Luther Did Not Start the Reformation

[Kei]

These princes were only following the example set by popes, cardinals and bishops. Read up on Avignon some time.

The principle that the prince of the land mandated the religion started after Luther and is due to the Peace of Augsburg. Calvinism would later be included under the Peace of Westphalia.

There is a reason the peasants aren’t called the “reformers”, but the reformers are.

It’s not a mere metaphor, the Church is the mystical Body of Christ. The unity of the Body, and indeed, of Europe, was a thing greatly desired in the West for a very long time. The splitting of Christendom was not needed for any true reforming to be done. Luther and his doctrine had a direct result to the effect of splitting Christendom indeed. Without sola Scriptura, no sola Fide, no protestantism. Of course there were reasons it happened, else why would God allow it to happen, except as punishment for our transgressions? But, to deny Luther’s actions and direct effect comes off as a weak attempt to (asininely) shift all blame onto Catholicism.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

JonNC:

To preach the word and administer the sacraments.

And, yet we have thousands upon thousands of different denominations with a different ‘word’ and illicit and/or invalid sacraments; heck, some do not even have sacraments. But, as long as you confess the Nicene Creed where two or three gather together, no problem?

Dangerous to one’s salvation, but that has little to do with MEMBERSHIP

Is it not possible to have ‘membership’ to a ‘church’ who promulgates error? Being a member of the LDS is not dangerous to one’s salvation?

Didn’t you say you had been Lutheran for 25 years? How can you answer like this? Poor catechesis, or was it a long time ago?

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

SojournerOnEarth:

These princes were only following the example set by popes, cardinals and bishops. Read up on Avignon some time.

The principle that the prince of the land mandated the religion started after Luther and is due to the Peace of Augsburg. Calvinism would later be included under the Peace of Westphalia.

There is a reason the peasants aren’t called the “reformers”, but the reformers are.

It’s not a mere metaphor, the Church is the mystical Body of Christ. The unity of the Body, and indeed, of Europe, was a thing greatly desired in the West for a very long time. The splitting of Christendom was not needed for any true reforming to be done. Luther and his doctrine had a direct result to the effect of splitting Christendom indeed. Without sola Scriptura, no sola Fide, no protestantism. Of course there were reasons it happened, else why would God allow it to happen, except as punishment for our transgressions? But, to deny Luther’s actions and direct effect comes off as a weak attempt to (asininely) shift all blame onto Catholicism.

I’m not blaming Catholicism exclusively. There are a few popes who were more to blame than Luther, but there were other problems.

If I had been Katy Luther, I would have made him wash his mouth out with soap. Twice a day! Or more!

 

[Kei]

There are a few popes who were more to blame than Luther

Please, do tell what popes denied the authority of the Catholic Church and taught sola scriptura/sola fide to split Christendom.
Is your argument that they did bad things? Because bad things=/=needing to split Christendom.
Is your argument that antipopes brought forth splits? Because that would be schism at the most.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

SojournerOnEarth:

These princes were only following the example set by popes, cardinals and bishops. Read up on Avignon some time.

It’s not a mere metaphor, the Church is the mystical Body of Christ. The unity of the Body, and indeed, of Europe, was a thing greatly desired in the West for a very long time. The splitting of Christendom was not needed for any true reforming to be done. Luther and his doctrine had a direct result to the effect of splitting Christendom indeed.

The Orthodox view the West’s whole Reformation business a little differently, as a stupid internal struggle in the western church. Then they make a few jabs at the pope and jab at Protestants as an inferior sort of Catholic, and then go back to doing whatever they do. When CAF was down, years ago, I spent some time on an Orthodox forum. It was an eye-opener.

The Church as the mystical Body of Christ is one way of understanding the Church. I did not say an invalid one, but it has limits. Are you familiar with Cardinal Dulles’ work on the nature of the Church?

 

[Kei]

Yes, because as schismatics the Orthodox deny following the head of the body of Christ and each follow their own patriarchs. Then, it is easy to say east/west, as orthodox are eastern.

And not particularly that I’m aware of.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

SojournerOnEarth:

There are a few popes who were more to blame than Luther

Please, do tell what popes denied the authority of the Catholic Church and taught sola scriptura/sola fide to split Christendom.
Is your argument that they did bad things? Because bad things=/=needing to split Christendom.
Is your argument that antipopes brought forth splits? Because that would be schism at the most.

They did not just do bad things. They caused corruption to occur at every level of the Church. If the Church is the Bride of Christ (another metaphor) they treated her like a prostitute. And they made simony look like a children’s game. I could go on. They delegetimized Church authority in the eyes of many.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

Yes, because as schismatics the Orthodox deny following the head of the body of Christ and each follow their own patriarchs. Then, it is easy to say east/west, as orthodox are eastern.

And not particularly that I’m aware of.

They consider the Catholics as schismatic. The whole schism was unnecessary.

 

[Kei]

The whole schism was unnecessary.

I agree.

They delegetimized Church authority in the eyes of many

That’s when there should be true reform, not cutting yourself off like an infected leg from a body (they used to do that as surgery). But, rather, saintly examples of putting down corruption and evils. Reform in the Church is not new. It has been done many times.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

SojournerOnEarth:

The whole schism was unnecessary.

I agree.

They delegetimized Church authority in the eyes of many

That’s when there should be true reform, not cutting yourself off like an infected leg from a body (they used to do that as surgery). But, rather, saintly examples of putting down corruption and evils. Reform in the Church is not new. It has been done many times.

Take a look at the timing. The reformers’ ideas and positions had hardened long before Trent. Until then, their beliefs were acceptable (otherwise there would have been no need to address them at Trent). The Church delayed so long that there was no going back. Feelings, attitudes and positions had hardened by then.

It wasn’t so much they cut themselves off as that the Church cut them off. And by then there was no going back.

 

[Kei]

Umm…destroying a papal bull, calling the pope the antichrist, refusing authoritative correction, getting excommunicated, etc, are sorta kinda all things that get you separated from the Church.

Simply because they were not yet declared anathema doesn’t mean they were not separated from the Church. The views were not acceptable. It is simply that there was no need to address them until the heresy was widespread enough to, well, warrant addressing. The heresies spread very quickly.

Luther did many things that cut himself from the Church prior to Trent. MANY.

 

[guanophore]

There are a plethora of things we need to reject. As I said earlier, faith alone and scripture alone are to be rejected since they contradict Scripture and Tradition. The statement “we have much more in common” doesn’t address that issue.

Of course not. I am saying that we have much more in common with Lutherans that we have things we must reject. We have been throwing out the baby with the bathwater for 500 years and it has never worked. The Church has finally taken a new road, and we all need to get on board.

he went into hiding (quite naturally, given the results of the Diet)

Are you suggesting that Luther conspired with Frederick of Saxony, and that he was free to leave Wartburg Castle whenever he chose?

C’mon, now… is there any doubt that his actions founded a new ecclesial community? Is there any doubt that he supported this new community from its inception?

No, clearly his actions have spawned innumerable ecclesial communities. I am not sure about his support from the inception. He actually was not all together happy with the Concords and was quite displeased with Calvin and Zwingli, who both rejected the real presence.

So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben

if you want me to post the evidence again from Scripture & Tradition, I’ll be happy to do it.

Wouldn’t it be easier just to link to your previous post?

Jesus established His One True Church on Peter and those in union with him,

is absurd.

What makes that absurd?

That is exactly right. I could never accept it. That is quite a dilemma for a Catholic. I have never defended it in my life. Even when I loved Popes JP II, Benedict. I could never bring myself to go there. I loved the Catholic faith, and I took it in its fullness as revealed truth. Except for that one little part.

It is really very simple. Peter was given the duty to feed and care for the flock. There were no jurisdictional limits imposed. The successors of Peter have been charges with this same responsibility. They feed and care for the flock, and pray for them daily, whether they realize/appreciate it or not. There is only One Church, and all who are in Christ are members of it. All members of that One Body benefit from the care and feeding of the flock by the successor of Peter. They are all subjects of his prayer and labor. Some are rebellious subjects, and some are obedient subjects, but we are all subjects just the same.

No amount of “protesting” can stop the successor of Peter from praying for the separated brethren, or relives him of his God given duty to feed and care for the One Flock.

 

[Gorgias]

I am not sure about his support from the inception. He actually was not all together happy with the Concords and was quite displeased with Calvin and Zwingli, who both rejected the real presence.

He was happy with the new community… just not with the direction that it took and the fact that it, too, splintered!

 

[guanophore]

The principle that the prince of the land mandated the religion started after Luther and is due to the Peace of Augsburg. Calvinism would later be included under the Peace of Westphalia.

I am not sure why you think this. The CC mandated conversions for the better part of a millenia. What do you think happened during the Crusades? Have you never heard that whole populations were compelled to convert, or die? Forced into baptism?

Didn’t you say you had been Lutheran for 25 years? How can you answer like this? Poor catechesis, or was it a long time ago?

Are you honestly supporting the position that membership in the Risen Saviour parish and contributing to the building fund for the parish hall has a positive impact on my salvation?!

Is your argument that they did bad things? Because bad things=/=needing to split Christendom.

Have you ever read about how the schism occurred? Do you know what the Latin Popes, in supporting the crusades, did to the Eastern Christians?

https://greatschism.org/east-west-schism/

Are you suggesting that killing fellow Christians on Good Friday does not contribute to splitting Christendom?

https://graceuniversity.edu/iip/2011/08/11-08-20-2/

Pope Leo IX excommunicated Orthodox Patriarch Michael Cerularius for “trying to humiliate and crush the holy catholic and apostolic church.” The Patriarch then excommunicated Pope Leo.

The CC has it’s own ample supply of divisiveness to heal. Have you ever studied the Medicis? I don’t see how anyone can objectively look at their attitudes, values, and behavior and still defend that it did not contribute to the splits of Christendom.

 

[AugustTherese]

I understand that you must defend this doctrine

No one forced me against my will that I ‘must defend this doctrine’, I freely chose to accept that it was revealed in the full deposit of faith, carried on in Sacred Tradition, and publicly promulgated and defended via an Ecumenical Council when suitable.

but there no scriptural or early council support for it.

So, for a revealed doctrine to exist, an early council needs to promulgate it? What did the early Christians do regarding the revealed Dogma of the Trinity for the first 300 years before Nicaea?

 

[Kei]

I am not sure why you think this. The CC mandated conversions for the better part of a millenia. What do you think happened during the Crusades? Have you never heard that whole populations were compelled to convert, or die? Forced into baptism?

I mean in terms of protestantism vs Catholicism. If you really want to go all the way back, then it’s been like that since the beginning of history just about, typically with emperors even claiming to be demigods or such.

I am saying the split wasn’t necessary. Lots of reformation has occurred without splitting Catholicism. The actions clearly show that something needs to be fixed and made better, but not that there needs to be splits in Christendom. If you have a headache, do you chop off your head?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

No denial of the truth will ever invalidate it.

This assumes that your communion only holds the truth. While there is great truth there, a vast amount of what it teaches I agree with, but it also includes error.
One of the errors is Unam Sanctum, which states: Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
That is error.

That particular translation (absolutely) is what is in question

Explanation:

Text ( in bold type) + commentary, Unam Sanctam - theological commentary

“absolutely” is not in the Latin text.

That said, objectively speaking, non-Catholics can’t and shouldn’t presume then, that they are absolutely okay and their souls are okay, being non-Catholic. That would objectively speaking, flip all the scriptures on their head, that condemn division from the Catholic Church

 

[FollowChrist34]

If it’s any consolation I think the rest of us ‘separated brethren’ need to step up the prayers for Peter’s flock. And I say this in sincerity not sarcasm - and will do it. Sounds like we all have it covered. (and sans Synod!)

 

[steve-b]

@JonNC,@steve-b

It’s kind of odd, because I am sort of between both of you on this. This is from the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 25, http://epcoga.wpengine.com/wp-conte...-We-Are/B-About-The-EPC/WCF-ModernEnglish.pdf

[snip for space]

We have had discussions on ‘no salvation is possible outside the Catholic church before.’ I would rather this thread not be turned into one.

steve-b:

Re: no salvation is possible

Salvation is possible under certain conditions. Innocent ignorance is one condition. However, when one’s fingerprints are all over their supposed ignorance, then ignorance isn’t innocent.

SojournerOnEarth:

And you seem to think you can make that determination.

steve-b:

All you have to do is ask me for my reference

Ignorance—Invincible vs Vincible Library : Ignorance—Invincible and Vincible | Catholic Culture

SojournerOnEarth:

And I don’t think one sentence in all of Vatican 2 documents should be so blown out of proportion as to ignore every other thing said then or since, which seems to be happening. It may be your personal interpretation to so emphasize this, @steve-b, but it is a delusion to think that the Catholic Church shares this interpretation. Likewise with the pulling of quotes out of context to support your position.

steve-b:

The full paragraph was quoted. Not just a sentence. And it is as valid today as when it was printed

With respect, Re: the Westminster confession and “reformed theology”

1. they don’t define the One true Church, and especially not 1500+ years after Jesus established His One True Church on Peter and those in union with him,
2. meaning they aren’t in that Church so they don’t define what IS and is NOT the Catholic Church

steve-b:

Jesus established His One True Church on Peter and those in union with him,

SojournerOnEarth:

is absurd.

steve-b:

Your denial of that truth is what’s absurd

steve-b:

meaning they aren’t in that Church

SojournerOnEarth:

Not consistent with Catholic theology. You need to read something besides LG 14.

steve-b:

“for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity. “
From What the Early Church Believed: Salvation Outside the Church | Catholic Answers

 

[JonNC]

That said, objectively speaking, non-Catholics can’t and shouldn’t presume then, that they are absolutely okay and their souls are okay, being non-Catholic. That would objectively speaking, flip all the scriptures on their head, that condemn division from the Catholic Church

Beyond grace, no one, Catholic or not, should presume then, that they are absolutely okay and their souls are okay. That has nothing to do with the Bishop of Rome.