Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

[DaveArmstrong]

Do you agree with Armstrong that Pope John 23rd Vatican II were “liberal clowns”?

Now it looks like you simply have great difficulty reading those with a different opinion. This is more outrageous than what you have said about my paper on Luther.

I already made it clear that I LOVE Vatican II, which is perfectly orthodox, and in my opinion, the most highly developed thought in the history of the Church (and our recent popes have continued that trend, with superb teaching). My theological hero is Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, who is considered the Father of Vatican II in many ways.

What I wrote (that you have now twisted beyond all recognition) was the following:

“Vatican II was hijacked in practice by liberal clowns.”

Anyone who knows anything about Catholic affairs in the last 50 years understands the whole business about the “spirit of Vatican II” and how theological liberals distorted it and tried to take advantage of the usual post-conciliar confusions (true all through history) for their own nefarious agenda. THAT’s what I was talking about, not the council itself.

I wrote in my post #784 about 90 minutes ago, in direct reply to you: “Nothing there (nor in Vatican II, which I am a very enthusiastic supporter of), contradicts anything that I believe.” So somehow (how you manage to do this is beyond me, I confess) you get from that in 90 minutes to a mythical opinion I supposedly hold where I regard the council fathers and Pope St. John XXIII as “liberal clowns.”

C…O…N…T…E…X…T

This is our last exchange, short of a serious change of tone and point of view.

 

[guanophore]

Do you agree with Armstrong that Pope John 23rd Vatican II were “liberal clowns”?

You seem to be suffering some sort of problem with your information and processing abilities Evangel. Have you ever had a traumatic brain injury?

This is not what he said, but I do agree 100% with the point he did make, which ws about the liberal clowns who warped and misapplied the Teachings of Vatican II. I was witness to it.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Now it looks like you simply have great difficulty reading those with a different opinion. This is more outrageous than what you have said about my paper on Luther.

I already made it clear that I LOVE Vatican II, which is perfectly orthodox, and in my opinion, the most highly developed thought in the history of the Church (and our recent popes have continued that trend, with superb teaching). My theological hero is Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, who is considered the Father of Vatican II in many ways.

What I wrote (that you have now twisted beyond all recognition) was the following:

“Vatican II was hijacked in practice by liberal clowns.”

Anyone who knows anything about Catholic affairs in the last 50 years understands the whole business about the “spirit of Vatican II” and how theological liberals distorted it and tried to take advantage of the usual post-conciliar confusions (true all through history) for their own nefarious agenda. THAT’s what I was talking about, not the council itself.

I wrote in my post #784 about 90 minutes ago, in direct reply to you: “Nothing there (nor in Vatican II, which I am a very enthusiastic supporter of), contradicts anything that I believe.” So somehow (how you manage to do this is beyond me, I confess) you get from that in 90 minutes to a mythical opinion I supposedly hold where I regard the council fathers and Pope St. John XXIII as “liberal clowns.”

C…O…N…T…E…X…T

This is our last exchange, short of a serious change of tone and point of view.

Care to identify who hijacked Vatican II?

 

[DaveArmstrong]

Anyway these are the two that confused me:

1. Denial of the “wicked” belief that the mass is a good work.
2. Denial of the “wicked” belief that the mass is a true sacrifice.

Are you saying that Luther denied these beliefs?

Or that he believed them but denied he did?

I was saying that he denied that the Catholic Mass (one of the dozens of recipients of his ire) was either a good work or a true sacrifice. In my paper, these words of his led me to derive these conclusions in my summary:

1. The Babylonian Captivity of the Church

A) ". . . transubstantiation (a monstrous word and a monstrous idea) . . . " (p. 147)

B) “The third captivity of this sacrament is by far the most wicked of all, in consequence of which there is no opinion more generally held or more firmly believed in the church today than this, that the mass is a good work and a sacrifice.” (p. 152)

“. . . monstrous and wicked doctrines, as they have done who have made of the sacrament an opus operatum [literally, “a work that works”] and a sacrifice.” (p. 154)

". . . the gospel does not sanction the idea that the mass is a sacrifice . . . " (p. 174)

And so I summarize:

1. Denial of the “wicked” belief that the mass is a good work.
2. Denial of the “wicked” belief that the mass is a true sacrifice.

Very straightforward. I didn’t put any words in Luther’s mouth or thoughts in his head that weren’t there. In fact, I even downplayed his rhetoric. He said “monstrous and wicked doctrines” and I put only “wicked” in my summary.

Luther (as is well known) firmly believed in the Real Presence (but not transubstantiation) and even said that other Protestants (like Zwingli and Oecolampadius) were damned and no Christians at all, due to rejecting it (when he argues against them – except for denying they are Christians – , he is wonderful and spot-on; I love it!). What Luther didn’t like was the motion of a meritorious Mass and the Sacrifice of the Mass.

And of course, from a Catholic (and we would say, apostolic, patristic, and traditional) perspective, this is two heresies already, among the long list that Luther espouses in his three treatises of 1520, all *before *his excommunication, because he wouldn’t retract them.

And lo and behold, we have momentarily stumbled upon the actual topic of the thread!

 

[DaveArmstrong]

TertiumQuid wants to deny that Luther had a direct effect in encouraging the Peasants in their Revolt of 1525. Scholars disagree with him (as usual). I wrote about this in extreme detail, almost eleven years ago now, chronicling dozens of related (chronological) Luther statements and the opinions of scholars: allowing readers to draw their own conclusions.

I give my overall opinion at the beginning of the paper:

Historians on both sides are in agreement that Luther never supported the Peasants’ Revolt (or insurrection in general). Many, however (including Roland Bainton, the famous Protestant author of the biography Here I Stand), believe that he used highly intemperate language that couldn’t help but be misinterpreted in the worst possible sense by the peasants. I agree with these Protestant scholars, . . . (I initially formed the opinion in 1991 as a result of reading Hartmann Grisar, the Catholic historian who is supposedly so “anti-Luther”).

No Catholic (or Protestant) historian I have found – not even Janssen – asserts that Luther deliberately wanted to cause the Peasants’ Revolt, or that he was the primary cause of it. Quite the contrary . . . My long-held position on this agrees, therefore, with the consensus opinion of historians of all stripes. I think Luther had the typical naivete of many sincerely, deeply committed and (what might be called) “super-pious” religious people. It is also undeniably true that Luther’s thought is highly complex, nuanced, sometimes vacillating or seemingly or actually self-contradictory, and often difficult to understand.

Thus, for him to say the sort of extreme (seemingly straightforward) things that he said, have such opinions distributed by the tens of thousands in pamphlets, and to expect everyone (even uneducated peasants) to understand the proper sense and take into consideration context and so forth, is highly unreasonable and irresponsible.

I then listed opinions of scholars (all documented in the paper):

**Roland Bainton**: "A movement so religiously minded could not but be affected by the Reformation . . . Luther certainly had blasted usury . . . His attitude on monasticism likewise admirably suited peasant covetousness for the spoliation of cloisters. The peasants with good reason felt themselves strongly drawn to Luther . . . a complete dissociation of the reform from the Peasants' War is not defensible."

**Gordon Rupp**: "Luther had indeed laid himself open to misrepresentation."

**Owen Chadwick**: "his simple and enclosed upbringing prevented him from realizing the effect of violent language upon simple minds. Luther, not an extremist, often sounded like an extremist."

**Will Durant**: "Luther, the preachers, and the pamphleteers were not the cause of the revolt; . . . But it could be argued that the gospel of Luther and his more radical followers "poured oil on the flames," and turned the resentment of the oppressed into utopian delusions, uncalculated violence, and passionate revenge . . . The peasants had a case against him. He had not only predicted social revolution, he had said he would not be displeased by it . . . He had made no protest against the secular appropriation of ecclesiastical property."

** H.G. Koenigsberger**: “Only someone of Luther’s own naive singleness of mind could imagine that his inflammatory attacks on one of the great pillars of the established order would not be interpreted as an attack on the whole social order, or on that part of it which it suited different interests, from princes to peasants, to attack.”

**James Mackinnon**: "To threaten the princes with the wrath of God was all very well, but such a threat would have no effect in remedying the peasants' grievances, and they might well argue that God had chosen them, as he practically admitted, to be the effective agents of His wrath."

** Preserved Smith**: “Luther, indeed, could honestly say that he had consistently preached the duty of obedience and the wickedness of sedition, nevertheless his democratic message of the brotherhood of man . . . worked in many ways undreamt of by himself. Moreover, he had mightily championed the cause of the oppressed commoner against his masters. ‘The people neither can nor will endure your tyranny any longer,’ said he to the nobles; . . .”

 

[JonNC]

I like “ECT” better (and am more familiar with it) because it comes mostly from the evangelical portion of Protestantism (that I used to be a part of). *The Lutheran-Catholic talks are a bit marred or hampered by the fact that the LCMS doesn’t even participate, and the Lutherans who do are barely (in terms of their official ***beliefs) Lutherans anymore . . . [ELCA, e.g.,http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/08/elca-lutheran-body-votes-to-allow.html”] voted in 2009 to allow practicing homosexual clergy

]

It’s fine as far as it goes, and clarifies things, but the more theological liberals are involved, then there is the danger of it being a dead letter and having indifferentist elements, if not in the letter, then in practice (just as Vatican II was hijacked in practice by liberal clowns).

Hi Dave,
Two thoughts on the bolded.

1. I, along with other Lutherans and Catholics, have been trying to convince EC about this problem regarding female, and openly gay ordination for some time. The innovation is actually moving ELCA/LWF Lutherans away from unity.
2. I have, in the past, also lamented the reticence of the LCMS in dialogue, particularly with the CC. That seems to have changed since the JDDJ, and more recently since the ELCA Churchwide Assembly in 2011, and the attack on both of our communions by the current regime through the HHS mandate. I suspect, and pray, that recent dialogue between ILC Lutherans worldwide and Rome will grow and prosper.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

Care to identify who hijacked Vatican II?

Start a new thread, if you want, it is off topic here.

Come to think of it, there are probably a bizzilian threads on it here already!

You might also get a great earful if you did it on the Traditional Catholic section.

 

[GKC]

Sheer nonsense. The list simply gives Luther’s beliefs. If you deny it, then prove me wrong by dealing with it (like a thinker) rather than lying and talking about it. Put up or shut up.

I am ecumenical. I catch hell all the time from “radical Catholic reactionary” Catholics (folks who detest Vatican II) for being so. I already said I like the Lutheran-Catholic talks. I like any talks where folks get to know each other better and get over the misinformation and mistrust on both sides. But LCMS ain’t there, and the Lutherans who formally voted to have active homosexual clergy are the main participants. That is significant. It’s like trying to talk reunion now with the Anglicans, with all that they have caved in about.

I’m working on an ecumenical book right now about Orthodoxy. I revised my original version which was directed more to the anti-Catholic Orthodox, and removed virtually all polemics; also have two Eastern Catholics making major contributions to the second edition.

If you think I am anti-Lutheran, you know nothing about me, either. Just listen to what Lutheran dialogue partners have said about me:

“Dave Armstrong is a former Protestant Catholic who is in fact blessedly free of the kind of ‘any enemy of Protestantism is a friend of mine’ coalition-building . . . he’s pro-Catholic (naturally) without being anti-Protestant (or anti-Orthodox, for that matter).”

—“CPA”: Lutheran professor of history

“You are a very friendly adversary who really does try to do all things with gentleness and respect. For this I praise God.”

— Nathan Rinne (Lutheran apologist [LC-MS] )

I had several meaty dialogues with both these men. Two Protestants on this very thread have noted that I am fair to Luther and write positive things about him, too.

Or you could look at what I say about Rev. Dick Bieber, a Lutheran pastor at the church I attended when I had my evangelical conversion in 1977:

I wrote this in 2008: 18 years after I became a Catholic, and in this paper I highly praise several other pastors who have had an inestimable influence on my spiritual and theological life.

Believe what you will. The record is clear. But our time of talking comes very near to an end if you don’t drop all these slanderous accusations.

And I note that Mr. Armstrong has a great fondness for C. S. Lewis.

Mr A, please remember that EC has some odd opinions.

GKC
Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[commenter]

Hi Dave,
Two thoughts…

1. I, along with other Lutherans and Catholics, have been trying to convince EC about this problem regarding female, and openly gay ordination for some time. The innovation is actually moving ELCA/LWF Lutherans away from unity.
2. I have, in the past, also lamented the reticence of the LCMS in dialogue, particularly with the CC. That seems to have changed since the JDDJ, and more recently since the ELCA Churchwide Assembly in 2011, and the attack on both of our communions by the current regime through the HHS mandate. I suspect, and pray, that recent dialogue between ILC Lutherans worldwide and Rome will grow and prosper.

Jon

Amen to the above. I find the previous posts by others about “who hijacked Vatican II” to be fruitless. The reality is that all of us have “hijacked” Vatican II, the Confessions, the Creeds, the ECF’s the classic historic documents of other Christian traditions, and, most damning, the Gospels. We all fall short, we all pick and choose what parts comfort us, and which parts discomfort us by challenging ourselves to change.

I am not minimizing the damage done by ideological liberals. I have had to deal directly with this movement in my own communion, and look with sadness at what has happened elsewhere. The attack from Modernism, or Secular Humanism in the churches, continues to require a specific, active, united prayerful response by orthodox Christians across the board. But let’s not lose sight that the most dangerous secularist isn’t the one in this or that modernist denomination, or whatever far Left “Catholic” group the Media is promoting as heroic this week. The real dangerous secularist is you. And me. I find myself far more attentive to refuting the Far Left, and sometimes the Far Right on the internet than my own need for conversion.

 

[spina1953]

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

GKC

Hi GKC I like you like to buy books I was told many time if someone wants to find me just look in a book store HA!

 

[Per_Crucem]

Oh, you mean PB? I got that immediately.

I knew you were civilized

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Egg-zactly.

 

[benjohnson]

Well, I just finished reading Dave’s Article about why he avoids Boards.

Sadly it didn’t take but 30 seconds to get a live confirmation of everything that was written there.

CAF is the only discussion board that I’ve found that demands and encourages good behavior - ever other forum that I’ve seen has been a wasteland of polemics, venom an other vices.

Frankly, I view this forum as part of my faith-formation - though there is always room for improvement in that some of us are beginning to sound repetitious.

 

[steido01]

I like “ECT” better (and am more familiar with it) because it comes mostly from the evangelical portion of Protestantism (that I used to be a part of). The Lutheran-Catholic talks are a bit marred or hampered by the fact that** the LCMS doesn’t even participate, and the Lutherans who do are barely (in terms of their* official ***beliefs) Lutherans anymore . . . [ELCA, e.g.,http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/08/elca-lutheran-body-votes-to-allow.html”] voted in 2009 to allow practicing homosexual clergy]

It’s fine as far as it goes, and clarifies things, but the more theological liberals are involved, then there is the danger of it being a dead letter and having indifferentist elements, if not in the letter, then in practice (just as Vatican II was hijacked in practice by liberal clowns).

Hi Dave,

I appreciate you stopping by. Jon has already commented on this post, but I just wanted to further expand here because I think full context is important. That, and I’m concerned about the bolded.

I entirely agree with you that many of the bodies comprising the LWF (including the ELCA) are essentially abandoning their Lutheran beliefs by taking up heterodox and sometimes even heretical practices. But there is some light here. For example, the Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus (EECMY), the Lutheran church with the world’s largest practicing following at more than 6 million souls, recently broke fellowship with the ELCA and the Church of Sweden and has sought ties with the LCMS, the LCC and other Confessional Lutheran bodies. It seems to me that Rome has also redirected its ecumenical efforts toward what may potentially be more fruitful ground: Confessional Lutherans (see: Roman Catholics and Confessional Lutherans Explore Deeper Ties and A New (Confessional) Direction in Catholic-Lutheran Dialogue.

The future of Catholic-Lutheran dialogue runs through the ILC. That’s why it is downright erroneous to state “that the LCMS doesn’t even participate” in the Lutheran-Catholic dialogues. The LCMS has participated in all but one round of the dialogues, and has returned as a full partner for the coming round. That solitary round that it was not a full partner? It was not invited by Rome (though the LCMS did participate as an observer that round). Now, it seems reasonable that Rome intentionally did not invite the LCMS because she knew St. Louis would never accept what was sure to be vague and ambiguous wording in the coming JDDJ. After all, Rome didn’t even accept the JDDJ without her own addendum and clarification. But to imply (or at least leave your wording open to that interpretation) that Confessional Lutherans aren’t interested in healing the wounds to unity is either misinformed or uncharitable. I generally have not found your work to be the latter, so I hope this has been informative.

 

[PRmerger]

Do you agree with Armstrong that Pope John 23rd Vatican II were “liberal clowns”?

This is just ga-ga, la-la nonsense.

No one here, Catholic or otherwise, has proposed that V2 was the response of “liberal clowns.”

Please read the posts again so you can understand better what has been proposed regarding V2 and those who hijacked it for their own agendas.

 

[steido01]

Amen to the above. I find the previous posts by others about “who hijacked Vatican II” to be fruitless. The reality is that all of us have “hijacked” Vatican II, the Confessions, the Creeds, the ECF’s the classic historic documents of other Christian traditions, and, most damning, the Gospels. We all fall short, we all pick and choose what parts comfort us, and which parts discomfort us by challenging ourselves to change.

I am not minimizing the damage done by ideological liberals. I have had to deal directly with this movement in my own communion, and look with sadness at what has happened elsewhere. The attack from Modernism, or Secular Humanism in the churches, continues to require a specific, active, united prayerful response by orthodox Christians across the board. But let’s not lose sight that the most dangerous secularist isn’t the one in this or that modernist denomination, or whatever far Left “Catholic” group the Media is promoting as heroic this week. The real dangerous secularist is you. And me. I find myself far more attentive to refuting the Far Left, and sometimes the Far Right on the internet than my own need for conversion.

:sad_yes: This.

 

[DaveArmstrong]

But to imply (or at least leave your wording open to that interpretation) that Confessional Lutherans aren’t interested in healing the wounds to unity is either misinformed or uncharitable. I generally have not found your work to be the latter, so I hope this has been informative.

Hi Don,

Thanks for this information. I didn’t know those details. I was going by what I had heard in the past. I’m delighted to hear of these developments!

I didn’t mean to suggest or imply at all that LCMS or other more traditional Lutherans were not interested at all in ecumenism. I assumed that they had a principled reason for not participating (when they didn’t), similar to the Catholic Church’s rationale for not joining the World Council of Churches, etc.: and we are certainly ecumenical, as everyone knows.

I was “misinformed” insofar as I hadn’t heard of these latest developments, but not intending to be uncharitable at all. EvangelCatholic thinks I am uncharitable towards ELCA (I attended a church for three years [1977-1980] that was part of that, though very atypically so; and later left it). I simply stated the fact that they are no longer Lutheran in the historical sense of the word. This is a common occurrence among all the mainline denominations, as we have seen time and again.

Confessional, traditional Lutherans (of the ecumenical sort) are actually my favorite type of Protestants and have been for some time.

 

[DaveArmstrong]

CAF is the only discussion board that I’ve found that demands and encourages good behavior - ever other forum that I’ve seen has been a wasteland of polemics, venom an other vices.

Glad to hear that, too. I would expect no less from the forum sponsored by the greatest and most influential Catholic apologetics organization in the world.

But I don’t agree that it is the “only” one. The Coming Home Network forum is excellent in this regard as well, with a zero tolerance policy regarding insults and personal attacks. I was staff moderator there from 2007-2010 and the moderation is now in the very capable hands of my good friend David W. Emery, whom I worked with, and who continues enforcing the policy set by CHNI itself.

It’s a wonderful forum, where (particularly) those considering becoming Catholics (but also anyone else) can learn and make friends, in a congenial, respectful, charitable atmosphere.

 

[steido01]

Hi Don,

Thanks for this information. I didn’t know those details. I was going by what I had heard in the past. I’m delighted to hear of these developments!

I didn’t mean to suggest or imply at all that LCMS or other more traditional Lutherans were not interested at all in ecumenism. I assumed that they had a principled reason for not participating, similar to the Catholic Church’s rationale for not joining the World Council of Churches, etc.: and we are certainly ecumenical, as everyone knows.

I was “misinformed” insofar as I hadn’t heard of these latest developments, but not intending to be uncharitable at all. EvangelCatholic thinks I am uncharitable towards ELCA. I simply stated the fact that they are no longer Lutheran in the historical sense of the word. This is a common occurrence among all the mainline denominations, as we have seen time and again.

No problem! I figured as much. Just wanted to give you a chance to clarify.

The LCMS does have some principled reasons for avoiding potentially syncretistic and/or unionistic efforts (it’s the reason we fled from Prussia to Missouri, after all), and her reasons are essentially identical to Rome’s. I don’t think two more honest dialogue partners exist. You might be interested in googling what the Lutheran Church-Canada (the LCMS’s sister church in that country) is working toward with Rome. But that’s another thread.

You’ll have to excuse EvangelCatholic. He’s been offered correction on this topic from many posters. He means well, I think.

P.S. - I hope you will reconsider your avoidance of the boards. At least occasionally.

 

[DaveArmstrong]

I hope you will reconsider your avoidance of the boards. At least occasionally.

“Occasionally” is the word. But even if everyone here was a perfect saint (I’ve met several already! ), it would be a time issue anyway. I have to mostly engage in writing activities that create income, and in my “situation” that is writing books and articles for two newspapers / websites that I’ve been hired to write for. I need to do two of those today.

I think it’s good to clarify my intent and my beliefs, where necessary, as I did with you just a few minutes ago. When I clarified, my position was seen to be different from what it may have been perceived to be (because I wasn’t detailed enough).

I’ve enjoyed my time here last night and today (apart from the interaction with a few folks who feel led to oppose me for wrongheaded reasons).

I remain an enthusiastic supporter of dialogue, but have found it increasingly (and frustratingly) difficult to find anymore. And my experience has been widely expressed by many, who are now fed up with blogs and Facebook as well.

In my opinion, any Internet medium can be “baptized” and used for good and noble purposes. It’s not beyond hope or repair. It just requires a bit of vigilance and moderation, so that those who aren’t interested in dialogue don’t wreck it for the majority who seek to learn and discuss and share Christian truth.