Why did Protestantism become a religion even though the Catholic Church was reformed
I know that Martin Luther found a lot of fault in the Catholic Church during those time's but I don't understand why it came to be the beginning of a total knew religion. It could have just been to prove a point that the Church was not following its original roots. Besides the Church recognized its errors and corrected itself by having the Council of Trent.
Protestantism is NOT a religion. It WAS a revolt against the Catholic Churches false teachings. There are no Protestants around anymore. There are just Christians and Catholics. Remember, Christians were here much longer than the Catholics.
It wasn't a totally new religion. Protestantism is still Christianity. And Catholocism is not the "original roots" of Christianity, don't be so presumptuous. Trent was too little too late for the protestants.
religions in fight over the most pointless matters. It is because there is no real truth to any of it, that each think that they have the truth and the others are blasphemous.
because they removed the 7 books of the bible to make the rules a little easier. most protestant denominations have deviated from Martins initial teachings anyway. most liked being in the "easier" mode and others were just stupid to the facts....look at some of your posts here.... Rene made me about spit up my soda!
Change was Luther's intention.
The church sold sins to build St. Peters!
You could also "buy" a loved one out of purgatory (not biblical anyway)!
There was much more the Catholic church did and still does to this day. The church was not following God in the least. It was against the law to read the bible, to have a bible. In fact many were killed for having a bible.
Luther had to hide the fact he translated the Latin bible into other languages!
The church was a mess, Luther tried to change it via the Pope and was made an enemy of "The church".
there are to this very day, MANY many flaws, false teachings, within this church you call Catholicism. do not be deceived. just as Martin Luther nailed his thesis, it got him no where, but ex communicated/shunned, then the murders began, so where is your historical proof of any of the many errors "corrected"??? they may have abandoned "indulgences" big whoopee....they have not returned to God's Word, they condemn Sola Scripture and actually believe they are "above" the Bible and have "authorities" to change times and laws so...I don't get where your co min from ...
Luther was a Roman Catholic priest who saw errors in what was happening. He published his ideas - the famous "95 Thesis," but had no intentions of founding a church That happened by others who used his work as a basis for the new way (which was supposed to be a return to the old way). His ideas, while major, did not go as far as others, like Zwingly, Calvin, etc. So, the Reformation happened. The Council of Trent really did not change all that much. The true reformation of the Roman Catholic church really happened with Vatican II, but this wasn't until the 1960 area - meaning that the Protestant churches had been around for a long time.
And, while Vatican II saw major changes, there are still divisive issues. Papal Authority being the biggest. Married priest is another, and women in the clergy still another.
It is also a stretch to say that Protestantism is a new religion. Protestants are still Christian, and some, like the Anglicans, are really just the continuation of the Church in their areas. So, nothing new at all.
Martin Luther thought he knew it all so he decided to take matters into his own hands and now look what happened...you have how many different Protestant denominations? Also, I'd like to point out that doctrinally, nothing changed about the Catholic Church.
Martin Luther turned to Mormonism afterward, he is widely disputed.
Protestantism became a religion by denying the false doctrines of the catholic church, hence the root word to "Protest".
If you study the Catholic history it gets pretty violent, the protestants were the ones like regular folk now just picking up their bibles and reading them and figuring out things for themselves. Catholics didn't like it much
Martin Luther found fault with practices of the Catholic Church, but never intended to leave the Catholic Church. Catholicism in medieval times was intensely Bible-focused. To bring that into focus, look at the people today who are cocooning with their Bibles and private prayer groups and not attending formal church services. They are where the medieval monks were in those days, sort of. Monastic members as far back as St. Anthony participated in hours of prayer each day, attended daily Mass and received Eucharist, but they were notable for their focus on Biblical scholarship. For a thousand years! This is where ALL Biblical scholarship comes from. This Catholic monastic tradition, part of continuing Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church. Martin Luther's mature being was shaped by this tradition, and he became deeply intellectual by it even though in the end, his undoing was he started reading the Bible outside of this tradition and became ultimately confused by his own logic. He wasn't nearly as smart as he thought he was. No one is. That's why we HAVE the Catholic Church. To provide the necessary leadership.
