The Catholic side of responsibility for the disaster of the Reformation

[Gorgias]

But I want to know about the specific Popes who seriously failed to be Christlike, thus helping to weaken the Papacy of the Church, which was already weakened by the Avignon thing and the Western schism (two antipopes).

For starters, Leo X–the Pope who excommunicated Luther. What was his responsibility for the Reformation. What was his character and behavior like?

I don’t think I’d lay it at Leo’s feet, per se; his predecessors really did a number, though.

A couple of weeks ago, the guest on the “Called to Communion” program was a man by the name of Benjamin Wiker, who has written a book entitled The Reformation, 500 Years Later: 12 Things You Need to Know. I’ve bought the book and am in the process of reading it. In it, he gives a reasonable account of the “bad popes” leading up to the Reformation. You might consider picking up the book, if that’s what you’re interested in learning.

 

[MountCarmel]

patricius79 - It is most certainly the case that wrongful practices were introduced by various members of the clergy and religious, for nefarious reasons, often involving attempts at boosting the inflow of money, or popularity or ‘importance’ of various places - usually to boost through-flow of pilgrims and effect a boost to the local economy. The selling of indulgences and questionable claims to having relics figured quite commonly in such dodgy practices - BUT the magisterium and early traditions and practices, or indeed the Books of the Bible, should not have been meddled about with by those who sought to overturn the bad practices that had crept in through errant and wrongly ambitious clerics and orders. Luther and the other critics of bad practice should not have ‘thrown baby out with the bathwater’, in doing so, they also attacked and turned away from that which Jesus Himself founded in the Holy Eucharist, and the Authority passed to the Apostles and their successors. What ‘Protestantism’ has in effect ended up doing was ‘replace’ some bad practices - with rebellion and heresy.

 

[patricius79]

Thank you, Gorgias. I think I ran across that book at my regional library website and ordered it. I trust Wiker to be accurate.

Luther and the other critics of bad practice should not have ‘thrown baby out with the bathwater’, in doing so, they also attacked and turned away from that which Jesus Himself founded in the Holy Eucharist, and the Authority passed to the Apostles and their successors. What ‘Protestantism’ has in effect ended up doing was ‘replace’ some bad practices - with rebellion and heresy.

Yes, I agree, MountCarmel, that the Reformation was not a reformation, and that the mistake was disagreeing with Church teaching, and failing to live it out, as the reformers did.

I’m reading about the bad things Luther and the reformers did. But the reality is that the Reformation could not have gained much ground if the pastors of the Church had been focused on Jesus and Mary rather than themselves.

 

[Quaestor]

There is nothing wrong with what the pope did with indulgences. The money was towards building a church… St. Peter’s. But with human endeavour there is always room for abuse. However, the Church is not a merely a human institution, it also has a Divine dimension. The Church has the privilege of binding and loosening, and if the pope does say at a future time donate to such and such a cause and you can have indulgence for all previous confessed sins, Gd will abide by that decision made. There is nothing wrong per se with selling indulgences. People might in this day and age not like it but it is a fact. Jews had indulgences in the same manner because they too believe in a purgatory and they were doing the same as Catholics! The pope was not doing anything wrong by selling indulgences - it is his prerogative and he can exercise it as he sees fit. After all it was going to a very excellent cause - building a church. And guess what, all those souls were released into heaven as soon as the person dropped his coins into the coffer and made his intention for a soul already in purgatory. The indulgences were a great benefit for many in purgatory and to the person who made the donation who would now have someone praying for them in heaven. Its a win win for everyone concerned. I hope Luther spends years upon years in purgatory for what he did to indulgences - that is if Luther got to purgatory.

 

[Gorgias]

Not sure this is the best forum to start up this discussion. You can hear stories about Popes that would make your hair stand on end. True stories. Read Dante.

The old adage ‘Catholics never apologize, never admit fault’ rings true on occasion.

So, (having just read your comments in @patricius79’s other thread, in which you decry stories about Luther as lies), you’re saying that Luther was perfect and Catholics were perfectly evil? Hmm… pot, meet kettle?

The honest truth is that there’s a lot of blame to lay at everyone’s feet. The Catholic Church had had leadership that was just horrible. At local levels, clergy tended to be not well-versed in theology and was susceptible to the temptations of greed. Secular leadership was just itching to get its hands on the resources of the Church, as well as gain more political power for itself. Luther essentially took the Gospel of John and the epistles of Paul, and disregarded the rest of the NT and came up with a new and novel theology … that just so happened to play right into the hands of many less-than-pious Christian leaders. Luther and other Reformation leaders reacted quite harshly to those who took their advice to read and interpret Scripture personally, but who reached different conclusions than they did (drowned Anabaptists and calls to kill peasants who revolted, remember? )

I think that honest people of every confession need to realize that among their heroes and villians of the 16th century, it’s not a case of saints who were perfectly good and heretics who were perfectly evil. As is always the case, there were humans who were a mix of good and bad, who tried to do the best they could in order to reach the personal goals they held dear.

I have learned in my time here at CAF, however, this is not always the case. The Catholic Church did no wrong; Luther was a madman - you can find that argument here.

Those who make these claims – as well as those who claim that the Catholic Church did no good and that Luther was perfect – don’t know their history.

The old adage ‘Catholics never apologize, never admit fault’ rings true on occasion.

That adage applies to all, I’m afraid; Catholics don’t have a monopoly on it.

 

[FollowChrist34]

You haven’t read my comments through. You are not speaking to the position I hold.

 

[Gorgias]

You haven’t read my comments through. You are not speaking to the position I hold.

I have. And, although you’re clear that you aren’t “blaming it all on the Church”, I don’t see anything that says “Luther wasn’t perfect, either”.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I have never said Luther was perfect, for like five years now on CAF. I’ll assume in charity you really don’t know that.

 

[Gorgias]

I’ll assume in charity you really don’t know that.

Good assumption. No, I haven’t been following your posts.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Or reading them. Fair enough.

Is this the New RCC Evangelization? Belongs in the back alley.

 

[niceatheist]

Thank you, Gorgias. I think I ran across that book at my regional library website and ordered it. I trust Wiker to be accurate.

MountCarmel:

Luther and the other critics of bad practice should not have ‘thrown baby out with the bathwater’, in doing so, they also attacked and turned away from that which Jesus Himself founded in the Holy Eucharist, and the Authority passed to the Apostles and their successors. What ‘Protestantism’ has in effect ended up doing was ‘replace’ some bad practices - with rebellion and heresy.

Yes, I agree, MountCarmel, that the Reformation was not a reformation, and that the mistake was disagreeing with Church teaching, and failing to live it out, as the reformers did.

I’m reading about the bad things Luther and the reformers did. But the reality is that the Reformation could not have gained much ground if the pastors of the Church had been focused on Jesus and Mary rather than themselves.

I disagree. The reason the Reformation happened was because a good many German princes saw a great opportunity to sever ties to Rome. It was the state support that early Reformers received in many quarters in Northern and Central Europe that allowed the Protestant Reformation to take off, as opposed to the Bohemian Reformation a generation earlier.

While I’m sure there were many converts to Protestant sects that were sincere in their new beliefs, the fact is that the Protestant Reformation was as much a political break with Rome as a theological or spiritual one.

 

[MountCarmel]

niceatheist - Yes, I know about the princes and the politics, BUT it also needed rebellious clerics to make for a serious break.

 

[patricius79]

I’m sorry for any way Catholics have hurt you. We’re big sinners. That’s why we need more devotion to Our Lord through Our Lady!

 

[patricius79]

As Carrie Gress notes in “The Marian Option: God’s Solution for a Civilization in Crisis”–and Fr. Peter Felhner notes this too–history hinges on devotion to Jesus through Mary. If Marian devotion had been strong in the Church, things would have been well. But people were too focused on–and trusting in-- politics, art, and other things vastly inferior to Mary, and infinitely inferior to Jesus.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist - Yes, I know about the princes and the politics, BUT it also needed rebellious clerics to make for a serious break.

I’ve said it before, the Protestant Reformation was one of those instances of historical serendipity. Luther, unlike Wycliffe or Hus, was in the right place at the right time.

 

[Michael16]

I think the problem was clerical improprieties, substandard clerical training and Church worldliness. If Luther simply kept reform as an internal Church matter without the princes getting involved; we’d all be a lot better off.

 

[fredystairs]

substandard clerical training

I agree.

One of the events that laid the ground for the Reformation was the Black Death. This event devastated Europe and killed up to 1/3 of the population. Among the dead were priests who tried to minister to the dying. In some areas, 90% of the priests died, leaving a shortage of priests. To try to alleviate the problem, the age that one could become a priest was lowered from 25 to 20. These priests in many instances lacked the maturity to adequately perform their priestly functions. This caused many to lose respect for the priesthood and would help ensure the success of the Reformation…

 

[Michael16]

Wow, I didn’t know that. crossing myself Those BD priests did their job

 

[fredystairs]

Those BD priests did their job

Yes they were good shepherds trying to take care of their flocks.

 

[po18guy]

Actually, it is quite limited. Martin Luther’s aberrant psychology placed him in extreme anguish for decades. It drove him, not only nearly insane, but also forced him to seek reasons to revolt.
He was so uncertain of his salvation that he literally invented a new religion out of whole cloth. Luther’s innovative religion relegated sin to a footnote. He saw no connection between mortal sin and one’s justification - that is not a Christian teaching, but a “Lutherism.”

There was no “reformation” as in regaining the purity of the faith. Fr. Luther’s obvious psychological illness drove him to formulate a substantially new/novel religion, based on Christianity. If not for baptism, it would barely qualify as Christian. Really.