How is Francis of Assisi different from Martin Luther?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BornInMarch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BornInMarch

Guest
I have a question.

Francis and Martin both tried to change the Church. Francis succeeded, and Martin became a traitor.

How else are these two different? Differences in beliefs? Differences in lifestyle and experiences?
 
Primarily pride. St. Francis was known for being extremely humble - and fully accepted the Church’s authority. Martin Luther was prideful, and when the Church ordered him to recant the theses that directly contradicted Church teaching (most specifically sola fide and sola scriptura), he refused.

It’s interesting to note that the Council of Trent did accept many of the theses that related to abuses in the Church (the condemnation of simony, the appearance of buying indulgences, illiterate priests, etc.), but Luther was excommunicated due to rejecting core Church teachings.
 
What powerofk said - and it must be noted what the pride of Luther was. It was not the overt pride of Satan. It was a different sort of pride, fed by scrupulosity, or a fear that your sins are never forgiven.

Now, the Church told Luther what he would need to do to be forgiven for his sins: confess it to a priest and to the prescribed penance. IIRC, he also did devotions, such as walking up the Scala Sancta on his knees, to purge sin from him and the world. He always, though felt that niggling fear that his sins were still not forgiven. Then he read in Romans about how faith, not works, saves.

Now, there is a sense wherein faith alone saves: faith that works through love, i.e, obedient faith. It seems, though, Luther misinterpreted it. And when the Church brought this to his attention, his untamed scrupulosity and false pride - i.e, that the Church could not forgive his sins - pushed him into the insanity of rationalising his misinterpretation with a new, utterly unfounded doctrine: sola scriptura.
 
BornInMarch said:
I have a question.

Francis and Martin both tried to change the Church. Francis succeeded, and Martin became a traitor.

How else are these two different? Differences in beliefs? Differences in lifestyle and experiences?
Click to expand...
Well, when Saint Francis started his order was accepted by the church. When Luther posted his thesis, hoping for an open discussion, they were rejected, he was demanded to recant, and a price placed on his head. Seems to me that if Luther were given the fair discussion he wanted, perhaps things would have been different.
 
BornInMarch said:
I have a question.

**Francis and Martin both tried to change the Church. Francis succeeded, and Martin became a traitor. **

How else are these two different? Differences in beliefs? Differences in lifestyle and experiences?
Click to expand...
So, by your estimation, Father Martin was a traitor. A remarkable way to start a thread, if you are interested in a thoughtful dialogue and conversation.

Jon
 
St. Francis submitted to the authority of the Church; Martin Luther did not.
 
JonNC said:
So, by your estimation, Father Martin was a traitor. A remarkable way to start a thread, if you are interested in a thoughtful dialogue and conversation.

Jon
Click to expand...
Martin Luther caused divisiveness within Christendom, and worse than that he indirectly caused massive bloodshed. He (hopefully) didn’t intend for the massive loss of life suffered by both Protestants and Catholics, but that does not change the fact that it still resulted from his actions.
Also, he really hated the Jews. He convinced the Elector of Saxony to banish Jews from Germany, and he published antisemitic works. Luther no doubt indirectly influenced a certain German Chancellor who ruled from 1933-1941.

So he wasn’t exactly a nice man.
 
BornInMarch said:
I have a question.

Francis and Martin both tried to change the Church. Francis succeeded, and Martin became a traitor.

How else are these two different? Differences in beliefs? Differences in lifestyle and experiences?
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t call ML a traitor, as much as he simply failed to trust in God’s providence in terms of guiding His church and preserving doctrinal truth in the face of many obstacles, no doubt satanic, that were working to destroy Jesus’ Church from within and out, something that did not discourage Francis. Jesus said to him: "go rebuild my Church, which you see is falling into ruins.” I am sure it would have made a difference if Martin Luther was visited by Jesus, and given courage and instructions about His church falling into ruins.
 
Francis didn’t insult the Pope or deny his authority for one thing.
 
House_Harkonnen said:
Well, when Saint Francis started his order was accepted by the church.

No, not right away…Francis went to the pope…but was initially rejected. But Francis kept on praying, and trusted in God, in contrast to your hero. And eventually, his humility won the pope over.
When Luther posted his thesis, hoping for an open discussion, they were rejected, he was demanded to recant, and a price placed on his head. Seems to me that if Luther were given the fair discussion he wanted, perhaps things would have been different.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
=BornInMarch;12186777]Martin Luther caused divisiveness within Christendom, and worse than that he indirectly caused massive bloodshed.
He (hopefully) didn’t intend for the massive loss of life suffered by both Protestants and Catholics, but that does not change the fact that it still resulted from his actions.
Click to expand...
His actions were not in a vacuum. Even the Catholic Catechism recognizes fault on both sides. While it does not influence my view of the Catholic Church as a very positive force in the world, and the center of Christendom, Catholics probably ought not point an accusatory finger about “massive” bloodshed and persecution in the past. Neither of our communions has a spotless past.
Also, he really hated the Jews. He convinced the Elector of Saxony to banish Jews from Germany, and he published antisemitic works. Luther no doubt indirectly influenced a certain German Chancellor who ruled from 1933-1941.
Click to expand...
Luther’s anti-Judaic writing in his later life are clearly offensive, though again not in a vacuum, and anti-Judaic sentiment was significant in the Church at the time. Again, neither of our communions has a spotless past.
I wouldn’t say Hitler was influenced by the writings, but as is typical of tyrants who are always looking for scapegoats, he did employed them to his end. It must be pointed out, however, while the anti-Judaic sentiments of Luther’s time was religion-based, that wasn’t the case for the Nazi’s. Their’s was race-based.

Jon
 
BornInMarch said:
Also, he really hated the Jews. He convinced the Elector of Saxony to banish Jews from Germany, and he published antisemitic works. Luther no doubt indirectly influenced a certain German Chancellor who ruled from 1933-1941.
Click to expand...
Anti-semitic works were not the invention of Martin Luther. Neither was the idea of banishment. Jews were banished from many kingdoms. In fact in 1492 Jews were banished from the Kingdom of Spain by the Catholic monarchs.

Martin Luther was nine at the time. Jews were banished from many places in Europe. Since many of them were Catholic I doubt this occurred due to the influence of Martin Luther.

I could make the claim that Martin Luther was no doubt influenced by the act of Spain. But that would be a careless claim and reveal a lack of understanding of European history. To tie Luther to Hitler is inflammatory. There are many historians who do this. But there are many historians that seem unfamiliar with the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. The Catholic Church is often the victim of historians who make provocative claims. Martin Luther was a very imperfect man but I see no need to tie him to Hitler especially in this thread.
 
pablope said:
Nor call the Pope the Anti Christ…go figure…🤷
Click to expand...
There’s an interesting tidbit where a Catholic Pope speculates about Bishops who would make claim to be the Universal Bishop.

Pope St. Gregory I said:

“I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others…You know it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of ‘universal’ upon the bishops of this Apostolic See [Rome], whereof I am, by God’s will, the servant? And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren.”

So here you have a pope, speculating on almost parallel lines with Lutheran contentions about the office of the Pope as seen in later years (in Lutheran estimation) - and using the same anti-christ language.

Source: orthodoxwiki.org/Gregory_the_Dialogist
 
KathleenGee said:
Interesting question…hope we have more posts.
Click to expand...
I predict there will be a lot. (Granted, definitions of “a lot” can vary. I’d guess that a hundred or so posts will be made on this thread … Whereas a million or so things that could be posted on this thread can be found by a Google search.)
 
BornInMarch said:
I have a question.

Francis and Martin both tried to change the Church. Francis succeeded, and Martin became a traitor.

How else are these two different? Differences in beliefs? Differences in lifestyle and experiences?
Click to expand...
Martin Luther was considered a traitor? Wow, did not realise there were such strong feelings on that end

I was drawn to this thread because these are two names I recognized from my high school studies.
Background: I am a protestant who went to catholic school (Fransiscan Order). I grew up outside the US (in the caribbean and catholics in my country is <2% of population). As a result I didn’t learn about catholicism until I went to High school.
From what I remember, Luther was the guy who posted the thesis on the church door. He had gripes about the mass not being done in the vernacular. And I remember St. Francis as the environmentalist. He took a vow of poverty.

I look forward to learning more about these gentlemen though.
 
benjohnson said:
There’s an interesting tidbit where a Catholic Pope speculates about Bishops who would make claim to be the Universal Bishop.

Pope St. Gregory I said:

“I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others…You know it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of ‘universal’ upon the bishops of this Apostolic See [Rome], whereof I am, by God’s will, the servant? And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren.”

So here you have a pope, speculating on almost parallel lines with Lutheran contentions about the office of the Pope as seen in later years (in Lutheran estimation) - and using the same anti-christ language.

Source: orthodoxwiki.org/Gregory_the_Dialogist
Click to expand...
Wasn’t the Gresgorian heresy condemned by the Council of Ephesus?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top