Reformation Sunday

[gurneyhalleck1]

Good evening, raum,

I have heard these arguments before, that Luther went INTO the ministry with an agenda to tear down the Church, prejudiced against the papacy and the institutions of Catholicism and that he was tainted by reading the writings of Jan Hus, William of Occam (the nominalist who divorced faith from reason and was anti-Aquinas), John Gerson and Cardinal Peter d’Ailly (conciliarists both). The theory here being that he went in with a jag on for the Church and used indulgences as a cheesy excuse to enact his anti-Catholic pseudo-reforms and bring down the Church. I’m not sure the theories are compelling. All the reading I’ve done, from various sources, points to a man with a troubled conscience, a highly scrupulous son of the Church who adored Catholicism but developed a deep sense of guilt and feeling of inadequacy with the Church’s view on penance and works being so paramount, with what Luther viewed as faith and grace as not being showcased or encouraged hardly at all. He was initially troubled by indulgences and his study of Paul’s Letter to the Romans, his translations and analysis of it, brought him to see the Christian walk in a different way from the works-driven penance/treasury of merit approach to the walk. Indulgences were the spark that lit things off. And as his bouts with the papacy got worse and nastier, he dug deeper and liked what he saw less and less.

He was a fiery man, a polemecist at times, downright nasty often times, had a temper, very emotional, but highly intelligent and analytical. I’ve read all his major works and find him brilliant whether I agree or not. I find him far more impressive than Calvin. And he was a deeply spiritual man. He lived in fiery, nasty, propoganda-laden times that make 2010 political campaigns look tame!

The jury is still out on him really. He’s a polarizing, fascinating guy.

Not to worry … I *never *try to cover bad behavior by churchmen - whether Protestant or Catholic, as is evidenced by this.

I’m always cool - very cool!

Well, I have to correct you my friend, because you are wrong. Very wrong! *Indulgences *were just a pretext for Luther’s apostasy.

I quote Fr. Denifle’s work on Luther (pp. xxxiii-xxxiv):

Fr. Grisar on Luther’s overall dishonesty about Indulgences:

 

[rev_kevin]

According to History.com Oct 31/Halloween is a mix of ancient Celtic practices, Catholic and Roman religious rituals and European folk traditions that blended together over time to creat the holiday we know today.
Halloween had been long thought of as a day when the dead can return to earth and ancient Celtics would light bonfires and wear costumes to ward off these romaning ghosts.
The Celtic holiday of Samhain, the Catholic Hallowmas period of All St. Day and All Soul’s Day and the Roman Festival of Feralia all influenced the modern holiday of Halloween.
In the 19th century it began to loose its religious connotation and became a more secular community-based children’s holiday.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Good evening to you, gurney!

I have heard these arguments before, that Luther went INTO the ministry with an agenda to tear down the Church

I don’t think that’s what either Denifle or Grisar are saying. Luther’s problem was that he was wholly unsuited for the life of a monk. His pride was so great that he simply could brook neither correction nor any authority, other than his own. So it’s no surprise therefore that he was the sort who would become increasingly dissatisfied with the monastic life.

All the reading I’ve done, from various sources, points to a man with a troubled conscience, a highly scrupulous son of the Church who adored Catholicism but developed a deep sense of guilt and feeling of inadequacy with the Church’s view on penance and works being so paramount, with what Luther viewed as faith and grace as not being showcased or encouraged hardly at all.

I think Luther was basically a Pharisee on steroids! And he projected his Phariseeism unto the Church!

He was initially troubled by indulgences and his study of Paul’s Letter to the Romans, his translations and analysis of it, brought him to see the Christian walk in a different way from the works-driven penance/treasury of merit approach to the walk. Indulgences were the spark that lit things off.

The Indulgence controversy was simply a convenient and ready excuse that allowed Luther to launch his protest. Had there been no indulgence controversy, Luther would have found something else to justify his pitiless attacks on the faith, as indeed he did - the Mass, the Sacraments, purgatory, the Papacy etc…

And as his bouts with the papacy got worse and nastier, he dug deeper and liked what he saw less and less. He was a fiery man, a polemecist at times, downright nasty often times, had a temper, very emotional, but highly intelligent and analytical.

