The Reformation??

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

What was the main or basic reasons the reformation happened? Why did Martin Luther reform against the Church? Was it due to corruptions and abuses in practicies, such as you had to pay money for people's sins in purgutory or money for veinal sins to be washed away? I know part of it was because Luther had different interpretations on justification, and election against what the Church taught. But were there not abuses as well as I mentioned.

It seems you get this idea that the Church was in darkness and the Bible in chains to hid it from the people, the Luther showed up and turned things around. Is this true? At least on the abuses?

-- Brian the Curious (Noemail@nsb.com), May 29, 2004

Answers

The main reason the reformation was more than a theological debate was that German princes wanted to take power away from Rome.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 29, 2004.

Please, give details!

-- Brian the Curious (noemail@nsb.com), May 29, 2004.

At first Luther didn't have a problem with indulgances, just the abuse of indulgances. States wanted Church property. As you read about the "reformers", notice how quickly their new faith became the official religion of their respective states.

Try to keep a balanced approach to the subject. Most Information in public libraries is Protestant skewed. Bill has suggestions for a lot of good reading .

-- mark advent (adventm5477@earthlink.net), May 29, 2004.


Mark, where could I get a good book on this?

-- Brian the Curious (Noemail@nsb.net), May 29, 2004.

It was God's plan because the Catholic Church was corrupted. Praticing false doctrine.

-- Henri (kxhenri@yahoo.com), May 30, 2004.


Brian,

There is another recent thread called "Reformation" on May 8, 2004, which answered your question regarding books on the Reformation. The idiot who is messing with the threads has also affected that one, so I couldn't link it for you. A couple of the books I remember are by Hilaire Belloc: "How the Reformation Happened," and "The Great Heresies"

Henri,

God's Plan--LOL! Please fill us in here on God's plan. I'm dying to hear. Or would you rather start a thread disguised as an innocent question. That appears to be your m.o.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 30, 2004.


Let's see if I understand Henri correctly ... because men in the Church sinned, the eternal God who personally founded one Church for all men, said that all men were to belong to His Church in unity and truth, and promised to be with that Church until the end of time, changed His mind and told one Catholic priest to start a manmade tradition that would result in thousands of conflicting denominations where nobody really knows what the truth is. Apparently having failed in His own attempt to found a Church, God needed someone who could do a better job. Does that about cover it?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 30, 2004.

St. Thomas More was also a free thinking humanist, a contemporary of Luther's. He too railed against clergical abuses. So Luther wasn't alone in his "protestations." More used the Bible to criticize the clergical abuses of the day AND to defend the Catholic faith. More chose to die rather than betray his faith. What did More think of Luther? He described him (in latin) as : "an ape, an arse, a drunken, lousy little friar, a piece of scurf, a pestilential buffoon...".

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 30, 2004.

The Reformation in the UK had its own reasons of course. King Henry the 8th wanted a divorce in order to marry Anne Boleyn, and to try to produce a male heir to the throne. Since divorce wasn't allowed he decided to make himself head of the Church, and renounced the Pope's place as the head of the church on earth. Thus spawning the Church of England, known at the Episcopalian Church, and that's the reason why the Queen is Head of the Church of England today.

Little to do with doctrine at all.

P.S.(Interestingly, the male heir he did finally produce, Edward, died at aged 15 and Henry himself was insane when he died due to Syphillis.)

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), May 30, 2004.


Now I learned in Catholic School (early 1960's) that the Church *was* corrupt and in desperate need of reform. And that Luther tried to do so inside the system, had too much of it and went off on his own. And that it is regretable that he felt the need to do so. And then we started to study the counter refermetion. (or was counter in the secular high school? ah, memory, what a traitor!). So from this I have felt that the church *did* need a smack up the head to keep it true.

Looking at the 50 odd theses I feel that this was a very hot blooded young man, this Luther.

The english spilt started before Henery, and really was not complete even after him. But he played a high profile role.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), May 31, 2004.



Techniclaly the Chruch of england started in 1215, withthe signign of the Magna Carta.The english Chruch wss decalred a seperate inity, but retained most of its allegence and most of the rituals and beelifs as the main Catolic Chruch, as can be seen in the MAgna Carta.

Below I shall give the extract.

It is this extract that made Henry the 8ths split withthe roman Chruch legal, as even the Kings had to yeild tot he law since the signign of the Charter.

Now, the Magna Carta extract pertenant to this discussion.

In the first place we have conceded to God, and by this our present charter confirmed for us and our heirs for ever that the English church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate; and we wish that it be thus observed. This is apparent from the fact that we, of our pure and unconstrained will, did grant the freedom of elections, which is reckoned most important and very essential to the English church, and did by our charter confirm and did obtain the ratification of the same from our lord, Pope Innocent III., before the quarrel arose between us and our barons. This freedom we will observe, and our will is that it be observed in good faith by our heirs for ever.

We have also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs for ever, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs for ever:

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 31, 2004.


Zarove, your extract from the Magna Carta proves it did the very opposite from what you claim it did. It was to PREVENT the English king from interfering with election of bishops and other matters to do with the running of the church. It was nothing to do with starting a separate “Church of England”. It is absurd to claim that a measure which states as its basis of authority, “we did…obtain the ratification of the same from our lord, Pope Innocent III” , is in fact some kind of declaration of independence from the Pope!

Sean, it’s wrong to say “The English split started before Henry.” Henry VIII was a schismatic but not a heretic. He practised the Catholic religion till his death, as did the vast majority of his subjects. It was after his death, during the reign of his weak and sickly son Edward that a few radical Protestants took advantage of the power vacuum to make the church of England non-Catholic in belief and practise. (This was reversed under Queen Mary, then reversed back again under Elizabeth I.)

Sara, even more interestingly, modern science has shown that Henry’s attempts to produce a son by divorcing and killing his wives was all in vain. The sex of a child is determined by whether the FATHER’s sperm cell which produced it had an X or Y chromosome.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 01, 2004.


Sean said “Now I learned in Catholic School (early 1960's) that the Church *was* corrupt and in desperate need of reform. And that Luther tried to do so inside the system, had too much of it and went off on his own.”

Some church officials were corrupt. The Church itself was not corrupt; that is impossible. The Church WAS in desperate need of reform. Luther is probably the only one of the 16th century founders of protestant sects who first tried to work within the church. The others sought to break from the church right from the start. Some Catholic bishops and some religious orders, especially in Germany, had a lot of wealth and power, and the secular rulers coveted both.

Luther’s "theses" were originally intended as merely points of discussion among university scholars. He wrote them in the same spirit in which many other Catholic university scholars had written before and since. Someone, unknown to Luther, printed thousands of copies of them and distributed them. (It is a myth that he nailed them to a church door.) The secular rulers promoted the ideas as they saw material advantage to themselves in having a separate German church . Luther was too proud and vainglorious to back down and went along as the head of the new movement.

The question is “Why did one-third of the Catholics in Europe leave the Church in the 16th century?” My educated guess would be:

5% of them at most had a sincere conscientious objection to the Church’s teachings (mainly due to them not being explained clearly enough) or were horrified by abuses such as the sale of indulgences by licensed entrepreneurs;

10% left the Church because they could gain power or wealth by doing so;

and the rest left because their rulers told them to, and they were too repressed, scared, or uneducated to resist.

It's certainly true that having so many people leave the church was a wake-up call to the Church to stamp out the abuses, which it did very effectively through the Council of Trent (though it probably went overboard with centralization and standardization).

It is a lie, Brian, to say that the Church had kept "the Bible in chains to hid it from the people". The Bible had been available for centuries in their native languages to everyone who could read.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 01, 2004.


Steve, I have some agreement with you and some disagreement with you.

"Some church officials were corrupt. The Church itself was not corrupt; that is impossible. "

I understand the idea here. If a time came where all the responsible Church officials were corrupt, you would still say that the Church is not so. And I understand the difference. But as a practical matter, the distinction is small, even as a theology it is big.

"Some Catholic bishops and some religious orders, especially in Germany, had a lot of wealth and power, and the secular rulers coveted both. "

And same in many other places, I would guess.

It is a myth that he nailed them to a church door

I have been told that is *was* the standard way of distributing copy, the myth is that it is a nasty heated way to do so.

