Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Sundiata]

Printing Press

...Fair enough.

Indeed.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Bruh moment.

He did try to fix the church. They labelled him a heretic for his efforts. That's typically what happens when you try to fix corruption from within an organization you're a part of: you get kicked out, denounced, and ostracized.

Had they actually been receptive to his proposal of reform the Protestant movement never would've happened - to the benefit of all Western Christianity.

Except many of his reforms were heretical. Its not like he got drummed out just because he said "hey maybe not sell indulgences," he got drummed out because he preached heretical doctrines and refused to capitulate.

Whether or not he was preaching heresy or not isn't relevant.

He preached; the church refused to listen. Even a heretic can have a point. Just because something is heresy doesn't mean it's wrong, either. You can be a heretic and not only have a point but also be entirely correct.

Closed-mindedness doesn't help anyone or anything.

[Tarsonis]

Except many of his reforms were heretical. Its not like he got drummed out just because he said "hey maybe not sell indulgences," he got drummed out because he preached heretical doctrines and refused to capitulate.

Whether or not he was preaching heresy or not isn't relevant.

He preached; the church refused to listen. Even a heretic can have a point. Just because something is heresy doesn't mean it's wrong, either. You can be a heretic and not only have a point but also be entirely correct.

Closed-mindedness doesn't help anyone or anything.

"Just because something is heresy doesn't mean it's wrong."

Yes, yes it does. Heresy literally means "wrong teaching or belief". Heresy is by definition, wrong.

You really don't understand how this thing works do you? A priest who preaches heresy is an anathama. Plain and simple. They cannot remain in positions of authority, nor can they rightfully be considered part of the church, until they recant their heresy.

Again he didn't just say "hey maybe not sell indulgences." For three years he preached a doctrine contrary to Christian teaching, for three years the Church tolerated him while correcting him. When he refused to recant the pope warned him that he was risking excommunication. Rather than recant, he set the warning on fire in public. Only after that was he Excommunicated.


This story your spinning of Martin Luther the righteous priest mercilessly crushed by the Church, is a fallacy of your mind.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Whether or not he was preaching heresy or not isn't relevant.

He preached; the church refused to listen. Even a heretic can have a point. Just because something is heresy doesn't mean it's wrong, either. You can be a heretic and not only have a point but also be entirely correct.

Closed-mindedness doesn't help anyone or anything.

"Just because something is heresy doesn't mean it's wrong."

Yes, yes it does. Heresy literally means "wrong teaching or belief". Heresy is by definition, wrong.

You really don't understand how this thing works do you? A priest who preaches heresy is an anathama. Plain and simple. They cannot remain in positions of authority, nor can they rightfully be considered part of the church, until they recant their heresy.

Again he didn't just say "hey maybe not sell indulgences." For three years he preached a doctrine contrary to Christian teaching, for three years the Church tolerated him while correcting him. When he refused to recant the pope warned him that he was risking excommunication. Rather than recant, he set the warning on fire in public. Only after that was he Excommunicated.


This story your spinning of Martin Luther the righteous priest mercilessly crushed by the Church, is a fallacy of your mind.

1. I never said I admired Martin Luther. You're attacking me for a belief I don't even hold. I don't revere or respect him to that degree. Honestly, I don't even have an opinion on the man himself. I admire what he was trying to do--push for reform in the church--but that's it.

2. You need to open a dictionary sometime because the definition of heresy is "an unorthodox belief that does not aline with the official belief". Now maybe in Catholic-speak where the church is always right and thinking for yourself is the mark of the Devil that means "literally wrong" but in normal English that translates as "unpopular belief", which is not the same thing as an "incorrect belief".

Please get over yourself.

[Tarsonis]

"Just because something is heresy doesn't mean it's wrong."

Yes, yes it does. Heresy literally means "wrong teaching or belief". Heresy is by definition, wrong.

You really don't understand how this thing works do you? A priest who preaches heresy is an anathama. Plain and simple. They cannot remain in positions of authority, nor can they rightfully be considered part of the church, until they recant their heresy.

Again he didn't just say "hey maybe not sell indulgences." For three years he preached a doctrine contrary to Christian teaching, for three years the Church tolerated him while correcting him. When he refused to recant the pope warned him that he was risking excommunication. Rather than recant, he set the warning on fire in public. Only after that was he Excommunicated.


This story your spinning of Martin Luther the righteous priest mercilessly crushed by the Church, is a fallacy of your mind.

1. I never said I admired Martin Luther. You're attacking me for a belief I don't even hold. I don't revere or respect him to that degree. Honestly, I don't even have an opinion on the man himself. I admire what he was trying to do--push for reform in the church--but that's it.

2. You need to open a dictionary sometime because the definition of heresy is "an unorthodox belief that does not aline with the official belief". Now maybe in Catholic-speak where the church is always right and thinking for yourself is the mark of the Devil that means "literally wrong" but in normal English that translates as "unpopular belief", which is not the same thing as an "incorrect belief".

Please get over yourself.

Orthodox definition;conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved

Orthodox, in the religious sense at least, means true teaching. Heresy in contravention to Orthodoxy, is false teaching.

That is what it means when someone is excommunicated for heresy, they proliferated false teaching and refuse to capitulate.

So in terms of "getting over one's self" physician heal thyself.

[Bienenhalde]

Bruh moment.

He did try to fix the church. They labelled him a heretic for his efforts. That's typically what happens when you try to fix corruption from within an organization you're a part of: you get kicked out, denounced, and ostracized.

Had they actually been receptive to his proposal of reform the Protestant movement never would've happened - to the benefit of all Western Christianity.

Except many of his reforms were heretical. Its not like he got drummed out just because he said "hey maybe not sell indulgences," he got drummed out because he preached heretical doctrines and refused to capitulate.

