Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

[spina1953]

Presumably, your reason for asking first is to provide the quoted person an opportunity to defend (or recant) their already-public words from misapplication and/or misunderstanding. Will you afford the dead the same courtesy?

No problem; with that, anyone
can defend, recant, in what ever way they choose. Everyone has free will to choose and have an opinion trying; to understand what public words said from the dead and should not be done with bias but with understanding without meanness.

 

[TertiumQuid]

I think that this is an interesting perspective from which to dialogue with Catholics on a Catholic apologetics site. Given that this is the way that you honestly really feel about Catholics, assuming it’s all the same to you, I am going to have to pass on responding to you – permanently.

I’ve been a member of the Catholic Answers forums since 2004. I try, as much as possible, to abide by the rules that I agreed to when I signed up in 2004. I don’t post here to proselytize. I try not to question the sincerity of other posters (though sometimes one does wonder what motivates people!). I try not to "use embarrassing incidents to claim that they ‘prove’ a particular religion is false." I don’t “expect members of any Church to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism” of their church.

I have no desire to know about you personally, or discuss anything about you personally (or anyone here for that matter). True, I have my views of other religious bodies other than my own, but this doesn’t mean I personally hate or despise those who hold a different view than what I believe. What interests me is factual information about the Reformation. I’ve discussed the Reformation with catholics, muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, Lutherans… you name it. What I personally think about any religious group isn’t the topic of discussion here.

I’ve seen posts here from wiccans and atheists on the Catholic Answers forums. That I may have yet one more unpopular view here really shouldn’t be the issue. You’ve offered factual information on aspects of the Reformation. Some of this information I’ve looked up, and it appears to me some of these facts are less than accurate. If you don’t want to respond, well, that’s fine. I’m grateful for the opportunity given me here to present what I find when I look up the same information.

 

[TertiumQuid]

I also saw that site Beggars All Reformation and when I looked at the part where you click on to Using Popular Protestant Luther Biography to discredit Luther I saw that James Swan as Tertlium Quid had posted Toppers CAF post on the site and when I saw that I thought it not very nice to post someone post on another site without permission from the poster. I think Topper you might want to notify the mods about that and see if someone can take posts from CAF and post it on another site without permission from the one who made the post. Now because of it I will no long reply to any posts by Tertlium Quid. I would like to add this and I quote" One good thing about CA Forums is that they have a word count. My original response was much longer, but I edited it down to CA’s parameters." This was in response to your Post using it to make an anti-Catholic point.

What I find ironic is that well-known catholic bloggers do stuff like this all the time, and, they’ve done it to me. Forums are public, and, in this instance, the person whom I quoted was anonymous. Sometimes I re-post the interactions I have to keep a record of them, and also for the benefit of others who may come across the same factual errors. I rarely do any significant editing. The posts are what they are. If anything, they probably serve more as advertisements for the websites they came from.

And yes, it is a good thing CAF has a word count.

 

[TertiumQuid]

This is an off topic post, Topper, but I find your reaction curious. He has come to a thread discussion the reasons for the excommunication of Luther. Everyone is welcome to participate in CAF discussions, so long as they follow the forum rules.

I appreciate this. Look at this way: if I post factual information that isn’t accurate, you all have the opportunity to correct my errors.

For instance: Did anyone look up what I posted here to see if I was in error? Did anyone look up what I posted here to see if I made some mistakes? The assertions are from a leading biography of Martin luther, that someone else posted. I don’t think these texts are obscure. I don’t think they’re open to multiple interpretation. if I read this text wrong, I’ll admit it and move on.

 

[Denise1957]

Hi quano,

Thanks for your response.

Actually what you say here is correct - as far as it goes. In fact, during the first year in the monastery Luther’s horrible terrors were kept in check by his keeping to the monastic regulations. During this initial period in the monastery, there was none of the extremely odd behavior which caused his fellow monks to later ‘wonder’ about him.

“To his superiors Luther seemed fitted for the career of a theologian both by his natural ability and his university training, and accordingly as soon as he had taken the vow he began to prepare himself for the priesthood.” Protestant Theologian Arthur Cushman McGiffert, “Martin Luther”, pg. 25

“seemed fitted”

However, the peace that Luther achieved during the beginning of his monastery years was not to hold.

“**Unspeakable fear issuing in bodily prostration was also at work in him on the occasion of the already related incident in the choir of the Erfurt convent, when he fell to the ground crying out that he was not the man possessed. **Not only does Dungersheim relate it, on the strength of what he had heard from inmates of the monastery, but Cochlaeus also speaks of the incident, in his “Acta,” and, again, in coarse and unseemly language in the book he wrote in 1533, entitled " Von der Apostasey," doubtless also drawing his information from the Augustinian monks: “It is notorious how Luther came to be a monk; how he collapsed in choir, bellowing like a bull when the Gospel of the man possessed was being read ; how he behaved himself in the monastery,” etc. **We may recall, how, according to Cochlaeus, his brother monks suspected Luther, owing to this attack and on account of a “certain singularity of manner,” of being either under diabolical influence or an epileptic." **Grisar VI, pg. 101

“His state of mind gave his superiors much concern. Few were able to understand him. Some thought him unbalanced in mind; others suspected he was under the control of evil spirits.** In later days his enemies pointed to his unhappy experiences in the convent as proof of demoniacal possession**, and he himself interpreted them as assaults of his lifelong antagonist, the devil.” McGiffert, pg 29-30

When we look at the evidence of Luther’s bizarre behavior in the monastery and the reports that his fellow monks worried about his sanity, it is incomprehensible that he would be promoted to a position where he was not only a Priest, but a Professor responsible for training Priests. Staupitz is at the center of those promotions. He is also, according to Luther, the one who ‘inspired’ Luther to discover Salvation by Faith Alone (Ozment, ‘Age’, pg. 232)

In fact, it was Father Staupitz who heard Luther’s confessions, some of which lasted for 6 hours.

It was also Staupitz who (in 1518) after Luther’s ‘interview’ with Cardinal Cajetan, released Luther from his vows as a monk, the first of his three ‘excommunications’. It was also at that meeting that Staupitz told Cajetan that he had often tried to get Luther to recant and return to the teaching of the Church. However, by that time, Luther was not turning back. Staupitz ended up not returning Luther’s letters which pained him to no end.

Whether the seal of the priesthood is valid and appropriate is not the point. The point is that some men who become priests are not at all suited for it. Personally, I agree with Harvard Professor Steven Ozment, and find that “it is incomprehensible that he would be promoted to a position where he was not only a Priest, but a Professor responsible for training Priests.”

Father and Doctor Staupitz is the man responsible for the elevation of Luther to the priesthood, getting him to agree to study thelogy (against Luther’s protests), and also assigning him to teach at the University of Wittenberg. Given the fact that Staupitz released Luther from his vows after the ‘interview’ with Cajatan, and ended up refusing to return his letters, do you somehow not believe that Staupitz believed he had made mistakes in recommending Luther for these roles?

Of course in the Reformation there is more than enough blame to go around, but for me, I place a lot of blame on Father Stapitz.

It would seem that if we really want to know who Luther was, we should probably spend some more time investigating his monastery years.

A lot of interesting info here, Topper, especially where Luther’s brother monks suspected him being under diabolical influence, or epilepsy, and that Luther himself interpreted them as ‘assaults from his lifelong antagonist, the Devil.’ There have been other Catholics who have also had to deal with assaults from the Devil, such as St. Padre Pio, and St, John Mary Vianney. But I don’t think that they were suspected of being possessed, but rather they experienced diabolical oppression.

I agree that with the info provided, that Fr. Staupitz is partly to blame for the situation of Luther being ordained and studying theology, and later training priests. He should have known that there were problems, and that there would be problems if Luther was ordained and teaching theology (not sure exectly what he was teaching, though). It would be helpful to know more about why Fr. Staupitz pushed Luther into the priesthood. It’s mentioned above that Fr. Staupitz inspired Luther to discover salvation by faith alone. I’d like to know more about that, if there’s a good source that might give more info.

I’d like to edit this and add that the info provided in the above post causes me to have sympathy for Luther, in that it gives some background into what may have influenced his later actions. Poor fellow. What was Fr. Staupitz thinking?

 

[Tomyris]

A lot of interesting info here, Topper, especially where Luther’s brother monks suspected him being under diabolical influence, or epilepsy, and that Luther himself interpreted them as ‘assaults from his lifelong antagonist, the Devil.’ There have been other Catholics who have also had to deal with assaults from the Devil, such as St. Padre Pio, and St, John Mary Vianney. But I don’t think that they were suspected of being possessed, but rather they experienced diabolical oppression.

I agree that with the info provided, that Fr. Staupitz is partly to blame for the situation of Luther being ordained and studying theology, and later training priests. He should have known that there were problems, and that there would be problems if Luther was ordained and teaching theology (not sure exectly what he was teaching, though). It would be helpful to know more about why Fr. Staupitz pushed Luther into the priesthood. It’s mentioned above that Fr. Staupitz inspired Luther to discover salvation by faith alone. I’d like to know more about that, if there’s a good source that might give more info.

I’d like to edit this and add that the info provided in the above post causes me to have sympathy for Luther, in that it gives some background into what may have influenced his later actions. Poor fellow. What was Fr. Staupitz thinking?

Better of him than that. Note the source, Cochlaeus, a vicious anti-Lutheran slanderer who has been referenced before in this thread. I would not believe a word of this, Denise. These are the lies that have wounded the Church for hundreds of years, now continued by Topper.

 

[Tomyris]

Hi Topper: I also saw that site Beggars All Reformation and when I looked at the part where you click on to Using Popular Protestant Luther Biography to discredit Luther I saw that James Swan as Tertlium Quid had posted Toppers CAF post on the site and when I saw that I thought it not very nice to post someone post on another site without permission from the poster. I think Topper you might want to notify the mods about that and see if someone can take posts from CAF and post it on another site without permission from the one who made the post. Now because of it I will no long reply to any posts by Tertlium Quid.

I would like to add this and I quote" One good thing about CA Forums is that they have a word count. My original response was much longer, but I edited it down to CA’s parameters." This was in response to your Post using it to make an anti-Catholic point.

Where is your equivalent protest of Topper copying material from Beggars All? And if you read the whole stream, you would see Topper clipped out the most damning section to post here, one that is not so bad, if bad at all, if you read the context. His reasons for doing so are crystal clear.

Topper is not just discrediting himself. He is damaging the whole cause of Catholic apologetics. I expect his posts are being copied onto sites much more inimical to Catholicism than Beggar’s All, with comments most uncomplimentary to your cause. He is not helping you (plural).

 

[Tomyris]

At this point I expect someone to say why, Tomi, you are a lute-fisk loving, jello-mold making Lutheran if ever there was one. It would be easy to find statements on CAF that demonstrate I am NOT Lutheran. I do not venerate Luther - he had some flaws, one of which was stubbornly refusing to unite with the Reformed when unity was attempted between us. The word ‘stubborn’ comes up a lot with respect to him. He was foul-mouthed, if ‘Table-Talk’ is to be believed.

And as far as running defense for Mr. Swan, I believe he should be treated fairly. As the Reformed go, he is not particularly anti-Catholic: if anything, he is more pro-Catholic than some Reformed. When the anti-Catholic Reformed show up around here, they get banned quickly. James should be welcomed and respected as a brother in Christ. Shame on those who won’t talk to him. He is very knowledgeable and careful, as far as I know. I wish CAF COULD handle the really anti-Catholic Reformed. That would be some fireworks. Mr. Swan is irenic in comparison to some of the people that, if you think about it, you should be engaging in dialog. There are people here, guanophore being one, who could handle it, but others who would be hitting the Report button obsessively. The Body of Christ needs these conversations.

 

[Topper17]

Hi quano,

Thanks for your response.

I not at all sure that Luther ever achieved “peace” until he finally arrived at “grace alone” many years later.

Actually Luther never achieved that peace. Not even the invention of Salvation by Faith Alone allowed for that peace.

He joined the strictest order he could find, and I think what kept his obsessive guilt in check, if it ever really was, related to the penitential activities.

Agreed. When he strayed from the activities that were designed to help, his problems became even worse than before.

It is very difficult, if not impossible, to diagnose someone 500 years in the past, based only upon extant documents. Certainly very many manifestations that we now understand as symptoms of mental illness were considered demonic.

I disagree. There are plenty of resected scholars, including Lutherans, who have commented on Luther’s psychological health. Luther seemed to feel compelled to write as much as he could, and did so normally without any editing. As such, much of what he wrote is actually very revealing as to his various emotional states. Some of those writings as you know were extremely violent. As you and I seem to agree, we don’t know of a more violent Theologian in Christian history. After having thought about his since the last time we discussed it, if you have a ‘nominee’ I would be happy to hear the name.

You use the term ‘symptoms of mental illness’. My point is that people who demonstrate the kind of psychological problems that Luther obviously had, SHOULD NOT be allowed to chart new theological directions (for the purpose of dealing with their personal problems) and in the process, potentially lead people astray.

20/20 hindsight…apparently everyone’s doubts were not sufficient to prevent him from becoming ordained?

True enough, but that is not to say that they should not have.

Whatever else you can say about the man, he was certainly passionate about his faith.

Amen to that. If people today as much as Luther and the people of his day did about doctrine, I think the world would be a lot better off. That being said, I think one of the unfortunate results of Luther’s teachings on Sola Scriptura is the doctrinal confusion that could result on ONLY a lesser importance on doctrine within Protestantism generally.

The bottom line is that God did not prevent this from happening. The Church weeds out most of those who go into discernment for the priesthood. Evidently, despite his oddities, he looked like a better candidate then many others. His passion perhaps made people set aside their concerns?

Of course he was a better candidate than the others. He was college educated and he was intelligent. Without all of the psychological problems he would have made for an ideal priest, Theologian and Professor to future priests. He could have been of great assistance in actually being a ‘reformer’ rather than a rebel.

As for God not preventing Luther from becoming a priest. God did not prevent the Holocaust either so I’m not sure if you have a much of a point.

no one could know better that he was completely pre-occupied by his faith and could think of nothing else! Maybe Staupitz thought he would grow out of it?

What evidence do you have for the conjecture that Staupitz would ‘grow out of it’?

You will get no argument from me on this point, but it is not an occasion to vilify those who were misdirected, and their spiritual directors failed to intervene.

Spritual directors make mistakes like everybody else, as Staupitz did here. As we have seen, it was Staupitz who was responsible for Luther’s becoming a priest, a Theologian and a Professor. This was the same Staupitz who basically abandoned Luther early in his Revolt. It would seem that Staupitz must have regretted his role in Luther’s advancement.

At Augsburg: “Cajetan promptly cooled off and had diner with Stauptiz, urging him to induce Luther to recant and insisting that Luther had no better friend than he. “I have often tried, but I am not equal to him in ability and command of Scripture. You are the pope’s representative. It is up to you.

“I am not going to talk to him any more,” said the cartinal. ‘His eyes are as deep as a lake, and there are amazing speculations in his head.’

Staupitz released Luther from his vow of obedience to the order. He may have wished to relieve the Augustinians of the onus, or he may sought to unfetter the friar, but Luther felt that he had been disclaimed. “I was excommunicated three times” he said later, ‘first by Staupitz, secondly by the pope, and thirdly by the emperor.” Bainton, pg. 80-81

There, its not really me saying that Luther was excommunicated three times. Its Luther himself.

Given that Staupitz tried to get Luther to recant as early as Augsburg and then denied him their once so close friendship, it is pretty clear that Staupitz regretted Luther’s promotions to higher positions.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Spina,

Hi Topper: I also saw that site Beggars All Reformation and when I looked at the part where you click on to Using Popular Protestant Luther Biography to discredit Luther I saw that James Swan as Tertlium Quid had posted Toppers CAF post on the site and when I saw that I thought it not very nice to post someone post on another site without permission from the poster. I think Topper you might want to notify the mods about that and see if someone can take posts from CAF and post it on another site without permission from the one who made the post. Now because of it I will no long reply to any posts by Tertlium Quid.

I would like to add this and I quote" One good thing about CA Forums is that they have a word count. My original response was much longer, but I edited it down to CA’s parameters." This was in response to your Post using it to make an anti-Catholic point.

I agree. Personally I don’t appreciate having what I post here dragged off to some site to make what I consider to be anti-Catholic points, especially if the thrust of my point is going to be misrepresented. But, if that is not forbidden by the moderators, then I guess it wouldn’t be wrong for someone else to do the same. Right?

God Bless You Spina, Topper

 

[guanophore]

I’ve been a member of the Catholic Answers forums since 2004. I try, as much as possible, to abide by the rules that I agreed to when I signed up in 2004. I don’t post here to proselytize. I try not to question the sincerity of other posters (though sometimes one does wonder what motivates people!). I try not to "use embarrassing incidents to claim that they ‘prove’ a particular religion is false." I don’t “expect members of any Church to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism” of their church.

I prayerfully trust that your participation here will not be hindered by the childish reactions of certain members. I think this part of the forum rules is also relevant:

WARNING: CAF cannot delete accounts. Forums sites, unlike social networking platforms, are open to Internet archiving by the various independent search engines, and members are responsible for understanding that and taking it into consideration before registering with our site.

7. Do not post anything on this web site that you do not want to remain online permanently.

It is very clear in the content guidelines that forum participants can expect that their posts will turn up on search engines and will be archived indefinitely. This does not speak specifically to them being quoted other places, but as you say, this is a common practice for bloggers. If one does not want one’s words thrown into the fray of discussion/blogdom, then one would be wise not to post them in this type of venue.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I appreciate this. Look at this way: if I post factual information that isn’t accurate, you all have the opportunity to correct my errors.

For instance: Did anyone look up what I posted here to see if I was in error? Did anyone look up what I posted here to see if I made some mistakes? The assertions are from a leading biography of Martin luther, that someone else posted. I don’t think these texts are obscure. I don’t think they’re open to multiple interpretation. if I read this text wrong, I’ll admit it and move on.

Personally, it would be a major loss to CAF if you left the forum over a minor concern of a few posters who both lack your knowledge and obvious respect for others.

 

[guanophore]

Did anyone look up [what I posted here](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12281678&postcount=433) to see if I made some mistakes?

Yes dadgummit and I couldn’t find even one!!!

 

[guanophore]

I wish CAF COULD handle the really anti-Catholic Reformed.  That would be some fireworks. Mr. Swan is irenic in comparison to some of the people that, if you think about it, you should be engaging in dialog. The Body of Christ needs these conversations.

Oh I agree with you Tomi. I have had some amazing fireworks here with my Reformed brethren.

I agree, this is definitely the place to explore our differences and work toward unity. We really do need to be able to communicate with one another (rather than giving the “silent treatment”).

We need to get beyond the hostilities and rhetoric between Luther and Pope Leo. Are we to stay caught in being offended by one another, or can mercy triumph over judgment?

Luther’s arrogance and stubborness were eventually the major factors in his execution. He was never humbly able to say, like other theologians “I defer to Holy Mother Church”. His writings would have been banned, maybe some of them later unbanned, and eventually all of them become part of academic discourse.

 

[guanophore]

I disagree. There are plenty of resected scholars, including Lutherans, who have commented on Luther’s psychological health.

Yes, but all we can do really is speculate. We can’t very well have him submit to a psychiatric evaluation.

You use the term ‘symptoms of mental illness’. My point is that people who demonstrate the kind of psychological problems that Luther obviously had, SHOULD NOT be allowed to chart new theological directions (for the purpose of dealing with their personal problems) and in the process, potentially lead people astray.

What is your prevention plan?

As for God not preventing Luther from becoming a priest. God did not prevent the Holocaust either so I’m not sure if you have a much of a point.

Just that we are not in a position to determine what should and should not have happened. God allows evil so that greater good can come. This is plainly seen in the sacrifice of His own Son, who, for the joy that was set before Him, endured the cross.

It is up to us to find the “resurrection” in this - the good that triumphs over evil.

What evidence do you have for the conjecture that Staupitz would ‘grow out of it’?

I meant that Staupitz may have had some concerns, but based on the passion, intellect, and availability of Luther he encouraged/pressured him into the priesthood, possibly thinking that Luther would outgrow his scrupulosity and impulsivity.

I am just speculating based on many years of spiritual direction, and how one can give vocational guidance to another based upon the candidates’ character and fruit maturing in a certain direction. Obviously, if Staupitz did think that Luther would mature out of his quirks, this did not happen.

. This was the same Staupitz who basically abandoned Luther early in his Revolt. It would seem that Staupitz must have regretted his role in Luther’s advancement.

Horrified, likely.

“I am not going to talk to him any more,” said the cartinal. ‘His eyes are as deep as a lake, and there are amazing speculations in his head.’

Sounds a little like Cajetan was afraid of him.

   Luther felt that he had been disclaimed.  “I was excommunicated three times” he said later, ‘first by Staupitz, secondly by the pope, and thirdly by the emperor.”  Bainton, pg. 80-81

There, its not really me saying that Luther was excommunicated three times. Its Luther himself.

Ok thanks for clarifying that. I am sure he did feel disclaimed.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

The topic, not each other.

 

[Denise1957]

Better of him than that. Note the source, Cochlaeus, a vicious anti-Lutheran slanderer who has been referenced before in this thread. I would not believe a word of this, Denise. These are the lies that have wounded the Church for hundreds of years, now continued by Topper.

Actually I do think better of Luther with the info provided from Topper. If I could travel back into time and meet with Luther (though I don’t speak German) I would give him a hug or pat him on the back and tell him to relax and that everything will be okay and let’s figure out a solution based on prayer and obedience, and maybe find a good spiritual director.

But that’s hindsight.

As far as Cochlaeus being a vicious anti-Lutheran slanderer, I don’t think it’s been shown that he’s a slanderer. Perhaps you can prove that his conclusions are wrong. As far as being vicious, I don’t see that Cochlaeus writing is more vicious than, say, Luther’s writings about the “evil anti-Christ Pope and Rome.” I mean, Luther just goes on and on with his attack on the Pope and Rome. It’s rather disturbing. So I can see that you don’t like what Cochlaeus says, but I can’t discount it yet.

 

[guanophore]

I mean, Luther just goes on and on with his attack on the Pope and Rome. It’s rather disturbing. So I can see that you don’t like what Cochlaeus says, but I can’t discount it yet.

I suspect that the Pope and Rome took the place (psychologically) of Luther’s father (a transference) and inherited a lot of rage that Luther bottled up from the time he was a young boy, unable to please a demanding and non-nurturing parent who was a harsh disciplinarian.

 

[steido01]

As far as Cochlaeus being a vicious anti-Lutheran slanderer, I don’t think it’s been shown that he’s a slanderer. Perhaps you can prove that his conclusions are wrong. As far as being vicious, I don’t see that Cochlaeus writing is more vicious than, say, Luther’s writings about the “evil anti-Christ Pope and Rome.” I mean, Luther just goes on and on with his attack on the Pope and Rome. It’s rather disturbing. So I can see that you don’t like what Cochlaeus says, but I can’t discount it yet.

If calling Luther’s mother a whore who conceived Martin through intercourse with Satan himself and literally regretted not having aborted him isn’t vicious slander, then I’d be interested in knowing by what principles you define the term.

Cochlaeus was also fond of rather slanderous artwork:
http://fineartamerica.com/images-si.../the-seven-heads-of-martin-luther-everett.jpg

And Luther’s polemics were just as nasty. It was a different time, and thankfully, we are past this. Well, most of us. We mustn’t try to be amateur psychologists for people that can never be truly studied - it’s 500 years later! Shall we diagnose Leo X and Cochlaeus as well? What made them so tyrannical? Why did they also choose not to respond with love? The answer is simple: sin. It pervades our fallen world. We ought to all beg each other, and our God, for continued forgiveness. We are, indeed, all beggars.

 

[Denise1957]

I suspect that the Pope and Rome took the place (psychologically) of Luther’s father (a transference) and inherited a lot of rage that Luther bottled up from the time he was a young boy, unable to please a demanding and non-nurturing parent who was a harsh disciplinarian.

Yes, you are probably correct here.

Fr. Staupitz should have realized that he had a problem, or problems, IMO, which would limit his ability to be a priest and theologian.