S
spina1953
Guest
Hi commenter: You made some very good points in your post.
- Status
S
spina1953
Guest
In addition, here again we see evidence that Luther wanted to destroy the church, even before he was excommunicated.
God Bless You Spina, Topper
Hi Topper: I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Luther had accepted what the Church taught and went instead to trying to help the Church reform those abuses tat were taking place at that time instead of wanting to change doctrines and going off the deep end. While I admit hat there were abuses that did not to be taken care of which in time they were, Luther I believe went about it in the wrong way and manor that caused nothing but problems in that now we have so may believing so may different things not just about Catholic’s and the Church, but doctrines that have been taught now for nearly 2000 years.
C
Contarini
Guest
But, of course, you don’t know that with certainty
I think the “quest for certainty” is bound to fail, because of course it all rests on your “personal judgment” in the end. (And no, the “spiral argument” does not solve this problem.) But I agree that there are fatal problems with SS, particularly the problem of how the canon was established.
But you didn’t show that Protestantism can’t be true, only that it can’t produce certainty. Which you now admit (very sensibly) doesn’t exist for you as a Catholic either. I suppose you mean that there’s conditional certainty: if Catholicism is true then I know what it teaches. Or perhaps that there is at least a coherent logic leading from premises to conclusions, even if the premises still have to be taken by faith. I would basically agree with that second point. For me the key issue is unity: there is no way that I can see in Protestantism to have unity and a commitment to definite, doctrinal revelation (particularly on points that are controversial at any given moment) at the same time. The problem with Anglicanism, for instance, is that we can be confident in affirming the settled, ancient teachings of the Church, but if we had been in charge in the fourth century everyone would be a Semi-Arian today
.Perhaps this is a digression, but I want you to understand where and how far I do agree with what you are saying.
I can’t see that much of what you have offered is particularly enlightening in terms of how and why sola scriptura came to be accepted by Protestants. Perhaps you could summarize in one sentence just what it is that you think you are getting across with all these quotes, etc., (with most of which, by the way, I agree). I also don’t see that this is news to Protestants, particularly Lutherans. I haven’t seen the evidence for avoidance that you seem to be seeing. But then, most of the Lutherans I know are scholars of the Reformation. This stuff is old hat to them. (There is certainly some avoidance and attempt to whitewash, no denying that–but nothing you’ve said so far would be new or startling to my Lutheran friends.)
I for one am not challenging the legitimacy of the topic at all. However, talking about it in terms of “who has the authority” has limited value. Most Protestants don’t think Luther had some special “authority,” but simply that he was right about a lot of stuff. I think the form of Catholic apologetics that boils everything down to “authority,” as if truth were purely opaque without some official seal of approval, is deeply misguided. It’s an unhealthy attitude for Catholics, or anyone else, to have, and it just confirms Protestants’ stereotypes of Catholics as those people who can’t think without permission.
Much more to the point, it’s now pretty clear that Luther was wrong about a lot of stuff. Furthermore, Luther himself insisted that certain teachings most Protestants don’t now accept (like the denial of free will) were central to his message. At some point Protestants need to ask, “If someone we respect so much and have learned so much from was so wrong about some things he thought were so important, isn’t it quite likely that we are wrong too about stuff we object to in Catholicism, some of which Luther himself would have accepted?” So again, I’m not opposed to what you’re trying to do. But I’m not convinced you’re going about it in the right way. Your only argument seems to be that Luther was an arrogant jerk. Which is certainly true (I’d put it that he “could be” an arrogant jerk–I think there were many better sides to his personality as well), but really doesn’t do much to shake the foundations of Protestantism.
I know you’re not replying to me here, but just for the record: I’m not trying to limit the discussion at all. I objected to one particular claim by steve b that I found to be entirely inaccurate, and I have objected in a more qualified way to some of your judgments and interpretations which I think could be more nuanced (and your opinion that Marius is Luther’s best biographer, which is not an opinion shared by most people who are specialists in the period).
Again, just to be clear–I’m not making that complaint at all. I do think that putting the worst construction on Luther’s words and actions is uncharitable.
You aren’t seeing responses because it’s really not clear what you are trying to prove with most of these quotes. I think that for the most part you’re attacking a straw man.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Abuses were never the main point for Luther, and I think he was right about that. Not that we shouldn’t try to reform abuses, but it’s an endless battle. What he was concerned about was what he saw as a distortion in Catholic theology. I more or less follow the school of thought (identified with Joseph Lortz, Etienne Gilson, Louis Bouyer, and a number of other Catholic scholars and theologians–most recently stated by Brad Gregory in his book The Unintended Reformation) that there were indeed such distortions, but that they continued to distort Luther’s response. So the question is: if Luther had been humbler in his approach, might he have been able to make a contribution to Catholic theology that would, by God’s grace, have played a role in combating the legalism which he legitimately complained about?
The closest we come to an answer is the so-called “evangelical catholics” who thought Luther had some things right but went too far and was wrong in leaving the Church. One of these, Gasparo Contarini, is my alias on this forum precisely because I think he and his colleagues were basically on the right track (and Contarini was very concerned with abuses too–in fact, he co-authored a blistering report on abuses in the Church shortly after becoming a cardinal). Another, Reginald Pole, nearly became Pope.
It’s true that the “double justification” theory these guys proposed was rejected by the Council of Trent as not doing justice to the adequacy of the work of the Spirit in the life of the believer (basically they suggested that good works were necessary, but never adequate, for final salvation, so that imputed righteousness was necessary as well). But again, even they were still working within an overly legal framework (“how can we be accounted righteous before God”). So their solution wasn’t perfect. But unlike Luther, Pole accepted the judgment of Trent and humbly spent his later years (especially after the accession of Pope Paul IV) under somewhat of a cloud as an “almost Protestant” in a Church determined to distance itself from everything remotely Protestant-sounding. (Contarini died before Trent, but I’m pretty sure he would have done the same thing.)
Edwin
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Edwin,
Thanks for your response.
As you point out, there are more than one definition of the word ‘church’. Whether he wanted to destroy the church (meaning the hierarchical Roman Catholic Church) in 1518 or 1519 or 1520 is not really the issue, all of those dates are prior to his excommunication. What was he planning to replace the authority of the Catholic Church? His own Private Interpretations and self-proclaimed authority. This is not an ‘attack’ but a fact.
To be continued
Thanks for your response.
Please feel free to lump me in with Steve if you like. His ‘inaccuracy’ is not 1/1,000,000th as important as the issues we have been trying to discuss. As for my ‘noble cause’, I appreciate your making that clear. If I ever do unintentionally post something factually inaccurate I hope that you will bring it up at least once.
I will accept that.
I posted a quote to Spina yesterday that helps flesh out the term ‘destroy the church’. There is a lot more that could be posted as you well know. You may wonder if that is the best term to use, but I think you have to admit that it is not inaccurate. If you have a better term please post it.
As you point out, there are more than one definition of the word ‘church’. Whether he wanted to destroy the church (meaning the hierarchical Roman Catholic Church) in 1518 or 1519 or 1520 is not really the issue, all of those dates are prior to his excommunication. What was he planning to replace the authority of the Catholic Church? His own Private Interpretations and self-proclaimed authority. This is not an ‘attack’ but a fact.
The company of the baptized has NEVER had the authority to teach differently than the Church. Luther took that upon himself.
I agree that these are complex situations, however, I don’t know how the claim of Luther wanting to ‘reform’ the hierarchical Roman Catholic Church can be made with any credibility, whereas the ‘destroying’ can be documented with volumes.
I would put it a different way. I see these things as ‘Majoring in the Minors’. We have so little time to discuss these things and I don’t think we should spend any of it getting our backs up and defending insignificant points. There are HUGE issues here to be addressed.
That’s correct. For the record, as a friend, I am informing you that this is the 10th post in 9 days in which you have referred to Steve’s ‘word infraction’. I am calling for an intervention, because for your own good you really must stop, and I am talking about cold turkey.
That’s not correct. I see it as a matter of magnitude, or perspective.
This is (again) a mischaracterization of my position. Please show me where I have ‘lectured you’ about what a ‘bad person Luther was’.
To be continued
T
Topper17
Guest
Part two
God Bless You Cont, Topper
The point is not whether Luther was a ‘bad person’. We are ALL ‘bad people’. The real question is whether Luther was right in the Eyes of God to rebel against the authority of the Church. This question leads us to delve into whether Luther was a ‘good Theologian’ and a ‘good Scriptural exegete’. That being said, everything about Luther goes into an overall assessment of who he really was.
Actually it’s not me who is making a such a huge deal about a single word. I’m more of a ‘big picture’ kind of guy. I will be more than happy if I never have to hear that particular word again.
As you know, Luther said a TON of what you call ‘crazy stuff’. In my experience, those who defend him will claim that the more outrageous statements were meant metaphorically or were done with some kind of theatrical ‘flourish’. In other words, he didn’t really mean all of the crazy stuff but DID mean all of the more sane stuff, which takes the ‘in the beholder’ thing past anything that logic would support.
Your ‘advising’ has been duly noted.I think this was one of Luther’s worst legacies, and I would advise you against continuing it. The best way to balance the record is to be strictly accurate, not to exaggerate on the other side. (That being said, I’m guilty of some of the same tactics at times–I am an inveterate devil’s advocate. But I do try to be as accurate as possible while playing devil’s advocate
I am at least 20 times more ‘charitable’ towards Luther than he was towards his opponents. Compared to Luther I am restrained, in fact meek. Furthermore, if I wrote one paragraph here on CA anything close to some of his rants, I would be permanently banned, and would deserve it. Again, this is a matter of degree. It’s like saying that a jaywalker should be condemned as fiercely as a murderer. I believe in the benefits of a having a sense of proportion.
First of all, Edwards is a Lutheran. Some biographers focus only on the early Luther. Luther’s teachings and quotes must be viewed in terms of WHEN he taught or wrote them. Only in that manner can you place his various writings in context with where he was in his ‘theological breakthroughs’.Edwards’ work is invaluable, by the way. Oberman does have some valid criticisms, but his main objection is that Edwards focuses on Luther’s late years and finds Luther’s nasty language to reflect Luther’s frustration and anger toward the end of his life. Oberman’s response is to show that Luther used scatological language freely from the very beginning of his career. Which from a certain point of view actually makes Luther look worse
Everyone has their favorites. Marius thinks of Luther as being haunted by doubts, and that his fears were what drove him (to do everything). I think that that premise fits rather nicely with the historical facts. The thing I appreciate about Marius, is that despite coming from a Protestant background, he does not treat Luther with kid gloves, as do many others. In addition, in my opinion, Marius is probably the best writer of any that I have read. It is a very good read, the opposite of someone like Grisar who gets all of the facts right but is somewhat torturous to read.
God Bless You Cont, Topper
C
Contarini
Guest
That you are trying to discuss. In other words, because Steve’s completely inaccurate statement (inaccurate on two levels, in a way that makes any serious discussion of sola fide impossible) makes Luther look bad, it’s OK with you.
I’m trying to discuss Luther in a fair and historically accurate way. My ultimate goal, like yours, is to show Protestants that they are wrong. But unlike you, I don’t think accuracy is some kind of irrelevancy to this.
That isn’t how he thought about it, Topper. He thought about it in terms of the Word of God, which he believed was self-evident but which people resisted because they were deluded by Satan. He was wrong–indeed, seriously delusional–in identifying his own ideas with the Word of God. But he was able to delude himself that way because he really did have powerful insights which wise and learned Catholics in modern times have found extremely valuable (including Pope Benedict). Anyway, the point is that, especially early on, he was confident that if the Word of God was let loose a reformed church would emerge which was guided by the Word. That didn’t happen. He was clearly wrong. But he wasn’t, in his mind, trying to impose his own interpretations. Nor was he really thinking about it in terms of “private” interpretation. He simply assumed that anyone who was guided by the Holy Spirit and listening to the Word would agree with his basic insights.
