All things considered, did Luther have a case?

[Hodos]

Again, the question here (in the context of the Augsburg Confession) is doctrine , not practice .

The Augsburg Confession addressed issues of both doctrine and practice.

 

[Gorgias]

And of course the habit of “splitting off” in the Protestant church continued long after Luther. Do they have a case?

Sure they do! If Luther was justified in being able to leave without being beholden to the church from which he wished to separate, and for reasons of his own choosing… then so are they.

OTOH, if Luther himself wasn’t justified, then neither are they.

(It’s interesting to look at Luther’s reaction to those who left the Church along with him and later separated themselves from him and his theology. Really interesting…)

 

[Gorgias]

The Augsburg Confession addressed issues of both doctrine and practice.

Man, we’re having troubles with context today, aren’t we?!?!?

@niceatheist is talking about the political practices of European powers in the 1400s-1500s. Since that is what he addressed, that’s what I responded to. (I’m guessing that niceatheist isn’t really as concerned about sacramental practices of Luther’s theology…)

 

[niceatheist]

Was there that significant a difference between most of Luther’s tenets and the writings of, say, Erasmus? Erasmus died a loyal Catholic (and was at times held in equal esteem by Reformers and Catholics, or, conversely, in equal disrepute), but was fairly skeptical of a good deal of the Church governance and even of some of the theology of the Late medieval and Early Modern Church. I think much of what Luther believed probably could have been fit in to a reformed Catholic church. Luther himself was a pretty odd figure, but as I said, nothing he was saying hadn’t been pondered a great many times before. The Protestant Reformation didn’t succeed because of the peculiarities of theological differences, it succeeded because German princes saw it as a political advantage to find some theological reason to back the political break with Rome. I suspect, left to its own devices, and without the quiet tampering with negotiations by France, there likely would have been an accommodation.

 

[Gorgias]

The Protestant Reformation didn’t succeed because of the peculiarities of theological differences, it succeeded because German princes saw it as a political advantage to find some theological reason to back the political break with Rome.

Indeed.

Thus, the assertion that the accomplishments of the counter-reformation are due to Luther’s actions are a bit naive.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

steve-b:

JonNC:

Thank you for this. It is a brief Catholic description of the reasons for Luther’s Excommunication. While I disagree with parts of it (Luther’s view of the DC Books was no different from Cajetan’s, as an example), the words prideful and selfish aren’t mentioned.

Yet

Cajetan didn’t create a revolt with his actions and views… He didn’t create division on steroids.

And? The article claimed Luther’s view of the canon was a reason for his excommunication.
Actually, I don’t think it was a reason to any degree. The issue of the canon is more a modern polemic by apologists.

please explain

You yourself said that Cajetan was not excommunicated because of his view of the canon, which was similar to Luther’. And you are correct.
Their position on the canon was not prohibited among Catholics, laity or clergy, until Trent.

So, many modern Catholic apologists wish to hold Luther to a separate and non-historical standard regarding the canon.

 

[OnAJourney]

The thing is, the Church itself didn’t advocate for the excesses; individuals did! So… why leave the institutional Church, if the issue is that individuals sin?

Because at the time the Church as an institution wasn’t doing what was required to end sales of indulgences. Only whilst the Reformation was in full swing did the Church completely ban that practice. That’s not to say I agree with what Luther did, but I can see why he did it

 

[Gorgias]

Because at the time the Church as an institution wasn’t doing what was required to end sales of indulgences.

That’s not to say I agree with what Luther did, but I can see why he did it

So… if the Church teaches the truth, but is having a hard time herding cats, then you leave the Church?

 

[OnAJourney]

I didn’t say I agreed with what he did. I’m saying I understand WHY he did it. And the issue is more with the people who came AFTER Luther.

 

[steve-b]

You yourself said that Cajetan was not excommunicated because of his view of the canon, which was similar to Luther’. And you are correct.
Their position on the canon was not prohibited among Catholics, laity or clergy, until Trent.

I said Cajetan didn’t cause division.

Besides, the canon of scripture (73 books) has not changed since it was first confirmed by Pope Damasus I , At the Council of Rome in 382, where the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546). BTW, Florence and Trent were ecumenical councils.

Point being,

There is a long Church council history to the canon of scripture. Cajetan changed nothing.

JonNC:

So, many modern Catholic apologists wish to hold Luther to a separate and non-historical standard regather canon.

Luther is accountable for his actions in history and what followed as a result of his actions. Just like everyone else. It has nothing to do with apologetics.

 

[JonNC]

Besides, the canon of scripture (73 books) has not changed since it was first confirmed by Pope Damasus I , At the Council of Rome in 382, where the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546). BTW, Florence and Trent were ecumenical councils.