The question is “Why did one-third of the Catholics in Europe leave the Church in the 16th century?” My educated guess would be:

(sounds reasonable, I got some of the 1632/1633 fiction books describiing the 30 years war. Some folk had been switched so often that they had no real alegiance to any church. Those books are good Science fiction.)

"It is a lie, Brian, to say that the Church had kept "the Bible in chains to hid it from the people". The Bible had been available for centuries in their native languages to everyone who could read. "

This is what I choke on. if is is so, then why did the Gutenburg bible be such a startling fuss?

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), June 07, 2004.


Sean,

Re corruption: The Plague of the mid-14th century, which killed nearly a third of Europe’s population, also carried off virtually all of the most devoted priests and religious who dutifully tended the sick, while those clergy who survived tended to be the lax and unworthy. Consequently a materialist and unspiritual culture developed among the clergy in many places. But I think we must be careful not to overlook that even when corruption was at its worst, the majority of priests, bishops and religious were NOT corrupt. Many priests and even many bishops were not at all wealthy.

If a time came when ALL the clergy of the Catholic church were severely corrupt (we are ALL “corrupt” to some extent) I still would not leave the Church. Where would I go? Christ promised that the Church He founded would never fall into error, no matter how bad its leaders were. Why would I start or join a new church with different doctrine? History has shown that even attempts to start a new church with the same doctrine inevitably fall into error.

I don’t have the ref handy but I recall reading that a recent thorough investigation by Lutheran historians has concluded that the “nailing to the door” incident did not happen.

I’m not sure what you mean by “ if is is so, then why did the Gutenburg bible be such a startling fuss?” Gutenberg’s first printed Bible was published 80 years before Luther came on the scene. The fact that they both happened to be German is a coincidence. Gutenberg’s Bible was soon followed by literally hundreds of other printed editions in all European languages, which, being vastly cheaper than the previous handwritten Bibles, sold in their hundreds of thousands. (There was no patent law in those days to let Gutenberg have a monopoly on the process.) This was four generations before the "Reformation" took off.

Do you doubt the fact that all the literate Christian population have always had access to a Bible? You’ll find that more than adequately addressed on another thread/s. It is true that AFTER the Protestants left, many Catholic leaders were wary about simply telling uneducated laymen to read their Bibles, because of the terrible errors the protestants had fallen into with their sola scriptura approach.

Did you know that the FIRST book Gutenberg printed was the text of the Catholic Mass? His hope was that mass-production of the text would prevent accidental or deliberate unauthorized variations in the Mass.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 07, 2004.



Sean,
You need to read about the peasant's war and why the princes of Germany used Luther and the peasant's war so they would become more powerful, gain wealth and property.

As usual: follow the money.

The Reformation for the masses and royalty was about money, land and power.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 07, 2004.


Here is more on the Peas ant's War.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 07, 2004.


The peasants war? But this is the part that I was mostly agreeing with you. Thank you for the information. Neet stuff. But even uninformed I suspected that it was money and such and not religion that prompted much.

"Do you doubt the fact that all the literate Christian population have always had access to a Bible? You’ll find that more than adequately addressed on another thread/s. It is true that AFTER the Protestants left, many Catholic leaders were wary about simply telling uneducated laymen to read their Bibles, because of the terrible errors the protestants had fallen into with their sola scriptura approach. "

In their own language? yes. That was one of the Gutenberg innovations. Not only in latin. Anybody who could read their own language, not the scolllary latin could understand/read it.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), June 08, 2004.


Sean, Gutenberg’s innovation was to set moveable reusable letter types in a printing press, which meant that for the first time books could be cheaply mass-produced. He certainly did NOT introduce the publication of Bibles in vernacular languages. Bibles had been freely available for centuries in every European language from Slavonic to Icelandic. Some unauthorized, inaccurate and highly tendentious vernacular versions were prohibited. Authorized versions in the same languages were freely available. You can't blame the Church for the fact that they were expensive because the printing press hadn't been invented. The Church did its best to make them cheaper by having unpaid monks spend all their lives painstakingly copying Bibles.

