Protestant Reformation not from God but from the Evil One.

[Mannyfit75]

Since Jesus prayed for all believers to be One, and that the Protestant Reformation divided His Church I don’t believe the Reformation is God’s handy work but that of the Devil himself who takes pleasure of dividing God’s children.

 

[Catholic_Hammer]

Manny, I agree with you, but I doubt if even 2% of other Catholics would.

I believe we, as Catholics, should “boo” and “hiss” whenever Martin Luther (boo! hiss!) is mentioned.

 

[Allweather]

God may not have caused or desired the Reformation, but He will use it for His own purposes. The Reformation proves the necessity for strong Church authority. Most Protestants are good Christian people who may come back to Rome when the idea’s time has come.

I wouldn’t blame the Reformation on the Devil. It was plainly man’s doing. The Devil is always roaming around, though, seeing where he can take advantage of a situation, and surely he has had a good time with Protestantism. Maybe the Devil thought that that was his best chance to prevail against the Church even in the face of God’s protection. It turned out, though, that the Church not only did not die, it survived and thrived. And though European Christianity seems to be dying out, it is thriving in South America and Africa, among other places.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Why couldn’t those reformers be more like St. Francis of Assisi he rebuild the Church from within… rather than divide it? The is the only thing the bothers me.

 

[Steadfast]

Things were much different in the 13th century than they came to be in the 16th.

As it turns out at least one movement related to Francis was, in fact quashed as heretical and apparently for nothing more than taking too seriously Francis’ opinions on poverty.

I encourage you to read more history and get a more balanced view of it. Things are not so black and white as you appear to have been led to believe.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Things were much different in the 13th century than they came to be in the 16th.

As it turns out at least one movement related to Francis was, in fact quashed as heretical and apparently for nothing more than taking too seriously Francis’ opinions on poverty.

I encourage you to read more history and get a more balanced view of it. Things are not so black and white as you appear to have been led to believe.

I’m referring to St. Francis of Assisi himself when he decided to serve God. I was no referring to the Fraticelli’s.

 

[Allweather]

Why couldn’t those reformers be more like St. Francis of Assisi he rebuild the Church from within… rather than divide it? The is the only thing the bothers me.

Lots of people did come back to Rome later in the century.

Maybe the Reformation was the logical outcome of the types of Popes like Alexander VI , and signaled the beginning of the end of the worldly Church, a process essentially finished off by 1870 or thereabouts.

 

[Goblin_Taters]

Originally Posted by Catholic_Hammer:

I believe we, as Catholics, should “boo” and “hiss” whenever Martin Luther (boo! hiss!) is mentioned.

While Martin Luther made some doctrinal errors, such as his rejection of certain sacraficial aspects of the Mass, Luther did in fact rightly condemn (along with Catholic humanists such as Erasmus) the abuses of the time. Although he fell into error, it should be noted that the Popes of the times oftentimes whored around and bathed themselves in the blood of fellow Christians. To Luther and many of the Reformers, Rome itself had become pagan (just witness the “pagan” art pieces then being commissioned in the Vatican and other Italian cities).

It should also be noted that much of what Martin Luther argued for was later adopted by the Church at Vatican II: vernacular language for the liturgy, communion under both kinds, a de-emphasis of language on the Mass as sacrafice, more Christo-centric, less juridical approach to the Church, etc.

Originally Posted by Mannyfit75:

Why couldn’t those reformers be more like St. Francis of Assisi he rebuild the Church from within… rather than divide it? The is the only thing the bothers me.

I do not think it was the intention of Luther to divide the Church. Luther was excommunicated; he did not leave the Church. Given the abuses of indulgences, the nepotism, un-Christian living of the Popes, revival of interest in things pagan, etc. then prevalent in Europe, the Reformers wrote against this but also came to the conclusion that the Popes and bishops were simply human men who could make mistakes and even err in doctrine.

Why, if the Church were One and undivided, the Reformers might have asked, are the Greek Orthodox not part of the Church? They have the same sacraments, the same faith, but are believed to be damned because they are not in communion with this one man, this Peter, who is clearly shown not to be without error, much less the Vicar of Christ, the one God chose to rule over the Church. The visible Church already is shown to be divided, and it cannot be identified with any one visible structure, for there are the Roman Catholics, the Greek Orthodox, even the Oriental Orthodox–and all these profess to be the One Holy Apostolic Church and yet are divided.

 

[theAuthor]

While Martin Luther made some doctrinal errors, such as his rejection of certain sacraficial aspects of the Mass, Luther did in fact rightly condemn (along with Catholic humanists such as Erasmus) the abuses of the time. Although he fell into error, it should be noted that the Popes of the times oftentimes whored around and bathed themselves in the blood of fellow Christians. To Luther and many of the Reformers, Rome itself had become pagan (just witness the “pagan” art pieces then being commissioned in the Vatican and other Italian cities).

It should also be noted that much of what Martin Luther argued for was later adopted by the Church at Vatican II: vernacular language for the liturgy, communion under both kinds, a de-emphasis of language on the Mass as sacrafice, more Christo-centric, less juridical approach to the Church, etc.

I do not think it was the intention of Luther to divide the Church. Luther was excommunicated; he did not leave the Church. Given the abuses of indulgences, the nepotism, un-Christian living of the Popes, revival of interest in things pagan, etc. then prevalent in Europe, the Reformers wrote against this but also came to the conclusion that the Popes and bishops were simply human men who could make mistakes and even err in doctrine.

Why, if the Church were One and undivided, the Reformers might have asked, are the Greek Orthodox not part of the Church? They have the same sacraments, the same faith, but are believed to be damned because they are not in communion with this one man, this Peter, who is clearly shown not to be without error, much less the Vicar of Christ, the one God chose to rule over the Church. The visible Church already is shown to be divided, and it cannot be identified with any one visible structure, for there are the Roman Catholics, the Greek Orthodox, even the Oriental Orthodox–and all these profess to be the One Holy Apostolic Church and yet are divided.

Amen and amen. I think that the reason that some of the earlier posters (the boo and hissers) form 2% of Catholics, is because most are more informed and can see that fault lay on both sides. This is in the Catechism in fact.

Above, an excellent post. Luther was ex-communicated and stood on his conscience. A hero in my book. Just the same as Thomas Moore (a Catholic) was a hero when he stood on his conscience too. The only exception was that Luther married, which would have gone against his belief that his ordination was irrevocable/indellible.

 

[JLSacred]

This post is excellent and eloquent.

While Martin Luther made some doctrinal errors, such as his rejection of certain sacraficial aspects of the Mass, Luther did in fact rightly condemn (along with Catholic humanists such as Erasmus) the abuses of the time. Although he fell into error, it should be noted that the Popes of the times oftentimes whored around and bathed themselves in the blood of fellow Christians. To Luther and many of the Reformers, Rome itself had become pagan (just witness the “pagan” art pieces then being commissioned in the Vatican and other Italian cities).

It should also be noted that much of what Martin Luther argued for was later adopted by the Church at Vatican II: vernacular language for the liturgy, communion under both kinds, a de-emphasis of language on the Mass as sacrafice, more Christo-centric, less juridical approach to the Church, etc.

I do not think it was the intention of Luther to divide the Church. Luther was excommunicated; he did not leave the Church. Given the abuses of indulgences, the nepotism, un-Christian living of the Popes, revival of interest in things pagan, etc. then prevalent in Europe, the Reformers wrote against this but also came to the conclusion that the Popes and bishops were simply human men who could make mistakes and even err in doctrine.

Why, if the Church were One and undivided, the Reformers might have asked, are the Greek Orthodox not part of the Church? They have the same sacraments, the same faith, but are believed to be damned because they are not in communion with this one man, this Peter, who is clearly shown not to be without error, much less the Vicar of Christ, the one God chose to rule over the Church. The visible Church already is shown to be divided, and it cannot be identified with any one visible structure, for there are the Roman Catholics, the Greek Orthodox, even the Oriental Orthodox–and all these profess to be the One Holy Apostolic Church and yet are divided.

 

[Steadfast]

I’m referring to St. Francis of Assisi himself when he decided to serve God. I was no referring to the Fraticelli’s.

Actually, your reference was to the efforts of Francis to rebuild the church from within which had everything to do with his ideas on radical poverty which he expected his movement to realize and which they were led out of by their own willingness to compromise and a complicit hierarchy who thought Francis’ ideal too extreme.

The Fraticelli are very much a part of this movement and far more like Francis in what they believed about the essential Franciscan ideal than those who remained “official”.

So the point remains, contrasting Francis and Luther won’t work.

Evidently it bears mentioning, yet again, that Luther’s original criticism of the church was entirely Catholic and was recognized as such by most Catholic scholarship of the age and that it was for this, not for his later, more extreme criticisms that he was excommunicated and kicked out.

So yes, again, he didn’t leave. He didn’t want to leave. He was kicked out for criticizing something everyone knew was wrong.

 

[Steadfast]

I’d like to join JLSacred and any other moderate Catholics like myself who are able to take a more balanced view of the man and the times he lived in saying that Goblin_Taters’ post was excellent and insightful and spot on.

 

[Mary3]

Why couldn’t those reformers be more like St. Francis of Assisi he rebuild the Church from within… rather than divide it? The is the only thing the bothers me.

Here is a really good and concise resource on this complicated issue. Knowing the history of the times gives us some insight into why things happened as they did. This is from Dr. Marcellino D’Ambrosio’s website: crossroadsinitiative.com/resource_info/142.html

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Allweather:

God may not have caused or desired the Reformation, but He will use it for His own purposes.

I agree.

Allweather:

I wouldn’t blame the Reformation on the Devil. It was plainly man’s doing.

There are three causes for things that happen in the world:

• Divine intervention;
• The natural processes of the world;
• Demonic influences.

To blame something on the Devil is an extraordinary claim. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Steadfast:

So yes, again, he didn’t leave.

He left.

Steadfast:

He didn’t want to leave.

He could not tolerate staying.

Steadfast:

He was kicked out for criticizing something everyone knew was wrong.

He was kicked out for repudiating his community which he had started to do long before he thought up any criticism of doctrine to justify his scrupulosity.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

davidarlette:

Above, an excellent post. Luther was ex-communicated and stood on his conscience.

Luther stood on his scrupulosity.

A hero in my book.

Noted.

 

[Genesis315]

Luther was not a hero, but a villain. He didn’t stand on his conscience, he trampled it with his passions. The heroes were the Counter Reformation saints

 

[theAuthor]

Luther stood on his scrupulosity.

Noted.

Noted? What is that? I said Luther and Thomas Moore were both heros…in their day.

It takes a hero to stand up to the heirachy of the day when you see something wrong. Maybe if more people did that, the world would not be run by soul-less corporations. Maybe if more people insisted on being treated like people and dug their heels in, we woldn’t get things like “Our serviceman will arrive btween 1pm and 5pm”, or “Your call is important to us” while waiting 45mins to wait to speak to a company on the phone line. So similarly a hero to me in 2007 is someone with the guts to try and do something about executive salaries. If they were willing to pay a personal price to do so, so much more the hero they would be. I am not necessarily talking G12 protestors here, but what if someone like Oprah or the CEO of a Telco said, no we get overpaid, and did something real to give something back or change the system. LIke donate $1 million of their salary to employ more staff to man the phones so people didn’t have to wait so long?

 

[Sabda]

Noted? What is that? I said Luther and Thomas Moore were both heros…in their day.

It takes a hero to stand up to the hierarchy of the day when you see something wrong. Maybe if more people did that, the world would not be run by soul-less corporations. Maybe if more people insisted on being treated like people and dug their heels in, we wouldn’t get things like “Our serviceman will arrive between 1pm and 5pm”, or “Your call is important to us” while waiting 45mins to wait to speak to a company on the phone line. So similarly a hero to me in 2007 is someone with the guts to try and do something about executive salaries. If they were willing to pay a personal price to do so, so much more the hero they would be. I am not necessarily talking G12 protestors here, but what if someone like Oprah or the CEO of a Telco said, no we get overpaid, and did something real to give something back or change the system. LIke donate $1 million of their salary to employ more staff to man the phones so people didn’t have to wait so long?

I don’t consider Luther to be a hero. Luther had a perfect opportunity to help reform the Church and instead he decided to rebel against Christ’s Church. Luther did start out doing the right thing by pointing out the errors of the Church leaders. The leaders were also interested in working with Luther to help reform the Church. However, once Luther started going to the extreme in his ideology his teachings had to be condemned. The Church simply couldn’t go there. No way the Holy Spirit is going to allow that! Luther by that point was so far gone that he couldn’t or wouldn’t change his ways. Therefore he had to be excommunicated.

LOL, $1 million to someone like Oprah is pennies. It means nothing! Now if your talking $50 million or $100 million that’s a different story. We DO have heros like that in our day. The problem is the vast majority of the world simply chooses to ignore them! A hero in my book is someone like Mother Theresa or Pope Benedict XVI. Neither one was/is afraid to stand up for what they believe in.

 

[Sabda]

I agree.

There are three causes for things that happen in the world:

• Divine intervention;
• The natural processes of the world;
• Demonic influences.

To blame something on the Devil is an extraordinary claim. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.

The Reformation happened because of the sins of man. However, the Devil saw a grand opportunity and literally ran as hard and fast as he could with it. That’s my view.