The Reformation...reforming to What?

[tqualey]

Hi, ForeverGrace,

I do not think anyone has suggested this. But, you need to look beyond the superficial.

No doubt about it: Popes and other high church officials gave repeated public scandal - you name it, they probably did with with mistresses and children just for starters. Luther was riight to decry these abuses. In fact, about 200 years before Luther was born, St. Catherine of Siena had similar problems with church officials - but, through prayer and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, she was able to effect real reform. Her’s is truly an inspiring story (newadvent.org/cathen/03447a.htm ) and one Luther would have been familiar with. Had he followed her example, there would be a St. Martin Luther today! But, he chose pride and we see where it lead so many away from Christ.

The Catholic Church never taught that indulgences could be sold - but, they were being sold and this was wrong. Unfortunately, Luther decided to do things his way.

There were actually Bibles in the German language before Luther was born. Actually, Bibles were in several languages throughout Europe. Here is a link: catholic-truth.info/apologetics/bible.htm

And, this may come as a surprise - but, people are NOT saved by faith alone! James 2:24 addresses this matter clearly, boldly and without ambiguity - one of the reasons that Luther wanted to get rid of James’ epistle. Here is a link so you can read it for yourself: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/James_2

But, your last error is by far the greatest: chosing Luther over the Pope (and that would be Pope Leo X). The reason for this is that Luther cooked up his own doctrine that had served Christianity for 1,500, through out 5 of the Sacraments, and stated that Solo Fide was all you needed (along with personal interpretation of the scripture). Christ did not come back to earth and tell Luther that He was removing the Catholic Church as the His Church founded on Peter (Matt 16) and giving it to Luther - or any of the others in revolt. The usurpted the authority of Christ - and crafted doctrines entire out of human tradition.

Seriously, if you are going to invest your time in anti-Catholic drivel - you really should read the other point of view - if for no other reason then to make sure that these guys at least got the facts right. In all of the examples you have given in your posts - the facts were simply wrong - and if you don’t like my references, produce your own and let’s see how they honeslty stack up with one another.

By the way, I notice you claim to be a ‘Reformed Baptist’ - to ask your own question, “Reformed from what?”

God bless

My goodness. Reformed from what???!!!

Luther had a bit of a moral problem with Popes who had mistresses and let’s see, oh yes, illigitimate children. Are you suggesting that he was wrong to hold that view?

In the 95 thesis, Luther asked a question about established doctrine. “If the Pope could empty Purgatory, why would He not do so for love?” Good question since the Pope preferred money. Are you suggesting he was wrong to hold that view?

Luther held that ordinary believers should have access to the holy scriptures, to read them for themselves. Are you suggesting he was wrong to hold that view?

Luther stated boldly and proved beyond any doubt that the indulgence preachers were teaching error and manipulating people by using painful methods and instilling fear. Are you suggesting he was wrong to hold that view?

But of course, Luther taught that people were saved by faith alone. That’s what happened, when he was able to read the scriptures for himself.

Luther was giant among men. Pope Benedict XVI seems to think that Luther wasn’t so bad after all.

I would choose Luther above the indulgence preachers every day of the week, and if I had to choose between Luther and the particular Pope he criticized, I would choose Luther.

These are just my views. I respect the right of Catholics to hold what is dear to them near and to have it respected. We ask for the same courtesy.

 

[prochrist1]

St. Clement of Rome, could be considered a pioneer of the church model that existed during the reformation period.

St. Clement’s idea of a church body is that it has the power from God to add position of rule of leadership and even remove someone from the ministry, something foreign to the apostles. St. Clement even uses the term “laymen” something that is not biblical.

But something far worse was his idea of “rule by majority” something that was not only a heathen practice but also in the end will create disunion and not the will of God.

 

[Porknpie]

ForeverGrace -

But of course, Luther taught that people were saved by faith alone. That’s what happened, when he was able to read the scriptures for himself.

“Faith alone” is and was heresy and conveniently omits “we are saved by WORKS, NOT BY FAITH ALONE” and the belief of the church for 1500 years. Scripture supports faith and works and the church understood this well from the time of Christ until Luther’s invention.

As a reformed baptist, I assume you do not believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Christ’s own words state multiple times that his body and blood are true food and drink and that we are to eat his body and blood in rememberance of him. A great number of followers left him after his saying this and he **did not **correct or clarify his teaching. The early church believed in his words, the Orthodox believed his words and the same Luther that you quote above believed in his words although he said the how the bread and wine turned into his body and blood were a mystery.

My questions are:

Why do you not believe Christs words and the practice of the church for 1500+ years? Does the bible contradict itself and also state that Christs words are only symbolic?
(non-related) Do you believe Catholics are Christian and that Catholics will be saved?

Thank You!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Prochrist1

I must confess - you got me on this one! Pope St. Clement of Rome (newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm ) appears to me to be about as far as one can get from the hetetical doctrine creating Luther and Calvin. As the fourth pope (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes ) he really had his work cut out for him as he guided the Catholic Church through the persecutions.

Here is a link that identifies St. Cllement’s very positive view of papal authority and Apostolic Succession: catholicfaithandreason.org/st-clement-of-rome-died-110-ad.html

What I did not see was any reference to ‘majority rule’. Would you kindly provide a reference for that? Thank you.

God bless

St. Clement of Rome, could be considered a pioneer of the church model that existed during the reformation period.

St. Clement’s idea of a church body is that it has the power from God to add position of rule of leadership and even remove someone from the ministry, something foreign to the apostles. St. Clement even uses the term “laymen” something that is not biblical.

But something far worse was his idea of “rule by majority” something that was not only a heathen practice but also in the end will create disunion and not the will of God.

 

[KathleenGee]

What I see is certain fundamentalist teachers operating out of alot of pride and self righteous that spend a good deal of time continually hitting on the Catholic faith.

I grew up in the Cold War and in Communist Russia, the propaganda machine was in overdrive always telling its people how bad America was…had film clips on every tornado and hurricane…it had to be bad to make the news. I heard about this same kind of things in other countries…and I was in a country that had few Americans…who were doing mostly humanitarian work among indingenous people…and when the country became independent, the headlines declared in large black print, ‘America is the Enemy of the World!’

I think it the same way in these certain denominations. Thank goodness with feedback from other non-Catholics here on CAF, it is only certain ones. So the followers who are being led this way, are indeed not only hearing comprised teachings about the Church, but also alot of misrepresentation as well. And when one deliberately cherry picks information…and only shows the bad…well, can we say that is the Holy Spirit??

Another in regards to the Reformation…just how many priests were actually selling indulgences? There was a particular German priest who was doing so…selling indulgences…but I am just starting a new reading that this was used to build a case against the Church…

And today we still have indulgences.

Luther was the one who had power of pen, who wanted a pulpit more centered on the conviction of the one giving the sermon, and on more lay participation through singing at services. Luther said that all members were now priests, no more ordained clergy as such, and more more apostolic succession.

Wycliff went on to denounce the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ, accuse Catholics of being Mary worshippers, condemning a church form of tithing…when the monasteries had developed the land with great agricultural methods and supported the local population, especially the poor.

The locals responded to Wycliff just as the Germans did to Luther…and they wanted their own geographic and political jurisidiction…all this leading to more fracturing and politicizing, and less of the mystical and sacramental spirtual life.

The Church is the Bride of Christ and it is Christ Who is the Word Made Flesh, and Who is the Life Blood of the Church. Without Christ, there is no life in the Church.

 

[kbf1970060]

But these “democratic” governments didn’t emerge for some time. . .

And the opposition between the Catholic Church and democracy was itself an artifact of post-Reformation Catholicism.

Democracy arose out of secularization and a Church scarred by the Reformation opposed it for that reason.

It’s anachronistic and unjust to argue that if the Reformation hadn’t happened, the kind of Catholicism that emerged from the Reformation would have ruled unchallenged. That’s like saying that if Communism had never existed, the more immoral and destructive aspects of American Cold War policy would have taken place unchecked.

Edwin

Rome is democratic and has been over two millenia. Political power shifted from Catholic, to Protestant. Had there been no Reformation: it is clear democracy stands without Protestantism both from Martin Luther, and John Calvin. Your point seems a bit lost. American Cold War policy exists against communism, that what you say, " … if Communism had never existed, … Cold War policy would have taken place unchecked.", that’s ridiculous.

The point was not a reference to democracy, but a shift of political power, and it was quite immediate from the monarchs of Germany, whom protected Martin Luther, and across time furthered with The Reformation. One might ask as well: what emancipation was there under Napolean of Protestants, from Catholics? How rooted in The Reformation is this? Democracies are by no means Christian, and if they precede Christianity, then it is through Judaism; although, Athens is recognized. Still, democratic leadership seems established in The Old Testament, among temple leaders.

The question remains: reforming to what? The church maintained its indulgences. The presses continued to print Bibles. The Bascilica in Rome was built, the papacy still stands as the protector of Christianity, and the head which Jesus established throughout the whole of The New Testament, and so what was reformed?

 

[ForeverGrace]

ForeverGrace -

“Faith alone” is and was heresy and conveniently omits “we are saved by WORKS, NOT BY FAITH ALONE” and the belief of the church for 1500 years. Scripture supports faith and works and the church understood this well from the time of Christ until Luther’s invention.

As a reformed baptist, I assume you do not believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Christ’s own words state multiple times that his body and blood are true food and drink and that we are to eat his body and blood in rememberance of him. A great number of followers left him after his saying this and he **did not **correct or clarify his teaching. The early church believed in his words, the Orthodox believed his words and the same Luther that you quote above believed in his words although he said the how the bread and wine turned into his body and blood were a mystery.

My questions are:

Why do you not believe Christs words and the practice of the church for 1500+ years? Does the bible contradict itself and also state that Christs words are only symbolic?
(non-related) Do you believe Catholics are Christian and that Catholics will be saved?

Thank You!

You misunderstand me. I never said that I agreed with the church for the 1500+ years before Martin Luther came along. However, I can agree that it may have been started the way you good folks believe. I wasn’t there and I do hold to Matthew 16:16, as the words of Peter being the foundation of the church. Beyond that, all bets are off.

No the Bible does not contradict itself, but… people may interpret it in different ways. Poor hermeneutics and shoddy exegesis has produced all manner of problems. I’m not suggesting this is a Catholic problem, but a problem for most believing communities.

I do wholeheartedly believe that somewhere along the way Catholicism was hi-jacked by men who were… well… greedy, took advantage of the poor, taught doctrines that are not found in scripture, but I don’t hold that all of Catholicism was plagued by this. Sinful men have corrupted many faiths and the faithful have to try to right them.

Luther held to sola scriptura after he was able to read the scriptures for himself. I’m not under the impression that he just wanted to give the Catholic leadership a hard time, but felt that it needed to be reformed and there is no doubt that he was right.

I am not a protestant who makes it my business to criticize Catholics all the time. I have problems with some of your doctrines, and I know full well you have problems with some of mine.

You may freely say that sola scriptura and sola fide is heresy, and that is your opinion. But that does not make it true. It is your personal belief. We disagree but that doesn’t mean we have to be ugly about it. I have never found anything in scripture that says that salvation is by works. The Apostle Paul said just the opposite. The entire book of Galatians is the essence of Jesus + Nothing. Now, I do hold to what James had to say about faith without works being dead. If a person claims to have salvation by the enormous grace of our Savior and doesn’t feel compelled to do good works, then something is wrong. Being a child of the King should automatically change the inward attitude about doing good for the poor and everyone else. So there is no conflict there. Salvation is by grace alone and the result of that salvation should be good works.

You need to refresh yourself on Luthers view of ‘real presence’. You might be surprised. But you are correct, that as a reformed Baptist I do not hold to real presence. I hold to the words that we are to take the bread and the cup in remembrance of Jesus and his sacrifice. It’s surely different that transubstantiation, but I believe it.

I wish you every blessing.

 

[KathleenGee]

I think the Baptists hold one of the hardest and least obliging view of our Church, Forevergrace.

To invalidate the Church for the reasons you gave sound like the spin of those who do not have faith but look too much at man. Really. And their vision is compromised…you only see the bad.

There is a book out by Thomas E Woods, Ph.D, ‘How the Church Built Western Civilization’.
The first 300 years the Church endured so many persecutions. You may not know this, but St. Justin the Martyr described the general worship of Christians practiced at that time to an ancient Roman emperor, around 150 AD…and it is the Mass in its essential form. On this anti-Catholic website, St. Justin the Martyr’s writings were posted, but anything pertaining to the Eucharist and the Mass were not revealed.

The worst persecutions nearly destroyed Christianity with many bishops killed and churches destroyed, with terrible tortures threatening Christians. It was Constantine who defeated the Roman emperor, made Christianity legal, and had no work on Sunday, as well as rebuilt many churches, worked with appointing bishops, and making cathedrals with high altars to proclaim the magnificence of Christ. Yet, contrary to the new spin coming out, Constantine did not create the Catholic Church. He was not even baptized, until a few days before his death, finally becoming a Christian.

St. Benedict and his monks built monasteries, and many men chose the celibate life dedicating all of their life to the Lord in service to His poor. In time, the monks introduced crops, industries, production methods which greatly aided the local populations, as well as introducing ‘rearing of cattle and horses, brewing of beer, raising bees or fruit.’ The monks were specialists in various countries, such as special cheeses, salmon fisheries, corn trade. In a few areas in France redirected springs to direct the population of Paris, in Lombardy, peasants learned irrigation, and the ‘monks first to work toward improving cattle breeds.’ The monks brought great dignity to labor and agriculture. There is so much more to add to the good the monasteries did for the local population.

The Church was the first to have hospices and hospitals for the common people, as well as provide the foundation for universities. In Mexico, in colonial times, it was the center of learning for the New World with Indian professors in their universities, and gave women and girls the right to an education, 300 years ahead of American women.

Knowing many of the lives of the saints down through the ages, there has indeed been great work in serving the poor, caring for widow and orphans.

