Did the Reformation start the decline of Christianity's influence?

[One Bad Pig]

An interesting point was brought up here:

The decline of Christianity's influence is the problem but that started before (and would have continued without) Darwinian evolution. I would even venture to say that it can be taced back to *gasp* the Reformation. But that is the topic of another thread entirely.

I would venture to say that it began long before that, when church offices began to be bought and sold. The Reformation (and Counter-Reformation), if anything, helped to renew Christianity's influence even as it weakened its political clout.

[Constantine]

At the time just before the Reformation there were some abuses going on like the selling of indulgences and such. But all of those could have been fixed through internal reforms, and they all were fixed this way during the Counter-reformation.

The Protestant Reformation started the decline of Christianity because it denied the existence of objective religious truth, or atleast a way of finding it.

According to Luther, every man was his own clergy. Biblical interpretation now fell to the individual and no one had any more authority than the next guy. How could there ever be unity with that kind of thinking?

The Catholic Church has the authority to interpret Scripture given to it when Jesus gave the keys of the Kingdom to St. Peter, our first Pope (at the time called Bishop of Rome). With the Magestarium of the Church interpreting Scripture Christianity was unified for 1,500 years. All Christians recognised that once the Church spoke on something that it was the one and only authority on Scriptural issues.

But if everyone can be their own Magestarium then everyone will interpret the Bible as they please. Christianity then became a tool of the state in Europe and was twisted and abused in everyway imaginable with now thousands of Protestant sects running around all spouting their own "true" view of Christianity. The idea of objective religious truth was now replaced with personal subjective views based on the individual's opinion about the Bible. This of course would lead to religious (and later moral) relativism and an inconsistent Protestant theology easily picked apart by liberal intellectuals in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Christendom was shattered by Luthers revolt against objective religious truth.

[George Murphy]

At the time just before the Reformation there were some abuses going on like the selling of indulgences and such. But all of those could have been fixed through internal reforms, and they all were fixed this way during the Counter-reformation.

The Protestant Reformation started the decline of Christianity because it denied the existence of objective religious truth, or atleast a way of finding it.

According to Luther, every man was his own clergy. Biblical interpretation now fell to the individual and no one had any more authority than the next guy. How could there ever be unity with that kind of thinking?

The Catholic Church has the authority to interpret Scripture given to it when Jesus gave the keys of the Kingdom to St. Peter, our first Pope (at the time called Bishop of Rome). With the Magestarium of the Church interpreting Scripture Christianity was unified for 1,500 years. All Christians recognised that once the Church spoke on something that it was the one and only authority on Scriptural issues.

But if everyone can be their own Magestarium then everyone will interpret the Bible as they please. Christianity then became a tool of the state in Europe and was twisted and abused in everyway imaginable with now thousands of Protestant sects running around all spouting their own "true" view of Christianity. The idea of objective religious truth was now replaced with personal subjective views based on the individual's opinion about the Bible. This of course would lead to religious (and later moral) relativism and an inconsistent Protestant theology easily picked apart by liberal intellectuals in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Christendom was shattered by Luthers revolt against objective religious truth.

This shows, inter alia, that you know nothing about Luther.

Shalom,
George

[Constantine]

This shows, inter alia, that you know nothing about Luther.

Am I wrong that he denied the Church's authority for interpreting Scripture or did he never say that every man is his own priest?

I know that Luther's intent was not to destroy objectivity in the search for religious truth. But the end result of any reasoning that denies the Church's Authority is the same.

[Jude3b]

At the time just before the Reformation there were some abuses going on like the selling of indulgences and such. But all of those could have been fixed through internal reforms, and they all were fixed this way during the Counter-reformation.

The Protestant Reformation started the decline of Christianity because it denied the existence of objective religious truth, or atleast a way of finding it.

According to Luther, every man was his own clergy. Biblical interpretation now fell to the individual and no one had any more authority than the next guy. How could there ever be unity with that kind of thinking?

The Catholic Church has the authority to interpret Scripture given to it when Jesus gave the keys of the Kingdom to St. Peter, our first Pope (at the time called Bishop of Rome). With the Magestarium of the Church interpreting Scripture Christianity was unified for 1,500 years. All Christians recognised that once the Church spoke on something that it was the one and only authority on Scriptural issues.

But if everyone can be their own Magestarium then everyone will interpret the Bible as they please. Christianity then became a tool of the state in Europe and was twisted and abused in everyway imaginable with now thousands of Protestant sects running around all spouting their own "true" view of Christianity. The idea of objective religious truth was now replaced with personal subjective views based on the individual's opinion about the Bible. This of course would lead to religious (and later moral) relativism and an inconsistent Protestant theology easily picked apart by liberal intellectuals in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Christendom was shattered by Luthers revolt against objective religious truth.

THE REFORMATION STARTED THE RESTORATION OF TRUE CHRISTIANITY!!!

The Religion of Roman Catholicism did not exist until 270 A.D. and did not become an official religion until 312 A.D. - contrary to the false history taught by Romanism.

Christ established HIS Church - the church of God - the body of Christ (Matt. 16:18, Eph. 2:20), not Roman Catholicism. Romanism was the result of the "falling away" or the "apostasy" and it is a false cult that came out of the church of God - the body of Christ.

The Reformation is a good start on all Christians getting back to the purity of the Apostolic chuch of God - the body of Christ.

If Roman Catholicism ever truly returns to the Bible standard - it will cease to be Roman Catholic - and will have returned to its roots - the church of God, the body of Christ. Amen.

[George Murphy]

Am I wrong that he denied the Church's authority for interpreting Scripture or did he never say that every man is his own priest?

I know that Luther's intent was not to destroy objectivity in the search for religious truth. But the end result of any reasoning that denies the Church's Authority is the same.

What have you actually read of Luther's?

Shalom,
George

[Constantine]

The Religion of Roman Catholicism did not exist until 270 A.D. and did not become an official religion until 312 A.D. - contrary to the false history taught by Romanism.

Roman Catholicism started with the 12 Apostles.

What have you actually read of Luther's?

Most recently I have read "Concerning Christian Liberty". In part II, "Begining of the Treatise" Luther definately states that all Christians are equal in authority to Clergy. Thus each Christian is his own Magestarium, which is the central part of my arguement.

To back this up I present:

"Nor are we only kings and the freest of all men, but also priests for ever, a dignity far higher than kingship, because by that priesthood we are worthy to appear before God, to pray for others, and to teach one another mutually the things which are of God. For these are the duties of priests, and they cannot possibly be permitted to any unbeliever. Christ has obtained for us this favour, if we believe in Him"
(Concerning Christian Liberty: Beginning of the Treatise)

[Jezz]

At the time just before the Reformation there were some abuses going on like the selling of indulgences and such. But all of those could have been fixed through internal reforms, and they all were fixed this way during the Counter-reformation.

Indulgences are still an official part of Roman Church law (see here).

The Protestant Reformation started the decline of Christianity because it denied the existence of objective religious truth, or atleast a way of finding it.

The decline of Western Christianity began a long time before that. It began when the Frankish Carolingian dynasty decided they wanted to be Holy Roman Emporers, and used the papacy as their puppet to get the filioque inserted into the Creed and to try to assert papal authority over the East - leading to the East-West schism.

According to Luther, every man was his own clergy. Biblical interpretation now fell to the individual and no one had any more authority than the next guy. How could there ever be unity with that kind of thinking?

There won't be. The Roman church, on the other hand, may be unified, but is uniform error anything to brag about?

The Catholic Church has the authority to interpret Scripture given to it when Jesus gave the keys of the Kingdom to St. Peter, our first Pope (at the time called Bishop of Rome).

Interesting. So why is the Patriarch of Antioch not the ruler of Christendom? After all, St Peter was the first bishop of Antioch, and he was bishop of Antioch before he was bishop of Rome.

With the Magestarium of the Church interpreting Scripture Christianity was unified for 1,500 years.

Ahem. Unified? Aren't you forgetting the Assyrians? The Monophysites? The Eastern Orthodox? I'd wager that the split of 1054 was a bigger split (percentage-wise) than the Reformation was.

All Christians recognised that once the Church spoke on something that it was the one and only authority on Scriptural issues.

The problem was that it was not an authority that the Roman Church actually possessed.

But if everyone can be their own Magestarium then everyone will interpret the Bible as they please. Christianity then became a tool of the state in Europe and was twisted and abused in everyway imaginable with now thousands of Protestant sects running around all spouting their own "true" view of Christianity. The idea of objective religious truth was now replaced with personal subjective views based on the individual's opinion about the Bible. This of course would lead to religious (and later moral) relativism and an inconsistent Protestant theology easily picked apart by liberal intellectuals in the 18th and 19th centuries.

You won't get an argument from me there. But having the authority of Biblical interpretation vested in the hands of a privileged minority isn't any better. Instead of individualism it leads to authoritarianism and the sorts of doctrinal innovations and abuses such as those that led to the Reformation. Biblical interpretation properly belongs to the whole Church - not to individuals, and not to a privileged elite.

It's all very well for you to come in here and polemically point fingers at Luther and the Protestants. But if it weren't for the prior excesses of the papacy in the Roman Church, it never would have come to that in the first place. Christendom would still be largely undivided today.

Christendom was shattered by Luthers revolt against objective religious truth.

Christendom was shattered by power hungry popes about 5 centuries before Luther was even born. If the popes at the turn of the first millenium hadn't been so power-hungry, then there would have been no need for a reformation.

[George Murphy]

Roman Catholicism started with the 12 Apostles.



Most recently I have read "Concerning Christian Liberty". In part II, "Begining of the Treatise" Luther definately states that all Christians are equal in authority to Clergy. Thus each Christian is his own Magestarium, which is the central part of my arguement.

To back this up I present:

"Nor are we only kings and the freest of all men, but also priests for ever, a dignity far higher than kingship, because by that priesthood we are worthy to appear before God, to pray for others, and to teach one another mutually the things which are of God. For these are the duties of priests, and they cannot possibly be permitted to any unbeliever. Christ has obtained for us this favour, if we believe in Him"
(Concerning Christian Liberty: Beginning of the Treatise)

& presumably you are aware that the language about Christians being priests and kings is taken from I Pet.2:9. What Luther is speaking about here is the concept of the priesthood of all believers, which you can also find discussed (positively) in Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Chapter 2.

Of course Vatican II did not mean that "the common priesthood of the faithful" obviates the need for "the ministerial priesthood." Nor, for Luther, does the priesthood of all believers obviate the need for the pastoral office.
Cf. Article 14 of the Augsburg Confession, which says that "nobody should publicaly teach or preach or administer the sacraments without a regular call."

Thus it is wrong to say, as you did, "According to Luther, every man was his own clergy." In addition, it is wrong to say (again quoting you) " Biblical interpretation now fell to the individual and no one had any more authority than the next guy." Luther began the activities which resulted in the Reformation as a Doctor of Theology, which meant, inter alia, that he was called by the church to teach theology. He didn't think that the opinion of Joe Schmoe on the street had the same authority that he did!

By pointing out the similarities here I don't mean to suggest that there are no significant differences here between Luther's views and those of Vatican II. But they are not as radically different as you are suggesting. Luther was not saying that any Christian can just set him or herself up as the final authority.
Note, in fact, that in the passage you cite he is speaking of mutual responsibilities that Christians have for one another.

There are certainly aspects of Luther's thought that I expect intelligent modern RCs to disagree with. There are things that I, as a Lutheran, disagree with. In some ways I think that during the course of his life Luther was driven to greater distance from Rome than was necessary because of the intransigence of a church that - as I think all competent church historians now recognize - was badly in need of reform. (Remember that Trent didn't start until just 2 months before Luther's death.) But while Luther & Lutherans
have to take some responsibility for subsequent divisions & decline of the church catholic, it's far too simplistic to say "It's all Luther's fault."

I'm glad that you're reading Luther. "On Christian Liberty" is one of his better short writings. Please try to read without trying to force Luther into some preconceived idea of what he said.

I'll be out of touch for the next few days.

Shalom,
George

[Solly]

I would have pointed to the Renaissance as the cause of all the ills. Since then the church has been on the defensive, esp as the Enlightenment came along. whatever ills there were in the RCC, they occured within an encompassing worldview that managed to take on board Plato and Aristotle, and even the Islamic invasions. However, the Renaissance humanism was the real challenge, the genie was out of the bottle with that one. I obviously speak from a eurocentric position, since the EO weren't really challenged until communism popped up, although they had to face other invasions etc.

