In The News: The Pope credited Martin Luther?

I caught this recent comment from Pope Francis via CARM and the Catholic Answers forums: 

The temptation to “give glory to each other” and to exploit the faith for one’s own purposes is a persistent “cancer in the Church.” The Pope credited Martin Luther with rejecting “an image of the Church as an organization that can go ahead ignoring the grace of the Lord, or considering it as a possession to be taken for granted.” Returning to a theme that he had emphasized frequently in the early days of his pontificate, he said: “This temptation to build a self-referential Church, which leads to conflicts and divisions, always keeps coming back” [link].

The source for this information comes from "a lengthy interview with the Italian Catholic daily Avvenire." Here is the actual text:

Avvenire: Il patriarca Bartolomeo in un’intervista ad Avvenire disse che la radice della divisione è stata la penetrazione di un «pensiero mondano» nella Chiesa. Anche per lei è questa la causa della divisione?

Pope Francis: Continuo a pensare che il cancro nella Chiesa è il darsi gloria l’un l’altro. Se uno non sa chi è Gesù, o non lo ha mai incontrato, lo può sempre incontrare; ma se uno sta nella Chiesa, e si muove in essa perché proprio nell’ambito della Chiesa coltiva e alimenta la sua fame di dominio e affermazione di sé, ha una malattia spirituale, crede che la Chiesa sia una realtà umana autosufficiente, dove tutto si muove secondo logiche di ambizione e potere. Nella reazione di Lutero c’era anche questo: il rifiuto di un’immagine di Chiesa come un’organizzazione che poteva andare avanti facendo a meno della Grazia del Signore, o considerandola come un possesso scontato, garantito a priori. E questa tentazione di costruire una Chiesa autoreferenziale, che porta alla contrapposizione e quindi alla divisione, ritorna sempre.

How did Roman Catholics respond to this vague affirmative sentence? Here's a sample from the Catholic Answers discussion:

"I pray for the Holy Father daily. He is most sincere, and obviously wishes only the best for people. But 'crediting Martin Luther"?... Perhaps this is a bad translation of the interview (and I am more than willing to accept that), but that definitely is not going to come across well, and not just to those with a respect for the traditionalist point of view. o use the name of Martin Luther, who is regarded as the key to the whole destruction of a semi-unified Christendom... especially coming so soon after the event of October which still sits uneasily even on the most 'ecumenical' of stomachs, as an example of how to acknowledge something 'off' in the Church. . .well, the Holy Father must know what he is saying but it is very unclear and upsetting to me. I will continue to pray for enlightenment." [link]

"History and scholars have determined that Martin Luther wanted reform, and NEVER intended to start a whole new church or destroy the one he was a part of. Painting the man as evil sure discourages many fine people from returning to the faith. But, I realize this is a popular opinion." [link]

"It should also be noted that Martin Luther suffered from severe anxiety and scruples (today would almost certainly be diagnosed with OCD.) Martin Luther was most likely not seeking change and reform due to maliciousness or evil, but, rather out of fear and anxiety of "not making it to heaven" (and it was even harder "to make it" in that time period." [link]

"This is a must read for anyone who'd like to know more about Martin Luther https://www.amazon.com/Facts-About-L.../dp/0895553228" [link]

"I think the Church needed reformation at the time, but the split resulted from Luther and the Church not coming to terms. I've read and heard that Luther had some valid points. Why can't the Pope reference one to bring everyone closer together?" [link]

"...I personally was troubled, and have been troubled, with the emphasis on Martin Luther as an exemplar of how to approach the Church when there are troubles. Because no matter how valid some of his points may have been at the start (and neither I nor members of the Church, even from the get-go, have ever denied that there were some issues among individuals that needed a firmer hand to deal with them) --heck if you search some of my posts here I have noted more than once that if Martin Luther had worked patiently within the Church instead of giving up and attempting to impose his will not just on the real difficulties but on his own gradually increasing personal interpretations that he insisted be observed as gospel, that he would have probably become Saint Martin Luther. So in that sense he is a tragic figure, in that as usual Satan tries to take what is best and brightest, and make that fall. Henry VIII is another one --a man of great gifts, "Defender of the Church" (ironically written by him against Luther!), who likewise became intoxicated by his own admitted gifts to the point of inserting himself and his will again as 'gospel'. [link]

"We, as Catholics, are commemorating jointly with the Lutherans the 500th anniversary of the Reformation. Joint services of common prayer and other commemorations will be occurring in dioceses throughout the world over the course of the next years." [link]

[in response to the previous comment] "What! That is the most stupid thing I have ever heard. I'm certainly not commemorating it. Why not make him a saint too? an inspiration for others to follow in leaving the Church and starting their own, good idea." [link]

"You would do well to inform yourself of the decisions taken by the Holy See with regard to Luther and Lutherans since 1983 and to conform yourself to what the Holy See has declared." [link]

"The pope should have an assistant that intervenes to prevent him from saying stupid things. He comes off as arrogant in the article." [link]

"A 500th year anniversary commemorating the reformation, is absolutely scandalous in the extreme for the Catholic Church to be involved in, the reformation is something the Church mourns. To 'commemorate' such a thing in the Catholic Church is wrong on so many levels." [link]

[in response to the previous comment] "Let us be perfectly clear: 1) The decision of a joint commemoration of the Reformation is that of both Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis. 2) This decision is implemented by the Holy See. It is to be shown complete and absolute deference. 3) The bishops, dispersed throughout the world, and the conferences of bishops in their various geographical divisions have decreed what is to be done. For laity to speak of the decisions of the hierarchy at its highest levels as scandalous is nothing short of intolerable and invites censure from ecclesiastical authority. The commemoration has been implemented by the Pope and by the bishops of the world. Full stop." [link]

"Not full stop, not full stop at all. You are right, I am just a lay person with little knowledge and practically no authority to speak on such matters, but I know that it is wrong to commemorate the fracturing (reformation) of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I don't need to have authority or great knowledge to see that." [link]

"I believe some may be taking the commemoration too far, and it begins to look a bit like celebrating, especially when we see lots of praise heaped on Martin Luther. But as has been mentioned in many theological reports, he is a complex figure. I respect, for isntance, his reverence toward the Eucharist. I remember the story of how when he was celebrating Mass once towards the end of his life, he couldn't stop his hands from shaking after the consecration and spilled some of the Precious Blood on the floor of the altar. The old man got on his hands and knees and lapped up the Precious Blood with his tongue like a dog. But on the other hand, he did many things that give us bad examples of what a Christian witness should do, such as abandoning his vows of celibacy he made at his priestly ordination by marrying Katharina von Bora." [link]

"we are stuck with discussing the red herring of Martin Luther  His words of blasphemy against the sacrifice of the Mass and sacrament of marriage seem to conveniently be forgotten." [link]

"while I think we should defer to the Pope in simply commemorating (not celebrating) the Reformation this year and next by praying for unity and understanding, I don't see or understand why Catholics have to conform themselves to what the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Commission on Unity declared on Luther and Lutherans in 1983 or in this recent document. I don't see where that commission, comprised of both Lutherans and Catholics, is analogous to the Holy See, but I am open to correction." [link] 

Pope Francis and Martin Luther: What's Going On?

If there's one topic that demonstrates the disunity in Roman Catholicism, it's the topic of the Reformation.  Karl Keating over at Catholic Answers says the Reformation was a "revolt" that brought "brought more grief than good." He says there's "nothing to celebrate" about the Reformation, but it should rather be "commemorated" in the sense of remembering a tragedy like 9/11. Keating states,

I see nothing to celebrate in the Protestant Reformation. It was the greatest disaster the West suffered over the last millennium. It brought theological confusion, political turmoil, and decades of war. The religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries killed about three percent of the world’s population, the same proportion that died in World War II. The religious wars would not have occurred had the Reformation not occurred.

