The Morality of the Protestant Reformation

[Big Phil]

How morale or ethical was the Protestant separation from the Catholic Church, which began when Martin Luther (a Catholic priest) begain posted his complaints and his followers ran away with an idea?

Here's my problem with Protestantism in general - if you claim to be a Christian, you have only one choice - Catholicism. This is because Jesus himself chose Peter (the founder of the Catholic Church) as the leader after his death. To reject the Catholic Church would be to reject Jesus.

Any thoughts?

[Il Saggiatore]

How morale or ethical was the Protestant separation from the Catholic Church, which began when Martin Luther (a Catholic priest) begain posted his complaints and his followers ran away with an idea?

Here's my problem with Protestantism in general - if you claim to be a Christian, you have only one choice - Catholicism. This is because Jesus himself chose Peter (the founder of the Catholic Church) as the leader after his death. To reject the Catholic Church would be to reject Jesus.

Any thoughts?

What about the following popes?
How do we know that the current (OK, maybe not right now) catholic pope is really Jesus' vicar?

[darthnidankendo]

How morale or ethical was the Protestant separation from the Catholic Church, which began when Martin Luther (a Catholic priest) begain posted his complaints and his followers ran away with an idea?

Here's my problem with Protestantism in general - if you claim to be a Christian, you have only one choice - Catholicism. This is because Jesus himself chose Peter (the founder of the Catholic Church) as the leader after his death. To reject the Catholic Church would be to reject Jesus.

Any thoughts?

i think of it in another perspective. Jesus' spoke of turning away from the curropt temple (since he was jewish). If Jesus could be heard on his thoughts of the church today, i think that he would say the same as he did about the temple. Jesus repremended the temple because the leaders would keep the people blind to the truth of God and they used the temple as a way of profiting. This is why there where merchants at the entrance of the temples (people would have to come with there money and exchange it for an animal for sacrifice inside the temple, at the end of hte day the pherasis would get most of the money). Samething that the catholic church does today and has been doing for hundreds of years. They lie to the people, keep the truth away from the masses for control.

Martin Luther took a copy of the Bible from the church and read it (which was unforgivable) then he understood that the priest had not been truthfull with people. So he broke from the church.

I think that todays church is as currupt if not more than the temples in those days. The Vatican turn a blind eye to children being raped by priest and their churches are laid with gold, when so many children are starving avery day. How do they sleep with themselves?

[tharkûn]

Here's my problem with Protestantism in general - if you claim to be a Christian, you have only one choice - Catholicism. This is because Jesus himself chose Peter (the founder of the Catholic Church) as the leader after his death. To reject the Catholic Church would be to reject Jesus.

Nowhere does Jesus state that Peter's position will be passed on following a meeting of the Curia where they are locked in until they vote on a new pope. The "on this rock I will build my church) is hardly a ringing endorsement of the Church hierarchy, certainly nowhere is the idea of a cardinal ever mentioned in the new testement. It is argueable if "this rock" refers to Peter (he was also known as "the rock"), his answer, or his faith.

If one holds with Sola Scriptura, it takes more than a little bit of creative interpretation to get the concepts of Saints, Purgatory (no Apocrypha), indulgences, or a host of other Catholic doctrines out of the Bible. Certain Catholic practices are known to be against biblical tradition, i.e. Peter himself was married and the Gospels themselves were told in the common tongue - not the Latin vulgate..

In any event I would remind you that not all that long before the Reformation you had the Great Schism in which TWO popes reigned simultaneously. Likewise it is well known that several popes bought the papacy and a good body of evidence suggests that certain popes murdered their way into the office. At that peiod in time it was awful hard to tell the true vicar of Christ from just another secular despot - complete with murder, bribery, and mistresses.

[Rogue 9]

How morale or ethical was the Protestant separation from the Catholic Church, which began when Martin Luther (a Catholic priest) begain posted his complaints and his followers ran away with an idea?

Here's my problem with Protestantism in general - if you claim to be a Christian, you have only one choice - Catholicism. This is because Jesus himself chose Peter (the founder of the Catholic Church) as the leader after his death. To reject the Catholic Church would be to reject Jesus.

Any thoughts?

My thoughts: Peter is dead, the means of determining a successor were never named, and the Roman Church at the time was corrupt to the core. The Reformation was frankly needed to shake the Church up and make them realize that the whole indulgences thing wasn't fooling anyone better educated than the low peasants. It failed in that, thus the schism.

[wolveraptor]

It is argueable if "this rock" refers to Peter (he was also known as "the rock"), his answer, or his faith.

Lol, he was known as "the rock"? Like the wrestler/actor, Chris Rock!

"And in this corner, weighing in at a whopping 265 lbs, Peter "the Rock" the apoooostle!!!"

[The Spartan]

Bull, Chris Rock is a comedian/actor.

The wrestler/actor "The Rock" actually is named Dwayne Johnson.

[Big Phil]

Here's my problem with Protestantism in general - if you claim to be a Christian, you have only one choice - Catholicism. This is because Jesus himself chose Peter (the founder of the Catholic Church) as the leader after his death. To reject the Catholic Church would be to reject Jesus.

Nowhere does Jesus state that Peter's position will be passed on following a meeting of the Curia where they are locked in until they vote on a new pope. The "on this rock I will build my church) is hardly a ringing endorsement of the Church hierarchy, certainly nowhere is the idea of a cardinal ever mentioned in the new testement. It is argueable if "this rock" refers to Peter (he was also known as "the rock"), his answer, or his faith.

If one holds with Sola Scriptura, it takes more than a little bit of creative interpretation to get the concepts of Saints, Purgatory (no Apocrypha), indulgences, or a host of other Catholic doctrines out of the Bible. Certain Catholic practices are known to be against biblical tradition, i.e. Peter himself was married and the Gospels themselves were told in the common tongue - not the Latin vulgate..

In any event I would remind you that not all that long before the Reformation you had the Great Schism in which TWO popes reigned simultaneously. Likewise it is well known that several popes bought the papacy and a good body of evidence suggests that certain popes murdered their way into the office. At that peiod in time it was awful hard to tell the true vicar of Christ from just another secular despot - complete with murder, bribery, and mistresses.

Good point, tharkun. Does this mean, however, that breaking away from the Catholic Church was a moral act? Or should Martin Luther have worked to reform the Catholic Church from within? Or does it even matter?

[Imperial Overlord]

It's a play on words. In Latin the name Peter and the word for "rock" are very close.

[Skelron]

As always it's not exactly clear cut. For example even a man that was to die for his Faith in the Catholic Church and opposition to the reformation had long been campaigning for change within the Church.

(St Thomas Moore Note the Sainthood as to what I mean he is considered a Martyr but he had been moving for change himself.)

What about the sacking of Rome during the reformation was that a moral act? Or the many killings that so sickened many a clever and erudite Humanitarian. (Many writers as a direct reaction to the reformation and the massacres that took place withdrew their works from public circulation fearing that they where being used as justification.)

In short as with any major political shift, which at it's core the reformation was, it became a bit of a grey area.

[Karza]

Good point, tharkun. Does this mean, however, that breaking away from the Catholic Church was a moral act? Or should Martin Luther have worked to reform the Catholic Church from within? Or does it even matter?

According to my history and religion teachers his original idea was to just change the catholic church from within, but it got out of hand, so to speak.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Well, it depends on what you mean by moral. Are you looking at it from a consequentialist or intrinsic perspective?

[Big Phil]

Well, it depends on what you mean by moral. Are you looking at it from a consequentialist or intrinsic perspective?

Intrinsic - to hell with the consequences, we all know how that turned out. Was the act itself moral?

[Tommy J]

Well, it depends on what you mean by moral. Are you looking at it from a consequentialist or intrinsic perspective?

Intrinsic - to hell with the consequences, we all know how that turned out. Was the act itself moral?

Sanchez, my 2-cents. The Church was fraught with excess and corruption at the time. So, from a purely moral perspective in line with what Jesus had to say with regard to poverty and his disciples living a life of poverty, it was moral to break off from the Church.

Then again, one would think that it would be equally as 'moral' today for another splinter group to break off from main stream American Protestantism for the aforementioned reasons as well.

[buzz_knox]

How morale or ethical was the Protestant separation from the Catholic Church, which began when Martin Luther (a Catholic priest) begain posted his complaints and his followers ran away with an idea?

Here's my problem with Protestantism in general - if you claim to be a Christian, you have only one choice - Catholicism. This is because Jesus himself chose Peter (the founder of the Catholic Church) as the leader after his death. To reject the Catholic Church would be to reject Jesus.

Any thoughts?

Christ didn't annoint Peter as the leader of the church. He stated that the church would be built upon the faith Peter displayed. That's the rock mentioned in the text, not the "rock" of Simon Peter, but the rock of faith in Christ.

[tharkûn]

Good point, tharkun. Does this mean, however, that breaking away from the Catholic Church was a moral act? Or should Martin Luther have worked to reform the Catholic Church from within? Or does it even matter?

Martin Luther did try to work within the Church. Nailing points of discussion to the door was normal practice for the time. The problem was that within an extremely short time the printing presses took his thesis to all corners of Germany and shortly thereafter the rest of Europe. Once the pope declared him excommunicant he didn't exactly have all that much choice in the matter. Remember that at this point in time there is a massive time lag in communications, but a stupendous spread of communication, by the time the Pope can send an effective response he isn't dealing with a loan theologian - but a massive popular movement.



"Lol, he was known as "the rock"? Laughing Like the wrestler/actor, Chris Rock!
"
Peter was also called Cephas. Cephas meaning The Rock.

What about the sacking of Rome during the reformation was that a moral act?

Considering it was done under the arms of a Catholic German emperor due to the Franco-Italian alliance? No more or less barbaric than run of the mill sackings of day. Sure the reformation may have played a role, but the whole war was due to geo-politics more than religion.

[Kurgan]

How morale or ethical was the Protestant separation from the Catholic Church, which began when Martin Luther (a Catholic priest) begain posted his complaints and his followers ran away with an idea?

Here's my problem with Protestantism in general - if you claim to be a Christian, you have only one choice - Catholicism. This is because Jesus himself chose Peter (the founder of the Catholic Church) as the leader after his death. To reject the Catholic Church would be to reject Jesus.

Any thoughts?

I'd say (from a Christian point of view, with the starting point that the Catholic church represents the tradition founded by Jesus and his Apostles) that the 95 Theses were pretty reasonable (and if you read them today, most of them have actually been instituted into the RC by now). Corruption did exist at the time and indulgences were in need of reform. Few people I think have actually read them in their entirety. Luther got much more radical as time when on and it became obvious that they weren't just going to bend to his every whim.

However Luthers "reforms" and his eventual changes (and those made in his name after his death... supposedly he objected to the term "Lutherans" and lamented the fact that other people were breaking away from the RC and making up their own rules, etc) really distorted and watered down the faith that had been handed down.

The claim is often made (and I can understand this from a Lutheran point of view) that Luther meant to "get back to the essentials" that were "corrupted" over the years by the Papacy and Catholic princes, etc.

However, this assumes you know what the "essentials" are. He ditched 5 of the seven sacraments on the rationale that you had to have specific mention of Jesus himself instituting them in the New Testament. So Annointing of the Sick (Extreme Unction/last rites) wouldnt' be included, because it just mentions the Apostles doing it and their successors. It doesn't say Jesus himself did it. Of course Catholics read between the lines and assume that the Apostles knew what they were doing and they wouldn't be doing something like that if Jesus hadn't taught or approved of it. Lutherans agree with Marriage for example, but they just don't call it a Sacrament (but it's still holy, and Jesus talked about it, so what's the difference?). They still ordained clergy, but if it's not a Sacrament, why do they bother with it? Later Protestant "reformers" went this route saying "well since Jesus didn't say you HAD to do it, it must be optional, and in fact we're getting rid of it."

So, from the Catholic perspective, yes, some reforms were needed, but Luther threw out the baby with the bath water so to speak.

In some cases Luther was more Catholic than modern Lutherans. Apparently he devoted himself to the Virgin marry and did other ritualistic things. However he also had a habit of use obscenity to describe his opponents (drawing pictures of his opponents being crapped out of the butts of demons, etc), he married a nun right away after leaving the church (how convenient!) and other such stuff. So it's not like he was this perfect non-corrupt person himself either. That doesn't mean his ideas were invalid per se, but the notion that his church would be similarly free of corruption, or that because his church had non-corrupt leaders therefore it's teachings were corrupt (a charge thrown at the medieval papacy.. ie: if your pope is a drunkard or visited a prostitute, his teachings must be false). The whole thing about the Bible being translated into other languages is overblown, because of the difficulty of circulating translations at the time (though the Church was reluctant to allow non-Latin translations in worship, except those translated FROM the Latin).. they were expensive, and few people could read anyway. Vernacular worship at the time probably wouldn't have been that bad of an idea though, it was just slow to change.

So in some ways the Reformation was a good idea, but the direction it took did cause a lot of problems. Every ambitious or disaffected prince or priest decided to start his own church and denounced all the others as heretics. Everybody persecuted everyone else.

The very word "Reformation" is also rather loaded (though what else would you call it)? To people who think it's a good thing they often say "REFORMation" it's about reform! How can you be against reform? The "counter reformation" obviously means the RC was admitting they were corrupt and bad! They're evil, eviiiiil!

Obviously people who disliked the RC were glad that it's political power was being challenged (liberals would talk about "diversity" etc). The positive effects would be focus on different bible translations and more study (as people sought to prove each other wrong by going over every inch of scripture looking for something to denounce each other with). The bad effects would be persecution and centuries of misunderstanding arising from party-bandwagon tactics.

As is, the 95 theses weren't a bad idea. But what did Luther expect to happen? That the Church would just go "oh you're right! We screwed up, let's change everything to what you want, good job."

Instead they debated, he didn't convince them change was necessary and they said "nope" and then he got mad (calling the Pope "the Antichrist" is a good way to make friends, right?), and they told him to shut up, and he fine I'm leaving, and then the wars and all that crap started. ; P

Today some inroads into correcting misunderstandings are being made, but there's always fundies who get in the way (ultra traditionalist Catholics like Mel Gibson's church, fundies like Fred Phelps and Jack Chick, etc... of course the latter aren't Lutherans, rather Independant Baptists, but still).


At least we aren't trying to kill each other anymore (except in Northern Ireland)...

Anyway that's my 2 cents. It's pretty complicated, and you can read whole libraries on the subject. The internet is full of rants on the subject.

[Kurgan]

Oh, forgot (dang lack of edit), the other way of reading REFORMATION is as "Re Forming" meaning, restructuring the Church.

The Catholic idea would be "well, the structure was setup by Christ and his apostles, so if it isn't broke, don't fix it". Protestants would say either it IS broke or since it's not spelled out 100% exactly in the Bible the way it is today, then you have to change it (but how many Protestant churches are identical to the NT descriptions of churches? few if any I would think).

The Catholic response to the last thing is that who cares if it's not 100% how the NT describes some churches? The NT itself shows changes in the church occuring (and doesn't say they were wrong) with the culture. They start allowing gentiles into the church and wave the old Jewish rules. They start making up positions like Deacons (Jesus never mentioned Deacons did he?), etc. They start annointing with oil for healing. Jesus never did that, did he? So the idea is that you can do these new things, so long as it doesn't contradict what came before. If they could change it, why not now?

I've talked to some Baptists who say "well all that stuff was allowed in the first century, but it's not allowed now." Well, based on what? I guess they believe that the Apostles had a special connection and special authority which stopped immediately after they died (so around 100 CE or so). So the argument goes on.

