Luther vs Catholic Church

[RC1970]

I have found it interesting lately learning a little about Luther and the Pope / Catholic Church.

I am only just starting to find out more! Why? I need to find out his beliefs, how he viewed the CC hierarchy and how pious was he?

Some of the things I have recently learned have opened my eyes a bit and I want to dig deeper but with an open mind on it all.

Luther started out as a Catholic. He must have had strong faith in the church? What were the main reasons why he turned on the church? Was he in the right with the beliefs he had about the Pope and the Bible etc?

Anyone here delved into his life and beliefs in detail?

To understand Luther and the sociopolitical environment he lived under, you really need to read one of the books written about him. I would recommend one of the following:

"Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther" by Roland H. Bainton
"Luther the Reformer: The Story of the Man and His Career" by James M. Kittelson

It's also worth noting that after Luther's death, the Lutherans departed from Luther on a number of doctrines.

 

[Monk Brendan]

That may be true these days, but in Luther's day it was fish or nothing.

And fish made him sick.

No! There were ALWAYS vegetables! The Rule of St. Augustine says,
Fasting and abstinence are recommended only in proportion to the physical strength of the individual, and when the saint speaks of obligatory fasting he specifies that such as are unable to wait for the evening or ninth hour meal may eat at noon. The nuns partook of very frugal fare and, in all probability, abstained from meat. The sick and infirm are objects of the most tender care and solicitude, and certain concessions are made in favor of those who, before entering religion, led a life of luxury. During meals some instructive matter is to be read aloud to the nuns. Although the Rule of St. Augustine contains but a few precepts, it dwells at great length upon religious virtues and the ascetic life, this being characteristic of all primitive Rules.

 

[amariselle]

Why is it always the default belief of most Protestants that Luther glowed in the dark, and could do no wrong?

Did you even bother to read what I wrote?

Here, I'll help you out:

No one can argue that much evil has been done on both sides. That does not excuse what the Papacy did in taking advantage of the masses of people who looked to the Church for salvation.

So, yes, I think Luther was justified in the stance he took against the Catholic Church he was a part of. He obviously did not get everything right, but his protest of the sale of Indulgences, for example, was entirely merited. He would have been justified enough in protesting such things even by moral standards, but that the word of God absolutely supports rejecting Indulgences, there can be no doubt.

No one has the right to buy and sell salvation, no matter who they are or how they go about it.

So where did I say he "glowed in the dark", or "could do no wrong?" It's clear that I said the exact opposite. Perhaps if you had carefully read my post, you would have noticed that.

God bless.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Did you even bother to read what I wrote?

Yes, I did read it. But you wrote in such glowing terms that it sounded like you worship him, which I know is not true. My point is that there are many, many Christian churches that teach that Catholics worship Mary, and that the Reformation was the TRUE beginning of Christianity, as if the entire 1400 years that came before it are null and void because of the wretchedness and wickedness of a few Popes, bishops, and priests.

And it has always been just a few. The popes, as a whole, have been good, loving bishops of their flock in Rome and elsewhere. Bishops usually do their job and shepherd their flocks, teaching the the truth of Jesus Christ.

 

[Monk Brendan]

So where did I say he "glowed in the dark", or "could do no wrong?" It's clear that I said the exact opposite. Perhaps if you had carefully read my post, you would have noticed that.

Ameriselle, you should know by now that I speak in hyperbole. I exaggerate. But it does seem to be your default position that Luther was a wonderful man that was always kind, and just, and right in his pronouncements. I have declined from opening up on him as far as his nastiness and wrongdoing. Nor, on this forum, can I. But a careful research of his life will lead you to all sorts of things that you probably don't want to think about.

 

[amariselle]

Yes, I did read it. But you wrote in such glowing terms that it sounded like you worship him, which I know is not true.

Absolutely nothing in what I wrote, if actually read carefully, should have given you any reason to think it sounds like I "worship" Luther.

My point is that there are many, many Christian churches that teach that Catholics worship Mary, and that the Reformation was the TRUE beginning of Christianity, as if the entire 1400 years that came before it are null and void because of the wretchedness and wickedness of a few Popes, bishops, and priests.

Far more than a "few", and that's a matter of historical record.

However, just because some may claim that there was no true Christianity or no true Christians prior to the Reformation, does not mean all Protestants believe that. I certainly do not. So, perhaps you should have asked before just assuming I do.

And it has always been just a few. The popes, as a whole, have been good, loving bishops of their flock in Rome and elsewhere. Bishops usually do their job and shepherd their flocks, teaching the the truth of Jesus Christ.

Again, well documented history tells a far different story. However, that is perhaps a topic for another thread.

 

[amariselle]

Ameriselle, you should know by now that I speak in hyperbole. I exaggerate. But it does seem to be your default position that Luther was a wonderful man that was always kind, and just, and right in his pronouncements.

Actually, I have written very little about Luther at all on these forums, and whenever I have, I have always been more than clear that he was far from perfect. Not once have I ever said he "was a wonderful man that was always kind and just and right in his pronouncements." So, I do wish you would stop suggesting that I idolize him in some way.

I have declined from opening up on him as far as his nastiness and wrongdoing. Nor, on this forum, can I. But a careful research of his life will lead you to all sorts of things that you probably don't want to think about.

Sadly, you assume that I haven't "thought about" such things. You seem to truly believe I see Luther as some sort of diety. It might surprise you therefore to know I am well aware of the things you suggest I "don't want to think about."

I've done the research, I can assure you. I'm not as uninformed as you seem to think I am. Nor do I put Luther on any kind of pedestal.

Perhaps you need to rethink your views on "all Protestants" and stop lumping them all together.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

This posting is pointing the finger at Catholics, and criticizing them. This is against the CF rules

You're kidding right?
I am Catholic and there is immorality in the Vatican as we speak. Do you really deny that the human part of the church has flaws and that some of them has come to show in the Vatican in our days?

Do you remember the razzia in the Vatican a few weeks ago?
If so there where homosexual orgies and drugs and some of the prosecuted were even clergy close to the pope.

If you who're even a monk believe for one second that it's a Catholics job to excuse and cover these things up then you need to re-read some of the moral theology from the seminary.

 

[hedrick]

In many ways I think Luther's problem was just how seriously he took Christianity. To understand him you need to look at the history of the Church for the last couple of centuries. This was the period when there were several popes, when a Council had to step in and save the Church. That started a continuing struggle between the authority of popes and councils. Many good people believed that in refusing to call a new council, the Pope was no longer really legitimate. It was also period of nationalism, where there was a lot of tension between the papacy and national governments.

The point is that there was lots turmoil. There was widespread cynicism about the Church. Many well-known Renaissance scholars were like Erasmus: skeptical about the Church but unwilling to do much about it. Luther, however, felt that people's souls were at risk, and couldn't sit by and watch while people he was pastorally responsible for were being abused.

It was also pretty much a low point for the papacy. The popes were in many ways more renaissance princes that Christian leaders. My read is that the Pope never really understood Luther's mindset.

You also shouldn't focus too much on Luther. The kinds of things he said had been said by many for quite some time. In the 95 theses, you can see pretty clear influences from Hus and others like that. I claim that what was different wasn't Luther but his prince. What was different about the Lutheran Reformation was that there was a prince willing to follow Luther's lead, even when it led to a break with the Catholic Church.

From everything I can tell, this wasn't just a political judgement, although it was certainly a period when many in Germany wanted to assert German independence, just as the background to Calvin was Swiss city-states that wanted independence of the conglomerate of bishops who were really princes, and the feudal overlords they worked with. But the Elector took Christianity very seriously. He was convinced that changes needed to be made, and was willing to follow through on it.

In my opinion the Pope simply wasn't up to leading the Church through a very tough period of time. He miscalculated, and precipitated the break. I believe he thought he could get Luther killed, just as church leaders had done with heretics in the past. But the situation had changed in ways he didn't understand.

In my opinion the Church is still trying to figure out how to handle a situation in which it no longer has secular power. How do you maintain unity in a situation where you can't persecute heretics?

 

[amariselle]

In many ways I think Luther's problem was just how seriously he took Christianity. To understand him you need to look at the history of the Church for the last couple of centuries. This was the period when there were several popes, when a Council had to step in and save the Church. That started a continuing struggle between the authority of popes and councils. Many good people believed that in refusing to call a new council, the Pope was no longer really legitimate. It was also period of nationalism, where there was a lot of tension between the papacy and national governments.

The point is that there was lots turmoil. There was widespread cynicism about the Church. Many well-known Renaissance scholars were like Erasmus: skeptical about the Church but unwilling to do much about it. Luther, however, felt that people's souls were at risk, and couldn't sit by and watch while people he was pastorally responsible for were being abused.

It was also pretty much a low point for the papacy. The popes were in many ways more renaissance princes that Christian leaders. My read is that the Pope never really understood Luther's mindset.

You also shouldn't focus too much on Luther. The kinds of things he said had been said by many for quite some time. In the 95 theses, you can see pretty clear influences from Hus and others like that. I claim that what was different wasn't Luther but his prince. What was different about the Lutheran Reformation was that there was a prince willing to follow Luther's lead, even when it led to a break with the Catholic Church.

From everything I can tell, this wasn't just a political judgement, although it was certainly a period when many in Germany wanted to assert German independence, just as the background to Calvin was Swiss city-states that wanted independence of the conglomerate of bishops who were really princes, and the feudal overlords they worked with. But the Elector took Christianity very seriously. He was convinced that changes needed to be made, and was willing to follow through on it.

In my opinion the Pope simply wasn't up to leading the Church through a very tough period of time. He miscalculated, and precipitated the break. I believe he thought he could get Luther killed, just as church leaders had done with heretics in the past. But the situation had changed in ways he didn't understand.

In my opinion the Church is still trying to figure out how to handle a situation in which it no longer has secular power. How do you maintain unity in a situation where you can't persecute heretics?

That's interesting, do you think perhaps that "heretics" should still be persecuted, for the sake of "unity?"

 

[Goatee]

You started us off by asking for help in learning more about Luther and his break with the RCC. People responded as you requested. But in short order, you were falling back onto telling us, somewhat off-topic, that Protestants were evil and the Catholic Church maybe not responsible for duping the common people over indulgences. I was sorry to see 'the same old same old' partisanship in yet one more thread, that's all..

Sorry but you read it wrongly, or, I wrote it wrongly.

I was saying how evil the CC was to take advantage of the poor! How they lied, in so many words, to offer salvation.

I then went on to say that the protestant church committed evil acts later.

I am only just learning about Luther.

Sorry if I worded it to make it look like I was posting the same old arguments.

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

Luther was a monk but he couldn't stand fish. It made him physically sick. And as a monk he was expected to eat fish every Friday.

He left the monastery at the first chance he got and never went back.

Erasmus as well; he could not abide fish.

Fish were the direct cause of the Reformation.

I find this hard to believe. Why it's just preposterous!

 

[Goatee]

On second thought, and because Catherineanne didn't take up my invitation, I think I should have worded that differently. Luther and some of his colleagues left their religious order. Some nuns from a nearby convent had also agreed with Luther's religious teachings and decided to leave their convent. That made them defenseless women in society without any protector. Luther and the others felt a moral obligation to respond and so married these former nuns. His marriage turned out to be a wonderful one, as has been recounted by Luther himself. He discovered it to be a Godly institution, came to know the beauty of family life (they had many children and adopted more), and appreciated the humbling aspects of marriage.

I guess he found his true vocation then, or, God guided him towards it.

 

[Goatee]

You're kidding right?
I am Catholic and there is immorality in the Vatican as we speak. Do you really deny that the human part of the church has flaws and that some of them has come to show in the Vatican in our days?

Do you remember the razzia in the Vatican a few weeks ago?
If so there where homosexual orgies and drugs and some of the prosecuted were even clergy close to the pope.

If you who're even a monk believe for one second that it's a Catholics job to excuse and cover these things up then you need to re-read some of the moral theology from the seminary.

I agree. we cannot defend the church at all times. Evil still runs through it as it does in all aspects of life.

When one looks back at the time of Luther, we can see that the church was very corrupt and murderous. It flounded on rocks as it was run be very evil people who were not true Christians. They were fanatics. They got a lot wrong! But, still we are here! Is that testimony to God's will?

Anyway, I am just skimming the surface in my research of Luther and so far, I can see that he was a very devout Catholic who had many worries about the direction Catholicism was going.

 

[amariselle]

I agree. we cannot defend the church at all times. Evil still runs through it as it does in all aspects of life.

When one looks back at the time of Luther, we can see that the church was very corrupt and murderous. It flounded on rocks as it was run be very evil people who were not true Christians. They were fanatics. They got a lot wrong! But, still we are here! Is that testimony to God's will?

Anyway, I am just skimming the surface in my research of Luther and so far, I can see that he was a very devout Catholic who had many worries about the direction Catholicism was going.

The history of Luther's life is very interesting. God bless you in all your research.

 

[hedrick]

That's interesting, do you think perhaps that "heretics" should still be persecuted, for the sake of "unity?"

No. I think the Church made a mistake very early in history by defining acceptable beliefs too narrowly. Jesus was about orthopraxy, not orthodoxy. I'm not suggesting salvation purely by human effort, but I think we would have been better off not to be so quick to judge heresy, and to exclude people.

There's no reason Luther's theology couldn't have existed within the Church, though not the Church as it existed in the 16th Century.

Many Church historians believe that the success of Islam is directly due to this. During a critical period, conflicts over Chalcedon had sufficiently alienated people that many saw Muslims as easier to live with than their fellow Christians.

 

[Halbhh]

I have found it interesting lately learning a little about Luther and the Pope / Catholic Church.

I am only just starting to find out more! Why? I need to find out his beliefs, how he viewed the CC hierarchy and how pious was he?

Some of the things I have recently learned have opened my eyes a bit and I want to dig deeper but with an open mind on it all.

Luther started out as a Catholic. He must have had strong faith in the church? What were the main reasons why he turned on the church? Was he in the right with the beliefs he had about the Pope and the Bible etc?

Anyone here delved into his life and beliefs in detail?

Luther: imperfect, guilt ridden, troubled, studious, hard worker, and not willing to just turn a blind eye to the corrupt selling of indulgences by some in the church. Translated the Bible into common German language, making it available for the first time ever to just ordinary common people there.


Church: reacted very poorly to having a clear wrong pointed out, and also of course paid a lot of attention to Luther's errors in his 95 points, instead....

....and then excommunicated him. A truly huge mistake, of very large consequence and damage.

The right response to your brother who points out a big error you make, and also makes some errors himself is

*First* you admit he is right about what he is right about!

Sincerely, those who do not haven't the appearance of being Christ followers, but instead appear to be mere political operators thinking merely about human power.

That's the appearance, even when it is not the case.

In order to fix the big harm, it's necessary to reconcile, by admitting wrongs on both sides. But the way you do that is first to admit what the other person is correct about. Humble. Being humble, even if someone somewhere else might not be. You stay humble. You do what is right.

Anyone who gets angry should retreat and pray for aid.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

I agree. we cannot defend the church at all times. Evil still runs through it as it does in all aspects of life.

When one looks back at the time of Luther, we can see that the church was very corrupt and murderous. It flounded on rocks as it was run be very evil people who were not true Christians. They were fanatics. They got a lot wrong! But, still we are here! Is that testimony to God's will?

Anyway, I am just skimming the surface in my research of Luther and so far, I can see that he was a very devout Catholic who had many worries about the direction Catholicism was going.

I don't know if I'd say they where fanatics... hmm, I'd rather say the where indifferent.

They saw the ecclesiastical hierarchy as a carrier latter to be climbed like any other path to power in the world.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

I agree. we cannot defend the church at all times. Evil still runs through it as it does in all aspects of life.

When one looks back at the time of Luther, we can see that the church was very corrupt and murderous. It flounded on rocks as it was run be very evil people who were not true Christians. They were fanatics. They got a lot wrong! But, still we are here! Is that testimony to God's will?

Anyway, I am just skimming the surface in my research of Luther and so far, I can see that he was a very devout Catholic who had many worries about the direction Catholicism was going.

Enjoy your studies
I have some Lutheran dogmatic as well as church history in my degree and enjoyed it quite a lot. Interesting read

 

[amariselle]

No. I think the Church made a mistake very early in history by defining acceptable beliefs too narrowly. Jesus was about orthopraxy, not orthodoxy. I'm not suggesting salvation purely by human effort, but I think we would have been better off not to be so quick to judge heresy, and to exclude people.

There's no reason Luther's theology couldn't have existed within the Church, though not the Church as it existed in the 16th Century.

Many Church historians believe that the success of Islam is directly due to this. During a critical period, conflicts over Chalcedon had sufficiently alienated people that many saw Muslims as easier to live with than their fellow Christians.

Well, in all honesty is was Jesus Himself Who said that the way is narrow. (Matthew 7:13-14)

Jesus also said:

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." - John 14:6

So, I have to disagree. Jesus was very clear, repeatedly, that correct belief (in Him alone) is entirely what is necessary for salvation. Correct practices (works) do not earn anyone salvation.

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." - John 3:14-18

"Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed."

"Then said they unto him, 'What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?'"

"Jesus answered and said unto them, 'This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.'" - John 6:27-29

"For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." - John 6:38-40