Why all the Fuss on the Reformation?

[EvangelCatholic]

Well, James, I have a different philosophy here on the CAFs. I believe that we are perfectly capable of having multiple discussions on a single thread. Sometimes the tributaries and secondary debates are of greater interest and provide more insight than the initial conversation.

I picture myself being on someone’s patio, having a cocktail while discussing religion. Lots of different conversations ensue from the spark of one question.

Nothing wrong with that, IMHO. In fact, I relish and enjoy it immensely.

Tend to agree.

But caution you to use language and visual prompts that don’t offend. You don’t interrupt and demean others at coattail time, do you?

 

[PRmerger]

Tend to agree.

But caution you to use language and visual prompts that don’t offend. You don’t interrupt and demean others at coattail time, do you?

Never at coattail time. Ever.

As far as my language and visual prompts–I haven’t received any complaints about them, ever, from anyone except people who see the truth of what I am saying but don’t like that they are true.

It’s like people who get offended by the language and visual prompts of the Catholic Church–it’s usually people who don’t like what the CC teaches and they act as if they’re offended by how the Church says it, rather than the fact that they don’t like the Truths proclaimed by her.

 

[JRKH]

Well, James, I have a different philosophy here on the CAFs. I believe that we are perfectly capable of having multiple discussions on a single thread. Sometimes the tributaries and secondary debates are of greater interest and provide more insight than the initial conversation.

I picture myself being on someone’s patio, having a cocktail while discussing religion. Lots of different conversations ensue from the spark of one question.

Nothing wrong with that, IMHO. In fact, I relish and enjoy it immensely.

Fair enough my friend - I enjoy such things too. I just don’t want such “tributaries” (good word:thumbsup to distract from the very good and worthwhile question in the OP.

Onward.

Peace
James

 

[PRmerger]

Fair enough my friend - I enjoy such things too. I just don’t want such “tributaries” (good word:thumbsup to distract from the very good and worthwhile question in the OP.

Onward.

Peace
James

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[EvangelCatholic]

http://www.awesomelyluvvie.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/hugs-for-friends.gif

bravo

 

[JonNC]

I continually see threads here on the Reformation and its issues. It’s like if hubby and I had a fight thirty years ago and he keeps bringing it up, even though he and I both agreed, then, that the issues were settled. Both Catholics and Protestants (uh, western, non-Catholic Christians) have moved along from what happened 500 years ago. Why are people dealing with it as if we are frozen in time and nothing has happened since then?

Because the actions of men on both sides during that era have left Christ’s Church and its ministry wounded by division and discord. It blurs His message to the world, as the world sees its messenger, the Church, arguing and fighting within itself.

This is serious. It is not analogous to a married couple who had a spat 30 years prior, because we are not current “married”, in communion with each other.

What is disturbing is that there are people on both sides who seem to view the situation as the same as it was in the 1500’s, and that attack apologetics is a good thing. The greatest examples of this often appear on other “protestant” forum sites, much more so than at CAF, and that’s why I am here, and not there. They do nothing to solve the problem, but only succeed in fanning the flames of division and hostility.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

When the Lutherans, Calvinists, Baptists, Pentecostals, Anglicans, etc. all close up shop and come home to Rome, that’s when it will cease to be a big deal. Until then it is a grave scandal against the Faith and must be dealt with. It is not only a significant part of Church History but a significant part of Western Civilization’s history as well.

Glenda

Hi Glenda,
I actually agree, from a Lutheran perspective (I can’t speak for the others). One of the blessings of Vatican II has been the development of dialogue between Lutherans and Rome. Let’s hope that those discussions lead to agreements that make it unnecessary for Lutherans and Catholics to be divided, and instead share a reconciliation founded in Christian love and truth.

Jon

 

[JRKH]

I think I would prefer it if a lot of the energy that went into Luther-bashing, or Calvin-bashing (when they get tired of Luther-bashing) went into how we can walk in charity with each other today. We are NOT going back in time to fix what happened then. Blaming each other goes nowhere. It is good to know history, bad to repeat it, to continually bring up what the other’s ancestors did.

That was then, this is now. Where do we go from here?

Another excellent question. In my view where we go from here is discuss the issues divide us as well as the ones that we agree on.

In studying Scripture - both while I was away from the Church and since I have been back - I have come to the conclusion that the basic and foundational principle of the protestant world as it exists in practice today is simply unsupportable in Scripture.

Nothing in Scripture allows for the kind of doctrinal disagreements we see across the protestant communities today. In fact, the NT calls for quite the opposite. This is something that truly bothers me. The protestants put great store in Sola Scriptura and the clarity of Scripture, yet they cannot agree on what the Scriptures say. Because of this one can find a denomination that teaches things in opposition to each other and each claiming Scripture as their authority.
Of course Scripture provides a way to resolve such matters, but protestants tend to reject this solution where Catholics embrace the solution. So in the end, Catholics can be seen as more “biblical” than many protestants.

The biblical solution of course is the council - of telling it to the Church and then listening to the Church (Mt 18:15-18). This solution is the one that the Catholic Church has used many many times since the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15). It is also the one that the Fathers of the Reformation chose NOT to use.
This is not bashing anyone - it is simply a fact that there was never any council among the leading lights of the reformation to resolve their doctrinal differences. Very unbiblical of them…

Just some thoughts…

Peace
James

 

[GKC]

An impossible task. Why? Because how would you even begin to calculate the number? What constitutes a denomination? Any disagreement? Any geographical barrier? Any division at all? Any theological disagreement?

Barrett went with each geographic boundary constitutes a different denomination, that’s how he came up with 242 Catholic denominations. He did that with every other denomination. That’s how the Barrett study came up with 30k denominations. A ridiculously inflated number.

Maybe impossible, maybe just hard, but it would be an interesting exercise. It would require a systematic longitudinal study, with rigorous definitions of the pertinent terms, published for comment/review and reiteration. While Barrett’s work has some of those features, it uses an idiosyncratic definition of denomination (as we know) which makes it of little use, as to the larger question.

Someone with a huge grant to apply in the realm of sociology of religion, with time to spare, might cut the problem down to size. Until then, unless there’s something better than Barrett’s folk out there, it is anyone’s guess. Not a useful figure, anyone’s guess.

GKC

 

[JRKH]

Maybe impossible, maybe just hard, but it would be an interesting exercise. It would require a systematic longitudinal study, with rigorous definitions of the pertinent terms, published for comment/review and reiteration. While Barrett’s work has some of those features, it uses an idiosyncratic definition of denomination (as we know) which makes it of little use, as to the larger question.

Someone with a huge grant to apply in the realm of sociology of religion, with time to spare, might cut the problem down to size. Until then, unless there’s something better than Barrett’s folk out there, it is anyone’s guess. Not a useful figure, anyone’s guess.

GKC

If anyone is interested, I started a thread on this several years ago. It contains some interesting stuff. HERE is the link

Peace
James

 

[Auntie_A]

The Reformation is not just about a major religious schism but is also a major political schism as well. A very significant change that affected the world powers and is still with us today in many ways.

To study and discuss the reformation is not to dismiss ecumenism; in fact, it might be the necessary education to understanding ecumenism.

 

[JonNC]

Because every protestant religion teaches heresy and does not teach Christ’s Truth in its fullness. Christ wills unity and obedience.

And there are some who predate the Reformation that say that the Bishop of Rome teaches heresy and innovation.

You say that the Catholic Church teaches Christ’s truth in its fullness. Others disagree. Lutherans say we teach Christ’s truth in its fullness. You and others disagree. And so on.

At some point, all of us ought to realize that a circle of claim - accusation hasn’t solved the divisions and schisms of His Church Militant, and likely never will.

Christ wills unity. Agreed. He wills obedience. Again, agreed.

Jon

 

[EvangelCatholic]

With the permission of the OP, I would like to introduce some visuals, as well. Put a face on the Church of the Reformation. During the Nazi movement most European Lutherans were controlled/ suppressed. Bishops could not be consecrated; in some cases a priest had to be the ordinator. The Soviets were just as brutal and shipped many a Lutheran to the Gulags. After the fall of the Berlin Wall many Christians were allowed to open up their churches and seminaries again. Thank God.

