Why all the Fuss on the Reformation?

[Per_Crucem]

Muslim: You guys can’t even agree on how to run the Church. Clearly this shows the absurdity of the Christian religion! Now if you would all just obey the Qu’ran and the Prophet…

Yep.

Or, a variant: Orthodox and Catholics can’t even agree what papal authority or conciliar authority means, etc.

As I said earlier…trying to look spiffy in a debate, while relying on a prima faciae argument. Doesn’t help their case much.

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

When ever I have debated the validity of the Catholic Church with Protestants of which ever denomination, their focus almost always goes to sinful acts by persons or groups within the church, I believe this is because the Theology ( Faith ) that is taught by the church can not be successfully challenged by their particular denominations teaching. This is one of the reasons, I believe, why many protestant academics have crossed the Tiber to Rome ( Knox, Chesterton, Newman ) to name just a few. Once the bigotry and prejudice is overcome and a truly objective perspective is taken Catholic theology stands strong while nearly all other theologies put forward are seen as a watering down of some aspect of this truth. However the Church as an institution is made up of human beings and as such is not immune and displays every aspect of the humane condition which is how it should be.

 

[GKC]

When ever I have debated the validity of the Catholic Church with Protestants of which ever denomination, their focus almost always goes to sinful acts by persons or groups within the church, I believe this is because the Theology ( Faith ) that is taught by the church can not be successfully challenged by their particular denominations teaching. This is one of the reasons, I believe, why many protestant academics have crossed the Tiber to Rome ( Knox, Chesterton, Newman ) to name just a few. Once the bigotry and prejudice is overcome and a truly objective perspective is taken Catholic theology stands strong while nearly all other theologies put forward are seen as a watering down of some aspect of this truth. However the Church as an institution is made up of human beings and as such is not immune and displays every aspect of the humane condition which is how it should be.

Chesterton was not an academic. He was a journalist.

GKC

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

Chesterton was not an academic. He was a journalist.

GKC

My mistake, perhaps I should of used a broader brush by saying intellectual.

 

[GKC]

My mistake, perhaps I should of used a broader brush by saying intellectual.

He would deny that, too, but I wouldn’t.

GKC

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

Why all the Fuss on the Reformation?
I think the title of the thread says it all. Protestants see themselves as the true reformers and as such the real inheritors of the apostolic faith. Catholics 500 years ago and today have a different view.

 

[PRmerger]

No disagreement there. However, it doesn’t solve the problem if those tens of thousands of denominations disappear, you’re still left with two church bodies (at least, not counting the OO, the PNCC, the OC’s, etc.) that disagree with each other about fundamental dogma.

Actually, we don’t disagree about fundamental dogma. We agree on practically everything, save for the supremacy of the pope.

Everything else is a matter of semantics. Eastern vs western ways to say the same thing (re; original sin, the immaculate conception, purgatory)

So while it’s a testament to sinfulness, it’s also a testament that supposedly infallible councils and bishops are no better at resolving disputes over doctrine.

Jimmy Akin addressed this objection quite eloquently here:

Because of the difficulties with the “unity in essentials” argument, its advocates typically do not attempt to defend it on its merits. Instead, they commonly resort to a form of tu quoque (Latin, “You are also!”) argument in which they attempt to tar Catholics with similar disunity.

For example, they might say, “Look at the Dominicans and the Jesuits. They typically hold different views of predestination. This shows that Catholics as well as Protestants disagree on essentials, and thus are no more credible than Protestants.”

In response, a number of points may be made: First, Catholicism has a functioning magisterium that can decide that these matters are not essential differences. Second, the relevant schools adhere to the teachings of the magisterium and, if their views were reprobated, would accept the results (or cease to be faithful Catholics). Third, the differences between Catholic schools of thought have nowhere near the magnitude of the difference among Protestant schools. Compared to the differences among Protestant groups, differences among orthodox Catholic groups are trivial. Finally, the fact that the Catholic Church has a magisterium means that there can be—and on the most important theological matters there is—an official Catholic position. There is no parallel standard in Protestant circles that can speak for Protestantism.

Other times, advocates of the “unity in essentials” argument will attempt to construct a parallel argument against Catholics by pointing to the existence of ostensible Catholics who refuse to acknowledge the magisterium’s teachings.

