From the Catholic Encyclopedia – “The basic idea of monasticism in all its varieties is seclusion or withdrawal from the world or society. The object of this is to achieve a life whose ideal is different from and largely at variance with that pursued by the majority of mankind; and the method adopted, no matter what its precise details may be, is always organized asceticism.”
“Monastic asceticism means the removal of obstacles of loving God…Life has come to mean renunciation. Broadly speaking, this renunciation has three great branches corresponding to the three evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience.”
Notice how the hierarchy of the Roman Cathlolic Church already imposes upon its lay people that the higher form of spiritual life with God is self-sacrifice, where as living normally in the world that we live in is deemed as second best, or worse than that – almost sinful.
What is taught on our part concerning Monastic Vows, will be better understood if it be remembered what has been the state of the monasteries, and how many things were daily done in those very monasteries, contrary to the Canons. In Augustine’s time they were free associations. Afterward, when discipline was corrupted, vows were everywhere added for the purpose of restoring discipline, as in a carefully planned prison. http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php - article27.3 Gradually, many other observances were added besides vows. And these fetters were laid upon many before the lawful age, contrary to the Canons.
如果我们记得修道院的真实情况和每天在修道院中有多少违背教义的事情发生，我们就能更好的理解关于修道誓言的教导。在奥古斯丁的年代修道院是自由的组织。但是随后纪律腐败，就产生了很多的誓言，旨在重建纪律，这使修道院变得如同精心设计的监狱一般。http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php - article27.3 除了誓言之外他们又逐渐加入了其它一些规条。他们违背教义把这些枷锁强加于未到规定年龄的人。
Our fathers point out that at first, monasteries were optional or voluntary back in Augustine’s day, but soon it became evident that as they needed to maintain better discipline in the monasteries more and more rules and laws and vows crept into the practice of the monastery. So then, what started out as a poisonous root, had now grown into an even more poisonous fruit as abuses to the faith were quite evident in Luther’s day.
Monasticism had its beginning in Egypt. Three names stand out prominently in its early development. The first man was St. Anthony, who retired into the desert about A.D. 285 and lived as a hermit. He died in 356 at the age of about 113 years. Many followed his example, and the number of hermits grew rapidly. Then another man, by the name of Pachomius, began to gather the hermits into colonies. A third man, Shenute, introduced the monastic vows.
Many also entered into this kind of life through ignorance, being unable to judge their own strength, though they were of sufficient age. Being thus ensnared, they were compelled to remain, even though some could have been freed by the kind provision of the Canons. And this was more the case in convents of women than of monks, although more consideration should have been shown the weaker sex. This rigor displeased many good men before this time, who saw that young men and maidens were thrown into convents for a living. They saw what unfortunate results came of this procedure, and what scandals were created, what snares were cast upon consciences! They were grieved that the authority of the Canons in so momentous a matter was utterly set aside and despised. To these evils was added such a persuasion concerning vows as, it is well known, in former times displeased even those monks who were more considerate. They taught that vows were equal to Baptism; they taught that by this kind of life they merited forgiveness of sins and justification before God. Yea, they added that the monastic life not only merited righteousness before God but even greater things, because it kept not only the precepts, but also the so-called “evangelical counsels.”
Thus they made men believe that the profession of monasticism was far better than Baptism, and that the monastic life was more meritorious than that of magistrates, than the life of pastors, and such like, who serve their calling in accordance with God’s commands, without any man-made services. None of these things can be denied; for they appear in their own books. [Moreover, a person who has been thus ensnared and has entered a monastery learns little of Christ.]
If anyone takes a vow upon himself, he should be fully informed beforehand of all the consequences of his/her vow. This is why Jesus said, “All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one” in Matthew 5:37. Sometimes children were committed to monasteries merely because that relieved the family of the obligation to provide for them, regardless of whether they were competent to live up to their vows or not.
Sadly, Rome placed the 3-phased vow of poverty, chasity, and obedience on the same level as Baptism, teaching their people that making these vows provided them with justification and forgiveness of sins. In fact, people who made such vows were considered more justified than the common people who had merely received baptism.
What, then, came to pass in the monasteries? Aforetime they were schools of theology and other branches, profitable to the Church; and thence pastors and bishops were obtained. Now it is another thing. It is needless to rehearse what is known to all. Aforetime they came together to learn; now they feign that it is a kind of life instituted to merit grace and righteousness; yea, they preach that it is a state of perfection, and they put it far above all other kinds of life ordained of God. These things we have rehearsed without odious exaggeration, to the end that the doctrine of our teachers on this point might be better understood.
Throughout the course of time, monasteries were used for various purposes; they served as hospitals for the sick, they served as a place to provide publication of books, and they also served to train future pastors of the church. However, as time grew, these purposes were neglected, and monastic life was practiced to merit grace.
First, concerning such as contract matrimony, they teach on our part that it is lawful for all men who are not fitted for single life to contract matrimony, because vows cannot annul the ordinance and commandment of God. But the commandment of God is 1 Cor. 7:2: To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife. Nor is it the commandment only, but also the creation and ordinance of God, which forces those to marry who are not excepted by a singular work of God, according to the text Gen. 2:18: It is not good that the man should be alone. Therefore they do not sin who obey this commandment and ordinance of God
What objection can be raised to this? Let men extol the obligation of a vow as much as they list, yet shall they not bring to pass that the vow annuls the commandment of God. The Canons teach that the right of the superior is excepted in every vow; [that vows are not binding against the decision of the Pope;] much less, therefore, are these vows of force which are against the commandments of God.
Now, if the obligation of vows could not be changed for any cause whatever, the Roman Pontiffs could never have given dispensation for it is not lawful for man to annul an obligation which is simply divine. But the Roman Pontiffs have prudently judged that leniency is to be observed in this obligation, and therefore we read that many times they have dispensed from vows. The case of the King of Aragon who was called back from the monastery is well known, and there are also examples in our own times. [Now, if dispensations have been granted for the sake of securing temporal interests, it is much more proper that they be granted on account of the distress of souls.]
Of the three vows taken by the monk, our fathers point out the most challenging of the three – celibacy. The Word of God says: “Since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2). This rule of God, not only for the purpose of keeping order in the world, but for guiding consciences, forbids any person who has not the special gift of remaining celibate to take the monastic vow upon himself, and invalidates any vow that is taken in ignorance. Morever, by the very creation of mankind, God indicated his general plan that men should marry.
According to Catholic views, the only one who can release a man from such a vow is the pope, in spite of the fact that God’s Word provides us with the command to marry. The case of a king of Aragon is cited. This was Sanctius IV. His son Ramirus had entered a monastery, but the death of his brother Peter would have left the throne without a legitimate successor. Then the pope, in 1245, granted a dispensation and Ramirus left the monastery. If temporal interests were considered as sufficient to annul a vow, how much more the distress of souls?
In the second place, why do our adversaries exaggerate the obligation or effect of a vow when, at the same time, they have not a word to say of the nature of the vow itself, that it ought to be in a thing possible, that it ought to be free, and chosen spontaneously and deliberately? But it is not unknown to what extent perpetual chastity is in the power of man. And how few are there who have taken the vow spontaneously and deliberately! Young maidens and men, before they are able to judge, are persuaded, and sometimes even compelled, to take the vow. Wherefore it is not fair to insist so rigorously on the obligation, since it is granted by all that it is against the nature of a vow to take it without spontaneous and deliberate action.
Most canonical laws rescind vows made before the age of fifteen; for before that age there does not seem sufficient judgment in a person to decide concerning a perpetual life. Another Canon, granting more to the weakness of man, adds a few years; for it forbids a vow to be made before the age of eighteen. But which of these two Canons shall we follow? The most part have an excuse for leaving the monasteries, because most of them have taken the vows before they reached these ages.
Finally, even though the violation of a vow might be censured, yet it seems not forthwith to follow that the marriages of such persons must be dissolved. For Augustine denies that they ought to be dissolved (XXVII. Quaest. I, Cap. Nuptiarum), and his authority is not lightly to be esteemed, although other men afterwards thought otherwise.
最后，尽管违背誓言应该受到谴责，但是并不是说这些人的婚姻就应该立即结束。因为奥古斯丁否认它们应该结束(XXVII. Quaest. I, Cap. Nuptiarum)，尽管后来人有些异议他的权威还是不容置疑的。
III. Our fathers reserved for the last the principla reason against the binding validity of monastic vows as they were behing handled at the time of the Reformation. It was bad enough that vows were often forced on monks and nuns who were not yet of an age to weigh the implications thoroughly, while according to the very nature of a pledge, it must be without coercion in matters which are possible of fulfillment. As it was, this current doctrine of these vows was destroying the very faith which the church is called to strengthen.
But although it appears that God’s command concerning marriage delivers very many from their vows, yet our teachers introduce also another argument concerning vows to show that they are void. For every service of God, ordained and chosen of men without the commandment of God to merit justification and grace, is wicked, as Christ saysMatt. 15:9: http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php - article27.37In vain do they worship Me with the commandments of men. And Paul teaches everywhere that righteousness is not to be sought from our own observances and acts of worship, devised by men, but that it comes by faith to those who believe that they are received by God into grace for Christ’s sake.
尽管有很多神关于婚姻的命令是很多人从誓言中解脱，我们的老师还是要让大家知道更多证明誓言无效的言论。所有不出于神的以赢得称义和恩典为目的的服侍都是出于恶的，正如基督在太15:9http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php - article27.37 他们将人的吩咐，当作道理教导人，所以拜我也是枉然。保罗在所有地方都教导称义不是因为守律法或敬拜行为，不是靠人的行为的而是因为信因藉着基督我们能够来到神的恩典之中。
But it is evident that monks have taught that services of man’s making satisfy for sins and merit grace and justification. What else is this than to detract from the glory of Christ and to obscure and deny the righteousness of faith? It follows, therefore, that the vows thus commonly taken have been wicked services, and, consequently, are void. For a wicked vow, taken against the commandment of God, is not valid; for (as the Canon says) no vow ought to bind men to wickedness.
Paul says, Gal. 5:4: Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the Law, ye are fallen from grace. To those, therefore, who want to be justified by their vows Christ is made of no effect, and they fall from grace. For also these who ascribe justification to vows ascribe to their own works that which properly belongs to the glory of Christ.
The heart of the gospel is that we believe that sinners are received by God into his grace on the basis of Jesus’ redemptive work for us on the cross. We can’t add merit or works to grace or we lose grace as Paul writes to the Christians at Galatia.
These words, harsh as they may seem, hit the Roman Catholic Church right between the eyes with their practice of monastic vows. None of these vows can be traced to even one commandment of God, but were introduced by men, who may have been well-meaning, but men nonetheless. By teaching men that they merit grace by performing such acts, not only do they blaspheme Christ’s work of redemption on the cross, but they bind men to wickedness as well.
Nor can it be denied, indeed, that the monks have taught that, by their vows and observances, they were justified, and merited forgiveness of sins, yea, they invented still greater absurdities, saying that they could give others a share in their works. If any one should be inclined to enlarge on these things with evil intent, how many things could he bring together whereof even the monks are now ashamed! Over and above this, they persuaded men that services of man’s making were a state of Christian perfection. And is not this assigning justification to works? It is no light offense in the Church to set forth to the people a service devised by men, without the commandment of God, and to teach that such service justifies men. For the righteousness of faith, which chiefly ought to be taught in the Church, is obscured when these wonderful angelic forms of worship, with their show of poverty, humility, and celibacy, are cast before the eyes of men.
Proof of the shame that these teachers of the monastic life is seen in the attitude of the monks who added further absurdities to this doctrine in that simple lay-members could borrow some of the works of a celibate monk, who vowed poverty and obedience to present before God because alledgely the monk had so many extra merits that he could offer them to common people.
Furthermore, the precepts of God and the true service of God are obscured when men hear that only monks are in a state of perfection. For Christian perfection is to fear God from the heart, and yet to conceive great faith, and to trust that for Christ’s sake we have a God who has been reconciled, to ask of God, and assuredly to expect His aid in all things that, according to our calling, are to be done; and meanwhile, to be diligent in outward good works, and to serve our calling. In these things consist the true perfection and the true service of God. It does not consist in celibacy, or in begging, or in vile apparel. But the people conceive many pernicious opinions from the false commendations of monastic life. They hear celibacy praised above measure; therefore they lead their married life with offense to their consciences. They hear that only beggars are perfect; therefore they keep their possessions and do business with offense to their consciences. They hear that it is an evangelical counsel not to seek revenge; therefore some in private life are not afraid to take revenge, for they hear that it is but a counsel, and not a commandment. Others judge that the Christian cannot properly hold a civil office or be a magistrate.
Here we see the monastic way of life held up before God as the ultimate way of pleasing God in life and the result of this is that the true Commandments of God are covered up. Husbands and wives, fulfilling their God-given duties in their family, are led to doubt because they are told that celibacy is what God really wants. Monastic vows, therefore, create confusion of consciences concerning a person’s calling in life.
There are on record examples of men who, forsaking marriage and the administration of the Commonwealth, have hid themselves in monasteries. This they called fleeing from the world, and seeking a kind of life which would be more pleasing to God. Neither did they see that God ought to be served in those commandments which He Himself has given and not in commandments devised by men. A good and perfect kind of life is that which has for it the commandment of God. It is necessary to admonish men of these things.
And before these times, Gerson rebukes this error of the monks concerning perfection, and testifies that in his day it was a new saying that the monastic life is a state of perfection.
Here, examples are pointed out how men were misled concerning God-appointed callings regulated by God-given commandments, something about which the famous Chancellor of the University of Paris, John Gerson (1429), complained about.
So many wicked opinions are inherent in the vows, namely, that they justify, that they constitute Christian perfection, that they keep the counsels and commandments, that they have works of supererogation. All these things, since they are false and empty, make vows null and void.
This concluding paragraph briefuly sums up the arguments against the monastic vows.