Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

[JonNC]

Topper’s remarks and the source of his information is complete and intentional distortion. The List of 50 doctrines ascribed to Luther is blatant dishonesty. Good going, Topper; you are at least consistent.

While I have not read the book, Dave Armstrong has always appeared on his blog to be a fair, though quite strident, Catholic apologist. He has many good things to say about Martin Luther, as well.

The problem with the list offered has more to do with lack of context, catch phases that do not explain Luther’s views thoroughly. A couple of examples:
5. The tossing out of seven books of the Bible.
What does that mean? Luther’s final Die Bibel contains 74 books. And Luther’s view of the Deuterocanonical books were not novel. So, I’m not sure what Armstrong means.

**6. Denial of venial sin. ** Again, denial how? Lutherans maintain a concept of mortal and venial sins, and at some point Luther warns us not to take venial sins lightly.

And again, without context,
20. The keys of the kingdom were not just given to Peter.
Certainly not novel to Luther here, either, as that is the position of Orthodoxy.

Some could be misleading, unintentionally or otherwise,
32. Transubstantiation is “a monstrous idea.”
That shouldn’t be construed as a denial of the doctrine of the Real Presence, however. and it is also true that Luther offered that Christians could believe it, but shouldn’t be required to.
Luther’s view of something such as this cannot be limited to one quote. And from what I’ve read on Armstrong’s blog, that typically isn’t his style.

And finally, there are some things that, again lacking context, if Luther did believe them, Lutherans reject out of hand, so they aren’t worth defending.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

The problem with the list offered has more to do with lack of context, catch phases that do not explain Luther’s views thoroughly.

Some could be misleading, unintentionally or otherwise,

And finally, there are some things that, again lacking context, if Luther did believe them, Lutherans reject out of hand, so they aren’t worth defending.

Jon

This was my conclusions as well. I am also remined of the forum rules:

Guidelines
For both Catholic and non-Catholic posters:
It is acceptable to question the doctrine or dogma of another’s faith
It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs
Bringing up historical controversies peculiar to a particular religion should be done cautiously*
It is acceptable to discuss the effect the incident had on current policy or practice.
It is acceptable to seek the truth vs. commonly-held beliefs or conventional wisdom about actual events.
It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they “prove” a particular religion is false.
Expecting members of any Church to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism of bodies that have broken with it is a technique that has no merit and can’t be defended.

Recently in the “Luther Bashing” that has been prevalent on the threads, I have repeatedly seen Lutherans challenged to answer for actions and opinons of Luther that they do not espouse or incorporate.

It is as if, by proving Luther wrong, Lutherans could be converted.
Personally I would benefit more from a discussion in Exsurge Domine, which I have difficulty following.

 

[Peter_J]

Dave Armstrong

I wondered when that name would come back around.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your response.

Hi Topper: The 50 doctrinal issues as to why Luther was excommunicated makes sense as to why Luther was excommunicated.

What baffles me is how people can possibly think that Luther deserved anything but excommunication, or that in reality, he didn’t really excommunicate himself by being SO far outside of accepted Catholic teaching.

Ref your thoughts on Luther vs. Indulgences:

It seems that there is a great deal at stake in Luther’s rejection of Indulgences and also in his criticism of Tetzel. In the same manner, whether Tetzel was correctly preaching Indulgences is also important. After all, if Tetzel was right and Luther was wrong, then it would appear that the Reformation was begun over a misunderstanding by Martin Luther.

German Lutheran Professor of Reformation and Modern Church History Martin Brecht’s massive three volume biography of Martin Luther is correctly known for it’s attention to detail. It is also known for generally accepting Luther’s side of many situations. As such, when Brecht makes comments that show Luther in a negative light, they must be viewed as being credible. Brecht deals with the indulgence controversy in Volume 1, pages 175-221. I will be posting Brecht’s comments in the order that they appear.

The generally accepted story about the Indulgence and Tetzel’s administration of them was that they were solely for the purpose of profit by the Church. Not so. While many people paid on the basis of their status: “**The indigent were to fast and pray.” **(Vol. I, pg. 182) This means that the Church granted the indulgence to the poor even if they could not pay to help build St. Peter’s. Clearly, the Church wanted to have everyone receive the Indulgence regardless of the ability to pay.

The standard Protestant version of John Tetzel is not exactly flattering. He has been pilloried for centuries and was supposedly rude, crude, lewd, and greedy.

“Probably unjustly, he (Tetzel) was usually caricatured as a crude, ignorant, and morally disreputable indulgence preacher. The charges of an immoral life-style, which Luther later repeated about him, appear to have rested on unsubstantiated rumors. Tetzel was not uneducated. He had studied theology and was for a time not only a preacher in Leipzig, but also the second theological teacher of the order’s school there. In 1518, probably through his superiors in the order, he was granted the doctor of theology degree.” Ibid, pg. 182

Much has been made here of Luther’s understanding of indulgences. Again, if Luther had a poor understanding of the issue, then it would appear that he should not have presumed to have the background necessary to challenge the teachings of the Church in their regard.

