Was the Protestant Reformation, in a sense, good?

[GKC]

The eminent Fr Stanley Jaki stresses that we do not see the flowering of formal and sustained scientific inquiry emerging from the other cultures’ sometimes impressive technology. (Thomas E Woods, How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, 2005, p 77).

“The earlier technical innovations of Greco-Roman times, of Islam, of imperial China, let alone those of pre-historic times, do not constitute science and are better described as lore, skills, wisdom, techniques, crafts, technologies, engineering, learning, or simply knowledge.” (For the Glory of God, Rodney Stark, Princeton University Press, 2003, p 125).

Sounds like Jaki’s ORIGIN OF SCIENCE AND THE SCIENCE OF ITS ORIGINS likely. I’d agree. Things come in their times. Sustained and organized scientific inquiry, which grew and flowered on its efforts, and spread, was a Western achievement.

Fr. (Dr.) Jaki’s book, with others of his, is on the shelf somewhere. Been long since this interested me, as I said.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

No, because breaking up the body of Christ is opposed to the Lord’s prayer for us in John 17

But that said, Protestants seem to be much better at evangelizing than Catholics are.

Many of us would not be Catholic today if it weren’t for a wonderful protestant ministering to us first.

I wouldn’t be Catholic today if it wasn’t for being Protestant first. I know that sounds strange, but it is true. When I was Protestant, I saw the error of my then denomination and also felt called by God to join the Catholic Church. There were other factors, too, but those are some of them.

 

[PJM]

I wouldn’t be Catholic today if it wasn’t for being Protestant first. I know that sounds strange, but it is true. When I was Protestant, I saw the error of my then denomination and also felt called by God to join the Catholic Church. There were other factors, too, but those are some of them.

THANKS for listening to that “little voice”

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

THANKS for listening to that “little voice”

My pastor told me, " Thanks for listening to the Lord."

 

[7_Sorrows]

THANKS for listening to that “little voice”

many of us listened to that “little voice”.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

I’m going to go ahead and respond to a few different people all at once.

Protestantism is a Revolt that involved the total loss of Christ’s teaching authority (the Magisterium), the loss of the priesthood, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments except baptism, the loss of Tradition, and an inability to agree on what the Bible teaches – hence the thousands of different sects all teaching something different.

It’s called the Reformation, there is no actual scholarship that identifies it as a “revolt.” It’s something you enjoy saying, but it’s not accepted terminology. As to magisterial teaching authority, the priesthood, and the sacraments, you still have whatever you want to have in the Catholic Church. You don’t get to make all of that be everywhere and force it on everybody, but that’s no great loss. It’s just life. How would you possibly expect anything else? Finally, those sects that all teach something different- each and every one of them has a right to do so, free and unimpeded by violence, religious law, or religious discrimination. You can’t stop them, and you never had any right to do such a thing anyway.

No. The Protestant “Reformation” and the so called “Enlightenment” are perhaps the most spiritually catastrophic events ever to occur in the history of mankind. The fact that so many Catholics nowadays consider that anything good could come from the utter rending of the Mystical Body of Christ by a wave of unbridled and persistent heresy that has lead to the loss of countless souls, or regard the “Enlightenment” as a good thing is a disturbing reminder of how far away we have drifted from traditional thought.

“Reformation” and “Enlightenment” are widely used and accepted terms. Whether you believe they are entirely good things is up to you, but treating these words as if they’re unacceptable for regular use is not up to you. And I have a piece of news for you. Most Catholics believe they have the fullness of truth, but that it shouldn’t be forced on anyone against their will. Most Catholics also understand that a key outcome of the Enlightenment was that it helped the Catholic Church finally realize this. You seem to be implying that the ends justify the means- after all, if you kill a few heretics and save countless souls why not right? Well, the reason why not is because the ends do not justify the means, and no matter how much you disagree with and hate the Reformers, none of them deserved imprisonment or death.

Although some of us are deeply grateful that we enjoy the Enlightenment fruits of religious and political tolerance.

Yes indeed, that would be me. Thank you so much for commenting in this way.

How do you fit your position into the very foundation of Moral-Theology, which states that “one many NEVER do an “evil” to cause a potential good”

Did Aquinas completely overlook that foundation when he was writing Article 3 concerning the question of heresy? newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm

The theoretical question for me is, *Would the Catholic Church have reformed itself and left the political realm on its own had it not been for the Reformation?, * In other words, would it still be too big for its britches had the Protestant Reformation not occurred? I truly don’t know the answer to that hypothetical question.

I can tell you the answer to that. The Catholic Church would have reformed itself with “all due speed” per its own judgment, in the same sense that Alabama and Mississippi chose to racially integrate public schools at whatever speed they felt was best.

The reformation (which I like to call the deformation, no offense to Protestants

I do take offense. Not because I go out of my way to overreact, mind you, but because the thing you like to say is offensive. There are very good reasons why your favored term is and always has been completely out of favor with actual historical and religious scholarship. It’s a deliberately offensive term, it has no place in serious conversation, and I think you know it. Of course you may use it as you like, and you can go ahead and be offensive as much as you want. Just know what you’re doing, okay?

The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society.

I have a very honest question about this issue. Are you (or any source you can lay hands on) able to address the matter of countries like Russia and Spain, which each became incredibly secular in their own right despite each of them remaining staunchly unaffected by the Reformation, each in its own way? It would seem that non-Reformation forces have been hard at work in these countries, and perhaps those forces are always responsible for anti-religious secularism but then sometimes the blame is shifted to the very-religious Reformers.

And just one more…

All of those men disseminated ideas contrary to the Catholic Faith.

And it is their God-given right to do so.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

many of us listened to that “little voice”.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Sadly, there are people who are posting in this thread posts which have a mindset that is very foreign to the Holy See’s thoughts and expressed positions on ecumenism…and also on the topic of the Reformation.

Here is a good expression of where the Holy See is today, thanks to the dialogue that has been on-going by many hardworking theologians and ecumenists over the past 50 years:
*
Pope Francis to travel to Sweden for joint Reformation commemoration

(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis will travel to Sweden in October for a joint ecumenical commemoration of the start of the Reformation, together with leaders of the Lutheran World Federation and representatives of other Christian Churches.

The event will take place on October 31st in the southern Swedish city of Lund where the Lutheran World Federation was founded in 1947. While kicking off a year of events to mark the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, it will also highlight the important ecumenical developments that have taken place during the past 50 years of dialogue between Catholics and Lutherans.

The one-day event will include a common worship service in Lund cathedral based on a Catholic-Lutheran “Common Prayer” liturgical guide, published earlier this month by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU) and the Lutheran World Federation (LWF).

The commemoration in Lund follows on directly from the publication in 2013 of a joint document entitled ‘From Conflict to Communion’, which focuses on the themes of thanksgiving, repentance and commitment to common witness. While asking for forgiveness for the divisions of past centuries, it also seeks to showcase the gifts of the Reformation and celebrate the way Catholics and Lutherans around the world work together on issues of common concern.

Please see below the joint press release from the LWF and the PCPCU on the joint ecumenical commemoration of the Reformation in Lund

Pope Francis, LWF President Bishop Younan and General Secretary Junge to lead October event

GENEVA/VATICAN CITY, 25 January 2016 - The Lutheran World Federation (LWF) and the Catholic Church will hold a joint ecumenical commemoration of the Reformation on 31 October 2016 in Lund, Sweden.

Pope Francis, LWF President Bishop Dr Munib A. Younan and General Secretary Rev. Dr Martin Junge will lead the Ecumenical Commemoration in cooperation with the Church of Sweden and the Catholic Diocese of Stockholm.

The joint ecumenical event will take place in the city of Lund in anticipation of the 500th Reformation anniversary in 2017. It will highlight the solid ecumenical developments between Catholics and Lutherans and the joint gifts received through dialogue. The event will include a common worship based on the recently published Catholic-Lutheran “Common Prayer” liturgical guide.

“The LWF is approaching the Reformation anniversary in a spirit of ecumenical accountability,” says LWF General Secretary Rev. Dr Martin Junge. “I’m carried by the profound conviction that by working towards reconciliation between Lutherans and Catholics, we are working towards justice, peace and reconciliation in a world torn apart by conflict and violence.”

Cardinal Koch, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU) explains further: “By concentrating together on the centrality of the question of God and on a Christocentric approach, Lutherans and Catholics will have the possibility of an ecumenical commemoration of the Reformation, not simply in a pragmatic way, but in the deep sense of faith in the crucified and resurrected Christ.

“It is with joy and expectation that the Church of Sweden welcomes The Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church to hold the joint commemoration of the Reformation in Lund,” says Church of Sweden Archbishop Antje Jackelén. “We shall pray together with the entire ecumenical family in Sweden that the commemoration will contribute to Christian unity in our country and throughout the world.”

“The ecumenical situation in our part of the world is unique and interesting. I hope that this meeting will help us look to the future so that we can be witnesses of Jesus Christ and His gospel in our secularized world,” says Anders Arborelius OCD, Bishop of the Catholic Church in Sweden.

The Lund event is part of the reception process of the study document From Conflict to Communion, which was published in 2013, and has since been widely distributed to Lutheran and Catholic communities. The document is the first attempt by both dialogue partners to describe together at international level the history of the Reformation and its intentions.

Earlier this year, the LWF and PCPCU sent to LWF member churches and Catholic Bishops’ Conferences a jointly prepared “Common Prayer”, which is a liturgical guide to help churches commemorate the Reformation anniversary together. It is based on the study document From Conflict to Communion: Lutheran-Catholic Common Commemoration of the Reformation in 2017, and features the themes of thanksgiving, repentance and commitment to common witness with the aim of expressing the gifts of the Reformation and asking forgiveness for the division which followed theological disputes.

The year 2017 will also mark 50 years of the international Lutheran-Catholic dialogue, which has yielded notable ecumenical results, of which most significant is the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ). The JDDJ was signed by the LWF and the Catholic Church in 1999, and affirmed by the World Methodist Council in 2006. The declaration nullified centuries’ old disputes between Catholics and Lutherans over the basic truths of the doctrine of justification, which was at the center of the 16th century Reformation
*
en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/01/25/pope_to_travel_to_sweden_for_joint_reformation_commemoration/1203462

 

[Abu]

badnewsbarrett #110
It’s called the Reformation, there is no actual scholarship that identifies it as a “revolt.” It’s something you enjoy saying, but it’s not accepted terminology.

It most definitely was a revolt:

Martin Luther THE REFORMATION
Background of the Revolt
history-world.org/reformation.htm

THE LUTHERAN REVOLT
'The Lutheran Revolt takes its name from Martin Luther (1483-1546), a German Augustinian monk who ultimately rejected the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine of “justification by works.” Luther instead believed in a doctrine of “justification by faith alone.” ’
faculty.unlv.edu/gbrown/westernciv/wc201/wciv2c3/wciv2c3lsec2.html

Christendom Founder Debunks the Protestant Reformation as a Revolt
March 1, 2007
“Though most Protestants today do not know it, the destruction of the Catholic Church was the declared objective of the first Protestants,’” Carroll said at the beginning of his lecture. “They were rebels, not reformers.”
christendom.edu/2007/03/01/christendom-founder-debunks-the-protestant-reformation-as-a-revolt/

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I’m going to go ahead and respond to a few different people all at once

It’s called the Reformation, there is no actual scholarship that identifies it as a “revolt.” It’s something you enjoy saying, but it’s not accepted terminology. As to magisterial teaching authority, the priesthood, and the sacraments, you still have whatever you want to have in the Catholic Church. You don’t get to make all of that be everywhere and force it on everybody, but that’s no great loss. It’s just life. How would you possibly expect anything else? Finally, those sects that all teach something different- each and every one of them has a right to do so, free and unimpeded by violence, religious law, or religious discrimination. You can’t stop them, and you never had any right to do such a thing anyway
(1)

“Reformation” and “Enlightenment” are widely used and accepted terms. Whether you believe they are entirely good things is up to you, but treating these words as if they’re unacceptable for regular use is not up to you. And I have a piece of news for you. Most Catholics believe they have the fullness of truth, but that it shouldn’t be forced on anyone against their will. Most Catholics also understand that a key outcome of the Enlightenment was that it helped the Catholic Church finally realize this. You seem to be implying that the ends justify the means- after all, if you kill a few heretics and save countless souls why not right? Well, the reason why not is because the ends do not justify the means, and no matter how much you disagree with and hate the Reformers, none of them deserved imprisonment or death
(2)

Yes indeed, that would be me. Thank you so much for commenting in this way

Did Aquinas completely overlook that foundation when he was writing Article 3 concerning the question of heresy?

I can tell you the answer to that. The Catholic Church would have reformed itself with “all due speed” per its own judgment, in the same sense that Alabama and Mississippi chose to racially integrate public schools at whatever speed they felt was best

I do take offense. Not because I go out of my way to overreact, mind you, but because the thing you like to say is offensive. There are very good reasons why your favored term is and always has been completely out of favor with actual historical and religious scholarship. It’s a deliberately offensive term, it has no place in serious conversation, and I think you know it. Of course you may use it as you like, and you can go ahead and be offensive as much as you want. Just know what you’re doing, okay?
(3)

I have a very honest question about this issue. Are you (or any source you can lay hands on) able to address the matter of countries like Russia and Spain, which each became incredibly secular in their own right despite each of them remaining staunchly unaffected by the Reformation, each in its own way? It would seem that non-Reformation forces have been hard at work in these countries, and perhaps those forces are always responsible for anti-religious secularism but then sometimes the blame is shifted to the very-religious Reformers

And just one more…

And it is their God-given right to do so.

As a priest, I compliment you on your responses. I also react with horror at the positions that you had to respond to from Catholics – who would do well to acquaint themselves with Unitatis Redintegratio, Dignitatis Humanae, Lumen Gentium, the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, Ut Unum Sint and especially with what the Holy See is articulating currently in matters related to relations between those who are in full communion with Rome and those who are in various states of impaired communion. There has been much development in thought in fifty years and there has also been much revision of thought when assessing the past…both with regard to the events in the East of the first millennium and with the Reformation in the West. You will be reading more about that…very soon.

As to specific comments I would like to add:
(1) You are responding to language that is not only not what emanates from the Holy See since the Council, it is directly in opposition to the language and thought in the wake of the new path toward Christian Unity embraced in and through the Council. “Revolt” and “revolution” are terms which no Vatican dicastery – and certainly not the Pope himself – would ever countenance in the post-conciliar reality. Such terminology is diametrically opposite to what is used today and it would draw rebuke. As Pope Saint John Paul II wrote, “At the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church committed herself irrevocably to following the path of the ecumenical venture, thus heeding the Spirit of the Lord” (Ut Unum Sint 3)

(2) Pope Saint John Paul’s address on John Hus presents a wonderful complement to what you say here…as does, of course, Dignitatis Humanae which charts a new course on the Church’s position on the issue of religious freedom. w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1999/december/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_17121999_jan-hus.html

(3) You have every right to take offence at this. I take offence at it. The Holy Father would take offence at it. It speaks very sadly, for all the world to see, on this website…and I think especially of those who read and never contribute. What this person has expressed is not according to the mind of Pope Saint John Paul II who wrote: “The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism refers to the Communities to which these Christians belong as ‘Churches and Ecclesial Communities that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church’. This broadening of vocabulary is indicative of a significant change in attitudes. There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ.” (Ut Unum Sint 42)

 

[Don_Ruggero]

To help make the mind of the Pope clear to those who are posting on this thread, this is the text of his address last May to the delegation headed by the Lutheran Archbishop of Uppsala. The Holy Father underscores the importance of the document From Conflict to Communion, which is co-published by the Holy See through the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, the competent dicastery of the Holy See under the presidency of Kurt Cardinal Koch

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS
IN RESPONSE TO DR. ANTJE JACKELÉN, LUTHERAN ARCHBISHOP OF UPPSALA,
AND TO THE DELEGATION OF THE EVANGELICAL-LUTHERAN CHURCH OF SWEDEN

Monday, 4 May 2015

Dear Dr Jackelén, dear sister,
Dear friends,

I greet you cordially and I thank you for your kind words. Last year, with gratitude to God, we celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, which is still for us the fundamental point of reference for the ecumenical efforts of the Catholic Church. This document made clear that ecumenism was henceforth to become a priority. It invited all Catholics to undertake the way of unity, in recognition of the signs of the times, so that division among Christians could be overcome. Such division is not only in opposition to the will of Christ, but is indeed a scandal in the world, as it damages the most sacred of duties: the preaching of the Gospel to every creature.

In speaking of the “seamless robe of Christ” (No. 13), the Decree expressed deep respect for and appreciation of our separated brethren, to whom, in our daily lives, we risk paying too little attention. They should not be perceived as adversaries or competitors, but rather recognized for what they are: brothers and sisters in faith.

Catholics and Lutherans need to seek and promote unity in their dioceses, parishes and communities across the whole world. On the way towards full and visible unity in the faith, in sacramental life and in ecclesial ministry there remains much work still to be done. But we can be certain that the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, will be always the light and strength of spiritual ecumenism and theological dialogue.

With appreciation I wish also to recall the recent document entitled From Conflict to Communion: Lutheran-Catholic Common Commemoration of the Reformation in 2017, published by the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Commission on Unity. It is with heartfelt hope that this initiative – with the help of God and through our cooperation with him and among ourselves – may encourage further steps in the path towards unity.

The call to unity as disciples of our Lord Jesus Christ carries with it the urgent summons to a common commitment to charity in favour of all those in the world who suffer as a result of extreme poverty and violence; they especially need our mercy. The witness of our persecuted brothers and sisters, in particular, stirs us to grow in fraternal communion.

Urgent also is the vital issue of the dignity of human life, which is always to be respected. So, too, are issues concerning the family, marriage and sexuality. These cannot be suppressed or ignored, simply for fear of risking the ecumenical consensus already achieved. It would indeed be sad if in these important matters new confessional differences were to arise.

Dear friends, I thank you again for your visit. In the hope that Lutheran-Catholic collaboration will be strengthened, I pray that the Lord may bless each of you abundantly, as well as your communities.

I would like, in addition, to express my gratitude for two things. First of all, I wish to thank the Swedish Lutheran Church for welcoming so many South American migrants in the time of the dictatorships. This fraternal welcome made it possible to raise families. In the second place, I wish to thank you for the delicacy, dear sister, with which you mentioned my good friend, Pastor Anders Root; I shared the Chair of Spiritual Theology with him, and he helped me a great deal in my own spiritual life. Thank you.

w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2015/may/documents/papa-francesco_20150504_chiesa-evangelico-luterana-svezia.html

 

[Abu]

Badnewsbarrett #110
I have a very honest question about this issue. Are you (or any source you can lay hands on) able to address the matter of countries like Russia and Spain, which each became incredibly secular in their own right despite each of them remaining staunchly unaffected by the Reformation, each in its own way? It would seem that non-Reformation forces have been hard at work in these countries, and perhaps those forces are always responsible for anti-religious secularism but then sometimes the blame is shifted to the very-religious Reformers.

The degradation of Russia was due to Communism, sparked by Karl Marx.
It’s interesting that it is Karl Marx that coined the term “capitalism” as a pejorative term to condemn wealth and foment class warfare. Socialism is opposed to the body of economic thought based on the freedom of the individual and the right to own private property. It embodies various political philosophies that support social and economic equality, collective decision-making, and public (state) control of productive capital and natural resources and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, as advocated by socialists. Karl Marx claimed that this would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution and become the transitional stage from what he called “capitalism”, to communism.

Condemned are Karl Marx’s Communism: the evidence of failure is its gulag, the millions murdered, and the failure of its economic slavery. How strange that anyone now feels that Communism has “good ideas” – not Karl Marx, not the gulag, not Lenin, not the failed economies of Russia and the Eastern block. Even Putin dumped it to follow his own dictatorial prejudices.

Pius XI declared emphatically in Quadragesimo Anno, 1931, #120:
“We have also summoned Communism and Socialism again to judgment and have found all their forms, even the most modified, to wander far from the precepts of the Gospel.”

Spain is a mixed bag still with a substantial Catholic presence.

The “very religious” may very well be off on their own tangent not following Christ as He structured His Church and no other.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

It is worth recalling the letter which Pope Saint John Paul II wrote on the occasion of Martin Luther’s 500th birthday. I provide it in a published English translation, which I altered to conform to the paragraphing of the Italian and German, and with links back to the Holy See for the official versions which were in Italian and German:

*VATICAN CITY – The text of Pope John Paul II’s letter marking the 500th anniversary of the birth of Martin Luther, translated from the Italian by UPI:

To my venerated brother, Cardinal Johannes Willebrands, president of the Secretariate for Christian Unity.

November 10, 1983 is the 500th anniversary of the birth of Dr. Martin Luther of Eisleben. On this occasion numerous Christians, especially of the Lutheran-Evangelical confession, recall that theologian who, at the threshold of modern times contributed in a substantial way to the radical change of ecclesiastical and secular reality of the West. Our world still today bears the experience of his great impact on history.

For the Catholic Church through the centuries the name of Martin Luther is tied to the memory of a sad period and, in particular, to the experience of the origin of deep ecclesiastical divisions. For this reason the 500th anniversary of the birth of Martin Luther must be for us an occasion to meditate, in truth and in Christian charity, on that pregnant event of history that was the epoch of the Reformation. Because it is time that distances us from historical events and makes them often better understood and evoked.

Therefore, well known personalities and institutions of Lutheran Christianity indicated that the year dedicated to Luther could be marked by a genuine ecumenical spirit and that discussion on Luther may be propitious to Christian unity. I receive with satisfaction this intention and extend to you a fraternal invitation to arrive together at a deeper and more complete image of the historical events and a critical reflexion on the manifold heritage of Luther.

In fact, scientific research by evangelical and Catholic scholars, the results of which have already reached notable points of convergence, has led to the outlining of a more complete and more differentiated picture of Luther’s personality, of the complex web of historical reality in society, in politics and in the church of the first half of the 16th century. Consequently Luther’s profound piety that, with burning passion, was driven by questioning on eternal salvation, is clearly delineated. Similarly it becomes clear that the break in ecclesiastical unity is not reduced to a simple lack of comprehension by authorities of the Catholic Church nor to only the simple comprehension of true catholicism by Luther, even if both had their role.

The decisions taken indeed had very deep roots. In the dispute on the interpretational line and on the reception of Christian faith, which have in themselves a potential of ecclesiastical division, cannot be explained only by historical reasons.

Therefore, a double force is necessary, both in confronting Martin Luther and in the search for reestablishment of unity. In the first place it is important to continue accurate historical work, It is a question of, through an investigation without taking sides, motivated only by the search for truth, arriving at a just image of the Reformer, of the entire epoch of the Reformation and of the people who were involved in it. Guilt, where it exists, must be recognized, on whichever side it is found where polemics have clouded the view, the direction of this view must be corrected and independently by one side or the other. Furthermore, we must not let ourselves be led by the intention of erecting a judgment on history, but the intention must be only that of better understanding the events and of becoming bearers of the truth. Only offering ourselves, without reservation, to a purification through the truth, can we find a common interpretation of the past and gain at the same time a new point of departure for the dialogue of today.

And it is precisely this second thing that is dominant. The clarification of history that turns to the past and its lasting significance must go on equal footing with the dialogue of faith that, at present, we undertake to search for unity. This dialogue finds its solid base, in conformity with the written Evangelical-Lutheran confessional in that which unites us even after the separation and that is to say: in the word of the Scriptures, in the confession of faith, in the councils of the ancient church. I therefore trust, Cardinal, that on these bases and in this spirit, the Secretariat for Unity, with your guidance, leads forward this dialogue initiated with great seriousness in Germany even before the Second Vatican Council, and does it in fidelity to the free faith, which allows penitence and docility to learn by listening.

In humble contemplation of the mystery of divine providence and in listening devotely to what the spirit of God teaches us today in the memory of events of the Reformation, the church has to extend the confines of its love to go to meet in unity all those who, through baptism, bear the name of Jesus Christ. I accompany with my special prayers and blessings, the work of your secretariat and all the ecumenical forces for the great cause of unity of all Christians.

Vatican, 31 October 1983.

IOANNES PAULUS PP. II
*

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/letters/1983/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_19831031_card-willebrands.html

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/de/letters/1983/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_19831031_card-willebrands.html

 

[Wannano]

I’m going to go ahead and respond to a few different people all at once.

It’s called the Reformation, there is no actual scholarship that identifies it as a “revolt.” It’s something you enjoy saying, but it’s not accepted terminology. As to magisterial teaching authority, the priesthood, and the sacraments, you still have whatever you want to have in the Catholic Church. You don’t get to make all of that be everywhere and force it on everybody, but that’s no great loss. It’s just life. How would you possibly expect anything else? Finally, those sects that all teach something different- each and every one of them has a right to do so, free and unimpeded by violence, religious law, or religious discrimination. You can’t stop them, and you never had any right to do such a thing anyway.

“Reformation” and “Enlightenment” are widely used and accepted terms. Whether you believe they are entirely good things is up to you, but treating these words as if they’re unacceptable for regular use is not up to you. And I have a piece of news for you. Most Catholics believe they have the fullness of truth, but that it shouldn’t be forced on anyone against their will. Most Catholics also understand that a key outcome of the Enlightenment was that it helped the Catholic Church finally realize this. You seem to be implying that the ends justify the means- after all, if you kill a few heretics and save countless souls why not right? Well, the reason why not is because the ends do not justify the means, and no matter how much you disagree with and hate the Reformers, none of them deserved imprisonment or death.

Yes indeed, that would be me. Thank you so much for commenting in this way.

Did Aquinas completely overlook that foundation when he was writing Article 3 concerning the question of heresy? newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm

I can tell you the answer to that. The Catholic Church would have reformed itself with “all due speed” per its own judgment, in the same sense that Alabama and Mississippi chose to racially integrate public schools at whatever speed they felt was best.

I do take offense. Not because I go out of my way to overreact, mind you, but because the thing you like to say is offensive. There are very good reasons why your favored term is and always has been completely out of favor with actual historical and religious scholarship. It’s a deliberately offensive term, it has no place in serious conversation, and I think you know it. Of course you may use it as you like, and you can go ahead and be offensive as much as you want. Just know what you’re doing, okay?

I have a very honest question about this issue. Are you (or any source you can lay hands on) able to address the matter of countries like Russia and Spain, which each became incredibly secular in their own right despite each of them remaining staunchly unaffected by the Reformation, each in its own way? It would seem that non-Reformation forces have been hard at work in these countries, and perhaps those forces are always responsible for anti-religious secularism but then sometimes the blame is shifted to the very-religious Reformers.

And just one more…

And it is their God-given right to do so.

Thank you for your contribution, it contains a factor I have tried to address but I haven’t been that effective in communicating it. It is this: the Bible presents that the individual response of a human being would be voluntary. I am convinced that Jesus never intended that the Church should go and makes disciples throughout the world by force. To use threat of death to make someone accept my belief seems bizzare beyond comphrension. Thankfully separation of Church and State exists in the free world. Many Christian believers were martyred for this accomplishment.

 

[Wannano]

As a priest, I compliment you on your responses. I also react with horror at the positions that you had to respond to from Catholics – who would do well to acquaint themselves with Unitatis Redintegratio, Dignitatis Humanae, Lumen Gentium, the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, Ut Unum Sint and especially with what the Holy See is articulating currently in matters related to relations between those who are in full communion with Rome and those who are in various states of impaired communion. There has been much development in thought in fifty years and there has also been much revision of thought when assessing the past…both with regard to the events in the East of the first millennium and with the Reformation in the West. You will be reading more about that…very soon.

As to specific comments I would like to add:
(1) You are responding to language that is not only not what emanates from the Holy See since the Council, it is directly in opposition to the language and thought in the wake of the new path toward Christian Unity embraced in and through the Council. “Revolt” and “revolution” are terms which no Vatican dicastery – and certainly not the Pope himself – would ever countenance in the post-conciliar reality. Such terminology is diametrically opposite to what is used today and it would draw rebuke. As Pope Saint John Paul II wrote, “At the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church committed herself irrevocably to following the path of the ecumenical venture, thus heeding the Spirit of the Lord” (Ut Unum Sint 3)

(2) Pope Saint John Paul’s address on John Hus presents a wonderful complement to what you say here…as does, of course, Dignitatis Humanae which charts a new course on the Church’s position on the issue of religious freedom. w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1999/december/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_17121999_jan-hus.html

(3) You have every right to take offence at this. I take offence at it. The Holy Father would take offence at it. It speaks very sadly, for all the world to see, on this website…and I think especially of those who read and never contribute. What this person has expressed is not according to the mind of Pope Saint John Paul II who wrote: “The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism refers to the Communities to which these Christians belong as ‘Churches and Ecclesial Communities that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church’. This broadening of vocabulary is indicative of a significant change in attitudes. There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ.” (Ut Unum Sint 42)

I find all of your responses past and present heartwarming in that they indicate a true and real purpose of the Catholic faith is to extend the love of Christ to all people.

 

[clem456]

Those referenced Church documents point to the reality that God works all things to his good purposes and his glory.
Even those things we find to be evil, in Christ all things work to the glory of God.

 

[josie_L]

I do take offense. Not because I go out of my way to overreact, mind you, but because the thing you like to say is offensive. There are very good reasons why your favored term is and always has been completely out of favor with actual historical and religious scholarship. It’s a deliberately offensive term, it has no place in serious conversation, and I think you know it. Of course you may use it as you like, and you can go ahead and be offensive as much as you want. Just know what you’re doing, okay?

If a Catholic chooses to personally refer to the “Reformation” as the “Deformation” he/she is well within their rights to, considering all that ensued during that period.

I personally don’t view the “Reformation” as anything to do with reform, i.e., the so-called reformers could not have reformed what they themselves were not a part of, nor could the rejection of Sacred Tradition, the Sacraments, the Church of Christ itself. . . etc. be viewed as something good and holy by God.

You may disagree with this viewpoint and you’re well within your rights to do so, but I am more concerned about the truth of the matter than how someone might take offense of my view regarding the Reformation.

 

[Duane1966]

It’s called the Reformation, there is no actual scholarship that identifies it as a “revolt.”

Westminster Theological Seminary has actually produced a video series where they call it the Protestant Revolt. It’s the only term that makes sense, as it is more accurate as to what happened. Dave Armstrong hits the nail on the head:

They decided they didn’t like the Catholic rule of faith and so they rejected it, going to Scripture Alone as their new rule. This was a revolt against the status quo. I don’t see how it is even arguable. Otherwise, why do Protestants exist at all? They came from Catholicism; thus they had to reject that system in terms of authority in order to leave it.

And that’s a revolt. Case closed. Simply calling the thing a “revolt” is theologically neutral. One can be either for or against a revolt. It’s strictly a sociological or historical term. But “The [Protestant] Reformation” has tons of Protestant baggage presupposed. It’s saying that the movement reformed the Catholic Church and Christianity even though it brought in elements that had nothing to do with prior tradition or precedent. Protestants claim they were simply restoring the Church to what it was before, yet they can’t trace their doctrines to the fathers en masse in virtually any dispute with Catholics. They get trumped in any such debate every time.

Therefore, it’s not a “Reformation” at all. It’s a Revolt or Revolution. Now I’m making the polemical / theological case, but again, the term “Revolt” is neutral in and of itself. I like the American Revolution; I detest the French and Russian, etc. The word is neutral and thus describes all three of those events, which a person can agree or disagree with.

Did Aquinas completely overlook that foundation when he was writing Article 3 concerning the question of heresy? newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm

I see nothing wrong with what St. Thomas wrote there. After all, heresy was viewed as a capital crime back then. Now looking back through the lenses of history, one can say that heresy should not be a capital crime. But it was back then. So St. Thomas is saying, rightly for his time, after the third time, hand the heretic over to the authorities to carry out what would be normal justice. So no, he did not overlook that foundation. By your logic, anyone who supports the death penalty, has overlooked the foundation.

 

[josie_L]

Westminster Theological Seminary has actually produced a video series where they call it the Protestant Revolt. It’s the only term that makes sense, as it is more accurate as to what happened. Dave Armstrong hits the nail on the head:

They decided they didn’t like the Catholic rule of faith and so they rejected it, going to Scripture Alone as their new rule. This was a revolt against the status quo. I don’t see how it is even arguable. Otherwise, why do Protestants exist at all? They came from Catholicism; thus they had to reject that system in terms of authority in order to leave it.

And that’s a revolt. Case closed. Simply calling the thing a “revolt” is theologically neutral. One can be either for or against a revolt. It’s strictly a sociological or historical term. But “The [Protestant] Reformation” has tons of Protestant baggage presupposed. It’s saying that the movement reformed the Catholic Church and Christianity even though it brought in elements that had nothing to do with prior tradition or precedent. Protestants claim they were simply restoring the Church to what it was before, yet they can’t trace their doctrines to the fathers en masse in virtually any dispute with Catholics. They get trumped in any such debate every time.

Therefore, it’s not a “Reformation” at all. It’s a Revolt or Revolution. Now I’m making the polemical / theological case, but again, the term “Revolt” is neutral in and of itself. I like the American Revolution; I detest the French and Russian, etc. The word is neutral and thus describes all three of those events, which a person can agree or disagree with.

And one has to wonder who termed this the “Reformation”, not a Catholic that’s for sure!!!

 

[spedteacherita]

As the Catholic Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was instituted by Christ in His Church at the Last Supper, you can see in Acts 20:7 how on Sundays they came together to “break bread”, and Paul preached.

St Justin Martyr’s “Defence of Christians” (150 A.D.) “declares the Eucharistic Rite to consist of Scripture readings, sermon, consecration of the Eucharistic elements, communion, and prayers of thanksgiving….It went back to the Apostles.” Questions People Ask, Dr Leslie Rumble M.S.C., S.T.D., Chevalier Books, 1975, p 213-4].

Only the Catholic Church was founded by Christ, no other. She gave us the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God.

I think her question, though, was whether Scripture was read in the native vernacular:

Quote:
Susanlo #109
Were the Scriptures read to them at their church in their native language regularly?