Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

[Peter_J]

If a Lutheran ordinariate should ever happen, the RCC would inherit some incredible works.

May God quickly grant this Lutheran ordinariate, so that we may receive our brethren from the rapidly skidding slide of modernism that has infected the faith.

I can’t speak for the situation of Lutheran churches outside of the USA, but I’m happy to say that over here the LCMS has not embraced female priesthood like the EC-USA (and the Anglican Church of Canada, the Church of England, and the Anglican Church of Australia) did. If it had, I don’t doubt that the CC would have responded with a Lutheran Ordinariate.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I can’t speak for the situation of Lutheran churches outside of the USA, but I’m happy to say that over here the LCMS has not embraced female priesthood like the EC-USA (and the Anglican Church of Canada, the Church of England, and the Anglican Church of Australia) did. If it had, I don’t doubt that the CC would have responded with a Lutheran Ordinariate.

I think the situation is so dramatically different, though (even aside from the female priest/homosexuality issue).

I’m not sure there’s enough distinctives to the Lutheran tradition (liturgically or doctrinally) that it would require an ordinariate. There’s already a provision for married Lutheran pastors to be ordained, etc. The Anglican Ordinariate seems to be centered around Anglican converts maintaining their liturgical forms. We don’t really have any that are separate from what is found in the Catholic novus ordo.

 

[steido01]

I think the situation is so dramatically different, though (even aside from the female priest/homosexuality issue).

I’m not sure there’s enough distinctives to the Lutheran tradition (liturgically or doctrinally) that it would require an ordinariate. There’s already a provision for married Lutheran pastors to be ordained, etc. The Anglican Ordinariate seems to be centered around Anglican converts maintaining their liturgical forms. We don’t really have any that are separate from what is found in the Catholic novus ordo.

I suppose you’re right, in one sense. When it comes to liturgics, we haven’t changed much – and when we have, it’s generally been in step with the greater Western church, for better or worse. Take the whole ad orientum/versus populam debate, for example.

But then I contrast how the traditional Lutheran service differs from Catholic. With the Catholic Mass as the base, add about three or four more hymns, sing all the responses, chant all the prayers, replace the sometimes rambling homily with a clear Law-Gospel-Application sermon based on the daily readings, modify the Eucharistic prayer so as to clarify that Christ is and provides the only Sacrifice, and you’ve arrived at Lutheran Gottesdienst.IMHO, that seems like enough difference to categorize it as a separate liturgical form.

Bringing this sidebar back to the topic of the thread, Martin Luther is often credited as making church accessible to the uneducated masses by celebrating in the vernacular. Conversely, I do know a few older Roman Catholics who were taught Luther defiled the Mass by speaking it in the common tongue (Anecdotal, I know); of course, they had to re-think their views in 1965. It’s more accurate that Luther simply wanted the people to understand what was being said, so they could participate; it wasn’t that he was against the use of other languages - far from it:

If it lay in my power, and the Greek and Hebrew tongues were as familiar to us as the Latin, and possessed as great a store of fine music and song as the Latin does, Mass should be held and there should be singing and reading, on alternate Sundays in all four languages-German, Latin, Greek and Hebrew. I am by no means of one mind with those who set all their store by one language, and despise all others; for I would gladly raise up a generation able to be of use to Christ in foreign lands and to talk with their people, so that we might not be like the Waldenses in Bohemia whose faith is so involved in the toils of their own language that they can talk intelligibly and plainly with no one unless he first learn their language. That was not the way of the Holy Ghost in the beginning. He did not wait till all the world should come to Jerusalem, and learn Hebrew. But He endowed the office of the ministry with all manner of tongues, so that the Apostles could speak to the people wherever they went. I should prefer to follow this example; and it is right also that the youth should be practised in many languages. Who knows how God will make use of them in years to come? It is for this end also that schools are established.

His thoughts on the Divine Service are pretty straightforward.

 

[Per_Crucem]

But then I contrast how the traditional Lutheran service differs from Catholic. With the Catholic Mass as the base, add about three or four more hymns, sing all the responses, chant all the prayers, replace the sometimes rambling homily with a clear Law-Gospel-Application sermon based on the daily readings, modify the Eucharistic prayer so as to clarify that Christ is and provides the only Sacrifice, and you’ve arrived at Lutheran Gottesdienst.IMHO, that seems like enough difference to categorize it as a separate liturgical form.

True; the problem being, I suppose, is that the doctrine drives the liturgical form and that distinctive doctrine is not present in official Catholic teaching.

 

[spina1953]

Hi Topper: Enjoyed the #483 post. I will reply to that in another post later, but for now I want to take time to explore the Peasant War of 1525 and Luther’s part in it. Between 1493 and 1525, there were a number of rebellions and revolts by the peasantry who were increasingly being exploited by the nobility and the CC in Germany who were looking for ways in which they could exploit the peasantry in order to enrich their personal lives at their expense, pushing them further and further into serfdom, the product of a feudal system that prevented any upward mobility by the peasants, bringing them into a hopeless despair.

