Was the Reformation an Experiment gone wrong?

[Albion]

Too bad that wasn't what happened. All the Reformation did was damage Christianity in the West by splintering it into tiny pieces and instigating a great deal of political conflict.

That's been said about every great reform movement in human history by those who didn't actually know how bad the "Old Order" was.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Wow, you are all over the place, aren't you?

What I am saying here is Martin Luther did in fact call the church out on a number of false doctrines and fallacies. The problem is he was branded a heretic by the RCC. But, such a strong support grew behind him the RCC eventually left him alone.

As for corruption in the church, sure any church is susceptible to corruption, there is no denying that, but I doubt Martin Luther said to himself, "You know, I really am tired of the corrupt church called the RCC, so I think I will make a corrupt one of my own."

True men of God do not intend on what they are working on to become corrupt, unfortunately it is when other people put their messy little hands in the pie it becomes less than what it was intended to be.

I did not realize that I was all over the place. Thanks for noting. funny...but it seems we meet all over the place, no?

Luther made such a big fuss of it that I thought it would create a spotless Church... But...He did not intend to build a corrupt church, neither the RCC wanted. But in the end, corruption was the same in both Churches, no? So, why all the fuss and deaths and persecutions and divisions on the whole Europe? What for? Nothing! Better, for the worse!

True men of God do not intend

True man of God are not sinners?

 

[athenken]

I did not realize that I was all over the place. Thanks for noting. funny...but it seems we meet all over the place, no?

Luther made such a big fuss of it that I thought it would create a spotless Church... But...He did not intend to build a corrupt church, neither the RCC wanted. But in the end, corruption was the same in both Churches, no? So, why all the fuss and deaths and persecutions and divisions on the whole Europe? What for? Nothing! Better, for the worse!

True man of God are not sinners?

Actually, I was referring to how your points are all over the place, not that you are bouncing around in a lot of threads, which I do as well.

Anyone who says a true man of God is completely devoid of sin is either deluded or lying, as any human is not completely devoid of sin.

My point was that Martin Luther saw that the RCC was plodding along down the wrong road, theologically and doctrinally, and felt he needed to take a stand, which he was nearly killed for. We was most certainly excommunicated for it.

As Albion pointed out:

That's been said about every great reform movement in human history by those who didn't actually know how bad the "Old Order" was.

This is not to say that any iterations of the modern church is completely devoid of corruption or false teachings. But, Martin Luther definitely opened up some much needed examination over what was being taught at the time.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You can always hope, huh? But 'Will Protestantism go the way of the Roman Church' should be the question. The RCC was once united but split into numerous parts. One part continued to be prominent and opposes its former members.

So possibly that is what would happen to Protestant Christianity in the distant future, except for one fact. Protestant theology does not consider all but one of the various Christian church bodies to be invalid. It holds to the belief that the church of Christ is bigger than any legal entity organized in his name. IOW, it doesn't hurt Protestantism to have a number of different church bodies since the Church itself is not divided. Churches which are exclusivistic, however, are a different matter.

And of course Protestant Christianity is growing at present, not declining, meaning that it is well that you projected your vision to be far, far into the future where anyone's guess is as good as anyone else's. My own suspicion is that the Roman Church will still be with us in a hundred years but it will look and operate exactly like a Protestant church. And that change IS already underway.

This is a mischaracterization. Christ gave the world the Church. ONE church. He died, leaving his apostles and they passed on the faith to their successors. But immediately after the Church was instituted, people questioned what Christ taught, were corrected by the Church, and decided they wanted to form their own sects. The Catholic Church is not split as far as what the Church teaches. Different rites worship differently, but they believe the same thing. Catholic theology does not consider any other Christian faith invalid. In fact, we're accused of being too accomodating because we know there's some truth in Islam and all the religions of the world.

Christ promised that his Church would last until he returns, and it will. Actually, the change you suggest is not underway. In fact, more and more protestant churches are moving away from Christian morals, with the support of gay marriage, female clergy, and acceptance of abortion, divorce and things like IVF.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The split that occurred in the Reformation was necessary and right due to many of the fallacies that were being taught under the Roman Catholic Church.

Which ones were those???

 

[Root of Jesse]

As I was saying, it would be almost impossible for Protestantism to die since no amount of splitting would affect it. Each part is part of the whole. But with Catholicism, any split becomes a non-entity or adversary by Catholic theology. Thererfore, the prospects for the survival of the RCC is a much more interesting subject, don't you think? I mean, it has already moved strongly in the direction of Protestantism since the 1960s, and the Middle Ages can't live forever.

Again, untrue. That's why we call you 'separated bretheren'.

The prospects for 'RCC survival', we already know. The liberal bend after Vatican II is being straightened out with each passing day. Note that it was this liberal bend and relaxation toward Protestantism that led to the child abuse scandal in the Church. You say 'the middle ages can't live forever', but the truth is that there is only one Truth, and it NEVER changes.

 

[athenken]

Which ones were those???

Really?

Here ya go. For your perusal.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Actually, I was referring to how your points are all over the place, not that you are bouncing around in a lot of threads, which I do as well.

Anyone who says a true man of God is completely devoid of sin is either deluded or lying, as any human is not completely devoid of sin.

My point was that Martin Luther saw that the RCC was plodding along down the wrong road, theologically and doctrinally, and felt he needed to take a stand, which he was nearly killed for. We was most certainly excommunicated for it.

As Albion pointed out:



This is not to say that any iterations of the modern church is completely devoid of corruption or false teachings. But, Martin Luther definitely opened up some much needed examination over what was being taught at the time.

