- Status
G
GKC
Guest
And once again:
Henry like sparklies. Was always on the look-out for a new and nifty title, or gee-gaw to add to his collection. In 1512, he petitioned Julius II to award him the title possessed by Louis XII, “Most Christian King” (you didn’t just call yourself something like that; it was awarded). Not sure if “Most Christian” was a singular title, but Julius did award it to Henry, and, for good measure, secretly gave him the French throne. All he had to do to claim it was to defeat Louis in the then on-going unpleasantness between the Holy League and France. That part never happened, though Henry tried. But Henry got his “Christianissimus”.
In 1515, Henry wanted something else to pad his resume. Various ideas were passed around: “Protector of the Holy See”, maybe “Defender”, from the English side. The first was turned down because it already belonged to the Holy Roman Emperor, the second was the property of the Swiss. Some in Rome countered with “King Apostolic” (interesting combination) or “Orthodox”. The Pope vetoed both. In 1516, the title of “Defender of the Faith” was proposed from England. Leo ignored it, and Henry gave up until May, 1521, when Wolsey wrote once again to Rome, asking for a pretty for Henry. Leo passed it to a committee of Cardinals. Forthcoming were suggestions:
“Rex Fidelis”, “Orthodoxus”, “Ecclesiaticus” ,
“Protector”, “Anglicus”
When the Cardinals inquired just why Henry warranted another honor, the part he had played fighting for the Holy See against Louis, 9 years before, was mentioned. And there was the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum), a defense of the sacraments, and Papal authority,* contra* Luther, of which Rome had heard. It was in draft (in this form), in May 1521, printed in July, sent to Rome in September, after the Cardinals had been considering the matter of Henry’s request for a few months. And it was at least partially Henry’s work. Probably). So, before the* Assertio* was received and presented to Leo, (his copy bound in cloth-of-gold, hand inscribed to Leo, the 27 other copies more mundane), a list of titles for Henry to choose from was shipped to England.
The Assertio probably tipped the scales. About the time it was presented to Leo, Henry chose the same title that had been suggested by England 6 years before: Defensor Fidei. Leo granted it six weeks after he received the book. Doubtless directly inspired by the Assertio, some cardinals then wanted to add a flourish such as Gloriosus or Fidelissimus, but Leo vetoed it.
So Henry got his sparklie, partially because of the Assertio, partially because of the Holy League, partially because he was a pain in the neck. It was intended as a title for him personally, though he thought it was hereditary. Parliament thought it looked nice, and attached it to the Throne, in 1543. Mary took it off, in her Second Act of repeal, Elizabeth put it back, and it’s there now by legislative fiat. Hence, the title attached to the British Monarchy is not really the same as the one Henry bore. It’s a gift from Parliament. Just uses the same words.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
They were more open to Lutherization. But Luther didn’t have any effect on the break with Rome. Which seemed to be the original assertion.Maybe not Hank, but what about those who “protestantized”, so to speak, the Church of England?
P.S. I’m actually not at all clear why we are talking about this, but we are apparently.
Me, I’m not talking about it.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
I could find a stick, if needed.Well you know what I always say: any stick to beat the Church of England.
P.S. Kidding … Sort of. Any CoE members reading this, no offense intended.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
General notice:
Hot Topic for the week of 3/31.
Please remain on topic.
Hot Topic for the week of 3/31.
Please remain on topic.
R
robwar
Guest
I think I will start another thread on this. Generalizations of Protestants is a worthy topic. You seem like you have a lot to say on it and I think the basis of this thread is over and a new one needs to be started.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Jon,
As for your comments above, I don’t think they agree very well with many of the opinions of modern Scholars. Furthermore, I don’ think you are giving Luther ‘enough credit’ for the Reformation. After all, it WAS Luther who, at the beginning of his Reformation ‘career’, taught Private Interpretation. As such, no matter whether you think the Reformation was a ‘good thing’ or a ‘bad thing’, Luther bears a great deal of the responsibility for it.
“Luther started the process of spiritual fragmentation and competition that still goes on in Western Christendom today.” Dr. Philip Ozment (Harvard Professor), “Protestants, The Birth of a Revolution”, pg. 1
“The division within Protestant ranks that is so striking to us today began almost immediately with the Reformations success. Luther nailed his famous theses to the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg on 31 October 1517, and before a decade had passed he faced determined Anabaptist, Spiritualist, and Zwinglian competitors. Each took inspiration from his movement, while at the same time decrying its corruption and declaring independence from it. Here began the unending line of would-be reformers of the Reformation, who have ever since confronted the original and later versions of Protestantism with their own, allegedly truer interpretations of Holy Scripture.” Ozment, “Birth”, pg. x
It would be one thing if there had been a ‘pause’ between the beginnings of Luther’s Revolt and the beginnings of doctrinal turmoil and violence. The truth is that there was no ‘pause’. The problems started immediately after Luther began his challenge to the authority to the Church.
“An outbreak at Erfurt against the clergy occurred in June 1521, and by the end of the year riots took place at Wittenberg. Even now, at the dawn of the revolution appeared at the beginning of those sects, more radical than the Lutheran, commonly known as Anabaptist.” Preserved Smith, “The Age of The Reform”, pg. 82
“By the time he (Luther) returned to Wittenberg in 1522 to take charge of the Reformation in that town, his ideas were gaining considerable support throughout Europe. By this stage, the Reformation may be said to have begun. In its early phase, it was decisively shaped by Luther. Luther’s influence on the Reformation was fundamental…….Luther’s influence on virtually every aspect of Reformation thought is immense. His approaches to biblical interpretation, the doctrine of justification, the church, and the sacraments remain theological landmarks.” Alister McGrath, “Reformation Thought”, pg. 90-1
Of course it was only a few months later that we find the Anabaptists making their appearance in Wittenberg, which was then already the hotbed of dissent and turmoil. If you know of any evidence that the Anabaptists predate Luther’s Revolt, I would love to see it. Personally, I don’t think it is all that significant that the Anabaptists held to very different doctrines than did Luther. The important thing is that it was Luther who provided the Anabaptists with the Precedent to Interpret the Scriptures for themselves.
“By 1523 the course was set toward the fragmentation Catholics had predicted from the first.” Marius, pg. 384
As for the Anglicans, Henry VIII, even being a King, probably never would have thought he could get away with breaking with the Church UNLESS he had seen the ‘success’ of Luther’s Revolt.
I think it is strange that Lutherans would prefer not to be identified with the movement that their founder started, but would rather be seen as being ‘set aside’, which I think is your term. If as the above Scholars state, that it was Luther who was in large part responsible for the Protestant Reformation, then how can we not see Lutherans as the Original Protestants?
God Bless You Jon, Topper
Back in the day, when I was one, I don’t remember anybody objecting to being called a Protestant. If anything, it was something to be proud of. Now it seems – maybe not so much. Now it seems like a label that has lost its “luster”, which I think is significant in and of itself. Now various denominations and individuals seem to view the term Protestant as something to be avoided. I don’t understand why you would prefer not to be called a “Protestant”.
As for your comments above, I don’t think they agree very well with many of the opinions of modern Scholars. Furthermore, I don’ think you are giving Luther ‘enough credit’ for the Reformation. After all, it WAS Luther who, at the beginning of his Reformation ‘career’, taught Private Interpretation. As such, no matter whether you think the Reformation was a ‘good thing’ or a ‘bad thing’, Luther bears a great deal of the responsibility for it.
“Luther started the process of spiritual fragmentation and competition that still goes on in Western Christendom today.” Dr. Philip Ozment (Harvard Professor), “Protestants, The Birth of a Revolution”, pg. 1
“The division within Protestant ranks that is so striking to us today began almost immediately with the Reformations success. Luther nailed his famous theses to the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg on 31 October 1517, and before a decade had passed he faced determined Anabaptist, Spiritualist, and Zwinglian competitors. Each took inspiration from his movement, while at the same time decrying its corruption and declaring independence from it. Here began the unending line of would-be reformers of the Reformation, who have ever since confronted the original and later versions of Protestantism with their own, allegedly truer interpretations of Holy Scripture.” Ozment, “Birth”, pg. x
It would be one thing if there had been a ‘pause’ between the beginnings of Luther’s Revolt and the beginnings of doctrinal turmoil and violence. The truth is that there was no ‘pause’. The problems started immediately after Luther began his challenge to the authority to the Church.
“An outbreak at Erfurt against the clergy occurred in June 1521, and by the end of the year riots took place at Wittenberg. Even now, at the dawn of the revolution appeared at the beginning of those sects, more radical than the Lutheran, commonly known as Anabaptist.” Preserved Smith, “The Age of The Reform”, pg. 82
“By the time he (Luther) returned to Wittenberg in 1522 to take charge of the Reformation in that town, his ideas were gaining considerable support throughout Europe. By this stage, the Reformation may be said to have begun. In its early phase, it was decisively shaped by Luther. Luther’s influence on the Reformation was fundamental…….Luther’s influence on virtually every aspect of Reformation thought is immense. His approaches to biblical interpretation, the doctrine of justification, the church, and the sacraments remain theological landmarks.” Alister McGrath, “Reformation Thought”, pg. 90-1
Of course it was only a few months later that we find the Anabaptists making their appearance in Wittenberg, which was then already the hotbed of dissent and turmoil. If you know of any evidence that the Anabaptists predate Luther’s Revolt, I would love to see it. Personally, I don’t think it is all that significant that the Anabaptists held to very different doctrines than did Luther. The important thing is that it was Luther who provided the Anabaptists with the Precedent to Interpret the Scriptures for themselves.
“By 1523 the course was set toward the fragmentation Catholics had predicted from the first.” Marius, pg. 384
As for the Anglicans, Henry VIII, even being a King, probably never would have thought he could get away with breaking with the Church UNLESS he had seen the ‘success’ of Luther’s Revolt.
I think it is strange that Lutherans would prefer not to be identified with the movement that their founder started, but would rather be seen as being ‘set aside’, which I think is your term. If as the above Scholars state, that it was Luther who was in large part responsible for the Protestant Reformation, then how can we not see Lutherans as the Original Protestants?
God Bless You Jon, Topper
G
GKC
Guest
The Henrician Acts of 1534 were in no sense occasioned or suggested to Hank by what Luther had done on the continent. They represented another step in an on-going struggle visible in England for over 200 years (at a minimum).
The relationship between the Church, and the Throne, in England had been a contentious one for several hundred years, minimum, with the Throne/Parliament maneuvering to increase the government’s power over the Church in England, and reduce the power of any external agency over it, from outside the kingdom (i.e., Rome). You can trace the struggle in a number of Acts and Royal decrees, running back to the First Statute of Westminster, and culminating in the Acts in 1534. Henry (and Catherine and Anne and Clement and Pius and Cromwell and Wolsey and Charles, etc, etc) was the occasion of the split from Rome; the cause was much older and deeper, and lay in emerging nationalism, as much as Hanks’ dynastic and hormonal issues. To that extent, it shared some foundation with where Luther’s secular support came from, in his case. But Luther’s acts did not suggest the idea to him.
GKC
And his blessing also with you,
With your indulgence, I truncated your post. I don’t think there is any question that the various reformation era movements were concurrent, as the historians you referenced make clear. I also don’t think there’s any question that, while there were earlier reformers such as Huss, that Luther’s movement gained momentum and support, in part because of certain rulers of the time.
My point is, and I will put it in question form for you to respond to: how long was Zwingli (and Muntzer in the case of the Anabaptists) in league with Luther, and at what point did they splinter?
Was Luther a central figure in the Reformation? Of course, but the Swiss and Anabaptist movements (the Anglican situation is completely removed from Luther, as GKC has pointed out) were separate movements virtually from the very start, and they are responsible for their own actions.
Only a few months later is an important point. The Zwickau prophets show up in Wittenburg in 1521, and are immediately rejected by Luther. I think it is critically important that the Anabaptists held to a radically different theology. In fact, I think that is the main point! Further, I don’t think it was Luther who provided that precedent. Petr Chelcicky had already done so, at least in part, as a predecessor to the Anabaptist movement.
In many respects, Lutherans are the original protestant, for they were the ones protesting at the 2nd Diet of Speyer. But that doesn’t translate into us having responsibility for other movements that were concurrent, but never really connected or in communion with Lutheranism.
Jon
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
The conflict between Thomas Becket and Henry II is a good case in point in the struggle between church and state in England–predating the Reformation by hundreds of years. Henry II couldn’t pull off his coup to seize additional powers from the church in his time because of popular resistance, but by the time Henry VIII came along, the political and religious landscape had changed entirely and there was little resistance.
The same is true of Luther. Popular resentment against the church had been smoldering for hundreds of years; I often recommend people read the Carmina Burana if one has any doubts about this. People like to portray Luther as sort of a one-man show because it makes for simplistic history and downplays the wide array of problems within Christianity in the West at the time, but Luther doesn’t emerge out of a vacuum. Without the support of the people, Luther simply would have been arrested and likely executed as a religious weirdo. You can argue that Luther started the fire, sure. But the people had been gathering fuel for centuries.
G
GKC
Guest
True. As I said a couple of times in the relevant post, one could look back 200+ years before Henry, and see the process in Henry II and Beckett. And before.
Simplistic history is all too common, yes.
GKC
G
graceandglory
Guest
No, I’ve attended several non-denominational churches. The denomination is the pastor’s belief and can change and develop as the pastor himself does. Often, a non-denominational pastor starts to align himself with a denomination, then the church applies for formal recognition as belonging to the denomination.
Being non-denominational is so American. It’s like the mom and pop version of church.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
The pastor had to attend school somewhere, or at least read up someone’s personal “tradition”. There is no such thing as “non-denominational”, there’s “non-commital” Christians, who don’t like to decide where they stand.
P
Peter_J
Guest
That makes sense. I also think it is no coincidence that the Catholic-Protestant split was so soon after the Council of Florence in the mid 15th century, which finalized the East-West schism. (Just as I think it is no coincidence that many Protestant splits happened so soon after the Catholic-Protestant split.)
P
PJM
Guest
I see no reason to not accomidate their desire not to be termed “Protestant”. However I Do see a problem [IMO here] in there desire to be termed “Christians”; IF as I think they intend; that there is an equality among ALL Christians [cathoics lumped in], which denies historical, biblical and even logical fact.
Their understanding of Christianity was not birthed until nearly 1,500 years after Christ Founded His One God; with One faith in One Church; Catholic Church. And Christ our GOOD God certainly did not wait for Henry VIII, Wyclife, Calvin, Luther, or Smith to make HIS one set of Faith belefs known.
Because truth is and MUST BE singular per defiend issuel I think it is important to make known God trurh, KIF it can be done with charity and facts. If they disagree with anything I have written here; then avoid the issue and just PRAY alot for them.
What I shared here IS historically and biblically provable IF they are willing to,listen [and so many are not; or are impeded from understanding as a result of being in a religion that opposes Gods, and are therefore not given Gods TRUE understanding
] we can debate but not argue:thumbsup:God Bless you,
Patrick
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Jon,
Thanks for your response
Jon, Huss was NOT a ‘reformer’. He was a heretic and was proclaimed as such by an Ecumenical Council. If you claim that he wasn’t, then you are going to have to decide whether Arius, Pelagius, etc were heretics. Do we ALL get to decide personally whether these men were heretics or is that up to the Church?
Duke George “wrote to Pope Leo X saying that Luther’s doctrines, ‘if not strenuously opposed, would imperil the unity of the faith, and private opinion would take the place of traditional dogma’ (exactly what was to happen in Protestant Christianity) and that ‘out of love for the unity of the faith he would support any measures the Pope might take against Luther.’” From Grisar, III, pg. 95, in Carrol, “The Cleaving of Christendom”, pg. 8
If only Luther had been as astute as the ‘lightminded’ Duke George.
"On April 25, 1529, the Lutheran minority published a “Protest” declaring that conscience forbade their acceptance of this decree (the Edict of Worms);… The term ‘Protestant’ was applied to the signers of this Protest, and gradually came into use to designate the German rebels from Rome.” Durant, “The Reformation”, pg. 442
My criticism is NOT directed at “Lutherans”. After all, Luther taught Private Interpretation (cluelessly) and then retracted it LONG before the Confessions, and long before the founding of the LCMS. Therefore Lutheranism should not have for him. He must be defended or criticized as an individual.
Maybe it comes down to this Jon. Do you think that Luther should be criticized for his teaching on Private Interpretation? Also, what role do you think that teaching had on Protestant doctrinal disunity? IOW, would you claim that doctrinal dissention ‘just happened’ to explode right at the time that Luther began his revolt?
God Bless You Jon, Topper
Thanks for your response
That’s fine of course, but does your decision to not deal with those quotes indicate are you conceding that Luther is responsible, as the quotes indicated, at least in part for the doctrinal disunity of Protestantism?
Of course the reasons for the “Reformation” are extremely complex, but again the point that I made was that it was Luther’s teaching of Private Interpretation which set the precedent for those other groups to do exactly what he did (develop his own doctrine) and come to vastly different conclusions. Again, the quotes that I posted don’t really seem to speak so much of ‘concurrent’ movements as they do about Luther as being, among other things, an ‘immense’ influence.
Jon, Huss was NOT a ‘reformer’. He was a heretic and was proclaimed as such by an Ecumenical Council. If you claim that he wasn’t, then you are going to have to decide whether Arius, Pelagius, etc were heretics. Do we ALL get to decide personally whether these men were heretics or is that up to the Church?
You are asking the wrong question, because you seem to wish to believe that the ONLY way that Luther could be ‘responsible’ for the doctrinal dissention of Protestantism is if ALL of those early groups sprung DIRECTLY from Luther. Not all of them did. OF COURSE they came to different conclusions than Luther did. IF ONLY he had been wise enough to have accepted the warnings that that would be the case. In fact, Duke George, never depicted as an intellectual heavyweight, was astute enough as early as 1518 to recognize that Luther’s teachings would lead to doctrinal disunity:
Duke George “wrote to Pope Leo X saying that Luther’s doctrines, ‘if not strenuously opposed, would imperil the unity of the faith, and private opinion would take the place of traditional dogma’ (exactly what was to happen in Protestant Christianity) and that ‘out of love for the unity of the faith he would support any measures the Pope might take against Luther.’” From Grisar, III, pg. 95, in Carrol, “The Cleaving of Christendom”, pg. 8
If only Luther had been as astute as the ‘lightminded’ Duke George.
Should I take it then that your position is that Luther should not be criticized for teaching the Right to Private Interpretation, and that the fact that he did has absolutely nothing to do with the doctrinal dissentions of his time and of ours within Protestantism?
Yes Jon, but Chelcicky was a HUSSITE, a heretic, and heretics ALWAYS teach Private Interpretation, and the reason that they do is because it is the only (supposedly) plausible way that they can justify their opposition to the Church. Are we all to pick and choose which of the historic heretics we personally want to hold to be ‘orthodox’? If so, then how, specifically and exactly, without using YOUR Personal Interpretation? Isn’t it really the role of the Church to proclaim various beliefs to be heresy?
OK, so if Lutherans were the original Protestants, then why would it be inappropriate for them to be referred to as such? After all, historically, it WAS the Lutherans who were described as “Protestants”:
"On April 25, 1529, the Lutheran minority published a “Protest” declaring that conscience forbade their acceptance of this decree (the Edict of Worms);… The term ‘Protestant’ was applied to the signers of this Protest, and gradually came into use to designate the German rebels from Rome.” Durant, “The Reformation”, pg. 442
My criticism is NOT directed at “Lutherans”. After all, Luther taught Private Interpretation (cluelessly) and then retracted it LONG before the Confessions, and long before the founding of the LCMS. Therefore Lutheranism should not have for him. He must be defended or criticized as an individual.
Maybe it comes down to this Jon. Do you think that Luther should be criticized for his teaching on Private Interpretation? Also, what role do you think that teaching had on Protestant doctrinal disunity? IOW, would you claim that doctrinal dissention ‘just happened’ to explode right at the time that Luther began his revolt?
God Bless You Jon, Topper
- Status