History of the Reformation-How Christ restored the gospel to his church (Part 1)

Arlington Presbyterian Church ^ | October 31, 2004 | Tom Browning

[jo kus]

While I applaud your ecumenical efforts, you are incorrect in your theology.

First, the Protestant Reformation was NOT necessary. While the Church is always "reforming", it is NOT beneficial for the Church to split into more division. Isn't Paul clear about division and dissension among the Body in 1 Corinthians? Doesn't he say in 1 Cor 6 that such who cause division will NOT inherit the Kingdom of Heaven?

The doctrine of justification by faith alone needed to be preached. This is where the Catholic Church as a whole erred*; faith is the key to being imputed righteousness, as Genesis said of Abraham, and Paul points out in Romans and Galatians.

This is the subject of a whole post! Clearly, though, it appears that the entire Church has then erred, and Luther was right - since imputed righteousness or such was NEVER taught by ANY Christian prior to Luther. (to others, this is sarcasm). Certainly, the Church CANNOT err in such matters, as Scripture itself states - it is the pillar and foundation of truth. Thus, LUTHER is in error because he was confused about the term "works".

the works of faith they perform are mistakenly seen as cooperation by the sinner for salvation

Works do not save. We are NOT "cooperating" in earning salvation, but it is clear from the Gospels that we cannot inherit the Kingdom of God without a relationship with Christ. Thus, love is not a "work". A "work" is something we do for pay. Whether we cooperate or not, we are still expecting pay from God - but no one can obligate God or EARN salvation. Thus, Paul says works cannot save. Catholics do not believe we "cooperate" in works. We "cooperate" in that we are enabled by the Spirit to do God's Will (Phil 2:12-13). Without God, we cannot love. And thus, we cannot have a real relationship with God.

I pray that there be unity in the Church in the essentials, friendly debate on the non-essentials, and joint action against the God-deniers.

Agree. Brother in Christ

[Pyro7480]

The Roman Catholic Church doctrine believes the power to forgive sins rests within the Church

Though it's not exclusively within the Church. Any good Catholic prepares for the sacrament, and makes an act of contrition before they enter into the confessional.

[jo kus]

While I applaud your ecumenical efforts, you are incorrect in your theology.

First, the Protestant Reformation was NOT necessary. While the Church is always "reforming", it is NOT beneficial for the Church to split into more division. Isn't Paul clear about division and dissension among the Body in 1 Corinthians? Doesn't he say in 1 Cor 6 that such who cause division will NOT inherit the Kingdom of Heaven?

The doctrine of justification by faith alone needed to be preached. This is where the Catholic Church as a whole erred*; faith is the key to being imputed righteousness, as Genesis said of Abraham, and Paul points out in Romans and Galatians.

This is the subject of a whole post! Clearly, though, it appears that the entire Church has then erred, and Luther was right - since imputed righteousness or such was NEVER taught by ANY Christian prior to Luther. (to others, this is sarcasm). Certainly, the Church CANNOT err in such matters, as Scripture itself states - it is the pillar and foundation of truth. Thus, LUTHER is in error because he was confused about the term "works".

the works of faith they perform are mistakenly seen as cooperation by the sinner for salvation

Works do not save. We are NOT "cooperating" in earning salvation, but it is clear from the Gospels that we cannot inherit the Kingdom of God without a relationship with Christ. Thus, love is not a "work". A "work" is something we do for pay. Whether we cooperate or not, we are still expecting pay from God - but no one can obligate God or EARN salvation. Thus, Paul says works cannot save. Catholics do not believe we "cooperate" in works. We "cooperate" in that we are enabled by the Spirit to do God's Will (Phil 2:12-13). Without God, we cannot love. And thus, we cannot have a real relationship with God.

I pray that there be unity in the Church in the essentials, friendly debate on the non-essentials, and joint action against the God-deniers.

Agree.

Regards

[HarleyD]

I don't know why you have this visceral hatred of Christianity, but it doesn't serve you or the Body of Christ very well.

I missed this comment but I can assure you that I do not hate "Christianity" (I assume you mean the Roman Catholic Church). I assume you would state the same thing about the author.

