Why all the Fuss on the Reformation?

[Isaiah45_9]

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?

In a simple manner:

Because we are the children of that marriage and we are still in a custody battle.

 

[JRKH]

Thanks, James.

I shouldn’t have said discussions don’t help—sometimes they can. And sometimes the hard work of being a considerate, respectful partner in dialogue is just as much an example of rolling up one’s sleeves and getting dirty as feeding the poor in our neighborhoods. But it’s the arguments and debates, when they become adversarial rather than respectful, that are useless in giving me any more light.

I originally looked at Catholicism in hopes of shedding some light upon a resolution to some of my 20 year old issues between Judaism vs. Christianity. What I’ve learned, though, over the past 5 years is that Catholicism just made my particular intellectual problems worse (it’s complicated), so that if Catholicism was my only option in being a Christian, I don’t know what I’d do. There are many other people like me–we’ve honestly tried in good faith to believe all the CC teaches and has taught to be true, and we just can’t. If the Reformation hadn’t taken place and we had nowhere else to go as Christians, what would happen to us?

I think most of us are in fact trying to be charitable, but we have a long way to go in that regard…particularly when it comes to the idea of “in humility regard others as better than yourself”. Maybe most people here really are that humble, but to me it seems like most of us struggle with regarding those on the other side as equals in intellectual integrity, let alone as our betters.

I understand…

For myself, I came to the conclusion that I should - indeed have to - keep my faith simple because I kind of hit some of the same kind of walls you did. Yet I have not found it to be a problem to be both simple and Catholic.
I guess others cannot do this…I’m not sure why…

Peace
James

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

Because, like all divorces, the repercussions on the children are long-lasting, devastating and contrary to the unity willed by Him.

Good answer.

 

[Tomyris]

Actually I don’t think divorce is at all an apt analogy. Jesus calls us into one body (John 17) and what He puts together, no man can put asunder. We are stuck with each other FOREVER - it’s not like we all will have our own little rooms for our theological bands in which we can keep others out of fellowship.

It’s more like cousins whose parents, long ago, stopped talking to each other and taught their kids not to trust or fellowship with their cousins. ‘Cousins’ is also a bad analogy because we are of one Father, brothers and sisters really. Family feud?

The lack of charity between the Hatfields and the McCoys is noted. How do we get them to trust each other, to have faith in each other that God is working in and through them?

That being said, over the years I have seen an appalling number of what I thought were rock-solid marriages get blown to pieces. We all have. Few and far between are those couples who manage to rebuild trust and charity and put it back together after something like a string of multiple adulteries, abuse or heavy-duty stresses that violate what marriage is all about. Feuding cousins is a better analogy,

 

[Tomyris]

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

This is good, Jon. ‘Trenchant’, as PR might say.

 

[JRKH]

Actually I don’t think divorce is at all an apt analogy.

Fair enough - but “divorce” is perhaps the other extreme of the analogy you used in yoru opening post. There you compared things to an argument you and your husband had 30 years ago and that the issues were all resolved.
Yet - the issues have NOT been all resolved. And in a marriage, what does that mean?

Jesus calls us into one body (John 17) and what He puts together, no man can put asunder. We are stuck with each other FOREVER - it’s not like we all will have our own little rooms for our theological bands in which we can keep others out of fellowship.

agreed. We ARE all called to one body and what God puts together no man can put asunder.
But that said…How can one be entirely sure they ARE part of the one body? Jesus himself said that not everyone who cries “Lord Lord” will enter the kingdom.
So this - what does it mean to be a part of the one body - is just one of the issues that need to be resolved between all Christians…That is if we really want to answer Jesus prayer that we be one as He and the Father are one.

It’s more like cousins whose parents, long ago, stopped talking to each other and taught their kids not to trust or fellowship with their cousins. ‘Cousins’ is also a bad analogy because we are of one Father, brothers and sisters really. Family feud?

I don’t think cousins is necessarily a bad analogy since cousins too have a single ancestor “Father” somewhere up their family line.

The lack of charity between the Hatfields and the McCoys is noted. How do we get them to trust each other, to have faith in each other that God is working in and through them?

Two ways.

1. Acting in charity toward one another
2. Working to resolve the theological differences that keep us apart.

Peace
James

 

[Tomyris]

Fair enough - but “divorce” is perhaps the other extreme of the analogy you used in yoru opening post. There you compared things to an argument you and your husband had 30 years ago and that the issues were all resolved.

Well, sometimes I think about things and change my mind. I’ve been known to change my mind in mid-sent -no I don’t.

Yet - the issues have NOT been all resolved. And in a marriage, what does that mean?

