The Evangelization Station

Martin Luther, the Father of the Protestant Revolt

Victor R. Claveau, MJ

Mention the Reformation and the rotund figure of the ex-Augustinian friar rises up before the imagination. Martin Luther, the “Father of the Reformation” was born Martin Luder, son of Hans Luder and Margaret Ziegler in Eisleben, Saxony on Nov. 10, 1483. Luther ever manifested the coarse traits of the medieval Saxon peasant in his speech and manner. He was sensitive, morose, gloomy and subject to bouts of depression. His parents were strong-willed, hot-tempered and at times abusive. His memory of their punishments remained with him throughout his life.

In a Life of Luther by Alexander Chalmers, Luther provides a self-description:

“I am a peasant’s son, and my father, grandfather, and great-grandfather were all common peasants. My father went to Mansfeldt, where he got employment in the mines; and there I was born. That I should become a bachelor of arts, doctor of divinity, and what not, seemed not to be written in the stars. How I must have surprised folks by turning monk; and then, again, by changing the brown cap for another! By so doing I occasioned real grief and trouble to my father. Afterwards I went to loggers with the pope, married a runaway nun, and had children by her. Who foresaw these things in the stars? Who could have foretold that they were to come to pass?”[1] 

In school, he was a hard working, fast learner with a retentive memory, naturally proud and rebellious, often in trouble with school authorities. He entered the University of Erfurt at the age of eighteen in the spring of 1501 and completed the prescribed course in philosophy. He received a bachelor’s degree at age nineteen and a master’s at age twenty-two.

            Although his father wanted him to study law, he entered a monastery of Augustinian hermits in Erfurt in July 1505. A year later he took his vows as “Friar Augustine.” His superiors showed him many signs of confidence and on April 3, 1507, Luther was ordained to the priesthood although he had scarcely begun the study of theology. Overwhelmed with the fear of rubrical error he delayed his first Mass until May 2nd and then had to be forcibly restrained from leaving the altar.[2] Let us hear in his own words, his feelings: “When I said my first mass at Erfurt, I was well nigh dead, for I was without faith. My only notion of myself was, that I was a very worthy person. I had no idea that I was a sinner.”[3] He was sent on a mission to Rome; but, contrary to assertions sometimes made, this mission did not weaken his faith or his loyalty to the Church. He was appointed professor of Theology at the University of Wittenberg and pastor of a church in that city. It was there that in 1513 that he began the movement we have learned to call the Reformation.

Noted British historian Philip Hughes explains Luther’s real intentions:

“What that movement will chiefly be in Luther’s intention, is not a crusade to reform the moral lives of Catholics, clerics as well as layfolk, but rather a crusade against Catholicism itself, observant, conscientious, dutiful Catholicism, now considered to be a corruption of the Gospel of Christ.”[4]

As the entire world is aware, the final tearing of the fabric of Church teaching began when Martin Luther nailed his ninety-five theses to the castle church door at Wittenberg on October 31, 1517[5]. From that time on, to the final break with the Church of Rome, Luther protested over and over again that he was loyal to the See of Peter.

Mulloy writes:

“In order to justify separation from the Papacy and the tearing apart of the unity of Christendom, the Protestant Reformers and their disciples developed a new conception of Church history in which the cardinal article of faith was the identification of the Pope as Antichrist; and the Middle Ages were seen as the time when his power over mankind was at its greatest. This was of course a revolutionary attitude involving a great deal of bitterness and hostility against the Catholic Church.”[6]

What events of Luther’s life could have possibly led him to openly defy the established Church? Daniel- Rops states:

“The obstacle which barred Luther’s way to the path of peace and love was his concept of God. He insists that this was the picture shown to him in religious life. ‘We paled at the mere mention of Christ’s Name, for He was always depicted as a stern judge who was angry with us.’ Was it necessary to work oneself to death in prayer, fasting and mortification from fear of a Master wielding the rod of chastisement, a Divine Executioner? What was the good of it all, since one could not even be sure of melting His wrath? ‘When will you do enough to obtain God’s mercy?’ he asked himself in anguish. In that age of misery, the message of Christ’s love seemed sterile; there remained only the atrocious doctrine of inevitable punishment meted out by an inexorable judge.”[7]

Daniel-Rops goes on to say:

“To such a man as Luther, obsessed with the desire to appease his terrible God, and deriving not the slightest comfort from his prayers and mortifications, one system in particular provided a kind of answer: Ockamist Nominalism, in which, as we have seen, he had been brought up[8]. Luther had discovered from the writings of this school not only that man could overcome sin by will alone, but also that no human action became meritorious unless God acknowledged it and willed it to be so.”[9] 

Luther’s basic doctrine was a denial of free will. Man’s nature, he said, had been corrupted by the fall of Adam and that we are quite incapable of willing, except as guided by God. Our works, good or bad are not our own.

