Why all the Fuss on the Reformation?

[Contarini]

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?

Bad analogy. The “fight” in this case led to divorce. If the parties in question care about getting back together, then the fight remains relevant, doesn’t it?

Edwin

 

[House_Harkonnen]

You are not making sense.

If 30K is “ridiculously inflated”, then that means that the number is exceedingly small.

So what number is the correct number, that’s exceedingly small?

Is 242 ridiculously inflated for the amount of Catholic denominations? Or is it accurate?

 

[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

Which means the current legitimate answer is that nobody knows.

Which is what I always say.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

What is the correct number of Christian denominations? I will gladly consider using that statistic, if you provide a source for this. It should, of course, count all of these independent churches, which are found on practically every street corner, in every city, in every state, in every country, of the world.

It should count Christian groups that are not in communion and/or a relationship of accountability with each other. “Denominations” are just organizational units, like “sui juris churches” in Catholicism. Some denominations are in full communion with each other; some aren’t; some just don’t think in those terms.

I don’t know why the number is important. The fact that there is no way to give a precise number is actually a point in favor of the argument you want to make. The reality of Protestant division is so messy and complex that there is no way to give an exact number.

Edwin

 

[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

I think I could spot a few.

GKC

 

[SteveVH]

Is 242 ridiculously inflated for the amount of Catholic denominations? Or is it accurate?

I think everyone understands that however these figures were arrived at, they are inaccurate. On the other hand, did they count the “Bible Believing Church of Podunk Idaho” that is held in a potato shed as a denomination? I doubt it, and there are hundreds of thousands of these at a minimum.

 

[Tomyris]

It should count Christian groups that are not in communion and/or a relationship of accountability with each other. “Denominations” are just organizational units, like “sui juris churches” in Catholicism. Some denominations are in full communion with each other; some aren’t; some just don’t think in those terms.

I don’t know why the number is important. The fact that there is no way to give a precise number is actually a point in favor of the argument you want to make. The reality of Protestant division is so messy and complex that there is no way to give an exact number.

Edwin

I think it is irrelevant. Protestants shrug their shoulders and Catholics think they are proving something. We have better things to talk about.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

I think everyone understands that however these figures were arrived at, they are inaccurate. On the other hand, did they count the “Bible Believing Church of Podunk Idaho” that is held in a potato shed as a denomination? I doubt it, and there are hundreds of thousands of these at a minimum.

I wouldn’t consider such a church it’s own denomination if it is in doctrinal agreement with some other church somewhere.

You would have to find all these churches, find out which ones are in doctrinal agreement with each other, then constitute THAT as a denomination.

I doubt the task is even possible.

 

[Contarini]

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?

I agree about the bashing.

But here’s the other side of the coin. I’ve spent a fair amount of time in evangelical circles where there’s a lot of talk about the Church Fathers, the importance of tradition, etc. I went to a conference at Wheaton on that subject a few years ago. But the assumption throughout–sometimes spoken, sometimes assumed–is that the Reformation’s basic premises cannot be questioned. Evangelicals who want their fellow-evangelicals to take the pre-Reformation Church seriously have to put in an enormous amount of work to convince them that doing so won’t compromise the legacy of the Reformation.

That’s why the Reformation has to be dismantled. It’s a road block beyond which Protestants cannot go in appreciating and reappropriating the legacy of historic Christianity, and thus in moving toward greater unity with other Christians.

The possibility has to be faced that the basic claims of the Reformers were, in important points, simply wrong. Luther and Calvin have to be demoted and no longer put in the same company as Irenaeus and Athanasius and Augustine. That doesn’t mean “bashing” them personally, but it does mean showing up how flawed some of their basic claims were and how radically they distorted Scripture and the legacy of the ancient Church.

Because the Reformation rests most fundamentally on the denial that the late medieval Catholic Church was proclaiming the Word and administering the Sacraments rightly, there is no way to grow gradually back into unity while retaining the Reformation’s premises. There must be a fundamental act of repentance and (partial) renunciation.

Edwin

 

[SteveVH]

I wouldn’t consider such a church it’s own denomination if it is in doctrinal agreement with some other church somewhere.

You would have to find all these churches, find out which ones are in doctrinal agreement with each other, then constitute THAT as a denomination.

I doubt the task is even possible.

One would assume that if one group is in doctrinal agreement with another that they would stand under the same banner. It would be a challenge to even find out what their doctrines are, much less if they are in agreement with another. But you are correct, it is an impossible task which is evidence of the extent of the divisions. Too many to count. Very sad.

 

[JonNC]

I think it is irrelevant. Protestants shrug their shoulders and Catholics think they are proving something. We have better things to talk about.

I think it is a mistake for Protestants, regardless of communion, to shrug their shoulders. Our divisions violate Christ’s call that we all be one. It lends to a sense of relativism, “you believe what you want, I’ll believe what I want, and we’re both just fine”.
And finally, if one is of a Reformation church, shrugging one’s shoulders is counter to the Reformation, which is supposed to be a reforming, not a dividing.

Jon

 

[Contarini]

One would assume that if one group is in doctrinal agreement with another that they would stand under the same banner.

Not really. You’re confusing organization with communion.

There are in fact a number of different organizations within Catholicism–sui juris churches, religious orders, personal prelatures, etc.

You have to look at each case and ask what a given church teaches about other churches and how, in practice, it expresses unity with other churches.

It would be a challenge to even find out what their doctrines are, much less if they are in agreement with another. (

It’s not that hard in specific cases, but of course it would be a mammoth task to chart this exhaustively.

Edwin

 

[Tomyris]

Bad analogy. The “fight” in this case led to divorce. If the parties in question care about getting back together, then the fight remains relevant, doesn’t it?

Edwin

I respectfully disagree. If Jesus is building His church, and we are all Christians and therefore members of His body, there is no divorce. Nasty separation, but if HE is all in favor of us kissing and making up, how do we do that?

If hubby and I were fighting about whether to go to Taco Bell or Hardee’s that night, then the time is past and it is no longer an issue. If it is because I buy too many clothes it may ahem still be an issue. If it was about him spending too much time in front of the tv and not enough on the good old honey-do list, then it CERTAINLY is an issue. Those are my three totally unbiased categories.

The issues in the Reformation were long brewing in the church and I do not think they were all resolved then or are resolved now. As you know, presbyterians have resolved papal authority by denying it exists; Catholics have gone ultramontane. Priests were not educated, now they are. Nowadays Catholics and non-C’s (to borrow good Church Militant’s abbreviation) work together on pro-Life issues and other political causes; then the papacy had much more political control. Then the disagreement was European, now it was worldwide. Things have changed.

One thing that I think will never change is that some will never accept the Catholic Church’s all-or-nothing demands. How can we have any sort of unity in the face of doctrinal disagreements? How can we be one big happy family again? I don’t think the demand that we all do a wholesale surrender to Catholic belief will work in order for there to be unity, or that unity is necessarily a doctrinal matter primarily. Within Catholicism there are doctrinal disagreements, for example, between the Molinists and the Thomists, but I don’t know how that there can be that sort of unity between the ultramontane and those who reject the papacy as a first principle.

Some issues are gone: papal political involvement, for example. Others are important to non-Cs but not important to Catholics (“we gotta have blue carpet 'cause that’s what Jesus says”) and some are important to Catholics but not so much to Protestants, although the interest varies.

 

[jeannetherese]

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?

I’m not sure that people are necessarily dealing with it as if it were frozen in time. Also, past events do inform the present.
I think that some who post, do so because they feel that souls are at stake and are responding to the charge to be their brothers and sisters keepers. If a certain understanding is more likely to lead to salvation, wouldn’t one be remiss in failing to promote that understanding?

May God bless you and all who visit this thread.
Amen.

 

[SteveVH]

Not really. You’re confusing organization with communion.

There are in fact a number of different organizations within Catholicism–sui juris churches, religious orders, personal prelatures, etc.

Please. I would be quite comfortable in assuming that the “Bible Believing Church of Podunk, Idaho” is not a religious organization within a larger, established faith tradition, such as the Franciscans, the Jesuits, the Little Sisters of the Poor are to the Catholic Church. More likely it was started by a well meaning farmer who didn’t personally agree with some doctrinal element or practice found in the “First Podunk Bible Church”. So he and his friends started their own.

(Disclosure:, these are both hypothetical faith communities).

 

[JonNC]

**One would assume that if one group is in doctrinal agreement with another that they would stand under the same banner. ** It would be a challenge to even find out what their doctrines are, much less if they are in agreement with another. But you are correct, it is an impossible task which is evidence of the extent of the divisions. Too many to count. Very sad.

