Yes, i do. The Lord has raised up reformers throughout the History of the Church. Reformers that did not find it necessary to divide the Church, apostatized, and create a new religion based on their own interpretations of Scripture all while defaming the Holy Catholic Church and the Pope.
But then perhaps God used Martin Luther to reform the Church ?
I don’t think God would use antine who would leads people astray. Luther didn’t intend First, but did.
So what about when the Church was leading people astray by charging money for indulgences to avoid purgatory, which was the cause of Martin Luther’s protest ?
The Church has never led anyone astray.
Yes, but then a Trent-like council would have been much later.
If you wish to believe that, fine. I disagree. Pax.
Wait, so you disagree that:
I am not sure the Church would have survived the Renaissance without the Reformation - in any meaningful sense. I personally think it unlikely. Basically where we are at here in ‘modernity’ would have happened then. Complete marginalization of the faith from mainstream Western culture - vast majority of citizens not engaged in the faith. The Reformation bought us some time - let’s put it that way. But went nowhere fast I admit that too - within 100 years even. It will take all of us to make a Church - I believe this has always been the Church anyway. God knows his Church - we don’t, never will.
The indulgences used at the time of Martin Luther, were from the hierarchy of the Church, to refurbish the Church coffers which had been depleted by extravagant living and wars.
Selective use of facts may not provide the full picture. No doubt, there is some truth in your assertion. But it would be overly simplistic to argue the Council of Trent was conceived because of Martin Luther. Generally, the Council was needed years and years before Luther was even on the scene. This was evident by doctrinal teachings, decrees and condemnation of hereries decided by the Council that were outside and beyond with what Luther said.
Yes, it was needed for years and years. Anyone who knows anything about anything in Church history knows this.
The Council of Trent is a fascinating study - conflicting factions within the RCC - had it gone differently I don’t think the Church would have fragmented so tragically on and on and on. Every one had a hand in the tragedy that was the schism. Blaming one person or event is silly. For approx 100 years before Luther there were individuals and groups basically pushing for similar reforms in different European countries. A mess.
I disagree with your premise that Luther was beneficial to the Church. Luther did not start a movement. Luther created schism, tore a wound in the Body of Christ, and gave the rulers of what is now Europe a way to confiscate Church property, persecute Priests, Nuns and religious and create state sponsored false churches.
Next time you sip your communion wine / Christ’s blood, thank Luther.
Indeed, the Council addressed Martin Luther in name and in deeds. But it was so much more to the Council than addressing the selling of indulgences, sola Scriptura, and justification.
Do you understand that the newadvent encyclopedia is from 1917 ?
Some Catholics have a purely triumphalist view of Catholic Church history. Sanitization and historical spin.
A lot of times you hear this spin from converts. Or traditionalists. I am not pointing fingers - just calling out general trends. Exceptions to every rule. I personally thought we Catholics were all over this and were friends with Protestants, especially liturgical Protestants, until I came onto CAF. (mind you I was very ignorant of Church affairs back than but even today most priests, bishops I come across / read don’t do the ‘blood dripping off the fangs’ thing against Luther; it’s certain niches of laity that I can see.)