All things considered, did Luther have a case?

[Hodos]

The difference is, they didn’t break away from the Church, start their own denomination, and lead others away from the Church. Kinda a big difference.

If leading people to Christ by preaching the pure gospel is leading people away from the Church, then ok, that’s a knock on the Church, not Luther.

Well, that’s your opinion – that it was ‘pure’. It certainly differed from the teachings of the Church – that is, the Church to whom he vowed obedience!

Again, if preaching the Pauline doctrine of justification is considered as deviating from the teaching of the medieval Church, then ok, shame on the medieval Church.

Jerome didn’t have magisterial authority – and he deferred to that authority when they differed in opinion from his own personal opinion!

Two cardinals with personal opinions are not exercising magisterial authority.

If you want to convince a Catholic audience, @Hodos, you need to show magisterial, authoritative teaching , not anecdotal evidence of a person here and a person there. You’re the one who’s talking about a failure to examine in context – the magisterial teaching of the Church is the context here!

Again, this is an anachronistic argument, reading back into the early 1500s a dogmatic statement that did not exist at the time of Luther. Luther’s view on the canon is again consistent with some of the most educated Church scholars on the topic of the canon in both the ancient Church and among his contemporaries. And again, this is disingenuous because Luther was not excommunicated for his view on the canon, but because he preached the Pauline doctrine of justification.

He just unilaterally modified both, that’s all.

Again, if you look at the changes Luther made in the mass, he didn’t modify the mass, he used the form of the mass of the ancient Church and wrote it in the vernacular out of a pastoral concern that the congregants should understand what is being said in the mass. If your argument is that the mass shouldn’t be used to catechize and proclaim the gospel, that is a tough road to hoe considering the ancient Church used it, and the Vatican has since followed Luther and done the same. And again, the charge of Luther “changing” the priesthood carries no specificity so it can be dismissed outright with a blanket referral back to AC-V.

 

[niceatheist]

I agree that Luther was attempting to personalize the faith, and oppose legalism. But the truth is that any which way that the faith is structured, any way that it’s confessed, can become a source for legalism, for acting piously or justly without actually being internally pious or just. Lutheranism notwithstanding.

The sad thing is that the actions of Luther and the other early reformers entrenched positions on both sides of the divide. On the Protestant side, the notion of a personal faith became so pre-eminent that the movement itself was splintering within a few years. On the other side, the Counter-reformation, while it did start the process of reigning in the worst abuses, found new ways to invoke an even harsher form of legalism. The Church in many ways became even more conservative, to the point where any notion of modernism was viewed with suspicion or outright hostility. The counter-reformation really did retard the development in a number of the stronger Catholic regions.

There were some efforts at pragmatism, to try to find a way to maintain a level of unity between the factions. I think it might have worked, that a sort of Catholic “Lutheranism” could have found room within the Church, but cooler heads did not prevail and instead the religious wars came and swept away any possibility of healing the divide. Even now you see the absolutism on both sides as an obstacle to reunion; the Protestants won’t give up the strong appeal to a personal faith and the right for each group (large or small) to govern their own affairs, and the sentiment in at least some Catholic circles that anything less than bending a knee to Rome as unacceptable. Even the kind of sentiment expressed here, of the Protestant’s being splitters, of Luther as a Satanic psychopath, the whole notion of unwarranted revolt and rebellion that can only be fixed by becoming a capital-C Catholic, suggests that there will not be any real reunification, but more of a coexistence.

 

[Gorgias]

If leading people to Christ by preaching the pure gospel is leading people away from the Church, then ok, that’s a knock on the Church, not Luther.

I’m glad you phrased that as a conditional because, in fact, it is conditioned on what Luther taught! And our disagreement is whether Luther preached “the pure gospel” or a novel and innovative gospel of his own imagination. I suspect we’ll be unable to come to agreement on that question. Nevertheless, a guy who preaches “I have the right to follow my conscience and separate from the Church” but then practices a different approach when it comes to those who subsequently separated from him… well, it kinda makes one wonder how ‘pure’ his ‘gospel’ was…

 

[niceatheist]

But that’s no different than any reformist or revolutionary movement. Of course Luther was a hypocrite, because fundamentally, we all are to some extent. Luther was convinced of his own righteousness to the point where some of his most outrageous outbursts were against fellow Reformers. But let’s put Luther in his time, as well. He had gained great favor, and great influence, with many Northern European princes, and one gets the sense that he quickly became aware of who it was that was backing him. They wanted the split with Rome, and it was his job to give a theological justification. I’d say the Reformation was the logical conclusion of the Papacy’s increasingly strident political role over the three or four hundred years before the Reformation. Rome had basically set the terms of what a national religion should be, and the influence it should have, and the German princes quite eagerly embraced the concept, but flipping it upside down so they were the top dog. It was the politics of the Reformation that pushed Luther towards the stridency that his later works demonstrate. He had to, he was taking princely coin, and the princes wanted national churches under their thumb.

 

[Gab123]

The problem with insisting on putting your faith in Martin Luther’s teachings is that you then have to spend a lifetime either willingly ignoring or rationalizing away his arrogance, lies, vulgarity, and blasphemous statements against Christ, and then try to convince yourself that God sent him to start a brand new Church, discarding 1500 years of Church teaching, as if the Church was not guided by the Holy Spirit for 1,500 years before Luther. For a Protestant, Church history begins in the 16th century. If one takes the time to study Church history beginning in the 1st century and not the 16th, one realizes that Protestantism is founded on Martin Luther, not Christ of the teachings of the Church Christ founded.

Another problem for those following Luther is that people have put their faith in the myth of Martin Luther, when in reality the man was simply a false teacher. I mean, when the Father of Protestantism and the founder of your religion resorts to fending off the devil with farts, (as he described), removing books from the Bible, (Protestant Bible only has 66 books because of him), teaching doctrines based on his own authority and interpretation of Scripture (he discarded Church teaching and invented new ones), edited Scripture to fit his new doctrines (added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28 so that it read: “So now we hold, that man is justified without the help of the works of the law, alone through faith” —the word “alone” does not appear in the Greek texts), one begins to realize what we’re dealing with a false teacher, one of many whom Christ Himself prophecied would come and teach in His name. Yet…just like the OJ Simpson defense team did an amazing job rationalizing and spinning the facts, Luther’s defenders come up with amazing rationalizations to spin away the obvious.

My advice is to not put your faith Martin Luther’s teachings; no do not make him the father of your faith, but rather, treat him as any other person that comes along and decides to start teaching doctrines without authority.

As for Purgatory, the doctrine is in Scripture, and has been a part of the deposit of faith from the beginning, just like the doctrine of the Trinity. Many Protestant Christians today do not believe in the Trinity for the same reason they do not believe in Purgatory. Yet the doctrines of the Trinity and Purgatory are certainly in the Scriptures. Purgatory simply means purification and there are a number of references to Purgatory, in both the Old Testament and in the New.

 

[Hodos]

I’m glad you phrased that as a conditional because, in fact, it is conditioned on what Luther taught! And our disagreement is whether Luther preached “the pure gospel” or a novel and innovative gospel of his own imagination. I suspect we’ll be unable to come to agreement on that question. Nevertheless, a guy who preaches “I have the right to follow my conscience and separate from the Church” but then practices a different approach when it comes to those who subsequently separated from him … well, it kinda makes one wonder how ‘pure’ his ‘gospel’ was…

The converse can be said of the Roman Catholic Church who had splintered with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Hussite Churches, etc. There is actually an objective standard which could be used to determine this though…

 

[TULIPed]

For a Protestant, Church history begins in the 16th century.

This is news to me, and I’m a Protestant!! And here I thought my history began on the first Easter morning. Actually, come to think of it, that’s not right. According to St. Paul my history began when I was chosen by God to be “holy and blameless in his sight” - which was “before the creation of the world…”

My advice is to not put your faith Martin Luther’s teachings

Well said. My faith is in Christ alone.

Many Protestant Christians today do not believe in the Trinity for the same reason they do not believe in Purgatory

Again - this comes as a surprise to me. A Christian of any stripe not believing in the Trinity would seem to me to be like an NFL quarterback not believing in touchdowns. To whit - I’m pretty sure most Protestant denominations that I know of would say that you have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian.

I am nothing if not eager to learn though, so please let me know of any Protestants who call themselves “Christians” that don’t believe in the Trinity.

 

[Gab123]

Again, most Protestants do not know the history of the Church; if they did, they would realize that all the early Church fathers believed everything the Church teaches today; Protestantism/Evangelical Christianity is a 16th century invention that has splintered ever since into sectarianism. “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”

If you go to a typical Protestant seminary they skip the history from the first century all the way to the 16th century and begin with the Reformation and Martin Luther, the Father of Protestantism.

As for self-proclaimed Christians whom deny the Holy Trinity, there are many groups. According to Wikipedia:

The largest non-trinitarian Christian denominations are The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, La Luz del Mundo and the Iglesia ni Cristo, though there are a number of other smaller groups, including Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, Dawn Bible Students, Living Church of God, Assemblies of Yahweh, Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ, Members Church of God International, Unitarian Universalist Christians, The Way International, The Church of God International, and the United Church of God.

 

[steve-b]

Besides, the canon of scripture (73 books) has not changed since it was first confirmed by Pope Damasus I , At the Council of Rome in 382, where the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).

JonNC:

I have no interest in going through the local councils, and the later councils that only apply to those in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

steve-b:

Your point is Spoken like Luther and ALL those who broke from the only Church Jesus established,

From 382 to 1549, that’s 1100+ years of constant teaching about the 73 books of the canon of scripture, … regardless of Luther’s revolt.

JonNC:

Other Traditions in the Church have different canons.

steve-b:

then they aren’t “The Church”

JonNC:

Cajetan’s view of the canon was similar to Luther’s. Both were permitted to hold those views.

steve-b:

It’s what the Church taught, that is important.

From: Florence Session 11 - 4 Feb 1442

Re: the canon of scripture,

there are 73 books by name,

Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.

Note: also the anathemas that follow

Cajetan’s personal view changed nothing. The teaching of the Church was clear.

JonNC:

And Luther changed nothing regarding the canon.

steve-b:

On the contrary

Luther said about the books he removed

"Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.” KJV quoting Luther

IOW he demoted 7 canonical books to apocryphal ( ≠ scripture ) status

For over 1000 yrs, the canon was 73 books. Cajetan didn’t write his own bible. The bible he used was the Catholic bible. 73 books. Luther woite his own bible. 66 books in his canon. And let’s not forget he tried to remove 4 NT books as well.

 

[Gorgias]

The converse can be said of the Roman Catholic Church who had splintered with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Hussite Churches, etc. There is actually an objective standard which could be used to determine this though

Yes, there is! The question is who left whom? In that context, the Catholic Church didn’t leave the Orthodox, per se. They asserted their own authority, in contradiction to the authority previously asserted by the Church in Rome.

So, yes… we can apply a consistent, objective standard. The problem, though, is that you’re going to end up on the wrong side of that standard…

 

[JonNC]

Luther said about the books he removed

"Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.” KJV quoting Luther

IOW he demoted 7 canonical books to apocryphal ( ≠ scripture ) status

For over 1000 yrs, the canon was 73 books. Cajetan didn’t write his own bible. The bible he used was the Catholic bible. 73 books. Luther woite his own bible. 66 books in his canon. And let’s not forget he tried to remove 4 NT books as well.

We’ve been through all this before. Cajetan’s view was essentially the same as Luther’s.
Luther translated a 74 book bible
If Luther has the power over the Bible , your Bible would have 74 books. Even the Lutheran Confessions don’t Mandate a 66 book Bible.

Finally, you’re welcome to hold a different stand for Luther on the canon than Cajetan, but it is a double standard.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, there is! The question is who left whom? In that context, the Catholic Church didn’t leave the Orthodox, per se. They asserted their own authority, in contradiction to the authority previously asserted by the Church in Rome.

Rome asserted an authority not granted by an ecumenical council. In fact,Nicaea canon 6 contradicts the authority claimed later by Rome.

 

[c1949]

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.

Gab123:

That’s my understanding also, that their views were consistent – yes and consistently wrong. They both asserted that only books should be in the Bible for which there was a Hebrew version. Hence, they both rejected the LXX, not only because by using it they would be producing a translation of a translation, but they didn’t admit that there ever was a Hebrew original basis document. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls proved otherwise – there were Hebrew originals for the LXX, that neither Jerome nor Luther would have been aware of.

When the NT quotes from the OT, it more frequently quotes from the LXX. So, the “stream of thought of the early Church” was with the LXX camp.

 

[jack63]

So I’ll give my thoughts on the historic elephant in he room that either nobody or few of the posters have talked about. Luther’s view on Celibacy. Historically this actually played almost as significant a role as his views on faith and works. He married a nun and had six children by the way. He said many very critical things about celibacy including…

The pope has as little power to command celibacy, as he has to forbid eating, drinking, the natural movement of the bowels or growing fat.

Does Luther have a case? No!..in fact it is one of the all time worst and most unhelpful written comments in history in my opinion. I understand there is context to it. He was potentially referring to a Borgia Pope. However, this comment seems to have long term consequences. Here are my concerns…

1. Culturally its meaning seemed to be taken way too far. He comes across as making fundamental comment on human nature. That comment comes across as a total cop out. It is commonly taken as no man can really control himself. As an example it was quoted in a recent New York Times article about children of celibate priests. It feels like he is saying that if you leave a man alone with a woman or a child, expect bad things to happen. Men won’t be professional. This is totally unfair. Humans are fully capable of rising to a far more holy way of interacting with each other.
2. On another level, it sends a message to woman that men are easily manipulated. This is usually not the case, but the expectation that woman can get what they want through sex completely messes up what should be a professional and courteous dynamic.
3. It is a massive put down of the many priests who, historically, have in good faith given the gift of celibacy in service to the church.
4. It completely ignores all of the positives that religious orders have done and continue to do throughout history. The Benedictines were founded in 529 AD. While some priest married historically in the first 1000 years or so of the church history, the priests from the religious orders did not.
5. After such a massive and unnecessary put down, it makes reconciliation even more difficult.
6. It sets the expectation that you must fund a priest, his wife, and several children to spread the Christian faith. I simply do not agree. In my mind you got to respect those willing to take a vow of poverty to spread the Christian faith.
7. It casts a shadow on every reasonable change or discussion about celibacy in Catholic Church…whether it be bringing back the order of Deacons (the vast majority of which are married), accepting married converts as priests, or Viri Probati. People ask “Are you saying Martin Luther was right?”. My response is “No!..He was never right on his view of human nature!..Please ignore what he said!”

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Luther said about the books he removed

"Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.” KJV quoting Luther

IOW he demoted 7 canonical books to apocryphal ( ≠ scripture ) status

For over 1000 yrs, the canon was 73 books. Cajetan didn’t write his own bible. The bible he used was the Catholic bible. 73 books. Luther woite his own bible. 66 books in his canon. And let’s not forget he tried to remove 4 NT books as well.

We’ve been through all this before. Cajetan’s view was essentially the same as Luther’s.
Luther translated a 74 book bible
If Luther has the power over the Bible , your Bible would have 74 books. Even the Lutheran Confessions don’t Mandate a 66 book Bible.

Finally, you’re welcome to hold a different stand for Luther on the canon than Cajetan, but it is a double standard.

Cajetan is not the issue. Other than you try and make him the issue. Cajetan didn’t start a revolt. Luther did.

Luther’s bible was a different canon. His OT canon was NOT the same as the Catholic Canon.

That’s just the tip of the ice berg with Luther.

AND

The Church established the canon NOT Cajetan.

 

[JonNC]

Cajetan is not the issue. Other than you try and make him the issue. Cajetan didn’t start a revolt. Luther did.

The liberty of Catholics prior to Trent to hold opinions on the canon is the issue. Cajetan held the same position on the canon as Luther.
But your argument simply proves my point: the opinion on the canon was not the reason for Luther being excommunicated.

Luther’s bible was a different canon. His OT canon was NOT the same as the Catholic Canon.

Correct. He included the Prayer of Manasseh. That you don’t like the way he arranged the books is irrelevant, Steve, he felt strongly enough about 74 books to include them in his translation.

The Church established the canon NOT Cajetan.

The Church over the centuries has held several canons. Patriarchates in the have differing canons to this day, regardless of Rome’s local synods and councils.

I have no problem with the traditional western canon. It has a history dating back to Carthage, Hippo and Rome. I think Luther and Cajetan were probably mistaken in their views. But that, too, is irrelevant. What is relevant is that to hold Luther to a different standard than Cajetan on the canon is biased, and lacking in historical accuracy.

 

[Gorgias]

Rome asserted an authority not granted by an ecumenical council

Right. Because, of course, in Matthew 16, Jesus says, “Blessed are you, ecumenical councils! And so, I say to you, ecumenical councils, I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever ecumenical councils bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever ecumenical councils loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

In fact,Nicaea canon 6 contradicts the authority claimed later by Rome.

I appreciate that this is your personal interpretation of this council. (By the way… by what authority, exactly, do you interpret a council?)

However, the Church interprets this canon otherwise. So, can you show a warrant that allows individuals to personally interpret the canons of an ecumenical council against the interpretation of the Church?

 

[JonNC]

Right. Because, of course, in Matthew 16, Jesus says, “Blessed are you, ecumenical councils! And so, I say to you, ecumenical councils, I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

You are the first Catholic I’ve heard dismiss the councils.

I appreciate that this is your personal interpretation of this council. (By the way… by what authority, exactly, do you interpret a council?)

It isn’t my opinion or authority. All but one of the Patriarchates hold essentially that position.
What’s your authority for asking the question?

However, the Church interprets this canon otherwise. So, can you show a warrant that allows individuals to personally interpret the canons of an ecumenical council against the interpretation of the Church?

Only one patriarchate interprets it the way you do. What authority does the Bishop of Rome have to claim for itself a supremacy not granted in scripture or the early Church?
What personal authority do you have to counter the interpretation of the majority of the patriarchates?

 

[Gorgias]

You are the first Catholic I’ve heard dismiss the councils.

I’m not dismissing them! You’re claiming that the pope has no authority unless a council grants it. That’s what I’m showing you is faulty argumentation!

All but one of the Patriarchates hold essentially that position.

And that ‘patriarchate’ would be Rome, right? So, if a revisionist view in the East interprets a council differently than it had earlier been understood, what does that tell us about the politics of that interpretation?

What authority does the Bishop of Rome have to claim for itself a supremacy not granted in scripture or the early Church?

Scriptural authority – and not claimed, but given by Christ Himself in Matthew 16!

What personal authority do you have to counter the interpretation of the majority of the patriarchates?

It’s not my claim, it’s the Catholic Church’s.

 

[Hodos]

The question is who left whom?

No, the question is which gospel are you preaching? The answer is, not the gospel of Galatians.