What Really Caused the Reformation?

[qui_est_ce]

As a newcomer to this thread, I see a lot of accusations and defensive stances. It is not my intent to applaud one side or the other, as I’m trying to get at the FACTS, not various opinions.

, fails to support their assertions, etc., I call them on it, because the facts are not being provided, which was the whole point of me asking the question in the first place.

There have been attacks on both sides.

When one side appeals to emotion

The human experience is not based on intellect alone, but I haven’t seen anywhere on this thread where appeals to emotion have been made to defend the faith. You could say I was being emotional when I referred to non-Catholics telling me I would go to Hell, and maybe that’s irrelevant to this thread.

But then again, there are a lot of other questions that came up in this thread besides the original “Reasons for the Reformation.” They are all interesting: the status of Mary, praying to the saints, what are the top ten reasons for Luther’s protest against the CC, the Eucharist. They don’t really belong on this thread, but this isn’t a real debate, it’s more like a blog. :bigyikes:

 

[Dulcimer]

There have been attacks on both sides.

Yes, and throughout history…we humans are an antagonistic bunch! (Oh, and I wasn’t accusing YOU of emotionalism, so you can relax on that point…)

But then again, there are a lot of other questions that came up in this thread besides the original “Reasons for the Reformation.” They are all interesting: the status of Mary, praying to the saints, what are the top ten reasons for Luther’s protest against the CC, the Eucharist. They don’t really belong on this thread, but this isn’t a real debate, it’s more like a blog. :bigyikes:

If the quetions are indicative of the things that caused the protestants (of whatever stripe) to split from the Catholic Church…i.e., “The Reformation”, then how do they not belong in this thread?

Lastly…why does everyone on this site assume I’m a man?!

flips hair, shows profile, presents official “Daughter of Eve” card

 

[Dulcimer]

Then remember, you are on a Catholic forum, our monetary donations both direct and indirect are paying for your opportunity to come here and challenge us…

So lighten up you’re our guest!

Are you saying that because you pay for this website, we need to be less direct (read “less challenging”) in our questions to you regarding various aspects of Catholicism?

surprised

 

[qui_est_ce]

Are you saying that because you pay for this website, we need to be less direct (read “less challenging”) in our questions to you regarding various aspects of Catholicism?

surprised

No I am saying let’s be more polite and less antangonizing-directed at Contarini . When you are a guest, you should act like a guest, and not a warrior.

 

[qui_est_ce]

dulcimer:

f the quetions are indicative of the things that caused the protestants (of whatever stripe) to split from the Catholic Church…i.e., “The Reformation”, then how do they not belong in this thread?

I was referring to an earlier post that criticized you for bringing up multiple questions. I’m not sure of all the rules, but I enjoy hearing your wonderings. You challenge me to reexamine my faith.

dulcimer:

Lastly…why does everyone on this site assume I’m a man?!

I always used he when in doubt. I realize this is not PC, but then I’m not PC, just Orthodox when it comes to language and faith. “Man” has always been the term for humankind. Some of the gyrations our choir goes through to not call God our Father is ridiculous, awkward, and demeaning to the intelligence of the parishioners, not to mention the beauty of the poetry of the Psalms.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Are you saying that because you pay for this website, we need to be less direct (read “less challenging”) in our questions to you regarding various aspects of Catholicism?

surprised

Also, I am saying this is not a forum for official “Debate” rules, it is a place for communication, not one-upmanship. It’s basically a blog to TALK. Everyone who is smart enough to get to this forum is smart enough to look up what is really being said in the historical writings, be they Luther’s 95 Theses, the reasons for them, the history at that time, the actual writings of the Church Fathers, etc. So, we are here to talk and then research. So we communicate our interpretations. That’s fun. Looking up words in the dictionary when simpler words could be used, well it’s note what I’m here for.

I think you are here to find out why Christians interpret the same documents so radically differently. I also think you are on a Catholic forum because you want to know why we believe what we believe. You have a lot of doubts that you would like addressed. Keep coming, go to the apologetics threads, you will find a wealth of information, and that there is a lot of disinformation about Catholic beliefs in the world.

 

[qui_est_ce]

flips hair, shows profile, presents official “Daughter of Eve” card

What is an official “Daughter of Eve?”

one who also flips hair

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Contarini:

Yes, I do know that. That is in fact what the CE says–Ani Ibi leaps from this to the claim that individual Catholics had their property confiscated.

No I don’t, Mr Contarini. Shame on you for persisting in your misrepresentation of my posts. It seems that you are unable to refute the points I have made, so you seek to misrepresent them and then refute your misrepresentations. This is a strawman and therefore devoid of logic, as I feel sure you already know.

