H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Too true! I agree completely.
- Status
A
alwayslooking
Guest
B
benhur
Guest
Pretty good post. I think early father or Didache says not to schism but to pacify those that contend, like both sides have a responsibility as you seem to allude to. I would add that the any alliance with princes was "customary’’ in Catholic practice and even necessary for any reform or even continued existence of Luther. Can’t look at it in today’s freedom’s. While he called pope names I think the slurs went both ways. He was also a product of the times, Catholic times. The nun thing seems beneath you to say, for i think it happened quite a bit afterwards ,not sure when he met her . It is not henry the 8th thing. Too many ex priests would argue against the God-given natural need for spouse to be a “lust” thing. It is unnatural to institutionalize celibacy for all priests.He was a Catholic priest in Germany, and very scholarly, but troubled as well (was he too scrupulous?). He wanted to reform the Church, and did make some good points, but he allied himself against the Church and confronted the Pope in a way that became very personal between the two of them. The Pope at the time had his own personal issues. They both should have showed more charity and understanding, IMHO, and they may have been able to reach common ground. However, Martin Luther also allied himself with German princes that controlled about half of Germany and those princes were quite eager to seize the property that belonged to the Church in their kingdoms. Seeing obvious personal gains, they encouraged ML to separate from the Church. As a result, ML created his own denomination. I’m not certain he knew that he did, nor if he would be pleased or not that it was named “Lutheran”.
Another factor, which makes me question ML’s motives, is the fact that he married a nun. How far would a man go for love? Or lust?
All in all, despite being very intelligent, he made some decisions which would make anyone question why he did what he did. He became a little erratic and bitter in his late writings. And, yes, he did refer to the Pope as the anti-Christ.
I actually read the Book of Concord, when I was a Lutheran, and was alarmed at many of the things ML wrote. Just because you may have some good ideas (many of which the Church changed on her own over time) doesn’t mean anything if you don’t have tact. Nevertheless, I decided that despite the origins, the Lutheran church made some good points and I stuck with them for about 14 year. That is, until I realized Catholicism was nothing like I was told by my Lutheran friends.
No, he was not burned at the stake. He died of natural causes after a long marriage and several children. I think I remember something about his burial, like he wasn’t allowed to be buried in a Catholic churchyard, which would make sense.
(formerly “lutheran farmer”)
P
pablope
Guest
But Catherine did need not to have someone protect her…she trusted that God would protect her until her mission was accomplished…she trusted in God’ divine providence…seems your hero did not.
And yes, Catheriine starved herself…fasted…for the benefit of the church and to suffer for the church…to the detriment of her health…she was willing to give all for God and His church…and to suffer like Christ.
I do not see no such thing from your hero.
G
guanophore
Guest
Corruption was definitely a problem, and Luther was not attempting to change the faith. His intention was to bring to light the gospel he saw being obscured by the corruption.
His use of the principle of Sola Scriptura emanated from his desire to have a standard of practice that was more holy than what he observed in the Catholic heirarchy.
Luther, an ordained Catholic priest, continued to celebrate the Latin Mass until his death as often as he was able. Lutherans believe that they have a valid Eucharist with the Real Presence.
I think that Luther’s convictions about faith alone came out of his own tortured personality with obsessive compulsive features from which he sought deliverance all his life. His realized experience of grace was so transformative to him that it changed his entire world view. In promoting conversion in a way he discovered so liberating, he wanted other souls who had been oppressed with the practices of indulgences, penances and purgatory to experience that same freeedom.
This would be a difficult case to make, since Luther was not reacting to the actual teachings of the Church but to its obscurity by corruption. The JDDJ makes it clear that theological differences did not exist in the way it appeared at the time. Despite his formation as an Augustinian monk, then as a priest, he never really grasped the Churches teaching on salvation by grace, through faith.
h
That was Luther’s intention. He did not want a split to occur, but he was passionate about reform (rightfully so). I think he was hampered by a very wounded personality, a significant and fatal degree of hubris, and by the conflagration of political and economic forces that drove the wedge.
The 'Catholic heirarchy at the time was accustomed to absolute power, politically, religiously, economically. They were also accustomed to squashing protestors by execution. When Luther defied the papal bull by throwing it into the fire, I think that the Pope believed he still had the temporal power to squash him, but he was mistaken. A permanent shift had taken place that would wrench the power of geography, income, and political force away from the Vatican forever. Luther was not responsible for all that.
G
guanophore
Guest
I am also interested in your source for this, since my reading of history makes it quite clear he knew exactly what was going on with the indulgences.
You are right, it is blasphemous what some of the Latin clergy did to collect money, lands, power, and wealth. Those words were uttered by one of those Catholics, who had been specifically sent by Pope Leo x to collect money to build St. Peters. From our perspective he seems no better than a used car salesman. This is why I say that Luther and other Reformers had some valid complaints.
I also agree that there was not a need to change the doctrines of the faith, and we are still paying the price for that.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
A purported quote from Luther in a book doesn’t qualify as a source, Topper. What is the primary source?
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
I wouldn’t disagree with this.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
But Catherine did need not to have someone protect her…she trusted that God would protect her until her mission was accomplished…she trusted in God’ divine providence…seems your hero did not.
And yes, Catheriine starved herself…fasted…for the benefit of the church and to suffer for the church…to the detriment of her health…she was willing to give all for God and His church…and to suffer like Christ.
I do not see no such thing from your hero.
How many protectors does the pope have? An elite garrison of soldires iirc. Sworn to protect him to the death. Do you level the same accusation at him?
Starving oneself to death is neither biblical nor virtuous. In the I agree my hero is not like Catherine of Siena.
G
guanophore
Guest
Luther had very little part in “empyting the monasteries”. This was done by secular rulers that wanted the land and assets belonging to them. It was the best way to wrest these resources away from the Bishop of Rome and get them back into local control.
Luther did not have a goal of “damaging the Church”. This is just overreactive slander. Luther was focused on toppling the Pope, and the structure of corrupt bishops that were exercising their perogatives over the populace. What needed toppling was the corruption.
Luther believed that the pure one, holy, catholic and apostolic church continued in those that embraced his reform.
Luther was a product of monastic living himself, having chosen the strictest order he could find. He was well acquainted with the sense of being imprisoned in a monastery by vowed living. Given his own sense of being unable to experience delivery from sin through penance and austere practice, it is not surprising that he would be interested in helping others to experience the deliverance he had livng by grace, through faith.
His inflammatory writing certainly gave adequate fuel for the fires of the German princes and nobles. It was reading that treatise that made me baffled why anyone would want to call themselves after him.
G
guanophore
Guest
I think you are mistaking his meaning with this tongue in cheek comment. How could he gently begin to “preach” on it if he did not know what they were?
If you continue to read you will find this statement:
He had already referred to the matter in connection
with his strictures upon pilgrimages, complaining,
with the exaggeration all too characteristic of him:
“When it is evening the pilgrims to this or that
shrine, or to the celebration of this or Ihat saint’s
day, return home with full indulgence; that is, full of
beer and wine, full of unchastity, and other horrid
vices.” Even now he did not question the legitimacy
of indulgences, hut he attacked the abuses to which
they almost inevitably led on the part of the ecclesias-
tical authorities as well as of the people.
Luther was provoked by the lack of sincerity in repentance. What he did not understand was the lack of piety surrounding the buying and selling of indulgences.
This is not consistent with other passages in this text, which makes it appear that you are again making speculations not based on historical evidence.
Thus he said ;
Concerning indulgences, although they are the very
merits of Christ and his saints, and are therefore by all
means to be received with reverence, they arc nevertheless
made the most shameful agents of avarice. For who
seeks through them the salvation of souls and not rather
the contents of the purse? . . . Indulgences promote a
servile righteousness, for they do nothing but teach the
people to fear, to flee, to shudder at the punishment of sin
instead of the sin itself, when they ought rather to be
exhorted to love punishment and to embrace the cross.
Would that I lied when I say indulgences are rightly
named, because to indulge is to permit, and indulgence is
impunity and permission to sin, and license to avoid the
cross of Christ.
What provoked Luther was a lack of sanctity, and the idea that one could wash away impiety by making monetary contributions, rather than seeking holiness.
I will concede that indulgences were a factor, but his anger was over what he perceived was an occlusion of the gospel message. Whether Tetzel was overselling or not, there remains the problem that people in his parish had the impression they could go out and sin, pay some money, and be off the hook, without conforming themselves to Christ.
Yes, what Tetzel was doing was “in keeping with the midieval conception of salvation” but that was the crux of the problem. Luther had figured out for himself that salvation is by grace, through faith, not of works, lest any man should boast. His perception was that the practice of indulgences overshadowed this simple gospel truth.
This is just pure erroneous speculation. Luther understood indulgences perfectly well. Even more, he understood how they were abused, and how that abuse led the faithful astray. The CC agreed with him, which is why the Church revised this practice, eliminating the exchange of money for an indulgence, so as to avoid even the possibility of misrepresenting the practice, or giving the appearance that they are for “sale”.
This is not true either, since it turns out that there were no doctrinal departures on the concept of salvation by grace through faith, as the JDDJ clearly states.
G
guanophore
Guest
This is balderdash. There were few people of the time that were as educated and experienced in the teachings of the Church.
Luther knew Catholicism better than 90% of his peers (Catholic priests), which is why he was sent to work on the faculty at the university. I do agree, however, that he did lack talent for backing down. In the end it was his arrogance and temper that interfered with his attempts to confront debauchery.
On the contrary, his complaint was that the clerics were not acting in accordance with what the Church taught. The Church agreed.
**
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. **
I agree. There was so much corruption that if it were not indulgences, it would have been something else. And he did get set off! His rebellion, though, was not against the “church” as he saw it, but those corrupt clerics who, in his estimation, had abdicated their authority to care for the flock by taking advantage of it.
Topper17:
You have missed the mark again, Topper. Luther did not believe or teach once saved always saved. He did have a pre-occupation with a need for salvation by grace through faith, and a history of obsessive compulsion about forgiveness, guilt, and never being good enough. But he did not see himself going against the teachings of the Church.
P
pablope
Guest
So now you attempt to divert and attack someone else?And you have a lock on the correct definition of what is virtuous? So you cannot refute Catherine…so now you attack her motive for the good of the church?
You are right…your hero is not like Catherine of Siena…for Catherine received the wounds of Christ on her as her reward…so much for being not biblical and virtuous…ins’t it:shrug:
Can you define a better gift from the Christ than receiving His very wounds on her body?
M
McCartney
Guest
Sorry to hear about that. I do think that Catholics are “Go to Church and then go home”. We do not tend to stand and chat after mass.
M
MartinJordan
Guest
There are plenty of go to church and go home Catholics. Actually they normally talk food and lunch rather than what they’ve learned during that Sunday’s Eucharistic feast and Liturgy and homily.
Yet that’s no reason to have doubts or anxieties about the Catholic Faith. If one wants learn the Faith they need to spend time in prayer, education and persevere. It’s not easy, of course but we all need to carry different types of crosses. Our Lord is worth it isn’t he?
MJ
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
And you have a lock on the correct definition of what is virtuous? So you cannot refute Catherine…so now you attack her motive for the good of the church?
You are right…your hero is not like Catherine of Siena…for Catherine received the wounds of Christ on her as her reward…so much for being not biblical and virtuous…ins’t it:shrug:
Can you define a better gift from the Christ than receiving His very wounds on her body?
If you went to your priest today and informed him that you intend to starve yourself to death for the good of the church, I doubt he would applaud your heroic virtue. On the contrary I am guessing he would be alarmed.
I don’t agree that stigmata is any reward for virtue.
Yes, his own gift of himself for our salvation.
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi bitznbitez: I seem to have read that Luther did not know what an indulgence was somewhere and I will have to look that up again if I can find it. As to the 95 theses and in particular 75 I read that and while it does not say it is about any indulgences. It says:’ To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God— this is madness." implies that the Pope can not forgive anyone no matter how great the sin may be. This like saying that it is absurd to think that some sin is so great that God in His mercy will not forgive anyone. The Pope represents Christ on earth and Jesus said to forgive as He forgives. Why because if one has love one will forgive another because also if one is not willing to forgive one how can then one expect God to forgive the person not willing to forgive? It makes no sense to think that the successor of Peter has no authority to bind or loose on earth so that whatsoever is bond or loosen on earth is also bonded or loosen in heaven.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
Do indulgences forgive the guilt of sin, spina? Look past the apologetic rhetoric and see, in context, what Luther is saying here in #75.
The indulgence preachers were arguing - in opposition to Catholic doctrine - that indulgences forgive the guilt of mortal sin. One would think, of course, that violating the Theotokos would involve the guilt of mortal sin. And yes, the indulgence preachers were saying that indulgences could forgive the guilt of that action. So Luther says:
75: It is foolish to think that papal indulgences have so much power that they can absolve a man even if he has done the impossible and violated the mother of God.
76: We assert the contrary, and say that the pope’s pardons are not able to remove the least venial of sins as far as their guilt is concerned.
Why does Luther say that? Because only sacramental confession removes the guilt of mortal or venial sin. Not indulgences. Earlier, Luther says:
34: For the grace conveyed by these indulgences relates simply to the penalties of the sacramental “satisfactions” decreed merely by man.
Here he refers to the temporal consequences, which are addressed by indulgences. Not guilt. Luther also says:
71: Let him be anathema and accursed who denies the apostolic character of the indulgences.
S
spina1953
Guest
My understanding of indulgences are that they forgive the sin. Guilty means simply that one is judged an offender and has done some wrong. Also my understanding of indulgences is that it absolves some of whatever punishment one will receive. Think of it this way if one is repentant of one’s sin or offense and asks for forgiveness would not God then forgive? if one can not be forgiven through an indulgence, then confession would not be valid, since no one has any authority to forgive.
Jesus said to His Apostles what ever you bind on earth is bond in heaven and whatever is loosed on earth is loose in heaven meaning that if an Apostle or their successor can bind on earth it is bond in heaven and what they loose on earth is also loose in heaven. I might add that in the Our Father which is the prayer Jesus taught says that we forgive as we want to be forgiven. How much punishment is due to the sin committed is as always up to God and His mercy, . So if the Pope has no authority to give an indulgence then he also can not bind or loose on earth so not bond or even loosen in heaven.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
“An indulgence is a remission before God of the **temporal punishment **due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven” (Indulgentarium Doctrina 1).
How was the guilt forgiven? Sacramental confession. Indulgences do not forgive the guilt of sin. That is what the indulgence preachers were saying; that it does forgive sin. Luther was countering that they do not. The 95 theses were a defense of the Pope and the proper teaching regarding indulgences.
- Status