What are your thoughts on the Reformation?

[Radical]

Had the Church called the council when it should have - earlier on - perhaps the Reformation, Revolution, Revolt, whatever you wish to call it (historically its known as the Reformation), perhaps the whole affair could have been resolved. Jon

IMHO you are far, far too optimistic. Consider a few of the ideas that were advanced by the radical reformation:

1. separation of Church and State…including the freedom to worship as one chose as opposed to having that matter determined by the governing prince;
2. pacificism…including the idea that Christians shouldn’t be murdering those who have a different view of Christianity;
3. a return to a more austere and simple expression of faith including the elimination of a ministerial priesthood and restricting the sacraments to a believer’s baptism and a non-real presence Lord’s Supper.

#1 is pretty well the norm now in western society, but I don’t think Trent moved to instigate that policy. WRT #2, although pure pacificism never caught on in a big, big way (perhaps b/c the pure pacifists were easy prey for the Catholics, Lutherans and Reformed), but the idea that Christians shouldn’t murder Christians now seems ridiculously obvious…but did Trent call for Catholics to stop killing other Christians? Did religious wars cease after Trent? As for #3, those ideas have sure blossomed and Trent only opposed them. There is absolutely no way that an earlier Church council would have done enough to stem the call for these more radical reforms. Too many people were prepared to die for these beliefs. These beliefs proved to be too popular with too many others. Couple that reality with a) the Church’s loss of the ability to control the voice of dissension across the continent and b) the growing ability to spread ideas… and it would seem that a more radical reformation was bound to happen.

 

[adrift]

But you haven’t proven any of that. This is the point! You can show me nothing in Scripture that says what you have said regarding the pope. nothing.

And the dogmas of Mary were not declared until centuries after the Early Church. This is a matter of fact Adrift. A matter of history. Refute that with evidence please.

It is a matter of history that it wasn’t declared out of thin air. It was believed centuries before it was officially declared. That is the way it is. Everyone believes until someone decides its wrong and begins a false teaching. That is when the Church steps in to clarify.

You make a false claim. However, I realize that I will quote scripture and you will still say there is nothing.
But here is a few anyway.

Peter is renamed rock. There are only four times in the Bible that a person is renamed. It was always importand and of note when done. The naming of Simon Peter is no different. Jesus says that on Peter He will build His Church. He also gives him the keys to heaven. Again a very importand act. To give keys to someone means to give authoriity. Three times Jesus tells Peter to feed His sheep. Note also at the last supper Jesus prays for Peter and tells him that once he turn back Peter was to strengthen his brothers. There is much more.
Peter and the Papacy

 

[JonNC]

IMHO you are far, far too optimistic. Consider a few of the ideas that were advanced by the radical reformation:

1. separation of Church and State…including the freedom to worship as one chose as opposed to having that matter determined by the governing prince;
2. pacificism…including the idea that Christians shouldn’t be murdering those who have a different view of Christianity;
3. a return to a more austere and simple expression of faith including the elimination of a ministerial priesthood and restricting the sacraments to a believer’s baptism and a non-real presence Lord’s Supper.

#1 is pretty well the norm now in western society, but I don’t think Trent moved to instigate that policy. WRT #2, although pure pacificism never caught on in a big, big way (perhaps b/c the pure pacifists were easy prey for the Catholics, Lutherans and Reformed), but the idea that Christians shouldn’t murder Christians now seems ridiculously obvious…but did Trent call for Catholics to stop killing other Christians? Did religious wars cease after Trent? As for #3, those ideas have sure blossomed and Trent only opposed them. There is absolutely no way that an earlier Church council would have done enough to stem the call for these more radical reforms. Too many people were prepared to die for these beliefs. These beliefs proved to be too popular with too many others. Couple that reality with a) the Church’s loss of the ability to control the voice of dissension across the continent and b) the growing ability to spread ideas… and it would seem that a more radical reformation was bound to happen.

