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.
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
Defens0rFidei said:Good idea man. Indulgence as in "time off from purgatory sentence." (The people in purgatory already being saved, just currently being purified).
"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."
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
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 everybodys 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
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.
Defens0rFidei said:And it was then that he no longer believed in purgatory itself and other Catholic doctrines?
http://www.christianforums.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=13658993#_ftn8On 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.
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 deathas they taught and as they all didmust 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 hells 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
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, 367390.
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.).
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.
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?
S Walch said:Where on eath does Jesus state that there is another place to go to other than heaven/hell after death?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?