Did early protestant reformers agree that the catholic church was true church of Christ?

[Chiefsinner]

Quote showing Martin Luther originally believed the Catholic Church was the true Church of Christ:

“Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., just as the Jews sat in their synagogues or assemblies and were the regularly established priesthood and authority of the Church. We admit all this and do not attack the office, although they are not willing to admit as much for us; yea, we confess that we have received these things from them, even as Christ by birth descended from the Jews and the apostles obtained the Scriptures from them.”

Sermon for the Sunday after Christ’s Ascension; John 15:26-16:4 (2nd sermon) A Sermon by Martin Luther; taken from his Church Postil, 1522. [This sermon is taken from volume III:254-271 of The Sermons of Martin Luther]

Quotes which show John Calvin stating the early Church (the Catholic Church) was once the true Church of Christ:

“But let us forgive them this, and let them take for granted that primacy was divinely bestowed on the Romish see, and has been sanctioned by the uniform consent of the ancient church; still there is room for this primacy only on the supposition that Rome has both a true church and a true bishop”

John Calvin - The Necessity of Reforming the Church (1543)

 

[JonNC]

Quote showing Martin Luther originally believed the Catholic Church was the true Church of Christ:

“Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., just as the Jews sat in their synagogues or assemblies and were the regularly established priesthood and authority of the Church. We admit all this and do not attack the office, although they are not willing to admit as much for us; yea, we confess that we have received these things from them, even as Christ by birth descended from the Jews and the apostles obtained the Scriptures from them.”

Sermon for the Sunday after Christ’s Ascension; John 15:26-16:4 (2nd sermon) A Sermon by Martin Luther; taken from his Church Postil, 1522. [This sermon is taken from volume III:254-271 of The Sermons of Martin Luther]

Quotes which show John Calvin stating the early Church (the Catholic Church) was once the true Church of Christ:

“But let us forgive them this, and let them take for granted that primacy was divinely bestowed on the Romish see, and has been sanctioned by the uniform consent of the ancient church; still there is room for this primacy only on the supposition that Rome has both a true church and a true bishop”

John Calvin - The Necessity of Reforming the Church (1543)

I would say part of the true Church, when speaking of Luther. And a recognition of a primacy of the see of Rome, though clearly not supremacy. Office also, his expectation that we too are part of that true Church - He says although they are willing to admit as much for us.
Jon

 

[Rence]

Most did believe that the Catholic Church as the true Chuch of Christ, but that it became corrupt along the way.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Luther also said the doctrine of papal supremacy proves the pope is the Antichrist (see Smalcald Articles, II, IV, 10-12) . So we can’t just take one quote and say “This was Luther’s position.” He proclaimed several, radically different positions, depending on the speech or document in question.

I believe the same could be said to some extent of the other Reformers, though I understand Calvin was more self-consistent.

 

[Monergistic]

These men were not Italians. Outside that peninsula, perhaps there was more drift and partitioning within a widespread communion than we might instinctively give it credit for.

 

[steido01]

Luther also said the doctrine of papal supremacy proves the pope is the Antichrist (see Smalcald Articles, II, IV, 10-12) . So we can’t just take one quote and say “This was Luther’s position.” He proclaimed several, radically different positions, depending on the speech or document in question.

I believe the same could be said to some extent of the other Reformers, though I understand Calvin was more self-consistent.

I’m not sure we’re accurately reporting Luther’s positions by saying he contradicted himself. Luther was consistent in his teachings, although it can be difficult for those taking a cursory, out-of-context look at Lutheranism to understand his views. Yes, his choice in words often left some charity to be desired (hey, let’s be honest, he and his Catholic contemporaries were earthy, crass products of a hard time). But what he’s saying in Smalcald about the papacy and what he’s saying here about the church are entirely compatible, and not contradictory. Luther never stated that the Catholic church wasn’t part of the Church of Christ; only that its leadership had claimed authority for reasons other than what he believed was Scriptural. You’re correct when you say “we can’t take just one quote and say, ‘This was Luther’s position.’” It is equally as disingenuous to take multiple quotes out of context to further a misconception.