               The suppression of these revolts, especially the rebellion of 1525 was unparalleled in cruelty and bloodshed. Its been reckoned that something upwards of over a 100,000 peasants lost their lives. Fields, houses, barns were pillaged and destroyed by ruthless nobles and thousands more  became homeless fugitives. The authorities were determined to take full revenge exacting more and more from the peasantry and took more and more than ever before putting the peasantry into a condition of serfdom in which there was no hope and one of total despair. A contemporary pamphlet of the time said" Houses are burned, fields and vineyards lie fallow, clothes and household goods are stolen or burned, cattle and sheep are taken away, and likewise horses and trappings . The prince, the gentleman or the nobleman will have his rent and dues. Eternal God! whither shall the widows and the poor children go forth to seek it."

                  Luther had no choice but to side with the nobility since it was his only real protection against the CC and the peasantry who were revolting against the nobility, otherwise he would never succeed in his religious revolt against the CC. Luther knew that if he failed he would end up just as John Huss and his religious revolt would also fail. What helped Luther more than anything else was the propaganda pamphlets he had printed so that they could be read by those who could read and also be read to those who were illiterate, this did more than anything else not just to quell the revolt in favor of the nobility who were able to do so due to the peasants not being organized  in the most cruel and brutal manor but also to make his religious opponents into ignorant fools.

 

[steido01]

True; the problem being, I suppose, is that the doctrine drives the liturgical form and that distinctive doctrine is not present in official Catholic teaching.

Or if that distinctive doctrine is present, it is not so clearly articulated. Yet.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Or if that distinctive doctrine is present, it is not so clearly articulated. Yet.

Oh, for the day that they agree with St. Paul

 

[DaveArmstrong]

Yes, I gleaned *The Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia *Online from the catholic apologetics site mentioned, and and cut and pasted the source as a valuable provider of information. Guilty as charged. I’m grateful for being informed about it, despite the hostile polemic of the article mentioning it. If a blog entry is written about me, I do read it, and sift out the useful information if there is any.

Next.

This is fascinating, in light of TQs stated position about my research and papers regarding Martin Luther. Remember, here he used and recommended two sources for Lutheran-Anabaptist history that he discovered in my post (unattributed, of course, per his usual policy of never mentioning my name anymore: also enforced on his website: he tells folks not to ever even mention my name, and I’ve long been banned from commenting there).

Here he is inexplicably recommending the sources I brought to light, and as a special bonus, cites as the editor of the Mennonite Encyclopedia, an Anabaptist who has been dead almost 500 years (thus, he quoted me out of context, and gave us some of his own “shoddy” research, since I never made such a silly mistake).

Yet he has stated publicly that he thinks my papers about Luther and my related research are atrocious:

“Mr. Armstrong should know by now, I do not use his blog for Luther research . . . I do not approve of either his methods or abilities, . . .” (1-8-08)

“This is a big difference between DA and I. . . . I actually have a job, . . . On the other hand, I think DA considers sitting up in his attic tapping away on a computer all day an actual job. Oh that’s right, he’s a professional Catholic apologist.” (7-17-09)

“If someones work deserves respect, I’ll give it. If though they try to pass themselves off as something they’re not, I will continue to expose that work and write in such a way to show the work in question does not deserve to be taken seriously.” (8-4-09)

“. . . Romanists like . . .Mr. Armstrong who struggle greatly with research and contexts.” (9-13-09)

“Rather then simply admit you didn’t read Luther in context and subsequently put forth propaganda, you’d rather talk about your favorite subject: Dave Armstrong.” (2-26-10)

“Yes indeed, I do find your shenanigans quite odd behavior. However, as I’ve stated repeatedly while I think you’re wacky, other people take you seriously. . . .” (2-27-10)

“There is a reason why I’ve often said I don’t take his work seriously. That is, when I read it, I know I’m not getting the insights of someone looking honestly or in-depth at an issue involving Luther.” (3-1-10)​

That’s the background (that I wouldn’t expect anyone to be aware of). This is why it was so funny that he cited two sources drawn from my paper. That’s the same cutting-and-pasting that he has chided others for doing (including in this very thread). But why would he cite my discovered sources, seeing that his opinion of me is so low?

TQ’s opinion of my work (he can correct me if I am wrong) appears to have positively increased to an exponential degree over the past four years. Now he uses me as a source for Luther research (and even quotes me out of context!), and finds [gasp!!] “useful information” in one of my Luther papers!

Here he is using my research (uncredited): the very research that he has mocked and pilloried times without number, and the supposed work of a guy who doesn’t even have a job, pretends to be an apologist (no credentials at all; I merely “proclaimed” myself one, so he sez), is fundamentally dishonest, doesn’t know a context from a hole in the ground, sits in an “attic” banging away on his keyboard (it’s the upper floor of a standard bungalow) is full of himself (literally a “narcissist”), motivated only by filthy lucre and “glory,” and is (as a great likelihood, according to him) mentally ill.

Does that make any sense to anyone? If it does, please explain it to me! Thanks!

 

[Per_Crucem]

This is fascinating, in light of TQs stated position about my research and papers regarding Martin Luther. Remember, here he used and recommended two sources for Lutheran-Anabaptist history that he discovered in my post (unattributed, of course, per his usual policy of never mentioning my name anymore: also enforced on his website: he tells folks not to ever even mention my name).

Do I have your permission to refer to you as He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named?

 

[DaveArmstrong]

Do I have your permission to refer to you as He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named?

Absolutely! We need to have as much fun with this as we can. Book reviews without the title of the book OR the author, deletions of my name, even if someone else dares to mention me on his site (he did this today in a comment by my friend Paul Hoffer) . . . who could make this stuff up? :shrug:

 

[spina1953]

This is fascinating, in light of TQs stated position about my research and papers regarding Martin Luther. Remember, here he used and recommended two sources for Lutheran-Anabaptist history that he discovered in my post (unattributed, of course, per his usual policy of never mentioning my name anymore: also enforced on his website: he tells folks not to ever even mention my name, and I’ve long been banned from commenting there).

Here he is inexplicably recommending the sources I brought to light, and as a special bonus, cites as the editor of the Mennonite Encyclopedia, an Anabaptist who has been dead almost 500 years (thus, he quoted me out of context, and gave us some of his own “shoddy” research, since I never made such a silly mistake).

Yet he has stated publicly that he thinks my papers about Luther and my related research are atrocious:

“Mr. Armstrong should know by now, I do not use his blog for Luther research . . . I do not approve of either his methods or abilities, . . .” (1-8-08)

“This is a big difference between DA and I. . . . I actually have a job, . . . On the other hand, I think DA considers sitting up in his attic tapping away on a computer all day an actual job. Oh that’s right, he’s a professional Catholic apologist.” (7-17-09)

“If someones work deserves respect, I’ll give it. If though they try to pass themselves off as something they’re not, I will continue to expose that work and write in such a way to show the work in question does not deserve to be taken seriously.” (8-4-09)

“. . . Romanists like . . .Mr. Armstrong who struggle greatly with research and contexts.” (9-13-09)

“Rather then simply admit you didn’t read Luther in context and subsequently put forth propaganda, you’d rather talk about your favorite subject: Dave Armstrong.” (2-26-10)

“Yes indeed, I do find your shenanigans quite odd behavior. However, as I’ve stated repeatedly while I think you’re wacky, other people take you seriously. . . .” (2-27-10)

“There is a reason why I’ve often said I don’t take his work seriously. That is, when I read it, I know I’m not getting the insights of someone looking honestly or in-depth at an issue involving Luther.” (3-1-10)​

That’s the background (that I wouldn’t expect anyone to be aware of). This is why it was so funny that he cited two sources drawn from my paper. That’s the same cutting-and-pasting that he has chided others for doing (including in this very thread). But why would he cite my discovered sources, seeing that his opinion of me is so low?

TQ’s opinion of my work (he can correct me if I am wrong) appears to have positively increased to an exponential degree over the past four years. Now he uses me as a source for Luther research (and even quotes me out of context!), and finds [gasp!!] “useful information” in one of my Luther papers!

Here he is using my research (uncredited): the very research that he has mocked and pilloried times without number, and the supposed work of a guy who doesn’t even have a job, pretends to be an apologist (no credentials at all; I merely “proclaimed” myself one, so he sez), is fundamentally dishonest, doesn’t know a context from a hole in the ground, sits in an “attic” banging away on his keyboard (it’s the upper floor of a standard bungalow) is full of himself (literally a “narcissist”), motivated only by filthy lucre and “glory,” and is (as a great likelihood, according to him) mentally ill.

Does that make any sense to anyone? If it does, please explain it to me! Thanks!

Hi Dave: I just read your post and also the link to your blog about Luther and research etc. and found it to be very good imfor as I was reading and researching propaganda during the time of Luther and it just seems to me that TQ does the same thing. It is one thing to say that the historical figure in question did this or that, thought this or that or said this or that and give a opinion about it which by the way is what historians do to make their own point concerning how they understand it and it is another to question and make remarks that are disparaging about the person doing the research.
I have read some of the things you have posted on Luther etc. and I have followed that up with researching scholars as well as reading the actual works of Luther and those who supported him and find that all that you have posted and said on your blog about Luther is factual. While I am not an apologist by any means, I think that I am smart enough to know the difference between facts and uncouth remarks and spin. Thanks for your work and just keep it up as you will always have those who know the difference between you with facts and spin.

 

[TertiumQuid]

I think that I am smart enough to know the difference between facts and uncouth remarks and spin.

If this is about me, which I think it is, I am not the subject of this discussion, nor have I made any you the subject of this discussion. Rather, I’ve asked factual questions about the material being posted, and a lot of these factual questions I’ve raised, if not most of them, have been ignored.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Thread has run its course
Closed