"A great deal of what I post is not the in the official catechism of "my religion."
There is nothing wrong with voicing theological opinions which are not "part of" the catechism, if they do not "contradict" the catechism.
It will help if you keep in mind the difference between doctrine and opinion. Treating doctrines as opinions, or opinions as doctrines, is where you get into trouble
Re-reading Luther's 95 theses (LINK) would be a VERY good idea at this point!
When Luther upheld true doctrines against errors and distortions, he was most admirable. (And he does this many times in his 95 theses.) And when he voiced his own opinions on things that were not authoritative doctrines, he was likewise on solid ground (For instance, he said the sale of indulgences was a corrupt practice. He was right about that.)
But when he sets aside doctrine, and substitutes his own opinion as if it were doctrine, as in his thesis #13 ("The dying are freed by death from all penalties") --- that's where he fell into error.
And when he finally broke with the Church and departed from Her midst, he was in very great error. In the Church, he could have been a great reformer. Outside of the Church --- well, "The severed Hand cannot heal the Body."
#11
You shall obtain all you ask of me by the recitation of the Rosary.
Was the before or after the Roman Catholic church ex-communicated him.
He DID try to reform it from within.
The church ex-communicated him for his efforts.
That doesn't sound like him deciding to break with the Catholic church.
He departed when he was kicked out.
Here. From Catholic answers.....
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=55707
But anyway, hello Goldy-
Martin Luther din't "leave"- he was fired because he wouldn't tolerate the corruption going on.
The Pope sent one of his best theologians to demand Luther to recant his position on indulgences: Cardinal Cajetan. Luther refused. The Cardinal was well versed in Roman Catholic doctrine, and realized quickly the dilemma the Pope had: there was no adequate foundation to condemn Luther as a heretic. Why? Because there was not an official teaching on indulgences when Luther posted the 95 Theses. There was no official doctrine as to the effect of the indulgence upon Purgatory.
So Cajetan knew that in order to put Luther down as a heretic, he must first be declared one according to some sort of doctrinal standard. Cajetan quickly drafted a declaration of dogma on the subject of indulgences. Pope Leo X found this to be a good idea. Thus came the decretal Cum postquam. The dogma of indulgences was defined as Cajetan outlined them. The Pope also threatened any of his representatives that may have held a divergent view on the subject.
Sometimes as we read history, we forget to do so existentially. Put yourself in Luther’s shoes. He spoke out against abuse, and was met by an Papal juggernaut that would not listen to him. He was, in effect betrayed by the superior spiritual authority of his day: the Roman Catholic Church held a mighty physical and (so he thought) spiritual power. They were supposed to protect the church, but rather had betrayed her by allowing the abuse of the indulgence.
Now, continue putting yourself in Luther’s shoes. Wouldn’t you begin to question other aspects of Roman Catholic power as well? Perhaps papal authority? Perhaps the authority of councils? Perhaps you knew that God had spoken truly and infallibly in His word, because the Holy Spirit regenerated your heart. Now, when you are faced with a system that claims to be speaking for God, would you not cling to the Bible as your sole authority? I’m beginning to preach, but I’m sure you get the idea. So of course, Luther continued to build strong opposition to the Papacy through his writings. By the time he was formally excommunicated, there were many writings of his disapproved of by the Papacy.
James Swan