Shocking things everyone should know about Luther

[bobregan]

“Orangeman”…Is that you, Miles!!!

 

[reteeks21]

Do I have to really answer that question?

You don’t have to do anything you don’t want to do. All I did was ask a question. Can, or will you answer it?

 

[kalt]

You do know that I am Catholic, right?

Your last questions are not related to Luther’s position on Jews. I cannot argue that he had no authority to do everythign that he did. There is no question. But, back to the topic: should we hold his position on Jews against him?

Against him?

His thinking is what we should be looking at. Luther’s thoughts, revealed through his writings and actions, are incompatible with the Catholic Church that Christ founded.

But does the fact that he hated Jews really matter? What if he were the nicest person God ever created?

What if he had loved the Jews, and he still changed doctrine and the Bible? How does that make what he did more legitimate?

His rantings are important, because they should show those who choose to follow him that he was not a well-balanced person. There is ample proof that,though he was a brilliant man (imo, anyway), he was unbalanced.

FWIW, I don’t think I’ve spoken about his position on the Jews. His sins are almost irrelevant to me. The fact that he is merely a man is what counts. A man with no authority, either real or erroneously claimed, except his own changed doctrine and the Bible.

That should be a red flag to anyone, whether he hated or loved the Jews. Whether he stole a potato or raped a woman. The actual sins he was guilty of are irrelevant. That he was merely a man is what counts.

That he was clearly a mentally ill malcontent and yet still manages to have steadfast followers is amazing to me. How do you follow a man who is mentally ill and has no authority to do what he did? How do you decide to follow a man’s teaching instead of God’s, especially when he was that obviously sick?

Luther walked away from the Church because he didn’t like it. But on what authority did he start his own? On what authority did he change anything? And how do you know that he was correct? What assurance do you have that changing the Bible that was codified under the guidance of the HS is just AOK with God?

These are the questions that no Lutheran here seems willing to answer.

 

[kalt]

Why would I?

Of course the Reformation (which can’t simply be reduced to Luther) began something new and different–a new and different tradition within Christianity. It wasn’t a new religion. And this is what you just don’t seem to get.

No one thinks Luther is divine or that he brought new revelation. The most that Protestants claim about Luther is that he brought a clearer understanding of the Gospel, which had been obscured for centuries, and shed some fresh light on the eternal truths of the Christian faith. To refute this, you have to refute the actual theology. You can’t just point out flaws in Luther. It won’t work. It especially won’t work against Lutherans and other classical Protestants, since one of the “new ideas” of the Reformation was precisely a stronger insistence on the Augustinian idea that we all remain deeply sinful as long as we are in this life. Wesleyans are more susceptible to the kind of argument you’re making–but Wesleyans are a bit suspicious of Luther anyway.

Protestantism does not rest on Luther’s character. Destroying Luther’s character will not destroy Protestantism. You are setting up a straw man–declaring certain criteria for authenticity that Protestants don’t necessarily accept in the first place. Can’t you see how pointless this is?

It’s also ironic that you are engaging in the very “overthinking” of which another poster accused me: that is, you are picking on one word I used (“early”) without regard to the context (“early” in the context of a specific theological tradition within Christianity), and using this to argue that Luther is equivalent to Jesus (in the minds of Protestants), which is obviously false and does not follow from my use of the word “early.”

I am the first to agree that Protestantism has huge problems in the area of historical continuity. The point I’m trying to make in this thread is that no Protestant thinks that Luther is somehow equivalent to Jesus. No Protestant thinks “Protestantism must be true because Luther was so holy.” Protestants typically think "Protestantism must be true because it is clearly taught in the Bible.’ Therefore, that’s where you should be focusing your efforts.

Where criticisms of Luther’s character are relevant is where they directly relate to false ideas Protestants have. For instance, exposing Luther’s anti-Judaism is relevant if Protestants are claiming that Protestantism was an improvement in this regard, or generally criticizing the Catholic Church for its attitude to Jews. Luther’s vitriolic rhetoric toward all with whom he disagreed is relevant when Protestants say something like, “Well, of course he was nasty to the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church was so corrupt.” Pointing out that Luther used similar language toward other Protestants (often for believing things that most modern Protestants believe, like a spiritual/symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist) is perfectly appropriate.

In short, I have no problem with a specific, focused, relevant criticism of Luther’s character. What is illegitimate and unhelpful is the general argument “Look at how many flaws Luther had–how can you take any of his ideas seriously.”

This is equivocal use of language. It makes no sense. If there are several religions all called “Christian,” then saying that we are all “Christians” is misleading, indeed dishonest on your part. What Protestants think you are saying when you say “we are all Christians” is that we share one faith in spite of our differences. If you aren’t saying that, you should never tell a Protestant that you recognize them to be Christian, because they will not understand what you are saying and you are in effect treacherously lying to them.

“Christian” normally functions in human speech as the name of a religion. And in the case of Christianity, defining what is a single religion and what isn’t is vitally important (as is arguably not the case for other traditions like Hinduism). I do use the word in a broader sense at times, but only with clear qualifications. So I will say that Mormons are Christians in some sense, but will never say it without qualification because it could be misinterpreted as saying that they are part of the same religion I am, which I do not believe.

Edwin

You would properly compare Luther to Jesus, because each is a founder.

When Luther took it upon himself to change doctrine and the Bible, he took on Jesus’ role.

Obviously Lutherans can’t depend on Luther’s character as proof that their religion is correct. No man can depend on any other man for that.

You say that Luther didn’t recieve and new revelation, yet he decided to change what was codified with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And he decided to change doctrine, though he and you admit that he did not speak infallibly.

I’ll ask again. Why are you comparing Luther to anyone but Jesus? And why, iif you admit that Luther didn’t speak infallibly on these matters, do you believe that he was right to change the Bible and doctrine? On what authority did he make these changes?

And a new tradition? Whose tradition? Gods or Luthers? Without the assurance that Luther spoke infallibly, it is merely a man’s tradition that you are following.

Doctrine doesn’t change within the church that Jesus founded. Can you, then, honestly say that Lutheranism is a new and 100% accurate tradition? Or do you really have to admit that those changes are man-made traditions?

 

[kalt]

Contarini, you said that you know that Luther was right, because you see it in the Bible.

The Bible that Luther changed to fit the doctrine that he just changed.

Luther’s actions make it clear that he didn’t believe that the Bible was untouchable. He felt free to change anything that he didn’t agree with.

We believe that the books of the Bible were inspired. We also believe that it was codified under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Bible is inchangeable.

Luther obviously didn’t believe that.

You know that Luther was just a man. Yet you believe that he had the right to change the Bible. If he had the right to change the Bible on his own, then you mus tbelieve that the canon of the Bible is not permanant and that the accuracy at any given time cannot be guaranteed.

Again, how do you know that Luther was correct? Under what authority?

 

[ICA04]

Catholics don’t have any unity on Luther. *Exsurge Domine *said that the Pope could, “without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation…” *Decet Romanum Pontificem *spoke of Luther’s “depraved and damnable purpose.” It called for any of the faithful who were sympathetic to the Lutherans to shun them, so that they “may escape divine vengeance and any degree of participation in their damnation.” It further declared concerning Luther and his followers: “…these and the other sentences, censures and punishments… we decree to have fallen on all these men to their damnation.”

However, the great German Catholic historian from the Universities of Breslau and Bonn, Hubert Jedin held that Catholicism never condemned Luther by name at Trent, and that no official judgment on Luther exists by which a loyal Catholic is bound.

I leave it to better minds than mine to determine the navigation through such official statements.

The two points you made here totally contradict each other. You need not be a scholar to understand that.

 

[Ginger2]

I have read it. Lots of times.

He was a bad steward of the Church, there is no doubt. There is more than a reasonable doubt that this article says that he did what you claim he did

If we just look at a few historical dates, we can put things into perspective.

Luther went to Rome as sort of a mediator to reunite the German churches. I believe he was only in his mid-twenties, yet confidence in his ability to achieve the task was high. This was in the fall of 1510 until February 1511.

Luther saw what he describes as horrendous immorality even among priests. Yet, Luther still had faith in the Pope, (Jullius II at that time)

In October 1, 1512 Luther received his Doctor of Divinity degree.

As late as 1516, Luther still preached his faith in the Vicar of Christ. “If Christ had not entrusted all power to one man, the Church would not have been perfect because there would have been no order and each one would have been able to say he was led by the Holy Spirit. This is what the heretics did, each one setting up his own principle. In this way as many churches arose as there were heads. Christ therefore wills, in order that all may be assembled in one unity, that His Power be exercised by one man to whom also He commits it. He has, however, made this Power so strong that He looses all the powers of Hell (without injury) against it. He says : ’ The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it,’…”

Letter to Pope Leo X, Accompanying the “Resolutions” to the XCV Theses by Dr. Martin Luther, 1518
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/nine5-pope.txt

Afterward, on Nov. 9, 1518, Leo X is said to have issued the bull Cum postquam, which defined the doctrine of indulgences and addressed the issue of the authority of the church to absolve the faithful from temporal punishment.
(If someone can provide a link to this document it would be appreciated)

In the meantime, We can see that Luther preached according to the Catholic faith and trusted the authority of the Pope right up til 1518 when he appealed to the pope, giving the appearance in the text, the pope was well aware of the goings on. Altho I couldn’t find correspondence to the pope before this date, it is obviously Luther believed the pope would clear his name.

Things to consider: Luther had faith in the Pope thru 1516. Luther wrote his 95 theses in 1517. He contacted the pope by at least 1518 or sooner, concerning these matters. The pope responded by defending his right to sell indulgences.

Ginger

 

[orange_man]

Orangeman, you sound familiar…you wouldn’t happen to be an Irishman living in Tennessee?:irish1:

nope … actually my choice of screen names was more historical (I might change it because it’s a little overly hostile upon further reflection). I’m an anglo-saxon / italian (moms side of the family is from central / northern Italy — yup right from your mecca … btw been to the Vatican many times, nice art / dubious theology) yankee ex-Catholic who has been protestant for many years now.

 

[orange_man]

I just felt like juxtasposing these two comments made by orange_man, I thought it was funny.

hey I was only joking about Hahn (notice the smiley I put in the post). Gee wiz … you guys are sensative; like a bunch of girlie men (as Arnold would say)

 

[orange_man]

hey I was only joking about Hahn (notice the smiley I put in the post). Gee wiz … you guys are sensitive; like a bunch of girlie men (as Arnold would say)

 

[orange_man]

I meant sensitive …

 

[ralphinal]

If we just look at a few historical dates, we can put things into perspective.

Luther went to Rome as sort of a mediator to reunite the German churches. I believe he was only in his mid-twenties, yet confidence in his ability to achieve the task was high. This was in the fall of 1510 until February 1511.

Luther saw what he describes as horrendous immorality even among priests. Yet, Luther still had faith in the Pope, (Jullius II at that time)

In October 1, 1512 Luther received his Doctor of Divinity degree.

As late as 1516, Luther still preached his faith in the Vicar of Christ. “If Christ had not entrusted all power to one man, the Church would not have been perfect because there would have been no order and each one would have been able to say he was led by the Holy Spirit. This is what the heretics did, each one setting up his own principle. In this way as many churches arose as there were heads. Christ therefore wills, in order that all may be assembled in one unity, that His Power be exercised by one man to whom also He commits it. He has, however, made this Power so strong that He looses all the powers of Hell (without injury) against it. He says : ’ The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it,’…”

Letter to Pope Leo X, Accompanying the “Resolutions” to the XCV Theses by Dr. Martin Luther, 1518
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/nine5-pope.txt

Afterward, on Nov. 9, 1518, Leo X is said to have issued the bull Cum postquam, which defined the doctrine of indulgences and addressed the issue of the authority of the church to absolve the faithful from temporal punishment.
(If someone can provide a link to this document it would be appreciated)

In the meantime, We can see that Luther preached according to the Catholic faith and trusted the authority of the Pope right up til 1518 when he appealed to the pope, giving the appearance in the text, the pope was well aware of the goings on. Altho I couldn’t find correspondence to the pope before this date, it is obviously Luther believed the pope would clear his name.

Things to consider: Luther had faith in the Pope thru 1516. Luther wrote his 95 theses in 1517. He contacted the pope by at least 1518 or sooner, concerning these matters. The pope responded by defending his right to sell indulgences.

Ginger

Ok, not going to debate the time-line. Where did the pope say selling indugences is acceptable?

 

[Ginger2]

Ok, not going to debate the time-line. Where did the pope say selling indugences is acceptable?

Supposedly in his bull Cum postquam, which is why I am asking to see the text.

Varying sources all claim this document exists and that Leo X defends his right to sell indulgences, but before I accept it as proof, I want to see if that is actually what Leo stated.

This document should settle the dispute as far a s I am concerned. But, even without it, there is documentation showing Luther expected the pope to come to his defense. In the beginning of 1518 Luther still trusted the pope. But that same year is when Luther realized the pope had “his hand in the pie”.

Were persons in power misleading the pope? Or was the pope protecting his personal interests at the expense of the Church?

There is no doubt the document exists as Catholics acknowledge it, however, one must read the text of the document to see what it actually says.

 

[Ginger2]

Contarini, you said that you know that Luther was right, because you see it in the Bible.

The Bible that Luther changed to fit the doctrine that he just changed.

That is outright false. I’ve proven this, yet you keep making that false claim.

Just because you want to believe something, doesn’t make it true.

Criticize Luther for his flaws and errors, while keeping in mind all your saints are guilty of flaws and errors as well,

but don’t make up stories that are not true. Truth should be important to us. That is why I can’t understand this insistence in spreading falsehoods about our foes.

 

[AliciaCL]

I was only able to find a Latin and German copy of the 1518 Papal Bull – unhelpful.

However, here’s an article from Ignatious Press which discusses the history a bit and generally about indulgences. Pope Paul VI issued a papal bull on the doctrine. I’m a bit unclear but it looks like indulgences were sold by charlatans in the church but I couldn’t find any support that the Pope endorsed the sale of indulgences. Indeed, the Church did and does defend indulgences but selling is another issue. I think selling was expressly disavowed at Trent.

insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2009/02/please-indulge-a-defense-of-indulgences-for-a-moment.html

Also here’s a primer on bibical bases of indulgences:
catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp

The concept of Purgatory is one which I believe Lutherans expressly reject, so, it’s no small wonder that they would seize upon indulgences generally as outrageous.

I haven’t read all of this stuff so I’m not injecting myself into the fray of discussion here, just providing what looks to be the Catholic view of the history and the doctrine. It seems quite detailed (the history and the doctrine). Doesn’t yield itself easily to debate and discussion online but that’s my two cents.

 

[Ginger2]

I was only able to find a Latin and German copy of the 1518 Papal Bull – unhelpful.

Please, the link? I can translate it.

Thanks,

Ginger

 

[GKC]

I was only able to find a Latin and German copy of the 1518 Papal Bull – unhelpful.

However, here’s an article from Ignatious Press which discusses the history a bit and generally about indulgences. Pope Paul VI issued a papal bull on the doctrine. I’m a bit unclear but it looks like indulgences were sold by charlatans in the church but I couldn’t find any support that the Pope endorsed the sale of indulgences. Indeed, the Church did and does defend indulgences but selling is another issue. I think selling was expressly disavowed at Trent.

insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2009/02/please-indulge-a-defense-of-indulgences-for-a-moment.html

Also here’s a primer on bibical bases of indulgences:
catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp

The concept of Purgatory is one which I believe Lutherans expressly reject, so, it’s no small wonder that they would seize upon indulgences generally as outrageous.

I haven’t read all of this stuff so I’m not injecting myself into the fray of discussion here, just providing what looks to be the Catholic view of the history and the doctrine. It seems quite detailed (the history and the doctrine). Doesn’t yield itself easily to debate and discussion online but that’s my two cents.

Selling could have been a little more expressly forbidden, but see Trent, Session XXI, Reforms, Chap IX, and Session XXV, Reforms, Chap. XXI.

GKC

 

[AliciaCL]

1518 Papal Bull Cum Postquam in German:

uni-duisburg.de/Institute/CollCart/es/sem/s3/d03.htm

Also, I’m cutting and pasting it here just in case access is a problem:

Dekret “Cum postquam” an Cajetan de Vio, den Legaten des Papstes Leo X.), 9. November 1518
… ne de cetero quisquam ignorantiam doctrinae Romanae Ecclesiae circa huiusmodi indulgentias et illarum efficaciam allegare aut ignorantiae huiusmodi praetextu se excusare, aut protestatione conficta se iuvare, sed ut ipsi de notorio mendacio ut culpabiles convinci et merito damnari possint, per praesentes tibi significandum duximus, Romanam Ecclesiam, quam reliquae tamquam matrem sequi tenentur, tradidisse: … damit künftig keiner mehr Unkenntnis der Lehre der Römischen Kirche in bezug auf solche Ablässe und ihre Wirksamkeit geltend machen oder sich unter dem Vorwand einer solchen Unkenntnis entschuldigen oder sich durch eine erdichtete Erklärung helfen [kann], sondern damit sie wegen offenkundiger Lüge als strafbar überführt und zu recht verurteilt werden können, meinten Wir, Dir durch das vorliegende [Schreiben] kundtun zu sollen, daß die Römische Kirche, der als Mutter zu folgen die übrigen [Kirchen] gehalten sind, [folgendes] überliefert hat:
Romanum Pontificem, Petri clavigeri successorem et Iesu Christi in terris vicarium, potestate clavium, quarum est aperire regnum caelorum tollendo illius in Christi fidelibus impedimenta (culpam scilicet et poenam pro actualibus peccatis debitam, culpam quidem mediante sacramento paenitentiae, poenam vero temporalem pro actualibus peccatis secundum divinam iustitiam debitam mediante ecclesiastica indulgentia), posse pro rationabilibus causis concedere eisdem Christi fidelibus, qui caritate iungente membra sunt Christi, sive in hac vita sint, sive in purgatorio, indulgentias ex superabundantia meritorum Christi et Sanctorum;
ac tam pro vivis quam pro defunctis Apostolica auctoritate indulgentiam concedendo, thesaurum meritorum Iesu Christi et Sanctorum dispensare, per modum absolutionis indulgentiam ipsam conferre, vel per modum suffragii illam transferre consuevisse. Der Römische Bischof, der Nachfolger des Schlüsselträgers Petrus und Stellvertreter Jesu Christi auf Erden, kann kraft der Vollmacht der Schlüssel, die dazu dienen, das Himmelreich aufzuschließen, indem sie seine Hindernisse in den Christgläubigen beseitigen (nämlich die Schuld und die für die aktuellen Sünden geschuldete Strafe, und zwar die Schuld mittels des Sakramentes der Buße, die für die aktuellen Sünden gemäß der göttlichen Gerechtigkeit geschuldete zeitliche Strafe aber mittels des kirchlichen Ablasses), aus vernünftigen Gründen ebendiesen Christgläubigen, die durch das Band der Liebe Glieder Christi sind - ob sie nun in diesem Leben seien oder am Reinigungsort [Fegefeuer]-, aus dem Überfluß der Verdienste Christi und der Heiligen Ablässe gewähren;
und indem er kraft Apostolischer Autorität sowohl für Lebende wie für Verstorbene einen Ablaß gewährt, pflegt er den Schatz der Verdienste Jesu Christi und der Heiligen auszuteilen und auf die Weise der Lossprechung den Ablaß selbst zu gewähren oder auf die Weise der Fürbitte ihn zu übertragen.
Ac propterea omnes, tam vivos quam defunctos, qui veraciter omnes indulgentias huiusmodi consecuti fuerint, a tanta temporali poena, secundum divinam iustitiam pro peccatis suis actualibus debita liberari, quanta concessae et acquisitae indulgentiae aequivalet. Und deswegen werden alle, sowohl Lebende wie Verstorbene, die wahrhaft alle diese Ablässe erlangt haben, von einem solch großen Maß der zeitlichen Strafe, wie sie sie gemäß der göttlichen Gerechtigkeit für ihre aktuellen Sünden schulden, befreit, wie es dem gewährten und erworbenen Ablaß entspricht.
Et ita ab omnibus teneri et praedicari debere sub excommunicationis latae sententiae poena … auctoritate Apostolica earumdem tenore praesentium decernimus. Und Wir entscheiden kraft Apostolischer Autorität aufgrund ebendieses vorliegenden [Schreibens], daß es so unter Tatstrafe der Exkommunikation … von allen festgehalten und verkündet werden muß.

 

[Ginger2]

That is only excerpts. If someone can find the entire decree I would appreciate it.

In the meantime, here is a portion of what it states taken from the middle:

The Roman bishop, the successor of key bearer Peter and deputy Jesus Christ on earth, can by virtue of them Authority of the keys which serve to unlock the kingdom of heaven while they his obstacles in the Christian’s believer remove (since the guilt and the punishment owed for the topical sins, namely the guilt by means of the sacrament of the buses, for the topical sins according to the divine justice owed temporal punishment, however, by means of the ecclesiastical one Of indulgence), for reasonable reasons this very Christian’s believer which are by the tape of the dear limbs of Christ - whether they now in this life are or at purgatory -, from the abundance of the salaries of Christ and the holy Ablässe grant; and while he grants an indulgence by virtue of apostolic authority for living persons like for dead, he maintains the treasure of her to distribute salaries Jesus Christ and the saints and to grant the indulgence independently in the way of the absolution or on to transfer the way of the Fürbitte him.

And, so, everything becomes, living persons like dead who have attained really all this Ablässe, from such big litre of beer of the temporal punishment, as they owe them according to the divine justice for her topical sins, releases as it corresponds to the granted and acquired indulgence.

And We decide by virtue of apostolic authority on account of this very present [writing] that it must be held on thus under action punishment of the excommunication… (feel free to corrects any errors I might have made)

Since the charge is selling indulgences, I am curious why that issue does not appear to be addressed.

This was a response to Luther’s complaints against those unscrupulous men who were selling indulgences in Rome. This excerpt does not mention that, only the pope’s presumed authority to absolve sins for the living and dead.

I want to see the part of this document where it is denied or justified. There must be some place to view the document in its entirety.

 

[ralphinal]

That is only excerpts. If someone can find the entire decree I would appreciate it.

In the meantime, here is a portion of what it states taken from the middle:

The Roman bishop, the successor of key bearer Peter and deputy Jesus Christ on earth, can by virtue of them Authority of the keys which serve to unlock the kingdom of heaven while they his obstacles in the Christian’s believer remove (since the guilt and the punishment owed for the topical sins, namely the guilt by means of the sacrament of the buses, for the topical sins according to the divine justice owed temporal punishment, however, by means of the ecclesiastical one Of indulgence), for reasonable reasons this very Christian’s believer which are by the tape of the dear limbs of Christ - whether they now in this life are or at purgatory -, from the abundance of the salaries of Christ and the holy Ablässe grant; and while he grants an indulgence by virtue of apostolic authority for living persons like for dead, he maintains the treasure of her to distribute salaries Jesus Christ and the saints and to grant the indulgence independently in the way of the absolution or on to transfer the way of the Fürbitte him.

And, so, everything becomes, living persons like dead who have attained really all this Ablässe, from such big litre of beer of the temporal punishment, as they owe them according to the divine justice for her topical sins, releases as it corresponds to the granted and acquired indulgence.

And We decide by virtue of apostolic authority on account of this very present [writing] that it must be held on thus under action punishment of the excommunication… (feel free to corrects any errors I might have made)

Since the charge is selling indulgences, I am curious why that issue does not appear to be addressed.

This was a response to Luther’s complaints against those unscrupulous men who were selling indulgences in Rome. This excerpt does not mention that, only the pope’s presumed authority to absolve sins for the living and dead.

I want to see the part of this document where it is denied or justified. There must be some place to view the document in its entirety.

You know, it is possible that it was not really addressed. If you look at what Luther wrote overall, he was as much attacking indugences and the authority of the pope to grant them as he was the sale of them. It is possible that the pope took more issue with the theological issue of indulgences and missed the finer point of the sale of them.