Why all the Fuss on the Reformation?

[guanophore]

I could say the same.

You could, but you have already made it clear that your conclusionns are based on an unhealed wound, and trust issues that have never been resolved. These are subjective, rather than objective standards of assessment.

Getting your exercise by jumping to conclusions?

No need to jump. One need only observe.

No. Neither was he blowing hot air when he warned leaders what He would do to them, or when Israel went into exile, etc.

The apostolic deposit is one of truth, which they abandoned. They forfeited the deposit, did they not?

This indicates that you believe God removed any authority that may have been given because certain people were not faithful to it.

The last few popes and the present one have been good and holy AFAIK, but there is no guarantee the next one will not be another Alexander VI or Leo X.

This indicates fear of what will happen in the future, and a decision not to trust those appointed by Christ because some may be disobedient.

And there is no unconditional promise of the continuance of the papacy until Christ’s return.

This is a denial of the Scripture

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

This is a denial of the Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, and the unsullied doctrine of the Church both East and West for 1500 years.

For you, all this history and consistent faith does not represent the work of the Holy Spirit, but is just “little else”.

There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see. A Christian who denies the words of Scripture and the Apostolic faith that has been documented in faith and practice for a millenia and a half will not be pursuaded by anything I can produce.

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.

The two are no separated. It is the duty of the Apostolic Succession to hold, teach, and pass on the One Faith.

Of course not all who pass on the faith truthfully are Bishops. We call it the sensus fidelum, or the experience and acquisition of the faith by all members of the Church. We all hold the faith in common, together, in unity with the Bishops, who are the successors of the Apostles appointed by Christ.

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.

You seem to have a warped idea about what the Church founded by Christ believes about the gift of infallibity. If you think it is a Roman peculiarity, it is important for you to understand that the Eastern Orthodox believe in the gift of infallibility also.

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.

Your statements above confirm that you accept a truncated version of the Church. The Church founded by Christ has Himself as the Head, the Holy Spirit as her Soul and is founded upon the Apostles and prophets. The Church founded by Christ is visible, authorative, and continual. It is structured around the Bishops, the successors of the Apostles, who are responsible for preserving, promulgating, and handing down the Teachings entrusted to her by Christ. The Church He founded enjoys His protection until the end of the Age. You have denied these biblical truths, therefore, your image of the Church is deficient.

 

[Per_Crucem]

You could, but you have already made it clear that your conclusionns are based on an unhealed wound, and trust issues that have never been resolved. These are subjective, rather than objective standards of assessment.

I’m going to call this post the “Epistle to the Presbyterians”.

 

[rfournier103]

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

I just might. There is a LOT to know about Catholicism; so whatever time I can set aside for religious learning is usually spent on that. That being said, I suppose I could spare a few minutes to read a little bit about this John Calvin and see what he was REALLY about.

shall?

Did I use a word that I wasn’t supposed to? If I have offended you, I apologize…

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

To admit that one is not impartial is an indication of honesty.

 

[Stilldreamn]

I’m going to call this post the “Epistle to the Presbyterians”.

 

[Contarini]

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.

It’s absolutely a problem. It’s why I’ve been dithering around on the threshold of Catholicism for so long.

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.

You need to distinguish between Catholicism in general and the propaganda efforts of conservative American Catholics who are trying to fight back against evangelical proselytism and turn the tables. Pope Francis recently condemned proselytism, but he wasn’t doing anything new. Pope Benedict in 2005 explicitly rejected “ecumenism of the return” and called for a path to reunion that would not involve Protestants rejecting their own faith traditions. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he is said to have persuaded a Protestant employee at the Vatican not to convert to Catholicism. This is embarrassing to most of the folks on this forum, of course.

The problem I see is that corporate reunion, for which the Popes hope, is extremely unlikely and becoming less so in the case of mainstream Anglicanism. And I should say in contrast to my previous paragraph that it’s clear that neither Pope Benedict nor Pope Francis would reject individual conversions to Catholicism. But they would want such conversions to be the result of deep conviction and the moving of the Holy Spirit in a person’s life, and they would not try to solicit such individual conversions. Of course, this implies some openness to “private judgment” in the sense of an individual believer discerning the leading of the Holy Spirit toward the truth, and I think you are wrong in your belief that the Catholic Church condemns this.