Outside the medieval practice of Catholicism, which is what today's Protestant worship resembles, leadership seemed nonexistent to people in the Holy Roman Empire (HRE). To the west and north, the Netherlands/Low Countries were ruled by Spain. To the south, Italy comprised numerous city-states/Papal States. To the east, the remnants of the Byzantine Empire remained with their state "orthodox" Catholic Churches and a threat of Islamic invasion. And also to the east, you had loose Catholic communities in Bohemia who were by the standards of the day devout, but by today's standards we'd consider them corrupt. And over the entirety of the HRE ruled Charles V, again a Spanish king, put into power by seven "electors" of the HRE.
One of those electors was the Wiley Fred of Saxony (Germany). HE used Martin Luther and protected him because he saw him as a way to drive a wedge between the Catholic German princes and the pope. The popes had temporal power in those days; they ruled as defector monarchs while providing leadership as the shepherds of Christ's church (as they are to this very minute and will never be otherwise). The Germans of the HRE were never united in any cause, but Fred united them AGAINST a cause: Catholicism/popes. Luther's teachings were the wedge. That's where Protestantism comes from. The common folk were devoutly Catholic and remained so after Luther. But the secular leaders -- Marshall's, mayors, police, chamberlains, chancellors, etc. -- these people craved power. Show them a reason to dis the pope, and they're down with it. Luther provided reason. These people had ZERO power over the clergy, which had grown large but disorganized. The Church owned TONS of land given to it and donated by kingly law when men died with no male heir. The German princes coveted land because only in land ownership could you ever make lots of money. Lots of Germany (all of Switz) was mountain. Not farmland. Spain was discovering a New World with stories of gold flowing in the streets of Peru (which it was). Jealousy was rising.
So the reason Protestantism became a religion was that the German princes, civics in Switzerland (on the Spanish Road trade route), the king of England Henry "Psycho" the VIII, and the Dutch who felt they needed a little nationalistic expression against the Spanish Crown..... these people had no reason to be faithful to a Church who's leaders seemed to neglect them. The ultimate authority holding this whole world together was Papal Authority, which aristocrats had no reason before Luther to doubt. Political science was forming by humanistic notions of self-determination, self-rule, freedoms by law, etc. etc. The vulnerable point of power were the popes because they was busy with so many things.... had no solid Canon Law other than the Biblical canon and Luther questioned THAT!.... had no seminaries to train priests, so some were great, some were real losers.... So now, armed with the PRINTING PRESS, reasons against the Church could be argued effectively.
Protestantism became a religion is because it was a political movement of people with SOME power against papal authority that SOME people perceived as unfair. That's the basic reason. The key was the aristocracy. 60 percent of the aristocracy became Protestant in protest of papal authority in a few countries. Because now they could grab land and power back from the Church. Power came in the form of heresy laws. Heresy was a crime against the state, and since they were heads of the state, they could make heresy mean anything they want. And they did.
First you have to prove that the Church "was not following" whatever you mean by original roots. And then you made a claim that the Church made "errors" and needed to "correct" them. Such claims and accusations are without merit unless you have a valid source, not the angst of one Martin Luther who achieved excommunication for just about the same thing you are doing.
State your sources as to what it "was not following." Scandalous claims are without evidence. What then were the "errors" regarding doctrine which you have imagined needed "correcting."
The Church is the infallible Word of God. Being infallible, it is not defective, but its doctrine is always undetectable and not in error. This can be pr oven by the examination of each and every Council's pronouncements that were held. I invite you to do your homework at Hanover university where you can read the Council pronouncements on line.
Why did Protestantism become a religion even though the Catholic Church was reformed
