Why all the Fuss on the Reformation?

[Tomyris]

It contributed, and hence the doctrinal corruption. Corrupt people taught corruption, by example if by no other method.

Spoken like a good Protestant! If the Church had not corrupted the doctrines, there would be no problem!

And the corrupt politicians corrupted them, requiring a restoration away from the original corruption.
That’s from the Book of James, which is in the Bible. It is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Corrupt teachers produce corruption.

Didn’t they do some doctrinal corrections at Trent, come to think of it?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I think I have answered all the questions,

:nope:

although some do not accept or understand the answers.

Humble much?

 

[Tomyris]

:nope:

What’s not answered?

Humble much?

Either because it does not make sense inherently or because it did not translate out of my idiom.

Not, implicitly, that it is the fault of the hearer. Please don’t take it that way.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

What’s not answered?

To Whom, When, Where and How did God reveal the books that should be considered Scriptures?

Grudem does not address these questions. I know I have his book in paper and electronic format. I love him as a speaker but his answer in this matter is lacking.

If Scriptures are to be taken as the Ultimate rule of Faith and they are declared to contain the Words of Christ and Salvation. They must be accounted for in like manner as Christ is accounted for throughout the OT. Otherwise they are just an innovation no better than Dianetics.

Either because it does not make sense inherently or because it did not translate out of my idiom.

Not, implicitly, that it is the fault of the hearer. Please don’t take it that way.

 

[Contarini]

Goof thing you are not being serious…no comparison…

Actually I am being serious. Overstating a bit, but making a very serious point.

I recommend John Bossy’s* Christianity in the West 1400-1700*.

There is a lot of comparison between the Protestant and Catholic Reformations. They shared a lot of the same concerns and the same assumptions, such as the assumption that the basic problem was disorder and unruly behavior by the common people. This wasn’t Luther’s starting assumption, of course, in terms of his key theological claims, but it was certainly something he had no problem believing when it came to social and political matters.

One rather cynical way to view the sixteenth century is that Protestants and Catholics were putting in rival “bids” to the European elites as providers of social order. Some rulers liked the Protestant bid better; some liked the Catholic bid better.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

I told you. I cannot make it any clearer.

Your turn.

One of the Clements, by the way, is about 90% quotations from the NT.

So why isn’t it theopneustos?

 

[PRmerger]

Allow me a question. Which is true?

PRM believes the Catholic Church is the one true Church because the Catholic Church says it is the one true Church.

PRM believes the Catholic Church is the one true Church because God told her it was (either directly or that sums up a long, very complex story of many parts and nuances that winds up being a real conviction that it is the one true Church, and that God is the one who directed her search, and directed her to that conclusion, however long and tortuous that story was).

Neither of the above is the answer.

I believe the Catholic Church is the One True Church because, firstly, I believe God exists. I believe He is not an impersonal God, but rather a God intimately involved in our lives. So intimately that He incarnated to become one of us and One With Us. And I believe that he started a church. And this church is the Catholic Church because it is the only one that can trace its lines from our current leader, who was anointed by his predecessor, who was anointed by his predecessor, who was anointed by his predecessor, <snip 2000 years>, who was anointed by St. Peter, who was anointed by Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

It contributed, and hence the doctrinal corruption. Corrupt people taught corruption, by example if by no other method.

Well, that’s just plain silly.

That’s like saying that the Church teaches that pedophilia is now doctrine because she has priests who engaged in this horrific behavior.

Any 15th century Catholic who thought that lechery was now the law of the Church because he saw a lecherous bishop needed to be knocked in the head with the bishop’s miter.

The idea that anyone would think that theft, lying, cheating [fill in the blank with whatever of the deadly sins you wish] was now a doctrine of the Church because a priest was stealing, lying or cheating is…well, astonishing.

Every Catholic knew that even if Judas betrayed Christ, Christ was not teaching betrayal.

 

[PRmerger]

PR,

I have two theories here.

One is if I put on my Catholic hat and respond to what I said and say, “Ah. The good Lord in His mercy granted a gift to his Protestant children, or some of them anyway, to know what His Word is, since they have have lost the Magisterium”. That is the theory that this is a gift that God gives as He wills (see book of Hebrews) and there really is no satisfactory logical answer.

