Reflections on the Protestant Innovation... I mean, Refomation

[dennisknapp]

I know some of you will take up arms with me over the thread title, but give me a chance.

I was thinking that other day about the word “reformation” and how it is related to the actions of the Protestants of the 16th century. The Protestant Reformers, according to some, were reclaiming the true Christian faith as taught by the Apostles and corrupted by the Catholic Church. This renewal was an attempt at reestablishing the true Gospel message by removing all the trappings and man-made elements, which had crept in and distorted it.

But is this true? Were the Reformers renewing and reclaiming the true Christian faith as taught by the Apostles?

reform (www.m-w.com)
Pronunciation: ri-'form
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French *reformer, *from Latin *reformare, *from *re- + formare *to form, from *forma *form
transitive senses
1 a : to put or change into an improved form or condition b : to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses
2 : to put an end to (an evil) by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action
3 : to induce or cause to abandon evil ways <reform a drunkard.

Some synonyms of reform are reclaim, redeem, rehabilitate.

Inherent in all these words is a sense of returning to a purer state, the removal of faults and abuses, the abandonment of evils ways.

But is this really what happened?

I propose that no, this is not what happened. Why? For the simple fact that it deviated too far from the original to be considered a true Reformation. It brought in beliefs and practices previously unknown to Christianity (i.e., solo scriptura and sola fide, purely symbolic baptism and communion), while also removing core beliefs held by all Christians.

At best the Reformation can be called an innovation or to be more blunt, a severe corrupting. To stand against 1600 years of Christian belief and practice, while claiming that your new system is the original, is absurd.

The true Reformation happened at the Council of Trent. Here the Church did indeed reform itself. It removed abuses and reclaimed core beliefs, which had been neglected in the years leading up to the 16th century. It is the true Reformation.

Peace

 

[Anima_Christi]

A note in the back of Scripture Alone? 21 Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura by Joel Peters, published by TAN, p. 65, states, “The Protestant Reformation was not a reform in the true sense of the word, but rather it was a revolution–an upheaval of the legitimate, established religious and civil order of the day.”

 

[O.S.Luke]

dennisknapp:

I know some of you will take up arms with me over the thread title, but give me a chance…But is this really what happened?..

I propose that no, this is not what happened. Why? For the simple fact that it deviated too far from the original to be considered a true Reformation. It brought in beliefs and practices previously unknown to Christianity (i.e., solo scriptura and sola fide, purely symbolic baptism and communion), while also removing core beliefs held by all Christians.

Incorrect. The Reformation did NOT introduce “purely symbolic baptism and communion.” The Lutheran Church NEVER embraced those beliefs. Neither did the Anglican Church. You can blame the Zwingli-ists for that. That’s post-Reformation; more accurately, such folks as the Zwinglians can be called Dissenters, not Protestants.

At best the Reformation can be called an innovation or to be more blunt, a severe corrupting. To stand against 1600 years of Christian belief and practice, while claiming that your new system is the original, is absurd.

The abuses were plenty… and the Catholic Church admitted them. There was blame to be shared on both sides (the Catholic Church says as much, too). Would these abuses have been corrected otherwise? Would there have been another ecumenical council after the Reformation to address the abuses had there not been a Reformation? Who knows.

The true Reformation happened at the Council of Trent. Here the Church did indeed reform itself. It removed abuses and reclaimed core beliefs, which had been neglected in the years leading up to the 16th century. It is the true Reformation.

Now the Catholic Church wants to claim to be the true Reformers? I’ve heard it all!

I know some of you will take up arms with me over the thread title, but give me a chance.

Okay. I gave you a chance. First, you want to be ‘excused’ for your thread title, then you call Protestants corrupt and absurd.

So I will take up arms with you over the thread title: it is a cheap shot. But I’m sure someone here will say, “If the shoe fits.”

Your titles don’t help the cause of trying to get Christianity back to one True Church, Dennis. They just show arrogance… the antithesis of agape.

O+

 

[dennisknapp]

O.S. Luke:

Incorrect. The Reformation did NOT introduce “purely symbolic baptism and communion.” The Lutheran Church NEVER embraced those beliefs. Neither did the Anglican Church. You can blame the Zwingli-ists for that. That’s post-Reformation; more accurately, such folks as the Zwinglians can be called Dissenters, not Protestants.

I think the Zwinglians would disagree with you. It could be argued that they are 2nd generation Protestants.
O.S. Luke:

The abuses were plenty… and the Catholic Church admitted them. There was blame to be shared on both sides (the Catholic Church says as much, too). Would these abuses have been corrected otherwise? Would there have been another ecumenical council after the Reformation to address the abuses had there not been a Reformation? Who knows.

Everntually the abuses would have been corrected. This is what Councils are for.
O.S. Luke:

Now the Catholic Church wants to claim to be the true Reformers? I’ve heard it all!

If you understood what I meant by true reformers, then yes they are. The Protestant Reformers introduced new doctrine. How is this a reform? A true reform happens from within. It does not breakaway and start an entirely new system, then claim it is the true system, while at the same time calling the true system the false one. Did I meantion the new doctrines?
O.S. Luke:

Okay. I gave you a chance. First, you want to be ‘excused’ for your thread title, then you call Protestants corrupt and absurd.

No, I called the idea that the Reformation was a true reformation absurd. I said they corrupted true teaching, not they personally are corrupt.
O.S. Luke:

So I will take up arms with you over the thread title: it is a cheap shot. But I’m sure someone here will say, “If the shoe fits.”

Your titles don’t help the cause of trying to get Christianity back to one True Church, Dennis. They just show arrogance… the antithesis of agape.

O+

How are they arrogant? I’m just trying to be creative. Can’t we have a little fun and still be in the spirit of agape.

Peace

 

[O.S.Luke]

dennisknapp:

I think the Zwinglians would disagree with you. It could be argued that they are 2nd generation Protestants.

Actually, they don’t like to be called Protestants or Dissenters. Nowadays, they go out of their way to tell you that they are simply, “Christian.” Most eschew the term “Protestant.”

No, I called the idea that the Reformation was a true reformation absurd. I said they corrupted true teaching, not they personally are corrupt.

I suspect those first reformers would consider that an insult. At the time of the Reformation, some in the Catholic Church (certainly not all) were guilty of corrupting their own teaching.

How are they arrogant? I’m just trying to be creative. Can’t we have a little fun and still be in the spirit of agape.

When people say the phrase “can’t we have a little fun,” it usually means that it’s at the expense of someone else.

O+

 

[JohnPaul0]

I am faithful Catholic. That’s why I was at Mass for this Sunday when a thought crossed my mind when hearing this verse from the Gospel:

“Therefore, I say to you [chief priests and elders],the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a popple that will produce its fruit.” (Mt 21:43).

I often ask myself if there has been any Divine purpose in the Protestant revolt (historian Warren Carroll’s term). That our separated brethern have produced fruit – souls into heaven --is undeniable. How well was the Catholic Church doing at that time? Yes, the Sacraments were valid. Souls were being saved. But what condition would she have become without the wakeup call of the Protestant revolt?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

O.S. Luke:

Incorrect. The Reformation did NOT introduce “purely symbolic baptism and communion.” The Lutheran Church NEVER embraced those beliefs. Neither did the Anglican Church. You can blame the Zwingli-ists for that. That’s post-Reformation; more accurately, such folks as the Zwinglians can be called Dissenters, not Protestants.

The abuses were plenty… and the Catholic Church admitted them. There was blame to be shared on both sides (the Catholic Church says as much, too). Would these abuses have been corrected otherwise? Would there have been another ecumenical council after the Reformation to address the abuses had there not been a Reformation? Who knows.

Now the Catholic Church wants to claim to be the true Reformers? I’ve heard it all!

Okay. I gave you a chance. First, you want to be ‘excused’ for your thread title, then you call Protestants corrupt and absurd.

So I will take up arms with you over the thread title: it is a cheap shot. But I’m sure someone here will say, “If the shoe fits.”

Your titles don’t help the cause of trying to get Christianity back to one True Church, Dennis. They just show arrogance… the antithesis of agape.

O+

I would be very doubtful about using a dictionary to define words relating to theology - a purely linguistic work may not pay attention to the the niceties of Christian theology & doctrine.

If the Catholic Church is not pasturing the sheep - and it can reasonably be accused of falling down very badly here before it started, very late, to undertake the work of reform - it is not self-evident that Catholics has a duty to continue to be neglected. They are not in the CC for the sake of the bishops; the bishops, are meant to serve them

“The salvation of souls is the supreme law” - this gives the Reformation a good deal of legitimacy, ISTM. For the marks of the Church - her unity & unicity, her holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity, are for the sake of her mission; which is the salvation of those to whom Christ was sent. So her mission, trumps everything else: including the need for maintaining visible unity and ecclesiastical discipline. If that mission is being neglected - the good of souls over-rides all else.

 

[dennisknapp]

O.S. Luke:

Actually, they don’t like to be called Protestants or Dissenters. Nowadays, they go out of their way to tell you that they are simply, “Christian.” Most eschew the term “Protestant.”

Do they agree with the Catholic Church, or do they protest some the beliefs held by it?
O.S. Luke:

I suspect those first reformers would consider that an insult. At the time of the Reformation, some in the Catholic Church (certainly not all) were guilty of corrupting their own teaching.

The fact there were errors on the side of some Catholics is not being debated here. What is being debated is if the “Reformation” can truely be called one. The way I look at it, no. A true “Reformation” happens from within, it does not breakaway do so from without. Again, what about the new doctrines brought in during the Reformation? What about sola scriptura and sola fide?
O.S. Luke:

When people say the phrase “can’t we have a little fun,” it usually means that it’s at the expense of someone else.

O+

It was meant as fun.

Peace