“Around Easter 1517, as the Wittenbergers were running like mad to Zerst and to Juterbog (22 miles from Wittenberg), in the territory of the archbishopric of Magdeburg in order to obtain indulgence letters and then amending their lives, he first attempted to set things right through sermons. **He himself was not completely clear about indulgences, but he was convinced that he could do better, that there was something more certain than obtaining indulgence letters.” **Ibid, pg. 184

Here we should remember that with Luther, the key issue was the ‘certainty’ of his Salvation. So, whereas indulgences were not ‘certain’ according to Luther, the doctrine that he ‘found’ in Scripture, Salvation by Faith Alone, provided that certainty. This doctrine had never before been ‘discovered’ in Scripture was really the result of his extreme form of scrupulosity.

**“Again and again he testifies that the demand for complete and perfect confessions caused severe tribulations for him.” **Ibid, pg. 184

Here in this section on Indulgences, Brecht ties in Luther’s extreme scrupulosity, which was obviously the foundation for his ‘problem’ with indulgences, since they were in opposition to where Luther ‘was headed’, Salvation by Faith Alone, even if he didn’t understand it at this point.

**“Around 1514……Luther was already complaining that people were trying to make the way to heaven easy with indulgences, and with minimal demands – a sigh was sufficient – they were making grace cheap.” **Ibid, pg. 185

How ironic is it that Luther complained that indulgences made grace cheap and then went on to invent Salvation by Faith Alone.

In analyzing Luther’s “Treatise on Indulgences” Brecht makes the following comments:

“Luther himself is uncertain about liberation from purgatory. He is also not certain whether God remits through indulgences an imperfect repentance or imperfect love of God. ** Fundamentally indulgences are of value only to those who are contrite. But it is precisely for them that an indulgence is really of no significance. ** Perfect contrition in itself already removes all punishment. Thus indulgences also are unnecessary. Therefore Luther does not know what use indulgences have.” Ibid, pg. 189

Here we see Luther’s ‘uncertainty’ with regards to indulgences, and how the fact of his craving for the certainty of his salvation impacted his ‘problem’ with indulgences. I would suggest that maybe Luther shouldn’t have taken it upon himself to stand Christianity on its ear over a matter on which he lacked understanding. It is also interesting to note that Luther believed that perfect contrition removes all punishment. We know that Luther was terrified by the idea of God’s punishment and here we see how much it drove his probably unconscious agenda to refute indulgences. In seems we need to spend more time studying Luther’s mental health issues.

What was it that was so unique about him that he was able to ‘find’ things in Scripture (like SBFA) that nobody else had noticed prior.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

More from Brecht to follow

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Perhaps not. But I see it as akin to syncretism, an adoption of the later radical protestants’ beliefs and practices, if not in word, in deed.

The issue is not what the confessions say, but rather about the modern practices, which I think reflects a type of syncretism.

 

[Stilldreamn]

It is as if, by proving Luther wrong, Lutherans could be converted.

Thank you. Being neck-deep in the Tiber myself, should I ever begin to swim it will be in spite of the Luther-bashing and uncharitable remarks, not because of them.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Annie,

I have personal knowledge that many of those doctrinal issues are true. What I didn’t know is that Luther said that Transubstantiation is “a monstrous word for a monstrous idea”. I looked it up, he did say that.

Also I know that he believed in “faith alone” and that one did not have to be contrite to be absloved one only had to believe. There are many other of those issues that I know to be true. I wish that those who believe that they are taken out of context would chose a couple of the most glaring and quote them in context. The Pope condemned all of Luther’s writings.
One thing though, I thought that Luther believed that only Peter was given the keys and there were no keys in succession.

Annie

It is a pretty amazing list isn’t it? Somehow we are supposed to believe that Luther was right on all of these things and that the Church of his day had been wrong? Of course that’s preposterous.

As to Luther believing that only Peter was given the keys:

"From what has been said we recognize two glaring errors of the Roman pontiff.

In the first place, he grants dispensation from vows, and does it as if he alone of all Christians possessed this authority; so great is the temerity and audacity of wicked men. If it is possible to grant a dispensation from a vow, then any brother may grant one to his neighbor, or even to himself. But if one’s neighbor cannot grant a dispensation, neither has the pope any right to do so. For where does he get this authority? **From the power of the keys? But the keys belong to all, and avail only for sins **(Matt. 18:15–18]) Now they themselves claim that vows are “of divine right.” Why then does the pope deceive and destroy the poor souls of men by granting dispensations in matters of divine right, in which no dispensations can be granted?" “THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY OF THE CHURCH” (1520), Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 36: Word and Sacrament II. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 36, p. 79). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

I believe that Luther agreed that it was Peter who received the keys from Christ, but that all he really did was receive them for the whole Church. Thus the ‘Power’ of the keys belong to all, which is all ‘democratic’ (and all). But we must remember that he wrote the above quote in 1520, which is before he was excommunicated. In addition, this was in his “All men have the authority to privately interpret” phase, which of course lasted another five years or so until even he recognized how poorly it was working in the real world. After that time (roughly 1525 or so) he began to emphasize his own personal authority, rather quickly getting to the point where he was demanding that he had an authority far beyond that which had presumed by ANY Pope. The quotes from Luther which document this ‘attitude’ are both shocking and disturbing.

God Bless You Annie, Topper

 

[spina1953]

Hi Topper: Post #324,
Once again you make valid points into Luther’s thinking about indulgences. So for as I understand from my research on indulgences controversy Luther never met Tetzel, but because so many were going to see Tetzel to receive an indulgence seems to have set Luther off. Why? because those granted the letter for an indulgence had to go to confession in order to have the indulgence effected. Luther was the person who was seeing these people who wanted to complete what was needed to receive the indulgence and Luther thought that he was not in control and began thinking that those wanting an indulgence were trying to get into heaven without having to work for it as some cheap way of gaining heaven without perfect contrition. At least it appears that way to me.

Your using Martin Brechts history on Luther particularly on indulgences shows that by the time Tetzel started preaching on indulgences that Luther was already forming his thinking about indulgences; though he says that he did not know what indulgences were, and about salvation and perfect contrition that remits all punishments due to sin. its obvious Luther did not understand indulgences and did not want to since it conflicted with his own ideas on salvation based on his scrupulosity that nothing could ever it seems save him from damnation except by faith alone.
Luther fails to understand that while one may receive or be granted an indulgence, no one is sure that one is going to be liberated from all punishments due to sin, since in the end only God knows the hearts of men. One has to have faith that God accepts indulgences as it is mercy based in love. Luther thinking that somehow that indulgences were some cheap way of gaining heaven shows that Luther lacked any understanding of indulgences and if Luther’s thinking was true that it would also mean that confessions were also a cheap way into heaven since when one goes to confession one is asking forgiveness of whatever sins they have and if indulgences do not remit punishment then confession does not forgive either since both work on mercy and love.

The idea of perfect contrition removes all punishment how would Luther know that for certain? he does not. No one can give a prefect confession and have perfect contrition but one can try; but it is not how perfect one has contrition but how much love one has in trying to make prefect contrition for one’s sins. And only God knows whether or not one is sincere. John said that Jesus said something on the order of “Love as I have loved you.” If one has love then one forgives and has mercy. Indulgences are the Churches mercy and love in forgiving one whatever temporal punishment due to the sin or sin that had been committed Seems to me that Luther either did not know or could not understand. And if it is due to lack of real understanding that it is due to his upbringing being punished at every turn it appears for every infraction and minor things he did, which in the end seems to have influenced his thinking as an adult. Luther’s belief in perfect contrition removing all punishment also shows that for Luther having always it seems to be punished as a child that he needed to find some release from feeling that no matter what he did to atone, nothing worked, so that faith by faith alone was the only answer for him.

Luther had a very strong ego and it seems a very bad temper with those who disagreed with him. What is so sad is that while Luther could do so many good things, yet, when it came to anyone questioning his theology Luther turned violently towards them, its like he was two different persons.

 

[Annie39]

Thank you. Being neck-deep in the Tiber myself, should I ever begin to swim it will be in spite of the Luther-bashing and uncharitable remarks, not because of them.

This may sound like an insincere question but it is not. I’m genuinely interested in why you write “should I ever begin to swim it will be in spite of the Luther-bashing and uncharitable remarks”

I would think that reading what he had to say about the Church would give one great pause. Of course if he was misquoted and unfairly treated I personally would defend him. His legacy is that many of those who come after him actually believe that the Pope is the anti-christ. St. Francis De Sales in his book THE CATHOLIC CONTROVERY points out that the reformers did not exhibit any miracles and goes on to explain why. I will put a couple of his quote here and a url where you can read more.

“First, I say then that no one should allege an extraordinary mission unless he prove it by miracles: for, I pray you, where should we be if this pretext of extraordinary mission was to be accepted without proof? Would it not be a cloak for all sorts of reveries? Arius, Marcion, Montanus, Messalius- could they not be received into this dignity of reformers, by swearing the same oath?”

