Luther

[Eden]

You have come here to promote your research on Luther. I have never seen you respond to the threads about Calvinism. An example of the agenda to promote your work is this gratuitous reference to your articles which appear on Eric Svendsen’s blog that you posted today:

You wil note Armstrong links to two of my papers:

The Roman Catholic Perspective of Martin Luther, Part I (“hostile” historians" – by Calvinist James Swan)
The Roman Catholic Perspective of Martin Luther, Part II (more “favorable” or “fair” historians" – by Calvinist James Swan)

 

[Mickey]

TertiumQuid:

If someone did change their mind of course, that would be wonderful

I whole-heartedly agree!

TertiumQuid:

I am primarily a researcher. The only way my mind would change on a subject is if “the facts” didn’t fit into my presuppositions.

This is where you and I differ. I am not a researcher. I try to focus on prayer of the heart. Since I am confident that the Catholic Church is the true Church established by Jesus Christ, I am obedient to doctrines, teachings, disciplines and interpretations of the magisterium. I enjoy meditating on Scripture, reading the Church Fathers, praying the holy rosary, and sitting quietly so that God can speak to my heart. Sometimes researchers can get so caught up in what they perceive to be “the facts”, that their prayer life suffers. (I’m not saying this is the case with you). The following is an interesting quote from St John of Kronstadt:

Our heart is like a mirror; as the objects of the outer world are reflected in an ordinary mirror, so ought the truth to be reflected with all exactitude in our hearts.

TertiumQuid:

I deny their worth and truth,

I do not.

TertiumQuid:

Someone would first have to dialog with me about pennance and what exactly the sacrifice of Christ means- someone would have to deal with my presupositions first.,

I have a feeling that many have dialogued with you about this, and it has not changed your opinion.

TertiumQuid:

My interest is in the Reformation.

That is evident.

TertiumQuid:

It’s not always easy to be charitable.

Oddly enough, this forum has helped me to become more charitable.

Blessings to you James,
Mickey

 

[TertiumQuid]

Eden:

You have come here to promote your research on Luther. I have never seen you respond to the threads about Calvinism. An example of the agenda to promote your work is this gratuitous reference to your articles which appear on Eric Svendsen’s blog that you posted today:

Hi Eden,

Thanks for your concern.

Indeed, let’s talk about John Calvin. It would be great. I have papers as well about Calvin and the Reformation. “Calvinism” is fine as well. I don’t recall the topics about Calvinism here, though most of the time Catholics ask stuff like, “I know this Calvinist…how do I respond to him about X?” I really don’t have a lot to contribute to questions like those, obviously.

Just wanted to note also: I did not post links to the above articles in the above post. My point was to simply let you know that as sneaky and awful you think I am, Armstrong thought that my papers on those subjects were good enough for him to link to from his website. Now Dave and i have had heated disagreements. We have though, been able to dialog constructively at times. Perhaps the same may be true for you and I some day.

Regards,
James Swan

PS: I found some really inexpensive copies of John todd’s books for you:

dogbert.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=John+Todd&y=6&tn=Luther&x=27

You could get both his books on Luther for under ten bucks (of course, shipping and handling will put you up around $15.

 

[Eden]

I’ll help you find some Calvinism threads. They appear just about as frequently as the Luther threads although they do generate very little interest:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=71116&highlight=Calvinism

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=70794&highlight=Calvinism

Now Dave and i have had heated disagreements. We have though, been able to dialog constructively at times. Perhaps the same may be ture for you and I some day.

Perhaps, although I am not a professional blogger.

PS: I found some really inexpensive copies of John todd’s books for you:

dogbert.abebooks.com/servlet…&tn=Luther&x=27

You could get both his books on Luther for under ten bucks (of course, shipping and handling will put you up around $15.

Thanks for your thriftiness. A library is even less expensive. Here is my book suggestion:

*Where We Got the Bible… Our Debt to the Catholic Church *by Henry G. Graham

 

[TertiumQuid]

Eden:

Where We Got the Bible… Our Debt to the Catholic Church Henry G. Graham

If I recall, this book is on-line somewhere…I read it (or at least parts of it) in August 2004 when i spent a lot of time researching Luther and the canon.

Off to lunch-

Regards, James

 

[Eden]

TertiumQuid:

If I recall, this book is on-line somewhere…I read it (or at least parts of it) in August 2004 when i spent a lot of time researching Luther and the canon.

The book is available in its entirety here:

geocities.com/militantis/biblecontents.html#introduction

 

[Peter_Carroll]

I am new at this so please forgive me if I don’t follow proper protocol.

I am 59 and was brought up Roman Catholic in the Archdiocese of Boston - Richard Cardinal Cushing.

I recently saw the new film “Luther.” I was very impressed by it.
It seems to me Luther had a legitimate gripe about the corruption he found on a visit to Rome and the “selling of indulgences.”

What is the contemporary church position on the “sale of indulgences?” It seems to me that Luther had a legitimate argument against this “bargain basement” approach and he followed his conscience as best he could.

Though I am not advocating a conversion to the Lutheran faith for myself or others…did Luther not shine light on a bad practice?

I asked this same question on the “ask a priest” web site and received no response. I hope to learn the present Church position on this issue and any other reaction to the film. I think Joseph Fiennes performance was great. This was also Peter Ustiinov’s last film.

Sincerely,

Peter Carroll

P.S. My email address is: removed by moderator. I do not know if this is where I look for a response or on this web site?

 

[AquinasXVI]

Peter:

At every age there are things to gripe at the CC. That will not change for we are all sinners. Many of Luther’s points were valid. The problem started when he started to mess with dogma. I think overall that it could have been pride that drove him. Other reformers like St. Benedict, St. Francis accomplished it within the church and did not start churches of their own.

in XT.

 

[Ambrose]

I would say there where without doubt some problems in the Church at the time of the reformation. The bottom line IMHO was that it had nothing to do with what the Church taught, it had to do with the way the Church behaved. Look at the abuse of indulgences in the same light as the Priestly abuse scandals. You had a handful of bad actors who’s behavior reflected on the entire Church. As far as I know this problem was for the most part confined to Germany. As a Protestant friend of mine once said, there would never would have been a counter reformation b/c the laity would have straightened it out, The abuses that is, just as the laity put pressure on the Bishops after the abuse scandal. The Holy Spirit would have guided us out of the mess, just like St. Francis helped the Church out of the mess after the eastern schism at a time when the Church was very worldly.

Then there’s the problem of Luther himself. He had a terrible case of scruples (not the Churches fault) and was to say the least, a troubled person. I would venture to guess if he was alive today, he might be on Prozac. Can I say that ? :bigyikes: I haven’t seen the movie but I have very strong feelings that when Christianity was torn apart by the reformation, it started alot of things we as a society are fighting with today.

Thats my two cents on the subject anyway.

 

[Thomas_More_1]

I agree with the above posts that:

1. Luther did have some legitimate complaints.
2. The Church has always had problems.
3. Luther was a nut and did and believed a lot of very scary things.

But I’d also add:

Be VERY careful about being influenced by the movie Luther! Read the history for yourself, from Lutheran and Catholic points of view.

Selling indulgences was bad, but bad priests do bad things. Denying the Holy Church, denying legitimate indulgences (which don’t cost anything at all, for example you can get an indulgence by saying the rosary in public, or prayerfully reading scripture for half an hour), denying the Pope, denying Holy Tradition . . . these things are very wrong.

Luther threw the baby out with the bathwater. Not just as a cliché; he really threw out something as precious as a living, beautiful child just to get rid of some stinky water.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Ambrose:

I haven’t seen the movie but I have very strong feelings that when Christianity was torn apart by the reformation, it started alot of things we as a society are fighting with today.

Thats my two cents on the subject anyway.

I have been saying that too. We basically had 1500 years of relatively decent society. Sure, there were some wars. There were a few nasty things that went on.

The point is that back then people (or at least most people) didn’t think these things were great, and these things were propogated by either a select few people (i.e., Spanish Inquisition) or groups that weren’t really a part of society (i.e., Muslim invaders).

But then comes the reformation, and within 450 years we have total social breakdown where we not only have all the nasty stuff from before, but when we do have it it’s nastier. And worse, we have all sorts of terrible things (like baby killing) triumphed as these great wonderful causes!

In my view, if it weren’t for the reformation, we’d all be much better off.

 

[Malachi4U]

Indulgences have been, are, and ever will be a part of Christ’s body, His Catholic Church. Indulgences are good and we should all take part in them if we have an opportunity to.

With that being said, Johann Tetzel was selling indulgences during Luthers time. The mistake Tetzel and a few other preists made was that they believed in selling indulgences for the dead. The Church had never taught that and it was something a few people were writting about and believed at the time. Again, the Church had not made any decission on idulgences for the dead at that time. Later the Church did decree that indulgences for the dead were NOT valid. (Note: how the Church decides on Dogma or rules on ideas and points in theology would be the topic of an entirely new thread.)

So, indulgences for ourself are good. Indulgences for the dead - not so good.

Here is a link to help explain indulgences. I only gave a very short reply on a long and complicated subject.

newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

JMJ

 

[Lazerlike42]

First of all, selling indulgences for anybody was what waswrong.

Secondly, are you sure indulgences are not permitted for the dead? I thought we could do that…

 

[Thomas_More_1]

On All Soul’s Day, there are plenary indulgences that you can ONLY apply to the dead, and the rest of the year I’m pretty sure we can apply indulgences to the Holy Souls in purgatory. I think Malachi is mistaken on that point.

However, he’s absolutely correct when he stresses that indulgences are theologically sound. The abuse of indulgences was just that, an abuse.

By the way, here’s what the Catholic Encyclopedia says, “finally, some indulgences are granted in behalf of the living only, while others may be applied in behalf of the souls departed. It should be noted, however, that the application has not the same significance in both cases. The Church in granting an indulgence to the living exercises her jurisdiction; over the dead she has no jurisdiction and therefore makes the indulgence available for them by way of suffrage (per modum suffragii), i.e. she petitions God to accept these works of satisfaction and in consideration thereof to mitigate or shorten the sufferings of the souls in Purgatory.”

 

[Angainor]

AquinasXVI:

At every age there are things to gripe at the CC. That will not change for we are all sinners. Many of Luther’s points were valid. The problem started when he started to mess with dogma. I think overall that it could have been pride that drove him. Other reformers like St. Benedict, St. Francis accomplished it within the church and did not start churches of their own.

Protestant perspective:

It is… ironic that in the clash between Luther and Catholicism you attribute pride only to Luther.

Was it humble of Catholicism to shout Luther down at the Diet of Worms and insist he recant his deeply held beliefs? Is it humble to refuse to entertain the notion that Catholic dogma might have gone astray? Would the humble naturally assume they could do no wrong (dogmatically speaking)?

 

[thistle]

Angainor:

Protestant perspective:

It is… ironic that in the clash between Luther and Catholicism you attribute pride only to Luther.

Was it humble of Catholicism to shout Luther down at the Diet of Worms and insist he recant his deeply held beliefs? Is it humble to refuse to entertain the notion that Catholic dogma might have gone astray? Would the humble naturally assume they could do no wrong (dogmatically speaking)?

Catholic Dogma did not go astray. There were corrupt practices by some priests which Luther should have prayed about and he should have had the courage to remain with the Church and help clean up any corruption from within.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… Catholic dogma might have gone astray?

It is clear you don’t understand what Catholic dogma is. Can you explain what “dogma” went astray?

 

[Ambrose]

Angainor:

Protestant perspective:

It is… ironic that in the clash between Luther and Catholicism you attribute pride only to Luther.

Was it humble of Catholicism to shout Luther down at the Diet of Worms and insist he recant his deeply held beliefs? Is it humble to refuse to entertain the notion that Catholic dogma might have gone astray? Would the humble naturally assume they could do no wrong (dogmatically speaking)?

There was blame on all sides. No it wasn’t humble to shout Luther down at the Diet of Worms, but to take Sacred Scripture and edit it in the way Luther did and assume the Bible/Church was wrong for the preceding 1500 years is (was) beyond arrogant. This was a troubled man who couldn’t say the “Our Father” without swearing and condemning the papacy. Not exactly a good foundation on which to build a Church I would submit. And then of course the peasant wars which Luther help to bring about killed more than any Catholic inquisition in Europe at the time. The Church has admitted it was wrong before and JPII publicy apologized for any wrongs it had done through the century’s in the name of religion which was a breath of fresh air. Dogmatically speaking, again abuses have taken place. It wasn’t a matter of what we were believing, but how some indivuals were acting. If the Church was perfect, they sure as hell wouldn’t have me as a member.

The irony IMHO is that I would bet that if the Church of today existed in Germany in the 15th century, there never would have been a reformation.

 

[thistle]

I would recommend reading a book called “The Facts About Luther” by Msgr Patrick F. O’Hare, LLD.
I like the comments of one book reviewer who said
“You leave the apologists of Luther absolutely no loophole of escape; you have written what must in all fairness be called an unanswerable book. Never again, it seems, can an intelligent Protestant speak of the founder of Protestantism except with shame”.

 

[Angainor]

itsjustdave1988:

It is clear you don’t understand what Catholic dogma is. Can you explain what “dogma” went astray?

I just took [post=946402]my cue[/post] from AquinasXVI. He said Luther “messed with dogma”. I was referring to those dogma Luther messed with.