Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done

[Topper17]

Hi ben,

Thanks for your response.

Hopefully you just disagree that Luther was a prophet, and not that a true prophet at some point is to shake the dust of his feet from unbelieving "soil’’

Indeed. I disagree with the idea of Luther as some sort of Prophet, which means I disagree with his concept of his own authority.

Lutheran Professor Robert Kolb is Missions Professor Systematic Theology at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis. He wrote what is basically a history of the way that Lutheranism has ‘viewed’ Luther over the first 100 years (1520-1620). The title of the book is indicative of the ‘progression’ – “Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero”. Needless to say, the book contains a lot of references by Luther as to his being a Prophet, and a lot more from people who, during that time period, basically agreed.

Of course, modern day Lutherans do not hold to any sort of belief in Luther as any kind of a Prophet. That being said, as an example of Luther’s rather extraordinary claims to ‘prophet like authority”:

“This public approbation of Luther as hero and prophet found some echo in Luther’s own estimate of himself and his calling from God. He did not regard himself as a Herculean hero. But he did assume the epistolary style of Saint Paul as early as 1522, and he drew parallels between the career of the apostle and his own career, moving out of works-righteousness into the proclamation of the gospel of Gods grace. Furthermore, he could call himself the prophet of the Germans, an apostle and evangelist in German territory, an Isaiah or a Jeremiah. Yet Luther did not always possess this prophetic self-confidence. He often engaged in self-examination. He was plagued by repeated doubts about his own person. Yet he could also state, **“I do not say that I am a prophet……But if I am not a prophet, I am nevertheless certain for myself that the Word of God is with me and not with them, for I indeed have Scripture on my side.” **Kolb, “Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero”, pg. 31

Kolb tells us that early Lutheranism believe in Luther as a Prophet, at least in some form. In fact the book does an excellent job of documenting this.

Of course, since the Reformation, there have been a plethora (meaning tens of thousands) of groups who, ALL espousing Sola Scriptura, ALL believe that they have ‘Scripture on their side’.

The following text is from “Table Talk”, (LW Vol. 4) documents Luther’s perception of his authority to command.

"No. 5124: Philip Melanchthon Should Rest From Studies
August 7, 1540

“The doctor [Martin Luther] asked Master Philip, “Do you wish to obey God or man?”
“God,” he replied, “for it’s better to fall into the hands of the Lord than into the hands of men.”

The doctor asked in turn, “Do you wish to hear the Word of God directly from God or through a man?”

“Through a man,” replied Philip.
**
“I therefore command you by divine authority,”** the doctor said, “that you interrupt your studies and your labor **until I command you otherwise, for God wishes **us to observe the Sabbath.”

Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 54: Table Talk. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 54, pp. 390–391). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

When Luther claims to ‘command by divine authority’, he is espousing a level of personal authority that virtually nobody today believes that he had.

God Bless You ben, Topper

 

[benhur]

Jesus did not disobey any rules; He was without sin.

Jesus did things that went against the customs of the Pharisees, but the customs of the Pharisees were not enforceable as rules, and they were certainly not the Law.

Thank you .yes, he went against the staus quo ,the current magisterium, even tradition of the appointed law keepers and God appointed religious leaders…

 

[benhur]

Hi ben,

Thanks for your response.

Indeed. I disagree with the idea of Luther as some sort of Prophet, which means I disagree with his concept of his own authority.

Lutheran Professor Robert Kolb is Missions Professor Systematic Theology at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis. He wrote what is basically a history of the way that Lutheranism has ‘viewed’ Luther over the first 100 years (1520-1620). The title of the book is indicative of the ‘progression’ – “Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero”. Needless to say, the book contains a lot of references by Luther as to his being a Prophet, and a lot more from people who, during that time period, basically agreed.

