Luther Didn't want seperation

[Uphill Battle]

Nope. He was a reformer, not a protestant. He was trying to reform the Catholic church to teach what it USED to teach.

There is no protesting in trying to get the church to do what it used to do.

The others like Zwingli and Calvin etc., WERE protestants who rejected and created new doctrines. They protested the truth teachings and created false ones.

such as?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

My Protestant Response....

I was reading on CF and came across a snippet of a quote of Luther saying:

“I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St, Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”

Martin Luther to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519
more than a year after the Ninety-Five Theses
quoted in The Facts about Luther, 356

Some comments...


1. Some Catholics assume that Protestants regard the leading men in their denomination to have some authority or even infallibility among us. They don't. Protestants regard the significant persons in their history to be mere mortals - and sinful ones at that. They are all entitled to their opinions - even passionate and errant ones - but just because it comes from the lips or pen of someone significant or respected in our denomination doesn't make it fact or infallibly and unquestionably true. Luther never claimed to be the Infallible Pope and he has never been regarded as such. He asked (demanded) to be held accountable to God's holy inerrant written Word for what he taught - and we do.


2. IMHO, everyone seems to have handled that whole situation poorly. The polemics and politics made it all a lot worse. I defend none of that - and I don't think Catholics or Protestants should either. Like 1054, I consider 1520 to be tragic - not just THAT it happened, but HOW it happened and WHY it happened. That was then. This is now.


3. Polemics aside, Luther had a profound love and respect for the Catholic Church. It was his love and respect that made him - and millions of others - care about what she teaches and does, willing to put their very lives at stake for her. From what I understand, in spite of the excommunication and all the horrible, terrible things that happened, he never lost that love and devotion. Luther called himself "Catholic" (big "C") to his dying day and was buried with his Rosary.


4. Some Catholics seem to have it backwards. It was the Pope that excommunicated the Catholic monk and professor, Martin Luther - not the other way around. It was Pope Leo that split the Catholic denomination, not Martin Luther - he lemented that move by the Pope. It's Catholics that coined the disparaging term "Protestants" for us - we didn't.


5. I hold the RCC in very high esteem. I consider it to be a valid denomination. I consider her clergy and minsitry to be valid. I consider all the believers in her to be my FULL, UNseparated brothers and sisters in Christ and EQUALLY a part of His Body, the church. I would be honored to receive His true, literal, physical Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist with my FULL Catholic brothers and sisters. But friends, none of this is mutual.

This quote really brought some things into perspective into what maybe the man was really trying to do.

Sad it took 490 years...

Since he was mostly responsible for schisming the church yet this is not what he wanted..

He is not responsable for the division of your particular denomination.
Pope Leo excommunicated him, and thus split his denomination.
Luther didn't excommunicate the Pope.

So all the pastors who demoninze the CC don't realize their founding father said:

“I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. "

something for people to think about

One day, I'll meet one of the Lutheran pastors you're talking about there....

See points 3, 4 and 5 above. I think you have it backwards.


Oh, and again, Luther is the "founding father" of nothing. Jesus is the founder of the church. CFW Walther is generally regarded as the founder of my denomination - but we don't equate our denomination with the one holy catholic and apostolic church (we do believe that the Christians associated with our denomination are members of His church, however). And Luther did not START anything. You keep getting this turned about - he was illegally excommunicated. The Pope split his denomination. Lutherans lemented that.



My $0.01


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[Knowledge3]

No, No, and No.

I've studied on Luther. Luther separated himself from the Catholic Church by inviting the excommunication of Pope Leo X through his use of language in addressing the Pope when Luther beseeched him in an unsual manner. He wrote several letters.


Luther got the boot, and was excommunicated by the Dominus Exsurge; which is the historic papal bull of Pope Leo X that sparked the Protestant Reformation.

 

[Knowledge3]

[edit]

 

[Knowledge3]

Oh, and again, Luther is the "founding father" of nothing. Jesus is the founder of the church. CFW Walther is generally regarded as the founder of my denomination - but we don't equate our denomination with the one holy catholic and apostolic church (we do believe that the Christians associated with our denomination are members of His church, however). And Luther did not START anything. You keep getting this turned about - he was illegally excommunicated. The Pope split his denomination. Lutherans lemented that.

The excommunication was legal.

He disobeyed his superiors and broke a long list of rules in the CC.

Where are referenced documents and sources that provide historical proof for claiming that the excommunication was "illegal" >?

 

[Confess]

such as?

Justification, transubstantiation, purgatory etc.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Justification, transubstantiation, purgatory etc.

as in denied those?

 

[TheCosmicGospel]

I was reading on CF and came across a snippet of a quote of Luther saying:

“I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St, Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”

Martin Luther to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519
more than a year after the Ninety-Five Theses
quoted in The Facts about Luther, 356[/i]




This quote really brought some things into perspective into what maybe the man was really trying to do. Since he was mostly responsible for schisming the church yet this is not what he wanted.. Do you think many protestants didn't follow in the steps as to what Luther really wanted in those days?? maybe as a result of extremism of people after him.. I have a feeling if he saw all the different denominations that can't agree on doctrine he would frown at what has happened..


So all the pastors who demoninze the CC don't realize their founding father said:

“I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. "

something for people to think about

You can also read Luther's letter to Pope Leo from his 1520 preface to his Concerning Christian Liberty. He is clearly not in the mindset to create a spiritual revolution. But it is Rome forcing the issue. So you are going to suggest Luther's position toward the RCC never changed from what he wrote in 1519? I think any read of the Babylonian Captivity of the Church will show, Luther did indeed recant his favor of the Roman Church.

Stopping at the 1519 opinion of Luther is like stopping at the opinion of Jesus towards Peter when He said, "Get behind me Satan."

Beware snippets.

Cheers,
Cosmic

 

[chickenutbread]

thank you to californiajosiah for explaining (or trying to) the Protestant view.. or part of it. yes, martin luther did not like the corruption happening in the Catholic church so he took action against that. but how can we say when he was excommunicated that Pope Leo was not corrupt? and even though 5 centuries may seem short compared to 20+ centuries, 500 years is still a pretty darn long time & so if God did not support any actions of either church would He not have already torn them down? as in, God has the power to raise & tear down whomever He pleases. as so i'm guessing Protestants and Catholics must be doing something right. i'm not saying either is completely "correct"..

we can go on debating and saying this and that about Martin Luther but as far as i'm concerned, i wasn't there and i only know what i learn from history books, so i don't know anything for sure. i just want to be a Christian and not be looked at in a certain way just because i'm Protestant or Catholic or whatever else. i'm not condoning cults or anything, but being a Christian is all that should matter, no?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The excommunication was legal.

He disobeyed his superiors and broke a long list of rules in the CC.

Where are referenced documents and sources that provide historical proof for claiming that the excommunication was "illegal" >?

Try the fact that Luther was never allowed to represent and defend his own views at the Diet of Worms! That's complete nonsense. Ever Arius was allowed to represent and defend his own views at Nicea.

Nor were any Reformers allow to present and defend their own views in their own words at the Council of Trent! If you actually read the canons of the Council, you'll see that the anathemas are like shotgun blasts- randomly hitting the mark on Protestant thinking at places, and widely misrepresenting it at others.

The Catholic Church has even recognized this through the 1999 Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, signed between the Lutheran World Fellowship and the Holy See!! In it both sides recognized that the 16th century anathemas against each other don't apply since neither accurately represented the other's views!

 

[E.C.]

actually protestanism is still pretty infant..

the Catholic church has existed over 20 centurys...

the protestant churches have existed almost 5..

Quite a difference..

Roman Catholicism: 10 centuries

Protestantism: 5 centuries

Orthodox: 20 centuries.

All numbers are rounded.


Anyway, I've been told that Luther's original intention was to start up a church. I've been told that the formation of a new church was just circumstantial and not Luther's original intention.

However, after some small bits of reading and so forth, I'm more inclined to think that Luther's original intention was not to form a new church but to diminish the corruption in the Roman Catholic Church. However, since the Roman popes have a bit of history of supremacy, this stalled any thought of change. In 1517, the Roman Church needed to change because of corruption and because of straying away from the Early Church's way of life, thus digging deeper and deeper into error.

But that's just me.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Anyway, I've been told that Luther's original intention was to start up a church. I've been told that the formation of a new church was just circumstantial and not Luther's original intention.

However, after some small bits of reading and so forth, I'm more inclined to think that Luther's original intention was not to form a new church but to diminish the corruption in the Roman Catholic Church. However, since the Roman popes have a bit of history of supremacy, this stalled any thought of change. In 1517, the Roman Church needed to change because of corruption and because of straying away from the Early Church's way of life, thus digging deeper and deeper into error.

But that's just me.

I totally agree.

What's more, I think that in some ways, Luther's reformation abandoned much of the medieval scholasticism that seperated East and West. Desipte the direction Protestantism has taken (from the very outset), Luther and his immediate circles actually seem closer to the East than their Roman fathers.

 

[ConanTheLibrarian]

Historian Jaroslav Pelikan coined the phrase "tragic necessity" to describe the Reformation. Perhaps in God's providence, that's the wake-up call that it took for the Chuch in Luther's time to clean up its act in the Catholic (Counter) Reformation. If only both sides had been more level-headed and willing to listen to one another.

I have read Pope Leo X's bull of excommunication Exurge Domine. Luther had, in fact, departed from historic teaching on a number of points, and became more extreme as time went on.

Among the tragic "might have beens" is that if Luther had stayed in the Church, he might today be revered as a reformer of a united church, perhaps on a par with Francis of Asissi.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Roman Catholicism: 10 centuries

Protestantism: 5 centuries

Orthodox: 20 centuries.

All numbers are rounded.

I don't believe EO as it is now is the same as it was in the first century.

 

[Knowledge3]

I don't believe EO as it is now is the same as it was in the first century.

1) Do we have any dogma that is unscriptural?

2) Why would we want to change our Traditions if we "have found a pearl of great price?"

3) Orthodoxy has rather progressed in a positive way without change.

 

[E.C.]

I don't believe EO as it is now is the same as it was in the first century.

Maybe not the exact same (example: Nicene Creed which was not "drafted" until the 4th century) but I like to think that it more resembles the Early Church than others.

The Ecumenical Councils allowed for change to happen (or evolution depending on how you look at it) however, these changes were for the better. By the time St. Vladimir had the Rus' baptized (all politics aside) Orthodoxy had pretty much cemented itself and would not change any more from that point on.

 

[PaulAckermann]

That's really not very accurate. I would get my money back for that book

Regardless of where you stand, there were some real abuses (especially in the Church in Northern Germany) that Luther was disputing. And this is obviously shown to be true with the internal counter-reformation that occurred with the Catholic Church at Trent as well...

If there were no abuses and questionable teachings, why was there a counter-reformation?

I do not have the book with me, but I recall him quoteing for Luther where he himself said that the abuses in the Catholic Church were not a justification for leaving the church.

Luther's dispute with the Church were based on doctrinal reason, not abuses. Luther knew enough of church history and the fallenness of man to know that the church will always fall into corruption and abuses.

The abuses in the church made the message that Luther was preaching more acceptable to the masses. The common people were more accepting to the idea of leaving the church because of its abuses. But Luther himself did not believe it that abuses in the church justifies leaving the church.

 

[PaulAckermann]

Roman Catholicism: 10 centuries

Protestantism: 5 centuries

Orthodox: 20 centuries.

All numbers are rounded.

Correction:

Catholicism: 20 centuries

Protestantism: 5 centuries

Orthodox: 20 centuries.


Catholicism did not cease to exist after the Catholic-Orthodox split.

At least the Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox Churches with a valid apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist. From what you just wrote, it seems that the Orthodox sees themselves with the only valid succession and a valid Eucharist.

There is absiolutely no justification to believe this from your perspective. Even if the Orthodox is right that the Pope is no higher than any other bishop, the pope would still be a valid bishop with valid succession. And since he is a valid bishop, the "western lung" of the Church is still valid. And since it is valid, it too can say that it is in existence for 20 centuries.

And to say that the western church did not start until the 10 century does not make sense, either. If the western church only started in the 10th century, that that means the Roman patriarch's (the pope) succession did not start until the 10th century. This would make his succession invalid. But why would his be invalid and not the eastern patriarchs?

 

[E.C.]

And to say that the western church did not start until the 10 century does not make sense, either. If the western church only started in the 10th century, that that means the Roman patriarch's (the pope) succession did not start until the 10th century. This would make his succession invalid. But why would his be invalid and not the eastern patriarchs?

A lot of this really depends on who you talk to. Some of the more conservative Orthodox would say the pope is as heretical as Arius while others would say that Rome is just greatly in error.

I go with in error.

I say 1000's because it was about then when people say the Schism occurred. Lot's of politics involved. When I say 11th century is when Catholicism "started" I mean Catholicism as we know it with the all high and mighty pope and so forth. 11th century is when Rome and the West drifted of into its own little universe away from the other patriarchs.

I don't think the pope is viewed as a legitimate successor because after the Schism, Rome was out of Communion with the rest of Christianity. For their to be inter-Communion, there has to be unity. Unity ceased to exist and an entire Apostolic See went off on its own. I'm not too sure on how this is viewed "officially".

I've only been Orthodox for not even a year, so I'm not a poster child Orthodox Christian.

 

[stumpjumper]

I do not have the book with me, but I recall him quoteing for Luther where he himself said that the abuses in the Catholic Church were not a justification for leaving the church.

Luther's dispute with the Church were based on doctrinal reason, not abuses. Luther knew enough of church history and the fallenness of man to know that the church will always fall into corruption and abuses.

The abuses in the church made the message that Luther was preaching more acceptable to the masses. The common people were more accepting to the idea of leaving the church because of its abuses. But Luther himself did not believe it that abuses in the church justifies leaving the church.

That is all true unless the abuses were backed by current Church doctrine...

The reaction to Luther's more in depth theological positions would say that, at the time, they were.