To My fellow Catholics. We can learn alot from our separated protestant brethren

thecolorsblend said:

Any takers?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately the Reformation is a term used even by secular historians. I don't know how to avoid it and make sense. "separated brethren" is a Catholic term of art.

For similar reasons I refer to the Catholic Church as Catholic, even it certainly is not identical to the whole universal Church. I do not, however, refer to the Pope as anti-Christ.

Of course for historians that are actually several Reformations in the 16th Cent, the Protestant Reformation, technically the Magisterial Protestant Reformation, the Radical Reformation, and the Catholic Reformation. People tend to elide "Protestant" in contexts where it's clear what is meant. But Trent is also part of the Reformation in its Catholic form.

hedrick said:

Unfortunately the Reformation is a term used even by secular historians....Of course for historians that are actually several Reformations in the 16th Cent, the Protestant Reformation, technically the Magisterial Protestant Reformation, the Radical Reformation, and the Catholic Reformation. People tend to elide "Protestant" in contexts where it's clear what is meant. But Trent is also part of the Reformation in its Catholic form.

Click to expand...

You mean the Counter-Reformation--the standard, usual, and most accurate term.

Albion said:

You mean the Counter-Reformation--the standard, usual, and most accurate term.

Click to expand...

you do understand that the Anglo Culture is predominantly Protestant, so not all the "standard" terms are going to be balanced

Let's be honest here the only radical reformation was the Council of Trent. All others were revolts. Reform means you fix what you have; not leave it , and attack it. But Rhamiel said in this case the revolters obtained the right (some how) to define the history here.

Erose said:

Let's be honest here the only radical reformation was the Council of Trent. All others were revolts. Reform means you fix what you have.

Click to expand...

The purpose of the Reformation--to return the church to its Apostolic standards--counts as a reformation by any serious evaluation. The Counter-Reformation, featuring Trent, was simply a reaction to the Reformation, agreeing with some of its reforms and holding fast against some others.

There's very little in that which could be called reform. Retrenchment, perhaps, Compromise, perhaps, but nothing comparable to the Protestant Reformation.

Albion said:

The purpose of the Reformation--to return the church to its Apostolic standards--counts as a reformation by any serious evaluation. The Counter-Reformation, featuring Trent, was simply a reaction to the Reformation, agreeing with some of its reforms and holding fast against some others.

There's very little in that which could be called reform. Retrenchment, perhaps, Compromise, perhaps, but nothing comparable to the Protestant Reformation.

Click to expand...

That is from the perspective of the rebels. From this side of the Tiber, it was seen as a revolt. Like I said a reform occurs from within; the problem with the Protestant Revolution was that it was a break, and mostly occurred from without and against. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin were not reformers by any definition I can think of, but rather rebels.

To add to the situation was the tying together the religious revolution with the political. Unless you seen the political rebellion that was tied to the religious one as just political reform.

Erose said:

That is from the perspective of the rebels.

Click to expand...

No, it's not. At least it's not exclusively from the POV of the reformers. It's the customary term, the one most used by historians and academicians, and carries with it nothing in particular that you need to feel offended about. The reform movement that we call the "Protestant Reformation" is one of many such movements for reform in the history of the church. You just don't happen to like this one because it is perhaps the most successful or consequential of all of them.

To add to the situation was the tying together the religious revolution with the political. Unless you seen the political rebellion that was tied to the religious one as just political reform.

Click to expand...

That's a strange thesis, considering that the Roman Catholic Church was intimately connected to the political system at the time; and it was rather the Protestants who, by and large, wanted to loosen the historic association of Church and State.

Incidentally, Calvin was asked to help with a city that had already decided to join the Reformation / revolt.

The situation with the first generation was more complex than this black and white argument has made clear. There had been a variety of movements for more than a century. One result was the conciliarist movement. Since it had solved the miultipope schism it had some reason to be thought legitimate. When the popes refused to call the next council, some reasonable people thought that working with the popes was not possible and that the real succession went to successors of the conciliarist movement, not the popes. Others, of course. continued. One can only guess what the results would have been had Erasmians won. Maybe the Church would have reformed sufficiently to maintain unity. I doubt it, but it's not impossible. Maybe it wouldn't have, and the equivalent of the French Revolution would have been more widespread.

I don't think the situation at the time was so clear. Fighting 16th Cent battles by trying to retitle the Reformation as the Revolt isn't going to help anyone.

Hans J. Hillerbrands' text, The Division of Christendom, gives a thorough and insightful account and analysis of the history of the reformation(s) period.

hedrick said:

Incidentally, Calvin was asked to help with a city that had already decided to join the Reformation / revolt.

The situation with the first generation was more complex than this black and white argument. There had been a variety of movements for more than a century. One result was the conciliarist movement. Since it had solved the miultipope schism it had some reason to be thought legitimate. When the popes refused to call the next council, some reasonable people thought that working with the popes was not possible. Others, of course. continued. One can only guess what the results would have been had Erasmians won. Maybe the Church would have reformed sufficiently. Maybe it wouldn't have, and the equivalent of the French Revolution would have been more widespread.

