Was the Protestant Reformation, in a sense, good?

[rcwitness]

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.

Yes. I have learned to take these accusations with a grain of salt, though. The more one looks into stories like these, it becomes clear that the men who suffered violence were not representing/teaching/observing the faith in all things.

Though, like you say, some (maybe many) of these Catholics put aside the greater virtues of the faith because others were not accepting certain tenants of the faith. Thinking they could punish dissenters any way they pleased. And shamefully revealing what pleased them.

And you also can see that the Church, lawfully could not have committed these hate acts, but men who began to beat their children and use extremely excessive force and brutality.

 

[Tomyris]

In the navy, the captain of the ship is responsible for whatever the crew does. If they fail, it is because he did not train them. It reflects on him. You call the pope the captain of the barque of Peter.

If you accept the papacy, you have to accept that all of the stuff mentioned in the last three posts is something that ties back directly to the popes. They were responsible. Accountable for EVERYTHING that happened in the church on their watch, and possibly its consequences. As the pope now has direct and immediate supervision for every single last Catholic, he is responsible for your personal sin and failure to follow Christ.

Hitler was a baptized Catholic, therefore a Catholic. Therefore, everything he did was the pope’s responsibility, as captain. Likewise every other Catholic you can name.

Luther was a baptized Catholic, likewise. Before you bash him, you have to bash his popes. Plain and simple. Chain of command.

 

[rcwitness]

In the navy, the captain of the ship is responsible for whatever the crew does. If they fail, it is because he did not train them. It reflects on him. You call the pope the captain of the barque of Peter.

If you accept the papacy, you have to accept that all of the stuff mentioned in the last three posts is something that ties back directly to the popes. They were responsible. Accountable for EVERYTHING that happened in the church on their watch, and possibly its consequences. As the pope now has direct and immediate supervision for every single last Catholic, he is responsible for your personal sin and failure to follow Christ.

Hitler was a baptized Catholic, therefore a Catholic. Therefore, everything he did was the pope’s responsibility, as captain. Likewise every other Catholic you can name.

Luther was a baptized Catholic, likewise. Before you bash him, you have to bash his popes. Plain and simple. Chain of command.

I think you mean “accepting the consequences” as opposed to saying “everything is the Pope’s responsibility”.

Jesus took the consequences of Judas’, and every sinner’s, actions. But Jesus was not responsible for Judas’ choices.

 

[guanophore]

In the navy, the captain of the ship is responsible for whatever the crew does. If they fail, it is because he did not train them. It reflects on him. You call the pope the captain of the barque of Peter.

Indeed we do.

I am not sure this is the best analogy, though, when it comes to abusing the crew of the ship, since some captains were ruthless and cruel. It is the same with the Bishops. Some were full of the fruits of the Spirit, but there were many more (especially in Europe at the time of the Reformation) that were selfish, worldly, and focused on material gain. In the worst cases, they were, like some ship captains, vengeful and violent.

If you accept the papacy, you have to accept that all of the stuff mentioned in the last three posts is something that ties back directly to the popes.

This is kinda like saying that Jesus is responsible for the betrayal of Judas. I don’t think we can lay all the sinful acts of men at the feet of their shepherds. That being said, the Medieval Popes were not all examples of the shepherds Peter enjoined them to be, and did not follow the Way of Christ in too many areas. I think it does affect the whole flock when the shepherd is struck with living in the flesh.

’ it is written, ‘I WILL STRIKE DOWN THE SHEPHERD, AND THE SHEEP OF THE FLOCK SHALL BE SCATTERED.’"Matt. 26:31.

The carnal ways of the Bishops, including the Popes is, in large part, what fomented the Reformation.

They were responsible. Accountable for EVERYTHING that happened in the church on their watch, and possibly  its consequences.

Ultimately Jesus left no part of the Church out of His instruction to Peter. He charged him to feed the sheep and care for them. This responsibility was passed to Peter’s successor, and so on. Each of the Bishops has part of this duty.

Naturally the Pope cannot know every vile move made by Bishops, but there were known behaviors that were tolerated, and some that were even promoted.

As the pope now has direct and immediate supervision for every single last Catholic, he is responsible for your personal sin and failure to follow Christ.

I think this is a gross misrepresentation of the role that Jesus gave to St. Peter. This can be seen in the story in Acts 5 where Ananias and Sapphira lied to the HS. If there is a fault in the Pope or the Bishops, it may be failing to confront those who are out of order. But the text makes it clear that Peter is not responsible for the sin of the members of the flock.

It is also a gross misrepresentation because no one human being can have “direct and immediate supervision” over another (unless they are comatose). Even parents cannot keep their children from making mistakes or committing sins. It was clear in the early church that the Bishops were to focus on preaching and teaching, which is why deacons were selected to care for the daily needs of the people. Elders (presbyters) were later appointed to help the Bishops manage the care of the flock. The letters of Paul to both Timothy and Titus give them great admonishment about using their authority and their gifts, but none of those passages indicate that the Bishops can be responsible for “direct and immediate supervision” of the faithful.

Hitler was a baptized Catholic, therefore a Catholic. Therefore, everything he did was the pope’s responsibility, as captain. Likewise every other Catholic you can name.

I am surprised to hear you say something like this. You must be in quite a mood today.

I think you know that a baptized person can abandon their faith, Hitler not being the first.

The Pope is responsible for the care and feeding of the flock, not for the rebellion of the flock.

Luther was a baptized Catholic, likewise. Before you bash him, you have to bash his popes. Plain and simple. Chain of command.

I don’t think bashing anyone is appropriate, and certainly does not lead to useful dialogue and reconciliation of our differences.

Yes, he was not only baptized Catholic, but was spiritually formed as a monk, then ordained as a priest, and appointed to teach. He was given authority over the flock, which he was also unable to control He could not get other reformers to retain the Apostolic teaching that the Eucharist is the Real Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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.

What you write is so foreign – so positively alien – to the mindset of the Holy See, the community of theologians, and to ecumenists working at the international level in the 21st century. You are evoking, literally, language from another century and mindsets we have abandoned. We no longer speak in using these terms. I would contrast how you approach the past and historical study with that of the Successor of Peter:

From Pope Saint John Paul II to an International Symposium on Jan Hus in 1999…a man put to death by the Church but, thanks to where the Holy Spirit has led us, Rome acknowledges as a remarkable man.
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1999/december/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_17121999_jan-hus.html

*2. It is significant that scholars not only from the Czech Republic but also from neighbouring countries have taken part in this Symposium. No less significant is the fact that, despite the tensions that have marred relations between Czech Christians in the past, scholars from different Confessions have come together to share their knowledge. Now that you have brought together the best and latest scholarly work on Jan Hus and the events in which he was involved, the next step will be to publish the results of the Symposium, so that as many people as possible will have an insight not only into a remarkable man but also into an important and complex period of Christian and European history.

Today, on the eve of the Great Jubilee, I feel the need to express deep regret for the cruel death inflicted on John Hus, and for the consequent wound of conflict and division which was thus imposed on the minds and hearts of the Bohemian people. It was during my first visit to Prague that I declared my hope that precisely in your land decisive steps could be taken on the path of reconciliation and true unity in Christ. The wounds of past centuries must be healed through a new attitude and completely renewed relationships. May our Lord Jesus Christ, “who is our peace… and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility” (Eph 2:14), guide the path of your people’s history towards the rediscovered unity of all Christians, which we ardently hope for in the millennium that is about to begin.

1. Scholarly endeavours to reach a more profound and complete grasp of historical truth are crucial to this cause. Faith has nothing to fear from the work of historical research, for, in the final analysis, research too is directed towards the truth which has in God its source. Therefore, I give thanks to our Father in Heaven for your work as it reaches its end, just as I was keen to encourage you as you began.

The writing of history is sometimes beset by ideological, political or economic pressures, so that the truth is obscured and history itself becomes a prisoner of the powerful. Genuinely scientific study is our best defence against such pressures and the distortions they can bring. It is true that it is very difficult to attain an absolutely objective account of history, since personal convictions, values and experiences inevitably impinge upon historical study. Yet this does not mean that we cannot offer an account of history which is in a very real sense impartial and therefore true and liberating. Your own work is a proof that this is possible.

1. The truth can also prove uncomfortable when it asks us to abandon long-held prejudices and stereotypes. This is as true of Churches, ecclesial communities and religions as it is of nations and individuals. Yet the truth which sets us free from error is also the truth which sets us free for love; and it is Christian love which has been the horizon of what your Commission has sought to do. Your work means that a figure like Jan Hus, who has been such a point of contention in the past, has now become a subject of dialogue, of comparison and shared investigation.*
   Fortunately, the new attitude that Pope Saint John Paul II speaks of most eloquently has prevailed since the council.

Fortunately, too, the new scholarship on the part of historians that Pope Saint John Paul II referenced continues almost a decade later to yield much positive fruit and, as Catholics, who joined our Holy Father in acclaiming this remarkable man in 1999, we will be standing side by side with the Lutherans and others to jointly commemorate the Reformation in a year long commemoration which our Holy Father will inaugurate at the end of October when he travels to Sweden. Catholic and Lutheran clergy then around the world will co-preside at Services of Common Prayer throughout the year of commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation.

