Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

[Peter_J]

more effective (aka “better”)

Oh? So now “more effective” means the same as “better”??

I suppose next it’ll be “dog” means the same as “mailbox”. (Kidding, in case that wasn’t already clear.)

 

[guanophore]

You have every right to your opinion called polemic sports but I always refer to current Roman Catholic thinking/ belief [the 21st Century Church] which your statements defy, quite simply.

No, Evangel, nothing he has stated is in any way contrary to the thinking and belief of the CC. You may not like his work, because it shines light into dark corners, but there is nothing in it that is defiant of ecumenical progress. Ecumenism does not mean we ignore the facts.

Perhaps you can justify your statements over against the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification without a feeble attempt to discard that magisterial document.

Nothing he has written is “against” the JDDJ, either. In fact, most of it is completely unrelated to it. And that document is not “magesterial”, it is an ecumenical declaration to clarify points of agreement (and disagreement). Magesterial documents are from the official teaching of the Church. While the JDDC does clarify the Teaching of the Church, it is not a papal or conciliar declaration.

In any case, your request is off topic, and the JDDJ has nothing to do with why Luther was excommunicated.

In-fact, I think all of us are likely interested in how you think compared to how the Holy See thinks.  Please enlighten us.

Evangel, this is a lame way to avoid being confronted. Man up, buddy.

 

[DaveArmstrong]

. . . an upstart Evangelical Presbyterian wench, . . .

Oops! Sorry for calling you a “he.” I’m glad you can see that I write good things about Luther, too (there are many folks [ahem, no names!] who can’t grasp that or don’t want to admit it). In fact, I am seriously considering doing an ecumenical book called *Luther for Everyone (Even Catholics) *or suchlike, where everything in it would be his words that Catholics would agree with. Even the last third of my first book about Luther was devoted to agreements that he had with Catholic doctrine. I did the same in my first book on John Calvin.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Far be it from me to judge, but I haven’t seen anyone saying that the thread used to be better than it is now.

You need to watch more movies, bro

 

[DaveArmstrong]

Well, I for one really appreciate your excellent article on the executions of Anabaptists in Saxony. 47 souls! That’s a whole lot more than I knew of. I wonder how many more there really were.

Thanks! It was quite an eye-opener, although I knew that these things went on, generally speaking. Melanchthon even wanted folks killed for denying the Real Presence, and then later on he did so himself (somehow inexplicably having escaped the noose).

Thus, a guy like, say (out of the blue) James White, very well could have been executed (as a “seditious” blasphemer) on at least two grounds in Luther’s and Melanchthon’s Saxony, whereas I as a Catholic would have merely been banished and have my parish church stolen from me.

But by “Dr.” ?] White’s own stated criteria, Luther and Melanchthon themselves would not even be Christians anyway, as I demonstrated over ten years ago.

Unfortunately, neither consistency nor tolerance were exactly high points in the “reformers’” thoughts . . .

 

[Per_Crucem]

Really? You don’t think having Dave here makes the thread better? His scholarship is a lot more reliable than Topper’s, and not nearly as biased.

No. Ditto on the scholarship part, though. There I would agree.

Do you feel like you are up to your neck in reasons Luther was excommunicated?

I’m thinking at the end of the conversation, he’s still going to be dead.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

No, Evangel, nothing he has stated is in any way contrary to the thinking and belief of the CC. You may not like his work, because it shines light into dark corners, but there is nothing in it that is defiant of ecumenical progress. Ecumenism does not mean we ignore the facts.

Nothing he has written is “against” the JDDJ, either. In fact, most of it is completely unrelated to it. And that document is not “magesterial”, it is an ecumenical declaration to clarify points of agreement (and disagreement). Magesterial documents are from the official teaching of the Church. While the JDDC does clarify the Teaching of the Church, it is not a papal or conciliar declaration.

In any case, your request is off topic, and the JDDJ has nothing to do with why Luther was excommunicated.

Evangel, this is a lame way to avoid being confronted. Man up, buddy.

Let DaveArmstrong consider this:

The following text describes a way “from conflict to communion”—a way whose goal we have not yet reached. Nevertheless, the Lutheran–Catholic Commission for Unity has taken seriously the words of Pope John XXIII, “The things that unite us are greater than those that divide us.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/po…unione_en.html

Chapter II

New Perspectives on Martin Luther and the Reformation

1. What happened in the past cannot be changed, but what is remembered of the past and how it is remembered can, with the passage of time, indeed change. Remembrance makes the past present. While the past itself is unalterable, the presence of the past in the present is alterable. In view of 2017, the point is not to tell a different history, but to tell that history differently.

1. Lutherans and Catholics have many reasons to retell their history in new ways. They have been brought closer together through family relations, through their service to the larger world mission, and through their common resistance to tyrannies in many places. These deepened contacts have changed mutual perceptions, bringing new urgency for ecumenical dialogue and further research. The ecumenical movement has altered the orientation of the churches’ perceptions of the Reformation: ecumenical theologians have decided not to pursue their confessional self-assertions at the expense of their dialogue partners but rather to search for that which is common within the differences, even within the oppositions, and thus work toward overcoming church-dividing differences.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/lutheran-fed-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_2013_dal-conflitto-alla-comunione_en.html

1. Ecumenism, however, cannot base itself on forgetfulness of tradition. But how, then, will the history of the Reformation be remembered in 2017? What of that which the two confessions fought over in the sixteenth century deserves to be preserved? Our fathers and mothers in the faith were convinced that there was something worth fighting for, something that was necessary for a life with God. How can the often forgotten traditions be handed on to our contemporaries so as not to remain objects of antiquarian interest only, but rather support a vibrant Christian existence? How can the traditions be passed on in such a way that they do not dig new trenches between Christians of different confessions?

1. These changes demand a new approach. It is no longer adequate simply to repeat earlier accounts of the Reformation period, which presented Lutheran and Catholic perspectives separately and often in opposition to one another. Historical remembrance always selects from among a great abundance of historical moments and assimilates the selected elements into a meaningful whole. Because these accounts of the past were mostly oppositional, they not infrequently intensified the conflict between the confessions and sometimes led to open hostility

.

The Holy See clearly defines the relationship between Lutherans and Catholics and, without a doubt, has been a very active partner unlike any other ecumenical effort, even with the Orthodox. In-fact, the Orthodox are referred to as the model for allowing Lutherans to commune at Catholic altars.

So a long look back 500 years ago is certainly acceptable [even fun]; perhaps craved by some posters but it has no implication to the Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity and even criticized for being divisive and irrelevant.

 

[GKC]

You have every right to your opinion called polemic sports but I always refer to current Roman Catholic thinking/ belief [the 21st Century Church] which your statements defy, quite simply. Perhaps you can justify your statements over against the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification without a feeble attempt to discard that magisterial document. In-fact, I think all of us are likely interested in how you think compared to how the Holy See thinks. Please enlighten us.

“magisterial”?

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

You need to watch more movies, bro

Oh, you mean PB? I got that immediately.

 

[DaveArmstrong]

Well I have violated civilized ethics so I apologize. I realize my inflammatory remarks were inappropriate.

Fair enough. That’s classy on your part.

Perhaps a more congenial and inviting method would have worked?

As they say, you always catch more flies with honey than with vinegar . . .

If you are willing to accept my apology I could use some help clearing up a couple of confusions about your list.

I’ll do my best, if I have the time.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

“magisterial”?

GKC

The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ) is a document created, and agreed to, by the Catholic Church’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU) and the Lutheran World Federation in 1999, as a result of extensive ecumenical dialogue. It states that the churches now share “a common understanding of our justification by God’s grace through faith in Christ.”[1] To the parties involved, this essentially resolves the conflict over the nature of justification which was at the root of the Protestant Reformation.

In substance, the PCPCU and the Lutheran World Federation acknowledge in the Declaration that the excommunications relating to the doctrine of justification set forth by the Council of Trent do not apply to the teachings of the Lutheran churches set forth in the text; likewise, the churches acknowledged that the condemnations set forth in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the Catholic teachings on justification set forth in the document.

Of the 124 members of the Lutheran World Federation, 35 cast votes against JDDJ, these included many churches who are members of International Lutheran Council and the Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference.[2] Some churches going so far as to state that “JDDJ…should be repudiated by all Lutherans.”[3]

Some Catholics have argued that the Lutheran signers do not have the required authority to represent their communities (since, from a Catholic perspective, they are not full Churches) and, therefore, that no Lutheran can make the agreement binding on the constituents of the Lutheran World Federation. The final paragraph of the Annex to the Official Common Statement, however, settles this matter.[4] Some Catholics argue that the JDDJ is out of line with the Council of Trent but the document is clear that it is not negating or contradicting any statements from Trent, rather it is arguing for the non-applicability of its canons to concrete Christian bodies in the modern world. The document was approved by the Vatican under the auspices of the PCPCU and is therefore a magisterial document, though since it is not an ex cathedra statement, it may be possible for Catholics to hold that it is open to reform or correction.

On July 18, 2006, members of the World Methodist Council, meeting in Seoul, South Korea, voted unanimously to adopt the document.[5][6]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Declaration_on_the_Doctrine_of_Justification

 

[DaveArmstrong]

As I understand it, Elector John of Saxony only desired to punish unrepentant Anabaptists.

Not sure how this advances the discussion. If an Anabaptist “repents” for being an Anabaptist, then he no longer is one (therefore wouldn’t have to be beheaded or drowned in mockery of his beliefs), which is precisely the issue in play here. They weren’t allowed to *be Anabaptists *and to believe in adult baptism.

Yeah, Catholics killed people, too. They were equally as wrong. As a Catholic apologist, however, I constantly have to deal with the double standard whereby all of our past faults and sins are constantly raised and shouted about, whereas the same exact sins (and often worse ones) in Protestant circles are ignored, swept under the rug, minimized, unknown altogether, or rationalized away.

This is never allowed to be done in my presence because I know too much. And so I come around and even the score by presenting uncomfortable historical facts. Makes some people squirm. I don’t care. That’s not my concern. Facts is facts. I didn’t make them what they are.

 

[GKC]

EvangelCatholic:
And so, as we have so often had to reflect, you think it is a document of RCC doctrine and binding on RCs.

GKC

 

[guanophore]

Let DaveArmstrong consider this:

We are off topic, Evangel. The thread is not about the relationship between Lutherans adn Catholics, it is about the reasons Luther was excommunicate (and burned).

I think you are just avoiding the facts.

 

[TertiumQuid]

“**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 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?

I searched out one of my old hard drives, and lo and behold, I found a saved discussion board webpage in which the same quote was posted to me from Marius, p. 428. So, yes, previous to tonight I was aware of the quote and content you referenced from Marius. That being said, I do not recall every detail of the Reformation period in a Talmudic sense, which is why I look stuff up, even stuff I’ve been involved in previously. Did I recall that particular tidbit from Marius when you posted it earlier? Nope. That answer may not satisfy you, but, well, I answered you honestly.

But I did look into tonight, just for you. Marius, whom you cite as proof that Luther was responsible for slaughtering peasants says contrarily to you Luther wasn’t responsible:

Marius says, “The nobles did not require Luther to urge them to massacre; they were entirely capable of inspiring themselves to the bloody business that they pursued for several months” (p.432). Marius goes on to state, “Luther was not responsible for these atrocities. Yet to many people, the timing of his diatribe against the peasants made him seem a cause of the slaughter that followed.” (p.432). Marius also points out that in Luther’s follow-up defense of his harsh book, he condemned the killing of both the guilty and innocent together after the princes were already victorious. "Luther raged against the tyranny of the nobles in books and pamphlets over the next year or so and blamed their merciless conduct for continued peasant unrest" (p.433).

So, why did you cite a book for a direct fact, and then change the author’s conclusion? I do not get this method of research you employ, at all. You did the same thing with Oberman previously.

Marius, also provides these details. On page 427 he notes a previous exhortation for the rulers and peasants to have “peaceful discussion and arbitration.” The private exhortation you reference from Marius is completely consistent with what Luther had written previously in this Admonition to Peace that the law requires submission to the ruling authorities, and if rulers are not obeyed, deadly consequences will be the result (see LW 46:24-27).

I think what you’re postulating about the impact of Luther’s “meeting” is naive, to put it bluntly. Whatever Luther said or didn’t say, the peasants would have been killed. Rulers intending to protect their lands and their power generally will take and use whatever they want to, and ignore whatever they want to. If Luther’s words had the power of life and death over the peasants, why was the Admonition To Peace so ineffective in controlling those rulers who are said to be so motivated by Luther words? Obviously, Luther’s words were not as crucial and important to the rulers as you make them out to be.

One last point as well: I don’t defend everything Luther said and did, but I do my best to understand the circumstances and context of historical events. Some of the stuff he wrote about the peasants, Jews, even catholics, was horrible. I don’t believe his words or opinion about suppressing the peasants actually provoked the killing of the peasants. On the other hand, his words didn’t help them either.

 

[DaveArmstrong]

You have every right to your opinion called polemic sports but I always refer to current Roman Catholic thinking/ belief [the 21st Century Church] which your statements defy, quite simply. Perhaps you can justify your statements over against the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification without a feeble attempt to discard that magisterial document. In-fact, I think all of us are likely interested in how you think compared to how the Holy See thinks. Please enlighten us.

Nothing there (nor in Vatican II, which I am a* very* enthusiastic supporter of), contradicts anything that I believe. I strive to think how the Holy See thinks, and always seek to conform my opinions to Catholic dogma and doctrine. This is what I defend, as an apologist.

Sorry to disappoint you. Like many, you don’t seem to grasp that apologetics and ecumenism are completely complementary and non-contradictory. I wrote in one of my papers related to that discussion:

The Catholic ecumenical viewpoint [is that] we simultaneously strongly assert our own viewpoint on doctrine . . ., while accepting Protestants who differ as brothers in Christ. There is no contradiction. Apologetics and ecumenism are complementary, not contradictory. You see a contradiction where there is none. It is neither required by the Bible nor by logic for there to be a contradiction here. The Bible teaches both things. It teaches a broad ecumenism, and so do we. It also teaches that there is one truth, and that divisions are wickedly sinful, in many passages like these (RSV):

Acts 4:32: . . . of one heart and soul . . .

Romans 16:17: . . . take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.

1 Corinthians 1:10: I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

Philippians 1:27-28: . . . stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel, . . .

Philippians 2:1-2: So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any incentive of love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.

We *all *think we have the best version of Christianity. But many of us think that lots of other Christians are out of the fold. And that is what I find extremely offensive, but not personally; rather in the sense that it is such a terrible lie, and unbiblical, and uncharitable, and gives Satan a victory and grieves God that such unnecessary division should occur. We can face our differences honestly and with respect and charity (in the ways that fervent evangelicals Colson and Packer outlined, above), but the tragic line that is crossed is the one that reads others out of the Christian religion altogether because they don’t believe and talk like Protestants think they should. Of course we believe our doctrine is superior. Why should this surprise anyone? And why should it be offensive (yet it is to many today)? It is liberal postmodernism which assumes that all doctrinal systems are of equal validity. The ecumenical positions on both sides are not offensive at all. It is only the “anti” positions on both sides that should offend, because that is not principled disagreement, but outright lies, including (often) bigotry as well.

Meanwhile you need to retract the garbage that you wrote about my paper, as *guanaphore *had the class to do. Instead, you sought to switch the topic in order to divert the issue at hand, which is the fool’s way out of dealing with one’s own fibs and groundless insults.

If I find out you are an anti-Catholic, I won’t bother with you at all, per my policy since 2007. No dialogue is possible at all with them, as my universal experience for 17 years of attempted, futile discussion testifies without exception.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Nothing there (nor in Vatican II, which I am a* very* enthusiastic supporter of), contradicts anything that I believe. I strive to think how the Holy See thinks, and always seek to conform my opinions to Catholic dogma and doctrine. This is what I defend, as an apologist.

Sorry to disappoint you. Like many, you don’t seem to grasp that apologetics and ecumenism are completely complementary and non-contradictory. I wrote in one of my papers related to that discussion:

Meanwhile you need to retract the garbage that you wrote about my paper, as *guanaphore *had the class to do. Instead, you sought to switch the topic in order to divert the issue at hand, which is the fool’s way out of dealing with one’s own fibs and groundless insults.

