Questions regarding Martin Luther...

[joe370]

Just prior to Martin Luther’s excommunication, had he already begun to fully embrace the following? I ask because I am not 100% certain?

The Bible is the only source of faith and it contains the plenary inspiration of God?

Human nature has been totally corrupted by original sin, and man, accordingly, is deprived of free will?

The hierarchy and ministerial priesthood of the catholic church are not divinely instituted and therefore a body of specially trained and ordained ministers of reconciliation to dispense the mysteries of God, is needless, and a usurpation, something embraced by most, (not all) - protestants?

Ceremonial or exterior worship is not essential or useful and ecclesiastical vestments, pilgrimages, mortification’s, monastic vows, prayers for the dead, intercession of saints, avail the soul nothing?

All sacraments, with the exception of baptism, Holy Eucharist, and penance, are rejected?

Since a body of specially trained and ordained ministerial priests is unnecessary to dispense the mysteries of God, anyone comprising the universal priesthood of the baptized can dispense the following mysteries of God: baptism, Eucharist and penance?

There is no visible Church, or one specially established by God whereby men may work out their salvation?

Total rejection of church authority (the Papacy)?

The abolishment of ecclesiastical feasts and fasts?

Rejection of the Mass for the dead?

 

[Lonely_guy]

RCC is the first Christian church so I think we can say that it do what God told it to do. If you have faith and love Christ you don’t need to know what church is the “right” one. All what the RCC do is to help us on our journey to heaven. Nothing is to much nor less. If you have doubts you need to pray and then talk to your priest. And ML? Well,I think he did try to do right but it went wrong. He never saw that a church in order to be of any us to Jesus need all what it have.

 

[joe370]

RCC is the first Christian church so I think we can say that it do what God told it to do. If you have faith and love Christ you don’t need to know what church is the “right” one. All what the RCC do is to help us on our journey to heaven. Nothing is to much nor less. If you have doubts you need to pray and then talk to your priest. And ML? Well,I think he did try to do right but it went wrong. He never saw that a church in order to be of any us to Jesus need all what it have.

Doubts???

 

[Holly3278]

Here are some links that may help you with your questions Joe:

WAS LUTHER REALLY LIKE, AFTER ALL?

A Doctrinal Catechism for Protestants

The second link is a catechism in question and answer format which does have an Imprimatur. If you read the first two parts which are entitled “Rise and Progress of Protestantism” and “Luther’s Reformation Not the Work of God” you will find many answers about Martin Luther and how he responded to the way that the Catholic Church responded to him.

 

[Holly3278]

Here are some links that may help you with your questions Joe:

WAS LUTHER REALLY LIKE, AFTER ALL?

A Doctrinal Catechism for Protestants

The second link is a catechism in question and answer format which does have an Imprimatur. If you read the first two parts which are entitled “Rise and Progress of Protestantism” and “Luther’s Reformation Not the Work of God” you will find many answers about Martin Luther and how he responded to the way that the Catholic Church responded to him.

I wanted to edit the post that I quoted of mine but I no longer have the ability to do so. That said, I was going to edit to add that I don’t know if these links are doctrinally sound or not. I was browsing the main site and visited their section on Vatican II. They have a number of lengthy articles attacking Vatican II which I don’t have the time to read. Therefore, I would be cautious when reading these links I offered because I am not sure if they are orthodox in nature or not. As far as I know, the site could be a Sedevacantist site that simply isn’t up front about that.

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;8597213]Just prior to Martin Luther’s excommunication, had he already begun to fully embrace the following? I ask because I am not 100% certain?

Joe, I don’t know the timelines, but just some responses. And btw, I do remember you posting Luther’s letter to Pope Leo X, so that might give you an inkling to some of the questions.

Human nature has been totally corrupted by original sin, and man, accordingly, is deprived of free will?

Only deprived of free will in terms of coming to faith by our own actions is where he ended up, from my understanding. Lutherans certainly accept the idea that we are free to reject grace, and we reject double predestination.

The hierarchy and ministerial priesthood of the catholic church are not divinely instituted and therefore a body of specially trained and ordained ministers of reconciliation to dispense the mysteries of God, is needless, and a usurpation, something embraced by most, (not all) - protestants?

Augsburg accepts a ministerial priesthood, as you know. It is true, however, that we view orders as a human tradition, but it isn’t rejected, either.

Ceremonial or exterior worship is not essential or useful and ecclesiastical vestments, pilgrimages, mortification’s, monastic vows, prayers for the dead, intercession of saints, avail the soul nothing?

That’s a lot of different subjects. What are you asking?

All sacraments, with the exception of baptism, Holy Eucharist, and penance, are rejected?

No, not rejected. We simply define sacrament in a slightly different way - instituted by Christ Himself, in which God Himself has joined His Word of promise to the visible element; by which He offers, gives and seals the forgiveness of sin earned by Christ.
But all the other Catholic sacraments are practiced in Lutheranism, we just call them rites.
The numbering of the sacraments is not a huge issue for us.

Since a body of specially trained and ordained ministerial priests is unnecessary to dispense the mysteries of God, anyone comprising the universal priesthood of the baptized can dispense the following mysteries of God: baptism, Eucharist and penance?

Completely rejected by the Augsburg Confession in Article XIV.

There is no visible Church, or one specially established by God whereby men may work out their salvation?

No. See Augsburg VII

Total rejection of church authority (the Papacy)?

I don’t this is entirely true, either, though it is quite safe to say that he thought, and Lutherans think the primacy then and now is not what Nicea intended.

The abolishment of ecclesiastical feasts and fasts?

Such as?

Rejection of the Mass for the dead?

Yes, and I would suspect this was prior to his excommunication.

One thing that also must be understood is that just because Luther thought a thing, doesn’t mean Lutherans do.

Jon

 

[ALotLessThumb]

With apologies to our reformed brethren,

It is a scandal that we cannot heal the schism with our evangelical brothers and sisters in the Lutheran Church.

Too much time has passed to establish a “cut-off” date, but up until 1525, possibly even 1530, so much of what Luther preached can be found in Catholic tradition and can pass ‘ecumenical councils.’ (For example, Luther didn’t drop Purgatory until the 1530s’ according to Diarmind MacCullogh’s Reformation.)

The biggest tragedy is that Cardinal Cajetan spoke to Luther at a poor time. The Cardinal had not yet read up and turned his mind towards the indulgences issue, and the internal conflicts in the Church between orders and princes did the most damage.

The biggest stumbling block is still the nature of grace…but how many solas, as taught by Luther, could be found in the medieval Church? How much of Luther’s problems derived from the teaching for Aristotelian nominalism?

Sola Christus, Sola Scriptura*, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide were not necessarily foreign inventions. As a Catholic, I cannot say anything positive about Luther, who contributed to tearing the Church apart with his disobedience and breaking of vows. This does not portray a reliable branch from first glance.

But I also recognize the role the temporal world played in the schism; the ‘end of the world’ fervor sweeping all of Europe at the time, and how we are all the poorer for what should be an easier reconciliation than some.

*It has always been my impression that, at least early on, Scripture Alone wasn’t a call to only consider the Bible an authority, but a rejection of Scholasticism and pagan sources for a Christian ethic. This rejection of the attempt to “philosophize” everything wasn’t new or controversial and there were many during the Reformation, especially amongst the Augustinian monks, who advocated this position.

 

[JonNC]

With apologies to our reformed brethren,

It is a scandal that we cannot heal the schism with our evangelical brothers and sisters in the Lutheran Church.

Too much time has passed to establish a “cut-off” date, but up until 1525, possibly even 1530, so much of what Luther preached can be found in Catholic tradition and can pass ‘ecumenical councils.’ (For example, Luther didn’t drop Purgatory until the 1530s’ according to Diarmind MacCullogh’s Reformation.)

The biggest tragedy is that Cardinal Cajetan spoke to Luther at a poor time. The Cardinal had not yet read up and turned his mind towards the indulgences issue, and the internal conflicts in the Church between orders and princes did the most damage.

The biggest stumbling block is still the nature of grace…but how many solas, as taught by Luther, could be found in the medieval Church? How much of Luther’s problems derived from the teaching for Aristotelian nominalism?

Sola Christus, Sola Scriptura (as taught early by Luther), Sola Gratia, Sola Fide were not necessarily foreign inventions. As a Catholic, I cannot say anything positive about Luther, who contributed to tearing the Church apart with his disobedience and breaking of vows. This does not portray a reliable branch from first glance.

But I also recognize the role the temporal world played in the schism; the ‘end of the world’ fervor sweeping all of Europe at the time, and how we are all the poorer for what should be an easier reconciliation than some.

I think yours is a reasonably measured, and certainly Catholic, response.

Jon

 

[ALotLessThumb]

I think yours is a reasonably measured, and certainly Catholic, response.

Jon

Which is obviously the biggest stumbling block. There is a fine line to walk between patronizing and ecumenism and syncretism must be avoided while each side expresses themselves.

I think it is the wrong approach to be either too harsh of Luther’s vices and too lax in praising his virtues. For if there were ever a time Luther, the man, was relevant, it is today’s world of atomization. In today’s world, I can see Luther’s struggle in each of us. So his virtues and vices are still very real because they are our own. So when I look at his view of the contrariety and theology of the Cross, I find it fascinating and understand that in many ways, his teachings help cut through modernity right to the Gospel.

But I can’t help but see how he helped create that modernity that so utterly rejects God. I see Marsilius of Padua and the Theologica Germanicus and Meister Eckhart in Luther as much as I see Augustine and the Church Fathers. I can’t help but view Luther as a type of messenger whose greatest insight was the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. The Modern World is that Captivity, in my opinion, more so than uneasy balance and struggle between the pagan/archaic European tribes in relation to the Universal Church. At the same time, the amount of people who tried to rein Luther in by the invoking of authority showed how rotted through the old order had become. As a Catholic, there is a real problem in separating what was inherited and adopted from Roman culture and what wasn’t. There is a coloring; just I see the coloring of the old Germanic tribes on the Reforming nations- the individuality, the offending of God’s justice as opposed to honor, a certain asceticism and cosmos that wasn’t a Greco-Roman vessel.

We are a communion with the Christian ethic, and though I cannot say Lutherans are in that full communion, there is an importance to the Lutheran mission for the plan of salvation. His ways are not our ways.

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

Joe, I don’t know the timelines, but just some responses. And btw, I do remember you posting Luther’s letter to Pope Leo X, so that might give you an inkling to some of the questions.

I have been doing some reading (of course one must be careful what one embraces on line) - and it appears that Martin Luther condemned and rejected the very idea of the papacy, viewing it as an invention? Did he really refer to Papacy as an institution of the Devil?

Only deprived of free will in terms of coming to faith by our own actions is where he ended up, from my understanding. Lutherans certainly accept the idea that we are free to reject grace, and we reject double predestination.

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;8598648]I have been doing some reading (of course one must be careful what one embraces on line) - and it appears that Martin Luther condemned and rejected the very idea of the papacy, viewing it as an invention? **Did he really refer to Papacy as an institution of the Devil? :**confused:

Probably. Of course, he saved his harsh words for Zwingli

So when he said, “If any man ascribes anything of salvation, even the very least thing, to the free will of man, he knows nothing of grace, and he has not learned Jesus Christ rightly” - he was speaking in terms of how wrong it is for man/woman to attempt to come to faith by their own actions without the grace of God? That makes sense.

That’s the way I understand it. That’s the way I believe it to be.

A good friend of mine (Lutheran) was telling me that ML wanted to abolish all holy days except the Lord’s day, including catholic feast days, but he didn’t mention which one’s ergo my question. He also mentioned that ML wanted to do away with the practice of clergy wearing ornate vestments, (claiming that it was potentially idolatry) - as well as mortification, a monastic life, and ceremonial worship. He mentioned that ML was not a sacramental guy when it came to liturgical worship. I am almost positive he is wrong, but not 100%.

I would want to see a source for any of this. Goodness, Lutherans use what’s known as “Luther’s Mass”. I believe Luther was far more “Catholic” than some want to give him credit for.

So Martin Luther himself, as opposed to Augsburg VII, embraced all 7 Rites?

Well, let’s put it this way. Lutherans ordain (Augsburg), have a rite of Confirmation, marriage, and even annoint the sick.

ML believed the need of a body of specially trained and ordained ministerial priests to dispense the mysteries of God for said Rites?

Again, Luther approved Augsburg. Here’s article XIV and XV

Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order.

Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.

Article XV: Of Ecclesiastical Usages.

1] Of Usages in the Church they teach that those ought to be observed which may be observed without sin, and which are profitable unto tranquillity and good order in the Church, as particular holy days, festivals, and the like.

2] Nevertheless, concerning such things men are admonished that consciences are not to be burdened, as though such observance was necessary to salvation.

3] They are admonished also that human traditions instituted to propitiate God, to merit grace, and to make satisfaction for sins, are opposed to the Gospel and the doctrine of faith. Wherefore vows and traditions concerning meats and 4] days, etc., instituted to merit grace and to make satisfaction for sins, are useless and contrary to the Gospel.

Did he, after his excommunication,continue to view the church as being visible and specially established by God whereby a man could “…work out your salvation with fear and trembling”?

Considering the definition of Church in Augsburg that includes “…and administer the sacraments”, it seems to me he did.

Thanks Jon…

Hope I helped. One thing I can say, in general, Luther approved of Augsburg and the Apology, and he wrote the Small and Large Catechism, and Smalkald. ISTM that if anyone says that Luther believed something contradicting these, I would say either he probably didn’t or if he did, it is irrelevent.

Jon

 

[bogeydogg]

I think the single most important thing to remember about Martin Luther is that his chief complaint with the Roman Catholic Church of his day was the selling of indulgences (which Rome never sanctioned) and the abuses of the populace at the hands of priesthood concerning purgatory (such as the selling of indulgences) which were very, very real.

What Luther called for was not a separation from the Church but that the Church would return to the doctrine she had affirmed during times of trial in her past such as the Pelagian and Donatist controversies. Luther was not seeking his own Church but he had come to believe that the practice of the priests derived from the political as well as ecclesiastical power of the Papacy was a detriment to the Church. He sought not to destroy the Church but to change her practice because he thought it had become corrupt. Frankly given some of the reforms that Rome undertook in the following century they admitted, at least implicitly, that he had a point. But it was these excesses which Luther found most disturbing and what he sought was a discussion amongst theologians on these matters. What he failed to grasp was the power of the printing press and that the actions of his students giving his words to the laity would unleash a torrent of controversy he neither sanctioned or sought. Luther never sought to overthrow the Church as the practice of hanging theses in Latin was common among the theologians. What differed in Luther’s Theses was that his students translated them and passed them out as fliers.

It is true Luther did have a great deal of bombast and said many unfortunate things about the Papacy in general when I think he was talking specifically about the practice of the Popes of his time. It is also true he said many disparaging things about Rome but have you read about Rome at that time?

It is also true when that when others, such as Zwingli, sought to undermine the power of the priesthood as well as the Sacraments by making them symbolic that Luther did seek a schism from that group because he felt they had walked away from the Christian faith. In fact some of the harshest criticism Luther ever leveled at anyone were leveled against so-called protestants who sought to bring about changes to the Church’s Doctrine rather than her practice.

Luther is a very interesting study in history of a man who is neither as great as his supporters think nor as wicked as his detractors make him out to be. I think the salient point of his life is that he wanted to reform the Church not remake it and that is the very point lost among the many millions of “Reformed” people who put Calvin’s words in Luther’s mouth and the millions of RCC people who do pretty much the same thing.

God Bless**

 

[joe370]

Hey bogeydogg, I pretty much agree with your last post. Your thoughts on post #1, regarding the following:

Just prior to Martin Luther’s excommunication, had he already begun to fully embrace the idea that the Bible alone was the only source of authoritative truth on a plenary level?

I agree with Jon NC regarding Luther’s take on free will.

Just prior to Martin Luther’s excommunication, had he already begun to fully embrace the idea that both the hierarchy of the CC as well as the ministerial priesthood of the CC were not divinely instituted, meaning that a body of specially trained and ordained ministers, to dispense the mysteries of God, were unnecessary? Or, in your opinion, did he begin to believe that anyone comprising the universal priesthood of the baptized could dispense the mysteries of God? I understand how various Lutheran churches view it today, but I am seeking to view things through Luther’s eyes, just prior to his excommunication.

What was his view of ceremonial or exterior worship? Did it somehow differ from that of the CC of his time, abuses notwithstanding?

What about the wearing of ornate vestments?

What was Luther’s view on mortification, monastic vows, intercession of saints, in your opinion?

Did ML embrace all 7 sacraments in your opinion or just baptism, confession and the Eucharist?

Did he ever begin to deny the notion of a visible Church, or one specially established by God whereby men could work out their salvation?

Do you think he was justified to reject church authority (the Papacy) - due to the corruption of the church, in various places, at that time?

Did Luther ever attempt to abolish any holy days, feast days or fasts?

What about prayer at Mass, for the dead, in your opinion?