S
steve_b
Guest
Regardless of stripe, Lutherans are Protestants. Lutheranism
- Status
G
guanophore
Guest
On the contrary, from his point of view the Pope had obscured the true Christianity through corruption. He thought jettisoning the Pope, corrput cardinals and bishops would bring back the clarity and simplicity of Christ to the Church. When you read the Augsburg confession, it is quite clear that the writers are framing Christianity.
It is interesting you should use this analogy since someone very close to me stabbed someone to death last week. He happened to be mentally ill, and I am not sure that he intended to commit murder.
The thread is about intention. Luther did not intend to start a new religion. He intended to provide leadership and direction to bring the One Church out of the obscurity in which he perceived that she had fallen, and see the true gospel of grace restored.
I don’t believe for a minute that Luther believed the separations would occur that actually did. He was even grieved about the separations between the Protestors (that Zwingli and Calvin rejected the Real Presence, for example).
You sound like a person that has not read what he wrote. Can you show me any documents he produced that would indicate he wanted to start a new religion?
For some reason it seems important for you to justify this to yourself, even in the absence of any evidence to support it. I wonder why that is?
G
guanophore
Guest
Certainly there were sins of separation on both sides, but Luther did not create Lutheranism.
Protestantism was in existence long before Luther was born. He was a small pebble that triggered a mightly avalanche. Perhaps we are having a semantics problem. Protestants are Christians, not belonging to some other religion.
It is very real. What is offensive about it? Do you know where the word originated?
Yes. I would describe it more accurately as a denomination, but we might disagree on that too.
Perhaps we just have different definitions of what a schism means. Luther’s actions were schismatic, and Lutheranism exists in a state of schism with the CC.
Once the documents of Lutheranism were created, and the Pope was defined/describes as antichrist, Reformation was impossible. Reform must come from inside, and Lutheranism stood (and stands) outside.
Thank you. I have been quite distressed about the extent to which Jesus has been taken out of Xmas. Do you know you can’t even find any actual Christmas paper? No angels, mangers, wise men, etc. just “holiday” paper.
- Happy ( late ) Chanukah , Merry Christmas and Happy Advent
G
guanophore
Guest
On the contrary, marymary;
Schism (division, separation from the body and communion of a religion).—There have been, at all times, in the Church, whimsical, critical, and dissatisfied minds, who found abuses in the Church (for in the most perfect society there is always the human side), and have dragged in their revolt a part of the flock. ECCLESIASTICAL DICTIONARY REV. JOHN THEIN.
Luther never saw himself “separated from the Church”. He did not see the Pope had the power to excommunicate him because he believed the Pope forfeited any authority he had by behaving in a corrupt manner.
Luther continued to function as a Catholic priest until he retired from public life, and still regarded himself as a Catholic to the end of his days.
Lutherans today will often describe themselves as evangelical catholics.
G
guanophore
Guest
Do you have any support for this position? Is it your argument that the 95 theses were an attempt at reformation?
What is “reformation”?
What did Luther say/do that was reformative and resulted in getting “kicked out”?
What is derogatory about the term Protestant?
That is a very Catholic position.
How can they “come back” if they are not kicked out?
I agree, I think he knew full well that his positions would be considered heresy and he would be excommunicated. I think he also had reason to believe he might be assasinated.
I am not sure it is fair to say “he did not want to listen”. He was acting according to his conscience, and could not relinquish his position even if it resulted in his excommunication, or death. He insisted because he believed his position was correct.
The question is, marymary, what was he doing? He did not want to start a new religion. He did not want to take the place of the Pope. He wanted the Christian Church to have the purity of function and message we see in the Scripture.
The term Protestant is not derogatory. Many modern non-Catholics do not like it because they do not see themselves as “protesting” anything. They do not realize that they do, by their very separated existence, protest the unity of the Catholic faith.
M
marymary1975
Guest
St Francis.Of.Assisi had very similar ideas as the ones you mentioned Luther had. Hoe Saint Francis if Assisi was able to reform.the church without creating a Schism and maintaining himself within.the church.but Luther was not? He could have fought corruption without creating a.schism very much like St Francis did. He did not want instead he choose to teach erroneous doctrines (that had nothing to do with corruption) and.after being.reprimended fir teaching erroneous doctrines (note the reprimand has nothing to do with corruption it was on teaching heresy which is completely different) he insisted on heresy knowing that if he carried on with heresy he would be excommunicated.
If you go back.to.the beginning of this thread they copied what Luther wrote. Go back and read it is clear he wanted to create another church.
Luther had no mental illness. Your point has nothing to do.because Luther had no mental illness and he knew what he was doing He had nothing that preventing him of knowing that what he was doing was wrong and what the consequences were going to be.
Yes at the end he repented and he was full.of guilt. To me that is another reason to think that he had the intention. If indeed his actions would have been unintentional.why he had so much guilt? There is a Spanish saying that says he who has a guilty conscious is afraid. That fits Luther very well and probably the reason on his.later actions.
So you think that there is no evidence to.support that he had full knowledge of everything? So Luther was a Catholic priest/monk, who had studied the bible, studied the church doctrine, who had full knowledge of everything.the church teaches because when you are to become.priest they teach you all that, he was a fairly educated person, and you want me.To prove to you that he actually knew the church doctrine? Actually it should be the other way around, where is the evidence to show that a fairly educated person who has received the training of a Catholic priest does not.know the church’s teaching. Basically what you are saying is similar to show me.evidence that Albert Einstein knew.that 2 plus 2 equals four, because Einsten didn’t.know basic math.
M
marymary1975
Guest
Excommunication is a sanction imposed on someone to make them think.about their sin and.come.back to be in full.communion.with the church.
What you say in your second paragraph is exactly my point. He knew that what he was saying was heresy, he knew that if he kept on he could be excommunicated, and he also.knew that being excommunicated could be used as a double.sword weapon against the Church and he knew he could argue that they kicked me.out. He acted with full knowledge of the time. When you act with full.knowledge yes you have intent. He intended to insist teaching heresy and he intented to be excommunicated. There us full intent all over Gus actions. I agree that he may have thought that he could be killed but he was very willing to run that risk.
As to your third and.fourth paragraph,again that is exactly what St Francis thought. Why st Francis did right and Luther didn’t? Maybe because st Francis did really want to.follow Christ and he really contented the church to follow what was in the scripture and he wasn’t looking for.personal gain.or success, st Francis had.truly pure intentions. Luther on the other side may have thought that some things were wrong but he was looking for personal.success.and wanted to create his own version of things. Remember what the bible says, “by the fruits you will recognize them”. You can.easily recognize the intentions.Of.both st Francis and Luther just by looking at the fruits of their.actions
M
marymary1975
Guest
S
steve_b
Guest
Luther was hardly the one to point fingers at anyone given his own errors.
He points to corruption in the Church? Wags his finger at the Church? HE ain’t innocent himself.
He nails his 95 thesis to the Cathedral doors? The Church sends Luther a list of his errors.
The Church tried to work with Luther, and he would have none of it. See the encyclicals below. There is intention there on his part to be separate and go his own way. AND HE DID. So he was excommunicated
Luther, Exsurge Domine, Bull of Leo X, June 1520
then came the excommunication
Decet Romanum Pontificem
As an aside, excommunication isn’t meant to be permanent. Luther could have always reversed his course, changed, and then he could have then come back to the sacrament of reconciliation and the rest of the sacraments…Excommunication would be gone. But he chose not to reconcile. That is the key issue. He chose not to reconcile. Therefore he freely chose his direction. That is intent freely chosen on his part.
A
adrift
Guest
He was afflicted with scruples and melancholy which I regard as a form of mental illness. So you believe when he posted his Ninety-five Theses it was to start a new church? You believe he knew that this action would result in the protestant revolt?
He was scrupulous which people who suffer from it has a great amount of guilt often unfounded, not that I believe that Luther’s guilt would be unfounded.
It is a myth that he repented.
M
marymary1975
Guest
Read what Steve b wrote. And scrupulosity does.know affect anyone’s capacity to understand that actions have consequences. He did repent. After everything he went back to the church and backed down on his positions. That is where the term “protestant” actually comes.from. when his followers sent a letter protesting about Luther backing up.
A
adrift
Guest
No he did not it is a myth.
Where do you get your information?
This is from the Britannica
S
Starwarsfan2
Guest
You do realize he confessed the truths of the reformation even on his deathbed , right ?
A
adrift
Guest
M
marymary1975
Guest
My understanding is that what he said.on his death bed was that it was better to die.as a.Catholic. something along easy to live as protestant but is.better to due as Catholic.
S
steve_b
Guest
I haven’t seen evidence to the contrary either. If he didn’t do that, I’d like to see the evidence properly referenced supporting the position. If he confessed to a priest, that confession is sealed. It can’t be revealed. So it would have to come from another source.
S
Starwarsfan2
Guest
He never said that .
G
guanophore
Guest
I agree that his excommunication was related to teaching heresies, but that was not the only factor. He became a pain in the backside of the heirarchy as soon as he posted his95 theses.
I also am not defending his methods or attitudes. Certainly Christendom would have been much more unified if he had taken the saintly route of St. Francis. All I am saying is that he did not intend to start a new religion.
Well, we see it differently.
I think this is debatable, tho we cannot debate it here. If you read the history of his early life, you can see that he was tortured by the feeling of needing to justify himself before God. If you read his writings against the Jews and the Peasants, it is not only impossible to see a saintly soul, but difficult to see even a Chrsitian attitude.
I don’t think that most people involved in the REformation had any idea how much fracturing would occur in Christendom. And I am certain he did not know the consequences. I agree he knew he would end up excommunicated, and probably had every expectation he would be assasinated or at least imprisoned. But he was very upset when the other reformers denied the Real Presence, and when people took it upon themselves to interpret the scriptures outside the mind of the Church.
ARe you serious? You never did something with the best of intentions that caused a lot of damage?
Well we will never know the state of his soul or his conscience before God, and if he made a perfect confession at the end, or not. We will never know how much of what he said and did was influenced by being brought up in an abusive home that made him hateful toward authority.
I think there is some evidence, yes.
G
guanophore
Guest
My studies of Luther’s life prior to the Reformation have made it clear to me that he never understood what it meant to be saved by grace, through faith. He never understood and experienced the peace of sacramental graces. To me he seems like a tortured soul that never believed he was forgiven.
It was hard for me to believe too, but any biography of his life will show that he joined the Augustinian order because it was the most severe, and he was looking for a way to expiate himself. By thei time he finally grasped what grace and forgiveness really meant, he had fallen into heresy.
The main complaint he had (justification) has since been addressed in the JDDJ. It seems clear to me that Luther did not understand what the CC taught about justification.
On the contrary, he believed what he was saying was the true gospel, and that the Church was teaching heresy. He did not expect the Church to accept his correction, so he knew he would be excommunicated.
Luther was acting in accordance with his conscience. When he said “here I stand” he felt that he could not do otherwise. He could not deny what he believed was the truth, no matter what the consequences.
I do agree that he intended to teach what he believed was the truth. By the time the bull of excommunication came, I don’t think he cared anymore (that is why he burned it). He was beyond being reconciled at that point.
Yes, he had to act according to what he believed was the TRuth.
I think Frances was able to perceive that the Holy Bride of Christ was higher and impervious to the sins of those who are attached to her. I don’t see that Luther could do this.
Luther really wanted to follow Christ, but he thought the Church was obscuring him. He was fully moved by Scripture and his consience. He did not trust the authorities that God had placed over him in the Church. He was not looking for any personal gain, but I do think of him as a very arrogant man (his writings seem to reflect that).
G
guanophore
Guest
What possible “personal success” do you see that he sought or received? He died lonely, rejected, exiled and sick. He was even marginalized by his own followers!
I can certainly agree that the fruits of separation have continued to grow and flourish. But the fruits reflect a persons’ choices, not so much their intention. When Luther finally understood grace, he was liberated and joyful. He wanted all those who suffered as he had to be liberated. He thought the gospel message was perverted, and wanted to restore the simplicity of the message in the Scriptures.
In the end, all we can do is look at the fruit. There is not much to tell us about his intentions and the thoughts of his heart. We must leave that up to God.
On the contrary. The evidence seems to indicate that he thought too much.
A person is responsible for following their own conscience. He made his choices based on what he believed was right for him to do. He always believed he would have to answer to God.
This is a good point Luther saw the CC as oppressive and off the mark of the Gospel. This was the main reason for his substitution of Sola Scriptura for the Church authority. His experience with the “objective” authority was abysmal and he believed they all needed to be held accountable to the scriptures.
I agree. I am not sure that was his intention, but it was the result.
Don’t you think it is pretty basic to expect the clergy to act in accordance with Scripture? When he observed them living in corruption, opulance, and being oppressive, is it not common sense that they would disqualify themselves?
Indeed. But his intention was a more pure church that was closer to what Scripture reflects.
- Status