The Reformation...reforming to What?

[po18guy]

That’s not entirely true, the Reformed/Presbyterian community relies heavily on Church History and the Church Fathers.

But, the R/P community, in addition to privately interpreting scripture, is also privately interpreting history. They must, in order to erase five of the seven Sacraments! Forget the Catholic Church. You have a major problem with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Do you think that they all got it wrong, too?

I agree to an extent. Many RC’s and Protestants have a very shallow knowledge of their faith in regards to history. But to say that the Protestants don’t have history is like erasing the church up until the Reformation. Protestantism was birthed out of the RC church excommunicating the reformers.

Whoa! The transformers excommunicated themselves long before the Church took the necessary medicinal action.

It was not the reformers purpose to split the church but to take it back to how the early church was before corruption crept in. Anyone would be very ignorant (i don’t mean that in a bad way) to deny the corruption that was rampant in the church during the middle ages.

You seem to be saying one of two things: Christ did not found an authoritative Church, or that the gates of hell actually did prevail. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[studychristian]

Sure, there were elements of corruption and many things in the Church did, indeed, need correction. Martin Luther, for example, learned that there were brothels which had clergy as their exclusive clientele. But as the OP pointed out, the Reformers felt that the correction needed to involve doctrine as well. There is, after all, a big difference in saying that it was wrong for the clergy to visit brothels and to say that…

…there is no Purgatory
…marriage is not a sacrament
…the saints in heaven are incapable of intervening on our behalf
…Sola Scriptura is the test for doctrinal validity
(etc.)

The only thing I think is true about these claims are, “…the saints in heaven are incapable of intervening on our behalf”. I think once they are in Heaven, they cannot talk to those here on earth. I think all other doctrines are true though. I think talking about them helps them and makes you more alive with the spirit though.

 

[JonNC]

Sure, there were elements of corruption and many things in the Church did, indeed, need correction. Martin Luther, for example, learned that there were brothels which had clergy as their exclusive clientele. But as the OP pointed out, the Reformers felt that the correction needed to involve doctrine as well. There is, after all, a big difference in saying that it was wrong for the clergy to visit brothels and to say that…

…there is no Purgatory
…marriage is not a sacrament
…the saints in heaven are incapable of intervening on our behalf
…Sola Scriptura is the test for doctrinal validity
(etc.)

Hi Eric,
StudyChristian’s post reference yours here reminded me to respond to it.

First, I think you make a valid point that all Lutherans should ponder. Are our differences such that they justify continued separation from the Bishop of Rome?

On the points you made:

…there is no Purgatory: this Lutheran will accept the idea of Purgatory if I am allowed to accept it as Father George H. Tavard is said to relate it:

Father Tavard showed how purgatory has been understood by Catholics as both a place of punishment and a state of cleansing, perhaps even momentary, at the time of death. Among the mystics, the latter image has greater prominence inasmuch as final purgation means an encounter with the “fire” of divine love which removes the effects of sin on the human person.

old.usccb.org/comm/archives/2006/06-212.shtml
A momentary event of cleansing, at the time of death.

…marriage is not a sacrament The Lutheran reformers, ISTM, were far more nuanced about sacraments than simply saying, Marriage in not a Sacrament. I, frankly, don’t think it was that important a divergence in their minds.

…the saints in heaven are incapable of intervening on our behalf

the issue is not one of whether or not the Saints pray for us. They do. The issue is are we given a command, example, and promise regarding invocation.

…Sola Scriptura is the test for doctrinal validity From their perspective, they saw contradiction among councils and popes. Whether or not one agrees with that perspective, it seems that was the reason for reliance on scripture.

Jon

 

[KathleenGee]

In some ways, Luther was way ahead of his time…he did have a prophetic voice…but his scrupulous and intense personality overcame him.

He was responding to the over-clericalization of the Church as well…He wanted more expressive and active participation through song by the laity at services…and more emphasis on the homily…of course, this can lead people to follow more the personality of the presider, which is a common complaint today of some local expressions of individual Catholic parishes…

 

[ahs]

Hi Eric,

…there is no Purgatory: this Lutheran will accept the idea of Purgatory if I am allowed to accept it as Father George H. Tavard is said to relate it…

I think that is pretty much the Church’s explanation as well…

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines purgatory as a “purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven,” which is experienced by those “who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified” (CCC 1030). It notes that “this final purification of the elect . . . is entirely different from the punishment of the damned” (CCC 1031).

The purification is necessary because, as Scripture teaches, nothing unclean will enter the presence of God in heaven (Rev. 21:27) and, while we may die with our mortal sins forgiven, there can still be many impurities in us, specifically venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sins already forgiven."

catholic.com/tracts/purgatory

That is good that you are willing to look at the teaching on Purgatory and evaluate it for what it really is. But did any of the “Reformers” or Protestants? I can’t think of any that didn’t reject it…which means Doctrine was changed because Purgatory was/is a matter of Christian Doctrine.