As an Augustinian friar, Luther studied the writings of the order’s namesake. Augustine’s writings against Mani[10] (397), the Famous Faustus[11] (400), Secundinus[12] (405), and (about 415) the fatalistic Priscillianists and astrologers[13] contain his unquestionable views on the eternal problem of evil, that proclaim that every work of God is good and that the only source of moral evil is the liberty of creatures. Augustine takes up the defense of free will with such enthusiasm that his works against the Manichæns are an inexhaustible storehouse of arguments in this controversy.

The Reformers, including Calvin, appealed so confidently to St. Augustine’s volumes that it seems only fair to note the real difference, which exists between his doctrine and theirs. Cardinal Newman sums it up as follows:

“The main point is whether the Moral Law can in its substance be obeyed and kept by the regenerate. Augustine says, that whereas we are by nature condemned by the Law, we are enabled by the grace of God to perform it unto our justification; Luther [and Calvin equally] that, whereas we are condemned by the law, Christ has Himself performed it unto our justification; -Augustine, that our righteousness is active; Luther, that it is passive; Augustine, that it is imparted; Luther, that it is only imputed; Augustine, that it consists in a change of heart; Luther, in a change of state. Luther maintains that God’s commandments are impossible to man; Augustine adds, impossible without His grace,–Luther, that the Gospel consists of promises only; Augustine, that it is also a law; Luther, that our highest wisdom is not to know the Law; Augustine says instead, to know and keep it;-Luther says, that the Law and Christ cannot dwell together in the heart; Augustine says, that the Law is Christ; Luther denies and Augustine maintains that obedience is a matter of conscience;-Luther says, that a man is made a Christian not by working but by hearing; Augustine excludes those works only which are done before grace is given;-Luther, that our best deeds are sins; Augustine, that they are really pleasing to God” (Lectures on Justification, Ch. II, 58).

Luther’s belief evidently evolved out of his own fruitless struggle against temptation and sin. He was a victim of his own scrupulosity and strong passions which he failed to control, and when released, sent him into the depths of remorse and depression.

As a nervous, sensitive young religious who had entered the monastery without a true vocation, Luther, no doubt, had to struggle against many trials and temptations. He was tormented by a constant sense of his own sinfulness in spite of contrition and penance, and by the thought of his own unworthiness in the sight of God’s awful majesty.

According to Eberhardt, scrupulosity was the first marked trait in Luther’s character:

“Luther remained scrupulous over his confessions, repeating them continually until his novice master reminder him: ‘Recall the article of the Creed: I believe in the forgiveness of sins.’ Recurring terrors seized him. Besides the incident of his first Mass, it is alleged that during a reading of the Gospel of the man possessed, he fell on the floor, exclaiming: ‘It is not I; it is not I!’ Scrupulosity reappears in his concern for emotional assurance of salvation. But it would be erroneous to consider Luther as ever beset with scruples, for he seems to have left his worries behind him whenever he plunged into active work. By reaction his conscience became, if anything, lax.”[14]

Vaughan, a psychologist specializing in the treatment of mental illness in religious, provides some insight to the personality of a person beset with this personality disorder.

