Time for Protestantism to Come Full Circle


#1

A millennium (or more) before the Protestant Reformation, St. Augustine wrote:

"In the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep (Jn 21:15-19), down to the present episcopate.
"And so, lastly, does the very name of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.
“Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should … With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me… No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion… For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
— St. Augustine (AD 354–430) Against the Epistle of Manichaeus AD 397

How can there be any “Protestantism” in light of examples like that above??? It’s time for the failed experiment of the Reformation to come back full circle to its home in the Catholic Church and cease to be called “Reformation” and “Protestantism”.

That is my prayer. :bowdown2:

Jorge


#2

Amen brother. That is my prayer too.


#3

LOL, I am saving that quote for people who claim Augustine was a Calvinist and did not believe in the papacy!


#4

I agree completely. In the words of the great John Henry Cardinal Newman, “To study history is to cease being Protestant.” It’s time all Protestants become “historians.”

JU


#5

jusher7281,

Are you a historian? :hmmm:

[quote=jusher7281]I agree completely. In the words of the great John Henry Cardinal Newman, “To study history is to cease being Protestant.” It’s time all Protestants become “historians.”

JU
[/quote]


#6

[quote=Ric]jusher7281,

Are you a historian? :hmmm:
[/quote]

Ric,

No, but I’ve studied enough to know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ and that the Reformation was a big mistake. Even Luther himself admitted that.

JU


#7

:confused: Really?? How so?? :confused:

[quote=jusher7281]Ric,

No, but I’ve studied enough to know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ and that the Reformation was a big mistake. Even Luther himself admitted that.

JU
[/quote]


#8

A striking example of Luther’s “doublespeak” occurs in a sequence of four letters - - all, incidentally, written after the posting of the Ninety-Five Theses (October 31, 1517):

Most Holy Father, prostrate at the feet of your Holiness, I offer myself with all that I am and have . . . I will acknowledge thy voice as the voice of Christ.

(Letter to Pope Leo X, May 30, 1518)

The true Antichrist, according to Paul, reigns in the Roman Court: I think I am able to prove that he [the Pope] is now worse than the Turks.

(Letter to Wenceslaus Link, December 11, 1518)

I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted . . . It is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better.

(Letter to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519)

I do not know whether the Pope is Antichrist himself, or his Apostle: so miserably is Christ (that is, truth) corrupted and crucified by him in the decrees.

(Letter to Georg Spalatin, March 13, 1519)

The most charitable and unassuming description of such clear equivocation might be “frequent profound mood changes!”

I personally think Luther was “deranged” and psychopathic. His story is rather sad.

Jorge.


#9

[quote=Delgadoajj]A striking example of Luther’s “doublespeak” occurs in a sequence of four letters - - all, incidentally, written after the posting of the Ninety-Five Theses (October 31, 1517):

Most Holy Father, prostrate at the feet of your Holiness, I offer myself with all that I am and have . . . I will acknowledge thy voice as the voice of Christ.

(Letter to Pope Leo X, May 30, 1518)

The true Antichrist, according to Paul, reigns in the Roman Court: I think I am able to prove that he [the Pope] is now worse than the Turks.

(Letter to Wenceslaus Link, December 11, 1518)

I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted . . . It is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better.

(Letter to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519)

I do not know whether the Pope is Antichrist himself, or his Apostle: so miserably is Christ (that is, truth) corrupted and crucified by him in the decrees.

(Letter to Georg Spalatin, March 13, 1519)

The most charitable and unassuming description of such clear equivocation might be “frequent profound mood changes!”

I personally think Luther was “deranged” and psychopathic. His story is rather sad.

Jorge.
[/quote]

Actually, it is more of a case of a loyal CAtholic who cannot come to grips with the fact that the One and Holy church is on earth is amde up of many faulty human beings. We have the same thing now with the many people so shocked by the priests and bishops they feel they must leave. It shows a desire for the Church to be always untainted, pure and free from stain, said desire being a gift of the Holy Spirit, but at the same time it shows a weakness in faith in that they cannot accept the faulty humanity, said weakness not being a gift of the Holy Spirit. Deranged and psychopathic? No I doubt it. Weak in faith and charity? More probable.


#10

Here are some more of Luther’s quotes:

Furthermore, we know Luther allowed those who still believed in Transubstantiation to join his party in 1543, only three years before he died {Letter to the Evangelicals at Venice, June 13, 1543}. Writing about the Elevation of the Host in 1544, Luther stated:

If Christ is truly present in the Bread, why should He not be treated with the utmost respect and even be adored?" Joachim, a friend, added: "We saw how Luther bowed low at the Elevation with great devotion and reverently worshiped Christ.

(Mathesius, Table Talk, Leipzig, 1903, 341)

In 1545 he described the Eucharist as the “adorable Sacrament,” which caused Calvin to accuse him of “raising up an idol in God’s temple,” and of being “half-papist.” Luther, in later years, lamented often about the actual course of his “Reformation” in Germany, thus perhaps revealing a sense of failure and guilt:

Who would have wanted to begin preaching, had we known beforehand that so much disaster, riotousness, scandal, sacrilege, ingratitude *, and wickedness were to follow. But now . . . we have to pay for it.

(Works, Erlangen, 50,74; in 1538)

I have well nigh given up all hope for Germany, for . . . wickedness and roguery are reigning everywhere . . . and added to all else contempt of the Word.

(Letter to Anton Lauterbach, November 1541)

Jorge.*


#11

[quote=Delgadoajj]A millennium (or more) before the Protestant Reformation, St. Augustine wrote:

"In the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep (Jn 21:15-19), down to the present episcopate.
"And so, lastly, does the very name of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.
“Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should … With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me… No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion… For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
— St. Augustine (AD 354–430) Against the Epistle of Manichaeus AD 397

How can there be any “Protestantism” in light of examples like that above???
[/quote]

Because they are all of the past, not of the present - and, more seriously, they are all considerations which might tempt the Church to boast of her self, her glory and splendour - when she should boast only of Christ, and Him Crucified. They are not evangelical considerations, but worldly, pride-inducing considerations :frowning: There is nothing, nothing whatever, in the Church, that she does not owe wholly to the grace of God; but by boasting of what she has received, she as good as lays hold of them as though they were not something she owed to God, but something she had gained by her own exertions.

I’m not suggesting that St. Augustine - who is after all the “Doctor of Grace” - was being prideful; I do think that th is passage is sometimes quioted thoughtlessly, as though the Church could somehow boast of what God has graciously bestowed on her. Possibly, since this was before St.Augustine had had to vindicate the grace of God in his debate with Pelagius, he had not realised how far-reaching the grace of God is. ##

It’s time for the failed experiment of the Reformation to come back full circle to its home in the Catholic Church and cease to be called “Reformation” and “Protestantism”.

That is my prayer. :bowdown2:

Jorge

For a start, it assumes the unquestionable validity of the fifth-century Catholic Church - Marcionites, Donatists, and Montanists (among others) would not have been persuaded; all three still existed in 397.

Catholics seem not to understand the Reformation, or understand Protestantism - therefore, they frequently express unrealistic hopes or make irrelevant criticisms - “Protestant” has two meanings, not just one; for “protestari” means, in the historical setting in which the word came into use as a party label:

  1. Protesting against allowing only Catholic rites, after the Council of Speyer in 1529, which reversed that of 1526, which had been more favourable to the new preaching:

The Protestants

As the Reformation spread piecemeal throughout Germany, a larger issue loomed; namely, the conflict between Lutheran princes and the Catholic emperor. Luther himself did not want a separate religion, but a thorough-going reform of the one true church. The German princes who were sympathetic…likewise wanted a reform of the Church, but they looked to their emperor to provide it.

The emperor, however, wanted none of it. He was a faithful Catholic who believed that kings had no place in matters of theology. When he called an imperial diet at Speyer in 1529, he specifically forbade any mention of religion or of Luther.

Some objected strongly to this position. They knew the emperor needed money and men, and they saw this diet as their best chance to bring their demands for religious reform out into the open. This was precisely what Charles did not want, and he rejected every plea along those lines.

Fourteen of the German lords refused to attend the Diet of Speyer. They sent a letter to the emperor protesting his decision and detailing their concerns. These lords became stamped by their signing this letter of protest. It is ironic that the term Protestant derives from some political maneuvering in the German Empire…

[short snip]

boisestate.edu/courses/reformation/germany/reformingermany.shtml

answers.com/topic/diet-of-speyer

  1. Bearing witness to the distinctive insights of “protestant” Christianity; notably, its understanding of God’s grace.

Protestantism, it has been said, represents the conquest of St. Augustine’s doctrine of the Church by His doctrine of grace. ##


#12

[quote=Delgadoajj]A striking example of Luther’s “doublespeak” occurs in a sequence of four letters - - all, incidentally, written after the posting of the Ninety-Five Theses (October 31, 1517):

Most Holy Father, prostrate at the feet of your Holiness, I offer myself with all that I am and have . . . I will acknowledge thy voice as the voice of Christ.

(Letter to Pope Leo X, May 30, 1518)

The true Antichrist, according to Paul, reigns in the Roman Court: I think I am able to prove that he [the Pope] is now worse than the Turks.

(Letter to Wenceslaus Link, December 11, 1518)

I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted . . . It is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better.

(Letter to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519)

I do not know whether the Pope is Antichrist himself, or his Apostle: so miserably is Christ (that is, truth) corrupted and crucified by him in the decrees.

(Letter to Georg Spalatin, March 13, 1519)

The most charitable and unassuming description of such clear equivocation might be “frequent profound mood changes!”

I personally think Luther was “deranged” and psychopathic. His story is rather sad.

Jorge.
[/quote]

The weaker the human instrument of Christ’s Will, the more outstanding the work of Christ :slight_smile:

God works through Christians, not because they are virtuous or blameless, but because He is altogether excellent - that way, His Glory, not His gifts to His servants, is what gets the praise.

If the Reformation has been purely human - how come it has lasted so long ? I think we can conclude that God has a gracious purpose to work through Protestants - after all, sometimes they are the only Christians around. For many people, Protestant will be the only Christians they meet - if there are no Catholics in the offing to evangelise the unevangelised, and Protestants are available: then perhaps God will do through Protestants what He cannot do through absent Catholics. ##


#13

[quote=Gottle of Geer]If the Reformation has been purely human - how come it has lasted so long ? I think we can conclude that God has a gracious purpose to work through Protestants - after all, sometimes they are the only Christians around. For many people, Protestant will be the only Christians they meet - if there are no Catholics in the offing to evangelise the unevangelised, and Protestants are available: then perhaps God will do through Protestants what He cannot do through absent Catholics. ##
[/quote]

I agree and disagree. I disagree that the Reformation was not purely human. Even Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc., which are all purely human have lasted as long as or longer than Protestantism. I don’t agree that because Protestantism has endured means it’s from God. In my opinion, the Reformation was a disaster for Christianity.

However, I agree that God does work through Protestants and that they are often the first, and maybe the only ones who reach some people. Catholics need to be better evangelists; not just the bishops, priests and religious, but ALL Catholics.

JU


#14

[quote=jusher7281]I agree and disagree. I disagree that the Reformation was not purely human. Even Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc., which are all purely human have lasted as long as or longer than Protestantism. I don’t agree that because Protestantism has endured means it’s from God. In my opinion, the Reformation was a disaster for Christianity.

However, I agree that God does work through Protestants and that they are often the first, and maybe the only ones who reach some people. Catholics need to be better evangelists; not just the bishops, priests and religious, but ALL Catholics.

JU
[/quote]

Amen brother! :thumbsup:


#15

[quote=Delgadoajj]A millennium (or more) before the Protestant Reformation, St. Augustine wrote:

"In the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep (Jn 21:15-19), down to the present episcopate.
"And so, lastly, does the very name of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.
“Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should … With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me… No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion… For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
— St. Augustine (AD 354–430) Against the Epistle of Manichaeus AD 397

How can there be any “Protestantism” in light of examples like that above??? It’s time for the failed experiment of the Reformation to come back full circle to its home in the Catholic Church and cease to be called “Reformation” and “Protestantism”.

That is my prayer. :bowdown2:

Jorge
[/quote]

Simple: Catholics, in general, have been terrible witnesses for Christ - at least in the US in my lifetime. Sad but true - the poor witness to the faith of the rank and file Catholic is the Protestants best argument.
And yes, I am Catholic.

Phil


#16

[quote=Philthy]Simple: Catholics, in general, have been terrible witnesses for Christ - at least in the US in my lifetime. Sad but true - the poor witness to the faith of the rank and file Catholic is the Protestants best argument.
And yes, I am Catholic.

Phil
[/quote]

And, Protestants haven’t been such faithful witnesses for Christ either. No wonder some folks have a “foul taste” for Christianity, as well as religion in general.

Wonder how we can be better disciples of the One who says, “Follow me!”?:slight_smile:


#17

[quote=jusher7281]I agree and disagree. I disagree that the Reformation was not purely human. Even Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc., which are all purely human have lasted as long as or longer than Protestantism. I don’t agree that because Protestantism has endured means it’s from God. In my opinion, the Reformation was a disaster for Christianity.

However, I agree that God does work through Protestants and that they are often the first, and maybe the only ones who reach some people. Catholics need to be better evangelists; not just the bishops, priests and religious, but ALL Catholics.

JU
[/quote]

I agree. Those are good points. Of course, God will work through Protestants, but it doesn’t mean that the Protestant Reformation was the work of God. God is not divisive. God is uniting. That’s why he used the unity of the Chosen People of the Old Testament (Israel) as a prefigurement of the Church, which is the sacrament of our salvation. We all have to come together under this germ of the New Jerusalem which is the Catholic Church. Remember that a Sacrament is a visible sign which effects Grace. The Church is the visible sign which effects our salvation.

The Catholic Church was born from the pierced heart of Jesus while he was sleeping on the cross the same way Eve was born of the side of Adam while he was sleeping on the ground.

Anything that causes division among the members of the Church does not come from God. :twocents:

Jorge.

Jorge.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.