Of course, modern day Lutherans do not hold to any sort of belief in Luther as any kind of a Prophet. That being said, as an example of Luther’s rather extraordinary claims to ‘prophet like authority”:

“This public approbation of Luther as hero and prophet found some echo in Luther’s own estimate of himself and his calling from God. He did not regard himself as a Herculean hero. But he did assume the epistolary style of Saint Paul as early as 1522, and he drew parallels between the career of the apostle and his own career, moving out of works-righteousness into the proclamation of the gospel of Gods grace. Furthermore, he could call himself the prophet of the Germans, an apostle and evangelist in German territory, an Isaiah or a Jeremiah. Yet Luther did not always possess this prophetic self-confidence. He often engaged in self-examination. He was plagued by repeated doubts about his own person. Yet he could also state, **“I do not say that I am a prophet……But if I am not a prophet, I am nevertheless certain for myself that the Word of God is with me and not with them, for I indeed have Scripture on my side.” **Kolb, “Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero”, pg. 31

Kolb tells us that early Lutheranism believe in Luther as a Prophet, at least in some form. In fact the book does an excellent job of documenting this.

Of course, since the Reformation, there have been a plethora (meaning tens of thousands) of groups who, ALL espousing Sola Scriptura, ALL believe that they have ‘Scripture on their side’.

The following text is from “Table Talk”, (LW Vol. 4) documents Luther’s perception of his authority to command.

"No. 5124: Philip Melanchthon Should Rest From Studies
August 7, 1540

“The doctor [Martin Luther] asked Master Philip, “Do you wish to obey God or man?”
“God,” he replied, “for it’s better to fall into the hands of the Lord than into the hands of men.”

The doctor asked in turn, “Do you wish to hear the Word of God directly from God or through a man?”

“Through a man,” replied Philip.
**
“I therefore command you by divine authority,”** the doctor said, “that you interrupt your studies and your labor **until I command you otherwise, for God wishes **us to observe the Sabbath.”

Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 54: Table Talk. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 54, pp. 390–391). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

When Luther claims to ‘command by divine authority’, he is espousing a level of personal authority that virtually nobody today believes that he had.

God Bless You ben, Topper

“But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a dumb ***–an animal without speech–who spoke with a human voice and restrained the prophet’s madness.” 2nd Peter 2:16

Some people would say indulgences abuse was the "madness’’ and others would say Luther was the …

The more you knock Luther the weaker,undignified your Catholic position is.

Reminds me of a divorcee belittling the person they once chose to love.

Or like the defeated British (losing rule in America) belittling Washington and the Patriot fighters. Why belittle them ? What does that say about the British army, supposed best army in the world at that time, being defeated by megalomaniac general and hillbilly fighters ?

Get the picture of your Luther bashing ?

 

[benhur]

]The following text is from “Table Talk”, (LW Vol. 4) documents Luther’s perception of his authority to command.
"No. 5124: Philip Melanchthon Should Rest From Studies
August 7, 1540
“The doctor [Martin Luther] asked Master Philip, “Do you wish to obey God or man?”
“God,” he replied, “for it’s better to fall into the hands of the Lord than into the hands of men.”
The doctor asked in turn, “Do you wish to hear the Word of God directly from God or through a man?”
“Through a man,” replied Philip.
“I therefore command you by divine authority,” the doctor said, “that you interrupt your studies and your labor **until I command you otherwise, for God wishes **us to observe the Sabbath.”

Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 54: Table Talk. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 54, pp. 390–391). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

When Luther claims to ‘command by divine authority’, he is espousing a level of personal authority that virtually nobody today believes that he had.

God Bless You ben, Topper

You have had better stuff .This is weak. Why even in America we had laws against working on the sabbath (at least for shopkeepers). I would wish all pastors would grab us by the ears if we neglected fellowship and worship.(unless of course you think presbyters do not have such divine authority).

 

[benhur]

And if one trusted in God completely…reforms would surely be coming soon, in His time and will.

Have you heard of Catherine of Siena, Francis of Assisi, Teresa of Avila, among church reformers?

Catherine of Siena even castigated and ordered several popes to reform, during her time…yet she did not get excommunicated or caused split in the Church.

fascinating saints. Not sure they rocked the boat. Were not the reforms in the area of holy living in the cloistered communities. I do not think they had anything to do with practice or dogma of the church at large. Catherine castigated popes but not on anything dogmatic or of a practice but more dealing with politics as in secular/church.
Still reform and some inquisition persecution for it (Theresa)

Don’t forget Wycliffe and Tyndale and Huss, the other end of the spectrum that Luther was aware of.

May sound silly but the women poised less threat as well as one from Italy (though there were antipope sentiments she quelled) and the other from Spain, a very strong Catholic state.

Luther , a man and from Germany, perhaps not as strong or loyal Catholic state and weary of sending money to Rome, was more susceptible to division and had to be dealt with more strongly.

Reform was to be a much calculated endeavor.

How to react to “reformers” was also to be a much calculated endeavor also.

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;12710920]

From what I have observed from the various posts and explanations…it is being rationalized to make it more palatable…it results in a Jekyll and Hyde view of the papacy…

In that on one hand, you view the papacy as anti-christ…and profess love for the person sitting in the papacy…

It isn’t being rationalized. Its recognizing and stating our position. If you wish to say that it is a Jekyll and Hyde view, fine. In fact, the idea of the regenerate being at once saint and sinner is deeply Lutheran. One sees that in St. Peter, being able to deny Christ, yet making perhaps the single most important statement in scripture and in history by a human: “you are the Christ, the Son of the living God”.
We see and recognize that in Luther, and popes, and everyday Catholics and Lutherans, and others, as well.

So Jon…you have already made an absolute conclusion that the papacy is in error…and are closed to any further promptings from the HS…and will not accept anything that has to do with universal jurisdiction.

And this is completely contrary to what we are saying. We are not closed to the prompting of the Holy Spirit. In fact, we have been clear that the charge is historically conditional, and pray that dialogue between our two traditions can overcome this division.

Also, in another post (I think it was your post, if not, then I apologize in advance)…you had expressed a preference for popes to be like those in the early church…so in this expressed preference…you are already telling God what you would accept, instead of accepting what kind of pope God gives to the world…and you are not putting your trust in God’s selection…

Are you saying that the popes of the early Church are not the popes God intended? I would assume, instead, that you mean that God has revealed the kinds of development in papal authority now recognized (only) by the western patriarch. We are not alone in seeing no evidence that this development is anything more than of human design.

I think one difference here…is Lutherans generally take one sentence out of a papal bull directed at French Catholics…and take offense at it, and not look at the whole papal bull.

If you isolate that one sentence and make it mean what you want it to mean…

Why can I not do that, when you have consistently done the same thing regarding the issue of the papacy?

And it depends on what you want the word '“submit” to mean…isn’t it?

Have you come across this explanation? It involves several protestants discussing this with a catholic apologist…biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/debate9.htm

I have posted consistently Lutheran theologians and pastors who have explained our understanding of the confessions regarding the fact that it is not a personal charge: Pope Francis is NOT THE AntiChrist. You have not accepted that. Why should I accept the writing of someone from 1933, or the 1800’s, trying to “rationalize”?

ISTM that if we are going to discuss these issues, we first have to accept in Christian charity the explanations provided by each other.

Another point…if Lutherans already express love for the pope,** despite their confessing he is the anti-Christ**…and already claim to be catholics…so what is the problem with that single line in the papal bull….

See? This is what I mean.
The problem with that single line, apart from my stance intended to mirror Topper’s, is that it sets a condition of salvation not found in the early Church or scripture: that one must be in communion with the Pope.
I view Orthodox Christians as Catholic, yet they are not in communion with the pope, and I see no reason to believe that that particular circumstance plays any part whatever in whether or not they are, or will be saved. I see the same for Lutherans and many others.

Do you have any objections if you “submit” to the pope? And what do you think could possibly be wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with that, if one believes that the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church is consistent with the Gospel. And since we recognize that in the Roman Catholic Church the Gospel is preached and the sacraments rightly administered, it is clear that grace and salvation are there.

Jon

 

[onenow1]

If I remember correctly Jesus is God and he disobeyed the false traditions of men; the leaders of the time hated Jesus and His teachings and twisted His words.

God Bless

 

[JonNC]

Jon-

I agree with your overall point about getting our information about one another’s belief directly from the horse’s mouth, but I would like to ask you: Is Topper is actually offering his own distorted view of Lutheranism or is he actually presenting an accurate picture of Martin Luther?

Hi Randy,
As Mary will rightly remind me, Topper is not the topic of the thread, but since you as the OP have asked…

One of the things I have avoided doing in my entire membership here at CA is to bring up, much less focus on, negatives about the CC, whether it be historical or contemporary. For example, I rarely have even participated in discussions about the priestly abuse scandals of recent years because I see no value in bringing them up. As bad as they were, they are not the identifying events of the Catholic Church. In fact they are an aberration in the great history of the western Church.

Lutherans clearly recognize Luther as being both saint and sinner. Frankly, how could someone who wrote with such beauty the Small Catechism on the one hand, and Of the Jews and Their Lies, on the other? Its beyond me. But we are willing to recognize that, willing to reject what ought to be rejected, and accept gratefully that which ought to be accepted.

Luther deserves nothing but scorn for his writings regarding the Jews. In fact, many of Topper’s quotes come from Lutherans! So much for the claim that Lutherans have tried to cover up Luther’s flaws. Topper has provided no new information here, his claims to fill the role of revealer notwithstanding.

So, in this way, yes, Topper provides his own distorted view, for his own polemical agenda. But more importantly, unlike others here, he rarely provides the Catholic viewpoint. For example, Pablope, in the post I just responded to, asks me to respond to the Catholic position. Topper almost never does so.

IOW, I’m not convinced that Topper is setting up strawmen. I think he is sticking pretty closely to what Luther and other early adherents actually said and did.

Perhaps strawman isn’t the correct term, but clearly the context is incomplete. For example, regarding Luther’s anti-judaism, the following article, which primarily crticizes Luther, provides some context while nt apologizing for Luther’s role:

Christians and Jews in the Sixteenth Century

In order to put Luther’s On the Jews and Their Lies in some immediate religious context, it is helpful to see what other Christian figures were saying about Jews just prior to 1543. In 1529, Andreas Osiander authored a tract[20], published anonymously in 1540, that systematically and forcefully refuted the charge of Jewish ritual murder of Christian children. Osiander was a Christian Hebraist who engaged in the study of Cabbala and had a thorough knowledge of rabbinic literature and the Talmud. He argued that it is “inconceivable that the Jews should murder children and make use of their blood” when their own Kosher laws forbade them even to eat the meat of animals containing blood. The treatise appeared just as the investigation of one such supposed murder at Tittingen was ongoing.[21]

Enraged by Osiander’s defense of the Jewish community and called upon by the Bishop of Eichstätt to rebut it, Johannes Eck, Catholic theologian and Luther’s nemesis, wrote what amounts to a lengthy retort to Osiander and a denigration of Judaism. ** It has been described as “a compendium of every horror story medieval anti-Jewish polemic could encompass.”**[22] In Refutation of a Jew-Book, Eck based his passionate argument of the historical reality of Jewish ritual murder on his own personal experience. According to Eck, he had actually “placed his own fingers in the wound of a child who had died four weeks before at the hand of the Jews of Waldkirch in the Breisgau in 1503.”[23] The book also includes a call for “new and more stringent laws” against Jews[24] and strong condemnation of usury.

Justus Jonas, Luther’s close friend and confidant, took a strikingly different view than his mentor on “the Jews.” In fact, he went so far as to distort Luther’s position when he translated Against the Sabbatarians into Latin. What resulted was a rather pro-Jewish viewpoint that was in marked contrast to Luther’s increasingly harsh anti-Jewish stance.[25]

theologian.org.uk/churchhistory/lutherandthejews.html#_ftn22

There are two thoughts here.

1. Here we find that 2 of Luther’s colleagues held radically different, and I daresay more Christian views of the Jews. Luther knew better! That makes his anti-judaic writings even more egregious!
2. Luther’s anti-judaism, no matter how bad, was not formed or nurtured in a vacuum. It was a part of the culture of the Church in Europe in that time.
   And again, its not a topic I bring up, because it is not an identifying characteristic of the Catholic Church, or the Lutheran Church, today.

So, the REAL disconnect is between 16th century Luther-an thought and 21st century Lutheran thought, is it not?

No, because confessional Lutheran thought today is essentially the same as it was then.
As one can tell from the comment about Jonas and Osiander above, Luther’s colleagues even then rejected those things of Luther that we reject today.

continued

 

[JonNC]

Perhaps we need to begin to distinguish between “Martinism” and “Lutheranism” because there seems to be quite a bit of Martin that Lutherans wish to disavow.

OK, if those are the terms you wish to use. As you know, I prefer the term Evangelical Catholic, as I believe that reflects the historical self-identifying nature of Lutherans - that we are both Catholic and Evangelical (in its historic sense).

In closing, there are folks out there who are intent on attacking the Catholic Church. I referenced one in a link earlier. Sadly, there are even a few that are Lutheran, though most are either evangelical or fundamentalist. And the there are some Catholic folks who are intent on attacking Luther and Lutheranism. Topper appears to be one, since his narrow focus typically excludes others. To his defense, however, he does not hide the fact. He does not break the rules of the forum. He has done significant research for his goals.

My view of his goals and approach is that it is contrary to the spirit of ecumenism between our traditions, and at times has had the effect of poisoning what has been the good relationship between Catholics and Lutherans on this forum.

Jon

 

[Vanny]

What JonNC said.

I don’t know of a single Lutheran that defends what Martin Luther said about the Jews.
But the Catholic church wasn’t exactly kind to the Jews during that time in history, either, so there’s blame to go all around.

personally, what has attracted me to thinking about the RCC are the beautiful teachings of the CCC, the pro life witness, the last 3 Popes, and First things Magazines, especially Richard John Neuhaus’ writings.
Bashing Luther and Lutheranism is wrong, and I’m getting tired of it.
It’s not going to convince someone to come into the Catholic Church.
Much better the witness of say, Pope Benedict and John Paul the II who affirmed the goodness of Lutheran,(and other churches) traditions while still affirming that the Catholic Church was the fullness of the faith.

 

[Contarini]

fascinating saints. Not sure they rocked the boat.

Apparently one only “rocks the boat” in your view if one attacks traditional doctrine.

Were not the reforms in the area of holy living in the cloistered communities.

No. Late medieval reformers were very concerned with how laypeople lived.

I do not think they had anything to do with practice or dogma of the church at large. Catherine castigated popes but not on anything dogmatic or of a practice but more dealing with politics as in secular/church.

Sure, if “Reform” has to mean inventing your own ideas and passing them off as the Word of God, then you’re welcome to it

Otherwise, I think you’re just explaining away the evident fact that reform existed within the Catholic Church.

Edwin

 

[Tomyris]

Apparently one only “rocks the boat” in your view if one attacks traditional doctrine.

No. Late medieval reformers were very concerned with how laypeople lived.

Sure, if “Reform” has to mean inventing your own ideas and passing them off as the Word of God, then you’re welcome to it

Otherwise, I think you’re just explaining away the evident fact that reform existed within the Catholic Church.

Edwin

I think an agreed definition of ‘reform’ is required for this to go forward. My :twocents:

 

[Topper17]

Hi Randy,

Jon-

I agree with your overall point about getting our information about one another’s belief directly from the horse’s mouth, but I would like to ask you: If Topper is actually offering his own distorted view of Lutheranism or is he actually presenting an accurate picture of Martin Luther?

IOW, I’m not convinced that Topper is setting up strawmen. I think he is sticking pretty closely to what Luther and other early adherents actually said and did.

So, the REAL disconnect is between 16th century Luther-an thought and 21st century Lutheran thought, is it not?

Perhaps we need to begin to distinguish between “Martinism” and “Lutheranism” because there seems to be quite a bit of Martin that Lutherans wish to disavow.

I think you hit the nail on the head. What I present here is not intended to be viewed the as the whole of the history of Martin Luther and the early Reformation. What it is, is the ‘other side of the coin’ which has been so ‘underreported’ for so long. What I post is intended to ‘even out the historical record’, and is designed to ‘counterbalance’ those representations that are unwittingly simply a repeating of the ‘overly positive’ representation of Luther.

I don’t think that anyone here would suggest that many past historical representations of Luther have focused way too much on the positive aspects rather than those which are negative. What I am doing is evening things out, supplying primarily historical facts which allow people to make a more informed judgment.

I strongly believe that people should treat Luther AND his opponents fairly, but also that they cannot make a fair assessment of the historical facts UNLESS they know them. The things that I post are things that should be included in those assessments.

Given that Luther was in such tremendous conflict with the Catholic Church, any representation which is ‘too positive’ towards him, is IN FACT unfair to the Catholic Church.

We have seen many former Lutherans here on these threads state that one of the factors in their conversions was their learning the facts about what Luther wrote and taught and did. In addition, we know that there are thousands of people here viewing these threads who are considering the Catholic Church. If they come from a non-Catholic background, and a lot of them do, they have probably been aware of ONLY the more ‘positive aspects’ of Luther’s career. The vast majority of these people ALREADY know that ‘positive stuff’ because, for the most part that is the ONLY ‘stuff’ they have been exposed to. If they continue to believe ONLY that positive stuff, they will have a warped understanding of the early Reformation period, and they will think worse of the Church than what actual history would dictate they should.

Again, any representation of Luther which is ‘overly positive’, is actually UNFAIR to the Catholic Church. For the record, what normally causes me to ‘get involved’ is some sort of statement made which (unintentionally) misrepresents the actual history of Martin Luther and the Early Reformation.

Interestingly, people get upset with ME for posting actual quotes from Martin Luther and for posting the comments of mostly Protestant Scholars. Where is the outrage at Luther, who is actually the one who wrote these things? That is usually pretty minimal.

None of this is to suggest that that this information, and the reactions to it, should not be presented in a charitable manner.

BTW Randy, I think the differentiation between ‘Martinism’ and ‘Lutheranism’ is a very important concept and might make a very interesting future thread.

God bless You Randy, Topper

 

[Stilldreamn]

Where is the outrage at Luther, who is actually the one who wrote these things? That is usually pretty minimal.

It’s 500 year old news - I’m hard-pressed to sustain outrage against offenses that are 5 years old let alone 500. Luther was not the only actor on the Reformation stage. Let’s castigate some others, and let poor Martin have a rest, OK?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Luther deserves nothing but scorn for his writings regarding the Jews. In fact, many of Topper’s quotes come from Lutherans! So much for the claim that Lutherans have tried to cover up Luther’s flaws.

What JonNC said.

I don’t know of a single Lutheran that defends what Martin Luther said about the Jews.

Okay, guys.

I’m going to back off on this topic now because I’m still hoping for that big breakthrough at the joint dialogue meetings that will enable you to come back to the Original Church of Jesus without being too upset about it.



But I would like to point out that while it’s great that everyone is disavowing Luther’s statements regarding the Jews…what we Catholics would like to see is disavowal of that AntiChrist stuff that is still a part of your confessions in the 21st century. :sad_yes:

 

[benhur]

Apparently one only “rocks the boat” in your view if one attacks traditional doctrine.

No. Late medieval reformers were very concerned with how laypeople lived.

Sure, if “Reform” has to mean inventing your own ideas and passing them off as the Word of God, then you’re welcome to it

Otherwise, I think you’re just explaining away the evident fact that reform existed within the Catholic Church.

Edwin

Edwin, Sorry. Of course "reform “existed”.

It was suggested Luther should have followed certain examples of these reformers. I was not aware that all reform is the same, that Luther’s complaints were like those of Francis of Assisi or Theresa of Avila or Catherine of Sienna.

 

[benhur]

Hi Randy,

I think you hit the nail on the head. What I present here is not intended to be viewed the as the whole of the history of Martin Luther and the early Reformation. What it is, is the ‘other side of the coin’ which has been so ‘underreported’ for so long. What I post is intended to ‘even out the historical record’, and is designed to ‘counterbalance’ those representations that are unwittingly simply a repeating of the ‘overly positive’ representation of Luther.

I don’t think that anyone here would suggest that many past historical representations of Luther have focused way too much on the positive aspects rather than those which are negative. What I am doing is evening things out, supplying primarily historical facts which allow people to make a more informed judgment.

I strongly believe that people should treat Luther AND his opponents fairly, but also that they cannot make a fair assessment of the historical facts UNLESS they know them. The things that I post are things that should be included in those assessments.

Given that Luther was in such tremendous conflict with the Catholic Church, any representation which is ‘too positive’ towards him, is IN FACT unfair to the Catholic Church.

We have seen many former Lutherans here on these threads state that one of the factors in their conversions was their learning the facts about what Luther wrote and taught and did. In addition, we know that there are thousands of people here viewing these threads who are considering the Catholic Church. If they come from a non-Catholic background, and a lot of them do, they have probably been aware of ONLY the more ‘positive aspects’ of Luther’s career. The vast majority of these people ALREADY know that ‘positive stuff’ because, for the most part that is the ONLY ‘stuff’ they have been exposed to. If they continue to believe ONLY that positive stuff, they will have a warped understanding of the early Reformation period, and they will think worse of the Church than what actual history would dictate they should.

Again, any representation of Luther which is ‘overly positive’, is actually UNFAIR to the Catholic Church. For the record, what normally causes me to ‘get involved’ is some sort of statement made which (unintentionally) misrepresents the actual history of Martin Luther and the Early Reformation.

Interestingly, people get upset with ME for posting actual quotes from Martin Luther and for posting the comments of mostly Protestant Scholars. Where is the outrage at Luther, who is actually the one who wrote these things? That is usually pretty minimal.

None of this is to suggest that that this information, and the reactions to it, should not be presented in a charitable manner.

BTW Randy, I think the differentiation between ‘Martinism’ and ‘Lutheranism’ is a very important concept and might make a very interesting future thread.

God bless You Randy, Topper

Quite well rationalized.

 

[benhur]

I don’t know of a single Lutheran that defends what Martin Luther said about the Jews.

Some would like “outrage”.

“Where is the outrage at Luther, who is actually the one who wrote these things?”, Post # 346

I agree that perhaps Topper’s way is not the best.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin, Sorry. Of course "reform “existed”.

It was suggested Luther should have followed certain examples of these reformers. I was not aware that all reform is the same, that Luther’s complaints were like those of Francis of Assisi or Theresa of Avila or Catherine of Sienna.

Oh right.

The question is whether the problem really was doctrine, and whether Luther’s doctrinal “reforms” were of the right kind.

Now I am not disputing for a minute that Luther had a lot of great theological ideas that the Church needed to hear. But I think at this point, after 500 years, it’s becoming clear to a lot of folks (obviously there are holdouts, especially among conservative Protestants) that what is true in Luther’s ideas is fundamentally compatible with Catholicism, with the possible exception of some fairly technical points that probably shouldn’t be church-dividing and on which the correctness of Luther’s technicalities is not obvious.

And the example of Contarini, who agreed with Luther on a lot of things about faith, supports the idea that in fact some kind of doctrine of justification by faith alone might well have survived in Catholicism if Luther hadn’t associated it with heresy. (David Bagchi, in Luther’s Earliest Opponents, has argued that these opponents did not primarily have a problem with his teaching on justification. Most opposition was focused on his teaching on the sacraments.

Of course we can’t know what would have happened. But that indeed is the point. So much justification of the Reformation is based on the assumption that if Luther hadn’t done what he did medieval Catholicism would have just continued on its way, or (which would have been much worse in my opinion) would have just naturally morphed into Tridentine Catholicism. (Actually, I don’t think most folks who make this argument even realize how different in ethos Tridentine Catholicism was. And they also tend not to realize how dynamic and diverse medieval Cathoilcism was. The whole concept of the “Middle Ages,” while probably indispensable as shorthand for a long period of time in which a “unified” Church dominated Western Europe, is a misleading one in many ways. The fifteenth century was much closer to the seventeenth than to the seventh in more ways than just chronology, but our periodization often hides this from us.)

Edwin

 

[MaryT777]

Okay, guys.

I’m going to back off on this topic now because I’m still hoping for that big breakthrough at the joint dialogue meetings that will enable you to come back to the Original Church of Jesus without being too upset about it.



But I would like to point out that while it’s great that everyone is disavowing Luther’s statements regarding the Jews…what we Catholics would like to see is disavowal of that AntiChrist stuff that is still a part of your confessions in the 21st century. :sad_yes: