B
benhur
Guest
Could Lutherans be scratching their heads saying then why don’t Catholics become Lutherans, or at least see them as equals ?
- Status
B
benhur
Guest
A broad stroke your last sentence. The orthodox, some ECF’s are irrelevant to reformers ?
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Jon,
By publishing (or posting) ONLY those things which tend to show Luther in the best possible light, the resulting impression of the man is false, whether done deliberately, or, more likely in many cases, unconsciously, or simply as a matter of habit or culture.
One of the other things that people do with Luther quotes is fail to reference them properly, especially without giving the year that he wrote them. With Luther the “when” is everything. As an example people point to Luther’s singular 1523 writing on the Jews which, out of context, can be used to claim that he was ‘kind’ to the Jews. Of course the truth is quite different. To refer to only that 1523 text as ‘proof’ of Luther’s ‘attitude’ on the Jews is unintentionally misleading IF the writer is not aware of the vast majority of Luther’s writings which were FAR from kind.
I do have another question for you that I would like to ask. I am wondering about the “Evangelical Catholic” designation that you use, which actually precedes your ‘other’ designation, LCMS. Given that you are not Catholic, how do you justify using the formal name of a Church that you don’t belong to and one that your church is so formally opposed to? I would very much like to understand this, because I have to say, at this point, it bothers me. Could you please explain your position on this matter?
May God Continue to Bless You Jon, Topper
As you know Jon, Luther wrote several dozen volumes of text. It is not exacly hard to find something that he wrote that sounds reasonable, and even orthodox, as do your ‘good works’ quotes. But those ‘good works’ quotes, taken by themselves, without the ‘other’ quotes about ‘good works’, provide a very skewed perception of the subject. Lutherans especially are very prone to post those things which make Luther look better than the historic record would justify, and in fact, that is the kind of thing from which Lutheranism has, over the centuries, built the Legend of Luther. I think it is important that people know the whole truth.
By publishing (or posting) ONLY those things which tend to show Luther in the best possible light, the resulting impression of the man is false, whether done deliberately, or, more likely in many cases, unconsciously, or simply as a matter of habit or culture.
One of the other things that people do with Luther quotes is fail to reference them properly, especially without giving the year that he wrote them. With Luther the “when” is everything. As an example people point to Luther’s singular 1523 writing on the Jews which, out of context, can be used to claim that he was ‘kind’ to the Jews. Of course the truth is quite different. To refer to only that 1523 text as ‘proof’ of Luther’s ‘attitude’ on the Jews is unintentionally misleading IF the writer is not aware of the vast majority of Luther’s writings which were FAR from kind.
I do have another question for you that I would like to ask. I am wondering about the “Evangelical Catholic” designation that you use, which actually precedes your ‘other’ designation, LCMS. Given that you are not Catholic, how do you justify using the formal name of a Church that you don’t belong to and one that your church is so formally opposed to? I would very much like to understand this, because I have to say, at this point, it bothers me. Could you please explain your position on this matter?
May God Continue to Bless You Jon, Topper
S
steido01
Guest
I cannot for the life of me imagine that the head of the Roman Catholic Church, one of the most brilliant theologians of our time – who was raised in Germany among so many Lutherans, who studied and taught alongside Lutherans, who knows Lutheranism intimately and better than perhaps any pope before him – spoke on such a topic without knowing his source material.
Then again, that may be a hard pill for anti-Luther RC’s to swallow. I look forward to reading their responses to Pope Benedict’s words. Some seem so fixated on establishing an ad hominem attack on Luther the man (though they never met him), that they ignore their own teachers and authorities. Christ weeps for His church on earth.
Of course he did! My noting him as the ‘most Lutheran of popes’ was not hyperbole, and I am neither the first and certainly not the brightest to call him so.
S
steido01
Guest
To be blunt, some have. And a good many more of us have considered the swim. But we are bound by conscience - and to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Why do we stay Lutheran? The reform of His church is not yet complete - though in the matter of “faith -]vs./-] and [God’s] works,” Luther’s protest appears to have been successful.
M
marywarfield
Guest
Well I’m sure they do Benhur. Lol. All the time.
Without once having it occur to them it’s an irrational
thought.
M
marywarfield
Guest
Part two:
“A vivid recollection of this kind comes down from the period of the struggle over indulgences and is found in the Explanations on the Power of Indulgences in 1518. Here, in a remarkable passage on the tortures of purgatory, he describes pangs of conscience which he had endured. "They lasted, to be sure, only a short while, but they were so hard and infernal that no tongue can express their power, no pen describe it, nor can anyone believe it who has never had the experience. If they should remain at their most extreme point for an hour, yes, even six minutes, the victim must quite perish and all his bones be turned to ashes."” Fife, pg. 120
Protestant Biographer Roland Bainton relates Luther’s level of fear as follows:
“In consequence the most frightful insecurities beset him. Panic invaded his spirit. The conscience became so disquieted as to start and tremble at the stirring of a wind-blown leaf. The horror of nightmare gripped the soul, the dread of one waking in the dusk to look into the eyes of him who has come to take his life. The heavenly champions all withdrew; the fiend beckoned with leering summons to the impotent soul. These were the torments which Luther repeatedly testified were far worse than any physical ailment that he had ever endured. Bainton, pg. 55-6
Even given Luther’s well known habit for embellishment, we have no choice but to believe that his torments in the monastery were so horrific that he believed that he could not survive them. With that kind of belief, what else could he do other than “find” some way to calm himself?
“Now, oddly enough," we find Luther, in 1532, telling the people quite seriously in his sermons on Matt, v. vii., that, as a novice, he had not been able to endure the sight of the crucifix. “When I saw a picture or statue of Christ hanging on the Cross, etc., I was so affrighted that I averted my eyes.” And, again, in the same sermons: “When I looked at Him on the Cross He seemed to me like a flash of lightning.” He also adds that he "had often been affrighted at the name of Jesus.", " The Last Day," he says in a sermon of 1534, he could not bear to hear spoken of, and “my hair stood on end when I thought of it.” These statements are doubtless exaggerations, but Luther has others even stronger:** He would “rather have heard the devil spoken of than Christ”; he would rather have seen " the devil than the Crucified”, “rather have heard of the devils in hell than of the Last Day.”** Grisar VI, pg. 225-6
I wonder if he was afraid of holy water.
Protestant Robert Herndon Fife relates the same information:
**
“The fears inspired by early beliefs also went with him into the cloister. One of these was that of Christ as his severe judge, which, as we have seen, probably arose from impressions derived in childhood from pictures familiar in late medieval iconography. This became a source of unhappiness in the cloister to which he returns again and again in his recollections of experience there**. Here he refers frequently to his conviction that Christ was indifferent to human woes and must be won over through the intercession of his mother, the Virgin. The picture of Christ sitting in judgment on the Last Day dwelt vividly in his mind, so that he could not shake off fears connected with it. "When I looked on Christ, I saw the devil: so , 'Dear Mary, pray to your Son for me and still His anger," He was the first of all the devils. Everybody fled from Him and hated Him. Whenever he saw the picture of Christ he would cast down his eyes and was so minded that he would rather have seen the devil.” Fife, pg. 122-3
We have already read something about Luther’s early life, how it was shaped by a semi-Pagan/semi-Christian upbringing and also an extremely harsh set of parents. Fife here explains to us that that background supplied him with the fears that he took with him to the monastery. Those fears were based on a belief that God was only a punisher and an avenger; a God who could never find a human being to be “good enough”, exactly the same way he was made to feel from his earthly father. What made Luther “unique” was his inability to believe that God had provided a means by which we humans can obtain Salvation. It was this lack of “trust” in God that made him unable to believe that God actually forgives sins, meaning real sins. In place of the Catholic Sacrament of Confession that he SO hated and couldn’t deal with psychologically, he “developed” a “theology” which made God responsible for his sins.
Why should we Catholics (as Lutherans and Protestants would have us do), believe that Luther correctly understood the Bible when the distinctions between our respective faiths were developed by a man who admitted to hating God (whom he completely misunderstood), feared even pictures of Christ, and behaved like in such an ‘odd’ manner during the time when he developed those distinctions? (Topper says attempting to master the understatement)
God Bless You Mary, Topper
Well most interestingly people-
neither Lutheran or Catholic- pay much attention to
this behavior in Luther. Just dismiss it. But most
people have always dismissed Satanic activity as a myth.
But anyone who has any type critical thinking skill would say:
Why in the world am I following someone who is
in terror of a Crucifix? But then has to say what’s
wrong with Holy Mother Church that she puts someone
terrified of a Crucifix in a teaching position???
Was the Church hard up for priests???
B
benjohnson
Guest
Luther was never our “Pope.” In our church, he’s treated as a theologian with all the foibles of any other theologian.
Frankly, Lutherans should invite catholics to tear down Luther using facts and rhetoric - what remains is the Christ and Him crucified.
M
marywarfield
Guest
You want to quote the Pope as an authority and complain
people everywhere are not flocking to listen?
LOL!!!
Remember according to you Lutherans papal
infallibility and primacy is not true in the first place.
So why should anyone CARE what the Pope says
about Lutherans?
S
steido01
Guest
He’s authoritative to you and other RC’s, I think. That was my point.
Side note: Lutherans object to infallibility, not necessarily Primacy. They are different. But that’s another thread.
Now, to the meat: what do you make of your bishop’s teaching?
M
marywarfield
Guest
S
steido01
Guest
I see what you did there.What Pope Benedict said is true but not dogma-
no requirement to believe it.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Mary,
Thanks for your response.
"An understanding of the origins of Protestantism is essential to any attempt to make sense of it’s subsequent development." McGrath, pg. 11
Luther is that origin. The problem is that, as you mention, nobody seems to pay that much attention. Most Catholics don’t really care all that much about Protestantism, primarily because they don’t see it as that much of a threat to Christianity. Protestants have for the most part, learned a false version of Luther, the ‘Legend’ which portrays him as being extremely intelligent, kind, tolerant, well educated, etc., etc.
As you can see here on CA, about the last thing that informed Protestants (and especially Lutherans) want to talk about is Luther. When you mention something about Luther they are pretty much ‘conditioned’ to change the subject. They will attempt to steer the conversation to something else. In the case of Lutherans they want to switch it to their Confessions, and modern Lutheran beliefs, but in doing so they are really proving my point.
They are quick to point out that neither their Confessions, nor themselves personally, agree with this or that aspect of Luther’s teachings or actions. That is exactly the point. Lutherans disagree with a lot of what Luther did and taught. So do non-Lutheran Protestants, but do so on more issues than Lutherans. We Catholics also disagree with Luther, but on even more issues than Protestants. The point is that everybody disagrees with Luther. As Catholics we simply disagree on more issues than Lutherans. We all agree that he got a lot wrong.
So – if everybody thinks that Luther ‘got it wrong’ on a certain number of issues, why should we have confidence that he got it right one ‘the rest’, especially on things like SS+PI which has caused so much damage to Christian unity. Lutherans have no reasonable answer to this question, so they must pretend to answer or steer us off to their Confessions, their personal beliefs etc.
Some Lutherans will even say that they don’t think that Luther was anything ‘more’ than any other Theologian. That ignores the actual history of Lutheranism and it is in direct opposition to the beliefs of Martin Luther, the founder and creator of the foundational beliefs of Lutheranism.
Luther actually considered himself to be something of a Prophet. In addition, many of his followers considered him to be something of a Prophet, and in fact, Lutheranism itself held similar beliefs about the ‘authority’ of its founder at one point.
Luther’s ‘reformation’ was founded primarily on his own personal authority, an authority which he professed for himself based on SS + his Personal Interpretations. When modern day Lutherans disagree with Luther on the level of authority he possessed, they are really admitting that their communion was begun without the proper authority. In other words - it is illicit.
As you know, the subject of ‘authority’ is one in which Protestantism makes itself known for what it is. Lutherans contradict their own founder and their own heritage on the subject. They claim that their Confessions are authoritative but they cannot even come close to explaining why they believe that.
God Bless You Mary, Topper
BTW, As for ‘demonic activity’, we know that Luther’s ‘relationship’ with the Devil is another one of those things that Lutherans don’t want to discuss.
Thanks for your response.
Protestantism and especially Lutheranism has for centuries hidden the more negative aspects of Luther’s character and teachings. However, Protestantism really can’t be understood without an understanding of it’s origins.
"An understanding of the origins of Protestantism is essential to any attempt to make sense of it’s subsequent development." McGrath, pg. 11
Luther is that origin. The problem is that, as you mention, nobody seems to pay that much attention. Most Catholics don’t really care all that much about Protestantism, primarily because they don’t see it as that much of a threat to Christianity. Protestants have for the most part, learned a false version of Luther, the ‘Legend’ which portrays him as being extremely intelligent, kind, tolerant, well educated, etc., etc.
As you can see here on CA, about the last thing that informed Protestants (and especially Lutherans) want to talk about is Luther. When you mention something about Luther they are pretty much ‘conditioned’ to change the subject. They will attempt to steer the conversation to something else. In the case of Lutherans they want to switch it to their Confessions, and modern Lutheran beliefs, but in doing so they are really proving my point.
They are quick to point out that neither their Confessions, nor themselves personally, agree with this or that aspect of Luther’s teachings or actions. That is exactly the point. Lutherans disagree with a lot of what Luther did and taught. So do non-Lutheran Protestants, but do so on more issues than Lutherans. We Catholics also disagree with Luther, but on even more issues than Protestants. The point is that everybody disagrees with Luther. As Catholics we simply disagree on more issues than Lutherans. We all agree that he got a lot wrong.
So – if everybody thinks that Luther ‘got it wrong’ on a certain number of issues, why should we have confidence that he got it right one ‘the rest’, especially on things like SS+PI which has caused so much damage to Christian unity. Lutherans have no reasonable answer to this question, so they must pretend to answer or steer us off to their Confessions, their personal beliefs etc.
Some Lutherans will even say that they don’t think that Luther was anything ‘more’ than any other Theologian. That ignores the actual history of Lutheranism and it is in direct opposition to the beliefs of Martin Luther, the founder and creator of the foundational beliefs of Lutheranism.
Luther actually considered himself to be something of a Prophet. In addition, many of his followers considered him to be something of a Prophet, and in fact, Lutheranism itself held similar beliefs about the ‘authority’ of its founder at one point.
Luther’s ‘reformation’ was founded primarily on his own personal authority, an authority which he professed for himself based on SS + his Personal Interpretations. When modern day Lutherans disagree with Luther on the level of authority he possessed, they are really admitting that their communion was begun without the proper authority. In other words - it is illicit.
As you know, the subject of ‘authority’ is one in which Protestantism makes itself known for what it is. Lutherans contradict their own founder and their own heritage on the subject. They claim that their Confessions are authoritative but they cannot even come close to explaining why they believe that.
God Bless You Mary, Topper
BTW, As for ‘demonic activity’, we know that Luther’s ‘relationship’ with the Devil is another one of those things that Lutherans don’t want to discuss.
M
marywarfield
Guest
I see what you did there.
S
steido01
Guest
Shhh! We can’t have people knowing that Luther was conceived by his mother and Satan in a bathhouse!
What does this sort of ad hominem attack serve? Who benefits from focusing on the abuses of the past or the shortcomings of our sinful, human forebears? Might we be better served by listening to what others actually believe rather than battling hated caricatures? Real dialogue can be had without ‘proving’ the ‘other’ wrong. We are called by our Head to be one.
T
Topper17
Guest
Not going to happen and you know why!
M
marywarfield
Guest
Oh Don come on. It’s good to study how we got
to where we are today. Lutherans are constantly
expounding on historical Popes, councils etc
yet view any discussion of Luther as irrelevant
and ad hominem. Why? Because his theology
does not hold up under scrutiny, his behavior is
not of the Holy Spirit so discussion of Luther puts Lutherans
in a tight spot,
Fact is Luther is NOT irrelevant and can’t be thrown
under a bus as a simple mistake.
As far as ad hominem? Toppers posts are extraordinarily
well researched documented and referenced. Not
ad hominem at all.
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi benhur: I don’t think it irrelevant to reformers, maybe some but the point is that it is not one person who makes doctrine and dogma’s by one’s own personal authority but by the Holy Spirit working which God gives in His own time any manor and that that could take many years and thinking before what God wants known becomes clear. But, I understand you point if you are saying that the reformers were only challenging the Catholic Church in Rome and not the whole of Christianity which in the end they did knowingly or unknowingly.
B
benhur
Guest
actually I think I meant that Luther had no new dogma. At worst it shows development, much like how we describe the trinity as being from the beginning a reality but with a developed terminology or way of explanation even application. That it went against what was taught officially in the West during his time is a given, and we debate as to that being for 1500 years…
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi benhur: Even if Luther did not made no new dogma he did make new doctrine. He did develop new ways or terminology to explain his new doctrines, which some of the reformers did not agree with, The Catholic Church certainly did not agree with Luther’s way of explaining the doctrines he was teaching.
- Status