…marriage is not a sacrament The Lutheran reformers, ISTM, were far more nuanced about sacraments than simply saying, Marriage in not a Sacrament. I, frankly, don’t think it was that important a divergence in their minds.

But the Sacraments were/are part of Christian Doctrine. These were rejected base on what authority? Penance, for example, became obsolete in the minds of “Reformers” as they turned to sola fide. That in itself is a two-fold change in Doctrine…the adding of the belief in sola fide, and the subsequent rejection of Sacramental Confession/Penance. By what authority was this changed…or what example was pointed to as being the ‘target destination’ if they were just trying to get back to the ‘original’?

…Sola Scriptura is the test for doctrinal validity From their perspective, they saw contradiction among councils and popes. Whether or not one agrees with that perspective, it seems that was the reason for reliance on scripture.

Jon

But again, what were they aiming at? Was there a historical precedence they were trying to get back to that showed the Church using sola scriptura? Or was this a change in Doctrine…primarily a change in so far as Sacred Tradition was put on a lower par from Scripture? And if that is the case, what authority did they have to subtract from the importance of Tradition by placing it beneath Scripture?

 

[mackbrislawn]

If anything, it is a characteristic of protestants to resist accepting a teaching just because someone in authority tells them it is so. This is a blessing and a curse. Questioning of doctrine or authority is not a bad thing as it leads to greater understanding. Of course, we can certainly find examples where it has led to error.

Yes, this characteristic to resist accepting a teaching because an authority says so is indeed a blessing and a curse. It leads to understanding, but can lead to eventual questioning of everything, including even belief in scripture. As the generations go on, the notion of resisting authority expands, expanding even to the bible itself as an authority. So we have modern liberals and secularists.

 

[mackbrislawn]

.

Protestants, early on, were on stronger ground precisely because they didn’t claim that the Church was infallible.

Yes, one who isn’t infallible certainly is on stronger ground because they can shift grounds as needed.

But, the question now becomes, how can we defend the infallibility of scripture to those who don’t claim scripture is infallible?

 

[Presbyterian20]

I am quite new, and this is the first time I have elected to post as opposed to just merely observing as a guest. I have long respected the Roman Catholic Church’s patristic tradition, however, I am insulted by the suggestion that church history is not studied or understood by most Protestants. My Church, Orthodox Presbyterian, takes the study of Church history as well as catechism quite seriously indeed. My church also does not teach that the individual believers have the final say on interpreting the scriptures. Believers must adhere to certain standards set forth in our governing standards, known as the Westminster standards.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I am quite new, and this is the first time I have elected to post as opposed to just merely observing as a guest. I have long respected the Roman Catholic Church’s patristic tradition, however, I am insulted by the suggestion that church history is not studied or understood by most Protestants. My Church, Orthodox Presbyterian, takes the study of Church history as well as catechism quite seriously indeed. My church also does not teach that the individual believers have the final say on interpreting the scriptures. Believers must adhere to certain standards set forth in our governing standards, known as the Westminster standards.

Presbyterian20,
Welcome to CAF!

There are a number of sweeping statements about Protestants on this thread. Many Protestants have a great deal of study to their credit.

This is definitely the place to sort through these statements and correct misconceptions. That goes both ways: Protestant to Catholic and Catholic to Protestant.

I hope you enjoy the forums. Keep in mind that some posters are more charitable than others; and there are many Catholics here who welcome non-Catholics and engage in very fruitful and charitable discussions.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

 

[Contarini]

But again, what were they aiming at? Was there a historical precedence they were trying to get back to that showed the Church using sola scriptura?

They certainly thought so. Luther claimed to have been taught his views on Scripture (“sola scriptura” was a later term) by his theology professors at Erfurt.

In scholastic theology, authority was seen largely as inhering in texts (the silly argument made by some temporary apologists that texts can’t have authority would have been news to the scholastics), and authoritative texts were arranged in a hierarchy within each discipline. In theology, Scripture was of course the highest authority.

Luther’s innovation was to say that the other authorities weren’t just on a lesser level but were potentially untrustworthy: that Popes and Councils could err and had erred, that even the Fathers mixed a good deal of superstition and works righteousness into their many godly and admirable teachings, and that the later medieval scholastic tradition was mostly a collection of paganized nonsense that had radically corrupted the Gospel.

