Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done

[MaryT777]

Hi pab,

In fact the name of the document is as follows:

The Formula of Concord - A Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, Treatise Compiled by the Theologians Assembled at Smalcald – 1537

“39] Now, it is manifest that the Roman pontiffs, with their adherents, defend [and practice] godless doctrines and godless services. And the marks [all the vices] of Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the Pope and his adherents.

59] But those who agree with the Pope, and defend his doctrine and [false] services, defile themselves with idolatry and blasphemous opinions, become guilty of the blood of the godly, whom the Pope [and his adherents] persecutes, detract from the glory of God, and hinder the welfare of the Church, because they strengthen errors and crimes to all posterity [in the sight of all the world and to the injury of all descendants].”

I think that another important question is what it is, specifically and exactly, that makes this document ‘authoritative’? What ‘process’ was it subjected to before it received ‘Confessional Status’? Also, do ALL Lutherans hold that this is part of THEIR Confessions?

I would like someday to have an answers to these questions.

God Bless You pab, Topper

Those are good questions Topper. I hope one of our Lutherans will discuss the process as to which a doctrine or statement such as the one regarding the Pope
and his adherents becomes part of the confessions.

I also wonder if the ELCA hold to this statement about the Pope and his adherents. Maybe a Lutheran who is in the ELCA church can answer that part.

God bless you, Topper.
Mary.

 

[benjohnson]

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

Papal Infallibility - such a particular gift that 256 popes didn’t even knew they had it!

(Ben runs away before pitchforks come out)

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;12718145]

Hi, Jon…if trying to separate the papacy from the person of the serving in the papacy…and if not trying to rationalize that…then I do not know what that is?

Hi Pab,
Isn’t it true that we often, here in America, talked about the presidency without referencing any particular president? “The president has specific enumerated powers”, etc. I think it perfectly reasonable to speak of the office, any office, without talking about any one holder of that office personally.

Your explanations run counter to what is specifically stated in your confessions:

Let’s remember that they are not my explanations, but instead the explanations of my synod. And just like you with your communion, when my synod states unequivocally that the charge does not apply to any one particular pope personally, but to the office, I accept that position.

It does not make a distinction, mentions the pope of Rome and his dominion specifically…so every missionary, religious, priest, nun, charity worker, every Catholic in the pope’s dominion is anti-Christ?

And neither does unam sanctam state that, really, all baptized Christians are under the dominion of the Pope. So, here’s the point:
I accept, and take the word of the leadership of the Catholic Church when they say they have “positively reformulated” unam sanctam. I have no reason to doubt their sincerity in this endeavor. OTOH, if you believe that I particularly, and the LCMS generally, is not sincere in our statements, what more can I do?

Your original statement did not come out as you explain it above. If I recall, you are already making a statement to the effect that you (Lutherans) will not accept anything that has does not away with universal jurisdiction.

Not at all. What I have said countless times here is I will accept whatever resolution of the issue of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is agreed to, either between my synod and Rome, or between Eastern Orthodoxy and Rome!

You misunderstand…you stated that the popes you prefer (taking to mean future popes) would be in the mold of the early church popes…

No, I understood. Here is an example of what I was saying earlier. I was speaking of the papacy as an office. Yes, my preference would be for the papacy to exercise its proper primacy, as it did in the early Church.

And is this development without the guidance of the HS? Is your view that how the papacy developed is in response to how the world has developed, and this response is with the guidance of the HS?

It is certainly without the consent of a truly ecumenical council. I think the HS always guides us, even when we misunderstand the guidance.

Or is your view, the HS has failed to guide the church?

No. We have often failed to understand His guidance. Even popes and bishops have.

Really? I think a lot of us here have looked at the whole document from the Smalcald article, and, is it the Power of the Pope ( I forgot the official document).

Really? Have you taken the moment to read all of the things I have posted? Here it is again:

The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist. The historic view of LCMS on the Antichrist is summarized as follows by the Synod’s Theological Commission:

The New Testament predicts that the church throughout its history will witness many antichrists (Matt. 24:5, 23-24; Mark 13:6, 21-22; Luke 21:8; 1 John 2:18, 22, 4:3; 2 John 7). All false teachers who teach contrary to Christ’s Word are opponents of Christ and, insofar as they do so, are anti-Christ.

