All things considered, did Luther have a case?

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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.”

steve-b:

Given pride and all other vices will be here till the end of time, I’m thinking that prayer will be prayed till the end of time.

steve-b:

in extension,

when the one who saves us, and judges us, says, few are saved

THAT ought to scare the hell out of everyone… but it doesn’t…not even close

…

 

[steve-b]

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.

We’ll no doubt find out on judgement day, if that is/was actually true .

Also

If it’s true, (and that’s an if) then in extension, knowing that NOW, then that’s not a good “case” for Luther or his followers to point to as the father of their religion. That said, I also have to wonder, do Lutherans NOW, object to the speculations, that their founder was mentally ill.

 

[steve-b]

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.

Yet

Cajetan didn’t create a revolt with his actions and views… He didn’t create division on steroids.

 

[JonNC]

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.

Yet

Cajetan didn’t create a revolt with his actions and views… He didn’t create division on steroids.

And? The article claimed Luther’s view of the canon was a reason for his excommunication.
Actually, I don’t think it was a reason to any degree. The issue of the canon is more a modern polemic by apologists.

 

[Nelka]

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.

Interestingly, King Henry VIII (when Catholic) spoke out against Luther and his chums and was awarded defender of the faith by the Pope. Unfortunately he ended up breaking away himself although he didn’t want to change his church like it was changed later on, he just wanted that divorce so made himself boss.

 

[OnAJourney]

I think in some regards yes he can have some sympathy, he wasn’t entirely wrong to point out the rot and corruption of the church at the time. And I think it was probably a mistake to excommunicate him. That only served to cement his status and inspired others to leave the Church.

 

[JonNC]

I think in some regards yes he can have some sympathy, he wasn’t entirely wrong to point out the rot and corruption of the church at the time. And I think it was probably a mistake to excommunicate him. That only served to cement his status and inspired others to leave the Church.

Which means that the Catholic Catechism is correct when it says men on both sides were to blame.

 

[OnAJourney]

Had the Church not excommunicated him I don’t think his movement would’ve gained as much momentum as it did. But yes, I think there’s plenty of blame to go around for both Luther and the Church. The sale of indulgences was absolutely wrong and immoral, however I think Luther could’ve lead a sustained campaign for reform of the Church since he had supporters amongst the prince electors of the Holy Roman Empire

 

[Hodos]

My pleasure.

 

[Hodos]

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

It is entirely foreseeable that they would not have been addressed. When you look at the responses of Prierias, Cajetan, Eck, and Leo X, none of them (maybe save Eck) even entertained Luther’s issues with the doctrine and practice of the Church at the time. Essentially all of their responses ignored the doctrinal basis of Luther’s grievances and told him to step back in line. In addition, later history (the Council of Trent) would end up with the RCC doubling down on most of the doctrinal issues that Luther raised, although some of the practices such as simony would be reformed - and even those changes would be made after Luther’s death, and after Charles V had already received the Augsburg Confession and rejected it in the Confutation.

 

[Hodos]

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.

Again, if you read the Augsburg Confession you will find a thoroughly apostolic confession of faith supported by the Early Church Fathers. Luther was catholic his entire life.

Secondly, excommunication doesn’t imply that one should or even have the right or moral duty to form a competing religion!

If preaching the apostolic doctrine of the Church (again I refer to the Augsburg Confession - feel free to demonstrate from the scriptures where it errs) is a “competing religion” then that confirms the legitimacy of Luther’s doctrinal grievances and the need to proclaim the gospel.

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.

What is actually interesting is that Luther never said the Bible alone, certainly not in the manner you are trying to use it. This is a common red herring.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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.

Yet

Cajetan didn’t create a revolt with his actions and views… He didn’t create division on steroids.

And? The article claimed Luther’s view of the canon was a reason for his excommunication.
Actually, I don’t think it was a reason to any degree. The issue of the canon is more a modern polemic by apologists.

please explain

 

[niceatheist]

It was a bit more than that. Henry also needed cash, and the Dissolution of the Monasteries gave the English Crown a great deal of money (and wasn’t all that unpopular, sentiments against the Church in England over the the vast accrual of wealth was part of the problem). Certainly, theologically, Henry remained pretty firmly Catholic, but there was already a strong Protestant presence in the English government.

 

[Hodos]

Martin Luther rejected the priesthood,

No he did not. He rejected the notion that the priesthood was a means of affording additional grace to the individual. He affirmed that we are all justified by grace through faith, and that this gift equally belongs to the layperson who has his own vocation within the priesthood of all believers. Refer to Augsburg Confession paragraph 5 (AC-5)

dismissed the sacraments of confession

No he didn’t. Refer to AC-XI. We retain private confession to this day, also check the Small Catechism.

vilified the mass

No he didn’t. Luther retained all the elements of the mass that he felt did not obscure the gospel. His issue was with the teaching of his day, that the outward act of the mass brings justification. He actually translated the mass into the vernacular. Refer to AC-24.

removed books from the Bible,

No he didn’t, Luther’s views on the canon were consistent with a stream of thought from the early Church on which books were inspired, and reflected the statements of Jerome.

denied the existence of Purgatory,

For good reason, as purgatory is not taught in the Bible, even in the apocryphal works, this doctrine is not stated but inferred by anachronistic eisegesis.

denigrated and tampered with Sacred Scripture to fit his theology,

No, I would say Luther’s translation of Romans 3 is in accord with the argument that Paul himself presents (justification by faith apart from works).

caused division in the Church driving millions away from the. sacraments

We could argue about who caused division.

 

[Gorgias]

Had the Church not excommunicated him I don’t think his movement would’ve gained as much momentum as it did.

That’s debatable. Had the Church merely said “meh… you’re wrong; go sit down”, I think it’s not unreasonable to presume that Luther would have left on his own accord and started his own congregation anyway. Given that the forces that made the Reformation happen were largely political (i.e., over who rules and who controls financial resources), it would seem that Luther was just the spark for tinder that was just dying to catch fire – in other words, it would have happened anyway, even without an ‘excommunication’.

The sale of indulgences was absolutely wrong and immoral

The thing is, the Church itself didn’t advocate for the excesses; individuals did! So… why leave the institutional Church, if the issue is that individuals sin?

It is entirely foreseeable that they would not have been addressed.

The thing is, the reforms didn’t change doctrine. Moreover, the calls for reform predated Luther’s split with the Church. So, your claims seem implausible on two counts: first, the counter-reformation re-affirmed the doctrinal teachings that Luther rejected, and second, the reforms that were adopted were meant to reinforce the Church’s ability to teach its doctrines properly.

Again, if you read the Augsburg Confession you will find a thoroughly apostolic confession of faith supported by the Early Church Fathers. Luther was catholic his entire life.

A couple of thoughts…
First, the Augsburg Confession, being, as it was, a defense of Luther’s positions to the emperor, really reads more like polemic than rule of faith.

Second, in the way that it’s written, it really does leave much unsaid… and oddly enough, the ‘holes’ in the statements just happen to be in places where Luther is downplaying differences between his theology and the Church’s. He’s ‘apostolic’ in what he says… but he leaves out other apostolic assertions that are at odds with his theology.

Finally, who says that the definition of ‘catholic’ is merely “apostolic + supported by ECFs”? There’s much good between 400AD and 1500AD – on whose authority may one simply jettison those teachings and practices of the Church in that time frame?

is a “competing religion” then that confirms the legitimacy of Luther’s doctrinal grievances and the need to proclaim the gospel.

Only if Luther’s claims were legitimate. If they aren’t, then they are a novel innovation which competes with the lived experience of Christianity for 1500 years.

 

[niceatheist]

Indeed, there is a great deal of misinformation on both sides about what the Reformation meant, and what the Reformers believe. The tendency is to assume that pretty much all the Reformers were either proto-Calvinists or closet Calvinists. Though Luther was obviously a pretty strong and inflexible person, his theological position sat somewhere in the middle. There was even a period when reconciliation of some kind could have been found. As you say, there was little Luther was saying that hadn’t been floating around for the better part of a thousand years. There might have even been a chance at reconciliation if France, in particular, hadn’t been using the Reformation as a means to hamper the Holy Roman Emperor and prevent the unification of the German states that might have come from reconciliation between the Protestants and Catholics.

 

[esieffe]

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?

I agree .

And of course the habit of “splitting off” in the Protestant church continued long after Luther. Do they have a case?

 

[niceatheist]

Finally, who says that the definition of ‘catholic’ is merely “apostolic + supported by ECFs”? There’s much good between 400AD and 1500AD – on whose authority may one simply jettison those teachings and practices of the Church in that time frame?

But that was part of the problem. Apart from all the alleged and real abuses of the Church, there was also the fact that the Avignon period had heavily devalued the Papacy’s authority. The very special relationship that the French (and later Spanish) kings enjoyed as being the effective masters of their national churches, while the German princes were deprived the same privilege, was an enormous part of the problem. The Church had made great hay a few hundred years earlier humiliating a few Northern European and English kings, asserting considerable authority of Rome over German and English monarchs, and then essentially turning around and making itself a vassal of the French Crown. There was a fundamental inequity growing in how the Church chose to spend its political capital. If you were an English King or a German prince, you were a second class monarch. If you were the King of France, you could go so far as even force the Papacy to relocated, and still basically have pretty much unlimited control of the national church. Later, the Spanish crown took that to extremes not even the French monarchy could imagine, where the Spanish church was completely under local control, and even Rome’s own legates could be ignored without consequence. The only real difference is that the French and Spanish ultimately used their political and military force to persecute the Protestants, but it so ably demonstrated to the Germans and English, either on the cusp of Reform, or already creating their own national churches, that there was no real political value to continued unity with Rome. Rome had become the plaything of the southern European powers.

 

[Hodos]

The thing is, the reforms didn’t change doctrine. Moreover, the calls for reform predated Luther’s split with the Church.

Precisely, the fact is that Luther merely commented on the practices and doctrine that had been recognized to be in error for some time, and had yet to be corrected or addressed. Luther wasn’t advocating for anything new, but was advocating for a return to apostolic doctrine. And your answer demonstrates that it was indeed foreseeable that these issues would not be addressed.

First, the Augsburg Confession, being, as it was, a defense of Luther’s positions to the emperor, really reads more like polemic than rule of faith.

Second, in the way that it’s written, it really does leave much unsaid… and oddly enough, the ‘holes’ in the statements just happen to be in places where Luther is downplaying differences between his theology and the Church’s. He’s ‘apostolic’ in what he says… but he leaves out other apostolic assertions that are at odds with his theology.

Here you are attempting to make an argument from silence it appears. The Lutheran princes were told to present a statement that clarified what was taught and practiced in the Evangelical Catholic Churches in their territories. The Augsburg Confession was drafted to lay our their core beliefs as well as make a defense against accusations that had hitherto been made against them in the years between 1520 and 1530. They provided both positive examples of what they believe and were honest in providing sections where they discussed where they were in disagreement. If you want to claim there were apostolic elements that were left out you will need to enumerate these and demonstrate from the apostolic writings that they were indeed apostolic.

Finally, who says that the definition of ‘catholic’ is merely “apostolic + supported by ECFs”? There’s much good between 400AD and 1500AD – on whose authority may one simply jettison those teachings and practices of the Church in that time frame?

On the authority of the gospel. So when people are told that they are to “do what is within them” in order to be justified before God, rather than taught that we are justified by grace apart from works, the Word of God provides the authority to say that this is not a right teaching of the Church.

Only if Luther’s claims were legitimate. If they aren’t, then they are a novel innovation which competes with the lived experience of Christianity for 1500 years.

Conversely, the practices of the medieval Roman Catholic Church that were in question at the time such as simony and indulgences would be similarly up for critique to demonstrate if they are apostolic or innovations.

 

[Gorgias]

But that was part of the problem. Apart from all the alleged and real abuses of the Church, there was also the fact that the Avignon period had heavily devalued the Papacy’s authority.

Again, the question here (in the context of the Augsburg Confession) is doctrine, not practice.

Whether or not we hold the papacy of the period up as virtuous, the question is doctrine – which was valid, and which the Church upholds.

In any case, you seem to be addressing a different issue; namely, whether secular governments disliked Rome enough to want to find a reason to escape its influence. That isn’t relevant to either the question of the assertions of the Confession or the question of whether Luther was justified in starting his own church.