Luther and the contemporary Catholic Church

[JonNC]

No. It wasn’t a reformation, it was a revolt. Luther had issues with scrupulosity. He never felt like he was forgiven after confession.

Source.

And which is also why Luther called St. James’ writing an “epistle of straw.”

This is false. Luther made a comparison and it was not about justification.

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.

You seem to thoroughly disagree with your own communion, but be that as it may.
The m not familiar with “faith only”, or “Bible only”. Perhaps you could explain them.
OSAS is a teaching specific to some communions, and is rejected by many.

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.)

Which kind of Protestant, since as you know, there really is no such thing as “The Protestant Church “, at least not a monolithic communion, never has been.
I’m perfectly happy to claim the title Catholic. Evangelical Catholic is the historic name for Lutherans. Some Anglicans refer to themselves as Anglo-Catholic.

 

[ronb]

No. It wasn’t a reformation, it was a revolt. Luther had issues with scrupulosity. He never felt like he was forgiven after confession.

Luther’s own writing. From Commentary of the Epistle to the Galatians (1522):

When I was a monk I tried ever so hard to live up to the strict rules of my order. I used to make a list of my sins, and I was always on the way to confession, and whatever penances were enjoined upon me I performed religiously. In spite of it all, my conscience was always in a fever of doubt. The more I sought to help my poor stricken conscience the worse it got.

And which is also why Luther called St. James’ writing an “epistle of straw.”

Calling inspired Scripture an “epistle of straw,” is not "making a comparison. And Luther definitely states in his original preface to St. James (in his reasons why he believed the writer of the Epistle was not an apostle) …

But to state my opinion about it (the Epistle of St. James), though without injury to anyone, I consider that it is not the writing of any apostle. My reasons are as follows:

First: Flatly in contradiction to St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture it ascribes righteousness to works and says that Abraham was justified by his works in that he offered his son Isaac, though St. Paul, on the contrary, teaches, in Romans 4 that Abraham was justified without works, by faith alone, before he offered his son and proves it by Moses Genesis 15. Now, although this Epistle might be helped and a gloss be found for this work-righteousness, it can not be defended against applying to works the saying of Moses in Genesis 15, which speaks only of Abraham’s faith and not of his works, as St. Paul shows in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, leads to the conclusion that it is not the work of any apostle. …

But this James does nothing more than to drive to the law and its works; and he mixes the two up in such disorderly fashion that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took some sayings of the apostles’ disciples and threw them thus on paper; or perhaps they were written down by someone on the basis of his preaching. He calls the law a ‘law of liberty’ though St. Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death and of sin (Galatians 3, Romans 7).

It can’t get much clearer than that.

You seem to thoroughly disagree with your own communion, but be that as it may.
The m not familiar with “faith only”, or “Bible only”. Perhaps you could explain them.
OSAS is a teaching specific to some communions, and is rejected by many.

Sola Scriptura (bible only) and Sola Fide (faith only) are definitely Protestant “bulwarks.” “Once saved, always saved” is argued for by many Protestants. I don’t know where the Lutherans stand on this. I know my old Protestant church (Disciples of Christ) didn’t believe it, but we often argued with Baptists, who took the opposite stance, on this doctrine.

May God be with you.

 

[twf]

“…all about doctrine.” Yet the Reformation was a very political movement backed by secular princes for their own reasons.

Catholicism was likewise politically motivated. It’s never just about doctrine.

For example… I’m a Catholic who accepts the teaching of Vatican I… yet I recognize that political motivations (namely the threat of the unification of Italy and the loss of the Papal States) was likely a factor. God works through politics too.

 

[Darryl_B]

I’m not sure of the relationship between the citation and your somewhat cynical summation.

I could also describe protestant sermons on tithing in much the same wording.

I have said this before and I will say it again. It all depends on where you are looking from, whether the inside or the outside as to how one views something.

The protestant has a perplexing problem in that they fundamentally reject “transactional” but in the next sentence will assert “transactional”.

In much the same way they preach sola scriptura but then turn around and address the question of theology as a search through philosophy (reason) scripture experience AND tradition.

Face palm.

 

[Darryl_B]

I will also add ergo because of the way Luther evaluated indulgences it is obvious he was already standing outside the Catholic Church before he voiced anything.

 

[ltwin]

I’m not sure of the relationship between the citation and your somewhat cynical summation.

Only that there can be a difference between theory and practice. Perhaps indulgences are not in theory a “get out of jail” free card, but in Luther’s time, many people understood them to be and the church and others even profited financially off of that misunderstanding. This profit was especially scandalous given the fact that many who would have bought an indulgence for themselves or relatives were poor themselves. What the church presented as an act of mercy can all to easily be seen as spiritual exploitation.

In Luther’s case, he was objecting to the abuse of indulgences being sold by Albert of Brandenberg, Archbishop of Mainz, with the approval of the Pope. In his instructions, Albert declared that people would enjoy plenary and perfect remission of all sins, they would be restored to baptismal innocence, and would be relieved of all the pain of purgatory. If getting an indulgence on behalf of the dead, the buyer did not themselves need to be contrite and confess their sins.

I could also describe protestant sermons on tithing in much the same wording.

Yes, and I would agree there are Protestant churches that take tithing–which is on its face a harmless practice rooted in Scripture–and turn it into something that is very misleading and harmful.

I have said this before and I will say it again. It all depends on where you are looking from, whether the inside or the outside as to how one views something.

It also takes historical perspective. It sometimes seems to me that Catholic posters want us to assess indulgences based on how they are used in the church today rather than evaluating their use in Luther’s time.

The protestant has a perplexing problem in that they fundamentally reject “transactional” but in the next sentence will assert “transactional”.

Perhaps, it is just a human tendency to project our transactional view of relationships onto our view of God.

In much the same way they preach sola scriptura but then turn around and address the question of theology as a search through philosophy (reason) scripture experience AND tradition.

Or they simply use reason, tradition and experience as means of interpreting and understanding Scripture.

I will also add ergo because of the way Luther evaluated indulgences it is obvious he was already standing outside the Catholic Church before he voiced anything.

I won’t claim to know Luther’s motives, but he seemed to desperately try the Catholic way before ultimately breaking with Rome. Let us not forget, Luther crawled up the scala sancta on behalf of his deceased grandfather for an indulgence. This wasn’t a system he was unfamiliar with.

 

[Wesrock]

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.

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.

There were predatory hawkers of indulgences which was the issue, especially in northern Europe. The time periods on indulgences weren’t how much concrete time was reduced in purgatory, but were meant to weight them compared to ancient Church penances. An indulgence worth “one year” wasn’t one year less in purgatory, but equal to one year’s worth of ancient penance. Also, indulgences only applied to past sins already forgiven in confession.

 

[Vico]

…

1983 CIC (Canon Law) Can.751 “ heresy is the obstinate denial, after having received Baptism, of any truth to be believed by Divine and Catholic faith, or obstinate doubt regarding it…”

Catholic dogma contrary to Martin Luther’s teaching:

1. Scripture and Tradition, Teaching Authority – Faith is based on Divine Revelation, comprised of Holy Scripture and Tradition. Council of Trent (Session 4, 1546) It is the Holy Spirit that maintains the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. (See Vatican I, Session 4.)
2. Faith and Works – Council of Trent (Session 6, Chapter 10) : "Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. "
3. Original Sin – Human nature is only fallen and wounded such that it can be healed through grace and man can know the truth and possesses free will – then collaborates with grace. For example: Council of Trent (Session 6, Canon IV) “If any one saith, that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.”
4. Sacrament – Council of Trent (Session 6, Canon XXIX: “If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles has hitherto professed, observed, and taught; let him be anathema.”

~The Council of Trent - Session 4~
~The Council of Trent - Session 6~
https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM

 

[JonNC]

Luther’s own writing. From Commentary of the Epistle to the Galatians (1522):

And this is how he felt all his life?

Calling inspired Scripture an “epistle of straw,” is not "making a comparison. And Luther definitely states in his original preface to St. James (in his reasons why he believed the writer of the Epistle was not an apostle) …

It is amazing to me how some apologists will cherrypick Luther ‘s 1522 preface.

You could have been more clear by simply including the actual quote.

“In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.”

It is a comparison, based on Luther’s personal belief that an apostle teaches, first and foremost, Christ:

In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times; however he teaches nothing about him, but only speaks of general faith in God. Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and resurrection and office of Christ, and to lay the foundation for faith in him, as Christ himself says in John 15[:27], You shall bear witness to me. All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3[:21]; and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ, I Corinthians 2[:2]. Whatever does not teach Christ is not yet apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching.

One can disagree with Luther’s view. In fact, the quote appears only in the 1522 preface. Luther himself changes his view of James over time, and often preached from it.

Sola Scriptura (bible only) and Sola Fide (faith only) are definitely Protestant “bulwarks.”

Alone and only have different meanings. I do not know what Disciples of Christ teach, but the exclusion of Tradition is not the meaning of sola scriptura.
Likewise, sola fide is specific, but it does not mean that one only needs faith at the exclusion of good works.

I don’t know where the Lutherans stand on this. I know my old Protestant church (Disciples of Christ) didn’t believe it, but we often argued with Baptists, who took the opposite stance, on this doctrine.

Then it isn’t a “Protestant “ teaching, is it. It has its roots in the Calvinist Perseverance of Saints.

 

[JonNC]

“…all about doctrine.” Yet the Reformation was a very political movement backed by secular princes for their own reasons.

But I don’t think that was Luther’s motivation.

 

[JonNC]

Sacrament – Council of Trent (Session 6, Canon XXIX: “If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance,

I’m not sure how this is contrary to Lutheran teaching.

 

[HopkinsReb]

twf:

“…all about doctrine.” Yet the Reformation was a very political movement backed by secular princes for their own reasons.

But I don’t think that was Luther’s motivation.

You don’t seem to understand the proper way to discuss the Reformation:

1. Eliminate all distinctions between the schools of thought
2. Lump all the worst parts into one big ball of theological schlop
3. Assign that schlop to all Protestants and to all Catholics you don’t like
4. Now Luther invented OSAS, didn’t believe in the RP, and was only in it for political power!

 

[Vico]

or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles has hitherto professed, observed, and taught

Ok. The full clause is

or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles has hitherto professed, observed, and taught;

Catechism

1113 … There are seven sacraments in the Church: Baptism, Confirmation or Chrismation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony.30 …
30 Cf. Council of Lyons II (1274) DS 860; Council of Florence (1439): DS 1310; Council of Trent (1547): DS 1601.

1465 When he celebrates the sacrament of Penance, the priest is fulfilling the ministry of the Good Shepherd who seeks the lost sheep, of the Good Samaritan who binds up wounds, of the Father who awaits the prodigal son and welcomes him on his return, and of the just and impartial judge whose judgment is both just and merciful. The priest is the sign and the instrument of God’s merciful love for the sinner.

Luther’s Works, 36:124

Hence there are, strictly speaking, but two sacraments in the church of God – baptism and the bread. For only in these two do we find both the divinely instituted sign and the promise of forgiveness of sins. The sacrament of penance, which I added to these two, lacks the divinely instituted visible sign, and is, as I have said, nothing but a way and a return to baptism.

 

[JonNC]

Vico:

or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles has hitherto professed, observed, and taught

Ok. The full clause is

or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles has hitherto professed, observed, and taught;

Catechism

1113 … There are seven sacraments in the Church: Baptism, Confirmation or Chrismation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony.30 …
30 Cf. Council of Lyons II (1274) DS 860; Council of Florence (1439): DS 1310; Council of Trent (1547): DS 1601.

1465 When he celebrates the sacrament of Penance, the priest is fulfilling the ministry of the Good Shepherd who seeks the lost sheep, of the Good Samaritan who binds up wounds, of the Father who awaits the prodigal son and welcomes him on his return, and of the just and impartial judge whose judgment is both just and merciful. The priest is the sign and the instrument of God’s merciful love for the sinner.

Luther’s Works, 36:124

Hence there are, strictly speaking, but two sacraments in the church of God – baptism and the bread. For only in these two do we find both the divinely instituted sign and the promise of forgiveness of sins. The sacrament of penance, which I added to these two, lacks the divinely instituted visible sign, and is, as I have said, nothing but a way and a return to baptism.

That’s a statement regarding luther’ Opinion of confession as a Sacrament, but to say that he didn’t believe in the necessity of confession is simply false.

A few links to the Lutheran view:

The Augsburg Confession · BookOfConcord.org

http://bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php#confession

And an explanation
https://steadfastlutherans.org/2009...practice-confession-by-pr-charles-henrickson/

 

[EZweber]

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.

Just two notes

1. In Confession, it is the preist acting in persona Christi that forgives your sins, sort of like an ambassador has power to make agreements with other countries.
2. As a Catholic, you are required if at all possible to confess your sins to a priest. The Church is clear on this.

 

[Vico]

…

Is there something that stated that Martin Luther did not believe in the necessity of confession in one of my posts? However, to address the point, Martin Luther professed that one is counted righteous legally before God by trust in Jesus Christ such that his righteousness is imputed. The Catholic teaching is that one is made righteous by the infusion of grace, given through the sacraments of baptism and penance. Catholic teaching is that it is an actual change in the soul not a covering for sins. See it in the Catechism:

1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification: …

Also, Martin Luther professed that confession is “nothing but a way and a return to baptism.” however the Catholic teaching is that the state after the sacrament of baptism is not the same as that state after the sacrament of penance, for with the sacrament of penance there may remain temporal punishments whereas all temporal punishment is removed with baptism.

 

[JonNC]

However, to address the point, Martin Luther professed that one is counted righteous legally before God by trust in Jesus Christ such that his righteousness is imputed. The Catholic teaching is that one is made righteous by the infusion of grace, given through the sacraments of baptism and penance. Catholic teaching is that it is an actual change in the soul not a covering for sins

Here you identify a difference in view, though I’m not sure I see how it relates to confession.

Also, Martin Luther professed that confession is “nothing but a way and a return to baptism.” however the Catholic teaching is that the state after the sacrament of baptism is not the same as that state after the sacrament of penance, for with the sacrament of penance there may remain temporal punishments whereas all temporal punishment is removed with baptism.

Again, a difference, but no rejection of the necessity of confession.

 

[Vico]

…
Again, a difference, but no rejection of the necessity of confession.

Martin Luther rejected the necessity of sacramental confession of every mortal sin that can be remembered since baptism, in number and kind, which therefore is contrary to the Catholic teaching. Per the Catholic teaching a person may obtain absolution of mortal sins with imperfect contrition in individual auricular confession, and in individual auricular confession and also in specific other situations, with perfect contrition.

Augsburg Confession
Article XI, Of Confession.
(1) Of Confession they teach that Private Absolution ought to be retained in the churches, although in confession (2) an enumeration of all sins is not necessary. For it is impossible according to the Psalm: Who can understand his errors? [Ps. 19:12]
Article XII: Of Repentance.
(1) Of Repentance they teach that for those who have fallen after Baptism there is remission of sins whenever they are converted (2) and that the Church ought to impart absolution to those thus returning to repentance. Now, repentance consists properly of these (3) two parts:
One is contrition, that is, (4) terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin; the other is faith, which is born of (5) the Gospel, or of absolution, and believes that for Christ’s sake, sins are forgiven, comforts (6) the conscience, and delivers it from terrors. Then good works are bound to follow, which are the fruits of repentance.

 

[jack63]

I think the reformation would have taken place regardless.

There were many who were discontented with the Church at the time (Thomas More among them) and Luther’s actions were a convenient excuse to start a radical move.

He had some very valid concerns.

I certainly agree with this. If Martin Luther hadn’t started the reformation, somebody else would have. The nobility and leaders in Germany would have found somebody else. However, they found who they needed with Martin Luther. An intelligent well written priest willing to stick his neck out.

The true reformers were Saint Ignatius and the Jesuits, Saint Therese of Ávila and Saint John of the Cross with their discalced Carmelites, and the list could go on and on.

I agree with this too.

I see Martin Luther as “used”. It is likely that he did not want the schism he was part of.

 

[JonNC]

Martin Luther rejected the necessity of sacramental confession of every mortal sin that can be remembered since baptism, in number and kind, which therefore is contrary to the Catholic teaching. Per the Catholic teaching a person may obtain absolution of mortal sins with imperfect contrition in individual auricular confession, and in individual auricular confession and also in specific other situations, with perfect contrition.

Now on this we generally agree that enumeration of sins during auricular confession isn’t required. That is a difference in view, not a rejection of the necessity to confess our sins.
There is a difference in our views on mortal v. Venial sins.