Sola Scriptura?

[Targaryen]

I understand the allure of this line of thinking. But Luther's own words say he left the Church basically because it would not convert to Lutheranism. He would've been happy to stay Catholic... if by "Catholic" you actually mean Lutheran. He said that was his motive from the get-go, not just something that came along later by cruel happenstance.

I'm not excusing how the Church handled the situation. I'm sure everyone agrees a better job could've been done.

But this idea that Luther didn't have an agenda from the very beginning is a little silly.

Of course Luther wanted the Catholic church to reform and eventually felt he had to break from it. This is more of a case of both sides getting entrenched into feeling in the case of Luther, that the Catholic Church of his days was too corrupt and beyond reform and for the Catholic Church of the day, that Luther was just a dangerous heretic that was committed to not only destroying the Church but giving rise to other heretics as they thought of other reformers of the day and thus promoting the spread of the "heresy"

 

[Erose]

Of course Luther wanted the Catholic church to reform and eventually felt he had to break from it. This is more of a case of both sides getting entrenched into feeling in the case of Luther, that the Catholic Church of his days was too corrupt and beyond reform and for the Catholic Church of the day, that Luther was just a dangerous heretic that was committed to not only destroying the Church but giving rise to other heretics as they thought of other reformers of the day and thus promoting the spread of the "heresy"

If only life was that uncomplicated. There was a lot more going on than just religion during the Protestant Rebellion, and sadly the politics of the time, isn't discussed very much.

 

[Erose]

I understand the allure of this line of thinking. But Luther's own words say he left the Church basically because it would not convert to Lutheranism. He would've been happy to stay Catholic... if by "Catholic" you actually mean Lutheran. He said that was his motive from the get-go, not just something that came along later by cruel happenstance.

I'm not excusing how the Church handled the situation. I'm sure everyone agrees a better job could've been done.

But this idea that Luther didn't have an agenda from the very beginning is a little silly.

I all honestly, at some point I think Luther lost his ability to choose. The Rebellion that was started was just as much political as it was religious. I'm not sure that the princes he was tied up with would have let him back out even if he wanted to.

 

[Targaryen]

I all honestly, at some point I think Luther lost his ability to choose. The Rebellion that was started was just as much political as it was religious. I'm not sure that the princes he was tied up with would have let him back out even if he wanted to.

The same could be said about the schism of 1054 as well as the Reformation, politics played as much of a role in both of those cases too. But, when Luther pinned the 95 thesis on Wittenberg's cathedral door, his goal wasn't to leave the Catholic Church. But to debate about his points raised.

 

[Erose]

The same could be said about the schism of 1054 as well as the Reformation, politics played as much of a role in both of those cases too. But, when Luther pinned the 95 thesis on Wittenberg's cathedral door, his goal wasn't to leave the Catholic Church. But to debate about his points raised.

There is no doubt that politics was the primary reason for the East-West Schism, not theology, which became the excuse for the Schism but not the reason.

Concerning the Reformation, I also believe that the primary reason was politics. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. wouldn't have been nearly as successful if they didn't have political backing behind them. The fact of the matter is that rebellion was in the air in Europe, and if not Luther or the other Rebels, then it would have been someone else. People just weren't happy with the status quo, and they wanted change. There is a reason why Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. were successful where Wycliffe, Hus, etc weren't.

 

[~Anastasia~]

There is no doubt that politics was the primary reason for the East-West Schism, not theology, which became the excuse for the Schism but not the reason.

Whose politics? Not looking to argue, just curious about your answer.

 

[hedrick]

Whose politics? Not looking to argue, just curious about your answer.

There had been reformers all along, Hus, and others. Luther had some interesting new ideas, but from a practical point of view the consequences of being Lutheran weren't that different from being Husite. What was different is that his prince defended him, while in the past the State had been willing to kill heretics. Why? We shouldn't be completely cynical. Fredrick obviously believed that Luther was right. But there were also political reasons that Frederick wanted to be independent, and the Catholic Church was so tied to the traditional rulers that there was no way to change things without doing something about the Church.

Luther's works were not all theological. He had a very hard-hitting work pointing out the amount of German money that was going to Rome, with Germany not receiving much in return.

But even the political different from past reformers shouldn't be exaggerated. Hus was murdered, but his influence continued to be strong, despite official disapproval. The Waldenians managed to maintain even more independence, and in fact continue today. (They are now effectively a Reformed church.) The Swiss Reformation was essentially independent. So as erose noted, reform was in the air.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I all honestly, at some point I think Luther lost his ability to choose. The Rebellion that was started was just as much political as it was religious. I'm not sure that the princes he was tied up with would have let him back out even if he wanted to.

Be that as it may, I haven't seen much indication that Luther ever expressed any remorse later in life. On the contrary, he seemingly continued to stew in his own anger and venom toward the Church and the Pope until his dying day. And possibly beyond, for all I know.

 

[~Anastasia~]

There had been reformers all along, Hus, and others. Luther had some interesting new ideas, but from a practical point of view the consequences of being Lutheran weren't that different from being Husite. What was different is that his prince defended him, while in the past the State had been willing to kill heretics. Why? We shouldn't be completely cynical. Fredrick obviously believed that Luther was right. But there were also political reasons that Frederick wanted to be independent, and the Catholic Church was so tied to the traditional rulers that there was no way to change things without doing something about the Church.

Luther's works were not all theological. He had a very hard-hitting work pointing out the amount of German money that was going to Rome, with Germany not receiving much in return.

But even the political different from past reformers shouldn't be exaggerated. Hus was murdered, but his influence continued to be strong, despite official disapproval. The Waldenians managed to maintain even more independence, and in fact continue today. (They are now effectively a Reformed church.) The Swiss Reformation was essentially independent. So as erose noted, reform was in the air.

Thanks, Hedrick. I had seen some interesting info on the Waldensians, but not aware of much of some of the rest.

I was actually interested in the politics Erose was commenenting on in the 1054 Schism though. I'm just curious if I'm missing something, or if he meant the things I was aware of.

 

[Targaryen]

If relevant Anastasia, Theopedia lists some of the factors that led to the 1054 split as the following:

• the insertion of the filioque clause into the Nicene Creed by the Roman church in direct violation of the command of the Council of Ephesus, an action called non-canonical by the Eastern church.
• disputes in the Balkans over whether the Western or Eastern church had jurisdiction.
• the designation of the Patriarch of Constantinople as ecumenical patriarch (which was understood by Rome as universal patriarch and therefore disputed).
• disputes over whether the Patriarch of Rome, the Pope, should be considered a higher authority than the other Patriarchs. All five Patriarchs of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church agreed that the Patriarch of Rome should receive higher honors than the other four; they disagreed about whether he had authority over the other four and, if he did, how extensive that authority might be.
• the concept of Caesaropapism, a tying together in some way of the ultimate political and religious authorities, which were physically separated much earlier when the capital of the empire was moved from Rome to Constantinople. There is controversy over just how much this so-called "Caesaropapism" actually existed and how much was a fanciful invention, centuries later, by western European historians.
• certain liturgical practices in the west that the East believed represented innovation: use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist, for example. Eastern innovations, such as intinction (dipping) of the bread in the wine for Communion, were condemned several times by Rome but were never the occasion of schism.

This conflict led to the exchange of excommunications by the representative of Pope Leo IX and the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, in 1054 (finally rescinded in 1965) and the separation of the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches, each of which now claims to be "the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." It should be noted that at the time of the mutual excommunications, Pope Leo IX was dead. Therefore, the authority of Cardinal Humbertus, the Pope's legate, had ceased; therefore he could not legitimately excommunicate Patriarch Cerularius.

The final breach is often considered to have arisen after the sacking of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204. This Fourth Crusade had the Latin Church directly involved in a military assault against the Byzantine Empire, Constantinople, and the Orthodox Patriarchate. The sacking of the Church of Holy Wisdom and establishment of the Latin Empire in 1204 is viewed with some rancor to the present day. In 2004, Pope John Paul II extended a formal apology for the sacking of Constantinople in 1204; the apology was formally accepted by Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople.

Source: Great Schism | Theopedia

I think the Caeseropapism one, and the factors of East and West already being split politically into two halves by Emperor Diocletian in 285 AD. To me personally, this would explain the insistence from the Rome to recognize the Pope as Spiritual Head of the Church on Earth. In this mindset, it would be "Rome was head of the Empire, while the Empire has fallen, rome has not and our Pope is the one thing that ties the rest of the old Empire together.

 

[~Anastasia~]

If relevant Anastasia, Theopedia lists some of the factors that led to the 1054 split as the following:

• the insertion of the filioque clause into the Nicene Creed by the Roman church in direct violation of the command of the Council of Ephesus, an action called non-canonical by the Eastern church.
• disputes in the Balkans over whether the Western or Eastern church had jurisdiction.
• the designation of the Patriarch of Constantinople as ecumenical patriarch (which was understood by Rome as universal patriarch and therefore disputed).
• disputes over whether the Patriarch of Rome, the Pope, should be considered a higher authority than the other Patriarchs. All five Patriarchs of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church agreed that the Patriarch of Rome should receive higher honors than the other four; they disagreed about whether he had authority over the other four and, if he did, how extensive that authority might be.
• the concept of Caesaropapism, a tying together in some way of the ultimate political and religious authorities, which were physically separated much earlier when the capital of the empire was moved from Rome to Constantinople. There is controversy over just how much this so-called "Caesaropapism" actually existed and how much was a fanciful invention, centuries later, by western European historians.
• certain liturgical practices in the west that the East believed represented innovation: use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist, for example. Eastern innovations, such as intinction (dipping) of the bread in the wine for Communion, were condemned several times by Rome but were never the occasion of schism.

This conflict led to the exchange of excommunications by the representative of Pope Leo IX and the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, in 1054 (finally rescinded in 1965) and the separation of the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches, each of which now claims to be "the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." It should be noted that at the time of the mutual excommunications, Pope Leo IX was dead. Therefore, the authority of Cardinal Humbertus, the Pope's legate, had ceased; therefore he could not legitimately excommunicate Patriarch Cerularius.

The final breach is often considered to have arisen after the sacking of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204. This Fourth Crusade had the Latin Church directly involved in a military assault against the Byzantine Empire, Constantinople, and the Orthodox Patriarchate. The sacking of the Church of Holy Wisdom and establishment of the Latin Empire in 1204 is viewed with some rancor to the present day. In 2004, Pope John Paul II extended a formal apology for the sacking of Constantinople in 1204; the apology was formally accepted by Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople.

Source: Great Schism | Theopedia

I think the Caeseropapism one, and the factors of East and West already being split politically into two halves by Emperor Diocletian in 285 AD. To me personally, this would explain the insistence from the Rome to recognize the Pope as Spiritual Head of the Church on Earth. In this mindset, it would be "Rome was head of the Empire, while the Empire has fallen, rome has not and our Pope is the one thing that ties the rest of the old Empire together.

Thank you.

I don't want to comment much on this, since it would be off topic to the discussion. Essentially I tend to consider the Schism the result of differences over theology and authority - which authority is part of theology or at least closely related in that it stems in part from it. I wondered if I was missing much else. (I knew about the sacking of Constantinople too, and a few other events besides, but I think they just exacerbated a rift that already existed.) Ceasaropapism is not something I've considered much.

Thank you again.

 

[Erose]

Be that as it may, I haven't seen much indication that Luther ever expressed any remorse later in life. On the contrary, he seemingly continued to stew in his own anger and venom toward the Church and the Pope until his dying day. And possibly beyond, for all I know.

Yeah there was a idea that went around that Luther on his deathbed repented, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence at all to support this.

 

[Erose]

Whose politics? Not looking to argue, just curious about your answer.

Whose politics? Everyone in question. There is no evidence that the initial grind between the East and West started out as theological. I think theology played a role in the Schism later in the game, but as I have pointed out in many other posts on this forum, all the theological gripes that the East had/has about the West, the West has been teaching and practicing for well over a half millennium or longer. The same goes for the other way around. At one point there was an understanding that within orthodox Christianity there were several schools of thought, that didn't teach the same things in the same way. It was just a given. Latins didn't think like Egyptians, and Egyptians didn't think like Greeks, and so forth.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Whose politics? Everyone in question. There is no evidence that the initial grind between the East and West started out as theological. I think theology played a role in the Schism later in the game, but as I have pointed out in many other posts on this forum, all the theological gripes that the East had/has about the West, the West has been teaching and practicing for well over a half millennium or longer. The same goes for the other way around. At one point there was an understanding that within orthodox Christianity there were several schools of thought, that didn't teach the same things in the same way. It was just a given. Latins didn't think like Egyptians, and Egyptians didn't think like Greeks, and so forth.

Thanks for the reply.

I was just curious if you meant anything different than I guessed. Yes, there were tensions. Yes, the West had been doing things differently for a time.

Politics is as good a name as any for the interactions through those centuries.

 

[Erose]

Something else needs to be pointed out that about the Schism while we are discussing this off topic. 1054 is not the date of the current Schism between the East and West. The actual date is really is really after 1472 when the East rejected the Council of Florence. The Schisms that occurred in the 11th century were later healed.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The Schisms that occurred in the 11th century were later healed.

I would request more information on this, as I'm not aware of any historic event or period in time that represented an end to the Schism?

 

[Erose]

I would request more information on this, as I'm not aware of any historic event or period in time that represented an end to the Schism?

All I can say is research it. Council of Lyons in 1274 and the Council of Florence both led to a short lived reunion between Churches. Council of Florence is the last time that any reunion was achieved, albeit that it lasted for a very very short time. The union after the Council of Lyons lasted for only 11 years.

Patriarch Photius died in full communion with the Patriarch of Rome.

 

[Targaryen]

Then why is it no scholar or historian uses 1472 as the date where it all came to a head?

A snippet from the wikipedia article on it:

The Seventeenth Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church was convoked as the Council of Basel (Basle in the once-preferred English spelling) by Pope Martin V shortly before his death in February 1431 and took place in the context of the Hussite wars in Bohemia and the rise of the Ottoman Empire. At stake was the greater conflict between the Conciliar movement and the principle of papal supremacy.

The Council entered a second phase after Emperor Sigismund's death in 1437. Pope Eugene IV convoked a rival Council of Ferrara on 8 January 1438 and succeeded in drawing the Byzantine ambassadors to Italy. The Council of Basel first suspended him, declared him a heretic, and then in November 1439 elected an antipope, Felix V. The rival Council of Florence (moved to avoid plague in Ferrara) concluded in 1445 after negotiating unions with the various eastern churches. This bridging of the Great Schism proved fleeting, but was a political coup for the papacy. In 1447, Sigismund's successor Frederick III commanded the city of Basel to expel the Council of Basel; the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] council reconvened in Lausanne before dissolving itself in 1449.

Source: Council of Florence - Wikipedia

The full listing says that basically Rome attempted to get reunion, but it was never accepted in the East.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

But each of us, sitting down to read Revelation, and asked to jot down our thoughts or opinions, will write down completely different and possibly contradictary things. Both of us can't be right.

If both are right, both are right. I don't know how to put it more simply,
or how much can be posted in this section.

The one or both is right, who has and agrees with the mind of CHRIST.
The one or both is wrong, who has not CHRIST.

 

[prodromos]

All I can say is research it. Council of Lyons in 1274 and the Council of Florence both led to a short lived reunion between Churches. Council of Florence is the last time that any reunion was achieved, albeit that it lasted for a very very short time.

The decisions of the council were never ratified in the East. It was a union on paper only, not in actual practice.