M
- Status
G
Ginger2
Guest
To be honest, I’m not really interested anymore.
I have already posted Luther’s quote condemning taking more than one wife.
But more important is that you would expect me to trust someone I don’t know to tell us what is in a book that none of us can verify. I thought I already made it clear that I verify info for myself.
…People misinterpret - usually due to their own preconceived notions
…People have a tendency to provide quotes and snippets that support their view while leaving out info that does not.
…The book may have been written by someone with very good intentions, but not necessarily good at getting all the facts. OR someone with ill intentions
…Are the claims in the book supported by solid evidence or just speculation of what might have been?
In the end, it really doesn’t matter if Luther did think polygamy was acceptable. Protestants don’t hold him to the level of infalibility.
I have already posted Luther’s quote condemning taking more than one wife.
But more important is that you would expect me to trust someone I don’t know to tell us what is in a book that none of us can verify. I thought I already made it clear that I verify info for myself.
…People misinterpret - usually due to their own preconceived notions
…People have a tendency to provide quotes and snippets that support their view while leaving out info that does not.
…The book may have been written by someone with very good intentions, but not necessarily good at getting all the facts. OR someone with ill intentions
…Are the claims in the book supported by solid evidence or just speculation of what might have been?
In the end, it really doesn’t matter if Luther did think polygamy was acceptable. Protestants don’t hold him to the level of infalibility.
G
Ginger2
Guest
mgrfin,
I’m still waiting for your quote from Augustine denouncing polygamy.
I’m still waiting for your quote from Augustine denouncing polygamy.
M
mgrfin
Guest
you’ll get it when I get the quote of Augustine supporting polygamy. I never said Augustine denounced polygamy. Where would such an argument be necessary.
We are talking about Luther, for political gain, approving the polygamous marriage of his political ally. See post #123
To Luther, the end justifies the means.
peace
M
mgrfin
Guest
Luther did support the polygamy. Any quote you have regarding his denial is fallacious.
The article from the Catholic Enclyclopedia makes the whole story clear:
Quote
Philip the Magnanimous (b. 23 Nov., 1504) was married before his twentieth year to Christina, daughter of Duke George of Saxony, who was then in her eighteenth year. He had the reputation of being “the most immoral of princelings”, who ruined himself, in the language of his court theologians, by “unrestrained and promiscuous debauchery”. He himself admits that he could not remain faithful to his wife for three consecutive weeks. The malignant attack of venereal disease, which compelled a temporary cessation of his profligacy, also directed his thoughts to a more ordinate gratification of his passions. His affections were already directed to Margaret von der Saal, a seventeen-year-old lady-in-waiting, and he concluded to avail himself of Luther’s advice to enter a double marriage.
The mother of Margaret would only entertain the proposition of her daughter becoming Philip’s “second wife” on condition that she, her brother, Philip’s wife, Luther, Melancthon, and Bucer, or at least, two prominent theologians be present at the marriage. Bucer was entrusted with the mission of securing the consent of Luther, Melancthon and the Saxon princes. In this he was eminently successful.
Evidently in an embarrassing quandary, Luther and Melancthon filed their joint opinion (10 Dec., 1539). After expressing gratification at the landgrave’s last recovery, “for the poor, miserable Church of Christ is small and forlorn, and stands in need of truly devout lords and rulers”, it goes on to say that a general law that a “man may have more than one wife”
How can this “darkest stain” on the history of the German Reformation be accounted for? Was it “politics, biblicism, distorted vision, precipitancy, fear of the near approaching Diet that played such a role in the sinful downfall of Luther?” Or was it the logical sequence of premises he had maintained for years in speech and print, not to touch upon the ethics of that extraordinary sermon on marriage? He himself writes defiantly that he “is not ashamed of his opinion” (Lauterbach, op. cit., 198).could not be handed down, but that a dispensation could be granted.
