The reformation

[CMatt25]

So, what are you saying, CMatt? If you had seen all this with your own eyes, then you would believe it? Otherwise, you can’t know for sure that it is real?

What you are saying is that God cannot keep His promises.

Isa 55:11
11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

God put His word into the Church, but was unable to preserve it there after all the “eyewitnesses” died?

What you are saying is that the frailties of humans are more powerful than the promises of God. He made promises of certainty, but was unable or unwilling to keep them.

John 14:18-22

18 “I will not leave you orphaned; I am coming to you. 19 In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me; because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. 21 They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me; and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them.”

You don’t seem to believe that Jesus has revealed Himself to the Church, as He promised.

What I am saying Guan is I keep faith real. It has nothihg to do with having to see it with my own eyes. Seeing would mean we would not need faith. Nor does it have anything to do with I not believng God can not keep His promises. I suppose there are believers who might believe reformation is needed for exactly that reason. Reform and correction along the way as a means in which Christ keeps His promise of the gates not prevailing.

In truth we walk by faith not by sight. And I’m sorry but I don’t understand why that is so difficult to understand.

 

[guanophore]

 Nor does it have anything to do with I not believng God can not keep His promises.  I suppose there are believers who might believe reformation is needed for exactly that reason.

You think that the Reformation was needed because God did not keep His promises?

Reform and correction along the way as a means in which Christ keeps His promise of the gates not prevailing.

Yes, we are in agreement on this point. However, the HS has the job of reforming the Church, not people. When people are disobedient, rebellious, and create their own doctrines because they think reform is needed, then they have departed from the One Faith.

In truth we walk by faith not by sight.  And I'm sorry but I don't understand why that is so difficult to understand.

What I understand, CMatt, is that you use this phrase to support your idea that we can’t know the Truth in this life.

It is your way of defending a position of moral relativism, and rejecting the Teachings of the Apostles infallibly preserved in the Church by the HS. If you can convince yourself that the Truth cannot reallybe known until we all get to heaven, then you don’t have to feel responsible for disobeying what the Church teaches.

 

[CMatt25]

You think that the Reformation was needed because God did not keep His promises?

Guan, sorry if you misunderstood what I think. I think there might be believers who believe reform was/is needed for God TO keep His promise of the gates not prevailing.

Yes, we are in agreement on this point. However, the HS has the job of reforming the Church, not people. When people are disobedient, rebellious, and create their own doctrines because they think reform is needed, then they have departed from the One Faith.

Well at least we agree on something and you acknowledge we are discussing faith.

What I understand, CMatt, is that you use this phrase to support your idea that we can’t know the Truth in this life.

It is your way of defending a position of moral relativism, and rejecting the Teachings of the Apostles infallibly preserved in the Church by the HS. If you can convince yourself that the Truth cannot reallybe known until we all get to heaven, then you don’t have to feel responsible for disobeying what the Church teaches.

Then I am not absolutely certain you do understand what I am saying. Because no it has nothing to do with being a moral relativist in faith if one believes there is ultimate truth out there. But instead it has to do with me being realisitic to myself in what faith means.

But we may have to agree to disagree on this Guan. Sometimes to avoid going in circles in discussions that is all that is left to be done.

God bless you in your faith journey and God bless all of us in our journeys as well. And peace to you and to all who in faith seek the truth.

 

[Alix1912]

A little less clerical corruption perhaps? I’m afraid Luther had quite a bit of “material” to work with!

I think that the corruption in many areas of the church…especially in Germany that Rome was unwilling or unable to address made the reformation unavoidable. I also think hubris came into play. The church was resting on its power and the fact that little had happened in the past centuries to rattle its dominance that it could not handle. Rather than addressing the issues that Luther and other’s raised they simply relied on the methods that had worked before and attacked them.

Keep in mind contrary to his portrayal in this forum…Luther was not aiming to schism the church…and probably would have little to complain about in the Catholic Church today. Modern Catholic Theologians even agree that not that many of his 99 Thesis’s are heretical…and many of his charges of corruption were actually true, and issues that needed to be addressed. If at the Diet of Worms, the church had simply pointed out those issues and not demanded a total recanting of everything he had ever written and said, I believe that Luther would have not have split away. Luther expressed in his later life that he was sad that the church had ignored the problems within it, and that the reformation had gone as far as it had, he did not agree with the likes of Calvin and others and felt they had really gone off the track. (Side note: keep in mind that Henry VIII of England technically broke away first over much more trivial reasons).

The Church tried to deal with Luther as they had with dissenters in the past……excommunication or even death. However, unlike in the past you had the renaissance in full swing. Clergy were no longer the only people who were educated and who could read. Much of the Noble class and the growing middle class could read and were becoming educated. People were passing ideas around, and news was able to travel farther and faster, the old Greek classics were being studied again as well as Lay people studying the bible and works of the early church fathers. The nobles could open a Bible and see for themselves that selling indulgences for example was not biblically based, or even something that the early church fathers advocated. This gave Luther and the other reformers powerful educated princes who believed them to protect them from the church. It also unfortunately gave another group of Princes the chance to cheaply increase their holdings by converting and confiscating the lands held by the church in their principalities. Luther himself actually confronted these princes and basically said they were evil.

Basically you could write an entire shelf of books answering this question. In a nutshell, I don’t think the reformation was avoidable. We can look back and analyze the causes, but we have hindsight in our favor something the people of that time did not have. I think we can p(name removed by moderator)oint times in history that the reformation could have been avoided, but we have hundreds of years of history to examine with that. At the time they only had what they knew currently and from the past.

 

[guanophore]

Guan, sorry if you misunderstood what I think. I think there might be believers who believe reform was/is needed for God TO keep His promise of the gates not prevailing.

In that case, I have not misunderstood you. You are supporting those who adhere to the necessity of the Reformation as an act of God. You are taking the side that disobedience and rebellion against the successors of the Apostles was God’s way of preserving HIs Church.
You are giving credence to those who thought that doctrine needed Reformation, instead of people.

Well at least we agree on something and you acknowledge we are discussing faith.

Not really, CMatt. For me, the One Faith is something that is divinely revealed, and exists above and beyond the personal faith of any one person, or even communities of people. For you, the “faith” is whatever each individual chooses to believe.

Then I am not absolutely certain you do understand what I am saying. Because no it has nothing to do with being a moral relativist in faith if one believes there is ultimate truth out there. But instead it has to do with me being realisitic to myself in what faith means.

I think you do agree that there is an ultimate Truth out there. But your posts consistently refer to the fact that none of us will know what it is until the next life.

It seems that “realistic faith” for you means whatever you choose to believe, and by extension, what any individual chooses to believe. You deny that God has revealed Truth to us in this life,a nd that this Truth is infallibly preserved in the Church He founded, by the HS He sent.

But we may have to agree to disagree on this Guan. Sometimes to avoid going in circles in discussions that is all that is left to be done.

I think you are right. There is no other result for a person who believes as you do BUT to go in circles.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

Democracy and the Reformation

The suggestion that the Reformation was a necessary precursor to democracy needs to be qualified.

Clearly neither the Venetians, the Romans, the Greeks, etc were Protestants, and they practiced some form of democratic (republican) government.

However, the particular accident of American democracy is clearly the product of the Reformation, particularly the English Reformation. The Reformation came along at the same time as the great discovery of the new world and advances in the technology of ship building.

Because the English Reformation did not please everyone, English dissenters and Catholics sought and obtained colonies in New England. Massachusetts was founded by Puritans (later Congregationalists), Rhode Island by Baptists, Pennsylvania by Quakers, Maryland by Catholics. When it came to resistance to England (remember no one had much affection for the mother country by the time of the revolution), they found hanging together to be preferable to hanging separately, and in the spirit of toleration they forged a secular democracy that did not require or allow a particular religion to dominate.

So democracy, the kind we know in America, came about as a result of the Reformation, really an accident of the Reformation, but a pleasant accident at that. Democracy has not fared that well in most parts of the world, and it stinks to high heaven even in America. But who among us would prefer to be ruled by the Puritans? I daresay even the present day Congregationalists would not.

Also, apparently, the pre-revolutionary religious conventions in the colonies had a two house structure and it has been alleged (but not by me) that this was an inspiration for the two house of congress.

 

[Roy5]

I think it is significant that of (as I recall) the 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, 55 were Protestants of different varieties. Interestingly, I don’t recall that any were either Baptists or Methodists, the two largest Protestant denominations in the USA today. The big three were Episcopal, Congregational, and Presbyterian, with maybe a Dutch Reformed and a Quaker and a Lutheran thrown in??? Carroll of Maryland was the one Catholic.

Up until Vatican II, and certainly back in the time of Pius IX, Catholicism seemed to prefer some form of authoritarianism. Take Franco Spain, for example, where civil liberties as well as Protestantism were oppressed until very modern times. Many Catholics appeared to regard Franco Spain as somehow a great Catholic model.

 I come from a mixed Catholic/Protestant heritage, and there is much about Catholicism that I admire, certainly those selfless priests and nuns who devote their lives to helping people in need.  Yet, when I watch Vatican events on EWTN and see what appears to be a medieval-style monarchy with all of its ornateness and pomp, and the adulation of the Pope - hm! I am troubled. Am I too influenced by democracy? Maybe too hostile toward monarchial traditions? Perhaps too skeptical when it comes to all the adoration that seems to be directed at the Pope? I wonder how Christ would feel when we recall how he had no place to rest his weary head (Matt. 8:20).

 The Reformation hurried the arrival of democracy by dividing Europe by religion, creating many denominations, none powerful enough in the USA to reign supreme. Many forms of Protestantism also emphasized individuality as opposed to a collectivist mentality, more commonplace within Catholicism. Various Protestants churches also were much more democratic in their structure - congregational as opposed to centralized authority. These and other factors helped in the trend toward political democracy. 

  God bless all of his children, of every creed, color, culture and country.

 

[CMatt25]

I come from a mixed Catholic/Protestant heritage, and there is much about Catholicism that I admire, certainly those selfless priests and nuns who devote their lives to helping people in need. Yet, when I watch Vatican events on EWTN and see what appears to be a medieval-style monarchy with all of its ornateness and pomp, and the adulation of the Pope - hm! I am troubled. Am I too influenced by democracy? Maybe too hostile toward monarchial traditions? Perhaps too skeptical when it comes to all the adoration that seems to be directed at the Pope? I wonder how Christ would feel when we recall how he had no place to rest his weary head (Matt. 8:20).

I too am troubled by all the ornateness and pomp.

 

[guanophore]

I too am troubled by all the ornateness and pomp.

Perhaps you and Roy would not feel comfortable waving palm branches before his colt, or casting your cloaks on the road before Him.

Perhaps you would have complained that an expensive perfume was “wasted” on his feet.

 

[CMatt25]

Perhaps you and Roy would not feel comfortable waving palm branches before his colt, or casting your cloaks on the road before Him.

Perhaps you would have complained that an expensive perfume was “wasted” on his feet.

Hi Guan, rereading Roy’s post he mentioned adulation given to the Pope. The Pope I know in faith you believe is Christ’s vicar on earth. But he isn’t Christ. The last time I ever attended a Mass at the territorial parish for Catholics in my locale, the priest said during his homily that people had complained about spending on decor. I know a new marble altar for instance had been recently installed. And he mentioned some objected to a number of plants which had been added to the decor. He said they were complaining about the money being collected for that purpose when there are so many poor. And he said those people had no right to complain if they didn’t give much and his response was also that the poor should get a job and there would always be poor. Yes there will always be poor. And I understand it was perhaps merely reflective of the political direction I deem the Catholic Church, at least in the US, drifting into. But in the economic times going on at the time, and still now, I was very troubled by that response. So much so that I have never been back to worship there since.

Peace.

 

[SteveVH]

Hi Guan, rereading Roy’s post he mentioned adulation given to the Pope. The Pope I know in faith you believe is Christ’s vicar on earth. But he isn’t Christ. The last time I ever attended a Mass at the territorial parish for Catholics in my locale, the priest said during his homily that people had complained about spending on decor. I know a new marble altar for instance had been recently installed. And he mentioned some objected to a number of plants which had been added to the decor. He said they were complaining about the money being collected for that purpose when there are so many poor. And he said those people had no right to complain if they didn’t give much and his response was also that the poor should get a job and there would always be poor. Yes there will always be poor. And I understand it was perhaps merely reflective of the political direction I deem the Catholic Church, at least in the US, drifting into. But in the economic times going on at the time, and still now, I was very troubled by that response. So much so that I have never been back to worship there since.

Peace.

As far as complaining on where the money should be spent, welcome to any Catholic parish in the world. As far as the priest’s response that the poor should get a job, I think most Catholics would find that extremely offensive. This, I assure you, is not a mainline Catholic attitude. The Catholic Church is by far in the forefront of churches who minister to the poor. No other church even comes close.

 

[CMatt25]

As far as complaining on where the money should be spent, welcome to any Catholic parish in the world. As far as the priest’s response that the poor should get a job, I think most Catholics would find that extremely offensive. This, I assure you, is not a mainline Catholic attitude. The Catholic Church is by far in the forefront of churches who minister to the poor. No other church even comes close.

Steve, thank you so much for your words. I pray it does not become the mainline attitude. It was at a weekday Mass when not as many were present and I heard one fellow affirm vocally and saw some nods and smiles. But I know the Catholic Church also does good in ministering to the poor. And I have no problem with teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. But I also didn’t think the poor should get a job was the answer Christ would have given. So ever since I have a difficult time seeing Him any longer in the guidance there. God bless you.

 

[SteveVH]

Steve, thank you so much for your words. I pray it does not become the mainline attitude. It was at a weekday Mass when not as many were present and I heard one fellow affirm vocally and saw some nods and smiles. But I know the Catholic Church also does good in ministering to the poor. And I have no problem with teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. But I also didn’t think the poor should get a job was the answer Christ would have given. So ever since I have a difficult time seeing Him any longer in the guidance there. God bless you.

You should read Catholic teaching regarding the poor. I wouldn’t let something one priest said taint the whole Church. This is an example, however, of how careful we all must be in everythng we say. Christians are their own worst enemies and priests and bishops can cause people to loose their faith with off-the-wall comments. We have to remember that they are only men and have their faults like the rest of us, but when they are representing the Church, they had better be very careful in what they say. This is a good example of that.

 

[gcnuss]

Christians are their own worst enemies and priests and bishops can cause people to loose their faith with off-the-wall comments. We have to remember that they are only men and have their faults like the rest of us, but when they are representing the Church, they had better be very careful in what they say. This is a good example of that.

I suspect that this is related to the causes of the Reformation. The perception that officials of the Church were corrupt or living the good life while the faithful were encouraged to “buy” indulgences didn’t go over well. Whether this resulted in loss of faith or loss of trust in the Church, it helped to pave the road to the Reformation.

 

[cooterhein]

I don’t know where you get thousands. There were only a few mainline protestant churches who broke with the Catholic Church. The thousands of splinter denominations since then never had any association with the Catholic Church before they broke off from other churches.

It would be tens of thousands if all the Western denominations factored in; as for denominations and sects that broke directly from Rome, you’re right, it’s probably not thousands. Hundreds, though.

As for the denomination I belong to, it didn’t break directly from Rome. It didn’t really break from anyone, actually. It’s more like a coalition of non-denominational churches. Churches may choose to join or leave the organization, provided that they agree to adhere to certain guidelines and carry out what it means to be a non-denominational church in this organization. Individual churches that bow out generally do so because they’ve chosen to align themselves with something that’s a denomination in a more formal sense.

So it looks like my denomination (technically not really a denomination- there’s no central headquarters) is one from which no other denomination has ever split/splintered/fragmented, whereas yours is one from which at least a few hundred denominations have split. (Many thousands, if you choose to view all of Western Protestantism as something that ultimately has its origins in the disunity of Western Catholicism). Mine may not be as old, but its creation did not come about in a way that had nothing to do with sectarianism in either the formal sense or the informal one. (This is true of most American denominations, actually).

So I guess this means my denomination is better at unity than yours is. And since my denomination (and so many other denominations) did not break directly from Rome, you have no reason to ask any of them to pursue unity with Rome, correct?

 

[guanophore]

Hi Guan, rereading Roy’s post he mentioned adulation given to the Pope. The Pope I know in faith you believe is Christ’s vicar on earth. But he isn’t Christ. The last time I ever attended a Mass at the territorial parish for Catholics in my locale, the priest said during his homily that people had complained about spending on decor. I know a new marble altar for instance had been recently installed. And he mentioned some objected to a number of plants which had been added to the decor. He said they were complaining about the money being collected for that purpose when there are so many poor. And he said those people had no right to complain if they didn’t give much and his response was also that the poor should get a job and there would always be poor. Yes there will always be poor. And I understand it was perhaps merely reflective of the political direction I deem the Catholic Church, at least in the US, drifting into. But in the economic times going on at the time, and still now, I was very troubled by that response. So much so that I have never been back to worship there since.

Peace.

I am sorry you had to be subjected to that, CM. It certainly does not seem to be an appropriate content for a homily.

However, there is nothing intrinsically wrong in having an altar that is worthy of Him who is remembered upon it, or of any other decorations that bring honor to Him in that sacrifice.

It is not necessary to choose between pouring the expensive perfume on His feet, and giving to the poor.

We honor the Vicar of Christ as a way of honoring the One who appointed Peter. This does not take away from honor of the poor.

Have you considered forgiving the priest, and praying for him? Had you considered that God had you suffer this indignity so that you could sit in the congregation and intercede for him during the Mass? Things that provoke and hurt us like this are opportunities for us to become perfected in holiness.

 

[guanophore]

Steve, thank you so much for your words. I pray it does not become the mainline attitude. It was at a weekday Mass when not as many were present and I heard one fellow affirm vocally and saw some nods and smiles. But I know the Catholic Church also does good in ministering to the poor. And I have no problem with teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. But I also didn’t think the poor should get a job was the answer Christ would have given. So ever since I have a difficult time seeing Him any longer in the guidance there. God bless you.

This indeed is the challenge that we must all face with one another. We are called upon to see Him in the faces of our neighbor. In this case, this priest is in as much need of your love and ministry as that wounded man lying in the road that was rescued by the Samaritan.

I have had periods of unemployment too, and I work with many displaced workers. I am discouraged that more people will not enroll in school or do volunteer work, or both when they are out of work. It seems like such a waste of resources. We are to work, there is no promise that there will be a wage. A wage is better, and is fair, but we are to work even if it is not forthcoming.

Eph 4:27-29
28 Thieves must give up stealing; rather let them labor and work honestly with their own hands, so as to have something to share with the needy.

1 Thess 4:10-12
But we urge you, beloved, to do so more and more, 11 to aspire to live quietly, to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we directed you, 12 so that you may behave properly toward outsiders and be dependent on no one.

2 Thess 3:10-13
10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat. 11 For we hear that some of you are living in idleness, mere busybodies, not doing any work. 12 Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living. 13 Brothers and sisters, do not be weary in doing what is right.

 

[guanophore]

As for the denomination I belong to, it didn’t break directly from Rome. It didn’t really break from anyone,

Perhaps it does not seem that way, but it was spawned by one that did.

actually. It’s more like a coalition of non-denominational churches. Churches may choose to join or leave the organization, provided that they agree to adhere to certain guidelines and carry out what it means to be a non-denominational church in this organization. Individual churches that bow out generally do so because they’ve chosen to align themselves with something that’s a denomination in a more formal sense.

And who makes the determination of what it means to be “non-denominational”? And who enforces the guidelines?

It is good that you say “that is a denomination in a more formal sense”, because even your non-denominational coalition is a denomination.

So it looks like my denomination (technically not really a denomination- there’s no central headquarters) is one from which no other denomination has ever split/splintered/fragmented,

To “denominate” is to take one’s name from something. All denominations are defined by what portions of the Apostolic faith they reject.

all of Western Protestantism as something that ultimately has its origins in the disunity of Western Catholicism).

That is the thing, cooter, there IS NO disunity in the Church founded by Christ.

Mine may not be as old, but its creation did not come about in a way that had nothing to do with sectarianism in either the formal sense or the informal one. (This is true of most American denominations, actually).

I think if you are willing to study the history of American Protestantism you will find that this is not the case.

So I guess this means my denomination is better at unity than yours is. And since my denomination (and so many other denominations) did not break directly from Rome, you have no reason to ask any of them to pursue unity with Rome, correct?

No, this is not correct.

Jesus only founded ONE CHURCH. He prayed and commanded that there would be unity. All those who claim to belong to Him have a duty to seek this unity.

 

[CMatt25]

I am sorry you had to be subjected to that, CM. It certainly does not seem to be an appropriate content for a homily.

Have you considered forgiving the priest, and praying for him? Had you considered that God had you suffer this indignity so that you could sit in the congregation and intercede for him during the Mass?

Guan my brother, our Lord knows we have our differences. But as Paul corrected Peter, I thank you for this. Forgive yes. Though still not sure I would want such a priest for a pastor. But I must say I never considered I was to suffer through such a homily so as to pray for the priest. So you give me something to contemplate. And in the meantime I will pray for him even if outside this congregation. Peace.