What should Luther have done?

[carol_marie]

**It is my understanding that most Catholics agree that when Martin Luther broke away, the Church was indeed a mess. I’ve heard that the Pope was terrible, indulgences were being sold and the sinful clergy that Luther had such a problem with were truly awful. I’ve also been taught (granted, by the Lutheran church) that Luther didn’t want to break away, he wanted to bring abut reform within the Church but that the Pope was so corrupt he booted him out (and then tried to have him murdered.) So here’s my question: What should Luther have done differently? Should he have just kept quiet when he was told to do so??? **

 

[RobedWithLight]

**It is my understanding that most Catholics agree that when Martin Luther broke away, the Church was indeed a mess. I’ve heard that the Pope was terrible, indulgences were being sold and the sinful clergy that Luther had such a problem with were truly awful. I’ve also been taught (granted, by the Lutheran church) that Luther didn’t want to break away, he wanted to bring abut reform within the Church but that the Pope was so corrupt he booted him out (and then tried to have him murdered.) So here’s my question: What should Luther have done differently? Should he have just kept quiet when he was told to do so??? **

Luther’s mistake was that in trying to “reform” the Church, he nearly destroyed its foundations. Had he stayed within the church and patiently and dilligently campaigned for the needed reforms, he might have succeeded, as certain great Saints have done, like St. Bernard of Clairvaux and St. Catherine of Sienna, who tirelessly worked for reform of the Church at the height of the great papal Schism in the late 14th century.

There were a lot of examples of Catholics who had rebuked Popes and succeeded. Pope John XXII (1249-1316) for instance, was soundly and successfully rebuked by the Catholic faithful when he temporarily espoused belief in a false doctrine concerning the Beatific vision, that is that the souls of the dead did not see God until the Last Judgment.

History is quite clear.

Gerry

 

[BayCityRickL]

Can’t answer these questions specifically.

I think the reformation is quite a complicated story, and I think my understanding is only superficial.

But, I sense that there were other issues, and they were scarcely doctrinal. Through various means that I can’t authoritatively explain, I think Rome was absorbing lots of money, for building the Vatican and decorating it. I think that Rome held a lot of temporal power until the end of the Holy Roman Empire which I recall, seemed to end later than you might think – something like 1870. I see an underlying squabble about power and money and influence behind the Reformation.

The Pope at the time – whoever it was – seemed not to take the reformation seriously. My patchy history continues: The Council of Trent was held in Germany or thereabouts, and was the Catholic Church’s attempt to counteract the Reformation.

Fast forward to now, and you see that the Reformation is alive and well. I see it prospering when I drive through town and see all the protestant churches.

About Luther: he was quite intellectual and imputed to himself the judgment over faith and morals that Catholics today would reserve to the Pope. See? With protestants (deliberately “p” not “P” since there is no succinct definition of protestant that I know of) they continue to regard themselves as infallible in these matters but strangely exclude the possibility that the Pope has that moral authority. This is the one of the usually-unspoken assumptions behind sola scriptura. This all is just my own viewpoint on the issue.

I suppose Luther should have sought to have a Church council convened to resolve his questions. The situation is very close to what you have today in the Catholic Church, with lots of people calling for ‘democracy’ in the Church.

I think this thread is interesting and I want to follow this thread. Good question!

 

[Antonio_B]

**It is my understanding that most Catholics agree that when Martin Luther broke away, the Church was indeed a mess. I’ve heard that the Pope was terrible, indulgences were being sold and the sinful clergy that Luther had such a problem with were truly awful. I’ve also been taught (granted, by the Lutheran church) that Luther didn’t want to break away, he wanted to bring abut reform within the Church but that the Pope was so corrupt he booted him out (and then tried to have him murdered.) So here’s my question: What should Luther have done differently? Should he have just kept quiet when he was told to do so??? **

I never heard of Pope Leo X wanting to “murder” Luther. That’s news to me. Surely the Pope was not happy with Luther, and surely the Pope was corrupt if by corrupt one means that he was more concerned with being a patron of the arts than with spiritual concerns, but murder in his mind? Not that I’m aware of.