 

[guanophore]

What you write is so foreign – so positively alien – to the mindset of the Holy See, the community of theologians, and to ecumenists working at the international level in the 21st century. You are evoking, literally, language from another century and mindsets we have abandoned. We no longer speak in using these terms. I would contrast how you approach the past and historical study with that of the Successor of Peter:

From Pope Saint John Paul II to an International Symposium on Jan Hus in 1999…a man put to death by the Church but, thanks to where the Holy Spirit has led us, Rome acknowledges as a remarkable man.
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1999/december/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_17121999_jan-hus.html

2. It is significant that scholars not only from the Czech Republic but also from neighbouring countries have taken part in this Symposium. No less significant is the fact that, despite the tensions that have marred relations between Czech Christians in the past, scholars from different Confessions have come together to share their knowledge. Now that you have brought together the best and latest scholarly work on Jan Hus and the events in which he was involved, the next step will be to publish the results of the Symposium, so that as many people as possible will have an insight not only into a remarkable man but also into an important and complex period of Christian and European history.

Today, on the eve of the Great Jubilee, I feel the need to express deep regret for the cruel death inflicted on John Hus, and for the consequent wound of conflict and division which was thus imposed on the minds and hearts of the Bohemian people. It was during my first visit to Prague that I declared my hope that precisely in your land decisive steps could be taken on the path of reconciliation and true unity in Christ. The wounds of past centuries must be healed through a new attitude and completely renewed relationships. May our Lord Jesus Christ, “who is our peace… and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility” (Eph 2:14), guide the path of your people’s history towards the rediscovered unity of all Christians, which we ardently hope for in the millennium that is about to begin.

1. Scholarly endeavours to reach a more profound and complete grasp of historical truth are crucial to this cause. Faith has nothing to fear from the work of historical research, for, in the final analysis, research too is directed towards the truth which has in God its source. Therefore, I give thanks to our Father in Heaven for your work as it reaches its end, just as I was keen to encourage you as you began.

The writing of history is sometimes beset by ideological, political or economic pressures, so that the truth is obscured and history itself becomes a prisoner of the powerful. Genuinely scientific study is our best defence against such pressures and the distortions they can bring. It is true that it is very difficult to attain an absolutely objective account of history, since personal convictions, values and experiences inevitably impinge upon historical study. Yet this does not mean that we cannot offer an account of history which is in a very real sense impartial and therefore true and liberating. Your own work is a proof that this is possible.

1. The truth can also prove uncomfortable when it asks us to abandon long-held prejudices and stereotypes. This is as true of Churches, ecclesial communities and religions as it is of nations and individuals. Yet the truth which sets us free from error is also the truth which sets us free for love; and it is Christian love which has been the horizon of what your Commission has sought to do. Your work means that a figure like Jan Hus, who has been such a point of contention in the past, has now become a subject of dialogue, of comparison and shared investigation.
   Fortunately, the new attitude that Pope Saint John Paul II speaks of most eloquently has prevailed since the council.

Fortunately, too, the new scholarship on the part of historians that Pope Saint John Paul II referenced continues almost a decade later to yield much positive fruit and, as Catholics, who joined our Holy Father in acclaiming this remarkable man in 1999, we will be standing side by side with the Lutherans and others to jointly commemorate the Reformation in a year long commemoration which our Holy Father will inaugurate at the end of October when he travels to Sweden. Catholic and Lutheran clergy then around the world will co-preside at Services of Common Prayer throughout the year of commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation.

Thank you for this charitable and soothing post, Father. You are truly spreading the fruit of the Spirit in the pursuit of ecumenism.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

That is NOT a “good thing”’ of the Revolt, but instead a dawning realization of the errors of the revolt.

That did not come from the Protestant Revolt.

Such language should have positively no place today in the light of the ecumenical movement – to say nothing of the entirely different view Rome has on these issues.

Extracts from HOMILY OF THE HOLY FATHER on the “DAY OF PARDON” Sunday, 12 March 2000

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/homilies/2000/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_20000312_pardon.html

*As the Successor of Peter, I asked that "in this year of mercy the Church, strong in the holiness which she receives from her Lord, should kneel before God and implore forgiveness for the past and present sins of her sons and daughters" (ibid.). Today, the First Sunday of Lent, seemed to me the right occasion for the Church, gathered spiritually round the Successor of Peter, to implore divine forgiveness for the sins of all believers. Let us forgive and ask forgiveness!

This appeal has prompted a thorough and fruitful reflection, which led to the publication several days ago of a document of the International Theological Commission, entitled: “Memory and Reconciliation: The Church and the Faults of the Past”. I thank everyone who helped to prepare this text. It is very useful for correctly understanding and carrying out the authentic request for pardon, based on the objective responsibility which Christians share as members of the Mystical Body, and which spurs today’s faithful to recognize, along with their own sins, the sins of yesterday’s Christians, in the light of careful historical and theological discernment.

Indeed, “because of the bond which unites us to one another in the Mystical Body, all of us, though not personally responsible and without encroaching on the judgement of God who alone knows every heart, bear the burden of the errors and faults of those who have gone before us” (Incarnationis mysterium, n. 11). The recognition of past wrongs serves to reawaken our consciences to the compromises of the present, opening the way to conversion for everyone.

1. Let us forgive and ask forgiveness! While we praise God who, in his merciful love, has produced in the Church a wonderful harvest of holiness, missionary zeal, total dedication to Christ and neighbour, we cannot fail to recognize the infidelities to the Gospel committed by some of our brethren, especially during the second millennium. Let us ask pardon for the divisions which have occurred among Christians, for the violence some have used in the service of the truth and for the distrustful and hostile attitudes sometimes taken towards the followers of other religions..

Let us confess, even more, our responsibilities as Christians for the evils of today. We must ask ourselves what our responsibilities are regarding atheism, religious indifference, secularism, ethical relativism, the violations of the right to life, disregard for the poor in many countries.

We humbly ask forgiveness for the part which each of us has had in these evils by our own actions, thus helping to disfigure the face of the Church. *
The document, which the Holy Father refers to, maybe found at the link below and should be read by Catholics and non-Catholics alike as an expression of where the Church of Rome stands in the 21st century especially as it looked back on second millennium of Christianity.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000307_memory-reconc-itc_en.html

 

[rcwitness]

What you write is so foreign – so positively alien – to the mindset of the Holy See, the community of theologians, and to ecumenists working at the international level in the 21st century. You are evoking, literally, language from another century and mindsets we have abandoned. We no longer speak in using these terms. I would contrast how you approach the past and historical study with that of the Successor of Peter:

I think you’ve misunderstood me some… ?

Maybe post #282 may help?

I wasn’t trying to justify hateful violence that has been done. But there is a mentality that asserts that these Reformers were doing God’s will and upholding the true faith and it’s doctrines, and that is why they were persecuted. It’s not that simple. They truly did break away from the Church, and did accept doctrines which the Church still rejects.

Did it justify violent killing and torture? I strongly do not believe so. And did the Church members (clergy alike) do so by lawful Church Teaching? I don’t believe so.

I believe some of these reformers are likely accepted into heaven, while some of their persecuters may not see it. But I cannot agree that they were right in all they were teaching and doing. I don’t think breaking away from the Eucharistic communion is righteous. Nor establishing a Eucharistic outside of Communion with the bishops in union with Rome.

 

[Wannano]

What you write is so foreign – so positively alien – to the mindset of the Holy See, the community of theologians, and to ecumenists working at the international level in the 21st century. You are evoking, literally, language from another century and mindsets we have abandoned. We no longer speak in using these terms. I would contrast how you approach the past and historical study with that of the Successor of Peter:

From Pope Saint John Paul II to an International Symposium on Jan Hus in 1999…a man put to death by the Church but, thanks to where the Holy Spirit has led us, Rome acknowledges as a remarkable man.
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1999/december/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_17121999_jan-hus.html

2. It is significant that scholars not only from the Czech Republic but also from neighbouring countries have taken part in this Symposium. No less significant is the fact that, despite the tensions that have marred relations between Czech Christians in the past, scholars from different Confessions have come together to share their knowledge. Now that you have brought together the best and latest scholarly work on Jan Hus and the events in which he was involved, the next step will be to publish the results of the Symposium, so that as many people as possible will have an insight not only into a remarkable man but also into an important and complex period of Christian and European history.

Today, on the eve of the Great Jubilee, I feel the need to express deep regret for the cruel death inflicted on John Hus, and for the consequent wound of conflict and division which was thus imposed on the minds and hearts of the Bohemian people. It was during my first visit to Prague that I declared my hope that precisely in your land decisive steps could be taken on the path of reconciliation and true unity in Christ. The wounds of past centuries must be healed through a new attitude and completely renewed relationships. May our Lord Jesus Christ, “who is our peace… and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility” (Eph 2:14), guide the path of your people’s history towards the rediscovered unity of all Christians, which we ardently hope for in the millennium that is about to begin.

1. Scholarly endeavours to reach a more profound and complete grasp of historical truth are crucial to this cause. Faith has nothing to fear from the work of historical research, for, in the final analysis, research too is directed towards the truth which has in God its source. Therefore, I give thanks to our Father in Heaven for your work as it reaches its end, just as I was keen to encourage you as you began.

The writing of history is sometimes beset by ideological, political or economic pressures, so that the truth is obscured and history itself becomes a prisoner of the powerful. Genuinely scientific study is our best defence against such pressures and the distortions they can bring. It is true that it is very difficult to attain an absolutely objective account of history, since personal convictions, values and experiences inevitably impinge upon historical study. Yet this does not mean that we cannot offer an account of history which is in a very real sense impartial and therefore true and liberating. Your own work is a proof that this is possible.

1. The truth can also prove uncomfortable when it asks us to abandon long-held prejudices and stereotypes. This is as true of Churches, ecclesial communities and religions as it is of nations and individuals. Yet the truth which sets us free from error is also the truth which sets us free for love; and it is Christian love which has been the horizon of what your Commission has sought to do. Your work means that a figure like Jan Hus, who has been such a point of contention in the past, has now become a subject of dialogue, of comparison and shared investigation.
   Fortunately, the new attitude that Pope Saint John Paul II speaks of most eloquently has prevailed since the council.

Fortunately, too, the new scholarship on the part of historians that Pope Saint John Paul II referenced continues almost a decade later to yield much positive fruit and, as Catholics, who joined our Holy Father in acclaiming this remarkable man in 1999, we will be standing side by side with the Lutherans and others to jointly commemorate the Reformation in a year long commemoration which our Holy Father will inaugurate at the end of October when he travels to Sweden. Catholic and Lutheran clergy then around the world will co-preside at Services of Common Prayer throughout the year of commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation.

Thank you Father Don, when I first read my friend rcwitness’ words I was dismayed also but then I was reminded that I have kept him busy today so I chose to think he was probably getting weary of the topic. What you submitted has moved me close to tears. My experience here on caf has often caused me to question the attitudes of some who identify themselves as Catholic. What you report here is exhilarating. Is the average Joe in the pew aware of the current attitudes of the leadership of his Church? Hopefully the laity are being informed and I am sure they are. Thank you for entering here today.

 

[Abu]

Don Ruggero #288
Originally Posted by Abu
That is NOT a “good thing”’ of the Revolt, but instead a dawning realization of the errors of the revolt.

That did not come from the Protestant Revolt.

Such language should have positively no place today in the light of the ecumenical movement – to say nothing of the entirely different view Rome has on these issues.

My reference is patently NOT against talking and discussing but to the reality that Wannano in #252 stated: “We are discussing that in a sense the Reformation was good.”

So, I repeat the “Reformation was NOT “good”, and emphasise that discussing the errors and correcting them is what is required. This does not mean that we Catholics regard Protestants themselves as “bad” people.

Rome doesn’t have “an entirely different view” but calls for commitment.

Thus, Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, #14):
"Hence they could not be saved as knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it.”

**So, in his Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation *Christifideles Laici *(on the Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the World) 1988, St John Paul II teaches:
**
The Apostolic Commitment in the Parish
Extract #27:
In the present circumstances the lay faithful have the ability to do very much and, therefore, ought to do very much towards the growth of an authentic ecclesial communion in their parishes in order **to reawaken missionary zeal towards nonbelievers and believers themselves who have abandoned the faith or grown lax in the Christian life.

**Extract #64:
’The whole Church, Pastors and lay faithful alike, standing on the threshold of the Third Millennium, ought to feel more strong]y the Church’s responsibility to obey the command of Christ, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation” (Mk 16:15), and take up anew the missionary endeavour. A great venture, both challenging and wonderful, is entrusted to the Church – that of a re-evangelization, which is so much needed by the present world. The lay faithful ought to regard themselves as an active and responsible part of this venture, called as they are to proclaim and to live the gospel in service to the person and to society while respecting the totality of the values and needs of both.’ [My emphases].

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Thank you for this charitable and soothing post, Father. You are truly spreading the fruit of the Spirit in the pursuit of ecumenism.

You’re very welcome

Ecumenism became very much a pillar of my life’s work. It was totally unexpected. An obedience that was imposed upon me as another might receive the obedience to become the parish priest of such and such parish. It is true that I was a historian but I set that aside to become a priest

I undertook a work imposed and I embraced it. And now I see a whole new generation of historians. A whole new generation of theologians. A whole new generation of ecumenists. Men AND women. More gifted for this work than I was. They will see the Church to a place I wished to see it arrive but won’t live to see, from this life

It’s impossible to convey the sentiments that are mine. To have lived at the time of the Council – a time of extraordinary grace in which the Holy Spirit led the Catholic Church to advance in remarkable ways relative to ecclesiology and to the liturgy. To paths which the liturgical movement had made preparation across decades

Relative to the ecumenical movement, it chose a completely different course and new thought. The Successor of Peter and all the world’s bishops, gathered in Council, committed themselves, and the Church, irrevocably to what was a “divine imperative.” It was a remarkable moment and it has been a most remarkable five decades

It’s hard to tell you what it was to hear the Council Fathers use terms like “separated brethren” and, 30 years later, have one of those Fathers, now Pope, writing in paragraph 42 of Ut Unum Sint:
Again, the very expression separated brethren tends to be replaced today by expressions which more readily evoke the deep communion — linked to the baptismal character — which the Spirit fosters in spite of historical and canonical divisions. Today we speak of “other Christians”, “others who have received Baptism”, and “Christians of other Communities”. 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
This is where the Church of Rome is today

I’ve lived through far too much in these decades to come to the twilight of my life and allow ANYONE who did not live the events as I lived them to say how we look upon the past and how we look upon the present. If you want to know…don’t ask people on Internet forums quoting concepts long past. Ask the Holy See. Ask the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. Read what the Pope says when he greets his brothers and sisters who are clergy of the non-Catholic Christian confessions

I rejoice that, as a priest, I have lived to see the moment when I will co-preside, now in a matter of months, with a brother or sister who is a member of the Lutheran clergy, in a Service of Common Prayer to jointly commemorate, Catholics and Lutherans, the Reformation

To co-preside at a service with a Lutheran pastor? It is something I did not dream in the 1960s that I would live to do in my lifetime as a priest. Oh, I knew it would happen…it is the Will of God. Ut Unum Sint! But that I would see it advance this far and this fast…and not see it from Heaven but with my eyes here on earth!

In spite of the meeting between Blessed Paul VI and Athenagoras I, I did not dream to actually see the Bishop of Rome BOW to the Patriarch of Constantinople and implore him to bless him and the Church in the West. And the look on Bartholomew’s face at that moment is one I will carry to my grave as I will so many cherished memories that I saw. Dear Lord! What a beautiful era to have lived to see! The pope who called the Council canonised! The pope who saw the Council to its completion beatified. Perhaps the greatest son of the Council and the one who truly implemented it also canonised. And, now, we have the first Pope ordained since the Council…himself truly a son of Vatican II

• Roman Catholics today participate in a liturgy in their mother tongue…thanks be to God.
• Roman Catholics today receive the Eucharist under both species…as the Lord Jesus instituted the Most Blessed Sacrament…thanks be to God
• The Sacred Scripture is read in a greater fullness in the liturgy than ever before and its presence in the life of the faithful is greater…thanks be to God

These are incredible fruits that did not just emerge out of thin air

I will share a few passages from From Conflict to Communion, the document prepared by the joint commission for the pending anniversary. The Holy Father has already spoken of it with great enthusiasm…it is a gift to the Church that emerged from the work of Pope Benedict
*16. What happened in the past cannot be changed, but what is remembered of the past and how it is remembered can, with the passage of time, indeed change. Remembrance makes the past present. While the past itself is unalterable, the presence of the past in the present is alterable. In view of 2017, the point is not to tell a different history, but to tell that history differently.

1. /…/ The ecumenical movement has altered the orientation of the churches’ perceptions of the Reformation: ecumenical theologians have decided not to pursue their confessional self-assertions at the expense of their dialogue partners but rather to search for that which is common within the differences, even within the oppositions, and thus work toward overcoming church-dividing differences. *

 

[Abu]

Tomyris #283
If you accept the papacy, you have to accept that all of the stuff mentioned in the last three posts is something that ties back directly to the popes. They were responsible. Accountable for EVERYTHING that happened in the church on their watch, and possibly its consequences. As the pope now has direct and immediate supervision for every single last Catholic, he is responsible for your personal sin and failure to follow Christ.

Totally false. The fallacy is patently clear, and Tomyris has learnt nothing from the truths of Christ in His Church and the personal responsibility with which each individual is entrusted.

As Fr Thomas Dubay, S.M. lucidly explains in Authenticity (A Biblical Theology of Discernment), Ignatius, 1997, p 136:
“Paul wants the Colossians to teach and admonish one another (Col 3:16).”
“Jude wishes the brothers to correct the confused in their community.” (Jude 22).
“Jesus Himself had already said that if a brother offends, one is to go to him and admonish him in order to win him back to health (Mt 18:15f)."

Thus St Paul: **“I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of His Body which is the Church.” **(Col. 1:24). What is lacking in Christ’s suffering is precisely what only we can do – take up our cross and suffer, repent and ask forgiveness, following the dictates of our conscience. We see here that Christ’s Catholic Church (the Bride of Christ) is His Mystical Body through whom all salvation comes.

Thus ccc 1783: “Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.” [My emphasis].

Thus is the individual responsible for his/her own actions.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

My reference is patently NOT against talking and discussing but to the reality that Wannano in #252 stated: “We are discussing that in a sense the Reformation was good.”

So, I repeat the “Reformation was NOT “good”, and emphasise that discussing the errors and correcting them is what is required. This does not mean that we Catholics regard Protestants themselves as “bad” people.

Rome doesn’t have “an entirely different view” but calls for commitment.

Well, there is a problem for you then. I have the text in front of me at the present moment for the Service of Common Prayer, which was co-published by the Holy See, specifically by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity – so I know exactly what I will say when I will co-preside, as of this October, at the Service of Common Prayer. I will share with you the opening of the service:

Common Prayer
From Conflict to Communion: Lutheran-Catholic Commemoration of the Reformation

Opening

Opening Song

Presider I:
In the name of the Father, and of the (+) Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Amen.

The Lord be with you!
And also with you!

[Optional: Other opening dialogues may be used such as depending on context and language]
O Lord, open my lips
And my mouth shall proclaim your praise.
Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit;
As it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever. Amen.

Presider I:
Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ! Welcome to this ecumenical prayer, which commemorates the 500 years of the Reformation. For over 50 years Lutherans and Catholics have been on a journey from conflict to communion.

With joy, we have come to recognize that what unites us is far greater than what divides us. On this journey, mutual understanding and trust have grown.

Presider II:
So it is possible for us to gather today. We come with different thoughts and feelings of thanksgiving and lament, joy and repentance, joy in the Gospel and sorrow for division. We gather to commemorate in remembrance, in thanksgiving and confession, and in common witness and commitment.

Reader I
In the document From Conflict to Communion, we read, “The church is the body of Christ. As there is only one Christ, so also he has only one body. Through baptism, human beings are made members of this body.” (#219)

“Since Catholics and Lutherans are bound to one another in the body of Christ as members of it, then it is true of them what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12:26: ‘If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.’"

What affects one member of the body also affects all the others. For this reason, when Lutheran Christians remember the events that led to the particular formation of their churches, they do not wish to do so without their Catholic fellow Christians. In remembering with each other the beginning of the Reformation, they are taking their baptism seriously.” (#221)

Presider I:
Let us pray!
[brief silence]

Jesus Christ, Lord of the church, send your Holy Spirit! Illumine our hearts
and heal our memories. O Holy Spirit: help us to rejoice in the gifts that have come to the Church through the Reformation, prepare us to repent for the dividing walls that we, and our forebears, have built, and equip us for common witness and service in the world.

Thus, Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, #14):
"Hence they could not be saved as knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it.”

In my years as a priest engaged in ecumenism, I have not met a counterpart, neither a theologian nor a simple lay member, neither of the Orthodox Communion nor the Anglican Communion nor those from communities that directly or indirectly emerged from the Reformation to whom this line could apply. They were non-Catholic precisely because they did not see the Catholic Church in the way Catholics see it but had a markedly different ecclesiology.

I note, however, that you did not write what the Council Fathers also continued to say in paragraph 14 of Lumen Gentium, a document that I taught for many years. The Fathers went on to say of Catholics…and which should pause every Catholic pause:

The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart.” All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.

 

[Abu]

We have seen the great teaching of Pope St John Paul II in Christifideles Laici, and we have the recent appraisal of the great Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.

Pope Emeritus Benedict breaks silence: speaks of ‘deep crisis’ facing Church post-Vatican II
Maike Hickson
March 16, 2016 (LifeSiteNews.com)
lifesitenews.com/news/pope-emeritus-benedict-says-church-is-now-facing-a-two-sided-deep-crisis
Extract:
‘He also speaks of a “profound evolution of Dogma” with respect to the Dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church. This purported change of dogma has led, in the pope’s eyes, to a loss of the missionary zeal in the Church – “any motivation for a future missionary commitment was removed.”

‘Pope Benedict asks the piercing question that arose after this palpable change of attitude of the Church: “Why should you try to convince the people to accept the Christian faith when they can be saved even without it?”

‘As to the other consequences of this new attitude in the Church, Catholics themselves, in Benedict’s eyes, are less attached to their Faith: If there are those who can save their souls with other means, “why should the Christian be bound to the necessity of the Christian Faith and its morality?” asked the pope. And he concludes: “But if Faith and Salvation are not any more interdependent, even Faith becomes less motivating.”

‘Pope Benedict also refutes both the idea of the “anonymous Christian” as developed by Karl Rahner, as well as the indifferentist idea that all religions are equally valuable and helpful to attain eternal life.

‘ “Even less acceptable is the solution proposed by the pluralistic theories of religion, for which all religions, each in its own way, would be ways of salvation and, in this sense, must be considered equivalent in their effects,” he said. In this context, he also touches upon the exploratory ideas of the now-deceased Jesuit Cardinal, Henri de Lubac, about Christ’s putatively “vicarious substitutions” which have to be now again “further reflected upon.” ’

 

[Abu]

Don Ruggero #294
14 of Lumen Gentium
All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged

That is precisely why the faithful Catholic responds with the reality that “If you believe that people are probably ‘just fine where they are’ and never even give them a reason to consider Catholicism, you may be unwittingly neglecting your role as the person God sent to invite them to a life of eternal happiness.”

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is not alone.

Pope Benedict Breaks His Silence On “Deep Crisis”
By Steve Skojec on March 16, 2016
onepeterfive.com/pope-benedict-breaks-his-silence-on-deep-crisis/

'It’s a subject I’ve addressed in these pages more than once. Catholics MUST evangelize those of other faiths with a desire to convert them. “Dialogue” alone, without the intent of winning converts, is useless. In January, I wrote about my own experiences as a Catholic missionary, and how rare that missionary spirit is today:
‘Religious indifference — the idea that usually takes shape under the deception that people all religious faiths are on a shared journey to salvation — has become alarmingly commonplace among the Catholic clergy. So much so that it comes as a shock when we hear a priest, bishop, or pope say something which indicates to the hearer that conversion to Catholicism is of the utmost importance. It is much more likely that we’ll hear apologies for the historical fact that Catholic missionaries brought the saving faith of their Church to the indigenous peoples of various lands, often at the cost of their own lives.

‘I’ve written before on why we can’t be indifferent to indifferentism. Eric Sammons has discussed one of the most important missing components of effective evangelization. We talk constantly in these pages about the importance of good liturgy, of reverence, of authentic devotion, and spiritual warfare.

‘At the heart of it all, though, is one simple question: do you believe that membership in the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation?

‘If you can’t answer that question with a resounding, “Yes!”, you can’t be an effective missionary. If you don’t have a conviction that Christ established ONE Church for the purpose of transmitting the sacraments and thereby offering access to the graces necessary for heaven, you will never have the courage to share that treasure with others. If you believe that people are probably “just fine where they are” and never even give them a reason to consider Catholicism, you may be unwittingly neglecting your role as the person God sent to invite them to a life of eternal happiness.’

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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:

I enjoyed reading this post! Thank you.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 /…/ 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 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.

Many people had called for changes in church leadership that church leadership rejected.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

My experience here on caf has often caused me to question the attitudes of some who identify themselves as Catholic.

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.

 

[rcwitness]

What you write is so foreign – so positively alien – to the mindset of the Holy See, the community of theologians, and to ecumenists working at the international level in the 21st century. You are evoking, literally, language from another century and mindsets we have abandoned. We no longer speak in using these terms. I would contrast how you approach the past and historical study with that of the Successor of Peter:

The quote of mine that you responded to was a response to this article:

anabaptists.org/history/michael-sattler.html

Here are a few of the points that the Reformer was protesting against the Catholic Church:

"Secondly, That the real body of Christ the Lord is not present in the sacrament, we admit; for the Scripture says: Christ ascended into heaven and, sitteth on the right hand of His heavenly Father whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead; from which it follows, that if He is in heaven, and not in the bread, He may not be eaten bodily. Mark 16:19; Acts 1:9; Col. 3:1; Acts 10:42; II Tim. 4:1.

"Thirdly, As to baptism we say: Infant baptism is of no avail to salvation; for it is written that we live by faith alone. Again: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Peter likewise says: The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Romans 1:17; Mark 16:16; I Pet. 3:21.

"Fourthly, We have not rejected the oil; for it is a creature of God, and what God has made is good and not to be refused; but that the pope, the bishops, monks and priests can make it better, we do not believe; for the pope never made anything good. That of which the epistle of James speaks is not the pope’s oil. Gen. 1:11; I Tim. 4:4; James 5:14.

I said I believe the story is sad. The account the story gives that Catholic’s did to Michael Sattler and the other’s is horrible. But we (in this day) are not doing that. What we are still faced with are these beliefs and teachings. That is what i was focussing on. What do you believe about these claims? Do they come from faith?

 

[guanophore]

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.

I don’t disagree with you, but we are not allowed to do politics here. :dts:

 

[clem456]

Yes. I have learned to take these accusations with a grain of salt, though. The more one looks into stories like these, it becomes clear that the men who suffered violence were not representing/teaching/observing the faith in all things.

Though, like you say, some (maybe many) of these Catholics put aside the greater virtues of the faith because others were not accepting certain tenants of the faith. Thinking they could punish dissenters any way they pleased. And shamefully revealing what pleased them.

And you also can see that the Church, lawfully could not have committed these hate acts, but men who began to beat their children and use extremely excessive force and brutality.

It’s important to note the real distinction between the 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.