Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

[guanophore]

Actually I have tremendous empathy for Luther (pity actually).  What must his interior life have been like that it demanded that he hold himself to be right in the face of SO MANY people who were telling him otherwise?  How bad must his terrors have been that he was forced to be that hateful to his opponents and claim that they were liars or the tools of Satan, simply for their disagreement with him?

Ok, so at least you have pity, so that is a start, but you did not answer my question. Do you pray for him, and those that have been influenced by his work?

Speaking for myself only, I will tell you that if the Lutherans (and apparently you) had their way, NONE of these ‘inconvenient facts’ about Luther would EVER reach the surface. Even here on a thread about who Luther was and why he was excommunicated (which BTW I did not start), Lutherans would rather talk about ANYTHING other than Luther.

That has not been my experience on CAF, but I suspect that many have been reared the same as you were - thinking of him as a hero.

Many Lutherans here on CAF don’t want to talk about the dark side of Luther because it is not part of their belief system. They don’t subscribe to much of what he believed and wrote, and should not have to defend him for it.

The ‘positive elements’ of Luther have been SO OVERREPORTED throughout the last 500 years that the scale must be balanced.

OIC. You are not prejudiced, you are just on some kind of self appointed balancing mission?

 Guano – do you believe that people deserve to know the WHOLE truth about Luther or should they ONLY be exposed to the version that Lutherans would prefer that they see.  I ask you – have you EVER seen a Lutheran EVER deal with those ‘inconvenient facts’ about Luther in an open manner or rather do you always see them skirting the truth and spinning like tops, refusing to answer simple questions?

As I said, my experience on CAF has been very different. But you are right, I do not see Lutherans going around showcasing the dark side of Luther, just as you will not see me showcasing the Medici Popes.

**

Where should the embarrassing facets of Luther’s ‘career’ be discussed except for a thread like this on a Catholic Apologetics site (which again, I did not start). This thread is about who Luther was and why he was excommunicated. Is it not acceptable for me to express my opinions here, especially when, quite frankly, I document and justify what I say FAR MORE than anyone else on this thread (Spina and others accepted). **

I am glad that you recognize they are your opinions, and you are to be commended for your scholarship.

Topper17:

There is that word again, which is a false charge and which you actually misuse here. Again, the ‘good in Luther’ is about all you would ever hear if you learned your ‘Luther information’ from only Lutheran sources.

Ok, Topper. Perhaps your self appointed mission of righteousness to “balance” the facts is not rooted where it appears. Perhaps it emanates from a personal wound - maybe you are indignant because you felt tricked when you finally learned the truth? Whatever the source, there is a judgmenatal tone to it that says as much about you as it does about Luther.

The fact is guano, that there are thousands of people here looking for the truth about whether the Church is what it claims to be or whether they should pursue one of the countless numbers of ‘other alternatives’.  The way I see it, those people deserve to see the truth also, especially on a Catholic Apologetics site.  If Lutherans were more forthcoming and more willing to engage in an open and honest dialogue, dialogue on the issues would be possible.

The fact that you cannot see Lutherans on CAF having an open and honest dialogue also speaks volumes about your perceptions.

Lutherans should not be held responsible for defending Luther. Your insistence that they do so is a violation of the forum rules, and is offputting.

That Luther was better educated than the typical priest of his day is completely beside the point. The point is that Luther revolted against the Church and it’s teachings. By what authority did he do so?

His own, of course!

You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).

 

[guanophore]

Surely you can see the inconsistency in your argument here?

But there is nothing prejudiced about it!

 

[guanophore]

Tetzel was 22 when he graduated 6th in a class of 56, receiving a Baccoalaureate and around 1497 or so received a Doctorate on Theology. So Tetzel was not mere priest with little education but a very well educated one from the university of Leipzig which was much better university than the university at Wittenberg which only began in 1502 and not as well known as other universities of the day. He was very well thought of by Cajetan and others and was a Dominican Priest, which Luther did not like at all from what he has said in many of his letters and at debates most notably the Debate at :Leipzig in 1519, when he told the prince that he would not accept anyone from the Dominicans as judges or for any other reason.

Speaking of prejudice!

 

[guanophore]

Guano,

There really are a great many ignorant Catholics (besides myself, I mean)…

But if you think it is necessary, I could also apologize for those who are on missions of righteousness or balance or whatever.

Here is the crux of the matter guano, which I offer for your comment:

I would like to have you tell me what you MUST think of a Christian Theologian who taught the following:

1. That, in writing, rabbis be executed for the crime of teaching the Jewish Faith to Jews.
2. That, in writing, Anabaptists be executed, not for sedition, but simply for believing incorrectly (according to Luther of course).
3. That, in writing, the property of the Church be stolen from it.
4. That, in writing, the secular leaders be exhorted to slaughter the peasants, without mercy. (100,000 were – without mercy exactly as recommended).
5. That a highly influential and supportive Prince be officially sanctioned a bigamous marriage, and then that ‘theologian’ (Luther of course) exhort everyone involved to lie about it.
6. That, in writing, people should wash their hands in the blood of the cardinals and the popes.

**“If we punish thieves with the yoke, highwayman with the sword, and heretics with fire, why do we not rather assault these monsters of perdition, these cardinals, these popes, and the whole swarm of the Roman Sodom, who corrupt youth and the Church of God? Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?”, Luther, “On the Papacy at Rome”, **1520

I don’t know if he is the MOST violent theologian ever, but off hand I can’t think of one who ranks higher.

In the year before he was excommunicated Luther was calling for the blood of Catholic Cardinals and the Pope. This quote speaks directly to the nature and character of the man.

Indeed, and well answers the question of the thread.

The man who is responsible for the 6 issues listed above (and many more) is also the man who ‘decided’ that the Pope is the antichrist, a charge which Lutheranism still holds as an official teaching, although I would guess that the vast majority of Lutherans are sophisticated and intelligent enough to reject this ridiculous notion (assuming they were to actually find out about it).

I think the popes’ antichristian behavior earned it, but I disagree that sophisticated and intelligent Lutherans reject this. I have known a great many on CAF who have not.

We reap what we sow, and the popes, cardinals and bishops sowed corruption, and the fruit has become full grown.

It is an undeniable and obvious FACT that a man such as this should not have been a priest and he certainly should not have been allowed to as a Christian Theologian and Scriptural Exegete to teach Christian priests in training.

And yet, the Catholic Church ordained him as a priest, trained him in theology, and appointed him to teach.

It was from the mind of this same man that sprung Sola Scriptura + the “Right” of the individual to Privately Interpret the Holy Scriptures (SS+PI), and of course, Salvation by Faith Alone.

He was not the first to challenge the authority of the Church using Scripture, he was just the first one the Church could not eliminate before such damage was done.

There are more issues than the above 6 if you are interested, all of which speak directly to the question as to who Luther was. In each of these six and more, Dr. Martin Luther spewed Scripture furiously in order to justify his violence.

Actually I have no doubts about why Luther was excommunicated. I just got on this thread because more than one of my Lutheran siblings in Christ mentioned that there were a couple of Catholics here that have a tendency to create an adversarial environment.

 

[guanophore]

How in the world do your respect someone who has demonstrated such an ability to completely bastardize the Christian Gospel as evidenced in these six issues?  How in the world could anyone possibly have ANY faith in ANY of the rest of what else came from the mind of a man like this?

Truth is Truth, Topper, no matter where it is found. Luther had some things to say that were true, and his agitation brought to a head that the Church needed reform. You seem to believe that the evil stamps out the good, and for the sake of all those souls that follow Christ within the Lutheran communion, I am glad that this is not the case.

If these things should not be discussed on a threa d titled: “Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?”, (on a Catholic Apologetics site no less), then where, specifically and exactly, should they be discussed?

Actually, Topper, I don’t get the sense that you are really interested in discussion at all. You seem to want to get on your soapbox and vent your bile toward Luther. In fact, you just stated in the previous post that you do not believe that Lutherans will have an honest dialogue!

You can claim that I am ‘uncharitable’ towards Luther if you like, but the fact is that I am at least 100 times more charitable towards him than he was towards his opponents. In addition, I am at least 1000 times more charitable towards those Christians who follow him today than he was to his opponents.

Well, I am not sure that using Luther as a standard of charity is very useful, but I am glad that you find yourself charitable in your own assessment. I know from reading your posts that you will continue to assert your righteous position, and will ignore the pleas of any of your Christian siblings that do not find your polemics charitable.

The fact that you criticize me for revealing the truth about this man and call me ‘prejudiced’ against him is shocking to me. As a matter of fact, I have extremely good reasons for my negative opinion of the man, reasons that many here do not want to address at all.

In that case, I commend you to your reasons, whatever they are. Just for the record, I was not criticizing the revelation of the truth, ,but your opinions/conclusions and your attitude.

God Bless You guano, Topper

And may He spare me from missions of rightousness!

 

[McCartney]

I think we have done this to death. Luther did some crazy things but lets put the past aside and concentrate on the present and the future.

After joining CA, I am surprised at the love and devotion Lutherans have for the Catholic Church. Let us not destroy that. Let us welcome our Lutheran brothers and may we all be one soon.

 

[steido01]

This post has some glaring omissions of context and twisting of facts. I’ve considered letting this sort of post go by without comment, relying on the good sense of others to make an informed decision, but CAF is one of the first results that search engines bring up. Often, this may be the only interaction some people have with Christians. So with charity and without malice, please consider this response from a fellow brother in Christ.

I would like to have you tell me what you MUST think of a Christian Theologian who taught the following:

1. That, in writing, rabbis be executed for the crime of teaching the Jewish Faith to Jews.

This was, regrettably, common Catholic thinking of the time. Many Popes have also ordered and/or tolerated this sort of action. Lord, have mercy on all of us sinners. Teach us to reach out to those who do not know You with love, that they may come to You.

1. That, in writing, Anabaptists be executed, not for sedition, but simply for believing incorrectly (according to Luther of course).

Many popes also ordered and/or tolerated violence against not just Anabaptists, but Protestants in general. In fact, this was one thing that Reformers and Roman Catholics agreed on; we’d pause our squabbling just long enough to kill the Anabaptists. Lord, have mercy on all of us sinners. Give us the strength and patience to correct error by love and example, not coercion or the sword.

1. That, in writing, the property of the Church be stolen from it.

Are you referring to Luther’s advice regarding monasteries? That truly is sad - especially since many of those monasteries had taken advantage of the poor to amass their earthly wealth. Where did Christ say we were to store up our treasures? Lord, have mercy on all of us sinners. Remind us that all we have is a gift from You. Keep us steadfastly fixed on the real Treasure.

1. That, in writing, the secular leaders be exhorted to slaughter the peasants, without mercy. (100,000 were – without mercy exactly as recommended).

Are you referring to the German Peasants’ War? In that conflict, peasants goaded on by Muntzer tried to wrongly apply Luther’s words for spiritual and ecclesial reform as cause for a socio-political-economic revolt and murdered knights, ladies, noble children and anyone else considered part of the 1500’s “1%.” sides in the war - the peasants for their murders and the nobles for their atrocitiesboth. He was horrified and grieved that people would do such things to each other. Lord, have mercy on us. Help us to learn from the tragedies of the past.

1. That a highly influential and supportive Prince be officially sanctioned a bigamous marriage, and then that ‘theologian’ (Luther of course) exhort everyone involved to lie about it.

Want a Lutheran to point out where Luther was wrong? Here’s a fine example. I, personally, think Luther prescribed the wrong pastoral care for a very difficult and tragic case, as he himself would essentially admit. Lord, have mercy. We and our neighbors struggle with the desire for the pleasures of the world. Lead us away from temptation, and deliver us from all evil.

Continued…

 

[steido01]

Continued…

1. That, in writing, people should wash their hands in the blood of the cardinals and the popes.

“If we punish thieves with the yoke, highwayman with the sword, and heretics with fire, why do we not rather assault these monsters of perdition, these cardinals, these popes, and the whole swarm of the Roman Sodom, who corrupt youth and the Church of God? Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?”, Luther, “On the Papacy at Rome”, 1520

You have omitted context here. This was written in response to Pope Leo X’s contention that the burning of all “heretics” was not against the will of the Spirit. Unless one is Drax the Destroyer , it ought to be obvious to any literate person that Luther is using a rhetorical device. Do read what Luther wrote to some Roman Catholics when his incendiary language went ‘over their heads:’

“I wrote ‘If we burn heretics, why do we not rather attack the pope and his followers with the sword and wash our hands in their blood?’ Since I do not approve of the burning of heretics nor of killing any Christian – this I well know does not accord with the gospel – I have shown what they deserve if heretics deserve fire. There is no need to attack you with the sword.
Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther, Bainton, p.142-143

Martin Luther’s failure to respond with love in this instance teaches us the importance of speaking good words, even about our accusers. Lord have mercy on all of us who curse, swear, lie and deceive; teach us instead to call upon Your Name in every trouble, pray, praise and give thanks - even for our sufferings.

There are more issues than the above 6 if you are interested,

Would that serve to heal any wounds to unity? Instead, why not tell me about Catholicism? Tell me why you love it, if you do.

You are in my prayers,

 

[Annie39]

Continued…

You have omitted context here. This was written in response to Pope Leo X’s contention that the burning of all “heretics” was not against the will of the Spirit. Unless one is Drax the Destroyer , it ought to be obvious to any literate person that Luther is using a rhetorical device. Do read what Luther wrote to some Roman Catholics when his incendiary language went ‘over their heads:’

​

Martin Luther’s failure to respond with love in this instance teaches us the importance of speaking good words, even about our accusers. Lord have mercy on all of us who curse, swear, lie and deceive; teach us instead to call upon Your Name in every trouble, pray, praise and give thanks - even for our sufferings.

Would that serve to heal any wounds to unity? Instead, why not tell me about Catholicism? Tell me why you love it, if you do.

You are in my prayers,

Your request is of course is against the rules in that it is off topic. Perhaps you would like to start another thread on your topic.

Annie

 

[Per_Crucem]

Your request is of course is against the rules in that it is off topic. Perhaps you would like to start another thread on your topic.

Annie

 

[Topper17]

Tetzel was 22 when he graduated 6th in a class of 56, receiving a Baccoalaureate and around 1497 or so received a Doctorate on Theology. So Tetzel was not mere priest with little education but a very well educated one from the university of Leipzig which was much better university than the university at Wittenberg which only began in 1502 and not as well known as other universities of the day. He was very well thought of by Cajetan and others and was a Dominican Priest, which Luther did not like at all from what he has said in many of his letters and at debates most notably the Debate at :Leipzig in 1519, when he told the prince that he would not accept anyone from the Dominicans as judges or for any other reason.

Hi Spina,

I for one, very much appreciate your hard work researching this subject. You are adding to the factual knowledge base of this thread, rather than just posting your opinions unsupported. Please keep up the good work.

With respect to Tetzel’s education, it might be good to compare it to Luther’s academic record.

“Luther received a good education, although he was not academically gifted: in exams he took at the age of 18, he came in 30th out of 57 students.” Jonathan Hill, “The History of Christian Thought”, pg. 181

As you know, the Legend of Luther portrays him as being brilliant, a genius really. However, here we learn that he finished in the bottom half of his college class, while Tetzel was in the top 15%. But more important to this discussion is whether Luther actually knew well the teachings of the Church.

We have seen how Luther was apparently not aware that he was straying from Catholic teaching, which indicates that he didn’t know the teachings of the Church well at all. The literature bears this out.

“On close examination of Luther s theological studies we find that his preparation for the office of professor- so far as a knowledge of the positive doctrine of the Church, of the Fathers and of good Scholasticism is concerned was all too meager. He had not at his command the time necessary for penetrating deeply into dogma or into its presentment by earlier exponents.” Grisar, Vol. 1, pg. 126-8

Even a Lutheran PhD concurs:

**“His course of theology, however, appears to have been rather short and must have been incomplete, because we find that he was raised to the priesthood in a very short time after the year of his novitiate was completed. We have no satisfactory explanation of this very peculiar fact, to say the least.” **Henry Lindemann, PhD, (Lutheran Minister), “Martin Luther, Man of God”, pg. 34-35

Of course there is an explanation. Father (and Dr.) Staupitz was in great need of someone to assume his teaching responsibilities, and he had a great deal of regard for Luther (at least at the time – later, not so much). In fact it was Staupitz who made Luther a priest, who convinced him to become a Professor, and who sent him to Wittenberg to take his place. It was also Staupitz who turned his back on Luther after he had begun his revolt which caused Luther great sadness.

Again Spina, thanks for the facts. Personally I find them to be much more compelling than opinions.

God Bless You, Topper

 

[guanophore]

Would that serve to heal any wounds to unity?
You are in my prayers,

I think the context of some of the statements Luther made interferes with the mission to demonstrate Luther as the source of the whole “deformation”.

The mission some how requires that, when Catholics did the same thing, they are exempt from criticism, but that Luther is contemptible.

 

[Topper17]

Topper, Luther is dead. What more is there to deal with? He was a sinner who loved God and followed his conscience. He said some beautiful and true things, and he said some terribly wrong things. If the Lutherans on this board (who you may have noticed have a great love for the Catholic church and our siblings therein) slavishly agreed with every word Luther said, we would not be here.

Let’s move on.

Hi Still,

To me this looks like “Just move along – there’s nothing to see here”. I am also reminded of that great scene in the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy and her crew have noticed that there is a little rolly polly man behind a curtain pulling all of the levers and switches. He booms over the speakers:

“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”

The “Wizard” didn’t want to be recognized as a fraud, a poser, as no ‘wizard’ at all.

So – Luther is dead and there is nothing else to deal with? This would indicate that we no longer feel his influence. This would indicate that his teachings, which divided the Church, are no longer being followed.

I can certainly understand why you would wish that we stop looking into the facts about Luther. But it is necessary if we want to understand WHY we remain divided, and I strongly believe that it is only by understanding Luther that we can hope to work our way to unity.

“It is, of course, that same Luther with whom everyone who attempts to write a history of the Reformation must engage. ** For without Luther, we can be reasonably certain that there would have been no Reformation, or not the same Reformation.” **Cambridge Professor Patrick Collinson, “The Reformation”, pg. 6

Lutheran Professor Eric Gritsch, quoting another Lutheran Professor:

“The man Martin Luther who, like no other theologian before him, changed world history, whose basic Reformation insights have become the common property of Protestantism………” “Martin Luther’s Anti-Semitism, Against His Better Judgment”, pg. 129

The Great Alister McGrath, the Oxford Professor puts it this way:

“**Luther’s influence on virtually every aspect of Reformation thought is immense. His approaches to biblical interpretation, the doctrine of justification, and the sacraments remain theological landmarks……” **“Reformation Thought”, pg. 91

Harvard Professor Steven Ozment:

“**Luther started a process of spiritual fragmentation and competition that still goes on in Western Christendom today.” **“Protestants, The Birth of a Revolution”, pg. 1

German Educated Professor Heiko Holborn of Yale, refers to Luther as follows:

**“Who was the man who was destined to wreck the religious foundations of the Western world and with it the religious unity of the German people?”, **“A History of Modern Germany”, pg. 125

To be continued…………

 

[Topper17]

In an example of the kind of honesty which has earned Harvard Professor Richard Marius the scorn of Lutherans, even while they are forced to admire his Scholarship and writing ability:

“…….Luther hoped for the liberation of his ‘dear German people’ from the oppressive yoke of Italian tyranny and their unity under Christian government of an emperor dedicated to the gospel. None of that happened. Instead for more than a century after Luther’s death, Europe was strewn with slaughtered corpses of people who would have lived normal lives if Luther had never lived at all or if his friends had persuaded him to shake off the rash vow he made out of terror in a storm. Perhaps his influence would have been most benign had he died as a martyr shortly after he became a public figure, if he had been seized at Worms and rushed to the stake. Then we could have been more free to idolize him. **We would have had a more serene history, less hatred, less bloodshed, less massacre.” **Richard Marius, “Martin Luther, The Christian Between God and Death”, pg. 485-6

Marius pulls no punches and is not a fan of the Catholic Church either. I consider his biography to be the best of all that I have read. It is by far the best written, and is a ‘can’t put down’ read.

Marius’s assessment of Luther’s ‘contribution’ to Western civilization in to Christendom in particular is especially damning, and makes mine look tame by comparison. Personally, I believe that if it had not been Luther, it would have been someone else. The German princes were looking for an excuse to supplant Rome as an authority in Germany, and it doesn’t seem that they cared very much what Luther taught theologically. They used him and he used them. That being said, I agree with Collinson; if it hadn’t been Luther, whatever kind of ‘reformation’ there might have been would have undoubtedly been different, but I would also agree, probably much less violent. The violence that did occur, and it began immediately, with the wrecking of Catholic Churches and the Knights’ War, was a reflection of, and result of Luther’s violent nature.

Still – it doesn’t seem very intellectually honest to me (to say the least), or ‘brave’, to attempt to stifle this discussion about who Martin Luther was and why he was excommunicated, especially on this particular thread (which I didn’t start BTW). I believe that the BEST way to move ahead towards unity is in dealing with the reality of Luther and discovering WHY he did what he did. That might be a difficult thing for Lutherans especially to face, but the unity that we all want is not going to be accomplished without some ‘difficultly’.

As you know, there are people here who actually believe that there is a possibility that there could be a future “Lutheran wing” of the Catholic Church, fully in union with Rome, while still in possession of and holding to the Lutheran Confessions. That is delusional.

Luther is the origin of most of what separates modern day Lutheranism and the Church. As an example, we need look no further than still held official position of the Lutheran communions that the pope is the antichrist. Luther is responsible for that theological ‘gem’ and relegating it to where it belongs is going to, by necessity, involve an admission, by Lutheranism, officially, that Luther AND the Confessions, were wrong on that particular matter. It simply is not going to go away just because we foolishly ignore it, as is often suggested.

Personally I think that some elements of Lutheranism, not including most Lutherans here on CA, would almost prefer to see the Lutheran churches disappear into oblivion rather than admit that the Confessions are in error – on anything. That is too slippery a slope. As such, the unity that we all long for between Catholics and Lutherans (and other Protestants) is going to have to be accomplished one soul at a time, in the exact same way that the Church continues to gain a significant share of Lutheran Scholars, one at a time.

God Bless You Still, Topper

 

[EvangelCatholic]

What motivates some posters who spread deception and hate? Can a poster actually be Catholic and post information that is intentionally contrary to what the Roman Catholic Church teaches? Wouldn’t that poster be considered a Catholic in name only, if that?

It seems odd to me that some posters seem, in fact, to be overtly anti-Catholic when it comes to living the faith in word and action.

 

[Tomyris]

What motivates some posters who spread deception and hate? Can a poster actually be Catholic and post information that is intentionally contrary to what the Roman Catholic Church teaches? Wouldn’t that poster be considered a Catholic in name only, if that?

It seems odd to me that some posters seem, in fact, to be overtly anti-Catholic when it comes to living the faith in word and action.

I think we all need to take care to watch our hearts when we endeavor to speak truth to those we disagree with. We can become what we hate, or discover we are already there. Glass houses, specks and beams in the eye, etc. God have mercy on us all.

 

[guanophore]

“On close examination of Luther s theological studies we find that his preparation for the office of professor- so far as a knowledge of the positive doctrine of the Church, of the Fathers and of good Scholasticism is concerned was all too meager. He had not at his command the time necessary for penetrating deeply into dogma or into its presentment by earlier exponents.” Grisar, Vol. 1, pg. 126-8r

I wonder if this was not part of the impetus for the focus in the CountterReformation on better education for priests. Sadly, Luther’s preparation, however inadequate it may have been, was much better than the majority of priests at the time, some of whom never had any college at all. I always thought the emphasis on better trained priests after Trent was a response to a loss of the sensus fidelum (that so many followed the Reformers) because they were not well educated, since the priests were not.

Certainly the great need at the time precipitated putting inadequately prepared people in such positions was a factor in the fracturing that occurred.

 

[guanophore]

To me this looks like “Just move along – there’s nothing to see here”. I am also reminded of that great scene in the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy and her crew have noticed that there is a little rolly polly man behind a curtain pulling all of the levers and switches. He booms over the speakers:

“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”

The “Wizard” didn’t want to be recognized as a fraud, a poser, as no ‘wizard’ at all.

The bottom line is that whatever failures he had, or inadequacies, it is irrelevant to healing the wounds to unity. It is not Luther today that is keeping us divided. He just doesn’t have that much power.

So – Luther is dead and there is nothing else to deal with?

I don’t think anyone said that. What people are saying is that finding fault with Luther as a person does not get us any progress on dealing with the things that separate us.

 This would indicate that we no longer feel his influence.

I dont’ think it means that at all. Protestants celebrate “Reformation Sunday” every year at the anniversary of the Theses.

This would indicate that his teachings, which divided the Church, are no longer being followed.

This is just complete BS. What Lutherans follow today will not be influenced at all by your finding faults and inadequacies with the man. They follow the confessions and catechisms that were developed and adopted. They see the good in these products of Luther’s work, and your “mission” to discredit him is not going to change that.

I can certainly understand why you would wish that we stop looking into the facts about Luther.

You have made the accurate point that the place to do it is a thread such as this.

But it is necessary if we want to understand WHY we remain divided, and I strongly believe that it is only by understanding Luther that we can hope to work our way to unity.

I see that this is necessary for you to do this for yourself. It is a public forum, so it would not be appropriate for me to ask about the roots of this need that you have, but I will commend you to it. Each person finds their way to the Truth as best they can, and for some reason, yours must go through the graveyard of Luther’s shortcomings.

I think you are mistaken that finding fault with Luther as a person is going to bring healing to our divisions, but I do support your freedom to embrace such a position. Hereafter when I encounter your ad hominem attacks of Luther on the threads, I will understand better that this is coming out of a need of yours.

 “It is, of course, that same Luther with whom everyone who attempts to write a history of the Reformation must engage. ** For without Luther, we can be reasonably certain that there would have been no Reformation, or not the same Reformation.” **Cambridge Professor Patrick Collinson, “The Reformation”, pg. 6

I don’t think the history of the Reformation is a main factor in continued separation, either. I agree it is important to understand how we got where we are, but we cannot solve the present divisions by rehashing the history of the Reformation.

“**Luther started a process of spiritual fragmentation and competition that still goes on in Western Christendom today.” **“Protestants, The Birth of a Revolution”, pg. 1

This is what we need to be dealingn with now. The present fragmentation and competition that fuels division.

German Educated Professor Heiko Holborn of Yale, refers to Luther as follows:

**“Who was the man who was destined to wreck the religious foundations of the Western world and with it the religious unity of the German people?”, **“A History of Modern Germany”, pg. 125

Well, I think that gives Luther too much power also. Luther was a pebble that started an avalanche, but the rocks that caused the wrecking were put there by centuries of corrupt Catholic Popes, Cardinals, bishops and priests. Focusing all the blame on Luther excludes the fact that the conditions in which he was able to wreck the havoc began half a millennia before he was born. The princes of Germany used Luther as an excuse and an anvil to wrest their lands and wealth away from Rome. Why did they feel a need to do that, I wonder?

To be continued…………

I have no doubt.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I think we all need to take care to watch our hearts when we endeavor to speak truth to those we disagree with. We can become what we hate, or discover we are already there. Glass houses, specks and beams in the eye, etc. God have mercy on us all.

Is it inappropriate to ask for charity from Catholic posters? To express how hurtful comments can be? Especially when it is directed to your own Church?

I try to avoid going where I might be tempted to write something hateful. The recent beheading of a Christian stirred up intense feelings inside me. And my New York instinct is to speak my mind. But all I could do is ask that James Foley be taken to Heaven and that the suffering end for all people.

 

[guanophore]

Is it inappropriate to ask for charity from Catholic posters? To express how hurtful comments can be? Especially when it is directed to your own Church?

Not at all. In fact, the forum rules are for everyone.
"CONDUCT RULES:

Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language. 

Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda.

Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the  Catholics participating on the board.

Catholics must be charitable in their discussions about non-Catholic belief and practice.

I think that the single minded agenda at work on this and other threads where Luther has come up has led to a less than charitable discussion in some cases. There are some Lutherans here who have withdrawn from the discussion as a result, and that seems to me as just a continuation of the wounds to unity.

I try to avoid going where I might be tempted to write something hateful.

It is very Catholic to avoid the “near occasion of sin”.