Explain to me Martin Luther

[robrecht]

I'm no expert on Luther and Lutheran theology, but I don't see much difference between transubstantion and consubstantiation, and therefore not much difference with respect to the mass, although the sense of the sacrifice of the mass is obviously a bigger difference, yet some modern Catholic theologians present this in a manner that is, I believe, hardly controversial. We faithfully join ourselves to the sacrifice of Christ, ie, a sharing in the blood and body of Christ. As for the pope, they come and go, and disagree among themselves, and cannot take the place of the individual conscience of each believer. Canonization of saints, is that really that much of a problem? If we can agree to disagree about papal infallibility (and Catholic theologians can do that privately), canonizations are just a subset of that. Purgatory? Heck, if we can tolerate the Book of Qohelet in our canon of Scripture, we ought to be able to agree to disagree on purgatory without cursing and anathematizing each other.

[One Bad Pig]

Luther, himself, stated the opposite:

"The chief cause that I fell out with the pope was this: the pope boasted that he was the head of the Church, and condemned all that would not be under his power and authority; for he said, although Christ be the head of the Church, yet, notwithstanding, there must be a corporal head of the Church upon earth. With this I could have been content, had he but taught the gospel pure and clear, and not introduced human inventions and lies in its stead. Further, he took upon him power, rule, and authority over the Christian Church, and over the Holy Scriptures, the Word of God; no man must presume to expound the Scriptures, but only he, and according to his ridiculous conceits; so that he made himself lord over the Church, proclaiming her at the same time a powerful mother, and empress over the Scriptures, to which we must yield and be obedient; this was not to be endured. They who, against God's Word, boast of the Church's authority, are mere idiots. The pope attributes more power to the Church, which is begotten and born, than to the Word, which has begotten, conceived, and born the Church."

It wasn't his "eventual position". He flat out states that he left the Church because 1) The Church has a Pope. 2) The Pope doesn't teach his Lutherean doctrines.

Did you read what you quoted?

[TimelessTheist]

Did you read what you quoted?

With this, I could have been content

You know, meaning that he would simply tolerate it, not accept it. You also seemed to have missed the rest of it, where he keeps ranting about the Pope being the head of the Church, and declaring himself an authority and "lord" over the Church, and such. It clearly doesn't sound like he accepts the papacy, the way he berates it, and ridicules it, and declares it false, all through the rest of the writing, such as this part:

so that he made himself lord over the Church, proclaiming her at the same time a powerful mother, and empress over the Scriptures, to which we must yield and be obedient; this was not to be endured. They who, against God's Word, boast of the Church's authority, are mere idiots.

What do you call 'that' exactly, but a clear condemnation of the entire system?

If they would teach the gospel, clear and true, and stop injecting human inventions and lies

Right there. He's not talking about their ethical practices, he's flat out saying that all their doctrine is all wrong.

[TimelessTheist]

Because those are the central tenets of the Christian faith.

They are for Catholics, and if he denied all those things, that pretty much destroys any insinuation that Luther was just trying to "reform" the Church.

[Paprika]

They are for Catholics, and if he denied all those things, that pretty much destroys any insinuation that Luther was just trying to "reform" the Church.

So if Luther wasn't trying to reform the church - that is, make changes in it to improve it, what do you say he was doing?

[TimelessTheist]

So if Luther wasn't trying to reform the church - that is, make changes in it to improve it, what do you say he was doing?

Destroy the entire system, and replace it with his own Church, and own theology.

[One Bad Pig]

You know, meaning that he would simply tolerate it, not accept it. You also seemed to have missed the rest of it, where he keeps ranting about the Pope being the head of the Church, and declaring himself an authority and "lord" over the Church, and such. It clearly doesn't sound like he accepts the papacy, the way he berates it, and ridicules it, and declares it false, all through the rest of the writing, such as this part:



What do you call 'that' exactly, but a clear condemnation of the system?



Right there. He's not talking about their ethical practices, he's flat out saying that all their doctrine is all wrong.

Er, try reading it so he's not directly contradicting himself. He clearly accepted the idea of the papacy; it was the pope's abuse of the system and the false teachings of that pope he was railing against.

[Paprika]

Destroy the entire system, and replace it with his own Church, and own theology.

[TimelessTheist]

Er, try reading it so he's not directly contradicting himself. He clearly accepted the idea of the papacy; it was the pope's abuse of the system and the false teachings of that pope he was railing against.

I didn't see anything in there railing against the "abuse of they system". I saw him railing against the sytem itself actually. Like the fact that the Pope had authority over the church. Or those who consider the Church a spiritual authority, are, as proclaimed by him, "idiots". That's not railing against abuses of the system, that's just railing against the basic systems of the Papacy and the Catholic Church.

the false teachings of that pope he was railing against.

What "false teachings"? I thought his entire concern was (supposedly) about the abuse of indulgences and his alleged abuses of ecclesiastical authority? Regardless of any abuses of indulgences, or any alleged abuses of ecclesiastical authority, the Pope only taught Catholic doctrine. He's attacking Catholic doctrine here, pure and simple.

Er, try reading it so he's not directly contradicting himself.

He simply stated he would tolerate the papacy. It's very clear that he didn't directly accept it, both by what he said in this writing, and what he said later, about it.

[TimelessTheist]

It's common sense, if you actually read it. He rejected the authority of the Pope, the authority of the Church, and claimed that Catholic doctrine had "injected human inventions and lies". He rejected pretty much everything the Church actually was.

[RBerman]

He was a contrarian who got excommunicated, then , out of pure avarice to the church, purposely developed a theology where the Pope was the antichrist. He was also an extremely strong advocate of the divine right of kings, and, as such, the reformation was used only as a tool, for the kings and princes to push away the influence o of the church, the only thing keeping them in check, which allowed them to have absolute power over church and state and viciously oppress their people. Why he is revered, I have no idea. His "reformation" was so bad, even he, himself, had regretted what he had done.

His critism of the sale of indulgences was unfounded, as that was a practice that the Church did many times in the past as well, to fund projects such as cathedrals and the Crusades, although I agree that many people lower on the rung did abuse the system, however, if you actually know what an indulgence actually does, the proposition that people can "buy forgiveness" is clearly unfounded.

Always fun to see how other people analyze the same data set! The fact that indulgences had been around for a while is not an argument for their appropriateness. But you have agreed that they were often abused at any rate, which was Luther's initial item of concern.

[RBerman]

Luther, himself, stated the opposite:

"The chief cause that I fell out with the pope was this: the pope boasted that he was the head of the Church, and condemned all that would not be under his power and authority; for he said, although Christ be the head of the Church, yet, notwithstanding, there must be a corporal head of the Church upon earth. With this I could have been content, had he but taught the gospel pure and clear, and not introduced human inventions and lies in its stead. Further, he took upon him power, rule, and authority over the Christian Church, and over the Holy Scriptures, the Word of God; no man must presume to expound the Scriptures, but only he, and according to his ridiculous conceits; so that he made himself lord over the Church, proclaiming her at the same time a powerful mother, and empress over the Scriptures, to which we must yield and be obedient; this was not to be endured. They who, against God's Word, boast of the Church's authority, are mere idiots. The pope attributes more power to the Church, which is begotten and born, than to the Word, which has begotten, conceived, and born the Church."

It wasn't his "eventual position". He flat out states that he left the Church because 1) The Church has a Pope. 2) The Pope doesn't teach his Lutherean doctrines.

You're reading how he described his experience in 1535, almost twenty years after his attempts at Reform had begun, and almost 15 years after his excommunication. He does not say that he "left the Church." He says that he "fell out with the Pope." If you'll read his 95 Theses from 1517, you'll find that not only does Luther not criticize the Pope, he assumes that the Pope rightly has, and rightly uses, a divine authority to ease men's time in Purgatory. Thesis #61 is representative: "For it is clear that the power of the pope suffices, by itself, for the remission of penalties and reserved cases." Thesis #91 assumes that the abuses of indulgences reflect the practices of pardoners who are failing to follow the Pope's "spirit and mind" as they should. Luther started out assuming good faith on the part of Rome. It was only when he endured repeated threats to his spiritual state and his person by Rome's delegates that he saw that the corruption went much higher up than he had ever feared or dreamed, but even then, he remained a son of the Roman Church until the day he was expelled.

[Catholicity]

Remember that Luther wasn't the only one calling for the corruption to change. Emeritus (who remained Catholic) wanted it done away with as well. Even modern day Catholic Church scholars agree that corruption of the highest rank was quite easily the cause of the reformation. That is even though they disagree with Luther's methods. If you ignore the facts and the whys of the reformation you simply ignore why we have other churches in the 1st place. Pope Leo X wasn't willing to do what was necessary to change the Church, and Luther wasn't willing to stay around to help. Note How Leo X isn't a saint nor is recognized as a candidate for sainthood and certainly was as corrupt as they all were. Luther and the Pope essentially excommunicated each other. And if you think the criticism of the sale of indulgences was unfounded, maybe you ought to read the "Roots of the Reformation" As it will give you a very good insight. Its impramatured and stamped, and yes, I own a copy.

[TimelessTheist]

Remember that Luther wasn't the only one calling for the corruption to change. Emeritus (who remained Catholic) wanted it done away with as well. Even modern day Catholic Church scholars agree that corruption of the highest rank was quite easily the cause of the reformation. That is even though they disagree with Luther's methods. If you ignore the facts and the whys of the reformation you simply ignore why we have other churches in the 1st place. Pope Leo X wasn't willing to do what was necessary to change the Church, and Luther wasn't willing to stay around to help. Note How Leo X isn't a saint nor is recognized as a candidate for sainthood and certainly was as corrupt as they all were. Luther and the Pope essentially excommunicated each other. And if you think the criticism of the sale of indulgences was unfounded, maybe you ought to read the "Roots of the Reformation" As it will give you a very good insight. Its impramatured and stamped, and yes, I own a copy.

I don't remember denying the corruption within the Church, with the pardoners and clerics abusing indulgences, and things like that, however I'm not exactly sure about the accusation that Leo, himself, was corrupt. I know of his borrowing and spending habits, if that's what you mean, however, I'm not sure that extremely lavish spending habits constitutes corruption. In fact, there's a lot of good evidence that he was 'not' corrupt, such as his compassion for the Jewish people in a time of great anti-semitism, his speech against slavery, his great charity, as one scholar puts it:

"Leo X was lavish in charity: retirement homes, hospitals, convents, discharged soldiers, pilgrims, poor students, exiles, cripples and the sick, unfortunates of every description were generously remembered, and more than 6,000 ducats were annually distributed in alms"

I'll have to look into your other accusations of "corruption of the highest rank" as well.e ' of Reformation was that the kings and princes forced their subjects to adhere to the Reformation through the methods of harassment, strategic seizure of property, imprisonment and/or execution of prominent figures who stood against the Reformation, and military oppression. This took place everywhere the Reformation spread.

Example: The new King of the Danes, Frederick of Schleswig-Holstein was put in power after the old king, Frederick's nephew, was expelled for violating the Church's rights, and for trying to institute his own tyranny by taking rights away from the nobles, and enforcing his absolution of politics. However, once he was in power, in true violation of his coronary oath to remain faithful to the Church and to expel heresy, he revealed himself to be a secret Lutheran, and started pushing the Reformation on his citizens. After his death, the population, fearing that Protestantism would be forced upon them, as it was in the other countries, rallied behind Count Christopher of Oldenburg, and instituted him as the new king. However, the nobles, with the help of the Swedes (Protestantism had taken over Sweden by now) started a revolt, upsurped power from Christopher, and placed Frederick's Lutheran son into power, who's first act as king was to arrest all the Catholic bishops, only offering them freedom if they would conform to Lutheranism. Now, Iceland, which was under the ownership of Denmark at the time, knew that this king was a liar and a fraud, and obtained his kingship through illegitimate means. They were also able to erect a militia of Catholic insurgents to expel his advances by force, so as to reject his pushing of the Reformation on them. In response, the king sent an army to Iceland, fought them for years, and finally conquered them and forced the Reformation on them.

These are not the actions taken by some righteous revolution of the people. Heck, a "revolution" implies that it was propagated 'by' the people, not forced on them by a totalitarian regime of power-hungry kings and princes.

Reason for Edit: It was Iceland, not Norway. Sorry about that.

[TimelessTheist]

You're reading how he described his experience in 1535, almost twenty years after his attempts at Reform had begun, and almost 15 years after his excommunication. He does not say that he "left the Church." He says that he "fell out with the Pope." If you'll read his 95 Theses from 1517, you'll find that not only does Luther not criticize the Pope, he assumes that the Pope rightly has, and rightly uses, a divine authority to ease men's time in Purgatory. Thesis #61 is representative: "For it is clear that the power of the pope suffices, by itself, for the remission of penalties and reserved cases." Thesis #91 assumes that the abuses of indulgences reflect the practices of pardoners who are failing to follow the Pope's "spirit and mind" as they should. Luther started out assuming good faith on the part of Rome. It was only when he endured repeated threats to his spiritual state and his person by Rome's delegates that he saw that the corruption went much higher up than he had ever feared or dreamed, but even then, he remained a son of the Roman Church until the day he was expelled.

He does not say that he "left the Church." He says that he "fell out with the Pope."

Eh, those are both the same things, just different semantics. I mean, it's kind of hard to say that he didn't believe those things at the time, when he, himself, said that he believed that at the time.