Was the reformation bound to happen ?

[1voice]

**And *there ***you have it. You can’t prove ANY of the charges you made.
That’s all I needed to read.

I’m not implying anything. Tou have failed to even attempt to provide proof for your claims so that in itself makes you a liar. If you’re not - you would have at least tried like some of the others. I can easily claim that Luther liked to wear women’s clothing but that would be as preposterous as your silly claims, not to mention dishonest.

You’ve been exposed as simply another anti-Catholic with a chip on his shoulder . . .

You are being dishonest and manipulative. The proof is there… you choose to ignore it and nit pick … Have at it.

 

[guanophore]

I am not attacking the Papacy. I am pointing at the cause of the Reformation.

It was the Papacy that caused the Reformation…

Well, 1voice, perhaps you cannot see that is what you are doing?

You seem to be unable to separate the wolves from the offices they occupied.

If you are unable to see yourself doing this, then, as Jon has pointed out, it is not really possible for us to have a productive discussion.

There were a series of Popes that were destroying Christs Church... People would not stand for it and they left in droves.

I think this is a very uninformed attitude about the Reformation. Not all the popes were wicked, though some were, and no one can “destroy Christ’s Church”. This is a theological impossiblity. To embrace this, you have to deny the Scriptures. Another reason we may not be able to have any productive discussion.

People did not “leave in droves” because of wicked popes. They left for much more personal reasons. They knew nothing about the debauchery of the Pope. Most of them wanted to feed their kids, and wanted their assets to stop going to Rome.

The total breakdown of leadership in the Church from within was the catalyst for revolution.

This is also an overexaggeration. It would mean that Jesus failed to keep His promise that he would not leave or abandon the Church, that the gates of hell had, indeed, prevailed. It would also mean that the council of Trent could not have been held, since there would have been no functional leadership left in the Church.

I do agree that corrupt leadership was a catalytic factor for the revolt. But to say there were no more holy or honest Catholics is way over the top.

 

[elvisman]

I think it does. I think their bad attitudes and hatefulness fed into each other, and made matters worse. This is the same thing that happened in 1054 when the East and the West excommunicated each other.

Had Catholic bishops responded to the ravings of Luther with charity and holiness, the divide would not have been so serious, if at all.

**Agreed . . . sort of **
**If Luther had been a man of true faith, his time would have been spent defending the truth, defening the Church instead of his own agenda.

**My point was that in comparison to Athanasius - Leo’s corruption should not have had ANY bearing on Luther’s rejection of Church doctrines and spreading of false doctrines later on. His almost insane arrogance is what drove him in the years after the Diet of Worms.

 

[elvisman]

You are being dishonest and manipulative. The proof is there… you choose to ignore it and nit pick … Have at it.

Asking for proof of ridiculously onfounded claims is "nit-picking"?

---

Do you have any real proof or are you going to continue this silly game? Provide proof for the clais you made. Your own words:
1. The “papacy” created false doctrines “for itself”.
2. There was "no true doctrine".
3. ALL the leadership in the Church was corrupt.**

Going to bed now. I eagerly anticipate your documented response in the morning . . .

 

[elvisman]

It looks like you cannot stand the truth when it hits you in the eyes, if you read history, the Catholic Church was plainly corrupt starting with the popes in the Renaissance period. There were priests that were trained to just say masses.
Indulgences were sold to finance the re-building of St. Peters and the local bishops such as the Archbishop of Manz used the sale of indulgences to pay off loans of the bishoprics that he bought.
Show me where he was wrong in his writing or his lifestyle was wrong. Luther didn’t mince words or be politically correct, that is what Catholics cannot stand.

I will make this challenge one LAST time because it seems that you have also failed to address it:
**Show me ONE shred of evidence that The Church sold or otherwise proliferated the sale of indulgences for time off from Purgatory. Show me a decree, declararion, encyclical or proclamation that proves this spurious lie. **

I cangive you names of individuals within the Church that did these things - but it was never mandated from Rome.

**If you can’t provide documented evidence - you’re simply spreading falsehoods like 1voice . . .

 

[Stepson]

That does not invalidate the office he occupied, any more that Judas’ betrayal of Jesus invalidates the office of “apostle”.

For what it is worth, this “discussion” has been productive to me in the sense I’m getting to understand your and elvisman’s point of the Office and the men whom occupy it are two different things. I really liked your quote here.

 

[1voice]

Asking for proof of ridiculously onfounded claims is "nit-picking"?

---

Do you have any real proof or are you going to continue this silly game? Provide proof for the clais you made. Your own words:
**1. The “papacy” created false doctrines “for itself”.
2. There was "no true doctrine".
3. ALL the leadership in the Church was corrupt.

Going to bed now. I eagerly anticipate your documented response in the morning . . .

The proof was given … you ignored it.

 

[1voice]

Well, 1voice, perhaps you cannot see that is what you are doing?

You seem to be unable to separate the wolves from the offices they occupied.

If you are unable to see yourself doing this, then, as Jon has pointed out, it is not really possible for us to have a productive discussion.

I think this is a very uninformed attitude about the Reformation. Not all the popes were wicked, though some were, and no one can “destroy Christ’s Church”. This is a theological impossiblity. To embrace this, you have to deny the Scriptures. Another reason we may not be able to have any productive discussion.

People did not “leave in droves” because of wicked popes. They left for much more personal reasons. They knew nothing about the debauchery of the Pope. Most of them wanted to feed their kids, and wanted their assets to stop going to Rome.

This is also an overexaggeration. It would mean that Jesus failed to keep His promise that he would not leave or abandon the Church, that the gates of hell had, indeed, prevailed. It would also mean that the council of Trent could not have been held, since there would have been no functional leadership left in the Church.

I do agree that corrupt leadership was a catalytic factor for the revolt. But to say there were no more holy or honest Catholics is way over the top.

You are attempting to put words in my mouth.
You and several others shift the focus to the institution and accuse me of attempting to tear it down … that is an assumption on your part.

The subject is “was the Reformation bound to happen”… That is my focus. I said that the problem was systemic and it developed over a series of Papacy’s and it could have been prevented if the leadership had taken Christ seriously.
A fish smells from the head down… Mark Twain.

 

[guanophore]

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

I agree. Prior to that time, all persons or groups of persons that embraced ideas like Luther’s were considered heretics and apostates. The idea that a person could abandon the Apostolic Faith, create new doctrines, and still be considered a Christian was a brand new innovation.

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.

If that is the case, then how is the personal depravity of individuals relevant?

It really seems that you are trying to discredit the chair of St. Peter. That is how we understand it when you say “Papacy”.

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.

Indeed. The Church was seen to have ulitimate power, both in this world, and in the next.

John Dahlberg-Acton said these words about the Papacy:

All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. John Emerich Edward (1949), Essays on Freedom and Power, Boston: Beacon Press, p. 364

The chair of Peter does not make the person who sit in it Holy. He can sanctify it, just as we in our hearts can sanctify Christ as Lord, but if a man wants to pursue desires of the flesh, he does a disservice to the Seat.

I came of age during the Watergate scandal. I have noted that the office of the President has never been the same.

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.

No one is disputing that. It is curious that, because we don’t think Luther was a saint, you seem to believe that we think his counterparts as such.

A firm commitment, by leadership, to express the lowest human nature … over a long period … led to the explosion that was the Reformation.

It was certainly one factor. there were many others also. Personally, I think the seeds of the Reformation go all the way back to the relocation of the Roman Empire into Constantinople. It was on that occasion that the Emperor gave the Bishop of Rome secular authority. That conflation is what later produced the political problems evident in Europe at the time of the Reformation. It is also the reason today that priests are not permitted to hold any political post.

Every other doctrinal, political and social conflict was a direct result of the meltdown of character at the highest levels of Church government.

I don’t think this is true. The early history of the Church clearly demonstrates that heresies and apostasy existed despite strong leadership.

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.

No doubt. But corruption only belongs to human beings. The Holy Bride of Christ cannot be corrupted.

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

After the Reformation started, Protestants turned on Catholics, killing them, taking their property, defacing the Churches and destroying or commandeering the monasteries. These abuses against laity and monks were not a result of personal corruption on the part of innocent laypeople and holy religious persons living in communities.

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.

Now I think you are getting to a more accurate view. Not all the leaders were corrupt, but certainly the wolves among the sheep were the cause of the scattering of the sheep.

 

[1voice]

No, 1voice. We just see it differently. We understand that the persons occupying the position of the successor of Peter were what he said, and worse. We see that this does not equate the the office that Christ established.

I am referring to the Papacy as it applies to the Reformation in all of my posts.

The subject “Was the reformation bound to happen” involved the Papacy.

You guys tag team changing the focus and traveling down rabbit trails that have nothing to do with the topic.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Yes, and those challenges are considered heresies. More heresy cannot be justified because certain persons in positions of leadership were corrupt. That premise just does not make sense.

That is like saying, well, since Judas left the faith of Christ, we should change what Jesus taught, because he was not following it.

 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. One wolf is not enough to “cause people” to leave the Church. There are many more factors involved in such actions. I would cite poor formation in the faith as one. Clearly the invention of the printing press precipitated a major shift, since people were able to access and read the scriptures on their own. Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.

A person who loves the church understands the incarnational nature of the Church. Like Christ, she has a divine element, and a human element. No corruption in the human element is sufficient to sully the divine, just as nailing the body of Jesus to the cross was not enough to eliminate Him. It is the divine aspects of the Church that make her infallible, not the human.

The understanding of the Holy, pure, and infallible nature of the Church can be seen in the writings of St. Teresa of Avila. Luther seemed to have lost this understanding, though he started out with it.

 

[KathleenGee]

Agree here…there is quite a bit of stereotyping…and only seeing certain events in papacies…

The last Roman emperors were the worst, and just about destroyed so many churches and killed so many bishops…that Christ intervened and Constantine rebuilt the churches, gave pulpit to the bishops and priests, and did not become a Christian until days before his death.

Then came the Dark Ages and the continual plundering and destruction of Christian populations…in all the disorder, the pendulum swung back and forth between papal authority and temporal authority with alot of social upheaval for people living in feudal times.

When it came to who had greater authority, the pope or temporal, the pope declared…not for his own power and glory…but the Church as deposit of faith necessary for salvation…God’s will must be clearly defined before people. The politics leading up to the Church having temporal power is very complex and changing.

One must study history in depth, and I am just a beginning student. My final response is that it is amazing the Church has survived in the face of so much ongoing turmoil, deaths, destruction, instability. Any devout Catholic in those times would recognize the voice of God in such a life, and it was most needed. So I see the papacy and church hierarchy trying to do what it was supposed to do…to bear the truth of Jesus Christ to the world.

And as societies change and evolve, so much the Church be part of it. The church and temporal society have reflected both off of each other…both interconnected to each other.

 

[1voice]

Now I think you are getting to a more accurate view. Not all the leaders were corrupt, but certainly the wolves among the sheep were the cause of the scattering of the sheep.

Actually, you are the one that is finally getting it. That is exactly what I have been saying from the get go.

The Medici Popes et al …installed corruption as a way of life … and over a period of years that toxic atmosphere became more and more repulsive to decent God fearing men … who finally had enough and found the strength to fight back… That was the Reformation in a nut shell.

 

[1voice]

One wolf is not enough to “cause people” to leave the Church. There are many more factors involved in such actions.

There was a lot more than one wolf… as I made clear in earlier posts. I referenced Leo X because he was a blatant example and the last straw for many.

 

[guanophore]

There was no compass … No plumbline

This is a denial that Jesus watches over His word to perform it. It is a denial of the Scriptures, and the promises of Christ.

The plumbline of the Church is the Word of God. No man, however corrupt, can sully the Word of God.

The Holy Spirit is the compass of the Church. No amount of wolves among the sheep can prevent the HS from guiding the Church.

What you are advocating is the same thing that the Mormons do - total apostasy. NO faithful Catholics at all - a complete loss of faith. If this is true, then Protestantism should not contain so many Catholic teachings!

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

If this were true, Luther would never have become a monk, then a priest, and later a doctor of theology.

If this were true, then the council of Trent would not have been able to occur, since there was no valid Christian doctrine alive.

If this were true, then the Divine Liturgy no longer occurred - Christ was not presented in Word and Sacrament every week.

You guys argue that the Church had the truth and the opposition created the lie.

I am not sure what you are referencing with this, but the fullness of Truth was given to the Church. Lies, however, have always been created both from within, and without.

Acts 20:29-30
29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.

The lies come from the Father of Lies. Leaving the Teachings of Jesus puts people in a position where they can easily fall into lies.

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.

One has to wonder what you are reading.

Whatever it is, it rejects the Church of the Apostles, which is the pillar and bulwark of the Truth.

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.

This is not true, 1voice. The Liturgy has always contained the Liturgy of the Word, and of the Eucharist. The sacramental life of the Church contains the pillar and foundation of the Truth. In those days, everyone was churched. They heard the word and encountered Christ in the sacraments. This happens in the local Church, and is confected by the parish priest, not anyone in “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.

Yes. But your scenario presumes that there were NO faithful Catholic leaders, priests, nuns, monks or anyone that lived an authentic Christian life. It is really a very far fetched scenario. God’s Truth, infallibly preserved in the Church, is stronger than any one person who perverts it, even a pope.

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

I think you have a lot to learn about history.

 

[1voice]

Yes, and those challenges are considered heresies. More heresy cannot be justified because certain persons in positions of leadership were corrupt. That premise just does not make sense.

What doesnt make sense is that a man, who denies Christ and lives a life described by his personal secretary as depraved and steeped in sin … and has exalted corruption to the point that he fractured the Church in front of God and everybody … is considered righteous in his rebuke of the man that simply called it what it was. ???

 

[guanophore]

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

In the life of each individual, of course. But the Church is the custodian of the Teachings of Jesus, and her keeping of them is anything but “worthless”.

… The church grew because the righteous ruled the Church. “When the righteous rule … the people rejoice!”

The Church also grows in spite of, and sometimes because of unrighteousness and heresy. The early heresies forced the Church to define and develop doctrine. At one point, 80% of the Bishops had fallen into the Arian heresy. As Elvis has pointed out, it was Athanasius, who was a minority, and was excommunicated, that God used to lead the Church back to her foundations. God can prevail even without a majority of right rulers.

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.

You are misinformed, 1voice. The Popes cannot “create doctrine”. Doctrine can only come from Christ, through the Apostles. The public revelation of God closed with the death of the last Apostle. Nothing can be added, or subtracted.

The popes created abuses, and used those abuses to take advantage of the flock. It had nothing to do with doctrine. That is why changing the doctrine that was once for all deposited to the saints was not the right answer to the problem.

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

I don’t agree, because for me, the seeds of the Reformation lie in the conflation of temporal and spiritual authority. However, I will concede that wolves among the sheep always scatter the flock.

And of factions:

1 Cor 11:18-20
18 For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

Factions and divisions only serve to highlight the Truth. Your theory that there are none genuine just does not line up with Scripture.

 

[prochrist1]

**Thank you for at least *trying ***to bring some evidence to the table and not just unfounded accusations.

The problem with Wikipedia is that it is built by the readers so it must be taken with several grains of salt. That being said, there is SOME truth to this link but again - there is no documented evidence about the selling of indulgences for release from Purgatory.

I saw a debate a while back about indulgences, and the Catholic side mentioned that indulgences are not “get out of jail” cards, but rather a way of granting grace to someone in purgatory, in other words Roman Catholics view indulgences as “gifts” is this somewhat correct ?

 

[roselily]

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.

How bright it is in your writings! :angel1:
Yes! “We have to live in a state of constant forgiveness,” I had thought that Peter is the first priest of Church, I read that even Peter said : " I denied Him thrice, and still he forgave me, and commanded me to feed His sheep."

I, too, like to read history, but sometimes I think that I shall never finished history readings.

but I will remember this words:" We have to live in a state of constant forgiveness"

May God bless and Apostles help our Church also.

Oh I just saw a video about Apostle St. James

youtube.com/watch?v=kA_lNodUt28

 

[Cristiano]

I saw a debate a while back about indulgences, and the Catholic side mentioned that indulgences are not “get out of jail” cards, but rather a way of granting grace to someone in purgatory, in other words Roman Catholics view indulgences as “gifts” is this somewhat correct ?

You could see indulgences as another gift of grace and you have to do something to show acceptance of it. A gift is freely given but we must stretch our open hands to accept it with gratitude.