What is the inheritance of Luther nowadays?
Good points.
Sincerely I do not see any. If someone could explain what the Lutheran Church Has and the Catholic Church does not have, please, explain to us.
Bad points.
A lot of troubles for the children of Reformation. They are in a way that was not chosen by them. He got the easy way out: " cut, cut, cut," cut everything that did not please him. Got married. Misfigured The Church. Now the children of the Reformation will have a hard time understanding in the RCC what he just did not like.

If he did not create a Church better than the RCC, why did he move?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Dreams can be fun, right?



It's well underway. That's why I said it, not because I was dreaming of the possibility. The RCC has already become much more like a typical Protestant church in both practice and doctrine than was true only a couple of generations ago. Shall we list the ways?

Yes, please do...

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Really?

Here ya go. For your perusal.

Old Stuff.
And because ONE person said, then it is true. And you are against Infallibility of the Pope...Not even the Pope is so infallible...
I see sentences, no proofs.
We prefer that the Holy spirit speaks through the Community. Vatican II took 4 years and 2000 bishops. The Assumption of Mary dogma was approved by all but a few bishops of the World.

Luther had a bad night, nailed a paper in a Church's door and it is an Infallible Dogma of Faith.

I am a cradle Catholic and I would be willing to exchange for something better. But with these examples, my choice is deeper and deeper rooted in the RC.

 

[Root of Jesse]

No, it was an experiment gone right! By your own admission, the RCC has gone through several reformations of its own since Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Wittenberg Cathedral, and has come around to the teaching of grace for salvation, though continues to make the mistake, at least at the corporate level of the church (that is, the Vatican) that works have a role as well.

Thankfully, at least here in the Midwest, most Catholics I know have rejected works-based faith and realize that it is by faith alone that salvation is accomplished. At least we can pray the RCC makes the next logical step and joins "us Protestants" in preaching the truth of Scripture.

If your church doesn't reform itself every day, your church will be stale, if it isn't already. I don't think you have a clue what your Catholic friends believe, and if they believe what you say they do, they are poorly educated Catholics.

You don't know the truth in scripture, because you think you can understand. But like the eunuch in the chariot, you need people to explain scripture for you. The eunuch was reading Isaiah but didn't understand what he was reading. Philip, one of the Apostles, and a bishop, explained it to him.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Rest easy. No one suggested such a thing.



As a right. We also defend YOUR right to read the Bible. Do you think you should not?



Of course there are dogmas in the Protestant churches, but none that are based upon so-called Sacred Tradition.

You don't have a right to interpret what you read the way you want to interpret it.

Tell me these dogmas that have no basis in Sacred Tradition...

 

[Root of Jesse]

Wrong again. Here are some--
................

Communion in both kinds (a key Protestant point during the Reformation)

Women in some roles previous denied them, such as readers, Eucharistic ministers, acolytes.

The liturgy in the language spoken by the people

No more Limbo; Purgatory redefined to make it less terrifying.

Fasting and abstinence rules relaxed substantially.

Clergy from other churches received.

Divorce now acceptable and common (new name: annullment)

Bible study by the people is actually encouraged.

Parish councils made up of laypersons.



Need more examples?

Oh, baloney on your both kinds. You have no understanding of those things. Most of those don't matter either way, not one whit to the faith. And those that do matter, such as Bible study, have always been encouraged, as soon as books were readily available, and cheap. Annullment is nothing like divorce. Divorce means you stop being married. Annullment means you never were married in the eyes of God. The Catholic Church has always received clergy from other faiths after they confess their belief in Catholicism. Limbo was never a doctrine, it was an attempt to explain where unbaptized children go. Purgatory hasn't changed a bit-we believe what the Bible says about it. Liturgy has moved to the vernacular for a very long time. (But it doesn't change a bit what we believe, does it?) When the role of women changed in society, it changed in the church. In the past, women wouldn't ask to do those things. Again, it doesn't signal a move toward Protestantism.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Protestants don't determine doctrine by use of legend, myth, random opinion and all the rest that defines "Tradition." Don't worry about it happening.

Neither do Catholics. You're mis-stating what "Tradition" is.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Of course, but what Martin Luther was speaking out against was false doctrine(teachings).

No, he was speaking out against false practice. He just directed it at the wrong level.

 

[athenken]

No, he was speaking out against false practice. He just directed it at the wrong level.

And what level should he have been directing it, I wonder?

 

[Root of Jesse]

So, for some false doctrines told by some member he just bulldozered the Church?
Does Protestantism have false doctrines or are they immune to it? If they have, why criticized the others.?

Altar calls are false doctrine. The idea of having a personal relationship with Jesus is a false doctrine.

 

[athenken]

Altar calls are false doctrine. The idea of having a personal relationship with Jesus is a false doctrine.

How so?

 

[Root of Jesse]

No church is completely immune to false, or at the very least ill advised, doctrine. To think otherwise would be completely naive. Which is why we are called to be diligent in watching out for false teachers, and those who would lead us astray. This is exactly what Martin Luther was doing when he posted his document on the door of the church. He was calling the church out for all of the false doctrines being taught at that time, which were many and grievous.

Jesus' truth has never changed, and will never change. The protestant church sought to change the truth of what Jesus taught. Luther said "I'm tired of worshipping God the way he wants. I will worship Him the way I want."

 

[Root of Jesse]

Sola Scriptura.

Yes, another false doctrine. Totally unbiblical.