“The perceptive confessor or psychiatrist who has had frequent contact with the scrupulous becomes ever more aware of a characteristic which seems to be common among those who suffer from this disorder: deep underlying anger and hostility. The far-reaching extent of this feeling is often completely unknown to the scrupulous person. Yet, this unconscious hostility and anger gives his behavior a peculiar twist. It is not unusual to find a scrupulous person who is almost oblivious of the demands of charity and at the same time absolutely absurd in his observance of the sixth commandment.[15] Present day psychiatric thinking looks upon this feeling of hostility as the core (at least in part) of the obsessive-compulsive personality disorder.”[16]

Vaughan goes on to say:

“The manifestations of scrupulosity may take many different forms. There are some scrupulous religious who are just chronically anxious. At ant time they are faced with the task of making a judgement on the morality of an act, they become filled with fear. They are afraid that they are going to make a mistake, which will condemn them for all eternity. The idea of God’s mercy is quite foreign to them. In the time of a decision, the only thing that stands out is an all-just and almost tyrannical God weighing every aspect of this or that act, and then condemning them to Hell for all eternity because they made a mistake in judgement. They live in constant fear of being too easy with themselves of deceiving themselves. As a consequence, they run from one priest to another, checking whether they have made the correct decision in regard to this or that action. A few of these religious can develop a trusting confidence (which in reality is almost complete dependence) in one confessor. As long as they can confess to this one priest, they gain a certain peace of mind until the next crisis arises. Others are so insecure and lacking in trust that they never feel satisfied with just one authority but must constantly check one authority against another. These religious who become overly anxious whenever they are faced with moral decisions are neurotic, but they would not be classified as obsessive-compulsive neurotics.”[17]

It is not surprising that this anxiety complex induced a chronic psychopathic state in Luther.

As a necessary help for his condition, he developed the theology of the sufficiency of faith. He reasoned that man cannot avoid sinning because sin is part of his nature, yet he must save his soul. What is a person to do? Believe; simply believe! This is all a person can do and it is all that is necessary. Luther wrote “Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly… No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day.”[18]

Simplified, Luther’s doctrine was faith alone, the Bible alone, interpreted by yourself alone. Luther went to the Bible as the only source of enlightenment. If the Bible went against his theories, he repudiated the Bible, in part, and interpreted it to suit himself. The new faith was subversive. No previous heresiarch ever went so far.

It was the demands of controversy that first led Martin Luther to choose between the Alexandrian and Palestinian canons of Old Testament Scripture.

The ablest Catholic theologian of the day in Germany was Dr. Johann Eck[19] of the University of Ingolstadt. Some three years younger than Luther, he completed his master’s degree at the University of Tübingen at the early age of fourteen, while Luther was still only an undergraduate. In May 1518, Luther’s friend Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, who had sometime before committed himself publicly and enthusiastically in support of Luther’s theology assailed Eck in a series of theses. The Wittenberg faculty arranged a series of debates. The debates between Eck and Karlstadt on grace and free will took place during June and July 1519, in the castle Pleissenburg at Leipzig, with the permission and in the presence of Duke George of Saxony. Since Karlstadt was simply endeavoring to support and defend Luther, Eck challenged Luther directly. Luther appeared and bore his share in the debate chiefly debating the primacy of the pope (13th thesis). When Eck pointed out that Luther was reviving the heresy of Wyclif and Hus, which had been condemned by the Church, Luther denied the infallibility of general councils, especially of Constance, which had condemned their heresies. Although the principle of divine law, the papal supremacy and the authority of councils were the subjects of most of the debate, Purgatory[20], indulgences[21], and penance[22] were also the subjects of controversy.

Eck, who was skilled in the art of debate, proved his points easily and lucidly, but Luther’s hot-temper and inflexibility prevented the men from reaching any agreement. The conflict was continued by means of the press. There soon appeared a flood of contentious literature in the form of pamphlets illustrated with hateful caricatures aimed at belittling the pope, the cardinals, priests and monks who opposed Luther’s new doctrines. These writings did much to subvert the masses and promote the cause of the revolt.

Luther did not fare well during his debate with Eck and later denounced him in An Open Letter to Pope Leo X.

“When I had made some progress in these studies [scripture], Satan opened his eyes and then filled his servant Johann Eck, a notable enemy of Christ, with an insatiable lust for glory and the aroused him to drag me unawares to a debate, seizing me by means of one little word which I had let slip concerning the primacy of Rome.”[23]

The Leipzig disputation became a turning point for Luther. Since he rejected the teaching authority of the Church and Sacred Tradition, he was forced to fall back on Scripture alone as the only support for his principles. It was at this time that Luther developed the formal principle of Protestantism: Sola Scriptura. It became patently evident that he had voluntarily rejected the great body of Catholic teaching. The affair could no longer be viewed as an academic squabble over minor theories; it was an absolute denial of the teaching and divine organization of the Catholic Church.

