Was the Protestant Reformation, in a sense, good?

[rcwitness]

It’s important to note the real distinction between then content of faith from the disposition, attitudes, and actions of the professing faithful.

Many people cannot do this and you can hardly blame them.
We all fail to live the content of our faith perfectly. We frequently scandalize others with our representation of the faith.

And then the world at large is almost forced to judge the content of the faith by the fallible lives of those who profess it. How else will they know what Christianity is?

As contrasted with our weak faith, the content of our faith is God himself through Jesus Christ, and so the content of of our faith is not subject to our abilities to live it out.

But, it’s hard to propose this to non-believers when we live such ignominious lives. Our actions and attitudes betray our own (lack of) faith and push others away from it.

Thanks. I agree. Only, your last paragraph says “non-believers”. The Reformers (who varied amongst themselves) were believers.

 

[clem456]

Thanks. I agree. Only, your last paragraph says “non-believers”. The Reformers (who varied amongst themselves) were believers.

I was not really addressing that to reformed Christians but to those who object to Christianity reflexively because believers are flawed.
All human beings are flawed.

Although the reformers used some of the same reasoning to reject the Church and/or try to reform Christianity. It’s hard to blame them.
But I was not intending to refer to non-Catholic Christians as non-believers.

 

[rcwitness]

I was not really addressing that to reformed Christians but to those who object to Christianity reflexively because believers are flawed.
All human beings are flawed.

Although the reformers used some of the same reasoning to reject the Church and/or try to reform Christianity. It’s hard to blame them.
But I was not intending to refer to non-Catholic Christians as non-believers.

ok.

Do you think the Reformation was good because it may have brought people to believe in Jesus while not having to believe all the same things as what the Church professes?

 

[clem456]

ok.

Do you think the Reformation was good because it may have brought people to believe in Jesus while not having to believe all the same things as what the Church professes?

I believe that God works all things to his good.
Was it good that protesters rejected the Church itself in an overreaching way? No.
Was it good that protesters awakened the Church to problems and abuses? Yes
Is division and denomination good, per se? No.
Is it good that other Christian denominations bring people to Christ? Yes.

Whatever the disposition of any particular individual in any particular instance, God works all this for his glory.

So, in regard to the Reformation, whatamIgonnadoaboutit? Nothing. It’s past.
We live now, and God is good now.
The here and now is what he has allowed to be, even with all the evil we have perpetrated. He has allowed it, and now we live.

We continually begin again and move toward unity.

 

[susanlo]

I wish I were smart enough to link, maybe one day…

For interesting info Google Michael sattler house and look at the stuff offered there. So interesting that in Minnesota the Michael Sattler House has been erected adjacent to the St.John’s Abbey and is a Centre of hospitality and "permanent bridge " to the Mennonite and Catholic communities. Also an article about Pope Francis inviting a Mennonite representation to a world conference.

Is this the site you are referring to?
bridgefolk.net/tag/michael-sattler-house/

It looks like Catholics and Mennonites are having an annual joint commemoration each year. The ecumenical effort is very encouraging!

“The conference organizer, Ivan J. Kauffman, who has long identified himself as both Mennonite and Catholic, says, “It has only been in recent years that Catholics have been able to recognize the justice of Sattler’s break with the medieval Catholic establishment, and to consider him an early witness to non-violence, religious liberty, and social justice—values now widely recognized as part of the Catholic tradition.””

“Prof. Carol Neel, a historian of pre-Reformation evangelical reform movements, will discuss the medieval background from which the Sattlers emerged, emphasizing the necessity for reading history forward, from the perspective of those who lived at the time rather than projecting current beliefs onto past events.”

 

[rcwitness]

Is this the site you are referring to?
bridgefolk.net/tag/michael-sattler-house/

It looks like Catholics and Mennonites are having an annual joint commemoration each year. The ecumenical effort is very encouraging!

“The conference organizer, Ivan J. Kauffman, who has long identified himself as both Mennonite and Catholic, says, “It has only been in recent years that Catholics have been able to recognize the justice of Sattler’s break with the medieval Catholic establishment, and to consider him an early witness to non-violence, religious liberty, and social justice—values now widely recognized as part of the Catholic tradition.””

