Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

[benjohnson]

I think that the single minded agenda at work on this and other threads where Luther has come up has led to a less than charitable discussion in some cases.

As a Lutheran, it’s appropriate to acknowledge that Martin Luther was a horrid sinner and said many things that are contrary to Christ - as Martin Luther is no substitute to our Lord.

But, you are correct, that constant bashing of Luther is a disservice to us all both Catholic and Lutheran. In my estimation - Luther does have a lot of offer the Catholic world in his re-expression of Christ’s mercy and love for us. I know that I’ve been able to share, with good effect, with my Catholic friends some of Luther’s expositions when they sometimes reach a particurarly dark night of the soul.

There are some Lutherans here who have withdrawn from the discussion as a result, and that seems to me as just a continuation of the wounds to unity.

Indeed, for me, this is true.

However I cherish my my third-born child’s Catholic Godparents (what we call sponsors), and my Catholic friends who dragged me (kicking and screening) to the pro-life rally this last January, and you Guanophore who have always been kind (yet vigorous) in your dealings with me.

The Catholic church and it’s members have much to offer in charity and love, and as a Lutheran you, and they, have my respect.

 

[guanophore]

As a Lutheran, it’s appropriate to acknowledge that Martin Luther was a horrid sinner and said many things that are contrary to Christ - as Martin Luther is no substitute to our Lord.

But, you are correct, that constant bashing of Luther is a disservice to us all both Catholic and Lutheran. In my estimation - Luther does have a lot of offer the Catholic world in his re-expression of Christ’s mercy and love for us. I know that I’ve been able to share, with good effect, with my Catholic friends some of Luther’s expositions when they sometimes reach a particurarly dark night of the soul.

Indeed, for me, this is true.

However I cherish my my third-born child’s Catholic Godparents (what we call sponsors), and my Catholic friends who dragged me (kicking and screening) to the pro-life rally this last January, and you Guanophore who have always been kind (yet vigorous) in your dealings with me.

The Catholic church and it’s members have much to offer in charity and love, and as a Lutheran you, and they, have my respect.

I was thinking about Archbishops statement about winning the argument and forgot it is included in the forum rules under the section on charity:

“Win an argument and lose a soul.”
– Bishop Fulton Sheen

“Love without truth would be blind; truth without love would be like ‘a clanging cymbal.’”
– Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Homily

“Preach the gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.”
– St. Francis (attributed)

“You know well enough that our Lord does not look so much at the greatness of our actions, nor even at their difficulty, but at the love with which we do them.”
– St. Therese of Lisieux

1 Cor 13:2,5,7,14
“Though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could move mountains, but have not charity, I am nothing…Love does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil…Love bears all things… endures all things. So faith, hope, charity abide, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.”
– St. Paul

1 Ptr 3:15 (RSV-CE)
“Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence.”
– St. Peter

---

Some members have left the CA Forums because CAF management would not allow them to behave rudely. There are many venues on the Internet where one may behave as uncharitably as one desires. This is not one of them.

It should also be noted that Catholics are NOT given preference because of their religious affiliation. In fact, Catholics are often held to a higher standard. As our Lord cautioned, “To whom much is given, of him will much be required” (Luke 12:48). Here at CAF, we believe that the truth will take care of itself. Our job is to reveal it as charitably as we can.

Finally, the Moderators are prepared to help members remain within the boundaries of charity.

Perhaps there are some participants on the thread that need some moderator assistance with regard to their single minded agenda?

 

[Topper17]

No. Christ was the founder of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, of which Lutherans are members.

Hi Jon,

I think everyone is aware that this is generally the claim as made by the Lutheran church, or more accurately, the various competing and conflicting Lutheran communions, some of which will not even commune with each other. However, as you know but failed to mention, this is not the position of the Catholic Church, which happens to disagree with this claim.

Lutherans and all other Protestants are held by the Church to be in ‘imperfect union’ with the Church that Christ established at Pentecost, but not in complete union. We hold you to be completely Christian, but not in possession of the ‘fullness of the Truth’.

