The Reformation

  • Thread starter Thread starter cemiller
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cemiller

Guest
So I’m having a discussion with a person about the reformation. He is saying that in the 1500’s the Church was killing those who were with the reformers. I honestly don’t know much about this period in history, but figured there would be some one on here that is better versed in it. I will be looking some more on my own when I get a little time, but hopefully someone on here will be able to help out a little:D
 
Both sides were on what could only be called a killing spree. It was a very dark period in history and few if any valued human life.

Sad but true.
 
cemiller said:
So I’m having a discussion with a person about the reformation. He is saying that in the 1500’s the Church was killing those who were with the reformers. I honestly don’t know much about this period in history, but figured there would be some one on here that is better versed in it. I will be looking some more on my own when I get a little time, but hopefully someone on here will be able to help out a little:D
Click to expand...
Not true. Catholics were killing no one but were getting killed. Throughout the history of the Church men rebelled against her and killed many Catholics. To this day, Catholics still getting killed because of the Faith.

If you look, you will see that the rebels destroyed the monasteries, took our Church’s buildings and killed Catholics who refused to adhere to them.

To this day, they still spread lies against the Church to keep people from the Truth.
 
Both sides are guilty and to refuse to recognize this is simple tribal blindness.
Code: 
I come from a mixed heritage. Let me share one story from the Protestant side. An ancestral grandfather became a Huguenot (Protestant) in Belgium. He was ordered to appear before the Ghent city council and knew that if he did appear he would have the choice of recanting or (1) being executed or (2) being imprisoned for his heresy.

 That very night he fled with his family to France. Unfortunately, toleration of Protestants soon ended in France and the family fled to the security found by Protestants in England. His grandson was among those Puritans who came to New England.

  Remember, for example, the Massacre of St. Bartholomew in Paris and elsewhere in France when thousands of Protestants were slaughtered. The Pope had a Te Deum sung in celebration.

   I recall the shock when reading Thomas Aquinas years ago. When it came to heretics, he said that the church should deliver them to the state which then should execute them. 

   This is not to ignore Protestant excesses also. There is enough blame to make Catholics and Protestants repent for the murderous sins of their forefathers. 

   Today both Protestants and Catholics face persecution to varying degrees in parts of the world. The persecutors are not interested in whether we are one or the other. Being a Christian is enough to stir up animosity in various forms.

   Religion should be a bridge rather than a barrier. We need to work together to make it so. Only God knows the full truth. Most of our ancient Christians ancestors wallowed in ignorance as they had poor telescopes and no microscopes. We should not keep looking back and demonizing one another but move forward in the spirit of Christian unity..

   Can anyone imagine, for even a minute, that Jesus would have blessed the evil that one Christian group inflicted upon the other during those shameful 'religious' wars?
 
Roy5 said:
Religion should be a bridge rather than a barrier. We need to work together to make it so. Only God knows the full truth. Most of our ancient Christians ancestors wallowed in ignorance as they had poor telescopes and no microscopes. We should not keep looking back and demonizing one another but move forward in the spirit of Christian unity…
Click to expand...
Amen brother. I think it was JonNC whom once posted something like, if the reformation is never ended then it wasn’t a reformation but a deformation.
 
Sort of. I’m not so sure if it was the Church, but Catholics were definitely killing Reformed followers (I don’t mean reformed denomination, but the Reformers). In the same way, Protestants were killing Catholics, including one of the Reformers (Ulrich Zwingli). both sides are guilty for this, but if the Reformation never happened, this wouldn’t have happened either.
 
Hi fellow brothers and sister thru Christ:

I was Catholic then went to the Dutch reformed church and ended up back to where I started. By attending both I can tell you that the reformers from the CALVINIST side do preach that Catholics are going to hell. They believe we are a cult and worship idols. The Lutherns and non-denominational, they seem to preach the same tollerance we are taught in the Vatican 2. During the reformation it seemed like there where a lot of fundamentalist on both side that got carried away. The Catholic church lost control over Catholic extremist who felt it was their duty to kill non-catholics. Then there where the same types on the protestant side. Currently, in the USA there are still protestants that preach that in the fundementalist side. It is all really sad because Jesus himself said “my yoke is easy”.
 
