LUTHER: The 2003 film with Joseph Fiennes

[TertiumQuid]

Malachi4U:

“What shall we Christians do now with this depraved and damned people of the Jews? … I will give my faithful advice: First, that one should set fire to their synagogues. . . . Then that one should also break down and destroy their houses. . . . That one should drive them out the country.”

“Their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to teach any more.”

These quotes are from On The Jews And Their Lies (1543). I find it interesting that modern-day Protestants will admit to Luther’s awful comments. There is no attempt to hide the faults of Luther. The editors of Luther’s Works explain,

“The fact that Luther, during the last years of his life, wrote treatises harshly condemnatory of the Jews and Judaism is rather widely known. The treatises themselves, however, have not previously been available in English. The publication here of the longest and most infamous of them, On the Jews and Their Lies, will no doubt prove dismaying to many readers, not only because it shows Luther at his least attractive, but also because of the potential misuse of this material. The risk to Luther’s reputation is gladly borne, since the exposure of a broader range of his writings to modern critical judgment is an inherent purpose of this American edition. However, the thought of possible misuse of this material, to the detriment either of the Jewish people or of Jewish-Christian relations today, has occasioned great misgivings. Both editor and publisher, therefore, wish to make clear at the very outset that publication of this treatise is being undertaken only to make available the necessary documents for scholarly study of this aspect of Luther’s thought, which has played so fateful a role in the development of anti-Semitism in Western culture. Such publication is in no way intended as an endorsement of the distorted views of Jewish faith and practice or the defamation of the Jewish people which this treatise contains.”

One has to stop and ask, “Why do Catholics always resort to bringing up Luther’s later attitudes toward the Jews?” The answer: it’s important to deflect the importance of Luther’s pointing out the abuse of the 16th Century Roman Church. Rather than deal with the argumentation and need for reform, try to discredit Luther by attacking his moral fabric. Indeed, Luther met with this same type of argumentation in his own life. One of Luther’s earliest Catholic opponents, Johannes Cochlaeus, spent a great deal of his life writing against Luther, and went so far as maintaining printing presses at his own cost to make sure his work was published. Cochlaeus said of Luther,

“Luther is a child of the devil, possessed by the devil, full of falsehood and vainglory. His revolt was caused by monkish envy of the Dominican, Tetzel; he lusts after wine and women, is without conscience, and approves any means to gain his end. He thinks only of himself. He perpetrated the act of nailing up the theses for forty two gulden- the sum he required to buy a new cowl. He is a liar and a hypocrite, cowardly and quarrelsome. There is no drop of German blood in him…”

Insofar as these two quotes Malachi4U used express Luther’s opinion in 1543, they are accurate. However, what these quotes don’t do is give you an overview of Luther’s entire complicated career and attitude toward the Jews. Quotes like the ones Malachi4U used leave one with a caricature that Luther was a life-long-fire-breathing anti-Semite. This is hardly true.

This is probably the reason why the Luther movie doesn’t deal with Luther’s later treatises against the Jews. They come at the end of his life. Even many good biographies focus on the first years of Luther’s career up to 1530 (as Mark U. Edwards so correctly points out in his book, Luther’s Last Battles, “Although the vast majority of historical studies of Luther deal exclusively with the events through 1530, Luther did not die at the Imperial Diet of Augsburg. On the contrary, after living another 15 years- a period longer than the hectic span from 1517 to 1530- he died of heart failure on 18 February 1546, 62 years old”). Hence, the Luther movie follows the normal pattern of biographical presentation. I say this to point out, there probably wasn’t a Protestant conspiracy to leave this information out. Rather, the movie follows one of the normal methods of presenting Luther’s life.

Before I deal specifically with the quotes (the first quote is a compilation of four pages scaled down to a few sentences, which is not may way of citing sources!), it’s best to understand why Luther arrived where he did at the end of his life. It will probably take me a few posts, so bear with me. The information I utilize is the result of my own studies. Thus, I’m not doing a “cut and paste” of someone’ else’s material. It is all done by the hard work of research.

James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Before I deal specifically with the quotes Malachi4U posted, it’s best to understand why Luther arrived where he did at the end of his life in his attitude towards Judasim and the Jews.

Martin Luther was born into a society of animosity toward the Jews. The Jews were stigmatized as those who killed Christ, and deserved to experience God’s wraith as His rejected people. They had become the scapegoats of society, blamed for countless evils befalling the medieval age. The populace had gone as far to create fictional crimes to charge to their account. They were said to partake in ritual murders: slaughterers’ of Christian children for blood to use during Passover. Aware of their societal scorn, Luther was to say of them:

“The Jews are the most miserable people on earth. They are plagued everywhere, and scattered about all countries, having no certain resting place. They sit as on a wheelbarrow, without a country, people, or government; yet they wait on with earnest confidence; they cheer up themselves and say: It will soon be better with us"

During the controversy over the banning and destroying of Hebrew books in the 1510’s, the young Luther sided with the great Hebraist John Reuchlin who was being investigated by the Inquisition for his interest in Hebrew literature. Luther saw the great value of Reuchlin’s Rudiments, the first Hebrew grammar published in Germany. Luther expressed his concern in 1514 for the great Hebraist: “let us pray for our Reuchlin.” Luther saw great value in learning the Hebrew language. When an opportunity arose in 1519 to have the learned Jewish scholar Matthew Adrian teach at Wittenberg, Luther made haste to acquire him. This is not to suggest that Luther was a defender Judaism. Rather, his primary concern was “the preservation of Hebrew literature for scholarly purposes, rather than the merits of Judaism or the Jews as such.”

In 1523 Luther published Jesus Christ was born a Jew. Against the spirit of medieval culture, Luther took bold steps of tolerance towards the Jews. He said,

“I would request and advise that one deal gently with them and instruct them from Scripture; then some of them may come along. Instead of this we are trying only to drive them by force, slandering them, accusing them of having Christian blood if they don’t stink, and I know not what other foolishness. So long as we thus treat them like dogs, how can we expect to work any good among them? Again, when we forbid them to labor and do business and have any human fellowship with us, thereby forcing them into usury, how is that supposed to do them any good? If we really want to help them, we must be guided in our dealings with them not by papal law but by the law of Christian love. We must receive them cordially, and permit them to trade and work with us, that they may have occasion and opportunity to associate with us, hear our Christian teaching, and witness our Christian life. If some of them should prove stiff-necked, what of it? After all, we ourselves are not all good Christians either.”

continued-

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

In this treatise, Luther expresses sympathy toward the Jews saying that he would not have become a Christian either if he had been born a Jew under the papacy:

Our fools, the popes, bishops, sophists, and monks—the crude ***** heads—have hitherto so treated the Jews that anyone who wished to be a good Christian would almost have had to become a Jew. If I had been a Jew and had seen such dolts and blockheads govern and teach the Christian faith, I would sooner have become a hog than a Christian. They have dealt with the Jews as if they were dogs rather than human beings; they have done little else than deride them and seize their property. When they baptize them they show them nothing of Christian doctrine or life, but only subject them to popishness and monkery. When the Jews then see that Judaism has such strong support in Scripture, and that Christianity has become a mere babble without reliance on Scripture, how can they possibly compose themselves and become right good Christians? I have myself heard from pious baptized Jews that if they had not in our day heard the gospel they would have remained Jews under the cloak of Christianity for the rest of their days. For they acknowledge that they have never yet heard anything about Christ from those who baptized and taught them.

I hope that if one deals in a kindly way with the Jews and instructs them carefully from Holy Scripture, many of them will become genuine Christians and turn again to the faith of their fathers, the prophets and patriarchs. They will only be frightened further away from it if their Judaism is so utterly rejected that nothing is allowed to remain, and they are treated only with arrogance and scorn. If the apostles, who also were Jews, had dealt with us Gentiles as we Gentiles deal with the Jews, there would never have been a Christian among the Gentiles. Since they dealt with us Gentiles in such brotherly fashion, we in our turn ought to treat the Jews in a brotherly manner in order that we might convert some of them. For even we ourselves are not yet all very far along, not to speak of having arrived.”

Against the cultural stereotype that the Jews were enemies of Christ, Luther says that the Jews are (biologically speaking), closest to Christ:

“When we are inclined to boast of our position we should remember that we are but Gentiles, while the Jews are of the lineage of Christ. We are aliens and in-laws; they are blood relatives, cousins, and brothers of our Lord. Therefore, if one is to boast of flesh and blood, the Jews are actually nearer to Christ than we are, as St. Paul says in Romans 9. God has also demonstrated this by his acts, for to no nation among the Gentiles has he granted so high an honor as he has to the Jews. For from among the Gentiles there have been raised up no patriarchs, no apostles, no prophets, indeed, very few genuine Christians either. And although the gospel has been proclaimed to all the world, yet He committed the Holy Scriptures, that is, the law and the prophets, to no nation except the Jews, as Paul says in Romans 3 and Psalm 147 , “He declares his word to Jacob, his statutes and ordinances to Israel. He has not dealt thus with any other nation; nor revealed his ordinances to them.”

Luther was convinced that by exposing the errors and abuses of the papacy, and treating them with kindness, the Jews would be converted:

“If I were a Jew, I would suffer the rack ten times before I would go over to the pope. The papists have so demeaned themselves that a good Christian would rather be a Jew than one of them, and a Jew would rather be a sow than a Christian. What good can we do the Jews when we constrain them, malign them, and hate them as dogs? When we deny them work and force them to usury, how can that help? We should use toward the Jews not the pope’s but Christ’s law of love. If some are stiff necked, what does that matter? We are not all good Christians.”

-continued-

James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Luther’s hope was that a proper understanding of the gospel would bring the Jews to faith in Christ. The Jews would only be returning to the ancient faith of their fathers and prophets. They were to cease waiting for the Messiah, for he had come 1500 years before. James Mackinnon says of Luther’s attitude,

“At this period he evidently had a genuine sympathy with a race which had, for so many centuries, been treated as an alien and an outcast among the nations. He was eager to offer its members the hand of fellowship in a common profession of allegiance to the Christ of the Gospels, in opposition to the disfigured Christ of the mediaeval Church, whose brutal intolerance, so little in keeping with the spirit of the former, had done so much to alienate them. His correspondence with converted Jews like Bernhard, to whom he sent a copy of the work, shows how eager he was to make amends for this brutal intolerance, in the hope that they would welcome Christianity in its evangelical form.”

In this hope, Luther was naïve, and converts were few. The approach of theological discussion was no match for the centuries of harsh treatment inflicted on the Jews. They had suffered intense persecutions at the hand of Christians. They were subject to harsh legal limitations, economic exploitations by rulers, and to persecution and maltreatment by the general public and authorities for supposed magical and demonic activities. Luther failed to convert the Jews through his writings. Luther scholar Roland Bainton commented, “When he endeavored to proselytize some rabbis, they undertook in return to make a Jew of him."

Thus ends my research into the early period of Luther’s attitudes towards the Jews. There are three distinct periods in Luther’s writings on the Jews that deserve a closer look. For any of you that have read these four posts, it must be bewildering- How did Luther go from these comments to what he said in 1543?

You see, studying Luther isn’t simply finding a couple of quotes. It’s a facinating study.

James Swan

 

[Eden]

firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0204/articles/neuhaus.html

I thought everyone would enjoy reading this article by Richard John Neuhaus, a former Lutheran pastor, who became a Catholic in 1990.

Here are some excerpts:
“Mine was a decision mandated by conscience. I have never found it in his writings, but a St. Louis professor who had been his student told me that the great confessional Lutheran theologian Peter Brunner regularly said that a Lutheran who does not daily ask himself why he is not a Roman Catholic cannot know why he is a Lutheran. That impressed me very deeply. I was thirty years a Lutheran pastor, and after thirty years of asking myself why I was not a Roman Catholic I finally ran out of answers that were convincing either to me or to others. And so I discovered not so much that I had made the decision as that the decision was made, and I have never looked back, except to trace the marks of grace, of sola gratia, each step of the way.”

“From my boyhood intuitions as an ecclesial Christian, it seemed self-evident that, if God intended to reveal any definite truths for the benefit of humankind, and if Jesus intended a continuing community of discipleship, then some reliable means would be provided for the preservation and transmission of such truths through the centuries. Catholics believe that God did provide such reliable means by giving the apostles and their successors, the bishops, authority to teach in His name and by promising to be with them forever. The teaching of the apostles and of the apostolic churches, securely grounded in the biblical Word of God, continues to this day, and will continue to the end of time. Catholics believe that, under certain carefully prescribed circumstances, the pope and the whole body of bishops are able to teach with infallibility. That is a word that frightens many, but I don’t think it should. It means that the Church is indefectible, that we have God’s promise that He will never allow the Church to definitively defect from the truth, to fall into apostasy. Infallibility, Avery Cardinal Dulles writes, “is simply another way of saying that the Holy Spirit will preserve the Church against using its full authority to require its members to assent to what is false.” Without that assurance, he adds, “the truth of revelation would not be preserved in recognizable form.” And, I would add, to obey the truth we must be able to recognize the truth.”

“The question of authority, the question of Who says so?, has been with the Church from the beginning. In Corinth some invoked Peter, some Paul, some Apollos, and some Christ. And so it was later with the Montanists, the Arians, the Nestorians, the Valentinians, the Donatists, and on and on. A sure mark of a heretical and schismatic community, said St. Augustine, is that it names itself by a man or an idea rather than by the simple title “Catholic.” Also centuries later, for example in the sixteenth century, those who had sense enough to know that the Church did not begin with their new theological insight tried to reconstruct Christian history to fit their views. Thus the Lutheran Matthias Illyricus Flacius compiled the Magdeburg Centuries; thus followers of John Knox claimed to have reestablished the polity of the New Testament Church; thus the “Landmarkist” historiography of American Baptists who trace the lineage of the one true Church through Cathari, Waldensians, Lollards, Albigenses, and all the way back to Jesus himself. All such efforts attempt to answer the question of authority. Some are less ludicrous than others, but none is plausible. As St. Augustine and all Catholic teachers have known, the teaching of the Church is lived forward, not reconstructed backward.”