I don't think the situation at the time was so clear. Good people took both approaches. If you are going to say revolt is never allowed, Athanasius was wrong, and we should be Arian.

Click to expand...

That's a very valuable addition to the discussion, Hedrick. Catholics often suppose that everything was going great for the church until those headstrong "rebels" made their move. In reality, the century or so prior to the Reformation was one of the most difficult and corrupt periods in church history. Everywhere there was confusion and a lack of direction, with rebellions, protests, underground cults, and etc. The Reformation was needed but it also may well have also saved the Roman Catholic Church in the process.

I would like to see a general deescallation of inflammatory rhetoric. This includes both “separated brethren / ecclesial communities” and “counter-reformation.”

The PCUSA and the Catholic Church have an agreement on mutual recognition of baptism. It refers to both parties as churches. Papal use of the old language appears to be rare in recent times. (Incidentally, it refers to the Catholic party as the Roman Catholic Church, presumably because it is an agreement that that particular church and not the entire communion in union with the Pope.)

Under official Catholic ecclesiology it is by no means necessary for there to be only one church. As you presumably know, there are something like 24 churches in communion with the Pope. The Roman Catholic Church is one of those. I believe the others are primarily Eastern churches. Thus it is perfectly possible to think of Protestant churches as particular churches that are not in communion with the Catholic Church.

Simiarlly, Trent was a legitimate reformation. It was certainly a reaction to the Protestant Reformation. But Catholics recognized that a number of doctrines and practices needed to be clarified and improved. Protestants may regret many features of it, but there’s no reason not to think of it as the Catholic part of a general movement in the 16th Cent that resulted in a number of results.

hedrick said:

Simiarlly, Trent was a legitimate reformation. It was certainly a reaction to the Protestant Reformation. But Catholics recognized that a number of doctrines and practices needed to be clarified and improved. Protestants may regret many features of it, but there’s no reason not to think of it as the Catholic part of a general movement in the 16th Cent that resulted in a number of results.

Click to expand...

The Counter-Reformation produced results, sure. Mainly, it hardened some of the RCC's positions on doctrine while yielding as little as possible on certain corrupt practices that were almost indefensible and which had contributed to some of the successes of the Protestants. IMO, the question is open as to whether this represented little more than the minimum that the RCC could do, tactically, to try to prevent further losses to the Protestants...or whether it counts as real "reform."

Albion said:

But that is the term that almost every historian knows the episode by.

Click to expand...

hedrick said:

Unfortunately the Reformation is a term used even by secular historians. I don't know how to avoid it and make sense.

Click to expand...

I see. So offensive terms are perfectly acceptable so long as a plurality of people use it? Would "separated brethren" be fine and dandy with you both so long as 51% or more of scholars and historians use that term rather than "Protestant" as labels for your movement?

I ask because I'm trying to figure out the contours of this thing.

Albion said:

That's a very valuable addition to the discussion, Hedrick. Catholics often suppose that everything was going great for the church until those headstrong "rebels" made their move. In reality, the century or so prior to the Reformation was one of the most difficult and corrupt periods in church history. Everywhere there was confusion and a lack of direction, with rebellions, protests, underground cults, and etc. The Reformation was needed but it also may well have also saved the Roman Catholic Church in the process.

Click to expand...

Albion, there is a lot of truth in what you have posted.

thecolorsblend said:

I see. So offensive terms are perfectly acceptable so long as a plurality of people use it? Would "separated brethren" be fine and dandy with you both so long as 51% or more of scholars and historians use that term rather than "Protestant" as labels for your movement?

I ask because I'm trying to figure out the contours of this thing.

Click to expand...

Since this is Traditional Theology, and we explore stuff here, we should not be offended when historic terminology is used; even when it may sound a bit offensive to our own position.

thecolorsblend said:

I see. So offensive terms are perfectly acceptable so long as a plurality of people use it?

Click to expand...

Depends on more than that. If I were to insist, for some reason, that I don't like the word Bible, and feel offended every time I hear it, are you obligated to stop using it?

Albion said:

Depends on more than that. If I were to insist, for some reason, that I don't like the word Bible, and feel offended every time I hear it, are you obligated to stop using it?

Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question. At least not in very much detail.

thecolorsblend said:

You didn't answer my question. At least not in very much detail.

Click to expand...

What answer did you expect to this?

So offensive terms are perfectly acceptable so long as a plurality of people use it?

Click to expand...

You present a false premise (that a "plurality of people" makes it right...or that anyone here suggested such a thing). And you stipulate that "offensive terms are perfectly acceptable" without telling us to whom they are supposed to be acceptable, what terms are in that category, or whether the offense that has been taken is justified or not.

In short, your question was not really a question; it was an accusation worded so as to look like a question.

We are not going to fight over terms, terminology and definitions in TT. Let's move past this.