Was the Protestant Reformation, in a sense, good?

[susanlo]

I am going to respond to all of you in this reply to rc so I hope you all read it! I am sort of kicking myself for starting this conversation at this particular time. Let me explain. Last winter while at my winter home down south I was given a book titled MARTYRS MIRROR. The book I was given was very old and about 1100 pages. If you Google the title you can I believe still order a book. This is the major source of information that I would have to reference everybody to. I no longer have the book in my possession. If anybody is open minded enough to look at a very interesting different perspective then read the book.

Heres where I must apologize I guess. I started something and now because I am back to my grain farm where we are in the beginning stages of planting our crops and putting in long days I have not the time to spend on caf. I am not avoiding anyone in any way by not directly responding. I looking back fully realize I should have refrained from responding to the article about Anabaptists that was in relationship to Protestant reformers who tried to kill them off.
If anyone bothers to find or order a book and another time wants to discuss it with me I would be open to that. Sorry for any upset I may have caused.

Oh, so you are talking about groups within the larger church (Roman Catholic) organization that quietly dissented to some of the church teachings over the centuries? I will have to look at this book some more. Here is a link to the book I believe you are speaking of.
ccel.org/ccel/vanbraght/mirror.i.html

 

[Wannano]

Oh, so you are talking about groups within the larger church (Roman Catholic) organization that quietly dissented to some of the church teachings over the centuries? I will have to look at this book some more. Here is a link to the book I believe you are speaking of.
ccel.org/ccel/vanbraght/mirror.i.html

Thanks, I am not savvy enough to know how to provide a link.

 

[rcwitness]

Oh, so you are talking about groups within the larger church (Roman Catholic) organization that quietly dissented to some of the church teachings over the centuries? I will have to look at this book some more. Here is a link to the book I believe you are speaking of.
ccel.org/ccel/vanbraght/mirror.i.html

I’ve heard of Acts and Monuments (Foxes Book of Martyrs). Is this similar? I’d like to study about them some.

I think it is on the same website, and available online:
ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/home.html

I read the first chapter, which is interesting that it acknowledges Peter as the rock which Jesus builds His Church.

 

[Wannano]

I’ve heard of Acts and Monuments (Foxes Book of Martyrs). Is this similar? I’d like to study about them some.

I think it is on the same website, and available online:
ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/home.html

I read the first chapter, which is interesting that it acknowledges Peter as the rock which Jesus builds His Church.

If you are referring to the first chapter of Fox’s Book of Martyrs then read the sketch about the author to get a perspective of who he was. On the other link read the section about the origin of the true Church of God.

 

[rcwitness]

I don’t know… I have a feeling from the outset that the Book of Martyrs is quite biased. It launches into an attack on the office of the Pope with this (in Chapter4):

Popery having brought various innovations into the Church, and overspread the Christian world with darkness and superstition, some few, who plainly perceived the pernicious tendency of such errors, determined to show the light of the Gospel in its real purity, and to disperse those clouds which artful priests had raised about it, in order to blind the people, and obscure its real brightness.

The principal among these was Berengarius, who, about the year 1000, boldly preached Gospel truths, according to their primitive purity.

I was curious to know about this Berengarius fellow, so I read about him in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“…in 1078, by order of Pope Gregory VII, he came to Rome, and in a council held inSt. John Lateran signed a profession of faith affirming the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ, born of the Virgin Mary. The following year, in a council held in the same place Berengarius signed a formula affirming the same doctrine in a more explicit way. (Pope) Gregory VII then recommended him to the bishops of Tours and Angers, forbidding that any penalty should be inflicted on him or that anyone should call him a heretic. Berengarius, on his return, again attacked the formula he had signed, but as a consequence of the Council of Bordeaux (1080) he made a final retraction. He then retired into solitude on the island of St. Cosme, where he died, in union with the Church.”

 

[Wannano]

I don’t know… I have a feeling from the outset that the Book of Martyrs is quite biased. It launches into an attack on the office of the Pope with this (in Chapter4):

Popery having brought various innovations into the Church, and overspread the Christian world with darkness and superstition, some few, who plainly perceived the pernicious tendency of such errors, determined to show the light of the Gospel in its real purity, and to disperse those clouds which artful priests had raised about it, in order to blind the people, and obscure its real brightness.

The principal among these was Berengarius, who, about the year 1000, boldly preached Gospel truths, according to their primitive purity.

