Why all the Fuss over the Reformation 2

[Dave_Noonan]

But I think it’s fair to say that there are more myths or lies perpetuated by Protestants against Catholics, than by Catholics against Protestants.

Historically, this is undoubtedly true and very sad and un-Christian; but whether this is still the case I think is highly debatable. I think the U.S. has historically been anti-Catholic largely for reasons of ethnocentrism rather than religion—but that’s another topic.

As Catholics have become a bigger part of mainstream America, a lot of the old anti-Catholic sentiment has disappeared, especially among churches that have participated in the Ecumenical movement. I could name maybe one or two prominent Evangelical pastors who still beat the drum against the Catholic Church; forty or fifty years ago, there would be a lot of people on that list. Now, almost no one. The vast, vast majority of non-Catholics don’t see the Catholic Church as an issue or just don’t care one way or the other what Catholics think or do.

Every religious group has a right to explain what they believe and to correct distortions. This is wonderful and does the world a great service. However, taking a cue from some of the most negative examples among some of their Protestant counterparts, it seems that certain Catholics have, since the 1990s or so, fired up their own “myths and lies machine” that comes in the form of various apologetical media. You could argue, “Well isn’t that fair? We were lied about a lot in the past after all. One lie deserves another.” Sure, I suppose you could say that. But it’s just as sad and un-Christian as when the lies about Catholics came/come from non-Catholics. From my perspective two wrongs don’t make a right.

Catholics have undoubtedly discovered that anti-Protestant rhetoric among Catholics is just as powerful as the anti-Catholic rhetoric was historically among many Protestant groups. It sells books; it gets people to watch TV and listen to the radio; it keeps some people extremely well-supported economically; it keeps the base “fired up,” if you will. But for me, the saddest part is that, instead of people trying to discover the truth, are just searching for ammunition to fight a make believe war where they are an oppressed religious minority (which certainly was true historically)–and as long as they get their “ammunition,” they don’t really care whether it’s true or not. As Edwin pointed out, the falsehoods here at CAF just don’t die. Why not? I think it’s because someone admitting they are perpetuating a lie will give them less “ammunition.” This all does nothing good for the Body of Christ, in my opinion.

I think making this into a contest as to who is lying most is very unhelpful–and most especially the part where there’s lying about lying.

How about everyone just do their homework and cease publishing and perpetuating false information? And how about everyone stop promoting and financially supporting people who do?

 

[Contarini]

I appreciate the well-reasoned explanation. The main thing I want to ask is this: you mention in the first paragraph that the majority of educated Protestants think that the official Catholic church was fully part of the true Church, not that it went underground. Here’s my question: if the official Catholic Church was “part” of the true church, then where was the other part, or parts?

Some Protestants will say “well, the Catholic Church was the only Church at one time.” But in principle they see no reason why there couldn’t be several separate organized bodies all being part of the true Church. And obviously this statement isn’t in fact true–there were the various rigorist groups like Montanists and Donatists, and from the fifth century on there were the separated Eastern churches (the “Nestorians” and “Monophysites”). Most Protestants who know about these groups would see them as part of the true Church, I think. Pentecostals tend to admire the Montanists. Many Protestants have trouble seeing much wrong with Nestorian Christology. And so on. But many Protestants would agree that the Catholic Church pre-Schism was the Church with which they most identify, without necessarily saying that the others were false. Some Protestants might say that the others were false. As you have noted, Protestants are all over the map (And bear in mind that I’m not denying that many Protestants do trace their identity through the dissenting groups–I’m just saying that this isn’t a common view today among Protestants with an education in history and theology.)

Obviously Protestants don’t see any need to choose between the West and the East post-Schism in terms of one being the “true Church.” Many Protestants have sympathy with the Eastern Church, if they know about it, because it is more mystical and not as authoritarian, etc. But others, especially of a Reformed stamp, hold strongly to the Filioque and have problems with the East’s suposed “semi-Pelagianism” (they have problems with the Catholic Church too on this, of course, but recognize that Aquinas and other great Western theologians were much closer to their position than anyone in the East was).

But the point I’m making is that whichever group a given Protestant might consider “purer,” they wouldn’t see the need to label one “the Church” and say that the others were outside the Church.

Edwin

 

[Denise1957]

Some Protestants will say “well, the Catholic Church was the only Church at one time.” But in principle they see no reason why there couldn’t be several separate organized bodies all being part of the true Church. And obviously this statement isn’t in fact true–there were the various rigorist groups like Montanists and Donatists, and from the fifth century on there were the separated Eastern churches (the “Nestorians” and “Monophysites”). Most Protestants who know about these groups would see them as part of the true Church, I think. Pentecostals tend to admire the Montanists. Many Protestants have trouble seeing much wrong with Nestorian Christology. And so on. But many Protestants would agree that the Catholic Church pre-Schism was the Church with which they most identify, without necessarily saying that the others were false. Some Protestants might say that the others were false. As you have noted, Protestants are all over the map (And bear in mind that I’m not denying that many Protestants do trace their identity through the dissenting groups–I’m just saying that this isn’t a common view today among Protestants with an education in history and theology.)

Obviously Protestants don’t see any need to choose between the West and the East post-Schism in terms of one being the “true Church.” Many Protestants have sympathy with the Eastern Church, if they know about it, because it is more mystical and not as authoritarian, etc. But others, especially of a Reformed stamp, hold strongly to the Filioque and have problems with the East’s suposed “semi-Pelagianism” (they have problems with the Catholic Church too on this, of course, but recognize that Aquinas and other great Western theologians were much closer to their position than anyone in the East was).

But the point I’m making is that whichever group a given Protestant might consider “purer,” they wouldn’t see the need to label one “the Church” and say that the others were outside the Church.

Edwin

So your answer is basically that most Protestants believe that the Church was part of the true church, but that they identify with heretical groups which existed pre-Reformation. Another way to put this, IMO, might be to say that these groups were underground, since their movements were condemned or excommunicated by the Catholic Church.

 

[AbideWithMe]

So your answer is basically that most Protestants believe that the Church was part of the true church, but that they identify with heretical groups which existed pre-Reformation. Another way to put this, IMO, might be to say that these groups were underground, since their movements were condemned or excommunicated by the Catholic Church.

Hmm…I don’t see that in Edwin’s post, Denise. Here, it seems you are saying “…most Protestants believe that the church was part of the true church, but that they…” with your “they” referring back to “most Protestants” (underlining mine)?

 

[GKC]

Dr. Moczar, in her book Seven Lies About Catholic History recommends Kamen’s The Spanish Inquisition, but not the abridged version, and she also mentions that the related video is entertaining as well as informative. She makes no mention that I can find regarding Peter’s book, Inquisition.

More’s the pity.

I have both editions (1965 and 1997) of Kamen’s book. The earlier one is slightly shorter, perhaps that is what is meant by abridged. More accurately, the 2nd edition is longer. If there is an abridgement of either, I don’t know of it.

(amended)

GKC

 

[AbideWithMe]

Historically, this is undoubtedly true and very sad and un-Christian; but whether this is still the case I think is highly debatable. I think the U.S. has historically been anti-Catholic largely for reasons of ethnocentrism rather than religion—but that’s another topic.

As Catholics have become a bigger part of mainstream America, a lot of the old anti-Catholic sentiment has disappeared, especially among churches that have participated in the Ecumenical movement. I could name maybe one or two prominent Evangelical pastors who still beat the drum against the Catholic Church; forty or fifty years ago, there would be a lot of people on that list. Now, almost no one. The vast, vast majority of non-Catholics don’t see the Catholic Church as an issue or just don’t care one way or the other what Catholics think or do.

Every religious group has a right to explain what they believe and to correct distortions. This is wonderful and does the world a great service. However, taking a cue from some of the most negative examples among some of their Protestant counterparts, it seems that certain Catholics have, since the 1990s or so, fired up their own “myths and lies machine” that comes in the form of various apologetical media. You could argue, “Well isn’t that fair? We were lied about a lot in the past after all. One lie deserves another.” Sure, I suppose you could say that. But it’s just as sad and un-Christian as when the lies about Catholics came/come from non-Catholics. From my perspective two wrongs don’t make a right.