Luther basically was really saying "don't interpret the Bible the way the Pope and the Councils have done it" (originally he was in favor of the Pope having less power and the Council having the final say, which is one thing that didn't work in his favor even today, the Pope is the only one who can call a true Council these days, so he has defacto control, IIRC), but rather interpret it the way I do.

Of course he got mad when other Protestant leaders applied the same logic, which comes down to the tenant of modern Protesant-ism which is that the individual believer has the guidance of the Holy Spirit and reason, reads the bible and it just makes sense and he does it. The trouble is, everybody claims they have the Holy Spirit and are reasonable and yet they interepret it differently. This leads to accusations of demonic possession or stupidity with your opponents, etc. Some fundies resorted to the "bad translation" angle, but that doesn't always work. The point is, you have the same book and yet you can't agree on what it means.

The RC's advantage (or response) has typically been, "well we DON'T rely on just the Bible, we follow tradition." Protestants would say "well tradition is bad" (they interpret "Tradition" as something humans made up to contradict Jesus's words after the fact). Of course in the Bible itself you can argue how the Apostles had their tradition, which was based on their memories of what Jesus said and did (which the Bible admits were not all written down in the New Testament) and even prophetic revelations in the first generation of Christianity (though this last part is debated.. I mean what else were the so called "prophets" of early Christianity doing? fortelling the weather?).

So the idea is that the modern teachings make sense because they're based on interpreting that body of tradition that's been handed down all these years.

Judaism has a similar thing with the teachings of the Rabbis. It's not in the Hebrew Bible, but you have these learned scholars and mystics reading between the lines or using their experiences to explain stuff not talked about explicitly in Scripture. Of course they don't claim that it's all divine revelations, but still. That stuff was passed on orally for centuries, but eventually written down along with commentaries on the Bible (Mishnah, Talmud, etc).

So the Catholic claim is that all these traditions are not wrong, but rather based on apostolic teachings. Granted, they could have made mistakes, but the idea is that if anyone knew Jesus it was the Apostles. And so the best source for stuff that Jesus didn't say (that was recorded) is them.

Another thing in the rational is that the Bible itself is based on non-divine (ie: Jesus himself didn't put pen to paper) men (and maybe even some women) writing down stuff. If they could get it right, why not these other guys? Many of the books of the NT are admitted to be written by disciples and secretaries of Apostles like Paul and Peter, rather than by Peter and Paul themselves, so what's the big deal? This calls into your own beliefs about "inspiration."

The common argument that the RC isn't just making this stuff up for laughs is the study of Patristics (early Church fathers). People in the first 400 years or so of Christianity. You take the people living after the NT stuff was written and see what they believed. You figure if anybody got that right, it must have been the people who worked with and knew the apostles. Of course the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses would say that immediately after the last Apostle died (or maybe a little before) everybody just forgot everything or were taken over by Satan, and it wasn't until the 19th century that some angels straightened everybody out. Of course Catholics AND Protestants would say, that would make Jesus a liar because he said the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church and that the Spirit would guide them until the end of the world. Usually a denomination that claims mass apostasy and still wants to claim succession from the early church will claim there were a few guys hiding in a cave that kept the true teaching alive all those years (and the proof of these folks's existence is...?).

So that argument goes on...

Obviously secularists would say this God stuff is all nonesense, divine inspiration is hokum and none of it makes any sense at all, so who cares, but there's my three cents, just summing it up for people who haven't already studied all this stuff.

[Kurgan]

Sorry for the rambling and bad spelling.. it's late. ;P

[Patrick Degan]

Well, the Church was fairly fucking corrupt when Martin Luther came along and nailed his 95 theses to the door of the cathedral at Wurttenburg and Henry VIII decided he wanted a divorce. But then both sides proceeded to attempt to convert the other by the sword for the next fifty years, that is when they weren't burning witches and heretics in their spare time. About the only good thing to come out of the whole bloody affair was that it further shook loose Christianity's stranglehold on Europe's intellectual development to allow the Enlightment to follow upon the progress made by the Rennaisance. The downside is that it gave us the Puritans and the Calvinists, whose legacy taints this country to the present day.

[Crown]

Here's my problem with Protestantism in general - if you claim to be a Christian, you have only one choice - Catholicism. This is because Jesus himself chose Peter (the founder of the Catholic Church) as the leader after his death. To reject the Catholic Church would be to reject Jesus.

Any thoughts?

Yes.

Why did the Arch Bishop of Rome wait 800 years to reveal this so 'obvious' patriachal heirarchy in that position? The Arch Bishops claim as 'the Vicar of God' is built on a false interpretation of Matthew 16:18, 19; 'And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'

The 'rock' is not Peter, it is the faith. There is not one sign of the primacy of Peter over the other Apostles mentioned in the Bible, and if a primacy was intended, a decision of such importance and magnitude certainly would have been mentioned in the Bible in unambiguous language. In many cases the opposite is true; Paul wrote to Galatians, "I withstood him, (Peter) to the face, because he was to be blamed" (2:11); besides, it is well known that Peter thrice denied Christ. Peter did not found the Church of Rome; he actually remained in Antioch for many years before reaching Rome. To say that as Christ reigns in Heaven, Peter and his successors, the popes, govern the Earth, is a statement alien to the spirit of the Gospel and the understanding of the early Church. Christ was and is the cornerstone and the Head of the Church, consisting of all members of His Body. (cf. Col.1:24).

Face it Catholics. You're all going to hell, while we of the true faith (Orthodox) laugh it up in heaven!

[Crown]

Sorry I didn't read any more after the first post, so my earlier post has already been brought up.

In any event I would remind you that not all that long before the Reformation you had the Great Schism in which TWO popes reigned simultaneously. Likewise it is well known that several popes bought the papacy and a good body of evidence suggests that certain popes murdered their way into the office. At that peiod in time it was awful hard to tell the true vicar of Christ from just another secular despot - complete with murder, bribery, and mistresses.

I assume you mean the three Popes of near the end of 1300's. The Orthodox branch, continued (and continues to this day) to opperate how the United Church did for 800 years prior to the Arch Bishop of Rome's delusions of grandure that resulted in the great schism in the month of April in 1054.

[Xisiqomelir]

There is not one sign of the primacy of Peter over the other Apostles mentioned in the Bible

Now the names of the twelve apostles are these. The first, Simon, who is called Peter...

[Battlehymn Republic]

I assume you mean the three Popes of near the end of 1300's.

Three popes? That's the Roman pope, the antipope of Avignon, and who else?

Also, my dear Orthodox-er, what about the Assyrian Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox Churches?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Here's my problem with Protestantism in general - if you claim to be a Christian, you have only one choice - Catholicism. This is because Jesus himself chose Peter (the founder of the Catholic Church) as the leader after his death. To reject the Catholic Church would be to reject Jesus.

Any thoughts?

Yes.

Why did the Arch Bishop of Rome wait 800 years to reveal this so 'obvious' patriachal heirarchy in that position? The Arch Bishops claim as 'the Vicar of God' is built on a false interpretation of Matthew 16:18, 19; 'And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'

The 'rock' is not Peter, it is the faith. There is not one sign of the primacy of Peter over the other Apostles mentioned in the Bible, and if a primacy was intended, a decision of such importance and magnitude certainly would have been mentioned in the Bible in unambiguous language. In many cases the opposite is true; Paul wrote to Galatians, "I withstood him, (Peter) to the face, because he was to be blamed" (2:11); besides, it is well known that Peter thrice denied Christ. Peter did not found the Church of Rome; he actually remained in Antioch for many years before reaching Rome. To say that as Christ reigns in Heaven, Peter and his successors, the popes, govern the Earth, is a statement alien to the spirit of the Gospel and the understanding of the early Church. Christ was and is the cornerstone and the Head of the Church, consisting of all members of His Body. (cf. Col.1:24).

Face it Catholics. You're all going to hell, while we of the true faith (Orthodox) laugh it up in heaven!

Its really sad to watch how Orthodox and Catholics still really do get in earnest pissing matches over a dispute nearly a thousand years old over The Invisible Face in the Sky.