Dr. Martin Luther

[nucatholic]

Some of our former Popes have had personal sin in their lives. However, this doesn’t mean that they tried to distort Christianity for their own glory. I consider Luther’s church a personality cult. He not only had personal sin but he strayed far off the path of true Christianity passed down from the Apostles. What truths did the Popes ever stray from? They might have been sinners but weren’t the Apostles sinners as well? But the Apostles didn’t stray from the true and original faith.

 

[Tom]

TertiumQuid:

I did a review of O’Hare’s book, contained in this link:

ntrmin.org/The%20Roman%20Catholic%20Understanding%20of%20Martin%20Luther%201.htm

For Catholic books on Luther you should read:

ntrmin.org/Catholic%20Understanding%20of%20Luther%202.htm

Take Care,
James

Thanks for the links

 

[Tim_Hayes]

. Most people are “nominally” representative of their faith, meaning they have no great faith itself but simply continue genreally to follow what they allready know.

To follow the Chuch requires hardship, Luther allowed the people to take an easier road to heaven at least in his mind and knowing what he preached about sin there is no doubt that people hearing what he said would also if they beleive it would also think so. We as people generally fall to the lowest comon denominator becasue it is easier.

The General public knew in many cases that there was great wrongdoing by the Priests etc. Generally people were a lot less educated so therefor their ability to make reasoned argument would have been substantially impaired especially when it came to theological matters.

Luther said bad things were happening, he said heaven was easier to get to using his theory/practice. so therefor if I am a very basic catholic back in that time, I can see that many abuses are occuring, therefor I can’t trust what the Church teaches, therefor what can it be teaching me that is binding to me and Luther threw in enough basic theology to do with Justification by faith alone to more than convince many people that they could go their own way.

Don’t forget, rightly or wrongly the Church was tied up with the Kings and Queens etc, so when it comes time to rebel as the peasants often would have desired to do their is an automatic association of the Church with the evil Kings and Queens etc.

We all here know that with a decent bit of study etc, there is no doubt that Catholicism is the only true Church of Christ and is the Faith expounded by Christ, yet the population of the Church continues to decline, and is less relevent to more and more people as time goes by. The times are different and the mthods for which people are drawn away from the Church might be slightly different but never the less is now any differnt than times gone by. So Many in the church in higher positions covered up the sexual abuses of the priests that is their any wonder why people aren’t interested in being Catholic.

To fall away from the faith is easier than to sty with the faith. Humanity tends to fall to the lower common denominator without effort, therefor we know the result.

 

[Redeemerslove]

Shari:

I don’t want to see the movie either, I was only asking if anyone knew if the pope wanted luther beheaded? This is one of the things this book/movie is supposed to have said.

No problem.

As far as this, I am going by what my priest told me, and that the magisterium backed up. My point was that the pope had nothing to do with the selling of the indulgences. The teaching was correct, but was misunderstood and got out of hand and was stopped. Yes I am sure there were some priests who took advantage of the situation and did indeed sell them, but without the pope’s knowledge. Our priest has done a lot of research on this, and knows the church has made plenty of mistakes, and he doesn’t try to hide them so I have no reason to disbeleive him. Thanks.
Well I would tend to agree with your priest, this author’s research would be so out of bounds, that noone would consider it seriously, statistically. But each new evidence has to be thoroughly researched, becase new “controversial” research has proved to be true many times.

So lets see this books contents, make it’s way through the grinder. Social scientists don’t discount research, simply because it contradicts earlier research, they have to prove the new research to be wrong.

 

[Redeemerslove]

Calvin:

Redeemerslove:

*This is quite an assumption. Basing a critique on historical evidence, the populace was a largely ingorant, uneducated lot. *

Oh that is patronizing…

Fact is never patronizing. And if you are going to attack me, and not address the topic and hand, we are going to have a problem.

]
Even if they were ignorant and uneducated that doesn’t mean they didn’t know abuse when they saw it. It doesn’t take a college degree to know that if a Pope has taken a vow of celibacy, he shouldn’t father bastard children. The fact that people were ignorant doesn’t mean there weren’t abuses in the Catholic Church.

