Shocking things everyone should know about Luther

[reteeks21]

Why is this still going round and round when it is pretty obvious that some just want to spit at Luther while the others try and clean him off. Has this not been recycled enough?

 

[josie_L]

Why is this still going round and round when it is pretty obvious that some just want to spit at Luther while the others try and clean him off. Has this not been recycled enough?

Because people refuse to see the obvious.

 

[Ockham]

If you seriously believe that Jesus explicitly taught all contemporary Catholic doctrines and enjoined all contemporary Catholic practices (all those that the contemporary Catholic Church enjoins, that is), then you have no understanding of history whatsoever.

Can you expand? I am also interested in your comment that the Middle Aged Church was preferable to the modern. Actually, that’s probably a great topic for a new thread.

 

[reteeks21]

Because people refuse to see the obvious.

See the obvious or come around to your way of seeing things?

 

[ICA04]

See the obvious or come around to your way of seeing things?

I agree. Enough is enough. For some, Luther is a saint; for Catholics, Luther has been cursed to hell at Trent. It isn’t going to change now or ever for that matter. Why keep beating the issue? Either Luther is a hero in your opinion or he isn’t. This is a very polarized issue that can be argued about endlessly, but the question is Why?

 

[reteeks21]

I agree. Enough is enough. For some, Luther is a saint; for Catholics, Luther has been cursed to hell at Trent. It isn’t going to change now or ever for that matter. Why keep beating the issue? Either Luther is a hero in your opinion or he isn’t. This is a very polarized issue that can be argued about endlessly, but the question is Why?

Because I think for ALL of us it can be fun to get heated up about it, but sometime into it you realize it’s fruitless and divisive…at least some people get that way. Others like to keep it going.

 

[Contarini]

Why can’t we state that Luther created a new theology which started a new form of Christianity

You can state it, but to persuade people of it you will have to make actual arguments.

Of course Luther came up with new theological ideas. So did a lot of people in the history of the Church. The problem was that Luther identified his ideas with the Gospel. We are in agreement on that. It’s unnecessary to trash Luther’s character to discredit this claim–why not debate the ideas themselves?

and then question that theology by testing the essence of the man himself?

Because deeply flawed people can come up with good ideas, and holy people can come up with very bad ones. And because it’s unnecessary–there are plenty of reasons to question aspects of Luther’s theology, and these reasons come from a fair analysis of the theology itself in its historical context and in the light of later theological and exegetical developments. It’s much shorter and simpler and easier to rack up some shocking things Luther said and did and sling them around. But as in most things, the short and easy path is not the best one. It just leads to a lot of mudslinging and everyone gets dirty. And in the end, as this thread has shown, you have to support your double standard (arguing that Luther’s flaws count while those of Catholic bishops or theologians don’t) by coming back to the claim that Luther’s theology was an unwarranted innovation. Why not just start there and skip the detour into personalities?

Can you rely on Luther’s judgement (in removing books from the Bible)

I don’t. I put a lot more weight in Jerome and other patristic and medieval theologians when I say that I’m not convinced that the deuterocanonical books are of the same weight as the undisputed books of the OT. And of course no one follows Luther on James.

and interpretation of the Bible,

On what points do I follow Luther’s interpretation of the Bible? What do you actually know about my interpretation of the Bible, anyway?

As with a lot of these cheap shots, you (would-be Internet apologists generally) are trying to have it both ways. One frequently sees on this forums the claim that Protestants are hopelessly divided and disagree with the Reformers on many issues. And yet somehow we’re also supposedly following Luther in lock step. Which is it? It can’t be both.

do you put that much power in the hands of ONE man (greater than any pope had and/or ever used),

This is comparing apples and oranges. I take the point that an influential theologian like Augustine or Aquinas or Luther has exercised a lot more power in one sense than the average pope, maybe (in those three cases) than any single pope. But at the same time, no one claims that Luther is infallible. No one says “it must be true because Luther said it.” No one says “God wouldn’t let Luther make a theological mistake when defining doctrine.” No one calls Luther the vicar of Christ or says that salvation depends on personal communion with him (as opposed to profession of the Gospel Luther professed and membership in the Church that professes that Gospel, which some strict Lutherans would say). Luther stands or falls on the merits of his ideas. So if you want to criticize him, that’s where you should go.

It is not just his anti-semitism which we refer to but who he was has a whole.

I don’t see any signs that you have any interest in who he was as a whole. All you and others like you do is pick out certain things he said and did out of context. So don’t give me that.

Also, Luther was not anti-Semitic. He was religiously anti-Jewish, like most Catholics (and many Protestants) until the mid-20th century. The horrible things he said were directed toward Jews as a religious community who rejected Christ.

P.S. And please, for those who will state that we are all sinners, I am well aware of that fact, but you and I have yet to create the untold misery Luther’s legacy has left on history.

But that’s irrelevant if you are talking about Luther’s character. You can’t judge someone’s character by the effects of their actions (very good people can do things that have horrible consequences, and vice versa). You’re switching targets because your initial position is clearly untenable.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Can you expand?

It shouldn’t take expansion. All you have to do is compare the Catechism with the Synoptic Gospels and other NT texts, and then consider the fact that even those texts reflect a certain degree of theological development from what Jesus actually said.

This isn’t unique to Catholicism. No Christians just believe what Jesus said. It’s impossible. But if you think it is possible, then you should join a church that actually makes this untenable primitivist claim rather than one that frankly acknowledges the reality of doctrinal development.

I am also interested in your comment that the Middle Aged Church was preferable to the modern. Actually, that’s probably a great topic for a new thread.

Probably. For starters you might look at John Bossy’s book *Christianity in the West 1400-1700. *I don’t agree with all Bossy’s views and historical interpretations, but I am in sympathy with his basic argument and the book had a huge impact on how I thought about the Reformation. (Bossy was, I believe, the teacher of Eamon Duffy.)

Edwin

 

[AliciaCL]

Ridiculous. You call someone the “vicar of Christ” and say that this person is infallible in matters of faith and morals. And then you claim that the errors and sins of such a person are irrelevant, while those of an extremely important Protestant theologian (whom no one regards as infallible) are vitally important? It makes no sense.

Edwin

Well, my understanding is that WHEN the Pope expressly declares that he is teaching on matters of faith and morals, the taught principles are infallible, period. At the time of the teaching, he is acting as divinely as any human can, in concert with the Holy Spirit. The Pope is nevertheless, a human person, the same as anyone else, capable of sin and corruption in his own personal life. Hence, there were corrupt Popes but their personal corruption didn’t taint the church’s doctrines and teachings, although they can be said to have tainted her in a PR sense just as the priest scandal has in our time. Does anyone actually think those priests where acting in compliance with church teaching?
Think of someone considered great. JFK, for example, is hailed as a great President who inspired a nation to act with nobility, press technology to land on the moon, etc. Is any of that tainted by his own personal immorality with women? Same with MLK Jr. Their words words still inspire good although they did wrongs in their personal lives. The analogy is loose but hopefully, it explains that the Pope, whether a sinful, corrupt human person, still sometimes acts in the capacity of Christ’s vicar on earth. Even Nixon, did good things as President. There is a dichotomy, yes, indeed. Infallibility is often misunderstood. It does not mean the Pope is infallible as a person, as a human; rather it is his “official” ex cathedra declarations on faith and morals which are infallible. In our time, we have been very blessed with truly holy Popes personally and as Christ’s vicar, the servant and shepherd of us, the flock.
RE: Luther’s anti-semitism, I think the point was to highlight errors in his thinking and theology in an effort to show that he probably made mistakes in other doctrinal areas. I think the point was that Protestant churches alter their doctrines over time. The RCC does not although there have been theologically refined positions – best example is doctrine of the Trinity which is not expressly set out in scripture.

 

[Cathhsmom]

Part 1

An Open Letter on Translating

By Dr. Martin Luther, 1483-1546

Translated from:

“Sendbrief von Dolmetschen”

in Dr. Martin Luthers Werke,

(Weimar: Hermann Boehlaus Nachfolger, 1909),

Nuremberg Sept. 15, 1530.

To the Honorable and Worthy N., my favorite lord and friend.

Grace and peace in Christ, honorable, worthy and dear Lord and

friend. I received your writing with the two questions or queries

requesting my response. In the first place, you ask why I, in the

3rd chapter of Romans, translated the words of St. Paul:

“Arbitramur hominem iustificari ex fide absque operibus” as "We

hold that the human will be justified without the works of the law

but only by faith." You also tell me that the Papists are causing

a great fuss because St. Paul’s text does not contain the word

sola (alone), and that my changing of the words of God is not to

be tolerated. Secondly, you ask if the departed saints intercede

for us. Regarding the first question, you can give the papists

this answer from me - if you so desire.

On the first hand, if I, Dr. Luther, had thought that all the

Papists together were capable of translating even one passage of

Scripture correctly and well, I would have gathered up enough

humility to ask for their aid and assistance in translating the

New Testament into German. However, I spared them and myself the

trouble, as I knew and still see with my own eyes that not one of

them knows how to speak or translate German. It is obvious,

however, that they are learning to speak and write German from my

translations. Thus, they are stealing my language from me - a

language they had little knowledge of before this. However, they

do not thank me for this but instead use it against me. Yet I

readily grant them this as it tickles me to know that I have

taught my ungrateful students, even my enemies, to speak.

Secondly, you might say that I have conscientiously translated the

New Testament into German to the best of my ability, and that I

have not forced anyone to read it. Rather I have left it open,

only doing the translation as a service to those who could not do

it as well. No one is forbidden to do it better. If someone does

not wish to read it, he can let it lie, for I do not ask anyone to

read it or praise anyone who does! It is my Testament and my

translation - and it shall remain mine. If I have made errors

within it (although I am not aware of any and would most certainly

be unwilling to intentionally mistranslate a single letter) I will

not allow the papists to judge for their ears continue to be too

long and their hee-haws too weak for them to be critical of my

translating. I know quite well how much skill, hard work,

understanding and intelligence is needed for a good translation.

They know it less than even the miller’s donkey for they have

never tried it.

It is said, "The one who builds along the pathway has many

masters." It is like this with me. Those who have not ever been

able to speak correctly (to say nothing of translating) have all

at once become my masters and I their pupil. If I were to have

asked them how to translate the first two words of Matthew "Liber

Generationis" into German, not one of them would have been able to

say “Quack!” And they judge all my works! Fine fellows! It was

also like this for St. Jerome when he translated the Bible.

Everyone was his master. He alone was entirely incompetent as

people, who were not good enough to clean his boots, judged his

works. This is why it takes a great deal of patience to do good

things in public for the world believes itself to be the Master of

Knowledge, always putting the bit under the horse’s tail, and not

judging itself for that is the world’s nature. It can do nothing

else.

I would gladly see a papist come forward and translate into German

an epistle of St. Paul’s or one of the prophets and, in doing so,

not make use of Luther’s German or translation. Then one might

see a fine, beautiful and noteworthy translation into German.

Returning to the issue at hand, if your Papist wishes to make a

great fuss about the word “alone” (sola), say this to him: "Dr.

Martin Luther will have it so and he says that a papist and an ***

are the same thing." Sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione

voluntas. (I will it, I command it; my will is reason enough) For

we are not going to become students and followers of the papists.

Rather we will become their judge and master. We, too, are going

to be proud and brag with these blockheads; and just as St. Paul

brags against his madly raving saints, I will brag over these

asses of mine! They are doctors? Me too. They are scholars? I

am as well. They are philosophers? And I. They are

dialecticians? I am too. They are lecturers? So am I. They

write books? So do I.

 

[Cathhsmom]

Part 2
I will go even further with my bragging: I can exegete the psalms

and the prophets, and they cannot. I can translate, and they

cannot. I can read Holy Scriptures, and they cannot. I can pray,

they cannot. Coming down to their level, I can do their

dialectics and philosophy better than all of them put together.

Plus I know that not one of them understands Aristotle. If, in

fact, any one of them can correctly understand one part or chapter

of Aristotle, I will eat my hat! No, I am not overdoing it for I

have been educated in and have practiced their science since my

childhood. I recognize how broad and deep it is. They, too, know

that everything they can do, I can do. Yet they handle me like a

stranger in their discipline, these incurable fellows, as if I had

just arrived this morning and had never seen or heard what they

know and teach. How they do so brilliantly parade around with

their science, teaching me what I grew beyond twenty years ago!
To all their shouting and screaming I join the harlot in singing:

“I have known for seven years that horseshoe nails are iron.”

So this can be the answer to your first question. Please do not

give these asses any other answer to their useless braying about

that word “sola” than simply "Luther will have it so, and he says

that he is a doctor above all the papal doctors." Let it remain

at that. I will, from now on, hold them in contempt, and have

already held them in contempt, as long as they are the kind of

people that they are - asses, I should say. And there are brazen

idiots among them who have never learned their own art of

sophistry - like Dr. Schmidt and Snot-Nose, and such like them.

They set themselves against me in this matter, which not only

transcends sophistry, but as St. Paul writes, all the wisdom and

understanding in the world as well. An *** truly does not have to

sing much as he is already known for his ears.

For you and our people, however, I shall show why I used the word

“sola” - even though in Romans 3 it wasn’t “sola” I used but

“solum” or “tantum”. That is how closely those asses have looked

at my text! However, I have used “sola fides” in other places,

and I want to use both “solum” and “sola”. I have continually

tried translating in a pure and accurate German. It has happened

that I have sometimes searched and inquired about a single word

for three or four weeks.

I also know that in Rom. 3, the word “solum” is not present in

either Greek or Latin text - the papists did not have to teach me

that - it is fact! The letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these

knotheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same

time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text -

if the translation is to be clear and accurate, it belongs there.

If it is not

offensive to preach “without works”, “not by works”!, “no works”,

why is it offensive to preach “by faith alone”?

Still more offensive is that St. Paul does not reject just

ordinary works, but works of the law! It follows that one could

take offense at that all the more and say that the law is

condemned and cursed before God and one ought only do what is

contrary to the law as it is said in Rom. 3: "Why not do evil so

that there might be more good?" which is what that one divisive

spirit of our time was doing. Should one reject St. Paul’s word

because of such `offense’ or refrain from speaking freely about

faith? Gracious, St. Paul and I want to offend like this for we

preach so strongly against works, insisting on faith alone for no

other reason than to offend people that they might stumble and

fall and learn that they are not saved by good works but only by

Christ’s death and resurrection. Knowing that they cannot be

saved by their good works of the law, how much more will they

realize that they shall not be saved by bad works, or without the

law! Therefore, it does not follow that because good works do not

help, bad works will; just as it does not follow that because the

sun cannot help a blind person see, the night and darkness must

help him see.

What is the work by which we take hold of Christ’s death and

resurrection? It must not be an external work but only the

eternal faith in the heart that alone, indeed all alone, which

takes hold of this death and resurrection when it is preached

through the gospel. Then why all this ranting and raving, this

making of heretics and burning of them, when it is clear at its

very core, proving that faith alone takes hold of Christ’s death

and resurrection, without any works, and that his death and

resurrection are our life and righteousness? As this fact is so

obvious, that faith alone gives, brings, and takes a hold of this

life and righteousness - why should we not say so? It is not

heretical that faith alone holds on to Christ and gives life; and

yet it seems to be heresy if someone mentions it.

And if one is to read and

understand St. Paul, the same thing must be said and not anything

else. His words, as well, are blunt - “no works” - none at all!

If it is not works, it must be faith alone.

It is for these reasons that it is not

only right but also necessary to say it as plainly and forcefully

as possible: “Faith alone saves without works!” I am only sorry I

did not add “alle” and “aller”, and said "without any (alle) works

or any (aller) laws." That would have stated it most effectively.

Therefore, it will remain in the New Testament, and though all the

papal asses rant and rave at me, they shall not take it away from

me.

 

[Ockham]

IProbably. For starters you might look at John Bossy’s book *Christianity in the West 1400-1700. *I don’t agree with all Bossy’s views and historical interpretations, but I am in sympathy with his basic argument and the book had a huge impact on how I thought about the Reformation. (Bossy was, I believe, the teacher of Eamon Duffy.)

Edwin

I’ll add it to my list, but it’s a lengthy one so reading the book won’t be anytime soon. If you have time I’d be interested in reading your thoughts on the subject.

When Jesus gave St. Peter the keys to heaven and the authority to bind and loose He obviously knew at least two thousand years were ahead of the human race. Of course the Church would not remain static nor could Jesus have left us with guidance on every subject we’d encounter. The Gospel is quite clear - Jesus created one Church, not a tree with branches, or invisible entities or anything so creative as that.

Although some Catholics follow the Church teachings fully and exactly, for the majority (I believe) it is a challenge. Personally, the central facet to my faith is the Eucharist. I am saddened by all the Christians living outside His Church and wish they could experience the sacrament as Christ intended.

 

[bobregan]

I’m sure good old Mr. Satan down in Hell is having a wonderful time watching fellow brothers and sisters in Christ on this thread continue to bicker and attack each other back and forth over a 500 year old issue.

Heeeeeeey…I’ve got an idea! Why do we rename this thread “What do Catholics and Protestants have in common?”

 

[Ginger2]

Please enlighten an ignorant Catholic. Who was/were the anti-Popes and why?

Is one example enough?
Anti-pope John XXIII (1410-15)

 

[Contarini]

Well, my understanding is that WHEN the Pope expressly declares that he is teaching on matters of faith and morals, the taught principles are infallible, period. At the time of the teaching, he is acting as divinely as any human can, in concert with the Holy Spirit. The Pope is nevertheless, a human person, the same as anyone else, capable of sin and corruption in his own personal life. Hence, there were corrupt Popes but their personal corruption didn’t taint the church’s doctrines and teachings, although they can be said to have tainted her in a PR sense just as the priest scandal has in our time. Does anyone actually think those priests where acting in compliance with church teaching?
Think of someone considered great. JFK, for example, is hailed as a great President who inspired a nation to act with nobility, press technology to land on the moon, etc. Is any of that tainted by his own personal immorality with women? Same with MLK Jr. Their words words still inspire good although they did wrongs in their personal lives. The analogy is loose but hopefully, it explains that the Pope, whether a sinful, corrupt human person, still sometimes acts in the capacity of Christ’s vicar on earth. Even Nixon, did good things as President. There is a dichotomy, yes, indeed. Infallibility is often misunderstood. It does not mean the Pope is infallible as a person, as a human; rather it is his “official” ex cathedra declarations on faith and morals which are infallible. In our time, we have been very blessed with truly holy Popes personally and as Christ’s vicar, the servant and shepherd of us, the flock.

I don’t disagree with this. I am not a Donatist.

RE: Luther’s anti-semitism, I think the point was to highlight errors in his thinking and theology in an effort to show that he probably made mistakes in other doctrinal areas.

I don’t think anyone disputes this. Of course, the “anti-semitism” wasn’t original with Luther, but his embrace of vicious anti-Jewish rhetoric was certainly one of a number of serious errors he committed.

I think the point was that Protestant churches alter their doctrines over time.

I’m not sure how you get this from the posts with which I’ve been interacting. Instead, the assumption seemed to be that we all somehow accept what Luther said hook, line, and sinker. Otherwise, why would Luther’s “anti-semitism” even be relevant?

The RCC does not although there have been theologically refined positions – best example is doctrine of the Trinity which is not expressly set out in scripture.

Exactly. But some people would claim that that is an alteration. It depends on how you read the earlier source material (Scripture and pre-Nicene theology). I agree with your reading, of course, but it’s not self-evident. Hence, saying “we don’t alter our doctrines but you do” is not very convincing without further alteration. What can be said is that Catholics don’t admit to altering their doctrines, while any reasonable account of the ancient heritage of Protestants is going to involve at least one self-conscious repudiation of some pretty important aspects of that heritage (at the Reformation and in many cases later on as well). If a Protestant is convinced that Catholicism really has altered, all this proves is that you are less honest. But it does leave open the possibility (for those of us not convinced that you have radically altered doctrine) that you have some kind of doctrinal continuity that we don’t. That’s powerful enough without souping it up by over-the-top rhetoric that can’t be defended.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I’ll add it to my list, but it’s a lengthy one so reading the book won’t be anytime soon.

Same with me. I mentioned the book not to avoid giving my views, but just because I wasn’t sure I wanted to start a new thread right now. It annoys me when people give me reading suggestions instead of original posts, and I apologize for doing that–I just wasn’t sure when I was going to get around to expounding my position and thought that you might be interested in seeing my source in the work of a Catholic scholar.

Edwin

 

[Ginger2]

Actually Catholics don’t say the Pope is infallible in all things. …

Even during times of bad popes, NONE of them made a change to dogma or sacred Church teachings.

How would you know? Catholics wisely reverse false doctrines of anti-popes, but have a bad habit of burning all works of anti-popes so no one can ever prove what they did or did not declare.

Too often I have found claims of church fathers against those they oppose to be false. Why should I take their word when they have destroyed the very evidence that would prove their charges?

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

Can you rely on Luther’s judgment (in removing books from the Bible)

You’ve demonstrated your misguided thoughts on Protestanism very well.

First, Luther did not remove any books from the Bible. Luther translated the exact same canon as Jerome. Luther appended the deutoeros the same as Jerome. Luther preface the deuteros stating they were not inspired same as Jerome.

Therefore Luther changed nothing concerning the Scriptures. The status of the Scriptures was changed at Trent.

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

Why is this still going round and round when it is pretty obvious that some just want to spit at Luther while the others try and clean him off. Has this not been recycled enough?

It’s not a matter of cleaning him off…Luther is nothing to me.

It’s a matter of truth. If Catholics want to bash Luther, there is plenty they can say without making up fables. But, then they must remember they the Scriptures say we are all guilty of the very things we accuse others of.

Since Catholics have more stains on their record, (they have been around many more years lending time for many more opportunities to sin) they would do better to worry about the present rather than the past.

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

I agree. Enough is enough. For some, Luther is a saint; …

lol Protestants don’t honer men with sainthood, that’s a Catholic thing.

Saints are all who are among the saved.

…for Catholics, Luther has been cursed to hell at Trent.

To claim to know a person’s eternal faith is a sin.