Why do you think he continued to advocate confession to a pastor?
And you did not answer. Instead, you dodged the question by going on about how it’s not valid, which is irrelevant. Valid or not from your standpoint, why did he advocate it? Why do Lutherans practice it?
Luther certainly would not deny that repentance is necessary.
Right I agree and never said that; what I said is that Luther ALSO said that mental assent ALSO justifies us which is false.
That doesn’t make any sense. Are you saying that mental assent is no part of justification? Or are you saying that Luther said both that repentance was necessary and that we are justified by mental assent alone?
If you’re saying the former, then I think you’re contradicting Catholic teaching. Clearly you have to assent to the truth in order to have faith that works through love, which is what justifies. However, this isn’t really relevant to Luther.
If you’re saying the latter, then you’re saying nonsense. So I don’t really know what you are saying.
But in case you’re saying the latter, I challenge you: where do you find Luther saying that saving faith is mental assent? Such a statement could not be farther from what he taught.
Ah, and most people DON’T know objectively that’s why sacramental confession to a validly ordained Catholic priest absolves that sinner who and is an objective means of knowing your sins have been forgiven.
But Luther would point out that you have to confess your sins fully (to the best of your ability) even in the least rigorous understanding of what is required.
Furthermore, as I said earlier, Catholic theologians in Luther’s day were divided on exactly what was necessary in the confessional. One school of thought, which appears to have triumphed in Catholicism, took the line you do, emphasizing the objective nature of the sacrament. Another school of thought emphasized the need to have full contrition for the priest’s absolution to be effective. After all, the priest’s absolution is not effective if you aren’t really repentant, is it?
You keep assuming that Catholicism in Luther’s day was exactly the same as the Catholicism you have been taught. That’s simply false (and I’m not saying anything that a historically knowledgeable Catholic–such as the Pope–wouldn’t agree with). There were various schools of theology, some of which have since been ruled out as less than fully orthodox. To understand Luther you have to understand the Catholicism he was dealing with, instead of judging him by the Catholicism you know and love.
Luther was trying to challenge the authority of the Magisterium by questioning what true and perfect contrition was
No, authors of penitential manuals in Luther’s day were questioning this. Luther didn’t just come up with these questions out of his own tortured soul (as some Catholics have suggested). They were there already.
You as Luther keep equating the ones conscience with sacramental confession which proves to me that you don’t know Catholic theology.
I don’t follow this argument. I wish you would stop making up my views for me. I can come up with my own opinions quite easily without your help, thanks! I don’t recall having used the word “conscience” once.
Many people have ill formed consciences and can do the most depraved sins and still no be sorry for them in their consciences; hence the beauty of the objective sacrament of confession.
I fail to see this. The sacrament doesn’t forgive the sins of people who have no sorrow and no purpose of amendment. (As I understand it, you can have imperfect contrition which is somehow perfected by the power of the sacrament–but there does have to be some kind of turning away from sin) If you think it does, then you are the one who doesn’t understand Catholicism.
You’re right that Catholic teaching *as it has developed *stresses the objective power of the sacrament and thus tends to reduce the fears about perfect contrition experienced by Luther and other scrupulous late medieval Catholics. Whether this would satisfy Luther I don’t know. I suspect not. But I’m not here to speculate about him or defend him as correct–simply to explain what he actually taught.