What are your thoughts on the Reformation?

[kylemccloughan]

Obviously, if they all believed 8 sets of doctrine, there would be 8 denominations, not tens of thousands.

But even eight sets of doctrines doesn’t mean eight different interpretations.

I am reminded of Gal. 1:8, that says, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!”

How do you know that yours is the correct one alone?

 

[kylemccloughan]

The Reformation was bad in the immense violence it engendered, and the long division of the Church, along with the misplaced ideas some Protestants have about the Catholic church. It was easily the most violent episode in Church history, leaving the crusades for dead for lethality.

For a summary of some Reformation violence, the following site has information. Bear in mind it’s an atheist site, so take it with some discernment.

 

[Scoobyshme]

But even eight sets of doctrines doesn’t mean eight different interpretations.

Then how do you account for eight (actually many, many more) different, contradictory sets of doctrines? One of the “pillars” of Protestantism is the man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura, i.e., that the Bible is the “sole” rule of faith. Since there is no final authority to assure anyone’s interpretation is correct, then anyone’s interpretation is as “valid” as anyone else’s. The buck stops nowhere, so to speak.

For just one example, Baptists do not believe in infant Baptism. Lutherans do. Both read the same Bible and claim to be led by the same Holy Spirit in their personal interpretation of that same Bible. Yet, both cannot be right. One position is contradictory to the other. And there are many other similar doctrines within Protestantism, all based on someone’s personal interpretation of Scripture. St. Peter disagrees with that approach. See 2 Peter 1:20.

Quote:
I am reminded of Gal. 1:8, that says, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!”
How can you determine that everyone but yourself is preaching a different gospel?

Because I’m not preaching my own, self-interpreted Gospel. I am only preaching exactly what the Apostles and their successors have preached for 2000 years now. The Catholic Church alone does not claim the authority to correct Christ. He established ONE Church, not thousands. The Catholic Church, historically and theologically, is that one Church. No other Christian Church existed for 1000 years after He ascended to heaven. The Orthodox split off in 1054 A.D., and Protestantism didn’t begin till 1517 A.D.

 

[KathleenGee]

FabiusMaximus…

Your perceptions are correct…Europe evolving…most complex I haven’t been able to come close to condense it…imagine how it would be trying to uphold the universal faith…

 

[kylemccloughan]

Then how do you account for eight (actually many, many more) different, contradictory sets of doctrines? One of the “pillars” of Protestantism is the man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura

, i.e., that the Bible is the “sole” rule of faith. Since there is no final authority to assure anyone’s interpretation is correct, then anyone’s interpretation is as “valid” as anyone else’s. The buck stops nowhere, so to speak.

This is where you are incorrect. You are assuming that ALL Protestants adhere to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. They all do not.

For just one example, Baptists do not believe in infant Baptism. Lutherans do. Both read the same Bible and claim to be led by the same Holy Spirit in their

But you don’t know that from what can be proven by Scripture. Here in lies the problem. The Orthodox church would claim that it was you who split and they would have sufficient cause to believe that. The Marian dogmas did not exist before 1054 and neither did papal infallibility. So, here again, I cannot see any basis for your proclamation.

 

[Scoobyshme]

But you don’t know that from what can be proven by Scripture. Here in lies the problem. The Orthodox church would claim that it was you who split and they would have sufficient cause to believe that. The Marian dogmas did not exist before 1054 and neither did papal infallibility. So, here again, I cannot see any basis for your proclamation.

1. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are equally authentic and inspired. The Catholic Church has a guarantee, from Christ, that it will never teach doctrinal error. Were this not so, then it wouldn’t matter what anyone believed, would it? Truth wouldn’t matter because no one could ever be sure what was true and what was not. That would also mean that Jesus would have to send everyone to heaven, because, in justice, we could never say there was any standard to which we could be held. There would be no sure standard, other than personal interpretation and opinion. And, that would make Jesus incarnation, death, and resurrection also meaningless.
2. The Orthodox are not Protestant. They have Apostolic Succession, and, therefore, all seven Sacraments.
3. Marian dogmas did most certainly exist before 1054, as did papal infallibility. When the Church infallibly declares a doctrine, that doesn’t mean that the Church suddenly “made it up.” It is a case where the Church feels it is necessary to officially declare the doctrine that already existed in order to solve problems and settle doubt that may have arisen. This is certainly the case with regard to Marian doctrines and papal infallibility.
4. It is almost impossible to see the basis of my proclamations because your viewpoint is decidedly Protestant, which admits to no authority outside of the individual.
5. Those Catholics who obstinately deny the Real Presence are heretics, and, therefore, automatically excommunicated. They are no longer in communion with the Church, just like Protestants. The definition of heresy is as follows: “The obstinate, post-baptismal denial of a truth which must be held with Catholic and Divine faith, or likewise, it is an obstinate doubt about the same.” Canon law says that heretics are excommunicated, latae sententae (automatically).

The Catholic Church received the entire deposit of faith from Christ. The Catholic Church has never, ever changed a doctrine of the faith, nor will it or can it, ever. Again, we do not claim the authority to correct Jesus Christ.

 

[kylemccloughan]

1. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are equally authentic and inspired. The Catholic Church has a guarantee that it will never teach doctrinal error.

Catholicism proclaims that for itself. Thats like the schoolyard proclaiming that he is king and all the teachers and administration buy into that.

1. The Orthodox are not Protestant. They have Apostolic Succession, and, therefore, all seven Sacraments.

The Catholic Church received the entire deposit of faith from Christ. The Catholic Church has never, ever changed a doctrine of the faith, nor will it or can it, ever. Again, we do not claim the authority to correct Jesus Christ.

What you do claim isn’t in Scripture. It’s a self proclamation.
[/QUOTE]

 

[CatholicZ09]

I think that the Reformation was a disaster. I mean DISASTER! Let me just say that Martin Luther opened a door to what we know today as Anti-Catholicism (more than likely not intentional on his part). So many Protestant sects, and how do you know which one is the correct one? With many different pastors with different doctrines and interpretations, how can you know that your denomination is any better than the one before and the thousands thereafter?

I believe Martin Luther actually said on his deathbed that it’s easier to live as a Protestant, but better to die as a Catholic.

 

[JonNC]

=Scoobyshme;8092568]Then how do you account for eight (actually many, many more) different, contradictory sets of doctrines? One of the “pillars” of Protestantism is the man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura, i.e., that the Bible is the “sole” rule of faith. Since there is no final authority to assure anyone’s interpretation is correct, then anyone’s interpretation is as “valid” as anyone else’s. The buck stops nowhere, so to speak.
Actually, for Lutherans, the buck stops at the Lutheran Confessions. The Church uses sola scriptura - the practice of hold dogma, teachers and teachings accountable to scripture. So, to be Lutheran, one must hold to the confessions.

For just one example, Baptists do not believe in infant Baptism. Lutherans do. Both read the same Bible and claim to be led by the same Holy Spirit in their

personal interpretation of that same Bible. Yet, both cannot be right. One position is contradictory to the other. And there are many other similar doctrines within Protestantism, all based on someone’s personal interpretation of Scripture. St. Peter disagrees with that approach. See 2 Peter 1:20.
Really, it is quite irrelevent to a Lutheran what Baptists think. We would consider their teaching on Baptism as heterodox, as it is not in keeping with scripture, the confessions, or even the universal Church.
Additionally, and similarly, Catholics teach Purgatory, Orthodox do not. Both claim to be the one true Church, teaching from Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. :Yet, both cannot be right. One position is contradictory to the other." And there are many similar doctrines, all based on each Church’s interpertation of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. And St. Peter disagrees with this approach, too.

I am reminded of Gal. 1:8, that says, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!”
How can you determine that everyone but yourself is preaching a different gospel?

A great question, and one we must all, regardless of communion, must face if we are to conform to Christ’s call that “all may be one”.

It doesn’t matter what I myself preach.

I feel the same way.

Because I’m not preaching my own, self-interpreted Gospel. I am only preaching exactly what the Apostles and their successors have preached for 2000 years now. The Catholic Church alone does not claim the authority to correct Christ. He established ONE Church, not thousands. The Catholic Church, historically and theologically, is that one Church. No other Christian Church existed for 1000 years after He ascended to heaven. The Orthodox split off in 1054 A.D., and Protestantism didn’t begin till 1517 A.D.

And the Orthodox claim the same, saying Rome split off of the one true Church. Whom should we believe?

Jon

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I have to disagree with this. The inquisitions killed more people than did anything out of the Reformation.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Even then, it is 100% Good.

It is my ego or false individual consciousness which shirks away from pain and misery.

Absolutely all historical events are Good, regardless what my personal opinion of them might be…

By what standards are you judging anything (everything) to be good? Is it objective good? By what standards are you judging your “ego” or “false consciousness” to be bad? Is it objective or subjective?

God bless

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I think that the Reformation was a disaster. I mean DISASTER! Let me just say that Martin Luther opened a door to what we know today as Anti-Catholicism (more than likely not intentional on his part). So many Protestant sects, and how do you know which one is the correct one? With many different pastors with different doctrines and interpretations, how can you know that your denomination is any better than the one before and the thousands thereafter?

I believe Martin Luther actually said on his deathbed that it’s easier to live as a Protestant, but better to die as a Catholic.

I think anti-Catholicism, especially in the form of anti-clericalism was alive and well even before Martin Luther. Hilaire Belloc explains in his work, How the Reformation Happened that it was this ingrained hatred (among other things) which helped spur the Reformation on especially in Germany. I agree with him.

God bless

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I have to disagree with this. The inquisitions killed more people than did anything out of the Reformation.

 

[JonNC]

=kylemccloughan;8092535
]I have to disagree with this. The inquisitions killed more people than did anything out of the Reformation.

No. Are we including the wars and revolts ( 30 years War, Peasants Revolt etc.)? Or by “anything out of the Reformation” do you only mean the Protestants killing other Protestants at Zurich, Geneva etc?

God bless

Hi R_C,
I’m betting you’ll agree with me when I say that defending one’s communion’s brutality by saying it isn’t as bad as someone else’s, leaves me feeling a bit queasy inside. :blackeye:

(I’ll suspect kyle will too, but I don’t know him like I know you)

Jon

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Hi R_C,
I’m betting you’ll agree with me when I say that defending one’s communion’s brutality by saying it isn’t as bad as someone else’s, leaves me feeling a bit queasy inside. :blackeye:

(I’ll suspect kyle will too, but I don’t know him like I know you)

Jon

Yes, I would

There was a lot of blood shed during the Reformation and both sides, unfortanetly, have bloodied hands.

Btw I edited my original post because I didn’t like the way it came off.

God bless

 

[Scoobyshme]

What you do claim isn’t in Scripture. It’s a self proclamation.

So, you do believe in Sola Scriptura. Bad assumption. Not everything Jesus said, taught, or did is in Scripture, so says Scripture. (John 21:25)

Yet, Jesus commanded the Apostles (and, by extension, their successors, the bishops) to go forth and teach “all” that He had taught them.

Jesus did not hand out copies of the KJV Bible to the Apostles and say, “Okay, go to Kinko’s and make copies for everyone you meet and whatever you think it means is okay by Me.” He didn’t even say or do anything close to that.

Jesus taught orally when He walked the earth. He didn’t write one book of the Bible. As far as we know, He never commanded anyone to write anything. He did promise, however, to remain with the Church till the end of the world, and to send the Holy Spirit to lead it into all truth. The Bible does mention that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Tim 3:15)

If Christ’s Church failed, and Martin Luther, or any one of the thousands of other men who founded their own “church” succeeded, then Jesus failed and we’re all wasting our time.

 

[kylemccloughan]

QUOTE=Scoobyshme;8093893]So, you do believe in Sola Scriptura. Bad assumption. Not everything Jesus said, taught, or did is in Scripture, so says Scripture. (John 21:25)

I don’t know how many more times I have to say it. No we don’t adhere to Sola Scriptura.

Yet, Jesus commanded the Apostles (and, by extension, their successors, the bishops) to go forth and teach “all” that He had taught them.

Agree.

Jesus did not hand out copies of the KJV Bible to the Apostles and say, “Okay, go to Kinko’s and make copies for everyone you meet and whatever you think it means is okay by Me.” He didn’t even say or do anything close to that.

Now come on. This is of course just not necessary. It’s condescending and rude to suggest that I am this stupid.

Jesus taught orally when He walked the earth. He didn’t write one book of the Bible. As far as we know, He never commanded anyone to write anything. He did promise, however, to remain with the Church till the end of the world, and to send the Holy Spirit to lead it into all truth. The Bible does mention that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Tim 3:15)

Jesus referred to Scripture many times when he preached. You wish to dismiss that by the nature of your statements here. The Church is the pillar of truth and you wouldn’t have known that unless you read It In Scripture!! Did you understand that?

If Christ’s Church failed, and Martin Luther, or any one of the thousands of other men who founded their own “church” succeeded, then Jesus failed and we’re all wasting our time.

Christ’s Church isn’t an institution. If you think that it is, I wish for you to show me that in Scripture.

 

[kylemccloughan]

The Spanish Inquisition is a prime example. Those that would not submit to the authority of the pope were burned alive. Lets look at what happened to ABP Thomas Cranmer under bloody Mary. And Lattimore and Ridley too for that matter. All burned alive.*

 

[kylemccloughan]

I think anti-Catholicism, especially in the form of anti-clericalism was alive and well even before Martin Luther. Hilaire Belloc explains in his work, How the Reformation Happened that it was this ingrained hatred (among other things) which helped spur the Reformation on especially in Germany. I agree with him.

God bless

Not anti-Catholicism. Objections to unbiblical practices and changes to the Early Church teachings. And we see that many of those folks before Luther were killed for their objections to the pope.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

The Spanish Inquisition is a prime example. Those that would not submit to the authority of the pope were burned alive. Lets look at what happened to ABP Thomas Cranmer under bloody Mary. And Lattimore and Ridley too for that matter. All burned alive.