If Luther were alive today, would he be Catholic?

[MaryT777]

True.

I’d like to throw this question out to anyone who may happen to know: is there agreement among historians as to whether Rome *chose *not to burn Luther at the stake (or whatever the case may have been), or whether Rome simply never had the chance to do so?

Needless (I hope!) to say, I would very much like to think that Rome never wanted to burn him at the stake (notwithstanding great dislike for his actions) but I really don’t know.

What a bizarre question. There is nothing that can be done either way and history shows he was not burned at the stake. Why ponder over the alternative scenario? I’m simply curious why you ask this question if you care to share.

 

[jcrichton]

Luther was all about ‘my will’ instead of Thy Will. He would fall right in line with liberals whose pride gets in the way of their following the Truth of Jesus Christ and His Church, the Catholic Church. In other words he would still be protestant.

Hi, Johnny!
…I would not say that Luther was all about ‘my will’ since he did set out to right a wrong–sadly, along the way, his self-reliance tripped his ego and he embraced his tragic revolt. I doubt that Luther saw beyond his endeavor–as many (both the intellectuals and the intellectually challenged), he was blinded by his science!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

To be perfectly fair, Luther wasn’t quite as selfish as some people here attempt to set him up as being, nor was he overly liberal in his attitudes. He was squarely on the side of the nobility during the Peasant’s War and he refused to compromise his position on the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. He translated the Bible into German and kept to the teachings of the Scriptures and the Early Church Fathers, as the Confessions and the Catalogue of Testimonies attest. He never left Christ’s Church, but he did initiate some much needed reforms.

Yet, we must also understand that there were other factors involved: such as dismantling Church’s Doctrine, stubbornly rejecting the Church’s Authority (as the king of England did), reshaping theology according to his own understanding, interpreting Scriptures through his conception of theology, and rendering his teachings and understanding as far superior to that of the Church of who Scriptures attest is the pillar and ground (bulwark) of Truth:

15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:15)

…and there’s no escaping Scriptures when it comes to humility:

3 Admonish them to be subject to princes and powers, to obey at a word, to be ready to every good work. 2 To speak evil of no man, not to be litigious, but gentle: shewing all mildness towards all men. (Titus 3:1-2)

Luther help usher in a world where people who believe that they are Christians choose and pick what is theologically sound and what is Divinely Inspired Doctrine… this is not the Teaching of the Apostles–in deed, it is void of Apostolic Obedience and Succession.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

According to who? I won’t sully myself with unnecessary polemic here, but I will say that there are two things that need to be reviewed here: the character of Martin Luther, who championed Reformation and the importance of Faith over works and the implication that I and others like me are liars because we say that Jesus Christ is the Head of His Holy Christian Church because our traditions have no need of a human head to represent us before God ( Jesus Himself at the Right Hand of God Almighty is quite good enough for us, thank you!). Jesus Himself has the Universal Jurisdiction of which you speak.

Martin Luther was a man God used to reform His Church. One man out of many, who had the same failings and foibles everybody else has had since the fall of Adam. He was earnest, sincere and zealous in his mission to reform the Church. He was rejected, threatened with death and anathematized, as were his followers, by the papacy. He was not rejected by Christ. The fruits of his labors bear witness to that. He retained the sacraments, put the Law and Gospel in their proper place and made sure tradition was subordinate to Scripture. He wrote not one but two catechisms that swept away the extra dross and put the emphasis right back to where it belonged: the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity. The Lutheran Confessions remain the unchanging guideposts that, in line with Biblical teaching, remain the set standard of Confessional Lutheran Christianity.

Nobody likes to be called a liar, except maybe the Devil, who speaks out of his own character when he lies. I say that Jesus Christ is the Head of His Holy, Apostolic Christian Church. That basic, essential truth is shockingly questioned by somebody who would say that if my words are true, then I would be, in essence, a pope. I dare not claim such an office, but I will point to Jesus’ words ( which happen to be my Confirmation verse) as recorded in the Gospel of John, in the fifth verse of the fifteenth chapter: " I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing." The fruits of Lutheran Christianity have been multiple.
A liturgy in the language of the people, set forth by Christ’s own Institution, recent conversions in Africa of people to the Light of the Gospel, a Bible translated to the vernacular and made available to the people ( make of that what you will), an emphasis on faith and the activity of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of the people and a set standard of Christian Faith and Life given to us in the Lutheran Confessions.

