P
PJM
Guest
I just saw this question on a different string and thought it might make for an interestering discussion.
Your thought please
Your thought please
Pride. He never started out intending to leave the Church, but he got angry and arrogant, and his pride led him out. At the end of his life, he was horrified at what Protestantism had become.I just saw this question on a different string and thought it might make for an interestering discussion.
Your thought please
The abuses in the Church were not the real cause but only the occasion of the Reformation. They found their culmination in the shameful deal in indulgences between the Hohenzollern Prince Albert of Brandenburg, the Archbishop of Magdeburg and Mainz and the Papal Curia.[5] The preaching of the special indulgence for the building of St. Peter’s was allowed by the Archbishop of Magdeburg and Mainz in his dioceses only on condition that the net profit was to be halved between himself and the fund for St. Peter’s. The Archbishop made an arrangement with the great German banking family, the Fuggers, whereby they collected the money. He thus repaid them the sums advanced to him to cover his fees to the Curia for his appointment to the See of Mainz and for the privilege of retaining the Sees of Halberstadt and Magdeburg contrary to Canon Law. Undoubtedly such abuses aroused Luther to the point of coming forward publicly. They explain too why it was that the theses he nailed to the door of the Castle Church at Wittenburg, “De Virtute Indulgentiarum” (concerning the power of indulgences), unleashed such tremendous forces in the German people. Most important of all, they made it possible for Luther to put the Church in the wrong and to justify his own doctrine as the one gospel of salvation before the mass of the people and before his own conscience. Indeed, the longer the strife continued, the more violent became the clash of spirits, the more passionately Luther’s hatred of the Pope’s Church flamed up; and as he grew older, the confusion in his eyes between the abuses in the Church and the essence of the Church increased, his belief in himself and his mission deepened, and he developed an ever more convinced and more triumphant assurance that he was being summoned by God to overthrow Antichrist in the shape of the Pope.
Thus the abuses within the medieval Church certainly unleashed Luther upon the path of revolution, and justified him in the eyes of the masses and in his own judgment. But they were not the actual ground, the decisive reason for Luther’s falling away from the doctrine of the Church. He himself, even, later emphasized that one should not condemn a man’s teaching “merely because of his sinful life”. “That is not the Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit condemns false doctrine and is patient with the weak in faith, as is taught in Romans xiv.
15, and everywhere in Paul. I would have little against the Papists if they taught true doctrine. Their evil life would do no great harm.” (Lortz, vol. i, p. 390.)
It was not ecclesiastical abuses that made him the opponent of the Catholic Church, but the conviction that she was teaching falsely. And this conviction dates from long before the fatal
17th October, 1517. He had interiorly abandoned the teaching of the Church long before he outwardly raised the standard of revolt. Certainly, as early as 1512, without as yet knowing or wishing it, he had grown away from the Church’s belief (Lortz, vol. i, p. 191).
Good idea.I just saw this question on a different string and thought it might make for an interestering discussion.
Your thought please
You can probably google for them. Sorry I’m not of much help, but CAF is more fun that google.Are there any writings from Luther that state how upset he was with what protestantism had become?
Meh…I don’t blame you.You can probably google for them. Sorry I’m not of much help, but CAF is more fun that google.![]()
=Swiss Guy;8081639]Good idea.
From a (slightly) Lutheran perspective, which is really more unbiased than you’d think.
At first it was from all the abuses he saw with the selling of indulgences. Then, he came up with sola fide/theology of the cross, and taught that. When he put up the 95 theses, the things that stand out that are most notable are his complete rejection of selling indulgences, and his questioning of the existence of purgatory. Nothing to do with sola fide.
Once he posted his theses then he came out expressing his theology of the cross, which basically is that no man can come to God unless God reveals himself to man by giving him faith, and then his sins are covered.
What may surprise most Catholics is that he was actually very faithful to the pope when he was Catholic, and even a little when he wasn’t. he defended both the pope and the bishops in his theses, but attacked the priests. But once excommunicated showed little respect for the bishops, but moderate respect for the pope until his latter years. Later, his theology became more and more unCatholic, and he became more hostile to the Church and others in general.
But, some interesting facts are: he said he would never have left the Church if he had known what he started (Protestantism and Calvin’s doctrine of double predestination), he would kiss the pope’s feet if he accepted his view of justification, and that he was ok with transubstantiation, although he didn’t believe in it, as long as the real presence of Christ was there.
But, in the end, he should never have left the church. The indulgences just gave him an excuse to leave the church since he had faith alone glued in his mind. But I’m sick and tired of all of the false and biased information about Martin Luther on these forums (just in general). I know he was a heretic, but he was much better than Calvin and all other reformers.
I knew about the indulgences BUT NOT about Sola Fedi.And a final quick fact: Luther didn’t throw the Apocrypha out of the Bible. He placed it in a different section, but didn’t throw it out. the Puritans did (I think).
Anytime.I knew about the indulgences BUT NOT about Sola Fedi.
THANKS,
Pat
Like invent sola fide?it was time to take care of housekeeping matters.
Priest and monk.Was he a priest? Or a non-ordained religious?
=Swiss Guy;8081639]Good idea.
From a (slightly) Lutheran perspective, which is really more unbiased than you’d think.
At first it was from all the abuses he saw with the selling of indulgences. Then, he came up with sola fide/theology of the cross, and taught that. When he put up the 95 theses, the things that stand out that are most notable are his complete rejection of selling indulgences, and his questioning of the existence of purgatory. Nothing to do with sola fide.
Once he posted his theses then he came out expressing his theology of the cross, which basically is that no man can come to God unless God reveals himself to man by giving him faith, and then his sins are covered.
What may surprise most Catholics is that he was actually very faithful to the pope when he was Catholic, and even a little when he wasn’t. he defended both the pope and the bishops in his theses, but attacked the priests. But once excommunicated showed little respect for the bishops, but moderate respect for the pope until his latter years. Later, his theology became more and more unCatholic, and he became more hostile to the Church and others in general.
But, some interesting facts are: he said he would never have left the Church if he had known what he started (Protestantism and Calvin’s doctrine of double predestination), he would kiss the pope’s feet if he accepted his view of justification, and that he was ok with transubstantiation, although he didn’t believe in it, as long as the real presence of Christ was there.
But, in the end, he should never have left the church. The indulgences just gave him an excuse to leave the church since he had faith alone glued in his mind. But I’m sick and tired of all of the false and biased information about Martin Luther on these forums (just in general). I know he was a heretic, but he was much better than Calvin and all other reformers.
THANKS:thumbsup:And a final quick fact: Luther didn’t throw the Apocrypha out of the Bible. He placed it in a different section, but didn’t throw it out. the Puritans did (I think).