Looking Back at what the Reformation has Done

[MaryT777]

Just a heads up that if you post on this thread you may have it reposted on James Swan’s “Beggars All” blog. I noticed Topper’s post was posted there for comment on his blog.

Mary.

PS Topper can I have your autograph?

 

[benhur]

[Until and unless all listen to Christ through His Church they may be in the same boat as His Apostles in earlier days – to His own Apostles, “whom He loved to the end” Jesus exclaimed: “Have you no sense, no wits, are your hearts dulled, can’t you see, your ears hear, don’t you remember?” (Mk 8:17-18).

Hi Abu.

Right, the apostles found it hard to believe that those sitting in the chair of Moses (Pharisees), a traditionally established authority within the God established pillar of truth of the OT (Israel), whom Jesus said do what they tell you, and your righteousness must surpass theirs, could have bad doctrine (leaven).

“Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the* doctrine* of the Pharisees”. Mat 16:12

“The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other people–” or churches ? Israel ? Luke 18:11

Many in find it very difficult to see the fault in their own church, especially any that claim infallibility and have a beautiful, long and well accepted tradition.

When you point a finger at another , three are pointing back at you.

Lord help us all.

What then do you consider is wrong with Christ in establishing His Church with His authority in teaching all dogma and doctrine?

Everybody believes this for their church.

Such fallacies help no one, particularly as they cannot be, and never have been, substantiated with facts, and denigrate Christ Himself in founding His Catholic Church.

So is it a fallacy that the reformation did not produce an effectual counter reformation ? That Catholic clergy were not admonished to be more Christ like, especially by Loyola and the Jesuits ? They reformed so much that within a generation quite a bit of Germany went back to Catholicism. So the facts lend themselves to one saying Luther helped Catholics, if even antagonistically, become more Christlike, if not their clergy, in a general sense, and in some places.
[/quote]

 

[benhur]

Whether Protestantism was successful in the long term depends on your measure of success. I tend to agree with Gerald Strauss that Luther’s Reformation was not successful by the standards Luther and his colleagues initially set for themselves, and with Brad Gregory that the early Protestants were “successful” in ways that would have horrified them (i.e.,they played a major role in bringing about the secularization of Europe

Hello Contarini, if I may comment on the underlined-
Like they were before Christianity came on the scene, and under which Christianity grew authentically by leaps and bounds (no worldly entanglements-such purity of purpose) ?

 

[phil19034]

Luther was not the only one involved in the Reformation -if he had not done it-John Knox or Calvin or others would have-the Catholic CHurch had “issues” -things could not continue without some reform being attempted

As the USA was settled by Protestants and this ethic drove the development of my country I could not imagine the USA without the reformation having occured

a better question would be what would western civilization look like without the Reformation?

If all of western civilization was still Catholic, perhaps we wouldn’t of had the world wars?

But I do think that we would be more religious today. I believe the #1 thing the Protestant reformation gave us is a ton of people who their own pope, “spiritual but not religious.” The whole argument that “I’m a good person, I don’t commit crimes, I don’t have to listen to the Church. I just need to do what I feel is right between me and my personal relationship with God.”

Basicly, the Protestant reformation gave us a lack of spiritual accountability, because if you don’t like what one religion or pastor is saying, you just go find one you agree with.

 

[MaryT777]

Just a heads up that if you post on this thread you may have it reposted on James Swan’s “Beggars All” blog. I noticed Topper’s post was posted there for comment on his blog.

Mary.

PS Topper can I have your autograph?

I tired to post a comment on Swan’s site that is talking about his visit here to CAF and also Topper’s post yet this is what I got. The man who noted he was “kicked off” two other Catholic sites moderates his own site and comments. That seems to me hypocritical.

Post a Comment On: Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics

Who is Authorized to Interpret the Reformation?"

No comments yet. - Show Original Post

1 – 0 of 0

Leave your comment

You’ve gotta ask yourself one question: “Do I feel lucky?”

You can use some HTML tags, such as , ,

This blog does not allow anonymous comments.

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

Swan’s beggars all blog

 

[Topper17]

HI Edwin,

Thanks for your response.

But my point is simply that given a choice between Luther and Eck, it’s not hard to see why most young, theologically serious intellectuals would be more convinced by Luther. That’s why the Jesuits were so important–they were unimpeachably orthodox but they found creative ways of being orthodox.

