Luther

[Athanasias]

I found this refreshing. My good friend who is a LCMS very conservative Pastor in Knoxville admitted to me privatly in a conversation that he thinks Martin Luther today would probably be a Roman Catholic and that Luther pretty much believed in the Immaculate Conception of Mary( hundreds of years before it was Papal defined). He has another conservative LCMS Lutheran Pastor friend who also talked about this and even quoted it on his Lutheran website along with a interesting article. Here is the quote:

"It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" -Martin Luther (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” 1527).

Here is this pastors website. Its fascinating.

Pastoral Meanderings: Luther on the Annunciation. . .

What are your thoughts?

 

[Albion]

My view is that Luther probably would have remained a Roman Catholic if this had happened in our time.

Probably, not certainly.

The reason of course is that the Church of Rome does not act as it did in Luther's time nor does it have the clout that it once did. Had Luther been given a fair hearing by a church that allows a lot of latitude in the beliefs of its members, Luther would have been controversial, but that's probably all.

 

[Tigger45]

As with most 16th century Roman Catholics Martin Luther had a BVM devotion. Not only for BVM but by a promise to the deposed St. Anne he entered the monastery. We also have to keep in mind Luther didn’t want to cause division in the church but there are still issues on justification and the papistry.

 

[TuxAme]

I don't think he'd be what a Lutheran is today (since what that means has changed from his time), but I doubt he'd humble himself to come back to Catholicism. What he ended up doing, whether he originally intended to or not, was designing his own theology. He went far beyond correcting clerical abuse, and he wouldn't find himself any more able today to return to the Catholic faith than he could 500 years ago.

 

[TuxAme]

My view is that Luther probably would have remained a Roman Catholic if this had happened in our time.

Probably, not certainly.

The reason of course is that the Church of Rome does not act as it did in Luther's time nor does it have the clout that it once did. Had Luther been given a fair hearing by a church that allows a lot of latitude in the beliefs of its members, Luther would have been controversial, but that's probably all.

The Catholic Church isn't about "having a latitude of belief among its members", so if you think that would've helped him to stay Catholic, then he wouldn't be any more prepared to return to it today.

 

[Albion]

The Catholic Church isn't about "having a latitude of belief among its members", so if you think that would've helped him to stay Catholic, then he wouldn't be any more prepared to return to it today.

Well, the fact is that it does tolerate in its members many departures from the official stance, which it did not do in earlier times.

Think Purgatory is like hell but not eternal? Fine, but you can just as well think of it as the so-called celestial showerbath, i.e. a quick readjustment prior to entering heaven. Can people go to heaven if they never heard of Jesus Christ? Several recent popes have said so, but that would be answered with a firm NO in another era. Do you believe that women should be allowed to be priests? Saying so won't get you excommunicated, even if the church has a different conviction. And so it goes. This is not a criticism, just an observation.

As for Luther, no one knows the answer to the question of the thread. We are all guessing. My guess is that the church would not today be as adverse towards a monk and Bible scholar raising issues over indulgences as it was then. No sir. And if it would not, it is likely that Luther would not be forced out of the church.

 

[tz620q]

Well, the fact is that it does tolerate in its members many departures from the official stance, which it did not do in earlier times.

Think Purgatory is like hell but not eternal? Fine, but you can just as well think of it as the so-called celestial showerbath, i.e. a quick readjustment prior to entering heaven. Can people go to heaven if they never heard of Jesus Christ? Several recent popes have said so, but that would be answered with a firm NO in another era. Do you believe that women should be allowed to be priests? Saying so won't get you excommunicated, even if the church has a different conviction. And so it goes. This is not a criticism, just an observation.

As for Luther, no one knows the answer to the question of the thread. We are all guessing. My guess is that the church would not today be as adverse towards a monk and Bible scholar raising issues over indulgences as it was then. No sir. And if it would not, it is likely that Luther would not be forced out of the church.

You are right; but it really depends on what you are doing with those beliefs. If Luther was a lay-Catholic, then or now, nothing would have happened. But being a monk, a professor at a Catholic university, and a priest all amplify his beliefs above the mundane. At that level, dissension, then and now, becomes a much less tolerable activity.

 

[Albion]

You are right; but it really depends on what you are doing with those beliefs. If Luther was a lay-Catholic, then or now, nothing would have happened. But being a monk, a professor at a Catholic university, and a priest all amplify his beliefs above the mundane. At that level, dissension, then and now, becomes a much less tolerable activity.

But now, much less happens to that person. Take the case of the famous professor, theologian, writer, and priest Hans Kung, who has for years sternly questioned the role of the Pope himself among other doctrinal matters. He has not been excommunicated or defrocked, let alone put on trial and declared an outlaw, etc. After being confronted by Kung recently, the current Pope even responded warmly to the suggestion of talking out some of these issues.

 

[FireDragon76]

My view is that Luther probably would have remained a Roman Catholic if this had happened in our time.

Probably, not certainly.

The reason of course is that the Church of Rome does not act as it did in Luther's time nor does it have the clout that it once did. Had Luther been given a fair hearing by a church that allows a lot of latitude in the beliefs of its members, Luther would have been controversial, but that's probably all.

There are Roman Catholic priests today even more controversial than Luther.

Obviously, modern Roman Catholics, like many mainline churches, have a certain latitude towards belief. It's pretty much required in any modern church that doesn't want to act like the Thought Police.

 

[FireDragon76]

I found this refreshing. My good friend who is a LCMS very conservative Pastor in Knoxville admitted to me privatly in a conversation that he thinks Martin Luther today would probably be a Roman Catholic and that Luther pretty much believed in the Immaculate Conception of Mary( hundreds of years before it was Papal defined). He has another conservative LCMS Lutheran Pastor friend who also talked about this and even quoted it on his Lutheran website along with a interesting article. Here is the quote:

"It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" -Martin Luther (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” 1527).

Here is this pastors website. Its fascinating.

Pastoral Meanderings: Luther on the Annunciation. . .

What are your thoughts?

I think it's a matter that for Lutherans is adiaphora, whether or not Mary was immaculately conceived. Luther's views seem to have fluctuated throughout his life. Early on, he seems to respond affirmatively, but later his answers are more non-committed, though he believed at least that Mary was holy. There were a variety of opinions at the time in the Catholic Church about Mary's sinlessness.

Theologically, it's just not that important to us. While we don't have Mary-phobia, and our churches do occasionally have images of Mary, Mary is not a central figure for us in our faith.

I think Lutherans are the true doctrinal via media between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, because our focus is doctrinal rather than in institutions. Like Catholics, we emphasize the objective reality of baptism and the other sacraments, but like Protestants we emphasize justification by faith alone and the centrality of the Bible in our theology. So ,we are between Catholics and Presbyterians, to use a crude analogy.

 

[tz620q]

But now, much less happens to that person. Take the case of the famous professor, theologian, writer, and priest Hans Kung, who has for years sternly questioned the role of the Pope himself among other doctrinal matters. He has not been excommunicated or defrocked, let alone put on trial and declared an outlaw, etc. After being confronted by Kung recently, the current Pope even responded warmly to the suggestion of talking out some of these issues.

Kung is an excellent example. You might want to read the following declaration Declaration regarding certain aspects of the theological doctrine of Professor Hans Küng – Christi Ecclesia

"The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the aforesaid document of 1975 refrained at the time from further action regarding the above-mentioned opinions of Professor Küng, presuming that he himself would abandon them. But since this presumption no longer exists, this sacred congregation by reason of its duty is constrained to declare that Professor Hans Küng, in his writings, has departed from the integral truth of Catholic faith, and therefore he can no longer be considered a Catholic theologian nor function as such in a teaching role."

 

[FireDragon76]

Kung is an excellent example. You might want to read the following declaration Declaration regarding certain aspects of the theological doctrine of Professor Hans Küng – Christi Ecclesia

"The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the aforesaid document of 1975 refrained at the time from further action regarding the above-mentioned opinions of Professor Küng, presuming that he himself would abandon them. But since this presumption no longer exists, this sacred congregation by reason of its duty is constrained to declare that Professor Hans Küng, in his writings, has departed from the integral truth of Catholic faith, and therefore he can no longer be considered a Catholic theologian nor function as such in a teaching role."

The Sacred Congregation has gone soft. In the old days they would have just barbacued Fr. Hans and be done with him.

 

[Albion]

"The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the aforesaid document of 1975 refrained at the time from further action regarding the above-mentioned opinions of Professor Küng, presuming that he himself would abandon them. But since this presumption no longer exists, this sacred congregation by reason of its duty is constrained to declare that Professor Hans Küng, in his writings, has departed from the integral truth of Catholic faith, and therefore he can no longer be considered a Catholic theologian nor function as such in a teaching role."

That's right. But in the many years that Prof. Kung has been something of a thorn in the side of the church, this is about the extent of the blowback--denounced as a theologian and denied his position as a professor OF THEOLOGY (but not his position as a professor itself).

No excommunication, no trials, no declaration of heresy, nothing comparable to what Luther got.

The information you have posted here merely verifies the point I made above.

 

[tz620q]

That's right. But in the many years that Prof. Kung has been something of a thorn in the side of the church, this is about the extent of the blowback--denounced as a theologian and denied his position as a professor OF THEOLOGY (but not his position as a professor itself).

No excommunication, no trials, no declaration of heresy, nothing comparable to what Luther got.

The information you have posted here merely verifies the point I made above.

I don't know a lot about Hans Kung, shorting of reading excerpts from some of his writings. My opinion of him is that he would probably make a better Lutheran than a Catholic. I think I agree with you that the church today, certainly under Pope Benedict, who seemed to have a fondness for Lutheran theologians, and Pope Francis, who understands that Kung's criticism can be as constructive as it is destructive tolerates this sort of plurality of opinion more than in the past. These are different times, when all ideals, no matter how foolish or perverted, find their way to the public media. In that light and in light of the trials in the Catholic Church over sexual abuse, they have chosen different battles to fight.

To get back to Luther, I think he would have had a lot less latitude to criticize if he had not been at the University of Wittengen Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg - Wikipedia

"The University of Wittenberg (Universität Wittenberg) was founded in 1502 by Frederick the Wise, Elector of Saxony as the Renaissance was becoming more and more popular. The foundation of the university was heavily criticized, especially when the Ninety-five Theses reached Albrecht of Brandenburg, the Archbishop of Mainz. Ecclesiastically speaking, Electoral Saxony was subordinate to Albrecht. He criticized the elector for Luther's theses, viewing the recently-founded university as a breeding ground for heretical ideas."

 

[Albion]

I don't know a lot about Hans Kung, shorting of reading excerpts from some of his writings. My opinion of him is that he would probably make a better Lutheran than a Catholic. I think I agree with you that the church today, certainly under Pope Benedict, who seemed to have a fondness for Lutheran theologians, and Pope Francis, who understands that Kung's criticism can be as constructive as it is destructive tolerates this sort of plurality of opinion more than in the past. These are different times, when all ideals, no matter how foolish or perverted, find their way to the public media. In that light and in light of the trials in the Catholic Church over sexual abuse, they have chosen different battles to fight.

To get back to Luther, I think he would have had a lot less latitude to criticize if he had not been at the University of Wittengen Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg - Wikipedia

"The University of Wittenberg (Universität Wittenberg) was founded in 1502 by Frederick the Wise, Elector of Saxony as the Renaissance was becoming more and more popular.[3] The foundation of the university was heavily criticized, especially when the Ninety-five Theses reached Albrecht of Brandenburg, the Archbishop of Mainz. Ecclesiastically speaking, Electoral Saxony was subordinate to Albrecht. He criticized the elector for Luther's theses, viewing the recently-founded university as a breeding ground for heretical ideas."

It's interesting that the issues you've pointed to here are not unique in Church history. For example, Francis of Assisi, despite the fond way we moderns think of him, was something of a challenge in his own day. But the church essentially let it pass for a variety of reasons. At the time, the Church was in its prime.

But Luther came on the scene at a time when the Church was going through a variety of troubles. Luther was far from being the first critic who found favor with ordinary people during the Late Middle Ages.

There was a definite feeling on the part of the Papacy that there had to be a line drawn somewhere. And in the case of Henry VIII, it is not much recognized by people today, but the Pope had earlier given an annulment to the king of France, the same thing as Henry sought. But the Church was, in Henry's day, already confronted by Luther and Zwingli and, in a way, by Erasmus and others. Therefore, Henry was not likely to be accommodated and the Spanish monarchy also taken on by the Pope in the process.

 

[FireDragon76]

I have actually read some of Hans Kung and I don't think he would fit in too well as a Lutheran. In terms of some core theology, he's more Catholic. He's more like a loyal opposition, as far as the Catholic Church goes.

 

[gordonhooker]

It's interesting that the issues you've pointed to here are not unique in Church history. For example, Francis of Assisi, despite the fond way we moderns think of him, was something of a challenge in his own day. But the church essentially let it pass for a variety of reasons. At the time, the Church was in its prime.

But Luther came on the scene at a time when the Church was going through a variety of troubles. Luther was far from being the first critic who found favor with ordinary people during the Late Middle Ages.

There was a definite feeling on the part of the Papacy that there had to be a line drawn somewhere. And in the case of Henry VIII, it is not much recognized by people today, but the Pope had earlier given an annulment to the king of France, the same thing as Henry sought. But the Church was, in Henry's day, already confronted by Luther and Zwingli and, in a way, by Erasmus and others. Therefore, Henry was not likely to be accommodated and the Spanish monarchy also taken on by the Pope in the process.

In which way do you believe Francis of Assisi was a challenge to the Church of the day? As a Franciscan it would be interesting to hear to what you a referring to, from my reading and study he was seen as a simple and different man, he was loyal to the Church but tied up in the politics of it all.

 

[Athanasias]

There are Roman Catholic priests today even more controversial than Luther.

Obviously, modern Roman Catholics, like many mainline churches, have a certain latitude towards belief. It's pretty much required in any modern church that doesn't want to act like the Thought Police.

Yes their certainly are some clergy(like the current homosexualist activist James Martin SJ or the now deceased Fr. Rich McBrian whose book on Catholicism was condemned by the Bishops for not being authentically Catholic) who are more radical and dissenting then Luther on some Catholic issues.

For Catholics we have 3 levels of assent depending on the authority of the doctrine in our theology. It does not really matter what 98% of cultural Catholics believe or not or want to believe or not(as they often are just believing in themselves and not Christ and his Church anyway). What matters is what does the Magisterium teach is the truth. If the Church officially teaches a doctrine then some level of assent must be given depending on the type of document and strength of determination this is(Ie... doctrine, Dogma) ETC. A great book that breaks this down is written by a Exorcist and Priest and scholar Fr. Chad Ripperger. He also shows how some popes can and have erred when not speaking infallibly.

https://www.amazon.com/Magisterial-Authority-Fr-Chad-Ripperger/dp/1503022420

 

[FireDragon76]

In which way do you believe Francis of Assisi was a challenge to the Church of the day? As a Franciscan it would be interesting to hear to what you a referring to, from my reading and study he was seen as a simple and different man, he was loyal to the Church but tied up in the politics of it all.

Francis didn't set out to be, and he wasn't as strident as Luther, but some of his later followers directly challenged the church, like the Dolcinites or Dulcinians (referenced in the book/film Name of the Rose). They believed the Church should be poor and advocated for radical reordering of society. Some even became brigands, believing they were perfected and beyond repproach. Even some mainstream Franciscans were sympathetic to voices such as Joachim of Fiore, who believed that the future hierarchy of the Church would become irrelevant.

And let's not forget Savanarola, who was also a Franciscan, and burned at the stake. Luther actually considered him a hero and a martyr.

 

[gordonhooker]

Francis didn't set out to be, and he wasn't as strident as Luther, but some of his later followers directly challenged the church, like the Dolcinites or Dulcinians (referenced in the book/film Name of the Rose). They believed the Church should be poor and advocated for radical reordering of society. Some even became brigands, believing they were perfected and beyond repproach. Even some mainstream Franciscans were sympathetic to voices such as Joachim of Fiore, who believed that the future hierarchy of the Church would become irrelevant.

And let's not forget Savanarola, who was also a Franciscan, and burned at the stake. Luther actually considered him a hero and a martyr.

Thank you FireDragon - I am aware of all that my question was directed toward Albion regarding the comment about St. Francis not what later brothers and sisters may or may not have done. Albion must have had something in mind and I am wondering what that was.