Dr. Martin Luther

[Pax]

Calvin:

I assume you have poll data to back this up…

… or is your ability to read the minds of millions of people who were alive five hundred years ago I should trust?

-C

Read Hellaire Belloc’s The Great Heresies and you will learn how and why the Reformation took hold.

 

[MichelleTherese]

“… or is your ability to read the minds of millions of people who were alive five hundred years ago I should trust?”

Do you have the poll data to back up your claim? Or should I trust that you can read the minds of those same people from 500 years ago?

 

[Shari]

everlastingthur:

Luther was a character, that’s for sure. Sometimes pious, sometimes a womanizer, a drunk and often venemous. I’d be suspicious of any book, though Catholic or otherwise that says no indulgence abuses took place. They weren’t sold by Pope Pius X as many claim. Catholic historians have said there were abuses, though. They weren’t as bad as Luther claimed, though. I’m no expert on Church history, but I have several Catholic Church History books, and they say abuse occured. How much and by whom is another story, though. Did that book on Luther say no abuses took place?

I beleive the abuses were by another priest and also what the priest at our parish said was that if you did alms giving such as a donation to help repair or build a church you would be granted a partial indulgence. Some people were taking this as indulgences were being sold. And I do beleive there was a priest, can’t remember his name who was kind of selling them, obviously without the pope’s knowledge. Anyway when the Church saw how this was being taken they quit with the indulgences for alms giving. Anyway this is what I heard.

Could someone tell me if the pope had wanted Luther beheaded. My mom said this was so based off the book Luther(the one that has the movie with it). I have not read this book nor seen the movie, but I was curious about that.

Thanks.

 

[Shari]

Melchior:

Luther added the word “alone” after the word “faith” to one verse because it was the only way to properly translate the phrase into German. The idea that he added a word for the sake of adding one to further his theology can be refuted by any one who knows basic German. There is nothing more to it.

There were already 12 or 14 translations of the bible before Luther made his, and they didn’t contain the word alone. Also that was later removed from his translation.

 

[Shari]

MichelleTherese:

Uh…let’s not try to blame Luther’s dark side by claiming maddness. He knew exactly what he was doing: he was revolting against Rome. And he was not right in doing so.

Martin Luther was a disturbed human being. I am not making excuses for him, and he did do a lot of wrong things, but when he was young his father was into witch craft and other things. Martin Luther was plauged by demons as I am sure everyine here well knows. He made a mistake which he kind of admitted himself, after he told his followers they could interpret the bible for themselves thinking they would have the same view point he did. This didn’t happen obviously, and his said it was wrong. Martin Luther died a very sad man, and I feel sorry for him.

 

[Redeemerslove]

Calvin:

If there were *no abuses at all, *why did the Reformation spread so quickly and to so many different countries and language groups?

To be sure some of the secular German princes (and one English monarch) were playing politics with the faith, but you couldn’t fill the Protestant chuches with princes alone. Something the Protestants were doing resonated with the masses. Something the Catholics were doing caused large numbers of people to leave the faith. Honest Christians of all stripes will want to know the answers to those questions.

This is quite an assumption. Basing a critique on historical evidence, the populace was a largely ingorant, uneducated lot. Secondly, what makes you think it wasn’t something the Protestants were doing that cause them to leave the Church?:ehh:

A fair reading of any medieval history will give you all sorts of shockers about bishops fathering bastard children and popes selling appointments to the highest bidders. That doesn’t mean the Catholic Church was evil, it just means certain Catholics were. In the same way certain excesses on the part of Protestants doesn’t mean they weren’t reacting to something legitimate. This is a glorified ad hominem attack – Luther might be a “mad monk” but that doesn’t mean he was wrong.

Hold on, a “mad monk” is correct? I don’t agree with people calling other people “crazy.” Being a certified twelve counselor, I can say that many addicts would be called crazy if people knew their lives. But, if someone has a psychopathology, wouldn’t you say that they were not in touch with reality? If the “mad monk” was not in touch with reality, why would you believe him?

With tears, I share the assessment of historian Jarislov Pelikan of Yale: “the Protestant Reformation was a tragic necessity.” The problem is that most Protestants don’t see it as tragic and most Catholics don’t see it as a necessity. Both sides need to learn to stop whitewashing history if we want to get serious about Christian unity.

Sin is never a necessity, this is sugar-coating the reality of the Reformation. I have one word for those who willing participated in the Reformation - Material Heretics. Christ founded one Church, He didn’t need to change his mind and create another Church: This would impinge on the Divine Attribute of Omniscience.

So if Christ didn’t found another Church, who’s Church was founded?

 

[Calvin]

MichelleTherese:

Do you have the poll data to back up your claim? Or should I trust that you can read the minds of those same people from 500 years ago?

My claim was merely that something was going on in the late Middle Ages that made large numbers of people dis-satisfied with the Catholic Church. I didn’t say what that thing was – I was just pointing out that millions of people do not spontaneously abandon their religion for no reason at all. I made this claim to counter the poster(s) who seemed to be saying that there was **no **abuse in the Catholic Church during this period. Google Pope Alexander Borgia and you will quickly see that there was something wrong going on at this time…

Note that I’m not defending schism. I’m also not saying there is no heresy in Protestantism. As I wrote in another post, I’m not here to defend Protestantism but to learn about Catholicism. But when people claim there were **no **abuses at all, I can’t be silent in the face of such great ignorance.

-C

P.S. I’ve actually read the Reformer’s writings and creeds and that is why I knew you were taking Luther’s quotes out of context.

 

[Redeemerslove]

Shari:

I beleive the abuses were by another priest and also what the priest at our parish said was that if you did alms giving such as a donation to help repair or build a church you would be granted a partial indulgence. Some people were taking this as indulgences were being sold. And I do beleive there was a priest, can’t remember his name who was kind of selling them, obviously without the pope’s knowledge. Anyway when the Church saw how this was being taken they quit with the indulgences for alms giving. Anyway this is what I heard.

I don’t care to see a movie that has for a trailer “Didn’t you think there would be a price” for what we did? What a way to characterize the Catholic Church.:tsktsk:

I have read many times that indulgences were indeed sold. If this new author has evidence that shows the opposite, I’m sure that evidence will be peer reviewed and studied.

 

[dcs]

Calvin:

If there were *no abuses at all, *why did the Reformation spread so quickly and to so many different countries and language groups?

At least in England, it was because the laity were forced to assist at Protestant Scripture-and-preaching services. Many English protested against the changes – consider the Western Rising, for example, which was primarily a lay-led revolt against Cranmerism.

 

[Redeemerslove]

Calvin:

My claim was merely that something was going on in the late Middle Ages that made large numbers of people dis-satisfied with the Catholic Church.

Exactly, the sin and ignorance of the population, and the political ambitions of the Princes of Germany.

I didn’t say what that thing was – I was just pointing out that millions of people do not spontaneously abandon their religion for no reason at all.

That’s right, sin, ignorance, psychopathology, sociopathology and probably a whole host of other evils.

I made this claim to counter the poster(s) who seemed to be saying that there was **no **abuse in the Catholic Church during this period. Google Pope Alexander Borgia and you will quickly see that there was something wrong going on at this time…

There has always been sin in the Catholic Church, there was sin amongst the Apostles - what a big surprise! But other’s sins are no reason to leave the True Church.

No, I’m not defending schism. I’m also not saying there is no heresy in Protestantism. As I wrote in another post, I’m not here to defend Protestantism but to learn about Catholicism. But when people claim there were **no **abuses at all, I can’t be silent in the face of such great ignorance.

And you would be right in that action, according to the predominance of the research. But to sugar-coat the many evils that were the fruit of the so-called “Reformation,” is minimizing its evil, IMO.

 

[Shari]

Redeemerslove:

I don’t care to see a movie that has for a trailer “Didn’t you think there would be a price” for what we did? What a way to characterize the Catholic Church.:tsktsk:

I don’t want to see the movie either, I was only asking if anyone knew if the pope wanted luther beheaded? This is one of the things this book/movie is supposed to have said.

Redeemerslove:

I have read many times that indulgences were indeed sold. If this new author has evidence that shows the opposite, I’m sure that evidence will be peer reviewed and studied.

As far as this, I am going by what my priest told me, and that the magisterium backed up. My point was that the pope had nothing to do with the selling of the indulgences. The teaching was correct, but was misunderstood and got out of hand and was stopped. Yes I am sure there were some priests who took advantage of the situation and did indeed sell them, but without the pope’s knowledge. Our priest has done a lot of research on this, and knows the church has made plenty of mistakes, and he doesn’t try to hide them so I have no reason to disbeleive him. Thanks.

 

[dcs]

Shari:

I don’t want to see the movie either, I was only asking if anyone knew if the pope wanted luther beheaded? This is one of the things this book/movie is supposed to have said.

In those days an heretic would be handed over to the secular authorities and executed. I don’t know about beheading, but in Exsurge Domine, the bull in which Leo X excommunicated Martin Luther, the following error was condemned:

"That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit."

 

[Calvin]

Redeemerslove:

This is quite an assumption. Basing a critique on historical evidence, the populace was a largely ingorant, uneducated lot.

Oh that is patronizing…

Even if they were ignorant and uneducated that doesn’t mean they didn’t know abuse when they saw it. It doesn’t take a college degree to know that if a Pope has taken a vow of celibacy, he shouldn’t father bastard children. The fact that people were ignorant doesn’t mean there weren’t abuses in the Catholic Church.

Redeemerslove:

Secondly, what makes you think it wasn’t something the Protestants were doing that cause them to leave the Church?:ehh:

You have to remember that Catholicism was all there was at this time. The early “Protestants” were people who were born and raised in the Church. Many of them were educated by the Church. Obviously in the later-Reformation we can ask the question “were the Protestants doing something that caused people to leave?” But in the early Reformation I think the question “was there anything going on in the Catholic Church that would cause millions of people to spontaneously become schismatic?”

I think the answer to both questions is yes.

Redeemerslove:

Hold on, a “mad monk” is correct?.. wouldn’t you say that they were not in touch with reality? If the “mad monk” was not in touch with reality, why would you believe him?

I was citing someone else. Obviously I don’t believe he was mad. Even if he was mad, I’m a Calvinist so you’d have to show Calvin was mad to get my attention. (Hint: look up some of his statutes for Geneiva – they may not be mad but they were pretty neurotic.)

This thread started with the premise that ML is a bad person. My objection is “he may be a bad person, but that doesn’t mean there was no abuse.”

What do you say when people ask: If the popes sinned in the past why do you believe they are infallible?

**It is the same objection! **

The fact that someone did some things wrong doesn’t mean what they say is wrong too. The earlier poster referred to ML as a “mad monk” as if that was supposed to mean that there were no problems with the Catholic Church and ML was just acting because of greed or ego or something. ML may have been acting because of greed or ego, but that doesn’t mean the things he pointed out weren’t wrong. He may not have gone about the Reformation in the right way, but that doesn’t mean there didn’t need to be some kind of reforms.

Redeemerslove:

Sin is never a necessity, this is sugar-coating the reality of the Reformation.

Amen. There were excesses to the Reformation but the basic principle is the still true: some reforms were needed to correct the abuses that were happening. Don’t sugar-coat Catholic history the way some Protestants sugar-coat the Reformation history.

Redeemerslove:

I have one word for those who willing participated in the Reformation - Material Heretics. Christ founded one Church, He didn’t need to change his mind and create another Church: This would impinge on the Divine Attribute of Omniscience.

Protestants have never claimed to form another Church. Protestants claim the Church is made up of all men and women who worship Jesus as Christ and name Him as Lord and Savior. Catholics say the Church is a political entity centered on being in communion with the Pope, Protestants say it is a spiritual entity centered on being in personal communion with Christ. We both claim there is only one Church.

You may not like our definition but that is another matter…

Redeemerslove:

So if Christ didn’t found another Church, who’s Church was founded?

I’m of the opinion He founded the Eastern Orthodox Church.

-C

P.S. Again, I’m not here to defend Protestantism but learn about Catholicism. It would just be nice (if only for the sake of Christian unity) to see some Catholic person write: “there were some (however small) abuses during the Middle Ages.” Is that asking too much?

 

[Calvin]

dcs:

At least in England, it was because the laity were forced to assist at Protestant Scripture-and-preaching services. Many English protested against the changes – consider the Western Rising, for example, which was primarily a lay-led revolt against Cranmerism.

This is true. A personal hero of mine is St. Thomas Moore (I was happy when he was made the patron saint of politicians a few years ago because I am a political scientist) who paid the ultimate price for standing against forced Protestant conversion.

All I’m trying to argue is that the picture is more complicated than “Luther bad.” Clearly much of their support came from political leaders (although I could say the same for the Catholics) but the Reformers had to have some level of support from the masses to get as far as they did as fast as they did. If their claims were totally bogus (as some of these posters claim) I think the movement would have fizzled very quickly.

-C

 

[Redeemerslove]

Shari:

I don’t want to see the movie either, I was only asking if anyone knew if the pope wanted luther beheaded? This is one of the things this book/movie is supposed to have said.

I simply don’t remember. The Protestants that I minister too, don’t even understand that the roots of their faith are founded in Luther.

As far as this, I am going by what my priest told me, and that the magisterium backed up. My point was that the pope had nothing to do with the selling of the indulgences. The teaching was correct, but was misunderstood and got out of hand and was stopped. Yes I am sure there were some priests who took advantage of the situation and did indeed sell them, but without the pope’s knowledge. Our priest has done a lot of research on this, and knows the church has made plenty of mistakes, and he doesn’t try to hide them so I have no reason to disbeleive him. Thanks.

Yes the Pope didnt have anything to do with the selling in indulgences, but the Chancellor of the Diocese of Augsburg did, according to my research. In his work the “Cantebury Tales” (which is morally decripit in many respects), Geoffrey Chaucer talks about an “Pardoner” - these were by and large lay people, or even non-Catholics who sold indulgences for a fee. They were very dramatic in their presentation of the punishments of hell, and they tried to use this fear to have others pay them for the forgiveness of sins.

So due to the lack of information sharing at the time, Pardoners could hardly be tracked, would commit their evil deeds, and move on to the next village before any Church or Civil Authorities could catch up with them. This is a snapshot of the times that Martin Luther lived in, Pardoners were socially institutionlized - but very importantly, not Church institutionalized.

The point is, the supposed abuses, at least in the average citizens minds - were on the part of laity and non-Catholics, not on the part of the priests. But Martin Luther may have used the superstitious belief about Pardoners, to augment his issues with indulgences.

But yes, we have to always be understanding to the sins of the priests of those times. But we do the truth a disservice, if we do not also talk about the many priests who did not engage in these practices. And I think that is a cogent point as well.

 

[Redeemerslove]

Calvin:

This is true. A personal hero of mine is St. Thomas Moore (I was happy when he was made the patron saint of politicians a few years ago because I am a political scientist) who paid the ultimate price for standing against forced Protestant conversion.

All I’m trying to argue is that the picture is more complicated than “Luther bad.” Clearly much of their support came from political leaders (although I could say the same for the Catholics) but the Reformers had to have some level of support from the masses to get as far as they did as fast as they did. If their claims were totally bogus (as some of these posters claim) I think the movement would have fizzled very quickly.

I agree. There had to be some popular support, especially in those political times. But the Church was founded by a king, Jesus Christ, it is not a democracy. Secondly, we cannot ignore the social pressures that existed in the hands of the military forces.

 

[dcs]

Calvin:

All I’m trying to argue is that the picture is more complicated than “Luther bad.”

Of course it was, but it doesn’t follow that Luther wasn’t bad.

 

[nucatholic]

The assertion that Luther had to modify the verse due to a German idiom is false. I am a Germanistik Hauptfach (German Major) and I know a little German. It is also true that there were many translations without the “allein” before Luther decided that he knew the German language best and correctly translated it. Mel, is it possible that you might be the one only reading a bias base of literature on Luther? Is it scholarly to only read one side of the argument and blame others who take both sides for what they are worth ? I think not. People in the 15th and 16th century only saw abuses occuring in their local parish if at all. Do you think that even if the Pope had fathered illegitimate children that he or the bishops would actually tell anyone? Lets get real about this people. Luther had admirable and not so admirable qualities but it seems his not so admirable qualities outweigh the former. His arguments and theological stances were elementary and ridiculous. Does the Church need to be kept in check at times? A resounding yes should be heard by all the faithful. However, it should be kept in check so as to keep it in line with the original teachings of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that was in existence as the true body of Christ for 1500 years before the Reformation.

 

[Pax]

Calvin:

This is true. A personal hero of mine is St. Thomas Moore (I was happy when he was made the patron saint of politicians a few years ago because I am a political scientist) who paid the ultimate price for standing against forced Protestant conversion.

All I’m trying to argue is that the picture is more complicated than “Luther bad.” Clearly much of their support came from political leaders (although I could say the same for the Catholics) but the Reformers had to have some level of support from the masses to get as far as they did as fast as they did. If their claims were totally bogus (as some of these posters claim) I think the movement would have fizzled very quickly.

-C

Support from the masses and a movement’s staying power in no way suggest credibility. We see staying power and support by the masses in Islam, Buddhism, Mormonism, and many other movements worldwide. That does not mean that their claims are true. Yes, the Church at times needs purification from corruption, but sin and corruption do not falsify teaching. The Catholic Church teaches the truth as promised by Jesus Christ. Martin Luther made up the doctrines of sola scriptura, sola fide, consubstantiation, and others completely on his own interpretation of scripture. He was a troubled man that presented heretical teachings.

 

[Flluffycat]

So Luther was no saint. Big deal. Read about some of the Popes – neither were they.