What are the Lessons of the Protestant Reformation?

[Rhamiel]

My Mom is United Methodist, her church has a very symbolic view of the Eucharist
but I hear Methodists in the UK and Commonwealth Nations are a lot closer to Anglican in their theology
the United Methodist were created in the in 1968 when the Methodist Church in the USA joined with the Evangelical United Brethren Church
it is my understanding that this union is at times strained

 

[richard373]

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.

I'm speaking from a UK perspective (not sure where contributors are from with this new software). From my 28 years within Evangelicalism, latterly as a Baptist minister, I can't say I encountered any individual who believed in the "real presence" as I now understand it. Calvin believed in a "spiritual presence" (although I and most of my fellow Calvinists were barely aware of that historical fact). Calvin did not agree with the Lutheran/Catholic perspective of a local presence within the "emblems". He regarded transubstantiation as fictitious and "a work of Satan", although even I as an RC regard the word itself as inadequate - a typical western over-elaboration of an indescribable mystery. I also spent a transitional period within (High) Anglicanism and they certainly understand the "Real presence" but as I say, not within the independent church circles I moved for many years here in the UK. The situation is at best confused; yet for many of us this is a matter of Life itself and it is surely one of the more devastating aspects to the legacy of that cataclysmic historical event we call "the Reformation", an event to which my adopted church contributed through its reluctance to acknowledge internal corruption and deformed practices such as the sale of indulgencies which so infuriated Luther and the likes of Erasmus before him. I shall say again, it's one thing to reform and heal a diseased body as those two men initially sought to do, but when the Body itself has been broken into so many pieces it becomes yet more difficult, though through its Head all things remain possible.

 

[mark46]

My Mom is United Methodist, her church has a very symbolic view of the Eucharist
but I hear Methodists in the UK and Commonwealth Nations are a lot closer to Anglican in their theology
the United Methodist were created in the in 1968 when the Methodist Church in the USA joined with the Evangelical United Brethren Church
it is my understanding that this union is at times strained

Even in the US, there are different views within the UMC.

UMC in the US South are barely distinguishable from some Baptist groups. In the Northeast, UMC folks tend to be much closer to their Anglican roots. As aside note, the UMC officially believes in the Real Presence. Their Articles are clear on the matter, and their national statements support this view.

 

[Rhamiel]

well I am not in "the South"
living in central Ohio, solidly mid-western

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

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.

While I can not speak for all Lutherans, Confessional Lutherans do maintain the teaching of Christ's real presence in the Eucharist, that the very body and blood of our Lord is physically present, in with and under the bread and wine. Howe it happens; it is a mystery. Our Lord says it "is", so we do too.

 

[richard373]

posted in error

 

[GillDouglas]

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”).<snip>

I thought that Luther had no intention of revolting or defecting only instituting changes in the church he loved dearly? Though we credit him with being the father of the Reformation, I believe he only wanted to reform the RCC.

 

[FireDragon76]

In many ways, Luther was not Protestant, and he never really formulated a doctrine of sola scriptura as would be understood today. He was still working and thinking within a catholic framework. The kind of fideism that came to mark conservative Protestantism would be alien to him.

 

[Open Heart]

Though we credit him with being the father of the Reformation, I believe he only wanted to reform the RCC.

Though it is true that Luther wanted to remain a Catholic, his acidic attitude got him excommunicated from the Church for heresy.

 

[GillDouglas]

Though it is true that Luther wanted to remain a Catholic, his acidic attitude got him excommunicated from the Church for heresy.

Actually it was only because his ideas for church reform spread like wildfire (because of the printing press) that he had to be made an example of. The RCC eventually made a lot of the changes that Luther suggested.

 

[katerinah1947]

Actually it was only because his ideas for church reform spread like wildfire (because of the printing press) that he had to be made an example of. The RCC eventually made a lot of the changes that Luther suggested.

Hi,
Yes, this I have heard also on History channels. I am told there, he never wanted to be kicked out, he only wanted a discussion. The historian said, it was like the newpapers of the day, getting information and then publishing an internal question, to an external audience.
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .
And, within my church, they much need what Protestants in general have to offer. It is understanding the Bible, and it is living in The Spirit, the Holy Spirit. Many of them do.
The Protestants need to know, and for a lack of technical words: "That may not look like Jesus, but it is, both in the wine and the bread." It is because, the differences in a person, say me, are pronounced with and without the Eucharist. With the Eucharist, all that I am asked to do, turns out to actually be good and to actually help others. (And Holy Water works also.) Without the Eucharist for a long enough period of time, all the same good actions are not, or they are perceived as not by the intended recipients.
Yes, that is by an experiment. One I did not do by own, just one I participated in as the principle experimenter, until I learned my lesson. The lesson is, I work like me without the Eucharist. With the Eucharist I work like God, in this case Jesus Christ.
Each group can learn, each group has it's share of Narcissists, or those who were not chosen by God to be priests or ministers, but were chosen by themselves or others. Each group needs each other, or I wouldn't have to do as much work as I do within the Catholic Church. Nor, would I have as much work to do, in the Protestant and other churches.
It takes a long time to learn that love as God defines it is "Doing the will of" the one you love. It takes a long time to learn, that Holy Water really works. It also takes a long time to learn that God is in The Protestant churches. The Eucharist is already mentioned. It also takes a long time to learn that too much of anything is bad. Too many priests, too many ministers, as someone has to pay them. It takes time and not combining all that works in both religions is wrong. So is not adding science to religion, which is in the Bible to do, by God giving us a blessing in Genesis to do that. So, is not following the law in our hearts, which God said is there. So is not following civilian laws, which God told us to do in Romans.
We need to put all of this together, and take what is good, and use that. The Reformation, only did part of that, in my understanding.
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[richard373]

I thought that Luther had no intention of revolting or defecting only instituting changes in the church he loved dearly? Though we credit him with being the father of the Reformation, I believe he only wanted to reform the RCC.

I'm sure you're right about ML's original intentions and the RCC is to be blamed for provoking the reformer by not acknowledging the degree of corruption that existed or dealing adequately with his theses. My problem with Luther's later approach was well expressed by his fellow humanist Erasmus who equally wished to reform the Church yet became one of ML's fiercest critics. He wrote to him as follows:

"What torments me and all honest people is that with your character which is so arrogant, impudent and rebellious, you plunge the whole world into fatal discord, that you expose good men and lovers of good letters to the fury of the Pharisees (Catholic hierarchy); you have provided to vile souls desperate for new things arms for sedition, so that in a word you violently handle the cause of the gospel in such a way that you confuse everything, the sacred and profane."
[Opus Epistolarum Erasmi Roterdami April 11th 1526)

ML in turn was shocked and disappointed by the course the reformation movement took even in his own lifetime, let alone what he would have thought if he could see the fragmentation of Christ's Body that exists today. Given that I no longer subscribe to sola scriptura it is no surprise I consider his cardinal error was to imagine that once Christians had been "liberated from the papacy" with bibles in their hands, homes and local assemblies they would come to a uniform understanding, at least of the essentials of the Faith - but I think history (and dare I say these forums) indicate otherwise. I cannot therefore regard the reformation and its legacy in a positive light, though I accept my adopted church must accept substantial blame for it. As you said in a later post, the RCC took on board some of ML's criticisms (at the Council of Trent), still more so those of Erasmus, whose more measured approach proved to be more effective and certainly less divisive.

 

[Open Heart]

Actually it was only because his ideas for church reform spread like wildfire (because of the printing press) that he had to be made an example of. The RCC eventually made a lot of the changes that Luther suggested.

We reformed the scandals. We never changed our doctrines.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Though it is true that Luther wanted to remain a Catholic, his acidic attitude got him excommunicated from the Church for heresy.

Or the corrupt and acidic manner of the Pope of that day; Luther wanted to talk; Leo wanted to build St. Peter's and be important.

 

[Open Heart]

Or the corrupt and acidic manner of the Pope of that day; Luther wanted to talk; Leo wanted to build St. Peter's and be important.

I disagree. Luther didn't want to talk. He just wanted things his way. I think both Luther and the Pope were rude to each other. However, usually when one person is in authority, the one who is not has the common sense to show some respect instead of cussing.

 

[Albion]

I disagree. Luther didn't want to talk. He just wanted things his way.

And Columbus thought he'd discovered England, I suppose.

C'mon. You can't just throw history to the winds in order to try to sustain a losing argument.

 

[Rhamiel]

we are not throwing history to the winds

we are just looking at what happened in history

Luther was given an opportunity to recant
he did not

some of the things he spoke against were corruptions
other things he spoke on were theological innovations and novelties that held no place in Christianity before being made up by Luther

 

[Open Heart]

C'mon. You can't just throw history to the winds in order to try to sustain a losing argument.

I'm sorry, but I can't stand this whitewashing of Luther, when a simple examination of his letters reveals him to be a real jerk.

 

[Open Heart]

So what about Luther's potty mouth? You can get a good dose of it if you read his work, "Against the Papacy in Rome Founded by the Devil".
This website on Luther's Against the Papacy had this to say:

Luther described the practice of indulgences as “an utter [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ting,” and went on to claim that the “dearest little ass-pope” not only worshiped Satan, but “also lick[ed his] behind.” ... He also said the Pope farted so loudly and powerfully, that “it is a wonder that it did not tear his hole and belly apart.”
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/11/talking-tough-martin-luthers-potty-mouth/​

 

[mark46]

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).

I agree.

The RCC now accept Easter Orthodox Christians to communion. It would be a major step forward for them to accept Lutherans, Anglicans and Methodists who believe that Jesus is really present and that we truly receive him.