The marriage in spite of all precautions, injunctions, and pledges of secrecy leaked out, caused a national sensation and scandal,
Unquote
Why don’t you just accept the truth, Ginger?
peace
The article from the Catholic Enclyclopedia makes the whole story clear:
Quote
Philip the Magnanimous (b. 23 Nov., 1504) was married before his twentieth year to Christina, daughter of Duke George of Saxony, who was then in her eighteenth year. He had the reputation of being “the most immoral of princelings”, who ruined himself, in the language of his court theologians, by “unrestrained and promiscuous debauchery”. He himself admits that he could not remain faithful to his wife for three consecutive weeks. The malignant attack of venereal disease, which compelled a temporary cessation of his profligacy, also directed his thoughts to a more ordinate gratification of his passions. His affections were already directed to Margaret von der Saal, a seventeen-year-old lady-in-waiting, and he concluded to avail himself of Luther’s advice to enter a double marriage.
The mother of Margaret would only entertain the proposition of her daughter becoming Philip’s “second wife” on condition that she, her brother, Philip’s wife, Luther, Melancthon, and Bucer, or at least, two prominent theologians be present at the marriage. Bucer was entrusted with the mission of securing the consent of Luther, Melancthon and the Saxon princes. In this he was eminently successful.
Evidently in an embarrassing quandary, Luther and Melancthon filed their joint opinion (10 Dec., 1539). After expressing gratification at the landgrave’s last recovery, “for the poor, miserable Church of Christ is small and forlorn, and stands in need of truly devout lords and rulers”, it goes on to say that a general law that a “man may have more than one wife”
How can this “darkest stain” on the history of the German Reformation be accounted for? Was it “politics, biblicism, distorted vision, precipitancy, fear of the near approaching Diet that played such a role in the sinful downfall of Luther?” Or was it the logical sequence of premises he had maintained for years in speech and print, not to touch upon the ethics of that extraordinary sermon on marriage? He himself writes defiantly that he “is not ashamed of his opinion” (Lauterbach, op. cit., 198).could not be handed down, but that a dispensation could be granted.
The marriage in spite of all precautions, injunctions, and pledges of secrecy leaked out, caused a national sensation and scandal,
Unquote
Why don’t you just accept the truth, Ginger?
peace
M
mgrfin
Guest
M
mgrfin
Guest
A’int gonna happen, Ginger.
M
mgrfin
Guest
History is clear: Luther supported polygamy.
I wonder what edition of the Bible you have. At best it is a translation of a translation. The oldest original texts of the Bible are several hundred years from their original authorship.
Thanks to the Catholic Church, monks were making copies of biblical texts for centuries. Do you trust Martin Luther’s translation of the bible (if you read German). In addition to the additions he made on his own, there were hundreds upon hundreds of errors.
You may not trust anyone. Don’t trust anything Catholic, cause we are out to deceive you, and to lead you along.
Are you that much a die-hard Lutheran?
peace
W
why_me
Guest
Luther allowed the marriage for opportunist reasons. And it was not very popular among his followers. Of course, luther may have made a statement condemning polygamy. But that does not change the story. A flipflopper generally flipflops because of change of belief or because of opportunism.
Luther supported polygamy. It is a fact. Did he flipflop? If so, why?
M
mgrfin
Guest
Well, Why Me, you got the story right, despite Ginger’s vehement claims to the opposite.
Historians tell us the reason why he did it (flip-flop). Luther was intimidated. If he did not go along, he would lose the noble’s support, which is small new church deperately needed. That is very clear, and can be verified from the various testimonies of the day. I object to this strongly. You have a Thomas More, and a John Fisher who would not go along with Henry viii, and they lost their heads because of it. God bless and reward them for their faithfulness. We know their reward: crowns of martyrdom.
Luther? Well, he received his reward as well. We don’t know what it was.
peace
P
Protestant101
Guest
Ginger; no one here will be able to tell you any sources of proof that can be easily verified by the general public. Catholics have long struggled to try and make Martin Luther out to be the wildest maniac on earth; and occassionally they come across websites or articles like this one. But they will never be able to prove it with concrete evidence.
It might be more profitable to look closer at the actual reasons that might be prompting Catholics to tear down Martin Luther’s character. They don’t just want to tear down his theology; they want to make him look like a fool.
However, we can be thankful that they have not managed to tear down the reformation. That will be a lot harder for them to do than to tear down Luther’s character.
M
mgrfin
Guest
I can assure you that there is no benefit to tear down Martin Luther, to make him look like a bafoon, or a raver. He is dead, and the religion he founded long ago gave up on him. We argue about whether Luther supported polygamy; but that is not the issue. Modern Lutheranism is struggling, like some other Protestant sects, with blessing same sex unions, and gay male and female ministers. He is well protected by his followers, as are his writings. It is not world-wide Lutheranism that is successful, but the Evangelical/Pentecostal movement, that relies very little on dogma, excepting “Jesus, our buddy”, and OSAS.
Catholics oppose his doctrine of justification by faith only. He tore down the sacramental structure of the Catholic Church; he failed to understand grace, although the great Doctor of Grace, St. Augustine was his patron; and though he favored the Mass, it wasn’t long before splinter groups and other Protestants tried to tear our ritual into shreads. He believed in the Real Presence, but, for the life of me, I don’t know why he disbelieved in Transsubstantiation. Maybe it had something to do with the Dominican/Augustinian rivalry. He tried spreading the story that Catholics (the pope, the anti-christ, papists) believed that mankind bought its way into heaven by ‘good works’, to the point at which Luther condemned good deeds as evil – strange thing for a follower of Christ. Truth is that we also believe in justification by faith, although not by ‘faith only’.
We read and venerate the Bible, protected throughout the ages by the Catholic Church, but, Tradition is also important to us. We are fortunate to have a whole canon of saints, whom we can imitate, and pray to on our journey to heaven. We are sure Jesus is not jealous of our prayers to our helpers.
No, 101, we are not out to get Fr. Martin, although he is an easy target. I think the long article in the on-line Catholic Encyclopedia on Martin Luther is a fair assessment of the situation. If there are untruths there, we’d love to hear them.
peace
Z
Zooey
Guest
I am not Catholic, my friend. I am a little Methodist girl. I grew up attending the Free Methodist Church.
My mother was an English teacher, and a good ol’ First Amendment absolutist…whose one rule about books was, that I was NOT, as a child, permitted to read Martin Luther.
As an adult, I discovered that she was a very wise woman. He had a real potty mouth, and what is worse, he was a hate-filled man with serious mental problems. (Today, he would most likely to be diagnosed with PTSD).
All of which is to say: Catholics:nope: don’t have to “struggle to try and make Martin Luther out to be the wildest maniac on earth”…He does that
uch: very nicely for himself. :twocents:
M
mgrfin
Guest
Zooey, I was trying to be charitable to Fr. Martin. I know that other Protestants have little respect for him, but on this site you are the first one to ‘take him on’.I am not Catholic, my friend. I am a little Methodist girl. I grew up attending the Free Methodist Church.
My mother was an English teacher, and a good ol’ First Amendment absolutist…whose one rule about books was, that I was NOT, as a child, permitted to read Martin Luther.
As an adult, I discovered that she was a very wise woman. He had a real potty mouth, and what is worse, he was a hate-filled man with serious mental problems. (Today, he would most likely to be diagnosed with PTSD).
All of which is to say: Catholics:nope: don’t have to “struggle to try and make Martin Luther out to be the wildest maniac on earth”…He does that
I have been hard on him at times too. Pottly mouth, for sure. He was basically an obscene individual, and I always figured a person’s mouth was reflective of his mind.
Yes, you are right. Catholics don’t have to do a job on Luther; he does it to himself.
peace
W
why_me
Guest
Polygamy support is still with Martin Luther. No one can change the historical setting in which it took place and Martin’s support of it.
The reformation failed. We can see the traces of such failure with all the splinter sects that have sprouted along the way. Protestantism is rife with divisions. In fact, I can say that Martin and his friends made Christianity much weaker, a weakness that is definitely still with us as protestant sects continue to split and sow division inside the ranks of the christian world.
And now as a sidelight. I have been to catholic countries and to luthern countries in Europe. The more subdued populations tend to be luthern. I have got this feeling that there is no joy in luthernism. One can see the difference in Germany. As one german luthern put it to me: the luthern germans seem to frown more than the catholic germans.
Is this true? I think so. Hard to get people to smile in my neck of the woods. And even more difficult to see the hand of god inside the luthern population. Only 14% attend a church activitity once a month. Luthernism has lost an entire population.
However, they are attempting to bring back the flock through Karoke services where the congregation can sing church hymns in Karoke style. What next?
Luther must be turning over in his grave.
Z
Zooey
Guest
Yes, please do.
G
Ginger2
Guest
mgrfin,
First:
In Post #65 I said something to the effect that I think Luther very well may have said those exact words. That is not the point. This is:
a. You cannot verify it for certain.
b. You don’t know the context
As I have said before I have caught people taking Luther’s words out of context before. Why should I be expected to believe you now, without proof?
Second:
In post # 75 Mark a:said: “Silence and neutrality are not the same as condemnation. Luther would need to at least imply condemnation if he were allowing an exception for polygamy.”
That is why I brought up Augustine. My quote from Augustine is verifiable and can be read in its full context. Augustine suggested polygamy was better than monogamy.
In response I have provided a quote to show Luther actually condemned taking more than one wife. I am still waiting for the Catholics on this thread to show me the quote where Augustine condemns polygamy
Third, I have an authorized Catholic Bible. But I don’t really know what that has to do with this polygamy.
First:
In Post #65 I said something to the effect that I think Luther very well may have said those exact words. That is not the point. This is:
a. You cannot verify it for certain.
b. You don’t know the context
As I have said before I have caught people taking Luther’s words out of context before. Why should I be expected to believe you now, without proof?
Second:
In post # 75 Mark a:said: “Silence and neutrality are not the same as condemnation. Luther would need to at least imply condemnation if he were allowing an exception for polygamy.”
That is why I brought up Augustine. My quote from Augustine is verifiable and can be read in its full context. Augustine suggested polygamy was better than monogamy.
In response I have provided a quote to show Luther actually condemned taking more than one wife. I am still waiting for the Catholics on this thread to show me the quote where Augustine condemns polygamy
Third, I have an authorized Catholic Bible. But I don’t really know what that has to do with this polygamy.
C
Chesster
Guest
There is a 5000 character limit on posts so I have to split this up, but here is the letter with its signatories.
To the most serene Prince and Lord Philip Landgrave of Hesse, Count of Catzelembogen, of Diets, of Ziegehain and Nidda, our gracious Lord, we wish above all things the grace of God through Jesus Christ.
To the most serene Prince and Lord Philip Landgrave of Hesse, Count of Catzelembogen, of Diets, of Ziegehain and Nidda, our gracious Lord, we wish above all things the grace of God through Jesus Christ.
- We have been informed by Bucer, and in the instruction which your Highness gave him, have read, the trouble of mind, and the uneasiness of conscience your Highness is under at this present; and although it seemed to us very difficult so speedily to answer the doubts proposed; nevertheless, we would not permit the said Bucer who, was urgent for his return to your Highness, to go away without an answer in writing.
- It has been a subject of the greatest joy to us, and we have praised God, for that he has recovered your Highness from a dangerous fit of sickness, and we pray that he will long continue this blessing of perfect health both in body an mind.
- Your Highness is not ignorant how great need our poor, miserable, little, and abandoned Church stands in need of virtuous Princes and Rulers to protect her; and we doubt not but God will always supply her with some such, although from time to time he threatens to deprive her of them, and proves her by sundry temptations.
- These things seem to us of greatest importance in the question which Bucer has proposed to us: your Highness sufficiently of yourself comprehends the difference there is betwixt settling an universal law, and using (for reasons and with God’s permission) a dispensation in a particular case: for it is otherwise evident that no dispensation can take place against the first of all laws, the divine law.
