Was the reformation bound to happen ?

[elvisman]

It continues to startle me how it is second nature for you guys to completely ignore/ minimize the fact that vile corruption in the Papacy created the entire mess.

And it continues to startle me how you claim that Luther was a great man of God when I have presented - in his own words - a man of extreme arrogance and spiritual pride, the anithesis of a true man of God.

Luther may have started out on a noble mission, but what he became was a tool of satan - the very opposite of what Jesus prayed for in John i7. Had he been more like Athanasius, he could truly be considered a man of God.

 

[guanophore]

It continues to startle me how it is second nature for you guys to completely ignore/ minimize the fact that vile corruption in the Papacy created the entire mess.

It mystifies me how you completely ignore the fact that it is obvious to us that corruption in the leadership fomented the rebellion that splintered the Church.

There were wolves among the sheep, fleecing the flock.

But the problem is not the office of the the successor of Peter, or the Bishops. The problem is the corruption of the men who occupied the office. Throwing out the structure that Jesus created is not the answer.

 

[Jack_Bauer]

Not under my watch.

 

[elvisman]

I mystifies me how you completely ignore the fact that it is obvious to us that corruption in the leadership fomented the rebellion that splintered the Church.

There were wolves among the sheep, fleecing the flock.

But the problem is not the office of the the successor of Peter, or the Bishops. The problem is the corruption of the men who occupied the office. Throwing out the structure that Jesus created is not the answer.

 

[valentino]

Good Question,IMO yes.There were many things wrong with the Church at that time.So many Catholics were not following the Church and many teachings were not being clarified.Some change was necessarily going to take place.Luther and others simply demanded more rigid and defined rules.Luther had no intention of spliting the Church.But when he was rebuffed and essentially ignored by the Pope he felt slighted and his protest became stronger.When he was eventually excommunicated he rebelled completely against the Church.He denounced the Pope and many dissatisfied believers and non believers rallied to his cause.

 

[rinnie]

That is just it, though, 1voice. The Church of Christ, and the Truth of Christ, is immutable and holy. The only evil comes from the Evil One, and the messengers that have been pulled into his plan to destroy those who follow the Son of the Woman clothed with the sun.

The Church is a divine institution. It is only the fallible human part of her that gives the devil a foothold for blatant evil.

No, but like anyone with a severe mood disorder, his expressions varied depending upon his mood. When you read some of his other quotes, you look back and wonder how he could have written this one!

Martin Luther Quotes: On the Pope: “The pope employs most wicked tricks….Next to Satan there is no greater rascal than the pope. He has plotted evil things against me, but he’ll be the last….He is a Florentine bastard.” –Ta b l e Talk, between January 8 and March 23, 1532, No. 1359, P. 143.

“When I die I want to be a ghost and pester the bishops, priests, and godless monks so that they have more trouble with a dead Luther than they could have had before with a thousand living ones.” – Table Talk, between April 7 and May 1, 1532, No. 1442, p. 151.

“My epitaph shall remain true: ‘While alive I was your plague, when dead I’ll be your death, O pope.’” – Table Talk, February 1557, No. 3543A, P. 227. [Editors note # 99: Luther mentioned this epitaph several times. For example, cf. Luther’s Works, vol. 34, p. 49.]

“[Luther] raised himself up and after making the sign of the cross with his hand, he said
to us who were standing around him, ‘The Lord fill you with his benediction and with
hatred of the pope!’” Table Talk, February, 1537, No. 3543A, p. 228.

“Yes, we afterward established in our decretals that only the pope should convoke
councils and name the participants.” But dear one, is this true? Who commanded you to
establish this? “Silence, you heretic! What comes out of our mouth must be kept!” I hear
it—which mouth do you mean? The one from which the farts come? (You can keep that
yourself!) Or the one into which the good Corsican wine flows? (Let a clog **** into
that!) “Oh, you abominable Luther, should you talk to the pope like this?” Shame on you
too, you blasphemous, desperate rogues and crude asses—and should you talk to an
emperor and empire like this? Yes, should you malign and desecrate four such high
councils with the four greatest Christian emperors, just for the sake of your farts and
decretals? Why do you let yourselves imagine that you are better than crass, crude,
ignorant asses and fools, who neither know nor wish to know what councils, bishops,
churches, emperors—indeed, what God and his word—are? You are a crude ***, you ***-
pope, and an *** you will remain!” – Against the Roman Papacy, an Institution of the
Devil.1545.

etc, etc.

My point was, that the fault he was finding might have been better addressed if he had not fallen into such base rhetoric.

I knew he was a very disturbed individual. I believe in my heart he was possesed by the devil. The way he was tormented by voices and things.

But I never really noticed until I read this the hatred that was in this man. He was so full of hate and anger, This does not come from God it can only come from one source, I believe we can all agree on that.

What bothers me the most about him is how he condemned the Catholic Pope, Priests, etc and there were things that they were doing that were wrong indeed. You will always have that with Humans. You will see mistakes and sins that is why we are all human.

But what botherd me the most is how after he said and did such hateful things is how he lived his life. ANd how People could condemn the Pope and Biships and then follow a man who was so full of evil just by the way he lived his life. And he never even TRIED to hide his sinfull ways.

WHen you read of the way he entertained women etc, its just like out of the O.T. when God destroyed the whole city. ANd like I said lived openly like that.

 

[rinnie]

Yes we need to reconcile as Jon said, and we need to be one…Also, the papacy was reformed at the Council of Trent…and our popes, especially those going back to the 1800’s do reflect a true reform happened.

I think about all the different cultures…and the Holy Father’s represents all our faith.

But see Kathleen here is the point that has to be made. People say that the CC was reformed that is impossible.

You made the point and it is a good point the Papacy had to be reformed. And we can all agree on that. But the CC which we see as the Holy Spirit leading the RCC cannot. And that is also something that people must see.

There is SO much good in the Pope today and ALL of the Bishops that need to be shared with everyone.

I pray someday that they can see that the past is over and cannot be changed. It is impossible! But the future is today and can be the past that HAS changed and brought us back together.

But the problem is the same problem that got us into this mess. Humans. And with humans you have pride, people worrying about what others will think. Until they all get back on thier own true mission which is to bring us ALL together as the ONE family of God there is not much we can do.

All we can do is instead of crying about your Pope did this or Your Bishop did that, is to pray that God will gvie them the Grace needed to be the Great Leaders that they are, and they can come together as the ONE family in Christ so the Sheep can follow.

That is all it is going to take. BUt they have to be the ones to do this. So for now many prayers are needed.

The devill is in his glory when we fight and attack one another. But he will shake and tremble if we all Pray together.

Maybe we can all pray the Our Father when we read this and ask for the mercy of God to bring us all together. The damage is done. But work needs to be done now to repair. Prayer is the best weapon.

 

[rinnie]

The more I read the more interesting and informative this discussion has become.
The picture I am getting is that Martin Luther was a devoted scholar and a true man after God. He searched the scriptures and held fast to that which is good. He poured himself into his work as a shepherd of the flock and took the responsibility very seriously. He punished his body in ways that would seem incomprehensible today… but at the time were considered the way to walk the path toward salvation.
At some point in his life he woke up to the horrible fact that his diligence was in stark contrast to the debauched lifestyle of the Pope that he so dutifully served. When his sense of justice led him to question this obvious evil … he was summarily told to shut up. His sense of righteous indignation and his clear understanding of the evil being foisted on millions of innocent people would not allow him to turn a blind eye.

---

In his diary, Cardinal Bembo, the Pope’s secretary for seven years,(recorded) that Leo:
“…was known to disbelieve Christianity itself. He advanced contrary to the faith and that in condemning the Gospel, therefore he must be a heretic; he was guilty of sodomy with his chamberlains; was addicted to pleasure, luxury, idleness, ambition, unchastity and sensuality; and spent his whole days in the company of musicians and buffoons. His Infallibility’s drunkenness was proverbial, he practiced incontinency as well as inebriation, and the effects of his crimes shattered the people’s constitution.”

---

Luther witnessed abject evil and was disowned by the evil he exposed.

Given these conditions it is no wonder that decent people were running for the exits in droves.

And what I saw was a man who had a nervous breakdown or was possessed by the devil.

He was tormented by voices that is not normal.

Whatever happened to him had nothing to do with things that happened in the Church. You cannot blame the Church for his illness or whatever it was. Luther never wanted to be a Priest he was forced into it by his Parents. That could have been the root of his resentment for the Church the Pope or Priest or even God for that matter. It happens.

He recanted so many things. And as the proof was stated today he had a deep love for the Church and then a deep hate. I believe he had a split personality. Good Luther, Bad Luther.

It is said that everything that happens in this world and how you react comes from your home life. It seems to me that he had a horrible childhood. It seems that the way we were brought up rather we like it or not holds a deep pattern into who we become.

I am not a Dr but from the deep rages and fits he took shows you that he never had any attention at home. I always wondered if his home life would have been different and he was called by God to be a Priest and answered that call and wanted to be a Priest what a wonderful difference he could have made in the world. But like us all Luther was also human and when you are human the devil works on your own insecurity and lets loose.

Only God understands him, and only God can judge him. And only God knows the truth and the reason for his illness. But we can bet that only God has the Mercy to forgive.

 

[guanophore]

And what I saw was a man who had a nervous breakdown or was possessed by the devil.

He was tormented by voices that is not normal.

History has not provided us with suffiicent information to determine this. He does have many of the criteria that are in the diagnostic categeories for mental illness, but as far as possession, we do not know. Besides, being tormented by the devil and hearing voices are things that all the saints and Dr.'s of the Church have experienced. The Devil used to torment St. Teresa of Avila on a regular basis. On one occasion, she awoke, and saw him at the foot of her bed, said “oh, it’s you again” then rolled over and went back to sleep!" So, being tormented is also not a sign that he was mentally ill or posessed, as it happens to people who are not as well.

 Whatever happened to him had nothing to do with things that happened in the Church. You cannot blame the Church for his illness or whatever it was.

I agree, but Luther, as much as he was striving to do so, had a really hard time grasping the concept of grace. When it finally did sink into him, he was angry with the Church for “hiding it”. I had the same experience, and it took many years for me to realize that it was there all along, and I just did not have “ears to hear”.

Luther never wanted to be a Priest he was forced into it by his Parents.

This is not accurate. His father wanted him to be a lawyer, slaved, and put him through school. Luther got scared during a lightening storm and promised God that if he lived, he would become a monk. He did, then he drove his superior crazy with his scrupulosity and neurotic guilt. After he became a priest, the superior forced him into doctor of theology school against his will (to find an outlet for his overactive mind). When Luther complained that he was not up to it, his superior told him it would be ok if it killed him, because God would have plenty of work for such a clever young man in heaven.

That could have been the root of his resentment for the Church the Pope or Priest or even God for that matter. It happens.

Luther did have serious issues with his father, and his guilt. I think these later did influence him a great deal.

He recanted so many things. And as the proof was stated today he had a deep love for the Church and then a deep hate. I believe he had a split personality. Good Luther, Bad Luther.

No, rinnie, this is just the human condition. Human beings have love/hate whereever they have attachment. Hate is not the opposite of love, but people can only hate that which they care about or in which they have investment.

It is said that everything that happens in this world and how you react comes from your home life. It seems to me that he had a horrible childhood. It seems that the way we were brought up rather we like it or not holds a deep pattern into who we become.

I agree with you, but we also have to keep in mind that what he suffered with the beatings and the oppression was also common practice at the time. For some reason, he lacked the resilience to overcome it.

 I am not a Dr but from the deep rages and fits he took shows you that he never had any attention at home.

His autobiographical statements indicate otherwise. He apparently got quite a bit of attention with constant heavy labor, and some severe beatings. When he was sent away to school, his headmaster also beat him.

I always wondered if his home life would have been different and he was called by God to be a Priest and answered that call and wanted to be a Priest what a wonderful difference he could have made in the world.

Well, he did become a priest, but it made his father so angry he stopped speaking to him.

But like us all Luther was also human and when you are human the devil works on your own insecurity and lets loose.:shrug:

Yes.

Only God understands him, and only God can judge him. And only God knows the truth and the reason for his illness. But we can bet that only God has the Mercy to forgive.

And we must also forgive him, for he knew not what he was doing. When he saw how his actions splintered the church, he was very distraught.

 

[1voice]

And it continues to startle me how you claim that Luther was a great man of God when I have presented - in his own words - a man of extreme arrogance and spiritual pride, the anithesis of a true man of God.

Luther may have started out on a noble mission, but what he became was a tool of satan - the very opposite of what Jesus prayed for in John i7. Had he been more like Athanasius, he could truly be considered a man of God.

Luther’s character is not the question.

The question at hand … “Was the reformation bound to happen?”

Having learned what vile depths of depravity the Papacy had become (it became standard procedure for Romans to drag statues of a pope through the mud after the pope’s death)
… and knowing that there is a righteous and merciful God … The answer is yes.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Luther’s character is not the question.

The question at hand … “Was the reformation bound to happen?”

Having learned what vile depths of depravity the Papacy had become… and knowing that there is a righteous and merciful God … The answer is yes.

A teacher’s character needs to be virtuous, to be better received by listeners. Regardless of Luther thought he was a saint, he teaches against the faith that God gave us.

Yes, because some specific men were sinful, God decided to throw out the “one” and “apostolic” marks of the church. Later on, men took it upon themselves to throw out the “catholic” and “holy” marks for themselves by slipping into more and more denominations and into deeper heresy, moral relativism, and modernism.
… and the True Church has been wearing an invisibility cloak ever since.

 

[elvisman]

Luther’s character is not the question.

The question at hand … “Was the reformation bound to happen?”

Having learned what vile depths of depravity the Papacy had become… and knowing that there is a righteous and merciful God … The answer is yes.

And I answered that in many of my posts. I said that I agreed with Luther’s initial frustration.

You keep speaking of the "vile depths of depravity" in regards to the papacy and you are dead wrong. The vile depths of depravity are what some MEN sunk to - NOT the office of the Papacy that Jesus established.**

Furthermore - you accuse us Catholics of glossing over these “horrible” facts yet you have completely ignored the evidence presented against Luther - in his OWN words. As I stated in several posts, Luthe had not one iota of the faith and courage of Athanasius who was also excommunicated for defending the faith. The difference is that Athanasius was exonerated because he defended the Church in the face of heresy, whereas Luther prolifereted the heresies himself.

The fruits of his arrogance were the seemigly endless splintering of the Body of Christ. That is why I stated that he became a tool of Satan, whose greatest achievement in the history of the Church was its disunity. Read Jesus’ fervent prayer for the unity of his Body in John 17 - then tell me that what Luther, Calvin and the rest did was noble or good.

 

[JonNC]

Luther’s character is not the question.

The question at hand … “Was the reformation bound to happen?”

Having learned what vile depths of depravity the Papacy had become (it became standard procedure for Romans to drag statues of a pope through the mud after the pope’s death)
… and knowing that there is a righteous and merciful God … The answer is yes.

See, this is the frustration I have with threads such as this. In the first sentence in your post, you deflect concerns Catholics have - rightly or wrongly - about Luther’s character, then proceed to use terms such as vile and depravity to describe the character of the papacy at the time.

For me, nothing is solved by this kind of discourse, except to deepen the wounds of division, and foment greater hostility and rancor.

Jon

 

[1voice]

See, this is the frustration I have with threads such as this. In the first sentence in your post, you deflect concerns Catholics have - rightly or wrongly - about Luther’s character, then proceed to use terms such as vile and depravity to describe the character of the papacy at the time.

For me, nothing is solved by this kind of discourse, except to deepen the wounds of division, and foment greater hostility and rancor.

Jon

Wounds? Rancor? … The question is … Was the reformation bound to happen? It did not happen in a vacuum… as with all revolutions … There were deep seated grievences. The people of the Church were deeply wounded for a long time before they revolted.

The focus of many of these posts was on Martin Luther being the problem in the events he was directly and indirectly involved as related to the Reformation… using him to deflect away from the clear fact that the Papacy was exactly what he said it was… and worse …

People here are going on and on about Martin Luther. Luther (no matter his personal problems) was clearly not the problem that caused the Reformation … even in the slightest. Read the historic facts. The Papacy was destroying Christ’s Church. I mean destroying it… and could not care less.
When Luther spoke up … the man leading the church wasnt even a Christian! He openly denied Christ! His own personal secretary called him a heretic…

Do you think a Cardinal of Christ’s Church would say such a thing of his Pope if he were not deeply wounded himself?

In his diary, Cardinal Bembo, the Pope’s secretary for seven years,(recorded) that Leo:
“…was known to disbelieve Christianity itself. He advanced contrary to the faith and that in condemning the Gospel, therefore he must be a heretic; he was guilty of sodomy with his chamberlains; was addicted to pleasure, luxury, idleness, ambition, unchastity and sensuality; and spent his whole days in the company of musicians and buffoons. His Infallibility’s drunkenness was proverbial, he practiced incontinency as well as inebriation, and the effects of his crimes shattered the people’s constitution.”

People didnt drag effigy’s through the mud in the City of Rome after the death of a Pope as standard procedure because they were being blessed.

The Reformation happened for good reason.

 

[elvisman]

Wounds? Rancor? … The question is … Was the reformation bound to happen? It did not happen in a vacuum… as with all revolutions … There were deep seated grievences. The people of the Church were deeply wounded for a long time before they revolted.

The focus of many of these posts was on Martin Luther being the problem in the events he was directly and indirectly involved as related to the Reformation… using him to deflect away from the clear fact that the Papacy was exactly what he said it was… and worse …

People here are going on and on about Martin Luther. Luther (no matter his personal problems) was clearly not the problem that caused the Reformation … even in the slightest. Read the historic facts. The Papacy was destroying Christ’s Church. I mean destroying it… and could not care less.
When Luther spoke up … the man leading the church wasnt even a Christian! He openly denied Christ! His own personal secretary called him a heretic.

In his diary, Cardinal Bembo, the Pope’s secretary for seven years,(recorded) that Leo:
“…was known to disbelieve Christianity itself. He advanced contrary to the faith and that in condemning the Gospel, therefore he must be a heretic; he was guilty of sodomy with his chamberlains; was addicted to pleasure, luxury, idleness, ambition, unchastity and sensuality; and spent his whole days in the company of musicians and buffoons. His Infallibility’s drunkenness was proverbial, he practiced incontinency as well as inebriation, and the effects of his crimes shattered the people’s constitution.”

Sorry, but you’re wrong.

**Go back and read the posts. Almost every post about Luther has been sympathetic - as far as his original grievances. It is what happened in the aftermath of his 95 Theses that we are bringing attention to. **

It is you, my friend that has attacked the office of the Papacy because some evil men have occupied the Chair of Peter. Jesus prophesied about this (Matt. 7:15). The fact that Leo wasn’t a good pope has no bearing on what Luther did in the years that followed his posting of the 95 Theses.

As I have pointed out - ad nauseam - Luther’s situation was NOT without precedent. Athanasius is said to have been excommunicated on more than one occasion for his condemnation of the Arian Heresy - but he was steadfast in his defense of the church, which is the defense of TRUTH itself (1 Tim. 3:15).

Luther chose to defens his OWN positions and not those of the Church, which is the FULLNESS of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23).

 

[JonNC]

=1voice;8050629]Wounds? Rancor? … The question is … Was the reformation bound to happen? It did not happen in a vacuum… as with all revolutions … There were deep seated grievences. The people of the Church were deeply wounded for a long time before they revolted.

The focus of many of these posts was on Martin Luther being the problem in the events he was directly and indirectly involved as related to the Reformation… using him to deflect away from the clear fact that the Papacy was exactly what he said it was… and worse …

People here are going on and on about Martin Luther. Luther (no matter his personal problems) was clearly not the problem that caused the Reformation … even in the slightest. Read the historic facts. The Papacy was destroying Christ’s Church. I mean destroying it… and could not care less.
When Luther spoke up … the man leading the church wasnt even a Christian! He openly denied Christ! His own personal secretary called him a heretic…

Do you think a Cardinal of Christ’s Church would say such a thing of his Pope if he were not deeply wounded himself?

In his diary, Cardinal Bembo, the Pope’s secretary for seven years,(recorded) that Leo:
“…was known to disbelieve Christianity itself. He advanced contrary to the faith and that in condemning the Gospel, therefore he must be a heretic; he was guilty of sodomy with his chamberlains; was addicted to pleasure, luxury, idleness, ambition, unchastity and sensuality; and spent his whole days in the company of musicians and buffoons. His Infallibility’s drunkenness was proverbial, he practiced incontinency as well as inebriation, and the effects of his crimes shattered the people’s constitution.”

So, we the children of the Reformation pointout the problems within the papacy and the Church in the middle ages, and Catholics point out the problems with those who led the Reformation. Fine. The Catholic Catechism honestly points out that there was blame enough on both sides. To one degree or another, facts. Said and done.

Now, can both sides then focus on the doctrinal differences, the political and social causes that led to and carried the Reformation? Or do we necessarily have to focus on the personalities ( and their flaws)? It seems to me to arguable that sticking with the personalities and their characters overshadows these other reasons, and we end up using them as clubs to beat erach other of the head with. They are often-times exaggerated by both sides against the other, and I personally see no value in them.

Question: could we discuss the papacy of the time, and its corruption and abuses without terms like “vile” and “depraved”? Could we discuss Dr. Luther without implying that he was possessed by the devil, or was filled with arrogance, as if none of the other players in the 1500’s, or even ourselves, were not?
I think we can, and still come to reasonable conclusions, hypothetical though they may be, whether or not the Reformation was bound to happen.

Jon

 

[1voice]

Sorry, but you’re wrong.

Go back and read the posts. Almost every post about Luther has been sympathetic - as far as his original grievances. It is what happened in the aftermath of his 95 Theses that we are bringing attention to.

It is you, my friend that has attacked the office of the Papacy because some evil men have occupied the Chair of Peter. Jesus prophesied about this (Matt. 7:15). The fact that Leo wasn’t a good pope has no bearing on what Luther did in the years that followed his posting of the 95 Theses.

As I have pointed out - ad nauseam - Luther’s situation was NOT without precedent. Athanasius is said to have been excommunicated on more than one occasion for his condemnation of the Arian Heresy - but he was steadfast in his defense of the church, which is the defense of TRUTH itself (1 Tim. 3:15).

Luther chose to defens his OWN positions and not those of the Church, which is the FULLNESS of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23).

I am not attacking the Papacy. I am pointing at the cause of the Reformation.
It was the Papacy that caused the Reformation… There were a series of Popes that were destroying Christs Church… People would not stand for it and they left in droves.
The total breakdown of leadership in the Church from within was the catalyst for revolution.

 

[Cristiano]

I am not attacking the Papacy. I am pointing at the cause of the Reformation.
It was the Papacy that caused the Reformation… There were a series of Popes that were destroying Christs Church… People would not stand for it and they left in droves.
The total breakdown of leadership in the Church from within was the catalyst for revolution.

I think that you have a valid point when you say that some of the popes showed some very poor behaviors and they should be held accountable. However, it was not the Papacy (institution) that caused the reformation. The other point is that all Catholics should understand that the Christ’s Church cannot be destroyed and you so cannot have total breakdown of the leadership of the Church, thus leaving in troves is only self damning.

 

[GKC]

So, we the children of the Reformation pointout the problems within the papacy and the Church in the middle ages, and Catholics point out the problems with those who led the Reformation. Fine. The Catholic Catechism honestly points out that there was blame enough on both sides. To one degree or another, facts. Said and done.

Now, can both sides then focus on the doctrinal differences, the political and social causes that led to and carried the Reformation? Or do we necessarily have to focus on the personalities ( and their flaws)? It seems to me to arguable that sticking with the personalities and their characters overshadows these other reasons, and we end up using them as clubs to beat erach other of the head with. They are often-times exaggerated by both sides against the other, and I personally see no value in them.

Question: could we discuss the papacy of the time, and its corruption and abuses without terms like “vile” and “depraved”? Could we discuss Dr. Luther without implying that he was possessed by the devil, or was filled with arrogance, as if none of the other players in the 1500’s, or even ourselves, were not?
I think we can, and still come to reasonable conclusions, hypothetical though they may be, whether or not the Reformation was bound to happen.

Jon

Sounds like a fine idea, to me.

GKC

 

[elvisman]

I am not attacking the Papacy. I am pointing at the cause of the Reformation.
It was the Papacy that caused the Reformation… There were a series of Popes that were destroying Christs Church… People would not stand for it and they left in droves.
The total breakdown of leadership in the Church from within was the catalyst for revolution.

And you’re wrong again.

First of all - you ARE attacking the Papacy. Read your own posts, my friend:
"Having learned what vile depths of depravity the Papacy had become . . ."

**Finally - it was not the Papacy that cause the Reformation but the fact that people had had enough of abuses within the Church that they attributed to certain Popes. That coupled with actual bad Popes led to the Reformation but not the office of the Papacy itself. THAT was created by Jesus. **

**There was never a "Total breakdown of leadership", but a crisis of leadership.