If the Reformation was about restoring the church, why was the church "restored" so fragmented and at odds? More and more new and competing teachings have come from the Reformation. That kind of confusion doesn't seem to me like something that would be of God.
The ecumenical drive to repair relationships with Rome only seemed to start with the Second Vatican Council from my understanding. Only from that point was Rome interested in sitting down at the table to talk with protestant groups and resolve issues on justification, the eucharist, holy orders etc and to talk with the Orthodox on the filioque. I long for unity and am saddened it's taken this long and still not fully here. But I am heartened that discussions are happening and progress is being made. With regards to 'new teachings', I'll just say a quick word. With decentralized government (Protestants), the downside is it's harder to keep people on the same page and therefore you have more differences since you can't enforce one standard. Whereas with a centralized government (Roman Catholicism) its easier to keep everyone on the same page but the downside is its harder to fix institutional corruption. So at the time of Protestant reformation, you had to choose between letting widespread corruption go unchecked or the downside of a vast array of different beliefs on secondary matters. Within Protestantism, we believe that as long as we're united by a core (like the ecumenical creeds) we can still be one, walking together in unity, besides differences in secondary matters that aren't core to the faith.
@TheologyJeremy But what are secondary matters? Is whether or not salvation can be lost secondary, for instance? Because that seems critical. If it's wrong that you can't lose your salvation, the people teaching it are potentially damning people. That's the most pressing one that I see debated fairly often that seems like a super critical doctrine. I understand that the lack of centralization means conflicting and sometimes bad ideas can develop with no way to formally check them and that all protestant groups can't really be held accountable for what another does. That's just the nature of the beast. But that chaotic nature is exactly what feels so contrary to something God would want for His Church. I can't see the reformation as being something that God would want largely for that reason. Why would God want His one church to be fragmented into several that are often irreconcilable with one another and can't even truly be governed because they're each governing their own thing? That's just unrecognizable from the established church at this point.
@@owlintrenchcoat I think the best standard for 'essential' doctrine is the Nicene Creed. It's ancient, historical, and affirmed by all three branches of Christianity (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant). It has been a historical unifying point for us as Christ's church and should be more as we seek to become more united. I don't call any doctrines essential for belief that aren't part of the creed(s). I talk more about that starting at 4:56 of this video: th-cam.com/video/hxFzsF_KVBo/w-d-xo.htmlsi=UpFu8ENXX8do7M9q&t=296
First, that's disgusting and slanderous. Second Pope Francis celebrated Reformation Day with Lutherans in 2016. Why is the head of your denomination celebrating this "Pride Day"?
@@TheologyJeremy Taking part in an Ecumenical event doesn't mean he vouches for what the Protestant Revolution was mostly about: conflating corruption inside the Church with doctrinal fallibility, fueled with a big desire of building ones one Church and becoming its leader. Not to mention all the political gain from European princes stealing Church's property. Pope Francis has to bring the flock back not to his "denomination", but to the One True Catholic Church founded by Christ. Being confrontational on his case doesn't do any good.
It is a divorce party. I’m Protestant but the split was not. Triumph and shouldn’t be looked on as such. We failed to reconcile and schismed. That’s not a good thing.