You claim that Luther did not start your church? The church that you attend has a sign out on the street which says somewhere in the text “Lutheran”, signifying that you are to at least some degree, followers of the doctrines taught by Martin Luther. Your hymnals and your church bulletin also identify your congregation as being “Lutheran”. I would also suggest to you that nowhere, and I do mean nowhere, in the official documents of your denomination or of your local congregation, will the term ‘Evangelical Catholic’ to found to designate the identity of your church. That is something that you and others have personally adopted as an individual identity.

You claim that Lutherans are members of the ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’, which of course demands a very much watered down definition of the phrase, one which allows for a plethora of competing and conflicting communions to be included, all of them potentially teaching contradictory doctrines. This makes a mockery of the term “One” in the above phrase.

The Catholic Church was begun by Christ at Pentecost. The Lutheran denominations were begun by Martin Luther AFTER he was excommunicated by that Church. With Luther’s excommunication, he was cut off from the Apostolic Succession which ties the Catholic Church back to the Apostles. Your particular communion does not even claim to have Apostolic Succession in the way that a few Lutheran communions wrongfully do. Their claim makes a mockery of the whole concept of Apostolic Succession. One of the most important aspects of Apostolic Succession is that, when properly held, it insures the continuation of the doctrinal teachings of the Apostles.

The claim of those Lutheran communions in regards to their supposed Apostolic Succession are with the full admission that their doctrinal teachings are radically different than the Church from which they supposedly ‘obtained’ their ‘Succession’. It is a claim which doesn’t take too much thought to identify as patently false.

The same can be said of your claim that Lutherans are part of the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic” Church. You can’t be “One” unless you are actually “One” in faith, in doctrine, in the fundamental beliefs of the faith. You can’t be “One” and decide to make significant alterations to the Holy Sacraments or a number of other elements of the faith, such as Sola Scriptura, among many others.

Your communion calls itself by the name Lutheran, in part as an indication that it was Martin Luther who was the originator of much of what differentiates its teachings from those of the Catholic Church. BTW I know all about how Luther didn’t want a church named after him and that is not at all the point here.

If Lutherans should be considered to part of the “One”, then this would open the Church up to the claims of ALL whose founders have been excommunicated and many who were not. The Arians, Montanists, the Pelagians and the whole of the heretical alphabet soup would have claims that they believe just as much as you do to being in the “One”, and with exactly the same justification.

Luther’s excommunication meant that he no longer had the sanction of the Church that actually did have that so important Apostolic Succession. What he did from that point on he did completely on his own, as one who was outside of the “One”. As such, the communion that he founded independent of the “One” is not OF the “One”.

As Always, God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

I think everyone is aware that this is generally the claim as made by the Lutheran church, or more accurately, the various competing and conflicting Lutheran communions, some of which will not even commune with each other. However, as you know but failed to mention, this is not the position of the Catholic Church, which happens to disagree with this claim.

Lutherans and all other Protestants are held by the Church to be in ‘imperfect union’ with the Church that Christ established at Pentecost, but not in complete union. We hold you to be completely Christian, but not in possession of the ‘fullness of the Truth’.

You claim that Luther did not start your church? The church that you attend has a sign out on the street which says somewhere in the text “Lutheran”, signifying that you are to at least some degree, followers of the doctrines taught by Martin Luther. Your hymnals and your church bulletin also identify your congregation as being “Lutheran”. I would also suggest to you that nowhere, and I do mean nowhere, in the official documents of your denomination or of your local congregation, will the term ‘Evangelical Catholic’ to found to designate the identity of your church. That is something that you and others have personally adopted as an individual identity.

You claim that Lutherans are members of the ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’, which of course demands a very much watered down definition of the phrase, one which allows for a plethora of competing and conflicting communions to be included, all of them potentially teaching contradictory doctrines. This makes a mockery of the term “One” in the above phrase.

