C
Cinette
Guest
That 5-letter word pride is the ROOT of all sin!:yup: :crying:
- Status
W
With_Questions
Guest
What if the Catholic church was wrong for excommunicating the reformers?
Why should they have recanted their “heretical” positions?
What if it was the Catholic Church that held the “heretical” positions instead?
Doesn’t “Pride” work both ways? Didn’t your pope John Paul take responsibility for the reformation? Or at least acknowledge joint responsibility? I seem to recall reading he did. If so, was your pope wrong?
It does seem to me that “heretical” is the ultimate pejorative word to use here. Didn’t they use to burn heretics?
R
ralphinal
Guest
They could not have been wrong because the Reformers were the heretical ones. In some form or fasion, they denied nearly everything that had been held as truth for 1500 years. I am not saying that each one did, but as a group, they hit all the high points.
Because they were heretical.
That would mean that the entire Christian faith had gone into heresy. This would mean that Jesus was wrong when he said that the gates of hell would not prevail and that the Holy Spirit would guide us. The worse case of heresy in the history of the Church affected 3/4 of the bishops, and they still could not force a change in dogma in a Church council, and that was 1,000 years before.
Pride does work both ways. Yes, we had problems, but they were not with dogma they were with practices and pride. You cannot blow up the school because the teachers are jerks.
Actually, many “heretics” were killed by Protestants. Yes, both sides executed them in some way, but that does not mean they were not heretics.
C
Contarini
Guest
It’s even more of a mischaracterization of the Reformed, if possible (though the Reformed didn’t talk much about councils five and six–I’m not sure the Lutherans did either, but you may be right). I would say that at least in the first generation or so the Reformed paid more attention to the Fathers than the Lutherans did. Luther often spoke very disrespectfully of the Fathers as not really having understood the Gospel.
Edwin
J
JRKH
Guest
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Actually, he did not take the responsibility of the Reformation. He offer a prayer of atonement for all the sins committed by Catholic Christians over the past 2,000 yrs in the name of Christianity.
Pope John Paul II said the following:
We are deeply saddened by the behavior of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant.
and addition,
**During 2000-MAR, the Vatican issued an apology for past sins committed by church members. It is titled “Memory and reconciliation: The church and faults of the past.” It was approved by Pope John Paul II, and was written by Cardinal Ratzinger, John Paul II’s successor as pope.
Many leaders of the Vatican Curia opposed his action, being concerned that a confession of past errors might cause many Roman Catholics to wonder whether the church is currently engaged in sinful behavior that will require some future pope to apologize for present-day sins. However, John Paul believed that repentance would transform the church and enable it to lead the world into a “new springtime of Christianity.” He was able to overrule the Vatican Curia. **
J
JRKH
Guest
Once they were excommunicated they could have done whatever was necessary to normalize their status with Holy Mother Church. They could also have written and spoke in ways that would both further the move toward reformation in the Church, and improve their relation with the Church. These were not unlettered men who could not clearly express themselves.
Well I have reread it and must plead ignorance if what you say is true for I see no reference to the Torah, or “obey then only if…”
Here is the Verses 1-4
1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. 4 For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
Perhaps you could show me where there is any caveat in this. Where is Jesus telling the “multitudes” to disobey anything that is not in keeping with the Torah. Seems pretty clear to me that Jesus is telling “The multitudes” that they are bound by the teachings of the Pharisees, even though the Pharisees themselves are sinful men.
The belief that everything must be shown in scripture, was never taught by The Church to which he belonged and to which he swore obedience as a priest.
Peace
James
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I think Martin Luther is held accountible because he took an vow of obedience to the Church. A vow to God’s Church. You break that vow, God will demand or held you more accountible for your actions than the average Joe down the street.
J
JRKH
Guest
Again I apologize for any mischaracterization of a specific denomination. However the question still stands. What is the Biblical Justification for the Reformation?
When God made a covenent with the Jews he never abandoned them, even during exile in the desert after the “calf” incident or, nor during the long exile in Babylon, nor at any other time. He sent them prophets, and wise men and leaders to reform His Church from within.
God has given us a new covenent through the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, who founded a new Church upon the Apostle Chosen by God himself. The new Moses, who we call Peter. The Church thus founded and protected by Christ has seen many problems and fought many heresies but has not faltered or failed.
So the proponents of the Reformation - Outside of Mother Church - base their arguments on the supremacy of “Scripture” over “Church”. If this is so, then they must surely have had a Biblical “Precident” for this. I’m trying to find out what it is. (If it is.)
Peace
James
W
With_Questions
Guest
Then all of the assertions you are making in this thread is dependent upon this assertion you are making. Otherwise it is all debatable.
Of course the assertion you are making is subject to debate also. However that is another thread.
OK.
If there is plenty of blame to go around, why is there a whole thread here devoted to “Protestants you are wrong for the reformation”?
And where Protestants did that, I will step up and say that they were wrong. I hope that Catholics will do that too.
C
Contarini
Guest
It lies in the constant contrast drawn in Scripture between God’s word and everything else. The belief that specific books are God’s Word itself rests on the testimony of the Church, of course, though some Protestants have foolishly tried to sidestep it. But that does not do away with the basic point that once the Church has established that something is God’s Word, the authority of that “something” is supreme.
However, you will not get from me an argument that the Reformation (as an act of division within the Church) was justified. I think it was one of the most terrible disasters of Christian history. The question is: what to do about it now? “Coming home” is not as simple as it sounds (is there a “home” to come to, for one thing? Your Communion has also been shaped by the Reformation and by the centuries of division), as your own Pope and bishops recognize (unfortunately many lay apologists are not so wise).
Edwin
R
ralphinal
Guest
Edwin, I have a legitimate question that you, as an Episcopalian, might not be able to answer as a Baptist would. If I accept your statement that once the Church establishes something as the inspired Truth or Word of God, it then takes priority over other things, why would that not apply to Sacred Tradition? If the Church holds that the Traditions are just as inspired by the Holy Spirit as Scriptures, why is that not the same?
W
With_Questions
Guest
Agreed that they are heretical in respect to your denomination.
However, the question is are they heretical in respect to the Lord Jesus Christ.
Of course you then say they are because it is impossible for your denomination to be incorrect. And of course your denomination is the one that Jesus established and everyone else is (in the words of one poster here) splinter groups.
So we go around on the same-old same-old.
So…
Why don’t we just stop every other thread and have a thread where you attempt to prove that it is impossible for your denomination to be incorrect.
If you can prove that one tiny-weenie-bitsy assertion, then every other thread here is meaningless. Catholicism rules and we all are just useless heretics. And we must “come home” to Catholicism or risk frying for eternity (invincible ignorance certainly would not apply in this case).
Of course I don’t think you can not prove your assertion, but that is a separate issue.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Actually, we can show that every single thing taught by the Reformers either agrees with the Church (such as the Real Presence) or is heretical using both Scriptures and the Early Church Fathers. Catholics have been doing it for years. Now, we can take the most extreme examples, such as Calvin, and use Luther to show most of his issues.
Would you accept it? Or would you hold that it is one denomination’s opinion?
Now, as far as the other stuff goes, i would not mind less “Protestants are wrong” threads. It keeps me away from the Mormons and the Muslims. ANyway, we do not hold that it is a “convert or fry” situation for most of you. There are some, but the majority, should they end up in hell, will have other reasons than this.
J
JRKH
Guest
Nicely put but it overlooks one basic problem. The books declared as sacred do not declare themselves supreme over the Church. In fact they do just the opposite. They Declare that Authority Rests with Christ acting through His Church. The NT Bible merely provides evidences of that fact. Jesus establishes the Church and not a Book. He gives that Church broad latitude in Binding and Loosing. He promises it His own Protection. Additional evidence is found in the epistles. (Bulwark and Foundation of Truth)
All of these references to the importance fo the Church are clear and prominent in the Bible. But the Supremacy of Scripture over Church Authority just is not there. Surely, if the Bible Trumps Church, the Bible would clearly say so somewhere, or if not then the Early church would have said so when it assembled and Canonized the Bible.
Come home to the Church. One person at a time.
I can appreciate the difficulty in coming home. I went through it myself last year. Even though I was raised catholic I had been away so long and had formed so many contrary opinions that I didn’t know if I could really come back or not. In truth though the longer I’ve been back and the more I’ve looked at teaching the more convinced I am that the Catholic Church IT.
As for how it has been “Shaped” every event in history has had an effect on how the Church has evolved. The Reformation was just one of these. However, regardless of how the Church has changed since the reformation, it remains the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, founded by and upon Christ and it has His protection.
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
Of course they were heretical. Jesus founded a single Church upon Simon the Rock (Kepha) whom we call Peter. That is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The one with an umbroken line of Apostolic succession and who, up until the confusion of the 1500’s was not disputed in western Europe.
Any church that cannot trace itself back to the Apostles has no valid claim the Church Christ founded.
Since you seem to prefer NOT to provide evidence of Biblical Justification for the reformation, then I suggest you start a thread on the subject of Catholic Proofs. Or more succinctly you could read some articles here at Catholic Answers and then ask any questions you have. We would be more than happy to address any of your concerns.
Now, with all due respect, the purpose of this particular thread is to determine if there is precedent in the Bible for the kind of radical reformation practiced by Luther et.al. As I said in my OP, we can find many instances supporting the authority of the Church, but where is the authority for rejecting the Church and starting another?
Peace
James
W
With_Questions
Guest
In the end, it is one denomination’s opinion. This opinion, however, may be either true or false. However, your say so that it is true carries no weight with me. The only opinion that matters is that of the Lord God almighty.
BTW, don’t the reformers and the Catholic Church have a different interpretation of the Real Presence? So you don’t really agree there?
The ECF to me are somewhat problematic because I have no way of verifying whether your claims are in fact true or lifted out of context, I actually though can agree in principle that if is a case where
(1) Scripture is genuinely ambiguous, meaning that it is subject to multiple legitimate interpretation.
(2) You can show me from the earliest church fathers like Clement or Iranaeus or Ignatius, that time period, that the church held one interpretation on the topic in question.
that it would be wise to agree with Clement and Ignatius. This is the Wesleyan idea of interpreting the Bible through history in practice.
This may or may not be true with some version of the Real Presence. However, the Marian dogmas do not fall under this.
Neither does your pope being incapable of error in faith and morals fall under this.
And there is at least one great big fat logic error whenever you all argue that your denomination is “The one and only church of Jesus Christ to the exclusion of everybody else who is just a splinter”.
So it is a mixed bag.
I’m not a big fan of Calvin myself FWIW. Christians killing other Christians sort of leaves a sour taste in my mouth, even when it is on our side doing the whacking here.
The first big-name early Protestant that I really like is John Wesley, although I have read a little about some of the Anabaptists of the Reformation period that I also like.
Yeah I know. However I have read posts by other Catholics that disagree with you. At any rate, I am not invincibly ignorant, at least I don’t think so.
W
With_Questions
Guest
I love the quote “Coming home”.
To me, coming home would be forsaking my current evangelical church and returning to the Methodist church of my upbringing.
Which is not impossible, although I do have biggie issues with social and theological liberalism.
W
With_Questions
Guest
My only point is that it really seems no matter what topic we start with, once I start asking questions, all of these topics seem to go back to:
“We are the church that Jesus founded. We are incapable of being wrong in matters of faith and morals. You all are just splinters and heretics”
Or some variant of the above.
So, if that is really your argument in the end, why not just put the matter to rest and prove that one little point. Then everything else, including this thread, will be proved simply from that one tiny assumption being proved correct.
But you are correct. That is another thread.
One that I am not going to start now because of a sour experience I had here on another thread I started. At least I think I started it but don’t hold me to it. However I learned about the ignore user feature of the forum.
C
Cinette
Guest
It is obvious that you do not like the facts about the Catholic Church. On the face of it, since you are on the other side as it were, it might appear as if your side is “defeated” (as far as the Catholic Church is concerned).
The fact is the CC is the Church Christ established - the scriptures prove it and so does history.
As I understand it, since the CC can prove its authenticity and since this is a forum for discussion, the question has been asked can the Reformation offer Biblical Support for its claims? It is a fair question. The CC maintains that whatever gripes Luther had (and he certainly did have legitimate gripes) these should have been dealt with within the Church. It was not necessary to leave the Church and initiate the beginning of thousands of denominations.
Jesus said that the Church is One and the CC feels that we should all be united. The Vatican has been having talks with several denominations over the years and certainly there has been more understanding and co-operation with the Anglican Church and also the Lutheran Church for example.
Please do not get upset and offended. Even if you do not like it let’s look at the facts and confront them. So back to the question, “Where is Biblical Support for the Reformation”?. We can prove our point and now it over to you.
I have to interrupt this as I have been called away.
See you later - blessings
- Status