The historical Luther (trying to get the facts right)

[De_Maria]

Obviously, Luther loves James. He praised it. He said so right there. I didn’t change his words. Read them for yourself.

The problem is that’s not the entire story. I just omitted some of it to support a point of view.

The polemical document in a number of places is just as dishonest as this.

The purported polemical says that he called it an “epistle of straw”. What should we do? Sort of add the two or subtract one from another and say that he really had no opinion on the book?

What do you think more honest? That he called it and considered it, “epistle of straw”? Or that he somehow considered it a good book?

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

But the fact remains that Luther gave his enemies too much ammo.

That he did. So, why find it necessary to misrepresent what he said like the polemical document does?

You call it misrepresented. I call it focused. The paper focused upon Luther’s anti-Catholic language and erroneous theology.

And there are so many other unbelievably immoral things that he said and did, that it makes one’s head spin. There is only one person to blame for this. Luther. Not Eck. Not the Pope. Not anyone but, Luther.

No one does things in a vacuum.

Do you blame your sins on your environment?

Luther is responsible for his own words,

Amen!

but not on his own responsible for the atmosphere where they take place.

[/QUOTE]
To some extent, he’s responsible for that, as well. There are people who can diffuse a situation. Luther brought a bottle of gasoline and lit a match to it.

 

[JonNC]

To some extent, he’s responsible for that, as well. There are people who can diffuse a situation. Luther brought a bottle of gasoline and lit a match to it.

The match supplied by the Luther. The gasoline by the Church.

 

[Jaaye]

Part I ----- Uh, I DID provide the context and citations. The link is to a booklet approved by 30 catholic bishops, archbishops and cardinals from England, Ireland, Scotland, USA and South Africa in 1884 – quite a large knowledge base with (presumable) classic scholastic and ecclesiastic training. It’s unclear that you even read it, you seem to imply that because it is written by/for catholics it is not correct. It quotes Luther directly … with his published words and provides the proper citation. If you feel any of it is presented in error, you are free to point out where you feel the errors are and why you think so (-- i.e. reframe the “erroneous” context for us) After all… the topic is called “The historical Luther – trying to get the facts straight” … so straighten out for us what you feel are erroneous facts being presented, along with YOUR references / citations.

Ref: Luther’s advice on bigamy: The prince in question was Prince Philip of Hesse of Germany. The context was the prince wanted a second wife, and asked the “advisement” of protestant churchmen about making his mistress a second wife. The account is outlined in the link I initially provided and is located on page 29-32 of the document. Page 29 describes the circumstances, page 31 advises the prince that if he is determined to do this, he should do so “secretly” (ie. “ … we declare under an oath that it ought to be done secretly… ) and page 32 has the signature block of the signers of this princely advise with Martin Luther listed first. [citations are noted]. By way of contrast, the pope denied Henry VIII’s request to divorce his wife; (apparently even Henry VIII did not attempt to go the bigamy route.) You can easily google the dates/times/names to find other corresponding documents describing this historical event.

PS… as a new user apparently I’m only allowed to post once a day? or there is some sort of limit to the number of responses each day for new users? So Part II will appear whenever I’m allowed to post again (because apparently there is also a word limit that I went over a little bit and had to split it into two parts).

 

[Jaaye]

[I’ll try Part II and see if it will take it]
Part II ---- Ref: Luther preaching against the Jews: Again, I DID provide the reference … see pages 34-35 of the link and compare the numbered 6-point plan to “deal with” the Jews published by Luther in his book “On The Jews and their Lies” ---- to the actualized Nazi plan of Kristallnacht… burn their synagogues, smash their homes and businesses, confiscate and burn their religious books, forbid their rabbis to teach, deny Jews legal protection … etc. etc. …it is an uncanny parallel, and one that has not gone unnoticed by historians.

