H
hn160
Guest
The Electors and Princes of the Empire did not write the Augsburg Confession, they approved of it and signed their name to it and put their life on the line by doing so.
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
Actually, no. St. Francis and St. Dominic were opposed to all forms of capital punishment and both intervened to save the lives of non-Catholics. St. Dominic saved the lives of heretics and Francis intervened to save the lives of Muslims and Jews in the Middle East.
While they did not challenge that the state had a right to execute criminals, they also knew that the state abused that right and ovestepped its boundaries. They did everything they could to save these lives and commanded their friars to do the same. St. Francis eventually got the pope to give him the Holy Land and negotiated with the Sultan at Dalmieta for the lives of Christian prisoners. He would send friars to Jerusalem and the friars would not attempt to convert the Muslims, but would do everything in their power to protect people from danger. To this day, they are still there and they still protect the lives of Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. Their kindness to the people has inspired many to turn to Christianity. That’s how the preach and convert the non-Catholic.
The courage and kindness of Dominic and Francis won over many heretics, especially among the Albigensians.
Where do people get these stories about these guys favoring the killing of heretics? Very few of the saints did so. Though St.Teresa of Avila did threaten to have a Catholic beheaded, because he flirted with her.
I think she was trying to drive home a point. It worked. The man never went near her again.Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
G
guanophore
Guest
My bad! I should have posted a reference.
bookofconcord.org/
It is against the forum rules to quote large passages such as this, especially if they are easily accessible on another site, such as the one above.
I am not sure that I should have responded to your request in the first place, since the statement was about the heresies of Luther, resulting in his excommunication. The Church does not excommunicate “confessions” such as the one designed at Augsburg, but people who embrace heresies.
G
guanophore
Guest
The same way that the Jews were under the authority of the Sanhedrin. Jesus taught His followers to obey them, because they sat in the seat of Moses.
I am sorry, I am missing the point of disagreement?
I never claimed that the Reformers wanted all these other Churches named after them. Calvin even ordered that his grave be kept secret, lest any try to venerate him after his death.
Luther wanted the pope to straighten up, not to start a “Lutheran” Church. When he returned frome exile at the castle, he reprimanded the people for desecrating the Catholic Church.
G
guanophore
Guest
Ok.The Electors and Princes of the Empire did not write the Augsburg Confession, they approved of it and signed their name to it and put their life on the line by doing so.
But that still is not the point of the thread. It was Luther’s writings,and how he got excommunicated for heresies. The Confession only mildly reflected his writings. Nor was it the source of his writings, but the fruit of them.
N
Neo_The_One
Guest
Martin Luther revolutionized the Protestant religion, thanks to Jesus Christ who revolutionized the Catholic religion! Christ the High Priest!
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
Down through the ages since the Reformation it seems that more and more things have been discovered that needed to be removed and corrected.
And, it appears, the one pure and true religion envisioned at that time was found by others to be not pure and true enough. The Puritans especially are known for “purifying” the church.
Until, finally, with the advent of liberal modernists, religion has been purified of belief in Scripture!
G
guanophore
Guest
And some even want to “purify” Christianity from Christ!
No such thing as the historical Jesus, etc.
H
hn160
Guest
Alright, you being a good Catholic, I mean that sincerely, which of his writings are heretical and why?
G
guanophore
Guest
Whether I am a “good” Catholic or a lousy one is irrelevant. The heresies of Luther have already been addressed by the Catholic Church, and I conform myself to those Teachings, since they have been handed down to us from the Apostles, and are preserved infallibly by the Holy Spirit.Alright, you being a good Catholic, I mean that sincerely, which of his writings are heretical and why?
In the website I cited above there are links to the Catholic refutation/response to the elements of the Augsburg confession, if you are interested. Trent addressed all the other issues raised in the 95 theses in detail.
I think the biggest mistake Luther made was failing to recognize that the Church is larger than the members here on earth that comprise her. He did not seem to be able to look past the people who occupied the offices to the validity of the offices themselves. When he was at his “trial”, he insisted that he be shown only “from the Scriptures”, and would not accept any source of God’s revelation outside of them. This put him at odds with Sacred Tradition, and the authority appointed by Christ.
J
JReducation
Guest
I was thinking about the question in the heading of this thread and it suddenly dawned on me. "Wait a minute, no respectable student of Catholic Theology can get a Doctorate Degree from the Catholic Church without reading Luther’s writings. I remember being in Rome and Luther’s writings being required reading at every Pontifical University from the Gregorian to Santa Cruce and the Angelicum in between. Parts of his writings are read at the Master’s level, as well as the STB which follows the M.Div and then the STD level.
I found them very interesting. There are valid points in his writings. No criticism of the Church is ever without some validity.
Then there are rants, which I found humorous, because it simply made me feel good that I did not live during the only century when people rant and rave about things inside and outside the Church. Sometimes we think that our situation is different from any other situation in history. Then you read someone like Luther and you realize that history is like recycling. What was once a napkin comes back as a cardboard tube.
There were other parts of his writings that actually made us feel sorry for him. It was very obvious that he struggled with scruples to the point of losing it. I truly believe that this prompted his great retreat into scripture. The were corrupt bishops and clerics all around him. Luther was horrified of sin, as we should be. However, if you examine his writings with a psychological eye, you can see obsessive-compulsive behaviors in him. He truly thought that he could be tainted by these corrupt people. It was not enough to simply do the right thing. He had to get away so as not to get dirty. Sola scriptura provided a very safe haven for him, because he did not have to think too much. The chances of being contaminated by this world were significantly reduced, at least in his mind.
He had an almost dualistic approach to life. Everything in the bible was good and everything human was bad. God did not do anything good through human beings, because we are so corrupt that it’s impossible for us to do anything good. From there he concludes that it’s impossible for us to do anything toward our own salvation. He panics. That’s when he grabs on to the one passage that we’re save by faith alone, not by works, completely ignoring the corporal works of mercy that are all over the bible from Genesis to Revelation, the liturgical life of the people, and the communal dimension of the faith. There goes the Communion of Saints, because he completely misses the whole point of the Chosen people of Israel. To him the Jews were evil. He failed to see that the whole message of the Chosen people foreshadows the Church, both in heaven and on earth.
He saw the Church as a fellowship of believers more than as a unified body, because he lost sight of the unitive power of the sacraments, especially Baptism and the Eucharist. When you lose this part, you can’t see the transcendental nature of the Church. That’s how the saints and the veneration of saints get thrown out the window. That part of the Church is alluded to in the Acts of the Apostles and in Paul’s letters and the early Fathers finally clarify it. However, the Early Fathers were not scripture. Unless they were quoting scripture, Luther did not trust them too much. There go Tradition and Magisterium.
His writings show you how he slowly fell into heresy and how conflicted he was about it. He was never truly reconciled even with his own teachings. He always had doubts. This shows up in his writings where he self-corrects non a number of occasions, especially concerning the Eucharist. In the end, he still did not get back to transubstantiation.
His writings show how his scrupulosity did not give him peace of mind. What is most interesting is that to the end, he considers himself a Catholic. He never denies being a Catholic. This would happen later. His followers would separate themselves from what they would begin to refer to as the Roman Catholic Church or the Church of Rome, especially in England and to themselves under several names: Reformed Church, Christians, Evangelicals and eventually Lutherans. Though I believe the Catholics called them that and they adopted the name. I’m not sure about this.
In any case, Luther’s writings are very important in order to understand what happened and why it happened. They are helpful in understanding the other point of view concerning the legitimate complaints and concerns that the reformers on both sides had. If nothing else, they offer a great deal of insight into the mind of a very bright man who had a horrible spiritual crisis that threw him into a spiral from which he never recovered. He was unable to recover. Once you throw out all authority and wait for God to infuse you with knowledge you’re in trouble. Infused knowledge is the privilege of some. Most of us depend on Apostolic Succession for our knowledge about the faith.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I found them very interesting. There are valid points in his writings. No criticism of the Church is ever without some validity.
Then there are rants, which I found humorous, because it simply made me feel good that I did not live during the only century when people rant and rave about things inside and outside the Church. Sometimes we think that our situation is different from any other situation in history. Then you read someone like Luther and you realize that history is like recycling. What was once a napkin comes back as a cardboard tube.
There were other parts of his writings that actually made us feel sorry for him. It was very obvious that he struggled with scruples to the point of losing it. I truly believe that this prompted his great retreat into scripture. The were corrupt bishops and clerics all around him. Luther was horrified of sin, as we should be. However, if you examine his writings with a psychological eye, you can see obsessive-compulsive behaviors in him. He truly thought that he could be tainted by these corrupt people. It was not enough to simply do the right thing. He had to get away so as not to get dirty. Sola scriptura provided a very safe haven for him, because he did not have to think too much. The chances of being contaminated by this world were significantly reduced, at least in his mind.
He had an almost dualistic approach to life. Everything in the bible was good and everything human was bad. God did not do anything good through human beings, because we are so corrupt that it’s impossible for us to do anything good. From there he concludes that it’s impossible for us to do anything toward our own salvation. He panics. That’s when he grabs on to the one passage that we’re save by faith alone, not by works, completely ignoring the corporal works of mercy that are all over the bible from Genesis to Revelation, the liturgical life of the people, and the communal dimension of the faith. There goes the Communion of Saints, because he completely misses the whole point of the Chosen people of Israel. To him the Jews were evil. He failed to see that the whole message of the Chosen people foreshadows the Church, both in heaven and on earth.
He saw the Church as a fellowship of believers more than as a unified body, because he lost sight of the unitive power of the sacraments, especially Baptism and the Eucharist. When you lose this part, you can’t see the transcendental nature of the Church. That’s how the saints and the veneration of saints get thrown out the window. That part of the Church is alluded to in the Acts of the Apostles and in Paul’s letters and the early Fathers finally clarify it. However, the Early Fathers were not scripture. Unless they were quoting scripture, Luther did not trust them too much. There go Tradition and Magisterium.
His writings show you how he slowly fell into heresy and how conflicted he was about it. He was never truly reconciled even with his own teachings. He always had doubts. This shows up in his writings where he self-corrects non a number of occasions, especially concerning the Eucharist. In the end, he still did not get back to transubstantiation.
His writings show how his scrupulosity did not give him peace of mind. What is most interesting is that to the end, he considers himself a Catholic. He never denies being a Catholic. This would happen later. His followers would separate themselves from what they would begin to refer to as the Roman Catholic Church or the Church of Rome, especially in England and to themselves under several names: Reformed Church, Christians, Evangelicals and eventually Lutherans. Though I believe the Catholics called them that and they adopted the name. I’m not sure about this.
In any case, Luther’s writings are very important in order to understand what happened and why it happened. They are helpful in understanding the other point of view concerning the legitimate complaints and concerns that the reformers on both sides had. If nothing else, they offer a great deal of insight into the mind of a very bright man who had a horrible spiritual crisis that threw him into a spiral from which he never recovered. He was unable to recover. Once you throw out all authority and wait for God to infuse you with knowledge you’re in trouble. Infused knowledge is the privilege of some. Most of us depend on Apostolic Succession for our knowledge about the faith.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
H
hn160
Guest
Does the Catholic Church stand or fall over the doctrine of transubstantiation when it comes to the Lutherans?I was thinking about the question in the heading of this thread and it suddenly dawned on me. "Wait a minute, no respectable student of Catholic Theology can get a Doctorate Degree from the Catholic Church without reading Luther’s writings. I remember being in Rome and Luther’s writings being required reading at every Pontifical University from the Gregorian to Santa Cruce and the Angelicum in between. Parts of his writings are read at the Master’s level, as well as the STB which follows the M.Div and then the STD level.
I found them very interesting. There are valid points in his writings. No criticism of the Church is ever without some validity.
Then there are rants, which I found humorous, because it simply made me feel good that I did not live during the only century when people rant and rave about things inside and outside the Church. Sometimes we think that our situation is different from any other situation in history. Then you read someone like Luther and you realize that history is like recycling. What was once a napkin comes back as a cardboard tube.
There were other parts of his writings that actually made us feel sorry for him. It was very obvious that he struggled with scruples to the point of losing it. I truly believe that this prompted his great retreat into scripture. The were corrupt bishops and clerics all around him. Luther was horrified of sin, as we should be. However, if you examine his writings with a psychological eye, you can see obsessive-compulsive behaviors in him. He truly thought that he could be tainted by these corrupt people. It was not enough to simply do the right thing. He had to get away so as not to get dirty. Sola scriptura provided a very safe haven for him, because he did not have to think too much. The chances of being contaminated by this world were significantly reduced, at least in his mind.
He had an almost dualistic approach to life. Everything in the bible was good and everything human was bad. God did not do anything good through human beings, because we are so corrupt that it’s impossible for us to do anything good. From there he concludes that it’s impossible for us to do anything toward our own salvation. He panics. That’s when he grabs on to the one passage that we’re save by faith alone, not by works, completely ignoring the corporal works of mercy that are all over the bible from Genesis to Revelation, the liturgical life of the people, and the communal dimension of the faith. There goes the Communion of Saints, because he completely misses the whole point of the Chosen people of Israel. To him the Jews were evil. He failed to see that the whole message of the Chosen people foreshadows the Church, both in heaven and on earth.
He saw the Church as a fellowship of believers more than as a unified body, because he lost sight of the unitive power of the sacraments, especially Baptism and the Eucharist. When you lose this part, you can’t see the transcendental nature of the Church. That’s how the saints and the veneration of saints get thrown out the window. That part of the Church is alluded to in the Acts of the Apostles and in Paul’s letters and the early Fathers finally clarify it. However, the Early Fathers were not scripture. Unless they were quoting scripture, Luther did not trust them too much. There go Tradition and Magisterium.
His writings show you how he slowly fell into heresy and how conflicted he was about it. He was never truly reconciled even with his own teachings. He always had doubts. This shows up in his writings where he self-corrects non a number of occasions, especially concerning the Eucharist. In the end, he still did not get back to transubstantiation.
His writings show how his scrupulosity did not give him peace of mind. What is most interesting is that to the end, he considers himself a Catholic. He never denies being a Catholic. This would happen later. His followers would separate themselves from what they would begin to refer to as the Roman Catholic Church or the Church of Rome, especially in England and to themselves under several names: Reformed Church, Christians, Evangelicals and eventually Lutherans. Though I believe the Catholics called them that and they adopted the name. I’m not sure about this.
In any case, Luther’s writings are very important in order to understand what happened and why it happened. They are helpful in understanding the other point of view concerning the legitimate complaints and concerns that the reformers on both sides had. If nothing else, they offer a great deal of insight into the mind of a very bright man who had a horrible spiritual crisis that threw him into a spiral from which he never recovered. He was unable to recover. Once you throw out all authority and wait for God to infuse you with knowledge you’re in trouble. Infused knowledge is the privilege of some. Most of us depend on Apostolic Succession for our knowledge about the faith.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
G
guanophore
Guest
Since transubstantiation came first, I think a better question would be, do Lutherans strand or fall over the doctrine of transubstantiation when it comes to the Catholic Church?
H
hn160
Guest
Was it important for the Catholic Church to use reason to help explain how the bread and wine is changed into Christ’s Body and Blood.? Luther said that Lady Reason was an old whore. If God doesn’t tell us, then we shouldn’t let reason get in the way.Since transubstantiation came first, I think a better question would be, do Lutherans strand or fall over the doctrine of transubstantiation when it comes to the Catholic Church?
J
JReducation
Guest
It is understandable that Luther would say this. Remember, he was terrified of making a mistake. His scrupulosity was so serious that he lost confidence even in his own capacity to reason.
The real issue is not transubstantiation. The real issue is the denial of actual grace. When one denies the possibilities in the natural gifts that God has given us, one commits two fatal errors.
First: one denies that we are made in God’s image and likeness. Therefore, we have the capacity to reach truth through reason and God can reach us through reason.
Second: one denies that the through the Incarnation God breaks into human history and makes it part of his history. The unity between the human and the divine in Christ, sanctify the human. Therefore, God can and does act through human effort.
For Luther, this was too dangerous, because he denied the possibility of anything good coming from man. This is where he borders on dualism. The spiritual is good and the human is bad. However, we know that this cannot be true, because humanity is saved by the death of a man. The Second Person of the Trinity is a real man. Therefore, goodness and salvation comes through the unity between humanity and divinity without blending. Redemption is brought to us through the God-Man, not divinity by itself.
Luther is inconsistent in his denial of reason, because he uses his system to fight what had been handed down to the Church. In essence, he was using some kind of reason.
If we believe that Luther says that what is not in scripture is not true, then we make a fool out of him. We know that this was a very intelligent young man. He was not a fool. Therefore, this is not what he is saying. This is the way that he is being interpreted.
A wonderful example of how Luther thought is our judicial system. One is never found innocent. One is simply “not guilty” because the jury or the judge is not convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt. Luther used this same thought process. He was not convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt and scripture did not provide the exact words that he needed to resolve his conflict. He does not say that transubstantiation is false. He says that he couldn’t find it in scripture. The problem was that he was not using exegesis. His approach was very literal. Again, we see him playing it safe. Again, his anxiety about making a mistake cripples him. However, he is using reason, even though he rejects the use of reason.
Unless we see this poor man for what he was, an intelligent man whose scruples led him down a neurotic path of self destruction, we will always do two things, both of which are wrong.
One, some will believe him to be the best theologian in history.
Two, others will condemn him as the most evil man who ever lived.
The truth is that he was neither.
He was a theologian, with a very serious problem that crippled his capacity to trust himself and God. This lack of trust led him into grave error and he took others down that road with him.
Objectively, he is morally responsible for not working to find a solution to his conflicts. Instead, he threw the baby out the window with the water and the bloody tub too.
Subjectively, only God knows the state of his soul when he died. We can only pray for him.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
G
guanophore
Guest
It seemed important to my Latin brethren, certainly. In the East, no such efforts have ever been made. Mysteries given to us by God are left in the form of mysteries.
Luther was wrong about reason. Maybe he was talking about his own reason, which plagued him all his life with accusations and doubts?
Faith and reason are both created in us by God, and are to be used in His service. It is only when human reason departs from the service of God that it becomes “a whore”.
J
JReducation
Guest
G
guanophore
Guest
Indeed.Theology is faith seeking understanding.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
May Saint Anselm bless all of our scholastic pursuits!
I am not opposed to applying reason to understand the Truths that have been revealed to us by God. I grieve when those theological constructs divide God’s Church. Concepts developed in the West, such as transubstantiation, immaculate conception, filoque etc. are now a souce of division between ourselves and our other lung.
Sticking my nose in, it doesn’t for me. While I find the metaphysics of Transub to be, how shall I say, an unnecessary dogmatic statement, the underpinnings are simply that it is His body, and it is His blood, on which Lutherans unqualifyingly agree. But if we are to use these types of explanations, Transub is a far bit better than consubstantiation.Since transubstantiation came first, I think a better question would be, do Lutherans strand or fall over the doctrine of transubstantiation when it comes to the Catholic Church?
Jon
G
guanophore
Guest
You know, I was thinking of you when I wrote that! I was not sure you were watching this thread.
I am also thinking of my Eastern brethren, and how they cling to mystery, and resist the over rationalizing of the faith. Scholasticism is a Western phenomenon, and though it has given us many valuable benefits to understanding our faith, at times I think my Latin brethren tend to overthink the faith. In the East, entering into the mystery of Theosis is more important that being able to explain it.
- Status