Luther and the contemporary Catholic Church

[phil19034]

phil19034:

vast majority of his doctrine does correspond to with today’s DISSENT Catholics, Catholics who want us to be more Lutheran than Catholic.

Can you explain this?

I’ll just pick five

• Married Priests
• Sola Fide << you can hear a lot of dissent Catholics claim xyz isn’t in the Bible, etc
• Women Priests << while not a thing during Luther’s time, it is a major part of Lutheranism today
• The “optional” use of Confession
• The disregard of Sacred Tradition, aka the historic teachings of the Church

 

[phil19034]

Oxford University Press.
I know how to be selective on sources, it was 100% unbiased.

No such thing as 100% unbiased. Everything has a bias. A good professor, author, historian etc. declares his/her bias up front.

Yes, there are those who do their best to be objective, but you will almost NEVER read something that is 100% unbiased. If it was, it would read like a dictionary.

 

[po18guy]

Actually, read a few more sources. He could be quite vile. He is not even a Saint in the relgion that he invented for himself and which bears his name. Oh, but it’s not man-made.

Now, as to history, Do you completely discount the faithful Catholics of the counter-reformation? They did not split off and invent their own religion, as the reformers did.

 

[EZweber]

Personally I agree with the no, no, and some answer. I would say that Martin Luther is such a controversial figure that the only good way to find out what he was really like is reading his writing and contemporary sources on him. I have read about him from Catholic sources, and he has some good stuff, but he also is a little crude sometimes and he is prone to extremely violent overstatement. My overall impression is negative. That said, my sources are biased.

 

[fhansen]

3) How much of his doctrine corresponds with today’s catholicism?

A lot of his stuff was based on pride IMO- and ignorance, smart as he was. His doctrine is wrong while his recognition for desperately needing to reform Church practices, not doctrine, was right. The Church brilliantly addressed the doctrinal matters at the Council of Trent. I believe that the emphasis on personal relationship with God was not misguided but I’m not sure how much that really played into his theology-and it wan’t at all missing from official Catholic teaching.

 

[Prodigal1984]

He was excommunicated.
So no there is nothing I could learn from him or admire.
There is a difference between calling for reform like Saint Catherine of Siena did, and openly rebelling and causing a riff in the western Church that has multiplied into one of the greatest tragedies possible.
Even if some of his concerns were valid, he wasn’t excommunicated for all of them. He was excommunicated for 41 of his thesis out of the 95. So he wasn’t even excommunicated for everything he had an issue with.
He called the pope the antichrist. Hardly someone I will be influenced by.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/L10EXDOM.HTM

 

[EZweber]

He was excommunicated.
So no there is nothing I could learn from him or admire.

I agree with the rest of your post, but St Joan of Arc comes to mind on this one. I understand your point though.

 

[ltwin]

do you think that Luther was right to start a reformation back then

I believe he made valid theological insights, which he believed he was bound in good conscience to pursue even if the authorities disagreed. The result was the start of the Reformation, which I doubt Luther foresaw all the consequences when he initiated it–some good, some bad.

Do you think that his theology was less about doctrine and more about protecting the people?

It was about doctrine. The dispute over scriptural authority, justification by faith alone, the Eucharist and the universal priesthood were all doctrinal. Luther was both a theologian and a pastor, so he also had pastoral concerns. The 95 Theses, Luther’s proposal for academic debate that sparked the controversy, were mainly concerned with the sale of indulgences to finance the building of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, the abuses this led to, the false hope and security such abuses were giving to individuals, and the theological rationale behind such practices.

His teachings on justification by faith alone was a reaction to the via moderna school of theology whose soteriology was summed up by the phrase facere quod in se est (“do what lies within you” or “do your best”). “Doing your best” (which meant rejecting evil and trying to do good) was the precondition necessary for justification. In response, Luther gravitated toward Augustinianism, which denied that humans could initiate their own justification. Luther’s main difference with Augustine is where each located the righteousness given to us by God. Luther said it remained outside the believer (an alien righteousness). Augustine said that the righteousness originated outside the believer but became a part of his person. This is where we get the infused versus imputed debate.

Luther was somewhat radical theologically, but he was not a social radical. He was not calling for massive social changes, but his calls for church reform and a universal priesthood did help to inspire radical movements like the Peasant Revolts in the 1520s. However, Luther repudiated this political interpretation of his theology.

How much of his doctrine corresponds with today’s catholicism?

Are you asking if his criticisms of medieval Catholicism still apply to contemporary Catholicism? Or are you asking how much agreement is there between Luther’s theology and Catholic theology today?

 

[Paul1998]

Thanks, your answer is very informative. And i am asking this:

how much agreement is there between Luther’s theology and Catholic theology today?

 

[Darryl_B]

You don’t seem to understand the concept of indulgences.

Rule no 1, an indulgence is not a get out jail free card.

The other thing you seem to be unable to do is express what you are attempting to state without judging people. You are judging peoples condition before God, when it is actually only God and His delegated authority who can do that.

Do you feel you are God’s delegated authority to judge people like you have done?

 

[ltwin]

You don’t seem to understand the concept of indulgences.

Rule no 1, an indulgence is not a get out jail free card.

But in Luther’s time they were marketed as “get out of purgatory” cards. From a biography of Luther:

Precisely how much good it would do had not been definitely defined, but the common folk were disposed to believe the most extravagant claims. No one questioned that the pope could draw on the treasury in order to remit penalties for sin imposed by himself on earth. In fact one would suppose that he could do this by mere fiat without any transfer. The important question was whether or not he could mitigate the pangs of purgatory. During the decade in which Luther was born a pope had declared that the efficacy of indulgences extended to purgatory for the benefit of the living and the dead alike. In the case of the living there was no assurance of avoiding purgatory entirely because God alone knew the extent of the unexpiated guilt and the consequent length of the sentence, but the Church could tell to the year and the day by how much the term could be reduced, whatever it was. And in the case of those already dead and in purgatory, the sum of whose wickedness was complete and known, an immediate release could be offered. Some bulls of indulgence went still further and applied not merely to reduction of penalty but even to the forgiveness of sins. They offered a plenary remission and reconciliation with the Most High.

There were places in which these signal mercies were more accessible than in others. For no theological reason but in the interest of advertising, the Church associated the dispensing of the merits of the saints with visitation upon the relics of the saints. Popes frequently specified precisely how much benefit could be derived from viewing each holy bone. Every relic of the saints in Halle, for example, was endowed by Pope Leo X with an indulgence for the reduction of purgatory by four thousand years. . . . In front of the Lateran were the Scala Sancta, twenty-eight stairs, supposedly those which once stood in front of Pilate’s palace. He who crawled up them on hands and knees, repeating a Pater Noster for each one, could thereby release a soul from purgatory.

Bainton, Roland H… Here I Stand . Abingdon Press. Kindle Edition.

 

[JonNC]

Married Priests

There are married priests in communion with the pope. That’s a discipline, not doctrine.

Sola Fide << you can hear a lot of dissent Catholics claim xyz isn’t in the Bible, etc

There are lots of threads on sola fide. Usually, there’s lots of misunderstanding about what Lutherans mean by it

Women Priests << while not a thing during Luther’s time, it is a major part of Lutheranism today

For confessional Lutherans, it is a heterodox practice.

The “optional” use of Confession

While the views between Catholics and Lutherans are different, it is a misrepresentation to say Lutherans view confession as optional

The disregard of Sacred Tradition, aka the historic teachings of the Church

Yea, patently false.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Myths about Indulgences | Catholic Answers Tract

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

Married Priests

There are married priests in communion with the pope. That’s a discipline, not doctrine.

Sola Fide << you can hear a lot of dissent Catholics claim xyz isn’t in the Bible, etc

There are lots of threads on sola fide. Usually, there’s lots of misunderstanding about what Lutherans mean by it

Women Priests << while not a thing during Luther’s time, it is a major part of Lutheranism today

For confessional Lutherans, it is a heterodox practice.

The “optional” use of Confession

While the views between Catholics and Lutherans are different, it is a misrepresentation to say Lutherans view confession as optional

The disregard of Sacred Tradition, aka the historic teachings of the Church

Yea, patently false.

Fine, but I was really posting what the dissent Catholics want. It’s not that they truly share the exact beliefs with modern day Lutherans, but that the dissents were inspired by Luther (plus others)

 

[bassmansteiny]

Because only God can forgive sins and a true Christian would undergo sanctification and would be orientate himself in follow what God revealed. For Luther, if a sinner just bought an indulgence and then sinned again and again happily because he thinks he can purchase more in the future, that’s not true repentance.

Well I agree with the part about getting an Indulgence with the intent of sinning again. An Indulgence does not work that way. Just like you can’t go into the confessional, confess your sins to God through a Priest or Bishop, with the intent of committing that sin again. My understanding if you did that in the confessional, you would not have a contrite heart and it is not truly forgiven. The same would be true for an Indulgence. However, and this is not ment as an insult or slam on you, but being you are protestant I doubt you believe in reconciliation to God through the Priesthood either.

As a Catholic I would probably not use that site you recommend. I do agree with your statement thought that there truly is no 100% unbiased sources. However that site from what I’ve read and understood it is far from even being close to being unbiased. No disrespect to you ATraveller and God bless you

P.S. you may already know this but if you don’t just wanted to point out during confession it is not the Priest forgiving the sins by himself. It is actually God through the Preist. Yes you can confess to God directly also, if you truly have a contrite heart and are sincere. However I like doing it with a Priest because sometimes I find what I think I’ve done is so horrible, it actually isn’t and it is nice to have that conversation and come out knowing I am truly forgiven and not have that thought what I’d I am not.

 

[bassmansteiny]

Great point

 

[bassmansteiny]

Good article, I will have to finish reading it later.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Luther had some major flaws. He was hardly a saint. So maybe re-consider whether you like him or his ideas. But then again, you acknowledge Protestant dogmas to be wrong. So what is it you admire?

Reformation was a Catholic concept before Protestantism came long. Besides the fact that the Church is always in need of reform, and has always been reforming itself, the idea of major reforms in a corrupt church initiated with Catholics. Particularly in the monastic movements, which emphasized true reform as “re-turning to the roots.” The Papacy prior to Luther picked up this idea, with various degrees of success.

True reformation can happen without schism. I mean, it did happen. The Catholic Church today is not corrupt in the exact same ways it was in the 16th century. But there will always be problems. Stay and reform it from the inside-out!

 

[JonNC]

Fine, but I was really posting what the dissent Catholics want. It’s not that they truly share the exact beliefs with modern day Lutherans, but that the dissents were inspired by Luther (plus others)

That’s fine, but it helps to know what Luther actually taught, if one is going to apply his name

 

[ronb]

• do you think that Luther was right to start a reformation back then (because yeah, i know he shouldn’t separate from the church, but it was the best thing to do because the catholic church was suppressing the pople)?
• Do you think that his theology was less about doctrine and more about protecting the people?
• How much of his doctrine corresponds with today’s catholicism?

1. No. It wasn’t a reformation, it was a revolt. Luther had issues with scrupulosity. He never felt like he was forgiven after confession. Hence his eventual doctrine of “faith alone” — which is only seen in Scripture as a negative. And which is also why Luther called St. James’ writing an “epistle of straw.” He knew it countered his interpretation of St. Paul’s works.
2. No. Luther sided with the leaders when they ruthlessly put down the people in the Peasant’s Revolt (after his doctrines had riled them up in the first place).
3. Almost none of it. Protestantism is fundamentally different than Catholicism. “Faith only” and “Bible only” and “once saved, always saved” isn’t Christianity. It’s a counterfeit.

I’m a convert from Protestantism. I use to argue against Catholicism. I know Protestants would take it as an insult to say they were “like Catholics.” (At least they did when I was still Protestant.)