Reformation history

[chworkman05]

Martin Luther was not treated justly. He condemed other “reformers” Calvin, Zwingly, ect… but yet the Catholic church would not give him a just hearing. Luthers intent was not to destroy the church but to have grose errors corrected. I would like to hear others thoughts on this.

Secondly one has to ask how far are Catholics and Lutherans
appart to help reunite the catholic (universal) Church.

 

[fellowChristian]

Dear Martin Luther–

 The men who help to make up the Body Of Christ were doing something wrong. So you decided to stand up against those men and make them stop. But you went to far and maybe things got out of control and before you knew it you were no longer a Catholic. What would anyone else do if they were fired from their job? They'd get a new job. But there were no other Christian Churches around hiring at that time so instead you decided to go into business for yourself. It was perfect because you were able to name the business after yourself and make your own policies.

After that it wasn’t just about the selling of indulgences. It was…

1. 
   *]The Bible is the only source of faith; it contains the plenary inspiration of God; its reading is invested with a quasi-sacramental character.
   
   *]Human nature has been totally corrupted by original sin, and man, accordingly, is deprived of free will. Whatever he does, be it good or bad, is not his own work, but God’s.
   
   *]Faith alone can work justification, and man is saved by confidently believing that God will pardon him. This faith not only includes a full pardon of sin, but also an unconditional release from its penalties.
   
   *]The hierarchy and priesthood are not Divinely instituted or necessary, and ceremonial or exterior worship is not essential or useful. Ecclesiastical vestments, pilgrimages, mortifications, monastic vows, prayers for the dead, intercession of saints, avail the soul nothing.
   
   *]All sacraments, with the exception of baptism, Holy Eucharist, and penance, are rejected, but their absence may be supplied by faith.
   
   *]The priesthood is universal; every Christian may assume it. A body of specially trained and ordained men to dispense the mysteries of God is needless and a usurpation.
   
   *]There is no visible Church or one specially established by God whereby men may work out their salvation.
   
   Even though it all went against what the Apostles had handed down to the Church and written in Scripture you knew that the people you were dealing with could never say otherwise because most people were not educated in what the Apostles had handed down and didn’t own a Bible let alone could they read one.
   
   Side note…
   
   On October 31,** 1517**, Luther posted his 95 theses.
   
   On June 15, 1520, the Pope warned Luther with the papal bull (edict) Exsurge Domine that he risked excommunication unless he recanted 41 sentences drawn from his writings, including the 95 Theses, within 60 days.
   
   Luther, who had sent the Pope a copy of On the Freedom of a Christian in October, **publicly set fire to the bull **and decretals at Wittenberg on December 10, 1520.
   
   As a consequence, Luther was excommunicated by Leo X on January 3, 1521, in the bull Decet Romanum Pontificem.

 

[JRKH]

Martin Luther was not treated justly. He condemed other “reformers” Calvin, Zwingly, ect… but yet the Catholic church would not give him a just hearing. Luthers intent was not to destroy the church but to have grose errors corrected. I would like to hear others thoughts on this.

Secondly one has to ask how far are Catholics and Lutherans
appart to help reunite the catholic (universal) Church.

You have tried to pack an awful lot into just a couple of sentences plus your title.
The problem is that we cannot really discuss “Reformation” history in a purely religious or theological sense because of the complex geopolitical situation in Europe, The Middle East, and North Africa at the time.

If the Luther controversy was limited strictly to the field of religion it would likely have died a quiet death after a few years and wound up being a small footnote in the History of the Church.
Unfortunately there many prominent people including, kings, princes, dukes etc. who saw opportunities in the confusion and there were just as many dissenters from the Church (heretics) who were willing to take advantage of this fact. Everyone saw opportunities for gaining an advantage and soon all of Europe was embroiled in “religious” turmoil. Protestant and Catholic nobles were at each other over land, gold, and god (lower case “g” is intentional). While little or none of it truly had anything to do with the real issues of Church teachings.

In so far as the actual religious aspects, while certain mistakes may have been made by the representatives of the Church it does not excuse Martin Luther, a Priest, disobeying his superiors and flaunting his vows. If he had recanted the items that the Holy Father required of him, there would have been no excommunication. An obviously intellegent and articulate person such as Martin Luther could have easily found other ways to speak and write, within the Church, to advance the cause of reform, and he would not have been alone.
The greatest sin committed in this whole sad affair is the sin of Pride.
The Church Hierarchy’s pride in, perhaps, excommunciating too quickly, but even worse, the Pride of Martin Luther in not submitting in Christian humility to the legitimate authority of His superiors in the Church.

Peace
James

 

[chworkman05]

Dear Martin Luther–

 The men who help to make up the Body Of Christ were doing something wrong. So you decided to stand up against those men and make them stop. But you went to far and maybe things got out of control and before you knew it you were no longer a Catholic. What would anyone else do if they were fired from their job? They'd get a new job. But there were no other Christian Churches around hiring at that time so instead you decided to go into business for yourself. It was perfect because you were able to name the business after yourself and make your own policies.

After that it wasn’t just about the selling of indulgences. It was…

1. 
   *]The Bible is the only source of faith; it contains the plenary inspiration of God; its reading is invested with a quasi-sacramental character.
   
   Realy honestly is any other source realy need than the Holy Bible? Traditions instituted by man may or may not be usefull.
   
   *]Human nature has been totally corrupted by original sin, and man, accordingly, is deprived of free will. Whatever he does, be it good or bad, is not his own work, but God’s.
   
   This is true. To say otherwise would deny original sin. God is not always inherintly good. Look through out the bible. Before Jesus God would do terible awful things at times to achieve a “good” end result.
   
   *]Faith alone can work justification, and man is saved by confidently believing that God will pardon him. This faith not only includes a full pardon of sin, but also an unconditional release from its penalties.
   
   The Death Christ paid was a once and for all sacrifice for all people. This does not mean to skip out on the sacrament’s set forth by God. If one does not therst for the eucharist, connfesson and absolution one should pinch him self to see if he is still of this world.
   
   *]The hierarchy and priesthood are not Divinely instituted or necessary, and ceremonial or exterior worship is not essential or useful. Ecclesiastical vestments, pilgrimages, mortifications, monastic vows, prayers for the dead, intercession of saints, avail the soul nothing.
   
   -I do not realy recall Luther denieing the priesthood or vestments could be wrong though.
   -Pilgrimages can be useful but will not help in salvation.
   -Monastic vows would be fine if they were not taken below a compleat age of reason (in some cases not all) and if they would of stuck with being more of a learning instiution.
   -He never spoke out to recolection on praying for the dead except when it involved indulgences.
   -As for intercession of the saints if it is dead saints that are refered to I would like to see biblical or historical document support. Though those of us alive ammong the body of Christ praying for one another as the communion of saints is not a issue.
   
   *]All sacraments, with the exception of baptism, Holy Eucharist, and penance, are rejected, but their absence may be supplied by faith.
   
   *]The priesthood is universal; every Christian may assume it. A body of specially trained and ordained men to dispense the mysteries of God is needless and a usurpation.
   
   *]There is no visible Church or one specially established by God whereby men may work out their salvation.
   
   Even though it all went against what the Apostles had handed down to the Church and written in Scripture you knew that the people you were dealing with could never say otherwise because most people were not educated in what the Apostles had handed down and didn’t own a Bible let alone could they read one.
   
   Side note…
   
   On October 31,** 1517**, Luther posted his 95 theses.
   
   On June 15, 1520, the Pope warned Luther with the papal bull (edict) Exsurge Domine that he risked excommunication unless he recanted 41 sentences drawn from his writings, including the 95 Theses, within 60 days.
   
   -I had always had a understanding that it was not part but all of his writings that they wanted him to recant all even thoughs that were already accepted docterine of the church.
   
   Luther, who had sent the Pope a copy of On the Freedom of a Christian in October, **publicly set fire to the bull **and decretals at Wittenberg on December 10, 1520.
   
   -Yes probably not the wisest move to keep talks going, but done in response to his books being burned also.
   
   As a consequence, Luther was excommunicated by Leo X on January 3, 1521, in the bull Decet Romanum Pontificem.
   -In my opinion unfortinate.

