There used to be a time when your loyalty to the Protestant cause was judged by how much you hated Catholics. But today, with all the ecumenical dialogue, the Manhattan Declarations, the ECT council, and the postmodern virtue of tolerance, people are much more willing to let bygones be bygones. “Maybe we overreacted” is the thought of many.
To the Catholics, Protestants are no longer anathema (which is pretty bad), but are “separated brethren” (which is not so bad).
Attitudes are changing, we could argue, for the better. But have the issues changed?
Four hundred years ago we had a “situation” in the church. We call it the “Great Reformation.” Catholics understand it as yet another rebellious schism. The first major division in the Christian church happened in 1054 when the Eastern church got fed up with the Pope and thumbed its nose at him (or something like that). The Great Reformation was the second. For Protestants, this was not only a reforming of the church, but a reclaiming of the Gospel, which had been obscured and overshadowed by the institutionalized church of the day.
While there were and are a lot of issues that divide Roman Catholics and Protestants, there are two which overshadow the rest: authority and justification. The issue of authority has been called the “formal” cause of the Reformation, while the issue of justification was the “material” cause. In this brief post I would like to focus on these two issues.
1. Authority: Where do we go for truth?
To the institutionalized church of the day (now known as the Roman Catholic Church), both Scripture (written tradition) and Tradition (unwritten tradition – notice the capital “T”) represented the one ”deposit of faith” that was handed down from the Apostles. The church, as represented by the Pope and the congregation of bishops, protected and guided by the Holy Spirit, could interpret both infallibly. Think of a three-legged stool. These three entities (Scripture, Tradition, and the Church) support the stool of ultimate authority for the church.
To the Protestants, this represented an abuse of authority. While the institutionalized church had authority, it did not have ultimate authority. While tradition (notice the lower case “t”) was very important and to be respected, it did not share equal authority with Scripture; rather, it served Scripture. Everything, including unwritten tradition, the councils, and the Pope, had to be tested by and submit to Scripture. Protestants repositioned both the church and tradition underneath Scripture.
The battle cry of the Reformers here was sola Scriptura; the Scriptures alone were the final authority and the only infallible missive from God.
2. Justification: How is a person made right with God?
Here the issue was not necessarily the nature of justification, but the instrumental cause (from a human standpoint) of justification. The institutionalized church believed that justification was a process brought about by the individual’s cooperation with God through their faith and works. People were not justified, but were being justified, and they could never really know of their own eternal security. For most, the best that they could hope for was that they died and spent a certain amount of time (usually very extended) in a place called Purgatory, having their venial sins (the ones that are not so bad) purged through a painful process of cleansing. Then, once released from Purgatory, they would move on to heaven. As modern Roman Catholics would put it, “Purgatory is the time to wash before dinner.”
The Protestants believed this was a serious distortion of the Gospel message, likened to the Galatian error. This distortion, argued the Protestants, arose in the late middle ages with the rise of the sacramental system (you know, the necessity of Mass, confession, baptism, etc.). Protestants believed that justification was through the faith of the individual alone and that works did not contribute in any way. Otherwise, it was believed, grace is not really grace. To the Reformers, justification was an event, not a process. It was a “forensic” or a legal act in which the believing sinner was declared righteous, having Christ’s righteousness imputed to their account. There was nothing that man could do to add to or take away from their justification. Any attempts to work for one’s justification (including time spent in Purgatory) diminished the value of the cross; in essence, saying Christ’s work was not enough. As well, Protestants, unlike Catholics, believed that we could have assurance of our ultimate salvation.
The battle cry of the Reformation was sola fide; justification is by faith alone, not by any works man can do.
Again, there were other issues that caused great strife during the Reformation (Mariology, relics, communion of the Saints, etc.), but they all paled in comparison to these two. While the tension and heat that immediately accompany any fight have since cooled, recent events have not changed the centrality of these two issues. Most Protestants and Catholics still believe that these are hills upon which we should die, even if neither side conclusively believes the other is going to hell.
We must keep in mind, however, how much the two sides do agree. When it comes to the person and work of Christ, conservative Protestants and Roman Catholics (along with Eastern Orthodox) all believe that Jesus Christ is the God-man (fully God and fully man) who died on the cross and rose bodily from the grave as the atonement for sin. All believe that salvation is purely by the grace of God and that the faith of the individual is necessary. And, significantly, all believe that Christ is the only way to God.
Was the Reformation necessary? I believe so. The communication and purity of the Gospel was at stake. Amidst all the concessions being made today, we need to keep this in mind: things have not changed that much. We can love each other and appreciate the common heritage we share. We can even learn much from one another. But there is still a serious divide and Protestants dare not compromise the Gospel by sweeping the Reformation under the rug. The Gospel is too important.
207 replies to "The Great Reformation in a Nutshell"
Oldadam and Greg,
I know very well the basic content of Protestant doctrine on authority in the church and Scripture alone. No need to try to tell me over and over, or in bold, as if I have never heard it before. I know the solas, and in fact, I used to believe in them for quite a long while, and still have the memorized explanation of the small catechism is the back of my mind somewhere. I did listen to about half of that audio, TOA, but it was not addressing my question.
My question is not about the content of the doctrine. It is about the historical origins of the doctrine (Were they with Luther or somewhere else? Where?)
Protestants are very accustomed to defending the validity of Sola Scriptura, to explaining why they think it is true. But I can see from the timidity in answering my simple question, that they cannot, or do not want to, put it in a historical timeline. In other words, what is the history of Luther’s doctrine concerning church authority? I am blasted with grace ALLLLOOONE, and Jesus is only a helper to you, etc. Fr. Robert has inched closer to answering with these:
“For both Luther and even Staupitz, the highest theology “is not the cacophony of the scholastic doctors, but the awesome silences of negative theology.” (Luther, WA.)”
and
“The Reformation happened on Catholic ground!”
Fr. Robert, I do think it is a fair question, though, that deserves more than a vague answer. People like me, when trying to give our humble explanations of Catholic doctrine, are made to answer questions like this all the time! (Mariology threads!)
So, I’ll try again. Did Christianity ever hold the Reformers’ doctrines about authority in the church before Luther taught them? Was his doctrine a novelty, a recovery (from when?), or a development (from what?)?
Comment #25: A, B, or C ?
@Irene: And the answer is yes, as with Augustine, and even before with Tertullian! One has written about the intricate apologetics of Tertullian: “Roman restraint (as St. Paul, the Roman citizen somewhat), legal clarity and military discipline were transmuted into an intellectual and moral force in the ardent, aspiring mind and heart of Tertullian.” (H. von Campenhausen, The fathers of the Latin church, 1964). But then Tertullian could also say: ‘What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? But for Tertullian, both puzzle and paradox make good sense, and that Tertullian’s explicit claim to follow the discipline of reason (disciplina rationis) and his demand ‘here again I must have reasons’ are amply justified. The first may be called ‘the puzzle’ and the second ‘the paradox’. Tertullian has countless paradoxes but this one is celebrated. Note, as I have said before Tertullian had a profound place for the great Antitheses in God… ‘the two attributes of goodness and justice together make up the proper fullness of the divine being as omnipotent’ (Marc. 2.29.1) Indeed always paradox for Tertullian!
Of course later he could move to Montanism, or the New Prophecy as he called it… charismatic, ascetic, enthusiastic, innovative, spiritualist, ecstatic and rigorous! Indeed Tertullian was catholic, spiritual-charismatic, and even somewhat reformed (for his time). Certainly one of a kind, i.e. Tertullian!
So for both Tertullian, as later Augustine, authority is always spiritual, and truth, in the great Doctrine of God! And certainly both Luther and Calvin, as the best of the Reformers are closer here, also.
Btw, Irene, are you a Roman Catholic “convert”? Or a cradle R. Catholic that left for awhile, and got into some aspects of Protestantism, and then returned to Catholicism?
“I know the solas, and in fact, I used to believe in them for quite a long while, and still have the memorized explanation of the small catechism is the back of my mind somewhere.”
Just wondered? 🙂
@Irene: I like to think that I seek to do theology biblically & historically, for true theology must always be historical, as is the Church itself! Catholic, Reformed but always historical! Btw, Greg hit the mark with a/the Church that is always both Invisible (Christ on the Throne in the Glory!) and the Visible Church in time and history…Incarnational!
Actually, we Trinitarian Creedal Christians (The Ecumenical Councils, etc.) East, West are really closer than not! But of course issues of the details of soteriology, and authority are righteous questions! 🙂
Irene,
If you study the Bible, you’ll see that the doctrines we are speaking of go all the way back to the early church. Before Rome. Before Luther.
The Word (Jesus and Him in preaching and teaching and in the Bible and in the sacraments) creates and sustains faith. All by itself.
Amen TOA, as I wrote on another blog, the Bible, and especially the OT was the Bible of the Early and Apostolic Church! Indeed from here Saul/Paul brought forth the Jewish Covenant for the Gentile Nation’s…Rom. 15: 8-9, etc. The Old & New Covenant are really bound together! And here most certainly Luther and Calvin preached both Law & Gospel! In 2 Cor. 3: 7-11, we can see the “Glory” of the two Ministries…”If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! (verses 7-8) Paul seems to be affirming two great, if paradoxical, truths! Simply Paul has a very high view and regard for Covenant, in it are to be found the promises that God HAS faithfully fulfilled in Jesus Christ, the Son of God! (2 Cor. 1: 18-21). And the OT is the precursor!
“The New Testament lies hidden in the Old Testament and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New Testament” (St. Augustine)
Amen Greg, sweet statement theological! 🙂
I remember that book: The Christ of the Covenants! Grand, and Grand is the Truth therein! I can dance, at least in my spirit, and oh yes A/Hallelujah! (Praise imperative + yah, Jehovah…praise to God the eternal One!)
Btw, originally I think that was a Baker book? Years back, Baker was an American Reformed publisher.
‘His definition of a biblical covenant being “a bond in blood, sovereignly administered”.’ Indeed our Salvation History is seen always ‘In Christ’, in both Covenant/covenants. The value of the Blood of the Covenant, is always the Person of the Covenant! In both Testaments or Covenants that value is God In Christ, looking forward and looking back!
Amen my “Reformed” brother In Christ! Give me that old time Reformed Divinity! 😉
I have several thousand books, some here, some in greater London. My oldest son is the keeper over there. Dusty I imagine? Sometimes I have him ship me a few favorites. I wonder sometimes what will become of them? God alone knows!
@Greg (#75) – Baker’s Dictionary of Theology is available for as little as $0.57 plus $3.99 for shipping on Amazon and on AbeBooks.
Well, I still don’t see anything that answers the question I posed:
What is the history of the doctrines characteristic of the Reformation? So would that history make the Reformation a invention/discovery of new doctrine? Or perhaps a development of doctrine that existed at the time? Or maybe the adoption of an old doctrine that had once been held but then had been discarded?
To narrow the discussion, I suggested the doctrines of the Reformers dealing with authority in the church, since that was one the two main issues CMP talked about in the original post. To be even more specific, how about these, which I think are the two most important ones dealing with authority in the church.
–sola scriptura (no Magisterium)
–no apostolic succession (the people preaching the correct message being the real successors of the apostles -sorry, not sure what that’s exactly called)
Fr. Robert mentioned Tertullian and Augustine. So do you mean that during the times of Tertullian, and later Augustine, that Christianity taught what the Reformers did? Surely not. Do you mean that if you look at their writings, you can see hints of Reformational theology, or at least imagine their teachings compatible with Reformational theology? ( I don’t think that their teachings are, but that is another story, and at least someone is finally making a historical assertion here.) If so, then I guess that would make the Reformation a retrieval and development of those long lost teachings.
Theoldadam said
“If you study the Bible, you’ll see that the doctrines we are speaking of go all the way back to the early church. Before Rome. Before Luther.”
Do you mean the Reformers’ doctrines of church authority were present in the early church? Did Christianity hold those doctrines until something went wrong in the late middle ages? Or were they lost for hundreds and hundreds of years?
Fr. Robert,
I am a convert. Raised Lutheran-LCMS, and well into adulthood.
So communion-wise, we are opposite. (:
@Irene: #81 Yes, indeed interesting.. I am always somewhat Lutheran friendly! But I truly LOVE the man Dr. Martin Luther, always the Reformer! He was simply one of a kind! Though as we both know there are certainly liberal Lutherans also, at least these days. I have had a few Catholic friends who have gone to Lutheranism. And I have even known a few Lutherans who have gone to Catholicism. And in the history of the Methodists (English at least), there has been a somewhat close connection between them and the Lutherans. One can remember the German Franz Hilderbrandt, one time assistant to Pastor Niemoller in Berlin. From 1939 to 1946 he was pastor of the German Lutheran refugee congregation in Cambridge. But later Dr. Hilderandt became a Methodist minister in the Cambridge circuit. But I degress.
I am (at least I feel) close to much of Luther’s reformed ideas, certainly his doctrine of the “theologia crucis”. And too somewhat close to his Eucharist thoughts, though the so-called “real” presence is also always spiritual as well, one does not press one against another, when both are involved. “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4: 24)
Irene: Truly the doctrine of “authority” is always a “spiritual” doctrine and reality, “Tradition verses Commandment”! As we can see even when our Lord argues and debates with the Jewish leadership! (Matt. 15:1-14)
“And He answered and send to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?” (Matt. 15: 3) And so God’s Commandment always trumps man’s tradition! The Authority is always with/in God, and His Word!
And the historical Church, has Apostolic Tradition, but this is based upon the Apostolic teaching, which is itself based upon the Word of God, and God’s revelation, itself! So again, our “authority” is in God Himself, as Jesus Himself said, is where we find “spirit and truth”! (John 4: 24)
It is here btw, that the Reformation and the Reformers stood, as we can see with these words of Jesus! This was the spirit of the Jewish prophets…”And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and enter into His glory? Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.” (Luke 24: 25-27)
@Greg: Indeed many of the Church Fathers (Greeks and once pagan) don’t have a clue to the biblical authority and doctrine of God, here we can see Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Gregory of Nyssa, as to the “apocatastasis”/universalism.
The doctrine of the Reformation is always simply the authority and doctrine of God, as revealed in Holy Scripture! – Sola Scriptura…the great sola’s!
Again, I would maintain that both Tertullian and Augustine, were simply closer to the so-called Reformed position of biblical authority, sola Scriptura, etc. Certainly the early Greek Fathers certainly missed it badly here, the doctrine and authority of God. Note too, this is clearly antinomian, in the great loss of the moral law of God!
Btw, this verse speaks for itself! “Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God.” (Mk. 12: 24)
One thing is certain, the Holy Scripture has a very Christological centre! (Lk. 24: 27) The Salvation History of the OT foreordained the whole life of Christ, His birth, ministry, death & resurrection. And the whole ministry and work of Christ was Jewish and Covenantal! (Rom. 15: 8)…and this moves into the Gentile world and Nations! (Verses 9-10 etc. noting, verse 12/Isa. 11: 10).
Btw, the Greek word “Dunamis” in Mk. 12: 24, I think suggests more of the “mighty works” of God. When one reads and knows Holy Scripture, he will see the great power, might and simply the total ability of the Sovereign God! And to my mind at least, this kicks out the whole libertarian ideas in any doctrine/teaching of God.
