A time machine back to the 1500's to talk to Martin Luther...,

[TertiumQuid]

Oh, give me a break. Who did you read? Father O’Hare? I suggest you read some of the things Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict has said about him. Jon

That’s actually a good guess. Older Roman Catholic writers have indeed made some surprising claims about Luther and the Devil. Consider this comment by Father Patrick O’Hare:

Read Luther’s work against “The Mass and the Ordination of Priests,” (Erl. 31, 311 ff.) where he tells of his famous disputation with the “father of lies” who accosted him “at midnight” and spoke to him with “a deep, powerful voice,” causing “the sweat to break forth” from his brow and his “heart to tremble and beat.” In that celebrated conference, of which he was an unexceptional witness and about which he never entertained the slightest doubt, he says plainly and unmistakingly that “the devil spoke against the Mass, and Mary and the Saints” and that, moreover, “Satan gave him the most unqualified approval of his doctrine of justification by faith alone.” Who now, we ask in all sincerity, can be found, except those appallingly blind to truth, to accept such a man, approved by the enemy of souls, as a spiritual teacher and entrust to his guidance their eternal welfare?

The context though of “The Mass and the Ordination of Priests” includes a story being told by Luther as a literary device, not a personal experience. Father O’Hare missed this.

JS

 

[JonNC]

That’s actually a good guess. Older Roman Catholic writers have indeed made some surprising claims about Luther and the Devil. Consider this comment by Father Patrick O’Hare:

The context though of “The Mass and the Ordination of Priests” includes a story being told by Luther as a literary device, not a personal experience. Father O’Hare missed this.

JS

Hi James,
A bit less a guess than you might think, for which you, in part, are responsible. Thanks for your website.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

What if…What if Fr. Martin Luther had stayed in the Church with his heresies sanitized and still had his crude teachings published, **like urging sex with one’s neighbor’s wife if one’s wife was less than willing; **

sigh Source and context, please.

or the NAZI blueprint for the Holocaust, “On the Jews & Their Lies”?

And please don’t go here. The anti-judaism within the Catholic Church at the time, including folks such as one of those “skilled Catholic scholars”, Ecke, was equally odious and repugnant. Today, Catholics and Lutherans alike reject and condemn it.

Jon

 

[TimeEntrance]

If a Catholic scholar, a skilled Catholic apologist and a Religious historian got into a time machine with a lap top computer and traveled back to the 1500’s to talk to Martin Luther, could they have prevented the Protestant splint from Catholicism?

Not with Trent.

Plus, Luther wrote in tone and diction in the 1500’s in such ways that would shock the sensibilities of Catholics on this board in year 2013–and he would have gotten banned.

Okay, the history of all my posts on the internet probably looks like the product of a innocent Boy Scout compared to Luther’s content in the 1500’s.

Also, I think your figures traveling back in time would need to bring some bipolar medication with them.

 

[Porknpie]

There are plenty of reverts, but I doubt someone explaining to them why they shouldn’t have left it had much to do with them changing their mind. In what I’ve seen, the ones who leave the Church leave for emotional reasons and have a “nobody’s going to tell me what to do” attitude. They must become humble before anyone can penetrate that.

Emotional reasons…I guess it happens but what is nearly universal is that they are poorly catechised. And I am not faulting the Church…everyone has to make time for God daily and learn more about their faith. Reverts come back not for emotional reasons but for seeking the Truth understood through faith and reason. Remember God rejoices for his lost ones who return. So should we…

 

[TimeEntrance]

Well then…What if God permitted a Catholic scholar, a skilled Catholic apologist and a religious historian to get into a time machine with a lap top computer, defy physics and travel back to the 1500’s to talk to Martin Luther, could the Protestant split from Catholicism have been prevented?

He likely would have thought they were some manifestation of his frequent Satan sightings.

Luther was a “nut case.” You need to be happy he was never a Pope or otherwise you’d never hear the end of it in the media on “history” reports, about all his psychological problems and other shortcomings. Only in our world could a anti-Semitic crazy man become a Western hero of “reason.”

But being half black I learned a while ago not to listen to everything white people say.

 

[JonNC]

Not with Trent.

Plus, Luther wrote in tone and diction in the 1500’s in such ways that would shock the sensibilities of Catholics on this board in year 2013–and he would have gotten banned.

Okay, the history of all my posts on the internet probably looks like the product of a innocent Boy Scout compared to Luther’s content in the 1500’s.

Which proves Luther was a product of his time (and the CC).
Luther was crass, at times vulgar, regularly used hyperbole, and who knows, he may have even boiled and ate Catholic babies.

