Why did the Protestant Reformation happen?

[Novocastrian]

It was also AFTER delegations and efforts at dialogue and serious discussions on the appropriateness and need of violence.

It is only the madness of 1960’s militant feminists who ignore the history of attempted resolution and blame the victims of groups and their gender because they are/were attacked by groups such as the present day ISIS.

Thank God the insane feminists have never been in charge of civilisation. It never would have survived.

I think the militant feminist movement is a special kind of madness. They have tried very hard to describe history and reality not as it was and is, but how they would have liked it to have been so as to use it as justification for their own destructive doctrines.

The bits I’ve quoted here are quite impressively disjointed from reality. You don’t appear to offer any actual arguments for your bold assertions; the end result is that it appears that you understand neither history nor feminism.

I say that as someone who spends his time doing history, and not being particularly strident a feminist…

 

[spina1953]

One reason as to why Luther choose to do as he did was due to his overwhelming desire to find a way to overcome his morbid thinking that somehow that no matter what he did that he was never going to be saved. It was only when he interpreted Romans that he decided that he was saved by faith alone and nothing else and that the Church had it wrong all along. Once that was settled in his mind he then decided to question the doctrines of the CC as well as the Book of the Bible. Luther thought at least at first that private interpretation was the answer and that every man had the right to and should be able to interpret Scripture as he thought fit. This in turn opened the door so to speak that allowed others to question the CC and the doctrines etc which has led to competing denominations within the Protestant churches.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Why did the Protestant Reformation happen? Could the Reformation and the negative ramifications that came for it (bloodshed, massacre of Catholics in Protestant countries, international warfare, discrimination of Catholics, etc. )have been prevented?

The reformation was just the drop that spilled the cup.

It was coming after the Papal Schism (1370’s to 1410’s), the Hussite Wars (1420’s), and all the political implications that took advantage of the situation. It didn’t help that Luther was ignored for so long either.

In a nutshell

 

[spina1953]

The reformation was just the drop that spilled the cup.

It was coming after the Papal Schism (1370’s to 1410’s), the Hussite Wars (1420’s), and all the political implications that took advantage of the situation. It didn’t help that Luther was ignored for so long either.

In a nutshell

Hi Isaiah 45: I have to agree with you on what you have said as it is one of the reasons as to why the reformation was so successful.

 

[whoisdiss]

Luther always had a problem with how the church taught in attaining salvation. He always found himself in mortal sin and having to go to confession constantly. He hated it. He came up with his own theology of justification so he wouldn’t have to worry. This was one reason why Martin Luther sparked the Reformation.

Another reason of Martin Luther’s Reformation is because of the massive corruption within the church at the time. This I might have to agree with him on. Corrupt Priest would go around and SELL indulgences! They would threaten people with the fire of Purgatory to get them to buy one. Bishops were also paying prostitutes to have sexual intercourse with them. When Luther was in Rome, he saw massive corruption of the population everywhere he went, and the church did NOTHING about it.

Luther’s 95 theses were mainly a challenge to indulgences, not a challenge to Purgatory itself. Luther saw how his theses had sparked a huge uproar in the population. He took advantage of this to form a new theology, especially on the theology of justification for, like I said, to have himself not worrying anymore about mortal sins and confession. Luther, believe it or not, did not abandon many Catholic doctrines until the end of his life. This included the position of the Pope and Purgatory. He had viewed the Pope of his time as the Antichrist, but he had never denied that Jesus gave Peters the keys to heaven and set up a pontiff. He only came to deny this at the end of his life.

Could it have been prevented? Probably not, corruption was wide spread century’s before Martin Luther even came into existence, and he himself was always worried about his own justification. So much, that he had to form a new theology. It probably could not have been prevented, unless somehow he was convinced by a theologian in that day his views were wrong. Although, many of his followers would have still took up his cause.

---

God bless!

 

[badnewsbarrett]

There were some unique characteristics of the Reformation that caused it to differ from religious conflict and church/state power struggles in other parts of the world throughout history. Let’s take a quick look at England and the Holy Roman Empire and ask a couple of penetrating questions.

First, England. King Henry VIII, his marriage/lineage needs, and the monarchs who followed him (culminating with Queen Elizabeth I, who made these leadership changes permanent if I’m not mistaken). We talk so much about these monarchs, and rightly so, they are important. The secular rulers of this island nation declared themselves the head of its national church. But here is a penetrating question- what of the archbishop of Canterbury? First, just to start with, what was the name of the man holding that position when King Henry VIII did what he did? Second, what did he do in response to that? It seems like he must have gone along with it and given his allegiance to the king as the head of his church, yes? And third, what of the archbishops who came after that? How is it that they came to serve at the pleasure of their king, the head of their church?

Now, the HRE. Here, we’re looking at a collection of Electors General battling over the right to determine if they can personally determine the specific type of Christianity that will be practiced under their rule, and there’s a Holy Roman Emperor (not a religious leader, but a secular one) who’s trying to keep everyone in line with what he decides will happen. Again, the status quo is one in which the Holy Roman Emperor (not a religious leader!) determines what specific religion will be practiced in the, um, Holy Roman Empire. Not so holy, not really Roman at all (actual Romans called them barbarians at one time), and not an empire in any useful sense of the word. But yeah. Now for the penetrating questions.
How is it that the Holy Roman Emperor became so consequential in determining what religion would be universally practiced anyway? What happened with/to the bishops in the various kingdoms affected by Electors General that were Protestant? Did they also become Protestant? Did they suddenly belong to a church in which the head of it was basically a secular ruler? Why is it that secular rulers played such a role in determining what religion would be practiced- and how is it that they were even able to influence bishops, archbishops, and other religious leaders in that regard?

This sort of power struggle between church and state is hardly unique to England and Germany. But I would argue that Rome’s uniquely rigid and vertical hierarchy made it possible for the Reformation to happen to it, while it did not happen to any other ancient apostolic church in the history of Christianity ever ever ever. Imagine a pyramid, with just one man at the very top. Bishops, archbishops, cardinals and so forth are all beneath him. Also beneath him are kings, emperors, and other rulers. In practice, and especially at this point in history, secular rulers were just about as important to the universality of Christianity as were the religious leaders. These secular rulers also had a natural inclination to want more power and try to climb as high on the “power pyramid” as possible. But the top, singular spot was held by just one man. So what do you do? Find a way to start a new pyramid. Retain some continuity with the old pyramid but also start a new one where you can be at the very tippy top.

So how is this different from Other Ancient Apostolic Churches? Well, they don’t really have just one person at the top, and there’s not really one single pyramid of power. There are multiple pyramids with leaders that are very limited in their direct influence on other pyramids, but at the end of the day you have multiple top-dwellers who convene at the same level and form an overall-top-level where many leaders share the top level. According to this less-rigidly-vertical way of thinking, when it comes to the Christian power structure, the top level of God’s pyramid is supposed to have a bunch of people there. They need each other. They can’t do it alone. They Need Each Other. This is right, this is good, this turns out well. If you find yourself all alone at the tippy-top of your power pyramid, that is wrong. It’s not the way it’s supposed to be. You’ve forgotten that you don’t just need a lot of people below you- you also Need people at your same level. If you forget that and go it alone…It’s not going to turn out well for you. When corruption and power struggles have happened in non-Roman parts of the Church, I would argue that this supposition, as much as anything else, pulled the sometimes-broken parts away from their temporary trials and drew these people back into a more conciliar model that placed a lot more than one person at the highest level of power. I would further argue that the history of the Reformation in Europe and around the world speaks extra loud to the eventual results of insisting on placing one man at the top level of your power pyramid. Once again, this never happened to anyone else- just to Rome. It didn’t really happen in Rome itself, of course, but it happened to Rome. It happened to the man who sat alone at the top of a power pyramid. And it happened because some people thought that setup was best. They were wrong.

To answer your question, was the Reformation inevitable? Based on the historical witness of apostolic Christianity that is Not specifically united to Rome- it clearly didn’t have to happen to any of those guys. But when you try to operate in multiple places well outside your own country and preside over a truly global church while occupying a place at the top of the pyramid all by your lonesome- yes, this is bound to happen at some point, such a lonely position at the top of a pyramid this widespread is not even remotely tenable. And all of this happened while Roman Catholicism was still largely confined to Europe.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Luther always had a problem with how the church taught in attaining salvation. He always found himself in mortal sin and having to go to confession constantly. He hated it. He came up with his own theology of justification so he wouldn’t have to worry. This was one reason why Martin Luther sparked the Reformation.

Another reason of Martin Luther’s Reformation is because of the massive corruption within the church at the time. This I might have to agree with him on. Corrupt Priest would go around and SELL indulgences! They would threaten people with the fire of Purgatory to get them to buy one. Bishops were also paying prostitutes to have sexual intercourse with them. When Luther was in Rome, he saw massive corruption of the population everywhere he went, and the church did NOTHING about it.

Luther’s 95 theses were mainly a challenge to indulgences, not a challenge to Purgatory itself. Luther saw how his theses had sparked a huge uproar in the population. He took advantage of this to form a new theology, especially on the theology of justification for, like I said, to have himself not worrying anymore about mortal sins and confession. Luther, believe it or not, did not abandon many Catholic doctrines until the end of his life. This included the position of the Pope and Purgatory. He had viewed the Pope of his time as the Antichrist, but he had never denied that Jesus gave Peters the keys to heaven and set up a pontiff. He only came to deny this at the end of his life.

Could it have been prevented? Probably not, corruption was wide spread century’s before Martin Luther even came into existence, and he himself was always worried about his own justification. So much, that he had to form a new theology. It probably could not have been prevented, unless somehow he was convinced by a theologian in that day his views were wrong. Although, many of his followers would have still took up his cause.

---

God bless!

The Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, signed by both Catholic and Lutherans, proclaims Luther’s understanding as correct.

 

[Per_Crucem]

The reformation was just the drop that spilled the cup.

It was coming after the Papal Schism (1370’s to 1410’s), the Hussite Wars (1420’s), and all the political implications that took advantage of the situation. It didn’t help that Luther was ignored for so long either.

In a nutshell

Or the influence of the dispute between the conciliarists and the supporters of the Papacy as supreme authority in the church.

 

[GKC]

The Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, signed by both Catholic and Lutherans, proclaims Luther’s understanding as correct.

But I do not think it is a defined teaching of the RCC that Luther’s understanding was correct.

No reply needed, of course.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

The Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, signed by both Catholic and Lutherans, proclaims Luther’s understanding as correct.

Could you be more specific and point to where exactly it says this? This seems like a bit of an overstatement.

Although I continue to be frustrated with the way most responders on this thread ignore or dismiss (as simply the result of Luther’s personal hangups) the substantive doctrinal convictions that the early Protestants themselves thought were at the heart of their movement.

But what would they know? They were just ignorant people in the sixteenth century with the sole advantage of actually being there on the spot. . . .

Edwin

 

[pablope]

Or the influence of the dispute between the conciliarists and the supporters of the Papacy as supreme authority in the church.

How did this have anything to do with the Reformation?

So you are trying to rationalize the Reformation as mainly the fault of papists?

 

[Atisor207]

The Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, signed by both Catholic and Lutherans, proclaims Luther’s understanding as correct.

I think that you got it backwards. I view the latest ecumenical documents signed as protestants reflecting on how sola fide is not a one time thing but rather a living constant faith…

Here is something that might clear up your confusion as to Luther being correct

"First, Pope Benedict states there are several reasons that we cannot merit heaven. Most obviously, our Redemption by the blood of Christ is a pure gift. Moreover, and in some sense more astoundingly, heaven is a communion with God who is love (1 Jn 4:8), and a relationship of love is initiated by a free gift. If such a relationship is with the infinite, all holy God, how much more is this initiative free! So, too, any merit depends on God’s promise, though God’s promise does not exclude all merit. Finally, the reward of the just exceeds actual merit, as divine mercy tempers divine justice (Wis 11:23, Rom 8:18). Pope Benedict has these reasons and others in mind in his statement. He does not intend to deny Trent’s teaching. He does, however, put this teaching in context—in the context of personal love. We are dealing, after all, with a love story, with a Father who sent his only Son out of love for the godless.

Second, there is a reason that Pope Benedict teaches that faith alone suffices and that it always comes with charity. He means, by “true faith,” a living faith. Now, living faith by dogmatic definition includes charity, for divine faith without hope and charity does not avail (1 Cor 13:2, 1 Jn 3:14). Charity is not first a “work.” It is first of all a divine gift of love that comes down from the Father (Jas 1:17) through the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5). It is by this gift of divine love that faith can realize itself in good works (Gal 5:6). Pope Benedict teaches this very thing: Charity is the soul or form of faith (Audience, Nov. 19).

Calling to mind charity as a gift, an infused virtue (not first a work), supports the truth of James’ analogy: Works are to faith as the soul is to the body (Jas 2:26). James’ Epistle would devolve into moralism and contradict Paul (see Rom 10:1-4; Phil 3:8ff; Audience Nov. 26), if it meant that merely human works are added to a dead faith to resuscitate a dead corpse. Not at all! It is living faith that realizes itself through good works, that produces good works. But I might not have opportunity to perform a work, to “realize” this living faith. Am I not saved, if I die in such circumstances? No, I am saved! Therefore, having formed faith is sufficient for salvation. This is what Pope Benedict means. Further, as he also expressly states, living faith itself will surely die if it is not expressed in concrete works, if I am capable of action and the opportunity presents itself.

Third, good works testify to justification, for they are signs of a justification already received. They are signs of gratitude for the gift already given, promised in earnest. Luther said the same thing, as did St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic saints.

Of course, more must be said—and the pope says more: “Salvation received in Christ needs to be preserved and witnessed to” (Nov. 26). This is what Trent teaches (Trent, VI, canon 24). Moreover, the pope indicates a progressive growth in communion with Christ, a progressive conformity to his life (Nov. 19). Since communion with Christ is established through faith and constitutes the essence of our “being justified,” the pope is teaching here another truth of Catholic faith—that, once justified, the Christian can surrender to God and so be increasingly sanctified unto eternal life (Rom 6:15-23). In purgatory, those who die with imperfect charity are thoroughly sanctified (see Spe Salvi, 45ff).

Finally, we must heed something not yet mentioned—the pope’s focus on the final judgment: “This idea of the Last Judgment must illumine us in our daily lives” (Nov. 26). What is the basis upon which we will be judged? The “sole criterion is love” (Nov. 19; see also, Nov. 26). Hence, “At the end of this Gospel [Mt 25], we can say: love alone, charity alone” (Nov. 19). Here, the pope is showing his deeply Augustinian character (see Augustine, De Trinitate, XV:18:32).

Love of God and neighbor is a matter of life and death (Dt 30; John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, 12), for even though a person has divine faith as a free commitment to Christ, if he has not charity—and the deeds of charity where need requires and capacity exists—he cannot be saved (Mt 7:22ff; Jn 15:2; 1 Cor 6:9-11; Gal 5:19-21; Jas 2:17; Veritatis Splendor, 68)."

Let us not forget that Luther said he could murder and still be saved. In other words, according to us, violating God’s law would result in a loss of faith, grace, thus salvation.

 

[pablope]

Excerpts here point to the reasons as none other than the brilliant Archbishop Charles Chaput observes.

December 19, 2012
What the Reformation has Wrought
by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap
C
‘The Reformation has led, by gradual, indirect, and never-intended steps, to what Gregory calls the “Kingdom of Whatever.” It’s a world of hyperpluralism, where meaning is self-invented by millions, and therefore society as a whole starves for meaning.’
crisismagazine.com/2012/what-the-reformation-has-wrought

Thanks for the article.

This is recommended too:

ignatiusinsight.com/features/mbrumley_bouyer1_nov04.asp

 

[Per_Crucem]

How did this have anything to do with the Reformation?

So you are trying to rationalize the Reformation as mainly the fault of papists?

Nope. Just acknowledging historical facts. I know those can be pesky sometimes, especially for all sorts of apologists. Most of the arguments, however, from the reform side during the 16th century, were the same arguments put forward by the conciliarist movement within the Western church (when it came to criticizing the papacy).

 

[Contarini]

How did this have anything to do with the Reformation?

It had a great deal to do with the Reformation. There was a crisis of authority in the late medieval Church. Papal authority was exalted by “canonists” who worked for the papal curia and were not highly respected throughout the Church. Conciliarism was still an idea with a lot of traction. It became clear pretty quickly (most notably in 1519) that Luther was not an orthodox conciliarist (perhaps it took Leipzig 1519 to make this clear to Luther himself), but the Protestants certainly had a lot more credibility than they otherwise would have done because there was a genuine debate about where authority was located within the Church.

So you are trying to rationalize the Reformation as mainly the fault of papists?

Well, it couldn’t very well be anyone else’s fault, unless you are going to blame the Waldensians or the Hussites or the Eastern Churches. . . .

Edwin

 

[pablope]

Nope. Just acknowledging historical facts. I know those can be pesky sometimes, especially for all sorts of apologists. Most of the arguments, however, from the reform side during the 16th century, were the same arguments put forward by the conciliarist movement within the Western church (when it came to criticizing the papacy).

So it was about the Pope, it had nothing to do with reforming the Church corruption then?

 

[Per_Crucem]

So it was about the Pope, it had nothing to do with reforming the Church corruption then?

The entire historical event called the Reformation wasn’t about the Pope, no (not singularly). The issue that the reformers raised in regards to the doctrine of the papacy, however, was. In that respect, it was heavily influenced by conciliarism. As Contarini pointed to above, the fact that earlier Catholic movements had been borne out of disputes over the papacy gave an air of legitimacy to the reform critique of the role of the Pope, his authority, etc.

 

[spina1953]

I think that you got it backwards. I view the latest ecumenical documents signed as protestants reflecting on how sola fide is not a one time thing but rather a living constant faith…

Here is something that might clear up your confusion as to Luther being correct

"First, Pope Benedict states there are several reasons that we cannot merit heaven. Most obviously, our Redemption by the blood of Christ is a pure gift. Moreover, and in some sense more astoundingly, heaven is a communion with God who is love (1 Jn 4:8), and a relationship of love is initiated by a free gift. If such a relationship is with the infinite, all holy God, how much more is this initiative free! So, too, any merit depends on God’s promise, though God’s promise does not exclude all merit. Finally, the reward of the just exceeds actual merit, as divine mercy tempers divine justice (Wis 11:23, Rom 8:18). Pope Benedict has these reasons and others in mind in his statement. He does not intend to deny Trent’s teaching. He does, however, put this teaching in context—in the context of personal love. We are dealing, after all, with a love story, with a Father who sent his only Son out of love for the godless.

Second, there is a reason that Pope Benedict teaches that faith alone suffices and that it always comes with charity. He means, by “true faith,” a living faith. Now, living faith by dogmatic definition includes charity, for divine faith without hope and charity does not avail (1 Cor 13:2, 1 Jn 3:14). Charity is not first a “work.” It is first of all a divine gift of love that comes down from the Father (Jas 1:17) through the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5). It is by this gift of divine love that faith can realize itself in good works (Gal 5:6). Pope Benedict teaches this very thing: Charity is the soul or form of faith (Audience, Nov. 19).

Calling to mind charity as a gift, an infused virtue (not first a work), supports the truth of James’ analogy: Works are to faith as the soul is to the body (Jas 2:26). James’ Epistle would devolve into moralism and contradict Paul (see Rom 10:1-4; Phil 3:8ff; Audience Nov. 26), if it meant that merely human works are added to a dead faith to resuscitate a dead corpse. Not at all! It is living faith that realizes itself through good works, that produces good works. But I might not have opportunity to perform a work, to “realize” this living faith. Am I not saved, if I die in such circumstances? No, I am saved! Therefore, having formed faith is sufficient for salvation. This is what Pope Benedict means. Further, as he also expressly states, living faith itself will surely die if it is not expressed in concrete works, if I am capable of action and the opportunity presents itself.

Third, good works testify to justification, for they are signs of a justification already received. They are signs of gratitude for the gift already given, promised in earnest. Luther said the same thing, as did St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic saints.

Of course, more must be said—and the pope says more: “Salvation received in Christ needs to be preserved and witnessed to” (Nov. 26). This is what Trent teaches (Trent, VI, canon 24). Moreover, the pope indicates a progressive growth in communion with Christ, a progressive conformity to his life (Nov. 19). Since communion with Christ is established through faith and constitutes the essence of our “being justified,” the pope is teaching here another truth of Catholic faith—that, once justified, the Christian can surrender to God and so be increasingly sanctified unto eternal life (Rom 6:15-23). In purgatory, those who die with imperfect charity are thoroughly sanctified (see Spe Salvi, 45ff).

Finally, we must heed something not yet mentioned—the pope’s focus on the final judgment: “This idea of the Last Judgment must illumine us in our daily lives” (Nov. 26). What is the basis upon which we will be judged? The “sole criterion is love” (Nov. 19; see also, Nov. 26). Hence, “At the end of this Gospel [Mt 25], we can say: love alone, charity alone” (Nov. 19). Here, the pope is showing his deeply Augustinian character (see Augustine, De Trinitate, XV:18:32).

Love of God and neighbor is a matter of life and death (Dt 30; John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, 12), for even though a person has divine faith as a free commitment to Christ, if he has not charity—and the deeds of charity where need requires and capacity exists—he cannot be saved (Mt 7:22ff; Jn 15:2; 1 Cor 6:9-11; Gal 5:19-21; Jas 2:17; Veritatis Splendor, 68)."

Let us not forget that Luther said he could murder and still be saved. In other words, according to us, violating God’s law would result in a loss of faith, grace, thus salvation.

Very nice post!

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Atisor207

Appreciate your account of the document. Are you quoting directly from the JDDJ? The position of both Catholics and Lutherans is that justification before God was central to the Reformation. Here are a few quotes:

1. The Doctrine of Justification as Ecumenical Problem

13.Opposing interpretations and applications of the biblical message of justification were in the sixteenth century a principal cause of the division of the Western church and led as well to doctrinal condemnations. A common understanding of justification is therefore fundamental and indispensable to overcoming that division. By appropriating insights of recent biblical studies and drawing on modern investigations of the history of theology and dogma, the post-Vatican II ecumenical dialogue has led to a notable convergence concerning justification, with the result that this Joint Declaration is able to formulate a consensus on basic truths concerning the doctrine of justification. In light of this consensus, the corresponding doctrinal condemnations of the sixteenth century do not apply to today’s partner.

Because Catholics and Lutherans confess this together, it is true to say:

20.When Catholics say that persons “cooperate” in preparing for and accepting justification by consenting to God’s justifying action, they see such personal consent as itself an effect of grace, not as an action arising from innate human abilities.

21.According to Lutheran teaching, human beings are incapable of cooperating in their salvation, because as sinners they actively oppose God and his saving action. Lutherans do not deny that a person can reject the working of grace. When they emphasize that a person can only receive (mere passive) justification, they mean thereby to exclude any possibility of contributing to one’s own justification, but do not deny that believers are fully involved personally in their faith, which is effected by God’s Word. [cf. Sources for 4.1].

The Significance and Scope of the Consensus Reached

40.The understanding of the doctrine of justification set forth in this Declaration shows that a consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification exists between Lutherans and Catholics. In light of this consensus the remaining differences of language, theological elaboration, and emphasis in the understanding of justification described in paras. 18 to 39 are acceptable. Therefore the Lutheran and the Catholic explications of justification are in their difference open to one another and do not destroy the consensus regarding the basic truths.

41.Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they relate to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent. The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration.

42.Nothing is thereby taken away from the seriousness of the condemnations related to the doctrine of justification. Some were not simply pointless. They remain for us “salutary warnings” to which we must attend in our teaching and practice.[21]

43.Our consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification must come to influence the life and teachings of our churches. Here it must prove itself. In this respect, there are still questions of varying importance which need further clarification. These include, among other topics, the relationship between the Word of God and church doctrine, as well as ecclesiology, ecclesial authority, church unity, ministry, the sacraments, and the relation between justification and social ethics. We are convinced that the consensus we have reached offers a solid basis for this clarification. The Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church will continue to strive together to deepen this common understanding of justification and to make it bear fruit in the life and teaching of the churches.

44.We give thanks to the Lord for this decisive step forward on the way to overcoming the division of the church. We ask the Holy Spirit to lead us further toward that visible unity which is Christ’s will.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

The ramifications of this Catholic and Lutheran consensus are historical and point to eventual reunification of the Church.

 

[Contarini]

So it was about the Pope, it had nothing to do with reforming the Church corruption then?

It’s not an either/or. It was about a lot of things. But it wasn’t primarily about reforming church corruption, except in the sense that everyone agreed this needed to happen and so when the Protestants said, “the root of the problem is doctrinal,” they had considerable credibility.

But by the 1530s, as the Protestants had a chance to organize local churches long their own lines, it became clear that they had plenty of corruption problems of their own.

Edwin