I’m not defending everything the man said, mind y’all, and I know we don’t agree on whether he was correct or not. Just noting that he was consistent in his Reform/heresy.

My point, in relation to the OP, is: yes, Luther did consider the Catholic church part of the Church of Christ.

 

[josephback]

Quote showing Martin Luther originally believed the Catholic Church was the true Church of Christ:

“Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., just as the Jews sat in their synagogues or assemblies and were the regularly established priesthood and authority of the Church. We admit all this and do not attack the office, although they are not willing to admit as much for us; yea, we confess that we have received these things from them, even as Christ by birth descended from the Jews and the apostles obtained the Scriptures from them.”

Sermon for the Sunday after Christ’s Ascension; John 15:26-16:4 (2nd sermon) A Sermon by Martin Luther; taken from his Church Postil, 1522. [This sermon is taken from volume III:254-271 of The Sermons of Martin Luther]

Quotes which show John Calvin stating the early Church (the Catholic Church) was once the true Church of Christ:

“But let us forgive them this, and let them take for granted that primacy was divinely bestowed on the Romish see, and has been sanctioned by the uniform consent of the ancient church; still there is room for this primacy only on the supposition that Rome has both a true church and a true bishop”

John Calvin - The Necessity of Reforming the Church (1543)

I could be out of bounds, but John Calvin’s quote could have come from a Sedevacantist

 

[Ad_Orientem]

what he’s saying in Smalcald about the papacy and what he’s saying here about the church are entirely compatible

How? It seems to me he says in one place that Christ instituted the papacy, and in another, that the papacy (not just the reigning pope) is Antichrist.

 

[hn160]

Luther had this to say about The Roman Catholic Church. This is from a book “What Luther Says” in #372 Yet the Roman Catholic Church Is Part of Christendom.
" We ourselves confess and concede that they are in the right church, have the office which was given by Christ, and which the apostles gave them as a heritage - the office to teach, baptize, administer the Sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc …We allow all this to be right and do not call the office in question, although they do not want to admit that the same obtains among us. In fact, we confess that we receive these things from them, as Christ Himself came from the Jews according to His birth and the apostles found Scripture among the Jews. ( W 21, 432 - E 12, 262 - SL 11, 1012 )

 

[JonNC]

How? It seems to me he says in one place that Christ instituted the papacy, and in another, that the papacy (not just the reigning pope) is Antichrist.

While Catholics will not, Lutherans, and I believe Luther, see a difference in the See of Rome, the Bishop of Rome, on the one hand, and that of the evolution of the papacy into universal jurisdiction, and the claim that being in communion with him is necessary for salvation.

In this way, it is quite consistent.

Jon

 

[Ad_Orientem]

the See of Rome . . . on the one hand, and that of the evolution of the papacy into universal jurisdiction. . .

Ok…thanks for explaining. I can see how the quotes in question could both fit that view. No misrepresentation was intended (as steido1 implied).

So Luther may have been consistent on that point after the nailing of the 95 theses. For those who haven’t seen the following, in 1516, he preached:

If Christ had not entrusted all power to one man, the Church would not have been perfect because there would have been no order and each one would have been able to say he was led by the Holy Spirit. This is what the heretics did, each one setting up his own principle. In this way as many Churches arose as there were heads. . . . Wherefore, whoever breaks away from this unity and order of the power, let him not boast of great enlightenment and wonderful works, as our Picards and other heretics do, ‘for much better is obedience than to be the victims of fools who know not what evil they do.’ (cf… Eccles.iv, 17)." (Sermo in Vincula S. Petri, “Werke” Weimar ed., I 69).

From a Catholic point of view, there couldn’t be greater irony. Not that Luther meant it ironically, but because of what soon followed.

 

[steido01]

Ok…thanks for explaining. I can see how the quotes in question could both fit that view. No misrepresentation was intended (as steido1 implied).

Didn’t think it was intended. Apologies if my post came across accusatory; just wanted to clarify the historical record.

I’m not sure if you’re implying that Luther’s sermon from 1516 is inconsistent with what he would later preach, so forgive me for furthering this tangent if that wasn’t your intent… I don’t see how this contradicts with his later writings. He acknowledges here and in the redacted portions of this sermon (as he confirms in later writings) that the church catholic will always prevail, regardless of the actions of any given theologian, priest or bishop. I think it’s fair to assume that he applied this thought to all church leaders - including the Bishop of Rome. I think a modern paraphrase of Theses 91 simplifies his view fairly well, “If the pope had worked as he should (and by example) all the problems stated above would not have existed.”

From a Catholic point of view, there couldn’t be greater irony. Not that Luther meant it ironically, but because of what soon followed.

And from the Lutheran view, what soon followed couldn’t be lamented enough. From the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope; “To dissent from the agreement of so many nations and to be called schismatics is a grave matter. But divine authority commands all not to be allies and defenders of impiety and unjust cruelty.” We continue to pray for, and work toward, a more full Christian unity.

 

[Lochias]

Ok…thanks for explaining. I can see how the quotes in question could both fit that view. No misrepresentation was intended (as steido1 implied).

So Luther may have been consistent on that point after the nailing of the 95 theses. For those who haven’t seen the following, in 1516, he preached:

If Christ had not entrusted all power to one man, the Church would not have been perfect because there would have been no order and each one would have been able to say he was led by the Holy Spirit. This is what the heretics did, each one setting up his own principle. In this way as many Churches arose as there were heads. . . . Wherefore, whoever breaks away from this unity and order of the power, let him not boast of great enlightenment and wonderful works, as our Picards and other heretics do, ‘for much better is obedience than to be the victims of fools who know not what evil they do.’ (cf… Eccles.iv, 17)." (Sermo in Vincula S. Petri, “Werke” Weimar ed., I 69).

From a Catholic point of view, there couldn’t be greater irony. Not that Luther meant it ironically, but because of what soon followed.

Indeed. It’s actually depressing to me, more than anything else; et tu, Luther?

 

[KathleenGee]

The conditions leading up to the Reformation were primarily caused by the elitism in Franko-German intellectual clerical culture, not Italian clerics.

Martin Luther spoke prophetically for the restoration of the lay participation of the Mass. Up to the 900’s, the laity sung the liturgy, this participation going back to ancient Jewish practices of chanting.

The return to Christian liturgy – the only place we come together on Sunday’s – was one that involved the laity and used the vernacular. But Latin was the universal language.

And the Church never intended to remove the Latin Mass from the parish in contemporary times. This was an abuse by so called Catholic ‘reformers’ of the 20th century.

Pope Benedict was hoping people would have their altars face the East as the rising sun is the symbol of the Resurrected Lord.

Also, removing the communion kneelers was never stated in Vatican II documents.

There are so called theologians that were promoting a new kind of belief that as Christ died on Golgotha…outside of Jerusalem, one could say that Christ’s Passion was in the world, and subsequently, an act of de-sacralization.

So we witnessed a desacralizing of our churches and abuses bordering on the profane, if not there were indeed profane Masses being said attaching themselves to the so called spirit of Vatican II.

What Cardinal Wuerl said prior to the election, was that our first reform is the liturgy. And it was removing the sight of the liturgy from the laity were few in time communicated with the Eucharist, that created the environment that eventually led to the breakdown of the Reformation.

As I heard it, Luther at first had no intentions to break away to the degree that he did. After ecclesiastics that oversaw his jurisdiction refused to dialogue with him, miscommunications, and other issues, all led to his breakdown and complete fracture with the Church that Luther no longer believed in apostolic succession.

The Gutenberg Press to the Protestants led to all sorts of books, heretical books, books without authors and unchallenged, where in time one could not even define what makes Protestant theology, as it splintered into so many divisions, and still does.

Again as Marshall McLuhen stated, text leads to individualism. Catholicism leads us into communion, particularly that with the seat of Peter retained.

Eventually it was the Papacy alone that would correct abuses and define the universal character of the Mass, not theologians. The Roman Missal then approved by the papacy lasted from the time following the Council of Trent all the way up to 1965, 400 years of uniform and consistent thought and belief.

So the work of the Church now is to affirm the good that Luther wanted – giving the believers the fullness of God, and the Church itself to return Luther himself back to his original belief that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ.

We likewise saw 400 years of entrenchment with the Roman Missal and universal belief and worship to offset the eventual splintering of Protestant Christianity.

Time to move forward and restore our sacred unity – along with the true reform Luther originally intended.

 

[KathleenGee]

Luther wrote inflammatory books, one of them being ‘Captivity in Babylon’ after the severed break with the Church, along with others.

When the division became military, the severance was complete. Christians killing Christians in the name of reform.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

. . . Apologies if my post came across accusatory . . . if you’re implying that Luther’s sermon from 1516 is inconsistent with what he would later preach . . . the church catholic will always prevail . . . I think it’s fair to assume that he applied this thought to all church leaders . . .

Thanks steido01, no hard feelings.

Admittedly I don’t have the whole sermon; if someone does I’d like to see it. But given the quote, it seems a stretch to say he was talking about any local minister. He says “all power” and “one man,” without qualification.

Even if he *did *mean the local minister, do you admit there was some point at which he renounced papal supremacy, in which he had formerly believed, or do you think he had Lutheran beliefs all along?

We continue to pray for, and work toward, a more full Christian unity.

Amen.

 

[steido01]

Admittedly I don’t have the whole sermon; if someone does I’d like to see it.

Honestly, it’s pretty brief and you have most of it there. Just missing a few bits about how ‘the Gates of Hell could never prevail against the Church…’ or something to that effect. I can only find the Latin online (not going to try to translate!), and I only remember bits of it from college (as you can imagine, this sermon sparked a bit of discussion and sticks in my mind).

But given the quote, it seems a stretch to say he was talking about any local minister. He says “all power” and “one man,” without qualification.

That’s fair. I shouldn’t apply any more meaning to his words than he clearly intended. In that light, I think it’s reasonable to conclude that Luther held the duties of the pope in very high regard, from very early on. Could Luther have considered the pope ‘first among equals,’ or something akin to what the Orthodox believe? It wouldn’t be unreasonable.

Even if he did mean the local minister, do you admit there was some point at which he renounced papal supremacy, in which he had formerly believed, or do you think he had Lutheran beliefs all along?

I can’t speak for the man, and I’m still not sure that the sermon is necessarily proof of an endorsement of papal supremacy in the sense we understand, but… there must have been a moment when he renounced papal authority; when he determined (whether correctly or not) that the pope was no longer fulfilling his duties as shepherd and had instead:

• “[C]laimed for himself [in the first place] that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom].” The other Patriarchs would have something to say about that.
• “[Claimed] the [earthly] authority also of bestowing kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.].”
• “Said that to believe this is necessary for salvation.”

-from the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, Lutheran Confessions

While Lutheranism denied Roman supremacy for these reasons, it did not deny the necessity of a loving church’s authority and unity. So whether this makes him ‘Lutheran’ all along or not… I don’t know, but my guess is yes. Either way, it doesn’t change the fact that he did agree that the Catholic Church was/is part of the One, Holy, catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Could Luther have considered the pope ‘first among equals,’ or something akin to what the Orthodox believe? It wouldn’t be unreasonable.

Why not what Catholics believe? Luther was, after all, once a Catholic, not to mention a religious priest with a doctorate in theology, if I’m not mistaken. How could he have been ignorant of the Church’s teachings on papal authority (e.g. universal jurisdiction, necessity for salvation of submission thereto)?

he determined (whether correctly or not) that the pope was no longer fulfilling his duties as shepherd . . . he did agree that the Catholic Church was/is part of the One, Holy, catholic and Apostolic Church.

Ok.

 

[hn160]

Luther wrote inflammatory books, one of them being ‘Captivity in Babylon’ after the severed break with the Church, along with others.

When the division became military, the severance was complete. Christians killing Christians in the name of reform.

That was both sides and during the Thirity Years War which which devastated Germany as well as the Moravian Lands, we had Catholic and Protestants aligned with each other killing both Catholics and Protestants.
If both sides had kept their cool and held the Council of Trent earlier, maybe this split could have been healed. I would love to see the confessional Lutheran Churches in honest talks with the Catholic Church.

 

[gcnuss]

Why not what Catholics believe? Luther was, after all, once a Catholic, not to mention a religious priest with a doctorate in theology, if I’m not mistaken. How could he have been ignorant of the Church’s teachings on papal authority (e.g. universal jurisdiction, necessity for salvation of submission thereto)?

Jumping in here, I think that the Church’s teachings on papal authority may have been overshadowed by the actions of Leo X. Even Catholic commentators recognize that Leo’s pontificate was not the brightest time in church history. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The most important occurrence of Leo’s pontificate and that of gravest consequence to the Church was the Reformation, which began in 1517. We cannot enter into a minute account of this movement, the remote cause of which lay in the religious, political, and social conditions of Germany. It is certain, however, that the seeds of discontent amid which Luther threw his firebrand had been germinating for centuries. The immediate cause was bound up with the odious greed for money displayed by the Roman Curia, and shows how far short all efforts at reform had hitherto fallen. Albert of Brandenburg, already Archbishop of Magdeburg, received in addition the Archbishopric of Mainz and the Bishopric of Hallerstadt, but in return was obliged to collect 10,000 ducats, which he was taxed over and above the usual confirmation fees. To indemnify hiim, and to make it possible to discharge these obligations Rome permitted him to have preached in his territory the plenary indulgence promised all those who contributed to the new St. Peter’s; he was allowed to keep one half the returns, a transaction which brought dishonour on all concerned in it. Added to this, abuses occurred during the preaching of the Indulgence. The money contributions, a mere accessory, were frequently the chief object, and the “Indulgences for the Dead” became a vehicle of inadmissible teachings. That Leo X, in the most serious of all the crises which threatened the Church, should fail to prove the proper guide for her, is clear enough from what has been related above. He recognized neither the gravity of the situation nor the underlying causes of the revolt. Vigorous measures of reform might have proved an efficacious antidote, but the pope was deeply entangled in political affairs and allowed the imperial election to overshadow the revolt of Luther; moreover, he gave himself up unrestrainedly to his pleasures and failed to grasp fully the duties of his high office.

The pope’s last political efforts were directed to expanding the States of the Church, establishing a dominating power in central Italy by means of the acquisition of Ferrara. In 1519 he concluded a treaty with Francis I against Emperor Charles V. But the selfishness and encroachments of the French and the struggle against the Lutheran movement, induced him soon to unite with Charles, after he had again resorted to his double-faced method of treating with both rivals. In 1521 pope and emperor signed a defensive alliance for the purpose of driving the French out of Italy. After some difficulty, the allies occupied Milan and Lombardy. Amid the rejoicings over these successes, the pope died suddenly of a malignant malaria. His enemies are wrongly accused of having poisoned him. The magnificent pope was given a simple funeral and not until the reign of Paul III was a monument erected to his memory in the Church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva. It is cold, prosaic, and quite unworthy of such a connoisseur as Leo.

The only possible verdict on the pontificate of Leo X is that it was unfortunate for the Church. Sigismondo Tizio, whose devotion to the Holy See is undoubted, writes truthfully: “In the general opinion it was injurious to the Church that her Head should delight in plays, music, the chase and nonsense, instead of paying serious attention to the needs of his flock and mourning over their misfortunes”. Von Reumont says pertinently—“Leo X is in great measure to blame for the fact that faith in the integrity and merit of the papacy, in its moral and regenerating powers, and even in its good intentions, should have sunk so low that men could declare extinct the old true spirit of the Church.”

As noted in the last paragraph, Leo’s lifestyle and actions led people to lose “faith in the integrity and merit of the papacy.” While I believe it to be true the the Church can never err, the human beings charged with leading it can go astray, sometimes with very bad results. One major strength of the recent Popes is that they have been men of integrity. Had Leo X been of that caliber the Reformation might have played out much differently.