The Church contributed much to science, and interestingly enough…it came from one of the books not allowed by various Protestant bibles: Wisdom 11:21…where God has said to order all things by measure, number, and weight.’ God created natural law, and He respects His own making and works within it.

This idea of a rational and orderly universe that is also predictable, is found only in Catholic Christian civilization that ‘Arabian, Babylonian, Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu, and Mayan did not.’ There is the controversy of Galileo, who in all actuality was greatly esteemed. But he later did not follow right order as Copernicus was still working on his theory…and then Galileo to prove his point, wanted to remove a phrase of Scripture. And the Church upholds that not one Word of Scripture be changed.

We as Catholics believe that the Risen Lord is drawing ALL men up to Himself. And the fact that the Lord chose the time of His coming…which is another thread in itself, shows that He wished His life and mission to make known not only to the Chosen People, and to all people, but to all history of mankind.

To get the actual context of the Church you have to look at its history for its own sake, and not what biased information is doing in the name of Christ.

 

[prochrist1]

Hi, Prochrist1

What I did not see was any reference to ‘majority rule’. Would you kindly provide a reference for that? Thank you.

God bless

ewtn.com/library/patristc/anf1-1.htm

“If on my account sedition and disagreement and schisms have arisen, I will depart, I will go away whithersoever ye desire, and I will do whatever the majority commands; only let the flock of Christ live on terms of peace with the presbyters set over it.”

St. Clement is talking about how to resolve disputes in the church

 

[1voice]

The Reformers, or at least Luther, claimed to be fighting abuses in the Church. Why, then, did Luther not address the abuses without trying to change Doctrine? But then again, Luther did not claim to ONLY be fighting abuses, he also claimed that many of the Church’s Doctrines were wrong.

But what did he, and other Reformers, base this on? The Papacy, the Sacrament of Penance(aka Reconciliation/Confession), Scripture AND Tradition, etc…were rejected by all the Reformers…but on what precedent, or on based on what standard, on what authority?

And the main point I’d like to drive home is this: Either the Reformers “reformed” back to what Christianity had been from the beginning…in which case we should see some early Christian writings that support their doctrines…or they changed what Christianity had always been…in which case we should be able to see some proof of their authority to do this. Right?

There is no way to respond to this without getting dinged or the boot. And you know it. Bash away.

 

[1voice]

If every protestant actually looked into their church history and studied theology then there wouldn’t be any protestants.

LOL!!!

Do you have any idea who “St” Patrick really was, the roots of his Christianity … and how the Roman Church dealt with his converts in Ireland and those of his missionaries throughout Europe?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Prochrist1,

Thank you for the link.

I must confess, I really do not quite know what to make of this quote from St. Clement:

Chap. LIV. He who is full of love will incur every loss, that peace may be restored to the Church.

Who then among you is noble-minded? who compassionate? who full of love? Let him declare,*** “If on my account sedition and disagreement and schisms have arisen, I will depart, I will go away whithersoever ye desire, and I will do whatever the majority commands; only let the flock of Christ live on terms of peace with the presbyters set over it.”*** He that acts thus shall procure to himself great glory in the Lord; and every place will welcome him. For “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof.” These things they who live a godly life, that is never to be repented of, both have done and always will do.

The Catholic Church has never been run by ‘majority rule’ in the sense that there are elected (church) officials who can be voted in or out of office by the Laity. When a matter of doctrine was taken up at a Council, there was a vote of the Bishops (e.g,. Council of Nicae voted that Christ is the Son of God and not a creature in oppositon to the Arian heresy - of the approximate 200 attendees, only 2 voted against this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea - but, it still went to the Pope for his approval.)

I honestly do not know what St. Clement means here. It woud appear that this quote, is a quote that he is using from someone else - but, I am still at a loss to explain this as such - but, looking at the 1st 5 centuries of Popes and the Early Church Fathers there is nothing I can recall that would support such an idea as ‘majority rule’. Christ built His Church with Peter as its Head (Matt 16) Christ did not nominate Peter and have the Apostles vote on him being the leader.

So, anyone who can throw some light on Pope St. Clement’s words - please post your comments.

God bless

St. Clement of Rome, could be considered a pioneer of the church model that existed during the reformation period.

St. Clement’s idea of a church body is that it has the power from God to add position of rule of leadership and even remove someone from the ministry, something foreign to the apostles. St. Clement even uses the term “laymen” something that is not biblical.

But something far worse was his idea of “rule by majority” something that was not only a heathen practice but also in the end will create disunion and not the will of God.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, 1Voice,

I’ll be honest with you - I have some quick evasions - but, I think you have set a new record!

So… instead of addressing what the poster says, you ambush the name he picked and then attempt to tarnish the reputation of a saint? Quite a stretch!

In picking up the original poster’s (SaintPatrick333) statement:

Originally Posted by SaintPatrick333
If every protestant actually looked into their church history and studied theology then there wouldn’t be any protestants.

Have you had a chance to look at your church’s history?

Now, if you are reluctant to say what it is you only want to hint at, here is a rather comprehensive but not exhaustive bio on St. Patrick of Ireland: newadvent.org/cathen/11554a.htm

God bless

LOL!!!

Do you have any idea who “St” Patrick really was, the roots of his Christianity … and how the Roman Church dealt with his converts in Ireland and those of his missionaries throughout Europe?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, KathleenGee,

I would like to complement you on these two excellent posts you wrote.

You covered a lot of area and did it very well.

God bless

I think the Baptists hold one of the hardest and least obliging view of our Church, Forevergrace.

To invalidate the Church for the reasons you gave sound like the spin of those who do not have faith but look too much at man. Really. And their vision is compromised…you only see the bad.

There is a book out by Thomas E Woods, Ph.D, ‘How the Church Built Western Civilization’.
The first 300 years the Church endured so many persecutions. You may not know this, but St. Justin the Martyr described the general worship of Christians practiced at that time to an ancient Roman emperor, around 150 AD…and it is the Mass in its essential form. On this anti-Catholic website, St. Justin the Martyr’s writings were posted, but anything pertaining to the Eucharist and the Mass were not revealed.

The worst persecutions nearly destroyed Christianity with many bishops killed and churches destroyed, with terrible tortures threatening Christians. It was Constantine who defeated the Roman emperor, made Christianity legal, and had no work on Sunday, as well as rebuilt many churches, worked with appointing bishops, and making cathedrals with high altars to proclaim the magnificence of Christ. Yet, contrary to the new spin coming out, Constantine did not create the Catholic Church. He was not even baptized, until a few days before his death, finally becoming a Christian.

St. Benedict and his monks built monasteries, and many men chose the celibate life dedicating all of their life to the Lord in service to His poor. In time, the monks introduced crops, industries, production methods which greatly aided the local populations, as well as introducing ‘rearing of cattle and horses, brewing of beer, raising bees or fruit.’ The monks were specialists in various countries, such as special cheeses, salmon fisheries, corn trade. In a few areas in France redirected springs to direct the population of Paris, in Lombardy, peasants learned irrigation, and the ‘monks first to work toward improving cattle breeds.’ The monks brought great dignity to labor and agriculture. There is so much more to add to the good the monasteries did for the local population.

The Church was the first to have hospices and hospitals for the common people, as well as provide the foundation for universities. In Mexico, in colonial times, it was the center of learning for the New World with Indian professors in their universities, and gave women and girls the right to an education, 300 years ahead of American women.

Knowing many of the lives of the saints down through the ages, there has indeed been great work in serving the poor, caring for widow and orphans.

The Church contributed much to science, and interestingly enough…it came from one of the books not allowed by various Protestant bibles: Wisdom 11:21…where God has said to order all things by measure, number, and weight.’ God created natural law, and He respects His own making and works within it.

This idea of a rational and orderly universe that is also predictable, is found only in Catholic Christian civilization that ‘Arabian, Babylonian, Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu, and Mayan did not.’ There is the controversy of Galileo, who in all actuality was greatly esteemed. But he later did not follow right order as Copernicus was still working on his theory…and then Galileo to prove his point, wanted to remove a phrase of Scripture. And the Church upholds that not one Word of Scripture be changed.

We as Catholics believe that the Risen Lord is drawing ALL men up to Himself. And the fact that the Lord chose the time of His coming…which is another thread in itself, shows that He wished His life and mission to make known not only to the Chosen People, and to all people, but to all history of mankind.

To get the actual context of the Church you have to look at its history for its own sake, and not what biased information is doing in the name of Christ.

 

[Porknpie]

You misunderstand me. I never said that I agreed with the church for the 1500+ years before Martin Luther came along. However, I can agree that it may have been started the way you good folks believe. I wasn’t there and I do hold to Matthew 16:16, as the words of Peter being the foundation of the church. Beyond that, all bets are off.

No the Bible does not contradict itself, but… people may interpret it in different ways. Poor hermeneutics and shoddy exegesis has produced all manner of problems. I’m not suggesting this is a Catholic problem, but a problem for most believing communities.

I do wholeheartedly believe that somewhere along the way Catholicism was hi-jacked by men who were… well… greedy, took advantage of the poor, taught doctrines that are not found in scripture, but I don’t hold that all of Catholicism was plagued by this. Sinful men have corrupted many faiths and the faithful have to try to right them.

Luther held to sola scriptura after he was able to read the scriptures for himself. I’m not under the impression that he just wanted to give the Catholic leadership a hard time, but felt that it needed to be reformed and there is no doubt that he was right.

I am not a protestant who makes it my business to criticize Catholics all the time. I have problems with some of your doctrines, and I know full well you have problems with some of mine.

You may freely say that sola scriptura and sola fide is heresy, and that is your opinion. But that does not make it true. It is your personal belief. We disagree but that doesn’t mean we have to be ugly about it. I have never found anything in scripture that says that salvation is by works. The Apostle Paul said just the opposite. The entire book of Galatians is the essence of Jesus + Nothing. Now, I do hold to what James had to say about faith without works being dead. If a person claims to have salvation by the enormous grace of our Savior and doesn’t feel compelled to do good works, then something is wrong. Being a child of the King should automatically change the inward attitude about doing good for the poor and everyone else. So there is no conflict there. Salvation is by grace alone and the result of that salvation should be good works.

You need to refresh yourself on Luthers view of ‘real presence’. You might be surprised. But you are correct, that as a reformed Baptist I do not hold to real presence. I hold to the words that we are to take the bread and the cup in remembrance of Jesus and his sacrifice. It’s surely different that transubstantiation, but I believe it.

I wish you every blessing.

ForeverGrace-

The key or a problem from a Catholic perspective in your words above is “Somewhere Along the Way” you believe the faith was hijacked. Frankly, this is what the Mormons believe and neither of you can point to where. It isn’t shown in the church fathers and they were taught by the apostles and their successors. As they spreadout throughout the world, proclaiming the good news as Jesus instructed them, logic would say that the source taught them in error. A clear example here and what that I stated is in the belief in Real Presence in the Eucharist. In denying the Catholic church (among other points), you are denying the Eucharist and in doing so, your saying Christ’s words were wrong and that the disciples misunderstood him immediately because they went throughout the word teaching the real presence. Again, they went EVERYWHERE and taught the real presence so if it was wrong, Christ either told them in error or they misunderstood him. No one was teaching “remembrance” in a symbolic way. Regarding Luther, he clearly believed the in the bread and wine becoming the body and blood of our Lord but did not state how this occurred.

Questions:

• Is your understanding of Luther different in his belief of Christ’s presence in the bread and wine? I am curious…
• So again, do you believe Catholics are Christian and are saved? I am curious…

Peace Always, and I do mean that.

PS. I was not implying that the Baptists and Mormons were comparable. One is Christian and was in not in denying the Trinity.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The Catholic Church has never been run by ‘majority rule’ in the sense that there are elected (church) officials who can be voted in or out of office by the Laity. When a matter of doctrine was taken up at a Council, there was a vote of the Bishops (e.g,. Council of Nicae voted that Christ is the Son of God and not a creature in oppositon to the Arian heresy - of the approximate 200 attendees, only 2 voted against this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea - but, it still went to the Pope for his approval.)

Hi Tom,

An argument can be made for this regarding Papal elections in 1059 AD:

fordham.edu/halsall/source/papal-elect1059.asp

1. That, when the Pontiff of this Roman universal church dies, the cardinal bishops, after first conferring together with most diligent consideration, shall afterwards call in to themselves the cardinal clergy; and then the remaining clergy and the people shall approach and consent to the new election.

It is my understanding that it wasn’t until 1139 with the 10th Ecumenical Synod (Lateran) that the decision for the Papacy was entirely given to the School of Cardinals and in 1179, it further specifies that the Cardinals must have 2/3 majority ruling for the candidate.

Peace,

Jose

 

[ahs]

My goodness. Reformed from what???!!!

No, the title of the thread asks “…reforming* to *What?” If you read the first or so posts, you’ll see it explained. The short version is: Were they trying to get back to the original/real Christianity or were they changing doctrine…

I guess a good way to ask it would be to ask you, as a “Reformed Baptist”, what did you reform to? Was it to a more pure/original Christianity (and then what is the standard you measure this against adn by what authority…and where does this authority claim its Authority), or just to something different that what you were previously (and then by what authority was the change in doctrinen made and where did such authority claim its Authority)?

something could only be an unfolding of an already in-place doctrine if God was overseeing the unfolding…otherwise it is just man-made additions…

And who decides what is an already in-place doctrine that is unfolding, with God overseeing it…vs. what is a man-made doctrine? And is Tertullian the only ECF that get s voice here? It seems he is the only one you want to use.
Oh, and I don’t need a list of your opinions about which are which mind you…such as altar-calls, or exchanging wedding rings being man-made…I just want to know who decides what doctrines are man-made and which are already-in-place-Doctrines-that-are-unfolding.

Tertullian wanted to ensure that what was taught was actually received from the apostles…to do so he could appeal to the writings that the apostles supplied and he also referred to what he claimed was taught everywhere in the churches founded by the apostles. Before you get overly excited by that last bit, keep in mind that it was a much better argument in his hands b/c doctrine hadn’t had centuries of opportunity to undergo changes.