On the contrary, the Church explicitly teaches that all human beings must follow the dictates of their consciences. Conservative Catholics are quick to qualify this by saying that the conscience must be “rightly formed” and that a “rightly formed” conscience won’t disagree with the Church. Fine: but the fact remains that the Church teaches that even when the conscience has not been formed in such a manner, a person is still bound to obey it.

Hence, I think a lot of the rhetoric about the evils of “private judgment” on this forum is overblown and silly, and your reactions to it are similarly overblown, because you’re taking the pontifications of lay apologists as if they were Catholic teaching.

Edwin

 

[guanophore]

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.

The CC is very big on the issue of conscience, Tomi. A person has a responsibility befroe God to seek after Him, and to find HIm. We are called to use our judgment - all that is in our heart, mind, soul and strength to worship Him in the best way we possiblly can.

It is not the use of “private judgement” itself that is a problem, but when one does not allow his conscience to be informed by those things that God has already revealed. We can discern the work of the Holy Spirit within one’s own heart, but the HS will never contradict Himself. He will not reveal one thing privately to an individual that contradicts what He has revealed to the Church via public revelation.

So we have a responsibility to reconcile the two.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I’m going to call this post the “Epistle to the Presbyterians”.

That’s good, really good

 

[PRmerger]

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.

http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/facepalm/grand/disappointed_gif_44556.gif

I don’t know how someone can agree that the Holy Spirit has assisted some men in proclaiming some things to be true…over and over and over again…

and say, “Yes, they were without error when they did so”…

and say, “Yes, the Holy Spirit did this!”

and say, “Yes, some of our inspired writers wrote thousands of words…and none of them were ever erroneous!”

yet STILL be unable to say, “Therefore, I do believe that the charism of infallibility has been given to some men, at some time, in the history of the Church!”.

It’s like someone saying,
“Yes, I believe that all female mammals have the ability to produce milk”
“Yes, all cows produce milk”.

But, “No, I just don’t believe that cows are mammals!”

 

[PRmerger]

On the other hand, He once spoke through a donkey. PR would argue then that donkeys are infallible, I guess.

I guess we could turn it around and say that since He once spoke through a donkey…

Tomi would argue that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, David, Moses are nothing but dumb animals God used to mouth His Revelation.

The Catholic Church sees it differently and elevates these Holy Men, these inspired writers, into saints. Elevates them.

Not demotes them to the status of a donkey.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/facepalm/grand/disappointed_gif_44556.gif

I don’t know how someone can agree that the Holy Spirit has assisted some men in proclaiming some things to be true…over and over and over again…

and say, “Yes, they were without error when they did so”…

and say, “Yes, the Holy Spirit did this!”

and say, “Yes, some of our inspired writers wrote thousands of words…and none of them were ever erroneous!”

yet STILL be unable to say, “Therefore, I do believe that the charism of infallibility has been given to some men, at some time, in the history of the Church!”.

It’s like someone saying,
“Yes, I believe that all female mammals have the ability to produce milk”
“Yes, all cows produce milk”.

But, “No, I just don’t believe that cows are mammals!”

The real questions is:

Has anyone proven the donkey wrong?

 

[awsiukiewicz]

It was a pivotal moment in world history, and IMO a positive event.

What I find I interesting is the speech directed towards my hero Luther.

I’m just curios…why are you on this site…I’m not being the list bit sarcasit…please believe me…I can totally appreicate have an interest in the other ‘side’…no one I believe is denegrating Martin Luther…take a minute and read the Catholic Encyclopedia’s section of the reformation and Martin Luther…He was obviously brialliant and had some litigitamit concerns…do deny this fact would be to deny history…it’s what has happened since…it’s some of the things he did and changes effected…even if I had not been born Roman Catholic, I would have researched and ended up here…but no one is fighting you are Luther…We are Catholic and love our faith and just like you like yours…go where you are fed spiritually…you must be aware…that despite centuries of adversarial commentary, much to the dismay of many, the Catholic Church has in as much as acknowledged that there are many ‘paths to the LIght’…we just believe that we hold the fullness of the faith…apostolic succession and all…(I know you feel that you are in that succession) but I think you know where Im coming from…Peace to You my friend in Christ…

 

[guanophore]

The real questions is:

Has anyone proven the donkey wrong?

As Catholics, it appears that we have lost any authority given by God to accomplish this task, so it will fall upon Tomi to do the deed!

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Are you saying, then, that Reformed Theology is the faith given once for all to the saints? It is what the Apostles believed and what the Apostles taught?

If so, then do you believe that everything Reformed Theology professes is without error?

If so, do you believe that all of your elders who have taught the faith and continue to teach the faith are infallible?

 

[guanophore]

Well, we see it differently.

Naturally.

Catholics “see” through the lens of Sacred Tradition, the Teaching of the Apostles. When we read the Scriptures, we read through this lens, so we understand them differently.

You are “seeing” through the eyeglasses of the Reformation, separated from Sacred Tradition for 500 years, and heavily influenced by Calvin and other theologians of the time that departed from the Apostolic faith.

 

[Porknpie]

That might a trifle overstating it, considering the Radbertus and Ratramanus discussions, or Berengarius.

GKC

GKC,

Let’s reverse this.

Imagine an early Church that was protestant…

In that…the apostolic belief, taught, promulgated and protected by the Church, was that Christ was speaking symbolically. “Eat my body, Drink my blood” was simply not to be taken literally (despite the crowds leaving Jesus and Jesus not correcting them and despite the words of scripture)

Then,

In the 9th century, a couple of dissenters argue that Jesus was being literal! But the Church guided to all truth as promised by Christ, maintains that no, Christ was being figurative. This has been the faith from the beginning.

Then

In the 16th century, a break from the apostolic faith occurs: those Catholics believe after 1,600 years that the Written Word of God should be taken, literally. That the Deposit of Faith has been wrong all along, and that the heretics were right in the 9th century (and a few others through time as well).

Can you imagine how protestants would criticize Catholics for breaking from the apostolic faith after more than 1,600 years?

If one was going to eat some popcorn while pondering something, there are few subjects more worthy of thought.

PnP

 

[GKC]

GKC,

Let’s reverse this.

Imagine an early Church that was protestant…

In that…the apostolic belief, taught, promulgated and protected by the Church, was that Christ was speaking symbolically. “Eat my body, Drink my blood” was simply not to be taken literally (despite the crowds leaving Jesus and Jesus not correcting them and despite the words of scripture)

Then,

In the 9th century, a couple of dissenters argue that Jesus was being literal! But the Church guided to all truth as promised by Christ, maintains that no, Christ was being figurative. This has been the faith from the beginning.

Then

In the 16th century, a break from the apostolic faith occurs: those Catholics believe after 1,600 years that the Written Word of God should be taken, literally. That the Deposit of Faith has been wrong all along, and that the heretics were right in the 9th century (and a few others through time as well).

Can you imagine how protestants would criticize Catholics for breaking from the apostolic faith after more than 1,600 years?

If one was going to eat some popcorn while pondering something, there are few subjects more worthy of thought.

PnP

What I said was that, considering the Radbertus and Ratramanus discussions, or Berengarius, to state that there was only one interpretation for over 1,500 years, might be a trifle overstating it. Since in each case the discussions (within the Church) were on the proper interpretation, and they occurred during those 1500 years, over points not fully defined, until necessary.

You do recall what I believe the correct interpretation is, myself, don’t you?

GKC

 

[Tomyris]

Naturally.

Catholics “see” through the lens of Sacred Tradition, the Teaching of the Apostles. When we read the Scriptures, we read through this lens, so we understand them differently.

You are “seeing” through the eyeglasses of the Reformation, separated from Sacred Tradition for 500 years, and heavily influenced by Calvin and other theologians of the time that departed from the Apostolic faith.

Well…You are seeing through your Rome-colored glasses, with everything as the Church has instructed you, when has bothered to. What you do not understand is the going-back to the beginning business after the bishops and popes threw away any sort of ‘Sacred Tradition’ and that the Catholic Church, in Reformed eyes, is the one that departed, slowly, from the Catholic faith. Paul warned of wolves coming, Jesus warned against religious authority more than anything, yet you seem to embrace wolves and those who love respectful greetings in the marketplace.

At the beginning there were groups of elders in every city. You will see that there was never one elder over one city in Scripture - there were groups. There was the idea that ‘the least among you shall be the greatest’ - never the idea that a bishop would rule over priests, never in the beginning. One of the qualifications for an episcopos was that he would have children who behaved. The Catholic church in its corruption has mandated celibacy totally against Scripture (celibacy is on the List - I thought I would throw that in there just to check that item off ) for priests and bishops and has made them into separate classes. Historically we have seen bishops envying each other, archbishops striving for power, bitter envy between Rome and Constantinople that should not have been, and would not have been, had they stuck to the original plan. But like the Israelites of old they wanted a king, like Saul, rather than having Christ as their head they wanted a human ruler, and so the papacy came about.

From a presbyterian viewpoint the whole office of bishop, and therefore anything descending from it, is a corruption of the church (nothing there touches on the personal belief, conduct or holiness of any individual clergy, of whom there have been a good number, despite this hobbling of the church). With that as a starting point, reconciliation with the Catholic Church would be a most interesting endeavor.

 

[Tomyris]

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.

The OT was written for our instruction, including warning.

Identify the promise that Jesus would set up a papacy and it would still be there when He returns.

Bear in mind 1) Peter was not the rock, faith was, in Matthew 16 and 2) ‘gates’ are defensive fortifications - Jesus was speaking of the church on the offensive, not giving some guarantee about doctrine and 3) there were plenty of places where Jesus or Paul could have brought this whole thing of a papacy up,but didn’t. Also 4) there was a church in Rome before Peter got there, so clearly, even if you buy into ‘bishops’, he could not have been the first one there.

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.

The apostolic faith does not include the idea of apostolic succession and infallibility. A matter of definition, friend. AS relates to communicating truth, not the laying on of hands by one unbeliever on another.

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

Nice to know. I never said there was not 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.

I do believe it. You however, do not.

Yes, it is quite clear that you are more invested in placing blame than healing the wounds to unity.

Cheap shot. Please try to maintain your usual high standard of posting.

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.

Right. I try to start a thread on reconciliation and the first response and long argument is on the whole stupid 30,000 denominations business. Take a look at how much blame around here is placed on Luther (and Calvin, but usually he is regarded as a sideshow) for the Reformation, and almost NONE on Catholic faults. I will credit a few people for posting in a more realistic fashion on this issue. There are a LOT of posters on this forum who come here to simply ventilate against Protestants.

My question is, where do we go from here? The response has been that I am at fault. Whether for asking or being I am not sure, but I am at fault.

 

[Tomyris]

http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/facepalm/grand/disappointed_gif_44556.gif

I don’t know how someone can agree that the Holy Spirit has assisted some men in proclaiming some things to be true…over and over and over again…

and say, “Yes, they were without error when they did so”…

and say, “Yes, the Holy Spirit did this!”

and say, “Yes, some of our inspired writers wrote thousands of words…and none of them were ever erroneous!”

yet STILL be unable to say, “Therefore, I do believe that the charism of infallibility has been given to some men, at some time, in the history of the Church!”.

It’s like someone saying,
“Yes, I believe that all female mammals have the ability to produce milk”
“Yes, all cows produce milk”.

But, “No, I just don’t believe that cows are mammals!”

This is silly, as are your following posts. The cute little video is close to insulting.

How about DEFINING a ‘charism of infallibility’?

God spoke. He used men. That does not mean that He continues to speak in the same way, as if the revelation were still open.

 

[Contarini]

Well…You are seeing through your Rome-colored glasses, with everything as the Church has instructed you, when has bothered to. What you do not understand is the going-back to the beginning business

I don’t “understand” it in the sense that I don’t see how any reasonable person, with any knowledge of history, can believe in such a thing, indeed. We can draw on the sources of the faith for renewal, but we can never go back. Never.

after the bishops and popes threw away any sort of ‘Sacred Tradition’

I don’t know what that means.

and that the Catholic Church, in Reformed eyes, is the one that departed, slowly, from the Catholic faith.

How? You mention two issues which I find to be pretty trivial and really pertain to discipline more than to doctrine (the key doctrine on the episcopacy, for Catholics, is apostolic succession–sometimes there is more than one bishop in one diocese, though in such cases the others are clearly labeled as assistants to the diocesan bishop).

I just don’t think that the case can be sustained. On the key doctrine of sola fide, the claim is manifestly false. Sola fide is an innovation, not a return to anything.

The monarchical episcopacy was solidly in place in Syria and Asia Minor by the early second century, as the letters of Ignatius testify. There is no evidence that Rome, which probably still did not have a monarchical bishop, had any problems with Ignatius doing things, or vice versa. That seems to indicate that the whole thing just isn’t the big deal that people on both sides have later made it. The derivation of authority from the apostles, on the other hand, was a big deal.

Mandatory celibacy developed over time, true (though there were calls for it in the West as early as the third century), but the principle of honoring celibacy is a Scriptural one. Again, I don’t see the big deal here, doctrinally.

Edwin