Why all the Fuss on the Reformation?

[Per_Crucem]

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)

Tell that to the Orthodox.

You wouldn’t consider the role of the Pope, his powers and privileges to be fundamental dogma?

The East has no comparable dogma to purgatory. They deny original sin, therefore, see no need for the immaculate conception. Though they agree she did not sin, they believe she was conceived in the same way as every other person.

Be that as it may, you still disagree on dogma.

 

[Contarini]

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.

You’re being unfair. Catholics do not regard the differences with the Orthodox as fundamental. The Orthodox typically do.

This isn’t just a post-Vatican-II view. The very triumphalist and frequently polemical Catholic Encyclopedia speaks as if the differences aren’t that big, and quotes Leo XIII to that effect.

Obviously papal authority is the one big exception to this, but papal authority is, for Catholics, the fullest development of the basic belief in an authoritative, divinely guided Church. The Orthodox share that belief. So while there is a doctrinal difference, Catholics (and some ecumenical Orthodox) believe that it isn’t a huge one.

Anglicans and many other ecumenical Protestants often say the same thing about Catholicism. It’s simply a matter of how one weighs the various points of difference.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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?

That point is indeed often unclear. But surely it’s your job to make it clear?

 

[JRKH]

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.

Regarding the bolded:
I find this a most interesting perspective…I would like to know where people get this idea of “forced unity” from. It is alien to me. Is this notion (presumably directed at Rome) one that is truly held by a significant number of protestants?

Peace
James

 

[Contarini]

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.

Well, you’ve heard it twice now. Once from Tomyris and once from me, although in my case I’m reporting a position with which I strongly disagree, but which I have often heard Protestants put forward.

If you want to see the case worked out in detail, see Alister McGrath’s Christianity’s Dangerous Idea.

The tu quoque is, of course, an attempt to show that the kind of complete unity you reproach the Protestants for lacking is impossible.

It would be helpful to follow up that line of argument further, to discern how Catholics and Protestants are defining unity differently. Evangelical Protestants, for instance, often think Catholics should be much more bothered than they are by the fact that there are so many dissenters to Catholic teaching within the visible bounds of the Catholic Church. Catholics think Protestants should be much more bothered than they are by organizational disunity and the wide variation in doctrinal standards. And so on.

Instead of trying to score points against each other (as your argument seems to be doing), it might be helpful to phrase arguments in such a way as to bring to light the different premises on each side, so that we can understand each other better.

And sometimes that will, indeed, lead to persuasion and conversion.

Edwin

 

[JRKH]

Probably too late to introduce another aspect of the Original topic thrust…but…

I think that the frustration felt by the OP would be echoed in Catholic circles with “Fuss” over the whole “whore of Babylon”, “bad popes”, “crusades” “inquisition” etc. topics.
As the OP mentioned in a post…all of this was long ago…why can’t we move on?

Obviously there are protestants out there who feel these are pertinent things to bring up and discuss - even though Catholics would prefer to move on.

Just a thought that might help us all to put the general conversation in perspective…

Peace
James

 

[Novocastrian]

You’re being unfair. Catholics do not regard the differences with the Orthodox as fundamental. The Orthodox typically do.

I ought to be more nuanced, but I’m not sure I’m being unfair. What PRM is claiming is quite similar to the claims that EvangelCatholic makes regarding the relationship between Rome and the Lutherans. That is, emphasising points of genuine doctrinal closeness (which is in itself admirable, and for which I commend him) to the extent that differences are unduly ignored. This is bad history and bad theology.

This isn’t just a post-Vatican-II view. The very triumphalist and frequently polemical Catholic Encyclopedia speaks as if the differences aren’t that big, and quotes Leo XIII to that effect.

I’d say it’s symptomatic of the triumphalism. Rome’s line, at least since Pio Nono’s Epistle to the Easterns, is that the Orthodox are just disobedient Catholics. I could say more on this topic, but I think I’d probably end up being more polemical than is charitable of useful here. Suffice to say that I think Rome’s authority claims are, in and of themselves, sufficient for a major dogmatic breach between Rome and the Orthodox East.

Obviously papal authority is the one big exception to this, but papal authority is, for Catholics, the fullest development of the basic belief in an authoritative, divinely guided Church. The Orthodox share that belief. So while there is a doctrinal difference, Catholics (and some ecumenical Orthodox) believe that it isn’t a huge one.

Just because people work from the same basic premises doesn’t mean that their conclusions can’t be vastly different. This is true on the macro-scale of most Christian doctrinal divisions.

Anglicans and many other ecumenical Protestants often say the same thing about Catholicism. It’s simply a matter of how one weighs the various points of difference.

True. I’d go so far as to say that most mainstream Christians confess, at least in theory, the essence of the Catholic Faith in subscribing to the oecumenical creeds. But at the same time, I’d recognise huge dogmatic differences between Rome and Wittenberg, Constantinople and Alexandria/Cairo, Moscow and Geneva, etc.

 

[Contarini]

I ought to be more nuanced, but I’m not sure I’m being unfair. What PRM is claiming is quite similar to the claims that EvangelCatholic makes regarding the relationship between Rome and the Lutherans. That is, emphasising points of genuine doctrinal closeness (which is in itself admirable, and for which I commend him) to the extent that differences are unduly ignored. This is bad history and bad theology.

It may be bad history, but that doesn’t make it bad theology. That is to say, even if EvangelCatholic’s version of Lutheranism is out of the mainstream of historic Lutheranism, that doesn’t make it a mistaken position. EC just needs to be clearer on the ways in which historic Lutheranism doesn’t support that position. (I am putting this forward tentatively and not as a serious criticism of EC’s posts. But the Finnish interpretation of Luther and/or the approach of someone like David Yeago is, in my opinion, historically flawed while being theologically praiseworthy. Much the same would be true of the Anglo-Catholic movement in Anglicanism.)

However, PRMerger didn’t make any historical claims that I saw, and her basic approach goes back more or less to the Council of Florence in the fifteenth century, as the CE article I cited indicates.

So I’m not sure her argument is even bad history.

What is clear is that she doesn’t speak for most of the Orthodox. But she didn’t claim to.

I’d say it’s symptomatic of the triumphalism. Rome’s line, at least since Pio Nono’s Epistle to the Easterns, is that the Orthodox are just disobedient Catholics. I could say more on this topic, but I think I’d probably end up being more polemical than is charitable of useful here. Suffice to say that I think Rome’s authority claims are, in and of themselves, sufficient for a major dogmatic breach between Rome and the Orthodox East.

And I disagree. I think that ecumenical theologians on both sides (most notably Olivier Clement among the Orthodox) have pointed to constructive ways forward, and a good many Orthodox ignore or rage against these suggestions, without, it seems to me, substantive reasons for doing so.

I wasn’t exculpating Catholics of the charge of triumphalism–the CE is extremely triumphalist. I was simply arguing that this “minimize the differences” approach goes back centuries and is a fair representation of the Catholic position.

Just because people work from the same basic premises doesn’t mean that their conclusions can’t be vastly different. This is true on the macro-scale of most Christian doctrinal divisions.

True. But my point is that the precise role of the papacy within the body of the Church which the Holy Spirit is guiding into all truth is, while important, a relatively fine point. Catholics have not always seen it that way, true. And insofar as their language toward the Orthodox conflicts with the way Catholics often talk about the papacy, I’d like to see the latter give way more and more to the former.

True. I’d go so far as to say that most mainstream Christians confess, at least in theory, the essence of the Catholic Faith in subscribing to the oecumenical creeds. But at the same time, I’d recognise huge dogmatic differences between Rome and Wittenberg, Constantinople and Alexandria/Cairo, Moscow and Geneva, etc.

Of course, “huge” is a highly relative term. I’m not really sure that any of the doctrinal differences you mention are that big. I would be quite happy living in a church where all the points of view listed above were legitimate (indeed, that’s one reason I’ve been Episcopalian for so long!).

However, the East/West differences are not on the same order of gravity as the Catholic/Protestant differences.They are minute by comparison, at least if we’re talking about irreconcilable disagreements. There are huge cultural and methodological differences–much bigger, arguably, than those between Catholics and Protestants–but those ought not to divide Christians. That is the Catholic perspective, and I think it’s correct. That is one of the main reasons why I am becoming Catholic and not Orthodox even though I would prefer to be Orthodox in many respects.

I think, with all due respect, that Protestants often use the East/West dispute as “cover”–indeed, they have been doing this since the beginning. I have done it myself. But I came to the conclusion that such an approach lacks integrity (at least for me–I’m not accusing you of lacking integrity, only of being honestly mistaken). Protestants rejected important aspects of the historic Christian faith. Sola fide and (for the Reformed) the perseverance of all the regenerate cannot be defended in terms of historic Christianity. They are genuine innovations which (especially the latter) distort the shape of Christian faith in serious ways. There are of course many other examples, but I mention two key ones to which I think you subscribe. (The sacramental issues are actually the most serious ones from a Catholic perspective, but from a Protestant perspective tend to follow from soteriology. For instance, a person who believes in OSAS cannot possibly hold to an orthodox sacramental theology.) The Protestant break with historic Christianity was clearly indefensible and wrong. That needs to be settled independently of the East/West issues.

