The Reformation...reforming to What?

[Isaiah45_9]

Hi Tom,

Sigh… if is the biggest small word in the English vocabulary

If you see my quote again you can see I said IF followed by **PICK **and CHOSE. Further, what I was referring to what the arguments presented by Protestants who are picking and choosing ECFs to justify their theology.

Not my theology…

I don’t seem to think anything other than the discussions I’ve had with my protestant brothers and sisters. But perhaps you are the shadow I’ve been seen with my peripheral vision lately

And when I say the are children of the Church, I am also saying they are our brothers. Separated or not, we are all brothers in Christ.

My “ideas” come from real people and not from websites and if you happen to be in North Texas shoot me an email and we can go over my Catholicism and yours with a few beers and BBQ

As for the typo, maybe it was a Freudian slip

A Dios,

Jose

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jose,

Sorry about that.

I totally missed that one. What can I say? I have had the experience with those who either totally dismiss the ECF or play fast and lose with their words - and, I just find it very discouraging. (I’m really very sensitive…)

On the off-chance that someone else misread your post … and thought that the ECF were really not Catholic and were really ‘early reformers’ - hopefully my links will prove helpful.

Now, about the invitation to BBQ 'n beer - sounds great! But, unfortunately, a year ago I left Houston and moved back to Louisiana to start enjoying my retirement and play with the grandkiddies! So maybe there is an e-mail equivalent to having such a feast…?

God bless

Hi Tom,

Sigh… if is the biggest small word in the English vocabulary

If you see my quote again you can see I said IF followed by **PICK **and CHOSE. Further, what I was referring to, was the arguments presented by Protestants who are picking and choosing ECFs to justify their theology.

Not my theology…

I don’t seem to think anything other than the discussions I’ve had with my protestant brothers and sisters. But perhaps you are the shadow I’ve been seen with my peripheral vision lately

And when I say the are children of the Church, I am also saying they are our brothers. Separated or not, we are all brothers in Christ.

My “ideas” come from real people and not from websites and if you happen to be in North Texas shoot me an email and we can go over my Catholicism and yours with a few beers and BBQ

As for the typo, maybe it was a Freudian slip

A Dios,

Jose

 

[KathleenGee]

Just how many priests were ‘selling indulgences’ so people could pay their way into heaven. That is the spin.

How much of it is true?

Is the reformation…if based on this cliche…based on the spin zone? Weren’t there movements that were actually political and nationalistic that used Fr Tetzel’s market stall selling indulgences a spin?

How many Catholics then actually even believed the lunacy they could buy their way into heaven…

 

[JonNC]

Just how many priests were ‘selling indulgences’ so people could pay their way into heaven. That is the spin.

How much of it is true?

Is the reformation…if based on this cliche…based on the spin zone? Weren’t there movements that were actually political and nationalistic that used Fr Tetzel’s market stall selling indulgences a spin?

How many Catholics then actually even believed the lunacy they could buy their way into heaven…

Forget our current level of understanding of scripture, Tradition on doctrine, because medieval laity in central Europe didn’t have it. They depended on the clergy. To be sure, the Reformers also stretched away from the abuses and looked at doctrine too. For the Lutherans, however, when one reads the confessions, one sees some of the basic complaints.
Purgatory: a fairly new doctrine from the Council of Florence, but it wasn’t the doctrine necessarily they complained about, it was the indulgences and purchased masses, what they perceived as abuses.

There is no cliche here, but history. Is there more to it than simply abuses? Yes.

Jon

 

[stewstew03]

I think the Baptists hold one of the hardest and least obliging view of our Church, Forevergrace.

To invalidate the Church for the reasons you gave sound like the spin of those who do not have faith but look too much at man. Really. And their vision is compromised…you only see the bad.

There is a book out by Thomas E Woods, Ph.D, ‘How the Church Built Western Civilization’.
The first 300 years the Church endured so many persecutions. You may not know this, but St. Justin the Martyr described the general worship of Christians practiced at that time to an ancient Roman emperor, around 150 AD…and it is the Mass in its essential form. On this anti-Catholic website, St. Justin the Martyr’s writings were posted, but anything pertaining to the Eucharist and the Mass were not revealed.

