England, Scotland, etc. basically a long line of Anglo-Saxons. If the "rebellion" had been "put down", they might have abandoned the church. Or maybe I myself would have become an atheist in my time due to some personal issues that would be very bad if the church was forced to think uniformly.
Yes the true reformation was part of that cycle. Not the Great Rebellion, but rather the Reformation, which Trent was the pinnacle of.
You as a Protestant have to view what occurred as a Reformation, and I understand that. In your view what occurred, was getting back to what Christianity is suppose to be, and I get that. But from a Catholic point of view, what the Protestants did was not and never was true reform, only an act of rebellion. Reform occurs within an institution. Once you go out of that institution and start a new one, there is no longer anything even remotely considered reform. Rather what you get is something new. Since those that started these new churches were originally Catholic, then one can easily come to the full understanding that it should be called the Protestant Rebellion or Revolt. Never Reformation.
No one is claiming that all that was being called for by the Rebels were bad. There were some things that were good ideas. The shifting of the individual countries away from Latin, to their own languages; would make sense the need to have the Mass in the vernacular. The giving of the Eucharist under both species, is not a doctrinal matter; but a matter of practice. A practice that our Eastern Brethren, even those in communion of Rome were practicing any way.
It did no such thing. The Church, since it's institution, has been in reformation, and has been every day since Luther's protest, does the same thing. The Church, as an institutiion, has never been perfect, and the Church, as an institution, recognizes that. So, there was reformation before Luther called for reformation. It wasn't to Luther's standard of speed, maybe, but what he did did nothing to push it along.
I'm sorry, Davidnic, I can't agree. History may call it a Counter-Reformation, but the Church is in a perpetual state of reformation because those who run the Church are human. If anything, Luther exposed something going on in the German Church. Maybe there was a renewal of the need to reform, but it wasn't Luther's impetus that did it.
well that seems like a bit of cognitive dissonance
Patience - a great virtue, and one so difficult to master.
Brother David, I don't think we believe that the events of Luther's division of the Church is "evil", more like "inevitable". Of course, the letters E V I L are in that word! The thing is that Jesus instituted one Church. I don't believe that Jesus's institution of one Church has failed. It's humans who have failed. Catholic hierarchy who were not good shepherds, Luther for not being patient with the reforms that were going on, Calvin, et al. We've all failed at living the way Christ wanted us to.
The Catholic Church does not exist solely in the USA. Should look at Africa and Asia...
Most reformations go unnoticed by general public. I reform every day, and so does my parish, and so does my diocese, and so does the Catholic Church. You may or may not see it or notice it. The Church does move very slowly. We've got all the time in eternity.
Actually, any reform does get noticed. I'm going to rank this ^ effort as more or less equally as convincing as the Baptist 'Trail of Blood' claim that says there always have been Baptist churches but in hiding, the Pentecostal claim that tongues never did cease, they just weren't noticed for a thousand years or so, and Joseph Smith's golden plates which, "trust us, really did exist" but, alas, the Angel took them back to heaven.
