Martin Luther

[guanophore]

Contarini,

Thank you for being “polite” with your responses - so many responses. It sounds like you’ve appointed yourself expert. I agree with much of what you’ve said, however, some of your information is distorted, e.g., Luther’s translation of the New Testament. Luther added, not translated the word “faith” to emphasize his own believes. There was not botched attempt to translate this. I’m not saying he did it in malice, but he did what he did. Stop making excuses for both sides. People do what they do, and not always with good intentions. However, I do believe that many of these men did what they did with welling meaning intentions. But it still doesn’t justify their actions. It merely means their culpability MAY have been low.

Edwin has developed his expertise through extensive study and prayer. He is not “making excuses” for anyone, but is doing a very wise job of presenting valid points on both sides of the controversy. His posts are well worth reading, if anyone wishes to develop skills in apologetics. I have learned a lot reading them.

 

[Kamaduck]

It’s always been my understanding that the Church was corrupted in Luther’s day, and even though the teachings of the church may not have been wrong, the clergy were unfairly taking advantage of their parishes and getting them to pay for indulgences. Luther protested against this practice and eventually took issue with the fact that only priests were able to read the bible, so he translated it into German. Somewhere along the way his followers got out of hand and decided to seperate entirely. It is sad that Christianity splintered so much and that there is now so much disagreement among Christ’s followers, but I don’t think it would have been good for the corrupt Church to go unchallenged, as it really was getting people to think they could buy salvation.

That’s mostly understanding I got from my mom when she was thinking of converting to Catholicism. Correct if wrong.

 

[guanophore]

I also agree that Luther’s scrupulosity seems to have played a major role in this, although I don’t think that can be the sole issue, since many other people agreed with him, as you note. I think there was a broad cultural disposition to think badly of human nature–part of the deep concern with order and the potential for chaos and violence. It seemed as if everyone was competing to have a harsher and sterner theology than everyone else, except for a few mavericks.

Yes, to some extent, his theology is a reflection of his scrupulosity, and it also reflects the culture, both religious and secular, in which it occurred.

 

[Richca]

It’s always been my understanding that the Church was corrupted in Luther’s day, and even though the teachings of the church may not have been wrong, the clergy were unfairly taking advantage of their parishes and getting them to pay for indulgences. Luther protested against this practice and eventually took issue with the fact that only priests were able to read the bible, so he translated it into German. Somewhere along the way his followers got out of hand and decided to seperate entirely. It is sad that Christianity splintered so much and that there is now so much disagreement among Christ’s followers, but I don’t think it would have been good for the corrupt Church to go unchallenged, as it really was getting people to think they could buy salvation.

That’s mostly understanding I got from my mom when she was thinking of converting to Catholicism. Correct if wrong.

Hello Kamaduck:
Though there may have been some corrupt practices going on in the Catholic Church in Luther’s day, it would we incorrect to say that the whole Church and all catholics were corrupt. There are a number of holy men and women who lived during this time who were very faithful to the Catholic Church and who have been canonized by the Church and that’s not to mention the very many holy men and women who haven’t been canonized. To name just a few of the canonized saints: St Teresa of Avila, St John of Avila, St Ignatius of Loyola, St Francis Xavier, St Francis Borgia, St Thomas More.

That the clergy needed reform St Ignatius of Loyola also admitted. Again, this is not to say that all the clergy were corrupt. But reform does not mean that the hierarchy of the Church should be abolished or that the teachings of the Church should be abolished. The reform we are talking about here is especially personal reform and conversion. Where Luther went wrong is that he didn’t want to submit to the Pope and bishops, i.e., the hierarchy of the Church. In fact, Luther seems to have had a hatred for the Pope and the Church’s hierarchy. St Ignatius of Loyola is the exact opposite. The members of the order he founded, The Society of Jesus, take a vow of obedience to the Pope. In his Rules for Thinking with the Church, St Ignatius writes:

The First Rule. With all judgement of our own put aside, we ought to keep our minds disposed and ready to be obedient in everything to the true Spouse of Christ our Lord, which is our Holy Mother the hierarchical Church.

Thirteenth Rule. To keep ourselves right in all things, we ought to hold fast to this principle: What seems to me to be white, I will believe to be black if the hierarchical Church thus determines it. For we must undoubtedly believe, that the Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of the Catholic Church His Spouse, by which Spirit we are governed and directed to salvation, is the same.

That Luther may have hoped for some kind of reform of the Church is one thing. But he held to a number of heretical doctrines that were contrary to the faith and teaching of the Catholic Church and he did not recant. Thus, he was excommunicated from the Church in 1521. The rest is history. Many people followed Luther and his teaching and many did not.

You say that the Church was getting people to think that they could buy their salvation. I think here you probably refer to the buying and selling of indulgences. This is an incorrect interpretation of what the Church means by indulgences. You can’t gain or buy your salvation by an indulgence and the Church has never said you could. The gaining of an indulgence is simply the remittance of the temporal punishment attached to sins whose guilt has already been remitted either by confession or other means. In times past, the Church granted indulgences to the faithful who gave money for special works of the Church such as the building of a Church or maybe a hospital or home for the poor. I see nothing wrong with this for giving money for projects such as these is a good work. Apparently, however, there were some abuses and the Church had to reform the practice. Even today, however, we can gain a partial indulgence every time we give compassionately of ourselves or of our goods to serve our brothers or sisters in need. This is the second general grant in the Manual of Indulgences.

 

[fred_conty]

At the time of Martin Luther, the nobility of the European countries wanted the temporal power and land holdings of catholic bishops.

The idea occurred to the nobility that this was their chance to sever their ties with Rome and thereby stop their payments to Rome, for the Pope’s needs. Denying him tribute was a way of keeping more income for themselves, as well as taking control of more land. They saw a way to do this thru Martin Luther. By rallying the people for Luther, and supporting him, this was the answer the rich nobility had of making that break with Rome and taking power and wealth away from the bishops. But not every nobleman or countryman went for it, which resulted in a split in Germany.

The obvious question is, “why didn’t the church send someone to mediate the problems with Martin Luther to avert this?”

When Rome first heard of the unrest, they thought it wasn’t that serious and they took it for granted that it would just die on it’s own. So they chose to ignore it. But then, as it enlarged and became more serious, they did send someone to negotiate a solution, but by that time, it was too late, and the attempt failed.

Rome had the same reaction to a man about 25 to 50 years before Martin Luther, who also attempted to speak his own mind publicly. And Rome felt that it would be best to ignore him, and just let his cause die of its own unimportance. In that case, they guessed right. But in Martin’s case, they guessed wrong because of the support coming from the nobility. The circumstances were different.

Obviously the church should not be put in the position of being a temporal leader or appointing political men in other countries to have worldly control. It is just too much conflict of interest. The church subsequently learned this lesson and changed its’ position and later withdrew.

These ideas can be found in the History of the Catholic Church, by Neil Schmandt.

If we learn anything: to ignore history is to make the same mistakes over.
Finding solutions to work it out in the present, and letting go of the past by forgiving, and pulling for one another in the future…

Peace on earth to men of good will. “Men of good will”, is that a cause, or a result, or both?

Just a few thoughts.

 

[Kamaduck]

Though there may have been some corrupt practices going on in the Catholic Church in Luther’s day, it would we incorrect to say that the whole Church and all catholics were corrupt. There are a number of holy men and women who lived during this time who were very faithful to the Catholic Church and who have been canonized by the Church and that’s not to mention the very many holy men and women who haven’t been canonized. To name just a few of the canonized saints: St Teresa of Avila, St John of Avila, St Ignatius of Loyola, St Francis Xavier, St Francis Borgia, St Thomas More.

You’re right, I was speaking in incorrect generalities. I don’t recognize most of those names (saints are not my forte) but I do remember the story of St. Thomas Moore. I don’t think that most of the church clergy were abusing their power, actually, but it seems it would have been very easy for them to do so. After all, I hear most people, even rulers, couldn’t read Latin and thus couldn’t read scripture for themselves. I know that’s one thing Luther was upset about- if I’m not mistaken he didn’t read the bible until long after he became a monk. When he did, he thought the preists weren’t sticking to it properly.

You say that the Church was getting people to think that they could buy their salvation. I think here you probably refer to the buying and selling of indulgences. This is an incorrect interpretation of what the Church means by indulgences. You can’t gain or buy your salvation by an indulgence and the Church has never said you could.

Yes, that’s what I was referring to. I think that’s what Luther originally took issue with. I didn’t think the Church was actually teaching that you could buy your way into heaven, but I did think that’s what some people got out of it. After all, most people then were not educated and had not read the Bible or the Church writings, so they only knew what their preists told them. Somebody representing the Church wants money or a new cathedral, so they stretch the truth in confusing ways or outright lie about what the indulgences can do and how important they are in order to raise money. That was my impression, that the situation was just really easy to take advantage of. Again, though, my knowledge is rather one-sided as it comes mostly from my (Lutheran) schooling.

That Luther may have hoped for some kind of reform of the Church is one thing. But he held to a number of heretical doctrines that were contrary to the faith and teaching of the Catholic Church and he did not recant.

Yes, I know that story, too… He didn’t do the right thing in going against the Church. Some of the other things he believed were wrong, too, obviously, but then he didn’t have a Catholic Answers to clear up his misunderstandings. I think he was the sort of person who had to understand why he believed what he believed (an attitude I share, and one that led me back here), and when he didn’t understand Church teaching he went back to the source of its authority, as he saw it- God. So yes, he messed up, but I guess I understand why.

Sorry, it’s still hard not to think of him in a positive or at least neutral way. I do understand that he was wrong, though.