The Reformation

[jmcrae]

I think there is great diversity within the walls of Rome. I bet American Catholicism is more biblical than Catholicism in predominate Catholic countries.

I doubt that, actually. I had the privilege of working one time with a priest from Spain who thought that Protestantism had died out (he was astounded when I told him that I was a convert from Protestantism) - he had the entire Bible memorized, and could explain any passage I came up with in the context of who wrote it, the historical situation of the time and location of the writing, how Israel understood it in the time of Jesus, and how it fit in with holy tradition of the Church - which is more than I can say for my North American parish priest, who spends most of his time walking people through their Declarations of Nullity, and picking alcoholics and drug addicts up off the street for rehabilitation - such is life in North America.

The priest from Spain didn’t consider it “inappropriate” for himself to know all these things, nor did he think it was inappropriate to teach them to me; in fact, he seemed to consider it absolutely essential that I read only the Scriptures and nothing else, for at least three hours a day. (I am nowhere near fulfilling his expectations, sadly, but that is hardly his fault.)

 

[MagicKirk]

Prodigal Son does a nice job defending the faith.

 

[Peter_J]

Help me out fellow Oregonians!!!

The Catholic radio station about channel 88 which covers between Portland and Salem made that statement. Maybe it’s part of the internal Reformation…that remnant choosing to change Rome from the inside out? That station was very biblical and edifying! I think I found it. I heard that statement about 4:00 PM Pacific time, that Mary was a sinner and need of redemption like the rest of us according to Mother Theresa.

kbvm.fm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=1

Reformed,

I was actually being a little facetious there. (insert emoticon of me slapping myself of the wrist)

I imagine that they were talking about Mother Theresa of Calcutta, but misquoted her.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prodigal Son1,

Take it up with jmcrae, not me. (Although it seems to me that he/she was just trying to help you out. )

Oh, I just naturally assumed jmcrae was helping me out there and I did appreciate it. I’m sorry I did not give him recognition, I meant no offense. I apologize jmcrae, I did not mean to take you for granted. I figured we both come from the same angle, that’s the beauty of Catholicism, we think alike.

I think you can see some Protestants can be frustrating at times. Especially when they do not answer directly, change the subject, answer questions with questions or throw out an accusation with no sources.

Reformed knows I’m in EMT school and don’t have time to pick up books to read other than school books. With that said, I do drive to school about an hour or so early so I can read a bit of the ECF everyday I attend class. Not to mention, I drive 65 miles one way to get to class, so I listen to a lot of “Protestant” CDs going and coming. Scott Hahn, Ken Hensley, Steve Ray, Dr. Ray Guarendi, Tim Staples, Alex Jones and others.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prodigal Son does a nice job defending the faith.

Thanks MagicKirk, I get carried away at times…I’d rather fight than switch! Just kidding, unless Jesse Romero is taking up my slack.

It’s hard for me to make others see what I see so clearly. :getholy:

 

[TriuneUnity]

I have read the Council of Trent, and there is nothing in it that I have any serious issues with; I don’t think Luther would have, either, if he had bothered to study it. (I suppose he must have been very elderly when it came out, though.)

Yeah, old as in dead LOL

 

[TriuneUnity]

Do you read the ECFs (in their whole) yourself, or excerpts from Protestant apologists? If it is the later, it would be like taking Biblical verses out of context to prove whatever you want them to prove

Oh yeah…Roman apologists NEVER do this.

 

[East_and_West]

Oh yeah…Roman apologists NEVER do this.

We don’t have to. The ECFs were all Catholic.

 

[Contarini]

(I’m not trying to argue, I’m trying to get information/views on something I know very little about)

Would you [Catholics] agree that there were some very real problems during the time of the Reformation? And didn’t Luther’s ideas bring to light the corruption of the church?

Nothing of the sort. Luther would never have made such a claim, because the corruption of the Church was well known to a lot of people. What Luther claimed is that his ideas showed where the Church had *really *gone off the rails.

If so, then doesn’t that make the Roman Catholic Church fallible?

Catholics distinguish sharply between moral failings and formal doctrinal error. From their perspective, Christ has promised to protect the Church from the latter but obviously not from the former. Luther addressed doctrinal issues primarily–he used questions of abuse and corruption to highlight what he thought was wrong with the Church’s doctrine. So the question between Catholics and Protestants is not whether there were all sorts of corruptions in the Church, but whether Luther’s *doctrinal *reformation was the right approach.

Edwin

 

[Reformed]

Yes, we’ve locked horns on private interpretations before. Your problem is which denomination you’re depending on. As a Calvinist, you follow a reformer of the reformation it appears.

These Priests did not depend on John Calvin. They depended on the Holy Spirit as He illuminated the truth through the Scirptures.

jesus-is-savior.com/Testimonies/bart.htm

 

[Contarini]

I don’t think Luther would have, either, if he had bothered to study it. (I suppose he must have been very elderly when it came out, though.)

He died about the time it started meeting. (It took a while to get going, so he would have known that it was on the way but it had not actually started when he died.) I don’t think he would have been very impressed, though. I’d like to be persuaded that I’m wrong–certainly Trent did affirm the basics of Augustinian theology–but it condemned Luther’s ideas about imputation, etc., and I think he would have seen it as a sophisticated (and hence deceptive) reframing of the same old “works righteousness.” Now if Trent had come out in Luther’s formative years, before he’d become fixated on imputation and the persistence of sin in the baptized as essential teachings of the Gospel, perhaps it would have changed history radically. But that’s anachronistic, of course, since Trent was to a great extent a response to Protestantism.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Does anyone understand what the heck he’s talking about?

