What Really Caused the Reformation?

[Ani_Ibi]

Altesse:

I truly believe that Luther never intended to leave the Church.

Luther had left the Church long before he was excommunicated. After the Wittenburg Plague, he succumbed to extreme scrupulosity which saw him whipping himself, starving himself, depriving himself of sleep – instead of attending to his duties.

When offered pastoral care by his community and by his superiors, he rejected these gestures of Christian charity and, as a result, his condition deteriorated. He became Luther Alone.

Altesse:

He loved the Catholic church

He did. His community offered him refuge as a young man from a family so violent that he himself felt that he was within an inch of death when he left them.

Altesse:

and it broke his heart when his attempts to bring about correction failed.

Mmmmm, no. It was an afront to his pride; it shamed him.

Altesse:

His starting a “new” church only came about because he was excommunicated.

Um, no. In fact the Church gave him every opportunity to salvage his relationship with his community. He used the rudest language and behaviour possible to reject the Church. He wanted to go his own way. He trusted no one.

His response to the Church lacked all proportionality and was, to my eyes, devoid of rationality. This was no mere difference of opinion. This was a displacement of a rage so all consuming it seems unfathomable to me.

Altesse:

I don’t believe he would not have left otherwise.

The folks back then did not have the knowledge that we do in handling people who go off the edge. Maybe, just maybe, if Luther had lived in the 21C and in the US, he would have gotten the help he needed. That’s my opinion, looking at the circumstances before Luther and his disproportionate response to those circumstances.

In a few words: he went over the edge; his response was over the top; he threw the baby out with the bathwater; his solution was worse than the problem; his home reno wrecked the house.

Just a thought.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

…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.

I am puzzled why someone would defend an opinion on Mary maintained in the absence of information on the subject of Mary when there is another obvious option. That is option is merely say: “I don’t know.”

 

[estesbob]

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

Just Christians.

Just Christians-some who have seperated themselves from the Church. You simply can not paper over the differences between the Church and those who reject it. This thread is about why the seperation took place and examines the men who caused it-men who caused great turmoil , dissension and put millions of souls at risk.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

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 <><

Here is a very detailed thread on the Real Presence in the Eucharist:

Why did He let them walk away?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

No evidence, just a “what if?” Looking at today’s politics it would not suprise me if such things happened then.

Both sides had valid points to their debates and arguments, it is just unfotunate that both sides did not see that.

But, without evidence, what justification do you have for saying what you do? Is it OK just to say anything at all without honouring what is true and eschewing what is false?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Dulcimer:

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

Ms Dulcimer, courtesy is not sarcasm.

Dulcimer:

Also, if one missed links that you posted, perhaps you could be kind enough to re-post them?

In the case of Mr Contarini, it was not a case of missed links, Ms Dulcimer. It was a case of what he said not reflecting a reading of what he was attempting to respond to. If one is going to have an opinion on what another is posting, do you not think it is a good idea to read it first?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

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 <><

Perhaps you might show us how this is done, then?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

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

If you truly believe that what I have said was said in sarcasm, would you be kind enough to quote the parts which you believe are sarcastic and explain why you can ‘visualize’ sarcarsm in them.

I don’t see it. I know I did not write with sarcasm in mind. If I had, I would have used the little ‘sarcasm’ smiley in the smiley menu. But I didn’t.

Making claims is one thing. Being able to support them with a line of reasoning is another thing, Ms Dulcimer.

 

[rwoehmke]

“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…”

Lots of observant God fearing women in the Old Testament. Some indeed were chosen by God as leaders, but I think one would have to look long and hard to find one called to be a priestess.

 

[Contarini]

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

–D <><

It was the ideal in the West from about the third century, I believe. In the eleventh century it was made binding to the extent that married priests were forced to give up their wives. From that time to the Reformation priestly marriage was officially unknown but priestly concubinage was common. After the Reformation the Catholic Church made a serious effort to stomp this out, though you still hear about it in some parts of the Catholic world.

Since we don’t know for sure whether Peter continued to have marital relations with his wife after Jesus called him to be an Apostle (St. Paul’s reference to “Cephas” taking his wife with him is evidence on one side, but his reference to this wife as a “sister” has been interpreted in various ways supportive of St. Peter’s celibacy), and since celibacy is a discipline, I don’t think the example of St. Peter is conclusive here. I think mandatory celibacy for secular priests is unwise, but I don’t expect the RC hierarchy to listen to me, and I respect the ideal of celibacy and the witness it holds out to a world that worships sex.

Edwin

 

[qui_est_ce]

I’m all for that!

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 <><

Dulcimer, please click on the below link. Since at least the 8th century, (800 years before the ((so-called)) Reformation) Christians believed in the true presence. Of course as HRC’s, we believe this has always been the case.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

Also, please read John 6:53-60 re this is m flesh49
Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
59
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60

Why is this so hard to accept? Jesus says in John 6:61, Does this shock you?

These have been truths and mysteries since early Christiandem. Just like the Trinity.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

What is this thread about?

 

[qui_est_ce]

You could say it’s about defending protestors against the big bad HCC, but the bigger picture tells me that people are seeking the Truth. It’s hard for protestants to come around and believe in the truths which the HCC has always taught, because of the brainwashing of the truth by historians and present day media, but the fact that there are so many protestants on this forum is testament: they have no where else to go for truth. It is up to us to present the truth and stick up for it.

I myself, although a cradle Catholic, have found myself researching things I believe in by faith. This thread alone has deepened my faith, my love for Jesus, and my respect for the truths and values of our HCC.

What is this thread about?

 

[Michael_Francis]

Please remain on the topic, “What Really Caused the Reformation?” and remain charitable. If you think that what you are about to say might be offensive, rephrase it in better terms.
MF

 

[Ani_Ibi]

… the fact that there are so many protestants on this forum is testament: they have no where else to go for truth. It is up to us to present the truth and stick up for it…

OK. I’m on it.

 

[Salamander]

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

Thank you.

Try this link:

bible.ca/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/search4/?pr=default&order=r&query=reformation&cq=

 

[Salamander]

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.

It’s interesting how you take a portion of the quote and only comment on that which will bring about an argument? I took the whole quote to mean that the Reformation, even in its birth and trial, still pales in comparison to the Truth of God’s Word. No religion is safe for it must still pass the test of Christ’s doctrine. II John 1:9 “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.” Amen I wonder where they got the idea to persecute people to bring them into their beliefs?? mmmmmmm

 

[Ilroy]

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

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”.
Well, if this is the case, then you probably hsould not ask ANYONE else to pray for you or your intentions…that would be putting them above Christ. Your argument holds no ground.

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.
Another gross misunderstanding you have here. Christ was not assumed into Heaven, He ascended into Heaven by His own power. He is God after all. I will believe the Church which was established by Christ almost 2000 years ago, which was promised by Christ that He would never leave it, which was promised by Christ that even the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

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

Not offended at all. Just trying to give you a bit of insight into your misunderstandings and show where your personal and fallible opinions don’t hold up.

 

[Dulcimer]

You could say it’s about defending protestors against the big bad HCC, but the bigger picture tells me that people are seeking the Truth. It’s hard for protestants to come around and believe in the truths which the HCC has always taught, because of the brainwashing of the truth by historians and present day media, but the fact that there are so many protestants on this forum is testament: they have no where else to go for truth. It is up to us to present the truth and stick up for it.

I myself, although a cradle Catholic, have found myself researching things I believe in by faith. This thread alone has deepened my faith, my love for Jesus, and my respect for the truths and values of our HCC.

Um, no disrespect or nothin’…but I came here by happy accident, looking for an article written elsewhere on the internet.

So far, I’ve stayed, because the level of discourse is far above what I’m used to on other forums (my favorite of which has lately descended so low that the typical posting consists of a pornographic picture and sophomoric snickering.)

I’m not “hungry for truth and you’re the only game in town”; I love the truth, and respect it where I find it…and insofar as you speak the truth, I will love you too…But let’s not be condescending to all the protestants here, stating that they have nothing better to do and nowhere better to go; you will not win them by talking down to them…

 

[Dulcimer]

RE: Having Mary intercede for you:

Well, if this is the case, then you probably hsould not ask ANYONE else to pray for you or your intentions…that would be putting them above Christ. Your argument holds no ground.

Do you or do you not pray directly TO Mary? My Catholic friends do. Are you different? Praying TO Mary on my behalf, and asking my friends to pray TO God/Jesus on my behalf is not the same thing, and you know it!

RE: The Assumption of Mary:

Another gross misunderstanding you have here. Christ was not assumed into Heaven, He ascended into Heaven by His own power. He is God after all. I will believe the Church which was established by Christ almost 2000 years ago, which was promised by Christ that He would never leave it, which was promised by Christ that even the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

Forgive my mis-writing it. (It’s the doctrine that she was “assumed” at all that disturbs me.) Who among the early church fathers taught this? NAMES please…DATES please. There have been 2 other people recorded in Scripture as being taken bodily to heavan without dying: Enoch, Elijah; so it’s possible, but why isn’t it recorded in Acts? Or any of Paul’s letters? Peters? James? John? Surely John would have written of it!

And her sinless birth? (Were her parents likewise sinless?) How can this be when Scripture teaches that we are ALL born into sin? ALL of us? And Mary herself–in the Magnificat–exults in “God MY SAVIOUR”…if she’s sinless, why does she need a saviour?

sigh

Again, I quote C.S. Lewis: The Catholics venerate her too much, the Protestants too little. Everyone will surely call her blessed, but that doesn’t mean I will pray TO her, or believe things about her that aren’t substantiated by Scripture.