Luther a heretic?

[reteeks21]

Here is a quote relating to someone I have brought up before, but it has been slammed and no arguement that does not include animosity has been used to refute it. Based on what is listed below, how come there is still so much anti-protestantism? How come this decision between the RCC and the Lutheran church will not be acknowledge as legitimate here?

“Recently, the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification [2], a document created by and agreed to by clerical representatives of the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation as a result of extensive ecumenical dialogue, substantially resolved the conflict over the nature of justification (dealing colloquially with the issue of faith and works) which was a major issue at the root of the Protestant Reformation. The churches acknowledged that the excommunications relating to the doctrine of justification set forth by the Roman Catholic Council of Trent do not apply to the teachings of the Lutheran churches set forth in the text.”

 

[ibkc]

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801347.htm

"Nearly 500 years after the Reformation began in 1517, Lutherans and Catholics resolved one of the issues that began the Reformation era when they signed the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification in 1999.

The declaration said the churches’ consensus on basic truths means that the doctrine of justification is not a church-dividing issue for Catholics and Lutherans even though differences between them remain in language, theological elaboration and emphasis surrounding those basic truths."

Also, Lutheranism is just one branch of Protestantism. As we know, there are many other Protestant churches which believe very different things. Closing the book on one doctrinal dispute hardly undoes 500 years of damage.

 

[JonNC]

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801347.htm

"Nearly 500 years after the Reformation began in 1517, Lutherans and Catholics resolved one of the issues that began the Reformation era when they signed the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification in 1999.

The declaration said the churches’ consensus on basic truths means that the doctrine of justification is not a church-dividing issue for Catholics and Lutherans even though differences between them remain in language, theological elaboration and emphasis surrounding those basic truths."

Also, Lutheranism is just one branch of Protestantism. As we know, there are many other Protestant churches which believe very different things. Closing the book on one doctrinal dispute hardly undoes 500 years of damage.

True. Yet this could not have been imagined even 50 years ago.
Give thanks for this accomplishment, but be aware that we have much hard, prayerful work to do.

Jon

 

[Ilroy]

Also, Lutheranism is just one branch of Protestantism. As we know, there are many other Protestant churches which believe very different things. Closing the book on one doctrinal dispute hardly undoes 500 years of damage.

Also note that Lutheranism is not just ONE branch of protestantism. In the U.S. alone there are many versions of Lutherans, each teaching something or some things differently. And each of them thinking they have the true Lutheran teaching and the others are in error.
Also, some of them do not even subscribe to the joint declaration.

 

[Steadfast]

Also note that Lutheranism is not just ONE branch of protestantism. In the U.S. alone there are many versions of Lutherans, each teaching something or some things differently. And each of them thinking they have the true Lutheran teaching and the others are in error.
Also, some of them do not even subscribe to the joint declaration.

You paint a picture of a widely variegated non-comforming Lutheranism.

You;re right though, the only Lutherans who signed the JDDJ were the pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, lady minister variety…

Good luck with that.

 

[Harpazo]

Here is a quote relating to someone I have brought up before, but it has been slammed and no arguement that does not include animosity has been used to refute it. Based on what is listed below, how come there is still so much anti-protestantism? How come this decision between the RCC and the Lutheran church will not be acknowledge as legitimate here?

“Recently, the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification [2], a document created by and agreed to by clerical representatives of the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation as a result of extensive ecumenical dialogue, substantially resolved the conflict over the nature of justification (dealing colloquially with the issue of faith and works) which was a major issue at the root of the Protestant Reformation. The churches acknowledged that the excommunications relating to the doctrine of justification set forth by the Roman Catholic Council of Trent do not apply to the teachings of the Lutheran churches set forth in the text.”

This sounds good, but keep in mind that there is no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church. It’s the Catholic Church, period.

This doesn’t take away from the fact that Luther is still a heretic though.

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

 

[reteeks21]

This sounds good, but keep in mind that there is no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church. It’s the Catholic Church, period.

This doesn’t take away from the fact that Luther is still a heretic though.

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

That isn’t possible if the very document you say “sounds very good” says they were wrong to call Luther a heretic. Personal opinions are one thing, but when your church says he wasn’t then that means he isn’t, right? Don’t you stick with what the chair decides, or do you do that only when it does not go against your personal feelings?

 

[ibkc]

That isn’t possible if the very document you say “sounds very good” says they were wrong to call Luther a heretic. Personal opinions are one thing, but when your church says he wasn’t then that means he isn’t, right? Don’t you stick with what the chair decides, or do you do that only when it does not go against your personal feelings?

The article I linked to yesterday contains a specific denial that Luther has been rehabilitated, or that there are any plans to do so.

Rumors that the Vatican is set to rehabilitate Martin Luther, the 16th-century leader of the Protestant Reformation, are groundless, said the Vatican spokesman, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi.

News reports in early March alleged that Pope Benedict XVI was dedicating a planned September symposium with former doctoral students to re-evaluating Luther, who was excommunicated and condemned for heresy.

The story “does not have any foundation, insofar as no rehabilitation of Luther is foreseen,” Father Lombardi told the Italian news agency ANSA March 8.

Vatican officials said the topic of the pope’s annual summer gathering of former students this year has not yet been decided. Of the two topics under consideration, Luther is not one of them, one official told Catholic News Service.

Where in the document you posted does it say that Luther’s status as a heretic was changed? There’s no link, and the excerpt you provided doesn’t say anything about that.

 

[reteeks21]

The article I linked to yesterday contains a specific denial that Luther has been rehabilitated, or that there are any plans to do so.

Where in the document you posted does it say that Luther’s status as a heretic was changed? There’s no link, and the excerpt you provided doesn’t say anything about that.

Then you did not read it right:

JOINT DECLARATION
ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION

5.The present Joint Declaration has this intention: namely, to show that on the basis of their dialogue the subscribing Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church[9] are now able to articulate a common understanding of our justification by God’s grace through faith in Christ. It does not cover all that either church teaches about justification; it does encompass a consensus on basic truths of the doctrine of justification and shows that the remaining differences in its explication are no longer the occasion for doctrinal condemnations.

7.Like the dialogues themselves, this Joint Declaration rests on the conviction that in overcoming the earlier controversial questions and doctrinal condemnations, the churches neither take the condemnations lightly nor do they disavow their own past. On the contrary, this Declaration is shaped by the conviction that in their respective histories our churches have come to new insights. Developments have taken place which not only make possible, but also require the churches to examine the divisive questions and condemnations and see them in a new light.
------------If the church admits these things, how can Luther still be a heretic? What would be the point of doing all that they did to just turn around and say that he is still a heretic?

13.Opposing interpretations and applications of the biblical message of justification were in the sixteenth century a principal cause of the division of the Western church and led as well to doctrinal condemnations. A common understanding of justification is therefore fundamental and indispensable to overcoming that division. (If Luther is still so evil, why go throught the effort of doing all of this work?)

Why take the time to draw comparisons for the purpose of pointing out what Luther and the church taught, and how much they share in common and still say, but Luther was still a heretic? That makes no sense. You don’t like Luther? Fine; we are used to it. But do not read something that makes it clear that the teachings of Luther do not differ as much as what you assume they do, and then say, “well, it still does not say he isn’t a heretic.” If that was the case, what would be the point of attempting to reconcile differences, and to state that certain condemnations were wrong? I guess it all boils down to the fact that you despise anything that disagrees with your church, and that you more than likely consider all of us heretics.

 

[ibkc]

But do not read something that makes it clear that the teachings of Luther do not differ as much as what you assume they do, and then say, “well, it still does not say he isn’t a heretic.” If that was the case, what would be the point of attempting to reconcile differences, and to state that certain condemnations were wrong?

Because nothing you’ve posted says that the Church no longer considers Luther a heretic, not even obliquely. It talks about resolving a key doctrinal problem, which is great, but that’s not the only reason to consider him a heretic. Removing books from the Bible? Any way you look at it, that’s a heretical act right there.

I think that if the Church wants the faithful to view Luther in a 100% favorable light, or even in a 50% favorable light, they’d make a very public, explicit statement, like JPII did concerning Galileo.

On a personal level, as a recent convert to Catholicism, I don’t hate Martin Luther, but I am in the position of one who was taught as a child that he was a hero who saved us all from brutal oppression and freed the minds of the West. My investigation as an adult into his life and ideas revealed that the story was much more complex, and I cannot consider him to be a wholly positive character in the history of the world, even if the Vatican tells me that he may have had a good point in one respect.

 

[reteeks21]

Because nothing you’ve posted says that the Church no longer considers Luther a heretic, not even obliquely. It talks about resolving a key doctrinal problem, which is great, but that’s not the only reason to consider him a heretic. Removing books from the Bible? Any way you look at it, that’s a heretical act right there.

I think that if the Church wants the faithful to view Luther in a 100% favorable light, or even in a 50% favorable light, they’d make a very public, explicit statement, like JPII did concerning Galileo.

On a personal level, as a recent convert to Catholicism, I don’t hate Martin Luther, but I am in the position of one who was taught as a child that he was a hero who saved us all from brutal oppression and freed the minds of the West. My investigation as an adult into his life and ideas revealed that the story was much more complex, and I cannot consider him to be a wholly positive character in the history of the world, even if the Vatican tells me that he may have had a good point in one respect.

No doubt he did some bad things, just as many popes have. And I am not trying to say you hate him, but when your church makes it clear that his teachings weren’t worthy of condemnation, I would think that they are affirming him in many ways. If you and I accept the teachings of people/leaders/priests/pastors etc, are we not affirming that we believe that what they are saying has a great amount of validity?

And just to further my point, here is an article from the TimesOnline.com:

Richard Owen in Rome
Pope Benedict XVI is to rehabilitate Martin Luther, arguing that he did not intend to split Christianity but only to purge the Church of corrupt practices.

Pope Benedict will issue his findings on Luther (1483-1546) in September after discussing him at his annual seminar of 40 fellow theologians — known as the Ratzinger Schülerkreis — at Castelgandolfo, the papal summer residence. According to Vatican insiders the Pope will argue that Luther, who was excommunicated and condemned for heresy, was not a heretic.

Cardinal Walter Kasper, the head of the pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said the move would help to promote ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Protestants. It is also designed to counteract the impact of July’s papal statement describing the Protestant and Orthodox faiths as defective and “not proper Churches”.

The move to re-evaluate Luther is part of a drive to soften Pope Benedict’s image as an arch conservative hardliner as he approaches the third anniversary of his election next month. This week it emerged that the Vatican is planning to erect a statue of Galileo, who also faced a heresy trial, to mark the 400th anniversary next year of his discovery of the telescope.

Related Links
Vatican recants with a statue of Galileo
Pope rewrites prayer for ‘conversion’ of the Jews
The Pope has also reached out to the Muslim world to mend fences after his 2006 speech at Regensburg University in which he appeared to describe Islam as inherently violent and irrational. This week Muslim scholars and Vatican officials met at the pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue in Rome to begin laying the groundwork for a meeting between the Pope and leading Muslims, also expected to be held at Castelgandolfo.

Cardinal Kasper said: “We have much to learn from Luther, beginning with the importance he attached to the word of God.” It was time for a “more positive” view of Luther, whose reforms had aroused papal ire at the time but could now be seen as having “anticipated aspects of reform which the Church has adopted over time”.

The Castelgandolfo seminar will in part focus on the question of apostolic succession, through which the apostles passed on the authority they received from Jesus to the first bishops. After the Reformation Protestants took the view that “succession” referred only to God’s Word and not to church hierarchies but some German scholars have suggested Luther himself did not intend this.

Luther challenged the authority of the papacy by holding that the Bible is the sole source of religious authority and made it accessible to ordinary people by translating it into the vernacular. He became convinced that the Church had lost sight of the “central truths of Christianity”, and was appalled on a visit to Rome in 1510 by the power, wealth and corruption of the papacy.

In 1517 he protested publicly against the sale of papal indulgences for the remission of sins in his “95 Theses”, nailing a copy to the door of a Wittenberg church. Some theologians argue that Luther did not intend to confront the papacy “in a doctrinaire way” but only to raise legitimate questions - a view Pope Benedict apparently shares.

Luther was excommunicated by Pope Leo X, who dismissed him initially as “a drunken German who will change his mind when sober”.

By the way, not all of us who are protestants were raised in a catholic-bashing church. Also, if we “follow” Luther, does that make us heretics as well?

 

[LRThunder]

Luther might have not intended to split the Church, but that’s what he ended up doing.

 

[ibkc]

No doubt he did some bad things, just as many popes have.

No Pope has taught heresy, sorry. Not even the usually-cited Honorius.

You haven’t bothered to read the article I linked to in my first response to you, or even the excerpt I posted. The Vatican categorically denied the report you just cut and pasted. Once again, for your benefit:

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801347.htm

"Vatican spokesman calls rumors of rehabilitation of Luther groundless

By Carol Glatz
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – Rumors that the Vatican is set to rehabilitate Martin Luther, the 16th-century leader of the Protestant Reformation, are groundless, said the Vatican spokesman, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi.

News reports in early March alleged that Pope Benedict XVI was dedicating a planned September symposium with former doctoral students to re-evaluating Luther, who was excommunicated and condemned for heresy.

The story “does not have any foundation, insofar as no rehabilitation of Luther is foreseen,” Father Lombardi told the Italian news agency ANSA March 8.

Vatican officials said the topic of the pope’s annual summer gathering of former students this year has not yet been decided. Of the two topics under consideration, Luther is not one of them, one official told Catholic News Service."

 

[reteeks21]

No Pope has taught heresy, sorry. Not even the usually-cited Honorius.

You haven’t bothered to read the article I linked to in my first response to you, or even the excerpt I posted. The Vatican categorically denied the report you just cut and pasted. Once again, for your benefit:

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801347.htm

"Vatican spokesman calls rumors of rehabilitation of Luther groundless

By Carol Glatz
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – Rumors that the Vatican is set to rehabilitate Martin Luther, the 16th-century leader of the Protestant Reformation, are groundless, said the Vatican spokesman, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi.

News reports in early March alleged that Pope Benedict XVI was dedicating a planned September symposium with former doctoral students to re-evaluating Luther, who was excommunicated and condemned for heresy.

The story “does not have any foundation, insofar as no rehabilitation of Luther is foreseen,” Father Lombardi told the Italian news agency ANSA March 8.

Vatican officials said the topic of the pope’s annual summer gathering of former students this year has not yet been decided. Of the two topics under consideration, Luther is not one of them, one official told Catholic News Service."

Not even Urban when he said kill an infidel and you get to go to heaven? That seems Biblical to me, right? So Cardinal Kasper is a liar? He just made that up, and spoke out of turn? I know you have no love for us protestants, and honestly I could really care less. It is just troubling when someone cannot ever admit that their church has ever done wrong. You call us arrogant and misguided, but maybe the same can apply to you, what do you think?

 

[ibkc]

Not even Urban when he said kill an infidel and you get to go to heaven? That seems Biblical to me, right?

Uh-oh, we’re getting into the old misunderstanding of what is doctrine and what is one man’s opinion. Note: the above is not doctrine.

I know you have no love for us protestants, and honestly I could really care less. It is just troubling when someone cannot ever admit that their church has ever done wrong. You call us arrogant and misguided, but maybe the same can apply to you, what do you think?

You’re saying “you” in the general sense, right? I was raised Protestant in an overwhelmingly Protestant part of the world, and even now, I am the only non-Protestant in my entire family. I don’t hate Protestants. Obviously I do believe Protestants are spiritually misguided or I wouldn’t have abandoned Protestantism, but not necessarily arrogant - that depends on the individual.

I’m not sure what you want here.

