Should Catholics Praise Martin Luther???

[2PT3]

I cannot speak for Fr Ruggero but I’ll contrast your reading of his posts with my own reading, as I thought he was very clear about the matter – as we (Catholics) should all be, since Vatican II tells us that “it is evident that, when individuals wish for full Catholic communion, their preparation and reconciliation is an undertaking which of its nature is distinct from ecumenical action. But there is no opposition between the two, since both proceed from the marvelous ways of God.” (cf. post #67 in this thread)

That aside, I welcome you to substantiate the claim you made against Fr Ruggero (assuming you still believe it to be justified).

Perhaps he has been busy with other things, but Fr. Rugerro has failed so far to respond to two questions:

1. Does he desire that non-Catholics become Catholic? If not why not?
2. To provide reasons why a Catholic would / should praise Martin Luther.

 

[Peter_J]

Perhaps he has been busy with other things, but Fr. Rugerro has failed so far to respond to two questions:

1. Does he desire that non-Catholics become Catholic? If not why not?
2. To provide reasons why a Catholic would / should praise Martin Luther.

Alright. Who graded him, if I may ask?

 

[2PT3]

Alright. Who graded him, if I may ask?

No one grading him, obviously, but he does not hesitate to grade others who dare to question his views on ecumenism. See above for examples. So, I would like to know the answer to the question: Does Father want Protestants to become Catholic, or not? If no, then why would he not want them to have the fullness of truth - and the help of the sacraments - that is contained only in the Catholic Church? If yes, then that seriously undermines his vociferous objection to any form of ecumenism of “return”.

 

[Peter_J]

No one grading him

Touche. I think that in “failing” to respond to your attacks Father has shown himself to be wiser than I am. But I’ll try to move up a grade by bidding you “Good day” at this point.

 

[TertiumQuid]

I find this entire discussion fascinating, and I’m grateful for the opinions expressed. I’ve been in online dialog with Catholics on Martin Luther for over 10 years. Here’s what I’ve encountered:

1. Older Catholic scholarship (pre-Lortz) is typically hostile to Luther.
2. Newer Catholic scholarship (post-Lortz) is less hostile to Luther.
3. Current Catholic scholarship is ecumenical and willing to be gracious towards Luther.
4. The majority of online Catholics participating in forums like these typically revert to the position of older Catholic scholarship (pre-Lortz).

The reason why I think there’s such a variety of Catholic opinions toward Luther is that at Trent, Luther was never condemned by name, so there is no dogmatic judgment by which Catholics are bound in regard to him personally. Some time back, (the bull condemning Luther’s teachings)Exsurge Domine. Akin pointed out that the bull was not infallible, so there’s no help there in establishing an official position.

So basically: you all have the freedom within Catholicism to express yourselves about Martin Luther. Enjoy that freedom.

 

[Peter_J]

I find this entire discussion fascinating, and I’m grateful for the opinions expressed. I’ve been in online dialog with Catholics on Martin Luther for over 10 years. Here’s what I’ve encountered:

1. Older Catholic scholarship (pre-Lortz) is typically hostile to Luther.
2. Newer Catholic scholarship (post-Lortz) is less hostile to Luther.
3. Current Catholic scholarship is ecumenical and willing to be gracious towards Luther.
4. The majority of online Catholics participating in forums like these typically revert to the position of older Catholic scholarship (pre-Lortz).

The reason why I think there’s such a variety of Catholic opinions toward Luther is that at Trent, Luther was never condemned by name, so there is no dogmatic judgment by which Catholics are bound in regard to him personally. Some time back, Jimmy Akin went through Exsurge Domine (the bull condemning Luther’s teachings). Akin pointed out that the bull was not infallible, so there’s no help there in establishing an official position.

So basically: you all have the freedom within Catholicism to express yourselves about Martin Luther. Enjoy that freedom.

But why would it be about Luther to begin with? It’s really about teachings.

Anyhow, I trust the magisterium.

 

[TertiumQuid]

But why would it be about Luther to begin with? It’s really about teachings.

Anyhow, I trust the magisterium.

This thread is entitled, “Should Catholics Praise Martin Luther???” By its mere existence, it demonstrates the overwhelming obvious: that Catholics have opinions about Martin Luther, and even yours is an opinion (that the teachings rather than the person should be discussed).

Enjoy your freedom.

 

[Peter_J]

This thread is entitled, “Should Catholics Praise Martin Luther???” By its mere existence, it demonstrates the overwhelming obvious: that Catholics have opinions about Martin Luther, and even yours is an opinion (that the teachings rather than the person should be discussed).

Enjoy your freedom.

Fair enough: a thread on the internet does have the aforementioned title.

(Bang gavel.)

But seriously, I’m not really saying Don’t talk about him. Just that he isn’t “what it’s all about”. Heck, you pointed out that even the 16th century condemnations don’t mention him.

 

[rcwitness]

I cannot speak for Fr Ruggero but I’ll contrast your reading of his posts with my own reading, as I thought he was very clear about the matter – as we (Catholics) should all be, since Vatican II tells us that “it is evident that, when individuals wish for full Catholic communion, their preparation and reconciliation is an undertaking which of its nature is distinct from ecumenical action. But there is no opposition between the two, since both proceed from the marvelous ways of God.” (cf. post #67 in this thread)

That aside, I welcome you to substantiate the claim you made against Fr Ruggero (assuming you still believe it to be justified).

I thought I’d here something like this. I am not accusing Fr. R of anything wrong. He has an emphasis, and from his perspective he is correct. However, not all discussion of the faith between Catholic and non-Catholic Christians has to refrain from apologetics of articles of the faith. And that is where I feel that Fr. R is on the extreme aspect of things. There is never really a stance and personal understanding expressed about the unifying nature of the Bishop of Rome and the Sacrament of His Eucharist. I’m not saying he doesn’t believe in it. He just chose not to be confrontational about it.

I don’t mind confrontation, so long as there is respect and we are all drawing on what we believe is from faith, and for faith. We can discuss what we believe are the reformations faults and successes. We can discern what was put forth from certain players as from above and from sin. I never do so with the intention of “bringing down” Luthernism, or some denomination. Yet I do hope that all will come into one Communion, and maybe my sharing of the faith given to me will help another Christian find peace with the Catholic Church.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Touche. I think that in “failing” to respond to your attacks Father has shown himself to be wiser than I am. But I’ll try to move up a grade by bidding you “Good day” at this point.

Inane questions, whether in my lecture hall or on an Internet forum, get exactly the answer from me that they merit.

Questions of merit, on the other hand, are an entirely different matter.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Alright. Who graded him, if I may ask?

It is not a matter of grading me, actually. The question asked in the title of this thread was already answered more than 30 years ago…in 1983…on the occasion of the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther’s birth.

Pope Saint John Paul II wrote and spoke of Martin Luther in that year as a profoundly religious man, a man to be praised. And in his papacy in the years that followed, in his audiences and addresses touching on the topic of Luther, sketched the Church’s assessment as it is today. An assessment in the light of the decades long dialogue and in the light of contemporary scholarship – which is what he wanted, particularly by those Catholic scholars who were specifically chosen for the task.

The titles that were bestowed by the Church in that year in Martin Luther’s regard were “Witness of Jesus Christ” and “Witness of the Gospel”. Pope Benedict made his own additions.

While PCPCU more than answers the question – and speaks both for and to “Catholics” since it is a dicastery of the Holy See – what is forthcoming, in the joint commemoration of the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther and his theses, will very well resolve the question posed.

 

[rcwitness]

It is not a matter of grading me, actually. The question asked in the title of this thread was already answered more than 30 years ago…in 1983…on the occasion of the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther’s birth.

Pope Saint John Paul II wrote and spoke of Martin Luther in that year as a profoundly religious man, a man to be praised. And in his papacy in the years that followed, in his audiences and addresses touching on the topic of Luther, sketched the Church’s assessment as it is today. An assessment in the light of the decades long dialogue and in the light of contemporary scholarship – which is what he wanted, particularly by those Catholic scholars who were specifically chosen for the task.

The titles that were bestowed by the Church in that year in Martin Luther’s regard were “Witness of Jesus Christ” and “Witness of the Gospel”. Pope Benedict made his own additions.

While PCPCU more than answers the question – and speaks both for and to “Catholics” since it is a dicastery of the Holy See – what is forthcoming, in the joint commemoration of the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther and his theses, will very well resolve the question posed.

Fr., I hope I have not portrayed your position falsely or even negatively. I am not on the attack of Martin Luther or Lutheran congregations. I am actually the God parent of my Lutheran niece. And when I accepted this responsibility, I was unaware that it is not permitted by the Church. I don’t have regrets, though if I had known, I would not have been able to. I was ignorant and only wished to support her in the faith.

A few years later, I had to tell my sister that she would be unable to be a God parent to my son, since she (and her husband are not Catholic). It was not a pleasant conversation. But we are still close.

That service, that I became God parent to my niece, is the only time I received a non-Catholic Eucharist. Again, I don’t necessarily regret it, but I was unaware of the Church’s position on receiving a non-Catholic communion at that time.

There are many positive ways we can fellowship with our brothers and sisters who are Christians, though not Catholic. There are also ways we are not to fellowship with them. Procelityzing can be negative because it is condescending to the free will of the other Christian. I try not to do that. I try to find as much common faith as posible, and with some non-Catholic Christians there seems to be much more faith that in some Catholics.

I would like to see the 1983 address from Pope JPII that you refer to. The only thing I found was an article from the NY Times. It seemed to stretch the pope’s comments quite a bit.

 

[rcwitness]

As for my understanding of the Church’s (and St JPII) sentiments towards Martin Luther, I believe he is to be honored with dignity and recognized for the good things he did set out to accomplish. Being praised is not exactly the same thing. As a priest, and Christian in entirety, he was not praised by the Church.

Was he given the honor he deserved as a child of God? Perhaps not, but probably afforded quite a bit of respect in his time.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

I find this entire discussion fascinating, and I’m grateful for the opinions expressed. I’ve been in online dialog with Catholics on Martin Luther for over 10 years. Here’s what I’ve encountered:

1. Older Catholic scholarship (pre-Lortz) is typically hostile to Luther.
2. Newer Catholic scholarship (post-Lortz) is less hostile to Luther.
3. Current Catholic scholarship is ecumenical and willing to be gracious towards Luther.
4. The majority of online Catholics participating in forums like these typically revert to the position of older Catholic scholarship (pre-Lortz).

It would be wise to move beyond ‘online discussions’ to gather insight into how Catholics feel about Luther.
What you oftentimes encounter here are Trad Catholics and non-Trad Catholics.
2PT3 was a case in point.

 

[TertiumQuid]

It would be wise to move beyond ‘online discussions’ to gather insight into how Catholics feel about Luther.
What you oftentimes encounter here are Trad Catholics and non-Trad Catholics.
2PT3 was a case in point.

To clarify: by “online discussions” these interactions with Catholics (specifically on Luther) have included pro-Catholic forums, anti-Catholic forums, blogs, e-mail exchanges, etc. I’ve interacted with anonymous laymen as well as more well-known Catholic apologists.

Exactly how do you propose I move beyond these interactions "to gather insight into how Catholics feel about Luther"? What is the method you suggest in this path of wisdom you’re describing?

 

[Son_of_Niall]

Exactly how do you propose I move beyond these interactions "to gather insight into how Catholics feel about Luther"? What is the method you suggest in this path of wisdom you’re describing?

Turn off the computer.
Walk outside without a device (first, get out your pajamas).
Talk to people (you’ll spot them right away, they have bodies like ours).
End of lesson.

 

[rcwitness]

It would be wise to move beyond ‘online discussions’ to gather insight into how Catholics feel about Luther.
What you oftentimes encounter here are Trad Catholics and non-Trad Catholics.
2PT3 was a case in point.

I wonder where I fit in…

 

[TertiumQuid]

Turn off the computer.
Walk outside without a device (first, get out your pajamas).
Talk to people (you’ll spot them right away, they have bodies like ours).
End of lesson.

Interesting conundrum that someone without a body is giving me advice to speak to someone with a body in order to arrive at the correct conclusion on a particular issue.

Keep in mind: I do talk to Catholics in person- but these cyber-discussions attract people who want to talk about certain issues and can at times have knowledge on certain issues (like Luther and the Reformation). On the other hand, I have typically not come across the same with Catholic “bodied” people. Perhaps that’s your point: most (or many) Catholic people out in the tangible world don’t have an opinion or care about Luther one way or other.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

Interesting conundrum that someone without a body is giving me advice to speak to someone with a body.

Keep in mind: I do talk to Catholics in person- but these cyber-discussions attract people who want to talk about certain issues and have knowledge on certain issues. On the other hand, I have typically not come across the same with Catholic “bodied” people. Perhaps that’s your point: most Catholic people out in the tangible world don’t have an opinion or care about Luther one way or other.

…or is it perhaps a guy with an anti-Catholic blog (followed by what? Five people?) needs to keep coming back to CAF trying to portray himself as something he is not?
Many Protestants, Lutherans included “in the tangible world” also don’t have an opinion about Luther.
Why? Perhaps because it is not 1517 anymore.
I would rather listen to an old retired priest like Don Ruggero, who has far more experience in the ‘tangible world’ than someone trying to gather a cyber-crowd.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

I wonder where I fit in…

Well, obviously a trad Catholic would never refer to himself as a “brother to all Christians”.