Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

[spina1953]

From my own personal research I see that Luther was many things he was well educated for the times and wrote many things as well as hymns, yet the man could be very violent with his words and very disparaging towards those who opposed him. Luther it appears did not like to be questioned when it came to his theology and teachings. Luther had many problems when it came to his scrupulosity to which it seems that Fr. Staupitz tried to help him with. Cochlaeus just like Luther and other on both sides used propaganda to besmirch each other. So far Luther and Fr. Staupitz remained friend till the end, Luther writing to Him and about Staupitz even though Staupitz remained catholic to the end.

It is really sad that Luther did not see that he was doing more harm than good in being so stubborn concerning his theology and teachings and I think had he been more kinder to his opponents and to the Pope maybe, in time things would have worked out for the better. There is no doubt that the CC had plenty of people who were greedy and power hungry and doing things contrary to Church teaching and many abused the positions they had and there was need of real reform, which did happen contrary to those who did not want change.

Most likely Fr. Staupitz released Luther from his vows in order that the Augustinian Order did not suffer from Luther’s disobedience, Luther’s excommunication was a disciplinary matter of the CC, the reason being that Luther did not wish to conform to accepted doctrines of the CC.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, you are probably correct here.

Fr. Staupitz should have realized that he had a problem, or problems, IMO, which would limit his ability to be a priest and theologian.

I think he did see warning signs, but was erring on the side of generosity and trusting that his young mentee would overcome them in time. I don’t doubt that he had regrets and was heartbroken when he saw the effects of his support later.

Would Luther’s influence have been less had he not been a Churchman? I don’t think we can assume that. Calvin was trained as a lawyer, and yet, he has created an greater number of heresies that still plague the Church today as well.

 

[benjohnson]

maybe, in time things would have worked out for the better.

For me, that time is now.

It’s up to us to do what the God prayed for - that we all may be one.

 

[spina1953]

I think he did see warning signs, but was erring on the side of generosity and trusting that his young mentee would overcome them in time. I don’t doubt that he had regrets and was heartbroken when he saw the effects of his support later.

Would Luther’s influence have been less had he not been a Churchman? I don’t think we can assume that. Calvin was trained as a lawyer, and yet, he has created an greater number of heresies that still plague the Church today as well.

Hi Guanophore: I think you made a great point here that I think that Fr. Staupitz did what he thought was right and tried I think to help Luther and while he may have had regrets it did not stop Staupitz from trying to help Luther at least from some of the personal letters between Luther and Staupitz Calvin I think did in some ways more and greater harm than Luther.

 

[Denise1957]

If calling Luther’s mother a whore who conceived Martin through intercourse with Satan himself and literally regretted not having aborted him isn’t vicious slander, then I’d be interested in knowing by what principles you define the term.

Cochlaeus was also fond of rather slanderous artwork:
http://fineartamerica.com/images-si.../the-seven-heads-of-martin-luther-everett.jpg

And Luther’s polemics were just as nasty. It was a different time, and thankfully, we are past this. Well, most of us. We mustn’t try to be amateur psychologists for people that can never be truly studied - it’s 500 years later! Shall we diagnose Leo X and Cochlaeus as well? What made them so tyrannical? Why did they also choose not to respond with love? The answer is simple: sin. It pervades our fallen world. We ought to all beg each other, and our God, for continued forgiveness. We are, indeed, all beggars.

Well, yes, if Cochlaeus really said that about Luther’s mother, then yes, it is obviously slander. Can his other writings about Luther then be trusted? I think that they can, with a grain of salt, until they are proven to be unsound.

As far as being amateur psychologists for those who can’t ever be truly studied, I don’t see anything wrong with trying to figure out what made them tick, and what may have caused them to do what they did. You refer to Leo X and Cochlaeus as being tyrannical, but in Leo X’s rebuttal against Luther, as well as Leo’s bull of excommunication, I don’t see the writing as tyrannical at all, but rather far more restrained and reasonable than Luther’s writing.

Yes, we ought to all beg each other and God for continued forgiveness, but that doesn’t mean that we should sweep that past under the rug. It’s okay to strudy it and dispel illusions, if they exist. But we can’t know if illusions exist unless we study them. And maybe we can’t arrive at an absolute certainty that a situation is an illusion, but at least we can see that there is good evidence that it, or they, exist.

 

[Tomyris]

I want to flip this around a little.

What evidence is there from the Lutherans that Luther was nuts? Or that he had problems that psychotherapy, pharmaceuticals or a lobotomy might help with? What concessions are the Lutherans willing to make in that direction? Or is it 100% smear job? Did Kate have to check under the bed for monsters every night? <Here I would like Lutheran (name removed by moderator)ut - there has been enough the other way, and then perhaps a Catholic rebuttal >

All of us are a little crazy. Me, I am deathly afraid of erupting volcanoes - I tend to run away. Churchhill suffered from depression - the ‘black dog’ of having a melancholic temperment. But he was most effective, not crazy, and someone can actually have spiritual attacks going on without being insane.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I want to flip this around a little.

What evidence is there from the Lutherans that Luther was nuts? Or that he had problems that psychotherapy, pharmaceuticals or a lobotomy might help with? What concessions are the Lutherans willing to make in that direction? Or is it 100% smear job? Did Kate have to check under the bed for monsters every night? <Here I would like Lutheran (name removed by moderator)ut - there has been enough the other way, and then perhaps a Catholic rebuttal >

All of us are a little crazy. Me, I am deathly afraid of erupting volcanoes - I tend to run away. Churchhill suffered from depression - the ‘black dog’ of having a melancholic temperment. But he was most effective, not crazy, and someone can actually have spiritual attacks going on without being insane.

Good question that I know better read Lutherans or Reformation scholars can answer but you asked for Lutheran (name removed by moderator)ut so here goes.

Martin Luther is, understandably revered among Lutherans for the most part. We have churches named after him or the Reformation; Luther is honored on Feb 18 as 'Renewer of the Church", the Presentation of the Augsburg Confession is June 25, Reformation Day/ Sunday is October 31 and St Martin of Tours or Martinmass [who Luther was named after] is November 11.

Many Lutherans see Martin Luther as a courageous priest willing to even take on the authority of the Papacy. And when one realizes how corrupt and even scandalous Pope Leo was, it only reinforces our opinion that Martin Luther was called by God to restore the holy Church.

 

[Tomyris]

Good question that I know better read Lutherans or Reformation scholars can answer but you asked for Lutheran (name removed by moderator)ut so here goes.

Martin Luther is, understandably revered among Lutherans for the most part. We have churches named after him or the Reformation; Luther is honored on Feb 18 as 'Renewer of the Church", the Presentation of the Augsburg Confession is June 25, Reformation Day/ Sunday is October 31 and St Martin of Tours or Martinmass [who Luther was named after] is November 11.

Many Lutherans see Martin Luther as a courageous priest willing to even take on the authority of the Papacy. And when one realizes how corrupt and even scandalous Pope Leo was, it only reinforces our opinion that Martin Luther was called by God to restore the holy Church.

Well…The opposite question, which must be asked, is how far can Catholics go in revering and honoring Martin Luther?

 

[Topper17]

Hi guano,

Thanks for your response,

Yes, but all we can do really is speculate. We can’t very well have him submit to a psychiatric evaluation.

You say that and then a couple of posts later you say the following:

I suspect that the Pope and Rome took the place (psychologically) of Luther’s father (a transference) and inherited a lot of rage that Luther bottled up from the time he was a young boy, unable to please a demanding and non-nurturing parent who was a harsh disciplinarian.

It is only natural to try to figure out what caused Luther to be so disturbed. In most cases it would be difficult to try to psychologically assess someone who lived 500 years ago. However, in Luther’s case, it is not that difficult, given the volume of his writings, and his unusually frank assessments of his own character and foibles.

As you know, your comments about his childhood are similar to those of many of the Scholars who have studied his life.

What is your prevention plan?

All the stars were in perfect alignment for a charismatic ‘leader’ to rise up and, mostly through the misunderstanding of his teachings, gain support with a number of different disaffected groups. The social, cultural, and political situation in Germany made it extremely difficult for the Church to effectively take action. There is of course the minor detail of the Church or at least large portions of it not exactly doing its job and basically fumbling the whole affair. If the Church had been stronger, meaning if it had not been guilty of the abuses it would have been in a position to deal effectively with Luther. That is not to say though that a stronger Church would have been able to stop Luther’s Revolt. I think he would have rebelled no matter the strength of the Church. His need for certainty of his salvation demanded that. But a stronger Church would have better prevented his heresy from gaining a foothold.

Just that we are not in a position to determine what should and should not have happened. God allows evil so that greater good can come. This is plainly seen in the sacrifice of His own Son, who, for the joy that was set before Him, endured the cross.

The Church has battled heresy now for 2000 years. Now we have just more than half of Christianity in the Church that Christ founded.

Should the followers in John 6 have stayed after Christ explained Himself 6 times or was it ‘for the greater good’ that they all abandoned Him? If Christ thought it was ‘that ok’ that they not believe Him, then He might have stopped at explaining Himself after the second time. But 6 times?

It is up to us to find the “resurrection” in this - the good that triumphs over evil.

It is up to us to work for the unity that Christ and the Scriptures call for. If a few eggs get broken or a few feelings hurt in the process by a confrontation with the Truth, or at the least by contact with opposing opinions, then that is the price of that unity. It ain’t gonna happen without a little pain. As for me, I am perfectly willing to put up with all the personal insults if it means that people become exposed to all sides of the issue.

I meant that Staupitz may have had some concerns, but based on the passion, intellect, and availability of Luther he encouraged/pressured him into the priesthood, possibly thinking that Luther would outgrow his scrupulosity and impulsivity.

I would agree, including the word ‘availability’, but would also suggest that Staupitz should have waited until Luther’s psychological problems had been reigned in somewhat, rather than suggesting that he study theology in order to help him work on his problems. Even that would have not been all that bad, but elevating Luther to a teaching position was where the real mistake occurred.

I am just speculating based on many years of spiritual direction, and how one can give vocational guidance to another based upon the candidates’ character and fruit maturing in a certain direction. Obviously, if Staupitz did think that Luther would mature out of his quirks, this did not happen.

I do appreciate a good understatement!

Horrified, likely.

I know. Stauptiz was a loyal son of the Church. Can you IMAGINE the guilt he felt?

Sounds a little like Cajetan was afraid of him.

Cajetan was not the only one to mention those eyes. Those descriptions always remind me for some reason of the accounts of people who have come face to face with a shark.

Ok thanks for clarifying that. I am sure he did feel disclaimed.

God Bless You guano, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Denise,

Actually I do think better of Luther with the info provided from Topper. If I could travel back into time and meet with Luther (though I don’t speak German) I would give him a hug or pat him on the back and tell him to relax and that everything will be okay and let’s figure out a solution based on prayer and obedience, and maybe find a good spiritual director.

Agreed. Its not hard at all to empathize with Luther. The stories of him writhing on his bed certain that if the emotional torment lasted only a few seconds longer, his bones would be crushed…….that can only make you feel pity. So many other stories indicate the emotional torment that Luther suffered.

I’m not so sure that Stauptiz was a not a good spiritual director. But from what I have read, he didn’t know how to deal with someone with the depth of problems that Luther had.

You mention a solution including prayer and obedience. Luther was never really all that ‘hot’ on obedience:

With regard to Luther’s 1520 ‘Freedom of a Christian’, the year before he was excommunicated, Richard Marius comments:

“The work that emerged……was an open letter to the pope meant to be affixed as a preface to ‘A Treatise on the Freedom of a Christian’. The letter was humorous in the heaviness of its irony. Its surface radiates conciliation and humility, but it is in fact a declaration that the differences between Luther and the papacy were irreconcilable……

As urged, Luther professed willingness to make amends, claiming that he had never spoken evil of Leo as a man, praising his innocence, blaming the pope’s bad counselors for the troubles of the church, and begging for a hearing where they two of them might get their minds together……

He never had much talent for apology.** Now he addressed Leo in the firm tones of a Good schoolmaster admonishing an inept but well-meaning child. Although he had not attacked Leo personally, he nevertheless declared unremitting war against the papacy itself, he said. Leo was counseled to give up his ‘glory’ – that is, the title of pope – to retire to a parish and live on the income of a simple priest, and to accept all of the doctrinal definitions Luther had proposed. Then Leo could help Luther reform the church. In effect, Luther said peace could reign between them if Leo helped destroy the papacy.

The letter looks like a calculated insult, couched in a vocabulary of meekness and friendship but aimed at showing friends as well as enemies – the elector and Spalatin as well as Militz and the pope – that no compromise was possible between true Christians and the Antichirst at Rome.” **Marius, pg. 265-6

This is a shocking statement, but even more so to those of us with Catholic sensibilities. The fact that it comes from a monk and rather junior Professor at Europe’s least distinguished university makes it even more outrageous. Here, even before his excommunication, Luther was suggesting that the papacy be abolished and that Leo help HIM ‘reform the church’. This incident (among many others) show us about Luther’s perception of his own authority.

These kinds of statements force us, as individuals, to determine for ourselves whether we think Luther was grossly overestimating his true authority within the Church that Christ established on earth. That is definitely worth thinking about. If we conclude that he was, (overestimating), then where might that conclusion lead?

God Bless You Denise, Topper

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Well…The opposite question, which must be asked, is how far can Catholics go in revering and honoring Martin Luther?

The official Catholic viewpoint of Martin Luther is, as you can see, quite different than posters like Topper and begs the question, why certain Catholics seem to hold opinions so contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches.

Among the insights of the Second Vatican Council which reflect elements of Luther’s concerns may be numbered:

�An emphasis on the decisive importance of Holy Scripture for the life and teaching of the church (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation);
�The description of the church as “the people of God” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chapter II); �The affirmation of the need for continued renewal of the church in its historical existence (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 8; Decree on Ecumenism, 6);
�The stress on the confession of faith in the cross of Jesus Christ and of its importance for the life of the individual Christian and of the church as a whole (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 8; Decree on Ecumenism, 4; Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, 37);
�The understanding of church ministries as service (Decree on the Bishops’ Pastoral Office in the Church, 16; Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests);
�The emphasis on the priesthood of all believers (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 10 and 11; Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity, 2-4);
�Commitment to the right of the individual to liberty in religious matters (Declaration on Religious Freedom).

There are also other requests of Luther’s that can be regarded as fulfilled in the light of contemporary Catholic theology and church practice: the use of the vernacular in the liturgy; the possibility of communion in both kinds, and the renewal of the theology and celebration of the eucharist.

V. Luther’s legacy and our common task

It is possible for us today to learn from Luther together. “In this we could all learn from him that God must always remain the Lord, and that our most important human answer must always remain absolute confidence in God and our adoration of him” (Cardinal Willebrands).
�As a theologian, preacher, pastor, hymn-writer and man of prayer, Luther has with extraordinary spiritual force witnessed anew to the biblical message of God’s gift of liberating righteousness and made it shine forth.
�Luther directs us to the priority of God’s Word in the life, teaching and service of the church.
�He calls us to a faith which is absolute trust in the God who in the life, death and resurrection of his son has shown himself to be gracious to us.
�He teaches us to understand grace as a personal relationship of God to human beings which is unconditional and frees from fear of God’s wrath and for service of one another.
�He testifies that God’s forgiveness is the only basis and hope for human life.
�He calls the churches to constant renewal by the word of God.
�He teaches us that unity in essentials allows for differences in customs, order and theology.
�He shows us as a theologian how knowledge of God’s mercy reveals itself only in prayer and meditation. It is the Holy Spirit who persuades us of the truth of the gospel and keeps and strengthens us in that truth in spite of all temptations.
�He exhorts us to remember that reconciliation and Christian community can only exist where not only “the rule of faith” is followed, but also the “rule of love” “which always thinks well of everyone, is not suspicious, believes the best about its neighbors and calls anyone who is baptized a saint” (Martin Luther).

Trust and reverent humility before the mystery of God’s mercy are expressed in Luther’s last confession which, as his spiritual and theological last will and testament, can serve as a guide in our common search for unifying truth: “We are beggars. This is true.”

Kloster Kirchberg (W�rttemberg)

May 6th, 1983

(Information Service 52 (1983/III) 84-88 and Facing Unity. Models, Forms and Phases of Catholic-Lutheran Church Fellowship Geneva: Lutheran World Federation, 1985, pp. 72-80. ISBN 2-88190-000-3)

LIST OF SIGNATORIES

This document was signed by all members of the joint commission:

---

CATHOLIC MEMBERS

  The Rt. Rev. H. L. Martensen (chairman)

  The Rt. Rev. Dr. P. W. Scheele

  Prof. Dr. J. Hoffmann

  The Rev. Dr. J. F. Hotchkin

  The Rev. Chr. Mhagama

  Prof. Dr. St. Napiorkowski

  Prof. Dr. V. Pfn�r

LUTHERAN MEMBERS

  Prof. Dr. G.A. Lindbeck (chairman)

  The Rt. Rev. D. H. Dietzfelbinger (unable to attend)

  The Rev. Dr. K. Hafenscher

  Drs. P. Nasution

  The Rev. I. K. Nsibu

  Prof. Dr. L. Thunberg

  Prof. Dr. Bertoldo Weber

CONSULTANTS

  Prof. Dr. H. Legrand OP (Roman Catholic)

  Prof. Dr. H. Meyer (Lutheran)

  Prof. Dr. H. Sch�tte (Roman Catholic)

  Prof. Dr. Vilmos Vajta (Lutheran)

STAFF MEMBERS

  P. Dr. P. Duprey PA (Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity)

  The. Rev. Dr. G�nther Gassmann (Lutheran World Federation)

  Msgr. Dr. A. Klein (Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity)

  The Rev. Dr. C. H. Mau, Jr. (Lutheran World Federation)

prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_luther.html

 

[guanophore]

someone can actually have spiritual attacks going on without being insane.

Indeed yes, and one can have both. The devil attacks most those who have the greatest potential to storm the gates of hell.

Luther was not insane, but he sure did seem to have some complexes. Perhaps he had PTSD from multiple beatings by his authoritarian father who was impossible to please.

The devil also attacks us where we are the most vulnerable, so if someone does have a psychological wound, it gives the evil one a foothold.

 

[Annie39]

Good question that I know better read Lutherans or Reformation scholars can answer but you asked for Lutheran (name removed by moderator)ut so here goes.

Martin Luther is, understandably revered among Lutherans for the most part. We have churches named after him or the Reformation; Luther is honored on Feb 18 as 'Renewer of the Church", the Presentation of the Augsburg Confession is June 25, Reformation Day/ Sunday is October 31 and St Martin of Tours or Martinmass [who Luther was named after] is November 11.

Many Lutherans see Martin Luther as a courageous priest willing to even take on the authority of the Papacy. And when one realizes how corrupt and even scandalous Pope Leo was, it only reinforces our opinion that Martin Luther was called by God to restore the holy Church.

 

[Annie39]

The official Catholic viewpoint of Martin Luther is, as you can see, quite different than posters like Topper and begs the question, why certain Catholics seem to hold opinions so contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches.

It has been proven over and over and…to you that what you claim is the official teaching on this topic.most definitely is not. I have posted the proof of this several times why do you keep posting this fallacy?

Annie

This is not the post that I tried to delete.

 

[Annie39]

QUOTE=Annie39;

I accidentally posted the above and tried to delete it but couldn’t sorry for the confusion.

Annie

 

[Annie39]

I attempted to delete this but cannot. Does anyone know why “delete this message” doesn’t always work?

 

[spina1953]

I rather doubt that Luther was insane, but I do think that his scrupulosity stems from his upbringing and much of that was due to his authoritarian parents… Because Luther did not like being questioned concerning his doctrines I also think that it stem from his parents who most likely were so authoritarian that they did not allow Luther or anyone else to question them on anything that they did. I think also that the reason Luther would not budge or relent in any of his doctrines is due to his parents not relent and would not budge on what they thought was the correct way to raise their child Luther. Luther did have psychological problems but that stems from I think also from his childhood up bringing and the authoritative manor in which his parents treated him and that in a sense when he did finely left home his adult life was one of torment over whether or not he was forgiven and that he would have some assurance of salvation as he could not it appears to have any trust in God without that assurance of salvation.

Was Luther a bad guy? I do not think so he did have many good qualities about him but I do think that he allowed his scrupulosity to get the best of him, coupled with the upbringing he had made him what he became. It was a learned behavior he got from his parents.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

It has been proven over and over and…to you that what you claim is the official teaching on this topic.most definitely is not. I have posted the proof of this several times why do you keep posting this fallacy?

Annie

This is not the post that I tried to delete.

Please repost your evidence that the Catholic church does not believe what it states on the Holy See website. Perhaps you can notify the Vatican that they are posting fallacy.

Otherwise, read and learn, Annie [it helps build credibility].

 

[benjohnson]

The devil attacks most those who have the greatest potential to storm the gates of hell.

“Luther reported that he was often pestered by the devil during his stay at the Wartburg. His statement that he had ‘driven the devil away with ink’ is usually ascribed to his translation of the Bible rather than nightly fights at the Wartburg.”

luther.de/en/tintenfass.html

 

[Annie39]

Please repost your evidence that the Catholic church does not believe what it states on the Holy See website. Perhaps you can notify the Vatican that they are posting fallacy.

Otherwise, read and learn, Annie [it helps build credibility].

That is not the Holy Sees web site!!! I have posted and reposted the truth. I am through posting it to you.

Annie