Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated?

[Topper17]

Hi Dave,

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.

My own research into the Peasant’s War has led to pretty much the same conclusions, although with possibly some slight variations.

Even given some of his more incendiary statements, I don’t know either of anyone who would suggest that Luther actually wanted anything like the Peasant’s War to take place. Personally I believe that another peasant’s revolt was inevitable. After all, peasant revolts were fairly common during the period, but nothing on the scale as in 1525. Would it have taken place as early without Luther’s influence? Probably not. Would it have been as widespread without his stirring of the pot? Almost certainly not. Finally, once the War started, would as many have been slaughtered if Luther had not taken the role that he chose to take, recommending that they be slaughtered? Definitely not.

As you mentioned, the reputable Scholars who have weighed in on the matter are completely in opposition to the ‘standard denial’ or minimization of Luther’s role:

“**The question meets us: What had Luther to do personally with this tragedy which overtook his land of Germany? ** It would not be difficult to show that the Peasant’s War had no place in the thoughts of Luther for the regeneration of Germany. His ideal was always a religious Reformation brought about by preaching and teaching, and owing nothing to violence – in action at least. ……**But he seemed singularly unable to measure the inevitable effects of his own sledge-hammer words on minds excited by oppression or by passion. He had singular lack of self-control in the use of violent and incendiary speech.” ** T. M. Lindsay, (Anglican), “Luther and the German Reformation”, Professor of Church History, F. C. College, Glasgow, pg. 186

As an example of that ‘violent and incendiary speech’:

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

Of course some people would prefer that we see that as this as just good Ole Marty being Marty, but how exactly were the peasants supposed to know that?
**
“Some clergy and peasant leaders [of the Peasants] inflamed to resentment, appealing to Luther’s 1520 treatise [Freedom of a Christian] and some of his other writings. ** This all led to the outbreak of the Peasant’s War, which swept through Germany from 1524 through 1526**…….Since Luther was especially noted in Germany for urging the gospel and speaking about divine justice in recent years, this clearly indicated that the peasants – or a least the more articulate and literate leaders among them – connected Luther’s teaching and the peasant’s rebellion.” **Reformed Professor James R. Payton, “Getting the Reformation Wrong”, pg. 85

“**At the time there were many who regarded Luther as the instigator of the disturbances, and it is easy to understand how they came to do so in the view of the violence of his language and the threatening way in which he often spoke of the coming of the revolution. ** Thus he wrote to the Elector of Saxony in 1522: **‘It has been revealed to me lately that spiritual power only, but also the temporal rulers, will have to submit to the Gospel either though love or though force, as is clearly proved by all biblical history. And though at first I did not apprehend a national rebellion, but thought of a revolt against the priesthood, I fear now that the disturbances may begin against the ruling powers and spread like a plague to the priesthood.” **Catholic Professor at Harvard Christopher Dawson, “The Dividing of Christendom”, pg. 98

Here we see that even in 1522 Luther was concerned about a rebellion that was going to spread and include the ruling powers. Even he saw where things were headed, but he did not change his course and assume the role of a real Christian leader and seek peace.

I think that these quotes fit quite nicely into the pattern evidenced in the quotes that you posted, and as you know, there are more to be reviewed. The people that would deny this obvious truth are the same people who attempt to do the same thing on virtually every issue.

God Bless You Dave, Topper

 

[Per_Crucem]

Ah! Big mistake on my part. I do remember now Luther going through a terrible period of one of his children dying at a young age. I think I was going by hearing that he had no direct descendants (?).

luther2017.de/en/25077/outing-luther-family

 

[DaveArmstrong]

luther2017.de/en/25077/outing-luther-family

Thanks very much for this information. Somewhere along the line I heard wrongly on both counts, so I shouldn’t have commented at all about it!

I love genealogical stuff. One of these days I’m gonna join Ancestry.com and learn about my old Scottish clan background. I know I have some ancestors from Cornwall, too, which was historically a Celtic area in the extreme southwest of England.

But the Armstrong clan area is just above the border with England, just about in the center of the land mass, east to west. One day I will get there!

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Dave,

I’m a big fan and have purchased many, many of your books, sometimes multiple times (when offered as a group which included some that I had already purchased, or when you’ve revised a book). Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

I have almost totally avoided Internet forums since 2003 (I wrote about why I became fed up with them) – excepting my time as a moderator at the Coming Home Network from 2007-2010, where we allowed no personal attacks at all (therefore, I had no principled objections to it).

I will avoid this one, too, for the most part and will only pop in now and then if I’m brought up in an unfair fashion.

Does this mean I’m going to have to insult you occasionally to get you to participate?

 

[DaveArmstrong]

I’m a big fan and have purchased many, many of your books, sometimes multiple times (when offered as a group which included some that I had already purchased, or when you’ve revised a book). Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

Thanks for your very kind words, and for reading! I deeply appreciate it.

Does this mean I’m going to have to insult you occasionally to get you to participate?

Sure; just misrepresent me, and if it shows up in a Google search, I’ll show up! LOL

95% of the time folks are writing about me, – with reputed “refutations” – they don’t let me know (for some odd reason), so I have to run across it in a Google search.

The really funny thing is that several anti-Catholics, knowing that I routinely discovered their personal attacks, started referring to me as “DA” so I couldn’t find their junk in a Google Search (or sometimes “Dear Ol’ Dave”: as in Steve Hays’ case). It caught on and soon became common practice. Can’t be too careful when you are distorting the arguments of others!

TertiumQuid, who is active in this thread, even did several book reviews of my first book on John Calvin, without ever mentioning my name (not even “DA”), or even the name of the book (!!!) [see the http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search/label/Biblical%20Catholic%20Answers%20for%20John%20Calvin%3F”]six-part series]. That’s quite a spectacle, to be reviewing a book, and folks don’t even know who the author is. ROFL Ah, the stories I could tell . . .

I realize this is off-topic, so I should refrain from replying to some of these things.

 

[spina1953]

Hi Topper: Great post#480! I would like to add some more concerning the Peasants Revolt that might be of interest. To get a better understanding of who the real Luther was instead of the legend one might read Luther’s position on the Peasants Revolt. The condition of the peasantry in Germany was rapidly deteriorating and by the beginning of the 16th century, very few peasants were independent proprietors of the land they cultivated, with representation in the local Deits. The lords of the manor and princes were demanding more and more in the form of dues, land, and whatever they wished to have, pushing the peasants more and more into serfdom. The peasants revolt was more a political and economic with religious overtones.

                The lords and princes simply took what the peasant produced. The protection that the lords formerly provided the peasants in return for all they produced was no longer needed by the 16th century when strong governments had been established throughout the empire. The peasant in 1525 no longer saw the lords and princes as their protectors, but as legalized robbers who demanded and ever increasing share of what the peasants had. Although the Peasants Revolt of 1525 was the culmination of these agrarian disturbances, discontent had been rife among the peasants of Germany and only needed the unifying element of religious revolt furnished by Luther to bring about a general upraising throughout the German empire.

                   Luther's widely circulated pamphlet entitled ON Secular Authority and How it Should be Obeyed issued in 1523, Luther indulged in severe denunciation of princes in general and what inspired Luther to attack them was a hostile attitude on the part of some princes towards Luther's preaching's. This led Luther to believe that the power of the government was limited to secular matters only and not the matter of souls. Despite Luther's vehement  attacks on the princes, Luther in this document nullifies his hostility by declaring against reform if it meant opposition to their authority. In one of Luther's sermons of 1528, Luther declared" to suffer the government  to exist no matter how evil rather than allow the rabble to riot no matter how justified they are in doing so." 

                In may of 1525, Luther issued a pamphlet called Against the Thieving and Murderous Bands of Peasants, which for violence and brutality is unmatched even in Luther's writings. Luther had come to regard himself as a prophet of God whose advise was the command of the Almighty Himself. And who is apt to become enraged as a prophet flouted. Luther begins by saying that his answers to the twelve Articles had been mild towards the peasants who were ungrateful enough to refuse his teachings and to begin robbing and rioting like "mad dogs." "Their professed belief in the Gospel is only a pretext for bloodshed. and it my duty to write differently concerning such miserable wretches and lay their sins before them.

              The reason for Luther's hostility in regards to the peasants demands was because he feared it would ruin his religious cause. Luther believed that his religious revolt, in order to succeed had to be backed up by the power of the princes or else he would meet the same fate as John Huss. Luther could not side with the peasants who were threatening the interest of his protectors. Luther's hostility towards the peasants was intensified by the declared adherence to the Gospel, a claim which Luther indignantly regarded as a wicked subterfuge. The real Luther was a person who at every turn, attacked anyone who not only disagreed with him, but rejected any of his teachings.

              Luther's pamphlet Against the Thieving and Murderous Bands of Peasants that he wrote in May of 1525 can be partly explained by the fact that Luther was jealous  of Carlstadt and Munzer who he hated as rivals and opponents, and who were now the recognized leaders of the common people. To Luther's mind, one was either with him or against him. To those who accepted his teaching he was a friend, and to those who rejected his teachings, then they were his enemies.

.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for the kind words. My hope would be that people wouldn’t base their knowledge of Luther on anything I write or someone with a blog or website. Rather, people should go to the sources quoted or read Luther in context, especially noting the historical context. It’s often quite revealing to read the actual context of what’s being quoted on the internet.

Yep.

GKC

Let me second (well “third”) what you’ve both said. Obviously, when I post something on the net, I hope that others will agree with it; but I hate to think that anyone will believe it just because it is on the net. (I mean really, have you seen everything on the Internet? :sigh: )

 

[Per_Crucem]

Thanks very much for this information. Somewhere along the line I heard wrongly on both counts, so I shouldn’t have commented at all about it!

I love genealogical stuff. One of these days I’m gonna join Ancestry.com and learn about my old Scottish clan background. I know I have some ancestors from Cornwall, too, which was historically a Celtic area in the extreme southwest of England.

But the Armstrong clan area is just above the border with England, just about in the center of the land mass, east to west. One day I will get there!

Mine, too! Well, Scotland that is. I think the clan I trace my mother’s ancestry to is one of the few that remained Catholic after that blowhard Knox came through.

 

[Peter_J]

Mine, too! Well, Scotland that is. I think the clan I trace my mother’s ancestry to is one of the few that remained Catholic after that blowhard Knox came through.

Don’t know a lot about his life, but given that he was Calvinist I’m not terribly surprised that you have a non-high opinion of him.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Don’t know a lot about his life, but given that he was Calvinist I’m not terribly surprised that you have a non-high opinion of him.

Yes, for the most part. Calvinism is heresy (at least, some of its teachings; and yes, I realize Catholics think much the same vis a Lutheranism, but that’s neither here nor there ).

 

[Topper17]

Guano,

You call what I said disingenuous? You have every right to make your points about Luther and Melanchthon and anybody else you care to.

The standard “Legend” of Martin Luther, the one that was used (and so a lesser extent still is), is that he was SO MUCH better than those horrid Catholics of his day. But in fact, if they were intolerant, he was even less so. If they were poor Theologians and Exegetes, then he was so much better? Etc. Etc. But the fact is that in virtually every area, Luther was FAR WORSE than the Catholics of his day.

Guano, which Catholic Theologian recommended the death of rabbis for the ‘crime’ of teaching the Jewish faith to Jews? Specifically who did that? Who recommended the execution of ‘reluctant wives’? Specifically who did that? Which Catholic Theologian recommended the slaughter of the peasants – without mercy? Please provide me with the names.

Guano, I cannot tell you how many times I have seen this “Oh ya, well the Catholics of the time ………….” completely avoiding the point that was being made. That is only PRETENDING to respond to a post, which is exactly what you did.

Yes it was a violent time, but if I remember correctly, when I asked if you could name a more violent Theologian in Christian history (other than Luther), you couldn’t come up with a name. Neither can anybody else.

Luther was planning on making everything ‘better’ and some, even today, continue to insist that he actually did. But that facts are that he and his influence on others made virtually EVERYTHING worse.

What I think is actually disingenuous though was YOUR response. I have seen probably 500 times at least, when Protestants pick out some minor detail and make some counter charge without dealing with the point being made. In addition, they will pick the least significant issue in the post, ignnoring the really important ones, and say “well the Catholic Church did this and that – so there.”

The thing that is weird about your response is that 99.9% of the time I see this tactic employed it is being used by Protestants in defending their position and to sweep some truth about Luther under the carpet. Here though it is you defending a Protestant position, which you do a lot by the way. I find that curious.

That being said, I think it would be helpful if you took a do over and dealt with the portion of my post that was a little stickier. That would be the portion as follows:

“**Between 1530 and 1532 Luther s intolerance comes yet more to the fore; it was indeed his way, when once he had made any view his own, to urge it in the strongest terms. Thus, at the end of 1531, he again alludes to Master Hans: “Those who force themselves in without any office or commission are not worthy of being called false prophets but are vagrants and knaves, who ought to be handed over to the tender mercies of Master Hans.” “It is not allowed that each one should proceed according to his own ideas and set up his own doctrine and fancy himself a sage, and dictate to, and find fault with, others.” "This I call judging of doctrine, which is one of the greatest and most scatheful vices.” **Grisar VI, pg. 252-3

Master Hans is the hangman, so when Luther says that someone should be turned over to Master Hans, it means that they are to be hanged. In this case, the crime is doctrinal disagreement with Him. Here he makes the statement that people should not be allowed to set up their own doctrines according to their own ideas. He then states that this “judging” of doctrine is not allowed, but what he really means is that judging of HIS doctrine is not allowed. Somehow he seemed to have forgotten that it was HE who “judged” the WHOLE of 1500 years worth of Christian doctrine.

According to Luther one should not:

1. Proceed according to his own ideas
2. Set up his own doctrine
3. Fancy himself a sage
4. Dictate to (others)
5. Find fault with (others)

Luther calls all of the above “judging doctrine” claiming that it is “one of the greatest and most scatheful of vices. Amazingly, on this I agree with Luther 200%.

So guano, how do you NOT see Luther as being hugely hypocritical on these points. Didn’t he do the above 1-5 as well as anybody in history? The fact that he could accuse others of these things and yet NOT see them in himself points out his complete lack of actual self-awareness. On so many issues other people saw far better than he did what he was doing and where he was headed. This is not the trait of a good Theologian.

So, in order to be un-disingenuous, how about if you explain why Luther should not be seen as being guilty of the above five points, the very five points which he condemns in others.

One thing though, I would agree with Luther, people should NOT do those five things. They are the marks of virtually ALL of the heretics in Christian history.

Topper

 

[Topper17]

Thanks for your very kind words, and for reading! I deeply appreciate it.

Sure; just misrepresent me, and if it shows up in a Google search, I’ll show up! LOL

95% of the time folks are writing about me, – with reputed “refutations” – they don’t let me know (for some odd reason), so I have to run across it in a Google search.

The really funny thing is that several anti-Catholics, knowing that I routinely discovered their personal attacks, started referring to me as “DA” so I couldn’t find their junk in a Google Search (or sometimes “Dear Ol’ Dave”: as in Steve Hays’ case). It caught on and soon became common practice. Can’t be too careful when you are distorting the arguments of others!

TertiumQuid, who is active in this thread, even did several book reviews of my first book on John Calvin, without ever mentioning my name (not even “DA”), or even the name of the book (!!!) [see the http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search/label/Biblical%20Catholic%20Answers%20for%20John%20Calvin%3F”]six-part series

]. That’s quite a spectacle, to be reviewing a book, and folks don’t even know who the author is. ROFL Ah, the stories I could tell . . .

I realize this is off-topic, so I should refrain from replying to some of these things.

Hi Dave,

I think you could chalk that up to ‘professional jealousy’, but then that wouldn’t apply in a situation where one is an actual Professional and the other is merely an admitted ‘hobbyist’. (like me )

God Bless You Dave, Topper

 

[mayogirl25]

Seeing all you go back and forth on this and to answer the original question “Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated” to answer in a nutshell. He was a monk who believed the Holy Roman Church was corrupt so he decided to voice his opinion and he posted some documents on a church door and was excommunicated so he could no longer say Mass and he ended up starting the Lutheran religion (and then he married a nun). That’s it in a nutshell. He was not alone at this time of history. Others were also voicing opposition to the corrupt HRC so he was one of many. Simple answer, cut and dry.

Tradition has it and taught to me in school in the 50’s that whenever ML tried to say Mass again after his excommunication the Crucifix would fall off the wall and that is why Protestant churches do not display a Crucifix and only a cross.

 

[JonNC]

Seeing all you go back and forth on this and to answer the original question “Who is Martin Luther and why was he excommunicated” to answer in a nutshell. He was a monk who believed the Holy Roman Church was corrupt so he decided to voice his opinion and he posted some documents on a church door and was excommunicated so he could no longer say Mass and he ended up starting the Lutheran religion (and then he married a nun). That’s it in a nutshell. He was not alone at this time of history. Others were also voicing opposition to the corrupt HRC so he was one of many. Simple answer, cut and dry.

Tradition has it and taught to me in school in the 50’s that whenever ML tried to say Mass again after his excommunication the Crucifix would fall off the wall and that is why Protestant churches do not display a Crucifix and only a cross.

That’s a fantastic story!! Thanks for sharing it.

Ironic, isn’t it, that Lutheran churches often have crucifixes.

Jon

 

[DaveArmstrong]

Tradition has it and taught to me in school in the 50’s that whenever ML tried to say Mass again after his excommunication the Crucifix would fall off the wall and that is why Protestant churches do not display a Crucifix and only a cross.

That’s a silly tradition, since Luther was a staunch defender of crucifixes. It’s Calvin and the Calvinists who were borderline iconoclasts: didn’t like crucifixes and considered (amazingly enough) even statues of Christ and sometimes bare crosses to be idols.

They originally smashed organs and stained glass, too, as “idols” when crazed Calvinist iconoclastic mobs were rampaging around, trying to gut every Catholic Church they could find (before stealing them altogether) of holy objects and beauty.

Some very odd stuff in Christian history. But Luther opposed iconoclasm and was also a great supporter of music, which is why we have the Lutheran Bach.

 

[JonNC]

That’s a silly tradition, since Luther was a staunch defender of crucifixes. It’s Calvin and the Calvinists who were borderline iconoclasts: didn’t like crucifixes and considered (amazingly enough) even statues of Christ and sometimes bare crosses to be idols.

They originally smashed organs and stained glass, too, as “idols” when crazed Calvinist iconoclastic mobs were rampaging around, trying to gut every Catholic Church they could find (before stealing them altogether) of holy objects and beauty.

Some very odd stuff in Christian history. But Luther opposed iconoclasm and was also a great supporter of music, which is why we have the Lutheran Bach.

Jon

 

[steido01]

Some very odd stuff in Christian history. But Luther opposed iconoclasm and was also a great supporter of music, which is why we have the Lutheran Bach.

Bachs plural. J.S. had 20 children or so, IIRC. Several went on to be great musicians too. Lutherans enjoy their marriages – I mean, their music.

And then we can’t forget Gerhardt, Praetorius, Handel, Beethoven, the Mendelssohns, Christiansen, etc. If a Lutheran ordinariate should ever happen, the RCC would inherit some incredible works.

Thanks, Dave, for pointing out that even Luther and we feisty Lutherans have some redeeming qualities.

 

[PRmerger]

Lutherans enjoy their marriages – I mean, their music.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Topper: Great post#480! I would like to add some more concerning the Peasants Revolt that might be of interest.

                In may of 1525, Luther issued a pamphlet called Against the Thieving and Murderous Bands of Peasants, which for violence and brutality is unmatched even in Luther's writings. Luther had come to regard himself as a prophet of God whose advise was the command of the Almighty Himself. And who is apt to become enraged as a prophet flouted. Luther begins by saying that his answers to the twelve Articles had been mild towards the peasants who were ungrateful enough to refuse his teachings and to begin robbing and rioting like "mad dogs." "Their professed belief in the Gospel is only a pretext for bloodshed. and it my duty to write differently concerning such miserable wretches and lay their sins before them.

              The reason for Luther's hostility in regards to the peasants demands was because he feared it would ruin his religious cause. Luther believed that his religious revolt, in order to succeed had to be backed up by the power of the princes or else he would meet the same fate as John Huss. Luther could not side with the peasants who were threatening the interest of his protectors. Luther's hostility towards the peasants was intensified by the declared adherence to the Gospel, a claim which Luther indignantly regarded as a wicked subterfuge. The real Luther was a person who at every turn, attacked anyone who not only disagreed with him, but rejected any of his teachings.

              Luther's pamphlet Against the Thieving and Murderous Bands of Peasants that he wrote in May of 1525 can be partly explained by the fact that Luther was jealous  of Carlstadt and Munzer who he hated as rivals and opponents, and who were now the recognized leaders of the common people. To Luther's mind, one was either with him or against him. To those who accepted his teaching he was a friend, and to those who rejected his teachings, then they were his enemies.

.

Hi Spina,

Thanks for your kind words.

We know that the mere mention of the name Cochlaeus brings about an almost nuclear response here, and it is true that the man was about as hateful towards Luther as vice versa. That being said, I am NOT quoting Cochlaeus, just introducing the fact that in 1523 he predicted, two years prior to the Peasants War, that the peasants would rise in rebellion, and that he tied the coming strife in part to Luther. When we look at the 8 or 9 quotes from various scholars that Dave and I have posted, it appears that he was making a valid connection.

**“A Catholic humanist, Johannes Cochlaeus, warned Luther (1523) that ‘the populace in the towns, and the peasants in the provinces, will inevitably rise in rebellion ……They are poisoned by the innumerable abusive pamphlets and speeches that are printed and declaimed among them against both papal and secular authority.’ Luther, the preachers, and the pamphleteers were not the cause of the revolt; the causes were the just grievances of the peasantry. 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.” ** Will Durant, “The Reformation”, pg. 383

This appears to assign too much of the responsibility to Luther, but by the same token, the idea that he should be assigned none is not exactly in keeping with the facts.

As I have mentioned earlier, I have a book with the entire treatise of Cochlaeus against Luther and do not use it. In this situation, the** only** point of this Durant quote is to document that in 1523 Cochlaeus predicted that the peasants would revolt and cited Luther among others as being one of the reasons for the likely coming revolt. Rather than the polemics of Cochlaeus, and for that matter, Luther, I think that Durant has a better perspective on Luther’s role in the horrors of the Peasant’s War. As we have seen, many modern historians have come to the same conclusions.

Again, I have not quoted Cochlaeus, and I have not because he is too hateful and too unreliable a witness. Come to think of it, what if we were to employ the same criteria on the use of Luther’s quotes?

I offer up Cochlaeus to provide people with an easy way to appear to be dealing with the thrust of my post, without actually dealing with the fact that so many Scholars agree that Luther bears a certain level of responsibility for the Peasant’s War.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

 

[mayogirl25]

That’s a fantastic story!! Thanks for sharing it.

Ironic, isn’t it, that Lutheran churches often have crucifixes.

Jon

Well of course it was taught to me by Irish Catholic nuns in London in the 50’s but these stories have a way of sticking to 7 year olds. It is really true that Protestant churches display Christ on the Cross? I have no way of knowing since I have never been in a Protestant place of worship. That was alway taught to us as being not allowed.