Problems in Medieval Catholicism

[Tree of Life]

Was the Reformation necessary? You bet it was. Here's a very brief review of some problems in Medieval Catholicism which to some degree still exist in the RCC today:

1. The importance of the Sacraments was exalted over the importance of preaching God's word. The seven sacraments (so called) were considered to be the arteries of the body of Christ and the way that the faithful would receive God's grace. The problem is that the sacraments were mechanical. Participants need not understand them, they need only participate in them in order to receive grace. This leads to our next problem.
   
   
2. The church assumed that parishioners were mostly incapable of understanding the Christian faith. Therefore Christian faith must be mechanical. The Bible was not translated into the common language. Mass was said in Latin. Parishioners understood not a word. And often times clergy did not even understand what they were saying. What mattered was not understanding. The unwashed masses were probably incapable of understanding. What mattered was the rituals themselves. Hence an exalted view of the sacraments.
   
   
3. Justification was thought to be a process, not a definitive act of God. Justification was seen as God infusing his righteousness into us and slowly making us more righteous whereby we would eventually become totally justified and thus merit salvation. The problem with this is that it leads to the natural question - "have I become righteous enough to merit salvation?" Those who took this most seriously would obsess themselves with a fearful and minute examination of conscience. This later took the form of confession of sins to a priest along with the priest questioning the parishioner to help them examine their conscience and expose all kinds of sin. But in this system there is never any rest or peace because our sin is unfathomable.

So, in short, the Church took the place of God. Only she could dispense God's grace through her acts (sacraments). She robbed God's people of God's word by effectively denying them the Bible (Latin Mass, no common translations). She made the people of God enslaved to clergy in order to gain a faulty assurance of their own salvation.

So was the Reformation needed? You bet it was. Is it still needed? You bet it is. Many of these issues still persist in Catholicism today.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Interesting points, especially #1. I grew up in the RCC (baptism, confession, communion, confirmation, altar boy, 12 years of parochial education etc.). Looking back, I never connected with the Catholic mass. To me it was one long word-for-word scripted ceremony (sit-stand-kneel-sit-kneel-stand-kneel-recite, lather, rinse, repeat). It was 55 minutes of ceremony with maybe 5 minutes of teaching about God’s word (although the sermons were often about the need for more donations and so forth). It’s no wonder so many people headed for the door after the priest gave them communion.

Then I started reading the Bible and realized one of the things that drew people to Jesus, that amazed them about Him, was his teaching about God’s word. He didn’t spend three years in ministry scripting ceremonies and such. He taught the word. Perhaps that’s why, while the RC mass bored me immensely, services that focus on teaching the word draw me in fully. To me, if the Church is to be a reflection of Christ it should actually BE a reflection of Christ’s ministry.

Honestly, and this is just opinion of course, I suspect if He were to walk into a RC mass, saw all the gold, marble, statues, icons, pomp and ceremony, he’s be looking for some cords to fashion a whip.

 

[Tree of Life]

Interesting points, especially #1. I grew up in the RCC (baptism, confession, communion, confirmation, altar boy, 12 years of parochial education etc.). Looking back, I never connected with the Catholic mass. To me it was one long word-for-word scripted ceremony (sit-stand-kneel-sit-kneel-stand-kneel-recite, lather, rinse, repeat). It was 55 minutes of ceremony with maybe 5 minutes of teaching about God’s word (although the sermons were often about the need for more donations and so forth). It’s no wonder so many people headed for the door after the priest gave them communion.

Then I started reading the Bible and realized one of the things that drew people to Jesus, that amazed them about Him, was his teaching about God’s word. He didn’t spend three years in ministry scripting ceremonies and such. He taught the word. Perhaps that’s why, while the RC mass bored me immensely, services that focus on teaching the word draw me in fully. To me, if the Church is to be a reflection of Christ it should actually BE a reflection of Christ’s ministry.

Honestly, and this is just opinion of course, I suspect if He were to walk into a RC mass, saw all the gold, marble, statues, icons, pomp and ceremony, he’s be looking for some cords to fashion a whip.

Love this testimony. Thanks for sharing!

 

[FireDragon76]

Why should an intellectual approach be so essential? That seems to betray a uniquely western approach to matters of truth and ultimate concern.

 

[Albion]

So was the Reformation needed? You bet it was. Is it still needed? You bet it is. Many of these issues still persist in Catholicism today.

Unfortunately, a significant part of your analysis looks like a justification for doing without any organized church, which would be contrary to the Bible's directive.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Unfortunately, a significant part of your analysis looks like a justification for doing without any organized church, which would be contrary to the Bible's directive.

Respectfully, I disagree. I've been to plenty of organized churches that do not exalt sacraments above the importance of preaching the word, perform services in the language of the attendees, and do not preach works-based salvation. I see no part of his analysis that applies to "any organized church."

 

[Tree of Life]

Why should an intellectual approach be so essential? That seems to betray a uniquely western approach to matters of truth and ultimate concern.

Martin Luther thought that it was essential to hear the word of God and understand it in order to rightly place our faith in God and know how to conduct our lives. Intellect is not the only important aspect of our faith, but it is essential.

 

[Tree of Life]

Unfortunately, a significant part of your analysis looks like a justification for doing without any organized church, which would be contrary to the Bible's directive.

I agree that to totally reject any church would contradict Scripture. But to oppose the high view of the church which Catholics adhere to is not to oppose the church altogether. To say that the church isn't God is not to say that the church isn't necessary.

 

[FireDragon76]

Martin Luther thought that it was essential to hear the word of God and understand it in order to rightly place our faith in God and know how to conduct our lives. Intellect is not the only important aspect of our faith, but it is essential.

Luther also thought a baby could have faith. As demonstrated in Luther's Smaller Catechism, we believe that it is not due to our own strength or reason that we have faith, but due to the Holy Spirit, who operates through the means of grace.

We are not anti-intellectual and we demand very high standards for our pastors, but understanding is not essential to salvation.

 

[Tree of Life]

...understanding is not essential to salvation.

This is quite an astounding claim. I agree that in certain exceptional cases it is possible for an elect infant who dies at birth to be saved. Or it is possible for a mentally handicapped person to be saved. But, of course, these are exceptional cases. We should not think that these cases create a rule for all others.

The rule is that hearing and understanding is required.

Romans 10:13-17
13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

 

[Albion]

Respectfully, I disagree. I've been to plenty of organized churches that do not exalt sacraments above the importance of preaching the word, perform services in the language of the attendees, and do not preach works-based salvation. I see no part of his analysis that applies to "any organized church."

I guess it was this part that seemed to me to go further than that:

He didn’t spend three years in ministry scripting ceremonies and such. He taught the word....To me, if the Church is to be a reflection of Christ it should actually BE a reflection of Christ’s ministry.

But I am glad to have your comments here.

 

[Tree of Life]

I guess it was this part that seemed to me to go further than that:

I think Phil is correct here. The main business of the church is to teach the word of God. This is what makes the church so important. She teaches God's word. If she stops teaching God's word, then what good is that church?

This does not mean a rejection of church altogether. But this means a reformation of the dead church to become what God intends for it to be.

 

[Albion]

Well, that is the issue, isnt it?

A church is capable of preaching the word, doing a good job of it, and still doing the rest of what it should.

 

[Tree of Life]

Well, that is the issue, isnt it?

A church is capable of preaching the word, doing a good job of it, and still doing the rest of what it should.

A church is certainly capable of preaching the word. The problem with the Medieval Catholic church is that they were not preaching the word.

 

[FireDragon76]

See, this is the difference between the Lutherans and the Reformed. We do not view the reform of the Church into some kind of ideal to be essential to preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments. We are quite happy to muddle along with the confidence that the Gospel is effecacious despite the sinfulness of human beings, including human institutions.

This is why I do not view the medieval church as a disaster, and most other Lutherans do not, either.

 

[Tree of Life]

This is why I do not view the medieval church as a disaster, and most other Lutherans do not, either.

Well Martin Luther certainly did. I'm sorry to see how far his lineage has departed from his teaching.

 

[Philip_B]

Was the Reformation necessary? You bet it was. Here's a very brief review of some problems in Medieval Catholicism which to some degree still exist in the RCC today:

1. The importance of the Sacraments was exalted over the importance of preaching God's word. The seven sacraments (so called) were considered to be the arteries of the body of Christ and the way that the faithful would receive God's grace. The problem is that the sacraments were mechanical. Participants need not understand them, they need only participate in them in order to receive grace. This leads to our next problem.
   
   
2. The church assumed that parishioners were mostly incapable of understanding the Christian faith. Therefore Christian faith must be mechanical. The Bible was not translated into the common language. Mass was said in Latin. Parishioners understood not a word. And often times clergy did not even understand what they were saying. What mattered was not understanding. The unwashed masses were probably incapable of understanding. What mattered was the rituals themselves. Hence an exalted view of the sacraments.
   
   
3. Justification was thought to be a process, not a definitive act of God. Justification was seen as God infusing his righteousness into us and slowly making us more righteous whereby we would eventually become totally justified and thus merit salvation. The problem with this is that it leads to the natural question - "have I become righteous enough to merit salvation?" Those who took this most seriously would obsess themselves with a fearful and minute examination of conscience. This later took the form of confession of sins to a priest along with the priest questioning the parishioner to help them examine their conscience and expose all kinds of sin. But in this system there is never any rest or peace because our sin is unfathomable.

So, in short, the Church took the place of God. Only she could dispense God's grace through her acts (sacraments). She robbed God's people of God's word by effectively denying them the Bible (Latin Mass, no common translations). She made the people of God enslaved to clergy in order to gain a faulty assurance of their own salvation.

So was the Reformation needed? You bet it was. Is it still needed? You bet it is. Many of these issues still persist in Catholicism today.

I agree with the proposition, but not the argument. I believe your argument is a very 20th/21st century argument, a world where the rights of the individual are far exalted over how they were understood in former times. I also think the argument fails to acknowledge the massive advances made in the Latin Church, which for the most part now uses the vernacular.

A more interesting question to ask is: "Would Luther have left a Vatican II Catholic Church?" My view is perhaps, but not with the certainty that he left a Pre-Tridentine Church.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well Martin Luther certainly did. I'm sorry to see how far his lineage has departed from his teaching.

He did not view the medieval Church so thoroughly corrupt that the world was deprived of salvation. His attitude was quite different from the Reformed project of trying to repristinate an imagined primitive Christianity by using the Scriptures as a regulative principle.

 

[Tree of Life]

He did not view the medieval Church so thoroughly corrupt that the world was deprived of salvation. That is quite different from the Reformed project of trying to repristinate an imagined primitive Christianity by using the Scriptures as a regulative principle.

Reformed folks don't believe that the world was deprived of salvation.

What's wrong with seeking to regulate Christian life and worship by the Scriptures?

 

[FireDragon76]

What's wrong with seeking to regulate Christian life and worship by the Scriptures?

Nothing in particular. Just don't make it binding on Christian consciences.

In general, the Reformed project has failed to create a "godly" society. Perhaps because they ignore their own principle of total depravity.