I was curious to know about this Berengarius fellow, so I read about him in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“…in 1078, by order of Pope Gregory VII, he came to Rome, and in a council held inSt. John Lateran signed a profession of faith affirming the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ, born of the Virgin Mary. The following year, in a council held in the same place Berengarius signed a formula affirming the same doctrine in a more explicit way. (Pope) Gregory VII then recommended him to the bishops of Tours and Angers, forbidding that any penalty should be inflicted on him or that anyone should call him a heretic. Berengarius, on his return, again attacked the formula he had signed, but as a consequence of the Council of Bordeaux (1080) he made a final retraction. He then retired into solitude on the island of St. Cosme, where he died, in union with the Church.”

I don’t see that what the Catholic Encyc. Reports about him refutes anything from the paragraph from the book.

II came to caf to learn about Catholicism and have tried to keep an open mind here for the past months. I have learned a lot and think that there are a lot of things in common. For me some things Catholic stretch my mind and I am sure the book Martyr Mirror wI’ll stretch yours! I feel it never hurts to try to understand a different perspective rather than just trashing anything that goes against what one has been taught.

 

[rcwitness]

What we need to remember, is to keep this in relation to the thread. Did the Reformers (the chief members of the Protestant Reformation) have the same goals and doctrines as these Martyrs?

I think there is an attempt to classify many Christian Martyrs into a group opposed to the Catholic Church. But if we look closely at the details, we see a much different picture. Or at least far from the black and white one many Protestants attempt to display.

 

[7_Sorrows]

If you call heresy and schism good. But the 2 good things it brought was the Counter reformation and Council of Trent. The picture is called “The Triumph of Religion Over Heresy and Hatred” by LeGros.
Anti Papists and Protestors Jon Huss and Martin Luther are cast out by Mary while an angel rips up their books of schismatic hatred.

is that a picture or a statue? I like it.

 

[rcwitness]

I don’t see that what the Catholic Encyc. Reports about him refutes anything from the paragraph from the book.

II came to caf to learn about Catholicism and have tried to keep an open mind here for the past months. I have learned a lot and think that there are a lot of things in common. For me some things Catholic stretch my mind and I am sure the book Martyr Mirror wI’ll stretch yours! I feel it never hurts to try to understand a different perspective rather than just trashing anything that goes against what one has been taught.

I agree. But the Book set Berengarius up as a “reformer” who openly opposed the Catholic Church and held to a sort of higher, basic Gospel AND was persecuted for this. His principle issue was about the Eucharist and how consecration is to be understood. He went back and forth about it, and was afforded councils to settle disagreements. In the end, it seems he did NOT oppose the Church, and the Church did not persecute him. And the supposed followers of him (Berengarians), resulted in all sorts of various views on Eucharist.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I’ve heard of Acts and Monuments (Foxes Book of Martyrs). Is this similar? I’d like to study about them some.

I think it is on the same website, and available online:
ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/home.html

I read the first chapter, which is interesting that it acknowledges Peter as the rock which Jesus builds His Church.

don’t forget the persecutions of Catholics by Protestants.

 

[Wannano]

What we need to remember, is to keep this in relation to the thread. Did the Reformers (the chief members of the Protestant Reformation) have the same goals and doctrines as these Martyrs?

I think there is an attempt to classify many Christian Martyrs into a group opposed to the Catholic Church. But if we look closely at the details, we see a much different picture. Or at least far from the black and white one many Protestants attempt to display.

I agree… how does one really look back even only 500 years and really understand perfectly the landscape. Anabaptist writings do present that some of their leaders (specifically from the Swiss Brethren known as the peace loving Anabaptists) discussed with both Luther and Zwingli and felt that L and Z were not taking the reform far enough. This of course caused L,Z and other reformers to wish the Anabaptists weren’t there at all! It is important for any reader to keep in mind that many revolting and militant groups of people were classed as Anabaptists much to the chagrin of the religious peace loving Anabaptists…which by the way (anabaptist) is a name given to them not one they chose) they referred themselves to be the Church of God I believe.

 

[Wannano]

I agree. But the Book set Berengarius up as a “reformer” who openly opposed the Catholic Church and held to a sort of higher, basic Gospel AND was persecuted for this. His principle issue was about the Eucharist and how consecration is to be understood. He went back and forth about it, and was afforded councils to settle disagreements. In the end, it seems he did NOT oppose the Church, and the Church did not persecute him. And the supposed followers of him (Berengarians), resulted in all sorts of various views on Eucharist.

