It is at least an overstatement to say the Luther condemned AS. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession, which Luther approved, says:
Jon
- Status
R
robwar
Guest
Yes, that is a very good point. He survived because the local German authority decided that he would be the ticket to brake away from Rome. Also they were upset about sending money to Rome to build St. Peter’s basilica. If Luther did not get the support of the local authority at that time, he would not have survived. And of course when the local peasants actually started to act on what he taught and started to rebel against political authorities, Luther sided with the government most likely to save himself. He turned on the peasants.
R
robwar
Guest
Yes it was the ugly Popes at that time but I think Luther was an all or nothing type of person and since he saw problems, his solution was to throw out the baby with the bath water. The bad Popes in his mind made the Papacy totally corrupt and needed to be eliminated, instead of realizing because there have been bad popes that doesn’t make the office of the Papacy inherently corrupt. But you have to realize that Luther had a terrible abusive father and i think a lot of his anger over authority and the focus on the papacy most likely stems from anger with his father.
A
austenbosten
Guest
Considering that the papacy was currently controlled by the Italian Medici family who were also in control of banking and ruling Italy and pretty much everything…I’d say the ugly certainly was happening during his time…you had the Borgias with Pope Alexander VI corrupting the Church and Europe, followed by Pope Pius III (who may or may not have been poisoned) and Julius II who father illegitimate children before becoming Pope…and now we have Pope Leo X who litterally exhausted the Church treasury that Pope Julius II worked so hard to build up and lived an extravagant and lavish lifestyle that rivaled many kings and emperors. On top of that he wanted the poor German peasants to pay for the new Basillica.
I frankly do not blame Luther here is a tortured man who is literally doing everything to be on God’s good side, and here we have men who are representing the Vicar of Christ, the men who now holds the Keys Christ gave to Saint Peter and they were breaking every commandment known to man and living lives of decadence and sin, all the while telling others “Do as I say not as I do, otherwise you will perish in Hell.” On top of that they were taking the Church far too much into secular and political matters, all the while grossly ignoring the souls of men.
Now was Luther right to break away? I’m still undecided but I know I cannot blame him for choosing to break away, I wouldn’t want to be a Catholic if the men who represented the Church were men like the Borgias and the Medicis. However if Luther lived long enough to see the Church today, I’m sure he would probably return to the Church. The Church is far less corrupt and decadent than it was 500 years ago.
A
austenbosten
Guest
Yes I agree with you, Luther truly was a tortured soul and his father was embarrassed that Luther decided to become a monk because Luther pleaded to God for his life during a terrible storm.
J
joe370
Guest
I agree, and I too empathize with Luther. Of course it wasn’t the first time that Jesus’ church was under such vicious attacks by the evil one. from within:
Code:
"*Go and repair my house, which, as you can see, is falling into ruin." *St. Francis of Assisi
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Thanks, Jon, for your reference.
My instruction on Ecumenism by a bishop who had attended and was on the commission for this very discipline, gave us a brief history of Luther that reflected a scrupulosity that inclined him to have difficulty in acknowledging God’s profound love for him.
In this same era, there are many who still experienced this in the Church as well.
But as to the two previous popes, then Leo X, of whom one of my Catholic pastors shared with us at RCIA his total contempt for him…Leo X the one who had put cardinals in the tower who opposed him…A Servite priest in that time was like Luther, in calling this papacy the anti-christ…yes, it would be so hard to keep faith. But people in those days do not have the glaring and obsessive media like we have today.
I would think Luther would have returned if he saw the Church today. And it seems he was also wanting more lay participation, more expression of faith from the heart to counteract…what I picture in my mind…Mass said rapidly and/or in a drone tone of voice, lifeless homilies…the priest scandals…and the rise of nationalism and the Enlightenment…yes, there were Catholics in emerging Protestant countries who did not want to switch over but were forced…others were not…the Servites were in Erhurt (spelling) where Lutheranism originated…and they were wiped out, not serving as an order there.
It is hard to imagine the times when Western Christianity and its unity was dismantling…while prior to that the expansion of Islam in the Eastern Church. I look at today…how true it is to persevere in the Lord and His cross to the end.
Jesus said HIs constant prayer on earth was that we be one …so that the world may believe. I look at the situation of faith in our country and all that is happening in the world,l and pray so much that Christianity return to its roots and we all be one, for our sake and that of the world.
My instruction on Ecumenism by a bishop who had attended and was on the commission for this very discipline, gave us a brief history of Luther that reflected a scrupulosity that inclined him to have difficulty in acknowledging God’s profound love for him.
In this same era, there are many who still experienced this in the Church as well.
But as to the two previous popes, then Leo X, of whom one of my Catholic pastors shared with us at RCIA his total contempt for him…Leo X the one who had put cardinals in the tower who opposed him…A Servite priest in that time was like Luther, in calling this papacy the anti-christ…yes, it would be so hard to keep faith. But people in those days do not have the glaring and obsessive media like we have today.
I would think Luther would have returned if he saw the Church today. And it seems he was also wanting more lay participation, more expression of faith from the heart to counteract…what I picture in my mind…Mass said rapidly and/or in a drone tone of voice, lifeless homilies…the priest scandals…and the rise of nationalism and the Enlightenment…yes, there were Catholics in emerging Protestant countries who did not want to switch over but were forced…others were not…the Servites were in Erhurt (spelling) where Lutheranism originated…and they were wiped out, not serving as an order there.
It is hard to imagine the times when Western Christianity and its unity was dismantling…while prior to that the expansion of Islam in the Eastern Church. I look at today…how true it is to persevere in the Lord and His cross to the end.
Jesus said HIs constant prayer on earth was that we be one …so that the world may believe. I look at the situation of faith in our country and all that is happening in the world,l and pray so much that Christianity return to its roots and we all be one, for our sake and that of the world.
C
Contarini
Guest
And he didn’t do that. He condemned it because papal authority was the bulwark supporting beliefs and practices that he believed fundamentally contrary to the Gospel.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
This meme just won’t die, it seems, even though it goes against all the evidence we have.
Once again, have a look at this letter of Luther to Pope Leo (the 1520 one, not the 1518 one that JonNC posted). Luther goes out of his way to tell Leo that he has nothing against him personally and doesn’t consider him a “bad pope.” This may be disingenuous on Luther’s part, but I think it’s best explained as Luther deliberately reversing the traditional “respect the office, not the person” approach. Rather, Luther says, he respects the person but not the office. And his reasons for this are *doctrinal.
*He said over and over that his issues with Rome were doctrinal, not moral. All his actions point in that direction. Why on earth do people persist in disbelieving him on this point? (I say “on this point” because I certainly don’t think one should automatically believe everything Luther said!)
I see no evidence that Hans Luther was an abusive father by the standards of the sixteenth century. Sterner than some, perhaps, but not unusually so, and basically someone who cared about his kids and wanted them to do well.
P
Porknpie
Guest
3 of the four words are correct. One is not. He was in no way “simple”.
A
austenbosten
Guest
yeah he sure was a complex man.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Edwin…yes I am somewhat knowledgeable about the exchange of letters between Luther and Leo X.
The beginning text for RC seminarians on Church History state the beginning flaw of the Church was theologians refusing to meet with Luther regarding Scripture and theology.
Scandalously, the archbishop of Mainz initially reported Luther to Rome about the loss of income regarding indulgences…so …now I can’t believe it was only Tetzel and a few others making income through selling of indulgences.
(One cannot sell blessed objects. There have been mini scandals in the Church in the USA regarding individuals selling blessed objects and relics at Marian conferences in the 1990’s.)
(And the selling of indulgences does not reflect on the alms of indulgences of themselves, a practice formed by the Church.)
Luther won over his fellow Augustininans in Heidelberg in April, 1518. And Pope Leo was involved with Italian affairs. He had little interest, seeing it as monks’ squabble…but he was deaf to Luther’s ‘humble appeal’ in May of that year.
Political interests were involved in this scenario. Luther’s private theologian, Prierias, considered Luther to be ‘a leper and loathsome fellow…a dog and the son of a *****, born to bite the sky with his doggish mouth’, having ‘a brain of brass and a nose of iron’. This accompanied the charge for Luther to come to Rome to face charges of heresy. Luther was protected and supported by his ruler, Frederick of Saxony, and Rome needed Frederick to keep the Habsburg claimant, Charles, from the empire’s throne.
Cardinal Cajetan met with Luther and there was a debate between faith to sacrament, and what was primary. It ended in deadlock. And when Luther slipped away, October 20, 1518, he gave the ‘ominous remark’ questioning papal authority.
Again, Rome was preoccupied with political matters, and for 2 years Luther went into public debate, drawing great public interest, with ‘incredible energy’ as an alternative to the Roman ecclesiastical and sacramental system that was most attractive to the German people.
What evolved from this 2 year period, prior to the Church’s condemnation of Luther, was this new concept of the Church after 1500 years of tradition – ‘not divinely founded institution…but rather based on communities’ whose ‘origin was human and historical’.
Subsequently the perspective 'the divine authority in the papacy and hierarchy collapsed. This was all clarified in his public debate in Leipzig in July 1519. The Church was no longer the interpreter of Scripture.
When Leo X finally saw the profound crisis, the flaw of Exsurge Domine in June 1420 was that it condemned all 41 propositions.
Afterwards, this is when Luther called the Pope the Anti Christ…followed by use of the printing press, and made 3 manifestos to the German people: ‘To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation’, ‘On the Babylon Captivity of the Church’, and ‘On the Freedom of the Christian Man’.
This account by the Church to its seminarians indicate to me that Sola Scriptura was already in motion before Leo’s final decree. After Exsurge Domine, Luther’s attacks on the Pope ‘became increasingly coarse and frenetic’.
For me, I think the Reformation is a punishment on the communion of the Church for corruption. Broken faith has led to broken families.
I also see great need now in these times for more pastoral Scripture deacons and teachers to give more depth in every day life to Catholics. I see former Protestant ministers joining the Church and bringing their gifts to the laity.
We need the return of our separated brethren. We have enjoyed holy popes for some time now. From what I understand, Pope Leo X was the most infamous.
Before him, many popes did great work in the face of martyrdom, persecution, barbarian invasions and plagues. After the Reformation, the Church did indeed reform itself and likewise made very clear distinctions of Who it is vs the Protestant churches to the point of putting a wall up around itself.
Vatican II supports the very ideas Luther had…of more heart felt homilies and lay participation at Mass, and Scripture studies, which of course are facilitated now with the easily printed Bible.
Vatican I also reflected well on the books removed by Luther, but then reasserted that its original selection was indeed the work of the Holy Spirit, and the books we have were very foundational in the development of science and other works in the Catholic contribution of culture to the world. Our Vatican Library is testament to that.
The beginning text for RC seminarians on Church History state the beginning flaw of the Church was theologians refusing to meet with Luther regarding Scripture and theology.
Scandalously, the archbishop of Mainz initially reported Luther to Rome about the loss of income regarding indulgences…so …now I can’t believe it was only Tetzel and a few others making income through selling of indulgences.
(One cannot sell blessed objects. There have been mini scandals in the Church in the USA regarding individuals selling blessed objects and relics at Marian conferences in the 1990’s.)
(And the selling of indulgences does not reflect on the alms of indulgences of themselves, a practice formed by the Church.)
Luther won over his fellow Augustininans in Heidelberg in April, 1518. And Pope Leo was involved with Italian affairs. He had little interest, seeing it as monks’ squabble…but he was deaf to Luther’s ‘humble appeal’ in May of that year.
Political interests were involved in this scenario. Luther’s private theologian, Prierias, considered Luther to be ‘a leper and loathsome fellow…a dog and the son of a *****, born to bite the sky with his doggish mouth’, having ‘a brain of brass and a nose of iron’. This accompanied the charge for Luther to come to Rome to face charges of heresy. Luther was protected and supported by his ruler, Frederick of Saxony, and Rome needed Frederick to keep the Habsburg claimant, Charles, from the empire’s throne.
Cardinal Cajetan met with Luther and there was a debate between faith to sacrament, and what was primary. It ended in deadlock. And when Luther slipped away, October 20, 1518, he gave the ‘ominous remark’ questioning papal authority.
Again, Rome was preoccupied with political matters, and for 2 years Luther went into public debate, drawing great public interest, with ‘incredible energy’ as an alternative to the Roman ecclesiastical and sacramental system that was most attractive to the German people.
What evolved from this 2 year period, prior to the Church’s condemnation of Luther, was this new concept of the Church after 1500 years of tradition – ‘not divinely founded institution…but rather based on communities’ whose ‘origin was human and historical’.
Subsequently the perspective 'the divine authority in the papacy and hierarchy collapsed. This was all clarified in his public debate in Leipzig in July 1519. The Church was no longer the interpreter of Scripture.
When Leo X finally saw the profound crisis, the flaw of Exsurge Domine in June 1420 was that it condemned all 41 propositions.
Afterwards, this is when Luther called the Pope the Anti Christ…followed by use of the printing press, and made 3 manifestos to the German people: ‘To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation’, ‘On the Babylon Captivity of the Church’, and ‘On the Freedom of the Christian Man’.
This account by the Church to its seminarians indicate to me that Sola Scriptura was already in motion before Leo’s final decree. After Exsurge Domine, Luther’s attacks on the Pope ‘became increasingly coarse and frenetic’.
For me, I think the Reformation is a punishment on the communion of the Church for corruption. Broken faith has led to broken families.
I also see great need now in these times for more pastoral Scripture deacons and teachers to give more depth in every day life to Catholics. I see former Protestant ministers joining the Church and bringing their gifts to the laity.
We need the return of our separated brethren. We have enjoyed holy popes for some time now. From what I understand, Pope Leo X was the most infamous.
Before him, many popes did great work in the face of martyrdom, persecution, barbarian invasions and plagues. After the Reformation, the Church did indeed reform itself and likewise made very clear distinctions of Who it is vs the Protestant churches to the point of putting a wall up around itself.
Vatican II supports the very ideas Luther had…of more heart felt homilies and lay participation at Mass, and Scripture studies, which of course are facilitated now with the easily printed Bible.
Vatican I also reflected well on the books removed by Luther, but then reasserted that its original selection was indeed the work of the Holy Spirit, and the books we have were very foundational in the development of science and other works in the Catholic contribution of culture to the world. Our Vatican Library is testament to that.
P
Police42
Guest
The reformation was not the result of a single individual or group, but rather the translation of the Scriptures in languages that people of God could read and then understand by the power of the gospel via the work of the Holy Spirit.
Of course with that (giving people the ability to read the word on their own) also came the distortion and intentional misuse for sordid gain spoken about and written by the apostle Paul.
Luther came across the writings of John Huss and was converted and began preaching the word of God. He was eventually excommunicated, but he did not appear to be trying to start a movement, but was far more interested in preaching the word as evidenced by his vast amount of study, preparation and preaching. The pastoral epistles command such things to be done. Calvin was the same and Huss and the Wesley brothers and a host of others.
A
austenbosten
Guest
:clapping: Yes even though I’m looking to become a Catholic, I still hold Martin Luther in very high regard (despite him being a focal point of frustration and contempt among several Catholics) and I too agree that it’s time for the Church and her fellow sister churches to join in unison once again. The Reformation may have not been necessary, but the gross neglect of the Church by its leaders forced it to happen. For a neglectful and abusive Shepherd cannot blame his flock if many of them decide to leave his field for greener pastures.
However we have new Shepherd minding the same blessed field who takes great strides to look over and care for his faithful flock, even though there are troubles with wolves and false shepherds who at time abuse the flock, the new Shepherd strives to do better to tend to his flock. The wandering flock however have broken down and splintered into their own groups and at times have forgotten their purpose. Hopefully the wandering flock may return to the fields one day and they might see the new Shepherd and stay.
S
Stilldreamn
Guest
Although our Shepherds may continue to debate and discuss their differences, I can say for sure that the sheep in my neck of the woods are grazing side by side and all the grass is green.
I pray that just as the technology of the printing press facilitated the divisions among us, perhaps the internet will be the tool used to unite us once again.
M
manualman
Guest
Edwin is right. If you look over the chronology of Luther’s life and interactions with the Church, it is easy to see that his ‘Sola Fide’ stance came first. I (personally) believe this is because he found it to be a useful way to soothe his scrupulous conscience (works are irrelevant). He found solace in this new way of looking at Grace and Salvation and when the Church told him he was wrong, he chucked the Church instead of the novel doctrine. Thus, Sola Scriptura.
The sad part is that it makes complete sense when you put yourself in Luther’s shoes (I can relate to the pride part, if not the scrupulosity part). He finally found a way to shake off the guilt that had tortured him so much, finally was able to experience a feeling of God’s love and here come some guys in pointy hats to tell him he’s got it all wrong? Not suprising what then followed.
The really sad part is that nobody seemed to approach Luther and address the root of why he so embedded himself in his idea of Sola Fide. Nobody seems to have helped him to recognize that Grace is still a free gift, even if you must use your free will your whole life to accept it. Nobody can claim to have scaled a sheer cliff if they merely clung to a rope while it was hauled to the top. But you also can’t let go of the rope!
This lesson is one of the main reasons I really DON’T pine for the ‘good old days’ of anathemas and excommunications. Yes, it sure would be nice to have more clarity in teaching and less cases of theological scandal, but not at the cost of placing theological purity over the wellbeing of souls. Wouldn’t it be nice if we had an era when BOTH doctrinal clarity AND compassionate care of the sheep were emphasized?
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Stilldream…appreciate your comments.
Problem is that Luther had both Scriptural and theological differences with the Church. St. Peter exhorted us in his second epistle that we are to only follow them and their teachings as they were appointed to be witnesses to Our Lord, and we should also recall how so many of Christ’s followers abandoned Him before His Passion.
What we witness today in our country is that the individual alone with the Holy Spirit is the interpreter of Sacred Scripture. This is not the charism and action of being within Christ’s Church.How do you know if it is the Holy Spirit or something of yourself???
And likewise Catholic theologians refused to debate him at the beginning. This reflects as well the state of the Church in those times. I have read early church fathers who submitted their theological reflections to the teachers of the Church to discern what was authentic and what was not.
We are called to be social beings, we are called to be in communion with God and with each other.
Debating and arguing about how to apply Scripture to our contemporary times we live in is a process in the Church since the the time of Christ and His apostles. How many times do we witness them arguing among themselves? This is one of the difficult conditions we endure as Church. But we are made of clay, and Christ has entrusted His Church to His apostles and their successors, and inspite of them, the Church goes on to bring us the life of Christ
And the other problem is that as Luther was obsessive and this reflected his own pronounced singularity, not testifying in his own witness and manner spirit of communion. His own isolation caused him not to be well versed in the sacred writings of the saints, who lived before him – I think of St. Francis of Assisi, St. Bonaventure, St. Catherine of Siena, who affirmed God’s great love for us, and that we are saved by the Lord’s grace in providing the faith we need for salvation. Luther was obsessed with his own sinfulness. Can I say his faith had not matured to that freedom Christ promises us??
And instead of the Word and Eucharist, Luther focused more on the homily…this also reflecting on the spirit of man. Today after Vatican II, there has been complaints that some priests are acting more like showmen then servants of God on the altar.
How we interpret and how we apply can have great ramifications on our daily lives. Look at how many splinters began with Sola Scriptura…predestination…when God intended all men be saved through His Son Jesus Christ…or Calvin considering the praying of the Liturgy of the Hours as ‘superstitious’.
(In case you don’t know, the Liturgy of the Hours is the Prayer of the Church. It is using the Psalms and reflections on salvation history to praise God throughout the day from dawn until night time. It is used by priests and religious. Go to a Catholic monastery and see the monks come back into praise the Lord throughout the day…through the Word of God.)
People have to also realize that Catholics have followed the ancient tradition of worshipping God at Mass…first with the Word of God with readings from the Old Testament and the Epistles, the Psalms, and then the Gospel. Our worship comprises of the Word of God with the Eucharist, the Word Made Flesh. We worship the Heavenly Father through the celebration of His Son Jesus Christ, offered to Him with us to be acceptable to the Lord.
To this day, Catholicism is based on the Oral Tradition of Christ witnessed by the Apostles, not text form. If it were so, Christ would have handed out Bibles to people. Instead we must take a leap of faith and trust Him in those He has called in spirit and truth.
Likewise His condemnation for those who do scandal and cause the ‘little ones’ to fall is most severe…they should have a millstone tied around their neck and dropped into the ocean. For us to believe in Christ, we must become as little children.
So for the laity to witness the scandals of those times, yes, it would be very understandable they lost faith in the Church. But likewise, we have to also note that the Church is self-reforming and the Council of Trent reformed parameters of the Papacy and other points, as well as reflect on the books removed from Scripture by the Protestants…the Council of Trent did listen and study their reasoning…but in the end reaffirmed through the Holy Spirit that the books we use in Sacred Scripture are indeed called and sanctioned by the Lord.
You come to the Church to encounter Jesus Christ, His Word, His Eucharist and sacraments, in union with the Holy Father and all the bishops. But you don’t come in because or for them. My Irish grandmother instructed me to always keep my eyes on the Lord, go to Mass…if someone or a priest is bothering me, stop looking at them, and return to the Word and Sacrament. It is truly a suffering, but we must persevere in the Lord and the Cross.
For me, I see Luther part of the German people wanting to be more independent and nationalistic of Rome. I see this part of the driving force of Protestantism in other countries such as England as well. Studying Europe and monarchies and the Papal States in that time is a case in itself to study. He wanted to break away from Rome. He was set in his convictions. But it is debatable as to how far out he wanted to go.
And after he was free of Rome, he admitted he saw worse abuses and neglect of the Gospel among the Protestant congregations. There was likewise a free for slide of belief and practice…Erasmus thought Luther’s real point revolved around free will…There came about Zwingli…Calvin…the dismantling of Christianity, opposite of what Christ prayed at the Last Supper, that we may all be one so the world may believe.
The Catholic Church…down to the common lay person has forgiven Martin Luther and very sympathetic to him nevertheless.
Problem is that Luther had both Scriptural and theological differences with the Church. St. Peter exhorted us in his second epistle that we are to only follow them and their teachings as they were appointed to be witnesses to Our Lord, and we should also recall how so many of Christ’s followers abandoned Him before His Passion.
What we witness today in our country is that the individual alone with the Holy Spirit is the interpreter of Sacred Scripture. This is not the charism and action of being within Christ’s Church.How do you know if it is the Holy Spirit or something of yourself???
And likewise Catholic theologians refused to debate him at the beginning. This reflects as well the state of the Church in those times. I have read early church fathers who submitted their theological reflections to the teachers of the Church to discern what was authentic and what was not.
We are called to be social beings, we are called to be in communion with God and with each other.
Debating and arguing about how to apply Scripture to our contemporary times we live in is a process in the Church since the the time of Christ and His apostles. How many times do we witness them arguing among themselves? This is one of the difficult conditions we endure as Church. But we are made of clay, and Christ has entrusted His Church to His apostles and their successors, and inspite of them, the Church goes on to bring us the life of Christ
And the other problem is that as Luther was obsessive and this reflected his own pronounced singularity, not testifying in his own witness and manner spirit of communion. His own isolation caused him not to be well versed in the sacred writings of the saints, who lived before him – I think of St. Francis of Assisi, St. Bonaventure, St. Catherine of Siena, who affirmed God’s great love for us, and that we are saved by the Lord’s grace in providing the faith we need for salvation. Luther was obsessed with his own sinfulness. Can I say his faith had not matured to that freedom Christ promises us??
And instead of the Word and Eucharist, Luther focused more on the homily…this also reflecting on the spirit of man. Today after Vatican II, there has been complaints that some priests are acting more like showmen then servants of God on the altar.
How we interpret and how we apply can have great ramifications on our daily lives. Look at how many splinters began with Sola Scriptura…predestination…when God intended all men be saved through His Son Jesus Christ…or Calvin considering the praying of the Liturgy of the Hours as ‘superstitious’.
(In case you don’t know, the Liturgy of the Hours is the Prayer of the Church. It is using the Psalms and reflections on salvation history to praise God throughout the day from dawn until night time. It is used by priests and religious. Go to a Catholic monastery and see the monks come back into praise the Lord throughout the day…through the Word of God.)
People have to also realize that Catholics have followed the ancient tradition of worshipping God at Mass…first with the Word of God with readings from the Old Testament and the Epistles, the Psalms, and then the Gospel. Our worship comprises of the Word of God with the Eucharist, the Word Made Flesh. We worship the Heavenly Father through the celebration of His Son Jesus Christ, offered to Him with us to be acceptable to the Lord.
To this day, Catholicism is based on the Oral Tradition of Christ witnessed by the Apostles, not text form. If it were so, Christ would have handed out Bibles to people. Instead we must take a leap of faith and trust Him in those He has called in spirit and truth.
Likewise His condemnation for those who do scandal and cause the ‘little ones’ to fall is most severe…they should have a millstone tied around their neck and dropped into the ocean. For us to believe in Christ, we must become as little children.
So for the laity to witness the scandals of those times, yes, it would be very understandable they lost faith in the Church. But likewise, we have to also note that the Church is self-reforming and the Council of Trent reformed parameters of the Papacy and other points, as well as reflect on the books removed from Scripture by the Protestants…the Council of Trent did listen and study their reasoning…but in the end reaffirmed through the Holy Spirit that the books we use in Sacred Scripture are indeed called and sanctioned by the Lord.
You come to the Church to encounter Jesus Christ, His Word, His Eucharist and sacraments, in union with the Holy Father and all the bishops. But you don’t come in because or for them. My Irish grandmother instructed me to always keep my eyes on the Lord, go to Mass…if someone or a priest is bothering me, stop looking at them, and return to the Word and Sacrament. It is truly a suffering, but we must persevere in the Lord and the Cross.
For me, I see Luther part of the German people wanting to be more independent and nationalistic of Rome. I see this part of the driving force of Protestantism in other countries such as England as well. Studying Europe and monarchies and the Papal States in that time is a case in itself to study. He wanted to break away from Rome. He was set in his convictions. But it is debatable as to how far out he wanted to go.
And after he was free of Rome, he admitted he saw worse abuses and neglect of the Gospel among the Protestant congregations. There was likewise a free for slide of belief and practice…Erasmus thought Luther’s real point revolved around free will…There came about Zwingli…Calvin…the dismantling of Christianity, opposite of what Christ prayed at the Last Supper, that we may all be one so the world may believe.
The Catholic Church…down to the common lay person has forgiven Martin Luther and very sympathetic to him nevertheless.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
No. He stuck to his guns though and eventually left the Church. Judging by his reaction of Protestantism (especially Calvinism) in the end of his life I’d say if he did it all over he would never have left the Catholic Church. He’d be demoralized at what present day Lutheranism is as well. (He kinda helped me along the path to believing ing Catholicism 
. His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI has plenty of positive things to say to his fellow German as well.)
. His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI has plenty of positive things to say to his fellow German as well.)
S
SaintPatrick333
Guest
There were Saints of the time who saw the abuses going on in the Church but they kept their faith in Christ who promised to always be with His Church. History shows us that any man made scandal that afflicts the Church is always corrected through the Church by our Lord Jesus Christ. Luther lost his faith in Christ to restore the Church and thought he could do a better job of it himself. He fell into the sin of pride, the same sin that caused Lucifer to fall. And look what Luther’s rebellion did. It split Christendom wide open. Who knows how many have fallen because they don’t know of Christ’s Truth found solely in His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
A
austenbosten
Guest
Let’s be honest, it wasn’t like there was not already a split with the Schism of 1054. To this day there is still Roman and Eastern Catholics and they are not fully in unison. Condemning Luther as a man who lost his faith in Christ and comparing him to Lucifer is pretty damning considering some of the Popes during his time lived lives of sin.
As for his rebellion Luther in no way condoned nor appreciated the attacks on the Church that contemporary Protestants engaged against Catholics. We should follow Pope Benedict’s actions and seek and pray for unison with the Lutherans, not carry out belligerent attacks seeking to further drive a wedge between Lutherans and Catholics.
- Status