“Prof. Carol Neel, a historian of pre-Reformation evangelical reform movements, will discuss the medieval background from which the Sattlers emerged, emphasizing the necessity for reading history forward, from the perspective of those who lived at the time rather than projecting current beliefs onto past events.”

Wow, that is interesting! Sounds good!

 

[badnewsbarrett]

You compared him to Jack Chick and called him his “evil twin” so I suggest you back up that claim or retract your statement, i.e., you don’t defame a dead man’s reputation by comparing him to a hate MONGER, and then leave it at that!!!

Now, THAT is offensive!!!

Are you sure that you really want what you’re asking for? This would mean that I reference some of the things I find most problematic in Carroll’s work and basically make an argument for why they are particularly heinous and problematic. The alternative to this is that you make a mental note about Warren Carroll, to the effect that some Protestants take issue with some of his work, and he is not automatically viewed by non-Catholics as a respected and reliable source.

You’re sure you want what you’re asking for? There is a different way to go with this.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

One of the definitions of revolt: It was clearly a revolt against the way the Church governed.

What I’m suggesting is that “revolt” most readily lends itself to a revolt against the way the state governs, and during the Reformation era, there were several situations in which the church went one way and the state another. This easily leads to situations in which the loyalties of citizens are pulled in different directions, but the word “revolt” is most appropriate when they go against the state, not as much when they are against the Catholic Church.

I can see you thinking that way about yourself, but I am sure Thomas did not think of himself that way. But he got it right.

He did not get it right. Killing heretics violates natural law. Saying otherwise is exactly the same thing as getting it wrong.

Where does he say after the first offense?

It’s within Question 11, in the first part of Article Three in his response to the first set of objections in that article.

[SIGN]For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but “after the first and second admonition,”[/SIGN]

newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm

Emphasis mine. The initial portion is Aquinas stating what is the “right” thing to do (as soon as they are convicted of heresy), and then he goes on to say the Church acts with mercy and does not condemn at once. But, as previously stated, Aquinas believes the Church has ample reason to condemn as soon as they are convicted. In doing so, Aquinas presents prevailing Church practice not as if it creeps right up to the edge of what is right and just and goes no further, but as if it exercises mercy and restraint, since it could go quite a bit further and still feel very good about itself.

The Catholic Church should not have felt good about itself at that time though, and the Catholic Church should not feel good about where it used to be.

Is it okay for a government to kill a heretic, if by sparing the heretic’s life tremendous harm to the common good will result?

This can and has been a rather useless distinction, especially when the Catholic Church threatens to (and sometimes has) excommunicated rulers who protected heretics from being killed. And here’s a fun fact- at some points in European history, the decision of the Church to excommunicate a ruler could, under the right set of circumstances, end that ruler’s line of succession and effectively depose an entire family.

Are you familiar with the life of Count Raymond VI of Toulouse? He was excommunicated about a half dozen different times, mostly because of his refusal to kill heretics in his lands (who also happened to be pacifists). The other rulers to whom he was responsible was a bit messy- he was sort of responsible to the King of France, and also to the Emperor of the HRE. Neighboring territory was held by the King of England, with whom he was on good terms and a family member through marriage. He wound up being expelled from his kingdom and on the run for awhile, and the Church made threats against a Spanish ruler and the King of England on account of harboring him at different times. He had to move on on both occasions, else his hosts and protectors would have been excommunicated as well and potentially stripped of their ability to rule The heretics in his lands were killed despite his efforts, and he was eventually able to return and secure a place for his descendants to rule. But overall, it goes to show you what can happen when the Church wants heretics dead and a particular government does not want the same thing.

You seem to be of a mind where you want to believe that the Catholic Church never really wanted these heretics dead, they simply handed them over and the government did what they wanted with them. The truth is though, the Catholic Church- up to a certain point- very much did want heretics dead, and when it was able to force the issue, it went well out of its way to force the issue and ensure that heretic-killing rulers had all their support while non-heretic-killing rulers were kept out of the way until the killing was done. The Catholic Church was not a passive bystander in this, and you can’t expect to get away with passing this off so easily.

 

[Tomyris]

I enjoyed reading this post! Thank you.

Well, I am not exactly sure of your point either. That God alone, Absolute Being, is good on the one hand (even the Summum Bonum) and that which He created (contingent being) is also good on the other touches upon the Thomistic concept of the analogy of being…which gives even existence goodness. It was one of many subjects I taught before I retired. Of course, Genesis 1 says as much, too, as I am sure you know. In saying that, however, I join you in abandoning the foray, since I have only 6000 characters and they go quickly.

Assuredly it was not the worst thing in history…far from it. I could decidedly name many things that were worse…but there is the 6000 character limit again.

I should personally prefer you compared such to Judas Iscariot than to “imposters”…in both the case of the Iscariot and the unfortunate occupants of the Chair of Peter, we speak of men who had genuinely received a charge from the Lord but miserably fell short. I serve the God who said “I do not desire the death of the sinner but that he be converted and live” so I can but pray that, while mercy could still be had, these men sought it. They are not men whose evil actions are to be defended, in any event.

I understand. In any case they believed the office was real and God judged them on those terms.

Judas knew. He did miracles. He saw and touched and smelled and lived with Jesus. He heard it all. I am not sure he is not simply in a class by himself. The “party-popes” lived in times and places far removed, and perhaps some of their behavior can be attributed to cultural expectations rather than a “hey, let’s see how far I can degrade the papacy.” Maybe I am wrong there.

I agree with you. Are you aware of what Pope Benedict wrote, in a different circumstance, to the world’s Catholic bishops in July 2007?*Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew.*I agree with him even more. I never forget those words – and I try to live those words in my priesthood and in my work in ecumenism.

I think of the scene in the Lord of the Rings where Gimli looks at Galadriel and realizes she is no enemy. So me and the Church, but there are many elves who would still like to string up and cook us dwarves like so many sausages.

It truly is sad the division remains. I am gratified to live in a time in which there are sincere efforts to heal it…at long last. In terms of admission of blame, however…I think it depends upon where you look. If you look in places where Catholics speak as if we were in the 19th century, perhaps. If you look to the Holy See in the past few decades, as with the quote above from Benedict XVI, you would find something markedly different.

I am a Catholic theologian who lives and works in the 21st century…happily. I have come to the decided conclusion, thanks to comments I have read on this forum, that non-Catholics seeking understanding should speak to a Catholic theologian or an ecumenist of the present day rather than apologists…unless, of course, the apologist is in the type of Blessed John Henry Newman.

I see you’re Presbyterian. Years ago, I was sent on a trip to Edinburgh. I had extra time beyond my tasks and was walking the Royal Mile. I happened upon the home of John Knox. I crossed the threshold and stood for a moment, looking up at the ceiling. The girl at the till became a bit concerned and, in consternation, asked, “Can I help you, Father?” Lowering my gaze, I smiled and said, “I had always thought that if I ever actually found myself here, that surely the ceiling would collapse the moment I crossed the threshold” and I said a word or two of how it was that I found myself in Edinburgh. She said, with a laugh, “Oh my! Quite frankly, Father, if I were you…I’d think the same thing!”

One of those many moments when I was so glad that I hadn’t lived in the 16th century…or, in fact, any other century than the one in which Divine Providence chose to place me.

I am not sure there can be a further theological divide than between the Reformed and Rome, as the Reformed have fully articulated the reasons for the, uh, disagreement. I would like to see reconciliation, but there is a lot of hostility over here in Dwarfland. I carry some myself, as I sometimes surprise myself.

You elves and we dwarves have 1500 years of common fellowship. We have one enemy who has separated us, and it seems pleasing to the Lord that we do what we can to reconcile.

You will find a certain faction at CAF that fiercely believes that that can only happen through the complete humiliation and subjugation of individual Protestants and the total annihilation and invalidation of 500 years of separated thought and cultures. You would be very welcome, IMHO, to attempt to cure the sometimes sustatined atmosphere of Protestant bashing. Luther gets it mostly and Calvin when they get bored of bashing Martin. Let’s hope they never read Knox!

