Brecht’s three volume work on Luther was originally in German, and I understand available in translation An editorial review says: “The reader is left with great admiration for Luther’s talents as a theologian, translator, and church builder.” If that is the sum of Brecht’s analysis of Luther, I can’t disagree more.
Luther was an Augustinian, and probably, according to some Catholic scholars, (Denifle, e.g.) had no knowledge of St. Thomas or the Scholastics. His knowledge of Greek was poor, and of Hebrew, negligible.
Church builder? Supposedly, he never intended to set up his own church, but ‘reform’ the Roman Catholic Church. How you can do that after being excommunicated, I just don’t know. Yeah, Brecht’s work may be scholarly, but it was certainly biased. You say that being biased is a fact of life. Maybe so, but I am uncomfortable with such a concept.
I don’t know that professional Catholic circles rely on the CE. It’s convenient, and for poor people like me, a necessity. About being ‘conservative’, that’s all in the definition. I always considered myself a liberal Catholic, but I accept the General Councils of the Church, and papal infallibility. I read Protestant historians as I do Catholic. I am accepting of both if they provide references for what they have to say.
“Nothing is wrong with the paragraph you cited. However, the whole article on Luther is riddled with contemptuous, loaded language that doesn’t give Protestants a lot of confidence in the Encyclopedia’s fairness.”
That’s not fair. I have said it before, Luther is easy to dislike and condemn. Talk about contemptuous, and loaded language, - this was Fr. Martin, par excellence. Reading as much Luther as you can get your hands on, a fair-minded person would be shocked. You say this is okay, fine. Judging by what Protestants have to say on this website, I don’t see them as very accepting about much, except Luther. We Catholics like our idols to be sainted.
If you read “Fiery”’s post after mine, you will pretty much get a sense that Catholics will return vitriolic to Luther, which is a small measure of the hatred he spewed against us, and the damage he has done to the Roman Church, founded by Jesus Christ.
Okay, if you want to go on about better sources being available, and it (CE) not being the best source for Catholics and Protestants, go ahead. I don’t live on a University campus or near a library, and I can’t afford to accumulate these expensive history books. I have several historical books, Catholic and Protestant alike. Nowadays, I start on the Internet to put me in the direction I need to go on any question.
I think you have a built in prejudice as an historian about any Enclyclopedia. By nature and necessity you prefer authographs, and more original sources. Why should any historian ‘respect’ an enclyclopedia?
We are not looking for ‘conservative’ outlooks; we are looking for the truth. The CE is available on the Internet, as is Wikipedia. They are not final stops on the journey for the truth (esp Wiki); they are just places to start, and they provide links to other sources.
You have not proved your case. Historians are biased, you say. But then you tell us: “refrain from citing traditional confessional polemic as if it were the Last Word on church history”.
Catholics find it difficult to believe that the across-the-board ‘diversity’ of Protestant sects has, as its root cause, the disaster that was Martin Luther. That this is not reflective in Protestant historians is part of the problem. That’s how we feel.
peace
