working4christ2

PJM · Jul 6, '11, 4:07 pm

I just saw this question on a different string and thought it might make for an interestering discussion.

Your thought please

manualman · #2 Jul 6, '11, 4:25 pm

You'll finds lots of interesting discussion with a bit'o search function on the matter.

Luther was disgusted with the corruption he saw in the personal lives of leaders in the Church in his day and also struggled in his own personal life with scrupulosity (my opinion based on a modest amount of reading).

The two of those things together were the driving force behind his 'Sola Fide' novel idea that is one of the two foundational ideas that separate protestantism from catholicism. The second, 'Sola Scriptura', he developed as he ran into opposition to his Sola Fide idea from the hierarchy.

IMO Luther is a tragic hero, not a villain. And aren't we all.....

Scoobyshme · #3 Jul 6, '11, 5:32 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PJM

I just saw this question on a different string and thought it might make for an interestering discussion.

Your thought please

Pride. He never started out intending to leave the Church, but he got angry and arrogant, and his pride led him out. At the end of his life, he was horrified at what Protestantism had become.

JM3 · #4 Jul 6, '11, 5:49 pm

From Karl Adam's 'The Roots of the Reformation':

Quote:

The abuses in the Church were not the real cause but only the occasion of the Reformation. They found their culmination in the shameful deal in indulgences between the Hohenzollern Prince Albert of Brandenburg, the Archbishop of Magdeburg and Mainz and the Papal Curia.[5] The preaching of the special indulgence for the building of St. Peter's was allowed by the Archbishop of Magdeburg and Mainz in his dioceses only on condition that the net profit was to be halved between himself and the fund for St. Peter's. The Archbishop made an arrangement with the great German banking family, the Fuggers, whereby they collected the money. He thus repaid them the sums advanced to him to cover his fees to the Curia for his appointment to the See of Mainz and for the privilege of retaining the Sees of Halberstadt and Magdeburg contrary to Canon Law. Undoubtedly such abuses aroused Luther to the point of coming forward publicly. They explain too why it was that the theses he nailed to the door of the Castle Church at Wittenburg, "De Virtute Indulgentiarum" (concerning the power of indulgences), unleashed such tremendous forces in the German people. Most important of all, they made it possible for Luther to put the Church in the wrong and to justify his own doctrine as the one gospel of salvation before the mass of the people and before his own conscience. Indeed, the longer the strife continued, the more violent became the clash of spirits, the more passionately Luther's hatred of the Pope's Church flamed up; and as he grew older, the confusion in his eyes between the abuses in the Church and the essence of the Church increased, his belief in himself and his mission deepened, and he developed an ever more convinced and more triumphant assurance that he was being summoned by God to overthrow Antichrist in the shape of the Pope.
Thus the abuses within the medieval Church certainly unleashed Luther upon the path of revolution, and justified him in the eyes of the masses and in his own judgment. But they were not the actual ground, the decisive reason for Luther's falling away from the doctrine of the Church. He himself, even, later emphasized that one should not condemn a man's teaching "merely because of his sinful life". "That is not the Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit condemns false doctrine and is patient with the weak in faith, as is taught in Romans xiv.
15, and everywhere in Paul. I would have little against the Papists if they taught true doctrine. Their evil life would do no great harm." (Lortz, vol. i, p. 390.)
It was not ecclesiastical abuses that made him the opponent of the Catholic Church, but the conviction that she was teaching falsely. And this conviction dates from long before the fatal
17th October, 1517. He had interiorly abandoned the teaching of the Church long before he outwardly raised the standard of revolt. Certainly, as early as 1512, without as yet knowing or wishing it, he had grown away from the Church's belief (Lortz, vol. i, p. 191).

Wesley7 · #5 Jul 6, '11, 5:52 pm

Supposedly, he was a Catholic monk/priest for many years and finally got disgusted with the corrupt practices of the Roman Church.

CatholicZ09 · #6 Jul 6, '11, 5:58 pm

Are there any writings from Luther that state how upset he was with what protestantism had become?

Swiss Guy · #7 Jul 6, '11, 8:09 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PJM

I just saw this question on a different string and thought it might make for an interestering discussion.

Your thought please

Good idea.

From a (slightly) Lutheran perspective, which is really more unbiased than you'd think.

At first it was from all the abuses he saw with the selling of indulgences. Then, he came up with sola fide/theology of the cross, and taught that. When he put up the 95 theses, the things that stand out that are most notable are his complete rejection of selling indulgences

, and his questioning of the existence of purgatory. Nothing to do with sola fide.

Once he posted his theses then he came out expressing his theology of the cross, which basically is that no man can come to God unless God reveals himself to man by giving him faith, and then his sins are covered.

What may surprise most Catholics is that he was actually very faithful to the pope when he was Catholic, and even a little when he wasn't. he defended both the pope and the bishops in his theses, but attacked the priests. But once excommunicated showed little respect for the bishops, but moderate respect for the pope until his latter years. Later, his theology became more and more unCatholic, and he became more hostile to the Church and others in general.

But, some interesting facts are: he said he would never have left the Church if he had known what he started (Protestantism and Calvin's doctrine of double predestination), he would kiss the pope's feet if he accepted his view of justification, and that he was ok with transubstantiation, although he didn't believe in it, as long as the real presence of Christ was there.

But, in the end, he should never have left the church. The indulgences just gave him an excuse to leave the church since he had faith alone glued in his mind. But I'm sick and tired of all of the false and biased information about Martin Luther on these forums (just in general). I know he was a heretic, but he was much better than Calvin and all other reformers.

And a final quick fact: Luther didn't throw the Apocrypha out of the Bible. He placed it in a different section, but didn't throw it out. the Puritans did (I think).

Swiss Guy · #8 Jul 6, '11, 8:10 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by CatholicZ09

Are there any writings from Luther that state how upset he was with what protestantism had become?

You can probably google for them. Sorry I'm not of much help, but CAF is more fun that google.

CatholicZ09 · #9 Jul 6, '11, 8:18 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swiss Guy

You can probably google for them. Sorry I'm not of much help, but CAF is more fun that google.

Meh..I don't blame you.

Carlan · #10 Jul 6, '11, 8:45 pm

Out of disobedience. He should have stayed and worked within for the reform of the time!
He broke his priestly vow. I hope and pray he repented!
Peace, Carlan

indigo_child · #11 Jul 7, '11, 5:43 am

The bottom line was that he became disgusted with the hipocracy of the church of that time. He could have worked within the church to reform it, but lets be honest. If he would have questioned the church and her teachings, he would have (and still is according to RC) a heretic and would have been conveniently burned at the stake. Luckily he fled for his life and started the beginning of a new era in Christianity.

Oldtimer_7 · #12 Jul 7, '11, 5:57 am

In the spirit of Luther, what part of excommunication do you not understand? Top that off with a warrant that virtually ensures that you will not live to see another day and there is not a lot of motivation to keep attending Mass.

The 95 theses were not new or original. They were more a syllabus of the issues he would be teaching about in his classes at the university, where he was a Catholic theologian. Must I point out that this is the same sort of position that Pope Benedict XVI originally held before he was made a bishop? Many of Luther's ideas were presaged by Jan Huss a century earlier. Luther considered himself "a feather from the goose of Bohemia."

The result of the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation was that there were improvements in the life of the church writ both large and small. Eight hundred years of losing to the onslaught of Islam had left no time to make sure that the Christian West was keeping its own house in order. As the Muslim threat was beaten back, it was time to take care of housekeeping matters.

PJM · #13 Jul 7, '11, 8:51 am

Quote:

=Swiss Guy;8081639]Good idea.

From a (slightly) Lutheran perspective, which is really more unbiased than you'd think.

At first it was from all the abuses he saw with the selling of indulgences. Then, he came up with sola fide/theology of the cross, and taught that. When he put up the 95 theses, the things that stand out that are most notable are his complete rejection of selling indulgences

, and his questioning of the existence of purgatory. Nothing to do with sola fide.

Once he posted his theses then he came out expressing his theology of the cross, which basically is that no man can come to God unless God reveals himself to man by giving him faith, and then his sins are covered.

What may surprise most Catholics is that he was actually very faithful to the pope when he was Catholic, and even a little when he wasn't. he defended both the pope and the bishops in his theses, but attacked the priests. But once excommunicated showed little respect for the bishops, but moderate respect for the pope until his latter years. Later, his theology became more and more unCatholic, and he became more hostile to the Church and others in general.

But, some interesting facts are: he said he would never have left the Church if he had known what he started (Protestantism and Calvin's doctrine of double predestination), he would kiss the pope's feet if he accepted his view of justification, and that he was ok with transubstantiation, although he didn't believe in it, as long as the real presence of Christ was there.

But, in the end, he should never have left the church. The indulgences just gave him an excuse to leave the church since he had faith alone glued in his mind. But I'm sick and tired of all of the false and biased information about Martin Luther on these forums (just in general). I know he was a heretic, but he was much better than Calvin and all other reformers.

And a final quick fact: Luther didn't throw the Apocrypha out of the Bible. He placed it in a different section, but didn't throw it out. the Puritans did (I think).

I knew about the indulgences BUT NOT about Sola Fedi.

THANKS,

Pat

Swiss Guy · #14 Jul 7, '11, 9:14 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by PJM

I knew about the indulgences BUT NOT about Sola Fedi.

THANKS,

Pat

Anytime.

I'm no expert, but Luther came out with the theology of the cross in the Heidelberg Disputation in 1518, which gives you the idea that the sale of indulgences was an excuse for him to present the theology of the cross.

Swiss Guy · #15 Jul 7, '11, 9:19 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldtimer_7

it was time to take care of housekeeping matters.

Like invent sola fide?

working4christ2

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Why Did Martim Luther leave the Catholic Church--http://working4christ2.wordpress.com

No comments:

Post a Comment