Well, I was speaking of the Lutheran Reformation, but I see your point.

Jon

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And what happened to the first Archbishop of Canterbury?? And Latimore and Ridley??

And what happened to Edmund Campion? It’s not as though protestants were the only ones who died for their faith in England. . .in fact, numbers wise, the Catholics suffered far more. And you do realize that Great Britain only restored full rights (such as voting) to Catholics, after a rather bitter bit of infighting, in 1829? 1829! And let’s not even address the Irish question (you do know about Oliver Cromwell and what he did to the Catholics there, correct?)

Mind you, I’m not saying, as some like to imply, that a ‘lesser score of evil’ somehow makes my (Catholic) position superior. That’s not it at all. Both sides–yes I said BOTH–have things to answer for.

But let’s make it the REAL things, not some imagined ones. Your misunderstanding of the Inquisition, any deaths thereto, and your focus (understandably) on the wrongs done to ‘your side’ should not make you blind to the fact that people on the ‘other side’ had as legitimate sufferings and complaints as ‘you’ do. That should be something we’re both trying to put in the past and work TOGETHER for the future, not trying to ‘one up’ or put ourselves on the moral equivalent of a high horse.

BOTH SIDES suffered and both sides caused suffering. Acknowlege it–and acknowledge the TRUTH, not some puffed up or misinformed stuff–and move beyond.

 

[GraceSofia]

Tantum_ergo:
What he said. ^ ^ ^ :clapping:

 

[GKC]

And what happened to Edmund Campion? It’s not as though protestants were the only ones who died for their faith in England. . .in fact, numbers wise, the Catholics suffered far more. And you do realize that Great Britain only restored full rights (such as voting) to Catholics, after a rather bitter bit of infighting, in 1829? 1829! And let’s not even address the Irish question (you do know about Oliver Cromwell and what he did to the Catholics there, correct?)

Mind you, I’m not saying, as some like to imply, that a ‘lesser score of evil’ somehow makes my (Catholic) position superior. That’s not it at all. Both sides–yes I said BOTH–have things to answer for.

But let’s make it the REAL things, not some imagined ones. Your misunderstanding of the Inquisition, any deaths thereto, and your focus (understandably) on the wrongs done to ‘your side’ should not make you blind to the fact that people on the ‘other side’ had as legitimate sufferings and complaints as ‘you’ do. That should be something we’re both trying to put in the past and work TOGETHER for the future, not trying to ‘one up’ or put ourselves on the moral equivalent of a high horse.

BOTH SIDES suffered and both sides caused suffering. Acknowlege it–and acknowledge the TRUTH, not some puffed up or misinformed stuff–and move beyond.

True.

GKC

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Bob Crowley;8095897:

Oh my gosh. Do you really believe that this is an accurate account of history?

Yes. Do you know better?

 

[Contarini]

I think that your statement here is a bit over zealous and incorrect. The thousands of denominations really fall under about eight in total

???

I agree that the “thousands” figure reflects a poor understanding of Protestantism (there probably are thousands of independent ecclesiastical organizations of one sort or another, but they certainly aren’t all rival churches in the sense Catholics suppose), but eight? What are these eight? I can name the following groupings with significant differences between them without trying very hard:

1. The Anglican Communion, plus mainline Lutheranism (ELCA in the U.S.) and some of the more liberal “Old Catholics”
2. ACNA and its “GAFCON” allies, separated from the former by their refusal to tolerate the liberal wing of Anglicanism, especially with regards to homosexuality–this is admittedly a developing schism worldwide, but I don’t think anyone disputes at this point that we’re headed for at least two worldwide Anglican bodies where one Communion used to exist
3. Continuing Anglicans, separated from the previous two groups by their refusal to accept women’s ordination
4. Confessional Lutherans (I’m being generous and not counting the emerging Lutheran equivalent to ACNA, because it’s possible that they’ll wind up aligning themselves with the ACNA ), who reject the “liberalism” of mainline Lutheranism and refuse to be in full communion with anyone who doesn’t share Lutheran distinctives such as sola fide and the Real Presence
5. Mainline Reformed–in the U.S. this would include PCUSA, RCA, and UCC
6. Moderately conservative Reformed who accept women’s ordination (EPC and to some extent CRC in the U.S.)
7. Confessional Reformed (OPC and PCA in the U.S. are two of the major groups)
8. Dutch Reformed who don’t accept the CRC’s teaching regarding common grace
9. Fundamentalist Presbyterians (Bible Presbyterians in the U.S.)
10. United Methodists and similar mainline Pietist groups
11. Mainstream evangelical Pietists who don’t have a lot of litmus tests beyond evangelical basics
12. Holiness denominations that retain distinctive Wesleyan doctrine but do not hold to strict lifestyle positions, such as the Church of the Nazarene, the Wesleyans, the Free Methodists, etc. The Nazarenes tend to hold themselves aloof from the others, but this is not largely for strictly doctrinal reasons so I’ll lump them all together. I’ll concede that the more "Keswick’ oriented groups like the Alliance can go under 11.
13. “Conservative Holiness” groups that hold to dress codes, etc. These are themselves splintered into many different groups–I’ve known denominations divide over whether the wedding ring is worldly.
14. Holiness Pentecostals who believe in “three works of grace”
15. Non-Holiness Pentecostals
16. Oneness Pentecostals (maybe you don’t want to count them since they are non-Trinitarian)
17. “Word of Faith” and other triumphalist Pentecostals whose ideas are not shared by mainstream Pentecostals
18. Mainstream Mennonites/Brethren
19. Conservative Mennonites/Brethren
20. Evangelical Mennonites/Brethren
21. Amish
22. “Conservative” Quakers
23. Southern Baptists
24. Mainline Baptists and similar groups (I’ll count the Disciples of Christ here)
25. Fundamentalist Baptists and non-denominational fundamentalists
26. Reformed Baptists
27. Primitive Baptists (both fundamentalist and Calvinist)
28. “Christian Churches and Churches of Christ” (instrumental)
29. “Churches of Christ” (non-instrumental)
30. Plymouth Brethren (Closed; the Open Brethren fit with other conservative evangelicals/fundamentalists quite well)

One could certainly make much finer distinctions, but these are thirty quite distinct groups operating in North America (and internationally–my point is that there may be other groups that don’t have a significant presence here). If you want me to explain the doctrinal distinctives that make each of these groups unique, I’m happy to do so. You can certainly find many folks in most of these groups who claim that their distinctives aren’t that important–but you can find many others who say that they are.

The list is somewhat biased by my personal experience–note that I have the most explanations and caveats for Anglicanism and the Holiness groups, because the latter is my heritage and the former my present affiliation. At the same time, I’ve resisted the temptation to proliferate distinctions within these two traditions.

Edwin

 

[kylemccloughan]

And what happened to Edmund Campion? It’s not as though protestants were the only ones who died for their faith in England. . .in fact, numbers wise, the Catholics suffered far more. And you do realize that Great Britain only restored full rights (such as voting) to Catholics, after a rather bitter bit of infighting, in 1829? 1829! And let’s not even address the Irish question (you do know about Oliver Cromwell and what he did to the Catholics there, correct?)

Mind you, I’m not saying, as some like to imply, that a ‘lesser score of evil’ somehow makes my (Catholic) position superior. That’s not it at all. Both sides–yes I said BOTH–have things to answer for.

But let’s make it the REAL things, not some imagined ones. Your misunderstanding of the Inquisition, any deaths thereto, and your focus (understandably) on the wrongs done to ‘your side’ should not make you blind to the fact that people on the ‘other side’ had as legitimate sufferings and complaints as ‘you’ do. That should be something we’re both trying to put in the past and work TOGETHER for the future, not trying to ‘one up’ or put ourselves on the moral equivalent of a high horse.

BOTH SIDES suffered and both sides caused suffering. Acknowlege it–and acknowledge the TRUTH, not some puffed up or misinformed stuff–and move beyond.

Oh I agree with you. We should work together for the future. I am an ex-cradle Catholic so I am not oblivious to Catholic teaching, doctrine and dogmas.

 

[kylemccloughan]

???

I agree that the “thousands” figure reflects a poor understanding of Protestantism (there probably are thousands of independent ecclesiastical organizations of one sort or another, but they certainly aren’t all rival churches in the sense Catholics suppose), but eight? What are these eight? I can name the following groupings with significant differences between them without trying very hard:

1. The Anglican Communion, plus mainline Lutheranism (ELCA in the U.S.) and some of the more liberal “Old Catholics”
2. ACNA and its “GAFCON” allies, separated from the former by their refusal to tolerate the liberal wing of Anglicanism, especially with regards to homosexuality–this is admittedly a developing schism worldwide, but I don’t think anyone disputes at this point that we’re headed for at least two worldwide Anglican bodies where one Communion used to exist
3. Continuing Anglicans, separated from the previous two groups by their refusal to accept women’s ordination
4. Confessional Lutherans (I’m being generous and not counting the emerging Lutheran equivalent to ACNA, because it’s possible that they’ll wind up aligning themselves with the ACNA ), who reject the “liberalism” of mainline Lutheranism and refuse to be in full communion with anyone who doesn’t share Lutheran distinctives such as sola fide and the Real Presence
5. Mainline Reformed–in the U.S. this would include PCUSA, RCA, and UCC
6. Moderately conservative Reformed who accept women’s ordination (EPC and to some extent CRC in the U.S.)
7. Confessional Reformed (OPC and PCA in the U.S. are two of the major groups)
8. Dutch Reformed who don’t accept the CRC’s teaching regarding common grace
9. Fundamentalist Presbyterians (Bible Presbyterians in the U.S.)
10. United Methodists and similar mainline Pietist groups
11. Mainstream evangelical Pietists who don’t have a lot of litmus tests beyond evangelical basics
12. Holiness denominations that retain distinctive Wesleyan doctrine but do not hold to strict lifestyle positions, such as the Church of the Nazarene, the Wesleyans, the Free Methodists, etc. The Nazarenes tend to hold themselves aloof from the others, but this is not largely for strictly doctrinal reasons so I’ll lump them all together. I’ll concede that the more "Keswick’ oriented groups like the Alliance can go under 11.
13. “Conservative Holiness” groups that hold to dress codes, etc. These are themselves splintered into many different groups–I’ve known denominations divide over whether the wedding ring is worldly.
14. Holiness Pentecostals who believe in “three works of grace”
15. Non-Holiness Pentecostals
16. Oneness Pentecostals (maybe you don’t want to count them since they are non-Trinitarian)
17. “Word of Faith” and other triumphalist Pentecostals whose ideas are not shared by mainstream Pentecostals
18. Mainstream Mennonites/Brethren
19. Conservative Mennonites/Brethren
20. Evangelical Mennonites/Brethren
21. Amish
22. “Conservative” Quakers
23. Southern Baptists
24. Mainline Baptists and similar groups (I’ll count the Disciples of Christ here)
25. Fundamentalist Baptists and non-denominational fundamentalists
26. Reformed Baptists
27. Primitive Baptists (both fundamentalist and Calvinist)
28. “Christian Churches and Churches of Christ” (instrumental)
29. “Churches of Christ” (non-instrumental)
30. Plymouth Brethren (Closed; the Open Brethren fit with other conservative evangelicals/fundamentalists quite well)

One could certainly make much finer distinctions, but these are thirty quite distinct groups operating in North America (and internationally–my point is that there may be other groups that don’t have a significant presence here). If you want me to explain the doctrinal distinctives that make each of these groups unique, I’m happy to do so. You can certainly find many folks in most of these groups who claim that their distinctives aren’t that important–but you can find many others who say that they are.

The list is somewhat biased by my personal experience–note that I have the most explanations and caveats for Anglicanism and the Holiness groups, because the latter is my heritage and the former my present affiliation. At the same time, I’ve resisted the temptation to proliferate distinctions within these two traditions.

Edwin

Very good post. I do appreciate your efforts on the list of 30, but i have to say that many of them are not what I would say distinctive from one another. For example, the LCMS and the ACNA have recognized many things that they both share in common and would certainly commune together. The ACNA and those Anglicans who do not accept women’s ordination may possibly be lumped together especially if Abp. Duncan issues a moratorium on ordaining more women to the Anglican priesthood.

 

[RobbyS]

Generally bad. Jesus never intended for His Church to be divided like it is today.

The Reformation, like the French Revolution, was God’s chastisement of the Church,much as the destruction of the Temple and the exile of his people was under the Old Covenant. When the faith is weak among the people, we stray into the desert and fall prey to the wolves. We can only have faith that we will be shown the way, and it will be in God’s own time.

 

[Contarini]

Very good post. I do appreciate your efforts on the list of 30, but i have to say that many of them are not what I would say distinctive from one another. For example, the LCMS and the ACNA have recognized many things that they both share in common and would certainly commune together.

Do you have any statement from the LCMS leadership that supports this claim? I find it highly unlikely that the LCMS would do anything of the sort. Certainly some confessional Lutherans will commune some Anglicans (I was given communion by a confessional Lutheran congregation in Germany, but they were part of the state church so not quite in the same boat as the LCMS, and I think they had some generous misconceptions about Anglicanism, imagining Anglo-Catholicism to be more universal than it is).

The ACNA and those Anglicans who do not accept women’s ordination may possibly be lumped together especially if Abp. Duncan issues a moratorium on ordaining more women to the Anglican priesthood.

I don’t think that this would be enough for the Continuing Anglicans, but I’ll let GKC comment on that. A moratorium still implies that past ordinations were valid–for the Continuers, that reflects an unorthodox understanding of the Sacrament of Orders.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Do you have any statement from the LCMS leadership that supports this claim? I find it highly unlikely that the LCMS would do anything of the sort. Certainly some confessional Lutherans will commune some Anglicans (I was given communion by a confessional Lutheran congregation in Germany, but they were part of the state church so not quite in the same boat as the LCMS, and I think they had some generous misconceptions about Anglicanism, imagining Anglo-Catholicism to be more universal than it is).

I don’t think that this would be enough for the Continuing Anglicans, but I’ll let GKC comment on that. A moratorium still implies that past ordinations were valid–for the Continuers, that reflects an unorthodox understanding of the Sacrament of Orders.

Edwin

++Duncan and his attitude is certainly problematic for Anglo-Catholic Continuers, Alas.

GKC

 

[JonNC]

Very good post. I do appreciate your efforts on the list of 30, but i have to say that many of them are not what I would say distinctive from one another. For example, the LCMS and the ACNA have recognized many things that they both share in common and would certainly commune together. The ACNA and those Anglicans who do not accept women’s ordination may possibly be lumped together especially if Abp. Duncan issues a moratorium on ordaining more women to the Anglican priesthood.

Here’s what I’ve found on this.
classic.lcms.org/pages/rpage.asp?NavID=18047

This dialogue is not intended to result in full communion, altar and pulpit fellowship," said Lehenbauer. “Rather, it is hoped that our churches will be able to affirm one another in significant ways as fellow Christians, stand together against certain societal and ecclesial trends, and cooperate together in works of mercy.”

I’m certainly happy that we’re dialoguing, though. :clapping:

Jon