Where did reformers get the authority to leave the Catholic Church?

[GKC]

My main point there was that yes, Henry considered himself a Catholic, and took steps to ensure the Catholicity of the CoE, esp. considering the Six Articles. But that he was not above using religion as a bargaining tool, and during his reign played footies with Lutheran and other reformed entities, as bargaining chips. And his last wife mellowed the old rogue not a little, toward the reformists. It was Edward’s protectorate that slammed things over toward the true reformed side.

As to Henry’s title. To my consternation, I can;t locate the longer, more complete account, only this shorter one. THe other was better. Still this may do. Here is me:

Henry like sparklies. Was always on the look-out for a new and nifty title, or gee-gaw to add to his collection. In 1512, he petitioned Julius II to award him the title possessed by Louis XII, “Most Christian King” (you didn’t just call yourself something like that; it was awarded). Not sure if “Most Christian” was a zero sum title, but Julius did award it to Henry, and, for good measure, secretly gave him the French throne. All he had to do to claim it was to defeat Louis in the then on-going unpleasantness between the Holy League and France. That part never happened, though Henry tried, after Ferdinand of Spain finked out on him. But Henry got his “Christianissimus”.

In 1515, Henry wanted something else to pad his resume. Various ideas were passed around: “Protector of the Holy See”, maybe “Defender”, from the English side. The first was turned down because it already belonged to the Holy Roman Emperor, the second was the property of the Swiss. Some in Rome countered with “King Apostolic” (interesting combination) or “Orthodox”. The Pope vetoed both. In 1516, the title of “Defender of the Faith” was proposed from England. Leo ignored it, and Henry pouted.

Henry gave up until May, 1521, when Wolsey wrote once again to Rome, asking for a pretty for Henry. Leo passed it to a committee of Cardinals. Forthcoming were suggestions:

“*Rex Fidelis”, "“Orthodoxus”, “Ecclesiaticus” ,
“Protector”, “Anglicus” *

When the Cardinals inquired just why Henry warranted another honor, the part he had played fighting for the Holy See against Louis, 9 years before, was mentioned. And there was the Assertio, of which Rome had heard (it was in draft in May 1521, printed in July, sent to Rome in September, after the Cardinals had been considering the matter for a few months. So, before the *Assertio *was received and presented to Leo, a list of titles for Henry to choose from was shipped to England.

The Assertio probably tipped the scales. About the time it was presented to Leo, Henry chose the same title that had been suggested by England 6 years before: *Defensor Fidei *. Leo granted it six weeks after he received the book. Doubtless directly inspired by the Assertio, some cardinals then wanted to add a flourish such as Gloriosus or Fidelissimus, but Leo vetoed it.

So Henry got his sparklie, partially because of the Assertio, partially because of the Holy League, partially because he was a pain in the neck. It was intended as a title for him personally, though he thought it was hereditary. Parliament thought it looked nice, and attached it to the Throne, in 1543. Mary took it off, Elizabeth put it back, and it’s there now by legislative fiat.

I like my other version better, but there it is.

Yep. Wales said that, he did. Since the title is now really a Parliamentary gift, they could make it “Defender of the Faithless” if they wish.

GKC

Feel free to enlarge.

Indeed. Of course, at the time, the only Authority for all practical purposes was Henry himself.

I can’t recall how long ago it was but I seem to remember Prince Charles suggesting that it ought to be rendered in English simply as Defender of Faith presumably because he held the idea that no faith should seem superior to another and that provided you’ve got faith (in something or other) you were OK as far as he was concerned. Do you recall that?

Please do copy and paste one of your recitations. It would still be on topic.

Expectantly,
Mick

 

[VivienneJ]

As to Henry’s title. To my consternation, I can;t locate the longer, more complete account, only this shorter one. THe other was better. Still this may do. Here is me:

So Henry got his sparklie, partially because of the Assertio, partially because of the Holy League, partially because he was a pain in the neck. It was intended as a title for him personally, though he thought it was hereditary. Parliament thought it looked nice, and attached it to the Throne, in 1543. Mary took it off, Elizabeth put it back, and it’s there now by legislative fiat.