He was only deemed "heretical" because of his disagreements with the unilateral dogmatic proclaimations of certain medieval popes. What Luther taught was perfectly consistent with the scripture and the ancient ecumenical creeds, so I don't see what good reason you have for calling him heretical.

[Lost Memories]

Rather than fix the church, he became a heretic instead. It's a shame.

Bruh moment.

He did try to fix the church. They labelled him a heretic for his efforts. That's typically what happens when you try to fix corruption from within an organization you're a part of: you get kicked out, denounced, and ostracized.

Heresy is a theological matter, and Luther was a heretic. The counterreformation did a much better job at actually fixing corruption within the church.

The issue is rather that to change any organization from the inside you need consensus, everyone should come to agree to the necessity of the change, for it to happen. And for consensus to be established, there should first be open discussion over it.

Having consensus is overly important inside the church, since a change which leaves others behind is worthless, as it just creates division and basically excludes rather than welcome.
That applies both for the ones rushing on to new ideas, and both for the ones staying firm on well established customs, both have to be mindful of the opposite side, and be mindful to don't pull their own side to the point of creating so much distance to have a fracture.

"One man revolution" doesn't work to bring cohesive improvement, it just leads to wanting to "have it done" before dying, which implies rushing events; rather than truly caring for unity and communion. It also, as history shows, makes it easier for secular political powers to meddle into religious matters, which very rarely has ever been a good thing.
That in itself is very flawed from someone claiming to be christian, where communion is a central trait. A christian seeking and seeding division is contradictory. Living christianity as an individual matter is also contradictory.


I wanted to check if there is actually any mention of Luther traveling to Rome, or similarly to travel to discuss his grievances with as many equal or higher authorities than himself, to build a consensus basically, before going gung-ho with his theses:

Martin Luther was born on 10 November 1483 in Eisleben, County of Mansfeld in the Holy Roman Empire.

The Holy Roman Empire was a multi-ethnic complex of territories in Western and Central Europe that developed during the Early Middle Ages and continued until its dissolution in 1806 during the Napoleonic Wars.
The largest territory of the empire after 962 was the Kingdom of Germany, though it also included the neighboring Kingdom of Bohemia and Kingdom of Italy, plus numerous other territories, and soon after the Kingdom of Burgundy was added(south-eastern France).

On 25 December 800, Pope Leo III crowned the Frankish king Charlemagne as Emperor, reviving the title in Western Europe, more than three centuries after the fall of the earlier ancient Western Roman Empire in 476. The title continued in the Carolingian family until 888 and from 896 to 899, after which it was contested by the rulers of Italy in a series of civil wars until the death of the last Italian claimant, Berengar I, in 924. The title was revived again in 962 when Otto I, King of Germany, was crowned emperor, fashioning himself as the successor of Charlemagne[11] and beginning a continuous existence of the empire for over eight centuries.
Some historians refer to the coronation of Charlemagne as the origin of the empire, while others prefer the coronation of Otto I as its beginning.

The dynastic office of Holy Roman Emperor was traditionally elective through the mostly German prince-electors, the highest-ranking noblemen of the empire; they would elect one of their peers as "King of the Romans" to be crowned emperor by the Pope, although the tradition of papal coronations was discontinued in the 16th century.

The empire never achieved the extent of political unification as was formed to the west in France, evolving instead into a decentralized, limited elective monarchy composed of hundreds of sub-units: kingdoms, principalities, duchies, counties, prince-bishoprics, Free Imperial Cities, and other domains.
The power of the emperor was limited, and while the various princes, lords, bishops, and cities of the empire were vassals who owed the emperor their allegiance, they also possessed an extent of privileges that gave them de facto independence within their territories.
Emperor Francis II dissolved the empire on 6 August 1806 following the creation of the Confederation of the Rhine by Emperor Napoleon I the month before.

High Middle Ages (1000 to 1250 AD)
Investiture controversy
Kings often employed bishops in administrative affairs and often determined who would be appointed to ecclesiastical offices.
In the wake of the Cluniac Reforms, this involvement was increasingly seen as inappropriate by the Papacy. The reform-minded Pope Gregory VII was determined to oppose such practices, which led to the Investiture Controversy with Henry IV (r. 1056–1106), the King of the Romans and Holy Roman Emperor.

The Cluniac Reforms (also called the Benedictine Reform)[1] were a series of changes within medieval monasticism of the Western Church focused on restoring the traditional monastic life, encouraging art, and caring for the poor.
The movement began within the Benedictine order at Cluny Abbey, founded in 910 by William I, Duke of Aquitaine (875–918). The reforms were largely carried out by Saint Odo (c. 878 – 942) and spread throughout France (Burgundy, Provence, Auvergne, Poitou), into England (the English Benedictine Reform), and through much of Italy and Spain.

Henry IV repudiated the Pope's interference and persuaded his bishops to excommunicate the Pope, whom he famously addressed by his born name "Hildebrand", rather than his regnal name "Pope Gregory VII". The Pope, in turn, excommunicated the king, declared him deposed, and dissolved the oaths of loyalty made to Henry. The king found himself with almost no political support and was forced to make the famous Walk to Canossa in 1077, by which he achieved a lifting of the excommunication at the price of humiliation.

Meanwhile, the German princes had elected another king, Rudolf of Swabia. Henry managed to defeat him but was subsequently confronted with more uprisings, renewed excommunication, and even the rebellion of his sons. After his death, his second son, Henry V, reached an agreement with the Pope and the bishops in the 1122 Concordat of Worms.
The political power of the Empire was maintained, but the conflict had demonstrated the limits of the ruler's power, especially in regard to the Church, and it robbed the king of the sacral status he had previously enjoyed.
The Pope and the German princes had surfaced as major players in the political system of the empire.

