Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Inariga
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Seems to me if one commits a offense and admits that it or is judged to have committed an offense one is then guilty which means at least in my dictionary to judge an offender of some wrong or sin. If one does not admit to the wrong or sin committed, one can still be guilty which means that someone judged that person as guilty of the offense or sin. An indulgence does not say that the person is no longer guilty, only that whatever punishment is either remitted in whole or part. A pardon is remitting a punishment for some wrong committed as in one goes to prison for committing a crime but later is pardoned of the time one still has and is freed. I think indulgences work in somewhat the same way.
 
benhur said:
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…
Click to expand...
"Do not long for division, but rather bring those who contend to peace. " (Didache ch. 4)

I am not sure this pertains to doctrinal schism, which is clearly denounced in the NT.

1 Cor 12:24-25
But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, that **there should be no division **(Gr. and AV schisma) in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another.”

1 Cor 1:10-13
“Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree, and there be no divisions (Gr. schisma) among you, but you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (denominational Protestantism!)

1 Cor 11:17-19
“But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part, I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, in order that those who are approved may have become evident among you.”

1 Tim 1:3-4

3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine,

The modern term “doctrinal distinctives” that is used to justify the fact that there are so many contradicting doctrines is not at all supported in the early Church.

Eph 4:3-6
eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, 5** one Lord, one faith, one baptism, **6 one God and Father of us all,

Rom 16:17 (Douay Rheims)
17 Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.

The reason that Catholics cannot accept or make concessions to Reformation doctrines is because they are contrary to the doctrines that were handed down to us through the paradosis. They are a significant departure from the Apostolic faith -

And Ignatius:

Ignatius (died c. 106 ad) writes to the Philadelphians:

CHAP. III.–AVOID SCHISMATICS: “Keep yourselves from those evil plants which Jesus Christ does not tend, because they are not the planting of the Father. Not that I have found any division among you, but exceeding purity. For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ].

“Keep yourselves, then, from those evil plants which Jesus Christ does not tend, nor that wild beast, the destroyer of men, because they are not the planting of the Father, but the seed of the wicked one. Not that I have found any division among you do I write these things; but I arm you beforehand, as the children of God. For as many as are of Christ are also with the bishop; but as many as fall away from him, and embrace communion with the accursed, these shall be cut off along with them. Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to show forth the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever ye do, ye may do it according to [the will of] God.”
 
spina1953 said:
My understanding of indulgences are that they forgive the sin. en.
Click to expand...
A primer on indulgences:

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRIMINDU.htm

This proved by The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states, “An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishment due for their sins.” The Church does this not just to aid Christians, “but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity” (CCC 1478).
 
benhur said:
Code: 
 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.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Catholics set the tone for using the secular rulers to meet their needs and police their decisions. You are right that we cannot look at the events through the culture we have today, because it is so different. Yes, the slurs did go both ways.
benhur said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think you have this backwards, benhur. No one has “institutionalized celibacy for all priests”. There are married priests in the CC, but the Latin Rite prefers to choose priests to serve the Church from among those who are called to celibacy.

I agree that there is a God given and natural need for a spouse. Those who have the gift of celibacy espouse the Church, and this need gets met through service to His Holy Bride.

It has nothing to do with lust, whether a person is called to marriage or to Holy Orders - it is a vocation. It is also a discipline of the Latin Rite, not a doctrine, which means it can be changed, and exceptions can (and are) be made.

I think too much is made of Luther marrying a nun. There were far more Catholic clerics keeping mistresses and concubines. At least he had the decency to get married.

Rodrigo Borgia kept a courtesan who mothered at least four of his children, during the time he was a priest and a Bishop. After he became Pope Alexander VI I think there were at least two of those he legitimized with a papal bull. He also had at least two mistresses while he served as Pope and had a reputation as a “Vatican whore”. In comparison, Luther’s marriage to a nun seems quite respectable!

Pope Alexander VI, the Medici reign and other similar nepotistic situations is one of the reasons why the Latin Rite prefers to choose priests from among those who are called to celibacy. The church could not support the offspring of faithless priests, and the occasion of them created intense political, social, and religious problems.
 
dronald said:
Well that escalated quickly.

You forgot Peter Waldo and his followers; the pure evil “give up everything and preach the gospel at all times” group that were hunted down and eliminated.

Tip for the future, Catholics; when someone calls out the CC for being all burney to heretics, don’t try to justify it. A better strategy perhaps would be to say they were acting sinfully but it doesn’t change the truth of the core doctrines.
Click to expand...
Peter Waldo and his followers were hunted down and eliminated? By whom? As far I know, it isn’t known how Waldo died.
 
pablope said:
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.🤷
Click to expand...
I don’t think this is fair to Luther. I think he trusted in God’s divine providence as much as he was able. He had good cause not to trust the Catholic hierarchy of his day. I do not look upon Luther as a hero, but a wounded, tortured, lost soul, but I think he gets accused of a lot of things for which he was not responsible. He never wanted to create a schism.

He was living under a death sentence from both the Pope and the Diet of Worms:

On May 6, a final draft of the Edict of Worms, prepared by Aleander, was submitted to the Diet. It was finally signed by the emperor on May 26. The Edict called Luther a “reviver of the old and condemned heresies” and an “inventor of new ones.” It called for the burning of his books and for confiscation of his property. It cut him off from the church, called for his arrest, and forbid anyone from harboring or sustaining him. Finally, it warned that anyone who dares to directly or indirectly oppose this decree…will be guilty of the crime of lese majeste and will incur our grave indignation as well as each of the punishments mentioned above."
 
pablope said:
A primer on indulgences:

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRIMINDU.htm

This proved by The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states, “An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishment due for their sins.” The Church does this not just to aid Christians, “but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity” (CCC 1478).
Click to expand...
Hi pablope: Thanks so much for the primer on indulgences. I see that I was not very clear in my thinking but my intention was I hope good in that my original point was that the Pope can grant an indulgence which in Luther’s 95 theses #75 say to the contrary that the Pope can not. I do agree with all that the primer said. Again thanks for making it clearer for me to understand it better.
 
spina1953 said:
Hi pablope: Thanks so much for the primer on indulgences. I see that I was not very clear in my thinking but my intention was I hope good in that my original point was that the Pope can grant an indulgence which in Luther’s 95 theses #75 say to the contrary that the Pope can not. I do agree with all that the primer said. Again thanks for making it clearer for me to understand it better.
Click to expand...
Luther did not say that the Pope cannot issue an indulgence. What Luther said was that the Pope could not issue an indulgence that forgave the guilt of sin because indulgences do not forgive the guilt from a mortal sin.
 
From what I just read from www.etwn library on indulgences, indulgences can and do remove the guilt of the sin and is according the CCC so I think I will accept that it is so what the CC teaches. It sounds to me Luther really did not understand indulgences in the sense of what the CC teaches. I am sure that there are some Catholic’s who do not really understand what indulgences are and how they work. But having said that I will go with those who are better informed and have a much better understanding than I have and learn from them
 
spina1953 said:
From what I just read from www.etwn library on indulgences, indulgences can and do remove the guilt of the sin and is according the CCC so I think I will accept that it is so what the CC teaches. It sounds to me Luther really did not understand indulgences in the sense of what the CC teaches. I am sure that there are some Catholic’s who do not really understand what indulgences are and how they work. But having said that I will go with those who are better informed and have a much better understanding than I have and learn from them
Click to expand...
It removes the temporal punishment due to sin, spina. It does not remove the eternal guilt of the sin. From the EWTN library page:

“To facilitate explanation, it may be well to state what an indulgence is not. It is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power. It is not the forgiveness of the guilt of sin;* it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven*. It is not an exemption from any law or duty, and much less from the obligation consequent on certain kinds of sin, e.g., restitution; on the contrary, it means a more complete payment of the debt which the sinner owes to God. It does not confer immunity from temptation or remove the possibility of subsequent lapses into sin. Least of all is an indulgence the purchase of a pardon which secures the buyer’s salvation or releases the soul of another from Purgatory. The absurdity of such notions must be obvious to any one who forms a correct idea of what the Catholic Church really teaches on this subject.”
 
I do not remember thinking or saying that an indulgence was some permission to commit sins or any future sins. It seems to me that if the sin is forgiven than also the guilt since sin is an offense and guilt is judgment of the sin or offence committed, which it seems to me if I understand it correctly that the guilt is pardoned as if one goes to prison for and offence which one is found to be guilty and is pardoned then the guilt is then dismissed and one is free of the guilt or judgment.
 
spina1953 said:
I do not remember thinking or saying that an indulgence was some permission to commit sins or any future sins. It seems to me that if the sin is forgiven than also the guilt since sin is an offense and guilt is judgment of the sin or offence committed, which it seems to me if I understand it correctly that the guilt is pardoned as if one goes to prison for and offence which one is found to be guilty and is pardoned then the guilt is then dismissed and one is free of the guilt or judgment.
Click to expand...
spina, the EWTN site specifically states that indulgences do not remit the guilt of mortal sin. The mortal sin must have already been forgiven through a means which forgives mortal sin. The indulgence remits the temporal punishments associated with the mortal sin but do not remit the guilt of the mortal sin itself.
 
I understand that the sin must be forgiven first before any indulgence is given, I never thought that an indulgence forgave a sin not forgiven, nor have I said that in the first place. I always understood that a sin or offense needed to be forgiven first before an indulgence was given.
 
Per_Crucem said:
Do indulgences forgive the guilt of sin?

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.
Click to expand...
Can you provide a reference for this?
 
I would like to add that I read James Akin’s A Primer on Indulgences and on Principle 3 he states that : When someone repents, God removes his guilt,(Is 1:18) and any eternal punishment. (Rom 5:19). it sure makes a lot of sense to me.
 
spina1953 said:
I would like to add that I read James Akin’s A Primer on Indulgences and on Principle 3 he states that : When someone repents, God removes his guilt,(Is 1:18) and any eternal punishment. (Rom 5:19). it sure makes a lot of sense to me.
Click to expand...
But that is irrelevant to what we were discussing.

To recap, you said that Luther made the statement that the Pope could not forgive sins. Luther actually said that the Pope could not issue indulgences which would remit the guilt due to sins, because that’s not what indulgences do.
 
I was only pointing out that on Luther’s 95 theses #75 it appears that Luther is saying that the Pope has no authority to absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin etc. What this seems to be saying or implying is that the Pope can’t forgive anyone their sin. Absolve is taken from the Latin meaning to loosen to free from guilt. It also seems to me if one forgives then one absolves one from the guilt which is the effect of the offense.
 
spina1953 said:
I was only pointing out that on Luther’s 95 theses #75 it appears that Luther is saying that the Pope has no authority to absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin etc. What this seems to be saying or implying is that the Pope can’t forgive anyone their sin. Absolve is taken from the Latin meaning to loosen to free from guilt. It also seems to me if one forgives then one absolves one from the guilt which is the effect of the offense.
Click to expand...
You have to read the theses before and after it in order to put #75 in context. Luther did not say that the Pope cannot absolve. What he said, to quote, was, “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.” He is reiterating that Catholic teaching is that indulgences, papal or otherwise, only have the power to remit temporal punishments and not the guilt of mortal/venial sin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top