Let's try another tack since it's not that I disagree with you, I truly don't understand you or your point. That tack is to ask the following questions:

Do you agree that the RCC, at the time of the Reformation, was horribly corrupt? Corrupt financially, corrupt morally and corrupt theologically (perhaps not in their official doctrines, but in what they were actually preaching to the people, e.g., that people could purchase their salvation)?

If so, what alternatives did Luther have? If you were his counselor, what would you have advised him to do about that corruption?

My point is that celebrating schism is dumb. This should be a day of mourning and fasting in the West, a day of repentance.

I sympathize with Luther but I think he should have submitted to his bishop in the end. Not all are called to be teachers or bishops. And he could have worked as a reformer from within, as others did.

Like most things in history, Luther and his situation were far more complicated than people generally allow.* I also think that we are in a fundamentally different situation today than he was in, to the point that there really is zero excuse for persisting in schism. It is much less important what Luther should have done, and far more important to recognize what we should be doing.



*Best example of this I know is this mini-series which is 1000% worth the read.
https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html

Quote:

---

now suddenly you want to ask me who was more right between Luther and Zwingli.

---

I did not ask you that. You must be merely skimming my posts. Your responses are strangely inapposite.

Quote:

---

I didn't blame Luther for anything. And yet he was a schismatic.

---

False. It was the RCC that was schismatic. Luther did not leave the RCC; the RCC kicked him out.

Quote:

---

What were the fruits of the Reformation?

---

I can't believe that you ask that. Are you that ignorant of the history of Protestant Christianity and western Europe? Here are just some of the fruits:

• The greatest missionary effort that the world has ever seen, resulting in hundreds of millions of people, if not more, becoming Christians.
• The creation of hospitals all over western Europe, and not just for the rich, but primarily for the poor.
• The reform of European political and social systems to help the poor against the restraints of feudalism.
• Almost universal literacy
• Universal education, starting with the invention and use of Sunday Schools (they were started to teach people to read so that they could read their Bible's for themselves)
• Massive growth of charitable organizations, including orphanages.

That's a horrible witness to the world? What would be a good witness? What has the EO ever done in comparison? The EO has all of the hallmarks of merely a shell of what Christ intended for his Church. It has the outer form, but no inner life.

Quote:

---

And he could have worked as a reformer from within, as others did.

---

That is either simply historically ignorant or naive. He was trying to work as a reformer from within, and the Church forbade him from continuing, threatening him with eternal damnation and death by fire (like they had done with so many earlier reformers).

Have you ever actually studied the Reformation? You sound like you're simply parroting RCC talking points, but I know that you're smarter and normally more knowledgeable than that.

What would you do if in your church, you discovered that all of the priests (is that the correct term?) were stealing money and molesting children. You go the the priests and they threaten you with excommunication (is that what the EO calls it or something else?). You then go up the chain to the bishops and you find, to your horror, that they are engaged in even worse actions than the priests?

What do you do?

Quote:

---

I can't believe that you ask that. Are you that ignorant of the history of Protestant Christianity and western Europe? Here are just some of the fruits:

• The greatest missionary effort that the world has ever seen, resulting in hundreds of millions of people, if not more, becoming Christians.
• The creation of hospitals all over western Europe, and not just for the rich, but primarily for the poor.
• The reform of European political and social systems to help the poor against the restraints of feudalism.
• Almost universal literacy
• Universal education, starting with the invention and use of Sunday Schools (they were started to teach people to read so that they could read their Bible's for themselves)
• Massive growth of charitable organizations, including orphanages.

---

• producing great atheists and EO converts

Quote:

---

Have you ever actually studied the Reformation?

---

Have you? I mean from both sides of the fence?

Quote:

---

False. It was the RCC that was schismatic. Luther did not leave the RCC; the RCC kicked him out.

---

This is strange - it seems you don't know the difference between schism and excommunication. They are not the same thing. Luther set up his own church. That is the definition of schism.

Quote:

---

I can't believe that you ask that. Are you that ignorant of the history of Protestant Christianity and western Europe? Here are just some of the fruits:

---

None of those are fruits of the Reformation in a vacuum, and this is a bizarre list.

The greatest missionary effort that the world has ever seen, resulting in hundreds of millions of people, if not more, becoming Christians.

Yeah, that's why all of the New World is protesta-- oh wait.

The creation of hospitals all over western Europe, and not just for the rich, but primarily for the poor.

Hospitals were invented by St Basil the Great in the 300s. They are not a product of the Reformation. And today the RCC manages something like 1/4 of all healthcare facilities in the world.

The reform of European political and social systems to help the poor against the restraints of feudalism.

Almost universal literacy

These have nothing to do with the Reformation as such. If anything the same zeigeist that produced this also carried along the reformers.

Universal education, starting with the invention and use of Sunday Schools (they were started to teach people to read so that they could read their Bible's for themselves)

This happens regardless of the Reformation and has far more to do with the printing press than the 95 thesis or some theological idea about people reading the bible for themselves.

Massive growth of charitable organizations, including orphanages.

The Reformers did not invent charitable giving or orphanages.

But never mind that. You also glossed over two centuries of warfare and bloodshed that left millions dead. And a church that is more fractured than ever today.

Quote:

---

That's a horrible witness to the world? What would be a good witness? What has the EO ever done in comparison? The EO has all of the hallmarks of merely a shell of what Christ intended for his Church. It has the outer form, but no inner life.

---

What does the EO have to do with whether or not the Reformation was a good thing?

But at any rate, while you call me ignorant you clearly know very little of the history of the east. Tsk.

Quote:

---

What would you do if in your church, you discovered that all of the priests (is that the correct term?) were stealing money and molesting children. You go the the priests and they threaten you with excommunication (is that what the EO calls it or something else?). You then go up the chain to the bishops and you find, to your horror, that they are engaged in even worse actions than the priests?

What do you do?

---

I wouldn't start my own church, that's for darn sure.

The example for this is St Maximos the Confessor. God willing I would have the strength.

https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/01/life-of-st-maximus-confessor.html

jkag89 said:

---

Quote:

---

Have you ever actually studied the Reformation?

---

Have you? I mean from both sides of the fence?

---

I took a course on the Reformation in college, and it was taught from both sides of the fence. I was certainly not taught that Luther was a great man. Instead, I learned about all of his foibles and even indefensible actions and statements, including writing a pamphlet justifying the nobility wiping out the peasants and Luther's gross anti-semitism (a failure shared by the RCC at that time, I believe). I also learned many of the great things that the RCC has done. For example, the common knowledge about the RCC's missionary efforts in the New World as merely enslaving the native Indians is not at all accurate.

So, in other words, I believe that I was taught a balanced view of the Reformation. What I react negatively to on this board is the simplistic view of the RCC and EO folks that "Luther and Protestants bad".

The irony is that, eventually, the RCC ended up adopting most if not all of the reforms that Luther was requesting.

Quote:

---

There are several examples of reformers that stayed in the Church and did just that.

---

You guys keep dodging and refusing to acknowledge the fact that Luther did not leave the Church, the Church kicked him out.

Zobel said:

---

Nobody said Luther and protestants bad. You just can't stand the fact that I say schism is bad and should not be celebrated. Why do you think that bothers you so much?

---

That's not my position nor have I ever stated it. In fact, I've explicitly agreed with you. My point is that schism is not completely unacceptable; that there are worse things than schism. Here's exactly what I said:

Quote:

---

As I just pointed out to Zobel, I don't think people are celebrating the rent but rather the return to truth. (Actually, this whole discussion is entirely academic because, as far as I know, nobody is actually doing any celebration about the Reformation today or any other day.)

---

Do you even read my posts?

Quote:

---

I wouldn't start my own church, that's for darn sure.

---

So where would you worship if your church kicked you out for trying to peacefully reform it?

And didn't you personally cause schism when you left your SB church to join the EO? Aren't you being a hypocrite?

jkag89 said:

---

Quote:

---

The irony is that, eventually, the RCC ended up adopting most if not all of the reforms that Luther was requesting.

---

Irony is that you post this and don't see that reform was possible without schism.

---

Irony is that you fail to recognize that it was the RCC, not Luther, that took the actions to cause schism.

jrico2727 said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

There are several examples of reformers that stayed in the Church and did just that.

---

You guys keep dodging and refusing to acknowledge the fact that Luther did not leave the Church, the Church kicked him out.

---

Not dodging it Excommunication was not the first effort made with Luther. There were several years of dialog where he was shown answers based on scripture and tradition. He refused to back down. When someone is not only refusing to stop speaking error and even worse is trying to convince others to follow them in error excommunication is the appropriate response. Why do you think so many are clamoring to have proabortion Catholic politicos given the same treatment? It was a final effort to try to have him recognize his errors and reform himself and return home as the prodigal did, versus starting a whole new church that fractured within one generation.

---

So you think that there is a scriptural basis for selling indulgences? That there is a scriptural basis for people being forgiven for all sins simply by giving money or political power to the RCC? That RCC bishops could live in mansions the equal of any king, go to war, and murder their enemies? That Popes could have orgies in the Vatican and father children from their own daughter?

Luther was supposed to quietly acknowledge the legitimacy of all that? He had no responsibility to his students or followers?

jkag89 said:

---

Quote:

---

So where would you worship if your church kicked you out for trying to peacefully reform it?

---

Again it is clear you don't what excommunication is, Luther was never kicked out of the Catholic Church.

---

Sure he was. What do you think happened to him? Not only was he excommunicated, but the Holy Roman Emperor, at the instigation of the RCC, classified him as an outlaw and heretic. That meant that anyone who encountered him could kill him without any legal recourse.

What do you call that other than being "kicked out"? Would any RCC church have allowed him to worship with them and take communion?

Jabin said:

---

jkag89 said:

---

Quote:

---

So where would you worship if your church kicked you out for trying to peacefully reform it?

---

Again it is clear you don't what excommunication is, Luther was never kicked out of the Catholic Church.

---

Sure he was. What do you think happened to him?

---

Excommunication is not a banishment. The Church does not even believe it has to power to kick out anyone baptized into the Church.

Quote:

---

Would any RCC church have allowed him to worship with them and take communion?

---

Again do you understand what excommunication actually is?

Quote:

---

Excommunication is intended to invite the person to change behaviour or attitude, repent, and return to full communion. It is not an "expiatory penalty" designed to make satisfaction for the wrong done, much less a "vindictive penalty" designed solely to punish. Excommunication, which is the gravest penalty of all, is always "medicinal", and is "not at all vindictive". The Catholic Church teaches in the Council of Trent that "excommunicated persons are not members of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent"

---

My man, your first response was in objection to me stating just that. "But celebrating a return to God's truth is great."

It seems to me the reason it bothers you so much is because you approve of the schism as a return to truth, therefore me criticizing schism feels like criticizing your faith.

People are selectively celebrating the "return to truth" because every protestant will celebrate Reformation day - separately from all the rest. Like I asked you - and you never answered - which Reformer offered the truth? Luther, Calvin, Zwingli? It can't be all of them.

If you agree that schism is bad and shouldn't be celebrated, what are we doing here? Why do you keep having to add "but..."?

Quote:

---

So where would you worship if your church kicked you out for trying to peacefully reform it?

And didn't you personally cause schism when you left your SB church to join the EO? Aren't you being a hypocrite?

---

[url=https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/3335391/2][/url]This is like the most ridiculous spin on what happened with Luther. The guy didn't just get excommunicated one day when he was minding his own business. Four years elapsed from his posting of the 95 theses to his excommunication. During that time Luther attacked the entire foundation of ecclesiastical authority and structure. We can't act surprised at what came after.

If my bishop excommunicated me (which is not "kicking me out") I would have a choice - either repent or go without holy communion. That is the matter of conscience.

And no, I did not "cause schism". I was raised as a southern baptist and left that church as an adult. It sort of seems perhaps you don't know the working definition of schism as far as christendom goes...? Schism isn't merely being excommunicated but setting up something over and against the church, making another church structure. Hence St Paul's critique - was Christ divided? The Church is One, because there is One Bread, One Cup. A separate communion is schism. It is no surprise whatever that what separates the reformers from both Rome and each other is their theology of communion... this is the very heart of the matter.

I did not start my own church. If anything one might construe me leaving a faith that began ostensibly in the 16th century (but more realistically traces its roots to the 19th century in the south) for the Apostolic faith as ending schism.

Not explicitly so, but all the finger pointing and criticism for the "schism" seems to be in one direction only.

And when the RCC had a history of burning quiet reformers, it's hard for me to see that their position in the schism has much if any to be said for it.

The Reformers were not above such methods either. Pot Kettle Black

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

Not only was he excommunicated, but the Holy Roman Emperor, at the instigation of the RCC, classified him as an outlaw and heretic. That meant that anyone who encountered him could kill him without any legal recourse.

---

Hard to feel sympathy when Luther put his fate in Caesar's hands claiming that the church should be answerable to the state. Win some you lose some I guess.

---

Huh? That makes no sense. On that I may not be knowledgeable on the historical facts. I was not aware that Luther put himself in the Holy Roman Emperor's hands. If so, please elucidate.

jkag89 said:

---

The Reformers were not above such methods either. Pot Kettle Black

---

Sigh, I never said that the Reformers were perfect or sinless. You're missing the entire point of this discussion.

Quote:

---

Not explicitly so, but all the finger pointing and criticism for the "schism" seems to be in one direction only.

---

I have said many times on this forum over the years that the Catholic Church deserves a large part of the blame for the Schism between East and West and also the schism that developed in the west due to its actions during the time of the Reformation. Happy now? Or do you still need me to say any rent in the Body of Christ is a good thing?

Jabin said:

---

jkag89 said:

---

The Reformers were not above such methods either. Pot Kettle Black

---

Sigh, I never said that the Reformers were perfect or sinless. You're missing the entire point of this discussion.

---

No you are.

Quote:

---

So is there scriptural evidence for indulgences yes. Our Lord granted St. Peter and the Apostles the power to loose and bind and to forgive sins. This is still given to their successors the Pope and Bishops. Almsgiving is lauded as a good work all throughout scripture. Was the out right selling of them bad, not necessarily . Was the way that it was done during Luther's day bad, absolutely and Tetzel is a embarrassment to this day. Again no one is arguing the corruption.

St. Peter denied Christ 3 times
Judas betrayed him
All other apostles besides John abandoned him and hid for self preservation

These are the first bishops. Why do we think we deserve better than they did during the time of Christ? The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a club of only saints. Every sect in Christianity has unsavory characters in their past and present. Again another man's sin is not a reason for me to abandon the body of Christ.

---

Judas was a bishop? I know that's not what you're saying, but that's how your post reads.

But even if Jesus did grant the apostles the power to forgive sins (which I'm not sure Luther controverted), he certainly did not give them the right to do for money for themselves and their personal power. God created the priesthood in ancient Israel, but like the RCC priests, the sons of Samuel abused their power for their own selfish gain and God killed them for that.

I agree that no church is perfect and I'm not holding the RCC to a standard of perfection. What it seems, though, is that you guys fail to recognize the RCC's evil and sinful reaction when it was confronted by Luther and others of its sinful conduct.