Crazy Diamond;4100454:
the important part of the Reformation was principle rather than people.
I understand what you are saying but I will point out that a good deal of the Reformation was carried out by men other than the Reformers themselves. How many German Princes carried the banner in order to weaken someone else or seize Church land for themselves? Why did we see the development of Government churches?
The combination of theological, political, and cultural differences between various areas of Europe at the time certainly make it a complex soup to sort out. Political aspirations played roles in prince’s backings for both Reformation and Counter-Reformation, wherever they thought they saw the greatest opportunity. Plenty switched sides at the slightest possibility opening up, and plenty gave money to both sides, hoping to snatch little bits of land here or there or perhaps get a nephew made into the bishop of this or that diocese with a nice income. Princes will use any excuse to seize more power; if religion offers it, they’ll take it. If not, they’ll find some other excuse. Trying to judge a European movement of any kind by the actions of Princes is like trying to judge it by the onset of winter. Winter comes, winter goes. It’s largely predictable, just like the actions of European princes. And it affected Catholic areas of Europe in pretty much the same ways it affected the areas that became Protestant.
As to government churches, I think everyone was just used to the idea that government and church worked hand in hand. Armenia made Christianity the official state religion in 301, and so the tradition had a long history. Princes, of course, love the idea. God doesn’t seem to think so highly of it, and those state churches had about the same history state churches have always had. They became corrupt, reformers left and did their own thing, and eventually the movements of the reformers far outnumbered the adherents to officialdom. I’d be willing to bet that in China there are ten Catholics in the woodwork for every one that attends the officially recognized state Catholic church.
Even so, I don’t like to completely discount state churches. As Brother Andrew said, “It is never safe to call a church dead, no matter how temporizing it may appear on the surface. It is called by God’s Name, it has his eye on it, and at any moment he may sweep away its dross with fire.” (well, he said something like that.)
Crazy Diamond;4100454:
Protestant princes were no less scumbags. Their only redeeming feature was (when the mood struck them) defending their territories.
Do you think these governments were motivated by the love of Christ?
I don’t think any government has ever been motivated by the love of Christ! A few officials within a government, that’s not unusual,
but not the whole government.
Crazy Diamond;4100454:
It appears to me that this should affect your view of the Counter-Reformation, and the trustworthiness of your Church, far more than the question affects us. Maybe it doesn’t, and if not, I have to ask: what is the standard that allows you to examine the teachings and actions of the Counter-Reformers and accept or reject what they did without affecting your view of your Church?
And I never said that we were perfect. The fact remains, and always will, that only the Catholic and Orthodox Church can claim that they are the Church founded by Christ. Our doctrines reflect the fullness of Scripture, not a slanted view of Paul’s writtings. As far as the behavior of those involved, please show me that NO Catholics, or for that matter Protestants of other denominations, were killed by Reformers and we can talk. Some of the most brutal acts were done by those leaving the Church, many times against others who left but held different ideas.
Okay, maybe my question sounded more like a challenge than a genuine question, but it wasn’t. Let me set it up from the Protestant side:
The Protestant authority structure hinges on Scripture. The
heart of the Protestant authority structure is attacked by statements like “Scripture contradicts itself” and “Paul was a misogynist, that’s why he wrote what he did.” When the consistency and motivations of the writers of Scripture are attacked, those attacks call into question the Protestant authority structure (whatever else their purpose may also be).
The consistency and motivations of any other Christian can be challenged without affecting the Protestant authority structure. What supposedly reform-minded Protestant princes did, or why they did it, doesn’t make a lot of difference to Protestants. We can condemn their actions without shaking our basic view of things.
It appears to me that the Catholic authority structure hinges on the bishops. They are the ones, collectively, with the bishop of Rome leading them, who have the authority to say what is and is not apostolic teaching. Challenges to Scripture like the ones I mentioned above don’t affect you in the same way, because the only ones really able to fully interpret the Scriptures are the bishops (or Magisterium, whatever). However, if someone says “the bishops of Rome have contradicted themselves through the ages” or “the bishops of Rome have been thoroughly corrupt, that’s why they taught what they did”, then the consistency and motivations of your authority structure are called into question. I would think that sort of statement would be a challenge to your authority structure in the same way a challenge to Scripture is to ours.
If that’s true, then it seems to me that any inconsistent actions or nasty motivations on the part of Counter-Reformation bishops would be a challenge to your authority structure in a way that those same sins on the part of Reformers is not a challenge to our authority structure.
Since there were some pretty nasty Catholic folks, there must be some principle by which you are able to reject their actions without rejecting your authority structure. What is that principle?
(Is that a better phrasing of the question?)
And, by the way, how in the world if everything is supported by Scripture were there different ideas as to what was correct?
Scripture is our standard to live up to, not a set of axioms from which we can derive all truth. Each person starts in a different place, with different sins that need repentance in different ways. We all see the sins we’re dealing with as the most important ones.
One of the greatest weaknesses of Protestantism has been greater effort put into convincing others we’re right than in allowing deeper and deeper Scriptural challenges to our own beliefs, lives, and cultural practices. We preach too much while we’re still young.
I’m going to let you reply to this, and, since we’ve gotten a tad off topic, I’m going to leave this sub-thread alone.
