Was the Reformation an Experiment gone wrong?

[Pfaffenhofen]

Nobody is trying to whitewash it. But it seems some like to make both things darker than they really were, and to blame it on the Church, which doesn't fly either. Certainly the Church gathered soldiers to go to the Holy Land to accomplish a task, but the soldiers and their leaders got easily sidetracked. That's not the Church's fault.

Please, Root of Jesse, do not go that way.
Mahammed was born in Saudi Arabia:

1. How come the Muslims ended in Israel? It was not theirs? They conquered by the sword and murdered.
2. How come they ended in today's Turkey that was wholly Christian? Today's Turkey appears in the New Testament. Cappadocia, where the monks lived, is there. You may see it here the Christian places in Turkey that were raped by Muslims: Biblical Places and Sights in Turkey
3. How come they conquered Constantinople and changed the place to Istanbul? How come the Patriarch of Constantinople suffers persecution (I have seen an interview with him) for 600 years?
4. How come the whole of North Africa was raped, destroyed, an made Muslim when it was Christian. St. Augustin was born in the north of Africa?
5. What where the Muslims doing in Spain for 800 years? they killed priests, raped whole convents of nuns and destroyed christina heritage.
6. What were they doing in the middle of France when they were defeated , THANKS TO THE CRUSADERS, by Charles Martel, in the Battle of Tours (and it is the 2nd time I quote this battle)?
7. THANKS TO THE CRUSADERS, the Christians reconquered Spain, it it seems to the chagrin of some. It is the second time I quote this.
8. What were they doing in the siege of Wien, in the center of Europe, when they tried to conquer Europe, perhaps to the joy of some?. Thanks to the brave King of Poland who was later betrayed, they did not succeed.
9. Now we blame our brave and valiant and christian Crusaders, who gave their lives for the faith (peace to their souls!), like in the siege of Malta?
10. And we see the sins of the Crusaders and keep a blind eye to the cruelty of Muslims(I did not see up to now any mention of it but repeated mentions of the cruelty of Crusaders)?
11. How come they conquered the Balkans and raped 10 thousand christian women (may to some no crime: they were Christians), which led in the XX century to the horrible rape of thousands of Muslim women as a vengeance for the crime committed centuries earlier.
12. What are Muslims doing in Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, that they conquered by force?
13. Why are Americans and Christians dying for the bloody wars Muslims enjoy to make in Iraq, and Afghanistan?
14. Why do they explode as suicide bombers to kill women and children?
15. Why are there Muslims bloody wars in Nigeria, Aceh, Iraq, iran, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, India, Philipines, Chechenya, Malaysia, China against everybody: Christians, Hindhus, Boudhists, and I forgot something for they are everywhere.

Root of Jesse, I tell you, Christians are too soft on Muslims. We treat them as children and they behave as such. Some Muslim thinkers think the same: it is time for Muslims to stop complaining about the Crusades that wanted to take what it was not theirs and start thinking in reforming their religion.

But 15 points, for some, is not enough.

Root of Jesse, Good Day.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

How come that this Pantocrator in Hagia Sofia in Constantinople (now raped Istambul in Turkey):

has been desecrated with Arab Muslim Religion letters, conquered by Muslim violence:

an violently and crudely transformed into a mosque, it seems for the happiness of some Christians (there were always Christian Princes who befriended Muslim Sheiks to fight against other Christian Princes whose territories they wanted to conquer)? :

It seems that the argument of Catholic violence in the Crusades seems to be a succulent dish for some Christians.
But the violence of the Muslims here seems to have no eccho. Some Christians just shut up criticism of Muslims for they are afraid of suicide-bombers.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Friends, while this is an interesting discussion, the topic of this thread is the effect and success (or lack thereof); the crusades are a topic for another thread.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Friends, while this is an interesting discussion, the topic of this thread is the effect and success (or lack thereof); the crusades are a topic for another thread.

Agreed.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

It seems we started somewhere:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7634884/#post59867401
audience invited.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Really?



Well, the Pope issued the original call for a Crusade and recruited warriors with the promise that if they were killed they'd be instantly taken to heaven. Does that count as having anything to do with it?

And the "soldiers and their leaders got easily sidetracked?" Please.

Yes, really. There's no doubt that what was intended and what happened are two different things, but that's what happens when religion and the secular world mix.

And as I said, the Pope preached the crusades with stated purposes, and certainly blessed the soldiers. What was promised was a plenary indulgence should the soldier die in battle. Since you have a skewed idea of what an indulgence really is, you won't get that. But it's a far cry from "if they were killed they'd be instantly taken to heaven."

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

MOD HAT

Friends, while this is an interesting discussion, the topic of this thread is the effect and success (or lack thereof); the crusades are a topic for another thread.

Mark
Staff Supervisor.

 

[Albion]

Since you have a skewed idea of what an indulgence really is, you won't get that. But it's a far cry from "if they were killed they'd be instantly taken to heaven."

Plenary indulgences were NOT offered in that case. The Roman church does, however, consider martyrdom to be an event that grants salvation. Look it up.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

After the wise intervention of the Moderator, I would like to raise the initial question.
Was it the Reformation an experiment gone wrong? If yes, how to return back. If not, what was gained that I do not see?
Obviously that I am pro the opinion that Reformation was an experiment gone wrong.