The Catholic Church was begun by Christ at Pentecost. The Lutheran denominations were begun by Martin Luther AFTER he was excommunicated by that Church. With Luther’s excommunication, he was cut off from the Apostolic Succession which ties the Catholic Church back to the Apostles. Your particular communion does not even claim to have Apostolic Succession in the way that a few Lutheran communions wrongfully do. Their claim makes a mockery of the whole concept of Apostolic Succession. One of the most important aspects of Apostolic Succession is that, when properly held, it insures the continuation of the doctrinal teachings of the Apostles.

The claim of those Lutheran communions in regards to their supposed Apostolic Succession are with the full admission that their doctrinal teachings are radically different than the Church from which they supposedly ‘obtained’ their ‘Succession’. It is a claim which doesn’t take too much thought to identify as patently false.

The same can be said of your claim that Lutherans are part of the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic” Church. You can’t be “One” unless you are actually “One” in faith, in doctrine, in the fundamental beliefs of the faith. You can’t be “One” and decide to make significant alterations to the Holy Sacraments or a number of other elements of the faith, such as Sola Scriptura, among many others.

Your communion calls itself by the name Lutheran, in part as an indication that it was Martin Luther who was the originator of much of what differentiates its teachings from those of the Catholic Church. BTW I know all about how Luther didn’t want a church named after him and that is not at all the point here.

If Lutherans should be considered to part of the “One”, then this would open the Church up to the claims of ALL whose founders have been excommunicated and many who were not. The Arians, Montanists, the Pelagians and the whole of the heretical alphabet soup would have claims that they believe just as much as you do to being in the “One”, and with exactly the same justification.

Luther’s excommunication meant that he no longer had the sanction of the Church that actually did have that so important Apostolic Succession. What he did from that point on he did completely on his own, as one who was outside of the “One”. As such, the communion that he founded independent of the “One” is not OF the “One”.

As Always, God Bless You Jon, Topper

Hi Tim,
Thanks for sharing your opinion.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Tim,
Thanks for sharing your opinion.

Jon

Hi Jon,

I appreciate your comments and your civility. Actually I thought my comments would be hard to refute.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

I appreciate your comments and your civility. Actually I thought my comments would be hard to refute.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

Well, I would disagree, but I have determined that I gain nothing in dialogue with you. I do not learn about the Catholic faith, either that which your communion teaches, or that which mine teaches. Nor do I learn more about those areas on convergence between us.
But I do sincerely wish you His peace, and His blessing through word and sacrament.

Jon

 

[Annie39]

Well, I would disagree, but I have determined that I gain nothing in dialogue with you. I do not learn about the Catholic faith, either that which your communion teaches, or that which mine teaches. Nor do I learn more about those areas on convergence between us.
But I do sincerely wish you His peace, and His blessing through word and sacrament.

Jon

Hi Jon,
I think that topper’s reply to you was excellent. If you recall your post that he was responding to was written in response to a post that I had written. I didn’t respond to you at least not in public. Behind the computer screen I confess that I rolled my eyes and thought “And a fella named David Bawden claims to be Pope Michael I” and no amount of reasoning will convince him that he is not. Topper’s response was much more charitable. I would be interested in your response to him if you change your mind.

Annie

 

[steido01]

As I prayed in posts 387 and 388, I continue to pray that God forgives all the sinners on this thread. Me most of all.

 

[guanophore]

 Hi Jon,

I think everyone is aware that this is generally the claim as made by the Lutheran church, or more accurately, the various competing and conflicting Lutheran communions, some of which will not even commune with each other. However, as you know but failed to mention, this is not the position of the Catholic Church, which happens to disagree with this claim.

You may wish to reject the teachings of the Catholic Church on this point, Topper, and that is your perogative, but your position is in direct contradiction to the catechism.

There is only One Church, and all those who have been incorporated into Christ are members of His One Body.

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers… All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”272 (1271)

 I would also suggest to you that nowhere, and I do mean nowhere, in the official documents of your denomination or of your local congregation, will the term ‘Evangelical Catholic’ to found to designate the identity of your church.  That is something that you and others have personally adopted as an individual identity.

I would think that would please you, Topper, given the degree of peevishness you have about the man. Instead I expect that you would commend anyone who might leave the name behind!

