In another thread the discussion drifted, as it always seems to do, to whether Luther had intentions of leaving the Catholic Church. Rather than continuing off-topic, I'll ask the questions here.


Was schism (separation from the Church) intended by Martin Luther?
Did Martin Luther attempt to destroy the Roman Catholic Church?


I have hope that we can keep the topic restricted to these questions without deviating into detailed discussions about Luther's theology. It's not intended to delve into Luther's theology in any detail, only to examine his motives surrounding his eventual separation from the Church.


JoeT

No, from all of my study, Martain Luther merely wanted to debate and perhaps make changes in some of the abuses of the Church at that time. Many that did need to be made.

It was the Church in fact that made the situation worst by sentencing him to death.

This was of course a perfect political opportunity for the princes of Germany at the time. Luther was very popular and a public figure ( sort of reference him to a modern day civil right leader) who the common person saw as their friend.

Luther in fact, at least in my opinon was more of a tool or pawn in the political climate of the time. He was used as a figure head of a moveemnt to overthrown the political power of Rome in their areas.

Since without the polictical change the religioous change would not have been allowed.

He was really given no choice than to break away and the move to establish a new church around him was more formed by the political climate than any religious one.

Dr. Martin Luther, as a Roman Catholic priest, was only intent on reforming his church by getting back to the Bible and away from man's reason and traditions.

Because he knew what he was teaching was in agreement with the Holy Scripture, he could not recant at the Diet of Augsburg nor stop teaching as he was ordered by the Vatican. This caused Pope Leo X to excommunicate him and put a ban of death on him. It was only then that there was chism between Luther and the political leaders of the RCC.

Politics also entered into the struggle because the Germanic states had long despised the siphoning off their finances by the Vatican due to the sale of indulgences to build the great cathedral in Rome.

The reformers teachings were put before Emperor Charles V in 1530 by many of the Electors, Counts, Dukes, Bishops, Barons, Mayors and Councils of these states to show that nothing new was being taught in the church but that it had returned to the teachings of the Bible and the pre and post Nicene Fathers of the church.

All:

In 1517 Martin Luther posted the 95 Theses defying the Church. In less than a year Luther indicates what appears to be dominant motives for his actions. This defiance was shown to be present as early as 1518. In a letter to Jodocus Trutfetter, a former professor, Martin Luther exhibited his commitment to the destruction of the Church. He wrote, “To speak plainly, my firm belief is that reform of the Church is impossible unless the ecclesiastical laws, the papal regulations, scholastic theology, philosophy and logic as they at present exist, are thoroughly uprooted….a resolution from which neither your authority, although it is certainly of greatest weight for me…” (Source: Warren H. Carroll, The Cleaving of Christendom, 2000.)

Don't make the mistake in thinking this is just one example of such rhetoric. What then are we to make of a man who set out to “uproot” ecclesiastical laws, regulations, and theology? Are we to assume that the Roman Catholic theological base was so unstable as to need a re-write by Luther? Or, does this look more like the actions of a radical bent on destroying the current authority?

JoeT

Dr. Martin Luther, as a Roman Catholic priest, was only intent on reforming his church by getting back to the Bible and away from man's reason and traditions.

Please see the post above, there seems to be more than ample evidence to indicate that his motives would be more aligned with a radical trying to bring down the Church. I’d be happy to bring more material forward if need be.


Because he knew what he was teaching was in agreement with the Holy Scripture, he could not recant at the Diet of Augsburg nor stop teaching as he was ordered by the Vatican. This caused Pope Leo X to exco mmunicate him and put a ban of death on him. It was only then that there was chism between Luther and the political leaders of the RCC.

The discord wasn’t the Augsburg Confession; Augsburg was to be the solution, which Luther ultimately walked away from.

The Protestant draft of the Confession was rejected by Emperor Charles V in September 1530. Some considerable time was given by the Emperor for the Protestants to consider a rejoinder more in keeping with Rome. A confidant of Luther, Philip Melanchthon, wrote a response which was immediately rejected. Luther, knowing that continued resistance would be a schism, defiantly wrote to the Emperor in his response, “The Augsburg Confession must endure…Not even an angel from Heaven could alter a syllable of it, and any angel who dared to do so must be accursed and damned. Still less might Emperor, Popes, or bishops sit in judgment on it. The stipulations made that monks and nuns still dwelling in their cloisters should not be expelled, and that the Mass should not be abolished, could not be accepted; for whoever acts against conscience simply paves his way to Hell. The monastic life and the Mass covered with infamous ignominy the merit and suffering of Christ. Of all the horrors and abominations that could be mentioned, the Mass was the greatest.“

The net result was 117 years of Protestant/Catholic wars, from 1535 to 1651(?). Much of the wars was not whether Protestant’s should be forced to practice Catholicism, but rather whether Catholics could continue to worship, keep their monasteries and cloisters. In much of the Protestant countries, including England, these properties were taken from Catholics at the point of a sword.



Politics also entered into the struggle because the Germanic states had long despised the siphoning off of their finances by the Vatican due to the sale of indulgences to build the great cathedral in Rome.

I agree there was much about the politics of the day. But, the majority of it was aimed at Charles V and the Empire.


The reformers teachings were put before Emperor Charles V in 1530 by many of the Electors, Counts, Dukes, Bishops, Barons, Mayors and Councils of these states to show that nothing new was being taught in the church but that it had returned to the teachings of the Bible and the pre and post Nicene Fathers of the church.


If there was nothing new then why the entire hubbub; why did we need 117 years of war over nothing new?


JoeT

Please see the post above, there seems to be more than ample evidence to indicate that his motives would be more aligned with a radical trying to bring down the Church. I’d be happy to bring more material forward if need be.

If there was nothing new then why the entire hubbub; why did we need 117 years of war over nothing new?
JoeT


Perhaps I should go back to the original two questions:

Luther did NOT intend a schism in the church but wanted reform. He almost immediately saw that this reform would take the destruction of the RCC as it existed at that time.

The "church" that I was thinking of was NOT the RCC. The church was and is that group of saints who trust that Jesus Christ came from heaven to atone for their sins and achieve their eternal redemption, because of which they have given themselves to our heavenly Father.

I know that there is a difference in the definition of the "church" among Christians. I do not see any basis in God's Word to think of the church as any human organization.

Concerning "new"ness:
What Martin Luther was restoring was the truth of the Bible about the teachings and power of the church which was always led by its one Head, Jesus Christ. This was not "new" when compared to most of the early Church Fathers' teachings as well as the Bible. It was considered new only to those who followed the teachings of an organization which, at that time, had put man's reason and tradition above the Holy Scripture .

The RCC has made many reforms since that time as the Second Vatican council clearly shows. Many of those reforms were those which Martin Luther asked for and they were rejected.

There is no perfect denomination of Christians even today. They all need frequent reformations to see their own faults and sins and put their eyes back on our Lord and savior rather than on buildings, organizations and constitutions.

Concerning "new"ness:
What Martin Luther was restoring was the truth of the Bible about the teachings and power of the church which was always led by its one Head, Jesus Christ. This was not "new" when compared to most of the early Church Fathers' teachings as well as the Bible. It was considered new only to those who followed the teachings of an organization which, at that time, had put man's reason and tradition above the Holy Scripture .

The RCC has made many reforms since that time as the Second Vatican council clearly shows. Many of those reforms were those which Martin Luther asked for and they were rejected.

There is no perfect denomination of Christians even today. They all need frequent reformations to see their own faults and sins and put their eyes back on our Lord and savior rather than on buildings, organizations and constitutions.

This post I would agree with.. and I offer scripture that has told us these things will take place. As the Lord told Moses long ago, don't turn your back on the Lord, because My anger will be found to correct you. . . and I trust it is a sign of reaping from what is sown. The experiences of life builds us when we learn from our mistakes.

The Lord Told Moses
Deu 31:17 Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God [is] not among us?

I know that there is a difference in the definition of the "church" among Christians. I do not see any basis in God's Word to think of the church as any human organization.



Informative to the word church in related meaning throughtout scripture. ( occurs 80 times in 79 verses in the KJV ) Greek word tranlated ekklēsia, reference number 1577,

1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly

a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating

b) the assembly of the Israelites

c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously

d) in a Christian sense

1) an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting

2) a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake

3) those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body

4) the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth

5) the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven

Perhaps I should go back to the original two questions:

Luther did NOT intend a schism in the church but wanted reform. He almost immediately saw that this reform would take the destruction of the RCC as it existed at that time.

The "church" that I was thinking of was NOT the RCC. The church was and is that group of saints who trust that Jesus Christ came from heaven to atone for their sins and achieve their eternal redemption, because of which they have given themselves to our heavenly Father.

I know that there is a difference in the definition of the "church" among Christians. I do not see any basis in God's Word to think of the church as any human organization.

Concerning "new"ness:
What Martin Luther was restoring was the truth of the Bible about the teachings and power of the church which was always led by its one Head, Jesus Christ. This was not "new" when compared to most of the early Church Fathers' teachings as well as the Bible. It was considered new only to those who followed the teachings of an organization which, at that time, had put man's reason and tradition above the Holy Scripture .

The RCC has made many reforms since that time as the Second Vatican council clearly shows. Many of those reforms were those which Martin Luther asked for and they were rejected.

There is no perfect denomination of Christians even today. They all need frequent reformations to see their own faults and sins and put their eyes back on our Lord and savior rather than on buildings, organizations and constitutions.


Informative to the word church in related meaning throughtout scripture. ( occurs 80 times in 79 verses in the KJV ) Greek word tranlated ekklēsia, reference number 1577,

Revdrgade, Sndbay:

The arguments here aren't logical. They presume that Luther was raised in a different understanding of Church; and we know he wasn't.

Let's dispense with the issue of “Church” or Ecclesia. First in the sense that Sndbay wishes us to envision a building, a cold place of stone and wood. The Church of Luther wasn't anything like this. For 1517-years prior to the posting The 95 Theses and in the ensuing years since, Church had a much deeper meaning.

The Church, the Roman Church, is the Messianic Kingdom predicted in the Old Testament. And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be prepared in the top of the mountains, and high above the hills: and people shall flow to it. The house of God of Jacob will teach His ways. (Micah 4:1 C.f. 4:2). The fulfilled prophecy of a people girding Her superstructure, not simply building of steel and concrete. Constituted by Christ this Temple is most venerable (Matt 12:6). A kingdom whose founder, and foundation is Christ, “And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom” (Matt 4:23 see also 9:35; 13:17 Mark 1:14 etc. etc.) A church whose difficult understanding are not hidden, pronounced to the world its open message of salvation (C.f. Matt 13:11). Adorned, not with bare walls and cold illations of self-salvific elitism, rather a humble acceptance of Christ's cross and the obligation to march that cross forward, obedient to the faith of all nations (C.f. Roman 1:5) Instead of the self-appointed leaders of this Church are recipients of a hierarchical organization formed by Christ (C.f. Matt 16:18). Her patristic nature guides the rules over the Kingdom of God as vicar for Christ judging justly (Matt 18:17). This Church, Luther's abandoned spouse, was provisioned for orderly succession through its fist Vicar, Peter (C.f. Matt 16:18) that will prevail against hell, as well as Luther. In unity this Church was placed high on the mountain to be seen by all, a beacon of salvation for all, not just for Luther's pre-elected Saints. Not a candle hidden under a basket, rather a faith that illuminates inwardly as well as outwardly, like a lighthouse beacon. The Church abandoned by Luther is the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15) Luther's pre-schism Church was one of principled authority, governing the flock, (C.f. Matt 18:18 and John 21:17.) This is, and was at one time for Luther, the One Church that served through the ministering of the sacraments and teacher of revealed truth, infallible. This and more describes the Church that was to be Luther's, the one he deserted for his intellect and a book.

The Church is the head and body of Christ and God's Kingdom (C.f. Col. 1:18) as it was in Luther's day. This was Luther's Church before he decided to leave it; then was it schism or reform?

Are you trying to convince me that Luther saw a different kingdom; better than the Divine Kingdom on earth?

JoeT

Revdrgade, Sndbay:

The Church is the head and body of Christ and God's Kingdom (C.f. Col. 1:18) as it was in Luther's day. This was Luther's Church before he decided to leave it; then was it schism or reform?


First let's look at the scripture (Col 1:18 ) I read it to say "He" is the head body. He is as well the head of the church. That He (have) become the pre-eminent One.

Col1:18 And He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] He might have the preeminence.



Are you trying to convince me that Luther saw a different kingdom; better than the Divine Kingdom on earth?

JoeT

Joe,

We have differences of opinon, yet I feel we both agree in our love of Christ known as the teaching of Christianity.

What I veiw that Luther went up against was the corrupted political head leaders, that were going against the basic teachings of Christianity. He stood against the political heads who had drifted towards a foreign teaching of repentance that laid outside the belief of Chirst the Anointed One. The foundation which was being taught to the many bodied members was no longer ONE with Christ the corner stone, but became a political repercussion in corruption with money buying forgiveness. His reform brought the members of Christianity and the foundation back to what was and should be The Corner Stone/ Christ the Anointed One.

This corruption was why I feel the church, (acknowledge by my awareness = in members and its leaders) saw such destruction. They had followed and enforced a foreign teachings. Turning their backs on the Anointed One, Christ Jesus which brought God to turn His back on them. I feel the Christian nation learned by this experience.

It all goes back to what God told Moses the first highpriest in Deu 31. As time went on we would corrupt ourselves and turn aside from the ways of The Lord, evil befalls you in latter days because you do evil things in the sight of The Lord that will provoke His anger by the works of your hands. (Deu 31:29-30)

Today who follows what was written in Deu 31 for the church to do as command by God to Moses??? (Deu 31:10-13)

We are suppose to know the Song of Moses (Deu 32:1-43) why? It was commanded for one reason, and because those that have victory over this world of sin will be heard singing the song of Moses. (Revelation 15:3)

Revelations 15:3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous [are] thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true [are] thy ways, thou King of saints.

First let's look at the scripture (Col 1:18 ) I read it to say "He" is the head body. He is as well the head of the church. That He (have) become the pre-eminent One.
Col1:18 And He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] He might have the preeminence. Agreed, Christ is the head.


Joe,

[QUOTE=sndbay;1489502] We have differences of opinion, yet I feel we both agree in our love of Christ known as the teaching of Christianity.

The differences aren’t as great as might think they are.


What I view that Luther went up against was the corrupted political head leaders, that were going against the basic teachings of Christianity. He stood against the political heads who had drifted towards a foreign teaching of repentance that laid outside the belief of Christ the Anointed One. The foundation which was being taught to the many bodied members was no longer ONE with Christ the corner stone, but became a political repercussion in corruption with money buying forgiveness. His reform brought the members of Christianity and the foundation back to what was and should be The Corner Stone/ Christ the Anointed One.

All the evil that exists in the world doesn’t change God’s Truth. To argue, as you’ve done here, that abandoning the Kingdom because there is evil in the world; doesn’t really make much sense.


This corruption was why I feel the church, (acknowledge by my awareness = in members and its leaders) saw such destruction. They had followed and enforced a foreign teachings. Turning their backs on the Anointed One, Christ Jesus which brought God to turn His back on them. I feel the Christian nation learned by this experience.

The Church didn’t see destruction, it can’t be destroyed. But what was harmed by the schism was entire populations; as it were lulled (or forced) away from the safety of the Kingdom’s walls. Christianity isn’t a foreign teaching, and the Church is incapable of turning its back on Christ. I too think they learned something; relativism and rationalism.


It all goes back to what God told Moses the first highpriest in Deu 31. As time went on we would corrupt ourselves and turn aside from the ways of The Lord, evil befalls you in latter days because you do evil things in the sight of The Lord that will provoke His anger by the works of your hands. (Deu 31:29-30)

You may remember Christ’s comments to the Pharisees. He chastised them and corrected them. Yet, he bowed to the authority of the Sanhedrin. The corruption you refer to here is invented as justification for the Luther revolt. The world was no less corrupt in Christ’s time nor is it any less corrupt today.


Today who follows what was written in Deu 31 for the church to do as command by God to Moses??? (Deu 31:10-13)

Is God’s word any less true today than it was in Moses’ day? But, I’m not suggesting that we follow the Old Testament law. What I’ve referred to is God’s promise to Moses, “If therefore you will hear my voice, and keep my covenant, you shall be my peculiar possession above all people: for all the earth is mine. And you shall be to me a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation.” (Ex.19: 5, 6). The Kingdom didn’t end with Moses, his successor, Joshua took the nation into a promised land.


We are suppose to know the Song of Moses (Deu 32:1-43) why? It was commanded for one reason, and because those that have victory over this world of sin will be heard singing the song of Moses. (Revelation 15:3)

Agreed, but this song was sung by a Kingdom.


Revelations 15:3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous [are] thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true [are] thy ways, thou King of saints.

Agreed.

************************************************** ************

I don’t understand how much of the argument above related to the discussion of whether Luther was a reformer or a schismatic. The Church Luther broke from is the same Church today, was the same Church commissioned by Christ.

JoeT

I don't understand how much of the argument above related to the discussion of whether or not Luther was a reformer or a schismatic. The Church Luther broke from is the same Church today, was the same Church commissioned by Christ.

JoeT

It goes back to what I agree with in the following posted quote....


Concerning "new"ness:
What Martin Luther was restoring was the truth of the Bible about the teachings and power of the church which was always led by its one Head, Jesus Christ. This was not "new" when compared to most of the early Church Fathers' teachings as well as the Bible. It was considered new only to those who followed the teachings of an organization which, at that time, had put man's reason and tradition above the Holy Scripture .

The RCC has made many reforms since that time as the Second Vatican council clearly shows. Many of those reforms were those which Martin Luther asked for and they were rejected.

There is no perfect denomination of Christians even today. They all need frequent reformations to see their own faults and sins and put their eyes back on our Lord and savior rather than on buildings, organizations and constitutions.

And we should realize deception and false apostles can pop up amount any denomination. What better place for satan to place his twisted ways, and attempt his evilness. Remember the attempts Christ, Himself stood against.

2 Cr 11:13-15 For such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore [it is] no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Informative to the word church in related meaning throughtout scripture. ( occurs 80 times in 79 verses in the KJV ) Greek word tranlated ekklēsia, reference number 1577,

I do agree with your listed uses of the word "church".

Just for added interest, the author of a book I'm now reading writes that list and then adds the usus loquendi (common usage of that word):

"When Jesus used the word church (Greek:ekklesia),[Matt.16:18-19 ] the disiples weren't hindered by our contemporary preconceived ideas as to what it meant. Their paradigm of an ekklesia differed greatly from what it has become."

[he then adds the list saying that the literal "called out" from the world is most accurate. And then goes on later:]

"To the Greeks in Christ's day an ekklesia was an assembly of people set apart to govern the affairs of a state or nation--in essence, a parliament or congress. To the Romans, it was a group of people sent into a conquered region to alter the culture until it became like Rome. Realizing this was the ideal way to control their empire, they infiltrated government, social structure, language, schools, etc., until the people talked, thought , and acted like Romans."

Authority in Prayer Praying With Power and Purpose by Dutch Sheets (Bethany House)

Pastor Sheets believes that we, the church, need to know the authority which Jesus gave us to change our world for their good instead of being pew oriented.

I do agree with your listed uses of the word "church".

Just for added interest, the author of a book I'm now reading writes that list and then adds the usus loquendi (common usage of that word):

"When Jesus used the word church (Greek:ekklesia),[Matt.16:18-19 ] the disiples weren't hindered by our contemporary preconceived ideas as to what it meant. Their paradigm of an ekklesia differed greatly from what it has become." [he then adds the list saying that the literal "called out" from the world is most accurate. And then goes on later:]


Revdrgrade, sndbay, et al:

When the Gospels and the Epistles were written the common usage of ekklesia was, and still is, "A body of men united together by the profession of the same Christian Faith, and by participation in the same sacraments, under the governance of lawful pastors, more especially of the Roman Pontiff, the sole vicar of Christ on earth" (Bellarmine, De Eccl. III, ii, 9).

When Luther broke from the Church the common usage of 'Church' was to be “called out” with men united in a profession of the same Christian faith, governed by the Roman Pontiff.

