The real Luther

[Shari]

Why is it that no one seems to notice that Fransis of Assissi and others did reform the Church without tearing it apart. It just baffles me how posters like CM can completly ignore that fact, and make remarks like if Luther didn’t do it someone else would have. I think we have the proof that that isn’t true. I was a protestant for many years and this is one issue that brought me out of protestanism. I did tust Martin Luther and look what it got me, people even in my own protestant church can’t agree on interpretations of scripture. I am not saying the he was evil, that isn’t for me to judge. I do hope he repented and saw the error of his ways and is maybe in heaven. Just because he made a mess on earth, if he was truely sorry and God knows everyones heart maybe he was forgiven. He had a rough childhood and he died a very sad man. I think he did know he messed up and that there wasn’t anyway for him to fix it. I am the type of person who always has to think he best.

 

[Shibboleth]

A look at changing words in the Bible during translations…
I believe all of these are accepted translations by the Catholic Church.

The New American Bible with Nihil Obstat Stephen J. Hartdegen, O.F.M.,S.S.L. Christian P. Ceroke, O. Carm., S.T.D. Imprimatur: Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle, D.D. Archbishop of Washington l987
1 Cor 6:9 “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes not practicing homosexuals…will inherit the kingdom of heaven.”

The New American Catholic Edition The Holy Bible Imprimatur Francis Cardinal Spellman l958
1 Cor 6:9 “Or do you not know that the unjust will not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor sodomites,…will possess the kingdom of God.”

The Orthodox Study Bible with Joseph Allen, Th. D.; Jack Norman Sparks, PH. D.; Theodore Stylianopoulos, Th. D.; Archbishop IAKOVOS, Metropolitan THEODOSIUS. 1993
1 Cor 6:9 “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, not idolaters, not adulterers, not homosexuals, nor sodomites, will inherit the kingdom of God.

As you can see all of the translations agree on the first three sins(fornicators, idolater, adulterers.)
Pornos = fornicator
Eidololatres = idolators (image – servent or worshiper)
Moicho = adulterer

That leaves but two words left in the original Greek to come up with the last two sins. Huge difference arise in the next two translated words, which is not good considering that they are very important as they outline what will keep us out of heaven.

The two words are (malakoi) and (arsenokoites.)

Malakoi literally translated means “soft”
Arsenokoites is made up of two words meaning “man” and “bed.”

Now in the NAB it has these words translated as “boy prostitute” and “practicing homosexual” I have a hard time believing that they got the word “boy prostitute” from the word “malakoi” alone considering that it means “soft” and is used that way in the bible two other times. So they must have combined the two words “malakoi” and “arsenokoites” to come up with the words “boy prostitute.” I do not have a problem with this but then how do you get the word “practicing homosexual” out of the verse – “arsenokoites has already been used. They added a word or at least repeated one and then changed the meaning of it in the second interpretation. The word “practicing” does not exist in the original text.

The New American Catholic Addition has the two word translated as “effeminate” and “sodomites” in which there is no problem with the translation by itself but, the orthodox study bible has “effeminate” translated as “homosexual” What?

You have two words being translated as

NAB …Boy prostitute …practicing homosexual
New American …Effeminate …sodomites
Orthodox …Homosexual …sodomites

This is just one example and not a very extreme one about how words are rutinely added to the Bible during translations.

 

[Churchmouse]

Shari:

Why is it that no one seems to notice that Fransis of Assissi and others did reform the Church without tearing it apart. It just baffles me how posters like CM can completly ignore that fact, and make remarks like if Luther didn’t do it someone else would have. I think we have the proof that that isn’t true. I was a protestant for many years and this is one issue that brought me out of protestanism. I did tust Martin Luther and look what it got me, people even in my own protestant church can’t agree on interpretations of scripture. I am not saying the he was evil, that isn’t for me to judge. I do hope he repented and saw the error of his ways and is maybe in heaven. Just because he made a mess on earth, if he was truely sorry and God knows everyones heart maybe he was forgiven. He had a rough childhood and he died a very sad man. I think he did know he messed up and that there wasn’t anyway for him to fix it. I am the type of person who always has to think he best.

Greetings Shari!

Thank you for your post. Can you do me a favor and list the reforms credited to St. Francis. I would like some more info on this.

On a side note, I experience the same type of disappointment you do when I see quotes like the one above – that Luther “tore” the church the church apart. That he made a “mess” of things. That you assume he died a “very sad man” and that he needed to repent. Again, Luther wanted to dialogue with the church. He didn’t want to leave it, much less tear it apart. It baffles me that many ignore this.

Peace,
CM

 

[CommonMan]

Why is it that no one seems to notice that Fransis of Assissi and others did reform the Church without tearing it apart. It just baffles me how posters like CM can completly ignore that fact, and make remarks like if Luther didn’t do it someone else would have.

If any of these descriptions seem close to your understanding of Luther then your knowledge of Luther has been tainted.

1. The devil at work, a renegade priest out to sink the church.
2. A misguided man with a mental problem
3. A self centered egotistical self elected pope

Or, if any of these descriptions seem close to your understanding of Luther then your knowledge of Luther has been tainted.

1. He was a gallant hero.
2. He had no second thoughts or misgivings about his path
3. He singlehandedly led his people out of the medieval church

Luther’s teachings, theology and history is all over the place. I can understand a Catholic not knowing anything about him, but when they get curious they naturally read the Catholic websites and get a understandably negative point of view. The movies tend to promote the hero idea to the other extreme.

My suggestion to understanding Luther is to first read his small catechism (available on-line). It’s small and was written by him for teaching the young and less learned members of his church. You might hear a theologically sound and clear voice. Then try his large catechism (also available on-line), more in depth but not so too far into descriptions that it reads like New Advent.

That might be enough for a Catholic to see that he wasn’t a devil. The devil could not write these books. If there is more curoisity, an excellent book, is by Heiko Oberman. It was written 12 years ago, is very precise and cites all of his sources and is neither a rah rah book or a hate Luther book.

 

[AnAtheist]

I joined protestant religion classes back in school (in Germany I must add), and there you learn what a hero Luther was fighting against the evil catholic church.

You don’t hear anything about these:

• Luther supported the nobles in crushing an uprising of starving peasants.
• You mentioned it, he was fanatically anti-semitic.
• Luther was an extraordinary witch-burner.

The latter leads directly to another suppressed historical fact: In Germany the protestants burned far more people than the catholics.
To my experience protestants are quick in blaming the catholic church for all the wrong-doing of christianity, but they never look at their own backyard Perhaps they forget about Matthew 7:5 - Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
Though I am not catholic, this makes me really sick.

 

[Shibboleth]

AnAtheist:

You don’t hear anything about these

Yes yo do. I was not even a week into researching the Lutheran faith before I was given this information.

* Luther supported the nobles in crushing an uprising of starving peasants.

Luther was pro status quo. He never wanted to cause a revolution, and he was very afraid of chaos and conflict. He was extremely upset about The Peasants Revolt, because of his fear of upsetting the status quo. Unfortunately, he shared the views of many of his countrymen that a mixed society could not exist peacefully. To them, homogeneity was everything. In other words, the Jews were just too different to coexist with the gentiles without causing a lot of chaos and conflict. Add in the medical problems he is supposed to have suffered as he got older, and the result wasn’t pretty!

This does not make it right by any sense of the word. Just giving some more info…

AnAtheist:

You mentioned it, he was fanatically anti-semitic.

He was not anti-semetic he was anti-jewish religion…big difference.

Luther’s view on the Jews changed as time went on. Originally (c.1520) Luther advocated toleration of the Jews to a point. Like all good monks he firmly believed the world was about to end and, at that time, the Jews would convert to Christianity en masse. As time went on and things quieted down Luther became increasingly frustrated with the Jews because, essentially, they weren’t converting like they should. By the late 1530s he turned violently against them. In '43 he wrote “The Jews and their Lies” which advocates, among other things, burning down synagogues and forbidding rabis to teach under pain of death. It is interesting to note, however, that Luther was anti-Jewish unlike others, like Erasmus if I remember correctly, who were anti-semetic.

Once again still horibly wrong.

AnAtheist:

The latter leads directly to another suppressed historical fact: In Germany the protestants burned far more people than the catholics.
To my experience protestants are quick in blaming the catholic church for all the wrong-doing of christianity, but they never look at their own backyard Perhaps they forget about Matthew 7:5 - Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

I don’t disagree but I would like to add this…

Lutheran cleric and martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s letters and writings before and from prison. He was imprisoned and hanged for his work to save Jews from persecution. He wrote some hymns that Lutherans still sing today; and wrote many valuable meditations. He was a leader for the Confessing Church: the center of the Lutheran resistance to the Nazis. His day of commemoration in the Lutheran Liturgical Kalendar is April 9. His dying words were, “This is the end. For me, the beginning of life.”

Eivind Josef Berggrav (1884-1959) Norwegian bishop, author and resistance leader against Adolf Hitler.

Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) German theologian known for his contributions to Biblical criticism and resistance to Hitler.

Helmut Gollwitzer (1908-1993) German theologian who became part of the Confessing Church; captured by the Soviets in 1945 and imprisoned in Russia until 1950.

Kaj Munk (1898-1944) Danish pastor and author; arrested and killed by the Nazis.

Beate Klarsfeld - An Austrian Lutheran woman who, with her French Jewish husband, began a long campaign to bring Nazi war criminals to justice shortly after the end of WWII. Her most famous case was the capture of Klaus Barbie.

Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984) German commander in WWI and Lutheran pastor imprisoned by the Nazis.

 

[AnAtheist]

Shibboleth:

Yes yo do. I was not even a week into researching the Lutheran faith before I was given this information.

I was just recalling from school. You have experienced otherwise - good for you!

Shibboleth:

I don’t disagree but I would like to add this…
Lutheran cleric and martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s letters and

…]

Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984) German commander in WWI and Lutheran pastor imprisoned by the Nazis.

Yes, they were all decent and brave fellows, but does this add anything to the discussion whether Luther was Mr. NiceGuy or not? Even if Luther was a psychotic lunatic, does that make his teachings evil or wrong, or does that automatically make all his followers lunatics too? Like - “Stalin was an atheist.” So what? Does that make all atheists mass-murdering communists?

My point is, Luther was not the “hero” he is usually portrait as. Without any implication towards his teaching or his followers.

 

[Churchmouse]

The latter leads directly to another suppressed historical fact: In Germany the protestants burned far more people than the catholics.
To my experience protestants are quick in blaming the catholic church for all the wrong-doing of christianity, but they never look at their own backyard

Hello AA,

There were atrocities committed on both sides. I’m happy you acknowledge that, but out of curiosity, I would like to see some documentation on the sentence I emboldened above.

Peace,
CM

 

[AnAtheist]

Churchmouse:

Hello AA,

There were atrocities committed on both sides. I’m happy you acknowledge that, but out of curiosity, I would like to see some documentation on the sentence I emboldened above.

Peace,
CM

Hi,
I have to look up numbers as well, as it is a long time ago since I read about this, but for a start: Witch-burning had its peak in the 17th/18th century and not in the middle ages, as many people believe. And in that period the greater part of Germany was protestant.

 

[Shari]

CommonMan:

If any of these descriptions seem close to your understanding of Luther then your knowledge of Luther has been tainted.

1. The devil at work, a renegade priest out to sink the church.
2. A misguided man with a mental problem
3. A self centered egotistical self elected pope

Or, if any of these descriptions seem close to your understanding of Luther then your knowledge of Luther has been tainted.

1. He was a gallant hero.
2. He had no second thoughts or misgivings about his path
3. He singlehandedly led his people out of the medieval church

Luther’s teachings, theology and history is all over the place. I can understand a Catholic not knowing anything about him, but when they get curious they naturally read the Catholic websites and get a understandably negative point of view. The movies tend to promote the hero idea to the other extreme.

My suggestion to understanding Luther is to first read his small catechism (available on-line). It’s small and was written by him for teaching the young and less learned members of his church. You might hear a theologically sound and clear voice. Then try his large catechism (also available on-line), more in depth but not so too far into descriptions that it reads like New Advent.

That might be enough for a Catholic to see that he wasn’t a devil. The devil could not write these books. If there is more curoisity, an excellent book, is by Heiko Oberman. It was written 12 years ago, is very precise and cites all of his sources and is neither a rah rah book or a hate Luther book.

Thanks for the info. My parents are Lutheran so I have read the his catechisms. I have not just read from negative Catholic websites, I am not stupid and do know how to look at both sides and make an informed decision. I never said that he was the devil or that the devil wrote his catechisms. He was a disturbed man, just from his upbringing. I beleive he truely loved God with all his heart. And I don’t think things went the way he planned them to and I think he was sorry and realized he went about things the wrong way. What Lutherans believe today isn’t all that luther founded the reformation on. He still held his marian devotions and was very devoted to our blessed mother. As well as other things. I believe he did a catholic in his heart. Have you ever done something and then have it go so wrong that you don’t know how to fix it? I think that is what happened with him. I just don’t find his writings back by the bible.

 

[CommonMan]

He was a disturbed man, just from his upbringing.

Yep that was number 2 on my list.

A popular anti-Luther view point. An old holdover from the original Luther bashers.

 

[CommonMan]

I think he was sorry and realized he went about things the wrong way.

Really, what would have you believe that?

My parents are Lutheran so I have read the his catechisms

And what is your opinion of them?

What Lutherans believe today isn’t all that luther founded the reformation on. He still held his marian devotions and was very devoted to our blessed mother. As well as other things. I believe he did a catholic in his heart

How do you determine what Lutherans today believe?

Yes Mary was honored by Luther.

Luterans have always been catholic.

 

[Shari]

CommonMan:

Really, what would have you believe that?

I have read it on various sites of the timeline of the reformation.

CommonMan:

And what is your opinion of them?

As I have said in my post before, I don’t find them backed by the bible.

CommonMan:

How do you determine what Lutherans today believe?

Um my parents are Lutheran, so I know what their sect of Lutherans believe.

CommonMan:

Yes Mary was honored by Luther.

Luterans have always been catholic.

Don’t tell this to the people at my parents church. Most of them won’t even make the sign of the cross because it’s to Catholic for them. And I meant he died a catholic in his heart. I miss spelled it.

I would just like to add that I am not anti-Lutheran or a Lutheran basher. It is a plain fact that he was disturbed. He would see demons and was plagued by them. He even through an ink-well at one of them when he was in hiding. His father was deeply into witch-craft and he was always scared as a child. If you can think of a different word than disturbed, please let me know and I will gladly use it. Even in the movie about him that came out not to long ago he was shown in the manner.

 

[katiem]

I have been very interested in studying Luther, as I am married to a Lutheran. My husband does not know very much about his faith, so i have been investigating. I was shocked to read Luther’s own works. He was not in a position to reform the church. It is true the church needed some reform, but there is a big difference between reform and just changing doctrine. You cannot change the teaching of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the eternal word, He is the same yesterday, today, tomorrow. Luther through out doctrines of the catholic church, which is the church established by Christ. I recently read “The facts about Luther” by Msgr. Patrick O’Hare. The majority of the words are Luther’s own words. It is frightening what he did. My husband is content on going to the catholic church with us as a family, please pray he converts on day!The Catholic church is the one true church, the bride of Christ.

 

[Eric_Goodrich]

Let me first of all preface this posting by letting you all know I am a Lutheran. K-12 Lutheran Schooled and still attend weekly services. I married a Catholic, my Father was raised Catholic, and I love to read the Catechism and the CCD Book “Christ Among Us”. I have nothing but respect for the history and traditions of the Catholic faith, but let me first off say that I do take offense to the fact that “Lutherans” are grouped in with “Non-Catholic Religions”. First of all, I am sure you would all agree that Christianity is a “Religion”. I know that Catholicism is the original Christian Church and that the roots run right back to the Apostles. But, to say that Lutheranism is not a Christian Religion, is flat out wrong.

Luther was human. He was a sinner like you and me. He was a monk, a Dr. of Theology, and a Catholic Priest in Germany. I think the issue of his day was that of serious corruption in the church. The selling of indulgences for the forgiveness of sins of your dead relatives was prevalant and was used as a fundraiser to pay for St. Peters Cathedral to be built. I think you would all agree that this is corruption. It is using people who trust in you to represent God for financial gain. (Page 308 in Christ Among Us, confirms this) Luther wanted to end this and reform the Church he loved. He also wanted some things that the Catholic church has changed like having Bibles in the Language of the people ( not just Latin) and having services that were more interactive that the people could participate in (not in Latin). He also thought that priests should be able to marry (something that is a constant topic at my wifes Catholic family gatherings).

Yes he was a sinner too. He lived as a monk and it may have made him very depressed as were the times of corruption in the Church that he loved. He was to be killed by being burnt at the stake for his protests, but was hidden away and lived in exile for the rest of his life. If he hadn’t been such a threat to the power structure of the time and the Church had changed it’s direction, you would have probably cannonized him and we would all be Catholic and not talking about what a terrible man he was.

I enjoy learning about the Catholic practices and in attending mass with my wifes family on occassion. They never understand why I don’t go up for communion and I tell them that I am honoring the dividing line set up by people much wiser than I.

I am a Evangelical Lutheran and my pastor is unlike many. He had a small congregation in North Dakota many years ago that was the only church in town. He tells us that the Catholics in town came to him and asked if they could come to the Sunday services. He welcomed them. He also practices open communion and asks only that if you believe that Jesus died for your sins and that this is the Body and Blood of the Savior that you may partake. By the time he had a call to a larger Parish in Minnesota, half of the congregation was Catholic (and had quadrupled in size), his youth director was Catholic, and his Music Director was Catholic. He told my wife when transferred to St. Johns that she could join with me if she liked, and remain a Catholic. He did not want her to give up her faith. This is what Christianity needs more of. This is what Christ would want of his people on earth. We can certainly do more to spread the Gospel to all people, together and united, than discussing something that happened 500 years ago.

I would also like to add that the Lutheran church does not teach the history of Martin Luther. It uses his Large and Small Catechism and the Lutheran Confessions, but Luther is not thought of as the founder of the Church or anything remotely close to a “Saint”. Christ is the Foundation for Lutherans, and John 3:16 is our saving grace. If you want to know more about Luther, try this website luther.de/en/wartburg.html

I am sorry this is so long, but I have been thinking about this for a few days! God bless you all, Brothers and Sisters in Christ.
Eric

 

[Churchmouse]

katiem:

I was shocked to read Luther’s own works.

Hi Katie,

Did you read his actual works or the book you mentioned below?

I recently read “The facts about Luther” by Msgr. Patrick O’Hare. The majority of the words are Luther’s own words.

Rather, they are Luther’s words, as selected by O’hare, in an obvious attempt to slam Luther. Read the following: Luther

Peace,
CM

 

[Churchmouse]

Eric Goodrich:

Let me first of all preface this posting by letting you all know I am a Lutheran. K-12 Lutheran Schooled and still attend weekly services. I married a Catholic, my Father was raised Catholic, and I love to read the Catechism and the CCD Book “Christ Among Us”. I have nothing but respect for the history and traditions of the Catholic faith, but let me first off say that I do take offense to the fact that “Lutherans” are grouped in with “Non-Catholic Religions”. First of all, I am sure you would all agree that Christianity is a “Religion”. I know that Catholicism is the original Christian Church and that the roots run right back to the Apostles. But, to say that Lutheranism is not a Christian Religion, is flat out wrong.

Luther was human. He was a sinner like you and me. He was a monk, a Dr. of Theology, and a Catholic Priest in Germany. I think the issue of his day was that of serious corruption in the church. The selling of indulgences for the forgiveness of sins of your dead relatives was prevalant and was used as a fundraiser to pay for St. Peters Cathedral to be built. I think you would all agree that this is corruption. It is using people who trust in you to represent God for financial gain. (Page 308 in Christ Among Us, confirms this) Luther wanted to end this and reform the Church he loved. He also wanted some things that the Catholic church has changed like having Bibles in the Language of the people ( not just Latin) and having services that were more interactive that the people could participate in (not in Latin). He also thought that priests should be able to marry (something that is a constant topic at my wifes Catholic family gatherings).

Yes he was a sinner too. He lived as a monk and it may have made him very depressed as were the times of corruption in the Church that he loved. He was to be killed by being burnt at the stake for his protests, but was hidden away and lived in exile for the rest of his life. If he hadn’t been such a threat to the power structure of the time and the Church had changed it’s direction, you would have probably cannonized him and we would all be Catholic and not talking about what a terrible man he was.

I enjoy learning about the Catholic practices and in attending mass with my wifes family on occassion. They never understand why I don’t go up for communion and I tell them that I am honoring the dividing line set up by people much wiser than I.

I am a Evangelical Lutheran and my pastor is unlike many. He had a small congregation in North Dakota many years ago that was the only church in town. He tells us that the Catholics in town came to him and asked if they could come to the Sunday services. He welcomed them. He also practices open communion and asks only that if you believe that Jesus died for your sins and that this is the Body and Blood of the Savior that you may partake. By the time he had a call to a larger Parish in Minnesota, half of the congregation was Catholic (and had quadrupled in size), his youth director was Catholic, and his Music Director was Catholic. He told my wife when transferred to St. Johns that she could join with me if she liked, and remain a Catholic. He did not want her to give up her faith. This is what Christianity needs more of. This is what Christ would want of his people on earth. We can certainly do more to spread the Gospel to all people, together and united, than discussing something that happened 500 years ago.

I would also like to add that the Lutheran church does not teach the history of Martin Luther. It uses his Large and Small Catechism and the Lutheran Confessions, but Luther is not thought of as the founder of the Church or anything remotely close to a “Saint”. Christ is the Foundation for Lutherans, and John 3:16 is our saving grace. If you want to know more about Luther, try this website luther.de/en/wartburg.html

I am sorry this is so long, but I have been thinking about this for a few days! God bless you all, Brothers and Sisters in Christ.
Eric

Eric,

Thanks so much for putting this all in perspective :tiphat:

Peace,
CM

 

[Katholikos]

Part 1

Churchmouse, this is in reply to your post of June 13, #138. Sorry for the delay, but I’m building an addition to my home, which has occupied a lot of my time.

Churchmouse:

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.

I said I was doing research on Luther? Uh uh. I said I’m reading my way through Project Wittenberg. I have read all these events recorded in Luther’s own words. But I didn’t bookmark the specific URLs, because I’m not doing “research” on Luther.

Is what I have said about Luther true or not? If you don’t think an official Lutheran website can be trusted to answer questions about Luther truthfully, what can I say? When I had them readily available, I gave you the URLs to Luther’s own words. When I didn’t and would have to spend time “researching,” I used WELS. Not good enough for you? The facts speak for themselves.

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.

Pure speculation. And Luther didn’t reform the Church. He ripped it apart and began an avalanche of denominations, each teaching conflicting and competing doctrines, which still continues to this day.

It’s all relative. I surely don’t believe the Catholic church would put out movies displaying their history in an improper light, correct?

The Catholic Church does not “put out movies.” So you believe telling the truth about Luther is displaying history in an improper light? Hmmmm

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?

No. I’ve never seen the book. I’ve read a couple of histories. One is an old book, Luther and His Work, Joseph Clayton, Bruce, 1937. (I like old books and ordered this one a couple of years ago.) For Luther’s own writings, they’re available on the Internet at Lutheran websites. I only wish I could find one with a “search” feature.

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.

I know enough about Luther, plenty, plenty. If any Pope had ever approved polygyny and said he could find no Scriptural justification for forbidding it, I would consider that the “powers of death” (RSV) had prevailed against the Church, and I’d become a Jew. If Luther couldn’t find Scriptural justification – after declaring Sola Scriptura – he’s giving license to commit adultery.

(continued)

 

[Katholikos]

Part 2

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.

"Martin Luther had visions, which he believed to be actual physical occurrences, of the devil hurling [feces] at him [the devil] and his hurling it back. Indeed, in one of his many anal combats with the devil – in which Luther would challenge the devil to [deleted] his posterior – Luther thought the best tactic might be to ‘throw him into my [posterior], where he belongs.’ " Quoting historian William Manchester in Triumph–The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church–A 2,000 Year History, H.W. Crocker III.

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?

I expect that the truth be told, however the producers might wish to twist it or spin it, at least present it. Omission makes the film a lie. I expect “the rest of the story” – a balanced presentation – to be told. Leaving out facts such as his approval of polygyny and his rejection of eleven books of Scripture – 7 from the OT and 4 from the NT – and then declaring that “Sola Scriptura” is the only basis for faith and morals, gives an entirely different picture of the man than the one they’ve portrayed. But it’s the truth – and more.

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.”

You can count them yourself: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees and portions of Esther and Daniel; Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation.

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.

Which church did St. Jerome start in opposition to the One True Church? Or Cardinals X and C? This requires a separate thread, but briefly, the Vulgate, translated by St. Jerome, contains all the original books of the Bible. It was published in 405. Please provide your references for the others. Fact: the Bible was formed and canonized, book by book, at the Catholic Councils of Rome (382), Hippo (393), Carthage 397 + 419. The canon was named, book by book, by Pope Innocent I in 405. The Vulgate was published in 405. The contents have never changed since the date of its birth in 382.

Individual Catholics are not the Church. The Church alone defines what it Scripture. Luther was no different from Marcion and other dissenters who formed their own Scriptures. Both thought they knew what Scripture is better than the Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world.

You now have Luther “approving” bigamy when in reality, Luther simply said that he could not prohibit bigamy on “Scriptural” grounds.

Since Luther declared that [his cut version of] Scripture is the only basis for faith and morals, what other basis could there be for prohibiting polygyny? None. He was thereby approving plural marriage and adultery. But Luther was quite right – the Bible doesn’t treat polygamy at all. That’s one of the fallacies of Sola Scriptura. The Church is the guardian of the Depositum Fidei, and the Church teaches that marriage is a Sacrament between one man and one woman. Jesus left us a Church, not a book.

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.

No Pope, no matter how reprehensible his personal behavior, has ever taught heresy.

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.

Luther didn’t reform the Church. The Church reformed itself. Luther wounded the Body of Christ, and it still bleeds today from the thousands of wounds inflicted upon it. Look what Luther started! Splintered Protestantism is his legacy – bitter fruit.

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.

Oh, it’s okay for the film to portray the Church as a sewer, but the reviewer was only pointing that out – it wasn’t his personal view. Did I get that right?

Ave Cor Mariae, Jay

 

[Katholikos]

To Eric, re your post #55.

In a letter to me dated March 28, 2001, the Secretariat for Doctrine and Pastoral Practices of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops had this to say:

QUOTE
[In reply to] “Your inquiry regarding Anthony Wilhelm’s book, Christ Among Us . . .”

In 1984, at the request of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Peter Gerety of Newark, N.J., withdrew his imprimatur for the book. Paulist Press subsequently withdrew the book from publication. Beginning in 1985, the book was published by Harper & Row in San Francisco, evidently without an imprimatur. According to canon law, without an imprimatur, the book cannot cannot be presented as a catechism or as a book pertaining to catechetical formation (Can. 827.1). END QUOTE

Translation: Christ Among Us does not represent the teaching of the Catholic Church. It should never have been given an imprimatur (approval for printing), and that mistaken approval has long since been withdrawn.

Any parish still using this book should be reported to the bishop of that particular diocese. There was a public announcement from the Catholic bishops in 1984 that this book was not to be used for instruction classes.

Oremus pro Invicem, Jay