Was the reformation bound to happen ?

[KathleenGee]

The Church was in need of reformation…Germany, Switzerland, England, France, and Italy. There were good pastors and lay people attempting to thwart and restore at the local level, but lay movements are ineffective.

True reform always must be with the clergy. And I always think corruption goes hand in hand with lay people who only condemn or ignore or seek allurements of the world, rather than pray and do penance.

My pastor had a very bad name for Leo the X, considering him the worst pope. That does not mean the office of the Seat of Peter is bad. The Church is constantly reforming and maturing because of the simple fact that it is a human institution.

And I know from my own life experience, with some of my own bad experiences…you can’t stay stuck on them. It is sad to read about people who come across as scandalmongers, with their personal library stacked with books about every wrong done in the Catholic Church, but totally ignore the greater good and sanctity our faith has done in Christ and for others.

We have to live in a state of constant forgiveness, and not hold on to past sinners’ sins, including Leo X and Luther. To survive in authentic life—after all, each one’s life has its own problems, we have to keep our eyes constantly on Christ.

People need to stack up books on the Councils, the authentic witnesses of a given time, and the universal catechism, and most of all, what is the Mass and what happens to it. The Mass is the greatest force of goodness in the world. And when the day come that it is no longer said, we will then realize how redeeming in Christ the daily Sacrifice was.

That is why, over and over again, I pray and ask all who believe in Christ to be one in Peter and at the same banquet table, to be offered with Christ to the Heavenly Father, where we will all be actualized together in heaven some day.

 

[Nicea325]

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.

I am sorry,but your quotes appear to present a smoking gun. You need to provide more than a quote in order to present your argument objectively. And no, Luther’s actions do not pale in comparison because his arrogance is one of the key factors why Christianity is so divided. To place Luther on a pedestal is to overlook at the fact he was more concerned with his own agendas and not of the church. Adding to scripture is one sign of arrogance.

 

[1voice]

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

If the corruption had not existed there would have never been a Reformation.

It never was my intention to beat anyone over the head. I was, and am focused on doctrinal, political and social causes in my posts.
Human events of such epoch proportions do not happen in a sterile academic environment. Millions of lives were forever changed by the actions and decisions of real people with real power.
World War I was not an academic exercise… nor was the American Civil War. they were the result of very real long standing grievances that were not addressed by the people in charge.

A firm commitment, by leadership, to express the lowest human nature … over a long period … led to the explosion that was the Reformation. Every other doctrinal, political and social conflict was a direct result of the meltdown of character at the highest levels of Church government. Describing what people were, in graphic terms, is painful… but none the less true. Corruption is ugly when exposed… The Reformation was caused by the reaction to corruption … exposed.
If the corruption had not existed there would have never been a Reformation.

The blame for the meltdown lies at the feet of the leaders that bought into corruption for a long long time… and who totally refused to admit or address reality.

 

[Cristiano]

If the corruption had not existed there would have never been a Reformation…

When you make such a statement you imply that the problem was only practical and of men but not doctrinal and so the Catholic doctrine was fine.Thus we can conclude that all the doctrinal changes coming from the reformation are heretical.

 

[1voice]

When you make such a statement you imply that the problem was only practical and of men but not doctrinal and so the Catholic doctrine was fine.Thus we can conclude that all the doctrinal changes coming from the reformation are heretical.

There were challenges to doctrine since the founding of Christianity … The Reformation ( at least the Lutheran part) was a direct result of reaction to long standing abuse by Papal leadership.

Interesting opinion but I dont see where that has anything to do with the internal meltdown
( Leo X denied Christ openly) that caused people who loved the Church … to learn to mistrust it enough to run for the exits.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

There were challenges to doctrine since the founding of Christianity … The Reformation ( at least the Lutheran part) was a direct result of reaction to long standing abuse by Papal leadership.

Interesting opinion but I dont see where that has anything to do with the internal meltdown
( Leo X denied Christ openly) that caused people who loved the Church … to learn to mistrust it enough to run for the exits.

Challenges to doctrine meaning what? Heresy has always been with us, does that make those who espouse heresy good or correct? Heck no! (Not that I am accusing any individual protestant of material heresy because it has been so darned long since the original heretics that contemporary protestants cannot be said to have been rejecting the Catholic faith since they weren’t ‘in’ that faith to start with, unlike the original ‘reformers’.)

Leo X denied Christ openly? How, exactly? A Bull? A Declaration? Or did he say this during an all-night-card game privately to his drinking buddies when he was practically dead drunk or some such? Is there a ‘counter story’ that gives a different explanation?

Or did people misinterpret a statement and claim that because Leo used a word like ‘legend’ that he somehow meant "fairy tale’ rather than meaning, say, the marvelous STORY of Christ? “Legend” after all can mean more than one thing.

Sheesh. And don’t give ‘snippets’ of quotes. Put the whole thing up.

 

[elvisman]

There were challenges to doctrine since the founding of Christianity … The Reformation ( at least the Lutheran part) was a direct result of reaction to long standing abuse by Papal leadership.

Interesting opinion but I dont see where that has anything to do with the internal meltdown
( Leo X denied Christ openly) that caused people who loved the Church … to learn to mistrust it enough to run for the exits.

No - you’re blaming the entire Reformation on Leo from one side of your mouth. Then, from the other side, you claim that it was the Papacy in general. Somewhere in the middle, you claim that “doctrinal challenges” were around since the beginning of Christianity? WHICH is it?

Let me remind you that the doctrinal challenges to Christianity BEFORE the Reformation were heresies. The challenges to doctrine DURING and AFTER the Reformation were also heresies. Name some of the doctrinal challenges that the Reformers made that were NOT heretical.

 

[Nicea325]

There were challenges to doctrine since the founding of Christianity … The Reformation ( at least the Lutheran part) was a direct result of reaction to long standing abuse by Papal leadership.

Interesting opinion but I dont see where that has anything to do with the internal meltdown
( Leo X denied Christ openly) that caused people who loved the Church … to learn to mistrust it enough to run for the exits.

No offense,but you merely seem to parrot ignorance. Leo X denied Christ openly? REALLY? Care to provide more than “claims” and references,documents or records where he openly admitted it? I’ll be waiting to read those sources. Thanks

 

[1voice]

No - you’re blaming the entire Reformation on Leo from one side of your mouth. Then, from the other side, you claim that it was the Papacy in general. Somewhere in the middle, you claim that “doctrinal challenges” were around since the beginning of Christianity? WHICH is it?

Let me remind you that the doctrinal challenges to Christianity BEFORE the Reformation were heresies. The challenges to doctrine DURING and AFTER the Reformation were also heresies. Name some of the doctrinal challenges that the Reformers made that were NOT heretical.

There was no compass … No plumbline

To the people … there was no Christian doctrine being presented. You guys argue that the Church had the truth and the opposition created the lie. From my reading of the lives of the leaders of the Church at that time … they were the liars. There was no foundation as you assume except in a book that hardly anyone read and whose tenants were rejected by those responsible to teach and lead.
Bibles were few and far between in the early days of the Reformation. The only doctrine that the people knew was what they experienced from Rome. Lead by example. That example was full of lies and deception. There was a series of Popes that used their position to pervert doctrine to their own selfish ends. In real, everyday practice… in peoples lives … There was no true doctrine. There were only rules to follow based on lies and deception.

 

[elvisman]

There was no compass … No plumbline

To the people … there was no Christian doctrine being presented. You guys argue that the Church had the truth and the opposition created the lie. From my reading of the lives of the leaders of the Church at that time … they were the liars. There was no foundation as you assume except in a book that hardly anyone read and whose tenants were rejected by those responsible to teach and lead.
Bibles were few and far between in the early days of the Reformation. The only doctrine that the people knew was what they experienced from Rome. Lead by example. That example was full of lies and deception. There was a series of Popes that used their position to pervert doctrine to their own selfish ends. In real, everyday practice… in peoples lives … There was no true doctrine. There were only rules to follow based on lies and deception.

There was no true doctrine?? This is a preposterous statement!

The doctrines of the Trinity? The Hypostatic Union of Christ? The Resurrection? Christ’s Atonement? These weren’t true doctrines?? Where do you come off saying that?**

Again, you are claiming that ALL leadership in the Church was corrupt. Not even the most rabid anti-Catholic will make that claim because it is patently false and ludicrous. You’re making a LOT of unfounded charges here. Care to back them up with some historical evidence - as I have against Luther?

 

[elvisman]

There was a series of Popes that used their position to pervert doctrine to their own selfish ends.

I need for you to defend this statement - with actual historical proof (documents, decrees, declarations, etc.) How was doctrine perverted and by whom?

You cannot simply make these kinds of ridiculous claims without providing proof. the positions taken against Luther on this thread have ALL been made with textual proof from letters or semons written in Luther’s OWN hand.

If you can’t, consider your arguments defeated. We’ve provided proof - you haven’t.

 

[Nicea325]

There was no compass … No plumbline

Really? What interesting mind you display.

To the people … there was no Christian doctrine being presented.

So for 1500 years NO doctrine existed? Oh well! so much for all the early church councils which gave us the Trinity,Incarnation,Atonement,etc.

You guys argue that the Church had the truth and the opposition created the lie. From my reading of the lives of the leaders of the Church at that time … they were the liars.

Biased and generalizing ALL the leaders of the church at that the time. That my friend is a lie coming from your mouth,not history.

There was no foundation as you assume except in a book that hardly anyone read and whose tenants were rejected by those responsible to teach and lead.

Your apparent lack understanding history is clearly revealed here. Why would the common man want to read and own a Bible,if most of society was not literate? Second, read your Bible again,Jesus left us His church with the Truth,not only book called the Bible.

Bibles were few and far between in the early days of the Reformation.

Yes since the printing press was relatively new. And? Again,why would a farmer want a Bible he could not read or better yet…afford.

The only doctrine that the people knew was what they experienced from Rome.

That is right: Trinity,Incarnation,Resurrection,etc. Do you have a problem with those doctrines?

Lead by example. That example was full of lies and deception.

Much like you poor perception of history and facts.

There was a series of Popes that used their position to pervert doctrine to their own selfish ends.

Name of the pope(s) who perverted orthodox doctrines? Documents please…no opinions.

In real, everyday practice… in peoples lives … There was no true doctrine. There were only rules to follow based on lies and deception.

Pretty ignorant my friend. Time to study history and doctrines.

 

[1voice]

There was no true doctrine?? This is a preposterous statement!

The doctrines of the Trinity? The Hypostatic Union of Christ? The Resurrection? Christ’s Atonement? These weren’t** true doctrines?? Where do you come off saying that?

Again, you are claiming that ALL leadership in the Church was corrupt. Not even the most rabid anti-Catholic will make that claim because it is patently false and ludicrous. You’re making a LOT of unfounded charges here. Care to back them up with some historical evidence - as I have against Luther?

All of that is is worthless unless applied.
Faith without works … is dead.

The Church was persecuted from it’s inception. They killed Jesus, Stephen … persecution drove much of the young Church out of Jerusalem. Nero … The Roman Empire. Paul was stoned to death 3 or 4 times… in the midst of every fierce attack the Church flourished… grew … multiplied… because God’s principles that lead to life were applied with all diligence.
… The church grew because the righteous ruled the Church. “When the righteous rule … the people rejoice!”
… by contrast, the people traditionally rejoiced when a Pope finally died… and they dragged his statue through the muddy streets of Rome…

The Papacy, as it led up to … and during much of the Reformation created their own doctrine…based on fleecing the flock and living like Roman noblemen during the time of Nero… that is what brought … and fueled the Reformation.

If the people had been protected and guided by righteous men instead of being fleeced … The reformation would never have happened.

 

[amber_lux]

The vile depths of depravity are what some MEN sunk to - ]NOT the office of the Papacy that Jesus established.

Those men were the papacy. By Catholic theology, those men are the ones that threw the papacy to the wolves on what Catholic theology considers to be the wrong side of the gates of hell.

The fruits of his arrogance were the seemingly endless splintering of the Body of Christ.

The prime example of that arrogance being when the Catholic Pope decided that he would not only not listen to the corrections of his faith, teachings, and dogma, given by his superiors, but reject them in tota. Superiors whom he was canonically obliged to obey.

Amber

 

[KathleenGee]

Whoooh…

By 150 AD, the Church had the Apostles Creed, a basic framework of liturgy with same tone and spirit we have today, and a hierarchy drawn from the Jewish model rather than the Gentile’s of conciliar…based on the bishop as head. This practice of the Church extended throughout the ancient Christian world at that time.

The Church evolved, it grew, it had failures…the Church is now the new dimension of the New Testament…we are on the same faith journey as the Jews…

Catholics are not People of the Book. Rather we relate to Sacred Scripture in context of its whole…the walk of salvation for God’s people…and all the humanity there in…ours is more relational, in grace in our day to day walk with the Lord—with our fellow believers, and the rest of humanity we walk side by side with every single day.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Those men were the papacy. By Catholic theology, those men are the ones that threw the papacy to the wolves on what Catholic theology considers to be the wrong side of the gates of hell.

The prime example of that arrogance being when the Catholic Pope decided that he would not only not listen to the corrections of his faith, teachings, and dogma, given by his superiors, but reject them in tota. Superiors whom he was canonically obliged to obey.

Amber

Please back up your assertion.

 

[elvisman]

Those men were the papacy. By Catholic theology, those men are the ones that threw the papacy to the wolves on what Catholic theology considers to be the wrong side of the gates of hell.

WRONG.
(Sorry, Guanophore, but she had it coming)

As I have explained over and over and over again - the papacy is not a man, nor is it men in gneral. It is an office instituted by Christ for His Body - the Church. You don’t have an inkling as to what you’re talking about and ere merely here because you have an axe to grind with the Church - as most of your posts display.

The prime example of that arrogance being when the Catholic Pope decided that he would not only not listen to the corrections of his faith, teachings, and dogma, given by his superiors, but reject them in tota. Superiors whom he was canonically obliged to obey.

Amber

This is meaningless. It shouldn’t have mattered whether 10 Popes in a row rerfused to listen to Luther. He should have defended the Body of Christ. But he instead chose to defend himself and graduated to heresy and twisting of doctrine.

Do yourself a favor and read some history . . .

 

[TinaG]

Please back up your assertion.

Hi,

What an interesting thread. It is good we can discuss these things calmly and dispassionately, and that the ancient wounds are healing, so we can see ourselves as brothers and sisters instead of enemies!

I am not going to back up my assertions, because I have no sources. This is more a summary of what I have been taught, for better or for worse.

Once upon a time in a land far far away there were the popes, the bishops of Rome. They exchanged religious authority for secular power and demanded that the Orthodox recognize themselves as the rulers of the Church. They said no, and there was schism. Later there were two popes, each vying for political power, and the popes basically were totally uninterested in anything regarding spiritual authority, preferring political intrigue. One pope even had his illegitimate daughter married in the Vatican. Another, his illegitmate children made bishops. They sold the church into prostitution and bought and sold offices, including the papacy. A council rejected the two popes and selected a third man to be pope who had not been either of these.

There was a long, long time in which there was no religious guidance from Rome. The universities, especially Paris, became the centers of teaching because the Pope was off whoring and making war on fellow Christians, even making deals with the Muslims against Constantinople.

Luther was a professor of theology, a defender of the faith. The church sold indulgences to build St. Peter’s in Rome and also so bishops could raise the money to pay off the debt they incurred to buy their bishoprics. He did not teach heresy, because what he taught had not been defined one way or another as to whether it was right. He expressed what he believed was the historical teaching of the church. Instead the church was teaching superstition and the gospel was buried under the heavy weight of man-made tradition. Priests were wholly ignorant of Christianity beyond the rituals which they had learned from other priests.

Leo X was wholly and completely incompetent in his dealings with Luther. He regarded Germany as land to be sacked and pillaged so he could live in luxury. Luther came within a hairs’breath of reconciliation with Rome, but there were problems on both sides. Rome made it impossible for him to be reconciled, but he was also irreconciliable.

There was bitterness on both sides. There was chaos all around - neither the Protestants nor the Catholics were monolithic in their dealings with each other. There was war, there were martyrdoms of Catholics by Protestants and vice versa. The Reformation was wholly and completely crushed in Italy, Spain and France. The French Huegonauts (sp?) fled to Florida. where the Spanish massacred them at what is now St.Augustine. The Pope had made himself odious to deal with, treacherous and deceitful and cunning and wholly untrustworthy.

The Catholic Church has not changed. When Protestants hear Catholics say the Church has always been the same, that is what they think of - not that it is Christ’s body, but that it is the essence of political corruption. I have grown to admire whoever it was who told a pope that whereas Peter had miracles and poverty, the Pope had no miracles but riches. There have been many Catholics who have loved Christ above the political machinations of the Church. When Protestants hear of the Catholic Church, they usually think of its history with fellow Christians, and lately the sad betrayals of shepherding of bishops who again seem more interested in perpetuating the church’s political authority than in protecting the sheep.

I am telling this to help the Catholics understand where many Protestants may be coming from. I am sorry if it is offensive, but it seems to me that many of the Catholics expect Protestants to think much more highly of the Catholic Church than they do, as if it should be obvious to Protestants that the CC is some kind of shining beacon on a hill.

-Tina “Not A Historian” G

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Hi,

What an interesting thread. It is good we can discuss these things calmly and dispassionately, and that the ancient wounds are healing, so we can see ourselves as brothers and sisters instead of enemies!

I am not going to back up my assertions, because I have no sources. This is more a summary of what I have been taught, for better or for worse.

Once upon a time in a land far far away there were the popes, the bishops of Rome. They exchanged religious authority for secular power and demanded that the Orthodox recognize themselves as the rulers of the Church. They said no, and there was schism. Later there were two popes, each vying for political power, and the popes basically were totally uninterested in anything regarding spiritual authority, preferring political intrigue. One pope even had his illegitimate daughter married in the Vatican. Another, his illegitmate children made bishops. They sold the church into prostitution and bought and sold offices, including the papacy. A council rejected the two popes and selected a third man to be pope who had not been either of these.

There was a long, long time in which there was no religious guidance from Rome. The universities, especially Paris, became the centers of teaching because the Pope was off whoring and making war on fellow Christians, even making deals with the Muslims against Constantinople.

Luther was a professor of theology, a defender of the faith. The church sold indulgences to build St. Peter’s in Rome and also so bishops could raise the money to pay off the debt they incurred to buy their bishoprics. He did not teach heresy, because what he taught had not been defined one way or another as to whether it was right. He expressed what he believed was the historical teaching of the church. Instead the church was teaching superstition and the gospel was buried under the heavy weight of man-made tradition. Priests were wholly ignorant of Christianity beyond the rituals which they had learned from other priests.

Leo X was wholly and completely incompetent in his dealings with Luther. He regarded Germany as land to be sacked and pillaged so he could live in luxury. Luther came within a hairs’breath of reconciliation with Rome, but there were problems on both sides. Rome made it impossible for him to be reconciled, but he was also irreconciliable.

There was bitterness on both sides. There was chaos all around - neither the Protestants nor the Catholics were monolithic in their dealings with each other. There was war, there were martyrdoms of Catholics by Protestants and vice versa. The Reformation was wholly and completely crushed in Italy, Spain and France. The French Huegonauts (sp?) fled to Florida. where the Spanish massacred them at what is now St.Augustine. The Pope had made himself odious to deal with, treacherous and deceitful and cunning and wholly untrustworthy.

The Catholic Church has not changed. When Protestants hear Catholics say the Church has always been the same, that is what they think of - not that it is Christ’s body, but that it is the essence of political corruption. I have grown to admire whoever it was who told a pope that whereas Peter had miracles and poverty, the Pope had no miracles but riches. There have been many Catholics who have loved Christ above the political machinations of the Church. When Protestants hear of the Catholic Church, they usually think of its history with fellow Christians, and lately the sad betrayals of shepherding of bishops who again seem more interested in perpetuating the church’s political authority than in protecting the sheep.

I am telling this to help the Catholics understand where many Protestants may be coming from.

-Tina “Not A Historian” G

Well, I was asking Amber Lux, not you, Tina.
At least you admit you don’t have any authority or proof for your claims, only ‘what you were taught’. And we all know that just accepting something somebody says without checking to make sure what they say is really the truth is just asking for trouble.

Everything you say above is simply you carrying on what ‘somebody taught you’, none of which you have tried to check was really true. And so, ‘what you heard’ gets put onto a message board and carries on the same wrong information and misinformation, over and over.

You don’t have to be a ‘historian’ to check whether what you’ve been ‘told’ is true. You just have to be interested in truth.

Tantum “who IS interested in truth” ergo

 

[elvisman]

All of that is is worthless unless applied.
Faith without works … is dead.

The Church was persecuted from it’s inception. They killed Jesus, Stephen … persecution drove much of the young Church out of Jerusalem. Nero … The Roman Empire. Paul was stoned to death 3 or 4 times… in the midst of every fierce attack the Church flourished… grew … multiplied… because God’s principles that lead to life were applied with all diligence.
… The church grew because the righteous ruled the Church. “When the righteous rule … the people rejoice!”
… by contrast, the people traditionally rejoiced when a Pope finally died… and they dragged his statue through the muddy streets of Rome…

The Papacy, as it led up to … and during much of the Reformation created their own doctrine…based on fleecing the flock and living like Roman noblemen during the time of Nero… that is what brought … and fueled the Reformation.

If the people had been protected and guided by righteous men instead of being fleeced … The reformation would never have happened.

Paul was stoned to death 3 or 4 times?? I do’t remember reading that ANYWHERE in the bible.

---

**Tell me ONE, SINGLE doctrine that the papacy “created” for itself. I challenged you before and you ran from the challenge. Name ONE, SINGLE false doctrine. You can’t because you’d rather *****invent *****false charges for which there is no proof or defense.

You’re operating under the same ignorance about the office of the Papacy as Amber Lux because you have an axe to grind with the Church. You’re not interested in the truth – you’re only interested in bearing false witness, my anti-Catholic friend. The Papacy is an office – NOT a man.

Why don’t you back up your ridiculous charges with some good old-fashioned documented proof? If you can’t be honest - then *don’*****t post at all . . .