 

[chworkman05]

You have tried to pack an awful lot into just a couple of sentences plus your title.
The problem is that we cannot really discuss “Reformation” history in a purely religious or theological sense because of the complex geopolitical situation in Europe, The Middle East, and North Africa at the time.
-Sorry for the over load on the question and topic. A little over zealous at times.

If the Luther controversy was limited strictly to the field of religion it would likely have died a quiet death after a few years and wound up being a small footnote in the History of the Church.
Unfortunately there many prominent people including, kings, princes, dukes etc. who saw opportunities in the confusion and there were just as many dissenters from the Church (heretics) who were willing to take advantage of this fact. Everyone saw opportunities for gaining an advantage and soon all of Europe was embroiled in “religious” turmoil. Protestant and Catholic nobles were at each other over land, gold, and god (lower case “g” is intentional). While little or none of it truly had anything to do with the real issues of Church teachings.
-That part was extreemly unfortinate though probably not intended. Good old human disees of sin at its best. This was the bigest fall of a universal catholic church.

In so far as the actual religious aspects, while certain mistakes may have been made by the representatives of the Church it does not excuse Martin Luther, a Priest, disobeying his superiors and flaunting his vows. If he had recanted the items that the Holy Father required of him, there would have been no excommunication. An obviously intellegent and articulate person such as Martin Luther could have easily found other ways to speak and write, within the Church, to advance the cause of reform, and he would not have been alone.
The greatest sin committed in this whole sad affair is the sin of Pride.
-Unfortinatly this also continues today. Even when talks continue no real progress is evermade due to wishy washy language.

The Church Hierarchy’s pride in, perhaps, excommunciating too quickly, but even worse, the Pride of Martin Luther in not submitting in Christian humility to the legitimate authority of His superiors in the Church.
-My hope is someday that we will one again see a universal catholic church.
Peace
James

 

[mark_a]

Secondly one has to ask how far are Catholics and Lutherans
appart to help reunite the catholic (universal) Church.

Depends on which Lutherans you are talking about.

WELS is very Catholic in their views on the morals issues of contraception and abortion.

They still have the whole “pope is the anti-christ” thing going on though. I don’t see much hope on that issue.

 

[Philthy]

Martin Luther was not treated justly.

By whom?

He condemed other “reformers” Calvin, Zwingly, ect… but yet the Catholic church would not give him a just hearing.

I dont understand the relationship you are attempting to establish here: what is the relationship between Luther “condemning” others and the Catholic Church not giving him a just hearing?

Luthers intent was not to destroy the church but to have grose errors corrected

.

That certainly may have been his initial intention, but it was not his only intention. In addition, he was not “subject to the presbyters” in unilaterally declaring the terms for correction of the alleged errors - his actions lacked humility. Assuming his intentions were genuine, we must also judge his actions as to whether they were consistent with those intentions.

I would like to hear others thoughts on this.

Would you like to hear Melancthon’s (Luther’s successor) thoughts on this? “All the waters of the Elbe could not yield me tears sufficient to weep for the miseries caused by the Reformation.”
socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/11/philip-melanchthon-in-1530-longs-for.html

Thats the very next generation after Luther’s great work. Any questions?

Secondly one has to ask how far are Catholics and Lutherans appart to help reunite the catholic (universal) Church.

I would say that they are only one Pope away from unity - as soon as they recognize Christ’s Vicar on earth in Peter’s successor the rest will all fall into place. What do you thinK?

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by JRKH
You have tried to pack an awful lot into just a couple of sentences plus your title.
The problem is that we cannot really discuss “Reformation” history in a purely religious or theological sense because of the complex geopolitical situation in Europe, The Middle East, and North Africa at the time.

-Sorry for the over load on the question and topic. A little over zealous at times.
No problem. hope my post helps delineate some things.

If the Luther controversy was limited strictly to the field of religion it would likely have died a quiet death after a few years and wound up being a small footnote in the History of the Church.
Unfortunately there many prominent people including, kings, princes, dukes etc. who saw opportunities in the confusion and there were just as many dissenters from the Church (heretics) who were willing to take advantage of this fact. Everyone saw opportunities for gaining an advantage and soon all of Europe was embroiled in “religious” turmoil. Protestant and Catholic nobles were at each other over land, gold, and god (lower case “g” is intentional). While little or none of it truly had anything to do with the real issues of Church teachings.

-That part was extreemly unfortinate though probably not intended. Good old human disees of sin at its best. This was the bigest fall of a universal catholic church.
The Universal Catholic Church has not fallen. It still exists. Luther did not destroy it. It is still Strong in Christ and Growing.

In so far as the actual religious aspects, while certain mistakes may have been made by the representatives of the Church it does not excuse Martin Luther, a Priest, disobeying his superiors and flaunting his vows. If he had recanted the items that the Holy Father required of him, there would have been no excommunication. An obviously intellegent and articulate person such as Martin Luther could have easily found other ways to speak and write, within the Church, to advance the cause of reform, and he would not have been alone.
The greatest sin committed in this whole sad affair is the sin of Pride.

-Unfortinatly this also continues today. Even when talks continue no real progress is evermade due to wishy washy language.
Patience my friend Patience. The difficulties in overcoming 500 years of animosity takes time. Of course nothing precludes individuals from coming home to Holy Mother Church. (Hint Hint )

The Church Hierarchy’s pride in, perhaps, excommunciating too quickly, but even worse, the Pride of Martin Luther in not submitting in Christian humility to the legitimate authority of His superiors in the Church.

-My hope is someday that we will one again see a universal catholic church.

As is my hope as well.

P.S. Hope you can figure out the quote thing. I almost missed your comments because everything was in the quote marks. Let me know if I can help.

Peace
James

 

[chworkman05]

QUOTE=Philthy;4174622]By whom?

By the Holy Roman See

COLOR=navy]I dont understand the relationship you are attempting to establish here: what is the relationship between Luther “condemning” others and the Catholic Church not giving him a just hearing?

Sorry a little thought run on at times. Luther has a tendancy to get lumped in with other reformers who were extreemly radical so he made a point of conemming there actions.
Second part. There was never any real discussion over issues raised by Luther. He was Just expected to recant. Including accepted christian docterin.

That certainly may have been his initial intention, but it was not his only intention. In addition, he was not “subject to the presbyters” in unilaterally declaring the terms for correction of the alleged errors - his actions lacked humility. Assuming his intentions were genuine, we must also judge his actions as to whether they were consistent with those intentions.

Yes and no. What is ment by not his only intention. Some of which are questonable.

COLOR=navy]Would you like to hear Melancthon’s (Luther’s successor) thoughts on this? “All the waters of the Elbe could not yield me tears sufficient to weep for the miseries caused by the Reformation.”

socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/11/philip-melanchthon-in-1530-longs-for.html
I can not dissagree with all that Melancthon wrote. All one needs to do is look at the multiple synods throughout Lutheranism then look at the multiple protestant denominations to see some of what he is talking about.

Thats the very next generation after Luther’s great work. Any questions?

The only question is did Melancthon return to the Catholic church?
If not did he lack conviction. Though I can not nec dissagree with his statments.

COLOR=navy]I would say that they are only one Pope away from unity - as soon as they recognize Christ’s Vicar on earth in Peter’s successor the rest will all fall into place. What do you thinK?

I do like some of the points, but as for the Lutheran church and varrious synods this could be a long wait.

 

[chworkman05]

No problem. hope my post helps delineate some things.

.
Thank God. Though it seems verry hidden at times.

Patience my friend Patience. The difficulties in overcoming 500 years of animosity takes time. Of course nothing precludes individuals from coming home to Holy Mother Church. (Hint Hint )

This is a internal wrestling match. Someday one will win over the other. God as my guide.

P.S. Hope you can figure out the quote thing. I almost missed your comments because everything was in the quote marks. Let me know if I can help

.
I think I got it.

Peace
James

[/QUOTE]

 

[catholic1seeks]

1The Bible is the only source of faith; it contains the plenary inspiration of God; its reading is invested with a quasi-sacramental character.

Realy honestly is any other source realy need than the Holy Bible? Traditions instituted by man may or may not be usefull.

The Catholic Church has maintained in it’s nearly 2,000-year history that both Scripture and Tradition flow “out from the same divine well-spring”. Sacred Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

In keeping the Lord’s command to preach the Gospel, God’s Word was handed in two ways: orally and in writing. By the apostles’ preaching, example, and institutions they established - what they had received from Christ or whether they had learned it by the promting of the Holy Spirit, the apostles handed on the gospel orally.

In writing, “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”.

It sounds like you are getting confused with traditions (lower case “t”) - which Tradition “is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time”

 

[chworkman05]

The Catholic Church has maintained in it’s nearly 2,000-year history that both Scripture and Tradition flow “out from the same divine well-spring”. Sacred Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit

That is and can be a good thing. The problem arises when tradition is put on a equal plane as scripture.

 

[JRKH]

That is and can be a good thing. The problem arises when tradition is put on a equal plane as scripture.

A further error is the substitution of one portion of the deposit of faith for the entire deposit. Such deposit includes the Bible, the Church Fathers, History of the Church and the development of Doctrine.

The Bible (Scripture as we know and use it today) is on a par with Sacred Tradition. For Christ did not impart His teaching through the written word, but through oral teaching of His Disciples. Further, it is written in the Scriptures, that Christ gave His authority not to written word over His Church but to His Church over written word.

This Oral Tradition is the source by which we have the written texts of the NT and it is by the Authority of Christ through His Catholic Church that we know which of the many books written in the first 300 years of Christianity are to be considered as inerrant.

The Problem is not so much when Sacred Tradition is put on the same plane as Scripture but rather when tradition (small “t”) is confused with Sacred Tradition.

Peace
James

 

[chworkman05]

A further error is the substitution of one portion of the deposit of faith for the entire deposit. Such deposit includes the Bible, the Church Fathers, History of the Church and the development of Doctrine.

The Bible (Scripture as we know and use it today) is on a par with Sacred Tradition. For Christ did not impart His teaching through the written word, but through oral teaching of His Disciples. Further, it is written in the Scriptures, that Christ gave His authority not to written word over His Church but to His Church over written word.

This Oral Tradition is the source by which we have the written texts of the NT and it is by the Authority of Christ through His Catholic Church that we know which of the many books written in the first 300 years of Christianity are to be considered as inerrant.

The Problem is not so much when Sacred Tradition is put on the same plane as Scripture but rather when tradition (small “t”) is confused with Sacred Tradition.

Peace
James

Could we define Scred Tradition vs tradition. This way we don’t keep talking in circles going no whare

 

[JRKH]

Could we define Scred Tradition vs tradition. This way we don’t keep talking in circles going no whare

First of all Let me recommend Looking Here which will help. There is a specific article on Scripture and Tradition there that is pretty good.

Tradition with a small “t” would relate primarily to practices that have been going on for many years but do not effect faith and morals. For instance, the fact that we genuflect in front of the tabernacle, or bless ourselves with holy water, or fold our hands in prayer are all “tradition”-al practices.

Sacred Tradition, on the other hand, would relate to important beliefs and understandings that have come down to us from the early church. Our very belief in the efficacy of the Books contained in the Bible is an example of Sacred Tradition, for it not the Bible which determined the Books in the Bible, but the Church under the Authority Granted Her by Christ.

I’m not an authority on this subject, but I hope this helps.

Peace
James

 

[chworkman05]

Tradition with a small “t” would relate primarily to practices that have been going on for many years but do not effect faith and morals. For instance, the fact that we genuflect in front of the tabernacle, or bless ourselves with holy water, or fold our hands in prayer are all “tradition”-al practices.

Sacred Tradition, on the other hand, would relate to important beliefs and understandings that have come down to us from the early church. Our very belief in the efficacy of the Books contained in the Bible is an example of Sacred Tradition, for it not the Bible which determined the Books in the Bible, but the Church under the Authority Granted Her by Christ.
First off thank you for the link. Lots of good articles in there. Thanks also for helping clear up tradition and Tradition. So basicly tradion is a matter of adiofra neither commanded or frobiden but a matter of religious freedome. Where as Tradition is a command set forth by Christ.