Catholic Church and Martin Luther

[joe370]

How about St. Charles Borromeo? He was hated even by the Catholic clergy, yet stood his ground and fought for the Church.

MJ

 

[Alexander_Roman]

It was **not **excommunication or anything approaching excommunication. Not even censure.

That sort of thing happens all the time in academia. Theologians write papers, books, treastises, etc. Sometimes some part of what they have written is not approved by the local ordinary or some other body. It may be the way something is worded, or understood/misunderstood, etc. It may be that an entire proposition is rejected, or some part of it, etc. This is, basically, no big deal.

It seems in the condemnations of 1277 it was much ado about nothing, since the Bishop of Paris’s assessment of the matter did not stick.

Aquinas never had any sort of censure, ecclesial trial, condemnation, excommunication, etc.

My point is simply that even the most orthodox of personages can sometimes, in their day, be seen as “rocking the boat” and the like. Was it not St Bonaventure who called Aquinas the “father of all heretics?”

Great people can rub others in a great manner.

BTW, it is Aquinas who coined the idea of a “cow jumping over the moon.”

His brother Dominicans wanted to play a trick on him and said that on a certain date and time, a cow will jump over the moon.

At the agreed upon time, the entire monastery made such a commotion about the cow jumping over the moon, that Aquinas left his books to go see what was going on.

When he appeared, his colleagues began to laugh at him.

At this, Aquinas said, “I would rather believe that a cow could jump over the moon, than a monk could lie . . .”

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Actually she was declared innocent in 1456. Pope Benedict XV canonized Joan on 16 May 1920. As Saint Joan of Arc, she has become one of the most popular saints of the Roman Catholic Church. The CC is comprised of sinful people just like an other church and therefore is far from perfect, just as Martin Luther was; ML made many mistakes just as many priests and bishops in the CC have, and still do, but the question is: do we leave the CC when all looks hopeless and lost, or do we trust in the providence of almighty God when it comes to His church, no matter how long it takes? Francis of Assisi saw the same sort of corruption in his day, but he still deferred to the church, thereby trusting in Gods providence, and just look at the difference he made in Jesus’ church.

Yes, I have no wish to restart the movement in the seventies to have Luther canonized . . .

I do support the Lutherans who work for reconciliation with the “Bishop of Rome” as they call him.

The Lutherans have some really great Christians - a number of whom post on this forum.

Alex

 

[manualman]

…
“This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet” De Wette III, 61. quoted in O’Hare, THE FACTS ABOUT LUTHER, 208.

Ohare’s book should not be used as a citation in this day and age. His book was a popular polemic intended to arm catholics to fire back at the vitriolic anti-catholic culture of America in that day (1900ish). But Ohare wasn’t very good about carefully citing his sources by modern standards. It’s really hard to substantiate some of his claims when you’re challenged. Read the book if you like, but get corroborating evidence before citing him. In some cases he doesn’t name sources, for other claims he names sources that have been since lost and there does appear to be some distortions, maybe even falsehoods in there.

An early poster did a nice job of summarizing the good stuff about Luther.

But like all humans, he had tragic flaws too. The catholic church doesn’t make hellfire pronouncements. Nobody is 100% known to be in hell, except the devil and his demons.

From reading about him over the years, it appears to me that Luther had a terrible problem with scrupulosity and pride: a dangerous combination. His extreme views on the utter meaninglessness of human sin after salvation smell to me like a drowning man grasping for a life ring. How soothing the concept must have been for a hyper-active conscience that had so tormented him: his sins no longer mattered. God didn’t see him anymore, only the righteousness of Christ. (Sola Fide). I think that idea came first because it resonated so loudly in his troubled soul (scrupulosity). Then the Sola Scriptura came later when he recognized that the Holy See would not and could not accept his precious solution to his torments. Problem solved, don’t need to LISTEN to those guys anymore.

I don’t question Luther’s faith, his earnestness, his courage, dedication or selflessness. So I personally don’t think he bears a ton of culpability for his flawed judgement. But I do wonder if Luther himself committed the sin of despair of believing that God could genuinely sanctify him and make him new rather than merely “cover” him over with the righteousness of Christ. Not really for us to know or judge though.

 

[phoebecat3]

not very good!!
I can say as a Lutheran who has studied this a bit but nowhere near a scholar-he never meant to leave the church. He wanted to changes things that he felt were wrong. Now whether you agree with him or not…it takes a very strong person to stand up against pretty much everyone. I’d like to think I would if it came to that but seriously don’t know.

 

[TertiumQuid]

What is the Catholic Churches views toward Martin Luther today?