In any case, up until about 1600 virtually everybody in Europe who could read his native language could also read Latin. Protestant scientists and philosophers continued to publish their works ONLY in Latin until at least the mid-17th century. Do you think this means they wanted to keep them from the people?

The Catholic Church has always been keen that all communities have the scriptures available to them in their own language. It commissioned St Jerome to produce the Bible in Latin, called the "Vulgate" because it was in the language of the common (“vulgar”) people throughout the ancient and early middle ages. When different vernacular languages sprang up, the Church authorized translations into those languages. The Church warmly welcomed the fact that Gutenberg's invention allowed millions of the less well-off to buy their own Bibles. The charge that the Bible was somehow locked up away from the people is a remarkably persistent lie invented by vicious anti-Catholics. I remember this question being covered fully in a previous thread, but I can’t seem to find it. Perhaps someone can give us a link to it.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 08, 2004.


sean, i must concur with others.

not only were the bibles available to the wealthy, but public copies were made available in all churches. i think your problem stems from the fact that these public copies were kept in the church, often by chaining them to their stand, which was then made fast to a column or to the floor.

what you dont realize is the MASSIVE cost involved in producing even one bible. a plain bible, without any gilt letters or art, would have cost (taking inflation into account) somewhere around $50,000 OR MORE, and thats for the most simple bible. the church could not have the liability of allowing such a book to leave, because if it were stolen it would become a vast waste of money. anyone who could read was more than welcome to come and read from the bible where it stood in the church... there was never any restriction on people coming in.

furthermore, i have been to the gutenburg press and seen some original copies of gutenburgs bibles (including the first print), gutenburg was a catholic, and his print press went mainly to producing catholic literature. it is ludicrous to presume that gutenburg had any connection to the protestant reformation, as has been so aptly pointed out here already.

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 09, 2004.


As to Gutenberg is Catholic, good. No problem. I was taking the points presented one at a time, not marking connections. And If every one of you say that venacular bibles were as common as bibles, I will for now agree. I may reasurch this later.

Latin was used by scolars because it was an international language, and later because since it is dead, the terms have a percise meaning.

This may be a thread drift... If God found the need to hit the church with reform, the protestant reformation could not have done a better job. I am ill at ease with the Catholic attitude that, no matter how bad the Church could ever get, or has ever gotten, it is always correct and self correcting. Well it is certainally not self correcting. And the rest is pridefull in a scarry extreme. In this centuary the Church is a source of good pride, mostly untarnished (except for the expected problems of an under-fed back system), a good source of spiritual leadership, and mostly not corrupt. I do not get the impression that this has always been so.

For the poster that said something like " if the Church is ever 100% corrupt in leadership, then where can I go?" I hear echos of the apostles answer to Jesus after his eat my body & blood sermon/parable. There are other systems, but they have as many problems in their own and different ways. Goverment, inculding Church goverment is a human system, and no form is perfect.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), June 09, 2004.


"If God found the need to hit the church with reform, the protestant reformation could not have done a better job."

A: WHAT?? A system of thousands of bickering, conflicting, contradicting denominations is your idea of "reform"?? Luther's tradition has DEFORMED God's personal plan for One Holy Universal Church teaching the fullness of truth, into a manmade system of doctrinal and devotional chaos. God's Church was seriously in need of some reforms in the 16th century. Hundreds of loyal clergy recognized this obvious need. So did the Holy Spirit. And the necessary reforms were brought about by the efforts of faithful Church leaders working within the Church under the Holy Spirit's guidance. What sets Luther apart from the rest is his unbridled arrogance and his inappropriate, ungodly response to the situation, which has resulted in a plague of untruth and confusion within all manmade branches of Christianity - not to mention the very existence of such unauthorized churches which in itself is a clear violation of the stated will of God. The Church of God was indeed reformed, but the so-called "Reformers" had absolutely nothing to do with it, as they had already removed themselves from God's Church and founded their own, thereby fulfilling the prophetic word penned by Paul ... "the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths."

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 09, 2004.


Paul,

My response was inflamatory. I am a bit sorry for that.

Yes, reform. Not that those who walked away from the 'buy a bishopic' etc corruption were reformed by your lights (and I will keep this on the Catholic viewpoint to keep with you), but the counter reformation was needed because of the reformation, and the counter reformation did an amazing amount of good things. From what I know, it cleaned house in a wonderful way just as part of the counter reformation.

While the Protestant groups have been much more responsive and reactive to the Catholic Church than they would like to admit, the existance of an alternitive to the Church does play a part in Church decisions. In the US, this is a bigger thing than in all Catholic countries.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), June 09, 2004.


"the counter reformation was needed because of the reformation" (Sean)

No, the counter-reformation had been needed for at least 100 years before the "reformation" but had been delayed by lack of good leadership. The "reformation" as Paul has pointed out was a disaster for Christianity - so bad that it finally made the Church's leaders sit up and take notice of all the people who had been calling for reform within the Church.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 09, 2004.


Perhaps we are giving Luther too much credit for the Reformation. He was strident and noisey. IF it hadn't been him, it no doubt would have been "the next one." THere were plenty waiting in the wings. Its my understanding that the reformation could almost be viewed as an unavoidable reaction to "the times," --- the rise of humanism, economic and societal changes --- resulting growth of individualism. Everyone is their own priest...individual interpretation. Seems almost like a social/philosophical tidal wave that swelled up, and that the Church was either unprepared for, or couldn't have done anything to stop anyway.

The result, hundreds of denominations and more being born every day with each new theological viewpoint or biblical interpretation paired with a charismatic individual.

I know we hope for an eventual reunification, a "coming home" but I can see no evidence that the world is in any way moving in that direction. Are we deluding ourselves? Can what has happend be undone? Can the genie be put back in the bottle?

This post has become more pessimistic than I intended...I just meant that the Reformation seemed unavoidable, and the continued divisions can't be stopped. Everybody thinks they have it right. I suffer from this malady myself.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), June 09, 2004.


Steve said: "No, the counter-reformation had been needed for at least 100 years before the "reformation" but had been delayed by lack of good leadership. "

Totally agree. Even in St. Francis's time there were people calling for needed reform. So we are talking about maybe 500 years before.

Steve said: "The "reformation" as Paul has pointed out was a disaster for Christianity - so bad that it finally made the Church's leaders sit up and take notice of all the people who had been calling for reform within the Church."

If that is what it took... tis a pity that it took that... but the reform had to happen, and was not going to do so any other way. When you have 500+ years of no reform and an increasingly urgent need all that time, well something had to happen. God may be patient, but things *do* happen. Thus my view that God may have happened to the Catholic church, OR the view above that historical need happened. Something big, strong, urgent, and long delayed happened.

Also while you get so many ways of thought, some of them will improve the general view of Christ and Christanity. And some will be just dumb. We do get more light on things in a pluralistic society, some of the viewpoints are really different and valuable, some are really different and crud as well, but if we harvest the good and put down the bad, then we win in the long run. Catholic Theology may notice Protestant Theology sometime. Protestant Theology *does* notice Catholic Theology, though, I have been told, as something timid and out of date.

Aside: (/electrical engineer on) A system can have too much feedback. But one with too little, especially too little negitive feedback,will suffer too. The Church is a unmoving thing, ignoring feedback. And most of the time this is needed, keeping to its mission for centuarys. But some excesses are predictable because of no effective feedback. The recient priest scandel is one such predictable thing, and shows a total lack of effective feedback. But the Church and the other churches amd the press provide a good self correcting system. Any protestant church that gets too high, too foolish gets the Tammy treatment. (/electrical engineer off)

Are you deluding yourselves on everybody being Catholic someday? yes, Catholic attitude time.

I have spoken of Catholic attitudes. Let me speak of Protestant ones that are equally funny/out-of-it. A protestant speaker came to our church and said that he was impressed by that Bible quote that said that Jesus wanted all to be one. He wanted to go church to church and preach that we all need to respect one another and be a bit closer. That verse had hit him hard. I told him that verse kinda belonged to the Catholics. And wished him well on his mission. Protestant attitude: Catholics, what Catholics? Oh, Them? I never thought about them.

(mind blank on next Protestant Attitude story; will repost when it clears.)(found it:) Lady writes: why are we called protestant, as I am not protesting anything. OK? My point is that they do not even consider the Catholic Church as anything more than a big Protestant like thing. Why should they join when they are doing good with their neighbors and such in a setting that is either comfortable or just enough challenging or whatever? And that attitude is combined with disinterest and ignorance. So, no, you are not getting through to them, rather you are outside their view. I was born a (whatever) and will die a (whatever). Good for keepiing Catholics Catholic, but also good for keeping a whatever a whatever. Or I was born X, searched, and now am a Z. But this is equally good for all, no favor/bias toward Catholic.

I expect that there is as much movement into the Church as out of it these days. And in North America, the protestant megaChurches are winning. And the lack of priests are allowing my Church to do some 'sheep stealing' down in Mexico: parishes that have not seen a priest in years are vulernable to the Epicopal Catholic Church. This in a way *is* feedback as described above: notice it or die.

Actually the trend that I see is away from all Churches and Christianity. To nothing, to cults, to atheism, to agnostic, to apathy. If the general Christian population could just respect one another, call each other brother, and stop fighting like brothers, it would be the best that we can expect. Actual unity is not going to happen in this pluralist world. But respect can. And it may have to be enough if that is all we can achieve. So I did bless that funny protestant minister's mission. It is dear to my heart too.



-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), June 13, 2004.


I strongly feel that the protestants are repersenting Christ to many people in many ways that the Catholic Church would not think of, and might not allow if they though of it. (see the great evanjelical movement in the late 1800's in the US). The combined effect of Catholic and Protestant is greater than either alone. Much greater.

Change topic from above paragraph: for an interesting example of people searching for God see:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=mgiberson- ya023180001511961033120001%40news.genmagic.com&rnum=2

and watch the wrap around problem.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), June 13, 2004.


sean's link

-- (click@forthe.link), June 13, 2004.

Please note the dates on these links: way out of date. Please do not try to answer them. But consider that the people are in pain, but rejecting religion as the answer, specifically rejecting Christianity for its past excesses. and using those past excesses as a predictor of future ones. Also note that Christians did defend the faith, and did so respectifully.

I almost need a seperate thread on how we can address these issues. The link to this thread is that they are reacting to abuses, and this thread started by noticing the abuses.

I would rather not start a thread drift until the original thread as we have it is fully answered.

also see:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF- 8&th=cba16911870b06e3&rnum=2

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), June 13, 2004.


Something big, strong, and long delayed happened to the Jews when they were taken to Babylon. It was abuses that had long lingered that action was blamed on.

It could be that competition *does* improve the surviver. So, please, survive. The protestants may have been the hand of God. If so, they still may be, correcting and challenging the true Church. Your brothers and rivals and possibly your salvation.

Go with God,

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), June 13, 2004.


The hand of God does not contradict itself. Protestantism does. Salvation comes through truth, and the one Church Christ founded is the pillar and foundation of truth, the one Church which the Holy Spirit guides to all truth, and without which the truth collapses. Members of manmade Christian denominations can still be saved, but only through the truth they have received from the Catholic Church.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 13, 2004.

"the counter-reformation had been needed for at least 100 years before the "reformation" but had been delayed by lack of good leadership. Totally agree. Even in St. Francis's time there were people calling for needed reform. So we are talking about maybe 500 years before....500+ years of no reform and an increasingly urgent need all that time"

100 or 150 years, yes. 500 years, definitely not. The Church DID reform in reponse to St Francis (who was 300 years before Luther) and his contemporaries like St Dominic, St Thomas Aquinas and St Bonaventure. Indeed many historians see the 13th century as the Golden Age of the Church. It was long AFTER this that abuses multiplied and the need for reform became urgent. Reform OF the Church, not division FROM the Church. Surely God would not inspire the latter, even for the purpose of giving the Church a wake-up call. Many have remarked though that it is interesting that coincidental with the loss of the Protestants, the Church gained far more people than it had lost, through the conversion of the Americas.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 14, 2004.


"Let's see if I understand Henri correctly ... because men in the Church sinned, the eternal God who personally founded one Church for all men, said that all men were to belong to His Church in unity and truth, and promised to be with that Church until the end of time, changed His mind and told one Catholic priest to start a manmade tradition that would result in thousands of conflicting denominations where nobody really knows what the truth is. Apparently having failed in His own attempt to found a Church, God needed someone who could do a better job. Does that about cover it? "

this is a lie

lying is a sin paul m!

god did never say such a thing

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 05, 2005.


god did never say such a thing

thats the problem, sdqa, thats what YOU say happened. we know that God didnt fail in creation of His church, which is why the catholic church is it.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 06, 2005.


he never created the RCC

people did

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 06, 2005.


Sorry, but Jesus was and is GOD, and Jesus said "Upon this Rock I WILL BUILD my Church", not "men will build my Church". History clearly traces the history of the Catholic Church, and no other, back to Christ and His Apostles. Therefore, Christ - God - did indeed found the Catholic Church, and expressed His will that it be the only Church for all men.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 06, 2005.

which church?

did he say which church?

how do you know what he is talking about and what church really meant whe n he said it

how are you so sure that it goes about the RCC?

wound't jesus make this much more clear? just like he made clear that he is the son of god?

peter didn't establish the RCC,the RCC didn't came from his community but apart from it,that iganatius called the community(church) catholic doesn't mean that the community is the same thing as the later established institution who took that name

again,how are you so sure about what jesus was talking about? it doesn't mean if some day later a church is established that jesus was talking about a church in a literal way

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 06, 2005.


he ugene?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 07, 2005.

You have a problem. Nothing passes into your Medulla Oblongata without picking up BUGS.

You have bugs in your head. the RCC, the RCC, the RCC, --is a BUG you carry around in the dark, up in your head. We don't know any RCC. Everybody knows the Catholic Church is the Church of the APOSTLES. Peter was their leader, the Head Apostle; in Rome. All the Popes are successors in a direct line with him. The Church is our link to Peter and Jesus Christ. That tells the world: there is only one real Christian Church. NOT any RCC, the One with the Bishop of Rome.

All others are pretenders. They have nothing from Peter or the apostles, except what they ''borrow'' from the Catholic Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 07, 2005.


RCC=roman catholic church

...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 07, 2005.


There is no such church. The CATHOLIC Church is our Church. Not Roman. The See of Peter is seated in Rome where he is bishop, but the Church is EVERYWHERE;

Christ commissioned His apostles: ''Go therefore and make disciples of ALL NATIONS,'' --Not Rome only, which was a single nation. The meaning of Catholic is ''universal,'' in every place, even heaven. For every age, from the beginning of the world to the end of the world. Our Head is Jesus Christ who is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the End, Universal in Kingdom and Glory. His Church is NOT called Rome, or Roman. She is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 07, 2005.


the church who's leader is the pope in the vatican is called the roman catholic church

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 07, 2005.

Yes it is "called" that, sometimes even by people who are members of it. But its official name is simply "The Catholic Church".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 07, 2005.

SHE, not ''It''-- She could not be Roman and Catholic at the same time. That's known as an oxymoron.

To be Roman is to be situated in one country, or a city in Italy which is a single country.

Because She is CATHOLIC, (--universal, in Greek,) no city or country or stack of cities and countries can CONTAIN the Church! One and Universal; The Catholic Church of the holy apostles. Don't ''call'' her what She never has been.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 07, 2005.


"Wound't jesus make this much more clear? just like he made clear that he is the son of god?"

SDQA, He made it abundantly clear. He gave "Peter" the keys to the kingdom. He gave Peter the "Shepherd's Mantle." He breathed on the disciples and told them they THEY had the power to forgive and retain sins. In Titus we see that bishops were "appointed" not voted in like Protestants do it. We see in the very earliest of early church writings that the Church was ONE UNIFIED BODY.

If you are truly interested in the truth of the Church's inception, and subsequent outgrowth, read the writings of the people WHO WERE THERE. If you are not interested in reading what they have to say, then you really aren't interested in the truth at all . . . AT ALL!

ccel.org is a good place to start, AND IS NOT a Catholic website. Read First century Christians, SDQA . . . they were CATHOLIC through and through.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 08, 2005.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