 

[JonNC]

The Reformation is not just about a major religious schism but is also a major political schism as well. A very significant change that affected the world powers and is still with us today in many ways.

To study and discuss the reformation is not to dismiss ecumenism; in fact, it might be the necessary education to understanding ecumenism.

Agreed, as long as it is use for this purpose, and not as a figurative bat to batter others over the head, as often happens in both directions.

Jon

 

[GKC]

If anyone is interested, I started a thread on this several years ago. It contains some interesting stuff. HERE is the link

Peace
James

I remember that thread.

Personally I would want some professional bean-counter analysts to systematize the question, and spend a few years forming a framework to approximate the answer and revisit it every year or so. Folk like us are amateurs, pushing parti pris assertions. Maybe.

GKC

 

[SteveVH]

I remember that thread.

Personally I would want some professional bean-counter analysts to systematize the question, and spend a few years forming a framework to approximate the answer and revisit it every year or so… Folk like us are amateurs, pushing parti pris assertions. Maybe.

GKC

The numbers really don’t matter. One division is one division too many.

 

[GKC]

The numbers really don’t matter. One division is one division too many.

I understand your point, and have made it myself. But then, there appear to be folk who see the total number as somehow compounding the problem.

For me, I’d like to know, as an intellectual exercise, what it is, what comprises it, and how it might change over time. With some reasonable confidence in the figures presented, and an understanding of just what dimensions are being measured. So if the question of “how many” is to be asked, the method by which the answer is derived, as well as the answer, could be said to matter.

GKC

 

[JRKH]

I remember that thread.

Personally I would want some professional bean-counter analysts to systematize the question, and spend a few years forming a framework to approximate the answer and revisit it every year or so. Folk like us are amateurs, pushing parti pris assertions. Maybe.

GKC

I totally agree that one would like to have pros to take a crack at this. However - just among use amateurs - I think the thread raised some very good points.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Auntie A;12165766:

The Reformation is not just about a major religious schism but is also a major political schism as well. A very significant change that affected the world powers and is still with us today in many ways.

To study and discuss the reformation is not to dismiss ecumenism; in fact, it might be the necessary education to understanding ecumenism.

Agreed, as long as it is use for this purpose, and not as a figurative bat to batter others over the head, as often happens in both directions.

Jon

Totally agree. It would seem much more productive to discuss the the issues (old and new) rather than the people.
Like the OP asked…Where do we go from here? That is the more pertinent question.

Peace
James

 

[SteveVH]

I understand your point, and have made it myself. But then, there appear to be folk who see the total number as somehow compounding the problem.

For me, I’d like to know, as an intellectual exercise, what it is, what comprises it, and how it might change over time. With some reasonable confidence in the figures presented, and an understanding of just what dimensions are being measured. So if the question of “how many” is to be asked, the method by which the answer is derived, as well as the answer, could be said to matter.

GKC

Yes, it would be interesting, or maybe nauseating, to know the true extent of the divisions in this country alone. I happen to agree with PRmerger. If one counts the many “churches” popping up on every corner and mall it is probably in the millions, not tens of thousands. I look at my own very small community (10,000 in the entire county, 2500 in our town) as a microcosm. The original Baptist community has gone from two communities to seven in the last ten years. The Assembly of God now has three different communities and then we have the so-called non-denominational communities; Cowboy Church, Center Point Bible Church, Restoration Fellowship Church, Pagosa Bible Church, Ignacio Community Church. These are all in addition to the more traditional; Trinity Anglican Church, St, Patrick’s Episcopal Church, Grace Evangelical Free Church, Our Savior Lutheran Church, Community United Methodist Church, Calvary Chapel Church, Unitarian Universalist Fellowship and, of course our local LDS and JW’s just to even things out. I’m sure I am missing a few. We have people meeting in houses that have formed their own communities. They just believe in “the Bible”.

So yes, it would be interesting, but I think nearly an impossible task to keep up with all the divisions.

Steve