If Luther were alive today, would he be Catholic?

[jcrichton]

There is no self appointed authority. We have the Scriptures and we have our Confessions, which are faithful extrapolations of Holy Scripture. Jesus did indeed build His Church on the rock of Peter’s Confession, which is as unchanging as any other Confession revealed to man by God our heavenly Father. We speak not of Luther’s authority, but that of the Holy Spirit. What head do we need except that of Christ Himself, Whom we encounter every Sunday in the Proclamation of the Gospel and the reception of the Sacraments? For the sake of good order, we have the Order of the Ministry. We do have the True Faith, which is exactly where we need to be and where our pastors pray we are kept in after every reception of Communion and at the end of every Divine Service.

God has all the authority. Anyone who would usurp that authority is Anti- Christ.

…so does the Jehovah Witnesses and the Mormons, just to mention two well known…

Their authority and confessions were self appointed and if you ask them they would point to Scriptures and claim “there!”

…I felt the need to respond this one last time… I will excuse myself from our circular.

God Bless!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I think we all agree on this one.

Luther demanded his proposal be heard and implemented otherwise he would start a new church, bye bye.

Today I disagree with a senior pastor, demand to be heard and accepted, otherwise then it would be bye bye, a new church, perhaps just down the street where I live. And where I could implement my idea of a true church.

Hi, Reuben!

Sadly, they don’t see the forest for the trees–it is a wonderful utopia!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I definitely believe if Luther were alive today he would be a revert to the Catholic Faith. I believe he would have found his way back home to Rome if given more time, repented of his heresies and been one of the most profound defenders of the Catholic Faith that he loved. I am convinced you cannot hate something as much as Luther did if you did not once embrace it wholeheartedly.

(The hate part is my own interpretation of his emotive thoughts against Rome from his writings. They seem to ooze it when he speaks of the Catholic Church. JMO)

I think if he was alive currently he’d be a poster here on CAF.

Hi, Mary!

…you have a good heart… Christ’s Command of greater Justice is not lost on you… I rather err on the side of caution–personal convictions are not easily given up even in the face of complete impotence as Luther faced (his brain child quickly implementing his libertine spirit); he was so confounded that he could not compel his followers to engage his vision of church or at least counter the Church’s efforts that he had to take note of its shortcomings.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Reuben_J]

I definitely believe if Luther were alive today he would be a revert to the Catholic Faith. I believe he would have found his way back home to Rome if given more time, repented of his heresies and been one of the most profound defenders of the Catholic Faith that he loved. I am convinced you cannot hate something as much as Luther did if you did not once embrace it wholeheartedly.

(The hate part is my own interpretation of his emotive thoughts against Rome from his writings. They seem to ooze it when he speaks of the Catholic Church. JMO)

I think if he was alive currently he’d be a poster here on CAF.

Admittedly I do not know much about Luther to make an informed comment. From what I read he did not repent of his heresies.

If I put two and two together, his was a point of no return, and this quite often happened to smart people - their independent way of thinking (that they were right) made it difficult to submit to another person. Of course the opposite is true too, and when that happens, you’d have positive obedience.

Perhaps Catholicism of today would make it less of a ground for the Lutherism to materialize than it was during his time. But when the seed of rebellion germinated and started to grow, there was no turning back. And that was what Luther did.

 

[Reuben_J]

Hi, Reuben!

Sadly, they don’t see the forest for the trees–it is a wonderful utopia!

Maran atha!

Angel

Hi.

Perhaps it is due to a desire in wanting to be right. But to be fair, there are Lutherans here that I’ve read who were quite objective in their opinion of Luther.

 

[MaryT777]

Hi.

Perhaps it is due to a desire in wanting to be right. But to be fair, there are Lutherans here that I’ve read who were quite objective in their opinion of Luther.

I completely agree and appreciate the Lutheran posters.

 

[susanlo]

I think we all agree on this one.

Luther demanded his proposal be heard and implemented otherwise he would start a new church, bye bye.

