Why all the Fuss on the Reformation?

[adf417]

No I don’t truly see how or why it should leave you going “huh?”. I honestly don’t know why it would. God can use whoever He wants at any given time for His purposes. He’s God.

:hypno:to the power of 10.

I’m curious if you actually read the whole of the post you replied to Sy.

Of coarse God can do anything. That’s not at all what was being discussed.

Peace!!!

 

[patrick8888]

An impossible task. Why? Because how would you even begin to calculate the number? What constitutes a denomination? Any disagreement? Any geographical barrier? Any division at all? Any theological disagreement?

Barrett went with each geographic boundary constitutes a different denomination, that’s how he came up with 242 Catholic denominations. He did that with every other denomination. That’s how the Barrett study came up with 30k denominations. A ridiculously inflated number.

Actually, you should be PROUD of this. The purpose of the reformation and of Luther was to personally interpret the bible for themselves. It should be defined as a true anti-Catholic success . 30k indeed is FAR too small a number. Figure on millions upon millions, considering how many do not associate with any denomination but are a church unto themselves just by virtue of “reading” the bible. Sola Scriptura is chaos in action.

 

[PRmerger]

Again, only the CC has infallibility ? Revelations gives the picture of possible infallibility if the church listens to Him. Apparently only 2 of the 7 churches had overall good reports. It seems conditional and that the remnant maintaining in that promise may be other churches is reasonable.

Wait…what?

Are you now trying to posit that other churches have the charism of infallibility?

If so, what churches?

And why don’t they claim it for themselves?

Are you professing that your church has been given this charism? If so, is it just your pastor who is the magisterium of your church, or are you a member of a church that has several authoritative leaders?

 

[guanophore]

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.

Yes, I agree. I think this is why I am so grieved when I read posts from both Protestants and Catholics that unity is not possible. It makes me think that people cannot really trust God to do what only he can do.

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

I need more help in understanding this, because when I read Scripture it seeemed clear that Jesus founded His Church and He is responsible for it’s growth. I see that He intended it to have structure, be unified, and left provisions for how it is to function. Yes there are human elements of it that are capable of falling away, getting off track, making mistakes, abusing power, etc, etc. but none of that undoes what Christ founded. It seems to me that Protestants must agree with this or could not see their own congregations as valid continuations of what He founded.

: if the bishops, etc., had not blown it we would not be in this mess.

I believe this is very true. Human sin/failings can be found at the foundation of all the wrongdoing that has occurred. In my opinion, the Church had no business ever conflating secular matters with ecclesial, and the resutling greed for money, power, etc. However there are a couple things I just don’t find logical. How can any reasonable person believe that EVERYONE in the Catholic Church was corrupt? That there was no one who clung to the faith, and persisted in sanctitty? Does not believing this equate to believing that Christ abandoned that which he promised to never abandon?

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

Perhaps you can help me understand this better. What principle underlies this conclusion? Though we agree that there have been corrupt persons in leadership, how is it that, once these corrupt persons are gone, the situation is unchanged? I also don’t see how anyone can look at the last century of holy popes and equate them with Popes at the time of the Reformation.

 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.

Are you talking about infallibility here?

 

[Porknpie]

Wait…what?

Are you now trying to posit that other churches have the charism of infallibility?

If so, what churches?

And why don’t they claim it for themselves?

Are you professing that your church has been given this charism? If so, is it just your pastor who is the magisterium of your church, or are you a member of a church that has several authoritative leaders?

It’s interesting here that scripture itself says

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.

Nothing here in scripture that says “churches” or “them”.

 

[guanophore]

Again, only the CC has infallibility ? Revelations gives the picture of possible infallibility if the church listens to Him.

Actually, He did not make any such qualification. It was as if He knew there would always be a faithful, listening, remnant, no matter what.

The gift of infallbility is necessary for the church to survive, since there are fallible persons attached to her. Sadly not all are obedient nor to they listen to the Holy Spirit.

Apparently only 2 of the 7 churches had overall good reports. It seems conditional and that the remnant maintaining in that promise may be other churches is reasonable.

Yet in each case, he gives opportunity to repent and be restored. If he is able to restore those who repent and turn away from sin, why would Protestants not be able/willing to do the same? Are you willing to hold sins against the Catholic hierarchy that even Jesus is not holding? can we forgive each other less than He has forgiven each of us?