It's fully understood and realized that 'after' Luther, there came into vogue a tendency among Protestants to redefine a different church, more in keeping with their rationalization. Even still, regardless of how you understand 'Church', the question put forward was whether Luther was schismatic or reformer.

But, let me add, since the result of Luther's schism is that his followers rationalize all that is right and good authority held by the Roman Catholic Church is void, then haven't you proven that it was schism and not reform?

JoeT

In my opinion the answer is no, not a schismatic but a reformer. Luther's intention for what Christ calls "My Church" meant for Christ's church to be Christians, known as those [called out] from all areas, and nations to follow Christ. I feel the difference the reform made is a plummet and I will explain why by example...

My opinion is concluded by the similar structure of our country's authorities today in rule. We hold two parties of representation yet both are one united in the same course. It works as a balancing scale, which I view to be very important. I believe God has shown in scripture this same type of balance being justified.

Scripture brings us wisdom in the love and righteousness of Our Lord Jesus Christ. We should be faithful, and the principle doctrine should be taught as a plummet ( straight line ). What better way to acheive that plummet then by a balancing scale between men which can keep the fallen nature of man under obedience in responsibility. For man on earth, I feel it is a remarkable step to achieve what Christ wanted for "His Church".

If we individuals who are [called out] as Christ's followers/Christians can discern as we are told to do, then our free will that was given can grow to gain additional followers. The unity of one with Christ is far more important then the unity of man with man. Thats why I follow [the simplicity of Christ] Paul said don't be deserved from the simplicity of Christ as Eve was.


Those simplicities are 1. His voice (Jhn 10:27) 2. I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.(Jhn 14:6) 3. For we walk by faith, not by sight ( 2 Cr 5:7)

Isa 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone], a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
Isa 28:17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place

The Judgement of what? Lies

Luther originally wanted to change the Church, as did Erasmus and Thomas More.

At some point in the early 1520's, it was too late. The die had been cast and Luther would forever be anathema. By 1550-1570, Europe was in turmoil and, for better or for worse, religious Europe, and Catholicism and Protestantism, had gone their separate paths - never to return.

It was a critical turning point, not only in religion, but in all of Western culture. The Protestants of northern Europe, Switzerland and France opened the door to new ways of political thinking, new ideas about the nature of Christianity, and ushered in the age of science.

The Catholic Church, now reformed by its own action (thanks to Luther), gave the world wonderful new religious ideals with the innumerable Catholic orders that sprang up from this time - in education, hospitals, and so many ways of following Christ's message to serve the poor.

Luther, in old age, became very cranky but we don't judge the old because they are no longer young and in the vigor of their youth. Luther had the vices of his virtues - a powerful thinker who lost any sense of compromise and who finally found solace in his children and grandchildren.

Luther, for all his foibles, was a great man and we are all the better for his having lived.

In another thread the discussion drifted, as it always seems to do, to whether or not Luther had intentions of leaving the Catholic Church. Rather than continuing off-topic, I’ll ask the questions here.


Was schism (separation from the Church) intended by Martin Luther?
Did Martin Luther attempt to destroy the Roman Catholic Church?


I have hope that we can keep the topic restricted to these questions without deviating into detailed discussions about Luther's theology. It’s not intended to delve into Luther’s theology in any detail, only to examine his motives surrounding his eventual separation from the Church.


JoeT

I want to honor your intent Joe, but it seems to me that Martin came to desire schism and the destruction of the Catholic Church because of his theological conclusions.

I have to assume good faith in Martin Luther, because that is what he claimed and I can't read his heart. However, we can all see that ultimately, he became confused.

And after all, he was human. He opened Pandora's box and could not close it again. Any of us, put in his shoes, would become fearful for our eternal destination at that point. Thus, perhaps, why he claimed that he never intended rebellion. And yet his earlier letters tell the opposite tale.

Luther originally wanted to change the Church, as did Erasmus and Thomas More.

At some point in the early 1520's, it was too late. The die had been cast and Luther would forever be anathema. By 1550-1570, Europe was in turmoil and, for better or for worse, religious Europe, and Catholicism and Protestantism, had gone their separate paths - never to return.

It was a critical turning point, not only in religion, but in all of Western culture. The Protestants of northern Europe, Switzerland and France opened the door to new ways of political thinking, new ideas about the nature of Christianity, and ushered in the age of science.

The Catholic Church, now reformed by its own action (thanks to Luther), gave the world wonderful new religious ideals with the innumerable Catholic orders that sprang up from this time - in education, hospitals, and so many ways of following Christ's message to serve the poor.

Luther, in old age, became very cranky but we don't judge the old because they are no longer young and in the vigor of their youth. Luther had the vices of his virtues - a powerful thinker who lost any sense of compromise and who finally found solace in his children and grandchildren.

Luther, for all his foibles, was a great man and we are all the better for his having lived.

I'm sorry, but I don't consider a man who publicly broke his vows to God a great man. The vices which are historically recorded of Luther, were never virtues.

And who can respect a man whose battle cry is "sin and sin mightily and grace will abound the more!"

No. Although I believe that Luther was convinced of his conclusions. I see nothing there for which he should be respected. In my opinion, it is those who worship him as a hero who have built up a structure of lies to protect his character. Let's take one simple example. The famous incident of slewfoot and the inkwell. What was actually slung back and forth between Luther and Satan? Hint: It wasn't ink.

In my opinion the answer is no, not a schismatic but a reformer. Luther's intention for what Christ calls "My Church" meant for Christ's church to be Christians, known as those [called out] from all areas, and nations to follow Christ. I feel the difference the reform made is a plummet and I will explain why by example...

My opinion is concluded by the similar structure of our country's authorities today in rule. We hold two parties of representation yet both are one united in the same course. It works as a balancing scale, which I view to be very important. I believe God has shown in scripture this same type of balance being justified.

Scripture brings us wisdom in the love and righteousness of Our Lord Jesus Christ. We should be faithful, and the principle doctrine should be taught as a plummet ( straight line ). What better way to acheive that plummet then by a balancing scale between men which can keep the fallen nature of man under obedience in responsibility. For man on earth, I feel it is a remarkable step to achieve what Christ wanted for "His Church".

If we individuals who are [called out] as Christ's followers/Christians can discern as we are told to do, then our free will that was given can grow to gain additional followers. The unity of one with Christ is far more important then the unity of man with man. Thats why I follow [the simplicity of Christ] Paul said don't be deserved from the simplicity of Christ as Eve was.


Those simplicities are 1. His voice (Jhn 10:27) 2. I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.(Jhn 14:6) 3. For we walk by faith, not by sight ( 2 Cr 5:7)

Isa 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone], a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
Isa 28:17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place

The Judgement of what? Lies

The United States is organized in a system such as the Church. But it isn't in its two party system. The Church is a Kingdom, not a democratic republic.

The United States is organized in a system such as the Divine organization of the Church in that we also have a Scripture, the Constitution, which can only be interpreted by one authority. The Supreme Court.

The Catholic Church is God's Supreme Court for the interpretation of Scripture.

This post I would agree with.. and I offer scripture that has told us these things will take place. As the Lord told Moses long ago, don't turn your back on the Lord, because My anger will be found to correct you. . . and I trust it is a sign of reaping from what is sown. The experiences of life builds us when we learn from our mistakes.

The Lord Told Moses
Deu 31:17 Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God [is] not among us?

But Scripture says that:
Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Therefore, although man might fail, Christ promised that His Church would not.

revdrgrade, sndbay, et al:

When the Gospels and the Epistles were written the common usage of ekklesia was, and still is, "A body of men united together by the profession of the same Christian Faith, and by participation in the same sacraments, under the governance of lawful pastors, more especially of the Roman Pontiff, the sole vicar of Christ on earth" (Bellarmine, De Eccl., III, ii, 9).

When Luther broke from the Church the common usage of 'Church' was to be “called out” with men united in a profession of the same Christian faith, governed by the Roman Pontiff.

It’s fully understood and realized that ‘after’ Luther, there came into vogue a tendency among Protestants to redefine a different church, more in keeping with their rationalization. Even still, regardless of how you understand ‘Church’, the question put forward was whether or not Luther was schismatic or reformer.

But, let me add, since the result of Luther’s schism is that his followers rationalize all that is right and good authority held by the Roman Catholic Church is void, then haven’t you proven that it was schism and not reform?

JoeT

That is true. Because just as God formed an organization with a hierarchy of Priests and High Priests. Jesus formed an organization with Priests (the lay priesthood of the believer) and High Priests (The Bishopric of the Apostles).

And it is my choice to recognize that there are seven churches according to scripture. (Revelation 1:4 1:11 1:20 )

1 Corinthians 12:5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

1 Corinthians 12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

1 Corinthians 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

Corinthians 12:8-11 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another [divers] kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

There is only "One" that holds all, and that is Christ Jesus. Nothing of perfection ever walked on this earth except for Christ.

1 Corinthians 12:27-28 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

There is an important reason to remember what happen to David, when by his choice, he wanted to count his followers.

God does not put forth any individual so that they can put themself above others. And, none are above God.

But Scripture says that:
Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Therefore, although man might fail, Christ promised that His Church would not.

My Church ( those called out to follow Christ) Christians... the gates of hell shall not prevail against... Amen and Praise God

That thou art Peter, Yes it was Peter

upon this rock, Yes the name Simon Peter means rock (hebrew names represent the integrity of the birth right their name gives them) shame or honor this name meant that Peter was a solid rock of integrity. A rock to the revealed truth that God had granted him. That revealed truth... That solid integrity.... was that Peter Loved the Lord.

It was shown by evident indentity when Christ asked Peter 3 times do you love Me...

Why would Christ build the church upon that rock... because it would be built upon Love for Christ....

And it is my choice to recognize that there are seven churches according to scripture. (Revelation 1:4 1:11 1:20 )

Seven is a mystical number. Not only does it mean the number 7, but it also means "the total of", as well as it means "oath".
As to the number 7 and its meaning; Seven is the number used is scripture extensively representing perfection or completion. It was used primarily in
the apocalyptic writings; Ezekiel, Daniel and Revelation signifying such. Apocalyptic literature was written in signs and symbols to veil the meaning
of the message from certain enemies but readily understood by the people of God.
Bible words (http://www.studythebible.com/question/topics/biblewords.htm)

And since Revelation is a book full of mystical language, I doubt that the number 7 simply means 7 in the context of that book.

[QUOTE]1 Corinthians 12:5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

1 Corinthians 12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

1 Corinthians 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

Corinthians 12:8-11 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another [divers] kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

There is only "One" that holds all, and that is Christ Jesus. Nothing of perfection ever walked on this earth except for Christ.

That is what we believe as well. But we believe that Christ communicated one aspect of His perfection to His Church. Infallibility. Infallibility does not mean perfection.


1 Corinthians 12:27-28 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

There is an important reason to remember what happen to David, when by his choice, he wanted to count his followers.

God does not put forth any individual so that they can put themself above others. And, none are above God.

That is true. But God has set forth some leaders who are to Pastor our souls and we are supposed to obey them.

Hebrews 13:17
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

God established the order of the Church. We simply keep the order which He set.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Seven is a mystical number. Not only does it mean the number 7, but it also means "the total of", as well as it means "oath".
As to the number 7 and its meaning; Seven is the number used is scripture extensively representing perfection or completion. It was used primarily in
the apocalyptic writings; Ezekiel, Daniel and Revelation signifying such. Apocalyptic literature was written in signs and symbols to veil the meaning
of the message from certain enemies but readily understood by the people of God.
Bible words (http://www.studythebible.com/question/topics/biblewords.htm)

And since Revelation is a book full of mystical language, I doubt that the number 7 simply means 7 in the context of that book.

Number 7 Denotes spiritual perfection. It is the number or hall-mark of the Holy Spirit's work. Example: The 7th day is the Sabbath, yet it take 6 individual days to reach the 7th, being the one out of all that holds spiritual perfection, Christ our rest....

Each individual church offers it's own refer in Revelation that completes the total "7" spiritual perfection.




That is what we believe as well. But we believe that Christ communicated one aspect of His perfection to His Church. Infallibility. Infallibility does not mean perfection.


Rejoice in weakness for by our weakness, Christ is made perfect in His worthyness.

2 Corinthians 12:5 Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.

2 Corinthains 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.





That is true. But God has set forth some leaders who are to Pastor our souls and we are supposed to obey them.

Hebrews 13:17
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

God established the order of the Church. We simply keep the order which He set.

Sincerely,

De Maria

DeMaria, I understand this choice of your's...

However... I watch carefully to discern from what comes from man. My experiences in life have brought me where I am. Those experience have taught me that control is in the hands of God. I only pray to be all that His hand and will permits. And all that He created me to be.

Sincerely ~child of God

My Church ( those called out to follow Christ) Christians... the gates of hell shall not prevail against... Amen and Praise God

That thou art Peter, Yes it was Peter

upon this rock, Yes the name Simon Peter means rock (hebrew names represent the integrity of the birth right their name gives them) shame or honor this name meant that Peter was a solid rock of integrity. A rock to the revealed truth that God had granted him. That revealed truth... That solid integrity.... was that Peter Loved the Lord.

It was shown by evident indentity when Christ asked Peter 3 times do you love Me...

Why would Christ build the church upon that rock... because it would be built upon Love for Christ....

The Catholic Church has always understood the Scripture to give Primacy to Peter. This was illustrated in a letter written by Pope Clement I (third in succession to Peter and had personally known Peter) to the Corinthians (circa) 95 AD claiming authority over Corinth. St. Irenaeus tells the second hand account from St. Polycarp where John was heard to say “the faithful wo are everywhere must agree with this Church (Rome) because of its more important principality.” During the Councils and Synods surrounding the early heresies the Popes decision settled the matter. This is illustrated in 431 AD. Where the Bishops responded to Pope Celestine’s decision, “He [Peter] lives even to this time, and always in his successor’s gives judgment.”


In the Douay Rheims the verse reads as follows:


And Jesus came into the quarters of Cæsarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.


Setting the scene; Caesarea Phillippi is in the valley of Lebanon below Mount Hermon as mentioned in Josh 11:17 or Baal Hemon as mentioned in Judg 3:3. Of particular interest is a land feature of a massive rock face. One of the tributaries for the Jordan River flows through the area. The area was liberated by the Maccabean revolt in 167 B.C. In 4 B.C. one of Herod the Great s three sons, Philip, built the Roman Grecian of Caesarea Philippi to honor the Roman emperor.


You can imagine Jesus with this huge rock wall as a backdrop, asking twice (not once but twice), “Whom to they say that I am?” No other disciples could give the answer but Simon. Simon confessed Jesus as being both the Messiah and the “Son of the Living God.” God had revealed to Simon what no other man on earth knew; Christ was the Second Person of the One Devine God.


And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


I can’t claim a special significance to the number of times “blessed art thou” is used in the New Testament. However, it is used only three times, twice in Luke 1: 42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed art thou among women... And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be; and once here in Matthew 16:17. It’s only used once by Jesus. (this holds true in the NKJV also) In my estimation, like Mary, God seats Peter in a special Chair for our salvation; the first of 266 whose “successor’s gives judgment,” St. Peter, St. Linus, St. Anacletus, St. Clement I, St. Alexander I, St. Sixtus I, St. Telesphorus, St. Hyginus… Benedict XVI


Are we to assume that Peter didn’t know of this? Are we to assume that this blessing made to Mary, the “handmaid” of God, would not in the same sense make Peter, the primary servant of Christ? And what significance are we to make of this blessing that came out of Christ’s own mouth? That this was just some utterance, a use of metaphors, a courteous remark? Would it not be safe to assume that what Christ blesses stays blessed? How does our eye pass so freely across the words “blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona” without stopping to wonder at the significance that's found nowhere else in the New Testament? Peter is the only one in history blessed by Christ himself? The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, we share that blessing. Peter was our first Vicar. By making ourselves “servants” of the Church, we in turn make ourselves, subjects of the Church whose head is the vicar (earthly representative) of Christ; and as such sharing in that one and only blessing uttered by Christ.


In plain language the simple meaning of the verse 18 becomes: because this was revealed to you by God, I will call you Rock and on this Rock I will build my church; hell won’t prevail against it.


And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.


The “keys” are the keys to the kingdom of heaven, similar to the “keys” mentioned in Isaiah 22. With the transfer of the keys, one to another, power and authority is also transferred; Christ gives Peter the supreme authority over the Church and to bind and loose, both in heaven and on earth.


“In regard to the Petros Kepha argument made by some, the play of words involved in naming Simon “Rock” is as clear in Aramaic as in English, if we use the literal translation “Rock” for the Aramaic Kepha rather than “Peter” which is derived from the Greek Petros. In Greek the noun for rock is feminine. Therefore it is unsuitable for a man’s name, and Peter is named Petros while the precise word for rock is petra, making the meaning a little less clear. But Christ’s words to Peter were spoken in Aramaic and first recorded in Armaic in Matthew’s Gospel; furthermore, we know that Peter was later often called Kepha or Cephas as well as Petros.” “Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom Vol 1, 1985, pg 349 footnote 135.


Insofar as I’m able to discern, based on the knowledge of those fluent in Greek and Latin, the differences between the KJV and the Douay-Rheims are not major. Only a few verses in the KJV give a different understanding. That's why I feel free to use a KJV to get a more rounded sense of a verse. My reason for mentioning the Scriptural differences was to point out differences here, as elsewhere in my response, of cases referring to Christ as a Rock is related to his strength. Furthermore, when compared with a Rock it referrers to Christ’s founding of doctrinal precepts; as it where knowledge pouring forth baptismal waters from Christ’s strength refreshing the people of Israel, e.g. Exodus 17:5 And the Lord said to Moses: Go before the people, and take with thee of the ancients of Israel: and take in thy hand the rod wherewith thou didst strike the river, and go. 6 Behold I will stand there before thee, upon the rock Horeb, and thou shalt strike the rock, and water shall come out of it that the people may drink. This doctrinal foundation is shown in 1 Cor 3:11-12 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. NKJV


We Catholics find that "This is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Savior, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (Jn. 21:17), commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it (cf. Matt. 28:18, etc.), and which he raised up for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines. Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity." (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Genitum, 8)


But, where do you think “Protestantism” came from? Where did each of the 30,000 different Christian Denominations get their Scriptures, each insisting it has the one and only authoritative interpretation? How do they recon Christ’s words, “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. ” (Cf. John 17). How then do you suppose those 30,000 interpret this, “I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert: and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven: that if any man eat of it, he may not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven.” (Cf. John 6). How then would you suggest that those 30,000 different Churches are One Church as Christ prayed “that they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me.” (John 17:20)


JoeT

I am sure the discussion of Martain Luther is in here somewhere??

I am sure the discussion of Martain Luther is in here somewhere ????

Oops. I'll get back on track.

Joe,
I'm glad you started this thread.
As a former Protestant I was taught that Luther wanted reform (his way) and did not want to leave the Church.
I still think that is the case even though some of what Luther wanted the Church to do or change to were radical even in his day.
BUT that may change...
I'm glad to see this discussion on that.
It is another opportunity for me to learn something.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

And who can respect a man whose battle cry is "sin and sin mightily and grace will abound the more!"


Do you then disrespect the Catholic Church use of the "Felix Culpa" (O Happy Fault) in the Easter Exultet?

Each means essentially the same thing with Luther's being a tad more hyperbolic.

And who can respect a man whose battle cry is "sin and sin mightily and grace will abound the more!"

.

Why was this said? In my opinion Luther and other authorities of the church go beyond the principle doctrines of Christ, beyond (the milk)as it is called in scripture. And within their own gift of knowledge, and what has been revealed by God to them.

When I hear the words which you have posted as the battle cry... The knowledge of scripture that Luther could have been showing glory in ---> 2 Corinthains 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

As you said earlier who can judge the heart of Luther. WE know the answer !


Do you then disrespect the Catholic Church use of the "Felix Culpa" (O Happy Fault) in the Easter Exultet?

Each means essentially the same thing with Luther's being a tad more hyperbolic.

As for what the meaning of the Felix Culpa means?(O Happy Fault) It would sound reasonable to believe the authorities of the Catholic Church are intending to glory in their infirmities. And in doing this they are actually Rejoicing not in iniquity, but rejoicing in the truth=Christ.. realizing that it takes the weakness of man, so to glory in the worthyness of Christ. Christ alone being all power and strength in perfection.
Discern and decide upon what adds up... watch carefully to the last letter of what is taught...

Do you then disrespect the Catholic Church use of the "Felix Culpa" (O Happy Fault) in the Easter Exultet?

Each means essentially the same thing with Luther's being a tad more hyperbolic.

As for what the meaning of the Felix Culpa means?(O Happy Fault) It would sound reasonable to believe the authorities of the Catholic Church are intending to glory in their infirmities. And in doing this they are actually Rejoicing not in iniquity, but rejoicing in the truth=Christ.. realizing that it takes the weakness of man, so to glory in the worthyness of Christ. Christ alone being all power and strength in perfection.
Discern and decide upon what adds up... watch carefully to the last letter of what is taught...

Not exactly. The full quote from St. Thomas as follows:

"O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem," "O happy fault that merited such and so great a Redeemer."

The question being answered by St. Thomas is in regard to the “The Fitness of the Incarnation.” More specifically, “ if there had been no sin, would God have become incarnate?”

The postulate is put forward that “Further, human nature has not been made more capable of grace by sin. But after sin it is capable of the grace of union, which is the greatest grace. Therefore, if man had not sinned, human nature would have been capable of this grace; nor would God have withheld from human nature any good it was capable of. Therefore, if man had not sinned, God would have become incarnate.”

And St. Thomas response is as follows:

A double capability may be remarked in human nature: one, in respect of the order of natural power, and this is always fulfilled by God, Who apportions to each according to its natural capability; the other in respect to the order of the Divine power, which all creatures implicitly obey; and the capability we speak of pertains to this. But God does not fulfil all such capabilities, otherwise God could do only what He has done in creatures, and this is false, as stated above (I, 105, 6). But there is no reason why human nature should not have been raised to something greater after sin. For God allows evils to happen in order to bring a greater good therefrom; hence it is written (Romans 5:20): "Where sin abounded, grace did more abound." Hence, too, in the blessing of the Paschal candle, we say: "O happy fault, that merited such and so great a Redeemer!" Summa Theologica III, Q1, 3

So, we see that there is a completely different context between Luther's "sin and sin mightily and grace will abound the more!" and St. Thomas's "O happy fault that merited such and so great a Redeemer."

Yes it is wise to “Discern and decide upon what adds up... watch carefully to the last letter of what is taught...” And, I would add, always be faithful to Truth. “But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” St. Augustine


JoeT

PS: BTW St. Thomas's conclusions to the question, “ if there had been no sin, would God have become incarnate?” as follows:

Augustine says (De Verb. Apost. viii, 2), expounding what is set down in Luke 19:10, "For the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost"; "Therefore, if man had not sinned, the Son of Man would not have come." And on 1 Timothy 1:15, "Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners," a gloss says, "There was no cause of Christ's coming into the world, except to save sinners. Take away diseases, take away wounds, and there is no need of medicine."

Do you then disrespect the Catholic Church use of the "Felix Culpa" (O Happy Fault) in the Easter Exultet?

Each means essentially the same thing with Luther's being a tad more hyperbolic.

Not so. O Happy Fault is a reference to Adam and Eve's Original Sin which led to the
God of heaven becoming incarnate for our salvation.

To sin and sin mightily is Luther's misunderstanding of Scripture:
Romans 6:1
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Just as his Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide teachings directly contradicts Scripture, so does this one.

Number 7 Denotes spiritual perfection. It is the number or hall-mark of the Holy Spirit's work. Example: The 7th day is the Sabbath, yet it take 6 individual days to reach the 7th, being the one out of all that holds spiritual perfection, Christ our rest....

Each individual church offers it's own refer in Revelation that completes the total "7" spiritual perfection.




Rejoice in weakness for by our weakness, Christ is made perfect in His worthyness.

2 Corinthians 12:5 Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.

2 Corinthains 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.




DeMaria, I understand this choice of your's...

However... I watch carefully to discern from what comes from man. My experiences in life have brought me where I am. Those experience have taught me that control is in the hands of God. I only pray to be all that His hand and will permits. And all that He created me to be.

Sincerely ~child of God

Beautiful answer. I echo the response. God bless you Child of God.

Yes it is wise to “Discern and decide upon what adds up... watch carefully to the last letter of what is taught...” And, I would add, always be faithful to Truth. “But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” St. Augustine

JoeT

Well again off thread... But here is my reply Joe

except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church?

I would not close my eyes and ears to the Spirit of God ..." I Love Him"

Remember Jesus's response to non-believers---> John 8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear [them] not, because ye are not of God.
God reveals unto whom?

1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

1 Corinthains 2:10 But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

1 Corinthians 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.


1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

1 Corinthians 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Athos,
I believe there is a big difference.
Luther's statement is an encouragement to sin.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

.
Luther's statement is an encouragement to sin.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred, I doubt that you can judge Luther's motive or heart. And I doubt even more that a Christian could be found to encourage sin.

Even if what Luther said was as DeMaria had said in refer to Romans 6:1.. If you look at Romans 5:20 and compare Luther's statement, I trust you can find a discernment less incriminating.

Romans 5:20-21 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

The same is true when you look at the scripture in Corinthians.. Does it mean we will actually feel good about our infirmities? No, however it does mean we find a direction to honor out from under sin.. = Christ because Christ brings grace(meaning favour, or acceptance.)


2 Corinthains 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

Fred, I doubt that you can judge Luther's motive or heart. And I doubt even more that a Christian could be found to encourage sin.

Even if what Luther said was as DeMaria had said in refer to Romans 6:1.. If you look at Romans 5:20 and compare Luther's statement, I trust you can find a discernment less incriminating.

Romans 5:20-21 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

The same is true when you look at the scripture in Corinthians.. Does it mean we will actually feel good about our infirmities? No, however it does mean we find a direction to honor out from under sin.. = Christ because Christ brings grace(meaning favour, or acceptance.)


2 Corinthains 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

Here is what Luther has been quoted as saying. Even the "sanitized" version contradicts Scripture.

13. If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.
Both texts are from Scroll Publishing: Let Your Sins Be Strong: A Letter From Luther to Melanchthon Letter no. 99, 1 August 1521, From the Wartburg (Segment) Translated by Erika Bullmann Flores from: _Dr. Martin Luther’s Saemmtliche Schriften_ Dr, Johannes Georg Walch, Ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, N.D.), Vol. 15,cols. 2585-2590.

The cleaned up version says:
13.”If you are a preacher of Grace, then preach a true, not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly. For he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here we have to sin. This life in not the dwelling place of righteousness but, as Peter says, we look for a new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.. . Pray boldly-you too are a mighty sinner.” (Weimar ed. vol. 2, p. 371; Letters I, “Luther’s Works,” American Ed. Vol 48. p. 281- 282)

At the very least, it was a very careless and irresponsible way to express the idea that we should not sin. Because that idea is lost in the shocking manner it is expressed if it is there expressed at all.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Here is what Luther has been quoted as saying. Even the "sanitized" version contradicts Scripture.

13. If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God's glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Thank you DeMaria, I had not seen this before.

My study of what Luther's words mean will be challenged with this quote: "If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy"

If suggests a question.. if you are a preacher of mercy? That would be suggestive of a preacher of ( goodness, kindness, faithfulness ),

do not preach an imaginary... (rather) but the true mercy" = instead the true goodness,kindness, faithfulness.

Final line 1: If you are a preacher of goodness,kindness, faithfulness, do not preach an unreal, rather instead the true goodness,kindness, faithfulness.

De Maria,
Thanks much for posting that.
I confirms what I said.
Luther encourages sin.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Martin Luther obtained his Doctorate of Theology from University of Wittenberg , as it were, he was steeped in Catholicism. Within five years he became a rebel. But like liberals of any age, he rejected God's absolute authority in the Church replacing it with his individual right to an absolute sovereignty over the order of reason to subjugate absolute authority to the will. Thus, being in authority over the intellect liberal's license themselves in the moral order. “Disorder in the intellect begets disorder in the heart, and vice-versa. “ Consequently, it's little surprise to see Luther's undisciplined rationalization of immoderation in disorder and contentious actions. He replaces positive law for natural law. However, first a barrier must be removed, the Catholic Church.

The revolutionary Luther arrived in Leipzig June of 1518 for a deputation of his views with his opposite, Johann Maier (a.k.a. John Eric). This was early in his career, before his break from the Church. A supporter, Hieronymus Emser , advised Luther to be judicious in his challenge to the Church, that is not to go at it too strong. This evoked a strange and vicious response from Luther, “The devil take it! The affair was not begun on God's account; neither shall it end on God's account!” (Robert Herndon Fife, The Revolt of Martin Luther (1957), pp. 350-351, 403) This statement is difficult to justify of any man, let alone the man who was to be the Father of Protestantism, the founder of a Church that was to bear Luther's name, not Christ's. More important is the question that goes begging; on whose account was the affair started if not God's?

Maybe we can guess; “If we punish thieves with the gallows, robbers with the sword, and heretics with fire, why should we not all the more assail with arms theses masters of perdition, these cardinals, theses Popes…?” Martin Luther, 1520 “To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation”. – cited by Warren H. Carroll, The Cleaving of Christendom.

"ALL Switzerland, Constance, Augsburg and a good part of Italy depend on
Luther." Thus wrote the Freiburg jurist Ulrich Zasius to Konrad Mutianus (Robert Herndon Fife, The Revolt of Martin Luther (1957))

An innocent reformer, looking to save souls, I think not. More like Lenin in Moscow at the turn of the 20th century.

JoeT

Compared to what Luther wrote I submit what I feel his Christian heart was saying. I have to acknowledge what his letter contains of love for Christ .

However, I question why did Luther think that an unreal sin was being preached? Some type of unreal sin that could not be over come by the faithfullness that God's mercy brings through the Grace of God = Christ ?

AND What made him think that all sins of this world were not acknowledge as being strongly bad? That for some strange and foreign reason, there was a degree of sin or a question in seriousness?

Final line 1: If you are a preacher of goodness,kindness, faithfulness, do not preach an unreal, rather instead the true goodness,kindness, faithfulness.

Final line 2: If the goodness,kindness, faithfulness is true, you must therefore bear the true, not the unreal sin.

Final line 3: God does not save those [who are only] unreal sinners. ( who are only those who live under law of righteousness)

Final line 4: . Acknowledge(be aware) you are a sinner,( whether you live in a righteous attempt not to sin.) and let your sins be (as sins are strongly bad) . But let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world.

Final line 5:We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where righteousness resides.

Final line 6:We, however, says Peter are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where righteousness will reign. (2. Peter 3:13Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.)

Final line 7: It suffices that through God's glory [we have recognized] the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world.

Final line 8: No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. ( This say kill like in war and not murder, and commiting adultary includes looking upon another )

Final line 9:Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins?

Final line 10: Pray hard for you are quite a sinner. (we are all sinners/ repent in the glory of Christ)

My acceptance in heart, is that both sides of this discussion should be one of love and faithfulness in Christ.

Compared to what Luther wrote I submit what I feel his Christian heart was saying. I have to acknowledge what his letter contains of love for Christ .....

I am positively impressed by your loyalty to Luther. I may be mistaken, but I don't see the same type of charity towards the Pope and the Catholic Church.

Am I wrong?

I am positively impressed by your loyalty to Luther. I may be mistaken, but I don't see the same type of charity towards the Pope and the Catholic Church.

Am I wrong?

You are mistaken... Perhaps you did not see my last commente [quote:] My acceptance in heart, is that both sides of this discussion should be one of love and faithfulness in Christ.

It is the love in Christ that bring unity and hope...

My faith rest in Christ... as a child of God, I finds the house of God, a place of praise and worship in Christ. And it is off tread for me to explain any further except to say there is no cloke or ego trip meant by my discernment in what I view as right or wrong on either case..

1 Peter 2:15-16 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

Joe,
Thanks for posting that.
sndbay thanks for posting your response.
Regardless of whether Luther was a reformer or a divider I firmly think that all Christians should strive for as much unity and respect for each other as is possible regardless of denomination.
I'm going to post a new thread about that from a Catholic priest's point of view.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

In a letter to Jodocus Trutfetter, a former professor, Martin Luther exhibited his commitment to the destruction of the Church. He wrote, “To speak plainly, my firm belief is that reform of the Church is impossible unless the ecclesiastical laws, the papal regulations, scholastic theology, philosophy and logic as they at present exist, are thoroughly uprooted….a resolution from which neither your authority, although it is certainly of greatest weight for me…” (Source: Warren H. Carroll, The Cleaving of Christendom, 2000.)
N.B.: Luther said in the quoted letter above that "reform of the Church is impossible UNLESS... [all those things] are thoroughly uprooted... " Luther was hoping that the Church would reform, would realize how it had deviated from the Word of God, in particular from the Gospel. As we all know, the Church did not reform at that time, in response to Luther's activism.

Luther was a reformer and did not intend to break with the Catholic Church.

I cannot believe we are discussing Luther as a reformer of the Church or a destroyer of it without examining these:

95 Theses - Luther (http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html)

And who can respect a man whose battle cry is "sin and sin mightily and grace will abound the more!"
And who can respect a man who has no poetry in his soul!

Instead of grousing about a sound bite taken out of context, please read that entire passage and let your imagination soar in order to understand what Luther was really saying:

"If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but
the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the
true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only
imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let
your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the
victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we
are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We,
however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new
heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that
through God's glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the
sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to
kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think
such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager
sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner."

N.B.: Luther said in the quoted letter above that "reform of the Church is impossible UNLESS...[all those things] are thoroughly uprooted...." Luther was hoping that the Church would reform, would realize how it had deviated from the Word of God, in particular from the Gospel. As we all know, the Church did not reform at that time, in response to Luther's activism.

Luther was a reformer and did not intend to break with the Catholic Church.

Wondergirl:

I think you missed the fact that the thing Luther wished to change WAS the ENTIRE Roman Church. It’s apparent from his statement that he wanted to abolish it, because these are the vary characteristics that make it the Roman Church.

If your goal is to “reform” the Church, or any organization, why would you want to do it from the outside? Martin Luther could have been much more effective from the inside, instead he causes a schism. I contend that this was his intent all along given the number of opportunities he had to address theological issues within the Church. As to the 95 thesis is concerned, the Church dealt with all of them and found all but three or four to be heretical.

JoeT

Wondergirl:

I think you missed the fact that the thing Luther wished to change WAS the ENTIRE Roman Church. It’s apparent from his statement that he wanted to abolish it, because these are the vary characteristics that make it the Roman Church.

If your goal is to “reform” the Church, or any organization, why would you want to do it from the outside? Martin Luther could have been much more effective from the inside, instead he causes a schism. I contend that this was his intent all along given the number of opportunities he had to address theological issues within the Church. As to the 95 thesis is concerned, the Church dealt with all of them and found all but three or four to be heretical.

JoeT
Dear, dear Joe. Luther WAS in the Church when he wanted to reform it. Luther DID NOT want to abolish the Church, but just clean up its evils. The Church found those three or four theses heretical because it DID NOT want to address the issues within them.

At the end of the day, I suspect we'll never know why Luther did what he did, nor what his intentions ultimately were. He may not have had a clear set of intentions in mind himself. What we do know is that he hardened in his position very quickly. He wrote the 95 Theses in order to provoke a debate, which is fine; he had every right in the world to do so, as far as I am concerned. The problem is that once the debate was joined by the other side he bristled at being questioned, at being challenged, and this strikes me as odd for someone motivated by a zeal for reform. The small order to which he belonged in Germany, the Augustinian Hermits, were then centered around Erfurt. They were known for their dislike of Italian influence in Rome, and especially in Germany--there was a kind of nativist political ideology among the Erfurt Augustinians. And this, it is widely recognized, played a role in how events unfolded.

Two first-rate theologians attempted to engage Luther in reasoned debate about his claims, Johannes Eck and Cajetan. As has been well-documented, Luther was unwilling to have the debate he himself called for at the beginning. He made it clear again and again that he didn't approve of being questioned (again, odd). I find it telling that when Eck asked Luther by what right he added words to Sacred Scripture (Luther added to word "alone" to his translation of Romans, in order to give support to his theological novelty of justification by faith alone--no Christian had ever thought this), Luther replied, oddly, because Dr. Martin Luther says so. It's difficult for me to see how anyone who didn't already agree with Luther was ever supposed to have an honest debate with him; he went out of his way to make it impossible. (He did the same thing with Protestants who disagreed with him. His ire was not directed only at Rome--he didn't like to be challenged by anyone.)

As has been pointed out above, Luther's theological innovations were quickly co-opted by political forces in Germany for purposes that had nothing to do with theology. But Luther was no mere pawn in this either. He notoriously entered into the political sphere with two of his earliest writings (post-95 Theses). And, of course, his response to the Peasants' Revolt was, and remains, horrific.

So whether Luther started with the idea of creating a schism (I don't think we can know for sure), he VERY quickly adopted this as his aim. The idea, which is sometimes circulated by apologists, that Luther loved the Church during the early period following the 95 Theses, is not supported by the last hundred years of scholarly work (by Catholics, Lutherans, and secular historians), though he was appalled by some of the escalations of his early followers (esp. Carlstadt).

I see no real reason to impugn Luther's sincerity. I believe that he believed in what he was doing. But sincerity and truth are two different things; people are very often sincerely mistaken.

Was schism (separation from the Church) intended by Martin Luther?
Did Martin Luther attempt to destroy the Roman Catholic Church?
No schism intended.
This was not an attempt by Luther to destroy the Church which he loved with all his heart.

As an aside, to give you a flavor of the mindset of the Catholic Church back then, the Castle Church in Wittenberg (where Luther posted his theses on October 1, 1517) was the site of one of Europe's largest single collections of "holy" relics, accumulated by Elector Frederick the Wise. By 1509 the Elector "already owned 5,005 of them, including several vials of the milk of the Virgin Mary, straw from the manger [of Jesus], and the entire corpse of one of the innocents massacred by King Herod. These relics were kept in reliquaries--artistically wrought vessels mostly of silver gilt--and exhibited once a year for the faithful to venerate. In 1509 each devout visitor who donated toward the preservation of the Castle Church received an indulgence of one hundred days per relic." By 1520 the Elector's collection of relics had increased to 19,013 allowing pilgrims to the Castle Church to receive an indulgence that would reduce their years in purgatory by 1.9 million years. (taken from NationMaster - Encyclopedia: 95 Theses (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/95-Theses))

In response to the selling of indulgences by John Tetzel (who had been empowered by the pope), Luther wrote a pamphlet called "The 95 Theses," a criticism of indulgences and other scams being done by the Church's powers-that-be. The pamphlet contained ninety five points that he felt should be argued at an academic level - they were not for general public discussion.

There are two reasons for thinking this:

The pamphlet was written in Latin which was the traditional language of the scholar then and beyond the understanding of most people including the rich and even members of the European royal families some of whom were not literate in their own language let alone Latin !

The pamphlet was not released to the general public to read but it was pinned to the church door in Wittenburg for other scholars to read and to discuss in preparation for a full discussion at a later date. This was the traditional manner for a scholar to bring attention to his work to other academics to allow for a full discussion.

There was nothing revolutionary about what Luther did - it was the standard accepted practice of those academics who attended the university at Wittenburg.

What happened next makes it appear that Luther was a revolutionary but this was not so.

Someone took down the pamphlet and made a copy of it. It would be normal for a number to be made available for all the academic staff at a large university. Someone then had it translated into German and it was printed off for the general public to have greater access to it. When Luther found out what had happened he tried to get back to original copy but to no avail. The "95 Theses" had gone public and was no longer merely a topic for academic staff.

The majority of people could not read or write in 1517 but it was common for a person who could read to do so out in the public domain (such as a market square) if he believed that he had something of interest that others might want to hear. This is how the information in the pamphlet spread within Wittenburg and the surrounding area and many people in Wittenburg clearly identified themselves with what was stated in the pamphlet about indulgences especially as they were the ones who had to pay for them and were very much out of pocket when this happened...

Luther's attempt to retrieve that pamphlet proves that he was not setting out to do something drastic or revolutionary. His failure to do so was to have massive consequences for Europe and lead to the Reformation. (from http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Martin_Luther_95_Theses.htm)

Wondergirl,
Sorry but as a former Lutheran I MUST agree with JoeT and DeMaria for they are correct about Luther.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Wondergirl,
Sorry but as a former Lutheran I MUST agree with JoeT and DeMaria for they are correct about Luther.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
arcura,
Sorry, but as a lifelong Lutheran who has studied Luther's life with great intensity especially because she was born on his birthday, I say with great conviction that JoeT and DeMaria are grossly incorrect in their beliefs.
Peace and kindness,
Carol

Wondergirl
Each to his/her own beliefs.
So it goes.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

As an aside, to give you a flavor of the mindset of the Catholic Church back then, the Castle Church in Wittenberg (where Luther posted his theses on October 1, 1517) was the site of one of Europe's largest single collections of "holy" relics, accumulated by Elector Frederick the Wise. By 1509 the Elector "already owned 5,005 of them, including several vials of the milk of the Virgin Mary, straw from the manger [of Jesus], and the entire corpse of one of the innocents massacred by King Herod. These relics were kept in reliquaries--artistically wrought vessels mostly of silver gilt--and exhibited once a year for the faithful to venerate. In 1509 each devout visitor who donated toward the preservation of the Castle Church received an indulgence of one hundred days per relic." By 1520 the Elector's collection of relics had increased to 19,013 allowing pilgrims to the Castle Church to receive an indulgence that would reduce their years in purgatory by 1.9 million years.

Uhmm, so? I went on a pilgrimage last September for two weeks visiting several European Churches a day some with relics – by the way, several were taken from Catholics 1500's and now used by the Protestants – the one I'm thinking of was an Anglican Church in Dublin. And, at each church I left alms and donations for which I received indulgences. Pilgrimages to Churches with relics were a big thing from the 10th century till the early 1500's (when 117 years of Protestant wars started). Each Church acquired as many relics as possible to draw the pilgrims to the local Church.

Indulgence Examples of today:
Catholic World News (CWN)

Feature Stories
Plenary indulgence offered for Pauline-year pilgrimages (Subscribe to RSS Feed)

"Vatican, May. 12, 2008 (CWNews.com) - Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) has declared a plenary indulgence for Catholics who make a pilgrimage to the Roman basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls during the special Pauline year that begins June 28."


The Church holds that it retains the sole power to provide an extra-sacramental remission of temporal punishment due to sin. It does so under the power of the Keys given Peter to bind or loosen on earth and heaven. Luther didn't stop with the mercenary aspects of this practice, but also attacked the Church's power to grant indulgences.


In response to the selling of indulgences by John Tetzel (who had been empowered by the pope), Luther wrote a pamphlet called "The 95 Theses," a criticism of indulgences and other scams being done by the Church's powers-that-be. The pamphlet contained ninety five points that he felt should be argued at an academic level - they were not for general public discussion.

Long before Luther the Church had recognized abuses of selling indulgences. It used its authority to correct those cases. Many Catholics believe that the selling of indulgences was little more than a pretext to attack the Church.

Johann Tetzel was a Dominican preacher who defended the doctrine of indulgences against Luther in two deputations. Prior to the Ninety-Five he is attributed with tone “As soon as the coin in the box clinks, the soul out of purgatory's fire springs.” It should be noted the authenticity of attributing this to Tetzel, while believable, is still in question. The “other scams” that you refer to are figments of somebody's propaganda. And, had there been scams, they would have been just that, scams.

However, in the early years the fault lied with Luther's scornful rejection of doctrine which denied that the Church could dispense indulgences (this is separate from the issue of selling indulgences which never part of doctrine) and whether the sacraments were efficacious within their own operation without faith. (reference for indulgences – Pope Clement VI, Unigenitus)


There are two reasons for thinking this:The pamphlet was written in Latin which was the traditional language of the scholar then and beyond the understanding of most people including the rich and even members of the European royal families some of whom were not literate in their own language let alone Latin !

It was customary for the people of any Kingdom to take up the faith of the ruler. In the case of Luther, religion was used to separate the German part of the Empire. And Luther actively and supported this movement. Just as it was the custom to pin opinions on the University's door for all to read; it served the same function as the bulletin board today.


The pamphlet was not released to the general public to read but it was pinned to the church door in Wittenburg for other scholars to read and to discuss in preparation for a full discussion at a later date. This was the traditional manner for a scholar to bring attention to his work to other academics to allow for a full discussion


There was nothing revolutionary about what Luther did - it was the standard accepted practice of those academics who attended the university at Wittenburg.

What happened next makes it appear that Luther was a revolutionary but this was not so.

Someone took down the pamphlet and made a copy of it. It would be normal for a number to be made available for all the academic staff at a large university. Someone then had it translated into German and it was printed off for the general public to have greater access to it. When Luther found out what had happened he tried to get back to original copy but to no avail. The "95 Theses" had gone public and was no longer merely a topic for academic staff.

The majority of people could not read or write in 1517 but it was common for a person who could read to do so out in the public domain (such as a market square) if he believed that he had something of interest that others might want to hear. This is how the information in the pamphlet spread within Wittenburg and the surrounding area and many people in Wittenburg clearly identified themselves with what was stated in the pamphlet about indulgences especially as they were the ones who had to pay for them and were very much out of pocket when this happened...

Luther's attempt to retrieve that pamphlet proves that he was not setting out to do something drastic or revolutionary. His failure to do so was to have massive consequences for Europe and lead to the Reformation.[/I] (from ::The 95 Theses:: (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Martin_Luther_95_Theses.htm))

I don't understand what the significance is whether it was copied.

JoeT

Joe,
Thanks for posting that,
Fred

I don't understand what the significance is whether or not it was copied.
Luther did not intend for it to be copied. It was written and posted for discussion by the academic and religious sages, not by the common people (as I had posted, "it was pinned to the church door in Wittenburg for other scholars to read and to discuss in preparation for a full discussion at a later date. This was the traditional manner for a scholar to bring attention to his work to other academics to allow for a full discussion"). Once it had been copied and disseminated, Luther lost control of it and the ideas within it.

Thanks for that helpful post, Joe.

It's worth remembering that Luther was neither the first nor the last reformer the Church has seen. St. Francis, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Teresa of Avila, St.John of the Cross, to name just a few. And notice that none of them were schismatic--in fact, the letters "s" and "t" before their names indicates that the Church holds them in very high regard, indeed. So the idea that Luther wanted to reform a Church that was unwilling to reform itself just isn't plausible. The Church has been reforming and renewing itself throughout the whole of its history. St. Gregory the Great was a reformer, as was Pope St. Leo the Great. If we compare Luther, on the one hand, and St. Teresa or St.Francis, on the other, what we find in the former is a lack of any humility--as evidenced by his refusal to engage in honest debate with Eck and Cajetan.

Luther apologists often paint a picture of a Roman Church that was unwilling to correct abuses, that was unwilling to reform itself. But, as I've just indicated, that particular part of the narrative is gainsaid by the many, many reform movements which the Church has embraced over the years.

Thanks for that helpful post, Joe.

It's worth remembering that Luther was neither the first nor the last reformer the Church has seen. St. Francis, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Teresa of Avila, St.John of the Cross, to name just a few. And notice that none of them were schismatic--in fact, the letters "s" and "t" before their names indicates that the Church holds them in very high regard, indeed. So the idea that Luther wanted to reform a Church that was unwilling to reform itself just isn't plausible. The Church has been reforming and renewing itself throughout the whole of its history. St. Gregory the Great was a reformer, as was Pope St. Leo the Great. If we compare Luther, on the one hand, and St. Teresa or St.Francis, on the other, what we find in the former is a lack of any humility--as evidenced by his refusal to engage in honest debate with Eck and Cajetan.

Luther apologists often paint a picture of a Roman Church that was unwilling to correct abuses, that was unwilling to reform itself. But, as I've just indicated, that particular part of the narrative is gainsaid by the many, many reform movements which the Church has embraced over the years.
And all the other Church reformers that you mentioned faced the similar injustices and an obstructionist political climate that Luther did? I counter that the injustices and climate in Luther's day were unique.

What did those other reformers reform?

And all the other Church reformers that you mentioned faced the injustices and the same political climate that Luther did? I counter that the injustices and climate in Luther's day were unique.

Well, St. Teresa was called before the Inquisition. Does that count? The political climate when St. Francis was active was AT LEAST as toxic as when Luther was. St. Catherine was active during the so-called Babylonian Captivity, when the papacy was at Avignon--so, worse than what Luther was facing. Leo the Great faced, among a great many other things, the invasion of Attila. Gregory the Great was contending with the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Roman Empire in the west and constant barbarian invasions, a plague, etc. Luther was writing in an academic backwater.

By all means, make the case that the climate Luther faced was especially bad. For my part, I find it very difficult to see how anyone could make that case. But maybe I'm overlooking something.

EDIT:

This reply was written to your pre-edited post (quoted in full above). If you'd like to know what they reformed, a Wikipedia search will likely get you started. And I'm not sure what you mean by "obstructionist". I'll need you to say a little more about that in order to respond in a useful way.

Wondergirl,

If you're interested in reform movements pre-Luther, there's a nice little paperback by R.W. Southern called Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages. It's cheap and easy to find, and is written by a widely respected medieval historian. It gives important historical perspective to what would come to pass during the Reformation.

Akour,
Excellent post.
Yes there have been several good reformers in Church history.
One of Luther's great faults was lack of humility.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Wondergirl,

If you're interested in reform movements pre-Luther, there's a nice little paperback by R.W. Southern called Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages. It's cheap and easy to find, and is written by a widely respected medieval historian. It gives important historical perspective to what would come to pass during the Reformation.
I'm a librarian. I'll find it. Thanks for the recommendation, Akoue.

***ADDED: It's at 1077 llibraries throughout the world including 47 IL university libraries (plus my alma mater).

he didn't like to be challenged by anyone
Heck, he was a Scorpio! Ask me about it!

Wondergirl,
A Scorpio??
LOL

Wondergirl,
A Scorpio???
LOL
November 10th -- same birthday as mine.

Wondergirl,
So you believe in astrology??
Interesting.
I wonder if Luther did.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Luther didn't, and I don't, but read the description of a Scorpio. You will see Luther in it. Scorpiois are teachers, researchers, counselors. That's what I happen to be, and not because I took on those careers in order to satisfy a horoscope.

Read your own horoscope to see if it fits you. Read other horoscopes and find out that they do not fit you.

Wondergirl,
Horrorscopes is what they are to me.
They are so full of generalities that can be made to fit almost anyone.
At one time, years ago, I followed them to my great dismay. Never again.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Wondergirl,
Horrorscopes is what they are to me.
They are so full of generalities that can be made to fit almost anyone.
At one time, years ago, I followed them to my great dismay. Never again.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
What's your sign?

Wondergirl,
I was born on February 21, 1933.
Not only the months and dates are important to that way of thinking but also the years and where the planets were at that time.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Wondergirl,
I was born on February 21, 1933.
Not only the months and dates are important to that way of thinking but also the years and where the planets were at that time.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
The time of birth too.

Wondergirl,
4:40 P.M.
Fred

All:

Speaking of mysticism; I was just reading Hartmann Grisar’s “Luther” who suggested that Luther was influenced by a mysticism. Grisar continues and puts forward that much of Luther’s theology and philosophy was influenced by Nominalism. An example in the mystical tone, “Thy sin; Thou hast accepted what I am and given me what Thou art ; Thou hast thus become what Thou wast not, and what I was not I have received. . . . Never desire," he exhorts him, " a purity so great as to make you cease thinking yourself, nay being, a sinner ; for Christ dwells only in sinners ; He came down from heaven where He dwells in the righteous in order to live also in sinners. If you ponder upon His love, then you will become conscious of His most sweet consolation. What were the use of His death had we to attain to peace of conscience by our own trouble and labour ? Therefore only in Him will you find peace through a trustful despair of yourself and your works." (As quoted by Grisar, Letter of April 8, 1516, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 29. -De Wette dates it April 7.)

JoeT

Joe,
Now THAT IS interesting.
I always thought that Jesus came for everyone for we are all sinners to some degree.
Some are greater sinners than others and the self-righteous may be numbered among the greatest sinners.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Luther was a nominalist. This isn't at all controversial. Nominalism was ascendant at the time, and Luther was trained by nominalists. Nominalism doesn't have to have unsavory theological consequences, though it has often been developed in ways which conduce to theological error. (It all depends on what's being "nominalized".)

As for mysticism, he was clearly influenced by a strain of later Medieval German mysticism which has its roots in some of Meister Eckhart's sermons. This strain of mysticism was deeply individualistic and so took a deflationary attitude toward ecclesial communion and structure, the sacraments, Tradition, etc. One can also see it in a very vivid way in the so-called Radical Reformation, the generation that was deeply impacted by Luther in Germany and gave birth to, among other things, the Anabaptists.

Akoue
The more posts we have on Luther the more interesting this thread becomes.
Also the more happy I am that I left that denomination many years ago and took the road to Rome and eventually arrived there thanks to the help of several very informative priests.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Akoue
The more posts we have on Luther the more interesting this thread becomes.
Also the more happy I am that I left that denomination many years ago and took the road to Rome and eventually arrived there thanks to the help of several very informative priests.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Knowing there are Lutherans and other Protestants reading this thread, please refrain from adding sentences like your second one. That comment is very disrespectful to non-Catholic Christians and encourages retorts and in-fighting.

Wondergirl ,
I told the truth about me.
I do not hold it disrespectful of any others who do so about themselves. In fact I stick up for them to be able to chose the faith they decided on.
If you find my story disrespectful I'm sorry for you that you do.
That's like the atheists who claim it is disrespectful for a Chrsitian to admit that they are Chrsitians.
But even so I respect the atheists right to be as the choose to be.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Wondergirl ,
I told the truth about me.
I do not hold it disrespectful of any others who do so about themselves. In fact I stick up for them to be able to chose the faith they decided on.
If you find my story disrespectful I'm sorry for you that you do.
That's like the atheists who claim it is disrespectful for a Chrsitian to admit that they are Chrsitians.
But even so I respect the atheists right to be as the choose to be.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Your first sentence ("The more posts we have on Luther the more interesting this thread becomes.") would have been sufficient. I'm so happy you are glad to be Catholic and no longer one of those misdirected Lutherans. And now you are sorry for me. Gee thanks, Fred. Again, this is why the Christianity board dissolves into arguments, especially between you and Tom -- e.g. "my church is better than your church, and my beliefs are better than your beliefs."

Wondergirl
Please be accurate.
Where did I say that my beliefs are better than yours?
As I have said many times I respect the right of others to believe as they want to and that includes you and Tom Smith.
For your information I still hold the Lutheran Church in high regard for it was the Lutherans who taught me first about Jesus Christ and to love and follow him.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

How about "Also the more happy I am that I left that denomination many years ago...."

Thank God you left that denomination... relief for leaving a terribly misguided group and all its confused adherents is implicit in your words.

Your first statement was lovely and very true -- "The more posts we have on Luther the more interesting this thread becomes."

Well this has come to a screeching halt...

Well this has come to a screeching halt...
Ok, Akoue. It's all up to you. How much did Luther's physical health affect what he did and how he did it? A few historians blame his stomach problems and depression.

Wondergirl,
I did not know that Luther had such problems.
A man with stomach problems can be very much affected by that.
I know because I had severe stomach problems and eventually passed out from it.
I spend a month in the hospital getting it taken care of.
I now must wear a colostomy pouch but all the pain is gone.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Ok, Akoue. It's all up to you. How much did Luther's physical health affect what he did and how he did it? A few historians blame his stomach problems and depression.

Oh, sure, dump it in my lap, why don't you.

It actually makes a lot of sense to me that Luther, who suffered physically for many years, could be made irascible by his ailments. And I don't think this reflects poorly on him: As a monk, we know that he was in terrible physical pain a good deal of the time. It would sure make me cranky. That said, even though I obviously have my problems with Luther, I tend not to want to psychoanalyze him too much. It feels a bit phony to me (and just me--this isn't a criticism of those who do it).

I prefer to look at his actions and his writings and to try to understand and assess them without trying to climb into his head too terribly much (though sometimes it's unavoidable, I suspect). As I said earlier, I don't claim to know his intentions, and I very much doubt anyone else does, but his actions trouble me... and not just because I don't agree with him a lot of the time. In fairness to the man, he may not have known what exactly his intentions were--we often don't realize our own intentions and motivations at the time we act but until later, after we've had a chance to reflect.

So he may have thought of himself as a humble servant at the beginning, but the very rapid hardening of his position says something. I'm just not entirely sure what. And I don't think it can be adequately explained by appealing to the refusal of the other side to meet him halfway since, as we know, Eck tried that more than once and was rebuffed.

Oh, sure, dump it in my lap, why don't you.
See!! You outdid yourself! I knew you were up to the task.


As I said earlier, I don't claim to know his intentions, and I very much doubt anyone else does
I suspect when he lost control of his theses, things went to hell in a handbasket, and he was forced to defend his position six ways from Sunday.

To be sure the translation of the Theses into the vernacular, coupled with their wide dissemination, added a layer of complexity. The Church could not, then, respond solely in the manner of an academic disputation.

Here's my thing about that: Luther's early publications in the immediate aftermath of this were downright vitriolic. So he didn't try to tamp down the situation from his end, even as the Church was trying to engage in this debate he called for with the Theses themselves. He acted in a way that was guaranteed to cause escalation, while at the same time refusing to participate in an honest debate of ideas. And this doesn't look to me like the actions of someone who didn't embrace schism as a goal. Now, I may very well be wrong--I have no privileged access to the contents of Luther's mental states--but his *actions* weren't those of someone who "loved his Church". At the end of the day, I can only speak to his actions, not his psychology, and this is why I say I find it very difficult to buy into the idea that he was motivated by a loving zeal to reform the Church. His actions just aren't consonant with that as far as I can tell.

To be sure the translation of the Theses into the vernacular, coupled with their wide dissemination, added a layer of complexity. The Church could not, then, respond solely in the manner of an academic disputation.

Here's my thing about that: Luther's early publications in the immediate aftermath of this were downright vitriolic. So he didn't try to tamp down the situation from his end, even as the Church was trying to engage in this debate he called for with the Theses themselves. He acted in a way that was guaranteed to cause escalation, while at the same time refusing to participate in an honest debate of ideas. And this doesn't look to me like the actions of someone who didn't embrace schism as a goal. Now, I may very well be wrong--I have no privileged access to the contents of Luther's mental states--but his *actions* weren't those of someone who "loved his Church". At the end of the day, I can only speak to his actions, not his psychology, and this is why I say I find it very difficult to buy into the idea that he was motivated by a loving zeal to reform the Church. His actions just aren't consonant with that as far as I can tell.
You are equating the Church with the men who ran the Church. Luther loved the one and disrespected the other.

You are equating the Church with the men who ran the Church. Luther loved the one and disrespected the other.

I don't think I'm equating them. I'm not trying to be coy here: I've re-read what I wrote and don't think I've done this. But, as I so often say, I may be missing something.

In any case, though, I don't see how that would change anything about what I've said. If Luther had not wanted schism, if he wanted to reform the Church and preserve its unity, then he would, I think, have comported himself differently. He might, at the VERY least, have engaged in the debate he himself called for. Instead, he chose to be a polemicist.

Akoue,
I speak from experience having had stomach pain for a long time.
I was often sad or confused or angry that at first the doctors could not determine what my problem was.
At time it was difficult to carry on a decent conversation with anyone including family members.
So I tried to avoid speaking with them and that upset them.
I asked the priest for healing prayers and he did lay hands on me trying to help me and get God's help.
For several days that seemed to help but when the pain came back I was disappointed and angry and confused.
Finally after a cat scan it was determined what my problem was but I passed out and was out for two weeks having had 2 heart attacks.
When I woke up the priest came to the hospital and asked me if I wanted last rights. In anger I said no it will not do any good and I did feel that way at the time. It was foolish of me to say that but I was under some drugs and confused,
Later I spoke with my priest about that and told him that if ever I was in the same situation, please don't ask me about last rights, just do it.
I think he understood.
Through all that I did not want to change the Mass or attack the pope. Something like that never crossed my mind.
Then again I was not like Luther wanting to make some changes in the Church for I was not a monk or a priest with things like that on my mind.
BUT, having had such an experience I can see where Luther may have been driven by pain and frustration to become and extremist at times and an isolationist as well.
Now I am happy that the Church has reversed Father Luther's expulsion.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Akoue,
I speak from experience having had stomach pain for a long time.
I was often sad or confused or angry that at first the doctors could not determine what my problem was.
At time it was difficult to carry on a decent conversation with anyone including family members.
So I tried to avoid speaking with them and that upset them.
I asked the priest for healing prayers and he did lay hands on me trying to help me and get God's help.
For several days that seemed to help but when the pain came back I was disappointed and angry and confused.
Finally after a cat scan it was determined what my problem was but I passed out and was out for two weeks having had 2 heart attacks.
When I woke up the priest came to the hospital and asked me if I wanted last rights. In anger I said no it will not do any good and I did feel that way at the time. It was foolish of me to say that but I was under some drugs and confused,
Later I spoke with my priest about that and told him that if ever I was in the same situation, please don't ask me about last rights, just do it.
I think he understood.
Through all that I did not want to change the Mass or attack the pope. Something like that never crossed my mind.
Then again I was not like Luther wanting to make some changes in the Church for I was not a monk or a priest with things like that on my mind.
BUT, having had such an experience I can see where Luther may have been driven by pain and frustration to become and extremist at times and an isolationist as well.
Now I am happy that the Church has reversed Father Luther's expulsion.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Thank you, Fred.
That was a beautiful testimony.
Peace and kindness,
Carol

Fred,

That was one of the loveliest things I've read in some time. Thank you so much.

Wondergirl and Akoue,
Thank you.
Having learned about Father Luther's stomach problems I much more understand him than I did previously.
Again the lesson is learned that it is difficult to reach a good conclusion if a person does not know the whole story.
I seem to have to have that lesson retaught from time to time.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

To all...

Always try to remember, when you are pointing the finger of blame, there are three pointed back at you..

~In the Spirit of love, we can conquer evil

sndbay
That's what has been said so some folks point with their whole hand.
However they can still be in error.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

sndbay
That's what has been said so some folks point with their whole hand.
However they can still be in error.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Hint:
That may be so Fred, but they sure won't be staying around after Christ writes in the sand, now will they?

sndbay,
Christ has already written in the sand and people still make errors.
Some do so out of ignorance and still others do so on purpose or some other reason.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

sndbay,
Christ has already written in the sand and people still make errors.
Some do so out of ignorance and still others do so on purpose or some other reason.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred I wish I could just give you a green agree, But it won't allow me to do so..

So I will agree by posting, and say: yes, it is true that men remain sinful in nature. And it is written that lack of knowledge will be to their destruction (Hsa 4:6)

I have experience on another thread, where some in their lack of knowledge have decided to give me red in disagreement .. It shows lack of knowledge in understand the simplicity of Christ being the only way to the Father.. Instead in mind they choose to follow Oprah and her false teaching.


How fast judgement is mad without understand or looking to the content of what is said.

Remain patient and suffer those things done in His Name, for God finds it pleasing to do so... (1 Peter 2:15-16)

sndbay,
Thanks.
I also find it difficult to rate answers.
Why I don't know.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Over a year ago I asked whether Martin Luther was schismatic or a reformer. We had an interesting conversation in which I promoted the idea that he was schismatic.

I WAS WRONG!

The topic of Luther falls a little flat with me. In my opinion Luther's theology is in error. However, during my studies on another topic I ran into a few pieces of information that on the surface didn't really seem to hold much insight to Luther; that is until I started reading a bit deeper. Finally, it drew me to the conclusion that Martin Luther was pathologically mad. It all seems to have started in a 'secret place'.

What was this 'secret place'? How did it figure into Luther theology?

It was in the cold winter of 1518-1519 when Luther found his fiduciary faith of sola fides. It has been described by many outside the Catholic Church as the single most edifying concept in modern Christianity – some of us Catholics would describe it a bit differently, but we won't go into that just now. The epiphany of Luther's took place in the Tower of the Monastery. It seems there was single eureka moment that sits in the forefront of modern history leading to a great movement – at least this was the hope. As ironic as this revelation will turn out to be, it will eventually flush Christian insight into a new era by the man who saw himself as the NEW PROPHET JOHN. Repent, Repent is the cry that brings fourth tangible results. Not the battle cry, but the tangible results that are odoriferous to Catholics. The epiphany came after hours of sitting in anguish; a special illumination came to Luther from God, so he thought as he grunted out his studies. Consumed with his mission, this is a long ago told but forgotten story…until in the wrings of Luther himself we can trace the time, the city, and the location of his epiphany. I've said many times, God has an ironic sense of humor, sometimes plain and simple, sometimes, if we remember Job, somewhat morbid.

It seems that Martin Luther was moved with the knowledge that there was absolute assurance of salvation by what we've come to know as 'faith alone'. Not, that the grace of faith is salvific but it provides assurance, not just the type of assurance of a confidant faith, but assurance of, so to speak, 'grasping the ring' of salvation. “Faith without the works which Luther had now come to detest, and attack “self-righteousness,” as in the Commentary on Romans “sola fides…quoe non nititur operibus illis [orationibus et praepartoriis”]“ ( Grisar, 1913, Luther I, p 378) One presumption made runs through man like goose fodder; is explained by Luther “the law, even as explained in the New Testament, which renders assurance of salvation possible only after the fulfillment of demands impossible to the natural man, is, it is true, necessary as a negative preparation for faith no to be regarded as the expression of the relationship desired by God between Himself and man.“ Here we find the piles of Luther's error. The gospels and epistles of the New Testament demand a 'full' relationship in which man is very capable of giving and is expressed daily in the virtues of marriage. Luther says that God merely reveals the law for 'educational' purposes.

Who was Martin Luther? Warren H. Carroll tells us, “There is no lack of evidence to answer that question. He left an enormous corpus of writings,” He also left us an enormous corpus. Being politically sensitive, he was rather round and tall for his day, with a booming voice. He spent many hours saddled to the kitchen table, if it could hold him, eating and drinking. “Contemporaries noted especially the brilliance of the black eyes deep-set in his beefy face, which could glow with inspiration or burn with anger, dominating and attracting his followers and cowing his adversaries…while, on the other hand, some remarks made by his opponents on the uncanny effect of his magic glance will be mentioned later.” (Grisar, Luther, I, 279); like one possessed by the spirit, or vapors. Some of Luther's students described him as “mysterious and obscure” (Ibid). But, such a man would undoubtedly have gastrointestinal issues but it seemed that Luther's vapors where produced in fires of the belly.

In the winter months of 1518 – 1519 Luther took to moving his place of study from his cold and dank chambers to his “secret chamber.” “From where he could hear, the croaking of the ravens and magpies about the towers in front of his windows sounded like the voices which spoke in the depths of his soul” (Ibid. VII, p. 79). It's here that he discovers 'faith alone;' it's here that he discovers his 'Evangel' - whatever that was. In his own, probably slurred, words from around the kitchen table, he is constantly heard to talk of his “secret place.”

It's in the Tower of the monastery, you might say in Luther's Chamber, where he first contemplated the esoteric voices in a murky confusion of the mind:


“The passage, Romans 1, The Justice of God is revealed in the Gospel, had, till then, been an obstacle to me. For I hated the words 'justice of God', which according to the use and custom of all teachers I had been taught to interpret in the philosophical sense, namely, as referring to the formal and active justice by which God is just and punishes the sinners and the unjust. Although I was a blameless monk, I felt myself as a sinner before God, suffered great trouble of conscience and was unable to look with confidence on God as propitiated by my satisfaction, therefore I did not love, but on the contrary, hated, the just God Who punishes sinners ; I was angry with Him with furious murmuring, and said : The unhappy sinners and those who owing to original sin are for all eternity rejected are already sufficiently oppressed by every kind of misfortune owing to the Ten Commandments, and as though this were not enough God wills [according to Rom. 1.] by means of the gospel to heap pain on pain, and threatens us with His Justice and His Anger even in the gospel.”

“For the justice of God is revealed therein, from faith unto faith, as it is written: The just man lives by faith.” Romans 1:17

Luther would have been familiar with St. John Chrysostom's Homily 2 on Romans: “But he who has become just shall live, not for the present life only, but for that which is to come. And he hints not only this, but also another thing along with this, namely, the brightness and gloriousness of such a life.” Distinctively less confused, less eaten with guilt of the conscience, Catholics then and now interpreted this verse as the prescribed and active justice whereby God punishes sinners AND rewords the faithful; apparently something dropped by Luther? I don't think so, that is not unless… the door hinge of Luther's New Revelation to mankind comes from Luther's inspiration from a 'secret place.'

The monastery containing Luther's throne was an old castle, Roman in architecture. The castle, no doubt would have been surrounded by a stagnant cesspool of a mote. The castle structure would appear to come out of the slug looking something like the old toilet sitting in the duck pond outback. Depending on the fortification itself, the building would sit 4 to six feet above the water, and then above that sometimes as much as 6 feet to 8 feet in height would be the ground floor and living quarters; most likely of the lord of the Castle. The intervening space is a hypocaust chamber for distributing heat under the ground floor, somewhat like a modern forced-air duct system. Vertical, shafts or hollow spaces transmitted the heated air (and smoke) up the castle wall and out one or more chimneys. The towers were usually built on the corners; some had upper portions projected out over the water for a strategic view. Under siege these towers had defensive uses, but during peace they were used as privies – one strategic view looked directly down into the mote.

Luther's office was a “privy situated above the Hypocaustom”; particularly, it would have been a privy over a hollow space or system of channels in the floor providing for the heating system. The system was inefficient in that it relied strictly on convection and no doubt by modern standards expensive to operate. But there is a more serious problem with heating the old castle, far beyond the economics; the hypocaust system was a very dangerous, especially so when the heat was cranked up. The fumes created by the fire in the furnace seeped up and wafted out of every nook and cranny filling the entire castle with fumes and noxious gases, most notably carbon monoxide gases. This particular privy would have been a warm place to study on a cold night. This would have been especially true of one who was gastro-intestinally challenged. As a result, it would be a good place to study the cosmic truths while, how should I say, discharging copious amounts of consumed beer; a great chair for a Pope want-a-be.

But, life does have its drawbacks at times; large concentrations of carbon monoxide inhaled over short period can cause death. However, long exposure to moderate amounts of CO causes one or more of the following: lightheadedness, depression, paranoia, confusion, memory loss, delirium, emotional disturbances, and hallucinations. During his meditations we read that Luther went to what was sometimes called a 'secret place' (no doubt he explained it this way as a matter of modesty) a place we call a privy which in this case was a room above the hypocaust or a placed called the 'cloaca', sometimes translated as closet (water closet i.e. urinal). This place would have been one of the warmest in the monastery – a good place to be during the cold, cold, winter of 1518 – 1519. And the most likely place where the concentrations of CO would be at their highest.

During one of Luther's 'Kitchen Table' conversation he turns to the voices heard – voices of the hypocaust: “On one occasion on this tower (where the privy of the monks was situated) when I was speculating on the words, etc. the Holy Ghost” (Lauterbach's "Colloquia” (ed. By Bindseil) Ibid. p396 But this isn't the only voice we here of the Luther's 'Tower'. I wonder if this is what old ladies used to call 'vapors'.


“The Lutheran pastor Caspar Khummer, who, in 1554, made a collection of Table-Talk, relates both circumstances (in Lauter bach s edition): “ semel in hac turri speculabar,” and further on: “With this knowledge the Holy Ghost inspired me in this cloaca on the tower”; Ibid. p 396. The 'cloaca' was a place where one relieved himself from a night of heavy drinking. “The mention of the cloaca explains the entry of Johann Schlaginhaufen in his notes of Luther's own words in 1532 : “ This art the Spiritus sanctus infused into me in this Cl.” Cloaca is abbreviated into CL, probably because Schlaginhaufen s copyist, was reluctant to write it out in full alongside of the account of the inspiration which Luther had received from the Holy Ghost ; the editor suggests we should read “ Capitel “; but the chapter-house is not to be thought of. “ Ibid. P 396

What irony God visits on us! What's the irony? The 'secret places' referred to is the place where Luther received his 'inspiration' was no less than the crapper. What are we to assume that his vision was a movement gone wrong, or was it all just all vapors? There's more, we've still got the Evangel and I've gone way too long.

I think he was quite mad. His actions seem to be the product of a physical or pathological 'illnesses'. I'm even more inclined to think Luther lost a spiritual battle in an ongoing war waged against the Church. Did Luther conspire with the Divine Will to be the 'Judas' of his day, and for what purpose, 'reformation'? What was really changed in the Church, none of its theological teachings? You'll have to excuse me but I've just about settled on the conclusion that Luther lost his battle with the devil within his white washed cell tossing his “scheiss” (or black ink as some would want to say).

Source: http://www.archive.org/details/grisarsluther02grisuoft

added: see also http://www.archive.org/details/luthergris01grisuoft

JoeT

It all seems to have started in a 'secrete place’.
You lost me here, Joe. "Secrete" has to do with body fluids. I did try to read the rest despite the misspellings, but I finally gave up. I'll refrain from posting current negative writings about the pope. You're welcome.

You lost me here, Joe. "Secrete" has to do with body fluids. I did try to read the rest despite the misspellings, but I finally gave up. I'll refrain from posting current negative writings about the pope. You're welcome.

Slip of the keyboard. I don't know, secrete might work too.

slip of the keyboard. I don't know, secrete might work too.
Are those your "typos" or the author's?

Are those your "typos" or the author's?


Mine why?

Mine why?
You typed that entire passage letter by letter? Please proofread in the future. Typos tend to lessen the seriousness of an argument.

You typed that entire passage letter by letter? Please proofread in the future. Typos tend to lessen the seriousness of an argument.

The actual quotes were lifted from the sources I gave. The remainder is mine. I realize the spelling may be bad but surely you’re not complaining about that – well, I take that back, I forgot, you’re the librarian!

I fixed it!

JoeT

The actual quotes were lifted from the sources I gave. The remainder is mine. I realize the spelling may be bad but surely you’re not complaining about that – well, I take that back, I forgot, you’re the librarian!

I fixed it!

JoeT
Thanks, but "secrete" wasn't the only one. When I see a paper (or a response) riddled with mistakes and typos, I stop reading, don't want to waste my time. And I know I'm not the only one who feels this way. Btw, the link didn't take me anywhere -- another no-no. Proofread, proofread, proofread!

Thanks, but "secrete" wasn't the only one. When I see a paper (or a response) riddled with mistakes and typos, I stop reading, don't want to waste my time. And I know I'm not the only one who feels this way. Btw, the link didn't take me anywhere -- another no-no. Proofread, proofread, proofread!

Well, I checked it over again, apparently I'm overlooking the 'big objection', and so I guess it'll just have to go unread. I can't write it in Latin – I don't read or write Latin well enough. I can't write it in German; I did have a few German classes decades ago, but I'm not good enough to write in German. I picked up a little Thai and Vietnamese, eons ago, but I can't spell a word of it – can't even pronounce half of it. I know Spanish well enough to order at Taco Bell.

Well I tried to keep you from having to down load the pdf but, this will do in a pinch. Internet Archive: Free Download: Luther (http://www.archive.org/details/grisarsluther02grisuoft)


JoeT

Well I tried to keep you from having to down load the pdf
Thanks, Joe. Will look it over with a critical eye. I like pdfs. No problemo (that's Spanish).

Thanks, Joe. Will look it over with a critical eye. I like pdfs. No problemo (that's Spanish).

Non guardare a chiudere.

I've never seen it on the menu at Taco Bell!

JoeT

I've never seen it on the menu at Taco Bell!

After you hand the server a ten dollar bill and tell him to keep the change and he says "Mucho gracias," then you say, "No problemo."

After you hand the server a ten dollar bill and tell him to keep the change and he says "Mucho gracias," then you say, "No problemo."

I was looking at some of the citations, most are from volume 1, see Internet Archive: Free Download: Luther (http://www.archive.org/details/luthergris01grisuoft)

JoeT

I was looking at some of the citations, most are from volume 1, see Internet Archive: Free Download: Luther (http://www.archive.org/details/luthergris01grisuoft)
I couldn't find the bibliography -- just some footnotes that were turn-of-the-century. The book has a copyright of 1913, but I smiled when I saw the fourteen digit CLSI-style bar code that can be read by our computers at my library.

Don't forget -- the absolutely last thing Luther wanted was to leave the Church. He was interested only in addressing its wrongs and oversights with the hope that they would be corrected. He was devastated when he was excommunicated.

JoeT,
I very much liked what you wrote.
It is very interesting and at this point I agree that Luther may have been mad of mind, heart, and passion.
That seems to be reasonable considering how and where he lived.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

JoeT,
I very much liked what you wrote.
It is very interesting and at this point I agree that Luther may have been mad of mind, heart, and passion.
That seems to be reasonable considering how and where he lived.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
You apparently didn't notice what I had said -- "Don't forget -- the absolutely last thing Luther wanted was to leave the Church. He was interested only in addressing its wrongs and oversights with the hope that they would be corrected. He was devastated when he was excommunicated."

If he was mad, it was because he had lost his anchor.

Wondergirl ,
I agree that Luther did not want to leave The Church.
But he did attack it and even denounced the pope.
Peace and kindness,'
Fred

Wondergirl ,
I agree that Luther did not want to leave The Church.
But he did attack it and even denounced the pope.
Peace and kindness,'
Fred
And with good reason. Do you know what was going on at the time?

Wondergirl,
Yes I know what was going on.
Don't forget that for many years I was very much against the Catholic Church and dug up much dirt to throw at it.
There is NO church that does not have some bad history.
The reason is that those churches are full of human beings.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Wondergirl,
Yes I know what was going on.
Don't forget that for many years I was very much against the Catholic Church and dug up much dirt to throw at it.
There is NO church that does not have some bad history.
The reason is that those churches are full of human beings.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
But you miss the point. Luther wasn't throwing dirt. He was trying to correct the church's bad administration, the human leaders who were misleading the parishioners.

Wondergirl,
But as I said, I was the one throwing dirt, but no more.
Fred

You apparently didn't notice what I had said -- "Don't forget -- the absolutely last thing Luther wanted was to leave the Church. He was interested only in addressing its wrongs and oversights with the hope that they would be corrected. He was devastated when he was excommunicated."
If he was mad, it was because he had lost his anchor.

Wondergirl , I agree that Luther did not want to leave The Church. But he did attack it and even denounced the pope. Peace and kindness,'
Fred

Oh, I disagree with both of you. I believe that Luther was deliberately attempting to bring down the Church..

I’ve come to view the Protestant movement (Luther’s schism) as an intentional movement, as opposed to the happenstance of ‘unfortunate consequences’ or unintended results due to the social and economic situations at the time. The ‘schism’ movement can be viewed as the first step in a move to a more toward a secular government, granting and witholding inalienable rights; as opposed to governing to protect and respect God’s inalienable rights. It seems that all power in the Christian world by the 1500’s was wrapped up in the Church. I’ve come to view the Protestant movement was little more than political in nature using a crippled (redefined by Luther) Christianity as a tool by the aristocracy to pry political power in revolt. It’s my opinion that this is the general sense of the schismatic history in England and the Germanic states. Since that time, being without the moral and ethical rule of Catholic faith, it’s turned into a secular humanist movement to maintain and wield control over the populace – i.e. hold the power

I believe it can be shown that from the onset Luther’s goal was to destroy the Church. There was no attempt at ‘reform’ or ‘correct.’ From a gloss we can see schism early in Luther’s career. His main goal was to tear down what Christ had built up. Considering himself a great prophet on the order of Moses; no doubt aligned with the great deceiver, openly declared his desire to disrupt the Mass:


If I succeed in doing away with the Mass, then I shall believe I have completely conquered the Pope. On the Mass, as on a rock, the whole of the Papacy is based, with its monasteries, bishoprics, colleges, altars, services and doctrines. ... If the sacrilegious and cursed custom of Mass is overthrown, then the whole must fall. Through me Christ has begun to reveal the abomination standing in the Holy Place (Dan. ix. 27), and to destroy him [the Papal Antichrist] who has taken up his seat there with the devils help, with false miracles and deceiving signs. (Grisar, Luther, Vol. II, pg 320 seqq., London Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., LTD., Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, E.G., 1913)

His scheming was hidden from the faithful. It was difficult sometimes to recognize the differences between the Catholic Church that the peasants loved, and the outward appearance of Luther’s Church. When the people noticed, the sword was used. Yet, at Luther’s direction the liturgy of the Mass was incrementally and imperceptibly altered, little by little, like the boiled frog as the heat slowly increased never notices his impending doom, the faithful didn’t see they were embroiled in schism until they were poached. Later Luther was to brag:


“Thank God, in indifferent matters our churches are so arranged that a layman, whether Italian or Spaniard, unable to understand our preaching, seeing our Mass, choir, organs, bells, chantries, etc., would surely say that it was a regular papist church, and that there was no difference, or very little, between it and his own.” (Grisar, Luther, Vol. II, pg 322, London Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., LTD., Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, E.G., 1913)

Why hold Luther up to scrutiny? Scripturally, we are to test every word that is said to have come from God. Further, to discern whether Luther was from God, we need to see if the results one’s life was a good, which would move us closer to God, or an evil, moving us further from God. Testing Luther’s understanding of Scripture we find it to be at odds with the Church’s ordained Magisterium. We most always see Saints make a real and lasting change or move to a permanent holiness. Generally speaking, in Luther, we see right the opposite, a move towards immorality. This was the issue with Henry VIII’s bigamy and his devoice; it seems that Luther proposed that bigamy was more expedient than divorce. While it might raise a flag, it’s not too big a deal, right. What then should we make of Luther’s suggesting bigamy in his council to Phillip of Hesse? We also find that Luther reneged on certain assurances given the Pope Leo X, to his Bishop, Bishop Scultetus, and to Emperor Charles. Why? What’s the story behind this? Chivalry hadn’t died in 1500, not yet anyway – some would say that chivalry moved along with a more ‘rationalized’ morality shortly after Luther, where you might say see moral truth becoming a shivaree of mendacity. I’ve mentioned it before, what is the Evangel, the mystic being that whispered to him while he was on his throne? Are there grounds to suggest that there is a psychological problem with Luther’s sanity? Luther’s writings are complete with battles with the devil – funny? Take it serious - did he lose the battle with the devil? Luther had a funny outlook on the sacrament of marriage, especially for somebody who was a Catholic priest, who claimed to be a prophet (I wonder for whose profit his prognostications are for – the good spirits or the bad guys?)

Sick he might have been, but there was deliberate, some would say Judas-like, madness to that sickness.

JoeT

Oh, I disagree with both of you. I believe that Luther was deliberately attempting to bring down the Church.
You need to read more about this subject. The author of this book has an axe to grind.

Grisar knocked himself out in these volumes to play Freudian analyst (during the Freudian age), labeling Luther a psychopath. The author's bias was implicit; his intent was only to ruin Luther's reputation. There was no attempt to it understand Luther, but only the attempt to rule out Luther's person and all that Luther had achieved. The Catholic philosopher Johannes Hessen has evaluated the methods of Luther "biographer" Dominican Church historian Heinrich Denifle and Jesuit professor Hartmann Grisar as follows: "One may doubt which of the two methods of killing Luther was the most pleasant: The rude, but open, way of the Dominican ... or the cunning method of the Jesuit. . . . There is no doubt that both methods are failures."

Of course, Grisar's work on Luther very neatly ignores Luther's insistence of justification by faith alone. That is where the discussion should be, not on his mental and emotional capabilities or failings.

JoeT,
Thanks for sharing your thots on that.
I find them to be very interesting.
For many years I was a Lutheran and perhaps some of that is still hanging around like old cob webs.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

You need to read more about this subject. The author of this book has an axe to grind.

Grisar knocked himself out in these volumes to play Freudian analyst (during the Freudian age), labeling Luther a psychopath. The author's bias was implicit; his intent was only to ruin Luther’s reputation. There was no attempt to it understand Luther, but only the attempt to rule out Luther’s person and all that Luther had achieved. The Catholic philosopher Johannes Hessen has evaluated the methods of Luther "biographer" Dominican Church historian Heinrich Denifle and Jesuit professor Hartmann Grisar as follows: "One may doubt which of the two methods of killing Luther was the most pleasant: The rude, but open, way of the Dominican ... or the cunning method of the Jesuit. . . . There is no doubt that both methods are failures."

Of course, Grisar's work on Luther very neatly ignores Luther’s insistence of justification by faith alone. That is where the discussion should be, not on his mental and emotional capabilities or failings.


I couldn’t disagree with you more. It seems kind of strange to hear someone say, ‘the critic grinds axes’ because he has an opinion different from yours. For a long time Lutherans have taken sophist approach to Scripture itself, but thwarts any attempt to Judge Luther the man to discern if any sophistry exists. As it were, “a derailment or departure from a historian's objectivity, to say an ill word against Luther, to speak of a Lutheran heresy, and to call Luther a heresiarch, as I, a Catholic man of letters, do. Besides, if Protestantism and "Catholicism" are two religious persuasions equally warranted, complementing each other in their inmost being and representing at most two different sides of Christian life, it follows that, if the one side be heretical, the other is also, and vice versa.” (Heinrich Denifile, Luther and Lutherdom, Vol 1. Part 1, Foreword to the Second Edition, Page X, English translation Source: Luther and Lutherdom (Open Library) (http://openlibrary.org/b/OL6608147M/Luther_and_Lutherdom)). Do we wish to follow in the footsteps of heresy to avoid hurting one’s sensibilities?

So, we find examples of Luther’s sophistry in examples such as the Pack affair where we see that Luther’s contemporaries felt that he was "the most coldblooded liar that ever got among us." "We must say and write of him that the recreant monk lies to our face like a despairing, dishonorable, perjured scoundrel." "We have hitherto not found in the Scriptures that Christ used so open and deliberate a liar in the apostolic orifice, allowing him to preach the gospel.” (Duke George, on the occasion of the Pack affair, described Luther, December 19, 1528) [The Pack affair mentioned in the text refers to Otto Pack who, in 1528, sent Philipan alleged copy of a treaty between Duke George and other Catholic princes, to the effect that they would rise up and annihilate the Protestants. Pack was never able to produce the original or to offer the slightest proof of its existence.] (Ibid, Pp 138-139) it doesn’t put Luther in a very good light, does it? Should we ignore sin because, as Luther would say, “fragilitas humana non permittit caste vivere (human frailty does not permit one to live chastely)? So, we sin mightily instead?

Hatmann Grisar studied and worked at Innsbruck during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. A Jesuit Priest and professor, he wrote a six volume set on Luther, of course the Protestant world is not happy with his work saying that it’s not a ‘technical’ treatment of Luther’s life and works. Technical being an evaluation and testing of the theological propositions brought forward and proposed by Luther. What Grisar did was to make a psychological profile of Luther while at the same time critiquing Luther's theological views from the given benchmark of Catholicism. It’s my recollection Grisar uses the word ‘psychological’ to describe his historical treatise. It’s this form of treatise that most Protestants object to inferring that it is an ad hominem attack. I think it is a valid approach to evaluate, as it were, the validity of the shadow of the man. If Luther exposes Divine Truth, then such truths will be valid for the Catholic Church as well; but they’re not. One such topic “justification by faith alone” was discussed in my previous post #102 (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/martin-luther-schismatic-reformer-303064-11.html#post2295616 ) Luther’s understanding was wrong in 1520, it’s wrong now. Catholics then and now interpreted this verse as the prescribed and active justice whereby God punishes sinners AND rewords the faithful. You do recall that justice is a two edged sword, punishing the guilty, rewarding the faithful?

Nevertheless, this is a perfectly legitimate approach especially dealing with the disciplines of Divine truth – in fact, I would argue that it is one of the most important measures of any historical work. The questions that need to be asked are the how, the why, and the wherefores of holding any intellectual truth. The motivation behind holding such Divine-Truths is nearly as important as the object of the Truth. It’s only after this evaluation is made that we can take the Truth to the intellect which in turn moves it to a virtuous wisdom.

So, I think Luther is fair game to criticism. I think both Denifle’s and Grisar’s critical evaluations are valid to expose the man for what he was (good or bad). So, are you proposing that he should be untouchable; should we move Luther to the realm of ‘Demigod’? Do we venerate Luther, like we adore the Blessed Virgin Mary? Would you move Luther into the Blessed Virgin’s rightful Little Office, putting in her place a tormented soul?


JoeT

I couldn’t disagree with you more. It seems kind of strange to hear someone say, ‘the critic grinds axes’ because he has an opinion different from yours.
Scholars (both Catholic and Protestant) have opined that Grisar did indeed have an axe to grind and made his "biography" into a psychological evaluation instead a la the times (Freud).

For a long time Lutherans have taken sophist approach to Scripture itself, but thwarts any attempt to Judge Luther the man to discern if any sophistry exists.
Sophistry??

So, I think Luther is fair game to criticism.
And I will be the first to criticize him, but fairly by looking at both the positives and negatives.

One such topic “justification by faith alone” was discussed in my previous post #102 (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/martin-luther-schismatic-reformer-303064-11.html#post2295616 )
I clicked and found a thread that was mostly De Maria's comments.

***ADDED*** I finally found this at #101. I see no reasonable objection to "sola fide." I see where Luther was quoted and that quote was misinterpreted by Grisar.

I clicked and found a thread that was mostly De Maria's comments.

I don't understand, it took me straight to post no 102?

I don't understand, it took me straight to post no 102?
It took me to another page of the thread (Athos, #29), but I moved to #102 and found it at #101. (What you see is not what someone else sees. We figured that out on some other thread.)

I clicked and found a thread that was mostly De Maria's comments.

***ADDED*** I finally found this at #101. I see no reasonable objection to "sola fide." I see where Luther was quoted and that quote was misinterpreted by Grisar.

Faith Alone

When defined by Luther, 'faith alone' means to have an absolute assurance of justification to a salvific state; this is in direct conflict with the Church as Grisar explains:


“In accordance therewith justifying faith includes not only a belief in Christ as the Saviour; I must not merely believe that He will save and sanctify me if I turn to Him with humility and confidence - this the Church had ever taught- but I must also have entire faith in my justification, and rest assured, that without any work whatsoever on my part and solely by means of such a faith, all the demands made upon me are fulfilled, the merits of Christ appropriated, and my remaining sins not imputed to me ; such is personal assurance of salvation by faith alone.”

The teaching of the Catholic Church, we may remind our readers, never recognized in its exhortation to faith and confidence in God, the existence of this "faith alone" which justifies without further ado, nor did it require that of necessity there must be a special faith in one's state of salvation. In place of faith alone the Church taught what the Council of Trent thus sums up:


“We are said to be justified by faith because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and reach the blessed company of His children." [Trent, Session 6, c. 8.]

And instead of setting up a special faith in our own state of salvation, her teaching, as expressed by the same Council, had ever been that "no devout person may doubt the mercy of God, the merit of Christ and the power and efficacy of the sacraments," though, on the other hand, "no one may boast with certainty of the remission of his sins"; "nor may it be said that those who are truly justified must convince themselves beyond all doubt that they are justified and that no one is absolved from sin and justified unless he believe with certainty that he has been so absolved and justified, as though absolution and justification were accomplished by this faith alone"; "but rather everyone, bearing in mind his own weakness and indisposition, may well be anxious and afraid for his salvation, as no one can know, with the certainty of faith which excludes all error, that he has attained to the grace of God." (Grisar, Luther, Vol. I, Pp 418 seqq., London Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., LTD., Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, E.G., 1913)

JoeT

Faith Alone

When defined by Luther, 'faith alone' means to have an absolute assurance of justification to a salvific state; this in direct conflict with the Church
... but is not in conflict with Bible teachings. Salvation "is a gift of God, not of works... "

...but is not in conflict with Bible teachings. Salvation "is a gift of God, not of works..."

The discussion here isn’t ‘faith alone’ but let me briefly reiterate what Grisar stated. The Church has always held that salvation is a gift, but it also holds that we have no special claim or inheritance to that salvation, rather we merit it through our works of faith. We can’t, as it were, ‘boast with certainty of the remission of his sins"; "nor may it be said that those who are truly justified must convince themselves beyond all doubt that they are justified and that no one is absolved from sin and justified unless he believe with certainty that he has been so absolved and justified, as though absolution and justification were accomplished by this faith alone”

Faith is dead without works.

JoeT

The discussion here isn’t ‘faith alone’ but let me briefly reiterate what Grisar stated. The Church has always held that salvation is a gift, but
Dr. Phil says that as soon as you stick the work "but" into a sentence, it negates all that came before it. "Salvation is a gift, but" [it is not a gift. We still have to do something to get it.]

No. Salvation is a gift. Period. There is nothing we have to do to merit it.

Works are simply our thank-you to God for His gift.

The discussion here isn't 'faith alone' but let me briefly reiterate what Grisar stated.
The discussion is about Luther and that he was psychotic, didn't know what the heck he believed and why. I'm saying he wasn't psychotic, did know what he believed and why.

The Church has always held that salvation is a gift, but it also holds that we have no special claim or inheritance to that salvation.
This statement supports Dr. Phil's belief that the word "but" negates all that preceded it. According to the RCC, salvation is not a gift. The second half of the sentence confirms that.

What's a gift? A gift is free, no strings attached. If there are strings, it isn't a gift.

Dr. Phil says that as soon as you stick the work "but" into a sentence, it negates all that came before it. "Salvation is a gift, but" [it is not a gift. We still have to do something to get it.]

No. Salvation is a gift. Period. There is nothing we have to do to merit it.

Works are simply our thank-you to God for His gift.

Who is Dr. Phil?

Then it would seem to me you can't have 'faith alone' with an absolute assurance of salvation. Because once faith becomes so pronounced, as Luther would require, beyond doubt, giving assurance (i.e. guarantee) of salvation then you've excluded the possibility of redemption which is required for salvation. Thus we can sin, and sin mightily, just so long as we believe all the more?

Again according to my faith (as opposed to Dr. Phil's – whoever he might be): "no one may boast with certainty of the remission of his sins"; "nor may it be said that those who are truly justified must convince themselves beyond all doubt that they are justified and that no one is absolved from sin and justified unless he believe with certainty that he has been so absolved and justified, as though absolution and justification were accomplished by this faith alone"

Works through charity belies 'faith alone'; the reward for works is the fulfillment of a Divine promise that our work in faith, hope, and charity are meriting of redemption and salvation.

JoeT

Who is Dr. Phil?
A psychologist.

Then it would seem to me you can't have 'faith alone' with an absolute assurance of salvation.
Why not?

Because once faith becomes so pronounced, as Luther would require, beyond doubt, giving assurance (i.e. guarantee) of salvation then you've excluded the possibility of redemption which is required for salvation.
Why is redemption excluded? Jesus did that on Calvary. That's the grace, the gift.

Thus we can sin, and sign mightily, just so long as we believe all the more?
All the more? Just the regular way is fine.

Again according to my faith (as opposed to Dr. Phil's – whoever he might be)
You're not reading what I write. Dr. Phil was telling us about the word "but," not about faith.

"no one may boast with certainty of the remission of his sins"; "nor may it be said that those who are truly justified must convince themselves beyond all doubt that they are justified and that no one is absolved from sin and justified unless he believe with certainty that he has been so absolved and justified, as though absolution and justification were accomplished by this faith alone"
I boast and revel in this gift of salvation every day and thank God for it in whatever way I can think of.

Works through charity belies 'faith alone'
Works have nothing to do with salvation. Works are the way we express our thanks to God for His grace and mercy in saving us from eternal death.

the reward for works
There is no reward for works. Works are their own reward.

Thus we can sin, and sin mightily, just so long as we believe all the more?
Btw, just so we get the story straight, Luther wrote to his colleague Philipp Melachthon from his hiding place, the Wartburg Castle, in 1521, "God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world."

Btw, just so we get the story straight, Luther wrote to his colleague Philipp Melachthon from his hiding place, the Wartburg Castle, in 1521, "God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world."

You might recall Juan's comment:


Here is what Luther has been quoted as saying. Even the "sanitized" version contradicts Scripture.

13. If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.


Both texts are from Scroll Publishing: Let Your Sins Be Strong: A Letter From Luther to Melanchthon Letter no. 99, 1 August 1521, From the Wartburg (Segment) Translated by Erika Bullmann Flores from: _Dr. Martin Luther’s Saemmtliche Schriften_ Dr, Johannes Georg Walch, Ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, N.D.), Vol. 15,cols. 2585-2590.

The cleaned up version says; similar to your quote:

13.”If you are a preacher of Grace, then preach a true, not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly. For he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here we have to sin. This life in not the dwelling place of righteousness but, as Peter says, we look for a new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. . . . Pray boldly-you too are a mighty sinner.” (Weimar ed. vol. 2, p. 371; Letters I, “Luther’s Works,” American Ed., Vol 48. p. 281- 282)

At the very least, it was a very careless and irresponsible way to express the idea that we should not sin. Because that idea is lost in the shocking manner it is expressed if it is there expressed at all.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Interesting, it seems that by some mystical power of ‘faith’ that when some get a hold of Luther's texts, ‘scheiss’ magically changes to ‘black ink’.

JoeT

You might recall Juan's comment
I don't understand. So what is wrong with what Luther wrote to his friend? Please tell me in simple language. I totally agree with the bold print in De Maria's post.

At the very least, it was a very careless and irresponsible way to express the idea that we should not sin. Because that idea is lost in the shocking manner it is expressed if it is there expressed at all.
That's not what Luther was saying at all!

I don't understand. So what is wrong with what Luther wrote to his friend? Please tell me in simple language. I totally agree with the bold print in De Maria's post.

I'll try to explain later, I've got to do a few things. But, in the meantime here is another translation. Don't forget that Denifile is German and probably translated this quote himself.

Denifile's Luther and Lutherdom, translation:


"Be a sinner and sin stoutly, but trust in Christ much more firmly, and rejoice in Him who is a conqueror of sin, of death, and of the world. Do not by any means imagine that this life is an abode of justice; sin must and will be. Let it suffice thee that thou acknowledgest the Lamb which bears the sins of the world; then can sin not tear thee from Him, even shouldst thou practice whoredom a thousand times a day or deal just as many death blows.” Heinrich Denifile,
"Be a sinner and sin stoutly, but trust in Christ much more firmly, and rejoice in Him who is a conqueror of sin, of death, and of the world. Do not by any means imagine that this life is an abode of justice; sin must and will be. Let it suffice thee that thou acknowledgest the Lamb which bears the sins of the world; then can sin not tear thee from Him, even shouldst thou practice whoredom a thousand times a day or deal just as many death blows.” Heinrich Denifile, Luther and Lutherdom, Vol 1., Part 1, Pg. 19, fn 56 Enders, III, 208. Vol 1. Part 1, Pg. 19, fn 56 Enders, III, 208.

JoeT

JoeT,
I must agree with you.
Luther DOES need to be criticized.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I'll try to explain later, I've got to do a few things.
I waited and waited for you, but you never came back. *sob*

Here's another and better translation:

"If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign."

Being the great writer that he was, Luther was using a rhetorical device (hyperbole) and was not speaking with definite and black-or-white meanings. A blog (olivesifeandletters.blogspot.com) explains further --

"Luther appears to encourage licentiousness, but his intentions lay elsewhere. The great reformer meant to highlight the greatness of Christ's atonement. However, it is easy to see why others misunderstood his meaning."

Wondergirl,
Yes, IF what you say is true I misunderstand him.
If fact If that is the case I misunderstand anyone who tells people to be a sinner of any type for it does NOT make sense to me.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Wondergirl,
Yes, IF what you say is true I misunderstand him.
If fact If that is the case I misunderstand anyone who tells people to be a sinner of any type for it does NOT make sense to me.

First of all, Luther was writing a private and personal letter to his dear friend and didn't expect his words to end up on the Internet. Philipp knew immediately what Luther meant and that he was exaggerating. (I hope some of my private letters to certain people don't end up on the Internet after I die.)

Second, no one has ever exaggerated something to you, and you didn't understand? How about: "Her brain is the size of a pea" or "He's older than the hills" or "I will die if she asks me to dance" or "She's as big as an elephant!" or "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse" or "I'm so full I'm going to burst!"

I waited and waited for you, but you never came back. *sob*

Here's another and better translation:

"If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign."

Being the great writer that he was, Luther was using a rhetorical device (hyperbole) and was not speaking with definite and black-or-white meanings. A blog (olivesifeandletters.blogspot.com) explains further --

"Luther appears to encourage licentiousness, but his intentions lay elsewhere. The great reformer meant to highlight the greatness of Christ's atonement. However, it is easy to see why others misunderstood his meaning."

Sorry for the delay – had to see a man about a load of sugar – a literal trainload of sugar. NOW, that's a lot of coffee!

So, when he writes to Philipp Melachthon 1521, a colleague, co-conspirator, and follow schismatic, it's hyperbolic? Wouldn't your communications with 'trusted friends' be less guarded than with others; expressing yourself more truthfully? But Luther's other friends said he was just a straight-out liar. Are we to understand that Luther tended toward extreme hyperbolic expressions? When is he being extreme-hyperbolic and when is he being plain-simple-hyperbolic?

George the Duke of Saxony: was known as the protector of Luther.


It is no wonder, then, that Duke George, on the occasion of the Pack affair, described Luther, December 19, 1528, as "the most coldblooded liar that ever got among us." "We must say and write of him that the recreant monk lies to our face like a despairing, dishonorable, perjured scoundrel." "We have hitherto not found in the Scriptures that Christ used so open and deliberate a liar in the apostolic office allowing him to preach the gospel.'” Others who knew Luther spoke to the same effect.'' I also shall venture to say the same of him without reserve. To that I am determined by my exhaustive and wholly unbiased studies of Luther. Heinrich Denifile “Luther and Lutherdom” Pp. 138-139

Thomas Müntzer:was a schismatic and a leader of the Peasant' war.


Munzer, in his “Schutzrede,” was not slow to answer Luther's “boasting” concerning his three appearances in public. It must be touched upon here for the sake of completeness, although it must be borne in mind that it is the utterance of an opponent. Munzer calls Luther repeatedly, and not merely on account of this boasting, “Dr. Liar” and “Lying Luther” Grisar, Luther, V II. Pg. 367 (Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur 1913)

Johann Campanus: was a schismatic and a Flemish Anabaptist religious reformer of the sixteenth century


In 1530, Campanus circulated a manuscript work, “Contra Lutheranos et totum post Apostolos mundum” which he then reedited for the people as “ Gottlicher und heiliger Schrift Restitution,” 1532. One of his propositions was : “So sure as God is God, so surely is Luther a devilish liar.” (Kostlin-Kawerau, 7, p. 323). Grisar, Luther, V II. Pg. 367 (Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur 1913)

What Luther's theology and doctrines do is to turn Christendom away from the one true Church of Jesus Christ – his contention is that the Church is wrong (to say it mildly). Having this stellar reputation as being the preeminent in hyperbole, are we to abandon Christ's Church on his word?

JoeT

So, when he writes to Philipp Melachthon 1521, a colleague, co-conspirator, and follow schismatic, it's hyperbolic? Wouldn't your communications with 'trusted friends' be less guarded than with others; expressing yourself more truthfully?
Exactly! Because Philipp was a dear friend, he could let down his hair and be as expressive as he wished. Are you always rigid and letter-perfect, even with your good friends? Plus, had he known Catholics in 2010 would be quoting from (and misinterpreting) his letters to discredit him, Luther would have been more careful when he wrote them.

George the Duke of Saxony: was known as the protector of Luther.
Protector was a title, like king. He was Catholic and hated Luther. At first he had agreed with Luther that the Church needed cleaning up here and there, but once he realized things had become bigger than that and after being influenced by Church higher-ups, he threw Luther under the bus.

Thomas Müntzer
He disagreed with Luther and supported the Anabaptists. Why on earth would you expect him to say anything nice about Luther?

Johann Campanus
Ditto. Another Anabaptist.

Exactly! Because Philipp was a dear friend, he could let down his hair and be as expressive as he wished. Are you always rigid and letter-perfect, even with your good friends? Plus, had he known Catholics in 2010 would be quoting from (and misinterpreting) his letters to discredit him, Luther would have been more careful when he wrote them.

Protector was a title, like king. He was Catholic and hated Luther. At first he had agreed with Luther that the Church needed cleaning up here and there, but once he realized things had become bigger than that and after being influenced by Church higher-ups, he threw Luther under the bus.

He disagreed with Luther and supported the Anabaptists. Why on earth would you expect him to say anything nice about Luther?

Ditto. Another Anabaptist.

‘Protector’ was the name I gave him. The Emperor and the Pope wanted him jailed and had put out orders for his arrest. Duke George hid Luther for several years in one of his castles. Phillip was Duke George’s son-in-law and was Protestant – the two were in cahoots for some sort of political gain – I’ll look into the history tonight – I’m working from memory.


I guess we have two different versions of the same history.

All of these men were Protestant at first, and then they split even more and had come to know Luther for what he was.

You do see how when you are free to interpreted Scripture as you please faith becomes subjective as does morality.

JoeT

You do see how when you are free to interpreted Scripture as you please faith becomes subjective as does morality.
So I'll allow the Church (men I don't know) to interpret Scripture for me?

And it's not "interpreting scripture as [ I ] please." Talk about interpreting! -- you're doing it right there!

So I'll allow the Church (men I don't know) to interpret Scripture for me?

I wouldn’t allow ‘men’ to interpret Scripture for me either. You see we don’t claim to be a Church of Luther, or Calvin, or Wycliff or Zwigli, etc. On the other hand the Roman Catholic Church was constituted by Christ. Therefore, I would allow the Church of Jesus Christ to teach according to the Traditions of the Apostles that were eventually put into writing.

JoeT

As far as the question of Luther's original intention, how many here have actually read his 95 theses?

As far as the question of Luther's original intention, how many here have actually read his 95 theses?

And?

Therefore, I would allow the Church of Jesus Christ to teach
i.e. men (whom you don't know)

As far as the question of Luther's original intention, how many here have actually read his 95 theses?
Me! Me! *jumping up and down*

JoeT,
Thanks much for the additional information.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Me! Me! *jumping up and down*

Hey, that's one in a row!

Then you at least know they dealt specifically with the whole "sale of indulgences" thing which he knew was wrong and was trying to correct.

As far as the question of Luther's original intention, how many here have actually read his 95 theses?

Yes and they are a reaction to the top down structure of the RCC and the excesses that permitted. Luther could just as easily have said have any of you actually read the Bible and he would have gotten blank expressions.

Yes and they are a reaction to the top down structure of the RCC and the excesses that permitted. Luther could just as easily have said have any of you actually read the Bible and he would have gotten blank expressions.

Actually, they focus almost exclusively on the question of selling indulgences. He was addressing a specific action by specific people, not challenging the church's authority overall. That didn't happen until much latter. As one of my personal heroes, Erasmus, put it, his sins were two: he attacked the crown of the pope and the bellies of the monks. But he only started doing the latter. It wasn't until he realized that Rome had actually sanctioned the indulgence thing, and that purely for financial gain, that he started to question the entire institution.

Actually, they focus almost exclusively on the question of selling indulgences. He was addressing a specific action by specific people, not challenging the church's authority overall. That didn't happen until much latter. As one of my personal heroes, Erasmus, put it, his sins were two: he attacked the crown of the pope and the bellies of the monks. But he only started out doing the latter. It wasn't until he realized that Rome had actually sanctioned the indulgence thing, and that purely for financial gain, that he started to question the entire institution.

He specifically challenged the pope's authority to grant indulgences and remit sins. If he had merely challenged the trade in indulgences the issue would not have grown as it did. Luther doing what he did ultimately forced the RCC to declare the infalliability of the pope. What started as a debate on church policy rapidly became a rebellion. It is said that when you have three dutchmen you have a schism but in Luther's case you required only one German

paraclete,
Keep in mind that only three times has the Pope been considered to be infallible.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

paraclete,
Keep in mind that only three times has the Pope been considered to be infallible.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred I was referring to why it came to that, without Luther it wouldn't have been considered necessary, but when the pope wanted to declare another contraversial dogma, then hey presto! And by the way I think it is only actually once.

I think it is only actually once.
from Wikipedia --

Catholic theologians agree that both Pope Pius IX's 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and Pope Pius XII's 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary are instances of papal infallibility, a fact which has been confirmed by the Church's magisterium. However, theologians disagree about what other documents qualify.

Regarding historical papal documents, Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz made a thorough study, published in 1985, that identified the following list of ex cathedra documents (see Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6):

* "Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
* Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
* Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
* occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
* Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
* Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and
* Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary.

He specifically challenged the pope's authority to grant indulgences and remit sins. If he had merely challenged the trade in indulgences the issue would not have grown as it did. Luther doing what he did ultimately forced the RCC to declare the infalliability of the pope. What started out as a debate on church policy rapidly became a rebellion. It is said that when you have three dutchmen you have a schism but in Luther's case you required only one German

Which theses specifically challenged this authority? I confess I don't see it, but I could be reading a faulty translation, too, and/or depending too much on LTMLV.

dwashbur,
That is a very good question.
I hope to see the answer to it.
Fred

Which theses specifically challenged this authority? I confess I don't see it, but I could be reading a faulty translation, too, and/or depending too much on LTMLV.

Perhaps you would care to read and discern the import of number 5, 6, 26, 33, 51, 73, 76, 79. All of these impune the authority of the pope

Perhaps you would care to read and discern the import of number 5, 6, 26, 33, 51, 73, 76, 79. All of these impune the authority of the pope

I know there are several translations online. I'll check it out. Thanks!

On all Saint’s Eve, October 31, 1517, Luther posted his 95 Theses. This was the public place where it was customary to post personal views, sometimes dissenting other times in support of the Church. But, always the idea is that these views would be discussed in a public ‘disputation’ so as not to conflict with the Magisterium. But, Luther had little intent to dispute his 95 Theses.

The reason is rather obvious, in the Theses Luther doesn’t simply attack Tetzel’s defense and selling of Indulgences, but literally denounces Indulgences to bolster his heretical views of Justification by faith alone. How can you have ‘Justification by faith alone’ and still view the Scriptural verses of Matt 16:18 and Matt 18:18 valid. His purpose was to usurp the authority of the Roman Catholic Church to substitute his own Church, the church of the self-proclaimed new Moses. It was an act of defiance when he posted his 95 Theses when a year earlier, in a letter to Jodocus Trutfetter, a former professor, Martin Luther exhibited his commitment to the destruction of the Church. Luther wrote:


“To speak plainly, my firm belief is that reform of the Church is impossible unless the ecclesiastical laws, the papal regulations, scholastic theology, philosophy and logic as they at present exist, are thoroughly uprooted….a resolution from which neither your authority, although it is certainly of greatest weight for me…” (Source: Warren H. Carroll, The Cleaving of Christendom, 2000.)

From the onset Luther’s goal was to destroy the Church. There was no attempt at ‘reform’ or ‘correction.’ From a gloss we can see schism early in Luther’s career. His main goal was to tear down what Christ had built up. Considering himself a great prophet on the order of Moses; no doubt aligned with the great deceiver, openly declared his desire to disrupt the Mass:


If I succeed in doing away with the Mass, then I shall believe I have completely conquered the Pope. On the Mass, as on a rock, the whole of the Papacy is based, with its monasteries, bishoprics, colleges, altars, services and doctrines. ... If the sacrilegious and cursed custom of Mass is overthrown, then the whole must fall. Through me Christ has begun to reveal the abomination standing in the Holy Place (Dan. ix. 27), and to destroy him [the Papal Antichrist] who has taken up his seat there with the devils help, with false miracles and deceiving signs. (Grisar, Luther, Vol. II, pg 320 seqq., London Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., LTD., Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, E.G., 1913)

His scheming was hidden from the faithful. It was difficult sometimes to recognize the differences in outward appearance. Yet, at Luther’s direction the liturgy of the Mass was incrementally and imperceptibly altered, like the boiled frog with the heat slowly increased, the faithful didn’t know they were embroiled in schism until they were poached. Later Luther was to brag,

“Thank God, in indifferent matters our churches are so arranged that a layman, whether Italian or Spaniard, unable to understand our preaching, seeing our Mass, choir, organs, bells, chantries, etc., would surely say that it was a regular papist church, and that there was no difference, or very little, between it and his own.” (Grisar, Luther, Vol. II, pg 322, London Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. LTD. Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, E.G. 1913)


"We Germans," writes Luther in 1532, "sin and are the servants of sin ; we live in carnal lusts and stoutly use our license up over our ears. We wish to do what we like and what does the devil a service, and we wish to be free to do only just what we want. Few are they who remember the true problem of how they may be free from sin. They are well content to have been rid of the Pope, officials, and from other laws, but they do not think on how they may serve Christ and become free from sin. Therefore will it come to pass that we shall not stay in the house, as servants do not stay in always, but we shall have to be cast out and lose again the gospel and liberty.” (Heinrich Denifile, Luther and Lutherdom, Vol.1., Part 1, 1917. Pg. 27) similarly, “even In 1529, he had voiced similar sentiments. ”No one fears God, everything is mischievous … Each one lives according to his will, cheats and swindles the other," (Ibid, Pg. 27, Fn 94 Erl. 48, 389.Erl. 36, 300.)

An insidious concealment of the real political intent of the 95 Theses can be seen in Luther’s writings. Actually, the problem lies in Luther’s new religion; logically Indulgences would be an anathema to this religion. Grisar suggests that this motive is exposed in letters to George Spalatin and to Scheul in February and March of 1514. Hartmann Grisar, Luther Vol. 6, 1917. To Spalatin, Luther writes regarding how to handle the two princes, in vying one against the other. Luther was apparently scheming to avoid the sanctions that John Reuchlin’s naturalist views found only a few years earlier. Luther writes regarding Indulgences: “The other question concerned the power of the Indulgence, and what it can accomplish. This matter is still doubtful, but I shall say privately to you and our friends that I consider present-day Indulgences as a deceiving of souls, and of no use except as an encouragement to lazy Christians…But I shall gladly permit the Prince to lead me into a disputation, or place me on my trial, if he would openly give me a safe-conduct, but I dislike the innocent Prince being blamed on my account.” (Margaret A. Currie, The Letters of Martin Luther, 1908, Macmillan and Co. Limited St. Martin’s Street, London.) Here we see the first clues of a surreptitious political conspiracy of George the Duke of Saxony and Luther.

JoeT

JoeT,
Thanks much for that additional information.
It is VERY interesting.
Yes, obviously Luther was a schemer and a purposeful misleader.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

JoeT,
Thanks much for that additional information.
It is VERY interesting.
Yes, obviously Luther was a schemer and a purposeful misleader.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

No, Fred, Luther was an honest man in a den of thieves.

No, Fred, Luther was an honest man in a den of theives.

I'm sensing a little hostility on some people's parts... (not you, para).

No, Fred, Luther was an honest man in a den of theives.
I agree. How does the RCC explain/justify that they charged members money so God would forgive sins? Is this still being done?

I agree. How does the RCC explain/justify that they charged members money so God would forgive sins? Is this still being done?

(Is this still being done)?? Huh?

Joining the ranks of the Catholic bashers, now? Lovely, really lovely.

(Is this still being done) ??? Huh?

Joining the ranks of the Catholic bashers, now ?? Lovely, really lovely.

It's not bashing to ask an honest question.

(Is this still being done) ??? Huh?

Joining the ranks of the Catholic bashers, now ?? Lovely, really lovely.
I am not a Catholic basher. You know that. Apparently, I asked my question badly. It's an honest one. My knowledge of Catholic doctrine was filtered through a conservative part of the Lutheran Church that taught me Catholics believe they must earn their salvation. My question is about indulgences -- if that is a term still used in the RCC, and, if so, what does it mean.

I agree. How does the RCC explain/justify that they charged members money so God would forgive sins? Is this still being done?

It's not bashing to ask an honest question.

I am not a Catholic basher. You know that. Apparently, I asked my question badly. It's an honest one. My knowledge of Catholic doctrine was filtered through a conservative part of the Lutheran Church that taught me Catholics believe they must earn their salvation. My question is about indulgences -- if that is a term still used in the RCC, and, if so, what does it mean.
In 1517, and, in 2010, and in 001, Indulgences have always been the purview of the Church. You might say the Church administers the wealth merited by the works of Christ and the Saints. (Cf. Mat 16:19, Mat 18:18, and 2 Corinthians 2:5-10) The sacrament of Penance removes the guilt of sin and any eternal punishment but it can't remove the just recompense for once actions. Divine Justice demands a requitement for sin; this must be paid in this world or the next, i.e. in purgatory. Too often some believe that an indulgence is both the forgiveness of sin and the remission of punishment, it's not. The problem with Luther was that he could never seem to separate the two. The Papal Bull "Exsurge Domine", 15 June, 1520, Leo X, condemns Luther's attacks on Indulgences as “pious frauds of the faithful, and remissions of good works; and they are among the number of those things which are allowed, and not of the number of those which are advantageous.” Pope Leo X outlined precisely the madness of Luther's doctrine:

[INDEN]In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:

1. It is a heretical opinion, but a common one, that the sacraments of the New Law give pardoning grace to those who do not set up an obstacle.

2. To deny that in a child after baptism sin remains is to treat with contempt both Paul and Christ.

3. The inflammable sources of sin, even if there be no actual sin, delay a soul departing from the body from entrance into heaven.

4. To one on the point of death imperfect charity necessarily brings with it great fear, which in itself alone is enough to produce the punishment of purgatory, and impedes entrance into the kingdom.

5. That there are three parts to penance: contrition, confession, and satisfaction, has no foundation in Sacred Scripture nor in the ancient sacred Christian doctors.

6. Contrition, which is acquired through discussion, collection, and detestation of sins, by which one reflects upon his years in the bitterness of his soul, by pondering over the gravity of sins, their number, their baseness, the loss of eternal beatitude, and the acquisition of eternal damnation, this contrition makes him a hypocrite, indeed more a sinner.

7. It is a most truthful proverb and the doctrine concerning the contritions given thus far is the more remarkable: "Not to do so in the future is the highest penance; the best penance, a new life."

8. By no means may you presume to confess venial sins, nor even all mortal sins, because it is impossible that you know all mortal sins. Hence in the primitive Church only manifest mortal sins were confessed.

9. As long as we wish to confess all sins without exception, we are doing nothing else than to wish to leave nothing to God's mercy for pardon.

10. Sins are not forgiven to anyone, unless when the priest forgives them he believes they are forgiven; on the contrary the sin would remain unless he believed it was forgiven; for indeed the remission of sin and the granting of grace does not suffice, but it is necessary also to believe that there has been forgiveness.

11. By no means can you have reassurance of being absolved because of your contrition, but because of the word of Christ: "Whatsoever you shall loose, etc." Hence, I say, trust confidently, if you have obtained the absolution of the priest, and firmly believe yourself to have been absolved, and you will truly be absolved, whatever there may be of contrition.

12. If through an impossibility he who confessed was not contrite, or the priest did not absolve seriously, but in a jocose manner, if nevertheless he believes that he has been absolved, he is most truly absolved.

13. In the sacrament of penance and the remission of sin the pope or the bishop does no more than the lowest priest; indeed, where there is no priest, any Christian, even if a woman or child, may equally do as much.

14. No one ought to answer a priest that he is contrite, nor should the priest inquire.

15. Great is the error of those who approach the sacrament of the Eucharist relying on this, that they have confessed, that they are not conscious of any mortal sin, that they have sent their prayers on ahead and made preparations; all these eat and drink judgment to themselves. But if they believe and trust that they will attain grace, then this faith alone makes them pure and worthy.

16. It seems to have been decided that the Church in common Council established that the laity should communicate under both species; the Bohemians who communicate under both species are not heretics, but schismatics.

17. The treasures of the Church, from which the pope grants indulgences, are not the merits of Christ and of the saints.

18. Indulgences are pious frauds of the faithful, and remissions of good works; and they are among the number of those things which are allowed, and not of the number of those which are advantageous.

19. Indulgences are of no avail to those who truly gain them, for the remission of the penalty due to actual sin in the sight of divine justice.

20. They are seduced who believe that indulgences are salutary and useful for the fruit of the spirit.

21. Indulgences are necessary only for public crimes, and are properly conceded only to the harsh and impatient.

22. For six kinds of men indulgences are neither necessary nor useful; namely, for the dead and those about to die, the infirm, those legitimately hindered, and those who have not committed crimes, and those who have committed crimes, but not public ones, and those who devote themselves to better things.

23. Excommunications are only external penalties and they do not deprive man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church.

24. Christians must be taught to cherish excommunications rather than to fear them.

25. The Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, is not the vicar of Christ over all the churches of the entire world, instituted by Christ Himself in blessed Peter.

26. The word of Christ to Peter: "Whatsoever you shall loose on earth," etc. is extended merely to those things bound by Peter himself.

27. It is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or the pope to decide upon the articles of faith, and much less concerning the laws for morals or for good works.

28. If the pope with a great part of the Church thought so and so, he would not err; still it is not a sin or heresy to think the contrary, especially in a matter not necessary for salvation, until one alternative is condemned and another approved by a general Council.

29. A way has beeri made for us for weakening the authority of councils, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved or disapproved by any council whatsoever.

30. Some articles of John Hus, condemned in the Council of Constance, are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn.

31. In every good work the just man sins.

32. A good work done very well is a venial sin.

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

34. To go to war against the Turks is to resist God who punishes our iniquities through them.

35. No one is certain that he is not always sinning mortally, because of the most hidden vice of pride.

36. Free will after sin is a matter of title only; and as long as one does what is in him, one sins mortally.

37. Purgatory cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture which is in the canon.

38. The souls in purgatory are not sure of their salvation, at least not all; nor is it proved by any arguments or by the Scriptures that they are beyond the state of meriting or of increasing in charity.

39. The souls in purgatory sin without intermission, as long as they seek rest and abhor punishment.

40. The souls freed from purgatory by the suffrages of the living are less happy than if they had made satisfactions by themselves.

41. Ecclesiastical prelates and secular princes would not act badly if they destroyed all of the money bags of beggary.

No one of sound mind is ignorant how destructive, pernicious, scandalous, and seductive to pious and simple minds these various errors are, how opposed they are to all charity and reverence for the holy Roman Church who is the mother of all the faithful and teacher of the faith; how destructive they are of the vigor of ecclesiastical discipline, namely obedience. This virtue is the font and origin of all virtues and without it anyone is readily convicted of being unfaithful. (Source: Exsurge Domine (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm) )[/INDENT]
And Pope Leo X continues to say “Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected.” (Ibid.)

Luther, according to his 'promises,' in spite of the Pope's condemnation of his works, failing retraction of his neo-religion, Luther continued. Contrary to his own propaganda, Luther wasn't excommunicated until after the hearing before the Charles V, at the Diet of Worms in 1521. Finally, Luther managed to get himself excommunicated in January, 1521: “wicked designs of misguided men, who have been so captivated by the debased impulse of their evil purposes as to forget the fear of the Lord, to set aside with contempt canonical decrees and apostolic commandments, and to dare to formulate new and false dogmas and to introduce the evil of schism into the Church of God—or to support, help and adhere to such schismatics, who make it their business to cleave asunder the seamless robe of our Redeemer and the unity of the orthodox faith.” (Source: Decet Romanum Pontificem (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10decet.htm) ) Luther excommunicated himself.

In the 15th century the practice of absolving sin and guilt's reward was condemned. It found its way back in the 16th century under a few unscrupulous priests and bishops; some simply were simply overzealous attempting to raise money for the new Basilica in Rome. These men never were sanctioned under to 'sell' indulgences. However, there was a legitimate discussion of the practice in the early 1500'

Penance required by the confessor is an act of contrition usually in the form of prayers, fasting, alms-giving as a penitential work to repair a spiritual relationship with God through sin. It is different from indulgences in that it is a sacramental satisfaction, the satisfaction earned add, albeit infinitesimal small amounts, to the merits of Christ and the saints, adding to the wealth the treasure of the Church.

The doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church regarding Indulgences have not changed, she still has the powers she was commissioned with, and she still has the wealth of faith that she administers freely. It would be wrong however to say there has been no change as a result of Luther because there is one small change. It is made clear for all the faithful that Indulgences are abundantly free in the penitent's merited works in faith.

JoeT

paraclete,
That is your opinion, and very much not mine.
I'll take Luther at his own words on that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Martin Luther tried to clean out the pigpen , he should rather have set fire to it . Henry v11 of England had a better idea . He solved the problem of the church's medieval , paralysing , parasitic grip on his country & his rule . He took real control , did drastic surgery, removed the church , & gave us the start to our modern Western World .

Martin Luther tried to clean out the pigpen , he should rather have set fire to it . Henry v11 of England had a better idea . He solved the problem of the church's medieval , paralysing , parasitic grip on his country & his rule . He took real control , did drastic surgery, removed the church , & gave us the start to our modern Western World .

Wow.

Martin Luther tried to clean out the pigpen , he should rather have set fire to it . Henry v11 of England had a better idea . He solved the problem of the church's medieval , paralysing , parasitic grip on his country & his rule . He took real control , did drastic surgery, removed the church , & gave us the start to our modern Western World .


I wouldn't have said it in these terms.

Perhaps we could say that Luther contributed greatly to the idea of separation of church and state. Luther argued for a distinction between civil and spiritual matters. This idea was taken up by subsequent liberal thinkers.

Whether Luther set out to destroy the RCC is a matter of debate. However, it was inevitable there was going to be a separation at some stage.


Tut

Of course I meant Henry v111 of England , thank God for him , if there is a god... tradjazzman

I think we attribute too much to any one person(s), whether it be Henry v111 or Luther. The wheels of change were already set in motion with the advent of the Reformation. Luther and Henry were important historical people of the time but they did not have the power to bring down any church, regardless of their motives.

The RCC decline in power was a result of a completely revolutionary way of thinking. Going was the old Aristotelian world view.It was being replaced by a scientific approach to nature, politics and theology.

When Luther claimed that every individual had an immediate relationship to God he was expressing a new world view. Based on this liberal approach to theology, such things as a persons relationship with God being mediated through the church hierarchy became unacceptable to some.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the Protestant Reformation and the scientific revolution went hand in hand.


Tut

I don't think it is a coincidence that the Protestant Reformation and the scientific revolution went hand in hand.


Tut

I think if you check it out the Age of Enlightenment was a little later than the Reformation, perhaps you mean the Renaissince.

An institution such as the RCC is slow to change, even 500 years after the Reformation it stills holds, or more accurately clings, to it's traditions. The Reformation held no scientific view, it was about man's relationship to God, whereas the scientific view is that man has no need of God

I think if you check it out the Age of Enlightenment was a little later than the Reformation, perhaps you mean the Renaissince.

An institution such as the RCC is slow to change, even 500 years after the Reformation it stills holds, or more accurately clings, to it's traditions. The Reformation held no scientific view, it was about man's relationship to God, whereas the scientific view is that man has no need of God

True, but an argument could be made (not saying I'm making it, just tossing it out for consideration) that the wheels were set in motion by folks like Copernicus et al, ideas that challenged some of the RCC's established teachings like the earth as the center of the universe. Such things could have set the stage, in a way, for the Reformation; by that time, all it needed was a catalyst, and Luther provided that.

Again, just an idea that came to me and I figured I'd put it on the table for discussion if anybody's interested.

True, but an argument could be made (not saying I'm making it, just tossing it out for consideration) that the wheels were set in motion by folks like Copernicus et al, ideas that challenged some of the RCC's established teachings like the earth as the center of the universe. Such things could have set the stage, in a way, for the Reformation; by that time, all it needed was a catalyst, and Luther provided that.

Again, just an idea that came to me and I figured I'd put it on the table for discussion if anybody's interested.


Hello paraclete,


I think most people would be willing to attribute a minimalist interpretation to the Protestant Reformation and Science. That is to say the Reformation broke the medieval ecclesiastical control over European thought.

I would want to go further with this explanation. Therefore I would agree with dwashbur's account.

Regards

dwashbur,
Thanks for putting that ion the table for discussion.
I hope to see some on that.
Fred

ideas that challenged some of the RCC's established teachings like the earth as the center of the universe. .

Thanks for reminding us that the flat Earth society is still in operation in Rome.

paraclete,
That's news to me. Who is saying that the earth is flat?
It surely is not the pope or the magisterium of The Church.
So who?
Thanks,
Fred

paraclete,
That's news to me. Who is saying that the earth is flat?
It surely is not the pope or the magisterium of The Church.
So who?
Thanks,
Fred

Fred the Flat Earth Society refers to people who hold views which don't conform to the facts, that is their traditions bind them up.

paraclete,
That's news to me. Who is saying that the earth is flat?
It surely is not the pope or the magisterium of The Church.
So who?
Thanks,
Fred


Interesting question.

Aristotle proposed that the solar system was composed of perfect crystalline spheres with the Earth being at the centre of the solar system.
Planetary motion was explained as the work of the unmoved mover.

Some of Ptolemy's ideas were later added to help explain the motion of planets. I could stand correct but I think it was Ptolemy who worked out the circumference of the earth to within two or three thousand miles. This was about 100 A.D

So great was Aristotle's "world view' that during the Middle Ages theology also reflected this idea. Aristotle's unmoved mover became an important philosophical/theological concept during this time.

The idea of the earth being flat had always been around in ancient times. Did people believed the world was flat during the formation of Christian ideas? I don't know. Scholars such as Aquinas would have accepted that the Earth was round.

Tut

I was asking that because I thought that paraclete was referring to The Church of members therein who believed the world was flat.
I thought that was rather odd considering the fact the worlds first observatory was established and built by the Vatican.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I was asking that because I thought that paraclete was referring to The Church of members therein who believed the world was flat.
I thought that was rather odd considering the fact the worlds first observatory was established and built by the Vatican.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I think it is time to get us back on topic
Luther didn't start with the intention of creating a new Church. What he obviously wanted was reform within the Church and a return to true Christian values.
The Church in Luther's time apparently and obviously held many incorrect views, this is typified by their persecution of Luther himself, Copernicus, Kepler, Galleilo as well as the Inquisition and their persecution of the Jews, and the excessive trade in relics and indulgences. The Church had become what Christ had described as a den of thieves when he purged the Temple and Luther would have been mindful of that.
There is a view that they have moved on from these times but the problems being experienced by the Church today are in fact issues that the Church has failed to deal with for centuries. They are in fact a flat Earth Society failing to see what is right in front of them. There is no refuge in apostlic succession, if you are wrong, you are wrong, whether that is the basis for salvation or false doctrine

I think it is time to get us back on topic
Luther didn't start out with the intention of creating a new Church. What he obviously wanted was reform within the Church and a return to true Christian values.
The Church in Luther's time apparently and obviously held many incorrect views, this is typified by their persecution of Luther himself, Copernicus, Kepler, Galleilo as well as the Inquisition and their persecution of the Jews, and the excessive trade in relics and indulgences. The Church had become what Christ had described as a den of thieves when he purged the Temple and Luther would have been mindful of that.
There is a view that they have moved on from these times but the problems being experienced by the Church today are in fact issues that the Church has failed to deal with for centuries. They are in fact a flat Earth Society failing to see what is right in front of them. There is no refuge in apostlic succession, if you are wrong, you are wrong, whether that is the basis for salvation or false doctrine

Hello Paraclete,

Very impressive summation in my view (for what my view is worth).

I think I can see what you are getting at.

It could be seen that the RCC was the 'first church' because of an unbroken philosophical/theological tradition which started with the Ancient Greeks and goes through to modern times. As far as the RCC Church is concerned, Aristotelian philosophy is still as relevant today as it was then. Of course there have been additions/subtractions to Aristotle's original works, notably by Medieval scholars. This claim requires greater explanation, but this is not possible at the moment.

The most striking example of an 'about face' by the church was the eventual acceptance of a heliocentric solar system. Interestingly enough there is no reference in the Bible to an earth centred solar system. It was no doubt the result of an 'addition' to Biblical facts.

So why was Copernicus treated so badly by the Church? Probably because it was a challenge to the Church's authority on ALL MATTERS, not just religious. Was it William Pitt who said something along the lines that power corrupts absolutely, but absolute power corrupts absolutely?

The interesting thing about philosophy before and during this period was that it represented an all encompassing theory. In other words, philosophers and theologians set out to explain both heaven and earth within one consistent epistemology(theory of knowledge).

What people such as Luther were stressing was that this is not possible. There is more than one theory of knowledge. Aristotle and subsequent theologians were wrong when it came to explanations of the physical world. Science can explain the physical world better than theology. From my point of view theology can explain the non-physical world.

However, this was not what needed changing. What needed changing was a theology which purported to cover everything, physical and non-physical. Eventually such theology/philosophy became outmoded As witnessed by the plurality of different religions today.

To hang on to the idea that one theology can criticize the physical world as being 'too liberal' is to make the same mistake as those who persecuted Galileo.



Tut

Hello Paraclete,

Aristotelian philosophy is still as relevant today as it was then.

Tut

I think this is where the Church went wrong. We are followers of Christ, not Aristotle. The Bible is not about greek logic but something entirely different and if you try to apply that logic you will become confused and ultimately heretical. The statements of Jesus are completely illogical if viewed from Aristotle's stance because they stem from an entirely different curtural background. Even the jews had difficulty with what Jesus was saying. By the time of Luther the Church had migrated far away from its beginnings and was relying on a doctrine of works. It had become corrupt. Luther challenged this doctrine of works and in doing so challenged papual authority because the pope in error was promolgating this doctrine. Because he did this publicly Luther was ultimately declared a heretic but in fact the heretical teachings came from the pope.

I think it fair to say that some here are 'bible-only,' that is to say; the bible is their infallible rule of faith. More times than not, those who hold to this principle read the bible literally. When we do so, many verses in the Old Testament would lead to the conclusion that the universe revolves around the earth or that the earth flat.

Now, when the subject of the Galileo vs. the Church comes up, the same self-styled literalists complain that the Pope was unfair insisting on a literal reading of Scripture. What ridicule they heaped on the Church for pushing doctrine over holy Science, but of course without considering the hypocrisy of the argument. This is especially egregious when they don't know the facts surrounding Galileo's censure, for that matter what he was really charged with – it seems many love a sensational story as opposed to truth. As you know, story revolves around the Copernican theory (the pun was intended). There is a bit of irony in the story; not only was Copernicus an astronomer, he was also a Catholic cleric.

Galileo published Discourse on Floating Bodies in 1612 along with a book on sunspots in 1613. The first claim that the Copernican theory was heretical was raised by the Grand Duchess Christina at a banquet citing scripture. The Duchess was the wife of the Grand Duke Cosimo de Medic. Galileo later circulated a letter saying scripture should not be taken so laterally. The conversation was picked-up by a Dominican priest Tommaso Caccini who, from the pulpit, suggested that the Copernican theory should be declared heretical. Father Caccini's denunciation pointed to Joshua commanding the sun to stand still at Ajalon. The Copernican theory doesn't permit the motion of the celestial bodies to stop, thus it was heretical; so much for astronomical acumen of Dominican priests. In any event Father Caccini complained to the Roman Inquisition stating that mathematicians along with Galileo should be banished from Christendom. The complaint against Galileo included that he engaged in publishing his private interpretation of Scripture. The charges were summarily dismissed by the Inquisition in February 1615. Cardinal Bellarmine wrote in the summary that the Copernican theory was yet to be proven and until such time should not be applied to interpretation of Scripture.

Case closed? Not exactly. In December that same year Galileo unwisely decided to visit friends in Rome. And, like most men with a new toy (the telescope) and a bright idea (the Copernican theory) he went about town troubling the aristocracy with the idea that their secure position in the center of the cosmos had just been usurped and replaced with as an insignificant rock. Consequently the Pope, Paul V called for a formal decision on Copernican theory in February of 1616. Don't forget, at this time there was still little separation from the natural sciences and theology. So a committee of eleven theologians and one natural scientist, and a mathematician, pronounced that the Copernican theory was nonsense; after all everyone knew that man and his planet were at the center of the universe.

Cardinal Bllarmine, a renowned Catholic apologist tried to intervene knowing that if the Copernican theory was later found correct, it would put the Church in an untenable position of defending a position that is contrary to nature – the Church has held, from the time of Christ, through Peter, that what is true in nature is, in some way, a revelation of nature's creator. As a result of this verdict, Galileo's book was put on the index of Forbidden Books. Cardinal Bellarmine convinced the Congregation of the Index of Forbidden Books to stop circulation until a new preface was written simply stating that the theory was not proven. As insurance that Galileo would follow through, the jurists insisted on a document prohibiting Galileo from teaching his new theory. Much later this document appeared stating that Galileo had been enjoined from teaching the theory in any way. Since it was dated February 1616 it is presumed to be the back-up if he failed to follow through with re-writing the preface of his book.

As any good Catholic Galileo submitted himself to censure. In an audience with Pope Paul V, Galileo was assured support “discouraged and disappointed, but not defeated”, he went to Venice which was his home, where he continued his work freely until 1624.

Publishing his book The Assayer Galileo advocated the atomic theory for the composition of matter. Wisely he avoided the mentioning the Copernican theory. Even still, he was attacked by overzealous critics who saw this theory as an attack on transubstantiation. In 1624, Pope Urban VIII, successor to Paul V stated “that the Church had never declared the works of Copernicus to be heretical and would not do so,“ but added “a proof of its truth would ever be forthcoming.” Encouraged, Galileo wrote Dialogue on the Two Great World Systems in 1632 to provide that proof. Looking for an imprimatur, the book was given to the Inquisitor. Father Riccardi said that the Dialogue focused on “the mathematical examination of the Copernican position on the earth's motion, with the aim of proving that, if we remove divine revelation and sacred doctrine, the appearances could be saved with this supposition…so that one would never be admitting the absolute truth of this opinion, but only its hypothetical truth without the benefit of scripture.” Again, bull headedly Galileo continued to insist that his theory was an absolute.

The Dialogue was published by coincidence at the worst possible time, the Thirty years War was raging in Bavaria and the Protestants had succeeded in expelling Jesuits and winning several battles. This forced Pope Urban VIII to prove his orthodoxy and turned on Galileo because of Jesuit denouncement of the Dialogue. This is when the “back-up” injunction was “found.” In any event Galileo was deposed twice in front of the Inquisition on the charge of disobeying the mysteriously reappearing injunction. The charges were eventually dropped, however he was censured for being “vehemently suspected of heresy”. For teaching the heliocentric theories, the Dialogue was banned by the Index for more than 200-years. Galileo was required to make a public abjuration and was placed under house arrest. Petro Redondi said that “this heresy was inquisitorial – that is, disciplinary, not theological or doctrinal – both according to the words of the manuals of criminal heresiology”. In short, Galileo was found guilty of disobedience, not of heresy. (Source: Warren H. Carroll, The Cleaving of Christendom, 2000.)

So today the literalist accuses the Church teaching by allegory as opposed to 'the Word of God'?

JoeT

Joe,
Excellent summary! Consider yourself greened, since the system won't let me give you one until I spread the love around a little more.

I would just take minor issue with one statement early in your treatise:

"I think it fair to say that some here are ‘bible-only,’ that is to say; the bible is their infallible rule of faith. More times than not, those who hold to this principle read the bible literally."

My objection is to the phrase "more times than not." There are plenty of us who are not of that camp, and frankly some of us are embarrassed by them. The situation isn't necessarily that they are the majority of Bible-only-ers, but rather that they're the ones who make the most noise. As I said, a minor quibble. In fact, that may well have come from Sir Nitpick rather than from me; too much Vicodin at the moment makes it difficult for me to tell!

Again, thanks for that excellent summary of the Galileo matter; I don't think I've ever seen it set so fully in its historical context before, and I learned a lot.

JoeT,
Thanks much for that history lesson. It filled in gaps of my knowledge on the subject.
Like dwashbur I learned a lot.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

So today the literalist accuses the Church teaching by allegory as opposed to ‘the Word of God’?

JoeT

Joe, this is exactly what Aquinas was doing.

Aquinas spoke of the Holy Spirit as the author of the Bible, but he also paid careful attention to the literary and linguistic aspects of the Bible. He regarded all theology as 'scientific'

Tut