Why all the Fuss on the Reformation?

[Novocastrian]

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 think this might reflect a much more New World Protestant mindset. The other side of the coin is the Church of England’s (and indeed, global Anglicanism’s) current torturous attempts to maintain visible communion and basic doctrinal unity.

 

[PRmerger]

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

We believe the same thing; with just an adjustment with semantics, it’s the same teaching.

 

[PRmerger]

I tried to tell you that for most Protestants it is of no value. It produces a "So what?

Would that this were true, Tomy.

For all the times that I have offered this argument (and if you’d like, I can do a search of all my posts and offer links to the responses), I have never seen that response.

Rather, there is either the Tu Quoque fallacy that is proposed…
or the number is disputed (most commonly).

Every once in a while a Protestant with some integrity will say, “This number is indeed an obscenity and it does give me pause. It is indeed troubling.”

And that is why I continue to offer this argument, despite the fact that it makes so many bristle.

 

[benhur]

Ummmm, could it be that this event is what caused a break up of Christ’s Church?, and led to over 30,000 protestant denominations?

It’s a million denominations.

 

[benhur]

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

yes they are brethren but second class, and by CC mandate can not be fully fellowshipped with. Also, if they knowingly reject the CC, they stand in everlasting peril per other parts of catechism…But, yes brethren we are , thank you.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s a million denominations.

That’s really my view.

(And the view of Catholic apologist John Martignoni, BTW.)

biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/detail/203

and

biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/detail/204

 

[PRmerger]

yes they are brethren but second class, and by CC mandate can not be fully fellowshipped with.

Could you offer the “mandate” that says we cannot fellowship with the EO, or even with Protestants?

Also, if they knowingly reject the CC, they stand in everlasting peril per other parts of catechism…But, yes brethren we are , thank you.

Are you of the opinion that your church doesn’t say the same thing about those who reject Christ?

Or does your church teach that you can get to heaven even if you knowingly reject Jesus Christ?

It’s hard to tell, with tens of thousand of denominations, which one you belong to and what your pastor believes–so I guess I do have to ask if your pastor believes that you can get to heaven even if you knowingly reject Jesus.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Amen.
This is, IMHO, the the 600 lb gorilla in the middle of the room for protestantism.

If we allow that the goals of the reformers were noble ones…and I believe in general they they were…we are still left with the results of their experiment. The experiment being Sola Scriptura, private interpretation and decentralized authority.
These principles did not lead to a common understanding of Scripture or greater unity among Christians.
Instead, there are multiple sects each with it’s own set of doctrines and each claiming the Bible and the guidance of the Spirit as their authority.

This is the reason that I, personally, cannot be Christian and NOT be Catholic.

Peace
Jame

Respectfully, James, I think this only makes sense if someone already believes Rome has all the truth and no error and no mistakes. I could see it as possibly an end point to perhaps push someone who has no other significant problems with Catholicism over the edge toward conversion.

For those whose other problems with Catholicism remain unanswered and unsolved, I think things appear very differently. Imagine if you will that there is one church or several, each saying they are the One True Church. For the sake of hearing what I’m trying to say from standing in my shoes, pretend you find your most intellectually honest and prayerful studies, (not private interpretation of the Bible) end up leading you to believe that church or churches have taught some error, or have changed some of their teachings but maintain that there’s been no change; and additionally that church requires that members believe all it proposes for belief, or one cannot be member in good conscience.

If you (still pretending for the sake of standing in my shoes) have come to believe what I’ve described above as most likely, then it would seem preferable, IMO, for there to be numerous churches, the great majority of which do not believe they alone are the One True Church, rather than one church making a mistaken claim to be the only church which should exist.

 

[PRmerger]

Respectfully, James, I think this only makes sense if someone already believes Rome has all the truth and no error and no mistakes.

No Catholic ought to believe that.

You are operating under the misapprehension that the CC proclaims it has made no mistakes.

Were you aware that the CC professes she is imperfect?

 

[AbideWithMe]

No Catholic ought to believe that.

You are operating under the misapprehension that the CC proclaims it has made no mistakes.

Were you aware that the CC professes she is imperfect?

No, I’m not operating under that misapprehension. IIRC, Pope John Paul II apologized for some of the CC’s historic mistakes.

By “mistakes” in this context, I meant sincere mistakes in its teaching, rather than malicious or deliberately self-serving inconsistent teaching.

The misapprehension I am under, though, is that I can write clearly past my usual bedtime.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

 

[Happy_B]

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’s not only a significant part of Church History but a significant part of Western Civilization’s history as well.

Glenda

You’re right. The Catholic Church was the only Christian Church until the Protestant Reformation. The Protestant denominations all teach different and conflicting doctrines and really doubt this was the Christ’s plan for his Church.

The fact is this: Christ did establish One Church (which is visible=has authoritative structure) and in which doctrine matters and does not conflict and he promised that this Church would be with us until the end of time.

“There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.” (Eph 4:4 -7) One, one, one, one, one, one, one…7 times in one verse! This verse screams of unity!

“And I have other sheep , that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.” (John 10:16) Jesus specifically states that there is to be one flock and one leader! The belief that Christ created thousands of churches all teaching conflicting doctrines makes no sense when subjected to this verse.

Sooner or later Jesus WILL establish one flock as John says. And we-humans will see it happen one day. There will be no more divisions, no more thousands denominations…

 

[Novocastrian]

We believe the same thing; with just an adjustment with semantics, it’s the same teaching.

If you sincerely believe that, then I don’t know what more I can say. It seems self-evidently untrue, on the basis of the last thousand years of history, the present theology of the East, the hyperbolic authority claims of the Roman Church, and even the protestations of virtually every Orthodox poster I’ve come across on these forums.

I wonder if you can find an Orthodox Church that agrees with you.

 

[Novocastrian]

You’re right. The Catholic Church was the only Christian Church until the Protestant Reformation. The Protestant denominations all teach different and conflicting doctrines and really doubt this was the Christ’s plan for his Church.

Alexandria? Antioch? Constantinople? The Slavs? Georgia?

The fact is this: Christ did establish One Church (which is visible=has authoritative structure) and in which doctrine matters and does not conflict and he promised that this Church would be with us until the end of time.

I agree. So do most Protestants. But something went wrong. Not Christ; he is ever faithful in his promises. Sinful man has divided the Church.

“And I have other sheep , that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.” (John 10:16) Jesus specifically states that there is to be one flock and one leader! The belief that Christ created thousands of churches all teaching conflicting doctrines makes no sense when subjected to this verse.

Yep. But that leader is the shepherd, and in John 10 the shepherd is Jesus.

Sooner or later Jesus WILL establish one flock as John says. And we-humans will see it happen one day. There will be no more divisions, no more thousands denominations…

Amen. May he come soon!

 

[Happy_B]

Yep. But that leader is the shepherd, and in John 10 the shepherd is Jesus.

Yes, the shepherd is Jesus, it’s clear of course. And he doesn’t want the divided church, that’s why he said he will establish one flock meaning no more denominations.

 

[PRmerger]

If you sincerely believe that, then I don’t know what more I can say. It seems self-evidently untrue, on the basis of the last thousand years of history, the present theology of the East, the hyperbolic authority claims of the Roman Church, and even the protestations of virtually every Orthodox poster I’ve come across on these forums.

I wonder if you can find an Orthodox Church that agrees with you.

 

[PRmerger]

https://imgur.com/HurrjOo

Heh. That’s one of my faves.

 

[steido01]

If you sincerely believe that, then I don’t know what more I can say. It seems self-evidently untrue, on the basis of the last thousand years of history, the present theology of the East, the hyperbolic authority claims of the Roman Church, and even the protestations of virtually every Orthodox poster I’ve come across on these forums.

I wonder if you can find an Orthodox Church that agrees with you.

:yup: This is a fantastic post that raises the simplest and most obvious objection to the absurd turn this thread has taken. If ever there was a post that deserved a real response, this would be it. I hope someone engages you in actual discussion. I won’t hold my breath, though; triumphalism’s call appears too intoxicating.

 

[PRmerger]

No, I’m not operating under that misapprehension. IIRC, Pope John Paul II apologized for some of the CC’s historic mistakes.

By “mistakes” in this context, I meant sincere mistakes in its teaching, rather than malicious or deliberately self-serving inconsistent teaching.

The misapprehension I am under, though, is that I can write clearly past my usual bedtime.

Just so we’re on the same page about how the Church views herself (bold mine):

“The Church on earth is endowed already with a sanctity that is real though imperfect.” In her members perfect holiness is something yet to be acquired: “Strengthened by so many and such great means of salvation, all the faithful, whatever their condition or state - though each in his own way - are called by the Lord to that perfection of sanctity by which the Father himself is perfect.”—CCC 825

 

[AbideWithMe]

Just so we’re on the same page about how the Church views herself (bold mine):

“The Church on earth is endowed already with a sanctity that is real though imperfect.” In her members perfect holiness is something yet to be acquired: “Strengthened by so many and such great means of salvation, all the faithful, whatever their condition or state - though each in his own way - are called by the Lord to that perfection of sanctity by which the Father himself is perfect.”—CCC 825

Yes–understood and agreed, particularly as I’m from a Wesleyan Methodist/Holiness church upbringing and practice.