May the road rise to meet you, and the sun shine on your path.

 

[Abu]

We need constructive, historical reality, on the Crusades.

May 2, 2016
Should Christians Apologize for the Crusades?
Bruce Frohnen
crisismagazine.com/2016/should-christians-apologize-for-the-crusades
Extract:
“There is much to criticize in the actions of the Crusaders, and no doubt even in the motivations of many of them and their leaders. But this is merely to recognize that, being made up of human actions, the Crusades involved the actions of sinners—hence many sins. But to defend one’s ally against invasion, to seek to re-open holy sites to pilgrimage, and to defend one’s civilization against leaders of another civilization, bent on conquest, is no sin, but rather an act of pious bravery. It is especially odd that so many today are anxious to defend Muslim extremists who claim to be defending their civilization, while rejecting those who defended their own. That peace is a better tool than violence, that toleration and cooperation are crucial sources of stability and the makings of a decent life, are important points. But we who must face massive brutality ought not to focus only on the sins of our forebears. Rather, we should seek to respect and even capture the piety and courage of an era whose violent proclivities we fool ourselves into thinking no longer exist. We should seek, like Crusaders, to stand for our faith and defend our right to live out that faith, including by defending our co-religionists so woefully abandoned to intolerance and outright murder in the Middle East of today. Our means must change, but our current refusal to stand for the right and the just, and to defend Christians suffering martyrdom on a regular basis, is a stain on our character—and one that the Crusaders never bore.

“Our schools and our Catholic schools in particular should be proud to associate with those who fought and died to ensure that pilgrims might have access to the holy sites of their faith, that Christian nations might survive in the face of a powerful invader, and that they might serve their Church and their God. We can build on this pride an understanding of other peoples’ actions, even when they are extreme, only if and to the extent that we retain our moral compass, which means respecting the dictates of our own civilization and refusing to cede the moral high ground to those who reject it for us all.”

 

[Michael96]

God save us from crusaders, especially all those who see violence as a way to peace.

 

[Abu]

Michael96 #312
God save us from crusaders, especially all those who see violence as a way to peace.

Thank God for those who not only fought the Muslim invaders in times past but are doing so right now with Muslim ISIS.

 

[7_Sorrows]

all I can say is how thankful I am that I am no longer protestant and how happy i am that I joined the Catholic Church.

 

[rcwitness]

I believe that God works all things to his good.
Was it good that protesters rejected the Church itself in an overreaching way? No.
Was it good that protesters awakened the Church to problems and abuses? Yes
Is division and denomination good, per se? No.
Is it good that other Christian denominations bring people to Christ? Yes.

Whatever the disposition of any particular individual in any particular instance, God works all this for his glory.

So, in regard to the Reformation, whatamIgonnadoaboutit? Nothing. It’s past.
We live now, and God is good now.
The here and now is what he has allowed to be, even with all the evil we have perpetrated. He has allowed it, and now we live.

We continually begin again and move toward unity.

“So, in regard to the Reformation, whatamIgonnadoaboutit?”
Id like to learn about it, acknowledge the faults of our Catholic ancestors, and discuss how we can all accept one orthodox body of doctrine, and leadership today.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano, just a note.
Many of the Catholic posters here are right-wing, traditionalists who are at odds with their own Church and would like to see it in their image. The One Holy, Apostolic and Republican Church.
Just be aware of that.

:ehh:

 

[Wannano]

“So, in regard to the Reformation, whatamIgonnadoaboutit?”
Id like to learn about it, acknowledge the faults of our Catholic ancestors, and discuss how we can all accept one orthodox body of doctrine, and leadership today.

 

[Wannano]

“So, in regard to the Reformation, whatamIgonnadoaboutit?”
Id like to learn about it, acknowledge the faults of our Catholic ancestors, and discuss how we can all accept one orthodox body of doctrine, and leadership today.

:tiphat:

 

[Don_Ruggero]

“So, in regard to the Reformation, whatamIgonnadoaboutit?”
Id like to learn about it, acknowledge the faults of our Catholic ancestors, and discuss how we can all accept one orthodox body of doctrine, and leadership today.

• Well, it will take you on a remarkable journey.
• You’ll learn a lot about yourself and your own Church and you will learn a lot about other people and their institutions.
• Things you thought you were so sure about you will see through different lenses and they can look a lot different.
• And things you thought did not matter all that much you will see are more central than you ever realized.
• You will have to develop a critical eye as you try to look back through lenses to see history.
• Years pass very quickly.
• And you come to know remarkable people and speak languages you didn’t decades before.
• You’ll talk about fine points of subjects and concepts that you don’t know or understand right now.
• I hope it brings you even a fraction of the blessings that this work has brought to me in a lifetime.

 

[clem456]

“So, in regard to the Reformation, whatamIgonnadoaboutit?”
Id like to learn about it, acknowledge the faults of our Catholic ancestors, and discuss how we can all accept one orthodox body of doctrine, and leadership today.

My question was rhetorical, and addresses the desire to assign blame and culpability for events past.
There’s a lot of that here and elsewhere.
Truly, I can’t do anything about justice for things past. Justice belongs to God.
If we go about this with a true desire to listen to our Popes, to learn and grow, great.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

My question was rhetorical, and addresses the desire to assign blame and culpability for events past.
There’s a lot of that here and elsewhere.
Truly, I can’t do anything about justice for things past. Justice belongs to God.
If we go about this with a true desire to listen to our Popes, to learn and grow, great.

A couple of my favorite passages from From Conflict to Communion

*Prayer for unity

1. Because Jesus Christ before his death prayed to the Father “that they may be one,” it is clear that a division of the body of Christ is opposed to the will of the Lord. It contradicts also the express apostolic admonition that we hear in Ephesians 4:3-6: be “eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” The division of the body of Christ is opposed to the will of God.

Evaluating the past

1. When Catholics and Lutherans remember together the theological controversies and the events of the sixteenth century from this perspective, they must consider the circumstances of the sixteenth century. Lutherans and Catholics cannot be blamed for everything that transpired since some events in the sixteenth century were beyond their control. In the sixteenth century, theological convictions and power politics were frequently interwoven with one another. Many politicians often used genuine theological ideas to attain their ends, while many theologians promoted their theological judgments by political means. In this complex arena of numerous factors, it is difficult to ascribe responsibility for the effects of specific actions to individual persons and to name them as the guilty parties.
2. Sixteenth-century divisions were rooted in different understandings of the truth of the Christian faith and were particularly contentious since salvation was seen to be at stake. On both sides, persons held theological convictions that they could not abandon. One must not blame someone for following his or her conscience when it is formed by the Word of God and has reached its judgments after serious deliberation with others.
3. How theologians presented their theological convictions in the battle for public opinion is quite another matter. In the sixteenth century, Catholics and Lutherans frequently not only misunderstood but also exaggerated and caricatured their opponents in order to make them look ridiculous. They repeatedly violated the eighth commandment, which prohibits bearing false witness against one’s neighbor. Even if the opponents were sometimes intellectually fair to one another, their willingness to hear the other and to take his concerns seriously was insufficient. The controversialists wanted to refute and overcome their opponents, often deliberately exacerbating conflicts rather than seeking solutions by looking for what they held in common. Prejudices and misunderstandings played a great role in the characterization of the other side. Oppositions were constructed and handed down to the next generation. Here both sides have every reason to regret and lament the way in which they conducted their debates. Both Lutherans and Catholics bear the guilt that needs to be openly confessed in the remembrance of the events of 500 years ago*.
   And perhaps one of my favorite paragraphs:
   *238. Catholics and Lutherans realize that they and the communities in which they live out their faith belong to the one body of Christ. The awareness is dawning on Lutherans and Catholics that the struggle of the sixteenth century is over. The reasons for mutually condemning each other’s faith have fallen by the wayside. Thus, Lutherans and Catholics identify five imperatives as they commemorate 2017 together.