Yes. In fact I’m not sure what you are having difficulty with. He’s saying that those whom God moves to place their faith in Christ alone will be saved, and he thinks that many of those people are Catholics, even though formal Catholic doctrine (in his opinion) is incompatible with a right understanding of salvation.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

i am still lost as to what “invisible” church means. is this referring to the catholic church, did someone make up this term, or is this part of the churches teaching?

i understand what happened in the 1500’s when luther began the reformation, which, in turn, led to the many denominations that we have today.

however, i still don’t understand the term “invisible” church.

The invisible church is a term used to describe all true believers throughout space and time. The historic roots of the idea are in Augustine, who points out that many of the elect are not part of the visible Church (yet), while many people within the Church may not be elect. You can rephrase this if you like to say that many are not in a state of grace, or do not have living faith, or however your theology leads you to put it. The point remains that baptism and other signs of membership in the Church do not guarantee a seat at the marriage feast of the Lamb (i.e., salvation–but the point is that the Church is described in the NT as the bride of Christ who will be present at the marriage feast). As far as I know, the Reformers were the first ones to use the phrase “invisible Church” (though I may be wrong). However, they still insisted on the importance of the visible Church–Calvin said that the visible Church is our mother outside of whom there is no salvation.

Edwin

 

[Reformed]

These Priests did not depend on John Calvin. They depended on the Holy Spirit as He illuminated the truth through the Scirptures.

jesus-is-savior.com/Testimonies/bart.htm

I only posted what I quickly found on the web in reaction to this post. Catholics used to hand me the Madrid book of converted Protestants to Catholicism. In return, I gave them a book of converted ex-nuns and Priests who converted to sola scriptura.

 

[JRKH]

These Priests did not depend on John Calvin. They depended on the Holy Spirit as He illuminated the truth through the Scirptures.

jesus-is-savior.com/Testimonies/bart.htm

Reformed,
I am curious about something. In your Profile, you list yourself as a “Reformed Protestant”. Could you tell me what that means? Thanks.

Peace
James

 

[Peter_J]

If so, then doesn’t that make the Roman Catholic Church fallible?

Actually, I’d say the pertinent distinction here is between the Church – which is sinless and infallible – and the members of the Church – who are sinful and fallible.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Actually, I’d say the pertinent distinction here is between the Church – which is sinless and infallible – and the members of the Church – who are sinful and fallible.

What is the distinction between “the Church” and its members?

 

[jmcrae]

What is the distinction between “the Church” and its members?

The Church is a spiritual/moral entity that is framed on a visible structure of heirarchy - I once said that the Church is an idea, but that was a bad way of phrasing it - but the Church is the set of teachings, moral principles, Doctrinal truths, rituals, Sacraments, culture, art, music - I don’t know what else - the smell of incense that lingers in the air after Adoration, the quality of silence that pervades a cathedral after the last Mass of the day (there is actually a soundclip call “cathedral air” that you can buy for use in videography; the kind of silence in a cathedral is different and more special than other kinds of silence, and someone has actually recorded this) - the laughter of child altar servers when they are putting their vestments away.

The concept of the Church is kind of like the concept of Western Civilization - it is instantly recognizable, but very difficult to describe.

 

[Contarini]

Actually, I’d say the pertinent distinction here is between the Church – which is sinless and infallible – and the members of the Church – who are sinful and fallible.

But this is obviously a distinction that you make only when members of the Church sin or err. You don’t say “a member of the Church defined the Immaculate Conception as dogma in 1854.” You say, “the Church defined the Immaculate Conception as dogma in 1854.” However, when a Pope does something wrong, suddenly he isn’t “the Church” any more but just a “member.” When certain members of the Church teach doctrine authoritatively (and the others go along with them), or do other things of which you retrospectively approve, they are “the Church.” But when they goof up, they aren’t. This implies a particularly pernicious version of the doctrine of the “invisible Church.” “The Church” in this formulation is a transcendent reality which cannot be identified simply with any earthly structure (i.e., an “invisible Church”), but which acts through certain “members of the Church” at certain times and under certain conditions. So you get the best of both worlds. The pope and bishops can claim to be “the Church” when teaching doctrine, but “the Church” escapes all blame for their mistakes.

This is at the root of most of the problems in Catholicism, I think. Do priests commit horrible sins, and do bishops condone them? Sure, but that isn’t the Church. Is Catholic liturgy often lacking in any sense of the transcendent? Sure, but “the Church” isn’t really like that. And then you blame Protestants for believing in an “invisible Church”!

There just is the Church, period. It’s people. And people sin and err, so the Church does too. Anything else denies the reality of the Body of Christ.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The Church is a spiritual/moral entity that is framed on a visible structure of heirarchy - I once said that the Church is an idea, but that was a bad way of phrasing it - but the Church is the set of teachings, moral principles, Doctrinal truths, rituals, Sacraments, culture, art, music - I don’t know what else - the smell of incense that lingers in the air after Adoration, the quality of silence that pervades a cathedral after the last Mass of the day (there is actually a soundclip call “cathedral air” that you can buy for use in videography; the kind of silence in a cathedral is different and more special than other kinds of silence, and someone has actually recorded this) - the laughter of child altar servers when they are putting their vestments away.

The concept of the Church is kind of like the concept of Western Civilization - it is instantly recognizable, but very difficult to describe.

This was posted while I was writing my post.

The problem with your definition is that smells and music and qualities of silence don’t issue doctrinal definitions. They don’t excommunicate people. They don’t make rules about whether women can be ordained or not. People do that. If “the Church” is not people then the Church can’t teach anything or discipline anybody. But if “the Church” is people then it can sin and err. I think you are trying to have the best of both worlds, and I don’t think it works.

Edwin