Article: Francis Proves Catholic Church Still Needs a Reformation

[Fish and Bread]

Link:

https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/francis-proves-catholic-church-still-needs-reformation

 

[concretecamper]

 

[Fish and Bread]

There were some significant problems with the Roman Catholic Church that it was not solving itself during the middle ages. The Reformation seems like overkill in some of it's extremes, but the problem is that people like Erasmus (Who was sort of the forerunner of Luther, but who refused to leave the RCC) had no voice in the Church. If you stayed in union with Peter and protested, you were sidelined. Luther I think wound up on trial before he split, didn't he? Some people may have even wound up in prison or worse.

The Reformation had it's faults, but I wonder if Christianity would still be around today in the numbers it has if the Reformation hadn't happened. It kept people in the fold in some way, and it forced Rome to eventually reform itself in some ways. It's an inside-outside game. If pressure from the inside isn't working, you go outside, and that creates another source of pressure, and maybe eventually you not only get new churches, but a better Roman Catholic Church.

We'd never have had a Vatican II without the Protestant Reformation.

And in some ways, a diversity of cultural experiences is good. I mean, in the US some places there are Polish parishes or Italian parishes with traditions from the old countries, less so than there used to be, but there. A future reunification doesn't necessarily mean everyone under direct Papal authority doing and believing exactly the same thing, maybe it means means a lot of churches that have different traditions, but share clergy and communion and recognize each other, and has the Pope as the figurehead spiritual mentor without the same doctrinal and governmental authority over the churches.

This is mainly a response to the video rather than the original post, which actually talks about something different if you click the link.

 

[Martinius]

The Church is built on a large foundation with many pillars. There may be some pillars that are not truly "foundational", not from God but from human ideas of the time. Yet to remove those pillars now, after everything that was built on top of them, would threaten the stability of the entire Church structure. Or so it is believed. It is likely impossible to ever have a true reformation to bring the Church in line with where it should have been, and where it should be. The stuff that has been added on top of the foundations is so immense and complex, with so much untouchable "tradition" intertwined throughout, that to try to "reform" it is likely impossible.

I could see where allowing the ordination of women would cause a schism equal to that which occurred both during the Reformation and when the East and West Churches split.

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

My current view is that change is inevitable in any institution.Otherwise it dies.
Change is not a bad thing.
Inflexibility equals stubborn-ness and lack of mercy.
Questioning is healthy. Once questioning is stifled, authority and power is validated and we live in a dictatorship.

 

[Talmek]

So...weighing in on this (I really don't have a dog in the hunt as my personal belief is that the message can effectively come from the lay person just as it can from the clergy) - has anyone ever produced a reason why women cannot be ordained, other than, "because Jesus didn't choose any women"?

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

has anyone ever produced a reason why women cannot be ordained, other than, "because Jesus didn't choose any women"?

Some people are going to be shaking their head when they read this part of your post.
We have discussed this a lot in the past. A lot of us have liberal views like yourself. I'm not sure about this one. Personally I don't see a problem but there is a conservative part of me that thinks we should let this issue alone for a while. Doesn't look like the Church will move on this one for ages.