[jo kus]

I believe we are talking pass one another. Yes I agree with you. The Roman Catholic Church doctrine believes the power to forgive sins rests within the Church.

Again, you are misunderstanding the Catholic point of view. The power to forgive sins rests in the FACT that Christ, God, gave authority to the Church to forgive sins, as I posted initially (both Catholic and Orthodox believe this, naturally). The power to forgive sins doesn't rest within the Church of its own disposition, but that given to it by Christ.

Earlier, you wrote "Catholics believe that no priest, as an individual man, however pious or learned, has power to forgive sins. This power belongs to God alone; however, God can and does exercise it through the Catholic priesthood. Catholics believe God exercises the power of forgiveness by means of the sacrament of reconciliation."

I was responding to the above quotes, which do NOT imply that the priest has the power to forgive sin. I am only trying to make clear Catholic teachings - which others will not learn by reading your above response.

Regards

[jo kus]

Catholic confession is similar, using different words.

Thanks for confirming our common beliefs. I think the Western mentality of the Dark Ages and Medieval period has formed the Roman Catholic mentality towards Confession until recently, such as the requirement to Confess sins annually. We, too, suggest that a beginner goes to the same confessor for spiritual advice.

Brother in Christ

[jo kus]

Hardly manmade if it can be backed up by other Scriptures, such as Genesis 12: "Abraham had faith, and his faith was accounted to him as righteousness." Habakkuk 2:4 notes "Behold the proud; His soul is not upright in him but the just shall live by his faith."

I respectfully disagree. First, Genesis 12 is not the only place that Abraham was "accounted as righteous". James and Hebrews also point to other times where Abraham DID something and was "accounted as righteous". Thus, righteousness is not a "one time" declaration.

John 3:36...

Read the rest of Christ's words. Note, in your verse, it says nothing about faith "alone".

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. (John 3:19-21)

Even Romans 3:28 makes it clear, even without Luther's addition of "alone": "Therefore we conclude that no man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law."

Here is where I conclude... Protestants are so conditioned to read "faith alone" into Scripture that they try to read it here when it clearly is NOT there! Paul is ONLY saying that "works of the Law" do not save. This DOES NOT MEAN that EVERYTHING is excluded, ONLY works of the Law! This is simple English! Paul certainly could have LOVE in mind as necessary for salvation - and would not disagree with what he writes in Rom 3:28. Consider reading 1 Cor 13:2 "...and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing."

Now, why would Paul say that faith was NOTHING if it was the ONLY thing that could save???

James, quite rightly, says works are the fruit of the key.

James NEVER says that! Again, you are twisting the Scripture, saying what is not there. Protestants say that works are the fruit of faith. But the Scriptures clearly say that BOTH FAITH AND WORKS come from GOD! Thus, faith is not somehow the catalyst of love. God is. Faith and Love work together : "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love." (Gal 5:6). One could say, based on this Scripture, that FAITH comes from LOVE. But other Scripture shows that they build on each other, coming from the Spirit

God provides BOTH the faith and the works necessary for us to be judged righteous in His eyes. This is NOT a legal fiction, but a REAL transformation.

Regards

[annalex]

not all priests may hear confessions

I don't know that canonically, but anecdotally, I know that famous Padre Pio was at one point forbidden by the bishop from hearing confessions, while, of course, remaining a priest.

[HarleyD]

All in all, I think the sacrament is the same in both Churches with the same theological underpinnings, notwithstanding that there may be some forms or customs which differ.

If you confirm the Eastern Orthodox position according to Wikipedia to be correct and the Roman Catholic position seems to be correct, I would respectfully disagree that these are similar views. I would venture to guess Eastern Orthodox do not believe in the sales of indulgences.

[wmfights]

BTTT

[jo kus]

It should be noted by having the Church absolves one's sins, the Church was setting itself up for abuse

Apparently, you believe Jesus was in error? So now God is in error? Amazing...

"Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [and] whose soever [sins] ye retain, they are retained." John 20:23

[AlbionGirl]

No problem, and thanks.

There is an opening prayer by the priest in which among other things we are reminded that we are confessing to Christ and that the priest is a witness for The Church. Usually the priest will then ask us what we have to confess though there is no set formula. We then confess our sins. Often the priest will ask some questions and/or direct that we refrain from or do certain things either as a penance for our sins or a particular sin or (or and/or) to strengthen us against sinning in the future. He then says the following prayer:

"May God who pardoned David through Nathan the prophet when he confessed his sins, and Peter weeping bitterly for his denial and the sinful woman weeping at His feet and the Publican and the Prodigal Son, may this same God forgive you all things through me a sinner both in this world and in the world to come, and set you uncondemned before His fearsome judgment seat. Having no further care for the sins which you have confessed, depart in peace.

The divine grace through my unworthiness has you released and forgiven of your sins. Amen."

Very powerful and beautiful.

[jo kus]

I would respectfully disagree that these are similar views

Truly, they are VERY similar. They serve the same purpose. The sacrament does the same thing in the East as it does in the West. Because the words said upon the absolution are different doesn't give reason for your claim. Sorry, you shouldn't be looking to "wikipedia" for your theological sources...

Regards

[Campion]

I would venture to guess Eastern Orthodox do not believe in the sales of indulgences.

And neither do we, nor do indulgences have anything to do with the sacrament of confession, except as I've already noted. So why do you keep going back to an abuse that was put to bed 500 years ago?

[Campion]

"May God who pardoned David through Nathan the prophet when he confessed his sins, and Peter weeping bitterly for his denial and the sinful woman weeping at His feet and the Publican and the Prodigal Son, may this same God forgive you all things through me a sinner both in this world and in the world to come, and set you uncondemned before His fearsome judgment seat. Having no further care for the sins which you have confessed, depart in peace.

Compare to the Western version:

"Through the ministry of the Church, may God grant you pardon and peace, and I absolve you of your sins in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. God has put away your sins, go in peace."

To which the penitent responds, "Thanks be to God"

The similarities are much greater than any differences.

[HarleyD]

"So why do you keep going back to an abuse that was put to bed 500 years ago?"

We are talking about the history of the Reformation.

[Campion]

We are talking about the history of the Reformation.

Selling indulgences has nothing to do with the ridiculous assertion that the sacrament of confession was the result of a mistranslation.

[annalex]

So Halloween is Reformation day? Live and learn...

[HarleyD]

The subtle difference is with EO position there was never any opportunity for the "sale" of indulgences. People would come before the priests who would direct them to God. There is no opportunity to sell anything. I don't think I'm too far out on a limb in stating the EO probably reject indulgences simply because of their view of penance. In fact, I don't see anything wrong with the EO position off hand.

With the RCC position, the Church is placing itself in authority of the one doing the forgiving. As you state if the Church forgives than Christ will forgive. Consequently this doctrinal belief, however subtly different from the EO, is ripe for fraud and that's what happened. Historically if you pay a sum to the Roman Church you could save someone from hell. Time have changed and the doctrine has been modified but it is basically the same belief that the Church absolves people of sin. (I believe Pope John Paul issued indulgences in 2000-albeit not for money but for good works.)

And, btw, "wikipedia" seems to accurately states both positions and has been verified.

[gscc]

Just asking - can one still obtain indulgences to this day from the RC Church?

After the Council of Trent the most important measure taken to prevent such frauds was the establishment of the Congregation of Indulgences. A special commission of cardinals served under Clement VIII and Paul V, regulating all matters pertaining to indulgences. The Congregation of Indulgences was definitively established by Clement IX in 1669 and reorganized by Clement XI in 1710. It has rendered efficient service by deciding various questions relative to the granting of indulgences and by its publications. The "Raccolta" (q.v.) was first issued by one of its consultors, Telesforo Galli, in 1807; the last three editions 1877, 1886, and 1898 were published by the Congregation. The other official publication is the "Decreta authentica", containing the decisions of the Congregation from 1668 to 1882. This was published in 1883 by order of Leo XIII. See also "Rescripta authentica" by Joseph Schneider (Ratisbon, 1885). By a Motu Proprio of Pius X, dated 28 January, 1904, the Congregation of Indulgences was united to the Congregation of Rites, without any diminution, however, of its prerogatives.