Why all the Fuss on the Reformation?

[Tomyris]

Not at all. It is, perhaps, a hyperbolic meme, which makes its point rather nicely.

Just like this, too, may seem to be a caricature of a particular high school student’s sentiments regarding Algebra. But it does make the point in a humorous but trenchant way.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=20444&d=1405909774

I wouldn’t call the above necessarily a caricature, but it does present the sentiments accurately. No one really believes that the author uses algebra only an estimated 3% of his life. It’s just a meme which represents this concept: why did I have to spend so much time learning something I hardly ever use?

Similarly, the “knocking the bishop’s miter off his head” comment is not to be taken literally, but as a meme displaying the sentiments of the Reformers.

IOW: We don’t need anyone to tell us what to believe…except when we do need someone to tell us what to believe (namely: what books belong in the Bible.)

Can you answer the question I posed now?

 

[PRmerger]

Can you answer the question I posed now?

I will after you answer the one I posed first.

At least, clarify your “I’ll know Scripture when I see it because the Holy Spirit will let me know” paradigm.

I am* still *unsure how you know that the Epistle to the Hebrews is inspired–what about it told you that it was inspired?

 

[PRmerger]

I think that Mark Shea is trying to prove a point. If you want to put in in a more palatable way, it could be summed up as thus:

Protestant revolutionaries of old said to the Catholic Church:…“We want your Bible, but we don’t want you. We’re going to take your book and decide for ourselves what it really means.”

Maybe I’m way off base here, but the views of some Protestants (certainly not all) reminds me of the attitude of rebellious teenagers, who cannot accept that their elders (the Catholic church) just might have a bit more wisdom and truth and experience behind them in comparison to a very young person (Protestants).

Not that young people can’t discern truth to, but a rebellious attitude can get in the way of seeing things properly. And they are convinced that the elders in their lives can’t possibly know what they’re talking about. I’m not trying to offend the Protestants here, just trying to further explore Mark Shea’s reasoning. Mark Shea does get a bit snarky at times. He can’t really help it. But he does have a point, however crudely he may put it.

I love me my Mark Shea.

More from him:

And so we arrive at the present hour, when the notion that we have to avoid the Church to find Jesus has become our normative cultural narrative, now spouted with less reflection than a child parroting his prayers.

For the child, at least, never fails to ask thoughtful questions, like: “If God made everything, who made God?” **while the modern mind never thinks to ask how we know the Church corrupted the simple gospel of Christ, nor how we know what that simple gospel was if we reflexively reject the only possible source of knowledge about Him: namely, the Church **that carefully preserved the testimony of “those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word” (Lk 1:2), those who paid with their blood for bearing witness to “that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands” (1 Jn 1:1).

This is no small reason why one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church is absolutely necessary. For the exact opposite of the meme I recounted at the beginning of this essay is true: The earliest Christians had no concept of the Church as the Obscurer of All That Is Truly Christian and emphatically no notion that the surest way to know the Head of the Church was to ignore His body. --ibid

 

[Tomyris]

I think that’s a pious Protestant fiction.

I’ll nod here, but with a caveat. They did not start out that way.

They came to the conclusion, pretty much all of them, that the papacy was Antichrist–that is to say, that the papacy and mainstream scholastic theology had radically corrupted the Gospel and were a parasitic growth on the Church. Their “reform” efforts were carried on under that assumption. While some of them, such as Bucer and Melanchthon, were willing to compromise with reform-minded Catholics (and with each other), none of the major early Protestant leaders had any desire for reunion or compromise with the Pope–not that I can see anyway. Peter Matheson’s essay “martin Bucer and the Old Church,” in Martin Bucer: Reforming Church and Community, ed. David Wright, is helpful here, precisely because Bucer was a relatively “irenic” Reformer.

Edwin

We have not looked at the popes’ role in all this on this thread. Why did they allow it to get this bad? Why put up with conditions that, by their inaction, caused a lot of this? Could they, had they been willing, have steered things away from what was seen as a necessity for Reformation on the part of the proto-Reformers? If the pope had stopped the sale of indulgences before Luther said anything about it…Meaning, why didn’t he.

 

[Contarini]

I will run with you on this and use the book of Job. For indeed age should teach wisdom but the truth of God was put in a deep fashion in a youth (Elihu) who respectfully waited his turn and was “right on” as the older folk were not and were chastized. The older folk did not rebel and took there lumps… So you see it could very well be the CC rebelled partly (she did reform a bit, counter reformation) by not accepting even anathemizing some of the truth of reformers.

