Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

[guanophore]

Well see. This is where you and I part because I DO
believe we have been permanently and irrevocably
Injured by the Medicis. Lol.

To the extent that their secular interests contaminated the Holy Church, and created an environment that precipitated the Reformation the damage has been very bad. Leo X suffered from as much arrogance as Luther, and Luther’s excommunication has as much to do with the political climate in the Vatican as it did in Germany. That might be beyond the scope of this thread, though.

But we also believe that the Church is Holy, and inviolate, and though the sinfulness of men does sully her manifestation in this world, Jesus as her Head, and the Holy Spirit as her Soul make her immuntable. She is, as Christ, incarnate, with both divine and human elements. The corrupted human elements, though damaging, cannot sully what is divine.

I think any time there is a sin that’s mortal it does
permanent damage- hence Purgatory. Lol.

Well, you are giving evidence that defeats your own argument! Purgatory is proof that any damage, no matter how serious, can be healed and expiated by God’s grace. (except blasphemy against the HS). He will purge us with fire, until we are without blemish, since nothing unclean can enter heaven.

The Medicis will ALWAYS be with us although
they do not define us necessarily. And Luther will
ALWAYS be with us although HE does not
necessarily define Lutherans or us since like
the Medicis Luther was a Catholic as well.
They will always be a part of our respective church
journeys- we can’t deny them.

No, and I did not mean to say that we should, just that we should not judge one anothers’ communion based upon the wicked behavior of those who have been members of it.

To deny the significance of their contribution rightly
or wrongly would be as sensible as studying the history of Germany while politely refraining from mentioning Hitler. It can’t be done.

Yes, and this thread, and Topper’s scholarly posts, have provided ample insight into the answer to the topic question. With the understanding that not all modern Lutherans are “like Luther” we can work forward to unity.

 

[marywarfield]

To the extent that their secular interests contaminated the Holy Church, and created an environment that precipitated the Reformation the damage has been very bad. Leo X suffered from as much arrogance as Luther, and Luther’s excommunication has as much to do with the political climate in the Vatican as it did in Germany. That might be beyond the scope of this thread, though.

But we also believe that the Church is Holy, and inviolate, and though the sinfulness of men does sully her manifestation in this world, Jesus as her Head, and the Holy Spirit as her Soul make her immuntable. She is, as Christ, incarnate, with both divine and human elements. The corrupted human elements, though damaging, cannot sully what is divine.

Well, you are giving evidence that defeats your own argument! Purgatory is proof that any damage, no matter how serious, can be healed and expiated by God’s grace. (except blasphemy against the HS). He will purge us with fire, until we are without blemish, since nothing unclean can enter heaven.

No, and I did not mean to say that we should, just that we should not judge one anothers’ communion based upon the wicked behavior of those who have been members of it.

Yes, and this thread, and Topper’s scholarly posts, have provided ample insight into the answer to the topic question. With the understanding that not all modern Lutherans are “like Luther” we can work forward to unity.

Yes but lol.
The thing is Guanophore Purgatory belongs to the
dead. We are living. We CAN’T know what condition
the Medicis, Luther or Hitlwr are in now can we?
WE are the ones left with the effects of their sin now.
And the effects are still there hence the JDDJ. But even
after the JDDJ is in full fruition as I said before there
will be still Catholicsand Lutherans who will not
accept. History proves the existence of die hard doesn’t it?
This is where we reference I believe “those who leads
one of these little ones astray” contemplations, yes?
The irrevocable consequences Guanophore lie in
those we lost along the way you see. They matter.
Like Cuckoos Nest when Nicholson says "See these
people Martini? These are the Real people) lol.
Unless the stuff Topper is discussing (sans personal
commentary) is discussed, we risk losing more. See
my point?
If Luther was theologically wrong no matter the reason
it must be addressed for the present generation as
well. The same way we address the Filioque, Constantine,
Etc etc. yes? The schism began in 1053 and is just
as relevant today.

 

[guanophore]

Yes but lol.

The thing is Guanophore Purgatory belongs to the
dead. We are living

Not at all! Yes, purgatory is the gift of God’s grace for cleansing of those who die in His grace, but there is no need to wait! If we embrace our cleansing now, it is much better for everyone. By putting off the desires of the flesh, and joining our sufferings to Him on the cross, we can become purified in this life.

