Luther Did Not Start the Reformation

[JonNC]

Today, less than two centurys after their creation, that communion has suffered more than six divisions.

I’m not against the protestants (in fact my entire family is protestant), but I’ve to say that Protestantism is a chaotic and divisive plethora of heterodoxies and I pray that God may give them the Grace to see their errors and convert to the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.

What may be chaotic is that particular group. When one says they are Protestant, or Protestants do this or Protestants do that, it doesn’t mean anything
You are talking, apparently, about a Presbyterian communion. It isn’t Protestantism, it is Presbyterianism.
Additionally, every single one of those divisions has its roots in the divisions of the western Church during the Reformation era, divisions for which the Catholic Church holds at least equal responsibility. Everyone of those divisions is a division in of and within the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of which each of them is a member via Baptism.

 

[Vonsalza]

I do think he has a point in that in order for them to be “one” the definition of one must be degraded to the point where it’s virtually meaningless.
You certainly couldn’t test for it.

 

[steido01]

Oh? What does Pope Benedict, a native German speaker, have to say on the topic of adding “alone” to the context?

https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119.html

 

[steido01]

A generally fair assessment. His translation was apparently of good quality, since it was plagiarized by the same Roman Catholics who chided him for his translation of Romans. He wrote about that, and it’s pretty entertaining.

 

[tafan2]

My short summary is: …

I think your summary left out perhaps the most important factor: the economics of the reformation. The Church was immensely rich in Europe at the time, Monasteries and Bishoprics controlled vast amounts of land. It has been estimated that in parts of Germany and certainly throughout England, it controlled upwards of 1/3 of the economic production. Indeed, if there was anything about the Church that needed reformed, it was this. You can’t have that much wealth in any human institution without a lot of corruption that goes along with it.
When it was seen that Luther’s ideas could lead to economic wealth, the spoils of the church were a huge motivating factor among the nobility, especially the minor nobility who saw the potential to move up and become rich for the first time. And then there was the peculiar instance of England, where the split with Rome was completely driven by Henry’s closing of the monasteries and the distribution of the spoils. It can be summed up based on the area:
Gernany: if the local prince favored a split, the nobility went along, and with minor exceptions the common man did not, but was powerless to not go along with the flow. If the local prince favored Catholicism, the nobility often wanted a split, but the combination of the king at the top and the common man at the bottom kept it Catholic.
France: domestically: the monarchy favored Catholicism. The nobility went all out towards Calvinism, as they were close to the nobility in England and saw up close the vast riches they stood to gain from a split. The commoners again favored Catholicism, and that eventually prevailed, but it was could have easily gone the other way. And international policy of the French was schizophrenic with respect to its domestic policy: always favoring the protestants in there fight with the Holy Roman Emperor.
England: as above: it set the tone for the whole reformation. If England would have kept the faith, Protestantism likely would have failed easily. But in England, the spoils of the Church were distributed so early on that the nobility and new rich would do anything to protect their new found wealth. Despite a monarchy that fluctuated back and forth for a time, the nobility had become too powerful to not win the day. The common man in England favored Catholicism for much longer than is generally realized, but after a generation or two of not even having a mass, the traditions died out.

 

[tafan2]

Luther didn’t start a reformation, Luther started a rebellion. There have been reformatioms in the Church prior to Luther, but these were actual reformations. These people didn’t attempt to start a new Church.

It really serves no purpose not to refer to historical events by their accepted names, regardless if the name happens to be somewhat of a misnomer. The reformation is defined as the schism of the Church in Western Christendom. It simply confuses discussions if we define it as something else.

 

[steido01]

Change their minds about what? That the faith they believed in was suddenly “wrong”?

Luther, and Lutherans, did not and do not believe the RCC was “suddenly wrong.” There is no “Great Apostasy” like the Mormons make believe. Lutherans believe that the true Gospel existed then and still exists now within the RCC, even though Lutherans believe it is somewhat obscured by extraneous teachings. Here’s Luther, in his own words – be sure to note the similarity to CCC 817-819:

[W]e concede—as we must—that so much of what they say is true: that the papacy has God’s Word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scripture, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them? Therefore faith, the Christian Church, Christ, and the Holy Spirit must also be found among them…
Now I find this church in the papacy too
…]
Thus we are also compelled to say: “I believe and am sure that the Christian Church has remained even in the papacy.
…]
ome of the papists are true Christians, even though they, too, have been led astray, as Christ foretold in Matt. 24:24. But by the grace of God and with His help they have been preserved in a wonderful manner.
…]
[W]e want to acknowledge and honor as the true bride of Christ those who remain faithful to His pure Word and have no other comfort for their hearts than this Savior, whom they have received and confessed in Baptism and in whose name they have partaken of the Sacrament. These are the true church. It is not found in only one place, as, for example, under the pope; but it exists over the entire earth wherever Christians are found. Outwardly they may be scattered here and there, but they meet in the words of the Creed: “I believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, our Lord, who was born, suffered, and died for us on the cross.” In like manner, they pray: “Our Father who art in heaven.” They share the same Spirit, Word, and Sacrament. They all lead the same holy and blessed life, each one according to his calling, whether father, mother, master, servant, etc. Thus whatever we preach, believe, and live, this they all preach, believe, and live. Physically separated and scattered here and there throughout the wide world, we are nevertheless gathered and united in Christ.