Edwin

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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”.

Lu 17:1 And he said to his disciples, "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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?

Can’t help but hear echoes of Hillary: What difference, at this point, does it make?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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.”

Apathy in the face of a breach of Jesus’ express desires and the Bible’s commands astounds me. It would not have at a time in my life, but it does now.

Most Protestants simply don’t care.

I’m sorry, truly.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Tell that to the Orthodox.

You wouldn’t consider the role of the Pope, his powers and privileges to be fundamental dogma?

The East has no comparable dogma to purgatory. They deny original sin,

That’s not what they say.

From Wikipedia on Eastern Orthodox Christian theology:

In Eastern Orthodoxy, God created man perfect with free will and gave man a direction to follow. Man (Adam) and Woman (Eve) chose rather to disobey God by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, thus changing the “perfect” mode of existence of Man to the flawed or “fallen” mode of existence of Man. This fallen nature and all that has come from it is a result of “original sin.” All humanity participates in the sin of Adam because like him, they are human and follow in his ways. The union of humanity with divinity in Jesus Christ restored, in the Person of Christ, the mode of existence of humanity, so that those who are incorporated in him may participate in this renewal of the perfect mode of existence, be saved from sin and death, and be united to God in deification. Original sin is cleansed in humans through baptism or, in the case of the Theotokos, the moment Christ took form within her.

This view differs from the Roman Catholic doctrine of original sin, the legacy of Latin father Augustine of Hippo, in that Man is not seen as inherently guilty of the sin committed by Adam, conceived as the federal head and legal representative of the human race.[7] According to the Orthodox, humanity inherited the consequences of that sin, not the guilt. The difference stems from Augustine’s interpretation of a Latin translation of Romans 5:12 to mean that through Adam all men sinned, whereas the Orthodox reading in Greek interpret it as meaning that all of humanity sins as part of the inheritance of flawed nature from Adam. The Orthodox Church does not teach that all are born guilty and deserving of damnation, and Protestant doctrines such as predestination which are derived from the Augustinian theory of original sin and are especially prominent in the Lutheran and Calvinist traditions, are not a part of Orthodox belief.

Note that the article seems to me to misrepresent Catholic teaching on original sin. They know their beliefs, but do not know that they parallel Catholic teaching quite closely.

From the Orthodox wiki on Original sin we see a similar thing:

The term Original Sin (or first sin) is used among all Christian churches to define the doctrine surrounding Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22, in which Adam is identified as the man whom through death came into the world. How this is interpreted is believed by many Orthodox to be a fundamental difference between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Western Churches. In contrast, modern Roman Catholic theologians would claim that the basic anthropology is actually almost identical, and that the difference is only in the explanation of what happened in the Fall. In the Orthodox Church the term ancestral sin (Gr. προπατορικό αμάρτημα) is preferred and is used to define the doctrine of man’s “inclination towards sin, a heritage from the sin of our progenitors” and that this is removed through baptism. St. Gregory Palamas taught that man’s image was tarnished, disfigured, as a consequence of Adam’s disobedience.

Again, the teaching is semantically different, but it’s a distinction without (much of) a difference.

So, I strongly concur with PRmerger’s assessment.

therefore, see no need for the immaculate conception. Though they agree she did not sin, they believe she was conceived in the same way as every other person.

Hmmm … did you read the part quoted above which said: " Original sin is cleansed in humans through baptism or, in the case of the Theotokos, the moment Christ took form within her."?

Be that as it may, you still disagree on dogma.

Apparently not.

 

[AbideWithMe]

That’s not what they say.

From Wikipedia on Eastern Orthodox Christian theology:

In Eastern Orthodoxy, God created man perfect with free will and gave man a direction to follow. Man (Adam) and Woman (Eve) chose rather to disobey God by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, thus changing the “perfect” mode of existence of Man to the flawed or “fallen” mode of existence of Man. This fallen nature and all that has come from it is a result of “original sin.” All humanity participates in the sin of Adam because like him, they are human and follow in his ways. The union of humanity with divinity in Jesus Christ restored, in the Person of Christ, the mode of existence of humanity, so that those who are incorporated in him may participate in this renewal of the perfect mode of existence, be saved from sin and death, and be united to God in deification. Original sin is cleansed in humans through baptism or, in the case of the Theotokos, the moment Christ took form within her.

This view differs from the Roman Catholic doctrine of original sin, the legacy of Latin father Augustine of Hippo, in that Man is not seen as inherently guilty of the sin committed by Adam, conceived as the federal head and legal representative of the human race.[7] According to the Orthodox, humanity inherited the consequences of that sin, not the guilt. The difference stems from Augustine’s interpretation of a Latin translation of Romans 5:12 to mean that through Adam all men sinned, whereas the Orthodox reading in Greek interpret it as meaning that all of humanity sins as part of the inheritance of flawed nature from Adam. The Orthodox Church does not teach that all are born guilty and deserving of damnation, and Protestant doctrines such as predestination which are derived from the Augustinian theory of original sin and are especially prominent in the Lutheran and Calvinist traditions, are not a part of Orthodox belief.

Note that the article seems to me to misrepresent Catholic teaching on original sin. They know their beliefs, but do not know that they parallel Catholic teaching quite closely.

From the Orthodox wiki on Original sin we see a similar thing:

The term Original Sin (or first sin) is used among all Christian churches to define the doctrine surrounding Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22, in which Adam is identified as the man whom through death came into the world. How this is interpreted is believed by many Orthodox to be a fundamental difference between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Western Churches. In contrast, modern Roman Catholic theologians would claim that the basic anthropology is actually almost identical, and that the difference is only in the explanation of what happened in the Fall. In the Orthodox Church the term ancestral sin (Gr. προπατορικό αμάρτημα) is preferred and is used to define the doctrine of man’s “inclination towards sin, a heritage from the sin of our progenitors” and that this is removed through baptism. St. Gregory Palamas taught that man’s image was tarnished, disfigured, as a consequence of Adam’s disobedience.

Again, the teaching is semantically different, but it’s a distinction without (much of) a difference.

So, I strongly concur with PRmerger’s assessment.

Hmmm … did you read the part quoted above which said: " Original sin is cleansed in humans through baptism or, in the case of the Theotokos, the moment Christ took from within her."?

Apparently not.

Regarding the underlined, that’s far from the required Catholic belief in the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Tomyris]

Apathy in the face of a breach of Jesus’ express desires and the Bible’s commands astounds me. It would not have at a time in my life, but it does now.

I’m sorry, truly.

I think the core of the Protestant argument here is not apathy, but a conviction that unity is not reached in outward conformity under a single ecclesiastical structure, but in the heart, a God-made, not man-made unity. And they look at the Catholic church as a man-made, legalistic bureaucracy, not a unified structure. I think PRM misses it when she thinks that the attack on the Catholic Church that Protestants make is somehow peripheral when discussing the number of denominations, etc. Rather, it is central: if the bishops, etc., had not blown it we would not be in this mess. For Protestants one of the loudest lessons of history is that Catholic leadership simply cannot be trusted. Ever. For anything. Period.

IMHO that is too broad a brush. Protestant leadership isn’t so great either. Are there are some great Catholic leaders. But Protestants don’t make some of the claims about their leadership that the Catholics do, claims that Protestants recoil against.

 

[onenow1]

The way I read it ilate asks what is truth ?Goes on to chose Rome rather then Truth standing right in front of him, Jesus does not say a thing, giving Pilate freedom by either freeing Him or agreeing with the mob. The truth does matter to him as push came to shove, though he knew Jesus was innocent. He took the easy way out. Had he made the correct decision in the trial of Jesus, he more then likely would be a saint today. Jesus proposed to Pilate a choice by remaining silent; similar to the way the Catholic Church presents its dogmas to all. It proposes a divine truth [Jesus,] it does not impose.Free will is most important to God in scripture. This indeed is His quest for us, our free will to be obedient to His Church the pillar of truth. Does not, Matt 16:18-19 affirm this with the power to bind and loose. ?:twocents:

God Bless
onenow1

 

[Novocastrian]

I think the core of the Protestant argument here is not apathy, but a conviction that unity is not reached in outward conformity under a single ecclesiastical structure, but in the heart, a God-made, not man-made unity.

