Was the Reformation a mistake? A Catholic and a Protestant debate

[yiostheoy]

A great question: Now that the political class system has been corrected, can Christians reunite?

What does reunite mean? Under the same church?

One of Christ's final prayers was that he prayed that his followers would remain as one, just as he and the Father are one.

Reunification would take time and effort. Everyone would have to begin by taking very small steps and with the realization that each small step is likely to take decades. The first small step would be for each denomination to want to reunite with the denomination it is closest to. For example, Catholics and Orthodox. These two denominations are so close as to be almost indistinguishable, yet our differences continue to separate us. Both call for Christian unity, yet are still one of the best examples of schism within Christianity.

While Catholics and Orthodox are working towards unity, so might other denominations seek out the denomination that is closest to their teachings and philosophies and work towards unity as well.

I don't see the Roman Pope ever ceding power to the Constantinople Archpatriarch. There is too much power in the Catholic church to be ceded to the Easterners.

 

[Meriweather]

Eastern Orthodox priests marry but bishops are chosen from single priests.

Eastern Orthodox does not need to eat fish on Fridays.

They have different saints too.

Easter is on different dates too.

None of these need prevent reunification.

 

[Meriweather]

The Medici popes were undeniably corrupt.

One was corrupt. One was merely ineffectual. One was actually pretty good. One had a great reputation, but served a very short time.

 

[Disir]

A great question: Now that the political class system has been corrected, can Christians reunite?

What does reunite mean? Under the same church?

One of Christ's final prayers was that he prayed that his followers would remain as one, just as he and the Father are one.

Reunification would take time and effort. Everyone would have to begin by taking very small steps and with the realization that each small step is likely to take decades. The first small step would be for each denomination to want to reunite with the denomination it is closest to. For example, Catholics and Orthodox. These two denominations are so close as to be almost indistinguishable, yet our differences continue to separate us. Both call for Christian unity, yet are still one of the best examples of schism within Christianity.

While Catholics and Orthodox are working towards unity, so might other denominations seek out the denomination that is closest to their teachings and philosophies and work towards unity as well.

Do you see Orthodox dismissing their own differences? They are significant.

I'm trying to picture in my mind what that unity looks like and trying not to make assumptions.

Eastern Orthodox priests marry but bishops are chosen from single priests.

Eastern Orthodox does not need to eat fish on Fridays.

They have different saints too.

Easter is on different dates too.

It is much more than that. The schism of 1054 is a culmination of differences. Those differences go back centuries. There isn't an easy solution and one of those churches will need to give up in part or back away from doctrine. I don't see that happening.

 

[Bonzi]

Matthew Levering, a Catholic perspective
In my book “Was the Reformation a Mistake?: Why Catholic Doctrine Is Not Unbiblical,” I aim to show that even if one disagrees with judgments made in the course of Catholic doctrinal development, the Catholic positions on nine disputed doctrines (Scripture, Mary, the Eucharist, the Seven Sacraments, monasticism, justification and merit, purgatory, saints and papacy) should not be rejected as unbiblical or as lacking in biblical grounding — at least given the Catholic view of biblically warranted modes of biblical reasoning.

Before proceeding, let me make some additional observations about whether the Reformation was a “mistake,” as my book’s title asks in light of the Reformation’s 500th anniversary.


I hold that the Reformers made mistakes, but that they chose to be reformers was not a mistake. There had to be a Reformation, and it is good that the Reformation shook up a status quo in Rome and elsewhere that was unacceptable and untenable. In this sense, the Protestant Reformation cannot be dismissed as a mere “mistake,” even if in my view it mistakenly deemed some Catholic doctrines to be unbiblical and church-dividing.
Commentary: Was the Reformation a mistake? A Catholic and a Protestant debate | Baptist Standard

I thought that there would have been a debate-debate but it is still a little interesting.

Like most debates regarding the Bible, it boils down to a disagreement about interpretation. Since neither the writers nor The Inspirer are here to answer this, the debate rages on

 

[Peach]

A great question: Now that the political class system has been corrected, can Christians reunite?

What does reunite mean? Under the same church?

One of Christ's final prayers was that he prayed that his followers would remain as one, just as he and the Father are one.

Reunification would take time and effort. Everyone would have to begin by taking very small steps and with the realization that each small step is likely to take decades. The first small step would be for each denomination to want to reunite with the denomination it is closest to. For example, Catholics and Orthodox. These two denominations are so close as to be almost indistinguishable, yet our differences continue to separate us. Both call for Christian unity, yet are still one of the best examples of schism within Christianity.

While Catholics and Orthodox are working towards unity, so might other denominations seek out the denomination that is closest to their teachings and philosophies and work towards unity as well.

Do you see Orthodox dismissing their own differences? They are significant.

I'm trying to picture in my mind what that unity looks like and trying not to make assumptions.

Eastern Orthodox priests marry but bishops are chosen from single priests.

Eastern Orthodox does not need to eat fish on Fridays.

They have different saints too.

Easter is on different dates too.

It is much more than that. The schism of 1054 is a culmination of differences. Those differences go back centuries. There isn't an easy solution and one of those churches will need to give up in part or back away from doctrine. I don't see that happening.

Pope Francis is leading the way. Read what he announced TODAY.

 

[Disir]

What does reunite mean? Under the same church?

One of Christ's final prayers was that he prayed that his followers would remain as one, just as he and the Father are one.

Reunification would take time and effort. Everyone would have to begin by taking very small steps and with the realization that each small step is likely to take decades. The first small step would be for each denomination to want to reunite with the denomination it is closest to. For example, Catholics and Orthodox. These two denominations are so close as to be almost indistinguishable, yet our differences continue to separate us. Both call for Christian unity, yet are still one of the best examples of schism within Christianity.

While Catholics and Orthodox are working towards unity, so might other denominations seek out the denomination that is closest to their teachings and philosophies and work towards unity as well.

Do you see Orthodox dismissing their own differences? They are significant.

I'm trying to picture in my mind what that unity looks like and trying not to make assumptions.

Eastern Orthodox priests marry but bishops are chosen from single priests.

Eastern Orthodox does not need to eat fish on Fridays.

They have different saints too.

Easter is on different dates too.

It is much more than that. The schism of 1054 is a culmination of differences. Those differences go back centuries. There isn't an easy solution and one of those churches will need to give up in part or back away from doctrine. I don't see that happening.

Pope Francis is leading the way. Read what he announced TODAY.

A discussion and a possible vote for Brazilian Bishops? It's only for one area and out of desperation.

 

[Avatar4321]

Nope. It wasn't a mistake. It was necessary to popularize the idea of religious freedom, get the Bible in the hands of the people, and prepare the world for the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ

 

[Meriweather]

Nope. It wasn't a mistake. It was necessary to popularize the idea of religious freedom, get the Bible in the hands of the people, and prepare the world for the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ

Remember, before the printing press, the Church had to copy the Bible word for word. They were so meticulous about this, a mistake of one word meant an entire page needed to be re-done. Fast forward to the printing press and the Bible being translated into various languages. The Church had its hands full because of sloppy translations. It would only authorize translations carefully done. Publishers got angry when they would slop together any old thing on the cheap and the Church refused to authorize it. Many authorized translations to common languages were in use. Who should we believe had the authority to authenticate a proper translation: Church or publishers?

The second debate is that the Church pointed out that proper teaching of the Bible was necessary--a point well taken today because of what is still lost in translations to English from the original languages. When people interpret passages based on their own modern day experiences and modern day English, their interpretation can be very different from the original intent--and the result is sometimes atheism. Another result is that someone might take it into his own head that as long as people are encouraged to come up with their very own interpretation of the Bible, why not come up with one's very own scripture and sell it as a newly discovered word of God.

As I mentioned earlier, the political upheaval of the time resulting from the class system was needed. The class system was everywhere, including the Church. When that system fractured because of this upheaval the fractures extended not only to the government, but to the Church as well because the Church at that time was not only part of that day's government, it was part of that day's class system. The unfortunate consequence is that when it came to faith, some decided to set up new traditions and new interpretations--even new religions based on Christianity. Carefully followed apostolic traditions is still what the majority choose. Others go with what they believe is the new and improved.

Is, "To each his own" the best way forward, or should we remember Christ's prayer that his followers remain one as he and his Father are one?

 

[JohnPrewett]

Nope. It wasn't a mistake. It was necessary to popularize the idea of religious freedom,
get the Bible in the hands of the people, and prepare the world for the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ

Remember, before the printing press, the Church had to copy the Bible word for word. They were so meticulous about this, a mistake of one word meant an entire page needed to be re-done. Fast forward to the printing press and the Bible being translated into various languages. The Church had its hands full because of sloppy translations. It would only authorize translations carefully done. Publishers got angry when they would slop together any old thing on the cheap and the Church refused to authorize it. Many authorized translations to common languages were in use. Who should we believe had the authority to authenticate a proper translation: Church or publishers?

The second debate is that the Church pointed out that proper teaching of the Bible was necessary--a point well taken today because of what is still lost in translations to English from the original languages. When people interpret passages based on their own modern day experiences and modern day English, their interpretation can be very different from the original intent--and the result is sometimes atheism. Another result is that someone might take it into his own head that as long as people are encouraged to come up with their very own interpretation of the Bible, why not come up with one's very own scripture and sell it as a newly discovered word of God.

As I mentioned earlier, the political upheaval of the time resulting from the class system was needed. The class system was everywhere, including the Church. When that system fractured because of this upheaval the fractures extended not only to the government, but to the Church as well because the Church at that time was not only part of that day's government, it was part of that day's class system. The unfortunate consequence is that when it came to faith, some decided to set up new traditions and new interpretations--even new religions based on Christianity. Carefully followed apostolic traditions is still what the majority choose. Others go with what they believe is the new and improved.
Is, "To each his own" the best way forward, or should we remember Christ's prayer that his followers remain one as he and his Father are one?

Be advised the RC religious-political organization is the Great Whore of the God-sent Revelation.
Protestant cults (commonly called "denominations") are the abominable children that came out of the Great Whore mother cult.

"come out of her MY people"

 

[Meriweather]

Be advised the RC religious-political organization is the Great Whore of the God-sent Revelation.
Protestant cults (commonly called "denominations") are the abominable children that came out of the Great Whore mother cult.

No, it's not. But thanks for making my point about how scripture is now being re-interpreted to suit individual agendas, ignoring the author's original intent and purpose.

 

[Picaro]

I never saw the Catholic Church as the monolithic monopoly it is claimed to be; there were several 'reformations' inside the Church itself, not all of them good ones, not all of them bad, either. They do indeed need to get rid of the 'infallible Pope' nonsense as well as its ossifying and corrupt upper level bureaucracy, which is very much a non-christian premise. There are no 'infallible' people.

As for the 'Protestants',they did not really do much of a 'reform'; that came later, under the independents, the Evangelicals; they were the real reformers, not the three Protestant sects; Anglicans aren't much as 'reformers', they're indistinguishable from Catholics outside of the focus on the Vatican. The Calvinists were the largest 'break', but hardly 'reformers'; they were even more oppressive than the Vatican bureaucracy. Lutherans are the most boring and obnoxiously dull sect in human history; they make Rome look not so bad after all. And no, Baptists, Quakers, Methodists, etc. are not 'Protestant', they are 'reforms' pf Protestantism themselves, and have much more influence on American origins and its Constitution and Bill of Rights than the others.

After all that, the Catholic Church was the most productive on the social, intellectual, and education fronts, more so than any of the others, and deserves a lot of credit, as its positive contributions far outweigh its negative ones; the latter are actually pretty small potatoes in the context of what the alternatives were without the rise of Christianity.

 

[JohnPrewett]

Easy to see the Vatican looks a lot more like an old whore than it does like a virginal holy bride fit to marry the Lord of the Universe.

All in "organized religion" are deluded .... but many are comfortable since there have been so many deluded for centuries.

 

[Picaro]

The Medici popes were undeniably corrupt.

One was corrupt. One was merely ineffectual. One was actually pretty good. One had a great reputation, but served a very short time.

Several were also nuts.

 

[Picaro]

Easy to see the Vatican looks a lot more like an old whore than it does like a virginal holy bride fit to marry the Lord of the Universe.

All in "organized religion" are deluded .... but many are comfortable since there have been so many deluded for centuries.

It's main problem was that as it acquired properties willed to it over the centuries and its wealth increased it became a magnet for the nobility as an option for their 2nd and later sons who didn't stand to inherit much, and the Vatican didn't appoint local church leaders, the local feudal Lords did, those benefices looked pretty good to lesser nobles with no titles to claim, so you can't entirely blame the Vatican for some asshole made Bishop of Norwich or Paris or whatever by some king. It was largely a feudal Europe from the 10th century onward, right up to WW I. The U.S. managed to avoid the feudal phase baggage to a large extent, hence its 'exceptionalism', while Europe fought massive wars before finally getting rid of it via the abdication of Wilhelm II.

'Organized' religion was a huge benefit; it provided a core cannon and teaching, and the contributions of the 'organized' monastics to technical progress and cultural advancement is indispensable to the development of the west and its current global power. It was key to reducing pagan brutalism to the level of peasant superstition and silliness in influence, though with the decline of Christian influence on govt. and culture in favor of mindless self-indulgence and Communist indoctrination we're seeing a huge revival in paganism and its typical pastimes of mass murder, corruption, and degeneracy; they just pretend it's 'science' and 'rationalism', despite the fact it doesn't resemble either of those premises.

 

[Meriweather]

I never saw the Catholic Church as the monolithic monopoly it is claimed to be; there were several 'reformations' inside the Church itself, not all of them good ones, not all of them bad, either. They do indeed need to get rid of the 'infallible Pope' nonsense as well as its ossifying and corrupt upper level bureaucracy, which is very much a non-christian premise. There are no 'infallible' people.

The reason there is no need to get rid of infallibility is because infallibility has nothing to do with a person personally being declared infallible. There have been two infallible rulings made by popes. Here is how they come about. One is the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (Mary being conceived without sin). Beginning very early in Christianity, some areas celebrated Mary being conceived without sin. Others did not. The question arose whether this doctrine should or should not be Church teaching.

The discussion started among the people (or the pews). Eventually local committees were formed, then discussions were held by Bishops. (By "eventually" we are talking decades, centuries.) Next it reaches the Vatican where it is discussed, debated, and researched there as well. Finally, a recommendation is made to the Pope and the current Pope either approves or disapproves the teaching the Church has proposed. Once that decision is made, it becomes "infallible" meaning that a future pope cannot come in and throw out the doctrine simply because that pope, personally, does not agree with it.

In other words, unlike Presidential Executive Orders, Church doctrine is not decided on a whim with a stroke of a pen, nor can it be removed with the stroke of a pen. Once decided, it cannot be undone. It becomes infallible. And, no, a Pope can't make up any doctrine on his own and call it infallible just because he is Pope. That is not how doctrinal procedure works, and why during all these years there have only been two infallible rulings.

 

[Meriweather]

Several were also nuts.

Yes. And many were very good men.

 

[Picaro]

I never saw the Catholic Church as the monolithic monopoly it is claimed to be; there were several 'reformations' inside the Church itself, not all of them good ones, not all of them bad, either. They do indeed need to get rid of the 'infallible Pope' nonsense as well as its ossifying and corrupt upper level bureaucracy, which is very much a non-christian premise. There are no 'infallible' people.

The reason there is no need to get rid of infallibility is because infallibility has nothing to do with a person personally being declared infallible. There have been two infallible rulings made by popes. Here is how they come about. One is the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (Mary being conceived without sin). Beginning very early in Christianity, some areas celebrated Mary being conceived without sin. Others did not. The question arose whether this doctrine should or should not be Church teaching.

The discussion started among the people (or the pews). Eventually local committees were formed, then discussions were held by Bishops. (By "eventually" we are talking decades, centuries.) Next it reaches the Vatican where it is discussed, debated, and researched there as well. Finally, a recommendation is made to the Pope and the current Pope either approves or disapproves the teaching the Church has proposed. Once that decision is made, it becomes "infallible" meaning that a future pope cannot come in and throw out the doctrine simply because that pope, personally, does not agree with it.

In other words, unlike Presidential Executive Orders, Church doctrine is not decided on a whim with a stroke of a pen, nor can it be removed with the stroke of a pen. Once decided, it cannot be undone. It becomes infallible. And, no, a Pope can't make up any doctrine on his own and call it infallible just because he is Pope. That is not how doctrinal procedure works, and why during all these years there have only been two infallible rulings.

I'm aware of the concept, and it is indeed a bureaucracy at the top, which is its main failing, and that includes Popes being 'infallible', regardless of the means they arrive at that fiction, and it's a false doctrine; it's useful in many ways, but also a seed of of its destruction and current decline. It's the same bureaucratic mentality of 'infallibility' and corruption that allows it to protect pedophiles and embezzlers, and makes the Church leadership almost completely untrustworthy and having little credibility.

 

[Meriweather]

I'm aware of the concept, and it is indeed a bureaucracy at the top, which is its main failing, and that includes Popes being 'infallible', regardless of the means they arrive at that fiction, and it's a false doctrine; it's useful in many ways, but also a seed of of its destruction and current decline. It's the same bureaucratic mentality of 'infallibility' and corruption that allows it to protect pedophiles and embezzlers, and makes the Church leadership almost completely untrustworthy and having little credibility.

The only time a Pope is considered infallible when he is speaking Ex Cathedra (from the chair) on Church doctrine.

Infallibility does not allow for the protection of pedophiles and embezzlers. When those things happen in the Church bureaucracy, that is clearly human failing and has nothing at all to do with doctrine or the teaching of doctrine. Embezzlement and sex abuse should not be allowed there, any more than it should be allowed in schools, in sports, in families...anywhere.

 

[Picaro]

I'm aware of the concept, and it is indeed a bureaucracy at the top, which is its main failing, and that includes Popes being 'infallible', regardless of the means they arrive at that fiction, and it's a false doctrine; it's useful in many ways, but also a seed of of its destruction and current decline. It's the same bureaucratic mentality of 'infallibility' and corruption that allows it to protect pedophiles and embezzlers, and makes the Church leadership almost completely untrustworthy and having little credibility.

The only time a Pope is considered infallible when he is speaking Ex Cathedra (from the chair) on Church doctrine.

Infallibility does not allow for the protection of pedophiles and embezzlers. When those things happen in the Church bureaucracy, that is clearly human failing and has nothing at all to do with doctrine or the teaching of doctrine. Embezzlement and sex abuse should not be allowed there, any more than it should be allowed in schools, in sports, in families...anywhere.

Doctrine is worthless if the leadership has no credibility and covers up gross crimes, no matter who it is. The fact is no human is infallible, no human organization is infallible, that is a false doctrine, no matter how many hand waves and apologia are thrown out in defense of it. It's a huge roadblock to reforms if the top bureaucrats keep insisting 'they know best', when clearly they don't. Or it can stay on track to keep on disappearing into oblivion.