A Good Biography of Martin Luther?

[chk301]

Does anyone know a good biography of Martin Luther, preferably one by a Catholic author, which would include his antisemitic rhetoric?

Also a comment. I’ve read that as a priest, Luther prayed, fasted, and went to confession frequently. What went wrong? Shouldn’t there have been a flood of grace into his life? It makes me wonder what I’m doing wrong in my life (in that God hasn’t answered my prayers). I don’t fast much (and I know I should), but I pray and go to confession frequently. Sometimes I wonder where the grace is to live a life in accordance to God’s will, which I don’t feel I’m living presently.

Comments are welcomed. Thanks!

 

[Dorothy]

I saw a really good film about him–Luther (2003)–starring Joseph Fiennes, Peter Ustinov, Alfred Molina. It was terrific.
I think you can see the entire film on youtube for free. Great acting.

Re “what went wrong”:
Do you mean, what went wrong church-wise (indulgences, etc), that made him protest what was happening and speak out?

.

Well meaning Catholics do not want to whitewash the corruption that Luther spoke out about. It was good that he did, and the problem was dealt with.

What did happen to be upsetting to the Catholic Church, is that Luther changed an important part of doctrine, and added the word “alone” to Sacred Scripture.

 

[bitznbitez]

amazon.com/Luthers-Lives-Contemporary-Accounts-Martin/dp/0719068029

Luthers’ Lives translated by Elizabeth Vandiver et. al. It contains a work by Philip Melanchthon [published in 1548], a contemporary and support of Luther, and a work by Johannes Cochlaeus [published in 1549] a contemporary catholic opponent of Luther.

Needless to say Cochlaeus isn’t particularly popular among protestants, then or now. Personally I found his viewpoints interesting and relevant. I don’t think any topics relating to Judaism were discussed in this work.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Does anyone know a good biography of Martin Luther, preferably one by a Catholic author, which would include his antisemitic rhetoric?

Also a comment. I’ve read that as a priest, Luther prayed, fasted, and went to confession frequently. What went wrong? Shouldn’t there have been a flood of grace into his life? It makes me wonder what I’m doing wrong in my life (in that God hasn’t answered my prayers). I don’t fast much (and I know I should), but I pray and go to confession frequently. Sometimes I wonder where the grace is to live a life in accordance to God’s will, which I don’t feel I’m living presently.

Comments are welcomed. Thanks!

Unfortunately, I don’t think that such a book exists. Existing biographies are either too apologetical or too polemical. You should write one!

 

[InThePew]

What do you mean he added it to the scripture?

Also, it’s not Catholic doctrine, right? It’s the Protestant Christian doctrine, methinks.

It’d be more accurate to say that Luther focussed (fixated might be a better way of putting it) on one part of scripture - Ephesians: saved by grace through faith not of our own doing - to the exclusion of others - such as the Letter of St James: faith without good works is dead. his reasoning behind this had a lot to do with his personality and personal struggles with his faith, which also helps to explain “what went wrong”. Being a member of quite a strict religious order also didn’t help, if anything it made his scrupulous tendencies worse.

For a good book on Luther (admittedly from a non-religious point of view) try Erik Erikson’s Young Man Luther.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Not long after I joined the local Presbyterian Church way back in late 1982, I asked the pastor about a good book on Luther.

He struck me as a bit hesitant, but he suggested “Here I Stand” by Roland H. Bainton. He said it was fairly straight forward. I did read it not long afterwards, but I’ve forgotten most of it.

leurabooks.com.au/?page=shop/flypage&product_id=413951

A few years later though, I was talking to the pastor about Luther, and he made the comment “Some of the things Luther said and did weren’t very Christian.”

I’ll leave it at that for the moment, but I don’t think Luther was his all time hero, Protestant or othewise.

If you’re after a book which gives a very negative view of Luther, including his less than generous atttitude to the Jews, the Pope, women and various other things, you can read this one online, as it’s out of copyright. I think it goes right back almost to World War II, when the Germans were not much liked.

tentmaker.org/books/MartinLuther-HitlersSpiritualAncestor.html

 

[Dorothy]

Agreed!

?
What do you mean he added it to the scripture?

Also, it’s not Catholic doctrine, right? It’s the Protestant Christian doctrine, methinks.

.

I must admit that I am not well schooled enough to articulate a good answer about the controversy regarding the word “alone” that I believe changed the meaning of the doctrine of our Lord’s teachings.

Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit will not allow the God-given teaching authority of the Church (Magisterium) to teach error in faith and morals regardless of the holiness or lack of holiness of the pope.
That is what we mean by infallibility. (The Holy Spirit protects the Church from teaching error.)

So, when the meaning in doctrine is changed, we cannot accept that. So, then it can be called Protestant Christian doctrine.

My answer probably sounds overly simplistic; hopefully someone else can explain clearer.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

This is lifted from a Protestant website. Note that Luther admits putting the word “Sola” or “Solum” into the text, as he claimed it clarified what St. Paul wrote.

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com.au/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html

First, locate the context.
The main text of Luther used for these type of comments are his Open Letter on Translating (1530). Luther says in the introduction:

“…there has been much discussion about the translating of the Old and New Testaments. It has been charged by the enemies of truth that the text has been modified and even falsified in many places, which has startled and shocked many simple Christians, even among the educated who do not know the Hebrew and Greek languages. It is devoutly to be hoped that with this publication the slander of the godless will be stopped and the scruples of the devout removed, at least in part. Perhaps it may even give rise to more writing on such questions and matters such as these. Therefore I ask all lovers of the truth to take this work to heart seriously, and faithfully to pray to God for a right understanding of the divine Scriptures, to the improvement and increase of our common Christendom.”

The first section of the treatise is actually fairly angry, sarcastic, and humorous. Luther shows himself fed up with his Papal critics. His anger was fueled against them for an ironic reason- they rallied against his translation, while at the same time utilizing it for their own new translations. A strong Papal critic of Luther (Emser) did just that:

“We have seen that scribbler from Dresden play the master to my New Testament. I will not mention his name again in my books, as he has his Judge now, and is already well-known. He admits that my German is sweet and good. He saw that he could not improve upon it. Yet, eager to dishonor it, he took my New Testament nearly word for word as it was written, and removed my prefaces and notes, replaced them with his own, and thus published my New Testament under his name!”

1. Put this context into the quotes being misued.
   With this context in mind, point out that Luther was blasting away at his Papal critics:

“If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say this to him: “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and he says that a papist and a donkey are the same thing.” …For we are not going to be students and disciples of the papists. Rather, we will become their teachers and judges. For once, we also are going to be proud and brag, with these blockheads; and just as Paul brags against his mad raving saints, I will brag against these donkeys of mine! Are they doctors? So am I. Are they scholars? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they theologians? So am I. Are they debaters? So am I. Are they philosophers? So am I. Are they logicians? So am I. Do they lecture? So do I. Do they write books? So do I.”

“I will go even further with my boasting: I can expound the psalms and the prophets, and they cannot. I can translate, and they cannot. I can read the Holy Scriptures, and they cannot. I can pray, they cannot. Coming down to their level, “I can use their rhetoric and philosophy better than all of them put together. Plus I know that not one of them understands his Aristotle. If any one of them can correctly understand one preface or chapter of Aristotle, I will eat my hat! No, I am not overdoing it, for I have been schooled in and have practiced their science from my youth. I recognize how deep and broad it is. They, too, are well aware that I can do everything they can do. Yet they treat me as a stranger in their discipline, these incurable fellows, as if I had just arrived this morning and had never seen or heard what they teach and know. How they do brilliantly parade around with their science, teaching me what I outgrew twenty years ago! To all their noise and shouting I sing, with the harlot, “I have known for seven years that horseshoe nails are iron.”

“Let this be the answer to your first question. Please do not give these donkeys any other answer to their useless braying about that word sola than simply this: “Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the doctors of the pope.” Let it rest there. I will from now on hold them in contempt, and have already held them in contempt, as long as they are the kind of people (or rather donkeys) that they are.”

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I probably should have added this bit from the above reference.

The point is whether or not Luther was justified in adding the word “solum” into Romans 3. Was he trying to emphasise the business of faith versus works, or did he give the quote an undue emphasis?

Luther continues to give multiple examples of the implied sense of meaning in translating words into German. He then offers an interpretive context of Romans:

“So much for translating and the nature of language. However, I was not depending upon or following the nature of the languages alone when I inserted the word solum in Romans 3. The text itself, and Saint Paul’s meaning, urgently require and demand it. For in that passage he is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine, namely, that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the Law. Paul excludes all works so completely as to say that the works of the Law, though it is God’s law and word, do not aid us in justification. Using Abraham as an example, he argues that Abraham was so justified without works that even the highest work, which had been commanded by God, over and above all others, namely circumcision, did not aid him in justification. Rather, Abraham was justified without circumcision and without any works, but by faith, as he says in Chapter 4: “If Abraham were justified by works, he may boast, but not before God.” So, when all works are so completely rejected — which must mean faith alone justifies — whoever would speak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works will have to say “Faith alone justifies and not works.” The matter itself and the nature of language requires it.”

 

[tmcq]

Born a Catholic. Ordained a priest. Living now in Hell.All the rest is X rated.