What Really Caused the Reformation?

[Ani_Ibi]

However, my point was simply that there were political ramifications, and so the matter can’t simply be boiled down to “he wanted to marry his girlfriend.”

You’re right. He wanted to marry his girlfriend because of the political ramifications. Better now?

 

[Dulcimer]

Somehow I think these are not questions requesting information but questions posed rhetorically as statements.

No, I was genuinely asking questions…see the initial post.

You’re glad of the split even though the shameful things were mutual. I don’t understand that. Can you explain that please?

Perhaps it would be easier to understand if you hadn’t misquoted me.

I said MUTUAL church history, because I believe that both Catholic and Protestant churches believe in Jesus Christ and are therefore Christian. I also believe (and was looking for clarification/correction) that PERHAPS the Protestant split was occasioned by some abuses by the existing Catholic church (which should then–if true–accept some of the blame for the Split)…and IF all the above was true, then I thought the split was actually a good thing…in the same way that I believe Paul SHOULD have embarrassed Peter by publicly denouncing the sin of his hypocrisy…not to keep Peter in humiliation, but TO CORRECT THE ERROR AND MOVE ON…

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

when discussion the origin of the reformation one must start at the beginning. the Beginning of the reformation was not martin Luther but Guttenberg and the invention of the printing press.
For the first time the public had access to the holy bible and and could compare the teaching of the CC to the bible , and Luther and others could clearly see the two did not jive.

The printing press and movable type did help fuel the reformation, but not in the way that you suggest. Gutenberg’s Bible was a Latin translation of the Bible, and Gutenberg remained a Catholic even after he printed the Bible. Yes, shocking, I know…

What more helped fuel the reformation was the tracts printed by underground clergymen which contained false statements against the Catholic church (sorta like Jack Chick on crack).

 

[estesbob]

Im sure you already know where I stand since I seem to disagree with much of catholic doctrine.
.

I udrerstand where you stand-what I dont understand is why?

 

[estesbob]

when discussion the origin of the reformation one must start at the beginning. the Beginning of the reformation was not martin Luther but Guttenberg and the invention of the printing press.
For the first time the public had access to the holy bible and and could compare the teaching of the CC to the bible , and Luther and others could clearly see the two did not jive.

Can you give us examples of where they didnt jive?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Dulcimer:

No, I was genuinely asking questions…see the initial post.

I quoted the initial post. Where do you think I got all your questions from if not from the initial post?

Dulcimer:

Perhaps it would be easier to understand if you hadn’t misquoted me.

I didn’t misquote you. I pointed out a contradiction in what you said.

Dulcimer:

I said MUTUAL church history, because I believe that both Catholic and Protestant churches believe in Jesus Christ and are therefore Christian.

Is the following what you said?

Dulcimer:

What I’m getting at, is there are a number of shameful things in our mutual Church history that I do not agree with, and if the Catholic church did not address those things, did not deal with those things, did not repent of those things, then I’m glad of the split.

The way you worded ‘what you are getting at’ in the initial post led me to believe that there were shameful things shared in the Church history and that that Church history was mutual. Therefore it would follow that accountability for those shameful things would fall both on those who stayed in the Church and on those who left the Church.

If you did not mean this, then perhaps a less ambiguous wording would have served ‘what you are getting at’ more efficiently.

Furthermore, in your view, did the Catholic church "not address those things… not deal with those things… not repent of those things?

Dulcimer:

I also believe (and was looking for clarification/correction) that PERHAPS the Protestant split was occasioned by some abuses by the existing Catholic church (which should then–if true–accept some of the blame for the Split).

The heavy rhetoricism of your initial post leads me to question any ambivalance you might hold in this matter. Moreover, when I gave you a list of causes for the Reformation, you rejected them even though they were bona fide causes of the Reformation. So ‘perhaps’ doesn’t swing a lot of weight in this context.

It seems to me that the direction you are taking is along the lines of abuses in the Church being the cause of the Reformation. – At least the cause you want to discuss. And that is fair. But if you had wanted to limit the discussion only to abuses in the Church, then you should have said so. As it stands you asked a string of questions, any one of which we can legitimately answer according to the rules of the forum.

As for the Church accepting some of the blame for the split, I believe the Church already has. The problem is that the Church cannot legitimately accept all of the blame for the split, as I have demonstrated.

Dulcimer:

…and IF all the above was true, then I thought the split was actually a good thing…in the same way that I believe Paul SHOULD have embarrassed Peter by publicly denouncing the sin of his hypocrisy…not to keep Peter in humiliation, but TO CORRECT THE ERROR AND MOVE ON.

The Church corrected the error. The Reformers moved on, but not in the sense of letting dead dogs lie or of not beating dead horses. The Reformers moved on in the sense of never moving on, never moving past the errors which the Church had corrected.

The Reformers were unforgiving. Moreover, they heavily indulged themselves in projective identification, given the long list of abuses they themselves perpetrated on their own peoples. They moved on to magnify a hundred thousand fold the chaos and violence surrounding Luther himself.

Just a thought.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

THANK YOU!!!

Okay, now where do we Catholics/Protestants go from here? IS reconcilliation possible? What doctrines would we have to abandon on BOTH sides to make it happen? And would that be “peace at any price”, and therefore unacceptable?

Please, your thoughts…?

Earlier you made a statement about essentials. I asked you to set out what you thought the essentials are. Perhaps we could start from there?

 

[Salamander]

I am only going to quote this website (for now) because I believe it holds true to valuable information concerning the Reformation. There is other information but too lengthy for now. I believe this answers the question in the OP.

*“Were it not for the economic and religious conditions of the time the Protestant Reformation may have failed. Other reform movements had sprouted up only to wither under unfavorable conditions. At the beginning of the Sixteenth Century conditions in Germany rendered it receptive to reform. Papal taxation and interference had greatly burdened and aggravated the German people. The wealth, immorality, and tax exemption of the clergy, as well as the beggary of monastic orders, invited contempt. In the religious scene a revival of interest in salvation and a changing philosophical outlook caused by the new humanist movement left Germany with a climate responsive to the ideas of the Reformation. The political situation in Germany was also a crucial factor, for Germany was divided among territorial rulers who practically acted as independent sovereigns within their own domains and who would eventually act to insure the survival of the Reformation.” *bible.ca/history/eubanks/…eubanks-28.htm

 

[Dulcimer]

The Church corrected the error. The Reformers moved on, but not in the sense of letting dead dogs lie or of not beating dead horses. The Reformers moved on in the sense of never moving on, never moving past the errors which the Church had corrected.

The Reformers were unforgiving. Moreover, they heavily indulged themselves in projective identification, given the long list of abuses they themselves perpetrated on their own peoples. They moved on to magnify a hundred thousand fold the chaos and violence surrounding Luther himself.

1. Forgive me for any unintended rhetorical bent…My mother is a rhetorician, and apparently it’s in the blood. I did not intend any disrespect, and I wasn’t intentionally trying to lead a discussion to Catholic Church bashing.
2. I am learning mutual church history for the first time NOW…And by learning, I mean reading accounts on both sides and discussing with historians of all stripes, as I intend to go back to school for a degree in History (though my interest lies further back in time). So I am asking questions of the very intelligent people here who obviously know far more on the subject than I do…including you.
3. I think that the Reformers did not aquit themselves well after the split. I’m not sure if that is as true today as it was in the days/months/years immediately following the split.
4. I think that–based on what little (NO SARCASM) I know of the subject–the Catholic church does bear some of the responsibility for the split…but I’m trying to determine the degree, because I honestly don’t know that much about it…hence my request for the Top Ten Luther Reasons for the Split.

Does this help?

–D <><

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Dulcimer:

I thought it had already been admitted/agreed that the doctrine of infallibility was inaccurate–at least in the past–(so far as touching on the selling of indulgences, at bare minimum)…?

Could you step us through that please? This is the first time we are hearing this. Also keep in mind that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. So we will be asking you for linked references too. Thank you.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Dulcimer:

Your sarcasm has been noted. I was not asking rhetorical questions (at least, I don’t THINK I was…checks brain)…

Please do not attribute motive to posters. It does not further discussion nor does it comply with the forum rules. Thank you.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Dulcimer:

1. Forgive me for any unintended rhetorical bent.

Thank you.

Dulcimer:

1. I think that–based on what little (NO SARCASM) I know of the subject–the Catholic church does bear some of the responsibility for the split.

The Church has taken responsibility for Her part in the split. That was centuries ago.

Dulcimer:

.but I’m trying to determine the degree, because I honestly don’t know that much about it…hence my request for the Top Ten Luther Reasons for the Split.

Her part in what happened is:

• She did not respond quickly enough to limit the harm which Luther was about to cause. In other words, she underestimated both his rage and his influence.
• The plagues had all but depleted the Church of educated priests and the Church did not respond quickly enough to the corruption and lack of displine within Her fold.
  The rest – and the rest was considerable – was beyond the purvey of the Church.

 

[Dulcimer]

Earlier you made a statement about essentials. I asked you to set out what you thought the essentials are. Perhaps we could start from there?

Oh! My bad…

I believe I was quoting “in essentials, unity”…from the internet:

**IN ESSENTIALS UNITY, IN NON-ESSENTIALS LIBERTY, IN ALL THINGS CHARITY **

On the Origin of the Sentence: “*In necessariis unitas, in non-necessariis (or, dubiis) libertas, in utrisque (or, omnibus) caritas.” *

This famous motto of Christian Irenics, which I have slightly modified in the text, is often falsely attributed to St. Augustin (whose creed would not allow it, though his heart might have approved of it), but is of much later origin. It appears for the first time in Germany, A.D. 1627 and 1628, among peaceful divines of the Lutheran and German Reformed churches, and found a hearty welcome among moderate divines In England.

Or course, “peaceful divines” sounds funny per our current discussion!

As to WHAT the essentials are, didn’t Christ himself say only two commandments were important, and summed up the entire Law?

1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

I would posit that most of us equate Jesus with God, and that it is necessary to do so in order to retain the title “Christian”.

If we want to add to the above, Jesus also commanded us to eat/drink “in rememberance of me”.

Baptism also seems to be added along the way, though Jesus doesn’t require the thief on the cross to be baptised as a condition of salvation.

Jesus taught us to pray (the Lord’s prayer seems to be His example, as requested by the disciples).

It is unclear, based on Luke 17 (I think) whether or not Mary was supposed to be venerated as highly as Jesus–or higher–but certainly the Magnificat proclaims her as blessed, and to be remembered as such.

We are called in The Great Commission to tell the whole world about Jesus Christ, and let everyone know He is the only way to God.

What else should we mutually add as “essential”?

 

[Dulcimer]

*]She did not respond quickly enough to limit the harm which Luther was about to cause. In other words, she underestimated both his rage and his influence.

Wait a minute…are you saying the Church’s part in the split is not silencing Luther fast enough?!

What about the selling of indulgences? The gross immorality of certain priests (concubinage, resorting to prostitutes, etc.)? The levy of heavy taxation for “unjust wars”?) Remember, I’m untaught here…but I certainly have a problem with the first two, and am in the process of investigating the third…

 

[Sabda]

I am only going to quote this website (for now) because I believe it holds true to valuable information concerning the Reformation. There is other information but too lengthy for now. I believe this answers the question in the OP.

*“Were it not for the economic and religious conditions of the time the Protestant Reformation may have failed. Other reform movements had sprouted up only to wither under unfavorable conditions. At the beginning of the Sixteenth Century conditions in Germany rendered it receptive to reform. Papal taxation and interference had greatly burdened and aggravated the German people. The wealth, immorality, and tax exemption of the clergy, as well as the beggary of monastic orders, invited contempt. In the religious scene a revival of interest in salvation and a changing philosophical outlook caused by the new humanist movement left Germany with a climate responsive to the ideas of the Reformation. The political situation in Germany was also a crucial factor, for Germany was divided among territorial rulers who practically acted as independent sovereigns within their own domains and who would eventually act to insure the survival of the Reformation.” *bible.ca/history/eubanks/…eubanks-28.htm

Is there another link for this? That one did not take me to that page. It went somewhere else.

Thank you.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

*“Were it not for the economic and religious conditions of the time the Protestant Reformation may have failed. Other reform movements had sprouted up only to wither under unfavorable conditions. At the beginning of the Sixteenth Century conditions in Germany rendered it receptive to reform. Papal taxation and interference had greatly burdened and aggravated the German people. The wealth, immorality, and tax exemption of the clergy, as well as the beggary of monastic orders, invited contempt. In the religious scene a revival of interest in salvation and a changing philosophical outlook caused by the new humanist movement left Germany with a climate responsive to the ideas of the Reformation. The political situation in Germany was also a crucial factor, for Germany was divided among territorial rulers who practically acted as independent sovereigns within their own domains and who would eventually act to insure the survival of the Reformation.” *bible.ca/history/eubanks/…eubanks-28.htm

If this were a fair representation of events, then Luther would not have had to use the means he did to convert folks to the new religion.

In fact folks were converted on pain of death and on pain of seizure of their property. 100 000 peasants were killed. Those who did not comply with Luther saw their property burned to the ground. The Jews were persecuted so effectively that Hitler revived Luther’s policies verbatim.

Luther and his friends disseminated the crudest, rudest, nastiest ad hominem inaccuracies against his opponents. So nasty that I will not link to them here.

How humanist is that? What kind of Renaissance thinking is that? For that matter what kind of ‘Reform’ is that? If his ideas were all that honourable, then why were these methods necessary?

Martin Luther King Jr once said: “Not only do the ends not justify the means, but the ends are inherent in the means.”

Think about it.

 

[Dulcimer]

Please do not attribute motive to posters. It does not further discussion nor does it comply with the forum rules. Thank you.

Pot calling Kettle, Ani…

You accused me of posing rhetorical questions, which certainly wasn’t my intent (and as far as I am aware, I did not do…though I apologized if I came across as such.) Shall we play by the same rules?

 

[Dulcimer]

Is there another link for this? That one did not take me to that page. It went somewhere else.

Thank you.

I think it’s here…(I searched for it from the main page, using part of his quotation):

bible.ca/history/eubanks/history-eubanks-28.htm

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Wait a minute…are you saying the Church’s part in the split is not silencing Luther fast enough?!

Is that what I said?

(What about the selling of indulgences? The gross immorality of certain priests (concubinage, resorting to prostitutes, etc.)? The levy of heavy taxation for “unjust wars”?) Remember, I’m untaught here…but I certainly have a problem with the first two, and am in the process of investigating the third…)

I have already accounted for that under the category of corruption.

What I am saying that evidently you are not hearing is that corruption in the Church was not the only cause of the Reformation. There were many causes, most of them secular.

 

[Dulcimer]

Is that what I said?

I dunno…re-read your quote, it certainly seems to be saying something along those lines:

She did not respond quickly enough to limit the harm which Luther was about to cause. In other words, she underestimated both his rage and his influence.

I have already accounted for that under the category of corruption.

What I am saying that evidently you are not hearing is that corruption in the Church was not the only cause of the Reformation. There were many causes, most of them secular.

Ah, well that I can understand! Thanks…