Did Martin Luther regret the Reformation

[latingirl]

First of all Peter has his wife before Jesus called him. Many of the bishops and popes likewise in the early church had their wives before they became bishops.

Second, I don’t even see how whether clergy are married or unmarried even works in this issue and I wouldn’t say popes taking wives is “right”. Would it be right for a man to neglect his family because of a demanding job, Would it be right to pit a man between his family and his flock? I think not. Paul encouraged clergy not being married for a reason.

If his reasons aren’t good enough for us, maybe we need to question why we think we know better than an apostle.

 

[guanophore]

If he was acting according to his conscience I don’t see how he could stop without going against his conscience and thereby committing a sin in the eyes of God.

We are called to have a well formed conscience - that means that our conscience must know and act according to what God has already revealed to us. Luther knew that obedience was required, and rebellion needed to be avoided. He chose to rebel, and justified it to himself. He was not trying to split the Church, he was a small pebble that cause an already unstable avalanche to come down.

Yes, I have. It’s a proverb that I’ve heard used as a handy punch line in all sorts of situations. You’re surely not going to use it to prove he went too far are you?

No Catholic can claim to know who is in heaven, and who is not. We entrust all souls to God, (including our own).

The point is well made, though.The road to hell IS paved with good intentions. Nothing in Luthers 95 Theses had a bad intention. He did not want to foment rebellion and fragmentation. The results of he work was not what he intended.

How can you be sure?

Scripture tells us that when we die, we will see ourselves as He sees us, and understand the fruits of our deeds are He sees them. Luther wanted a more pure church, not a more fragmented one. He accepted the Apostolic Teaching that the Church was One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. He was not trying to create a new church named after himself.

“If God had not closed my eyes, and if I had foreseen these scandals, I would never have begun to teach the Gospel.” [Walch. VI. 920]

I’ve never heard anybody suggest that he claimed to be God. Are you Eastern Orthodox?

Luther agreed that the One Church was founded by Christ, who he believed to be God.

 

[guanophore]

Nonsense. Overstatement ruins a good case. He wasn’t claiming to be God, but he was claiming that his doctrines were the Word of God. That didn’t make him God, just a person who had understood Scripture correctly. That’s still a bold claim, and one that I don’t think is supported by the evidence. So scale down on your rhetoric and you have a valid point.

Edwin

I agree, Edwin on the God thing.

However, the problem remains about claiming that his doctrines are the Word of God. It is this policy (reading scripture and forming your own doctrine) that created and fomented the fragmentation in the church. Luther did not foresee what departure from Sacred Tradition would do. He never expected the loss of the Sacramental life,and many other outcomes that sprang from each man doing what was right in his own eyes.

Already in 1524 Luther tells us, why the preachers of the new Gospel were so thoroughly despised. He says: “They lead such a bad life . . . that they do more harm than good.” [Epp. ed. Aurifaber. II. 191]

What Luther did not realize is that men are always in need of reform, but the Teaching of Jesus is not. Though Luther wanted to purify the Church by bringing the holiness to the clergy that is evident in Scripture, all that resulted was a replacement of Catholic corruption for protestant corruption.

Luther says: “As soon as our Gospel began . . . decency . . . and modesty were done away with, and everybody wished to be perfectly free to do whatever he liked.” [Walch. V. 114]

He realized that changing the doctrine did not change the hearts of men.

 

[guanophore]

Jesus chose not to say anything about the issue one way or the other.

I think if you take an honest look at the verses posted on the topic above in this thread you will find the opposite to be true. Jesus taught that those who are called to the gift of celibacy should receive it.

 Then you might say it's nothing more than silly.  But considered in context I think it brings into focus how much power the pope actually has.

Acutally, it says the opposite. The Pope cannot change what God has already revealed to the Church.

 

[JonNC]

We are called to have a well formed conscience - that means that our conscience must know and act according to what God has already revealed to us. Luther knew that obedience was required, and rebellion needed to be avoided. He chose to rebel, and justified it to himself. He was not trying to split the Church, he was a small pebble that cause an already unstable avalanche to come down.

No Catholic can claim to know who is in heaven, and who is not. We entrust all souls to God, (including our own).

The point is well made, though.The road to hell IS paved with good intentions. Nothing in Luthers 95 Theses had a bad intention. He did not want to foment rebellion and fragmentation. The results of he work was not what he intended.

Scripture tells us that when we die, we will see ourselves as He sees us, and understand the fruits of our deeds are He sees them. Luther wanted a more pure church, not a more fragmented one. He accepted the Apostolic Teaching that the Church was One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. He was not trying to create a new church named after himself.

“If God had not closed my eyes, and if I had foreseen these scandals, I would never have begun to teach the Gospel.” [Walch. VI. 920]

Luther agreed that the One Church was founded by Christ, who he believed to be God.

It seems to me, guano, that what you have presented here and in the succeeding post is the position of the Catholic Church today regarding Luther, not the polemics of agent grey.
And it is a positon that leads to honest discussion, not merely of Luther and the Reformation, but more importantly of what we can do, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to bring His Church back to unity.

I might also add that it behooves Lutherans to also distance ourselves from our old polemics, and recognize the Holy Spirit in the efforts of great Christians throughout the Catholic Church, especially the recent popes who have brought about a new spirit of ecumenism.

Thanks,
Jon

 

[RyanBlack]

Well apart from the fact that there is plenty of scriptural evidence for the practice of celibate clergy its just that a practice. To the best of my knowledge luther believed enough in the practice to become a priest himself and I dont believe he ever took a wife even after the reformation began. But aside from you not liking the practice what obstacle to belief do you think is presented by the practice of celibate clergy?

Luther indeed did marry (Katharina von Bora) and had six children; one died at 8 months, one at 13, and four lived into adulthood. BTW, Paul von Hindenberg was among Luther’s descendants.

 

[rainman10]

Why on earth would you post such a vile comment? Do you honestly think that non-Catholics who come to this website to check out the Catholic Church would be drawn to a Church whose members like to engage in such childish taunts? Does your priest say such things in his pulpit? Shame on you.

UniversalistGuy,
Don’t judge the Catholic Church by it’s people, judge it by what it teaches. We are all sinners and don’t always behave the way we should. Our Protestant brethren tend to be the same way and that is not any indication of what a church actually teaches. Unfortunately, we all tend to get a bit carried away when defending our Church, I would say it is just human nature. Some people are very passionate and direct in defending our Church. I am not saying it is right or wrong, it is just the way it is.

 

[guanophore]

Don’t judge the Catholic Church by it’s people, judge it by what it teaches. We are all sinners and don’t always behave the way we should. Our Protestant brethren tend to be the same way and that is not any indication of what a church actually teaches. Unfortunately, we all tend to get a bit carried away when defending our Church, I would say it is just human nature. Some people are very passionate and direct in defending our Church. I am not saying it is right or wrong, it is just the way it is.

Indeed it is, from the time the Church was founded. Had Luther looked at what the Church was teaching, rather than the corruptions that were perpetrated by selfish and greedy clergy, he may have been much more effective in his attempts at reform.

Men are always in need of reform.

I have been giving this some thought the last couple days. I don;t think that Luther regret reform. What he regretted were the unwanted consequences of what his efforts toward reform spawned. He never meant for the disrespect of the faith that followed. There was so much disrespect for the Catholic priests and bishops in the area that it flowed over into disrespect for the faith they claimed to represent.

 

[UniversalistGuy]

UniversalistGuy;7491500:

Why on earth would you post such a vile comment? Do you honestly think that non-Catholics who come to this website to check out the Catholic Church would be drawn to a Church whose members like to engage in such childish taunts? Does your priest say such things in his pulpit? Shame on you.

UniversalistGuy,
Don’t judge the Catholic Church by it’s people, judge it by what it teaches. We are all sinners and don’t always behave the way we should. Our Protestant brethren tend to be the same way and that is not any indication of what a church actually teaches. Unfortunately, we all tend to get a bit carried away when defending our Church, I would say it is just human nature. Some people are very passionate and direct in defending our Church. I am not saying it is right or wrong, it is just the way it is.

I’ve been thinking over what you said and you’re probably right. I’ve come across the same kind of pompous hatefulness dealing with Evangelicals. They say obnoxious and insulting things and then somehow try to tell you that because the Bible is the word of God they have to be rude and hurt people’s feelings. On the other hand I must admit I’ve met Evangelicals that are very kind and peaceful and don’t go around snarling at their neighbors like junkyard dogs. I can see the reason you posted was to help me. You don’t want me to think badly of the Catholic faith. So I guess you must love your faith. I’ll keep on with my inquiry and see what else I find. I appreciate you taking the time to represent yourself and your faith in a mature and thoughtful way. It’s hard to argue with somebody who behaves like this because by being reasonable and fair they earn the right to be heard. Thank you.

