M
MarysGirls
Guest
Alas… the Church can do some horrible things when in the hands of the corrupt who have the nerve to call themselves Catholics…
- Status
R
raumzeitmc2
Guest
Jon,
All were doing here is discussing some points of history, albeit not the most pleasant points!
I don’t see how this is in any way opposed to the Holy Spirit - the Spirit of Truth- and who wants all of us to come to a knowledge of the truth.
The way I see it, discussing the horrific events of the reformation, or discussing the lives of bad Popes, is really no different, for example, than discussing the horrific events of, say, WWII. It may be a bit unpleasant at times, but as long as we are all honestly trying to get to the truth, we all profit greatly thereby.
But do we sometimes phrase our respective messages with less than perfection? I think we do. I suppose it’s just the nature of these types of discussions.
Anyway, please don’t take anything that I have said about Luther as an indictment against modern Lutherans - It isn’t!
Peace.
That’s good to hear. I have no problem discussing these things, but I do also believe that when a Catholic gives me an explanation about what Catholic leaders have said, charity and the eigth commandment require that I accept that interpretation. All I ask is the same in return.Jon,
All were doing here is discussing some points of history, albeit not the most pleasant points!
I don’t see how this is in any way opposed to the Holy Spirit - the Spirit of Truth- and who wants all of us to come to a knowledge of the truth.
The way I see it, discussing the horrific events of the reformation, or discussing the lives of bad Popes, is really no different, for example, than discussing the horrific events of, say, WWII. It may be a bit unpleasant at times, but as long as we are all honestly trying to get to the truth, we all profit greatly thereby.
But do we sometimes phrase our respective messages with less than perfection? I think we do. I suppose it’s just the nature of these types of discussions.
Anyway, please don’t take anything that I have said about Luther as an indictment against modern Lutherans - It isn’t!
Peace.
And if discussion leads to “where do we go from here to grow closer together”, then knowing the past has completed its task.
Jon
R
raumzeitmc2
Guest
James,
I understand and appreciate what you are saying. However, I think you would have to admit that Luther did, in fact, say quite a number of things which, at the very least, makes one wonder just where he was coming from! Let me quote from Denifle, whose credentials are on the hot seat. This will also give everyone a sample of his style:
Quoting, Luther and Lutherdom.
Luther says:
“By the vow of chastity, man denies that he is a man.” p. 7.
To which Denifle responds (in part):
"This is the philosophy of the flesh, which has no regard for conclusions. Complete emancipation of the flesh is the motto of this new group of beings.We have reached the culmination of the wickedness of the decadent part of the clergy, which, like a stream, rolled out of the fifteenth into the sixteenth century. We have come to evil at its worst, which the Quagmire branch of that stream represents… p. 9
“We see a multitude of religious throwing off every check and every restraint. Unbounded license is their watch-word. Nothing lay farther from them than mortification. 'The subdual of the flesh and tinder of their
sins,” writes Werstemius, ‘they leave to the women.’ The vow of chastity seemed not only intolerable to them but a downright trick of Satan. ‘He who vows chastity does just the same as one who vows adultery or other things forbidden by God,’ was the saying. p. 9
‘The body demands a woman and has need of the same.’ p. 9
‘Chastity is not in our power. All are created for marriage. God does not permit that one be alone.’ p. 9.
“It was this teaching that good works, even at their best, are sins, and even that a just man sins in all good works.” p. 24.
“Though Luther praises virginity as a ‘rare and noble gift,’ yet, as we have earlier heard him say, nobody posses it. Contempt for woman began then, when Luther and his associates began to deride the Blessed among women, Virgin and Mother, and despoiled both virgin and wife of their most beautiful exemplar; then, when the ‘Reformer’ allotted to allotted to woman, ‘a mad animal,’ (Weimar XV, p. 420), the part of a mere instrument for the gratification of man’s sexual instinct:
‘If anyone feels himself a man, let him take a woman and not tempt God. Therefore, has a maiden her little paunch, to afford him a remedy by which pollutions and adulteries may be avoided.’ The ‘stimulatio carnis,’ ‘temptations, can easily be relieved, while there are still young wives and women.’ Man himself cannot respect the woman in whom he sees only and instrument of his sexual pleasure. It was as such that Luther represented her in the first years after his apostasy, during his warfare against virginity and the celibate life.” p. 304
Luther:
“Then does the flowing ensue and the secret sin, which St. Paul, 1 Cor. 6:9, (Gal. V, 19) calls uncleanness and luxury. And, to speak out grossly, for the sake of miserable necessity, if the flowing is not into the flesh, it will be into one’s shirt (“Fließet es nicht in das Fleisch, so fließet es ins Hemd.”)” p. 123.
*Wider den falsch genannten geistlichen Stand *(1522), (Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops, Falsely So Called, 1522),
Dr. Martin Luther’s sämmtliche Werke, 1840, Erlangen ed. (Acht und zwanzigster Band, i.e., vol. 28), pp. 199-200.
books.google.com/books?id=ZjQoAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA200&dq=%22es+nicht+in+das+fleisch+so%22&lr=&ei=PX_7SeSBGYLAMufygSk
The American edition has:
“To put it bluntly for the sake of those who suffer miserably: if it does not flow into the flesh it will flow into the shirt.” LW 39:298
ISBN 0800603397, 9780800603397
But enough for the moment. Let me now just ask you this one question: What do you suppose Luther meant by the following remark?
“I am compelled to confess it; my doctrine has produced many scandals.”
In, Charles of Europe, Dominic Bevan Wyndham Lewis, New York, Coward-McCann, 1931, p. 213.
books.google.com/books?id=oKgfAAAAMAAJ&q=%22I+am+compelled+to+confess+it,+my+doctrine+has+produced+many+scandals%22&dq=%22I+am+compelled+to+confess+it,+my+doctrine+has+produced+many+scandals%22&lr=&pgis=1
The reference at the bottom of p. 213 gives as the source of this quote the Wittenberg edition of Luther’s Latin Works (Opera Lutheri., edit. Wittenberg), II, 281.
Omnium Operum Reverendi Domini Martini Lutheri
worldcat.org/search?q=ti%3Aomnium+operum+reverendi+domini+Martini+Lutheri&fq=&start=21&qt=next_page
As I’m sure you are aware, the Wittenberg edition is the earliest edition of Luther’s Works, and is therefore quite rare. I haven’t had a chance to really look through more recent editions for the context of the quote because, well because, I only have so much time! I will however, next time I get a chance, do a bit of checking around.
God bless.
J
josie_L
Guest
J
josie_L
Guest
J
josie_L
Guest
The multitude of Aztecs who died in Latin America was due mostly to infectious diseases they inadvertently caught from the Spaniards. Also, please recollect that the Aztecs were sacrificing thousands of people per year to their gods in a manner that can only be described as horrific, just imagine having your heart cut out while you were still alive. They were also cannibalistic, so I truly don’t have that much pity for them.
“They were brought through four streets walking single file until they reached the idols.” Father Durán, speaking of this same sacrifice and of the great number of victims, adds: “Which to me seemed so incredible, that, if history and the fact that I found it recorded in many places outside of history, both in writing and pictorially represented, did not compel me to believe it, I should not dare to assert it”. The Vatican and Tellerian manuscripts give the number of victims as 20,000; this number seems more probable.
Upon this occasion victims were simultaneously sacrificed in fourteen principal temples of the city. In the great teocalli, there were four groups of sacrifices, and the same was probably the case in other places; the time for the sacrifices was from sunrise to sunset, about thirteen hours, each victim required about five minutes, so that computing by this standard the number of victims might easily reach the above-mentioned number. Father Mendieta, as well as Father Motolinia and other authorities, agree in affirming that the number of victims annually sacrificed to Huitzilopozotli and other Aztec deities reached the number of 15,000 to 20,000."
newadvent.org/cathen/10250b.htm
P.S. I knew I made a mistake in my original post, I mentioned a third died of infectious diseases (while simultaneously stating that this was mostly what they died of, whoops), the percentage is much more than this:
“The mighty Aztec civilisation of Mexico was nearly wiped out in the 1500s when almost 8 out of every 10 people across Central Mexico died in a series of devastating epidemics. Most people believe that these were epidemics of diseases new to the New World brought
across the Atlantic by the Spanish Conquistadores.”
channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/naked-science/3489/Overview
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
The reason you’re wondering where Luther is coming from is because you’re reading through the eyes of an outdated flawed method, rather than simply reading Luther. I suggest actually reading LW 39. You’ll find out, Luther is critiquing corruption in the church and challenging Church ordained celibacy for the clergy.
Luther critiques the belief that by being celibate one becomes more holy. Luther critiques those who entered the monastery in order to save one’s soul. He states the opinion of these people: " “Why should I become a priest, a monk, or a nun and torture myself in the order, if this did not save me and make me godly and pure?” (LW 39:287). Luther argues similar to Paul’s in Galatians, that this is adding works to faith, and thus a return to Judaism:
"Listen a bit: this is the Christian faith that one believes that we are justified and saved not through any works but solely through Christ our mediator and through mercy, bestowed on us quite freely—Galatians 1. Thus man despairs of himself and of all his deeds and clings to Christ’s merit alone. Jewish faith means receiving God’s grace through works and through one’s own doing, and thus doing penance and being saved, Romans 10. Christ has to be excluded as unnecessary or at least as not very necessary. Now see whether the majority of priests, monks, and nuns do not begin their spiritual lives in such Jewish faith; for they say they want to do penance and to be saved through the strict life, and they attribute to works and to the spiritual estate what belongs to Christ and to faith alone. What is this other than denying Christ and becoming spiritual in unbelief—that is, that true Christians become Jews and pagans? It is just as St. Peter says, that those who already escaped error and sins are again entangled by them and have to live in error " (LW 39:287)
Further, Luther explains some of the corruption within the church during this period: priests had a way of keeping prostitutes. Priests though who decided to get married were being arrested. According to Luther, priests had to “give one guilder a year to the bishop” if they wanted to keep a prostitute. The priesthood was infected by this. Luther argues by priests actually getting married, the bishop lost income. (LW 39:290). He argues that priests should rather be exhorted to take godly wives rather than corrupt prostitutes. He also points out a double standard: “it is not at all dangerous for a priest to take a wife. Only these masks regard it as dangerous; on the other hand, they sell whores for money, which is really dangerous, and punish no one for it. Are they not fine, lovely masks? They crucify Christ and let Barabbas go. Woe, woe, woe to them! I can but warn them and all those who support them to be on guard. God will not allow his word to be mocked” (LW 39:293).
Luther argues as well the vow of celibacy by avoiding marriage is unbiblical. God has not prohibited marriage to priests, rather the Church has. “St. Paul instituted [marriage] for the priests when he said, “A bishop should be the husband of one wife, keeping his children submissive and respectful,” I Timothy 3, and Titus 1” (LW 39:291). He provides other biblical arguments as well.
As to your quote, it follows the context just put forth, that of celibacy, marriage and the priesthood. Luther goes on to describe the natural God-given desires given to people, even those within monasteries and nunneries:
“Listen: I have never heard confession from a nun. Nevertheless, I will tell you on the basis of Holy Scripture what it is like for them, and I know that I am not lying. Unless she is in a high and unusual state of grace, a young woman can do without a man as little as she can do without eating, drinking, sleeping, or other natural requirements. Nor can a man do without a woman. The reason for this is that to conceive children is as deeply implanted in nature as eating and drinking are. That is why God gave us and implanted into our body genitals, blood vessels, fluids, and everything else necessary to accomplish it. The person who wants to prevent this and keep nature from doing what it wants to do and must do is simply preventing nature from being nature, fire from burning, water from wetting, and man from eating, drinking, or sleeping” (LW 39:296).
“To continue, nature does not cease to do its work when there is involuntary chastity. The flesh goes on creating seed just as God created it to do. The blood vessels function according to their own nature, and thus the fluids rise—and with them the secret sin which St. Paul calls impurity and softness [Gal. 5:19]. To put it bluntly for the sake of those who suffer miserably: if it does not flow into flesh it will flow into the shirt. But people are ashamed to complain about it and to confess it. The result is that in their heart they malign you and God, curse their own estate, and are hostile to all those who have helped them to become like this. Such people would rather marry a shepherd boy in their need, while they would otherwise hardly take a count. See, this is what the devil intended when he taught you to quench nature and subdue it even if it wants to be free.” (LW 39:297).
So the reason you didn’t understand where Luther was coming from, is that you probably hadn’t read the context. Luther is discussing the celibacy, corruption in the clergy, marriage, and the God given desire to procreate. I suggest putting down the Denifle, and reading Luther in context.
James Swan
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Understanding Denifle’s approach:
“The evidence which Denfile presented [about Luther] was certainly impressive and his influence on anti-Lutheran writers has been continuous and considerable; but it had been marshaled in a distinctly slanted fashion He had, for instance, laid great stress on Luther’s use of the word ‘concupiscentia’, mistakeningly interpreting it as sexual lust. He quoted a phrase which Luther used in a letter to his wife, ‘I gorge myself like a Bohemian and I get drunk like a German. God be praised. Amen’, to suggest that he was a worldly man, but he did not note the context of the letter, a humorous one written to his wife when she was very worried by his poor appetite. He used a series of portraits in his first edition to show how the thin, ascetic scholar and monk became obese and unattractive; the last of his portraits, he noted, was surprisingly bestial’, though the fact that it was made of the reformer after his death, and possibly after decomposition had set in, should have minimized his astonishment.” V.H.H. Green, *Luther and the Reformation *(New York: G.P.Putnum’s Sons, 1964) 193-195.
“Denifle began to quarry from Luther’s own works and manuscripts what was rumored even before publication to be “ein boses Buch!” The work was aimed at annihilating Luther’s reputation, but out of his own mouth and from his own pen. The young Catholic Luther, torn with sin and constant remorse, was pitted against the hardened old reprobate. Grilling his subject mercilessly like a savage district attorney, Denifle denied him veracity, depicted a lecherous young man ridden by unconquerable concupiscence of the flesh, and later exhibited a bloated besotted beast given to vile ragings and obscene vituperation. Luther had been wicked very wicked indeed—why, his own words about culpa, culpa, mea maxima culpa!" and his inability to find peace even behind monastery walls convict him! Unable to find any goodness even with God’s grace Luther in final desperation simply “invented” forgiveness for nothing, i.e., justification through faith—and then advised “pecca fortiter,” sin boldly! Thus he unleashed all the wicked passions of the Evangelical Reformation.” Peter Brunner and Bernard J. Holm, Luther in the 20th Century, (Iowa: Luther College Press, 1961), 86.
Catholic scholar Jared Wicks points out the immediate reaction to Denifle’s work from Catholic scholars-
“Catholic university men in Germany were reserved about Denifle’s bombshell from Rome. Some coolly pointed out that a person so depraved as the Luther depicted by Denifle could not possibly have produced the literature that in fact changed the course of Christian history. It was lamented that the new documents Denifle presented would never lead to corrections of Lutheran views of Luther, since the Dominican had clothed his work in a vitriolic rhetoric repulsive to Lutherans.”Jared Wicks, Luther and His Spiritual Legacy, 18.
Catholic scholar Joseph Lortz unmasks the link between Cochlaeus (Luther’s early adversary) and Denifle, and clearly expresses that he purposefully has abandoned
“the evaluative categories of a Cochlaeus, … dominated [Catholic Luther studies] for over 400 years, and those of the great Denifle…. Gradually Catholics have come to recognize the Christian, and even Catholic, richness of Luther, and they are impressed. They now realize how great the Catholic guilt was that Luther was expelled from the Church to begin the division that burdens us so today–even in theology. Finally, we are anxious to draw Luther’s richness back into the Church. ” Jared Wicks (ed.) Catholic Scholars Dialogue with Luther (Loyola University Press, 1970), 6-7.
Regards,
James Swan
M
MarysGirls
Guest
Being single doesn’t make you more holy per se, this is not what the Church teaches. When you become a priest or nun, you become the spouse of Christ. To get married or keep a prostitute as Luther says they did is to commit adultery and they were (obviously) wrong in doing that. Many of the bishops were bribed into ordaining priests as it was a position of (though limited) power.So, I suppose, Luther was almost in the right.
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Yes- one thing to keep in mind, when one looks at historical theology, it should be done, as much as possible, in a historical context. That is, Luther wrote what he did for a reason. There were widespread abuses in the church- and many of these were addressed at Trent.
So, I suppose, Luther was almost in the right.
Hopefully, you can see why I’ve reacted to raumzeitmc2’s posts as I have. Luther said what he said not only in a context, but in a historical context. For a Catholic to quote Denifle is almost like a Protestant quoting Jack Chick- the truth is distorted by preconcieved bias. I understand we all have bias, but sometimes it should be obvious when a particular author has gone overboard. Denifle went overboard and presented a distorted picture of Luther, as Chick goes way overboard in his attacks against Catholicism.
Regards,
James Swan
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Question: Where does Luther scholarship stand today? Have there been any attempts to research Luther’s theology, beyond existing historical investigations?
Cardinal Ratzinger: Nobody can answer this question in a few sentences. Besides, it would require a special kind of knowledge which I do not possess. It might be helpful, however, briefly to mention a few names which represent the various stages and trends of Catholic Luther scholarship. At the beginning of the century we have the decidedly polemical work by the Dominican H. Denifle. He was responsible for placing Luther in the context of the Scholastic tradition, which Denifle knew better than anybody else because of his intimate knowledge of the manuscript materials. He is followed by the much more conciliatory Jesuit, Grisar, who, to be sure, encountered various criticisms because of the psychological patterns in which he sought to explain the problem of Luther. J**. Lortz from Luxembourg became the father of modern Catholic Luther scholarship. He is still considered the turning-point in the struggle for an historically truthful and theologically adequate image of Luther.** Against the background of the theological movement between the two world wars, Lortz could develop new ways of questioning which, subsequently, would lead to a new assessment of Luther.
Cardinal Ratzinger: Nobody can answer this question in a few sentences. Besides, it would require a special kind of knowledge which I do not possess. It might be helpful, however, briefly to mention a few names which represent the various stages and trends of Catholic Luther scholarship. At the beginning of the century we have the decidedly polemical work by the Dominican H. Denifle. He was responsible for placing Luther in the context of the Scholastic tradition, which Denifle knew better than anybody else because of his intimate knowledge of the manuscript materials. He is followed by the much more conciliatory Jesuit, Grisar, who, to be sure, encountered various criticisms because of the psychological patterns in which he sought to explain the problem of Luther. J**. Lortz from Luxembourg became the father of modern Catholic Luther scholarship. He is still considered the turning-point in the struggle for an historically truthful and theologically adequate image of Luther.** Against the background of the theological movement between the two world wars, Lortz could develop new ways of questioning which, subsequently, would lead to a new assessment of Luther.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
I think I’m well aware of your assessment Josie. Religion can get crazy … if it’s not your religion? Gee wiz … that’s an original theme?
The protestants and catholics both have an insane history. Both movements killed thousands, tens of thousands even throughout their history. However, should that overshadow the good work they’ve done? I would say on balance it really doesn’t matter … it’s our collective history (and we can’t change it). The ancients believed in all sorts of bizarre things, from thunder gods to demons and angels (and the list goes on and on). The only thing I find somewhat peculiar is that many people still believe the stuff. Oh well … we can all believe whatever we want right?
A funny side note. I just seen a commercial for The Closer, and someone asked her “how long has it been since your last confession” … to which she responded “I almost got one last night” (she’s plays a criminal prosecutor if you’re not familiar with the show).
J
josie_L
Guest
Well, this is my funny side note, please watch:I think I’m well aware of your assessment Josie. Religion can get crazy … if it’s not your religion? Gee wiz … that’s an original theme?
That’s not what I meant, go reread my post, or more precisely, the last line. You know, Humble you are way too cynical sometimes.
The protestants and catholics both have an insane history. Both movements killed thousands, tens of thousands even throughout their history. However, should that overshadow the good work they’ve done? I would say on balance it really doesn’t matter … it’s our collective history (and we can’t change it). The ancients believed in all sorts of bizarre things, from thunder gods to demons and angels (and the list goes on and on). The only thing I find somewhat peculiar is that many people still believe the stuff. Oh well … we can all believe whatever we want right?
Yes We Can.
A funny side note.** I just seen **a commercial for The Closer, and someone asked her “how long has it been since your last confession” … to which she responded “I almost got one last night” (she’s plays a criminal prosecutor if you’re not familiar with the show).
youtube.com/watch?v=Pn9mE-VvOwo&NR=1
youtube.com/watch?v=Y5zlf2cxj98
P.S. I believe the incorporation of “I just seen” into your sentence, is not something you picked up in N.Y. he!he!
R
raumzeitmc2
Guest
Actually, I do know where Luther is coming from; I have read his own writings.
Does Denifle misrepresent Luther? Depends. Were I to quote Luther sufficiently, some might say no. Was Denifle too harsh? Perhaps. Fair? Being human, I suppose not always. But neither were the reformers - not by any means! Perhaps sometime we should compare Denifle’s polemics to theirs.
It’s been a while, but I will go back and review LW 39. I don’t however, recall Luther saying anything there that will much alter the sense of what I posted earlier.
Actually, Luther critiques the possibility of anyone becoming holy – to any degree!
If Luther felt so ‘tortured’ why did he not just leave the order? (and actually, if you read his writings, it seems he felt ‘tortured’ until the day he died!). As for adding works to faith, this falsehood has been handed down through Protestant tradition; there is not a shred of truth in it, as the following writer points out.
An Inquiry Into the Merits of the Reformed Doctrine of “imputation,” …, 1843, Vanbrugh Livingston, John Hughes, intro., xvi.
books.google.com/books?id=h4ERAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR16&dq=%22God+in+rewarding+his+saints,+but+crowns+in+them+the+effect+of+his+own+grace%22&lr=
And as for a return to Judaism - absurd! If anything, it is Protestants who have regressed to Judaism! Indeed, the reformation could never have begun – let alone have “succeeded”- were it not for the Jews. Protestantism, it turns out, is really a species of Judaism. Let’s hear again from William Thomas Walsh (Philip II, p. 248 f.).
theindivisiblelight.com/chapter4.html
books.google.com/books?id=5qUeAAAAMAAJ&q=%22long+retrogression+toward+the+moribund+Judaism+of+the+Pharisees+of+the+time+of+Christ%22&dq=%22long+retrogression+toward+the+moribund+Judaism+of+the+Pharisees+of+the+time+of+Christ%22&lr=&client=firefox&pgis=1
R
raumzeitmc2
Guest
Continued from above.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4035571&postcount=1
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4908299&postcount=1
But one might fairly ask, were the reformers any better?
What should not surprise us is that the reformers, much like their Jewish allies, taught that “marriage is a duty, and celibacy a sin.”
jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=289&letter=C
And even an abomination!
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/concord/web/smc-03k.html
I’ve never been one to deny or whitewash any of the failures, sins, or embarrassing remarks that can be honestly attributed to the members of the Church – clergy or otherwise. On the contrary, I have pointed them out! See for example, these:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4035571&postcount=1
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4908299&postcount=1
But one might fairly ask, were the reformers any better?
But then, where does this leave, for example, St. Augustine, who was himself both a bishop and a celibate??
What should not surprise us is that the reformers, much like their Jewish allies, taught that “marriage is a duty, and celibacy a sin.”
jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=289&letter=C
And even an abomination!
The Smalcald Articles.
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/concord/web/smc-03k.html
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
I have not seen evidence of this, at all. You’ve been posting seemingly outrageous statements from Luther at the expense of immediate and historical contexts, peppered with links to old Catholic apologetics texts and Luther’s German writings. You stated at one point, “…you would have to admit that Luther did, in fact, say quite a number of things which, at the very least, makes one wonder just where he was coming from” and then went on to post polemical material from Denifle, a scholar whose work on Luther has long since been repudiated by serious Catholic and protestant scholars. Denifle was simply wrong in evaluation of Luther’s concupiscence.
I’ve already demonstrated he has, and I’ve noted both Catholic and protestant scholars agree with me. I suggest taking a careful look at some of the links and material I’ve posted. Even Cardinal Ratzinger stated Denifle was highly polemical, and it wasn’t until Lortz that " an historically truthful and theologically adequate image of Luther" came forth from Catholic scholars. Ratzinger agrees with me, not you.
You really haven’t quoted Luther sufficiently, at all, in this entire thread. You’ve been posting polemical statements without contexts. Quoting Luther in context is not that difficult. It means, before you post some outrageous Luther statement, first go back and read the context. When you posted “To put it bluntly for the sake of those who suffer miserably: if it does not flow into the flesh it will flow into the shirt,” you had no idea what the context was, but went ahead and posted it anyway. This is simply not a proper way to do history. It is the method of propaganda, not truth.
Perhaps? No, he was- even Catholic scholars say he so, which is why he’s not quoted as an authority on Luther. Nor was he fair- contexts were ignored and a distorted picture is put forth. Catholics should bend over backwards to repudiate such works like Denifle’s. For a theology that claims “to be deep in history is to cease being Protestant”- Catholics should repudiate any from their own fold who distort history, as Denifle did.
This is a red herring. The reformers were not writing historical biographies like Denifle was, thus, there is not a comparison.
I enjoy honest discussions with people that try to be true with contexts and historical sources. I suggest that you actually read contexts before posting materials. In this case, the only option you should be considering is admitting Denifle’s picture of Luther was grossly distorted ,you hadn’t read the context of much of the Luther material you posted.
Regards,
James Swan
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
Did you get that from LW 39? If so, where? Or are you under the caricature that Luther believed “If one is saved by faith, so how one lives isn’t important…”? If the former, show me in LW 39, if the later, perhaps review the link I posted earlier Did Luther say, “Be a sinner and sin boldly”? A Look at Justification By Faith Alone and Good Works in Luther’s Theology. Or since you’re fond of the original sources, take a look at Weimar edition of Luther’s Works 2, 88 (also found in the Erlangen edition 21, 170) in which Luther explains what human holiness is. Or look at his explanation in Weimar 45, 688 and Erlangen 49, 296. Luther teaches the value of personal holiness, and to be holy for the sake of God.
It appears you didn’t understand the material I posted from LW 39. I stated, "Luther critiques those who entered the monastery in order to save one’s soul. He states the opinion of these people: " “Why should I become a priest, a monk, or a nun and torture myself in the order, if this did not save me and make me godly and pure?” (LW 39:287). "
Red herrings. I was explaining the context of the Luther quote you brought up. Stay focused on the issue, which was the context of the Luther quote you brought up. I’m not going to be led down rabbit trails. If you want to quote Luther and run elsewhere, I’m not going to follow. If you want to quote Luther and try and understand what he meant in context, I’m with you all the way.
Regards,
James Swan
R
raumzeitmc2
Guest
James, it seems you have a deep bias against Denifle. Even if he erred here and there, and even if some of his conclusions and interpretations have been rejected by some, the fact still remains that his work on Luther does contain a great deal of valuable information.
As a matter of fact, I did know the context. But let’s look again at he general context, just based on the what I did post.
The general context, and the theme of Luther’s teaching, is that “Chastity is not in our power. All are created for marriage.”
That was and is the battle cry of the reformation!
I think the real problem here is that Denifle comes *a little to close to the truth *for comfort! And at some level you realize this.
Not true! I’ve read a ton of Luther, believe me! But I’ll provide more context from now on.
T
TertiumQuid
Guest
I have a deep bias against those who distort the truth. If you go on my own website, you’ll find I don’t quote such people as Jack Chick or Dave Hunt when I write about Roman Catholicism. I would expect, a person such as yourself that seems so well read in Luther would know the difference between good and bad Catholic Reformation scholarship. I refer you to Cardinal Ratzinger who knew the difference.
I could say the same about Dave Hunt’s critique of Roman Catholicism, “A Woman Rides The Beast”: Even if he erred here and there, and even if some of his conclusions and interpretations have been rejected by some, the fact still remains that his work on Catholicism does contain a great deal of valuable information. But out of respect for Catholicism, I publically repudiate Mr. Hunt’s work as biased and flawed. It would insult Roman Catholics if I quoted it.
Make up your mind, earlier you said: * “I haven’t had a chance to really look through more recent editions for the context of the quote because, well because, I only have so much time! I will however, next time I get a chance, do a bit of checking around.”* So either you did or you didn’t when you started posting Luther snippets mined from Denifle. Only you know.
Your quoting someone else quote Luther, while I went and read and quoted LW 39.Amazing. When I say context, I mean what Luther said in the treatise he wrote it in, along with all the other things he said in that same treatise. You apparently mean, * let’s look at Denifle.* Amazing, simply amazing.
We can discuss Luther’s views of chastity another time. Luther held that genuine purity was a supernatural gift given to only a few. “Chasteness” during the Reformation period often was little more a monk with abstinence from marriage, while gross immorality went on anyway.
I don’t appreciate being psychoanalyzed on a discussion board. I can spot this method of argumentation quite easily: argument weak, move on to attacking the person making the argument. The real problem is serious Catholic scholarship has long abandoned your approach to Luther, yet you champion it. Yes, our culture loves the Jerry Springer approach: say shocking things about a person, vilify them, and keep everyone ignorant of the real facts. Fortunately, Catholic scholarship has moved beyond this approach, I suggest you do as well. If you need a list of respectable Catholic scholarship on Luther, I’d be happy to provide it for you.
Regards,
James Swan
- Status