You claim that Lutherans are members of the ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’,

It is not just his “claim”, Topper, but what your catechism clearly states.

which of course demands a very much watered down definition of the phrase, one which allows for a plethora of competing and conflicting communions to be included, all of them potentially teaching contradictory doctrines. This makes a mockery of the term “One” in the above phrase.

I think you need to read what he wrote again, Topper. He made no claim about any institutions or communions. He said, quite accurately, that Lutherans who are validly baptized are members of the One Church.

If you don’t like it, you will have to take it up with the Vatican.

The Catholic Church was begun by Christ at Pentecost. The Lutheran denominations were begun by Martin Luther AFTER he was excommunicated by that Church. With Luther’s excommunication, he was cut off from the Apostolic Succession which ties the Catholic Church back to the Apostles.

Your particular communion does not even claim to have Apostolic Succession in the way that a few Lutheran communions wrongfully do.

Perhaps, ,when you are throgh villifying Luther, you might do some investigations into this, as it seems you are yet to understand how it is that some Llutheran communities do have valid apostolic succcesion.

 

[guanophore]

Their claim makes a mockery of the whole concept of Apostolic Succession. One of the most important aspects of Apostolic Succession is that, when properly held, it insures the continuation of the doctrinal teachings of the Apostles.

Well, this is a good point, and a valid successon does not necessarily result in right doctrine, as we can see within the Catholic Church. But that is off topic here. You seem to by targeting another member in order to assert that his beliefs are a “mockery”. Your singleminded agenda is getting derailed from the thread topic.

The claim of those Lutheran communions in regards to their supposed Apostolic Succession are with the full admission that their doctrinal teachings are radically different than the Church from which they supposedly ‘obtained’ their ‘Succession’. It is a claim which doesn’t take too much thought to identify as patently false.

Your church teaches differently, Topper, but that is an issue for another thread. You seem intent upon invalidating Lutherans, and your tone is uncharitable.

The same can be said of your claim that Lutherans are part of the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic” Church.  You can’t be “One” unless you are actually “One” in faith, in doctrine, in the fundamental beliefs of the faith.  You can’t be “One” and decide to make significant alterations to the Holy Sacraments or a number of other elements of the faith, such as Sola Scriptura, among many others.

There are certainly wounds to unity, though I can’t see how your accusatory and disrespectful tone does anything to heal them. There is only on e church, and all who are in Chrsit are members of it.

Your communion calls itself by the name Lutheran, in part as an indication that it was Martin Luther who was the originator of much of what differentiates its teachings from those of the Catholic Church. BTW I know all about how Luther didn’t want a church named after him and that is not at all the point here.

Your point appears to be to villify the followers of Luther, and discredit them the same way you have discredited him.

 If Lutherans should be considered to part of the “One”, then this would open the Church up to the claims of ALL whose founders have been excommunicated and many who were not.  The Arians, Montanists, the Pelagians and the whole of the heretical alphabet soup would have claims that they believe just as much as you do to being in the “One”, and with exactly the same justification.

Topper, may I recommend some prayreful reflection on the catechism? Really, ,this blatant contradiction of it is an embarrassment.

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth”273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.”274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”276

 

[guanophore]

Hi Jon,
I think that topper’s reply to you was excellent. If you recall your post that he was responding to was written in response to a post that I had written. I didn’t respond to you at least not in public. Behind the computer screen I confess that I rolled my eyes and thought “And a fella named David Bawden claims to be Pope Michael I” and no amount of reasoning will convince him that he is not. Topper’s response was much more charitable. I would be interested in your response to him if you change your mind.

Annie

It is concerning that you find such a disparaging tone and departure from the Catechism “excellent”.

 

[TertiumQuid]

1. That, in writing, people should wash their hands in the blood of the cardinals and the popes.

**“If we punish thieves with the yoke, highwayman with the sword, and heretics with fire, why do we not rather assault these monsters of perdition, these cardinals, these popes, and the whole swarm of the Roman Sodom, who corrupt youth and the Church of God? Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?”, Luther, “On the Papacy at Rome”, **1520

It is an undeniable and obvious FACT that a man such as this should not have been a priest and he certainly should not have been allowed to as a Christian Theologian and Scriptural Exegete to teach Christian priests in training.

1. The conclusion reached assumes a 16th century religious tolerance that did not exist, hence it can be classified as anachronism. The 16th Century is not the 21st Century. For many Catholics and Protestants in the 16th Century, the time was violent. Both Catholics and Protestants perpetuated violence linked with religion.
2. As to this specific quote, the documentation is incorrect. The quote is not from "Luther, On the Papacy at Rome.” I found this error previously in a self-published Catholic book critiquing Luther, so perhaps this is where the bogus documentation comes from? The quote can be found in WA 6:347.
3. To my knowledge, the treatise this quote actually comes from has not been translated into English, but it is scheduled to be included in an upcoming English volume of Luther’s Works. I’ve not come across anyone in cyberspace on discussion boards like this (using the quote against Luther) that has actually consulted the context, or was fluent in the context. The historical context in regard to what was going on at the time and who Luther directed these words to is available if one wishes to search for it.
4. Without the immediate context available in English, I think the best person to explain what was meant by the quote is Luther himself. He actually did this in a later treatise (see LW 39:172-174). It appears to me there are a lot of Luther historians participating in this discussion, so there’s no need for me to actually post this explanation.
5. I think an interesting discussion would be to compare Luther’s quote with Psalm 58:10-11.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

I was thinking about Archbishops statement about winning the argument and forgot it is included in the forum rules under the section on charity:

Perhaps there are some participants on the thread that need some moderator assistance with regard to their single minded agenda?

Very true, and thanks for reminding people of the rules that are required in these kinds of debates.
We Mods sometimes take a ‘hands off’ approach that allows the problem to be resolved within the thread, in that sense you guys are self-moderating. We don’t want to get to the point of passing out infractions, so lets heed what Guanophore has posted.

 

[steido01]

1. As to this specific quote, the documentation is incorrect. The quote is not from "Luther, On the Papacy at Rome.” I found this error previously in a self-published Catholic book critiquing Luther, so perhaps this is where the bogus documentation comes from?

I had an inkling it was from a different work when I couldn’t find that passage, but didn’t say anything for fear I was looking through inaccurate or incomplete translations. Psalm 58 is correct; vindication is a swell thing.

Perhaps the original error-maker just saw the shared year and similar topic and made an assumption. Hopefully, it wasn’t an intentional conflation; that’d be bad history. Whatever the case, Luther’s use of bombastic rhetorical device ought to be obvious even without the proper context or documentation, and his later explanation removes all doubt.

1. Without the immediate context available in English, I think the best person to explain what was meant by the quote is Luther himself. He actually did this in a later treatise (see LW 39:172-174).

Indeed, he did. Blue text in post 388.

Thank you for sharing your expertise, James. We beggars benefit from knowledge, among other things.

 

[KathleenGee]

I have been too busy to go back to the posts to read all, but do intend to and I am learning very much about Lutheranism.

My husband has been very ill and is coming home tomorrow from hospital, getting my summer produce processed, yet reflecting on bits and pieces from this thread. My Lutheran client has been slowly declining and we missed church last weekend. Don’t know about tomorrow…or how long we will be able to continue.

I cannot separate the Lutheran congregation at his church from the posts here on this thread, but I pray that all believers outside this thread look at the divisions within Christianity, especially in our country and all its problems, and take a step back to reflect on the worthy calling to be one, as Our Lord desired at the Last Supper.

The world is in such need of conversion.

 

[Tomyris]

Several years ago I read Roland Bainton’s Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther. It seemed to be a fair treatment of him without polemics. I have a few thoughts to share.

