Protestant Reformation or Revolt?

[mango_2003]

Reformation.

~mango~

 

[Puzzled]

As other posters have noted, the Lutheran and Hussite reformations were initially attempts to reform the Church. Hus was dealt with treacherously, which never helps, and Luther seems to have had some issues. He was neither as wonderful as the Luther movie paints him, nor nearly as horrible as Catholic apologists like to smear him.

Luther genuinely thought he was teaching the doctrines of the Catholic Church, and Melancton thought so even on his deathbed, and still (unlike Luther) longed for reunion. Luther had a -huge- issue with assurance of God’s love for him. He fell into the trap of poor catechesis, Lombard’s nominalism, and various hawkings of (effectively magic charms) by con-men pretending (and sadly in some cases, not pretending) to represent the Church. One must in all of this not forget the political situation with both the archbishop of Mainz and Leo X engaging in illicit sinecures in order to raise money to build St. Paul’s and for the archbishop of Mainz, to have increasing political power.

Luther, when shown the Gospel by his Augustinian father confessor, was over-joyed. He thought he was teaching the teaching of the Church, but he was attacking the source of funds for St. Paul’s and the political mechinations of Mainz, and getting involved, possibly unwittingly (at least at first), in the internal politics of the HRE. When the Pope rejected Luther’s teaching, Luther was blown away. He could not conceive that a genuine pope could do such a thing, therefore, Leo X must be the Antichrist, nothing else was conceivable to him.

The LCMS still tends to think of itself as the true Catholic Church.

Calvin was simply a head-in-the-clouds scholar. He was on his way to Strausberg to study. He was guilted into preaching in Geneva by Farrell. He never ruled Geneva, the City Council did. But they would come to him for advice, he would give it, and they carried it out according to their own lights. He was sometimes appalled, and from time to time would try to escape to Straussberg where he could study and write commentaries, but was guilted into staying in Geneva.

History is always more complicated than tracts make things seem.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Puzzled:

History is always more complicated than tracts make things seem.

I would add to your post (which was very informative, thank you) that the Church at that time funded Charities in a way that only governments do today and did not do back then. This puts I think the issue of worldly corruption in the Church in a broader perspective. It’s easy to believe that many would be using the Church for evil worldly ends when the Church had to do so many worldly tasks, such as feed and clothe the poor and defend Christendom from Islam and make the holy lands safe for pilgrims (or attempt to)

It’s such a huge aspect of history that just isn’t taught where secularism rules. And even if secularism didn’t rule the public schools, it would certainly be a difficult topic to teach.

peace

 

[Puzzled]

Mike,
very true. As I learned at seminary, cream isn’t the only thing that rises to the top. So does scum.

Any time there is power, or the appearance of power, those who chiefly desire power, and have the ability to disguise themselves, also rise to high positions.

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

Tom of Assisi:

It was revolting!

In every country where Protestantism took root (except England) it did so by force usually through a political/social revolution. Often Protestantism meant a rejection of Church authority and an accepting of state authority (usually under the guise of individual “freedom” of conscience, and the “right” to interpret the Bible individually).

Read the books The Trouble with Democracy, The Conservative Mind (esp. the chapter on O. Brown), and The Quest for Community for more insight into these matters.

As Frank Herbert said, “Show me a liberal and I’ll show you a closet aristocrat.”

ahhhhhh…a post from back in the day…my very first day on the forums…

new thoughts from folks???

 

[catsrus]

revolt, heresy, a “rose” ("hold nose!) by any other name…

 

[Malachi4U]

JMJ
​

I think Satan was well pleased with the first 400 years of the Protestant Reformation. Christ’s body was split, countless new opinions on theology everyday, dissension, anarchy, theatre substituting for theology, yelling instead of preaching, handkerchief whipping instead of the sign of the cross, multiple Bibles and versions, less prayer by the reformed, ignoring of history, forgetting the sacrifices of those who have gone before us, forgetting the Faith of those before them, turning their back on the Faith of their fathers, accepting birth control and infanticide, legitimizing homosexuality, separating Church and state, taking God out of our schools, etc…

Satan is not so happy now. The Protestant Reformation has past its high water mark. It is collapsing and like all heresies it is showing signs of fading away. Just look at the statistics in the US, England, Germany and the rest of the world. God is winning and the Reformation is withering on the vine.

God and His Catholic Church will prevail as they have done in every other heresy in the past. Jesus promised to be with His Church till the end of time. He is in the Catholic Church, His body, and He will protect and lead it as He as always done.

I have fought the good fight, I have kept the Faith! I am Catholic! Praise God!

A prisoner of Christ,:bowdown:

 

[Contarini]

Fidelis:

There is no evidence that early “Reformers” (i.e. Luther and Calvin) were interested in any form of “conciliar government” as you assert.

That is completely false. The history of Reformed Christianity in particular is the history of conciliarism in action. The way in which the Reformed settled doctrinal disputes among themselves is quite reminiscent of the early Church. Of course, the problem is that Reformed Protestantism is not the same thing as ancient Catholic Christianity, so they didn’t have an adequate basis for this kind of conciliarism, but the fact is that their methods were highly conciliar.

Fidelis:

After setting up their own “churches” they brooked no dissent or alternative opinions.

Not true. There was a lot of dissent and agreement to disagree, particularly (again) among the Reformed. The Lutherans tended to be a bit more monolithic. Of course the Protestants were not tolerant in a modern sense–that’s not even an issue.

Fidelis:

Calvin’s Geneva was a virtual dictatorship

Not true. Calvin definitely had dictatorial tendencies, but they were always kept in check. The Genevan government frequently stymied his initiatives, and other Reformed churches often challenged him when he went overboard. The idea that Calvin was some sort of absolute ruler of Reformed Protestantism is a silly myth. He did have immense influence, and I think that influence was in many ways bad and helped to distort the conciliar, consensus-based approach of the early years. But he was by no means unchallenged either in Geneva or more broadly.

Fidelis:

with those who disagreed with Calvin occasionally burned at the stake, Calvin himself sometimes lighting the bonfire.

No one was ever burned at the stake simply for disagreeing with Calvin. The only person I know of who was burned at the stake (definitely the only person burned for heresy–there might have been other burnings for blasphemy or witchcraft but I don’t remember for sure) was Michael Servetus. And Calvin did not light the bonfire–in fact he didn’t want Servetus burned but rather beheaded.

Calvin may possibly have wanted to execute Jerome Bolsec for challenging him on predestination. But Bolsec was not executed, in part because Calvin’s friends and colleagues in other cities essentially said “You’re crazy–error on predestination doesn’t warrant this kind of persecution.” So much for Calvin as the unchallenged dictator.

Where are you getting this from? Manchester’s _World Lit Only by Fire?" Durant? Try Robert Kingdon instead.

In Christ,

Edwin