Sometimes there IS a time to go back and talk about why that brute forced me to go to Taco Bell and consume tacos, breaking my innocent heart because I knew my destiny would have been better if I had had a Whopper. :crying::crying: after tempers have cooled and people are restored to their normal senses of eating a good-old American burger (think of apple pie and the Flag) as opposed to eating tacos, which they eat in Cuba, I suppose, so you are expressing solidarity with Fidel Castro if you go there instead of here. O the INHUMANITY OF IT ALL!!! No bias here.

agreed. We ARE all called to one body and what God puts together no man can put asunder.
But that said…How can one be entirely sure they ARE part of the one body? Jesus himself said that not everyone who cries “Lord Lord” will enter the kingdom.
So this - what does it mean to be a part of the one body - is just one of the issues that need to be resolved between all Christians…That is if we really want to answer Jesus prayer that we be one as He and the Father are one.

Agreed. Part of the trick there is to develop a commonality that we can all agree on, more than that Commies eat tacos and if you eat tacos you love Fidel. I am not sure there is a Hegelian synthesis strong enough to wrap in A and Anti-A.

I don’t think cousins is necessarily a bad analogy since cousins too have a single ancestor “Father” somewhere up their family line.

Yeah!

Two ways.

1. Acting in charity toward one another
2. Working to resolve the theological differences that keep us apart.

Peace
James

You have been talking to JonNC. Wisdom sprouts.

 

[AbideWithMe]

I understand…

For myself, I came to the conclusion that I should - indeed have to - keep my faith simple because I kind of hit some of the same kind of walls you did. Yet I have not found it to be a problem to be both simple and Catholic.
I guess others cannot do this…I’m not sure why…

Peace
James

In my case, the things that keep me from being able to be Catholic are, besides some of the more common issues, a couple of related uncommon ones. The closest I’ve come to finding someone knowledgeable addressing my concerns has been an article by Avery Cardinal Dulles, whom I much respect, but just when it seemed like he was going to take the bull by the horns he instead seemed to skirt the issue and leave it unanswered…but at least he appeared to realize it was a serious issue. (I apologize for being squirrelly in not describing the particular issue, but it’s not something that can be discussed quickly, and it’s way beyond the scope of this thread.)

At any rate, one of the reasons I started on this thread was to say that there are plenty of non-Catholics of general goodwill, such as myself, who are willing but unable (for our differing reasons) to see Catholicism as the fullness of the truth to which we should convert. If the Reformation had not happened, and we had nowhere else to go as Christians, I think some of us would be without a home.

 

[PRmerger]

Good answer.

:curtsey:

 

[PRmerger]

Actually I don’t think divorce is at all an apt analogy. Jesus calls us into one body (John 17) and what He puts together, no man can put asunder. We are stuck with each other FOREVER - it’s not like we all will have our own little rooms for our theological bands in which we can keep others out of fellowship.

Actually, Tomy, the Catholic view of divorce is quite apt.

Divorce does not actually dissolve the reality of what exists: 2 becoming 1.

That is why even if a couple divorces legally, they cannot re-marry…because they are actually still 1 in the eyes of God.

At least, in the Catholic Church that is the view.

I think in Protestant churches when one divorces it actually, truly, in the eyes of the church, dissolves what God has joined, which is why there is no prohibition on marrying again, yes?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Much of the fuss over the Reformation has shifted toward festivity. My hunch is if the brilliant Benedict was still pope that the 500th anniversary in 2017 would be eucharistic. The day of reunion is not that far off. Thank God

 

[Tomyris]

Actually, Tomy, the Catholic view of divorce is quite apt.

Divorce does not actually dissolve the reality of what exists: 2 becoming 1.

That is why even if a couple divorces legally, they cannot re-marry…because they are actually still 1 in the eyes of God.

At least, in the Catholic Church that is the view.

I think in Protestant churches when one divorces it actually, truly, in the eyes of the church, dissolves what God has joined, which is why there is no prohibition on marrying again, yes?

I don’t think there is a consensus. I wonder if the Catholic Church, by virtue of the annulment process, admits it does not know when it marries a couple whether they are really married. I don’t go for any sort of free-wheeling remarriage and on a remarriage I advocate sufficient counseling that there will be no repeat of what happened the first time.

My personal emphasis has been dealing with women whose husbands… You are a nurse; you have probably been in the ER when some of these women come in. I help them pick up the pieces and get on with their lives, and sometimes they do not make it. I leave remarriage after divorce to others - it is very complex. In that sense I am pastorally, not doctrinally oriented.

That is different, far different, from the Catholic-Protestant split. We were not husband and wife. All analogies have limits, and perhaps you can press it in terms of marriage, but the church is married to Christ, not to herself, and so cannot divorce herself. I will grant you that certain aspects of the marriage relationship are pertinent, particularly one in stress, in discussing the breakup, but not everything.

If we got together superfiicially, Protestants and Catholics, and tried to make a go of it again,and it failed, the second breakup would be far worse than the first. The issues must be resolved before there is real unity. And that needs to be real resolution, not just a wholesale abandonment of what Protestants bring to the table in favor of Catholic thought, belief, doctrine, dogma, discipline and practice.

