Other Christian denomination responses?

[flightkid]

I thought this was a great quote from the Reformer Martin Luther. I hope we all as Christians work towards unity again like Christ asked. Any thoughts from other denominations on this quote?

“I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St, Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”

Martin Luther to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519
more than a year after the Ninety-Five Theses
quoted in The Facts about Luther, 356

 

[happygardener]

The intent of the Reformers, including Luther, was to reform the Church of what they saw as negligence and abuse of Christian principles, not to separate from it. This letter was part of Luther’s effort to reconcile with the pope (though the letter includes no retraction of Luther’s basic doctinal points), and my understanding is that the letter may never have been actually mailed to the pope). In any case, Pope Leo X’s eventual response was to excommunicate Luther (Jan 3, 1521), essentially establishing schism.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The intent of the Reformers, including Luther, was to reform the Church of what they saw as negligence and abuse of Christian principles, not to separate from it. This letter was part of Luther’s effort to reconcile with the pope (though the letter includes no retraction of Luther’s basic doctinal points), and my understanding is that the letter may never have been actually mailed to the pope). In any case, Pope Leo X’s eventual response was to excommunicate Luther (Jan 3, 1521), essentially establishing schism.

So if it was never mailed, as some speculate, was it not what was in Martin’s Luther’s heart at the time he wrote it?

Wasn’t Martin Luther offered a chance to ‘recant’ and avoid an excommunication, thus allowing him the opportunity to stay within the Church and seek ‘reform’?

 

[Vile_Servant]

The intent of the Reformers, including Luther, was to reform the Church of what they saw as negligence and abuse of Christian principles, not to separate from it. This letter was part of Luther’s effort to reconcile with the pope (though the letter includes no retraction of Luther’s basic doctinal points), and my understanding is that the letter may never have been actually mailed to the pope). In any case, Pope Leo X’s eventual response was to excommunicate Luther (Jan 3, 1521), essentially establishing schism.

“These things are clearer than the light to all men; and the Church of Rome, formerly the most holy of all Churches, has become the most lawless den of thieves, the most shameless of all brothels, the very kingdom of sin, death, and hell; so that not even antichrist, if he were to come, could devise any addition to its wickedness.”

• Excerpt of letter from Martin Luther to Pope Leo X.
  Wittenberg, 6th September, 1520.

Just listen to the language Martin Luther used to describe the Roman Catholic Church.
Would any Lutheran, or Protestant for that matter, agree with Martin Luther’s polemic today? If not, will they accept that the gates of hell have not prevailed against Christ’s Church, and the Rock upon which it was founded?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I thought this was a great quote from the Reformer Martin Luther. I hope we all as Christians work towards unity again like Christ asked. Any thoughts from other denominations on this quote?

“I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St, Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”

Martin Luther to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519
more than a year after the Ninety-Five Theses
quoted in The Facts about Luther, 356

I wholly agree with Luther.

Of course, we need to remember that that Catholic Church excommunicated him, thus made the schism. Luther decried that, and so do I. I don’t think any was “guiltless” in that whole very sad chapter, but nonetheless, The Catholic Church did what it did and thus shattered itself. It wasn’t the first time.

At this very early stage, Luther still believed that Christian charity and love and embrace would easily resolve the issues, and that Rome desired such. Many today fault him greatly for his innocence - and eventually, he would look back and fault himself, too. But I think he was sincere in what he said - and I share his heart completely. Even now.

Sadly, things are worse now. Trent, in many ways, burned all the bridges behind The Catholic Church. And there has been a chain of actions on its part to widen the gap - including the dogmatization of the Infallibility of the Papacy (among several other issues). All those anathemas, condemnations, etc. - all under the insistence of self being incapable of error - makes it terribly hard to undo what it did. And yes, Lutherans said a lot of things, too (albeit none under the heading of infallible/unaccountable). So, I see any mending as EXTREMELY difficult, especially from the RCC side. Not just in this regard, but 1054 and 451 too.

.

 

[greggy53]

I wholly agree with Luther.

Of course, we need to remember that that Catholic Church excommunicated him, thus made the schism. Luther decried that, and so do I. I don’t think any was “guiltless” in that whole very sad chapter, but nonetheless, The Catholic Church did what it did and thus shattered itself. It wasn’t the first time.

At this very early stage, Luther still believed that Christian charity and love and embrace would easily resolve the issues, and that Rome desired such. Many today fault him greatly for his innocence - and eventually, he would look back and fault himself, too. But I think he was sincere in what he said - and I share his heart completely. Even now.

Sadly, things are worse now. Trent, in many ways, burned all the bridges behind The Catholic Church. And there has been a chain of actions on its part to widen the gap - including the dogmatization of the Infallibility of the Papacy (among several other issues). All those anathemas, condemnations, etc. - all under the insistence of self being incapable of error - makes it terribly hard to undo what it did. And yes, Lutherans said a lot of things, too (albeit none under the heading of infallible/unaccountable). So, I see any mending as EXTREMELY difficult, especially from the RCC side. Not just in this regard, but 1054 and 451 too.

I don’t believe the Church “shattered” itself. Luther embraced heresies incompatible with 1500 years of Christian belief. It was Luther and the other so called reformers that did the “shattering”, which is self evident today with over 10,000 Protestant denominations. This “shattering “ continues splitting and dividing into new denominations. The Catholic Church remains the one Apostolic, and universal Christian Church and has remained so for 2000 years.

 

[Vile_Servant]

I wholly agree with Luther.

Of course, we need to remember that that Catholic Church excommunicated him, thus made the schism. Luther decried that, and so do I. I don’t think any was “guiltless” in that whole very sad chapter, but nonetheless, The Catholic Church did what it did and thus shattered itself. It wasn’t the first time.

At this very early stage, Luther still believed that Christian charity and love and embrace would easily resolve the issues, and that Rome desired such. Many today fault him greatly for his innocence - and eventually, he would look back and fault himself, too. But I think he was sincere in what he said - and I share his heart completely. Even now.

Sadly, things are worse now. Trent, in many ways, burned all the bridges behind The Catholic Church. And there has been a chain of actions on its part to widen the gap - including the dogmatization of the Infallibility of the Papacy (among several other issues). All those anathemas, condemnations, etc. - all under the insistence of self being incapable of error - makes it terribly hard to undo what it did. And yes, Lutherans said a lot of things, too (albeit none under the heading of infallible/unaccountable). So, I see any mending as EXTREMELY difficult, especially from the RCC side. Not just in this regard, but 1054 and 451 too.

.

Hypothetical scenario:

You are the leader of the worldwide Lutheran Church, and one of your Lutherans has decided to publicly split away from the Lutheran Church, and writes to you saying that the Lutheran Church has become “the most lawless den of thieves, the most shameless of all brothels, the very kingdom of sin, death, and hell; so that not even antichrist, if he were to come, could devise any addition to its wickedness.”

What would you do?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Martin Luther should’ve recanted and avoided excommunication. Instead, he built another Church. Man cannot improve on what Christ built, and we all know that eventually a reform did take place in the Catholic Church.

 

[JonNC]

“These things are clearer than the light to all men; and the Church of Rome, formerly the most holy of all Churches, has become the most lawless den of thieves, the most shameless of all brothels, the very kingdom of sin, death, and hell; so that not even antichrist, if he were to come, could devise any addition to its wickedness.”

• Excerpt of letter from Martin Luther to Pope Leo X.
  Wittenberg, 6th September, 1520.

Just listen to the language Martin Luther used to describe the Roman Catholic Church.
Would any Lutheran, or Protestant for that matter, agree with Martin Luther’s polemic today? If not, will they accept that the gates of hell have not prevailed against Christ’s Church, and the Rock upon which it was founded?

I would agree with Luther that at that time what he said had a element of truth, though his polemics and hyperbole sound harsh to our modern ears. I would not agree that those words apply today to the Catholic Church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and I don’t believe he would either.
But the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church - the communion of saints - not because of anything sinful human beings Rome or Antioch or Wittenburg do, but because of what Christ did.

 

[JonNC]

Martin Luther should’ve recanted and avoided excommunication. Instead, he built another Church. Man cannot improve on what Christ built, and we all know that eventually a reform did take place in the Catholic Church.

And that reform included some of the things those corrupt men in the Church wanted Luther to recant. IOW, in order to protect a flow of revenue, they wanted Luther to recant Truth. There he stood. He could do no other.

Luther did not, could not, start another Church. There is only one Church, the congregation of believers, the communion of saints, of which you and I both are members.

Jon

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Hypothetical scenario:

You are the leader of the worldwide Lutheran Church, and one of your Lutherans has decided to publicly split away from the Lutheran Church, and writes to you saying that the Lutheran Church has become “the most lawless den of thieves, the most shameless of all brothels, the very kingdom of sin, death, and hell; so that not even antichrist, if he were to come, could devise any addition to its wickedness.”

What would you do?

Read the opening post. Read the 95 Thesis. What you are assuming was the case, simply isn’t the reality.

You are correct, many fault Luther for his innocence at this stage. Many today fault him for not realizing that one that insists that self and self alone is incapable of error is also incapable of correction or examination - and that no reform is possible. But, as the opening post correctly reveals, Luther began with a heart of respect and a desire to work within his denomination; he wanted - and expected - things to be discussed openly, honestly, with a concern for truth rather than for protecting power/authority. Read the quote in the opening post. THAT is how Luther began. The response changed things. And not for the better. As a Lutheran now, I lament that chapter in our history and I don’t regard any as faultless for what happened; if Luther’s spirit was well placed, if truth had mattered more than power, if all the politics and polemics had been avoided - maybe it would have had a very different outcome. I tend to think so. But all that is moot now. The Catholic Church split itself, made sure to burn every single bride it could behind it, and has been intent on widening the gap ever since. Early Lutheranism did little better. While you defend all that, I regard it as sad.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Luther did not, could not, start another Church. There is only one Church, the congregation of believers, the communion of saints, of which you and I both are members.

Jon

.

 

[Vile_Servant]

And that reform included some of the things those corrupt men in the Church wanted Luther to recant. IOW, in order to protect a flow of revenue, they wanted Luther to recant Truth. There he stood. He could do no other.

Luther did not, could not, start another Church. There is only one Church, the congregation of believers, the communion of saints, of which you and I both are members.

Jon

unfortunately, the “congregation of believers” as you describe do not believe the same doctrine, and do not agree on the teaching authority of the one Church (Matthew 28:18-20, Acts 20:28, Titus 1:7-9, 3 John 9)

 

[JonNC]

unfortunately, the “congregation of believers” as you describe do not believe the same doctrine, and do not agree on the teaching authority of the one Church (Matthew 28:18-20, Acts 20:28, Titus 1:7-9, 3 John 9)

You state the obvious, and it is unfortunate, because schism has wounded His Church and ministry. Since the one Church is divided and in schism, that teaching authority is similarly divided. I guess it comes down to, at least in part, a disagreement between us on whether or not that authority rests exclusively with the Bishop of Rome and the Magisterium, even though that exclusivity is not found in scripture, no other communion agrees with Rome regarding it, nor is that exclusive authority found in the early Church (Tradition).

Jon

 

[Vile_Servant]

Read the opening post. Read the 95 Thesis. What you are assuming was the case, simply isn’t the reality.

You are correct, many fault Luther for his innocence at this stage. Many today fault him for not realizing that one that insists that self and self alone is incapable of error is also incapable of correction or examination - and that no reform is possible. But, as the opening post correctly reveals, Luther began with a heart of respect and a desire to work within his denomination; he wanted - and expected - things to be discussed openly, honestly, with a concern for truth rather than for protecting power/authority. Read the quote in the opening post. THAT is how Luther began. The response changed things. And not for the better. As a Lutheran now, I lament that chapter in our history and I don’t regard any as faultless for what happened; if Luther’s spirit was well placed, if truth had mattered more than power, if all the politics and polemics had been avoided - maybe it would have had a very different outcome. I tend to think so. But all that is moot now. The Catholic Church split itself, made sure to burn every single bride it could behind it, and has been intent on widening the gap ever since. Early Lutheranism did little better. While you defend all that, I regard it as sad.

To be fair, you should also read what Pope Leo X wrote in response to Martin Luther;

CONDEMNING THE ERRORS OF MARTIN LUTHER
Exsurge Domine
Papal Bull of Pope Leo X issued June 15, 1520 (excerpts)

“As far as Martin himself is concerned, O good God, what have we overlooked or not done? What fatherly charity have we omitted that we might call him back from such errors? For after we had cited him, wishing to deal more kindly with him, we urged him through various conferences with our legate and through our personal letters to abandon these errors. We have even offered him safe conduct and the money necessary for the journey urging him to come without fear or any misgivings, which perfect charity should cast out, and to talk not secretly but openly and face to face after the example of our Savior and the Apostle Paul. If he had done this, we are certain he would have changed in heart, and he would have recognized his errors. He would not have found all these errors in the Roman Curia which he attacks so viciously, ascribing to it more than he should because of the empty rumors of wicked men. We would have shown him clearer than the light of day that the Roman pontiffs, our predecessors, whom he injuriously attacks beyond all decency, never erred in their canons or constitutions which he tries to assail. For, according to the prophet, neither is healing oil nor the doctor lacking in Galaad.”

“Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures. Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church.”

“Therefore let Martin himself and all those adhering to him, and those who shelter and support him, through the merciful heart of our God and the sprinkling of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ by which and through whom the redemption of the human race and the upbuilding of holy mother Church was accomplished, know that from our heart we exhort and beseech that he cease to disturb the peace, unity, and truth of the Church for which the Savior prayed so earnestly to the Father. Let him abstain from his pernicious errors that he may come back to us. If they really will obey, and certify to us by legal documents that they have obeyed, they will find in us the affection of a father’s love, the opening of the font of the effects of paternal charity, and opening of the font of mercy and clemency.”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And that reform included some of the things those corrupt men in the Church wanted Luther to recant. IOW, in order to protect a flow of revenue, they wanted Luther to recant Truth. There he stood. He could do no other.

Luther did not, could not, start another Church. There is only one Church, the congregation of believers, the communion of saints, of which you and I both are members.

Jon

Reform did come. Now what’s to prevent the Churches from coming back together?

It seems some of Martin Luther’s beliefs have been ‘watered down’, or changed if you prefer. Almost as quickly as Martin Luther made his defense that his interpretation was all that mattered, some of his own followers used the same defense as they left his Church.

Another poster seems to want to hold to sinful actions of people being burned at the stake and Churches against the Catholic Church, but failed to mention that similar mistakes were made by Luther.

I’m open to explanations of Luther’s attitude towards the Jews and his view of the German peasant revolt in 1525. I’m also open to not dragging either sides mistakes through the mud as if it somehow pertains to the Churches of today.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You state the obvious, and it is unfortunate, because schism has wounded His Church and ministry. Since the one Church is divided and in schism, that teaching authority is similarly divided. I guess it comes down to, at least in part, a disagreement between us on whether or not that authority rests exclusively with the Bishop of Rome and the Magisterium, even though that exclusivity is not found in scripture, no other communion agrees with Rome regarding it, nor is that exclusive authority found in the early Church (Tradition).

Jon

Hello Jon,

Would you care to share where Martin Luther expressed those sentiments? I was under the impression that Luther found objection with those in authority during his era. I did not realize that he doubted the authority established by Christ through the Apostles, with Peter as the leader, which is scriptural and appears to be subject to interpretational differences among our Churches of today.

 

[JonNC]

=Prodigal Son1;6341863]Reform did come. Now what’s to prevent the Churches from coming back together?

Nothing but human sin. the same question can be asked about Rome and Orthodoxy, and that schism is twice as old as ours.

It seems some of Martin Luther’s beliefs have been ‘watered down’, or changed if you prefer. Almost as quickly as Martin Luther made his defense that his interpretation was all that mattered, some of his own followers used the same defense as they left his Church.

Do you have some names?

Another poster seems to want to hold to sinful actions of people being burned at the stake against the Catholic Church, but failed to mention that similar mistakes were made by Luther.

Other posters may say as they wish. I do not hold those events against today’s CC. Are those actions now denounced? Of course. Would Rome practice them again if they had the power? Of course, not.

I’m open to explanations of Luther’s attitude towards the Jews

There is no explanation, certainly no excuse, for the words Luther turned to near the end of his life regarding the Jews, any more than there is for similar words from Ecke and many others of that time. Again, we join together in rejecting both the anti-semitism of recent time, and the anti-judaism of that time.

I’m also open to not dragging either sides mistakes through the mud as if it somehow pertains to the Churches of today.

I am in complete agreement with you on this. None of these things should influence the relationship we as members of His Church have with each other, or the dialogue our communions participate in.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hello Jon,

Would you care to share where Martin Luther expressed those sentiments? I was under the impression that Luther found objection with those in authority during his era. I did not realize that he doubted the authority established by Christ through the Apostles, with Peter as the leader, which is scriptural and appears to be subject to interpretational differences among our Churches of today.

He probably accepted it, as you say, since he was (and we still are) of the Western Church. However, in 1537 the Lutheran reformers accepted this document, now part of our Confessions, and while I reject some of the polemics in it, the thrust of the document leaves me so full of doubts about universal jurisdiction.

bookofconcord.org/treatise.php

Jon

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Do you have some names?

I do not have names and learned of reformers splitting away through a study group. I will try to go back and see if there are specific names and sources, if you wish. It might take me sometime to gather it together.

Outside of specific names, the splits are quite evident or there would only be a Catholic Church and a Lutheran Church. Once one looks into all the different denominations, one discovers many differences in beliefs between them all.