What Really Caused the Reformation?

[Ani_Ibi]

Dulcimer:

Pot calling Kettle, Ani.

The pot, Dulcimer, did not accuse the kettle of sarcasm. The kettle on the other hand has accused the pot…

Dulcimer:

You accused me of posing rhetorical questions, which certainly wasn’t my intent (and as far as I am aware, I did not do.

I have already addressed this. You asked a series of questions. I answered one of them. Namely, What Really Caused the Reformation? You rejected my answer out of hand, setting out an alternate question. That rendered your first question together with the questions that followed it a series of statements. Therefore your questions were rhetorical.

Dulcimer:

…though I apologized if I came across as such.)

If you apologized for posting rhetorical questions, then why is it an issue with you that I considered your questions rhetorical? I don’t get it.

In any case, there is nothing wrong with rhetorical questions as long is it is clear that they are being offered as statements, not questions. That just requires a bit of context. That’s why I said something along the lines of ‘fair enough.’

Dulcimer:

Shall we play by the same rules?

Well, it’s up to you, dulcimer. The rules are posted by the forum admins on the main page. There are also banned topics in the stickies of this forum.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I find it very interesting how many non Catholics are participating in this forum. Hopefully all the questions asked are in honest search for truth, which finds its fullness in the Holy Catholic Church. We have a golden opportunity here to evangelize. Those posiing questions about the CC should honestly review the answers and stop with their preconceived ideas of what is false about the CC. Dulcimer stated that the infallibility of the CC was an admitted error. No where in this thread other than in his post did this appear. Allischalmer has yet to respond as to which DOCTRINES of the CC where wrong.

So are the questions being asked in true search for truth or do they already know the answers? I believe Dulcimer already knows the top 10 reasons for Martin Luter’s split. Dulcimer, just come right out and name what YOUR top 10 of Luther’s reasons for split are, and then we can have an open and honest discussion.

I have seen JWs and Mormons post “questions” to which they already have the answers in other threads in this forum. BibleSteve comes to mind.

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

 

[Altesse]

There is nothing in the teaching of the Catholic Church that contradicts Holy Scripture.

True, in technicality. I believe the main issue was the contradiction in practice and application.

The “common folk” saw some church leaders practice “selective application” of rules, regulations and scripture. One application for “the people” and another for themselves.

When the people could read the Holy Scripture for themselve in their own languages, the troubles began. The Church reacted by trying to maintain the status quo instead of using the opportunity for correction and restoration.

Hence the Church restricted the access to the Holy Scripture and sorely punished those who attempted to think for themselves.

A sad, sad time.

"As the church faced the cultural upheavals at the turn of the sixteenth century, the response was to attempt to preserve the established structures and to put a damper on creative initiative.

If church leadership had recognized that the medieval form of Christianity needed to be transformed because print was becoming the dominant medium, then church leaders might have seen people like Martin Luther as creative leaders bringing Christianity into a new era. The Roman Catholic Church today bears little resemblance to the medieval church.

Today, Bibles are published by the church and their use is promoted, priests are not allowed to hold political office, and members are encouraged to read the Bible and worship in their native language.

If the church in the sixteenth century had only recognized that the communication revolution surrounding it called for a transformation, church leaders would have found within its ranks creative and energetic people eager to help the church find its way through the transformation.

Sadly, the response of the church was to ban the translation or distribution of printed Bibles, to fight against separation of church and state, and to standardize and enforce the use of only Latin liturgies."

Quote from religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=192

 

[Ilroy]

Oh! My bad…

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”.
And don’t forget what He said we are to eat/drink…His Body And Blood (John Ch. 6)

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.
He didn’t actually commission the Apostles to baptise until after His resurrection. And, there is such a thing as baptism of desire. If he could have before death, the thief would have been baptised.

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.
You’re implying a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching here. We have never and do not venerate Mary as highly as or higher than Jesus. We just give her the proper respect she is due as the mother of God (Christ) and as our mother.

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”?

Search the Gospels…Christ tells us of many other things we must do to be saved. All of them, not as works to earn us salvation, but all of them as our co-operating in His freely given Grace.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Here you give yourself away. You know a lot more that you have let on. Now that we know what YOU consider the top 10 of Luther’s reasons for split, we can accurately address them. In fact I believe Ani lbi addressed these issues in anticipation of where you where getting at with your next set of questions (after your wanting to know the reasons for the Reformation, you asked for the top 10 of Luther’s reasons for splitting from the CC).

Now you want to know what we can do to become one church again. Take to heart all you have read here, and you will find the truth.

:

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…

 

[Altesse]

Um…I’m still waiting for Luther’s Top 10 Reasons/Complaints against the Catholic Church…

(And yes, I read all the stuff you wrote, thank you! Much information there I had forgotten and/or was previously unaquainted with. It still doesn’t answer my question though…)

Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions **will be discussed **at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.

In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.
2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.
3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance **which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh. **
4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons.
6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God’s remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.
7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.
8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.
9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.
10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.

Here is the link for all 95
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html

 

[Altesse]

Probably one of the best explanations

"The Reformation was not principally about theology-although theological differences came later-but about morals. Martin Luther, an Augustinian priest, lived during the reign of perhaps the most notorious pope in history, Alexander VI. This pope never taught anything against the faith-the Holy Spirit prevented that-but he was a wicked man. He had nine children from six different concubines. He put out contracts on the lives of those he considered his enemies.

Luther, like everyone, must have wondered how God could allow a wicked man to be the visible head of his Church. All types of moral problems confronted Luther even in his own country of Germany. Priests were living in open relationships with women. Some made exaggerated claims about indulgences. There was terrible immorality among lay Catholics. Luther was scandalized, as anyone who loved God should have been. He allowed the scandal to drive him from the Church."
Quoted From
A Crisis of Saints
By Fr. Roger Landry
April 2002
catholic.com/library/A_Crisis_of_Saints.asp

 

[Altesse]

It should be noted that despite the claims of Protestants, the 95 theses were not a “shot heard round the world” but a very normal invitation to debate. The “revolutionary” thing about Luther was that he utterly refused Church correction on his errors, which were detailed in a respectful response, and that he stirred the German princes to renounce the Church and seize her property for their own. If anything, it was this theft of property and refusal to return it to its rightful owner which made schism inevitable.

These are the facts. Any attack imputed is a function of the very ugly and unChristian actions propagated by Luther and the “Reformers”.

Read up on the Peasants’ Revolt Luther incited and then had quashed at the cost of 100,000 German lives.

The 95 theses have been romanticized by those who rely on ignorance of history to promote their mythology. Anyone can read Luther’s profane and scatalogical correspondence and see how poorly the man reflects the modern myth.

So again, the answer to the question is, “Because Luther wanted to be Pope.”

Is it possible that writings ascribed to Luther (the “profane and scatalogical correspondence” and anti-semitic writings) were created to cut him down and weren’t really his words?

And on the other hand, writings ascribed to “the Catholic Church” cutting down Luther (or anyone/thing else opposing it) were not truly from the CC or it’s leaders?

I suspect a good deal of this went on.

 

[Peter_Da_Rock]

What Really Caused the Reformation?

Satan and man’s natural greed for money?

Start your own church and keep all the tithe.

 

[Truthstalker]

I am currently reading Alister McGrath’s “The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation” Second Edition, 2004. He discusses the intellectual currents at play at the time of and prior to the Reformation, including the rise of humanism, the decline of scholastic theology, and the basic intellectual heterogenity of the Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation. From the Council of Orange until Trent, the Church had not ruled on justification, a period of over a thousand years. At the time of the Reformation the Church was still smarting from the after effects of the Great Schism and the question of whether Church authority was invested in the pope, the Council, or universities was still in play.

I haven’t read the whole book yet, but it is very interesting. There was not, says McGrath, one Reformation but a number of them. Had Luther not done his thing, the Swiss reformation would still have occured. Most if not almost all Catholic apologetic firepower has been directed at Luther as if he were the sole exponent of the Reformation. He wasn’t.

The Reformation was due to a number of things: corruption in the church, weak and sluggish response to challenge on the part of the Church, the rise of nationalism, the Renaissance and the rise of personal piety, anticlericalism, the rediscovery of ancient texts that had laid buried under centuries of scholastic theology, for some. It probably is the most complex historical event in the history of the West.

Those are some of the ideas brought out in this book.

I’m posting this again, as it seems it was missed.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

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

I know I feel the same about catholics.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Is it possible that writings ascribed to Luther (the “profane and scatalogical correspondence” and anti-semitic writings) were created to cut him down and weren’t really his words?

And on the other hand, writings ascribed to “the Catholic Church” cutting down Luther (or anyone/thing else opposing it) were not truly from the CC or it’s leaders?

I suspect a good deal of this went on.

With what evidence?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Altesse:

Luther, like everyone, must have wondered how God could allow a wicked man to be the visible head of his Church.

Luther had enough of his own problems, believe me. In fact, Luther visited Rome and returned with not a peep of anti-papist invective. It took ten years before all this rhetoric about the Pope came out. Does that makes sense? No.

Altesse:

All types of moral problems confronted Luther even in his own country of Germany. Priests were living in open relationships with women.

Like Luther perhaps?

Altesse:

Some made exaggerated claims about indulgences.

What is an indulgence?

Altesse:

There was terrible immorality among lay Catholics.

And none among the lay nationalist princes?

Altesse:

Luther was scandalized, as anyone who loved God should have been.

Luther loved fame and power. Take a look at his hobbies which I linked to on page one.

Altesse:

He allowed the scandal to drive him from the Church."

He was suffering from scrupulosity and the onset of some sort of stress condition from the combination of the Wittenburg Plague and a violent childrenhood. He allowed his illness and his stubbornness in not asking for help and not accepting help to drive him from the Church.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Altesse:

True, in technicality. I believe the main issue was the contradiction in practice and application.

What evidence do you have for saying that this is the main issue? What were the other issues?

Altesse:

The “common folk” saw some church leaders practice “selective application” of rules, regulations and scripture. One application for “the people” and another for themselves.

What did they say about forcible conversions to the new religion? About the burning of their property, the murder of their families if they did not comply?

Altesse:

When the people could read the Holy Scripture for themselve in their own languages, the troubles began.

How many folks do you think could read? Let me hlep you: 10%. Those who could read were treated to the most disgusting pamplets one could possibly dread to read.

Altesse:

The Church reacted by trying to maintain the status quo instead of using the opportunity for correction and restoration.

Wrong. Read up on the Counter-reformation.

Altesse:

Hence the Church restricted the access to the Holy Scripture and sorely punished those who attempted to think for themselves.

Wrong. The Church restricted access to heresy.

Altesse:

A sad, sad time.

True.

Altesse:

As the church faced the cultural upheavals at the turn of the sixteenth century, the response was to attempt to preserve the established structures and to put a damper on creative initiative.

You haev no evidence for saying this. It is anti-Catholic propaganda.

Altesse:

If church leadership had recognized that the medieval form of Christianity needed to be transformed because print was becoming the dominant medium, then church leaders might have seen people like Martin Luther as creative leaders bringing Christianity into a new era.

Luther was not a creative leader. He was a man on the run principally from himself.

Altesse:

The Roman Catholic Church today bears little resemblance to the medieval church. Today, Bibles are published by the church and their use is promoted, priests are not allowed to hold political office, and members are encouraged to read the Bible and worship in their native language.

But Magisterial teaching remains the same.

Altesse:

If the church in the sixteenth century had only recognized that the communication revolution surrounding it called for a transformation, church leaders would have found within its ranks creative and energetic people eager to help the church find its way through the transformation.

Erasmus?

Altesse:

Sadly, the response of the church was to ban the translation or distribution of printed Bibles

Wrong. The church proscribed heretical translations.

Altesse:

to fight against separation of church and state, and to standardize and enforce the use of only Latin liturgies.

To prevent the harm which came anyway in the form of the 30 years war, the peasant massacre, the political chaos, the decline of Germany, and the persecution of the Jews which was resurrected in Hitler’s final solution.

 

[Teflon93]

I am currently reading Alister McGrath’s “The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation” Second Edition, 2004. He discusses the intellectual currents at play at the time of and prior to the Reformation, including the rise of humanism, the decline of scholastic theology, and the basic intellectual heterogenity of the Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation. From the Council of Orange until Trent, the Church had not ruled on justification, a period of over a thousand years. At the time of the Reformation the Church was still smarting from the after effects of the Great Schism and the question of whether Church authority was invested in the pope, the Council, or universities was still in play.

I haven’t read the whole book yet, but it is very interesting. There was not, says McGrath, one Reformation but a number of them. Had Luther not done his thing, the Swiss reformation would still have occured. Most if not almost all Catholic apologetic firepower has been directed at Luther as if he were the sole exponent of the Reformation. He wasn’t.

The Reformation was due to a number of things: corruption in the church, weak and sluggish response to challenge on the part of the Church, the rise of nationalism, the Renaissance and the rise of personal piety, anticlericalism, the rediscovery of ancient texts that had laid buried under centuries of scholastic theology, for some. It probably is the most complex historical event in the history of the West.

Those are some of the ideas brought out in this book.

I’m posting this again, as it seems it was missed.

Calvin was a Lutheran first, as was Zwingli if I recall correctly.

To claim that the Reformation would have happened anyway really minimizes how influential Luther was. I think Protestants make that case because Luther in his own writings exposes himself as hardly the sort of man one would choose as the founder of a Christian sect.

Of course, there are many damning things in the writings and biographies of Calvin and Zwingli as well, so wishing Luther away hardly puts Protestantism on firmer footing. It also sweeps away much of the mythology of the Reformation.

 

[Dulcimer]

Shall we play by the same rules?

Well, it’s up to you, dulcimer. The rules are posted by the forum admins on the main page. There are also banned topics in the stickies of this forum.

sigh

I haven’t seen the banned topics yet. I posted this question in another thread, and someone kindly separated it, re-titled it (the title is not mine) and put it here.

If I’m in violation of the TOS, please let me know.

ALSO, I took mild offense at being accused of making rhetorical statments for the purpose of asking leading questions, ultimately to slam the Catholic Church…That goes to motive. And it’s untrue.

So when you seemed to get hot and bothered that I called you on my perception of sarcasm, yet you were perfectly willing to call me on your perception of rhetoric, I see “Pot and Kettle”.

goes back to read the rest of the thread

 

[Dulcimer]

I find it very interesting how many non Catholics are participating in this forum. Hopefully all the questions asked are in honest search for truth, which finds its fullness in the Holy Catholic Church. We have a golden opportunity here to evangelize. Those posiing questions about the CC should honestly review the answers and stop with their preconceived ideas of what is false about the CC. Dulcimer stated that the infallibility of the CC was an admitted error. No where in this thread other than in his post did this appear. Allischalmer has yet to respond as to which DOCTRINES of the CC where wrong.

So are the questions being asked in true search for truth or do they already know the answers? I believe Dulcimer already knows the top 10 reasons for Martin Luter’s split. Dulcimer, just come right out and name what YOUR top 10 of Luther’s reasons for split are, and then we can have an open and honest discussion.

I have seen JWs and Mormons post “questions” to which they already have the answers in other threads in this forum. BibleSteve comes to mind.

I am a sincere question-asker, as I have already said. I do not know the top 10…I asked for the top ten because I thought the 95 theses would take up too much room. I have attended ONE class on the subject recently (which more-or-less covered the political fall-out from the King of England, as the focus was not on Germany but England.

I have stated and re-stated my ignorance on the subject. I am being open. I am being honest. And it bothers me a tad that you are basically calling me a liar.

I have been on several other threads here, defending Christendom against the stated lies (and hinted propaganda) of “other religions”.

I am not Catholic, and have not pretended to be such…but I am not (in my mind anyway) an enemy of the Catholic Church, or trying to increase the schism that occured several hundred years ago.

My interest in coming here was my long-standing desire to see the splintered church reintegrated (but without integrating doctrinal error).

–D <><

P.S. I’m not a man.

 

[Dulcimer]

He didn’t actually commission the Apostles to baptise until after His resurrection. And, there is such a thing as baptism of desire. If he could have before death, the thief would have been baptised.

Since neither you nor I were there, let us not assume the motives or desires of the Thief. Honestly, no one knows.

You’re implying a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching here. We have never and do not venerate Mary as highly as or higher than Jesus. We just give her the proper respect she is due as the mother of God (Christ) and as our mother.

Oh! I did not know; all of my Catholic friends over time have spoken of praying to Mary to intercede for them with God the Father… To my understanding, this seemed to elevate her above Christ, since “there is one mediator between God and Man, that is the Lord Jesus Christ”.

As C.S. Lewis once said (this is his opinion, you understand): “The Catholics venerate Mary too much, the Protestants not enough…”

I do not understand the complex relationship it seems Catholics have to Mary…I don’t personally believe she was a virgin to her death, or that she was assumed bodily into heavan just like Jesus…but that doesn’t mean it’s not true. I need to study more on this subject to obtain a more informed opinion, but at present I will have to disagree with Catholicism on this point, if I am to remain honest.

I hope you will not be offended with me re: this.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

The struggle over lay control of the clergy was waged throughout the Middle Ages and perhaps from the beginning and continues even unto today. Luther made it clear that he sided with the lay princes over the clergy in several of his works. He was just the one who ignited a successful revolt against the clergy in favor of Lay Investiture.

That the struggle exists at all indicates that authority must be kept in tension but God must rule. If both prince and bishop understand that they are under God’s authority all goes well. When one or the other forgets that they revolt occurs.

Luther may be seen as a pivotal player in this successful revolt of lay authority over clerical. The Thirty Years war extended it and the French Revolution insured it at least for now.

CDL

 

[Dulcimer]

And don’t forget what He said we are to eat/drink…His Body And Blood (John Ch. 6)

We will have to get back to this. I have answered elsewhere on this forum that in my personal experience, I have never tasted blood at the Eucharist, and I daresay no one else has either. I have no problem with Transubstantiation if it is true and it does no damage to my faith in Christ if it does or does not happen. But I have never experienced it, and I DO know what blood tastes like, wine tastes like, grapejuice tastes like.

I also find it strange that God–who doesn’t change His mind and cannot lie–forbids the eating of blood, and then a millenia later commands it. I am forced to think that Jesus is somehow speaking metaphorically, or else Scripture is broken.

I don’t want to derail this topic with this particular question, but it IS an important one…Is there another thread on this forum that discusses the subject? Could we post a link from here to there?

Thanks, whoever can do this!

–D <><