It's been interesting  to watch Roman Catholics like Mr. Keating formulate their opinions while Pope Francis stands next to the Vatican's statue of Martin Luther.  Now I'm not exactly sure which room this statue will eventually reside in, but I do not recall there being a Vatican hall of heretics. Also interesting is that some reports say the Pope received a jumbo edition of the 95 Theses. Here's the video of the event. Of the reports I've read, only one says both the statue and the book were gifts, almost of them say only the book was the gift and the statue was the property of the Vatican prepared for the event (any clarification would be helpful). Luther's statue appears to be holding the New Testament, and I've read the yellow scarf has the name of the Lutheran pilgrim group in the Pope's audience (the pope also put the scarf on).  In my next trip to Rome, I'll do a pilgrimage to the Vatican's Luther statue and perhaps visit Martin Luther square.

Of the Reformation, Roman Catholics can either follow Karl Keating or Pope Francis:

In the same vein, the Pope viewed what he saw as positive aspects of the Reformation, saying the 16th-century schism led Christians to realize that without Christ “we can do nothing,” and for helping to give “greater centrality to sacred Scripture in the Church’s life.” He also said Martin Luther’s concept of justification by “grace alone” reminded us that God always takes the initiative, and asserted that both sides at the Reformation had a “sincere will” to “profess and uphold the true faith.” [link]

The exact words from Pope Francis (well, translated into English, that is) were:

Jesus reminds us: “Apart from me, you can do nothing” (v. 5). He is the one who sustains us and spurs us on to find ways to make our unity ever more visible. Certainly, our separation has been an immense source of suffering and misunderstanding, yet it has also led us to recognize honestly that without him we can do nothing; in this way it has enabled us to understand better some aspects of our faith. With gratitude we acknowledge that the Reformation helped give greater centrality to sacred Scripture in the Church’s life. Through shared hearing of the word of God in the Scriptures, important steps forward have been taken in the dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation, whose fiftieth anniversary we are presently celebrating. Let us ask the Lord that his word may keep us united, for it is a source of nourishment and life; without its inspiration we can do nothing.

The spiritual experience of Martin Luther challenges us to remember that apart from God we can do nothing. “How can I get a propitious God?” This is the question that haunted Luther. In effect, the question of a just relationship with God is the decisive question for our lives. As we know, Luther encountered that propitious God in the Good News of Jesus, incarnate, dead and risen. With the concept “by grace alone”, he reminds us that God always takes the initiative, prior to any human response, even as he seeks to awaken that response. The doctrine of justification thus expresses the essence of human existence before God.

Jesus intercedes for us as our mediator before the Father; he asks him that his disciples may be one, “so that the world may believe” (Jn 17:21). This is what comforts us and inspires us to be one with Jesus, and thus to pray: “Grant us the gift of unity, so that the world may believe in the power of your mercy”. This is the testimony the world expects from us. We Christians will be credible witnesses of mercy to the extent that forgiveness, renewal and reconciliation are daily experienced in our midst. Together we can proclaim and manifest God’s mercy, concretely and joyfully, by upholding and promoting the dignity of every person. Without this service to the world and in the world, Christian faith is incomplete.

As Lutherans and Catholics, we pray together in this Cathedral, conscious that without God we can do nothing. We ask his help, so that we can be living members, abiding in him, ever in need of his grace, so that together we may bring his word to the world, which so greatly needs his tender love and mercy. [link]

For Mr. Keating, the Reformation appears to be all about ecclesiastical corruption and an abhorrence of papal power. Ironically the Pope though captured the essence of Luther's Reformation: the centrality of the Word of God and how one can stand before a holy God. In my opinion, Mr. Keating's essay demonstrates a profound difference between serious Protestants and Roman Catholics. From my perspective, if an emphasis on proclaiming the sole infallibility and centrality of Scripture and an emphasis on a right relationship with a Holy God caused wars and divisions, so be it. If it causes World War III, then so be it. From my perspective, "Reformation Day" is not about celebrating or commemorating a past event (though that is part of it), it's primarily about giving allegiance to the principles of sola scriptura and sola fide in the ongoing life of the catholic church.

 Addendum #1: Pope Francis on Luther (June 2016)

Fr. Lombardi: Thank you Holiness, and so now we give the word to Tilmann Kleinjung, who is from the ARD, from the national German radio and also I think this might be his last trip so we are happy to give him this possibility.

Kleinjung (ARD): Yes, also I am about to depart for Bavaria. Thanks for this question.

Pope Francis: Too much beer!

Kleinjung: Too much beer … Holy Father, I wanted to ask you a question. Today you spoke of the gifts of the shared Churches, of the gifts shared by the Churches together. Seeing that you will go in I believe four months to Lund for the commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the reformation, I think perhaps this is also the right moment for us not only to remember the wounds on both sides but also to recognize the gifts of the reformation. Perhaps also – this is a heretical question – perhaps to annul or withdraw the excommunication of Martin Luther or of some sort of rehabilitation. Thank you.

Pope Francis: I think that the intentions of Martin Luther were not mistaken. He was a reformer. Perhaps some methods were not correct. But in that time, if we read the story of the Pastor, a German Lutheran who then converted when he saw reality – he became Catholic – in that time, the Church was not exactly a model to imitate. There was corruption in the Church, there was worldliness, attachment to money, to power...and this he protested. Then he was intelligent and took some steps forward justifying, and because he did this. And today Lutherans and Catholics, Protestants, all of us agree on the doctrine of justification. On this point, which is very important, he did not err. He made a medicine for the Church, but then this medicine consolidated into a state of things, into a state of a discipline, into a way of believing, into a way of doing, into a liturgical way and he wasn’t alone; there was Zwingli, there was Calvin, each one of them different, and behind them were who? Principals! We must put ourselves in the story of that time. It’s a story that’s not easy to understand, not easy. Then things went forward, and today the dialogue is very good. That document of justification I think is one of the richest ecumenical documents in the world, one in most agreement. But there are divisions, and these also depend on the Churches. In Buenos Aires there were two Lutheran churches, and one thought in one way and the other...even in the same Lutheran church there was no unity; but they respected each other, they loved each other, and the difference is perhaps what hurt all of us so badly and today we seek to take up the path of encountering each other after 500 years. I think that we have to pray together, pray. Prayer is important for this. Second, to work together for the poor, for the persecuted, for many people, for refugees, for the many who suffer; to work together and pray together and the theologians who study together try...but this is a long path, very long. One time jokingly I said: I know when full unity will happen. - “when?” - “the day after the Son of Man comes,” because we don’t know...the Holy Spirit will give the grace, but in the meantime, praying, loving each other and working together. Above all for the poor, for the people who suffer and for peace and many things...against the exploitation of people and many things in which they are jointly working together.

Addendum #2: Interview With Pope Francis 10/28/16

Father Ulf Jonsson: In ecumenical dialogue, the different communities should be mutually enriched with the best of their traditions. What could the Catholic Church learn from the Lutheran tradition?

Pope Francis: Two words come to my mind: «reform» and «Scripture». I will try to explain. The first is the word «reform». At the beginning, Luther’s was a gesture of reform in a difficult time for the Church. Luther wanted to remedy a complex situation. Then this gesture—also because of the political situations, we think also of the cuius regio eius religio (whose realm, his religion) —became a «state» of separation, and not a process of reform of the whole Church, which is fundamental, because the Church is semper reformanda (always reforming). The second word is «Scripture», the Word of God. Luther took a great step by putting the Word of God into the hands of the people. Reform and Scripture are two things that we can deepen by looking at the Lutheran tradition. The General Congregations before the Conclave comes to mind and how the request for a reform was alive in our discussions.

The appearance of idolatry and treating Mary as a mediator

1 Timothy 2:5
Revelation 19:10; 22:8-9

 Deuteronomy 18:11 

1 Samuel 28:1-25

1 Chronicles 10:13-14

Basic Biblical doctrine

The recent video put out by Pope Francis is a contradiction to basic Biblical doctrine, that Christ is the only way of salvation and the only way to reach God.
John 14:6
Acts 4:12
Romans 10:13-15
John 3:18

A Roman Catholic may say something like, "the Pope actually never directly contradicts those verses; he is just saying we should talk and dialogue with one another, with people from other religions, and we should consider all people "children of God"; and they are sincerely seeking for God and they "believe in love" also.  Turretinfan is correct about the proper understanding of "Children of God" ; yet the Roman apologists would probably say that the Pope means that we are all children of God in the sense of nature and creation - "brothers and sisters in humanity".  He should make that clear, if he wants to preach truth and the gospel with other people of other religions.