In response, it should be pointed out that the difference among Catholic dissidents is frequently far less than among individuals in the sweep of Protestant belief. Furthermore, individuals’ refusal to accept the magisterium’s teachings does not challenge the Christ-given authority of the magisterium any more than the refusal to accept some of Paul’s teachings undermines Paul’s authority as an apostle. Moreover, Protestant churches also have individuals who refuse to honor the teachings of their denominations. The difference is that for Catholicism there is a body—the bishops teaching in union with the pope—who “speak for the Church” and who can articulate what “the Catholic position” is, while in Protestantism there is nothing comparable.
eboards4all.com/813467/messages/88993.html

 

[JRKH]

More like the 600 lb record in the room that keeps skipping any time Catholics engage in dialogue with non-Catholics, almost as if it’s an on-queue script that issued to apologists and Catholic converts. Of course, that it makes dialogue meaningless and impossible with non-Catholics is largely irrelevant.

Well - I am sorry that this is your take on the matter.
In my case (and I am no apologist) it is simply a very significant fact in my own journey. It’s not something that I was taught by anyone it is something that I came to on my own. That being the case, what else can I do but share my own experience and conclusions?

As for it being a bar to meaningful dialogue, I don’t see why it should be - except that the other party is unwilling to address it. Personally I love having such conversations with people, protestants, willing to address these issues.

Actually what I have more often found to be a bar to conversation is the fact that I am Catholic. When a protestant knows I’m a Catholic who wants to discuss what the bible says about authority etc…they get all defensive like I’m trying to convert them or something. then they make a comment similar to the one below instead of joining me in looking into what Scripture says.

And singular authorities within an infallible, apostolic body is the greatest force for unity in Scriptural and Traditional interpretation - said no Orthodox, Old Catholic, Polish Catholic or other apostolic body, ever.

Interesting comment - but it hardly addresses the problem for the “Sola Scriptura” protestant who both claims to follow Scripture - to be “bible based” and yet ignores the bibles instructions on how to deal with doctrinal disagreements.

Peace
James

 

[Novocastrian]

Actually, we don’t disagree about fundamental dogma. We agree on practically everything, save for the supremacy of the pope.

Even if that were true (see how the Orthodox feel about the filioque, or the Latin understanding of Original Sin, or the permissibility of divorce and remarriage) it would still be a disagreement regarding fundamental dogma. The absolute jurisdictional power of the Pope, and his doctrinal authority, are dogmas of the Roman Church defined to be held definitively, de fide, by all Christians. Hard to see what could be more fundamental than that!

 

[PRmerger]

Muslim: You guys can’t even agree on how to run the Church. Clearly this shows the absurdity of the Christian religion! Now if you would all just obey the Qu’ran and the Prophet…

This question posed by a Muslim to a Protestant would, indeed, be a trenchant and unanswerable one. For when a Protestant disagrees with someone about a particular doctrine, he is merely being a good Protestant and following in the paradigm of the Reformers. He is, in fact, being a Protesting Protestant Reformer.

But a Catholic can simply say: we do not espouse the beliefs that the Christians who have broken away espouse, which is, namely, “We do not need to defer to the authority of any Church to tell us what to believe.”

Thus, a Protestant is being a** good Protestant** when he “protests” against any particular doctrine du jour.

A Catholic, however, is being a **bad Catholic **when he protests against any particular doctrine du jour.

(NB: good and *bad *here ought to be understood only insofar as being referents to Protestant or Catholic. It is not to be understood as any proclamation about the status of their souls, their eternal destinations, or their inherent dignity as children of God.)

 

[Novocastrian]

This question posed by a Muslim to a Protestant would, indeed, be a trenchant and unanswerable one. For when a Protestant disagrees with someone about a particular doctrine, he is merely being a good Protestant and following in the paradigm of the Reformers. He is, in fact, being a Protesting Protestant Reformer.

But a Catholic can simply say: we do not espouse the beliefs that the Christians who have broken away espouse, which is, namely, “We do not need to defer to the authority of any Church to tell us what to believe.”

Thus, a Protestant is being a** good Protestant** when he “protests” against any particular doctrine du jour.

A Catholic, however, is being a **bad Catholic **when he protests against any particular doctrine du jour.

(NB: good and *bad *here ought to be understood only insofar as being referents to Protestant or Catholic. It is not to be understood as any proclamation about the status of their souls, their eternal destinations, or their inherent dignity as children of God.)

I don’t understand why you persist in this caricature of Protestantism. Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot to criticise, but actually do so. How many Protestants do you think actually believe that no Church has any authority? Because that’s what you’re claiming.

My point still stands. If you’re going to say that the disunity of a group, in and of itself, is indicative of falsehood, then this can be applied to Christianity writ large.

 

[PRmerger]

Even if that were true (see how the Orthodox feel about the filioque, or the Latin understanding of Original Sin, or the permissibility of divorce and remarriage) it would still be a disagreement regarding fundamental dogma. The absolute jurisdictional power of the Pope, and his doctrinal authority, are dogmas of the Roman Church defined to be held definitively, de fide, by all Christians. Hard to see what could be more fundamental than that!

I could name quite a few more fundamental dogmas:

(and, of course, it goes without saying: to which the EO conform perfectly to us)

Belief in God’s existence
Belief in God’s omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence
Belief that God is Love
Belief that God is creator of all that is material and immaterial
Belief in One God, who is Father almighty and Creator of Heaven and Earth.
Belief that the world was made for the glory of God and that He freely chose to create to show forth & communicate his glory, his unlimited love and goodness
Belief in Heaven
Belief in Hell
Belief that “God upholds and sustains creation, is actively involved in its unfolding and development in time, and is the loving master of the world and of its history” (CCC 301)
Belief in God as the first cause of all creation
Belief that Science and Revelation cannot contradict
Belief that God created man and woman in His image and likeness and that we are the summit of creation
Belief in the Eucharist as the Real Presence of Christ
God deliberately created man, male and female, in his image and likeness and placed him at the summit of creation
Belief that man and woman have been created, "which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. “Being man” or “being woman” is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator. Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity “in the image of God”. In their “being-man” and “being-woman”, they reflect the Creator’s wisdom and goodness. (CCC 369)
Belief that while the creation accounts in Genesis may use symbolic language, it teaches profound truths about creation, man, the fall, evil, and the promise of salvation. (289, 389-90)
Belief that the devil, a fallen angel, is real and that he is the ultimate source of all evil. (391-5, 413-15)
Belief that Adam, as the first man, freely chose disobedience to God, resulting in the loss of man’s original holiness and justice, and brought about death. We call this state of deprivation original sin. (416-19)
Belief that the victory of salvation won by Christ is greater than our loss due to sin. (420)
Belief that the question of evil is a profound mystery. Every aspect of the Christian message is in part an answer to the question of evil. (309)
Belief in Jesus Christ, the 2nd Person of the Trinity.
Belief in Christ’s divine sonship is the center of the apostolic faith. (442)
Belief in the title “Lord” indicates that Jesus is God himself. (446, 455)
Belief in Jesus is the “Christ,” the Messiah prophesied about in Scripture in the Old Testament. His coming brought about the promised liberation of Israel and mankind from the bonds of evil and death. (422-4, 430-3, 436, 438-9)
Belief that Christ is the perfect, full & definitive Revelation of God. After him, there will be no other public Revelation. (73)
Belief that Jesus, the Word of God, became man to save us by reconciling us with the Father, so that we might know God’s love, to be our model of holiness, and to make us “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4). (457-60)
Belief in the Incarnation (the Son of God come in human flesh) is the distinctive sign of the Christian faith. (463)
Belief that Jesus assumed human form in the womb of the Virgin Mary, his mother. The conception of his human body was accomplished by the action of the Holy Spirit, and not by natural generation from man, although he is truly conceived of Mary’s flesh. (456, 466, 484-6, 488, 496-8)
Belief that Jesus is fully God, and fully man. As God, he has always existed with the Father and the Holy Spirit. At a specific point in history, he assumed human form and became man. He retains both of these natures fully, even now in heaven. (464, 467, 469-70)
Belief that Through his suffering and death, Jesus redeemed man once & for all, freeing him from slavery to sin, evil, and death. It is for our sins that he died. (571-3, 619, 1019)
Belief that “Jesus freely offered himself for our salvation. Beforehand, during the Last Supper, he both symbolized this offering and made it really present: ‘This is my body which is given for you.’” (621)
Belief that as a true man, Jesus fully experienced death. (624-7, 629)
Belief that Jesus did not abolish the Law of the Old Testament, but fulfilled it with perfection, revealing its ultimate meaning and redeeming the transgressions against it. (592)
Belief that the Resurrection was a real, historical event. It is the basis for our faith in all Jesus revealed to us. Jesus rose from the dead, body and soul, early on the Sunday morning after his death. He walked the earth for a brief time, and there were many witnesses of his appearances. (638-9)
Belief that at the same time as the Resurrection was an historical event, it remains at the heart of the mystery of faith as something that transcends and surpasses history. (647)
Belief that after the Resurrection, Jesus’s authentic, real body also possesses new properties of a glorious body. (645)
Belief that the Resurrection is the principle and source of our own future resurrection. (655)source for much of the above
cont’d

 

[PRmerger]

Cont’d from above

Belief in the Holy Spirit.
Belief that man responds to God’s revelation by faith
Belief that Faith is necessary for salvation.
Belief in the Sacred Scriptures as being the inspired Word of God
Belief that what was taught to the Apostles has been reliably written & handed down to us through the paradosis via the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Belief in the redemption of mankind through the incarnation, passion, death and resurrection of Jesus.
Belief in the 7 sacraments
Belief in a ministerial priesthood

I could go on, but I am getting tired.

Those, sir, are more fundamental than what you proposed.

And it doesn’t even scratch the surface of where we, the EO and the CC, agree.

 

[Novocastrian]

Cont’d from above

Belief in the Holy Spirit.
Belief that man responds to God’s revelation by faith
Belief that Faith is necessary for salvation.
Belief in the Sacred Scriptures as being the inspired Word of God
Belief that what was taught to the Apostles has been reliably written & handed down to us through the paradosis via the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Belief in the redemption of mankind through the incarnation, passion, death and resurrection of Jesus.
Belief in the 7 sacraments
Belief in a ministerial priesthood

I could go on, but I am getting tired.

Those, sir, are more fundamental than what you proposed.

And it doesn’t even scratch the surface of where we, the EO and the CC, agree.

Great; and most Protestants would agree with most of them.

But the fact is, that the Orthodox are heretics to you, and you are heretics to them, because of the things I mentioned. Indeed, Papal Infallibility alone is enough to ensure a dogmatic breach; you insist on its being held, de fide, as a necessary element of the catholic and orthodox faith. And they don’t. According to Rome, the Orthodox, for all that they’re *quite *close, are not Catholic and orthodox Christians.

 

[PRmerger]

My point still stands. If you’re going to say that the disunity of a group, in and of itself, is indicative of falsehood, then this can be applied to Christianity writ large.

Perhaps if you could provide a more nuanced explication of what you believe we Catholics are attempting to show by pointing out the existence of tens of thousands of Christian denominations it would be helpful.

You believe that our argument is that since there are so many Christian deominations…what?

 

[PRmerger]

Great; and most Protestants would agree with most of them.

Would that you had only 1 fundamental disagreement with us, like the EO.

 

[PRmerger]

But the fact is, that the Orthodox are heretics to you,

No, Novo. We are in schism. We do not call them heretics.

In fact, we call them our brother and sisters in Christ.

Perhaps you were unaware of what our Catechism teaches? We profess that we "cannot charge with the sin of separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 818

 

[Novocastrian]

Would that you had only 1 fundamental disagreement with us, like the EO.

Like I said, look again at that claim. Think about the filioque, think about the Latin doctrines of original sin and grace, etc.

 

[Novocastrian]

No, Novo. We are in schism. We do not call them heretics.

In fact, we call them our brother and sisters in Christ.

Perhaps you were unaware of what our Catechism teaches? We profess that we "cannot charge with the sin of separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 818

Unam Sanctam, Boniface VIII, 1302
…]

If, then, the Greeks or others say that they were not committed to the care of Peter and his successors, they necessarily confess that they are not of the sheep of Christ; for the Lord says, in John, that there is one fold, one shepherd, and one only.

…]

Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Pastor Aeternus, First Vatican Council, 1870

…] Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God Our Saviour, the exaltation of the Catholic Religion, and the salvation of Christian people, the Sacred Council approving, We teach and define that it is a divinely-revealed dogma: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex Cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals: and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.

But if anyone – God forbid – should presume to contradict this Our definition; let him be anathema.

Thus speaks the Roman Magisterium. Against, it must be noted, the Greeks and Russians as much as the Protestants.

 

[Tomyris]

It is quite effective to offer questions to Protestants that can’t be answered.

I tried to tell you that for most Protestants it is of no value. It produces a “So what? We are free of forced authority and tyranny.” “Our unity is found in Christ, not in man.” “Church unity is not found in forced requirements for belief.” I’ve heard arguments to the praise of denominationalism, that it slows down the spread of false teaching. “People are free to believe, free to gather to worship in the way they believe God desires them to believe - not in a system forced on them by people now long dead who lived in a far off country.” You simply do not address Protestants where we are at. You speak expecting us to react as Catholics would. Sorry.

Most Protestants simply don’t care. The argument is of appeal only to those who are already convinced by it.

Perhaps it will make them go…

At the very least, any intellectually honest seeker will pause to consider the question, and understand that these questions will have no answer, unless one answers through the lens of the CC.

All true Scotsmen, eh? Anyone who disagrees with you is intellectually dishonest? Is that what you are saying?

You are looking at the situation through Rome-colored lenses so much that I do not think you grasp that there can be any validity in any other position. It is hard to have a discussion then.