Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Inariga
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
spina1953 said:
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)
Click to expand...
I am not clear on what the antecedent of the bolded** it** is. The accusation in the second sentence could be made against scholasticism in general.
 
Annie39 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Dictionary-wise, ‘ministerium’ is simply a general term for a group of clergy who work together. It can be pan-diocese, pan-synod, pan-denomination or even pan-religious. So a Rabbi, a Priest and a Imam walk into a bar… 😃

But in (mostly American and Australian -influenced) Lutheranism, it is generally the term used for a given Synod’s ordained leadership - pastors, bishops, presidents, etc. It’s usually fair to use the term where a Roman Catholic would use ‘Magisterium.’ It has the authority, as the teaching office of the church, Preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments to congregations of believers. It also has the responsibility to teach and explain the Christian Faith as it exists from Holy Scripture and the Confessions; it cannot invent novel doctrines, make dogma from pious belief, or otherwise teach contrary to Scripture and the Confessions.
 
Tomyris said:
I am not clear on what the antecedent of the bolded** it** is. The accusation in the second sentence could be made against scholasticism in general.
Click to expand...
I think that that was the point, it means what it means. the humanists viewpoint was against any scholasticism and or philosophy and the theology thereof and the methods used as a discipline of theology.
 
I ask Catholics to define “papal document”. JDDJ is called a papal document on the Holy See site.
JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION
by the Lutheran World Federation
and the Catholic Church
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html
Click to expand...
Again, is this the correct definition of a papal declaration?
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...
 
spina1953 said:
I think that that was the point, it means what it means. the humanists viewpoint was against any scholasticism and or philosophy and the theology thereof and the methods used as a discipline of theology.
Click to expand...
Then I am not sure where you were going with your post.

Luther complained loudly that a gospel that said that the righteous get a reward and the sinner gets punished is no gospel at all, because we are sinners. He rejected Aristotlean logic here, which had been embraced by the scholastics and driven, as I understand, to absurdity. We need a gospel where God justifies sinners, which, logically, is irrational. Logically sinners get punished and there is no room in iron logic for sinners getting a reward, because it is unjust. I understand that was the trap he found himself in, and it was not the trap of a mad man but of someone who clearly understood what was being said.
 
steido01 said:
Dictionary-wise, ‘ministerium’ is simply a general term for a group of clergy who work together. It can be pan-diocese, pan-synod, pan-denomination or even pan-religious. So a Rabbi, a Priest and a Imam walk into a bar… 😃

But in (mostly American and Australian -influenced) Lutheranism, it is generally the term used for a given Synod’s ordained leadership - pastors, bishops, presidents, etc. It’s usually fair to use the term where a Roman Catholic would use ‘Magisterium.’ It has the authority, as the teaching office of the church, Preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments to congregations of believers. It also has the responsibility to teach and explain the Christian Faith as it exists from Holy Scripture and the Confessions; it cannot invent novel doctrines, make dogma from pious belief, or otherwise teach contrary to Scripture and the Confessions.
Click to expand...
That was funny Don. Thanks for the laugh. Are you a Lutheran minister. Does your synod have female ministers?
 
Annie39 said:
That was funny Don. Thanks for the laugh.
Click to expand...
Every once in a while I’ll let a bit of humor slip out. Don’t worry, I’m usually deadly serious.
Annie39 said:
Are you a Lutheran minister.
Click to expand...
No, just a layman, as the signature says. My dad is a Lutheran pastor. He made us memorize lots of Scripture and the Small Catechism. He never made us call him “Father,” though. “Dad” worked just fine.
Annie39 said:
Does your synod have female ministers?
Click to expand...
The LCMS -]does not/-] cannot ordain females as pastors. That would be against the Apostolic Faith as known through Holy Scripture, the Confessions or tradition. The LCMS has been consistently clear on that issue, much to the chagrin of other “Lutherans” who want us to “get with the times.” We prefer living the Faith as Holy Scripture dictates. We’re old fashioned that way. The LCMS does have a deaconess program for women to serve in hospitals, schools, and in women’s and youth ministry. They’re kind of like “Lutheran nuns,” but they usually don’t rap your knuckles with a ruler.
 
=steido01;12293836]Every once in a while I’ll let a bit of humor slip out. Don’t worry, I’m usually deadly serious.
Click to expand...
No, just a layman, as the signature says. My dad is a Lutheran pastor. He made us memorize lots of Scripture and the Small Catechism. He never made us call him “Father,” though. “Dad” worked just fine.
Click to expand...
:rotfl:
The LCMS -]does not/-] cannot ordain females as pastors. That would be against the Apostolic Faith as known through Holy Scripture, the Confessions or tradition. The LCMS has been consistently clear on that issue, much to the chagrin of other “Lutherans” who want us to “get with the times.” We prefer living the Faith as Holy Scripture dictates. We’re old fashioned that way. The LCMS does have a deaconess program for women to serve in hospitals, schools, and in women’s and youth ministry. They’re kind of like “Lutheran nuns,” but they usually don’t rap your knuckles with a ruler.
Click to expand...
True. They are not in the, um, habit of doing that.

Going up, we had a deaconess as a member of our LCA parish, and she actually did wear a habit, and we called her “Sister _____”. I don’t know if the ELCA still has deaconesses, though.

Jon
 
Annie39 said:
If you don’t know after reading this thread it will have to be a mystery to you. I just had a thought, are you American? It could be a cultural thing.
Click to expand...
I think it was insulting and inflammatory and against the Forum rules. I think you are trying to get an infraction.
 
Hi Tomyris: In reply to your #534 post:
Code: 
                 In scholastic theology, the sinner gets the state of grace whereby they can proceed to do good works. By doing these, they merit the rewards of being accepted by God due to their merit ( which God gives Himself) God being generous, He promises to reward those who try with His grace deserve acceptance as righteous which flow freely from God's free choice. God didn't have to provide opportunity for sinners, yet He did and that is God's grace. 

                  This type of theology by scholastic's was rejected by Luther because it was contrary to his own doctrine that one is justified by faith alone and good works did not have any merit at all. In scholastic theology, the doctrine of justification was refined by distinguishing actual grace and habitual grace. Actual grace effected the forgiveness of actual sins provided they were made known in confession. This is what terrified Luther the most, fearing that he was forgetting of any actual sins when confessing. Moreover, Luther came to fear God's inscrutable will of a just God, in affect saying God did not have mercy.

                  Habitual grace is then a divine quality to the soul enabling one to preform righteous acts; which is infused and imparted by God in that habitual grace can then be said to be pure grace and not the result of merit, but grace the cause of merit. One was made righteous by God's infusion of a supernatural grace given freely by God in response to His love. The verdict of justification in the scholastic theology was the physician spronouncement of recovery, a bill of health, attesting the patients transformed nature. This was the scholastic theology in which Luther rejected as it did not conform to his own theology and doctrine he was advocating.
 
Tomyris said:
I think it was insulting and inflammatory and against the Forum rules. I think you are trying to get an infraction.
Click to expand...
I myself do not think that Annie39 was trying to be insulting to you or trying to be inflammatory to you. it was just a question I think on her part. You do not have to answer her question ;if you do not want to then just say so.
 
Tomyris said:
This is David Armstrong, Catholic Apologist, on quoting Reformation era Catholic apologists and especially Johannes Cochlaeus :

socrates58.blogspot.com/2008/01/james-swan-sez-i-defend-all-historic.html

“I have never ever relied on Cochlaeus for any argument with regard to ascertained historical facts about Martin Luther. (I have never read any of his material).” Dave Armstrong

We should take note that the sources Topper uses are simply not creditable.
Click to expand...
Tomy,

It appears that you are not aware of the facts of the matter here. As everyone knows, the vast majority of the Scholars I quote are Protestants, and among them, Lutherans are very much statistically overrepresented. Maybe 10-15% of the people I quote are Catholics. That being said, your blanket statement that the sources that I use are ‘simply not creditable’, is rather humorous.

Furthermore, I happen to agree with Dave Armstrong. I don’t consider Cochlaeus to be a credible source of information on Luther because he is simply too hateful towards him. I happen to have the book that contains the whole of Cochlaeus’s book against Luther and I have read a lot of it. However, you will never see me quote from it and you never have. That does not mean that I will not use quotes which contain an indirect citation from Cochlaeus, as I have done here on Catholic Answers ONCE.

Furthermore, I would never rely on ONLY Cochlaeus as a single source on an incident. In fact, Cochlaeus should only be used to confirm something that has been reported by other sources. That one reference to Cochlaeus in that ONE post had to do with the ‘fit in the choir’, which you might not be aware of. In fact, that incident is one of the most dramatic evidences as to why Luther’s fellow monks wondered whether he might be either possessed by the devil or “unbalanced in mind”.

“His state of mind gave his superiors much concern. Few were able to understand him. **Some thought him unbalanced in mind; others suspected he was under the control of evil spirits. In later days his enemies pointed to his unhappy experiences in the convent as proof of demoniacal possession, **and he himself interpreted them as assaults of his lifelong antagonist, the devil.” Protestant Theologian Arthur Cushman McGiffert, pg. 29-30.

Anyway Tomy, other than your strange overreaction, I want to thank you for reminding me of the fit in the choir. Lutheran Apologists are generally insistent that it never happened, because it would not look good for it to be known that Luther was that psychologically unstable. In fact, the fit in the choir does not at all depend on the account of Cochlaeus and the story itself reveals MUCH more about the nature of the man than Lutherans want revealed.

So, again, thanks for the reminder. I’m sure people will find the actual evidence to be extremely interesting, and very revealing as to who Luther really was.

By the way, if Cochleaus is too hateful to take seriously, then where does that leave Luther? As bad as Cochlaeus was towards Luther, Luther was far worse towards many. I have asked if anyone would like to nominate anybody as being the most hateful and violent Theologian in Christian history, and nobody has even bothered to put forth a contender.

Just one other tip for you. As I am know you would agree, one has to make sure that the sources that they are using are credible. People normally learn this the hard way after they get shot down using a particular source a few times.

BTW, I doubt if the Lutherans here are all that happy about you directing people to Dave Armstrong’s site. After all, he has done a tremendous amount of research on Luther, with probably a couple of hundred articles on the subject, and I would bet that all of them contain historical facts that a lot of people here would prefer to see left unrevealed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top