Was the reformation bound to happen ?

[guanophore]

This comment about the snow covered dunghill may not be an authentic quote and no Lutheran believes that we will be sinners in heaven. In fact from everything I’ve read (though I don’t have the citations offhand without searching for them), Luther was supposedly apprehensive about getting rid of the notion of “purgation” (not “purgatory”, as it was taught by the uneducated in the 16th Century) because we still believe that there has to be some transformation (which presumably would come at the instant of justification–any other Lutherans able to clarify this?). The emphasis is that the transformation is one initiated and completed by God–the dung is us in this lifetime.

This is one of the concepts that departs from the Apostolic TEaching. The Apostles taught that we are not to walk according to the flesh, and to live with “dung” in us for this lifetime is not God’s intention for us. He wants us to be Holy, as He is Holy. He did not carry “dung” in Himself during this life. When he came to free us from sin, and the consequences of sin, it is not only for eternal life, but this life as well. I don’t think Luther believed that sanctity was really possible. Most of the children of the Reformation seem to think it is “necessary” for us to sin, but this is not true.

 

[guanophore]

Originally Posted by 1voice
Yes, in that sense … Martin Luther was a ‘type’ of Christ. Condemned for doing the right thing by a leader that didnt have a clue…

I dont think Martin Luther was ever officially designated a heretic by the CC.

When it is written “if any one believes…let him be anathema”, that is the phrase that distinguishes a person has embraced a heresy, and by so doing, separated him self from the Catholic faith.

 

[1voice]

Seems to me that the current administration is de-anathema-tizing …

Pope Benedict’s view of Protestant Christianity and the current vs historic relationship to the CC. … “Heresy is no longer of any value.”

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, pp. 87-88:

… there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East).*** It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian. ***

In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy.

Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy. The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.”

 

[guanophore]

"TinaG:

Allow me to repeat what I said earlier, or should have said: the dereliction of duty by the popes in favor of political power created an absence of authoritative teaching prior to the Reformation.

Such a perspective seems to be based on a lack of recognition of the Church as the authorative keeper and teacher of the Truth. The presence of the True Faith is not dependent upon any one person, even the Pope. If it were, when he died then the Teaching of Jesus deposited once for all to the saints would be lost. The successor of Peter is the visible sign of unity in the Church, not the sole source of Truth and authorative teaching.

TinaG:

 All sorts of teaching sprang up that was not officially contested, and few if anyone knew what was authentic Catholic teaching because no one was saying what was or was not right.

I think you are referring here to practices, primarily. It is true that errors were promulgated, but that does not invalidate the authentic Teaching of the Apostles that is infallibly preserved in the Church by the HS.

It is also a gross generalization to say that no one knew or taught the Truth. If this were true, the other 22 Catholic Rites in the East, none of which were involved in the Reformation, are also implicated. It also invalidates all of their prelates, bishops and patriarchs as having fallen from the faith, which just cannot be shown.

You need to show that there WAS an absence of authoritative teaching because 'no one' was saying what was or was not right. I do not believe this was the case in any way and any student of history will be glad to point out that for crying out loud, HENRY VIII (yes that Henry) was refuting Luther and received for his work the Title of "Defender of the Faith" by the Pope. Now if Henry in England was cognizant enough of Luther to go against Luther point to point, and that refutation was 'approved' by the Pope, doesn't that kind of say, hey yes there was authoritative teaching going on and the POPE was the one who made the final decision? IOW, your vague presumption that there were scads of poor souls wandering in Europe with 'no one' to 'teach them' is blasted from the start.

It amounts the the same “great Apostasy” of the Mormons.

TinaG:

Prior to Trent, Luther and Calvin had every right to claim their teaching was as Catholic as anyone else's. NO they did not.

No, Tina, they don’t. No one has the “right” to claim they are rightly representing the Apostolic faith when they are not. They may take advantage of the flock by doing it, but it is a violation. It is a violation if a Catholic teaches falsely, and it is a violation when a non-Catholic does it. No one has a 'right" to insult the Gospel of Christ.

TinaG:

Somewhere I read that Trent does not actually condemn Lutheran or Reformed teaching, but condemns errors that the reformers themselves also condemn. Trent makes my head spin and I cannot make heads or tails of it.

There are plenty of condemnations to go around. The heresies, the activities of wolves among the sheep. It was important to identify, confront, and stop the abuse. It was not necessary to change the doctrines of Christ.

 

[guanophore]

He was thrown out of the Church for goodness sakes, How can it be more official then that?

