The reformation was based on PRIDE

  • Thread starter Thread starter erikd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe you’re taking things out of context. Pope Benedict XVI said that if faith is considered as including works (James 2:24) then faith alone would be correct. Luther did not believe in works as he did not recognize the Book of James as canonical.
No, I think Pope Benedict, being a scholar who studied Luther, and who taught with Lutheran scholars at Tubingen, knew exactly what Luther meant:

From Luther’s Preface to to the Book of Romans:

Instead, faith is God’s work in us, that changes us and gives
new birth from God. (John 1:13). It kills the Old Adam and makes us
completely different people. It changes our hearts, our spirits,
our thoughts and all our powers. It brings the Holy Spirit with
it. Yes, it is a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this
faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t
stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone
asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without
ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an
unbeliever.

iclnet.org/pub/resources/…ther-faith.txt

The characterization of the debate as being one about “faith” versus “faith and works” is wrong. Please read Catholic apologist/philosopher Peter Kreeft’s article:

"The Protestant Reformation began when a Catholic monk rediscovered a Catholic doctrine in a Catholic book. The monk, of course, was Luther; the doctrine was justification by faith; and the book was the Bible. One of the tragic ironies of Christian history is that the deepest split in the history of the Church, and the one that has occasioned the most persecution, hatred, and bloody wars on both sides, from the Peasants’ War of Luther’s day through the Thirty Years’ War, which claimed a larger percentage of the population of many parts of central Europe than any other war in history, including the two world wars, to the present-day agony in Northern Ireland — this split between Protestant and Catholic originated in a misunderstanding. And to this day many Catholics and many Protestants still do not realize that fact.

Luther’s story is well known. Passionate, impetuous, demanding, sensitive, and pessimistic in temperament, Luther had never been able to find inner peace. He could not overcome his sense of guilt despite all his good works, prayers, penances, and alms. His confessor advised him to read Romans. No more historically momentous advice was ever given by a confessor. In Romans Luther discovered the simple bombshell truth that God had forgiven his sins freely, not because of Luther’s works in Germany but because of Christ’s work on Calvary. That discovery freed Luther’s spirit and ignited a fire that swept over Europe. The watchword of the Reformation became Saint Paul’s summary of the gospel: “The just (justified, saved) shall live [have eternal life] by faith [in Christ]” (Rom 1: 17)

Where then do good works come in? In Christian Liberty, Luther explains that after the great liberation about faith — that we are saved by faith in Christ’s work, not by our works — comes a great liberation about works: they need not be done slavishly, to buy our way into heaven, to pile up merits or Brownie points with God, but can be done freely and spontaneously and naturally, out of gratitude to God — not to get to heaven but because heaven has already gotten to us. Thus they can be done for the sake of our neighbor, not for our own sake, to purchase salvation. And this is winsome. No one wants to be loved as someone else’s good deed for the day. "

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0027.html

The differences between Luther and the Catholic scholars of his time were more related to the role of man’s free will in salvation, as shown by Luther’s exchanges with Erasmus.
 
You answered this when I asked if any evidence exists of the accusations made earlier. I take it there is no evidence, judging by your answer. It’s too bad the discussion could not be kept civil by including historical data and backing up the accusations with actual facts. Since that is the case, you’re probably right, there’s no point in moving forward.
Sad to say my friend, but you do not know what you are talking about.
 
Erik,

You seem to have taken the liberty of answering a number of my responses to Matariel. For the record, my issue with Matariel has never had anything to do with Luther’s overall view of the canonicity of specific texts, rather with the assertion that he removed them from the Bible. Again, we are all aware of Luther’s canonical opinions.

But then, this was not a discussion you and I were having.

Let’s get back to the crux of our conversation:

In your OP, you cited Fr. Keenan to the effect that Luther was mortified in his pride because the Dominicans got the Indulgence rather than the Augustinians. Since Fr. Keenan cannot substantiate this, it falls to you as the one who cited him here to do so.

I have nothing to prove to you, I made no positive claim vis a vis your OP. Rather, I repudiated Keenan’s claim, the burden of proof for which has not yet been lifted.

This is, at the moment, the only issue between us. Please stop trying to shift the burden and please stop trying to obscure the matter with questions about things we have not controverted.

When you have shown that Keenan is correct, we can move on to other things.
In the last few days on this thread, and in another thread on the Reformation, I have provided multiple quotes from Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Willebrands, and Peter Kreeft which are indicative of modern Catholic opinion on Luther.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6376276&postcount=201

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6369889&postcount=46

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6369597&postcount=43

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6368166&postcount=34

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6346889&postcount=55

Simply put, if what Father Keenan wrote 150 years ago was true, would several of the most prominent Catholics of the last 40 years have said what they did about Luther? I don’t think so.
 
I’m sorry Janet, but I believe, with all due respect, that this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the works of St. Thomas Aquinas. Remember, that he also says, as you pointed out in post 71:

In obedience to Our Lord’s institution, the Church extends her charity to all, not only to friends, but also to foes who persecute her, according to Matthew 5:44: “Love your enemies; do good to them that hate you.” Now it is part of charity that we should both wish and work our neighbor’s good. Again, good is twofold: one is spiritual, namely the health of the soul, which good is chiefly the object of charity, since it is this chiefly that we should wish for one another. Consequently, from this point of view, heretics who return after falling no matter how often, are admitted by the Church to Penance whereby the way of salvation is opened to them.

Also, please remember that the Summa Theologica is not Church Law or Canon Law. It is merely the work of one of the foremost philosophers of the Christian era. If it did advocate death (which it does not) the Church would have had to apply these teachings into Her own Canonical Law and this kind of law simply never existed. If it did, I would be interested in seeing it.
I tell you what pride is. Pride is me trying to argue this with you in here, trying to find more and better information than you, just to not give in.
Please forgive me.
My historical understanding might be tainted by everything I have heard in the past.
I will leave this argument to keep myself from sinning.
 
Erik,

You seem to have taken the liberty of answering a number of my responses to Matariel. For the record, my issue with Matariel has never had anything to do with Luther’s overall view of the canonicity of specific texts, rather with the assertion that he removed them from the Bible. Again, we are all aware of Luther’s canonical opinions.

But then, this was not a discussion you and I were having.

Let’s get back to the crux of our conversation:

In your OP, you cited Fr. Keenan to the effect that Luther was mortified in his pride because the Dominicans got the Indulgence rather than the Augustinians. Since Fr. Keenan cannot substantiate this, it falls to you as the one who cited him here to do so.

I have nothing to prove to you, I made no positive claim vis a vis your OP. Rather, I repudiated Keenan’s claim, the burden of proof for which has not yet been lifted.

This is, at the moment, the only issue between us. Please stop trying to shift the burden and please stop trying to obscure the matter with questions about things we have not controverted.

When you have shown that Keenan is correct, we can move on to other things.
Hi Spun

It pains me to see that this conversation has become so vile in many respects. Since you asked the question, I shall answer it. My sources which substantiate this are Fr. Keenan, John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York who gave his Imprimatur to this writing, and Andrew, Bishop of Ceramis, Vicar Apostolic of Eastern Scotland. Also, my source is the Catholic Church which published this writing with an imprimatur. Also, my source is history itself as we know that the Dominical preacher Johann Tetzel was made commissioner of indulgences for all of Germany by Pope Leo X. Tetzel was known for saying: “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings / the soul from purgatory springs” which would mortify anyone including Luther himself. After all, Luther’s 95 thesis were partially if not wholly inspired (according to the Encyclopedia Britannica) by Tetzel’s mangling of the doctrine of indulgences and Tetzel was known (by the Catholic Encyclopedia) as the first public antagonist of Luther. You have to remember that in those days, the “black death” was very prominent in Germany and western Europe. This caused for a major shortage of clergy, causing some Priests who were not worthy of being Priests (due to their lack of education or just a poor state of mind) to be elevated to positions higher then would normally happen.

In addition, the Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to say,

*But in Luther’s spiritual life significant, if not ominous, changes were likewise discernible…

This condition of morbidity finally developed into formal scrupulosity. Infractions of the rules, breaches of discipline, distorted ascetic practices followed in quick succession and with increasing gravity; these, followed by spasmodic convulsive reactions, made life an agony. The solemn obligation of reciting the daily Office, an obligation binding under the penalty of mortal sin, was neglected to allow more ample time for study, with the result that the Breviary was abandoned for weeks. Then in paroxysmal remorse Luther would lock himself into his cell and by one retroactive act make amends for all he neglected; he would abstain from all food and drink, torture himself by harrowing mortifications, to an extent that not only made him the victim of insomnia for five weeks at one time, but threatened to drive him into insanity.*

The Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to say:

*John Tetzel, a Dominican monk with an impressive personality, a gift of popular oratory, and the repute of a successful indulgence preacher, was chosen by the archbishop as general-subcommissary. History presents few characters more unfortunate and pathetic than Tetzel. Among his contemporaries the victim of the most corrosive ridicule, every foul charge laid at his door, every blasphemous utterance placed in his mouth, a veritable fiction and fable built about his personality, in modern history held up as the proverbial mountebank and oily harlequin, denied even the support and sympathy of his own allies — Tetzel had to wait the light of modern critical scrutiny, not only for a moral rehabilitation, but also for vindication as a soundly trained theologian and a monk of irreproachable deportment. It was his preaching at Juterbog and Zerbst, towns adjoining Wittenberg, that drew hearers from there, who in turn presented themselves to Luther for confession, that made him take the step he had in contemplation for more than a year. *
newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm

I would think that anyone in that same situation would be mortified that a Dominican monk, with such a horrible reputation, is in charge of indulgences, of which Luther hears from people in their confessions, only after they believed that their temporal punishment was erased (which is the effect of some indulgences). I’m not sure how much more clear the answer should be. If, however, you’re looking for Luther’s writings to say “I was mortified” then you’re on your own.

By the way, I wish that you could be honest with yourself and just say that you don’t have the answers to my questions. It is painfully evident that there is no answer to the question of why Luther felt himself worthy of being the arbiter of canonicity, which led to Books, deemed unworthy (by Luther) of being the Word of God, to be removed from Bibles which are currently read by almost one billion people worldwide today.

I pray the Rosary every day, which begins with the Apostles’ Creed, one Our Father, and three Hail Marys. The three Hail Marys are said for faith, hope, and charity. I pray for these gifts within myself on a daily basis and I will pray for those same gifts to be bestowed upon you as well. Perhaps then we can have a legitimate and honest discussion.
 
Not really a step toward Christian unity in the universal body of Christ. 🤷 I thought the last few Popes encouraged ecumenism within Christendom?
I will ask you the same question that I’ve been asking: Can you tell me which of the issues raised in the Doctrinal Catechism are historically incorrect? When you do, can you show me why? Please use citations, we’ve had plenty of opinions thrown around already.
 
I will ask you the same question that I’ve been asking: Can you tell me which of the issues raised in the Doctrinal Catechism are historically incorrect? When you do, can you show me why? Please use citations, we’ve had plenty of opinions thrown around already.
Who’s Catechism, mine or yours? Of course my Catechism is a secondary source of authority for me.
 
No, I think Pope Benedict, being a scholar who studied Luther, and who taught with Lutheran scholars at Tubingen, knew exactly what Luther meant:

From Luther’s Preface to to the Book of Romans:

Instead, faith is God’s work in us, that changes us and gives
new birth from God. (John 1:13). It kills the Old Adam and makes us
completely different people. It changes our hearts, our spirits,
our thoughts and all our powers. It brings the Holy Spirit with
it. Yes, it is a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this
faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t
stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone
asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without
ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an
unbeliever.

iclnet.org/pub/resources/…ther-faith.txt
Peter Kreeft, who you quote below, will also tell you that your free will remains in tact, and your mind still has the power to reject God and His will. Works are not of ourselves, they are of God, on that point we agree. Luther, however, rejected wholly the doctrine of works and faith as being one and the same (St. James 2:17, 20), as he did the doctrine of purgatory, as he did the doctrine of indulgences, as he did of the Biblican canon, etc.

As far as Pope Benedict XVI, what he said was this:

*“faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love." *

Pope Benedict XVI speaking to a general audience on 11/19/2008.

Let us remember what he means by faith as the Pontiff goes on to say in the same general address:

Paul knows that in the twofold love of God and neighbour the whole of the Law is present and carried out. Thus in communion with Christ, in a faith that creates charity, the entire Law is fulfilled. We become just by entering into communion with Christ who is Love. We shall see the same thing in the Gospel next Sunday, the Solemnity of Christ the King. It is the Gospel of the judge whose sole criterion is love. What he asks is only this: Did you visit me when I was sick? When I was in prison? Did you give me food to eat when I was hungry, did you clothe me when I was naked? And thus justice is decided in charity. Thus, at the end of this Gospel we can almost say: love alone, charity alone. But there is no contradiction between this Gospel and St Paul. It is the same vision, according to which communion with Christ, faith in Christ, creates charity. And charity is the fulfilment of communion with Christ. Thus, we are just by being united with him and in no other way
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

That does not sound like Luther’s theology of “faith alone.” I will be happly to clear this up further if you’d like, but works are clearly evident in the Pontiff’s speech.
 
Sad to say my friend, but you do not know what you are talking about.
Maybe this discussion could include some facts and not just opinionated slams. I’ve presented facts, maybe you could dispute my facts with your facts. I’m looking forward to it.
 
In the last few days on this thread, and in another thread on the Reformation, I have provided multiple quotes from Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Willebrands, and Peter Kreeft which are indicative of modern Catholic opinion on Luther.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6376276&postcount=201

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6369889&postcount=46

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6369597&postcount=43

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6368166&postcount=34

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6346889&postcount=55

Simply put, if what Father Keenan wrote 150 years ago was true, would several of the most prominent Catholics of the last 40 years have said what they did about Luther? I don’t think so.
I will ask again if you could show me which of the points in the OP, as presented by the Doctrinal Catechism of the Catholic Church was historically incorrect. Please provide evidence to back up your opinions.
 
And now I am mortified and so should you be. You did all that work and still didn’t answer the question.

Here’s the question: How do you know that the fact that the Dominicans got the Indulgence to preach in Germany while the Augustinians did not was a leading cause for Luther’s publication of the 95 theses and his eventual break from Rome?

All I am looking for is some substantiation for the claim. All you have given me here are facts of history (The Dominican Tetzel preached the Indulgence, Luther didn’t like him because he was such a poor representative [which Catholic scholars admit]).

What I am looking for is, beyond Luther’s personal and theological disapproval of Tetzel, what basis is there for the conclusion that he was also motivated by an injured pride, his order (the Augustinians) having been overlooked in favor of the Dominicans when it came to the preaching of this indulgence?

Because this is Keenan’s claim. He doesn’t claim that Luther disapproved of Tetzel (this is well known, Luther had a lot to say about Tetzel and most Catholic scholars also agree that Tetzel wasn’t half the scholar Luther was, but then, that wasn’t his job. Tetzel’s job was to rake in the dough and he was very good at that).

Keenan claims that Luther was motivated by what can only be described as a kind of party jealousy, that his pride was injured for the sake of his Augustinian brethren.

I am going to cut you some slack here, Erik. Substantiation for such a claim just doesn’t exist. Fr. Keenan, writing these many years ago, was thinking about Luther; what would have made him do what he did, Keenan wondered? Dissatisfied with the purely theological grounds given by most Protestant scholars, Fr. Keenan began to inquire into what might have been the psychological reasons for Luther’s decisions and actions.

But there just isn’t a lot of psychological investigation to draw upon, so Fr. Keenan, like the good polemicist he is, proceeds to make something up. He fabricates an etiology out of whole cloth. Without a shred of evidence or support he blithely contends that Luther was jealous of the Dominicans.

By any reasonable standard this renders his credibility on any matter having to do with the Reformation, Luther, Oliver Cromwell or a whole host of subjects highly questionable. He simply lacks the objectivity to deal justly with any topic which touches upon the break.

It is for very similar reasons that Catholics, in debate with Protestants, justly reject Hislop and Boettner as authorities.
 
I tell you what pride is. Pride is me trying to argue this with you in here, trying to find more and better information than you, just to not give in.
Please forgive me.
My historical understanding might be tainted by everything I have heard in the past.
I will leave this argument to keep myself from sinning.
Sorry to hear that, Janet. I tried to show you that historically, as is true today, the Church loved all sinners. I hope that I did not upset you in the process. I will be happy to discuss the Summa with you whenever you’d like.
 
The Doctrinal Catechism of the Catholic Church which is quoted in the OP.
Oh, I thought you meant the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is not as tough on Luther than the source you quoted above. I’ve read teachings of the current Pope who has put Luther in a very positive light including his infamous statement of faith alone. If I’m not mistaken, it seemed that the Pope was agreeing in some small way with Luther’s faith alone theology.
 
Oh, I thought you meant the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is not as tough on Luther than the source you quoted above. I’ve read teachings of the current Pope who has put Luther in a very positive light including his infamous statement of faith alone. If I’m not mistaken, it seemed that the Pope was agreeing in some small way with Luther’s faith alone theology.
Pope Benedict XVI has stated that we are saved through faith, so in that sense we are saved by faith alone. He however did clearly iterate that there is some disagreement over the Lutheran interpretation of this.
 
Oh, I thought you meant the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is not as tough on Luther than the source you quoted above. I’ve read teachings of the current Pope who has put Luther in a very positive light including his infamous statement of faith alone. If I’m not mistaken, it seemed that the Pope was agreeing in some small way with Luther’s faith alone theology.
If you look at post 208 in this thread you will see the Pontiff’s views on what faith alone really means, and how it differs from the views of Martin Luther.
 
Keenan claims that Luther was motivated by what can only be described as a kind of party jealousy, that his pride was injured for the sake of his Augustinian brethren.

I am going to cut you some slack here, Erik. Substantiation for such a claim just doesn’t exist. Fr. Keenan, writing these many years ago, was thinking about Luther; what would have made him do what he did, Keenan wondered? Dissatisfied with the purely theological grounds given by most Protestant scholars, Fr. Keenan began to inquire into what might have been the psychological reasons for Luther’s decisions and actions.

But there just isn’t a lot of psychological investigation to draw upon, so Fr. Keenan, like the good polemicist he is, proceeds to make something up. He fabricates an etiology out of whole cloth. Without a shred of evidence or support he blithely contends that Luther was jealous of the Dominicans.
You sound fairly certain, I assume you have some evidence? After all, you just accused a Catholic Priest and two Catholic Bishops of blatantly lying. By the way, since you claimed that not much psychological evidence exists, did you not see the Catholic Encyclopedia quotes regarding Luther’s state of mind?
 
I will ask again if you could show me which of the points in the OP, as presented by the Doctrinal Catechism of the Catholic Church was historically incorrect. Please provide evidence to back up your opinions.
My evidence is dozens of volumes of primary source material which contain no evidence to support the allegation as to Luther’s motives.

The Catechism you cite is not primary source material (i.e. source material contemporaneous to the event being researched) - it is a document written over 300 years after the fact which does not cite any primary source material in support of its allegations.

I have 55 volumes of primary source material sitting about 10 feet away from my computer.

augsburgfortress.org/store/itemset.jsp?clsid=112388&productgroupid=0&categoryid=945

Much primary source material on the internet is catalogued here:

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/07/resources-martin-luther.html

There is no evidence that I am aware of those, or any other, primary source material to support the allegation that Luther’s objections to certain practices in the Church regarding indulgences were due to the reasons stated in the Catechism.

Show me a primary source material which supports the allegation. Then we can talk.
 
My evidence is dozens of volumes of primary source material which contain no evidence to support the allegation as to Luther’s motives.

The Catechism you cite is not primary source material (i.e. source material contemporaneous to the event being researched) - it is a document written over 300 years after the fact which does not cite any primary source material in support of its allegations.

I have 55 volumes of primary source material sitting about 10 feet away from my computer.

augsburgfortress.org/store/itemset.jsp?clsid=112388&productgroupid=0&categoryid=945

Much primary source material on the internet is catalogued here:

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/07/resources-martin-luther.html

There is no evidence that I am aware of those, or any other, primary source material to support the allegation that Luther’s objections to certain practices in the Church regarding indulgences were due to the reasons stated in the Catechism.

Show me a primary source material which supports the allegation. Then we can talk.
If you go back through this thread you’ll see where Spun and I had this conversation, many posts ago. No offense, I just don’t want to keep repeating myself when you can just read the thread.
 
And this IowaJay, is the reason why I mentioned to erikd to let go of this thread or wear egg on his/her face. Historic facts are inconvenient to this individual. The difference between me and you IowaJay is you have the willingness to post your primary sources.

I on the other hand consider it a waste of time since the other party is not listening.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top