The terms "reformation" and "semper reformanda"

[Catholic_Dude]

I have been debating with some protestants and the issue of whether or not the reformation was to “reform” the Church to what it “once was” or if it was a new and unBiblical ideology.

I think that Catholics using the term “reformation” to refer to that event is not a good idea. I though about it when I remembered how protestants tend to stick with “apocrypha” instead of Deuterocanonical. Its the same idea, why do we affirm what they were doing as a time of “reforming” when it was actually, as some would say, a time of “deforming”?

And then that term “semper reformanda” (always reforming). What is that supposed to mean. Do they think that the Church in such bad shape that it can never be 100% pure and holy no matter how many times its reformed? Is there even any Scriptural passages that hint at such a thing?

 

[DavidFilmer]

I prefer the term, “protestant rebellion.” I never uppercase either word.

FWIW, I have **only **heard the term “semper reformanda” applied to the Church by non-Catholics. It is not a term that I believe the Magesterium has ever applied to Herself (though She could - it makes sense in a way, if you don’t understand the term to mean reform of doctrine but rather of conduct).

 

[Todd_Easton]

DavidFilmer:

FWIW, I have **only **heard the term “semper reformanda” applied to the Church by non-Catholics. It is not a term that I believe the Magesterium has ever applied to Herself (though She could - it makes sense in a way, if you don’t understand the term to mean reform of doctrine but rather of conduct).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, uses a similar notion in paragraph 827, quoting Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium:
827. “Christ, ‘holy, innocent, and undefiled,’ knew nothing of sin, but came only to expiate the sins of the people. The Church, however, clasping sinners to her bosom, at once holy and always in need of purification, follows constantly the path of penance and renewal.”