Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done

[spina1953]

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?

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.

 

[benhur]

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

So ? You know Lutherans follow Christ not Luther.

I would hope they disavow his flaws for they certainly and properly hold to the good, as we should do for everyone.

We all be the same, for you believe in Papalism while properly disavowing the "flaws’’ of a John XII or a Leo VIII etc.

 

[onenow1]

Jesus disobeyed some rules also, not to mention the apostles. They disobeyed the magisterium and authority of the time, **because they were wrong

**

 

[Contarini]

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?

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.

Topper is selecting those parts of Luther that are useful to his polemical agenda.

He isn’t presenting a balanced, fair picture. I think he would agree that he really has no interest in that. He’s convinced that certain aspects of Luther are so damning and so ignored that they’re really all that needs to be talked about.

Lutherans certainly would generally repudiate many things Luther said and did.

That does not mean that they are not also deeply shaped by Luther (although do bear in mind that the term “Lutheran” does not describe primarily how they see themselves–the term “evangelical” does).

Edwin

 

[Thorolfr]

Lutherans certainly would generally repudiate many things Luther said and did.

That does not mean that they are not also deeply shaped by Luther (although do bear in mind that the term “Lutheran” does not describe primarily how they see themselves–the term “evangelical” does).

Edwin

I admire many things about Luther while also recognizing that he had his flaws. I think that most Lutherans, for example, would certainly repudiate the anti-Semitic things that he said or wrote.

 

[jmcrae]

Jesus disobeyed some rules also, not to mention the apostles. They disobeyed the magisterium and authority of the time, because they were wrong

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.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So ? You know Lutherans follow Christ not Luther.

I would hope they disavow his flaws for they certainly and properly hold to the good, as we should do for everyone.

We all be the same, for you believe in Papalism while properly disavowing the "flaws’’ of a John XII or a Leo VIII etc.

Did John XII or Leo VIII play a significant role in formulating Catholic theology? :nope:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Topper is selecting those parts of Luther that are useful to his polemical agenda.

He isn’t presenting a balanced, fair picture. I think he would agree that he really has no interest in that. He’s convinced that certain aspects of Luther are so damning and so ignored that they’re really all that needs to be talked about.

Lutherans certainly would generally repudiate many things Luther said and did.

That does not mean that they are not also deeply shaped by Luther (although do bear in mind that the term “Lutheran” does not describe primarily how they see themselves–the term “evangelical” does).

Edwin

To paraphrase Rush Limbaugh, Topper IS equal time.

Lutherans are happy to provide us with everything that is presentable about Luther, but just how many folks who consider Luther to be a hero are really familiar with the “other side” of the man?

I wasn’t until just a few years ago.

 

[spina1953]

To paraphrase Rush Limbaugh, Topper IS equal time.

Lutherans are happy to provide us with everything that is presentable about Luther, but just how many folks who consider Luther to be a hero are really familiar with the “other side” of the man?

I wasn’t until just a few years ago.

 

[Tomyris]

Did John XII or Leo VIII play a significant role in formulating Catholic theology? :nope:

No, but perhaps they should have.

I think we can agree that one of the saddest things in church history is the long succession of popes who were simply uninterested in the spiritual health of the people of God.

Recently hubby and I watched “Fiddler on the Roof” again. I was drawn to handsome young Perchik, the Marxist idealogue who, with many others, helped the communists come to power in Russia, not knowing what they were really starting. That caused me to wonder if the explosion had not happened in the time of Luther, perhaps a few generations later we would have seen every evidence of Christianity removed from the west and every Christian they could find annihilated: what happened in Russia in 1917 transferred to western Europe in the mid 1500s.

It would have been good if Leo X or one of his predecessors had realized that there were numerous controversies and weaknesses in the church, called a council, and solved everything then and there, before it was too late. But those who followed Leo X refused to call a council for many years, until it was too late.

I will admit that I do not understand what I have read of the council of Trent well, but on reading what I have read it seems to me that they did not condemn what the reformers were saying, at least the big names, but rather they condemned some strange things that perhaps no one or few believed, things that the reformers would also condemn. I am not convinced they understood what Luther and Calvin and all were saying.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No, but perhaps they should have.

I think we can agree that one of the saddest things in church history is the long succession of popes who were simply uninterested in the spiritual health of the people of God.

A long list, Tomyris?

Really?

How long would that list be?

Maybe seven of 240+ popes have been truly awful.

 

[pablope]

No, but perhaps they should have.

I think we can agree that one of the saddest things in church history is the long succession of popes who were simply uninterested in the spiritual health of the people of God.

 

[Tomyris]

A long list, Tomyris?

Really?

How long would that list be?

Maybe seven of 240+ popes have been truly awful.

Well, I suppose we could get into a stupid and fruitless argument about what ‘long’ means and what ‘truly awful’ means. That would be in the vein of what passes for argument around here.

I would think rather that the Catholic position would be that even if every one of them had been worse than Judas and Leo X combined you still support the papacy as instituted by Christ and continuing forward. Here you seem to be taking the other argument.

And perhaps even one pope with one slight imperfection would be enough to invalidate the whole thing, given how daring the claim is.

 

[pablope]

Well, I suppose

I would think rather that the Catholic position would be that even if every one of them had been worse than Judas and Leo X combined you still support the papacy as instituted by Christ and continuing forward. Here you seem to be taking the other argument.

s.

And that is because we put our trust in Jesus…that the gates of hell will not prevail despite bad popes…and he prayed for Peter for Peter’s faith not to fail…

Whether bad or good pope…they are from God and we accept them, …and pray for them continously…and not resort to calling them anti-Christ.

 

[Tomyris]

But what is amazing is these bad popes did not teach binding error on faith and morals.

 

[Contarini]

To paraphrase Rush Limbaugh, Topper IS equal time.

Lutherans are happy to provide us with everything that is presentable about Luther, but just how many folks who consider Luther to be a hero are really familiar with the “other side” of the man?

I wasn’t until just a few years ago.

I hear this all the time from Catholics. But there comes a point when enough is enough. And ironically, the whole idea of redressing one imbalance by another was endorsed by Luther–and was one of his most basic errors, I think.

I suppose I have trouble empathizing with this, first of all because I’m a specialist in Reformation studies and Luther’s flaws are not news to me and haven’t been for years. But even before I went to grad school I heard folks (usually from some sort of neo-Anabaptist perspective) talk about what a mess Luther was.

The Luther myth as I most often hear it from evangelical Protestants has less to do with Luther’s personal virtues and more with the idea that he courageously stood up to a massive, monolithic power structure and thus paved the way for freedom, etc.

To counter this, Luther’s flaws are less relevant than an understanding of the historical context–the fact that rulers were salivating to tear down Church authority, and that there were all kinds of Catholic reformers at work before, during, and after Luther’s career.

Kudos to Pablope for highlighting Contarini–the real one. As I say whenever I have occasion, there is a very good reason why I chose that alias on this forum. . . .

Edwin

 

[pablope]

How would as a Catholic know they did not? And why is their teaching limited to faith and morals, and their personal example seems to have nothing to do with their teaching? Hmmm. Where I come from, most teaching is by example. I believe what I do, not what I say I believe. By their example these bad popes taught that adultery was good, etc. That is actually a pope teaching on faith and morals by example. ANd who taught you to divorce teaching from behavior? Perhaps…these bad popes?

All you have to do is look at the example of Peter, recounted by Paul in Galatians…he acted against his own teachings…and was called for it.But what error did he proclaim to bind the whole Church?

I still see the church in need of reform.

No Catholic has ever claimed the church does not need reform…it always does.

It’s a little late for that.

Why?

Have you considered that Luther may have been God’s choice, despite all his flaws? God uses the weak and foolish things to shame the wise. Luther was at an obscure school in an obscure part of the world.

Sure…but he did not turn out to be reformer in the mold of Catherine of Siena or Francis of Assisi.

Luther was a trained theologian…and he was not weak or unwise.

Have you even dared to look at who Catherine of Siena or Francis of Assisi are? There are unschooled feformers…but fitting the weak that you describe.

There is a parallel to one born into a manger who grew up in an obscure part of Judea…Some Catholics, it seems, would demand the Reformer be of noble Roman blood and impeccable table manners. ‘engineered’ is a loaded word and I do not think it is the right term here.

Really…why don’t you provide proof of this…some Catholics, it seems, would demand the Reformer be of noble Roman blood and impeccable table manners.

Or is this just conjecture on your part?

Well…why don’t you compare Contarini and Francis de Sales, St. Ignatius of Loyola with the likes of Luther and Calvin? You will see a ton of difference.

From a doctrinal perspective a lot of the problem was the church’s silence on what it actually taught on justification - Catholics were free to take many positions. Trent did address this as well as some of the abuses.

I thought the initial premise of the Reformation was church reform and abuses…so when or why did it turn to a doctrinal dispute?

In one prior post…you said this…I will admit that I do not understand what I have read of the council of Trent well, but on reading what I have read it seems to me that they did not condemn what the reformers were saying, at least the big names, but rather they condemned some strange things that perhaps no one or few believed, things that the reformers would also condemn. I am not convinced they understood what Luther and Calvin and all were saying.

Now you are saying Trent did address the abuses and clarified its position on justification?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, I suppose we could get into a stupid and fruitless argument about what ‘long’ means and what ‘truly awful’ means. That would be in the vein of what passes for argument around here.

I would think rather that the Catholic position would be that even if every one of them had been worse than Judas and Leo X combined you still support the papacy as instituted by Christ and continuing forward. Here you seem to be taking the other argument.

And perhaps even one pope with one slight imperfection would be enough to invalidate the whole thing, given how daring the claim is.

Actually, no. The imperfections of the popes, ALL 265 of THEM, have nothing to do with invalidating the doctrine of infallibility.

To say that a pope is without imperfections or impeccable is NOT what infallibility means.

Not a single pope has been impeccable, but they have ALL been infallible.

This is Catholic doctrine.

 

[pablope]

I

Kudos to Pablope for highlighting Contarini–the real one. As I say whenever I have occasion, there is a very good reason why I chose that alias on this forum. . . .

Edwin

Thanks…I got curious with who contarini was…I learned of his name from your alias…
So I looked it up.

 

[Tomyris]

Now you are saying Trent did address the abuses and clarified its position on justification?

That is my understanding.