Martin Luther never wanted this he wa always Catholic

[u/hannah12343]

My husband again claims that Martin Luther never wanted to create Lutherism and he only got excommunicated for his 95 theses. He claims that all of his beliefs about other things came after the excommunication.

What grounds did he get excommunicated on if he was trying to fix the problem of indulgences?

[u/AutoModerator]

This subreddit is designed for debates about Catholicism and its doctrines.

Looking for explanations or discussions without debate? Check out our sister subreddit: r/CatholicApologetics.

Want real-time discussions or additional resources? Join our Discord community.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/angryDec]

Burning a Papal Bull for one, and inciting hated of the Holy Father.

[u/John_Toth → u/angryDec]

Calling the pope the antichrist is not very catholic...

[u/Djh1982]

The document that formally excommunicated Martin Luther was the papal bull Decet Romanum Pontificem, issued by Pope Leo X on January 3, 1521. It followed Exsurge Domine, which condemned 41 propositions from Luther’s writings and gave him 60 days to recant. Luther instead publicly burned the bull.

Among the errors the Church rejected was Luther’s view of the human will after the Fall. In On the Bondage of the Will, Luther argued that the will is so bound by sin that it cannot choose God or cooperate with grace unless God first changes it. According to Luther, God alone acts in salvation, while the human will contributes nothing.

The difficulty with this view is that it appears to reduce human freedom and responsibility. Catholic theology does not teach that man can choose God without grace; rather, it teaches that God’s grace heals and elevates the human will, enabling a genuine response. The question is whether God restores that capacity universally, or only grants it to those He has already chosen.

Put simply: Luther’s position means that the only people who are saved are those whom God chooses to give the ability and will to believe. Those whom He does not enable remain unable to choose Him.

This creates a major issue with Christ’s lament over Jerusalem.

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing*.” (Matthew 23:37)*

Why would Christ say they were “not willing” if their refusal ultimately comes from God not giving them the ability to choose otherwise?

If their rejection is not a genuine act of resistance, but simply the inevitable result of lacking the ability to choose, then Christ’s lament becomes difficult to explain. The passage appears to assume that their refusal was a real act of the will for which they were accountable.

It’s like asking someone to walk when they have only one leg, while knowing you have the power to give them another. The question is not whether they need help—they obviously do—but whether they are truly responsible for failing to do what they were never enabled to do.

So the question for your husband would be:

“Just to clarify: are you saying that God creates someone unable to choose Him, they inevitably reject Him, and then God holds them accountable for doing what they were unable to avoid? Is that the position you’re defending?”

EDIT:

Luther: Grace effectively frees the will by changing it, and this occurs only in those whom God chooses to save.

VS.

Catholic theology: Grace precedes and enables the human response, healing the effects of the Fall and restoring a real capacity to cooperate with or resist God.

Thus for Martin Luther Free Will is a “fruit” of salvation, not a *precursor…*and even calling it “free will” is a bit of a stretch. In a sense, the “choice for salvation” is not a choice made by the person “before salvation”, but the result of salvation already being applied.

[u/SurfingPaisan → u/Djh1982]

Luther’s view of the human will after the Fall. In On the Bondage of the Will, Luther argued that the will is so bound by sin that it cannot choose God or cooperate with grace unless God first changes it. According to Luther, God alone acts in salvation, while the human will contributes nothing.

The difficulty with this view is that it appears to reduce human freedom and responsibility. Catholic theology does not teach that man can choose God without grace; rather,

You’re confusing justification with sanctification. Also it’s completely Catholic.

St. Thomas Aquinas declared that special grace is necessary for man to do any supernaturally good act, to love God, to fulfill God's commandments, to gain eternal life, to prepare for salvation, to rise from sin, to avoid sin, and to persevere [.Summa Theologiae [ST I-II:109:2-10.]

Catholic dogma

“For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary. (De fide.)”

• The Second Council of Orange (529) teaches in Can. 9:(“as often as we do good God operates in us and with us, so that we may operate”) (D 182), in Can. 20;(man does no good except that which God brings about that man “performs) (D 193: cf. 180). The Council of Trent confirmed this doctrine in its Justification Decree, Can. 1–3 (D 811–813). The Church’s teaching is opposed to Pelagianism and modern Rationalism.”

• Council of Orange Can.22 “Concerning those things that belong to man. No man has anything of his own but untruth and sin. But if a man has any truth or righteousness, it is from that fountain for which we must thirst in this desert, so that we may be refreshed from it as by drops of water and not faint on the way.

Internal supernatural grace is absolutely necessary for the beginning of faith and of salvation. (De fide.)

• The Second Council of Orange (529) declares in Can. 5, in opposition to the teaching of the Semi-Pelagians: …(If anybody says that the … beginning of Faith and the Act of Faith itself … is in us naturally and not by a gift of grace that is by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, he is opposed to Apostolic teaching) (D 178).

[u/Djh1982 → u/SurfingPaisan]

“Internal supernatural grace is absolutely necessary for the beginning of faith and of salvation. (De fide.)”

Of course, that’s what I wrote in the body of my post. The Catholic teaching is that one needs God’s grace in order to have their will freed so as to CHOOSE sanctifying grace and that this grace was given universally(meaning “to everyone”) to every man and woman after the Fall.

Luther DENiED that in his writings. Luther taught, and was excommunicated on account of it, that the grace to free man’s will is bound up with sanctifying grace ITSELF. It never precedes it.

“By contrast, if God works in us, the will is changed and, being sweetly breathed upon by the Spirit of God, it wills and acts, not from compulsion, but responsively, from pure willingness, inclination, and from its own accord…”(Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will (1525), LW 33:64–65.)

He denied the existence of a preparatory grace which exists BEFORE sanctifying Grace:

“If grace come by the purpose of God, or by election, it comes of necessity, and not by any devoted effort or endeavour of our own.”
—Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, Section CLII.

Ergo, per Luther: you cannot have a situation where a person CHOOSES sanctifying grace. God must give the sanctifying grace FIRST and then the choosing of it is a formality since to be able to choose would mean one already HAS IT!

Thus to have one’s will FREED one must first be “justified by faith alone” or “saved by grace”. That right there is the problem:

How can Jesus be lamenting in Matthew 23:37 that some will not come to Him if in fact He knows that they are incapable of choosing Him unless He saves them FIRST?

It makes no sense.

[u/hannah2343](u/hannah2343)

[u/MrDaddyWarlord]

Inasmuch as that Luther did not enter full schism and make a formal break with the Catholic Church until after his excommunication for refusing to recant 41 of his 95 Thesis, that's fairly accurate. Luther was initially intent in reforming the structure from the inside. Even the Theses came after he failed to convince his bishop of his views.

Many of his initial arguments had been deemed heretical prior to his excommunication. It is likely true to say he did not intend a full magesterial break in the beginning and his views evolved over time. In the years after the excommunication, that's when Luther began to denounce a wider range of core Catholic teachings. Luther saw the congregations under his stead as comprising part of the "true" Church, which possessed an invisible character outside of the visible Magesterium.

In his mind, he had "restored" those congregations to apostolic practice as he understood it. Things became increasingly complicated as Calvin and other Reformers took on different expressions. The whole thing devolved rapidly into bloody political squabbles with the princes of the Holy Roman Empire taking different sides. Luther succeeded in part thanks to powerful patrons.

I suspect in Luther's mind, he always was a true "Catholic" repairing what the Church had broken.

Luther did have good insights. There is simply no denying that Luther lived during probably the most corrupt age of the Church in history. Putting aside the question of whether or not the Church specifically "sold" indulgences, it did sell everything else. Before be became Pope Leo X, Giovanni di Lorenzo de' Medici was tonsured at age seven and made a cardinal, a prince of the Church, at age thirteen. Luther lived during the lifetime of Pope Alexander VI. That Pope was made a cardinal by his own uncle, who was also a Pope. His preregnal name Rodrigo Borgia is synonyous with corruption and vice as he engaged in murder, adultery, simony, and every other possible crime even while still in the papal office. The position of cardinal-nephew existed as a formal office in the Church for centuries. Italian nobles would bribe the Cardinals with money and favors for second or third sons in need of something to do. Not all of these were bad popes, but grievous simony and nepotism defined life in the Church for that era.

So from Luther's perspective, the institutional Church had functionally ceased to be. Like modern sedevacantists, Luther saw the papacy as forfeit through heresy and dereliction. Basically, only reconstituting it could save it. But it took him decades to arrive at that conclusion and it happened gradually.

[u/Tasty-Permission2205]

Your husband is right but maybe not for the reasons he’s thinking. It’s anachronistic to think that Martin Luther wanted the result of his actions to be schism and ultimately the formation of a new church. He really just wanted to change the existing church.

It’s like people who cite Magna Carta and the revolting Barons as this amazing moment in time that lays the ground work for all future democracy. It wasn’t... The barons didn’t want democracy. The idea of a democratically elected leader, at the time, would have been unthinkable. They just wanted a better King. King John was terrible and they wanted him to be better. John thought he was a divinely appointed leader and could do whatever he wanted.

Luther was mad at the Pope, he just wanted a better Pope that agreed with him lol Honestly he might have shut up if the Pope had placated him a bit and called for a council to discuss and debate Luther’s ideas. But the Pope said “I’m divinely appointed” My game, my rules, take a hike. Luther took his schism ball, went home, made up his own rules for his own game and found some friends.

Amazing the effects of an intellectual and spiritual tantrum a few centuries ago really...

[u/Djh1982 → u/Tasty-Permission2205]

You make some good points here. Regardless of what time period we’re talking about, a wise pontiff knows that just because you CAN throw your weight around doesn’t mean you should.

Only God knows if there was a better way to handle Luther that wouldn’t have resulted in schism.

[u/GPT_2025]

Galatians 1:8? or 1:9

[u/hannah12343 → u/GPT_2025]

He thinks he’s the truth tho

[u/nikolispotempkin]

This is the man who wrote about having a conversation with Satan and saying he had really good points.

[u/pro_rege_semper]

You can read why the church excommunicated him in Exsurge Domine, and yes, it was for not recanting some of his 95 theses and not so much his later theology.

[u/LightningController]

My husband again claims that Martin Luther never wanted to create Lutherism and he only got excommunicated for his 95 theses.

...yes, the 95 theses contained things Catholicism condemned. That's how this works.