 

[rainman10]

I’ve been thinking over what you said and you’re probably right. I’ve come across the same kind of pompous hatefulness dealing with Evangelicals. They say obnoxious and insulting things and then somehow try to tell you that because the Bible is the word of God they have to be rude and hurt people’s feelings. On the other hand I must admit I’ve met Evangelicals that are very kind and peaceful and don’t go around snarling at their neighbors like junkyard dogs. I can see the reason you posted was to help me. You don’t want me to think badly of the Catholic faith. So I guess you must love your faith. I’ll keep on with my inquiry and see what else I find. I appreciate you taking the time to represent yourself and your faith in a mature and thoughtful way. It’s hard to argue with somebody who behaves like this because by being reasonable and fair they earn the right to be heard. Thank you.

I have been where you are at now. I was born into the Mormon church, but even as a youngster, I never felt comfortable there. I converted into the Catholic Church in 1992, but unfortunately I still did not have the full grasp of the Church’s teachings. I dabbled in Pentecostalism for about three years and this is when I came to realize where the Truth is, in the Catholic Church. I feel ashamed that I left the Catholic Church for those three years, but it had to be the Holy Spirit taking me on a venture that I needed to take in order for me to appreciate what I already had. Yes, I do love the Catholic Church very much and will NEVER again have doubts about it. In your research you will find that popes, bishops, priests have all made mistakes and have been less than honorable, but you will not find any error with the Church’s teachings. It is very important that you get the full picture from the Bible, apostolic tradition and the teaching Magestarium of the Church. Don’t ignore these, they all come together to fully explain what the Catholic Church is all about. I pray that you will find what you are looking for and hope to hear that you found it in the Catholic Church. God Bless You.

 

[Contarini]

Indeed it is, from the time the Church was founded. Had Luther looked at what the Church was teaching, rather than the corruptions that were perpetrated by selfish and greedy clergy, he may have been much more effective in his attempts at reform.

But Luther was concerned primarily with doctrine, not with reforming corruptions. He said so over and over, and his actions and teachings all point in that direction. So why not believe him?

One can make a case that he didn’t understand what the Church “really” taught–or more precisely, that his understanding of late medieval Catholicism differed from what most Catholics today would see as the best beliefs and practices handed down to them from that and preceding eras. But one can make no case that he looked only at corruption and not at doctrine. All the evidence points in exactly the opposite direction.

People make a lot of fuss (and did then as well) about the 95 Theses. But Luther probably saw his theses against scholastic theology, from about the same era, as much more important. The attack on indulgences was a by-product of his theological agenda.

 

[ignatius777]

But Luther was concerned primarily with doctrine, not with reforming corruptions. He said so over and over, and his actions and teachings all point in that direction. So why not believe him?

One can make a case that he didn’t understand what the Church “really” taught–or more precisely, that his understanding of late medieval Catholicism differed from what most Catholics today would see as the best beliefs and practices handed down to them from that and preceding eras. But one can make no case that he looked only at corruption and not at doctrine. All the evidence points in exactly the opposite direction.

People make a lot of fuss (and did then as well) about the 95 Theses. But Luther probably saw his theses against scholastic theology, from about the same era, as much more important. The attack on indulgences was a by-product of his theological agenda.

I think you are over stating luther’s intentions. He added to the bible which is not a “concern” for doctrine. Its a tactic to fit doctrine to “his” beliefs.

 

[Contarini]

I think you are over stating luther’s intentions.

Do you mean “understating”? Or do you mean that I’m judging him too generously?

He added to the bible which is not a “concern” for doctrine. Its a tactic to fit doctrine to “his” beliefs.

He didn’t add to the Bible. He used two words in German to translate one word in Greek. He argued that this was necessary to convey the idiom in German. I am not convinced he was right, and it’s certainly true that his translation choices were shaped by his agenda.

But I find it hard to imagine that the people who describe such a translation choice as “adding to the Bible” have ever actually translated anything.

Edwin

 

[Carlan]

That whole death sentence on his head thing might have made that a little harder. As for mental health…I think the pope at the time had as many issues, if not more, that Dr. Luther ever had.

Don’t we all in some sense, but common sense people try to work it out in their situation,most don’t go off in a tangent and try to change 1500 years of history to suit them selves. Hopefully Luther was able to get it all straight in his soul in Purgatory. Don’t mean to do the Fathers judging here tho’!Peace, Carlan

 

[Contarini]

That whole death sentence on his head thing might have made that a little harder.

But the excommunication and imperial ban were a response to his decision to defy not only the Pope but the authority of General Councils. They were not therefore the cause of that decision!

As for mental health…I think the pope at the time had as many issues, if not more, that Dr. Luther ever had.

Accounts I’ve read of Pope Leo X indicate that he was probably a rather worldly, shallow person. But I have yet to read anything that questions his mental health. What are your sources for this?

Edwin

 

[GaryTaylor]

There is much of Luthers thinking which I believe was correct. But to walk away from the church when it had served the family so well, for so many centurys was a mistake. And in hindsight I can’t see it any other way.

Personally I believe he should stayed within the church and Erasmus would have helped him from that point. But hindsight is always 20-20 you know?

How Luther may have felt about all this in hindsight would probly be very different today. Especially in this century when many of the values and beliefs he did hold are no longer believed.

 

[Contarini]

There is much of Luthers thinking which I believe was correct. But to walk away from the church when it had served the family so well, for so many centurys was a mistake.

I think that if your loyalty to the Church is based on it “serving the family well,” then that’s a pretty fragile basis.

I don’t think that is particularly relevant one way or the other to the case of Luther.

I also prefer the model of Erasmus. But Luther was quite aware of Erasmus and explicitly rejected Erasmus’s approach. Contrary to the common perception early on in Luther’s career, he was doing something completely different and was not simply a more outspoken and radical Erasmus.

Edwin

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think that if your loyalty to the Church is based on it “serving the family well,” then that’s a pretty fragile basis.

I don’t think that is particularly relevant one way or the other to the case of Luther.

I also prefer the model of Erasmus. But Luther was quite aware of Erasmus and explicitly rejected Erasmus’s approach. Contrary to the common perception early on in Luther’s career, he was doing something completely different and was not simply a more outspoken and radical Erasmus.

Edwin

My loyalty an philosophy of the church isn’t what we are talking about. What I am talking about is the basis of our society “is” the family. And is exactly what the Catholic Church is teaching through Virginity which leads to the Sacrement of Matrimony. Is it the entire basis of Faith? Of course not and it is a foolish statement to suggest that. Nonetheless it is a crucial part of society and was in the foremost thinking of the debates when the church contacted Erasmus. And is a point of contention Erasmus correctly held and we can see the result of this today obviously.

With the church pressing Erasmus to take a stand which he finally did. The “issue” became the “freedom of the will” but as I mentioned thats not all that was at stake. Erasmus claim was that the question if whether man had such freedom was so conflicted and fraught with conflict that one ough admit that human beings could not be sure of any answer. Follow the attitude of the ancient skeptics. suspend judgement, and accept the teaching of the church nondogmatically.

Of course Luther couldn’t accept this and thought it to dangerous to rest nondogmatically with the church teachings.

Luther acted like a baby and flipped out when Erasmus chose not to go along with him and to defend the church was a bit much for him. He certainly had issues as did Erasmus if we are to believe all we read on the man.

My point is I do believe had Luther been here today he well may have had second thoughts about what he created. And my point also was to state that there were many ideas Luther presented which were correct. And if we trace Luthers thinking back far enough it was Erasmus who was the one who planted the seed in Luthers head.

But thanks for your concern about my faith

 

[foodguy123]

True! Had Luther really been desirous of reforming the church he would have stayed in it and reformed it from within. If you read any book on the life of luther you quickly see that he had significant mental health issues and would not accept anything regarding faith that was not fully in line with what he believed was written in scripture. So what we have is someone who thought that his wisdom of scripture and faith surpassed the 1500 years of experience which came before him. Talk about pride.

I would like to see your evidence for the basis of your claim that luther had “mental health issues.”

I think the reason why he regretted it is because it hurt his heart to see people killing each other and to see that they have mistaken his word.

For example, it is like having two children, and telling one of them that the younger one was right when asked if the younger one was right. The father could have either lied to them or kept in information about the truth. Once the younger one realized the truth that he was right, the older one was angry at his younger brother and both of them fought. How much pain do you think it is for a father to see his two children fight? So to bring it back, how much pain do you think Luther had to see his friends fight? And not even Luther, how much pain do you think God feels to see his children fight?

 

[Contarini]

I would like to see your evidence for the basis of your claim that luther had “mental health issues.”

It’s hard to diagnose people who died hundreds of years ago, and our society is defining mental illness these days in such a way that nearly everyone has mental health issues of one sort or another (slightly exaggerated). I think it’s fair to say that a psychatrist who interviewed Luther probably would have found some label to slap on him (maybe bipolar, for one thing?). Whether that’s a helpful way to understand Luther as a human being or as an influence in church history–about that I’m a lot more dubious.

Edwin