Why all the Fuss on the Reformation?

[rcwitness]

lol. Where in the world do you find this stuff?

I’ve wondered the same thing many times.

 

[Contarini]

Personally I don’t find the listing of thousands of denominations helpful at all. For one thing there are too many to keep track of, and as others have noted the differences are often very small.

It is more helpful for me to think of them as denominational ‘families’. But the Catholic church is not a denomination, it is the first church that others have splintered from.

The denominational families I think of are these:

The Anglican family.

The Lutheran family.

The Presbyterian/Reformed family.

The Methodist/Holiness family.

The Baptist family.

The Pentecostal family.

The Restorationist family which would include the Disciples of Christ, independent Christian churches, and the thousands of congregations calling themselves Church of Christ.

Originally I came from a Holiness church of the Nazarene mother and Church of Christ father family.

Right. And typically each of these needs to be divided at least three ways, usually more.

There may be thousands of divisions–as PRMerger says, if just a few doctrinal issues were mixed in very possible permutation (though that’s not really how it works) you would easily get thousands.

But it’s surely a better approach to stick with what can actually be shown.

Actually, the permutation argument could backfire. If it could be shown that only a few of the possible permutations have actually occurred, that could be seen as support for sola scriptura (I think that there would be better ways to explain this, but I could see Protestants making that argument and further complicating the issue).

It seems more reasonable to say hundreds, which I think is easy to show and makes the point fine.

Also, as I’ve said earlier, some attention has to be paid to how big each group is and how far it has or has not followed the norms of the Protestant group you happen to be arguing against at any given moment.

For instance, the Reformed version of sola scriptura insists on the importance of scholarship and “a due use of the ordinary means.” If some uneducated guy walks out into the woods with a Bible and has a vision from God (while reading Isaiah) saying that everyone should go naked, and founds a church based on that belief, this hardly counts against sola scriptura.

Here and with the canonical issue, specific arguments work better than general ones, I think.

Edwin

 

[Denise1957]

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.

You’ve asked some good questions. Or maybe you meant them to be rhetorical.

In any case, having unity in the face of doctrinal disagreements is not possible. It isn’t as if any of us Catholics here can proclaim that there’s unity if we personally decide that that’s how it should be. It’s not something that any of us can decide. It’s up to the Catholic hierarchy (including and especially the Pope) to make that determination. Pope Benedict worked quietly behind the scenes to come to an agreement with those Anglicans who wanted to cross the Tiber; hence the Anglican Ordinariate was born - which I was very happy to see. That’s one way in which true unity can be achieved. Otherwise, there are ways that Catholics and Protestants can work together to work for positive change, such as in pro-life work.

There are indeed disagreements within Catholicism; however, I’m not aware of a real disagreement between Molinists and Thomists. Aren’t the Molinists mostly Calvinists? And besides, most of the time, the disagreements don’t lead to a breakaway, as was the case with Luther and Calvin.

 

[Denise1957]

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.

Could you explain what you mean here by the problem of unity between the “ultramontane,” and those who reject the papacy as a first principle? I’m not quite getting it. Do you think that Catholics are essentially ultramontane, or that just some Catholics are ultramontane?

I think that all non-Catholics reject the papacy - though I’m not sure if all of them see it as a first principle.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

The topic please

 

[PRmerger]

Because some really, really have not moved on (not looking at Northern Ireland at all … much).

That dispute is essentially political. I think doctrinal disagreement probably contributes to about 0.001% of the conflict.

 

[Auntie_A]

That dispute is essentially political. I think doctrinal disagreement probably contributes to about 0.001% of the conflict.

Perhaps that is true now but I think your percentage is quite small, and, more important, the roots of the Troubles in Ireland stemmed from the Reformation, at the heart of this thread topic.

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps that is true now but I think your percentage is quite small, and, more important, the roots of the Troubles in Ireland stemmed from the Reformation, at the heart of this thread topic.

Well, I think this example, the conflict in Northern Ireland, is a perfect example of what the OP was referring to. IOW: “Let’s move on, folks, regarding what happened 500 years ago!”

But as it applies to Christianity today, and the devastating repercussions of what happened 500 years ago, well, that’s a different story. That, indeed, needs to be addressed at its core so that we can mend and unite.

 

[JonNC]

Well, I think this example, the conflict in Northern Ireland, is a perfect example of what the OP was referring to. IOW: “Let’s move on, folks, regarding what happened 500 years ago!”

But as it applies to Christianity today, and the devastating repercussions of what happened 500 years ago, well, that’s a different story. That, indeed, needs to be addressed at its core so that we can mend and unite.

So, on two fronts.

1. What happened 500 years ago is important, and searching for solutions that will lead to unity is critical.
2. In the meantime, what happened 500 years ago should not impact how we treat each other, that we recognize the Holy Spirit in each other, and accept each other as siblings in Christ, while we allow our leaders to handle number 1.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

So, on two fronts.

1. What happened 500 years ago is important, and searching for solutions that will lead to unity is critical.

Yes, sir.

1. In the meantime, what happened 500 years ago should not impact how we treat each other, that we recognize the Holy Spirit in each other, and accept each other as siblings in Christ, while we allow our leaders to handle number 1.

Jon

Indeed.

And I add

1. On a forum which discusses religion it is perfectly acceptable to muse, chew the fat, ruminate, pontificate, wax eloquent, discuss, consider, debate the repercussions of this Great Divorce.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, sir.

Indeed.

And I add

1. On a forum which discusses religion it is perfectly acceptable to muse, chew the fat, ruminate, pontificate, wax eloquent, discuss, consider, debate the repercussions of this Great Divorce.

Agreed. And every Lutheran (at least) here is obliged to try to do so keeping in mind Luther’s commentary on the 8th Commandment from the Small Catechism:
** We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, [think and] speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything. **
To the degree I have failed in this, I ask forgiveness.
Jon

 

[SteveVH]

Agreed. And every Lutheran (at least) here is obliged to try to do so keeping in mind Luther’s commentary on the 8th Commandment from the Small Catechism:
** We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, [think and] speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything. **
To the degree I have failed in this, I ask forgiveness.
Jon

From what I have seen over these past few years, you have little about which to worry, Jon. You are among the most knowledgeable, reasonable and charitable posters on this forum.

Steve

 

[PRmerger]

From what I have seen over these past few years, you have little about which to worry, Jon. You are among the most knowledgeable, reasonable and charitable posters on this forum.

Steve

:yup::tiphat::bowdown:

 

[onenow1]

Yes, sir.

Indeed.

And I add

1. On a forum which discusses religion it is perfectly acceptable to muse, chew the fat, ruminate, pontificate, wax eloquent, discuss, consider, debate the repercussions of this Great Divorce.

The reformation just keeps on reforming as if it is God’s plan; Maybe to get to the truth this had to happen. I suppose you have to know what is wrong before you know what is right I think diablo is in the details, confuse, confuse, confuse again.

God Bless
onenow1

 

[JonNC]

You are both very kind.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

The reformation just keeps on reforming as if it is God’s plan; Maybe** to get to the truth **this had to happen. I suppose you have to know what is wrong before you know what is right I think diablo is in the details, confuse, confuse, confuse again.

God Bless
onenow1

Not sure what you’re saying but I have to take exception to your comment in bold–we already had the Truth in the CC.

That some folks did not abide by this Truth and caused some folks to divorce themselves from this Truth is a great tragedy indeed.

But that doesn’t mean that the Reformation had to occur in order to “get to the truth”.

 

[onenow1]

Not sure what you’re saying but I have to take exception to your comment in bold–we already had the Truth in the CC.

That some folks did not abide by this Truth and caused some folks to divorce themselves from this Truth is a great tragedy indeed.

But that doesn’t mean that the Reformation had to occur in order to “get to the truth”.

What I meant was this could be God’s way of reacting to this movement; He knows all things He does not interfere with mans will, but it will be set straight in His time. The church will be one Holy Catholic and Apostolic again with all that the Father has given to Jesus. Hopefully the whole world ! My bad on the truth phrase !

God Bless
onenow1

 

[SteveVH]

What I meant was this could be God’s way of reacting to this movement; He knows all things He does not interfere with mans will, but it will be set straight in His time. The church will be one Holy Catholic and Apostolic again with all that the Father has given to Jesus. Hopefully the whole world ! My bad on the truth phrase !

God Bless
onenow1

The Church has never ceased to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic. There will always be those who are faithful to this Church and there will always be those who reject it.

 

[onenow1]

The Church has never ceased to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic. There will always be those who are faithful to this Church and there will always be those who reject it.

My bad again, thank you.

 

[SteveVH]

My bad again, thank you.

No worries.