I have no interest in going through the local councils, and the later councils that only apply to those in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Other Traditions in the Church have different canons.
My point is simply that Cajetan’s view of the canon was similar to Luther’s. Both were permitted to hold those views.

Cajetan changed nothing.

And Luther changed nothing regarding the canon.

Luther is accountable for his actions in history and what followed as a result of his actions.

Indeed he was, but when apologists of the modern era apply different standards depending on who they favor or dislike, it is disingenuous.

 

[c1949]

Gorgias

2d

c1949:

if you read Dietrich Bonhoffer’s The Cost of Discipleship he regards Luther as a genius, second only to Jesus himself

Not sure why this is surprising or noteworthy, given that Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran theologian and pastor. Now, if he were a Catholic bishop and he made that claim, then that would be something worth getting excited about!

It impresses me for a couple reasons. Bonhoeffer is considered a great Protestant martyr for the faith, although I found (reading Eric Metaxis’s biography) that Bonhoeffer was himself confused about what “the Church” meant. Or, in simpler terms, a lot of people rank both Luther and Bonhoeffer very highly, although it is usually only Lutheran followers who think so.

The exception to that is one of the co-editors of The Little Rock Scripture Study Bible, a nun who is a Catholic professor of scripture, who write an introductory essay to that study Bible. In it, she says that Luther’s translation of the Bible was only one of the great accomplishments of the reformation.

I wrote to her to ask why she held that position and what were the other “great” accomplishments of the reformation – she declined to respond. Interesting that you should choose those words, because I wrote to the bishop of Little Rock to complain and he approved of what the nun had said (imprimatur, as I recall).

 

[Gorgias]

Or, in simpler terms, a lot of people rank both Luther and Bonhoeffer very highly, although it is usually only Lutheran followers who think so.

Right. That’s the part that demonstrates that it’s unremarkable, on its face.

The exception to that is one of the co-editors of The Little Rock Scripture Study Bible , a nun who is a Catholic professor of scripture, who write an introductory essay to that study Bible. In it, she says that Luther’s translation of the Bible was only one of the great accomplishments of the reformation.

Fascinating! It’d be interesting to get a bit more detail on what she meant by that. On the face of it, I might suggest that it was a great accomplishment not on the basis of its take on Scripture, but rather in terms of the linguistic impact of helping bring about a single normative German language.

I wrote to her to ask why she held that position and what were the other “great” accomplishments of the reformation – she declined to respond.

More likely, she didn’t have time and didn’t prioritize responding to you.

Interesting that you should choose those words, because I wrote to the bishop of Little Rock to complain and he approved of what the nun had said (imprimatur, as I recall).

I might gently suggest that the imprimatur more likely covered the Scripture study moreso than the editor’s introduction.

 

[Gab123]

The problem with Luther are not his “select works”, which most people are familiar with, but rather all his other erratic writings that are a testament to a man who was mentally ill. Martin Luther suffered from depression, anxiety, and obsessions all his life and his writings are not only laced with references to excrement and flatulence in his volatile attacks against his critics, he was also the author of blasphemous statements against Christ Himself. This man was no Augustine; out of Luther’s mouth came statements that only a false teacher could have spoken.

Another problem is that his defenders are proficient at rationalizing away Luther’s vile ramblings, erratic behavior, blasphemy, arrogant attitude, and blatant irreverence toward Sacred Scripture. Rather than take his statements at face value, his defenders choose to ignore or rationalize his statements with implausible and far-fetched excuses, spun away as “he was probably kidding" or using “hyperbole” or when impossible to defend, “the result of a few too many beers.”

The more I study Luther, the more I suspect he was suffering spiritually and was under demonic influence. The idea that the Father of Protestantism was a false teacher is unbearable for some, nevertheless, one need only look at his own writings to come to this conclusion.

Archeological excavations of Luther’s home have only added to the evidence against the myth of Martin Luther, even proving that he was a liar regarding his upbringing and social circumstances.

As for removing books from the Bible, denigrating Scripture, editing sacred scripture to fit his new doctrines, rejecting the priesthood and vilifying the mass, all one needs to do is read what he said about them—without the spin.

As for purgatory, the word itself is not in the Bible, just like the word Trinity is nowhere in the Bible, but the doctrine is certainly there…

 

[Hodos]

The problem with Luther are not his “select works”, which most people are familiar with, but rather all his other erratic writings that are a testament to a man who was mentally ill.

Obviously you are a trained psychiatrist no doubt. Would you care to discuss your medical credentials? Even assuming you are correct, if a person suffers from say depression, they are still capable of rational thought. And what about other Roman Catholic saints that displayed what we might consider today as signs of mental illness?

Luther’s writings cannot be looked at in a vacuum as Roman apologists frequently do. Luther was almost always writing to address some prescient issue, in which case he varied his message to speak to the issue he was addressing. No different than say Tertullian who upheld an orthodox subordinationism (in the economy of the trinity) when dealing with modalism, but upheld the ontological equality of the persons of the trinity when refuting modalists.

Another problem is that his defenders are proficient at rationalizing away Luther’s vile ramblings, erratic behavior, blasphemy, arrogant attitude, and blatant irreverence toward Sacred Scripture.

Again, we don’t read in a vacuum. If reading things in context is your criticism, then I will wear that distinction proudly.

The more I study Luther, the more I suspect he was suffering spiritually and was under demonic influence.

It would not surprise me if he did given that he was under attack physically by the Roman Church and the Holy Roman Empire as they tried to prevent him from preaching the pure gospel and wanted to execute him. I notice however, you don’t have an issue with respected Roman Catholics who have similarly suffered from spiritual attack. You might try using even scales when making judgments like that, or is that just your apologetic approach?

As for removing books from the Bible, denigrating Scripture, editing sacred scripture to fit his new doctrines, rejecting the priesthood and vilifying the mass, all one needs to do is read what he said about them—without the spin.

Again, I demonstrated that he held the same view of the Deuterocanonicals as Jerome did, and as some of his peers such as Cardinal Cajetan and Cardinal Jimenez did. I showed you from the AC that he didn’t vilify the mass or reject the priesthood (again you fail to read in context).

As for purgatory, the word itself is not in the Bible, just like the word Trinity is nowhere in the Bible, but the doctrine is certainly there…

I am comfortable with the doctrine of the Trinity being in the Bible because the teachings that make up the doctrine of the trinity are readily found in the Bible. The same cannot be said of purgatory. I never made any statement even hinting that if a specific theological word isn’t stated, that the teaching is invalid.

 

[Gorgias]

Even assuming you are correct, if a person suffers from say depression, they are still capable of rational thought. And what about other Roman Catholic saints that displayed what we might consider today as signs of mental illness?

Absolutely, there were!

The difference is, they didn’t break away from the Church, start their own denomination, and lead others away from the Church. Kinda a big difference.

as they tried to prevent him from preaching the pure gospel

Well, that’s your opinion – that it was ‘pure’. It certainly differed from the teachings of the Church – that is, the Church to whom he vowed obedience!

Again, I demonstrated that he held the same view of the Deuterocanonicals as Jerome did, and as some of his peers such as Cardinal Cajetan and Cardinal Jimenez did.

Jerome didn’t have magisterial authority – and he deferred to that authority when they differed in opinion from his own personal opinion!

Two cardinals with personal opinions are not exercising magisterial authority.

If you want to convince a Catholic audience, @Hodos, you need to show magisterial, authoritative teaching, not anecdotal evidence of a person here and a person there. You’re the one who’s talking about a failure to examine in context – the magisterial teaching of the Church is the context here!

I showed you from the AC that he didn’t vilify the mass or reject the priesthood

He just unilaterally modified both, that’s all.

 

[niceatheist]

Luther wasn’t saying anything that had not been said before. I have, for instance, mentioned Erasmus, who certainly had his supporters both in Catholic and in the early Protestant circles. And really, that puts a lot on Luther and ignores the other calls for reform and the pre-Reformation reform movements like the Hussites. Certainly he was a complex man, but mentally ill? If that’s the case, shall we have a psychiatric assessment of Pope Julius II. He certainly was a sufficient oddball that even some Catholics raised their eyebrows at his love of going about in armor.

 

[fhansen]

IMO Luther was totally wrong on doctrine while right about abuses. “Justification by faith alone” is simply not the gospel. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is completely fallacious and unworkable, as 500 years of trying to use to Scripture as the sole rule of faith have proven. It opened the door for enormous errors. Either “Tradition”, by whatever name, plays its role or we have a faith based largely on best-guess exegesis. And the authority of the magisterium should be cherished. It’s preserved basic doctrine intact for two millenia, regardless of how well Church members may or may not have heeded those teachings. Carefully read the Council of Trent on justification, session 6. It can be an eye-opener as the council addressed the positions of the Reformers-and laid down the Catholic position:
https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT6.HTM

 

[niceatheist]

There were questions about doctrine before Luther, and indeed, prior to his inflammatory stunt at Wittenberg, there were men who were viewed and viewed themselves as solidly Catholic who had raised questions about the accrual of some doctrines that they felt were decidedly questionable. There was the whole notion of an overly-legalistic faith which was heavily criticized.

 

[fhansen]

I agree that Luther was attempting to personalize the faith, and oppose legalism. But the truth is that any which way that the faith is structured, any way that it’s confessed, can become a source for legalism, for acting piously or justly without actually being internally pious or just. Lutheranism notwithstanding.