Was the reformation bound to happen ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter prochrist1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

There was even one in German. Look up the Mentelin Bibel. There were no attempts to suppress it that I am aware of.
Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should
not be permitted to have the books of the Old or
New Testament; we most strictly forbid their having
any translation of these books."
  • The Church Council of Toulouse 1229 AD
“No one may possess the books of the Old
and New Testaments, and if anyone possesses
them he must turn them over to the local bishop
within eight days, so that they may be burned…”
  • The Church Council of Tarragona 1234 AD;
    2nd Cannon
 
Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should
not be permitted to have the books of the Old or
New Testament; we most strictly forbid their having
any translation of these books."
  • The Church Council of Toulouse 1229 AD
“No one may possess the books of the Old
and New Testaments, and if anyone possesses
them he must turn them over to the local bishop
within eight days, so that they may be burned…”
  • The Church Council of Tarragona 1234 AD;
    2nd Cannon
As I said: “*SOME *were allowed by the hierarchy.”
 
Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should
not be permitted to have the books of the Old or
New Testament; we most strictly forbid their having
any translation of these books."
  • The Church Council of Toulouse 1229 AD
**The Council of Toulouse was a regional council, not an ecumenical council. Regional councils have do not have authority on the Church as a whole.

This council was called to deal with the Albigensian/Manichean heresy that was running amok in southern France. The texts it was referring to were doctored versions of the Bible which the Albigensian/Manichean created in order to support their heretical teachings. So no, this council did no forbid the reading and study of authentic copies of the Bible.**

“No one may possess the books of the Old
and New Testaments, and if anyone possesses
them he must turn them over to the local bishop
within eight days, so that they may be burned…”
  • The Church Council of Tarragona 1234 AD;
    2nd Cannon
**
There was no Council of Tarragona in 1234. There was a provincial council in 1242 to deal with the details of the Inquisition.**
Please provide a link to the whole document considering that you have been able to cut and paste from it.
 
That seems to be the cookie cutter response. Blind obedience trumps all.
The abuses that Leo X & Co were steeped in were a plague on the people. He was fleecing the flock mercilessly and partying like a rock star…
And this has what to do with the Truths that the Church still maintained even during its darkest times? You know, those truths that Luther changed for his own tastes and benefit…
no wonder that they didnt want anyone to be able to read the Bible.
It’s important for you to hang onto myths like that, I’m sure.
Jesus faced exactly the same situation … he vented God’s wrath … at the same kinds of abuses … and he went a lot further than Luther. He was so angry that he physically attacked the abusers. He constantly challenged the status quo… and they DID kill him.
…Meanwhile … Luther wrote a letter.
Contrary to what your words imply, Luther wasn’t Jesus. He wasn’t even a martyr, or someone who cared about orthodoxy. He was a heretic that was successful enough to lead his own movement in revolt against Truths that had been well established for the prior 1500 years.
 
The reformation was not bound to happen, not if people trusted God and followed in His ways. When we think we know more than God, we take matters into our own hands. God gave us everything we needed when Jesus established His Church as the pillar and foundation of truth and His Body here on earth. How hard it is for us to not include our own “tweaks” to improve upon what God gave us instead of trusting that He would take care of His Church. Today the body is fragmented because many follow the ways of the Old Testament Israelites where “every man did was was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6). We should all pray daily for God’s grace for all who have fallen away that their hearts would be open to trust that God, in His infinite knowledge, wisdom, and compassion, got it right and it is we who have strayed, not Him.
 
And this has what to do with the Truths that the Church still maintained even during its darkest times? You know, those truths that Luther changed for his own tastes and benefit…
“Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true”

… Benedict XVI
 
“Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true”

… Benedict XVI
Um, would you mind terribly, terribly much putting in the REST of that quote? Because there is quite a bit MORE there that you have somehow inadvertently forgotten to post with it. . .😃
 
Um, would you mind terribly, terribly much putting in the REST of that quote? Because there is quite a bit MORE there that you have somehow inadvertently forgotten to post with it. . .😃
… are you implying that Benedict is refuting Martin Luther’s interpretation of the Bible?
 
Here, I’ll do it FOR y’all. From Zenit back in 2008:

Pope Clarifies Luther’s Idea of Justification

Says It’s True, if Faith Is Not Opposed to Love


VATICAN CITY, NOV. 19, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI says Martin Luther’s doctrine on justification is correct, if faith “is not opposed to charity.”

The Pope said this today during the general audience dedicated to another reflection on St. Paul. This time, the Holy Father considered the Apostle’s teaching on justification.

He noted that Paul’s conversion experience on the road to Damascus “changed his life radically: He began to regard all his merits, achievements of a most honest religious career, as ‘loss’ in face of the sublimity of knowledge of Jesus Christ.”

“It is precisely because of this personal experience of the relationship with Jesus that Paul places at the center of his Gospel an irreducible opposition between two alternative paths to justice: one based on the works of the law, the other founded on the grace of faith in Christ,” the Pontiff explained. “The alternative between justice through the works of the law and justice through faith in Christ thus becomes one of the dominant themes that runs through his letters.”

What is law

But in order to understand this Pauline teaching, Benedict XVI affirmed, “we must clarify what is the ‘law’ from which we have been freed and what are those ‘works of the law’ that do not justify.”

He explained: “Already in the community of Corinth there was the opinion, which will return many times in history, which consisted in thinking that it was a question of the moral law, and that Christian freedom consisted therefore in being free from ethics. …] It is obvious that this interpretation is erroneous: Christian liberty is not libertinism; the freedom of which St. Paul speaks is not freedom from doing good.”

Instead, the Pope said, the law to which Paul refers is the “collection of behaviors extending from an ethical foundation to the ritual and cultural observances that substantially determined the identity of the just man – particularly circumcision, the observance regarding pure food and general ritual purity, the rules regarding observance of the Sabbath, etc.”

These observances served to protect Jewish identity and faith in God; they were “a defense shield that would protect the precious inheritance of the faith,” he remarked.

But, the Holy Father continued, at the moment of Paul’s encounter with Christ, the Apostle “understood that with Christ’s resurrection the situation had changed radically.”

“The wall – so says the Letter to the Ephesians – between Israel and the pagans was no longer necessary,” he said. “It is Christ who protects us against polytheism and all its deviations; it is Christ who unites us with and in the one God; it is Christ who guarantees our true identity in the diversity of cultures; and it is he who makes us just. To be just means simply to be with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Other observances are no longer necessary.”

And it is because of this, the Bishop of Rome continued, that Luther’s expression “by faith alone” is true “if faith is not opposed to charity, to love. Faith is to look at Christ, to entrust oneself to Christ, to be united to Christ, to be conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence, to believe is to be conformed to Christ and to enter into his love.”

“Paul knows,” he added, “that in the double love of God and neighbor the whole law is fulfilled. Thus the whole law is observed in communion with Christ, in faith that creates charity. We are just when we enter into communion with Christ, who is love.”
 
The reformation was not bound to happen, not if people trusted God and followed in His ways. When we think we know more than God, we take matters into our own hands. God gave us everything we needed when Jesus established His Church as the pillar and foundation of truth and His Body here on earth. How hard it is for us to not include our own “tweaks” to improve upon what God gave us instead of trusting that He would take care of His Church. Today the body is fragmented because many follow the ways of the Old Testament Israelites where “every man did was was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6). We should all pray daily for God’s grace for all who have fallen away that their hearts would be open to trust that God, in His infinite knowledge, wisdom, and compassion, got it right and it is we who have strayed, not Him.
I absolutely agree with this, as both sides are guilty of adding their own tweaks.

Jon
 
Well, there’s plenty of arrogance to go around when it comes to Lutheran-Catholic relations.
**I’m not talking about Catholic-Lutheran relations. I’m talking about the Reformation and Luther’s excommunication as you presented it. **
You were making some soft of excuse for Luther and I am presenting you with the way he SHOULD have handled it - as Athanasius did.

Here is an excerpt of what Luther said to Pope Leo X more than a year after he nailed his 95 theses to the door at Wittenburg. In the years that followed, he did an ABOUT-FACE.

“I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St, Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”


This was simply lip-service. His actions and writings afterward showed the depth of his arrogance - unlike Athanasius who stood faithful to the Church established by Christ Himself . . .
 
Just wondering if Luther hadn’t presented his thesis that day, and kicked off the reformation, was the reformation bound to happen anyway?
Oh Yes it happened LONG before Luther. Think about it People walked away from Christ and the teaching’s of the CC long before Luther.

Some walked away from Christ completely. Others like Luther just did not feel that they had to obey every single teaching of the CHurch.🤷
 
Here, I’ll do it FOR y’all. From Zenit back in 2008:

Pope Clarifies Luther’s Idea of Justification

Says It’s True, if Faith Is Not Opposed to Love


VATICAN CITY, NOV. 19, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI says Martin Luther’s doctrine on justification is correct, if faith “is not opposed to charity.”

The Pope said this today during the general audience dedicated to another reflection on St. Paul. This time, the Holy Father considered the Apostle’s teaching on justification.

He noted that Paul’s conversion experience on the road to Damascus “changed his life radically: He began to regard all his merits, achievements of a most honest religious career, as ‘loss’ in face of the sublimity of knowledge of Jesus Christ.”

“It is precisely because of this personal experience of the relationship with Jesus that Paul places at the center of his Gospel an irreducible opposition between two alternative paths to justice: one based on the works of the law, the other founded on the grace of faith in Christ,” the Pontiff explained. “The alternative between justice through the works of the law and justice through faith in Christ thus becomes one of the dominant themes that runs through his letters.”

What is law

But in order to understand this Pauline teaching, Benedict XVI affirmed, “we must clarify what is the ‘law’ from which we have been freed and what are those ‘works of the law’ that do not justify.”

He explained: “Already in the community of Corinth there was the opinion, which will return many times in history, which consisted in thinking that it was a question of the moral law, and that Christian freedom consisted therefore in being free from ethics. …] It is obvious that this interpretation is erroneous: Christian liberty is not libertinism; the freedom of which St. Paul speaks is not freedom from doing good.”

Instead, the Pope said, the law to which Paul refers is the “collection of behaviors extending from an ethical foundation to the ritual and cultural observances that substantially determined the identity of the just man – particularly circumcision, the observance regarding pure food and general ritual purity, the rules regarding observance of the Sabbath, etc.”

These observances served to protect Jewish identity and faith in God; they were “a defense shield that would protect the precious inheritance of the faith,” he remarked.

But, the Holy Father continued, at the moment of Paul’s encounter with Christ, the Apostle “understood that with Christ’s resurrection the situation had changed radically.”

“The wall – so says the Letter to the Ephesians – between Israel and the pagans was no longer necessary,” he said. “It is Christ who protects us against polytheism and all its deviations; it is Christ who unites us with and in the one God; it is Christ who guarantees our true identity in the diversity of cultures; and it is he who makes us just. To be just means simply to be with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Other observances are no longer necessary.”

And it is because of this, the Bishop of Rome continued, that Luther’s expression “by faith alone” is true “if faith is not opposed to charity, to love. Faith is to look at Christ, to entrust oneself to Christ, to be united to Christ, to be conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence, to believe is to be conformed to Christ and to enter into his love.”

“Paul knows,” he added, “that in the double love of God and neighbor the whole law is fulfilled. Thus the whole law is observed in communion with Christ, in faith that creates charity. We are just when we enter into communion with Christ, who is love.”
The exposition of the quote does not imply disagreement.
 
The exposition of the quote does not imply disagreement.
Benedict’s explanation also does not imply agreement UNLESS by ‘faith alone’ all the rest that Benedict stated was understood as part of what is MEANT by ‘faith alone’

Right now Catholics and Lutherans have very similar beliefs, but the use of ‘faith alone’ was often used by Lutherans historically with either a stated or an assumed corollary that Catholics taught ‘faith PLUS works’ and so I HOPE that you aren’t making that false assumption and thinking that Pope Benedict is somehow saying Luther was right and the Church was wrong!
 
Benedict’s explanation also does not imply agreement UNLESS by ‘faith alone’ all the rest that Benedict stated was understood as part of what is MEANT by ‘faith alone’

Right now Catholics and Lutherans have very similar beliefs, but the use of ‘faith alone’ was often used by Lutherans historically with either a stated or an assumed corollary that Catholics taught ‘faith PLUS works’ and so I HOPE that you aren’t making that false assumption and thinking that Pope Benedict is somehow saying Luther was right and the Church was wrong!
During the Cold War Woody Allen once mused …

What if the Premier of the Soviet Union wanted peace … but his translators wanted war?
 
As far as the OP’s question I’d have to answer unequivocally YES. I’d suggest that you read the book the Screwtape Letters that written by C.S. Lewis.
 
Benedict’s explanation also does not imply agreement UNLESS by ‘faith alone’ all the rest that Benedict stated was understood as part of what is MEANT by ‘faith alone’

Right now Catholics and Lutherans have very similar beliefs, but the use of ‘faith alone’ was often used by Lutherans historically with either a stated or an assumed corollary that Catholics taught ‘faith PLUS works’ and so I HOPE that you aren’t making that false assumption and thinking that Pope Benedict is somehow saying Luther was right and the Church was wrong!
I think you are spot on, Tantum. I seems that, at the time of the Reformation, there was the perception that the CC was, by odctrine or at least by practice or abuse, placing an innapropriate emphasis on works, a kind of works righteousness.

That said, there are probably few in the world who know more about what Luther taught than Pope Benedict, so he must have made the statement, knowing Luther did not teach faith alone as opposed to hope and charity, but rather that hope and charity are a necessary part of a saving faith, as he expressed in his commentary of Galatians 5:6, part of which is in my signature.

And clearly, he is not denying Catholic doctrine.

JOn
 
Let’s not deflect from Tantum’s response.

Catholicism always looks at the whole of context. Great saints prior to Luther spoke of our faith saving us. Jesus alone saves. I learned that in grade school before Vatican II…

Luther went beyond…denying the apostolic faith was not passed down in each generation, thus implying loss of the Holy Spirit’s action in saving and preserving the true faith in Christ.

The problem was small ecclesial traditions…that change…indulgences have never been discarded because of Luther. Luther, in his own practice of penance, forgot that the purpose of indulgences…were structures set by the Church…not to earn one’s way into heaven, but in response to the Gospel, ‘do penance for the remission of sins, lest ye likewise shall perish’.

One must deny one’s very self…well, that can be understood in any many ways, can lead to scruples…or misunderstandings and misapplications…so the Church helped us better understand practical ways to live it out every day…indulgences are penances…whose goal is an aide in the remission of sins…and the increase of God…conversion…within the soul. Catholics then and now can see the benefit…but without experiencing the presence of Christ in the Catholic Mass…in communion with the pope and bishops…you cannot experience the spirituality and benefits.
 
Let’s not deflect from Tantum’s response.

Catholicism always looks at the whole of context. Great saints prior to Luther spoke of our faith saving us. Jesus alone saves. I learned that in grade school before Vatican II…

Luther went beyond…denying the apostolic faith
Luther was driven out of the Roman Catholic Church because of his stand as stated in the 95 Theses.

I see nothing that conflicts with the Bible in the document.
 
I’m not talking about Catholic-Lutheran relations. I’m talking about the Reformation and Luther’s excommunication as you presented it.
You were making some soft of excuse for Luther and I am presenting you with the way he SHOULD have handled it - as Athanasius did.
I wish I could argue this. But it kind of goes back to the Bill Cosby analogy of two identical steak dinners. One served on fine china the other on a trash can lid. Which one would you want. Not to say that if Luther did handle himself differently things would not have turned out the same but a least we could not have found fault here.
Here is an excerpt of what Luther said to Pope Leo X more than a year after he nailed his 95 theses to the door at Wittenburg. In the years that followed, he did an ABOUT-FACE.
What do you think Luther wanted to happen (at first) when he nailed the theses to the door? I have read where Historians think Luther was trying to spark some type of a debate amongst the theologian students. I tend to think there is merit here because Historians agree that it was a standard practice for the students to post a question or a position on the door in order to discuss something. Also Luther wrote the 95 Theses in Latin. Your below quote affirms this theory. Finally, towards the end of Luther’s life, Luther said that if he had known what a fire a single piece of paper would of started, he would have been more careful with some of the points. So in my opinion, Luther was not doing an about face when he wrote the bottom quote, he was simply affirming his actions which were reform and not fragmentation.
“I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St, Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”

I know when you read this, you are going to start foaming at the mouth and steam is going to come from your ears. But if this helps, I love ya man!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top