Do you Admire Martin Luther?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Madaglan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Madaglan said:
Overall, all considered, do you admire Martin Luther (the Reformer in 16th-century Europe) for what he said, wrote and did concerning the Christian faith?
Click to expand...
Overall for what he said? No!

Overall for what he wrote? No!

Overall for what he did? No!

Overall, I do not admire Martin Luther. I do admire some of his characteristics (for example, his desire, or at least his perceived desire to reform the Catholic Church). However, overall, I do not admire any of the three points you listed.
 
Madaglan said:
  1. What’s worse: the perhaps over-emphasis of Protestantism that everyone could read and understand the Bible, or the notion that only the “learned”: the scholastics, the monks, the bishops, the cardinals and, most especially, the Popes–in short, the clergy–could correctly interpret Scripture for the Church?
  2. You have to remember: Luther was also a monk, and an acknowledgly very pious one at that. Indulgences were a big part, but they were only the symptoms of a far greater disease (in Luther’s mind): the Church’s insistence that one is justified by faith and works. Luther’s heaviest attacks came, not against the indulgences (although he readily attacked them) but against the Roman understanding of the Mass as a sacrifice we offer in cooperation with Christ for our salvation. Luther, rather than trace the abuses to problems in church governance, traced them back to what he believed to be the root cause and the reason why reform in the Church never suceeded: the Papacy (and the Curia, and the Cardinals, and major bishops) had corrupted the simple teaching of justification by faith alone and had replaced it with a theology of works, which brought income into the Church and which made people dependent on the ecclesiastical structure.
Click to expand...
Responses:
  1. The answer, naturally, is that the question poses a false dilemma. One need not chose either this error or that. And the fact that nearly every catholic church at the time had an extremely expensive volume of the scriptures which was available to virtually any trustworthy literate man (uncommon in itself) gives lie to the protestant assertion that catholicism tried to somehow hide the scriptures from the masses. If that was a goal, they sure did a lousy job of it.
  2. Oh, I do remember (though I’d use the word ‘scrupulous’ instead of pious). But Luther lacked the humility to realize is that his conviction of ‘faith alone’ was utterly unique in the history of the church and foreign to the scriptures. He made a knee jerk decision in reaction to the corruption he saw ( and the torment of scrupulosity that he suffered) and never let facts disturb that conviction afterwards. (Naturally we disagree on the matter or you’d already be back on this side of the Tiber!)
To the poster who noted O’Hare’s book on Luther. Be careful (I read it too). Remember this was a book written by an Irish American in a time (early 1900’s) when there was REAL persecution of catholics in America by protestants. It is a polemic written with the goal of fighting back against those outright hostile to catholicism and, as such, it paints the worst possible picture of Luther, his beliefs, behaviors and words. While perhaps not outright wrong, it can certainly be argued to be a distortion and a cherry picking expedition to make him look as bad as possible. It is an apologetic method not embraced by the Church since Vatican II. (However, Protestants who object to this kind of treatment of Luther ought to consider the way in which Luther himself wrote about popes. The style is strikingly similar, but O’Hare refrains from potty insults)
 
Originally Posted by O’Hare:

(However, Protestants who object to this kind of treatment of Luther ought to consider the way in which Luther himself wrote about popes. The style is strikingly similar, but O’Hare refrains from potty insults)
Click to expand...
It’s interesting you brought this up. In reading the OT, I’m surprised at the crudeness of much of what God relates. For example, the other day, I came across this passage shocking to modern ears:

“She [Oholibah/Jerusalem] began whoring worse than ever, remembering her girlhood, when she had played the whore in the land of Egypt, when she had been infatuated by profligates big-membered as donkeys, ejaculating as violently as stallions.” (Ezekiel 23:20)

Oh, and God first wanted Ezekiel to cook over human dung, but apparently decided to relent and allowed him to cook over cow dung instead. (Ezekiel 4:12-15) So maybe Luther was taking this dung example from Scripture and attributing its connotations to his adversaries, whom he idetnfied as wayward like the House of Israel. 🙂
 
Originally Posted by manualman:

(Naturally we disagree on the matter or you’d already be back on this side of the Tiber!)
Click to expand...
:confused:

What do you mean?

You calling me a Protestant? :eek:
 
I admire his intentions, which were good–and his points for the most part concerning doctrinal abuses were all valid. In fact, the papacy seemed unresponsive to his complaints at best. I truly wish we could have heard each other out back then: Perhaps we could have been spared the dissent.

As an overall person, I don’t think I’d say Martin Luther is one I’d consider a “hero,” though: He had so much trouble just putting himself at God’s Mercy and letting that be enough, was infuriated with the Jewish people to an absurd point, and ultimately (even if not his plan) divided the Holy Mother Church.

Still, we must remember it is heart and intent God looks at … I think if he were alive today, he’d be very pleased with the numerous reforms of the CC–but stubborn as he was at times, I don’t know if he’d be Catholic again. Although it would probably be weird to be a member of a denomination that bears your name.
 
Madaglan said:
:confused:

What do you mean?

You calling me a Protestant? :eek:
Click to expand...
Gulp. You telling somebody whose CA bio says ‘born again human’ and religion: christian ISN’T protestant? I guess I made a bad assumption, but you sure didn’t give me much to go on!
 
Gulp. You telling somebody whose CA bio says ‘born again human’ and religion: christian ISN’T protestant? I guess I made a bad assumption, but you sure didn’t give me much to go on!
Click to expand...
Ah,😃 dinnae fash yourself!! We’ve all put:blush: a foot in our mouth around here.Keeping a scorecard of who is who, would be a lot easier if:D people would fill out those wee forms a bit fuller!!!🤷
 
Originally Posted by manualman:

Gulp. You telling somebody whose CA bio says ‘born again human’ and religion: christian ISN’T protestant? I guess I made a bad assumption, but you sure didn’t give me much to go on!
Click to expand...
Ha! How little you know! The Ex-Borg First Christian Church does not affiliate itself with mere human Protestants. We believe in Borg Succession, going back to St. Paul (who was actually a Borg before he was liberated on the road to Damascus.) Yeah, the history books got wiped out some time in the third century. It wasn’t the Jews or the pagans the early Christians had to deal with, but the Borg. Unfortunately, the Borg made a resurrgence. Martin Luther was one, but he “short-circuited” and regained touch with his human-ness. Some went a little too far, however, and ended up eliminating everything “borgish.” Fanatics. :rolleyes:
 
AnubistheJackal said:
Yes. He was a crusader against corruption in the Church.
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity, do you respect his views that pagans are damned simply because they don’t have faith in Jesus? The Catholic Church, that he condemned, does not teach that.
 
Yes, and I’m Catholic.Although I strongly disagree with many of his doctrines, he was obviously a very good Christian, and he loved Jesus just as much as we do.It was very brave of him to stand up against the bad popes,and he was trying to bring justice.I would not have followed him because-
1.I disagree with his doctrines and agree with the Catholic ones &
2.I would still have wanted a Pope-I would have gotton rid of the bad ones and got good ones.

But Luther just had different opinions, which he is entitled to, and a different way of doing things;he was still a remarkable person.
 
I am Catholic and I respect him and what he did. The Church of his time was quite corrupt on many levels. Had the Church and Popes of the time listened to many of the valid concerns, the Reformation may not have happened. But, they had too much pride and it happened.

I hope the ecumenical efforts of today continue to keep an harmonious discussion and joining in many efforts across the faiths.
 
2 St. John 9-11:

Whosoever revolteth and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son.
If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you.
For he that saith unto him: God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.

Let those who say “Amen” to Luther digest that little bit of the Holy Ghost. The end never justifies the means.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
I am Catholic and I respect him and what he did. The Church of his time was quite corrupt on many levels. Had the Church and Popes of the time listened to many of the valid concerns, the Reformation may not have happened. .
Click to expand...
What were some of these valid concerns? Are the concerns on which you agree with him the things that he himself thought were most important (chiefly the doctrine of sola fide)? Luther was not primarily a moral reformer–he said so himself. Doctrine was primary for him. If you think his doctrines are wrong, then you may admire him to some extent but you ought to consider him basically a wrong-headed fomenter of schism in the Church. Luther himself would never have said that division was justified just because there was moral corruption. In that he was more Catholic than many of his admirers.

Edwin
 
I see no reason to respect or admire him. If one spends more than a few moments reading about him…in non-secular venues, you will find there is little to admire.

Luther was an Augustinian Monk who had a bone to pick with the Bishop. He had been beaten nearly to death by his own father as a youth. He has been considered as a “crazy”.

He is responsible for a great schism. He is also responsible for a great deal of persecution against many peoples, not only Catholics.
He is directly responsible for the deaths of many people. He, despite the claims of those who attempt to “gentrify” or legitimize him, no more than a base, vile, nasty, hatemonger hiding behind a thin guise of his notions of religion.

Nothing there to respect or admire.
 
Contarini said:
What were some of these valid concerns? Are the concerns on which you agree with him the things that he himself thought were most important (chiefly the doctrine of sola fide)? Luther was not primarily a moral reformer–he said so himself. Doctrine was primary for him. If you think his doctrines are wrong, then you may admire him to some extent but you ought to consider him basically a wrong-headed fomenter of schism in the Church. Luther himself would never have said that division was justified just because there was moral corruption. In that he was more Catholic than many of his admirers.

Edwin
Click to expand...
One is the payment for indulges issue of the time, to shorten their time in purgatory in the afterlife because of worldly payments of hard money. (ironically purgatory is no more in Catholic Theology) Also the church was also siding with the feudal lords of the time and the Pope had the Papal states at the time as a ruler of state.
 
RobHom said:
I see no reason to respect or admire him. If one spends more than a few moments reading about him…in non-secular venues, you will find there is little to admire.

Luther was an Augustinian Monk who had a bone to pick with the Bishop. He had been beaten nearly to death by his own father as a youth. He has been considered as a “crazy”.

He is responsible for a great schism. He is also responsible for a great deal of persecution against many peoples, not only Catholics.
He is directly responsible for the deaths of many people. He, despite the claims of those who attempt to “gentrify” or legitimize him, no more than a base, vile, nasty, hatemonger hiding behind a thin guise of his notions of religion.

Nothing there to respect or admire.
Click to expand...
Hi

Please don’t say so, he is dead, he cannot answer for himself.

He wrote a Catechism (Martin Luther’s Small Catechism) which is still in use of the Catholics , I think.

Thanks

Deuteronomy 18:20-22. “But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death.”
Because of his righteousness, Jesus prayers were heard, and he was saved from getting a cursed killing on Cross.
Hebrews 5:7 (NIV)
7During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.
 
I’m amazed at the ignorance.

But Luther just had different opinions, which he is entitled to, and a different way of doing things;he was still a remarkable person.

Care to try to support any of those assertions?

Go ahead.

He wrote a Catechism (Martin Luther’s Small Catechism) which is still in use of the Catholics , I think.

Um, no. He was an excommunicated heresiarch and only schismatics use any of his teaching documents.

Wow, and wikipedia and google are FREE, people. Sheesh.
 
Jimbo2 said:
I’m amazed at the ignorance.

But Luther just had different opinions, which he is entitled to, and a different way of doing things;he was still a remarkable person.
Click to expand...
Hi

Thank you for catching me for my ignorance. Sometimes ago I was writing on a forum on attributes of the CatholicGod and I mentioned of the Cathechism. They told me that it is no different than what Luther has mentioned.

I am a common man not a scholar, friends like you add to my knowledge and my mistakes. Please don’t mind.

Now you say that Luther was a remarkable man, that is a balanced approach, I like that.

Thanks

St. Paul the Apostle spoke about Jesus killing on Cross in 1 Cor 15:
[17] If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
[18] Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. Unquote
Now, in my opinion, as you know that Jesus was not killed on Cross, so according to Paul, Catholic viewpoint is not proved; needs to be revised.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top