Ok if the book has more on this than what your initial paragraph presented then I have not yet read it. I will try to find time on Sunday to do more research . Yet I thought your paragraph from the CE said he was again in disagreement with the Eucharist and then went to live on an island for the rest of his days?

CORRECTION I see know that he made a final retraction and then went and lived his life on an island. If there is something in the book that says he had followers called Berengarius I will look for it tomorrow. Gotta go, sorry.

 

[Wannano]

don’t forget the persecutions of Catholics by Protestants.

I understand now that this did occur at times. If you can find some documentation that specifically proves that the “Peaceful Anabaptists” who are the forerunners of the present Mennonites and Amish ever brought persecution or death to Catholics I would dearly love to have knowledge of it. Mennonites will tell you that they received much worse treatment from Lutherans than Catholics during the time of the Reformation. HOWEVER, the Lutheran Church in 2010 I believe, issued a statement asking for forgiveness for all that and it was granted. I don’t know how to link but you can Google the details if you desire.

 

[rcwitness]

I agree… how does one really look back even only 500 years and really understand perfectly the landscape. Anabaptist writings do present that some of their leaders (specifically from the Swiss Brethren known as the peace loving Anabaptists) discussed with both Luther and Zwingli and felt that L and Z were not taking the reform far enough. This of course caused L,Z and other reformers to wish the Anabaptists weren’t there at all! It is important for any reader to keep in mind that many revolting and militant groups of people were classed as Anabaptists much to the chagrin of the religious peace loving Anabaptists…which by the way (anabaptist) is a name given to them not one they chose) they referred themselves to be the Church of God I believe.

But it’s not about doctrine or practice or who is leaders. Anabaptists seem to look back and say, “oh, yeah… those guys were us! They were persecuted.”

I believe the Spirit has led some men in the Catholic clergy to act holy, while the other spirit has led some of them to do things opposed to God. But who is the authoritive Church? Who has orthodox teaching? It’s not the same question as, “Who is the wise and faithful steward?”

There is a reality of an invisible body of believers. The ones who God knows. The ones He judges to be in the Book of Life. But we don’t know these in this world. We know what is the visible Church of God, because it has offices, leaders, Teachings, Councils, Communion, verdicts, etc. These things are evident to all. Who is faithful in heart, mind and soul only God can know for certain. With some, there is strong evidence through good works. These are deemed venerable.

 

[Wannano]

But it’s not about doctrine or practice or who is leaders. Anabaptists seem to look back and say, “oh, yeah… those guys were us! They were persecuted.”

I believe the Spirit has led some men in the Catholic clergy to act holy, while the other spirit has led some of them to do things opposed to God. But who is the authoritive Church? Who has orthodox teaching? It’s not the same question as, “Who is the wise and faithful steward?”

There is a reality of an invisible body of believers. The ones who God knows. The ones He judges to be in the Book of Life. But we don’t know these in this world. We know what is the visible Church of God, because it has offices, leaders, Teachings, Councils, Communion, verdicts, etc. These things are evident to all. Who is faithful in heart, mind and soul only God can know for certain. With some, there is strong evidence through good works. These are deemed venerable.

Yes of course. Please read #194 and then take time to read the book out of the section that refers to the origin of the Church.

I believe your first sentence is inaccurate, they have always know they were a persecuted people not just because they see it looking back. That is why they have become “the quiet in the land”. Peace rc.

 

[rcwitness]

Yes of course. Please read #194 and then take time to read the book out of the section that refers to the origin of the Church.

Will do

I believe your first sentence is inaccurate, they have always know they were a persecuted people not just because they see it looking back. That is why they have become “the quiet in the land”. Peace rc.

I think we all hold up Christians who have been persecuted for a just reason. But being persecuted does not guarantee one is just in their position either.

1 Corinthians 13

If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

1 Peter 2

For what credit is it, if when you do wrong and are beaten for it you take it patiently? But if when you do right and suffer for it you take it patiently, you have God’s approval.

 

[Wannano]

Will do

I think we all hold up Christians who have been persecuted for a just reason. But being persecuted does not guarantee one is just in their position either.

1 Corinthians 13

If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

1 Peter 2

For what credit is it, if when you do wrong and are beaten for it you take it patiently? But if when you do right and suffer for it you take it patiently, you have God’s approval.

Couldn’t agree more.

 

[rcwitness]

Couldn’t agree more.