The worst persecutions nearly destroyed Christianity with many bishops killed and churches destroyed, with terrible tortures threatening Christians. It was Constantine who defeated the Roman emperor, made Christianity legal, and had no work on Sunday, as well as rebuilt many churches, worked with appointing bishops, and making cathedrals with high altars to proclaim the magnificence of Christ. Yet, contrary to the new spin coming out, Constantine did not create the Catholic Church. He was not even baptized, until a few days before his death, finally becoming a Christian.

St. Benedict and his monks built monasteries, and many men chose the celibate life dedicating all of their life to the Lord in service to His poor. In time, the monks introduced crops, industries, production methods which greatly aided the local populations, as well as introducing ‘rearing of cattle and horses, brewing of beer, raising bees or fruit.’ The monks were specialists in various countries, such as special cheeses, salmon fisheries, corn trade. In a few areas in France redirected springs to direct the population of Paris, in Lombardy, peasants learned irrigation, and the ‘monks first to work toward improving cattle breeds.’ The monks brought great dignity to labor and agriculture. There is so much more to add to the good the monasteries did for the local population.

The Church was the first to have hospices and hospitals for the common people, as well as provide the foundation for universities. In Mexico, in colonial times, it was the center of learning for the New World with Indian professors in their universities, and gave women and girls the right to an education, 300 years ahead of American women.

Knowing many of the lives of the saints down through the ages, there has indeed been great work in serving the poor, caring for widow and orphans.

The Church contributed much to science, and interestingly enough…it came from one of the books not allowed by various Protestant bibles: Wisdom 11:21…where God has said to order all things by measure, number, and weight.’ God created natural law, and He respects His own making and works within it.

This idea of a rational and orderly universe that is also predictable, is found only in Catholic Christian civilization that ‘Arabian, Babylonian, Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu, and Mayan did not.’ There is the controversy of Galileo, who in all actuality was greatly esteemed. But he later did not follow right order as Copernicus was still working on his theory…and then Galileo to prove his point, wanted to remove a phrase of Scripture. And the Church upholds that not one Word of Scripture be changed.

We as Catholics believe that the Risen Lord is drawing ALL men up to Himself. And the fact that the Lord chose the time of His coming…which is another thread in itself, shows that He wished His life and mission to make known not only to the Chosen People, and to all people, but to all history of mankind.

To get the actual context of the Church you have to look at its history for its own sake, and not what biased information is doing in the name of Christ.

Well said, KG

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

Many self- proclaimed “Protestants” know* not *that which they protest. I was one of them for years. Some are Protestants because they are raised in innocent ignorance of Christ Himself founding the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, having heard all their lives only about their own denomination and seeking to look no further into the truth. Thus we have the thousands of splintered Protestant groups who agree on little. God in His mercy recognizes good people of all faiths, yet yearns for all to unite as Christ’s Bride, within Holy Church, without division. Many may achieve Heaven, but Christ set such a beautiful way: He as Groom and His Church as glorious Bride.

Regarding your specific question, which I believe is asking “on what basis or authority did the “reformers” go about creating the schism,” we have to remember nationalism. While Luther was purportedly basing his complaints on what he perceived as Church abuses, England and most of Europe was ripe for nationalism and eager to self- direct rather than be bothered with Roman rule. In effect, they had no Divine basis or authority to leave Holy Church. “A house divided against itself shall fall.” Christ Himself said. Our Founder would not order the division of His own Church. It is the thousands of Protestant sects which are now sadly divided. We must pray for them.

Henry VIII demanded that loyal English Catholics sign a paper proclaiming loyalty to him first, Church second. St. Thomas More famously disagreed with this ploy (which was mostly Henry’s demanding that a divorce be granted by the Pope and which was denied.) Good St. Thomas died for Holy Church by refusing to sign the oath giving supremacy to a very temporal and feisty king. More was not alone, of course, in understanding the errors of schism. Christ Himself in Gethsemane prayed “That all may be One.”

Nationalism, (not wanting to obey far off- Rome) played a large part in firing up both the new merchant classes and peasants.

The fact remains that one of Luther’s most fatal errors was in first proclaiming the right to individual interpretation of scripture, but then when the peasants revolted en masse against Catholic Princes, rebuking these same peasants for not being intellectual enough to understand the entirety of his own personal vision, which was disobedience to St. Peter’s successor and the Church Christ founded. Luther failed in setting up a counter church that would even approach the majesty and Divinely - Ordered continuity of the Catholic faith.

Christ said of His Church, “The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” Although flawed from within and without, battle worn, we still stand united, no matter what reason one gives as a basis for leaving Holy Church.

Instead of working from within, Luther began to pick off Sacraments, to rant about our beloved Jewish brothers in ways profoundly similar to the later horrors of real holocaust, and proclaim it was best to “sin often and well, in order to be better forgiven” and that kind of tripe. One can go online and find vast sources of Luther’s inane rantings. Protestants who followed him based their new religion on errant individual interpretation of scripture, and “faith alone,” the opposite of what Holy Church has always called for, that is: respect for both Divinely ordained tradition as well as the requirement to show one’s faith by one’s compassionate works as Christ our Saviour showed us by His supreme example.

Once the schism began to snowball, helped along by nationalism, pride of country, and the rise of the mercantile class and more peasant revolts, all factors were were poised to attempt to put Christ’s Church and His Pontiff second to that of individual patriotism towards one’s country and king.

The basis of the protestant argument fails on all counts. Separated from Tradition and Apostolic Succession, each man becomes his own pontiff, or gives homage to other mere mortals who are* not* Divinely Ordained. Yet we must pray as Christ did. We must love all people and we must pray for unity in Christ’s merciful love. Our compassion, our own basis of faith must be offered with open arms and hearts firmly set with the truth: We base our lives on the One, Holy Apostolic Church which Christ founded, not on the countless mortal men who came afterward to divide us.

This Divine Continuity we have as Catholics is based on Christ’s instructions in handing the Keys of the Kingdom to St. Peter. There cannot be found any other higher calling from mere mortal men. We obey Christ, Our Founder, not Luther or his followers, though we are commanded to love all as Christ Himself teaches us, “that all may be one.”

 

[KathleenGee]

HI Jon,

Thank for responding…but what I am asking is literal…I am getting glimpses that it was actually this one priest, Fr Tetzel, who was at the market place commercializing alms. How many other priests were doing it?

I was at a Secular Servite meeting yesterday, an order that gradually came about starting around 1200 AD…they had congregations in Germany but died out during the Reformation. The Servites are drawn to prayer and penance and serving others in a quiet way. We asked what happened to the Servites in Germany. There were parish priests and lay people in their various associations working very hard to offset the troubles in the Church there, but lay run organizations are not effective. However, they are recorded in confronting bad behavior with good, sanctified lives following the Gospel. They continued on but the Servites disappeared. The priest told us they were wiped out, as they were in Erfurt, where Luther had lived.

Also I am reading other factors where people just want to break away from church life and live less spiritual lives, more nationalistic.

The Church still has indulgences and we give alms as always before. It is looking like many non-Church movements were at work that seemed to support Luther in wiping off apostolic succession and the papacy…much more than the issue of faith and grace.

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Stew…and Luther wanted the monasteries shut down.

It happened in England under trumped charges and brought poverty to those populations there who lived around them.

 

[GKC]

Many self- proclaimed “Protestants” know* not *that which they protest. I was one of them for years. Some are Protestants because they are raised in innocent ignorance of Christ Himself founding the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, having heard all their lives only about their own denomination and seeking to look no further into the truth. Thus we have the thousands of splintered Protestant groups who agree on little. God in His mercy recognizes good people of all faiths, yet yearns for all to unite as Christ’s Bride, within Holy Church, without division. Many may achieve Heaven, but Christ set such a beautiful way: He as Groom and His Church as glorious Bride.

Regarding your specific question, which I believe is asking “on what basis or authority did the “reformers” go about creating the schism,” we have to remember nationalism. While Luther was purportedly basing his complaints on what he perceived as Church abuses, England and most of Europe was ripe for nationalism and eager to self- direct rather than be bothered with Roman rule. In effect, they had no Divine basis or authority to leave Holy Church. “A house divided against itself shall fall.” Christ Himself said. Our Founder would not order the division of His own Church. It is the thousands of Protestant sects which are now sadly divided. We must pray for them.

Henry VIII demanded that loyal English Catholics sign a paper proclaiming loyalty to him first, Church second. St. Thomas More famously disagreed with this ploy (which was mostly Henry’s demanding that a divorce be granted by the Pope and which was denied.) Good St. Thomas died for Holy Church by refusing to sign the oath giving supremacy to a very temporal and feisty king. More was not alone, of course, in understanding the errors of schism. Christ Himself in Gethsemane prayed “That all may be One.”

Nationalism, (not wanting to obey far off- Rome) played a large part in firing up both the new merchant classes and peasants.

