Was the Reformation demonic?

[JSSD]

 

[Jubilarian]

:dancing: Figures.

 

[TxGodfollower]

I have found repeated questions that the Catholic Church is under the influence of the devil offensive. In fact such implications have occurred for ages. Here in NY, certain Protestant radio stations paint the church in a demonic way.

I simply asked a question about Protestantism that has been asked in a similar way of the Catholic Church. Maybe you could tell Protestants that rail against Catholicism to “live as Christ did”. Yes my question is a tough one, but I’ve been answering the same claim by Protestants for quite some time.

‘Do onto others as you would have them do onto you.’

What did the Church lie about? The indulgences? That is simony. Real indulgences can not be bought with money. And not the entire Church was teaching it. It was probably just that one church he went to that had corrupt clergy

Cena, I was VERY careful with my post to use a ‘c’ in church. I did not mean to say or imply that the entire Catholic Church was corrupted. It was local problems, but it comes to a basic issue of human life. Think of a young kid that gets attacked by a dog. They get terrified from all dogs, not just the one that attacked them, or big dogs, but they all become hated because of the actions of one. If you have a bad experience at a chain restaurant, it tarnishes the image of every branch of the chain. That is why companies focus so much on their employee’s behavior. I don’t know the CEO of Walmart, but I do see how his employees act and that reflects on him. The twisted teaching at a some churches gave the entire Church a bad image.

My feeling? If the liturgical reforms of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries had occurred in the sixteenth, it is unlikely that Protestantism would have developed in any significant way, or if it did, it would have been as a movement within the Church.

Anyway, once you’ve investigated these five places (at least!) then you may find yourself equipped to pronounce on the virtue (or lack thereof) of the reformation. Personally? I think it was necessary…but it was botched on all sides. It could have been accomplished without schism, but the personalities involved made schism more or less inevitable. Whether or not the devil was involved, I think it is a mistake to refer human faults and failings to the devil. It obscures human (qua human) agency while over-stating and over-inflating the power of the Demon.

My two cents, for what they’re worth.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Nice point Mark.

 

[Jubilarian]

‘Do onto others as you would have them do onto you.’

You are misunderstanding. I didn’t create the thread because I wanted to “equal the playing field”. I just asked a question about Protestant history and later explained after a couple people challenged me on the validity of the question that Catholics experience the same type of hard hitting questions often…

 

[cena]

‘Do onto others as you would have them do onto you.’

Cena, I was VERY careful with my post to use a ‘c’ in church. I did not mean to say or imply that the entire Catholic Church was corrupted. It was local problems, but it comes to a basic issue of human life. Think of a young kid that gets attacked by a dog. They get terrified from all dogs, not just the one that attacked them, or big dogs, but they all become hated because of the actions of one. If you have a bad experience at a chain restaurant, it tarnishes the image of every branch of the chain. That is why companies focus so much on their employee’s behavior. I don’t know the CEO of Walmart, but I do see how his employees act and that reflects on him. The twisted teaching at a some churches gave the entire Church a bad image.

Nice point Mark.

Sorry about that

 

[TxGodfollower]

Sorry about that

No worries.

 

[Elizium23]

Anyway, once you’ve investigated these five places (at least!) then you may find yourself equipped to pronounce on the virtue (or lack thereof) of the reformation. Personally? I think it was necessary…but it was botched on all sides. It could have been accomplished without schism, but the personalities involved made schism more or less inevitable. Whether or not the devil was involved, I think it is a mistake to refer human faults and failings to the devil. It obscures human (qua human) agency while over-stating and over-inflating the power of the Demon.

Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy

1. Popular devotion to the Holy Angels, which is legitimate and good, can, however, also give rise to possible deviations:

when, as sometimes can happen, the faithful are taken by the idea that the world is subject to demiurgical struggles, or an incessant battle between good and evil spirits, or Angels and daemons, in which man is left at the mercy of superior forces and over which he is helpless; such cosmologies bear little relation to the true Gospel vision of the struggle to overcome the Devil, which requires moral commitment, a fundamental option for the Gospel, humility and prayer;

when the daily events of life, which have nothing or little to do with our progressive maturing on the journey towards Christ are read schematically or simplistically, indeed childishly, so as to ascribe all setbacks to the Devil and all success to the Guardian Angels. The practice of assigning names to the Holy Angels should be discouraged, except in the cases of Gabriel, Raphael and Michael whose names are contained in Holy Scripture.

Human faults and failings cause such things as mathematical errors and losing to your opponent in a game of chess. When we’re talking about denying that the Eucharist is a Sacrament, we’re talking about the Father of Lies.

 

[Magdalena59]

Was the Reformation led by the Devil? Since it was a departure from the truth, it could be said it was. But, Protestants are still bringing people into the knowledge of Jesus and salvation so it is not entirely clear how to classify it.

I believe the devil had a hand in it. With the reformation there was a loss to so many people the graces found in the sacraments, marriage was lost as a sacrament, giving it to the states to control which then led to so much divorce. Also, baptism is now a confusing sacrament among protestants, they unfortunately do not have the Real Presence, lack confession when are in a state of mortal sin and more. The graces that were lost to so many people I don’t think the reformation was just something that happened because of peoples bad decisions.

Our protestant brothers and sisters can lead people who don’t know Jesus to him but they can also lead Catholics away from the truth.

We have an enemy to our soul. He caused divisions and continues to cause divisions. I heard a priest say once that protestism is from a spirit and it continues to protest in a sort of downward slope. That is why there are 33,000 different denominations and through time as more and more denominations develop they get farther and farther from the truth.

And the Church teaches that those outside the Catholic church* can *be saved, not that they are saved. We all Catholics and protestants have to participate in our salvation.

 

[Jubilarian]

I believe the devil had a hand in it. With the reformation there was a loss to so many people the graces found in the sacraments, marriage was lost as a sacrament, giving it to the states to control which then led to so much divorce. Also, baptism is now a confusing sacrament among protestants, they unfortunately do not have the Real Presence, lack confession when are in a state of mortal sin and more. The graces that were lost to so many people I don’t think the reformation was just something that happened because of peoples bad decisions.

Our protestant brothers and sisters can lead people who don’t know Jesus to him but they can also lead Catholics away from the truth.

We have an enemy to our soul. He caused divisions and continues to cause divisions. I heard a priest say once that protestism is from a spirit and it continues to protest in a sort of downward slope. That is why there are 33,000 different denominations and through time as more and more denominations develop they get farther and farther from the truth.

And the Church teaches that those outside the Catholic church* can *be saved, not that they are saved. We all Catholics and protestants have to participate in our salvation.

What a terrific response. Thank you. Very deep and thought provoking.

 

[Thorolfr]

they unfortunately do not have the Real Presence

At my Lutheran church this morning, I received the body and blood of Jesus on my tongue during communion. Lutherans definitely believe in the Real Presence.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Human faults and failings cause such things as mathematical errors and losing to your opponent in a game of chess. When we’re talking about denying that the Eucharist is a Sacrament, we’re talking about the Father of Lies.

Just a quick response to this: thinking of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, even Cranmer, I can’t think of one of them that denied that the Eucharist was a sacrament. All of them would likely at least have agreed with Augustine that a sacrament is invisible grace made visible. Where they may differ is not in* whether* it is a sacrament but in how it is a sacrament: the manner in which we understand the Eucharist to be sacrament, and/or where the sacramental nature of the Eucharist resides (respectively: whether in the elements, whether more or less exclusively within the context of the gospel preached and proclaimed, in the gathered community, in the act of receiving). We can dive further into the basics of their various understandings, but all of them understand what they’re talking about to be a sacrament.

Moreover, all of them understood the Eucharist in terms of the Real Presence. None of them, however, were too keen on transubstantiation as the only way in which it was possible to understand what cannot be properly understood. Personally, transubstantiation works as an understanding only if its understood provisionally–as a human philosophical attempt to grasp a spiritual reality that will always elude the human philosophical grasp. The reformers rejected transubstantiation on similar terms (though their rejection was absolute and not provisional as transubstantiation was understood as *absolutely *the only way by which the sacrament should be understood), but they did not reject the Real Presence, nor did they reject the sacramental nature of the Eucharist.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

…]marriage was lost as a sacrament, giving it to the states to control which then led to so much divorce. Also, baptism is now a confusing sacrament among protestants, they unfortunately do not have the Real Presence, lack confession when are in a state of mortal sin and more. The graces that were lost to so many people I don’t think the reformation was just something that happened because of peoples bad decisions.

A quick note on this, too. A study of early Christian marriage rites reveals this interesting thing: there are none. We have Eucharistic anaphoras, we have baptismal rites. No marriage rites. From all appearances, the rite of Christian marriage was a later development, the early church leaving it to the state to deal with the marriage contract given the generally socio-economic character of marriage. When the church began being involved in marriages, it was mostly to bless what had already been contracted. When Christianity also became allied with state power, then it became more involved in the marriage business (though, interestingly, the lack of explicit vows in the Eastern marriage rites for millennia indicate that the East still viewed marriage as involving a contractual element in which it was not the business of the church to interfere–the Western rite developed along different lines). Devolving marriage back to the state actually has historical precedent: that’s how the church worked for centuries.

Re: baptism, could you explain how it is confusing among protestants? To my knowledge, it is practiced once, with water, and using the Trinitarian formula. What is confusing about it? Are you referring to the fact that in the Western Church in the third through fifth centuries baptism became separated from confirmation which latter gradually developed as its own separate rite (due, in large part, to the reservation to the bishop of certain anointings)?

Re: confession, this is also a later development, though based in the practice of public penitence leading up to Easter. Which is to say, public corporate confession is a more ancient practice than individual confession, which developed, for the most part, toward the end of the first millennium among monastic communities (principally in the British Isles, if I remember correctly). In terms of Protestant relationships to confession, keep in mind that Luther considered it a sacrament (with Baptism and Eucharist) and encouraged it, revising the priest’s confession at the beginning of Mass to become a corporate confession in which the entire congregation participates. Examine the Lutheran liturgies. Examine, too, the Anglican liturgies: the Anglican position regarding confession has ever been “All may, none must, some should.”

(Re: real presence, see above posts.)

The reformation was a very complex project. Absolute pronunciations of it as totally good or totally bad are bound to get it wrong: over-simplifying it is not a good idea unless your aim is not to actually understand it.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[cena]

Grace & Peace!

A quick note on this, too. A study of early Christian marriage rites reveals this interesting thing: there are none. We have Eucharistic anaphoras, we have baptismal rites. No marriage rites. From all appearances, the rite of Christian marriage was a later development, the early church leaving it to the state to deal with the marriage contract given the generally socio-economic character of marriage. When the church began being involved in marriages, it was mostly to bless what had already been contracted. When Christianity also became allied with state power, then it became more involved in the marriage business (though, interestingly, the lack of explicit vows in the Eastern marriage rites for millennia indicate that the East still viewed marriage as involving a contractual element in which it was not the business of the church to interfere–the Western rite developed along different lines). Devolving marriage back to the state actually has historical precedent: that’s how the church worked for centuries.

Re: baptism, could you explain how it is confusing among protestants? To my knowledge, it is practiced once, with water, and using the Trinitarian formula. What is confusing about it? Are you referring to the fact that in the Western Church in the third through fifth centuries baptism became separated from confirmation which latter gradually developed as its own separate rite (due, in large part, to the reservation to the bishop of certain anointings)?

Re: confession, this is also a later development, though based in the practice of public penitence leading up to Easter. Which is to say, public corporate confession is a more ancient practice than individual confession, which developed, for the most part, toward the end of the first millennium among monastic communities (principally in the British Isles, if I remember correctly). In terms of Protestant relationships to confession, keep in mind that Luther considered it a sacrament (with Baptism and Eucharist) and encouraged it, revising the priest’s confession at the beginning of Mass to become a corporate confession in which the entire congregation participates. Examine the Lutheran liturgies. Examine, too, the Anglican liturgies: the Anglican position regarding confession has ever been “All may, none must, some should.”

(Re: real presence, see above posts.)

The reformation was a very complex project. Absolute pronunciations of it as totally good or totally bad are bound to get it wrong: over-simplifying it is not a good idea unless your aim is not to actually understand it.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Canon I. If anyone says that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of the evangelical law, instituted by Christ the Lord,[7] but has been devised by men in the Church and does not confer grace, let him be anathema.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT24.HTM
Catholics say other wise
You put Anglo Catholic so I have no idea what your religion is. But that’s what the Catholic Church says.

 

[cena]

Grace & Peace!

Just a quick response to this: thinking of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, even Cranmer, I can’t think of one of them that denied that the Eucharist was a sacrament. All of them would likely at least have agreed with Augustine that a sacrament is invisible grace made visible. Where they may differ is not in* whether* it is a sacrament but in how it is a sacrament: the manner in which we understand the Eucharist to be sacrament, and/or where the sacramental nature of the Eucharist resides (respectively: whether in the elements, whether more or less exclusively within the context of the gospel preached and proclaimed, in the gathered community, in the act of receiving). We can dive further into the basics of their various understandings, but all of them understand what they’re talking about to be a sacrament.

Moreover, all of them understood the Eucharist in terms of the Real Presence. None of them, however, were too keen on transubstantiation as the only way in which it was possible to understand what cannot be properly understood. Personally, transubstantiation works as an understanding only if its understood provisionally–as a human philosophical attempt to grasp a spiritual reality that will always elude the human philosophical grasp. The reformers rejected transubstantiation on similar terms (though their rejection was absolute and not provisional as transubstantiation was understood as *absolutely *the only way by which the sacrament should be understood), but they did not reject the Real Presence, nor did they reject the sacramental nature of the Eucharist.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

dont they believe in consubstantistion not transubstantiation

 

[Magdalena59]

Grace & Peace!

A quick note on this, too. A study of early Christian marriage rites reveals this interesting thing: there are none. We have Eucharistic anaphoras, we have baptismal rites. No marriage rites. From all appearances, the rite of Christian marriage was a later development, the early church leaving it to the state to deal with the marriage contract given the generally socio-economic character of marriage. When the church began being involved in marriages, it was mostly to bless what had already been contracted. When Christianity also became allied with state power, then it became more involved in the marriage business (though, interestingly, the lack of explicit vows in the Eastern marriage rites for millennia indicate that the East still viewed marriage as involving a contractual element in which it was not the business of the church to interfere–the Western rite developed along different lines). Devolving marriage back to the state actually has historical precedent: that’s how the church worked for centuries.

Re: baptism, could you explain how it is confusing among protestants? To my knowledge, it is practiced once, with water, and using the Trinitarian formula. What is confusing about it? Are you referring to the fact that in the Western Church in the third through fifth centuries baptism became separated from confirmation which latter gradually developed as its own separate rite (due, in large part, to the reservation to the bishop of certain anointings)?

Re: confession, this is also a later development, though based in the practice of public penitence leading up to Easter. Which is to say, public corporate confession is a more ancient practice than individual confession, which developed, for the most part, toward the end of the first millennium among monastic communities (principally in the British Isles, if I remember correctly). In terms of Protestant relationships to confession, keep in mind that Luther considered it a sacrament (with Baptism and Eucharist) and encouraged it, revising the priest’s confession at the beginning of Mass to become a corporate confession in which the entire congregation participates. Examine the Lutheran liturgies. Examine, too, the Anglican liturgies: the Anglican position regarding confession has ever been “All may, none must, some should.”

(Re: real presence, see above posts.)

The reformation was a very complex project. Absolute pronunciations of it as totally good or totally bad are bound to get it wrong: over-simplifying it is not a good idea unless your aim is not to actually understand it.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

According to New Advent Christian Marriage was always a part of the Christian church, a sacrament but not always a separate rite.

Innocent IV, in the profession of faith prescribed for the Waldensians (18 December, 1208), includes matrimony among the sacraments

(Pope) Leo XIII in his Encyclical “Arcanum” (10 February, 1880): “To the teaching of the Apostles, indeed, are to be referred the doctrines which our holy fathers, the councils, and the tradition of the Universal Church have always taught, namely that Christ Our Lord raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament.”

You can read more here it is very long and complete: newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm

There are many scriptures Old and New Testament that demonstrate God’s involvement in marriage, in bringing people together and also Jesus’ statement on the two becoming one.

The reformers felt the Catholic church making marriage a sacrament was foolish. Calvin placed marriage in the same category as shoemaking, agriculture and the like. Luther was similar.

If you go back to Genesis you see God always had a hand in uniting man and woman.

The Catholic book of Tobit is a beautiful story of how God brings two people together.

In Malachi 2:16 God tell us how he feels about divorce. I am not saying there aren’t times when divorce is necessary but it apparently is not what God wants of marriage.

Then there is Mark 10:9 "What God has joined together…

God’s involvement in marriage was lost with the reformers but continued to remain elevated to God in the Catholic church.

As far as baptism I am referring to the many different beliefs about baptism. Some say it washes away sin and is a must for salvation to the point where they will dig a well if there is not any water around (serious), some say you don’t necessarily need it but you can do it to show to others you are a Christian, some baptize infants, some refuse infant baptism, some say you are not baptized if you were not immersed but only sprinkled, some say you are baptized if sprinkled, some denominations accept another denominations baptisms and others refuse another denominations baptism. The many different beliefs and confusion regarding baptism is what brought me back to the Catholic faith.

The sacrament of confession was dropped by protestants after the reformation. In Old Testament times the Levitical priests would need to know the sins people had committed so as to know if the animal sacrifice they had brought would truly atone for their sins. It is not confession as we know it today but it was a pre-figurement.

When Jesus told his apostles that what ever sins they loosed on Earth were loosed in heaven and whatever sins they bound on Earth were bound in heaven, they knew the only way they would know what to bind and loose would be to know the sins of the people

Jesus promised to lead us into all truth. He told us not to lean on our own understanding but to acknowledge him in all things and he would direct our paths. There can’t be many truths regarding the same things.

The sacraments provide us with beautiful grace.