 

[TertiumQuid]

Malachi4U:

So who said these horrible things? A Christian? A great reformer? A heritic? Easy, all these were from Luther.

Out of the six quotes you used, I proved four of them were utilized incorrectly and out of context. I stand with you condemning Luther with the 2 quotes you utilized somewhat accurately (though they don’t reflect the lifelong attitude of Luther toward the Jews). Luther stands with the majority of his generation (Protestant and Catholic) in their anti-Jewish sentiment and hatred.

I was just watching the movie Hotel Rwanda, and it heightened my profound sadness and deep anger toward Luther’s later anti-Jewish writings and his generation. Interestingly, one of the leading Roman Catholic theologians of Luther’s day, his nemesis John Eck, also wrote some virulent anti-Jewish tracts. Here we find the two leading theologians of the Protestant and Roman Catholic Church checking their brains at the door. How could two of the best minds of the sixteenth century be so wrong and not realize it? Had it just been Luther, perhaps we could say: “See that Protestant stuff is a bunch of hooey.” However, John Eck was considered a Roman Catholic Jedi knight. He was Top Gun. He also spoke the same nonsense Luther did.

Malachi4U:

True we all are sinners, but are these the words of a great reformer or a great DE-former?

One has to stop and ask, “Why do Catholics always resort to bringing up Luther’s later attitudes toward the Jews?” The answer: it’s important to deflect the importance of Luther’s pointing out the abuse of the 16th Century Roman Church. Rather than deal with the argumentation and need for reform, try to discredit Luther by attacking his moral fabric.

Indeed, Luther met with this same type of argumentation in his own life. One of Luther’s earliest Catholic opponents, Johannes Cochlaeus, spent a great deal of his life writing against Luther, and went so far as maintaining printing presses at his own cost to make sure his work was published.

The goal of Cochlaeus was to point out that Luther was thoroughly contradictory in his own beliefs. Cochlaeus ultimately did not fight against Luther via Scripture and Church decrees. Rather, he used Luther’s own words, set up in such a way that they appeared contradictory and absurd. Cochlaeus had done what would later be a standard approach to vilifying Luther: create books of out-of-context Luther quotes so parishioners of Catholicism would not have to read Luther for themselves.

Malachi4U:

Was Luther just an excuse and a pawn of the rich and powerfull to steal the wealth from the people and Christs body, His Catholic Church?

No and yes. This is a complicated topic also. Remember, in the 16th Century church and state were combined. I’m convinced that any time this happens, trouble and sin will be the result rather than love, peace and pure Christianity.

Malachi4U:

Even the Lutherans today I went to church with refuse to use the abridged and edited/plagerized bible Luther miss-wrote. (Yes, I attended a Luhteran church for a long time.

Two links for you to dispel your unsubstantiated opinion:

bible-researcher.com/luther02.html

ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm

Malachi4U:

Perhaps we should make a movie about Luther that includes his sinnfullness and his hatred of Jews?

Insofar as these two quotes you used that express Luther’s opinion in 1543, they are accurate. However, what these quotes don’t do is give you an overview of Luther’s entire complicated career and attitude toward the Jews. Quotes like the ones you used leave one with a caricature that Luther was a life-long-fire-breathing anti-Semite. This is hardly true.

This is probably the reason why the Luther movie doesn’t deal with Luther’s later treatises against the Jews. They come at the end of his life. Even many good biographies focus on the first years of Luther’s career up to 1530 (as Mark U. Edwards so correctly points out in his book, Luther’s Last Battles, “Although the vast majority of historical studies of Luther deal exclusively with the events through 1530, Luther did not die at the Imperial Diet of Augsburg. On the contrary, after living another 15 years- a period longer than the hectic span from 1517 to 1530- he died of heart failure on 18 February 1546, 62 years old”). Hence, the Luther movie follows the normal pattern of biographical presentation. I say this to point out, there probably wasn’t a Protestant conspiracy to leave this information out. Rather, the movie follows one of the normal methods of presenting Luther’s life.

Malachi4U:

How he switched sides in the Peasent Revolt to save his own hide? Etc

I would be interested in hearing your argumentation substantiating that Luther “switched sides in the Peasent (sic) Revolt to save his own hide.”

Jamers Swan

 

[Peace-bwu]

CatherineofA:

It is interesting how perceptions can be different based on how you view the character and the subject matter. I have to say that I am not surprised that people who are Catholic or have Catholic leanings would dislike the film and those who are not Catholic or are strongly Protestant would find the movie well done.
I think the movie does a good job at portraying the corruption that existed in the hierarchy of the church offices as well as the questionable practices that were involved in the selling of indulgences. The movie had a good focus on Luther’s personal journey that went from his love of the church, to his trying to introduce reform, to his need to break away based on the reform that the church rejected.

If Luther had “stuck” to the things that actually needed reform, such as the corruption in some individuals of the heirarchy and the abuse or overuse of the selling of indulgences, that would have been great. The church is made up of human beings relying on the Grace of God. The problem is that Martin Luther wanted to change some crucial doctrine based on Apostolic and Scriptural Tradition. That was where he went wrong. He wanted parts of Scripture removed, and even debated on whether to remove the Book of Revelations! He wanted the use of relics and the concept that God could choose to use the material world to instill Grace upon us, such as with the Eucharist removed, ignoring the Scriptural basis for these belifs. The biggest problem was turning His back on the belief that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, that, as Jesus said, it IS His body… not that it represents His body or that Christ is Spriritually present *during or with *the meal, or that bread and Christ co-exist.

If Luther’s ideas had been merely reforms of misued pious traditions, that would have been fine, those issues have long been reformed within the Catholic Church. The problem was that Luther wanted to take it upon HIMSELF to change Apostolic Tradition and even Scripture. He thought he had the authority to do this and his followers, yes reformed the corruption present in the human element of the Catholic Church, but threw out the baby with the bath water, getting rid of precious teachings of Christ Himself to the Apostles. They traded the sins of corrupt clergy for their own sins of pride and their own will over Gods.

 

[Peace-bwu]

The goal of Cochlaeus was to point out that Luther was thoroughly contradictory in his own beliefs. Cochlaeus ultimately did not fight against Luther via Scripture and Church decrees. Rather, he used Luther’s own words, set up in such a way that they appeared contradictory and absurd. Cochlaeus had done what would later be a standard approach to vilifying Luther: create books of out-of-context Luther quotes so parishioners of Catholicism would not have to read Luther for themselves.

Not all Catholics are this ignorant. I read much of Luther’s work at a Catholic College theology class. It was unfiltered, unbiased by the professor presenting it, and it really made me take a strong look at the Catholic Church for a number of years. For a few years I even considered leaving the Catholic Church, it took this critical look at the Catholic Church for me to discover, for myself, as an adult, the Truth present in Apostolic Tradition and Scripture, held intact for over 2,000 years (5,000 if you include the Jewish Tradition and Scripture thrown out during teh reformation) I am eternally thankful for the Sacraments and the True Presence of the Eucharist, the fact that Christ would want to touch my life in such a physical way, so that I can tase, see and feel the goodness of the Lord leaves me awestruck . The fact that no matter what level of maturilty, intellect or education, an individual child of God is at, He comes to that person at their level through the Sacraments in such a personal way is amazing. It is all a part of God’s plan. I never regret my questioning or doubt on my journey closer to the Catholic Church. It was a blessing.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Peace-bwu:

Not all Catholics are this ignorant. I read much of Luther’s work at a Catholic College theology class. It was unfiltered, unbiased by the professor presenting it, and it really made me take a strong look at the Catholic Church for a number of years.

Yes agreed. i don’t for a moment mean to suggest anything about “all” Catholics. I have in mind those particular comments by Malachi4U, which are very reminiscent of Cochlaeus and the anti-Luther rhetoric which plagued Roman Catholic Luther studies for many years.

There is a wealth of Roman Catholic authors whose opinions and research are worthy of a close look. As Protestant author Richard Stauffer has noted, “If one wanted to sum up briefly the path Roman Luther-scholars have trodden since 1904, one could say that they passed from destructive criticism to a respectful encounter.” Their desire to understand the theological issues raised by Luther rather than setting up vilifying caricatures, serve to advance positive dialogues between Protestants and Catholics. Where Catholic scholarship has shined, Protestants would do well to appreciate their efforts, despite our disagreements.

Here’s my review of good Roman Catholic Luther studies:

ntrmin.org/Catholic%20Understanding%20of%20Luther%202.htm

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Eden]

You say that this is a hobby for you but I do not see the point of anyone continuing to “debate” Luther’s theology. It is quite an assumption to put Luther’s beliefs on equal par with Christ’s “deposit of faith” in the Catholic Church! There is no comparison and as such, Luther’s work is undeserving of continued, intense scrutiny. For all Catholics, it is important that we not become victims of revisionist history about the heresy that was Martin Luther. Apologist work for Luther is abetting the Devil. Luther was not given the authority to speak for Christ. That assertion remains unchallenged. The only conclusion to be drawn is that Luther was speaking for the spirit, although that spirit was the opposite of Holy. Who in the spiritual realm would benefit from a divided Christian Church? Who in the spiritual realm would benefit from confusion over Jesus’ intentions?

Whether I have the “correct translation” from the German or not, it is clear that Luther encouraged his followers to “sin and sin often” without the fear of losing salvation. (Can you imagine someone following this easy advice and after death- surprise! Shouldn’t have listened to Luther! :tsktsk: ) Luther’s corrupt philosophy can be explained away in mellifluous language, abundant Scripture quotations and blithe dismissal but its sounds ring from a dark source. Remember the angel who “knew more than God”? Luther was, in the end, just another “fallen angel”. These drunken words were certainly not inspired by the Holy Spirit:“Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: “Whatever has he been doing with her?” Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.” - Martin Luther

(D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe [Hermann Bohlau Verlag, 1893], vol. 2, no. 1472, April 7 - May 1, 1532, p. 33)

aquinas-multimedia.com/catherine/new.html

I don’t see what the point of continuing to discuss the ins and outs of Luther’s work would be. To subject Christ’s teaching (through His Church) to the undignified realm of “Luther debate” is unnecessary. I refuse to elevate Luther to that level or to give dignity to anything that he had to say about Jews or otherwise. Once a heretic - always a heretic. Need we say more?

 

[TertiumQuid]

EDEN:

You say that this is a hobby for you but I do not see the point of anyone continuing to “debate” Luther’s theology.

Yes, I enjoy studying Luther, and the “hobby” part is looking up Luther quotes as cited by Roman Catholics, then putting them back in their historical and theological contexts. Frankly, very little “debate” about Luther’s actual “theology” has gone on in this thread. It’s fairly obvious that the thrust by many here has been to negatively evaluate the moral character of Luther. I wish we could actually discuss Luther’s theology…

EDEN:

It is quite an assumption to put Luther’s beliefs on equal par with Christ’s “deposit of faith” in the Catholic Church! There is no comparison and as such, Luther’s work is undeserving of continued, intense scrutiny.

If Luther’s work is so “undeserving of continued, intense scrutiny” why do you and other Catholics here continually talk about him? Look to see how many “Luther” threads I’ve begun here: zip. Zero. If you’d like to post material about Luther without being cross examined by me, I suggest you become a member of this Catholic board: christianforums.com/f26-one-bread-one-body-catholic.html - this board allow virtually no counter responses from Protestants. You can say all you want about Luther, and not have to worry if its correct information or not. No one will challenge you. The ironic thing I have found is that Catholics discuss Luther more than Protestants. Most Protestants don’t know the difference between Martin Luther and Martin Luther King.

EDEN:

For all Catholics, it is important that we not become victims of revisionist history about the heresy that was Martin Luther.

This is a point to be proved. If I have offered “revisionist history”, show me where. The assumption seems to be that I am propagating “revisionist history” and that you nice Catholic folks are my “victims.” This is border-line insulting.

EDEN:

Apologist work for Luther is abetting the Devil.

Now this is insulting. I am not even a Lutheran. I disagree with Luther on many subjects. However, if Luther, Calvin, Pope Leo, or even Eden are being unjustly maligned, I will do what’s necessary to defend them.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

EDEN:

Luther was not given the authority to speak for Christ. That assertion remains unchallenged. The only conclusion to be drawn is that Luther was speaking for the spirit, although that spirit was the opposite of Holy. Who in the spiritual realm would benefit from a divided Christian Church? Who in the spiritual realm would benefit from confusion over Jesus’ intentions?

I would like to eventually get to discuss authority with you. However, be prepared. I suggest you read up on Luther’s view of authority, before you discuss it. That way, I won’t have to spend a lot of time explaining to you what it is. We could actually “discuss” it, rather than me having to explain it to you. My suggestion is this book: amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0800618556/qid=1115670074/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-8164029-2427231?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

EDEN:

Whether I have the “correct translation” from the German or not,

I have never accused anyone here (or anywhere for that matter) of miss-translating Luther. I do though exhort English-speaking people to use Luther’s Works as translated in English. It makes things much easier when discussing what he said, particularly when a context is needed.

EDEN:

it is clear that Luther encouraged his followers to “sin and sin often” without the fear of losing salvation. (Can you imagine someone following this easy advice and after death- surprise!

I covered this already in this thread, but I guess you missed it. You suggest that Luther did not believe in sanctification, or attempting to live a holy life pleasing to God. Such is far from the truth. Luther continually exhorted the people to abstain from sin, and to perform good works. The editors of Luther’s Works explain, “Passages such as this were misunderstood and used as main arguments against Luther. Luther was interpreted as encouraging laxity and licentiousness.” I recently read through many sermons from Luther, and his emphasis to stop sinning and perform good works to one’s neighbor was a continual, overly repetitious emphasis in his sermons.

Historically, Catholic scholar Heinrich Denifle had made popular the notion that Luther simply invented his doctrine of justification to excuse sinful behavior, thus Denifle spent considerable time painting Luther as a gross sinner. Later Catholic scholars saw past Denifle’s rhetoric and distorted facts and correctly saw that Luther never denied good works or holy living. Rather good works are the way in which faith expresses itself. For instance, Cathoic scholar F. Kiefl corrected "Denifle, maintaining that Luther’s doctrine of justification implied works as a fruit of justification, and that Luther was no libertine seeking excuses for low morality. He made the important point that Luther never sought to replace dogma by religious feeling” [Atkinson, Martin Luther: Prophet to the Church Catholic, 21].

Many Roman Catholics unknowingly still follow Denifle’s argument, and frequently misuse Luther’s “sin boldly” statement, attempting to portray Luther as a gross antinomian. A simple reading of Luther’s context for this statement, as well as explaining Luther’s fundamental distinction between law and gospel, usually silences the argument. The Catholic scholar Jared Wicks has correctly pointed out, “One needs to be on the lookout for Luther’s rhetorical flights, and to be judicious in discriminating between the substance of his message and the linguistic extremes with which he sometimes made his points” [Jared Wicks, Luther and His Spiritual Legacy, (Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1983), 29].

EDEN:

Shouldn’t have listened to Luther! ) Luther’s corrupt philosophy can be explained away in mellifluous language, abundant Scripture quotations and blithe dismissal but its sounds ring from a dark source. Remember the angel who “knew more than God”?

Again, this is border-line insulting. I actually had to look up the word “mellifluous”

James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

EDEN:

Luther was, in the end, just another “fallen angel”. These drunken words were certainly not inspired by the Holy Spirit:

“Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: “Whatever has he been doing with her?” Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.” - Martin Luther

(D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe [Hermann Bohlau Verlag, 1893], vol. 2, no. 1472, April 7 - May 1, 1532, p. 33)

I’m impressed; I didn’t know you could translate Luther from the German. To my knowledge, no bonifide source document from Luther’s lifetime exists that says he was ever drunk. Fact is, he often preached against drunkenness (do I need to provide quotes for you on this?).

Now, why not share the context the above quote with us? Do you really think Luther believed Jesus committed adultery? I’m sure you can’t share the context. My guess is you pulled it from Dave Armstrong’s paper. I suggest you read that paper of Armstrong’s. If I recall, the above comment is from one of Luther’s Tabletalk comments (and not available in English). Even Armstrong provides pertinent information about it. Dave points out:

The editor’s footnote on the same page reads:

“What Luther meant might have been made clearer if John Schlaginhaufen had indicated the context of the Reformer’s remarks. The probable context is suggested in a sermon of 1536, . . . in which Luther asserted that Christ was reproached by the world as a glutton, a winebibber, and even an adulterer.”

So, Luther actually said this, according to a very conservative Lutheran web page. It’s in Table-Talk, just as I suspected. And it is in the English translation of Luther’s Works. Apparently (and unfortunately) the context is not included in that edition. Perhaps it is in the German edition. Until that is clarified, I prefer to err on the side of caution and the benefit of the doubt and charity towards Luther, and agree that the above explanation is probably the correct one.

In regard to statements like these in Luther’s Tabletalk, I commend to you also these words by the Catholic Scholar Thomas O’Meara:

“…Catholics are using inaccurately rhetorical arguments when they make the value of Luther’s theology and reform depend upon his table-talk language. Rhetoric appeals to the mind- but it appeals through emotions. It reaches the mind not through a purely intellectual act, examining the case thoroughly and logically, but by leaps and bounds, driven by emotions and will, faculties incapable of a calm judgment of what is true.” (Thomas O’Meara, Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology, (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1966), 5).

EDEN:

I don’t see what the point of continuing to discuss the ins and outs of Luther’s work would be.

Interestingly, Internet Catholics love quoting Luther, particularly the “outs”. You seem to enjoy discussing Luther, as you have posted in many of the recent Luther-related threads here at Catholic Answers.

EDEN:

To subject Christ’s teaching (through His Church) to the undignified realm of “Luther debate” is unnecessary. I refuse to elevate Luther to that level or to give dignity to anything that he had to say about Jews or otherwise. Once a heretic - always a heretic. Need we say more?

If you’ve read my words carefully, you’ll note that I disagree and fault Luther for his words against the Jews. I haven’t even finished commenting on that subject (I only covered the first period in Luther’s life).

I can appreciate your passion for your church. But one must be very careful with Luther. However awful you may think he is, mis-citing him or unjustly slandering him (even with him being dead for hundreds of years) is still not a good idea. If one becomes a protestant because of Luther, or if one becomes a catholic because of Luther, their faith is misplaced.
Regards,
James Swan

 

[Mickey]

quote=Eden

Not sure why “Fundamentalists” have joined our discussion. Luther believed in one church that is visible and invisible, as do I.

Fundamentalists are just one more off-shoot of the off-shoot known as “Lutheran”. Jesus referred to His ONE Church as his bride. His bride is the Church on earth. What is that ONE Church? “The Bible, sacred Tradition, and the writings of the earliest Christians testify that the Church teaches with Jesus’ authority. In this age of countless competing religions, each clamoring for attention, one voice rises above the din: the Catholic Church, which the Bible calls ‘the pillar and foundation of truth’ (1 Tim. 3:15).” (Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth)

Luther lists the marks in order that people will be able to identify the church.

These are Luther’s marks “out of his head”. “If we wish to locate the Church founded by Jesus, we need to locate the one that has the four chief marks or qualities of his Church. The Church we seek must be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.” (Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth) catholic.com/library/pillar.asp

Quibbling? You have not established Luther’s authority to speak for the Holy Spirit. You have not answered my statement that the idea of “universal truth” is in direct opposition to Jesus’ own design of authority in His Church. The only quibbling I see is in discussing the details of one man’s theology which came “out of his head”.
[/quote]

Amen, Eden!

I find it rather odd that someone would dedicate so much time, effort, and resources attempting to defend “the father of division”.

:whacky:

 

[Eden]

So true, Mickey! I can’t understand why I never get an answer to my question “How did Luther have the authority to speak for the Holy Spirit?” Wouldn’t it seem important to clear that up before defending him? The silence speaks volumes. :ehh:

 

[JPhoenix75]

The guy BonJovi4Life told me to watch this movie so I can see the so called corruption of the Catholic Church. I wonder if it’s worth watching. I doubt it will change me at all.

 

[Eden]

The movie was sponsered by the Lutheran Churches of the United States and Germany. I’d like to see the Catholic version.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Mickey:

Amen, Eden!I find it rather odd that someone would dedicate so much time, effort, and resources attempting to defend “the father of division”.

The irony I find is that Roman Catholics spend much more time talking about Luther than Protestants. I would really like to know why.

I do have some reasons for studying Luther.

A few years back, I began dialoging with Roman Catholics on the CARM boards. These were the best discussions, because Church history comes to life! Anyway, “Luther” came up a lot, and was brought up mostly by Roman Catholics. Fairly common topics included: Luther’s alleged antinomianism, his rejection of certain canonical books, his alleged desire to be a Protestant pope, Luther’s partial responsibility for Nazi Germany, and Luther’s Mariology. Along with this were many Luther quotes. I’m a stickler for footnotes and references, so I started looking up the Luther quotes and charges brought out by Roman Catholics.

This comment of mine from a few years back highlights what I found when I started researching Luther:

“Roman Catholic theologian Joseph Lortz once remarked, “It is a difficult undertaking to attempt a valid and comprehensive interpretation of even the most basic elements of Luther’s thought within the scope of one article. With Luther as with no one else, it is easy to sketch distortedly, a fact that found formulation in Heinrich Boehmer’s well-known statement, “There are as many Luthers as there are books about Luther.” Indeed, the theological landscape is overgrown with Luthers. A quick search for information about Martin Luther on the World Wide Web reveals that polemics against Luther remain frequent and high-pitched, as different groups create the villain they find in his writings. The basic elements of Luther’s thought are generally missing, distorting the man, his theology, and his impact upon post-Reformation society.”

James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Eden:

So true, Mickey! I can’t understand why I never get an answer to my question “How did Luther have the authority to speak for the Holy Spirit?” Wouldn’t it seem important to clear that up before defending him? The silence speaks volumes. :ehh:

I posted this earlier, but i’m not sure at this point if you actually read what i’ve written:

I would like to eventually get to discuss authority with you. However, be prepared. I suggest you read up on Luther’s view of authority, before you discuss it. That way, I won’t have to spend a lot of time explaining to you what it is. We could actually “discuss” it, rather than me having to explain it to you. My suggestion is this book: amazon.com/exec/obidos/t…=books&n=507846

James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Eden:

The movie was sponsered by the Lutheran Churches of the United States and Germany. I’d like to see the Catholic version.

Indeed, lets see a Catholic version (Part 1):

**Sebastian Merkle ** was a German **Catholic historian ** from the University of Wurzburg. In 1929, he attributes religious motives to Luther, rather than revolutionary or psychological: “Merkle…[is] remembered in Germany as an excellent and also courageous historian, [he] lays down the lines that Roman historians of the Reformation should follow. From the outset they must refrain from belittling and detracting from Luther, recognize the religious motives for his action, perceive that he was not the father of the free-thinkers or a revolutionary, and in sum admit that the movement he started was solely spiritual."

Source:Richard Stauffer, Luther As Seen By Catholics, (Virginia: John Knox Press, 1967), 38

**German Catholic historian Anton Fischer ** puts forth an image of Luther as a “man of prayer;” an image that can be appreciated by Catholics: “Fischer makes a distinction in Luther between the fighter and the man of prayer. The former, to his mind, is the concern of only a part of Christianity; all Christian denominations can, how ever, lay a claim to the second. In so far as he was a man of prayer, Luther was truly ecumenical. Even a Church rich in believers who are devoted to prayer (he means the Roman Church, of course) has much to learn from him.”

Source:Richard Stauffer, Luther As Seen By Catholics, 38-39.

James Swan