Changes in political structure
During the 13th century, a general structural change in how land was administered prepared the shift of political power towards the rising bourgeoisie at the expense of the aristocratic feudalism that would characterize the Late Middle Ages. The rise of the cities and the emergence of the new burgher class eroded the societal, legal and economic order of feudalism.
Instead of personal duties, money increasingly became the common means to represent economic value in agriculture. Peasants were increasingly required to pay tribute to their lands. The concept of "property" began to replace more ancient forms of jurisdiction, although they were still very much tied together.

Late Middle Ages (1250 to 1500 AD)
Rise of the territories after the Hohenstaufens
The difficulties in electing the king eventually led to the emergence of a fixed college of prince-electors (Kurfürsten), whose composition and procedures were set forth in the Golden Bull of 1356, which remained valid until 1806.
The emperor now was to be elected by a majority rather than by consent of all seven electors. For electors the title became hereditary, and they were given the right to mint coins and to exercise jurisdiction.

The kings beginning with Rudolf I of Germany increasingly relied on the lands of their respective dynasties to support their power. In contrast with the Reichsgut, which was mostly scattered and difficult to administer, these territories were relatively compact and thus easier to control. In 1282, Rudolf I thus lent Austria and Styria to his own sons.

Imperial reform
The "constitution" of the Empire still remained largely unsettled at the beginning of the 15th century.
The rules of how the king, the electors, and the other dukes should cooperate in the Empire much depended on the personality of the respective king.
It therefore proved somewhat damaging that Sigismund of Luxemburg (king 1410, emperor 1433–1437) and Frederick III of Habsburg (king 1440, emperor 1452–1493) neglected the old core lands of the empire and mostly resided in their own lands.
Without the presence of the king, the old institution of the Hoftag, the assembly of the realm's leading men, deteriorated. The dukes often conducted feuds against each other – feuds that, more often than not, escalated into local wars.

Simultaneously, the Catholic Church experienced crises of its own, with wide-reaching effects in the Empire.
The conflict between several papal claimants (two anti-popes and the "legitimate" Pope) ended only with the Council of Constance (1414–1418); after 1419 the Papacy directed much of its energy to suppressing the Hussites.

The Hussites (Czech: Husité or Kališníci; "Chalice People") were a Czech pre-Protestant Christian movement that followed the teachings of reformer Jan Hus(c. 1372 – 1415), who became the best known representative of the Bohemian Reformation.

The Hussite movement began in the Kingdom of Bohemia and quickly spread throughout the remaining Lands of the Bohemian Crown, including Moravia and Silesia. It also made inroads into the northern parts of the Kingdom of Hungary (now Slovakia), but was rejected and gained infamy for the plundering behavior of the Hussite soldiers.
Hussites were one of the most important forerunners of the Protestant Reformation. This predominantly religious movement was propelled by social issues and strengthened Czech national awareness.

The medieval idea of unifying all Christendom into a single political entity, with the Church and the Empire as its leading institutions, began to decline.

With these drastic changes, much discussion emerged in the 15th century about the Empire itself. Rules from the past no longer adequately described the structure of the time, and a reinforcement of earlier Landfrieden was urgently needed.
Princes, nobles and/or cities collaborated to keep the peace by adhering to collective treaties which stipulated methods for resolving disputes and joint military measures to defeat outlaws and declarers of feuds.
Nevertheless, some members of the imperial estates (notably Berthold von Henneberg, archbishop of Mainz) sought a more centralized and institutionalized approach to regulating peace and justice, as (supposedly) had existed in earlier centuries of the Empire's history.


Reformation and Renaissance
In 1516, Ferdinand II of Aragon, grandfather of the future Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, died. Due to a combination of [reasons], Charles initiated his reign in Castile and Aragon, a union which evolved into Spain, in conjunction with his mother.
In 1519, already reigning as Carlos I in Spain, Charles took up the imperial title as Karl V. The balance (and imbalance) between these separate inheritances would be defining elements of his reign and would ensure that personal union between the Spanish and German crowns would be short-lived.

Before Charles's reign in the Holy Roman Empire began, in 1517, Martin Luther launched what would later be known as the Reformation. At this time, many local dukes saw it as a chance to oppose the hegemony of Emperor Charles V. The empire then became fatally divided along religious lines, with the north, the east, and many of the major cities – Strasbourg, Frankfurt, and Nuremberg – becoming Protestant while the southern and western regions largely remained Catholic.

Hans Luther was ambitious for himself and his family, and he was determined to see Martin, his eldest son, become a lawyer. He sent Martin to Latin schools in Mansfeld, then Magdeburg in 1497, where he attended a school operated by a lay group called the Brethren of the Common Life, and Eisenach in 1498. The three schools focused on the so-called "trivium": grammar, rhetoric, and logic. Luther later compared his education there to purgatory and hell.

The Brethren of the Common Life (Latin: Fratres Vitae Communis, FVC) was a Roman Catholic pietist religious community founded in the Netherlands in the 14th century by Gerard Groote, formerly a successful and worldly educator who had had a religious experience and preached a life of simple devotion to Jesus Christ. Without taking up irrevocable vows, the Brethren banded together in communities, giving up their worldly goods to live chaste and strictly regulated lives in common houses, devoting every waking hour to attending divine service, reading and preaching of sermons, labouring productively, and taking meals in common that were accompanied by the reading aloud of Scripture: "judged from the ascetic discipline and intention of this life, it had few features which distinguished it from life in a monastery", observes Hans Baron.

They seem an anticipation of the Amish.

When Groote began, education in the Netherlands was still rare, unlike in Italy and the southern parts of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation; the University of Leme of the schools of Liège was only a vague memory. Apart from some of the clergy who had studied at the universities and cathedral schools in Paris or in Cologne, there were few scholars in the land; even amongst the higher clergy there were many who were ignorant of the scientific study of Latin, and the ordinary burgher of the Dutch cities was quite content if, when his children left school, they were able to read and write the Medieval Low German and Diets.

Groote determined to change all that. The Brethren worked consistently in the scriptorium; afterwards, with the printing press, they were able to publish their spiritual writings widely. Among them are to be found the best works of 15th-century Flemish prose. The Brethren spared no pains to obtain good masters, if necessary from foreign countries, for their schools, which became centres of spiritual and intellectual life of the Catholic Church; amongst those whom they trained or who were associated with them were men like Thomas à Kempis, Dierick Maertens, Gabriel Biel, the physician Vesalius, Jan Standonck (1454–1504), priest and reformer, Master of the Collège de Montaigu in Paris, and the Dutch Pope Adrian VI.

Another famous member of the Brethren of the Common Life was Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam. His mystical and scholarly efforts produced many works of literature. One of his greatest contributions to the Christian faith was a critical Greek New Testament (1514) which challenged the previous New Testament text translations (specifically the Vulgate). Commonly called Erasmus, he embraced ecclesiastical structure yet challenged the Augustinian view (people do not choose God, but God is the only one who brings people into grace and salvation), the nature of the human will, and the corruption and problems of the late medieval church.

Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus (/ˌdɛzɪˈdɪəriəs ɪˈræzməs/, English: Erasmus of Rotterdam; 28 October 1466 – 12 July 1536) was a Dutch philosopher and Christian scholar who is widely considered to have been one of the greatest scholars of the northern Renaissance.
Using humanist techniques for working on texts, he prepared important new Latin and Greek editions of the New Testament, which raised questions that would be influential in the Protestant Reformation and Catholic Counter-Reformation.

Erasmus lived against the backdrop of the growing European religious Reformation. While he was critical of the abuses within the Catholic Church and called for reform, he nonetheless kept his distance from Luther, Henry VIII, and John Calvin.
Erasmus remained a member of the Catholic Church all his life, remaining committed to reforming the Church and its clerics' abuses from within. He also held to the doctrine of synergism, which some Reformers (Calvinists) rejected in favor of the doctrine of monergism. His middle road ("via media") approach disappointed, and even angered, scholars in both camps.

Jan Standonck (or Jean Standonk; 16 August 1453 – 5 February 1504) was a Flemish priest, Scholastic, and reformer.

He was part of the great movement for reform in the 15th-century French church. His approach was to reform the recruitment and education of the clergy, along very ascetic lines, heavily influenced by the hermit saint Francis of Paola. To this end he founded many colleges, all of them strictly controlled and dedicated to poor students with real vocations. Chief amongst them was the Collège de Montaigu, latterly part of the University of Paris.

Collège de Montaigu
On 30 May 1483, he became Master of the Collège de Montaigu, a home for poor students from far away. The College had been founded in 1314 by Gilles Aycelin, in Normandy, France—who was the Archbishop of Rouen from 1311 to 1319). Later that year, he was also made the librarian for the Sorbonne, the famous Theology Faculty of the University of Paris.

The College was in great disrepair when Jan Standonck took over—some of the walls were falling down. It had become known as the Collège de Montaigu, after the Archbishop's brother, and Jan was to make it famous. He imposed a very severe regime on the students. They could leave only with his permission and had to return before nightfall—he took the key from the porter every night. They wore only a single cloth gown and were given only a piece of bread each day to eat. They had to go to the door of a nearby monastery at eleven o'clock each morning to receive a hand-out of food. They were punished for the slightest fault, and were encouraged—out of pure charity—to inform of any misdemeanours, and to criticise each other's conduct.
On 16 December 1485, Standonck was elected Rector of the University. The students rose up in violent protest, such was his reputation for severity and strictness. (On 10 April 1490 he made a formal complaint to the authorities that students were not attending his lectures).

In 1490 he received his Doctorate in Theology, though he never made any original contribution to Theology. He just was not interested in this abstract speculation. Indeed, in the disputations that he is recorded as having carried out, with other University Doctors, he always comes off second best. He was more interested in the practical means of salvation—in his terms, a return to poverty and complete self-denial—and these he preached, in a Flemish accent, but in powerful French. He followed the rule of Francis of Paola very strictly and preached that all priests and monks should do so too.

Influence
There is no doubting the tremendous influence of Standonck at the time and the college founded was for centuries one of the most prestigious in the world, producing scholars and ardent reformers of all camps, including Béda, John Mair, Erasmus and later Calvin and Loyola. His form of reform—the education of exemplary clergy—was taken over in the Catholic Reformation but was rejected by the more radical reform demanded by Luther, Calvin and Knox, for whom personal mortification rather missed the point. The Catholic reformer Erasmus agreed. His judgement on Jan Standonk was that his intentions were good, but he lacked judgement. Erasmus's own judgement on the Collège de Montaigu was brutal indeed. Others—John Mair, for example—looked back on it with immense gratitude and respect.

Talk about being too firm, to the point of fracture... Looks like Standonck was a very zealous, to the point of being dangerous.

Between 1498 and 1501, the young Martin Luther attended the St. George's Latin school in Eisenach in preparation for his following studies at the University of Erfurt.

In 1501, at age 17, he entered the University of Erfurt, which he later described as a beerhouse and whorehouse. He was made to wake at four every morning for what has been described as "a day of rote learning and often wearying spiritual exercises." He received his master's degree in 1505.

In accordance with his father's wishes, he enrolled in law but dropped out almost immediately, believing that law represented uncertainty. Luther sought assurances about life and was drawn to theology and philosophy, expressing particular interest in Aristotle, William of Ockham, and Gabriel Biel. He was deeply influenced by two tutors, Bartholomaeus Arnoldi von Usingen and Jodocus Trutfetter, who taught him to be suspicious of even the greatest thinkers and to test everything himself by experience.

Philosophy proved to be unsatisfying, offering assurance about the use of reason but none about loving God, which to Luther was more important. Reason could not lead men to God, he felt, and he thereafter developed a love-hate relationship with Aristotle over the latter's emphasis on reason.

On 2 July 1505, while returning to university on horseback after a trip home, a lightning bolt struck near Luther during a thunderstorm. Later telling his father he was terrified of death and divine judgment, he cried out, "Help! Saint Anna, I will become a monk!"
He left university, sold his books, and entered St. Augustine's Monastery in Erfurt on 17 July 1505. Luther himself seemed saddened by the move.

His father was furious over what he saw as a waste of Luther's education.

Yeah, if only Luther had become a lawyer as his pops wished. That reminds about that other famous missed artist.

Luther dedicated himself to the Augustinian order, devoting himself to fasting, long hours in prayer, pilgrimage, and frequent confession. Luther described this period of his life as one of deep spiritual despair. He said, "I lost touch with Christ the Savior and Comforter, and made of him the jailer and hangman of my poor soul."

On 3 April 1507, Jerome Schultz, the Bishop of Brandenburg, ordained Luther in Erfurt Cathedral. In 1508, von Staupitz, first dean of the newly founded University of Wittenberg, sent for Luther to teach theology.
He received a bachelor's degree in Biblical studies on 9 March 1508, and another bachelor's degree in the Sentences by Peter Lombard in 1509. On 19 October 1512, he was awarded his Doctor of Theology and, on 21 October 1512, was received into the senate of the theological faculty of the University of Wittenberg, having succeeded von Staupitz as chair of theology. He spent the rest of his career in this position at the University of Wittenberg.

He was made provincial vicar of Saxony and Thuringia by his religious order in 1515. This meant he was to visit and oversee each of eleven monasteries in his province.

In 1516, Johann Tetzel, a Dominican friar, was sent to Germany by the Roman Catholic Church to sell indulgences to raise money in order to rebuild St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.
Tetzel's experiences as a preacher of indulgences, especially between 1503 and 1510, led to his appointment as general commissioner by Albrecht von Brandenburg, Archbishop of Mainz, who, deeply in debt to pay for a large accumulation of benefices, had to contribute a considerable sum toward the rebuilding of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.

The Roman Empire used the Latin term beneficium as a benefit to an individual from the Empire for services rendered.
Its use was adopted by the Western Church in the Carolingian Era(715, before the Holy Roman Empire) as a benefit bestowed by the crown or church officials. A benefice specifically from a church is called a precaria (pl. precariae) such as a stipend and one from a monarch or nobleman is usually called a fief.

Carolingian Era
In the 8th century, using their position as Mayor of the Palace, Charles Martel, Carloman I and Pepin II usurped a large number of church benefices for distribution to vassals, and later Carolingians continued this practice as emperors. These estates were held in return for oaths of military assistance, which greatly aided the Carolingians in consolidating and strengthening their power. Charlemagne (emperor 800–814) continued the late Roman concept of granting benefices in return for military and administrative service to his empire. Thus, the imperial structure was bound together through a series of oaths between the monarch and the recipient of land (and the resulting income) (see Fief).

In the year 800 Pope Leo III placed the crown of Holy Roman Emperor on the head of Charlemagne. This act caused great turmoil for future generations, who would afterward argue that the emperor thereby received his position as a benefice from the papacy.
In his March 1075 Dictatus Papae, Pope Gregory VII declared that only the pope could depose an emperor, which implied that he could do so just as a lord might take a benefice away from a vassal. This declaration inflamed Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV and furthered the friction caused in the Investiture Conflict.

The Catholic Church in the Middle Ages
The expanded practice continued through the Middle Ages within the European feudal system. This same customary method became adopted by the Catholic Church.
Initially the Catholic Church granted buildings, grants of land and greater and/or lesser tithes for life but the land was not alienated from the dioceses. However the Council of Lyons of 566 annexed these grants to the churches. By the time of the Council of Mainz of 813 these grants were known as beneficia.
Holding a benefice did not necessarily imply a cure of souls although each benefice had a number of spiritual duties attached to it. For providing these duties, a priest would receive "temporalities".

Temporalities or temporal goods are the secular properties and possessions of the church. The term is most often used to describe those properties (a Stift in German or sticht in Dutch) that were used to support a bishop or other religious person or establishment.
In the Middle Ages, the temporalities were usually those lands that were held by a bishop and used to support him. After the Investiture Crisis was resolved, the temporalities of a diocese were usually granted to the bishop by the secular ruler after the bishop was consecrated.

Parish priests were charged with the spiritual and temporal care of their congregation. The community provided for the priest as necessary, later, as organisation improved, by tithe.
Some individual institutions within the church accumulated enormous endowments and, with that, temporal power.

Pluralism
The holder of more than one benefice, later known as a pluralist.
By a Decree of the Lateran Council of 1215 no clerk could hold two benefices with cure of souls, and if a beneficed clerk took a second benefice with cure of souls, he vacated ipso facto his first benefice. Dispensations, however, could be easily obtained from Rome.
The benefice system was open to abuse. Acquisitive prelates occasionally held multiple major benefices.
After the Reformation, the new denominations generally adopted systems of ecclesiastical polity that did not entail benefices and the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) called "for the abandonment or reform of the system of benefices".

French Revolution
The French Revolution replaced France's system by the Civil Constitution of the Clergy following debates and a report headed by Martineau in 1790, confiscating all endowments of the church, which was until then the highest order (premier ordre) of the Ancien Régime; instead, the state awarded a salary to the formerly endowment-dependent clergy, and abolished canons, prebendaries and chaplains.

Pluralism in England

On 31 October 1517, Luther wrote to his bishop, Albrecht von Brandenburg, protesting against the sale of indulgences. He enclosed in his letter a copy of his "Disputation of Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences", which came to be known as the Ninety-five Theses.

According to one account, Luther nailed his Ninety-five Theses to the door of All Saints' Church in Wittenberg on 31 October 1517. Scholars Walter Krämer, Götz Trenkler, Gerhard Ritter, and Gerhard Prause contend that the story of the posting on the door, even though it has settled as one of the pillars of history, has little foundation in truth. The story is based on comments made by Luther's collaborator Philip Melanchthon, though it is thought that he was not in Wittenberg at the time.

Archbishop Albrecht did not reply to Luther's letter containing the Ninety-five Theses. He had the theses checked for heresy and in December 1517 forwarded them to Rome.

Pope Leo X was used to reformers and heretics, and he responded slowly, "with great care as is proper." Over the next three years he deployed a series of papal theologians and envoys against Luther, which served only to harden the reformer's anti-papal theology.
First, the Dominican theologian Sylvester Mazzolini drafted a heresy case against Luther, whom Leo then summoned to Rome. The Elector Frederick persuaded the pope to have Luther examined at Augsburg, where the Imperial Diet was held.

Over a three-day period in October 1518, Luther defended himself under questioning by papal legate Cardinal Cajetan. The pope's right to issue indulgences was at the centre of the dispute between the two men. The hearings degenerated into a shouting match.

In January 1519, at Altenburg in Saxony, the papal nuncio Karl von Miltitz adopted a more conciliatory approach. Luther made certain concessions to the Saxon, who was a relative of the Elector, and promised to remain silent if his opponents did.
The theologian Johann Eck, however, was determined to expose Luther's doctrine in a public forum. In June and July 1519, he staged a disputation with Luther's colleague Andreas Karlstadt at Leipzig and invited Luther to speak.

The original reply from the pope to the theses didn't come yet at that point. Soon™

The Latin Theses were printed in several locations in Germany in 1517. In January 1518 friends of Luther translated the Ninety-five Theses from Latin into German. Within two weeks, copies of the theses had spread throughout Germany. Luther's writings circulated widely, reaching France, England, and Italy as early as 1519.

On 15 June 1520, the pope warned Luther with the papal bull (edict) Exsurge Domine that he risked excommunication unless he recanted 41 sentences drawn from his writings, including the Ninety-five Theses, within 60 days. That autumn, Eck proclaimed the bull in Meissen and other towns. Von Miltitz attempted to broker a solution, but Luther, publicly set fire to the bull and decretals at Wittenberg on 10 December 1520.
As a consequence, Luther was excommunicated by Pope Leo X on 3 January 1521, in the bull Decet Romanum Pontificem.

At least the excomunication bulls don't take 3 years to be written.

Diet of Worms (it's not a dish)
The enforcement of the ban on the Ninety-five Theses fell to the secular authorities. On 18 April 1521, Luther appeared as ordered before the Diet of Worms. This was a general assembly of the estates of the Holy Roman Empire that took place in Worms, a town on the Rhine.
It was conducted from 28 January to 25 May 1521, with Emperor Charles V presiding. Prince Frederick III, Elector of Saxony, obtained a safe conduct for Luther to and from the meeting.

Johann Eck, speaking on behalf of the empire as assistant of the Archbishop of Trier, presented Luther with copies of his writings laid out on a table and asked him if the books were his and whether he stood by their contents. Luther confirmed he was their author but requested time to think about the answer to the second question.
He prayed, consulted friends, and gave his response the next day:

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason, I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen.

Eck informed Luther that he was acting like a heretic, saying:

Martin, there is no one of the heresies which have torn the bosom of the church, which has not derived its origin from the various interpretation of the Scripture. The Bible itself is the arsenal whence each innovator has drawn his deceptive arguments. It was with Biblical texts that Pelagius and Arius maintained their doctrines. Arius, for instance, found the negation of the eternity of the Word—an eternity which you admit, in this verse of the New Testament—"Joseph knew not his wife till she had brought forth her first-born son"; and he said, in the same way that you say, that this passage enchained him.
When the fathers of the Council of Constance condemned this proposition of Jan Hus—"The church of Jesus Christ is only the community of the elect", they condemned an error; for the church, like a good mother, embraces within her arms all who bear the name of Christian, all who are called to enjoy the celestial beatitude.

Over the next five days, private conferences were held to determine Luther's fate. The emperor presented the final draft of the Edict of Worms on 25 May 1521, declaring Luther an outlaw, banning his literature, and requiring his arrest: "We want him to be apprehended and punished as a notorious heretic." It also made it a crime for anyone in Germany to give Luther food or shelter. It permitted anyone to kill Luther without legal consequence.

Wow, the emperor red flagged him like into a pvp-full-loot game. Pretty brutal.

Luther's disappearance during his return to Wittenberg was planned. Frederick III had him intercepted on his way home, and escorted Luther to the security of the Wartburg Castle at Eisenach. During his stay at Wartburg, Luther translated the New Testament from Greek into German and poured out doctrinal and polemical writings.

That's enough for just what i was looking for, apparently no attempt to create a consensus by Luther, just direct attack.

Really, what a rollercoaster though.
From the Holy Roman Empire internal political fragmentation, to ancient roman customs of grants, to actual reformers doing more harm than good.
...to people possessing more opinions than education, raising to the rank of teachers....

[Lost Memories]

I admire what he was trying to do--push for reform in the church--but that's it.

Luther wasn't pushing for reform though, he was being oblivious of the world and time he lived in, he still lived in a feudal world(a late stage feudal world, though), with feudal like rules, feudal like politics, feudal like institutions, his "reform" just meant to tear apart an institution.
Or more simply, his "reform" was offering a great opportunity to local nobles to institute their own personal church, where they would be the ultimate authority, which would have played pretty well in legitimizing their own political independence. How is that for a reformation, having a businessman or feudal lord as head of the church(an actual feudal lord, not a clergy also dealing with temporal matters), if not, actual further corruption?

[Tarsonis]

Except many of his reforms were heretical. Its not like he got drummed out just because he said "hey maybe not sell indulgences," he got drummed out because he preached heretical doctrines and refused to capitulate.

He was only deemed "heretical" because of his disagreements with the unilateral dogmatic proclaimations of certain medieval popes. What Luther taught was perfectly consistent with the scripture and the ancient ecumenical creeds, so I don't see what good reason you have for calling him heretical.

No it wasn't

[San Kalungsod Saludong]

Why didn't the Protestant Reformation just pursue reform without breaking from the church? The Clunaic reform sought to reform the church too as what Protestants initially wanted, and then the Counter-Reformation also Reformed the church too. If they really want to found their own church, why not found your own religious order with your own philosophy instead? The Order of Augustinians, The Order of Benedictines or The Order of the Knights of Malta have their own unique philosophies too. In fact there used to be arguments between the Orders, for example the Jesuits had an argument with Dominicans over what is more important for salvation, intellect or will?

Why do we have to divide the Body of Christ?

[Lord Dominator]

Why didn't the Protestant Reformation just pursue reform without breaking from the church? The Clunaic reform sought to reform the church too as what Protestants initially wanted, and then the Counter-Reformation also Reformed the church too. If they really want to found their own church, why not found your own religious order with your own philosophy instead? The Order of Augustinians, The Order of Benedictines or The Order of the Knights of Malta have their own unique philosophies too. In fact there used to be arguments between the Orders, for example the Jesuits had an argument with Dominicans over what is more important for salvation, intellect or will?

Why do we have to divide the Body of Christ?

Rather incompatible theology would be your answer.

[Bienenhalde]

Why didn't the Protestant Reformation just pursue reform without breaking from the church? The Clunaic reform sought to reform the church too as what Protestants initially wanted, and then the Counter-Reformation also Reformed the church too. If they really want to found their own church, why not found your own religious order with your own philosophy instead? The Order of Augustinians, The Order of Benedictines or The Order of the Knights of Malta have their own unique philosophies too. In fact there used to be arguments between the Orders, for example the Jesuits had an argument with Dominicans over what is more important for salvation, intellect or will?

Why do we have to divide the Body of Christ?

Because the pope tried to force Luther to repudiate some of his core theological criticisms of late medieval Catholicism? Because Luther was wrongly denounced as a heretic simply for opposing dubious theological innovations on the part of the Vatican?

[Tomislavija]

We should post Christian temed songs, what are you favorite one? I will start

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sLr1GZ5oI2Y

[The Archregimancy]

To think that today is Marymas. Maligayang bati, Mahal na Ina!

I'm no longer the only member of the moderation team to occasionally dip into this thread.

If you feel so inclined, please pray for Visayan; he might need it!

[Salus Maior]

I just loved when someone would say God damn out of habit and Luke would run down on them and begin brutalizing them while their friends watched and screamed in terror. That shit was hilarious.

Till he runs up on the wrong person. That's a good way to get killed here. That type of Zealotry is toxic.

Especially if he’s living in Lebanon.

[Tarsonis]

Why didn't the Protestant Reformation just pursue reform without breaking from the church? The Clunaic reform sought to reform the church too as what Protestants initially wanted, and then the Counter-Reformation also Reformed the church too. If they really want to found their own church, why not found your own religious order with your own philosophy instead? The Order of Augustinians, The Order of Benedictines or The Order of the Knights of Malta have their own unique philosophies too. In fact there used to be arguments between the Orders, for example the Jesuits had an argument with Dominicans over what is more important for salvation, intellect or will?

Why do we have to divide the Body of Christ?

Because the pope tried to force Luther to repudiate some of his core theological criticisms of late medieval Catholicism? Because Luther was wrongly denounced as a heretic simply for opposing dubious theological innovations on the part of the Vatican?

Propaganda is propaganda no matter how many times you repeat it.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

1. I never said I admired Martin Luther. You're attacking me for a belief I don't even hold. I don't revere or respect him to that degree. Honestly, I don't even have an opinion on the man himself. I admire what he was trying to do--push for reform in the church--but that's it.

2. You need to open a dictionary sometime because the definition of heresy is "an unorthodox belief that does not aline with the official belief". Now maybe in Catholic-speak where the church is always right and thinking for yourself is the mark of the Devil that means "literally wrong" but in normal English that translates as "unpopular belief", which is not the same thing as an "incorrect belief".

Please get over yourself.

Orthodox definition;conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved

Orthodox, in the religious sense at least, means true teaching. Heresy in contravention to Orthodoxy, is false teaching.

That is what it means when someone is excommunicated for heresy, they proliferated false teaching and refuse to capitulate.

So in terms of "getting over one's self" physician heal thyself.

Except that's not what your own definition says. It clearly says that something is accepted or believed to be true; this is not the same as it being true.

Why didn't the Protestant Reformation just pursue reform without breaking from the church? The Clunaic reform sought to reform the church too as what Protestants initially wanted, and then the Counter-Reformation also Reformed the church too. If they really want to found their own church, why not found your own religious order with your own philosophy instead? The Order of Augustinians, The Order of Benedictines or The Order of the Knights of Malta have their own unique philosophies too. In fact there used to be arguments between the Orders, for example the Jesuits had an argument with Dominicans over what is more important for salvation, intellect or will?

Why do we have to divide the Body of Christ?

Corruption, mostly. Typically on both sides with traditionalists wanting to keep their fortunes and reformists wanting to make their own fortunes.

Why I recognize no church. There is only one Church, and like God it is all-encompassing. If you are Christian then you part of the singular Christian Church.

[Tomislavija]

Why didn't the Protestant Reformation just pursue reform without breaking from the church? The Clunaic reform sought to reform the church too as what Protestants initially wanted, and then the Counter-Reformation also Reformed the church too. If they really want to found their own church, why not found your own religious order with your own philosophy instead? The Order of Augustinians, The Order of Benedictines or The Order of the Knights of Malta have their own unique philosophies too. In fact there used to be arguments between the Orders, for example the Jesuits had an argument with Dominicans over what is more important for salvation, intellect or will?

Why do we have to divide the Body of Christ?

Because the pope tried to force Luther to repudiate some of his core theological criticisms of late medieval Catholicism? Because Luther was wrongly denounced as a heretic simply for opposing dubious theological innovations on the part of the Vatican?

Protestant looted monasteries in northern Europe. That was the whole point.

[Tarsonis]

Orthodox definition;conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved

Orthodox, in the religious sense at least, means true teaching. Heresy in contravention to Orthodoxy, is false teaching.

That is what it means when someone is excommunicated for heresy, they proliferated false teaching and refuse to capitulate.

So in terms of "getting over one's self" physician heal thyself.

Except that's not what your own definition says. It clearly says that something is accepted or believed to be true; this is not the same as it being true.

It is when we're talking about theological doctrines. Heresy=wrong teaching/belief/doctrine/etc.

This is a pretty universally understood concept.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Except that's not what your own definition says. It clearly says that something is accepted or believed to be true; this is not the same as it being true.

It is when we're talking about theological doctrines. Heresy=wrong teaching/belief/doctrine/etc.

This is a pretty universally understood concept.

No, this is just your "the church is infallible; conform or die" side showing.

[Tarsonis]

It is when we're talking about theological doctrines. Heresy=wrong teaching/belief/doctrine/etc.

This is a pretty universally understood concept.

No, this is just your "the church is infallible; conform or die" side showing.

No this is me speaking as an academic. In the context of religious communities, where the unifying element is a set of beliefs and doctines, especially in the abrahamic faiths, heresy and orthodoxy are juxtaposed.
In this context:
"orthodox" means true/correct teaching
"heresy" means wrong teaching

You can make an argument that Luther wasn't a heretic.
You can make an argument that Luther was a heretic overall but some of what he taught was orthodox.

But you can't make an argument that heresy isn't wrong, because in this context heresy literally means wrong.

[Luminesa]

Rather than fix the church, he became a heretic instead. It's a shame.

Bruh moment.

He did try to fix the church. They labelled him a heretic for his efforts. That's typically what happens when you try to fix corruption from within an organization you're a part of: you get kicked out, denounced, and ostracized.

Had they actually been receptive to his proposal of reform the Protestant movement never would've happened - to the benefit of all Western Christianity.

At the very least the Council of Trent condemned the sale of indulgences, which was one of his complaints. I think what exacerbated Martin Luther's split was a couple of things: his conduct toward several important Catholic leaders (including the Holy Roman Emperor at the Concordat of Worms), his declining mental health in general (his mental state had always been somewhat fragile, but this is not to say he was an unreasonable person. Rather, he carried intense scrupulosity and paranoia throughout his life which intensified in his later years), and some of his personal actions (such as marrying a nun). Some Catholics had asked for reforms as well, whether they be St. Theresa of Avila reforming the Carmelites or Erasmus asking for the pope to reform how he ran the Vatican. But what Luther asked for in some instances (along with tearing seven books out of the Bible) was too much.

[Auristania]

No, this is just your "the church is infallible; conform or die" side showing.

No this is me speaking as an academic. In the context of religious communities, where the unifying element is a set of beliefs and doctines, especially in the abrahamic faiths, heresy and orthodoxy are juxtaposed.
In this context:
"orthodox" means true/correct teaching
"heresy" means wrong teaching

You can make an argument that Luther wasn't a heretic.
You can make an argument that Luther was a heretic overall but some of what he taught was orthodox.

But you can't make an argument that heresy isn't wrong, because in this context heresy literally means wrong.

Prod Doctrine and Orthodox Doctrine are indeed Heresy from Roman POV.
Likewise Roman Doctrine is Heresy from Orthodox and Prod POV.

Luther was orthodox from Prod POV and heretic from Roman POV. Both sides would say that wouldn't they?

[Northern Davincia]

No this is me speaking as an academic. In the context of religious communities, where the unifying element is a set of beliefs and doctines, especially in the abrahamic faiths, heresy and orthodoxy are juxtaposed.
In this context:
"orthodox" means true/correct teaching
"heresy" means wrong teaching

You can make an argument that Luther wasn't a heretic.
You can make an argument that Luther was a heretic overall but some of what he taught was orthodox.

But you can't make an argument that heresy isn't wrong, because in this context heresy literally means wrong.

Prod Doctrine and Orthodox Doctrine are indeed Heresy from Roman POV.
Likewise Roman Doctrine is Heresy from Orthodox and Prod POV.

Luther was orthodox from Prod POV and heretic from Roman POV. Both sides would say that wouldn't they?

Yes, but the Protestant POV is wrong. That is the most important difference.

Why didn't the Protestant Reformation just pursue reform without breaking from the church? The Clunaic reform sought to reform the church too as what Protestants initially wanted, and then the Counter-Reformation also Reformed the church too. If they really want to found their own church, why not found your own religious order with your own philosophy instead? The Order of Augustinians, The Order of Benedictines or The Order of the Knights of Malta have their own unique philosophies too. In fact there used to be arguments between the Orders, for example the Jesuits had an argument with Dominicans over what is more important for salvation, intellect or will?

Why do we have to divide the Body of Christ?

Rather incompatible theology would be your answer.

Indeed, but Lutheran theology was artificially invented by Luther. It is the work of man, not God.

[Salus Maior]

It is when we're talking about theological doctrines. Heresy=wrong teaching/belief/doctrine/etc.

This is a pretty universally understood concept.

No, this is just your "the church is infallible; conform or die" side showing.

Except we're not saying "conform or die".

We're saying that we hold certain things true, and other things to be untrue. Which is the basic of the basic of holding any kind of belief.