Would Luther convert back to Catholicism?

[commenter]

Luther held on to much Catholic doctrine - on Mary, for instance - that would put him at odds with most Lutherans and Protestants generally.
I wouldn’t rule out a Lutheran ordinariate. The Vatican proposal for Anglican ordinariates were rejected by most or all the Anglican and Episcopal church bodies, both the historic denominations and the recent ones that broke off. Still, the ordinariates are up and running now. In the US, we are seeing families from various congregations in a city pull together to form a new, Catholic congregation, or a few Anglican or Episcopal congregations enter the Ordinariate and the Catholic Church as a whole community.
It sounds nice to say we can’t do anything that would impede ecumenism, but the Catholic Church also has a responsibility towards individual Protestants, not just Protestant churches.

 

[Petergee]

I am a Catholic convert who was a former Lutheran pastor in the old American Lutheran Church (ALC). I can say with certainty that the Luther I know would still have concern over the Catholic Church’s theology of justification. Luther’s objection to the Catholic Church’s teaching on justification was born out of a pastoral concern for the souls of his congregation in Wittenberg where he was the parish priest. The Dominican, John Tetzel, was hawking indulgences in the district near Wittenberg and making the most outrageous claims about the benefits of buying a plenary indulgence. Luther’s parishioners were purchasing the indulgences and returning to Wittenberg under the belief that all of their sins were now forgiven because they had placed a coin in the papal coffer. Luther was appalled because he felt the salvation of souls was in jeopardy. This was the spark that ignited the Reformation.

The Catholic Church has never taught that one can buy forgiveness or salvation. Even Tetzel, who spent his last years broken-hearted confined to a monastery, was appalled that his evangelism had been so misconstrued and misrepresented.

Before Luther’s death, the Church had abolished almsgiving as a means of gaining indulgences for remission of the temporal punishment due to already forgiven sins, so as to avoid even the appearance of any suggestion of the “sale” of indulgences, much less the sale of forgiveness or the purchase of salvation.

In his old age Luther lamented that evnts had overtaken him , driven by the power-hungry Geman princes, and he lamented that “each man is now his own pope” and the multiplication of mutually contradictory doctrines, to correct which he forecast a future Ecumenical Council would be necessary. (The Council of Trent was indeed convened a year before his death, although Lutheran representatives were gfuaranteed safe passage to attend it they refused to do so.)

I believe that Luther in his last years wished to rejoin the Church but lacked the courage to do so, given what he knew he would face from the powerful protestant princes.

 

[MaryT777]

The Catholic Church has never taught that one can buy forgiveness or salvation. Even Tetzel, who spent his last years broken-hearted confined to a monastery, was appalled that his evangelism had been so misconstrued and misrepresented.

Before Luther’s death, the Church had abolished almsgiving as a means of gaining indulgences for remission of the temporal punishment due to already forgiven sins, so as to avoid even the appearance of any suggestion of the “sale” of indulgences, much less the sale of forgiveness or the purchase of salvation.

In his old age Luther lamented that evnts had overtaken him , driven by the power-hungry Geman princes, and he lamented that “each man is now his own pope” and the multiplication of mutually contradictory doctrines, to correct which he forecast a future Ecumenical Council would be necessary. (The Council of Trent was indeed convened a year before his death, although Lutheran representatives were gfuaranteed safe passage to attend it they refused to do so.)

I believe that Luther in his last years wished to rejoin the Church but lacked the courage to do so, given what he knew he would face from the powerful protestant princes.

Thank you for writing this post.
Mary.

 

[aidanbradypop]

The Catholic Church has never taught that one can buy forgiveness or salvation. Even Tetzel, who spent his last years broken-hearted confined to a monastery, was appalled that his evangelism had been so misconstrued and misrepresented.

Before Luther’s death, the Church had abolished almsgiving as a means of gaining indulgences for remission of the temporal punishment due to already forgiven sins, so as to avoid even the appearance of any suggestion of the “sale” of indulgences, much less the sale of forgiveness or the purchase of salvation.

In his old age Luther lamented that evnts had overtaken him , driven by the power-hungry Geman princes, and he lamented that “each man is now his own pope” and the multiplication of mutually contradictory doctrines, to correct which he forecast a future Ecumenical Council would be necessary. (The Council of Trent was indeed convened a year before his death, although Lutheran representatives were gfuaranteed safe passage to attend it they refused to do so.)

I believe that Luther in his last years wished to rejoin the Church but lacked the courage to do so, given what he knew he would face from the powerful protestant princes.

Very nice post. Thanks for joining the thread!

It is so hard to know what a man who lived in a completey different world would do today.
I suggest that the factors would involve whether he felt that the CC had sufficiently restated its understanding on the doctrine upon which the Church stands or falls, and whether the papacy had sufficiently reformed itself.

Hard to know.

Jon

I knew you would post on here lol. I believe no man is above the Church but the Church is above man. When we start thinking we know better than the Church instituted by Christ, we run into problems. I believe Luther had good intentions. There were some corrupt priest and bishops at the time. Even a few corrupt Popes. I do not believe, or I hope not, that any faithful Catholic would say otherwise. Christ knew the people of power in the Church as sinners. He gave authority to Peter, who denied Christ three times, to build his Church.

Here is an example where one priest, like Luther (we often forget he was a Catholic priest), decided you knew more than the Church. There is a priest in the town I live in. He was a priest at a local parish for a few years. It came out that he was homosexual and he confirmed it. Furthermore, it came out that he was having a relationship with someone. The Bishop, showing grace and mercy, told the priest to take some time off and reflect on the vows he took to God and Church. The priest took time off, left the Catholic Church and started his own Independent Catholic Church. He is in a openly gay relationship now. He decided he knew more than the Church.

Now obviously I am not comparing the two in such a nature, but I am stating that Luther felt he knew what was best for the children of God. Am I wrong?

Lutherans say that the office of the Pope, not the Pope himself, is against Christ. Why is it then do Lutherans always refer to Luther when trying to explain the Lutheran teachings. I have a friend that hates when I say “the Church says” but he never blinks and eye when saying “Luther said.” How is that any different?

I cannot vote on the poll, but I believe Luther would not convert back to Catholicism if given the chance. His own pride and ego would not allow him. As I stated above, when one man thinks he is above the church, the Church cannot be above him. :twocents:

 

[steve_b]

If Luther made it to heaven, then he did convert back to the Catholic Church!

On mortal sin, one’s time to change is on this side of eternity. Otherwise it’s too late.

Example

Division/faction/sedition and those who cause it is a mortal sin. And if one dies in mortal sin, i.e. they didn’t repent before they died, there’s no second chance after they are dead. As Paul says, They won’t inherit heaven [Gal 5:19-21].

As an aside, Here’s Luthers own words when he admits he added “sola” to faith. One can also get a sense of what kind of guy he was to deal with.
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-translate.txt

 

[JonNC]

=aidanbradypop;10278066]Very nice post. Thanks for joining the thread!

You’ll find that I fit the old song, “fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”

I knew you would post on here lol. I believe no man is above the Church but the Church is above man. When we start thinking we know better than the Church instituted by Christ, we run into problems. I believe Luther had good intentions. There were some corrupt priest and bishops at the time. Even a few corrupt Popes. I do not believe, or I hope not, that any faithful Catholic would say otherwise. Christ knew the people of power in the Church as sinners. He gave authority to Peter, who denied Christ three times, to build his Church.

I think it unrealistic to expect any one of us to better than St. Peter.

Here is an example where one priest, like Luther (we often forget he was a Catholic priest), decided you knew more than the Church. There is a priest in the town I live in. He was a priest at a local parish for a few years. It came out that he was homosexual and he confirmed it. Furthermore, it came out that he was having a relationship with someone. The Bishop, showing grace and mercy, told the priest to take some time off and reflect on the vows he took to God and Church. The priest took time off, left the Catholic Church and started his own Independent Catholic Church. He is in a openly gay relationship now. He decided he knew more than the Church.

Now obviously I am not comparing the two in such a nature, but I am stating that Luther felt he knew what was best for the children of God. Am I wrong?

Its hard to know, to be honest, if Luther thought, “I know more than the Church.” I’m more inclined to believe that he thought what he was doing, teaching, was in concert with the early Church, and that the 1500’s Church had drifted away from the early Church in its teachings, and certainly had drifted into corruption in its morals. Were these excuses for “Here I stand.”? That question is certainly part of the debate.

Lutherans say that the office of the Pope, not the Pope himself, is against Christ. Why is it then do Lutherans always refer to Luther when trying to explain the Lutheran teachings. I have a friend that hates when I say “the Church says” but he never blinks and eye when saying “Luther said.” How is that any different?

Curiously, the Book of Concord has only three writings by Luther himself: the SMall and Large Catechisms, and the Smalkald Articles. The rest are by others. This is to say we quote Luther when, as judged by sola scriptura, he is right. When he is not, we are quick to say so.

I cannot vote on the poll, but I believe Luther would not convert back to Catholicism if given the chance. His own pride and ego would not allow him. As I stated above, when one man thinks he is above the church, the Church cannot be above him. :twocents:

I’ve heard the pride and ego argument often, and would contend that his was at least equal by some of his opponents. That doesn’t make it right, but it certainly true. And as a result, we have even today division.

Jon

 

[aidanbradypop]

Its hard to know, to be honest, if Luther thought, “I know more than the Church.” I’m more inclined to believe that he thought what he was doing, teaching, was in concert with the early Church, and that the 1500’s Church had drifted away from the early Church in its teachings, and certainly had drifted into corruption in its morals.

The Church has never been corrupt. Maybe some of the leaders in the past, but never the Church. Would you agree?

Curiously, the Book of Concord has only three writings by Luther himself: the SMall and Large Catechisms, and the Smalkald Articles. The rest are by others. This is to say we quote Luther when, as judged by sola scriptura, he is right. When he is not, we are quick to say so.

But where in Scripture does is state Sola scriptura? I believe, besides his views of justification, that sola scriptura is where he went astray.

 

[JonNC]

=aidanbradypop;10281521]The Church has never been corrupt. Maybe some of the leaders in the past, but never the Church. Would you agree?

Yes, I agree. Poorly stated on my part.

But where in Scripture does is state Sola scriptura?

Why would it need to be? There are a lot of practices we do that are not mentioned specifically in the Bible. There are texts that imply it, but since it is a practice, not a doctrine, it isn’t necessary that it be explicit in scripture.

I believe, besides his views of justification, that sola scriptura is where he went astray.

Setting sola fide aside for a moment, Luther mentions the contradictions of councils and popes, which in light of the Schism, is justifiable. I contend that if there had not been a Schism, and there continued to be a universal interpreation of Sacred Tradition, there would be no need for sola scriptura.

Jon

 

[aidanbradypop]

Yes, I agree. Poorly stated on my part. [/OUOTE]

Thank you kind sir! lol

Why would it need to be? There are a lot of practices we do that are not mentioned specifically in the Bible. There are texts that imply it, but since it is a practice, not a doctrine, it isn’t necessary that it be explicit in scripture.

 

[JonNC]

Maybe not for a Lutheran in the LCMS, but for other Protestants that believe it has to be in Scripture in order to be true. So if that is the case then that is where you run into a problem with sola scriptura.

Lutherans in general, not just LCMS. Well, Lutherans run into problems with many to most other protestants on a number of doctrinal fronts - Baptism, Lord’s Supper (real presence), confession, etc. I many ways, the term “evangelical catholic” really fits us.
But yes, those that have turned the sola into solo, ISTM, paint themselves into a legalistic corner.

I had a guy in RCIA ask once how the Church would be today if no branches broke off (Protestant, Orthodox) I told him that it would be very interesting in how the culture of the Church would dictate practice. Paul dealt with the “culture” issues of the Church pretty much his whole ministry years. I can tell you that the Catholic Church in the south US is much different that in the northern part. I have lived in both. The same style of Mass and all but the culture is much more different. Maybe that was an issue with Luther. Do you think the Germanic culture played a role in his thinking?

I don’t see how it couldn’t. Much is made about the role the German princes played in the Reformation era. The Augsburg Confession, too, deals with culture and how it presents in traditions, essentially recognizing that traditions may and can vary.

Jon

 

[aidanbradypop]

Jon,

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.

"Be a sinner and sin boldly, but more strongly have faith and rejoice in Christ." --Martin Luther

That statement always throws me for a loop.

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.

Have fun Jon lol

 

[sharpag]

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.

 

[aidanbradypop]

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.

I am shocked as well at how close it is lol. All the Lutherans I talk to around town are very much anti Catholic.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Jon,

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.

"Be a sinner and sin boldly, but more strongly have faith and rejoice in Christ." --Martin Luther

That statement always throws me for a loop.

I am no Luther scholar, but this one is always taken out of context. To understand why he said this, you have to read the whole letter to Philip Melancthon that it appears in.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I am no Luther scholar, but this one is always taken out of context. To understand why he said this, you have to read the whole letter to Philip Melancthon that it appears in.

You beat JonNC lol

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

You beat JonNC lol

I did! It comes from having to learn to be faster than Lutherans when they’re chasing you down to drown anabaptists

 

[aidanbradypop]

I did! It comes from having to learn to be faster than Lutherans when they’re chasing you down to drown anabaptists

I threw it in there for Jon lol. That’s why I made it bold to get his attention. He will see it soon enough

 

[JonNC]

=aidanbradypop;10282061]Jon,

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.

"Be a sinner and sin boldly, but more strongly have faith and rejoice in Christ." --Martin Luther

That statement always throws me for a loop.

It doesn’t me. It reminds me of Paul’s thoughts about “the good that I would do, that I do not, etc.”

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.

Can you imagine what I powerful defender of the CC he would have been had those who were more interested in coins to build St. Peter’s listened?

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 some ways, he was right on both counts.

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.

I know he always said that praying for the dead was ok, that the problem with Purgatory was more the practices that had grown around it.

Have fun Jon lol

I always do here.

Jon

 

[aidanbradypop]

Can you imagine what I powerful defender of the CC he would have been had those who were more interested in coins to build St. Peter’s listened?

The top 10 largest churches in the US are all Protestant and all appear on TBN asking for “coin.” Olsteen, Warren…etc are all millionairs.

I know he always said that praying for the dead was ok, that the problem with Purgatory was more the practices that had grown around it.

Expand that thought please. I always thought Purgatory wasn’t really an issue for Luther. It was more of an issue with those that followed.

I always do here.

Good. Same here!

 

[JonNC]

=aidanbradypop;10282749]The top 10 largest churches in the US are all Protestant and all appear on TBN asking for “coin.” Olsteen, Warren…etc are all millionairs.

Any of them Lutheran?

Expand that thought please. I always thought Purgatory wasn’t really an issue for Luther. It was more of an issue with those that followed.

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.

Jon