The failure to preach the gospel and speak the truth in this context is a failure of basic responsibilities of a pastor/elder/overseer (bishop).  He (and the doctrine of the Papal office) claims to be "the bishop over all bishops", and this is a massive failure of duty.

We can still have respectful dialogue with other religions, but we need to preach the gospel (2 Timothy 4:1-7), be involved in Christian apologetics and speak it with gentleness and respect ( 1 Peter 3:15), speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15-16), and defend the faith once for all delivered to the saints.  (Jude 3)  But the Roman Church officially rejected justification by faith alone at Trent (1545-1563) and has been adding more and more traditions of man (Mark 7; Matthew 15; Colossians 2:8) to their dogmas.

The video gives the impression that Buddhism, Judaism, and Islam are equally valid roads to God and understanding of what true love is.  The plastic baby doll Jesus as representing Christianity is typical Roman Catholic external physical emphasis that is crude and gaudy and comes across, when RCs stand before it and pray and worship, - it comes across as idolatry.  As does praying to Mary.

If post Vatican 2 theology is wrong (and it certainly seems to contradict previous RC theology, especially in the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 841 (Muslims worship the same God as Christians) and 847 (atheists  and pagans who have never heard of Christ can be saved), then this is another step in showing why there are the "Traditional" Roman Catholics, the "Rad-Trad" Roman Catholics and Sedevacantists, and the whole RC claim of unity is an empty promise.  And it also shows that Papal infallibility is wrong.




As John Bugay has commented on this video also, the Pope is channeling the classic liberalism of "Adolph Von Harnack"

Roman Catholic commercial video during Papal visit

I noticed this Roman Catholic commercial video being played a lot recently on Fox News.  Seems the timing was to go with the visit of Pope Francis.  (Jorge Bergoglio)



This is a very well done video for the time that it takes.

Problems:
1.  It assumes "catholic" is the same as "Roman Catholic". (without even mentioning the phrase, "Roman Catholic")
2.  It subtly claims the Roman Catholic Church compiled the Bible.  This is false.  The early church testified, affirmed, discerned, discovered, and put under one "book cover" which texts were "God-breathed"/ inspired.  (2 Timothy 3:16)  They called themselves "catholic" in the sense of "universal" / "according to the whole" / able to grow in all nations and cultures (Revelation 5:9), but it was not the same church doctrinally that today claims the Papacy, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Indulgences, Marian dogmas, Marian piety, praying to Mary, praying to statues and icons, denial of Justification by Faith Alone at Trent, etc.
3.  It claims Peter was the first Pope.
Many problems with that.  See below in Dr. White's lecture on the Dividing Line.
4.  The mention of "sacred tradition", in addition to the written Scriptures.
5.  claimed 2000 years of an unbroken line of shepherds.

There may be other problems, but those are the 5 that stuck out to me.

Dr. White did an excellent DL yesterday, on Sept. 23, about the current Pope and Papacy:



Take note of the 5 things that Roman Catholics have to prove as true all at the same time in the last half of his lecture.

The closing Scripture verses Dr. White pointed to were from Acts 20:17-32.  Acts 20:32 - "And now I commend to God and the word of His grace, which is about to build you up and to give the inheritance among those who are being sanctified."

Some other things about the Papal visit of Pope Francis.  It seems, from what I have read, that President Obama and/ or the White House staff deliberately invited a bunch of homosexuals, trans-gender activists, and Roman Catholics for abortion, in order to cause this Pope some discomfort, or embarrass him, or give him a message, or protest his views on same sex marriage and abortion.  That is shameful, IMO.  His statement's on homosexuality have been weak and unclear, but as conservative RC's have pointed out, he has not changed church doctrine on that issue.  I can appreciate and respect the Roman Catholic Church's stand against abortion and stand for marriage as one man and one woman, etc.

The current Pope's opposition to the death penalty ( I have never understood that, even for first degree murder, since I started hearing about that from the time of John Paul 2) and leftist views of the borders, illegal immigration, global warming, and capitalism are revealing.

Addendum:  The Debate on the Papacy that Dr. White had with Mitch Pacwa in 1998:

"Pope Francis Calls All Catholics to Evangelize"

"Pope Francis Calls All Catholics to Evangelize" is a web article recently published by Crisis Magazine reviewing some comments made by the Pope. While the Pope's comments say one thing, the article from Crisis Magazine moves the Pope's comments in a different direction. Skim through the Crisis Magazine article with this question in mind: what exactly are potential converts being "evangelized" to?

One doesn't need to go far into the article for the answer to this question:

"While it is certainly true that all roads lead to Rome, there is something to be said for all those other roads leading out from Rome. In other words, before we set out on the road to Rome, shouldn’t there be something already in place, in Rome, the gravitational pull of which first radiates out to the world? Only then may it draw the distant and weary traveler back home to Rome."

And also:

"Rome is the Inn at the world’s end. And we do not love her, as Chesterton wisely reminded us, because she is great. It is rather because she is loved that she is great. Ah, but in order to be loved she must first be lovely, and thus in her loveliness she goes out in search of other people to love. This is why her immediate impulse must always be to build bridges, not walls. First she goes out in search of the lost sheep, putting down bridges so as to reach them; only later does she throw up walls to surround and protect them from wolves."

The article goes on to cite Mathew 28:19-20 as being in harmony with converting people to "Rome" and wonders why Roman Catholics "seem so strangely, stubbornly resistant to the idea, the injunction actually, to go out and spread the Good News." And also, "Thus to evangelize is not just a task undertaken from time to time; or even most of the time. It is, to put it simply, the Church’s defining identity; it is what she exists for." But an equivocation occurs off and on throughout the article that evangelism is "testifying to Jesus Christ." But ultimately, the evangelism of the article is to join the Roman church. The author cites Pope Francis stating, “Those who are well mannered, who do everything well, but are unable to bring people to the Church through proclamation and Apostolic zeal.”

The article goes on to mention the apostle Paul:

"How very unlike the Apostle Paul, who could not even bring himself to boast about his own preaching since to do so was nothing more than an exigency inscribed in the gospels themselves. “Woe to me if I do not evangelize” (1 Cor 9:16)."

Yet, when one reads Paul, one does not find him preaching that one must join the Roman church. Even in 1 Cor. 9:16, Paul's zeal in evangelism is "so that by all possible means I might save some." This is where Rome's push for their version of evangelism breaks down, because for the most part, when they're calling a wayward Protestant or an Eastern Orthodox person back to Rome, they aren't saving them.  The Catholic Catechism states:

However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

Since the Roman church thinks they're the dispensers of grace, whatever truth about Jesus Christ that any non-Romanist has is being mediated through... the Roman church. The Catechism states:

"Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church.

Now frankly, this smacks of arrogance. Isn't a Roman "evangelist" ultimately speaking down to you when they attempt to evangelize you? They have 100% of the truth, you have whatever has been filtered out through the Roman church, and have it in some sort of inferior way. You may have "the written Word of God" but you don't have it in its fullness. You may have "the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity" but it's only a half-life, or perhaps worse depending on how far away you are from Rome's current understanding of things. The "interior gifts of the Holy Spirit"... would you have more of the Holy Spirit if you join Rome? Show me any verse in the Bible that validates these statements from the Catechism.

Such articles like this recent offering from Crisis Magazine are good reminders that Rome's defenders often mean something very different when they speak of evangelism. Such an article is also a perfect example as to why I stand so strongly against Roman Catholic apologetics.  Their primary goal is conversion to a church hierarchy, not Jesus Christ.