Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done

[ptisme]

I think when it’s said and done the reformation will serve an overall better good. Let’s face it, Protestant charges such as Marian doctrine, intercession, idolatry and the like have made us Catholics take a close look what it is that we do… For me personally, this give and take with evangelicals, for instance has given me a much better appreciation for my faith… I went to Catholic school and never even knew the new Covenant was the Eucharist. Would we have the great apologetics and new Evangelization movements if we didn’t need to make sure our house was in order?

Lastly, some of the most knowledgeable Catholic apologists are the former Protestants who stumbled upon the answers the Catholic Church provides. Bottom line: The reformation has been a challenge that will leave us stronger for it in the end.

 

[spina1953]

Hi Topper: Your post #580 makes a lot od sense and it got me thinking. Looking back at what the Reformation has done, it seems or could be characterized as a reaction against a united spiritual authority; a reaction against the authority of the CC. It appears the Reformers stand was a stand against the idea of a united spiritual authority. Their protest conveys a sense of the "I don’t like being told what is right or wrong. I want the freedom to think and decide for myself what to believe. It was a dispute over the issue of authority that split the CC apart in the early 16th century. And that separation between those who continued to embrace the spiritual authority of the CC and those who rejected that authority to stand, with Luther, on the authority of Scripture alone.

                   Luther said" I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, in matters of faith each Christian is his own pope and council."  Although many reformers had disagreements among themselves, one thing it appears they had in common is their reaction against the spiritual authority outside of the Bible itself, and the CC represented that spiritual authority.

Due to the splintering and fracturing immediately during the Reformation which continues today, they seem to agree on that the CC has no spiritual authority over them. God has given His Word in the Bible, put His Holy Spirit in hearts so what more does one need?
This can be expressed in sola scriptoria, the belief that the Bible serves as the sloe infallible rule in faith and practice for the individual believer, and for the church as well. What this has done is cause differing understandings of what Scripture says and means and causes misunderstandings and misinterpretations to the point of conflicting beliefs of what Christians should believe.

 

[Contarini]

But whose side would “anonymous” have been on?

Both.Maybe more on the Catholic side, given that an astonishing number of the pamphlets published on the Protestant side were written by Luther.

It was “anonymous,” for instance, who claimed that Martin Bucer, on whom I wrote my dissertation, had acted as a pimp for his employer, Franz von Sickingen, procuring nuns for von Sickingen’s harem (I don’t know if von Sickingen actually had a harem in the first place).

Bucer did go on several missions for von Sickingen and no one knows quite what he was doing, but I rather doubt it was that.

Pamphlets were the Internet of the sixteenth century.

Edwin

 

[benhur]

He should have listened to Saint Paul’s advice.

“Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all say the same thing; and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be perfectly united in one mind and in one judgment.”
1Corinthians 1:10

God Bless

It was easier in St. Paul’s time, when Christians were a minority, even persecuted, almost outlawed. It was easier to say the same thing then, for far too many things were being said by Luther’s time.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your response.

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.

I think Richard Marius put it best, in this describing Luther’s relationship to secular authority, but it just as well could be applied to religious authority:
**
“……Luther was the obedient servant as long as obedience coincided with his devotion to what he considered the will of God.”** Marius, pg. 330.

Who was to decide what the will of God actually was? Luther of course. No competing understandings were allowed. Marius continues in regards to Luther’s attitude towards the very first ‘Protestant opponents’ he faced, the Zwickau Prophets, who had set up camp in Wittenberg while Luther was in hiding at the Wartburg:

“He professed no doubts as to what that will might be. Satan had entered the fold at Wittenberg; Luther felt compelled to drive the evil one away.” Ibid, pg. 330

In reestablishing his authority in Wittenberg in defiance of the Prophets, Luther preached eight daily sermons:

“In his seventh sermon Luther told his flock that they now had the gospel ‘clear and bright’ but they were not demonstrating love for each other. If they did not learn to love, God would ‘send a plague on you, for he will not have his word preached and revealed in vain, and he will not permit anyone to scorn or contemn his Word’. ** What would this ‘plague’ be? His language is vague enough to allow the interpretation that would become standard in mainline Protestantism, that the judgments of God are seen as miraculous only by the real Christians, while to others they appear as part of the endless shifting of the historical process.” **Ibid, pg. 333

Here, even this early in his Reforming ‘career’, we see Luther alluding to himself as speaking for God, and that if people were not going to listen to him, and believe his teachings, God would send a plague.