However, the Scriptures also teach that there is one climactic “Anti-Christ” (Dan. 7:8, 11, 20-21, 24-25, 11:36-45; 2 Thess. 2; 1 John 2:18, 4:3; Rev. 17-18) … Concerning the historical identity of the Antichrist, we affirm the Lutheran Confessions’ identification of the Antichrist with the office of the papacy whose official claims continue to correspond to the Scriptural marks listed above. It is important, however, that we observe the distinction which the Lutheran Confessors made between the office of the pope (papacy) and the individual men who fill that office. The latter could be Christians themselves. We do not presume to judge any person’s heart. Also, we acknowledge the possibility that the historical form of the Antichrist could change. Of course, in that case another identified by these marks would rise.

In a footnote, the Commission adds:

To the extent that the papacy continues to claim as official dogma the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent which expressly anathematizes, for instance, the doctrine “that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified,” the judgment of the Lutheran Confessional writings that the papacy is the Antichrist holds. At the same time, of course, we must recognize the possibility, under God’s guidance, that contemporary discussions and statements (e.g., 1983 U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue statement on “Justification by Faith”) could lead to a revision of the Roman Catholic position regarding Tridentine dogma.

 

[JonNC]

Of course I agree…Therefore Catholics understand the church’s unity as grounded in reality more determinative than our good feelings for one another. The office of Rome matters. For at least that office is a judgment on the church for our disunity.…calledtocommunion.com/2009/10/stanley-hauerwas-on-reformation-sunday/

And of course I am not talking necessarily about “good feelings”. I am talking about dialogue in charity and mutual respect.

And this goes to the heart of the matter…biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/debate9.htm

And as I asked…if you take one sentence and isolate it, you can make it whatever you want it to mean…like the word “submit”…what does the word “submit” mean to you in isolation? And if you take it in context of the bull, “submit” means quite not the same.

Then let’s both stop taking things out of context. Let’s both accept the explanation provided by the other. Let’s stop telling the other what they believe. Read the sentence I enlarged the print on. Pope Francis is NOT the AntiChrist.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I noticed you are on this book…good read…where are you with it? Almost done?

2/3 to 3/4 of the way through. There is much I agree with, some that I do not, but I want to finish, and absorb, before I say too much.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

The question in the OP was about whether Luther would have done things differently had he been able to foresee the results of his teachings. Given that his teachings had a huge part in breaking off what is now 30% of Christianity from the Mother Church, this is an extremely important question. **The fact is that that 30% has now become fractured into tens of thousands of competing doctrinally independent sects. ****Luther’s doctrine of Sola Scriptura is primarily responsible for this denominalization. **

Hi Topper,
A couple of questions.

1)How is Luther responsible for the decisions of millions of Christians, many of whom are in communions or denominations that have little or no roots in Lutheranism, who categorically reject much of Luther’s teaching, and much more so Lutheran teaching?

1. Considering this weight and power of Luther’s, how could the Catholic Church in the
   middle ages been so inept, so incapable of holding the Church together? Isn’t its inability to do so at least equally responsible (and probably more so) for all these competing sects?

While this is evident from having the advantage of hindsight, more than half the people who have voted here believe that, had Luther known what was ‘going to happen’, he would have done things pretty much the same as he did.

As an aside, when I last looked:
Yes, he would do it all over again. 20 22.99%
Generally, but he might have done a few things differently. 29 33.33%
No, he would not want the disunity to occur if he could prevent it. 38 43.68%

Only 20 out of 87 voters thought he would do it pretty much the same. More think he would have done some things differently than do it the same, and almost half believe he would not want disunity of he could have avoided it.

Jon

 

[benhur]

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

Thank you . Not sure Contarini would have come to a justification view that he did without influence from "reformers’’. Was it not after much conferencing with reformers at the negotiating table that his justification view was then formulated ? But I agree that the pope could neither approve or disprove his view, perhaps because of “reformation” stigma/connection/association.

 

[benhur]

No, you are not getting the point…those reformers were able to effect reform, castigate and tell the pope to reform (like Catherine of Siena and Contarini)…all without causing a further split in the church (in other words…to heal the church) and get excommunicated by for the attempts at Reforming the church. In other words…Luther could have followed the path of the examples of those reformers prior to him…or learned from them…

Thank you . I get that point. Still don’t think the reformers you speak of touched doctrine, which Luther did. Secondly , you must take into account the fate of the other reformers I mentioned.

All three points must be considered;

#1- the kind of reform
#2-good fate of some reformers
#3-bad fate of some reformers.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your response.

HI Topper: Great post! My question is what signs did Luther have that he was the authority while everyone else was wrong concerning doctrines and teachings of the CC as well as others like Calvin and Zwingli?

**“Therefore, I now let you know that from now on I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you - or even an angel from heaven - to judge my teaching or to examine it. For there has been enough foolish humility now for the third time at Worms, and it has not helped. Instead, I shall let myself be heard and, as St. Peter teaches, give an explanation and defense of my teaching to all the world - I Pet. 3:15. I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel. For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says ) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved - for it is God’s and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God’s.” “Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called”, July 1522.

Now THAT is Authority being demonstrated. Here we see Luther VERY CLEARLY state that those who do not ‘accept his teaching’ - ‘may not be saved’. At least I guess he allows for the possibility that we Catholics might be (eventually) saved. What would we think today if a Theologian made such a statement?

Maybe Marius answers your question, at least as much as the completely unanswerable can be answered. I say that it is unanswerable because there is no reasonable (meaning based on reason) justification for the kind of personal authority that Luther claimed. In describing Luther denouncing monasticism and Luther’s justification or authority to do so:

(In regards to his vow to become a monk) – “Luther denounced monasticism free from the reproach of enemies that he did not know what he was talking about.** In the attention Satan gave him, Luther had, paradoxically, proof of his divine calling.” **Marius, pg. 311

‘Paradoxically’ seems to be putting it mildly. In fact, even early on, Luther was well aware of how radical his teachings were.

“Against all the sayings of the Fathers, against all the arts and words of angels, men and devils I set the Scriptures and the Gospel . . . Here I stand and here I defy them . . . The Word of God I count above all else and the Divine Majesty supports me; hence **I should not turn a hair were a thousand Augustines against me, and am certain that the true Church adheres with me to God’s Word.” **(Against Henry VIII, King of England, 1522; in Grisar, Vol. IV, 391 / from Werke [Weimar], Vol X, II, p. 256 ff.)

Here Luther admits that he knew that his teachings were in opposition to the beliefs of the Fathers. He defied them all. The fact that the Fathers were opposed to him, and that there were so many of his own time that were opposed to him somehow proved to him that he was ‘right’. At the very least, that is a very strange ‘justification’.

Lutheran Professor Albrecht Beutel comments on Luther’s perception of his authority:

“Even though at first Luther was most reluctant to pursue the academic career intended for him, it did not take long for him to adjust and **he would refer to his doctoral degree without reservation whenever his authority as a teacher was questioned, be it toward the papal legate Cajetan, the elector Albert of Mainz, or the Pope himself.” ** “Companion”, pg. 7

Luther’s justification of course breaks down where his opponents were his educational equal or better. Obtaining a Doctorate does not mean that you are right and everybody else (including other PhDs) are wrong.

Lutheran Professor Robert Kolb seems to agree:

“Luther’s image of himself centered on his call as teacher of Scripture. **His doctoral oath to teach the Bible faithfully and keep false teaching from bringing offense to the church was determinative in his own mind for the course of his career.” **‘Companion’, pg. 219

Of course Luther’s doctoral oath required that he not teach against the doctrines of the Church. If he had followed the teaching of the Church (and the later teaching of Lutheranism), that it is the Church that determines doctrine, he would not have challenged the teachings of the Church. This is not to mention that once a man, any man, PRESUMES that his education gives him the ‘right’ to condemn the teachings and opinions of people who have the SAME education, and others use that same ‘rational’, doctrinal dissension is inevitable.

Lutheran Professor E. G. Schweibert records Luther as stating:

**“I have a fast hand and rapid memory. As I write the thoughts just naturally come to me, so I do not have to force myself or ponder over my materials.” ** “Luther and His Times”, pg. 439

We know that Luther normally didn’t edit or review what he wrote. A lot of it was written in such an angry mood that he was more interested in getting it to the printer than he was in editing. It would appear that Luther thought that he WAS guided by God to the point that whatever he thought was placed in his mind divinely. What he wrote, what landed on paper HAD to be correct, at least in Luther’s mind.

God Bless You Spina, Topper**

 

[benhur]

Is this Satins plan to use Martin; up till than the churches teaching stood; of course not without some friction as usual over the years.

Effects of the reformation:

1. Difference in religious views (affecting the soul).
2. Alteration in philosophical thinking (affecting the intellect).
3. Organization and purpose of the physical world (affecting the will).

a) REFORMATION (dividing Christianity to weaken Divine Revelation).
b) RATIONALISM (doubting that man can rely on Divine Revelation).
c) HUMAN MESSIANISM (asserting that man can rely on himself).
ANON.

Wow ! Did not know this stuff did not exist before reformation, not even in OT.:doh2:

 

[benhur]

We know that Luther normally didn’t edit or review what he wrote. A lot of it was written in such an angry mood that he was more interested in getting it to the printer than he was in editing. It would appear that Luther thought that he WAS guided by God to the point that whatever he thought was placed in his mind divinely. What he wrote, what landed on paper HAD to be correct,** at least in Luther’s mind.

At least you admit he wrote with emotions which can color words, but emotions can change.

Did he ever change anything later ?

If he formulated a “confession” or catechism was he "angry " while penning it ?

Don’t think any of us post anything assertive that we also don’t think is correct, in our own mind.

 

[Contarini]

Thank you . Not sure Contarini would have come to a justification view that he did without influence from "reformers’’. Was it not after much conferencing with reformers at the negotiating table that his justification view was then formulated ?

Not really–he didn’t actually meet with the Protestant negotiators, but met with the Catholics behind the scenes.

And at least according to him, his basic position derived from his own experience of God’s grace in the confessional before he had ever heard of Luther.

Edwin

 

[benhur]

Not really–he didn’t actually meet with the Protestant negotiators, but met with the Catholics behind the scenes.

And at least according to him, his basic position derived from his own experience of God’s grace in the confessional before he had ever heard of Luther.

Edwin

Thank you. But he was still there at the negotiations. He may have had the thoughts but when did he write them down, and when were they “looked at” by the pope ? Was it before or after reviewing protestant justification proposals ?

Luther’s critique of Contarini’s thoughts on justification seemed to be that they were a sort of “compromise” between the rifting parties.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with your premise that others had similar “thoughts” as Luther.

It is still a Catch 22. It could show that Luther should have stayed on the boat, while at the same time showing Luther was not alone and was not an “inventor”, and had fellow “companions” on board.

 

[Topper17]

You see, Topper, regarding Unam sanctam, I totally reject the claim in that bull. I consider it unscriptural outside the teachings of the early Church. But I also know it was written 700 years ago, in a different era, and the modern Catholic Church has seen fit to “positively reformulate” that teaching. The difference here is, I’m buying what you Church says.

Jon, you recently said:

Hi Randy,
I have no problem with this. My point is not to counter current Catholic teaching regarding Unam sanctam. The CC has every right to “positively reformulate” their own writings:
I believe the CC when it makes this statement.

OTOH, I expect the same courtesy in return when I quote our synod as saying:

I agree with you 100%. The Catholic Church DOES have the authority to ‘positively reformulate’ its own teachings. After all, who would disagree and suggest that it cannot? Would that be the Methodists, the Presbyterians, the Baptists? Who? The Authority to ‘positively reformulate’ Catholic Church teaching belongs to nobody BUT the Catholic Church.

On the other hand, who has the authority to ‘positively reformulate’ the Lutheran Confessions? Who speaks authoritatively for ALL of Lutheranism? The answer – nobody. The LCMS, which amounts to roughly 3% of Lutheranism has absolutely no authority to ‘positively reformulate’ the Confessions, which ‘belong’ to ALL of Lutheranism. It does have the ‘authority’ to interpret the Confessions, but ONLY for the LCMS. Their ‘positive reformulations’ don’t have authority for the ‘other’ 97% of Lutheranism.

I sometimes make comments about, or offer criticisms of Martin Luther. Those comments are specific to Martin Luther, and, the way that they are normally posed, cannot be addressed by a response referring me to the ‘early Reformers’, or the Augsburg Confession, or the Formula, or the statements of the LCMS. Those comments are very specifically concerned with the man Martin Luther, who is the subject of this thread.

Again, on the other hand, the Catholic Church, which does actually have an official teaching body and a Pope, CAN ‘positively reformulate’ various positions, of course but cannot deny previously proclaimed dogma. That doesn’t seem to be the case with Lutheranism given that it is not unified under one ‘umbrella’ whatsoever. Not to long ago you mentioned the need for a Pope. I agree that we ALL need a Pope. We all need the SAME Pope.

I have made this comment before but I think it bears repeating. I think that Lutheranism should make every effort possible to reunite itself and THEN come to the Catholic Church to work on further unity. After all, if Lutherans cannot reunite themselves, I don’t think they can expect to be able to come to agreement with the Church.

Do you believe that the LCMS is willing to ‘negotiate’ with those ‘other’ Lutheran communions on issues of doctrine? Do you think an overall Lutheran re-unification is even remotely possible?

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12722032]Jon, you recently said:

I agree with you 100%. The Catholic Church DOES have the authority to ‘positively reformulate’ its own teachings. After all, who would disagree and suggest that it cannot? Would that be the Methodists, the Presbyterians, the Baptists? Who? The Authority to ‘positively reformulate’ Catholic Church teaching belongs to nobody BUT the Catholic Church.

On the other hand, who has the authority to ‘positively reformulate’ the Lutheran Confessions?

Well, certainly not you.

Who speaks authoritatively for ALL of Lutheranism? The answer – nobody. The LCMS, which amounts to roughly 3% of Lutheranism has absolutely no authority to ‘positively reformulate’ the Confessions, which ‘belong’ to ALL of Lutheranism. It does have the ‘authority’ to interpret the Confessions, but ONLY for the LCMS.

As an LCMS Lutheran, I look to the synod, as I’m supposed to. I allow the other synods to determine their teachings for themselves. I try very hard not to tell others what they believe. I may fail at times, but it certainly isn’t a regular practice to on my part, as it is with some.

Their ‘positive reformulations’ don’t have authority for the ‘other’ 97% of Lutheranism.
I **sometimes **make comments about, or offer criticisms of Martin Luther. Those comments are specific to Martin Luther, and, the way that they are normally posed, cannot be addressed by a response referring me to the ‘early Reformers’, or the Augsburg Confession, or the Formula, or the statements of the LCMS. Those comments are very specifically concerned with the man Martin Luther, who is the subject of this thread.

Sometimes??? lol Topper, that’s all you do, unless you are criticizing Lutherans in general.

Again, on the other hand, the Catholic Church, which does actually have an official teaching body and a Pope, CAN ‘positively reformulate’ various positions, of course but cannot deny previously proclaimed dogma.

Those positions, due to the Catholic Church’s schism and division from others, only applies to the Catholic Church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome. That said, I respect their authority to do so, and I always accept their positions as an honest representation of what they believe, not questioning their sincerity and honesty. Nope, I do not call Catholic leaders, historical or contemporary, bald-faced liars.

That doesn’t seem to be the case with Lutheranism given that it is not unified under one ‘umbrella’ whatsoever. Not to long ago you mentioned the need for a Pope. ** I agree that we ALL need a Pope. We all need the SAME Pope**.

Agreed. Now the task of determining the nature of the primacy of the Pope, for the claim of papal supremacy is, for a thousand years, the central division of the Church Catholic.

I have made this comment before but I think it bears repeating. I think that Lutheranism should make every effort possible to reunite itself and THEN come to the Catholic Church to work on further unity. After all, if Lutherans cannot reunite themselves, I don’t think they can expect to be able to come to agreement with the Church.

That’s an interesting opinion on your part. But that’s all it is. You’ve made it clear before that you don’t particularly trust Catholic leadership with ecumenical dialogue. For my part, I’ve always felt that the key to unity of the Church Catholic is contingent upon reconciliation between Rome and the EO, as that is the basic and foundational division of the Church. That doesn’t mean, however, that Lutherans shouldn’t dialogue with the CC, regardless of how extreme traditionalists in both traditions feel about it.

Do you believe that the LCMS is willing to ‘negotiate’ with those ‘other’ Lutheran communions on issues of doctrine?

It seems you are not aware of the fact that the LCMS has been involved in almost all of the Lutheran - Catholic dialogue here in the US for decades. IIRC, the only one we were not involved in was Round 10. It seems, further, that you are not aware that the ELCA and LCMS are in constant dialogue over the issues that sadly divide us.

Do you think an overall Lutheran re-unification is even remotely possible?

You tell me; should we enter into full fellowship with the ELCA while they continue to ordain women? If so, perhaps the CC should set the example, by returning to full fellowship with the Old Catholics while they continue to ordain women. I’ll run your idea by the CTCR of the LCMS, while you run my idea by the Magisterium.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your response.

HI Topper: Great post! My question is what signs did Luther have that he was the authority while everyone else was wrong concerning doctrines and teachings of the CC as well as others like Calvin and Zwingli?

Continued from last response.

Protestant Theologian and Seminary President Arthur Cushman McGiffert offers a ‘non-Catholic perspective, (speaking initially of the time prior to Luther’s excommunication):

“The attacks upon him during these months (speaking primarily of 1519), were many and severe. Though he frequently expressed regret at being obliged to waste so much time in controversy and interrupt more important work, he really welcomed the attacks as invitations to let his views be known, and many a reply was rather a statement of his own doctrines than an answer to his antagonists. ** For the later, he often contented himself with personal abuse instead of reasoned argument……****His treatment of opponents, which grew more bitter with passing years, has always been a ground of offense to his enemies and confusion to his friends…….From the beginning profoundly convinced of his own divine call, he identified his cause with God’s and always attributed the hostility of his enemies with the promptings of Satan, who filled their hearts with hatred for God and all His works……

**In 1531, more than ten years after his final break with Rome, in a pamphlet entitled ‘Against the Traitor at Dresden,’ he wrote:

‘…….they (his opponents) are obdurate and have determined to do nothing good, but only evil, so that there is no longer any hope, I will hereafter heap curses and maledictions upon the villains until I go to my grave, and no good word shall they hear from me again. I will toll them to their tombs with my thunder and lightening. For I cannot pray without at the same time cursing. If I say ‘Hallowed be Thy name,’ I have to add, ‘Cursed, damned, reviled be the name of the papists and of all who blaspheme Thy name.’ If I say, ‘Thy kingdom come,’ I have to add, ‘Cursed, damned, destroyed be the papacy, together with all the kingdoms of the earth, which oppose Thy kingdom,’ If I say, ‘Thy will be done,’ I have to add, ‘Cursed, damned, reviled, and destroyed be all the thoughts and plans of the papists and of every one who strives against Thy will and counsel.’ Thus I pray aloud every day and inwardly without ceasing, and with me all that believe in Christ. And I feel sure than my prayer will be heard. Nevertheless I have a kind, friendly, peaceable, and Christian heart toward every one, as even my worst enemies know.’ (Luther)

(McGiffert comments) His violence has been excused by appealing to the prevailing tone of contemporary polemics, but the excuse is insufficient. Though his form of expression might have been different in another century, the man he was would have been violent and vituperative in any. Passionate and high-tempered, to speak and write calmly about an antagonist was an impossibility to him…….Anger he always recognized as his greatest fault. **He liked to be angry and in a good cause, he once remarked. It refreshed him like a thunderstorm, and he could write much better for it. As a matter of fact, he seldom deliberated over his controversial productions, but dashed them off while his wrath was at its hottest, and, printing always as he wrote, he never had the opportunity or took pains to revise and moderate his language after the first flush of indignation had passed.” **McGiffert, pg. 150-3

The least of points from all this: Some would have us believe that Luther was actually teaching the Christian Gospel and that he was correct in rebuking/challenging/denying several dozen important Christian doctrines.

The ‘alternative’ explanation – that Luther was simply another in a long line of men whose followers identified themselves by use of his name.

Montanus, Arius, Pelagius, Nestorius

Lest anyone finds the above names to be objectionable, in association to that of Luther of course, the source is a Catholic Answers article: “The Great Heresies”, which also includes: “Protestantism (16th Century)”

God Bless You Spina, Topper

 

[spina1953]

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your response.

“Therefore, I now let you know that from now on I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you - or even an angel from heaven - to judge my teaching or to examine it. For there has been enough foolish humility now for the third time at Worms, and it has not helped. Instead, I shall let myself be heard and, as St. Peter teaches, give an explanation and defense of my teaching to all the world - I Pet. 3:15. I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel. For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says ) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved - for it is God’s and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God’s.” “Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called”, July 1522.

Now THAT is Authority being demonstrated. Here we see Luther VERY CLEARLY state that those who do not ‘accept his teaching’ - ‘may not be saved’. At least I guess he allows for the possibility that we Catholics might be (eventually) saved. What would we think today if a Theologian made such a statement?

Maybe Marius answers your question, at least as much as the completely unanswerable can be answered. I say that it is unanswerable because there is no reasonable (meaning based on reason) justification for the kind of personal authority that Luther claimed. In describing Luther denouncing monasticism and Luther’s justification or authority to do so:

(In regards to his vow to become a monk) – “Luther denounced monasticism free from the reproach of enemies that he did not know what he was talking about.** In the attention Satan gave him, Luther had, paradoxically, proof of his divine calling.” **Marius, pg. 311

‘Paradoxically’ seems to be putting it mildly. In fact, even early on, Luther was well aware of how radical his teachings were.

“Against all the sayings of the Fathers, against all the arts and words of angels, men and devils I set the Scriptures and the Gospel . . . Here I stand and here I defy them . . . The Word of God I count above all else and the Divine Majesty supports me; hence **I should not turn a hair were a thousand Augustines against me, and am certain that the true Church adheres with me to God’s Word.” **(Against Henry VIII, King of England, 1522; in Grisar, Vol. IV, 391 / from Werke [Weimar], Vol X, II, p. 256 ff.)

Here Luther admits that he knew that his teachings were in opposition to the beliefs of the Fathers. He defied them all. The fact that the Fathers were opposed to him, and that there were so many of his own time that were opposed to him somehow proved to him that he was ‘right’. At the very least, that is a very strange ‘justification’.

Lutheran Professor Albrecht Beutel comments on Luther’s perception of his authority:

“Even though at first Luther was most reluctant to pursue the academic career intended for him, it did not take long for him to adjust and **he would refer to his doctoral degree without reservation whenever his authority as a teacher was questioned, be it toward the papal legate Cajetan, the elector Albert of Mainz, or the Pope himself.” ** “Companion”, pg. 7

Luther’s justification of course breaks down where his opponents were his educational equal or better. Obtaining a Doctorate does not mean that you are right and everybody else (including other PhDs) are wrong.

Lutheran Professor Robert Kolb seems to agree:

“Luther’s image of himself centered on his call as teacher of Scripture. **His doctoral oath to teach the Bible faithfully and keep false teaching from bringing offense to the church was determinative in his own mind for the course of his career.” **‘Companion’, pg. 219

Of course Luther’s doctoral oath required that he not teach against the doctrines of the Church. If he had followed the teaching of the Church (and the later teaching of Lutheranism), that it is the Church that determines doctrine, he would not have challenged the teachings of the Church. This is not to mention that once a man, any man, PRESUMES that his education gives him the ‘right’ to condemn the teachings and opinions of people who have the SAME education, and others use that same ‘rational’, doctrinal dissension is inevitable.

Lutheran Professor E. G. Schweibert records Luther as stating:

**“I have a fast hand and rapid memory. As I write the thoughts just naturally come to me, so I do not have to force myself or ponder over my materials.” ** “Luther and His Times”, pg. 439

We know that Luther normally didn’t edit or review what he wrote. A lot of it was written in such an angry mood that he was more interested in getting it to the printer than he was in editing. It would appear that Luther thought that he WAS guided by God to the point that whatever he thought was placed in his mind divinely. What he wrote, what landed on paper HAD to be correct, at least in Luther’s mind.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

Hi Topper: Thanks for answering the question! As usual great post!

 

[steido01]

It seems you are not aware of the fact that the LCMS has been involved in almost all of the Lutheran - Catholic dialogue here in the US for decades. IIRC, the only one we were not involved in was Round 10. It seems, further, that you are not aware that the ELCA and LCMS are in constant dialogue over the issues that sadly divide us.

If I may add… even in Round X, the LCMS did participate as an official observer. The LCMS was not invited to be a full participant in that round by the Catholic Church presumably because the Magisterium had enough foresight (and knowledge of Lutheran beliefs) to know that the LCMS could not in good conscience agree to what could be considered vague or ambiguous language. The Magisterium is not stupid; the dialogue between our communion and the Roman Catholics in good hands.

I think it’s also worth noting that the Magisterium appears to be interested in dialogue with Confessional Lutherans more-so than the lately-Left-leaning Lutherans: firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/11/a-new-confessional-direction-in-catholic-lutheran-dialogue

 

[pablope]

Thank you . I get that point. Still don’t think the reformers you speak of touched doctrine, which Luther did.

So are you then saying, the a reformer is not a true reformer, according to you…if it does not tackle or touch doctrine?

And if doctrine is to be touched…how do you think one should go about it?

What is the Biblical way, Benhur?

Secondly , you must take into account the fate of the other reformers I mentioned.

 

[MaryT777]

So are you then saying, the a reformer is not a true reformer, according to you…if it does not tackle or touch doctrine?