Was the Reformation an Experiment gone wrong?

[WinBySurrender]

I think it went semi-wrong. I wish Luther had reformed the RCC rather than split from it.

That's all he wanted. It was the "Mother Church" that drove Luther out.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Wasn't talking about councils there.

I am talking about councils. Luther did not have the authority of giving orders about how the Church should discuss things. Nailing papers? No. Councils? yes.

 

[Albion]

I am talking about councils.

But I was rebutting the charge that Luther had gone off on his own without first trying to reform from within ("I wish Luther had reformed the RCC rather than split from it"). Of course we all wish that the church had been willing to reform itself.

 

[MPaul]

The problem with this thread is, that those saying the Reformation was a mistake are misrepresenting what Protestantism is. However, the Reformation was not a mistake if Protestant theology is correct. It is that simple.

What the thread is distorting is the Protestant theory of denominationalism, which was not set out by Luther, but by the English in the 17th century. According to denominationalism, Christian unity is not institutional (which they consider ridiculous) but spiritual. Protestant unity is on core doctrine -- all Protestants agree on the core or they are not Protestants. However, doctrine on peripheral issues can be debated, and churches form different groups on these lines. These differences arise from interpreting the bible differently, and they absolutely are not based on the authority of tradition. However, as debate continues, greater clarity should come about -- that is, on peripheral issues debate is good, as it leads to truth.

Thus, the Reformation should be seen as a fantastic success. With the Reformation we uphold the bible as ultimate authority -- we have unity with all Christians spiritually -- we have debate to seek the truth on peripheral matters -- we have love for each other, even with differences. Hmm... however, the Catholics do have... errr... I erased it. Should I go there?

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

But I was rebutting the charge that Luther had gone off on his own without first trying to reform from within ("I wish Luther had reformed the RCC rather than split from it"). Of course we all wish that the church had been willing to reform itself.

Yes, Luther did not try to reform the Church from within. He could have gone up to the Pope and he did not do it.
Now, to see how funny the attitude of Luther was, now suppose that I was a today's Lutheran and wanted to reform Lutheranism. I would propose 95 thesis that I knew would be unacceptable by Lutherans. As, obviously, I would not be accepted, I would nail the thesis on the next Lutheran Church door.
First of all, police would be called and I would have to pay for damages to the Church door. Secondly, I doubt that any Lutheran would come and dialogue with me.
I have very serious doubts that I could reform Lutheranism this way.
Luther knew what a Council was but chose to break away and destroy Christianity.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

The problem with this thread is, that those saying the Reformation was a mistake are misrepresenting what Protestantism is. However, the Reformation was not a mistake if Protestant theology is correct. It is that simple.

What the thread is distorting is the Protestant theory of denominationalism, which was not set out by Luther, but by the English in the 17th century. According to denominationalism, Christian unity is not institutional (which they consider ridiculous) but spiritual. Protestant unity is on core doctrine -- all Protestants agree on the core or they are not Protestants. However, doctrine on peripheral issues can be debated, and churches form different groups on these lines. These differences arise from interpreting the bible differently, and they absolutely are not based on the authority of tradition. However, as debate continues, greater clarity should come about -- that is, on peripheral issues debate is good, as it leads to truth.

Thus, the Reformation should be seen as a fantastic success. With the Reformation we uphold the bible as ultimate authority -- we have unity with all Christians spiritually -- we have debate to seek the truth on peripheral matters -- we have love for each other, even with differences. Hmm... however, the Catholics do have... errr... I erased it. Should I go there?

Yes, I would like you to go there. I am Catholic and it was me who started the thread.
Thanks for clarifying your thought. It made me clear what is the situation of Protestantism.
I am surprised that comes to the basics again: Scripture versus Tradition. I thought it would be somewhere else but it is there, still the same problem as in the XVI century.

we have love for each other, even with differences.

you may include the Catholics here.

BUT, I would say that the basic difference stays like a stumbling block: "With the Reformation we uphold the bible as ultimate authority". This we cannot accept. Tradition is he supreme authority for the Bible was written by Tradition, not by Jesus Christ.
I do not see what good "the Bible as the ultimate authority" bring to the Church.

What I do not understand is how you say that "Thus, the Reformation should be seen as a fantastic success." I do not see any progress in your text, anything that the Catholic Church did not have.

 

[Albion]

Yes, Luther did not try to reform the Church from within. He could have gone up to the Pope and he did not do it.

So easy to say from 500 years after the fact, isn't it?

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

So easy to say from 500 years after the fact, isn't it?

That was what everybody did. Even there was the outmoded custom that every country in Europe had embassies asking things from the Pope and some countries were independent only after asking permission from the Pope!
It seems that only the Reformers did not know that. No, they knew but chose to go independent.
Henry VIII was a clear cut case of cutting the ties with Rome for even a personal reason: as easy as that. There was no possibility of discussion there: it was either what I want or independence. I think that the personal reason did not matter. It was a "mood" going on that you could break away for whatever reason you wanted.
Some chose to break away. Others, against all odds, like St. Thomas More, chose not.

 

[Albion]

Henry VIII was a clear cut case of cutting the ties with Rome for even a personal reason: as easy as that. There was no possibility of discussion there: it was either what I want or independence.

But the situation with Luther was entirely different.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

But the situation with Luther was entirely different.

But the question I put in the thread was simply: Was it worthwhile? Could not Luther do otherwise and better?
My view is that the Reformation was a bad experiment, an experiment gone wrong, which shredded Christianity.
But I am listening...

 

[Albion]

But the question I put in the thread was simply: Was it worthwhile? Could not Luther do otherwise and better
My view is that the Reformation was a bad experiment, an experiment gone wrong, which shredded Christianity.
But I am listening...

IMO, the fault lies mainly with the Vatican for not giving Luther a hearing. He was hurridly excommunicated, which he saw as unfair and so did many of the local Germans who saw in this the Italian establishment treating them like second-class Catholics. Had Luther been given a fair hearing, as Francis of Assisi (a much less conventional figure) was given, it could have turned out differently.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

IMO, the fault lies mainly with the Vatican for not giving Luther a hearing. He was hurridly excommunicated, which he saw as unfair and so did many of the local Germans who saw in this the Italian establishment treating them like second-class Catholics. Had Luther been given a fair hearing, as Francis of Assisi (a much less conventional figure) was given, it could have turned out differently.

The question runs deeper.
Runs on what is obedience. Christ was obedient up to the cross. He said that He wanted to avoid the cross but, if the will of the Father was the Cross, so be it.
It is hard to understand, but that is what God wants.
Before Pilate, this said: "Dont you know I have authority over you, of life and death?". And Jesus answers, Your Power comes from the High and he was sentenced to death by a person He could destroy in one second.

At the time of Reformation, God sent a new Order, the Company of Jesus, the Jesuits, who defended precisely the opposite of the Protestantism. One of their strong point was obedience and they make (still today) a special vow of obedience to the Pope. If the Pope says to one of them: "Go tomorrow to China to preach the Gospel" he must go tomorrow to China.
The vow of obedience is so strong that St. Ignatius said: "If your superior would ask you to plant a cauliflower upside down with the roots up, that's what you must do. Now, it is the most numerous religious order in the Catholic Church.
As Jesus Christ obeyed to the most unbelievable order, to die in the cross, which is utterly incomprehensible.
So, you see how much Luther was out of step with what Christianity is.
The division runs extremely deep.

 

[whitetiger1]

In the first Millenium, there were dozens of experiments on Theology. Of whatever you could think about the nature of God and Jesus Christ appeared: One Person, 2 Persons, 3 persons, one Nature, 3 Natures and whatever.

When you reached the 1000 dC, you find one Church, strong and firm in Europe, unknown in other Continents.

Then Reformation came. As a Catholic, I think that it were the Protestant who separated.

I realize here and I have learned here in this Forum that many Protestant think that it was the RCC who separated from The church. This position raises many problems: separation from which Church? Who was the leader of separation? Was it leadership for not following the Reformers? Leadership for not Reforming?

Anyhow, the consequences have been fast.
Christians were expelled from Japan for fighting each other. The denominations exploded to an estimate of 30 thousand and growing at a 200 a month. If the statistics are not these, please furnish others.

The interpretation by conscience and the Sola Scriptura led to a splintering of Tradition or traditions as some like to make the distinction.

The RCC reformed itself several times since then. The Trident Council and the Vatican II drove the RCC worldwide though paths the Spirit. It numbers 1 billion people. The largest Protestant one is the Anglican Communion and as I am told it is not a Church in itself but a communion - 80,000,000.

In the extreme, we could imagine that every Protestant Person could have Its own Position leading to 1 billion positions, the number I guess it is the number of Protestant.

I foresee that in hundreds of years, the splintering of Protestantism will lead to Its extinction, like the Churches of the 1st Millennium.

Was the Reformation an Experiment gone wrong?

I disagree actually. I see a future where more Protestant groups coalesce and I do think like now it will be along conservative and liberal Christian lines. Protestantism is like Linux, there are many varieties to choose from but they all are Linux and into the future may join together were there are just a few. So keeping up with that analogy the RCC would be Windows and the Orthodox would be Mac

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Pfaffenhofen;In the first Millenium, there were dozens of experiments on Theology. Of whatever you could think about the nature of God and Jesus Christ appeared: One Person, 2 Persons, 3 persons, one Nature, 3 Natures and whatever.When you reached the 1000 dC, you find one Church, strong and firm in Europe, unknown in other Continents.Then Reformation came. As a Catholic, I think that it were the Protestant who separated.I realize here and I have learned here in this Forum that many Protestant think that it was the RCC who separated from The church. This position raises many problems: separation from which Church?

The one composed of the priesthood of all believers mentioned by Pope Peter (1Peter2:5&9)

Who was the leader of separation?

The Holy Spirit, I reckon.

Was it leadership for not following the Reformers? Leadership for not Reforming?

huh?

Anyhow, the consequences have been fast.
Christians were expelled from Japan for fighting each other. The denominations exploded to an estimate of 30 thousand and growing at a 200 a month. If the statistics are not these, please furnish others.

Nothin' new. North Ireland.

The interpretation by conscience and the Sola Scriptura led to a splintering of Tradition or traditions as some like to make the distinction.

Again, nothing new. !054. How many different othodox traditions
are there? Having more than one should be humbling to both if you only count the RCC & the EO. According to your logic Tradition failed first.

The RCC reformed itself several times since then. The Trident Council and the Vatican II drove the RCC worldwide though paths the Spirit. It numbers 1 billion people. The largest Protestant one is the Anglican Communion and as I am told it is not a Church in itself but a communion - 80,000,000.

If only quantity was proof of quality!

In the extreme, we could imagine that every Protestant Person could have Its own Position leading to 1 billion positions, the number I guess it is the number of Protestant.

We do love extremes, heh?

I foresee that in hundreds of years, the splintering of Protestantism will lead to Its extinction, like the Churches of the 1st Millennium.

Is the RCC & the EO extinct? Why then should the Prots whither? According to you they can spring from & subsist on anything, so they should grow like weeds & crowd out the more-than-one-true-churches of Christian orthodoxy.

Was the Reformation an Experiment gone wrong?

No more gone wrong than a schismed orthodoxy. I usualy just put a bag of ice on my head for awhile. It reduces swelling.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

I disagree actually. I see a future where more Protestant groups coalesce and I do think like now it will be along conservative and liberal Christian lines. Protestantism is like Linux, there are many varieties to choose from but they all are Linux and into the future may join together were there are just a few. So keeping up with that analogy the RCC would be Windows and the Orthodox would be Mac

The problem is if, and I am not rejoycing on that, if the Protestant Churches go the way of the MS-DOS, the Win-95 and 98, the diskettes or CDs.

We are shooting in the dark, but, as for me, sadly, I do not see any future in the Churches outside the Pope. And it saddens me for my biggest joy would be that all the Churches would be again, one flock under one Shepherd. Like before the Reformation.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

The one composed of the priesthood of all believers mentioned by Pope Peter (1Peter2:5&9)

The Holy Spirit, I reckon.
huh?

Nothin' new. North Ireland.

Again, nothing new. !054. How many different othodox traditions
are there? Having more than one should be humbling to both if you only count the RCC & the EO. According to your logic Tradition failed first.

If only quantity was proof of quality!

We do love extremes, heh?

Is the RCC & the EO extinct? Why then should the Prots whither? According to you they can spring from & subsist on anything, so they should grow like weeds & crowd out the more-than-one-true-churches of Christian orthodoxy.
No more gone wrong than a schismed orthodoxy. I usualy just put a bag of ice on my head for awhile. It reduces swelling.

I accept your position.
But I think it is wrong.
The orthodox Traditions are so small as to be insignificant.

Why then should the Prots whither?

Is not it so that every Christian may interpret His own way? As I said, in the extreme, you could have as many Denominations as Christians. Instead of saying that this is extreme, is not a possibility?
The RCC will never be extinct. That is the difference.
The EO and Protestants I do not know.

If only quantity was proof of quality!

This is a slogan. I do not see Denominations with 5 000 people surviving for much time. I know that in the middle of 33 thousand denominations you cannot see the ones who live and die, so we should no see thee Protestant as an entity only by idea.

Was it leadership for not following the Reformers? Leadership for not Reforming?

This came as an answer to something I cannot find.

 

[MPaul]

What I do not understand is how you say that "Thus, the Reformation should be seen as a fantastic success." I do not see any progress in your text, anything that the Catholic Church did not have.

Well, if you go back and look at my post, you will see I erased the Catholic part. It's not pretty noting just what Holy Tradition has accomplished, and it would only cause things to become very bitter and emotional. So.... do I want to go there??? Hmmm.... but that is a question I have now. Do I want to set out what is wrong with Catholic tradition on my own websites? I surely believe I can do it very well. But what will it accomplish? Should I do it? It seems like God is leading me there... but I hesitate. Actually, it is not good to hesitate on God's will.

 

[cimbk]

In the first Millenium, there were dozens of experiments on Theology. Of whatever you could think about the nature of God and Jesus Christ appeared: One Person, 2 Persons, 3 persons, one Nature, 3 Natures and whatever.

When you reached the 1000 dC, you find one Church, strong and firm in Europe, unknown in other Continents.

Then Reformation came. As a Catholic, I think that it were the Protestant who separated.

I realize here and I have learned here in this Forum that many Protestant think that it was the RCC who separated from The church. This position raises many problems: separation from which Church? Who was the leader of separation? Was it leadership for not following the Reformers? Leadership for not Reforming?

Anyhow, the consequences have been fast.
Christians were expelled from Japan for fighting each other. The denominations exploded to an estimate of 30 thousand and growing at a 200 a month. If the statistics are not these, please furnish others.

The interpretation by conscience and the Sola Scriptura led to a splintering of Tradition or traditions as some like to make the distinction.

The RCC reformed itself several times since then. The Trident Council and the Vatican II drove the RCC worldwide though paths the Spirit. It numbers 1 billion people. The largest Protestant one is the Anglican Communion and as I am told it is not a Church in itself but a communion - 80,000,000.

In the extreme, we could imagine that every Protestant Person could have Its own Position leading to 1 billion positions, the number I guess it is the number of Protestant.

I foresee that in hundreds of years, the splintering of Protestantism will lead to Its extinction, like the Churches of the 1st Millennium.

Was the Reformation an Experiment gone wrong?

your whole concept of who the church is! is flawed, those who abide in Christ have Him at the head of the church. to answer your question Catholicism and the protestant reformation are in complete error, but both these sects will still be in operation when Jesus returns,

but as we see from scripture a few will be found in each church, who will be found worthy to wear the white robe, notice only one church is faithful, and they are not the rich churches which makes certain that neither the Catholic Cathedrals or the protestant mega churches will be who this faithful church is.

Your only hope if you are part of either of these churches is that you do not adhere to the false doctrines and teachings we see Jesus rebuking those in leadership of teaching, sexual immorality seems to be paramount of all the errant churches

just my short time here on this forum, seeing what Christians have to say about sex outside of marriage I'm pretty convinced we all ready are in the great falling away.........it won't be long now!

take Jesus's advice people and repent!

 

[Root of Jesse]

But in Luther's day one of those good acts was donating money to build St. Peters right? i.e. if I can give money to the Catholic Church I will receive less punishment in purgatory. The difference between that and "selling indulgences" is pretty miniscule!

It may be miniscule to you, but it's not really. The difference between giving money to the Church, and receiving an indulgence if you do that, plus X, Y and Z (if you don't do all of those, you do not receive said indulgence) and selling indulgences (as if it's some get out of jail free thing), is pretty large.

The question is, why do we give money to the Church? Because we're supposed to, according to the Bible. Doing spiritual and corporal works of mercy are required in order to be a Christian. By doing them, we receive mercy from God. We don't do them in order to receive mercy, we receive mercy because we do those works. As Christ said (I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty, you gave me drink, naked and you clothed me...).

 

[Root of Jesse]

That's all he wanted. It was the "Mother Church" that drove Luther out.

Nope! The Church required that Luther come back into obedience, which Luther refused. Luther was the one that drove Luther out.