I
- Status
C
Contarini
Guest
It depends. There are certain forms of pro-Luther narrative that certainly do depend on being unfair to Catholicism. For instance, the frequent claims that Luther was just a good Catholic who very much wanted to be loyal to Rome and was forced into rebellion by the Church are nonsense. I’m struggling right now with a script for a documentary on the Reformation (on which I’ve been asked to comment as a scholar) in order to free it from the tendency to set up a caricature of the late Middle Ages as a backdrop for Luther.
However, an appreciation of Luther’s theological value does not in any way constitute a lack of loyalty or a lack of generosity (depending on whether we’re talking about Catholics or Protestants respectively) to the Church.
I have said it before, but I’m going to say it again, since you haven’t responded: this discussion isn’t going to get anywhere very productive as long as you decline to lay out in summary form just what your argument is. Save the documentation to support your points when challenged. You may find that we all agree on more than you think.
Most of us here who are arguing with you are doing so, I suspect (I know I am), because it seems as if you are saying that people should dismiss Luther as an important theological figure because of the flaws you keep pointing out, and that people should abandon Protestantism because of Luther’s flaws. And you won’t get very far with that argument. But since you say that you respect Edwards for acknowledging Luther’s dark side while remaining a Lutheran, it seems as if you aren’t actually arguing that. And if so, then I’m not sure what on earth we are arguing about. (That Luther had some major flaws is not open to dispute by any reasonable person.) So we really do need some kind of clear statement from you of what your overall thesis is and what the basic points are that you believe support your thesis.
I take your point that we’re all really arguing for the “gallery” of lurkers. But I think you are oblivious to the general impression made by this forum on lurkers. You can get a glimpse of it from the people who occasionally come out of the shadows and post. The non-Catholics never say, “Wow–I see that Catholics on this forum really love Luther, so it’s OK for me to go on being a Protestant.” You can just stop worrying about that now. They also never say, “I see that you silly Papists have no answer to the obvious truths the Protestants are holding forth about how glorious Luther’s Reformation was.” At least not in my experience. No, when non-Catholics tell us about their impressions of this forum, they usually take the form of “you guys really seem to hate Protestants and everyone who isn’t Catholic.” The anti-Luther case has been aired on this forum over and over and over. And yet you keep thinking it doesn’t get enough exposure.
I’ll give you this: you are the most persistent and well-read proponent of the old-fashioned “bash Luther” school of Catholic apologetics on this forum. And that’s why, as you and Mary have been complaining, some of us “make you the topic of the thread.” I know you are an intelligent and reasonable person, and I have some hopes of persuading you that maybe your approach isn’t a good one. And that would create a significant change in the temperature of the forum. So take the focus on you as a compliment
I implore you, yet again: please post a clear statement of your thesis and its major supporting points, rather than simply posting yet another long list of citations. It’s become increasingly unclear what these citations are supposed to support in the first place.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Why is it bizarre? It’s called a conversation. This is a conversation among many people. It’s also part of a much longer conversation–we all have history with each other. It’s inevitable that we should spend some time talking about how we talk to each other, when patterns of discourse emerge that are clearly not moving the conversation forward.
Edwin
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
That would help. Other than that I think this situation has crossed one of the forum’s guidelines:
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Topper: I response to your 638 post: Looking back at the reformation, it seems to me more a revolt against the CC than a real reform in that there were divisions within the ranks of the reformers of the time, which continues in our day and age. Neither Luther, Calvin, Zwingli among other reformers agreed with the other except to contest the spiritual authority of the CC.
Code:
Each reformer seems to have had their own idea's of what Scripture said and meant different from the other. Each had their own doctrines that they believed correctly interpreted Scripture and what they believed everyone needed to believe. There was no unity between the reformers in what one was to believe excepting to refuse the spiritual authority of the CC.
Today one can look at the yellow pages and see how many different churches claim to be Bible only or Bible based, each having a different doctrine and understanding and interpretation of Scripture of what it says and means. Luther stated " matters of faith each Christian is his own pope and council," leading to the individual becoming an authority unto oneself. The individual now has the authority to determine whether or not a particular church is teaching doctrine properly. It is not the church that has the real authority but the individual who has the spiritual authority now to claim to have the guidance of the Holy Spirit tot he correct interpretation, and meaning of what any particular Scriptural passage says. No need for anyone or church to decide what is doctrine or not or how Scripture is to be interpreted, the individual is now that spiritual authority.
To me, the Reformation was not really a reformation at all but a revolt against the Spiritual authority of the CC. There was no unity to speak of, but chaos in that now anyone could decide for oneself how and in what manor Scripture is to be interpreted and understood. If one decides that the church one goes to is not teaching doctrine properly or correctly one leaves and goes to another or even starts a church in which his understanding and interpretation of Scripture is promoted.
