Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done

[clem456]

Amen. And as per lumen gentia 2nd Vat I would not have come to know that , even know Him, but thru “another” “reformed” catholic church, notwithstanding the Catholic Church taking credit for those and my good graces also.

The Church does not “take credit”.
This is the mistaken notion of authority outside the context of Christ as the Head of his Body. This is the mistaken notion that sees the charism of authority as a “taking”, rather than a gift meant for the building up of the kingdom. As if one’s unique charism detracts from another’s unique gift.
“Taking credit for” implies an arrogation of Christ’s charisms, rather than simply recognizing and acknowledging their source in Christ. His Church is Catholic because Christ impels it toward unity, not because we assert ourselves. That’s an observation of who Christ is, not an assertion.

1. Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation (9*) through which He communicated truth and grace to all. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element.(10*) For this reason, by no weak analogy, it is compared to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature inseparably united to Him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a similar way, does the visible social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ, who vivifies it, in the building up of the body.(73) (11*)

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”.(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

 

[benhur]

The Church does not “take credit”.
This is the mistaken notion of authority outside the context of Christ as the Head of his Body. This is the mistaken notion that sees the charism of authority as a “taking”, rather than a gift meant for the building up of the kingdom. As if one’s unique charism detracts from another’s unique gift.
“Taking credit for” implies an arrogation of Christ’s charisms, rather than simply recognizing and acknowledging their source in Christ. His Church is Catholic because Christ impels it toward unity, not because we assert ourselves. That’s an observation of who Christ is, not an assertion.

“[Many] of the most significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Him, belong** by right** to the one Church of Christ. .” Vat2

Yes, your point is taken well from this. Just that you claim unique and by unarrogated "right’’ to authoritative charism . To say it for the sake of “unity,”,therefore Christlike, is nice but still arrogate., As Pope Gregory I stated about John of Constatinople, it is to take away that same unique charism from a fellow bishop/pappa/patrairch. Last I heard there is only one pope and not three patriarchs anymore within the one Catholic church.

" though we believe they suffer from the defects". Vat2
By saying we “suffer” for not being like you is saying you are more Christ like.

"For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which **derive their efficacy from **the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church" Vat2

That is the part I see as taking credit or an arrogation. As if only Orthodoxy and Protestantism evolved and not Roman Catholicism.

Having one’s cake and eating it too.

 

[clem456]

“[Many] of the most significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Him, belong** by right** to the one Church of Christ. .” Vat2

Yes, your point is taken well from this. Just that you claim unique and by unarrogated "right’’ to authoritative charism . To say it for the sake of “unity,”,therefore Christlike, is nice but still arrogate., As Pope Gregory I stated about John of Constatinople, it is to take away that same unique charism from a fellow bishop/pappa/patrairch. Last I heard there is only one pope and not three patriarchs anymore within the one Catholic church.

" though we believe they suffer from the defects". Vat2
By saying we “suffer” for not being like you is saying you are more Christ like.

"For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which **derive their efficacy from **the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church" Vat2

That is the part I see as taking credit or an arrogation. As if only Orthodoxy and Protestantism evolved and not Roman Catholicism.

Having one’s cake and eating it too.

As a Christian, do you accept that Christ is the source of all gifts?
Do you accept that authority is a charism, or do you attribute it to assertion?
Do you believe that Christ desires us all to be united as one in him? He prays fervently for this unity in the Gospel of John.

From what you post, it seems you are good with all that.
It seems your issue is the durability of the charism through time. You believe the charism is forfeit, or has diluted, or is so fragmented and dissolute as to not manifest itself in any real way, so that it exists only in a vague spiritual way.

Are we on the same page?

 

[Contarini]

Topper,
I’d say on the faculty of Harvard Divinity School is “currently active” status in regard to current professional endeavors.
Mary.

Yes, he’s active, but he’s moved away from Luther scholarship.

That is not to discredit him, only to take issue with one word Topper used. It was a minor point and shouldn’t have turned into a dispute.

I repeat: the main problem I have with Topper is that he throws around a lot of quotes without making clear what his argument is beyond Luther Bad.

Edwin

 

[benhur]

]Do you accept that authority is a charism, or do you attribute it to assertion?

All or nothing again, either/or ?

It seems your issue is the durability of the charism through time.

No , my issue is to use your word , the arrogation of it.

so that it exists only in a vague spiritual way.

Was the patriairchal system “vague” ?

 

[clem456]

Quote:
Originally Posted by clem456 View Post
]Do you accept that authority is a charism, or do you attribute it to assertion?

Some issues do not really require a bunch of nuance.
I believe ecclesial authority is a Charism from Christ, not something that is asserted by human beings.
So I have taken your either/or bullet, fire away at my lack of nuance. It seems someone should take a position in a matter of Christian life.

Quote:
It seems your issue is the durability of the charism through time.

No , my issue is to use your word , the arrogation of it.

If it is a gift of Christ (I see how avoiding the first question allows you wiggle room)…
If it is a gift of Christ, how can you say it is asserted? Your life is a gift. Do you assert that you arrogated your gift of life? (another either/or question)
Human beings abusing the gift is an issue for sure, which surely happens a lot. Abuse of the gift does not deny the gift, right? Do human beings have the power to deny God his charisms because they abuse the gift? (see the cross. the gift is given despite our abuse of him)

Quote:
so that it exists only in a vague spiritual way.

Was the patriairchal system “vague” ?

Have no idea what you’re talking about. The antithesis of a vague disconnected spirituality is the Incarnation. The Crucifixion. Christ bodily rising from the dead. Pentecost. Breath. Real people doing real things in time and space. Christ is one of those. Peter was one.

 

[JonNC]

By stating that you do not spend your entire time here exposing the flaws of sinners in the Catholic Church, you seem to be speaking about sinners in general. But since this thread is about the Reformation, it would seem appropriate to talk about the person who was largely responsible for it.

There were numerous people responsible, including Luther. But yes, the thread is about how we think luther would have handled himself had he had foreknowledge of the divisions that resulted in the western Church. As the poll shows, most here believe he would have acted at least somewhat differently, and I agree.

Jon

 

[benhur]

Some issues do not really require a bunch of nuance.

There is no nuance to , “There is no salvation outside the Catholic (Roman) Church”. Again as Pope Gregory inferred, another mans(church) gift is arrogation from another.

I believe ecclesial authority is a Charism from Christ, not something that is asserted by human beings.

Yes, as all churches say this.

So I have taken your either/or bullet, fire away at my lack of nuance.

I think you have dodged it. Now if you had placed not an adjective but a noun before “ecclessial” such as ‘‘Catholic’’ that would be taking it squarely.

It seems someone should** take **a position in a matter of Christian life.

Precisely

If it is a gift of Christ (I see how avoiding the first question allows you wiggle room)…

Sorry. I thought I stated you did well with that as stated in vat 2. Agree, with no wiggling, yet.

If it is a gift of Christ, how can you say it is asserted?

It is asserted or "taken’’ when you define the nature of that authoritaive charism, and that over other brothers defining. That is the day true catholicity was lost, ironically.

Human beings abusing the gift is an issue for sure,

Yes arrogation being one of them.

Do human beings have the power to deny God his charisms

Again either /or , which it is and is not. Yes, one definition of charism offsets, denies the other, but neither sets out to deny God, but the wrong view does.

 

[benhur]

Have no idea what you’re talking about.

"You believe the charism (of authority) is forfeit, or has diluted, or is so fragmented and dissolute as to not manifest itself in any real way, so that it exists only in a vague spiritual way", is what you posted, parenthesis is mine. I then posted, “Was the patriarchal system “vague” ?” as a charism (of authority not “invisible” but real , as in John of Constantinople, touchable) ?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Were it not for Luther and the other reformists we’d not be having such a discussion.
The reformation brought about a more Bible centered religious outlook.
Luther did not usher-in a new covenant, but an outlook that today has been accepted worldwide by an almost a billion people. Statistically, Catholics outnumber the protestants by a small margin, of about 0.5bn. Historically, the Catholic faith has been in existence for almost 2000 years, while protestantism is about 500 years old. Maybe, by 2050 the statistics will be very different.

I don’t think it’s very accurate to attribute so much credit to a single person for the Reformation. It was due to happens and it had been slowly cooking since the turn of the millennium (1,000 AD). It is a bit naive to ignore the major political influences and the major political figures that jumped at the opportunity that Luther presented. I think that when looked at on a bigger scale, Luther was just a pawn in a much bigger game: The secular powers wanting freedom from religious influence, or a religious influence that could be more easily manipulated of held at bay. France had been wanting to tax (In order to fund her wars) the Church for centuries, the Church had been fighting independence from secular powers for many centuries. The Church Herself was victim of nepotism and had barely recovered from the Papal schism (Ending ~1418 AD). A whole new world had just been discovered (1492 AD) and an incredible amount of resources was being put in place for it. And I’m leaving a whole other things out. Really, it was a disaster waiting to happen. Don’t get me wrong, Luther was definitely a very prominent figure, but I would not attribute the Reformation to Luther Alone D).

 

[Stilldreamn]

I don’t think it’s very accurate to attribute so much credit to a single person for the Reformation. It was due to happens and it had been slowly cooking since the turn of the millennium (1,000 AD). It is a bit naive to ignore the major political influences and the major political figures that jumped at the opportunity that Luther presented. I think that when looked at on a bigger scale, Luther was just a pawn in a much bigger game: The secular powers wanting freedom from religious influence, or a religious influence that could be more easily manipulated of held at bay. France had been wanting to tax (In order to fund her wars) the Church for centuries, the Church had been fighting independence from secular powers for many centuries. The Church Herself was victim of nepotism and had barely recovered from the Papal schism (Ending ~1418 AD). A whole new world had just been discovered (1492 AD) and an incredible amount of resources was being put in place for it. And I’m leaving a whole other things out. Really, it was a disaster waiting to happen. Don’t get me wrong, Luther was definitely a very prominent figure, but I would not attribute the Reformation to Luther Alone D).

“Luther Alone” - I see what you did there, sir!

 

[powerofk]

I don’t think it’s very accurate to attribute so much credit to a single person for the Reformation. It was due to happens and it had been slowly cooking since the turn of the millennium (1,000 AD). It is a bit naive to ignore the major political influences and the major political figures that jumped at the opportunity that Luther presented. I think that when looked at on a bigger scale, Luther was just a pawn in a much bigger game: The secular powers wanting freedom from religious influence, or a religious influence that could be more easily manipulated of held at bay. France had been wanting to tax (In order to fund her wars) the Church for centuries, the Church had been fighting independence from secular powers for many centuries. The Church Herself was victim of nepotism and had barely recovered from the Papal schism (Ending ~1418 AD). A whole new world had just been discovered (1492 AD) and an incredible amount of resources was being put in place for it. And I’m leaving a whole other things out. Really, it was a disaster waiting to happen. Don’t get me wrong, Luther was definitely a very prominent figure, but I would not attribute the Reformation to Luther Alone D).

This echos much of what I said about 300-400 posts ago! Seriously - the “Reformation” was kindled not so much by Luther. There had been sects we would consider “Protestant” for hundreds of years before Luther - such as the “Lollards” in England - but they were relatively small and insignificant. Why? Because it was much harder to disseminate information. It was Gutenberg’s printing press with movable type that changed this. Now, instead of meticulously hand-copying manuscripts, people could mass produce pamphlets. It was the invention that made the Reformation (and later, the American Revolution) possible. And, yes - the Church owned a LOT of property in present-day Germany - by making a Protestant version of Christianity the “official” version of Christianity in a kingdom/principality, the ruler could confiscate all the Church property, as it was now “illegally owned by a foreign power”.

 

[Topper17]

I stand corrected. He wrote two particularly famous books. But four books is still not that prolific. That’s not to play him down–he’s a very important scholar. My problem isn’t with Edwards but with your polemical use of Edwards.

How about this: state clearly what the thesis is that your endless quotes and examples are supposed to prove. Because to my eyes all you are doing is repeating over and over again things that no informed person would disagree with, to no constructive purpose.

We all know that Luther wasn’t a very nice person in controversy. And your point is? What conclusion are you drawing from this? How is knowledge of this fact supposed to affect people? Most of the things you say aren’t particularly controversial, but you are clearly trying to make some kind of polemical point by saying them.

And just stop attacking this straw man of “Protestants who don’t want to hear the truth about Luther.” Even if it’s correct (and sometimes it is), your repetitive methods aren’t going to accomplish anything except to antagonize people (hence my remark about “annoying the pig”). Note that I say “your repetitive methods.” Sure, the first time you say this stuff you may shock people who really haven’t heard it before into looking critically at their heritage. Whether that’s the right way to go about it I rather doubt, but that’s your business. It’s certainly legitimate to inform people who really don’t know how nasty Luther could be.

Edwin, that is EXACTLY what I am dealing with on this forum. Not too long ago we had a thread here which was receiving 40 posts per day but over 1000 views per day. There are TONS of people here who are coming to CA to investigate whether the Truth is to be found in the Catholic Church. Granted, all the ‘old hands’ here know SOME of the negative things about Luther, but for every one of them, there are dozens who know virtually nothing. They are invisible because they never post anything. They just read along. And if all they ever read here on CA is the ‘version’ of Luther presented here by Protestants, they are going to STILL be unaware of Luther’s less than publicized weird teachings and unholy actions.

There is no middle ground. There is no ‘staying positive’ and ignoring the issue. There is far too much at stake with regards to the future of Christendom.

This is NOT about Luther’s personal sins. It is about his teachings and whether those (very ‘under-reported’) teachings could POSSIBLY be from God, which is exactly what Luther thought they were. Were his recommendations about the executions of rabbis, peasants, Anabaptists, and ‘reluctant wives’, inspired by the Holy Spirit? Of course not. So why in the world should anyone believe that his teachings on the antichrist, and the nature of the Church, Salvation by Faith Alone, etc. be viewed as being from the Holy Spirit? The very under-reported teachings impugn the validity of the better known teachings, and that is exactly why the under-reported teaching are under-reported.

All of those lesser known teachings of Luther make it extremely clear that he was NOT being led by the Holy Spirit, at least on those issues. So why should anybody believe that he was ‘inspired’ on some of them but not on the others?

If we come to the conclusion that he was NOT led by the Holy Spirit in the manner that he thought he was, and claimed he was, it means that the ‘Reformation’ which he founded was not from the Holy Spirit, but is simply a ‘more successful’ than usual heresy.

Topper
[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

 

[Topper17]

I stand corrected. He wrote two particularly famous books. But four books is still not that prolific. That’s not to play him down–he’s a very important scholar. My problem isn’t with Edwards but with your polemical use of Edwards.

How about this: state clearly what the thesis is that your endless quotes and examples are supposed to prove. Because to my eyes all you are doing is repeating over and over again things that no informed person would disagree with, to no constructive purpose.

We all know that Luther wasn’t a very nice person in controversy. And your point is? What conclusion are you drawing from this? How is knowledge of this fact supposed to affect people? Most of the things you say aren’t particularly controversial, but you are clearly trying to make some kind of polemical point by saying them.

And just stop attacking this straw man of “Protestants who don’t want to hear the truth about Luther.” Even if it’s correct (and sometimes it is), your repetitive methods aren’t going to accomplish anything except to antagonize people (hence my remark about “annoying the pig”). Note that I say “your repetitive methods.” Sure, the first time you say this stuff you may shock people who really haven’t heard it before into looking critically at their heritage. Whether that’s the right way to go about it I rather doubt, but that’s your business. It’s certainly legitimate to inform people who really don’t know how nasty Luther could be.

Edwin, that is EXACTLY what I am dealing with on this forum. Not too long ago we had a thread here which was receiving 40 posts per day but over 1000 views per day. There are TONS of people here who are coming to CA to investigate whether the Truth is to be found in the Catholic Church. Granted, all the ‘old hands’ here know SOME of the negative things about Luther, but for every one of them, there are dozens who know virtually nothing. They are invisible because they never post anything. They just read along. And if all they ever read here on CA is the ‘version’ of Luther presented here by Protestants, they are going to STILL be unaware of Luther’s less than publicized weird teachings and unholy actions.

Plus, if everybody here already knows about all of this Luther ‘stuff’ then there really shouldn’t be any problem with me ‘reintroducing’ it should there? If that were true then there wouldn’t be this huge outcry and offensive remarks. But there is apparently a HUGE problem with my posting these things. If ‘everybody already knows’, then it would make sense that those ‘in the know’ would not bother to take the time to read my posts. In fact, just the opposite is true. They RUSH to cover them over with spin rather than comment on their content.

So how about a clear post in which you state explicitly what you think people ought to conclude about Luther, and list the specific reasons why they ought to draw it. Save the citations and quotations to back up your specific points if people challenge them.

It’s really quite simple Edwin, but when I have summarized it in the past it draws even more howling than just the quotes of the Scholars.

Luther claimed an astonishing amount of personal authority. He took in upon his own shoulders to change dozens of important doctrines, in effect assuming FAR MORE than any Bishop of Rome ever did. In fact, no Bishop of Rome or any 10 Bishops of Rome ever took as much doctrinal authority as did Luther. His claims included references to his being a prophet and he claimed that if you didn’t believe as he did you might not be saved. He taught and acted as if he had the authority to rebuke/correct/teach EVERYBODY and allowed NO ONE to rebuke/correct/teach him. It was on his personal self-proclaimed authority that he challenged the authority of the Catholic Church, and it was also on this personal authority that he founded a ‘competitive communion’.

He was either right or he was wrong. There are no shades of gray here as many would like to have us think. Either Luther was led by God to ‘do what he did’ or he was not. If he was, then Protestantism is a legitimate expression of Christianity. If he was not, then it is a heresy, which is exactly the way it is described by Catholic Answers in their tract: “The Great Heresies”

catholic.com/tracts/the-great-heresies

There is no middle ground. There is no ‘staying positive’ and ignoring the issue. There is far too much at stake with regards to the future of Christendom.

This is NOT about Luther’s personal sins. It is about his teachings and whether those (very ‘under-reported’) teachings could POSSIBLY be from God, which is exactly what Luther thought they were. Were his recommendations about the executions of rabbis, peasants, Anabaptists, and ‘reluctant wives’, inspired by the Holy Spirit? Of course not. So why in the world should anyone believe that his teachings on the antichrist, and the nature of the Church, Salvation by Faith Alone, etc. be viewed as being from the Holy Spirit? The very under-reported teachings impugn the validity of the better known teachings, and that is exactly why the under-reported teaching are under-reported.

All of those lesser known teachings of Luther make it extremely clear that he was NOT being led by the Holy Spirit, at least on those issues. So why should anybody believe that he was ‘inspired’ on some of them but not on the others?

If we come to the conclusion that he was NOT led by the Holy Spirit in the manner that he thought he was, and claimed he was, it means that the ‘Reformation’ which he founded was not from the Holy Spirit, but is simply a ‘more successful’ than usual heresy.

Topper

 

[JonNC]

Edwin, that is EXACTLY what I am dealing with on this forum. Not too long ago we had a thread here which was receiving 40 posts per day but over 1000 views per day. There are TONS of people here who are coming to CA to investigate whether the Truth is to be found in the Catholic Church. Granted, all the ‘old hands’ here know SOME of the negative things about Luther, but for every one of them, there are dozens who know virtually nothing. They are invisible because they never post anything. They just read along. And if all they ever read here on CA is the ‘version’ of Luther presented here by Protestants, they are going to STILL be unaware of Luther’s less than publicized weird teachings and unholy actions.

Plus, if everybody here already knows about all of this Luther ‘stuff’ then there really shouldn’t be any problem with me ‘reintroducing’ it should there? If that were true then there wouldn’t be this huge outcry and offensive remarks. But there is apparently a HUGE problem with my posting these things. If ‘everybody already knows’, then it would make sense that those ‘in the know’ would not bother to take the time to read my posts. In fact, just the opposite is true. They RUSH to cover them over with spin rather than comment on their content.

It’s really quite simple Edwin, but when I have summarized it in the past it draws even more howling than just the quotes of the Scholars.

Luther claimed an astonishing amount of personal authority. He took in upon his own shoulders to change dozens of important doctrines, in effect assuming FAR MORE than any Bishop of Rome ever did. In fact, no Bishop of Rome or any 10 Bishops of Rome ever took as much doctrinal authority as did Luther. His claims included references to his being a prophet and he claimed that if you didn’t believe as he did you might not be saved. He taught and acted as if he had the authority to rebuke/correct/teach EVERYBODY and allowed NO ONE to rebuke/correct/teach him. It was on his personal self-proclaimed authority that he challenged the authority of the Catholic Church, and it was also on this personal authority that he founded a ‘competitive communion’.

He was either right or he was wrong. There are no shades of gray here as many would like to have us think. Either Luther was led by God to ‘do what he did’ or he was not. If he was, then Protestantism is a legitimate expression of Christianity. If he was not, then it is a heresy, which is exactly the way it is described by Catholic Answers in their tract: “The Great Heresies”

catholic.com/tracts/the-great-heresies

There is no middle ground. There is no ‘staying positive’ and ignoring the issue. There is far too much at stake with regards to the future of Christendom.

This is NOT about Luther’s personal sins. It is about his teachings and whether those (very ‘under-reported’) teachings could POSSIBLY be from God, which is exactly what Luther thought they were. Were his recommendations about the executions of rabbis, peasants, Anabaptists, and ‘reluctant wives’, inspired by the Holy Spirit? Of course not. So why in the world should anyone believe that his teachings on the antichrist, and the nature of the Church, Salvation by Faith Alone, etc. be viewed as being from the Holy Spirit? The very under-reported teachings impugn the validity of the better known teachings, and that is exactly why the under-reported teaching are under-reported.

All of those lesser known teachings of Luther make it extremely clear that he was NOT being led by the Holy Spirit, at least on those issues. So why should anybody believe that he was ‘inspired’ on some of them but not on the others?

If we come to the conclusion that he was NOT led by the Holy Spirit in the manner that he thought he was, and claimed he was, it means that the ‘Reformation’ which he founded was not from the Holy Spirit, but is simply a ‘more successful’ than usual heresy.

Topper

Actually, this is the most positive post I believe I’ve ever seen from you.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Sure, if you mean the standard “Whig” narrative. It drives me nuts too. I’m supposed to write comments on a documentary film script produced by my wife’s employers (for whom I’m a consultant) on the Reformation, and I don’t know how even to start. They have tried to be fair, but their idea of being fair is to throw in occasional quotes about the tragic consequences of the Reformation into a script that is still basically the Whig narrative. I want a different narrative.

I understand exactly what you are talking about. It’s not that there is an INTENT to deceive, it’s just that they have a completely different way of looking at things. As we have seen here, it seems impossible to relate Luther personally, with any of the ‘negative consequences’ of the Reformation. Everyone acknowledges that doctrinal disunity is a ‘bad thing’ but they always, and I do mean always, want to point to the ‘responsibility’ of the Church (also – sort of) for that disunity. All in a very general manner of course.

To some, it simply ‘does not compute’ that Luther could possibly be responsible for anything ‘bad’ that has resulted from his teachings. So it is within that paradigm that what you call the Whig narrative and I call “the Legend” are constructed. It is from this same paradigm that we hear about how the pope is the antichrist, but that that is not offensive because it is so obviously the truth (or something). Plus it’s ‘only historically conditional’, which makes it ok.

Having been a Protestant and now being (hopefully) ‘fully Catholic’, I understand that it involves a complete transformation in worldview, one which took me a couple of decades to accomplish.

Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your response.

Hi Topper: In response to your #741 post. just want to say thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. History show us our past and allows us to see the causes and mistakes as well as the good of the time and how man thought at a point in time. Often said “To ignore history is prone to repeat it.”

                 What gets me is how Luther was so unchristian and un-Christ like in his remarks with those and to those who disagreed with his teachings and theology. It seems to me that all who disagreed with him, he took it as a personal attack on his person. It also seems to me that instead of defending and debating in a civilized manor his teachings and theologies, Luther decided upon a path of vicious, disrespectful and violent and rude attacks, totally different from what Christ and the Apostles taught.

                    St James said:" Let every man be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for a man man's anger does not fulfill God's justice. If a man who does not control his tongue imagines that he is devout; he is self-deceived; his worship is pointless." Something apparently Luther did not ascribe to as seen from much of his writings against the CC and those opposing him.

                   Luther claiming some special authority was nothing more than a self- appointed one. So I understand what you posted. It seems to me others had the or have followed suit in thinking the same way that they to have or had some special authority to decide religious beliefs one is to hold; different from what had been taught for some 1500 years.

I think that one of the most telling things is that Luther was warned that his beliefs were going to cause doctrinal dissension. He rejected those warnings.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

 

[Topper17]

And yes, I get that for you a Doctor of the Church (which is basically what Luther is for Lutherans and for mainstream Protestants generally) is in a different category and held to a different standard than a Pope, because his/her value depends at least in part on sanctity and not on office.

I don’t see how Lutherans could see Luther as a Doctor of their Church in the same way that we Catholics have Doctors of the Church. There is SO MUCH that Lutheranism rightfully reject in Luther’s teachings, including his Scripturally justified ‘approach’ to the rabbis, Anabaptists, peasants, ‘reluctant wives’ etc. Lutheranism can consider Luther however they wish of course, but they seem to ‘pick and chose’ from his teachings a lot more than would be permissible for a Catholic Doctor.

Luther’s ‘sanctity’ is another matter altogether.

 

[spina1953]

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your response.

I think that one of the most telling things is that Luther was warned that his beliefs were going to cause doctrinal dissension. He rejected those warnings.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

Hi Topper: I have to agree with you Luther was told but he refused to listen. With Luther it was my way or the highway nothing less.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your response.

Hi Topper: In response to your #741 post. just want to say thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. History show us our past and allows us to see the causes and mistakes as well as the good of the time and how man thought at a point in time. Often said “To ignore history is prone to repeat it.”

                 What gets me is how Luther was so unchristian and un-Christ like in his remarks with those and to those who disagreed with his teachings and theology. It seems to me that all who disagreed with him, he took it as a personal attack on his person. It also seems to me that instead of defending and debating in a civilized manor his teachings and theologies, Luther decided upon a path of vicious, disrespectful and violent and rude attacks, totally different from what Christ and the Apostles taught.

                    St James said:" Let every man be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for a man man's anger does not fulfill God's justice. If a man who does not control his tongue imagines that he is devout; he is self-deceived; his worship is pointless." Something apparently Luther did not ascribe to as seen from much of his writings against the CC and those opposing him.

                   Luther claiming some special authority was nothing more than a self- appointed one. So I understand what you posted. It seems to me others had the or have followed suit in thinking the same way that they to have or had some special authority to decide religious beliefs one is to hold; different from what had been taught for some 1500 years.

I think that one of the most telling things is that Luther was warned that his beliefs were going to cause doctrinal dissension. He rejected those warnings.

In regards to your comments about how Luther treated those who disagreed, Lutheran Professor Timothy F. Lull comments:

“Certain polemical writings were objectionable even to Luther’s friends in Luther’s lifetime. In 1519, a sympathetic observer said that Luther’s fault was that he was ‘sometimes too violent and cutting in his reprimands, in fact more than is proper for one seeking to find new trails in theology and certainly also for a devine……” Lull, “Companion”, pg. 56

We often hear that Luther’s time was a ‘rough and tumble’ one where opponents were more abusive towards each other than we are today. Here we see clearly that even Luther’s friends objected to his uncharitable manner and his polemical style.

“Luther never denied having an overly sharp tongue: his tendency to use such heavy ammunition genuinely damaged his reputation in cultured circles.
The good humor Mosellan mentions is particularly noteworthy. It prevails despite all the cares that mark Luther’s face. Luther was an emotional man; his temperament was like a volcano, liable to erupt in any situation, especially when he felt exuberant. His opponents sensed this and rejected it as being unfitted for a monk.” Oberman, pg. 326

If his temperament was unbefitting for a monk, how much more unbefitting for someone ‘seeking to find new trails in theology’.

Given that Luther actually WAS ‘seeking new trails in theology’, we are forced to hold him to a higher standard in terms of the WHOLE of his teaching, and also his character. We hear constantly about how Catholics over the years have done ‘this or that’. However NONE of these Catholics started their own version of Christianity on the basis of their personal interpretations and their personal authority to do so. As such, Luther demands more scrutiny than anybody who remained faithful to the Church.

God Bless You Spina, Topper