Now THAT’s what you call Real Biblical Authority!

He (also) of course would question (or more) your everlasting Salvation if you disagreed with him or opposed him.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi SJ

I believe most of the people that voted that Luther would not have done it all over again haven’t read much Luther.

Agreed.

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.

To name just a few.

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.

You do know your history. The massive bloodshed of the Peasant’s War is an example. In the midst of the bloodshed and before it reached its height, Luther recommended, in writing no less, that the peasants be ‘slaughtered without mercy’. 100,000 of them were, and while some were still lying bloody in the fields, what did Luther do? He got married!

A few months later Luther made it very clear that he was very satisfied with his role in the Peasant’s War (in “An Open Letter”)
**
“Soon he was widely criticized for showing no mercy to the now defeated peasants. But in “An Open Letter” he took nothing back. When the peasants were robbing, burning, plundering, who spoke of mercy then? “Everything was ‘rights……Rights, rights, rights!’ You have to answer people like that with the fist….Their ears must now be unbuttoned with musket balls till their heads jump off their shoulders,” There was a touch of evenhandedness. If the lords were now misusing their power, they too would have to suffer. “When I have time and occasion to do so, I shall attack the princes and lords too, **for my office of teacher, a prince is the same to me as a peasant.” (Somehow, he failed to get around to that.) **Perhaps the most distasteful thing about these pamphlets is Luther’s evident concern with his own reputation, which he seems to have cared more about than either the princes or peasants.” **Collinson, pg. 177

As Collinson points out, in the writing of “Open”, Luther was apparently much more interested in his own personal reputation than he was in anything else. The fact that he actually intended to have people believe that he was right to call for the slaughter of the peasants should tell us everything that we need to know.

“**Luther himself remained utterly unapologetic; he dismissed his critics, who demanded mercy for the peasants, as bleeding heart hypocrites.”/**COLOR] Harvard Professor Steven Ozment, “The Age of Reform”, pg. 286

This with a hundred thousand dead.

“Luther continued to be defiant about the rightness of his course and clearly lost some of his popular support following from this point.” Timothy F. Lull, President and Professor of Systematic Theology, Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary, in “The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther”, Article – “Luther’s Writings”, pg. 57

Needless to say, Luther lost some of his ‘popularity’ with the peasants over the affair.

The recommendations that Luther made and then defended cannot be viewed as being ONLY sins. In those tracts he quoted Scripture FURIOUSLY. Those recommendations are an example of Luther’s teachings and his ability to discern the Christian Gospel in Scripture.

Some here contend that Luther would have done things differently had he known the results of his teachings. Yet here, with the carnage not even then complete, he doubles down, insisting that what he had done was from God.

I hope that this information has been helpful.

God Bless You SJ, Topper

 

[Topper17]

I apologize if my intentions were unclear. I was not my intent to question your motives, but instead respond to your previously stated motives: You may choose to disagree Edwin, but given Luther’s treatment of his opponents,** “I don’t think Lutherans have a leg to stand on whatsoever in complaining about anybody’s ‘polemical style’ in their criticism of Luther. That seems to me to be extraordinarily hypocritical.”**

I stand by my statement Jon.

Of all of the Lutheran and Catholic laity, ISTM that those who are here at CAF are likely rather informed about these issues.

In regards to the ‘regulars’ who have thousands of posts under their belt, I would agree. But honestly Jon, the people in that classification might amount to 1% of the people on CA. What about the other 99%, including those who read along and never post a word? Should we fail to inform them because the 1% are already so well informed? If that was really your concern, then you should not have any problem with what I post. If that were the case, you would probably want to spend your effort on some other subject other than “Topper”. Right?

What arguments are you presenting that Lutherans have to defeat? Luther was a sinner, and at times a rather obnoxious one. Why would we feel moved to defeat a known? The quotes you provide often come from Lutherans. Do you think we are arguing against ourselves regarding this?

Jon, this has nothing to do with Luther’s sins. However, it has everything to do with his teachings, and by that I mean the ones that Lutheranism has rejected as being anti-Christian. Those teachings impugn Luther’s authority to teach in opposition to and to rebuke the Church. As you rightly admit, no Lutheran would ever be allowed to rebuke the teaching authority of the Lutheran Church the way that Luther did his (the Catholic Church of course). So why, specifically and exactly was Luther ‘right’, in God’s Eyes to do so?

Not at all. You often refer to the website of a particular poster here as being anti-Catholic.
I’m merely saying the accusation of someone being anti-something rings hollow.

Maybe it’s an ‘Eye of the Beholder’ kind of thing Jon. My guess is that you would also object to the Lutheran Confessions being characterized as being ‘anti-Catholic’. Yes or no?

I take the statements there at face value, as I do other very anti-Catholic statements, wherever they are. It’s not so much a matter of ‘interpretation’, but simply the very clear intent of the text in question.

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.

That is reading the data one way, in a way that hopes to ‘stay positive’ (with regards to Luther). On the other hand that very same data, indicates that 58% of the people here believe that Luther would have done things exactly as he did or ‘he might have done a **few things **differently’. This means that 58% of the people here believe that, had Luther ‘known’ the results of his teaching, beforehand, he would have done essentially what he actually did. That has a completely different ‘ring’ to it compared to your characterization doesn’t it?

That’s the way this is supposed to work. We each present our views or interpretations and people get to decide which is the more compelling. Some people will automatically agree with one side or the other because of their preconceived notions or biases. There are though Jon, those in the middle who are willing to consider the arguments of both sides on the basis of their merits.

 

[Gailgirl]

Although not a Church History scholar, I do know that the ‘fires’ of reform were burning hundreds of years prior to Luther. There were many upset with the abuses of the papacy regarding dogma and financial greed even in the 12th century. Priests, abbots, and those in Church orders saw the need for change. Many of these folks were burned or hanged.
Arnold of Brecia, a friar from Lombardy, was one of the first to die for his criticisms. Others followed.

Boniface VIII’s papal bull that all humanity was under the jurisdiction of the pope caused his imprisonment and early death by King Phillip VI. Then the Avignon papacies caused more problems for scholastics of faith and they were relentless in criticism, especially toward Pope John XXII. What followed when the papacy returned to Rome was the Great Schism.

Rather than look inward and reform itself, the papacy continued unabated. The Borgia years are infamous for financial and moral abuse. People in the Church witnessed this, and those outside the episcopacy witnessed it.

Many years later when Archbishop Albrecht, Archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, found himself unable to pay back the money he borrowed from the Fugger banking family to purchase his Church offices, he, along with the Fuggers, made arrangements with Pope Leo X to acquire money through the sale of Indulgences. Pope Leo would get half and Albrecht the other half, in which he would repay his loan. Keep in mind that Albrecht was only 23 years old, and it was against canon law for anyone under 30 to even be a bishop, let alone an Archbishop.

The Fuggers’ hired John Tetzel to sell the Indulgences affirmed by Leo. He overstepped his bounds by declaring plenary Indulgences for life, and for the removal from Purgatory those Indulgences paid of for the dead. King Frederick, whose territory included Wittenburg, did not want his money going to Rome, so Indulgences were not allowed to be sold in this area.

But like any ‘fire sale’, people flocked to where the Indulgences were being sold. When some went to the University to show Luther, he said they weren’t worth anything. When word got back to Tetzel, he rebuked and offensively renounced Luther’s remarks, which put a hornet beneath Luther’s bonnet, and he posted the 95 Theses on the Church door. Thus John Tetzel became immortal and lit the bonfire of the Reformation.

Luther’s Theses would have been cause for much debate in the Universities, but the printing press was now in full force and someone copied Luther’s Theses, and it spread like wild fire. Luther had no choice now but defend his writings.

I don’t know if Luther would do things differently. Many say he loved the Church, but not how it was operating. Then things just blossomed out of control. Any opinion of mine would be conjecture.

All I know is that Indulgences would not be allowed to be used in this way today. Yes, the Church has remained divided. Maybe someday there will be a unification, Yet, I don’t know if this will happen. There are Christ lovers and obedient followers in both camps. My life goal is to be faithful, obedient, and do good as God gives me the grace to do so.

Gailgirl.

 

[TertiumQuid]

That’s not a Lutheran saying he deserves consideration as a doctor of the Church Universal.

Why is there such chasm between recent Roman Catholic scholarship and some of the folks here posting all this “Luther was really bad, and also kicked a cat on his way to posting the 95 Theses” stuff?

Now, that’s a worthy topic of discussion.

 

[MaryT777]

Why is there such chasm between recent Roman Catholic scholarship and some of the folks here posting all this “Luther was really bad, and also kicked a cat on his way to posting the 95 Theses” stuff?

Now, that’s a worthy topic of discussion.

Because the topic is Looking Back at what the reformation has done and Luther is a primary character In reform.

Mary.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Because the topic is Looking Back at what the reformation has done and Luther is a primary character In reform.

Mary.

Well then, let me re-phrase the question to put in the context of this discussion more clearly.

Jon earlier posted this link: Martin Luther: the Separated “Son” of Augustine from a Catholic scholar. Why do you think this scholar’s “looking back” is completely different than most of what’s been posted here by Topper?

 

[MaryT777]

Well then, let me re-phrase the question to put in the context of this discussion more clearly.

Jon earlier posted this link: Martin Luther: the Separated “Son” of Augustine from a Catholic scholar. Why do you think this scholar’s “looking back” is completely different than most of what’s been posted here by Topper?

Each author about Luther had a different perspective. There are also Catholic scholars
who have a quite a negative view of Luther. Each author of course is entitled to write from their own viewpoint and each poster may quote from whatever sources they so choose,
Jon and Topper (and the rest of us), within forum guidelines.

Mary.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12744110]I stand by my statement Jon.

I would expect nothing else.

In regards to the ‘regulars’ who have thousands of posts under their belt, I would agree. But honestly Jon, the people in that classification might amount to 1% of the people on CA. What about the other 99%, including those who read along and never post a word? Should we fail to inform them because the 1% are already so well informed? If that was really your concern, then you should not have any problem with what I post. If that were the case, you would probably want to spend your effort on some other subject other than “Topper”. Right?

I don’t have any problem with what you post. I have a problem with your reasons for posting it, the reason you confirmed just now with, “I stand by my statement, Jon”.

Jon, this has nothing to do with Luther’s sins. However, it has everything to do with his teachings, and by that I mean the ones that Lutheranism has rejected as being anti-Christian. Those teachings impugn Luther’s authority to teach in opposition to and to rebuke the Church. As you rightly admit, no Lutheran would ever be allowed to rebuke the teaching authority of the Lutheran Church the way that Luther did his (the Catholic Church of course). So why, specifically and exactly was Luther ‘right’, in God’s Eyes to do so?

As I have expressed to you often, I did exactly that, when I was a member of the ELCA.
When the church - choose any tradition within it - moves away from its teachings, as the ELCA clearly has, then people must speak up. Lots of Catholics here refer to Catherine of Sienna. Should she have kept quiet? ISTM that the major difference between her and Luther, other than she might have been a nicer person, was that Luther’s complaints had a significant potential impact of revenue flow to Rome.
This is one reason I have said, had they - all of them - had the benefit of foresight, they all would have acted differently, to one degree or another.

Maybe it’s an ‘Eye of the Beholder’ kind of thing Jon. My guess is that you would also object to the Lutheran Confessions being characterized as being ‘anti-Catholic’. Yes or no?

I’ll let you and James discuss whether or not he is “anti-Catholic”. My simple point is your postings reveal what appears to be a very anti-Lutheran POV.

As for the confessions, of course there are things in there that appear anti-catholic, just like there are Catholic writings that appear anti-all-Christians-not-in-communion-with-the-Pope.
The interesting thing about that, however, in light of the thread, is that some people on both sides feel moved to continue, perpetuate, expand that level of polemic from the Reformation era, instead of looking for a way forward away from that polemical crossfire.
Some on each side may even claim that since individuals on the other side from that era and before, spoke in an “anti-____” way, they have the right to do the same, and the other side shouldn’t complain about it.

So, from my POV, what Luther would have done had he known is pure conjecture. The far more important question is how do we, knowing the result of the Reformation, respond to the ecumenical efforts of our communions?

I take the statements there at face value, as I do other very anti-Catholic statements, wherever they are. It’s not so much a matter of ‘interpretation’, but simply the very clear intent of the text in question.

Yes, your defiant unwillingness to listen to the explanations of our communion has been rather obvious. Another significant difference between us.

That is reading the data one way, in a way that hopes to ‘stay positive’ (with regards to Luther). On the other hand that very same data, indicates that 58% of the people here believe that Luther would have done things exactly as he did or ‘he might have done a **few things **differently’. This means that 58% of the people here believe that, had Luther ‘known’ the results of his teaching, beforehand, he would have done essentially what he actually did. That has a completely different ‘ring’ to it compared to your characterization doesn’t it?

Sure does. I think those differing interpretations tend to reveal motives, as well, don’t you?

That’s the way this is supposed to work. We each present our views or interpretations and people get to decide which is the more compelling. Some people will automatically agree with one side or the other because of their preconceived notions or biases. There are though Jon, those in the middle who are willing to consider the arguments of both sides on the basis of their merits.

I think there are many, as well, who will automatically reject the polemics on both sides, and walk away from both of our traditions, perhaps even from the faith itself. That’s the real wound Christ’s Church and its ministry suffers from our division, a wound we should do everything in our power to eliminate.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

I would expect nothing else.

I don’t have any problem with what you post. I have a problem with your reasons for posting it, the reason you confirmed just now with, “I stand by my statement, Jon”.

As I have expressed to you often, I did exactly that, when I was a member of the ELCA.
When the church - choose any tradition within it - moves away from its teachings, as the ELCA clearly has, then people must speak up. Lots of Catholics here refer to Catherine of Sienna. Should she have kept quiet? ISTM that the major difference between her and Luther, other than she might have been a nicer person, was that Luther’s complaints had a significant potential impact of revenue flow to Rome.
This is one reason I have said, had they - all of them - had the benefit of foresight, they all would have acted differently, to one degree or another.

I’ll let you and James discuss whether or not he is “anti-Catholic”. My simple point is your postings reveal what appears to be a very anti-Lutheran POV.

As for the confessions, of course there are things in there that appear anti-catholic, just like there are Catholic writings that appear anti-all-Christians-not-in-communion-with-the-Pope.
The interesting thing about that, however, in light of the thread, is that some people on both sides feel moved to continue, perpetuate, expand that level of polemic from the Reformation era, instead of looking for a way forward away from that polemical crossfire.
Some on each side may even claim that since individuals on the other side from that era and before, spoke in an “anti-____” way, they have the right to do the same, and the other side shouldn’t complain about it.

So, from my POV, what Luther would have done had he known is pure conjecture. The far more important question is how do we, knowing the result of the Reformation, respond to the ecumenical efforts of our communions?

Yes, your defiant unwillingness to listen to the explanations of our communion has been rather obvious. Another significant difference between us.

Sure does. I think those differing interpretations tend to reveal motives, as well, don’t you?

I think there are many, as well, who will automatically reject the polemics on both sides, and walk away from both of our traditions, perhaps even from the faith itself. That’s the real wound Christ’s Church and its ministry suffers from our division, a wound we should do everything in our power to eliminate.

Jon

Jon,

Regarding "I think those offering interpretations tend to reveal motives, as well don’t you?
I disagree. It may, Jon, be as simple as based on Luther and his writings some of us believe that Luther would not have done anything differently. Certainly he could see the disunity in his day but continued on his course.

I don’t believe that every post has some in depth ulterior motive behind it though,

Mary.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Each author about Luther had a different perspective. There are also Catholic scholars who have a quite a negative view of Luther. Each author of course is entitled to write from their own viewpoint and each poster may quote from whatever sources they so choose, Jon and Topper (and the rest of us), within forum guidelines.Mary.

Hi Mary,

I would be interested in a list of Catholic scholars “who have a quite a negative view of Luther” since Vatican II, if you have one.

Historically in Luther studies, there has been a shift in the way Catholic scholars view Luther. During the first five hundred years of Catholic evaluations of Luther, there was strong emphasis on vilifying Luther as a means of discrediting the Reformation. The emphasis shifted in the Twentieth Century: Catholic scholars began to study Luther as a sincere religious man and an honest theologian. I can recommend some studies on this shift if you’re interested.

To bring this back to what I asked before, Jon’s link is good representation of current Catholic Luther scholarship. What I find most intriguing is that discussions like this seem to completely ignore current Catholic scholarship and gravitate to the old Catholic way of understanding Luther.

On what basis is Topper’s “looking back” more authoritative or trustworthy as compared to Michael J. Scanlon, O.S.A., S.T.D., '60 (Scanlon was a past President of the Catholic Theological Society of America)? The former is an anonymous person who champions exposing “Luther’s less than publicized weird teachings and unholy actions.” The later says, “Luther was a religious genius and deserving of consideration as a doctor of the Church universal.”

“Looking back” is certainly speculative- but I find it fascinating that if I were Catholic, I could say either “Luther, there is no ounce of godliness in you” (Denifle) or I could say equally, “At the core of Luther’s religious experience we find God” (Lortz).

 

[spina1953]

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your response.

I think Richard Marius put it best, in this describing Luther’s relationship to secular authority, but it just as well could be applied to religious authority:
**
“……Luther was the obedient servant as long as obedience coincided with his devotion to what he considered the will of God.”** Marius, pg. 330.

Who was to decide what the will of God actually was? Luther of course. No competing understandings were allowed. Marius continues in regards to Luther’s attitude towards the very first ‘Protestant opponents’ he faced, the Zwickau Prophets, who had set up camp in Wittenberg while Luther was in hiding at the Wartburg:

“He professed no doubts as to what that will might be. Satan had entered the fold at Wittenberg; Luther felt compelled to drive the evil one away.” Ibid, pg. 330

In reestablishing his authority in Wittenberg in defiance of the Prophets, Luther preached eight daily sermons:

“In his seventh sermon Luther told his flock that they now had the gospel ‘clear and bright’ but they were not demonstrating love for each other. If they did not learn to love, God would ‘send a plague on you, for he will not have his word preached and revealed in vain, and he will not permit anyone to scorn or contemn his Word’. ** What would this ‘plague’ be? His language is vague enough to allow the interpretation that would become standard in mainline Protestantism, that the judgments of God are seen as miraculous only by the real Christians, while to others they appear as part of the endless shifting of the historical process.” **Ibid, pg. 333

Here, even this early in his Reforming ‘career’, we see Luther alluding to himself as speaking for God, and that if people were not going to listen to him, and believe his teachings, God would send a plague.

Now THAT’s what you call Real Biblical Authority!

He (also) of course would question (or more) your everlasting Salvation if you disagreed with him or opposed him.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

Hi Topper: Looking back at who the Reformation, it seems to me that Luther was quite the showman in that he used his self-appointed authority in order to get others to follow him in his break with the CC. He used every means at his disposal to further his aims. While there was much in the way of abuses in the CC it was men who are flawed not the doctrines and teachings of the CC. Luther went from wanting to address the abuses of the CC to questioning doctrines and teachings that have been taught since the time of the Apostles. In some sense Luther became an authority onto himself using his status as theologian and teacher to invent new interpretations that in a manor of speaking distorted what had been accepted teachings of the CC. When Luther decided the ignore any authority; the Pope, and the CC only accepting his own authority over that of the CC, he felt free to do as he pleased in furthering his own agenda of teachings that caused in the end confusion and chaos.

 

[MaryT777]

Hi Mary,

I would be interested in a list of Catholic scholars “who have a quite a negative view of Luther” since Vatican II, if you have one.

Historically in Luther studies, there has been a shift in the way Catholic scholars view Luther. During the first five hundred years of Catholic evaluations of Luther, there was strong emphasis on vilifying Luther as a means of discrediting the Reformation. The emphasis shifted in the Twentieth Century: Catholic scholars began to study Luther as a sincere religious man and an honest theologian. I can recommend some studies on this shift if you’re interested.

To bring this back to what I asked before, Jon’s link is good representation of current Catholic Luther scholarship. What I find most intriguing is that discussions like this seem to completely ignore current Catholic scholarship and gravitate to the old Catholic way of understanding Luther.

On what basis is Topper’s “looking back” more authoritative or trustworthy as compared to Michael J. Scanlon, O.S.A., S.T.D., '60 (Scanlon was a past President of the Catholic Theological Society of America)? The former is an anonymous person who champions exposing “Luther’s less than publicized weird teachings and unholy actions.” The later says, “Luther was a religious genius and deserving of consideration as a doctor of the Church universal.”

“Looking back” is certainly speculative- but I find it fascinating that if I were Catholic, I could say either “Luther, there is no ounce of godliness in you” (Denifle) or I could say equally, “At the core of Luther’s religious experience we find God” (Lortz).

I don’t have a list of Catholic scholars who have a negative view SINCE Vatican II.
I don’t keep such lists nor am I inspired to research this for you. Perhaps some other Catholic would be more interested in doing so

I don’t have any interest in discussing Topper beyond the above. In my opinion there are posters here more interested in Topper than the topic JMO

Mary.

 

[SteveVH]

So, from my POV, what Luther would have done had he known is pure conjecture. The far more important question is how do we, knowing the result of the Reformation, respond to the ecumenical efforts of our communions?

Exactly.

 

[TertiumQuid]

I don’t have a list of Catholic scholars who have a negative view SINCE Vatican II. I don’t keep such lists nor am I inspired to research this for you. Perhaps some other Catholic would be more interested in doing so

That’s OK, it was a more of a trick question that went along with my previous point about the shift in Catholic scholarly opinions of Luther.

I don’t have any interest in discussing Topper beyond the above. In my opinion there are posters here more interested in Topper than the topic JMO Mary.

I don’t either. I raised the questions I did based on your previous comment to me- “Each author of course is entitled to write from their own viewpoint and each poster may quote from whatever sources they so choose…” I was just curious if anyone here would care to comment on why more contemporary scholarly Catholic views of Luther rarely see the light of day on the Catholic Answers Forums, while the earlier vilifying view is so popular (especially in this thread). If you don’t want to answer, or don’t have an opinion on this, that’s fine.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Hi Mary,

I would be interested in a list of Catholic scholars “who have a quite a negative view of Luther” since Vatican II, if you have one.

Historically in Luther studies, there has been a shift in the way Catholic scholars view Luther. During the first five hundred years of Catholic evaluations of Luther, there was strong emphasis on vilifying Luther as a means of discrediting the Reformation. The emphasis shifted in the Twentieth Century: Catholic scholars began to study Luther as a sincere religious man and an honest theologian. I can recommend some studies on this shift if you’re interested.

To bring this back to what I asked before, Jon’s link is good representation of current Catholic Luther scholarship. What I find most intriguing is that discussions like this seem to completely ignore current Catholic scholarship and gravitate to the old Catholic way of understanding Luther.

On what basis is Topper’s “looking back” more authoritative or trustworthy as compared to Michael J. Scanlon, O.S.A., S.T.D., '60 (Scanlon was a past President of the Catholic Theological Society of America)? The former is an anonymous person who champions exposing “Luther’s less than publicized weird teachings and unholy actions.” The later says, “Luther was a religious genius and deserving of consideration as a doctor of the Church universal.”

“Looking back” is certainly speculative- but I find it fascinating that if I were Catholic, I could say either “Luther, there is no ounce of godliness in you” (Denifle) or I could say equally, “At the core of Luther’s religious experience we find God” (Lortz).

What I find more intriguing is how can Catholics ignore the authority of the Church in regards to the current expression of the Magisterium, to include at least one Pope, in regards to the matter of Luther.



I don’t think we are giving a good example of how we should be submitting ourselves to the Church. :nope: