I can imagine that Denifle, a man who had taken the vow, was very sensitive to Luther’s statements in a way that most wouldn’t be.
I agree. Denifle’s extensive researches in the various archives of Europe left him aghast at what he was uncovering about the reformers. His was the understandable reaction of a mind steeped in the Father’s, Doctors and Saints. It was
my reaction to the reading of the reformers *long before *I ever saw a book by Denifle or Grisar!
Even Hartmann Grisar recognized some of Denifle’s fundamental errors:
“Grisar demolished two major points in the thesis of Denifle. He was not at all disposed to credit the tale of Luther’s moral turpitude.
“Demolished” may be a bit of an exaggeration; but he did tone down Denifle’s rhetoric. However, there were instances where a severe tone was perhaps warranted, though a milder tone overall is almost always to be preferred.
But Grisar himself shows us many unflattering things about Luther. In reading him, we come upon an unfortunate Luther, one who became psychologically and / or emotionally crippled in his relationship to God (and consequently his neighbor) as a result of what he deemed his moral failings. Had he only trusted the Church, and received ( not “discovered”) the gospel of Christ
and of his saints, he would have most certainly found, through the teaching and example of millennium of sanctity, peace and rest for his troubled soul.
I stated nowhere Denifle was a heretic, nor am I on a crusade against him.
I said that mostly in jest. But one definition of heresy may be applicable.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heresy
No one wants to think they’ve taken a wrong turn in research. I realize you must’ve actually taken extra effort to pull that Denilfe information rather than and cut-and-paste it from the Internet.
Again, Denifle’s work still contains important and rare information. That doesn’t mean I bind myself to his conclusions or approve of his general tone.
And I did not cut and paste anything. I’ve had that quote handy for quite some time.
Ah yes, earlier you stated that “move on” is what Protestants do when “when certain facts about Luther or Calvin are mentioned.” Protestants “simply do not want to hear the truth.” I suggest this is exactly what you’re doing in regard to the information I’ve given you in regard to some of the historical sources you’re utilizing as an “amateur historian.”
No, I’m not in the least afraid of criticism or facts. We can certainly talk about Denifle, pro and con, till the cows come home. But since you’re convinced that he has nothing of value to offer, I say we just move on.
Based on your citations from Lortz, it’s obvious to me you didn’t even bother to look over my Lortz overview which I’ve linked to a number of times. One irony of course is this citation from my own research of Lortz:
I’ve visited your site many times in the past, so I’m well familiar with the material you posted. But you’re only giving one side of Lortz. I gave another. But perhaps we can reconcile them.
Now, I would like to clarify something, and it is this: I have no desire to defame the reformers. Fact is, I’d much prefer to admire them. But how I can I ever be expected to approve of their distortions, their immorality or their violence? I can’t. Any more than I could or would condone such evils on the Catholic side. You’ll certainly never find me countenancing for example, something like the following, which Erasmus recounts:
His disciple the prior of Antwerp, a doctor of the violet cap, when defending himself before the magistrates on a charge of subversive clamor against Luther, declared that he had not read Luther’s books, but had been told in a letter from Father Nicolaus Egmondanus to say what he had said.
At the same time the leaders of the Dominican monastery behaved so improperly that they set all decent people against them. One of their society said in the hearing of the laity, “I wish I could chew Luther’s gullet between my teeth! I should say mass without hesitation with my mouth still bloody.” Is there any honorable man so incensed against Luther that he would not be disgusted to hear a priest vomiting such filth?
- to Vincentius Theoderici, March 1521,
The Correspondence of Erasmus, Roger Aubrey Baskerville Mynors, University of Toronto Press, 1974, ISBN 0802026079, vol. 8, p. 193.
books.google.com/books?id=A5-UBrlRNqwC&pg=PA193&dq=erasmus+%22mouth+still+bloody%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES
And though I’ve pointed this out before, I reiterate: Luther did say a number of things which were very sensible and even of a noble nature. He speaks wonderfully for example, of the Blessed Virgin, and even, sometimes of the saints. Although here he more often than not (so it seems to me) is unduly and even unfairly critical.
No, Luther was not evil – but he was wrong. As for the reformation he created, it most certainly was evil! For it "convulsed all Christendom, caused rivers of blood to flow, and made a chasm in Christ’s Church, which time may never close.” In a word, the “cure” was far worse than the disease, which had in fact, already begun to heal.
This healing would come about, not through anarchy, not through bloody rebellion, but through holiness - the holiness and
obedience of the
Saints. It was they, not the reformers, who understood perfectly that the only cure for the evils of the day, the only cure that had proved effective in every age and in every crisis of the Church, was the medicine of
sanctity, not the right of private judgment.