Also, I think your figures traveling back in time would need to bring some bipolar medication with them

For the time traveler or for Luther, Doctor?

Okay, please excuse my sarcasm, but it doesn’t seem that any of this answers the question. His personality aside, Luther was a theologian, a Doctor of Theology, which he earned before the Reformation while he was an Augstinian friar.
I wish someone would include this and other realities in the caricature.

Jon

 

[gcnuss]

If a Catholic scholar, a skilled Catholic apologist and a Religious historian got into a time machine with a lap top computer and traveled back to the 1500’s to talk to Martin Luther, could they have prevented the Protestant splint from Catholicism?

I think that hindsight would do wonders if time travel were possible. It seems, in retrospect, that there were opportunities for the Church to address Luther’s concerns in ways that might have caused him to take a different – and less confrontational – path. Sadly, we’ll never know what might have been.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Which proves Luther was a product of his time (and the CC).
Luther was crass, at times vulgar, regularly used hyperbole, and who knows,** he may have even boiled and ate Catholic babies.
**

Eh… he wasn’t that bad, John. He could stand to have lost a little weight though.

For the time traveler or for Luther, Doctor?

Okay, please excuse my sarcasm, but it doesn’t seem that any of this answers the question. His personality aside, Luther was a theologian, a Doctor of Theology, which he earned before the Reformation while he was an Augstinian friar.
I wish someone would include this and other realities in the caricature.

Jon

I never said he was stupid. Just crazy.

Had he remained faithful to the Catholic Church rest assure his personality issue would be the center focus of the History Channel.

Luther is given less critical review in the media than Jesus Christ. That’s because the former rose against the Catholic Church. A man that would expose his bare butt in a room and invite Satan (who he believed to be in the room with him) to jump up it.

Even Jesus has his personal and sexual life placed under the microscope and speculation of Western scholars. The same ones that will hail Luther a shinning light of “reason” in a Europe consumed under “darkness” by the Catholic Church blotting out the sun.

 

[JonNC]

=TimeEntrance;10238531]Eh… he wasn’t that bad, John. He could stand to have lost a little weight though.

lol, yes

I never said he was stupid. Just crazy.

Describe, please in historical terms, how he was crazy (insane?). I don’t think modern Catholic theologians think that. They don’t even much quote polemicists such as O’Hare and Denifle anymore. I could say that Pope Leo X was crazy, and it really carries no weight, because it is a derision instead of even an observation.

Had he remained faithful to the Catholic Church rest assure his personality issue would be the center focus of the History Channel.

Who knows, since LCMS President (Bishop) Harrison came out so strongly against the HHS mandate in front of Congress, it still might happen.

Luther is given less critical review in the media than Jesus Christ. That’s because the former rose against the Catholic Church. A man that would expose his bare butt in a room and invite Satan (who he believed to be in the room with him) to jump up it.

I never said he always seemed level-headed

Even Jesus has his personal and sexual life placed under the microscope and speculation of Western scholars. The same ones that will hail Luther a shinning light of “reason” in a Europe consumed under “darkness” by the Catholic Church blotting out the sun.

Did the History Channel hail him such? I must have missed it. Don’t blame him or me for the anti-Christian bent of the secular left. Like I said, Harrison is probably viewed in the same light as Cardinal Dolan - in fact a badge of honor.
You seem more upset with the attacks on Rome by the secular left. I don’t blame you. But it seems to me your attacks are wrongly placed.

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

The same ones that will hail Luther a shinning light of “reason” in a Europe consumed under “darkness” by the Catholic Church blotting out the sun.

Only if they’re not paying attention - Luther’s vision of Christianity is completely counter to the secular mindset: Authority, faith, fidelity, strictness, love, and freely given charity, and the Gospel at the center of everything.

 

[TertiumQuid]

I’ve read through this discussion, and here is what I learned about Martin Luther (based on the comments left):

Luther wanted to be a married priest, and it’s impossible to be successful at both at the same time. Luther didn’t realize this because he thought he was smarter “than the apologists, Scholar, and Historians of that time.” He also “had what we call “Aspergers” today (autism), but in his case, it was combined with a strong, stubborn, and slightly cruel personality. He might have even had some OCD.” This handicap made him “highly intelligent–…brilliant–and this made it even harder for people to deal with him.” Even though smart, Luther was responsible for “the weakened values on marriage and divorce, abortion, the sacraments, the increase in numbers of denominations.” He was also “tortured by a bad case of scrupulosity and pride.” The devil “appeared to him many times, out of fear. He was a willing pawn in the hands of the devil.” “Luther was a 'nut case. …Only in our world could a anti-Semitic crazy man become a Western hero of ‘reason.’” He also had “crude teachings published, like urging sex with one’s neighbor’s wife if one’s wife was less than willing; or the NAZI blueprint for the Holocaust, ‘On the Jews & Their Lies’.”

Thanks for all the info, Catholic Answers participants.

“Love without truth would be blind; truth without love would be like ‘a clanging cymbal’ (I Cor 13: 1).” – Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Homily (found on the Catholic Answers rules post).

JS

 

[JonNC]

I’ve read through this discussion, and here is what I learned about Martin Luther (based on the comments left):

Luther wanted to be a married priest, and it’s impossible to be successful at both at the same time. Luther didn’t realize this because he thought he was smarter “than the apologists, Scholar, and Historians of that time.” He also “had what we call “Aspergers” today (autism), but in his case, it was combined with a strong, stubborn, and slightly cruel personality. He might have even had some OCD.” This handicap made him “highly intelligent–…brilliant–and this made it even harder for people to deal with him.” Even though smart, Luther was responsible for “the weakened values on marriage and divorce, abortion, the sacraments, the increase in numbers of denominations.” He was also “tortured by a bad case of scrupulosity and pride.” The devil “appeared to him many times, out of fear. He was a willing pawn in the hands of the devil.” “Luther was a 'nut case. …Only in our world could a anti-Semitic crazy man become a Western hero of ‘reason.’” He also had “crude teachings published, like urging sex with one’s neighbor’s wife if one’s wife was less than willing; or the NAZI blueprint for the Holocaust, ‘On the Jews & Their Lies’.”

Thanks for all the info, Catholic Answers participants.

“Love without truth would be blind; truth without love would be like ‘a clanging cymbal’ (I Cor 13: 1).” – Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Homily (found on the Catholic Answers rules post).

JS

And yet, James, there are scores of Catholics here that don’t speak this way, out of charity and love. While I am willing to “mix it up”, I much more satisfied with the conversations I have here with the vast majority of Catholics who speak with respect and charity, yet can stridently defend their faith. They have had a remarkable influence on me.

Jon

 

[TertiumQuid]

And yet, James, there are scores of Catholics here that don’t speak this way, out of charity and love. While I am willing to “mix it up”, I much more satisfied with the conversations I have here with the vast majority of Catholics who speak with respect and charity, yet can stridently defend their faith. They have had a remarkable influence on me.
Jon

Jon, I’ve met some of those folks as well over the years. They appear though to be largely MIA from this particular discussion.

JS

 

[JonNC]

Jon, I’ve met some of those folks as well over the years. They appear though to be largely MIA from this particular discussion.

JS

Honestly, I can’t blame them, though as I recall, a few did make their presence known.
Again, James, I want to thank you for your hard work.

Jon

 

[Porknpie]

Eh… he wasn’t that bad, John. He could stand to have lost a little weight though.

I never said he was stupid. Just crazy.

Had he remained faithful to the Catholic Church rest assure his personality issue would be the center focus of the History Channel.

Luther is given less critical review in the media than Jesus Christ. That’s because the former rose against the Catholic Church. A man that would expose his bare butt in a room and invite Satan (who he believed to be in the room with him) to jump up it.

Even Jesus has his personal and sexual life placed under the microscope and speculation of Western scholars. The same ones that will hail Luther a shinning light of “reason” in a Europe consumed under “darkness” by the Catholic Church blotting out the sun.

Time,

Here’s a thought that I have…for you that you might want to take advantage of: that University across town with the millionaire alumni (your words) has a very solid theology department. I see that they have a program: Luther Studies in a Catholic Context. The website link is below:

marquette.edu/theology/reformationtheologyatmarquetteuniversity.shtml

Here’s the program introduction description:

Modern historical research traces out the context within which historical developments took place by means of careful study of the historical sources themselves. At Marquette, we employ that same research model in order to set Luther firmly into the historical context into which he was born and within which he carried out his work as a theologian and man of the church. Doing so is already something of an uphill struggle. Theological research on Luther has been marginalized in recent years as scholars have turned their attention to social and cultural aspects of sixteenth century reform, pushing the theological questions (and answers!) that drove men like Luther increasingly to the sidelines. We believe that theological Luther research as an aspect of research in Reformation history must find and justify anew its position within today’s increasingly secularized and even dechristianized ‘post-modern’ academic environment.

At Marquette, we are not looking to turn the clock back somehow and return to Luther Studies as they once were. To the contrary, even as we seek to open up space for theological research, we receive with gratitude some of the achievements of the newer social and cultural research, and look to build on them. We hope to attract energetic student-scholars who are ready to join us in the search for innovative new approaches that will enable us to take theological research on Luther, and indeed on Reformation theology more generally, beyond what has already been accomplished.

The results of this new theological and historical research must be understood within the context of our own contemporary ecumenical situation, at once verging on a post-denominational Christianity and at the same time deeply grounded in and respectful of the great theological traditions that impel our research forward. In this way, we believe, the catholic context of the ‘historical Luther’ can serve as a springboard for the kind of further insight that will nourish not just individual theologians, but also the ecclesial communities that care about our work. The better we understand the theological arguments that so powerfully moved people like Luther, the more effectively we will be able to recognized their potential as a source for contemporary theology reflexion, including the great work of Christian ecumenism.

Thought: perhaps U of Milwaukee would let you take a few theology courses from Marquette for credit and you could share what you learn with everyone on CAF about the cultural influences of the 16th century.

On a personal note, the article references a Dr Hagen who started the program’s work some years ago. I dated his daughter, for a brief time and had him as a Professor.

I asked you on a previous post, do you know who Scott Hahn is? I’ll add a second related one…have you ever been to mass in the basement of Church of the Gesu?

Pork

 

[Jimmy_B]

Only if they’re not paying attention - Luther’s vision of Christianity is completely counter to the secular mindset: Authority, faith, fidelity, strictness, love, and freely given charity, and the Gospel at the center of everything.

What I saw in his (Luther’s) writings was an evolving set of beliefs that change from when he first posted his 95 Theses, all the way up until his death. Unfortunately, he created a model that allowed for personal interpretation of the bible and that caused problems where his own views on Christianity was challenged numerous times before and after his death. There are actually more arguments against Luther today than there are against Catholicism. Protestant, “protesting” Luther. What he did to the Catholic Church was done to him by other Protestants. Now, if Luther got it right, why so many objections from other Protestants groups towards him? Why isn’t there just one Protestant denomination today? Nobody seems to be able to answer this question. Why?

 

[Cat]

What I saw in his (Luther’s) writings was an evolving set of beliefs that change from when he first posted his 95 Theses, all the way up until his death. Unfortunately, he created a model that allowed for personal interpretation of the bible and that caused problems where his own views on Christianity was challenged numerous times before and after his death. There are actually more arguments against Luther today than there are against Catholicism. Protestant, “protesting” Luther. What he did to the Catholic Church was done to him by other Protestants. Now, if Luther got it right, why so many objections from other Protestants groups towards him? Why isn’t there just one Protestant denomination today? Nobody seems to be able to answer this question. Why?

You ask why?

One of the reasons why there is more than one Protestant denomination today is that back around the time in history when Luther lived (1520), several other strong, highly-intelligent, and stubborn personalities were born and lived, and these men also became Reformers and started up their own group of “Protestants” and gained a huge following.

The obvious one is John Calvin (1536), who wrote the first systemized theology of the new Protestant faith (Institutes); the work is still studied today by the various Calvinist denominations.

John Knox (1560) was also around over in Scotland, starting up the Presbyterians.

King Henry VIII (1534) started up the Anglicans–now HE was a strong personality who wouldn’t take “No” for an answer!

Ulrich Zwingli (1519) was the leader of the Anabaptists. There were numerous other lesser-known leaders of Anabaptist sects; this movement is a little harder to pin down than the Lutherans, Calvinists, and Anglicans.

There were others, but these men had the personality types that were capable of breaking away, starting up, leading, and sustaining their own religious movements, which continue to this very day. And persecution (mainly, being killed) of Anabaptists by the Catholic Church seemed to encourage the start of even more Anabaptist groups, and this mindset is still true today–the various Evangelical groups (the descendants of the Anabaptists) often start up because of conflict and trouble in their denominations.

Consider, too, that at that time in history, the world was still pretty separated, and each of these men lived in a different section of the world separated by various geographic features. This meant that these areas were isolated from each other, and news travelled a lot slower than it does today. This was helpful and made it a little easier for a strong personality to start something up and gain followers.

I can’t help but wonder how things would have gone if something like the internet had been available. The internet has been very good for Catholicism because through websites like this, a lot of misconceptions can be corrected, and people can debate. I can testify that CAF has been, for the most part, very helpful to me as a convert to Catholicism. But back then, most people didn’t even know how to read, and so they had little choice but to accept the leadership of the literate people who were “above” them socially.

Although there were simliarities in each of these new Protestant religions (namely, that they broke with the authority of the Catholic Church ), they were also very different, and are the ancestors of the hundreds of denominations of Protestantism today. (Please don’t toss around the “33,000 denominations and growing” figure, which is not accurate and is a result of playing with the arithmetic to achieve a desired end. Using this figure makes Catholics look ignorant to knowledgeable Protestants and weakens Catholic apologetics.)

I hope this answer is helpful to you and others.

 

[JustaServant]

In order to understand history, you have to take yourself out of the time you are living in and step into the world Luther lived in. A “time machine” attempting to transpose 21st century thought and attitudes is not really a good way of understanding the 1500s.
Let’s take a few things into consideration:

1. By the 1500s Europe had finally overcome the effects of the Black Plague, which took a toll of millions of Europeans. The 1500s were the result of a “baby boom” that brought a new era in Europe after centuries of plague and war.
2. This “new generation”, like the Boomers of the 1960s, wanted to throw off many of what they considered to be the “Medieval chains” around them. To overlook the radical “movements” that would transform Europe in the centuries after, is not a clear picture.
   3.These movements eventually led to, not just the Reformation, but the Enlightenment as well, and many strides in science, technology and exploration. The good came with the bad.

If you only see the 1500s through the Reformation only, you are only getting part of the picture. It was much bigger than that. Luther was a product of his time. The reasons for his split from the Church have largely disappeared and have been replaced with a common enemy: secularism. Did Luther cause that? To say he did is a rather simplistic conclusion to a movement that was much bigger than Luther.
There are many things that have led us to the problems we face today, events that found it’s genesis in the 1500s and later.
Luther was a product of his age. His mistake was allowing these historical forces around him to bring him to the point of separating from the Church. So, why do we have thousands of denominations? Is Luther alone to be blamed? Luther may have been a factor. But he was hardly the only factor to take into consideration. He was caught up in a historical period.
That makes him human, not a devil.
Try to look at the larger picture.

 

[guanophore]

May be so, if that scholar was able to convince that, catholics also believe in salvation by grace alone and not by regular church attendance or doing good works.

This is Catholic, so maybe you are right. Except that the Catholic approach is one of “both/and” rather than “and not by”.

We believe that, if a person has saving grace, that grace will produce in and through such a person regular church attendance and doing of good works.

Martin Luther wouldn’t have compromised on Sola Scriptures. He wouldn’t have accepted any other writings equal to/comparable to scripture.

This is also Catholic.

Why can’t I understand this statement? I’m confused. What other writings? Who is accepting writings comparable to scripture?

There aren’t any,but it is a common myth among Sola Scripturists that Catholics have a low view of Scripture, and believe the writings of the Church since the close of the canon are comparable.

As huge a tragedy as the Reformation (and all the evils that still flow from it) was, I have to believe that God permitted it to happen because He had good reason to.

1 Cor 11:19-20
19 Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine.

Yes, God can make straight paths out of crooked lines.

• even if God suspends the laws of physics for a miraculous purpose, Luther would still have the free will to reject God’s Church and its teaching

But what Luther was rejecting was not Church Teaching, but the corruption among the leadership, and the shrouding of the Gospel of grace that occurred as a result of that corruption.

• Luther would certainly have choked on some of the Church’s later dogmas, particularly the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and Papal Infallibility.

The latter, perhaps, as he was already choked on the secular power retained by the Pope, but not the first two. Luther was a strong Marian believer. He never rejected the Church’s veneration of Mary and prayed his rosary even on his deathbed.

You'd have better luck finding an authority denying pseudo-Lutheran pastor, Luther would have recognized that he had nothing to do with the Baptists

I don’t believe that Luther ever wanted to split the Church, which he believed ought to be One. He was already scandalized by the factions before his earthly life was over.

I can see from a Catholic perspective, it looks like Luther was the root of all this ‘protestant’ splitting - but from a Lutheran standpoint we can really only answer for our own sins.

And Catholics for their own as well. I think if Luther had enjoyed the holiness of the Popes we have enjoyed in the last century, he would not have had a problem submitting to them. He would also have been spared the scandals that provoked his soul, and those of all the faithful who suffered under such corruption.

Tha answer has to be NO. Because I beleaive that the three jentlemen in the time machine would not have been able to quell the rising tide of nationalism which was a huge driving force behind the reformation.

I think this is true. I think Luther gets too much blame/credit for the Reformation. The nobles were quick to jump on his ideas as a platform to wrest secular (political and economic power) away from Rome.

Indeed! What a great witness for Christ! I mentioned Pope Benedict because, while Pope John Paul II seemed focused more on Orthodoxy, Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict knows and understands Luther and Lutheranism probably better than any pope since the Reformation.
That, at least, is my humble opinion.

Jon

Yes, I was musing the other day how impossible it seemed to ever have a Polish, or even a German Pope barely 100 years ago. We have sure come a long way!