• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Question on Luther

Status
Not open for further replies.

ChiRho

Confessional Lutheran Catholic
Mar 5, 2004
1,821
99
45
Fort Wayne
✟24,982.00
Faith
Lutheran
Politics
US-Libertarian
Defens0rFidei said:
Hi-

I watched the movie "Luther" last night.

I have a question...was Luther against the doctrine of indulgences or was he just against the sale of indulgences?

Cheers


Just so we know that we are discussing the same word... (just pruning the nasty infected limb of equivocation from the tree before we start to climb ;) )

What do you mean by indulgences?
 
Upvote 0

ChiRho

Confessional Lutheran Catholic
Mar 5, 2004
1,821
99
45
Fort Wayne
✟24,982.00
Faith
Lutheran
Politics
US-Libertarian
Defens0rFidei said:
Good idea man. Indulgence as in "time off from purgatory sentence." (The people in purgatory already being saved, just currently being purified).

While the 95 Thesis did not question the doctrine of Purgatory itself, Luther later did address this doctrine in the Smalcald Articles found in our Confessions, The Book of Concord.

"12] First, purgatory. Here they carried their trade into purgatory by masses for souls, and vigils, and weekly, monthly, and yearly celebrations of obsequies, and finally by the Common Week and All Souls Day, by soul-baths so that the Mass is used almost alone for the dead, although Christ has instituted the Sacrament alone for the living. Therefore purgatory, and every solemnity, rite, and commerce connected with it, is to be regarded as nothing but a specter of the devil. For it conflicts with the chief article [which teaches] that only Christ, and not the works of men, are to help [set free] souls. Not to mention the fact that nothing has been [divinely] commanded or enjoined upon us concerning the dead. Therefore all this may be safely omitted, even if it were no error and idolatry.

13] The Papists quote here Augustine and some of the Fathers who are said to have written concerning purgatory, and they think that we do not understand for what purpose and to what end they spoke as they did. St. Augustine does not write that there is a purgatory nor has he a testimony of Scripture to constrain him thereto, but he leaves it in doubt whether there is one, and says that his mother asked to be remembered at the altar or Sacrament. Now, all this is indeed nothing but the devotion of men, and that, too, of individuals, and does not establish an article of faith, which is the prerogative of God alone.

14] Our Papists, however, cite such statements [opinions] of men in order that men should believe in their horrible, blasphemous, and cursed traffic in masses for souls in purgatory [or in sacrifices for the dead and oblations], etc. But they will never prove these things from Augustine. Now, when they have abolished the traffic in masses for purgatory, of which Augustine never dreamt, we will then discuss with them whether the expressions of Augustine without Scripture [being without the warrant of the Word] are to be admitted, and whether the dead should be remembered at the Eucharist. 15] For it will not do to frame articles of faith from the works or words of the holy Fathers; otherwise their kind of fare, of garments, of house, etc., would have to become an article of faith, as was done with relics. [We have, however, another rule, namely] The rule is: The Word of God shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel."

So, Luther didnt believe in Purgatory.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho
 
Upvote 0

Tertiumquid

Regular Member
Jul 26, 2003
342
41
Visit site
✟997.00
Faith
Protestant
Defens0rFidei said:
Hi-

I watched the movie "Luther" last night.

I have a question...was Luther against the doctrine of indulgences or was he just against the sale of indulgences?

Cheers

Hi,

There was no complete dogma on the indulgence in the Roman Catholic Church when Luther posted the 95 Theses. There was no official doctrine as to the effect of the indulgence upon Purgatory. Hence, Luther was not really a heretic (in official “Thus spoke Rome” terms) over this issue. The 95 Theses does not deny the validity of the indulgence. Rather, Luther attacked and exposed the abuse of the sale of indulgences. Luther was troubled that those he was ministering to were ignoring the good works he was directing them towards, but rather were purchasing indulgences as a means of satisfaction. They were also being purchased to alleviate suffering of those in Purgatory.Luther eventually came to realize that the entire system of indulgences was non-biblical. For the perfect work of Christ requires no indulgence. Luther said, “The indulgences are not a pious fraud, but an infernal, diabolical, antichristian fraud, larceny, and robbery, whereby the Roman Nimrod and teacher of sin peddles sin and hell to the whole world and sucks and entices away everybody’s money as the price of this unspeakable harm

Now, the corruption of the practice of indulgences is complicated. The practice over time developed, and became corrupted. The indulgence developed from the practice of penance. The indulgence originally was a granted permission to relax or commute the penance imposed upon a repentant sinner as an outward sign of sorrow. It was the opportunity to substitute one penalty for another. The original intent was to help the penitent. Serious sins required extreme satisfaction. If the penitent was unable to perform acts of extreme satisfaction due to health reasons or extenuating circumstances, the church in its mercy allowed a substitution: often amounted to a reduction in the satisfaction required, or, as it developed giving money.

Pope Boniface VIII (14th century) made use of the idea of a “general” indulgence. Certain times a year/years (like every 100 years) pilgrims could come to Rome and could receive a general indulgence: the removal of all the penalties for their sins. This general indulgence also required one to engage in the whole scope of penance (contrition and confession) as well the payment of certain amount of money. Through this, the original intent of the personal, internalized sacrament of penance became external and commercialized. Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484) declared that general indulgences could apply also to the dead. By this he increased money revenue.

Also worth mentioning is the development of a type of indulgence granted to soldiers who fought for the Papacy against Islam. Remember, Mohammed had let his soldiers know that everyone who died fighting for Isalm would be immediately allowed into paradise. What of the Papal army? Pope Leo IV gave assurances to his troops they would likewise receive a heavenly reward. John VIII promised those going on the crusade absolution for their sins. Leo IX used the promise of a remission of penance in his recruiting of troops. Eventually, the forgiveness granted included not only those involved in penance, but purgatory as well.

Regards,
James Swan
 
Upvote 0

SPALATIN

Lifetime friend of Dr. Luther
May 5, 2004
4,905
139
64
Fort Wayne, Indiana
✟28,351.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Tertiumquid said:
Hi,

There was no complete dogma on the indulgence in the Roman Catholic Church when Luther posted the 95 Theses. There was no official doctrine as to the effect of the indulgence upon Purgatory. Hence, Luther was not really a heretic (in official “Thus spoke Rome” terms) over this issue. The 95 Theses does not deny the validity of the indulgence. Rather, Luther attacked and exposed the abuse of the sale of indulgences. Luther was troubled that those he was ministering to were ignoring the good works he was directing them towards, but rather were purchasing indulgences as a means of satisfaction. They were also being purchased to alleviate suffering of those in Purgatory.Luther eventually came to realize that the entire system of indulgences was non-biblical. For the perfect work of Christ requires no indulgence. Luther said, “The indulgences are not a pious fraud, but an infernal, diabolical, antichristian fraud, larceny, and robbery, whereby the Roman Nimrod and teacher of sin peddles sin and hell to the whole world and sucks and entices away everybody’s money as the price of this unspeakable harm

Now, the corruption of the practice of indulgences is complicated. The practice over time developed, and became corrupted. The indulgence developed from the practice of penance. The indulgence originally was a granted permission to relax or commute the penance imposed upon a repentant sinner as an outward sign of sorrow. It was the opportunity to substitute one penalty for another. The original intent was to help the penitent. Serious sins required extreme satisfaction. If the penitent was unable to perform acts of extreme satisfaction due to health reasons or extenuating circumstances, the church in its mercy allowed a substitution: often amounted to a reduction in the satisfaction required, or, as it developed giving money.

Pope Boniface VIII (14th century) made use of the idea of a “general” indulgence. Certain times a year/years (like every 100 years) pilgrims could come to Rome and could receive a general indulgence: the removal of all the penalties for their sins. This general indulgence also required one to engage in the whole scope of penance (contrition and confession) as well the payment of certain amount of money. Through this, the original intent of the personal, internalized sacrament of penance became external and commercialized. Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484) declared that general indulgences could apply also to the dead. By this he increased money revenue.

Also worth mentioning is the development of a type of indulgence granted to soldiers who fought for the Papacy against Islam. Remember, Mohammed had let his soldiers know that everyone who died fighting for Isalm would be immediately allowed into paradise. What of the Papal army? Pope Leo IV gave assurances to his troops they would likewise receive a heavenly reward. John VIII promised those going on the crusade absolution for their sins. Leo IX used the promise of a remission of penance in his recruiting of troops. Eventually, the forgiveness granted included not only those involved in penance, but purgatory as well.

Regards,
James Swan


What they had become was a way of the church to practice tyranny over the believers and raise money for their coffers. Leo X had this grand idea to rebuild St. Peter's Basilica and to do this he commissioned Johann Tetzel to go throughout Europe and sell these special issue indulgences. Luther saw that this new indulgence was oppressing the people and giving them a false hope.

He hoped that writing the theses and posting them in such a public place would incite the need to debate each point. Unfortunately the Roman Catholic Church saw him as a rebel who was trying to undermine their authority.

At first Luther found their unwillingness to discuss these subjects perplexing and then realized that they didn't want someone questioning their authority on any level. That is when he started to really write his works against the tyranny of the Papacy.
 
Upvote 0

Dominus Fidelis

ScottBot is Stalking Me!
Sep 10, 2003
9,260
383
51
Florida
✟33,909.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
At first Luther found their unwillingness to discuss these subjects perplexing and then realized that they didn't want someone questioning their authority on any level. That is when he started to really write his works against the tyranny of the Papacy.

And it was then that he no longer believed in purgatory itself and other Catholic doctrines?
 
Upvote 0

Tertiumquid

Regular Member
Jul 26, 2003
342
41
Visit site
✟997.00
Faith
Protestant
Defens0rFidei said:
And it was then that he no longer believed in purgatory itself and other Catholic doctrines?

Hi again,

As mentioned, the 95 Theses from 1517 does not deny Purgatory. Even in 1518, Luther still admits to belief in Purgatory when he explained the 95 Theses in further detail. In 1519 at the Leipzig debate there was a lengthy discussion about Purgatory, yet Luther still did not renounce it. Later though In 1519, Luther says that it's ok not to believe in purgatory. After 1520, Luther's statements about purgatory progressively change. Here's a great one from 1522:

On purgatory I have this opinion: I do not think, as the sophists dream, that it is a certain place, nor do I think that all who remain outside heaven or hell are in purgatory. (Who could assert this, since [the departed souls] could sleep suspended between heaven, earth, hell, purgatory, and all else, just as could happen with the living, when they are in a deep sleep?) I think purgatory is that punishment which they call a foretaste of hell and under which Christ, Moses, Abraham, David, Jacob, Job, Hezekiah, and many others suffered. This punishment is similar to hell, yet restricted in terms of time; it is purgatory for me regardless of whether this punishment takes place emotionally or physically, since we attribute such punishment to purgatory. Yet while it is declared that this punishment takes place physically, and that this is certain, it also cannot be denied that [this punishment] takes place emotionally, although this cannot be proven. Consequently you are by no means in error, whatever you may believe here. Even if you deny purgatory, you are no heretic, since you do not deny that the punishment [of purgatory] can be felt physically and emotionally, but you deny only that purgatory is a definite place and that it has been proven that such punishment is felt emotionally. This I deny too. For they who feel that punishment physically are actually no longer in the body, but dead, as far as life itself [and the senses] are concerned. And so it is not possible for you to deny that this punishment can be felt this way, that is emotionally. This is how I see it. If you have something else to say, let me know.
http://www.christianforums.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=13658993#_ftn8

One can see by the early 1530's Luther is convinced that Purgatory is completely non-biblical, calling it a "blasphemous fraud". Luther says,

Furthermore, how will your conscience bear the blasphemous fraud of purgatory, with which they also treacherously duped and falsely frightened all the world and appropriated almost all its property and splendor by lying and thievery? For with this they also completely extinguished that one and only comfort and trust in Christ and taught Christians to place their attention and expectation and reliance in the bequests which they trust will follow them. Whoever looks to and hopes in the bequests or works that follow him at death—as they taught and as they all did—must dismiss Christ from his mind and forget him. Therefore, if God had not especially preserved his own, in death they would have plunged unawares into hell’s abyss, together with the Jews and heathen. It is the same as when a person falls headlong from a high mountain; he thinks that he is treading on a solid pathway and then steps aside into the air and plunges down into the valley or the sea. Oh, what murderers of souls they are! Before the day of judgment no human heart will know what great murder they have committed on souls with their purgatory. Much less can the damage and the abominable blasphemy be estimated which they thereby have inflicted on faith and confidence in Christ. Yet there is no repentance for this or any end to it. Instead, they demand that you protect them and help defend them in it.http://www.christianforums.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=13658993#_ftn3

The editors of Luther's work add,

Purgatory was a very current concern for Luther. He had been distressed that the Augsburg Confession had failed to take a clear stand on this question, so in the summer of 1530 he had filled in this gap with his own Disavowal of Purgatory (Widerruf vom Fegefeuer). WA 30III, 367–390.

I would love to get a hold of that treatise!http://www.christianforums.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=13658993#_ftn2

Catholic apologist James Akin made a statement about Luther and Purgatory that I have found "interesting" (for lack of a better word!). Akin says,

“Why would Martin Luther cut out [2 Maccabees out of the Bible] when it is so clearly held up as an example to us by the New Testament [book of Hebrews]? Simple: A few chapters later it endorses the practice of praying for the dead so that they may be freed from the consequences of their sins (2 Macc. 12:41-45); in other words, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Since Luther chose to reject the historic Christian teaching of purgatory (which dates from before the time of Christ, as 2 Maccabees shows), he had to remove that book from the Bible and appendicize it. (Notice that he also removed Hebrews, the book which cites 2 Maccabees, to an appendix as well.).”

Akin completely neglects the aspect of Luther’s historical and critical reasoning. Had Akin simply checked LW 35:352-353, he could have read Luther’s most explicit statement for rejecting 2 Maccabees: “This book is called, and is supposed to be, the second book of Maccabees, as the title indicates. Yet this cannot be true, because it reports several incidents that happened before those reported in the first book, and it does not proceed any further than Judas Maccabaeus, that is, chapter 7 of the first book. It would be better to call this the first instead of the second book, unless one were to call it simply a second book and not the second book of Maccabees—another or different, certainly, but not second.  But we include it anyway, for the sake of the good story of the seven Maccabean martyrs and their mother, and other things as well.It appears, however, that the book has no single author, but was pieced together out of many books.  It also presents a knotty problem in chapter 14[:41–46] where Razis commits suicide, something which also troubles St. Augustine and the ancient fathers. Such an example is good for nothing and should not be praised, even though it may be tolerated and perhaps explained. So also in chapter 1 this book describes the death of Antiochus quite differently than does First Maccabees [6:1–16].To sum up: just as it is proper for the first book to be included among the sacred Scriptures, so it is proper that this second book should be thrown out, even though it contains some good things. However the whole thing is left and referred to the pious reader to judge and to decide

Regards,
James Swan
 
Upvote 0

ByzantineDixie

Handmaid of God, Mary
Jan 11, 2004
3,178
144
Visit site
✟26,649.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Yes, some RCCers claim 2 Maccabees 12:39-46, is the RC scriptural reference for the doctrine.

2 Maccabees 12 said:
39 And the day following Judas cam with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchres of their fathers. 40 And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain.
2 Maccabees 12 said:
40 "Of the donaries"... That is, of the votive offerings, which had been hung up in the temples of the idols, which they had taken away when they burnt the port of Jamnia, ver. 9., contrary to the prohibition of the law, Deut. 7. 25.



41 Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. 42 And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. 43 And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, 44 (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) 45 And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them.



45 "With godliness"... Judas hoped that these men who died fighting for the cause of God and religion, might find mercy: either because they might be excused from mortal sin by ignorance; or might have repented of their sin, at least at their death.



46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.

46 "It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead"... Here is an evident and undeniable proof of the practice of praying for the dead under the old law, which was then strictly observed by the Jews, and consequently could not be introduced at that time by Judas, their chief and high priest, if it had not been always their custom.

However, other RCC are not so bound to link the doctrine to scripture (and actually claim reading purgatory into 2 Maccabees is a stretch). For the RCC Holy Tradition is sufficient justification.

Peace

Rose
 
Upvote 0

Dominus Fidelis

ScottBot is Stalking Me!
Sep 10, 2003
9,260
383
51
Florida
✟33,909.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
S Walch said:
...I must really ask this question.

Where on eath does Jesus state that there is another place to go to other than heaven/hell after death?

If you are interested in our interpretation on this issue, I humbly recommend consulting these two links:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1188836-purgatory-a-scriptural-doctrine.html
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html

Granted, the word Purgatory is not explicitly stated, but neither is the word Trinity. Both concepts are derived from the Scriptures to form the Catholic view.
 
Upvote 0

Rising_Suns

'Christ's desolate heart is in need of comfort'
Jul 14, 2002
10,836
793
45
Saint Louis, MO
✟31,835.00
Faith
Catholic
S Walch said:
Where on eath does Jesus state that there is another place to go to other than heaven/hell after death?

Just for clarification, we don't believe that purgatory is necessarily a place so much as it is merely a state of purification before entering heaven, and is actually very Scriptural (even though, as was previously mentioned, we are not Sola Scripturists). If you have any more questions/concerns about purgatory, I would invite you to OBOB to ask further questions.

Blessings,

-Davide
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.