I don’t actually agree with your reading of Elihu–I think that while his interpretation is more subtle than that of the “friends,” he was still wrong in simply appealing to God’s arbitrary power. But that may be a digression. . . .

Edwin

 

[benhur]

Who compromised the church?

Well you said fallible sinners and I further said they were saints-those whose flesh were crucified with Christ at Calvary etc

 

[Contarini]

That ‘trenchant commentary’ is, at best, a caricature of the vast majority of sixteenth century Reformers. It’s the equivalent of equating the sometimes poorly catechised but exuberant Marian devotion of mediaeval peasants as nothing but paganism and idolatry.

First of all, Mark stole this one from G. K. Chesterton. Who, like Mark, is long on wit and short on nuance when he gets into polemical mode.

However, I’m not sure what you find to be a “caricature” here. Perhaps that they didn’t generally engage in this kind of literal violence with their own elite hands. But they certainly taught things about all the elements of Catholicism mentioned which could be described metaphorically as “attacking the procession,” and their teachings inspired lots of mobs to do exactly these things in a very literal and violent way.

So I’m not sure I see a caricature here.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

First of all, Mark stole this one from G. K. Chesterton.

What??

I originally attributed that to Chesterton, and you corrected me and said it was not Chesterton, but rather sounded like something he might say!

Right here is where you said it was NOT Chesterton: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6653920&postcount=130

 

[benhur]

I don’t actually agree with your reading of Elihu–I think that while his interpretation is more subtle than that of the “friends,” he was still wrong in simply appealing to God’s arbitrary power. But that may be a digression. . . .

Edwin

Well if you have time check it out again. After long dialogues of Job and the famous three friends, the lesser known fourth speaks. After he speaks God speaks and pretty much says the same thing as Elihu and more, and orders repentance for the three but not Elihu. No, I think Elihu is my hero here.

 

[Tomyris]

I will after you answer the one I posed first.

At least, clarify your “I’ll know Scripture when I see it because the Holy Spirit will let me know” paradigm.

I am* still *unsure how you know that the Epistle to the Hebrews is inspired–what about it told you that it was inspired?

Ah. I asked hubby where he was at. He is convicted that it is God’s Word when he reads it, because the Holy Spirit says it is. He pointed to Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology, Chapter 4, section 4 ‘The Words of Scripture are Self-Attesting’. Grudem also discusses the objections laid out on this thread (a page full). I don’t have time to go into that now. Also Michael Horton’s ‘Christian Faith’, taking a covenantal approach, where these are the God-given canons of the covenant between God and man.

Calvin wrote a chapter on the wickedness of claiming that we know the Bible is true, or what books should be in it, because the church says it is true.

That’s classic Reformed theology. As for “burning in the bosom”, that’s why we have antacid.

As for me, I’ll go along with knowing it is inspired because it IS inspired, God-breathed. There is a conviction when I read it that this is God speaking. Not heartburn. Something in the spirit. Why you don’t know that is a puzzle.

That doesn’t help. Perhaps if you answer my question it will help me answer yours. That’s why I asked it in the first place.

 

[Contarini]

That’s good. I can see why you are having problems. I’m not guaranteeing an explanation, because I may not be there yet. Here is a ‘snapshot’:

Observation is inherently chaotic. It is only when we have some observations that we can start to have a pattern. Observation is illogical, random, the results may differ and be unrepeatable.

We try to draw order out of this chaos. If God speaks directly, we observe it and it is unpatterned and be unrepeated.

You speak of a long drawn-out process, as if that is the only way, or rather, the safe way, to come to a conclusion. You can have a process peppered with all sorts of observations, whether disturbing (in the sense of being seminal or life-chaning) books, conversations, events, or bringing continuity, integrating your previous observation, thoughts and so forth into an emerging pattern. I think there is the direct and the indirect, and much in-between.

‘Stuck with’ is the wrong term, but I am sort of stuck with believing the Bible is God’s Word, without a particular rational basis in itself. It would be nice if I had one. Maybe for Christmas.

Today’s question, class, is how does the Church factor in? When confronted with God-hearing lunatics, the Church is there to agree when they have heard from God and to help them when they are simply looney.

Is there a role for the Church? Absolutely. Does the Church guide, nurture, train, protect and comfort us? That’s the role. Do I have problems with the idea that it came up with a canon? No. Should observations be tested? Yes. Who should test them? The Church seems most logical to test stuff. Can God speak to the Church? Yes. Can God speak to me through the Church? Yes. Is it fact and not just possibility? Yes.

Ok, I am out of breath.

I am not sure I disagree with anything you’re saying here. My problem, again, is with the dichotomy you seemed in earlier posts to be making between the Church speaking and God speaking. If you mean simply that God can speak to people in ways not approved by official church authorities, then I entirely agree. My problem with Protestantism is not the idea of a prophetic voice that challenges church authority, but the construction of new church authorities which will allegedly listen to God better than the old ones.

Edwin

 

[Tomyris]

I am not sure I disagree with anything you’re saying here. My problem, again, is with the dichotomy you seemed in earlier posts to be making between the Church speaking and God speaking. If you mean simply that God can speak to people in ways not approved by official church authorities, then I entirely agree. My problem with Protestantism is not the idea of a prophetic voice that challenges church authority, but the construction of new church authorities which will allegedly listen to God better than the old ones.

Edwin

That is a sane problem to have. Let me pose it thusly: How do you know the church structure you propose to use in place of the papacy will do any better? Or that the one that you are using is doing any better?

For one thing, if you are running a numbers competition, Rome wins. But if you are running a narrow door competition, the two guys who meet over a garage in Milwaukee secretly because they, and they only, are the true church, win.

 

[GKC]

What??

I originally attributed that to Chesterton, and you corrected me and said it was not Chesterton, but rather sounded like something he might say!

Right here is where you said it was NOT Chesterton: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6653920&postcount=130

Sigh.

As I said above, #357:

Chesterton/CATHOLIC CHURCH AND CONVERSION, chap II, pp. 31-32, 1929/Burns Oates & Washbourne, Ltd.has the original Chesterton.

The Shea quote in post #345 above is a paraphrase. So is the same quote in your link.

GKC

 

[JRKH]

One thing that really puzzles me is the theological novelty proposed by Catholics that denominational division was a Protestant invention. You will recall that the OO and the EO split centuries before the Reformation.Tell me how the Catholic Church resolves differences with the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox, and then we can discuss how Protestants resolve their differences. It happens, by the way. I’ve been involved in at least one denominational merger. It’s not just Split City. I wonder if the Catholics have been more successful at reuniting their factions than the Protestants have been. And since the Reformation, there has been the Old Catholic split, and perhaps other Catholic splits. It is by no means a Protestant invention.

The Reformers, for the most part, did not want to split. They were excommunicated. I can’t speak for the enthusiasts.

I see that this reply has generated a number of posts and I have only glanced through them - as I don’t have a lot of time this morning, but I wanted to give you my reply,

First, I don’t believe that I ever said that schism was a protestant novelty…though I am sure that you have hears such - or at least been given that impression.

Second, I will freely admit to problems within the Catholic Church on these matters - BUT - since the purpose of the Protestant Reformation was to improve and to correct and to do so by using Scripture as the ultimate authority, I think it is quite fair to examine the protestant model on it’s own to see how well it has done.

In your reply, you seek to turn the tables on me - by pointing out other schisms from the Church. Fair enough. You ask how these should be resolved. I will answer thus…through dialogue and council as soon as such councils can be achieved.
I will also point out that many - MANY splits have been avoided by employing the biblical model of the Church council to resolve issues and clarify what is truly Spirit led doctrine.
This then is my reply to your questions above…and having done so I respectfully ask that you now answer the question I asked in my earlier post.

What is the protestant method - based on Scripture - for resolving doctrinal issues (effecting salvation) between groups.

Look forward to your reply

Peace
James

 

[Porknpie]

He pointed to Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology, Chapter 4, section 4 ‘The Words of Scripture are Self-Attesting’.

Tomi,

If by self-attesting, one is questioning whether scripture is true or not, of course Catholics would say yes, since scripture is the inspired and inerrant written Word of God, it is in that sense, self-attesting: True. But if the question is whether scripture is so clear, that anyone can understand it and interpret it on their own, then we should have universal agreement whether:

• we are saved by faith alone
• the number of books in the bible should be 66, 73 or another number
• Once saved, always saved is correct
• baptism is required for salvation
• infants should be baptized
• the Eucharistic meal is symbolic only or the true body and blood of our Lord

and so on…

Actually, scripture itself indicates it is hard to understand. St. Peter says St. Paul’s writings are difficult and the Ethiopian Eunuch asks who can understand scripture, it is difficult.

Removed from the Church and the apostolic faith that brought it forth, it is indeed hard to understand at times.

PnP

 

[Porknpie]

One thing that really puzzles me is the theological novelty proposed by Catholics that denominational division was a Protestant invention. You will recall that the OO and the EO split centuries before the Reformation.

Should note Tomi, that the Catholic Churches East and West, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox all believe in the seven sacraments instituted by Christ, including the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

It was a theological novelty after 1,500 years of Christianity to reduce the number of sacraments. This includes belief’s that baptism is not salvific, that baptism should be delayed to the age of reason, and to believe that the Lord’s Supper is only symbolic.

All this was a Protestant invention and theological novelty.

We both believe that we are saved by Grace. It’s a gift of God for sure. The question is how does the Lord give us his grace? He gives us his grace through the sacraments and he uses his Priests and Church to do so.

PnP

 

[PRmerger]

Tomi,

If by self-attesting, one is questioning whether scripture is true or not, of course Catholics would say yes, since scripture is the inspired and inerrant written Word of God, it is in that sense, self-attesting: True. But if the question is whether scripture is so clear, that anyone can understand it and interpret it on their own, then we should have universal agreement whether:

• we are saved by faith alone
• the number of books in the bible should be 66, 73 or another number
• Once saved, always saved is correct
• baptism is required for salvation
• infants should be baptized
• the Eucharistic meal is symbolic only or the true body and blood of our Lord

and so on…

And here is a (nonexhaustive) list of different belief systems people have come up with from reading the Bible without the lens of the Church (courtesy of ProdigalSon):

Attend weekly services vs Church services when one feels like it
Baptism–immersion? sprinkling? sacrament? ordinance? adults only? infants only?
Can men and women sit together during services?
Charity or no charity
Church leadership, or no leadership
Death/Soul Sleep
Divorce and re-marriage
Drinking permitted? Sinful?
Head coverings or no head coverings
Health and wealth gospel
Hell, or no hell
Homosexuality
Is God‘s Holy Name Jehovah
Is it permissible for women to teach Scripture?
Judge others, don’t judge others
Music or no music
Once saved, always saved? Can one lose one’s salvation
Ordination
Predestination
Rapture
Sola scriptura/private interpretation
The Eucharist (Communion)
Tongues (some believe others are not saved if they don’t speak in tongues)
Trinity vs. Unitarianism
What is original sin and its effects on humanity
What’s a sin, what is not a sin
When to celebrate the Lord’s Day
Women pastors, no women pastors

 

[PRmerger]

Tomi,

If by self-attesting, one is questioning whether scripture is true or not, of course Catholics would say yes, since scripture is the inspired and inerrant written Word of God, it is in that sense, self-attesting: True.

I always thought that the “Scripture is self-attesting” was a response to the question, “How do you know what’s inspired without the authority of the CC?”

IOW: the response is, “We just know, as Christians, what Scripture is because it’s so obvious to anyone who has the Holy Spirit.”

If that’s what is meant, well…

 

[Porknpie]

And here is a (nonexhaustive) list of different belief systems people have come up with from reading the Bible without the lens of the Church (courtesy of ProdigalSon):

Attend weekly services vs Church services when one feels like it
Baptism–immersion? sprinkling? sacrament? ordinance? adults only? infants only?
Can men and women sit together during services?
Charity or no charity
Church leadership, or no leadership
Death/Soul Sleep
Divorce and re-marriage
Drinking permitted? Sinful?
Head coverings or no head coverings
Health and wealth gospel
Hell, or no hell
Homosexuality
Is God‘s Holy Name Jehovah
Is it permissible for women to teach Scripture?
Judge others, don’t judge others
Music or no music
Once saved, always saved? Can one lose one’s salvation
Ordination
Predestination
Rapture
Sola scriptura/private interpretation
The Eucharist (Communion)
Tongues (some believe others are not saved if they don’t speak in tongues)
Trinity vs. Unitarianism
What is original sin and its effects on humanity
What’s a sin, what is not a sin
When to celebrate the Lord’s Day
Women pastors, no women pastors

PR -

Need to add the bible itself to this list. It’s the first place to start. There is no sign on the cover of the Book of Hebrews that says

[SIGN]This writing is the inspired and inerrant Word of God[/SIGN]

In fact, the words above are found no where in the writing itself, on any page.

PnP

 

[Contarini]

What??

I originally attributed that to Chesterton, and you corrected me and said it was not Chesterton, but rather sounded like something he might say!

Right here is where you said it was NOT Chesterton: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6653920&postcount=130

As GKC pointed out, it’s a paraphrase of Chesterton, not a direct quote. That is in fact exactly what I said. I did not say it sounded like something he might say, but that it was a restatement in other words of something he did say.

By “stole” I meant “imitated very closely using his own words.” He got the image from Chesterton. Which, again, is what I said in that other post. I think we have another academic/non-academic misunderstanding here. You’re only counting direct quotations as “stealing.”

Of course, since Mark’s post was not academic work, I was not implying a moral criticism by using the word “stole.”

Edwin