Edwin

 

[AlwaysCurious]

Luther’s innovation was to say that the other authorities weren’t just on a lesser level but were potentially untrustworthy: that Popes and Councils could err and had erred, that even the Fathers mixed a good deal of superstition and works righteousness into their many godly and admirable teachings, and that the later medieval scholastic tradition was mostly a collection of paganized nonsense that had radically corrupted the Gospel.

Edwin

I always wondered if Luther thought he himself could err and had erred. I remember reading a biography of him several years ago, but can’t remember what he had to say about his own fallibility.

 

[Contarini]

I always wondered if Luther thought he himself could err and had erred. I remember reading a biography of him several years ago, but can’t remember what he had to say about his own fallibility.

In principle of course he would say this. But when it came to basic doctrinal claims it seems to me that he acted as if he couldn’t. Same with Calvin–which I’m increasingly convinced is why these two figures have “won out” as the major figures of the Reformation. (Particularly in the case of Calvin, who really was just one among many reformers and wasn’t even based in a major city–but his literary skills and his profound confidence gave him an edge over folks who were more modest and nuanced, kin my opinion.)

Edwin

 

[ahs]

I am quite new, and this is the first time I have elected to post as opposed to just merely observing as a guest. I have long respected the Roman Catholic Church’s patristic tradition, however, I am insulted by the suggestion that church history is not studied or understood by most Protestants. My Church, Orthodox Presbyterian, takes the study of Church history as well as catechism quite seriously indeed. My church also does not teach that the individual believers have the final say on interpreting the scriptures. Believers must adhere to certain standards set forth in our governing standards, known as the Westminster standards.

Welcome to CAF! Yes, I realize I’ve made some sweeping comments…and I’ve admited that this doen’t help matters. I apologize for insulting you by making the broad suggestion that Church history is not studied or understood by most Protestants.

So, from a Presbytarian perspective, do you think the Presbytarian’s goal is to get back to the “original” Doctrines that the first Christians taught in the first few centuries? Are the Westminster standards written to reflect historical Christianity and the Doctrines taught back then, such as the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or the Sacraments of Penance/Marriage/Baptism/etc…?

 

[Boywonder23k]

The reformers believed that the Catholic church was thoroughly unbiblical and therefore needed reform. They based this belief on scripture itself and also on the patristic fathers whom often used scripture for the basis of their theology. Those in the Lutheran tradition especially appealed to the fathers. Chimnitz critique is still widely regarded today as top notch work.

I will also say that I have found the Catholic claim on History greatly exaggerated. Quotes from the patristic fathers are often taken out of context to support romish claims. For example, many quotes may be shown talking about “tradition” or Mary being “stainless”. Roman apologists then take these quotes and insert THEIR definitions of such words into the early fathers mouths. The fact is that the primitive Church was not the Catholic Church. Early Christians had NO concept of papal infallibility, the immaculate conception of Mary, the bodily assumption, purgatory, indulgences etc etc.

This is where many Catholics will say "oh well maybe the fathers didn’t know about papal infallibility but that doctrine developed like the trinity (the trinity is always put in play). The problem is that things like the trinity are still systematically found through scripture (which all patristic fathers used) where the bodily assumption of Mary is not!

I know you LOVE to pick on southern baptists and all the non sacrimental branches but I have not heard of any of the catholic answers crew going after Anglicans or Lutherans… Much more difficult game. I challenge any of you to read chimnitz or salmon. There is a lot you don’t know and the “caricature” of Protestantism that is presented is atrociously inaccurate.

 

[JonNC]

The reformers believed that the Catholic church was thoroughly unbiblical and therefore needed reform. They based this belief on scripture itself and also on the patristic fathers whom often used scripture for the basis of their theology. Those in the Lutheran tradition especially appealed to the fathers. Chimnitz critique is still widely regarded today as top notch work.

I will also say that I have found the Catholic claim on History greatly exaggerated. Quotes from the patristic fathers are often taken out of context to support romish claims. For example, many quotes may be shown talking about “tradition” or Mary being “stainless”. Roman apologists then take these quotes and insert THEIR definitions of such words into the early fathers mouths. The fact is that the primitive Church was not the Catholic Church. Early Christians had NO concept of papal infallibility, the immaculate conception of Mary, the bodily assumption, purgatory, indulgences etc etc.

This is where many Catholics will say "oh well maybe the fathers didn’t know about papal infallibility but that doctrine developed like the trinity (the trinity is always put in play). The problem is that things like the trinity are still systematically found through scripture (which all patristic fathers used) where the bodily assumption of Mary is not!

I know you LOVE to pick on southern baptists and all the non sacrimental branches **but I have not heard of any of the catholic answers crew going after Anglicans or Lutherans… **Much more difficult game. I challenge any of you to read chimnitz or salmon. There is a lot you don’t know and the “caricature” of Protestantism that is presented is atrociously inaccurate.

