Was the Reformation an Experiment gone wrong?

[Root of Jesse]

Yes, but all reforms after the Reformation have been heavily influenced by it. A good example is the fact that there was still an ongoing debate in academic circles on the canonicity of the Apocryphal writings at the time of the Reformation. When the Reformers came down against, Tridentinum took the direct opposite stand.

There was no debate about canonicity. That was decided in the fourth century. Defined at Trent. Just like we don't need to look to Jewish rabbis to determine our OT canon, we didn't need to look to dissenters to help us determine it either.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I think what is trying to be conveyed here is that the Catholic Church cannot, and is not, the ultimate authority when it comes to the interpretation of scripture. That is the Holy Spirit's job when we study the bible. The problem is the arrogance that is constantly displayed by the Catholic Church about what is proper doctrine.

I submit that Luther had a very important role in exposing how far off the path the Catholic Church had gotten.

The Holy Spirit is exactly the ultimate authority on interpretation of scripture, as attested by the apostles at Pentecost, and passed down through the bishops they appointed. The Holy Spirit allows no error in doctrine in the Church.

Luther exposed some practices that individual priests, who overstepped the authority they had been given, as unorthodox. Luther did not expose any doctrine or dogma of the Church as being wrong.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

How is that question not the same as the bully beating someone up for standing up to him, and then saying: "Was it worth it?"

Let me see if I understand you: I am the bully who is beating you for standing up to me and then I ask the question whether is it worth it.

Boy, you see the Protestant (P) standing against the RCC? Or the RCC beating the P ? And then the RCC asking the P: "Was it worth it?.

Never, not even on my wildest dreams, I imagine this nightmare. I imagine no fights, I imagine not RCC beating the P, I imagine the not the P being beaten by the RCC. In shot: nothing, I repeat, nothing of your scenario.

I am in a UNESCO Project, the TST Program. Now, the whites brought millions of black people to the Americas. Yet, 200 years later, there is a beautiful black culture in America: the rock, samba, break dance, and so on. So, we may ask: what this culture worth the trade of slavery?

Now, in another level. I have a scientist friend who works for the cure of AIDS. They have to consider 11 strategies, with 11 budgets, 11 speeds, 11 degrees of possibilities. They have budget only for 5 programs. So, they ask: is this Program worth developing?

That is my idea. After 500 years, was it worth to break the Medieval Church? The advantages are much bigger than the problems it raised?

By the way, I have personal fights...

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

I think what is trying to be conveyed here is that the Catholic Church cannot, and is not, the ultimate authority when it comes to the interpretation of scripture. That is the Holy Spirit's job when we study the bible. The problem is the arrogance that is constantly displayed by the Catholic Church about what is proper doctrine.

I submit that Luther had a very important role in exposing how far off the path the Catholic Church had gotten.

Look: you call the RCC arrogant. OK. Why? I think because of what a Protestant Brother told me here. He said that I was thinking as a Catholic. He said that when a Protestant disagrees, He just changes Church. If there is none which has his ideas, he creates one. He did not say this as dramatic, it was quite self-humurous.

In this context, RCC dogma cannot be but arrogant.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

The way Vatican II was implemented was the failure, not the actual output of Vatican II, but that's an entirely different thread.

The way Vatican II was implemented was the failure

I would not agree.

If you change a structure, for instance, if you join Chrysler with Mercedes-Benz, there is always a time or turmoil, for it is necessary to break structures destroying them and that hurts, to build new structures. Change does not come without suffering.

And the moist, dust and turbulence after Vatican II only proved that it was the Holy Spirit work: no human soul could guide this monster-ship through the revolted waters.

 

[UnamSanctam]

There was no debate about canonicity. That was decided in the fourth century. Defined at Trent.

Just. Not. True.
Yes, the debate was not one prevalent amongst the lay, but rather an academic one. It was there, nonetheless.

 

[UnamSanctam]

Let me see if I understand you: I am the bully who is beating you for standing up to me and then I ask the question whether is it worth it.

Not you personally. The RC church.

Boy, you see the Protestant (P) standing against the RCC? Or the RCC beating the P ? And then the RCC asking the P: "Was it worth it?.

Never, not even on my wildest dreams, I imagine this nightmare. I imagine no fights, I imagine not RCC beating the P, I imagine the not the P being beaten by the RCC. In shot: nothing, I repeat, nothing of your scenario.

This was a response to your question of whether or not the intention (to bring back the clarity of the Gospel) of the Reformation was worth the centuries of hostilities and fighting following the it.

That is my idea. After 500 years, was it worth to break the Medieval Church? The advantages are much bigger than the problems it raised?

By the way, I have personal fights...

I don't consider this a personal fight - if I wasn't clear enough on the fact that it's the issues, and not YOU, I'm attacking, then I apologize.
But to answer your question: DEFINITELY yes. I'm saddened that it had to come to the Reformation, but it did - the Reformation brought back the Gospel to the people, and did away with theological errors and disciplinary abuses that were hindering the Gospel.

And no, I'm not in the "RCs eat children for breakfast and try to establish the New World Order where the Pope will rule!"-Jack Chick-camp. I'd actually like to swim the Tiber (have been called Crypto-Catholic more than once), but I simply can't. To restate the final part of Luther's defense at Worms: "My conscience is captive to the Word of God. Here I stand."

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

How is that question not the same as the bully beating someone up for standing up to him, and then saying: "Was it worth it?"

Just to add to what I said:

Unesco

Ibis.dk

 

[UnamSanctam]

Just to add to what I said:

Unesco

Ibis.dk

What was the point of that post?

 

[athenken]

Look: you call the RCC arrogant. OK. Why? I think because of what a Protestant Brother told me here. He said that I was thinking as a Catholic. He said that when a Protestant disagrees, He just changes Church. If there is none which has his ideas, he creates one. He did not say this as dramatic, it was quite self-humurous.

In this context, RCC dogma cannot be but arrogant.

So you agree that the RCC displays a certain level of arrogance

However, I do submit that those that do not "agree" on some sort of doctrine that is being taught by the church they are currently attending decide to either find another church or start their own. This type of thing can also be chalked up to individual arrogance, taking genuine issue with the doctrine as being unbiblical, or ultimately being deceived by the devil which causes them to walk down a destructive path.

To a certain degree I agree that the splintering of the Christian faith is a destructive thing and can give some people that false idea that if they do not agree with their own church leadership that, more than likely, that the leadership is wrong rather than they, themselves, being deceived by whatever influence is affecting this opinion/decision.

In contrast, however, there is a positive side, as illustrated by the reformation, where those in leadership in the corporate church are teaching false doctrines that people that have been blessed with biblical discernment sheds light on these fallacies and sparks a much needed change. Of course, as happened during the reformation, there are many within the church with certain levels of power that push back and declare those people they consider “detractors” as heretics to try and squash any opposition to their “authority.”

 

[Root of Jesse]

I would not agree.

If you change a structure, for instance, if you join Chrysler with Mercedes-Benz, there is always a time or turmoil, for it is necessary to break structures destroying them and that hurts, to build new structures. Change does not come without suffering.

And the moist, dust and turbulence after Vatican II only proved that it was the Holy Spirit work: no human soul could guide this monster-ship through the revolted waters.

Oh, I know the Holy Spirit is working to correct the implementation errors, but there were errors and license taken when interpreting what the documents actually say, and that's what I was referring to. I also said that every council has a turbulence afterward. Bless you, brother.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Just. Not. True.
Yes, the debate was not one prevalent amongst the lay, but rather an academic one. It was there, nonetheless.

Then why is the list of the Bible canon from the mid-300's exactly the same as it is now? There was no debate past the council of Chalcedon, if memory serves. If you're disputing what I'm saying, prove it.

 

[ebia]

Then why is the list of the Bible canon from the mid-300's exactly the same as it is now? There was no debate past the council of Chalcedon, if memory serves. If you're disputing what I'm saying, prove it.

If there was a vote, with a less than unanimous yes (26/16/15) doesn't that imply some kind of debate?

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

So you agree that the RCC displays a certain level of arrogance

However, I do submit that those that do not "agree" on some sort of doctrine that is being taught by the church they are currently attending decide to either find another church or start their own. This type of thing can also be chalked up to individual arrogance, taking genuine issue with the doctrine as being unbiblical, or ultimately being deceived by the devil which causes them to walk down a destructive path.

To a certain degree I agree that the splintering of the Christian faith is a destructive thing and can give some people that false idea that if they do not agree with their own church leadership that, more than likely, that the leadership is wrong rather than they, themselves, being deceived by whatever influence is affecting this opinion/decision.

In contrast, however, there is a positive side, as illustrated by the reformation, where those in leadership in the corporate church are teaching false doctrines that people that have been blessed with biblical discernment sheds light on these fallacies and sparks a much needed change. Of course, as happened during the reformation, there are many within the church with certain levels of power that push back and declare those people they consider “detractors” as heretics to try and squash any opposition to their “authority.”

Do you agree that every one of us is a sinner?
Do you agree that the Catholics are human beings and, so, sinners?
Now, you may find many sins in the Catholic Church !
Is is a question of surprise ? I do not think so.
It is a matter of conversion, correction and change ? I think yes, yes yes.
Maybe the difference is that there is a Church, the RCC, that has strong authority, and the Protestant, that have a more individualistic approach, each one is responsible before God.

