Why Did Martim Luther leave the Catholic Church

[CatholicZ09]

Luther left because he studied the bible and found out that the doctrines and practices of the RCC are in contrast with scripture.

I always thought that Luther did agree with the Catholic Church; however, he didn’t like what was happening within the Church at the time.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

May the Lord be merciful and restore Christian unity as he intended.

 

[PJM]

=anthony022071;8091806]Luther excommunicated himself from the Church because he lost faith in its divine origin.
Like many people nowadays,he could not be convinced that the Church was founded and sustained and guided by Jesus because of the human corruption that existed within it. Thus,he came to disbelieve in the divine origin,teaching authority and powers of the priesthood. And this led him to disbelieve in certain doctrines: papal infallibility,the doctrine of the Eucharist,confession to a priest,and the necessity of good works for salvation.

That’s very sad

But thanks for the info,

The inability of some to seperate “The Church” FROM the people of the church is reality for many.
Let us pray for them,

God Bless,
Pat

 

[kylemccloughan]

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 disagree.

 

[PJM]

=kylemccloughan;8095274]I disagree.

And why my friend are you disagreeing?

God Bless,
Pat

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by Scoobyshme
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.

And why my friend are you disagreeing?

God Bless,
Pat

Hi Pat,
Not speaking for kyle, but I disagree with Scooby’s remark based on what can be inferred from it,and that it tries to boil down a very complex time in history into a catch-phrase,
though I’m not saying this is what Scooby is implying.

1. It implies that Luther’s actions were simply based on his on thoughts, with no basis in Church history, or what was going on around him. IOW, his actions were simplistic.
2. It implies that his pride and arrogance were causative, instead of merely correlative. Was Luther a prideful man? Yes. Was Luther’s pride and arrogance, and his alone, the cause of the Reformation? No.
3. It implies that pride and arrogance were exclusive to Luther. Nothing could be further from the truth. Pride and arrogance were shared in good portions with men like Tetzel and even Pope Leo X.

Scooby, however is right on a couple of things. He is right that it was not Luther’s initial intent to leave the Church, though some may argue that he had already developed doctrinal beliefs that, in some ways, were at variance to Church teachings. He is right that Luther got angry, evidenced by the burning of the papal bull. I suspect he got angry by the threat to his life. Who wouldn’t?

Jon

 

[PJM]

=JonNC;8096899]Hi Pat,
Not speaking for kyle, but I disagree with Scooby’s remark based on what can be inferred from it,and that it tries to boil down a very complex time in history into a catch-phrase,
though I’m not saying this is what Scooby is implying.

1. It implies that Luther’s actions were simply based on his on thoughts, with no basis in Church history, or what was going on around him. IOW, his actions were simplistic.
2. It implies that his pride and arrogance were causative, instead of merely correlative. Was Luther a prideful man? Yes. Was Luther’s pride and arrogance, and his alone, the cause of the Reformation? No.
3. It implies that pride and arrogance were exclusive to Luther. Nothing could be further from the truth. Pride and arrogance were shared in good portions with men like Tetzel and even Pope Leo X.

Scooby, however is right on a couple of things. He is right that it was not Luther’s initial intent to leave the Church, though some may argue that he had already developed doctrinal beliefs that, in some ways, were at variance to Church teachings. He is right that Luther got angry, evidenced by the burning of the papal bull. I suspect he got angry by the threat to his life. Who wouldn’t?

Jon

Hi Jon

I agree with every word you shared. I was just uncomfortable with one posting a personal opinion without evidence of “Why” or what makes it valid.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[kylemccloughan]

And why my friend are you disagreeing?

God Bless,
Pat

Because it is very clear from history why Martin Luther left. It was doctrinal.

 

[MartinJordan]

It was for the same reason St. Charles Borromeo stayed in the Church.

MJ

 

[guanophore]

It was for the same reason St. Charles Borromeo stayed in the Church.

MJ

I think Luther was unable to distinguish the infallibly and holy bride of Christ from the fallible persons attached to her. His deficient understanding of the nature of the Church still causes fragmentation today.

 

[Kelley_Green]

You’ll finds lots of interesting discussion with a bit’o search function on the matter.

Luther was disgusted with the corruption he saw in the personal lives of leaders in the Church in his day and also struggled in his own personal life with scrupulosity (my opinion based on a modest amount of reading).

The two of those things together were the driving force behind his ‘Sola Fide’ novel idea that is one of the two foundational ideas that separate protestantism from catholicism. The second, ‘Sola Scriptura’, he developed as he ran into opposition to his Sola Fide idea from the hierarchy.

IMO Luther is a tragic hero, not a villain. And aren’t we all…

I could agree with this until you characterized as tragic hero. I think he remains a hero and not tragic at all. The other commentary that follows your post is ironic evidence at this late date in history. The arrogance remains entrenched in Catholicism. The hubris of turning religion into a zero sum game of male supremacy ‘owning God’ is morally repugnant.

Reminds me of a Leonard Cohen lyric–

And what can I tell you my brother, my killer
What can I possibly say?
I guess that I miss you, I guess I forgive you
I’m glad you stood in my way.
~Famous Blue Raincoat

So consider again what the fate of Catholicism & Christianity would be if the abuses of absolute power corrupting absolutely had remained unchallenged. Roman empire was only reinventing themselves with religious marquis and risking the message of Jesus so horribly it might be lost to antiquity or laughed out of all credible consideration. I cannot help but believe these very same merit arguments carried on within the Vatican walls with lethal consequences, and yet, Martin Luther had managed to avert violence altogether. Debate the numbers, any number is still horribly wrong: wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_popes_have_been_assassinated

Martin Luther,
I and every Christian alive owe you a debt of gratitude akin to veterans making supreme sacrifices to do the right thing and hope one day the Vatican will own this with finality.

 

[valentino]

Basically he was given a choice whether to recant or not.He chose not to recant.he was forced to leave.

 

[MartinJordan]

I think Luther was unable to distinguish the infallibly and holy bride of Christ from the fallible persons attached to her. His deficient understanding of the nature of the Church still causes fragmentation today.

I can agree with this. I mean St. Charles Borromeo was even under the threat of death, yet he stuck to his guns. Threat from the clergy no less!

MJ

 

[JonNC]

Basically he was given a choice whether to recant or not.He chose not to recant.he was forced to leave.

And it interesting that he was asked to recant a number of things that, later, the Church agreed with. Sort of a “catch 22”.

Jon

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Because it is very clear from history why Martin Luther left. It was doctrinal.

Not at first.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

And it interesting that he was asked to recant a number of things that, later, the Church agreed with. Sort of a “catch 22”.

Jon

Only 2 things: burning heretics is not against the will of the Spirit, and that it is wrong for the laity to receive Communion under both kinds.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I just saw this question on a different string and thought it might make for an interestering discussion.

Your thought please

It was interesting

 

[PJM]

=kylemccloughan;8098625]Because it is very clear from history why Martin Luther left. It was doctrinal.

I’ve never heard this before. So what was the doctrine and where can I verify the evidence?

God Bless,
Pat

 

[guanophore]

And it interesting that he was asked to recant a number of things that, later, the Church agreed with. Sort of a “catch 22”.

Jon

Indeed it was. He was asked to repudiate works in which no doctrinal error was found. He was put in a position where he had to reject that which he believed was correct in order to obey the authorities.

 

[PJM]

=Kelley Green…I could agree with this until you characterized as tragic hero. I think he remains a hero and not tragic at all. The other commentary that follows your post is ironic evidence at this late date in history. B] The arrogance remains entrenched in Catholicism. The hubris of turning religion into a zero sum game of male supremacy ‘owning God’ is morally repugnant.

Reminds me of a Leonard Cohen lyric-

So consider again what the fate of Catholicism & Christianity would be if the abuses of absolute power corrupting absolutely had remained unchallenged. Roman empire was only reinventing themselves with religious marquis and risking the message of Jesus so horribly it might be lost to antiquity or laughed out of all credible consideration. I cannot help but believe these very same merit arguments carried on within the Vatican walls with lethal consequences, and yet, Martin Luther had managed to avert violence altogether. Debate the numbers, any number is still horribly wrong: wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_popes_have_been_assassinated

Martin Luther,
I and every Christian alive owe you a debt of gratitude akin to veterans making supreme sacrifices to do the right thing and hope one day the Vatican will own this with finality.

***A bit uncharitable don’t you think?

What is viewed by as “arrogance” by many is simply God’s OWN- TRUTH./COLOR] The FACT that is that in order to create a justifiable reason not to accept Catholic Truths as the Primary [and often ONLY source of faith and Moral TRUTH] one must deal in half-truths, or self understanding even of clear and precisely articulated TEACHINGS by a Perfect All-knowing; ALL-Wise God. [Primacy of Peter; Forgiveness of sin and the Real Presence POP to mind]. It is never our intent to be arrogant; it is however REQUIRED that we be truthful. We don’t claim to OWN God my friend; just the opposite our goal is to ALLOW God to “own us.”

The issue of gender superiority stem from an obvious lack of understanding of the Eucharist and God’s OWN Will. So here the blame is God’s; NOT His Church.

Every OT prophet and leader was Male gender. Every Apostle chosen by Christ is male-gender. By Commanding the Eucharist from His Apostles “DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME”* [Luke 22: 19-21[/COLOR] “And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.] ; Christ precisely commands an ‘All-male-gender” priesthood, for no female gender person [as mighty and powerful as they are] can fulfill the mandate “OF ME”. Jesus himself is male gender and thus so MUST all priest be.

SORRY but I simply do not understand your reference to “numbers” at all? The incident you point out is indeed a FAILED theology; HOWEVER that said its related to “church practice” NOT doctrine; not dogma, not even Tradition. Jn.14:16-17 and Jn. 17:15-19] give God Himself as PERSONAL and Everlasting WARRANTY for the TRUTHS of Faith beliefs and Morals; which does not mean every word; every action has the same assurance of God Himself as TRUTH. As a very fallible human being this Pope and those who supported such silliness were wrong. IN NO WAY does that make the Catholic Church wrong.

And the fact that the CC has admitted and stopped such silliness points to God’s Leadership of His One Church. Eph. 4: 1-7]

God Bless,
Pat**