All things considered, did Luther have a case?

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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?

Of course I knew that particular objection would be raised. It’s sooooooo expected.

Let’s look at that error of Luther’s
33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

Think about that. The HS won’t send a heretic to hell?

Paul clearly says in Titus 3:10-11

Heresy / divisive./ schism αἱρετικὸν , used in Titus 3:10-11

IOW

definition: one who is disposed to form sects, heresies, schisms etc.
The consequences?

Paul says to Bp Titus, “After admonishing such a person once or twice, have nothing more to do with them, They are perverted, and sinful, That person is self condemned. αὐτοκατάκριτος

Now let’s look at what the Church has clarified in an ecumenical council… well before Luther was even a thought

the Lateran Council in 1215, pronouncement on the “extermination” of heretics, Internet History Sourcebooks Project

Note: canon 3, Re: (exterminate) in English.
The Latin which is what the original is written in, is exterminare, William Whitaker's Words which means to “drive out” (ex- out of + terminous- boundary). In Latin it does nor mean to destroy or kill, but to drive out of the territory. The official language of the Church is Latin. The Church does not and did not change her position on this issue of capital punishment and has been consistent on the issue… Even pope Francis today is speaking out against capital punishment and there being no good reason for it…

Need I say, that date (1215) does not show a new understanding for the Church.

Now for the Holy Spirit.

The condemned go to Hell when they die. Hell is described in all kinds of ways. Unquenchable fire is one of the descriptions. So is fire as a punishment for the condemned, heretics being one example of the condemned, against the will of the HS? Nope!

 

[steve-b]

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.

True…as the Church has always reformed herself throughout history, either by local councils or ecumenical councils.

stpurl:

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, … but it’s still a sad story that ultimately stems from one man’s hellish PRIDE.

Pride as well as all other vices, sinks many

 

[Gorgias]

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.

Practices? Sure.

Doctrine, though? I’m not sure I’d agree that his doctrinal grievances were ‘legitimate’. I might suggest that his doctrinal stances were misinterpretations of what Catholic doctrine stated. They might be ‘serious’, but IMNSHO, not ‘legitimate’. (Of course, I’m a Catholic, so that’s not too surprising a view on it.)

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.

Yes. Raising the issues, as a theologian and in the framework of theological dialogue – absolutely reasonable. His subsequent actions were not, however.

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.

Hang on a second. The Pope did not “split the Church”. Your claim boils down to “Luther was no longer Catholic, so he had the right to form a competing ‘church’”, and that doesn’t stand up to logical scrutiny on two fronts. First of all, excommunication doesn’t make a person not-Catholic. It just means that he’s currently outside the bounds of communion with the Church, and the Church wishes him to review his position and return to the folds of the Church. So, there’s no justification for leaving the Church from the fact of an excommunication that didn’t make him an ex-Catholic.

Secondly, excommunication doesn’t imply that one should or even have the right or moral duty to form a competing religion! So, Luther acted unilaterally when he said “I’m excommunicated, so I’m leaving and starting my own game.”

His theology challenged the authority and office of the Pope by teaching that the Bible is the only source of divinely revealed knowledge

Agreed. So… on what basis did he have the authority or right to challenge the authority of the Pope? (Not only as a Christian, but also as a consecrated religious, who had taken a solemn vow of obedience?)

I mean, he could ponder the questions of the authority or office of the Pope, and of the doctrine of the Deposit of the Faith… but to challenge it and declare (unilaterally) that his position was correct? Where’s the authority or right to do that?

I can understand his motivations from an academic perspective, but I don’t have sympathy for the actions he took, based on those motivations…

 

[Genesis315]

No. The true reforming saints of the “counter-reformation” are proof of that.

 

[JonNC]

The following comment is meant in a general sense and not specifically meaning anyone here at CAF. Simply put, reading typed words are not enough evidence to infer.

That said, and to be honest, accusations that Luther acted with “pride” or “selfishness”, instead of recognizing that he may have had sincere differences with what was happening within the Church in Central Europe of the time, often times appear simplistic and, yes, prideful.

 

[TULIPed]

Pride as well as all other vices, sinks many

Agreed. As do the 2x4’s in our own eyes when judged against the specs in others. I think JP2 put it well here:

“Merciful Father, on the night before his Passion your Son prayed for the unity of those who believe in him: in disobedience to his will, however, believers have opposed one another, becoming divided, and have mutually condemned one another and fought against one another. We urgently implore your forgiveness and we beseech the gift of a repentant heart, so that all Christians, reconciled with you and with one another will be able, in one body and in one spirit, to experience anew the joy of full communion. We ask this through Christ our Lord.”

 

[JonNC]

Thank you for this. It is a brief Catholic description of the reasons for Luther’s Excommunication. While I disagree with parts of it (Luther’s view of the DC Books was no different from Cajetan’s, as an example), the words prideful and selfish aren’t mentioned.

 

[stpurl]

No, they aren’t. . . I used pride (I don’t think I used selfish) and I think I stand by it. Pride is ‘the’ sin, the sin of Lucifer, to be honest it’s probably the main sin of all of us. . .I’m sure it’s mine.

I think Martin Luther showed in many ways that he was proud; his comments on the epistle of straw (St. James), etc. His actions also–in rejecting his priestly vows/promises, his marriage to a former nun, show not just that he rejected Catholic teachings but that he regarded his own knowledge and what he chose to accept as ‘right’ as more informed than that of the Christian world thus far.

 

[JonNC]

o, they aren’t. . . I used pride (I don’t think I used selfish) and I think I stand by it. Pride is ‘the’ sin, the sin of Lucifer, to be honest it’s probably the main sin of all of us. . .I’m sure it’s mine.

Probably mine, too. Someone else used selfish. But if your argument is against Luther’s pride, then it must be an argument against Pope Leo X, and Tetzel and Eck. Therefore, it really becomes no argument at all, but a blanket condemnation which lacks value. It doesn’t differentiate

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Pope Leo X was a Medici Pope and the abuse of indulgences in the Church to fill the coffers of the hierarchy, which Luther saw, motivated him in writing his thesis.

Keep in mind that the Church was probably at it’s most corrupt time. Papal armies led by the Pope himself dressed in a gold patted armor suit and the war between the Medici’s and Borgias families to control the Papacy and Church, were scandalous.

As Fr Benedict Groeschel said on EWTN and wrote in a book he authored, Luther had no intention of leaving the Catholic Church, but reforming it. He was excommunicated, which drove him further away.

I believe Luther suffered mental illness at the end of his life, caused from the guilt he felt in dividing Christianity as the result of his actions. I’m sure God showed mercy on him.

Pope Benedict XVI gave Luther praise in following his conscience and stated that he had no choice, but to follow it.

Jim

 

[c1949]

No. I’ve never done a thorough study of Luther. My rather superficial inquiry over the years lead me recently to Benjamin Wiker’s “The Reformation 500 Years Later: 12 Things you need to know.” He was interviewed on Al Kresta’s radio program, which you can listen to here

https://avemariaradio.net/audio-archive/kresta-in-the-afternoon-october-31-2018-hour-2/

Wiker makes some keen observations in the book, such as that Luther invoked the phrase “the Bible alone” to oppose the Pope and the Church, and that expression was developed by atheists 150 to 200 years before Luther’s day*, for the same reason to oppose the Pope and the Church.

The irony of that phrase :“the Bible alone” is that phrase isn’t in the Bible and Luther certainly had no “authority” from the Bible to declare several books of the old Testament as not inspired, when he was translating the Bible into German. Luther was his own “sole authority” for even deciding what was in the Bible, to begin with.

Most if not all non-Catholics follow Luther’s heresy of rejecting the inspiration of those books, while usually denying that they follow the “traditions of men” – when they are following Luther hook, line, and sinker and use his Bible as their “sole” authority – which is blatantly incorrect. What they ARE affirming is that Luther is their sole authority.

• Marsilius of Padua,

 

[Canvas]

One point that should be made is that Luther likely suffered from mental illness.

From what I have read he had severe scrupulosity, a condition I know all too well and was tormented by unwanted, intrusive thoughts. He probably suffered from extreme anxiety and depression. Scupulosity/OCD can lead one into despair if not dealt with properly.

 

[tafan2]

Henry VIII? Really? If you mean by “starting out” their early actions leading to the Reformation, I don’t see it.

 

[c1949]

I have read about Luther’s alleged mental conditions from Catholic sources. But, if you read Dietrich Bonhoffer’s The Cost of Discipleship he regards Luther as a genius, second only to Jesus himself (as I recall him explaining it).

I think there was a PBS or NatGeo special about Luther which was very sympathetic to him, portraying him as a superior intellectual, compared to his inquisitors for sure… I’m not sure that mental disorder was even recognized in Luther’s day as anything other then demon possession.

 

[JonNC]

One point that should be made is that Luther likely suffered from mental illness.

From what I have read he had severe scrupulosity, a condition I know all too well and was tormented by unwanted, intrusive thoughts. He probably suffered from extreme anxiety and depression. Scupulosity/OCD can lead one into despair if not dealt with properly.

And what does that have to do with his theology?

 

[Canvas]

Actually, it might have more to do with it than you think:

Although he sought spiritual comfort in the monastery, he confesses: “. . . I was often terrified at the name of Jesus. The sight of a crucifix was like lightning to me and when his name was spoken I would rather have heard that of the devil…. I had lost my faith and could not suppose that God was other than angry.”5 His constant attempts at absolute perfection and daily confessions (even more frequently on occasions) all give evidence of a very unbalanced spirituality which led him to doubt and even despair of his faith and ultimate salvation.

that was from:

Martin Luther’s Revolt: A Psychological Examination – Catholic World Report

read this article:

From Scrupulosity to Lutherosity, Part 1

 

[Gab123]

Martin Luther rejected the priesthood, dismissed the sacraments of confession, vilified the mass, removed books from the Bible, denied the existence of Purgatory, denigrated and tampered with Sacred Scripture to fit his theology, caused division in the Church driving millions away from the. sacraments, to name a few of his errors. Based on his erratic writings the man probably suffered from psychological/ spiritual problems…

 

[JMMJ]

That said, and to be honest, accusations that Luther acted with “pride” or “selfishness”, instead of recognizing that he may have had sincere differences with what was happening within the Church in Central Europe of the time, often times appear simplistic and, yes, prideful.

Amen. The man is dead. Let him rest in peace.

 

[Gorgias]

if you read Dietrich Bonhoffer’s The Cost of Discipleship he regards Luther as a genius, second only to Jesus himself

Not sure why this is surprising or noteworthy, given that Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran theologian and pastor. Now, if he were a Catholic bishop and he made that claim, then that would be something worth getting excited about!

 

[Emeraldlady]

Martin Luther rejected the priesthood, dismissed the sacraments of confession, vilified the mass, removed books from the Bible, denied the existence of Purgatory, denigrated and tampered with Sacred Scripture to fit his theology, caused division in the Church driving millions away from the. sacraments, to name a few of his errors. Based on his erratic writings the man probably suffered from psychological/ spiritual problems…

He did leave a legacy of dissociation in religious faith. His assertion that each person can interpret Scripture themselves should technically mean his followers have no place criticising anyone elses interpretation, and yet they do. His assertion that there are no venial and mortal sins, they are all just sins without distinction, isn’t borne out by their focus on peodphile Priests whose sins they consider worse than their own.

Luther proposed so many tenets that cause dissociation in his followers faith.