Luther Really Did Want to Start a New Religion: Documentation

  • Thread starter Thread starter dmar198
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, heresy is never alone…and nationalism was on the rise in Germany and England. I don’t know how much, but suspect alot in the wave of such temporal interests.
 
AmbroseSJ said:
It was more like a perfect storm. A whole lot of things were going on, tending in a certain direction. For example, there was terrible corruption in the Church government based in Rome. No one can deny that. This was not doctrinal or Sacramental corruption, but ordinary human corruption. However it was scandalous. Also the church in Germany WAS oppressed and treated poorly by the corrupt Church government in Rome. Luther had issues with his own Faith, and scrupulosity. He was not getting good counsel from anyone, and was left to fester with his own difficulties. He visited Rome and was severely scandalized. His reform agenda was seized on by the German power brokers for their own ends. The resulting heresies, schism and rebellions were a natural effect of the direction everything was going. Once it was unleashed, no one had the power to stop or reverse it.

It is a very tragic and sad episode in the history of the Latin West. 😦
Click to expand...
Very true. It actually goes back to the Great Western Schism and the aftermath of the concilliarist controversies and schisms after the Council of Constance. The decrees of the the Council of Constance fostered an environment for the spread of concilliarism. Then, with the Great Schism finally healed and peace generally restored, Pope Martin V convoked the Council of Basel which declared itself ecumenical from the get-go (he died but Pope Eugene IV continued it). It was convoked for really no other reason than the Council of Constance decreed that Councils should be convoked every 10 years or so. This Council quickly became an organ for promoting Conciliarism. The Pope then transferred it to Ferrara, but many bishops remained in Basel leading to a schism in which that council attempted to depose Pope Eugene and elected the antipope Felix V. This schism led to all sorts of confusion and rivalries among the rising nation-states as they took sides in the conflict.

This is significant because these events coupled with the preceding Great Western Schism made the authority of the Church all too human. It created an environment where the papacy was associated more with national interests and not universal Christian authority. Germany, which remained neutral during the schism of Basel/Felix V, grew accustomed to life without allegiance to a Pope. Similarly, the doctrine of the papacy itself was watered down or altogether obscured in many places (in England, the learned St. Thomas More was ignorant of its divine origin until he was instructed about it by St. John Fisher surprisingly very shortly before both would die for it) . It is for these very reasons that the Reformation was so “successful” and why there was little resistance to it in many regions especially among the princes. It was also why there was so much controversy regarding the decision to convoke another Council to deal with it (one was finally convoked by Paul III at Trent of course).
 
I am confused about Leo X’s decree when it condemns that following:
  1. Excommunications are only external penalties and they do not deprive man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church.
Are not prayers always effective? It seems like the Pope was saying the psychological fright one receives from knowing prayers can’t be said for him can outbalance the power of prayers prayed for him. Is this correct?
 
thinkandmull said:
I am confused about Leo X’s decree when it condemns that following:
  1. Excommunications are only external penalties and they do not deprive man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church.
Are not prayers always effective? It seems like the Pope was saying the psychological fright one receives from knowing prayers can’t be said for him can outbalance the power of prayers prayed for him. Is this correct?
Click to expand...
The old Catechism of St. Pius X might be helpful in this regard:

Catechism of St. Pius X said:
17 Q. Who are the excommunicated?
A. The excommunicated are those who, because of grievous transgressions, are struck with excommunication by the Pope or their Bishop, and consequently are cut off as unworthy from the body of the Church, which, however, hopes for and desires their conversion.

18 Q. Should excommunication be dreaded?
A. Excommunication should be greatly dreaded, because it is the severest and most terrible punishment the Church can inflict upon her rebellious and obstinate children.

19 Q. Of what goods are the excommunicated deprived?
A. The excommunicated are deprived of public prayers, of the Sacraments, of indulgences and of Christian burial.

20 Q. Can we in any way help the excommunicated?
A. We can in some way help the excommunicated and all others who are outside the true Church, by salutary advice, by prayers and good works, begging God in His mercy to grant them the grace of being converted to the faith and of entering into the Communion of Saints.
Click to expand...

Note it says the “public prayers” don’t benefit the person (#19), but they can be helped by other prayers(#20).

So essentially by being excommunicated (assuming it is just and valid) you are no longer a member of the Body of the Church and are therefore deprived of all the blessings and graces that flow from Christ the head through His body, the Church. This includes the graces obtained for the good of the Church through the Church’s public prayer which is the Liturgy, especially the Eucharistic sacrifice. That doesn’t mean, however, that prayers for your conversion or your own prayers for the grace of repentance, etc. won’t work.

The point of the condemnation is that excommunication has real spiritual meaning, it’s not just empty words or a mere social penalty.
 
adrift said:
Myths about Indulgences
Myth 7 states indulgences were never sold.

Hope this helps
Click to expand...
Perhaps indulgences were not officially sold, but many Catholics certainly believed that they could pay their way out of purgatory by making donations and that belief does seem to have been encouraged by some preachers. It is uncertain whether Johann Tetzel actually said it, but the popular little jingle, “When the coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs” (“Sobald der Pfennig im Kasten klingt, die Selle aus dem Fegfeuer springt”) can be traced back to at least 1482, and Luther wrote to Cardinal Albrecht, Archbishop of Mainz:
Under your most distinguished name, papal indulgences are offered all across the land for the construction of St. Peter. Now, I do not so much complain about the quacking of the preachers, which I haven’t heard; but I bewail the gross misunderstanding among the people which comes from these preachers and which they spread everywhere among common men. Evidently the poor souls believe that when they have bought indulgence letters they are then assured of their salvation. They are likewise convinced that souls escape from purgatory as soon as they have placed a contribution into the chest (Luther’s Works, Vol. 48:45)
Click to expand...
 
Thorolfr said:
Perhaps indulgences were not officially sold, but many Catholics certainly believed that they could pay their way out of purgatory by making donations and that belief does seem to have been encouraged by some preachers. It is uncertain whether Johann Tetzel actually said it, but the popular little jingle, “When the coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs” (“Sobald der Pfennig im Kasten klingt, die Selle aus dem Fegfeuer springt”) can be traced back to at least 1482, and Luther wrote to Cardinal Albrecht, Archbishop of Mainz:
Click to expand...
Would you please document this claim? How do you know that “many” Catholics believed they could pay their way out of purgatory?

Johann Tetzel is addressed in the Catholic Encyclopedia
 
Thorolfr said:
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/01/did-tetzel-really-say-as-soon-as-coin.html
Click to expand...
Where in that article does it substantiate that “many Catholics believed they could pay their way out of purgatory”?

One of the reasons I did not quote from the Encyclopedia was to avoid what this blog did. It quotes that which is favorable to its position and leaves out what isn’t for instance it used the Catholic Encyclopedia but fails to acknowledge this passage
History presents few characters that have suffered more senseless misrepresentation, even bald caricature, than Tetzel. “Even while he lived stories which contained an element of legend gathered around his name, until at last, in the minds of the uncritical Protestant historians, he became the typical indulgence-monger, upon whom any well-worn anecdote might be fathered” (Beard, “Martin Luther”, London, 1889, 210). For a critical scholarly study which shows him in a proper perspective, he had to wait the researches of our own time, mainly at the hands of Dr. Nicholas Paulus, who is closely followed in this article. In the first place, his teaching regarding the indulgences for the living was correct. The charge that the forgiveness of sins was sold for money regardless of contrition or that absolution for sins to be committed in the future could be purchased is baseless. An indulgence, he writes, can be applied only “to the pains of sin which are confessed and for which there is contrition”. “No one”, he furthermore adds, “secures an indulgence unless he have true contrition”. The confessional letters (confessionalia) could of course be obtained for a mere pecuniary consideration without demanding contrition. But such document did not secure an indulgence. It was simply a permit to select a proper confessor, who only after a contrite confession would absolve from sin and reserved cases, and who possessed at the same time facilities to impart the plenary indulgence (Paulus, “Johann Tetzel”, 103).
Click to expand...
 
Who was the Catholic who debated Luther? It started with an e. Eck? Something like that
 
steve_b said:
I never bought the notion that Luther didn’t want to start a new religion. All one had to do is look at his actions…
Click to expand...
I agree!! It was sooo obvious that he wanted to start a new religion. If you look at his actions.from.beginning to end it was so obvious that he was looking to create his own religion.
 
guanophore said:
I don’t think so. I think Luther believed his ideas more accurately represented the Catholic faith, and he wanted to be Catholic the way he believed Jesus intended. Lutherans today will say they see themselves as a valid continuation of the catholic church, as founded by Christ.

Indeed.
Click to expand...
Luther`s action.show exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting. Do you know.who.was the person who actually wanted people to live their religion the way Jesus intended and had radical ideas and thought his ideas were an accurate representation of the Catholic faith and he truthfully wanted to be a Catholic.but wanted the church to.change its ways to truly live what Jesus taught? His name was st. Francis of Assisi! He did reform.the church in the right way while remaining faithful.to the church and today he is one of.our biggest saints.

Now.compare st Francis` actions with Luther’s action. Big big difference. Words.are meaningless, what counts is.your actions.
 
marymary1975 said:
Code: 
Luther`s action.show exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting.
Click to expand...
I will certainly concede that his actions/attitude fostered a schism, but I don’t think that was his intention. He wanted Catholicism without the Pope.
marymary1975 said:
Code: 
  Do you know.who.was the person who actually wanted people to live their religion the way Jesus intended and had radical ideas and thought his ideas were an accurate representation of the Catholic faith and he truthfully wanted to be a Catholic.but wanted the church to.change its ways to truly live what Jesus taught?  His name was st. Francis of Assisi!  He did reform.the church in the right way while remaining faithful.to the church and today he is one of.our biggest saints.
Click to expand...
It is true that one cannot read Luther and find a saintly soul as we find with St. Francis. The difference between the two (or one big one) is that St. Francis perceived the Church. He understood that she is Holy and without blemish, with Christ as her Head and the Holy Spirit as her Soul. Luther confused the corrupted leaders with the Holy Bride.
marymary1975 said:
Code: 
Now.compare st Francis` actions with Luther's action.  Big big difference. Words.are meaningless, what counts is.your actions.
Click to expand...
But that is not what the thread is about, is it? This thread is about intentions. Luther did not intend to start a new religion. His actions resuled in a terrible fragmentation of the Western Church, but he did not intend for this to happen. On the contrary, he was quite upset that other reformers rejected the Real Presence, and thought they could interpret Scripture apart from the Church.
 
guanophore said:
I will certainly concede that his actions/attitude fostered a schism, but I don’t think that was his intention. He wanted Catholicism without the Pope.

It is true that one cannot read Luther and find a saintly soul as we find with St. Francis. The difference between the two (or one big one) is that St. Francis perceived the Church. He understood that she is Holy and without blemish, with Christ as her Head and the Holy Spirit as her Soul. Luther confused the corrupted leaders with the Holy Bride.

But that is not what the thread is about, is it? This thread is about intentions. Luther did not intend to start a new religion. His actions resuled in a terrible fragmentation of the Western Church, but he did not intend for this to happen. On the contrary, he was quite upset that other reformers rejected the Real Presence, and thought they could interpret Scripture apart from the Church.
Click to expand...
Luther was knowledgeable enough to know that Catholicism without the Pope was a different religion. To me saying that he didn’t intend to create a new.religion is like if I grab a knife and stab someone.else while.saying that I don’t intend to stab the person. I am voluntarily choosing to stab you and I know my action will result in stabbing but I am.saying that I don’t intend to do it. If I don’t intend to do it why am I doing it? .Same with Luther, he knew what he was doing and he was actively doing it. If he would have been.someone.without the knowledge and without the education then I would believe it, but he clearly knew.what he was doing so he was trying to.create a new religion.
 
marymary1975 said:
Luther was knowledgeable enough to know that Catholicism without the Pope was a different religion. To me saying that he didn’t intend to create a new.religion is like if I grab a knife and stab someone.else while.saying that I don’t intend to stab the person. I am voluntarily choosing to stab you and I know my action will result in stabbing but I am.saying that I don’t intend to do it. If I don’t intend to do it why am I doing it? .Same with Luther, he knew what he was doing and he was actively doing it. If he would have been.someone.without the knowledge and without the education then I would believe it, but he clearly knew.what he was doing so he was trying to.create a new religion.
Click to expand...
No he wasn’t and didn’t form a new religion
 
marymary1975 said:
Nooo, he just created a schism and created Lutheranism and Protestantism and every other religion that came.from.there.
Click to expand...
  1. " Protestantism" isn’t even real , but just an offensive label
  2. Lutheranism is a church Within a religion , not a new religion
  3. It was and still is a reformation not schism
  4. Happy ( late ) Chanukah , Merry Christmas and Happy Advent 🙂
 
Starwarsfan2 said:
  1. " Protestantism" isn’t even real , but just an offensive label
  2. Lutheranism is a church Within a religion , not a new religion
  3. It was and still is a reformation not schism
  4. Merry Christmas and Happy Advent 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes what Luther did was a Schism of the Roman.Catholic.Church. it is.not a reformation.because he did not.reform.anything in the church. He separated himself from.the Church.creating something completely different. That is schism.

Protestants and.Lutherans are two.different things. Lutherans are the biggest denomination within.Protestants but not.all.Protestants are Lutherans.

I don’t.see how it is not a new religion if it is completely different to the original religion. I agree that it is within Christianity and that if we speak about major religions is part of.christianity, but it broke apart from the original religion.
 
marymary1975 said:
Yes what Luther did was a Schism of the Roman.Catholic.Church. it is.not a reformation.because he did not.reform.anything in the church. He separated himself from.the Church.creating something completely different. That is schism.

Protestants and.Lutherans are two.different things. Lutherans are the biggest denomination within.Protestants but not.all.Protestants are Lutherans.

I don’t.see how it is not a new religion if it is completely different to the original religion. I agree that it is within Christianity and that if we speak about major religions is part of.christianity, but it broke apart from the original religion.
Click to expand...
  1. I’d argue that he was kicked out for reforming the church .
  2. Partially correct , although Reformation churches is often used instead of the often derogatory " Protestant"
  3. I agree that the Catholic Church is the church , however we don’t see the church as just visible , thus we veiw the Orthodox , OO and others as Catholics not in communion with the bishop of Rome , and we pray for full cummunion between our Churches .
Keep the faith , Mary , Starwars
 
Starwarsfan2 said:
  1. I’d argue that he was kicked out for reforming the church .
  2. Partially correct , although Reformation churches is often used instead of the often derogatory " Protestant"
  3. I agree that the Catholic Church is the church , however we don’t see the church as just visible , thus we veiw the Orthodox , OO and others as Catholics not in communion with the bishop of Rome , and we pray for full cummunion between our Churches .
Keep the faith , Mary , Starwars
Click to expand...
He wasn’t kicked out of the church. Excommunication doesn’t kick anyone out from the Church. Excommunication is a.sanction imposed on people that are committing.certain grave sins that has the object to call their attention to their error so they can amend.and.come.back to the church. The actual purpose of excommunication is so the person in.error can amend and become.in.communion of.the church. Also before the excommunication Luther was requested several times to stop teaching heretic ideas. He insisted. Again.He was.very knowledgeable of church doctrine.so he knew what he was doing and.He knew that the sanction for insisting in teaching.heresy was excommunication. He did not want to listen and insisted knowingly that of he kept insisting on his teaching the sanction was excommunication.

This is one of the reasons why personally I don’t believe that he didn’t know what he was doing. Maybe if he had been a lay person yes, but not someone with his level of.knowledge.

And just for clarification, I am not.using.the word.Protestantism as derogatory. I just use it because there are many other denominations that are not Lutherans, so I just wanted to make.reference to the other denominations different than Lutherans.

I also just noticed you are Lutheran. I did not know that view. Now I can see why you view it that way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top