Why all the Fuss on the Reformation?

[PRmerger]

I will admit I’ve always found early Pennsylvania’s wide and weird diversity of Christian expression fascinating, not appalling.

Really?

You don’t find the Westboro Baptist Church appalling?

What about this group, which has determined that the Epistles of St. Paul are satanic?

lasttrumpet.org/paul_false_apostle.htm

 

[PRmerger]

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

No. Not far at all. In fact, quite close. Very close, indeed.

 

[PRmerger]

For Protestants one of the loudest lessons of history is that Catholic leadership simply cannot be trusted. Ever. For anything. Period.

Then, I propose, each and every time you quote from the NT, Tomy, you must give the caveat, “I simply cannot know that this verse that I am quoting is actually theopneustos, since I cannot trust the Catholic leadership which discerned for me that it was actually inspired. Ever. For anything. Period.”

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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.

But St. Paul’s take on it is that we are unified sacramentally, through the Eucharistic celebration:
1Co 10:17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

And they look at the Catholic church as a man-made, legalistic bureaucracy, not a unified structure.

This is also an un-biblical belief:

Mt 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

Get that? It’s Jesus’ church, and He built it.
If you think it’s man-made, then you think Jesus is only a man.

For Protestants one of the loudest lessons of history is that Catholic leadership simply cannot be trusted. Ever. For anything. Period.

Yes; this is a product of early protestant polemics.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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

How so, other than you seem to have accidentally changed “form” to “from”?

 

[JRKH]

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.

Would it surprise you to know that we would agree with this? There is nothing “un-Catholic” in that sentiment. It is what we are called to.
However - consider carefully what it means to be united, as you say, “but in the heart, a God-made, not man-made unity”. The Protestant seeks to use Scripture as their rule. How is this unity described in Scripture?
Jesus prayed that we be on as He and the Father are one. St Paul repeatedly calls for “unity of mind” of praising with “one voice” of “agreeing with one another” and so forth.
Does this kind of unity allow for different groups holding contrary positions on the real presence or faith/works or the necessity of baptism etc?

If one is truly a believer - truly committed to Christ as revealed in Scripture, should that person not yearn for visible unity? Yearn for constancy in teaching and understanding? Should not this desire actually draw true believers together rather than cause them to fracture into competing groups?

Peace
James

 

[benhur]

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”?

Of course you can say “hello”. As you said no full communion I said no full fellowship, per mandate.

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

Where did i criticize ? Is it being critical to present all the parts of catechism,doctrine, dealing with “other brethren” ? There are only a few components and a should be together and not cherry picked. Now "cherry picked’’ could be critical verbage but implies nothing of the doctrine.

 

[benhur]

Would it surprise you to know that we would agree with this? There is nothing “un-Catholic” in that sentiment. It is what we are called to.
However - consider carefully what it means to be united, as you say, “but in the heart, a God-made, not man-made unity”. The Protestant seeks to use Scripture as their rule. How is this unity described in Scripture?
Jesus prayed that we be on as He and the Father are one. St Paul repeatedly calls for “unity of mind” of praising with “one voice” of “agreeing with one another” and so forth.
Does this kind of unity allow for different groups holding contrary positions on the real presence or faith/works or the necessity of baptism etc?

If one is truly a believer - truly committed to Christ as revealed in Scripture, should that person not yearn for visible unity? Yearn for constancy in teaching and understanding? Should not this desire actually draw true believers together rather than cause them to fracture into competing groups?

Peace
James

As the Quaker said earlier, “They shall know you by your love for one another”. Quite visible.

 

[PRmerger]

Of course you can say “hello”. As you said no full communion I said no full fellowship, per mandate.

We can have FULL fellowship with lots of Christians. We just can’t partake of their communion.

Is it being critical to present all the parts of catechism,doctrine, dealing with “other brethren” ? There are only a few components and a should be together and not cherry picked. Now "cherry picked’’ could be critical verbage but implies nothing of the doctrine.

You are correct here.

 

[benhur]

But St. Paul’s take on it is that we are unified sacramentally, through the Eucharistic celebration:
1Co 10:17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

Yes, quite symbolic , this single loaf, discerning the Body of Christ (the “ecclesia”), rich and poor, hungry or well fed.

Get that? It’s Jesus’ church, and He built it.

All persuasions of the definition of “church” believe this.

 

[benhur]

We can have FULL fellowship with lots of Christians. We just can’t partake of their communion.

You are correct here.

Wow, cool. On that I bid you good night.

 

[joe371]

let’s see…The Orientals split in the 300s and the Orthodox 700 years later, and you know the 30,000 number is baloney.

That was then, this is now.

A question, as a former non-Catholic, I had to ask myself: either the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Churches or the Catholic Church (including the 23 rites in full communion with the Petrine office) continues to be the church established by Jesus circa 33 AD in Jerusalem on Pentecost. Is there any chance that this is true, or have periodic schisms and Protestant break-away movements, obscured any chance of recognizing the one church founded by God, ineffably guided by the Holy Spirit?

 

[joe371]

I think I would prefer it if a lot of the energy that went into Luther-bashing, or Calvin-bashing (when they get tired of Luther-bashing) went into how we can walk in charity with each other today. We are NOT going back in time to fix what happened then. Blaming each other goes nowhere. It is good to know history, bad to repeat it, to continually bring up what the other’s ancestors did.

That was then, this is now. Where do we go from here?

Good point. :thumbsup:However, in terms of selecting a church to belong to, what should the criteria be if not striving to belong to the church founded by Jesus, as opposed to a church started by another person, post Protestant Reformation?

 

[PRmerger]

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.

The fact that some say, “So what?” to the obscenity of tens of thousands of Christian denominations is, frankly, irrelevant.

I have posed the Kalam argument to some atheists who have yawned a “So what?” to that as well.

However, there are a few atheists who have found the argument so compelling it has been the catalyst towards conversion.

So, too. with my posing the existence of tens of thousands of Christian denominations to some Protestants.

Thus, it is in great need of being repeated. And repeated. And repeated.

For it does bear great fruit indeed.

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

The Catholic Church does have doctrinal unity, Edwin.

If one wants to know what Catholicism teaches, we all know where to look.

If one wants to know what Protestantism teaches, well, we have to look at tens of thousands of different websites, right?

 

[Contarini]

Good point. :thumbsup:However, in terms of selecting a church to belong to, what should the criteria be if not striving to belong to the church founded by Jesus, as opposed to a church started by another person, post Protestant Reformation?

Your question is a category mistake.

Protestant denominations do not claim to be “churches” in the sense the Catholic Church claims to be a Church. You’re setting up a false parallel.

For Protestants, all believers belong to the Church Christ founded.

And, of course, there’s no reason for Catholics to disagree with this. The question isn’t, then, which church to belong to, but how baptized Christians (who by virtue of their baptism belong to the Church Christ founded) may live out their faith fully in the unity Christ intended. And I believe firmly that union with Rome is necessary for that.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The fact that some say, “So what?” to the obscenity of tens of thousands of Christian denominations is, frankly, irrelevant.

I have posed the Kalam argument to some atheists who have yawned a “So what?” to that as well.

However, there are a few atheists who have found the argument so compelling it has been the catalyst towards conversion.

So, too. with my posing the existence of tens of thousands of Christian denominations to some Protestants.

Thus, it is in great need of being repeated. And repeated. And repeated.

For it does bear great fruit indeed.

I don’t see this “great fruit.” Obviously once a Protestant has undergone the paradigm shift of coming to see visible unity as important, they will realize that Protestantism has serious problems in this regard. But simply repeating a figure (by your own admission, a highly speculative figure, and one that as I have pointed out isn’t based on an actual analysis of meaningful divisions) isn’t going to do anything.

The Catholic Church does have doctrinal unity, Edwin.

If one wants to know what Catholicism teaches, we all know where to look.

If one wants to know what Protestantism teaches, well, we have to look at tens of thousands of different websites, right?

To you “doctrinal unity” means that there is an official doctrine.

To conservative Protestants, it means that there is no open dissent tolerated.

Conservative Lutherans or Presbyterians or Baptists would never put up with the level of dissent the Catholic Church does.

This is, in my opinion, very much to the Catholic Church’s credit. I do not agree with the claim that this shows disarray etc. I think it shows confidence and charity. In fact, if anything I wish the Church was even slower to discipline than it is.

But there’s no denying that individual Protestant denominations of a conservative doctrinal bent have more internal unity than the Catholic Church does.

Edwin

 

[TarkanAttila]

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?

Well, because nothing has happened since then.

Well, not exactly. Protestants have been having disagreements among themselves this whole time, and have splintered into dozens if not thousands of splinter groups, each with their own unique brand of theology, as if the Bible tells us both that full immersion is necessary and optional, etc.

Mind, Catholics and Orthodox have been doing similar things. The Union of Brest brought many Eastern Christians into communion with Rome and out of Istanbul , while the Old Catholics and Traditionalists split from Mother Church, and then had schism of their own. The Orthodox Churches have had communions broken and reunited (Kiev being one of their favourite stomping grounds).

In short, for the same reason Old Catholics worship in different churches from Roman Catholics, Roman Catholics are not admitted to communion with the Orthodox usually, and there can be two, three, or even four different Protestant parishes within a mile of each other, Rome and the divers Protestants have not stopped “fussing” about theological differences.

And the reason simply is because we don’t agree about what God has taught to be true.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t see this “great fruit.”

Well, I consider the conversion of any soul to His Body, the Catholic Church, to be great fruit.

 

[Contarini]

Well, I consider the conversion of any soul to His Body, the Catholic Church, to be great fruit.

And I remain skeptical about whether anyone has actually become Catholic primarily because you or some other Catholic talked about thousands of denominations. That’s not to deny that having Protestant disunity pressed on one as a problem may have such an effect. What I’m disputing is that the use of a large figure has some value that trumps (if anything could) its dubious truthfulness.

What matters in terms of Protestant disunity is not some abstract figure but the concrete divisions of which any thoughtful Protestant will already be aware.

Edwin

 

[guanophore]

I don’t see this “great fruit.” Obviously once a Protestant has undergone the paradigm shift of coming to see visible unity as important, they will realize that Protestantism has serious problems in this regard. But simply repeating a figure (by your own admission, a highly speculative figure, and one that as I have pointed out isn’t based on an actual analysis of meaningful divisions) isn’t going to do anything.

To you “doctrinal unity” means that there is an official doctrine.

To conservative Protestants, it means that there is no open dissent tolerated.

Conservative Lutherans or Presbyterians or Baptists would never put up with the level of dissent the Catholic Church does.

This is, in my opinion, very much to the Catholic Church’s credit. I do not agree with the claim that this shows disarray etc. I think it shows confidence and charity. In fact, if anything I wish the Church was even slower to discipline than it is.

But there’s no denying that individual Protestant denominations of a conservative doctrinal bent have more internal unity than the Catholic Church does.

Edwin

I have missed reading your thoughtful posts Edwin. I see in my absence you have pressed on with your spiritual journey!

I can affirm the truth of your words, having sojourned in some of the communities you reference here. It is amazing how intolerant some denominations can be. There was a period of time in my life when I needed a lot of black and white structure, and it appealed to me, but as I grew in faith I needed to be able to apply some thoughtful criticism to my beliefs, and I found that the black and white rigidity was no longer helpful.