Hubert Jedin was a German Catholic historian from the Universities of Breslau and Bonn. He was a specialist in the history of the Council of Trent. He pointed out that Catholicism never condemned Luther by name at Trent, and that no official judgment on Luther exists by which a loyal Catholic is bound.

You’ll find that there are many Roman Catholic scholars that are quite benevolent toward Luther, a partial list of these can be found here.

 

[Curious_Seed]

What is the Catholic Churches views toward Martin Luther today?

The Catholic Church has no infallible official view, with respect to Martin Luther.

The overwhelming influence of the man’s stand historically is phenomenal, especially given his modest personal history and the hegemonic power of the Church in society, back then.

Today, the Catholic Church has relegated Martin Luther and Lutheranism, to the arena of apologetics.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Catholic Church has no infallible official view, with respect to Martin Luther.

Yes, to prove this, here’s the other side. This recent comment is from Robert Sungenis. If the word “condemned” actually means what I think it does, Roman Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis has determined Luther’s eternal fate. Commenting on John Paul II, Sungenis states-

Although the pope wasn’t in Regensburg to sign the final draft of the Joint Declaration (and neither was Cardinal Ratzinger), Cardinal Cassidy, who was representing the Catholic Church, eagerly put his signature on it. This was the end of a process begun by John Paul II in November of 1980, when he had already given implicit sanction to Luther’s faith alone doctrine by stating at a Lutheran church in Germany that the Lutherans had a “profound religiousness and spiritual heritage” and that Martin Luther was driven by a “burning passion of the question of eternal salvation,” which ended in him telling the Lutheran bishops that “Rome’s excommunication of Luther had expired when he died,” which fact he then encouraged them to use in order to pave the way for the Catholic-Lutheran dialogue. What the pope didn’t tell them is that if an excommunication is not rescinded before the person dies, the Church considers his soul condemned; and the false doctrine that caused the excommunication is still heresy. Instead, John Paul II told them: “There is a need for a new evaluation of the questions raised by Luther and his teaching.” Apparently the Council of Trent wasn’t good enough for John Paul II.

 

[JonNC]

Ohare’s book should not be used as a citation in this day and age. His book was a popular polemic intended to arm catholics to fire back at the vitriolic anti-catholic culture of America in that day (1900ish). But Ohare wasn’t very good about carefully citing his sources by modern standards. It’s really hard to substantiate some of his claims when you’re challenged. Read the book if you like, but get corroborating evidence before citing him. In some cases he doesn’t name sources, for other claims he names sources that have been since lost and there does appear to be some distortions, maybe even falsehoods in there.

An early poster did a nice job of summarizing the good stuff about Luther.

But like all humans, he had tragic flaws too. The catholic church doesn’t make hellfire pronouncements. Nobody is 100% known to be in hell, except the devil and his demons.

From reading about him over the years, it appears to me that Luther had a terrible problem with scrupulosity and pride: a dangerous combination. His extreme views on the utter meaninglessness of human sin after salvation smell to me like a drowning man grasping for a life ring. How soothing the concept must have been for a hyper-active conscience that had so tormented him: his sins no longer mattered. God didn’t see him anymore, only the righteousness of Christ. (Sola Fide). I think that idea came first because it resonated so loudly in his troubled soul (scrupulosity). Then the Sola Scriptura came later when he recognized that the Holy See would not and could not accept his precious solution to his torments. Problem solved, don’t need to LISTEN to those guys anymore.

I don’t question Luther’s faith, his earnestness, his courage, dedication or selflessness. So I personally don’t think he bears a ton of culpability for his flawed judgement. But I do wonder if Luther himself committed the sin of despair of believing that God could genuinely sanctify him and make him new rather than merely “cover” him over with the righteousness of Christ. Not really for us to know or judge though.

Thank you very much for your reasonable evaluation of Father O’Hare, and the compassion you voice toward Fr. Martin.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Yes, I have no wish to restart the movement in the seventies to have Luther canonized . . .

I do support the Lutherans who work for reconciliation with the “Bishop of Rome” as they call him.

The Lutherans have some really great Christians - a number of whom post on this forum.

Alex

Amen to that; JonNC is a perfect example.

 

[manualman]

Yes, to prove this, here’s the other side. This recent comment is from Robert Sungenis. If the word “condemned” actually means what I think it does, Roman Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis has determined Luther’s eternal fate. Commenting on John Paul II, Sungenis states-

Sungenis has as much standing to speak on behalf of the Catholic Church as David Koresh had to speak on behalf of all Protestantism: none. Entirely self appointed. So please don’t expect anybody here to accept his assertions (especially those with no citations) at face value.

 

[JonNC]

Amen to that; JonNC is a perfect example.

You know the feelings are mutual, Joe. Thanks for the kind words.

Jon

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I second that sentiment with all my heart!

Here I stand . . .

Alex