Replies

Again, to emphasize the Catholic church’s position on works v faith:

Through grace, we have faith, by which we will certainly perform works if our faith is true. That is, we worship, pray, receive the sacraments, and perform works of mercy. When we do those works, God pours out further grace upon us, not because those works have earned us anything, but so his grace may be confirmed by the works.

The Catholic Church couldnt treat him harshly. Martin Luther was protected by protestant german princes. When the Turks besieged Vienna, Luther’s church was made secure by a deal between the Austrian emperor and the german protesant princes in return for supporting him against the Turks.

The French Catholic king also supported the Turks against the Austrian/Spanish/Dutch Holy Roman Emperor. Politics was more important to many people than religion.

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment

Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

““Many sweat to reconcile St. Paul and St. James, but in vain. ‘Faith justifies’ and ‘faith does not justify’ contradict each other flatly. If any one can harmonize them I will give him my doctor’s hood and let him call me a fool “ “

There is some merit to this argument. I cannot reconcile them.

But when the counter-reformation is known by most people only by what it opposes, it becomes necessary to clarify what it was that it opposes.
Luther may have been an imperfect messenger, but I was always taught that one of his primary concerns was the sale of indulgences.

indulgence: a pardon for certain types of sin that was sold by the Catholic Church in the late medieval period.
The sale of indulgences motivated Martin Luther to post the "95 Theses."

We can agree that at least on THIS point he was correct, right?

Or, is there a Biblical foundation for this practice?

I read years ago that Luther, like many others did not get to read all of the Bible until he went to the University as a student...

It was there that he read the actual words and realized that the Catholic Churxch had moved away from the original idea of salvation by grace, “justified by faith”

You forgot to label your post as satire.

“The practice of offering, selling and buying Indulgences (see Indulgence) was everywhere common in the beginning of the 16th century. The beginnings go back more than a thousand years before the time of Luther. In the earliest church life, when Christians fell into sin, they were required to make public confession before the congregation, to declare their sorrow, and to vow to perform certain acts which were regarded as evidence of the sincerity of their repentance. When the custom of public confession before the congregation had changed to private confession to the clergy, it became the confessor’s duty to impose these satisfactions. It was thought only right that there should be some uniformity in dealing with repentant sinners, and books appeared giving lists of sins and what were supposed to be suitable satisfactions. When the sins confessed were very heinous the satisfactions were correspondingly severe and sometimes lasted over many years. About the 7th century arose a custom of commuting or relaxing these imposed satisfactions. A penance of several years fasting might be commuted into saying so many prayers, or giving an arranged amount in alms, or even into a money-fine. In the last case the analogy of the Wergeld of the German tribal codes was commonly followed. The usage generally took the form that any one who visited a church, to which the Indulgence had been attached, on a day named, and gave a contribution to its funds, had his penance shortened by one-seventh, one-third or one-half, as might be arranged. This was the origin of Indulgences properly so-called. They were always mitigations of satisfactions or penances which had been imposed by the church as outward signs of inward sorrow, tests of fitness for pardon, and the needful precedents of absolution. Luther uttered no protest against Indulgences of this kind. He held that what the church had imposed the church could remit.

This old and simple conception of Indulgences had been greatly altered since the beginning of the 13th century. The institution of penance had been raised to the dignity of a sacrament, and this had changed both the place and the character of satisfactions. Under the older conception the order had been Sorrow (Contritio), Confession, Satisfaction (or due manifestation of sorrow in ways prescribed) and Absolution. Under the newer theory the order was Sorrow, Confession, Absolution, Satisfaction, and both satisfaction and sorrow took new meanings. It was held that Absolution removed guilt and freed from eternal punishment, but that something had to be done to free the penitent from temporal punishment whether in this life or in purgatory. Satisfactions took the new meaning of the temporal punishments due in this life and the substitute for the pains of purgatory. The new thought of a treasury of merits (thesaurus meritorum) introduced further changes. It was held that the good deeds over and above what were needed for their own salvation by the living or by the saints in heaven, together with the inexhaustible merits of Christ, were all deposited in a treasury out of which they could be taken by the pope and given by him to the faithful. They could be added to the satisfactions actually done by penitents. Thus Satisfactions became not merely signs of sorrow but actual merits, which freed men from the need to undergo the temporal pains here and in purgatory which their sins had rendered them liable to. By an Indulgence merits could be transferred from the storehouse to those who required them. The change made in the character of Sorrow made Indulgences all the more necessary for the indifferent penitent. On the older theory Sorrow (Contritio) had for its one basis love to God; but on the newer theory the starting-point might be a less worthy king of sorrow (Attritio) which it was held would be changed into the more worthy kind in the Sacrament of Penance. The conclusion was naturally drawn that a process of penitence which began with sorrow of the more unworthy kind needed a larger amount of Satisfactions or penance than what began with Contrition. Hence for the indifferent Christian, Attrition, Confession and Indulgence became the three heads in the scheme of the church of the later middle ages for his salvation. The one thing which satisfied his conscience was the burdensome thing he had to do, and that was to procure an Indulgence - a matter made increasingly easy for him as time went on.

This doctrine of Attrition had not the undivided support of the theologians of the later medieval church; but it was taught by the Scotists and was naturally a favourite theme with the sellers of Indulgences. Nor were all theologians at one upon the whole theory of Indulgences. The majority of the best theologians held that Indulgences had nothing to do with the pardoning of guilt, but only with freeing from temporal penalties in this life or in purgatory. But the common people did not discriminate, and believed that when they bought an Indulgence they were purchasing pardon from sin; and Luther placed himself in the position of the ordinary Christian uninstructed in the niceties of theological distinctions.”

More here: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Indulgence

{Sigh} Same ol' same ol'.

Luther did NOT teach people to sin--but he did reject the late Medieval teachings of Gregory Biel--predominate in Roman Catholicism at the time(and amoung many, up to today)--that was basically, "Do you best, and God's grace will do the rest." Luther's writings proported to teach people to sin, "sin boldly..." (in a private letter to the fearful but eminent theologian and friend, Philip Melanchton) are all part of his argument against Biel's works + grace theology.

Some less informed Protestants say that Luther opposed Catholic "works righteousness" and so he did--but, neither Luther, or any other well informed Protestant has ever said that Rome was fully Pelagian--that is--denied that grace was absolutely necessary. Notice the expression above (very similar to "God helps those who help themselves") acknowledges grace is necessary but it also says we do our best--first--then God gives the grace we need to make it. THIS is what Luther, and subsequent classical Protestants have opposed: It is properly called semi-Pelagianism.

Pelagius was a Welsh monk, popular in the Christian Roman world, and a contemporary of St. Augustine (ca. AD 400). He taught that God would never command us to follow his laws, if we didn't have the full capacity, within ourselves unaided, to obey them fully. So grace for Pelagius was nice, but not necessary... Pelagius was condemned as a heretic--and Rome has never been fully Pelagian.

The Biel theology, in contrast, of "do your best and God's grace will do the rest" basically says our good works prepare us to receive that absolutely necessary grace we must have to make it.... But since our works are a necessary prerequisite for God's grace--this is why this is called semi-Pelagian. Biel didn't deny grace was necessary--only that our works were needed for it to be given.

Luther's hangup--and mine too--as well as that of all other classical Protestants--was/is that, my BEST good deeds are impure--and since they are done first merely to avoid Hell--out of abject fear of God...are really not good at all, since they are done for selfish motives. Hence, there is no preparation at all for grace, only sin--and following the Biel logic--only damnation awaits.

That was Luther's great fear--as he was honest with his good works and sins--and knew he couldn't hold up his side of the "do your best...." formula. Hence when the breakthrough came--while reading Romans (or maybe another book by St. Paul) that "by grace we are saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." (Eph. 2:8)

The formula was NOT:

good works + grace = salvation

RATHER:

grace + salvation = good works.

In theological language, "justification" (becoming right with God) was separated from, and comes before, "sanctification" (maturing in holy living)--but both are essentials in the Christian's life. What Luther was reacting against, was the confusion of the two...or...putting sanctification BEFORE justification.... which logically infers we earn a PART of our salvation--and insults God's grace.

Luther taught the 10 Commandments, and you will find no licentiousness among the early (or late) Lutherans.... The whole of Lutheran (and later, even more so) Reformed theology affirmed Christian ethics and good works.... The whole idea that Luther promoted sinning is preposterous--and shows a complete misunderstanding of basic Protestant doctrine.

The "mistress" of Philip of Hesse is a red herring. He had that mistress before following Luther (as a Roman Catholic in good standing...)--and he only asked Luther if he should marry her. After years of badgering, Luther said yes he should--marry her, as a 2nd wife. THAT is what was scandalous, that is the bigammy, not the fact that she was his mistress.

I don't know of a single Roman Catholic royal at the time in Europe who did not have at least one mistress--in addition to their official wife. Mistresses were SOP for renaissance-era monarchs (just as its carried over in southern Europe VIP's today).

Luther made a mistake, based on the fact that bigamy (and polygamy) is never overtly condemned in the bible...and he was going strictly by the bible. Polygammy/bigamy was banned by the early Church--but is only mentioned by St. Paul in the bible as a disqualifier for the ministry...not condemned for everyone. Naturally, the Church reflecting on that--and how there was only one Eve for Adam--ended up banning polygamy completely for Christians. But Luther didn't take for granted anything the Church had done--so many corruptions had he also seen her done...

Below find a painting done by one of Luther's best friends, and devout Lutheran, Lucas Cranach the elder. It is huge (6' by 10'(?)) was hung in the City Council meeting hall of Wittenberg for many years--throughout Luther's career at least.

Serious evidence that Luther and Lutheranism were anti-law, right?

“This is not Luther’s position. Luther held that it was impossible to avoid sin. “As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin.”

Well, anyone here, of any denomination, want to boldly
step forward and claim sinless perfection for yourself?

[sound of crickets...]

Can someone recommend a good OBJECTIVE biography of Martin Luther? Preferably one with some informative commentary on his place in history?

The Catholic Church does not believe that one could merit salvation by doing good works. Nor could one avoid sin by one's own strengths. In fact, the Catholic position is one held by most people who believe they follow Luther's principle of sola fides. We are saved by grace alone, by which we have faith, which necessarily leads us to righteous works, and the avoidance of sin.

Here I go putting my foot in it.

First of all, FWIW, I have since leaving the church learned from a very traditional source that the correct Catholic position is that both faith and works are necessary for salvation, and that the position that you, dangus, are putting forward, is a Protestantized version.

Now to the gist of my post:

The whole "faith vs. works" thing arises from one cause: the traditional chr*stian understanding that obedience to G-d's commandments in the Torah, both moral and ceremonial, are now (since the advent of chr*stianity) without merit. Traditional chr*stians always contrasted "works" or "law" (the Torah) with "grace" (the moral commandments and rituals of chr*stianity).

Whatever his faults, Luther recognized a problem with this: it is inconsistent. If obedience to the Torah's commandments (whether Mosaic or Noachide, moral or ceremonial) is utterly without merit, then logically (qal vachomer) the laws and ceremonials of chr*stianity must also be without merit. After all, if observing Biblical commandments is utterly useless, how much more so the post-Biblical commandments of the chr*stian church?

Catholics here are caught in a trap of their own making, and they've been twisting themselves into a pretzel ever since the reformation to explain why Biblical commandments are vain and empty while chr*stian commandments are "channels of grace." And that's what "grace" means in liturgical chr*stianity--obedience to post-Biblical chr*stian commandments and participation in post-Biblical chr*stian ritual channels "grace" into the soul just as in Judaism obedience to the Torah channels holiness into the world.

In fact, the whole Pelagian controversy can be understood in this way. Protestants accuse Catholics (and Orthodox, to whom the label is much more appropriate) of Pelagianism for believing that obedience to chr*stian moral commandments and participation in chr*stian ritual channels grace into the soul (is "meritorious"). Yet by Catholic standards, Catholics cannot be Pelagian because their commandments are "the real deal," whereas the belief that continued obedience to pre-chr*stian Torah commandments is meritorious is "Pelagian." (Ironically, by Catholic standards Fundamentalist Protestants are Pelagian because the latter believe that, once J*sus takes an individual soul's place in hell, that soul automatically reverts to its natural state of being destined for Paradise.)

Lest it appear that I am playing favorites here (as FR's most notorious anti-Catholic), let me add that since Catholics aren't antinomians (like Protestants), at least they don't make the argument that the Torah was never meant to be obeyed in the first place but merely to trip people up so they'd be ready for Luther's Antinomian Loophole when it showed up. Of course, the Catholic claim that obedience to Torah was supposed to prepare Israel for the rituals of chr*stianity doesn't exactly work either.

“Sin shall not drag us away from Him, even should we commit fornication or murder a thousand times a day. (all quotes from Letter to Melanchthon, 1521)

Do you find this statement to be true or not?

"These quotes are often brushed aside as being hot-headed rhetoric. (Ironically, one passage to suggest that such intemperate statements were righteous is Jesus' warning that should one's eyes cause him to lust, he should cast the eye into Gehenna. How diametrically opposed to Jesus' teaching is Luther's!) But they were not said in a harmless context. Luther counseled Prince Phillip that it would be fine to take a mistress."

I cannot defend Luther's action in this, but it isn't quite as simple as your description.

From Here I Stand: A Life Of Martin Luther, quoted here:

http://www.ntrmin.org/Armstrong%20and%20Bainton%201.htm#a6

"“There are several incidents over which one would rather draw the veil, but precisely because they are so often exploited to his discredit they are not to be left unrecorded.” The most notorious was his attitude toward the bigamy of the landgrave, Philip of Hesse. This prince had been given in marriage with no regard to his own affections — that is, for purely political reasons — at the age of nineteen to the daughter of Duke George. Philip, unable to combine romance with marriage, found his satisfaction promiscuously on the outside. After his conversion his conscience so troubled him that he dared not present himself at the Lord s Table. He believed that if he could have one partner to whom he was genuinely attached he would be able to keep himself within the bounds of matrimony. There were several ways in which his difficulty could have been solved. If he had remained a Catholic, he might have been able to secure an annulment on the grounds of some defect in the marriage; but since he had become a Lutheran, he could expect no consideration from the pope. Nor would Luther permit recourse to the Catholic device. A second solution would have been divorce and re-marriage. A great many Protestant bodies in the present day would countenance this method, particularly since Philip had been subjected in his youth to a loveless match. But Luther at this point interpreted the Gospels rigidly and held to the word of Christ as reported by Matthew that divorce is permissible only for adultery. But Luther did feel that there should be some remedy, and he discovered it by a reversion to the mores of the Old Testament patriarchs, who had practiced bigamy and even polygamy without any manifestation of divine displeasure. Philip was given the assurance that he might in good conscience take a second wife. Since, however, to do so would be against the law of the land, he should keep the union a secret. This the new bride's mother declined to do; and then Luther counseled a lie on the ground that his advice had been given as in the confessional, and to guard the secrete of the confessional a lie is justified. But the secret was out, and the disavowal was ineffective. Luther's final comment was that if anyone thereafter should practice bigamy, let the Devil give him a bath in the abyss of hell.

The whole episode had disastrous political consequences for the Protestant movement because Philip, in order to secure pardon from the emperor, had to dissociate himself from a military alliance with the Protestants. The scene of Philip abjectly seeking grace from His Imperial Majesty has a certain irony because Charles deposited illegitimate children all over Europe, whom the pope legitimatized in order that they might occupy high offices of state. Luther's solution of the problem can be called only a pitiable subterfuge. He should first have directed his attack against the evil system of degrading marriage to the level of a political convenience, and he might well have adopted the later Protestant solution of divorce."