Now, was Luther correct in denouncing the corruption of 16th century Catholicism? You bet. So, where did he go wrong? He went wrong in denying Catholic teaching thus separating himself from Catholicism although I understand, he thought of himself a Catholic till his death.
Did you see the movie Luther last year?

Antonio

 

[RobedWithLight]

Antonio B:

I never heard of Pope Leo X wanting to “murder” Luther. That’s news to me. Surely the Pope was not happy with Luther, and surely the Pope was corrupt if by corrupt one means that he was more concerned with being a patron of the arts than with spiritual concerns, but murder in his mind? Not that I’m aware of.

Antonio

I likewise haven’t heard of that. Luther did burn Pope Leo X’s bull Exsurge Domine but nowhere did I hear Leo X going to the extent of having Luther assassinated.

Gerry

 

[RNRobert]

As Bishop Sheen said, the Reformation reformed doctrine when it was morals that needed reform. The church was reformed, not by hotheads like Luther, but by holy men like St. Charles Borromeo, St. Philip Neri and St Francis de Sales who reformed the church from within by prayer and upright lives.

As far as the “selling of indulgences” goes, this is a stick that Protestants regularly use to beat Catholicism, but they have no real understanding of what indulgences are. Indulgences are basically a tool for the Christian not only to atone for the temporal effects of sin, but to break free of the attachment to sin and to grow in holiness (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1472-1474). Indulgences usually consist of doing some pious act like prayer or Eucharistic adoration. In the middle ages, the church the church ‘sold’ indulgences to raise money for the building of churches and other works of the church. The money in this case was a form of almsgiving. At the time of Luther, the indulgences were being used to raise money for a new basilica (I read somewhere that the old one was falling apart). It should also be added that the church required interior repentence, or the indulgence was worthless. There were abuses to the system, which is why the Church eventually did away with the selling of indulgences.
However, before Protestants get too self-righteous on the subject, it should be pointed out that they have done the same thing. I have heard many Evangelical radio station ‘share-a-thons’ and televangelists tell their audience how God will ‘bless them’ if they give to their ministry. James Cardinal Gibbons tells in his book Faith of Our Fathers that when Cornelius Vanderbuilt gave a large sum of money to a Methodist College he was told by a minister, “Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thy alms are had in remembrance of God.” Gibbons drily comments:

The minister is more indulgent than even the Pope, tho whom were given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven;for the minister declares Cornelius absolved without the preliminary of confession or contrition, while even according to D’Aubigne, the inflexible Pope insisted on the necessity of “repentance of the heart and confession of the lips” before the donor’s offering could avail him to salvation.

In other words, Protestants blame Catholics for doing the same things they do themselves, yet the Catholic Church hold it’s members to higher standards.

 

[francisca]

Luther have done what he had to do.

The church should not have condemn him and his followers. Instead the church must have sit with him and discuss.

But we can’t change what happened. Instead, I believe all that happened was as God’s will.

I doubt that if Luther stayed, the church would have listened to him (not even after hundreds of years).

Yet over centuries, the church has been learning that she can’t deny what Apostle Paul teach us about faith in the bible (and Luther have stressed them in his teachings).

Supposed Luther stayed in the church, he would have been excommunicated anyway. And may be the people would have hung/ burn him alive after. The German New Testament wouldn’t have existed and we wouldn’t have enjoyed many bible translations like we have today.

 

[JimG]

Just a note: There were German bible translations before Luther.

As the principle of sola scriptura took hold, Lutheranism itself began to splinter into subdivisions with differing doctrines, which greatly grieved Luther later in his career.

 

[Antonio_B]

RobedWithLight:

I likewise haven’t heard of that. Luther did burn Pope Leo X’s bull Exsurge Domine but nowhere did I hear Leo X going to the extent of having Luther assassinated.

Gerry

Correct. Talk about embellishing history!

Antonio

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Perhaps he should have worked from within the Church to correct the abuses, without trying to reform Church doctrine. I think that is where Luther ran into trouble. I can even assume that his heart was sincere, and he believed that if the Church changed its views with respect to some doctrines - i.e. indulgences, etc., that there would be less inclination in the Church to lean toward abuse. But, he erred when he chose to usurp the teaching authority for his own ends - even if those ends were indeed noble.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello Carol Marie,

Most countries, companies, groups, organizations and clubs put one person in unequaled authority over all other members in the group. They do so to unite the group in the direction all group members will be compeled to follow. Rather than having twelve leaders equally pulling the group in twelve different directions, groups give one person unequaled authority to unite the group.

American president Abraham Lincoln used the entire might of American military forces to fight those who wanted two men with equal ultimate authority on American soil. America has built a memorial to President Lincoln for his service to America in keeping our country united and strong.

Abraham Lincoln quotes Jesus in his “house divided” speech, which he gave preceding the American Civil War. http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/divided.htm Abraham Lincoln and Jesus say, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

NAB MARK 3:24 (Jesus is speaking)

“If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.”

Jesus putting one man, St. Peter and his successors, in unequaled authority over all the rest of his followers to keep the Church united is not an original idea. It is a concept widely accepted around the world for milleniums.

The question now is, if it is Jesus will to have one man in unequalled authority over all his followers through giving St. Peter and his Successors Primacy, who was Luther to destroy what Jesus willed. This is the greatest of all Luther’s evils and has no doubt gain Luther a position high up in Satan’s hiearchy.

The Scribes and Pharisees were the most evil of men in the day of Jesus. Yet Jesus, before His ressurection, still respected their God given authority over God’s Church.

NAB MATTEW 23:1

Then Jesus told the crowds and his diciples: “The scribes and the Pharisees have succeeded Moses as teachers; therefore, do everything and observe everything they tell you. But do not follow their example.” God’s most tremendous wrath in Old Testament is poured out on those who seize duties and positions that only priests from the lineage of Aaron and Moses are allowed to do. Why do Jesus and the Father protect so dearly Church authority in the Jewish Sanhedrin when they know there are many God authorized Church leaders who are evil? Jesus and the Father even know that the God authorized Church high Priest will even condemn to death his own prophetic messiah Jesus? The answer is because authority unites.

Please follow this link to see how God deals with the protestants who try to seize God appointed unequaled Church authority from Moses. NUMBERS 16

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[Pax]

I would suggest reading Luther’s own writings and you will quickly discover what he should not have done. The Church did not excommunicate Luther right away. It was a number of years before that happened. The Church did what it could to keep him in the fold, but heresy cannot be tolerated.

If you want to know what Luther should have done read the lives of Catherine of Sienna, Francis of Assisi, and the other saints listed in one of the prior posts. Compare what they did and said with what he did, and you will see a world of difference.

 

[Pax]

francisca:

Luther have done what he had to do.

The church should not have condemn him and his followers. Instead the church must have sit with him and discuss.

But we can’t change what happened. Instead, I believe all that happened was as God’s will.

I doubt that if Luther stayed, the church would have listened to him (not even after hundreds of years).

Yet over centuries, the church has been learning that she can’t deny what Apostle Paul teach us about faith in the bible (and Luther have stressed them in his teachings).

Supposed Luther stayed in the church, he would have been excommunicated anyway. And may be the people would have hung/ burn him alive after. The German New Testament wouldn’t have existed and we wouldn’t have enjoyed many bible translations like we have today.

“But we can’t change what happened.” That’s true but we can try to undo it and the Catholic Lutheran Accords are a step in the right direction.

The rest of this post lacks historical accuracy and it is a gross misrepresentation to suggest that if Luther had stayed in the Church that he would have been hung or burned alive.

 

[tru_dvotion]

QUOTE=francisca]Luther have done what he had to do.

You mean what the Devil made him do.

The church should not have condemn him and his followers. Instead the church must have sit with him and discuss.

You are right. They should have had a modern day ecumenical dialogue with him.

But we can’t change what happened. Instead, I believe all that happened was as God’s will.

God’s will was revealed by Christ Jesus. “May they be one as you and I are one”

I doubt that if Luther stayed, the church would have listened to him (not even after hundreds of years).

On the contrary. The Church listened to the holy men and women. Many have rebuked Popes and changed the course of history.

Yet over centuries, the church has been learning that she can’t deny what Apostle Paul teach us about faith in the bible (and Luther have stressed them in his teachings).

The Church has NEVER denied what Paul was teaching in the Bible. It was the Church that compiled the Sacred Scriptures, INCLUDING Paul’s letters.

Supposed Luther stayed in the church, he would have been excommunicated anyway. And may be the people would have hung/ burn him alive after. The German New Testament wouldn’t have existed and we wouldn’t have enjoyed many bible translations like we have today.

And that would have been a terrible loss to the Church (The New German Testament), especially as opposed to the loss of our separated brethren who are currently members of over 3000 Christian denominations?

 

[Shibboleth]

First off Luther should not have used some of the language that he tended to employ.

Second, after he was excommunicated he had to justify some of his positions; in the process he threw a few babies out with the bath water. The book of James for instance…

Luther also needed the support and defense of the German and other country leaders. Because of this he sometimes did things in order to appease them that he should not have done. “Saying that there is no scriptural evidence against polygamy.”

He should have not written what he did about the practicing Jewish.

Oh yah, in response to Luther being put to death. The Vatican tried many times to have Luther sent to Rome. I have little doubt that if this had happened, especially after Luther was excommunicated and branded as a heretic, he would have been executed.

 

[tru_dvotion]

and heretic he was.

 

[trogiah]

What should Luther have done? The same that all of us should do, try to figure out what Jesus would do and do the same.

In this case, Luther could claim to be Christ-like in so far as Jesus also criticized the misguided and corrupt religious leaders of his day. What Jesus didn’t do was worry about his own safety in regard to the authorities who eventually wanted to take his life. Jesus recognized the threat and accepted it as an inevitable part of serving God in the face of opposition.

Jesus does set a high standard in this regard. But those who truly wish to follow him must accept that part of Jesus example as well as the rest.

To truly follow in Christs footsteps, Luther should have taken his criticisms to the Church hierarchy without any regard for his own safety.

I wonder what the world would be like today if he had.

-Jim

 

[RobedWithLight]

francisca:

Luther have done what he had to do.

Supposed Luther stayed in the church, he would have been excommunicated anyway. And may be the people would have hung/ burn him alive after. The German New Testament wouldn’t have existed and we wouldn’t have enjoyed many bible translations like we have today.

Well, a lot of Catholic saints stayed **within **the Catholic Church while zealously working for reform and renewal… and they succeeded, despite immense odds and sometimes, even opposition from within the Church. Patience, diligence and Christian virtue were their hallmarks. St. Catherine of Sienna is one good example. Was she excommunicated? No. Was St. Bernard of Clairvaux excommunicated? No. They worked within the Church and eventually was rewarded by being canonized as saints!

Gerry

 

[Shibboleth]

tru_dvotion:

and heretic he was.

Yes, in reference to the Magisterium and the Catholic Church he was a heretic. If you say this to an educated Lutheran they will probably respond with a shrug followed by a nonchalant “whatever.”

I suppose that well informed Catholics due the same when certain people refer to the Pope as the Anti-Christ.

 

[Sarah_Jane]

RobedWithLight:

Well, a lot of Catholic saints stayed **within **the Catholic Church while zealously working for reform and renewal… and they succeeded, despite immense odds and sometimes, even opposition from within the Church. Patience, diligence and Christian virtue were their hallmarks. St. Catherine of Sienna is one good example. Was she excommunicated? No. Was St. Bernard of Clairvaux excommunicated? No. They worked within the Church and eventually was rewarded by being canonized as saints!

Gerry

Some reformers of the Church :

St. Francis of Assisi
St. Peter Canisius
St. Francis de Sales
St. Teresa of Avila
St. Ignatius Loyola