Are Two Reformations Better Than None?

[cooterhein]

I'm not looking to be combative with this topic, but it does involve calling the One True nature of Roman Catholicism into question. Hypothetically, at the very least. So I figured it probably belongs on a more debate-oriented thread.

My question has to do with the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Reformation. (Each can go by slightly different names depending on who's talking about it and where they're coming from, but monikers don't really matter as much as what these things are, regardless of what they're called).

As the title says, I'm asking if it's possible to make the argument that two reformations are better than none. And while this could pertain to a hypothetical non-real, like an alternate history where Latin Christianity never had to go through either of these things, what I have in view actually has more to do with a comparison of Roman Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy. And perhaps any of the other ancient apostolic churches that never went through anything comparable to these reformations. (Ethiopian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, anything from the Syriac family).

These sorts of reformations are unique to the Western half of the Roman Empire. No one else has gone through them. At the same time, Roman Catholicism makes the claim that the Roman Church is the One True Church and that the man who sits on the Chair of Peter is the rightful head of all Christianity on the planet.

I do have some idea of how this works. I know that Catholics on this forum will believe in and argue for the supremacy of the pope and you'll continue to believe the Roman Church is the One True Church. My question is this.

As stated initially, Are two reformations better than one? Can you use the unique presence of these reformations in your history in order to help your argument for your church's unique supremacy?

Or- the alternative- is it more the case that you have to make that argument [b]in spite of[/b] these two reformations?

I'm not suggesting that the presence vs. the absence of reformations is a way to infallibly know if a church is One/True or not. There are a lot of factors that go into such an assessment, and this type of thing seems to be moderately relevant at best. It may contribute to some kind of preponderance of evidence in one direction or another. I know that it's not something that will change anyone's mind in either direction.

What I'd like to know, though, is whether or not it's possible for you Catholics to put these unique events to good use in advancing the One/True argument on your own behalf.

Can you?

I know you're going to argue that the Roman Church is the One True Holy Apostolic Supreme Church. I'm reasonably familiar with most of the arguments for and against that.

Before you get right into it, though, please answer the initial question.

Are two reformations better than one, in the sense that they can help you with your argument?

If you make the argument [b]in spite of[/b] the reformations and you can't make the argument because of them, [b]please say so.[/b] Don't just bypass the issue because it's of no use to you- if it comes to that, [b]please indicate that these reformations are of no use to you in making the argument[/b] and proceed from there.

Thanks everybody.

[AudreyGrace]

Hey cooterhein, and welcome to phatmass!

In my opinion, I would say yes, the two reformations absolutely contribute to Roman Catholicism's "One, True" nature. When looking at the grand scheme of things, you can generalize that through the Counter Reformation, the Catholic Church "fixed" some things that needed to be fixed. Even with our human errors, we have remained strong as a large, growing, living Church. We have stood the test of time, remained standing through the scandals, controversies, dissents, schisms, and coming out stronger each and every time. Because the Church learns from its past mistakes and continues to grow and adhere to the teachings of Christ and his apostles, it is a living, breathing, real Church. I guess a good phrase that can relate to the Church is "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger." As a Roman Catholic, I am faithful and assured that whatever the storm, the Church will come out alive and strong. That is how I personally know that it is the One, True Church.


Also, something that popped in my mind in regards to the Church's ultimate authenticity is (and I don't know how else to put it, so I'll just say it) Satan. Satan's main goal is to tear souls away from Christ and away from the Truth. In John 16:11, Jesus refers to Satan as "the prince of this world." It seems to me no surprise that the Catholic Church is constantly under attack by the world. Although schools, scout groups, sports programs, Protestant and non-denominational Christian churches have higher sexual abuse rates, Catholics are the only ones heard about in the worldly media. The Catholic Church is ridiculed for adhering to a no birth control policy, yet there is little to no outcry about a social class system with suffering poor in Hinduism. It is totally acceptable in the world for TV shows, musicians, and artists to get away with mocking the Church, offending the faithful, and blaspheming what we consider to be holy, yet it's a huge "no no" and politically incorrect to offend the Muslim faith in any way. In Baghdad and other parts of the Middle East, Catholics are being persecuted and murdered, Churches are being blown up and massacres occurring, yet we never hear about it in the liberal news. Satanic rituals are mockeries of the Roman Catholic Mass (not a Protestant service), and often consist of desecrating a consecrated host, because Satanists are able to recognize and feel hate for what they know is truly Jesus in the Eucharist. These are just a few examples of how Satan and his "world" constantly attack the Roman Catholic Church. He doesn't waste his time attacking many other religious establishments, because even he knows that we are the One, True Church and his main objective is to tear people away from that Truth.

Sorry I went on a bit of a rant, but it was how I could best describe in my own heart how I know the Catholic Church is the one, true Christian Church.

Edited May 29, 2011 by AudreyGrace

[Groo the Wanderer]

+1 bajillion Aud

[havok579257]

for all the good the catholic reformation did, the protestant reformation lead and currently leads SO MANY away from the one true christian church. i really can't see the protestant reformation as good. to many christians were/are lead away from the one true christian church and are now only receiving SOME of the truth of the lord. this is not good.

[CatherineM]

The Protestant Reformation wasn't a reformation of the Church. It was an abandonment of the faith that had been in place for 1500 years.

[Amppax]

Two thoughts on this: 1) the Counter Reformation was a good thing for the Church, it led to some very necessary reforms 2)The Protestant Reformation wasn't, as it lead people away. That being said, I would tend to believe that the Catholic Church would have reformed whether or not the Protestant Reformation happened, thus from a standpoint of whether it proves our point that we are the One True Church, I don't really think that two reformation's says anything one way or the other, I would say that it more reveals the activity of the Devil, trying to confuse people and lead them away from Christ. This is not to say that Protestant Church's are Satanic, but i would say anything that leads away from Christian Unity (in the One, True Church) would be a sign of the Devil's activity, and opposition to Christ. From that perspective, I would personally think that both would show the point.

Basically, my point is that the Counter Reformation shows the Church's ability to auto-correct for the human error (thus imo proving the Church to be divinely inspired). The Protestant Reformation shows that the Devil attacks Christians, and tries to drive us apart. Also, it shows the ability of the Church to survive such an attack. Not only did the Catholic Church survive the reformation, it is still the largest christian denomination in the world (and bigger, i believe, then all other christian groups put together). Those would be my basic thoughts on this, I really haven't given it much thought.

[AudreyGrace]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1306731738' post='2247590']
Basically, my point is that the Counter Reformation shows the Church's ability to auto-correct for the human error (thus imo proving the Church to be divinely inspired). The Protestant Reformation shows that the Devil attacks Christians, and tries to drive us apart. Also, it shows the ability of the Church to survive such an attack. Not only did the Catholic Church survive the reformation, it is still the largest christian denomination in the world (and bigger, i believe, then all other christian groups put together). Those would be my basic thoughts on this, I really haven't given it much thought.
[/quote]

[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/clap2.gif[/img]

[Don John of Austria]

this implies that there have only been 2.

What about all of the Reformations during the Middle Ages?

It also assumes that the reforms of the Counter Reformation would not have occured without the shattering of Christendom, there is absolutly no reason to believe that.



So to answer your question-- ending curruption and defining Theology is good, and have been done many times. The violent break withthe Church by the Protestant Reformers was bad, and a terrible thing.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1306875933' post='2248331']
this implies that there have only been 2.

What about all of the Reformations during the Middle Ages?

It also assumes that the reforms of the Counter Reformation would not have occured without the shattering of Christendom, there is absolutly no reason to believe that.



So to answer your question-- ending curruption and defining Theology is good, and have been done many times. The violent break withthe Church by the Protestant Reformers was bad, and a terrible thing.
[/quote]

this!