I don’t think that anybody would suggest that Eck was more charismatic than Luther. As for me, I am FAR more concerned with who was right in the eyes of God than who was more ‘attractive’ to the populous, and as we have seen from my last quote, when those ‘serious intellectuals’ (the humanists) understood Luther better, they vanished. Let’s face it, the ‘young’ don’t always chose leaders who are good for them.

It seems that we might disagree on the importance of being ‘creative’.

Or he’s characterizing them in more extreme terms.

OK, so which is it? Why would you suggest that Fife is extreme in his characterization? What do you know specifically that would prompt that comment?

Luther. Unquestionably. Luther cared passionately about truth and about Christ. I have read Eck and I see no such passion in his pages. I see a man defending the establishment on which he depends for livelihood and for identity. No doubt he was sincere in doing so, and I make no judgments as to his spiritual condition. Luther’s faults may well have been more glaring, but so is his deep commitment to Christ.

You think that Luther had a ‘stronger moral compass’ and a better informed Christian conscience than Eck? We are talking about the Martin Luther who made those recommendations about the Jews, the Anabaptists, the peasants, the ‘reluctant wives’ and claimed to pope to be the antichrist, aren’t we? THAT Martin Luther? What did Eck do that is even in the same universe as that? I mean other than oppose Luther of course.

Those things of Luther were not so much ‘faults’, although they certainly were. What they really were are shocking examples of Luther’s failure to properly interpret Christian Scripture and understand the Christian Gospel. Those teachings impugn his ‘authority’ to challenge the teaching of the Catholic Church.

On another note, a case could be made, and quite convincingly, that the Christ that Luther was committed to what the Christ of his needs, but I will leave that for another time.

In a conventional academic way, sure his credentials were much more impressive and his scholarship was more impeccable. He worked within the system. Luther blew the system sky high.

But to suggest that Eck was intellectually superior to Luther is simply a joke, if you’ve actually read Eck in comparison to Luther. I get that you don’t appreciate Luther’s kind of mind. To my way of thinking this is very much your loss. He is a poet of theology–one of the greatest geniuses the Christian tradition has ever produced.

Edwin, it appears that we value different attributes in our Theologians. You seem to be enamored with the ‘creative’ and the ‘original’. In my view, theology is NOT about writing the next great novel. It is NOT fiction. It is about discovering the Truth that God would have us know, a Truth that HE wants us to discover. It is about God’s Absolute Truth, and you DO NOT get to make it up yourself out of some boundless well of personal creativity and originality.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12749842]First of all, how does the above argument NOT apply to Luther ‘moving away’ from the teachings of the Catholic Church? Don’t people need to ‘speak up’ as you say? What about MY ‘speaking up’?

I didn’t say it didn’t, and generally we don’t know about your views on the CC since they are not part of your apologia, other than your criticism of their participation in ecumenical dialogue. My speaking up, OTOH, is typically in defense of my communion, and not often an attack on others or their members, past or current.

Secondly, who says that the ELCA has ‘moved away’? Do they agree with that assessment? Who decides which Lutheran tradition is holding to the ‘true Lutheranism’? Would that be you, or the ELCA, or the LCMS, or who, specifically?

Not me, obviously, but certainly and clearly not you. ISTM, however, that one could look at the historic practice and understanding of Lutheranism, Lutheran orthodoxy if one will, to see which synod has held more closely to that historic teaching. I am not aware of there being female ordination during or following the Reformation era, for example.
OTOH, one could ask the same question regarding Old Catholics. Who is to say which Catholics are correct?

After all, there is NO universal Lutheran body to keep everybody in line doctrinally, a fact which you recently bemoaned. At this point there are, according to one estimate, 220 separate Lutheran bodies, meaning, doctrinally independent communions. How many will there be in 50 years? How much more do you think Lutheranism will shrink as a percentage of Christianity over that period?

A significant misrepresentation, here, as, for example, there are over 30 member synods within the ILC. The LWF is even larger. Differing syodical polity does not necessarily mean differing doctrine.
It is, indeed sad, however, that many Lutheran synods have drifted from the confessions.
But then , Catholics would understand this, as they view Old Catholics, Orthodox, and us in a similar light.

When you say that ‘people must speak up’ you directly oppose the Lutheran teaching that it is the church which determines doctrine. You ‘spoke up’ with your feet, leaving the ELCA of your youth, indicating that it is up to you to decide, at least as far as which Lutheran communion is the most ‘faithful’ to Luther’s teachings.

Not Luther’s teachings, but the confessions. Find for me where the Evangelical churches practiced female ordination during and following the Reformation era.

The idea that the ‘church decides’ is foreign to your comment that ‘the people must speak up’.

Really? So, Catherine of Sienna was foreign to “The Church Decides”?

The former is representative of the later Luther, who basically proclaimed himself to be the Church.

And as we all know, that wasn’t the case.

The later is representative of the early Luther who very much taught Private Interpretation for all.

Precisely what you practiced when your feet voted to leave whatever communion you were in prior to becoming Catholic.

In reality, the later Luther contradicted the earlier Luther who Revolted against the Church using his personal authority to do so.

As did you.

Which Luther was correct in God’s Eyes?

I don’t have God’s eyes.

For the record Jon – Neither one of is at all happy about the fact that we are ‘opponents’. Furthermore, I am not responsible for our divisions.

Something we agree on in the first sentence.
And neither am I. What we are responsible for is how our actions and words reflect our desire to reconcile.

Luther is the one who is primarily responsible.You can disagree if you like but what I post in part makes it very clear that he is. It is his name which is on the sign outside your church and it is his name which is on your church bulletins.

LOL. The name on my Church bulletin makes Luther primarily responsible for the division which took place 500 years ago? Really?
Of course Luther, and the other Reformers who were his colleagues share a measure of responsibility. So do the leaders who were in charge of the Catholic Church at the time.
Even your Catechism says so.

As you well know, I believe that we are to ever be reunited, will have to make an honest assessment of how, specifically and exactly we became divided. That means we need to understand the factual history of the early Reformation.

And what’s really astonishing is you seem to think this hasn’t already been done.

Behaving as if we don’t have any real differences INSURES that we will NEVER be reunited.

I agree, and behaving as if the fault belongs entirely, even primarily, to an early 16th century Augustinian friar in Germany is equally injurious to attempts at reconciliation.

Jon, what is it that you want the Church to do?

I want the Catholic Church and Lutherans to continue to do what they’ve been doing since Vatican II: participating in ecumenical dialogue to try and bridge our differences.

continued

 

[JonNC]

Do you think that the Church should create a ‘Lutheran Ordinate’ that would allow for complete unity with Rome, but also allowing Lutheran practices to remain in place, two or three Sacraments vs. our seven, and retaining ALL of the Lutheran Confessions, including the ones that (supposedly ONLY) appear to be anti-Catholic?

An astounding question coming from someone who is so well-read and intelligent. A Lutheran ordinariate means nothing without doctrinal unity, or as some documents refer to, a unity in diversity of those things that can be diverse. again, those would be decided, not by anonymous lay posters on an internet forum, but by the theologians and leaders of our communions.
The last sentence is even more astounding. Its as if you have no understanding of how a dialogue, much less a reconciliation, would work. I know that can’t be true, so I can only surmise that it was for polemical purposes only. But to answer anyway: common sense would obviously indicate that any statements of condemnation, in both directions, would be eliminated, since we would be in UNITY!!!

Short of that, would you like the Church, or CA, or individual Catholics to proclaim that we believe that Lutheranism is an ‘expression of Christianity’ that is ‘equivalent’ to Catholicism? Should we announce that it is OK that we be divided? Should we pretend that we are not? Should we finally ACCEPT the wound to the unity of the Christian Church? Are we supposed to care THAT LITTLE?

You have been here over one year. I know you don’t care to read links, but I assume you at least skim posts; please show me a post where I have ever indicated, even vaguely implied, I believe anything near what this “question” asks. When you haven’t found this kind of nonsense, your question will have been answered.

Please Jon, no generalities. Please be specific as to exactly what you would like to see the Church do in its relationship to Protestantism in general, or specifically Lutheranism in total or the LCMS more specifically.

Participate in ecumenical dialogue, as partners in Christ trying to resolve the divisions that have wounded His Church. The specifics I leave to our leaders, something I know you to be uncomfortable with.

Given the subject of the thread, I am struck by the term ‘defiant unwillingness’.

