J
josie_L
Guest
Peter repented.
- Status
G
Ginger2
Guest
Perhaps then, you azre reading into the text what you want to believe instead of what it actually says.
Remember, you are reading a Catholic document biased in favor of Catholic reputation.
Here it is the excerpt, again:
Various doubtful and reprehensible methods were resorted to for raising money. He created new offices and dignities, and the most exalted places were put up for sale.** Jubilees and indulgences were degraded almost entirely into financial transactions**, yet without avail, as the treasury was ruined.
How is it possible for you not to see what this says?
Ginger
R
reteeks21
Guest
When? How?
K
kalt
Guest
That’s not my argument. But if you want to answer the questions asked many times, I’ll read your repsonses.
Again, you don’t compare Luther to Jesus, but call him a “significant early theologian”.
If you believe that Lutheranism isn’t something new and different, would you call Luther an “early theologian”. No Christian theologian of his era could be called “early”.
You seem to realize that Luther’s theology began something new aand different. If you didn’t, you couldn’t call him an “early theologian”.
You know that Protestantism isn’t a continuation of the Catholic Church that Christ founded, but is new and different.
No person has the right to change his God’s religion. I’m not saying that Lutherans aren’t Christian. I said that Luther founded a new Christian religion.
We’re all Christians, but the religions, though similar, aren’t the same.
K
kalt
Guest
And once again, Peter didn’t found the Catholic Church. Luther founded the Lutheran church.
Why are you comparing Luther to Peter, who didn’t change what Jesus founded?
K
kalt
Guest
The act of changing the doctrine is sin in itself. It was a sinful nature that caused him to change the doctrine and the Bible.
Of course it was his sins (the acts of changing the Bible and doctrine) that shaped his theology.
As far as I know, Lutherans don’t claim that Luther was infallible (as the popes) are when pornouning on faith and morals. So his sinful nature (that he was a little sinful or a lot, is actually irrelevant. That he did not speak infallibly is what matters.) is the most important factor.
If Lutherans can claim that, like the popes, the Lutheran leaders speak infallibly, then Luther’s sinful nature would be irrelevant.
So far no one here has said that they do.
So, I’ll ask again. On what authority did Luther make these changes? How do you know that he was correct? What assurance do you have that what he did was acceptable to Jesus, who founded the Catholic Church?
R
ralphinal
Guest
- I read the entire article. if you had, you would know that later on it clarifies that he did not teach the selling of indulgences.
- All that it says was thaat these things were degraded into financial transactions. It does not say that he ordered that money be collected for them. Nor does it say that he taught that people must pay for them. I see it saying that he viewed everything as a cost/reward issue not a spiritual one.
And, this still does not show that the pope taught anything that was in error. Being a bad financial planner is not a sin. If it was, most Americans are damned.
R
ralphinal
Guest
You do know that I am Catholic, right?The act of changing the doctrine is sin in itself. It was a sinful nature that caused him to change the doctrine and the Bible.
Of course it was his sins (the acts of changing the Bible and doctrine) that shaped his theology.
As far as I know, Lutherans don’t claim that Luther was infallible (as the popes) are when pornouning on faith and morals. So his sinful nature (that he was a little sinful or a lot, is actually irrelevant. That he did not speak infallibly is what matters.) is the most important factor.
If Lutherans can claim that, like the popes, the Lutheran leaders speak infallibly, then Luther’s sinful nature would be irrelevant.
So far no one here has said that they do.
So, I’ll ask again. On what authority did Luther make these changes? How do you know that he was correct? What assurance do you have that what he did was acceptable to Jesus, who founded the Catholic Church?
Your last questions are not related to Luther’s position on Jews. I cannot argue that he had no authority to do everythign that he did. There is no question. But, back to the topic: should we hold his position on Jews against him?
C
Contarini
Guest
Why would I?
Of course the Reformation (which can’t simply be reduced to Luther) began something new and different–a new and different tradition within Christianity. It wasn’t a new religion. And this is what you just don’t seem to get.
No one thinks Luther is divine or that he brought new revelation. The most that Protestants claim about Luther is that he brought a clearer understanding of the Gospel, which had been obscured for centuries, and shed some fresh light on the eternal truths of the Christian faith. To refute this, you have to refute the actual theology. You can’t just point out flaws in Luther. It won’t work. It especially won’t work against Lutherans and other classical Protestants, since one of the “new ideas” of the Reformation was precisely a stronger insistence on the Augustinian idea that we all remain deeply sinful as long as we are in this life. Wesleyans are more susceptible to the kind of argument you’re making–but Wesleyans are a bit suspicious of Luther anyway.
Protestantism does not rest on Luther’s character. Destroying Luther’s character will not destroy Protestantism. You are setting up a straw man–declaring certain criteria for authenticity that Protestants don’t necessarily accept in the first place. Can’t you see how pointless this is?
It’s also ironic that you are engaging in the very “overthinking” of which another poster accused me: that is, you are picking on one word I used (“early”) without regard to the context (“early” in the context of a specific theological tradition within Christianity), and using this to argue that Luther is equivalent to Jesus (in the minds of Protestants), which is obviously false and does not follow from my use of the word “early.”
I am the first to agree that Protestantism has huge problems in the area of historical continuity. The point I’m trying to make in this thread is that no Protestant thinks that Luther is somehow equivalent to Jesus. No Protestant thinks “Protestantism must be true because Luther was so holy.” Protestants typically think "Protestantism must be true because it is clearly taught in the Bible.’ Therefore, that’s where you should be focusing your efforts.
Where criticisms of Luther’s character are relevant is where they directly relate to false ideas Protestants have. For instance, exposing Luther’s anti-Judaism is relevant if Protestants are claiming that Protestantism was an improvement in this regard, or generally criticizing the Catholic Church for its attitude to Jews. Luther’s vitriolic rhetoric toward all with whom he disagreed is relevant when Protestants say something like, “Well, of course he was nasty to the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church was so corrupt.” Pointing out that Luther used similar language toward other Protestants (often for believing things that most modern Protestants believe, like a spiritual/symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist) is perfectly appropriate.
In short, I have no problem with a specific, focused, relevant criticism of Luther’s character. What is illegitimate and unhelpful is the general argument “Look at how many flaws Luther had–how can you take any of his ideas seriously.”
This is equivocal use of language. It makes no sense. If there are several religions all called “Christian,” then saying that we are all “Christians” is misleading, indeed dishonest on your part. What Protestants think you are saying when you say “we are all Christians” is that we share one faith in spite of our differences. If you aren’t saying that, you should never tell a Protestant that you recognize them to be Christian, because they will not understand what you are saying and you are in effect treacherously lying to them.
“Christian” normally functions in human speech as the name of a religion. And in the case of Christianity, defining what is a single religion and what isn’t is vitally important (as is arguably not the case for other traditions like Hinduism). I do use the word in a broader sense at times, but only with clear qualifications. So I will say that Mormons are Christians in some sense, but will never say it without qualification because it could be misinterpreted as saying that they are part of the same religion I am, which I do not believe.
Edwin
T
tomarin
Guest
No, that would be engaging in fallacious reasoning, specifically an argumentum ad hominem. Just because Luther said nasty things about Jews doesn’t automatically make his theological ideas unsound – in fact, his attitude towards Jews is irrelevant to his theology. In the Bible doesn’t God repeatedly use imperfect people to implement his plans: Moses, Peter, Paul and so on?
(Added: Please don’t take what I just wrote to mean that I believe Luther was divinely inspired. I don’t.)
Unless you can show his character is relevant to his theology, Luther’s anti-Jewish statements don’t prove a thing about the rightness or wrongness of his reforms.
G
Ginger2
Guest
lol You’ve got to be kidding!!!
Are you suggesting it is OK to sin if the sin is a result of problems stemming from being overly generous!
Our good deeds do not make our wrongs right. The end does not justify the means.
The pope did wrong. Having an empty treasury does not make it right.
Ginger
R
ralphinal
Guest
That is exactly what I am saying
G
Ginger2
Guest
His financial ability is not the issue, nor is what he taught ex-cathedral.
Luther wrote a letter to Albrecht the Archbishop of Mainz asserting the improper selling of indulgences was being done “……certainly without your full awareness and consent most reverend father…” and “begging” him to stop the “shameless blasphemy” of selling indulgences. This letter was was written prior to the 97 theses and demonstrates Luther first expected the bishop and the pope would be on his side to do what was right.
Unfortunately, Luther said he was despised for exposing the blasphemy and that led to his writing the 97 theses.
Luther further claimed “It became quite evident that Bishop Albrecht had hired this Tetzel” to sell indulgences. “Thus the bishop devised this scheme, hoping to pay the Fuggers (for they had advanced the money for the pallium) from the purse of the common man……And in addition the pope had a finger in the pie as well, because one half was to go towards the building of St. Peter’s Church in Rome.”
Of course these are just the accusations of Luther. However,…
If Pope Leo X, did not know about the immoral selling of indulgences, why didn’t he put a stop to it and thank Luther for bringing it to his attention?
Luther did what any faithful Christian would do. He saw a crime against God being committed in the name of the Church. He reported it to the hierarchy. When he discovered they were involved, he had no choice but to protest publicly and inform the entire church.
Whether the pope taught what he was doing was right or not does not change that fact that the pope was doing it.
Ginger
R
ralphinal
Guest
Can you show that the letter was sent to Rome as well? You do know full well that it is very likely that the Archbishop would not forward it on his own.
And I am quiet sure he was.
Actually, by the time of the Thesis, the German Church was supposed to be keeping all of the money to pay off debts to the Hapsburgs. In these text, Luther seems to be saying that it was the bishop’s doing.
The Church did put an end to it.
Yes and no. The specific issue is not the indulgences. It is the other heretical ideas that he taught. ML was quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Not as bad as some others, though
Yes, actually, it does. If we cannot have a pope because he is a sinner, that creates a tricky situation. It also means that we cannot have a preacher because he is a sinner. Or Sunday School Teachers. In fact, it means that no one is qualified to spread the Good News.
J
josie_L
Guest
Do I have to really answer that question?
O
Ockham
Guest
Worth repeating.
J
josie_L
Guest
Ockham, we are but offering one of the many reasons one should be skeptical of Luther, we can debate his theology and we can debate who he was, I for one cannot separate the man from his theology. God Bless.
G
Ginger2
Guest
ralphinal,
Why don’t you guys just read the Catholic Encyclopedia:
The immediate cause was bound up with the odious greed for money displayed by the Roman Curia, …
Added to this, abuses occurred during the preaching of the Indulgence. The money contributions, a mere accessory, were frequently the chief object, and the “Indulgences for the Dead” became a vehicle of inadmissible teachings. **That Leo X, in the most serious of all the crises which threatened the Church, should fail to prove the proper guide for her, **…
**Vigorous measures of reform might have proved an efficacious antidote, but the pope was deeply entangled in political affairs **and allowed the imperial election to overshadow the revolt of Luther; moreover, he gave himself up unrestrainedly to his pleasures and failed to grasp fully the duties of his high office.…
**The only possible verdict on the pontificate of Leo X is that it was unfortunate for the Church. **Sigismondo Tizio, whose devotion to the Holy See is undoubted, writes truthfully: “In the general opinion it was injurious to the Church that her Head should delight in plays, music, the chase and nonsense, instead of paying serious attention to the needs of his flock and mourning over theirmisfortunes”. Von Reumont says pertinently—“Leo X is in great measure to blame for the fact that faith in the integrity and merit of the papacy, in its moral and regenerating powers, and even in its good intentions, should have sunk so low that men could declare extinct the old true spirit of the Church.”
Ginger
Why don’t you guys just read the Catholic Encyclopedia:
The immediate cause was bound up with the odious greed for money displayed by the Roman Curia, …
Added to this, abuses occurred during the preaching of the Indulgence. The money contributions, a mere accessory, were frequently the chief object, and the “Indulgences for the Dead” became a vehicle of inadmissible teachings. **That Leo X, in the most serious of all the crises which threatened the Church, should fail to prove the proper guide for her, **…
**Vigorous measures of reform might have proved an efficacious antidote, but the pope was deeply entangled in political affairs **and allowed the imperial election to overshadow the revolt of Luther; moreover, he gave himself up unrestrainedly to his pleasures and failed to grasp fully the duties of his high office.…
**The only possible verdict on the pontificate of Leo X is that it was unfortunate for the Church. **Sigismondo Tizio, whose devotion to the Holy See is undoubted, writes truthfully: “In the general opinion it was injurious to the Church that her Head should delight in plays, music, the chase and nonsense, instead of paying serious attention to the needs of his flock and mourning over theirmisfortunes”. Von Reumont says pertinently—“Leo X is in great measure to blame for the fact that faith in the integrity and merit of the papacy, in its moral and regenerating powers, and even in its good intentions, should have sunk so low that men could declare extinct the old true spirit of the Church.”
Ginger
O
Ockham
Guest
I understand your position, but if this thread is to achieve anything we should use less inflamatory arguments. Mozart was a bit of a nut, but he still wrote beautiful music. You should be able to convince our dear Protestant brothers and sisters to come home without pointing out Luther’s warts (who, by the way, wrote some catchy hymns).
T
tomarin
Guest
I know – I was using your somewhat rhetorical question as an opportunity to throw my hat in the ring.
I wish people would learn about logical fallacies in school; it would shorten a lot of these needlessly long posts.
- Status