Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

[steido01]

Proof and citation, Topper, where any of us Lutherans have said we’d prefer Luther’s unflattering bits to be hidden! That’s a lofty charge, if true. Are you accusing us of intentional dishonesty?

We don’t mind examining Luther’s shortcomings; we examine the saints triumphant “warts and all.” It’s how we show that everyone needs a savior. What we do mind is intentional misrepresentation and slander. Get the difference?

 

[Topper17]

Much has been said recently about the role of Luther’s mentor and Father confessor in Luther’s elevation to the role of priesthood, Theologian, and especially Professor to prospective priests.

Roland Bainton relates how Luther admitted to Staupitz that he at times hated God:

“Is it not against all natural reason that God out of his mere whim deserts men, hardens them, damns them, as if he delighted in sins and in such torments of the wretched for eternity, he who is said to be of such mercy and goodness? This appears iniquitous, cruel, and intolerable in God, by which very many have been offended in all ages. And who would not be? **I was myself more than once driven to the very abyss of despair so that I wished I had never been created. Love God? I hated him!”, **Martin Luther

The word of blasphemy had been spoken. And blasphemy is the supreme sin because it is an offense against the most exalted of all beings, God the majestic. **Luther reported to Staupitz, and his answer was, “Ich verstehe es nicht!”~“l don’t understand it!” **Was, then, Luther the only one in all the world who had been so plagued? **Had Staupitz himself never experienced such trials? “No,” said he, “but I think they are your meat and drink.” Evidently he suspected Luther of thriving on his disturbances. **The only word of reassurance he could give was a reminder that the blood of Christ was shed for the remission of sins. **But Luther was too obsessed with the picture of Christ the avenger to be consoled with the thought of Christ the redeemer.” **Bainton, pg. 40-41

Staupitz didn’t really understand Luther, and suspected that Luther was thriving on his disturbances, and yet he STILL elevated Luther to roles for which he was not psychologically suited.

We know already that during the initial part of Luther’s Revolt against the Church Staupitz withdrew his friendship from Luther. Professor Stauptiz did feel the guilt associated with his mistake.

“On 15 March [1519] Gabriel Venetus,** the general of the order of Augustinian Hermits, wrote to Staupitz **as the vicar of the Saxon reform congregation and Luther’s immediate superior in the order…….The general made it clear that, despite the offensive ‘Resolutions’ on the indulgence theses, the Luther affair could easily have been cleared up. Staupitz could have restrained Luther. Great misfortune is threatening the order and the congregation if Luther does not cease his speaking and writing about that which irritates the pope. The order is coming into disrepute and now it is tainted with the stain of heresy. ……Stauptiz is threatened with withdrawal of privileges of the reform congregation. The issuance of a bull against Luther is imminent. Staupitz, who was known to have influence over Luther, should see to it that Luther no longer speaks out against the pope and does not publish any more books. In this writing a certain hope for a settlement of the conflict may still be seen. As for Staupitz himself, this may have been the motive that led him in May to announce his resignation as vicar of the reform congregation.” Brecht, Vol. I, pg. 389-90

Here we learn that Staupitz probably resigned his position over the guilt of his association with Luther and the responsibility he had for Luther’s promotions to positions of responsibility.

“That Staupitz denied him this [spiritual counsel] was an additional heavy burden. Staupitz himself must have been bothered by deep sorrows and doubts in regard to Luther’s cause, and this possibly may be one of the reasons why in the spring of 1520 he announced that he was giving up his post of vicar of the order.” Lutheran Professor Martin Brecht, “Martin Luther, His Road to Reformation”, Vol. I, pg. 337

It is interesting to note that Staupitz resigned prior to Luther’s excommunication. For sometime afterward Staupitz and Luther were estranged.

“Sometime in June [1522] he [Luther] received a letter from his old mentor Staupitz. Staupitz, seemingly overcome with sadness and anxiety for what Luther had done, had left the Augustinian order in 1520 to become a Benedictine. In 1522 he became abbot of the Benedictine monastery in Salzburg, and two years later he would be dead. ** In his letter (not now extant), Stauptiz said that Luther’s doctrines were being hurled about my men who frequented brothels and that Luther’s books had been a cause for scandal**.” Marius, pg. 337

Staupitz wrote to Luther again in 1524:

“**Stauptiz did not approve of Luther’s wholesale rejection of the old understanding of vows. For the benefit of a few – perhaps for the benefit of only one – Luther had case away all vows, said Stapitz. The remark is quietly given, but it had bite. Staupitz implied that Luther might have attacked monastic vows only as a means of justifying his own wish to be free of them, ** Yes, some monks were corrupt, Staupitz admitted, but many persisted in true faith and piety.” Marius, pg. 338

Staupitz died in December 1524, and thus had lived long enough to see how much damage Luther had done to both Christian doctrine and also to Christian unity. It seems very clear that Staupitz regretted his role in the whole Luther affair. As a loyal son of the Church, how could he not have? He must have thought: “How in the world did I not see the signs?” After all, Staupitz was very familiar with all of Luther’s very strange behavior in the monastery.

 

[steido01]

You have laid a serious charge at Lutherans. I’ll wait patiently for your response or apology.

 

[Topper17]

You have laid a serious charge at Lutherans. I’ll wait patiently for your response or apology.

Stiedo,

You know for a fact why I am not interested in dealing with you. You first accused me of being a sock puppet, and had to apologize because it became clear even to you that you were making a false accusation. You then falsely called me a liar twice. I respectfully requested a retraction and an apology and you simply doubled down. All very “Lutheran”.

My time is limited here and I have had to decide who I am willing to dialogue with. Those who defy the rules and make personal disparaging attacks (multiple times) are not going to be seeing much from me. In addition, those people who respond to my posts about Luther with NOTHING about Luther but a bunch of negative comments about me, pretty much prove the point I was making. Furthermore, they are defying the authority of the moderators, especially the most recent warning. I recognize that the Protestant mentality does not value obedience the way that we do but that kind of disobedience reminds me of Luther’s. We all know how miserably that whole thing turned out.

 

[guanophore]

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

GKC

Yes I am beginning to get that picture. Well, as long as the lurkers who are looking for accurate information realize what the facts are, that is what matters. It may be best for all of us to have a stock post!

 

[guanophore]

Someone provided this explanation of a “Declaration” per Roman Catholic teaching. Is this correct?

Yes. The joint declaration on justification has more authority than the dialogues. The dialogues are statements that summarize points of agreement and disagreement. They form the groundwork for ecumenical work that can move toward the JDDJ.

 

[guanophore]

Clearly the energy on this thread is toxic, in my opinion.

This is very concerning, Evangel. People who consider the efforts of others to correct their errors as “toxic” get into deep spiritual trouble. In order to have healthy ecumenical dialogue, participants need to be able to accept their mistakes or misconceptions. If a person considers correction as “toxic” it is impossible to grow spiritually.

Most posters seem to be against any ecumenical progress to even question/ undermine the Pope.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Clarifying our differences IS part of ecumenical progress. That is precisely why documents like the JDDJ and the Dialogues are developed.

Of course we do not consider it progress to question/undermine the Pope. Aside from undermining the Pope being against CAF rules, we would not consider it movement toward ecumenical dialogue.

I think I have been clear that the same is true about undermining Luther. We can certainly discuss why he was excommunicated, and discuss his writings and life. but finding fault with Luther, just like finding fault with the Pope, does not enhance ecumensism.

The anomosity of Topper and company is unsettling and speaks for what it is.

I realize that Topper does have a strong personal agenda when it comes to Luther, and for reasons of her own needs to discredit Luther. You will encounter this kind of animosity with regard to various issues. I can rememeber some very charged discussions over in vitro fertilization on CAF as well (during which several participants were suspended).

Can anyone image a non Christian reading this and wondering where the “Christ” is in Christian?

Absolutely. I would not send anyone to an apologetics site for the purpose of evangelization.

 

[KathleenGee]

I was reflecting on what I was able to read on this thread…and it came to me that Martin Luther never experienced ‘communion’ in the Catholic Church, that communion that comes through the Mass in the Word and Sacraments.

There is a focus in this communion…Luther was ahead of his time. A poster here presented some of his ideas that were finally implemented in Vatican II…but back then the culture was not ready for it, and likewise there were terrible abuses in Vatican II where a spirit of congregationalism and spirit of the world entered the Church…

In all of that one stays in the Church, keeps drawing on the focus on Christ in the communion of the Holy Trinity and adhere to our deposit of faith, not looking at man.

For me, personal opinion is working of the flesh and my way of looking at things, rather than sacrificing my attitude and opinion to have faith in the fullness of Christ found in the Church.

Likewise in reform, St. Francis had a disdain for his friars to read books, and said to look instead at him, meaning his example in how he lived out the Word of God. One sees alot of humility and kindness of speech and work among the destitute in St. Francis who was working alone with lepers for 2 years before he gained followers. His great conversion was seeing the mirror of himself in the leper on the road, after he was imprisoned in a pit for 1.5 years, obviously damaged in more than one way living in such conditions.

Martin Luther had many faithful followers who even expunged some of his writings and manner of speaking. And among St. Francis’, there were those who essentially kicked him out of his own order, and there were writings attributed to him but some of them were not written by him.

Today Pope Francis is asking that all the divisions in the Church cease and we be one so the world will believe. He also says we should all see ourselves as nothing…St. John of the Cross spoke of the dark night of the soul. The world today is so dark from sin.

We can talk about upbringings, psyches and neuroses, but in the end it is our will and whether we conform it to God’s.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Yes, but that is exactly the point. It is not “teaching”. It is work of the Church toward unity, and yes, it should be respected as such (these are the leaders appointed by God to do this work), but it is not part of the Sacred Deposit of Faith to which we are all bound.

If the groups with whom the documents are composed change, or collapse, they become useless. Magesterial teaching is never useless, since it’s purpose is to guide us in the application of the once for all Divine Sacred Tradition to our current situation.

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 true, and it is not a spirit of reconciliation. Fortunately, though if push comes to shove, and such a directive is necessary, it will be provided.

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.

There is a wide gap between official Catholic Teaching and respect for a document produced by a pontifical council. It seems to me that EC is presenting it as though it were “official Catholic Teaching” because it is found on the Vatican site, and this is simply erroneous.

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.

All that Topper has done is discredit herself, and her own scholarship. It is regrettable, but there it is. It is not possible to extract bias from people. They have to let go of it themselves. And as long as quoting a non-credible source helps Topper to meet personal needs, I fear it will continue.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Some various tidbits in regard to the historicity of this discussion in regard to indulgences:

The fact is that Luther did not complain about indulgences until long after he had already departed from what the Church taught doctrinally.

Some scholars see Luther being troubled by indulgences as early as 1515 (Boehmer, for example). There are two sermons from Luther still extant previous to the 95 Theses in which Luther voiced his concern with indulgences (Oct. 31, 1516; Feb. 24, 1517).Oberman mentions Luther denouncing indulgences in 1514 “in the university lecture hall” (Luther Man Between God and the Devil, 191).

Although I doubt if Luther was aware of it consciously, the real problem was that Indulgences grated on his then still developing belief in Salvation by Faith Alone.

Actually, quite the opposite. It was the sense of security that the indulgence were bringing and that those who bought them had no reason afterward to strive for piety or a moral life. See Boehmer, Road To Reformation, pp. 178-181 for a full discussion.

.As a matter of fact, the accusations brought against Tetzel, of having sold forgiveness of sins for money without requiring contrition, and of having even been ready to absolve from future sins in return for a money payment, are, as N. Paulus, and others before him, pointed out, utterly unjust.

Later as the indulgence controversy progressed, Tetzel did explicitly say indulgences “served solely in the case of punishment of sins that had been repented of and confessed”, but his instructions for preaching during the period in question read “outside for punishment of sin, of the plenaria omnium peccatorum remissio, and without repenting one could buy an indulgence upon the presentation of which any promiscuously chosen priest was forced once during lifetime and in the hour of death to grant to the professor for a general absolution” (source).

For an interesting look at one of Tetzel’s sermons, see this link. It appears to me that at times Tetzel may have preached that indulgences were only beneficial for those who were penitent and had confessed their sins. What the people heard though appears to be something quite different.

Of interest is the instructions issued by Archbishop Albert that authorized the sale of these indulgences in Germany. Note it says, “Everyone who is contrite in heart and has confessed with his mouth…” "the complete remission of all sins…" “for those souls which are in purgatory, and is the complete remission of all sins…” etc.

 

[steido01]

Stiedo,

You know for a fact why I am not interested in dealing with you…

I don’t understand why you’ve decided that I’m your nemesis. I have no personal quarrel with you.

I do take issue, however, with the repeated misrepresentation of fact and history. You have accused Lutherans, in general, of intentional dishonesty. That is no small charge, friend! This requires either evidence or apology. I have asked for these, and you have presented me with attacks to my character (a character I work very hard to ensure is charitable, even to those who don’t care for me).

I pray that God gives you the peace you seek, and that He grant you greater love toward neighbor.

Your brother in Christ,

 

[Annie39]

Some various tidbits in regard to the historicity of this discussion in regard to indulgences:

Some scholars see Luther being troubled by indulgences as early as 1515 (Boehmer, for example). There are two sermons from Luther still extant previous to the 95 Theses in which Luther voiced his concern with indulgences (Oct. 31, 1516; Feb. 24, 1517).Oberman mentions Luther denouncing indulgences in 1514 “in the university lecture hall” (Luther Man Between God and the Devil, 191).

Actually, quite the opposite. It was the sense of security that the indulgence were bringing and that those who bought them had no reason afterward to strive for piety or a moral life. See Boehmer, Road To Reformation, pp. 178-181 for a full discussion.

Later as the indulgence controversy progressed, Tetzel did explicitly say indulgences “served solely in the case of punishment of sins that had been repented of and confessed”, but his instructions for preaching during the period in question read “outside for punishment of sin, of the plenaria omnium peccatorum remissio, and without repenting one could buy an indulgence upon the presentation of which any promiscuously chosen priest was forced once during lifetime and in the hour of death to grant to the professor for a general absolution” (source).

For an interesting look at one of Tetzel’s sermons, see this link. It appears to me that at times Tetzel may have preached that indulgences were only beneficial for those who were penitent and had confessed their sins. What the people heard though appears to be something quite different.

Of interest is the instructions issued by Archbishop Albert that authorized the sale of these indulgences in Germany. Note it says, “Everyone who is contrite in heart and has confessed with his mouth…” "the complete remission of all sins…" “for those souls which are in purgatory, and is the complete remission of all sins…” etc.

It is my understanding that Luther taught that one could not lose his salvation except in case of apostasy.

Annie

 

[steido01]

It is my understanding that Luther taught that one could not lose his salvation except in case of apostasy.

Annie

No. Lutherans do not profess ‘once saved always saved’ as Calvinists do. It can get difficult to understand especially considering that Lutherans believe in both the regeneration of the Spirit through the sacraments, and grace through faith.

 

[Annie39]

Some various tidbits in regard to the historicity of this discussion in regard to indulgences:

Some scholars see Luther being troubled by indulgences as early as 1515 (Boehmer, for example). There are two sermons from Luther still extant previous to the 95 Theses in which Luther voiced his concern with indulgences (Oct. 31, 1516; Feb. 24, 1517).Oberman mentions Luther denouncing indulgences in 1514 “in the university lecture hall” (Luther Man Between God and the Devil, 191).

Actually, quite the opposite. It was the sense of security that the indulgence were bringing and that those who bought them had no reason afterward to strive for piety or a moral life. See Boehmer, Road To Reformation, pp. 178-181 for a full discussion.

Later as the indulgence controversy progressed, Tetzel did explicitly say indulgences “served solely in the case of punishment of sins that had been repented of and confessed”, but his instructions for preaching during the period in question read “outside for punishment of sin, of the plenaria omnium peccatorum remissio, and without repenting one could buy an indulgence upon the presentation of which any promiscuously chosen priest was forced once during lifetime and in the hour of death to grant to the professor for a general absolution” (source).

For an interesting look at one of Tetzel’s sermons, see this link. It appears to me that at times Tetzel may have preached that indulgences were only beneficial for those who were penitent and had confessed their sins. What the people heard though appears to be something quite different.

Of interest is the instructions issued by Archbishop Albert that authorized the sale of these indulgences in Germany. Note it says, “Everyone who is contrite in heart and has confessed with his mouth…” "the complete remission of all sins…" “for those souls which are in purgatory, and is the complete remission of all sins…” etc.

I admit it does appear that Indulgences were actually being sold. And what is called a plenary indulgence at that. As acknowledged by Catholic Answers here catholic.com/quickquestions/does-the-catholic-church-still-sell-indulgences.

Annie

 

[Annie39]

No. Lutherans do not profess ‘once saved always saved’ as Calvinists do. It can get difficult to understand especially considering that Lutherans believe in both the regeneration of the Spirit through the sacraments, and grace through faith.

That is exactly what I was taught when I was in the LCMS and what the famous in Lutheran apologetics John Warwick Montgomery taught as well. I heard him with my own ears.

Annie

 

[steido01]

That is exactly what I was taught when I was in the LCMS and what the famous in Lutheran apologetics John Warwick Montgomery taught as well. I heard him with my own ears.

Annie

Annie,

All I can say is that is not the teaching of the LCMS (p.13), nor any Lutheran. If you were taught this, I am sorry that you received such poor catechesis. Perhaps this essay from an LCMS pastor will help.

I am unfamiliar with Dr. Montgomery’s work, but if he has ever taught OSAS, he is in error. Do you have any quote or reference for us?

The terminology Lutherans use, particularly around the election of those who are predestined for salvation, can often be confused with Calvinist thought. It’s important to note that Lutherans do not subscribe to double predestination. Is it possible that you were a little confused by these difficult topics?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

If I understand guanophore the below definition of a Catholic ‘Declaration’ is 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.

That means the Joint [meaning Lutherans and Catholics together] Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification falls into one of possibly 3 categories:

1] “Simple statement of the law . . . according to existing Church law”. Is “Catholic law” the same as Catholic teaching?

2] “Authoritative declaration that requires no more promulgation”. Definition of the word ‘promulgate’ according to the Webster Dictionary

: to make (an idea, belief, etc.) known to many people
: to make (a new law) known officially and publicly
1: to make (as a doctrine) known by open declaration : proclaim
2a : to make known or public the terms of (a proposed law) b : to put (a law) into action or force

Again, I ask is “law” the same as teaching? If not, how does Catholic law differ from Catholic teaching? “Officially and publicly” is another definition of 'promulgate". Does that mean “official” Catholic law?

3] “Extensive declaration . . . requires additional promulgation”. My understanding of this definition is the JDDJ could even mean Declarations that all Catholics are to understand and accept; how am I wrong here?

And then the Declaration, Dignitatis Humanae,

PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI ON DECEMBER 7, 1965 vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

is used as an example of a declaration. If a Pope or Council make declarations to Catholics, how is that different from teaching?

 

[Annie39]

Annie,

All I can say is that is not the teaching of the LCMS (p.13), nor any Lutheran. If you were taught this, I am sorry that you received such poor catechesis. Perhaps this essay from an LCMS pastor will help.

I am unfamiliar with Dr. Montgomery’s work, but if he has ever taught OSAS, he is in error. Do you have any quote or reference for us?

The terminology Lutherans use, particularly around the election of those who are predestined for salvation, can often be confused with Calvinist thought. It’s important to note that Lutherans do not subscribe to double predestination. Is it possible that you were a little confused by these difficult topics?

Yep I may be stupid and people in my world just patronize me when they tell me how knowledgable I am.

 

[Porknpie]

That is exactly what I was taught when I was in the LCMS and what the famous in Lutheran apologetics John Warwick Montgomery taught as well. I heard him with my own ears.

Annie

Which sentence Annie are your referring to… you were taught OSAS?

 

[Annie39]

Annie,

All I can say is that is not the teaching of the LCMS (p.13), nor any Lutheran. If you were taught this, I am sorry that you received such poor catechesis. Perhaps this essay from an LCMS pastor will help.

I am unfamiliar with Dr. Montgomery’s work, but if he has ever taught OSAS, he is in error. Do you have any quote or reference for us?

The terminology Lutherans use, particularly around the election of those who are predestined for salvation, can often be confused with Calvinist thought. It’s important to note that Lutherans do not subscribe to double predestination. Is it possible that you were a little confused by these difficult topics?

The second teaching, in which God promises to preserve us eternally, is for our New Man (Galatians 5:17, 22f.; Ephesians 4:24). The New Man is who we are in Christ Jesus, our new identity as forgiven sinners, saints and children of God - the real us. It is that part of us which loves God, and delights in doing all that pleases Him. The New Man is that part of us which is sickened by sin, grieves when we do sin, and which longs for our heavenly home. The second teaching is pure Gospel. It is meant to be the sweetest comfort and encouragement to our New Man, lest He be overcome by the doubts of the flesh.

The above does seem to say that Luther’s New Man who is sickened by his sin is still saved or as Catholics put it, still in the state of grace. Can the New Man lose his salvation ever?

And here it is clearly stated: Finally, what is the answer to the question, “Are true Christians once saved always saved?” When speaking to the Old Man, when speaking to the one who is carnally secure, who neglects all that is Christian, yet still claims the title Christian for himself, the clear answer is, “NO!” It is very possible to permanently fall away from saving faith, and you are in danger of doing so! But when speaking to the New Man, when speaking to the one who struggles with sin, but humbly trusts in the Savior alone, who realizes that His worth, his state of grace and forgiveness, and his citizenship in heaven depend only on the Savior’s merits, yet who knows the weakness of the flesh and wonders if he’ll make it, the unmistakable answer is “YES! Though you are weak, though you stumble, though you sin, nothing shall ever separate you from God’s love in Christ Jesus. He is faithful and He will confirm you to the end! Amen!”

It seems to me that I was taught correctly. And Montgomery taught true Lutheran doctrine.

Annie