Catholics have undoubtedly discovered that anti-Protestant rhetoric among Catholics is just as powerful as the anti-Catholic rhetoric was historically among many Protestant groups. It sells books; it gets people to watch TV and listen to the radio; it keeps some people extremely well-supported economically; it keeps the base “fired up,” if you will. But for me, the saddest part is that, instead of people trying to discover the truth, are just searching for ammunition to fight a make believe war where they are an oppressed religious minority (which certainly was true historically)–and as long as they get their “ammunition,” they don’t really care whether it’s true or not. As Edwin pointed out, the falsehoods here at CAF just don’t die. Why not? I think it’s because someone admitting they are perpetuating a lie will give them less “ammunition.” This all does nothing good for the Body of Christ, in my opinion.

I think making this into a contest as to who is lying most is very unhelpful–and most especially the part where there’s lying about lying.

How about everyone just do their homework and cease publishing and perpetuating false information? And how about everyone stop promoting and financially supporting people who do?

Well said, IMO.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

…most Protestants believe that…

Unless you’re referring to the most basic tenets of Christianity, anything that follows something like this will be inaccurate and misleading—unless one can cite some evidence or a study where Protestant belief has been investigated and analyzed.

 

[Contarini]

So your answer is basically that most Protestants believe that the Church was part of the true church, but that they identify with heretical groups which existed pre-Reformation. Another way to put this, IMO, might be to say that these groups were underground, since their movements were condemned or excommunicated by the Catholic Church.

No, I’m saying that most Protestants don’t feel the need to say that there was one particular group that was correct. They may or may not have sympathy with one or more of the various dissenting groups that has existed. But none of that amounts to saying that the true Church went “underground.” Catholics and Waldenses can both be Christians and both part of the Church.

You’re trying to force Protestants into a Catholic paradigm. They are Protestants. One of the things about being a Protestant is that you don’t have to believe that when Christians split one of the groups in question is the true Church and the others aren’t. This is both the best and worst thing about being a Protestant: the best because it enables you to identify with all Christians and not pick sides. The worst because it makes you indifferent to further division.

Edwin

 

[spina1953]

Guess the real answer is that Protestants are protesting the CC on issues is that they do not agree with what the CC teaches and have their own understanding of what they want to believe.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

No, I’m saying that most Protestants don’t feel the need to say that there was one particular group that was correct. They may or may not have sympathy with one or more of the various dissenting groups that has existed. But none of that amounts to saying that the true Church went “underground.” Catholics and Waldenses can both be Christians and both part of the Church.

You’re trying to force Protestants into a Catholic paradigm. They are Protestants. One of the things about being a Protestant is that you don’t have to believe that when Christians split one of the groups in question is the true Church and the others aren’t. This is both the best and worst thing about being a Protestant: the best because it enables you to identify with all Christians and not pick sides. The worst because it makes you indifferent to further division.

Edwin

But some mainline Protestant bodies [Reformed, Methodist, Baptist, etc] have on-going dialogue with Rome as well as ecumenical work with Lutherans and Anglicans.

 

[AbideWithMe]

One of the things about being a Protestant is that you don’t have to believe that when Christians split one of the groups in question is the true Church and the others aren’t. This is both the best and worst thing about being a Protestant: the best because it enables you to identify with all Christians and not pick sides. The worst because it makes you indifferent to further division.

Edwin

Good points, but I would modify the last bit to “potentially indifferent”. I think, at a minimum, anyone who has lived through a church split knows they’re a grievous thing.

My own church, once known as the Evangelical Association, went through a very acrimonious split a long time ago. Eventually the larger body of that church went on to merge with the United Brethren and thence into forming one of the streams that created the United Methodist Church. It still does grieve me that my church stayed out of that merger, and I do also attend a UMC church; at the same time I value the conservation of Wesleyan Methodism that I grew up with in that church.

But then on the other hand I suspect that if my more conservative Evangelical church had stayed together with the rest of the Evangelical Association>>>United Evangelical Church>>>United Methodist Church, we would have served as good weighty ballast to steady the UMC ship.

 

[Contarini]

Good points, but I would modify the last bit to “potentially indifferent”. I think, at a minimum, anyone who has lived through a church split knows they’re a grievous thing.

My own church, once known as the Evangelical Association, went through a very acrimonious split a long time ago. Eventually the larger body of that church went on to merge with the United Brethren and thence into forming one of the streams that created the United Methodist Church. It still does grieve me that my church stayed out of that merger, and I do also attend a UMC church; at the same time I value the conservation of Wesleyan Methodism that I grew up with in that church.

But then on the other hand I suspect that if my more conservative Evangelical church had stayed together with the rest of the Evangelical Association>>>United Evangelical Church>>>United Methodist Church, we would have served as good weighty ballast to steady the UMC ship.

What is your denomination called? Or is your congregation independent?

The one denomination my family seriously considered joining after moving to the U.S. was the Evangelical Church in North America, which consisted (in part) of members of the EUB who stayed out of the merger with the UMC. And then I taught for seven years for a college run by the UB, Old Constitution, which split from the larger UB in the 1880s, before the merger with the Evangelicals. So I keep running into bits of the EUB and its precursors.

Edwin

 

[AbideWithMe]

What is your denomination called? Or is your congregation independent?

The one denomination my family seriously considered joining after moving to the U.S. was the Evangelical Church in North America, which consisted (in part) of members of the EUB who stayed out of the merger with the UMC. And then I taught for seven years for a college run by the UB, Old Constitution, which split from the larger UB in the 1880s, before the merger with the Evangelicals. So I keep running into bits of the EUB and its precursors.

Edwin

It’s been called the Evangelical Congregation Church for quite a long time now, but it used to be informally called the Albright Brethren, made up of early Pennsylvania German speaking Methodists in PA, formally calling itself the Evangelical Association which later merged with the United Brethren in Christ.

I’m encouraged that the UMC has given our seminary recognition for its future pastors, and the seminary has a healthy population of Methodist students: www.evangelical.edu/history.

 

[guanophore]

I think the Church was arguing about this before there was a Church.

When do you believe the Church started? Some believe that Jesus gave birth to her when blood and water came out of His side on the cross.

**

Tomyris:
I don’t think there EVER was one voice, unless it was that of Christ raised above the noise, and then only half-listened to.**

Certainly there were many voices, much dissention, a lot of conflict. However, if you say there was never one authorative voice, then you are basically saying that Jesus was too weak or disinterested to keep His promises. You are saying that the HS failed to bring about the unity Christ promised, and that He gave a commandment that could not possibly be followed. One cannot take a dispute to a Church to be resolved if one cannot identify the true church.

What happened to the powerful Jesus in Revelation, who spoke clearly to a visible Church, gave them discipline, guidance, and reassurance?

How come the Apostles could say “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” at the council of Jerusalem, then the HS abandoned them?

 

[guanophore]

Okay, I understand that you believe it’s a myth that most Protestants believe that the Early Church was pure, but then Constantine changed it.

Statistically, the largest bodies of Protestantism (Lutheran and Anglican) greatly value Sacred Tradition and the WHOLE history of the Church. You are right that the majority of non-liturgical Protestants, especially modern American Non-Denoms do believe this drivel.
It seems like they are “most” because they are louder, and often more abrasive about it.

But over-reacting, as a couple of you did, does not seem warranted,

Liturgical Protestants don’t like being lumped together with eccleisial communities that espoouse contrary beliefs any more than Catholics like being told what we believe when we don’t. It is just as warranted for them to object as it is for us to do so when we are told was are worshipping saints or adding books to the Bible.

But I think it's fair to say that there are more myths or lies perpetuated by Protestants against Catholics, than by Catholics against Protestants.

There are certainly a great many uninformed “bible christians”. However, I think we need to clean up our own house first. The majority of American Catholics claim that they don’t agree with the Church on a variety of issues. Most of them are poorly catechized. This is where we need to focus our attention. And really, it does not matter which side is doing it “more”, it is a problem all the time, every where it occurs.

Some of them, for instance, being that the Catholic Church was “selling” indulgences pre-Reformation, and that the Catholic hierarchy at that time were corrupt, worldly, and immoral.

It appeared like sales to them.

There were a lot of corrupt clerics, and had been for decades.

Not that they were rebelling against the Catholic Church, but rather against how they were treated in England at that time, due to their causing problems in England in their rebellion against the authority of the CoE (If I recall correctly).

The Puritans got it from every side. They were not accepted by Catholics, Lutherans, or Anglicans. It is amazing that the US was founded upon principles of religious freedom, Puritans being so resentful about being the recipients of the scourge of Christianity.

 

[PRmerger]

Catholic apologists would do best to stick to explaining the Catholic faith. When they delve into other areas (what non-Catholics believe, church history, history of the Bible, etc.) things tend to fall apart and they do the Catholic faith no favors.

Now you are falling for the very same thing you just said above and bundled all Catholic apologists that when they delve into other areas, they tend to fall apart… Especially in regards to Church history and the history of the Bible. After all we have been using it since it was received by us.

 

[Denise1957]

No, I’m saying that most Protestants don’t feel the need to say that there was one particular group that was correct. They may or may not have sympathy with one or more of the various dissenting groups that has existed. But none of that amounts to saying that the true Church went “underground.” Catholics and Waldenses can both be Christians and both part of the Church.

You’re trying to force Protestants into a Catholic paradigm. They are Protestants. One of the things about being a Protestant is that you don’t have to believe that when Christians split one of the groups in question is the true Church and the others aren’t. This is both the best and worst thing about being a Protestant: the best because it enables you to identify with all Christians and not pick sides. The worst because it makes you indifferent to further division.

Edwin

Well, I have so little to go on in reference to why the author of the book, which I quoted from, holds the view she does in that most Protestants believe that… (and I’ll quote once again from the preface of the book):

“Constantine supposedly reshaped the structure and doctrines of the Church by meddling in ecclesiastical affairs, and this Church-State coziness changed Roman Christianity into what became the bad Catholic Church that we have today–while the true believers went underground in order to practice their pure and simple faith, only emerging into the daylight with the dawn of the Reformation”

So she doesn’t say that the Church went underground, but that true believers went underground. How she arrived at the view that most Protestants to day hold to this view, I have no idea because I have so little to go on with how she arrived at this conclusion. Yes, she could be wrong, but that’s as much concession as I’m willing to give at this time. I do appreciate that you have an educated opinion on the subject.

And you do make a good point about my trying (or the author perhaps trying) to force Protestants into a Catholic paradigm. Maybe it is difficult to prove that most Protestants believe or have a common consensus about anything related to the early Church, or Constantine, or the practice of Christianity after Constantine. I just don’t know where how the author arrives at such a view. She may not be using, as a reference, the same educated Protestant viewpoints that you are using. And think that we might have to define what is exactly meant by “educated.” But then again, I’m constrained in really trying to defend what the author writes even from this angle in that I don’t know more about how she came to the beforementioned conclusion.

 

[spina1953]

Well, I have so little to go on in reference to why the author of the book, which I quoted from, holds the view she does in that most Protestants believe that… (and I’ll quote once again from the preface of the book):

“Constantine supposedly reshaped the structure and doctrines of the Church by meddling in ecclesiastical affairs, and this Church-State coziness changed Roman Christianity into what became the bad Catholic Church that we have today–while the true believers went underground in order to practice their pure and simple faith, only emerging into the daylight with the dawn of the Reformation”

So she doesn’t say that the Church went underground, but that true believers went underground. How she arrived at the view that most Protestants to day hold to this view, I have no idea because I have so little to go on with how she arrived at this conclusion. Yes, she could be wrong, but that’s as much concession as I’m willing to give at this time. I do appreciate that you have an educated opinion on the subject.

And you do make a good point about my trying (or the author perhaps trying) to force Protestants into a Catholic paradigm. Maybe it is difficult to prove that most Protestants believe or have a common consensus about anything related to the early Church, or Constantine, or the practice of Christianity after Constantine. I just don’t know where how the author arrives at such a view. She may not be using, as a reference, the same educated Protestant viewpoints that you are using. And think that we might have to define what is exactly meant by “educated.” But then again, I’m constrained in really trying to defend what the author writes even from this angle in that I don’t know more about how she came to the beforementioned conclusion.

Hi Denise 1957: The only thing I would like to chime about is that Constantine did in fact meddle in Church affairs> he thought himself as the 13th apostle and as all Roman emperors thought an those times that they had the right to control religious beliefs. From history it seems that since the time of Constantine the emperors who followed him did just as Constantine did meddle in Church affairs which allowed heresies to grow taking sides on the issues of what was to be believed and accepted.

I also think that anyone reading her book decides whether or not to accept what is written and whether it makes sense. It is as you said one generally does not know who the author arrives at the view they hold. But so far as I have understood the history of the early Church and of the 300’s AD Constantine did not reshape the CC structure or doctrines, he tried to and it did cause problems, but those who did not agree with the Councils left, so that it might be they who are underground not the Church. That’s IMHO.

 

[Denise1957]

Statistically, the largest bodies of Protestantism (Lutheran and Anglican) greatly value Sacred Tradition and the WHOLE history of the Church. You are right that the majority of non-liturgical Protestants, especially modern American Non-Denoms do believe this drivel.
It seems like they are “most” because they are louder, and often more abrasive about it.

Liturgical Protestants don’t like being lumped together with eccleisial communities that espoouse contrary beliefs any more than Catholics like being told what we believe when we don’t. It is just as warranted for them to object as it is for us to do so when we are told was are worshipping saints or adding books to the Bible.

There are certainly a great many uninformed “bible christians”. However, I think we need to clean up our own house first. The majority of American Catholics claim that they don’t agree with the Church on a variety of issues. Most of them are poorly catechized. This is where we need to focus our attention. And really, it does not matter which side is doing it “more”, it is a problem all the time, every where it occurs.

It appeared like sales to them.

There were a lot of corrupt clerics, and had been for decades.

The Puritans got it from every side. They were not accepted by Catholics, Lutherans, or Anglicans. It is amazing that the US was founded upon principles of religious freedom, Puritans being so resentful about being the recipients of the scourge of Christianity.

You may be right about the American non-Denoms (believing that Christians went underground after Constantine), and that they might seem like “most” because they are more abrasive about it. I certainly don’t keep track of what views they hold. I can appreciate that some or even many Lutherans and Episcopalians may not hold to this view. But I have to wonder if the American mindset regarding the Catholic Church came from the two liturgical groups, or those which have had more of an impact on the American viewpoint.

I don’t really agree that the majority of American Catholics don’t agree with Catholic teaching, but that’s not really the subject at hand. I think that they are indifferent, for the most part, which is caused, IMO, by a variety of factors, but again, I don’t want to get started on that subject and be distracted away from the currant one.

Yes, the Puritans got it from every side, but the Founding Fathers weren’t just Puritans, if I recall correctly. The Puritans just got the ball rolling. But neither were they Episcopalians or Lutherans, I don’t think. It might be a good subject for a thread on just what religious viewpoints the framers of the Constitution came from. Freemasonry may also have had something to do with it, which of course is anti-Catholic, but I don’t want to get into a discussion about that, because I think that it’s a banned topic. The American mindset came from somewhere, and not from any Catholic or semi-Catholic beliefs that I’m aware of.

 

[Denise1957]

Hi Denise 1957: The only thing I would like to chime about is that Constantine did in fact meddle in Church affairs> he thought himself as the 13th apostle and as all Roman emperors thought an those times that they had the right to control religious beliefs. From history it seems that since the time of Constantine the emperors who followed him did just as Constantine did meddle in Church affairs which allowed heresies to grow taking sides on the issues of what was to be believed and accepted.

I also think that anyone reading her book decides whether or not to accept what is written and whether it makes sense. It is as you said one generally does not know who the author arrives at the view they hold. But so far as I have understood the history of the early Church and of the 300’s AD Constantine did not reshape the CC structure or doctrines, he tried to and it did cause problems, but those who did not agree with the Councils left, so that it might be they who are underground not the Church. That’s IMHO.

Can you provide a solid Catholic source for Constantine meddling in Church affairs which allowed Emperors since then to also meddle and allow heresies to grow?

From what I’ve read, Constantine once said, at the time of the Council of Nicea…“You are the bishops inside the Church,” he said to the Council Fathers, “I am a bishop outside the Church.” You can see that there is a distinction.

It was Constantine who urged the bishops to hold the Council of Nicea, which condemned the Arian heresy and gave the proclamation of the Creed which is the prototype for the all later Christian creeds, and the Christological foundations of the Faith were first codified at Nicea. There isn’t any indication that I’m aware of that Constantine meddled in the Council. He was rather busy with other things.