Grisar explains Luther’s choice of the Palestinian canon over the Alexandrian canon of scripture:

“In his debates with his principal opponent Johann Eck, at Leipzig from June 27 to July 16, 1518, when Eck cited the well-known text from 2 Maccabees (12:46) in proof of the doctrine of purgatory and the efficacy of prayers for the dead, Luther replied that the passage had no binding authority since the book was outside the canon.”[24]

Luther developed his own, new, doctrine on salvation: “Justification[25] by faith alone.” This doctrine excluded the belief in an intermediate state of existence for the soul after death, a state that Catholics call purgatory.

The belief in the dogma of purgatory is an article of faith for Catholics, in other words, a required belief. The reality of purgatory was denied by Luther (cf. The Schmalcaldic Article, Pars. II. Art. II, Sec. 12-15), and by Calvin (Instit. III 5, 6-10). The doctrine is found in the writings of a number of the Church Fathers, the following are but a few excerpts:

St. Basil the Great, Bishop and Doctor of the Church[26] (329-379 A.D.):

“A man who is under sentence of death, knowing that there is One who saves, One who delivers, says: ‘In you I have hoped, save me’ from my inability ‘and deliver me’ from captivity. I think that the noble athletes of God, who have wrestled all their lives with the invisible enemies, after they have escaped all of their persecutions and have come to the end of life, are examined by the prince of this world; and if they are found to have any wounds from their wrestling, any stains or effects of sin, they are detained. If, however, they are found unwounded and without stain, they are, as unconquered brought by Christ into their rest” (Homilies on the Psalms, 7, no. 2., ante A.D. 370).[27]

St. Augustine, Bishop, theologian, and Doctor of the Church (354-430 A.D.):

‘Neither chasten me in your hot displeasure’ (Ps. 37:2) …  so that you may cleanse me in this life, and make me such, that I may after that stand in no need of the cleansing fire, for those ‘who are to be saved, yet so as by fire’ (1 Cor. 3:15). And because it is said, ‘he shall be saved,’ that fire is thought lightly of. For all that, though we should be ‘saved by fire,’ yet will that fire be more grievous that anything that man can suffer in this life whatsoever (Expositions on the Psalms, 37:3, inter A.D. 392-418).[28]

St. Gregory (the Great), Pope, Doctor of the Church (540-604 A.D.):

“Each one will be presented to the judge exactly as he was when he departed this life. Yet, there must be a cleansing fire before judgement, because of some minor faults that may remain to be purged away. Does not Christ, the Truth, say that if anyone blasphemes against the Holy Spirit he shall not be forgiven ‘either in this world or in the world to come’ (Mt. 12:32)? From this statement we learn that some sins can be forgiven in this world and some in the world to come. For, if forgiveness is refused for a particular sin, we conclude logically that it is granted for others. This must apply, as I said, to slight transgressions” (Dialogues, 4:39, A. D. 593).[29]

“In 1 Cor. 3:12,15 St Paul asserts: ‘Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble-each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.’  ‘If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire,” that is in the manner of a man who, in the catastrophe of a conflagration, loses everything and barely saves his life. The Apostle is speaking of a transient punishment of the Day of the General Judgement, probably consisting of severe tribulations after which the final salvation will take place. The Latin Fathers take the passage to mean a transient purification punishment in the other world. They interpret the words ‘as by fire’ all too literally in the sense of a physical fire.’” [30]

If a soul is in heaven it has no need of prayer; if a soul is in hell, prayer will be of no avail. Belief in prayer for the dead indicates a belief in a state of existence for the soul after death, where prayer would be efficacious. The Fathers clearly expound that the prayers of the living can help the souls of the dead detained in purgatory:

Tertullian, theologian and ecclesiastical writer (c.160-after 220 A.D.):

“We offer sacrifices for the dead on their birthday anniversaries” (The Crown, 3,2, A.D. 211).[31]

St. John Chrysostom, Father and Doctor of the Church (c. 349-407 A.D.):

“Not in vain did the Apostles order that remembrance should be made of the dead in the dreadful mysteries. They know that great gain results to them, great benefit; for when the whole people stands with uplifted hands, a priestly assembly, and that awful Sacrifice lies displayed, how shall we not prevail with God by our entreaties for them. And this we do for those who have departed in faith” (Homilies on Philippians, 3:4, inter A.D. 398-404).[32]

St. Augustine:

“In the books of the Maccabees we read of sacrifice offered for the dead. Even if it were nowhere at all read in the Old Scriptures, not small is the authority, which in this usage is clear, of the whole Church, namely, that in the prayers of the priest which are offered to the Lord God at His altar, the commemoration of the dead has also its place.” (On the care to be had for the dead, Ch. 1:3, A.D. 421).[33]

In order to clarify the Church’s position on Purgatory, it must be stated that purgatory is not, so to speak, considered to be a second chance of salvation. Scripture is replete with passages that can be cited that attest to the fact that nothing profane will come into contact with the Almighty, i.e., 2 Sam. 6:7; Ex.28:35; Rev. 21:27 “But nothing unclean may enter it [heaven], nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life.)” Christ calls us to perfection: “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”[34] Christ calls us to be perfect in our love for him. Nothing less is acceptable in order for a person to enter heaven. Simply put, all sin is the result of pride and selfishness. In order to sin, a person must know that the thought or action is against the will of God. In other words, it is saying to God, “Not your will be done, but my will be done.” This is fundamentally the sin of idolatry. If when we die our love of God and also our love for others are total and complete, then and only then, will we be brought immediately into His presence. If there are vestiges of this destructive self-love that caused the sin it must be purged from the soul before it can enter the beatific vision of heaven.  Only those that have been saved through baptism and yet die with stain of sin on their soul enter purgatory. Rather than view purgatory as a punishment, it is proper to understand it as one more example of God’s infinite mercy.

2 Macc. 12:43-46 provides the primary scriptural foundation for the Catholic belief in purgatory.[35] There was no legitimate defense for Luther to remove the Second Book of Maccabees alone, so he simply excluded the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament as the Jews of old had done fourteen centuries before, albeit, for entirely different reasons. He wrote: “I am so great an enemy to the second book of the Maccabees, and to Esther, that I wish they had not come to us at all, for they have too many heathen unnaturalities.”[36] In his German edition of the Bible, published in 1534, the deuterocanonical books are grouped together at the end of the Old Testament under the title: “Apocrypha”, adding that they are “books not to be regarded as equal to Holy Writ, but which are useful and good to read.”[37] In simple terms, because these books which had been accepted by Jesus Christ, his apostles, and his Church for fifteen centuries did not support his personal theology, he removed them.

Luther also rejected from the canon the Letters of Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Book of Revelation from his Bible. These books he placed at the end of his translation. He accepted or rejected New Testament books, according to whether or not he found what he considered the “Gospel” in them. “He says: ‘The first three (gospels) speak of the works of Our Lord rather than of his oral teachings: that of St. John is the only sympathetic, the only true Gospel and should be undoubtedly preferred to the others. In a like manner the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Paul are superior to the first three Gospels.’ The Epistle to the Hebrews did not suit him. ‘It need not surprise one to find here,’ he says, ‘bits of wood, hay and straw.’ The Epistle of St. James, Luther denounced as ‘An epistle of straw,’ ‘I do not hold to it,’ he said, ‘to be his writing, and I cannot place it among the capital books.’ He did this because it proclaimed the necessity of good works contrary to this heresy. ‘There are many things objectionable in this book.’ he says of the Apocalypse; ‘to my mind it bears upon it no marks of an apostolic or prophetic character.”[38]

O’Hare explains:

“With the touchstone of whether the books of Scripture ‘enhance Christ or not,’ everyone is in the last analysis left to his own personal judgement. When Luther referred both the fanatics and the orthodox who appealed to Scripture against him to its true meaning, then, ultimately, the reformer’s personal experience of Christ decided the meaning of Scripture.”[39]

[1] The Table Talk of Martin Luther, Translated And edited by William Hazlitt, (London: G. Bell & Sons, LTD.), 1911, p. xxv.

  • [2] Newman C. Eberhardt, A Summary of Catholic History, (St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1962), Vol. 2, p. 139.

[3] Table Talk, p. xxviii.

