T
theCardinalbird
Guest
What did Martin Luther condemn about the Church? Did his accusations change the Church? How do we rebut what he said about the Church?
- Status
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
He condemned things he didn’t understand or disagreed with. A couple of the things needed legitimate reform, but those reforms were already underway.
For example, he condemned the selling of indulgences. He believed people were essentially buying their way out of Hell. In reality, indulgences were offered as a benefit for making monetary donations to the various church construction projects being done. You weren’t buying an indulgence, you were donating to the worthy cause and receiving an indulgence as an added benefit. No matter how much money a person donated, it they lacked the interior repentance and necessary disposition, the indulgence would be completely worthless. An unrepentant sinner could not donate excessively to the Church and get out of Hell for it. If they were not sorry for their sins, they were just as damned before their donation as after it.
Most of the other stuff he rejected was because he personally didn’t believe something to be true. For example, he rejected Purgatory. In order to do this, he also had to reject the scriptural status of Maccabees, since it clearly indicates that there is a third state people could be in (albeit temporarily). He also didn’t believe in personal sanctification, he couldn’t comprehend how God could actually make sinful humans holy, and so he concluded that God couldn’t, and instead simply covered up or ignored our sinfulness in Heaven. This in spite of the fact that Jesus tells us nothing unclean can enter the kingdom of Heaven, and uncleanliness doesn’t go away simply by being ignored.
His accusations did change the Church, but not out of any inherent validity of their own. They changed the Church because they fractured it; they ripped apart the Western Church’s unity of faith and doctrine, and set the stage for the abysmal state of Christendom in the world today. They created a loophole by which secular governments began to seize religious authority. Thanks to him, billions of people think that they can make up doctrine to suit their beliefs instead of conforming their beliefs to reality and acknowledging an authority apart from themselves.
For example, he condemned the selling of indulgences. He believed people were essentially buying their way out of Hell. In reality, indulgences were offered as a benefit for making monetary donations to the various church construction projects being done. You weren’t buying an indulgence, you were donating to the worthy cause and receiving an indulgence as an added benefit. No matter how much money a person donated, it they lacked the interior repentance and necessary disposition, the indulgence would be completely worthless. An unrepentant sinner could not donate excessively to the Church and get out of Hell for it. If they were not sorry for their sins, they were just as damned before their donation as after it.
Most of the other stuff he rejected was because he personally didn’t believe something to be true. For example, he rejected Purgatory. In order to do this, he also had to reject the scriptural status of Maccabees, since it clearly indicates that there is a third state people could be in (albeit temporarily). He also didn’t believe in personal sanctification, he couldn’t comprehend how God could actually make sinful humans holy, and so he concluded that God couldn’t, and instead simply covered up or ignored our sinfulness in Heaven. This in spite of the fact that Jesus tells us nothing unclean can enter the kingdom of Heaven, and uncleanliness doesn’t go away simply by being ignored.
His accusations did change the Church, but not out of any inherent validity of their own. They changed the Church because they fractured it; they ripped apart the Western Church’s unity of faith and doctrine, and set the stage for the abysmal state of Christendom in the world today. They created a loophole by which secular governments began to seize religious authority. Thanks to him, billions of people think that they can make up doctrine to suit their beliefs instead of conforming their beliefs to reality and acknowledging an authority apart from themselves.
Last edited:
E
ErraticFaith
Guest
A lot like Henry, he complained about things that didn’t suit his personal whims. I don’t like it - so get rid of it.
Everything he claimed was personal interpretation or baseless nonsense, likely all centered around his personal beef with the Pope.
Everything he claimed was personal interpretation or baseless nonsense, likely all centered around his personal beef with the Pope.
K
KevinK
Guest
Selling: to transfer (goods) to or render (services) for another in exchange for money
A
alice24
Guest
Nah. It´s not that easy. There were legitime needs for discussing theological issues and/or discussions about how the faith is acted out by the chruch, but Luther wans´t the first or the most eloquent man t claim this. Catholic scholars adressed this topics before him, and there were changes in the church by the church after him.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
The indulgence was not rendered in exchange for the money, it was an added benefit bestowed when proper conditions were met. Similarly, say that I start a subscription to Catholic Answers Magazine while they’re offering the extra talks and stuff for subscribing. I am purchasing a subscription, and receiving those talks as an added benefit for my subscription. i am not purchasing those talks, but I am receiving them along with my actual purpose in exchanging money. I said above, it is a fine distinction, but it is an important one.ProdglArchitect:
Selling: to transfer (goods) to or render (services) for another in exchange for money
I’ll admit that a couple of bishops were directly selling them, but that had already been shut down long before Luther did his thing.
Last edited:
K
Kts1816
Guest
Not everything…is nonsense if you read deep…
Last edited:
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
Erm… no… it was all pretty nonsensical. I’m sure it made sense to him, but all oh his complaints were answerable. In fact, most of his complaints were long since answered well before he officially left the Church. He was corrected over and over again, and refutations and clarifications were given to all of his major objections. He was simply too prideful to recognize that he might not know best, and refused to accept any answer that he couldn’t personally comprehend.
Last edited:
K
Kts1816
Guest
Pridefull yes,did bad moral choices,too but some of his comments are very good( not indulgencess stuff and rebeling to Pope).
Last edited:
M
Maximilian75
Guest
Such as?
That rebellion from the pope and misrepresentation of indulgences, in my opinion, is why Luther is famous.
That rebellion from the pope and misrepresentation of indulgences, in my opinion, is why Luther is famous.
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
I tried to read one of his theses and I was appalled at the language he used to address the throne of Peter/Papacy
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
How do I rebut this:
“Why does not the pope, whose wealth today is greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build the basilica of St. Peter with his own money rather than with the money of poor believers?”
-Luther
“Why does not the pope, whose wealth today is greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build the basilica of St. Peter with his own money rather than with the money of poor believers?”
-Luther
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
There have been corrupt Pope’s and during Martin Luther’s time, some of the worse.
He had just seen Pope Alexander VI, then Luther sees Pope Leo X, who road into Rome leading a Papal Army while wearing gold plated armor and riding a white horse.
People in the streets had to bow to the ground as he passed by and those who didn’t, were arrested.
Plenary indulgences by Pope’s, one of the most outrageous was Pope Urban II granting an entire remission of sin and a path directly to heaven upon death, for those who volunteered to fight in the first Crusade.
Being a Catholic is much easier when you accept that the Church had it’s dirty laundry.
Martin Luther responded to what he saw.
I believe that before his death, Martin Luther was so grief stricken from his excommunication and reform, that he actually was on the edge of a mental breakdown.
Jim
He had just seen Pope Alexander VI, then Luther sees Pope Leo X, who road into Rome leading a Papal Army while wearing gold plated armor and riding a white horse.
People in the streets had to bow to the ground as he passed by and those who didn’t, were arrested.
Plenary indulgences by Pope’s, one of the most outrageous was Pope Urban II granting an entire remission of sin and a path directly to heaven upon death, for those who volunteered to fight in the first Crusade.
Being a Catholic is much easier when you accept that the Church had it’s dirty laundry.
Martin Luther responded to what he saw.
I believe that before his death, Martin Luther was so grief stricken from his excommunication and reform, that he actually was on the edge of a mental breakdown.
Jim
Last edited:
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
Was that Cardinal Borgia!?
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Rodrigo de Borja
He had several mistresses and fathered children.
Jim
He had several mistresses and fathered children.
Jim
K
KevinK
Guest
That is so true.
S
stpurl
Guest
You rebut it with the fact that the Pope did not have personal wealth. The so-called wealth of the cathedrals, art, painting, etc. did not belong to the individual pope, whether that Pope was Julius, Innocent, Gregory, or to carry forward, whether that Pope was John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, St. John Paul II, Benedict XVI, or Francis. None of them ‘owns’ any of that ‘wealth’; you won’t find it in the wills of those who have died, because it is not theirs to give away. It belongs to the people of the church. Because earlier Christians gave freely objects of beauty and service out of love for God, we today can walk into the Sistine Chapel, can gaze upon priceless art, etc., gratis, instead of paying $$ to museums or instead of these things being holed up in a collector’s vault.
You can also respond with this: Ever hear in the gospel about the “widow’s mite?” How dare Luther try to cheat the poor out of their opportunity to enrich the lives of all their fellow humans by contributing freely and from love to honor God, and reduce the poor to mere objects of charity, as if they can only receive.
Isn’t it strange how we’re so often told it is more blessed to give than to receive, yet we’re so quick to demand that only ‘one’ group be allowed to do the giving?
You can also respond with this: Ever hear in the gospel about the “widow’s mite?” How dare Luther try to cheat the poor out of their opportunity to enrich the lives of all their fellow humans by contributing freely and from love to honor God, and reduce the poor to mere objects of charity, as if they can only receive.
Isn’t it strange how we’re so often told it is more blessed to give than to receive, yet we’re so quick to demand that only ‘one’ group be allowed to do the giving?
M
MichaelP3
Guest
I remember paying €20 in order to enter the Vatican museum a few years ago (lots of priceless art there). The Sistine Chapel was part of that… If it is possible to see the Chapel otherwise, please correct me?
Last edited:
M
Maximilian75
Guest
Other than having friends in high places, I don’t believe so.
However, remember that the Vatican makes less money from the museums than Harvard University per year.
What does Harvard do? Give you a rather expensive liberal arts education.
What does the Vatican Museum do? Preserve for posterity some of the greatest works of art in the history of mankind.
However, remember that the Vatican makes less money from the museums than Harvard University per year.
What does Harvard do? Give you a rather expensive liberal arts education.
What does the Vatican Museum do? Preserve for posterity some of the greatest works of art in the history of mankind.
M
MichaelP3
Guest
Not disagreeing with you there. Although that is the point for many museums.
The post I was replying to just didn’t think their point through.
Regards
The post I was replying to just didn’t think their point through.
Regards
- Status