And no, I don’t know what that would look like.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think there is a consensus.

I haven’t heard of any Protestant church that says that divorce and re-marriage is adultery.

I wonder if the Catholic Church, by virtue of the annulment process, admits it does not know when it marries a couple whether they are really married

What they proclaim is that there is the presumption that all (first) marriages are valid, until proven otherwise.

I don’t go for any sort of free-wheeling remarriage and on a remarriage I advocate sufficient counseling that there will be no repeat of what happened the first time.

How do you reconcile that view with Jesus’ statement that divorce and re-marriage is adultery?

Mark 10:10-12 He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her;
and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

 

[PRmerger]

My personal emphasis has been dealing with women whose husbands… You are a nurse; you have probably been in the ER when some of these women come in. I help them pick up the pieces and get on with their lives, and sometimes they do not make it.

It is a great tragedy indeed.

I leave remarriage after divorce to others - it is very complex.

It is difficult to adhere to Christ’s teaching, to be sure. But as for it being complex, I wouldn’t say so. The teaching is quite clear, and quite simple. What God has joined, no man can put asunder. Even if one leaves an abusive husband (and the CC professes that she, along with any children, should), legally they may be divorced, but in Truth, they are still wed…until death parts them.

The two shall become One. (And, as I like to tell my DH, I’m the one. )

In that sense I am pastorally, not doctrinally oriented.

One’s pastorship must always be grounded in truth.

Just as I wouldn’t want a physician to be pastoral at the expense of the truth of my medical condition.

That is different, far different, from the Catholic-Protestant split. We were not husband and wife. All analogies have limits, and perhaps you can press it in terms of marriage, but the church is married to Christ, not to herself, and so cannot divorce herself. I will grant you that certain aspects of the marriage relationship are pertinent, particularly one in stress, in discussing the breakup, but not everything.

Perhaps. But I was simply proferring the Catholic view of divorce which would be quite consonant with the analogy of the Prot Ref (which I keep wanting to abbreviate PR, but that would cause too much confusion, no?)

 

[Tomyris]

I haven’t heard of any Protestant church that says that divorce and re-marriage is adultery.

Really?

What they proclaim is that there is the presumption that all (first) marriages are valid, until proven otherwise.

How do you reconcile that view with Jesus’ statement that divorce and re-marriage is adultery?

Mark 10:10-12 He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her;
and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Perhaps they were never really married to begin with, or should never have been, paralleling the Catholic idea that some people really aren’t competent enough to marry.

I don’t interrogate people to find out how many times they have been married (unless I am in a situation where taking a history seems appropriate). I take those words as directed at me, in my situation, and I have enough trouble following Him without getting too involved with others, despite myself. ‘What is that to you? You follow me!’ comes to mind.

 

[PRmerger]

Really?

Does your church refuse to marry someone who’s been divorced?

Perhaps they were never really married to begin with, or should never have been, paralleling the Catholic idea that some people really aren’t competent enough to marry.

We presume all (first) marriages are valid, until proven otherwise.

That seems to be the loving (and pastoral) thing to do.

I don’t interrogate people to find out how many times they have been married (unless I am in a situation where taking a history seems appropriate). I take those words as directed at me, in my situation, and I have enough trouble following Him without getting too involved with others, despite myself. ‘What is that to you? You follow me!’ comes to mind.

Nor should you interrogate people.

However, how do you reconcile what you are proposing with Jesus’ words in Mark 10?

IOW: Do you attend weddings of folks who are divorced and marrying again, even if it is, as Jesus said, an adulterous liaison?

 

[Mystophilus]

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

NI is pretty much ethnic, now: it matters less what you think than which side of the river you were born on. Still, both that and its historical basis in an Elizabethan land-grab make it quite similar to the struggle between northern and southern Europe which, adopting the banner of religion, figured as the “Reformation”.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

because some really, really have not moved on (not looking at northern ireland at all … Much).
Because the past forms the foundations of the present.
Because history is just really interesting.
Because it can be more fun complaining about what their church said about our church than facing ordinary life.
Because we protestants still protest, in as much as we are not flocking to join the catholic church.
Because the rhetoric of the reformation still persists, q.v. The incomparable jack chick.

credo* [though Lutherans seek unity above difference]

 

[steido01]

I haven’t heard of any Protestant church that says that divorce and re-marriage is adultery.

Then you’ve either forgotten or ignored our previous conversation. That, or this means you no longer consider Lutherans to be protestant, but catholic.

 

[jeannetherese]

We are stuck with each other FOREVER -

Not necessarily. Forever is a long, long time and what we do or fail to do may well determine where we are (an who we are with) long after our mortal lives are spent.
It is because the stakes are so high, that so many people are so highly invested in the outcome.
May God bring us all to be together forever with Him.
Amen.