Was the reformation bound to happen ?

[mark_a]

My observation is that all of these achievements, recognized as righteous and worthy of highest praise by the author, were accomplished without a Pope.

“Worthy of the highest praise”

 

[TinaG]

Hi,

I am not ignoring this thread, actually, and my silence could be portrayed as I don’t have a response to the Ps 89 comments or those Guanophore made, which I feel it is incumbent upon me to answer. Yet I feel any response I have is inadequate and goes far beyond the scope of this thread. Allow me to answer briefly, as anything past this ought to go to a new thread.

For one thing, to quickly answer the Ps 89 discussion, I see Jesus as the culmination of the Davidic line and that the psalm does not refer to the popes at all. This should not surprise anyone that a Protestant would hold to such a position.

For another, I agree with some of the expressions made concerning the church, in particular that she is our mother. I think the Catholic communion is also defective in that we, the Orthodox and the Protestants, are not in union with it. At times I believe its leadership has identified itself with being the church, or at least the expression of the church, and it is unfair to make the claim that while the actions of the leaders makes them untrustworthy, what they say is trustworthy, because of who they are. Perhaps I do not understand the Catholic position but that is what I hear you saying.

I still ponder the thread title: was the reformation “bound to happen”? What does that mean? Was it foreordained of God? Was it avoidable? Perhaps instead of engaging in our invariable activity of pointing fingers at each other - seemingly one of my favorite past times here - we should look at that issue.

-Tina “Keeping It Short This Time” G

 

[amber_lux]

guanophore;:

The idea that a person could abandon the Apostolic Faith, create new doctrines, and still be considered a Christian was a brand new innovation.

Technically, Luther considered that he was recovering Apostolic Faith from those who had throw it away, in the name of political power and economic power.

really seems that you are trying to discredit the chair of St. Peter. That is how we understand it when you say “Papacy”.

There is no difference between the occupant and the chair,. If one is corrupt, then the other is corrupt, and thus it follows that they both are idols “chasing gods not our own”.

his 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.

All Luther asked for, was where the Bible supported the false teachings, doctrines and practices of the then holy, roman, catholic, and apostolic church. Teachings, doctrines and practices that the holy roman, catholic and apostolic church has since declared to be heretical.

Amber

 

[Radical]

Hi,

Hi

I am not ignoring this thread, actually, and my silence could be portrayed as I don’t have a response to the Ps 89 comments or those Guanophore made, which I feel it is incumbent upon me to answer. Yet I feel any response I have is inadequate and goes far beyond the scope of this thread.

seems to me that your response wrt Psalms 89 hit the nail on the head

For one thing, to quickly answer the Ps 89 discussion, I see Jesus as the culmination of the Davidic line and that the psalm does not refer to the popes at all.

You are right. Christ is the king and always will be. That doesn’t say anything about some underling never being removed from a position of authority…it doesn’t even validate the authority claimed by/for the underling.

This should not surprise anyone that a Protestant would hold to such a position.

agreed

For another, I agree with some of the expressions made concerning the church, in particular that she is our mother. I think the Catholic communion is also defective in that we, the Orthodox and the Protestants, are not in union with it.

again you make good sense…Guanophore had said:
Eph 5:25-31
Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body.

Her Head is Christ, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. That is why it is not possible for her to fall from grace. Individuals can, but not the Church. The Church, like Christ, is incarnational in nature. She has human elements, and divine elements. The Divine elements, and His Divine promises, make abandonment impossible.

You are mixing your apples and oranges. This statement is made to individuals, not to the Church. She is impeccable. his reasoning is lost on me…the Church is made up of its individual members…so how does a corporate entity that includes sinful members maintain impeccability? Such is akin to arguing that b/c the Holy spirit has been given to a believer, then the believer is impeccable (also as a whole and notwithstanding that some parts of the believer are sinful). Paul, after all compares the church to a body and its members to the body’s eyes, feet etc. Paul declared (Romans 9:6) that “not all who are descended from Israel are Israel”…rather it is the children of the promise that were the true children of Israel. (Romans 9:8) That promise is guaranteed to all who have the righteousness that comes by faith. (Romans 4:11-17) Now, in the Church the Holy Spirit is promised to all those who believe and the Holy Spirit is the believer’s guarantee of his inheritence as a child of God. I have no idea why a Christian institution (or members of it) want to hold itself/themselves apart from others who are possessed of the Holy Spirit and refer to them as separated brethren. As you say, we all suffer b/c of the disunity that results (in part) from such an action.

At times I believe its leadership has identified itself with being the church, or at least the expression of the church, and it is unfair to make the claim that while the actions of the leaders makes them untrustworthy, what they say is trustworthy, because of who they are.

here again you have hit the nail on the head…though I think I would have used “disingenuous” instead of “unfair”.

Perhaps I do not understand the Catholic position but that is what I hear you saying.

and it is what I have heard again and again

I still ponder the thread title: was the reformation “bound to happen”? What does that mean? Was it foreordained of God? Was it avoidable? Perhaps instead of engaging in our invariable activity of pointing fingers at each other - seemingly one of my favorite past times here - we should look at that issue.

perhaps if Eve never fell for the serpent’s temptation the Reformation wouldn’t have been necessary…

 

[KathleenGee]

Without those consecrated to be Christ’s ministers and teach the Word…if you leave everything up to the Holy Spirit as the sole teacher…then you will arrive at personal interpretation which St. Peter opposed.

The teaching and understanding of the Word of God must come from those who witnessed…‘His Majesty’…and through those faithful in the Holy Spirit to this tradition, passed down through each generation.

You cannot condemn popes or priests because of some individuals.

And Communion as the Sacred Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is a 2,000 year old practice…

 

[KathleenGee]

And for myself, I have attended non-denominational and denominational Sunday services. I experience Christ there…but it is limited…and I feel the isolation. Some gathering places make me feel like I am in a secular building with no holy objects or sacred space…and I see the bible susceptible to contrary interpretations that split the Body of Christ. The latter I do not think is the will of God.

And Americans are very individualistic; we do not value togetherness and communion with each other.

 

[TinaG]

Without those consecrated to be Christ’s ministers and teach the Word…if you leave everything up to the Holy Spirit as the sole teacher…then you will arrive at personal interpretation which St. Peter opposed.

Amazing. I would not think you would come right out and say that God the Holy Spirit is insufficient, but there it is. The papacy is necessary to make up for God’s inadequate salvation and leadership? I don’t think you really meant to say that.

The teaching and understanding of the Word of God must come from those who witnessed…‘His Majesty’…and through those faithful in the Holy Spirit to this tradition, passed down through each generation.

Yes. In one of the Timothy epistles Paul tells Timothy to pass it on to FAITHFUL men. Not to the faithless. The faithless are therefore disqualified from passing on the apostolic teaching, meaning that it is more important to be faithful to the teaching than to have one crook lay hands on another crook and proclaim himself the inheritor of the apostolic succession. That sounds severe, and it is, but it is the truth. It is what Scripture states.

We are to judge a tree by its fruits. When bishops do what bishops have done, our conclusion is that as a group they are untrustworthy and to be done away with. There may well be faithful bishops, but the stress should be on the faithful part, not on whether someone is a bishop. In contrast the Catholic Church puts all the stress on the office per se, not as a reflection of faithfulness.

-Tina “Striving to Be Faithful to the Word” G

 

[TinaG]

And for myself, I have attended non-denominational and denominational Sunday services. I experience Christ there…but it is limited…and I feel the isolation. Some gathering places make me feel like I am in a secular building with no holy objects or sacred space…and I see the bible susceptible to contrary interpretations that split the Body of Christ. The latter I do not think is the will of God.

And Americans are very individualistic; we do not value togetherness and communion with each other.

Very subjective.

I have observed little unity in the Catholic Church between the traditionalists, the radicals, the conservatives and the liberals. Each insists that it is the true representation of Catholicism and the others are wrong. Protestants seem much more willing to accept theological diversity among others and walk under an umbrella of differing beliefs than Catholics are. The Catholics I know are judgmental of Protestants, but bitter towards ‘fellow believers’ with whom they disagree, and unforgiving towards those who have offended them.

How many threads on CAF, for example, deal with an angry Catholic walking out of Mass in protest, or “some group” taking over the parish, or a fight between a courageous conservative priest and his rebellious, liberal congregation? Or broken relationships between Catholics for reasons that I wonder about that a little forgiveness would go a long way towards healing?

Isolation? I stayed to the end of Mass when I visited Catholic churches. I seem to recall more than half the congregation cut out after receiving Communion, and no one was very sociable after the service. People tend to hang around and talk for a while after our services, and we try to make visitors feel welcome.

Some Protestant churches, to be sure, could be a pool hall in feeling (it would not surprise me to hear of a church that meets in one) but they could also go a long way toward developing a sense of the holy. I know of a church that rents half of a gym on Sunday mornings, and people on exercise bikes can watch the service from the balcony, and people jog the track during services. What is remarkable is their ability to transform their space into a sanctuary despite their location.

At the same time, I really like the sensation that God is present in Catholic Churches, the sense of the holy that is cultivated and the almost relentless focus on Christ in contrast to man. That is something I admire about the Mass.

-Tina “Cultivating a Sense of the Holy Really is Remarkable” G

 

[plaintruth]

reformation bound to happen, doesnt need to start with Luther.

even if you today where time travelled to those nasty days, you would have joined the reformation. not just in terms of corrupt doctrine, abuse of the clergy, etc…

what i mean are the issues like tagging and burning those who are inclined to science, chemistry, etc are somewhat works of the devil.

if the RCC church has not so much bounded man’s creativity as limited to only religion for more than a thousand years, we should now probably be in our StarTrek age.

Just wondering if Luther hadn’t presented his thesis that day, and kicked off the reformation, was the reformation bound to happen anyway?

 

[JonNC]

=amber_lux;8077101]

There is no difference between the occupant and the chair,. If one is corrupt, then the other is corrupt, and thus it follows that they both are idols “chasing gods not our own”.

The Lutheran reformers generally rejected this formula, so far as I can tell. They spoke in the confessions more about the office, than of specific popes. Today’s popes are anything but corrupt, and while I disagree with the primacy ascribed to it by the CC, I don’t see the office corrupt anymore, either.

All Luther asked for, was where the Bible supported the false teachings, doctrines and practices of the then holy, roman, catholic, and apostolic church. Teachings, doctrines and practices that the holy roman, catholic and apostolic church has since declared to be heretical.

Amber, I’m not going to comment on the content of this, but I think it is appropriate to captialize proper names. You capitalized Bible and Luther, I see no reason not to capitalize Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Jon

 

[roselily]

I agree.
Orthodox, Protestant, Roman Catholic …We all believe in the same Savior and the same Father.
… In my mind … that one fact trumps every single difference. He is the vine in every Christian tradition. I read in one of the gospels somewhere … Where the disciples came to Jesus complaining that others… not part of their group were ministering to the people in His name… Jesus said that it was a good thing and not bad in any way.
Samaritans were shunned by every devout Jew at the time … yet Jesus chose an outcast to prove that it is righteous adherence to his concept of love that Jesus honors … not religious affiliation.

“If I be lifted up I will draw all men unto me.” … and that… We all do.

 

[roselily]

I still ponder the thread title: was the reformation “bound to happen”? What does that mean? Was it foreordained of God? Was it avoidable? Perhaps instead of engaging in our invariable activity of pointing fingers at each other - seemingly one of my favorite past times here - we should look at that issue.

-Tina “Keeping It Short This Time” G

True, Tina. our kind and merciful redeemer prayed to Father that His children may become completely one before he died on the cross, and the glory of his resurrection.

you are good, you must read that-:hug1:

**Jesus Prays for His Disciples

John 17
20 ‘I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word,21that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.22The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one,23I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.24Father, I desire that those also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory, which you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.**

 

[Tantum_ergo]

reformation bound to happen, doesnt need to start with Luther.

even if you today where time travelled to those nasty days, you would have joined the reformation. not just in terms of corrupt doctrine, abuse of the clergy, etc…

what i mean are the issues like tagging and burning those who are inclined to science, chemistry, etc are somewhat works of the devil.

if the RCC church has not so much bounded man’s creativity as limited to only religion for more than a thousand years, we should now probably be in our StarTrek age.

Oh really? Care to back up those assertions? Perhaps you are unaware of the many men of science who happened to be Catholics. . .even Catholic clergy <<cough, Gregor Mendel, cough>>

From what measured and scholastic tome did you gather that the Church ‘bounded man’s creativity to only religion?’ Don’t be shy, cite those primary sources!

From my perspective, the majority of the ones who limit people to all sorts of ‘onlies’ (Faith only! God only! Our way only!) have not been Catholics but rather some (by no means all) of the protestant persuasion. . .

 

[KathleenGee]

I think those who are the most anti-Catholic are people who do not know history. And they only want to get it through anti-Catholic bias.

The entire Christian world was Catholic/Orthodox up to Luther…Germany and Scandinavia to be exact. So 1500 years of falsehood…So where was the Holy Spirit in the first 1500 years??? Was the world frozen in 70 AD, nothing changing, everything the same? There were great upheaveals all throughout Church history.

Sounds like Restorationist thinking…that there was no true church until the 1800’s here in America??

If people here want to think we are fake Christians, so be it. At the price of us, you can be the true Christians.

 

[roselily]

I think those who are the most anti-Catholic are people who do not know history. And they only want to get it through anti-Catholic bias.

The entire Christian world was Catholic/Orthodox up to Luther…Germany and Scandinavia to be exact. So 1500 years of falsehood…So where was the Holy Spirit in the first 1500 years??? Was the world frozen in 70 AD, nothing changing, everything the same? There were great upheaveals all throughout Church history.

Sounds like Restorationist thinking…that there was no true church until the 1800’s here in America??

If people here want to think we are fake Christians, so be it. At the price of us, you can be the true Christians.

Kathleen!


:hug1:
I do not know many things ! Then I came to this thread want read your wise words. Oh, I love your writings.

 

[TinaG]

reformation bound to happen, doesnt need to start with Luther.

Agreed. People had been warning the popes for centuries. Apparently there were attempts at internal reformation that were not carried through prior to the reformation. Catholics claim the true reformation was at Trent.

Actually I have heard it argued that Catholic scholasticism laid the groundwork for scientific investigation of the universe - without the Church, there would have been no science, without science, no technology, no tv, no star trek. Likewise imagination was nurtured by the Church. Spend some time in an art gallery and compare the Christian art with non-Christian, the sunny and rich art regarding the saints and the celebration of the Virgin in contrast to the grim and dull work elsewhere - including the greys of the artwork of the Reformation.

-Tina “There, that Ought to Confuse EVERYONE” G

 

[guanophore]

They will know that we are Christians by our love.
Again, it is clear from what Pope Benedict states, and I concur, that Christ has overcome the differences. His love has prevailed.

I must have misunderstood Jack Chick all these years.

 

[guanophore]

There is no difference between the occupant and the chair,. If one is corrupt, then the other is corrupt, and thus it follows that they both are idols “chasing gods not our own”.

You know neither the Scripture, nor the power of God. Man cannot corrupt that which is Divine.

All Luther asked for, was where the Bible supported the false teachings, doctrines and practices of the then holy, roman, catholic, and apostolic church. Teachings, doctrines and practices that the holy roman, catholic and apostolic church has since declared to be heretical.

Amber

You have a very inaccurate perception of history, and of the Teaching of the Catholic Church. The Church cannot teach heresy. She is infallibly prevented from doing so by the Holy Spirit.

 

[KathleenGee]

I think this thread is being used to vent. It should be closed.

 

[guanophore]

seems to me that your response wrt Psalms 89 hit the nail on the head
You are right. Christ is the king and always will be. That doesn’t say anything about some underling never being removed from a position of authority…it doesn’t even validate the authority claimed by/for the underling.

Of course Jesus is the fulfillment of the Davidic Kingdom! The Keys go to Him. He can give them to the one He chooses. He chose Peter.

Peter did not claim his own authority. He had nothing but what was given him by Christ. Jesus charged him to feed and care for his flock. You can’t feed and care for a flock over which you have no jurisdiction. But it is Jesus’ flock.
"guanophore:

You are mixing your apples and oranges. This statement is made to individuals, not to the Church. She is impeccable.

This reasoning is lost on me…the Church is made up of its individual members…so how does a corporate entity that includes sinful members maintain impeccability?

I think the reason this gets lost on our separated brethren is that you suffer from a deficient notion of the Church. The Church is much more than the truncated definition you have received from your spiritual ancestors. She has both divine elements, and human elements. Some of those “individual members” that are part of her are already in heaven, where they are preserved forever from sin, because they are kept by Him. When the members sin, they separate themselves from the Holy Bride.

Such is akin to arguing that b/c the Holy spirit has been given to a believer, then the believer is impeccable (also as a whole and notwithstanding that some parts of the believer are sinful).

It is more akin to saying that, when the believer indwelt by the Holy Spirit sins, that sin does not sully the Spirit that inhabits their temple. No amount of human sin can contaminate God.

Now, in the Church the Holy Spirit is promised to all those who believe and the Holy Spirit is the believer’s guarantee of his inheritence as a child of God. I have no idea why a Christian institution (or members of it) want to hold itself/themselves apart from others who are possessed of the Holy Spirit and refer to them as separated brethren. As you say, we all suffer b/c of the disunity that results (in part) from such an action.

Unity emanates by adherance to the Truth. To the extent that any individuals depart from the Truth, they are separated from that perfect unity that exists in the Church.

here again you have hit the nail on the head...though I think I would have used "disingenuous" instead of "unfair".

and it is what I have heard again and again

What did Jesus say about the Pharisees, who sat on the Seat of Moses?

Matt 23:1-4
1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

Jesus transferred the Seat of Moses (teaching Authority) to His Apostles, and they to their successors, the bishops.

perhaps if Eve never fell for the serpent’s temptation the Reformation wouldn’t have been necessary…

Disobedience and rebellion are never “necessary”. It is also forbidden to us to change the once for all Divine Deposit of faith that was given to the Church. I will stipulate that sin caused the Reformation, but it is not necessary to sin, either.