The Reformers and their Catholic Beliefs

ahs · May 1, 2014

For those who enjoy discussion with the more fundamentalist-type Christians, you might find it helpful to bring up what their forefathers of the reformation believed. Obviously, not all that they taught would be surprising, and less surprising is the fact that some of them disagreed with one another. But there are a few things that seem to shock some fundamentalist Protestants when they realize what their predecessors believed. (Mind you, some simply won't care, but others will be highly intrigued by this.)

I wrote an article on this, and the moderators are discussing whether it will be okay for me to post a link to my blog where this article resides. In the meantime, you can go to my profile and find a link to the blog there, where mods have said I may keep it.

Nerver the less, here are 4 examples of doctrines which are normally viewed as “particularly Catholic” doctrines, yet which the reformers, at least in part, taught and believed. A question you might ask to Christians who reject the following doctrines might be: "...if you hold the reformers in such high esteem as to celebrate their “wisdom” and “insight” in taking the “true” Church into “freedom” and “right understanding of the Word”…without seeing it as a cause of division in Christ’s Body, why do you now renounce what your forefathers believed? On whose authority do you rest your claim that they got it wrong, and you or your pastor suddenly (in the 18th, 19th, 20th, etc…century) got it right? "

I will post the 4 examples as separate posts here...

ahs · May 1, 2014

-Regenerative Baptism/Infant Baptism

Martin Luther
"This fountain [in Zech 13:1] might well and properly be understood as referring to Baptism, in which the Spirit is given and all sins are washed away." [Luther's Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan, St. Louis: Concordia, 1973, 20:331]

[regarding Acts 2:37-41] "Who is to be baptized? All nations, that is, all human beings, young and old are to be baptized...Little children should be baptized when they are brought to Baptism by those who have authority over them. How do you prove that infants, too, are to be baptized? Infants, too, are to be baptized because they are included in the words 'all nations'; [and] because Holy Baptism is the only means whereby infants, who, too, must be born again, can ordinarily be regenerated and brought to faith( Mk 10:13; Jn 3:5-6)." [Luther's Small Catechism, rev.ed., St. Louis: Concordia, 1965, 172-73]

[regarding Gal 3:27] "He must put off his old activities, so that from sons of Adam we may be changed into sons of God. This does not happen by a change of clothing or by any laws or works; it happens by the rebirth and renewal that takes place in Baptism, as Paul says, 'As many of you as were baptized have put on Christ'...Paul is speaking about a 'putting on', not by imitation by birth. He does not say: 'Through Baptism you have received a token...that is what the sectarians [Anabaptists] imagine when they make Baptism a mere token, that is, a small and empty sign." [Luther's Works, 26:352-53]

John Calvin
"Doubtless the design of Satan in assaulting infant baptism with all his forces is to keep out of view, and gradually efface, the attestation of divine grace which the promise itself presents to our eyes...Wherefore, if we would not maliciously obscure the kindness of God, let us present to him our infants, to whom he has assigned a place among his friends and family, that is, the members of the Church." [Institutes of the Christian Religion, closing of Chapter 16 which is devoted to defending infant baptism, 1536, trans. Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1983, 2:554]

[regarding Rom 6:3-4] "Paul proves his assertion that Christ destroys sin in His people from the effect of baptism, by which we are initiated into faith in Him. It is beyond question that we put on Christ in Baptism." [Calvin's New Testament Commentaries, 1540, trans. Ross Parker, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1980, 8:122]

ahs · May 1, 2014

-Mary, Mother of God

Martin Luther
"In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such good things were given her that no one can grasp them....Not only was Mary the mother of Him who is born [Bethlehem], but of Him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God." (Weimer, The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, Vol. 7, page 572)

John Calvin
"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of His Son, granted her the highest honor....Elizabeth calls Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God." (Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, Vol. 45, page 348 and 335)

Ulrich Zwingli
"It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the son of God." (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., Op. Comp., Vol. 6,I, page 639)

ahs · May 1, 2014

-Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Martin Luther
“It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin… Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.” ( Works of Luther, Vol. 11, pages 319-320; Vol. 6, page 510.)

John Calvin
“There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matthew 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company… And beside this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second.” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25. Published in 1562.)

Ulrich Zwingli
“I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel, as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” ( Zwingli Opera, Vol. 1, page 424.)

Heinrich Bullinger
“And we also believe and teach that the eternal Son of the eternal God became the Son of Man…born of the ever virgin Mary…” (Second Helvetic Confession, Chapter XI, Section 4, 1562.)

I won’t guarantee the accuracy of my Latin-English translation, but here is the full quote in the original Latin:

4. Eundem quoque æterni Dei æternum Filium credimus et docemus hominis factum esse filium, ex semine Abrahæ atque Davidis, non ex viri coitu, quod Ebion dixit, sed conceptum purissime ex Spiritu Sancto, et natum ex Maria semper virgine: sicut diligenter nobis historia explicat evangelica (Matt. i. ). Et Paulus ait: Nullibi angelos adsumit, sed sperm Abrahæ (Heb. ii. 16). Joannes item Apostolus, qui non credit, Jesum Christum in carne venisse, ex Deo non est (1 Joh. iv. 3). Caro ergo Christi nec phantastica fuit, nec cœlitus adlata, sicuti Valentinus et Marcion somniabant. (Source as given above, bolding mine)

John Wesley (founder of Methodist church)
“I believe that he was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.” (John Wesley, “A Letter to a Roman Catholic”, July 18, 1749, Dublin.)

ahs · May 1, 2014

-Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist

Martin Luther
"Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men.” (Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391) (emphasis in source)

"Of all the fathers, as many as you can name, not one has ever spoken about the sacrament as these fanatics do. None of them uses such an expression as, 'It is simply bread and wine,' or 'Christ's body and blood are not present.' Yet this subject is so frequently discussed by them, it is impossible that they should not at some time have let slip such and expression as, 'It is simply bread,' or 'Not that the body of Christ is physically present,' or the like, since they are greatly concerned not to mislead the people; actually, they simply proceed to speak as if no one doubted that Christ's body and blood are present. Certainly among so many fathers and so many writings a negative argument should have turned up at least once, as happens in other articles; but actually they all stand uniformly and consistently on the affirmative side" (Luther's Works, St. Louis, MI: Concordia Publishing, 1961, Volume 37, 54)

MrStain · May 1, 2014

I love this stuff!

Rhamiel · May 1, 2014

wow, this is VERY informative

but since Evangelicals believe in Sola Scripture, many will not be bothered by the incongruities between their doctrines and the doctrines of Reformers
they would just say that reformer is mistaken

drstevej · May 1, 2014

ahs said:
For those who enjoy discussion with the more fundamentalist-type Christians, you might find it helpful to bring up what their forefathers of the reformation believed. Obviously, not all that they taught would be surprising, and less surprising is the fact that some of them disagreed with one another. But there are a few things that seem to shock some fundamentalist Protestants when they realize what their predecessors believed. (Mind you, some simply won't care, but others will be highly intrigued by this.)

I wrote an article on this, and the moderators are discussing whether it will be okay for me to post a link to my blog where this article resides. In the meantime, you can go to my profile and find a link to the blog there, where mods have said I may keep it.

Nerver the less, here are 4 examples of doctrines which are normally viewed as particularly Catholic doctrines, yet which the reformers, at least in part, taught and believed. A question you might ask to Christians who reject the following doctrines might be: "...if you hold the reformers in such high esteem as to celebrate their wisdom and insight in taking the true Church into freedom and right understanding of the Wordwithout seeing it as a cause of division in Christs Body, why do you now renounce what your forefathers believed? On whose authority do you rest your claim that they got it wrong, and you or your pastor suddenly (in the 18th, 19th, 20th, etccentury) got it right? "

I will post the 4 examples as separate posts here...

I'll check out your blog. My PhD is in Reformation History and Theology. We can discuss out of OBOB if you wish.

Steve

Gnarwhal · May 1, 2014

It seems that many evangelicals and the like will only point to the Reformers so long as it serves their purpose, but they depart from them when beliefs or practices that those Reformers were known for contradict their own evangelical beliefs.

Needing_Grace · May 1, 2014

Luther's belief in the Real Presence is an established fact. It's central to their theology. The disagreement is the mode of the Real Presence.

The Catholic Church teaches that the substance of the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ in that the substance of Christ replaces the substance of the bread. We call this transubstantiation.

Confessional Lutherans believe that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ in something they call a Sacramental Union. Basically, the bread becomes Jesus' Body and the wine His Blood but nothing is lost of the bread and wine. They leave the means to mystery and don't define it. They deny that it is consubstantiation and I tend to agree.

All the other protestant confessions deny the physical real presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar.

topcare · May 1, 2014

Rhamiel said:
wow, this is VERY informative

but since Evangelicals believe in Sola Scripture, many will not be bothered by the incongruities between their doctrines and the doctrines of Reformers
they would just say that reformer is mistaken

That is what I was thinking

mark46 · May 1, 2014

We Catholics tend to focus on details and mechanism. Many other Protestant believe that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist we receive. Calvin would say "spiritually present". Methodist have no interest in defining, simply calling the Eucharist a "mystery", as the Greek suggests. The idea that Jesus is not present in the Eucharist we receive is a strange one to most mainline Protestants even today, certainly to Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, and Presbyterians.

I think that we should understand that many of the idea of modern Protestants are very different from the teachings of Calvin, Luther and Wesley. Also, we might remember that Wesley was an Anglican priest for his whole life. IMHO, all these three would be very comfortable in the Catholic Church of this century.

Calvin, Luther, Wesley and others professed the same Creed as we do.

Needing_Grace said:
Luther's belief in the Real Presence is an established fact. It's central to their theology. The disagreement is the mode of the Real Presence.

The Catholic Church teaches that the substance of the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ in that the substance of Christ replaces the substance of the bread. We call this transubstantiation.

Confessional Lutherans believe that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ in something they call a Sacramental Union. Basically, the bread becomes Jesus' Body and the wine His Blood but nothing is lost of the bread and wine. They leave the means to mystery and don't define it. They deny that it is consubstantiation and I tend to agree.

All the other protestant confessions deny the physical real presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar.

Sword of the Lord · May 1, 2014

Former Lutheran here - most Lutherans don't know just how Catholic Luther was. He maintained a deep relationship with Mary all his life and truly believed in her perpetual virginity. For awhile he maintained belief in purgatory as well.

mark46 · May 1, 2014

I believe that Luther was much closer to 21st Century Catholicism that most Catholic leaders of his day.

Athelstan said:
Former Lutheran here - most Lutherans don't know just how Catholic Luther was. He maintained a deep relationship with Mary all his life and truly believed in her perpetual virginity. For awhile he maintained belief in purgatory as well.

Sword of the Lord · May 1, 2014

mark1 said:
I believe that Luther was much closer to 21st Century Catholicism that most Catholic leaders of his day.

I believe that if Luther was alive today he would have remained Catholic.

GratiaCorpusChristi · May 1, 2014

I certainly wish Lutherans and Catholics could come back together. But lets not start imagining what Luther would have done; for everything else, and how much more Catholic he was than even most Lutherans today, forensic justification by grace alone through faith alone was still the heart and center of theology and Christian life as far as he was concerned. Everything orbited around it, and even were everything else perfect, he was just stubborn enough to stake everything on that.

Rhamiel · May 1, 2014

Mark

IMHO, all these three would be very comfortable in the Catholic Church of this century.

I think that is kind of a trueism

if you look at the justifications that Luther used, he mentioned corruption and other kinds of problems.
We still have problems with corruption, we still have internal debates, and Luther would not be the absolute authority.

if people want to be disobedient, they can ALWAYS find an excuse of some sort,
some justification

mark46 · May 1, 2014

I agree and would say the same for Wesley.

While there are many differences that have developed over the ages, there is enormous closeness among Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans and Methodists. The Church has been fractured, but there is still only one Church.
Some Anglicans used to speak of the four branches of the universal Church. This idea (while perhaps reasonable) obviously was and is not acceptable to anyone.

Athelstan said:
I believe that if Luther was alive today he would have remained Catholic.

ahs · May 2, 2014

drstevej said:
I'll check out your blog. My PhD is in Reformation History and Theology. We can discuss out of OBOB if you wish.

Steve

Sure, we can discuss it. The blog article is pretty much the same as what I presented here, and the main question is the same as in that first post.

ahs · May 2, 2014

Athelstan said:
I believe that if Luther was alive today he would have remained Catholic.

Nah, it would still boil down to the main thing he rejected: authority. He saw the Church as becoming corrupt, but I think this was just an opportunity for him to rebel, as opposed to his main argument. He would not accept the Church's teaching on justification and would not concede to a higher authority than himself in interpreting Scripture. It came down to his interpretations vs. the Church's...and in his mind, it was his that was correct.

In a great twist of irony, the very folks who followed his lead in leaving the Church began seeing themselves as their own authority ("MY understanding is correct, and yours is wrong"). Luther lamented this and berated those who would disagree with him, hence much of his writings which are eeriliy "Catholic", except for a few doctrines. If I had to make a guess about if he were alive today, where would he be, I'd put my money on SSPX, and then he'd leave even that for the "real" truth of the Gospels. It was not doctrine that drove him off, rather attitude and an unwillingness to admit that someone/something else is smarter than we are.

The Reformers and their Catholic Beliefs

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Nobody likes to be the Newbie

Member of the Round Table

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."

☩ Broman Catholic ☩

Chief of Sinners

The Eucharist is Life

Well-Known Member

In need of a physician.

Well-Known Member

In need of a physician.

GratiaCorpusChristi

Guest

Member of the Round Table

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads