Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Inariga
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Annie39 said:
That is not the Holy Sees web site!!! I have posted and reposted the truth. I am through posting it to you.

Annie
Click to expand...
My sense is that you do not want to accept the Joint Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue/Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification which, if you bother to read it, makes it abundantly clear how the Catholic church views Luther and Lutherans.

Denying that reality suggests animosity toward your own Church and undermines your ability to speak for the Catholic Church.

I have noticed several CAF posters promote positions that are contrary to Catholic teaching. It is only right, in my opinion, that they be confronted with the truth.
 
EvangelCatholic said:
My sense is that you do not want to accept the Joint Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue/Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification which, if you bother to read it, makes it abundantly clear how the Catholic church views Luther and Lutherans.

Denying that reality suggests animosity toward your own Church and undermines your ability to speak for the Catholic Church.

I have noticed several CAF posters promote positions that are contrary to Catholic teaching. It is only right, in my opinion, that they be confronted with the truth.
Click to expand...
You have been proven wrong several times but you continue to regurgitate the same tired stuff.

Is a puzzlement.

Annie
 
Annie39 said:
You have been proven wrong several times but you continue to regurgitate the same tired stuff.

Is a puzzlement.

Annie
Click to expand...
On the contrary, Annie, I provide numerous documentation from the Holy See website. You, however, have not proven your point that these declarations from the Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity, do not represent the official position of the Roman Catholic Church.

I think what is “tired stuff” for you is the truth. 🤷
 
spina1953 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Luther’s religious experiences were very unique, and in fact quite troubling from a Christian perspective. They were distinctive enough that they led him to take a very radical and individualistic approach to both Scripture and Theology. Of course, with this kind of individualism applied to “theology”, any fallen sinful can “find” what they WANT, so badly, to “find” in Scripture, and then INSIST that THEY are the ONE, who FINALLY understands the Scriptures and St. Paul. Of course it takes a high level of arrogance to make that kind of claim, but then the history of Protestantism shows that there have been THOUSANDS with that degree of self-reliance and pride.

What Luther’s disobedience and the success of that disobedience (if that could really be called ‘success’) did was embolden ALL who came after him who would chose to chart their own course theologically, and reject Luther along with ALL of the others who had followed his example.

Given the way that Luther described those attacks of uncertainty, it is perfectly understand as to why he preferred to keep them at bay, and by any means possible.

”All of the Devils attacks are directed at certainty of salvation, that fundamental article of faith. All temptations, whatever sort they may be, are aimed at awakening doubts in God’s reliability. Not only Luther, the fearful monk but Luther the Professor and “reformer”, too, felt singularly affected by these “critical doubts”. Although he never called himself a reformer or saw himself as one – only Christ is the Reformer, only Judgment Day will bring “reformation”- the fact remains that “he began the whole movement”, he rediscovered the Gospel. He regarded himself as an instrument of God; he could term himself “prophet” or “Evangelist”. But the cruelest of the Devil’s challenges – because it was the most obvious – concerned this role: “Do you think that you alone possess wisdom?” Would God have allowed so many generations of Christians to die in ignorance of the truth?” Oberman, pg. 177

Luther thought that the question above was a challenge from the Devil. Of course he thought that ALL things (and people) who caused him to doubt Himself, was from the Devil. But the question remains to this day:

**Martin: “Do you think that you alone possess wisdom? Would God have allowed so many generations of Christians to die in ignorance of the truth.”

****Or, Martin, is it more likely that your beliefs are simply the result of your horrific fear, a fear for which you simply HAD to find a ‘solution’ (Salvation By Faith Alone). **

These are questions which are still extremely important today.

God Bless You Spina, Topper
 
Hi Annie,

Does your head hurt?
Annie39 said:
That is not the Holy Sees web site!!! I have posted and reposted the truth. I am through posting it to you.

Annie
Click to expand...
On the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Thread”, Father David, who was trying to explain the TRUE nature of the Dialogue, was told:

“Not sure the Dialogues would take your position, Fr David”

To which FrDavid96 replied:

“Well, it’s certainly the position found in Vatican II in Unitatis Redintegratio and Bl John Paul II’s Ut Unum Sint.

I think that it is the position of the Catholic participants in the dialogue as well.

The dialogue paragraphs just aren’t saying what you think they are saying. As a Catholic (trained in this sort of thing) I can read through them as see the subtleties of the wording and recognize the differences.”

The response: “Sorry Father David but I don’t agree with your assessment since the Dialogue……”

Luther would be proud.

Father David (FrDavid96) also tried to inject some reality into the situation by posting the following:

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS
OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH

FIFTH QUESTION

Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

RESPONSE

According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense[20].

(The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified and confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 2007, the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.)

vatican.va/roman_curia/co…tiones_en.html

Topper: If the communities of the Reformation are not ‘Churches’ in the proper sense’, according to this OFFICIAL document of the Church, then the representations of the ‘Dialogue’ that we continue to see are incorrect and misleading.

In fact, the official position of the Church on Martin Luther is that he was excommunicated. There has been NOTHING official since then. For as much hope as the dialogue represents, so far, it has accomplished NOTHING in terms of doctrinal ‘movement’. Neither the Catholic Church nor ANY of the various Lutherans have changed ONE iota of one doctrine as a result of the Dialogue.

Personally I think this situation is fascinating, and is very reminiscent of Luther and his Revolt against the Church. Luther was absolutely CERTAIN that he understood the teachings of the Catholic Church much better than anyone else (everyone else really). When dozens of better theologians insisted (uniformly) that Luther was wrong (just exactly as he turned out to be), Luther STILL claimed that they were wrong.

When people disagreed with Luther, he first rebuked them (from his authority as a rather junior Professor at Europe’s least distinguished university). When THEY persisted, as a group, in their arrogance to ALL deny what Luther held to be SO OBVIOUS, THEN he vilified them, claiming that they were liars. OF COURSE they HAD to actually agree with him but were lying by saying that they didn’t. When they STILL defied him, THEN they were willing slaves to Satan himself. (Documentation upon request - as always).

I have seen maybe a dozen people try to get this point across, including Father David. Nobody has been successful. Nobody was successful in attempting to correct Luther either, and he too, more than questioned people’s honesty and their ‘Catholicity’. How strange is this offensive questioning of OUR adherence to Church teaching when coming from someone who considers the pope to be the antichrist?

I do agree with you on one thing though - there is no use in explanations or in the providing of evidence. None of that appears to matter at all. I am thinking though of putting together a stock post with all of the documentation so that it can be quickly posted to keep people who come here searching for the truth from being misled.

For the record Annie, you proved your point perfectly, many times. May God Bless You, Topper
 
EvangelCatholic said:
On the contrary, Annie, I provide numerous documentation from the Holy See website. You, however, have not proven your point that these declarations from the Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity, do not represent the official position of the Roman Catholic Church.

I think what is “tired stuff” for you is the truth. 🤷
Click to expand...
No, Evangel, Annie and Topper are correct on this point. These dialogues have indeed occurred, and do serve to heal the wounds to unity, but they are not the official position of the Church. Neither is everything on the Vatican website.

There are many levels of authority in Catholic teaching, and these dialogues don’t come anywhere near the authority of the Council of Trent.
 
Topper17 said:
Hi Annie,

Does your head hurt?

On the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Thread”, Father David, who was trying to explain the TRUE nature of the Dialogue, was told:

“Not sure the Dialogues would take your position, Fr David”

To which FrDavid96 replied:

“Well, it’s certainly the position found in Vatican II in Unitatis Redintegratio and Bl John Paul II’s Ut Unum Sint.

I think that it is the position of the Catholic participants in the dialogue as well.

The dialogue paragraphs just aren’t saying what you think they are saying. As a Catholic (trained in this sort of thing) I can read through them as see the subtleties of the wording and recognize the differences.”

The response: “Sorry Father David but I don’t agree with your assessment since the Dialogue……”

Luther would be proud.

Father David (FrDavid96) also tried to inject some reality into the situation by posting the following:

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS
OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH

FIFTH QUESTION

Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

RESPONSE

According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense[20].

(The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified and confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 2007, the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.)

vatican.va/roman_curia/co…tiones_en.html

Topper: If the communities of the Reformation are not ‘Churches’ in the proper sense’, according to this OFFICIAL document of the Church, then the representations of the ‘Dialogue’ that we continue to see are incorrect and misleading.

In fact, the official position of the Church on Martin Luther is that he was excommunicated. There has been NOTHING official since then. For as much hope as the dialogue represents, so far, it has accomplished NOTHING in terms of doctrinal ‘movement’. Neither the Catholic Church nor ANY of the various Lutherans have changed ONE iota of one doctrine as a result of the Dialogue.

Personally I think this situation is fascinating, and is very reminiscent of Luther and his Revolt against the Church. Luther was absolutely CERTAIN that he understood the teachings of the Catholic Church much better than anyone else (everyone else really). When dozens of better theologians insisted (uniformly) that Luther was wrong (just exactly as he turned out to be), Luther STILL claimed that they were wrong.

When people disagreed with Luther, he first rebuked them (from his authority as a rather junior Professor at Europe’s least distinguished university). When THEY persisted, as a group, in their arrogance to ALL deny what Luther held to be SO OBVIOUS, THEN he vilified them, claiming that they were liars. OF COURSE they HAD to actually agree with him but were lying by saying that they didn’t. When they STILL defied him, THEN they were willing slaves to Satan himself. (Documentation upon request - as always).

I have seen maybe a dozen people try to get this point across, including Father David. Nobody has been successful. Nobody was successful in attempting to correct Luther either, and he too, more than questioned people’s honesty and their ‘Catholicity’. How strange is this offensive questioning of OUR adherence to Church teaching when coming from someone who considers the pope to be the antichrist?

I do agree with you on one thing though - there is no use in explanations or in the providing of evidence. None of that appears to matter at all. I am thinking though of putting together a stock post with all of the documentation so that it can be quickly posted to keep people who come here searching for the truth from being misled.

For the record Annie, you proved your point perfectly, many times. May God Bless You, Topper
Click to expand...
I wrote the following before reading the part about the stock post so I wrote something similar.

Hi topper,

“Does your head hurt?”

Yes as a matter of fact it does. I believe that I’ll c/p your post and copy it in reply to his future iterations of his regurgitations.

Pax et bonum,
Annie
 
guanophore said:
No, Evangel, Annie and Topper are correct on this point. These dialogues have indeed occurred, and do serve to heal the wounds to unity, but they are not the official position of the Church. Neither is everything on the Vatican website.

There are many levels of authority in Catholic teaching, and these dialogues don’t come anywhere near the authority of the Council of Trent.
Click to expand...
Lots of people have been correct on this point, in lots of places, often.

GKC
 
GKC said:
Lots of people have been correct on this point, in lots of places, often.

GKC
Click to expand...
Aye. And lots of those people are awaiting that ever-elusive citation from the Magisterium. Haven’t seen one yet, in any place, ever.
 
guanophore said:
No, Evangel, Annie and Topper are correct on this point. These dialogues have indeed occurred, and do serve to heal the wounds to unity, but they are not the official position of the Church. Neither is everything on the Vatican website.

There are many levels of authority in Catholic teaching, and these dialogues don’t come anywhere near the authority of the Council of Trent.
Click to expand...
Someone provided this explanation of a “Declaration” per Roman Catholic teaching. Is this correct?
Declaration (declamatio) - A declaration is a papal document that can take one of three forms: 1) a simple statement of the law interpreted according to existing Church law; 2) an authoritative declaration that requires no additional promulgation; or 3) an extensive declaration, which modifies the law and requires additional promulgation. Declarations are less common now as papal documents, but were resorted to several times by the Vatican II Council. An example is Dignitatis Humanae, the Declaration on Religious Liberty.
Click to expand...
 
EvangelCatholic said:
Someone provided this explanation of a “Declaration” per Roman Catholic teaching. Is this correct?
Click to expand...
No. The JDDJ was, on Rome’s side, the work of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, not the Pope or the Magisterium. It is not, and never was, intended as a “papal document,” so to consider it a ‘declaration’ in that sense is incorrect. The JDDJ is a ‘declaration’ in the sense that it is two parties ‘declaring’ where agreement can be found between their positions – and even then, not without conditional modifiers from each party’s respective real authorities (the Roman Magisterium and the particular Lutheran Ministeriums).

Verstehst du?
 
Clearly the energy on this thread is toxic, in my opinion. Most posters seem to be against any ecumenical progress to even question/ undermine the Pope. The anomosity of Topper and company is unsettling and speaks for what it is.

Can anyone image a non Christian reading this and wondering where the “Christ” is in Christian?
 
guanophore said:
No, Evangel, Annie and Topper are correct on this point. These dialogues have indeed occurred, and do serve to heal the wounds to unity, but they are not the official position of the Church. Neither is everything on the Vatican website.

There are many levels of authority in Catholic teaching, and these dialogues don’t come anywhere near the authority of the Council of Trent.
Click to expand...
I think the question at hand is whether a Catholic is bound to respect them - since they ARE on the Vatican website, I would tend to suspect so. While not everything is proclaimed as infallible, nonetheless aren’t Catholics supposed to respect official teaching at what ever level, even if it is not the official teaching of the Magisterium.

The impression I get is that some will refuse to admit anything good about Luther without a papal bull meeting the infallibility criteria addressed personally to them directing them to do so, which is not in the spirit of reconciliation.

This is where the confusion may be - EC is expecting some posters to respect the document on hand, and others are saying it isn’t official.

Cochaleus (sp?) has been challenged as an authority, but Topper continues to quote him, and those who may have used him as a source, authoritatively, which makes no sense until he is established as a credible witness. Thus, there is no credibility to Topper’s position until this is settled. At the moment Cochaleus is not an admissible witness, and there is the further barrier of proving that anything disparaging that is said about Luther did not come from a Catholic polemicist.
 
Hi Topper: In response to your 513 post I would like to say from my research it seems that as early as 1517 Luther was complaining about the scholastic’s theology of grace and works, and their use of Aristotelian philosophy. He called the scholastic nominalists "hog-theologians in 1515 ( Heinerich Boehmer, Luther in the Light of Recent Research N^Y, The Christian Herald, 1916. ) 87. Scholastic “grace and works”; Luther’s break with nominalists concepts of merit and grace was a fundamental step in his developing doctrine of justification. Luther felt that scholasticism involved something of a control over God and the operation of grace. Luther’s opposed their thesis that the human will of its own volition could actually love God above all things, or that by doing one’s best even apart from grace one could earn/merit a certain standing before God.

Luther also attacked the notion that one can fulfill the law only in the grace of God because that would make grace more burdensome than the law itself. This statement is reminiscent of Luther’s complaint that the Gospel was more burdensome than the law if it mediated a divine punishing righteousness. Luther thereby discards the Aristotelian notion that one becomes righteous by doing righteous deeds. Luther had become more deeply skeptical of the value of scholastic Aristotelianism, the philosophy for theological undertaking. Luther came to sense something in a unbridgeable gulf between theology and human speculations, and this had intensified as he had come to study the biblical texts. Luther rejected William of Occam’s idea of religious knowledge as being primarily assent to authoritatively reveal propositions.

Rowan Williams says it has the effect of severing any possible connection between what theology may say and the experiences of believers. Theology becomes a static analytical discipline, concerned with the rational relations between idea’s, it is certainly possible to be a theologian without being engaged in any particular discipline of Christian living. (The Wound of Knowledge,139)
 
steido01 said:
No. The JDDJ was, on Rome’s side, the work of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, not the Pope or the Magisterium. It is not, and never was, intended as a “papal document,” so to consider it a ‘declaration’ in that sense is incorrect. The JDDJ is a ‘declaration’ in the sense that it is two parties ‘declaring’ where agreement can be found between their positions – and even then, not without conditional modifiers from each party’s respective real authorities (the Roman Magisterium and the particular Lutheran Ministeriums).

Verstehst du?
Click to expand...
Hi Don. What is a ministerium and how much authority does it have and is it confined to one synod or is it pan-synod?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top