Really? Let me know when you accept the statements of your fellow Christians, such as when we say that we do not consider any individual pope to be the Anti-Christ.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

Jon,

I think you have missed the point in the AntiChrist issue. We know YOU do not believe it is any individual Pope but the issue is that even a statement that the “Office” is AntiChrist is problematic with Catholics.

That said to me it’s just another invention of Luther in his invention of new doctrine.

Mary.

That said it’s not really the topic of the thread but I choose to address it as it is the closing remark in the above post in response to Topper.

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

I think you have missed the point in the AntiChrist issue. We know YOU do not believe it is any individual Pope but the issue is that even a statement that the “Office” is AntiChrist is problematic with Catholics.

That said to me it’s just another invention of Luther in his invention of new doctrine.

Mary.

That said it’s not really the topic of the thread but I choose to address it as it is the closing remark in the above post in response to Topper.

Hi Mary,
Topper has actually rejected the position you state in the first sentence.

Of course its offensive. I’ve never said anything different. In fact, I’ve said that I find the term unnecessary in today’s ecumenical climate. We can speak of the teachings that the pope has universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction as being heterodox. OTOH, the teaching of unam sanctam, including its more resent, “positive reformulation” is equally offensive to many non-Catholics.

As for it being Luther’s invention, that charge has been used on more than one occasion, and before Luther.

I appreciate you addressing it.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

Hi Mary,
Topper has actually rejected the position you state in the first sentence.

Of course its offensive. I’ve never said anything different. In fact, I’ve said that I find the term unnecessary in today’s ecumenical climate. We can speak of the teachings that the pope has universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction as being heterodox. OTOH, the teaching of unam sanctam, including its more resent, “positive reformulation” is equally offensive to many non-Catholics.

As for it being Luther’s invention, that charge has been used on more than one occasion, and before Luther.

I appreciate you addressing it.

Jon

Quite honestly, my goal in life is not to discuss Topper and what he has rejected.

That said, there are Lutherans that do believe any Pope is the AntiChrist. I have met two one is a Pastor. Now that said, I don’t know how one discerns which particular Pope is or is not as such because they all have the attributes you list above. Two is not a large sample.

That said I’ll take the “words out of your mouth” That may be their OWN PERSONAL BELIEF and not official Lutheran confessional teaching I realize.

Don’t want to get off topic FWIW

Mary.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Hi Topper,
My wife owns a little shop in a town here in NC. Recently she came across on of those review websites. One of those anonymous reviews was rather scathing. Even if we weren’t married and I only just knew her, I would not have recognized the remarks as being about her. We just assume it was written by someone who perhaps has a bias against her type of shop (which has a religious tone to it), or some other bias.
So, in the same way, I’m willing to assume the possibility someone wrote those anonymous reviews of Sobolewski’s book who doesn’t like the message, who perhaps believes that anything positive written about Luther hurts the Catholic Church, and is therefore anti-Catholic.
At five bucks for a used copy, my curiosity will likely override any influence the anonymous reviewers may hold.

I do appreciate your recommendation, however.

Jon

I have to admit that I am intrigued by Sobolewski’s book and will undoubtedly spring for it, although without high expectations at this point.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

I have to admit that I am intrigued by Sobolewski’s book and will undoubtedly spring for it, although without high expectations at this point.

Hi Topper,

Even the title is intriguing, though I don’t expect the conclusion to be that hyperbolic. Perhaps when we have both finished it, we can discuss it. Who knows, we might even find some areas of agreement.

Jon

 

[Contarini]

Topper, I don’t want to ignore your specific points, but lest this dialogue become unwieldy I’m going to respond in brief to some things that seem important to me rather than going point by point through your admirably thorough and detailed replies. Feel free to point out things you think I need to address that I’ve ignored, although I probably need, yet again, to work on minimizing my participation in this forum. It can become terribly addictive

I don’t know either Payton or Ozment personally. Ozment is of course one of the most eminent scholars in the field–he actually was a fellow-student of Heiko Oberman along with my advisor Steinmetz, though he and Steinmetz went in rather different directions. Ozment’s tendency to play up the political and social aspects of the Reformation is one of the major ways in which they differ. I did not mention princely support simply because that appeared to be the factor you were crediting with Luther’s “success,” and I was taking for granted that we both know this was a major factor. But you’re right–I should have said so explicitly, given my criticisms of you for trying to correct one overemphasis by means of another. It is important not to play down either the intrinsic appeal of Luther’s ideas to many people or the political reasons why many powerful people supported his ideas. Both are necessary parts of an adequate explanation.

I think that Ozment himself is somewhat overreacting against the confessional “intellectual history” tradition in which he was trained (and in which Steinmetz trained me, though with a more ecumenical slant). Yes, rulers were happy to find ideas that they could use to cement their control over regional churches. And I think Ozment is generally right that the Reformation largely lost the common people quite early. (Peter Blickle, *The Communal Reformation,*Misunderstanding book came out. I’m rather envious because I’ve wanted for some time to write a book along these lines, and now he’s taken up the niche. Ironically, given the way you’re using him here, when I read the book recently I thought, “Topper would be happy to hear my reaction to this book, because I think Payton is way too easy on Luther.” His basic agenda is similar to mine: he respects the Reformation as a prophetic, insightful movement but attacks it as a norm. So far so good. But he takes a very anti-scholastic line and follows the common practice of blaming most of the problems with the Reformation on later generations. I think that lets Luther and Calvin and the other “founding fathers” off far too easily. In many ways, I think the Protestant scholastics were trying to correct the imbalances of the first couple generations.

Another irony, given your polemic against Lutherans on this forum, is that Payton’s “misunderstanding” thesis, which you endorse, is a common Lutheran apologetic tactic to distance Luther from figures in the Reformation era they find less congenial. Anything people found in Luther that confessional Lutherans don’t find in him, they claim was a misunderstanding. I’m not convinced. That is not to say that no misunderstanding took place. Luther certainly was somewhat of a Rorschach blot for his contemporaries, and many of them had a lot of trouble understanding his paradoxical central thesis and how his wide-ranging ideas were connected. Luther himself, as you have suggested, didn’t entirely understand where he was headed for quite a while. In fact, I think your comparison of Luther with your colleague who had a lot of ideas but no critical judgment about them was quite apt. Naturally the things Luther said that matched up with existing ideas were easier to understand than were his most original and distinctive ideas.

I don’t think that takes away from my point that Luther was persuasive to many people in ways that more conventional theologians, like Eck, were not.

I certainly agree that originality is a dubious thing to aim for in theology. However, I disagree entirely with your view that poets belong in the liturgy and not in theology. In fact, I think that the split you’re making between theology and liturgy is at the heart of many of the problems with modern Western Catholicism.

Edwin

 

[Topper17]

Hi Edwin,

Thanks for your response.

In other words, there absolutely is a way to portray Luther as the victor at Leipzig–by presenting it as the moment that forced him to fall back on the authority of Scripture, which of course from the standard Protestant perspective is what he should have been relying on all along. In other words, in the standard Protestant narrative Leipzig is the moment where the fussy pedant Eck strips away Luther’s illusions about the compatibility of his teachings with Catholic tradition, forcing him to realize that Scripture is the only truly solid basis for Christian doctrine.

Luther knew that he had clearly been defeated by Eck. It was not because Eck was a superior debater, or that Eck was better educated, or that he knew Church history better than did Luther’s, although all these things were true. Even though Luther knew more than a year before Leipzig as to exactly what Eck was going to charge, he went to Leipzig unprepared to answer those charges. He basically debated on the fly, whereas Eck, his supposed inferior, had a plan. Eck laid a trap for Luther and Luther blundered right into it, finally admitting (including finally to himself by the way) that his beliefs were heretical.

Only when a Reformation scholar was hired at my college (actually after I graduated but before I had made a final decision about grad school) and I sat in on his class on the Reformation did I learn that actually at the time it was regarded as a loss.

That is my point exactly. You had to be almost finished college before you learned that it was a loss.

Essentially, Luther lost by the rules and so changed the rules. But he was so successful in doing so that his loss was, effectively, a stunning victory. (That’s not to say that he was right, only that he managed to persuade a large section of Western Christendom that his revision of the rules was correct.

OK, so who is it, specifically and exactly who should be authorized to ‘change the rules’? Furthermore, if you believe that the establishment of Sola Scriptura was some kind of ‘victory’ then we are not going to agree on very much at all. Was the secularization of Western Christendom a smashing success?

I agree that Luther’s identification of his own insights with the Word of God has caused immense trouble.

I agree and am actually a big fan of the understatement.

If Eck’s conventionality had arisen from humility, then it would be admirable. I don’t think humility is generally considered one of his virtues, though. But I’m really not interested in tearing down his character. I think he was a decent person who sincerely defended what he believed to be true. He just was no match for Luther. Since you’ve read Luther and been unmoved, I can’t persuade you to see what I see in Luther. But Luther burns. Eck paints by the numbers. He’s clever. But he had no profound insights into the Christian faith. Luther did. And if you don’t see that, then it’s hard to argue with you any more than with someone who doesn’t like Beethoven.

There is no question that Eck had a fairly high opinion of himself, but compared to Luther, he was a demur wallflower. It is also true that he sought personal glory in his conflict with Luther, but I don’t thing that that was his primary motive at all. His motive was to defend the Church that Christ established on earth. Luther’s was the exact opposite, at least as far as his desires regarding the Catholic Church were concerned.

I think there’s some truth to this, actually. But Luther did, in fact, have a good notion of how his ideas interacted with reality, or else he wouldn’t have been as practically successful as he was. As I’m sure you will agree (indeed I’m sure you give this aspect of the Reformation far more importance than I do), Luther was successful largely because of his ability to persuade rulers to accept his ideas. The man who wrote “Letter to the German Nobility” had an excellent sense of how his ideas played in the “real world.”

What he knew was that he needed to be protected by the secular leaders and that he had to play to them. What he didn’t know, but should have was how much doctrinal authority he was going to have to give them in the process.

God Bless You Edwin, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

On the other hand the person who wrote that book may have simply believed the review of the book he wrote and has no “ulterior motive” such as “OMIGOsh it said something positive about Luther which will Hurt the Catholic Church.”

You are kidding yourself if you think anything positive about Luther hurts the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church will survive this. SOMEHOW…

There is of course the ‘remote’ possibility that the two people who wrote those scathing reviews of that book actually believed what they wrote about it. I mean it COULD like that. After all, this now 15 year old book has not exactly become a ‘standard’ in Luther literature.

I do have to admit that it is probably inevitable that I will buy it. On the other hand I already have a lot of things I want to read which I KNOW are worthwhile.

God Bless You Mary, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Edwin,

Thanks for your response.

Ironically, my advisor once described Thomas Muntzer that way (actually comparing him to my advisor’s colleague Stanley Hauerwas, the star of the Duke Divinity Faculty and thus a frequent butt of my advisor’s acerbic wit): both Muntzer and Hauerwas, my advisor said, got up every morning with ten new ideas. “But didn’t Luther do that too, I asked?” “Yes,” said Steinmetz. “But in Luther’s case they were good ideas.”

I am assuming that this is what you mean by the ‘Whig narrative’, which by the way I wish you would formally define.

I think that’s untrue. If it were true, Luther would probably have rejected the Real Presence, infant baptism and maybe even the Trinity, as other more radical reformers did.

If you will remember Edwin, it was Dave Armstrong who chronicled a list of 50 doctrines of the Catholic Church that Luther challenged/refuted/denied even BEFORE his excommunication. If that is not evidence that he was not AT ALL loyal to the teachings of the Church, then what could be?

I don’t think that’s quite true either, though it’s true that he wasn’t a systematic thinker and often didn’t foresee how other people would use his ideas. He was flying by the seat of his pants, and as I think you mentioned above he wrote extremely fast, sending off pages to the printer’s as fast as he put them down.

So are you defending the ‘right’ of an individual Theologian who was not a systematic thinker to ‘blow up the system’ and replace it with something of his own making? Wouldn’t a good Theologian have anticipated the ways in which his radical teachings would be ‘reinterpreted’? Don’t you think Luther should have thought a couple of moves ahead rather than just assuming that whatever he wrote was automatically correct?

Agreed. He was probably the least respectful to the Fathers of all the major “magisterial” Reformers. This is something many people don’t realize, and which the standard Reformed propaganda about Luther being the initiator who didn’t entirely follow through on his own ideas has obscured. The “Reformed” were in many ways more conservative methodologically than Luther.

Agreed.

I agree, actually. My point about Eck was that when you have someone of Luther’s caliber in terms of originality running around, someone like Eck is going to look pretty pale by comparison. And also it’s a tentative spiritual judgment–I can see in Luther’s writings clear evidence of his love of God and his desire to share with others the freedom in Christ that he had found. Eck may well have been motivated by love of God and neighbor, but his writings could easily have been written by a man simply concerned to defend the establishment because it was the establishment.

There we go with the whole ‘originality’ thing again. I realize that you are currently in midstream, but I would suggest that once you get to the other side, and get ‘dried off’, (which takes more time that you might think) you might look back on this whole ‘originality’ and ‘creativity’ thing a little differently.

I have a hard time with the whole thing about Luther’s ‘caliber’, given the fact that he unleashed Sola Scriptura + Private Interpretation on Western Christendom and REFUSED to heed the warnings that it would cause doctrinal confusion and dissension. It seem to me that a Theologian of ‘small caliber’ (like a 22) would have recognized that that was EXACTLY going to happen.

I don’t think it’s quite that simple, but basically yes, Luther and other early Protestants backed away from their more radical language once they saw where it was headed, and did set themselves up as theological authorities on the grounds that their teachings were the clear teaching of Scripture. But of course the horse was out of the barn by then. . . .

Exactly, but then it was a horse that Luther let out, and once he realized what it was going to do he tried to get it back in the barn, in the process building his OWN BARN to try to herd it into. However, by that time there had been a lot of denominational ‘procreation’ and were a LOT more individual horses as a result, and there were a whole lot of “Luther’s” out there building THEIR OWN barns and trying to herd horses into. What a mess? How many barns are there now?

As Catholic Priest and Doctor George Aguis put it:

“……if Martin Luther and the other so-called reformers of the sixteenth century could ever come to life again, they would hardly recognize their work.” “Tradition and the Church”, pg. xxxii

I think they would be mortified if they could see what the results of their teachings have been. I think that they would recognize that the warnings that they received from the Church have indeed come true. What mystifies me is how people today can simply dismiss the fact that Luther was so foolish to dismiss these warnings and that the Catholics making them were in fact correct.

Is it that this fact goes against what you call the ‘Whig narrative’?

God Bless You Edwin, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your response.

Hi Topper: I response to your 638 post: Looking back at the reformation, it seems to me more a revolt against the CC than a real reform in that there were divisions within the ranks of the reformers of the time, which continues in our day and age. Neither Luther, Calvin, Zwingli among other reformers agreed with the other except to contest the spiritual authority of the CC.

                  Each reformer seems to have had their own idea's of what Scripture said and meant different from the other. Each had their own doctrines that they believed correctly interpreted Scripture and what they believed everyone needed to believe. There was no unity between the reformers in what one was to believe excepting to refuse the spiritual authority of the CC.

                  Today one can look at the yellow pages and see how many different churches claim to be Bible only or Bible based, each having a different doctrine and understanding and interpretation of Scripture of what it says and means. Luther stated "matters of faith each Christian is his own pope and council," leading to the individual becoming  an authority unto oneself.  The individual now has the authority to determine whether or not a particular church is teaching doctrine properly. It is not the church that has the real authority but the individual who has the spiritual authority now to claim to have the guidance of the Holy Spirit to the correct interpretation, and meaning of what any particular Scriptural passage says. No need for anyone or church to decide what is doctrine or not or how Scripture is to be interpreted, the individual is now that spiritual authority. 

                  To me, the Reformation was not really a reformation at all but a revolt against the Spiritual authority of the CC. There was no unity to speak of, but chaos in that now anyone could decide for oneself how and in what manor Scripture is to be interpreted and understood. If one decides that the church one goes to is not teaching doctrine properly or correctly one leaves and goes to another or even starts a church in which his understanding and interpretation of Scripture is promoted.

                    The more I read the history of the reformation, the more I see it as an revolt against the spiritual authority of the CC, the chaos it caused by each claiming a doctrine different from another, disunity of what to believe Scripture says and means. My question becomes how can one call it a reformation when each reformer could not agree on doctrines? What I see is that each reformer revolted against the CC and each other. Even in our day and age one can see Churches not agreeing on doctrines within their own particular denomination, which then is really a revolt rather than reform.

Great post Spina. What you have written fits perfectly with the actual history of the time and maybe that is why some people do not want this history to come out.

The thing that I have difficulty understanding, still, is how people could have failed to see the “Reformation” for what it actually was at the time.

The suggestion that people Luther’s early support was mostly theological might fit into what Edwin calls the ‘Whig narrative’, but it is not all that well supported by the historical facts.

Steven Ozment points out that the guilds “with a history of opposition to reigning governmental authority also stand out amongst the first Protestant converts.” He also mentions that in the city of Amiens in France – "guild (members) the city’s…poorest, and least literate, became Protestant in disproportionate numbers……

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that people who felt pushed around and bullied by either local or distant authority – whether a struggling guild by an autocratic city council or a prosperous city or village by a powerful prince or lord – tended to see in the Protestant movement an ally……

The initial mass popularity of Protestantism in Germany and Switzerland probably lay as much in willful political misperception as it did in spiritual attraction. The simple folk knew as well as their betters where their material interests lay. All sides, in fact, manipulated their Reformation to their own ends as best they could……

The first reformers were themselves traditional clergy and quite a few, like Luther, renegade monks.” Steven Ozment, “Protestants, the Birth of a Revolution”, pg. 20-21

A movement at least in part led by ‘renegade monks’ – does not seem quite as legitimate as one led by a ‘religious genius’ does it?

It seems that Harvard Professor Ozment has no interest in defending the ‘Whig narrative’ or the ‘Legend’. He is clear as to the responsibility for our theological dissension:

“Luther started a process of spiritual fragmentation and competition that still goes on in Western Christendom today.” Ibid, pg. 1

Why is this evidence so difficult to see for what it is? I would suggest that Ozment points us in the right direction:

“The Protestant temperament finds nothing more painful thank knowing that is has believed in vain.” Ibid, pg. 6

Personally I believe that this is the key, and I also believe that in this ‘temperament’ we see a reflection of Luther’s own. He could NOT believe that he was believing in vain. He was of course led by the Holy Sprit and as such he could not be wrong. This ‘thinking’ established the precedent for ALL of those others to make the same claim.

When you believe that the Holy Spirit leads you, personally, to understand the doctrinal teachings of Scripture correctly, then automatically those who disagree with you, at the very least, are LESS ‘led’ than you are, and very much in need of your correcting of them. At that ‘point’ it is very much your Spirit led ‘duty’ to oppose them, whoever they might be.

Does that make sense Spina?

God Bless You, Topper

 

[Topper17]

An astounding question coming from someone who is so well-read and intelligent. A Lutheran ordinariate means nothing without doctrinal unity, or as some documents refer to, a unity in diversity of those things that can be diverse. again, those would be decided, not by anonymous lay posters on an internet forum, but by the theologians and leaders of our communions.
The last sentence is even more astounding. Its as if you have no understanding of how a dialogue, much less a reconciliation, would work. I know that can’t be true, so I can only surmise that it was for polemical purposes only. But to answer anyway: common sense would obviously indicate that any statements of condemnation, in both directions, would be eliminated, since we would be in UNITY!!!

You have been here over one year. I know you don’t care to read links, but I assume you at least skim posts; please show me a post where I have ever indicated, even vaguely implied, I believe anything near what this “question” asks. When you haven’t found this kind of nonsense, your question will have been answered.

Participate in ecumenical dialogue, as partners in Christ trying to resolve the divisions that have wounded His Church. The specifics I leave to our leaders, something I know you to be uncomfortable with.

Really? Let me know when you accept the statements of your fellow Christians, such as when we say that we do not consider any individual pope to be the Anti-Christ.

Jon

 

[Chong]

Hi, Chong ! After Peter’s lead speech James indeed makes a judgment in governance and faith.

Acts 15
19.Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble the gentiles that turn to God.
20 but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from un-chastity and from what is strangled and from blood.
21 For from early generations Moses has had in every city those who preach him, for he is read every sabbath in the synagogues."
22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren,
23 with the following letter: "The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cili’cia, greeting.
24 Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions,
25. it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Paul and barnabas.

God Bless

By then the religion was very young and not very much spread out. Control was possible from as the apostles knew one another and mostly spoke one language.
It is surprising that later the center of governance shifted from Jerusalem to Rome. It is also surprising that we do not have a history on another council in Jerusalem despite the many doctrinal challenges that were there.

We thank those men & women who came up with a Cannon of the Scriptures as they are a guide to whoever ascribes to the religion of Christianity. The cannon is the unifying factor, its like a constitution of a country. Even the citation you gave was written as a cannon of that particular time, to unite people under one doctrine, and not one name.