I like my other version better, but there it is.

GKC

I’ve liberally chopped bits out (go and read GKC’s post), but that was really interesting. Henry was such a vibrant character. Some I remember from my High School history lessons, even though they were taught in a Catholic school Henry (and the ‘true’ reformers) were presented in a very balanced way.

 

[GKC]

I’ve liberally chopped bits out (go and read GKC’s post), but that was really interesting. Henry was such a vibrant character. Some I remember from my High School history lessons, even though they were taught in a Catholic school Henry (and the ‘true’ reformers) were presented in a very balanced way.

Hank was a fascinating train wreck.

GKC

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t think Martin Luther made a decision to leave Catholicism, did he? Didn’t he get thrown out?

Historically,
Mick

No, he started the Lutheran church in 1517; he was not excommunicated until 1524.

 

[JonNC]

No, he started the Lutheran church in 1517; he was not excommunicated until 1524.

It was in 1521 that he was excommunicated. I don’t see how nailing points of discussion on a Church door, at a university where it was common practice, no less, was equal to starting a church? I hear him criticized for not sticking with the Church, to reform from within in. Oct. 31, 1517 was exactly that - an attempt to reform from within.

Jon

 

[Dettingen]

Responding to OP:

Perhaps the leaders of the Reformation might argue that having permitted the spread of corruption ‘the Church’ (RCC) had abdicated its right to leadership in Christendom.

Consequently, it became necessary for believers to separate themselves from the RCC and establish communities of their own.

Pax,

Dettingen

 

[VivienneJ]

Hank was a fascinating train wreck.

GKC

You said that, not me!

 

[GKC]

You said that, not me!

I say it often. He is a hobby of mine.

I got lots of hobbies.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I suppose one could ask, “Where did the colonies get the authority to break off from Great Britain?” Well, they didn’t. But they saw an unjust, tyrannical power and opposed it. Most Americans would agree that it was a good move.

Some at least of us would disagree . If it’s permissible to break away from a mother-country - why is it wrong to break away from “an unjust, tyrannical power” when that power is a Church ? Yet Rome says it is a mortal sin to do so. Even if one joins another Church ​

 

[Hesychios]

Where did reformers get the authority to leave the Catholic Church?

I actually ask this a lot in my USATODAY forum postings and never get an answer. …

This type of put-down bait thread is not helpful. It does not bring us together, it tears us apart.

Besides, the issue is a bit more complex than can be addressed in single posts. I for one do not believe that the initial group of reformers was actually striving to erect new church structures, they were mostly Catholic priests who cared about the condition of their church and the spiritual well-being of their flock.

The fact that the church fractured under the strain is sad indeed, but once a person is excommunicated over matters of deep concern I don’t think we can reasonably expect them to cease worshiping God.

Obviously the Medici Popes lacked the moral capital they should have had to make these people fear for their souls in losing communion with them. In other words, these men did not see anything in Rome to make them feel that taking their chances without a Pope was more spiritually dangerous than taking their chances with him.

 

[benidict]

My view is the choice regarding the reformers to leave Catholicism was similar to me and why I left Catholicism — for me, characteristics such as revelation is missing.

When will Catholicism recognize the defects in your foundation? My guess, never because your claim to being the true church of Christ, is you profess it is, it spite of the defects, at least in my view.

Personally, the reformers saw the defects at the time resulting in their decision to leave Catholicism.

unfortunatly my friend the same could be said of the mormons. when are the mormons going to recognize the defects in their foundation? i understand we cannot look at the mormons in the same light as we would their founders. the Church of Latter Day Saints does do alot of good. but there are serious problems with its history that are swept under the rug by its leadership. also there are serious defects in the area of evidence. if the Book of Mormon was true. there should be a large amount of archiological evidence in the americas to back it up. lot of good things in this book, as far as lessons that are taught in it. hope all is well with you. ive conversed with you before. i do respect your beliefs, i just wish your leadership was more candid and forthcoming about the defects of mormonism.

 

[Nominefili]

Some at least of us would disagree . If it’s permissible to break away from a mother-country - why is it wrong to break away from “an unjust, tyrannical power” when that power is a Church ? Yet Rome says it is a mortal sin to do so. Even if one joins another Church ​

That’s exactly what I was trying to say. I think you misread my post. I’m a Lutheran lol.

 

[Eileen_T]

This type of put-down bait thread is not helpful. It does not bring us together, it tears us apart.

Besides, the issue is a bit more complex than can be addressed in single posts. I for one do not believe that the initial group of reformers was actually striving to erect new church structures, they were mostly Catholic priests who cared about the condition of their church and the spiritual well-being of their flock.

There were other reformers at the same time who ‘cared about the condition of their church and the spiritual well-being of their flock’. They remained within the Church, reformed from within. The difference was that they kept the vows of obedience they had made on the day of their ordination:
St. Ignatius
St. Philip Neri
St. Vincent de Paul
St. Gaetano
St. Pius V
Pope Gregory XIII
Pope Sixtus V

The Protestant Reformers, on the other hand, broke that vow, they one they made to God. “Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain.” They were oath-breakers.

The fact that the church fractured under the strain is sad indeed, but once a person is excommunicated over matters of deep concern I don’t think we can reasonably expect them to cease worshiping God.

John 17:20-23 *"And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;

That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one: I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me." *

Jesus prayed for the Unity of His Church. That Unity is sadly lacking today.

Matthew 7: 21-27 *“Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock.
And every one that heareth these my words, and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand, And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof.” *

Obviously the Medici Popes lacked the moral capital they should have had to make these people fear for their souls in losing communion with them. In other words, these men did not see anything in Rome to make them feel that taking their chances without a Pope was more spiritually dangerous than taking their chances with him.

Matthew 16:18-19* “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” *Satan has hurled everything in his arsenal against the Church over most of two millennia and we are still waging the war. Yet in all that time he and his minions have never managed to succeed in destroying the Church, not even from within, as with the immoral and corrupt popes and hierarchy we have had at times over the years.

In fact, the Church managed to survive in spite of them and, not only recovered from them, it has surged forward. The problems facing the Church in this time, the scandals of the, mostly, homosexual priests preying on adolescents, is part of that satanic attempt to destroy it. Yet we still have devout young men seeking the priesthood, and in most cases they are conservative in their beliefs with a deep obedience to Church Teaching.

These priests are the new reformers. And they are facing persecution, like non-Catholics would not believe or understand, for being true to the Teachings of Christ - from their fellow priests, and in many cases their Bishops.

If the Catholic Church goes down, after surviving for nearly 2000 years, how long will it take for those of a shorter duration take to fall? But Jesus assured Peter that it would not fail.

My belief is that it will turn a full cycle and have to go underground once again. Those who are lukewarm will fall by the wayside and the remainder will face martyrdom. Five years ago someone said that over 400 protestant ministers every year become Catholics. This is part of the cycle. In the 17th century Catholic priests became Protestants, now they are coming back. And they are bringing their deep love and faith in Scripture to enrich the Church once again.

God is Great!

 

[VARC]

There were other reformers at the same time who ‘cared about the condition of their church and the spiritual well-being of their flock’. They remained within the Church, reformed from within. The difference was that they kept the vows of obedience they had made on the day of their ordination:
St. Ignatius
St. Philip Neri
St. Vincent de Paul
St. Gaetano
St. Pius V
Pope Gregory XIII
Pope Sixtus V

The Protestant Reformers, on the other hand, broke that vow, they one they made to God. “Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain.” They were oath-breakers.
John 17:20-23 *"And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;

That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one: I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me." *

Jesus prayed for the Unity of His Church. That Unity is sadly lacking today.

Matthew 7: 21-27 “Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock.
And every one that heareth these my words, and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand, And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof.” *
Matthew 16:18-19 “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” *Satan has hurled everything in his arsenal against the Church over most of two millennia and we are still waging the war. Yet in all that time he and his minions have never managed to succeed in destroying the Church, not even from within, as with the immoral and corrupt popes and hierarchy we have had at times over the years.

In fact, the Church managed to survive in spite of them and, not only recovered from them, it has surged forward. The problems facing the Church in this time, the scandals of the, mostly, homosexual priests preying on adolescents, is part of that satanic attempt to destroy it. Yet we still have devout young men seeking the priesthood, and in most cases they are conservative in their beliefs with a deep obedience to Church Teaching.

These priests are the new reformers. And they are facing persecution, like non-Catholics would not believe or understand, for being true to the Teachings of Christ - from their fellow priests, and in many cases their Bishops.

If the Catholic Church goes down, after surviving for nearly 2000 years, how long will it take for those of a shorter duration take to fall? But Jesus assured Peter that it would not fail.

My belief is that it will turn a full cycle and have to go underground once again. Those who are lukewarm will fall by the wayside and the remainder will face martyrdom. Five years ago someone said that over 400 protestant ministers every year become Catholics. This is part of the cycle. In the 17th century Catholic priests became Protestants, now they are coming back. And they are bringing their deep love and faith in Scripture to enrich the Church once again.

God is Great!

Don’t you think its a bit ridiculous to include the last three “reformers” on your list being that they are popes? Do you think that it was possible to schism away from themselves

 

[Hesychios]

There were other reformers at the same time who ‘cared about the condition of their church and the spiritual well-being of their flock’. They remained within the Church, reformed from within. The difference was that they kept the vows of obedience they had made on the day of their ordination:
St. Ignatius
St. Philip Neri
St. Vincent de Paul
St. Gaetano
St. Pius V
Pope Gregory XIII
Pope Sixtus V

The Protestant Reformers, on the other hand, broke that vow, they one they made to God. “Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain.” They were oath-breakers.

Of those you list here, only one worked in the time of the Medici Popes: Saint Ignatius Loyola who founded a religious order that was eventually banned from every Catholic nation and empire. I am not sure that he was ordained. The rest were much later, when the church was on the road to recovery and seriously trying to undo the damage of the past.

I do not see that this initial generation of reformers were oath breakers. I am sure they did not see themselves as such. They were handled pretty poorly by a church which wanted to make them shut up rather than address the problems.

What needed to happen was the church deposing corrupt and sinful ecclesiastics. They could have asked the Pope to resign for the good of the church. That apparently did not happen, and the Lateran Council (the last honest attempt at reform before the disaster) became a wallpaper job over the real problems and things continued to get worse. The system is so arranged that it is not actually possible to reform the church if the leadership is unwilling, so reformers are persecuted for being… essentially whistle-blowers.

There is plenty enough blame to go around. Simply putting it all upon the shoulders of the reformers supposed disloyalty does not address the problem, it covers it up, and unless we can be honest about the whole affair we will not see healing any time soon.

 

[VARC]

There is plenty enough blame to go around. Simply putting it all upon the shoulders of the reformers supposed disloyalty does not address the problem, it covers it up, and unless we can be honest about the whole affair we will not see healing any time soon.

Those who post such vitriol aren’t interested in healing only aggression.

 

[Catholic29]

I just don’t get why more and more people keep responding in this thread, its abundantly apparent that its going nowhere good fast, at least thats how I see things shaping up here…

 

[Hisalone]

Those who post such vitriol aren’t interested in healing only aggression.

What are you seeing that I dont?

BTW the OP is ridiculous

 

[GKC]

I just don’t get why more and more people keep responding in this thread, its abundantly apparent that its going nowhere good fast, at least thats how I see things shaping up here…

I dunno. I enjoyed my parts.

GKC

 

[Bluegoat]

Re the thread title:

Much of the main point of the Reformation,just as the main point of the Great Schism, was what kind of authority the Pope and Rome actually have, and what exactly the Church is. To say “the Reformers didn’t have the authority to decide the Pope didn’t have the authority he said he had” is a bit of a silly argument. It depends on accepting the outcome of point under discussion.