Confiscation of property was one of a list of things which occurred. I did not draw a cause and effect relation.

Contarini:

That is one reason I’m pushing Ani Ibi so hard–I’m genuinely interested to see if any such example turns up.

You are not pushing me at all. You have merely offered nothing to refute my point of view and are tautologizing your rhetorical but illogical version of “Say it ain’t so, Ani.” To wit: you are right and I am wrong. That, Sir, does not an argument make.

I am really quite taken aback that a scholar would indulge in such behaviour. The ponderous list of red herrings which I called you on staggers the imagination.

I am quite aware that some of the material I posted on Luther’s decisions may be uncomfortable for some to accept. But ‘uncomfortable’ does not mean ‘untrue.’

May I suggest, Sir, that the tree is known by its fruit.

 

[Contarini]

No I don’t, Mr Contarini. Shame on you for persisting in your misrepresentation of my posts. It seems that you are unable to refute the points I have made, so you seek to misrepresent them and then refute your misrepresentations. This is a strawman and therefore devoid of logic, as I feel sure you already know.

Confiscation of property was one of a list of things which occurred.

You gave no examples.

As for my alleged misrepresentation, I’m baffled. If you were not basing your claim about confiscation on what the CE said, then what were you basing it on? Either you made a “leap” from what the CE said or you made a leap from absolutely nothing. If I misrepresented you, I did so charitably, by assuming that you were at least basing your argument on something, however vague and tenuous. As St. Paul said to the Corinthians, “Forgive me this wrong.”

I am really quite taken aback that a scholar would indulge in such behaviour. The ponderous list of red herrings which I called you on staggers the imagination.

You didn’t “call me” on any red herrings. All the points I raised were relevant. You simply asserted that they were not because they undermined your argument.

What staggers my mind is that any rational human being (whether a scholar or not) would think it sufficient to make sweeping generalizations with no examples and then bluster that it was “excessive” to be asked to supply such examples. You seem to expect me to refute an unsubstantiated generalization by proving a universal negative, which is truly bizarre. Am I supposed to list every German who became Protestant in the sixteenth century to prove that he or she was not forcibly converted?

You refuse to have a substantive conversation by labeling every counter-argument a “red herring.”

As for the question of Luther’s anti-Judaism, you have declined to respond to my questions as to just what you are trying to prove. As I said, if you are simply arguing that Luther was part of a broader Christian tradition, and due to his immense influence bears particular responsibility for continuing that tradition and expressing it forcefully, then we have no disagreements. However, I repeat that your initial post strongly implied that you were making a claim about something distinctive to Protestantism.

None of your high-sounding and indignant rhetoric will make the facts go away. You have dodged every argument I have offered and have completely refused to substantiate your initial claims. Let the reader judge.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

No I am saying let’s be more polite and less antangonizing-directed at Contarini . When you are a guest, you should act like a guest, and not a warrior.

Protestants on this forum will recognize an obligation to act like guests when they are treated like guests. This forum is a continual series of attacks on Protestantism. I have no problem with that. But it’s a double standard to wink at the numerous forceful criticisms of Protestantism offered on this forum and then blame Protestants when they respond forcefully to those criticisms.

Furthermore, I was not responding as a Protestant but as a historian. I have responded equally forcefully to Protestant distortions of history.

Edwin

 

[Kameal]

The underlying impulse of the Reformation in Germany was to a large extent nationalistic,and a desire to throw off Roman (Italian) authority. But underlying that,there is also the factor of the heathen ancestry of the Germanic peoples. The heathen ancestors of the Germans,Scandinavians, Anglo-Saxons and lowland Scots were or for the most part very patriarchal in their religion,with no prominent goddesses. The heathen ancestors of the Italians,French,Spanish,Portugese,Bohemians,Poles,and the Celts of Ireland, the highlands of Scotland and Wales were more matriachally inclined,with important mother-goddesses and many lesser gods and goddesses. The southern Germans were also more matriarchally inclined. The hostility that Germans and Anglo-Saxons had for the Catholic Church was also hostility toward the veneration of Mary and the saints,as if Mary was a pagan goddess and the saints were minor deities and were being worshipped as such by Catholics. The Germans and Anglo-Saxons had themselves been venerating Mary and the saints throughout the Middle Ages.

I can not agree with some of this things. We know now nothing or very little on Slavic pagan mythology. For example, Polish Pantheon described by 15th’s scholar John Dlugosz (Johannnes Longinus) is nothing but his own invention and adaptation of Roman mythology. The other thing- in XVI th century all remains of pagan cults were imported from Germany cause Church destructed it totally, according to A. Bruckner. Marian devotion was from the begging of christianisation nearly the most important form of piety in Poland and still remains today. I am not any expert in German mythology but i’ve always seen rather father-centric, with brave bloodlusting god’s and their people.

Indoarian matriarchate disappeared in Greece believe circa XIV century before Christ. See it in Homer- warriors are fighting for glory and honor, women are making the home-works. Cult of Great Mother was popular in Near East, in Asia Minor. i don’t think Inoarians culd be able to conquest all Europe and great part of Asia full filed by piety for goddess. They had been fighting under the name of great god of thunder, doesn’t matter in Greece or India. So i don’t think p a g a n resentment for Mary can make a cause.

 

[Dulcimer]

No I am saying let’s be more polite and less antangonizing-directed at Contarini . When you are a guest, you should act like a guest, and not a warrior.

I was speaking tongue-in-cheek…I should have said…

replaces Guest hat back on head

–D <><

 

[Dulcimer]

I think you are here to find out why Christians interpret the same documents so radically differently. I also think you are on a Catholic forum because you want to know why we believe what we believe. You have a lot of doubts that you would like addressed. Keep coming, go to the apologetics threads, you will find a wealth of information, and that there is a lot of disinformation about Catholic beliefs in the world.

Hmmm…I actually came here looking for a letter-writer (who I believe to be Karl Keating), and instead got embroiled in some delightful discussions that restrained me from leaving (due to my interest in the outcome).

I’m prolly here to stay now (due to aforementioned delightful discussions), but that does not mean I came here “in search of the ultimate truth”…

Yes, there appears to be quite a lot of disinformation…about Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism and the Muslim faith as well. I’m being forced to sieve the information received based on the truth-telling reputation of each poster. (Some appear to be more reliable on the Dulcimer Scale of Impartial Information Impartation than others…but that could just be my faulty equipment…)

 

[qui_est_ce]

HmmmI’m prolly here to stay now (due to aforementioned delightful discussions), but that does not mean I came here “in search of the ultimate truth”…

Yes, there appears to be quite a lot of disinformation…about Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism and the Muslim faith as well. I’m being forced to sieve the information received based on the truth-telling reputation of each poster. (Some appear to be more reliable on the Dulcimer Scale of Impartial Information Impartation than others…but that could just be my faulty equipment…)

Yes, I strayed to this forum too, and am now addicted. I was raised a Catholic by my mother who is Catholic, and she was married to my father, a Missouri Synod Lutheran and son of an Evangelical Lutheran Pastor. I loved Lutheranism because of my dad’s witness and Christian charity to those less fortunate than us. My dad truly rose from monetary poverty to riches, but his faith was always first. He chose a job in which he could live out his Christian principles (I may detail later). It was not until after he was dead that I started researching the doctrines of his faith, especialy after 9/11 when the MO Synod pastor was criticized for praying at Ground Zero with non Christians. It is hard for me to believe my dad actually believed in these doctrines because he so clearly believed in LIVING his faith and did not rest on “faith alone.” He did say, “man is a sinner, he sins from morning to night.” I never understood that. But now I do.

What I am really rambling about is that the more I tried to understand my dad and his Lutheranism, the more I came to appreciated my HCC, reading the history of the early church makes so much sense re Catholicisim.

Some appear to be more reliable on the Dulcimer Scale of Impartial Information Impartation than others…but that could just be my faulty equipment…) :

That’s one reason I am Catholic, stop reinventing the wheel.!!

I continue to pray TO my dad for help and understanding, but most of all for love, for help to love the unlovable, the murderers who killed him and left my mom for dead. Based on these experiences, I have to believe in the Communion of Saints, and in praying TO the saints.

 

[qui_est_ce]

But it’s a double standard to wink at the numerous forceful criticisms of Protestantism offered on this forum and then blame Protestants when they respond forcefully to those criticisms.

Edwin

HELLO!! :banghead: , this is a Catholic Forum, of course you are going to be outnumbered. Everytime you say something pro-Protestant, you are going to get ten people swarming to disagree with you and defend Catholicism! You think you’re right, and your interpretations are right. You disagree with those who have different interpretations. Well, that’s why there are so many Protestant sects out there.

 

[Contarini]

HELLO!! :banghead: , this is a Catholic Forum, of course you are going to be outnumbered. Everytime you say something pro-Protestant, you are going to get ten people swarming to disagree with you and defend Catholicism!

Exactly. I am not complaining about that. I’m complaining about the expectation that Protestants are going to be perfectly courteous and gentle and moderate in tone even when their history, beliefs, and practices are being thoroughly trashed. You are saying that because this is a Catholic board, Catholics can say whatever they like, and Protestants have to “lighten up.” It’s one-sided and unfair, and the “guests” analogy is spurious. (Do you really invite people to your home and then swarm them with arguments attacking what they believe? I sure hope not.) This is a debate forum, not a living room.

Anyway, the real problem is that you perceive this board solely in terms of Protestants vs. Catholics. It’s a lot more complicated. I agree with Catholics far more than I do with 90% of the Protestants posting here. I am not concerned to defend Protestantism, but to defend the truth as I know and understand it. However, since I study the Reformation for a living, I get particularly annoyed when people I consider in some sense personal friends (such as Luther) are attacked unfairly and inaccurately. I disagree with Luther, but I like the guy and want him to get a fair deal. Just because he’s dead doesn’t make it OK to trash his memory–in fact, traditional thinking would say that it’s worse to slander the dead than the living. (And yes, out-of-context accusations are slander.)

Edwin

 

[Truthstalker]

Anyway, the real problem is that you perceive this board solely in terms of Protestants vs. Catholics. It’s a lot more complicated./quote]

An additional complexity is the number of Catholics who defend positions that the Catholic Church actually doesn’t teach. They defend what they think the Catholic Church teaches, not what it actually teaches. I could launch into an attack on Catholic’s personal interpretation of Church teaching being fraught with the same problems they identify with Protestant personal interpretation, but I will leave it at that. The point is that this forum IS complex: Catholics, pseudoCatholics, Protestants who are more Catholic than Protestant, Protestants who are more Catholic than Protestant, as well as skeptics, atheists, former Catholics now Protestant, former Protestants now Catholic, Orthodox, former Orthodox now Catholic, former Evangelicals now Orthodox, etc. And the determination to defend the faith is laudable. It is admirable, when one knows what the Faith is. The Catholic Church’s reluctance, inability, or avoidance concerning pronouncing it is, to my mind, a chief cause of the Reformation.

 

[Dulcimer]

An additional complexity is the number of Catholics who defend positions that the Catholic Church actually doesn’t teach. ** They defend what they think the Catholic Church teaches, not what it actually teaches.**

I’ll come back to this at the end…

And the determination to defend the faith is laudable.

Absolutely!

It is admirable, when one knows what the Faith is. The Catholic Church’s reluctance, inability, or avoidance concerning pronouncing it is, to my mind, a chief cause of the Reformation.

I don’t think they didn’t pronounce what they believed the truth to be; I think they failed to live up to their pronouncements and the revealed hypocrisy drove a wedge between Catholics and Catholics…some of whom are ancestors of the modern-day Protestant Church…but of course this is just MHO…

RE: Defending what they THINK the Church teaches:

I have been telling my husband about this website, and he and I got into a disagreement yesterday…he’s formerly Catholic and told me that (in his opinion, of course), “MOST Catholics aren’t saved.” Specifically, that most of them go through the motions, but do not know what they believe, why they believe, and do not have saving faith (either via faith or works or both). He further asserted that this particular forum most likely DOES have a large number of saved Catholics, but that it doesn’t represent Catholicism at large.

I’m not sure what to make of all this; I am not “formerly Catholic” (he was raised Catholic, and most of his family still is…): I wonder if his beliefs are colored by his personal experience, by Hispanic Catholicism, or what. We had to drop the discussion because it got too heated.

makes determination to learn more

Would this be an example of someone attacking what they THINK the Catholic church teaches? He was a faithful Catholic until 17, and wanted to become a priest.

scratches head

 

[qui_est_ce]

. You are saying that because this is a Catholic board, Catholics can say whatever they like, and Protestants have to “lighten up.”

Is that what I said?

I am not concerned to defend Protestantism, but to defend the truth as I know and understand it.

And Catholics, particularly this Form and Catholic.com which hosts this forum are not concerned with the truth?

Contarini:

However, since I study the Reformation for a living, I get particularly annoyed when people I consider in some sense personal friends (such as Luther) are attacked unfairly and inaccurately.

There are many who would disagree with you, but you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Would this be an example of someone attacking what they THINK the Catholic church teaches? He was a faithful Catholic until 17, and wanted to become a priest.

Absolutely this is an example of “Catholics” attacking what they think the CC teaches. We are called to be ready to answer why we believe what we belive. Many people can’t, but they should be able to follow CC doctrine, because it is pounded into us from grade school on. There are people who are learned, yet pervert the truth of the teaching of the CC. Look at the “Catholics for Choice” and and Catholic Action Network.

The Church is not a democracy, it is a defender of the Truth. We are called every day to take up our cross of obedience. This sounds harsh, but Jesus said to follow Him would not be easy.