If I find out you are an anti-Catholic, I won’t bother with you at all, per my policy since 2007. No dialogue is possible at all with them, as my universal experience for 17 years of attempted, futile discussion testifies without exception.

I am always encouraged by “complementary” connections to the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue but it seems your list is incongruent [other than historic data that applies to both Churches] and actually contrary to the spirit and intent of the Holy See/ Declaration [JDDJ].

As far as me being “anti-Catholic”; it is quite obvious that you and I know nothing of the other. I look forward to exploring DaveArmstrong,com.

 

[GKC]

Nothing there (nor in Vatican II, which I am a* very* enthusiastic supporter of), contradicts anything that I believe. I strive to think how the Holy See thinks, and always seek to conform my opinions to Catholic dogma and doctrine. This is what I defend, as an apologist.

Sorry to disappoint you. Like many, you don’t seem to grasp that apologetics and ecumenism are completely complementary and non-contradictory. I wrote in one of my papers related to that discussion:

Meanwhile you need to retract the garbage that you wrote about my paper, as *guanaphore *had the class to do. Instead, you sought to switch the topic in order to divert the issue at hand, which is the fool’s way out of dealing with one’s own fibs and groundless insults.

If I find out you are an anti-Catholic, I won’t bother with you at all, per my policy since 2007. No dialogue is possible at all with them, as my universal experience for 17 years of attempted, futile discussion testifies without exception.

EvangelCatholic is very far from being anti-Catholic, IMO. He just has some rather odd ideas.

GKC

 

[guanophore]

I’ll do my best, if I have the time.

If not, no worries I will figure it out eventually. So now I owe the whole thread an apology for shameless abuse. This will be an off topic post, but it seems to be owed to everyone.

There is a small group of us fledgling apologists who decided to make Dave Armstrong’s fundraising appeal our Fall quarter challenge. Most of us have heard him on Catholic Radio and featured in the Coming Home with Marcus Grodi. We had coffee and brainstormed some possibilities. We could not afford to bring Dave locally for a book signing, but we thought we might be able to encourage some book sales.

Topper :bowdown: provided a perfect opportunity by posting Dave’s list of 50. When I realized that the number of readers on this thread was 40 times the number posting, and that it was one of the most visited threads on CAF right now, I conceived most insidiously that a defamatory insult to the fine man’s dignity might spur more of the lurkers to consider visiting the site. I was willing to risk a generally good reputation here, as well as infractions for off topic posts and uncharitable statements in an effort to get some sparks flying.

So I am most delighted for Dave’s appearance, strong language and most especially scholarly and unbiased apologetics. I don’t know if my antics will increase book sales, but if GKC will buy one, then it will all have been worth it.

Keep up the good work Dave!

 

[GKC]

If not, no worries I will figure it out eventually. So now I owe the whole thread an apology for shameless abuse. This will be an off topic post, but it seems to be owed to everyone.

There is a small group of us fledgling apologists who decided to make Dave Armstrong’s fundraising appeal our Fall quarter challenge. Most of us have heard him on Catholic Radio and featured in the Coming Home with Marcus Grodi. We had coffee and brainstormed some possibilities. We could not afford to bring Dave locally for a book signing, but we thought we might be able to encourage some book sales.

Topper :bowdown: provided a perfect opportunity by posting Dave’s list of 50. When I realized that the number of readers on this thread was 40 times the number posting, and that it was one of the most visited threads on CAF right now, I conceived most insidiously that a defamatory insult to the fine man’s dignity might spur more of the lurkers to consider visiting the site. I was willing to risk a generally good reputation here, as well as infractions for off topic posts and uncharitable statements in an effort to get some sparks flying.

So I am most delighted for Dave’s appearance, strong language and most especially scholarly and unbiased apologetics. I don’t know if my antics will increase book sales, but if GKC will buy one, then it will all have been worth it.

Keep up the good work Dave!

It is difficult to prevent me from buying a book. Bought 5 last week. Slow week, at that.

GKC