Luther Thought Purgatory was an Open Question?

Beggars All Reformation and Aplogetics ^ | May 04, 2013 | James Swan

[boatbums]

Luther Thought Purgatory was an Open Question?

I came across this link posted on the Catholic Answers Forums: The Hope of Eternal Life. The link is ecumenical in nature, an attempt to smooth over the edges between Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism. This is the excerpt that was posted on CAF:

181. The most explicit discussion of purgatory in the Confessions comes in the 1537 Smalcald Articles, II, 2, which addressed the mass as sacrifice. Besides being itself a violation of the Gospel, the mass as sacrifice "has produced many noxious maggots and the excrement of various idolatries" (§11), the first of which is purgatory. Purgatory, "with all its pomp, requiem Masses, and transactions, is to be regarded as an apparition of the devil for it obscures the chief article..." (§12). Behind Luther's typically extreme language, however, a more nuanced understanding is elaborated. "Concerning the dead we have received neither command nor instruction. For these reasons, it may be best to abandon it [derhalben man es mocht wohl lassen], even if it were neither error nor idolatry" (§12). In a revised version of the article, Luther added a discussion of the authority of Augustine claimed for the doctrine. "When they have given up their purgatorial 'Mass fairs' (something Augustine never dreamed of), then we will discuss with them whether St. Augustine's word, lacking support from Scripture, may be tolerated and whether the dead may be commemorated at the sacrament. It will not do to formulate articles of faith on the basis of the holy Fathers' works or words" (§14f). The existence of purgatory is not dogmatically denied. Rather, 1) the existence of purgatory is not taught by Scripture and thus cannot be binding doctrine, and 2) belief in purgatory is now hopelessly bound up with unacceptable practices. A belief that could be discussed in principle is concretely objectionable because of its associations.

This excerpt is fascinating because it argues Luther believed:

-Purgatory isn't taught in Scripture, but yet may exist.
-Purgatory is only to be avoided because of its associations with "unacceptable practices."
-If these practices were removed, a proper discussion on purgatory could occur.

According to this article here is Luther's view of purgatory: "A belief that could be discussed in principle is concretely objectionable because of its associations." In other words, purgatory, for Luther, was an open question. Get rid of the abuses attached to it, and then it could be discussed.

In regard to the Smalcald Articles, LW states, "Under these circumstances the elector of Saxony instructed Luther in a letter of Dec. 11, 1536, to prepare a statement indicating the articles of faith in which concessions might be made for the sake of peace and the articles in which no concessions could be made."

Here are the two statements from the Smalcald Articles alluded to above. Read them for yourself and see if Luther is willing to make a concession on purgatory for the sake of peace:

Luther states in Article 12:

12 The first is purgatory. They were so occupied with requiem Masses, with vigils, with the weekly, monthly, and yearly celebrations of requiems, with the common week, with All Souls’ Day, and with soul-baths that the Mass was used almost exclusively for the dead although Christ instituted the sacrament for the living alone. Consequently purgatory and all the pomp, services, and business transactions associated with it are to be regarded as nothing else than illusions of the devil, for purgatory, too, is contrary to the fundamental article that Christ alone, and not the work of man, can help souls. Besides, nothing has been commanded or enjoined upon us with reference to the dead. All this may consequently be discarded, apart entirely from the fact that it is error and idolatry.

Luther states in Article 13:

13 The papists here adduce passages from Augustine and some of the Fathers who are said to have written about purgatory. They suppose that we do not understand for what purpose and to what end the authors wrote these passages. St. Augustine (tr-467) does not write that there is a purgatory, nor does he cite any passage of the Scriptures that would constrain him to adopt such an opinion. He leaves it undecided whether or not there is a purgatory and merely mentions that his mother asked that she be remembered at the altar or sacrament. Now, this is nothing but a human opinion of certain individuals and cannot establish an article of faith. That is the prerogative of God alone. 14 But our papists make use of such human opinions to make men believe their shameful, blasphemous, accursed traffic in Masses which are offered for souls in purgatory, etc. They can never demonstrate these things from Augustine. Only when they have abolished their traffic in purgatorial Masses (which St. Augustine never dreamed of) shall we be ready to discuss with them whether statements of St. Augustine are to be accepted when they are without the support of the Scriptures and whether the dead are to be commemorated in the sacrament. 15 It will not do to make articles of faith out of the holy Fathers’ words or works. Otherwise what they ate, how they dressed, and what kind of houses they lived in would have to become articles of faith — as has happened in the case of relics. This means that the Word of God shall establish articles of faith and no one else, not even an angel.

The reading given to these statements by The Hope of Eternal Life downplays the first explicit rejection of purgatory, and sees the real Luther in his willingness to discuss what Augustine meant when "purgatorial masses" are abolished. The problem as I see it, is this reading of the Smalcald Articles isolates these statements from Luther's total written corpus, particularly any writings after the Smalcald Articles.

For instance, in his later sermons on Genesis, Luther states something with similar characteristics to the Smalcald articles. Note particularly the reference to Augustine:

The pope invents four separate places for the dead.The first is the hell of the damned. The second is purgatory, and Thomas Aquinas says that hell is the middle point, so to speak. It is surrounded by purgatory. But around this there is a third circle. It is for unbaptized infants. The fourth circle is the limbo of the fathers. Here the godly dwelt before the resurrection of Christ. These are nothing but dreams and human inventions. Peter and Paul state clearly that the demons move about in the air. With regard to what Paul says see Eph. 2:2, and in 2 Peter 2:4 it is stated that “God did not spare the angels when they sinned but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment.” With these statements I rest content, and I do not inquire into things higher than those handed down by the apostles. Of purgatory there is no mention in Holy Scripture; it is a lie of the devil, in order that the papists may have some market days and snares for catching money. The sophists agree with the pope because of Thomas. But Thomas does not concern us. Augustine makes mention of purgatory somewhere, but he speaks very obscurely. Therefore I do not believe that those four separate classes really exist; for Scripture does not speak this way but testifies that the dead saints are gathered to their people, or to those who believe in the Messiah and awaited His coming, just as Adam, together with all his descendants, died in faith in Christ. But how these saints are kept in definite places, we do not know. [Luther, M. (1999, c1966). Vol. 8: Luther's works, vol. 8 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 45-50 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (8:316). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House].

Here again Luther explicitly denies purgatory, then mentions the obscurity of Augustine. He then goes on to deny that "four separate classes really exist." In the same volume, Luther refers to "Masses, purgatory, indulgences, and prayers to the dead" as false forms of worship (LW 8:230). Elsewhere in Luther's lectures on Genesis he states,

[P]urgatory is the greatest falsehood, because it is based on ungodliness and unbelief; for they deny that faith saves, and they maintain that satisfaction for sins is the cause of salvation. Therefore he who is in purgatory is in hell itself; for these are his thoughts: “I am a sinner and must render satisfaction for my sins; therefore I shall make a will and shall bequeath a definite amount of money for building churches and for buying prayers and sacrifices for the dead by the monks and priests.” Such people die in a faith in works and have no knowledge of Christ. Indeed, they hate Him. We die in faith in Christ, who died for our sins and rendered satisfaction for us. He is my Bosom, my Paradise, my Comfort, and my Hope. [Luther, M. (1999, c1964). Vol. 4: Luther's works, vol. 4 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 21-25 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (4:315). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House].

And here:

The third sphere is that of purgatory, into which neither the damned nor infants enter; it is for those who, while they believe, yet have not rendered satisfaction for their sins. The souls of these are ransomed by means of indulgences. From this source comes the hogwash of indulgences and the entire papistic religion.The fourth place is the limbo of the fathers. They say that Christ descended to this place, broke it open, and set free—not from hell but from the limbo—the fathers who were troubled by the longing and waiting for Christ but were not enduring punishment or torments. With these silly ideas the papists have filled the church and the world. We have overturned all this completely and maintain that unbaptized infants do not have such a sphere. But in what state they are or what becomes of them we commend to the goodness of God. They do not have faith or Baptism; but whether God receives them in an extraordinary manner and gives them faith is not stated in the Word, and we dare not set down anything as certain. To be deprived of the vision of God is hell itself. They admit that they have will and intellect, especially concerning the vision of God and life; but these are falsehoods. And purgatory is the greatest falsehood, because it is based on ungodliness and unbelief; for they deny that faith saves, and they maintain that satisfaction for sins is the cause of salvation. Therefore he who is in purgatory is in hell itself; for these are his thoughts: “I am a sinner and must render satisfaction for my sins; therefore I shall make a will and shall bequeath a definite amount of money for building churches and for buying prayers and sacrifices for the dead by the monks and priests.” Such people die in a faith in works and have no knowledge of Christ. Indeed, they hate Him. We die in faith in Christ, who died for our sins and rendered satisfaction for us. He is my Bosom, my Paradise, my Comfort, and my Hope. [Luther, M. (1999, c1964). Vol. 4: Luther's works, vol. 4 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 21-25 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (4:315). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House].

Comments from Luther similar to these could be greatly multiplied, which is why some Lutherans see any affirmation that Luther held purgatory was an "open question" as a lie of the Devil.

[Elsie]

What 'traditions' of Rome are to be followed?

The ones now; or the early ones?

[Elsie]

This is in no way different from you as an individual making your own...

Opinion of whether your current pope is a valid one or not.

Your RULES say you MUST obey him; right?

[Elsie]

Vatican: Get time off in purgatory by following Pope on Twitter

 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vatican-get-time-off-in-purgatory-by-following-pope-on-twitter/

[daniel1212]

Yet the pentecostals oneness do reject the Trinity, calling it unbiblical. They go by their own interpretation of the scriptures put together in canon in the 4th century. This is in no way different from you as an individual making your own theology which differs from that of the other non-orthodox individuals on this thread

Which is simply more parroting of a polemic which is refuted in principle. For your argument is really that since souls can come to the wrong conclusions based on what they see Scripture consisting of or meaning, then they need an infallible historically valid magisterium to surely tell them this. Catholic theology even holds that one cannot discover the contents of the Bible apart from faith in her, which must tell them.

Yet as said, the NT church began contrary to this, with souls both assuredly correctly ascertaining men and writings of God as being so, in dissent (as concerns men) from the historically valid authoritative magisterium. The latter implicitly affirmed the body of Scripture which manifestly been had established as authoritative and thus abundantly invoked by the Lord and His disciples, but they were not infallible.

However, based on your reasoning, since some souls interpreted Scripture differently, the they needed to submit to the historically valid authoritative magisterium, versus coming to such conclusions as that John the Baptist was "a prophet indeed." (Mark 11:32).

Also, if one cannot assuredly ascertain what is of God (such as what Scripture consists of and means) apart from submission to Rome, then one cannot convert to Rome until he first does. And while souls can come to manifestly wrong conclusions of Scripture, oneness Pentecostals are contend against by those who affirm the Triune nature of God and other fundamentals of which we both agree on, which the vast majority of evangelicals do, based on Scriptural substantiation, which is the very basis for ascertaining Truth that you attack.

Meanwhile, cults typically are based on the RC premise of leadership possessing a level of ensured veracity above that which it written about such. (1 Co. 4:6) And while this can result in greater unity if enforced (such as by the Watchtower Society), it is not the Scriptural means of unity.

And in reality, as said and ignored, the fact is that what the grand Interpreter says is itself subject to variant interpretations. Under a Moses or men as Peter and Paul, rebels can be executed, and otherwise disfellowship is to result from impenitent known sinning -which Rome is grossly negligent in - but the basis for assurance of Truth cannot be based on the ensured veracity of leadership, as it is to be in Rome.

It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.

Therefore, you have unity as well as divisions under both models for ascertaining Truth, but only one is Scriptural, that of the validity of Truth claims being based on Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, which is how the church began.

This does means competing Truth claims can results, but rather than resting upon the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults), it requires overcoming error with Scriptural Truth. Which is why we concur with Catholics about many core Truths, and effectually contend against cults, more so than RCs./

As much as you want the assurance of the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, the reality is that you cannot escape the problem of the need for interpretation, and of personal judgment (which Catholicism depends on converts even making), and of the basis for such not being based on the above premise, by on the basis of evidential warrant. Which requires the magisterial office to be honest, versus pulling off scams like making belief in the Assumption required .

As a RC even stated.,

If we imagine Pius IX, as he promulgated the Immaculate Conception, as thinking in his own mind, “Boy, what a load of crap I’m putting over on these stooges!” I’d claim that if the proper criteria for infallibility were met, the doctrine is infallible, anyway, regardless of the Pope’s interior disposition, just as a sacrament is valid regardless of the status of the priest who celebrates it. http://vox-nova.com/2013/08/05/why-do-you-trust-the-magisterium/

[daniel1212]

Quite incorrect. Since you are making a judgement call based on your own individual interpretation of what merits being called scripture or not, this is in not way different from what Joseph Smith or Charles Taze Russell did.

Which, with its principal, is refuted above, by the grace of God. But if you want to argue that an infallible magisterium is essential for correctly assuredly knowing if writings are of God, and their meaning, and that being the official historical magisterial discerners and stewards of express Divine revelation makes them infallible, then go ahead. If not cease from Catholic compelled contrivances.

[daniel1212]

I ask you again -- What attack on Jewish culture in the 16th century do you define? Which specific aspects of Jewish CULTURE were attacked in your opinion? By culture my opinion refers to certain characteristics and practices which I see attacked. Such as practices, such as are seen even centuries before in Canons of the 4th Lateran Council:

Since it is absurd that a blasphemer of Christ exercise authority over Christians, we on account of the boldness of transgressors renew in this general council what the Synod of Toledo (589) wisely enacted in this matter, prohibiting Jews from being given preference in the matter of public offices, since in such capacity they are most troublesome to the Christians. - CANON 69The more the Christians are restrained from the practice of usury, the more are they oppressed in this matter by the treachery of the Jews, so that in a short time they exhaust the resources of the Christians. Wishing, therefore, in this matter to protect the Christians against cruel oppression by the Jews, we ordain in this decree that if in the future under any pretext Jews extort from Christians oppressive and immoderate interest, the partnership of the Christians shall be denied them till they have made suitable satisfaction for their excesses. The Christians also, every appeal being set aside, shall, if necessary, be compelled by ecclesiastical censure to abstain from all commercial intercourse with them.

Moreover, during the last three days before Easter and especially on Good Friday, they shall not go forth in public at all, for the reason that some of them on these very days, as we hear, do not blush to go forth better dressed and are not afraid to mock the Christians who maintain the memory of the most holy Passion by wearing signs of mourning. This, however, we forbid most severely, that any one should presume at all to break forth in insult to the Redeemer. And since we ought not to ignore any insult to Him who blotted out our disgraceful deeds, we command that such impudent fellows be checked by the secular princes by imposing them proper punishment so that they shall not at all presume to blaspheme Him who was crucified for us. - CANONs 67,68; https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/lateran4.asp

Luther adds his own complaints. But again, it was only my opinion that Jewish culture wass such that it left itself open to attack, and if I was mistaken, then that is good. However, my argument that one can criticize culture with not condemning the same as race is valid.

[daniel1212]

And that is why the scholarly opinion was divided over the book of the Apocalypse - namely, was it really written by an Apostle or was john of Patmos not to be conflated with John the Apostle. On what basis would you, daniel, coming 2000 years later make a judgement call on this book? Just on feeling as did Joseph Smith?

No, and there was a reason Smith invoked and abused Scripture just as the devil did to teach error, for the devil knows where the power is. You could not have either the Qur'an or the BOM if there was not a genuine word of God they counterfeited.

And as with any new purported Truth claim, the veracity of such is subject to examination by the the established and only wholly inspired substantive authoritative word of God.

Thus they very "feeling" text Mormonic teaching invoked, "Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures" (Luke 24:32) actually refers to the Scriptures, nor the Mormonic ones which seeks to sound like it.

Moreover, even the veracity of the preaching of the very apostles was subject to testing by Scriptures, (Acts 17:11) versus the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).

Thus the answer to your ?, "On what basis would you, daniel, coming 2000 years later make a judgement call on this book? Just on feeling as did Joseph Smith?," is no, but based on its complimentary conformity/conflation with the established Word, as well as its anointing. For the word of God is not simply True, but powerful, as per Hebrews 4:12.

Thus writings as well as men of God were ascertained and established as authoritative before your church ever presumed it was essential for this (and if certitude by her is important, she did not indisputably settle the canon until after the the death of Luther , over 1400 years after the last book was penned).

And thus while conciliar decrees can be warranted and helpful, and the place of the magisterial office is affirmed, yet the reason for our near universal enduring acceptance of the canon of Scripture is essentially due to their unique enduring qualities and attestation among those who were not compelled to read them all.

[daniel1212]

Remember that Purgatory is salvation. It is not Hell, which is when someone is eternally damned. Purgatory is basically a period of purification so that they can withstand God’s goodness; after all, God is described as a “consuming fire”, and Jesus instructs us to be perfect like our Father in Heaven is perfect. What better way for perfection than for a short time out being purified like gold?

Now you are arguing for RC Purgatory, which even EOs argue is not of Tradition, versus arguing for submission to the RC magisterium as being the basis for assurance of doctrine, and thus no division.

However, your above attempt by isolationist eisegesis is simply not what Scripture teaches, and as this has been shown , and the real issue is that the refuted premise of ensured perpetual infallibility of the RC magisterium being the basis for assurance of this and all doctrines, since only what it decrees Scripture both consists of and means is authoritative, then i am not going to task my stiff arthritic fingers with reproving it here, and add to thr hours it took to respond to your specious polemics.

[daniel1212]

It appears that historical facts and logic do not fare well when inserted into a bag that contains mostly hammers.

Apt description of argument by assertion, based on the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

[boatbums]

It appears that historical facts and logic do not fare well when inserted into a bag that contains mostly hammers.

Apt description of argument by assertion, based on the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

And let's not forget their contention that it is the Holy Scriptures which authorizes their presumed infallible authority...and that presumed authority with which they can determine what is or is not Divinely-inspired Holy Scriptures.

[Elsie]

Keep avoiding CATHOLIC translations.

It makes you look afraid of something.

[daniel1212]

And let's not forget their contention that it is the Holy Scriptures which authorizes their presumed infallible authority...and that presumed authority with which they can determine what is or is not Divinely-inspired Holy Scriptures.

Actually it has been argued by RCs that Scripture gets its authority from the church, and in Catholic theology that one cannot even discover the contents of sacred Scripture apart from faith in her, and thus souls are not to be persuaded to place this faith in Rome by appeal to Scripture as Scripture since they are held to need "The Church®" to recognize what writings are of God (and thus their codependency on her).

Instead, appeal is to be made to Scripture merely as reliable historical document, by which the souls is to see warrant for submission of faith to said Church, and thereby know what is of God.

Which means that while one cannot ascertain what writings are of God, they can ascertain what church is of God. However, when he sees that Catholic distinctives are not what is manifest in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the gospels) then Catholics often argue the historical absurdity, "we gave you the Bible...we know what it means, not you.)

[ealgeone]

Because there were two gates; one to Hell [which are still closed and will never be breached) and one to the Limbo of the Fathers. which is now Purgatory.

Where did you get this from?