The Protastant Reformation Weakened the Christian Church

General Response to Con's Argument: The con purposes that the Protestant reformation strengthened Christianity by exposing the faults in the Catholic Church, and eventually separating entirely from the Church. I agree that the Protestant Reformation and its leaders largely proved to be honest critics; and spurned some positive change in Christianity as a whole. However, I argue that the positive changes from the Reformation are overshadowed by its negative consequences. The short term benefits don't compare to the long term effects caused by the split of the Church. The Con's argument also supposes a sort of moral superiority of the instigators of the Protestant Reformation and the early Protestant Churches. I reject this claim of moral superiority; and argue that the split of the Church, caused by the Protestant reformation, neither stopped or slowed down corruption in Christianity. In fact it spread corruption by drastically increasing the numbers of corrupters in the Church. Con's Argument :1 Pre- Reformation the Catholic Church was unchecked, powerful, and corrupt: The Catholic Church was unchecked, powerful, and corrupt. However the solution is not to replace the Catholic Church with a far less powerful, just as corrupt, indefinite number of loosely organized institutions that are largely void of any accountability. The Protestant reformation promoted and introduced denominationalism in Christianity. That is Protestants accepted an infinite amount of different denominations and theologies to all be accepted equally. This produced both righteous and unrighteous doctrines and teachings that have to answer to no authority. I again want to bring up the example of prosperity preachers. Or the example of the Church of England; a church that was created and ran by the King of England. The splitting of the Church led to more corruption. The splitting of the Church also led to a lack of accountability on the Protestants; by allowing any minister to interpret and preach the gospel in any way they seen fit, and still be labeled as Christians. Cons Argument 2: The Church strayed from the teachings of Christ, despite claiming Christianity: Con's argument largely supposes the moral superiority of the Protestant Church. However, the splitting of the Church itself goes against both Jesus' and biblical teachings. Corinthians 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. Corinthians 1:12-13 What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? The Protestant Reformation is largely based on the idea of division. Mark Luther founded a doctrine called Universal Priesthood which states that ordinary Christians share a common priest hood The Con also claims that the wrong doing of the Catholic Church could have only been corrected by being overthrown. This is false. Even while these wrong doings were widespread in the Catholic Church it faced criticism by leaders in the Catholic Church. And the practices were eventually eradicated by the Catholic Church's own process. This issue is equitable to disagreements in government. If their is an issue in congress and the Republicans cant pass a bill. Is it wise for the Republican congress to advocate for a split in the Government. It is wiser to try and make the change through the established process. Con's Arguments 3:The Catholic Church OF THAT TIME was weakening Christianity: Again Con's argument is supposing a moral superiority of the Protestants and their reformation. The hard truth is that any institution ran by man will have its flaws. The Protestant reformation didn't put an end to corruption in organized Christianity. Social Weakness A Church fundamentally is supposed to provide a social good. They do this mainly by spreading love and hope through the Gospel. They also provide material help by giving away food, taking care of orphans, starting and running schools, hospitals, etc. They do this with the tithes they receive from there congregation. However with the Church fragmented the way it is the individual financial power to promote and influence change is drastically decreased. The question I think is fundamental here is: should Christians pay tithes to keep the light on in their Church? Or should they pay tithes to keep the light spreading throughout the world? Political Weakness Why did the Catholic Church have a vice grip on Europe? It was the unity of the believers. This political power shaped itself to have influence in this time of monarchism and feudalism. This power manifested itself in sometimes brutal and manipulative ways. However this type of governance wasn't unusual for its times. This power would have transformed and evolved with systems of Government. It would have held power in the democratic governments today; only if the believers would have stayed united. Spiritual Weakness: In the Catholic Church its disciplines, government, and penance can all be changed across the world in unison. For example the restrictions on the selling of indulgences at the Council of Trent in 1562. Or the change allowing the mass to be done in the congregations common tongue at the second Vatican counsel in 1962. The point is that mistakes can be corrected in the Catholic Church. However in the style of Church formed by the Protestant Reformation and advocated by Martin Luther, this type of organization is lost. Churches can teach whatever it is that they want, with the only form of pressure to be accountable coming in the form of tithes and offerings. This denominationalism leads to unholy doctrines.