 We CAN'T know what condition

the Medicis, Luther or Hitlwr are in now can we?

No, only God can know, but we can pray for their souls, and offer reparation for their sins. This s the work of unity - repairing the wounds done by those who have caused harm to the One Body.WE are the ones left with the effects of their sin now.

  And the effects are still there hence the JDDJ. But even after the JDDJ is in full fruition as I said before there will be still Catholics and Lutherans who will not accept. History proves the existence of die hard doesn't it?

Yes, it does. But we can fast, pray, and help build understanding that will heal the wounds.

This is where we reference I believe "those who leads

one of these little ones astray" contemplations, yes? The irrevocable consequences Guanophore lie in those we lost along the way you see. They matter.

Yes, and you are right, we can’t change the past. All we can do is prevent the same problems from happeneing in us, and between us.

Unless the stuff Topper is discussing (sans personal

commentary) is discussed, we risk losing more. See my point? If Luther was theologically wrong no matter the reason it must be addressed for the present generation as well. The same way we address the Filioque, Constantine, Etc etc. yes? The schism began in 1053 and is just as relevant today.

Although I disagree that the issues that caused the schism (as well as the Reformation) are not as relevant today (just as the JDDJ reflects) I do agree that it is important to educate ourselves, and each other, about the factors involved in the wounds to unity.

The purpose, though, is not to find fault with Lutherans because of Luther. The goal of this knowledge is to heal the wounds to unity. It is important to do this in a way that affirms the faith of our separated brethren, ,rather than alienating them further.

 

[marywarfield]

Not at all! Yes, purgatory is the gift of God’s grace for cleansing of those who die in His grace, but there is no need to wait! If we embrace our cleansing now, it is much better for everyone. By putting off the desires of the flesh, and joining our sufferings to Him on the cross, we can become purified in this life.

No, only God can know, but we can pray for their souls, and offer reparation for their sins. This s the work of unity - repairing the wounds done by those who have caused harm to the One Body.WE are the ones left with the effects of their sin now.

Yes, it does. But we can fast, pray, and help build understanding that will heal the wounds.

Yes, and you are right, we can’t change the past. All we can do is prevent the same problems from happeneing in us, and between us.

Although I disagree that the issues that caused the schism (as well as the Reformation) are not as relevant today (just as the JDDJ reflects) I do agree that it is important to educate ourselves, and each other, about the factors involved in the wounds to unity.

The purpose, though, is not to find fault with Lutherans because of Luther. The goal of this knowledge is to heal the wounds to unity. It is important to do this in a way that affirms the faith of our separated brethren, ,rather than alienating them further.

Absolutely. The title of Topper’s thread is Martin
Luther. And he is discussing the man himself. However
it seems many posters view Luther as Lutherans.

Therefore my suggestion is those who want to discuss
the man himself stay with the thread. Those who confuse
the man with Lutherans examine their conscience.
Topper is posting about Luther and interesting stuff it is.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your response and your kind words.

Hi Topper: As usual right on the mark! Your post #595 makes sense when one sifts through all the chafe. …
I think Fr. Staupitz tried to teach Luther and show him the way but Luther being stubborn refused to be consoled that God would by Luther’s own actions trying his best was never going to be good enough and never receive any merit for trying his best and would be forever condemned. This is why justification by faith alone was so important to Luther, without it Luther felt that it was the only way in which he would be saved since nothing else worked a least in his mind and he needed the assurance that he was saved not the hope that he was saved but the knowing he was saved. At least that is beginning to be the way in which I see it from reading his doctrines and from other scholars on Luther and justification by faith alone.

I think that you are right to investigate the role that Staupitz played in Luther’s career. In fact, as we will learn in the following quotes, under Stauptiz’s guidance, Luther did not actually complete the normal two year course in theology. He was assigned to teaching duties at the University of Wittenberg after only 18 months of the 24 year course. In addition, it appears that Staupitz was ‘more than willing to shut his eyes to what was wanting’ in Luther’s education.

**“After his ordination in Erfurt, at Easter, 1507, he began the two-year course of theology to which alone the privileges of the Augustinians obliged him. **In addition to the lectures, which, as was usual, were based on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, there was also the Office in Choir the pupils of the Order were indeed on lecture days not obliged to attend Matins, Sext and Compline, but the latter had to be said by Luther privately, as he was a priest. While the lectures on the Sentences were still in progress, Luther was pursuing his scriptural studies. **Before the full time had expired however, after about eighteen months of theological study, he was, as mentioned before, called to the University of Wittenberg **at the commencement of the winter term, 1508, in order to deliver “Lectiones publicce " on moral philosophy, i.e. on the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle. He was, it is true, expected to prosecute his theological studies at the same time by attending lectures, but for this he can scarcely have found much time, seeing that he had himself to give a daily lecture of one hour on so difficult a subject as the Ethics in the Faculty of Philosophy. A capable young man was needed by Staupitz to supply the requirements of the University, which was largely under his care, for the former lecturer on Ethics, **Wolfgang Ostermayr, had, so it appears, suddenly left, and dire necessity caused the incompleteness of Luther s philosophical training to be overlooked. Staupitz was the more willing to shut his eyes to what was wanting, as he was personally much attached to the highly promising lecturer, about whom moreover he had” already his plans.” **Grisar I, pg. 127

A few pages further on in Grisar I, he makes another comment about the ‘slight demands’ for theological preparation made by Stauptiz.

“But Staupitz, who urged him forward with excessive zeal, had said in his presence when Luther preached before the Elector : “I will prepare for Your Highness in this man a very special Doctor, who will please you well,” words which the Elector did not forget and of which he reminded Staupitz in 1518. The fact that Staupitz made such slight demands in Luther s case regarding theological preparation may be explained from his own course of studies. His previous history shows his studies to have been anything but deep, and this is a matter worth noting, because it is an example of how a solid study of theology was at that time often wanting even in eminent men in the Church.” Grisar I, pg. 129

The great Anglican Historian and Theologian Alister McGrath comments on the ‘quality’ of the University of Wittenberg at the time that Luther arrived there to teach in April 1511. Lutheran Professor James Kittleson calls this the “exile to Wittenberg”.

“**In 1512 Luther left Erfurt to take up a lectureship in biblical studies at the newly established University of Wittenberg, founded in 1502 by Fredrick the Wise with the intention of rivaling other universities in the region. Fredrick’s dreams came to nothing; by the time of Luther’s arrival, Wittenberg had dropped off the radar screen of prospective students and was experiencing significant recruitment problems. It’s brash aspirations were not matched by its feeble academic resources.” **McGrath, ‘Dangerous’, pg. 41

We tend to think of the University of Wittenberg as being a typical European University of the time. This is not the case and nobody at the time suffered from this illusion. Wittenberg was actually the least distinguished university in Europe at the time and it is is where Luther studied for his Doctorate, which he received after only 13 months of study. One can only wonder at the quality of the education that Luther received at Wittenberg and also why such a promising student and scholar was relegated to such an inconsequential center of learning.

God Bless You Spina and keep up the excellent work, Topper

 

[guanophore]

Absolutely. The title of Topper’s thread is Martin
Luther. And he is discussing the man himself. However
it seems many posters view Luther as Lutherans.

Do you mean to say “view Lutherans as Luther”? If so, yes I have seen this. When an unwanted response occurs, one might say “how Lutheran of you”, I think meaning “of course you will rebel and have a bad attitude, because Luther did”. I don’t find this sort of attitude at all helpful to heal the wounds to unity.

Therefore my suggestion is those who want to discuss
the man himself stay with the thread. Those who confuse
the man with Lutherans examine their conscience.

I think this is excellent advice no matter what the thread, or topic!

 

[marywarfield]

Do you mean to say “view Lutherans as Luther”? If so, yes I have seen this. When an unwanted response occurs, one might say “how Lutheran of you”, I think meaning “of course you will rebel and have a bad attitude, because Luther did”. I don’t find this sort of attitude at all helpful to heal the wounds to unity.

I think this is excellent advice no matter what the thread, or topic!

why thank you!

Now please explain why I cannot consider the Lutherans
as Catholics albeit very very naughty Catholics?
Wasn’t it a Catholic who said once Catholic always Catholic?
oh wait that is the other thread. Sorry

 

[guanophore]

Now please explain why I cannot consider the Lutherans
as Catholics albeit very very naughty Catholics?
Wasn’t it a Catholic who said once Catholic always Catholic?
oh wait that is the other thread. Sorry

Yes, let’s try to keep ourselves on topic.

 

[Peter_J]

once Catholic always Catholic

Very trendy.

 

[spina1953]

Hi Topper: As usual you make good points! I would like to add some things regarding Luther and Staupitz that might shed some light. As we know Luther’s upbringing was a most difficult one which caused Luther to be dysfunctional and most likely his scrupulosity. growing up being severely punished for every minor infraction must have left him scared for life in that no matter what he did nothing worked to lessen the pain.

                 When Staupitz became Luther's friend, spiritual director and confessor, he tried very hard to help Luther overcome his severe scrupulosity explaining to Luther that he was making religion too difficult and all he needed to do was accept God's loving mercy and compassion and loving grace. Staupitz reminded Luther time and time again that Christ died to remit sins. However, Luther was so terrified  and afraid in his torment and anguish that Christ was a harsh judge and would never forgive him that he could not turn to Christ for relief.

                 Staupitz tried in vain to get L7uther to turn from the endless considerations of his own sins, and ponder the grace of God through Christ and the redemption of humanity in the Blood of Christ. In vain Staupitz tried to convince and teach Luther the wisdom of waiting patiently for God's grace in prayer and not to strive endlessly for a peace of soul through human efforts. Luther was struggling with the need to confess completely everything he had ever done wrong and found Staupitz to be patient, sympathetic  and practical confessor. But in the end Luther's scrupulosity exhausted Staupitz as Luther strove to remember every possible sin that his mind might be attempting to cover up. Luther was known to confess several times a week for 5 to 6 hours straight every time he went to confess . Luther was filled with doubt as to whether he was really forgiven and saved by a God who he thought was a harsh judge.

              Althought Staupitz tried to help Luther overcome the severe scrupulosity, Luther needed the assurance of salvation which the hope of salvation would not. Staupitz's efforts to comfort Luther's anguish and to alleviate the fears of predestination  and torments of conscience was fully Catholic teaching concerning justification and Staupitz rejected Luther's theology on "fiducal faith" ( justified by faith alone)  However, Staupitz accepted by 1518 that the protest of Luther was aimed not only art Church abuses but also at Church doctrines and began inexorably to lost whatever degree of attention he possessed for Luther's theology. Staupitz tried very hard to convince Luther to retract his theology and attack on the Church, but was unsuccessful due to Luther's stubbornness .

 

[Topper17]

Guano,

Topper, I thought about this a lot today, and I am going to throw you a challenge. Since your scholarship, fervency, and writing has been so good, I am going to challenge you to refrain from putting any opinion or conclusions on your work. I think you are intelligent and skilled enough to be able to draw your readers to a conclusion without making it for them. I think the development of this skill will make you even more effective as an apologist than you already are.

guano,

This is an interesting proposal, one that certainly marks a huge change in your demeanor towards me. Now, I’m not saying that I am suspicious but it appears that you might have decided the more I am insulted, slandered, and falsely accused, the more strident my posts become. In other words, that all of those posts about me have exactly the opposite of their intended effect. Nothing else would account for your seemingly conciliatory tone.

Your proposal seems to presume that I should not make public my opinions on this thread, which by the way is a thread about Martin Luther and why he was excommunicated (not a thread about me). Why is it, specifically and exactly, that I should refrain from posting my opinions about Martin Luther (the subject of the thread, when SO MANY people (including you BTW) find it within their purview to post their opinions about me (who is NOT the subject of the thread)?

Do you remember what happened when Militz asked Luther to stop writing? Luther agreed as long as nobody wrote against him. Right? You know what happened then, right? In other words Militz couldn’t control everyone and the agreement collapsed. You know of course who couldn’t restrain himself right (besides Luther of course)?

Actually your proposal is worth considering though, although I wonder if it is practical. If I were agree to this proposal, then what is it that you offer in consideration? Where is the quid pro quo? Are you suggesting that ALL of us refrain from revealing our opinions here, or just me?

Given that you have written an astonishing 26,000 posts on CA in 8 years, and you have probably read another 250,000 posts I have another question for you. Have you EVER seen ANYONE suggest that another poster refrain from offering their opinions on ANY thread? EVER? Would you be asking me to do this if my opinions were in line with yours?

What I do here I do completely within the rules. I am attempting to stay on the subject of the Opening Post. In spite of the warnings of the moderator, people continue to want to discuss ME. They are breaking the rules, not me. Why are we not seeing the calls to return to the subject of the opening post as we normally do when Luther comes up?