So Irenaeas and Clement, and Justin and Polycarp, and Ignatius, etc…did not want to ensure this? What Authority did these others go to for their answers and why would that be less appropriate than where Tertullian went? Or did they go to the same source? Did doctrine have significantly more time to “undergo changes” when these others wrote vs. when Tertullian wrote? And by whose standard are we measuring what constitutes the undergoing of changes?

This should be obvious. Very obvious. Like Tertullian, some reformers wanted to limit their beliefs to what the apostles actually taught (and exclude what was added to that original rule of faith). If you want to find out what Christ and the apostles actually taught about apostolic succession then look at their own words….then if you think that their own words may not tell the whole story, then look at the earliest ECFs to gain information. The later ECFs are of less value b/c by the time they show up, there had been plenty of time for the original teaching to have been lost in additions and distortions. Also, the existence of a range of views on a matter is more consistent with the absence of an original teaching and is more consistent with the ECFs trying to fill in the blanks where they weren’t happy with what Jesus and the apostles left.

So who decided what was “added” to the original rule of faith? I can look at the words of Christ and the Apostles and see Apostolic Succession pretty clearly. But I think you are trying to get off topic here.

So the ECF’s are less valuable as time goes by…so by what date, would you say, do they start to become less valuable? What would be the cut-off date to read extra-Biblical sources to find clarification on Christian Doctrine? And what is the objective criteria for making such a comment that “The later ECFs are of less value b/c by the time they show up, there had been plenty of time for the original teaching to have been lost in additions and distortions”? What objective criteria do you measure with to determine “the ECFs trying to fill in the blanks where they weren’t happy with what Jesus and the apostles left.”?

there was only one source that was seen as infallible by both sides of the issue…the scriptures.

So there is no ECF that says anything about the Church in this regard? I don’t recall Peter going to Scripture to determine if circumcision was necessary…so I believe he was able to recognize some other infallible source other than Scripture, no? I recall one of the ECF’s speaking of the Church, or was it the Chair of Peter…“from which no error comes”. Maybe this was after the objective cut-off date, after which the ECF’s are no longer valuable? Once you get that cut-off date for me shall I go back and see what year that was so I’ll know whether it’s a reliable source or not?

this is exactly one of those self-serving interpretations that I was talking about. One wonders whether the CC is infallible, so one asks the possibly fallible CC if it is infallible?..and it answers that it is infallible based on how it interprets scripture and tradition…go figure.

I said “…the Church that Christ promised would never fall to the gates of hell and which the Holy Spirit would guide in truth”. Are you saying Christ did not establish such a Church and that He did not protect it from the gates of hell and that He did not promise the Holy Spirit would guide it in truth? How is this a self-serving interpretation? Either Christ did or He didn’t.

b/c in their view the doctrine of the CC was so filled with error that staying true to Christ involved leaving that error (as the CC was not about to reform to the extent necessary to eliminate the error). …and b/c the error was so extensive, leaving wasn’t seen as leaving the Church at all.

Because “in their view”… That’s the whole point of the matter isn’t it? This is precisely, IMHO, why Christ gave the Keys to one man, and one man only…and why Peter was told “what you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven…what you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven…” It was in “their view” that there was simply too much error to fix it. Did any of the protestants ever write extensively on whether they consulted God for HIS VIEW on whether there were too many problems to fix them internally? Christ prayed for His ONE Church to remain ONE. I don’t recall any Scripture passage suggesting that it would be okay to not remain as ONE if there were some irreconcilable differences. In fact, I DO recall a passage discussing one such difference and in Scripture there is a peculiar way that it gets handled…someone steps up and makes a definitive declaration on the matter…and I don’t recall anyone objecting afterwards…as though there was some Authority being exercised.

of course they were trying to change doctrine…they saw the doctrine of the CC as being filled with error.

Again…THEY saw doctrine as being filled with error. For them to say doctrine was in error necessarily subjected the doctrine to someone’s opinions. If there was no Authority that Christ put in place, how many opinions of how many people would make for how many different doctrines? That’s why, IMHO, Christ established Authority in His Church…why He promised the Holy Spirit to guide the ONE Church that He established in truth and why only one man was given the Keys of the Kingdom. It’s why He tells His Apostles, “whoever listens to you, listens to me…whoever rejects you, rejects Me…” When the authority is rejected, then truth becomes subjective according to the countless opinions of countless people with countless different ways to interpret what they think is truth.

show me where Christ called for unity around error….show me where Christ called for unity around corruption.

Who decides what is “error”? Because you believe, or the “reformers” believed there to be doctrinal error, that means there was doctrinal error? By what authority would such a claim be supported…and where does that authority claim its Authority? Christ called for unity, period. And Christ did not make Truth or unity dependent upon lack of corruption or fallibility of men. Can you show me an exception that Christ gave us? When Peter denied Christ 3 times did Christ say, “sorry, this was an error…you are no longer going to be the sole holder of the keys…”? When Paul believed that Peter was in error, did Paul say, “you are wrong Peter and I’m not going to associate with you…”? I don’t think that’s quite how it happened is it?