Well, I think it safe to say that Luther focused way too much on the bad Christians. And really, he seems almost a perfect example of the very sort of Pharisaically judgmental men St. Augustine had to endure in his day. And what does Augustine have to say about such men? Let’s listen:

Those who choose to blame, do so with so envious and perverse a mind, as to shut their eyes to the good, and exaggerate only the evils which either actually exist there, or are imagined.

Thus it happens, that when any profession has been ill, that is, incautiously, praised, if it has invited men by its own reputation, they who betake themselves there discover some such as they did not believe to be there; and offended by the wicked recoil from the good…

The Church of God, to speak generally, is magnified: Christians, and Christians alone, are called great, the Catholic (Church) is magnified; all love each other; each and all do all they can for one another; they give themselves up to prayers, fastings, hymns; throughout the whole world, with peaceful unanimity God is praised.

Some one perhaps hears this, who is ignorant that nothing is said of the wicked who are mingled with them; he comes, invited by these praises, finds bad men mixed with them, who were not mentioned to him before he came; he is offended by false Christians, he flies from true Christians. Again, men who hate and slander them, precipitately blame them: asking, what sort of men are Christians? Who are Christians? Covetous men, usurers. Are not the very persons who fill the Churches on holidays the same who during the games and other spectacles fill the theatres and amphitheatres?

They are drunken, gluttonous, envious, slanderers of each other. There are such, but not such only. And this slanderer in his blindness says nothing of the good: and that praiser in his want of caution is silent about the bad…

Thus also in that common life of brethren, which exists in a monastery: great and holy men live therein, with daily hymns, prayers, praises of God; their occupation is reading; they labour with their own hands, and by this means support themselves …

You have praised them; you have praised; he who knows not what is going on within … enters as if in hope of security, expecting to find no man to forbear; he finds there evil brethren … and becomes himself impatient beyond endurance.

Who asked me here? I thought that love was here. And irritated by the perversity of some few men, since he has not persevered in fulfilling his vow, he becomes a deserter of so holy a design, and guilty of a vow he has never discharged. And then, when he has gone forth himself too, he also becomes a reproacher, and a slanderer; and records those things only (sometimes real), which he asserts that he could not have endured.

But the real troubles of the wicked ought to be endured for the society of the good. The Scripture says unto him: “Woe unto those that have lost patience.” Ecclesiastes 2:16

And what is more, he belches abroad the evil savour of his indignation, as a means to deter them who are about to enter; because, when he had entered himself, he could not persevere.

Of what sort are they? Envious, quarrelsome, men who forbear no man, covetous; saying, He did this there, and he did that there. Wicked one, why are you silent about the good! You say enough of those whom you could not endure: you say nothing of those who endured your wickedness…

Exposition of Psalm 100, 9.

Perhaps a lesson for us all. Let us forgive.

Peace, my friend.

 

[Bluegoat]

I think I can say that this analysis of Luther is pretty much a crock.

If the stuff that went on then was going on now, Catholics everywhere would be freaking out and leaving the CC. Heck, I think if more Catholics understood indulgences, a lot of them would be upset.

 

[JonNC]

I think I can say that this analysis of Luther is pretty much a crock.

It is, indeed. Our friend raum likes to quote Luther-hater polemic extremists like Denifle and Grisar, and O’Hare. He and I have had dialogue about these guys. He considers them credible. I consider them to be on a par with people like Boettner and Chick, so I think we’ve kind of mutually agreed not to dailogue about it. There are other things raum and I agree on, and have discussed with charity.

Jon

 

[JustaServant]

Hi Jon,
The object of this thread is not to analyze Luther (I think we have about 10.000 other threads on that), but instead to analyze ‘Reformation Sunday’ and it’s relavancy 500 years later.
Just don’t want the thread sidetracked.

