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.

[Paprika]

Oh, no. He just denied the Papacy, Catholic mass, transubstantiation, the canonization of Saints, and purgatory.....but other than 'that', he was all for the Church.

Because those are the central tenets of the Christian faith.

[TimelessTheist]

If he denied all the central tenets, you might have a case there. But it is clear that Luther while disagreeing with some tenets still affirmed many. Your attempt to paint him as a completely negative figure doesn't convince at all.

Oh, no. He just denied the Papacy, Catholic mass, transubstantiation, the canonization of Saints, and purgatory.....but other than 'that', he was all for the Church.

[robrecht]

Huss's brother converted to Orthodoxy (they recently found his baptismal certificate).

Cool!

[Paprika]

Eh, no, not really. Reforming the church was, ironically, never one of the goals of Luther's reformation, as "reform" suggests that he believed in the central tenants of the Church, but simply thought it had been corrupted through greed or some other such. This is not the case. He equated the Papacy with the Antichrist, and proclaimed that central tenants such as purgatory or mass were unbiblical and wrong. Luther wasn't trying to reform the Church, as he was claiming that it was wrong from the very beginning.

If he denied all the central tenets, you might have a case there. But it is clear that Luther while disagreeing with some tenets still affirmed many. Your attempt to paint him as a completely negative figure doesn't convince at all.

[TimelessTheist]

I think you're confusing Luther's eventual position with his initial position. He didn't leave the RCC; he was forced out.

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.

[One Bad Pig]

Ironically, Huss was killed by the Conciliarst, who opposed Rome, though I have little doubt Rome would have been happy to have obliged. It is only speculation how things might have occurred differently if cooler heads had prevailed, on both sides, of course.

Huss's brother converted to Orthodoxy (they recently found his baptismal certificate).

[robrecht]

[JonathanL]

Eh, no, not really. Reforming the church was, ironically, never one of the goals of Luther's reformation, as "reform" suggests that he believed in the central tenants of the Church, but simply thought it had been corrupted through greed or some other such. This is not the case. He equated the Papacy with the Antichrist, and proclaimed that central tenants such as purgatory or mass were unbiblical and wrong. Luther wasn't trying to reform the Church, as he was claiming that it was wrong from the very beginning.

You really ought to read up on your Luther. As OBP stated, you're confusing Luther's eventual standpoint with his initial one.

[One Bad Pig]

Eh, no, not really. Reforming the church was, ironically, never one of the goals of Luther's reformation, as "reform" suggests that he believed in the central tenants of the Church, but simply thought it had been corrupted through greed or some other such. This is not the case. He equated the Papacy with the Antichrist, and proclaimed that central tenants such as purgatory or mass were unbiblical and wrong. Luther wasn't trying to reform the Church, as he was claiming that it was wrong from the very beginning.

I think you're confusing Luther's eventual position with his initial position. He didn't leave the RCC; he was forced out.

[TimelessTheist]

It has been my understanding that Luther never wanted to separate from the RCC, only reform it (hence "the Reformation") and that the schism was largely a result of the actions of the opposing side. In other words, blaming Luther for the divisions that followed the reformation seems a bit misguided to me, or at the very least, putting the blame solely on Luther when the RCC leadership practically pushed him and his followers out of the RCC is.

Eh, no, not really. Reforming the church was, ironically, never one of the goals of Luther's reformation, as "reform" suggests that he believed in the central tenants of the Church, but simply thought it had been corrupted through greed or some other such. This is not the case. He equated the Papacy with the Antichrist, and proclaimed that central tenants such as purgatory or mass were unbiblical and wrong. Luther wasn't trying to reform the Church, as he was claiming that it was wrong from the very beginning.

[TimelessTheist]

Let's assume that you're correct that Tetzel did not actually believe that indulgences got you, or any of your dead loved ones out of purgatory. Given Tetzel's infamy of being "needlessly hyperbolic" as you put it, it would hardly be surprising if the popular masses got the impression that indulgences worked as a "get out of jail"-card, would it?

Yeah, that's probably what happened.

Then again, I'm not defending the fact that he made such a statement in the first place. He shouldn't have.

[robrecht]

Which is good, and I applaud the RCC position on this issue, but my criticism was directed at the way Sparrow seemed to put the blame on the schism solely on Luther, as if the RCC leadership had nothing to do with it. The official position of the RCC on this matter isn't really relevant to my objection. It was interesting reading though, so thanks for that.

I just offered this up because I thought it might interest both Sparrow and you. No criticism of you was intended.

[JonathanL]

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs...m/p123a9p3.htm

Which is good, and I applaud the RCC position on this issue, but my criticism was directed at the way Sparrow seemed to put the blame on the schism solely on Luther, as if the RCC leadership had nothing to do with it. The official position of the RCC on this matter isn't really relevant to my objection. It was interesting reading though, so thanks for that.

[JonathanL]

I assume you're referring to this?: "Soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs."-Tetzel

I admit,this sounds heretical at first, however, Tetzel was known for being needlessly hyperbolic. I doubt that he actually, sincerely believed that indulgences automatically got you out of purgatory, or that the Church taught this as their official position.

Let's assume that you're correct that Tetzel did not actually believe that indulgences got you, or any of your dead loved ones out of purgatory. Given Tetzel's infamy of being "needlessly hyperbolic" as you put it, it would hardly be surprising if the popular masses got the impression that indulgences worked as a "get out of jail"-card, would it?