I often struggle with abuses that do still take place in the Church as well, but that does not mean I’m going to start a new church based on my own fallible ideas or start rallying people. That’s absurd.

That was not Luther’s intention. Nor was it really the reality. No split was cleanly made. It was a messy several decades of dividing, with individuals on both sides still working with each other. The Lutheran Reformers saw themselves as the continuation of the catholic faith, as is evidenced by their official documents:

This is about the Sum of our Doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome as known from its writers. (Augsburg Confession)

 

[guanophore]

I think it safe to say that virtually none of them have started new churches

Not in the classical sense, but when there is a personal or doctrinal conflict they go down the street and open a new storefront. These small “non-demominationals” generally do not espouse any “creed” (such as the Augsburg Confession) other than the “Bible”.

Protestantism is a chaotic and divisive plethora of heterodoxies and I pray that God may give them the Grace to see their errors and convert to the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.

From your lips to God’s ear! We can support this prayer by seeking unity with one another here on CAF, rather than focusing on what divides us, or the actions of less than holy and pure ancestors over 500 years ago!

There are reformers that actually deserve praise. Luther is not one of them.

I was not suggesting Catholics need to praise him, or pray to him! But the CC has acknowledged that he was a witness to the gospel, and I think it is incumbent upon the faithful to follow that lead.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...doc_2013_dal-conflitto-alla-comunione_en.html

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

He had some good complaints. His actions afterward are what I disagree with. There’s a right and wrong way to go about reform, he and his followers took the decidedly wrong path.

 

[Vonsalza]

If England would have kept the faith, Protestantism likely would have failed easily.

Darn you, Hank! Darn you!!!

 

[GKMotley]

Delete the word “completely” from the paras on Henry/England, and you’re good to go.

 

[GKMotley]

Fascinating train wreck, ol Hank, as I often say.

 

[Vonsalza]

tafan2:

If England would have kept the faith, Protestantism likely would have failed easily.

Darn you, Hank! Darn you!!!

But again, I think Hank might not have felt as emboldened if the Western Schism hadn’t occurred.

It truly made the office seem less divine and more arbitrarily human.

 

[steido01]

It already seemed that way, and had for centuries. Electing tweens and pre-teens as cardinals because Grandpa had cash isn’t exactly the best way to show respect for an ecclesial office.

 

[GKMotley]

I think in any case, Hank, and the times, were well met, for a perfect storm. It was political power vs political power. With theology trailing the field.

 

[nearlycatholic]

At this point, is it really that crucial to have an individual name? Our world is crippled, our society certainly from schism, hatred, disbelief, and just plain evil. I am not a Catholic…yet but it sure seems to my simple way of thinking that if every one of us began making our faith known at whatever cost we would begin the next reformation. The school shooting yesterday happened just 20 miles from where I grew up and went to school. We “christians” listen to, watch, tolerate the world’s ways and then act shocked. We allow immorality and all kinds of known sin into our fellowships in the name of tolerance and trying to “win” them. We have sat silently to where the mere mention of God will get you thrown out of a job and a Manger scene is unacceptable while we fawn over transgenders so they are not offended and feel accepted. All the while Jesus told people who came to Him go and SIN NO MORE.
I say let’s have another reformation. It needs to start individually in my life and your life. Let’s’ by His grace be truly Christian, truly Catholic. No meat on Fridays? means no meat! Really now how hard is that? Do we really need some one to define meat? Like what about gravy and soup, meat based? DUH!
Yeah, pray for our pope, our bishops and priests and deacons and elders and fellow Christians everywhere for a return to primitive godliness and holiness. And let it start with ME!

 

[tafan2]

nearlycatholic, all well and good, and I would agree that the things you mention are by far the most important things we should be focused on in our lives. Yes, we all have a “call to holiness” that is requires a life long process of conversion/reform of our own lives.
But, we do not live as individuals, we live as a community and a larger society. And understanding history is very important part of how as a group we decide to move forward. We have two thousand years of “lessons learned” about our Church, we can’t ignore those lessons.
And, that same history can/does affect out individual progress towards holiness. We have grown with biases taught to us one way or the other which affect our viewpoint on everything. We need to continually strive to understand when those biases are beneficial or detrimental. Part of that (not all by any means) is understanding history.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

paragraph 14 is huge

All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13)*

And the context of the highlighted? http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...s/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

"In explicit terms He [Jesus] Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. "

Charity is to DO what Jesus willed. “Whoever then who doesn’t do that” as the paragraph states, commits an offense against charity.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I don’t have to play dumb. You didn’t quote me. Here is my post Luther Did Not Start the Reformation

Yes I did. On the upper right of each post it links to the quoted post,
You inserted your def and a link.

NOW why don’t you respond to my interpretation of what you said. If I got it wrong then clarify.

As you can see, my focus was on Luther.

 

[Agathon]

The recent approach of the Vatican is to find areas of agreement, instead of rejecting everything. We have much more in common with Lutherans than we do with Calvanists and modern “evangelicals” and “non-denominationals” that are heavily influenced by Calvanism (though they usually don’t realize that).

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.