In point of fact, there is only ONE Church,a nd all who are in Christ are members of His One Body. By our pride and clinging to our wounds and unforgiveness, we separate that Body.

 

[stewstew03]

Again, only the CC has infallibility ? Revelations gives the picture of possible infallibility if the church listens to Him. Apparently only 2 of the 7 churches had overall good reports. It seems conditional and that the remnant maintaining in that promise may be other churches is reasonable.

So it’s possible the LDS church, for example, is infallible? You’d have to allow for that possibility under your paradigm.

 

[guanophore]

Actually, you should be PROUD of this. The purpose of the reformation and of Luther was to personally interpret the bible for themselves. It should be defined as a true anti-Catholic success.

While I agree that Sola Scriptura has been an anti-Catholic success, I do not believe that it was Luther’s purpose to interpret the Scripture for himself. I believe his purpose was to offer the Scriptures as refutation against the corruption in practiced by Catholic clerics.

It is true that he read the Scriptures and came to conclusions about their meaning that were different than the understanding of the CC, but it seemed to him that the meaning was quite plain, and that the CC was obfucating the Truth of them.

Luther became very provoked when other reformers came to yet more different conclusions than he had already made, and thought the individualistic interpretation was a menace.

 

[Tommy999]

As a protestant, I waver sometimes about how I feel about the Reformation.

It sometimes bothers me that the Reformation occurred because I believe the verses in John about unity, and the Reformation definitely severed the central unity the Church had up until that time. As a result, Christendom has split into countless denominations, which I don’t believe even was the intent of the Reformers. It’s gotten out of hand and division weakens Christianity, in my opinion.

However, part of me also sees some positives to the Reformantion. I will sum it up in one word, “Competition”. I view competition as something that is generally a good thing. Let me explain.

Would we have as nice of cars today if Ford was still the lone car maker? I doubt it. At one point when they were the lone car maker, you could have any car you wanted so long as it was a black Edsel. The competition from GM, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, etc, has arguably made Ford into a more fit and strong company, in my view.

I also think that the US Postal Service has improved since Federal Express, UPS, and others have entered the marketplace. I think McDonalds is better because of Burger King and Subway.

In the same way, I think one positive by-product of the Reformation is that it has helped keep the Catholic Church of today *on message *and strong. It also has helped Catholics to get to know their faith and to defend their faith more than would have been the case in a predominantly Catholic nation, like Spain.

I think protestants can learn things of value from the Catholic Church and viceversa. For example, I think the CC would be wise to study and learn how a lot of protestant churches greet visitors and help them feel welcome. I think some protestant worship music is also wonderful and worshipful.

On the other hand, I think Protestants can learn a lot from Catholics on a variety of subjects, such as Church history. Yes, there were some meaningful things that happened in between the end of the New Testament and Martin Luther and some special people of faith lived back then who were our Church fathers, from whom we can learn a lot from whom we can receive inspiration. All of them were Catholics who carried the mantle of faith to the point where Christianity even existed at the time of the Reformation.

Most of the time, like the OP, I don’t even think about the Reformation because it was so long ago and most protestants have moved on and are more concerned with their relationship with God and getting help and instruction from the Lord and their local church in how to live a more godly Christian life – the same as modern Catholics.

I am a big proponent of ecumenism because Catholics and Prostestants share a common enemy – Satan and the powers of darkness – and we need to team up to combat it, in my view, and not view each other as the enemy. That is one of the reasons I came to CAF in the first place.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I probably won’t do a very good job here, but let me see if I can help you see why we go “huh?”

As you say above, “God can use whoever He wants at any given time for His purposes. He’s God.” Fair enough…I think many of us can see this in our daily lives.
But -
The argument here is not about individuals but about the church.
The protestant argues that “the church” - and even councils of “the church” have erred…not always and everywhere…maybe not even the majority of the time…but they have erred.
The Catholic asks, quite logically, how do you know that? How do you discern which things are correct and which things are not?
The protestant will often reply, “by comparing it to the Bible - the sole rule of faith”.
Now this is the “huh?” moment. The Catholic begins scratching his head because the Bible is the result of a council which, by the protestant notion, could err.…
So then we ask…How do you know that the Canon is correct if a fallible council was the one that determined it?
Do you see how the logic goes here?