[Constantine]

ndulgences are still an official part of Roman Church law

Right. But the abuse part came when some in the Church began selling them.

Interesting. So why is the Patriarch of Antioch not the ruler of Christendom? After all, St Peter was the first bishop of Antioch, and he was bishop of Antioch before he was bishop of Rome.

Because Peter's successors were the Bishops of Rome not Antioch. Nice try though.

Ahem. Unified? Aren't you forgetting the Assyrians? The Monophysites? The Eastern Orthodox? I'd wager that the split of 1054 was a bigger split (percentage-wise) than the Reformation was.

The first two were dealt with rather quickly (considering the time) and the third may not be unfixable. The Eastern Orthodox Church also kept all the Sacraments and their clergy are still in the Apostolic line of succession (thus their Masses are still legitimate) and have some central authority for interpreting Scripture, unlike Protestants. The only Sacraments in the Protestant church is Baptism and probably Marriage. I don't see Eastern Orthodox Christians as all that different from Roman Catholics, and their influence in the West against the Roman Catholic Church was limited.

The problem was that it was not an authority that the Roman Church actually possessed.

That is a debate beyond the scope of this thread. However, as an Eastern Orthodox you may agree with me that it was the Reformation that marked the beginning of the decline atleast in the Western world. Their theology is just as different to you as it is to me. Yet our views on Salvation and other Doctrines are almost the same with few exceptions.. Or maybe I am presuming too much.

ut if it weren't for the prior excesses of the papacy in the Roman Church, it never would have come to that in the first place. Christendom would still be largely undivided today.

Can't really disagree with you there. There was corruption in the Church that fermented the feelings which helped the spread of the Reformation. But I think the Protestants threw out the baby with the bath water. Refrom was needed and did happen within the Church, but a Reformation was not needed.

Thus it is wrong to say, as you did, "According to Luther, every man was his own clergy." In addition, it is wrong to say (again quoting you) " Biblical interpretation now fell to the individual and no one had any more authority than the next guy." Luther began the activities which resulted in the Reformation as a Doctor of Theology, which meant, inter alia, that he was called by the church to teach theology. He didn't think that the opinion of Joe Schmoe on the street had the same authority that he did!

You are right. On further reflection I believe that my statement was in error, I apologize as that is entirely my fault.

But my main arguement still holds. Luther did reject any particular centralized authority for interpreting Scripture. Thus with no central authority you get the same result of inconsistent theology and no real means of finding objective religious truth. So all those unpleasent efffects like the state using Christianity and endless splintering can still be traced back to the Reformation.

I am sure that Luther meant well and did not intend for the theological mess we now have with denomination after denomination. But his initial break from Rome's authority started it all.

Back on topic. Was the Refromation the beginning of the decline atleast in Western society? Historically it certainly looks that way.

[One Bad Pig]

I would have pointed to the Renaissance as the cause of all the ills. Since then the church has been on the defensive, esp as the Enlightenment came along. whatever ills there were in the RCC, they occured within an encompassing worldview that managed to take on board Plato and Aristotle, and even the Islamic invasions. However, the Renaissance humanism was the real challenge, the genie was out of the bottle with that one. I obviously speak from a eurocentric position, since the EO weren't really challenged until communism popped up, although they had to face other invasions etc.

I thought the EO bore the brunt of the Islamic invasions, as Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Byzantium were all EO cities before Islam. They also had to endure the Crusades, which weren't their idea in the first place, and bear the brunt of the counter-attack.

When the RCC got involved in politics, it began to lose its moral authority, although it was still given lip service. Humanism did away with the lip service, but IMO its moral authority had long since gone.

[Jude3b]

Roman Catholicism did not start until about 270 A.D. and was not an official religion until 312 A.D.

One poster stated that Roman Catholicism started with the Apostles. Please show your Bblical proof.

[One Bad Pig]

Roman Catholicism did not start until about 270 A.D. and was not an official religion until 312 A.D.

One poster stated that Roman Catholicism started with the Apostles. Please show your Bblical proof.

Let's not turn this into an anti-RC thread, okay? I'd like it to stick to the topic in the OP.

[Jude3b]

Let's not turn this into an anti-RC thread, okay? I'd like it to stick to the topic in the OP.

Well then, don't bash the true church of God - by stating false information about the origin of God's church - the body of Christ.