No Rinnie, he was not. No one is “thrown out of the Church”. They embrace heresies which place themselves outside of the Church. Excommunication is a disciplinary measure intended to snap the person back into unity.

Anyone who has been validly baptized is a member of the Body of Christ. Only God can judge their soul.

 

[1voice]

When it is written “if any one believes…let him be anathema”, that is the phrase that distinguishes a person has embraced a heresy, and by so doing, separated him self from the Catholic faith.

Seems to me that Pope Benedict is de-anathema-tizing …

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8058245&postcount=242

 

[guanophore]

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, pp. 87-88:

… there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East).*** It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian. ***In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy. Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy. The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.”

This does not apply to Luther, who indeed did persist in willful and stubborn rejection. He is the epitome of heresy in this definition because exemplified and embodied the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church. He demonstrated repeated pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way.

 

[guanophore]

Not talking about his beliefs, I’m talking about his constant disrespect and assumption that no one else could possibly know what they are talking about.

He is very stable in that regard also.

 

[guanophore]

From Tantum (sorry the postal system defeated me

Tantum equates Leo X’s giving Henry VIII an attaboy to a papal pronouncement on doctrine, or a church council, or other authoritative statement! Leo X, corrupt and master bungler, primary pope during the beginnings of the Reformation, giving Henry VIII, who broke away from the papacy, a title of Defender of the Faith!

No, TinaG. A commendation for defending the One Faith is not equivalent to any of these things, and Tantum is not suggesting that it is.

The fact that he later broke from the faith was primarily political, not theological. In any case it does not undo his orthodox defense at the time it occurred.

The point Tantum was making, that you seem to be trying to avoid, was that he was well learned and able to defend the faith, in spite of the fact that you have asserted no one could.

Henry VIII wrote a pamphlet. A PAMPHLET! I wonder what he paid the pope for the title of "defender of the faith", which cost the pope nothing.  This was in 1521.  What a wondrously authoritative and effective document it must have been, to protect the church against the split that Leo presided over and that Henry VIII advanced!

YOu have been proven wrong in your assertion that no one knew the truth faith, by tthat little pamphlet.

You can drip with sarcasm if you want, but plenty of Catholics knew and practiced the True Faith.

I woudl suggest that you consider reading some of these historical documents, before you start making fun of them. It just makes you look shallow.

Where are the councils and their decisions, where the infallible pronouncements? Where is the CHURCH defending itself, rather than leaning on such as Henry to defend it?

That is just the point, Tina. The Truth was already defined in previous councils. The Church leans on all the councils and the Fathers that came before. No number of corrupt popes can change the infallible teaching of Christ preserved by the HS in the Church.

Trent was called to address the departures of the faith by the “reformers”. The Church then authoritatively and infallibly reiterated the same doctrines that had been held prior to that time, and refuted the heresies.

 

[1voice]

This does not apply to Luther, who indeed did persist in willful and stubborn rejection. He is the epitome of heresy in this definition because exemplified and embodied the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church. He demonstrated repeated pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way.

… He took the fall … to make way for those who followed in his footsteps who have …
… “made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian”

… By their fruit … you will know them.

 

[GKC]

No, TinaG. A commendation for defending the One Faith is not equivalent to any of these things, and Tantum is not suggesting that it is.

The fact that he later broke from the faith was primarily political, not theological. In any case it does not undo his orthodox defense at the time it occurred.

The point Tantum was making, that you seem to be trying to avoid, was that he was well learned and able to defend the faith, in spite of the fact that you have asserted no one could.

YOu have been proven wrong in your assertion that no one knew the truth faith, by tthat little pamphlet.

You can drip with sarcasm if you want, but plenty of Catholics knew and practiced the True Faith.

I woudl suggest that you consider reading some of these historical documents, before you start making fun of them. It just makes you look shallow.

That is just the point, Tina. The Truth was already defined in previous councils. The Church leans on all the councils and the Fathers that came before. No number of corrupt popes can change the infallible teaching of Christ preserved by the HS in the Church.

Trent was called to address the departures of the faith by the “reformers”. The Church then authoritatively and infallibly reiterated the same doctrines that had been held prior to that time, and refuted the heresies.

Just dropping in to say that I didn’t accurately recall the length of the Assertio. It was around 150 pages (depending on the printing style, of course). I was remembering an edition that had both the Latin and the English, on facing pages, doubling the length.

So, a smallish book.

GKC

 

[GKC]

No, TinaG. A commendation for defending the One Faith is not equivalent to any of these things, and Tantum is not suggesting that it is.

The fact that he later broke from the faith was primarily political, not theological. In any case it does not undo his orthodox defense at the time it occurred.

The point Tantum was making, that you seem to be trying to avoid, was that he was well learned and able to defend the faith, in spite of the fact that you have asserted no one could.

YOu have been proven wrong in your assertion that no one knew the truth faith, by tthat little pamphlet.

You can drip with sarcasm if you want, but plenty of Catholics knew and practiced the True Faith.

I woudl suggest that you consider reading some of these historical documents, before you start making fun of them. It just makes you look shallow.

That is just the point, Tina. The Truth was already defined in previous councils. The Church leans on all the councils and the Fathers that came before. No number of corrupt popes can change the infallible teaching of Christ preserved by the HS in the Church.

Trent was called to address the departures of the faith by the “reformers”. The Church then authoritatively and infallibly reiterated the same doctrines that had been held prior to that time, and refuted the heresies.

But it also spent roughly the same amount of paper establishing reforms to Church practice.

GKC

 

[guanophore]

Seems to me that the current administration is de-anathema-tizing …

Pope Benedict’s view of Protestant Christianity and the current vs historic relationship to the CC. … “Heresy is no longer of any value.”

You have misread, and misunderstood, 1voice. He is NOT saying that “heresy is no longer of value”. That is absurd.

He is saying that using that category in reference to the children of the Reformation is not valuable, because it does not apply. For one to be a heretic, one had to first embrace the truth, then willfully, knowingly, and stubbornly reject it. Our separated brethren, for the most part, come from generations of separation from the Apostolic faith, and most of them never knew the Truth in order to reject it.

 

[1voice]

You have misread, and misunderstood, 1voice. He is NOT saying that “heresy is no longer of value”. That is absurd.

Our separated brethren, for the most part, come from generations of separation from the Apostolic faith, and most of them never knew the Truth in order to reject it.

“In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian”

… this looks like commendation to me … not condescension.

 

[guanophore]

Seems to me that Pope Benedict is de-anathema-tizing …

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8058245&postcount=242

I think it seems that way to you because you are reading with a lack of education, experience, and and thick pair of anti-catholic lenses.

No one has the authority to change the Teachings of the Apostles, including the pope. Those who embrace the Truth, then willfully, knowingly, and stubbornly turn from it are anathema.

 

[elvisman]

Seems to me that the current administration is de-anathema-tizing …

Pope Benedict’s view of Protestant Christianity and the current vs historic relationship to the CC. … “Heresy is no longer of any value.”

**Reread Post 229 where I explained what Cardinal Ratzinger meant. Pretending that I didn’t is just your game . . . **

 

[elvisman]

Seems to me that Pope Benedict is de-anathema-tizing …

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8058245&postcount=242

And it sounds to me that don’t have CLUE as to what he said.

 

[1voice]

I think it seems that way to you because you are reading with a lack of education, experience, and and thick pair of anti-catholic lenses.

… LOL!
You let your slip show.

 

[1voice]

You misunserstand his words 100%.

If you were born into these heresies - You are simply misled.

---

“Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian”

…Cardinal Ratzinger

 

[KathleenGee]

1Voice,

I think you are living spiritually in the time of the Reformation, and it wasn’t before long when Christians were killing each other. Are the times then the same now??? You sound like you are in a little war…

Re-read Pope Benedict and consider the religious environment he is in now. Mainline Christians have maintained their roots prior to the Reformation, and we all want to re-unite in the Lord. The problem with Evangelicals and Fundamentalists is that you have lost your ecclesial roots and so we are more like weeds.

You can’t have the Bible without a Church…did everything end at Revelations? No, that was the final revelation of Christ through St. John…So then what was Christianity to do next?

We are not peoples of the book. We are people called into living relationship with Christ, a relationship of grace that bears the fruit of the Gospel. I read about a former Protestant woman who was brought up in an anti-Catholic family. She wanted to study how the earliest Christians believed…Later she wanted to see how ancient belief contrasted with the Roman Catholic Church.

So she got hold of a modern universal Catholic catechism. What she witnessed was that our beliefs do not change; what changes are perspectives, conditions, defining parameters…the world is constantly changing. And our church authorities’ works represent the conditions of which they lived.

How revelation in the Church works is that it is based on the miracles of Christ that no other person could do, the constancy of our teachings, and the authority our Church provides in defining, clarifying, and transmitting our beliefs to the culture around us.

This young woman became a Catholic and now promotes her faith.