Why all the Fuss on the Reformation?

[FathersKnowBest]

I think the Reformers did believe that there was a visible church with a divine teaching office, and that it was torn away from the “Papists” and given into the hands of those who would teach the Word more faithfully.

I had never heard this from a protestant.

Also, and even more importantly, God had never, ever done such a thing without divine intervention, either through multiple prophets (accompanied by substantiating miracles), or His Son. To claim such a thing would be to claim to speak for God, a highly dangerous claim to make without divine authority.

 

[guanophore]

I had never heard this from a protestant.

Modern Lutherans confess a visible church, and define it as the place where the Gospel is “rightly taught” and the sacraments adminstered.

Anglicans did not change anything after King Henry took over the Church. The Church continued with the same liturgical function (presumably without the prayers for the Holy Father) and clerical heirarchy. I realize that Anglicanism has since continued to fracture but I do not believe that Anglicans espouse the “invisible” idea of a Church, just that they don’t necessarily recognize that the Bishop of Rome is the visible head of it.

Mostly what we can look at is how the Reformers functioned to understand their beliefs. All of them got very angry when people did not believe or agree with their interpretation of Scriptures and function of the Church. Calvin and Zwingli participated in creating civil laws that enabled the Church to dispose cases (just like the Catholics did) then have secular leaders impose penalties. In effect, Calvin replaced the Pope with himself, wrote his own civil code then acted as ecclesial authority for it.

Also, and even more importantly, God had never, ever done such a thing without divine intervention, either through multiple prophets (accompanied by substantiating miracles), or His Son. To claim such a thing would be to claim to speak for God, a highly dangerous claim to make without divine authority.

 

[pablope]

I think the Reformers did believe that there was a visible church with a divine teaching office, and that it was torn away from the “Papists” and given into the hands of those who would teach the Word more faithfully. Lutherans and Anglicans today both affirm a visible Church. Presbyterians did originally or at least Calvin did because he created religious rule of secular affairs that had the weight of legal consequences (including excommunication and death) for those who did not comply.

Yes, I read about this from a convert named Dr. David Anders:
calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/how-john-calvin-made-me-a-catholic/

Calvin shocked me by rejecting key elements of my Evangelical tradition. Born-again spirituality, private interpretation of Scripture, a broad-minded approach to denominations – Calvin opposed them all. I discovered that his concerns were vastly different, more institutional, even more Catholic. Although he rejected the authority of Rome, there were things about the Catholic faith he never thought about leaving. He took for granted that the Church should have an interpretive authority, a sacramental liturgy and a single, unified faith…Lawyers, humanists, intellectuals, artisans and craftsman read Luther’s writings, as well as the Scriptures, and adapted whatever they liked.

This variety struck Calvin as a recipe for disaster. He was a lawyer by training, and always hated any kind of social disorder.

What most Evangelicals today don’t realize is that Calvin never endorsed private or lay interpretation of the Bible. While he rejected Rome’s claim to authority, he made striking claims for his own authority. He taught that the “Reformed” pastors were successors to the prophets and apostles, entrusted with the task of authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures. He insisted that laypeople should suspend judgment on difficult matters and “hold unity with the Church.”

In seminary, too, I found an environment where professors disagreed entirely over these issues and no one cared! With no final court of appeal, we had devolved into a “lowest common denominator” theology.

Church history taught me that this attitude was a recent development. John Calvin had high expectations for the unity and catholicity of the faith, and for the centrality of Church and sacrament. But Calvinism couldn’t deliver it. Outside of Geneva, without the force of the state to impose one version, Calvinism itself splintered into factions. In her book Orthodoxies in Massachusetts: Rereading American Puritanism, historian Janice Knight details how the process unfolded very early in American Calvinism. 8

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Modern Lutherans confess a visible church, and define it as the place where the Gospel is “rightly taught” and the sacraments adminstered.

OK, I have heard that phrase and seen it even here from some of the Lutherans.
Thanks.

Now, a question for the Lutherans:
How would one know where the Gospel is “rightly taught”? By whose definition?

The problem is that making that very distinction is one of the MAIN functions, Traditionally and scripturally, of the visible Church that Jesus began. (1Ti 3:15). How would this definition NOT be an appeal to a circular argument?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Yes, I read about this from a convert named Dr. David Anders:
calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/how-john-calvin-made-me-a-catholic/

I love listening to him.

What most Evangelicals today don’t realize is that Calvin never endorsed private or lay interpretation of the Bible. While he rejected Rome’s claim to authority, he made striking claims for his own authority.

Exactly!!! Which demonstrates my statement above, that determination of which version of Gospel is “rightly taught” is of paramount importance.

 

[Contarini]

OK, I have heard that phrase and seen it even here from some of the Lutherans.
Thanks.

Now, a question for the Lutherans:
How would one know where the Gospel is “rightly taught”? By whose definition?

The problem is that making that very distinction is one of the MAIN functions, Traditionally and scripturally, of the visible Church that Jesus began. (1Ti 3:15). How would this definition NOT be an appeal to a circular argument?

This is where “private interpretation,” if you must call it that, comes in. In classical Protestantism, it isn’t as free-wheeling as in modern American Protestantism. But there is still the conviction that ordinary baptized Christians can discern whether a given interpretation of Scripture is correct or not in its essential elements.

Protestants legitimately point out that at some point Catholics must make such a determination too. The so-called “spiral argument” doesn’t get Catholics off the hook here, because obviously a Catholic must make the determination that the historical evidence really does support Scriptural accuracy in the way the argument needs (and must disagree with consensus Biblical scholarship in order to do so). In other words, at some point some kind of “private judgment” is inevitable. The question is at what point one makes this act of individual choice.

The only way to refuse private judgment altogether is to remain faithful to the tradition in which one was raised.

Edwin

 

[rfournier103]

I think the Reformers did believe that there was a visible church with a divine teaching office, and that it was torn away from the “Papists” and given into the hands of those who would teach the Word more faithfully.

I agree insofar as the Protestants saw themselves as having taken away the Word from the evil superstitious “Papal Synagogue of Satan”. As far as I know, what they felt was best was that the laity could then see for themselves the “lies, errors, and heresies of the Romish church”.

Lutherans and Anglicans today both affirm a visible Church.

Be that as it may, I think that they are in the minority. I know of several “reformed” websites that brand our Lutheran and Anglican brethren almost as mis-guided as us! Sad, really…

Presbyterians did originally or at least Calvin did because he created religious rule of secular affairs that had the weight of legal consequences (including excommunication and death) for those who did not comply.

Did he (Calvin) really? Calvin denounces the Pope as antichrist; but decides that the church needs leadership and discipline? So you’re saying that it wasn’t that Calvin was against a visible Church with a visible leader/teacher; he was just against that Church and that leader being CATHOLIC? Stunning.

Calvin and Zwingli participated in creating civil laws that enabled the Church to dispose cases (just like the Catholics did) then have secular leaders impose penalties. In effect, Calvin replaced the Pope with himself, wrote his own civil code then acted as ecclesial authority for it.

We never hear anyone talk about this… Especially on those awful anti-Catholic websites.

I freely admit that I probably look at them too much (to see what the other side is up to), but they would NEVER utter a bad word about Calvin.

What most Evangelicals today don’t realize is that Calvin never endorsed private or lay interpretation of the Bible. While he rejected Rome’s claim to authority, he made striking claims for his own authority. He taught that the “Reformed” **pastors were successors to the prophets and apostles, entrusted with the task of authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures. He insisted that laypeople should suspend judgment on difficult matters and “hold unity with the Church.” **

The FIRST bolded part sounds like quite the Calvinist power-grab; and the SECOND bolded part sounds oddly Catholic… Could it be possible that Calvin had no intention of “reforming” but rather wanted the Pope’s power for himself? Scandalous!!!

I never knew any of this about Calvin. VERY fascinating…

In seminary, too, I found an environment where professors disagreed entirely over these issues and no one cared! With no final court of appeal, we had devolved into a “lowest common denominator” theology.

As a layman, I’d have to say that that’s no way to run a seminary.

Now, a question for the Lutherans:
How would one know where the Gospel is “rightly taught”? By whose definition?

An excellent question.

***DISCLAIMER: **In an effort to NOT link to anti-Catholic websites; I did not provide links to these terms & descriptions. I assure the readers that these ARE terms used in the 21st century by some very hostile anti-Catholics. As a Catholic myself, I find these terms vulgar and offensive; and their inclusion here was for the sole purpose of making a point. I apologize for any offense anyone may have taken.

 

[PRmerger]

I believe you’re referring to the case of Pope Sixtus V.
He didn’t go so far as wanting to remove books from the canon. (Heaven forbid; who would go so far as to do such a thing? )
Rather, he was about to promulgate a “botched version” of the Latin Vulgate.

Quoting from Papal Infallibility, which in turn quotes from Pat Madrid’s book Pope Fiction:

 

[Tomyris]

Well, I last posted at #886 and here it is #905. Many of the posts raise good points and are thoughtful and well worth answering. Obviously that is not going to happen in one post; many have been or should be whole threads or more in themselves. I hope you are enjoying yourselves.

So I will say two things. One, is that it has been said that my understanding of the pope is skewed. Probably, but I doubt your impartiality in the matter.

The second is that the discussion is too broad. Let’s narrow it: How do we recognize authority?

 

[rfournier103]

is that it has been said that my understanding of the pope is skewed. Probably, but I doubt your impartiality in the matter.

I freely admit that I am in no way impartial in this matter. I shall post accordingly.

 

[guanophore]

In her book Orthodoxies in Massachusetts: Rereading American Puritanism, historian Janice Knight details how the process unfolded very early in American Calvinism. 8

Thank you for this informative post. I will add this to my reading list. I recently learned that my ancestors were rabid anti-Catholic puritans, and would like to understand more about how I ended up in a small Catholic branch of the family.

**

OK, I have heard that phrase and seen it even here from some of the Lutherans.
Thanks.

Now, a question for the Lutherans:
How would one know where the Gospel is “rightly taught”? By whose definition?

The problem is that making that very distinction is one of the MAIN functions, Traditionally and scripturally, of the visible Church that Jesus began. (1Ti 3:15). How would this definition NOT be an appeal to a circular argument?

**

I am sure that there are enough Lutherans here to chime in on this, and the answer may be different, as there has been plenty of splintering within the Lutheran communion as well, ,but my separated brethren on this board have taugth me that historically or traditionally faithful Lutherans go by the Augsburg Confessions and the Lutheran Catechism.

Lutherans, like Anglicans, affirm and embrace certain degrees of Catholic Sacred Tradition. They accept the first 7 ecumenical councils (correct me if I am wrong) and many of the concepts that are formed through Sacred Tradition, including the unity of the One Faith. Lutherans have told me that they are a “valid continuation” of the Catholic faith whose birth we see in the NT.

There is really much less that separates us than separates both of us from “bible churches” that deny the liturgy, sacraments, priesthood, etc.

 

[pablope]

Well, I last posted at #886 and here it is #905. Many of the posts raise good points and are thoughtful and well worth answering. Obviously that is not going to happen in one post; many have been or should be whole threads or more in themselves. I hope you are enjoying yourselves.

So I will say two things. One, is that it has been said that my understanding of the pope is skewed. Probably, but I doubt your impartiality in the matter.

The second is that the discussion is too broad. Let’s narrow it: How do we recognize authority?

Why don’t you start a thread on authority and you formulate your question/theory or premise.

 

[guanophore]

So I will say two things. One, is that it has been said that my understanding of the pope is skewed. Probably, but I doubt your impartiality in the matter.

It has the advantage of being skewed by facts rather than fiction.

The second is that the discussion is too broad. Let’s narrow it: How do we recognize authority?

I thnk you already addressed this in many previous posts. You do not recognize the authority appointed by Christ, do not accept that the gifts and the call of God are present in the apostolic succession, and accept a truncated definition of the Church.

Rejection of the Apostolic elements of the faith such as these leaves one with very little left except the principle of Sola Scriptura, which inevitably makes everyone their own authority.

We shall know them by their fruits. The medieval Popes lost the confidence of the flock by abusing their authority. You have proposed that God removed it from them, presumably to give it to the Reformers. All of the Reformers founded ecclesial communities that have continued to splinter and divide. We are now further away from unity that we were at the time of the Reformation as a result. In answer to the thread topic question, that is precisely why there is “all the fuss”.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Thank you for this informative post. I will add this to my reading list. I recently learned that my ancestors were rabid anti-Catholic puritans, and would like to understand more about how I ended up in a small Catholic branch of the family.

I believe it was Chesterton that said America has a holiday to celebrate the arrival of the puritans. In England we should have a holiday to celebrate their departure.

I am sure that there are enough Lutherans here to chime in on this, and the answer may be different, as there has been plenty of splintering within the Lutheran communion as well, ,but my separated brethren on this board have taugth me that historically or traditionally faithful Lutherans go by the Augsburg Confessions and the Lutheran Catechism.

Hey, both of which Pope Benedict XVI said are perfectly Catholic documents

 

[Tomyris]

It has the advantage of being skewed by facts rather than fiction.

I could say the same.

I thnk you already addressed this in many previous posts. You do not recognize the authority appointed by Christ, do not accept that the gifts and the call of God are present in the apostolic succession, and accept a truncated definition of the Church.

Getting your exercise by jumping to conclusions?

You presume without proof that the bishops are that authority. You have given rhetoric and little else to back this up.

You presume on my understanding of the apostolic succession. To me it is the passing on of truth, not of laying on of hands from unbeliever to unbeliever. Those who pass on truth given by God are the ones in apostolic succession. Some are in your Communion, some are not.

More than once I have said respectful things concerning your leadership. I have said God can use them. On the other hand, He once spoke through a donkey. PR would argue then that donkeys are infallible, I guess.

I do not accept ‘a truncated definition of the church’. I am not sure either that I know what you mean by that or that you do, as you have not bothered to define it.

Rejection of the Apostolic elements of the faith such as these leaves one with very little left except the principle of Sola Scriptura, which inevitably makes everyone their own authority.

Groundless silliness.

We shall know them by their fruits. The medieval Popes lost the confidence of the flock by abusing their authority.

Yes, we know them by their fruit. Thank you for setting those statements side by side.

You have proposed that God removed it from them, presumably to give it to the Reformers.

I suggested we discuss whether God would ever remove papal authority (and I passed over the two logical precedents of whether there was ever such a thing and whether it extended into the 1400s)

All of the Reformers founded ecclesial communities that have continued to splinter and divide.

Amazing how you ignore the splits in the Catholic church, some larger and of greater duration, whether the OO, EO, the PNCC, Old Catholics, etc., which makes quite a list.

We are now further away from unity that we were at the time of the Reformation as a result.

If the pope was who you claim, then he was responsible for the split. If he was not, then Protestants were. I am not convinced Catholics have fully accepted the blame for their role or for the persecution of Protestants.

In answer to the thread topic question, that is precisely why there is “all the fuss”.

No, there is more to it than that. But I thank you for narrowing things.

 

[Tomyris]

I never knew any of this about Calvin. VERY fascinating…

You still don’t know it. All you know is what someone wrote in a CAF post. I suggest you do your own research.

 

[Tomyris]

This is where “private interpretation,” if you must call it that, comes in. In classical Protestantism, it isn’t as free-wheeling as in modern American Protestantism. But there is still the conviction that ordinary baptized Christians can discern whether a given interpretation of Scripture is correct or not in its essential elements.

Protestants legitimately point out that at some point Catholics must make such a determination too. The so-called “spiral argument” doesn’t get Catholics off the hook here, because obviously a Catholic must make the determination that the historical evidence really does support Scriptural accuracy in the way the argument needs (and must disagree with consensus Biblical scholarship in order to do so). In other words, at some point some kind of “private judgment” is inevitable. The question is at what point one makes this act of individual choice.

The only way to refuse private judgment altogether is to remain faithful to the tradition in which one was raised.

Edwin

Doesn’t this sort of cause a problem: you are using private judgement to leave one faith tradition that endorses private judgement to join one that rejects it? That may be one of my famous gross overreaches and simplifications but there it is anyway.

This may be an interesting critique of Catholic attempts at getting non-Catholic Christians to join them: they appeal to individual, private judgement so these same folk will join a system where they learn it is the wrong basis for action. It’s apparently ok for joining but not for leaving the Catholic Church.

 

[Tomyris]

Well, since the CC came first, I would have to propose that Reformed theology has not departed from the Faith, given once for all, to the saints, in this regard.

Well, we see it differently.

Iwould have to propose that Catholic theology has not departed from the Faith, given once for all, to the saints, in this regard, as it agrees with Reformed theology here.

 

[Tomyris]

I freely admit that I am in no way impartial in this matter. I shall post accordingly.

shall?

To admit that one is not impartial is an indication of a lack of judiciousness.

 

[guanophore]

I suggested we discuss whether God would ever remove papal authority (and I passed over the two logical precedents of whether there was ever such a thing and whether it extended into the 1400s) Amazing how you ignore the splits in the Catholic church, some larger and of greater duration, whether the OO, EO, the PNCC, Old Catholics, etc., which makes quite a list.

Jesus formed His Church under a New Covenant, and made promises to her “until the end of the age”, ,so no, the OT precedent does not apply.

I am not ignoring any schisms in the Church. All of these Apostolic faiths you cite accept the validity of apostolic succession and infallibility. These are the teachings of the Apostles, and those who adhere to the Apostlic faith accept them. You do not.

If the pope was who you claim, then he was responsible for the split. If he was not, then Protestants were. I

You have an unhelpful reasoning pattern of black and white/either or thinking. There was fault on both sides.

The bad behavior of a bishop does not invalidate Jesus gifts and promises to His Church any more than the faithlessness of Judas invalidates the rest of the Apostles. The corrupt bishops are, indeed, responsible for their sins and will answer to God. We who are alive and remain need not persist in the sins of separation. Focusing on finding fault with events of 500 years ago has little productive value. What is keeping you separated now? You are choosing not to believe what was written and handed down for our instruction.

am not convinced Catholics have fully accepted the blame for their role or for the persecution of Protestants.

Yes, it is quite clear that you are more invested in placing blame than healing the wounds to unity. Unfortunately you are not alone, and such attitudes are fertile ground for the evil one, who wants to keep the disciples of Christ separated and at emnity with one another. By focusing on the wounds, and staying invested in placing blame, we foster continued distrust, and play right into the hands of the one who is a murder and destroyer.