What would have stopped Martin Luther?

I have to ask, why would Pope Leo X, only excommunicate Martin Luther, rather than anathematize Luther? Why would a Pope go in with the peashooter of excommunication, and not the Christ given, thermonuclear weapon of anathema, which damns a soul to hell (lest they repent), on Luther, in such a critical situation of faith, and threat of massive schism?

StevenMerten said:

I have to ask, why would Pope Leo X, only excommunicate Martin Luther, rather than anathematize Luther? Why would a Pope go in with the peashooter of excommunication, and not the Christ given, thermonuclear weapon of anathema, which damns a soul to hell, on Luther, in such a critical situation of faith, and threat of massive schism?

Click to expand...

To be fair to Leo, I don't see how he could've known the full extent of the trouble, division and schism that Luther would (directly or indirectly) lead. Had he known how far things would go, he might've made a different decision.

Second, the anathema bomb wouldn't have changed the situation on the ground. Yeah, Luther would be condemned. But by then, the damage would have been done anyway. If excommunication wasn't enough to stop Luther (and obviously it wasn't), I don't see why he would've responded differently to anything else.

I could be totally wrong with the above. It's total conjecture on my part so take it with as many grains of salt as you see fit.

Michie said:

Could the Catholic Church done anything besides changing it's own dogma to satisfy Luther?

Click to expand...

No. But it could have burned him at the stake.

What would stop him?

Perhaps if he saw all the memes that people have made about him

Or more seriously, if he could look at what his initial split with the church has caused...that being endless splits that are still happening by the day, which i'm sure he did not intend to happen.

Moses had a Martin Luther Problem back in his day. When you read about King David’s era, you do not see any Protestor church around. What happened to them? Moses anathematized the Church leader Protestors of his day. Moses did not use the peashooter of Excommunication, he pulled out the big gun, the original anathema, and let her rip in a very spectacular way.

When Jesus Commands His Church, in regard to Catholic Church Anathema, Matthew 18 “If your eye is your downfall, gouge it out and cast it from you! Better to enter life with one eye than be thrown with both into fiery Gehenna”, He is referring to Moses' original anathematization of Protestor Church leaders, Korah, Dathan and Abiram. As the eyes lead the body, so are leaders of the body of the Church referred to as eyes. Jesus Commands His Church to gouge out the 'evil eyes' (Church leaders) of the body of His Church and throw them into hell rather than have the whole body of the Church pulled into hell by the evil eyes of the Church.


As the eyes lead the body so would Ministers consider themselves the eyes of the body-of-people. Dathan and Abiram, Ministers of the Israelite Church, are referring to the body-of-people when they say us and our. When Jesus commands His Church to gouge out Her eyes and hurl them into hell, He is referring to Moses gouging out the eyes of the body of the Israelite Church and literally hurling them into hell.

StevenMerten said:

Moses had a Martin Luther Problem back in his day. When you read about King David’s era, you do not see any Protestor church around. What happened to them? Moses anathematized the Church leader Protestors of his day. Moses did not use the peashooter of Excommunication, he pulled out the big gun, the original anathema, and let her rip in a very spectacular way.

When Jesus Commands His Church, in regard to Catholic Church Anathema, Matthew 18 “If your eye is your downfall, gouge it out and cast it from you! Better to enter life with one eye than be thrown with both into fiery Gehenna”, He is referring to Moses' original anathematization of Protestor Church leaders, Korah, Dathan and Abiram. As the eyes lead the body, so are leaders of the body of the Church referred to as eyes. Jesus Commands His Church to gouge out the 'evil eyes' (Church leaders) of the body of His Church and throw them into hell rather than have the whole body of the Church pulled into hell by the evil eyes of the Church.

Numbers 16
Korah, son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi [and Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, son of Pallu, son of Reuben] took two hundred and fifty Israelites who were leaders in the community, members of the council and men of note. They stood before Moses and Aaron, to whom they said, "Enough from you! The whole community, all of them, are holy; the LORD is in their midst. Why then should you set yourselves over the LORD's congregation?"…

Rebellion of Dathan and Abiram.
Moses summoned Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, but they answered, "We will not go. Are you not satisfied with having led us here away from a land flowing with milk and honey, to make us perish in the desert, that you must now lord it over us? Far from bringing us to a land flowing with milk and honey, or giving us fields and vineyards for our inheritance, will you also gouge out our eyes? No, we will not go."​

As the eyes lead the body so would Ministers consider themselves the eyes of the body-of-people. Dathan and Abiram, Ministers of the Israelite Church, are referring to the body-of-people when they say us and our. When Jesus commands His Church to gouge out Her eyes and hurl them into hell, He is referring to Moses gouging out the eyes of the body of the Israelite Church and literally hurling them into hell.

Numbers 16 Punishment of Dathan and Abiram.

"This is how you shall know that it was the LORD who sent me to do all that I have done, and that it was not I who planned it: if these men die an ordinary death, merely suffering the fate common to all mankind, then it was not the LORD who sent me. But if the LORD does something entirely new, and the ground opens its mouth and swallows them alive down into the nether world, with all belonging to them, then you will know that these men have defied the LORD." No sooner had he finished saying all this than the ground beneath them split open, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and their families [and all of Korah's men] and all their possessions. They went down alive to the nether world with all belonging to them; the earth closed over them, and they perished from the community. But all the Israelites near them fled at their shrieks, saying, "The earth might swallow us too!"

Jude 1:10
These people, however, not only revile what they have no knowledge of but are corrupted through the very things they know by instinct, like brute animals. So much the worse for them! They have taken the road Cain took. They have abandoned themselves to Balaam's error for pay, and like Korah they perish in rebellion. These men are blotches on your Christian banquets. They are wild ocean waves, splashing their shameless deeds abroad like foam, or shooting stars for whom the thick gloom of darkness has been reserved forever.
​

Numbers 16 continued: This cover was to be a reminder to the Israelites that no layman, no one who was not a descendant of Aaron, should approach the altar to offer incense before the LORD, lest he meet the fate of Korah and his band.

Please visit: Gouge Out an Evil Eye of The Body of The Church​

Click to expand...

Very nice summary on Korah!
So many Catholics forget this story

Michie said:

Could the Catholic Church done anything besides changing it's own dogma to satisfy Luther?

Continued below.
What Would Have Stopped Martin Luther | Michael D. Breidenbach

Click to expand...

I wonder how many have read the fine article?

I think calling the council was too late. EVERYBODY agreed that there needed to be a council, but by the time the Council of Trent was called it was too late. Luther might have been remembered as a great Catholic reformer if only a council had been called by about 1520 instead of 1545. The Council of Trent was good, but not what it could have been.

The other thing that could have stopped Martin Luther would have been a higher level of personal holiness of the popes in the generation before Luther's 95 theses. We sow seeds of destruction that bloom years after our infidelities. The generation before Luther had some truly bad popes. Better popes would have stopped him in his tracks before he started.

Luther was still wrong, but he was not the only cause of the revolt which sprung up all over Europe. He was responsible for fracturing unity when his impulse for reform initially was a good thing. In historical retrospect we can see what a mess it all was. That should help in untangling what that mess became.

The author asks his question about Luther in the environment of the mess that Francis is making. Might a council be necessary to clean that up? That's what I think he really wants to know.

I do not think he would have been remembered if he did not rebel
He would have been a footnote in history, maybe a few theology nerds would have read his stuff, but that’s about it

He is no St Francis of Assisi or St John of the Cross

Rhamiel said:

Very nice summary on Korah!
So many Catholics forget this story

Click to expand...

Thanks Rhamiel,

Catholic Church Anathema is actually Jesus lips binding sinners to their sins, and thus spiritual death. Jesus swears to His Apostles that any sin they, from earth, call upon Him, in heaven, to bind, He will bind.

I like the 'anathema maranatha'. It seems to be a spiritual death, smart munition, cluster bomb. Pope Leo X, from anywhere on earth, could speak an anathema maranatha on Martin Luther, and include all his companions and their successors, and they all would be bound by Jesus lips to their sin of schism. Martin Luther, who was a Catholic Monk, highly studied in scriptures and Catholic Church capabilities, would have known this. This would really put the pressure on Luther and his companions to repent.

If an anathema is bound by St. Peter and his Successors, then it must be loost by St. Peter and his Successors. A live anathema is out of Jesus' hands. Jesus cannot go against His sworn oath to St. Peter and loost a sin that St. Peter and his Successors have called upon Him to bind. Martin Luther would have had to kneel before Pope Leo X and request forgiveness and absolution, otherwise damnation would be Luther's only outcome.

I think Anathema Maranatha would have stopped Martin Luther in his tracks.

Anti psychotics and some stool softeners would have been a good first step.

This thread didn't say Catholics only, so I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents from a Lutheran perspective.

Here are a few points I'd like to make after reading the article:

-A council was definitely not called soon enough
-The Church, at the time, was very corrupt
-The Church, at the time, was more concerned with secular affairs than theology/reform
-Luther and the Church grew more hostile as time went on, both share blame in this
-Luther wanted reform, not a split with the Church (amazes me how so many don't understand this)
-Luther's reforms were quite conservative compared to non-Lutheran reformers
-There was misunderstanding and miscommunication on both sides
-The secular political political landscape, at the time, favored some sort of reform or even split

There is much more to it than these points, but I kept it simple. It is important to understand what Luther wanted and what he didn't want, when it came to reforming the Church. Catholics and Lutherans have a lot more in common than most other denominations, I think it is important to keep that in mind.

Sean611 said:

This thread didn't say Catholics only, so I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents from a Lutheran perspective.

Click to expand...

And so you are welcome.

-A council was definitely not called soon enough
-The Church, at the time, was very corrupt
-The Church, at the time, was more concerned with secular affairs than theology/reform
-Luther and the Church grew more hostile as time went on, both share blame in this
-Luther wanted reform, not a split with the Church (amazes me how so many don't understand this)
-Luther's reforms were quite conservative compared to non-Lutheran reformers
-There was misunderstanding and miscommunication on both sides
-The secular political political landscape, at the time, favored some sort of reform or even split

Click to expand...

I agree. I wish we on all sides appreciated that Luther did not want or intend to have a permanent Lutheran separatist movement, but rather reform of the Church. I also wish is that we were all able to appreciate the reforms of the council of Trent, which, too late, fixed many problems in the reform sessions.

There is much more to it than these points, but I kept it simple. It is important to understand what Luther wanted and what he didn't want, when it came to reforming the Church. Catholics and Lutherans have a lot more in common than most other denominations, I think it is important to keep that in mind.

Click to expand...

Yup. Differences but similarities. None of the differences unravels easily. But who would have thunk there could have ever been an agreement on justification.

Rhamiel said:

I do not think he would have been remembered if he did not rebel
He would have been a footnote in history, maybe a few theology nerds would have read his stuff, but that’s about it

He is no St Francis of Assisi or St John of the Cross

Click to expand...

Fr. Rutler had a piece about Luther a year or so ago which, although a bit harsh, pegged Luther as a mental midget compared to Aquinas. I do think had he been a Catholic reformer he would be a less towering figure than he is but he would have nonetheless have been as famous as St. Dominic. He may have ended up with less psych issues too.

chevyontheriver said:

I wonder how many have read the fine article?

I think calling the council was too late. EVERYBODY agreed that there needed to be a council, but by the time the Council of Trent was called it was too late. Luther might have been remembered as a great Catholic reformer if only a council had been called by about 1520 instead of 1545. The Council of Trent was good, but not what it could have been.

The other thing that could have stopped Martin Luther would have been a higher level of personal holiness of the popes in the generation before Luther's 95 theses. We sow seeds of destruction that bloom years after our infidelities. The generation before Luther had some truly bad popes. Better popes would have stopped him in his tracks before he started.

Click to expand...

While in college, I took a class on the Reformation at Xavier University taught by a Jesuit (at the time I was Missouri Synod Lutheran). We discuss this a few times and I would also want to add some of my vague memories of our discussions. As mentioned, the Roman church desperately needed a council to address a whole host of issues that had been building up over the last 100 years since Jan Hus. Luther was just one more calling for reform. This leads into the German question.

Another issue was German sentiment against Italian domination of the church and of German lands. For example, Luther's bishop, Albert, was the archbishop of two sees and had to pay off the second elevation with half the money raised from the indulgences that Tetzel was raising and was being used to in the construction of St. Peter's. The German dukes and electors were not really thrilled that money being raised in German lands was headed to Italy. So now, the local nobility was beginning to side with Luther's, especially, Frederick of Saxony who had been a candidate for Holy Roman Emperor.

Wish I could remember more, but I do remember that my prof said that Luther had a lot of good points and it was unfortunate that the church was so slow to answer them until it was too late.

chevyontheriver said:

Luther did not want or intend to have a permanent Lutheran separatist movement

Click to expand...

Source?

chevyontheriver said:

Fr. Rutler had a piece about Luther a year or so ago which, although a bit harsh, pegged Luther as a mental midget compared to Aquinas. I do think had he been a Catholic reformer he would be a less towering figure than he is but he would have nonetheless have been as famous as St. Dominic. He may have ended up with less psych issues too.

Click to expand...

He would not be a major intellectual like St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine
unless he DRASTICALLY changed his life he would not be known for his personal piety like St. John Vianny or St Francis of Assisi
He was not known for supernatural miracles like St Padre Pio or St Vincent Ferrer

I mean St Robert Bellarmine is one of the best theologians in the history of the Church and now very few average Catholics know his name

now, maybe in history of the development of theology in Germany, Luther might have still been influential, but like I said, other then a few history and theology nerds, very few would have known his name today if not for the reformation

I think if the Catholic church had stopped a lot of the corruption a lot sooner (it eventually did) and if it had been as clear then as it is now on initial salvation and the relative roles of grace, faith, and works, Luther would have been satisfied ENOUGH to pipe down. He may have always been grouchy about church authority, but without issues to argue about, he would have had nothing to challenge church authority ABOUT.

What Luther really needed was modern psychiatry, to deal with his scrupulosity. That was the true heart of the problem. An over-guilty conscience that needed and over the top cure.

PsaltiChrysostom said:

While in college, I took a class on the Reformation at Xavier University taught by a Jesuit (at the time I was Missouri Synod Lutheran). We discuss this a few times and I would also want to add some of my vague memories of our discussions. As mentioned, the Roman church desperately needed a council to address a whole host of issues that had been building up over the last 100 years since Jan Hus. Luther was just one more calling for reform. This leads into the German question.

Another issue was German sentiment against Italian domination of the church and of German lands. For example, Luther's bishop, Albert, was the archbishop of two sees and had to pay off the second elevation with half the money raised from the indulgences that Tetzel was raising and was being used to in the construction of St. Peter's. The German dukes and electors were not really thrilled that money being raised in German lands was headed to Italy. So now, the local nobility was beginning to side with Luther's, especially, Frederick of Saxony who had been a candidate for Holy Roman Emperor.

Wish I could remember more, but I do remember that my prof said that Luther had a lot of good points and it was unfortunate that the church was so slow to answer them until it was too late.

Click to expand...

Certainly we tend to ignore the sheer politics of it. It always gets reduced to "Saved by Faith" (especially by Protestants, but even Catholics see the Reformation in theological terms). The reality of it is that Luther's ideas spread because they were politically convenient.

In the tradition of scholastic accolades, Erasmus called Luther the Doctor Hyperbolicus ("the exaggerating teacher"), due to his style of writing and theology. Also we must not forget Philip Melanchthon, the other big Lutheran reformer, who was very willing to comprimise in order to stay in the Catholic Church. Actually, Melanchthon has often been often faulted by Lutheran historians for being too pro-Roman Catholic. Latin was also kept in the cities, lest the schoolchildren forget their Latin. And Martin Chemnitz, known as "the other Martin", in one of his most well-known portraits, is shown with a rosary in hand.

As often in German history, the Lutherans had to fight a two-front war: against the Roman Catholics on the one side, and against the Calvinists and Anabaptists on the other. I think this contributed to creating a separate Lutheran identity.

Some have said that if Vatican 2 had happened in Luther's time, there would have been no Reformation. After V2, the Church experienced a few of the things the Lutheran Reformers wanted: Mass in the people's language, altars versum populum, Bible translations informed by critical scholarship (Nova Vulgata), Communion under both kinds, bigger focus on the Eucharist as a communal celebration and not only a sacrifice, just to mention a few. Whether that's good or bad, you have to decide for your self.

I often think about if the Lutheran movement could have become its own order, or its own society within the Church. Alas. But more and more Lutherans, as individuals, have found back to Rome and become Catholic, like myself.