Catholic Church and Martin Luther

  • Thread starter Thread starter JaredM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Welcome to the forum

Catholic Lutheran? Here I think they hate him
 
Like an Augustinian monk in Wittenberg Germany living as a scripture translator and minor character ever had even the slightest chance of becoming pope 😛
MartinJordan said:
All I can say is… glad he didn’t become a Pope.

MJ
Click to expand...
 
JaredM said:
Wasn’t Martin Luther originally trying to reform the Roman Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
It isn’t really a clear cut answer. When Luther wrote his 95 Theses a lot of his complaints weren’t even about real church teachings but things he believed to be teachings as a result of misinformation that was being spread by certain people (whether these people, Tetzel in particular, were misinformed themselves or simply seeking to make a profit isn’t something we can know with 100% certainty). Honestly a good majority of his complaints were in line with church teaching. Then 3 years after he posted the Thesis the church responded with an encyclical answering the points made by Luther, but at this point Luther had completely separated himself from the Church and had no intention of meeting or debating with “Papists” (those who believed in the authority of the Pope). So early on he may have had intention of attempting reform, but his movement grew quickly and within a couple years there really wasn’t any intention of reform on most protestant leaders lips, Luther included. The new idea wasn’t so much changing the Catholic Church but rejecting it entirely for various perceived inadequacies. This was also a time of great social change in Europe with the printing presses making literature more available to people and the spread of ideas far easier, and feudalism collapsing in exchange for a more commercial economy.

There were a number of people who worked tirelessly for years to reform the Church from the inside, but Luther really wasn’t one of them for any notable period of time.
 
Opinions will vary but I agree with the poster who said he is generally not liked. He isn’t. I’ve heard him called just about every name in the book, accused of anti-semitism, silly speculation that he re-verted to Catholicism on his deathbed, that he was a traitor to the church and a sell-out, you name it.

Bottom line is, right or wrong, he had the courage of conviction, was a brilliant Scriptural scholar, was a powerful speaker, loved Christ, felt convicted that sola scriptura was truly what should guide the Church, and he had a strong conscience. He felt that indulgences were ungodly, innovations, and that the Church was corrupt and decadent. I think there was some definite truth in what he had to say at times and I find him a heroic character in many ways, even though I disagree with much he had to say. He risked life and limb to promote what he felt God had inspired him to say and preach. Personally I hate indulgences still and can’t buy into them at all so I connect with him there. While I’m not a total sola scriptura guy, I do think that the majority of Church theology and morality should be Bible-based and the Scriptures should always be scoured meticulously to make a ruling on things, etc. I think he was right about the corruption and contradictions of his age. I think he had good intentions and yet at times he seemed unstable, overly-passionate, and a sad figure. He’s complex and fascinating really. He’s like a roershack ink blot, different people see different things in him…
 
JaredM said:
What is the Catholic Churches views toward Martin Luther today?
Click to expand...
Much of what Luther had to say was correct.

His stress upon salvation being *extra nos *, i.e., as coming from outside of ourselves through the efficacious Word of God, is a godly and edifying doctrine.

His militant preaching of good works as necessary for a living and true faith is often–and sadly–overlooked by Catholics who aim at winning debates through caricatures rather than honestly assessing a man’s true position.

His adamant refusal to contribute any power of his own to salvation apart from God’s grace is to be admired. He did not deny the sinner’s freedom to accept God, but rather he denied the sinner’s ability to accept God apart from and irrespective to grace.

He confessed that Christ died for an entire world of sinners (including all–much to the chagrin of Calvinists who still attempt to portray Luther as an advocate for their “doctrines of grace”).

He valiantly defended the real, substantial, and bodily presence of Christ’s body and blood in (with and under) the Blessed Sacrament.

He also defended Mary’s Immaculate Conception, perpetual virginity, and rightful title as Theotokos (Mother of God).

This is not to say that Catholics do not have significant theological differences with Luther, but only that Luther was no American Protestant.

In Christ,
FCCopleston
 
Great analysis, FC, intellectually honest and totally non-polemical. 👍
FCCopleston said:
Much of what Luther had to say was correct.

His stress upon salvation being *extra nos *, i.e., as coming from outside of ourselves through the efficacious Word of God, is a godly and edifying doctrine.

His militant preaching of good works as necessary for a living and true faith is often–and sadly–overlooked by Catholics who aim at winning debates through caricatures rather than honestly assessing a man’s true position.

His adamant refusal to contribute any power of his own to salvation apart from God’s grace is to be admired. He did not deny the sinner’s freedom to accept God, but rather he denied the sinner’s ability to accept God apart from and irrespective to grace.

He confessed that Christ died for an entire world of sinners (including all–much to the chagrin of Calvinists who still attempt to portray Luther as an advocate for their “doctrines of grace”).

He valiantly defended the real, substantial, and bodily presence of Christ’s body and blood in (with and under) the Blessed Sacrament.

He also defended Mary’s Immaculate Conception, perpetual virginity, and rightful title as Theotokos (Mother of God).

This is not to say that Catholics do not have significant theological differences with Luther, but only that Luther was no American Protestant.

In Christ,
FCCopleston
Click to expand...
 
FCCopleston said:
Much of what Luther had to say was correct.

His stress upon salvation being *extra nos *, i.e., as coming from outside of ourselves through the efficacious Word of God, is a godly and edifying doctrine.

His militant preaching of good works as necessary for a living and true faith is often–and sadly–overlooked by Catholics who aim at winning debates through caricatures rather than honestly assessing a man’s true position.

His adamant refusal to contribute any power of his own to salvation apart from God’s grace is to be admired. He did not deny the sinner’s freedom to accept God, but rather he denied the sinner’s ability to accept God apart from and irrespective to grace.

He confessed that Christ died for an entire world of sinners (including all–much to the chagrin of Calvinists who still attempt to portray Luther as an advocate for their “doctrines of grace”).

He valiantly defended the real, substantial, and bodily presence of Christ’s body and blood in (with and under) the Blessed Sacrament.

He also defended Mary’s Immaculate Conception, perpetual virginity, and rightful title as Theotokos (Mother of God).

This is not to say that Catholics do not have significant theological differences with Luther, but only that Luther was no American Protestant.
Click to expand...
FC,

This is one of best (and shortest) evaluations of Luther I have seen here at CAF. It is a welcome counterpoint to the occasional “there’s nothing good about Luther” posts.

Yes, there are theological differences which need to be addressed, but it is much easier to do so when the substance of our discussions is not obscured by the smoke of ad hominems against the man.
 
FCCopleston said:
Much of what Luther had to say was correct.

His stress upon salvation being *extra nos *, i.e., as coming from outside of ourselves through the efficacious Word of God, is a godly and edifying doctrine.

His militant preaching of good works as necessary for a living and true faith is often–and sadly–overlooked by Catholics who aim at winning debates through caricatures rather than honestly assessing a man’s true position.

His adamant refusal to contribute any power of his own to salvation apart from God’s grace is to be admired. He did not deny the sinner’s freedom to accept God, but rather he denied the sinner’s ability to accept God apart from and irrespective to grace.

He confessed that Christ died for an entire world of sinners (including all–much to the chagrin of Calvinists who still attempt to portray Luther as an advocate for their “doctrines of grace”).

He valiantly defended the real, substantial, and bodily presence of Christ’s body and blood in (with and under) the Blessed Sacrament.

He also defended Mary’s Immaculate Conception, perpetual virginity, and rightful title as Theotokos (Mother of God).

This is not to say that Catholics do not have significant theological differences with Luther, but only that Luther was no American Protestant.

In Christ,
FCCopleston
Click to expand...
I think we should be more concerned about what he actually did. What his ideology has done. he created a whole generation of rebellious men against the Church Jesus found.
 
wisdomseeker said:
I think we should be more concerned about what he actually did. What his ideology has done. he created a whole generation of rebellious men against the Church Jesus found.
Click to expand...
To say that Luther “created” a whole generation of rebellious men is like saying facebook created a whole generation of adulterers.

The reality is - a lot of men have been grumbling about the church from the time of Cain. Luther did not create them. He was just one of them. These grumbling men saw this charismatic priest with a good head on his shoulders and raised him up to be their leader.

But, part of what he actually did was to give the Catholic Church pause. To stop and think about where the church was going and correct their course to be more in line with Christ. That, in itself, is a big positive for the church.
 
So did Joan of Arc, I believe.

Meister Eckhart recently had his excommunication lifted by Rome. Then there was the case of Savonarola and others.

So have Traditionalist Catholics.

FYI.

Alex
 
Alexander_Roman said:
So did Joan of Arc, I believe.

Meister Eckhart recently had his excommunication lifted by Rome. Then there was the case of Savonarola and others.

So have Traditionalist Catholics.

FYI.

Alex
Click to expand...
Is Galileo still excommunicated?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top