Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done

[Topper17]

Hi Denise,

Thanks for your response.

The above comments are very good observations, IMO.

The fact is that Luther and the Catholic Church were locked in battle 500 years ago.

What I call ‘the Legend’ and what Edwin calls (I think) the ‘Whig narrative’, has a tendency to represent Luther in a more than historically justifiable ‘positive light’. So much depends on which side was ‘right’ and which side was wrong. Being overly ‘generous’ to Luther in the historical account has the effect of being unfair to the Church. Anything that makes Luther ‘look better’ than he deserves to look, also makes the Church look worse than it deserves to look.

That is why it is important that ALL the facts be allowed to come to the surface, whether they are flattering or not to either Luther or the Church.

God Bless You Denise, Topper

 

[onenow1]

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.

Hi Spina I think Luther actually lamented at what he started, I believe his followers went wild.

The very founder of the “Reformation”, Martin Luther, was the “regrettable” one, as he surveyed the damage that his rebellion against authority had caused. His writings show that he lamented his deed when he penned the following remarks…
“This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet.”
De Wette III, 61. quoted in O’Hare, THE FACTS ABOUT LUTHER, 208.

“Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers.”
Walch XIV, 1360. quoted in O’Hare, Ibid, 209.

All of this and much more was written by the founder of the Reformation, just a short time after, when he noted the chaos he had created. By this time, Munzer had run in this direction (in 1521, the same year that Luther broke away), Zwingli, had run in that direction, Calvin in yet another direction, all of them scattering the sheep and taking their flocks with them. Luther had let the cat out of the bag and he was helpless to put it back in. He had started something that he was powerless to stop.
Regretful, he certainly was.
“Once you open the door to error, you cannot close it.” Luther had become the victim by not heeding the consequences of this simple proverb.“Unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build it.”
Psalms 127:1

God BLess

 

[benhur]

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

pretty good, i didn’t see it. Does it fit better in German?

 

[benhur]

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).

Agree with much . It seems conflicting to say on one hand secular power wanted independence and also to say Church powers wanted independence ??? Was it different in each country ?

 

[benhur]

Hi Spina I think Luther actually lamented at what he started, I believe his followers went wild.

The very founder of the “Reformation”, Martin Luther, was the “regrettable” one, as he surveyed the damage that his rebellion against authority had caused. His writings show that he lamented his deed when he penned the following remarks…
“This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet.”
De Wette III, 61. quoted in O’Hare, THE FACTS ABOUT LUTHER, 208.

“Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers.”
Walch XIV, 1360. quoted in O’Hare, Ibid, 209.

All of this and much more was written by the founder of the Reformation, just a short time after, when he noted the chaos he had created. By this time, Munzer had run in this direction (in 1521, the same year that Luther broke away), Zwingli, had run in that direction, Calvin in yet another direction, all of them scattering the sheep and taking their flocks with them. Luther had let the cat out of the bag and he was helpless to put it back in. He had started something that he was powerless to stop.
Regretful, he certainly was.
“Once you open the door to error, you cannot close it.” Luther had become the victim by not heeding the consequences of this simple proverb.“Unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build it.”
Psalms 127:1

God BLess

I know he regretted the peasant uprising .Not sure he would have said he opened door to error or it was vain building.

I would agree that the conflict between the Church and Luther was a pandoras box. kind of like the church did not want to lose a dollar but ended up losing the foundation to get that dollar in the first place, losing thousands figuratively speaking (just a little bit literal)( fighting hard to keep foundation/authority for indulgences only to end up losing foundation for half her authority and it’s spokesperson/executor (pope)).

 

[Topper17]

Hi Randy,

Two intuitively obvious points:

1. Not everyone, Lutherans and Catholics alike, reads good books.
2. The value in quoting Lutheran authors concerning Luther eliminates the charge of bias.

I don’t know why these two points are not intuitively obvious to all, but it seems that they are not. It seems to me that Edwards especially, a Lutheran Church Historian, should be accepted by Lutherans such that when he makes a negative comment about Luther, it must be seen as credible and not because of some kind of ‘anti-Lutheran’ bias. He IS a Lutheran for St. Peter’s Sake.

God Bless You Randy, Topper

 

[SJBurgess]

I believe most of the people that voted that Luther would not have done it all over again haven’t read much Luther. He was probably the most stubborn man of his age. He was so thoroughly convinced of his own correctness that he modified the Bible when he translated it into German, He hated women and Jews. He was not a good person. A convincing person, a passionate person, even a brilliant person, but his grievances against the Church were not original or even in the minority, he simply got them mass produced before anyone else thanks to the relatively new invention of the printing press. His rhetoric was passionate and the press made his ideas easy to circulate. If Luther knew that his actions and ideas would lead to bloodshed he would have done no differently, this is evidenced by the fact that his notions led to massive bloodshed in his life time and he never recanted. God help such a man.

 

[Topper17]

This brings us back to the OP. I strongly believe that Luther and Melanchthon, Eck and Tetzel, were all flawed yet redeemed men, would have clearly taken a different approach had they known the path they were on.

Jon, this is the kind of thing that I find questionable.

You seem (again) to want Catholics to take their ‘fair share’ of the blame for the doctrinal division that we now suffer. As you know, the Church has made an official statement to that end. Has Lutheranism?

This isn’t the first time you have brought up Eck either, in this case stating that he, among others, “would have clearly taken a different approach if he had known the path they were on”. Poor Eck has not fared all that well in Protestant accounts of the times:

“Eck…was perhaps the most feared disputant of the German academic world. **Protestant historians have repaid Eck for the relentlessness with which he pursued Luther and his followers **by four centuries of abuse.” ****Robert Herndon Fife, “The Revolt of Martin Luther”, 1957, page 331

Of course this was written almost 60 years ago, so the ‘four centuries’ comment needs to be updated.

You must have a reason for singling Eck out. What is it, specifically and exactly that you think that Eck “clearly” could or should have done differently? If there is nothing specific that you can point to, then you probably should not have brought up his name. If there is something specific then we can discuss that specific thing.

 

[TertiumQuid]

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

But yet Jon, it’s only one personal and fallible Catholic opinion of Luther, given by an anonymous person with no credentials or authority to speak on behalf of the Catholic Church. Topper’s is not a magisterial or authoritative opinion of Luther.

Currently in front of me I have book that has researched contemporary Catholic magisterial views of Luther since the Second Vatican Council. Would it not be a more fruitful for Catholics to learn about Luther from actual authoritative sources within their own church hierarchy rather than a web-discussion board providing a platform for anonymous people to present their findings? Or at the very least, shouldn’t there be some sort of balance in which Topper says, “these are statements from current Catholic authorities” and “these are my personal interpretations of Luther and the Reformation”?

 

[JonNC]

Jon, this is the kind of thing that I find questionable.

You seem (again) to want Catholics to take their ‘fair share’ of the blame for the doctrinal division that we now suffer. As you know, the Church has made an official statement to that end. Has Lutheranism?

This isn’t the first time you have brought up Eck either, in this case stating that he, among others, “would have clearly taken a different approach if he had known the path they were on”. Poor Eck has not fared all that well in Protestant accounts of the times:

“Eck…was perhaps the most feared disputant of the German academic world. **Protestant historians have repaid Eck for the relentlessness with which he pursued Luther and his followers **by four centuries of abuse.” ****Robert Herndon Fife, “The Revolt of Martin Luther”, 1957, page 331

Of course this was written almost 60 years ago, so the ‘four centuries’ comment needs to be updated.

You must have a reason for singling Eck out. What is it, specifically and exactly that you think that Eck “clearly” could or should have done differently? If there is nothing specific that you can point to, then you probably should not have brought up his name. If there is something specific then we can discuss that specific thing.

Nope. No ulterior motive. He was a very important member of the history, is all. I could have mentioned any number of others. OTOH, if you have information that he was not flawed, or not redeemed, which is all I said about him, please share.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

Jon, this is the kind of thing that I find questionable.

You seem (again) to want Catholics to take their ‘fair share’ of the blame for the doctrinal division that we now suffer. As you know, the Church has made an official statement to that end. Has Lutheranism?
This isn’t the first time you have brought up Eck either, in this case stating that he, among others, “would have clearly taken a different approach if he had known the path they were on”. Poor Eck has not fared all that well in Protestant accounts of the times:

“Eck…was perhaps the most feared disputant of the German academic world. **Protestant historians have repaid Eck for the relentlessness with which he pursued Luther and his followers **by four centuries of abuse.” ****Robert Herndon Fife, “The Revolt of Martin Luther”, 1957, page 331

Of course this was written almost 60 years ago, so the ‘four centuries’ comment needs to be updated.

You must have a reason for singling Eck out. What is it, specifically and exactly that you think that Eck “clearly” could or should have done differently? If there is nothing specific that you can point to, then you probably should not have brought up his name. If there is something specific then we can discuss that specific thing.

 

[MaryT777]

Nope. No ulterior motive. He was a very important member of the history, is all. I could have mentioned any number of others. OTOH, if you have information that he was not flawed, or not redeemed, which is all I said about him, please share.

Jon

You seem (again) to want Catholics to take their ‘fair share’ of the blame for the doctrinal division that we now suffer. As you know, the Church has made an official statement to that end. Has Lutheranism? (Topper)

Was your nope in regard to the above statement or was it regarding Eck?

Catholics don’t proclaim to know who and who is not redeemed.

Mary.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Nope. No ulterior motive. He was a very important member of the history, is all. I could have mentioned any number of others. OTOH, if you have information that he was not flawed, or not redeemed, which is all I said about him, please share. Jon

In regard to Eck, what’s interesting about the source quoted above, Robert Herndon Fife, “The Revolt of Martin Luther”, 1957, page 331, is that the author lists a number of charges against the character of Eck, for instance, referring to his “well-attested greed in seeking further ecclesiastical offices,” and then presents a number of positive qualities that Eck was said to have.

Fife attempts balance in his presentation of Eck, for instance when he states on page 333: “Always sure of himself and incurably addicted to self-praise, overbearing and frequently insulting in his polemics, Eck’s writings nevertheless index a mind sincere in its orthodoxy, and they are not lacking in expressions of proud humility of faith.”

 

[JonNC]

You seem (again) to want Catholics to take their ‘fair share’ of the blame for the doctrinal division that we now suffer. As you know, the Church has made an official statement to that end. Has Lutheranism? (Topper)

Was your nope in regard to the above statement or was it regarding Eck?

Catholics don’t proclaim to know who and who is not redeemed.

Mary.

I have. I have recognized that Luther and others clearly did not act in a Christ-like way.
The “nope” was in regard to some ulterior motive, which was Topper’s question, and my clear response.

I didn’t ask anyone to proclaim someone’s redemption, but Catholics and Lutherans share the hope of eternal life for everyone. Eck, AFAIK, was a Baptized man of faith. I assume the best from there.

My comment wasn’t about Eck, specifically. I could have said Cardinal Cajetan, or Pope Leo X, or any number of other Catholics of that era. I could have said Zwingli, and other members of that movement. I could have mentioned the civil leaders of the time, those for Luther, and those for the Catholic Church. One particular individual was not the motivation of the comment.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=TertiumQuid;12738212]But yet Jon, it’s only one personal and fallible Catholic opinion of Luther, given by an anonymous person with no credentials or authority to speak on behalf of the Catholic Church. Topper’s is not a magisterial or authoritative opinion of Luther.

Then again, James, my qualities on this forum are the same - personal, fallible, anonymous, with no credentials. I think that applies to most of us here.

Currently in front of me I have book that has researched contemporary Catholic magisterial views of Luther since the Second Vatican Council. Would it not be a more fruitful for Catholics to learn about Luther from actual authoritative sources within their own church hierarchy rather than a web-discussion board providing a platform for anonymous people to present their findings? Or at the very least, shouldn’t there be some sort of balance in which Topper says, “these are statements from current Catholic authorities” and “these are my personal interpretations of Luther and the Reformation”?

I’d be quite interested in the title and author.

Jon

 

[clem456]

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.

There is not much nuance to the statement of Salvation. All who come to union with Christ are part of his body. Our explanations can seem convoluted, but God, who is salvation (another one of those gifts), is simplicity itself. His offer to unite us to His own Body is very simple.
Have you ever heard this observation of God’s nature:
God is simplicity itself. He is infinitely simple.
Part of the Christian call is to live in this simplicity and not dance around in ever more complex circles.
So, do we agree that Authority is a gift of God, a charism, and that it resides truly and substantially in a visible way? Or no. (sorry for the either/or question, call me stubborn and intolerant)

Yes, as all churches say this.

That should cause us to think twice, when the very nature and goal of Christian life is to be united as one with God, as God is. Are we to believe that God’s charisms do not impel us toward the accomplishment of His unity?

I think you have dodged it.

Ummm no, I answered my own question cause you would not.
Not a problem. I guess it’s a challenging question.

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.

So you assert that even though God reveals himself, and gives his Body a charism of authority, it was lost.
(remember? he breathed on them, told them “go forth”, “he who sees you” etc… )
You assert that when human beings, through God given reason, observe, define and proclaim God’s own revealed nature and essence, You propose that God’s gifts are lost, because human beings observe and define them with their God-given reason.

Can you straighten that circle out a little?

 

[onenow1]

Not sure he would have said he opened door to error or it was vain building…

Hi Ben, I think it is a reasonable assumption that he did open the door. As far as the pope and errors go it is the learning curve of the human condition, we all make errors in judgment.

God Bless

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben, I think it is a reasonable assumption that he did open the door. As far as the pope and errors go it is the learning curve of the human condition, we all make errors in judgment.

God Bless

Well of course for a Catholic it is more than an assumption, he did open door to error. The question was did Luther say that about himself, withstanding his lament over peasant rebellion.

 

[benjohnson]

Topper17, you’ll be happy to note that a famous Lutheran scholar called Martin Luther a “poor bag of maggots” I get the feeling that the constant Lutheran praise of Martin Luther will come to an end now that we know how even some of the best Lutheran scholars have stopped hiding their true feelings.

 

[benhur]

Part of the Christian call is to live in this simplicity and not dance around in ever more complex circles.

OK. Whoever has the shortest catechism, or doctrines of faith, or creed, or “confessions” wins.:newidea:

So, do we agree that Authority is a gift of God, a charism, and that it resides truly and substantially in a visible way? Or no. (sorry for the either/or question, call me stubborn and intolerant)

Post #538- “I then posted, “Was the patriarchal system “vague” ?” as a charism (of authority not “invisible” but real , as in John of Constantinople, touchable) ?”

Yes, authority is a gift from God. Thank him for our parents, and police officers, and our military, and our pastors, and priests, and bishops, popes (Orthodox and Catholics), Scripture, brothers in Christ etc., etc…

That should cause us to think twice, when the very nature and goal of Christian life is to be united as one with God, as God is. Are we to believe that God’s charisms do not impel us toward the accomplishment of His unity?

Well we are all ecclesially united. In some ways perfectly, and in others a work in progress.Quite simple. No nuance

Ummm no, I answered my own question cause you would not.
Not a problem. I guess it’s a challenging question.

I have answered the authority, and unity questions . Do you want to start complexifying it, *make it seem convoluted *as you posted or just say," Amen" ?

So you assert that even though God reveals himself, and gives his Body a charism of authority, it was lost.
(remember? he breathed on them, told them “go forth”, “he who sees you” etc… )
You assert that when human beings, through God given reason, observe, define and proclaim God’s own revealed nature and essence, You propose that God’s gifts are lost, because human beings observe and define them with their God-given reason.

Actually, anyone asserts that who says that traditions (of men) can void the commandments/(charisms ?) of God.

I never asserted His charism of authority was “lost”. (as noted above, the "gifts’ ’ to be thankful for).:nope: