All things considered, did Luther have a case?

[Gorgias]

The greater question still remains. This topic in the bigger picture, is not just about Luther alone …

The greater question is, Does every division that came from his revolt, have a case…correct?

I still maintain that the answer is “if you think Luther had a case, then you can’t bemoan the explosion of post-Reformation Protestant denominations (and non-denominations) – you must admit that they have a case, as well; but, if you think that subsequent movements don’t have a case, then by induction, you must admit that Luther didn’t have a case.”

 

[niceatheist]

Which in no way deals with the fact that bishops were making a great deal of money selling them. Whether the activity was theologically sound was to some extent besides the point. The larger issue was a Church that had, on the reformers’ views, debased itself.

 

[TULIPed]

Mutiny is never a good thing, and there are precious few examples where crews of mutinous ships didn’t end up swinging from the gallows (Fletcher Christian’s crew notwithstanding, although I’m not sure the gallows wouldn’t have been better for him and his lot). However, in every case of mutiny, the captain - who was chosen and ordered by higher authority to maintain command of his ship - lost command of his ship. There might be a captain whose career survived a mutiny, but my guess is that list is short.

I would argue that both sides bear blame for the schism - which would say that both sides had cases (as I should think is true in a mutiny as well). And, based on this language, it would seem that I’m not alone in my thinking:

“But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.”

Such musings notwithstanding (along with good natured internet debate), pointing fingers at each other now does little, no? Rather, would it not make more sense to focus on where we have common ground and use it to perhaps one day bring the ship back under control? I pray this happens sooner than later - and judged by the way my Catholic friends and I enjoy our shared love of Christ together, I think we’re moving in that direction.

 

[steve-b]

Which in no way deals with the fact that bishops were making a great deal of money selling them. Whether the activity was theologically sound was to some extent besides the point. The larger issue was a Church that had, on the reformers’ views, debased itself.

Yet

Ya can’t justify what Luther and all the others who followed him did, just because of the wrong activity of a few bishops. In the beginning, the Church didn’t divide because of one bad bishop’s activity…Judas. And Jesus then, obviously never promised a Judas free Church.

AND

As I already posted, Indulgences are valid AND biblical. HERE and HERE

 

[steve-b]

I would argue that both sides bear blame for the schism - which would say that both sides had cases (as I should think is true in a mutiny as well). And, based on this language, it would seem that I’m not alone in my thinking:

"But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."

True.

AND

From that same doc,

“Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God’s gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.”

TULIPed:

Such musings notwithstanding (along with good natured internet debate), pointing fingers at each other now does little, no? Rather, would it not make more sense to focus on where we have common ground and use it to perhaps one day bring the ship back under control? I pray this happens sooner than later - and judged by the way my Catholic friends and I enjoy our shared love of Christ together, I think we’re moving in that direction.

Hasn’t this effort of reconciliation, in various ways for 2000 yrs, been in action? Yes. Otherwise no one would have put the effort into defining and trying to correct the following …True? As I showed previously HERE, that Paul wouldn’t write such warnings and consequences if division wasn’t a big deal to avoid … or else

That said, if one is in division of some kind, does it mean there is nothing in common with one who isn’t in division? No… of course not. Does it mean avoiding the subject of heresy , division, and consequences with them ? No.

WHY?

avoiding that, when the opportunity presents itself, also carries a huge consequence for the one who remains quiet

For space, Here’s 4 scenarios from Ezekiel that describe what I’m talking about

 

[TULIPed]

Why Steve. You’ve gone soft on me Bro! (Don’t worry - I know, I know - we heretics need to see the light and come home)

Well said. Enjoy your Sabbath my friend.

 

[niceatheist]

I’m not attempting to justify any of it. But I do think it’s useful to understand where Luther and the other reformers were, at least initially coming from. To them, the Judases were the senior clerics in the Church; the Pope and the Bishops. Taken from that point of view, the only two solutions were removal of those men or a split. The former was obviously not going to happen, so the latter became the only solution in their mind.

Luther wasn’t the beginning of the process, he was the culmination of two or three centuries of low grade warfare between the Church and the princes. As with many watershed events in history, Luther was the right man in the right place at the right time; German princes wanted to rid themselves of a meddlesome Papacy, France wanted to hamper any kind of meaningful German unification, and there was general unrest among the German intelligentsia over the real and perceived abuses of the Church of the era. There’s also some suggestion that the Ottomans also played an unwitting part by creating a hazard in the eastern parts of the Empire meaning the Emperor couldn’t bring the armies to bear against rebellious German subordinates who were latching on to Luther (and ultimately co-opting the Reformation for their own ends).

Right or wrong would be too much for me to determine. In some respects I have no skin in the game, and in other respects I see plenty of right and wrong on both sides. As nasty as the Reformation could get, the Counter-Reformation, and how it was co-opted, particularly in Spain, by temporal rulers for purely nationalistic aims, means the Church didn’t reform itself in sufficient time to prevent the permanent schism.

 

[steve-b]

I’m not attempting to justify any of it. But I do think it’s useful to understand where Luther and the other reformers were, at least initially coming from. To them, the Judases were the senior clerics in the Church; the Pope and the Bishops. Taken from that point of view, the only two solutions were removal of those men or a split. The former was obviously not going to happen, so the latter became the only solution in their mind.

Yet Every heresy was started by a Judas HERE

niceatheist:

Luther wasn’t the beginning of the process, he was the culmination of two or three centuries of low grade warfare between the Church and the princes.

Before the princes there were patriarchs in the East who insisted on equilization with the chair the see of Peter. Hence the beginning of Eastern Orthodoxy

niceatheist:

As with many watershed events in history, Luther was the right man in the right place at the right time;

While Paul didn’t have a crystal ball to look into the future with, the HS who inspired Paul to write what he did, shows what’s to come and what is evil, so avoid it and THEM who do what is being discribed

I’ve already mentioned this before From Paul to the Church of Rome

Rom 16:
17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions διχοστασίαι and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them . 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites,[a] and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded. 19 For while your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, I would have you wise as to what is good and guileless as to what is evil; 20 then the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

Be sure to open that link for the definition.

That same Greek word in Rm 16:17 for dissension/faction is also used in Gal 5:20.

And the consequence ? for that sin

“I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God”.
[Gal 5:21]

Who does division come from? Satan.

niceatheist:

German princes wanted to rid themselves of a meddlesome Papacy, France wanted to hamper any kind of meaningful German unification, and there was general unrest among the German intelligentsia over the real and perceived abuses of the Church of the era.

As Paul wrote above, those who cause division/ dissension in the Church follow/serve SATAN , not Jesus

niceatheist:

Right or wrong would be too much for me to determine. In some respects I have no skin in the game,

Even though you claim to be atheist, that doesn’t mean you have no skin in the game.

 

[steve-b]

Why Steve. You’ve gone soft on me Bro! (Don’t worry - I know, I know - we heretics need to see the light and come home)

Well said. Enjoy your Sabbath my friend.