Do you Admire Martin Luther?

[mgrfin]

quote=mgrfin;2558069]Edwin,

You take exception to everything I’ve said, but then you essentially agree with me, just shaving a little off the top each time.

This “little” is the difference between truth and falsehood. I’m sorry that difference means so little to you.

Certainly not I. What looks like a “little off the top” to you is flat-out misrepresentation to me. Instead of trying to insult me for pointing out the truth, you would do better either to refute what I am saying or humbly admit that you have gone over the top in your hatred of Luther.

And if you demanded accurate and honest accounting from your business partners, would you be guilty of “snobbery and oneupmanship”? Would it be OK that they cheated you of a few hundred here and a few hundred there, because they weren’t raking in millions?

I’m glad you admit it is a weakness. Now you can start working on it!

It really is a serious weakness. It blinds you to truth and fairness. It doesn’t help the cause of Catholicism at all.

That’s very interesting. Because if you are serious about what you just said, then you need to get behind me and stop this Luther-trashing. I’m completely with you on this one. But the only way we can have corporate reunion is if we stop the violent, bitter, bigoted attacks on each other’s heritage. Even where there are legitimate grievances, we need to be gentle in voicing them. Even when we think the other side has done horrible things, we need to draw a veil of charity. I am not talking about compromising on the truth. I’m talking about not trying to prove that, in this case, Luther was a bad person. You will never get corporate reunion that way. No one asks you to like him or venerate him as a saint. But as long as you jump on this bandwagon of exaggerating his faults and blaming him personally for all the tragedies of the past 500 years, you will simply antagonize Protestants of good will.

You are obligated to think as charitably as possible of all your fellow mortals, living and dead, no matter what the circumstances. But the agenda you have just described requires you to be extra careful with regard to people who, rightly or wrongly, are respected on the “other side of the aisle.”

I have all sorts of problems with Luther. I don’t regard him as a saint or a hero, and I think his theology is, on the whole, far inferior to that of someone like St. Thomas Aquinas. I think he has done immense harm to the Christian Church. But I’m a historian–it’s my job to understand him, not condemn him. This is also a good strategy to follow if you are serious about reconciliation with Protestants.

IN Christ,

Edwin

Points well made, and well taken. Thanks.

 

[Crumpy]

I think I learned a few things by watching the PBS or History Channel program on Luther. I was impressed by the effect of his trip to Rome, which he discovered to be vastly more secular and self-indulgent than he expected.

It seems that he lost confidence in the Church, so off he went.

I think that Luther and the “Reformers” tore apart the church and also contributed to tearing society apart. What they did was not only heretical, but it was so detrimental to Christianity, particularly the whole idea that everybody simply decides for themselves what they want to believe in.

I think Europe has such a crisis of faith today because of the damage done by the reformers.

 

[mgrfin]

Luther is a Saint,QUOTE]

Luther did the best with the grace that was given to him.

mgrfin

 

[mgrfin]

I think I learned a few things by watching the PBS or History Channel program on Luther. I was impressed by the effect of his trip to Rome, which he discovered to be vastly more secular and self-indulgent than he expected.

It seems that he lost confidence in the Church, so off he went.

I think Europe has such a crisis of faith today because of the damage done by the reformers.

I think not.

Hilaire Belloc (“How the Reformation Happened”) said of Luther’s visit to Rome in 1511: “There is no contemporary proof that the worldliness of the Roman Court or of the clerical society in Rome, or the abuses thereof (there were plenty of abuses) roused him to any special indignation or had any effect upon his mind.”

mgrfin

 

[Genesis315]

St. Cajetan, like most saints, amaze me. Cardinal Cajetan committed St. Thomas’ Summa to memory. Small in statue, a big man, with a huge mind.

Just to clarify in case I am misunderstanding you or I am being misunderstood, but St. Cajetan was the priest who founded the Theatines and Cardinal Cajetan was, well, a Cardinal in that era.

 

[mgrfin]

Just to clarify in case I am misunderstanding you or I am being misunderstood, but St. Cajetan was the priest who founded the Theatines and Cardinal Cajetan was, well, a Cardinal in that era.

It is clear nowadays, but two Catholic authors I consulted, Hilaire Belloc, and Patrick O’Hare say it was (St.) Cajetan who met with Luther in the disputation at Augsburg in 1518. Historians can make mistakes.

St. Cajetan was the other Cajetan, founder of the Theatines, and a very saintly man, who did not meet with Luther. Cardinal Cajetan, also a very saintly man, but never canonized heard Luther at Augsburg. His full name was Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan, who became a Cardinal, and also head of the Dominican Order. He was the formost theologian of his day, and an expert on St. Thomas.

The politics of the situation may not be apparent to us: but Luther was an Augustinian, and Cardinal Cajetan was a Dominican.

 

[Pophead]

Luther is a Saint, he made some mistakes he was human like the rest of us. Including all the Popes and Mary. Somebody had to recognize the abuses of the Gospel. He tried to change the church. It would not listen. Hopefully the Holy Spirit will change and unite all of Christianity for the return of our Savior, Jesus the Christ!

Well, you have got to realize that ‘saint’ and ‘Saint’ are different ideas. The first is a gracious gift of God to all who are regenerated, the second is something bestowed upon one for doing something. In that sense all who are regenerated are saints, but the title of St. Pophead, would be sort of like the Nobel Peace Prize, you have to do something outstanding to achieve this recognition, whether it means anything after this life is another thing altogether.

So I agree Luther was a saint, though some say he was never really regenerated, they say the same about Calvin, they have said the same about me, but I have the witness in my innermost being that I have been born of the Spirit. Jesus said, ‘I am come that they may have LIFE and have it more ABUNDANTLY.’ If the one does not have the Spirit one is none of His. I have read Luther’s stuff and He sure had spirit, whether He had the Spirit or not, is not something I need to worry my head about because he is LONG GONE.

My point, we should not be looking to Saints who have been set up on earth, we should be looking to the one who God witnesses we should look to and that is His Son. (1 John 5: 9-12)

Pophead,

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

I think I learned a few things by watching the PBS or History Channel program on Luther. I was impressed by the effect of his trip to Rome, which he discovered to be vastly more secular and self-indulgent than he expected.

mgrfin:

Hilaire Belloc (“How the Reformation Happened”) said of Luther’s visit to Rome in 1511: “There is no contemporary proof that the worldliness of the Roman Court or of the clerical society in Rome, or the abuses thereof (there were plenty of abuses) roused him to any special indignation or had any effect upon his mind.”

It seems to me to be a bit naive of Martin Luther to claim he didn’t know the condition of Rome at that time.

sosayi1960:

Somebody had to recognize the abuses of the Gospel.

Reform was already happening within the Church. Somebody was recognizing the abuses and it was changing. It just wasn’t changing fast enough for the Protestant “reformers”.

 

[Contarini]

Thank you for your views, What you call tragic belief others call divine revelation,

From your profile I do not get the impression that you are a confessional Lutheran. Do you believe in the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Do you believe that baptism is the means by which justifying grace is offered to us? If you don’t, Luther would call you a heretic. Of course you can say that some of his ideas–the ones you like–were revealed by God. But you must surely agree with me that his confidence in all his ideas was tragic. Don’t you think, as a Protestant, that it was tragic that Luther refused to unite with Zwingli and the other Swiss/South German Reformers? Don’t you think that his wholesale condemnation of the Anabaptists was tragic? He didn’t just condemn Catholicism, you know.

I am just glad that the truth is told and that people have for decades had the freedom to read and seek for the truth that is in scripture for themselves.

Not that Luther approved of this. He thought that ordinary laypeople did not have the right to set themselves up as preachers of the Gospel–he believed that he had the authority because the Church had called him to be a teacher of theology and a minister of the Gospel. But he did not believe (at least in his later years) that just anyone could grab a Bible and go around expounding it. Your reading of Luther is anachronistic and romanticized. (If you are purely talking about people forming their own opinions, then perhaps you have a case–but I presume that you also rejoice in the freedom to preach the Gospel as you understand it to others, and Luther would have found this seditious and presumptuous.)

I think there is a particular reason that Jesus avoided the

He didn’t avoid them. He seems to have gone out of his way to annoy them!

Jesus used people who were unchurched to establish his church.

I’m not sure what you mean by “unchurched,” but they were certainly not religious leaders.

don’t make the same mistakes again, because Jesus will and is using men and women outside of the Catholic church.

Oh, I agree. Jesus uses all sorts of people. But He made it very clear that He wants us to be one. Anyone who foments separation from other believers is doing the work of the devil. (Don’t get smug, Catholics–insofar as the Catholic Church condemned as heresy ideas that were not actually heretical, it was fomenting separation too; but it’s certainly true that in the end someone has to make decisions about what is heresy and what isn’t, and an extra burden lies on those like Luther who defy the establishment and split Christendom for the sake of ideas that are only partly right.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Points well made, and well taken. Thanks.

