What Really Caused the Reformation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dulcimer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
bobzills said:
Why would anyone consider a discussion on Luther and the Nazis to be anti-Catholic?
Click to expand...
One wouldn’t.

But that doesn’t seem to be the sentiment of concearn expressed…
bobzills said:
Luther’s writings are profane and anti-semitic in parts, but still Lutheranism and Protestantism succeeded in winning over millions of Catholics to the Protestant side. Why was there this Protestant Reformation in the West, in the Roman Catholic Church, but there was no similar break away (of the same magnitude and direction) in the Eastern Orthodox Church?
Click to expand...
In fact the reformation wasn’t IN the Catholic Church, it was a revolt AGAINST the Catholic Church, and the sad history of division in the East can be seen as having distinctive parallels.
 
Ani_Ibi said:
Because Luther was primarily a politician, not a theologian. As for ‘winning over millions of Catholics to the Protestant side’: much of this was by means of force.
Click to expand...
What are you trying to do rewrite history!
I’d like to see you attempt to substantiate this…
Truly Ani i’d like to know where you get this stuff.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
What are you trying to do rewrite history!
I’d like to see you attempt to substantiate this…
Truly Ani i’d like to know where you get this stuff.
Click to expand...
Multiple citations have been made to the force used in the reformation in this thread already.

What would it take to satisfy your incredulity as to this being a key part of rise of the multiple non-Catholic communities in the North?
 
ASimpleSinner said:
In fact the reformation wasn’t IN the Catholic Church, it was a revolt AGAINST the Catholic Church, and the sad history of division in the East can be seen as having distinctive parallels.
Click to expand...
I thought that Father Martin Luther was a Catholic priest.
 
bobzills said:
I thought that Father Martin Luther was a Catholic priest.
Click to expand...
Was, Bob. Was.

Having seperated himself from the episcopacy, and the Roman See, and excoriated same see, it becomes pretty clear that he was no “internal”.
 
ASimpleSinner said:
Was, Bob. Was.

Having seperated himself from the episcopacy, and the Roman See, and excoriated same see, it becomes pretty clear that he was no “internal”.
Click to expand...
I thought that a Roman Catholic priest might be considered to be someone internal to the Roman Catholic Church as distinct from say a Hindu who would be considered to be external to the Roman Catholic Church? Father Maritn Luther was a baptised Catholic, wasn’t he?
 
bobzills said:
I thought that a Roman Catholic priest might be considered to be someone internal to the Roman Catholic Church as distinct from say a Hindu who would be considered to be external to the Roman Catholic Church? Father Maritn Luther was a baptised Catholic, wasn’t he?
Click to expand...
Yes he was. And confirmed Catholic. And ordained twice - to the diaconate and then the priesthood - as a Catholic.

And then he rejected the episcopacy, the Roman See, and the deposit of faith held by Catholics.

Again, priesthood may be for life - membership in the Catholic Church as a Catholic in good standing isn’t.

There is a particular obnoxious ex-Catholic priest who now is a rabid fundamentalist who spreads tracts and lectures on the evils of Romanism. (Although, his efforts did help give birth to Catholic Answers!) How long would you consider him - having broken his vows, and renounced Catholocism, to be Catholic, Bob?
 
ASimpleSinner said:
Yes he was. And confirmed Catholic. And ordained twice - to the diaconate and then the priesthood - as a Catholic.

And then he rejected the episcopacy, the Roman See, and the deposit of faith held by Catholics.

Again, priesthood may be for life - membership in the Catholic Church as a Catholic in good standing isn’t.

There is a particular obnoxious ex-Catholic priest who now is a rabid fundamentalist who spreads tracts and lectures on the evils of Romanism. (Although, his efforts did help give birth to Catholic Answers!) How long would you consider him - having broken his vows, and renounced Catholocism, to be Catholic, Bob?
Click to expand...
That’s an interesting question, but not the one I was looking at. I was focusing in on the point that you brought up that the Reformation was not internal to the Catholic Church? But Father Martin Luther was very much a product of the Catholic Church. In fact, was he not a baptised Catholic, educated in Catholic schools, receive a Doctor of Theology degree in Catholic theology, entered a Catholic monastery, and in 1512 did he not teach Catholic theology with ecclesiastical approval as he was received into the senate of the Catholic theological faculty of the University of Wittenberg.
It seems to be a bit of a stretch to say that Father Martin Luther was not someone who was internal or inside the Catholic Church, and who revolted against what he thought were either abuses or errors in the Catholic Church or its theology?
I would look upon a Hindu or someone trained in a Buddhist school to be external to the Catholic Church.
 
bobzills said:
That’s an interesting question, but not the one I was looking at. I was focusing in on the point that you brought up that the Reformation was not internal to the Catholic Church? But Father Martin Luther was very much a product of the Catholic Church. In fact, was he not a baptised Catholic, educated in Catholic schools, receive a Doctor of Theology degree in Catholic theology, entered a Catholic monastery, and in 1512 did he not teach Catholic theology with ecclesiastical approval as he was received into the senate of the Catholic theological faculty of the University of Wittenberg.
It seems to be a bit of a stretch to say that Father Martin Luther was not someone who was internal or inside the Catholic Church, and who revolted against what he thought were either abuses or errors in the Catholic Church or its theology?
I would look upon a Hindu or someone trained in a Buddhist school to be external to the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Noone is denying his internal formation in the Catholic Church. And then he left.

Bob you and I seem to have this sort of recurring leitmotif in some of our discussions.

By your arbitrary standards this could be seen as a movement “in” the church because he HAD been Catholic and not - Hindu, Zoroastrian, whatever…

But again, I say that having cut himself off from the hierarchy, and the Roman See, and openly and loudly rejected major tenants of the Faith - like 5 sacraments! - well, at that point he is without, not within.

A reformer IN the Catholic Church was St. Ignatius Loyola.
 
ASimpleSinner said:
Noone is denying his internal formation in the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
So Father Martin Luther was formed internally in the Catholic Church and he tried to reform it. BTW, an excommunicated Catholic is still considered to be a Catholic is he not? For example, a schismatic excommunicated Catholic is allowed to go to confession and repent, and he is immediately given access to all of the Sacraments. Which is not available to a non-Catholic, since the non-Catholic has to go through and entirely different process to before being allowed access to the Sacraments.
 
Protestant medicine became much worse than the disease, we can see it very clearly now (lutheran preachers take part in a gay parade in Sweden). While Catholic Church, hated by protestants and called the great whore, really defends the Gospel. I believe Luther wanted his best but he simply failed. The original sin of the reformation was disobedience to the pope and destruction of the unity of the western Church. Religious wars and “protestant inquisition” started - 200.000 victims in northern Germany and 80.000 in England. Henry VIII caused the reformation becaused he wanted to get divorced but the pope didn’t agree. Henry killed Thomas More (now saint) and founded his private church. That’s how it started.
 
bobzills said:
So Father Martin Luther was formed internally in the Catholic Church and he tried to reform it. BTW, an excommunicated Catholic is still considered to be a Catholic is he not? For example, a schismatic excommunicated Catholic is allowed to go to confession and repent, and he is immediately given access to all of the Sacraments. Which is not available to a non-Catholic, since the non-Catholic has to go through and entirely different process to before being allowed access to the Sacraments.
Click to expand...
Right you are.

HE is allowed to come to confession and repent and be re-admitting pending the rulings of the competent authority.

Fr. Martin made no such effort, to come back in. He put himself outside, and that is where he remained.
 
ASimpleSinner said:
Noone is denying his internal formation in the Catholic Church. And then he left.

Bob you and I seem to have this sort of recurring leitmotif in some of our discussions.

By your arbitrary standards this could be seen as a movement “in” the church because he HAD been Catholic and not - Hindu, Zoroastrian, whatever…

But again, I say that having cut himself off from the hierarchy, and the Roman See, and openly and loudly rejected major tenants of the Faith - like 5 sacraments! - well, at that point he is without, not within.

A reformer IN the Catholic Church was St. Ignatius Loyola.
Click to expand...
Have you read the book the “Hobbit” Remember the creatures that turned into Stone when the sun came up?
 
ASimpleSinner said:
Multiple citations have been made to the force used in the reformation in this thread already.

What would it take to satisfy your incredulity as to this being a key part of rise of the multiple non-Catholic communities in the North?
Click to expand...
That force was involved I have not challenged. However, no one has yet given an example of a single Catholic being executed (or threatened with execution) on the Continent for refusing to become a Protestant. Even in England the death penalty was never imposed simply for people refusing to attend Protestant church services (heavy fines and imprisonment, however, were imposed for this).

Edwin
 
myfavoritmartin said:
What are you trying to do rewrite history!
I’d like to see you attempt to substantiate this…
Truly Ani i’d like to know where you get this stuff.
Click to expand...
Umm, from history?

How do you think the Reform nations became that way? Took a vote?
 
bobzills said:
I thought that Father Martin Luther was a Catholic priest.
Click to expand...
A priest who refused to do his duty, refused to accept the correction of bishop and Pope, and was excommunicated for it.

The Catholic Church does get to decide which priests have valid sacraments.

And why are you calling a man father? 😉
 
Contarini said:
That force was involved I have not challenged. However, no one has yet given an example of a single Catholic being executed (or threatened with execution) on the Continent for refusing to become a Protestant. Even in England the death penalty was never imposed simply for people refusing to attend Protestant church services (heavy fines and imprisonment, however, were imposed for this).

Edwin
Click to expand...
Okay, that’s great—start a thread on it.

This thread is on causes of the Reformation.

Proposition:

The cause of the Reformation was the unChristian intolerance of Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin.

Nothing you have responded to has even begun to refute this proposition.

Red herrings, sleight of hand, non sequiturs aside—how about either addressing this proposed cause of the Reformation or, if you concede it, propose an alternate cause for discussion?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top