So, you say we are arrogant (or authoritarians?) we say that your free interpretation leads to splintering of the Church.

I think each one looks to the others under his own point of view.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Oh, I know the Holy Spirit is working to correct the implementation errors, but there were errors and license taken when interpreting what the documents actually say, and that's what I was referring to. I also said that every council has a turbulence afterward. Bless you, brother.

I agree.
Now let me tell you.

Once an American priest tried to innovate. So, he was going to say Mass. We went for a Chalice and he asked for a bottle of wine. We went to hosts and he asked for ANY piece of bread. And he said the canon his way. It was exactly like it must be done. He did not fails one step so it was an authentic mass. He knew what he was doing for the was a theologian. But...it was too much...

The exit of priests was a real drama. They exit sometimes like thieves exiting a house they robbed which was unfortunate. Many of them they did not have vocation for they entered the Seminary as children (consequence of the Trent's desire to get well instructed priests but it was too much). This was solved with John Paul II.

Then, there were the liturgical experiences. But these are necessary. With Latin gone, there is a vacuum for good liturgical hymns. They cannot be created in 20/30 years. It takes a longer time.

Then, the crazy theologies: Theology of the Liberation, good but with Marxist Borders around, The attack of Ethics, the Humanae Vitae Problem, the Priests-Workers, the question of the code dress for priests and nuns (this is less theology and more actions and attitudes).

The main problem today is the de-Catholization of Europe and USA. Some thin it is unfortunate for the Catholic Church. I think it is unfortunate for Europe and the USA for the RCC is eternal. On the other hand, Africa is exploding with Catholics, as well as India and Latin America.

Stop. I developped too much.

 

[Root of Jesse]

If there was a vote, with a less than unanimous yes (26/16/15) doesn't that imply some kind of debate?

The ONLY time the Catholic Church defines a doctrine or dogma is when what is already believed is questioned, and the Church considers the questioning legitimate. Thus, the two natures of Christ was not defined until some were saying that he was 100% human and not divine, some were saying he was 100% divine and not human, some were saying he was 50/50. Then there was a debate and the Holy Spirit led the Church to define that he was 100% divine and 100% human.

The canon of scripture was decided very early on. It was only questioned when Luther broke off and the Protestant Reformation was questioning what was 'canon'. Then the Catholic Church defined the canon.

The Council of Carthage, on 28 August 397 issued a canon of the Bible quoted as, "Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, 4 books of Kingdoms, 2 books of Chronicles, Job, the Davidic Psalter, 5 books of Solomon, 12 books of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, 2 books of Ezra,2 books of Maccabees, and in the New Testament: 4 books of Gospels, 1 book of Acts of the Apostles, 13 letters of the Apostle Paul, 1 letter of his to the Hebrews, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of James, 1 of Jude, and one book of the Apocalypse of John."

 

[athenken]

Do you agree that every one of us is a sinner?

Of course

Do you agree that the Catholics are human beings and, so, sinners?

Of course

Now, you may find many sins in the Catholic Church !

Obviously

Is is a question of surprise ? I do not think so.
It is a matter of conversion, correction and change ? I think yes, yes yes.
Maybe the difference is that there is a Church, the RCC, that has strong authority, and the Protestant, that have a more individualistic approach, each one is responsible before God.

So, you say we are arrogant (or authoritarians?) we say that your free interpretation leads to splintering of the Church.

Do you not agree that there is at least a certain level of arrogance that the RCC is displaying in regard to how they see themselves in contrast with Protestant churches?

I think each one looks to the others under his own point of view.

 

[whitetiger1]

Do you agree that every one of us is a sinner?

No, we are Christians who may sin but when we come to Christ we are no longer sinners as in the old man, we are made new in Christ

 

[Root of Jesse]

Of course



Of course



Obviously



Do you not agree that there is at least a certain level of arrogance that the RCC is displaying in regard to how they see themselves in contrast with Protestant churches?

The Catholic Church is not arrogant about how they see themselves. In fact, the Catholic Church has a heavy burden of protecting the Church Christ founded for 2000 years. In fact, we see Protestants as part of the Catholic Church-we include you. It is you Protestants the exclude yourselves.

 

[WinBySurrender]

The Catholic Church is not arrogant about how they see themselves. In fact, the Catholic Church has a heavy burden of protecting the Church Christ founded for 2000 years. In fact, we see Protestants as part of the Catholic Church-we include you. It is you Protestants the exclude yourselves.

Thanks, we don't need the inclusion. And I think our denominations, for the most part, are doing a find job of protecting the church founded by Christ. But thanks anyway.