Shocking things everyone should know about Luther

[Ginger2]

You know, it is possible that it was not really addressed. If you look at what Luther wrote overall, he was as much attacking indugences and the authority of the pope to grant them as he was the sale of them. It is possible that the pope took more issue with the theological issue of indulgences and missed the finer point of the sale of them.

Not in the beginning. Remember Luther was Catholic and indulgences were instituted long before Pope Leo X. I remember reading comments by Luther in the support of indulgences as well as papal authority. I think I posted something on his support of the Pope earlier.

This was not about indulgences per se. It was about the abuse.

Hopefully we can find this document.

Ginger

 

[josie_L]

You don’t have to do anything you don’t want to do. All I did was ask a question. Can, or will you answer it?

Reteeks it’s not that I didn’t want to answer the question, I’m stating the answer should be obvious, you and I both own a copy of the Bible. You very well know Peter repented and was transformed after the resurrection upon receiving the Holy Spirit. He was martyred for the faith as well, crucified upside down, I think that suggests more than repentance.

 

[Ginger2]

I have never before read Luther’s 95 Theses. But today I took time to see what he said. Keeping in mind the timing and how he had already reported the abuses to no avail, you can still see that he did not reject true teachings of the church, but rather these abuses that led people to sin freely and neglect their Christian duties without consequence simply through the purchase of indulgences.

1. They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].
2. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone.
3. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal.
4. No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that he has attained full remission.
5. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare. (here Luther does not deny indulgences, but connects the importance of repentence)
6. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon.
7. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope’s pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to Him;
8. For these “graces of pardon” concern only the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man.
9. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia. (here Luther is complaining about those who teach contrary to the Church)
10. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.
11. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.
12. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission. this is a declaration that Luther believes the church teaching on pardons
13. It is most difficult, even for the very keenest theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the abundance of pardons and [the need of] true contrition.
14. True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an occasion [for hating them].
15. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love. a good and true point
16. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy. Luther defends that the pope does not…
17. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons; .…but that good works are still required…
18. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.

45.Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God. …and indulgences do not buy away neglecting to do good

Under these circumstances, the pope’s reaction to Luther is odd if he was not involve in the abuse of selling God’s forgiveness.
Everything I read Luther wrote on this subject demonstrates his disgust with the practices of people buying away their sins instead of seeking true repentance.

 

[josie_L]

hey I was only joking about Hahn (notice the smiley I put in the post). Gee wiz … you guys are sensative; like a bunch of girlie men (as Arnold would say)

Well, I am a girl. And if you noticed I put a smiley face too.

 

[Contarini]

I was only able to find a Latin and German copy of the 1518 Papal Bull – unhelpful.

However, here’s an article from Ignatious Press which discusses the history a bit and generally about indulgences. Pope Paul VI issued a papal bull on the doctrine. I’m a bit unclear but it looks like indulgences were sold by charlatans in the church but I couldn’t find any support that the Pope endorsed the sale of indulgences. Indeed, the Church did and does defend indulgences but selling is another issue. I think selling was expressly disavowed at Trent.

insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2009/02/please-indulge-a-defense-of-indulgences-for-a-moment.html

Also here’s a primer on bibical bases of indulgences:
catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp

The concept of Purgatory is one which I believe Lutherans expressly reject, so, it’s no small wonder that they would seize upon indulgences generally as outrageous.

At the time Luther wrote the 95 Theses (at which time there were no Lutherans and Luther was just another “Catholic with an attitude”), he still believed in Purgatory. But he had a rather odd view of it. In his opinion, Purgatory was indistinguishable from hell, and the torment of Purgatory was the fear that one had in fact been damned. If one responded to this fear by accepting one’s damnation as God’s just judgment, then Purgatory would have done its work and one would enter heaven. In other words, he saw Purgatory as a kind of projection of one’s fear of damnation, and one escaped it through throwing oneself on God’s mercy and giving up the attempt at self-justification.

From this starting point, indulgences were outrageous way beyond the obvious abuses. The whole idea of trying to get out of Purgatory was spiritually destructive in the first place, because only by accepting God’s judgment and abandoning the effort to justify oneself could one be saved.

Edwin

 

[ICA04]

I have never before read Luther’s 95 Theses. But today I took time to see what he said. Keeping in mind the timing and how he had already reported the abuses to no avail, you can still see that he did not reject true teachings of the church, but rather these abuses that led people to sin freely and neglect their Christian duties without consequence simply through the purchase of indulgences.

1. They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].
2. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone.
3. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal.
4. No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that he has attained full remission.
5. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare. (here Luther does not deny indulgences, but connects the importance of repentence)
6. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon.
7. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope’s pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to Him;
8. For these “graces of pardon” concern only the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man.
9. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia. (here Luther is complaining about those who teach contrary to the Church)
10. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.
11. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.
12. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission. this is a declaration that Luther believes the church teaching on pardons
13. It is most difficult, even for the very keenest theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the abundance of pardons and [the need of] true contrition.
14. True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an occasion [for hating them].
15. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love. a good and true point
16. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy. Luther defends that the pope does not…
17. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons; .…but that good works are still required…
18. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.

45.Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God. …and indulgences do not buy away neglecting to do good

Under these circumstances, the pope’s reaction to Luther is odd if he was not involve in the abuse of selling God’s forgiveness.
Everything I read Luther wrote on this subject demonstrates his disgust with the practices of people buying away their sins instead of seeking true repentance.

I have always wondered, why do people like you even bother reading anything Luther wrote when your whole programmed mindset is vehimately in opposition to him? You bathe and marinade yourself in Catholicism any other time refusing to see anything else, so again why bother with Luther. the Catholic case has been closed on him for centuries. Why do you care? It’s pointless for a Catholic.

 

[ICA04]

Not in the beginning. Remember Luther was Catholic and indulgences were instituted long before Pope Leo X. I remember reading comments by Luther in the support of indulgences as well as papal authority. I think I posted something on his support of the Pope earlier.

This was not about indulgences per se. It was about the abuse.

Hopefully we can find this document.

Ginger

Indulgences are abuse.

 

[ralphinal]

At the time Luther wrote the 95 Theses (at which time there were no Lutherans and Luther was just another “Catholic with an attitude”), he still believed in Purgatory. But he had a rather odd view of it. In his opinion, Purgatory was indistinguishable from hell, and the torment of Purgatory was the fear that one had in fact been damned. If one responded to this fear by accepting one’s damnation as God’s just judgment, then Purgatory would have done its work and one would enter heaven. In other words, he saw Purgatory as a kind of projection of one’s fear of damnation, and one escaped it through throwing oneself on God’s mercy and giving up the attempt at self-justification.

From this starting point, indulgences were outrageous way beyond the obvious abuses. The whole idea of trying to get out of Purgatory was spiritually destructive in the first place, because only by accepting God’s judgment and abandoning the effort to justify oneself could one be saved.

Edwin

A better topic for a thread was how Luther’s possible OCD (known in religious circles as Scrupulocity) affected his theology. It is clear that he was in such a state, but that is not inherently bad. Many saints are. It just seems like he fixated on damnation and not on the Mercy of God. Granted, damnation was the topic de juir of the era, but still…

 

[Ginger2]

I have always wondered, why do people like you even bother reading anything Luther wrote when your whole programmed mindset is vehimately in opposition to him? You bathe and marinade yourself in Catholicism any other time refusing to see anything else, so again why bother with Luther. the Catholic case has been closed on him for centuries. Why do you care? It’s pointless for a Catholic.

Because truth matters.

I never cared about Luther until a Catholic insisted I believe something I absolutely don’t believe

When he explained that he knew what I believe because Luther taught it, I couldn’t help but wonder why anyone would follow a teaching like that AND why Protestants don’t teach it today.

So, I researched it and when I found an online transcript, I read it. I discovered Luther never, ever taught such nonsense.

I am against anyone making false accusations. So while Luther is nothing to me personally, I have a huge issue with people spreading lies - even when they think it is true.

The lies about Luther over-flow onto me because I am not Catholic so you assume things that are not true. How can we ever hope for reconciliation if we continue to make false accusations?

How can you ever engage in a coherent discourse with me if your responses are all based on what you think I am saying rather than what I actually say.

That has been my experience and I see the misunderstandings concerning Luther as the source.

Ginger

 

[GKC]

Because truth matters.

I never cared about Luther until a Catholic insisted I believe something I absolutely don’t believe

When he explained that he knew what I believe because Luther taught it, I couldn’t help but wonder why anyone would follow a teaching like that AND why Protestants don’t teach it today.

So, I researched it and when I found an online transcript, I read it. I discovered Luther never, ever taught such nonsense.

I am against anyone making false accusations. So while Luther is nothing to me personally, I have a huge issue with people spreading lies - even when they think it is true.

The lies about Luther over-flow onto me because I am not Catholic so you assume things that are not true. How can we ever hope for reconciliation if we continue to make false accusations?

How can you ever engage in a coherent discourse with me if you responses are all based on what you think I am saying rather than what I actually say.

That has been my experience and I see the misunderstandings concerning Luther as the source.

Ginger

Truth matters, as I have always said.

“What is truth?” has been asked, before.

GKC

 

[Ginger2]

Indulgences are abuse.

No selling indulgences for personal gain, actually selling indulgences in itself is an abuse. Luther was complaining that they were not concerned with repentance.

Without repentance, there is no forgiveness. You can’t buy your way into heaven.

 

[jake23]

Protestants remind of of Valley girls! everything you say takes on a new meaing to them and Lord knows there is no reasoning! I am happy you can read words but now you need to understand the interpretation of them and I dont mean listing to some hillbilly who claims to be a pastor giving you interpretation! When I was uneducated aka protestant I went to many different denominations and different churchs within the individual denominations and they all had a different interpretation for atleast 90% of the Bible. As a past protestant who knows many protestants I can assure you that they would rather hold on the beliefs they already have then to know the truth! Give up arguing with them and just pray for there souls that they may oneday find the truth! Look at Luther DK who was on here who made any excuse to avoid debating with me in Hebrew of Greek! They are afraid to realize there beliefs are wrong! I was afraid to at first but I figured my relationship with God is more important than my pride.

 

[AliciaCL]

No selling indulgences for personal gain, actually selling indulgences in itself is an abuse. Luther was complaining that they were not concerned with repentance.

Without repentance, there is no forgiveness. You can buy your way into heaven.

On THAT, I feel safe in saying, we are all in agreement.

 

[Ginger2]

Truth matters, as I have always said.

“What is truth?” has been asked, before.

GKC

“What is Truth?”???

I’m not asking what is truth. There are absolutes in the world.

If I say you stole money from me, is it true because I say so? Is it true if I believe it is true? No, it is not. It is only true if you actually took money from me without my permission.

If you say Luther taught works are irrelevant, is it true because you say so? Is it true because you believe it? No, it is only true if that is what he taught. Luther did not teach that.

Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! - Martin Luther

 

[GKC]

“What is Truth?”???

I’m not asking what is truth. There are absolutes in the world.

If I say you stole money from me, is it true because I say so? Is it true if I believe it is true? No, it is not. It is only true if you actually took money from me without my permission.

If you say Luther taught works are irrelevant, is it true because you say so? Is it true because you believe it? No, it is only true if that is what he taught. Luther did not teach that.

Perhaps the reference does not come to your mind. It is from Francis Bacon.

GKC

 

[Ginger2]

Perhaps the reference does not come to your mind. It is from Francis Bacon.

GKC

I thought it was from Pilot!

The only time I’ve heard people use that terminology were humanists.

Anyway, I have no idea what point you were trying to make.

 

[TertiumQuid]

The two points you made here totally contradict each other. You need not be a scholar to understand that.

Friend,

You under-estimate Catholic apologetics. They can harmonize anything…just my 2 cents.

 

[GKC]

I thought it was from Pilot!

The only time I’ve heard people use that terminology were humanists.

Anyway, I have no idea what point you were trying to make.

“What is truth? said jesting Pilate,and would not stay for an answer.”

ESSAYS, “Of Truth”.

It means that truth is important, though some will not stay to find it.

GKC

 

[allhers]

Ginger2,
I went to the Vatican web site and typed in bulls, then I typed in Cum postquam and it brought up 519, I can’t read them, maybe you can and perhaps you can find what you are looking for. As others have told you, none of us believe we can buy our way into heaven, and we do believe that some abuses did take place by some members of the Church, just as they do in any other denomination, the Church has always been make up of Saints and sinners, Jesus choose Judas too, remember? However, I believe the quest you are on will only lead you to the truth and so I provide this for you to sort through. (since you asked.)gsearch.vatican.va/search?entqr=0&access=p&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&btnG=Search+on+vatican.va&client=default_frontend&q=Cum+postquam&filter=0&ud=1&oe=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&ip=72.189.203.156&start=0

Two other things, #1., I don’t believe you were able to do what you claimed on post #431 When this little exchange took place:
Originally Posted by kalt
Contarini, you said that you know that Luther was right, because you see it in the Bible.
The Bible that Luther changed to fit the doctrine that he just changed.
Then you said this to kalt:
That is outright false. I’ve proven this, yet you keep making that false claim…

Where do you think you have proven this and when?? I obviously missed something.

The other thing, #2. is that I don’t think your translation skills are up to snuff, course I could be wrong, and they sure are far superior to what I could do, but… (you posted this on post #436):

…And, so, everything becomes, living persons like dead who have attained really all this Ablässe, from such big litre of beer of the temporal punishment,…
Is this your translation of what was said or is this what is really said in that document? Either way, what the heck does that mean?

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger2,
I went to the Vatican web site and typed in bulls, …(since you asked.)gsearch.vatican.va/search?entqr=0&access=p&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&btnG=Search+on+vatican.va&client=default_frontend&q=Cum+postquam&filter=0&ud=1&oe=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&ip=72.189.203.156&start=0

Thanks I’ll look at it when I get a chance.

Two other things, #1., I don’t believe you were able to do what you claimed on post #431 When this little exchange took place:
Originally Posted by kalt
Contarini, …
The Bible that Luther changed to fit the doctrine that he just changed.
Then you said this to kalt:
That is outright false. I’ve proven this, yet you keep making that false claim…

Catholics say Luther added the word only to the Bible, thus creating the false doctrine of faith alone as Catholics describe it. That’s not true. I’ve given much evidence to this in the past, but the main point would be that if Luther did indeed change the meaning by adding the word “alone” in the German translation, then it would appear in English too. Since English translations of Protestant Bible don’t have the word “alone” or “only” in that verse it demonstrates Luther did not change the Bible by adding a word that didn’t belong. Instead he translated so the verse could be properly understood in the German. The word was proper in German but word not be in English, Greek or Latin.

You can search for the complete explanation by doing a search for my name and the keys words.

The other thing, #2. is that I don’t think your translation skills are up to snuff, course I could be wrong, and they sure are far superior to what I could do, but… (you posted this on post #436):

lol, they’re not!!! I could have taken time to translate it into proper English, but I didn’t. It is a direct word for word translation and that is why it doesn’t make sense. That’s is why Luther used the word “only” also!!!

Ginger