Reformation Sunday

[raumzeitmc2]

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.

I’ve been reading my way through the American Edition of Luther’s Works (55 volumes) for at least the last ten years. So yes, I think I can say I’ve read the primary sources.

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.

No need to apologize, Jon. Just speak your mind (you know I certainly do ). If you think I’m out of line, just say so. I don’t offend easily.

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.

I agree that Patrick O’hare’s book on Luther is too polemical, as is Denifle’s. Grisar is more restrained. That said, Denifle’s works still contains a wealth of interesting and valuable material. His second volume, which has yet to be translated into English, is especially interesting. Unfortunately, I don’t read German well enough to translate it myself, but what I have read is, well, let’s just say it’s gonna be a very surprising and interesting read when it does get translated!

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.

So Denifle may have made some mistakes. Who doesn’t? And when was the last time you saw me quote O’hare?

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.

Problem is, you want only flattering accounts of Luther. The needed criticisms you simply cannot and will not abide. Btw, you misspelled suppressing!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Great. Well good for you. I always believe the primary sources are where to start. Blessings, raum.

I’ve been reading my way through the American Edition of Luther’s Works (55 volumes) for at least the last ten years. So yes, I think I can say I’ve read the primary sources.

No need to apologize, Jon. Just speak your mind (you know I certainly do ). If you think I’m out of line, just say so. I don’t offend easily.

I agree that Patrick O’hare’s book on Luther is too polemical, as is Denifle’s. Grisar is more restrained. That said, Denifle’s works still contains a wealth of interesting and valuable material. His second volume, which has yet to be translated into English, is especially interesting. Unfortunately, I don’t read German well enough to translate it myself, but what I have read is, well, let’s just say it’s gonna be a very surprising and interesting read when it does get translated!

So Denifle may have made some mistakes. Who doesn’t? And when was the last time you saw me quote O’hare?

Problem is, you want only flattering accounts of Luther. The needed criticisms you simply cannot and will not abide. Btw, you misspelled suppressing!

 

[TertiumQuid]

Problem is, you want only flattering accounts of Luther. The needed criticisms you simply cannot and will not abide.

This is what you’ve said in the past:

“Here’s where Lutherans and the Lutheran church could do much to put away misunderstanding, if only they weren’t so afraid of going public domain with Luther’s works.”

 

[GKC]

It was a motley festival…

Actually, it seemed pretty uniform.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

They have you guys wearing uniforms now!?

Actually, it seemed pretty uniform.

GKC

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Well, I don’t think Luther will ever be canonized a saint, for one thing.

However, let’s take a “for instance.” There are Lutherans today who are actively seeking union with Rome which some of them have said is the ultimate destiny of Lutheranism. The Lutheran Society of the Holy Trinity and the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church are among such groups, where the latter has even submitted an application to Rome for acceptance and awaits word on it.

Reformation Sunday COULD possibly come to symbolize the principle that the Christian Church must be actively dedicated to reforming itself in every generation. This is not to say anything about the Protestant Reformation itself. But the principle of reformation is a Catholic principle, as we also see in the life and mission of St Francis of Assisi and others.

And Luther was not against the spirit of indulgences, only the way in which, in his day, indulgences were bought and sold. The Catholic Church has forbidden this practice since.

Pope Benedict was said to have one day remarked that the Augsburg Confession might be, in future, considered as a “Catholic confession of faith.”

A Lutheran clergyman in Austria was then said to have remarked by saying, “If the Catholic Church acknowledges the Augsburg Confession - what does that make us (Lutherans) then?”

I think he meant that it would make Lutherans . . . Catholics.

And we cannot also judge Luther based on what many contemporary Lutherans believe. Luther venerated the Virgin Mary all his life, prayed his rosary, had her image in his room and promoted iconography in churches. He also believed in the Virgin Mary being completely sinless throughout her life and as having been assumed into heaven.

I think Lutherans worthy of the name should begin by following their founder in a few things . . .

Alex

 

[Bluegoat]

Is it really the case that Luther was only against the way indulgences were bought and sold? They seem to me, even in their present day form, to be incompatible with other aspects of Luther’s thought.

 

[pablope]

LOL…must be **L.A. water **

Be care with what you wish for…a lot of LA water comes from the northern Sac delta…

Giants…one more win…

 

[tomarin]

Is it really the case that Luther was only against the way indulgences were bought and sold? They seem to me, even in their present day form, to be incompatible with other aspects of Luther’s thought.

I think it’s more accurate to say that the indulgence controversy pointed him to what he saw as a flaw in the Church’s official theology of salvation and that led him to develop his own theological doctrines on it based on his reading of Scripture.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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:

Hmmm could the two Fathers quoted possibly have some sort of bias that does not make their conclusions completely objective?

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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.

Hey Raum-

Luther wasn’t a monk.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Great. Well good for you. I always believe the primary sources are where to start. Blessings, raum.

Thanks gurney!

This is what you’ve said in the past:

“Here’s where Lutherans and the Lutheran church could do much to put away misunderstanding, if only they weren’t so afraid of going public domain with Luther’s works.”

I still hold to that. There are many things Luther said and did (pointed out in Grisar, Denifle) which are an embarrassment to Protestants, particularly Lutherans. On the other hand, Luther said many good and praiseworthy things. I just believe we need to know the both. That’s the only way to make any sort of real judgment of the man.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well we know it’s not from the Central Valley/San Joaquin area where I live! California and the U.S. government have shut off the water for the poor farmers here!

Be care with what you wish for…a lot of LA water comes from the northern Sac delta…

Giants…one more win…

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Hmmm could the two Fathers quoted possibly have some sort of bias that does not make their conclusions completely objective?

Everyone, I suppose, has some sort of bias which hinders perfect objectivity. Luther and Calvin were certainly far from objective (but never far from invective!).

Luther wasn’t a monk.

Sure he was.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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?

Oh please, have you ever read any part of The Augsburg Confession? I look back at church history and look at some of the popes who have been “chosen” to guide Christ’s Church and think “Clearly, the HS was out for coffee when the “princes” of the church chose this one or that one.”

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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.

Exactly Gurney! Go Giants!

 

[Mikeoffaith]

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

Hi Jon-

At the top of our bulletin this Sunday, was this: “On this day we celebrate the heart of our faith: the gospel of Christ-the good news- that makes us free! We pray that the Holy Spirit would continue to unite the church today in its proclamation and witness to the world. In the waters of baptism we are made one body; we pray for the day that all Christians will also be one at the Lord’s table.”

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The Reformation also helped the Catholic Church to get its house in order. I know people will lynch me in here for saying that but I feel it’s true to a certain degree. Indulgences were indeed an abuse and, though they still exist today unfortunately, at least they were curbed and the sale of them evaporated. Also, things like liturgy in the language of the people rather than just Latin, communion in both kinds, and a new emphasis on grace over works are all things the Catholic Church adopted over the ensuing several hundreds years—all issues Luther brought up and felt passionately about.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Oh please, have you ever read any part of The Augsburg Confession? I look back at church history and look at some of the popes who have been “chosen” to guide Christ’s Church and think “Clearly, the HS was out for coffee when the “princes” of the church chose this one or that one.”

So there are no bad churchmen in your church?

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Sure he was.

No he wasn’t.