Martin Luther

[akasseb]

No, he’s talking about Trent’s dogmatic rejection of Protestant ideas.

hn160 wrote: “The Roman Catholic Church did not come into existence until after the Council of Trent.” You have simply added your own interpretation to his words. Everyone knows that the Council of Trent defined and clarified Catholic teachings, while rejecting Protestant heresies. This does not mean, however, that the “Roman” Catholic Church came into existence after the Council of Trent. Rather, the Council was a manifestation of the organic development of doctrine.

It’s funny that this is where you start, when this was in fact one of Luther’s less innovative ideas–the books in question had been questioned since the early Church, and the issue had been reopened by Renaissance scholars, including orthodox ones such as Cardinal Cajetan. Yes, Luther’s approach was rather cavalier, but he certainly didn’t invent the idea that some books of the traditional canon were dubious.

How is it funny? We are talking about very serious matters. I provided a list of substantial issues with Luther in paragraph form. The first item read: “Luther simply invented much of his theology.” This was referring to his belief in sola scriptura, sola fide, and a universal priesthood, and his rejection of five sacraments and the visible nature of the Church, to name just a few. I think this is a very appropriate place to start.

The next (distinct) item on my list read: “He took out seven books of the Old Testament and put into doubt a quarter of the New Testament.” I never said that Luther invented the idea that some books of the traditional canon were dubious. One only has to think of St. Jerome’s views on the deuterocanon before his translation of the Vulgate.

No, he translated one Greek word with two German words. Anyone who knows anything about translation knows that you often have to do such things. Whether it was justified in this instance is a separate question.

The condescension here is palpable. I would say that most of the individuals on this forum know of the apparent difficulties of translating from one language to another. It wasn’t that he simply “translated one Greek word with two German words.” He read into the text his own theological opinions. This is clear from his later words on his addition.

Furthermore, a single word can change the entire theological meaning of a text. This can be true of a single iota, as we can see from the famous dispute in the early Church.

Such as? I don’t necessarily disagree. I’d just like to hear exactly what you mean.

Both Luther and Calvin, and many others to follow, believed that human nature was totally corrupt. This total corruption meant that man lacked free will to pursue the good. He also identified original sin with the presence of involuntary disordered movements of concupiscence in us. The Catholic Church, on the contrary, holds that the presence of these disordered movements of concupiscence, insofar as they are involuntary, is not directly sinful, and certainly does not constitute the essence of original sin. Rather concupiscence is a consequence of the loss of the preternatural gift of integrity.

I don’t think any Christian group can get very far leveling this criticism against any other. Nasty polemic has been a feature of Christianity for as long as there have been Christians, I’m afraid. Certainly Luther was a master of that unfortunate art

Most, however, do not belong to ecclesial communities named after such individuals.

Surely not relevant here.

It is distressing to me that, with so many substantive things to criticize in Luther, Catholics so often wish to waffle on about his “psychological problems”–a highly dubious method of historical/theological critique.

Absolutely relevant. This was more than a simple *ad hominem *attack on Luther taking the place of well-founded arguments. His scrupulosity led to his errors on original sin and original justice. These errors, in turn, were a wellspring for Luther’s other novelties.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Thanks you. Someone came to my defense - whether intended or not . You’ve submitted exactly what’s on my mind. however, I was not trying to dig into Luther’s grave mistake, but rather the fact that many Catholic leaders - though part of the culture of the time - did in fact do some pretty bad things that may have prevented Luther and others from dissenting so harshly, ultimately leading to division. I made a similar error during my youth. I was brought up to believe in solo scriptura because my family rejected teachings and doctrines of the Catholic Church. Most of my family are still Protestant. And the Catholics seem so confused because of how they live their life. IN fact, they actually can regurgitate what they learned from Catholic school days, but I doubt they really understand because of how they’ve lived their life and still say they are Catholic.

My thesis is that heresy is initiated by church leaders, not the laity. Luther was a PhD type and an ordained priest. One step further, he was also an Augustinian Monk/Friar. I’ve found that many PhD types let their education go to their heads and they revoke anyone that challenges their authority based on the fact they have a PhD. When I left, I was very confused, angry for what happened to me as a seminarian, and continues to occur to me as a returning Catholic. Futher, I’m angry that I was not taught correctly. Priests didn’t take their vocation serious enough to reach out to me when I was begging for answers to ward off these ill feelings and misguided heresies presented to me by key Catholics, some who were clergy. I judged the Church based on a couple of scrpture passages:

NAB
Matt 7

False Prophets.* 15“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves.k 16l By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. 20So by their fruits you will know them.m

NAB
Mark 7

5So the Pharisees and scribes questioned him, “Why do your disciples not follow the tradition of the elders* but instead eat a meal with unclean hands?” 6He responded, “Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written:**(“http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Mark&ch=7#49007006-b”) ‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
7In vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines human precepts.’
8You disregard God’s commandment but cling to human tradition.” 9He went on to say, “How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition!

You see, in the eyes of a Protestant raise Catholic, it’ would be easy to assume that Catholicism couldn’t be right if you did not understand “Sacred Tradition”. I also found out that other Christian communities have similar problems. Yet the thing that really brought me home was the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding moral theology and their stance against contraception, abortion, in vetro fertilization, same sex relationships, etc. The last one was one that I was betrayed by my spiritual director in the seminary. He took advantage of my peaceful gentle ways and encroached upon me sexually, which he knew my feelings about. Long story short, the clergy ultimately were to blame for my own confusion and anger. How does one get past such a thing without losing faith. I was beginning to lose faith in God because of their examples. My wife’s faith gave me hope again and so I began a long journey or learning more about God by studying the bible in more depth, though I had already read it many times over.

That’s all this thread is about, people’s struggle with bad things that happen to them by poorly formed clergy, even all the way to Rome. Justifying what they did, is really meaningless in this format because it’s not a lack of understanding about the culture of the time but a recognition that what they did was in fact wrong. Only Catholics seem to be the first to defend such poor actions. I can see an Anglican/Episcopalian doing the same thing to justify the horrible crimes they committed against Catholics during and after Henry VIII dissent. So, coming from you, Edwin, my feelings are skeptical regarding your comments. Though I understand what you’ve said to be written in books (and I’ve read the same things), I also recognize that there is no right way to do wrong (My CSM drilled this in us. He was also a preacher).

hn160 wrote: “The Roman Catholic Church did not come into existence until after the Council of Trent.” You have simply added your own interpretation to his words. Everyone knows that the Council of Trent defined and clarified Catholic teachings, while rejecting Protestant heresies. This does not mean, however, that the “Roman” Catholic Church came into existence after the Council of Trent. Rather, the Council was a manifestation of the organic development of doctrine.

How is it funny? We …

… This was more than a simple *ad hominem *attack on Luther taking the place of well-founded arguments. His scrupulosity led to his errors on original sin and original justice. These errors, in turn, were a wellspring for Luther’s other novelties.

 

[Contarini]

hn160 wrote: “The Roman Catholic Church did not come into existence until after the Council of Trent.” You have simply added your own interpretation to his words.

I have some experience with conservative Lutheran/Reformed perspectives. Hn160 is welcome to correct me if I have misinterpreted him.

Everyone knows that the Council of Trent defined and clarified Catholic teachings, while rejecting Protestant heresies. This does not mean, however, that the “Roman” Catholic Church came into existence after the Council of Trent. Rather, the Council was a manifestation of the organic development of doctrine.

I am quite aware that this is the Catholic view. Hn160 has described a conservative Lutheran view. Since this is a matter of definition and nomenclature, it’s not a simple matter of “correct” vs. “incorrect,” although I for one do not see a sharp enough break between pre- and post-Tridentine Catholicism to justify hn160’s language.

I provided a list of substantial issues with Luther in paragraph form.

Sorry–I thought the first sentence was a summary of the remaining items, since it was a general claim and the others were more specific.

The condescension here is palpable.

It is extremely frustrating to have to refute this false characterization of what Luther did over and over and over. I don’t know any other way to put it. Sometimes the best way to translate one word is with several English words. To describe this as simply “adding” a word does reflect a lack of understanding of the nature of translation. I stand by this judgment, however “condescending” you find it.

I would say that most of the individuals on this forum know of the apparent difficulties of translating from one language to another.

You may know that it is difficult, but if you understood how the process worked you wouldn’t use the language you do–not if you were thinking carefully.

It wasn’t that he simply “translated one Greek word with two German words.” He read into the text his own theological opinions.

Of course. That’s not the point of disagreement. If your problem isn’t with the number of words, then don’t use the word “add.” Luther did not simply stick in something that he knew had no basis in the Greek. He argued that the word was necessary to convey the sense of the Greek.

I have no problem agreeing that his belief regarding the proper translation was shaped by his conviction as to what the Greek meant.

This is true of all translations–it’s why generally you don’t want to rely on single-person translations, or on one single translation for that matter.

Furthermore, a single word can change the entire theological meaning of a text. This can be true of a single iota, as we can see from the famous dispute in the early Church.

Indeed. That’s not the point. The point is that Luther thought the German word “allein” was required to give the sense of the Greek.

Both Luther and Calvin, and many others to follow, believed that human nature was totally corrupt. This total corruption meant that man lacked free will to pursue the good. He also identified original sin with the presence of involuntary disordered movements of concupiscence in us. The Catholic Church, on the contrary, holds that the presence of these disordered movements of concupiscence, insofar as they are involuntary, is not directly sinful, and certainly does not constitute the essence of original sin. Rather concupiscence is a consequence of the loss of the preternatural gift of integrity.

OK. that’s what I thought you were talking about–I wanted to be sure.

I agree that this was a major issue, particularly the claim that involuntary sin is mortally culpable (Luther couldn’t follow through on this in his practical/pastoral writings, reverting to the mortal/venial sin distinction which he rejected soteriologically!). I also agree that Luther’s scrupulosity seems to have played a major role in this, although I don’t think that can be the sole issue, since many other people agreed with him, as you note. I think there was a broad cultural disposition to think badly of human nature–part of the deep concern with order and the potential for chaos and violence. It seemed as if everyone was competing to have a harsher and sterner theology than everyone else, except for a few mavericks.

Most, however, do not belong to ecclesial communities named after such individuals.

As has been pointed out already, the naming is not the fault of the Lutherans and should not be held against them. Lutherans prefer to call themselves “evangelicals,” historically, and Lutheranism stands or falls not on the character of Luther but on whether its version of the Gospel really is the Gospel or just another theological opinion.

Absolutely relevant. This was more than a simple *ad hominem *attack on Luther taking the place of well-founded arguments. His scrupulosity led to his errors on original sin and original justice. These errors, in turn, were a wellspring for Luther’s other novelties.

I think there’s a lot of plausibility to this interpretation. However, it is useless as an argument showing that Luther was wrong. It is useful only as a way of explaining (tentatively) why Luther was disposed to such errors, once they have been shown to be errors on other grounds.

So, for instance, many evangelical Protestants believe that total depravity is the historic Christian doctrine. Once you point out to them that this isn’t the case and the arguments against the position, you can then help them understand how they have come to be taught this distorted version of Christian theological history by explaining that Luther was a highly scrupulous person living in an era characterized by an emphasis on sin and guilt.

Edwin

 

[PbloPicasso]

Could God have allowed Martin Luther’s scandal be a catalyst for change in the Catholic Church? It seems to me that any clergy, not matter how high, that condones or even ordered, as in this case, the death penalty for Lutherans, would seem to be seriously theologically and morally wrong. This contradicts teachings today. Even Jesus condemned retaliation, even to those that teach about Him yet are not part of the His disciples.

Patience is a virtue. So is charity.

NOW!!! BACK TO THE TOPIC.

As I posted last, I said that poor example led Luther to this point of dissent, ultimately leading to division. Adding to the corruption was his own corrupted perspective about solo scriptura. I relate to his problem and know that I did not leave Catholicism out of pride, but rather absolute confusion and disbelief in the leadership, that was teaching all sorts of heresy during post Vatican Council II. I was not raised Catholic but taught that Catholcism was bad but my mother. My dad didn’t start teaching me until I was 14 years of age. By this time I was so confused that when I was taught I did like most people and tried to correlate what I was taught to my Protestant upbringing.

How about we get back to the topic, Please.

 

[Contarini]

I was brought up to believe in solo scriptura because my family rejected teachings and doctrines of the Catholic Church. Most of my family are still Protestant. And the Catholics seem so confused because of how they live their life.

I certainly agree that this does Catholicism a lot of harm. My own grandparents’ anti-Catholicism was fueled partly by traditional Protestant views of church history, but also by their personal experience working with inner-city youth in Scotland and northern England, many of whom were nominally Catholic.

Of course, Protestants often live their lives in very confused ways as well

I’ve found that many PhD types let their education go to their heads and they revoke anyone that challenges their authority based on the fact they have a PhD. When I left, I was very confused, angry for what happened to me as a seminarian, and continues to occur to me as a returning Catholic. . . .
That’s all this thread is about, people’s struggle with bad things that happen to them by poorly formed clergy, even all the way to Rome. Justifying what they did, is really meaningless in this format because it’s not a lack of understanding about the culture of the time but a recognition that what they did was in fact wrong. Only Catholics seem to be the first to defend such poor actions. I can see an Anglican/Episcopalian doing the same thing to justify the horrible crimes they committed against Catholics during and after Henry VIII dissent. So, coming from you, Edwin, my feelings are skeptical regarding your comments. Though I understand what you’ve said to be written in books (and I’ve read the same things), I also recognize that there is no right way to do wrong (My CSM drilled this in us. He was also a preacher).

I am very sorry for your experiences with Ph.D’s, but it is surely unfair to take them out on me (I do, in fact, have a Ph.D., but I do not see why this should be held against me).

Please deal with the *substance *of my arguments. Otherwise you are allowing your past hurt to cause you to commit injustice.

And please do not speculate as to what I would say about Anglican atrocities. While I will certainly point out the historical context when necessary (for instance, some people around here refuse to believe that heresy and treason really were different crimes in the sixteenth century), I certainly acknowledge that the English government did some awful things. In fact, I think Anglicanism’s existence as a separate entity is founded on bloody-minded idolatry. I hold no brief for defending it–unless, of course, people say things that ain’t so

Edwin

 

[PbloPicasso]

Edwin, you remind me of my son, always debating, always trying to be right.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin, you remind me of my son, always debating, always trying to be right.

You may patronize and dismiss me as much as you like, but if you make claims about history that I believe are inaccurate, I will feel free to point out the fact.

I do not understand why this conversation has to turn unpleasant. I bear you no ill-will and I share your general moral concern about the behavior of both sides in the Reformation. But I care about historical accuracy, and I’m pedantic enough to think that you should to.,

God bless,

Edwin

 

[GKC]

You may patronize and dismiss me as much as you like, but if you make claims about history that I believe are inaccurate, I will feel free to point out the fact.

I do not understand why this conversation has to turn unpleasant. I bear you no ill-will and I share your general moral concern about the behavior of both sides in the Reformation. But I care about historical accuracy, and I’m pedantic enough to think that you should to.,

God bless,

Edwin

In ways, Edwin and I are alike.

GKC

 

[PbloPicasso]

In ways, Edwin and I are alike.

GKC

In ways, I am like this and since I started this thread about something different than what you and Edwin want to talk about, I believe I’m in the right here. However, considering Edwin has a PhD in Bible, I would consider his remarks as unauthorized since he doesn’t have a degree in bible from ACU. My Church of Christ family believes us to be condemned to hell for misinterpreting scripture. Edwin, has asserted his own beliefs, which has nothing to do with this thread. My sources contradict him. So, he’s not hear to correct but to side track. You see, Edwin is in error as well since he is not in communion with the Holy See. And of course he will not agree with much of what I say. He’s not even Lutheran. My comments are mainly directed towards Catholics and those that subscribe to Luther’s theology. In fact, my point, that seems to be over Edwin’s head, subscribes to what many on CAF and clergy have said in recent years. It appears that if it were not for the bad example Catholics Protestantism would even exist. That’s somewhat of an overstatement, but it drives to a point. Luther may not have committed such a sin as heresy had he been dealt with more appropriately. However, he’s supporters were probably already geared towards revolting anyway. He just got caught up in the moment. Pride tears one’s ability to resist sin. I speak from experience.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Poor examples by action and inaction led Luther to the point of dissent, ultimately leading to division. I would add, like many PhD types, his pride got in the way. Education is good, but when one takes it upon himself to oppose Church Teaching, there it is out of sync with reality of Christ’s teaching. Adding to the corruption was his own corrupted perspective about solo scriptura. I relate to his problem and know that I did not leave Catholicism out of pride, but rather absolute confusion and disbelief in the leadership, that was teaching all sorts of heresy during post Vatican Council II. I was not raised Catholic but taught that Catholicism was bad but my mother. My dad didn’t start teaching me until I was 14 years of age. By this time I was so confused that when I was taught I did like most people and tried to correlate what I was taught to my Protestant upbringing.

 

[GKC]

In ways, I am like this and since I started this thread about something different than what you and Edwin want to talk about, I believe I’m in the right here. However, considering Edwin has a PhD in Bible, I would consider his remarks as unauthorized since he doesn’t have a degree in bible from ACU. My Church of Christ family believes us to be condemned to hell for misinterpreting scripture. Edwin, has asserted his own beliefs, which has nothing to do with this thread. My sources contradict him. So, he’s not hear to correct but to side track. You see, Edwin is in error as well since he is not in communion with the Holy See. And of course he will not agree with much of what I say. He’s not even Lutheran. My comments are mainly directed towards Catholics and those that subscribe to Luther’s theology. In fact, my point, that seems to be over Edwin’s head, subscribes to what many on CAF and clergy have said in recent years. It appears that if it were not for the bad example Catholics Protestantism would even exist. That’s somewhat of an overstatement, but it drives to a point. Luther may not have committed such a sin as heresy had he been dealt with more appropriately. However, he’s supporters were probably already geared towards revolting anyway. He just got caught up in the moment. Pride tears one’s ability to resist sin. I speak from experience.

What I talked about was Edwin. I’ve been watching him for over 10 years. He likes, as far as possible, to deal in historical fact.

I understand that.

I don’t think his PhD is in Bible, though.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

In ways, I am like this and since I started this thread about something different than what you and Edwin want to talk about, I believe I’m in the right here.

No, you want to make moralizing generalizations about the Reformation that get us away from considering the actual historical evidence. I’m basically on your side in terms of what I think you want to argue. But if you make inaccurate claims on a public discussion forum, I have the right to challenge them.

However, considering Edwin has a PhD in Bible, I would consider his remarks as unauthorized since he doesn’t have a degree in bible from ACU.

First of all, my Ph.D. is not in Bible but in the history of Christianity, with minor concentrations in early modern history and medieval philosophy. The scholarly field is not as confessionally divided as you seem to think. Catholic and Protestant scholars accept each other’s credentials as valid. Your claim is outrageous. Never mind that I have made no claim of authority based on having a Ph.,D. You are the one who seems obsessed with the evils of Ph.D’s, for your own personal reasons. I just want to talk about the evidence.

My Church of Christ family believes us to be condemned to hell for misinterpreting scripture.

Non sequitur.

Edwin, has asserted his own beliefs, which has nothing to do with this thread.

Yes, it does. You made claims about Luther. Other people made other claims. By the time I got involved, the thread was already charging in many different directions and had long ceased to be focused on your initial point. That is the only reason I got involved–it had become a general thread about Luther with the usual array of historically dubious claims on both sides.

My sources contradict him.

What sources?

So, he’s not hear to correct but to side track.

Again, I don’t see how I can have “side tracked” a thread that was already all over the place. And obviously challenging a claim I believe to be mistaken is “side tracking” inasmuch as it makes harder for the person I’m challenging to make the point!

You see, Edwin is in error as well since he is not in communion with the Holy See. And of course he will not agree with much of what I say. He’s not even Lutheran. My comments are mainly directed towards Catholics and those that subscribe to Luther’s theology. In fact, my point, that seems to be over Edwin’s head, subscribes to what many on CAF and clergy have said in recent years. It appears that if it were not for the bad example Catholics Protestantism would even exist.

The point isn’t “over my head.” It’s a point often made and which no doubt has a good deal of truth. The problem I have with it is that it takes away from the actual theological issues involved in the Reformation–as if Luther was just a sensitive person who was scandalized. I don’t think a careful study of the primary sources bears this out–nor do most people who have specialized in studying the period come to this conclusion.

Edwin

 

[PbloPicasso]

What I talked about was Edwin. I’ve been watching him for over 10 years. He likes, as far as possible, to deal in historical fact.

I understand that.

I don’t think his PhD is in Bible, though.

GKC

Edwin, Please start another thread so that we can talk about what you want to talk about. I’d like to engage in that discussion. And, what are your credentials if you don’t mind my asking? I was preparing to become a Church of Christ preacher when I ran into historical facts found on a non-Catholic website. It’s a long story and you can research it if you like. I’m just trying to get back to Luther and the Church… not your personal conjecture. I’m interested in the persons that defect for why I perceive Luther’s defection. I would love to talk about history on another thread. I’m comparing why Catholics leave the Church here because I don’t really know where else to pose it. My interests include Martin Luther. I’ve been watching some television versions of Martin Luther’s 95 Thesis. But what stands out in those videos to me is the fact that many Church leaders did some pretty bad things to cause Luther to react so strongly. I already know and understand the culture of the time. But when we talk about translating scripture in the Catholic Church, we speak about it that he added the word “only” to convey what Martin Luther desired it to say or what he believed it to say.

Unless you’ve been in my shoes as a fundamentalist Christian you probably don’t have a leg to stand on because you don’t really understand. Many fundamentalists might not engage in the conversation simply because it challenges their own beliefs. I can only convey this in the form of examples. Because I do not have the terminology for such beliefs. Fundamentalists approach scripture with a pre-belief and look for proof texts of their belief, all the while ignoring the rest of scripture. Ultimately it leads to heretical thinking that leads one further away from Word of God, which is Christ. Luther ignored the rest of scripture, which my own fundamentalist faith taught was wrong. We proved this by referencing other scriptures, Ephesians 2:8: “for it is by Grace that you have been saved…”, James 2:14 “faith without works is dead…”

These are merely a couple of passages evident to oppose Luther from adding the word “ONLY” to go along with faith. However, in reading about Martin Luther’s belief that it is the free gift of God, Grace, that saves us. I would concur on that beleif, however, it must be taught in light of all other scriptures to assert that, in my own flawed wording, that Ephesians 2 asserts much more clearly. However, faith is the evidence of things hoped for… as well as, faith without works is dead. You see, they’re all carefully intertwined, yet they may not be located in exactly the order and place that we would like. Bible also teaches that “baptism doth now save”, further adding to the compilation of understanding. So, Edwin, I totally disagree with your conjecture in light of the fact that I took German in Germany and still to not believe you assertion is correct. However, I’m open to your more specific interpretation of Luther’s translation as long as you convey it in German. Keep in mind that there was no specific German language but rather a collection of dialects, which basically still exists today and would be made evident if you lived there for enough time, just as there are differences in American or Canada, or Mexico, etc. I believe Luther added his own twist like many Christians try to proof text their own beliefs while ignoring other scripture that clarify.

Oh, and I might add that I’m pursuing a PhD as well. I’m sure you’ve heard the spill on that. B.S. M.S. and Piled high. No disrespect meant, but just as there exist many unscrupulous experts in many fields PhDs do not clean up the mess anymore than someone who has learned through self teaching, considering the sources are good. PhDs only “validate” on paper through a given group of self declared experts. I can prove my assertion by merely citing current math professors for example. I can also do the same by citing Catholic Priest religion and bible teachers that seemed to have gotten lost in translation themselves.

 

[PbloPicasso]

I agree that burning heretics was wrong, but the major difference between Luther and the Catholic Church wasn’t over whether heretics should be burned (that was a minor item on the list of things for which Luther was condemned, and while Luther never endorsed burning heretics, he did come to endorse some pretty harsh treatment of people he considered dangerous to church and society).

Luther certainly was a catalyst for change in Catholicism, but not all of that change was good.

Edwin

Now I see how you got off on the wrong foot, Edwin. You interpreted my post wrong. Then you went on to say things I never mentioned. I was referring to a documentary I had just watched regarding Luther. I’m still trying to get clarification on this, but Luther had every reason to believe he was about to be put to death, and why he fled. I think you’re reading way to much into what I said. First, you seem to have misread it. Second, you went off on a tangent. I’m am going to read through these posts of yours that I am still scratching my head over saying “why in the world did Edvin post this in the first place”.

 

[Ginger2]

Poor examples by action and inaction led Luther to the point of dissent, ultimately leading to division. I would add, like many PhD types, his pride got in the way. Education is good, but when one takes it upon himself to oppose Church Teaching, …

Luther didn’t start out opposing church teaching. He sent a message to the pope to inform him about a corrupt few who were (in Luther’s opinion) extorting money from the poor for personal gain.

Luther fully expected the pope would put an end to this immoral behavior, but instead, Luther found his life being threatened.

This had to be devastating and it is the churches failure to address the reported abuses that led Luther to question it’s very teaching. Luther’s persecution by the church he loved, now left him with no other explanation than those in authority had all become corrupt.

Whether or not Luther was correct in his assessment is beside the point. He left the church because it appeared to him the church had left Jesus.

And that is why he began to question the churches teachings.

If the pope had addressed Luther’s concerns, either explaining what was going on - if Luther had misunderstood, OR by taking action against the perpetrators, if Luther was correct, then perhaps the reformation would have never happened.

I can fully understand how disillusioned Luther must have felt. I, to a much smaller degree, experienced something similar from the people who claim to serve God.

I have not been to church since.

Ginger

 

[PbloPicasso]

You are the salt of the earth. But what if salt goes flat? How can you restore its flavor? Then it is good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.

The unclean, immoral cleric is trampled underfoot like worthless manure. He is saturated with the filth of vice and entangled in the chains of sin. In this condition he must be considered worthless both to himself and to others. As Gregory says: 'When a man’s life is frowned upon, it follows that his preaching will be despised.

Presbyter who are born leaders deserve to be doubly honored, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching

From30th Sunday in Ordinary Time (October 23)
~John of Capistrano, Priest
Born in Abruzzi, Itally -1386
Died in Villach, Austria 1456

 

[Hesychios]

The unclean, immoral cleric is trampled underfoot like worthless manure. He is saturated with the filth of vice and entangled in the chains of sin. In this condition he must be considered worthless both to himself and to others. As Gregory says: 'When a man’s life is frowned upon, it follows that his preaching will be despised.

I am curious, to whom would this be a reference?

 

[PbloPicasso]

I am curious, to whom would this be a reference?

This is a quote from the Divine Office, as quoted on the bottom of my thread. I would think it’s a reference to any cleric that exhibits the same lack of transformation.

 

[Bastoune]

i think once the Bible was able to read and owned by many people, a reformation of some kind would have happened sooner or later anyway, whether it was Martin Luther or someone else. i am not saying that the Bible should not have been printed in different languages and for the common people to read, but it was a temptation for some to want to interpret the Holy Scripture their own way and not want to conform to what the Catholic Church taught. it is sad to see now how many different Christian churches their are now.
i wish we were all united under one Church.

Luther never set out to split from the Church but while many, including the Pope and Erasmus, sympathized with and sided with his call against corruption, the errors of Luther were confronted and refuted several times.

Luther reacted with arrogance and pride, and took his buddies with him.

Later on, when the Anabaptists (denying sola fide and infant baptism) broke away from the Lutherans due to their own personal interpretations that disagreed with those of Luther, Luther’s only recourse was to appeal for help from the secular powers.

Luther couldn’t appeal to Scripture, nor assert his “authority” over the Anabaptists – those people used Luther’s own weapons against him, the Bible (the Catholic book itself).

I wouldn’t be proud to be a Lutheran. Luther threw out books of the OT, would have thrown out James, Hebrews and Revelation… and yet he believed in Sola Scriptura, all the while wanting to reduce the size of Scripture to reject anything that didn’t agree with his personal interpretation.

Let’s not forget Luther’s anti-Semitism was the root of the Holocaust:

awitness.org/books/luther/on_jews_and_their_lies_p2.html

By their fruits you shall know them… God did NOT prompt Luther to rebellion. Compare the lives of Francis of Assisi, who responded to rebuild the Church, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, François de Sales… and then look at Luther, Calvin, Zwigli… please, while there had been plenty of corrupt men in the ranks of the Catholic clergy, the amount of true saints is overwhelming. Not one of the Protestant deformers could hold a candle to them. Least of whom Martin Luther.

 

[JonNC]

=Bastoune;8507518]Luther never set out to split from the Church but while many, including the Pope and Erasmus, sympathized with and sided with his call against corruption, the errors of Luther were confronted and refuted several times.

DO you have evidence that the pope sided with Luther against the corruption?

Luther reacted with arrogance and pride, and took his buddies with him.

Are you implying there was no arrogance and pride amongst the Catholic leadership of that time?

Later on, when the Anabaptists (denying sola fide and infant baptism) broke away from the Lutherans due to their own personal interpretations that disagreed with those of Luther, Luther’s only recourse was to appeal for help from the secular powers.

The anabaptists were never with Lutherans in order to break away. Neither were the Calvinists for that matter.

Luther couldn’t appeal to Scripture, nor assert his “authority” over the Anabaptists – those people used Luther’s own weapons against him, the Bible (the Catholic book itself).

He couldn’t? Really? Are you saying that Luther was wrong, scripturally, regarding infant baptism, the real presence, confession?

I wouldn’t be proud to be a Lutheran. Luther threw out books of the OT, would have thrown out James, Hebrews and Revelation… and yet he believed in Sola Scriptura, all the while wanting to reduce the size of Scripture to reject anything that didn’t agree with his personal interpretation.

Luther’s translation did include the D-C’s. He questioned the disputed books of the NT in the same way Catholics did for centuries, all the way back to Eusebius. They, too, were never excluded from Luther’s translation.

Let’s not forget Luther’s anti-Semitism was the root of the Holocaust:

Oh, do not go there. We can talk about Ecke’s anti-judaism, and how some of Luther’s critics early on called him a judaizer. Luther’s anti-judaism, while hideous, was part and parcel of his time - in many parts of the Catholic Church, as well.

By their fruits you shall know them… God did NOT prompt Luther to rebellion. Compare the lives of Francis of Assisi, who responded to rebuild the Church, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, François de Sales… and then look at Luther, Calvin, Zwigli… please, while there had been plenty of corrupt men in the ranks of the Catholic clergy, the amount of true saints is overwhelming. Not one of the Protestant deformers could hold a candle to them. Least of whom Martin Luther.

I can see why you feel this way, and can only imagine the sources you rely on - O’Hare and the like. Perhaps you might want to read some of Pope Benedict’s thoughts on Luther.

Jon