Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

[Annie39]

Luther, and Lutherans, did not then - and do not now - believe themselves to have created a new church. There is one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Are we a different earthly corporation? Much of the time. But we do not believe ourselves to have separated ourselves from the faith.

Doctrines that were used by Catholics, even if a minority of Catholics, before Trent.

The current canon was not made official by Trent until after Luther’s death. Until that time, any Catholic could dispute portions of the Bible, and many did (including Luther’s enemies!). Surely you aren’t holding a man to standards which weren’t set until after his death?

You’ve asked this absurdity several times. I do not understand your fascination with this. Why would miracles be required of Luther? Luther is no messiah. He was an intelligent and sinful man.

You know you folks who claim to be members of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, some of you saying something like after all we recite the creed remind me of Mormons whom I have met who tell me that their Church is Jesus’ Church after all the name of their church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Get it? If my pointing out that Luther started his own church after he was ex-communicated from the True Church bugs you well so be it. He needed to have some sign from God just like Jesus did to prove that he was from God. He had none. Those “Catholics” who believed some of the same doctrines as Luther that were not in line with the True Church were at least materially heretical.

You write: Are we a different earthly corporation? Much of the time. But we do not believe ourselves to have separated ourselves from the faith.
That IMHO is doublespeak. So you are a corporation not a Church? You certainly are not Catholic.

It is true that the canon was only pronounced de fide at Trent but the canon was there since the Councils of Hippo and Carthage and the Catholic Church defined which books made it into the New Testament and which didn’t. Probably the council fathers studied the (complete) Muratorian Fragment and other documents, including, of course, the books in question themselves, but it was not until these councils that the Church officially settled the issue.

The plain fact of the matter is that the canon of the Bible was not settled in the first years of the Church. It was settled only after repeated (and perhaps heated) discussions, and the final listing was determined by Catholic bishops. This is an inescapable fact, no matter how many people wish to escape from it.

It was the Bishops who determined the Canon of Scripture not every Tom, Calvin and Luther who came along with an agenda. (The above information beginning with “it is true” was taken from Catholic.com with slight editing.

Annie

 

[Per_Crucem]

You know you folks who claim to be members of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, some of you saying something like after all we recite the creed remind me of Mormons whom I have met who tell me that their Church is Jesus’ Church after all the name of their church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Get it?

No one is claiming that the name of the church or group determines whether its faith is apostolic. It is what they confess. Your Mormon analogy falls apart because they do not recite the same creed, nor profess the same faith. Your comparison is apples to oranges.

He needed to have some sign from God just like Jesus did to prove that he was from God. He had none. Those “Catholics” who believed some of the same doctrines as Luther that were not in line with the True Church were at least materially heretical.

So does that mean we need to ask for the miracles performed by Popes? Where does this entirely arbitrary standard come from?

 

[spina1953]

From my research please notice what Martin Luther admitted: “I Martin Luther, slew all the peasants in the rebellion, for I said that they should be slain; all their blood is upon my head. But I cast it on the Lord God, who commanded me to speak this way.” ( W3erke, Erl. Edition, Lex, p.284 “Table Talk” as quoted in Stoddard,JL. Rebuilding a Lost faith, 1922,p.96) It went on the say that On the seventh of August 1536, a synod was convened at Hamburg to devise the best means of exterminating the Anabaptists. Not one voice among all the delegates was raised in favor of the Anabaptists. Even Melancthon voted to put all those to death who should remain, obstinate in their errors. The ministers of Ulm demanded that heresy should be extinguished by faire and sword. Those of Ausburg “If we have not yet sent any Anabaptists to the gibbet, we have at least branded their cheek with red iron.” Seems to me to be very harsh words indeed.

 

[Annie39]

No one is claiming that the name of the church or group determines whether its faith is apostolic. It is what they confess. Your Mormon analogy falls apart because they do not recite the same creed, nor profess the same faith. Your comparison is apples to oranges.



So does that mean we need to ask for the miracles performed by Popes? Where does this entirely arbitrary standard come from?

The popes didn’t start their own church I would never think a member of the Lutherans just the fella who founded their church.

 

[Per_Crucem]

The popes didn’t start their own church I would never think a member of the Lutherans just the fella who founded their church.

You claim that he founded a church. You feel that in order for him to have founded a church he had to perform miracles.

Since we reject your claim that he founded a church, we don’t have to provide criteria determined by you to justify him.

 

[Annie39]

You claim that he founded a church. You feel that in order for him to have founded a church he had to perform miracles.

Since we reject your claim that he founded a church, we don’t have to provide criteria determined by you to justify him.

I don’t actually “feel” anything. I know that he founded his church but did not prove his authority. He had none and your church is not Catholic. You all need to hurry on home.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Hi TQ

I can appreciate a lot of what you’ve stated, and there are a lot of areas of agreement. That being said, the particular direction many of your comments make are somewhat off topic from “Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated.” Since though you asked so many intriguing questions, I will make a few comments, not really with the intent of going in the directions of many of your points in this discussion thread (others though may wish to), but out of courtesy to you.

The question is, did Luther or Calvin or any of the other men who broke from the Church that Jesus founded on the Rock, Peter have the authority to do so and what evidence is there to confirm this?

Not wishing to be banned or infracted by the CAF moderators, I’ll say simply from my perspective, the reformers did not break from the universal church. This sort of assertion requires unpacking what the word “church” means and also requires one of those long drawn seemingly never-ending discussions about authority, and that is beyond the scope of this discussion, at least for me. If we venture into this, I could very easily be charged with either proselytizing or having disrespect for your church.

Jesus as you know was a Jew. There was wide spread corruption in Judaism not only in His time but all through the history of the Jews. But Jesus not only did not leave Judaism but He was the perfect Jew and He fulfilled the Mosaic Law and established a New Covenant.

Say for instance I was someone practicing devout orthodox Judaism. Someone holding to such a faith, would probably ask very similar questions about Jesus and his followers that you’re asking about the 16th Century reformers and that specific tradition. In other words, I think the argument you’re presenting isn’t consistent. the Jews took part in crucifying Jesus as a Jewish heretic, so to speak. During the 16th Century, the reformers were viewed as heretics.

After that the Apostles performed many miracles to prove that they were from God as they spread the Good News.

Where are his miracles? Where are the miracles of any person who set up a Church against the True Church?”

Putting aside the concept of “True Church,” this is a great question, one that has been asked by catholics for quite a long time, de Sales made such an argument in The Catholic Controversy. Interestingly, there is a tradition of alleged miracles attributed to Luther. For an intriguing study of this, see: R.W. Scribner, Popular Culture and Popular Movements in Reformation Germany (London: The Hambledon Press, 1987). Chapter 15 is entitled, “Incombustible Luther: the Image of the Reformer in Early Modern Germany.” The author documents the apocryphal miracles attributed to Luther. No, I don’t believe they are true, but it is a fascinating, if not funny study.

I’m always a bit surprised by the argument you raise because based on the criteria of miracle = “sent by God”, there are a fair amount of pentecostal folks that are more than willing to claim they have the credentials required. Those who substantiate their message with an alleged miracle doesn’t begin and end with pentecostals- even non-Christian religions claim miracles. I would also direct you to Matthew 7:21-23 for review.

There’s a lot more I could say here. The only thing I would ask of you in response is to consider something from my perspective, that is- try to see it as I see it. Miracles certainly proved the divine message of the Biblical authors. Keep in mind though, the magisterial reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.), did not believe they were receiving new revelation from God. Rather, they believed they were testifying to what was in the Bible. If you were to ask them “where are your miracles to prove your message?” A good way for them to respond would be to say: “Between Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21.”

 

[pablope]

Luther,

There is one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Are we a different earthly corporation?

 

[guanophore]

No one is claiming that the name of the church or group determines whether its faith is apostolic. It is what they confess. Your Mormon analogy falls apart because they do not recite the same creed, nor profess the same faith. Your comparison is apples to oranges.



So does that mean we need to ask for the miracles performed by Popes? Where does this entirely arbitrary standard come from?

Sure! May God grant miracles to all His faithful!

What is received through the paradosis, the Sacred Tradition, is not arbitrary. It is authorative because it came from the Apostles.

I suppose if Luther had claimed that Jesus or an Apostle appeared to him and directed him to add to the Teaching of the Church, or change it, then people really would have been concerned about his mental health! I think it is significant that he never claimed a divine warrant for his work. He just worked according to his conscience.

 

[TertiumQuid]

From my research please notice what Martin Luther admitted: “I Martin Luther, slew all the peasants in the rebellion, for I said that they should be slain; all their blood is upon my head. But I cast it on the Lord God, who commanded me to speak this way.” ( W3erke, Erl. Edition, Lex, p.284 “Table Talk” as quoted in Stoddard,JL. Rebuilding a Lost faith, 1922,p.96) It went on the say that On the seventh of August 1536, a synod was convened at Hamburg to devise the best means of exterminating the Anabaptists. Not one voice among all the delegates was raised in favor of the Anabaptists. Even Melancthon voted to put all those to death who should remain, obstinate in their errors. The ministers of Ulm demanded that heresy should be extinguished by faire and sword. Those of Ausburg “If we have not yet sent any Anabaptists to the gibbet, we have at least branded their cheek with red iron.” Seems to me to be very harsh words indeed.

My apologies, I don’t recall if you were the other person who decided not to interact with me, and I’m too lazy at the moment to go back and check. If you are, stop reading now.

In regard to your quote: as you mentioned it’s from Luther’s Table Talk,which is a collection of second hand comments written down by Luther’s friends, published after his death, so whether or not this is something Luther said exactly isn’t certain. On the other hand, Luther did make harsh comments about the rebellion of the peasants. Certainly there are comments from Luther in which he was in favor of the government suppressing the revolt of the peasants to keep society stable. Luther himself though put no one to death. Luther’s treatise, * Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants* (the very document in which Luther called for the slaying of the peasants) was actually published after the peasants war began. The treatise was delayed, and did not have an immediate role during the war. The German nobility were not spurred on by Luther’s words. They were spurred on by the peasants who strove towards anarchy and civil unrest.

Now if I recall correctly, there were also papal armies, and crusades, etc. in catholic history, so it’s really doesn’t prove anything one way or the other if the magisterial reformers believed in capital punishment or suppressing revolts against society with force. It does show that those who adhere to Christianity now (in whatever form) have come a long way in tolerating people we don’t agree with.

 

[Annie39]

Sure! May God grant miracles to all His faithful!

What is received through the paradosis, the Sacred Tradition, is not arbitrary. It is authorative because it came from the Apostles.

I suppose if Luther had claimed that Jesus or an Apostle appeared to him and directed him to add to the Teaching of the Church, or change it, then people really would have been concerned about his mental health! I think it is significant that he never claimed a divine warrant for his work. He just worked according to his conscience.

Luther followed his conscience and has been judged. His followers must rightly inform their consciences and will also be judged. Nominalism has done much damage and patting those who need to come home and happy talking to them does them no favors.

 

[guanophore]

Seems to me to be very harsh words indeed.

A lot of this seems harsh to us because culture and politics have changed so much. Now we are appalled when religious zealots want to slaughter all those who don’t convert to their believe system and way of life, but in Luther’s day, heresy was considered treasonous, and was unstable for the Kingdom as much as it was for the Church. Most of us were raised in a separation of Church and State, for that very reason, but Luther was only carrying forth the attitude of the Catholic heirarchy of the time. The CC had this same attitude toward the Albigensians.

 

[guanophore]

The popes didn’t start their own church I would never think a member of the Lutherans just the fella who founded their church.

It was never Luther’s intention to found a church. Nothing of any of his efforts was directed this way.

 You claim that he founded a church.

Even Lutherans deny this.

You feel that in order for him to have founded a church he had to perform miracles.

you have to admit, it does help!

Since we reject your claim that he founded a church, we don’t have to provide criteria determined by you to justify him.

And that is not the purpose of the thread, either, so it would be off topic.

Luther was not excommunicated for trying to start his own church.

 

[Annie39]

It was never Luther’s intention to found a church. Nothing of any of his efforts was directed this way.

Even Lutherans deny this.

you have to admit, it does help!

And that is not the purpose of the thread, either, so it would be off topic.

Luther was not excommunicated for trying to start his own church.

The first part of the topic is who was Luther. He was a man who started his own church. So why is this off topic? The man started his own movement with its own doctrine against the true church. I’ll give you this though the Catholic Church doesn’t call them churches either.

 

[steido01]

Well…for one thing…you have redefined what is “apostolic”…in the 4 marks.

That is the opinion held by some Christians. But not the opinion held by all. We understand our views to be consistent with the marks of the church, as outlined at Nicea and Constantinople.

Well…let us see…you have rededifined the sacaments, removed some…threw out the authority of bishops…in favor of somebody’s elses…and called someone as Anti-Christ…so is this not separating yourself in a different faith?

Lutherans generally consider there to be two/three sacraments, aye. The remaining four are not removed, but are understood as not being a means of Grace in and of themselves - in other words, I don’t get to heaven simply by being married or receiving holy orders. Can these wonderful gifts instituted by God continue the work begun in me in Baptism? Absolutely. But not on its own. This is because we understand a Sacrament to be not just a means of Grace, but a means of Grace instituted by Christ during his time on earth and containing a physical element (water in baptism, for instance). Our bishops still hold ecclesial authority; individuals are not free to interpret Scripture separately from the teaching of the church.

As for the other charge, do you disagree with us because of the connotations you associate with that label, or because you disagree with out three reasons (and nowadays just one or two) for attaching it? If the latter, I can respect your objection. If the former, then I encourage you to read why we hold that conditional label to apply - at least in the past.

I thought acording to Lutherans…Rome was teaching error…so you have adopted those same errors that you say Rome fell into?

According to Lutheranism, Rome teaches some error, yes. But it also holds the beautiful Truth of Law and Gospel. We do not (cannot!) deny that wonderful fact. Where we believe Rome to have erred, we attempt reform. Simple as that.

But there is one difference…those Catholics who would dispute portions obeyed or deferred to the judgement of the Church…and would advise to seek the guidance of the Church…and not to judge for oneself as to what is inspired and what is not…and did not cause a separation of altars.

And who’s to say Luther would not have deferred to the Catholic church regarding the canon had a truly ecumenical council taken place within in lifetime? It’s conjecture either way. You do not know and neither do I. He never “judged for himself” about the worthiness of books any more or less than Cardinal Cajetan, Eusebius or Erasmus.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Sure! May God grant miracles to all His faithful!

What is received through the paradosis, the Sacred Tradition, is not arbitrary. It is authorative because it came from the Apostles.

True. But I don’t think any of the Borgia’s or Medici’s were raising the dead. Rather, most of them were adding to the number of the dead

 

[JonNC]

And who’s to say Luther would not have deferred to the Catholic church regarding the canon had a truly ecumenical council taken place within in lifetime? It’s conjecture either way. You do not know and neither do I. He never “judged for himself” about the worthiness of books any more or less than Cardinal Cajetan, Eusebius or Erasmus.

Who knows. He might have insisted on the addition of the Prayer of Manasseh.

Jon

 

[Annie39]

I can appreciate a lot of what you’ve stated, and there are a lot of areas of agreement. That being said, the particular direction many of your comments make are somewhat off topic from “Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated.” Since though you asked so many intriguing questions, I will make a few comments, not really with the intent of going in the directions of many of your points in this discussion thread (others though may wish to), but out of courtesy to you.

Not wishing to be banned or infracted by the CAF moderators, I’ll say simply from my perspective, the reformers did not break from the universal church. This sort of assertion requires unpacking what the word “church” means and also requires one of those long drawn seemingly never-ending discussions about authority, and that is beyond the scope of this discussion, at least for me. If we venture into this, I could very easily be charged with either proselytizing or having disrespect for your church.

Say for instance I was someone practicing devout orthodox Judaism. Someone holding to such a faith, would probably ask very similar questions about Jesus and his followers that you’re asking about the 16th Century reformers and that specific tradition. In other words, I think the argument you’re presenting isn’t consistent. the Jews took part in crucifying Jesus as a Jewish heretic, so to speak. During the 16th Century, the reformers were viewed

Putting aside the concept of “True Church,” this is a great question, one that has been asked by catholics for quite a long time, de Sales made such an argument in The Catholic Controversy. Interestingly, there is a tradition of alleged miracles attributed to Luther. For an intriguing study of this, see: R.W. Scribner, Popular Culture and Popular Movements in Reformation Germany (London: The Hambledon Press, 1987). Chapter 15 is entitled, “Incombustible Luther: the Image of the Reformer in Early Modern Germany.” The author documents the apocryphal miracles attributed to Luther. No, I don’t believe they are true, but it is a fascinating, if not funny study.

I’m always a bit surprised by the argument you raise because based on the criteria of miracle = “sent by God”, there are a fair amount of pentecostal folks that are more than willing to claim they have the credentials required. Those who substantiate their message with an alleged miracle doesn’t begin and end with pentecostals- even non-Christian religions claim miracles. I would also direct you to Matthew 7:21-23 for review.

There’s a lot more I could say here. The only thing I would ask of you in response is to consider something from my perspective, that is- try to see it as I see it. Miracles certainly proved the divine message of the Biblical authors. Keep in mind though, the magisterial reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.), did not believe they were receiving new revelation from God. Rather, they believed they were testifying to what was in the Bible. If you were to ask them “where are your miracles to prove your message?” A good way for them to respond would be to say: “Between Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21.”

You are correct I did get off topic sorry

 

[spina1953]

My apologies, I don’t recall if you were the other person who decided not to interact with me, and I’m too lazy at the moment to go back and check. If you are, stop reading now.

In regard to your quote: as you mentioned it’s from Luther’s Table Talk,which is a collection of second hand comments written down by Luther’s friends, published after his death, so whether or not this is something Luther said exactly isn’t certain. On the other hand, Luther did make harsh comments about the rebellion of the peasants. Certainly there are comments from Luther in which he was in favor of the government suppressing the revolt of the peasants to keep society stable. Luther himself though put no one to death. Luther’s treatise, * Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants* (the very document in which Luther called for the slaying of the peasants) was actually published after the peasants war began. The treatise was delayed, and did not have an immediate role during the war. The German nobility were not spurred on by Luther’s words. They were spurred on by the peasants who strove towards anarchy and civil unrest.

Now if I recall correctly, there were also papal armies, and crusades, etc. in catholic history, so it’s really doesn’t prove anything one way or the other if the magisterial reformers believed in capital punishment or suppressing revolts against society with force. It does show that those who adhere to Christianity now (in whatever form) have come a long way in tolerating people we don’t agree with.

This is what Emmalon Davis of CCEL Staff Writer has to say about Table Talk by Martin Luther: Martin Luther’s Table Talk then entitled Divine Discourses which was found preserved under the foundations of a German citizen’s home in 1626, Table Talk contains a series of informal conversations Luther shared with his students and colleagues in his home. The topics of these conversations range from religious doctrines and history to instructions regarding government, church, and the academic university. Throughout this text, Luther presents his beliefs boldly, and at times, his opinions may seem extremely biased. While the ethical implications of Luther’s view are highly debated, Table Talk provides an uncensored look at Luther’s inluentical idea’s.

Also Catholic’s; Protestants, Lutheran’s Puritan’s Calvinists have all persecuted each other. The 16th century was a bloody time all around and from what I have so far been able to gather from my own research the Lutheran’s were in some ways more violent then others during that same time.

 

[spina1953]

A lot of this seems harsh to us because culture and politics have changed so much. Now we are appalled when religious zealots want to slaughter all those who don’t convert to their believe system and way of life, but in Luther’s day, heresy was considered treasonous, and was unstable for the Kingdom as much as it was for the Church. Most of us were raised in a separation of Church and State, for that very reason, but Luther was only carrying forth the attitude of the Catholic heirarchy of the time. The CC had this same attitude toward the Albigensians.

Hi Guanophore: I do agree with your statement and it does seem rather harsh to us because culture and politics have changed so much, and hopefully for the better. I also agree that at that time Church and State were for the most part intertwined.