Was the reformation bound to happen ?

[Stepson]

Actually, I don’t think we need to answer them. I think Jon is right. Whatever the causal factors, or the miscreants involved, we need to now reconcile, and unify.

But, for the record, I think that the intrusion of Rome into secular politics had come to an end, regardless of any theological debates. The fact that Bishops and Popes hid behind a cloak they tried to call “Church” was failing. They were there with no clothes! The invention of the printing press stripped them.

Do you think this will happen in this century? I came across the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church website. Is that just a blimp on the radar or is it a start to something?

 

[elvisman]

Elvisman has that effect on readers, because of his bold and colorful fonts, and his penchant for the term “wrong!”.

We have been unable to pursuade him to change it.

Guan - Stepson and I are engaing in charitable dialoge so if you don’t mind, please butt out.

 

[Stepson]

Yeah! What he said.

 

[Cristiano]

Now my eyes are really hurting, please go back to regular fonts and only one color (Black)

 

[elgar]

Yes it was bound to happen due to corruption by some within the church. However,many associate reform with failure within the walls of Catholicism. Not necessarily. Reform is also used as a method of improvement.

Because of how things played out at the time of Luther and other reformers in the wings, the Catholic Church was able to address the bleed with their own Counter Reformation. You can view it as damage control or a reexamination for the soul of the Church. Somebody had to start it.

 

[elgar]

Forget about Luther, the reformation and the protestants and look at the status of some of the so-called Catholics. On one side we have self-professed ultra-orthodox catholics that deny the validity of the latest popes, and on the other side we have self-professed true-catholics that believe that there are really some validly ordained female priests in the Catholic Church.

You gotta love the diversity of beliefs–especially for a non-democratic church.

 

[elvisman]

**Now **my eyes are really hurting, please go back to regular fonts and only one color (Black)

Then put on some shades and get back into the conversation . . .

 

[Nicea325]

Because of how things played out at the time of Luther and other reformers in the wings, the Catholic Church was able to address the bleed with their own Counter Reformation. You can view it as damage control or a reexamination for the soul of the Church. Somebody had to start it.

I agree with you 100%. The old cliche: Things happen for a reason.

 

[amber_lux]

Protestantism wouldn’t have occurred without Luther.

The Church of Constantinople has always been under the firm control of the state, and as such,it would never threaten the political power,or material wealth of the state.

The Church of Rome, OTOH, not only maintained both political and economic independence, but declared, and enforced political and economic control on Western Europe. With that political and economic power, the church, qua state, could, and did do whatever it wanted to do.

For at least five hundred years prior to Luther, groups in Western Europe had attempted to throw off the political and economic force that Rome inflicted on them, by the use of practices taught in the Bible. Practices that Rome disapproved of, because they undermined the political and economic control that Rome inflicted upon the western world.

All it took, was one group with enough fire power to be able to successfully threaten Rome, for the Church of Rome to lose its political and economic power.

Arguably, it was the Bohemian Princes that kicked off the Reformation. Had the German princes not protected Luther, the odds are the English would have triggered a reformation, perhaps as long as a century after Luther.

Amber

 

[guanophore]

First of all - I accept your apology and I will try not to be so defensive myself.

As for your question, I believe that his original intention may well have been to address some very real abuses going on within the Church. I don’t fault Luther with pointing these out. What I have a problem with is that he chose to take the low road instead of the high one that Athanasius took. Luther’s own words and personal arrogance destroy any credibility he may have initially had.

I agree with you, my colorful and bold brother! I think Luther meant well, and had a justified indignant objection to the matter of indulgences. When Tetzel came to town, his parish emptied out and he found the people down at the square buying those slips of paper. It was righteous to be affronted by it.

I also think Luther probably did the best he could with what he had. His writings show a lot of disturbance, and it is remarkable that he was able to do as much good as he did, suffering as he was.

 

[KathleenGee]

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.

 

[Publisher]

Yes, it was bound to happen sooner or later…the Waldensians, Hussites and Moravian groups had already formed, but had not carried with it the political weight Lutheranism, Anglicanism and Calvinism eventully received…the Roman church was still in contol of much of Europe during the Walensians and Hussites…political, educational, economic changes would have caused the Reformation eventually.

 

[elvisman]

I agree with you, my colorful and bold brother! I think Luther meant well, and had a justified indignant objection to the matter of indulgences. When Tetzel came to town, his parish emptied out and he found the people down at the square buying those slips of paper. It was righteous to be affronted by it.

I also think Luther probably did the best he could with what he had. His writings show a lot of disturbance, and it is remarkable that he was able to do as much good as he did, suffering as he was.

**I agree with you that Luther may have felt that he was pushed to the limit. I might have done the something similar had I been in his shoes. However, I also feel - by his own words - that he was a man of extreme arrogance and spiritual pride. I think that if he hadn’t gone off the deep end things may not have gotten so out of hand. **

---

Had he not begun espousing heresies after what seems to bee an era of bitterness against his excommunication, he might have done much more good than the harm he ultimately did.

***Sure, there would have still been others - as there have always *been - but it was his almost rabid arrogance that escalated what became centuries of the constant splintering of the Body of Christ that is Protestantism.

 

[hn160]

Why wasn’t Luther killed then ? Why or who spared him

Frederick III, Elector of Saxony wouldn’t hand Luther over to Charles V or to the Pope. Luther was his favorite theologian at the University of Wittenburg.

 

[hn160]

Why do you think that Charles the V ordered his troops not to disturb Luther’s remains when they entered the town a year after his death? I thought it was a common practice to burn a heretic’s remains?

Charles V said that he did not make war on the dead.

 

[1voice]

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.

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.

 

[Stepson]

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.”

---

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

I like this quote from Luther:

“It is very dangerous to assume that the Church which had existed for so many centuries, and had been the instructor of the whole of Christendom, should not have taught the true doctrine of the Sacraments.”

What is of particularly interest to me is that it was written over a decade after his excommunication. Quite an interesting fellow.

 

[1voice]

I like this quote from Luther: What is of particularly interest to me is that it was written over a decade after his excommunication. Quite an interesting fellow.

Well, according to Cardinal Bembo … Leo X “disbelieved Christianity itself” and “must be a heretic”.

Pointing out Luther’s thoughts pales in comparison to the fact that a member of Leo’s staff would describe his Pope in such scathing terms. Bembo saw exactly the same things that Luther saw in the Papacy.

… as I said, It’s no wonder that people were leaving in droves.

 

[guanophore]

Well, according to Cardinal Bembo … Leo X “disbelieved Christianity itself” and “must be a heretic”.

Pointing out Luther’s thoughts pales in comparison to the fact that a member of Leo’s staff would describe his Pope in such scathing terms. Bembo saw exactly the same things that Luther saw in the Papacy.

No, I think Bembo saw these things in that Pope.

Luther saw them more in the Papacy.

Besides, one cannot qualify as a heretic unless one believes, then turns on his faith.

Sin causes division and fragmentation in the body, and when the shepherd is struck, the sheep scatter. May God have mercy on his soul.

 

[1voice]

No, I think Bembo saw these things in that Pope.

Luther saw them more in the Papacy.

Besides, one cannot qualify as a heretic unless one believes, then turns on his faith.

Sin causes division and fragmentation in the body, and when the shepherd is struck, the sheep scatter. May God have mercy on his soul.

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.