There is little doubt that the Church needed reforming, after all, the counter-reformation was an internal reform within holy mother church.

Popes can and have sinned. A famous satire from Erasmus (a Catholic) has Julius II being refused entrance by Peter at the “pearly gates”.

My personal opinion is that if Luther were handled more pastorally than confrontationally, there probably would never have been a Reformation.

The fact that he could get support demonstrates the depth of the abuses that were tolerated in the 16thC.

The Elector of Saxony, for eg, had relics of the true cross, feathers of teh Holy Spirit, milk from Mary etc. Each with a precise value for determining the legnth of time remitted in purgatory. These meant didly squat. The likelihood is that relics were watered down ever since then because of abuses and the doctrines of indulgences, relics and purgatory came under the same spotlight. They arent biblical and the tradition they rest on is very slim indeed.

The Orthodox whilst having similar doctrines are also very different on these topics and may well demonstrate how spiritually bankrupt the church was in Luther’s time.

That said, schism is not the answer and both sides sinned in excommunicating and furthering the resentment of each other.

Ive seen catholics on this site who probably prefer the days when the church was all that was needed, protestants were heretics and thats all, the ecumenical movement is a virus etc.

This hardline attitude is easier but just as sinful as those who perpetuate schism on the other side.
 
It’s interesting if you look at some older (pre-Vatican II) Catholic books, the “reformation” is deliberately referred to as “the Protestant revolt” NOT “the Protestant reformation”.

Using the term “reformation” does seem to give some ground in the argument from the get go and provide legitimacy to the Protestants. Words do matter. It’s why pro-abortionists want to call themselves “pro-choice”. “Reformation” is pretty ingrained in our society’s vocabulary, but we might try using “revolt” instead. You’ll get lots of wierd looks, but you will also have an opportunity for engaging in discussion on why revolt is a more appropriate term.

People on all sides killed people. HOWEVER, that does not grant moral equivalancy to all sides.
 
christosdavid said:
Ive seen catholics on this site who probably prefer the days when the church was all that was needed, protestants were heretics and thats all, the ecumenical movement is a virus etc.
Click to expand...
Protestants still are heretics. Lots of things have changed, but that hasn’t unless you change the definition of heretic.

I think you simply don’t hear the words “heretic” or “heresy” used much today because they sound to politically incorrect.
 
Dan_Daly said:
Protestants still are heretics. Lots of things have changed, but that hasn’t unless you change the definition of heretic.

I think you simply don’t hear the words “heretic” or “heresy” used much today because they sound to politically incorrect.
Click to expand...
on the other hand, we have to balance that with the fact that they are christian according to the ecumenical council.

Heretics in the past were not even accorded this homor, but Protestents are. so, there are things which as Christians, through the Holy Spirit, they can refresh us with.
 
christosdavid said:
on the other hand, we have to balance that with the fact that they are christian according to the ecumenical council.

Heretics in the past were not even accorded this homor, but Protestents are. so, there are things which as Christians, through the Holy Spirit, they can refresh us with.
Click to expand...
I have many very good friends who are Protestants. Many of them have helped me grow spirtually in many different ways.

By definition though they are still heretics, and I pray that they would join the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. I rejoice that one of my good protestant friends did just that! In fact, he and his wife are the godparents of my son.

It can seem like a tough line to walk- speaking the truth, while still engaging that person in friendship. I think the key is Charity. We need to have charity in our words and actions. But we also need to remember that heresy is a sin, and letting your friends persist in sin without doing anything to help them is certainly not charity. WE can’t make anyone convert. Faith is a gift. But we can pray for God to give others that gift, and try to live in a manner so that we can be his instruments in doing so.

Pax.
 
Dan_Daly said:
It’s interesting if you look at some older (pre-Vatican II) Catholic books, the “reformation” is deliberately referred to as “the Protestant revolt” NOT “the Protestant reformation”.

Using the term “reformation” does seem to give some ground in the argument from the get go and provide legitimacy to the Protestants. Words do matter. It’s why pro-abortionists want to call themselves “pro-choice”. “Reformation” is pretty ingrained in our society’s vocabulary, but we might try using “revolt” instead. You’ll get lots of wierd looks, but you will also have an opportunity for engaging in discussion on why revolt is a more appropriate term.

People on all sides killed people. HOWEVER, that does not grant moral equivalancy to all sides.
Click to expand...
You are correct. the name reformation is not correct, this makes them believe that they realy have the Church. they rebel against the Church and did horrible things to her. they turned millions agaisnt the Church and try to destroy her.

I think the reason why the pope doesnt want to call them heretics is to maybe if we drop this, they would come into the Church. I don’t think by hiding the Truth makes anyone successful. we will see.

The world does care. it is the CC that they go after and not protestants. It is the Church that speaks to the world with authority and not protestants.
 
So I’ve searched around a little on the net, and most everyting I’ve found (except for hard core anti-Catholic sites) has agreed that both sides did a lot of killing back then. I know I’ve heard that some of it was politically motivated as well, but I can’t find any back up for this so far… Thanks for the answers everyone, it probably won’t make a difference to the person I’m talking with, but at least I can speak the truth 🙂
 
Its been a while since I posted but this subject always gets my interest.
As a Finn, former Lutheran pastor, and fairly recent swimmer of the Tiber who reads a lot I think I have something to say, as do you all.

It is an interesting quirk of language that in Finnish “The Reformation” is Uskonpuhdistus, which would translate literally as “Cleansing of the Faith”.

This is very much the way it is viewed in the Nordic countries, not as a rebellion but a cleansing. The two centuries after 1517 where politically and religiously far from stable in this corner of the world. The teachings of Luther etal were very much from “the top down” and the closing of monastaries, convents etc. was very much a power and land grab by the political and economic elites. The common peasants continued catholic devotions for a long time, and there is still a longing for many of the devotions among the faithful, even if they are Lutherans. The common enemy challanging us all is Militant Secularism. It was 5 centuries ago as well, but it was not recognized as what it was, being disguised as “Royal Privilage”.

Blessings to you all as summer peaks and starts to wind down.

Harri
 
cemiller said:
So I’m having a discussion with a person about the reformation. He is saying that in the 1500’s the Church was killing those who were with the reformers. I honestly don’t know much about this period in history, but figured there would be some one on here that is better versed in it. I will be looking some more on my own when I get a little time, but hopefully someone on here will be able to help out a little:D
Click to expand...
It’s a very, very big subject that takes a long time to fully understand the topic. Protestants claim that the Church sanctioned various protestants massacres, when really they were politically motivated and the Church did not sanction anything. They might refer to the Massacre of Mérindol (1545), of which the Waldensians were slaughtered. This was an act by the King, not the Church. They might also claim that the Pope, ‘Sung with excitement’, or ‘Dedicated a hymn’ to the massacres. These are, allegations, not fact. Innocent until proven guilty in my opinion. Catholic monarchies killed Protestants. Protestant rulers killed Catholics. Both are guilty, but the Church giving the orders? Now that is something I would want to see documentation for.
 
Myqyl said:
Both sides were on what could only be called a killing spree. It was a very dark period in history and few if any valued human life.

Sad but true.
Click to expand...
Those were times where brute force was the normal way of dealing with conflict. Catholics and Protestants are equally guilty of great cruelty toward each other. Bl. John Paul actually stated this in “Ut Unum Sint”. He said that Catholics and Protestants are equally guilty for the separation that exists between us. John Paul was a man who was very knowledgeable of Church history and theology. I would not take him on.
wisdomseeker said:
You are correct. the name reformation is not correct, this makes them believe that they realy have the Church. they rebel against the Church and did horrible things to her. they turned millions agaisnt the Church and try to destroy her.

I think the reason why the pope doesnt want to call them heretics is to maybe if we drop this, they would come into the Church. I don’t think by hiding the Truth makes anyone successful. we will see. .
Click to expand...
Pope Paul VI changed that canon before he died. Pope Paul was a lawyer, civil and canon. He clarified that you cannot call those born into Protestantism heretics. The defintion does not fit them. They are not breaking with the Church. They are born into Prostestantism. Their anscestors who broke with the Church were heretics.

The term heretic is a canonical term. You cannot apply any canonical lable to someone who is outside of the jurisdiction of the Church. Canon Law only applies to Catholics. If a Catholic leave the Church in a state of heresy, he is a heretic. If a Protestant embraces a heresy, the fact remains a heresy, but the Protestant is not a heretic. The Church has no authority over him. Therefore, the Church cannot dictate to him what he can and cannot believe. They would be material heretics, not heretics in the truest sense of the word. Even Catholics who embrace certain heresies, such as the right to abortion in the case of rape and incest, are not heretics. They’re embracing a heresy. To be a heretic, you must meet some very strict criteria.

Finally, Bl. John Paul did pick up where Pope Paul VI left off, by asking Catholics to set the good example and refrain from labeling Protestants with hateful and hurtful terminology such as heretics. Yet, it seems that the more orthodox and traditional that we want to be, the less obedient and cooperative that we cand sometimes become. Does that make one a heretic?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I was going to add, but the thread timed out. We all have to grow up and stop feeling guilty and defensive for what our anscestors did. That’s like feeling guilty and defensive because my anscestors had slaves. They actually did not. My ancestors were Jews and American Jews did not have slaves. But if they had, why should I feel defensive or guilty? That was their mistake.

The same applies to the Reformation. The Church was in need of reform. We have to stop pretending that it was not. The Reformation became a poloitical conflict. In some places it turned into a struggle between social classes. They reached a point where you couldn’t tell where the theological debate ended and the political debate started.

If you were in France and Span, the Catholics were cruel to the non-Catholics. They were so cruel to the Jews and Muslims that the Dominicans and Franciscans took to the defense of the Jews amd Muslims. The pope finally had to intervene on their behalf.

If you were in Germany and in England,the Protestants were horribly cruel to the Catiolics. They not only went after the Catholics who abused their power and position, but they continued through entire Catholic populations, untilt hey cornered the Catholics in Ireland.

But English Catholics did their share of damage too. Our own Thomas More burnt six heretics. We don’t know if he would have burned more, but his Franciscan superior ordered him to stop. More was a man of him time and a saintly man. We probably had no idea of the gravity of such a heinous act. It must be said in his favor that he stopped when ordered to do so by his Franciscan superior. But not all Catholics were members of orders. They had no superiors. And many Protestants were more “monarchists” than they were Christian. They went with the flow that best fit their agenda.

Had it not been for the Capuchin Franciscans, Jesuits and Dominicans, who knows how many Protestants, Jews, Muslims and alleged heretics the courts would have put to death. It was the same thing in the Protestant countries. It was thanks to the secular governments that the killing of Catholics stopped.

The European people of between the 12the century and the 14th century were very cruel. Things quieted down until the 16th century then it started up again until after the French Revolution. They were not just cruel over religious matters. They were cruel over many things. Their solution to conflicts was to shoot first and ask questions later.

It seems that we’re getting back to that in many places, which is unfortunate and a disgrace.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
christosdavid said:
on the other hand, we have to balance that with the fact that they are christian according to the ecumenical council.

Heretics in the past were not even accorded this homor, but Protestents are. so, there are things which as Christians, through the Holy Spirit, they can refresh us with.
Click to expand...
Well, the Sacred Council of Trent in its Fifteenth Session referred to the Protestants it was inviting as “Christi fidelibus” (the faithful of Christ). so I don’t think the usage is really outside the mind of the traditional Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top