For myself - and I was away from the Catholic Church for many years - I cannot place my trust in such a loose and disorderly concept as what came out of the reformation.
Sola Scriptura is perhaps not a bad idea on the face of it BUT…
Where does Scripture tell us that Councils of the Christian Church can err?
Where in Scripture do we find an example of churches in different communities holding different and contradictory beliefs - and this being OK with the Apostles.
How did the canon of Scripture wind up going from the 73 books that Luther used, to the 66 books that most protestants hold as correct?
How can the protestant make the argument that everything be checked against Scripture when the canon of Scripture has been changed…and not by a council.

This then is why we go “huh?”…

Hope this makes sense…

Peace
James

James, you made enough sense for me from your Catholic perspective indeed. I would only add one can only discern and believe they know which things are right including the Canon by the faith one has within them. Catholics too must begin with faith. I see Catholics bringing up the ECFs a lot for instance. Sure but you must place faith in them or in how their writings are interpreted by your church. Bottom line is there are many faiths and no of course not everyone’s can be the one truth, if anyone’s is on everything. That’s simply the nature of faith. See for you, you can not place trust in a looser concept. I get that. I OTOH prefer a looser concept rather than being told in black and white what I must believe on every issue by other humans. There is only 1 God and none of us humans should think we can apply for the position. So as a human I’m just totally comfortable with some gray in matters of faith and that’s probably why I’m like I am. Peace my Christian brother as we walk by our faiths.

 

[Sy_Noe]

As a protestant, I waver sometimes about how I feel about the Reformation.

It sometimes bothers me that the Reformation occurred because I believe the verses in John about unity, and the Reformation definitely severed the central unity the Church had up until that time. As a result, Christendom has split into countless denominations, which I don’t believe even was the intent of the Reformers. It’s gotten out of hand and division weakens Christianity, in my opinion.

However, part of me also sees some positives to the Reformantion. I will sum it up in one word, “Competition”. I view competition as something that is generally a good thing. Let me explain.

Would we have as nice of cars today if Ford was still the lone car maker? I doubt it. At one point when they were the lone car maker, you could have any car you wanted so long as it was a black Edsel. The competition from GM, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, etc, has arguably made Ford into a more fit and strong company, in my view.

I also think that the US Postal Service has improved since Federal Express, UPS, and others have entered the marketplace. I think McDonalds is better because of Burger King and Subway.

In the same way, I think one positive by-product of the Reformation is that it has helped keep the Catholic Church of today *on message *and strong. It also has helped Catholics to get to know their faith and to defend their faith more than would have been the case in a predominantly Catholic nation, like Spain.

I think protestants can learn things of value from the Catholic Church and viceversa. For example, I think the CC would be wise to study and learn how a lot of protestant churches greet visitors and help them feel welcome. I think some protestant worship music is also wonderful and worshipful.

On the other hand, I think Protestants can learn a lot from Catholics on a variety of subjects, such as Church history. Yes, there were some meaningful things that happened in between the end of the New Testament and Martin Luther and some special people of faith who were our Church fathers who we can learn a lot from and be inspired by. All of them were Catholics.

Most of the time, like the OP, I don’t even concern myself with the Reformation because it was so long ago and most protestants have moved on and are more concerned with their relationship with God and getting help and instruction from the Lord and their local church in how to live a more godly Christian life – the same as modern Catholics.

I am a big proponent of ecumenism because Catholics and Prostestants share a common enemy – Satan and the powers of darkness – and we need to team up to combat it, in my view, and not view each other as the enemy. That is one of the reasons I came to CAF in the first place.

I personally prefer both BK and Subway to McDonald’s but others prefer a Big Mac no doubt. You make a great point though. I don’t much concern myself with the Reformation either but with a relationship with God. I’m a big proponent of ecumenism too. We should strive not to be each other’s enemies when we are united on the One most important of all Who as Ephesians tells us is the One Who breaks down the walls. Peace brother.

 

[JRKH]

James, you made enough sense for me from your Catholic perspective indeed.

Thanks. Glad my post was of help.

I would only add one can only discern and believe they know which things are right including the Canon by the faith one has within them.
Catholics too must begin with faith.

Amen.

I see Catholics bringing up the ECFs a lot for instance. Sure but you must place faith in them or in how their writings are interpreted by your church.

Not “my” Church but Christ’s Church of which I am privileged to be a member…

Bottom line is there are many faiths and of course not everyone’s can be the one truth, if anyone’s is on everything. That’s simply the nature of faith.

