Questions about Martin Luther

[JoeyWarren]

So your main difference with Ayatollah Khomeini would be just which kind of blasphemers should be executed?

Yes, if I had been a Catholic at the time of Martin Luther. That is how heretics were dealt with before most of us became civilized. We were barbaric then just as the Islamist are still Barbaric now. It’s an issue with respect to place and time. Look at the Salem witch trials and hunts? We were still uncivilized then. So yes at the time and era of Martin Luther, it was prudent by authorities to put a bounty on people.

Our western heritage here in the states. How long did we have “Wanted Dead or Alive” mentality?

Like at Martin Luther’s own stand against poor peasants during the peasant wars.

History, Time, Response. It’s all relative.

The Crusades? My only regret is that we did not win them! Imagine if we had, would 9/11 even happened?

 

[Steadfast]

“Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.” I’m JoeyWarren! I know how to cut and paste! I can’t think for myself or read an objective and exhaustive source but I can rightclick! “Blah, blah, blah, blah, jibber de jabber blah, blah, blah.”

 

[Rocky]

I am a Catholic, so I haven’t studied about Luther much. I am also relatively new to the forum, so I haven’t read these quotes about Luther before. Quite frankly, though, the reply by Steadfast seems to echo how muslims reply when unfavorable facts about their religion is presented to them.

What was written is shocking to me. I think you could make a better reply, Steadfast, than the one you gave above. I for one would be interested in reading it.

 

[Steadfast]

I am a Catholic, so I haven’t studied about Luther much. I am also relatively new to the forum, so I haven’t read these quotes about Luther before. Quite frankly, though, the reply by Steadfast seems to echo how muslims reply when unfavorable facts about their religion is presented to them.

What was written is shocking to me. I think you could make a better reply, Steadfast, than the one you gave above. I for one would be interested in reading it.

Rocky, one tires of reinventing the wheel and telling people what they’ve been told hundreds of times on this very forum.

Eventually one is left only with Augustine’s advice, “If something is ridiculous, it deserves to be ridiculed.”

The thing is, Joey is such a troll, my frustration probably pleases him.

 

[Rocky]

So basically, what you are saying is that he has posted lies? That Luther did not say that bigamy was okay, etc.? I for one would never stop defending the saints of the Catholic Church if lies were being posted about them, no matter how many times I had to do so. But if these are not lies, then what am I to think?

 

[Steadfast]

One more thing.

I prefer to deal with one issue at a time, and avoid involvement in duelling citations and cut-and-paste wars.

I think for myself, see. I don’t feel it’s necessary to regurgitate the hard work of others except on choice occasions and where the authority is really authoritative.

Joey has said that Luther wanted to leave books out of the bible. When presented with the historical FACT that Luther did not actually, in the event, when given the opportunity, leave any books out of the bible, he fabricated the supposition that he was culled into it by friends. When asked for corroboration, he had nothing and began flooding the thread with **** that has absolutely nothing to do with the point at hand.

This is what is known as triangulation, moving the goalposts, obfuscation, verbal prestidigitation, call it what you will.

Having been exposed as a liar, he seeks to derail.

It is the refuge of a hack.

 

[Steadfast]

So basically, what you are saying is that he has posted lies? That Luther did not say that bigamy was okay, etc.? I for one would never stop defending the saints of the Catholic Church if lies were being posted about them, no matter how many times I had to do so. But if these are not lies, then what am I to think?

No, Luther did not say “Bigamy was okay”. In one instance he cautiously and mistakenly advised someone to remarry without the original marriage being ended.

Since then he has become the champion of polygamy.

Shall we discuss all the harlots Rome has made with the dissolution of properly contracted marriages? All the effective polygamies Rome has countenanced the first time some moneyed nobleman wants a little strange?

The problem is that anyone can be taken out of context. Many men you revere as saints have skeletons in their closets, have said things which extricated from context could seem very damning. One example would be a series of deeply anti-semitic sermons preached by Chrysostom. That’s just one example.

And yet, Luther is the antisemite.

No, I’m not interested in playing this game.

 

[Rocky]

Okay, Luther said to one specific person that it was okay to have a mistress on the side. In my estimation just to give this advice is very sinful.act because he not only put that person’s soul in eternal jeopardy but also gave scandal to others. Did he repent of this advice?

Actually Catholic saints have all been sinners. Some of them quite notorious, but they repented publicly of their sin. We revere them because they show us Christ’s mercy and how to live a life of faith through his grace. And a very detailed investigation is made into the life of those who are brought up for canonization. If it was ever found that a grave sin such as scandal had been committed and not repented publicly, that person would never be canonized a saint. This investigation also includes the necessity of miracles being performed through their intercession, since only God can perform miracles and this is a testimony by God that they are in heaven. And after they have been canonized their sins are not swept under a rug to be forgotten as something that we need not to remember. Rather we can praise God with them in heaven for His incomparable mercy in bringing sometimes grave sinners to great grace!

 

[Turtullian]

No, Luther did not say “Bigamy was okay”. In one instance he cautiously and mistakenly advised someone to remarry without the original marriage being ended.

Since then he has become the champion of polygamy.

If A person is being counseled to engage in a sinful act, knowing very well the (at least from a scriptural standpoint) act is condemned, then one must scrutinize as to wether or not he constitutes a false prophet.

Shall we discuss all the harlots Rome has made with the dissolution of properly contracted marriages? All the effective polygamies Rome has countenanced the first time some moneyed nobleman wants a little strange?

An Annullment is not the same as a divorse or a dissolution of Marriage. The Liturgy itself declares that “what God has bound together, let no man seperate”. An Anullment is the declaration that there was no Sacramental marriage involved as either one was either previously married, closely related (As Henry VIII attempted with Catherine of Aragon) or that the form and matter of the sacrament was ilicit (IE one or both of the celebrants drunk or have an intent not to view the marriage as sacramental, the Priest not using the correct liturgical norms, etc.

The problem is that anyone can be taken out of context. Many men you revere as saints have skeletons in their closets, have said things which extricated from context could seem very damning. One example would be a series of deeply anti-semitic sermons preached by Chrysostom. That’s just one example

.

Yet, St. John Chrysostom may have blamed the jews of Christs era for his crucifixion and the anthemas they placed on Christians, he never went so far as to publish a book like “on the Jews and thier lies” which gives instruction as to how germans should react if they see jews living in thier midst.

 

[sadie2723]

Just a thought here, but it really does not matter what Luther said or did not say. What does matter is that he broke with the one true Church that Christ set up…and that is where he was wrong.

 

[corvidae]

I would say that Joey did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that luther was talked out of including the books. However, in looking, he did find other problems.

Congrats steadfast, you may have beaten joey on one arguement, he may not admit it. He did bring up other arguements, which you will not reply to until he admits he is wrong.

It seems that this will not get anyone anywhere. Can we move past the convincing luther to keep books to some of the other things said about Luther.

thank you

A lone Raven

 

[Turtullian]

It should be noted that the charge that St. John Chrysostom was anti-semetic is a patently false charge. The 8 Homilies that St. John Chrysostom wrote on the subject of things remotely jewish has to do with the fact that St. John Chrysostom was dealing in harsh rhetoric against the Judaizers. What they have to do with is the the continuance of the judaizing heresy which continued to foster. H was more or less disgusted with the fact that Christians themselves were turning to the Law and to the customs of the Jews and incorperating Rabbinical Judaism into their practices.

Not only that but the Supposed “Anti-semitism” in St. John’s work in Adversis Judeus are arguements that are theological in nature against why Judaism since it has rejected Christ is a False Religion. Luther on the other hand attempted the court the Jews in attempt to get jews to support him against the Church. When they rebuffed him, it inspired him to write a slanderous attack mixed with not only theological arguements but personal slanders too.

 

[Steadfast]

It should be noted that the charge that St. John Chrysostom was anti-semetic is a patently false charge. The 8 Homilies that St. John Chrysostom wrote on the subject of things remotely jewish has to do with the fact that St. John Chrysostom was dealing in harsh rhetoric against the Judaizers. What they have to do with is the the continuance of the judaizing heresy which continued to foster. H was more or less disgusted with the fact that Christians themselves were turning to the Law and to the customs of the Jews and incorperating Rabbinical Judaism into their practices.

Not only that but the Supposed “Anti-semitism” in St. John’s work in Adversis Judeus are arguements that are theological in nature against why Judaism since it has rejected Christ is a False Religion. Luther on the other hand attempted the court the Jews in attempt to get jews to support him against the Church. When they rebuffed him, it inspired him to write a slanderous attack mixed with not only theological arguements but personal slanders too.

Luther said nothing worse than anything Chrysostom said.

But, since Chrysostom is a saint and Luther a heretic, Chrysostom gets a pass.

You people can’t even see straight.

 

[Turtullian]

Luther said nothing worse than anything Chrysostom said.

Quite the contrary, Luther himself said it was perfectly justifiable to use violence against Jews and destroy thier homes, Synagogues, and confiscate the property of Jews living in Germany. His famous tract “on the Jews and thier lies” proclaims such.

But, since Chrysostom is a saint and Luther a heretic, Chrysostom gets a pass.

It’s one thing to use harsh theological rhetoric against the Jews for rejecting Christ as a group it’s another to translate that into actual hate speech and a raison d’etre to go after individual jews. Individualy, St. John himself had no particular axe to grind against i Jews or Judiazers. He saw both as false religions that were condemned as a whole by God. Luther, on the otherhand made it perfectly justifiable in his tract to use physical violence against Jews.

 

[havemercy]

Someone was taught lies about Martin Luther being a hero of the faith, and can’t believe what he’s reading.

Sigh…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Finally someone who knows what they’re talking about!

Sort of.

The only books Luther put into an appendix were the OT Deuteros. The books of the NT he’d expressed negative opinions about were all in their places as the common NT canon has them today.

To be fair, I’m not sure about the other books. I’d have to look this up.

But I’m fairly sure he actually did place the Apocalypse in with the deuterocanonical books. It was the later reformer’s influence that prompted Luther to reconsider his thoughts on the book (and, to be fair, it is the only book that was illustrated).

Nonetheless, he did put this book within the appendix and he didn’t number it either like he did with the other books. Likewise, he didn’t didn’t put a “saint” in front of the name of the author to clearly mark it as Scripture as he did with the other books.

In other words, he thought it was an edifying book, but not of the same status as the divinely inspired Scriptures. And, to my knowledge, even though he later developed a strong interest in the book, he never actually removed the Apocalypse from the appendix either. It seems to be later post-Concord reformers within Luther’s collegiate who brought this book back into the canon if I recall correctly.

It’s been a while so I could be wrong about this. But that’s how I remember it.

 

[Iraneaus]

Steadfast,

I am not going to argue that Luther only kept the books in because of suggestions by anyone.

If anything I would say he kept them in for the reason he did not feel he had the authority to make these decisions. That thought I might preface though is also somewhat speculative. However it is based on personal conviction after reading some of his prefaces to the questioned gospels.

Things we do know however, I think without question is that although Luther did not feel worthy enough to completely exclude books, he did feel the need to judge, rate, seperate, and in some case make a preface before the epistles, giving his reasoning as to why they were not scripture in his eyes.

He had a low view of Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation, and so when he published his New Testament in 1522 he placed these books apart at the end. In his Preface to Hebrews, which comes first in the series, he says, “Up to this point we have had to do with the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation.”

If Luther’s negative view of these books were based only upon the fact that their canonicity was disputed in early times, we would have expected him to include 2 Peter among them, because this epistle was doubted more than any other in ancient times. But it is evident from the prefaces that Luther affixed to these four books that his low view of them had more to do with his theological reservations against them than with any historical investigation of the canon.

Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude (1522)
Luther:

Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow.

 

[Steadfast]

Quite the contrary, Luther himself said it was perfectly justifiable to use violence against Jews and destroy thier homes, Synagogues, and confiscate the property of Jews living in Germany. His famous tract “on the Jews and thier lies” proclaims such.

It’s one thing to use harsh theological rhetoric against the Jews for rejecting Christ as a group it’s another to translate that into actual hate speech and a raison d’etre to go after individual jews. Individualy, St. John himself had no particular axe to grind against i Jews or Judiazers. He saw both as false religions that were condemned as a whole by God. Luther, on the otherhand made it perfectly justifiable in his tract to use physical violence against Jews.

Have you actually read both documents?

I have.

Maybe you can show me how they’re different.

Luther’s diatribe was theologically driven. So was Chrysostoms.

But you know what, this isn’t even the point.

The point is that exculpating evidence abounds for Chrysostom (and btw I never said he was an anti-semite) and this evidence is permissible. And, frankly, I believe it should be, but if it is for him then others should be given the chance as well.

Any effort to clear Luther is shouted down, or countered with more nonsense from O’Hare.

Recently I have been ridiculed that my “Hero of the faith” has been shown to have clay feet.

Here’s the thing…what I’ve seen in this thread is that I know more about Luther than any six of you put together. I don’t call him a “hero of the faith”, my eyes are open to his weaknesses and failures and I admit them as such. On the other hand all you have are expressions of disapproval from “authorities” like O’Hare (the Catholic Boettner) and Crocker and such propagandists.

And Chrysostom has no weaknesses. He’s a saint.

I’m told that annulments are different than divorces. I know that. One cannot be raised Catholic without having the distinction pounded into ones skull.

And yet, it is denied that the Church ever issued an annulment solely for money or without proper canonical reason, a thing manifestly refuted by history. And if the church has done so (and it has) even twice (and it has, far more than twice) then it has made more harlots and bigamists than Luther.

But, Luther is the proponent of bigamy.

Do you see the box you’ve put yourselves in?.

In preference for black and white caricatures, the truth is ignored.

 

[JoeyWarren]

I would say that Joey did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that luther was talked out of including the books. However, in looking, he did find other problems.

Congrats steadfast, you may have beaten joey on one arguement, he may not admit it. He did bring up other arguements, which you will not reply to until he admits he is wrong.

It seems that this will not get anyone anywhere. Can we move past the convincing luther to keep books to some of the other things said about Luther.

thank you

A lone Raven

True I did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was talked out of it.

Beaten? nah!

As I posted before. The vast commentaries on Martin Luther claim that he wanted have them removed.

I have provided the most well known of his councilors/advisors/supporters

Philipp Melanchthon
Johannes Bugenhagen
Justus Jonas
Friederich the Wise
George Spalatin
Katharina von Bora

http://www.luther.de/bilder/lut_mel.jpgLuther and his Collaborators,
picture by Lucas Cranach the Younger,

Luther had the support of some Princes. Their names are not given.

When Luther and the princes who supported him left Worms, the emperor imposed an Imperial Act (Wormser Edikt): Luther is declared an outlaw (he may be killed by anyone without threat of punishment).

Let it be noted that it was the Emperor that put a price on his head, not the Pope that some claim.

On my studies, I have come across other scholars that make the claim that he was talked out of removing some the NT books.

I cannot currently locate these articles, but nonetheless I did come across them.

It will take a long search to find them again. But when I do find them I will post them.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Catholic Encyclopedia has done an exhaustive expose on Martin Luther. It is very lengthy and very detailed. More so then some sites that are dedicated to Luther.

newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm

Very, Very, Very long read.