What Really Caused the Reformation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dulcimer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Contarini said:
The problem is that by the time he “split” (which I would define as his burning of the papal bull in December of 1520), there was a chain of “reasons.” Luther’s reasoning would go something like this, I think:
  1. The Pope is the Antichrist because
  2. He has not only presided over the distortion of the Gospel concerning human salvation but
  3. Condemned my efforts to challenge these distortions and
  4. Exploited his illegitimately won temporal authority to try to intimidate Elector Frederick and Emperor Charles into arresting me as a heretic; when in fact
  5. The Church has no coercive authority but only the authority to proclaim the Gospel and
  6. Administer the Sacraments, which have been seriously distorted, especially penance
  7. (As supremely exemplified by that indulgence business), and
  8. The Eucharist, which is a gift of grace and not a sacrifice, (and
  9. Should be administered in both kinds and never celebrated privately) since
  10. We are saved only by grace through faith and no work of our own has any value before God.
I
Edwin
Click to expand...
None of which has any basis in either Scripture or tradition. So sad,
 
Dulcimer said:
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…?
Click to expand...
This is incredibly tough. I do not expect the Roman Communion to back down on the basic claim of infallibility. It has occasionally been suggested (by the current Pope among others, but that was a long time ago) that perhaps you could redefine the second-millenium Councils as something other than Ecumenical, but I’m not sure that’s possible in any way that would really help matters. (Obviously if Vatican I, for instance, could be rejected that would be wonderful, but I don’t think this is realistic). On your side what I look for is careful definition (look, for instance, at the way Yves Congar rethought the question of Tradition–it raises as many problems as it solves, perhaps, but it does give us a new way of thinking about the issue) and a willingness to compromise on non-dogmatic matters (liturgy, church organization, etc.). I do not think that Anglicans, for instance, would ever be likely to agree to have their bishops appointed by Rome or to accept a one-size-fits-all liturgy that ignored our particular traditions. It is clear that the Vatican is flexible on the latter point (witness the Book of Divine Worship). On the former, we definitely have the tradition of the Church on our side, so I think we would be entitled to dig in our heels.

One of the trickiest points, I think, is how we deal with our respective pasts (perhaps I find this particularly important because I’m a church historian). For instance, I’m happy with Catholic statements on lay access to Scripture from the past century or so, but prior to that point there are some deeply disturbing statements in the Catholic tradition, most notably Clement XI’s condemnation of universal access to Scripture in Unigenitus. I consider these statements to be not only misguided but actually heretical. The same would be true of Church teachings on the persecution of heretics (yes, I know that these were not infallible either–that’s not my point). Your Communion has done a careful job of backing away from these positions without ever saying flat-out that the earlier statements were utterly wrong. Could we have union, even as many of us on the Protestant side believe that these positions were radically contrary to the Christian Faith, not just unwise applications of sound principles?

On the other side, the Vatican’s recent statement (which I did not find surprising or shocking in any way) raises once again the question of whether we would have to accept (in the event of a corporate union) that we were not really “churches” before the union? Most specifically, would we Anglicans have to agree that we didn’t really have apostolic succession? More disturbingly (from my perspective–Anglo Catholics would have no problem with this) would we have to say that non-episcopal churches did not have a valid Eucharist and were not truly churches? Presumably we would. This raises questions not generally present in intra-Protestant unions. (I.e., when episcopal and non-episcopal churches unite, typically some form of episcopal polity is adopted with each side being free to believe somewhat different things about how important it is–this is not without problems, but it would be far more problematic if your Church was part of the union, given your insistence on full doctrinal agreement.)

This only scratches the surface, of course, but hopefully it raises some relevant questions.

Edwin
 
Thank you for the well-thought out reply, Edwin…I’ll need to chew on it for a bit before replying in turn.

I’m not Catholic, by the way…I was raised by non-denominational protestants (who themselves went through a rainbow of various religious traditions before settling on Episcopalian and Pentacostal, respectively), and I–without going into great detail of MY extremely colored past–currently attend an episcopalian church with strong Anglican leanings, and visit a methodist church when I’m in California…
 
estesbob said:
mighty inept god-let people be condmenmed to eternal hellfire for following false doctines and belonging to a false church.

The "reformation’ offered a simplistic approach to salvation rather than the narrow road Christ set out.
Click to expand...
If you consider the God is always in control it could just be that God IS respondsable for the reformation because of the false doctines in the church of the time
 
estesbob said:
I dont think so. Protestanst would have to affirm the Authority of the Pope and the Church and jettison all the other errors that have crept in sinc ethe “reformation”-female Priests, homosexual Bishops, Sola Scriptura, Sola Fidelis, et al
Click to expand...
Just curious–what concessions do you think the CC would have to make;)
 
estesbob said:
And those false Doctrines were?
Click to expand...
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)…?
 
40.png
Dulcimer:
Thank you for ALMOST answering my original question…😃
Click to expand...
Oh, which original question was that? I thought the original question was the one asked in the title of the thread, namely:

[sign]What Really Caused the Reformation?[/sign]
40.png
Dulcimer:
C’mon people, I want LUTHER’S top 10 reasons for splitting from the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
So some of us give reasons in no way connected to Luther’s ambitions and you change the question. Woddupwidat?

:crying: :crying: :crying: :mad: :crying:
 
estesbob said:
There are none it can make. You can not compormise the Truth for the illusion of unity.
Click to expand...
That is exactly what I thought would be said.😉 Both sides would have to concede in order to reunite. My brother once told me that it could be done but the cost to both sides would most likely be more then a person could bear.🤷
 
Dulcimer said:
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)…?
Click to expand...
Who agreed that the doctrine of infallibility was innacurate? selling of indulgences was never a doctrine.
 
ALLFORHIM said:
That is exactly what I thought would be said.😉 Both sides would have to concede in order to reunite. My brother once told me that it could be done but the cost to both sides would most likely be more then a person could bear.🤷
Click to expand...
But we have NOTHING to concede as we have been true to the Faith since Christ founded his Church
 
allischalmers said:
If you consider the God is always in control it could just be that God IS respondsable for the reformation because of the false doctines in the church of the time
Click to expand...
Here we go again…I think we’ve heard this claim from you in the past…and when challenged to come up with ONE false doctrine you never did. But that not being the theme of this thread, we won’t demand any examples from you this time.
 
These are the ‘questions’ you have ‘asked’.
40.png
Dulcimer:

  1. *]What Really Caused the Reformation?
    *]WHO is ultimately responsible for the split of Catholics and Protestants?
    *]Yes, the protestants left the catholic church, but WHY?
    *]Wasn’t it that they utterly disagreed with how the church was discharging it’s “duties”?
    *]How is this wrong?
    *]Did not Paul baldly correct Peter re: Peter’s error when that error was potentially leading other Jewish Christians (the church at that time) astray?
    *](“How is it that you being a Jew live like a gentile, compell the gentiles to live like Jews” etc. etc.)
    *]What if Peter had answered Paul, “to hell with your correction! I’m the leader of the Church, not you! I’ll do as I please!”…Would Paul have been right in “splitting” from Peter?
    *]What about the split between Paul and Barnabas, both Christians?
    *]Was this not contained in the will of God and did it not achieve His ultimate purpose; the desemination of the Word of God to the gentiles?
Click to expand...

  1. Somehow I think these are not questions requesting information but questions posed rhetorically as statements.
    40.png
    Dulcimer:
    What I’m getting at…
    Click to expand...
    Ah! What you’re getting at… I see. You are getting at something.
    40.png
    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.
    Click to expand...
    You’re glad of the split even though the shameful things were mutual. I don’t understand that. Can you explain that please?

    Why is it that I am expecting a ‘but’ here?
    40.png
    Dulcimer:
    HOWEVER…
    Click to expand...
    Ah! ‘However’ not ‘but’. I was wrong.
    40.png
    Dulcimer:
    HOWEVER, I would rather be unified with my family than continue in separation from them…So long as we are in a place of agreement, by all means let us rejoin with one another. If we still disagree, let us dialog until we can reach agreement, or agree to disagree… (“In essentials, unity…”)
    Click to expand...
    What are the essentials?
    And what do they have to do with the Reformation/Luther? :confused:
 
40.png
Contarini:
…there is no evidence whatever to indicate that his theological views were driven by lust, and only the most unscrupulous and scurrilous Catholic polemicists suggest otherwise. You discredit your cause by embracing this line of thinking.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that you discredit yourself, Sir, by resorting to such ad hominem attacks. I think you owe an apology to estesbob.
 
Your sarcasm has been noted. I was not asking rhetorical questions (at least, I don’t THINK I was…checks brain)…

I genuinely do not know what to think of what little I know of Church history. That the split occured is obvious. What led up to it, less so. Where to go from here, when I hear both anti-catholic statements from non-catholics, and anti-protestant statements from “the faithful”…that’s my ultimate question…and what I was “getting at”…

:rolleyes:
 
estesbob said:
On what basis do you reject that?
Click to expand...
Im sure you already know where I stand since I seem to disagree with much of catholic doctrine.
When I first came here I thought we were closer in belief. Sad to find out there more difference then I thought there were.(belief wise)
I wont list them because I have already said my peace on many, many, many threads over the last year.

Plus it would derail the thread.😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top