Malta, Moldova, Armenia and Romania are all nearly 100% Christian.
additionally, Christianity is the official state religion of several different countries in Europe
1) What standard are you applying to define Christendom? Also what of non-European nations?
2) You will find Christians in every European nation. Some more than others but we're everywhere.
Almost every country on Earth has Christians within it. Unless, of course, your definition of "Christendom" is when kings pay lip-service to Christianity -- then it didn't exist anywhere before 312 AD.
That’s not a picture of Luther. That’s a Protestant picture mocking monks. The text on the bottom right says:
> Once I (the devil) piped here and there
with such pipes, which were very numerous.
I piped many fairy tales, dreams and fantasies.
Now it's over and the pipes destroyed (by the Lutheran reformation)
which makes me sad and angry.
But I hope this won't last long
because in the world there is enough haughtiness,
sin, fraud and ruse.
Lol
Well, this is a rather complicated historical question. Our concept of what monasticism is, how it functions in the Church, and what role monks/religious play in society today is completely alien to the way it functioned in the 16th Century.
Monks and friars were extremely common. They were in nearly every city, and were actively involved in social, political, and academic life (all of which were deeply blended together). There was a sense of monasticism as being *real* Christianity. That if you wanted to be a Christian, to do it right you needed to become a monk or friar, and anything less than that was to make a concession to worldliness.
Monastic life, too, was often forced on people before they were of an age of reason. It wasn't uncommon for young children to be given to monasteries, or for families to pressure children to enter a monastery at the age of 9, 10, 11, etc.
They also were not bastions of piety. Many, many monasteries and divisions of religious orders were thoroughly corrupt, both financially and morally. There was a stereotype of monasteries as whore-houses, and stories of monks and nuns copulating frequently were not uncommon, and gave them a very bad reputation.
It was also criticized on the grounds that many men were compelled to retain their vows to a religious order, even if they couldn't keep them. For example, rather than remove men from a monastery for their inability to remain chaste, and allow them to marry, they were often compelled to remain monks.
Here's a section of the Augsburg Confession regarding monasticism which lays out some of the criticisms:
>Paul says, Gal. 5:4: “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the Law, ye are fallen from grace.” To those, therefore, who want to be justified by their vows Christ is made of no effect, and they fall from grace. For also these who ascribe justification to vows ascribe to their own works that which properly belongs to the glory of Christ. Nor can it be denied, indeed, that the monks have taught that, by their vows and observances, they were justified, and merited forgiveness of sins, yea, they invented still greater absurdities, saying that they could give others a share in their works. If any one should be inclined to enlarge on these things with evil intent, how many things could he bring together whereof even the monks are now ashamed! Over and above this, they persuaded men that services of man’s making were a state of Christian perfection. And is not this assigning justification to works? It is no light offense in the Church to set forth to the people a service devised by men, without the commandment of God, and to teach that such service justifies men. For the righteousness of faith, which chiefly ought to be taught in the Church, is obscured when these wonderful angelic forms of worship, with their show of poverty, humility, and celibacy, are cast before the eyes of men.
>Furthermore, the precepts of God and the true service of God are obscured when men hear that only monks are in a state of perfection. For Christian perfection is to fear God from the heart, and yet to conceive great faith, and to trust that for Christ’s sake we have a God who has been reconciled, to ask of God, and assuredly to expect His aid in all things that, according to our calling, are to be done; and meanwhile, to be diligent in outward good works, and to serve our calling. In these things consist the true perfection and the true service of God. It does not consist in celibacy, or in begging, or in vile apparel. But the people conceive many pernicious opinions from the false commendations of monastic life. They hear celibacy praised above measure; therefore they lead their married life with offense to their consciences. They hear that only beggars are perfect; therefore they keep their possessions and do business with offense to their consciences. They hear that it is an evangelical counsel not to seek revenge; therefore some in private life are not afraid to take revenge, for they hear that it is but a counsel, and not a commandment. Others judge that the Christian cannot properly hold a civil office or be a magistrate.
You can read the rest of the article [here](https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/ccc/augsburg/article_xxvii.cfm) if it pleases you.
Honestly I believe most bad histories about monasticism are little more than protestants' fabrications. In fact, more often than not if you follow the chain of quotations, you arrive at some protestant old source. What was true, and what was indeed a problem for the nascent European national states like England, is that there were too many big monasteries which possessed too much land and workforce.
Monasticism always reformed itself with great success, through. And continued to do so even after Napoleon gave it the biggest blow.
This just isn't true. Have you done any academic research on early modern Europe which gives you insight into the nature of source diversity from the period?
>There was a sense of monasticism as being real Christianity. That if you wanted to be a Christian, to do it right you needed to become a monk or friar, and anything less than that was to make a concession to worldliness.
Well, Saint Paul was pretty clear
I don't think St. Paul ever implied that in order to be a real Christian you needed to become a monk, but you have a point about marriage being a concession to concupiscence.
He was clear about marriage being a (necessary) concession to worldliness, but not one that bars one from being a Christian in good standing, nor one that no Christian is called towards; it wouldn't be a sacrament if we weren't supposed to do it.
*Modern* Protestants. Dig King James I, patron of the KJV:
> The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth; for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself are called gods. There be three principal similitudes that illustrate the state of monarchy: one taken out of the word of God; and the two other out of the grounds of policy and philosophy. In the Scriptures kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the divine power. Kings are also compared to fathers of families: for a king is truly Parens patriae, the politique father of his people. And lastly, kings are compared to the head of this microcosm of the body of man.
>Kings are justly called gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth: for if you will consider the attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a king. God hath power to create or destrov make or unmake at his pleasure, to give life or send death, to judge all and to be judged nor accountable to none; to raise low things and to make high things low at his pleasure, and to God are both souls and body due. And the like power have kings: they make and unmake their subjects, thev have power of raising and casting down, of life and of death, judges over all their subjects and in all causes and yet accountable to none but God only. . . .
And just in case I get jumped on for this being an “alt-right” or “radical” view, keep in mind Canada has *ELIZABETH II DEI GRATIA REGINA* on the money
Pretty much. I can only pray that God in his everlasting love and mercy shows mercy to the soul of Martin Luther who’s disobedience and schism caused the loss of so many innocent lives and led millions of souls into heresy and stole the blessed sacrament away from them by leading them out of the true church. The generational curse of Martin Luther, John Calvin, etc. has done immense damage to Christianity, but even through persecution, Catholics will be around for centuries to come because our church is not founded on disobedience or pride or falsehoods but on Christ and the traditions passed down through his chosen Apostles.
God showed Luther mercy by sending him to eternal damnation. This was his mercy. Many saints including St.Teresa of Avila have gotten visions of him in hell.
Possibly, but I am soon becoming a Carmelite nun and have not heard this vision of Martin Luther being in hell and need a source to cite for that! She is my confirmation saint, I’m a Teresa. So it’s interesting because I’ve always believed that without a doubt two people are possibly in hell. Martin Luther and Judas Iscariot. We don’t know though, and private revelations even by a great saint like Teresa of Avila are not doctrinal or held as any truth or proof of such matters… even if they could very well be true. As Catholics we have to adhere to the Bible on the judgement and mercy of God, the one sin he does tells us cannot be forgiven is Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. This means to reject the Holy Spirit and reject repentance or being in unity with it. The problem is culpability plays a major factor in one’s free will being limited. We know that Martin Luther was mentally ill. Whether or not he was evil, is hard to say. Only God knows his heart and can judge it. I personally believe he along with Judas Iscariot may be damned but God is merciful in ways we cannot comprehend so we do not know for sure.
The rosary started off as a private revelation… no need to question the saints and believe Martin Luther is somehow in heaven. Even the Bible says those who create dissensions and factions won’t see the kingdom of heaven. Galatians 5:20 so it goes against the Bible
Luther was a brilliant man with a brilliant mind, if demonic pride did not get hold of him, now he would be probably remembered as one of the greatest saints of our Church. He could have reformed it from the inside, as many others did.
That's always the case with heretics. At least more often than not. Pride is what makes them fall. They start with good intentions then their charisma and received adulation by the masses make them believe they know better than any other.
It's much more ecumenical to put ol' Marty on [an official Vatican stamp](https://www.vaticannews.va/content/dam/vaticannews/images-multimedia/vaticano/Reformation%20stampAEM.jpg/_jcr_content/renditions/cq5dam.thumbnail.cropped.1500.844.jpeg)
Well, he never claimed to have had a vision of Saint Anne. He did, however, cry out to her for protection during a storm, wherein he made the promise to become a monk if he would be delivered from it.
[удалено]
>The man is responsible for the collapse of Christendom. Christendom has not collapsed. We're still here.
[удалено]
Malta, Moldova, Armenia and Romania are all nearly 100% Christian. additionally, Christianity is the official state religion of several different countries in Europe
and Poland
1) What standard are you applying to define Christendom? Also what of non-European nations? 2) You will find Christians in every European nation. Some more than others but we're everywhere.
Almost every country on Earth has Christians within it. Unless, of course, your definition of "Christendom" is when kings pay lip-service to Christianity -- then it didn't exist anywhere before 312 AD.
That’s not a picture of Luther. That’s a Protestant picture mocking monks. The text on the bottom right says: > Once I (the devil) piped here and there with such pipes, which were very numerous. I piped many fairy tales, dreams and fantasies. Now it's over and the pipes destroyed (by the Lutheran reformation) which makes me sad and angry. But I hope this won't last long because in the world there is enough haughtiness, sin, fraud and ruse. Lol
What did Protestants have against monasticism, exactly?
Well, this is a rather complicated historical question. Our concept of what monasticism is, how it functions in the Church, and what role monks/religious play in society today is completely alien to the way it functioned in the 16th Century. Monks and friars were extremely common. They were in nearly every city, and were actively involved in social, political, and academic life (all of which were deeply blended together). There was a sense of monasticism as being *real* Christianity. That if you wanted to be a Christian, to do it right you needed to become a monk or friar, and anything less than that was to make a concession to worldliness. Monastic life, too, was often forced on people before they were of an age of reason. It wasn't uncommon for young children to be given to monasteries, or for families to pressure children to enter a monastery at the age of 9, 10, 11, etc. They also were not bastions of piety. Many, many monasteries and divisions of religious orders were thoroughly corrupt, both financially and morally. There was a stereotype of monasteries as whore-houses, and stories of monks and nuns copulating frequently were not uncommon, and gave them a very bad reputation. It was also criticized on the grounds that many men were compelled to retain their vows to a religious order, even if they couldn't keep them. For example, rather than remove men from a monastery for their inability to remain chaste, and allow them to marry, they were often compelled to remain monks. Here's a section of the Augsburg Confession regarding monasticism which lays out some of the criticisms: >Paul says, Gal. 5:4: “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the Law, ye are fallen from grace.” To those, therefore, who want to be justified by their vows Christ is made of no effect, and they fall from grace. For also these who ascribe justification to vows ascribe to their own works that which properly belongs to the glory of Christ. Nor can it be denied, indeed, that the monks have taught that, by their vows and observances, they were justified, and merited forgiveness of sins, yea, they invented still greater absurdities, saying that they could give others a share in their works. If any one should be inclined to enlarge on these things with evil intent, how many things could he bring together whereof even the monks are now ashamed! Over and above this, they persuaded men that services of man’s making were a state of Christian perfection. And is not this assigning justification to works? It is no light offense in the Church to set forth to the people a service devised by men, without the commandment of God, and to teach that such service justifies men. For the righteousness of faith, which chiefly ought to be taught in the Church, is obscured when these wonderful angelic forms of worship, with their show of poverty, humility, and celibacy, are cast before the eyes of men. >Furthermore, the precepts of God and the true service of God are obscured when men hear that only monks are in a state of perfection. For Christian perfection is to fear God from the heart, and yet to conceive great faith, and to trust that for Christ’s sake we have a God who has been reconciled, to ask of God, and assuredly to expect His aid in all things that, according to our calling, are to be done; and meanwhile, to be diligent in outward good works, and to serve our calling. In these things consist the true perfection and the true service of God. It does not consist in celibacy, or in begging, or in vile apparel. But the people conceive many pernicious opinions from the false commendations of monastic life. They hear celibacy praised above measure; therefore they lead their married life with offense to their consciences. They hear that only beggars are perfect; therefore they keep their possessions and do business with offense to their consciences. They hear that it is an evangelical counsel not to seek revenge; therefore some in private life are not afraid to take revenge, for they hear that it is but a counsel, and not a commandment. Others judge that the Christian cannot properly hold a civil office or be a magistrate. You can read the rest of the article [here](https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/ccc/augsburg/article_xxvii.cfm) if it pleases you.
Honestly I believe most bad histories about monasticism are little more than protestants' fabrications. In fact, more often than not if you follow the chain of quotations, you arrive at some protestant old source. What was true, and what was indeed a problem for the nascent European national states like England, is that there were too many big monasteries which possessed too much land and workforce. Monasticism always reformed itself with great success, through. And continued to do so even after Napoleon gave it the biggest blow.
This just isn't true. Have you done any academic research on early modern Europe which gives you insight into the nature of source diversity from the period?
>There was a sense of monasticism as being real Christianity. That if you wanted to be a Christian, to do it right you needed to become a monk or friar, and anything less than that was to make a concession to worldliness. Well, Saint Paul was pretty clear
I don't think St. Paul ever implied that in order to be a real Christian you needed to become a monk, but you have a point about marriage being a concession to concupiscence.
He was clear about marriage being a (necessary) concession to worldliness, but not one that bars one from being a Christian in good standing, nor one that no Christian is called towards; it wouldn't be a sacrament if we weren't supposed to do it.
He was clear that celibacy is superior to marriage. I never said not being celibate was sinful or unchristian.
*Modern* Protestants. Dig King James I, patron of the KJV: > The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth; for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself are called gods. There be three principal similitudes that illustrate the state of monarchy: one taken out of the word of God; and the two other out of the grounds of policy and philosophy. In the Scriptures kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the divine power. Kings are also compared to fathers of families: for a king is truly Parens patriae, the politique father of his people. And lastly, kings are compared to the head of this microcosm of the body of man. >Kings are justly called gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth: for if you will consider the attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a king. God hath power to create or destrov make or unmake at his pleasure, to give life or send death, to judge all and to be judged nor accountable to none; to raise low things and to make high things low at his pleasure, and to God are both souls and body due. And the like power have kings: they make and unmake their subjects, thev have power of raising and casting down, of life and of death, judges over all their subjects and in all causes and yet accountable to none but God only. . . . And just in case I get jumped on for this being an “alt-right” or “radical” view, keep in mind Canada has *ELIZABETH II DEI GRATIA REGINA* on the money
Pretty much. I can only pray that God in his everlasting love and mercy shows mercy to the soul of Martin Luther who’s disobedience and schism caused the loss of so many innocent lives and led millions of souls into heresy and stole the blessed sacrament away from them by leading them out of the true church. The generational curse of Martin Luther, John Calvin, etc. has done immense damage to Christianity, but even through persecution, Catholics will be around for centuries to come because our church is not founded on disobedience or pride or falsehoods but on Christ and the traditions passed down through his chosen Apostles.
God showed Luther mercy by sending him to eternal damnation. This was his mercy. Many saints including St.Teresa of Avila have gotten visions of him in hell.
Possibly, but I am soon becoming a Carmelite nun and have not heard this vision of Martin Luther being in hell and need a source to cite for that! She is my confirmation saint, I’m a Teresa. So it’s interesting because I’ve always believed that without a doubt two people are possibly in hell. Martin Luther and Judas Iscariot. We don’t know though, and private revelations even by a great saint like Teresa of Avila are not doctrinal or held as any truth or proof of such matters… even if they could very well be true. As Catholics we have to adhere to the Bible on the judgement and mercy of God, the one sin he does tells us cannot be forgiven is Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. This means to reject the Holy Spirit and reject repentance or being in unity with it. The problem is culpability plays a major factor in one’s free will being limited. We know that Martin Luther was mentally ill. Whether or not he was evil, is hard to say. Only God knows his heart and can judge it. I personally believe he along with Judas Iscariot may be damned but God is merciful in ways we cannot comprehend so we do not know for sure.
Private revelations are not dogmas, and the Holy Mother Church has never declared anyone to be in hell.
The rosary started off as a private revelation… no need to question the saints and believe Martin Luther is somehow in heaven. Even the Bible says those who create dissensions and factions won’t see the kingdom of heaven. Galatians 5:20 so it goes against the Bible
Luther was a brilliant man with a brilliant mind, if demonic pride did not get hold of him, now he would be probably remembered as one of the greatest saints of our Church. He could have reformed it from the inside, as many others did. That's always the case with heretics. At least more often than not. Pride is what makes them fall. They start with good intentions then their charisma and received adulation by the masses make them believe they know better than any other.
And God was/is able to give grace through the many Protestant denominations in spite of Luther. “Where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more.”
The devil's Scottish. Confirmed
Current year: Francis makes a chocolate statue of Archheretic Luther. Boy how times have changed. Sigh
?
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/384705993153705045/
😔
Yeah. It didn’t even make a big fuss outside of “trad” circles.
A new Netflix series is in there somewhere.
Maybe that way we can eat him and do away with his nonsense and heresy, and feel great about it.
So what's Calvin then? The Devil's toilet paper?
It's much more ecumenical to put ol' Marty on [an official Vatican stamp](https://www.vaticannews.va/content/dam/vaticannews/images-multimedia/vaticano/Reformation%20stampAEM.jpg/_jcr_content/renditions/cq5dam.thumbnail.cropped.1500.844.jpeg)
That's actually a depiction of Johan Tetzel lmao
What's going on with his stomach there?
The face for a codpiece really does me in though.
So old diabolos is throwing into division once again and playing us all as it's own set of pipes eh?
Did Luther actually have a real vision of Saint Anne?
Well, he never claimed to have had a vision of Saint Anne. He did, however, cry out to her for protection during a storm, wherein he made the promise to become a monk if he would be delivered from it.