Today I disagree with a senior pastor, demand to be heard and accepted, otherwise then it would be bye bye, a new church, perhaps just down the street where I live. And where I could implement my idea of a true church.

I am not an expert on history, but I don’t think this is exactly how it happened. It was much more complicated. Luther was excommunicated by the church. He became an outlaw for not recanting his written beliefs. While he was locked away by a prince for protection and translating the Bible to German, a political upheaval began to take place that created political separations. I think it was a complex situation and not as simple as we may think.

 

[TertiumQuid]

I see. You would rather listen to your “Lutheran friend” and a propaganda site based on a century-old book that even its publisher no longer prints. Biased (and outdated) sources and anecdotal evidence are generally not considered reliable, but since your mind is made up, I guess you won’t be confused by facts.

One fact usually hidden by Lutherans is that Luther kicked a cat and took candy from children on the way to nail up the 95 Theses to the church door.

Interesting dialog here nonetheless!

 

[TertiumQuid]

“I have greater confidence in my wife and my pupils than I have in Christ”[58]

Here’s some possible context for this purported utterance:

This is from an old edition of the Table Talk- The Familiar Discourses of Dr. Martin Luther includes the following:

That God is more loving unto us than a Father towards his Children
GOD hath a better and more friendly heart towards his faithful ones, than a father or mother can have towards their children; as God himself saith in the Prophet Isaiah, Chapter xlix. Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion of the son of her womb? yea, they, may forget, yet will not I forget thee, etc. But God must have patience with us. I believe that St. Paul was at enmity with himself, because he could not believe and love Christ so entirely as willingly he would have done. Fie on the devil, and on our wicked flesh, that we cannot believe and trust in God, who hath given us so great and manifold benefits, and still doth give us all his goodnesses, I myself must confess, that I can put more trust in my wife, and in every one of my friends, than in Christ: when as, notwithstanding, I well know, that none among them all would do and suffer for me that which he suffered, namely, to be crucified and slain for me.

Is this quote REALLY that outrageous or blasphemous?

 

[TertiumQuid]

“It does not matter how Christ behaved – what He taught is all that matters”[59]
(trusaint.com/martin-luther/)
Angel

I followed the link to footnote 59: “Erlangen Vol. 29, Pg. 126.” “Erlangen” refers to Dr. M. Luthers Samtliche Werke, an older set of Luther’s works from the nineteenth century. When checking this source, there is no such comment from Luther "It does not matter how Christ behaved – what He taught is all that matters" on Page 126 of Erl. 29.

 

[rcwitness]

I followed the link to footnote 59: “Erlangen Vol. 29, Pg. 126.” “Erlangen” refers to Dr. M. Luthers Samtliche Werke, an older set of Luther’s works from the nineteenth century. When checking this source, there is no such comment from Luther "It does not matter how Christ behaved – what He taught is all that matters" on Page 126 of Erl. 29.

I don’t gamble… but I’d bet a lot that he did not say that. I would love to see Catholics providing more sources from the Catholic leaders with their official rejections of Martin’s teachings.

My personal opinion, is that Martin’s relationship to the Catholic Communion would be very similar in any generation. His role and influence, however was very relevant to the times.

Our true colors come through in various ways.

A greater question to ponder is how many protestants today would attend the Communion that he was pastor over. I think many who superficially think he was a Godsend, would in reality have issues with him as their pastor.

 

[TertiumQuid]

I don’t gamble… but I’d bet a lot that he did not say that. I would love to see Catholics providing more sources from the Catholic leaders with their official rejections of Martin’s teachings.

Luther was concerned with “how Christ behaved” and following the example of Christ. I know where this quote is actually located, and when placed back in context it’s part of an argument against Karlstadt. Luther is arguing that the spoken words of Christ set the standard and defines doctrine over against Karlstadt’s notion that what Christ did or didn’t do (without words) also serve to set the standard and defines doctrine.

A greater question to ponder is how many protestants today would attend the Communion that he was pastor over. I think many who superficially think he was a Godsend, would in reality have issues with him as their pastor.

That is a great question. I would answer by pointing out that that each period of church history has continuity and discontinuity with each period the precedes it and comes after it, so the question has the unfortunate nature of leading to anachronism.

 

[jcrichton]

Admittedly I do not know much about Luther to make an informed comment. From what I read he did not repent of his heresies.

If I put two and two together, his was a point of no return, and this quite often happened to smart people - their independent way of thinking (that they were right) made it difficult to submit to another person. Of course the opposite is true too, and when that happens, you’d have positive obedience.

Perhaps Catholicism of today would make it less of a ground for the Lutherism to materialize than it was during his time. But when the seed of rebellion germinated and started to grow, there was no turning back. And that was what Luther did.

Hi, Reuben!
…you’ve hit on several important points… intelligence, unchecked, does lead to a preponderance of over estimation (self-reliance) which kicks God not only to the back seat but usually out of a person’s life–as Jesus pointed out when the house is empty roaming demons would take advantage of it (meaning: when we kick God out something/someone else will take His place–as in the US’s anti-God stance–the presiding leader proudly pronouncing that the US is not a Christian nation and the masses applauding his stance). Yet, categorically, when intellect is tempered with humility there’s no limit to the enlightenment that can be gain by both the subject and those around him/her.

I concur with you on the premise of Luther and today’s Church–there were so many issues in the background that led to his revolt; it was not only his skewedness of thinking (fight fire with fire) that lead to the great Church schism… I think (from the general info gathered) that time was ripe for it–Luther’s revolt would not have gotten such momentum less his contemporaries had enough of Church abuse, and thirst for control, political power, and wealth.

I also believe that the Holy Spirit did have a hand (man) in it… the problem is, as always, man’s inability to be humble and to allow God to work through him rather than man himself becoming “the it” in authority, knowledge, and power (“power corrupts”).

I see Luther (in his own time frame) as a necessary evil (as was Judas–though he at least sought a way to make reparations). The necessary part of the evil is that the Church was shaken from its lull. Yet, while Luther could have worked to reestablish unity, his ego took over and evil, once allowed to fester, would reproduce itself (the chain reaction of revolts within Protestantism).

When intellect yields to humility man is able to defeat evil:

4 What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you? 2 You desire but do not have, so you kill. You covet but you cannot get what you want, so you quarrel and fight. You do not have because you do not ask God. 3 When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with** wrong motives**, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures. 4 You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. 5 Or do you think Scripture says without reason that he jealously longs for the spirit he has caused to dwell in us? 6 But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:
“God opposes the proud
but shows favor to the humble.”
7 Submit yourselves, then,** to God**. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. 8 Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. 9 Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. 10 Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up. (St. James 4:1-10)

Yet, the spirit of rebellion continues to hinder the Unification of the Mystical Body–pride and wrongful desire continue to best man in his endeavor to fulfill Christ’s Command that we Love one another and Be One with Him as He is ONE with the Father.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I am not an expert on history, but I don’t think this is exactly how it happened. It was much more complicated. Luther was excommunicated by the church. He became an outlaw for not recanting his written beliefs. While he was locked away by a prince for protection and translating the Bible to German, a political upheaval began to take place that created political separations. I think it was a complex situation and not as simple as we may think.

Hi, Susan!
I concur with you, there were many circumstances that lead to this pertinent event in Church history. I think that either the History or Scientific networks aired an episode on Luther–it demonstrated that there were volatile circumstances that lead to the revolt, including political distress, desire for self-governance, control, wealth, poverty and oppression (monarchs). Luther’s may have been the catalyst but the world was ripe for change–though I can’t recall if the program outlined Luther’s temerity in not heeding the Church’s multiple calls to abdicate and return to the fold (which took years in the making). Still, Luther had put on his blinders and he trotted on regardless of the explosive consequences that his stance brought into effect.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

One fact usually hidden by Lutherans is that Luther kicked a cat and took candy from children on the way to nail up the 95 Theses to the church door.

Interesting dialog here nonetheless!

Can you expand on that?

Thanks!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Here’s some possible context for this purported utterance:

This is from an old edition of the Table Talk- The Familiar Discourses of Dr. Martin Luther includes the following:

That God is more loving unto us than a Father towards his Children
GOD hath a better and more friendly heart towards his faithful ones, than a father or mother can have towards their children; as God himself saith in the Prophet Isaiah, Chapter xlix. Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion of the son of her womb? yea, they, may forget, yet will not I forget thee, etc. But God must have patience with us. I believe that St. Paul was at enmity with himself, because he could not believe and love Christ so entirely as willingly he would have done. Fie on the devil, and on our wicked flesh, that we cannot believe and trust in God, who hath given us so great and manifold benefits, and still doth give us all his goodnesses, I myself must confess, that I can put more trust in my wife, and in every one of my friends, than in Christ: when as, notwithstanding, I well know, that none among them all would do and suffer for me that which he suffered, namely, to be crucified and slain for me.

Is this quote REALLY that outrageous or blasphemous?

Hi!
Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

I am not versed in books (don’t even read Catholic authors) so I go on what is presented as evidential text.

While I must agree with you that this particular Lutheran quote seems less conclusive to heresy, I must also note that it still demonstrates a flaw (as if happens with Pope Francis). Luther’s exaggerated thought is brought to ink and it can demonstrate an affinity/propensity for anti-Christian belief.

Further, Scriptures are clear in the insertion of false teachers into the world and on the obligation of all who want to be teachers to know and understand that because of their position (as shepherds) they will be held to a more stringent scrutiny at Judgment Day.

Perhaps it is a problem of language–but we do not find the Apostles attesting to such belief–lest be St. Paul who in his recitations would present contrasting views (ie: are we to abound in sin so that grace may abound the more–quickly followed with God forbid!).

Additionally, Scriptures tells us that fool is a man who puts his trust in man–knowing that Christ died for our sins and surrendering our will to His Will are two distinct and different things…

The problem I have, at least with the quote above, is that a person who claims to defend the “true” faith confesses to placing wife and friends above God–even in our darkest moments (believe me I have been inundated with them from birth) we cannot succumb to the inefficacy of self-reliance/trust, let alone promote it in the slightest sense.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[TertiumQuid]

Can you expand on that?
Thanks!Maran atha!
Angel

Sure.The comment was not serious. It was meant to point out is that there are times in which Luther is presented in forums like this as worse than he actually was (and on the flip-side, there are forums that present him as better than he was).

Early on this discussion you quoted and linked to an article entitled, “The Real Martin Luther Exposed.” It’s actually a version of an article originally entitled, “Luther, Exposing the Myth.” Not only is that article fraught with error, it presents Luther as worse than he actually was. I suspect you cited the article without knowing of it’s poor research, incorrect documentation, bogus use of context, and general slander towards a historical person.

I’ve gone over all the quotes presented in “Luther, Exposing the Myth.” I’ve found all the contexts (except one), and, more often than not, there is significant historical error being presented. The goal of going through particular quotes is not to defend Luther as a Protestant saint. I see the study of any person in church history as an exercise in the love of God and neighbor. How do I love my neighbor in the study of church history? There probably are many ways, but the one that applies here is in my words. If I bear false witness against my neighbor, even if he’s been dead for hundreds of years, I am not loving him. I say let the people in church history be exactly who they were, warts and all. Luther certainly had warts and sins, but he did not “kick the cat” as well on the way to posting the 95 Theses. That is, he is not as bad as many portray him to be.

 

[jcrichton]

I followed the link to footnote 59: “Erlangen Vol. 29, Pg. 126.” “Erlangen” refers to Dr. M. Luthers Samtliche Werke, an older set of Luther’s works from the nineteenth century. When checking this source, there is no such comment from Luther "It does not matter how Christ behaved – what He taught is all that matters" on Page 126 of Erl. 29.

Hi!
I’ve just followed the link to this:

1. “I look upon God no better than a scoundrel” (ref. Weimar, Vol. 1, Pg. 487. Cf. Table Talk, No. 963).

1. “Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tell’s us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.” (ref. Trishreden, Weimer Edition, Vol. 2, Pg. 107. – What a great blasphemy from a man who is regarded as “great reformer”!).

3.“I have greater confidence in my wife and my pupils than I have in Christ” (ref. Table Talk, 2397b).

1. “It does not matter how Christ behaved – what He taught is all that matters” (ref. Erlangen Vol. 29, Pg. 126). (davidlgray.info/blog/2013/09/500-years-of-protestantism-the-33-most-ridiculous-things-martin-luther-ever-wrote/)

I do not doubt your findings but it seems that the quote comes from a different reference (Trishreden, Weimer Edition, Vol. 2, Pg. 107.)

Be careful if you try the link, the opening page on the site goes right into an attack on Luther’s character and religiosity.

Do you know if the Trishreden, Weimer Ed can be found, in English, on-line?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I don’t gamble… but I’d bet a lot that he did not say that. I would love to see Catholics providing more sources from the Catholic leaders with their official rejections of Martin’s teachings.

My personal opinion, is that Martin’s relationship to the Catholic Communion would be very similar in any generation. His role and influence, however was very relevant to the times.

Our true colors come through in various ways.

A greater question to ponder is how many protestants today would attend the Communion that he was pastor over. I think many who superficially think he was a Godsend, would in reality have issues with him as their pastor.

Hi!
…ever heard of diplomacy… the Church has been a constant target throughout the last 2000 years… only on matters of Faith would you find Catholic leaders making pronouncements–though you will almost always find pronouncements (and in deed acts) by those who are, as Luther, disenchanted with Catholic Doctrine and Faith–of course these do not speak for the Church, though much of their stance is credited to either Church’s Teachings or “demonstration” that the Church “is in error.”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[TertiumQuid]

I am not versed in books (don’t even read Catholic authors) so I go on what is presented as evidential text.

Take it from an old guy: It’s prudent to attempt to look up the context (including historical context) of something before citing it. It’s not always possible, but it’s a good habit to get into.

While I must agree with you that this particular Lutheran quote seems less conclusive to heresy, I must also note that it still demonstrates a flaw (as if happens with Pope Francis). Luther’s exaggerated thought is brought to ink and it can demonstrate an affinity/propensity for anti-Christian belief.

Luther didn’t write it. It’s said to be a recollection of what he is purported to have said. There is nothing heretical in what Luther is purported to have said in the quote you used. It’s actually a good observation. Consider the entire sentence:

“I myself must confess, that I can put more trust in my wife, and in every one of my friends, than in Christ: when as, notwithstanding, I well know, that none among them all would do and suffer for me that which he suffered, namely, to be crucified and slain for me.”

Where is even the hint of error here?** It’s a solid point**: The human condition is such that it will at times place more trust in temporal things than in God himself. There should be no debate over this.

Further, Scriptures are clear in the insertion of false teachers into the world and on the obligation of all who want to be teachers to know and understand that because of their position (as shepherds) they will be held to a more stringent scrutiny at Judgment Day.

non-sequitur

Perhaps it is a problem of language–but we do not find the Apostles attesting to such belief–lest be St. Paul who in his recitations would present contrasting views (ie: are we to abound in sin so that grace may abound the more–quickly followed with God forbid!).

Romans 7:21-23.

Additionally, Scriptures tells us that fool is a man who puts his trust in man–knowing that Christ died for our sins and surrendering our will to His Will are two distinct and different things…

Typo aside, non-sequitur.

The problem I have, at least with the quote above, is that a person who claims to defend the “true” faith confesses to placing wife and friends above God–even in our darkest moments (believe me I have been inundated with them from birth) we cannot succumb to the inefficacy of self-reliance/trust, let alone promote it in the slightest sense.

The problem I have with your problem is that the statement purported to have been uttered by Luther was meant to encourage people to place their trust in Christ rather than elsewhere. What you see as a detrimental statement, I see as a pithy observation of human frailty and the need for people to trust entirely in Christ rather than others.