That isn’t exactly how it happened.
The terms “deformation” and “revolt” do nothing to heal the wounds to the Body of Christ. They engender more wounds and more defensiveness.
This is true, because that small pebble can be directly connected to the avalanche that followed, but there were many events before that time that were also pebbles, progressively precipitating that eventual avalanche. William Tyndale (c. 1494–1536) and John Wycliff (c. 1320s -1384), Jan Hus, and Peter Waldo were among those pebbles.
Yes, and Luther regretted that as well. Granted the fruit of his work created division, but it is not appropriate to ascribe to him intentions that he did not have.
We are not in a position to judge anyone’s heart, motives or intentions. He has already faced His Maker on all these levels.
Luther did have an authority problem. Some of it came from his childhood, some came from his own observation of the ordained persons in the Church who were engaged in abuses. He had quite an authoritarian attitude himself, at times, and in character, was probably more like Leo X than he would ever want to admit.
I think some of these chapters are missing in certain Catholic persons’ history books (@steve-b). The CC can look to her own clay feet, or the log in her own eye first before bashing Luther. the fact that there were anti-Popes before all this happened demonstrates that Rome had some cleaning to do.
Posting of Theses for discussion was a common form of beginning debate and dialogue in academic settings. He was engaging in a common practice of the time. Had the 95 Theses been responded to more seriously and appropriately, perhaps Luther would not have become as loud and defiant as he eventually did. But he never started another Church. In fact, he has a rather peripheral role in the assembly of the Augsburg Confession, which was really the fundamental document that defined the beginning of a new ecclesial community. Even then, he saw himself in a community that was a valid continuation of the Catholic Church founded by Christ.
And it was fatally dangerous to defy their authority. The office had become much more like that of a secular monarch than one which focused on the Petrine ministry. The reason the Medici’s worked so hard to rise at the Vatican is because they wanted secular infuence, and would never be able to get into a secular ruling position.
A certain state of government comes to mind…
This is a very astute observation.
Re: Luther, a progression of the events
That is a topic that is long and complex and many books have been written about it. There are a lot of historical sources available on the internet. (I have had some friends tell me that this area of history is not taught in Catholic Schools. I don’t know if that is true in every region.)
How is this not in alignment with what I said before? We learned about the Reformation and all that you summarized in my world history class (not a Catholic school). So I know what happened. Though he didn’t initially decide to start a new church, it still came to pass by the influence of his actions and his desire that the papacy be done away with. I am certain that he was pleased with what came to pass, what with Protestantism taking over Europe and all in the middle ages.
Not to mention his impact on the collection of funds for St Peter’s.
When someone speaks of these three as if they were together-ever! - one has to recognize that it is probably opinion.
This strikes me as pure speculation.
I can’t speak on Zwingli. One pastor of mine once compared the Lutheran and Reformed difference to the Lutherans dumped the contents of a box on a bed and picked out what they didn’t want. The Reformed dumped out the contents of the box and put pack in the box only what they wanted. In short, the Reformed criticism of the Lutherans is that they did not go far enough.SojournerOnEarth:
When someone speaks of these three as if they were together-ever! - one has to recognize that it is probably opinion.
Agree. I kind of think he was the crest of the wave (yet the full import of “movement” is felt and finally seen just after the crest, …but it begins way before and is quite visible, yet without much effect, …think of surfing, where you look to the horizon for any large roll of water, that is just slightly more distinct, larger than rest…as the roll comes to shore, with less room for it, the land rising up beneath all the water, the mass of water tumbles over itself, crashing to itself, and finally ending up on the sandy shore. Circumstances (the land) were pushing up, (increase in church taxes, office abuse, a general spiritual malaise, somewhat past dark ages, yet not fully into Renaissance, the printing press, governance/cultural shift where some princes were actually daring to be less dependent on Rome for sanctification/legitimizing of their power, some papal schisms and poor example of holiness, much less any “foot washing” attitude, some church traditions pushing the envelope and some clergy calling for reform)
NO he did’t; but He IS the Father of the Reformation; the one who gave it form and life
Well said! There was actually a CATHOLIC Reformation going on in Spain at the time of Luther and even before.
Though the Catholic church has gone through several cycles of renewal, history has deemed to label the creation of the Protestant churches as “The Reformation” and Luther as the key player. I think it’s quibbling to now try call it something else.