Vernacular bibles were already out there centuries before the reformation...the printing press which coincided with the reformation made the bible more feasible for personal use, not the reformation. Anyone who was literate was welcome to read scripture but bibles were chained to pulpits because they were priceless and irreplaceable due to the manual process of making copies. This is one of the biggest misconceptions of the reformation. Tyndale was executed by the state for heresy, NOT for translating the bible into English (which already had been translated in small numbers again because of the time and cost) and by a future "reformer" henry viii who switched after executing tyndale in rebellious disobedience to the Church to satisfy his selfish desire to divorce and remarry and head his own schism. I am a former protestant myself and my whole family is still mostly protestant but this is one of those oft repeated misconceptions that just doesn't stand up to historical scrutiny. No one should have broken away as the church addressed most of Luthers (and others) points in future councils within less than a century. Even today Catholics disagree over unsettled issues but there is room in the church to allow each other grace and trust the Holy Spirit to guide his Church, without splintering off and church shopping or starting our own P.s. illiteracy was the norm still so if you were fortunate enough to learn to read, Latin was more emphasized since the preponderance of reading material ( not just the bible) was latin
Thanks for watching and responding from a catholic perspective, Aaron. I just want to focus in and respond to one of your comments which I believe is most central. You said: "No one should have broken away as the church addressed most of Luther's (and others) points in future councils within less than a century." 1) Luther didn't break away. He was unjustly excommunicated. The initial Protestant Reformation had no desire for schism. The charge of schism belongs to the one clearly in the wrong who refuses to repent. 2) We can't base decisions based on future actions. You only know what you know with the benefit of hindsight. But you can't make actions in the moment because of it. For example, you don't just live through the Holocaust and say, if I don't say something, there's a chance within a generation they'll stop doing this. Out of love for the people suffering now you stand up to egregious abuse. 3) There's an extreme likelihood that Rome wouldn't have reformed itself had it not been for the Protestant Reformation. The council of Trent was clearly in response to the reformation so they were forced to act. With no pressure, the status quo likely would have just continued.
I belong to the original church founded by Jesus Christ and succeeded by all the Apostles, including Peter who Jesus gave the keys to bind and loose. We abide by Jesus's call to UNITY. Why do Protestants have so much schism? More importantly, why do they promote schism as though it was a fundamental article of faith? The word "devil" comes from the Greek "diabolos" and can be translated as 'to divide' or "to throw against". Those who follow the will of God will seek to unify His Church.
As a protestant, I whole heartedly agree that schism is a sin. It's nothing to be proud of and wherever it exists we should seek to repair it whenever there is repentance. I'm also part of the only holy catholic and apostolic church founded by Jesus (obviously, along with the Orthodox, dispute the claim that only those under the papacy are part of the one catholic church).
@@TheologyJeremy Based. Rome broke from us, not us from them. I would be Roman Catholic today if the forefather's of the reformation were taken seriously.
The Reformation literally only happened because the Catholic leadership told people like Martin Luther to pretty much "get f[bleep]d" in response to trying to address and voice complaints about legitimate problems like corruption within the Church. Protestants were _not_ the ones that started the schism. That all being said, if you adhere to the Nicene Creed, I generally wouldn't have a problem with you.
@@TheologyJeremy I always find it so fascinating when Protestants claim to stand alongside the Orthodox when any Orthodox prelate will flatly reject such comparisons and condemn you as heretics. But I pray every day not only for a reunion between Orthodox and Catholics despite our minor differences, and not only a reunion with Protestants despite our major differences, but also a union with all of God's people around the world in the spirit of John 17. God be with you.
I can't speak for the other reformers, but Luther wanted a conversation with Rome to change and go back to what he considered Biblical and Historical Christianity. He was excommunicated as a heretic, he didn't leave.
If it is by grace alone, then would faith not be their. If it is by faith alone, then would there be no place for grace. Catholics are not Christians, neither are the reformers, they are nothing more then catholics differed. Roman catholicism is mystery babylon according to the word of God, the King James Bible. All things created by her, whither the thousands of denominations, islam or mormonism, are her daughters. For she is called mystery babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth. Her ways are the way to destruction, and her home is hell, all that go in unto her and turn not again will go there.
You don’t understand Catholicism or Catholic doctrine. Some Confessional Lutherans and the Catholic Church signed a joint statement on justification. Faith by works was never taught by Rome and has been condemned by Rome for centuries. Selling indulgences was illegal and cracked down on following Luther raising the issue.
![⭐️( ลอยกระทง 2024 ) Ver. แดนซ์ Remix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/rMWOLhgXUHc/mqdefault.jpg)
I am counting down the days till October 31st 🥳
If the Reformation was about restoring the church, why was the church "restored" so fragmented and at odds? More and more new and competing teachings have come from the Reformation. That kind of confusion doesn't seem to me like something that would be of God.
The ecumenical drive to repair relationships with Rome only seemed to start with the Second Vatican Council from my understanding. Only from that point was Rome interested in sitting down at the table to talk with protestant groups and resolve issues on justification, the eucharist, holy orders etc and to talk with the Orthodox on the filioque.
I long for unity and am saddened it's taken this long and still not fully here. But I am heartened that discussions are happening and progress is being made.
With regards to 'new teachings', I'll just say a quick word. With decentralized government (Protestants), the downside is it's harder to keep people on the same page and therefore you have more differences since you can't enforce one standard. Whereas with a centralized government (Roman Catholicism) its easier to keep everyone on the same page but the downside is its harder to fix institutional corruption. So at the time of Protestant reformation, you had to choose between letting widespread corruption go unchecked or the downside of a vast array of different beliefs on secondary matters.
Within Protestantism, we believe that as long as we're united by a core (like the ecumenical creeds) we can still be one, walking together in unity, besides differences in secondary matters that aren't core to the faith.
@TheologyJeremy But what are secondary matters? Is whether or not salvation can be lost secondary, for instance? Because that seems critical. If it's wrong that you can't lose your salvation, the people teaching it are potentially damning people. That's the most pressing one that I see debated fairly often that seems like a super critical doctrine.
I understand that the lack of centralization means conflicting and sometimes bad ideas can develop with no way to formally check them and that all protestant groups can't really be held accountable for what another does. That's just the nature of the beast. But that chaotic nature is exactly what feels so contrary to something God would want for His Church. I can't see the reformation as being something that God would want largely for that reason. Why would God want His one church to be fragmented into several that are often irreconcilable with one another and can't even truly be governed because they're each governing their own thing? That's just unrecognizable from the established church at this point.
@@owlintrenchcoat I think the best standard for 'essential' doctrine is the Nicene Creed. It's ancient, historical, and affirmed by all three branches of Christianity (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant). It has been a historical unifying point for us as Christ's church and should be more as we seek to become more united. I don't call any doctrines essential for belief that aren't part of the creed(s).
I talk more about that starting at 4:56 of this video: th-cam.com/video/hxFzsF_KVBo/w-d-xo.htmlsi=UpFu8ENXX8do7M9q&t=296
Protestant Pride Day 🏳🌈. Celebrate your pride!
First, that's disgusting and slanderous.
Second Pope Francis celebrated Reformation Day with Lutherans in 2016. Why is the head of your denomination celebrating this "Pride Day"?
@@TheologyJeremy Taking part in an Ecumenical event doesn't mean he vouches for what the Protestant Revolution was mostly about: conflating corruption inside the Church with doctrinal fallibility, fueled with a big desire of building ones one Church and becoming its leader. Not to mention all the political gain from European princes stealing Church's property.
Pope Francis has to bring the flock back not to his "denomination", but to the One True Catholic Church founded by Christ. Being confrontational on his case doesn't do any good.
As a Protestant I’m just gonna celebrate Halloween and All Saints Day. I don’t want to celebrate divorce.
It is a divorce party. I’m Protestant but the split was not. Triumph and shouldn’t be looked on as such. We failed to reconcile and schismed. That’s not a good thing.
Vernacular bibles were already out there centuries before the reformation...the printing press which coincided with the reformation made the bible more feasible for personal use, not the reformation. Anyone who was literate was welcome to read scripture but bibles were chained to pulpits because they were priceless and irreplaceable due to the manual process of making copies. This is one of the biggest misconceptions of the reformation. Tyndale was executed by the state for heresy, NOT for translating the bible into English (which already had been translated in small numbers again because of the time and cost) and by a future "reformer" henry viii who switched after executing tyndale in rebellious disobedience to the Church to satisfy his selfish desire to divorce and remarry and head his own schism. I am a former protestant myself and my whole family is still mostly protestant but this is one of those oft repeated misconceptions that just doesn't stand up to historical scrutiny. No one should have broken away as the church addressed most of Luthers (and others) points in future councils within less than a century. Even today Catholics disagree over unsettled issues but there is room in the church to allow each other grace and trust the Holy Spirit to guide his Church, without splintering off and church shopping or starting our own
P.s. illiteracy was the norm still so if you were fortunate enough to learn to read, Latin was more emphasized since the preponderance of reading material ( not just the bible) was latin
Thanks for watching and responding from a catholic perspective, Aaron. I just want to focus in and respond to one of your comments which I believe is most central.
You said: "No one should have broken away as the church addressed most of Luther's (and others) points in future councils within less than a century."
1) Luther didn't break away. He was unjustly excommunicated. The initial Protestant Reformation had no desire for schism. The charge of schism belongs to the one clearly in the wrong who refuses to repent.
2) We can't base decisions based on future actions. You only know what you know with the benefit of hindsight. But you can't make actions in the moment because of it. For example, you don't just live through the Holocaust and say, if I don't say something, there's a chance within a generation they'll stop doing this. Out of love for the people suffering now you stand up to egregious abuse.
3) There's an extreme likelihood that Rome wouldn't have reformed itself had it not been for the Protestant Reformation. The council of Trent was clearly in response to the reformation so they were forced to act. With no pressure, the status quo likely would have just continued.
@@TheologyJeremy thank you for the charitable response
I belong to the original church founded by Jesus Christ and succeeded by all the Apostles, including Peter who Jesus gave the keys to bind and loose. We abide by Jesus's call to UNITY.
Why do Protestants have so much schism? More importantly, why do they promote schism as though it was a fundamental article of faith? The word "devil" comes from the Greek "diabolos" and can be translated as 'to divide' or "to throw against".
Those who follow the will of God will seek to unify His Church.
As a protestant, I whole heartedly agree that schism is a sin. It's nothing to be proud of and wherever it exists we should seek to repair it whenever there is repentance.
I'm also part of the only holy catholic and apostolic church founded by Jesus (obviously, along with the Orthodox, dispute the claim that only those under the papacy are part of the one catholic church).
Oh, so you are an Orthodox Christian?
@@TheologyJeremy Based. Rome broke from us, not us from them. I would be Roman Catholic today if the forefather's of the reformation were taken seriously.
The Reformation literally only happened because the Catholic leadership told people like Martin Luther to pretty much "get f[bleep]d" in response to trying to address and voice complaints about legitimate problems like corruption within the Church. Protestants were _not_ the ones that started the schism.
That all being said, if you adhere to the Nicene Creed, I generally wouldn't have a problem with you.
@@TheologyJeremy I always find it so fascinating when Protestants claim to stand alongside the Orthodox when any Orthodox prelate will flatly reject such comparisons and condemn you as heretics. But I pray every day not only for a reunion between Orthodox and Catholics despite our minor differences, and not only a reunion with Protestants despite our major differences, but also a union with all of God's people around the world in the spirit of John 17. God be with you.
Good video.
Walsh is right. Annoying + right.
I can't speak for the other reformers, but Luther wanted a conversation with Rome to change and go back to what he considered Biblical and Historical Christianity. He was excommunicated as a heretic, he didn't leave.
If it is by grace alone, then would faith not be their. If it is by faith alone, then would there be no place for grace.
Catholics are not Christians, neither are the reformers, they are nothing more then catholics differed.
Roman catholicism is mystery babylon according to the word of God, the King James Bible. All things created by her, whither the thousands of denominations, islam or mormonism, are her daughters.
For she is called mystery babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth. Her ways are the way to destruction, and her home is hell, all that go in unto her and turn not again will go there.
ok jack chick
You don’t understand Catholicism or Catholic doctrine. Some Confessional Lutherans and the Catholic Church signed a joint statement on justification. Faith by works was never taught by Rome and has been condemned by Rome for centuries. Selling indulgences was illegal and cracked down on following Luther raising the issue.