Guano – there are a LOT of people here who never post anything but come here to search for the Truth. What you are saying I think is that you don’t want those people to be exposed to all sides of this particular issue.

All that being said, I am willing to consider your proposal, assuming of course that you can convince me by way of your response. You said you had thought about this a lot so you will probably be able to help me overcome my misgivings.

 

[MaryT777]

Guano,

guano,

This is an interesting proposal, one that certainly marks a huge change in your demeanor towards me. Now, I’m not saying that I am suspicious but it appears that you might have decided the more I am insulted, slandered, and falsely accused, the more strident my posts become. In other words, that all of those posts about me have exactly the opposite of their intended effect. Nothing else would account for your seemingly conciliatory tone.

Your proposal seems to presume that I should not make public my opinions on this thread, which by the way is a thread about Martin Luther and why he was excommunicated (not a thread about me). Why is it, specifically and exactly, that I should refrain from posting my opinions about Martin Luther (the subject of the thread, when SO MANY people (including you BTW) find it within their purview to post their opinions about me (who is NOT the subject of the thread)?

Do you remember what happened when Militz asked Luther to stop writing? Luther agreed as long as nobody wrote against him. Right? You know what happened then, right? In other words Militz couldn’t control everyone and the agreement collapsed. You know of course who couldn’t restrain himself right (besides Luther of course)?

Actually your proposal is worth considering though, although I wonder if it is practical. If I were agree to this proposal, then what is it that you offer in consideration? Where is the quid pro quo? Are you suggesting that ALL of us refrain from revealing our opinions here, or just me?

Given that you have written an astonishing 26,000 posts on CA in 8 years, and you have probably read another 250,000 posts I have another question for you. Have you EVER seen ANYONE suggest that another poster refrain from offering their opinions on ANY thread? EVER? Would you be asking me to do this if my opinions were in line with yours?

What I do here I do completely within the rules. I am attempting to stay on the subject of the Opening Post. In spite of the warnings of the moderator, people continue to want to discuss ME. They are breaking the rules, not me. Why are we not seeing the calls to return to the subject of the opening post as we normally do when Luther comes up?

Guano – there are a LOT of people here who never post anything but come here to search for the Truth. What you are saying I think is that you don’t want those people to be exposed to all sides of this particular issue.

All that being said, I am willing to consider your proposal, assuming of course that you can convince me by way of your response. You said you had thought about this a lot so you will probably be able to help me overcome my misgivings.

I believe Guano needs to stick to the topic and not “Topper”…FWIW and JMO
Mary.

 

[Kephart]

Sin both incurs guilt and damages the human soul (both that of the sinner and others as well). Because Christ does not intend to merely cover over our sin and let us into heaven on some sort of legal loophole, we must be sanctified before entering heaven. So while Grace justifies us, God expects us to cooperate in our sanctification. This is what Purgatory is about. Purgatory is little more than a logical necessity if heaven is populated by sinless and fully sanctified believers who are no longer even attracted to sin. For that to be true, there must be a completion of that sanctification since most of us are quite clearly not perfect yet at the moment of death.

I am not qualified to be in this discussion, but I wanted to thank you for the above. It’s the clearest explanation of purgatory I’ve seen in my admittedly meager understanding of Catholic Doctrine. It turned the light on for me in terms of understanding purgatory a bit better.

 

[guanophore]

I am not qualified to be in this discussion, but I wanted to thank you for the above. It’s the clearest explanation of purgatory I’ve seen in my admittedly meager understanding of Catholic Doctrine. It turned the light on for me in terms of understanding purgatory a bit better.

Just enter Purgatory in the search box. It is a frequent topic here, and you will find a lot of threads, some better quality than others.

Here are some other links on Purgatory.

catholic.com/tracts/purgatory

catholic.com/tracts/the-roots-of-purgatory

ps welcome to the fora.

 

[TertiumQuid]

What I do here I do completely within the rules. I am attempting to stay on the subject of the Opening Post. In spite of the warnings of the moderator, people continue to want to discuss ME. They are breaking the rules, not me. Why are we not seeing the calls to return to the subject of the opening post as we normally do when Luther comes up?

So, based on this, perhaps you can now explain what Brecht is saying on page 194. Rather than take the opportunity to show that you interpreted Brecht correctly, you took the opportunity to make the topic about me, rather than the facts. Or you could explain your reference, “Luther, “On the Papacy at Rome”, 1520”, which I assert, doesn’t exist. Or, you could explain how you came to the conclusion that “that Luther did not complain about indulgences until long after he had already departed from what the Church taught doctrinally” when there is evidence he was trouble by indulgences for a few years leading up to 1517. You could respond to the fact that it wasn’t sola fide that brought about his initial reaction to indulgences, but rather sense of security. You could explain as well why you misquoted Brecht on page 184. And, even though not pertinent to this discussion, I would like a list of people that suffered “executions in Wittenberg in the 1530’s during Luther’s reign there” and Luther’s direct involvement with these public executions in downtown Wittenberg.

These are just various facts that don’t add up with your conclusions. If I had more time, I could produce many more based on what you’re posting.

 

[TertiumQuid]

He was assigned to teaching duties at the University of Wittenberg after only 18 months of the 24 year course

24 year course? I didn’t know that Luther required a 24 year course study to achieve his degree.

. In addition, it appears that Staupitz was ‘more than willing to shut his eyes to what was wanting’ in Luther’s education…

…Before the full time had expired however, after about eighteen months of theological study, he was, as mentioned before, called to the University of Wittenberg

This is anachronism. Luther began his studies in Erfurt in 1501. Luther took the baccalaureate examination in September 1502, and passed. it was expected that those who did this course work also taught, which Luther did. He took his Masters exam in 1504, ranking 2nd of 17. Luther then began studying law in 1505 , but then went into the monastery. It is probable that Luther began his studies in theology in 1507. During these years of study it was also expected that those learning were also to be teaching, so Luther was sent to teach in Wittenberg. Luther earned the degree baccalaures biblicus in a year and a half. In 1509 he then earned the degree baccalaures sententiarius. I find it ironic that this common practice of requiring those in the degree program to teach was highlighted in black, because it isn’t something detrimental to education, but a practice those being educated at the time undertook. Luther didn’t go to class and then back to his dorm room to study. That may be what kids do now, but it wasn’t the practice then.

The great Anglican Historian and Theologian Alister McGrath comments on the ‘quality’ of the University of Wittenberg at the time that Luther arrived there to teach in April 1511. Lutheran Professor James Kittleson calls this the “exile to Wittenberg”.

Actually, McGrath isn’t commenting here on the quality of education given, but rather that the university was fledgling and had “feeble resources.” The next sentence you didn’t quote says, “In due course, Luther would raise the university’s profile enormously, although for reasons that would not entirely have pleased Frederick.”

Related to the previous point, McGrath holds “Luther began the formal study of theology at Erfurt, sitting at the feet of some of the greatest German theologians of his age” (p.40). It appears Grisar left this this out.

One can only wonder at the quality of the education that Luther received at Wittenberg and also why such a promising student and scholar was relegated to such an inconsequential center of learning.

Wonder indeed, because I don’t think there’s much information as to whom Luther studied under at Wittenberg. It’s assumed and argued one of his teachers was Staupitz, but beyond that, I’m not sure what information is available.

 

[TertiumQuid]

As we have seen, there is no doubt that there was confusion about Salvation in Luther’s time. The teaching at Erfurt was wrong and what Luther was exposed to was not the official teaching of the Church.

I would be very interested to know what the "official teaching of the Church" was on justification while Luther was at Erfurt.

Everyone assumes (especially if they are denominationally predisposed to do so) that Luther, as a PhD and a priest, was very well educated and understood the teachings of the Church extremely well. That was not the case.

I would be very interested to know what the "official teaching of the Church" was on justification previous to the declarations of the Council of Trent.

 

[guanophore]

I would be very interested to know what the "official teaching of the Church" was on justification while Luther was at Erfurt.

I would be very interested to know what the "official teaching of the Church" was on justification previous to the declarations of the Council of Trent.

I will share an interesting section on a book I am reading now. I am not sure it will answer your question, though.

1. Natural Goodness.—So far we have been considering the incapacity of the will of fallen man, if unaided by grace; we now proceed to consider what there is to which his unaided power is adequate, and we assert that he is capable of resisting the less urgent temptations that assail him and of doing acts which have natural goodness. Without grace he can do nothing that draws him nearer to the supernatural possession of God (nn. 592, 593), nor can he resist all temptations to grievous sin (n. 598); but it is false to say that he necessarily yields to every temptation, or that all his works, whatever he does, are sin, removing him away from God. It might be thought that when we insist on these points we are fighting a shadow; but unfortunately, the shadow is deemed to have substance by too many among the sects which have arisen during the last three centuries, following the teaching of Luther, with more or less variety. We shall speak of the central Lutheran doctrine of Justification by Faith only in the course of our next Treatise (n. 632); at present it is enough to show what is the doctrine of the Church on one of the points involved, and to justify this doctrine.
   The doctrine of the Church is seen in the condemnation of a long series of propositions put forward by heretics. We can cite only a very few, which, however, shall be selected so as to exhibit the chief points. First, the Council of Constance in 1418 condemned some propositions which summarized the teaching of John Huss, and the sixteenth ran as follows: Human acts fall into two classes, as being virtuous or vicious: because if the man is vicious and does any act, he acts viciously; if he is virtuous and does any act, he acts virtuously. (Denz. 537.) Pope Leo X. condemned the doctrine taught by Luther, that the just man sins in every good work. (Art. 31; Denz. 655.) The Council of Trent (Sess. 6, can. 7; Denz. 699) pronounces an anathema against those who say that works done before justification, whatever be their character, are truly sins or deserve the hatred of God; or that the more earnestly one prepare himself for grace, the more grievously does he sin. St. Pius V. and other Popes condemned the teaching of Baius (n. 390, vi.) that all the works of those who have not faith are sins, and the virtues of the philosophers are vices (Prop. 25; Denz. 905); that it is a Pelagian error to say that free-will has power to avoid sin (Prop. 28; Denz. 908); and that whatever is done by a sinner, or servant of sin, is a sin. (Prop. 35; Denz. 915.) Jansenius (n. 390, vi.) followed on the same lines, as did the Synod of Pistoia (n. 189); but it will suffice if we add one proposition taken from Quesnel, and condemned in 1713 by the Bull Unigenitus (Prop. 59; Denz. 1274): The prayer of the impious is a new sin, and what God grants them is a new condemnation.
   These citations show the chief forms taken by the error against which the Church has had to contend. It were endless to set forth all the shades of doctrine that have found favour among the children of the Reformation; but it may be observed that some of these heretics professed to be faithful sons of the Catholic Church at the very time when they were refusing submission to her voice as uttered by the Roman Pontiff with the concurrence of the whole Episcopate, (n. 290.) They were loud in protesting that they were not Lutherans: and they dissociated themselves from the Protestant leader by pointing out that he represented all works done before justification as being sins on account of the corrupt principle from which they proceeded, for this principle was the nature of fallen man: the Jansenists drew the same consequence from the circumstance that these acts sprang from concupiscence, which is present in man on account of sin and cannot, they said, lead to anything but sin. We have given the true account of this matter elsewhere. (n. 485.)

Hunter, S. J. (1896). Outlines of Dogmatic Theology (Third Edition., Vol. 3, pp. 51–53). New York: Benzinger Brothers.

 

[steido01]

So, based on this, perhaps you can now explain…

These are just various facts that don’t add up with your conclusions. If I had more time, I could produce many more based on what you’re posting.

Wow! Thank you, Tertium. I always appreciate your use of primary source material and how you maintain the information in its actual context.

 

[TertiumQuid]

I will share an interesting section on a book I am reading now. I am not sure it will answer your question, though. Hunter, S. J. (1896). Outlines of Dogmatic Theology (Third Edition., Vol. 3, pp. 51–53). New York: Benzinger Brothers.

Thanks for the excerpt, interesting. It doesn’t though answer the question I posed, and I really didn’t expect an answer because I don’t think there is one.

As far as my studies over the years have gone, I have not found an “official teaching of the church” (Topper’s words) on justification previous to Trent, so when Topper assumes “what Luther was exposed to was not the official teaching of the Church,” this is, once again, anachronism. Previous to Trent there was not one official dogmatic understanding of justification. The Reformation provoked Trent to address this.

Interesting about Trent as well (at least to me), Luther wasn’t named, which is why there’s no dogmatic pronouncement as to how any individual catholic should think or feel about Luther. Hence even in this entire discussion the opinions are so varied.