 

[reteeks21]

Uh-oh, we’re getting into the old misunderstanding of what is doctrine and what is one man’s opinion. Note: the above is not doctrine.

You’re saying “you” in the general sense, right? I was raised Protestant in an overwhelmingly Protestant part of the world, and even now, I am the only non-Protestant in my entire family. I don’t hate Protestants. Obviously I do believe Protestants are spiritually misguided or I wouldn’t have abandoned Protestantism, but not necessarily arrogant - that depends on the individual.

I’m not sure what you want here.

You said that no pope has taught heresy. So if he speaks infallibly, how can that not be heretical (i.e, against Christian teaching)? According to you, if the pope says it then that is infaliible because he is listening to God and imparting that knowledge and wisdom to us. That would see heretical to me.

No, I am referring to us who are protestant now. If we follow, or accused of following Luther, who you say was a heretic, does that make us heretics as well?

Plus, what about my other question as to whether Cardinal Kasper was speaking out of turn? Did he say it or not? If so, did he just make it up?

And please let me add that I have 0 problems with Catholicism! Many of my closest friends are Catholics, and we get on without any issues regarding many of things said on this forum. I am not trying to attack Catholics in any way, not do I try to attack doctrine. I am simply trying to see if anyone will objectively look at things from another point of view. That is demanded of many protestants on here, but I never seem to find many catholics who are willing to look objenctively at many divisive issues. I like to see things the way my father-in-law, a baptist preacher, sums up protestant and catholic relations: we probably have more in common than we realize.

 

[ibkc]

You said that no pope has taught heresy. So if he speaks infallibly, how can that not be heretical (i.e, against Christian teaching)? According to you, if the pope says it then that is infaliible because he is listening to God and imparting that knowledge and wisdom to us. That would see heretical to me.

Well, no, it doesn’t work that way. The pope is infallible when making official pronouncements on faith and morals - that is, very high-level stuff that goes in the Catechism. He is not infallible at any other time. Papal statements that are considered infallible are extremely rare, believe it or not. There hasn’t been one since the early 50’s, and before that, there are a surprisingly small number scattered throughout history. Infallible statements are always definitive clarifications of aspects of existing doctrines that have, for some reason or another, come under dispute, and they are only made after years of study, prayer, and consultation with his associates. Popes do not pull random things out of their mitres and present them as infallible doctrine.

No, I am referring to us who are protestant now. If we follow, or accused of following Luther, who you say was a heretic, does that make us heretics as well?

In my own opinion, in many or even most cases, no, simply because 500 years have passed and the vast majority of Protestants don’t even know their own history anymore. Look at the ongoing thread about the “Protestant” label: people don’t know why they believe what they do, and don’t even know what a Protestant is. You can’t be a heretic if you were never exposed to the fullness of the truth, or even if you were exposed and for whatever reason failed to understand the import. Most Christians (in the United States, especially) who are not explicitly anti-Catholic have come to view Christianity as a kind of salad bar proposition. To them, Catholicism is just another possible selection, but a kind of weird one, like anchovies. This is a cultural problem.

Plus, what about my other question as to whether Cardinal Kasper was speaking out of turn? Did he say it or not? If so, did he just make it up?

It’s not for me to make judgments about what cardinals say. The original Times article did not quote him directly, which makes it even more difficult to figure out what happened there. All I know is that the Vatican made an official announcement after that news report surfaced, and that announcement completely refuted the report. That’s enough for me.

 

[reteeks21]

Well, no, it doesn’t work that way. The pope is infallible when making official pronouncements on faith and morals - that is, very high-level stuff that goes in the Catechism. He is not infallible at any other time. Papal statements that are considered infallible are extremely rare, believe it or not. There hasn’t been one since the early 50’s, and before that, there are a surprisingly small number scattered throughout history. Infallible statements are always definitive clarifications of aspects of existing doctrines that have, for some reason or another, come under dispute, and they are only made after years of study, prayer, and consultation with his associates. Popes do not pull random things out of their mitres and present them as infallible doctrine.

In my own opinion, in many or even most cases, no, simply because 500 years have passed and the vast majority of Protestants don’t even know their own history anymore. Look at the ongoing thread about the “Protestant” label: people don’t know why they believe what they do, and don’t even know what a Protestant is. You can’t be a heretic if you were never exposed to the fullness of the truth, or even if you were exposed and for whatever reason failed to understand the import. Most Christians (in the United States, especially) who are not explicitly anti-Catholic have come to view Christianity as a kind of salad bar proposition. To them, Catholicism is just another possible selection, but a kind of weird one, like anchovies. This is a cultural problem.

The thing is, though, I know why I believe what I believe (we could start another thread on that topic, which would be the 1,000,000,000 time that one has been done), and it is a misnomer to assume that we don’t. While that is true of many people, protestant and catholic, and it can’t be said of all of us. And it is an excellent point that it tends to be a cultural problem, which is a shame. And I appreciate the info about infallability, but how can someone be infallible on some things and not others? If that is the case, which it sounds like it is, then why is that idea applied to protestants so often and not popes?

 

[ibkc]

The thing is, though, I know why I believe what I believe (we could start another thread on that topic, which would be the 1,000,000,000 time that one has been done), and it is a misnomer to assume that we don’t.

I realize that, and I also realize that the majority of people who are here on this particular forum are very knowledgeable about these matters. I could broadly say that I personally consider someone who is truly well-informed about the Catholic Church, who truly understands what it is all about, but still rejects it, is a heretic. However I will refrain from making that judgment on any individual, you or anyone else, because I don’t think that’s right or fair. I cannot know what is really going on in anyone’s heart or mind, and I honestly don’t want to. That is God’s job, not mine.

You might say that even that broad judgment is too harsh, but the thing is, I joined the Catholic Church because I really do believe it is the true church. So for me to say that other churches are just as good would be wrong for me to do: one, because it would be a lie (I don’t think other churches are just as good) and two, because then I would be denying that the CC is the true church. It can’t be both ways.

And I appreciate the info about infallability, but how can someone be infallible on some things and not others? If that is the case, which it sounds like it is, then why is that idea applied to protestants so often and not popes?

Briefly - Protestants cannot have this gift because they rejected the line of apostolic succession through which infallibility is passed on. We believe that Jesus bestowed his teaching authority on Peter, and he did so with a promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His church. This is where the idea of doctrinal infallibility comes from: we see this as a promise from Jesus that the Holy Spirit would guide the leaders of the Church and protect them against teaching heresy. Peter ordained his successor, and his successor ordained his successor, by the laying on of hands, down through time to the present. The protection of the Holy Spirit goes with these men; it’s called Apostolic Succession. They are still men, and they are still sinners. But when they have to make a decision on the core doctrines of the Church, the Holy Spirit prevents them from teaching untruths. That’s all infallibility is.

 

[manualman]

The trouble with words is that they are only as useful as the reader who interprets them.

The joint declaration resolves ONLY the issue of JUSTIFICATION. And it does so by the use of very nuanced and broad terms that both parties found they could agree upon. It further states that no-one, even Luther, can be condemned for holding to a position like that outlined in the agreement. It does NOT come out and verify that the agreed upon language is exactly how Luther believed it.

Furthermore, the declaration is SILENT on many OTHER issues in Luther’s life and teachings which are certainly incompatible with Catholicism. Luther explicitly denied the sacrament of Holy Orders and the authority invested in those of apostolic succession. Even if he personally held to the standards outline in the declaration (highly dubious based on some of his speeches) there is a massive amount of other problem’s in the man’s teachings.

The purpose of the declaration is not to assert that there are no differences between us. It is to begin to realize that there are not so many differences as Satan would like us to believe that there are.

You can’t understand the way Luther changed Christianity unless you understand a little bit about scrupulosity, which he suffered from severely in his Catholic days and refused outside assistance for. His whole theology is rooted in his trouble with scrupulosity. I don’t hate him, I find him tragic. He really wanted to give his all for God. He just refused the best of the tools God provided him to do so.