the Church prior to Luther's Reformation

[guanophore]

Thats nice. What is truncated about it?

You mean, besides the canon? Most of the areas where you have complaints. Loss of Sacred Tradition and Apostolic Succession. Authority (the Church founded by Christ is not a democracy). One of the most insidious losses I have noticed since coming to CAF is the redifinition of the word “church”.

 Of course I am interested, but I am interested in  facts and reasons and not general statements that you seem to make. You make a generalized statment and when I ask a specific question if the Catholic church teaches such, you then admit they do not or you ignore the question. General statements are not very convining. Rational explanations are what convinces and not General statements and attacks.

Rob

That is good. I am happy to engage in a dialogue with persons who are really interested in hearing Catholic answers. I am sure my post count will attest to that. I am not willing to go off topic in the thread, however.

The original Reformers were called heretics by the Church because they were baptized Catholic, raised in the faith, then willfully chose to depart. Perhaps there were others in the early generations of Protestantism that could also be charged as such, but modern Protestants are descended from 500+ years of altered theology which continues in a state of alteration. They cannot be expected to even know that they are separated. Most of them think the CC “added” both to the Scriptures, and to the doctrines of the faith. Kinda like you think Trent declared something “new” by reiterating the canon proclaimed by the Church in 382.

 

[guanophore]

If we can go direct to God as Jesus taught in the Lords Prayer as you admit, why should anyone attack that practice?

No one is attacking it. Catholics and Lutherans practice it also. The point is that it falls short of fulfilling Jesus’ instructions to the Church.

  Why say we confess only to ourself when it is plain we are confessing direct to God? What is the point of such an unfair accusation?

I apologize for that. Although there are some who do confess to themselves, even they imagine that they are confessing to God. Since the entire confession takes place within their own minds, they are free to imagine that God has forgiven them.

Curiously, this bears heavily on the thread topic, because Luther, even though he was verbally given absolution repeatedly by confessors, did not “feel” forgiven, and obsessed in his scrupulosity. It was one of the major factors in his development of his doctrines. He was seeking relief for his soul.

 Christ gave the apostles the authority to bind and loose but I see no instruction regarding successors. I can find no example of the binding and loosing as you describe shown in the writings of the apostles.  I see no instruction that we should change the practice taught by Jesus in the Lords Prayer that we confess directly  to God.

No, that instruction need not change. The instruction on confessing sins to the ordained stands alongside of private confession. Both are important.

I certainly see no justification of cricizing our practice that was directly taught by Christ.

No one is criticizing it. I understand you may feel criticized, but all we are saying is that you have lost part of the Apostolic faith. I am sure you practice the part you recieved with all sincerity.

Dont you agree that is unfair?

I will agree that you perceive something is happening that is not.

I will point out that this skewed perception is the same one with which you read history.

 

[Porknpie]

I didn’t attack the practice, Rob. From a Lutheran perspective, by choosing not to confess to a pastor/confessor, either in private or in a corporate worship, it seems one is denying this gift of grace, that we confess that which truly bothers our conscience (as well as things we may not be aware of), here the announcement of the grace of God, and then hear with our ears His forgiveness and Absolution, spoken by his sevant. there is an added certainty of that which I cherish.

Then who do you think Christ meant when He told the apostles this, if not the Church?

I’m not going to criticize you for it, but I honestly think you miss out on this wonderful gift of His grace in confession. Think about it, when one is baptized, (normally) one is baptized by a pastor. When receive the Lord’s Supper, it is the pastor that is the celebrant. These special means of grace come to us from god through the Church. Why would confession and Absolution be different?

But then again, I guess it depends on one’s view of sacraments, and the ministerial preisthood. You, within your communion, must answer that question.

Jon

When Lutherans and Catholics agree on something (and we do quite a bit), and you don’t, you have to wonder what the soil is made out of that your house sits on.

 

[pablope]

Jon,

By confessing directly to God we are following the pattern taught by Jesus in the Lords Prayer when he taught us how to pray, and how Jesus also taught in the parable of the pharisee and the tax collector when the pharisee confessed directly to God. We also are responding to Gods Grace. We also recieve the certainty of Gods forgiveness by his direct absolution as he promised. It is a matter of faith. We do not trust in a mans power to bind and loose but directly in Gods power to bind and loose know by our faith in His power.

Rob.

Actually, Rob…if you really pause and think about it…the Lord’s prayer does not say the manner of how to confess…it only states…“forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass…”

Nowhere does it state here that confessing is directly to God. You are substituting what you think it should be.

May I then direct you to other places of Scripture:

Job 42

7 After the Lord had said these things to Job , he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has. 8 So now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and sacrifice a burnt offering for yourselves. My servant Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. You have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has.” 9 So Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite did what the Lord told them; and the Lord accepted Job’s prayer.

Here, God does not directly forgives…but instructs the intercession of Job. Being that the NT is the fulfillment of the OT…do you think Jesus would change this and institute something different? Or did Jesus fulfill and perfect this with the Sacrament of Confession?

Here is another Scripture:

2Sam12:

13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.”

Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for[a] the Lord, the son born to you will die.”

For David’s serious sin…why did the Lord saw the need to send Nathan to David? Why did not God just call David’s attention to his sin?

Here is another one:

1Sam15:

24 Then Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned. I violated the Lord’s command and your instructions. I was afraid of the men and so I gave in to them. 25 Now I beg you, forgive my sin and come back with me, so that I may worship the Lord.”

Here, Saul begs forgiveness from Samuel and through Samuel…so that he can worship the Lord again. Saul’s premise is that by asking through Samuel, he is forgiven by the Lord.

Why is that?

 

[submariner2]

I don’t think so. I think it was caused by sin, impurity, corruption in the clergy, and the fervent desire of the faithful to practice an authentic gospel. When you read the original documents that stimulated the Reformation, you can see that none of it is about doctrine. In the end, it did result in doctrinal changes, but it did not start out that way… It started with abuses.

guano,

Martin Luthers 95 theses was the original document concerned with the practice of selling indulgences. It is filled with doctines. Do you object or agree with theses #1?

One has to wonder. Certianly the abuses to which He was reacting are no longer occurring. It is a puzzle that you can believe Fr. Brown is a faithful Catholic, yet deny his Catholic views in his writing.

How can he be denying Catholic teachings when he has written over 30 books with the Imprimatur, approved by an Arch bishop. Can 30 Arch bishops approve anti-Catholic teachings?

Perhaps it is YOUR views that are out of step?

Rob

 

[submariner2]

guanophore;9404130]You mean, besides the canon? Most of the areas where you have complaints. Loss of Sacred Tradition and Apostolic Succession. Authority (the Church founded by Christ is not a democracy). One of the most insidious losses I have noticed since coming to CAF is the redifinition of the word “church”.

guano,

More questions. How did we redifine the word “church.” It is the body of Christ and that is us. Why do you say that is not so?

That is good. I am happy to engage in a dialogue with persons who are really interested in hearing Catholic answers. I am sure my post count will attest to that. I am not willing to go off topic in the thread, however.

Good reason not to answer specific questions then complain about not getting enough questions.

The original Reformers were called heretics by the Church because they were baptized Catholic, raised in the faith, then willfully chose to depart. Perhaps there were others in the early generations of Protestantism that could also be charged as such, but modern Protestants are descended from 500+ years of altered theology which continues in a state of alteration. They cannot be expected to even know that they are separated. Most of them think the CC “added” both to the Scriptures, and to the doctrines of the faith. Kinda like you think Trent declared something “new” by reiterating the canon proclaimed by the Church in 382.

No Canon was declared by the Catholic church in 382. Only at Trent. If it had been declared in 382 it would not need to be reiterated. That seems common sense to me.
Why do you think it needed to be reiterated?

How can you say Luther willfully left when he was excommunicated? Do you actually know what he was excommucated for?

Many quesions but few answers.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

JonNC;9404124]I didn’t attack the practice, Rob. From a Lutheran perspective, by choosing not to confess to a pastor/confessor, either in private or in a corporate worship, it seems one is denying this gift of grace, that we confess that which truly bothers our conscience (as well as things we may not be aware of), here the announcement of the grace of God, and then hear with our ears His forgiveness and Absolution, spoken by his sevant. there is an added certainty of that which I cherish.

Jon,

If you did not attack the practice of confessing direct to God then why say we confess only to ourselves? Why not depend on the certainty of faith in Christs promise to forgive? Why is it needed to hear someone give added certainty?

Then who do you think Christ meant when He told the apostles this, if not the Church?

I dont think he meant to abandon Christs plain teaching of how to pray given in the Lords Prayer. Why should you think He overturned his own teaching?

I’m not going to criticize you for it, but I honestly think you miss out on this wonderful gift of His grace in confession. Think about it, when one is baptized, (normally) one is baptized by a pastor. When receive the Lord’s Supper, it is the pastor that is the celebrant. These special means of grace come to us from god through the Church. Why would confession and Absolution be different?

The reason is simple. In Baptism, it is Gods baptism that matters and not a mans. In Communion it is Christs presence that matters and not the celebrant. In Confession it is Gods forgiveness that matters and not a person. The real question is why abandon the practice that Jesus plainly taught in the Lords Prayer?

But then again, I guess it depends on one’s view of sacraments, and the ministerial preisthood. You, within your communion, must answer that question.

What is the question?

Rob

 

[submariner2]

guanophore;9404140]No one is attacking it. Catholics and Lutherans practice it also. The point is that it falls short of fulfilling Jesus’ instructions to the Church.

guano,

How so?

apologize for that. Although there are some who do confess to themselves, even they imagine that they are confessing to God. Since the entire confession takes place within their own minds, they are free to imagine that God has forgiven them.

And they are not free to imagine when they are with a priest?

How do you know anyone confesses to themself? Is this something you presume? You apologize then repeat the accusation.

Curiously, this bears heavily on the thread topic, because Luther, even though he was verbally given absolution repeatedly by confessors, did not “feel” forgiven, and obsessed in his scrupulosity. It was one of the major factors in his development of his doctrines. He was seeking relief for his soul.

That was before he had faith. Before he was a christian. That is precisely why faith was the center of his teachings as it was with St Paul. Absolution by others could not save him, - only Gods love and grace known and assured through faith. That is the entire point.

No one is criticizing it. I understand you may feel criticized, but all we are saying is that you have lost part of the Apostolic faith. I am sure you practice the part you recieved with all sincerity.

When you accuse others of only confessing to themself it sounds much like criticism. Then you apologize and repeat the accusation. What gives?

I will point out that this skewed perception is the same one with which you read history

I think I can read as well as you.

Rob

 

[JonNC]

=submariner2;9404654]Jon,
If you did not attack the practice of confessing direct to God then why say we confess only to ourselves?

I didn’t.

Why not depend on the certainty of faith in Christs promise to forgive? Why is it needed to hear someone give added certainty?

Christ instituted confession. It is part of Christ’s promise of forgiveness. they are not 2 separate things.

I dont think he meant to abandon Christs plain teaching of how to pray given in the Lords Prayer. Why should you think He overturned his own teaching?

As I said, not either/or.

The reason is simple. In Baptism, it is Gods baptism that matters and not a mans. In Communion it is Christs presence that matters and not the celebrant. In Confession it is Gods forgiveness that matters and not a person. The real question is why abandon the practice that Jesus plainly taught in the Lords Prayer?

In all three instances, Christ uses His Church to make these means of grace available to us. Not either /or.

What is the question?

our communion’s view of the sacraments and the ordained clergy.

Jon

 

[Contarini]

I don’t think so. I think it was caused by sin, impurity, corruption in the clergy, and the fervent desire of the faithful to practice an authentic gospel. When you read the original documents that stimulated the Reformation, you can see that none of it is about doctrine.

What original documents? I have some familiarity with these documents, as I’d define them (the 95 Theses, the Heidelberg Disputation, the Babylonian Captivity, etc.), and I couldn’t disagree more. As submariner says, they are full of doctrines.

Attacking abuses was almost a side issue for Luther. Of course it’s what got people excited. But it had been done over and over again before. The difference with the Reformation was that there was a doctrinal core to it. It claimed to explain why there were all these abuses–because the Gospel had been obscured or even forgotten.

Edwin

 

[guanophore]

guano,

Martin Luthers 95 theses was the original document concerned with the practice of selling indulgences. It is filled with doctines. Do you object or agree with theses #1?

I think perhaps you do not understand what Catholic doctrine is. Actually there is very little of it that relates to doctrine.

It is a theological impossibility to “sell” an indulgence. The mere appearance that this was being done in the first place is an abuse and a fraud. It had nothing to do with doctrine. It is a departure from doctrine.

How can he be denying Catholic teachings when he has written over 30 books with the Imprimatur, approved by an Arch bishop. Can 30 Arch bishops approve anti-Catholic teachings?

Perhaps it is YOUR views that are out of step?

I did not say he was, Rob. I said that you are. When you read him, you are reading with your anti-Catholic lens, the lens that is formed by your own experiences. It is you that denies his Catholicity, not him.

 

[guanophore]

guano,

More questions. How did we redifine the word “church.” It is the body of Christ and that is us. Why do you say that is not so?

How? I think it was done in the same way you perceive history and Scripture, in light of “personal experience”. For Catholics, truth is not defined by our own personal experiences, but by Divine Revelation.

I do not say that we are not the body of Christ, but this is, along with some of your other doctrines a deficient and truncated definition of the Church. The Apostles taught that the Church is incarnate, just as Christ is, having both divine and human elements. When the Reformers redefined the Church, making it into “the body of believers on earth”, the divinity was separated. Now, believers accept that the HS is within them, but believe only that together, they are “church”. This is contrary to Apostolic teaching in that 1) Jesus created a visible and identifiyable Church, 2) The Church founded by Christ is infallible, because He is her Head, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit, the divine elements preventing her from falling into error and 3) human beings can fall from grace, separate themselves from the Church, thereby severing communion. For the Apostles, the Church exists above and apart from the “body of believers”, so that they are not the fullness of her compliment. 4) the Church contains also all those souls who have gone on before us in faith, both those who are still being purified, and those who have received their heavenly reward 5) The Church is the communion of saints, which death cannot separate 6) Members of the Church can help one another, and should be asked to pray for one another, especially those righteous souls that are in heaven. I could go on, but that is a brief list of some distinctions.

Good reason not to answer specific questions then complain about not getting enough questions.

Oh, there are plenty of good questions here, Rob. I have never encountered a paucity there.

You seem like a fellow that does not care much for rules, but it is customary here to open a new thread on a new topic. One of the rules is that the threads have to stay on topic. If you think my desire to stay in the good graces of the mods is an excuse not to answer your questions, that is your perogative. I think my post count speaks for itself.

No Canon was declared by the Catholic church in 382. Only at Trent. If it had been declared in 382 it would not need to be reiterated. That seems common sense to me  Why do you think it needed to be reiterated?

Maybe you missed my question. I asked you what the councils of Hippo and Carthage thought they were doing, what did Athanasius think he was doing, using the word “canon” and listing the books listed at the above two councils? Why did Pope Damasus think he was ratifying the canon on behalf of the Church? Why did Gelasius write a list of canonical books to the Bishop? How did all these people deceive themselves into believing they agreed upon a canon?

And lastly, where do you get the authority to tell Catholics to ignore their Pope when he is instructing them in matters of faith, such as the canon? Who are you to tell us the instruction he gave in 382 is not valid?

The reason for dogmatic announcements, Rob, is rampant heresy. The Protestants were railing against the canon that the Church had used since the third century. Rampant heresy = dogmatic pronouncement.

How can you say Luther willfully left when he was excommunicated? Do you actually know what he was excommucated for?

Many quesions but few answers.

Rob

Luther abandoned the Catholic Church. He excommunicated himself. After that, a formal excommunication was drafted just to clarify the point. If you are baptized Catholic, and you willfully and knowingly reject the teachings of the Catholic Church, then you have excommunicated yourself, whether you know it, or not (there are some politians in this condition right now).

 

[guanophore]

If you did not attack the practice of confessing direct to God then why say we confess only to ourselves?

YOU said that! You said you confess in your services. Some, certainly, do in their hearts confess to God. Some perhaps imagine that they do. Some just go through the motions.

Why not depend on the certainty of faith in Christs promise to forgive? Why is it needed to hear someone give added certainty?

Jesus ordained that the certainty should go through those He ordained for the purpose. God created us, and if He believes we need someone there with ears and lips to speak, then He knows best.

I dont think he meant to abandon Christs plain teaching of how to pray given in the Lords Prayer.

The Lord’s prayer does not teach how confession ought to take place. You are suffering another episode of eisogesis.

 

[guanophore]

guano,

How so?

James 5:13-16

13 Is any one among you suffering? Let him pray. Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise. 14 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed.

The confession to another person is for our healing. God knows what we need to be healed of guilt and shame. That is why He set things up the way He did.

And they are not free to imagine when they are with a priest?

they are, but they have no need, because the priest acts in the person of Christ. He has been given the authority to forgive sins.

Matt 9:4-8
4 But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? 5 For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? 6 But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” - he then said to the paralytic - “Rise, take up your bed and go home.” 7 And he rose and went home. 8 When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, **who had given such authority to men. **

Notice not “man” (referring only to Jesus) but “men”. Later, Jesus breathed upon the Apostles, and gave them the authority to retain and forgive sins.

How do you know anyone confesses to themself? Is this something you presume? You apologize then repeat the accusation.

Gen 8:21
or the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth

It is very easy for human beings to deceive themselves through vain imaginings.

Luke 18:9-13
9 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others: 10 "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.’…

It has happened. It does happen.

That was before he had faith. Before he was a christian. That is precisely why faith was the center of his teachings as it was with St Paul. Absolution by others could not save him, - only Gods love and grace known and assured through faith. That is the entire point.

Somewhere in your mind, you seem to think that absolution is from man, instead of God, and that it is not connected to grace, through faith. This would be misunderstanding of sacramental confession.

When you accuse others of only confessing to themself it sounds much like criticism.

It was meant to be an observation, not an accusation.Only God can know the heart.

I think I can read as well as you.

It was not about your ability to read. Of course you are good with words. It is about the anti-Catholic spectacles you are wearing when reading.

 

[guanophore]

As submariner says, they are full of doctrines.

Attacking abuses was almost a side issue for Luther.

Here is the title:

Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther
on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences
by Dr. Martin Luther (1517)

Sure seems to be that abuses are at the top.

The difference with the Reformation was that there was a doctrinal core to it. It claimed to explain why there were all these abuses–because the Gospel had been obscured or even forgotten.

Edwin

You mean, the difference between people getting riled previously?

Indeed, it does seem that the abuses obscured the doctrine of Christ. It is necessary that abuse be stopped. It is not necessary that the doctrine of Christ be “revised”.
95 theses:

Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.

In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.
2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.
3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh.
4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

I am not seeing any doctrinal issues here. Do you?
95 theses:

5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons.

I think this one is saying that he does not recognize the role the Pope has taken as valid. If I understand this correctly, it is an doctrinal issue.
95 theses:

1. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.
2. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.
3. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.
4. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.

1. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.

ARe there any doctrinal issues here? This seems to target improper practices by priests/bishops who were not following the canons. He seems to be taking issue with the authority that priests took upon themselves to condemn the faithful, perhaps by witholding absolution?
95 theses:

1. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them.
2. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear.
3. This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.
4. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.
5. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.
6. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.

I am not seeing anything here either, except perhaps on #18 where I think he is reacting to souls in purgatory not being able to help themselves? That they must depend upon the Church militant to pray for them to be released? I will stop here so you can show me what I am missing before we move on.

 

[JohnHall]

how was it? what was the Church’s situation before? I am referring to the timeline from its establishment by Christ in 33 AD up until the 1500s when Luther decided to make these so called “reforms.” I mean, could you narrate some piece of history here? what do you think?

I would like to hear from the non-Catholic Christians here in CAF. thanks!

He made reforms because the Church was selling indulgences to raise money for St. Peters Basilica (I’m pretty sure it was that).

If you are interested in a video about his reformation, here is a link to the amazon page:

amazon.com/Martin-Luther/dp/B002JAHW8M/ref=sr_1_11?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1339653608&sr=1-11

As a Roman Catholic, I can assure you it historically sound.

 

[Filii_Dei]

He made reforms because the Church was selling indulgences to raise money for St. Peters Basilica (I’m pretty sure it was that).

Indulgences were indeed sold for the funding of St. Peter’s Basilica, but the abuse that really drew Luther’s ire were in the cases where the money simply went into the own pockets of the individuals concerned.

 

[Contarini]

He made reforms because the Church was selling indulgences to raise money for St. Peters Basilica (I’m pretty sure it was that).

That was what made him famous, yes (technically they weren’t being sold, but in practice it amounted to that).

However, Luther made waves because he wasn’t just reacting to the abuse–he had developed a radical theology of penance that went against some basic tenets of late medieval Catholic theology, on the way to a full-fledged theology of justification by faith alone.

It amazes me how many folks on both sides want to sideline Luther’s theology and pretend it was all about abuses.

People had been complaining about abuses for centuries. Nothing new there. But Luther had a theological basis for his complaints that caught the negative attention of the ecclesiastical hierarchy and the theological establishment, and the positive interest of young, reform-minded intellectuals, of rulers who were interested in asserting more control over the Church (and, to be fair, who often had a sincere interest in reform themselves), and at least initially of many ordinary people as well. Granted, there were all kinds of social reasons why the situation was particularly flammable at his point. (And many of the afore-mentioned folks arguably had trouble understanding how Luther was so different from previous reformers, being more interested in the standard, longstanding grounds of complaint.) But still, the flame that lit the tinder was Luther’s radical new theology of penance and eventually of justification.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Here is the title:

Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther
on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences
by Dr. Martin Luther (1517)

Sure seems to be that abuses are at the top.

Yes, but
a) this controversy wasn’t really at the top of Luther’s agenda–he had other theological concerns that he thought were more pressing, but that didn’t catch as much popular attention; and
b) what made the 95 Theses different was the doctrinal basis for his objections.

The doctrinal issues are easy to miss, because they are couched in technical language and because the theology they reflect isn’t Luther’s mature theology yet. But they are there, and theologians and canon lawyers at the papal Curia and in the major universities and religious orders picked up on them pretty quickly, since they were versed in the theological code language being used and since they weren’t blinded by the knowledge of just what radical breaks with the theological tradition were yet to come!

I am not seeing any doctrinal issues here. Do you?

Absolutely. 1 sounds innocuous, but it was taken at the time (and was intended) to be a rejection of the technical meaning of the phrase “do penance.” Luther is denying that the ecclesiastical practice of penance was established by Jesus. Now a robust doctrine of development of doctrine and an understanding that the two things aren’t an either/or could easily reconcile what he’s saying with orthodox Catholicism (I mean, it probably seems obvious to all but the most ultra-traditionalist Catholic today that when Jesus said “repent” he meant something broader than “do the specific actions assigned you by a priest after sacramental absolution, and/or other actions approved by the Church that reduce the canonical penance for which you are liable”). But there is a doctrinal issue here, not just a reform of abuses. 2 and 3 make this clear. 4 shows where Luther is going with this. The key idea behind the Theses is that both penance in this life and purgatory in the next are fundamentally psychological events within the soul of the sinner. Therefore, they cannot be regulated by the Church hierarchy. People will feel sorrow for their sin and fear for its consequences until, by God’s grace, they transcend self and accept God’s judgment on their sin without trying to justify themselves in God’s sight any longer.

I think this one is saying that he does not recognize the role the Pope has taken as valid. If I understand this correctly, it is an doctrinal issue.

Yes, the attack on papal authority is one of the big reasons this was so controversial.

7-11 attack the foundation for indulgences. The idea behind indulgences is that the canonical penance the Church imposes in life reduces the penance one will have to do after death in purgatory. A plenary indulgence gets rid of the need for purgatory altogether (if the penitent meets the conditions–and obviously it doesn’t cover future sin, hence the tendency to apply the indulgence to the dead, where it wouldn’t be wasted). Luther is attacking this entire theological construct.

Again, modern Catholics have more nuanced ways of understanding this, generally (in my experience on this forum and elsewhere) avoiding a strictly legal approach and focusing on inner transformation. But in the sixteenth-century context, this is a pretty serious theological challenge to an idea that had centuries of theological consensus and a number of official papal documents backing it.

13-18 flesh out his idea that the suffering of purgatory is simply the suffering caused by insufficient charity (and is primarily a horror of one’s sins and their consequences–the fear that “perfect love” casts out according to 1 John). So yes, he’s challenging the idea that the souls in purgatory are passive sufferers. If their love needs to increase, then the process of sanctification is ongoing.

I think Luther is asking really good questions in this text. I recognize that his issues with Catholic doctrine are by contemporary standards pretty nuanced, and I suspect that if the modern CDF had to deal with a text like this they would sigh with relief and say “this is what doctrinally dubious propositions ought to look like.” Even in the sixteenth century, one cardinal acknowledged (at Worms in 1521) that probably what Luther had written up to 1520 could be reconciled with Catholic teaching. Again, in contemporary terms he was at the stage where the CDF would contact him and ask him to explain himself. But he was certainly making substantive doctrinal points that appeared to conflict with Catholic teaching as it had developed in the later Middle Ages.

My point about the “side issue,” again, wasn’t about the Theses themselves but about their relationship to his overall theological agenda. Luther had been working on these ideas about penance and justification/sanctification for some years, and he was responding to a current issue based on this theological framework.

Edwin

 

[fred_conty]

Attacking abuses was almost a side issue for Luther. Of course it’s what got people excited. But it had been done over and over again before. The difference with the Reformation was that there was a doctrinal core to it. It claimed to explain why there were all these abuses–because the Gospel had been obscured or even forgotten.

Edwin

---

May I add another thought here. It has been a while since I’ve read a thing or two in history, but I believe according to one author, there was another heresy that arose about 25
or so years before Luther’s. But it rather quickly died out because of no support. So when Luther started to make noise, Rome didn’t take it seriously, and thought it would just weaken over time and die a quiet death, although they did expect some loses. So they chose to ignore it having other fires to fight. Later on they recognized their mistake and sent a representative to make peace but by that time it had already escalated.

But, Luther’s complaints came when there was a discussion among the princes and nobility of how to increase their REVENUE and holdings. The idea occurred to them that they might severe their financial strings of giving money to Rome, the Pope, for his needs, as a way of gaining more income for themselves. And then the idea struck them to encourage this “Luther criticism” among the people as an axe to break with Roman influence and stop the money flow. And that they did. And it happened. And all the princes got their summer palaces on the lake.

The question is whether or not it would have had the success if it would have come at another time as the earlier heresy had. All of this depended to a degree on timing.

Luther later tried to promote a doctrine that the common person should be an important issue.
He tried to rally the people behind him, but had no success because the princes wanted to keep the power for themselves. As a result, this failed.

Just a thought.

Ps.
This is in the History of the Catholic Church by Neil Schmandt. Of course parapharased.