Was the Protestant Reformation, in a sense, good?

[guanophore]

One thing you can clarify for me....Matt. 3:6 is referring to John's baptism. How does the Catholic Church see John's baptism? His message was repent and be baptized. The verse says confessing their sins  they were baptized.

Yes, we see it as a baptism of repentance to “prepare the way of the Lord”.

So far as we can tell, the Apostles also engaged in the Baptism of John.

It is not clear there was a change until Jesus entered the baptismal waters and joined the Holy Spirit to them. Even then, it is not clear from the record that the Apostles did a trinitarian baptism until after the Ascension. And even though instructed at that time, they may not have started the Trinitarian baptism until after they received the HS on Pentecost.

Did his baptism have the same effect as Catholics see baptism having today? I mean specifically were the people saved by and during his baptism?

People have always been saved in the same way, by grace, through faith. But the practices given the Jews were different than those given to Christians. According to the Apostolic Teaching, there is a clear difference between John’s baptism and that of Christ.

 

[Wannano]

On the contrary, Baptism is one of my favorite subjects.

I hope not. If this happened, the purpose of CAFwould be ruined!

No, the problem is the formatting. It is hard to tell which texts belong to you.

You mentioned several, none of which I think are part of what we received from the Apostles.

It is important to understand what is meant by the Apostolic teaching of “deadly sin”.

This is a very good question. I am onot sure that there were any people who were not considered members of the Catholic faith. It was the State religion in most of the civlised world for over a millenia.

At the time of the Reformation, there was a conflation of secular and spiritual authority, such that those persons censured or condemned by the Church were also considered treasonous to the realm. The civil authorities might banish them or put them to death if the Church did not discipline them. The Inqusition was created to give the accused a forum and attempt to protect them from the civil penalties that would often occur without trial of evidence (only on the basis of accusation).

Perhaps if you have specific examples we could explore them?

Thank you for your charitable response, your last paragraph intrigues me I will look for examples.

 

[guanophore]

“In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, HAVING BEEN BURIED WITH HIM IN BAPTISM and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.” (Colossians 2:11-12; NIV)

This is speaking of a metaphorical circumcision. It is about dying to sin, when one goes into the “watery grave” and is raised into a new life. I don’t think he is saying that this is a replacement for circumcision, but using it as an example.

Paul is writing to the Colosians (Greeks) who were not physically circumcised when they believed, but were baptized into the faith. Yes, the full immersion baptism (something I would like to see more of in Catholic Churches) is compared to death, buriel, and resurection. As Peter writes “saved through water” as those on the Ark. It is not the water itself that saves, but the action of the HS upon the heart of the person passing through the water.

More on infant baptism:

Justin Martyr claimed that “many” male and female Christians had been “illuminated through the Name of Christ.” Such “had been disciples to Christ from childhood” (1st Apology 15:6). These people had obviously been ‘sexually pure’ when infants and little children. Justin is asserting that they had remained sexually pure thereafter – and were continuing to “remain pure” even “at the age of sixty or seventy years.”

The passive verb “made disciples” - (ematheteuthesan), in this place, as everywhere else in Justin’s writings, means “to become a disciple,” that is, ‘taught’ follower of Jesus. This passive word was also used by Justin elsewhere – to refer to baptism. Justin’s word “illuminated,” of course, was his regular cryptogram for “baptized,” which was a device for evading persecution.

Ok. I have no problem discussing it, especially because we brought our two children to Baptism.

But why are we discussing it here? Shouldn’t we be discussing what did come out of the Reformation?

The present day truncated/distorted ideas about “believers baptism” are the fruit of the Reformation in the sense that these current ecclesial communities that reject infant baptism were separated at that time from the Sacred Tradition. That separation created gradual drifting further and further from the Apostolic faith.

 

[Wannano]

:E=guanophore;13869542]“In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, HAVING BEEN BURIED WITH HIM IN BAPTISM and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.” (Colossians 2:11-12; NIV)

Paul is writing to the Colosians (Greeks) who were not physically circumcised when they believed, but were baptized into the faith. Yes, the full immersion baptism (something I would like to see more of in Catholic Churches) is compared to death, buriel, and resurection. As Peter writes “saved through water” as those on the Ark. It is not the water itself that saves, but the action of the HS upon the heart of the person passing through the water.

More on infant baptism:

Justin Martyr claimed that “many” male and female Christians had been “illuminated through the Name of Christ.” Such “had been disciples to Christ from childhood” (1st Apology 15:6). These people had obviously been ‘sexually pure’ when infants and little children. Justin is asserting that they had remained sexually pure thereafter – and were continuing to “remain pure” even “at the age of sixty or seventy years.”

The passive verb “made disciples” - (ematheteuthesan), in this place, as everywhere else in Justin’s writings, means “to become a disciple,” that is, ‘taught’ follower of Jesus. This passive word was also used by Justin elsewhere – to refer to baptism. Justin’s word “illuminated,” of course, was his regular cryptogram for “baptized,” which was a device for evading persecution.

The present day truncated/distorted ideas about “believers baptism” are the fruit of the Reformation in the sense that these current ecclesial communities that reject infant baptism were separated at that time from the Sacred Tradition. That separation created gradual drifting further and further from the Apostolic faith.
uch:

 

[susanlo]

Can you show some evidence of this?

Well, the book Martyrs Mirror posted earlier contains a lot of examples.

The local authorities used to keep track of their census by the church records and they would be upset to find groups of Mennonites refusing to baptize their children.

There are relatively few Anabaptists in Europe today. They all fled to Russia and the US in the 17th and 18th centuries. This was because they were persecuted for their beliefs on baptism.

 

[rcwitness]

Well, the book Martyrs Mirror posted earlier contains a lot of examples.

The local authorities used to keep track of their census by the church records and they would be upset to find groups of Mennonites refusing to baptize their children.

There are relatively few Anabaptists in Europe today. They all fled to Russia and the US in the 17th and 18th centuries. This was because they were persecuted for their beliefs on baptism.

Was it merely NOT bringing their own personal children to Baptism, or proclaiming that infant Baptism is wrong?

 

[susanlo]

Can you show some evidence of this?

Here is one story of an Anabaptist where the entire congregation was killed: anabaptists.org/history/michael-sattler.html

 

[susanlo]

Was it merely NOT bringing their own personal children to Baptism, or proclaiming that infant Baptism is wrong?

Do you mean by proclaiming that they verbalized their own beliefs out loud? Or that they were being forceful and pushing their beliefs onto others?

 

[rcwitness]

Do you mean by proclaiming that they verbalized their own beliefs out loud? Or that they were being forceful and pushing their beliefs onto others?

I mean openly professing and teaching, claiming and asserting.

 

[susanlo]

I mean openly professing and teaching, claiming and asserting.

Well, there were cases like with Michael Sattler I posted a bit ago where everyone in the congregation was killed for not renouncing their beliefs. They usually met underground and baptized in secret. The Anabaptists and Mennonites had to flee Europe and some ended up in Russia and most of the rest in the US. I believe many went to the Palatinate region and to Holland where they were allowed to live, but not share their faith. I think as political winds shifted this was no longer possible. I am not sure of the complete history.

 

[rcwitness]

Well, there were cases like with Michael Sattler I posted a bit ago where everyone in the congregation was killed for not renouncing their beliefs. They usually met underground and baptized in secret. The Anabaptists and Mennonites had to flee Europe and some ended up in Russia and most of the rest in the US. I believe many went to the Palatinate region and to Holland where they were allowed to live, but not share their faith. I think as political winds shifted this was no longer possible. I am not sure of the complete history.

According to that account, it is very sad. But they were schismatics, heretics and teaching things opposed to the Apostles and Church Councils.

So that’s why I take this account carefully. I don’t assume it’s completely accurate.

 

[Tomyris]

Yes, Protestantism did bring a lot of bad. It created multiple heretical theology’s. It divided Christianity into an uncountable number of sects. It started some wars between Catholics and Protestants and even among Protestants themselves due to so much division. But, did it also have some good effects?

Many say the Protestant reformation led to the enlightenment and help people open their minds more to new ideas. Although, this too brought some bad (Atheism, French Revolution, Napoleon) it brought much good with it. America was founded upon enlightenment ideas. These ideas include things such as separation of Church and state, freedom to practice any religion, freedom of speech, etc. In fact, Protestantism itself kind of forced certain country’s before the enlightenment took off to start allowing for religious freedom or at least limited forms of it.

Protestantism also brought attention to many of the abuses within the Church. Abuses such as the selling of Indulgences were finally stopped.

So, was Protestantism in a way kind of good? Does the good out weigh the bad or does the bad out weigh the good? Also, please do not misunderstand. I do not in anyway shape or form want to become Protestant. I love the Catholic faith and hope to practice it until the day I die. I accept all teachings put forward by the Catholic Church and do not see myself rejecting the Church any time soon.

To take thread in a totally, different direction, I thought I would try to answer, since no one, as far as I can tell, has responded this way or shut it out. I will number my points:

1. Jesus said, God alone is good.
2. Aquinas said God made everything good. Therefore, what exists is good.

That doesn’t help, now that I look at it.

So I am abandoning my foray into the wilds of my thinking.

IF you accept the premise that the papacy is valid, you are forced to say that the Reformation was not the worst thing in the course of history. The worst thing was the abandonment of spiritual concerns by the popes in favor of secular power, and treating the bride of Christ as a common prostitute. It is kinder to the Medici popes to say they were imposters in a false system than to say that they really had the office and they used it to sack Germany, among other countries. The Reformation was the direct and necessary consequence of their behavior. Instead of winning the world to Christ, they got rich and more and more immoral. They set a standard for the powerful oppressing the weak and the abuse of power, which echoes down to the church today as we see scandals among the clergy.

I think that if the Reformation had not happened, something quite worse might have ensued, and we would have seen something like a secular overthrow of the church’s power everywhere. What happened to the Orthodox Church in 1917 would have happened throughout Europe in the late 1500s. Many people had called for changes in church leadership that church leadership rejected.

The boil was lanced. That was good. All the infection that drained out is still not done draining, and there is still infection. It is good that Catholics are now admitting there was evil done on their side, but I still see the Reformers blamed far more than I see the Catholic Church blamed for the causes of the Reformation. It is not good that the church remains fractured and split.

 

[Wannano]

According to that account, it is very sad. But they were schismatics, heretics and teaching things opposed to the Apostles and Church Councils.

So that’s why I take this account carefully. I don’t assume it’s completely accurate.

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.

 

[Wannano]

According to that account, it is very sad. But they were schismatics, heretics and teaching things opposed to the Apostles and Church Councils.

So that’s why I take this account carefully. I don’t assume it’s completely accurate.

I see we are being taken in a new direction which is probably healthy. I am going to be bold though and ask you rc, do you consider the Anabaptist/Mennonite people to be Christians?

 

[rcwitness]

I see we are being taken in a new direction which is probably healthy. I am going to be bold though and ask you rc, do you consider the Anabaptist/Mennonite people to be Christians?

Of course. So does the Church

 

[Wannano]

Of course. So does the Church

Then you live up to your handle “a brother to all Christians”.

 

[Wannano]

To take thread in a totally, different direction, I thought I would try to answer, since no one, as far as I can tell, has responded this way or shut it out. I will number my points:

1. Jesus said, God alone is good.
2. Aquinas said God made everything good. Therefore, what exists is good.

That doesn’t help, now that I look at it.

So I am abandoning my foray into the wilds of my thinking.

IF you accept the premise that the papacy is valid, you are forced to say that the Reformation was not the worst thing in the course of history. The worst thing was the abandonment of spiritual concerns by the popes in favor of secular power, and treating the bride of Christ as a common prostitute. It is kinder to the Medici popes to say they were imposters in a false system than to say that they really had the office and they used it to sack Germany, among other countries. The Reformation was the direct and necessary consequence of their behavior. Instead of winning the world to Christ, they got rich and more and more immoral. They set a standard for the powerful oppressing the weak and the abuse of power, which echoes down to the church today as we see scandals among the clergy.

I think that if the Reformation had not happened, something quite worse might have ensued, and we would have seen something like a secular overthrow of the church’s power everywhere. What happened to the Orthodox Church in 1917 would have happened throughout Europe in the late 1500s. Many people had called for changes in church leadership that church leadership rejected.

The boil was lanced. That was good. All the infection that drained out is still not done draining, and there is still infection. It is good that Catholics are now admitting there was evil done on their side, but I still see the Reformers blamed far more than I see the Catholic Church blamed for the causes of the Reformation. It is not good that the church remains fractured and split.

I am interested in hearing more from you. We have been IMMERSED in the baptism discussion for a while now!

 

[guanophore]

We are discussing that in a sense the Reformation was good. That is the op I think. One of the good things is that Catholics and non-catholics are talking and discussing.

I think this is one of the good things about CAF, but as far as the Reformation is concerned, what happened was more separation, anger, division, killing and alienation. There was very little “talking”, and the “talk” got less and less as the resentment grew. It resulted in horrible breakdowns of communication, created suspicion, schism, and centuries of wars fomented by the divisions.

 As far as adult baptism only belief, I think the Reformation did bring to the forefront knowledge that not all people agreed with infant baptism.

Not everyone agreed to all the Doctrines of Christ from the very beginning, over a millenia before the Reformation. This was true about the hypostatic union, the Trinity, the texts that belonged in the NT, eucharist, rejection of the authority put in place by Christ, as well as baptism. Those that did not accept the Apostolic Teachings were called heretics, schismatics, and apostates.

The Church founded by Christ is not a democracy, where doctrine is decided by majority vote. It is a Theocracy, in which doctrine is received as it was given to the Church by Christ, who said “do not hinder the children from coming to me”.

The fact that they were not allowed to practice their belief in peace and we're instead martyred for their belief only served to fuel their cause.

I think this is true.

 A result is not most of Christendom abandoning infant baptism ,but giving solidarity to those who oppose it and obtaining freedom to practice an adult only belief.

Yes, now that there is a separation of Church and State, heretical beliefs are no longer considered treasonous.

I think another good from the Reformation is that now Christians seem to be realizing that Jesus never did, never will, condone the use of violence and murder to advance His kingdom.

I do not believe this came from the Reformation either, since the Reformation was actually a catalyst for violence and murder in the name of the Kingdom.

 

[Abu]

Tomyris #273
IF you accept the premise that the papacy is valid, you are forced to say that the Reformation was not the worst thing in the course of history.
I think that if the Reformation had not happened, something quite worse might have ensued, and we would have seen something like a secular overthrow of the church’s power everywhere.

The great failure of the Protestant Revolt is summed up by the truism that men must be changed by religion, not religion by men.

Late medieval clergy too often preached one thing and did another. Greed, simony, nepotism, luxury, sexual license, and schism in the hierarchy created an intolerable gap between Christian preaching and practice.

The ignorance of the great Council of Trent in 1545-1563 (interrupted by plague, war and other events) is what masks the failure to see the true reformation, and the failure to follow Christ in His Catholic Church.

“238. In view of all this, was not a Reformation necessary?
Undoubtedly. But there was no need for what is popularly called “The Reformation.” Any abuses amongst the members of the Church will always cry out urgently for reform. But Protestantism was not a movement of real reform. It made prevalent abuses an excuse to abandon the Church altogether, instead of remaining with it, and trying to effect the conversion of its lax members to better ways. Moreover, Protestantism retained many of the very abuses, and merely sought to justify them by denying that they were wrong. That the Catholic Church will never do. She may have to admit sadly that her children sin; but she will never say that what is sin, is not sin, as did many of the Reformers.”
radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=Reformation&db=2

“395. Is not Protestantism as well able to give the spiritual outlook as Catholicism?
That cannot be admitted. It is undeniable that Protestantism as such cannot preserve Christian truth intact, and dare not insist upon the fullness of Christian moral teaching. As a result of the Protestant Reformation we find articles of faith denied; fasting and other forms of mortification not taught; the sense of sin diminishing; the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience inspiring monastic life ignored; a clergy unable to rise to the ideals of celibacy, and as unable to give sound spiritual advice as the laity are unwilling to receive it; nationalism displacing the universal outlook of Christianity; materialism supplanting supernaturalism; whilst more and more philanthropy and humanitarianism tend to displace that Christian charity which is in the order of grace, and supposes a pure and disinterested love of God rather than merely of our fellow men.”
radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=Reformation&db=2

 

[guanophore]

According to that account, it is very sad. But they were schismatics, heretics and teaching things opposed to the Apostles and Church Councils.

So that’s why I take this account carefully. I don’t assume it’s completely accurate.

To be fair, Catholics did a number of unchristian things not the least of which was forcing, by use of violence, terror, and threat of torture everyone to comply with their understanding of the faith. If one carefully reads the account of this trial, it is clear that the secular authorities (judges, town clerk, Emperor, and executioner) all used their temporal power to coerce the population to comply with their idea of the faith.

The acts recounted in this story are nowhere supported in the Teachings of the Church, in any age, then, or now.

Luther did the same thing, writing a polemic against the Jews that Hitler later used to foment even worse atrocities. Human beings are capable of great evil against one another, and Catholics are no exception.