What Really Caused the Reformation?

[estesbob]

I apologize for the implication that estesbob was unscrupulous. However, I do not think he is bothering to inform himself of the facts, and that he is relying on unscrupulous (or at least culpably careless) sources. Is that better? It’s as good as I can do without violating the truth.

Serious scholars of the Reformation, Catholic or Protestant, do not make these claims. They have no merit, and if estesbob bothered to inform himself he would know this.

I am going to call scurrilous nonsense what it is, and I have no reason to apologize for doing so.

For what it’s worth, my reference to unscrupulous apologists was not intended to refer to estesbob but rather to published Catholic writers who have made these sorts of claims. My point was that you do not find these claims in works of serious modern scholarship.

Edwin

Henry VIII left the Church specifically because it would not allow him to marry his mistress(a mistress who’s sister he had also slept with-anpther impediment to his marriage) Prior to this rejection of the Church Hernry VIII was such a devout Catholic he had even been given the title “defender of the faith” by ther Pope He mentioned NO doctrinal differences with the Church until after he decided he had to marry Ann. He didnt change Doctrines until after he changed who he was sleeping with.

Looks like lust to me.

 

[estesbob]

It seems to me that you discredit yourself, Sir, by resorting to such ad hominem attacks. I think you owe an apology to estesbob.

No Problem -Ive been called worse by better.

 

[Contarini]

Henry VIII left the Church specifically because it would not allow him to marry his mistress(a mistress who’s sister he had also slept with-anpther impediment to his marriage) Prior to this rejection of the Church Hernry VIII was such a devout Catholic he had even been given the title “defender of the faith” by ther Pope He mentioned NO doctrinal differences with the Church until after he decided he had to marry Ann. He didnt change Doctrines until after he changed who he was sleeping with.

Looks like lust to me.

Sorry for the confusion. My remarks concerned what you said about Luther, not what you said about Henry, which I thought was a bit too simplistic but obviously was not completely wrong. Your claim about Luther, however, has absolutely no historical basis behind it, because it is obvious to anyone who bothers studying the evidence that Luther showed no interest in marriage until some years after his excommunication. The evidence for causality isn’t there, and your determination to find such causality doesn’t say much for you, frankly. What kind of dialogue can we have when you are determined, without any evidence, to ascribe the worst motives to those you consider heretics (again, talking about Luther here, not Henry so much)? We have to get beyond this kind of thing. By all means let’s be frank about disagreements and about what we see as each other’s flaws (but still more about our own). But this kind of unfounded dirt-slinging has nothing whatever to commend it.

Luther himself said that he was not made of stone, and he clearly had the normal sexual temptations that the average celibate man has. But there is no evidence that it went beyond this, no evidence that he was driven by lust to take the positions he did. On the contrary, he held back from marriage for some years after he had denounced celibacy in principle.

It may be hard to admit that people whose views you despise can actually be sincere. But–and I’m sorry if this sounds patronizing, but you have richly deserved it–recognizing this is an important part of growing up. I don’t care how old you are–your comments on this thread have been extremely immature.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[estesbob]

Sorry for the confusion. My remarks concerned what you said about Luther, not what you said about Henry, which I thought was a bit too simplistic but obviously was not completely wrong. Your claim about Luther, however, has absolutely no historical basis behind it, because it is obvious to anyone who bothers studying the evidence that Luther showed no interest in marriage until some years after his excommunication. The evidence for causality isn’t there, and your determination to find such causality doesn’t say much for you, frankly. What kind of dialogue can we have when you are determined, without any evidence, to ascribe the worst motives to those you consider heretics (again, talking about Luther here, not Henry so much)? We have to get beyond this kind of thing. By all means let’s be frank about disagreements and about what we see as each other’s flaws (but still more about our own). But this kind of unfounded dirt-slinging has nothing whatever to commend it.

Luther himself said that he was not made of stone, and he clearly had the normal sexual temptations that the average celibate man has. But there is no evidence that it went beyond this, no evidence that he was driven by lust to take the positions he did. On the contrary, he held back from marriage for some years after he had denounced celibacy in principle.

It may be hard to admit that people whose views you despise can actually be sincere. But–and I’m sorry if this sounds patronizing, but you have richly deserved it–recognizing this is an important part of growing up. I don’t care how old you are–your comments on this thread have been extremely immature.

In Christ,

Edwin

I was very tongue in cheek about Luther and should have put a at the end of the sentence. I was dead on right about Henry VIII.

 

[estesbob]

Sorry for the confusion. My remarks concerned what you said about Luther, not what you said about Henry, which I thought was a bit too simplistic but obviously was not completely wrong. Your claim about Luther, however, has absolutely no historical basis behind it, because it is obvious to anyone who bothers studying the evidence that Luther showed no interest in marriage until some years after his excommunication. The evidence for causality isn’t there, and your determination to find such causality doesn’t say much for you, frankly. What kind of dialogue can we have when you are determined, without any evidence, to ascribe the worst motives to those you consider heretics (again, talking about Luther here, not Henry so much)? We have to get beyond this kind of thing. By all means let’s be frank about disagreements and about what we see as each other’s flaws (but still more about our own). But this kind of unfounded dirt-slinging has nothing whatever to commend it.

Luther himself said that he was not made of stone, and he clearly had the normal sexual temptations that the average celibate man has. But there is no evidence that it went beyond this, no evidence that he was driven by lust to take the positions he did. On the contrary, he held back from marriage for some years after he had denounced celibacy in principle.

It may be hard to admit that people whose views you despise can actually be sincere. But–and I’m sorry if this sounds patronizing, but you have richly deserved it–recognizing this is an important part of growing up. I don’t care how old you are–your comments on this thread have been extremely immature.

In Christ,

Edwin

WOW! I made you despised list. What a GREAT accomplishment. I must be doing somethng right.

You can defend luther all you want BUT he broke his vow to the Church and broke his vow of chastity. He has put the souls of millions of people in jeapordy… Quite a price to be paid for his little temper tantrum. I save my contempt for people like this-not anonymous posters on the internet.

 

[Contarini]

WOW! I made you despised list. What a GREAT accomplishment. I must be doing somethng right.
.

I’m happy if you’re happy (though I actually don’t despise you–I’m just very, very annoyed when people misuse history for propaganda purposes). However, don’t let your joy in being despised blind you to the fact that you have totally failed to support your allegation about Luther.

You didn’t say “he broke his oath to the Church” until now. What you said was “he broke with the Church so he could marry his girlfriend.” I take your failure to support this claim as a tacit admission that you know it’s indefensible.

Edwin

 

[Dulcimer]

Luther himself said that he was not made of stone, and he clearly had the normal sexual temptations that the average celibate man has. But there is no evidence that it went beyond this, no evidence that he was driven by lust to take the positions he did. On the contrary, he held back from marriage for some years after he had denounced celibacy in principle.

Again, forgive my ignorance…When did “celibacy” for priests become the norm? St. Peter was married…

–D <><

 

[Dulcimer]

WOW! I made you[r] despised list. What a GREAT accomplishment. I must be doing somethng right.

Um, it’s comments like this that tempt me to not take you seriously. Humor is one thing, sneering at each other is something else, and I would hope is not indicative of the average CAF member.

I’ve left other forums where that kind of thing reigns unrestrained, and it really has no place in a serious discussion or debate.

re-reads CAF’s TOS

 

[estesbob]

I’m happy if you’re happy (though I actually don’t despise you–I’m just very, very annoyed when people misuse history for propaganda purposes). However, don’t let your joy in being despised blind you to the fact that you have totally failed to support your allegation about Luther.

You didn’t say “he broke his oath to the Church” until now. What you said was “he broke with the Church so he could marry his girlfriend.” I take your failure to support this claim as a tacit admission that you know it’s indefensible.

Edwin

Edwin-I was speaking tongue in cheek about luther and his girlfriend. you know as in . He did, however , break his vow of celibbacy but that is one of the least of his sins.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Contarini:

That is total bunk.

I am wondering, Mr Contarini, if you would be so kind as to remember where you are posting and tone down the provocativeness of your prose. Particularly given that you provide no evidence whatsoever for your rather extraordinary claims. Thank you.

Contarini:

Give one example of a Catholic being converted to Lutheranism on pain of death. You can’t do it.

Saying I can’t do it, doesn’t make it so. In fact I have posted link after link after link. Mind you, a person would have to read that material to know what it says. Why don’t you give it a shot?

Contarini:

That is possible, but I’d still like to see an example.

I have given you links. Please read them before you so hastily dismiss what I say out of hand. OK? Does that not seem reasonable to you? Thank you.

Contarini:

How does that have anything to do with Luther converting people to his ideas? The peasants were revolting for reasons partially unconnected to the Reformation and partly linked to their own more radical interpretation of Luther’s ideas. This is irrelevant to the argument you are allegedly making.

Why do some of you insist that I am saying one thing when I am saying many things? I have listed a plurality of causes for the Reformation. And I have listed a plurality of effects of the Reformation. Please refrain from putting words into my mouth! OK? Thank you.

Contarini:

Again, give an example of this.

I have already. If you would do your reading, you would know this.

Contarini:

Please list the ways in which policies toward Jews in Lutheran territories differed from policies toward Jews in Catholic territories.

Are you sidestepping the issue, Mr Contarini? Did you once more not read the material I have posted? Was it not clear in that material that Hitler’s final solution was lifted directly from Luther’s anti-Jewish propaganda? If you want a compare and contrast, then please have the goodness to start your new thread. Thank you.

Contarini:

Note that Hitler also claimed to be following the example of the Catholic Church in his treatment of Jews.

You who are so quick to ask for evidence that has already been given and as quick in reading that evidence: where is your evidence? Moreover, Hitler can claim all sorts of things and did. Not all of those claims were necessarily true. However if you compare his Jewish program with the Jewish program of Luther, it is clear where Hitler got his program from. I have demonstrated this. Again reading the links I have provided would place you in a position to know that.

Contarini:

Very Renaissance indeed. Both the unscrupulous use of force and the employment of nasty, over-the-top rhetoric were characteristic of the Renaissance.

I see, Mr Contarini. Perhaps you wouldn’t mind providing some evidence with some links so that we might be able to follow your what you are saying – and verify it. If that requires a new thread on the Renaissance, then I do not see why you do not do that. Thank you.

 

[estesbob]

Again, forgive my ignorance…When did “celibacy” for priests become the norm? St. Peter was married…

–D <><

Celibacy beacme a "discipline’; in the Western Church around the 13th century. As a discipline(as opposed to dogma) it can be dismissed at the stroke of the Popes pen.-as opposed to Female Ordination which no Pope has the authority to change.

 

[Dulcimer]

Celibacy beacme a "discipline’; in the Western Church around the 13th century. As a discipline(as opposed to dogma) it can be dismissed at the stroke of the Popes pen.-as opposed to Female Ordination which no Pope has the authority to change.

Did a pope COMMAND that the priests be celibate in the 13th century then? For what purpose? And when priests began living in sin sexually, why did the pope(s) not fall back on Corinthians 7, and let them marry to prevent fornication?

As regards Female Ordination, I’m not necessarily for or against it, but didn’t God appoint various women as leaders in the past? Deborah immediately comes to mind…

 

[Dulcimer]

I am wondering, Mr Contarini, if you would be so kind as to remember where you are posting and tone down the provocativeness of your prose

Um, that goes for you too, Ani… (Honestly, by the end of your post I could visualize the sarcasm.)

Also, if one missed links that you posted, perhaps you could be kind enough to re-post them? There is a lot of material posted on these forums, and not everyone catches every last bit of it (I certainly can’t).

Thanks!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The discipline of celibacy in the Latin rite is just that–a discipline. It can be changed. The practice of celibacy for priests though does indeed go back to apostolic times (read St. Paul) and is entirely praiseworthy. Sort of going for an even greater good (celibacy) rather than a good (marriage). Marriage itself is definitely a good thing --no one has said otherwise–but as St. Paul tells us, and as Jesus Himself demonstrated in His life on earth, to remain celibate “for God” is an even higher calling.

Yes, St. Peter ‘was’ married, but it is not at all certain that he was married by the time he joined with Jesus, and he is often believed to have been a widower. His mother-in-law is mentioned directly, but not his wife–certainly it is rather strange that when Peter’s mother-in-law was cured ‘she’ began to serve them and not to ‘join Peter’s wife in serving Him’. And the gospels certainly speak of no child of St. Peter or any other apostle.

 

[Altesse]

I’m all for that!

I’ve taken “communion” (Eucharist) in various church traditions: Non-denominational, presbyterian, lutheran, methodist, charismatic, pentecostal, episcopalian, anglican, and once Catholic (though I didn’t understand at the time that a non-Catholic was not supposed to participate…mea culpa!)

It has always disturbed me in other traditions when the bread and wine were supplanted with “bread and juice”, since I thought the whole point was to immitate Christ, and I’m fairly certain the Jewish Tradition of passover calls for wine (albeit “new wine” which is not very strong).

I don’t think of the bread and wine as “mere symbols” (though I once did), but I am having a hard time convincing myself that they actually somehow mystically BECOME Christ’s body and blood. There it is.
**
scratches head…hopes for illumination**

–D <><

Me too.
I think sometimes we make “religion” and faith far too complicated.

What is the most important thing?

The Greatest Commmandment
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’** 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[c] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

We do this, everything else falls into place.

And not to forget this:

Unity in the Body of Christ
1As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. 2Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

All Christians: not Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc.

Just Christians.**

 

[Dulcimer]

Unity in the Body of Christ
1As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. 2Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

All Christians: not Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc.

Just Christians.

I utterly agree with you…and I feel this thread in particular needs to take a cold shower and to read the above verses to remember we are all one who call Jesus Christ Lord and Saviour; we are brothers and sisters.

Peace to you all!

–D <><

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Bob–and Dulce–A practice which has been ongoing for years (if not centuries) seldom has to be ‘set down’ by an organization until it has been questioned (Think of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. This was not 'introduced’ out of the blue in 1854 but had been known since apostolic times and was only set down in ‘black and white’ because it became the target of vicious attack).

Likewise, the **discipline ** (important word here) of celibacy was held by a majority of priests throughout the history of the church but only had to be ‘set down’ somewhat later, not to ‘start something new’, but to emphasize that what had been a normative practice, chosen by those who were most faithful, should now, by the reasoning which the HOLY SPIRIT gave the church, be (so long as the Spirit keeps it as the guidance) the normative for all priests.

 

[estesbob]

Did a pope COMMAND that the priests be celibate in the 13th century then? For what purpose? And when priests began living in sin sexually, why did the pope(s) not fall back on Corinthians 7, and let them marry to prevent fornication?

He did it becuase he felt they should dedicate themselves totally to the Church without the distraction of a spouse and children. Clergy in the Eastern Church can get married and married Episcopla priests who wnat to return to the true Church can serve even in the Western Church.

There is a joke that somewhat explains it.

John Paul the Great asks God-when will priests be allowed to marry? God replies "not in your lifetime. He then asks God-when will women be allowed to be ordained. God replies “not in my lifetime”

As regards Female Ordination, I’m not necessarily for or against it, but didn’t God appoint various women as leaders in the past? Deborah immediately comes to mind…

It is a doctrine of the Church supported by 2,000 years of teachings and tradition. it would take another thread to get into it deeper but it is based on Apostolic sucession.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

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.

That is your responsibility.

Dulcimer:

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.

I am puzzled why, having posted something very clearly what I post is now reworded into something else. Your questions were rhetorical because they made statements. No other reason. Do you understand that now? Posting rhetorical questions does not necessarily have anything to do with motive. Thank you.

I have also said that there is not too much wrong with posting rhetorical questions as along as it is clear that they are rhetorical. Is there some reason you missed this? Thank you.

I also wish to say how puzzled I am that you are continuing to take exception to being called on posting rhetorical questions when you actually apologized for it. Because you have continued to justify what you are doing, how seriously am I to take your apology?

Dulcimer:

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”.

Your questions were rhetorical. Your perception of any sarcasm on my part is just that: your perception. It has nothing to do with what I said or what I brought to what I said.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I am currently reading Alister McGrath’s “The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation” Second Edition, 2004…I’m posting this again, as it seems it was missed.

I didn’t miss it. I just didn’t get around to replying yet. Of course the information you listed should be counted as what we should look at in assessing what caused the Reformation.

Attributing everything to a very small part of the totality of what Luther and the others said and did is unwise. After all, plenty of folks said and did things against the Church before Luther and the others.

But upheaval on the scale of what happened during the Reformation and after did not occur until Luther’s lifetime. So why? Some of us have tried to answer the why in a way which does not leave out unilaterally huge chunks of history.