Good ol' Luther

  • Thread starter Thread starter mark_a
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The powers given to those ordained come by way of the ordination itself through the college of Apostles and not through the See of Peter. This information I got directly from the words of a Catholic Bishop Colin Campbell see Catholic Answers Radio Show on August 27 1988. Which is why I brought up this issue that confused you…**So, Luther was still a priest after he was excommunicated? **
Click to expand...
The only reason why I brought up the Eastern Orthodox Church was to show that one retained valid lines of ordination even though one is not in communion with Rome. This is further made evident in the fact that the Catholic Church holds that the Anglican Church retained valid lines of ordination up until they changed the form in which their Priests were ordained. - This has absolutely nothing to due with Luther and “apostolic succession”. “The Catholic Church holds that…” Luther was excommunicated. Thank you for recognizing that the Church has the power to decide what is valid and what is not.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I should have used the same words excommunicated and “Not in Communion” with Rome are synonyms.

Excommunication (Lat. ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion – exclusion from the communion),

This is why I feel the examples of the excommunicated Bishops and Priests of the Orthodox Churches is of note.

So yes Luther after being excommunicated still retained the validity of his holy order. This sacrament cannot be undone just as the other sacraments such as Baptism and Matrimony cannot be undone - from a Catholic standpoint. The Pope cannot un-baptize someone, he cannot sunder a valid sacramental marriage, and he cannot undo someone’s ordination.

The statements on Res Sacr are thus:

*The sacraments are of course validly administered by excommunicated persons, except those (penance and matrimony) for whose administration jurisdiction is necessary; but the reception of the sacraments by excommunicated persons is always illicit…. Excommunicated ecclesiastics tolerati, however, may licitly administer the sacraments to the faithful who request them at their hands, and the acts of jurisdiction thus posited are maintained by reason of the benefit accruing to the faithful, most frequently also because of common error (error communis), i.e. a general belief in the good standing of such ecclesiastics. *

A priest that lost his ordination of course would not have the power to consecrate and administer the sacraments.
I have no problem with the Primacy of the Pope so as to prevent schism.- I’ll e-mail Pope Benedict XVI to let him know
Click to expand...
My statements on this were to show that we had some common ground. This is not the time or place for un-Christian behavior. If you will notice I am not arguing so much against you as pointing out the problems in your argument. We are working for greater understanding on these issues. If you were to come back with a CCC statement showing that Luther had indeed lost his Ordination upon excommunication I would say, “I guess I was mistaken thank you for the info.”

As it stands now I have Catholic writings and the words of a Catholic Bishop stating that Ordination cannot be removed as its authority stems from the Sacrament itself and not from the See of Rome.
 
40.png
TertiumQuid:
Yes, but when you first gave that Luther quote, you did not give a reference (see the thread on the Luther Movie). Hence, I wondered why you have used that quote in the first place, given Armstrong’s immediate words in which he gives Luther the benefit of the doubt. It appeared to me, you didn’t read his essay, but were citing words to try to show how much of a bogeyman Luther was. -** You say I did not give a reference, yet you didn’t ask me. In fact, you did not respond to the quote at all on that thread.**

Interestingly, I was part of that discussion with Armstrong, my friends BJ Bear and Bonnie (great Lutherans!), but for reasons I can’t remember, My part in the discussion was edited out (perhaps Dave Remembers, I think I asked him to remove me from the dialog). I don’t agree with Dave’s chastisment of Luther, because i’ve read a lot of Luther. He spoke outrageously to make points. Since there is no context for that quote, it’s best not to speculate. - Ironically, the reason I was speculating was because I did not understand the context.

On the other hand, Luther was not a drunkard. I don’t care how many Lutherans, Catholics, or AA members want to say he is. His literarry output, work as a preacher, work as a leader, family man, etc was tremendous. He lived an incredibly busy life. I know a lot of drunks. They are not productive. I challenge anyone to talke a look at the amout of work Luther produced, and then tell me he had a drinking problem. - I’m sorry that you know a lot of drunks who are not productive. However, I believe that on this thread we were discussing Luther speaking about theology in a drunken state at the Table Talk session in which he spoke about Jesus committing adultery. Being drunk and being a drunk are two different things.
Click to expand...
 
My German bones are sitting here drinking a fine German Beer as I read. From what I understand the new Pope enjoys a fine German Stout now and again also… I like the new Pope more and more by the minute.

Cheers :dancing:
 
40.png
Shibboleth:
I see where the confusion is. The excommunication of Luther and the Orthodox Churches being “not in communion” with Rome are very different.

Excommunication is religious censure which is used to deprive or suspend membership in a religious community. It is a very serious penalty and is used in extreme circumstances. "Undoubtedly there can and do exist other penal measures which entail the loss of certain fixed rights; among them are other censures, e.g. suspension for clerics, interdict for clerics and laymen, irregularity ex delicto, etc."

"Meanwhile, his status before the Church is that of a stranger. He may not participate in public worship nor receive the Body of Christ or any of the sacraments. Moreover, if he be a cleric, he is forbidden to administer a sacred rite or to exercise an act of spiritual authority."

newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

This is why I feel the examples of the excommunicated Bishops and Priests of the Orthodox Churches is of note**. -The estrangement between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches brought on by schism could be a completely different thread. We excommunicated eachother but because we both have “apostolic succession” this is rather different.**

My statements on this were to show that we had some common ground. This is not the time or place for un-Christian behavior. If you will notice I am not arguing so much against you as pointing out the problems in your argument. - **Agreed, I apologize for my sarcasm. If you review your comments to me, you will see that I responding with charity to your unnecessary remarks. **.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Shibboleth:
So yes Luther after being excommunicated still retained the validity of his holy order. This sacrament cannot be undone just as the other sacraments such as Baptism and Matrimony cannot be undone - from a Catholic standpoint. The Pope cannot un-baptize someone, he cannot sunder a valid sacramental marriage, and he cannot undo someone’s ordination.

The statements on Res Sacr are thus:

*The sacraments are of course validly administered by excommunicated persons, except those (penance and matrimony) for whose administration jurisdiction is necessary; but the reception of the sacraments by excommunicated persons is always illicit…. Excommunicated ecclesiastics tolerati, however, may licitly administer the sacraments to the faithful who request them at their hands, and the acts of jurisdiction thus posited are maintained by reason of the benefit accruing to the faithful, most frequently also because of common error (error communis), i.e. a general belief in the good standing of such ecclesiastics. *
Click to expand...
This is the way I understand it also.
Of course a priest cannot ordain another priest, so lutheran apostolic succession would end there, correct? Unless there were Catholic bishops who followed Martin Luther into schism. Were there any?
 
40.png
Shibboleth:
My German bones are sitting here drinking a fine German Beer as I read. From what I understand the new Pope enjoys a fine German Stout now and again also… I like the new Pope more and more by the minute.

Cheers :dancing:
Click to expand...
I can’t argue with that! As the Germans say,“Prost!” 👍
 
40.png
Mickey:
This is the way I understand it also.
Of course a priest cannot ordain another priest, so lutheran apostolic succession would end there, correct? Unless there were Catholic bishops who followed Martin Luther into schism. Were there any?
Click to expand...
**“Moreover, if he be a cleric, he is forbidden to administer a sacred rite or to exercise an act of spiritual authority.” - Doesn’t that pretty much exclude everything a member of clergy does? **
 
40.png
TertiumQuid:
Well, I read Catholic material all the time. I guess I wrongly assumed that people actually want to know what the other side is saying, rather than having someone tell them what the other side is saying.

James Swan
Click to expand...
Oh, on the contrary James. I always attempt to keep up with anti-Catholicism. It is important to understand the often slick misinformation that is circulated in these circles. With all due respect, that was more of a warning to those who may be deceived by this kind of material. I once read an article by Eric stating that Rome preaches a false Gospel, so why would I care to read anything else he has to say. So when you say he is one of your favorite writers and you recommend that everybody hear his perspective, the red flags go up, and the sirens begin to wail. This is not an attack on you or Eric–just my own observations.

BTW–I’m glad you read Catholic material. There’s hope for you yet! 😃
 
40.png
Mickey:
This is the way I understand it also.
Of course a priest cannot ordain another priest, so lutheran apostolic succession would end there, correct? Unless there were Catholic bishops who followed Martin Luther into schism. Were there any?
Click to expand...
You are correct priests cannot ordain so on the main the Lutheran Priests do not have Apostolic Succession. There are a very small few that have been ordained by bishops in various Eastern Catholic Churches and these individuals do have Apostolic Succession.
 
Eden said:
**“Moreover, if he be a cleric, he is forbidden to administer a sacred rite or to exercise an act of spiritual authority.” - Doesn’t that pretty much exclude everything a member of clergy does? **
Click to expand...

He is forbidden in that it is illicit but it is not invalid. To clarify an illicit marriage is still valid and hence cannot be annulled but an invalid marriage can be annulled.

There is much done by the Orthodox Church that Catholicism views as illicit but not invalid.
 
40.png
Shibboleth:
He is forbidden in that it is illicit but it is not invalid. To clarify an illicit marriage is still valid and hence cannot be annulled but an invalid marriage can be annulled.

There is much done by the Orthodox Church that Catholicism views as illicit but not invalid.
Click to expand...
Man, that illicit–not valid–valid- -stuff still confuses me. I think I’ll grab one of those German beers! :yup:
 
40.png
Eden:
These are the “snip” “snips” that you did not address directly on the thread of origin:
Click to expand...
There must be something wrong with your computer. I answered you at length in posts 110-112.

James Swan
 
40.png
Eden:
You say I did not give a reference, yet you didn’t ask me. In fact, you did not respond to the quote at all on that thread.
Click to expand...
Again, check to see if your computer is working. I answered you in post 112 in the Luther movie 2003 thread on May 9 at 5:26 pm. I was actually able to p(name removed by moderator)oint that you utilized Armstrong without you even telling me. I then exhorted you to actually read Armstrong’s words, which I guess you finally did a few days later.
40.png
Eden:
Ironically, the reason I was speculating was because I did not understand the context.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, right “speculating”- This is what you said,

Luther was, in the end, just another “fallen angel”. These drunken words were certainly not inspired by the Holy Spirit:

“Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: “Whatever has he been doing with her?” Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.” - Martin Luther
40.png
Eden:
I’m sorry that you know a lot of drunks who are not productive. However I believe that on this thread we were discussing Luther speaking about theology in a drunken state at the Table Talk session in which he spoke about Jesus committing adultery. Being drunk and being a and being a drunk are two different things.
Click to expand...
sorry, I can’t do X-Files historical research. The facts are, Luther’s Christology and theology are highly Christo-centric, and Luther was prone to use shocking and paradoxical examples in his writings.

I would much rather embrace what this Roman Catholic historian has pointed out,

“…Catholics are using inaccurately rhetorical arguments when they make the value of Luther’s theology and reform depend upon his table-talk language. Rhetoric appeals to the mind- but it appeals through emotions. It reaches the mind not through a purely intellectual act, examining the case thoroughly and logically, but by leaps and bounds, driven by emotions and will, faculties incapable of a calm judgment of what is true.” (Thomas O’Meara, Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology, (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1966), 5).

Tell you what, if you can find me any worthy historical document written by Luther or those who were his friends saying that Luther was “drunk one night and said…” in regards to anything, I will grant the “drunk theory” as a possibility. As it stands now, I find it to be the least possible explanation.

Rather, why don’t we simply rely on what the editiors of Luther’s works pointed out:

“What Luther meant might have been made clearer if John Schlaginhaufen had indicated the context of the Reformer’s remarks. The probable context is suggested in a sermon of 1536, . . . in which Luther asserted that Christ was reproached by the world as a glutton, a winebibber, and even an adulterer.”

I mean, they are the experts.

James Swan
 
priest quoting then-Cardinal Ratzinger in a sermon last night said what the Church needs is not more reformers, but more saints. What would history have been like if Luther had determined to become a saint-presumably the original reason he joined the Augustinian order and became ordained-instead of a reformer. Like Francis who became the spark for genuine reform in the 12th century through his path to sainthood, Luther could have been the spark for real reform rather than disintigration had he chosen to stay on the path to sainthood.
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
priest quoting then-Cardinal Ratzinger in a sermon last night said what the Church needs is not more reformers, but more saints.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The Reformation–Catholic and Protestant alike–caused more problems than it solved, IMHO.

Edwin
 
I agree to a point but an internal reformation was not yet possible in the time of Luther. He would have gone the way of Huss had he went to Rome.
 
What is old is new again in a Church that is 2,000 years old. The Church had reformers before Luther and they had reformers after Luther. If Martin Luther had reformed within the Church and maintained humility, he may have been on the path to sainthood. Instead, we have Christianity divided. Was that really the better path? There are many examples of reformers but here are two:

**June 5 **

http://www.americancatholic.org/gfx/spacer.gif
**St. Boniface **

http://www.americancatholic.org/gfx/spacer.gif
**(672?-754) **

http://www.americancatholic.org/gfx/spacer.gifhttp://www.americancatholic.org/gfx/spacer.gif

Boniface, known as the apostle of the Germans, was an English Benedictine monk who gave up being elected abbot to devote his life to the conversion of the Germanic tribes. Two characteristics stand out: his Christian orthodoxy and his fidelity to the pope of Rome.

How absolutely necessary this orthodoxy and fidelity were is borne out by the conditions he found on his first missionary journey in 719 at the request of Pope Gregory II. Paganism was a way of life. What Christianity he did find had either lapsed into paganism or was mixed with error. The clergy were mainly responsible for these latter conditions since they were in many instances uneducated, lax and questionably obedient to their bishops. In particular instances their very ordination was questionable.

These are the conditions that Boniface was to report in 722 on his first return visit to Rome. The Holy Father instructed him to reform the German Church. The pope sent letters of recommendation to religious and civil leaders. Boniface later admitted that his work would have been unsuccessful, from a human viewpoint, without a letter of safe-conduct from Charles Martel, the powerful Frankish ruler, grandfather of Charlemagne. Boniface was finally made a regional bishop and authorized to organize the whole German Church. He was eminently successful.

**In the Frankish kingdom, he met great problems because of lay interference in bishops’ elections, the worldliness of the clergy and lack of papal control. **

During a final mission to the Frisians, he and 53 companions were massacred while he was preparing converts for Confirmation. In order to restore the Germanic Church to its fidelity to Rome and to convert the pagans, he had been guided by two principles. The first was to restore the obedience of the clergy to their bishops in union with the pope of Rome. The second was the establishment of many houses of prayer which took the form of Benedictine monasteries. A great number of Anglo-Saxon monks and nuns followed him to the continent. He introduced Benedictine nuns to the active apostolate of education.

**Comment:**Boniface bears out the Christian rule: To follow Christ is to follow the way of the cross. For Boniface, it was not only physical suffering or death, but the painful, thankless, bewildering task of Church reform. Missionary glory is often thought of in terms of bringing new persons to Christ. It seems—but is not—less glorious to heal the household of the faith.

americancatholic.org/Features/SaintOfDay/default.asp?id=1405
 
Imagine Protestantism in a thousand years at the age of 1500. That’s how long the Catholic Church had survived when Martin Luther entered our history. Being a Church full of sinners and saints, as we are human, you can imagine that 1500 years will be a bumpy ride. But because the Holy Spirit protects His Church, we will never fall away: Jesus promised, “I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18).

Here is a reformer within the Church who lived during Luther’s time:

ST. CHARLES BORROMEO

1584
Charles was the son of Count Gilbert Borromeo and Margaret Medici, sister of Pope Pius IV. He was born at the family castle of Arona on Lake Maggiore, Italy on October 2. He received the clerical tonsure when he was twelve and was sent to the Benedictine abbey of SS. Gratian and Felinus at Arona for his education.

In 1559 his uncle was elected Pope Pius IV and the following year, named him his Secretary of State and created him a cardinal and administrator of the see of Milan. He served as Pius’ legate on numerous diplomatic missions and in 1562, was instrumental in having Pius reconvene the Council of Trent, which had been suspended in 1552. Charles played a leading role in guiding and in fashioning the decrees of the third and last group of sessions. He refused the headship of the Borromeo family on the death of Count Frederick Borromeo, was ordained a priest in 1563, and was consecrated bishop of Milan the same year. Before being allowed to take possession of his see, he oversaw the catechism, missal, and breviary called for by the Council of Trent. When he finally did arrive at Trent (which had been without a resident bishop for eighty years) in 1556,** he instituted radical reforms despite great opposition, with such effectiveness that it became a model see. He put into effect, measures to improve the morals and manners of the clergy and laity,** raised the effectiveness of the diocesan operation, established seminaries for the education of the clergy, founded a Confraternity of Christian Doctrine for the religious instruction of children and encouraged the Jesuits in his see. He increased the systems to the poor and the needy, was most generous in his help to the English college at Douai, and during his bishopric held eleven diocesan synods and six provincial councils. He founded a society of secular priests, Oblates of St. Ambrose (now Oblates of St. Charles) in 1578, and was active in preaching, resisting the inroads of protestantism, and bringing back lapsed Catholics to the Church. He encountered opposition from many sources in his efforts to reform people and institutions.

He died at Milan on the night of November 3-4, and was canonized in 1610. **He was one of the towering figures of the Catholic Reformation, a patron of learning and the arts, and though he achieved a position of great power, he used it with humility, personal sanctity, and unselfishness to reform the Church, of the evils and abuses so prevalent among the clergy and the nobles of the times. **His feast day is November 4th.

catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=212

One has to ask themselves, was it really necessary for Luther to break with the Church? Did it really benefit Christianity to be divided?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top