Would Luther convert back to Catholicism?

[aidanbradypop]

Any of them Lutheran?

Not that I can see. They are all those Evangelical Mega Churches. Joel Olsteen’s MegaChurch has more people that my hometown of 23,000 lol. If every person gave a dollar in the collection plate…WOW lol

The issue has always been indulgences / private masses, etc. Lutherans have always believed in purgation, though we do not generally accept the idea of a state/place.

That’s what I thought. My LCMC buddy (yeah that guy again lol) Said that Purgatory is not a place one goes to but an action God does to the person. Is he correct?

 

[JonNC]

Not that I can see. They are all those Evangelical Mega Churches. Joel Olsteen’s MegaChurch has more people that my hometown of 23,000 lol. If every person gave a dollar in the collection plate…WOW lol

That’s what I thought. My LCMC buddy (yeah that guy again lol) Said that Purgatory is not a place one goes to but an action God does to the person. Is he correct?

That’s pretty close, at the moment of death. Bookcat posted this on a thread about Purgatory over on the Apolegetics forum:

Pope Benedict Spe Salvi

What else might occur? Saint Paul, in his First Letter to the Corinthians, gives us an idea of the differing impact of God’s judgement according to each person’s particular circumstances. He does this using images which in some way try to express the invisible, without it being possible for us to conceptualize these images—simply because we can neither see into the world beyond death nor do we have any experience of it. Paul begins by saying that Christian life is built upon a common foundation: Jesus Christ. This foundation endures. If we have stood firm on this foundation and built our life upon it, we know that it cannot be taken away from us even in death. Then Paul continues: “Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (1 Cor 3:12-15). In this text, it is in any case evident that our salvation can take different forms, that some of what is built may be burned down, that in order to be saved we personally have to pass through “fire” so as to become fully open to receiving God and able to take our place at the table of the eternal marriage-feast.

Some recent theologians are of the opinion that the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Saviour. The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgement. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to become truly ourselves. All that we build during our lives can prove to be mere straw, pure bluster, and it collapses. Yet in the pain of this encounter, when the impurity and sickness of our lives become evident to us, there lies salvation. His gaze, the touch of his heart heals us through an undeniably painful transformation “as through fire”. But it is a blessed pain, in which the holy power of his love sears through us like a flame, enabling us to become totally ourselves and thus totally of God. In this way the inter-relation between justice and grace also becomes clear: the way we live our lives is not immaterial, but our defilement does not stain us for ever if we have at least continued to reach out towards Christ, towards truth and towards love. Indeed, it has already been burned away through Christ’s Passion. At the moment of judgement we experience and we absorb the overwhelming power of his love over all the evil in the world and in ourselves. The pain of love becomes our salvation and our joy. It is clear that we cannot calculate the “duration” of this transforming burning in terms of the chronological measurements of this world.** The transforming “moment**” of this encounter eludes earthly time-reckoning—it is the heart’s time, it is the time of “passage” to communion with God in the Body of Christ[39].

(www.vatican.va)

A transforming moment, by the judgement and grace of Christ Himself. Described this way, Purgatory does not personally offend this Lutheran, though I can’t speak for others.

BTW, I really like Pope Benedict.

Jon

 

[aidanbradypop]

BTW, I really like Pope Benedict.

Jon

I adore Pope Benedict but my heart miss Blessed John Paul II. I wish Luther could have met them both.

 

[Stilldreamn]

That’s pretty close, at the moment of death. Bookcat posted this on a thread about Purgatory over on the Apolegetics forum:

A transforming moment, by the judgement and grace of Christ Himself. Described this way, Purgatory does not personally offend this Lutheran, though I can’t speak for others.

BTW, I really like Pope Benedict.

Jon

I’m on-board with this explanation, too.

 

[gcnuss]

That’s pretty close, at the moment of death. Bookcat posted this on a thread about Purgatory over on the Apolegetics forum:

A transforming moment, by the judgement and grace of Christ Himself. Described this way, Purgatory does not personally offend this Lutheran, though I can’t speak for others.

I agree. I also think the Catholic Church has been blessed with great Popes in John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

 

[Petergee]

I don’t think Vatican II would play any significant role in Luther’s decision to revert. However, I do believe Vatican I would make it impossible for him to even consider it as he would have to accept beliefs and practices no Catholic in his life was bound to accept. I’m honestly rather shocked so many people think he would want to revert.

Vatican I didn’t really introduce any new beliefs and practices. About the only major decision it made (before it was interrupted by the Sardinian invasion) was to define the extent of the pope’s infallibility. It did not, as some claim, INVENT the doctrine of the infallibility of the Church and of the pope, which Catholics have always believed (including Luther before his leap into heresy). In fact the defintion made at Vatican I probably circumscribed the pope’s personal infallibility into a much smaller limted area than most Catholics had belieed up until then.

 

[sharpag]

It did not, as some claim, INVENT the doctrine of the infallibility of the Church and of the pope, which Catholics have always believed (including Luther before his leap into heresy).

I did not claim Vatican I to invent doctrine and I believed my statement was clear in this regard. I implicitly acknowledged that certain doctrines had yet to be elevated to the status of dogma. If I am not mistaken, before Vatican I papal infallibility was not a dogma and, consequently, not a required belief. My point had nothing to do with the validity of papal infallibility but its standing as a Catholic Church dogma. I still don’t see how Luther would accept papal infallibility now, when it was not a dogma in his lifetime. Again, I am not trying to attack papal infallibility (or debate it) I just don’t think Luther would revert and I think there is some wishful thinking going on by those who think he would.

 

[TertiumQuid]

I studied Luther in College and some in Seminary. The picture I formulated, and this is my opinion, is of a man who was deeply confused on a lot of issues.

In 1519 he wrote: "I fully confess the supreme power of the Roman Church; after Jesus Christ Our Lord, she should be preferred to everything on earth and heaven.” This Church “is the one chosen by God; there can be no reason for anyone to break away from her and, entering into schism, separate himself from her unity.” In 1520, in his Lutheran Epistle, he strongly praised Pope Leo X, saying that his courageous life placed him above any attack.However, in that same year Leo X would become the Antichrist and the Roman Church “a licentious den of thieves, the most depraved brothel, the kingdom of sin, death and hell.”In 1519, two years after he publicly started to preach his Reformation, while defending himself from adversaries, he taught the cult of the saints, the existence of purgatory, praying for the deceased, the practice of fasting etc. Some years later, he rejected all these doctrines as idolatry, superstition and fanaticism. I could go on and on but I will stop there.

While you may have “studied Luther in College and some in Seminary”, you seem to be relying on cut-and-pasting from this web page, or perhaps you’re actually Fr. Leonel Franca, S.J., in which case, my apologies.

JS

 

[Petergee]

I did not claim Vatican I to invent doctrine and I believed my statement was clear in this regard. I implicitly acknowledged that certain doctrines had yet to be elevated to the status of dogma. If I am not mistaken, before Vatican I papal infallibility was not a dogma and, consequently, not a required belief. My point had nothing to do with the validity of papal infallibility but its standing as a Catholic Church dogma. I still don’t see how Luther would accept papal infallibility now, when it was not a dogma in his lifetime.

Regardless of whther it was a formally defined “dogma” accrding to a technical definitio n which only theologians need concern themselves with, my point is that it was a required belief for Catholics in the 16th century as at any other time.

Again, I am not trying to attack papal infallibility (or debate it)

Why else would you say that Luther couldn’t accept Catholicism post-Vatican I?

I just don’t think Luther would revert and I think there is some wishful thinking going on by those who think he would.

I think there is some wishful thinking going on by those who think he wouldn’t.

 

[mlz]

You asked, so my opinion is if he saw what was going on today, especially in our culture and the Lutheran Church, yes he would convert to Catholicism because he would see it much closer to what he wanted to see back then. Of course, we will never know, so we are all giving our opinions.

Blessings from a convert from being Lutheran to the Catholic Church,
My love to all my brothers and sisters in Christ,
mlz

 

[sharpag]

Regardless of whther it was a formally defined “dogma” accrding to a technical definitio n which only theologians need concern themselves with, my point is that it was a required belief for Catholics in the 16th century as at any other time.

Papal Infallibility was not a required belief before 1870. Does this mean, from a Catholic perspective, that the doctrine was not in place until 1870? No. But it also does not mean that Catholics were bound to accept it before then and there is a great deal of historical evidence to suggest this as well.

To illustrate my point I think one should consider the idea of Mary as the co-redemptrix. Is this a dogma? No. But some Catholics believe that this doctrine should become dogma by either a council or an ex cathedra statement. Should this become a dogma Catholics would not consider this to be an invention as the idea has been unfolding for some time. However, even if it were to become a dogma one cannot blame a Catholic for not believing a dogma that was not yet a dogma in temporal terms. Does this mean the dogma was somehow absent? No, only that it was not yet articulated as a required belief.

In the same fashion one could not find fault with Luther for not believing in papal infallibility if it was not yet formally declared to be a dogma. My only point is that Luther might have trouble believing a dogma that, in his life, had yet to become a dogma.

 

[skigirl1689]

My first thought is to ask your LCMS Lutheran friend why he himself is not Catholic today.
Theerin would be your answer.
Lutherans are really fond of saying “Luther wanted to reform the Church” **but in essence in the differences on Justification are HUGE with the LCMS and WELS. ** The ELCA has signed the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification so if anyone comes to “Rome” it will be the ELCA and that is not likely to happen given their liberal views on abortion, homsoexuality, women pastors ,
etc.

Luther might come in handy to reform the Lutheran Church today. I would imagine he would nolt be remotely pleased with the divisions into synods.

He was alive when Lutheran was used for the denom of the Church.

Mary.

Sorry if this is off topic but I found the above bolded statement interesting, and it confuses me. How so? From what I know of, the main issues between the LCMS and the WELS is our fellowship practices with other synods and denominations. Both synods adhere to the Augsburg Confession and the Formula of Concord as well as Luther’s Catechisms.

But back to the topic, I am unsure if Luther would convert back seeing how much has stayed the same in the Catholic Church .

 

[MaryT777]

Sorry if this is off topic but I found the above bolded statement interesting, and it confuses me. How so? From what I know of, the main issues between the LCMS and the WELS is our fellowship practices with other synods and denominations. Both synods adhere to the Augsburg Confession and the Formula of Concord as well as Luther’s Catechisms.

But back to the topic, I am unsure if Luther would convert back seeing how much has stayed the same in the Catholic Church .

My intent was to indicate that as far as Luther converting to the Catholic Church
justification would be the issue (in my opinion) that would prevent him from even considering it. LCMS and WELS Lutherans do still adhere to those belief thus the great doctrinal difference continues. That was my opinion.

I would wonder if Luther was alive if he would belong to the LCMS or WELS but that is off topic.
Mary.

 

[JonNC]

My intent was to indicate that as far as Luther converting to the Catholic Church
justification would be the issue (in my opinion) that would prevent him from even considering it. LCMS and WELS Lutherans do still adhere to those belief thus the great doctrinal difference continues. That was my opinion.

I would wonder if Luther was alive if he would belong to the LCMS or WELS but that is off topic.
Mary.

I think you’re right Mary, that one of the two issues for him would be Justification, the other being the papacy. As for justification, even our more “liberal” siblings in the ELCA and the Lutheran World Federation would tell you they still believe in sola fide.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

I think you’re right Mary, that one of the two issues for him would be Justification, the other being the papacy. As for justification, even our more “liberal” siblings in the ELCA and the Lutheran World Federation would tell you they still believe in sola fide.

Jon

Clipped From:

“What about the differences between the ELCA and LCMS”
by AL Barry, Former President of the LCMS.

“August 1997 will be long remembered as an important timw in the Lutheran Church here in America. The ELCA made a number of very significant decisions…FF
Futhermore, the ELCA decided the long standing differences between Lutheranism
and the Roman Catholic Church over the question of how we are saved has been resolved”

 

[skigirl1689]

My intent was to indicate that as far as Luther converting to the Catholic Church
justification would be the issue (in my opinion) that would prevent him from even considering it. LCMS and WELS Lutherans do still adhere to those belief thus the great doctrinal difference continues. That was my opinion.

I would wonder if Luther was alive if he would belong to the LCMS or WELS but that is off topic.
Mary.

Thanks for the clarification; I misread your post, my apologies! I do agree with your viewpoint as well. I don’t think Luther could reconcile with the still-existing differences. As to which synod he’d choose, I have no idea.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I was cursed with the evil flu so that is why I have been away for a week or so. I am surpised at how many people voted that Luther would return to the Catholic Church. Luther’s views during his time is what brought on his break from the Catholic Church. His views and the Lutheran Church today are still at odds with the Catholic Church. I do not see how he could or would have converted back if alive today.