They were ignorant. And study of educational history easily shows that. And being that I specialize in Medieval History, I can say I have never read a historian who disagrees with this statement.

Rather than make a five page quote, i will address selected issues.

Calvin:

Redeemerslove:

Secondly, what makes you think it wasn’t something the Protestants

were doing that cause them to leave the Church?:ehh: You have to remember that Catholicism was all there was at this time.

No it wasn’t, did you forget about the Orthodox Churches? I studied one town in the thirteenth century called Troyes (France). In Troyes, there was a Jewish Synagogue. Catholicism was not their only choice…

Calvin:

But in the early Reformation I think the question “was there anything going on in the Catholic Church that would cause millions of people to spontaneously become schismatic?”

Yes, their sin.

Calvin:

**

Redeemerslove:
**
Hold on, a “mad monk” is correct?.. wouldn’t you say that they were not in touch with reality? If the “mad monk” was not in touch with reality, why would you believe him?
What do you say when people ask: If the popes sinned in the past why do you believe they are infallible?

**It is the same objection! **

I never said there were no abuses, IMO. You obviously have not read my other posts.

Papal Infallibility is not based on personal holiness.

Calvin:

**

Redeemerslove:
**
*Sin is never a necessity, this is sugar-coating the reality of the Reformation. *

Amen. There were excesses to the Reformation but the basic principle is the still true: some reforms were needed to correct the abuses that were happening. Don’t sugar-coat Catholic history the way some Protestants sugar-coat the Reformation history.Sugar-coating is an assumption that the research is in error. I didn’t say the research was in error, or not in error. Science is not a democratic institution, we have principles we follow, one is called…Peer Review.

Second of all, you don’t correct abuses by leaving the Church. You bring said abuses to the attention of the Authorities, and let these Authorities address and investigate them.

This is like saying to Jesus Christ “I will not follow you, because your Apostles have sinned.” Well you knew that his Apostles sinned in the first place didn’t you? Did Jesus say to Peter: “Because you sin, my Church is now invalidated.” No he rather said this:

“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.”(Matthew 23:2-3)

In short, they are not good examples, but obey them anyway - because they will teach you the truth, no matter how they live their lives. The passage in Matthew, find’s it’s origin in the following passage:

“The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening.” (Exodus 18:13)

Calvin:

**

Redeemerslove:
**
I have one word for those who willing participated in the Reformation - Material Heretics. Christ founded one Church, He didn’t need to change his mind and create another Church: This would impinge on the Divine Attribute of Omniscience.

Protestants have never claimed to form another Church.

What they claim, and what the actual truth is, are two quite different things.

Calvin:

**Redeemerslove:
So if Christ didn’t found another Church, who’s Church was founded?

I’m of the opinion He founded the Eastern Orthodox Church. So many say.

 

[Redeemerslove]

Redeemerslove:

Fact is never patronizing. And if you are going to attack me, and not address the topic and hand, we are going to have a problem.
They were ignorant. And study of educational history easily shows that. And being that I specialize in Medieval History, I can say I have never read a historian who disagrees with this statement.

Rather than make a five page quote, i will address selected issues.

No it wasn’t, did you forget about the Orthodox Churches? I studied one town in the thirteenth century called Troyes (France). In Troyes, there was a Jewish Synagogue. Catholicism was not their only choice…

Yes, their sin.

I never said there were no abuses, IMO. You obviously have not read my other posts.

Papal Infallibility is not based on personal holiness.

Amen. There were excesses to the Reformation but the basic principle is the still true: some reforms were needed to correct the abuses that were happening. Don’t sugar-coat Catholic history the way some Protestants sugar-coat the Reformation history.Sugar-coating is an assumption that the research is in error. I didn’t say the research was in error, or not in error. Science is not a democratic institution, we have principles we follow, one is called…Peer Review.

Second of all, you don’t correct abuses by leaving the Church. You bring said abuses to the attention of the Authorities, and let these Authorities address and investigate them.

This is like saying to Jesus Christ “I will not follow you, because your Apostles have sinned.” Well you knew that his Apostles sinned in the first place didn’t you? Did Jesus say to Peter: “Because you sin, my Church is now invalidated.” No he rather said this:

“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.”(Matthew 23:2-3)

In short, they are not good examples, but obey them anyway - because they will teach you the truth, no matter how they live their lives. The passage in Matthew, find’s it’s origin in the following passage:

“The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening.” (Exodus 18:13)
What they claim, and what the actual truth is, are two quite different things.
So many say.

 

[MichelleTherese]

The familiar story goes like this: Pope LeoX sold Induglences to raise money for Saint Peter’s Basilica. Johann Tetzel (a Dominican) preached about this sale of the Plenary Indulgence and folks paid money to have their sins forgiven. Martin Luther denounced this abuse. Even Catholics say that Martin Luther “did the right thing” here. But was there really an abuse taking place?

Pope Leo X did grant a plenary Indulgence in 1515 to people that donated money towards the completion of Saint Peter’s Basilica in Rome. BUT the Pontiff did so within the strict guidelines of granting indulgences. Tetzel followed suit when he preached about this Indulgence to the faithful. Neither of these men sold indulgences as a way to be forgiven for sins. In order for a person to gain an Indulgence their sin must already be forgiven and at the time of gaining the Indulgence they must still be in a state of Grace. An Indulgence removes the temporal punishment of sin, not the actual sin itself.
When this Indulgence was preached in Germany the rules were laid out so that everyone would know what was expected of them. The faithful were invited to gain a Plenary Indulgence through one of many routes. Making a donation towards Saint Peter’s Basilica was only one of them.
Luther was not attacking an abuse because there was not an abuse taking place. Instead he was attacking the entire penitential system of the Catholic Church. This man was a Priest who had preached many times about Indulgences and he understood exactly what an Indulgence was and how one properly gained an Indulgence. So when he later claimed that Rome was trying to get people to pay money in order to have their sins forgiven he was lying. The idea that Luther’s own parishioners had paid for an Indulgence in order to buy permission to sin is a myth perpetuated by the man himself. This idea was never preached or taught either by Rome nor by Tetzel. Luther fought against the Church’s teaching on Indulgences because he was trying to apply his false doctrine of “Scripture Alone." Luther harangued against Indulgences because he claimed that this teaching could not be found in the Bible. But since when did everything have to be found in the Bible?

When Luther nailed his 95 Thesis to the doors of the Castle Church on the eve of All Saints in 1517 he was declaring war against Rome. This attack could not be ignored.

Johann Tetzel was assigned to respond to Luther’s 95 Thesis. Tetzel wisely sought the direction of his Archbishop and a professor friend, Dr. Wimpina as he drew up his responses. Tetzel’s reply (drawn up in two anti-theses) carefully, accurately, and clearly explained the doctrine of Indulgences and the Pope’s authority to grant them. Luther ignored these theses and persisted in his false doctrine of Scripture Alone and continued to claim that Rome was selling forgiveness for sins. Even though this was not true, Luther persisted in spreading these lies.

Luther, a Priest who correctly preached on Indulgences and taught his flock about Indulgences and who had earned a Doctorate degree was not a stupid or ignorant man. Later he claimed that he had no idea what an Indulgence was. How is that possible?

We Catholics should no longer say, “Martin Luther had a right to fight against the abuses against Indulgences that were taking place.” Because there were no abuses taking place.

“You should know that all who confess and in penance put alms into the coffer according to the counsel of the confessor, will obtain complete remission of all their sins.” (Johann Tetzel)

Complete* remission, *not forgiveness.

If anyone is curious about what Martin Luther had to say about this situation go to this **NON-Catholic **site:

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/tetzel.htm

Anyone that truly understands what an Indulgence is and how one gains an Indulgence will see that Johann Tetzel did not teach that one can be forgiven of their sins by paying money. Contrast this with Luther’s version (and twisting of Tetzel’s words) of what Tetzel and the Church taught regarding the Saint Peter’s Basilica Indulgence.