This will be my last post in this particular thread, for the sake of my own peace of mind. Some people can only bolster up their own faith by bashing others and I have tried to avoid doing so ( at least in recent days). The Christian response is forgiveness and prayer. I don’t insist that you sacrifice your faith and join mine because I can spew forth all kinds of literature ( I can, but it isn’t necessary) from my tradition that rather predictably says that we are right and you are wrong. Of course, the Lutheran Confessions don’t actually insist on that kind of institutional conformity. Where the Gospels are preached and the Sacraments are correctly administered, there is the Church. May you find peace and the consolation of the Holy Spirit in yours.

…it is not that Jesus is not the Head of the Church… it is that the Church was Founded, by Christ, with one man at top; that is, Simon, whose name Jesus changed to Peter, was Given the Authority and Delegation to lead Christ’s Church; as Scriptures demonstrate, there is a hierarchy set up not by man but by the Holy Spirit, following in Christ’s Model.

Conversely, while you state that you have no man above you, I doubt that, if you follow any denominational religious group (even those that claim to be non-denominational) you have a body of people (not one pope, but many) who determine (for you and the group) what is theology, doctrine, practice… even atheists who reject God do so religiously so setting a claim of higher destination because it is done religiously does not means that it is correct by default–rather, it actually means that there is a profound belief (in most cases feelings) that what is done/convicted of is pure and closer to God than anything else.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Please try to not take offense. My statement was merely in direct response to your claim, that you (and your church) ALWAYS give final authority to Christ and Him alone. That is a bold claim, ya know? No less bold than the Catholic Tradition that Jesus gives His Keys of authority to Peter and his successors.

You acknowledge that Martin had faults, but then claim he was sent by God to reform the Church. I can believe that in part… that is, that he was “one crying out for reform of practice (abuse) and clarity of doctrine”. However, the Church discerns what is from above and what are from people like Martin’s heterodox opinions.

I am willing to recognize alot of good from him. And that in these times, he is afforded more open minded and fair consideration for his teachings. In the end, it’s what the Church can affirm of his faith that is from above. Just like a pope might have heterodox opinions and fail in honoring Sacraments and Teachings. Martin married a prince after the pope denied annulling his marriage. This was an abuse of the Sacrament, no? That leaves room for reform in himself.

Hi, RC!
…my older brother left the Church and then taught against her; he too removed the hindrance of the Sacrament of Marriage by the annulment of the Church’s Authority; sadly, people don’t get it (or turn a blind eye or is it “I?”)… yes, there were good points in Luther’s argument; no, he was no better than the king of England who determined that he was the head of the church (coincidentally, they both got married (remarried in the case of the king) soon after liberating the masses from the “bad” Church.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Of course I would stand up against the abuse of children. However, I think the two cases of abuse and the reactions against those who called them out were much different. In Luther’s case, he was treated as a dangerous heretic for questioning the sale of indulgences and the power of those who allowed their sale. Luther went up against formidable ecclesial and political power.

I don’t think those who called out the child abusers met the same opposition (although I am no expert on all that went on in dealing with the child abuse.) They did not face the power of church and empire that Luther faced.

Just a couple of thoughts.

Hi, pastor Gary!
It seems, from your understanding, that Luther was unfoundedly maligned by the Church, that he did nothing wrong but point out errors and that the power of the Church and an empire sought to silence Luther… could you expand on this? (Facts please, no de Vinci codes.)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

True.

I’d like to throw this question out to anyone who may happen to know: is there agreement among historians as to whether Rome *chose *not to burn Luther at the stake (or whatever the case may have been), or whether Rome simply never had the chance to do so?

Needless (I hope!) to say, I would very much like to think that Rome never wanted to burn him at the stake (notwithstanding great dislike for his actions) but I really don’t know.

Hi, Peter!
…not a historian or scholar… but I hear that the albino Priests’ legions were on a seventy year sabbatical–phew, Luther was so lucky --he lived to over 60 years and happened to die a “free man:”

From 1533 to his death in 1546, Martin Luther served as the dean of theology at University of Wittenberg. During this time he suffered from many illnesses, including arthritis, heart problems and digestive disorders, and the physical pain and emotional strain of being a fugitive might have been reflected in his writings. Some works contained strident and offensive language against several segments of society, particularly Jews and to a lesser degree, Muslims, including Luther’s treatise The Jews and their Lies. During a trip to his hometown of Eisleben, he died on February 18, 1546, at age 62. (biography.com/people/martin-luther-9389283#related-video-gallery)

…I understand that the University of Wittenberg had bullet-proof everything, and their security forces number over the thousands…

…plus there was a shortage of dead wood, accelerants, matches, rope, eye-witnesses, and people with the abilities to start fires, people with knowledge of making knots and all horse-drawn carriages were rented out for nearly seventy years…

…OK, OK, there was one half-blind, half-drunk, half-lame, half-death, half-hungry, half-wacko, half-German, half-peasant, half-broke, half-dressed fellow that own a car lighter and offered to take the job… :banghead::banghead::banghead:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[susanlo]

True.

I’d like to throw this question out to anyone who may happen to know: is there agreement among historians as to whether Rome *chose *not to burn Luther at the stake (or whatever the case may have been), or whether Rome simply never had the chance to do so?

Needless (I hope!) to say, I would very much like to think that Rome never wanted to burn him at the stake (notwithstanding great dislike for his actions) but I really don’t know.

Martin Luther was excommunicated by the Pope for not recanting his 95 theses (luther.de/en/95thesen.html) and other writings.

They wanted to arrest and kill him as a heretic, but he was sheltered by a German prince and eventually his territory became divided politically because of war and they were not able to capture him.

Excerpts from Wikipedia article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_of_Worms
“Prince Frederick III, Elector of Saxony obtained an agreement that if Luther appeared he would be promised safe passage to and from the meeting.” At the Diet, Luther was asked if the The 95 Theses, Resolutions Concerning the 95 Theses, On the Papacy at Rome, Address to the Christian Nobility, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, and On the Freedom of a Christian were his writings and if he would reject or recant them.

Martin Luther replied, “Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen.”

“The Edict of Worms was a decree issued on 25 May 1521 by Emperor Charles V, declaring:
For this reason we forbid anyone from this time forward to dare, either by words or by deeds, to receive, defend, sustain, or favour the said Martin Luther. On the contrary, we want him to be apprehended and punished as a notorious heretic, as he deserves, to be brought personally before us, or to be securely guarded until those who have captured him inform us, whereupon we will order the appropriate manner of proceeding against the said Luther. Those who will help in his capture will be rewarded generously for their good work.”

“Despite the agreement that he could return home safely, it was privately understood that Luther would soon be arrested and punished. To protect him from this fate, Prince Frederick seized him on his way home and hid him in Wartburg Castle.”

“When Luther eventually reemerged from the Wartburg, the emperor, distracted with other matters, did not press for Luther’s arrest. Ultimately, because of rising public support for Luther among the German people and the protection of certain German princes, the Edict of Worms was never enforced in Germany. However, in the Low Countries (comprising modern-day Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands), the Edict was initially enforced against Luther’s most active supporters…Later that year, additional arrests were made among the Augustinians in Antwerp. Two monks, Johann Esch and Heinrich Voes, refused to recant; on 1 July 1523, they were burned at the stake in Brussels.”

 

[rcwitness]

Martin Luther was excommunicated by the Pope for not recanting his 95 theses (luther.de/en/95thesen.html) and other writings.

I am not under the impression that the Church rejected all points in the 95… would you accept all the points made? Do you believe they are all from above?

They wanted to arrest and kill him as a heretic, but he was sheltered by a German prince and eventually his territory became divided politically because of war and they were not able to capture him.

Who are “they”?

Excerpts from Wikipedia article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_of_Worms
“Prince Frederick III, Elector of Saxony obtained an agreement that if Luther appeared he would be promised safe passage to and from the meeting.” At the Diet, Luther was asked if the The 95 Theses, Resolutions Concerning the 95 Theses, On the Papacy at Rome, Address to the Christian Nobility, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, and On the Freedom of a Christian were his writings and if he would reject or recant them.

Martin Luther replied, “Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen.”

“The Edict of Worms was a decree issued on 25 May 1521 by Emperor Charles V, declaring:
For this reason we forbid anyone from this time forward to dare, either by words or by deeds, to receive, defend, sustain, or favour the said Martin Luther. On the contrary, we want him to be apprehended and punished as a notorious heretic, as he deserves, to be brought personally before us, or to be securely guarded until those who have captured him inform us, whereupon we will order the appropriate manner of proceeding against the said Luther. Those who will help in his capture will be rewarded generously for their good work.”

“Despite the agreement that he could return home safely, it was privately understood that Luther would soon be arrested and punished. To protect him from this fate, Prince Frederick seized him on his way home and hid him in Wartburg Castle.”

“When Luther eventually reemerged from the Wartburg, the emperor, distracted with other matters, did not press for Luther’s arrest. Ultimately, because of rising public support for Luther among the German people and the protection of certain German princes, the Edict of Worms was never enforced in Germany. However, in the Low Countries (comprising modern-day Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands), the Edict was initially enforced against Luther’s most active supporters…Later that year, additional arrests were made among the Augustinians in Antwerp. Two monks, Johann Esch and Heinrich Voes, refused to recant; on 1 July 1523, they were burned at the stake in Brussels.”

Sounds like the Emperor and some Princes definitely did, but others definitely didnt.

 

[susanlo]

I am not under the impression that the Church rejected all points in the 95… would you accept all the points made? Do you believe they are all from above?.

I didn’t know that he was only asked to recant a certain number of the theses. I think he had to recant all of them. Do you have information otherwise? Which ones did he not have to recant? I think they were all rejected immediately, although 30-40 years later they stopped selling indulgences.

Who are “they”?

Sounds like the Emperor and some Princes definitely did, but others definitely didnt.

The Emperor, who was crowned by the Pope, did want him arrested and executed. I am not exactly sure who all was involved with both sides, but there was a lot of political tension and splintering within the Empire. It is much more complex than I understand, but the Pope and his appointed leaders did want Luther executed. They weren’t successful because he was hidden and protected in certain regions. Maybe someone else understands this whole time period in history better than I do, but that is what I know from a small amount of study.

 

[JMM1957]

I didn’t know that he was only asked to recant a certain number of the theses. I think he had to recant all of them. Do you have information otherwise? Which ones did he not have to recant? I think they were all rejected immediately, although 30-40 years later they stopped selling indulgences.

The Emperor, who was crowned by the Pope, did want him arrested and executed. I am not exactly sure who all was involved with both sides, but there was a lot of political tension and splintering within the Empire. It is much more complex than I understand, but the Pope and his appointed leaders did want Luther executed. They weren’t successful because he was hidden and protected in certain regions. Maybe someone else understands this whole time period in history better than I do, but that is what I know from a small amount of study.

Sources please. The “Pope” explicitly believed in executing heretics and those opposed to Church teaching?

 

[rcwitness]

I didn’t know that he was only asked to recant a certain number of the theses. I think he had to recant all of them. Do you have information otherwise? Which ones did he not have to recant? I think they were all rejected immediately, although 30-40 years later they stopped selling indulgences.

Here is a letter from the pope which actually lists articles which were rejected. papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

The Emperor, who was crowned by the Pope, did want him arrested and executed. I am not exactly sure who all was involved with both sides, but there was a lot of political tension and splintering within the Empire. It is much more complex than I understand, but the Pope and his appointed leaders did want Luther executed. They weren’t successful because he was hidden and protected in certain regions. Maybe someone else understands this whole time period in history better than I do, but that is what I know from a small amount of study.

I would prefer to see evidence that he was wanted killed by the pope. Not the secular authorities, but the pope.

 

[susanlo]

Here is a letter from the pope which actually lists articles which were rejected. papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

I would prefer to see evidence that he was wanted killed by the pope. Not the secular authorities, but the pope.

There was no such thing as secular authorities. The Pope crowned the Emperors. The Pope could remove power from an Emperor. It wasn’t like today where the church and state are separate entities.

 

[rcwitness]

There was no such thing as secular authorities. The Pope crowned the Emperors. The Pope could remove power from an Emperor. It wasn’t like today where the church and state are separate entities.

Did the pope remove power from those who protected Luther?

 

[rcwitness]

There was no such thing as secular authorities. The Pope crowned the Emperors. The Pope could remove power from an Emperor.

I disagree with this. Just because the two governments “worked together” doesn’t mean they were one and the same. They had separate courts. There were, as there is today, separate offices with different duties. Only then, the secular recognized the Church as a higher authority.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Luther, to put it simply, was excommunicated by a Bull published by Pope Leo X. He didn’t storm out of the Church, he was rejected by the Roman hierarchy, which he rejected in turn ( he publicly burned the Bull of Excommunication). He continued in his tireless work for the Church in the face of great danger and overwhelming odds.
luther.de/en/worms.html

greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/martin-luther.html

ccel.org/ccel/luther

luther.de/en/bann.html

1-41 of his 95 theses went against Christian doctrine. He obviously rejected the Church’s authority from the get go.

 

[jcrichton]

There was no such thing as secular authorities. The Pope crowned the Emperors. The Pope could remove power from an Emperor. It wasn’t like today where the church and state are separate entities.

…so Henry the 8th was another, saved by luck, heretic that the Church was not able to burn at the stake?

Yes, the Church was part of the political arena–yet, you suggest, as those who continue to believe, that the Church has so much power over nations and their governments that any issue with the Church becomes ridiculous; either the Church is fully inept, having so much power and allowing the likes of Luther and Henry and Obama to evade “capture and death,” or the perceived power of the Church is a straw man or, better yet, a hot air balloon since governments have been doing exactly what they want since her Foundation.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Did the pope remove power from those who protected Luther?

A very interesting conundrum–either the Church had power over the states and their rulers or states and rulers were autonomous and would ally themselves to the Church as well as reject her Authority at every given juncture!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Peter_J]

Martin Luther was excommunicated by the Pope for not recanting his 95 theses (luther.de/en/95thesen.html) and other writings.

They wanted to arrest and kill him as a heretic, but he was sheltered by a German prince and eventually his territory became divided politically because of war and they were not able to capture him.

Excerpts from Wikipedia article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_of_Worms
“Prince Frederick III, Elector of Saxony obtained an agreement that if Luther appeared he would be promised safe passage to and from the meeting.” At the Diet, Luther was asked if the The 95 Theses, Resolutions Concerning the 95 Theses, On the Papacy at Rome, Address to the Christian Nobility, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, and On the Freedom of a Christian were his writings and if he would reject or recant them.

Martin Luther replied, “Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen.”

“The Edict of Worms was a decree issued on 25 May 1521 by Emperor Charles V, declaring:
For this reason we forbid anyone from this time forward to dare, either by words or by deeds, to receive, defend, sustain, or favour the said Martin Luther. On the contrary, we want him to be apprehended and punished as a notorious heretic, as he deserves, to be brought personally before us, or to be securely guarded until those who have captured him inform us, whereupon we will order the appropriate manner of proceeding against the said Luther. Those who will help in his capture will be rewarded generously for their good work.”

“Despite the agreement that he could return home safely, it was privately understood that Luther would soon be arrested and punished. To protect him from this fate, Prince Frederick seized him on his way home and hid him in Wartburg Castle.”

“When Luther eventually reemerged from the Wartburg, the emperor, distracted with other matters, did not press for Luther’s arrest. Ultimately, because of rising public support for Luther among the German people and the protection of certain German princes, the Edict of Worms was never enforced in Germany. However, in the Low Countries (comprising modern-day Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands), the Edict was initially enforced against Luther’s most active supporters…Later that year, additional arrests were made among the Augustinians in Antwerp. Two monks, Johann Esch and Heinrich Voes, refused to recant; on 1 July 1523, they were burned at the stake in Brussels.”

They were bad times no question – just ask any Catholic about St. Thomas More, vis a vis the Church of England. (Which is by no means meant to suggest that two wrongs make a right.)

 

[rcwitness]

I didn’t know that he was only asked to recant a certain number of the theses. I think he had to recant all of them. Do you have information otherwise? Which ones did he not have to recant? I think they were all rejected immediately, although 30-40 years later they stopped selling indulgences.

catholic.com/tracts/myths-about-indulgences

One never could “buy” indulgences. The financial scandal surrounding indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms—indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “*t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . . It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded.”

The Council of Trent

On 16 July 1562, the Council of Trent suppressed the office of quaestores and reserved the collection of alms to two canon members of the chapter, who were to receive no remuneration for their work; it also reserved the publication of indulgences to the bishop of the diocese.[60] Then on 4 December 1563, in its final session, the Council addressed the question of indulgences directly, declaring them “most salutary for the Christian people”, decreeing that “all evil gains for the obtaining of them be wholly abolished”, and instructing bishops to be on the watch for any abuses concerning them.[61]

A few years later, in 1567, Pope Pius V cancelled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions.[62][63]*