 

[The_Sentry]

I have several Presbyterian relatives (who think I’m nuts for being Anglican and am secretly a “closet Catholic” lol)…I just heard that their church celebrated Reformation Day by playing various Scottish songs on bagpipes. The sermon was about how great that particular church was (according to the family). They then played more German and Scottish music, and the service ended. As far as we know, there are no Germans or Scots who worship there. The point of the Reformation Day service was to revel in the theological efforts of Luther and Knox. The fact that this church does not really follow the teachings of either man is brushed aside.

I certainly do not intend to poke fun at anyone’s church or traditions. That’s the last thing on my mind. But one has to ask where Christ and his Gospel are in all of this? And that’s very ironic, considering Luther’s actual beliefs and emphases. Understanding the Reformation - its good contributions and its tragic consequences alike - is crucially important for all parties involved. But making it a special Sunday and having curiously exaggerated celebrations in place of worship? Perhaps not the best thing.

In the interest of full disclosure, my own parish had a really hardcore “Stewardship Sunday” today, so we are also guilty of distracting from the point of the worship service. But that’s a topic for another day.

May our Lord grant us what unity He wills for us, hopefully full & visible unity that few now expect to see…and may He strengthen the bonds of friendship and fellowship among those who remain faithful to the Incarnate Word throughout this world, both Catholic and non-Catholic alike!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

That just doesn’t follow my readings of him for years now. He seems like a very obedient Christian who planned on dedicating his life to service in the Augustinian order faithfully. He was by no means a pharisee in that he rebelled AGAINST the idea of following a strict law code, hoops and ladders, rules and regulations in order to get to heaven, which is essentially the Pharisaic ideal. Pharisees believed you had to follow the Law 100%, judge people based on their behavior as going to heaven or hell, rules, commandments, the letter of the law, etc. Luther was the ANTITHESIS of this? He was totally focused on GRACE and the idea that God works with and through us through the principal of faith. Grace is a free gift. We cannot earn our salvation in any way. Sanctification follows justification. That’s Luther. A pharisee? That’s about the LAST thing you could call Luther?

I agree with Jon about these sources. It’s like reading Akmadinejad, the president of Iran, to learn about the Holocaust

Good evening to you, gurney!

I don’t think that’s what either Denifle or Grisar are saying. Luther’s problem was that he was wholly unsuited for the life of a monk. His pride was so great that he simply could brook neither correction nor any authority, other than his own. So it’s no surprise therefore that he was the sort who would become increasingly dissatisfied with the monastic life.

I think Luther was basically a Pharisee on steroids! And he projected his Phariseeism unto the Church!

The Indulgence controversy was simply a convenient and ready excuse that allowed Luther to launch his protest. Had there been no indulgence controversy, Luther would have found something else to justify his pitiless attacks on the faith, as indeed he did - the Mass, the Sacraments, purgatory, the Papacy etc…

Well, I think it safe to say that Luther focused way too much on the bad Christians. And really, he seems almost a perfect example of the very sort of Pharisaically judgmental men St. Augustine had to endure in his day. And what does Augustine have to say about such men? Let’s listen:

Exposition of Psalm 100, 9.

Perhaps a lesson for us all. Let us forgive.

Peace, my friend.

 

[jrose90]

I have several Presbyterian relatives (who think I’m nuts for being Anglican and am secretly a “closet Catholic” lol)…I just heard that their church celebrated Reformation Day by playing various Scottish songs on bagpipes. The sermon was about how great that particular church was (according to the family). They then played more German and Scottish music, and the service ended. As far as we know, there are no Germans or Scots who worship there. The point of the Reformation Day service was to revel in the theological efforts of Luther and Knox. The fact that this church does not really follow the teachings of either man is brushed aside.

I certainly do not intend to poke fun at anyone’s church or traditions. That’s the last thing on my mind. But one has to ask where Christ and his Gospel are in all of this? And that’s very ironic, considering Luther’s actual beliefs and emphases. Understanding the Reformation - its good contributions and its tragic consequences alike - is crucially important for all parties involved. But making it a special Sunday and having curiously exaggerated celebrations in place of worship? Perhaps not the best thing.

In the interest of full disclosure, my own parish had a really hardcore “Stewardship Sunday” today, so we are also guilty of distracting from the point of the worship service. But that’s a topic for another day.

May our Lord grant us what unity He wills for us, hopefully full & visible unity that few now expect to see…and may He strengthen the bonds of friendship and fellowship among those who remain faithful to the Incarnate Word throughout this world, both Catholic and non-Catholic alike!

We had Stewardship Sunday today at church too! (Presbyterian)

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Pharisees believed you had to follow the Law 100%, judge people based on their behavior as going to heaven or hell, rules, commandments, the letter of the law, etc. Luther was the ANTITHESIS of this? He was totally focused on GRACE and the idea that God works with and through us through the principal of faith. Grace is a free gift. We cannot earn our salvation in any way. Sanctification follows justification. That’s Luther. A pharisee? That’s about the LAST thing you could call Luther?

What I meant was that Luther was overly focused on works (in an effort to assuage his troubled conscience) before his break with the Church. And yes, grace is a gift. But gifts by their very nature can be accepted or rejected.

To JonNC:

Jon, you said I like to quote “Luther-hater polemic extremists like Denifle and Grisar, and O’Hare.” Where is the extremism? Where is the hate? Just because someone is critical of someone or something doesn’t mean they “hate” the person or thing being criticized. No, I suspect the real problem is that they expose Luther and his followers and the whole reformation disgrace for all the hypocrisy and corruption, and Protestants simply cannot endure hearing it. Thus the reason so much of the reformer’s writings have been suppressed. Surely you don’t deny this? And are we not supposed to, and even commanded, to speak the truth?

But let’s just look at a few more passages from Fr. Grisar, and then tell me where is there either hate or misrepresentation.

He [Luther] never tires of telling the public, or friends and supporters within his own circle, that “not one Bishop amongst the Papists reads or studies Holy Scripture”; “never had he [Luther] whilst a Catholic heard anything of the Ten Commandments”; in Rome they say: “Let us be cheerful, the Judgment Day will never come”; they also call anyone who believes in revelation a “poor simpleton”; from the highest to the lowest they believe that “there is no God, no hell and no life after this life”; when taking the religious vows the Papists also vowed they “had no need of the Blood and Passion of Christ”; I, too, “was compelled to vow this”; all religious took their vows “with a blasphemous conscience.”

He says: In the Papacy “they did not preach Christ,” but only the Mass and good works; and further: "No Father [of the Church] ever preached Christ “; and again : “They knew nothing of the belief that Christ died for us”; or : “No one [in Popery] ever prayed”; and: Christ was looked upon only as a " Judge " and we “merely fled from the wrath of God,” knowing nothing of His mercy.”

“The Papists,” he declares, “condemned marriage as forbidden by God,” and “I myself, while still a monk, was of the same opinion, viz. that the married state was a reprobate state.”

In the Papacy, so Luther says in so many words, “people sought to be saved through Aristotle." …

But enough of such extravagant assertions, which to Catholics stand self-condemned, but were intended by their author to be taken literally. He flung such wild sayings broadcast among the masses, until it became a second nature with him. For we must bear in mind that grotesque and virulent misstatements such as the above occur not merely now and again, but simply teem in his books, sermons and conversations.

It would be an endless task to enumerate his deliberate falsehoods. … A favourite allegation of Luther s, viz. that the Church of the past had regarded Christ exclusively as a stern Judge, was* crushingly confuted in Denifle s work*. The importance of this brilliant and scholarly refutation lies in the fact, that it is principally founded on texts and usages of the older Church with which Luther was perfectly familiar, which, for instance, he himself had recited in the liturgy and more especially in the Office of his Order year after year, and which thus bear striking testimony against his good faith in the matter of his monstrous charge.

It is a matter of common knowledge that, also in other branches of the history of theology and ecclesiastical life, Denifle has refuted with rare learning, though with too sharp a pen, Luther s paradoxical “lies” concerning mediaeval Catholicism.

It is to be hoped that this may be followed by other well-grounded and impartial comments from the pen of other writers, for, in spite of their monstrous character, some of Luther s accusations still live, partly no doubt owing to the respect in which he is held. Some of them will be examined more closely below.

The principal aim of these pages is, however, to seek the psychological explanation of the strange peculiarity which manifests itself in Luther s intellectual life, viz. the abnormal tendency to level far-fetched charges, sometimes* bordering on the insane*. Luther, vol. 4, pp. 102-104.

Can anyone read the above and honestly think Luther was an honorable man sent by God to “reform” his Church?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Have you read “Here I Stand: A life of Martin Luther” by Roland Bainton? Or have you read the actual source materials themselves by Luther like:

The Freedom of a Christian
The Pagan Servitude of the Church
Secular Authority: To What Extent it Should be Obeyed
The Ninety-Five Theses
Two Kinds of Righteousness
Preface to Paul’s Letter to the Romans
The Bondage of the Will
Sermons on the Catechism
Commentary on Galatians
etc. etc.?

Have you read the actual source material rather than just Catholics’ interpretations and insights and slants on what Luther said? It’s always best to read PRIMARY SOURCES and draw your own conclusions. And it’s also helpful to read the Lutheran viewpoints, not just the opposition’s views on the man.

No Lutheran I’ve ever met claimed Luther was a saint or a perfect man without his own pockmarks and peccators. He was a passionate, outspoken, polemical, fiery-tempered, and often erratic guy. No doubt. But in studying someone of this complexity, it’s always good to read a VARIETY of sources and keep an open mind.

What I meant was that Luther was overly focused on works (in an effort to assuage his troubled conscience) before his break with the Church. And yes, grace is a gift. But gifts by their very nature can be accepted or rejected.

To JonNC:

Jon, you said I like to quote “Luther-hater polemic extremists like Denifle and Grisar, and O’Hare.” Where is the extremism? Where is the hate? Just because someone is critical of someone or something doesn’t mean they “hate” the person or thing being criticized. No, I suspect the real problem is that they expose Luther and his followers and the whole reformation disgrace for all the hypocrisy and corruption, and Protestants simply cannot endure hearing it. Thus the reason so much of the reformer’s writings have been suppressed. Surely you don’t deny this? And are we not supposed to, and even commanded, to speak the truth?

But let’s just look at a few more passages from Fr. Grisar, and then tell me where is there either hate or misrepresentation.

Can anyone read the above and honestly think Luther was an honorable man sent by God to “reform” his Church?

 

[Bluegoat]

Perhaps some of the things that Pope has written about Luther, which from what I have seen are rather good.

 

[rev_kevin]

According to History.com Halloween/Oct 31st is a mix of ancient Celtic practices, Catholic and Roman religious rituals and European folk traditions that blended together over time to creat the Holiday we know today.
Halloween had been long thought of as a day when the dead can return to earth and ancient Celtics would light bonfires and wear costumes to ward off these roaming ghosts.
The Celtic Holiday of Samhain, the Catholic Hallowmas period of All Saints’ day and All Soul’s day and the Roman Festival of Feralia all influenced the modern Holiday of Halloween.
In the 19th century it began to loose its religious connotation and became a more secular community-based children’s Holiday.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Yeah, we decided to dispense with the blood sacrifices and Samhain rituals this year and just eat candy corn and watch “Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein”

According to History.com Halloween/Oct 31st is a mix of ancient Celtic practices, Catholic and Roman religious rituals and European folk traditions that blended together over time to creat the Holiday we know today.
Halloween had been long thought of as a day when the dead can return to earth and ancient Celtics would light bonfires and wear costumes to ward off these roaming ghosts.
The Celtic Holiday of Samhain, the Catholic Hallowmas period of All Saints’ day and All Soul’s day and the Roman Festival of Feralia all influenced the modern Holiday of Halloween.
In the 19th century it began to loose its religious connotation and became a more secular community-based children’s Holiday.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,
The object of this thread is not to analyze Luther (I think we have about 10.000 other threads on that), but instead to analyze ‘Reformation Sunday’ and it’s relavancy 500 years later.
Just don’t want the thread sidetracked.

I agree with you, Just. If you note my original post, it was my intent to stay on topic. I admit I allowed myself to get side by another post. My apologies.

Just to reiterate; the relevancy of the Reofmration today should be on prayerful dialogue toward reconciliation between our communions, as that, I believe was the intent - reformation of the Church, not deformation into 2 communions.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon, you said I like to quote “Luther-hater polemic extremists like Denifle and Grisar, and O’Hare.” Where is the extremism? Where is the hate? Just because someone is critical of someone or something doesn’t mean they “hate” the person or thing being criticized. No, I suspect the real problem is that they expose Luther and his followers and the whole reformation disgrace for all the hypocrisy and corruption, and Protestants simply cannot endure hearing it. Thus the reason so much of the reformer’s writings have been suppressed. Surely you don’t deny this? And are we not supposed to, and even commanded, to speak the truth?

I apologize, raum. I should have said “what I consider Luther-hater polemic extremists like Denifle and Grisar, and O’Hare.” I know you consider them credible, and I made it sound like you were intentionally quoting them to maintain polemics. Again, I apologize for poor wording that may have appeared to call your motives into question.

While I do disagree with your claims above, even the notion that Luther’s works are somehow suppressed, I also find some of our discussions quite uplifting.
In closing, I will attempt to fulfill my promose to Justaservant to stay on the topic of the relevance of the Reformation today.

Jon

 

[GKC]

We had Stewardship Sunday today at church too! (Presbyterian)

We observed the Feast of Christ the King.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[TertiumQuid]

Jon, you said I like to quote “Luther-hater polemic extremists like Denifle and Grisar, and O’Hare.” Where is the extremism? Where is the hate? Just because someone is critical of someone or something doesn’t mean they “hate” the person or thing being criticized. No, I suspect the real problem is that they expose Luther and his followers and the whole reformation disgrace for all the hypocrisy and corruption, and Protestants simply cannot endure hearing it. Thus the reason so much of the reformer’s writings have been suppressed. Surely you don’t deny this? And are we not supposed to, and even commanded, to speak the truth?

Why is it then that Roman Catholic scholarship abandoned their works and approach in the early 20th century? Find me reputable Roman Catholic scholars today that take Denifle, Grisar, and O’Hare as producing historical treatments on Luther meant to stand the test of time. Even Grisar had to correct Denifle, noting the blatant errors of his approach on Luther. O’Hare isn’t taken seriously by anyone except internet apologists.

Question: Where does Luther scholarship stand today? Have there been any attempts to research Luther’s theology, beyond existing historical investigations?

Cardinal Ratzinger: Nobody can answer this question in a few sentences. Besides, it would require a special kind of knowledge which I do not possess. It might be helpful, however, briefly to mention a few names which represent the various stages and trends of Catholic Luther scholarship. At the beginning of the century we have the decidedly polemical work by the Dominican H. Denifle. He was responsible for placing Luther in the context of the Scholastic tradition, which Denifle knew better than anybody else because of his intimate knowledge of the manuscript materials. He is followed by the much more conciliatory Jesuit, Grisar, who, to be sure, encountered various criticisms because of the psychological patterns in which he sought to explain the problem of Luther. J**. Lortz from Luxembourg became the father of modern Catholic Luther scholarship. He is still considered the turning-point in the struggle for an historically truthful and theologically adequate image of Luther. **Against the background of the theological movement between the two world wars, Lortz could develop new ways of questioning which, subsequently, would lead to a new assessment of Luther.

But then, you know all this already, and choose to ignore it. You’re also the guy that thinks the publishers of Luther’s Works (in English) are supressing documents on Luther. Queue X-Files music.

 

[TertiumQuid]

I apologize, raum. I should have said “what I consider Luther-hater polemic extremists like Denifle and Grisar, and O’Hare.” I know you consider them credible, and I made it sound like you were intentionally quoting them to maintain polemics. Again, I apologize for poor wording that may have appeared to call your motives into question.

Don’t apologize for O’Hare or Denifle. O’Hare maybe can be excused for being a simple priest trying to run his church in Brooklyn who shouldn’t have been writing books. Denifle was a scholar whose hatred of Luther clouded any ability to produce an accurate treatment.

Grisar’s work has a bit of value. He’s good with facts, but often poor on interpretation.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It was a motley festival…

We observed the Feast of Christ the King.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus