Luther and the contemporary Catholic Church

[Vico]

…
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.

It is not a view but a major difference, but perhaps Lutherans today do not profess what Martin Luther did, that conversion (repentance) only requires contrition and faith.

Venial sin (everyday faults) is not properly called sin for it does not constitute a loss of charity and they do not have to be confessed.

 

[JonNC]

It is not a view but a major difference, but perhaps Lutherans today do not profess what Martin Luther did, that conversion (repentance) only requires contrition and faith.

I think I posted what the confessions say.
The Apology goes into greater detail.
http://bookofconcord.org/defense_9_confession.php#article11

 

[ronb]

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

Scrupulosity would no longer be a problem if you believed faith (alone) justified you before God. So the question isn’t really relevant to Luther’s later life, is it? Personally I think this is the main reason Luther left the Church.

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.

“Cherry pick?” Luther, in his preface, has given himself the authority to judge inspired Scripture, God’s word. What more do I need to say? So “sola scriptura” means not only the Bible only, but only the parts of the Bible deemed acceptable to his specific theology. You don’t see how dangerous that can be?

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.

Calvin was Protestant. But I get your meaning, although it seems to be a widespread belief in evangelical Christianity.

 

[JonNC]

Scrupulosity would no longer be a problem if you believed faith (alone) justified you before God. So the question isn’t really relevant to Luther’s later life, is it? Personally I think this is the main reason Luther left the Church.

I don’t know, since I have no way to determine if this was a problem. I think, however, that there was more to it than the speculation of scrupulosity, that being the fact that Luther was taught Gabriel Biel (semi-pelagianism).

Cherry pick?” Luther, in his preface, has given himself the authority to judge inspired Scripture, God’s word.

Yes. You linked one quote out of context.
Luther was practicing the same liberty as Erasmus and Cajetan, the same as Jerome.
No where does he give himself any authority beyond that granted to any Catholic before Trent.

So “sola scriptura” means not only the Bible only, but only the parts of the Bible deemed acceptable to his specific theology. You don’t see how dangerous that can be?

Oh, that would be dangerous if it wasn’t nonsense. I’ve posted here exactly what sola scriptura means. You can maintain your polemic all you want, but it is a false representation.

Calvin was Protestant. But I get your meaning, although it seems to be a widespread belief in evangelical Christianity.

Calvin was 25 years younger than Luther, do he likely was not part of the formal protest, but thank you for understanding the point.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

It is not a view but a major difference, but perhaps Lutherans today do not profess what Martin Luther did, that conversion (repentance) only requires contrition and faith.

I think I posted what the confessions say.
The Apology goes into greater detail.
http://bookofconcord.org/defense_9_confession.php#article11

Well I read that. It appears to be no different that what I posted. The free will act of contrition is a work which brings merit – a sin is committed by the consent of the will and with dissent of the will it is blotted out – a cooperation with the actual grace given by God.

Therefore the difference between Lutheran and Catholic belief is readily seen in predestination and reprobation dogmas of which three must be maintained per Catholic teachings:

(a) At least in the order of execution in time (in ordine executionis) the meritorious works of the predestined are the partial cause of their eternal happiness;
(b) hell cannot even in the order of intention (in ordine intentionis) have been positively decreed to the damned, even though it is inflicted on them in time as the just punishment of their misdeeds;
(c) there is absolutely no predestination to sin as a means to eternal damnation.

Pohle, J. (1911). Predestination. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

 

[JonNC]

Well I read that. It appears to be no different that what I posted. The free will act of contrition is a work which brings merit – a sin is committed by the consent of the will and with dissent of the will it is blotted out – a cooperation with the actual grace given by God.

Is it possible to turn and repent by our own desire and will?

 

[Scott84]

The road to hell is often paved with good intentions.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Well I read that. It appears to be no different that what I posted. The free will act of contrition is a work which brings merit – a sin is committed by the consent of the will and with dissent of the will it is blotted out – a cooperation with the actual grace given by God.

Is it possible to turn and repent by our own desire and will?

Grace comes first, but then there must be cooperation with that grace to attain and remain in a state of habitual grace. In the state of sanctifying grace a person may remain in it through cooperation. So salvation is accomplished through being in the state of sanctifying grace at death.

Catholic teaching is that:

1. The sinner can and must prepare himself by the help of actual grace for the reception of the grace by which he is justified.
2. There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will.
3. There is a supernatural influence of God in the faculties of the soul which coincides in time with man’s free act of will.
4. For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God ( gratia elevans ) is absolutely necessary.
5. Internal supernatural grace is absolutely necessary for the beginning of faith and of salvation.
6. For the performance of a morally good action Sanctifying Grace is not required.
7. The Human Will remains free under the influence of efficacious grace, which is not irresistible.
8. There is a grace which is truly sufficient and yet remains inefficacious ( gratia vere et mere sufficiens ).

 

[bassmansteiny]

Yup, I agree. That is what I was trying to get at but I don’t always seem to get out what is in my thoughts expressed into words.

 

[JonNC]

Thank you for writing and presenting Catholic teaching. Some Catholic posters seem to think it is polite to tell others what they believe.

 

[Vico]

Thank you for writing and presenting Catholic teaching. Some Catholic posters seem to think it is polite to tell others what they believe.

Is it polite to tell others what your own beliefs are?

 

[GKMotley]

I hope so.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Thank you for writing and presenting Catholic teaching. Some Catholic posters seem to think it is polite to tell others what they believe.

Is it polite to tell others what your own beliefs are?

It is polite, and more. It is critical to mature, charitable dialogue. In the same way, it is also important to listen to what others say they believe.

 

[AlNg]

Luther was an anti-Semite. Please read: The Jews and their Lies (1543) by Martin Luther.
Excerpts:
" Therefore be on your guard against the Jews knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer selfglory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them."
“I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.”
“I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. "
" My essay, I hope, will furnish a Christian…with enough material not only to defend himself against the blind, venomous Jews but also to become the foe of the Jews’ malice, lying, and cursing, and to understand not only that their belief is false but that they are surely possessed by all devils.”
This is obvious anti-semitism which has been condemned by the contemporary Catholic Church.
So of course it differs from the teachings of the contemporary Catholic Church which calls Jews our elder brothers and which attempts to promote reconciliation with them.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

JonNC:

Thank you for writing and presenting Catholic teaching. Some Catholic posters seem to think it is polite to tell others what they believe.

Is it polite to tell others what your own beliefs are?

It is polite, and more. It is critical to mature, charitable dialogue. In the same way, it is also important to listen to what others say they believe.

Mutual respect.

 

[ltwin]

Luther was an anti-Semite.

As were many European Christians at the time. That isn’t a defense of Luther–what he said about Jews was horrible–however, his prejudices against Jews were probably shared by a majority of European Christians of the time. They are horrible, but not unique.

This is obvious anti-semitism which has been condemned by the contemporary Catholic Church.

But we shouldn’t judge Luther by what Catholics today say about Jews. It’s fairer to Luther to judge him by the standards of his time. What were Catholics saying about Jews in the 1500s? How did Catholics treat Jews in the 1500s? Let’s see: blood libels, discrimination, forced wearing of distinctive clothing, forced conversions, mass expulsions from Catholic countries, putting the Talmud “on trial” through disputations, anti-Jewish preaching that stirred up riots, etc.

 

[ATraveller]

Luther was an anti-Semite.

Most of us (Protestants) are aware of this. And all Lutheran bodies I know have criticised Martin Luther over this. Luther isn’t a pope. Luther was simply a theologian. His writings aren’t infallible. We don’t have shrines dedicated to him.

 

[AlNg]

But we shouldn’t judge Luther by what Catholics today say about Jews. It’s fairer to Luther to judge him by the standards of his time.

I thought that the subject and title of this thread was Luther and the Contemporary Catholic Church?

 

[JonNC]

ltwin:

But we shouldn’t judge Luther by what Catholics today say about Jews. It’s fairer to Luther to judge him by the standards of his time.

I thought that the subject and title of this thread was Luther and the Contemporary Catholic Church?

You’re right. It is.
One of Luther’s main Catholic opponents was Johannes Eck. Eck wrote an anti-Judaism book called “Refutation of a Jew-Book ”.

Luther’s anti-Judaic writings are roundly condemned by Lutherans, but Eck’s equally vile anti-Judaism is not even mentioned in passing (that I could find) in the glowing write up of Eck in New Advent
Now, I know quite well that Catholics and the Catholic Church condemn anti-Judaism and anti-semitism, even if Eck’s is conveniently omitted from New Advent. But let’s be clear, to evaluate Luther’s anti-Judaism outside of the context of the era is, in my view, disingenuous.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I used to like Luther before I’ve read some of private correspondence and how he changed his doctrine- I understand man can change his views especially when he’s out of the Church and under no authority other than this own, but some examples reek of him wanting to make his religion successful.

Catholic Church denied Henry VIII annulment because it wouldn’t be right even at the cost of losing England. Luther let one of his supporters practice polygamy and dispensed him towards that (I think that was Duke of Saxony), even calling it right and just. Luther at first supported peasants against nobles but as nobles started to win, he urged lords to kill peasants like animals for rising against their authority that is willed by God. Luther’s ideas were mostly implemented if state was vassal state and wanted to get rid of their masters, proclaiming them heretics and declaring independence (Holy Roman Empire situation was even more beneficial to them, as Emperor was crowned by Pope who Luther opposed) or when one wanted to start a revolt and claim the crown for himself. You will find that most Protestant countries experienced either of those things. Luther also told Pope he would follow his word “like that of Christ” but called Pope Antichrist at the same time in private correspondence- this makes me think he was very double faced and hypocritical. Luther simply needed political support and was ready to change doctrine for it. Also, it should be noted that Luther said that world was further from God after his attempt for reform than it was before he started- Protestant reformation made many people skeptical about religion and atheism, modernism and many other heresies got into the world mainly thanks to it. You shall know the tree by it’s fruit.

Fact is that while Luther wanted to reform selling of indulgences, he got most of his ideas about scholasticism from excommunicated Priest and his works that he read about and felt disgusted. It was mostly his lack of education about Faith of the Church that gave Luther many misconceptions and ideas about his new religion. Church was corrupt at that time, but not in faith but in practical things. Because of political circumstances of wars between Catholic nations, Pope could not call Ecumenical Council and expect it to be successful so he needed to wait. During that timeframe, Luther would introduce entirely new faith and change his doctrine along the road to what was most plausible.

Protestant Reformation also made it possible to confiscate wealth of clergy or Church- but money did not go to the poor, it went to nobles. Of course nobles supported Protestantism, they were literally paid for that. Monarch controlled entire Church and therefore got rid of any sort of limits imposed on him by the Church and Faith, therefore any monarch who desired that power over the Church went Protestant.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I think that Lutheran Evangelicals themselves are one of most acceptable Protestants and I do consider them very traditional and less misled than many other Protestants, but I have very little respect for their founder or way their Churches got into power.