The fact remains that one of Luther’s most fatal errors was in first proclaiming the right to individual interpretation of scripture, but then when the peasants revolted en masse against Catholic Princes, rebuking these same peasants for not being intellectual enough to understand the entirety of his own personal vision, which was disobedience to St. Peter’s successor and the Church Christ founded. Luther failed in setting up a counter church that would even approach the majesty and Divinely - Ordered continuity of the Catholic faith.

Christ said of His Church, “The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” Although flawed from within and without, battle worn, we still stand united, no matter what reason one gives as a basis for leaving Holy Church.

Instead of working from within, Luther began to pick off Sacraments, to rant about our beloved Jewish brothers in ways profoundly similar to the later horrors of real holocaust, and proclaim it was best to “sin often and well, in order to be better forgiven” and that kind of tripe. One can go online and find vast sources of Luther’s inane rantings. Protestants who followed him based their new religion on errant individual interpretation of scripture, and “faith alone,” the opposite of what Holy Church has always called for, that is: respect for both Divinely ordained tradition as well as the requirement to show one’s faith by one’s compassionate works as Christ our Saviour showed us by His supreme example.

Once the schism began to snowball, helped along by nationalism, pride of country, and the rise of the mercantile class and more peasant revolts, all factors were were poised to attempt to put Christ’s Church and His Pontiff second to that of individual patriotism towards one’s country and king.

The basis of the protestant argument fails on all counts. Separated from Tradition and Apostolic Succession, each man becomes his own pontiff, or gives homage to other mere mortals who are* not* Divinely Ordained. Yet we must pray as Christ did. We must love all people and we must pray for unity in Christ’s merciful love. Our compassion, our own basis of faith must be offered with open arms and hearts firmly set with the truth: We base our lives on the One, Holy Apostolic Church which Christ founded, not on the countless mortal men who came afterward to divide us.

This Divine Continuity we have as Catholics is based on Christ’s instructions in handing the Keys of the Kingdom to St. Peter. There cannot be found any other higher calling from mere mortal men. We obey Christ, Our Founder, not Luther or his followers, though we are commanded to love all as Christ Himself teaches us, “that all may be one.”

Putting your finger on the nascent nationalism is spot on. In the case of England, it didn’t begin with with Henry. It can be traced back at least several centuries, in a series of Parliamentary acts and Royal decrees aimed at two things: increasing the authority of the Crown over the Church in England, and decreasing the authority of any outside agency, over the governance of the Church, within England. Henry’s position and personality and his particular problems made for the perfect storm to bring this conflict to a head when it did.

And his Great Matter involved his campaign, not for a divorce, but for a decree of nullity with respect to his marriage to Catherine, a complicated bit of history that has been a hobby of mine for many years, involving the changing and complex system of impediments, dispensations and nullifications which the Church formulated to control the sacrament of matrimony at the time.

GKC

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

Putting your finger on the nascent nationalism is spot on. In the case of England, it didn’t begin with with Henry. It can be traced back at least several centuries, in a series of Parliamentary acts and Royal decrees aimed at two things: increasing the authority of the Crown over the Church in England, and decreasing the authority of any outside agency, over the governance of the Church, within England. Henry’s position and personality and his particular problems made for the perfect storm to bring this conflict to a head when it did.

And his Great Matter involved his campaign, not for a divorce, but for a decree of nullity with respect to his marriage to Catherine, a complicated bit of history that has been a hobby of mine for many years, involving the changing and complex system of impediments, dispensations and nullifications which the Church formulated to control the sacrament of matrimony at the time.

GKC

Yes, thank you GKC: Although it’s Henry VIII’s later demands that we recall, I see things were in place earlier. And also, you are right, it was an** annulment** that time for which he was trolling. He had so many demands one can hardly remember: I should have remembered the little rhyme:

(Quoting Wikipedia here)

“A common device to remember the fates of his consorts is “annulled, beheaded, died, annulled, beheaded, survived” or “divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived”. It is often noted that Catherine Parr “survived him”; in fact Anne of Cleves also survived the king and was the last of his queens to die. Of the six queens, Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn and Jane Seymour each gave Henry one child who survived infancy—two daughters and one son, all three of whom would eventually ascend to the throne. They were Queen Mary I, Queen Elizabeth I, and King Edward VI, respectively.”

It seems that without that last “perfect storm” you mentioned, St. Thomas More may have escaped his terrible fate. Although England was skulking around long before that, Henry seemed to have been feeling his oats in a remarkably energetic way when things finally came to pass with More, and so I think that’s why we all point to that particular time.

Thank you for your scholarship. It’s time to rent “A Man for All Seasons” again, preceded of course by “Anne of the Thousand Days,” don’t you think?
Blessings:heaven:

 

[BListon]

Okay… I may get chewed out by fellow Catholics for this, but, anyways… I respect Luther for his willingness to reform the Church, as he never really intended to break off, but to reform it. Lets’ face it, he was right about one thing… the hierarchy of the Church at that time was very corrupt… that being said, some of Luther’s reforms were not the best for the Church (removing books from the Bible, teaching that the Pope the Antichrist, etc.) I think that if Luther lived in modern times, that he would probably reconcile with the Church, their certainly is less corruption these days… just my:twocents:

 

[GKC]

Yes, thank you GKC: Although it’s Henry VIII’s later demands that we recall, I see things were in place earlier. And also, you are right, it was an** annulment** that time for which he was trolling. He had so many demands one can hardly remember: I should have remembered the little rhyme:

(Quoting Wikipedia here)

“A common device to remember the fates of his consorts is “annulled, beheaded, died, annulled, beheaded, survived” or “divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived”. It is often noted that Catherine Parr “survived him”; in fact Anne of Cleves also survived the king and was the last of his queens to die. Of the six queens, Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn and Jane Seymour each gave Henry one child who survived infancy—two daughters and one son, all three of whom would eventually ascend to the throne. They were Queen Mary I, Queen Elizabeth I, and King Edward VI, respectively.”

It seems that without that last “perfect storm” you mentioned, St. Thomas More may have escaped his terrible fate. Although England was skulking around long before that, Henry seemed to have been feeling his oats in a remarkably energetic way when things finally came to pass with More, and so I think that’s why we all point to that particular time.

Thank you for your scholarship. It’s time to rent “A Man for All Seasons” again, preceded of course by “Anne of the Thousand Days,” don’t you think?
Blessings:heaven:

Man for all Season is a great movie, my daughter’s favorite. Not completely good history, but plenty good.

Trolling is a pejorative term for what Henry was trying to do. He followed the rules, submitted his Causa, and fully expected it to go his way. It was a commonplace in that time, and his case, as submitted, while not as strong as it might have been (as Wolsey told him) was certainly up to the usual standards. Stronger than his sister Margaret’s for example. She got her decree of nullity. Henry was tangled in politics.

The list of his spouses, and the children, is quite accurate.

GKC

Added: And I should have thanked you for your kind words. Hank and his times have long been a hobby of mine.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

Man for all Season is a great movie, my daughter’s favorite. Not completely good history, but plenty good.

Trolling is a pejorative term for what Henry was trying to do. He followed the rules, submitted his Causa, and fully expected it to go his way. It was a commonplace in that time, and his case, as submitted, while not as strong as it might have been (as Wolsey told him) was certainly up to the usual standards. Stronger than his sister Margaret’s for example. She got her decree of nullity. Henry was tangled in politics.

The list of his spouses, and the children, is quite accurate.

GKC

Yes, often the most entertaining movies do gloss over things. That’s Hollywood. We must dive into our history books for the truth.

**Definitions: **Actually, the term trolling, long before it was borrowed as an internet term, was much more descriptive in its original, ancient use. I was using the etymology of the original meaning, of course, as it perfectly describes him as a man willing to murder (and/or at least assure several lady’s deaths or tower imprisonments for questionable reasons) or to nullify/cast off and/or /abuse wives and mistresses as blithely as he did, and I allow no excuses for the politics of his time, as St. Thomas More lived in the same times and was sublimely heroic. (Forgive a lady’s perspective.)

For my definition: Here is the wiki link:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet

“creatures bent on mischief and wickedness” (See Etymology under old Norse meaning).

“Great customs” may “curtsy to great kings,” but I could not bow to such a person who flings off wives and mistresses like fleas. You may quote me. The man did undue harm to wives and Holy Church. He hanged saints.

We cannot think of Henry VIII as a patient nobleman merely waiting for due process of law. Even for a man of his time, his appetites and ruthlessness were legendary, whereas compared to our dear St. Thomas More, Old Henry was most certainly bent on the mischief and wickedness of defying Church at what became a critical juncture of history.

That is why the advantage of time’s passage helps us in measuring a man. Long after he is gone, we may forgive him for all his evils, admire his gifts, understand what he faced, yet see, act by act, how his true nature worked to create either maelstrom or model of Heaven.

What he left in his wake chills the spine. What St. Thomas More left was to us was the hero’s legacy, martyrdom, humility and brilliance under pain of death that inspires every generation following. Same times, same circumstances, yet two men a universe apart.

I do admire your fine scholarship and it helps to sharpen my own.
I pray you will understand a lady’s :nun1:feelings on such a terror as King Henry VIII.

All best wishes to you
Kathryn Ann

 

[GKC]

Yes, often the most entertaining movies do gloss over things. That’s Hollywood. We must dive into our history books for the truth.

**Definitions: **Actually, the term trolling, long before it was borrowed as an internet term, was much more descriptive in its original, ancient use. I was using the etymology of the original meaning, of course, as it perfectly describes him as a man willing to murder (and/or at least assure several lady’s deaths or tower imprisonments for questionable reasons) or to nullify/cast off and/or /abuse wives and mistresses as blithely as he did, and I allow no excuses for the politics of his time, as St. Thomas More lived in the same times and was sublimely heroic. (Forgive a lady’s perspective.)

For my definition: Here is the wiki link:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet

“creatures bent on mischief and wickedness” (See Etymology under old Norse meaning).

“Great customs” may “curtsy to great kings,” but I could not bow to such a person who flings off wives and mistresses like fleas. You may quote me. The man did undue harm to wives and Holy Church. He hanged saints.

We cannot think of Henry VIII as a patient nobleman merely waiting for due process of law. Even for a man of his time, his appetites and ruthlessness were legendary, whereas compared to our dear St. Thomas More, Old Henry was most certainly bent on the mischief and wickedness of defying Church at what became a critical juncture of history.

That is why the advantage of time’s passage helps us in measuring a man. Long after he is gone, we may forgive him for all his evils, admire his gifts, understand what he faced, yet see, act by act, how his true nature worked to create either maelstrom or model of Heaven.

What he left in his wake chills the spine. What St. Thomas More left was to us was the hero’s legacy, martyrdom, humility and brilliance under pain of death that inspires every generation following. Same times, same circumstances, yet two men a universe apart.

I do admire your fine scholarship and it helps to sharpen my own.
I pray you will understand a lady’s :nun1:feelings on such a terror as King Henry VIII.

All best wishes to you
Kathryn Ann

And my thanks to you, again, for your kind words. I fear I can say nothing similar with respect to your grasp of the relevant history. I prefer not to wave cardboard cutouts. I consider Henry a fascinating train wreck, but that’s after 15 years of studying the period.

GKC

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Kathryn Ann,

A truly excellent post - and, a real pleasure to read!

God bless

Many self- proclaimed “Protestants” know* not *that which they protest. I was one of them for years. Some are Protestants because they are raised in innocent ignorance of Christ Himself founding the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, having heard all their lives only about their own denomination and seeking to look no further into the truth. Thus we have the thousands of splintered Protestant groups who agree on little. God in His mercy recognizes good people of all faiths, yet yearns for all to unite as Christ’s Bride, within Holy Church, without division. Many may achieve Heaven, but Christ set such a beautiful way: He as Groom and His Church as glorious Bride.

Regarding your specific question, which I believe is asking “on what basis or authority did the “reformers” go about creating the schism,” we have to remember nationalism. While Luther was purportedly basing his complaints on what he perceived as Church abuses, England and most of Europe was ripe for nationalism and eager to self- direct rather than be bothered with Roman rule. In effect, they had no Divine basis or authority to leave Holy Church. “A house divided against itself shall fall.” Christ Himself said. Our Founder would not order the division of His own Church. It is the thousands of Protestant sects which are now sadly divided. We must pray for them.

Henry VIII demanded that loyal English Catholics sign a paper proclaiming loyalty to him first, Church second. St. Thomas More famously disagreed with this ploy (which was mostly Henry’s demanding that a divorce be granted by the Pope and which was denied.) Good St. Thomas died for Holy Church by refusing to sign the oath giving supremacy to a very temporal and feisty king. More was not alone, of course, in understanding the errors of schism. Christ Himself in Gethsemane prayed “That all may be One.”

Nationalism, (not wanting to obey far off- Rome) played a large part in firing up both the new merchant classes and peasants.

The fact remains that one of Luther’s most fatal errors was in first proclaiming the right to individual interpretation of scripture, but then when the peasants revolted en masse against Catholic Princes, rebuking these same peasants for not being intellectual enough to understand the entirety of his own personal vision, which was disobedience to St. Peter’s successor and the Church Christ founded. Luther failed in setting up a counter church that would even approach the majesty and Divinely - Ordered continuity of the Catholic faith.

Christ said of His Church, “The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” Although flawed from within and without, battle worn, we still stand united, no matter what reason one gives as a basis for leaving Holy Church.

Instead of working from within, Luther began to pick off Sacraments, to rant about our beloved Jewish brothers in ways profoundly similar to the later horrors of real holocaust, and proclaim it was best to “sin often and well, in order to be better forgiven” and that kind of tripe. One can go online and find vast sources of Luther’s inane rantings. Protestants who followed him based their new religion on errant individual interpretation of scripture, and “faith alone,” the opposite of what Holy Church has always called for, that is: respect for both Divinely ordained tradition as well as the requirement to show one’s faith by one’s compassionate works as Christ our Saviour showed us by His supreme example.

Once the schism began to snowball, helped along by nationalism, pride of country, and the rise of the mercantile class and more peasant revolts, all factors were were poised to attempt to put Christ’s Church and His Pontiff second to that of individual patriotism towards one’s country and king.

The basis of the protestant argument fails on all counts. Separated from Tradition and Apostolic Succession, each man becomes his own pontiff, or gives homage to other mere mortals who are* not* Divinely Ordained. Yet we must pray as Christ did. We must love all people and we must pray for unity in Christ’s merciful love. Our compassion, our own basis of faith must be offered with open arms and hearts firmly set with the truth: We base our lives on the One, Holy Apostolic Church which Christ founded, not on the countless mortal men who came afterward to divide us.

This Divine Continuity we have as Catholics is based on Christ’s instructions in handing the Keys of the Kingdom to St. Peter. There cannot be found any other higher calling from mere mortal men. We obey Christ, Our Founder, not Luther or his followers, though we are commanded to love all as Christ Himself teaches us, “that all may be one.”

 

[tqualey]

Hi, BListon,

I don’t think you will suffer many ‘bites’ for for your post… But, maybe a ‘nibble’ or two…

In my view, Luther saw some real problems with the men who were abusing their Church Office and appearing to be making money in the process. I agree with the idea that at some initial point his motives were to reform - but, his reforms really did not get very far in his mind because they were shelved in favor of revolt. I think that one could say that Luther had the beginnings of revolt in his mind when he wrote his 95 Theses (here is an English translation of the document: conradaskland.com/blog/2008/11/martin-luthers-95-theses-in-latin-and-english/ As you can see, early on Luther begings to make his own rules about Purgatory and remission of sin. He is initially changing doctrine - not complaining about the sale of indulgences - as his foundational statements.

Had St. Catherine of Siena not followed the path of Christ - there would have been a revolt 200 years before Luther! The difference between St Catherine and Luther are profound and offer some insights into what Luther lacked in dealing with real problems.

Actually, Luther did not ‘remove’ any books from the Bible What he did (which ultimately lead to their removal by others after his death was to take these 7 Books that he (on his own authority) did not agree with - took them out of their Canonical order and put them in the back of of his Bible. So, really, is is inaccurate to say he took these books out of the Bible (lambonthealtar.blogspot.com/2010/03/did-martin-luther-remove-books-from.html ) - he just re-arranged them so that their validity was brought into question.

God bless

Okay… I may get chewed out by fellow Catholics for this, but, anyways… I respect Luther for his willingness to reform the Church, as he never really intended to break off, but to reform it. Lets’ face it, he was right about one thing… the hierarchy of the Church at that time was very corrupt… that being said, some of Luther’s reforms were not the best for the Church (removing books from the Bible, teaching that the Pope the Antichrist, etc.) I think that if Luther lived in modern times, that he would probably reconcile with the Church, their certainly is less corruption these days… just my:twocents:

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

And my thanks to you, again, for your kind words. I fear I can say nothing similar with respect to your grasp of the relevant history. I prefer not to wave cardboard cutouts. I consider Henry a fascinating train wreck, but that’s after 15 years of studying the period.

GKC

It’s passing strange, I must say, that one would find such a “train wreck” a preferable companion for whom to advocate after fifteen years of study, rather than that of our Catholic friend, the great St. Thomas More.

There is nothing card-board like in depicting Henry VIII as a man who spent a great deal of time hotly attempting to divide Christendom and ridding himself of wives for political expediency.

You have chosen to paint Henry as someone admirable. I think all his Queens and a good deal of those beheaded and tower- bound would disagree strongly.

As to comparisons of historic “grasp,” I leave you to contemplate my last, best observation: Two men lived in the same tumultuous times. One plotted to put Himself above Christ’s Holy Church. The other is well- known to have died a Saint in defense of Christ’s Bride, our One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

And that, my friend, is my grasp, which Holy Church has defended through the ages. I hope to take my quiet place at the foot of our Great Master, our Saviour Jesus, in the afterlife as you most assuredly will too. Yet when there is time to allow for extended companionship, I will shun the likes of bombastic royalty such as Henry’s and turn to listen attentively to dear, beloved Thomas’s wise and lovely voice. Christ’s voice and his ring true throughout the ages.

Even a mere child senses into which hand to put her own. I like that picture, however childlike it may be: anticipating eternity with Christ and all those who, as His Bride, rush to the Groom and all His valiant, best defenders.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

Hi, Kathryn Ann,

A truly excellent post - and, a real pleasure to read!

God bless

Oh, how kind of you, tqualey! Thank you. I only wanted to do my part for our good friend of the Church, our beloved St. Thomas More.

How wonderful it will be in Heaven to sit at Christ’s feet, in a circle of His beloved defenders,:knight1::nun1: to take in their wisdom and rejoice in Christ’s Church Triumphant! See you (and all those on the forum) there.:harp::heaven:
Blessings,
Kathryn Ann

 

[KathleenGee]

Thank you, Kathryn Ann…

As I glean and ponder threads regarding the Reformation, it is starting to emerge that there was a movement of countries and cultures wanting to break away from Rome due to wanting their own separation, wanting their own jurisdiction…yes, nationalism, becoming their own interpreters.

These great political movements appear to be intertwined with Luther’s Revolt, a real conglomeration of a many sentiments and reaction to corrupt clergy…which really are not invalidating doctrine but their own sincerity of faith as followers of Christ. I mean, if people in these Protestant countries were centered on their faith alone, they would realize the problem more with individual clergy and undisciplining ecclesiastics…but not the Church as a whole.

Nationalism seemed to cloud many perceptions and conglomerate them into authority and doctrine as something to be rejected…it a movement of man for man in the name of Christ. I am beginning to intuit that there were not many priests at all following in the footsteps of Fr Tetzel either. But Christ does say that those who cause scandal…be dropped in the deepest ocean.

I don’t see justification to break away from the Church for a nationalized religion…afterall, His kingdom is not of this world.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Edwin,

I was reviewing this link, and I did not find your response to post #250. Did I miss it?

God bless

Hi, Edwin,

You said something else that caught my eye…

I think it would be very helpful for you to provide a reference identifying which ECF identified it was, “…Peter’s confession of faith…” that Christ was addressing and not Peter himself that Christ was going to build His Chruch. This, to me, is a decidedly Protestant argument to dismiss Peter from the leadership role that Christ gave to him. Now, here are links to the ECF that actually view Peter as the leader of the Church:

catholic.com/tracts/peters-primacy

catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp (this is from Dr. Scott Hahn and is especially rich in how the Protestant arguments consistently fall short of disproving Peter’s Primacy.)

“…keys given to all bishops…” cries out for documentation. Matt 16 only admits of one set of keys - there weren’t 11 other copies recorded as given out at any time and in any New Testament work. Truly, this is not Scriptural and there is no ECF who has identified this and it certainly does not mesh with historical evidence.

My thought is that the 4 Gospels were ordered the way they were to show a particular presentation style. Matthew begins with the ancestors of Christ and Mark begins with the public ministry of Christ. Luke beins with the pregnancy of Elizabeth and John takes an almost totally different start by discussing Christ’s Divinity and they jumping right into the ministry of John the Baptist (similar to Mark). Given that there are only 4 to work with - my personal impression is that there is a theme being presented in the beginning section of each Gospel that is used by the Catholic Church to logically present Jesus Christ to the world based on the writings of others.

So, unlike the Epistles - order is not based on size, and there really isn’t much focus on who wrote what and when this was written. I really do not think Matthew’s position as First Gospel had anything to do with Matt 16 - and the reason for this is that there wasn’t an argument of the pope being in charge of the Church. But, this is just my personal opinion.

God bless