So “the Church” is something other than the baptized? It’s this way of putting it that, in part, caused Luther and other Protestants to react the way they did.
The fact that you think an accurate description of the origins of sola fide is insignificant indicates that you have absolutely no idea how to go about refuting Protestantism.
Spare me the silly psychologizing. It’s not about an “infraction,” it’s about a persistent habit on this forum of saying things about Luther that are false or distorted, and then getting defensive when the error is pointed out.That’s correct. For the record, as a friend, I am informing you that this is the 10th post in 9 days in which you have referred to Steve’s ‘word infraction’. I am calling for an intervention, because for your own good you really must stop, and I am talking about cold turkey.
How on earth are you going to refute Luther’s ideas if you can’t even describe them with basic accuracy in the first place?
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
I see that. But I’m a church historian. This is my field. Historians care about the trees, because if you get the trees wrong you have a different forest entirely. And the question of whether Luther’s doctrine of sola fide is really based on his mere say-so, or whether there’s something more to be understood, is hardly an insignificant point.
Well, that’s often true. Luther wasn’t a conventional Renaissance rhetorician, but he was a Renaissance rhetorician, among many other things.
Completely irrelevant. We aren’t discussing Luther as a poster on this forum. We are discussing him as an important historical figure from an era 500 years before our own–an era when people routinely killed each other over religious ideas. Comparing his rhetoric to your rhetoric is just silly. We aren’t discussing whether Luther’s rhetoric was good or bad. Hopefully we are trying to understand him. Or aren’t you really interested in that?
Which biographers do you have in mind?
Oberman? Bainton? Brecht? Those are probably the three standards.
Agreed. But especially with regard to the early Luther, this isn’t easy, because people keep arguing over when the big “breakthrough” happened (I think this is because they are putting way too much stock in Luther’s much later account, and are looking for a single “breakthrough”–as you point out, there were clearly several).
Yes, but some people have good reasons for their opinions, while others have less good ones
Sure, if you’re approaching Luther from a modern perspective.
There’s no “despite” about it. An ex-Protestant (indeed ex-Christian) like Marius is going to find it very easy to beat up on Luther:shrug:.
And again, it seems that your main criterion is whether someone makes Luther look bad. If someone or something makes Luther look bad, it’s good. If it doesn’t, it’s bad or “insignificant.” Your methods just aren’t well adapted to discovering the truth.
Agreed. It was a beautiful book (and a haunting book given that Marius died just after it was published). I just think it was more about Marius than about Luther.
Oberman’s isn’t perfect by any means, but I think he gets a lot of key things right, including the fact that “reform” isn’t really the best category in which to put what Luther was doing.
Brecht is invaluable for what Luther did when, although it’s heavily biased and is the most guilty of whitewashing Luther of any of the standard biographies, I think. And it’s totally unreliable for the medieval background, because he just takes Luther at face value.
Bainton’s is also very well written and I still recommend it to people as a starting point, with heavy reservations. But it’s pretty heavily invested in the “Whig narrative” (i.e., the kind of approach to Luther you were taught and are reacting against).
Edwin
G
Goya
Guest
Contarini;12060841
Just. Another. Opinion.
…
…but here–in this context–it’s not a matter of ‘rudeness’–it’s a matter of respect, and dignity–as in the respect he (Martin Luther) failed to yield, and the respect he failed to earn (and therefore, no duty arising to yield any to him)–and the dignity he failed to lend to the process, to his own dealings, his own writings, his superiors, etc.
He speaks of asses? He makes one of himself.
You have no idea of what I have no idea about.
…
Secondly, certainly most are not—Most Catholics–the vast majority–don’t think about him at all.
Thirdly, the scant few who are actually interested, are no where nearly as interested, as so many protestants are, in him.
Finally, where you are amazed at this phantom Catholic ‘obsession’ with Luther, I am equally amazed at the veritable protestant veneration of Luther–while simultaneously condemning the veneration of the Saints–especially of Mary.
How many protestants (including yourself–even if only your residual self)–take to defending Luther’s legacy with an incredible zeal–but daren’t raise so much as a pinky toe, in defense of Our Lady–quite the contrary–many would sooner cry ‘idolatry’, and ‘Mary worshipper’, than stick up for the Mother of Our Lord and Savior.
…and that, is Luther’s legacy.
What respect does such shameful, pitiful legacy command?
Scarcely any more than those of Judas Iscariot, or Pontius Pilate.
Pity? Sure. Charity? Always. Love and Mercy? Absolutely.
Respect? Veneration? Exaltation? Emmulation?
Absolutely nothing of the sort.
NB: I have friends in low places (in the ‘real world’). They get my pity, charity, love and mercy–not my respect. Nor do I direct my children to emmulate or venerate them.
No one is treating anyone unfairly here.
That’s nice. You’re hardly alone. You have developed your impression of ‘your friend’; others have developed other impresions of ‘your friend’. Your supposed ‘expertise’ doesn’t render other opinions baseless–it just means you have a different opinion.
Just. Another. Opinion.
Pinning down the world ‘merely’, is like trying to nail jello to a wall. The very concept is incompatible with ‘truth’, as truth must be objectively identifiable first, that it may be defined. “Merely” is more accurately, an adjective about degree, not a statement of absolutes that can be measured against ‘truth’. (Truthfullness, perhaps, but not truth).
…
Depends on the circumstances.
…but here–in this context–it’s not a matter of ‘rudeness’–it’s a matter of respect, and dignity–as in the respect he (Martin Luther) failed to yield, and the respect he failed to earn (and therefore, no duty arising to yield any to him)–and the dignity he failed to lend to the process, to his own dealings, his own writings, his superiors, etc.
He speaks of asses? He makes one of himself.
Just a tad pretentious, there, sir.
You have no idea of what I have no idea about.
…
First of all, ‘Catholics’ are not obsessed with Luther;Again, I’m not denying that Luther clearly had some serious issues. But I remain amazed by how obsessed with this Catholics are, and how blindly focused many folks on this forum are on tearing down Luther as a person. That’s just shameful. It’s the sort of thing Luther would do
Secondly, certainly most are not—Most Catholics–the vast majority–don’t think about him at all.