I lived in Germany and speak German. I’ve been to the Documentation Center in Nuremberg which documents the rise of the Nazi party by the German people using print, newspapers, books, copies of orders, film, interviews, witness testimonies, etc. —they are all catalogued and presented in a chronological timeline and historical context. It is a fact the Nazis used Luther’s published works and sermons extensively in their anti-Jewish propaganda as well as his works on German nationalism – which was effective for them as Luther was so prominently ingrained in the German culture for about 400 years.

https://museums.nuernberg.de/docume...es/a-teaching-site-with-a-history-of-its-own/

“The prevailing view among historians is that Luther’s anti-Jewish rhetoric contributed significantly to the development of antisemitism in Germany, and in the 1930’s and 1940’s provided an ideal foundation for the Nazi Party’s attacks on Jews.” - Johannes Wallmann, “The Reception of Luther’s Writings on the Jews from the Reformation to the End of the 19th Century”, Lutheran Quarterly, n.s. 1 (Spring 1987) 1: 72-97

Below are 2 more sources/links:

Berlin exhibit highlights how the Nazis exploited Martin Luther’s legacy

BERLIN (RNS) — Most visitors to events in Germany marking this year’s 500th anniversary of the Reformation probably didn’t expect to find an exhibition setting out just how extensively the Nazis used Luther to justify their anti-Semitism and nationalism.

religionnews.com

Holocaust Timeline: The Nazification of Germany [Ref Links in 1938 Section to Kristallnacht]

And I’d like to point out that the reference and link I provided has a publishing date of 1884 … well in advance of WWII and Hitler… so that author could not have known how the Nazis would use Luther’s words, yet in this booklet he still recognized the danger of preaching and publishing such vehemently harsh words (which apparently Luther did not recognize that fact). I’m not aware of anti-Jewish books like “On The Jews and Their Lies” with similar titles/views being published and widely distributed by catholic churchmen of Luther’s time, but am interested to investigate further if you point them out.

The times, dates, titles, publications, other parties involved etc. are all named and noted in the initial link I provided. If you believe that context is tainted … point out the error … find another source … show me… I’m open to see more.

Those ARE Luther’s words, that IS what he said/did … and I think it is prudent to take him at his word and respect the history. … “Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it” – George Santayana

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

To some extent, he’s responsible for that, as well. There are people who can diffuse a situation. Luther brought a bottle of gasoline and lit a match to it.

The match supplied by the Luther. The gasoline by the Church.

The Church supplied the Gospel. Luther blew it up.

 

[De_Maria]

How do you know he wasn’t being sarcastic? Maybe hyperbolic?
What’s the context of the comment?

Context indeed.

**In a letter addressed to Joseph Levin Metzsch of December 9, 1526, Luther says: "Your first question: Whether person may have more than one wife? I answer thus: Let unbelievers do what they please; …
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/03/persepctives-of-luther-luther.html?m=1
Luther did not support bigamy, much less adultery. But not unlike the pope and Erasmus, he thought divorce was far worse.

Beggars all. Funny group. They claim that this does not support adultery:

The third case for divorce is that in which one of the parties deprives and avoids the other, refusing to fulfill the conjugal duty or to live with the other person. For example, one finds many a stubborn wife like that who will not give in, and who cares not a whit whether her husband falls into the sin of unchastity ten times over. Here it is time for the husband to say, “If you will not, another will; the maid will come if the wife will not.” Only first the husband should admonish and warn his wife two or three times, and let the situation be known to others so that her stubbornness becomes a matter of common knowledge and is rebuked before the congregation. If she still refuses, get rid of her; take an Esther and let Vashti go, as King Ahasuerus did (Esther 1:12–2:17Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)) [LW 45:34].

Have you read the Scripture?

Matt 19:3 Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him,[d] saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?” 4 [e]He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” 7 [f]They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss [her]?” 8 He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 I say to you,[g] whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”

Tell me again, how does that NOT support for adultery?

 

[JonNC]

The Church supplied the Gospel. Luther blew it up.

Actually, it didn’t. There was nothing of the gospel in the corruption of Tetzel, of Biel, of Occam.

 

[De_Maria]

Nor in faith alone, sin and sin mightily, if you wife won’t, divorce her and marry another, etc. etc.

As for bigamy, Beggar’s all says, that the Pope gave the King of Castile dispensation to have two wives. But, that’s the only place I’ve ever seen that. All I’ve read anyplace else is that the King of Castile sought from the Pope a dispensation to have two wives.

Many kings were bigamous. But not with the sanction of the Church.

 

[De_Maria]

Actually, it didn’t. There was nothing of the gospel in the corruption of Tetzel, of Biel, of Occam.

And, even if you’re right, and I sincerely doubt it, we aren’t followers of Tetzel, of Biel or of Occam. We’re followers of the Catholic Church.

Anything that they may have taught against the Gospel, they also taught against the Catholic Church.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

It’s kind of hard to imagine so many in the Catholic Church hierarchy singing the praises of this man…with a stamp to honor him to boot!

We are blessed to have such a wonderful hierarchy…guided by the Holy Spirit and who know what they are doing.

 

[Jaaye]

Uh… I think it is the “alleged” papal dispensation allowing two wives to the King of Castile

The Dublin Review

books.google.com

The marriage of nobility was important matters of state, with many downstream consequences of title, lands, wealth, inheritance, etc. … despite 500+ years of people searching for this papal document,no one has apparently ever seen a copy or encountered anyone who reported they had seen a copy. If one shows up …I’m sure interested to see it… but until then, I think this is the 16th century equivalent of a rumor gone viral, and shouldn’t be attributed as fact … or at best passed along as a (highly) “suspect” rumor.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The match supplied by the Luther. The gasoline by the Church.

Very well said.

On the Catholic side, the decisions are made by the hierarchy. The opinions of lay people have no meaning. None. Martin Luther was proclaimed “Witness of Jesus Christ” by the Pope in 1983. No mere Catholic lay person gets to critique the Vicar of Christ – they get to obey him and acknowledge his authority to make such declarations.

The Popes have been at great pains to declare the innumerable faults on the Catholic side that resulted in the Reformation. I think especially of The Day of Pardon in the Great Jubilee and the document underlying it, “Memory and reconciliation: the Church and the faults of the past” Again, lay Catholics do not get to debate this. They get to yield to competent Church authority.

 

[De_Maria]

We are blessed to have such a wonderful hierarchy…guided by the Holy Spirit and who know what they are doing.

Amen! Like the Council of Trent:

If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.

Canon 6.
If anyone says that it is not in man’s power to make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil as well as those that are good God produces, not permissively only but also propria et per se, so that the treason of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of St. Paul, let him be anathema.

Canon 7.
If anyone says that all works done before justification, in whatever manner they may be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God; that the more earnestly one strives to dispose himself for grace, the more grievously he sins, let him be anathema.

Canon 8.
If anyone says that the fear of hell,[113] whereby, by grieving for sins, we flee to the mercy of God or abstain from sinning, is a sin or makes sinners worse, let him be anathema.

Canon 9.
If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone,[114] meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The Pope with the Lutheran Archbishop of Uppsala, Primate of the Church of Sweden

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Having already been a Co-Presider at a Service of Common Prayer in commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation that was held in New York City, His Eminence Timothy Cardinal Dolan, chose to be with the Presbyterians at Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church as the invited guest in their pulpit for Reformation Sunday on the actual 500th anniversary.


I compliment the Bishops and the clergy of the Catholic hierarchy across North America who carry forward the ecumenical imperative that is the Will of God, as is occurring throughout Europe and the world. They are shining example. In my experience, the Catholic laity of the United States have similarly embraced, with and under their hierarchy…their shepherds, the ecumenical movement…except, sadly, a certain tragic minority, who are to be prayed for.

 

[JonNC]

It quotes Luther directly … with his published words and provides the proper citation. If you feel any of it is presented in error, you are free to point out where you feel the errors are and why you think so (-- i.e. reframe the “erroneous” context for us) After all… the topic is called “The historical Luther – trying to get the facts straight” … so straighten out for us what you feel are erroneous facts being presented, along with YOUR references / citations.

I already did. It is a polemical hit piece that picks and chooses and provides biased commentary. Now, biased commentary is fine, but It is not just Luther in his own words.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Actually, it didn’t. There was nothing of the gospel in the corruption of Tetzel, of Biel, of Occam.

And, even if you’re right, and I sincerely doubt it, we aren’t followers of Tetzel, of Biel or of Occam. We’re followers of the Catholic Church.

Anything that they may have taught against the Gospel, they also taught against the Catholic Church.

You seem to want to follow it in all aspects except Luther

 

[JonNC]

Oh so its this again… they ARE his words… they are not the words of Christopher Columbus, Michelangelo or Shakespeare they are Luther’s published words.

Check my post about his commentary on James.
The document you provided uses a partial quote from Luther to make a point. It was contrived and dishonest.

If you really want to know what Luther thought of James, you post the entire commentary. It isn’t long. It contains comments I disagree with. But I don’t just quote that portion.
So, no, it isn’t just Luther’s words.

 

[De_Maria]

You seem to want to follow it in all aspects except Luther

Because Luther doesn’t teach the Gospel. This is why his teachings were anathematized at Trent.