This is where we begin to differ…“different faiths” smacks of “different gospels” which Scriptures warn us against.

See for you, you can not place trust in a looser concept. I get that. I OTOH prefer a looser concept rather than being told in black and white what I must believe on every issue by other humans.

Three points here

1. There is still a great deal of “grey” area in Catholic teaching and how it is applied…
2. I too would not like, “being told in black and white what I must believe on every issue by other humans”.
3. However, I have no problem receiving the teachings of the Holy Spirit through Christ’s duly ordained authority - The Church. In fact, it is Scripture itself that requires me to submit to her.

There is only 1 God and none of us humans should think we can apply for the position.

Agreed…So far as I know - no pope has ever done that.

So as a human I’m just totally comfortable with some gray in matters of faith and that’s probably why I’m like I am.

I’m comfortable with grey areas too…Some may like every question answered, but I think that is an impossible goal. To me, it more important to grasp the basic principles and go from there.

Peace my Christian brother as we walk by our faiths.

Peace to you as well. And let us walk in the same faith…

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I personally prefer both BK and Subway to McDonald’s but others prefer a Big Mac no doubt. You make a great point though. I don’t much concern myself with the Reformation either but with a relationship with God. I’m a big proponent of ecumenism too. We should strive not to be each other’s enemies when we are united on the One most important of all Who as Ephesians tells us is the One Who breaks down the walls. Peace brother.

Totally agree that we need to not be each others enemies.
However - if I may - one must not dilute what it means to be united on the One most important…" I say this because being united on this one thing (Faith in Christ) entails a great many things - not just a simple ascent. Getting these various aspects right is important if one is going to rightly and sincerely say they are united in Christ.
So - as a part of true ecumenism among the various (protestant**) communions, there has to be a true dialogue, debate, council and consensus building on what are the true and correct beliefs among the various contradictory views held by the many protestant communions.

**Note here that I am taking the Catholic Church out of this ecumenical mix only in order to prevent any “us vs them” diversion of conversation.

Peace
James

 

[Contarini]

Not at all. There is more evidence for the NT’s reliability and veracity than for any other ancient historical event.

Really? All of it? I don’t think you would find any serious historian who would agree with that statement, worded as you have worded it. It’s just not tenable. (Many evangelical apologists, and some Catholics, confuse the evidence for the reliability of the NT manuscripts with evidence for the historicity of the events described. Obviously these are two completely different things.) Lots of ancient events have multiple attestation, literary as well as archaeological. Most of the events described in the NT are attested only in the NT itself, and many of them do not have independent attestation even within the NT.

And again, you are assuming that the NT is a whole, which is precisely the conclusion for which we are dependent on the decisions made by the early Catholic Church.

We can appreciate the complexities of the historical discussions and decisions that went into the canon, but in the end, why do we believe? Do we put our trust in the Church first or God second, which is idolatry (“I believe God because of the Church”) or believe God because of Who He Is, and all else is a distant second. Understanding history and loving the Church can be helpful but they cannot be a crutch.

When you speak of people “trusting the Church rather than God” or “denying that we can hear from God,” you are, with all due respect, poisoning the well and muddling the discussion. No one disputes, of course, that the Church’s authority is secondary and derivative compared to God’s or that God can speak to people.

The question under dispute is what role the Church plays in our hearing from God. It isn’t that God says something and I only believe it because the Church corroborates it (which is an absurd straw man), but rather that the witness of the Church is one of the most important ways in which I know that God has spoken.

Sorry I came off that way.

Not in any rude sense. It’s just that we are obviously questioning something that you are not accustomed to questioning, and you seem to think that questioning how you know God has spoken is somehow odd or captious.

I think it is curious that Catholics are objecting to someone saying God spoke something

No one is objecting to the idea of God speaking. We are asking you for a bit more explanation of how you discern that God has spoken. To say that “God has spoken” is another way of saying that something is true. Hence, to say “God told me X” is not an explanation of why you believe X is true. It’s a tautology–unless you are claiming some sort of direct intuitive knowledge of God’s truth that is independent of all the normal ways in which we discover truth. And at that point you have lapsed into a thoroughly irrational fideism which gives you no grounds for disagreeing with anyone else who may claim that God has told them something with which you–and all other orthodox Christians–disagree.

when it is entirely in line with Catholic thought and belief: that the Bible is inspired. Picture me asking a bishop for confirmation about a “private revelation” that God told me that the Bible is inspired. I think I would get it.

But the question is: would you need it?

There is historically indisputable evidence that God gave us the Bible (through the Church).

Historically indisputable? It’s very historically disputable, unless you are claiming that people who are not Christians cannot be good historians, which is absurd on the face of it. Plenty of sound historians dispute it. You can’t prove divine revelation beyond the shadow of a doubt through history or any other means. You can establish probable evidence and then you have to exercise faith. The problem we are having with your position is that you choose to exercise faith on a very precise and complex matter (the NT canon) which derives its precise shape from the decisions of the early Church. This would seem to indicate a very high level of confidence in the reliability with which the early Church heard the voice of God. And yet, when pressed on this matter, you rather illogically accuse us of “leaving God out of the picture” or subordinating God to the Church. This makes no sense to me at all, although I can certainly see why you would react badly to many of the tactics used by Catholics on this forum.

How does God speak to you? Only through reason? How do you know He has spoken? What is your position on charismata today?

To answer the last question first: I think they are possible.

God speaks to me in every possible way: through reason, through feeling and intuition, through the wise counsel of others, through the wisdom of tradition, and so on. I don’t know without doubt that God has spoken, but the more different sources of knowledge converge in the same direction, the more relative certainty I have. In the end, though, there comes a point where one must choose to believe.

You haven’t, by the way, answered your own question: how does God speak to you? I am still rather confused by this, since sometimes you seem to be expressing a view identical to the one I just gave and sometimes you seem to think that you can discern God’s voice with absolute certainty through some kind of personal intuition, needing no other confirmation. Your present case against the Catholic argument from the canon seems to depend on the latter view, which in turn seems entirely untenable to me.

Edwin

 

[SteveVH]

I OTOH prefer a looser concept rather than being told in black and white what I must believe on every issue by other humans.

The Apostles were human. Do you believe that you should do what they have told us we must do? The bottom line is that we should not be seeking a faith based upon our preferences. We should be seeking truth and conforming our live to it, regardless of whether or not it is something we “prefer” .

Peace

Steve

 

[SteveVH]

Really? All of it? I don’t think you would find any serious historian who would agree with that statement, worded as you have worded it. It’s just not tenable. (Many evangelical apologists, and some Catholics, confuse the evidence for the reliability of the NT manuscripts with evidence for the historicity of the events described. Obviously these are two completely different things.) Lots of ancient events have multiple attestation, literary as well as archaeological. Most of the events described in the NT are attested only in the NT itself, and many of them do not have independent attestation even within the NT.

And again, you are assuming that the NT is a whole, which is precisely the conclusion for which we are dependent on the decisions made by the early Catholic Church.

When you speak of people “trusting the Church rather than God” or “denying that we can hear from God,” you are, with all due respect, poisoning the well and muddling the discussion. No one disputes, of course, that the Church’s authority is secondary and derivative compared to God’s or that God can speak to people.

The question under dispute is what role the Church plays in our hearing from God. It isn’t that God says something and I only believe it because the Church corroborates it (which is an absurd straw man), but rather that the witness of the Church is one of the most important ways in which I know that God has spoken.

Excellent!

 

[Porknpie]

I don’t much concern myself with the Reformation either but with a relationship with God.

Sy, Christ specifically told us to receive him in the Eucharist. Through the Eucharist, the Catholic relationship with God goes beyond one of prayer only, but extends to receiving him Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. This is important because Christ himself told us to do both: pray and receive him.

Malachi foretells of this future, pure offering, world-wide, 24 hours a day in the Mass.

Malachi 1
11 For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.

Our relationship with God is a terrific reason to concern yourself with the Reformation and consider the 2,000 year old, Catholic faith.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Excellent!

Excellent*2!

 

[PRmerger]

As a result, Christendom has split into countless denominations, which I don’t believe even was the intent of the Reformers. It’s gotten out of hand and division weakens Christianity, in my opinion.

EDWINNNNNN!!!
Tomi??? (As in Tomyris. Not Tommy999)

Most Protestants simply don’t care.

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.

QED

 

[benhur]

So it’s possible the LDS church, for example, is infallible? You’d have to allow for that possibility under your paradigm.

Any church that listens or has eyes on the Lord has possibility of infallibility. Do i think lds is listening, no.