I guess it would depend on the groups, but as an example, The ELCA and TEC are two different institutional churches, but via the “Call to Common Mission”, they are in full altar and pulpit fellowship, or full communion. Their pastors can serve in parishes of either group, the members may communion at either table. In all ways except governance, they are effectively one church.
episcopalchurch.org/page/agreement-full-comm…

The ELCA approaches this level of agreement with other communions, as well, including the PCUSA.

Jon

 

[Tomyris]

I agree about the bashing.

Thank you. I have this thing about people badmouthing others. It is unappealing, smacks strongly of ad hominem attacks, etc.

But here’s the other side of the coin. I’ve spent a fair amount of time in evangelical circles where there’s a lot of talk about the Church Fathers, the importance of tradition, etc. I went to a conference at Wheaton on that subject a few years ago. But the assumption throughout–sometimes spoken, sometimes assumed–is that the Reformation’s basic premises cannot be questioned. Evangelicals who want their fellow-evangelicals to take the pre-Reformation Church seriously have to put in an enormous amount of work to convince them that doing so won’t compromise the legacy of the Reformation.

That’s why the Reformation has to be dismantled. It’s a road block beyond which Protestants cannot go in appreciating and reappropriating the legacy of historic Christianity, and thus in moving toward greater unity with other Christians.

Of course, I don’t see it that way. I think pre-Ref Christianity can be appreciated from a Reformed view. As a side issue, I am suspicion of the emergent church as trying to co-op everything into mush.

The possibility has to be faced that the basic claims of the Reformers were, in important points, simply wrong. Luther and Calvin have to be demoted and no longer put in the same company as Irenaeus and Athanasius and Augustine. That doesn’t mean “bashing” them personally, but it does mean showing up how flawed some of their basic claims were and how radically they distorted Scripture and the legacy of the ancient Church.

Because the Reformation rests most fundamentally on the denial that the late medieval Catholic Church was proclaiming the Word and administering the Sacraments rightly, there is no way to grow gradually back into unity while retaining the Reformation’s premises. There must be a fundamental act of repentance and (partial) renunciation.

Edwin

Calvin’s statement was that it was mostly dead, not totally dead. And I think that Trent, to some extent, was an admission that the denial was correct.

IF - without getting into specifics - Calvin and Luther were wrong on something, the Catholic Church, and CAF in particular, have not done a good job of informing Protestants of those specifics. We have endless Sola Scriptura threads that go nowhere, as well as OSAS threads and I can’t–think-what-else threads, repeated over and over again, sometimes where neither side understands the other and neither really understands their own church’s teaching, let alone the other side’s. You don’t see my frown when I see something repeated for the millionth time that makes no difference. 30,000 denominations or 2, something is still wrong. I wonder if the practice of excommunicating that we saw with the Oriental Orthodox has ever been effective in restoring unity. Ok, my sympathies are towards open Communion.

 

[SteveVH]

I guess it would depend on the groups, but as an example, The ELCA and TEC are two different institutional churches, but via the “Call to Common Mission”, they are in full altar and pulpit fellowship, or full communion. Their pastors can serve in parishes of either group, the members may communion at either table. In all ways except governance, they are effectively one church.
episcopalchurch.org/page/agreement-full-comm…

The ELCA approaches this level of agreement with other communions, as well, including the PCUSA.

Jon

I understand and agree, Jon. What I am addressing is those Christian faith communities that never show up on the radar. In addition, do we consider the “non-denominational” faith communities as “denominations”? Apparently they don’t. Are they even counted?

Steve

 

[Tomyris]

I guess it would depend on the groups, but as an example, The ELCA and TEC are two different institutional churches, but via the “Call to Common Mission”, they are in full altar and pulpit fellowship, or full communion. Their pastors can serve in parishes of either group, the members may communion at either table. In all ways except governance, they are effectively one church.
episcopalchurch.org/page/agreement-full-comm…

The ELCA approaches this level of agreement with other communions, as well, including the PCUSA.

Jon

We have open Communion, which is radically different.

We also have teamed up with some churches in other denominations to do inner-city ministry. There are a number of organizations that work with the poor that are supported by a number of Christian denominations. Sometimes the Catholics are running parallel organizations; I am not sure why. I know our church helps out a poor Baptist church as well as a poor, storefront non-denominational church (although they do not have a sign in Chinese) because we are Christians, not because we agree on everything.

 

[rcwitness]

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?

It would be like you and your hubby having a fight and separating for 30yrs. And each teaching your children/grandchildren a different set of principles.

The division and “fight” was never resolved until their Communion is reconciled.