Did Martin Luther allow divorce?

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Oh, I don’t know. I guess it depends on how out of context one does it to promote a polemic.

Vile works are still vile regardless of context.

Yes they are, even when spoken by Catholics.

 

[AugustTherese]

You’re kidding, right? Did you read the source? Are you claiming that non-Lutheran site is dishonest?

Read the whole thing. Quote him in his own words like I do Luther.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

You’re kidding, right? Did you read the source? Are you claiming that non-Lutheran site is dishonest?

Read the whole thing. Quote him in his own words like I do Luther.

So, what is the reason you are questioning this site?

 

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

JonNC:

You’re kidding, right? Did you read the source? Are you claiming that non-Lutheran site is dishonest?

Read the whole thing. Quote him in his own words like I do Luther.

So, what is the reason you are questioning this site?

When did I question the site?! Quote Eck in his own words, if you can.

 

[JonNC]

When did I question the site?! Quote Eck in his own words, if you can.

Let’s try this one.
**In order to put Luther’s On the Jews and Their Lies in some immediate religious context, it is helpful to see what other Christian figures were saying about Jews just prior to 1543. In 1529, Andreas Osiander authored a tract[20], published anonymously in 1540, that systematically and forcefully refuted the charge of Jewish ritual murder of Christian children. Osiander was a Christian Hebraist who engaged in the study of Cabbala and had a thorough knowledge of rabbinic literature and the Talmud. He argued that it is “inconceivable that the Jews should murder children and make use of their blood” when their own Kosher laws forbade them even to eat the meat of animals containing blood. The treatise appeared just as the investigation of one such supposed murder at Tittingen was ongoing.[21]

Enraged by Osiander’s defense of the Jewish community and called upon by the Bishop of Eichstätt to rebut it, Johannes Eck, Catholic theologian and Luther’s nemesis, wrote what amounts to a lengthy retort to Osiander and a denigration of Judaism. It has been described as “a compendium of every horror story medieval anti-Jewish polemic could encompass.”[22] In Refutation of a Jew-Book, Eck based his passionate argument of the historical reality of Jewish ritual murder on his own personal experience. According to Eck, he had actually “placed his own fingers in the wound of a child who had died four weeks before at the hand of the Jews of Waldkirch in the Breisgau in 1503.”[23] The book also includes a call for “new and more stringent laws” against Jews[24] and strong condemnation of usury.**

http://www.theologian.org.uk/churchhistory/lutherandthejews.html

 

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

When did I question the site?! Quote Eck in his own words, if you can.

Let’s try this one.
**In order to put Luther’s On the Jews and Their Lies in some immediate religious context, it is helpful to see what other Christian figures were saying about Jews just prior to 1543. In 1529, Andreas Osiander authored a tract[20], published anonymously in 1540, that systematically and forcefully refuted the charge of Jewish ritual murder of Christian children. Osiander was a Christian Hebraist who engaged in the study of Cabbala and had a thorough knowledge of rabbinic literature and the Talmud. He argued that it is “inconceivable that the Jews should murder children and make use of their blood” when their own Kosher laws forbade them even to eat the meat of animals containing blood. The treatise appeared just as the investigation of one such supposed murder at Tittingen was ongoing.[21]

Enraged by Osiander’s defense of the Jewish community and called upon by the Bishop of Eichstätt to rebut it, Johannes Eck, Catholic theologian and Luther’s nemesis, wrote what amounts to a lengthy retort to Osiander and a denigration of Judaism. It has been described as “a compendium of every horror story medieval anti-Jewish polemic could encompass.”[22] In Refutation of a Jew-Book, Eck based his passionate argument of the historical reality of Jewish ritual murder on his own personal experience. According to Eck, he had actually “placed his own fingers in the wound of a child who had died four weeks before at the hand of the Jews of Waldkirch in the Breisgau in 1503.”[23] The book also includes a call for “new and more stringent laws” against Jews[24] and strong condemnation of usury.**

Luther and the Jews

…what am I supposed to infer from this?

 

[JonNC]

what am I supposed to infer from this?

That the context of Luther’s vile words about the Jews is the Catholic vile anti-Semitism of the time. And to mention one without the other is, frankly dishonest

 

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

what am I supposed to infer from this?

That the context of Luther’s vile words about the Jews is the Catholic vile anti-Semitism of the time. And to mention one without the other is, frankly dishonest

You’re not quoting Eck’s OWN words. Notice, I quote Luther’s very own words and everyone can see their coarseness and lewdness. If you cannot quote his own words, this is futile.

 

[JonNC]

You’re not quoting Eck’s OWN words. Notice, I quote Luther’s very own words and everyone can see their coarseness and lewdness. If you cannot quote his own words, this is futile.

Tell you what. You deny or defend him all you want. Go buy his book if you want.

 

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

You’re not quoting Eck’s OWN words. Notice, I quote Luther’s very own words and everyone can see their coarseness and lewdness. If you cannot quote his own words, this is futile.

Tell you what. You deny or defend him all you want. Go buy his book if you want.

Exactly. Nice try, though.

 

[JonNC]

Exactly. Nice try, though.

Yeah. What I thought. Luther is vile. Eck? Not so much

 

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

Exactly. Nice try, though.

Yeah. What I thought. Luther is vile. Eck? Not so much

Do you believe everything you read? Or, do you go to the source without any preconceived notions?

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

AugustTherese:

Exactly. Nice try, though.

Yeah. What I thought. Luther is vile. Eck? Not so much

Do you believe everything you read? Or, do you go to the source without any preconceived notions?

The two, and others, quote the sources. They are very easily confirmed. If you don’t believe the source, check them.
I haven’t read Luther’s books about the Jews, but I don’t stubbornly doubt there existence or that he wrote them. I condemn his anti-Judaic writings.
History clearly accounts the anti-Judaism of Catholics of that time.
AND NEITHER LUTHERANS NOR CATHOLICS TODAY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM!!!

 

[JonNC]

Instead of just liking this post, I thought it was worth reposting.

A poster with whom I will not dialogue made several slanderous statements that should be corrected, lest people keep believing such lies. This sort of thing was popular in the Middle Ages when Roman Catholics like Cochleaus were claiming silly things like “Luther was conceived in a bathhouse tryst between his mother, the Devil and a prostitute,” but they have no place in modern discussions.

1. “[Luther] broke his solemn Religious [sic] vows…”
   This is patently false. Luther was released from his religious vows by his father confessor, Johann von Staupitz, who did so in order to protect both himself and Father Martin. Had Luther remained under his charge, Staupitz would’ve been both responsible for Luther’s future actions and required to turn him over to the authorities. No father would want any part in the (what was then assumed to be imminent) death of his son.
2. “[Luther] induced a consecrated nun to break her solemn Religious [sic] vows…”
   Again, false. Katerina von Bora escaped a convent of her own free will. She was sent there when she was just 5 years old because, as a female, she would’ve required a dowry to marry off and was thus viewed as a burden by her family. She contacted Luther, not the other way 'round, and asked for rescue in subsequent letters. She and her fellow nuns escaped the cloister by hiding in a herring cart (it’s not known whether she or Martin had the idea for how to escape). Luther found homes and jobs for these penniless women, who were happy to be free of their cloistered enslavement. She turned down no less than two other suitors before finally demanding that Luther himself marry her. He obliged. This is all easily verifiable, folks. Online, even.
3. “…to ‘marry’ him….”
   The scare quotes would seem to imply that the marriage was somehow illegitimate or forced. It was legitimate, happy and a model for Christian marriage. Their home has been recorded in many first-hand accounts as a joyful place, filled with song (Luther played the lute and wrote hundreds of hymns), laughter, children (they had six of their own, and adopted or fostered many more) and dogs. The two hosted students daily and nightly, turning the home into a boarding school of sorts. When plague struck Wittenberg, they did not leave like most residents, but agreed to turn their home into a hospital and saved countless lives. Katerina often talked Martin out of his depressions, and was the epitome of a faithful wife. They truly acted as one flesh.

 

[JonNC]

Continued…

1. “…I would presume he did not take serious the ‘vows’ of sacramental marriage.”
   The poster presumes wrongly. Very wrongly. Luther’s own marriage reflected how seriously he took his vows. He was always faithful to Katerina, and never cheated or fathered illegitimate children (unlike Popes Julius II, Clement VII, Paul III, who were all popes during Luther’s lifetime). Martin cared earnestly for her, and truly loved his wife, as is documented by many first-hand accounts. He trusted Katerina, whom he called his “rib” (for she guarded his heart), with the managing of their finances. He even did something illegal at the time, willing all his possessions to her --a woman!-- at his death.
   Luther understood marriage to be the foundational block on which natural society, which he called God’s Left Hand Kingdom, was built. Furthermore, he understood the everyday Christian’s vocation, or earthly calling done for others, to stem from the first vocations Adam and Eve had, namely to be spouses and parents. Vocation was important to Luther, from parent to prince:

“The prince should think: Christ has served me and made everything to follow him; therefore, I should also serve my neighbor, protect him and everything that belongs to him. That is why God has given me this office, and I have it that I might serve him… The same is true for shoemaker, tailor, scribe, or reader. If he is a Christian tailor, he will say: I make these clothes because God has bidden me do so, so that I can earn a living, so that I can help and serve my neighbor. When a Christian does not serve the other, God is not present; that is not Christian living.”

 

[jas84173]

Lutherans followers only adhered to Luthers own heretic beliefs.
“Calvinists” adhered too a number of heretics. Of course Calvin was the Ring leader but Zwingli was also a large voice among others. It’s why they are more of a diverse set of beliefs.
Need it be said this was the period no matter what anyone says from which there went from “The Church” to a bunch of humanistic beliefs. Don’t like something? Found your own church. It goes on to this day.

 

[JonNC]

Lutherans followers only adhered to Luthers own heretic beliefs.

So, let me see.
Lutherans only adhere to Luther’s heretic beliefs.
Lutherans confess the three ancient creeds. Therefore, by your logic, the three ancient creeds are heretical.
Lutherans believe in baptismal regeneration. Another heretical belief, according to your statement.

Calvinists” adhered too a number of heretics. Of course Calvin was the Ring leader but Zwingli was also a large voice among others. It’s why they are more of a diverse set of beliefs.

Just to clarify, Zwingli was 25 years older than Calvin.

 

[steido01]

Incredibly, posters here continue to provide downright lies about a dead man, and yet I’m the one given a warning. I miss Eric. Time for me to disappear from this place for a while. Adios!

 

[AugustTherese]

Incredibly, posters here continue to provide downright lies about a dead man

Nope. Just quoting his works. You, and every Lutheran that is aware of these works, have the obligation to inform every Lutheran that is naive to these deplorable sayings.

 

[Theo520]

Well, considering he broke his solemn Religious vows and induced a consecrated nun to break her solemn Religious vows to ‘marry’ him I would presume that he did not take serious the ‘vows’ of sacramental marriage.

That’s a poor representation of history.

He had already been excommunicated and the woman was already an ex-nun.