Replies

So was Luther nuts? Is that your point?

I am old enough to remember the teaching of "buying "time off purgatory time for loved ones with roseries and masses and saying indulgences. Not much different than as Luther put it the sound of coins in the box..

I posted this thread with the hope that some RC's could agree that there were needed reforms in the church that Luther had a hand in prompting...but the same inability to admit to ANY ERROR is what keeps Cardnial Law in his position of power....

Yes, Luther was nuts, amongst many other things. His fabrication of statements made by Johann Tetzel, which resulted in the paraphrase as the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs, were bogus. We know from Tetzel's Vorlegung that he in fact wrote "The indulgence remits only the pain of sins which have been repented of and confessed. No one merits an indulgence unless he is in a truly contrite state." That doesn't jibe with Luther's slant on Tetzel: "He wrote that an indulgence is a reconciliation between God and man and takes effect even though a man performs no penance, and manifests neither contrition nor sorrow." Or "He sold grace for money at the highest price." Tetzel blew out of proportion the monetary aspect of the indulgence, in violation of Church teaching. Tetzel had no foundation in Papal Bull or teaching, as Luther, once again, falsely charged. Tetzel needed correcting by the Church and that's what he got.

Was Luther totally in the wrong? No. Some Catholic theologians would even say that the Church owes Luther thanks for some of what he did. There were abuses and the church dealt with them, just as it will deal with the abuses of today; perhaps not as quickly as many Catholics and non-Catholics would like, as well as those that will most certainly surface in the future. It's interesting, though, how some of Luthers supporters pick and choose from his writings and actions. One would be well served to read his writings concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary. Writings that most Protestants cavalierly dismiss. However, Luther must be taken in totality, whether it be his discarding of Scripture, his racism: "On the Jews and Their Lies", his rejection of Apostolic tradition, doctrine and discipline: "The Babylonian Captivity of the Church", "The Freedom of a Christian", and his personal faults. His many contradictions need to be taken into account.

Religious leaders should rightfully be subjected to a higher standard, something Luther didn't do to himself. In comparison, true reformers like St. Bernard, St. Francis, St. Catherine of Siena and St. Ignatius of Loyola stand head and shoulders above Luther. A thorough study of Luther shows what he truly was, a heretical revolutionary, not a reformer.

How can one admit to anything when one believes their denomination and it's leader is infallible?

As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. The LORD is our Rock, upon which He built the Church, His Bride. You remember, Peter spoke the truth about Jesus, upon which the Church would be built: "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." This truth (the Messiah) is the foundation of a Church with no denominational name, no walls, no geographic boundaries, and no headquarters other than the throne of God in Heaven.