All things considered, did Luther have a case?

[JohnStrachan]

Martin Luther came to reject several teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic Church; in particular, he disputed the view on indulgences. Luther proposed an academic discussion of the practice and efficacy of indulgences in his Ninety-five Theses of 1517. His refusal to renounce all of his writings at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520 and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms in 1521 resulted in his excommunication by the pope and condemnation as an outlaw by the Holy Roman Emperor.

Luther taught that salvation and, consequently, eternal life are not earned by good deeds but are received only as the free gift of God’s grace through the believer’s faith in Jesus Christ as redeemer from sin. His theology challenged the authority and office of the Pope by teaching that the Bible is the only source of divinely revealed knowledge, and opposed sacerdotalism by considering all baptized Christians to be a holy priesthood.

Martin Luther is not a popular figure in most Catholic circles. Understandably so. Most Catholics who think about Luther at all, hold him responsible for the dividing of Christendom and the problem of ongoing Christian disunity. What’s more, the pesky Fundamentalist missionary at the door, who attacks the Catholic Church as the “whore of Babylon”, is seen, rightly or wrongly, as a direct spiritual descendant of the former German Augustinian monk.

On visiting his homeland in 2011, Pope Benedict XVI seemed comfortable talking about Luther with Lutherans, even talking with obvious regard and sympathy for Luther. Shocking?

This is not the 16th century, but can there be at least sympathy and even understand for Luther’s motivations? Did Luther have justification to split with Rome given the circumstances?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

People like Luther and King Henry VIII likely meant well when they started out. As a Catholic, I believe they both got carried away the more they went on.

 

[meltzerboy2]

I think from the Catholic perspective (and certainly from the Jewish one), Luther failed to recognize that faith and good deeds are NOT diametrically opposed to one another, but rather good deeds are really an extension of faith, a faith in action in the form of charity (love). Probably his followers–as followers often do–went even further than what Luther had intended or foreseen.

 

[Wesrock]

While acknowledging the politics at play and corruption among some in the Church, no, Luther as a Catholic did not have the authority or justification to break from Rome. It resulted in not even just a schism but in rejecting many of the essentials of authentic Christian life and worship. And certainly once a council was called to address the issues at stake (if only it had been called sooner) the protestants should have accepted the results, as was the case with prior councils in which there were major theological disputes.

But what’s done is done. Protestants today are not like the Protestants then who were Catholic and rejected it, and hopefully we Christian brothers and sisters can move towards unity.

 

[Hodos]

This is not the 16th century, but can there be at least sympathy and even understand for Luther’s motivations? Did Luther have justification to split with Rome given the circumstances?

To answer your question from a Lutheran perspective, I believe that Luther absolutely had legitimate and serious grievances over the doctrine and practice of the medieval Church. That being said, I do not believe that Luther had justification to split with Rome. However, I also do not believe that the split occurred on Luther’s initiative. If you accept that Luther had legitimate serious grievances about the doctrine and practice of the Church, and I do (you may respectfully disagree), and you also accept that as an ordained priest and doctor of theology that Luther had the authority, duty, and credentials to raise these issues, then you can sympathize with the fact that he did. The Pope blew Luther off, pretty much from the get-go. He basically said Luther is just a drunken German and will sober up in the morning. When the Pope’s agents did engage with Luther, they refused to address the doctrinal issues, but rather insisted on authority alone that Luther drop the subject even though these issues were pastoral concerns. Lastly, Luther as a priest did not have the power of ex-communication, the Pope did. So the initiative for splitting the Church rested with the Pope, not with Luther. To the shame and detriment of the Church, the Western Church was split. However, Luther continued to illuminate the gospel and there were many blessing that came about to both the Roman Church, and what would eventually be termed the Protestant Churches that resulted from Luther’s work.

 

[Hodos]

I think from the Catholic perspective (and certainly from the Jewish one), Luther failed to recognize that faith and good deeds are NOT diametrically opposed to one another, but rather good deeds are really an extension of faith, a faith in action in the form of charity (love). Probably his followers–as followers often do–went even further than what Luther had intended or foreseen.

Actually, that is what Luther taught. If you ever read Luther’s treatise On Good Works you will see that Luther held that we are justified by faith apart from works. However, as God’s creation we still have the obligation to our neighbor to do good works for our neighbor’s sake, not for justification before God. Luther’s issue was not with good works, but with good works as the means by which we are justified before God.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Thank you for that clarification.

 

[1ke]

This is not the 16th century, but can there be at least sympathy and even understand for Luther’s motivations?

Of course. Many people are responsible for terrible consequences that they may not have anticipated when they set things in motion.

Did Luther have justification to split with Rome given the circumstances?

No.

There are no circumstances that can justify such.

 

[Delphinus]

Did Luther have justification to split with Rome given the circumstances?

Luther had some perfectly valid problems with abuses in the church. Just as we have problems in the church now, and there will always be problems in the church because it’s populated entirely by fallen humans. Edit to add: It’s worth noting that the church did indeed address the injustice and abuse that Luther pointed out, it just took some time. The church is ALWAYS going through periods of reform.

That doesn’t justify fracturing the church, though. Yes, he faced some tough circumstances, but Luther was a hothead and he let his temper get the better of him (in my opinion).

 

[steve-b]

Martin Luther came to reject several teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic Church; in particular, he disputed the view on indulgences. Luther proposed an academic discussion of the practice and efficacy of indulgences in his Ninety-five Theses of 1517. His refusal to renounce all of his writings at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520 and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms in 1521 resulted in his excommunication by the pope and condemnation as an outlaw by the Holy Roman Emperor.

Luther taught that salvation and, consequently, eternal life are not earned by good deeds but are received only as the free gift of God’s grace through the believer’s faith in Jesus Christ as redeemer from sin. His theology challenged the authority and office of the Pope by teaching that the Bible is the only source of divinely revealed knowledge, and opposed sacerdotalism by considering all baptized Christians to be a holy priesthood.

Martin Luther is not a popular figure in most Catholic circles. Understandably so. Most Catholics who think about Luther at all, hold him responsible for the dividing of Christendom and the problem of ongoing Christian disunity. What’s more, the pesky Fundamentalist missionary at the door, who attacks the Catholic Church as the “whore of Babylon”, is seen, rightly or wrongly, as a direct spiritual descendant of the former German Augustinian monk.

On visiting his homeland in 2011, Pope Benedict XVI seemed comfortable talking about Luther with Lutherans, even talking with obvious regard and sympathy for Luther. Shocking?

This is not the 16th century, but can there be at least sympathy and even understand for Luther’s motivations? Did Luther have justification to split with Rome given the circumstances?

All the ecumenical speak aside

Bottom line, Luther blew it…BIG TIME

He was given multiple opportunities to recant and he didn’t.

His errors were identified HERE in 1520

when no response from Luther

He was labeled a heretic and excommunicated 1521

btw,

Luther admitted he added alone to faith where it wasn’t in the original text. As He put it, "if your Papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word “alone” (sola), say this to him: “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so”
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-translate.txt ( 1530 )

Unless one knows differently, he died as he was labeled…a heretic

AND

We have indulgences still because they are valid

 

[Bushum]

As a lifelong Protestant who is converting to Catholicism I agree with steve -b. I really regret that I spent so much of my life believing in Martin Luther’s nonsensical ideas. He is responsible for the biggest Schism in the Church.

 

[steve-b]

As a lifelong Protestant who is converting to Catholicism I agree with steve -b. I really regret that I spent so much of my life believing in Martin Luther’s nonsensical ideas. He is responsible for the biggest Schism in the Church.

In advance, and prayers ascending on your journey, welcome home

 

[minux]

However, as God’s creation we still have the obligation to our neighbor to do good works for our neighbor’s sake, not for justification before God.

No, without what contemporaries call a “Moral Substrate,” which is one Church, you fall victim to Relativism, so every Christian Church that springs up is subjectively justified for whatever they proclaim.

You could argue that all the denominations away from Catholicism are “helping bring different types of people to God,” or you could argue that they are an exemplifications of the failings of contemporary society, but you can not argue that multiple moral substrates (i.e., the Catholic and Protestant ways) are somehow beneficial in determining morality, works, and redemption.

 

[Wesrock]

meltzerboy2:

I think from the Catholic perspective (and certainly from the Jewish one), Luther failed to recognize that faith and good deeds are NOT diametrically opposed to one another, but rather good deeds are really an extension of faith, a faith in action in the form of charity (love). Probably his followers–as followers often do–went even further than what Luther had intended or foreseen.

Actually, that is what Luther taught. If you ever read Luther’s treatise On Good Works you will see that Luther held that we are justified by faith apart from works. However, as God’s creation we still have the obligation to our neighbor to do good works for our neighbor’s sake, not for justification before God. Luther’s issue was not with good works, but with good works as the means by which we are justified before God.

Catholics teach that meritorious good works find their first cause in God, and that man can increase his justification by cooperating with them. God leaves the door open for man’s cooperation (or not) as it pleases him. But one does not merit the gifts of initial justification or final perseverance. Really, the dispute isn’t rooted in faith vs works, but in how we consider man’s response to God’s grace.

 

[Thom18]

Luther had absolutely no justification to split. He helped to tear the Body of Christ apart, and how can we see that in anything but negative terms?

 

[Thom18]

Wasn’t he defrocked or no longer a monk?

Yes, and excommunicated.

 

[stpurl]

No. Where the Church actually needed to work on the wrong actions of some of its members re: indulgences (those members who, in the ‘selling’, were actually going against Church teaching) could have been, and indeed was, handled ‘within’ the Church.

There was never a justification to split with Rome. Circumstances is just another way to play, ‘situational ethics’.

I’ve said before, had Martin Luther been content to submit himself and work through and with the Church, he could very likely have become ST. Martin Luther, and in the good he could have done considering his intellect and his grasp of the German psyche, could have made Europe united against the later troubles under Henry VIII such that Protestantism would have never gained a hold there, leading to a totally united Europe, under a reformed/purified Catholic Church, who would have then entered into exploration and colonization with a ‘united’ focus, which would probably have resulted in a completely Catholic South America AND Africa, much better treatment of the indigenous peoples, true conversions, etc. Of course we won’t know what the story’ could have been’, and God will make all things well ultimately, but it’s still a sad story that ultimately stems from one man’s hellish PRIDE.

 

[Isearch]

His errors were identified HERE in 1520

You do realize that one of the supposed errors Luther was condemned for was that he didn’t believe heretics should be executed, right?

 

[minux]

Yes, it would. It would, also, stand true when the writers of the Declaration of Independence utilized “Under God” with no central moral fabric to expand on what that means. Makes sense why a Relativist country (throw all Western countries like England, Germany, Sweden, etc. into the mix, too) could tolerate child exploitation, barbaric factory conditions, economic inequalities and taxes, unequal rights for minorities, etc.

The item for the Relativist to wrestle with is how come certain actions and behaviors are condoned in one society and despised in another? How is cannibalism tolerated in certain West African countries, but generally despised in America? Why is an issue like abortion so polarizing in a country like America that is “Under God?” How could England allow for such economic inequalities of laborers, but feel that state ran health insurance is needed? These are all contradictions that exist, because we live in the “I am right society,” and we picked and chose from the Catholic Church for moral dogma. Look at the various Revolutions in society and I would argue, in the West, they were to drive the country in question away from Catholicism.

 

[Elf01]

I’ve said before, had Martin Luther been content to submit himself and work through and with the Church, he could very likely have become ST. Martin Luther

It’s possible. It’s also possible that the reforms would not have happened, or been delayed.