1. The thread really ought to be restricted to Luther and not his impact on today’s Lutheranism. Lutherans have taken what he wrote some five hundred years ago and have been percolating on it ever since, to the point that Lutheran theology really isn’t Luther’s, but rather a corporate consensus. I see attacks on the Lutheran practices and beliefs of today as totally unfounded, attacks that spring from an ad hominem attack on the man. I don’t think Lutherans regard him as some prophet or pope with infallible teaching, so attacking what he believed will not have any repercussions for their beliefs. Lutherans are quick to admit he was a sinner but some do not seem satisfied with that admission.
2. He has a place in history, but Catholics, of all people, exaggerate it. A lot was happening around him that he had no control or knowledge of that led to the Reformation. He was hardly the only Reformer, but he gets a lot of the attention. We make a mistake if we say that if he had never lived there would never have been a Reformation (and no, I have not heard it here, but it seems to be implied by some). There were a lot of historical forces at play. If Luther had not lived, it is possible the eventual Reformation might have been even bloodier and bitter than what we went through.
3. There has been little discussion on the exact reason for his excommunication, no quotations of the bull. Given what he said at various points, I am not surprised he WAS excommunicated. Could Leo X have handled it better? Hmmm.

No more Luther-slamming, please. He was a Catholic priest, and it is odd that Catholics say some of the things they do about a Catholic priest, one not here to defend himself. Luther also deserves charity and I’m thinking posts about him should reflect CAF rules about the defamation of persons, etc., which have been recently posted by the mods.

 

[Tomyris]

…

It is an undeniable and obvious FACT that a man such as this should not have been a priest and he certainly should not have been allowed to as a Christian Theologian and Scriptural Exegete to teach Christian priests in training…

As a Catholic, you submit to the wisdom of the Catholic Church in discernment of who should and who should not be a priest or professor. Here you come down with a very Martin-Luther-sounding arrogant condemnation of that wisdom and a revolt of your own against the Catholic Church, doing what you condemn Luther for doing. The Church, you say here, was wrong, and you are the better judge.

I would suggest you print off your posts on this thread and take them to your local priest or spiritual director for review and comment.

If you post again on this thread, I suggest a humble and contrite apology for your posts.

 

[KathleenGee]

I quote a quote from our in-house deacon for the archdiocese who has his own column now,

‘Everything about Catholicism…is context, context, context.’

It has to be applied to the past, of course, as well. Too bad we don’t have the English translation. But likewise I read he had a real gift of hyperbole and propaganda in context of the writings he did after the split. My reference is not handy here at the desk at the present moment.

But the past is the past…we have to let it go…I see so much similarity between modern Catholicism and Lutheranism…issue for me is transubstantiation vs consubstantion, which of the former I still haven’t understood it correctly.

I say, ‘pray, pray, pray’ to the Holy Spirit for wisdom…and forthcoming unity under one shepherd.

Gotta go…God bless everyone!

 

[Annie39]

It is concerning that you find such a disparaging tone and departure from the Catechism “excellent”.

Truthfully it would take too long to explain why it is that I’m not at all departing from the catechism. But I’ll just say briefly of course everyone who is baptized in the Trinitarian formula is a baptized Catholic since there is only one True Church. But the Lutheran church is not a member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. There is no salvation outside the true church. The exceptions are baptism of desire. Baptism of blood and invincible ignorance. But a person must have an informed conscience and refrain from using ones own judgment.#1783 of the CCC.

Annie

 

[spina1953]

I would like to make it clear that my research into who Luther was and why he was excommunicated is not intended to be Luther bashing. My sole interest is about who this man was and why he was excommunicated and the reasons thereof… If it puts Luther into a bad light from what others might believe or think, it is still not intended to any type of Luther bashing on my part but only what the history of those times show.
There are a great many events it seems that led up to Luther's excommunication as well the theology and teachings that the CC rejected. There is no doubt that Luther antagonized those who disagreed with him and was willing to fight everyone that questioned his theology and teachings. it also appears that the more those who opposed Luther the more he grew stubborn and the more violent and disparaging his remarks against those that opposed him as well as the CC. There is also no doubt that the CC did need reform but had Luther gone about it in a more calmer manor maybe his thinking would have been examined in a different light than it was. There were other who jumped into the fray who had their own agenda and thinking so whether or not Luther remained silent on his teachings and theology and propaganda against the CC, most likely someone else would have took up the banner opting for separation from the CC.