2011 without Luther would have included tens of thousands of other groups anyway.Let’s not forget that Indulgences are to decrease punishment for sins already forgiven, not to save one from Hell. Also, the clerical abuses had no connection to Catholic doctrine. Luther lost his mind entirely when he decided that Catholic theology and Church authority was wrong as well (which contradicted many of his prior statements). So no, Protestantism wouldn’t have occurred without Luther.
My interest centers on the English situation. There was a long history of the conflict between the Throne and Rome, in the political realm, reflected in a number of Royal decrees and Parliamentary acts, prior to Henry. One way or another, there would have been a change.The Lutherans were not the only Reformation. The radicals and the English would still have left Rome without him.
The Roman Church had really painted itself into a corner politically too - in a way it reminds me of the situation before WWI. All the entanglements resulted in a political picture in Europe that was no longer working, and so the ruling classes were ready for any way to get out of it.
But personally, I think the causes of the Reformation were the same causes of the Great Schism - a model of the Church structure that is fundamentally not what was intended. Rome lost the East because of papal claims of a particular sort, and the same kinds of use of papal power led to the loss of many other parts of the Church in Europe.
So yes, it was inevitable as long as that structure was there that things would go awry.
There were other before Luther, but they were burned at the stake such as Jan Hus. Luther was condemned both as an outlaw by the Holy Roman Empire which was neither Holy or Roman and a heretic by the Church.2011 without Luther would have included tens of thousands of other groups anyway.
The above quote does not demonstrate anything except the fact that Luther would not back away from his concerns and simply let the leadership continue the blatant abuses. It logically follows that the corrupt would use their power to forcibly shut him up and call him the sinner for not complying.Have you read Pope Leo X’s rebuttal Exsurge Domine? However valid Luther’s criticisms were, the man was clearly rebellious and uncooperative from the get-go, undermining Catholic authority, including the Pope himself. Reasonable reform was not part of his agenda, and the 95 Theses is commonly regarded today as the catalyst for the Reformation. Here are some of the Pope’s words:
As far as Martin himself is concerned, O good God, what have we overlooked or not done? What fatherly charity have we omitted that we might call him back from such errors? For after we had cited him, wishing to deal more kindly with him, we urged him through various conferences with our legate and through our personal letters to abandon these errors. We have even offered him safe conduct and the money necessary for the journey urging him to come without fear or any misgivings, which perfect charity should cast out, and to talk not secretly but openly and face to face after the example of our Savior and the Apostle Paul. …] *But he always refused to listen and, despising the previous citation and each and every one of the above overtures, disdained to come. To the present day he has been contumacious. With a hardened spirit he has continued under censure over a year. What is worse, adding evil to evil, and on learning of the citation, he broke forth in a rash appeal to a future council. This to be sure was contrary to the constitution of Pius II and Julius II our predecessors that all appealing in this way are to be punished with the penalties of heretics. In vain does he implore the help of a council, since he openly admits that he does not believe in a council.
Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures. Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church. *
You all realize that Luther was excommunicated before there was any “split” or attempt to split, right? He tried for years to reform from within but he was excommunicated because he would not recant at the Diet of Worms on matters which, up to that time, mostly had to do with abuses of doctrine, not doctrine itself. The Lutheran confessions did not start to be written until around 1530, which established reformed Lutheran doctrine–much later than his excommunication in 1521.
There are some problems with the Theses.Excuse my chronology–he was excommunicated in early 1521 even before the Diet and then he was formally outlawed and a price put on his head after the Diet. At this early point it was all still mostly about the 95 theses, with which I don’t think many modern Catholics would have too much of a problem–right?
As has been pointed out, sin begats division.2011 without Luther would have included tens of thousands of other groups anyway.
Why wasn’t Luther killed then ? Why or who spared himThere were other before Luther, but they were burned at the stake such as Jan Hus. Luther was condemned both as an outlaw by the Holy Roman Empire which was neither Holy or Roman and a heretic by the Church.
Have you read Luther’s 1518 letter to Leo, which is nothing if not humble and submissive?Have you read Pope Leo X’s rebuttal Exsurge Domine?
His prince (a devout Catholic with a widely renowned collection of holy relics) gave him refuge.Why wasn’t Luther killed then ? Why or who spared him
**St. Athanasius was *also *excommunicated as he battled the Arian Heresy which threatened to rip the Church apart in the 4th century. He, however, remained faithful to the Church and eventually crushed that heresy. **You all realize that Luther was excommunicated before there was any “split” or attempt to split, right? He tried for years to reform from within but he was excommunicated because he would not recant at the Diet of Worms on matters which, up to that time, mostly had to do with abuses of doctrine, not doctrine itself. The Lutheran confessions did not start to be written until around 1530, which established reformed Lutheran doctrine–much later than his excommunication in 1521.
**
THAT’s** the difference between a faithful man like Athanasius and an arrogant one like Luther.
Well, there’s plenty of arrogance to go around when it comes to Lutheran-Catholic relations.
That seems to be the cookie cutter response. Blind obedience trumps all.There are some problems with the Theses.
Luther was angry from the start. He was angry at Tetzel, which is what spurred the Theses. He then became angry at the Pope. He was rightfully indignant about the abuses of the doctrine, but,
James 1:20
…the anger of man does not work the righteousness of God…
His pride and his anger interfered with his attempts to address the abuses. He ended up alienating the people that needed to be transformed by Truth.
The tiny pebble that he started rolling quickly became a large avalanche that even he could not control. It all boiled down (and still does) to the issue of authority. I have recently been studying the life of Luther, who had authority problems since he was a young boy. He was terribly beaten by his parents, so badly on one occasion by his father that he would not come near him or speak to him for a long time. His rage toward his father, and conviction that nothing he could ever do would be good enough carried over into his religious life. When he was finally able to understand and receive grace, his transference shifted to the Pope, and “the Papists”. It leaked out on the Jews, and the peasants. All these issues were already on the verge of explosion. He just became the blasting cap.
Before someone else gets the chance to correct this, I find it necessary to say that there were common translations of the Bible before Luther done by lay people and some were allowed by the hierarchy. That said, there seems to have been no effort to make the Bible easily accessible. Then again, economical factors made that difficult at the time.no wonder that they didnt want anyone to be able to read the Bible.
I also think that the literacy level of the population was another major handicap. That is why we inherited a lot of religious art.Before someone else gets the chance to correct this, I find it necessary to say that there were common translations of the Bible before Luther done by lay people and some were allowed by the hierarchy. That said, there seems to have been no effort to make the Bible easily accessible. Then again, economical factors made that difficult at the time.
Certainly.I also think that the literacy level of the population was another major handicap. That is why we inherited a lot of religious art.