It turns out the ｅxpression “Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda,” though often imputed to the Reformers, was probably never enunciated by them at all. At least, no one has been able to give me a citation.
Here is an invitation to the world: send me a documentable citation, and I will reholster my revolver.
(One internet doctor claims Voetius, but could not give a citation in response to my email query. Not that Voetius counts as a Reformer anyhow.)
Let’s think about the slogan. I give my dynamic-equivalent translation: “The Reformed Church should continually be formed again” (lit. “is always to be reformed.”)
If the ｅxpression were merely saying that all councils and creeds are in principle subject to err, then it is utterly missing the point to single out the church reformata as the one always to be reforming. Indeed, if we really are Reformed, we should believe that above all the non-reformed church needs to be reformed. Even then, we would not use semper. It just needs to be reformed, not continually re-forming: “Ecclesia non reformata reformanda.”
Or if it is an ｅxpression used in in-fighting, say in a debate at Presbytery against someone arguing “we’ve always done it that way,” then that sense should be brought out with a qualifier like “even,” such as: “Ecclesia et reformata reformanda est.” (And again: no semper needs to be inserted in such a context.)
However, that too goes too far. We don’t believe that the reformed church needs to be ready to undergo a new overhaul comparable to that of the Reformation which brought about the name reformed in juxtaposition to the superstitions of popery that preceded it. So why use the same word when mentioning that further tweaks to the system may be envisaged? At best (and this is being charitable) it introduces an equivocation. Why not instead something like: “Potest ecclesia et reformata se parve emendare.”
If we believe a major overhaul is always possible, of the same order of magnitude as the Reformation itself, then we have not really embraced Reformed theology in a heartfelt way. We are mere grumblers, stuck in a pasture we don’t like very much, always seeing, or expecting to see, greener grass over yonder.
If we are confessional, we should on the contrary stand confidently on the creeds and confessions of our church, and not have a mindset that is always looking to lay down a new floor.
The Reformers did not think the accepted creeds needed to be overthrown. Instead, it was chiefly the corruption due to the rule of men that needed to be reformed.
The truthful ｅxpression would go something like “the true, reformed church should move forward confidently in terms of its confession (while also willing every so often to re-examine this or that detail in response to a complaint or overture).” This is hardly worthy of being sloganized, in Latin or otherwise.
There is a cyclical view of history built into the slogan “ecclesia reformata semper reformanda.” It is not much of an exaggeration to suggest there is even a latent belief in chaotic renewal, a Saturnalia view of human history. In contrast, when Jefferson predicted we would need a new revolution every 15 or 20 years to preserve our freedom, he was in a sense being the ultimate reactionary. The danger was in what men would do, not in the foundational creed. It wasn’t as though he was suggesting that a new revolution would be needed to undo the freedom of the press.
Leaving aside those that ignorantly parrot what they have heard, I suspect that most people that use the ｅxpression are opposed to the confession they allegedly stand upon; or at least, opposed to enforcing it very strictly.