Thirdly, the scant few who are actually interested, are no where nearly as interested, as so many protestants are, in him.
Finally, where you are amazed at this phantom Catholic ‘obsession’ with Luther, I am equally amazed at the veritable protestant veneration of Luther–while simultaneously condemning the veneration of the Saints–especially of Mary.
How many protestants (including yourself–even if only your residual self)–take to defending Luther’s legacy with an incredible zeal–but daren’t raise so much as a pinky toe, in defense of Our Lady–quite the contrary–many would sooner cry ‘idolatry’, and ‘Mary worshipper’, than stick up for the Mother of Our Lord and Savior.
…and that, is Luther’s legacy.
What respect does such shameful, pitiful legacy command?
Scarcely any more than those of Judas Iscariot, or Pontius Pilate.
Pity? Sure. Charity? Always. Love and Mercy? Absolutely.
Respect? Veneration? Exaltation? Emmulation?
Absolutely nothing of the sort.
NB: I have friends in low places (in the ‘real world’). They get my pity, charity, love and mercy–not my respect. Nor do I direct my children to emmulate or venerate them.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Com,
Thanks for your response.
There are all sorts of tools in the Catholic Apologist’s toolbox. I think that the history of the early reformation is one of the most effective.
“If Protestantism knew thoroughly how their religion was formed; with how many variations and with what inconsistency their confessions of faith were drawn up; how they first separated themselves from us (the Catholic Church), and afterwards from one another; by how many subtleties, evasions, and equivocations they labored to repair their divisions, and to re-unite the scattered members of their disjointed reformation; this reformation of which they boast would afford them but little satisfaction, or rather, to speak my mind for freely, it would excite in them only feelings of contempt.” James Benign Bossuet, “The History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches”, Preface, 1
Com, let me ask you a question: How many times have you suggested a different interpretation of some particular passage only to be told – “You don’t understand. That verse has to be understood in the context of this other verse (which I happen to like better than your verse)?
History can be interpreted, with the “Legend of Luther” as the most glaring example. On the other hand, historical FACTS are just that. Some facts support one side vs the other, and since they are agreed upon facts, the side which finds themselves on the wrong side of those facts SHOULD think about what those facts actually mean. Often times though all we see is avoidance of those facts, which also BTW is telling.
The facts of early Christianity and of the early Reformation do not support Protestantism as being a correct expression of the Christian Faith. Cardinal John Henry Newman puts it this way:
“To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.
And this utter incongruity between Protestantism and historical Christianity is a plain fact, whether the latter be regarded in its earlier or in its later centuries. Protestants can as little bear its Ante-nicene as its Post-tridentine period. I have elsewhere observed on this circumstance: "So much must the Protestant grant that, if such a system of doctrine as he would now introduce ever existed in early times, it has been clean swept away as if by a deluge, suddenly, silently, and without memorial; by a deluge coming in a night, and utterly soaking, rotting, heaving up, and hurrying off every vestige of what it found in the Church, before cock-crowing: so that ‘when they rose in the morning’ her true seed ‘were all dead corpses’—Nay dead and buried—and without grave-stone. That Protestantism, then, is not the Christianity of history, it is easy to determine……”
There are many people here who are hardened into their positions. Nothing is going to extract them from their foxholes, not even the truth and that is because they cannot see it. However, these historical truths could inoculate some who have not yet become that hardened.
Thank You My Friend For Your Comments and May God Bless You, Topper
BTW, I appreciate your ‘style’. I very much appreciate advice given in charity rather than being scolded without charity for my lack of charity.
Thanks for your response.
I very much appreciate your taking the time to assemble your thoughts and will definitely consider what you have said. In general I think you have an excellent approach. I have been doing this, whatever ‘this’ is for a couple of decades having been through several ‘phases’ including all of the typical sorts of approaches.
There are all sorts of tools in the Catholic Apologist’s toolbox. I think that the history of the early reformation is one of the most effective.
“If Protestantism knew thoroughly how their religion was formed; with how many variations and with what inconsistency their confessions of faith were drawn up; how they first separated themselves from us (the Catholic Church), and afterwards from one another; by how many subtleties, evasions, and equivocations they labored to repair their divisions, and to re-unite the scattered members of their disjointed reformation; this reformation of which they boast would afford them but little satisfaction, or rather, to speak my mind for freely, it would excite in them only feelings of contempt.” James Benign Bossuet, “The History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches”, Preface, 1
Com, let me ask you a question: How many times have you suggested a different interpretation of some particular passage only to be told – “You don’t understand. That verse has to be understood in the context of this other verse (which I happen to like better than your verse)?
History can be interpreted, with the “Legend of Luther” as the most glaring example. On the other hand, historical FACTS are just that. Some facts support one side vs the other, and since they are agreed upon facts, the side which finds themselves on the wrong side of those facts SHOULD think about what those facts actually mean. Often times though all we see is avoidance of those facts, which also BTW is telling.
The facts of early Christianity and of the early Reformation do not support Protestantism as being a correct expression of the Christian Faith. Cardinal John Henry Newman puts it this way:
“To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.
And this utter incongruity between Protestantism and historical Christianity is a plain fact, whether the latter be regarded in its earlier or in its later centuries. Protestants can as little bear its Ante-nicene as its Post-tridentine period. I have elsewhere observed on this circumstance: "So much must the Protestant grant that, if such a system of doctrine as he would now introduce ever existed in early times, it has been clean swept away as if by a deluge, suddenly, silently, and without memorial; by a deluge coming in a night, and utterly soaking, rotting, heaving up, and hurrying off every vestige of what it found in the Church, before cock-crowing: so that ‘when they rose in the morning’ her true seed ‘were all dead corpses’—Nay dead and buried—and without grave-stone. That Protestantism, then, is not the Christianity of history, it is easy to determine……”
There are many people here who are hardened into their positions. Nothing is going to extract them from their foxholes, not even the truth and that is because they cannot see it. However, these historical truths could inoculate some who have not yet become that hardened.
Thank You My Friend For Your Comments and May God Bless You, Topper
BTW, I appreciate your ‘style’. I very much appreciate advice given in charity rather than being scolded without charity for my lack of charity.
C
Contarini
Guest
So making blatantly false statements about what sola fide is based on, and ignoring the actual argument Luther made about translation, isn’t unfair? Come on. You guys are just digging yourselves in deeper the more you try to defend this.
You may be a relativist. I am not. Nor I think are most people here. Some things are true. Others are false. So spare me the silly postmodern “just another opinion” gambit.
No. It’s not. “Merely” means that he didn’t do anything else. Since the “Dr. Luther will have it so” remark was merely a rhetorical flourish introducing his actual argument, to say that he “merely” said this is simply false, as is the claim that any part of “On Translating” gives the basis for sola fide.
But isn’t it more important to inquire whether he was right or wrong? There are excellent reasons to think he was wrong. But neither you nor Topper nor steve b seems interested in actually discussing those reasons.
True. You might have all sorts of profound understanding that for some reason you choose not to express, pretending instead to be a very naive polemicist who judges all ages by your own and has no patience to understand anything with which you are unsympathetic. But if you go to so much effort to pretend not to understand, it’s too much to blame me for rewarding your effort
I have no idea on what basis you accuse me of failing to defend the honor of Our Lady.
The point, again, is that someone made inaccurate statements about Luther–and these weren’t just minor, incidental errors, but constituted a wholly erroneous attempt to debunk sola fide through a misinterpretation of one sentence in Luther’s letter “On Translating.”
And you and Topper, instead of saying, “Well yes, steve, you did misunderstand that passage–now let’s move on to the substantive reasons why Luther was wrong,” have piled on to defend the indefensible and condemn me for daring to point out the inaccuracy. Why? Because you can’t stand anyone “defending” Luther.
I agree that Catholics as a whole are not “obsessed” with Luther. But some Catholics on this forum are, and you are continuing a long and dishonorable tradition of Catholic polemic, going back to Cochlaeus who accused Luther of being the product of an unholy union between the devil and a bathhouse attendant. This tradition of polemic has to be debunked and crushed in order for any serious conversation about the problems of Protestantism to take place. It poisons the discussion as soon as it’s introduced. It’s the Catholic equivalent of Lorraine Boettner and Jack Chick.
All human beings deserve the basic “respect” of not being misinterpreted and misrepresented. All human beings deserve our empathy, because they are human.
You can whip up polemical fury against the “bad guys” if you choose, but you will only be doing the devil’s work.
Edwin
S
steve_b
Guest
(from Exsurge Domine) Explain for me please Why Luthers error #33 is an error?
C:
Then as I ask over and over again, why is error #33 an error?
C:
Are you sure?? Then** what DID Leo mean when he said Luthers statement #33 was an error**?
C:
non belief is also their sinAlso, the people of Sodom were not killed for being heretics, but (according to the prophets) for being materialistic and neglecting the poor. Their apparent habit of gang rape can’t have helped either.
C:
you don’t take Genesis 19:24-25 literally? Does that mean you don’t think the event happened?
It obviously shows God destroyed His adversaries by fire.
C:
[Clerics to dissociate from shedding-blood](http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum12-2.htm#Clerics to dissociate from shedding-blood) (link shows all the canons)
Is #18 new law, or a clarification of what has been there already?
I would suggest reading canons #3 & #18 again from that link
canon #3 due to space is too long to post here. It can be read from the above link however.
Canon #18…No cleric may
- decree or pronounce a sentence involving the shedding of blood, or carry out a punishment involving the same, or be present when such punishment is carried out.
- If anyone, however, under cover of this statute, dares to inflict injury on churches or ecclesiastical persons, let him be restrained by ecclesiastical censure.
- A cleric may not write or dictate letters which require punishments involving the shedding of blood, in the courts of princes this responsibility should be entrusted to laymen and not to clerics.
- Moreover no cleric may be put in command of mercenaries or crossbowmen or suchlike men of blood; nor may a subdeacon, deacon or priest practise the art of surgery, which involves cauterizing and making incisions; nor may anyone confer a rite of blessing or consecration on a purgation by ordeal of boiling or cold water or of the red-hot iron, saving nevertheless the previously promulgated prohibitions regarding single combats and duels
Re: courts of princes and kings, and what they do and decree,
I would say princes and kings the Church lives side by side with in the 12th century she also does when they become rebels against the Church in the 16th century. Think about the Protestant revolt and what princes and kings did THEN. Where are you drawing the line?
C:
Here’s another source showing expel. ewtn.com/library/councils/lateran4.htm . These 2 sources whether “Papal Encyclicals” which I used or “EWTN” here, these are solid Catholic resources, and give the same translation of Exsurge Domine.
Even if we use “exterminate” from the translation you refer to, it’s how you understand exterminate in that canon that’s wrong. For example #[403 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11705798&postcount=403) I addressed within that post how exterminate is understood by that person in the same way you understand it. I’m suggesting your understanding contradicts the internals of canon #3 & canon #18 .
Finally,
Please Explain why #33 of Exsurge Domine is one of Luther’s errors?
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi contarini: It seems to me that Luther posted or nailed his 95 thesis on the Church door, those 95 points he made were about abuses if I remember correctly. One of the things Trent did was correct many of the abuses that were going on in the Church. As an institution run by men and man not being perfect and prone to the temptations of the world, there are always those who seek power and are corrupted by it. yet, even with all of the abuses that was going on at that time, there were also those who apposed the abuses that were going on and wanted to correct them. Luther could have been one of them that could have worked with those trying to correct the abuses, but instead went his own way, which cause others to also do so, all claiming to be reformers, but in the end were nothing more than men with very big egos who thought that whatever they said was correct and everyone else wrong. Luther would not bend or even listen to reason, and he could not get along with Calvin, or Zwigli and they in urn could not get along with ach other let alone Luther. each had their own ideas as t what doctrine was and should be, yet, they were mediocre theologians at best. This what I have come to understand from history.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Spina,
Thanks for your response.
I recognize that someone has already responded to what you wrote to me. I am not sure if it is ‘good form’ for me to still answer, but I am going to take a chance anyway.
In 1520 Ambrosius Catharinus was asked to write against Luther. In 1521 Luther responded, with anger of course. Richard Marius comments:
**“Catharinus ridiculed Luther’s doctrine of scripture alone. ** He argued that the visible Catholic Church was the receipient of all the promises of Christ to the church. Moreover the church had transmitted over the centuries the truths of God necessary to salvation, given by Christ, passed through the fathers, and continued to the present as a well-known consensus. Scripture was not always clear in itself; it required the church to provide correct definitions of doctrine, and papal supremacy in the church was the cornerstone of the consensus that distinguished true teaching from false. The consensus was not easy; Catharinus defended vigorously the sometimes minute definitions in both theology and the canon law. These, too, were part of God’s revelation, and Christians could not unilaterally reject them. Moreover God had certified the authority of the church miracles that confirmed its teachings. The church contained good and bad members. These would be separated at the day of judgment. But the church was not validated by the purity of its membership. **Rather it received its validity from its historical development of a tradition that left human beings certain about beliefs and practices necessary for salvation. **
This was a powerful argument, calling to its side the witness of history. In it lay embedded the fundamental conviction of Catholic tradition: Without the church to define doctrine, no one could discern between the true and the false. It was well and good to claim the authority of Scripture, but scripture required an interpreter.
Luther took Cathainus seriously enough to reply at length, publishing his counterattack early in April. It was an opportunity for him to think out his doctrine of the church. He might have helped his case by writing in a civil tone, given the growing fear that his movement might erupt in violence. But the importance of the argument and his talent for invective got the better of him. ** The sarcasm of his foe infuriated him, and from the start he threw insults at Catharinus, calling him in various places a Thomast, an *, and, perhaps worst of all – an Italian. …
**A major point made by Catharinus was that a hidden church, one not discernable to the eye and common sense, could not do the work of the church in the world. ** For Catholic polemicists who came after him, the church was a sort of grand sacrament, partaking of human nature in that it showed itself in a visible body animated, like the seven sacraments, by an inner and divine power.” Marius pg. 283-284
We here are reminded of Luther’s habit to insult (or worse), those who disagreed with him. I wonder if Catharinus was so rude as to call Luther a ‘wild boar’, or maybe just a plain domestic bore.
How amazing is it that in 1520, three years after the 95 Theses, and within a year of when he was excommunicated (finally) by the Church, he FINALLY ‘got around’ to thinking about the doctrine (or nature) of the Church. One would think that if one had set himself on a course to destroy the Church, which he did as early as 1518, he would have thought about what he was going to gin up to replace it. But he didn’t.
Someday I am going to start making a list of the (better) Theologians who had (accurately) warned Luther where his radical beliefs were going to lead. I wonder how many there were.
As we saw in the Marius quote, Catharius was a good enough Theologian to know that Sola Scriptura was going to lead to problems. Luther was not.
It would seem that if Luther’s boundless energy and charismatic personality had been harnessed such that he could have worked to correct abuses, he could have been a huge positive force in the Church. But, Luther’s sense of himself did not lend to his being a ‘team player’. What he did provide was the ‘blueprint’ for others to challenge rightful authority, and in fact, to challenge the authority that he presumed himself to have.
God Bless You Spina, Topper
Thanks for your response.
I recognize that someone has already responded to what you wrote to me. I am not sure if it is ‘good form’ for me to still answer, but I am going to take a chance anyway.
I think the key here is that Luther didn’t really understand Church teachings very well. As we know, Eck and many others knew that Luther’s 95 Theses could only lead to heretical beliefs. One of the things that Luther didn’t understand well at all was the nature of the Church.
In 1520 Ambrosius Catharinus was asked to write against Luther. In 1521 Luther responded, with anger of course. Richard Marius comments:
**“Catharinus ridiculed Luther’s doctrine of scripture alone. ** He argued that the visible Catholic Church was the receipient of all the promises of Christ to the church. Moreover the church had transmitted over the centuries the truths of God necessary to salvation, given by Christ, passed through the fathers, and continued to the present as a well-known consensus. Scripture was not always clear in itself; it required the church to provide correct definitions of doctrine, and papal supremacy in the church was the cornerstone of the consensus that distinguished true teaching from false. The consensus was not easy; Catharinus defended vigorously the sometimes minute definitions in both theology and the canon law. These, too, were part of God’s revelation, and Christians could not unilaterally reject them. Moreover God had certified the authority of the church miracles that confirmed its teachings. The church contained good and bad members. These would be separated at the day of judgment. But the church was not validated by the purity of its membership. **Rather it received its validity from its historical development of a tradition that left human beings certain about beliefs and practices necessary for salvation. **
This was a powerful argument, calling to its side the witness of history. In it lay embedded the fundamental conviction of Catholic tradition: Without the church to define doctrine, no one could discern between the true and the false. It was well and good to claim the authority of Scripture, but scripture required an interpreter.
Luther took Cathainus seriously enough to reply at length, publishing his counterattack early in April. It was an opportunity for him to think out his doctrine of the church. He might have helped his case by writing in a civil tone, given the growing fear that his movement might erupt in violence. But the importance of the argument and his talent for invective got the better of him. ** The sarcasm of his foe infuriated him, and from the start he threw insults at Catharinus, calling him in various places a Thomast, an *, and, perhaps worst of all – an Italian. …
**A major point made by Catharinus was that a hidden church, one not discernable to the eye and common sense, could not do the work of the church in the world. ** For Catholic polemicists who came after him, the church was a sort of grand sacrament, partaking of human nature in that it showed itself in a visible body animated, like the seven sacraments, by an inner and divine power.” Marius pg. 283-284
We here are reminded of Luther’s habit to insult (or worse), those who disagreed with him. I wonder if Catharinus was so rude as to call Luther a ‘wild boar’, or maybe just a plain domestic bore.
How amazing is it that in 1520, three years after the 95 Theses, and within a year of when he was excommunicated (finally) by the Church, he FINALLY ‘got around’ to thinking about the doctrine (or nature) of the Church. One would think that if one had set himself on a course to destroy the Church, which he did as early as 1518, he would have thought about what he was going to gin up to replace it. But he didn’t.
Someday I am going to start making a list of the (better) Theologians who had (accurately) warned Luther where his radical beliefs were going to lead. I wonder how many there were.
As we saw in the Marius quote, Catharius was a good enough Theologian to know that Sola Scriptura was going to lead to problems. Luther was not.
It would seem that if Luther’s boundless energy and charismatic personality had been harnessed such that he could have worked to correct abuses, he could have been a huge positive force in the Church. But, Luther’s sense of himself did not lend to his being a ‘team player’. What he did provide was the ‘blueprint’ for others to challenge rightful authority, and in fact, to challenge the authority that he presumed himself to have.
God Bless You Spina, Topper
C
Contarini
Guest
Certainly they were, but if Luther had just attacked the way indulgences were abused he wouldn’t have kicked up such a stir. And, to be fair, if he had just attacked scholastic theology (which he was doing at the same time, in theses that didn’t get anywhere near the same attention but probably mattered more to him at that point) he wouldn’t have gotten the attention he did either. It was the combination: an attack on things everyone knew were abuses, but with a theological basis that was clearly already rather radical (though nowhere near as radical as his later theology).
The basic problem the Church had with the 95 Theses was Luther’s denial of the idea that the power of the keys applied to purgatory. But an even deeper issue, which became clearer in his later writings, was his belief that any action intended to gain favor with God is counter-productive. In 1517 this took the form of the view that people ought to accuse and “damn” themselves, accepting God’s judgment and even damnation, if they want to be forgiven. Kind of like the passage in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass where Alice has to walk in the opposite direction of the one in which she wants to go. This would later become a more full-blown doctrine of justification by faith alone.
No doubt all three of the figures you mention below did have very big egos, but the “nothing more than” is where I have a problem, just as I had a problem with “merely” in steve b’s post. This is not an insignificant point, contra Topper. When you guys try to reduce the Reformation to the arrogance and egotism of individuals, you are completely missing the point. The ideas of the Protestant Reformers caught on for a reason–indeed many reasons. The intrinsic value of the ideas themselves has to be addressed.
“History” in itself won’t tell you who is a “mediocre” theologian. That’s a theological judgment. And one with which I completely disagree, particularly with regard to Luther. I would say that Luther was Tertullian and Origen combined, both in the sense that he combined the rhetorical skill of one with the imaginative gifts of the other, and in the more unfortunate sense that he pushed the boundaries of orthodoxy like the one and was a truculent, obnoxious schismatic like the other
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
I don’t know why it wouldn’t be. If anything, it was bad form in me to jump in, but I don’t think so. It’s a free discussion.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Because Luther denied that the Church’s practice of handing over heretics to be burned at the stake was in accord with the will of the Spirit. That is obviously what Pope Leo was talking about. No scholar of the sixteenth century would doubt this. You are only trying to cast doubt on it because you don’t want to admit that Leo was wrong in a papal encyclical. There is no historical reason for taking such an approach.
I don’t know what did or didn’t happen. I have no problem with the idea that a catastrophe overwhelmed these cities and that this was rightly handed down in Hebrew tradition as an example of divine judgment. However, God is so utterly transcendent that we should be careful about taking any language saying “God did X” too literally, especially when we are talking about suffering and destruction. In what sense God directly causes such acts of judgment, and in what sense they are the result of natural or demonic causes within God’s ultimate providential order, I’m not sure. It certainly isn’t remotely what Luther and Pope Leo were talking about, since Luther (unlike me) had no problem with the idea that God literally burns people.
And I have explained already how that worked out. Clerics couldn’t actually pass the death sentence, but they could condemn people to be handed over to the civil authorities, who actually pronounced and carried out the sentence. It was a runaround. When I presented it in a history class (in a secular university) one of my students (an ex-Catholic, if I remember rightly) correctly described it as appallingly hypocritical. I tried, rather unsuccessfully, to make the point that even hypocrisy pointed to the Church’s awareness that it really shouldn’t be in the killing business!
I have already pointed you to the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on heresy, which lays out the historical evidence succinctly. You are denying historical facts admitted by everyone.
Probably the latter, although it needed to be reaffirmed because the clergy were so intertwined with civil matters, and because the Church’s new attitude to the death penalty for heresy (since the twelfth century the Church had dropped its previous opposition) had produced a new situation.
Steve, you need to stop assuming that I have a problem of comprehension, and you need to deal with the arguments I have presented. You have the Catholic Encyclopedia and every scholar of the Middle Ages or early modern period against you. You just don’t have a case here.
Indeed. But here are some of the relevant bits, since you still don’t seem to have noticed them or else seem to be misunderstanding them:
And we know, historically, what that punishment was. It was the punishment to which St. Thomas referred when he said that heretics should be “exterminated from the world by death,” and to which Luther referred when he denied that burning heretics was the will of the Spirit, and to which Pope Leo was referring when he said Luther was wrong.
C
Contarini
Guest
Note that while executing heretics was the job of the civil authorities, the Council is putting heavy pressure on them to do their job. Now it’s true that the word translated here “exterminate” (Lat. extermino/are) most basically means to expel or to drive out, as your translation has it. But that doesn’t exclude killing. We’ve already seen that Aquinas says that heretics should be “exterminated from the world by death.” That demonstrates both that “extermino” didn’t have to mean killing and that it could refer to killing. I refer you, again, to the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is honest about the fact that IV Lateran and other medieval Councils did call for heretics to be handed over for execution. I don’t know why you are ignoring the CE.
Let’s talk about what this actually meant in the life of a medieval Christian. The bishop sends around emissaries who knock on your door and say, “Have you heard any of your neighbors doing anything odd in church, or going off to mysterious gatherings?” If you know that one of your neighbors has occasionally expressed doubt about the Real Presence and sometimes has a bunch of friends over in a rather secretive way, and you don’t tell the nice emissaries of the Church (oh, don’t worry, they can’t kill you–IV Lateran says not), but someone else is more forthcoming, then they will come back and say: “obviously you knew this–why didn’t you tell us? You must be a heretic too.” Then you will find yourself before a Church court, which has the authority to torture you if they think they have strong circumstantial evidence against you. If you finally confess that you are a heretic, you will have to do public penance and be shamed before your neighbors. You may even be condemned to life imprisonment if the inquisitors think your offense is pretty severe. But if it’s a repeat offense, or if you refuse to repent of your heresy, then the Church’s emissaries will say, in all sorrow and compassion, “We’re sorry, but since you are obviously a danger to your fellow-Christians we are going to have to hand you over to the civil authorities.” The civil authorities, having received from the Church the notice that you are a dangerous heretic, will then as a matter of course sentence you to death. At that point, the fact that the clergy aren’t actually involved in your execution may come as small comfort. But perhaps not. Perhaps you would be very comforted. You could recite Canon 18 amid the flames and insist that the clergy who handed you over must be “rogue clergy,” even though their actions were the common policy of the Church for centuries.
None of this is controversial (I mean the fact that it happened). It’s beyond question. The CE, which never admits anything to the disadvantage of the Church if it can help it without dishonesty, fully admits that the Church handed people over for execution.
No. I’m interpreting canon 18 in light of the well-documented practice of having the Church hand people over to the civil authorities for execution without actually pronouncing sentence of death. You keep ignoring this.
]Your understanding forces you to interpret Canon 3 in a way that has nothing to do with what actually happened. It makes no sense in the historical context.
I have no idea what you mean by that. If you mean that princes and kings were no nicer when they became Protestants, I entirely agree
C
Contarini
Guest
Actually the reverse is the case. “Expel” is a fine translation of “extermino” in the abstract. But it doesn’t fit the historical context here. I would prefer a translation such as “wipe out from” or “utterly remove.” The point is that there shouldn’t be heretics there any more. I’m not basing my argument on “extermino” per se–rather, I’m saying that translating it as “expel” doesn’t do justice to what we know of how it was used elsewhere in the thirteenth century (as in Aquinas’ “exterminate them from the world by death”).
Furthermore, the context of IV Lateran was the Albigensian Crusade which was still going on at the time. The cause of the Crusade was Raymond of Toulouse’s toleration of the Cathars. The crusading armies were commanded by a papal legate, Arnaud-Amaury, sent by the same Pope Innocent III who would summon Lateran IV a few years later. The crusading armies sacked the town of Beziers and, according to the legate’s own report to the Pope, killed about 20,000 people. It’s true that the legate says that the attack was spontaneous and took place while negotiations were ongoing for the release of Catholics in the town (this in contrast to the report a few decades later of the chronicler Caesarius of Heisterbach that the legate had ordered the crusaders to kill Catholics and heretics indiscriminately). But he speaks of the destruction of the town as divine vengeance. There’s no indication that he condemned the crusaders for their massacre, and he was certainly not disciplined by the Pope for his involvement.
In other words, in context canon 3 is clearly saying “civil rulers should act like the Crusading armies and not like Raymond of Toulouse and Raymond-Roger of Trencavel.”
I’m baffled by this request. This part of our controversy began by my stating this clearly: Luther was condemned for saying that heretics should not be burned at the stake. Clearly Pope Leo thought he was wrong about that. Equally clearly, Pope Leo was not only fallible in that declaration but downright wrong. On that one point, at least, Luther was absolutely right.Finally,
Edwin
I would disagree with the contention, at least in part. PI infers a near total disregard for the what has been written or spoken in the past by others. Luther did not do that. Even with his sometimes bombastic outbursts, he regularly sites the Fathers. Someone practicing PI doesn’t do that, by definition.
I think the first sentence is precisely the opposite of what I’ve said. But the sentence you responded to specifically referred to quirks, behaviors, arrogance, etc, which frankly have nothing to do with doctrine. And the same standard should be applied toward Catholicism.
Regarding the bolded, that’s too bad, because ISTM that in the end, the entire idea of apologetics is to put forward a positive presentation of one’s faith, a presentation so positive that someone outside that communion is willing to stop and consider it. OTOH, the apologetics of attack only creates a defensive response, or worse, a response of attack in return. This approach has been the one used between our communions for far too long. Fortunately, that seems to be fading among our leaders and theologians, far quicker than between our apologists.
Agreed, but the personal weaknesses of individuals have nothing to do with it, however. The CC has as its adherents equally sinful people. One can talk about abuses by priests and the cover ups by bishops, or the corruption of popes in the past. I have no interest in “exposing” those kinds of things. Those types of things are not the Catholic Church.
The first section of the Book of Concord contains the three Creeds. It is part of our confessional life and faith. These have existed long before Augsburg. But just as scripture existed before it was compiled, so too did the confessional beliefs of the Lutheran reformers. While our confessions may not have been completely codified until 1580, that certainly doesn’t mean that the basic understanding of faith which we hold was not there.
And yet you rarely reference the Catholic faith or teaching (this isn’t meant as a personal attack, but an observation). Apologetics is a defense of the faith one believes in. ISTM that first and foremost, one should speak about their own faith, and why it is correct, far more often than speaking in a negative way about the other.
I would consider it an invalid way of conducting apologetics if the one spends virtual all of their time approaching a topic from the direction of attacking another, particularly when the attack is personal. Luther and Leo are both dead, long ago. A Lutheran cannot defend my faith by attacking the latter, and a Catholic cannot defend theirs only by attacking the former.
And this is why, quite honestly, dialogue with you is difficult for me, because I do not believe that this approaches anything more than hardening of divisions. It isn’t a defense of my faith to attack the personalities or peccadilloes of Catholics from that era. I completely disagree with the apporach.
You should try to discredit my communion’s teachings by proving the positive from a Catholic viewpoint: that your understanding of the catholic faith is true. That also requires that one accepts what the other says about their teaching.
Jon
- Status