What are the Lessons of the Protestant Reformation?

[Fish and Bread]

What lessons, if any, do you think the Church learned from the Protestant Reformation? Are there things that perhaps you feel it should have learned and didn't?

How about modern Protestantism? Are any of these branches producing practices or theology that should be folded back into the Mother Church?

Are there any Reformation area Protestant theologians who have written anything with elements that speak to you?

 

[mark46]

What lessons, if any, do you think the Church learned from the Protestant Reformation? Are there things that perhaps you feel it should have learned and didn't?

How about modern Protestantism? Are any of these branches producing practices or theology that should be folded back into the Mother Church?

Are there any Reformation area Protestant theologians who have written anything with elements that speak to you?

I will let others answer before I give any specifics. I would only say that, for the most part, the Church has learned the lessons of the Reformation. IMHO, Luther and Calvin would feel very comfortable in the current Church. Obviously, they would be more comfortable if there were married priests.

On the other hand, I have no doubt that the vast majority of 21st Century Catholics would not be Catholic if the Church was similar to that of the 1500's or even the 1600's or 1700's. We will have this discussion in a big way in a couple of years when the pope jointly celebrates the anniversary of the beginning of the Reformation with Lutherans. I suspect that there will be many Vatican communications on this subject.

 

[Open Heart]

Corruption in the church has consequences.

 

[Albion]

How about modern Protestantism? Are any of these branches producing practices or theology that should be folded back into the Mother Church??

Of course, they have been. Since Vatican II, there's a long list of reforms that the Catholic Church has instituted and , lo and behold, they're exactly what the Protestants of the 16th century had championed and instituted in their own churches. And that is apparently not a coincidence or something that needed time to develop. Many commentators on the subject of reforms in the Catholic Church made the point that these were made, at least in part, because of the Church's concern, at that point in time, that Protestantism was making membership gains at the expense of Catholicism.

 

[FireDragon76]

Corruption in the church has consequences.

I agree, that's about the only lesson I see from it.

I don't see the faith that the masses practiced as hopelessly broken. In that respect I think the Reformers were presumptuous, and many historians who look at things believe the Catholic Church really won the Reformation, especially with the success of the Jesuits and a renewed emphasis on missions. The Jesuits single-handedly saved the Catholic church in many areas and beat back the Reformation with superior rhetoric and polemics, as well as notable examples of real piety (even some Protestants had to acknowledge this at the time).

Until the Evangelical and Catholic revival in Britain in the 19th century... Protestant Christianity was moribund. It's "success" until then was enshrining the role of the state and secularism in northern European society. Church attendance declined, public morals declined, religious pharasaism increased (look at the blue laws that existed in England even into the 50's, such as banning public depictions of Christ and so forth) This was hardly the "reform" that men like Luther and Zwingli envisioned.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Corruption in the church has consequences.

I agree, that's about the only lesson I see from it.

Given the recent child abuse scandal with the bishops who covered up for and reassigned child molesters to abuse again in new parishes usually with few if any consequences to the bishops (Which to me is systematic corruption of a non-financial sort), would you say that they've thus failed to learn the primary lesson of the Reformation, which you guys view as that corruption has consequences? Or are you guys thinking that specifically financial corruption is what has consequences- like the sale of indulgences and stuff- which they have mostly cleaned up (At least, I feel they have)?

 

[Open Heart]

It is being learned slowly. The coverup of the sex scandal by the bishops is corrupt -- an outrage to non-catholics and utterly demoralizing to those of us within the church. (As far as I know, the church STILL doesn't get it -- bishops are still not being punished.) However, this scandal pales in comparison to those of the past. Our present popes are a breath of fresh air compared to the popes of history. Despite the sex scandal, catholics and even the world looks up to Pope Francis.

