Martin Luther: Similar to Judas?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Melodeonist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“IF” you examine the Catholic faith closely, you find that “de fide” pertains to matters of faith which are binding on all Catholics. All else is subject to the virtue of prudential judgment. The faith has dogma, but does not exist primarily to be dogmatic.

The Church, for example, does not teach that Martin Luther was a saint and only got off track while bringing the Church back to her foundations.

In fact, he radically altered some of the core beliefs of Christianity. He denied free will - 100% opposing Christ’s teaching via His Church. He wrote Melanchthon that one thousand mortal sins in a day would have no effect on his justification before God - again, 100% against Catholic teaching and 100% nonsense.

The fact that millions came to believe in him and follow him (honoring him by naming their communion after him) is evidence only of human persuasiveness and gullibility. Look at the LDS and JWs. Millions of them.

Did the Church hierarchy require reformation? Yes, as it does today. Did Church teaching require reformation? Absolutely not. Was the Church mandated to enact each of the 95 opinions that Luther cobbled together? No. The internal reformation was already underway, and those who remained faithful while pressing for that reform - at huge personal cost - are the true saints and reformers.

Poor Martin Luther was so utterly consumed with visceral hatred of the Pope that he became what he hated - pope of a radically new and different communion. Those who disagreed with him received the most vile and profane condemnation.

I believe that he began from instability and devolved into a form of ego-driven insanity.
 
Fine. You are are Catholic and I am not. You are free to pick and choose whatever you want to believe, and to decide what is and is not de fide. I see what the Church is teaching. You believe otherwise. You obviously have not read the documents I provided and have no interest in them. That is ok with me. Less cause to believe that Catholicism is true, because the people who call themselves Catholics, like you, don’t seem to believe it themselves.

And I have seen any number of Catholics who seem “so utterly consumed with visceral hatred of” Luther “that they became what they hated.” Consider that you say “he began from instability and devolved into a form of ego-driven insanity.” Little room there between how he talked and how you do. Yep. You are become what you hate in him. In contrast, the Catholic Church, in its official statements, has chosen a different approach. But here you stand, you can do no other.
 
Last edited:
I believe what is in the catechism.

As to visceral hatred of Luther, what on earth are you even talking about? He was a deeply troubled, unstable man who is certainly worthy of prayer - and who profoundly needs prayer, as his efforts succeeded only in weakening the Body of Christ.

Speaking of Luther’s history, his mental instability and his deleterious effects on Christ’s Church is not “visceral hatred” - it is history. It is fact.

Do a little web snooping. There, you will find Philipp Melanchthon’s writing which reveal’s Luther’s instability. It is not a Catholic concoction or a secret.
 
SojournerOnEarth said:
So you feel that you can continue to bash Martin Luther, despite recent official Catholic teaching on the subject?

It sounds to me like you are looking for loopholes. “Oh, how can I continue to beat this dead horse?”

There are more documents, by the way, that you really should be aware of if you want to do ecumenical work and speak about Luther as a Catholic. I take the view that this is the Catholic Answers Forum, with the amusing idea that what Catholics post should be in line with Catholic teaching. Funny idea and I sometimes get the feeling few Catholics agree with it but view it as a platform to spout whatever. People do come here to find out what the Catholic Church is teaching, and here we have an example of Catholics stating things opposite, in some cases, to what the Church is teaching. This smacks, at best, of the sin of scandal.
Click to expand...
Where in any of my posts on this thread have I bashed Luther? I have merely said informed Catholics are free to disagree with this particular subject. If you quote me, please do so correctly. Furthermore, if you continue to slander me by saying my bashing of Luther (which I have not done) is tantamount to the sin of scandal I will flag you. Maybe read the rules of the forum. But I will flag you if you continue.

I will say I was not aware of that paragraph in Lumen Gentium. I have done some reading. Basically, since we Catholics believe Christ is the founder of the Church, the Church has special authority. Even when not teaching infallibly, one must pay attention to pronouncements from the Magisterium since the Holy Spirit is always working within the Church. However, theologians and informed Catholics may withhold assent from a non-infallible teaching. As Donum Veritas states, “It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions.” There, Catholics are not robots. The Church doesn’t define who a theologian is but it can be reasonably assumed that well-informed Catholics can withhold dissent as well. Just don’t go ask random Catholic mook on the street. Those who are informed can question non-infallible statements.
 
Last edited:
I always thought that the Catholic Church teaching on will and predestination was somewhat close to what Lutheran’s teach. Lutherans hold that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was for all people (rejecting limited atonement), God desires all to be saved, and that God neither wills nor chooses damnation for people (rejecting double-predestination). Furthermore, Lutheran’s hold that grace can be resisted (rejecting irresistible grace) and that believer’s can lose their faith and fall away. Thus, Lutherans hold that it is the person who chooses damnation and resists God. From what I understand, the Catholic Church teaches that one can choose to accept or reject God’s grace, while Lutherans believe that God does all of the choosing work, since man is so depraved and lost in sin. Outside of that difference, I thought Catholics and Lutherans were pretty close. Am I wrong?

Finally, predestination isn’t something that I’ve ever seen Lutherans focus much on or worry about. Lutherans look to Christ and trust in him for salvation. Lastly, I would argue that the Lutheran teachings on these matters are not new and had existed in the undivided Church for centuries.
 
Last edited:
LOL, I was not asking for I found on them I am referring to your post where they were another
 
Well, yeah. Lutherans did take issue with the Reformed, but both Lutherans and Reformed worked within the framework of the government and they did share certain dogmas that they drew from the Ecumenical Christian Creeds ( Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian). They accepted the validity of infant baptism, for example and as Sojourner on Earth pointed out, they both held to certain ideas regarding the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

The Anabaptists wanted to withdraw from the government altogether and they rejected infant baptism altogether. Luther considered them Sacramentarians, people who denied the Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Here’s a fine link explaining the Lutheran point of view: Concerning Rebaptism - Lutheran Reformation.
 
Hi, I can’t seem to figure out how to reply on the thread. I kind of made a
mess and am embarassed! I was not looking for info on the Anabaptists
beliefs rather I am interested in your statement that they were another
issue all together for Luther. How so?
 
Last edited:
Church doctrine once delivered to the Saints never needs reform; it is immutable just as the nature of God is.

Morality and practice within the Church, however, unceasingly needs reform.

Luther decided to attempt to reform doctrine without recantation; that is what anathematized him and kept him cut off.

Comparing Martin Luther to Judas might be a stretch. Both seemed to have died without repenting of what cut them off, as their despair took complete control. The overarching endeavor of excommunication, as in Luther’s case, is to foster true contrition for reconciliation back to the Church. But, when you remain obstinate and incorrigible as Luther did, well, that is between Luther and his Creator, as it is with Judas.
 
Last edited:
Luther considered the Anabaptists heretics because of their insistence on rebaptizing adults who were already baptized as children, their refusal to submit to the state and to take oaths, their memorial doctrine concerning the Lord’s Supper.
 
seanman611 said:
I always thought that the Catholic Church teaching on will and predestination was somewhat close to what Lutheran’s teach. Lutherans hold that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was for all people (rejecting limited atonement), God desires all to be saved, and that God neither wills nor chooses damnation for people (rejecting double-predestination). Furthermore, Lutheran’s hold that grace can be resisted (rejecting irresistible grace) and that believer’s can lose their faith and fall away. Thus, Lutherans hold that it is the person who chooses damnation and resists God. From what I understand, the Catholic Church teaches that one can choose to accept or reject God’s grace, while Lutherans believe that God does all of the choosing work, since man is so depraved and lost in sin. Outside of that difference, I thought Catholics and Lutherans were pretty close. Am I wrong?

Finally, predestination isn’t something that I’ve ever seen Lutherans focus much on or worry about. Lutherans look to Christ and trust in him for salvation. Lastly, I would argue that the Lutheran teachings on these matters are not new and had existed in the undivided Church for centuries.
Click to expand...
You are generally correct. Lutherans teach that died for all, and He wants all to be saved. But not all will, by their own choosing. Lutherans reject double predestination.
 
SojournerOnEarth said:
You are are Catholic and I am not. You are free to pick and choose whatever you want to believe, and to decide what is and is not de fide. I see what the Church is teaching.
Click to expand...
I believe you are confused from what the Church officially teaches with opinions from learned theologians and make a false impression on the Church, when she speaks in the spirit of Vatican II.

Luther’s theology is what is being presented here which never rose to the level of divine revelation, although Protestants will debate Sola Scriptura, Sola fide is not a man made doctrine. The theologians, biblical scholars ,historians and Doctors who comment on Luther’s theology are moving in the spirit of Vatican II.

In short FYI, Vatican II documents clearly define the difference between what is Ecumenism and what is reconciliation. The Church is making Ecumenical efforts in the Spirit of Vatican II, thus we find certain theological expressions from Martin Luther (ex-Catholic) to be in agreement with our theologians are not necessarily the official Church teaching, which you appear to be contradicting.

In the spirit of Vatican II, Ecumenical Church efforts are to be made to our Orthodox (Catholic) brethren who are in schism (tear) with the Chair of Peter. Whereby Re conciliatory efforts are to be made to our separated (Protestants, non-catholic Christians) brethren.

Back to the OP In my opinion, Martin Luther did not betray Jesus as Judas did. Martin Luther, kicked at the goad, as did Saul of Tarsus did, who persecuted the body of Christ, His Church.

Martin Luther’s self infallible doctrine of Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, when used to protest against the Chair of Peter, Sacred Tradition revealed from Sacred Scripture. Kicks at the goad, that has lead to much separation of Christians and divisions among Protestant communities which is a self hurting for example;.When Jesus rebuked Saul (who would soon become the apostle Paul) for kicking against the goads, He was telling the proud Pharisee that he was only hurting himself in resisting the truth and teaching of Christ. The more he resisted the more he suffered. The harder he kicked the deeper the goad drove into his flesh.https://goodnewsfl.org/kicking_against_the_goadsthe_meaning_and_message/

When Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide are used in the context of theology (and not a man made doctrine binding on all it’s believers), when our Catholic Saints used these terms. They create an atmosphere of deeper faith in the Sacred Apostolic Traditions and trust in Jesus Christ Magisterium who are bound to a Sola Scriptura, Sola fide, Sola Gracia practiced in the Apostolic Sacred Traditions.

That said, I have no problem with theological documents that may find acceptance with some of Martin Luther’s theological expressions of the Apostolic Catholic faith. But I would add, no Catholic theologian would ever accept Martin Luther’s Sola Scriptura, Sola fide as a Doctrine, binding on all believers, when these same theologians never have the power to do so.

Peace be with you
 
Last edited:
“In fact, he radically altered some of the core beliefs of Christianity. He denied free will - 100% opposing Christ’s teaching via His Church. He wrote Melanchthon that one thousand mortal sins in a day would have no effect on his justification before God - again, 100% against Catholic teaching and 100% nonsense.”
Click to expand...
This is flat out incorrect. I’ll assume that you simply have some serious misconceptions about Luther and Lutheran teaching, and that you are not intentionally misleading.

Firstly, Lutherans do not deny free will; Lutherans do believe that humans are free to turn away from God and reject Christ’s gift. What Lutherans do deny is that we can, by any work of our own and without the Spirit, come to Christ.

Secondly, the letter to which you refer was between good friends who already understood how justification takes place. They were speaking informally and frankly between friends, not laying out perfectly-worded theological treatises. (Much like your Francis’s off-the-cuff responses. Roman Catholics love to play “gotcha!” with Luther like the press does with the pope.) Luther was simply saying that there is practically no sin (besides the unforgivable sin) that God will not forgive if repentance is sincere - a truth that the deeply distressed Melanchthon needed to hear. He was helping his downtrodden friend, for goodness sakes!
“The fact that millions came to believe in him and follow him (honoring him by naming their communion after him) is evidence only of human persuasiveness and gullibility. Look at the LDS and JWs. Millions of them.”
Click to expand...
Really? You’re going to blame a monk from the 1500s for the existence of two not-even-Christian cults that came around 350 years later? Never mind the fact that no Lutheran individuals played any part in their formation and that no Lutheran body today (not even the Lutheran-in-name-only ELCA) considers those groups Christian? Will you also, then, be blaming Pope Leo X for Lutheranism and Zwibglianism? Better throw in the Anabaptists, too!
 
steido01 said:
Firstly, Lutherans do not deny free will;
Click to expand...
“[O]mnipotence and foreknowledge of God, I repeat, utterly destroy the doctrine of ‘free-will’.” - Martin Luther (Bondage of the Will)

Merely confessing to believe in ‘free will’ will not suffice much.

“So also when Luther says that with respect to his conversion man is pure passive (purely passive), that is, does nothing whatever towards it, but only suffers what God works in him, his meaning is not that conversion takes place without the preaching and hearing of God’s Word; nor is this his meaning, that in conversion no new emotion whatever is awakened in us by the Holy Ghost and no spiritual operation begun; but he means that man of himself, or from his natural powers, cannot do anything or help towards his conversion, and that conversion is not only in part, but altogether an operation, gift, and present, and work of the Holy Ghost alone, who accomplishes and effects it by His power and might, through the Word, in the intellect, will, and heart of man, tamquam in subiecto patiente, that is, while man does or works nothing, but only suffers; not as a figure is cut into stone or a seal impressed into wax, which knows nothing of it, neither perceives and wills this, but in the way which has been recounted and explained a short while ago.” - The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, II. Free Will or Human Powers, 89

That is not free will. That is a distortion of free will. More or less, that description is coercion and/or cajoling by the Holy Spirit against man’s liberty. Hence:

“If anyone says that man’s free will moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God’s call and action, in no way cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification, that it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive, let him be anathema.” - Canon 4, Session VI, Council of Trent
 
You really don’t need to quote Luther and your communion’s private Council at me. I know full well what they say. I was responding to how you misrepresented Lutheran beliefs. (Besides, half of the anathema you posted doesn’t even apply to Lutherans, who do believe that one can choose --via free will-- to refuse the gift!)

With regard to justification, Lutherans do not pretend free will exists. To do so would essentially say that man saves himself, not Christ saving man. Obviously.

But I perceive that was not the sense you meant it in your post. I’m fairly certain of this considering you also tried to paint Lutherans as antinomians. (As false a claim as could be made!) Might I suggest that you put down whatever source you’re pulling your info from, and actually read some Lutheran primary sources before you start trying to say what you presume Lutherans believe? Otherwise you’ll continue to embarrass yourself.
 
Last edited:
steido01 said:
You really don’t need to quote Luther and your communion’s private Council at me. I know full well what they say. I was responding to how you misrepresented Lutheran beliefs. (Besides, half of the anathema you posted doesn’t even apply to Lutherans, who do believe that one can choose --via free will-- to refuse the gift!)

With regard to justification, Lutherans do not pretend free will exists. To do so would essentially say that man saves himself, not Christ saving man. Obviously.

But I perceive that was not the sense you meant it in your post. I’m fairly certain of this considering you also tried to paint Lutherans as antinomians. (As false a claim as could be made!) Might I suggest that you put down whatever source you’re pulling your info from, and actually read some Lutheran primary sources before you start trying to say what you presume Lutherans believe? Otherwise you’ll continue to embarrass yourself.
Click to expand...
I quoted directly from Luther’s “Bondage of the Will” and from the Book of Concord.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top