Martin luther on his deathbed

[JohnPaul0]

cpandersen:

A Catholic priest from once told me that Martin Luther requested to have a Catholic priest come to give him last rites at his deathbed, but that Melanchthon wouldn’t let him.

I neglected to ask the priest where he got this info. Does anyone here know anything about this and where I might get the source information on it?

Thanks.

Peter
Vancouver BC

I attended a lecture by Warren Carroll. He is a careful historian and the founding president of Christendom College. In a question and answer session after the lecture, Prof Carroll said that Luther did not repent. He ate a heavy meal, went to bed, and died of, I believe, a stroke.

 

[Jade]

mommy:

Our priest had once said that Luther, before his death lamented the breaking of the church and his part in it. That he only wanted the church to ‘straighten’ out what he saw as abuses, not break from it. He very well could have wanted to come back and be right with the church before he died.

Of course he wanted to be right with the church before he died- he never thought of himself as anything but Catholic. He had disagreements with the abuses of the church at that time, but it was never his intent to ‘break from’ the Church.

That’s what I’ve been told at least.

 

[mj330]

My thoughts that are little off of the subject (from a Catholic leaning Protestant):

a Protestant historian wrote:

“In a virulent pamphlet, Against the Thievish and Murderous Hoardes of Peasants, Luther called on the princes to ‘knock down, strangle, and stab…and think nothing so venomous, pernicious, or Satanic as an insurgent’” I wonder if Luther thought of himself as an insurgent?

“…At the time of his death, Luther was an ‘irascible old man, petulant, peevish, unrestrained, and positively coarse.’”
(Shelley, Church History).

I think that he may have regretted his decision to leave the RCC.

 

[reen12]

Of “coarse”, Luther lived in a day and age

without asprin, ibuprofen, antibiotics for bronchitis,
the myriad of things we take for granted today.
I dunno. I’ve got arthritis and fibromyalgia, and
I feel irascible, petulant, peevish from time to
time even with these pain reducers.

reen12

“Inadequate, and* loving* it.”

 

[reen12]

Addendum: I looked it up. By age 54, Luther

had arthritis and what was called the stone.
The source I checked speculated that these were
probably uric acid stones.

Now THAT must have been a treat in the 16th century,
without the medication/surgical proceedures available
today. [Luther died at age 62. Eight years worth
of physical suffering.]

If you would care to read an account of what this
was like prior to modern medicine, take a look
at the essays of Montaigne. The poor man was in
agony.

Luther also lost one of his children, a daughter
whom he loved dearly. He experienced depression
over his loss, and at other times during his life.
Sounds pretty human to me.

reen12

 

[mj330]

reen12:

Addendum: I looked it up. By age 54, Luther

had arthritis and what was called the stone.
The source I checked speculated that these were
probably uric acid stones.

Now THAT must have been a treat in the 16th century,
without the medication/surgical proceedures available
today. [Luther died at age 62. Eight years worth
of physical suffering.]

If you would care to read an account of what this
was like prior to modern medicine, take a look
at the essays of Montaigne. The poor man was in
agony.

Luther also lost one of his children, a daughter
whom he loved dearly. He experienced depression
over his loss, and at other times during his life.
Sounds pretty human to me.

reen12

Paul the apostle suffered much throughout his life-his epitaph will not read similar to Martin Luther.

I guess perspective will guide your feelings:

“From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. Times I was beaten withrods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeys often, in perils of waters; in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles…in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness-besides the other things, what comes upon me daily: my deep concern fot all the churches.” (2 Cor 11:24-28).

Writing from a prison cell to Timothy, days before his death, he said:
“For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought the good fight, I have fined the race, I have kept the faith.” (2 Tim 3:6,7)

Time and space do not permit me to speak of Stephen, John the Revelator, et al. All human, none divine. Peace.

 

[Philthy]

Angainor:

Our only responsibility is to the Truth, not to Cathoicism.

Hi Angainor-

Please know, in advance, that I don’t judge you - I trust you are following your heart - just be careful of any baggage that often accompanies our journey.
I agree with your comment above, but it raises many questions. The first of which is how you know this Truth that you speak of. My guess is that you would say that you know the Truth through Scripture. I think a tremendous amount of Truth can be known from Scripture(and that all of it is actually contained there) but that despite our best efforts we won’t know all of the Truth through Scripture. The wild variety of interpretations of major chrisitian doctrines currently, as well as the changing of christian doctrine over time within the same denominations which contradicts prior teachings is a strong indication that Sola Scriptura has not fulfilled its promise. Please reflect on the following verses from 1st Corinthians 4:14-17:
“I am writing you this not to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. Therefore I urge you be imitators of me. For this reason I am sending you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord; he will remind you of my ways in Christ, just as I teach them everywhere in every church.”
Notice how Paul tells them to be imitators of “me”? Very interesting that he doesn’t say be imitators of Christ. Now no doubt he considers an imitation of himself as an imitation of Christ, but the point is that that requires teaching. But is that teaching meant to be conveyed by Scripture alone? Well first realize that what Paul is writing IS Scripture. And what does he say next? Does he say memorize this letter, it contains all the info you need and is self evident? Not at all. He says that he will be sending Timothy to teach you. Implicit in that statement is that the letter alone is not enough. Otherwise there would be no need for Timothy to be sent. So Timothy is given authority from Paul to teach Paul’s ways so that the people can be imitators and know the Truth - through Paul’s authorized teacher, Timothy.
Finally, notice how Paul says that he teaches his ways “everywhere and in every church”? Does that seem like a license to “agree to disagree” on many issues, or does it seem like the Church was meant to have significant, stable unity? I believe if we are seeking the Truth and using the Bible as a guide that we should be seeking a teaching authority of apostolic origin which contains an unbroken unity of belief which is both Scriptural and noncontradictory throughout the centuries. We should all give this some thought.

Phil

“I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity… It is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better."
Martin Luther

 

[Jennifer123]

Very interesting…I personally hadn’t heard that actual take on it before. Thanks for the post!

 

[UnworthySoul]

Angainor:

If you did understand, you would be Protestant.

Then why don’t you explain it to us non-understanding Catholics as opposed to alluding to some hidden truth only followers of Luther can know?

 

[UnworthySoul]

Angainor:

As far as Catholics are concerned, Excommunication is the withholding of the real presence of Christ which is necessary for salvation.

A person chose to excommunicate someone because that someone refused to acknowledge his authority. The Pope would have every right to kick Martin out of his little club, but as far as the Pope was concerned, he was kicking Luther completely out of God’s family.

That goes against any sense of Natural Justice. That goes against Jesus words “Nobody gets to the Father except by me.”

Yes, nobody gets to the Father except through Christ. So when you reject the Apostolic Succession that Christ instituted, you bring punishment upon yourself, by rejecting Christ through what He set up. Luther brought the excommunicatrion upon himself. Not the other way around.

If Christ gave the authority to Peter and his successors, who is Luther to challenge that?

 

[DianJo]

Angainor:

As far as Catholics are concerned, Excommunication is the withholding of the real presence of Christ which is necessary for salvation.

A person chose to excommunicate someone because that someone refused to acknowledge his authority. The Pope would have every right to kick Martin out of his little club, but as far as the Pope was concerned, he was kicking Luther completely out of God’s family.

That goes against any sense of Natural Justice. That goes against Jesus words “Nobody gets to the Father except by me.”

This is not what excommunicaton is. The Church does not “throw people out” of Christ’s Church.

*The person does that all their own. If they continually speak heresy and tear Christ’s Chruch to pieces - he excommunicates himself. The Church only makes public and documents the declaration of the person so all of the faithful will know that person is not faithful to the Church. The Church will do everything in her power to bring that person back into the fold but when everything fails and the person persists what else is there but to proclaim publicly that the person has excommunicated themselves? *

The Church could not continue to allow someone to teach and spread untruths - not only about the Pope but about the heart of salvation and what Jesus taught before He left this earth. It is the doing of the heretic - not the Church.

There were definately abuses, I won’t argue that point, but Luther went off the deep end and through out the baby with the bath water! Instead of accomplishing his goals, he essentially tore people from the turth of salvation that he was so eagerly seeking.

 

[reen12]

Dear mj330,

“I guess perspective will guide your feelings:”
quote, mj330

I beg to differ. My goal in life is to not let “feelings”
guide my “perspective.”

You quoted Shelly’s Church History. I addressed
that issue "petulant, peevish, etc.]

The topic of the thread is not Paul’s sufferings, it
is martin luther on his deathbed. How do I diminish
Paul’s sufferings by clarifying Luther’s?

From your perspective:

“Paul the apostle suffered much throughout his life-his epitaph will not read similar to Martin Luther.” quote, mj330

I would have thought that nobody’s “epitaph” was of
signifcance, based as it is on worldly observation, alone.
Only God knows the heart, huh?

reen12:shamrock:

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

i didnt read every reply, so this may have been posted before.

luther’s excommunication was lifted, i believe by john paul II.

 

[reen12]

Whoa! RSiscoe,:clapping:

Now *that’s *what I call a dandy bit of work, finding
and posting those quotes from Luther. I once bought
an abbreviated Table Talk, which freely acknowledged
that some of Luther’s observations were edited out.
Now here comes you, with some of the more
“interesting” quotes for our edification.

Seriously, I admire your industry and appreciated
reading these little beauties.

When Luther got rolling, he was like a loose cannon.
[mixed metaphor]. What drives me to distraction
are those who’ve never read a word of Luther
[pardon the pun], excoriating the man.

Leave him to heaven and at least try to understand
“where he was coming from”, is my take on him.
[Then “excoriate” away! if that’s a person’s, uh,
temperment.]

Thanks again for your work,
reen12

 

[RSiscoe]

Rand Al'Thor:

i didnt read every reply, so this may have been posted before.

luther’s excommunication was lifted, i believe by john paul II.

Are you sure? I looked into this and did not see where he actually lifted the excommunication. It was reported many places that he wanted to, and that he planned to, but I never saw that he actually did. The following is a portion of one article I found from 1996:

According to reports in Focus, a magazine published in Munich, John Paul II’s plans to take an historic step to improve relations with Protestant churches during his visit were thwarted by the country’s Catholic bishops. Reportedly, the pope originally wanted to visit one of the historic sites of the Lutheran Reformation, Wartburg castle - the place where Luther translated the New Testament into German - where he intended to announce the cancellation of Luther’s excommunication from the Catholic Church.
But the plans were dropped, the magazine said, after opposition by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican’s prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, and by three of Germany’s most senior Catholic bishops - Cardinal Archbishop Sterzinsky of Berlin, Archbishop Joachim Degenhardt of Paderborn, and Bishop Karl Lehmann, president of the German Bishops’ Conference. Luther was excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church in 1521 after refusing to retract his teachings which the church judged to be heretical.

The magazine quoted an unnamed adviser to the German bishops as saying of the pope’s plans to lift the excommunication of Luther: “For God’s sake, not in the Protestant stronghold of the Wartburg. Is the pope becoming Protestant?”

 

[reen12]

Good ol’ Luther. Good ol’ Wartburg Castle.

I’m hoping that the Cardinal from Bombay gets
elected [speaks many languages fluently.] Then
he could reiterate the excommunication in
17 languages!

reen12

 

[mj330]

reen12:

I would have thought that nobody’s “epitaph” was of
signifcance, based as it is on worldly observation, alone.
Only God knows the heart, huh?

reen12:shamrock:

:yup: , but by their fruits you shall know them, Jesus said.
(getting back to the thread) I have known those who have had their hearts right with God being on their deathbed singing hymns as God called them home - not being peevish, irascible, etc.

 

[reen12]

Dear mj330.

Yeah, but I bet the people you knew didn’t live in
the 16th century! [reference my posts #64&65].

Oooo, owww, oooo…my arthritis is bad tonight.:yup:

Best,
reen12

 

[reen12]

Also…“by their fruits you shall know them…”

Were you thinking of Lutherens, gathered together
in prayer, singing with their whole hearts: “A Mighty
Fortress is Our God, A bulwork never failing…”
Ein feste burg, ist unser Gott…

Or Catholics, gathered around the Nativity set
singing the carol Luther wrote to commemorate
the birth of the Savior…

Or, his happy family life, with students and friends
gathered around his household table…

Or…but, no! I forget myself. Officially, he’s a
heretic. Baddddd Martin. :tsktsk:

God have mercy on us all,

reen12

 

[Angainor]

This is not what excommunicaton is. The Church does not “throw people out” of Christ’s Church.

The person does that all their own. If they continually speak heresy and tear Christ’s Chruch to pieces - he excommunicates himself. The Church only makes public and documents the declaration of the person so all of the faithful will know that person is not faithful to the Church. The Church will do everything in her power to bring that person back into the fold but when everything fails and the person persists what else is there but to proclaim publicly that the person has excommunicated themselves?

Interesting perspective. I suppose it’s kind of like saints. Catholicism does not make saints, but rather it infallably declares the truth of which persons are saints. I will have to think on that.