Was the Reformation an Experiment gone wrong?

[Pfaffenhofen]

The thing is, that this internal reformation, beginning with Tridentinum, only came about as a reaction to the Reformation. The RCC saw that the "protestant" movements were gaining momentum, and that it needed to act.
In short: Without the Reformation forcing the RCC to deal with the various abuses that the reformers had pointed out, it's very doubtful we'd have had Tridentinum, and the subsequent councils that repaired some of the abuses and errors.

I often wonder what might have happened if it hadn't been cardinal de Medici that had won the papal election...if it'd been someone who actually cared about the affairs of church, rather than those of Italian politics.

Luther died in 1546.
Do you think that if Luther did not exist, if there was no Protestant Reformation, there would be no reform in the Roam Catholic Church from 1546 till 2012?

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Yes.

Unfortunately, that is what I think.
My next anguish is: "How to redo (correct) this mistake?" and i look around and I see no meaningful way back...or forward...

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

first thing you need to identify is who is the true leader of the church, Its Jesus Christ Himself! and secondly, who it is that Christ indentifies, as who His church is. Not one building will be used on the day of judgement to make this distinction, only people by themselves will be judged, nobody will stand with you, and declare "HE'S WITH US!" or "HE'S A MEMBER HERE!"

The Church is Jesus Christ. He is the Tree, we are the leaves. He used this metaphor in the Gospels. Without Him, we are zero.

I am talking not about what will happen in the next world but what is that Jesus Christ wants for THIS world. Jesus Christ has a Project for His Church in THIS world: "Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven".

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

That is what I always thought

The same question that I put to Unam Sanctam I put to you:

Luther died in 1546.
Do you think that if Luther did not exist, if there was no Protestant Reformation, there would be no reform in the Roam Catholic Church from 1546 till 2012?

 

[UnamSanctam]

Luther died in 1546.
Do you think that if Luther did not exist, if there was no Protestant Reformation, there would be no reform in the Roam Catholic Church from 1546 till 2012?

We have absolutely no way of knowing that.
It is, however, a good bet that some kind of reform would have happened, but we cannot know with any degree of certainty that it would have been reforms that would have addressed the problems the reformers pointed out. You cannot deny that the reforms starting with Tridentinum were direct results of the struggle against the various "protestant" factions. When Luther appeared on the scene, no one with the power to do anything about the problems seemed willing to. And those that were willing did not have the power.
Saying "it would all have gotten better anyway, regardless of what had happened" is...I'm sorry, but: Naïve.

 

[Rick Otto]

...funny typo: The Roaming Catholic Church.

 

[whitetiger1]

Luther died in 1546.
Do you think that if Luther did not exist, if there was no Protestant Reformation, there would be no reform in the Roam Catholic Church from 1546 till 2012?

I would say yes.

 

[WinBySurrender]

The Church is Jesus Christ. He is the Tree, we are the leaves. He used this metaphor in the Gospels. Without Him, we are zero.

I am talking not about what will happen in the next world but what is that Jesus Christ wants for THIS world. Jesus Christ has a Project for His Church in THIS world: "Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven".

No, we, the believers are the Church, the Body of Christ. The metaphor He used was Vine and branches, a fine point but a distinctive one nonetheless. As He told Peter, "On this rock I will build my church" and without getting into the meaning behind that statement, it is quite obvious He couldn't build something/Someone already "built."

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

We have absolutely no way of knowing that.
It is, however, a good bet that some kind of reform would have happened, but we cannot know with any degree of certainty that it would have been reforms that would have addressed the problems the reformers pointed out. You cannot deny that the reforms starting with Tridentinum were direct results of the struggle against the various "protestant" factions. When Luther appeared on the scene, no one with the power to do anything about the problems seemed willing to. And those that were willing did not have the power.
Saying "it would all have gotten better anyway, regardless of what had happened" is...I'm sorry, but: Naïve.

There is a way of knowing it.
From 313 aD till Reformation, there were no reforms? Was it all static? If there were no reforms, then afterwards there will be no reforms, if there were, obviously there will be.
Of course, I do not deny that the way to Trent was because of the Protestant Reformation. Denying it was to deny History. But listen: you reformed one way, we reformed another way. Which was the true reform wished by Jesus Christ?
Maybe I am naïve.
Listen: the biggest reform in modern times that shook the RCC, the Vatican II, was done without a yeast like Luther. It was raised by an ageing Pope, John XXIII, who died 2 years later and did not do much at the Council.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

...funny typo: The Roaming Catholic Church.

why "Roaming"?

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

No, we, the believers are the Church, the Body of Christ. The metaphor He used was Vine and branches, a fine point but a distinctive one nonetheless. As He told Peter, "On this rock I will build my church" and without getting into the meaning behind that statement, it is quite obvious He couldn't build something/Someone already "built."

Sorry, I could not follow your reasoning through the sentences.

 

[UnamSanctam]

There is a way of knowing it.
From 313 aD till Reformation, there were no reforms? Was it all static? If there were no reforms, then afterwards there will be no reforms, if there were, obviously there will be.

Non sequitur!

Of course, I do not deny that the way to Trent was because of the Protestant Reformation. Denying it was to deny History. But listen: you reformed one way, we reformed another way. Which was the true reform wished by Jesus Christ?

The one that brought some basic Christian truths back into the light, out from the shadows they'd been stuffed away in.

Maybe I am naïve.

Yes.

Listen: the biggest reform in modern times that shook the RCC, the Vatican II, was done without a yeast like Luther. It was raised by an ageing Pope, John XXIII, who died 2 years later and did not do much at the Council.

You...DO realize that Vaticanum II took place in the 20th century, more than 400 years after the Reformation, right?
To say that Luther, or rather: The idea that he first championed, had absolutely no bearing at all on the reasons behind the calling of the council, and the decisions reached at it (including several compromises and concessions in the direction of the reformers).
BECAUSE Vaticanum II was carried out in our timeline, in which the Reformation DID take place 400 years earlier, it is impossible to say that the Reformation was without significance for Vaticanum II. Because that council was called in a world that for 400 years had been living with, and prospering from, the consequences of Luther's "Hic sto". It is impossible to say what might or might not have happened, or when, if Luther instead of "Hic sto", had said "Revoco" at Worms.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Non sequitur!



The one that brought some basic Christian truths back into the light, out from the shadows they'd been stuffed away in.



Yes.




You...DO realize that Vaticanum II took place in the 20th century, more than 400 years after the Reformation, right?
To say that Luther, or rather: The idea that he first championed, had absolutely no bearing at all on the reasons behind the calling of the council, and the decisions reached at it (including several compromises and concessions in the direction of the reformers).
BECAUSE Vaticanum II was carried out in our timeline, in which the Reformation DID take place 400 years earlier, it is impossible to say that the Reformation was without significance for Vaticanum II. Because that council was called in a world that for 400 years had been living with, and prospering from, the consequences of Luther's "Hic sto". It is impossible to say what might or might not have happened, or when, if Luther instead of "Hic sto", had said "Revoco" at Worms.

Big confusion.
Let us simplify.
My idea: The Church reformed Herself from 33 aD up to now 2012. Sometimes slowly, sometimes in jumps like the Councils of Niceas, Constantinoples, Ephesus, Laterans, Lyons, Wien, Florence, Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II, and the subsequent Institution of regular Synods.

 

[UnamSanctam]

Big confusion.
Let us simplify.
My idea: The Church reformed Herself from 33 aD up to now 2012. Sometimes slowly, sometimes in jumps like the Councils of Niceas, Constantinoples, Ephesus, Laterans, Lyons, Wien, Florence, Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II, and the subsequent Institution of regular Synods.

Yes, but all reforms after the Reformation have been heavily influenced by it. A good example is the fact that there was still an ongoing debate in academic circles on the canonicity of the Apocryphal writings at the time of the Reformation. When the Reformers came down against, Tridentinum took the direct opposite stand.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Yes, but all reforms after the Reformation have been heavily influenced by it. A good example is the fact that there was still an ongoing debate in academic circles on the canonicity of the Apocryphal writings at the time of the Reformation. When the Reformers came down against, Tridentinum took the direct opposite stand.

In this context, was it worthwhile all the troubles, the wars that still rage (Northern Ireland), the deaths, the shattering of Unity, the proliferation of the denominations that defend pretty much the same thing?

Or as the OP, is the Reformation an experiment gone wrong?

 

[UnamSanctam]

In this context, was it worthwhile all the troubles, the wars that still rage (Northern Ireland), the deaths, the shattering of Unity, the proliferation of the denominations that defend pretty much the same thing?

Or as the OP, is the Reformation an experiment gone wrong?

How is that question not the same as the bully beating someone up for standing up to him, and then saying: "Was it worth it?"

 

[Root of Jesse]

I thing there were tremendous benefits and ugly precedents set by the Reformation. Luther certainly didn't intend to break the church (again -- it had already gone through the East-West split) but by tacking those 95 Theses on the door of the Wittenburg cathedral, that is exactly what he set in motion. Like or not, Pfaff, the church needed to be shaken up. It had become decadent, complacent, and was barely recognizable from just another political body. Indulgences were, like it or not, one of Luther's chief complaints. They were abused. That is undeniable.

The Gospel was rediscovered. Sorry, Pfaff, but the church was doing a lousy job of not only spreading the Good News, they weren't even preaching it correctly. Add in the corrupt bishops and priests, not to mention the occasional pope and cardinal or two, and the church nearly killed Christianity. Luther's rediscovery of salvation by grace assured that the message of Christ would be carried to the "ends of the earth."

But by the same token, the process set in motion that day almost 495 years ago has been like a row of dominoes that has continued to fall throughout history. Luther disputed church interpretation of Scripture and a corrupt doctrine. But when disagreements grew up over doctrine from that point forward, the easiest thing to do was for one group to go off into another corner of town and start a new church. Hence we have the disunity in the Body of Christ we have today. However, that doesn't concern me nearly as much as corrupt doctrine and false teaching does. If denominationalism is what we must have in order to protect the integrity of the message, so be it.

The Catholic Church gets "shaiken up" every day, WBS. Every day since its founding at the first Pentecost. Luther was just not satisfied with the progress. The Church progresses at the speed of God, not at the speed of man, and that's what Luther didn't realize.

Regarding your statement that the Catholic Church was doing a lousy job of spreading the Gospel, and not even preaching it correctly, by what authority do you make that statement? Especially the last half of it? The spreading of the Gospel at all was difficult due to the non-existence (yet) of printing presses. Sure, it had been invented, but there were not many of them. When Bibles are copied by hand, it takes years to copy an accurate one.

Luther had no right, as a Catholic priest, to dispute the interpretation of the Bible, or the Church's doctrines. No Catholic has that right.

The Catholic Church can prove that all her doctrine is proper, according to Christ. Certainly, there are, and always have been 'false teachers', we call them 'heretics' and 'schismatics'. Those are the folks who think they know better than God...

 

[Root of Jesse]

As well good people can disagree. I do not think the Reformation was a failure whereas I feel V2 was.

The way Vatican II was implemented was the failure, not the actual output of Vatican II, but that's an entirely different thread.

 

[athenken]

The Catholic Church gets "shaiken up" every day, WBS. Every day since its founding at the first Pentecost. Luther was just not satisfied with the progress. The Church progresses at the speed of God, not at the speed of man, and that's what Luther didn't realize.

Regarding your statement that the Catholic Church was doing a lousy job of spreading the Gospel, and not even preaching it correctly, by what authority do you make that statement? Especially the last half of it? The spreading of the Gospel at all was difficult due to the non-existence (yet) of printing presses. Sure, it had been invented, but there were not many of them. When Bibles are copied by hand, it takes years to copy an accurate one.

Luther had no right, as a Catholic priest, to dispute the interpretation of the Bible, or the Church's doctrines. No Catholic has that right.

The Catholic Church can prove that all her doctrine is proper, according to Christ. Certainly, there are, and always have been 'false teachers', we call them 'heretics' and 'schismatics'. Those are the folks who think they know better than God...

I think what is trying to be conveyed here is that the Catholic Church cannot, and is not, the ultimate authority when it comes to the interpretation of scripture. That is the Holy Spirit's job when we study the bible. The problem is the arrogance that is constantly displayed by the Catholic Church about what is proper doctrine.

I submit that Luther had a very important role in exposing how far off the path the Catholic Church had gotten.

 

[Root of Jesse]

first thing you need to identify is who is the true leader of the church, Its Jesus Christ Himself! and secondly, who it is that Christ indentifies, as who His church is. Not one building will be used on the day of judgement to make this distinction, only people by themselves will be judged, nobody will stand with you, and declare "HE'S WITH US!" or "HE'S A MEMBER HERE!"

Christ established one universal Church. Those who are members of that Church are Christians. Universal = Catholic. All baptized Christians are Catholics, whether they know it or not, whether they agree or not. They who just don't practice everything Christ told them to practice, are the Protestants, but they're part of the Body of Christ too.