Your argument seems to be that:

1. Since the CC can’t err on the major stuff (and it can only err on the minor stuff)

1. And since Christ called for unity;

1. It is therefore wrong to separate from the CC

That argument is only as good as the assumption at #1…which didn’t look very good to those reformers.

My argument is: Since Christ established only one Church and protected His Church from error and He called for unity, it is wrong to separate from that one Church…because in doing so one rejects Christ’s call for unity and separates himself from the Church that Christ established.

I happen to believe the Church Christ established is the one we call the Catholic Church because, among many reasons, it is the only Church that can show an unbroken Tradition passed on from the Apostles…part of which has been recorded in Scripture and part passed down orally, and is the only Church that can show 2000 years of consistent Doctrine.

 

[Contarini]

Rome is democratic and has been over two millenia.

I don’t think it’s even remotely democratic, sorry. It is a republic. Much like Venice in fact. A combination of aristocracy and monarchy (since the Pope has monarchical power once he’s elected). I can’t see anything democratic about it—perhaps you should define your terms.

A minimum definition of democracy, it seems to me, is that the mass of the people (if not everyone) is involved in decision-making.

Religious orders do have significant democratic elements, but Rome itself doesn’t. The cardinals are appointed by one Pope and then elect the new Pope. No one else is involved.

Political power shifted from Catholic, to Protestant. Had there been no Reformation: it is clear democracy stands without Protestantism both from Martin Luther, and John Calvin. Your point seems a bit lost. American Cold War policy exists against communism, that what you say, " … if Communism had never existed, … Cold War policy would have taken place unchecked.", that’s ridiculous.

Sorry–the extended analogy was confusing. I know it’s ridiculous–that was my point. It’s similarly ridiculous to assume that Counter-Reformation Catholicism would have dominated if the Reformation hadn’t happened. But this is what many Protestants and secular folks do assume.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

No, the title of the thread asks “…reforming* to *What?”

Good point.

adn by what authority…and where does this authority claim its Authority), or just to something different that what you were previously (and then by what authority was the change in doctrinen made and where did such authority claim its Authority)?

This assumes that one needs something called “authority” in order to determine what is true and good. That isn’t self-evident.

Given the clear disagreement among people of good will in matters of religion, and specifically in the interpretation of the Bible and of Christian tradition, an excellent a posteriori case can be made that a decisive, trustworthy ecclesiastical authority is necessary practically speaking.

But in principle it is quite conceivable that people of good will and intellectual seriousness might be able to reach a satisfactory consensus, with agreement to disagree on minor points. That is what the Protestants believed they could do. Some Protestants still claim that this approach has worked, or at least that it doesn’t work any worse than the alternatives.

I think that as a matter of observation that’s just not true. But the point has to be argued empirically and not simply on the basis of some supposed a priori need for “authority.”

As has been pointed out ad nauseam by Protestant apologists, the latter approach is self-defeating because on your principles you need an “authority” for your decision that Rome has authority.

The “spiral argument” popularized by Karl Keating (though it’s also found in the Catholic Encyclopedia) doesn’t work for two reasons: Its premises about what can be “proven” about Scripture based on historical evidence are clearly false, and more to the point here, its methodology is exactly the same as that of the Protestants. I.e., it assumes that one can engage in historical inquiry that reaches certain results and doesn’t need an a priori “authority” in order to do so. So if it were possible to prove historically that Jesus gave the keys to Peter and established an infallible Church (which it clearly isn’t–this is actually one of the clearest empirical instances of a point on which learned people of good will definitely disagree), that would disprove the general claim that one always needs “authority” to make such determinations.

Edwin

 

[kbf1970060]

The Reformation did not happen, but failed. The Church neither was, nor is, reformed by anything either Martin Luther, or John Calvin, ever did. Martin Luther at least, left the church, so to did John Calvin’s father through his rejection of The Eucharist, the most essential and pivotal sacrament, that Jesus instituted.

The Reformation never occured. A schism occurred. Heresies followed.

The apparent fact is a loss of political power. Europe neither is Catholic, nor is it Protestant any longer.

Americans typically regard America to be a Christian nation; although, at least since the 1980’s that is recognizably declining as opinions go among prominent representatives of Protestant / Reformed, leaders. (Prominent as quotes go in major news outlets go.)

The answer to the question is nothing. Nothing was ever reformed. Schisms and heresies have only since followed.

You can easily find definitions for the word “democracy”, which will qualify the extant government of Rome, and I agree: it is not one pure government form, but a hybrid; dependent upon the various levels from local, to global.