It reminds me of the story of a woman that went to catholic confession. She said that she was addicted to gossip.
The priest asked her to kill a hen and spread its feathers in the wind and to come back again.
The woman came and the father asked her to go and gather the feather she had thrown to the wind.
And the woman said that that was impossible for the wind had spread the feathers all around the countryside.
So is gossip, the father replied. Once you throw it around, it spreads and you may never heal the damage it has done.

When I see the Protestant Denominations, I realize that unity is almost impossible (to God nothing is impossible) and that it happened the genie out of the box, or like Pandora when she opened the forbidden box.

What to do next? I do not know...

If this thread says something to somebody, ok.
If not, dies of a natural course...ol age...

 

[WinBySurrender]

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.

 

[Albion]

Why don't we just give it a rest? This thread was never sincere in making an inquiry, anyway, but just wanted to provide an opportunity to rag on Protestants. Let it die the death it deserved and nearly achieved two posts ago.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Why don't we just give it a rest? This thread was never sincere in making an inquiry, anyway, but just wanted to provide an opportunity to rag on Protestants. Let it die the death it deserved and nearly achieved two posts ago.

It would be useful to distinguish between persons and their ideas and attitudes.

I have many hobbies and rag on Protestant is not one of them.

But in the question whether the Reformation was an experiment gone wrong, I would reply yes. I would be making a reflection on the Reformation not on Protestant People.

John K. may be a very, very good person but he may make a mistake. I do not say that John K. is a bad person, simply that he made a mistake.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

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.

Your post is interesting. And it is interesting that you find denominationalism in a different perspective than mine.

Now, Win, I accept everything you said about the Church in Renaissance times. It was not purified at all. And if you mention other sins, I will agree with them all. I have a cousin who is a History Investigator in a National Library. She shows me sometimes, or sends to me by mail, documents of Convents, both male and female, which show the corruption, the malaise inside which seems to be out of this world. Just to tell that I know it. Just to tell that I accept it all.

But, and that is what I do not agree, was it necessary to make Reformation? There were so many Reforms before, we had the crisis when we had 3 Popes, in the first Millennium there were dozens of what we call heresies, and there was not so big a division.

You are right: the Orthodox division is a great divide that hurts us so much. Moreover, because there is too little which divides us. Here, again, it all started with one or two stupid attitudes in the RCC, like the way the "filioque" was introduced and the stupid excommunication of the dumb delegate to Constantinople. It is a hurt also but different from Protestantism. Here they are closer but a few grains of sand are killing the engine.

Now the Reformation. Could it be done other way? Was is necessary an atomic bomb to kill a pig? The RCC reformed itself from inside without division.

 

[whitetiger1]

It would be useful to distinguish between persons and their ideas and attitudes.

I have many hobbies and rag on Protestant is not one of them.

But in the question whether the Reformation was an experiment gone wrong, I would reply yes. I would be making a reflection on the Reformation not on Protestant People.

John K. may be a very, very good person but he may make a mistake. I do not say that John K. is a bad person, simply that he made a mistake.

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

 

[UnamSanctam]

Now the Reformation. Could it be done other way? Was is necessary an atomic bomb to kill a pig? The RCC reformed itself from inside without division.

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.

 

[Simon Belmont]

Was the Reformation an Experiment gone wrong?

Yes.

 

[phishin4min]

In the first Millenium, there were dozens of experiments on Theology. Of whatever you could think about the nature of God and Jesus Christ appeared: One Person, 2 Persons, 3 persons, one Nature, 3 Natures and whatever.

When you reached the 1000 dC, you find one Church, strong and firm in Europe, unknown in other Continents.

Then Reformation came. As a Catholic, I think that it were the Protestant who separated.

I realize here and I have learned here in this Forum that many Protestant think that it was the RCC who separated from The church. This position raises many problems: separation from which Church? Who was the leader of separation? Was it leadership for not following the Reformers? Leadership for not Reforming?

Anyhow, the consequences have been fast.
Christians were expelled from Japan for fighting each other. The denominations exploded to an estimate of 30 thousand and growing at a 200 a month. If the statistics are not these, please furnish others.

The interpretation by conscience and the Sola Scriptura led to a splintering of Tradition or traditions as some like to make the distinction.

The RCC reformed itself several times since then. The Trident Council and the Vatican II drove the RCC worldwide though paths the Spirit. It numbers 1 billion people. The largest Protestant one is the Anglican Communion and as I am told it is not a Church in itself but a communion - 80,000,000.

In the extreme, we could imagine that every Protestant Person could have Its own Position leading to 1 billion positions, the number I guess it is the number of Protestant.

I foresee that in hundreds of years, the splintering of Protestantism will lead to Its extinction, like the Churches of the 1st Millennium.

Was the Reformation an Experiment gone wrong?

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!"

 

[whitetiger1]

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.

What is Tridentinum?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

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.

That is what I always thought

 

[UnamSanctam]

What is Tridentinum?

Sorry, stuck in Latin
The council of Trent