Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

[guanophore]

Wow, what an incredible coincidence then between what you wrote, and what he wrote. Maybe I will go through some of your other paragraphs.

LOL

nothing gets by you, does it?

 

[DaveArmstrong]

Earlier in this long thread, gross misrepresentations of another paper of mine occurred.

The paper included a summary of Luther’s own opinions, that I meticulously cite (30 quotations straight from him) from two of his three great treatises from 1520: To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation and The Babylonian Captivity of the Church.

“Topper17” cited my paper (quite relevantly to the discussion) as to reasons why Luther was excommunicated. Then “EvangelCatholic”: a Lutheran, started saying absurd and insulting stuff about the paper (as so often in these sorts of discussions, not dealing with ***it ***and the *actual arguments and documentation *in it. Anything but the subject at hand . . .). So he wrote:

Topper’s remarks and the source of his information * is complete and intentional distortion. The List of 50 doctrines ascribed to Luther is blatant dishonesty. (Comment #292, 8-11-14)*

Again in comment #295 (8-11-14) he charged:

First off, much attributed to Luther is taken out of context in a clumsy manner that suggests character assassination [yellow journalism]. And this is why Topper’s method is dishonest.

To the contrary, the information was gathered in a very matter-of-fact way, from Luther’s two treatises (again, 30 quotes from them). All I did was later summarize in 50 points what he stated, as I just showed from his own words. This Lutheran gentleman is more than welcome – indeed, highly encouraged – (here or on my blog) to try to challenge anything I have asserted, and whether Luther in fact did not believe any given thing on the list and whether he did not think any of them were contrary to the Catholic Church.

Luther certainly intended to oppose all these things that he believed were false Catholic teachings and practices. But all this guy can do is moan and groan about alleged dishonesty and quotes out of context (the oldest “no answer” diversionary tactic in the book of sophistry and empty rhetoric).

Then “guanaphore” chimed in, trying to surpass the Lutheran guy in abject silliness about my paper and Luther research, in comment #302, from 8-12-14:

These types of unreferenced allegations appear spurious, do not contribute to any useful dialogue, and give the impression that the poster is only interested in calumny and detraction.

They are not “unreferenced” at all: as I have noted more than once now. Luther* believed* this stuff. The burden of proof for the critics is to demonstrate that he did not in fact believe any of the 50 things. Moreover, the point wasn’t to run down Luther; it was a direct reply to those who say that Luther was run out of the Church for no reason, and not allowed to have his say.

In order to show the falsity and irrationality of that claim, I “turned the table” and simply documented the sorts of things that Luther was talking about in 1520, before the Diet of Worms: stuff that he was asked to retract and was unwilling to do so. I was showing how no institution would ever countenance a lone guy coming in and saying, "here are 50 things that you guys have all wrong, and I know better. Now, change these things, to be in accord with my opinions and that of the Bible . . . "

Nor is it “calumny and detraction” to attempt to understand what Luther was opposing, and to document it so people know the sorts of things that were “on the table” at the famous Diet of Worms" (you know, “here I stand” and all that . . .). Unless it is “calumny and detraction” to cite Luther’s own words . . . Gee whiz; I’m citing the words of “guanaphore” here; so now I am guilty of “calumny and detraction” against *him *too?

“It reminds me of Lorraine Boettner’s list, which has been extensively plastered here. Topper would do well to follow the advice of Bishop Bron, especially with regard to checking facts and referencing credible sources.” [two typos corrected]

Boettner’s laundry lists are caricatures of distortions of supposed Catholic beliefs, with a severe anti-Catholic spin to them. My list was derived directly from Martin Luther. I make other lists of Martin Luther, too, of a much more favorable sort, such as: “Martin Luther on Sanctification and the Absolute Necessity of Good Works as the Proof of Authentic Faith”.

Topper then made the following delightful (and very kind) remark (comment #313, 8-12-14):

If you or anyone else would like to say that Armstrong’s list of 50 things is ‘spurious’ or ‘blatantly dishonest’, or any such other false and generalized [sic] I would suggest that you go on to his blog and make the accusation directly.

Thanks, Topper, for understanding rudimentary courtesy and having the courage of one’s convictions. As of yet (after almost 22 days since this delightful “challenge” comment), I’ve seen no sign of anyone coming over to challenge me directly, with actual arguments, as opposed to empty, flatulent rhetoric and insulting catch-phrases.

My paper about the 50 reasons why Luther was excommunicated has been available online these past eight years. The name was given on this thread by Topper. Anyone could have found it online and read it. But no one (that we know of in this thread) seems to have done so, or else they would see that I gave 30 Luther quotes and then *summarized *what his beliefs in the quotes were.

If they want more context with the quotes, those works of Luther are available online. Knock your socks off, guys! I would love to actually debate any of this (i.e., the actual initial subject of the thread: what a novelty, huh?).

 

[TertiumQuid]

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.

 

[spina1953]

A nice historical summary spina! It is worthy of an encyclopedia entry. I think the thread can be closed now. Between you and Topper, I think it has been covered!

You know, science has backed up this self report. People who are raised as he was do have damaged nervous systems and it can last for life. Nowadays, many exacerbate it by using drugs and alcohol, which damages the system more.

This is also why the same event will affect people differently. Those who face a severe trauma with an already compromised nervous system do not cope as well.

You know, I think it was different. I think he wanted to work “on” his salvation. Working it “out” is an experience based in grace, and powered by the Holy Spirit, but in his case, I don’t think he grasped this, so instead of working “out” the grace that was already in him through baptism and eucharist, he worked “on” it by penances, etc.

And such is not an uncommon conception of God when one has been wounded by authority figures. I think the CC and Leo also got some of this projection. But where Luther could excuse God because God is also just, he could not excuse the other authorative figures in his life. Eventually he identified with them in many ways, and became abusive himself.

Perhaps, but I think had he not had so much spiritual support and intervention , it would have been worse. He would have suffered no matter what he did.

Yes, but like all of us, he was doing the best he could. He really did not grasp the concept of salvation by grace, through faith, until too late.

Hi Guanophore: I rather don’t that it is worth being in any encyclopedia. I don’t know that everything have been covered in this thread as there are those things that Luther did that was good that have not been covered as of yet.

Yes, there is sadly many who come from dysfunctional homes, are abused, unloved etc. and are scared for life. Many do try to treat themselves with drugs and alcohol. Few it seems get the real help that they need.

If how Luther was brought up effected his mindset I can see how it effected him throughout life which must in many ways been a sad one. Maybe had Luther understood better and was given more time in his studies etc. and not put into positions with so many duties it might have helped, but that is just a guess on my part. There are many people who experience many of the same problems Luther had and become more and more stubborn as time goes by. We all in one way or another have to work out our salvation, and some do better than others, while some think they have the answers and do not need any one to help them, which is sad but that is a choice.

Luther I think saw and understood what he wanted to, and was not about to let anyone tell him differently. many do end up hating God and thinking that God is a vengeful God looking to condemn anyone and everyone for any minor infraction or sin for eternity. generally it is due to how one is taught and how perceives what they are taught and how they understand it. I think whatever spiritual direction Luther got was too little and with little support and less intervention, but then again one can not help those who refuse help.

I only see an man who was very much I think misdirected in much of his thinking which I do feel is due most likely to his severe scrupulosity, which caused his to find something anything that would ease his troubled mind. I like to think that God was merciful and compassionate to Luther no matter what his faults were real or imagined.

 

[TertiumQuid]

I have to agree with you I looked for my notes to find who it was I was quoting but now can’t fine it. next time I will make sure I include the cite of who I am quoting.

I’ve quoted lengthy summary statements as well. Recently I cited a long selection from catholic historian Joseph Lortz. I did so to simply document his particular approach to an aspect of the Reformation. In that sense, it was “research” I guess.

I would be very interested in knowing who actually did write what you posted, so if you come across it, please let me know.

 

[spina1953]

I’ve quoted lengthy summary statements as well. Recently I cited a long selection from catholic historian Joseph Lortz. I did so to simply document his particular approach to an aspect of the Reformation. In that sense, it was “research” I guess.

I would be very interested in knowing who actually did write what you posted, so if you come across it, please let me know.

if I can find it I will certainly give to you as I have no problem in doing so. Till then I will keep looking for it in my notes somewhere; just can’t find it at the moment.

 

[DaveArmstrong]

Here are online editions of the two treatises of Martin Luther from 1520 that I drew my list of 50 things from:

To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation

The Babylonian Captivity of the Church

Now, you two persons (EvangelCatholic and guanaphore) who claim I have engaged in “complete and intentional distortion” and “blatant dishonesty” and “character assassination” and “yellow journalism” and “calumny and detraction”:** prove it**, by demonstrating that I nefariously misrepresented anything or took anything out of context. Put up or shut up. I suggest in all charity, for your sakes, that you retract and take the latter course.

Or you can do nothing, and I think that will speak loudly enough, too, if you choose that path. Or you can insult me (and Topper) more (sans rational argumentation or documentation, as you have been doing). Your choice. God knows the truth of the matter.

Note: the Luther texts I used in both instances were from the paperback Three Treatises: itself drawn from the 55-volume * Luther’s Works*. I have that entire set in hardcover now and even one of the recent additions to it (Vol. 59). The two versions I linked to above are from earlier editions (1910 and 1930, respectively), so there will be some difference in wording.

 

[spina1953]

Here are online editions of the two treatises of Martin Luther from 1520 that I drew my list of 50 things from:

To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation

The Babylonian Captivity of the Church

Now, you two persons who claim I have engaged in “complete and intentional distortion” and “blatant dishonesty” and “character assassination” and “yellow journalism” and “calumny and detraction”:** prove it**, by demonstrating that I nefariously misrepresented anything or took anything out of context. Put up or shut up. I suggest in all charity, for your sakes, that you retract and take the latter course. Or you can do nothing, and I think that will speak loudly enough, too, if you choose that course. Or you can insult me (and Topper more). Your choice. God knows the truth of the matter.

Note: the Luther texts I used in both instances were from the paperback Three Treatises: itself drawn from the 55-volume * Luther’s Works*. I have that entire set in hardcover now and even one of the recent additions to it (Vol. 59). The two versions I linked to above are from earlier editions, so there will be some difference in wording.

I would like to know which website I can go to, to make a comment on your how well I think you are doing in defending the faith and giving us all real information on Luther. thanks.

 

[Topper17]

Before I move on to more fascinating subjects, I have something that has been sticking in my craw for a day or so. Maybe it’s just my craw that has gotten stuck but here it is anyway. It goes to credibility.

On the other hand,** Luther did make harsh comments about the rebellion of the peasants.** Certainly there are comments from Luther in which he was in favor of the government suppressing the revolt of the peasants to keep society stable. Luther himself though put no one to death. Luther’s treatise, * Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants*** (the very document in which Luther called for the slaying of the peasants) was actually published after the peasants war began. The treatise was delayed, and did not have an immediate role during the war. **The German nobility were not spurred on by Luther’s words. They were spurred on by the peasants who strove towards anarchy and civil unrest.

First of all, suggesting that Luther’s recommendation that the peasants be ‘slaughtered without mercy’ is simply a matter of Luther making ‘harsh comments about the rebellion of the peasants’ is something of the ultimate understatement, but one that certainly does attempt to ‘find the best in Luther’. This statement defies credulity.

Swan then goes on to state that Luther himself didn’t put anyone to death, and that his horrific treatise “Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants” (Against), was actually published after the war had began.

This is true, it was delayed for a couple of weeks, but NOT because Luther wanted it to be. It was published before the war was over and the intent of Luther’s “Against” was that it WOULD cause the peasants to be slaughtered (without mercy of course).

Swan attempts to reduce Luther’s role in the slaughter of 100,000 people as much as possible, but as we have seen, Luther himself bragged, in writing, about his role in the slaughter later in the year, (original text available upon request of course). There is also the ‘minor matter’ of Luther’s actions other than writing “Against”.

“**In mid-April, before publication of the, Luther went to Eisleben and preached in several churches in the region. ** He called for order and tranquility and blasted form enters of unrest. He privately exhorted rulers to strike the peasants hard, to kill them without mercy if they revolted. His sermons were greeted by sullen congregations and visible anger. One congregation rang bells while he preached so he could not be heard. He retuned to Wittenberg convinced that the peasants now wished him personal harm, **and he prepared again to be a martyr should their forces take the city. He was also fiercely angry.” **Marius, pg. 428

So, when Swan says that the treatise was delayed and did not have an immediate role during the war, that is not exactly the whole truth. The truth is that Luther wanted “Against” to result in the slaughter of the peasants, that he did recommend prior to the carnage that they be slaughtered, and that he took credit for his role in their slaughter a few months later.

Actually I am surprised that Swan was not aware that Luther “privately exhorted rulers to strike the peasants hard, to kill them without mercy if they revolted.”

 

[TertiumQuid]

So, when Swan says that the treatise was delayed and did not have an immediate role during the war, that is not exactly the whole truth. The truth is that Luther wanted “Against” to result in the slaughter of the peasants, that he did recommend prior to the carnage that they be slaughtered, and that he took credit for his role in their slaughter a few months later. Actually I am surprised that Swan was not aware that Luther “privately exhorted rulers to strike the peasants hard, to kill them without mercy if they revolted.”

So, let me get this straight: I’m in error because I posted that Luther believed in capital punishment and that society should be kept in check by its leaders (which was no secret to the leaders he was affiliated with), but because I mentioned the actual writing from Luther was delayed and did not play a significant role, I’m not telling the whole truth?

Wow. Unbelievable.

 

[DaveArmstrong]

I would like to know which website I can go to, to make a comment on your how well I think you are doing in defending the faith and giving us all real information on Luther. thanks.

You are kind. Here is my Luther web page, with many many papers, from my blog (I link to my new booksite in my profile, to try to sell some books!).

I am most active on a day-to-day basis, interacting with folks, on my personal Facebook page: open to all: always “public” posts that all can see and comment on, unless they violate simple rules of civilized ethics and get blocked, in order to maintain the congenial, inviting atmosphere that I try to cultivate on my page.

 

[DaveArmstrong]

Luther himself though put no one to death.

Neither did Hitler (so they say) and probably not Stalin, either.* So what*?! He clearly sanctioned it, so of what possible relevance is it to note that he didn’t *personally *behead or drown or hang them? None that I can see . . . He talked about it and sanctioned it in documents devoted to the topic (his own or Melanchthon’s that he signed onto). So, for example, he argued that the government should put adulterers and frigid wives (yes, you read that right) to death:

. . . God commanded in the law [Deut. 22:22-24] that adulterers be stoned . . . The temporal sword and government should therefore still put adulterers to death . . . Where the government is negligent and lax, however, and fails to inflict the death penalty, the adulterer may betake himself to a far country and there remarry if he is unable to remain continent. But it would be better to put him to death, lest a bad example be set . . .

The blame rests with the government. Why do they not put adulterers to death? Then I would not need to give such advice. Between two evils one is always the lesser, in this case allowing the adulterer to remarry in a distant land in order to avoid fornication . . .

Where the government fails to inflict the death penalty and the one spouse wishes to retain the other, the guilty one should still in Christian fashion be publicly rebuked and caused to make amends according to the gospel . . .

Here you should be guided by the words of St. Paul, I Corinthians 7 :4–5], “The husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does; likewise the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does. Do not deprive each other, except by agreement,” etc. Notice that St. Paul forbids either party to deprive the other, for by the marriage vow each submits his body to the other in conjugal duty. When one resists the other and refuses the conjugal duty she is robbing the other of the body she had bestowed upon him. This is really contrary to marriage, and dissolves the marriage. For this reason the civil government must compel the wife, or put her to death. If the government fails to act, the husband must reason that his wife has been stolen away and slain by robbers; he must seek another. We would certainly have to accept it if someone’s life were taken from him. Why then should we not also accept it if a wife steals herself away from her husband, or is stolen away by others?

( From: The Estate of Marriage, 1522, translated by Walther I. Brandt, from Luther’s Works, Vol. 45, pp. 32-34)

There I go quoting his own words again, being sleazy and dishonest . . .

 

[GKC]

I would like to know which website I can go to, to make a comment on your how well I think you are doing in defending the faith and giving us all real information on Luther. thanks.

When I first discovered stuff like this on the internet, many years ago, Mr. Armstrong’s site was one of my favorite places to visit.

GKC

 

[DaveArmstrong]

I hope you’ll come back and visit occasionally, GKC! I’m still alive and kickin’; I haven’t gone anywhere. I think there are just so many more choices of sites to visit online now, than there were in 1997 when I started up my website.

 

[DaveArmstrong]

Luther also expressed a chilling reaction to the martyrdom of St. John Fisher (just as he had even about fellow “reformer” Zwingli’s death in battle). This sentiment was expressed in a letter to Philip Melanchthon in the beginning of December 1535. It is reprinted in Luther’s Works, Vol. 50:* Letters III*, 113-117. Luther opines (p. 115):

It is quite easy for someone who knows what kind of traitors, thiefs, robbers, and even devils the most reverend lord cardinals, popes, and their ambassadors are, to have second thoughts. I wish there would be more kings of England who would slay them.

Footnote 9 mentions the editor’s opinion that this statement might relate to St. John Fisher’s execution, which had happened six months before this letter (with St. Thomas More’s martyrdom a month later); cf. similar citation in Hartmann Grisar, Martin Luther: His Life and Work, Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1950, p. 415; he provides some of the original Latin from primary source Briefwechsel, Vol. X, p. 275: “Utinam haberent plures reges Angliae, qui eos occiderent”.

 

[Topper17]

So, let me get this straight: I’m in error because I posted that Luther believed in capital punishment and that society should be kept in check by its leaders (which was no secret to the leaders he was affiliated with), but because I mentioned the actual writing from Luther was delayed and did not play a significant role, I’m not telling the whole truth?

Wow. Unbelievable.

Actually James I stand behind everything I said, and much more that I have not - yet.

Your comments seemed designed to relieve Luther of as much of the responsibility for the slaughter of the 100,000 as possible.

I would like to know if you were aware of Luther’s private exhortation to the princes to slaughter the peasants BEFORE the war began, PRIOR to the comments that you made that I quoted.

Did you or not?

 

[GKC]

I hope you’ll come back and visit occasionally, GKC! I’m still alive and kickin’; I haven’t gone anywhere. I think there are just so many more choices of sites to visit online now, than there were in 1997 when I started up my website.

I just returned from a look-see. It was likely around 1998 or so when I first visited. As a Chesterton/Lewis (and other folks/stuff) collector for 50 years or so, it was (and, I see, still is) a great place to spend an hour or a day.

GKC

 

[DaveArmstrong]

Perhaps my book of Chesterton quotations might interest you?

 

[spina1953]

When I first discovered stuff like this on the internet, many years ago, Mr. Armstrong’s site was one of my favorite places to visit.

GKC

HI GKC: There are so many Dave Armstrong sites that I did not know which one to go to. I just might become my favorite place to visit.

 

[spina1953]

You are kind. Here is my Luther web page, with many many papers, from my blog (I link to my new booksite in my profile, to try to sell some books!).

I am most active on a day-to-day basis, interacting with folks, on my personal Facebook page: open to all: always “public” posts that all can see and comment on, unless they violate simple rules of civilized ethics and get blocked, in order to maintain the congenial, inviting atmosphere that I try to cultivate on my page.

I got you page on the favorites list. thanks again.