Yes, indeed God’s promises for National or literal Israel do matter for God’s faithfulness and promise to both Israel, and all the Covenant promises (Gentiles included), have come from Israel: “who are Israelites , to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory, and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.” (Rom. 9: 4-5 / Eph. 2: 12)
Indeed Greg: But we are right in the midst of the Gentile Apostasy especially in the West, surely with Modern Israel in its own land (since 1948), though for the most part in unbelief toward Jesus as the Messiah. And yet, there are more so-called “Messianic Jews” (Jewish believers In Christ now living in Israel). The Jews and the Holy Land, are the centre of the Eschatological end. “For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.” (Matt. 23: 39 / Ps. 118: 26 / Zech. 14)
The practice of selling indulgences alone justifies the Reformation. What presumptive arrogance could possibly possess any honest person, priest or otherwise, that they have the right to determine a person’s (pauper or otherwise) destiny? Luther—particularly, the political Luther was not perfect; so we must not defend him on that issue—however, on theological issues such as sola scriptura, sola gratia, and sola fidei, yes.
and James,
What presumptive arrogance could possibly possess any honest person, priest or otherwise, that they have a right to scratch 1500+ years of Christian teaching on authority in the Church, and teach a new doctrine?
If it was just about selling indulgences, perhaps the Reformation would not have even had to happen. If it was about the papacy, the Protestant church would look nearly identical to the Eastern Church. But, it was about many older and deeper things, and the Protestant Church professed never-before-taught doctrine. (Never mind the Protestant church of today, which has departed even from the Reformers!)
Who has scratched 1500+ years of Christian teaching on authority in the Church and taught a new doctrine? May I suggest a good thorough reading of the Przywara-Barth-Balthasar dialogue and perhaps you will discover that the fine line of difference in theology is very fine indeed. A proper understanding of Eastern Orthodoxy will reveal that they are not nearly as cluttered with dogmatism as the Roman Catholic Church is and therefore more akin to Reformation Protestantism. However, I still stand by my original question and ask rhetorically, “What presumptive arrogance could possibly possess any honest person, priest or otherwise, that they have the right to determine a person’s (pauper or otherwise) destiny?” Perhaps, I should have made it clear that Protestantism lacks an infallible magisterium, but we must stop somewhere and I am simply not comfortable in putting all of my eggs in Rome’s basket. Furthermore, which of the Eastern branch could one assert with absolute certainty teaches in each and every detail the Apostolic doctrine? They, too, have their differences. Personally, I see an eventual theological convergence which will stand the test of Apostolic orthodoxy, but not without a little less self-righteousness and cocksure certainty on the behalf of both sides of the controversy. 🙂 Smile. Jesus love you.
Yes, I’m sure that Przywara-Barth-Balthasar dialogue would straighten me right out. 🙂
Lol. For once Greg, I agree with you. (:
And I suppose we’ve just demonstrated the point of CMP’s original post…
Whether it’s a “serious divide”, as CMP called it in his article, or a “fine line”, as James-the-lesser called it a few comments ago, it’s still a line strong enough to have caused the “Reformation”.
I just heard about a new little book last night, “7 Men and the Secret of Their Greatness.” Forget the author already, an Evangelical, though. Two of the men were John Paul the Great, and Chuck Colson.
Geez. No wonder they excommunicated Luther…
Wait. Do you mean “nothing’s changed in 2000 years” in answer to the question I’ve been asking?
Oh, never mind. I see you edited it to say “nothing’s been contradicted in 2000 years?” I thought I actually had someone giving me a plain answer to my question.
@Irene: The only “plain” answer is in the Holy Scripture, but we must see and find it! 😉 Then, the issue gets exegetical, and is no longer plain, or simple! Oh the doctrine of “Theology”, i.e. the study of GOD, is always profound! Perhaps the word is better noted in “certain”, we are found certain, with God’s sure & certain Word! 😉 It is a riddle sometimes isn’t it! 🙂
But I agree with Greg, Roman Catholicism (theologically) makes it even more hard to understand!
Btw, Martin Luther is now much more appreciated by many Roman Catholic “theolog’s”! Thank God for that factual reality! However, this new pope “Francis”, is really a theological “mess” to my mind! And I think I do know “something” historical and theological about “Catholicism”. I will always appreciate my Catholic BA in Philosophy, but that was well over 30 years ago now!
@Fr Robert,
Well, I’m not particularly asking what the Scriptures teach, or which interpretation is correct. I would just like an answer as to whether Luther’s interpretation had ever before been Christianity’s interpretation.
But, yes, I love to contemplate the Word and all that it means for us. I have to say, though, that I have never seen the beauty and the eternity in the mysteries of God as I have in the Catholic Church. (:
Btw, what is it you see wrong with Pope Francis’s theology? I don’t know him well as far as his personal theological perspective.
@Irene: I have just lost two try’s at answering your questions! I really HATE the function of this blog! (I am NOT a computer guy, and thank God!) I will keep trying I guess? Patience is being tested I suppose here? 😉
Oh, I don’t think Catholicism makes God/His Revelation harder to understand. In my own experience, it unifies Scripture, history, reason, personal experience, and the longings of the human heart more than anything else, into one coherent whole.
@Irene: Basically Luther’s biblical and theological approach was that of his education, as both a monastic and as one in the Augustinian Order. His great mentor, was his superior in the Augustinian Order, John Staupitz! If we miss this, we will never get Luther! It was in fact Staupitz who actually forced the unwilling Luther (at first) to earn his theological doctorate! So, the answer to your question here, is found within this historical place itself, i.e. again Augustinianism! And of course it began with the Catholic place and version! But with the hand and great influence of Staupitz!
I will write this in.. and send it, in pieces! So as not to loose it! 😉
I too appreciate the reality of contemplative prayer! But as I have learned, it simply must be biblically modeled, and most certainly, (as Luther learned from Staupitz), most close to the Christological centre, i.e. ‘In Christ’! And here of course it is “GOD In Christ”, and Christ is both the “Logos” and the “Rhema”! So we really MUST have our hearts & minds filled, or at least seeking the place of God’s Revelation In Christ! Btw, it was here, that Luther finally saw that Catholicism, (the Papacy) had moved well away from this teaching and reality! i.e. Making the Holy Scripture ALONE the authority! And sadly, this is still the issue! And thus, the Reformational principle still stands! (And “this” keeps me here personally too!)
As to Pope Francis, well he is really a “humanist”, rather than a “Biblicist”, and most certainly is not even close to the Catholic form of Augustinianism! Check-out some of his statements of late, in this theological “genre”… ‘Regenerate Atheists’? He is the worst of the Jesuit’s to my mind, theologically. There have been some very good theological Jesuit’s, as old Joseph Fitzmyer, SJ, who is still with us! (Mid/late 70’s?) And even Ratzinger/Benedict is much closer to Augustine!
Sadly, I am writing very quickly!
It has been my mind and experience that most Roman Catholics hold the position of the Papacy and Infallibility, by faith, and not really much by real theological & biblical authority. And I have debated my share here also! The bottom line is always so-called “Peter” and the Keys. But as we can see in the NT Letters and the Book of Acts, this is simply never an issue!
In the end, historically, we know very little about Saint Peter! Save what he has written in his NT Letters. But yes, Eusebius’s History of the Church is worth reading, but again there is no exact historical certainty here.
And btw, Gal. 2: 11-14, has always been theologically problematic for Roman Catholicism! If anyone appeared to be “the” Apostolic Authority, it was somewhat St. Paul. Note even in 2 Peter, 3: 15-16, his “letters” are considered scripture. But of course The Twelve are all gone now (from this life), and even one of those was never a so-called “Christian” (Judas Iscariot). In the strict sense, there are no Apostles since!
Dear Irene: Luther is not the real issue. Theology is. That includes Papal supremacy, not just as a spokesman but as the ipso facto voice of God on all matters of theological truth. Technically, the magisterium is only an advisory committee. Not only is this blasphemy it defies logic by placing supreme authority in an individual; whereas, scripture declares that the Holy Spirit shall lead and guide you (pl.), not him or her (must be politically correct, you know). John 16:15 Now, as a little test, try and defend indulgences scripturally. You can’t. So, the argument breaks down as far as Roman Catholicism is concerned. As far as Eastern Orthodoxy is concerned, which branch shall we accept. The Ethiopian Coptics with their strange canon, or the Mar Thomas with their twist on thelogy?
Concerning the Eucharist: Many Orthodox Christians do view the Roman Catholic Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ; others today would not subscribe to this. The answer is linked to whether one believes that Roman Catholicism is “with grace” or “devoid of grace.”
Concerning the “grace of the priesthood”: The answer to this is also intimately linked on whether the Orthodox view Roman Catholicism as a body that is “with grace” or “devoid of grace.” Some Orthodox would say that Roman Catholic priests do possess grace; others would say that they do not. And I have encountered still others who would say that, upon conversion to Orthodoxy, the Holy Spirit “heals all that is infirm,” a phrase found in the prayers of ordination and other sacramental prayers of the Orthodox Church. A thorough examination of this question would also require a preliminary discussion on the meaning of “grace,” as the Orthodox definition of grace is quite distinct from “grace” as defined in Roman Catholic circles.
Dear Irene: To continue . . .
Concerning sacramental absolution: Your question here is highly theoretical, inasmuch as one might ask why an Orthodox person would approach a Roman Catholic priest for confession and absolution in the first place. Again, a thorough discussion of this would necessarily involve a survey of the different understanding of Confession held by Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox Church. For example, does one confess to the priest, who personally has the “power” to offer absolution and forgiveness, or does one confess to Christ in the presence of the priest, with the priest proclaiming God’s forgiveness at the conclusion.
Inquiring minds need an answer that doesn’t just blast the Reformation. There must be a substantive rebuttal.
Btw, but just a point, but modernity & postmodernity has really effected all of the historical church, and surely this includes Roman Catholicism! Whatever the eschatological end will be? Surely Satan is alive and well on planet earth, and both the Antichrist and the False Prophet will be seen in much of the visible so-called church, and yes this includes much of Protestantism, so-called! Today this teaching is being assailed by the modern church itself, but the drum-beat is getting louder! (Note 2 Thess. 2) The question is always, “Has God said?”…and always the answer is Yes!
Futhermore, Irene:
Should we Protestants consider the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox as a true church of Jesus Christ? Both appeal to a historical Apostolic succession that supposedly can be traced to the original 12. However, the Apostolic succession of does not guarantee the purity of the teaching of the Church. The priests and scribes of Jesus’ day were also the successors of Moses, Aaron and the prophets. They prided themselves as children of Abraham and as teachers of the Law. Yet they were called children of the Devil because somewhere along the line they had distorted the message of the Scriptures.
The true disciples are those who believe and obey the Word of God. Jesus said: ‘If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples.’ The assemblies of these faithful people are the true churches of Christ. The acid test of any church is the submission to the Word of God. (Adapted from JFC website)
James,
I understand the Catholic Church is full of targets, but this is just too much for me to give you decent answers (if that is what you really want), in the comment thread of someone else’s blog post about the Reformation. Please just pick one question on topic, and I’ll be glad to respond.
Fr Robert and Greg,
I have more to write in response to you, but I have to get some other things done first, so it will probably be tonight before I can concentrate.