Redeemerslove:
This is quite an assumption. Basing a critique on historical evidence, the populace was a largely ingorant, uneducated lot.
Oh that is patronizing…
Even if they were ignorant and uneducated that doesn’t mean they didn’t know abuse when they saw it. It doesn’t take a college degree to know that if a Pope has taken a vow of celibacy, he shouldn’t father bastard children. The fact that people were ignorant doesn’t mean there weren’t abuses in the Catholic Church.
Redeemerslove:
Secondly, what makes you think it wasn’t something the Protestants were doing that cause them to leave the Church?:ehh:
You have to remember that Catholicism was
all there was at this time. The early “Protestants” were people who were born and raised in the Church. Many of them were educated by the Church. Obviously in the later-Reformation we can ask the question “were the Protestants doing something that caused people to leave?” But in the early Reformation I think the question “was there anything going on in the Catholic Church that would cause millions of people to spontaneously become schismatic?”
I think the answer to both questions is yes.
Redeemerslove:
Hold on, a “mad monk” is correct?.. wouldn’t you say that they were not in touch with reality? If the “mad monk” was not in touch with reality, why would you believe him?
I was citing someone else. Obviously I don’t believe he was mad. Even if he was mad, I’m a Calvinist so you’d have to show Calvin was mad to get my attention.
(Hint: look up some of his statutes for Geneiva – they may not be mad but they were pretty neurotic.)
This thread started with the premise that ML is a bad person. My objection is “he may be a bad person, but that doesn’t mean there was no abuse.”
What do you say when people ask: If the popes sinned in the past why do you believe they are infallible?
**It is the same objection! **
The fact that someone did some things wrong doesn’t mean what they say is wrong too. The earlier poster referred to ML as a “mad monk” as if that was supposed to mean that there were no problems with the Catholic Church and ML was just acting because of greed or ego or something. ML may have been acting because of greed or ego, but that doesn’t mean the things he pointed out weren’t wrong. He may not have gone about the Reformation in the right way, but that doesn’t mean there didn’t need to be some kind of reforms.
Redeemerslove:
Sin is never a necessity, this is sugar-coating the reality of the Reformation.
Amen. There were excesses to the Reformation but the basic principle is the still true:
some reforms were needed to correct the abuses that were happening. Don’t sugar-coat Catholic history the way some Protestants sugar-coat the Reformation history.
Redeemerslove:
I have one word for those who willing participated in the Reformation - Material Heretics. Christ founded one Church, He didn’t need to change his mind and create another Church: This would impinge on the Divine Attribute of Omniscience.
Protestants have never claimed to form another Church. Protestants claim the Church is made up of all men and women who worship Jesus as Christ and name Him as Lord and Savior. Catholics say the Church is a political entity centered on being in communion with the Pope, Protestants say it is a spiritual entity centered on being in personal communion with Christ. We both claim there is only one Church.
You may not like our definition but that is another matter…
Redeemerslove:
So if Christ didn’t found another Church, who’s Church was founded?
I’m of the opinion He founded the Eastern Orthodox Church.
-C
P.S. Again, I’m not here to defend Protestantism but learn about Catholicism. It would just be nice (if only for the sake of Christian unity) to see some Catholic person write: “there were some (however small) abuses during the Middle Ages.” Is that asking too much?