The second is that you have this just as I do but it is running deep below the surface because you are used to it, like wearing a good pair of shoes and after a while forgetting you even have them on because they are so comfy.

Then there is my hubby’s theory, and that is that I making a hash of this whole thing and confusing everyone, and I should know a lot more about this before I hash it up even worse, because you’ll walk away thinking this is good Reformed theology. I told him, ok, smart guy, bail me out. He just laughed.

I’m going with Door #3.

…annnnnd now I am confused even more.

 

[PRmerger]

Neither of the above is the answer.

I believe the Catholic Church is the One True Church because, firstly, I believe God exists. I believe He is not an impersonal God, but rather a God intimately involved in our lives. So intimately that He incarnated to become one of us and One With Us. And I believe that he started a church. And this church is the Catholic Church because it is the only one that can trace its lines from our current leader, who was anointed by his predecessor, who was anointed by his predecessor, who was anointed by his predecessor, <snip 2000 years>, who was anointed by St. Peter, who was anointed by Christ.

Why I believe the Catholic Church is the One True Church:

Because Peter Kreeft says so.

Then in a church history class at Calvin a professor gave me a way to investigate the claims of the Catholic Church on my own. The essential claim is historical: that Christ founded the Catholic Church, that there is historical continuity. If that were true, I would have to be a Catholic out of obedience to my one absolute, the will of my Lord.

The teacher explained the Protestant belief. He said that Catholics accuse we who are Protestants of going back only to Luther and Calvin; but this is not true; we go back to Christ. Christ had never intended a Catholic-style Church, but a Protestant-style one. The Catholic additions to the simple, Protestant-style New Testament church had grown up gradually in the Middle Ages like barnacles on the hull of a ship, and the Protestant Reformers had merely scraped off the barnacles, the alien, pagan accretions. The Catholics, on the other hand, believed that Christ established the Church Catholic from the start, and that the doctrines and practices that Protestants saw as barnacles were, in fact, the very living and inseparable parts of the planks and beams of the ship.

I thought this made the Catholic claim empirically testable, and I wanted to test it because I was worried by this time about my dangerous interest in things Catholic. Half of me wanted to discover it was the true Church (that was the more adventurous half); the other half wanted to prove it false (that was the comfortable half). My adventurous half rejoiced when I discovered in the early Church such Catholic elements as the centrality of the Eucharist, the Real Presence, prayers to saints, devotion to Mary, an insistence on visible unity, and apostolic succession. Furthermore, the Church Fathers just “smelled” more Catholic than Protestant, especially St. Augustine, my personal favorite and a hero to most Protestants too. It seemed very obvious that if Augustine or Jerome or Ignatius of Antioch or Anthony of the Desert, or Justin Martyr, or Clement of Alexandria, or Athanasius were alive today they would be Catholics, not Protestants.

The issue of the Church’s historical roots was crucial to me, for the thing I had found in the Catholic Church and in no Protestant church was simply this: the massive historical fact that there she is, majestic and unsinkable. It was the same old seaworthy ship, the Noah’s ark that Jesus had commissioned. It was like discovering not an accurate picture of the ark, or even a real relic of its wood, but the whole ark itself, still sailing unscathed on the seas of history! It was like a fairy tale come true, like a “myth become fact;” to use C. S. Lewis’ formula for the Incarnation.
peterkreeft.com/topics/hauled-aboard.htm

 

[guanophore]

It contributed, and hence the doctrinal corruption. Corrupt people taught corruption, by example if by no other method.

Without question, even the teaching of right doctrine can be ruined through bad example.

Spoken like a good Protestant! If the Church had not corrupted the doctrines, there would be no problem!

I think this is one of the biggest misunderstandings of the Reformation. There was a perception that doctrine had been corrupted, so those who wished to return to a purity in the Church changed what they thought was wrong. This resulted in a further departure from the once for all deposit of faith given to the Church.

**

And the corrupt politicians corrupted them, requiring a restoration away from the original corruption.**

This is a myth.

Yes, individuals were corrupted,and taught falsehoods, but there was nothing wrong with the orignial deposit of faith.

**

Tomyris:
That’s from the Book of James, which is in the Bible. It is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Corrupt teachers produce corruption.**

Yes, bad trees bear bad fruit, but creating a hybrid tree to replace the original is not the answer.

 

[joe371]

Actually I am being serious. Overstating a bit, but making a very serious point.

I recommend John Bossy’s* Christianity in the West 1400-1700*.

There is a lot of comparison between the Protestant and Catholic Reformations. They shared a lot of the same concerns and the same assumptions, such as the assumption that the basic problem was disorder and unruly behavior by the common people. This wasn’t Luther’s starting assumption, of course, in terms of his key theological claims, but it was certainly something he had no problem believing when it came to social and political matters.

One rather cynical way to view the sixteenth century is that Protestants and Catholics were putting in rival “bids” to the European elites as providers of social order. Some rulers liked the Protestant bid better; some liked the Catholic bid better.

Edwin

In your opinion was the Catholic reformation successful in terms of ridding the church of abuses that Martin Luther detested?

 

[PRmerger]

Ahem.

And I uninterested in the taking of the boy who had been baptized. I feel sorry for his family, but what is of interest here is whether the Protestants DID have justifiable grounds for the separation (vague on purpose). Was the corruption so bad, doctrinally and ethically, that they were right in doing so? I have a hunch the predisposition of the Catholics is for a no, here , and the Protestants might lean the other way.

If Protestants do, then they ought not make a peep when one of their own people decides to separate.

And…that would bring us back to the tens of thousands of Christian denominations.

Each of those folks separated from their original people, putatively on “justifiable grounds”, and all you Protestant folks who believe that it is permissible to separate on “justifiable grounds” ought not say a word of….protest…about their separation.

 

[guanophore]

I told you. I cannot make it any clearer.

Your turn.

One of the Clements, by the way, is about 90% quotations from the NT.

Was that the burning in the bosom confirmation? I think I might have missed that post.

Why isn’t the Letter of Barnabus in the NT?

 

[PRmerger]

Was that the burning in the bosom confirmation? I think I might have missed that post.

Why isn’t the Letter of Barnabus in the NT?

And why is 3 John, which doesn’t even mention Jesus.

Not even once. :nope:

 

[guanophore]

Ahem.

And I uninterested in the taking of the boy who had been baptized. I feel sorry for his family

Then you concede that, as upsetting as this event was, it was not based on a church teaching?

**

but what is of interest here is whether the Protestants DID have justifiable grounds for the separation (vague on purpose). Was the corruption so bad, doctrinally and ethically, that they were right in doing so? I have a hunch the predisposition of the Catholics is for a no, here , and the Protestants might lean the other way.**

In my mind there is no doubt that the reampant corruption and sins of pride, greed, and arrogance had already split the church. The formal declarations of Protestant ecclesial communities was an inevitable outcome of centuries of the clergy inappropriately involved in secular matters, and the conflation of secular affairs with ecclesial.

That being said, no, there is no justification for changing the Teachings of Christ.

Tomyris:

And if the Protestants say "Ooops" why don't they rejoin the Catholic Church? And if the Protestants were right, why should Catholics stay? What is the defining issue? Is there one that we can boil it down to?

You are right, this is the crux of the matter.

From the Catholic perspective, the changes in doctrine created during the Reformation represent a significant departure from the Once for All deposit of faith. We cannot embrace these new doctrines, because they constitute “a different gospel” than the one that was delivered to us.

A lot of other stuff is meaningless drivel. Cut to the chase. But knowing how many books GKC has, though, is of utmost urgency.

LOL I can’t argue with that! Wonder if he is going electronic? Do you sppose he may have some of the classical texts in ebook form? I noticed that was not in your list of options.

Didn’t they do some doctrinal corrections at Trent, come to think of it?

No. This is one of the fundamental marks of the Apostolic Church. There can be no changes to doctrine. Doctrine was delivered once for all, and we are not at liberty to add or subtract from it.

There may be a development in our understanding of the doctrine, or formal pronouncements that clarify the doctrine that has been delivered (dogma), but nothing that was delivered to the Church through the Apostles, and infallibly preserved in
the Church by the Holy Spirit can be changed.

To Whom, When, Where and How did God reveal the books that should be considered Scriptures?

I remember how flabberghasted I was the first time I was told on CAF that “Sola Scriptura assumes a canon”. This position seemed to me to be the ultimate cop out.

Then more recently it has been said that SS is not a doctrine, but a “practice”. From my point of view that is very weak, and still leaves one with the same problem. Why is a “practice” being used that is not found in Scripture?

 

[benjohnson]

T
Then more recently it has been said that SS is not a doctrine, but a “practice”.

As I see it, there’s two types of SS:

1. Me and my Bible
2. Using scripture, as a practice of the church, to norm other authorities. Among those authorities are the creeds, early church fathers, church councils, popes, and tradition.

The later is the Lutheran definition.

 

[guanophore]

As I see it, there’s two types of SS:

1. Me and my Bible
2. Using scripture, as a practice of the church, to norm other authorities. Among those authorities are the creeds, early church fathers, church councils, popes, and tradition.

The later is the Lutheran definition.

I don’t think so. The latter definition actually sounds more Catholic. Creeds, Councils, and Tradition cannot contradict the Scriptures (and still be valid).

I am not sure what it imeans to “norm” a Pope with Scripture. I should think that all human behavior, whatever one’s office, should be normed by scripture. There is a big difference between Scripture being use as a norm, and using it as the Sole Authority by which all others are evaluated.

 

[GKC]

I was just wondering if you count the 3-volume Lord of the Rings as one book, and if you have the second and third editions of a book, do you count that as one or two, or the paperback edition and hard-cover? What about excerpts in three-ring binders, say copies of various works of Dickens? And anthologies? What of books that are a single volume but have several books in them? And the Bible is one book but how many books do you count it as (here we go )? And do you count different editions and translation of the Bible as one, or count them individually.

This is staggering.

This will keep me up at night if I do not get an answer.

Sorry for the delay. Are you staggering with fatigue?

I count any bound volume as a separate book. Thus, the 1st printings of the American 2nd edition of the LOTR I count as 3 books (foregoing counting them as 1, as Tolkien originally planned). And the 1 volume US 3rd edition, in the red leatherette binding, and the 50th Anniversary 1 volume, both of which I gave my daughter, I would count as 1, each, if I still had them. OTOH, the set of the pirated Ace edition paperbacks, again I count as three. The same is true with copies of the Ballentine pbs, with the emus and pink grapefruit covers. And similarly with my editions of Lewis (Narnia/Space trilogy, for example): my hb first editions and my original pb (space trilogy) editions, each volume counted as 1. That is a general rule. Multiple copies are not all that common, outside my central core collecting areas, though I do have multiple copies of books that are intended for gifts, esp. signed copies. The duplicates in that case aren’t included in the count. Neither are the unknown hundreds of titles my daughter and SIL have made off with, including everything I had on Augustine, much of my material on Germany, outside of strictly military things, much of my history of philosophy, much medieval history, and a distressing amount of military stuff on intelligence, codes, spies, and certain types of weapons. And duplicates that I acquire accidentally are used as gifts, or traded to my local used bookstore for credit.

Three ring binders are strictly limited to copies of newsletters, and clippings, not counted. For that matter, file folders of articles and papers aren’t either. I don’t have anything published in parts, as was Dickens. Books on tape are not included.

Anthologies and multiple titles bound in a single volume count as a single volume, as noted with the LOTR 3rd ed/anniversary ed. Thus, the 2 volume Annotated Sherlock Holmes, by Baring-Gould is 2 volumes, the 3 volume set by Klinger is 3, regardless of the novels/stories inside.

Bible counted as 1 book, same reason. Different translations, or study Bibles, or interlinear Bibles or parallel Bibles, counted as 1 book, per each distinctive volume.

I hope you are able to sleep. If anything else is wanted, just ask. That was one of the more fun questions I’ve ever gotten.

GKC

 

[benjohnson]

I don’t think so. The latter definition actually sounds more Catholic. Creeds, Councils, and Tradition cannot contradict the Scriptures (and still be valid).

I am not sure what it imeans to “norm” a Pope with Scripture. I should think that all human behavior, whatever one’s office, should be normed by scripture. There is a big difference between Scripture being use as a norm, and using it as the Sole Authority by which all others are evaluated.

For the my comment on the Pope - Lutherans (historically) used the idea that the Word was ultimately binding when they felt that their Pope was promulgating (their opinion) things contrary to Christ.