Did Martin Luther allow divorce?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Curious11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Are YOU familiar with Catholic-Lutheran ecumenical understandings? Are you in submission to the pastoral direction of this church in this area?
 
No. But, while I wish protestants went back to the Catholic Church, I want to try and focus on what we have in common, not what separates us.
And I’m not a catholic
 
Last edited:
You’re right. It’s time we show these guys what it’s all about :facepunch: :facepunch: :facepunch:
😂 😂 😂
 
AugustTherese said:
40.png
JonNC:
You refused to condemn Catholics for such language
Click to expand...
What language?
Click to expand...
Eck’s language, and don’t say you have no proof. I provided two sources. Denying that the anti-Judaic language of Luther was in an atmosphere of Catholic anti-Judaism only defends it
 
Curious11 said:
Guys. Peace!
Please. You’re talking about things that have not been resolved in 5 centuries of debates, wars, propaganda and dialogue. You sure as heck aren’t gonna resolve it now. Pray for Luther. Pray for Catholics. Pray for God to guide us into His ways
Click to expand...
The issue of anti Semitism has been resolved. We all condemn it.
 
Yes well, I would hope the Holocaust would have been more than sufficient to resolve that.
 
JonNC said:
By your unwillingness to recognize the atmosphere of the time and your willingness to defend it from Catholics of the time
Click to expand...
The ‘atmosphere of the time’? So, as long as it was the 1500s and as long as you have a context to use as a exoneration, there is nothing wrong to talk in a lewd and coarse manner? Oh, my…

You have not provided one anti-Semitic quote from any Catholic. You posted a bunch of mumbo-jumbo of propaganda that could not be substantiated. No offense, but did you read what you posted? How about you provide some quotes in and of themselves without a Protestant twist?
 
Last edited:
AugustTherese said:
The ‘atmosphere of the time’? So, as long as it was the 1500s and as long as you have a context to use as a exoneration, there is nothing wrong to talk in a lewd and coarse manner? Oh, my…
Click to expand...
If you remember, I condemned Luther’s anti-Judaic language, but you refuse to condemn and defended Eck. Your animosity for Luther has you defending this when no one does.
AugustTherese said:
You have not provided one anti-Semitic quote from any Catholic.
Click to expand...
Since an anonymous internet poster has not set out quotes, you deny the obvious history?

A quote from one of James Swan’s articles:
“The absolute nadir of anti-Jewish polemic in the early modern period was by Luther’s Catholic opponent Johannes Eck, whose 1541 Refutation of a Jew Book was ‘a summa of the anti-Jewish literature of the Middle Ages, leaving out no accusation of genocide, blasphemy, or treason.’ ”[52]

“Could [the Jews] but drown all Christians in one spoon, said Johann Eck in the course of one of the most vicious of all anti-Jewish diatribes, ‘they would eagerly do it.”[53]

“By the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the campaign against Jewish physicians…attained a high pitch of virulence. No slander was too mean to be turned to account… ‘When they come together at their festivals, each boasts of the number of Christians he has killed with his medicine; and the one who has killed the most is honored,’ runs Johann Eck’s variation upon an inexhaustible theme.”[54]

“In 1540, when another ritual murder charge was raised against the Jews in Sappenfeld, Eck wrote Refutation of a Jewish Booklet in which he explains that Jews needed Christian blood in order to wash away their own blood stains which God had inflicted on them because they had crucified Christ. He concludes that, ‘it is no wonder that the Jews now buy the blood of innocent children, just as their fathers had bought the innocent blood of Jesus Christ from Judas with thirty pennies.’ ”[55]

“Although Johannes Eck, Luther’s dedicated opponent, and others wrote vitriolic attacks on the Jews, some of Luther’s collegues, such as his dear friend Justas Jonas, present at Luther’s deathbed, Andreas Osiander, reformer in Nuremberg, were very understanding of the position of the Jews.”[56]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
steido01 said:
“[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.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting fact. I’m interested in what source you used that documents Staupitz released Luther from his religious vows. Thanks, JS
 
Luther believed Matthew’s exception clause “except for porneia” disolved a valid Sacrament.

The Catholic Church does NOT interpret Matthew’s exception clause this way.
 
Last edited:
SojournerOnEarth said:
I don’t know where Jon got his info, but please read
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link, but the information I’m interested in isn’t documented in the link. Normally, I’d spend the time searching it out myself, but I’m time-challenged today. I suspect that it is true, Staupitz did release Luther… That would make sense given the tense historical battle between Luther and Rome during that time period. I think Steido01 was the person who originally posted it, not Jon. Steido01 probably knows I’m not asking for this information so as to nitpick him. Rather, I think it’s a very interesting fact that I’d like to utilize if I had better documentation.
 
It is! Good to see you around again, James.

I’m not certain whether Staupitz’s original written release of Luther still exists, or how much it would vary from what was spoken. It likely wasn’t so dramatic as the 2003 Joseph Fienes movie made it out to be. 😄 Nor am I sure on the primary source for knowledge of the release itself. Presumably, someone has a big pile of Luther’s correspondences with Staupitz somewhere. But we can be certain this happened, even if the release itself has been lost to history (not saying it has, mind you, only noting the meager limit of my knowledge). There is no question that Staupitz released Luther from his monastic vows. The release of Luther meant that no one was immediately responsible for him, which meant Leo X would have to wait before he could find his special guest for a bonfire. The move resulted in Staupitz being removed from his post and Luther being, effectively, homeless.

This has never, to my knowledge, ever been seriously questioned-- certainly not by any published writer or serious historian. Even poorly-researched or biased internet sources like New Advent acknowledge this (I have to laugh – it seems almost dismayed that Luther’s release from his vows meant he wasn’t killed at Augsburg).

Every good Luther biographer will document his relationship with Staupitz and, necessarily, the former’s release from the latter’s authority. Good ol’ Oberman has some real, solid quotes on the subject. He speaks about it on page 197 of Luther: Man between God and the Devil:
[Album]
 
What about his wife? Did she break her vows and run away from a convent? The accusation was made above. How can her actions be defended?
 
steido01 said:
Every good Luther biographer will document his relationship with Staupitz and, necessarily, the former’s release from the latter’s authority. Good ol’ Oberman has some real, solid quotes on the subject. He speaks about it on page 197 of Luther: Man between God and the Devil:
Click to expand...
Great thanks. I looked up Oberman’s footnote, and will check his source at some point. Thanks again for taking the time to provide me with this… I suspect it’s also in Brecht, I will check that as well. JS
 
Last edited:
SojournerOnEarth said:
What about his wife? Did she break her vows and run away from a convent? The accusation was made above. How can her actions be defended?
Click to expand...
No, the poster accused Luther of “inducing” her to break her vows. Luther did no such thing. Katerina made her own choices, in everything from her husband to escaping the monastic life.

She was confined to a monastic life at age 5 or 6, and after years of indoctrination, took vows at age 15, as did all the other “unwanted” girls of her time. The only other option available to a woman of her time and place would’ve been marriage, which was impossible since she had no means of paying any dowry after her family abandoned her to the church. Point is, her vows were not made freely in the least. Age alone would throw into question whether proper ‘consent’ existed, and when the choice is essentially “take the vow or take the vow,” you take the vow. As soon as she saw a potential escape, she seized it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top