WI Luther did not challenge Catholic sacramental doctrine?

WI Luther did not challenge key aspects of Catholic doctrine, and remained committed to political reform of the Roman Church only?

As is well known, Luther's initial concerns rested with Rome's abuse of indulgences as income generators for the papacy. Also high among his concerns was the abuse of Mass stipends for votive Masses on behalf of beneficiaries. This latter action proved an important source of income for monasteries, and in fact remains an income source for some monasteries. (Do know, however, that nowadays many priests will happily say their daily Mass gratis for your intentions -- just ask.) The sale of indulgences is now strictly prohibited and Mass stipends are regulated, but these reforms appeared long after Luther's criticisms.

These criticisms, as well as discomfort with clerical celibacy and its abuses, were not Luther's alone. However, Luther eventually denied core doctrines of Catholicism in two prominent areas. He sharply criticized Catholic eucharistic theology, replacing the idea of propitatory sacrifice with a reliance on the "promise" of divine presence through the repetition of scriptural passages only. He also rejected the role of theological and historical development in the beliefs of the Church, preferring to affirm beliefs only found in scripture. His denial of the Canon of the Mass and its sacrificial character, as well as sola scriptura, struck at the heart of Catholic ideas of salvation and grace.

Would Luther still have rejected reconciliation with the institutional Church if his criticisms called a council and political-financial concerns were corrected? Or was his eventual rejection of Catholic sacramentality and development of doctrine the flaming sword between him and the Catholic theological-doctrinal tradition?
 
Last edited:
What if Luther...?

I think the key word is "eventual". As I read the history, it seems the later developments came as a result of continued argument.
If the Church has acted on his criticisms - which were widely held all through Europe, it is very possible that he would have remained within the system. After all, virtually every one of his points had been suggested previously. a lot of Catholic doctinre was not defined until the Council of Trent, when the arguments with the Protestants effectively forced the issues.
Many in the Curia and wider church knew that the indulgences were an abuse, unfortunately the "realists" argued that the loss of income could not be risked. Fear "realists", they usually do more damage in the not-so-long run than the changes needed.
 
Would Luther still have rejected reconciliation with the institutional Church if his criticisms called a council and political-financial concerns were corrected? Or was his eventual rejection of Catholic sacramentality and development of doctrine the flaming sword between him and the Catholic theological-doctrinal tradition?

No, Luther would have been reintegrated into Catholic monastic society and there would never have been a sign of a split in the history books. However, the act of the Pope agreeing to a Council would destroy the Pope's power in a way comparable to the collapse of royal supremacy in England after the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution. It was a massive decision, and some experts on the area might even call it ASB to say that any Pope would agree to what Luther was demanding. I certainly would.
 
No, Luther would have been reintegrated into Catholic monastic society and there would never have been a sign of a split in the history books. However, the act of the Pope agreeing to a Council would destroy the Pope's power in a way comparable to the collapse of royal supremacy in England after the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution. It was a massive decision, and some experts on the area might even call it ASB to say that any Pope would agree to what Luther was demanding. I certainly would.
I THINK you're overstating the case, if only a little. Popes had called Councils in the past, and it limited their powers, but not 'destroyed' it. It might well end the 'Papal Infallibility' theory, which is certainly current at the time, although not dogma until when 1900? It would take a very unlikely pope - either one so weak he was forced into it, so strong he could control it, or so holy that he didn't care about politics. None of those are totally ASB. :))Well, maybe the last is.)
 
Top