the monopoly of Catholicism in western and northern Europe. (3) It resulted in Protestant divisions which was important in sending early dissenters to the USA who established what evolved into the American democracy we have today. As I recall 55 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were Protestants of one variety of another. Fortunately, no denomination was strong enough to have an established church and the Constitution specifically forbid it. Yet, Christianity in the USA probably continues to be healthier than in any industralized country.

 

[joe370]

Hm! I have to say that contrary to #94 Catholic material for decades did its best to destroy the personal reputation of Luther.

And sadly the reformation propaganda machine tried desperately to destroy the reputation of the catholic church. Wouldn’t you agree? The whole thing truly saddens me.

 

[Roy5]

joe370

True. There was plenty of warped propaganda on both sides. But I do find what appears to be more bitterness here on CAF than I expected. Apparently, the reconciliatory spirit of Vatican II didn’t reach many Catholics here who still want to fight the old religious wars. Sad. They’re over. Now we face those who would demolish all forms of Christianity if they can.

 

[CopticChristian]

joe370

True. There was plenty of warped propaganda on both sides. But I do find what appears to be more bitterness here on CAF than I expected. Apparently, the reconciliatory spirit of Vatican II didn’t reach many Catholics here who still want to fight the old religious wars. Sad. They’re over. Now we face those who would demolish all forms of Christianity if they can.

Roy,

You distress me. You continually fight for the liberality and freedom of thought and disparage nominal Catholics as you know them. You continually put forth an idea and paradigm that is as sad as what you percieve to be sad. You sadden me with you persistence that the Catholics you know represent something that is not on any of these threads, in my personal experience or any Church I have ever attended. I don’t know where you live or who you consort with but you have continually put forth a negative look to the Catholics you know.

 

[Roy5]

Hi! It’s not Catholics I know that trouble me. When I attend Mass, for example, I never hear the priest express such bigotry as I read too often here on CAF. True, I feel the urge to battle intolerance here on CAF or wherever I find it. Christians need to behave like Christians and not denigrate one another. We are brothers and sisters and need to act and speak as such.

 

[CopticChristian]

Hi! It’s not Catholics I know that trouble me. When I attend Mass, for example, I never hear the priest express such bigotry as I read too often here on CAF. True, I feel the urge to battle intolerance here on CAF or wherever I find it. Christians need to behave like Christians and not denigrate one another. We are brothers and sisters and need to act and speak as such.

I believe that we should recognize the following:

This is exactly the view Paul takes when he tells the Romans that suffering Christians are the fulfillment of Psalm 44:22 (Romans 8:36). And it is also the position the Church takes when it proclaims that every baptized Christian participates in Christ’s threefold office of prophet, priest and king.

We are all called to the office of priest, prophet and king through Christ and some of us are better priests than others.

 

[Protestant_Me]

As if the Catholic Church DOESN’T respect the right to “investigate, to ponder.” and as if you ever were ever denied that right by the Church?!

If they did respect the right, it wouldn’t be such a sin to leave the Church and believe and practice another religion.

 

[CopticChristian]

If they did respect the right, it wouldn’t be such a sin to leave the Church and believe and practice another religion.

So you believe that respecting rights allows sin by a Christian?

So, do you believe that practicing any religiion is in itself acceptable for a Christian?

Enlighten me.