I don’t know, we get whacked at pretty aggressively at times here.
Seriously, I’m going to defend our Catholic siblings here at CAF (some might say that’s no surprise ). This is their website, and with some exceptions, they treat non-Catholics pretty well here, a lot better than they get treated at some non-Catholic forums.

Finally, if you feel that their presentation of your communion - I encourage you to list it in your profile - is inaccurate, then by all means with charity present an accurate description.
I often do that here about Lutheranism.

Jon

 

[GKC]

“but I have not heard of any of the catholic answers crew going after Anglicans or Lutherans…”

(Chuckle).

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[JonNC]

“but I have not heard of any of the catholic answers crew going after Anglicans or Lutherans…”

(Chuckle).

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

Jon

 

[mackbrislawn]

The reformers and protestants have many good criticisms of the Catholic church. But I want to comment on some of the assertions here and bring out other points that need to be considered.

Boywonder23k;9480726]

The reformers believed that the Catholic church was thoroughly unbiblical and therefore needed reform.

Of course whether a teaching is biblical or not is a matter of opinion. Because many of the Catholic teachings were retained by the reformers as biblical, such as the trinity, belief that Jesus died on a cross, Sunday worship… However, later heirs of the reformation have rejected the trinity as unbiblical, have rejected the belief that Jesus died on a cross as not in the bible, or insist Christians should worship on Saturday. Therefore, it could be, even the Protestants still have unbiblical teachings and need reform. Did the first reformers complete the reformation?

The fact is that the primitive Church was not the Catholic Church.

This is true in a way and of course the primitive Church was not the Protestant churches either. It was the infant church and had to mature. The primitive church also expected an imminent return of Christ and so was not set up for the long haul. The development of a strong central church enabled Christianity to survive after the passing of the apostles and not be lost among the other mystery religions of the time. A strong central church also enabled the writings of the early Christians to survive and be perpetuated. That is a debt owed to the Catholic church whatever else you may think of it.

Early Christians had NO concept of papal infallibility, the immaculate conception of Mary, the bodily assumption, purgatory, indulgences etc etc.

Right, the early Christians didn’t have a concept of papal infallibility as such, but they DID have a concept of apostolic infallibility! The immaculate conception. Who knows? The bodily assumption? Definitely not. Mary hadn’t died yet!

The problem is that things like the trinity are still systematically found through scripture (which all patristic fathers used) where the bodily assumption of Mary is not!

Yes, we who inherit the tradition of the trinity find it all over scripture, but that is because we already believe the trinity and look for such references. Those such as unitarians and jehovah’s witnesses find just the opposite in scripture, references against it.
And, in regards to the bodily assumption of Mary, of course we shouldn’t expect to find it in scripture because Mary was still alive!

I know you LOVE to pick on southern baptists and all the non sacrimental branches but I have not heard of any of the catholic answers crew going after Anglicans or Lutherans… Much more difficult game. I challenge any of you to read chimnitz or salmon. There is a lot you don’t know and the “caricature” of Protestantism that is presented is atrociously inaccurate.

Catholics feel they are picked on a lot as well, and that this is built into the theology of Protestantism in general. So, they are finally responding. Plus, they feel Catholicism is caricaturized as well.

 

[Presbyterian20]

Welcome to CAF! Yes, I realize I’ve made some sweeping comments…and I’ve admited that this doen’t help matters. I apologize for insulting you by making the broad suggestion that Church history is not studied or understood by most Protestants.

So, from a Presbytarian perspective, do you think the Presbytarian’s goal is to get back to the “original” Doctrines that the first Christians taught in the first few centuries? Are the Westminster standards written to reflect historical Christianity and the Doctrines taught back then, such as the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or the Sacraments of Penance/Marriage/Baptism/etc…?

I feel that the Standards do justice do ancient and historical Christianity, though you would not feel the same. For instance the Presbyterian church emphasizes the real spiritual presence of Christ but denies the physical aspect.

 

[ahs]

I feel that the Standards do justice do ancient and historical Christianity, though you would not feel the same. For instance the Presbyterian church emphasizes the real spiritual presence of Christ but denies the physical aspect.

Right, this is what I am getting at. The Church at the time of the “Reformation” taught Christ is physically, spiritually, fully present…under the appearance of bread and wine. So, if the goal was to take the Church from a position of corruption and get back to the correct Doctrines, why did the Presbyterian church (I’m not sure if they were in the lineage of Zwingli or Calvin…maybe neither…do you happen to know?) reject this Doctrine? That tells me that it was not their intent to get back to the “real” Doctrine, but to change Doctrine. So, what authority did they claim in changing Doctrine? Do not the Scriptures condemn this?