Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

[guanophore]

And lets not forget the Cathars, the Iconoclasts, the Monophysites, the Nestorians, the Arians or the Gnostics. Or satan. They are all heretics that wanted to re-form the faith into their own. I didn’t say that Luther was the first to call for “reform”, I said that perhaps no other man in history has done more damage to the faithful than him. Unfortunately his numerous followers today really is the lingering result of this.

I agree that the followers of Sola Scriptura today continues to create fractures and divisions, but this really gives Luther far too much credit. The social, political, and economic pressures were much larger factors in the outcome than Luther himself. He was a pebble that started a landslide, and the damage caused by that landslide was largely on the Catholic side. The corruption of the Church hierarchy for 1000 years finally came to a head and the conditions were such that the German princes could take advantage of Luther’s ideas to wrest their property and goods back from the Bishop of Rome.

I think that the greed, lust, and abuse of power from the Catholic Bishops is what has done more damage to the faithful, then and now. Catholic clergy are judged with a higher standard because the Church claims infallibility. I am not discounting damage done by Luther, but I see fingers pointing back at Catholics.

 

[Milasol]

I agree that the followers of Sola Scriptura today continues to create fractures and divisions, but this really gives Luther far too much credit. The social, political, and economic pressures were much larger factors in the outcome than Luther himself. He was a pebble that started a landslide, and the damage caused by that landslide was largely on the Catholic side. The corruption of the Church hierarchy for 1000 years finally came to a head and the conditions were such that the German princes could take advantage of Luther’s ideas to wrest their property and goods back from the Bishop of Rome.

I think that the greed, lust, and abuse of power from the Catholic Bishops is what has done more damage to the faithful, then and now. Catholic clergy are judged with a higher standard because the Church claims infallibility. I am not discounting damage done by Luther, but I see fingers pointing back at Catholics.

If corruption was the problem then Luther, et al wouldn’t have changed the faith. No Eucharist, faith alone, etc. I don’t think those happened because some thought the Church was corrupt but evidently they had a problem with those key faith beliefs.

If one thinks the clergy was corrupt, btw protestants are not exempt from this, then why not try and reform it from within. Some left because they had an issue with what has been believed for hundreds of years since the beginning.

 

[spina1953]

As to the OP’s question 1) Pope Leo X did not order Luther to be burned. 2) Luther was excommunicated based on the doctrines he was preaching and teaching that was contrary to what the CC was teaching and preaching.3) Pope Leo has scholars and theologians go over Luther’s writings very carefully which began in Jan.1520 and on June 15,1520 Pope Leo wrote a letter to warning Luther that he must recant and say that his teachings were wrong. The scholars and theologians identified 41 sentences that violated Church teachings. The Pope went on to say that if Luther did not correct his thinking he would be excommunicated.

 

[bitznbitez]

IIRC, many of his 95 Theses were legitimate concerns that did need reformed.

Luther himself said that at the time he wrote the 95 he didn’t know what an indulgence was… which is itself telling. But as to the 95… Read #75.

There is no way on earth any catholic anywhere ever said what #75 says about indulgences. I’ll not repeat it as its blasphemous beyond words.

That one alone would be enough to make him not be taken seriously.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Luther himself said that at the time he wrote the 95 he didn’t know what an indulgence was… which is itself telling. But as to the 95… Read #75.

There is no way on earth any catholic anywhere ever said what #75 says about indulgences. I’ll not repeat it as its blasphemous beyond words.

That one alone would be enough to make him not be taken seriously.

I would love to know your source for Luther not knowing what an indulgence was at the time he wrote the 95 theses?

It would also mean that you don’t know enough about #75 to critique the point that Luther is making in that particular theses to be taken seriously. As for no Catholic anywhere ever saying that…tell that to Johann Tetzel, who said that very thing.

 

[Topper17]

Hi PC,

Most of them were only there because their families wanted them to be there. I would imagine they left when the opportunity presented itself.

There’s slightly more to it than that. In fact, Luther was more than a little ‘involved’ with the escape of these nuns, one of whom would eventually become his wife:

“The well-known incident of the flight of the nuns from the convent at Nimbschen, and their settling in Wittenberg, was looked upon by Luther and his followers as a matter of the greatest importance. The apostasy of the twelve nuns, among whom was Catherine von Bora, opened the door of all the other convents, as Luther expressed it, and demonstrated publicly what must be done " on behalf of the salvation of souls." Some of these nuns, as was frequently the case, had entered the Cistercian convent near Grimma, without a vocation, or had gradually become disgusted with their state owing to long-continued tepidity and want of fidelity to their profession. They had contrived to place themselves in communication with Luther, who, as he admits later in a public writing, himself arranged for them to be carried away by force, seeing that their relatives would do nothing.” Hartman Grisar, “Luther”, Vol. II, pg. 135-6

Of course, helping empty the monasteries and nunneries were very much in keeping with Luther’s goal of damaging the Church, which of course is one of the reasons he was excommunicated a few years earlier.

As for Catherine von Bora, he married her “in June 1525, while peasants were still being hunted down and massacred”, (Marius, pg. 436), which of course he recommended in writing in May. Marius also comments that “Luther himself had engineered the escape of the group (of nuns), sending over a covered wagon to pick the women up and transport them to freedom and safety.” (ibid, pg. 436).

As for their marriage, neither was the first choice of the other, but it does appear that they developed a deep affection for each other over the years. Luther received a great deal of criticism for marrying while the peasants were still being slaughtered, especially given that so many found him to be to a large degree responsible for the bloodshed.

God Bless You PC, Topper

 

[House_Harkonnen]

If corruption was the problem then Luther, et al wouldn’t have changed the faith. No Eucharist, faith alone, etc. I don’t think those happened because some thought the Church was corrupt but evidently they had a problem with those key faith beliefs.

If one thinks the clergy was corrupt, btw protestants are not exempt from this, then why not try and reform it from within. Some left because they had an issue with what has been believed for hundreds of years since the beginning.

How can a person reform the church from within when the church you are trying to reform from within kicks you out and puts a price on your head?

 

[Milasol]

How can a person reform the church from within when the church you are trying to reform from within kicks you out and puts a price on your head?

Actually the poster I was responding to said that Luther was only trying to reform corruption and so I pointed out that it wasn’t that since it was doctrine he changed.

 

[gcnuss]

Pastor Gary,

Thanks for more context.

The text also states that Pope Leo X had no interest in theology, unbelievable for his duty as the pope.

Kathleen,
Regard Pope Leo X, the following is from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

newadvent.org/cathen/09162a.htm

It seems that he was ill-equipped to deal effectively with the Reformation.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Some of the hierarchy of the Church weren’t the most moral of characters at the time, Martin Luther used this as an excuse to break from the Church founded by Jesus and instead start his own. He, along with the other reformers, penned the “5 solae” - 5 doctrines which were totally anti-Catholic, anti-biblical and anti-Christ.

He was a heretic, plain and simple. Maybe nobody else in the age of humanity has done more damage to God’s people than this man. Almost all of the problems of the Church today, as well as the problems within the secular society, almost all have their starting point in this “reformation”. In truth, they reformed nothing. The true Church never “formed” the truth of divine revelation to suit his doctrines as he wanted, and never will. All that happened is that he reformed Christianity to suit himself, and took innumerable innocent souls with him.

Some of the hierarchy of the Church weren’t the most moral of characters at the time, Martin Luther used this as an excuse to break from the Church founded by Jesus and instead start his own. He, along with the other reformers, penned the “5 solae” - 5 doctrines which were totally anti-Catholic, anti-biblical and anti-Christ.

Actually none of the reformers “penned” the five sola. They were only extrapolated from their teaching much later. The reformers only tended to use “sola fide” and “sola gratia” and almost always in conjunction with each other. The others came along later.

He was a heretic, plain and simple. Maybe nobody else in the age of humanity has done more damage to God’s people than this man. Almost all of the problems of the Church today, as well as the problems within the secular society, almost all have their starting point in this “reformation”. In truth, they reformed nothing. The true Church never “formed” the truth of divine revelation to suit his doctrines as he wanted, and never will. All that happened is that he reformed Christianity to suit himself, and took innumerable innocent souls with him

Actually the pope emeritus Benedict declared that my hero Martin Luther was right. Thankfully the last few popes haven’t taken as hard a line as you seem to be.

 

[Topper17]

Hi PC,

I would love to know your source for Luther not knowing what an indulgence was at the time he wrote the 95 theses?

The source would be Luther himself.

“I was at the time a preacher in the cloister and a young doctor fresh from the forge, ardent and merry in the holy Scriptures. When many people from Wittenberg ran after indulgences to Jiiterbog and Zerbst, and I, so truly as my Christ has redeemed me, did not know what indulgences were, as, for that matter, nobody did, I began to preach gently that it was certain there were better things to do than buy indulgences.” Martin Luther, in Arthur Cushman McGiffert, “Martin Luther, the Man and His Work”, pg. 84-85

Luther had been concerned and somewhat generally offended generally by the practice of indulgences for a few years prior to the 95 Theses. After all, the whole concept of indulgences were in opposition to Luther’s then formulating concept of Salvation by Faith Alone.

Standard history generally accuses Tetzel of overselling indulgences, but that is far from true. Even Lutheran Professor E. G. Schweibert agrees:

“Although Tetzel had somewhat exaggerated indulgences, his claims were basically in keeping with medieval Catholic conception of Salvation.” “Luther and His Times”, pg. 313

Luther believed that Tetzel was overselling indulgences.

“Luther firmly believed that Tetzel was misrepresenting indulgences without the knowledge of Church officials.” Schwiebert, pg. 315

But Luther was wrong about that. His anger over indulgences resulted in his 95 Theses, which he prepared on the basis of his poor understanding of indulgences and his misunderstanding that Tetzel was misrepresenting the teaching of the Church.

The fact is that Luther did not complain about indulgences until long after he had already departed from what the Church taught doctrinally. But he didn’t really know that his beliefs were straying from Catholicism, because he didn’t have an adequate of what the Church taught. If he had known Catholicism better, he might not have gotten himself in so deep that he could not back down. But of course, Luther had absolutely no talent for backing down.

In other words, Luther formally began his disagreement with the Church on the basis of his poor understanding of what the Church taught. This is not to say that it was not inevitable that he would rebel against the Church. I personally believe that if it had not been the issue of indulgences, something else would have set him off. In essence, his extreme need for the certainty of his everlasting salvation was bound to drive him from the Church. In order to ‘achieve’, that certainty, he had no choice but to rebel against the teachings of the Church.

God Bless You EC, Topper

 

[Milasol]

Actually the pope emeritus Benedict declared that my hero Martin Luther was right. Thankfully the last few popes haven’t taken as hard a line as you seem to be.

You mean this?

Second, there is a reason that Pope Benedict teaches that faith alone suffices and that it always comes with charity. He means, by “true faith,” a living faith. Now, living faith by dogmatic definition includes charity, for divine faith without hope and charity does not avail (1 Cor 13:2, 1 Jn 3:14). Charity is not first a “work.” It is first of all a divine gift of love that comes down from the Father (Jas 1:17) through the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5). It is by this gift of divine love that faith can realize itself in good works (Gal 5:6). Pope Benedict teaches this very thing: Charity is the soul or form of faith (Audience, Nov. 19).

Calling to mind charity as a gift, an infused virtue (not first a work), supports the truth of James’ analogy: Works are to faith as the soul is to the body (Jas 2:26). James’ Epistle would devolve into moralism and contradict Paul (see Rom 10:1-4; Phil 3:8ff; Audience Nov. 26), if it meant that merely human works are added to a dead faith to resuscitate a dead corpse. Not at all! It is living faith that realizes itself through good works, that produces good works. But I might not have opportunity to perform a work, to “realize” this living faith. Am I not saved, if I die in such circumstances? No, I am saved! Therefore, having formed faith is sufficient for salvation. This is what Pope Benedict means. Further, as he also expressly states, living faith itself will surely die if it is not expressed in concrete works, if I am capable of action and the opportunity presents itself.

Third, good works testify to justification, for they are signs of a justification already received. They are signs of gratitude for the gift already given, promised in earnest. Luther said the same thing, as did St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic saints.

Of course, more must be said—and the pope says more: “Salvation received in Christ needs to be preserved and witnessed to” (Nov. 26). This is what Trent teaches (Trent, VI, canon 24). Moreover, the pope indicates a progressive growth in communion with Christ, a progressive conformity to his life (Nov. 19). Since communion with Christ is established through faith and constitutes the essence of our “being justified,” the pope is teaching here another truth of Catholic faith—that, once justified, the Christian can surrender to God and so be increasingly sanctified unto eternal life (Rom 6:15-23). In purgatory, those who die with imperfect charity are thoroughly sanctified (see Spe Salvi, 45ff).

Finally, we must heed something not yet mentioned—the pope’s focus on the final judgment: “This idea of the Last Judgment must illumine us in our daily lives” (Nov. 26). What is the basis upon which we will be judged? The “sole criterion is love” (Nov. 19; see also, Nov. 26). Hence, “At the end of this Gospel [Mt 25], we can say: love alone, charity alone” (Nov. 19). Here, the pope is showing his deeply Augustinian character (see Augustine, De Trinitate, XV:18:32).

It seems to me that again protestants miss the point on the source of good works. Faith without being faithful is null… as it contradicts itself. One can’t have faith and not be faithful. Living faith…

It was Pope Benedict’s charity that tried to explain basics that most protestants don’t understand. Clearly.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

You mean this?

Second, there is a reason that Pope Benedict teaches that faith alone suffices and that it always comes with charity. He means, by “true faith,” a living faith. Now, living faith by dogmatic definition includes charity, for divine faith without hope and charity does not avail (1 Cor 13:2, 1 Jn 3:14). Charity is not first a “work.” It is first of all a divine gift of love that comes down from the Father (Jas 1:17) through the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5). It is by this gift of divine love that faith can realize itself in good works (Gal 5:6). Pope Benedict teaches this very thing: Charity is the soul or form of faith (Audience, Nov. 19).

Calling to mind charity as a gift, an infused virtue (not first a work), supports the truth of James’ analogy: Works are to faith as the soul is to the body (Jas 2:26). James’ Epistle would devolve into moralism and contradict Paul (see Rom 10:1-4; Phil 3:8ff; Audience Nov. 26), if it meant that merely human works are added to a dead faith to resuscitate a dead corpse. Not at all! It is living faith that realizes itself through good works, that produces good works. But I might not have opportunity to perform a work, to “realize” this living faith. Am I not saved, if I die in such circumstances? No, I am saved! Therefore, having formed faith is sufficient for salvation. This is what Pope Benedict means. Further, as he also expressly states, living faith itself will surely die if it is not expressed in concrete works, if I am capable of action and the opportunity presents itself.

Third, good works testify to justification, for they are signs of a justification already received. They are signs of gratitude for the gift already given, promised in earnest. Luther said the same thing, as did St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic saints.

Of course, more must be said—and the pope says more: “Salvation received in Christ needs to be preserved and witnessed to” (Nov. 26). This is what Trent teaches (Trent, VI, canon 24). Moreover, the pope indicates a progressive growth in communion with Christ, a progressive conformity to his life (Nov. 19). Since communion with Christ is established through faith and constitutes the essence of our “being justified,” the pope is teaching here another truth of Catholic faith—that, once justified, the Christian can surrender to God and so be increasingly sanctified unto eternal life (Rom 6:15-23). In purgatory, those who die with imperfect charity are thoroughly sanctified (see Spe Salvi, 45ff).

Finally, we must heed something not yet mentioned—the pope’s focus on the final judgment: “This idea of the Last Judgment must illumine us in our daily lives” (Nov. 26). What is the basis upon which we will be judged? The “sole criterion is love” (Nov. 19; see also, Nov. 26). Hence, “At the end of this Gospel [Mt 25], we can say: love alone, charity alone” (Nov. 19). Here, the pope is showing his deeply Augustinian character (see Augustine, De Trinitate, XV:18:32).

It seems to me that again protestants miss the point on the source of good works. Faith without being faithful is null… as it contradicts itself. One can’t have faith and not be faithful. Living faith…

It was Pope Benedict’s charity that tried to explain basics that most protestants don’t understand. Clearly.

Nice copy/paste.

No Protestant states that faith comes without works, or works don’t proceed from faith.

I think the pope emeritus knows that.

But why do you think he didn’t tell us that Luther was “anti Catholic, anti Bible, and anti Christ” as you have?

 

[Milasol]

Nice copy/paste.

No Protestant states that faith comes without works, or works don’t proceed from faith.

I think the pope emeritus knows that.

But why do you think he didn’t tell us that Luther was “anti Catholic, anti Bible, and anti Christ” as you have?

Yes I copied and pasted it. Not the first time I do that. I truly don’t see a problem with it. I understand what it says and I concur with it.

Oh and I didn’t tell you Luther was anti-Catholic, anti Bible, and anti Christ. You said I said it.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Yes I copied and pasted it. Not the first time I do that. I truly don’t see a problem with it. I understand what it says and I concur with it.

Oh and I didn’t tell you Luther was anti-Catholic, anti Bible, and anti Christ. You said I said it.

Yes I copied and pasted it. Not the first time I do that. I truly don’t see a problem with it. I understand what it says and I concur with it.

You don’t see a problem copy and pasting someone else’s work as your own? Fair enough.

Oh and I didn’t tell you Luther was anti-Catholic, anti Bible, and anti Christ. You said I said it.

You said the 5 solae were. Sorry about that.

Why do you think that the pope emeritus had rather positive things to say regarding my hero? Do you think most Catholics share the old Pope’so sentiments? Also, why don’t you think he told us that the 5 sola were “Anti Catholic, anti Bible, and anti Christ” as you have?

 

[Topper17]

Hi House,

How can a person reform the church from within when the church you are trying to reform from within kicks you out and puts a price on your head?

The fact is that the Lutheran church would NEVER put up with a Rebel like Luther within it’s midst. You have been made completely aware that Luther was NOT within the Church. It wasn’t so much that Luther was ‘kicked out’ but that by his actions and his writings, Luther DECLARED that he was no longer within the Church.

As for your statement that the church put a price on Luther’s head - I would suggest that you have absolutely nothing to back that up. However, I am always ready to learn more and am asking for something of some substance that would back up your claim.

God Bless You House, Topper

 

[pablope]

How can a person reform the church from within when the church you are trying to reform from within kicks you out and puts a price on your head?

And also with a reformer prior to Luther…Catherine of Siena…her life was threatened, her health…yet she disregarded these for the sake of the Church…had no regard for her personal safety.

Catherine was willing to give her life for the Church…and healed a schism…Luther valued his own safety…and split the altars in the process.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Hi House,

The fact is that the Lutheran church would NEVER put up with a Rebel like Luther within it’s midst. You have been made completely aware that Luther was NOT within the Church. It wasn’t so much that Luther was ‘kicked out’ but that by his actions and his writings, Luther DECLARED that he was no longer within the Church.

As for your statement that the church put a price on Luther’s head - I would suggest that you have absolutely nothing to back that up. However, I am always ready to learn more and am asking for something of some substance that would back up your claim.

God Bless You House, Topper

The fact is that the Lutheran church would NEVER put up with a Rebel like Luther within it’s midst. You have been made completely aware that Luther was NOT within the Church. It wasn’t so much that Luther was ‘kicked out’ but that by his actions and his writings, Luther DECLARED that he was no longer within the Church.

Possibly. But lots of folks were a product of their times, and wouldn’t fit in even in the churches they formerly belonged to. For example, Augustine would be severely disciplined today by his church, and probably not be allowed to teach.

As for your statement that the church put a price on Luther’s head - I would suggest that you have absolutely nothing to back that up. However, I am always ready to learn more and am asking for something of some substance that would back up your claim.

Sorry that was the Emperor who declared that Luther could be killed without the murderer incurring legal penalty. My bad. I wonder if the Roman Catholic Church condemned this legalized murder?

 

[Milasol]

You don’t see a problem copy and pasting someone else’s work as your own? Fair enough.

You said the 5 solae were. Sorry about that.

Why do you think that the pope emeritus had rather positive things to say regarding my hero? Do you think most Catholics share the old Pope’so sentiments? Also, why don’t you think he told us that the 5 sola were “Anti Catholic, anti Bible, and anti Christ” as you have?

Because the encyclical was not about Luther. Because Pope Benedict wanted what Christ wants. To be one Church and to insult a persons because of their errors is not really a testament of a faithful Christian. Many here could learn from him.

I accept your apology. Don’t rush to judgment.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

And also with a reformer prior to Luther…Catherine of Siena…her life was threatened, her health…yet she disregarded these for the sake of the Church…had no regard for her personal safety.

Catherine was willing to give her life for the Church…and healed a schism…Luther valued his own safety…and split the altars in the process.

Yes her life was threatened. But so was my hero’s. The Emperor legalized his murder. Luckily he got protected by some wise guy.

Her health was hardly threatened (at least not by someone other than her). She starved herself. That’s no virtue.