The more I read the history of the reformation, the more I see it as an revolt against the spiritual authority of the CC, the chaos it caused by each claiming a doctrine different from another, disunity of what to believe Scripture says and means. My question becomes how can one call it a reformation when each reformer could not agree on doctrines? What I see is that each reformer revolted against the CC and each other. Even in our day and age one can see Churches not agreeing on doctrines within their own particular denomination, which then is really a revolt rather than reform.
M
MaryT777
Guest
Hi Spina:
Well written. Yes the reformers were never in agreement and God is not the Author of division.
Mary.
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Mary 777: Thanks for your thumbs up! You are of course correct that the Holy Spirit is not the author of chaos; division.
B
benhur
Guest
So let’s say we were more unified, would you then agree that the reform was not a revolt against authority but reform from doctrinal error and the authority protecting it ?
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi benhur In a nutshell No.
T
Tomyris
Guest
You of course did not quote the first review
or the review catholicbooksreview.org/2002/sobolews.htm here.
Can you say ‘worthless biased polemic’? It’s all you offer.
B
benhur
Guest
**That would be wrong- saving power in a human being, **as you correctly state. Maybe that is why I posted Topper is OK, for he is helping make certain that Lutherans, even Protestants, follow Christ and not Luther .That is a good thing.
Much like Luther helped Catholics follow Christ more so than a pope, or church magisterium, or this or that council. That is a good thing. Unless you believe God “can not act as He wills or thru whom He wills”, an extreme narrow view of God’s saving action, thru one “faction”, all the time.
"Kind of like the Pharisees declaring their interpretation correct, on all things, all the time, for all Judaism, almost in an institutional way. The fact is they did not do this, yet were held in high esteem by Judaism, for their allegiance to the Written Law, like no other group, or school, or sect but informally, allowing “other views’’ to be equally Jewish.”
Vat II shows a coming around by admitting there is salvation, even grace, in these “other” church’s (though not as equal.?.?).
Please also note, I said, “follow Christ " more so than a pope…”. That is, you can follow a pope and magisterium etc. but conditionally, that they must be Christ like, even correct in each espousement/declaration.
T
Tomyris
Guest
Ah, no…Lutherans really don’t need help with that, if you knew anything about Lutherans. And I doubt any Lutherans are listening to Topper anyway.
We should follow our leaders only as they help us become more Christlike. We should not follow robbers and thieves who claim to be leaders, wolves who have crept into the fold.
A
Abu
Guest
Until and unless all listen to Christ through His Church they may be in the same boat as His Apostles in earlier days – to His own Apostles, “whom He loved to the end” Jesus exclaimed: “Have you no sense, no wits, are your hearts dulled, can’t you see, your ears hear, don’t you remember?” (Mk 8:17-18).
There is no doctrinal error ever, taught by Christ’s Church. Some distorting of Her legitimate practices by some are always corrected. Her authority is from Christ.
What then do you consider is wrong with Christ in establishing His Church with His authority in teaching all dogma and doctrine?
Such fallacies help no one, particularly as they cannot be, and never have been, substantiated with facts, and denigrate Christ Himself in founding His Catholic Church.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
It’s hard to say how many are lurking without commenting, but even James Swan has arrived to participate in the discussion, so apparently SOMEBODY is listening.
Fair enough, but who, exactly, would you put into that category?
If a Church leader is guilty of gross immorality, does his sin invalidate his position or authority?
Many, if not most, Protestants would say that it does, and they often use this line of reasoning to justify their denial of the authority of the Catholic Church. They cite historical events such as the Crusades, the Inquisition or reign of the Borgia Popes as evidence that the Church has lost its claim to moral and spiritual authority.
Such a response, however, is unbiblical. For example, Scripture states that Jesus knew “from the beginning” who would betray him – namely Judas, whom Jesus calls a “devil” (cf. John 6:64–71). This fact is significant, since Judas was selected as an apostle even though Jesus knew that he was corrupt.
Another example would be found in Jesus’ teaching on “Moses’ seat” found in the opening verses of Matthew 23: “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.’” (Matthew 23:1-3)
“Moses’ seat” is a phrase that referred to a position of legitimate teaching authority held by the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. Later, Jesus condemned these men as “hypocrites,” “blind guides,” “blind fools,” “serpents,” and a “brood of vipers.” But in the passage above, Jesus specifically instructed the crowds and his disciples to obey these leaders – despite their corruption – because of the authority of their position. That is sobering stuff.
If it were true that immorality invalidated a religious leader’s authority, then why did Jesus command his followers to “obey and do everything” the scribes and Pharisees tell them? Jesus merely admonished his followers not to follow their hypocritical example. There is not even the slightest hint that their positions had been forfeited or abrogated because of their hypocrisy or immorality. If anything, the reverse is true because Jesus validated these leaders’ office by telling people to obey them. From this, we see that sin and corruption found in the individual office holders has no impact whatsoever on the authority of the office itself.
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Randy" You just raised great questions! Kinda puts a hole in the bubble! of Protestant thinking doesn’t it?It’s hard to say how many are lurking without commenting, but even James Swan has arrived to participate in the discussion, so apparently SOMEBODY is listening.
Fair enough, but who, exactly, would you put into that category?
If a Church leader is guilty of gross immorality, does his sin invalidate his position or authority?
Many, if not most, Protestants would say that it does, and they often use this line of reasoning to justify their denial of the authority of the Catholic Church. They cite historical events such as the Crusades, the Inquisition or reign of the Borgia Popes as evidence that the Church has lost its claim to moral and spiritual authority.
Such a response, however, is unbiblical. For example, Scripture states that Jesus knew “from the beginning” who would betray him – namely Judas, whom Jesus calls a “devil” (cf. John 6:64–71). This fact is significant, since Judas was selected as an apostle even though Jesus knew that he was corrupt.
Another example would be found in Jesus’ teaching on “Moses’ seat” found in the opening verses of Matthew 23: “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.’” (Matthew 23:1-3)
“Moses’ seat” is a phrase that referred to a position of legitimate teaching authority held by the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. Later, Jesus condemned these men as “hypocrites,” “blind guides,” “blind fools,” “serpents,” and a “brood of vipers.” But in the passage above, Jesus specifically instructed the crowds and his disciples to obey these leaders – despite their corruption – because of the authority of their position. That is sobering stuff.
If it were true that immorality invalidated a religious leader’s authority, then why did Jesus command his followers to “obey and do everything” the scribes and Pharisees tell them? Jesus merely admonished his followers not to follow their hypocritical example. There is not even the slightest hint that their positions had been forfeited or abrogated because of their hypocrisy or immorality. If anything, the reverse is true because Jesus validated these leaders’ office by telling people to obey them. From this, we see that sin and corruption found in the individual office holders has no impact whatsoever on the authority of the office itself.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Mary,
I don’t spend as much time on Dave’s site as I used to and probably should spend more time there now, but in some respects it almost feels like ‘cheating’. I have long preferred to do my own research but generally agree with his assessments. I say ‘generally’ to allow for, and out of respect for his potential disagreement.
It should also be noted that Dave has written excellent articles on literally every Catholic apologetics subject, all of them with a great deal of supporting information and quotes from noted Scholars.
As some here might remember, Dave made a surprise visit here a few month ago and it was extremely ‘informative’.
I would suggest that if anyone wants to see how an accomplished modern Catholic Apologist and Scholar deals with the subject of Luther, they should visit his site:
“Biblical Evidence for Catholicism”
I highly recommend it.
God Bless You Mary, Topper
I don’t know of such a ‘list’ of ‘those Catholic Scholars’ either Mary, but as you certainly know, Dave Armstrong is one of Catholicism’s leading Apologists and Scholars, with more than 40 books to his credit, including one on Martin Luther. About a third of that book discusses the positive aspects of Luther while the other two thirds deals with the ‘less positive’ and less known subjects. In fact, Dave has written several hundred articles on his blog about Luther. They tend to reveal a lot of the things which support the Catholic Church in its opposition to Luther.I don’t have a list of Catholic scholars who have a negative view SINCE Vatican II.
I don’t keep such lists nor am I inspired to research this for you. Perhaps some other Catholic would be more interested in doing so
I don’t have any interest in discussing Topper beyond the above. In my opinion there are posters here more interested in Topper than the topic JMO
Mary.
I don’t spend as much time on Dave’s site as I used to and probably should spend more time there now, but in some respects it almost feels like ‘cheating’. I have long preferred to do my own research but generally agree with his assessments. I say ‘generally’ to allow for, and out of respect for his potential disagreement.
It should also be noted that Dave has written excellent articles on literally every Catholic apologetics subject, all of them with a great deal of supporting information and quotes from noted Scholars.
As some here might remember, Dave made a surprise visit here a few month ago and it was extremely ‘informative’.
I would suggest that if anyone wants to see how an accomplished modern Catholic Apologist and Scholar deals with the subject of Luther, they should visit his site:
“Biblical Evidence for Catholicism”
I highly recommend it.
God Bless You Mary, Topper
T
Topper17
Guest
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Edwin,
Now I have a recommendation for you on the off chance that have not read it. It relates precisely to our difference of opinion in this area.
“Getting the Reformation Wrong, Correcting Some Misunderstandings”, by Reformed Professor James R. Payton. You might even know him.
I am not at all suggesting that the title of this book applies in any way to you, Payton’s major points, as found specifically in his chapter – “Carried Along by Misunderstandings”, is that people did NOT really understand Luther’s teachings well at all, at first. In addition, as you know, once the humanists realized where Luther was headed and what he was really advocating, the abandoned him en masse.
Payton’s point of view is one worth considering. His overall conclusions would make for an excellent thread someday.
In reading your last paragraph, I know that you don’t intend to minimize the importance of the support that Luther received from the secular powers. However your statement does not mention it. Without the support of the princes Luther’s ‘reformation’ would never have been possible, and he knew it. However, when he ‘began’ he had no clue how much authority for religious affairs they were going to assume.
To be continued:
We disagree here somewhat I think. Do you remember when you recommended that I read your advisor’s book. I bought it and read it. “Luther in Context”, by David C. Steinmetz.
Now I have a recommendation for you on the off chance that have not read it. It relates precisely to our difference of opinion in this area.
“Getting the Reformation Wrong, Correcting Some Misunderstandings”, by Reformed Professor James R. Payton. You might even know him.
I am not at all suggesting that the title of this book applies in any way to you, Payton’s major points, as found specifically in his chapter – “Carried Along by Misunderstandings”, is that people did NOT really understand Luther’s teachings well at all, at first. In addition, as you know, once the humanists realized where Luther was headed and what he was really advocating, the abandoned him en masse.
Payton’s point of view is one worth considering. His overall conclusions would make for an excellent thread someday.
In reading your last paragraph, I know that you don’t intend to minimize the importance of the support that Luther received from the secular powers. However your statement does not mention it. Without the support of the princes Luther’s ‘reformation’ would never have been possible, and he knew it. However, when he ‘began’ he had no clue how much authority for religious affairs they were going to assume.
It should be noted that the Theologians who followed Luther, or emulated him in their defiance (of him also later) were not exactly the ‘older wiser hands’. It is always the ‘young and the restless’ who join the revolts. Again, we could discuss this on a different thread.
To be continued:
T
Topper17
Guest
OK, now I am going to quote Payton. From a chapter entitled “Was the Reformation a Success?”:
“To our question, Luther’s perspectives and his response in his later years gives a resounding “No!” as an answer”.
Payton goes on to answer in the same manner for Melanchthon, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Bucer, and Calvin. You know who this Reformed Scholars credits with success? The Jesuits.
“….they became wildly successful……they managed to turn the tide and reclaim vast territories which had embraced Protestantism – an accomplishment not, well known among contemporary twenty first century Protestants. Of all those involved in the Reformation-era struggles, the Jesuits ended up achieving more of what they expected than anyone else.
Consequently the Jesuits have the best claim to being successful. What they accomplished needs to be better known. The difference it made for Western Christianity in the sixteenth century and subsequently should be recognized. It will help twenty-first century heirs of the Protestant Reformation better understand to what degree that movement was successful and, at the same time, how it also failed.” Payton, pgs. 212-222.
The late 16th century ‘gains’ made by the Church are not, as Payton points out, exactly well known.
Steven Ozment, whom you also might know:
“With the passage of time, the laity too became ambivalent about the Reformation, and a great many proved to be just as reactionary as some of the new clergy. Across Europe more than half of the Reformation’s original converts returned to the Catholic fold before the end of the sixteenth century. Whereas one-half of Europe could be counted in the Protestant camp in the mid-sixteenth century, only one-fifth would be found there by mid-seventeenth century…….
When we ask why the Reformation moved so successfully from the private into the public sphere, the most important reason may be one scholars currently tend to ignore. Much recent scholarship explains the Reformation’s success as fortuitous and political – the result of the timelessness of its propaganda (that is, an egalitarian spiritual message appearing at a time of social and political upheaval) and the cleaver manipulation of it by magistrates and princes, who saw in Protestant teaching new opportunities for their own self-aggrandizement. From this point of view, the Reformation’s triumph becomes opportunistic rather than spiritual, and its traditional portrayal as a great religious revolution seems grossly exaggerated. The Protestant reformers, in contrast to their late mediaeval forerunners, are said to have survived so well because they proved to be exceptionally useful to reigning authority. But having gained public authority by favor of the magistrates and princes, the reformers soon lost the larger public, particularily the ordinary people in the towns and countryside, who felt betrayed by them afer the princes, at the reformers’ urging, crushed the Peasant’s Revolt of 1525.” Harvard Professor Steven Ozment, “Protestants, The Birth of a Revolution”, pg. 28-9
More when time allows Edwin. May God Bless You, Topper
- Status