“Never was any one extraordinarily sent unless he brought this letter of credit from the divine Majesty. Moses was sent immediately by God to govern the people of Israel. He wished to know his name who sent him; when he had learnt the admirable name of God, he asked for signs and patents of his commission: God so far found this request good that he gave him the grace of three sorts of prodigies and marvels, which were, so to speak, three attestations in three different languages, of the charge which he gave him, in order that any one who did not understand one might understand another. lf then they allege extraordinary mission, let them show us some extraordinary works, otherwise we are not obliged to believe them. In truth Moses clearly shows the necessity of this proof for him who would speak extraordinarily: for having to beg from God the gift of eloquence, he only asks it after having the power of miracles ; showing that it is more necessary to have authority to speak than to have readiness in speaking.”
The above quotes are from THE CATHOLIC CONTROVERSY by St. Francis De Sales. There is much more on this topic in chapter III here: goodcatholicbooks.org/francis/catholic-controversy/church-mission.html#CHAPTER_III

Annie

 

[Stilldreamn]

This may sound like an insincere question but it is not. I’m genuinely interested in why you write “should I ever begin to swim it will be in spite of the Luther-bashing and uncharitable remarks”

I would think that reading what he had to say about the Church would give one great pause. Of course if he was misquoted and unfairly treated I personally would defend him. His legacy is that many of those who come after him actually believe that the Pope is the anti-christ. St. Francis De Sales in his book THE CATHOLIC CONTROVERY points out that the reformers did not exhibit any miracles and goes on to explain why. I will put a couple of his quote here and a url where you can read more.

“First, I say then that no one should allege an extraordinary mission unless he prove it by miracles: for, I pray you, where should we be if this pretext of extraordinary mission was to be accepted without proof? Would it not be a cloak for all sorts of reveries? Arius, Marcion, Montanus, Messalius- could they not be received into this dignity of reformers, by swearing the same oath?”

“Never was any one extraordinarily sent unless he brought this letter of credit from the divine Majesty. Moses was sent immediately by God to govern the people of Israel. He wished to know his name who sent him; when he had learnt the admirable name of God, he asked for signs and patents of his commission: God so far found this request good that he gave him the grace of three sorts of prodigies and marvels, which were, so to speak, three attestations in three different languages, of the charge which he gave him, in order that any one who did not understand one might understand another. lf then they allege extraordinary mission, let them show us some extraordinary works, otherwise we are not obliged to believe them. In truth Moses clearly shows the necessity of this proof for him who would speak extraordinarily: for having to beg from God the gift of eloquence, he only asks it after having the power of miracles ; showing that it is more necessary to have authority to speak than to have readiness in speaking.”
The above quotes are from THE CATHOLIC CONTROVERSY by St. Francis De Sales. There is much more on this topic in chapter III here: goodcatholicbooks.org/francis/catholic-controversy/church-mission.html#CHAPTER_III

Annie

I come here to CAF because I have questions about Catholicism (and because I feel closer to the folks here than any other Christian forum!). Please consider my thoughts:

If I was interested in buying a Chevrolet, I would not stop by a Toyota dealer and ask their opinion of the Malibu. Conversely, can you imagine buying a Chevrolet from a salesperson that only criticized and talked down the “competition” instead of extolling the virtues of his product and gently overcoming objections? Maybe he needs to look into another line of work.

I am open to being persuaded to convert but clearly that will be the work of the Holy Spirit, perhaps working through the gentle voices here.

Having been a Lutheran for 58 years, I am quite well acquainted with Luther’s faults and acknowledge that yes indeed, he was a sinner. I get that. I follow Christ, on Him my salvation rests; not Luther; not Chemnitz; not even CFW Walther! The doubts that I have are along the lines of, “Is there more?”

So tell me about what I am missing - the beauty and truthfulness of your faith. That’s what I meant.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I come here to CAF because I have questions about Catholicism (and because I feel closer to the folks here than any other Christian forum!). Please consider my thoughts:

If I was interested in buying a Chevrolet, I would not stop by a Toyota dealer and ask their opinion of the Malibu. Conversely, can you imagine buying a Chevrolet from a salesperson that only criticized and talked down the “competition” instead of extolling the virtues of his product and gently overcoming objections? Maybe he needs to look into another line of work.

I am open to being persuaded to convert but clearly that will be the work of the Holy Spirit, perhaps working through the gentle voices here.

Having been a Lutheran for 58 years, I am quite well acquainted with Luther’s faults and acknowledge that yes indeed, he was a sinner. I get that. I follow Christ, on Him my salvation rests; not Luther; not Chemnitz; not even CFW Walther! The doubts that I have are along the lines of, “Is there more?”

So tell me about what I am missing - the beauty and truthfulness of your faith. That’s what I meant.

Well stated.

Any Lutheran somewhat knowledgeable about Martin Luther understands that he was consumed by the doctrine of justification; the very truth that Lutherans and Catholics agree on in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. We come full circle in the 500th anniversary of the Reformation in 2017.

That Luther had strong opinions and was quite vocal in expressing himself is a blessing and a curse. Luther is not a saint though we honor him in the Church calendar. Martin Luther was a reformer of the Church but he also had a dark side. Subsequent action Lutherans took with Anabaptist, Moravian and Jews is deplorable and has been officially condemned in a Lutheran appeal for forgiveness by the Church and world.

I wonder how some posters would respond to threads singling out some less than spectacular popes who, in fact, wrote and uttered senseless violence and anger. I think it was obvious to Martin Luther and many cardinals that Pope Leo X was a bad egg which Leo later proved to be in the poisoning of fellow Catholics.

If one wants sensationalism and is willing to twist the facts a little perhaps we could indulge in yellow journalism about other Popes or church leaders across the span of the Church. But count me out.

I am a Lutheran who greatly admires the Catholic Church especially since Vatican II. I see little value in undermining the great work of John 23 and subsequent popes and am confused when Catholics do this.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Peter,

Thanks for your response.

Not being a moderator, it might be best for you to use the “report to moderator” button.

I think you have a point and I will take your recommendation under advisement. After all, repeatedly making false un-provable accusations and slandering another poster FALSELY, is a very serious matter. This kind of behavior must have consequences for the offender. Certainly it is against CA Forum rules. And then they complain about ‘character assignation’? In the past about the ONLY consequence I have seen when these false accusations are made is that the thread is closed which is exactly what they wanted in the first place.

At any rate, thanks for the recommendation.

God Bless You Peter, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your response.

Actually I think you said all his "changes’ did not address or effect indulgences. I said I don’t know all his "changes’ ‘or “beefs” but for a few which seem to address indulgences at the very heart. But thank you for posting his "changes’’. Not sure what Luther taught as opposed to what he said (big difference,even in Luther’s time). Many popes have said, even written many things but did not necessarily make it into dogma…But interesting question. I am not sure who would say CC was unjustified in the excommunication,.at least from CC point of view, and after all is said an done.

I would agree that there is a big difference between simply believing something and actually teaching it, meaning that you are planning on others accepting your beliefs as their own. As you mentioned, the popes’ teachings are not always intended to be binding upon the faithful. In fact, there have been only three occasions in the last 150 years when a Pope had made and ex cathedra statement.

There were occasions where Luther left the judgment up to the individual. The thing that comes to mind was his ‘opinion’ about the book of Revelations, which he mistakenly claimed was not written by an Apostle. However, within only a few years, Luther was much more inclined to demand that people see things his way. In fact, by 1530, he was recommending the execution of Anabaptists. This began in 1528 when he recommended that seditious Anabaptists be executed, but by 1530, execution was the ‘solution’ for even those whose only ‘crime’ was a belief that did not suit Luther. In fact, there actually were executions in Wittenberg in the 1530’s during Luther’s reign there.

I appreciate that you have apparently said that, from the perspective of the Church, that the Church was justified in excommunicating Luther. I think that is pretty obvious. But what about from the Lutheran perspective? Let’s say that a Pastor, Theologian, and Lutheran University Professor rebelled against Lutheran teaching in the same way that Luther rebelled against the Catholic Church. **What would the Lutheran church do? Do you think it would take 3+ years for them to formally declare that Pastor to be officially no longer authorized to teach or administer the sacraments? **

Please understand that there was fault on both sides as the Catholic Church has repeatedly admitted. But it is my position that no matter whatever abuses the Church might have been guilty of, those abuses did not justify Luther’s use of Private Interpretation to challenge doctrines which had no direct connection to the abuses. If you disagree, please describe how.

God Bless You Ben, I look forward to your answer to the questions in bold, Topper

 

[Annie39]

I come here to CAF because I have questions about Catholicism (and because I feel closer to the folks here than any other Christian forum!). Please consider my thoughts:

If I was interested in buying a Chevrolet, I would not stop by a Toyota dealer and ask their opinion of the Malibu. Conversely, can you imagine buying a Chevrolet from a salesperson that only criticized and talked down the “competition” instead of extolling the virtues of his product and gently overcoming objections? Maybe he needs to look into another line of work.

I am open to being persuaded to convert but clearly that will be the work of the Holy Spirit, perhaps working through the gentle voices here.

Having been a Lutheran for 58 years, I am quite well acquainted with Luther’s faults and acknowledge that yes indeed, he was a sinner. I get that. I follow Christ, on Him my salvation rests; not Luther; not Chemnitz; not even CFW Walther! The doubts that I have are along the lines of, “Is there more?”

So tell me about what I am missing - the beauty and truthfulness of your faith. That’s what I meant.

Thank you for your honest and heartfelt reply. If this thread was representative of the entire CAF I would very much agree with you. If I were seeking to learn about the beauty of The Catholic Church I’m pretty sure that I would avoid a thread called “Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?”. . I have been involved in Catholic Apologetics both on and off of the internet for many years. I have come to the conclusion that although apologetics can help in the process of conversion in answering questions that a prospective convert has, this is only a small part of how the Holy Spirit leads one home and hopefully you will find your way.

Catholics have been demonized by Protestants for centuries. Luther has left the church which bears his name the legacy of believing that the Pope is the anti-christ so I don’t think that it is out of line to tell people just what sort of person came to this conclusion.

I was on the phone with a Seventh Day Adventist pastor a few hours ago. We were on the same page in this conversation because he was looking for information that I had about a pedophile (an Adventist). He sounds like a very sensitive and caring individual but his church teaches that the Pope is the anti-christ and the Church is the Whore of Babylon. He didn’t know that I am Catholic but I’ll bet he does now because I signed an email to him Pax et bonum and my name. If he looks that up on the net he’ll probably encounter a reference to St. Francis of Assisi. Two hours ago I was on the phone with a Chaldean Priest. He is from Iraq and some of his family is caught up in the persecution there. If you learn that those who are being persecuted are Christians you may not know they are Chaldean Catholics who still speak the same language that Jesus Christ spoke. They have been speaking and their Divine Liturgy has been in the language of Jesus for 2000 years and we are losing it. Perhaps all of this doesn’t seem to have anything to do with one another but to me they are interrelated. It seems that in order for people to “found” a religion no matter where they must demonize the Catholic Church. You say that you would be less likely to swim the Tiber reading all of the negativity about Luther. Can you not see that Luther did a pretty good job making converts teaching that the Pope is the anti-christ?

I can tell you that I am thrilled to be back home in the Catholic Church where I can receive absolution for my sins and the true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. You could ask me any question that you would like about the Church and I would answer you and have become a pretty good apologist. But there are threads in the apologetics forum where there are people ready willing and most probably much more able than me to answer those questions.

I’m writing this on the fly so forgive me if it seems disjointed; I have had quite a day.

Pax et bonum
Annie (Catholic revert ex-Lutheran LCMS)

 

[benhur]

Here we see Luther’s ‘uncertainty’ with regards to indulgences, and how the fact of his craving for the certainty of his salvation impacted his ‘problem’ with indulgences.

I see a lot of quotes and history . Am wondering what part of his life are we talking about when we quote anything. For sure at one point he did not trust not only indulgences, he did not trust many Catholic things that apparently did not give him peace about his salvation, even as a monk. A bit like Paul who counted all his Jewish righteousness as dung when it came to his salvation, or not making him “born again”… Everyone should crave for salvation peace and assurance. One must understand if one is not born again what good is all your church and religious experiences ? And if you are not born again you should not have peace, nor rest and for some health, even mental, if it keeps you from seeking. For what profit is it to be happy, healthy, etc. if you have lost your soul ? All too many men have had to be totally broken before they are used of God- broken. Now if faith, as a free gift from God sets you free, gives you birth and peace, where nothing else did, wouldn’t you ascribe salvation by that faith alone?

to stand Christianity on its ear

Well Jesus did this to Judaism even while fulfilling its mission. So much so Paul called his Judaism "dung’ in the context of the basic principle of faith pleasing God bringing new life. Reformers, some, had similar experiences and conclusions.

 

[guanophore]

It seems that there is a great deal at stake in Luther’s rejection of Indulgences and also in his criticism of Tetzel. In the same manner, whether Tetzel was correctly preaching Indulgences is also important. After all, if Tetzel was right and Luther was wrong, then it would appear that the Reformation was begun over a misunderstanding by Martin Luther.

I think there were a lot of misunderstanding on both sides, just as there were in the East West Schism. It does not sound like Luther saw whatever Tetzel was giving out, and only had hearsay of his parishioners about the conditions involved. I also think he may have been provoked that his parishioners were flocking out of his pews to like up in front of Tetzel.

It also seems clear that Luther never did understand about grace until many years after his formative period. His confessor was unable to explain salvation by grace, through faith in a way that made sense ot Luther, so he was constantly oppressed with feeling unforgiven.

But whatever the misunderstandings, I don’t think that Luther can be solely credited with “starting the Reformation”. It had several starts previously with theologies and ideals that popped up in various places such as Savonarola, Wycliffe, Hus,and the Albigensians,

There is a pattern emerging of objection to the absolute economic and political power of the Roman Curia, corruption in the clerics, and the need for the faithful to have the Scriptures. By the time Luther decided to post his objections to indulgences (and other things) the political, economic, and social conditions had reached a point where defiance of the Holy See could no longer be easily crushed by silencing the dissenting voice.

 

[guanophore]

What baffles me is how people can possibly think that Luther deserved anything but excommunication

Not everyone is as prejudiced as you are against the man, or blame him for all that you do. You speak of excommunication as a punishment that one “deserves” for their bad behavior, but this is not the purpose of excommunication at all. It is a last ditch effort of the Church to convince an individual of the gravity of their choices, so that they can return to the fold.

Do you ever pray for Luther, and those who think and act as he did? This is a loving act.

, As such, when Brecht makes comments that show Luther in a negative light, they must be viewed as being credible.

I agree, however, I note that you and Spina don’t seem to give any credence to statements made about Luther in a positive light.

Black and white/all or nothing thinking is a hallmark of prejudice and bigotry. Being able to recognize the good in such a person as Luther will prevent some myopia.

 The generally accepted story about the Indulgence and Tetzel’s administration of them was that they were solely for the purpose of profit by the Church.  Not so.  While many people paid on the basis of their status: “**The indigent were to fast and pray.” **(Vol. I, pg. 182)  This means that the Church granted the indulgence to the poor even if they could not pay to help build St. Peter’s.  Clearly, the Church wanted to have everyone receive the Indulgence regardless of the ability to pay.

Yes, but the manner in which the activity was conducted did give the appearance that it was a “sale”, which is why this practice was corrected by the Church.

There was also insufficient education for the populace on what Reformers called “the gospel” of salvation by grace, through faith. Even today, Catholics uniniformed about their faith will express it as a primarily works based salvation. I have met them here on CAF, and I have met them in the parish. My own catechesis as a cradle Catholic left me thinking that way by the time I was an adolescent.

“Probably unjustly, he (Tetzel) was usually caricatured as a crude, ignorant, and morally disreputable indulgence preacher. The charges of an immoral life-style, which Luther later repeated about him, appear to have rested on unsubstantiated rumors.

It is very possible that Tetzel was the undeserving target of valid charges made against corrupt clerics all over Europe for centuries. Luther was echoing much of Savonarola’s outrage over the same problems.

Tetzel was not uneducated. He had studied theology and was for a time not only a preacher in Leipzig, but also the second theological teacher of the order’s school there. In 1518, probably through his superiors in the order, he was granted the doctor of theology degree.” Ibid, pg. 182

As had been Luther, who is also portrayed as boorish and ignorant. Sometimes I think his temper did overshadow his good sense, but he was intellegent and had as good an education as Tetzel, and was an avid student who spent hours daily reading and translating scriptures, reading commentaries, and working on his homilies. This is more than can be said about the majority of parish priests in his day, some of whom never even got formal education.

Much has been made here of Luther’s understanding of indulgences.  Again, if Luther had a poor understanding of the issue, then it would appear that he should not have presumed to have the background necessary to challenge the teachings of the Church in their regard.

I think it would be mroe accurate to say that much has been made here of Luther’s misunderstanding of indulgences. His statement that he did not know what an indulgence was is taken ouf of the context of not knowing what indulgence Tetzel had, and applied generally to Luther, who had been steeped in indulgences his entire life, and joined an order that had been given specific indulgences by the Pope. The idea that he was unaware of those special gifts to the Augustinians, being such a voracious student as he was, seems very unlikely.

 **He himself was not completely clear about indulgences, but he was convinced that he could do better, that there was something more certain than obtaining indulgence letters.”  **Ibid, pg. 184

One think is perfectly clear, that Luther knew an indulgence without contrition/confession and a firm purpose of amendment was of no value. This is also something that was affirmed at the counter-reformation, and continues to be preached stridently today. All modern indulgences specifically clarify the need to be in a state of grace to benefit from them.

Perhaps Luther did not phrase his complaint well in that regard (I confess I have a lot of trouble understanding Exsurge Domine) but it was definitely heard and corrected in time.

 

[guanophore]

 Here we should remember that with Luther, the key issue was the ‘certainty’ of his Salvation.  So, whereas indulgences were not ‘certain’ according to Luther, the doctrine that he ‘found’ in Scripture, Salvation by Faith Alone, provided that certainty.  This doctrine had never before been ‘discovered’ in Scripture was really the result of his extreme form of scrupulosity.

I do agree that Luther seemed to suffer from OCD/Scrupulosity, but Luther was not one who ever adopted the certainty of salvation heresy that was later promoted by Calvin. Luther understood that his salvation lay in the hands of God, and never professed the once saved always saved idea that came afterwards.

It is true that he did “discover” through scripture the importance of salvation by grace, through faith (alone), and that this did help with his scrupulosity. However, the other mental and emotional issues that he had from childhood were not assuaged by it, as we can see in his later writings, where he was so provoked by those who disagreed with him, ,and some of the polemics he wrote against Jews and peasants. He was clearly a troubled man in other areas as well.

**“Around 1514……Luther was already complaining that people were trying to make the way to heaven easy with indulgences, and with minimal demands – a sigh was sufficient – they were making grace cheap.” **Ibid, pg. 185

He had the same problem with Calvanism later. Despite the difficulties he had with living the penitential life, he recognized that the way to heaven was steep and narrow, not wide and easy. He insisted that one must live a life worthy of the calling, ,and be transformed (sanctified) by that same grace that saved them through faith alone

This is a concept (rejection of cheap grace) that was fortunately retained by the Lutheran communion afterwards. It is one part of Sacred Tradition that Lutherans retain, along with Anglicans. One must bear the fruits that befit repentance, not just give money, collect a paper from a preacher, and go back to the same debauchery.

How ironic is it that Luther complained that indulgences made grace cheap and then went on to invent Salvation by Faith Alone.

I think you only say this because you reject your own Church’s position (in the JDDJ). Luther’s concept of salvation by faith is not different than the Catholic concept. Saving faith is faith that works (produces good fruit), it is faith that transforms (sanctifies). Catholics would say that faith is never “alone” in that it is always accompanied by hope and charity, but the end result is the same.

Here we see Luther’s ‘uncertainty’ with regards to indulgences, and how the fact of his craving for the certainty of his salvation impacted his ‘problem’ with indulgences.

I think that Luther had errors in his conception of indulgences, but it is not related to his craving for “certainty” about salvation. He had certainty about grace, it came to him late, but he did grasp it. He had an insufficient understanding of how impossible it is to have a perfect contrition because he did not understand the unconscious. I also think that he was possessed of a considerable degree of hubris that led him to think that he was able to have perfect contrition.

 I would suggest that maybe Luther shouldn’t have taken it upon himself to stand Christianity on its ear over a matter on which he lacked understanding.

Perhaps not, but Christianity was already stood on it’s ear by Catholics, who did not practice or preach the faith. If the laypeople were well formed in their faith, then the Reformation would not have occurred (this is why there never was such a thing in the East). The conditions that existed at the time the enabled Luther to start the avalanche were all brought about by Catholics - centuries of the abuse of power, privilege, greed etc.

It is also interesting to note that Luther believed that perfect contrition removes all punishment. We know that Luther was terrified by the idea of God’s punishment and here we see how much it drove his probably unconscious agenda to refute indulgences. In seems we need to spend more time studying Luther’s mental health issues.

This is a topic that particularly fascinates me, but difficult, as with any historical figure. We can really only speculate in the end, since we can only go on the remaining historical evidence.

What was it that was so unique about him that he was able to 'find' things in Scripture (like SBFA) that nobody else had noticed prior.

More from Brecht to follow

Oh plenty of people noticed things. What was different at that time were the conditions around Luther. The German princes were just looking for an opportunity to wrestle property and income back from Rome. Luther provided that leverage. Once secular rulers got involved, it was no longer just a theological debate.

 

[spina1953]

I think there were a lot of misunderstanding on both sides, just as there were in the East West Schism. It does not sound like Luther saw whatever Tetzel was giving out, and only had hearsay of his parishioners about the conditions involved. I also think he may have been provoked that his parishioners were flocking out of his pews to like up in front of Tetzel.

It also seems clear that Luther never did understand about grace until many years after his formative period. His confessor was unable to explain salvation by grace, through faith in a way that made sense ot Luther, so he was constantly oppressed with feeling unforgiven.

But whatever the misunderstandings, I don’t think that Luther can be solely credited with “starting the Reformation”. It had several starts previously with theologies and ideals that popped up in various places such as Savonarola, Wycliffe, Hus,and the Albigensians,

There is a pattern emerging of objection to the absolute economic and political power of the Roman Curia, corruption in the clerics, and the need for the faithful to have the Scriptures. By the time Luther decided to post his objections to indulgences (and other things) the political, economic, and social conditions had reached a point where defiance of the Holy See could no longer be easily crushed by silencing the dissenting voice.

Hi guanophore: This I can agree with totally.

 

[JonNC]

=guanophore;12258459]

This is a concept (rejection of cheap grace) that was fortunately retained by the Lutheran communion afterwards. It is one part of Sacred Tradition that Lutherans retain, along with Anglicans. One must bear the fruits that befit repentance, not just give money, collect a paper from a preacher, and go back to the same debauchery.

I think you only say this because you reject your own Church’s position (in the JDDJ). Luther’s concept of salvation by faith is not different than the Catholic concept. Saving faith is faith that works (produces good fruit), it is faith that transforms (sanctifies). Catholics would say that faith is never “alone” in that it is always accompanied by hope and charity, but the end result is the same.

Sometimes my fear is my communion (myself, chiefly) forgets this important fact, the fact St. Paul reminds us of in Galatians 5:6, and Luther reflects upon:

For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love.

Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.

Jon