  • [4] Philip Hughes, A Popular History of the Reformation, (New York: Hanover House, 1957), p. 101.
  • [5] In actuality, according to Jedin, pp. 47-48, Luther sent the ninety-fire theses to the bishops concerned on that date, the eve of All Saints. Only when these prelates did not reply, or replied in an unsatisfactory manner, did he, as he maintained throughout his life, distribute them to learned men in and outside Wittenberg. A posting of the theses at the Wittenberg castle church on 31 October 1517 is incompatible with these statements of Luther. Neither Luther himself nor any other of the numerous contemporary sources refers to such a move.    —
  • [6] John J. Mulloy, Christianity and the Challenge of History, (Front Royal, Virginia: Christendom Press, 1995), p. 144.
  • [7] Ibid. P. 21.
  • [8] See Henri Daniel-Rops, Cathedral and Crusade, (Garden City, New York, Image Books, 1957) Vol. II, pp. 328-29, which deals with William of Ockham and his ideas and principles.
  • [9] Daniel-Rops, The Protestant Reformation, Vol. II, p. 22.
  • [10] De Natura Boni Contra Manichæos, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. IV, Philip Schaff, D.D., L.L.D., ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1991), p. 357.
  • [11] Contra Faustum Manichæum, Patrologiae cursus completus, series Latina, ed. J. P. Migne, Paris, 1844-1864, Vol. 42, p. 287-518.
  • [12] Ibid. Contra Secundinum Manichæum, Vol. 42, pp.577-602.
  • [13]   Ibid. Contra Priscillianistas et Origenistas. Vol. 42, pp. 669-678.

[14] Eberhardt, Vol. 2, p. 140.

[15] Author’s note: The Sixth Commandment is: “You shall not commit adultery.” Strictly speaking adultery means the commission of a sexual sin between a married person and someone who is not the married person’s partner. However, Christ speaks of adultery as including all sins against holy purity. The Sixth Commandment is a positive law. It demands that we love and esteem and preserve holy purity according to one’s state in life. All sins of impurity are opposed to the holiness of God, in whose image we are made.

[16] Vaughan, pp. 62-63.

[17] Ibid. pp. 63-64.

  • [18] Luther’s Works, Letters I, (Weimar ed. Vol. 2, p. 371, American ed. Vol. 48), p.282.
  • [19] Note: Real name John Mayr, born in the town of Eck in Swabia.
  • [20] An intermediate state between heaven and hell in which the saved soul can atone for unforgiven sins before receiving their final reward. See Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Schroeder, H. J., Trans. (St. Louis, Missouri, 1941), Session 25, and p. 214.
  • [21] The remission before God of the temporal punishment due to those sins of which the guilt has been forgiven, either in the sacrament of Penance or because of an act of perfect contrition, granted by the competent ecclesiastical authority out of the Treasury of the Church to the living by way of absolution, to the dead by way of suffrage.
  • [22] A sacrament of the New Law instituted by Christ in which by the absolution of a priest, acting as judge, sins committed after Baptism are forgiven to a person who confesses them with sorrow and a purpose of amendment. It is an article of faith for Catholics that this power was given to the Church in the circumstances related in John 20:21-23.
  • [23] Martin Luther’s Basic Theological writings, Timothy F. Lull, ed. (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press), p. 590.
  • [24] Hartmann Grisar, S.J., Luther, Vol. 5, (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1917), pp. 521f.
  • [25] In its active sense, Justification is the act of God declaring and making a person just; in its passive sense, it is the change in a soul, which passes from the state of sin to that of sanctifying grace or justice.

[26] Doctor of the Church is a title conferred on eminent ecclesiastical writers because of their learning and holiness of life; they are always canonized as saints.

  • [27] Jurgens, Vol. 2, p. 20.
  • [28] Willis, p. 499.
  • [30] Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co. Sixth ed., 1964) p. 483.
  • [31] Jurgens, Vol. 1, p. 151.
  • [33] Ibid. pp. 500-501.

[34] Matt. 5:48.

[35] See also: Matt. 5:25f; 12:32; Luke 12:58f; 1 Cor. 3:15; 1 Peter 3:18-20; 1 John 5:16; Rev. 5:3. 13.

  • [36] Table Talk, p. 11.
  • [37] Grisar, pp. 521f.
  • [38] O’Hare, p. 203.

New Post

Select A Catagory