Wow–that’s very gracious of you given my snippy tone. God bless you, brother!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I think I learned a few things by watching the PBS or History Channel program on Luther. I was impressed by the effect of his trip to Rome, which he discovered to be vastly more secular and self-indulgent than he expected.

It seems that he lost confidence in the Church, so off he went.

I’m sure that he was shocked, but the trip-to-Rome-that-shocks-the-simple-Christian was a trope in the late Middle Ages. There’s a great story in Boccaccio about the Jewish guy who goes to Rome and his Christian friend tries to stop him (because he knows what Rome is like and figures the Jew will never become a Christian if he sees the corruption), but when the Jew comes back he asks to be baptized and explains to his astonished friend that any Church that could survive such corruption must be the True Church. I’m sure Luther was describing a real experience but was exaggerating his shock to make a very well-worn point. I’m sure that as a German he would have heard all sorts of stories about Italian decadence and complaints about the Papacy long before he went to Rome. It’s not like German Catholics generally were smiling puppets of the Pope–there was a long history of Germans presenting official complaints at the Imperial Diet (Reichstag–roughly equivalent to Parliament) about financial and other forms of oppression coming from the other side of the Alps. It’s unthinkable that Luther wouldn’t have been aware of this.

More to the point, Luther himself went out of his way to say that he was not rebelling against the Pope because of moral abuses. He thought that these were bad, but he thought that the root problem was doctrinal, and spoke somwhat dismissively of earlier reformers (such as Wycliffe and Hus) for just attacking moral abuses rather than getting at the real problem–the distortion of the Gospel.

The rightness or wrongness of what Luther did rests not on whether the Church was corrupt or not or whether Luther was a good person or not, but whether he really recovered the Gospel. I don’t think he did–I think he had valuable and needed insights, but the form in which he presented those insights was by no means perfect, and his ideas needed to be integrated into the Catholic tradition rather than being set up over against it.

Edwin

 

[Madaglan]

More to the point, Luther himself went out of his way to say that he was not rebelling against the Pope because of moral abuses. He thought that these were bad, but he thought that the root problem was doctrinal, and spoke somwhat dismissively of earlier reformers (such as Wycliffe and Hus) for just attacking moral abuses rather than getting at the real problem–the distortion of the Gospel.

Thank you for this excellently written summary of Luther’s real point. I overall agree with your presenation, but am not so sure about Luther speaking dismissively of the other reformers. I thought that Luther, once he dismissed the authority of Pope and Council, regarded himself as following the same line as the Hussites. Then again, I know that the Hussites, once they realized that the Reformation was crossing all over Europe, had divisions amongst themselves concerning whether to join the more radical claims of Luther or to seek a reconciliation agreement with Rome. So perhaps Luther spoke dismissively of this latter group down the road. You probably know more about this than me.

Originally Posted by Contarini:

The rightness or wrongness of what Luther did rests not on whether the Church was corrupt or not or whether Luther was a good person or not, but whether he really recovered the Gospel. I don’t think he did–I think he had valuable and needed insights, but the form in which he presented those insights was by no means perfect, and his ideas needed to be integrated into the Catholic tradition rather than being set up over against it.

This is the big question I have myself. I do not yet have an answer to the question though. He very well may not have recovered the Gospel. Another question: did Rome, does Rome, proclaim the Gospel? Just because Luther perhaps did not recover the Gospel does not mean that Rome proclaimed and continues to proclaim the Gospel all along.

 

[Contarini]

Thank you for this excellently written summary of Luther’s real point. I overall agree with your presenation, but am not so sure about Luther speaking dismissively of the other reformers. I thought that Luther, once he dismissed the authority of Pope and Council, regarded himself as following the same line as the Hussites. Then again, I know that the Hussites, once they realized that the Reformation was crossing all over Europe, had divisions amongst themselves concerning whether to join the more radical claims of Luther or to seek a reconciliation agreement with Rome. So perhaps Luther spoke dismissively of this latter group down the road. You probably know more about this than me.

Luther thought that Hus had been on the right track as far as he went, but Hus did not teach Luther’s doctrine of faith, which Luther thought was the key issue.

This is the big question I have myself. I do not yet have an answer to the question though. He very well may not have recovered the Gospel. Another question: did Rome, does Rome, proclaim the Gospel? .

Yes. Every Mass proclaims the Gospel. This was one of my favorite moments in the Beckwith/Koukl debate. One caller challenged Beckwith to say what he thought the Gospel was (and how his understanding had changed with reversion to Catholicism) and Beckwith read the first few verses of 1 Cor. 15: “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.”

The essence of the Gospel is about what Jesus has done, not about just which part of our response is responsible for saving us and how. (That we are to respond with repentance, faith, and works of love is not disputed by anyone.) In the end, if we really believe in salvation by grace and not works, then what Jesus has done is the important thing.

Edwin

 

[Madaglan]

Yes. Every Mass proclaims the Gospel. This was one of my favorite moments in the Beckwith/Koukl debate. One caller challenged Beckwith to say what he thought the Gospel was (and how his understanding had changed with reversion to Catholicism) and Beckwith read the first few verses of 1 Cor. 15: “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.”

The essence of the Gospel is about what Jesus has done, not about just which part of our response is responsible for saving us and how. (That we are to respond with repentance, faith, and works of love is not disputed by anyone.) In the end, if we really believe in salvation by grace and not works, then what Jesus has done is the important thing.

Edwin

All right. But is it really the Gospel or just a gospel? Catholics and Protestants still disagree on what Jesus actually did on the Cross. While Catholics and Protestants use the same Scriptures, their understanding of the work of Christ (in his Atonement) is different. If the essence of the Gospel is about what Jesus has done, and if Catholics and Protestants disagree on what Jesus exactly has done, then, well, I imagine their understanding of what the Gospel is also differs insofar as they disagree on the work of Christ.

There is nontheless significant agreement between Catholics and Protestants on the Atonement; “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” is affirmed by all Christians: Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and even Jehovah’s Witnesses (if you consider them Christians). But I believe the differences of what this exactly means do matter when it comes to the Gospel. One can proclaim the true Gospel; and then one can proclaim a false gospel. The words may be the same, but the interpretation, especially in context with the whole service–i.e. the whole Mass-- different. As the Early Fathers well demonstrated, even an apparently minor difference in theology could be a heinous distortion of the Gospel.

I suppose the underlying question is “What is the work of Christ?” Or rather, “What did Christ do for our salvation?”

 

[mgrfin]

Well, you have got to realize that ‘saint’ and ‘Saint’ are different ideas. The first is a gracious gift of God to all who are regenerated, the second is something bestowed upon one for doing something. In that sense all who are regenerated are saints, but the title of St. Pophead, would be sort of like the Nobel Peace Prize, you have to do something outstanding to achieve this recognition, whether it means anything after this life is another thing altogether.

So I agree Luther was a saint, though some say he was never really regenerated, they say the same about Calvin, they have said the same about me, but I have the witness in my innermost being that I have been born of the Spirit. Jesus said, ‘I am come that they may have LIFE and have it more ABUNDANTLY.’ If the one does not have the Spirit one is none of His. I have read Luther’s stuff and He sure had spirit, whether He had the Spirit or not, is not something I need to worry my head about because he is LONG GONE.

My point, we should not be looking to Saints who have been set up on earth, we should be looking to the one who God witnesses we should look to and that is His Son. (1 John 5: 9-12)

Pophead,

Obviously, Pophead, you are reflecting your Protestant heritage. I think you should tell us in advance that what you are expousing is not Catholic teaching.

Lots of confused ideas here. Of course we should be looking to Jesus Christ. But we should also look to the exemplary lives of individuals who have gone before us. We are not granted salvation (sainthood) automatically because we were baptised (regenerated, you say). We keep getting exposed to the OSAS notion, and we have to remind you that we don’t agree with it. The lives of the saints, and of martyrs and of good Christians prove how effective are the means of grace with which the Church is endowed.

The faithful on earth, through the communion of saints, honor the Saints in heaven and we pray to them because they are worthy of honor, and as friends of God will help us, the faithful on earth.

As the Church prayers in the Litany of the Saints, “All ye holy men and women, Saints of God, make intercession for us.”

mgrfin

 

[jpaul]

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?

I don’t admire Martin Luther.

I admire Saint Thomas More, Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Saint Maximilian Kolbe and the many saints along the ages.

Ave Maria!

jpaul

 

[mgrfin]

I don’t admire Martin Luther.

I admire Saint Thomas More, Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Saint Maximilian Kolbe and the many saints along the ages.

Ave Maria!

jpaul

There are a lot of saints I admire. You mention Thomas More. My other most favored of the English saints was St. John Fisher.

mgrfin

 

[jpaul]

There are a lot of saints I admire. You mention Thomas More. My other most favored of the English saints was St. John Fisher.

mgrfin

Peace and all-good!

“Remember your leaders who spoke the word of God to you; consider how their lives ended, and imitate their faith.” Heb. 13:7

Thanks and God bless!

Ave Maria!

jpaul

 

[mgrfin]

All right. But is it really the Gospel or just a gospel? Catholics and Protestants still disagree on what Jesus actually did on the Cross. While Catholics and Protestants use the same Scriptures, their understanding of the work of Christ (in his Atonement) is different. If the essence of the Gospel is about what Jesus has done, and if Catholics and Protestants disagree on what Jesus exactly has done, then, well, I imagine their understanding of what the Gospel is also differs insofar as they disagree on the work of Christ.

There is nontheless significant agreement between Catholics and Protestants on the Atonement; “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” is affirmed by all Christians: Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and even Jehovah’s Witnesses (if you consider them Christians). But I believe the differences of what this exactly means do matter when it comes to the Gospel. One can proclaim the true Gospel; and then one can proclaim a false gospel. The words may be the same, but the interpretation, especially in context with the whole service–i.e. the whole Mass-- different. As the Early Fathers well demonstrated, even an apparently minor difference in theology could be a heinous distortion of the Gospel.

I suppose the underlying question is “What is the work of Christ?” Or rather, “What did Christ do for our salvation?”

It is a fundamental principle of Catholic theology that we can do nothing of ourselves towards our salvation, and this is true of the growth of grace. But we can correspond with grace, and by correponding with grace we can increase the supernatural life whcih we already profess. St. Paul speaks of the development of the life of grace within us “unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ.” And it is clear that this development is at least in part dependent upon our own personal efforts.

We have to remember the non-Catholic believes Justification is a mere non-imputation of sin, and this does not admit of growth: our sins are either imputed to us or they are not. The Catholic Church teaches a supernatural life in which we go from virtue to virtue, renewed from day to day, and thus become more justified.

Let’s us not forget. Yes, we are open to discuss; but, the Catholic Church has received the full deposit of faith, stainless, and without error until the end of time. “Per eunem Dominum nostrum Christum Filium tuum. Qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitate Spiritus Santi Deus. Per omnia saecula saeculorum. Amen”

 

[Contarini]

All right. But is it really the Gospel or just a gospel? Catholics and Protestants still disagree on what Jesus actually did on the Cross. While Catholics and Protestants use the same Scriptures, their understanding of the work of Christ (in his Atonement) is different. If the essence of the Gospel is about what Jesus has done, and if Catholics and Protestants disagree on what Jesus exactly has done, then, well, I imagine their understanding of what the Gospel is also differs insofar as they disagree on the work of Christ.

There is nontheless significant agreement between Catholics and Protestants on the Atonement; “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” is affirmed by all Christians: Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and even Jehovah’s Witnesses (if you consider them Christians). But I believe the differences of what this exactly means do matter when it comes to the Gospel. One can proclaim the true Gospel; and then one can proclaim a false gospel. The words may be the same, but the interpretation, especially in context with the whole service–i.e. the whole Mass-- different. As the Early Fathers well demonstrated, even an apparently minor difference in theology could be a heinous distortion of the Gospel.

I suppose the underlying question is “What is the work of Christ?” Or rather, “What did Christ do for our salvation?”

There is no general Protestant/Catholic disagreement on the Atonement. Classical Protestantism does insist on a strict penal substitution theory, if that is what you are thinking of. But first of all, some Catholics seem to have held something pretty close to that. And in the second place, the penal substitution theory strictly defined is clearly not the Gospel. It is a strange combination of aspects of Anselm’s satisfaction theory (which has been the traditional Catholic view, or an important pillar thereof, for centuries) with the older (and indisputably orthodox) view that Christ took upon Himself the punishment of our sins. Unfortunately, the penal substitution view combines these in such a way as to claim that God punished Christ in our place because God’s justice required Him to punish somebody, which is a problematic doctrine for a number of reasons (and completely distorts both Anselm and patristic atonement theology). And you are right, many Protestants do think this is the gospel. Again, they are wrong. Again, this is about mechanics rather than basic proclamation. It substitutes a speculative heavenly drama for the very real, concrete New Testament kerygma.

Furthermore–and this may be what you have in mind–many Protestants tie in sola fide directly to the Atonement, so that whatever doctrine concerning good works or Purgatory they may want to attack becomes a denial of the Atonement. The most extreme and consistent version of this is the insistence of some conservative Calvinists that only Limited Atonement does justice to the doctrine, since only if we say that Christ redeemed a certain number of specific individuals (who will infallibly be saved, they and no others) can we truly confess that Christ died for our sins.

I am convinced that none of these claims does justice to the Gospel, and if you are inclined to think that they do I’m happy to discuss the point with you.

In Christ,

Edwin