Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

[Annie39]

Which sentence Annie are your referring to… you were taught OSAS?

Yes except for apostasy

 

[Per_Crucem]

Yes except for apostasy

Then you weren’t taught OSAS. OSAS teaches that once you’re saved you will never commit apostasy.

 

[Annie39]

Then you weren’t taught OSAS. OSAS teaches that once you’re saved you will never commit apostasy.

Technically you are correct.

 

[JonNC]

That is exactly what I was taught when I was in the LCMS and what the famous in Lutheran apologetics John Warwick Montgomery taught as well. I heard him with my own ears.

Annie

Annie,
You told me another thread that your LCMS parish never used the confessions, that you relied on only the Bible. So we’ve already confirmed that if you parish indeed did not use the confessions, they weren’t teaching Lutheranism anyway.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=steido01;12295544]I don’t understand why you’ve decided that I’m your nemesis.

Well, you and TertiumQuid.

Jon

 

[Annie39]

Annie,
You told me another thread that your LCMS parish never used the confessions, that you relied on only the Bible. So we’ve already confirmed that if you parish indeed did not use the confessions, they weren’t teaching Lutheranism anyway.

Jon

The people at Concordia certainly thought they were Lutheran. Montgomery was a very important part of the LCMS. I think he passed away if memory serves…

 

[GKC]

The people at Concordia certainly thought they were Lutheran. Montgomery was a very important part of the LCMS. I think he passed away if memory serves…

No, I think he’s still around.

GKC

 

[Annie39]

No, I think he’s still around.

GKC

Thanks. Do you know if he is actively debating?

Annie

 

[JonNC]

The people at Concordia certainly thought they were Lutheran. Montgomery was a very important part of the LCMS. I think he passed away if memory serves…

Here’s the issue, Annie. The confessions determine the teaching, and the Augsburg Confession is clear on the issue of perseverance of saints:

Article XII: Of Repentance.

1] Of Repentance they teach that for those who have fallen after Baptism there is remission of sins whenever they are converted 2] and that the Church ought to impart absolution to those thus returning to repentance. Now, repentance consists properly of these 3] two parts: One is contrition, that is, 4] terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin; the other is faith, which is born of 5] the Gospel, or of absolution, and believes that for Christ’s sake, sins are forgiven, comforts 6] the conscience, and delivers it from terrors. Then good works are bound to follow, which are the fruits of repentance.

7] **They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost. **Also those who contend that some may attain to such 8] perfection in this life that they cannot sin.

9] The Novatians also are condemned, who would not absolve such as had fallen after Baptism, though they returned to repentance.

10] They also are rejected who do not teach that remission of sins comes through faith but command us to merit grace through satisfactions of our own

Jon

 

[GKC]

Thanks. Do you know if he is actively debating?

Annie

I do not. He always impressed me, though I knew little, as to his particular theological bent.

GKC

 

[Topper17]

Hi guano,

It appears that you missed my response to Tomy,

Cochaleus (sp?) has been challenged as an authority, but Topper continues to quote him, and those who may have used him as a source, authoritatively, which makes no sense until he is established as a credible witness. Thus, there is no credibility to Topper’s position until this is settled. At the moment Cochaleus is not an admissible witness, and there is the further barrier of proving that anything disparaging that is said about Luther did not come from a Catholic polemicist.

Of course since Tomy was SO wrong on the facts, I had to spend a few minutes pointing out the truth. I do NOT ‘continue to quote’ Cochlaeus. I have NOT quoted him here, not even once. I wonder though sometimes - DOES THE TRUTH MATTER?

Tomy,

It appears that you are not aware of the facts of the matter here. As everyone knows, the vast majority of the Scholars I quote are Protestants, and among them, Lutherans are very much statistically overrepresented. Maybe 10-15% of the people I quote are Catholics. That being said, your blanket statement that the sources that I use are ‘simply not creditable’, is rather humorous.

Furthermore, I happen to agree with Dave Armstrong. I don’t consider Cochlaeus to be a credible source of information on Luther because he is simply too hateful towards him. I happen to have the book that contains the whole of Cochlaeus’s book against Luther and I have read a lot of it. However, you will never see me quote from it and you never have. That does not mean that I will not use quotes which contain an indirect citation from Cochlaeus, as I have done here on Catholic Answers ONCE.

Furthermore, I would never rely on ONLY Cochlaeus as a single source on an incident. In fact, Cochlaeus should only be used to confirm something that has been reported by other sources. That one reference to Cochlaeus in that ONE post had to do with the ‘fit in the choir’, which you might not be aware of. In fact, that incident is one of the most dramatic evidences as to why Luther’s fellow monks wondered whether he might be either possessed by the devil or “unbalanced in mind”.

“His state of mind gave his superiors much concern. Few were able to understand him. **Some thought him unbalanced in mind; others suspected he was under the control of evil spirits. In later days his enemies pointed to his unhappy experiences in the convent as proof of demoniacal possession, **and he himself interpreted them as assaults of his lifelong antagonist, the devil.” Protestant Theologian Arthur Cushman McGiffert, pg. 29-30.

Anyway Tomy, other than your strange overreaction, I want to thank you for reminding me of the fit in the choir. Lutheran Apologists are generally insistent that it never happened, because it would not look good for it to be known that Luther was that psychologically unstable. In fact, the fit in the choir does not at all depend on the account of Cochlaeus and the story itself reveals MUCH more about the nature of the man than Lutherans want revealed.

So, again, thanks for the reminder. I’m sure people will find the actual evidence to be extremely interesting, and very revealing as to who Luther really was.

By the way, if Cochleaus is too hateful to take seriously, then where does that leave Luther? As bad as Cochlaeus was towards Luther, Luther was far worse towards many. I have asked if anyone would like to nominate anybody as being the most hateful and violent Theologian in Christian history, and nobody has even bothered to put forth a contender.

Just one other tip for you. As I am know you would agree, one has to make sure that the sources that they are using are credible. People normally learn this the hard way after they get shot down using a particular source a few times.

BTW, I doubt if the Lutherans here are all that happy about you directing people to Dave Armstrong’s site. After all, he has done a tremendous amount of research on Luther, with probably a couple of hundred articles on the subject, and I would bet that all of them contain historical facts that a lot of people here would prefer to see left unrevealed.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you obviously didn’t see the above when you said the following.

All that Topper has done is discredit herself, and her own scholarship. It is regrettable, but there it is. It is not possible to extract bias from people. They have to let go of it themselves. And as long as quoting a non-credible source helps Topper to meet personal needs, I fear it will continue.

Actually I won’t use quotes from O’Hare either.

By the way, I find it telling that you would refer to me as ‘her’ when you know for a fact that I am not a female. What’s up with that**? **

 

[guanophore]

If I understand guanophore the below definition of a Catholic ‘Declaration’ is correct,

That means the Joint [meaning Lutherans and Catholics together] Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification falls into one of possibly 3 categories:

1] “Simple statement of the law . . . according to existing Church law”. Is “Catholic law” the same as Catholic teaching?

2] “Authoritative declaration that requires no more promulgation”. Definition of the word ‘promulgate’ according to the Webster Dictionary

Again, I ask is “law” the same as teaching? If not, how does Catholic law differ from Catholic teaching? “Officially and publicly” is another definition of 'promulgate". Does that mean “official” Catholic law?

3] “Extensive declaration . . . requires additional promulgation”. My understanding of this definition is the JDDJ could even mean Declarations that all Catholics are to understand and accept; how am I wrong here?

And then the Declaration, Dignitatis Humanae, is used as an example of a declaration. If a Pope or Council make declarations to Catholics, how is that different from teaching?

It does not fall into any of these categories. It is not a papal or a conciliar declaration, and it is not a law. It is the product of a “committee” that is working toward unity.

 

[Per_Crucem]

It does not fall into any of these categories. It is not a papal or a conciliar declaration, and it is not a law. It is the product of a “committee” that is working toward unity.

Committee’s are always great for unity

 

[guanophore]

Hi guano,

It appears that you missed my response to Tomy,

Yes, sorry it is one of my worst faults, not reading enough before posting .

By the way, I find it telling that you would refer to me as ‘her’ when you know for a fact that I am not a female.

How on earth would I know that?

What’s up with that?

Got thrown off with the emotional complexes I guess.

 

[thestudentAD]

Overall, I think we can agree that: (Please correct me if I’m wrong, I’m just answering this question and why he was excommunicated)

• Martin Luther was a member of an augustinian religious order before the Reformation and his leaving of that order to found the Lutheran church in response to criticism and demands for repentance from Pope Leo X
  -The reason why he formed the Reformation was because (contrary to popular belief that he may have had Ocd and all these legends about him throwing inkblots at the devil)he was against the policies of that time involving indulgences
  In response, he posted a thesis of 95 points and it went downhill from there after he decided to use the argument of sola scriptura and sola fide,
  -The Pope tried to get him to repent by issuing a decree to him for submission to the Church’s authority after he began usurping that authority
  -in response to said decree, Luther burned that decree in a bonfire attended by tens or hundreds of his faithful supporters that cheered, after that he was excommunicated

 

[Annie39]

Overall, I think we can agree that: (Please correct me if I’m wrong, I’m just answering this question and why he was excommunicated)

• Martin Luther was a member of an augustinian religious order before the Reformation and his leaving of that order to found the Lutheran church in response to criticism and demands for repentance from Pope Leo X
  -The reason why he formed the Reformation was because (contrary to popular belief that he may have had Ocd and all these legends about him throwing inkblots at the devil)he was against the policies of that time involving indulgences
  In response, he posted a thesis of 95 points and it went downhill from there after he decided to use the argument of sola scriptura and sola fide,
  -The Pope tried to get him to repent by issuing a decree to him for submission to the Church’s authority after he began usurping that authority
  -in response to said decree, Luther burned that decree in a bonfire attended by tens or hundreds of his faithful supporters that cheered, after that he was excommunicated

Very succinct. Where we’re you when I needed you if college?

Annie

 

[EvangelCatholic]

It does not fall into any of these categories. It is not a papal or a conciliar declaration, and it is not a law. It is the product of a “committee” that is working toward unity.

Can you provide citations that the JDDJ is different than other declarations?

 

[guanophore]

Can you provide citations that the JDDJ is different than other declarations?

It states itself:

It reference other documents./ work being done on healing the wounds to unity.

.Special attention should be drawn to the following reports: “The Gospel and the Church” (1972)[4] and “Church and Justification” (1994)[5] by the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Joint Commission, “Justification by Faith” (1983)[6] of the Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue in the USA and “The Condemnations of the Reformation Era - Do They Still Divide?” (1986)[7] by the Ecumenical Working Group of Protestant and Catholic theologians in Germany.

A pontifical council is appointed by the Pope to complete certain work (essentially a high level committee). But a working group of Protestant and Catholic theologians engaging in dialogue and documents to support unity does not have teaching authority in the Church.

.Some of these dialogue reports have been officially received by the churches. An important example of such reception is the binding response of the United Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Germany to the “Condemnations” study, made in 1994 at the highest possible level of ecclesiastical recognition together with the other churches of the Evangelical Church in Germany.[8]

This is saying that the “binding” was done by the Evangelical Church in Germany (not Catholics). For Catholics, the JDDC just clarifies what we have always believed about Justification (though it was not as clear in Germany at the time of the Reformation) so it does not represent any change on the Catholic side. The ELC of Germany decided to withdraw the condemnations of the Pope and the CC regarding this critical point of theological agreement.

4.In their discussion of the doctrine of justification, all the dialogue reports as well as the responses show a high degree of agreement in their approaches and conclusions. The time has therefore come to take stock and to summarize the results of the dialogues on justification so that our churches may be informed about the overall results of this dialogue with the necessary accuracy and brevity, and thereby be enabled to make binding decisions.

The discussion /dialogue is being summarized in the JDDC so that binding decisions can be made. In itself, it is not part of any official promulgation or papal declaration.

All that being said, I think it is very important for Catholics to know about this work and support what our leaders are doing to heal the wounds of unity. I did not know about the JDDC until I came here to CAF, and I am sure that the average Catholic in the pew has never heard of it.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

It states itself:

It reference other documents./ work being done on healing the wounds to unity.

.Special attention should be drawn to the following reports: “The Gospel and the Church” (1972)[4] and “Church and Justification” (1994)[5] by the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Joint Commission, “Justification by Faith” (1983)[6] of the Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue in the USA and “The Condemnations of the Reformation Era - Do They Still Divide?” (1986)[7] by the Ecumenical Working Group of Protestant and Catholic theologians in Germany.

A pontifical council is appointed by the Pope to complete certain work (essentially a high level committee). But a working group of Protestant and Catholic theologians engaging in dialogue and documents to support unity does not have teaching authority in the Church.

.Some of these dialogue reports have been officially received by the churches. An important example of such reception is the binding response of the United Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Germany to the “Condemnations” study, made in 1994 at the highest possible level of ecclesiastical recognition together with the other churches of the Evangelical Church in Germany.[8]

This is saying that the “binding” was done by the Evangelical Church in Germany (not Catholics). For Catholics, the JDDC just clarifies what we have always believed about Justification (though it was not as clear in Germany at the time of the Reformation) so it does not represent any change on the Catholic side. The ELC of Germany decided to withdraw the condemnations of the Pope and the CC regarding this critical point of theological agreement.

4.In their discussion of the doctrine of justification, all the dialogue reports as well as the responses show a high degree of agreement in their approaches and conclusions. The time has therefore come to take stock and to summarize the results of the dialogues on justification so that our churches may be informed about the overall results of this dialogue with the necessary accuracy and brevity, and thereby be enabled to make binding decisions.

The discussion /dialogue is being summarized in the JDDC so that binding decisions can be made. In itself, it is not part of any official promulgation or papal declaration.

All that being said, I think it is very important for Catholics to know about this work and support what our leaders are doing to heal the wounds of unity. I did not know about the JDDC until I came here to CAF, and I am sure that the average Catholic in the pew has never heard of it.

Thanks for the response; it tells me you are actually reading the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification; something very few CAF posters seem to do. You cite various sections to explain how this declaration was formulated but, again, do not provide documentation on the status of a Catholic “declaration”. Where is there evidence that this particular declaration [JDDJ] is different from other papal/ pontifical council declarations?

 

[Picky_Picky]

Thanks for the response; it tells me you are actually reading the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification; something very few CAF posters seem to do. You cite various sections to explain how this declaration was formulated but, again, do not provide documentation on the status of a Catholic “declaration”. Where is there evidence that this particular declaration [JDDJ] is different from other papal/ pontifical council declarations?

Bit of a glaring clue in the last quoted passage. It’s not binding.