- We cannot at present advise to introduce publicly, and establish as a law in the New Testament, that of the Old, which permitted to have more wives than one. Your Highness is sensible, should any such thing be printed, that it would be taken for a precept, whence infinite troubles and scandals would arise. We beg your Highness to consider the dangers a man would be exposed unto, who should be convicted of having brought into Germany such a law, which divide families, and involve them in endless strifes and disturbances.
- As to the objection that may be made, that what is just in God’s sight ought absolutely to be permitted, it must be answered in this manner. If that which is just before God, be besides commanded and necessary, the objection is true: if it be neither necessary nor commanded, other circumstances, before it be permitted, must be attended to; and to come to the question in hand: God hath instituted marriage to be a society of two persons and no more, supposing nature were not corrupted; and this is the sense of that text in Genesis, “there shall be two in one flesh,” and this was observed at the beginning.
- Lamech was the first that married many wives, and the scripture witnesses that this custom was introduced contrary to the first institution.
- It nevertheless passed into custom among infidel nations; and we even find afterwards, that Abraham and his posterity had many wives. It is also certain from Deuteronomy, that the law of Moses permitted it afterwards, and that God made an allowance for frail nature. Since it is then suitable to the creation of men, and to the first establishment of their society, that each one be content with only one wife, it thence follows that the law enjoining it is praiseworthy; that it ought to be received in the church; and no law contrary thereto be introduced into it, because Jesus Christ has repeated in the nineteenth chapter of St. Matthew that text of Genesis, “there shall be two in one flesh:” and brings to man’s remembrance what marriage ought to have been before it degenerated from its purity.
- In certain cases, however, there is room for dispensation. For example, if a married man, detained captive in a distant country, should there take a second wife, in order to preserve or recover his health, or that his own became leprous, we see not how we could condemn, in these cases, such a man as, by the advice of his pastor, should take another wife, provided it were not with a design of introducing a new law, but with an eye only to his own particular necessities.
C
Chesster
Guest
- Since then the introducing a new law, and the using a dispensation with respect to the same law, are two different things, we entreat your Holiness to take what follows into consideration. In the first place, above all things, care must be taken, that plurality of wives be not introduced into the world by way of law, for every man to follow as he thinks fit. In the second place, may it please your Highness to reflect on the dismal scandal which would not fail to happen, if occasion be given to the enemies of the Gospel to exclaim, that we are like the Anabaptists, who have several wives at once, and the Turks, who take as many wives as they are able to maintain.
- In the third place, that the actions of princes are more widely spread than those of private men.
- Fourthly, that inferiors are no sooner informed what their superiors do, but they imagine they may do the same, and by that means licentiousness becomes universal.
- Fifthly, that your Highness’s estates are filled with an untractable nobility, for the most part very averse to the Gospel, on account of the hopes they are in, as in other countries, of obtaining the benefices of cathedral churches, the revenues whereof are very great. We know the impertinent discourses vented by the most illustrious of your nobility, and it is easily seen how they and the rest of your subjects would be disposed, in case your Highness should authorize such a novelty.
- Sixthly, that your Highness, by the singular grace of God, hath a great reputation in the empire and foreign countries; and it is to be feared lest the execution of this project of a double marriage should greatly diminish this esteem and respect. The concurrence of so many scandals obliges us to beseech your Highness to examine the thing with all the maturity of judgment God has endowed you with.
- With no less earnestness do we entreat your Highness, by all means, to avoid fornication and adultery; and, to own the truth sincerely, we have a long time been sensibly grieved to see your Highness, abandoned to such impurities, which might be followed by the effects of the divine vengeance, distempers, and many other dangerous consequences.
- We also beg of your Highness not to entertain a notion, that the use of women out of marriage is but a light and trifling fault, as the world is used to imagine; since God hath often chastised impurity with the most severe punishment: and that of the deluge is attributed to the adulteries of the great ones; and the adultery of David has afforded a terrible instance of the divine vengeance; and St. Paul repeats frequently, that God is not mocked with impunity, and that adulterers shall not enter the kingdom of God. For it is said, in the second chapter of the first Epistle to Timothy, that obedience must be the companion of faith, in order to avoid acting against conscience; and in the third chapter of the first of St. John, if our heart condemn us not, we may call upon the name of God with joy: and in the eighth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, if by the spirit we mortify the desires of the flesh, we shall live; but, on the contrary, we shall die, if we walk according to the flesh, that is, if we act against our own conscience.
- We have related these passages, to the end that your Highness may consider seriously that God looks not on the vice of impurity as a laughing matter, as is supposed by those audacious libertines, who entertain heathenish notions on this subject. We are pleased to find that your Highness is troubled with remorse of conscience for these disorders. The management of the most important affairs in the world is now incumbent on your Highness, who is of a very delicate and tender complexion; sleeps but little; and these reasons, which have obliged so many prudent persons to manage their constitutions, are more than sufficient to prevail with your Highness to imitate them.
C
Chesster
Guest
- We read of the incomparable Scanderberg, who so frequently defeated the two most powerful Emperors of the Turks, Amurat II and Mahomet II, and whilst alive, preserved Greece from their tyranny, and he often exhorted his soldiers to chastity, and said to them, that there was nothing so hurtful to men of their profession, as venereal pleasures. And if your Highness, after marrying a second wife, were not to forsake those licentious disorders, the remedy proposed would be to no purpose. Every one ought to be master of his own body in external actions, and see, according to the expression of St. Paul, that his members be the arms of justice. May it please your Highness, therefore, impartially to examine the considerations of scandal, of labors, of care, of trouble, and of distempers, which have been represented. And at the same time remember that God has given you a numerous issue of such beautiful children of both sexes by the Princess your wife, that you have reason to be satisfied therewith. How many others, in marriage, are obliged to the exercise and practice of patience, from the motive only of avoiding scandal? We are far from urging on your Highness to introduce so difficult a novelty into your family. By so doing, we should draw upon ourselves not only the reproaches and persecution of those of Hesse, but of all other people. The which would be so much the less supportable to us, as God commands us in the ministry which we exercise, as much as we are able, to regulate marriage, and all the other duties of human life, according to the divine institution, and maintain them in that state, and remove all kind of scandal.
- It is now customary among worldlings, to lay the blame of every thing upon the preachers of the Gospel. The heart of man is equally fickle in the more elevated and lower stations of life; and much have we to fear on that score.
- As to what your Highness says, that it is not possible for you to abstain from this impure life, we wish you were in a better state before God, that you lived with a secure conscience, and labored for the salvation of your own soul, and the welfare of your subjects.
- But after all, if your Highness is fully resolved to marry a second wife, we judge it ought to be done secretly, as we have said with respect to the dispensation demanded on the same account, that is, that none but the person you shall wed, and a few trusty persons, know of the matter, and they, too, obliged to secrecy under the seal of confession. Hence no contradiction nor scandal of moment is to be apprehended; for it is no extraordinary thing for Princes to keep concubines; and though the vulgar should be scandalized thereat, the more intelligent would doubt of the truth, and prudent persons would approve of this moderate kind of life, preferably to adultery, and other brutal actions. There is no need of being much concerned for what men will say, provided all goes right with conscience. So far do we approve it, and in those circumstances only by us specified; for the Gospel hath neither recalled nor forbid what was permitted in the law of Moses with respect to marriage. Jesus Christ has not changed the external economy, but added justice only, and life everlasting, for reward. He teaches the true way of obeying God, and endeavors to repair the corruption of nature.
- Your Highness hath therefore, in this writing, not only the approbation of us all, in case of necessity, concerning what you desire, but also the reflections we have made thereupon; we beseech you to weigh them, as becoming a virtuous, wise, and Christian Prince. We also beg of God to direct all for his glory and your Highness’s salvation.
- As to your Highness’s thought of communicating this affair to the emperor before it be concluded, it seems to us that this Prince counts adultery among the lesser sort of sins; at it is very much to be feared lest his faith being of the same stamp with that of the Pope, the Cardinals, the Italians, the Spaniards, and the Saracens, he make light of your Highness’s proposal, and turn it to his own advantage by amusing your Highness with vain words. We know he is deceitful and perfidious, and has nothing of the German in him.
- Status