[JoeT777]

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

[sndbay]

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.

[De Maria]

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?

[sndbay]

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.

[arcura]

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

[Wondergirl]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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

95 Theses - Luther

[Wondergirl]

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."

[JoeT777]

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]

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.

[Akoue]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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)

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..._95_Theses.htm)

[arcura]

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]

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

[arcura]

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

[JoeT777]

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::)

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

JoeT

[arcura]

Joe,
Thanks for posting that,
Fred

[Wondergirl]

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.

[Akoue]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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?