The real Luther

[Katholikos]

Contarini,

Indisputable facts:

Luther altered the text of Romans 3:28, which he admitted. No other German translation before or since Luther’s found it “necessary” to insert “alone” into that text. Luther came right out and said, yeah, I did it, and ***“I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word “alone” is not in the Latin or the Greek text . . .” ***

---

Luther removed Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation from the canon of the New Testament and declared that they were not Scripture.

---

Luther removed Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Wisdom, Tobit, and 1 and 2 Maccabees from the Old Testament and declared that they were not Scripture.

---

Luther’s cuts to the OT stuck. His cuts to the NT did not. As a consequence, Protestant Bibles still have 27 out of 27 writings of the original NT, but only 39 of the original 46 original OT writings.

I regret using the word “scoundrel” to describe Luther’s character. Luther’s defenders have latched onto that, rather than deal with the true facts about him.

Luther’s character speaks for itself – as we’ve seen thus far, here is a man who removed eleven books from the Word of God and approved adultery and lying. And that’s not all there is no know about Luther – there’s much more. All of these facts can be verified in Luther’s own words.

Peace to all who post at Catholic Answers.

---

Jay

 

[Churchmouse]

This will be in 2 parts:

Katholikos:

Contarini,

Indisputable facts:

Luther altered the text of Romans 3:28, which he admitted. No other German translation before or since Luther’s found it “necessary” to insert “alone” into that text. Luther came right out and said, yeah, I did it, and ***“I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word “alone” is not in the Latin or the Greek text . . .” ***

---

Luther removed Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation from the canon of the New Testament and declared that they were not Scripture.

---

Luther removed Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Wisdom, Tobit, and 1 and 2 Maccabees from the Old Testament and declared that they were not Scripture.

---

Luther’s cuts to the OT stuck. His cuts to the NT did not. As a consequence, Protestant Bibles still have 27 out of 27 writings of the original NT, but only 39 of the original 46 original OT writings.

I regret using the word “scoundrel” to describe Luther’s character. Luther’s defenders have latched onto that, rather than deal with the true facts about him.

Luther’s character speaks for itself – as we’ve seen thus far, here is a man who removed eleven books from the Word of God and approved adultery and lying. And that’s not all there is no know about Luther – there’s much more. All of these facts can be verified in Luther’s own words.

Peace to all who post at Catholic Answers.

---

Jay

You know many commit the same fallacy regarding Luther’s “indisputable” addition of “alone” to Romans but in his commentary on Romans, Roman Catholic Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. comments that Luther was not the first to invoke sola fide in his translation of Romans. Others used the term in a broader context as well. Below the astericks is what Fitzmyer states on pp. 360-361 of Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993).

---

At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

 

[Churchmouse]

Part 2:

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):

Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24). [DTK’s note - If I may be so bold as to correct Fitzmyer’s reference here to Theodoret. The reference in Migne is not PG 93.100, but should be PG 83.1001 - Obviously this may be a typo on the part of Fitzmyer, but at any rate I checked the reference myself and found it elsewhere to be PG 83.1001].

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

See further:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.

Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223.

---

Plus, Catholic translations prior to Luther used the terminology of faith alone with respect to Romans 3:28. The Nuremberg Bible of 1483 had “allein durch den glauben,” while the Italian Bibles of Geneva in 1476 and even 1538 had “per sola fide.”

Thanks to a friend for setting me straight on this one as well

Peace,
CM

 

[Katholikos]

Churchmouse:

Here’s the official WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) website’s answer to a question about Luther and the Anabaptists.

Q:**I know that Melanchton has written a legal document, draft or something, proposing all Anabaptists (including the pacifist, nonresistant Mennonites) to be put to death by the state. Luther agreed and signed this document in the end. How can I now trust Lutherans when they were not better than the Roman Catholics in their intolerance, etc.?

**A:Melanchthon evidently chaired a government commission in Electoral Saxony that recommended that Anabaptist positions on free will and on the sacraments be punished as capital crimes. I have no information that the Elector of Saxony ever carried out the recommendation. Such religious persecutions were not as common in the lands of the Reformation as they were in other parts of Europe during the 16th century.

We do not defend or condone everything that Luther, Melanchthon, or the other Lutheran reformers said or did. We do not put our trust in them or in any other sinful human being. We put our trust in our Savior and his infallible Word. Human beings err. God cannot err. We call ourselves Lutherans because the public teaching of the Lutheran reformers as set forth in the Lutheran Confessions in the Book of Concord of 1580 is in agreement with the teachings of Holy Scripture.[End quote]

My question is, why did no reader of Holy Scripture prior to 1580 ever see the Lutheran “truth” in them? And while Luther was still living, there was a veritable avalanche of other interpretations of the same Scriptures – Calvin’s interpretation was different from Luther’s, Zwingli’s was different than either Luther or Calvin – and it continued from there, snowballing downhill into the thousands of denominations we have today, each believing and teaching conflicting and competing doctrines.

I think I’ve documented everything you were concerned about. If not, let me know. Again, the website where the documentation can be found is “Project Wittenberg” (for the works of Luther and other Lutherans).

iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-home.html

---

Jay

 

[Churchmouse]

Katholikos:

Churchmouse:

Here’s the official WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) website’s answer to a question about Luther and the Anabaptists.

Q:**I know that Melanchton has written a legal document, draft or something, proposing all Anabaptists (including the pacifist, nonresistant Mennonites) to be put to death by the state. Luther agreed and signed this document in the end. How can I now trust Lutherans when they were not better than the Roman Catholics in their intolerance, etc.?

**A:Melanchthon evidently chaired a government commission in Electoral Saxony that recommended that Anabaptist positions on free will and on the sacraments be punished as capital crimes. I have no information that the Elector of Saxony ever carried out the recommendation. Such religious persecutions were not as common in the lands of the Reformation as they were in other parts of Europe during the 16th century.

We do not defend or condone everything that Luther, Melanchthon, or the other Lutheran reformers said or did. We do not put our trust in them or in any other sinful human being. We put our trust in our Savior and his infallible Word. Human beings err. God cannot err. We call ourselves Lutherans because the public teaching of the Lutheran reformers as set forth in the Lutheran Confessions in the Book of Concord of 1580 is in agreement with the teachings of Holy Scripture.[End quote]

My question is, why did no reader of Holy Scripture prior to 1580 ever see the Lutheran “truth” in them? And while Luther was still living, there was a veritable avalanche of other interpretations of the same Scriptures – Calvin’s interpretation was different from Luther’s, Zwingli’s was different than either Luther or Calvin – and it continued from there, snowballing downhill into the thousands of denominations we have today, each believing and teaching conflicting and competing doctrines.

I think I’ve documented everything you were concerned about. If not, let me know. Again, the website where the documentation can be found is “Project Wittenberg” (for the works of Luther and other Lutherans).

iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-home.html

---

Jay

Hello again!

No one is denying that there were some injustices done by Luther and others, even those in the Church. My only qualm is that there are many Luther citations throughout the WWW, some are qualified, others are not. It’s very difficult to keep track of what Luther said considering that he loved to write and wrote voluminously. That is why I asked you to qualify your claims. I thought that you were getting your info from the source itself-- Luther’s writings.

Peace,
CM

 

[Katholikos]

Churchmouse:

You know many commit the same fallacy regarding Luther’s “indisputable” addition of “alone” to Romans but in his commentary on Romans, Roman Catholic Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. comments that Luther was not the first to invoke sola fide in his translation of Romans. Others used the term in a broader context as well. Below the astericks is what Fitzmyer states on pp. 360-361 of Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993).

---

At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Churchmouse,

Many may have committed the fallacy (your term) of adding “alone” but were they translating Scripture? I think not. It matters not at all what individual writers may have said, the fact remains that Luther knowingly, by his own admission, falsified Rm 3:28 AS THE WORD OF GOD, and he said ‘his will was reason enough.’

Luther believed that the “context demanded it” because of his misinterpretation of the Scriptures and his introduction of his novel doctrine of Sola Fide. He was making certain that the Scriptures supported Sola Fide, even if he had to add the word “alone” himself. This was provoked by James 2:24 – the only place in Scripture where “faith alone” is used – and it says, "You see that a man is justified by works AND NOT BY FAITH ALONE" (RSV).

---

**Luther took care of that problem by declaring that James wasn’t Scripture.

Pace e bene, Jay

 

[Katholikos]

Churchmouse:

My objective in this thread is to show that Luther is not at all what he is portrayed to be in popular myth.

I have read these events in Luther’s own words. I’ve read a couple of secular as well a Catholic histories and the Internet material is extensive. But rather than write a footnoted academic treatise, I chose in some cases to cite other sources.

Luther altered Rm 3:28: I gave excerpts from Luther’s own writing and provided the URL for the complete text of his admission.

Luther rejected eleven books from the canon of the Scriptures: The WELS article explained the NT rejections (with the exception of Jude), with a Lutheran twist, and cited a book – other than the prefaces of Luther’s German translation of the Bible – where the works are available.

Luther condemned the Anabaptists to death: WELS made the cold, hard facts more favorable to Luther by putting a historical spin on the actions of ML and Melanchthon.

Luther condoned bigamy and polygyny: Again, WELS put a Lutheran spin on these events.

Luther approved lying: (to repeat) “What is it, if for the good and sake of the Christian church, one should tell a good strong lie?” [in relation to Philip of Hesse debacle]. (The Life and Letters of Martin Luther, Preserved Smith, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1911, p.381; also documented in Briefwechsel Landgraf Philipps des Grossmhuthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, Max Lenz, Leipzig, 1880, p. 373)

Luther approved adultery: It should not be overlooked that by condoning plural wives, Luther thereby condoned adultery.

Luther approved lawbreaking: Bigamy was against the law.

Luther and the Nazi’s:
The URL to Luther’s own writing and to an analysis of Luther’s words and their impact on the Nazi’s were provided.

These charges can hardly be classified as “hearsay.” Even using Luther’s own writings is problematical, since Contarini accused me of a “vicious, selective, ad hominem attack” on Luther after reading the documentation I provided in Luther’s own words.

Paz y bien, Jay

 

[Faustina]

As far as the original question. When I was growing up in the Methodist church, we were merely told about Luther. I never did really question what I was told until I became an adult and when I became interested in conversion to Catholicism

 

[Contarini]

:Luther altered the text of Romans 3:28, which he admitted.:

He didn’t alter it. He was translating. Translation is, by definition, an alteration of the text.

: No other German translation before or since Luther’s found it “necessary” to insert “alone” into that text.:

All translations are influenced by the theological biases of the translators. If you want to say that Luther’s translation was more theologically biased than some, I won’t argue. But you’re trying to claim that his translation was dishonest or blasphemous, which reveals your own deep ignorance of what is involved in translation.

: Luther came right out and said, yeah, I did it, and ***“I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word “alone” is not in the Latin or the Greek text . . .” ***

---

And he went on to say: “the papists did not have to teach me that - it is fact! The letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these knotheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text -if the translation is to be clear and accurate, it belongs there. I wanted to speak German since it was German I had spoken in translation - not Latin or Greek. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word “solum” only along with the word “not” (nicht) or “no” (kein). For example, we say “the farmer brings only (allein) grain and no money”; or “No, I really have no money, but only (allein) grain”; I have only eaten and not yet drunk”; “Did you write it only and not read it over?” There are a vast number of such everyday cases."
I’m sorry to give such a long quotation, but since you repeatedly and stubbornly ignore the context, I have to. By giving the impression that Luther refuses to give a reason, when in fact the opposite is true, you are in effect lying. I’m sorry to be so harsh, Katholikos, but I’ve pointed this out to you twice and you keep ignoring it. Your use of this passage is dishonest, because you select Luther’s words in such a way as to convey exactly the opposite of the truth. You cite the silly bit of bluster “I will have it so” without making it clear that this is only directed at the “papists” whom Luther regarded as unworthy of receiving a reason, and that he goes on to give a rationale. You should have noted the rationale in the beginning, if you really read the whole letter. But I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I pointed out that the context contradicted the way you were using the quotation, but you keep quoting it. I don’t think you are intending to be dishonest, but you’re past the point of “invincible ignorance” here.

:Luther removed Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation from the canon of the New Testament and declared that they were not Scripture.:

Luther removed Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Wisdom, Tobit, and 1 and 2 Maccabees from the Old Testament and declared that they were not Scripture.:
Actually what he said was more nuanced. The WELS website was correct in saying that for him they weren’t “in the first line of authoritative books.” You turn that into “they weren’t Scripture” but Luther’s position was not so simple (who’s altering things now?). Luther’s decision was part of a broader scholarly discussion of the place of these books, a discussion that had been reopened in the 16th century.

:I regret using the word “scoundrel” to describe Luther’s character. Luther’s defenders have latched onto that, rather than deal with the true facts about him.:

Actually, your intemperate and thoughtless use of this word is of a piece with your selective and misleading quotation from “On Translating,” your arbitrary reinterpretation of Luther’s on-the-fence position about the canonicity of certain books, and your other attacks on Luther. What facts have I not dealt with? Tell me.

:Luther’s character speaks for itself – as we’ve seen thus far, here is a man who removed eleven books from the Word of God and approved adultery and lying.:

He approved bigamy in extremely limited circumstances, and he approved lying under certain conditions, as many casuists in the Catholic tradition (and other Christian traditions) have done as well. As Chesterton said, there are certain situations in which any decent person would lie. I don’t think that covering your own posterior after giving some horribly bad advice to a lecherous (though sincere) prince is among them, BTW! But Luther’s broad principle was one that many Christian ethicists would acknowledge. (Augustine takes a more rigorous view.)

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Dolly]

Katholikos,

You seemed to have glossed over a statement in a previous post that jumped out at me----and that is because I also had heard this same information. Would you please address it and tell me if you have any proof that it is false?

"Catholic translations prior to Luther used the terminogy of faith alone with respect to Romans 3:28. The Nuremberg Bible of 1483 had “allein durch den glauben”, while the Italian Bibles of Geneva in 1476 and even 1538 had “per sola fide.”

This seems to say that Catholic, and I am thus assuming approved, Bibles prior to Luther and even 20 years later used the same translation. Obviously there seems there was work going on in the translation of Scripture among Catholics that saw this word as necessary also in the context.

I think there is so much more historically that most of us don’t have a depth of knowledge of during those times, but especially the hundreds of years of theological work done in the church prior to Luther that would make today’s black and white apologists (in the sense that it is so simple and obvious to anyone who reads just a little bit) would admit.

I know that I have just a miniscule knowledge of all that went on historically, culturally, theologically etc. in those many centuries leading up to Luther to know that it is complex and not just as simple as some would make it. Luther, personally, does not seem to be such a gem, but God has used an a** to speak before, and you cannot say, looking at the signs of the times then, that Luther was 100 percent wrong in all he wrote.

 

[Churchmouse]

Churchmouse,

Many may have committed the fallacy (your term) of adding “alone” but were they translating Scripture? I think not. It matters not at all what individual writers may have said, the fact remains that Luther knowingly, by his own admission, falsified Rm 3:28 AS THE WORD OF GOD, and he said ‘his will was reason enough.’

This is simply silly. Luther added “allein” to the text because the context demanded it, but you say that there is a difference between “adding” and “translating”??? So what if he admitted it, the point is that the context demanded it.

Luther believed that the “context demanded it” because of his misinterpretation of the Scriptures and his introduction of his novel doctrine of Sola Fide. He was making certain that the Scriptures supported Sola Fide, even if he had to add the word “alone” himself. This was provoked by James 2:24 – the only place in Scripture where “faith alone” is used – and it says, "You see that a man is justified by works AND NOT BY FAITH ALONE" (RSV).

---

**Luther took care of that problem by declaring that *James ***wasn’t Scripture.

No, as I have already demonstrated, to add “alone” wasn’t a novelty and Luther wasn’t the originator. The context of the passage does demand it as it was demonstrated in my prior post.

Peace,
CM

 

[Churchmouse]

Katholikos:

Churchmouse:

My objective in this thread is to show that Luther is not at all what he is portrayed to be in popular myth.

I have read these events in Luther’s own words. I’ve read a couple of secular as well a Catholic histories and the Internet material is extensive. But rather than write a footnoted academic treatise, I chose in some cases to cite other sources.

I, for one, would like to know the names of these books, especially the secular histories. At least to know if the authors are unbiased in their treatment of Luther.

Luther altered Rm 3:28: I gave excerpts from Luther’s own writing and provided the URL for the complete text of his admission.

I can go on 1000s of sites on the internet to find all kinds of info regarding Luther. Some are fair, others are not. Isolated citations from his writings isn’t the same as reading Luther writings in the authors context. There is much more to Luther than any website can display. I’m not absolving the man, considering he had many skeletons, but I do believe he should be treated fairly.

Luther rejected eleven books from the canon of the Scriptures: The WELS article explained the NT rejections (with the exception of Jude), with a Lutheran twist, and cited a book – other than the prefaces of Luther’s German translation of the Bible – where the works are available.

And how many did Gregory the Great reject? Melito of Sardis? Jerome? Why single Luther out for following an older tradition.

Luther condemned the Anabaptists to death: WELS made the cold, hard facts more favorable to Luther by putting a historical spin on the actions of ML and Melanchthon.

Luther condoned bigamy and polygyny: Again, WELS put a Lutheran spin on these events.

Luther approved lying: (to repeat) “What is it, if for the good and sake of the Christian church, one should tell a good strong lie?” [in relation to Philip of Hesse debacle]. (The Life and Letters of Martin Luther, Preserved Smith, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1911, p.381; also documented in Briefwechsel Landgraf Philipps des Grossmhuthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, Max Lenz, Leipzig, 1880, p. 373)

Luther approved adultery: It should not be overlooked that by condoning plural wives, Luther thereby condoned adultery.

Luther approved lawbreaking: Bigamy was against the law.

I would ask once again what do you base these accusations on, but I guess I would have to wait and see which books you’ve been reading. Is Fr. O’hare’s book *The Facts About Luther * one of them. Anything by Grisar?

Luther and the Nazi’s:
The URL to Luther’s own writing and to an analysis of Luther’s words and their impact on the Nazi’s were provided.

I’m sure you know there was much anti-semetism within the Church as well, correct? To say that Luther’s teachings eventually brought around the Holocaust makes about as much sense as saying that Catholicism is responsible because Hitler was Catholic.

These charges can hardly be classified as “hearsay.” Even using Luther’s own writings is problematical, since Contarini accused me of a “vicious, selective, ad hominem attack” on Luther after reading the documentation I provided in Luther’s own words.

But you see, this really isn’t documentation and, I don’t want to be offensive, but your treatment of Luther seems very one-sided for one who seems to be getting his research from websites.

Peace,
CM

 

[Katholikos]

Dolly:

Katholikos,
You seemed to have glossed over a statement in a previous post that jumped out at me----and that is because I also had heard this same information. Would you please address it and tell me if you have any proof that it is false?

"Catholic translations prior to Luther used the terminogy of faith alone with respect to Romans 3:28. The Nuremberg Bible of 1483 had “allein durch den glauben”, while the Italian Bibles of Geneva in 1476 and even 1538 had “per sola fide.”

This seems to say that Catholic, and I am thus assuming approved, Bibles prior to Luther and even 20 years later used the same translation. Obviously there seems there was work going on in the translation of Scripture among Catholics that saw this word as necessary also in the context.

Dolly, I haven’t glossed over it. I don’t read, write, or speak German, and even if I could, I’ve never had access to any of the Bibles produced in German either before or after Luther. I’ve never before heard this. I’ll post an answer on this specific matter as soon as I complete my research.

One thing is certain: Luther taught Sola Fide. The Catholic Church did not, does not, and will not teach Sola Fide. Salvation by grace alone, through faith working in love, has been the constant teaching of the Church for 2,000 years.

Finding that the addition occurred concurrently with the birth of Luther’s Sola Fide doctrine, causes a logical man to believe that the two are related.

BTW, have you read the Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification? The Declaration was entered into by the World Lutheran Federation, representing 61.7 million of the world’s 64.5 million Lutherans, and the Catholic Church in 1999,

The salient paragraph:

“Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.”

Please note: By GRACE ALONE, in faith . . . and not by FAITH ALONE.

The issues dividing Catholics and Lutherans are not resolved, but it’s a beginning.

Thanks for your post.

Pax et bonum, Jay

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Greetings all,

I think it is important to achieve a balanced understanding of someone as important as Luther. Of all the reformers he is my favorite because I share his affliction of scrupulosity. As a Catholic, though, I cannot agree with his solution (sola fide). He was terribly and profoundly wrong in his theology. But it is important to avoid labels like scoundrels. Doesn’t serve any purpose that I can see and it doesn’t seem generally applicable to the man. With regard to his teaching I see him genuinely and honestly trying to work out his understanding of the core Truth as he was driven to understand: faith alone justifies. He came by his conclusions honestly. Understand, too, that he was a preacher primarily and not a systematic theologian. So over time he said many contradictory things. The guy also must have one heck of an ego, and he was intensely convinced of the truth of his core insight into the Gospel. Erik Erikson wrote an interesting psychohistorical work on him call Young Man Luther, if you are interested in getting to his head from a psycholanalytic point of view.

Cordially,

Ferd

 

[Katholikos]

This post will be in three parts

This is for Churchmouse and anyone who may have concerns about why this thread was started.

As I stated in my initial post, two films were released recently which portray Luther as a hero and the Catholic Church as the evil empire; his dark side is not disclosed. I was spoon fed this one-sided, glowing, great-emancipator image of Luther all during my Protestant years. Now that I know the truth about Luther, I want to do what little I can to set the record straight.

Here’s a review of the theater film that appeared in Christianity Today. I did not see this film. The other film was shown on PBS. I watched it with revulsion.

The man who brought us Sola Scriptura, for example, also eliminated 11 books from the Bible – a little known fact, even among Lutherans. He approved bigamy (polygyny, really) and adultery. I’ve recounted a few other true facts about Luther in various posts in this thread.

I’ve found that Protestant film critics also do not paint an accurate picture of Church history – at least this one didn’t. Notice he says Luther taught salvation by ***grace ***alone. Bull-oney. And he paints a purely Protestant view of the Church – he calls the Church a “sewer.”

QUOTE:
A Reformer’s Agony
A high-caliber film shows how messy it was when Luther helped change the course of history.
Luther, reviewed by Chris Armstrong | posted 09/26/2003

LUTHER
directed by Eric Till
RS Entertainment
Before the Reformation, the meaning of life came highly structured from the hierarchy of the Church. One didn’t ask questions. One didn’t need to.

Many believers, perhaps most, experienced Truth through relics, images, and rituals—not as oppression but as comfort. To be sure, one did not meet God face to face. But one did not want to! For the late-medieval rank and file, assurance of salvation came not from bold access to the throne of God, but from the myriad mediating practices of penance and devotion.

In Luther, one scene in particular brings home this historical reality. Glowing with joy, a young mother who has purchased an indulgence (a remission of temporal punishment) for her crippled daughter holds it out to a gaunt Martin Luther: “Look what I bought for Greta!” She has been gulled by the rhetoric of the charlatan indulgence-seller, Johann Tetzel (Alfred Molina).

Luther (Joseph Fiennes) takes the paper and reads it. His anger at the corrupt establishment rises and boils over. He forgets the gentleness he has displayed toward her. “This is worthless,” he says, crumpling it in his fist. “You must rely on God’s love.” Crestfallen, she turns and walks disconsolately away.

(continued)

 

[Katholikos]

Part two

At several key moments in the movie, Luther faces the charge that he is tearing apart the church. He grapples repeatedly with the possibility that he is destroying, rather than building, God’s kingdom. To their credit, though, the filmmakers resist the temptation of portraying a Lone Ranger Reformer against a thoroughly evil Church. There are enough sympathetic figures in the Catholic establishment (Matthieu Carriere’s Cardinal Cajetan chief among them) to create some sense of historical nuance.

Moreover, we get to see some warts of the Reformation. Andreas Karlstadt (Jochen Horst) takes Luther’s teachings to their extreme, announcing that the day of the great leveling has arrived. Soon we see townspeople dragging the monks who have cared for them out of their church and pummeling them. Rocks crash through stained-glass windows. A crucifix is knocked to the floor. (The scene involves a bit of historical sleight-of-hand: the real Karlstadt, advocating nonviolence, had refused to join the militant radical reformer Thomas Müntzer.)

Luther is still a medieval man; this anarchic attack on authority is too much for him. He appeals to the princes, demanding the peasant revolt be put down. Soon the blood of the peasants runs on the floor of the ruined church.

Surveying the carnage, Luther agonizes: “I have torn the world apart.” He begins to slide into depression. He must force himself out of bed each morning. Until, that is—in a moment befitting Hollywood—he meets the escaped nun Katerina (Claire Cox). Sunny but steel-willed, Katerina leads Luther from the dark tunnel and into the summer of the loving marriage he has long denied himself.

Of course, this is a Lutheran movie, not a Catholic one—it is backed by Thrivent, the major Lutheran financial services organization. The answer to the question of whether Luther is destroying the church he loves or bringing it back to its most basic sources of authority is clear. The abuses flowing from the “sewer” of Rome are portrayed starkly enough.

But writer Camille Thomasson and director Eric Till have done well to show something of the anguish and desolation that comes with the uprooting of old meanings and the conflicted (and always incomplete) process toward the new. Even if we are convinced, with Luther, that the new meanings are really the oldest ones of all—fidelity to Scripture, salvation by grace alone, the surpassing love of the Father—we can sympathize with the human toll of what our age has fashionably called a “paradigm shift.”

If there is any misstep in the film, it is the relentless niceness of its Reformer. Throughout we see Luther filling the void left by the old, corrupted symbols of late medieval Catholicism with the simple “Jesus loves me” theology of a mainstream Sunday school class.

(continued)

 

[Katholikos]

Part three

The filmmakers have hardly gotten young Martin out of his early years as a psychologically tortured monk, convinced God is out to get him, when they remake him as a mild '90s Luther. His confessor Staupitz (Bruno Ganz) is reduced to blustering: “In all the time I’ve known you, you’ve never once confessed anything even remotely interesting!”
As a student at Wittenberg, Luther insists on giving a teen suicide a Christian burial—theological niceties be damned. Interpreting the story of the Prodigal Son to children in the woods, he stresses the father’s surpassing love. In the tower at Wartburg, he interprets a Greek term as expressing that same love.

All of this is fair enough, though the theme does become wearing. In one impassioned sermon, Luther takes aim at the villain Tetzel, who emotionally blackmails his audiences by unfurling crude paintings of hell and then offering to help them buy their relatives’ way out of eternal agony. Tetzel’s problem, Luther insists, is that his God is too mean.

“I, too, saw God as sentencing sinners to death in hell,” Luther preaches. “But I was wrong.”

Oops. In a major film for a diverse viewing public that sees nothing but an oppressive, hypocritical church, this ‘90s approach may indeed serve the producers’ religious motives. But God’s sovereignty seems to have receded a little too much here. And one wonders, if this was really all the Reformation was about, why would anyone have objected? Why didn’t all the Catholics just get on board, singing Kumbaya?

Finally, though, the film does tell us as much as it probably can: the Church had been corrupted in many ways. It had strayed from the Bible—its best and truest authority. And the road back was a rough one.

What it loses in theological subtlety it gains back in artistry. This is a dramatically gripping and visually stunning movie. More, it is warmly personal: Sir Peter Ustinov comes near to stealing the show as Luther’s wise, wry prince-protector, Frederick; Staupitz is another Catholic “good guy” whose concern for his spiritual son lights up the screen. The film is—as much as can be expected—historically even-handed.

Luther matches grandeur of vision to excellence of execution. The resulting drama packs spiritual as well as entertainment power: it charged the atmosphere even of the small screening room where I first saw the film. I will be seeing it again.

Chris Armstrong is managing editor of Christian History magazine.

Copyright © 2003 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

 

[Churchmouse]

This is for Churchmouse and anyone who may have concerns about why this thread was started.

And I still have those concerns. I, for one, am tired of seeing these types of posts and I question the type of research you claim you’re doing. I asked you to please submit the info, but you still haven’t. If you held Luther to be some type of hero in your past, I acknowledge it can be relative, but I don’t, never did, and don’t know of anyone who does. The church of his day was prime for reform and if Luther would’ve never posted his theses on Wittenburg’s doors, eventually someone else would have.

As I stated in my initial post, two films were released recently which portray Luther as a hero and the Catholic Church as the evil empire; his dark side is not disclosed. I was spoon fed this one-sided, glowing, great-emancipator image of Luther all during my Protestant years. Now that I know the truth about Luther, I want to do what little I can to set the record straight.

It’s all relative. I surely don’t believe the Catholic church would put out movies displaying their history in an improper light, correct? I believe I told you this before, but I question what you’ve read and I pointed out Fr. O’hare’s The Facts About Luther in particular. Do you have the book and have you read it? Since its re-release some years ago, I’ve run into many Catholics who suddenly “know Luther.” Why don’t you balance it out a bit, read Oberman’s Luther: Man Between God and the Devil to gain a clearer insight into the man. In terms of “proper lights”, you didn’t seem to know Luther correctly when you were Protestant and you sure don’t seem to know him today as a Catholic. No offense, but these are my observations.

Here’s a review of the theater film that appeared in Christianity Today. I did not see this film. The other film was shown on PBS. I watched it with revulsion.

You see, it’s terminology such as this (revulsion) which which makes me question your agenda. I saw the film and Luther was presented as practically “psychotic” in the beginning and eventually came to grips with what he believed God called him to do. Again, everyone has their biases and, in the case of those who made the film, you would expect some to be inflicted into the film. Why would you expect otherwise?

The man who brought us Sola Scriptura, for example, also eliminated 11 books from the Bible – a little known fact, even among Lutherans. He approved bigamy (polygyny, really) and adultery. I’ve recounted a few other true facts about Luther in various posts in this thread.

I believe someone stated 7 books elsewhere on this forum and another 8. It shows how much they know they truly know the “Facts About Luther.” Luther did nothing out of the ordinary and followed an older tradition. It wasn’t novel for Catholics throughout history to reject books. Jerome did it. Gregory the Great did it. So did two of Luther’s contemporaries, Cardinals Ximenes and Cajetan. You now have Luther “approving” bigamy when in reality, Luther simply said that he could not prohibit bigamy on “Scriptural” grounds. As for the truthfulness of Luther’s indiscretions, well, why just focus on him. Look into the histories of the popes, you’ll find them quite sobering as well.

I’ve found that Protestant film critics also do not paint an accurate picture of Church history – at least this one didn’t. Notice he says Luther taught salvation by grace alone. Bull-oney. And he paints a purely Protestant view of the Church – he calls the Church a “sewer.”

History is history and one cannot change it. Any thinking Catholic would never ignore the facts regarding the abuses, within the Church, during Luther’s day. BTW, don’t know if you’ve noticed, but Chris Armstrong put the word sewer in quotations marks. There is no intent on behalf of the writer to call the Church a “sewer” but the word is used to bring an essence to what the film portrays, not a personal view. Yet, what does that tell you? You read into his words just a bit too deeply.

Peace,
CM

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

I think the topic of this thread is a legitamite one. Luther began the modern Protestant movement, which resulted in the removal of millions of people from Christ’s Church. Luther is celebrated by many Protestants as a type of George Washington-esque hero, but what is the nature of Luther’s character?

Why does it matter? Is it too divisive of a subject?

It matters because Luther introduced many new theological doctrines, or he opened the floodgates, allowing others (Calvin and Knox), citing Luther as an authority to create new doctrines and practices. Protestants, then and now, trust Luther and the novel doctrines he promoted. For many Protestants, Luther is an authority (for Protestants he’s like a doctor of the Church). People trust him…resulting in the division of Christendom…but is he trustworthy?

Is he a hero of liberation and freedom?
Is he well intentioned, but mistaken?
Was his separation from the Church based on his pride and intellectual errors?

These are questions that an accurate knowledge of his character would help us to know. The word “alone” may have existed in earlier German translations, but Luther attached a novel doctrine to the word. Therefore, if Luther is trustworthy or not, is important to whether we should or should not give any credence to his new doctrine.

 

[Churchmouse]

Tom of Assisi:

I think the topic of this thread is a legitamite one. Luther began the modern Protestant movement, which resulted in the removal of millions of people from Christ’s Church. Luther is celebrated by many Protestants as a type of George Washington-esque hero, but what is the nature of Luther’s character?

In actuality, Luther is celebrated as God’s man for this time amongst Protestants. All the glory goes to God and God alone.

Why does it matter? Is it too divisive of a subject?

It matters because Luther introduced many new theological doctrines, or he opened the floodgates, allowing others (Calvin and Knox), citing Luther as an authority to create new doctrines and practices. Protestants, then and now, trust Luther and the novel doctrines he promoted. For many Protestants, Luther is an authority (for Protestants he’s like a doctor of the Church). People trust him…resulting in the division of Christendom…but is he trustworthy?

Well, I would contend that as long as folks here demonize Luther, it’s divisive. No, Protestants don’t put their trust in novel doctrines, considering that one could believe in justification by faith prior to the Reformation. No, no Protestant would bank on Luther’s integrity as much as they would on what the Scriptures teach.

Is he a hero of liberation and freedom?
Is he well intentioned, but mistaken?
Was his separation from the Church based on his pride and intellectual errors?

Luther was simply a man used by God to bring dialogue regarding the abuses. Rome reacted and the Reformation was born. The focus isn’t on the man, but on the message.

These are questions that an accurate knowledge of his character would help us to know. The word “alone” may have existed in earlier German translations, but Luther attached a novel doctrine to the word. Therefore, if Luther is trustworthy or not, is important to whether we should or should not give any credence to his new doctrine.

But of course, Luther will always remain untrustworthy in the eyes of faithful Catholics everywhere. After all, he is the epitome of evil for standing up to the Church. Satan seems to take a backseat considering Luther is mentioned more on this forum than he is.

Peace,
CM