There are those of us who’d quite like both! What the Church of England tries to be - whether or not you think it succeeds to any degree - is to be a reformed catholic church with a regular structure of parishes and dioceses, with the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons. In theory, we think that the whole Church of God could be like that…

 

[AbideWithMe]

There are those of us who’d quite like both! What the Church of England tries to be - whether or not you think it succeeds to any degree - is to be a reformed catholic church with a regular structure of parishes and dioceses, with the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons. In theory, we think that the whole Church of God could be like that…

The theory sounds good.

I think it’s the way the theory has played out in history with over-the-top religious persecution by the established church (whatever it was for any given country at any given time) that has made some–probably many–American Protestants leery of a single powerful Christian institution.

I live in the American state of Pennsylvania, which was set up by William Penn partly as a haven of religious liberty. I will admit I’ve always found early Pennsylvania’s wide and weird diversity of Christian expression fascinating, not appalling. I live a few miles from the first Amish settlement in America; my neighbors are Mennonites; Count von Zinzendorf’s Moravians, Schwenkfelders, Conrad Beissel’s Ephrata Cloister, Quakers—all these “heretical” Christian groups came here for freedom and safety. Apparently I’m supposed to be scandalized by this, but I’m not.

 

[benhur]

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

 

[PRmerger]

So we can participate in each others remembrance/communion ?

Absolutely we can participate in them. We may indeed “fellowship” with them.
We simply cannot lie and say we are in full communion with them by receiving their communion.

Isn’t that what you said? That we are not permitted to have “fellowship” with them according to a “mandate”?

So if you reject CC say for O or a P church you reject Christ to your perdition? There is a difference between rejecting Christ and choosing one denomination /church over another.

So you permit yourself to say to someone, “Unless you do [A] you cannot go to heaven?”

Why do you permit for yourself what you criticize in the CC?

 

[PRmerger]

That’s not what they say.

From Wikipedia on Eastern Orthodox Christian theology:

In Eastern Orthodoxy, God created man perfect with free will and gave man a direction to follow. Man (Adam) and Woman (Eve) chose rather to disobey God by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, thus changing the “perfect” mode of existence of Man to the flawed or “fallen” mode of existence of Man. This fallen nature and all that has come from it is a result of “original sin.” All humanity participates in the sin of Adam because like him, they are human and follow in his ways. The union of humanity with divinity in Jesus Christ restored, in the Person of Christ, the mode of existence of humanity, so that those who are incorporated in him may participate in this renewal of the perfect mode of existence, be saved from sin and death, and be united to God in deification. Original sin is cleansed in humans through baptism or, in the case of the Theotokos, the moment Christ took form within her.

This view differs from the Roman Catholic doctrine of original sin, the legacy of Latin father Augustine of Hippo, in that Man is not seen as inherently guilty of the sin committed by Adam, conceived as the federal head and legal representative of the human race.[7] According to the Orthodox, humanity inherited the consequences of that sin, not the guilt. The difference stems from Augustine’s interpretation of a Latin translation of Romans 5:12 to mean that through Adam all men sinned, whereas the Orthodox reading in Greek interpret it as meaning that all of humanity sins as part of the inheritance of flawed nature from Adam. The Orthodox Church does not teach that all are born guilty and deserving of damnation, and Protestant doctrines such as predestination which are derived from the Augustinian theory of original sin and are especially prominent in the Lutheran and Calvinist traditions, are not a part of Orthodox belief.

Note that the article seems to me to misrepresent Catholic teaching on original sin. They know their beliefs, but do not know that they parallel Catholic teaching quite closely.

From the Orthodox wiki on Original sin we see a similar thing:

The term Original Sin (or first sin) is used among all Christian churches to define the doctrine surrounding Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22, in which Adam is identified as the man whom through death came into the world. How this is interpreted is believed by many Orthodox to be a fundamental difference between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Western Churches. In contrast, modern Roman Catholic theologians would claim that the basic anthropology is actually almost identical, and that the difference is only in the explanation of what happened in the Fall. In the Orthodox Church the term ancestral sin (Gr. προπατορικό αμάρτημα) is preferred and is used to define the doctrine of man’s “inclination towards sin, a heritage from the sin of our progenitors” and that this is removed through baptism. St. Gregory Palamas taught that man’s image was tarnished, disfigured, as a consequence of Adam’s disobedience.

Again, the teaching is semantically different, but it’s a distinction without (much of) a difference.

So, I strongly concur with PRmerger’s assessment.

Hmmm … did you read the part quoted above which said: " Original sin is cleansed in humans through baptism or, in the case of the Theotokos, the moment Christ took form within her."?

Apparently not.

:clapping: :yup: