Catholics who know history: please answer

[Jesuspaiditall]

I am doing research on the reformation, and I would like to get as many different views as I can. So if you could answer these two questions for me, please do.

Why did the Protestant Reformation happen?

Was it justifiable?

 

[ralphinal]

I am doing research on the reformation, and I would like to get as many different views as I can. So if you could answer these two questions for me, please do.

Why did the Protestant Reformation happen?

Was it justifiable?

As to why, that is an easy thing to ask but a hard one to answer. The long and the short of it is that there were men who did things that were bad and other men for other reasons chose to react a certain way.

For example, men decided to corrupt the Church’s teaching on indulgences. Luther responded, but in the process went too far. It became as much poilitical as theological.

Some of it was, some was not. That is another question that is hard to answer. When I get time, I’ll post more

 

[Jesuspaiditall]

For example, men decided to corrupt the Church’s teaching on indulgences. Luther responded, but in the process went too far. It became as much poilitical as theological.

So you’re saying that some indulgence preachers corrupted it, but that most of the Church remained in the Truth?
Tell me if I misunderstood.

 

[DebChris]

There have been whole books written about the causes and circumstances surrounding the Reformation.
Yes, there were abuses taking place within the Church which needed to be addressed.
It is the matter of how those abuses were addressed that becomes the issue. They could have been addressed much differently.
Back up a couple of centuries and we find St. Francis radically living the gospel message during a time when the hierarchy of the Church had become rich. Francis remained faithful even while following the command to “rebuild My Church.” There was a renewal in spirituality and living the gospel message. The humility of St. Francis stands in stark contrast to Martin Luther angrily posting his demands on the church door.
One thing to note is the printing press had not yet been invented. The invention of the printing press meant that information, some correct and some incorrect could be produced and read by a quickly growing middle class. After reading Dietrich Boenhoeffer’s book The Cost of Discipleship I have a better understanding of how Luther’s message was distorted by his own followers.
The reformation takes place during a time of exploration and scientific discovery.
The Council of Trent in many ways was a reaction, rather than a response, to the Reformation. The lack of dialogue by both the Church and the protesters of the time escalated a situation that could have been resolved without the tremendous loss of life resulted.
Would there still have been those who chose to leave the Catholic Church? Possibly. Looking back centuries later, we do not have the answers to what so many people may have been thinking at the time. A more loving response would have gone a long way to diminish the violence on all sides.

 

[ralphinal]

Indulgences must be understood totally to see where the problem came about.

According to Catholic Theology, the pope has the ability to order a sinner to perfrom works to amend for his sin. This is done for several reasons. One is because sin does not only damage the relationship with God but with others. This is where penance comes into play. The pope delegated this authority to bishops for most sins, and they allow the priests the same authority. The Church has always seen the merit in performing these acts when not ordered too. The pope, likewise using his authority as keeper of the keys, can say that performing certain acts will lessen the purgation in purgatory. IN the early middle ages, the doctrine of this lessening was taught as indulgences. Eventually, the Chuch saw the need to restore St. Peter’s in Rome. The pope proclaimed that anyone who donated time and talent to this cause would be granted and indulgence. Again, donating your time and talent to the Church is something that would be rewarded in heaven. Bishops that were farther from Rome requested a means to allow their flocks to participate as well. The pope then allowed for monetary donations under certain circumstances. First, the money had to be in addition to any money you normally gave to the Church. Second, that gift had to be a sacrafice to you. Bill Gates donating $1,000 gets nothing. Now, the Bishops in Northern Europe were in a financial mess due ot bad loans that they had with the Hapsburgs. They petitioned the Pope to allow them to keep part of the money. The pope agreed. Some of these bishops then hired men to go around the country, selling these indulgences. This was NOT the Church teaching. Further, you could always apply an indulgence to someone else who had died, but you could not “save them up” for later.

Now, Luther had a special set of issues at hand. He saw these men doing something that he knew was wrong with the approval of their bishops. So, he pitched a fit. Well, ML suffered from scrupulousity, which is common in saints. He thought that he was never truly forgiven and that he could never be good. These two things contributed to his “re-reading” of Scripture, focusing on the teachings of Paul to the detrament of the Gosples. Hence, Luther coined the Five Solas. Luther was reacting to a position that he saw but his own stubborness would not allow him to reverse directions.

Later, the princes in northern Europe saw a chance to jump on a power vacuum left by the Reformation. The Holy Roman Empire was moving to retake those lands, more for the emperor but in the name of the Church. France saw a chance to position itself in the middle. Though she was Catholic, she sold guns to the North and begged for peace from the South. Eventually, a truce of sorts was reached.

The Catholic Church NEVER taught that putting a coin in the box frees a soul from Purgatory. The Catholic Church NEVER taught that you could buy an indulgence. These things were corrupted by men.

 

[rinnie]

I am doing research on the reformation, and I would like to get as many different views as I can. So if you could answer these two questions for me, please do.

Why did the Protestant Reformation happen?

Was it justifiable?

In my opinion it happened the same reason you see people changing church’s constantly. They do not want to obey the commandments. They do not want to be told they are sinners and wrong. Because to live the true Catholic Religion is hard, very very hard. Impossible for many. It is easier to take out what you want and follow a new church then do what the Catholic Church teaches.

It is never justifiable. Jesus said his Church would be the light of the world. And it will never be destroyed. But people choose to walk in the darkness. This world is living proof of that.

 

[NDfan]

I am doing research on the reformation, and I would like to get as many different views as I can. So if you could answer these two questions for me, please do.

Why did the Protestant Reformation happen?

Was it justifiable?

As many have mentioned the issue of indulgences was viewed by Luther as an improper practice. Specifically Luther objected to Tetzel’s practices which prompted his hammering of the famous theses on the church door. But what Luther didn’t realize was that the Pope did not commission Tetzel to preach on indulgences the way in which he was doing.

What fueled the reformation more than anything was after Luther was told to recant and he refused the Pope threw him out. Luther then proceeded to become a student of scripture and wrote his own commentary on works like the book of Romans. He focused initially on salvation by Faith alone which he stated was contrary to what the Catholic church taught which was Faith + Works and claimed the church was teaching something counter to scripture. As his commentary spread of course he developed a following which then lead to the beginnings of the reformation. Other commentary Luther focused on was scripture alone, Christ alone etc. etc.

The question of was is justifiable is a hard one to answer. Even though I don’t attend Catholic services and have personal issues with some things the Roman Catholic Church teaches I would say probably not. Christians should always stand united to the world and any attempts to reform the church should always be conducted internally and not by someone leaving. Francis of Assisi is a good example. He recogized that change was needed but worked within the church to effect that change.

Unfortunately that’s not where we are today so it’s up to the current generations to stand united.

PEACE

 

[brotherhrolf]

Long and the short of it…The Black Death in 1347. Bubonic plague. A third to a half of the European population dead in some estimates. The entire medieval world shifted allowing for “new” ideas to emerge.

The Renaissance is an outgrowth of this as is the Reformation.

amazon.com/Distant-Mirror-Calamitous-14th-Century/dp/0345349571/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227025682&sr=1-1

Tuchman clearly shows the roots of the Reformation here.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Right. It isn’t a topic with one short pithy ‘right’ answer/ cause --it is an incredibly complex topic with many factors, some of which date from decades or even centuries before men like Luther and Calvin existed, and some of it still going on today (and tomorrow and into the future as well).

I would suggest you read several books on the topic. . . can read Tuchman but be sure to balance with something like Dr. Warren Carroll’s 5 (soon to be 6) volumes’ History of Christendom’ with attention paid to Book 4’s “Cleaving of Christendom”.

Good luck!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I am doing research on the reformation, and I would like to get as many different views as I can. So if you could answer these two questions for me, please do.

Why did the Protestant Reformation happen?

Was it justifiable?

A discipline in the ministry of reconciliation (indulgences) by Martin Luther’s German religious corrupted the discipline. Martin Luther as other great scholars saw a new way of Christian thinking.

Got outside support for his views, complained to the One Holy Catholic Apostolic church of all what he saw was dirty laundry in the Church and wanted to make changes. When just a cleaning would of sufficed in disciplinary actions, and or oversee in the practices outside of Rome.

Martin Luther supporters including Royalty, wanted out of the church and saw a great opportunity for those seeking wealth in property and power from the Catholic church, along went the Catholic Priest Martin Luther who was able to teach his new views on Christian belief’s. Thus making it a win win situation to protest the One True Church of Jesus Christ.

Rulers and commoners got rich and confescated church properties and wealth, while the excited Martin Luther got to teach his new invented Christianity to those who were iliterate, and succombed to his new Christianity and freedom and left with Luther based on an emotional doctrine of “Sola’s” this and “Sola” that, there are one two many “Sola” theologies today even Martin Luther would be shocked to learn his original “Sola’s” have taken a change of belief and understanding the way he invented them. Thus you have many Christian peoples that have denominated from Lutheranism to today numbering over hundreds and thousands different Christian doctrinal belief’s steming from Luther’s freedom of “Sola’s” to Evangelical preaching of freedom to believe what I want to believe, and interpret scripture the way I feel God or the Spirit tells me to interpret, thus many different interpretations to one bible. Amazing

 

[Chancellare]

Reformation is like throwing the baby with the bathtub. The baby did make mistakes, abuses, tantrums and being spoiled - so they threw her away with the dirty water. Come to think of it, they hated the baby in the first place and the abuses were the perfect pretext to throw the baby away. This is the most accurate description of the ‘reformation’.

 

[BJRumph]

It is easier to take out what you want and follow a new church then do what the Catholic Church teaches.

While this may be very true in modern America, this ‘fact’ is completely spurious to a discussion of the Reformation, which, until Luther split, THERE WERE NO OTHER Churches. When he (and his followers) did split, it could not be described (with any form of honesty) to have been an ‘easy’ thing. Unlike in modern times, they could be (and in some cases WERE) killed for doing such (not to ignore the fact that they had their own armies eventually, and certainly killed enough themselves); how can inviting the slaughter of your family be considered an “easy” thing???

Did he take his very morally upright objections too far? Certainly. Was his choice to become a rebel and founder of a new church justifiable? Not in my opinion. Was his distortion of ‘biblical’ teachings good? Again, not in my opinion. But regardless of anything else, none of it was the so called ‘easy way out’.

OF course, several others took notice of what was happening, and several such ‘reformers’ sprung up at the time to form their own sects, but they were not in any case the simple or easy choices to make.

Consider it in semi-modern terms. EVERY televangelist and preacher out there being agents of THE Church; every scandal, every theft, every predatory fleecing being done in the name of a single Church. In such a light, I can see why, in a very particular and nuanced point of view, it could be considered an ‘easy’ choice to revolt against such monstrosities; and the speed at which the Reformation took hold of Europe supports the obvious (and therefore ‘simple’) nature of the human corruptness within the Church at the time. But, it is one thing to live more simply and rebel in quiet ways, as St. Francis did, and wholly another to self-extract (excommunicate) oneself from the ONLY spiritual representative or communion in existence. Such a decision, while easily discussed or mused upon, could NOT have been equally as ‘easy’ to actually act and live upon under such conditions.

Should Luther have reigned in his Ego, and led his rebellion in the same manner as St. Francis? The Church certainly thinks so, but the fact is, the Franciscans had been around awhile by that time and had not managed the reformative effects needed in the Church. Naturally (and unavoidably), the Church must condemn any movement of breaking with it, and so on the whole becomes a negative attempt to challenge a broken system, as the Ends cannot justify the Means.

 

[Contarini]

I am doing research on the reformation, and I would like to get as many different views as I can. So if you could answer these two questions for me, please do.

Why did the Protestant Reformation happen?

Was it justifiable?

Well, I’m not a Catholic, but I would distinguish three main reasons for the Reformation.

1. A general movement toward “reform” loosely associated with the intellectual tradition of “humanism” (i.e., the study of ancient texts in order to promote eloquent speech and moral behavior in the present) and reacting against aspects of late medieval Catholicism that many folks saw as corrupt and/or “superstitious.” This movement privileged moral behavior and the study of Scripture over ritual and clerical authority, and it was part of a general cultural trend toward what Berndt Hamm has called the “concentration of norms”–i.e., focus on the basics and thus bring unity to the increasingly diverse and complex world of late medieval Christianity.
2. Associated with the above, a push by civil governments to unify society by eliminating the dual structure of authority that characterized the Middle Ages. Marsilius of Padua, for instance, had argued in the 14th century that the Church should not own property or have any kind of coercive authority. Civil governments were seen by advocates of this position as the divinely authorized preservers of order and morality, with the Church having purely “spiritual” functions of teaching and sacramental celebration.
3. A trend among some late medieval theologians toward a radical interpretation of St. Augustine stressing human sin and helplessness (part of a general cultural trend which Jean Delumeau has described as an era of guilt and fear). In the case of the idiosyncratic Augustinian theologian Martin Luther, this theology underwent a mutation into a theology of hope and confidence based on trust in the promise of God in Christ, as the only way to escape the burden of guilt consequent on radical human sinfulness. This theology linked up (not without some tensions and conflicts) with the previous two elements, since it provided an explanation for the widespread perception of corruption and superstition (the Church had degenerated into an institution by which humans sought to earn God’s favor), and gave spiritual legitimacy to the drive of civil governments toward unification of authority (by limiting the role of the Church to the proclamation of the Gospel through Word and Sacrament).

Was it justifiable? As a split within Christianity, no. Some of its ideas were valuable, but they should have been pursued within the framework of Catholicism. Luther’s teachings were not the Gospel, but only one wacky and interesting interpretation of the Gospel.

Edwin

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Indulgences must be understood totally to see where the problem came about.

…[snip]…

The Catholic Church NEVER taught that putting a coin in the box frees a soul from Purgatory. The Catholic Church NEVER taught that you could buy an indulgence. These things were corrupted by men.

Ralphinal, I think this a very well-balanced and thoughtful explanation of the indulgences problem. I did, however, want to address the last point that you made in your post, because this is where (as I understand it) politics enters in quite forcefully.

You are absolutely correct that the selling of indulgences was never taught by the church. Many have argued, on the basis of this, that Luther should have recanted his teaching on indulgences when given the opportunity. Technically, it would have been right for him to recant. However, given that his own ordinary was unwilling to curb indulgence abuses when Luther wrote to him, the message Luther must have received was: this abuse is permitted. To recant would have been akin to saying: I was wrong about the abuses, all’s well–and would have vindicated the erroneous position of his ordinary (and those like him) who permitted abuses to persist.

Given Luther’s scrupulosity, as well as his sense of having been betrayed by his ordinary and by the Pope, the selling of indulgences became the best example of how the Church as an institution failed the gospel, because no one seemed particularly interested in curbing the abuses–except Luther. Granted, Tetzel was disciplined, but were it not for Luther’s steadfast witness on the issue, it is doubtful that Tetzel’s reprimand would have occurred.

From the on-the-ground RC perspective these days, it seems like Luther should have just trusted that something would be done about the problem and kept his mouth shut (or should have been more like St. Francis, as if the political conditions of Francis’ day were identical to those in Luther’s, or would have permitted such behavior without marginalization, obscurity, or martyrdom–Jan Huss was not long dead by Luther’s day)–but there were no indications that anything was going to be done at all, and in the meantime, many people were deceived into believing something heterodox regarding indulgences: while the teaching of the Church may have been one thing, the practice (at least in Luther’s neighborhood) was quite another–and there was a whole institution, or so it seemed to Luther, committed to promulgating the faulty practice. For this reason, I believe Luther’s protest was an act of Holy Spirit inspired witness.

Those were dark times for the Church and for the papacy. Frankly, I think it is due to the grace of the Holy Spirit (and Christ’s promise) that the Church, catholic or reformed, got out of it alive!

My 2p.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy–Deo gratias!

 

[ufamtobie]

I am doing research on the reformation, and I would like to get as many different views as I can. So if you could answer these two questions for me, please do.

Why did the Protestant Reformation happen?

Was it justifiable?

Hi there Jesuspaiditall,

Which is more justifiable in any court the Original or a Copy?

You also must do a research regarding on why the Protestant Reformation has itself broken into thousands of pieces on its own and in this reseach YOU will find and come to the only conclusion that the Protestant Reformation was Wrong to happen.

Why is it wrong? …You will come to find that the Protestant Reformation was built on sand and not on Rock and this is the reason for it breaking into thousands of pieces, such as the Lutherans, Calvinists, Baptist, Southern Baptist, Methodist, evangelicals, the list goes on and on Jesus did not want this to happen.

Jesus Christ did say in (LUKE 6:48) HE MAY BE LIKEND TO THE MAN WHO, IN BUILDING A HOUSE, DUG DEEPLY AND LAID THE FOUNDATION ON ROCK. WHEN THE FLOODS CAME THE TORRENT RUSHED IN ON THAT HOUSE, BUT FAILED TO SHAKE IT BECAUSE IT WAS ON SOLID FOUNDATION. … On the other hand, anyone who has heard my words but not put them into practice is like the man who built his house on the ground WITHOUT any foundation. When the torrent rushed upon it , it IMMEDIATELY FELL in and was completely destroyed.

Hmmm Immediately fell! As you know right after the protestant reformation in the 1500 hundreds it immediately fell for it was not founded on ROCK but sand.

There is nothing better than the Original founded on rock all else is a copy, a generic version. Truth is that we all can tell which is the Original and which is the copy in ANYTHING ESPECIALLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WHICH STANDS FIRM FOR OVER 2000 YEARS AND COUNTING BUILT ON ROCK AND THE REFORMATION CHURCHESSSSSSSssssssssss. BUILT ON SAND

It is very sad that anyone since the 1500 can start a new church and each new church differs from one another.

God Bless you on your reseach

Jesus Mary Joesph be with you

Ufamtobie

 

[ralphinal]

Grace & Peace!

Ralphinal, I think this a very well-balanced and thoughtful explanation of the indulgences problem. I did, however, want to address the last point that you made in your post, because this is where (as I understand it) politics enters in quite forcefully.

You are absolutely correct that the selling of indulgences was never taught by the church. Many have argued, on the basis of this, that Luther should have recanted his teaching on indulgences when given the opportunity. Technically, it would have been right for him to recant. However, given that his own ordinary was unwilling to curb indulgence abuses when Luther wrote to him, the message Luther must have received was: this abuse is permitted. To recant would have been akin to saying: I was wrong about the abuses, all’s well–and would have vindicated the erroneous position of his ordinary (and those like him) who permitted abuses to persist.

Given Luther’s scrupulosity, as well as his sense of having been betrayed by his ordinary and by the Pope, the selling of indulgences became the best example of how the Church as an institution failed the gospel, because no one seemed particularly interested in curbing the abuses–except Luther. Granted, Tetzel was disciplined, but were it not for Luther’s steadfast witness on the issue, it is doubtful that Tetzel’s reprimand would have occurred.

From the on-the-ground RC perspective these days, it seems like Luther should have just trusted that something would be done about the problem and kept his mouth shut (or should have been more like St. Francis, as if the political conditions of Francis’ day were identical to those in Luther’s, or would have permitted such behavior without marginalization, obscurity, or martyrdom–Jan Huss was not long dead by Luther’s day)–but there were no indications that anything was going to be done at all, and in the meantime, many people were deceived into believing something heterodox regarding indulgences: while the teaching of the Church may have been one thing, the practice (at least in Luther’s neighborhood) was quite another–and there was a whole institution, or so it seemed to Luther, committed to promulgating the faulty practice. For this reason, I believe Luther’s protest was an act of Holy Spirit inspired witness.

Those were dark times for the Church and for the papacy. Frankly, I think it is due to the grace of the Holy Spirit (and Christ’s promise) that the Church, catholic or reformed, got out of it alive!

My 2p.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy–Deo gratias!

I think that you are on to something. The Church did not want to admit that bishops were wrong or that they let something get out of hand. Luther could not admit that he misread the Bible or that he had faith that the Church would fix itself.

In the end, we are split.

 

[Nepenthe]

Beautifully summarized, Dr Contarini, although you (and even I) know there’s a lot more to this stew than just what tends to bubble to the surface!

As ever, my respects to your erudition.

Honored to learn by your feet,
Nepenthe

 

[ralphinal]

I should note that I only dicussed Luther. Calvin, Huss, the Issues in England, and the others are all important and should be looked at as well.

 

[Nino]

No,error is never allowed. What was a unified army of soldiers for Christ (Truth) became a divided bitter fragment. Luther,encouraged by the wealthy ruling class became the instrument for a ‘national church’. Lets toss these Romans out of Germany ,worship our way and let our conscience be our guide not a Roman bishop…and so the church in Germany was plundered,valuable items stolen and when the good people returned to their once beautiful now de-nuded buildings,found the precious items gone ‘sent back to Rome’ was the answer,yeh sure. Soon the branch started seperating again and again…the only good thing to emerge was the United States of America. Many from these ‘liberated’ countries found oppression and so came to the new world in search of religous liberty. When the backers of Luther slaughtered some 20,000 peasants he applauded the action as justifiable…this later became the excuse for the Hitlers of Germany,Stalins of Russia and the Maos of China…freedom for all just dont dis-agree with what we say…and so it goes…it is now called P:C…political correctness…Nino

 

[cthulhubryan]

I am doing research on the reformation, and I would like to get as many different views as I can. So if you could answer these two questions for me, please do.

Why did the Protestant Reformation happen?

Was it justifiable?

It was as justifiable as flooding your house to put out a cigarette.

There were problems, mainly at the far ends of Christendom and Luther (as all men are wont to do) over reacted. For some of this he later recanted but that particular Pandora’s box had already been opened.

As they say, Pride goeth before the fall.