P
prochrist1
Guest
Just wondering if Luther hadn’t presented his thesis that day, and kicked off the reformation, was the reformation bound to happen anyway?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
N
NewsTheMan
Guest
Yup. It wouldn’t be called the reformation though probably - which is a rather charitable name IMO for what was heresy and apostasy. Jesus said false prophets would come. Jesus warned us. And people are people. Since 33AD I am sure there were people trying to split Christs church apart.Just wondering if Luther hadn’t presented his thesis that day, and kicked off the reformation, was the reformation bound to happen anyway?
D
Dorothy
Guest
Something was bound to happen, as there was much corruption in the Church. Luther had a right to challenge the corruption, but he took it further and changed doctrine.Just wondering if Luther hadn’t presented his thesis that day, and kicked off the reformation, was the reformation bound to happen anyway?
E
ESMDHokie77
Guest
the Church is always in need of purification, but sadly heresy abounds. The time was ripe for the growth of heresy, even now in the information age of digital media, much like the invention of the printing press and the eventual increase in literacy, never had so much been available to so many to interpret so incorrectly.
D
Dave_B
Guest
Yes, I think it would. Although many were committed to reforming the church from WITHIN. Martin Luther being a powerful personality was able to convince a large movement of people to split entirely. Once this had happended, it made it easier for other protestant groups to follow suit. God bless.Just wondering if Luther hadn’t presented his thesis that day, and kicked off the reformation, was the reformation bound to happen anyway?
M
Mark_David
Guest
That’s correct. He was more concerned with pushing his own theological ideas than with the corruption within the Church. No matter how bad the Church got regarding the people within it (ie: the fakes and the weak in faith), the theology has always been true. Protestantism, on the other hand, is galaxies worth of different, man-corrupted theologies.Something was bound to happen, as there was much corruption in the Church. Luther had a right to challenge the corruption, but he took it further and changed doctrine.
A
ANNE_2
Guest
In “Catholicism for Dummies” by Frs Trigilio and Brighenti, there is a section on the Reformation, and the need for change at that time.
It covers not only the things going on in the Church in the 1500’s, but also reformers who choose to go “outside” for their own reasons including Martin Luther, King Henry VIII, and John Calvin causing different divisions from the Church.
It covers reformers “within” the Church: St. Charles Borromeo, St. Ignatious of Loyola, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Vincent Ferrer, St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Bernadine of Siena, St. John Capostran, and St. Philip Neri.
The book is interesting reading for all.
It covers not only the things going on in the Church in the 1500’s, but also reformers who choose to go “outside” for their own reasons including Martin Luther, King Henry VIII, and John Calvin causing different divisions from the Church.
It covers reformers “within” the Church: St. Charles Borromeo, St. Ignatious of Loyola, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Vincent Ferrer, St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Bernadine of Siena, St. John Capostran, and St. Philip Neri.
The book is interesting reading for all.
J
jnpl1185
Guest
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 correct. He was more concerned with pushing his own theological ideas than with the corruption within the Church. No matter how bad the Church got regarding the people within it (ie: the fakes and the weak in faith), the theology has always been true. Protestantism, on the other hand, is galaxies worth of different, man-corrupted theologies.
J
jnpl1185
Guest
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?
H
Hesychios
Guest
Yes. It didn’t have to turn out the way it did, but it was coming.Just wondering if Luther hadn’t presented his thesis that day, and kicked off the reformation, was the reformation bound to happen anyway?
The church has undergone several major reform movements in the past, and there was an abortive attempt to reform the curch (widely recognized as needed) just before Luther posted his 95 thesis.
It was called Larteran V, and the church fathers who had gathered there lacked the will to actually do any serious reforming. Perhaps too many of them had too much to personally lose.
The Cardinals also elected a new Pope during that time, one of the worst ever, which pretty much indicates what direction the church reform movement was heading.
J
jnpl1185
Guest
I’m curious about this Hesychios, do you have any links regarding any connections between this council and the impending reformation?
W
WorkerPriest
Guest
Yes, indeed. As I’ve mentioned in other places, Luther is not the measure of the Reformation, or even of the Lutheran Reformation… rather, our Confessions are the theological statements that measure the Lutheran witness, in that time and beyond.
However, I would also note, that reform of the Church had been ongoing quite some time. One might note the centuries of infighting between east and west, eventually culminating in the Great Schism of 1054… about 500 years before Luther. Other thinkers in the west that tried to curb excesses within the Church, found themselves executed for doing so. Jon Huss’ prophecy, 100 years before Luther, given while he was being burned at the stake for suggesting both the wine and bread be given to the laity in the Mass and that there might be some limit to papal power, suggested that Luther would arise in a way Rome could not stamp out. My sense is, that Luther’s reforms were much more successful, because Rome couldn’t find a way to kill him.
I also think it’s worth noting, that late in Luther’s life, as the radical elements of the Reformation were gaining steam, Luther chided the Roman Catholics for their slow response to deal with even the most grave of abuses-- and that in failing to do so, the Reformation would produce radical elements no one could control, and would shatter the unity and witness of the western church. Sad to say, both Huss and Luther seemed to be right. It is sin which begets division.
On a positive note, as Rome has become much more charitable with the “seperated brethren” over the last 100 years, the witness and unity of the western church has been growing. Lutherans and Roman Catholics find common cause in many valid ecumenical works of mercy, and neither are given (for the most part) to vociferously condemning the other. Rather, we are beginning to find what is good in each others’ traditions, affirming what we can about each other, and talking charitably about what we have yet to resolve. As we begin to work toward seeing each other in the best possible light (rather than seeking to paint each other with vitriolic polemics) there much opportunity for love to cover a multitude of sins.
There is hope, that the Reformation may finish its work, and the Church begin to reflect again its Baptismal unity in Christ. May we live to see it done.
Peace to you.
However, I would also note, that reform of the Church had been ongoing quite some time. One might note the centuries of infighting between east and west, eventually culminating in the Great Schism of 1054… about 500 years before Luther. Other thinkers in the west that tried to curb excesses within the Church, found themselves executed for doing so. Jon Huss’ prophecy, 100 years before Luther, given while he was being burned at the stake for suggesting both the wine and bread be given to the laity in the Mass and that there might be some limit to papal power, suggested that Luther would arise in a way Rome could not stamp out. My sense is, that Luther’s reforms were much more successful, because Rome couldn’t find a way to kill him.
I also think it’s worth noting, that late in Luther’s life, as the radical elements of the Reformation were gaining steam, Luther chided the Roman Catholics for their slow response to deal with even the most grave of abuses-- and that in failing to do so, the Reformation would produce radical elements no one could control, and would shatter the unity and witness of the western church. Sad to say, both Huss and Luther seemed to be right. It is sin which begets division.
On a positive note, as Rome has become much more charitable with the “seperated brethren” over the last 100 years, the witness and unity of the western church has been growing. Lutherans and Roman Catholics find common cause in many valid ecumenical works of mercy, and neither are given (for the most part) to vociferously condemning the other. Rather, we are beginning to find what is good in each others’ traditions, affirming what we can about each other, and talking charitably about what we have yet to resolve. As we begin to work toward seeing each other in the best possible light (rather than seeking to paint each other with vitriolic polemics) there much opportunity for love to cover a multitude of sins.
There is hope, that the Reformation may finish its work, and the Church begin to reflect again its Baptismal unity in Christ. May we live to see it done.
Peace to you.
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.
H
Hesychios
Guest
I think if you just google Lateran V you should come up with some information. I am at work at the moment but if I had time that’s what I would do.I’m curious about this Hesychios, do you have any links regarding any connections between this council and the impending reformation?
K
KathleenGee
Guest
The Council of Florence was attempted to define the Pope as supreme in the face of disintegrating Christianity. It tried to restore unity with the Orthodox, and excommunicated a number of Swiss bishops, but was a failure because it was more political than spiritual. Vatican II is trying again, and this time the Orthodox leadership is working on unity as well.
The German people were pretty much at the same place as Luther wanting to split off from Rome. There were German parish priests and lay working on authentic reformation, but true reform in the Catholic Church always starts with the clergy. The problem was that the parameters of the papacy also needed reform, but it didn’t happen until alot of suffering and the Council of Trent. That Council refortified the church in facing the disintegration of unity among Christians. But it also created a different type of clericalism…that needed to be updated again in Vatican II.
The German people were pretty much at the same place as Luther wanting to split off from Rome. There were German parish priests and lay working on authentic reformation, but true reform in the Catholic Church always starts with the clergy. The problem was that the parameters of the papacy also needed reform, but it didn’t happen until alot of suffering and the Council of Trent. That Council refortified the church in facing the disintegration of unity among Christians. But it also created a different type of clericalism…that needed to be updated again in Vatican II.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
People in what we now call Germany had been complaining about Church corruption already for several hundred years before Luther came along. (Read the 11th-12th century Carmina Burana, for example.) IMO, Luther was more like the spark that lit the fuse; people had finally had enough.Just wondering if Luther hadn’t presented his thesis that day, and kicked off the reformation, was the reformation bound to happen anyway?
M
Mark_David
Guest
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: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 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. *
W
WorkerPriest
Guest
Without any intent to insult, I must point out that this “invitation” was for Luther to leave the protection of his German lands, and enter into the domain of papally controlled territories… which, he knew well enough, would likely end as it did with Jon Huss’ offer of “safe conduct.” The only thing that kept Luther alive was not the good will of the pope, but rather the protection of his prince.
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. …]
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Luther practiced many penances. He did overlook the point of indulgences, that they were structured by the Church for the intent of repentance and greater conversion to God.
I think what is critical is that Luther no longer believed in the deposit of apostolic faith, was handed down by the Apostles in each succeeding generation; his temperment and excess did not reflect the gifts of the Holy Spirit and likewise, he let go that the same Holy Spirit was the means the deposit of faith has been passed down, irregardless of human fraility.
But the case here is that the Church did reform, and continues to grow – in maturity.
I think what is critical is that Luther no longer believed in the deposit of apostolic faith, was handed down by the Apostles in each succeeding generation; his temperment and excess did not reflect the gifts of the Holy Spirit and likewise, he let go that the same Holy Spirit was the means the deposit of faith has been passed down, irregardless of human fraility.
But the case here is that the Church did reform, and continues to grow – in maturity.
M
Mark_David
Guest
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.
And also with you.On a positive note, as Rome has become much more charitable with the “seperated brethren” over the last 100 years, the witness and unity of the western church has been growing. Lutherans and Roman Catholics find common cause in many valid ecumenical works of mercy, and neither are given (for the most part) to vociferously condemning the other. Rather, we are beginning to find what is good in each others’ traditions, affirming what we can about each other, and talking charitably about what we have yet to resolve. As we begin to work toward seeing each other in the best possible light (rather than seeking to paint each other with vitriolic polemics) there much opportunity for love to cover a multitude of sins.
**There is hope, that the Reformation may finish its work, and the Church begin to reflect again its Baptismal unity in Christ. May we live to see it done.**Peace to you.
I wish to commend you on this. I have expressed often here my belief that the Reformation is not finished until unity is restored. And for those of us who are children of the Reformation communion, if we ever become complacent, even comfortable in division, then certainly the Reformation was, as some Catholics say, a “deformation”.
Jon
- Status
- Not open for further replies.