I think what the church recognizes, and has confessed wrong doing/apologized in instances because of, is that the Church, through unfaithful stewards, has unlawfully persecuted some. St Joan of Arc would be an example.

But sometimes, a punishment against a heretic is lawful. When the Church gives an official approval or condemnation of an issue regardin the faith, and a Christian defies that position, they can no longer suffer justly. If they preach and teach after being addressed before the Church, how can they be just in their cause?

Ultimately, the Bishop of Rome’s official position constitutes the position of the Church of God. This, only, carries the weight of Church authority.

The Reformation did not have Church authority, yet claimed God’s authority. The reformers were divided, while they sometimes abused the sacraments, their positions, and even persecuted to death those who they judged.

The Church needed reform, and made it through Trent. But that was not the beginning or the end of reform. It has always been the task of the Church to reform abuses, to confirm or condemn matters of faith and morals, and to strive to convert our hearts and deeds to what She has delivered to us from the Lord.

 

[Duane1966]

I found this interesting from: goshen.edu/mqr/pastissues/July13Roth.pdf

Another expression of the arrogance arising out of a martyr heritage, these critics have charged, is an unrealistic and inappropriate self-understanding of the place of Mennonites within the broader stream of Christian history. One popular shorthand version of church history from a Mennonite perspective goes something like this: until the beginning of the fourth century, the Christian church practiced believer’s baptism, upheld the principle of nonresistance, and was persecuted for their convictions. With Constantine’s conversion in the fourth century and the subsequent fall of the church, God’s work in history went underground for nearly 1,000 years until the recovery of the apostolic church by the radical reformers in the sixteenth century. The Anabaptist experience of persecution which they shared with the early church authenticates the Mennonite tradition as a truly restitutionist movement that restored the church to the path God intended.

The consequences of this myopic view of history, critics argue, are highly problematic. It encourages Mennonites to embrace a truncated version of church history in which they become the primary actors in the drama. Moreover, this posture of arrogance has blinded Mennonites to the many occasions in their history where they themselves have been the perpetrators of suffering as, for example, the encounters of Mennonite settlers with indigenous peoples whose lives and land were displaced as Mennonites moved into the steppelands of Russia, the woodland of the Eastern states, the plains of Kansas and Oklahoma, or the‚ Green Hell‛ of the Paraguayan Chaco. Isolating the stories of the
snabaptist martyrs from a broader historical context can also lead modern Mennonites to a
distorted perception of the scale of Anabaptist martyrdom. Perhaps 3,000 Anabaptists were executed in the course of the sixteenth century, with thousands more Mennonites who later suffered and died in various Communist regimes in Soviet Russia. But compare this with the estimated 80,000 people, mostly women, who were executed on charges of witchcraft in the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; or the 100,000 Christians driven away by force on the Maluku Islands of Indonesia in 2000-2001, where several thousand died; or the millions of Orthodox Christians who have died for their faith in the twentieth century. The Anabaptist-Mennonite tradition is not unique in its experience of suffering. Yet the narrow Mennonite focus on the stories of can encourage the illusion that theirs is the only account of suffering that really matters in the history of the Christian church.

I wonder if any of those early people who were baptized as infants, and killed for their faith, if the Anabaptists did not consider them Christians?

 

[rcwitness]

I found this interesting from: goshen.edu/mqr/pastissues/July13Roth.pdfI wonder if any of those early people who were baptized as infants, and killed for their faith, if the Anabaptists did not consider them Christians?

I don’t think Anabaptists believe Baptism is necessary. It is an outward sign of the interior conversion. And only after the interior conversion.

I think Catholic beliefs are not entirely opposed to the outward “sign” of Baptism, but also professes the action of the Trinity, who is called on, in water Baptism. The actions are forgiveness of sin, and incorporation into the body of Christ. While Baptism accomplishes it’s promise on God’s part, we profess belief and interior reception of the Holy Spirit is a necessary completion of Baptism, and Confirmation. Rejection of belief in the Gospel is a rejection of the grace given at Baptism, it does not mean that the Grace was never bestowed on the infant.

An Anabaptist’s Baptism would be valid in the Catholic Faith, but an Infant’s Baptism has no meaning in the Anabaptist’s faith. They, then would re-baptize (or baptize newly, in their belief) a person Baptized as an infant. The adult professes his belief that he has already been forgiven and is Baptized for what has already occurred.

Hopefully I’m representing the view correctly!