Luther Really Did Want to Start a New Religion: Documentation

I don’t think so. Our Eastern siblings do not support these activities either, but share our understanding of the Real Presence.

In fact, none of the practices cited in the letter address doctrines, just practices that he thought were being abused.

I don’t think so. From Luther’s point of view, the Pope has already left the faith, along with the clerics who were misrepresenting it to the population.

Yes. Luther believed there was only one church. He hoped that all those who belonged to the true faith would recognize that the Pope was the antichrist and would join him in excommunicating him.

Luther wanted Christians to practice a faith that was more consistent with what he was reading in his Bible.

It is true that Luther was exploited by the German princes. But, he only wanted the same thing the King of England wanted - not to change the Church, ,or the faith, but to extricate themselves from the power of Rome. It was as much political and economic as it was religious.

Thanks, Guanaphore.

But then, Luther was an educated theologian. How could he call the papacy the antichrist when in fact, there were many heroic and saintly popes before Pope Leo?

Luther wanted Christians to practice a faith that was more consistent with what he was reading in his Bible.

It is true that Luther was exploited by the German princes. But, he only wanted the same thing the King of England wanted - not to change the Church, ,or the faith, but to extricate themselves from the power of Rome. It was as much political and economic as it was religious.

You are contradicting yourself. Luther wanted to “reform” the Faith. Henry VIII wanted a divorce, and putting himself in charge of the Church of England would allow that.

Luther absolutely wanted to CHANGE the religion in a major way. It just HAPPENED to play into the hands of the German princes. They were symbiotic. They wanted to break the power Rome had over them, and Luther’s ideas were tailor made to their needs.

Help

Sorry, don’t have link here.

But there was a post on CAF awhile back that paraphrased Luther’s Theses…and in essence, they eradicated the Universal Church, and left everything to one’s personal choice as to what Church means.

I look at the Catechism and there are so many references to what ‘church’ means according to our faith tradition, and gleaning over many, would think Luther invalidating so much.

He had zero authority to do what he did.

I don’t think so. I think Luther believed his ideas more accurately represented the Catholic faith, and he wanted to be Catholic the way he believed Jesus intended. Lutherans today will say they see themselves as a valid continuation of the catholic church, as founded by Christ.

Indeed.

““Since then your majesty and your lordships desire a simple reply, I will answer without horns or without teeth. Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason- I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other- my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe.”

“Let the man who would hear God speak, read Holy Scriptures.”

“The Holy Spirit himself and God, the Creator of all things, is the Author of this book.”

“But be assured that no one will make a doctor of the Holy Scripture save only the Holy Ghost from heaven.”

Luther had his own authority! Which he believed was vested from Scripture by the Holy Spirit. When he was questioned about his authority for adding the word “alone” to being saved by faith, he replied:

Martin Luther - “If your Papist annoys you with the word (‘alone’ - Rom. 3:28), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and *** are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.”, from J. Dollinger, La Reforme et les resultants quelle a produits. (Trans. E. Perrot, Paris, Gaume, 1848-49), Vol III, pg. 138.

He was the doctor above all doctors in Popedom. :wink:

No one ever accused that heretic of being mild in manner.

Those are tiny bits excerpted out of context from a much larger document, leaving out all his detailed explanations in their fullness.

Here is a more comprehensive look from the link in the article: legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/luther-nobility.asp

Are you the author of the blog?

Luther’s writing here is about “the Reformation of the Christian Estate”. He was writing about possible *reforms, *not calling for a new religion separate from the Catholic church.

Is there anything on this list that goes against doctrine?

.

[quote=guanophore]I don’t think so. I think Luther believed his ideas more accurately represented the Catholic faith, and he wanted to be Catholic the way he believed Jesus intended. Lutherans today will say they see themselves as a valid continuation of the catholic church, as founded by Christ.
[/quote]

If we consider Luther’s split as an evolving plan, then I think I can see your view. Perhaps originally, before Luther’s ideas got much traction, he was thinking in a more “reform” minded way. But I don’t think that lasted very long. Sort of like Obama’s “evolution” on gay marriage. Almost an overnight thing. :rolleyes:

IOW, Luther’s benign reform was a very early, very short lived development. I believe even he (with the help of friends and power brokers) quickly perceived the implications of his reform, and pursued them to their separatist logical conclusion.

Myths about Indulgences
Myth 7 states indulgences were never sold.

Hope this helps

That letter from Luther “Address To The Nobility of the German Nation”, was written in 1520

Start reading at the “Three Walls of the Romanists”. Luther WAS going to establish a new religion.

The pope wrote to Luther , "Exsurge Domine", Bull of Leo X, June 1520
listing Luther;s errors
[/FONT]

As you can see from the pope’s next letter, Luther ignored the pope, and he made no offer to change his direction or views. 7 months later, Jan 3 1521, came Luther’s excommunication

“Decet Romanum Pontificem”
[/FONT]

Excommunications are not meant to be permanent. [FONT=&quot]A person can correct their errorFONT=&quot and return to the Church via sacramental confession. If he (Luther) doesn’t correct his views, and doesn’t return to the Church, but instead chooses to remain excommunicated, and dies in that condition, THEN [FONT=&quot]he dies outside the Church as a heretic.

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

Yes, it was a fast track. From the time he posted the 95 theses October 31, 1517 to …

Luther had totally hardened against the Pope and the entire Roman hierarchy. One of the things that I think distinguishes Luther from reformers who remained Catholic was his inability to see and love the Church as Holy and pure, above and apart from the fallible men attached to her.

Luther was branded a heretic. He had a slew of errors to his own credit. He had no business wagging his finger at ANYONE

#34

List of Councils of the Church newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm
Those councils as all councils, are reformative. Look how many councils are there before Luther is even born. The Church has always reformed herself.

Luther was fallible and sinful, and he was teaching error… He was shown HIS errors. Bottom line, he had no business wagging his finger at ANYONE.

As Paul said to Titus

Titus 3:10
“As for a man who is factious ( [FONT=&quot]αρετικν[/FONT] heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

Luther, the heretic, refused correction, so he was excommunicated.

In response to Guanaphore’s last post, my conviction is that Luther never focused completely in the full deposit of faith in Christ to begin with. Otherwise he would have endured, and now today could have been a saint.

It sure does, and I see the heretical views of Luther.

However, about the reformation with Luther specifically, a textbook of Church history says “On october 31,1517, a German Augustinian friar wrote a local archbishop outlining his position on a number of theological issues. He never envisioned that his actions would lead to a division in Christianity yet to be healed.”
Let me get this part straight; Luther (and maybe other reformers? Because he was certainly not the only one bringing other views) initially did not envision a division, instead had the reforming mindset, but always had these heretical views which he did not recant?

In connection to indulgences, the textbook says, “His immediate concern was what he considered a scandalous practice then occuring in his area.” And then it goes on to talk about why the Archbishop needs money, and that half of the indulgence money would go to the construction of Saint Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Also that this campaign to help build the Basilica was a good work.
“Luther was not the first person to recognize that some preachers misinterpreted, misunderstood, or misussed theology behind indulgences.”

I’m confused about all of this. So this was not just selling indulgences, it was for a good cause, but Luther saw corruptness in its use or understanding by certain preachers?
Was Luther right in calling these certain corruptnesses out then, but he also mentioned various heretical things in his suggestions?

I heard that Luther was simply calling out the corrupt things going on in the Church, but now i’m rethinking that.
Was Luther just too focused on the people, and not on the actual teachings and on the actual Church then?

Sorry for all of the questions, but from reading here, I got confused since it sounds a lot different than how a teacher of mine talked about it.

It was more like a perfect storm. A whole lot of things were going on, tending in a certain direction. For example, there was terrible corruption in the Church government based in Rome. No one can deny that. This was not doctrinal or Sacramental corruption, but ordinary human corruption. However it was scandalous. Also the church in Germany WAS oppressed and treated poorly by the corrupt Church government in Rome. Luther had issues with his own Faith, and scrupulosity. He was not getting good counsel from anyone, and was left to fester with his own difficulties. He visited Rome and was severely scandalized. His reform agenda was seized on by the German power brokers for their own ends. The resulting heresies, schism and rebellions were a natural effect of the direction everything was going. Once it was unleashed, no one had the power to stop or reverse it.

It is a very tragic and sad episode in the history of the Latin West. :frowning:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.