 

[Rhamiel]

Given the recent child abuse scandal with the bishops who covered up for and reassigned child molesters to abuse again in new parishes usually with few if any consequences to the bishops (Which to me is systematic corruption of a non-financial sort), would you say that they've thus failed to learn the primary lesson of the Reformation, which you guys view as that corruption has consequences? Or are you guys thinking that specifically financial corruption is what has consequences- like the sale of indulgences and stuff- which they have mostly cleaned up (At least, I feel they have)?

not really?
even one child being hurt is too many

but I think the horrors of the abuse have been manipulated by the enemies of the Church

for a long time, it was thought that if the priest was treated with counseling, that would be all that would be needed, parents did not want their child to be drawn into court proceedings, all parties involved just wanted it to go away, so the priest was moved and received counseling and it was thought the situation would be taken care of
back in the day this was also common way to deal with a teacher who did something similar, not saying it was right, but it was the socially acceptable way of dealing with that problem

speaking of teachers, far more children are being taken advantage of by public school teachers then by priests, but you do not hear the secular school system being accused of "systemic corruption"

you will have human failings, greed, power struggles, and abuse of some kind, in every human institution

 

[Albion]

not really?
even one child being hurt is too many

but I think the horrors of the abuse have been manipulated by the enemies of the Church

for a long time, it was thought that if the priest was treated with counseling, that would be all that would be needed, parents did not want their child to be drawn into court proceedings, all parties involved just wanted it to go away, so the priest was moved and received counseling and it was thought the situation would be taken care of...back in the day this was also common way to deal with a teacher who did something similar, not saying it was right, but it was the socially acceptable way of dealing with that problem

"Back in the day" is usually not a term associated with, say, the 1990s. And it's not just a "back in the day it was thought to be OK, etc." proposition when it is against the law to cover such a thing up and known by the church to be so.

you will have human failings, greed, power struggles, and abuse of some kind, in every human institution

Very true, but it's the cover-up and defiance of the law that is more the issue--and the fact that it's still going on.

 

[Open Heart]

speaking of teachers, far more children are being taken advantage of by public school teachers then by priests, but you do not hear the secular school system being accused of "systemic corruption"

Which is not fair, because it is.

The catholic church gets singled out for two reasons, one understandable, and the other not. The former is that it is a moral leader, and leaders are held to a higher standard. The latter is just antipathy towards the church.

 

[Open Heart]

"Back in the day" is usually not a term associated with, say, the 1990s. And it's not just a "back in the day it was thought to be OK, etc." proposition when it is against the law to cover such a thing up and known by the church to be so.

Very true, but it's the cover-up and defiance of the law that is more the issue--and the fact that it's still going on.

Exactly. And being scandalized and demoralized by this is not a conservative/liberal issue.

 

[FireDragon76]

Roman Catholics could learn a lot from Lutheran theology, and they wouldn't even necessarily have to give up hardly any of their traditional practices to do so. I used to go to a liberal Independent Catholic church and the bishop/pastor there had experience being a Lutheran pastor as well.

I think if the Roman Catholics had a different attitude towards intercommunion/open communion, it would go a ways towards reducing a lot of the anti-Catholicism. Rome focuses so much on intellectual assent to the faith, and not enough on absorbing it through experience (hence the issue of "first communion" and confirmation - neither one is universally practiced by apostolic Christians).

 

[richard373]

What lessons, if any, do you think the Church learned from the Protestant Reformation? Are there things that perhaps you feel it should have learned and didn't?

How about modern Protestantism? Are any of these branches producing practices or theology that should be folded back into the Mother Church?

Are there any Reformation area Protestant theologians who have written anything with elements that speak to you?

From the perspective of one who was a "Reformed" Protestant for 28 years before converting to Catholicism, I regard the description "Reformation" in the context of Luther, Calvin and Co as something of a misnomer. It was to all intents and purposes a revolt or defection (Greek: “apostasia”). Reformation of the Western Church was desperately needed at the time of course but Luther initiated an entirely new understanding of the Christian faith concerning "how one is saved"; and although he and church that now bears his name retain a (modified) version of the "real presence" of Christ at the Eucharist, the vast majority of the separated independent assemblies that revere ML's name do not. They are regrettably therefore devoid of what the Apostolic Church (East and West) regard as the central rite of the Christian faith by which the individual comes to participate with the divine as the saving Guest "enters under his roof" and the perpetual Sacrifice is offered for the glory of God and to advance the salvation of the world.

Yet those who like my former self came to the faith through the witness of Evangelicals earnestly believed the Mass/Sacred Mystery to be a blasphemous act, yet (God knows) we believed we were being faithful to Christ in so doing. This inter alia is the heritage of the "Reformation" and we shouldn't forget it. Having said that I have no doubt whatsoever that the Holy Spirit has been working in and through the Protestant churches and they now have much to teach us including in the area of biblical scholarship and individual devotion to Christ. The Roman Church has much to apologise for in the context of the Protestant Reformation and in recent years has publically done so, but in the context of the ecclesiological universality that we all might wish to re-establish, we cannot lose sight of the apostolic foundations and who had abandoned them.

 

[FireDragon76]

Reformation of the Western Church was desperately needed at the time of course but Luther initiated an entirely new understanding of the Christian faith concerning "how one is saved";

You are a former evangelical... have you ever actually studied Lutheranism? Luther did not believe there is any ordinary means of salvation besides the sacraments, the same as Catholics. He did not invent any new way of being saved. On this point Catholics and Lutherans are in absolute agreement: we are saved through grace mediated by the sacraments.

Anselm of Canterburry also taught that we can be justified by faith. He advised those dying and fearing God's wrath to plead that the merits of the Cross be interprosed between the believer and God's wrath. This is identical to Luther's insight on justification by faith.

It is only the Roman Catholic hierarchy that forgot the Council of Orange (in fairness, Luther probably was not aware of it either), became infatuated with the Via Moderna and its doctrines of grace-after-works that refused to take Luther seriously. If this sounds incredible, remember that the average Catholic priest back then knew less than the average Cafeteria Catholic now days about their faith's doctrines. Becoming a priest had less to do with genuine calling and was often more of a cultural phenomenon where second or third sons sought an employer of last resort.

 

[richard373]

You are a former evangelical... have you ever actually studied Lutheranism? Luther did not believe there is any ordinary means of salvation besides the sacraments, the same as Catholics. He did not invent any new way of being saved. On this point Catholics and Lutherans are in absolute agreement: we are saved through grace mediated by the sacraments.

To be honest, from my former perspective I was inclined to regard Catholics and Lutherans as much of a muchness - i.e. "dead churches" that practiced sacramentalism. Likewise now I find myself far more in agreement - having recently attended a mass held at an ecumenical service at St Albans Cathedral in which a Lutheran minister provided the homily, I agreed with every word he spoke. But that is not the case within mainstream Evangelicalism (with which I've no doubt Luther would be appalled for the reason you referred to and also because he would abhor the historical fragmentation that has occurred). Nevertheless his act of defiance was the inspiration and historical catalyst for such fragmentation, though it could not have happened but for the corruption within the Roman church and her reluctance to attend to it. My reference to ML's invention pertained to his new understanding of justifying faith. He redefined what an individual is required to believe to be saved - the act of relying on Christ's merit alone for salvation through the imputation of His justice - an understanding adopted by those who regrettably went on fatally to diminish the rite that Lutherans, Catholics and Orthodox still regard as central to the Faith.

 

[FireDragon76]

My reference to ML's invention pertained to his new understanding of justifying faith. He redefined what an individual is required to believe to be saved - the act of relying on Christ's merit alone for salvation through the imputation of His justice.

Definitely not... we are not saved by believing in sola fide, none of the magisterial Protestants taught that. Which is why men like Luther, Hooker, Calvin, could continue to believe that the Roman church was a real church with real sacraments and even in some cases, real salvation.

I tend to think the idea that Christianity is a list of propositions we must consciously assent to is uniquely western and modern. Eastern Orthodox definitely do not believe that. There's teachings of the Church and dogmas, but salvation is such that even a mentally deficient person that cannot understand those things can be saved through the ministry of the Church. Most mainline Protestants and liberal Catholics would probably agree.

I think a deeper issue was his understanding of Sola Scriptura... that really opened the Pandora's Box away towards greater individualism. But individualism was already present, and the principle of conscience was something that existed in Catholicism.

 

[richard373]

Definitely not... we are not saved by believing in sola fide, none of the magisterial Protestants taught that. Which is why men like Luther, Hooker, Calvin, could continue to believe that the Roman church was a real church with real sacraments and even in some cases, real salvation.

Typically I am more familiar with the teaching of 20/21stcentury Calvinists than Calvin himself but then we are considering the Reformation's heritage! I was taught and taught others that unless they were relying on Christ's merits alone, i.e. not believing they were contributing in any way to their own salvation then they could not be saved - effectively the act of trusting in Christ’s merits alone was an essential component of salvation. Also that until ML came along (we believed) no one had really grasped this particular truth.

I tend to think the idea that Christianity is a list of propositions we must consciously assent to is uniquely western and modern. Eastern Orthodox definitely do not believe that. There's teachings of the Church and dogmas, but salvation is such that even a mentally deficient person that cannot understand those things can be saved through the ministry of the Church. Most mainline Protestants and liberal Catholics would probably agree.

I tend to agree - hopefully so would conservative Catholics, certainly with your last point

I think a deeper issue was his understanding of Sola Scriptura... that really opened the Pandora's Box away towards greater individualism. But individualism was already present, and the principle of conscience was something that existed in Catholicism.

Absolutely, but surely ML believed and asserted that the essentials of the faith were sufficiently clearly elucidated in Scripture. The lesson of history is that such is not the case; the Bible is anything but perspicuous - hence the degree of fragmentation that has occurred to Christ's Body. It is one thing to heal or reform a sick body - but now she has been smashed to smithereens, how now shall the balm be applied? It would surely take a miracle - so there's still hope there then.

 

[mark46]

From the perspective of one who was a "Reformed" Protestant for 28 years before converting to Catholicism, I regard the description "Reformation" in the context of Luther, Calvin and Co as something of a misnomer. It was to all intents and purposes a revolt or defection (Greek: “apostasia”). Reformation of the Western Church was desperately needed at the time of course but Luther initiated an entirely new understanding of the Christian faith concerning "how one is saved"; and although he and church that now bears his name retain a (modified) version of the "real presence" of Christ at the Eucharist, the vast majority of the separated independent assemblies that revere ML's name do not. They are regrettably therefore devoid of what the Apostolic Church (East and West) regard as the central rite of the Christian faith by which the individual comes to participate with the divine as the saving Guest "enters under his roof" and the perpetual Sacrifice is offered for the glory of God and to advance the salvation of the world.

Yet those who like my former self came to the faith through the witness of Evangelicals earnestly believed the Mass/Sacred Mystery to be a blasphemous act, yet (God knows) we believed we were being faithful to Christ in so doing. This inter alia is the heritage of the "Reformation" and we shouldn't forget it. Having said that I have no doubt whatsoever that the Holy Spirit has been working in and through the Protestant churches and they now have much to teach us including in the area of biblical scholarship and individual devotion to Christ. The Roman Church has much to apologise for in the context of the Protestant Reformation and in recent years has publically done so, but in the context of the ecclesiological universality that we all might wish to re-establish, we cannot lose sight of the apostolic foundations and who had abandoned them.

 

[mark46]

You imply that the descendants of Luther and Calvin do not believe in a Real Presence, and that "the vast majority of separate assemblies that revere ML's name do not"

I have a different perspective having spent some number of years in a Baptist church, a non-denominational pentecostal church and in an Anglican church. As you have, I have some knowledge of the variety of understanding that exist among non-Catholics.

For me, the division is between those who hold the "memorial" view, that we don't actually receive Jesus (that Jesus is not "really present) in the Eucharist. The others believe that Jesus is present, although there are many explanations of how this happens. I think that the detailed explanations are not relevant here. Suffice it to say that many non-Catholic Christians believe that we truly receive Jesus when we receive at communion. Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians and most Methodists believe that we truly receive Jesus. I don't think that the numbers of these groups around the world is small or insignificant. I would argue that this group is larger than those who hold the memorialist view. Even Erasmus is said to have been misunderstood in this case. Luther, Calvin and Wesley certainly believed in the real presence.

As far as the importance of apostolic succession, I would suggest that their is a variety of views with the groups that accept the Real Presence. However, they all believe in the doctrine of apostolic succession.

BOTTOM LINE
For me, it is the very loud American evangelicals who are in the minority, not those who believe in the Real Presence.

 

[Fish and Bread]

You imply that the descendants of Luther and Calvin do not believe in a Real Presence, and that "the vast majority of separate assemblies that revere ML's name do not"

I have a different perspective having spent some number of years in a Baptist church, a non-denominational pentecostal church and in an Anglican church. As you have, I have some knowledge of the variety of understanding that exist among non-Catholics.

For me, the division is between those who hold the "memorial" view, that we don't actually receive Jesus (that Jesus is not "really present) in the Eucharist. The others believe that Jesus is present, although there are many explanations of how this happens. I think that the detailed explanations are not relevant here. Suffice it to say that many non-Catholic Christians believe that we truly receive Jesus when we receive at communion. Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians and most Methodists believe that we truly receive Jesus. I don't think that the numbers of these groups around the world is small or insignificant. I would argue that this group is larger than those who hold the memorialist view. Even Erasmus is said to have been misunderstood in this case. Luther, Calvin and Wesley certainly believed in the real presence.

As far as the importance of apostolic succession, I would suggest that their is a variety of views with the groups that accept the Real Presence. However, they all believe in the doctrine of apostolic succession.

BOTTOM LINE
For me, it is the very loud American evangelicals who are in the minority, not those who believe in the Real Presence.

Very good points.

The two largest Christian churches or denominations in the world in order of adherents are Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Some lists show Anglicanism as coming in third, others lower, but whatever the particulars, it also has a significant number of adherents, especially in some of the former British commonwealth nations, Africa where a lot of missionaries have gone and a lot of people have converted, and, of course, England itself, among other places. I've seen Oriental Orthodoxy (Also known as Coptic Christians sometimes) listed third or fourth depending on where the list is coming from. And then you start getting to Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Calvinists and so on and so forth. With Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans all believing in the real presence, that is very big majority of the Christian world. I am not sure where Methodists stand, it may differ depending on which type of Methodist you are- I think the United Methodist Church here in the US takes a memorialist viewpoint, but the founder of Methodism in general, John Wesley, who was originally a priest in the Church of England (Anglican) believed in the real presence, so it's conceivable that some Methodist denominations do also.

Baptists and evangelical quasi-Baptists are a very large presence in America and some other countries, but I've never seen Baptists higher than fourth places in terms of worldwide adherents on any list or survey, and often all the churches and denominations ahead of and the first several immediately behind them are believers in the real presence, except on lists that put the Calvinists around there, in which case they are often the only two in the top ten. In fact, there are a lot of places in the world where if you here someone talk about an evangelical, they mean an evangelical Anglican, which is just an informal name for Anglicans who tends towards more Protestant theology relative to their opposite theological extreme in Anglicanism, the Anglo-Catholics, an informal designation for Anglicans who lean towards Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox theology. Even most evanglical Anglicans affirm the traditional Anglican formulation of "real presence" in the Eucharist, though they may in some cases only barely acknowledge it relative to the Anglo-Catholics who will often openly embrace transubstantiation (the RCC view), the EO view (don't know the term for that), or something very close to those. The largest Lutheran denomination in the US is called the Evanglical Lutheran Church in America, but they believe in consubstantiation, a form of the real presence, just as Martin Luther did.

Actually, it is kind of weird how much these lists vary, but I guess there is a lot of incomplete data and that there are lot of judgement calls involved with deciding what group some individual churches or denominations actually fall into when they aren't a formal member of a large institutional church. There are so many splits and mergers and small regional churches, and not all of them have something obvious in the name that tip off what family of churches they resemble.

I think the lists that show Anglicans in third globally are probably thinking of churches that are one institution or communion, and counting the Anglican Communion as the third largest institution, which it probably is. On lists where Baptists rank highly, they are probably grouping a lot of completely independent denominations that share beliefs and naming terminology together in "families" to figure out what is what. For example, on the first type of list of institutions, when we say Roman Catholics, we'd just mean Catholics in union with Rome. On the second type, we'd toss in Old Catholics, the Polish National Catholic Church, SSPX, and all kinds of groups with Catholic in the name that maintain practices like Apostolic Succession, seven sacraments, veneration of Saints, etc..