Why should I care what Luther wrote?

[hn160]

It is understandable that Luther would say this. Remember, he was terrified of making a mistake. His scrupulosity was so serious that he lost confidence even in his own capacity to reason.

The real issue is not transubstantiation. The real issue is the denial of actual grace. When one denies the possibilities in the natural gifts that God has given us, one commits two fatal errors.

First: one denies that we are made in God’s image and likeness. Therefore, we have the capacity to reach truth through reason and God can reach us through reason.

Second: one denies that the through the Incarnation God breaks into human history and makes it part of his history. The unity between the human and the divine in Christ, sanctify the human. Therefore, God can and does act through human effort.

For Luther, this was too dangerous, because he denied the possibility of anything good coming from man. This is where he borders on dualism. The spiritual is good and the human is bad. However, we know that this cannot be true, because humanity is saved by the death of a man. The Second Person of the Trinity is a real man. Therefore, goodness and salvation comes through the unity between humanity and divinity without blending. Redemption is brought to us through the God-Man, not divinity by itself.

Luther is inconsistent in his denial of reason, because he uses his system to fight what had been handed down to the Church. In essence, he was using some kind of reason.

If we believe that Luther says that what is not in scripture is not true, then we make a fool out of him. We know that this was a very intelligent young man. He was not a fool. Therefore, this is not what he is saying. This is the way that he is being interpreted.

A wonderful example of how Luther thought is our judicial system. One is never found innocent. One is simply “not guilty” because the jury or the judge is not convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt. Luther used this same thought process. He was not convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt and scripture did not provide the exact words that he needed to resolve his conflict. He does not say that transubstantiation is false. He says that he couldn’t find it in scripture. The problem was that he was not using exegesis. His approach was very literal. Again, we see him playing it safe. Again, his anxiety about making a mistake cripples him. However, he is using reason, even though he rejects the use of reason.

Unless we see this poor man for what he was, an intelligent man whose scruples led him down a neurotic path of self destruction, we will always do two things, both of which are wrong.

One, some will believe him to be the best theologian in history.

Two, others will condemn him as the most evil man who ever lived.

The truth is that he was neither.

He was a theologian, with a very serious problem that crippled his capacity to trust himself and God. This lack of trust led him into grave error and he took others down that road with him.

Objectively, he is morally responsible for not working to find a solution to his conflicts. Instead, he threw the baby out the window with the water and the bloody tub too.

Subjectively, only God knows the state of his soul when he died. We can only pray for him.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

This is why Lutherans and Catholics part ways, we have a different understanding what happens in Baptism and the Eucharist and Original Sin.

 

[JReducation]

This is why Lutherans and Catholics part ways, we have a different understanding what happens in Baptism and the Eucharist and Original Sin.

I don’t see the differences as marked as some people would make them. The problem among the Lutherans and Catholics is what I call, Sunday Morning Quarter Backing. Now that we have college degrees, internet, more access to books, and other means of communication, everyone is an expert.

However, when the rubber meets the road, Lutheran theologians are not saying the same things that the Lutheran people are saying about Baptism, Original Sin and the Eucharist. They are much closer to agreeing with Catholic theologians than most Lutherans and even some Catholics.

I think this is the Great Divide, that the average man in the pew, be he Lutheran or Catholic, is not always paying attention to what the people above are saying. The people in leadership among Lutherans and Catholics seem to get along quite well and don’t waste time on these silly discussions.

I received my degree in theology at a Pontifical University. One of my professors was a Lutheran theologian. He was more Catholic than I was. When I attended a congress between Lutheran and Catholic theologians to discuss the whole question of faith and works, I was amazed at how well both sides put the whole thing together and agreed that faith and works are necessary for salvation. In the meantime, the folks in the pews and the pastor in the little church out there somewhere, who did not read the documents and the studies that went into the documents that eventually led to the accord, are still arguing this point While the people in authority are home sleeping peacefully.

I have begun to avoid these discussions about what the Catholic understands and what the Lutheran understands, because I find that often, the folks don’t understand and are not listening to what the people upstairs are saying.

You’re right, Catholics and Lutherans part company on these issues, but not because our theology is that radically different. They part company, because the people in the pews doesn’t know the theology. If they did, they would find that there is more agreement than disagreement. If they paid attention to the leadership of the Church and the Lutheran ecclesial community, they would be surprised at how well these folks get along and how profound are their discussions. They don’t flit around over what did Luther say and what did Luther mean. Most scholars today only care what Luther said in order to understand what happened and why it happened. Most Lutheran theologians are not followers of Luther. Given the insight that we have into human behavior and mental health, it is clear to see that this was a very unhappy man, with many issues, and many anxieties. In today’s world, he may have been treated for obsessive disorders.

What is interesting about him is how something that is not a moral issue, such as anxiety, coupled with scrupulosity, and coated with the many abuses of the time, sent him into a tailspin triggering all kinds of theological problems and personal moral conflicts. This is something to which we must pay special attention, because none of us is exempt from experiencing the same crisis. The question is what should or could he have done differently? This is what Catholic and Lutheran theologians discuss.

It’s a fascinating discussion. More people should become familiar with this man and his time, as well as with the other key players of that time. Maybe, we can find a way to unite the Christian people, if we can better understand what happened rather than point to “you believe this” and “we believe that”. Those statements have been going around for 500 years and have not solved anything. It’s time to drop them and move on to the real problem.

What happened? Why did it happen? Who did what? What could they have done differently? How can we reverse the damage that was caused by both sides? What do we need to stop saying? What should we say to each other and how?

Honesty, humility and reason may help us reunite as one people. I think it is not necessary to add that charity, prayer and penance would not hurt. Just in case, I’ll add that too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[guanophore]

This is why Lutherans and Catholics part ways, we have a different understanding what happens in Baptism and the Eucharist and Original Sin.

Is that right? I thought Luther retained the Apostolic faith in these areas. Do these represent areas where modern Lutherans do not follow what Luther believed and taught?

 

[JonNC]

I don’t see the differences as marked as some people would make them. The problem among the Lutherans and Catholics is what I call, Sunday Morning Quarter Backing. Now that we have college degrees, internet, more access to books, and other means of communication, everyone is an expert.

However, when the rubber meets the road, Lutheran theologians are not saying the same things that the Lutheran people are saying about Baptism, Original Sin and the Eucharist. They are much closer to agreeing with Catholic theologians than most Lutherans and even some Catholics.

I think this is the Great Divide, that the average man in the pew, be he Lutheran or Catholic, is not always paying attention to what the people above are saying. The people in leadership among Lutherans and Catholics seem to get along quite well and don’t waste time on these silly discussions.

I received my degree in theology at a Pontifical University. One of my professors was a Lutheran theologian. He was more Catholic than I was. When I attended a congress between Lutheran and Catholic theologians to discuss the whole question of faith and works, I was amazed at how well both sides put the whole thing together and agreed that faith and works are necessary for salvation. In the meantime, the folks in the pews and the pastor in the little church out there somewhere, who did not read the documents and the studies that went into the documents that eventually led to the accord, are still arguing this point While the people in authority are home sleeping peacefully.

I have begun to avoid these discussions about what the Catholic understands and what the Lutheran understands, because I find that often, the folks don’t understand and are not listening to what the people upstairs are saying.

You’re right, Catholics and Lutherans part company on these issues, but not because our theology is that radically different. They part company, because the people in the pews doesn’t know the theology. If they did, they would find that there is more agreement than disagreement. If they paid attention to the leadership of the Church and the Lutheran ecclesial community, they would be surprised at how well these folks get along and how profound are their discussions. They don’t flit around over what did Luther say and what did Luther mean. Most scholars today only care what Luther said in order to understand what happened and why it happened. Most Lutheran theologians are not followers of Luther. Given the insight that we have into human behavior and mental health, it is clear to see that this was a very unhappy man, with many issues, and many anxieties. In today’s world, he may have been treated for obsessive disorders.

What is interesting about him is how something that is not a moral issue, such as anxiety, coupled with scrupulosity, and coated with the many abuses of the time, sent him into a tailspin triggering all kinds of theological problems and personal moral conflicts. This is something to which we must pay special attention, because none of us is exempt from experiencing the same crisis. The question is what should or could he have done differently? This is what Catholic and Lutheran theologians discuss.

It’s a fascinating discussion. More people should become familiar with this man and his time, as well as with the other key players of that time. Maybe, we can find a way to unite the Christian people, if we can better understand what happened rather than point to “you believe this” and “we believe that”. Those statements have been going around for 500 years and have not solved anything. It’s time to drop them and move on to the real problem.

What happened? Why did it happen? Who did what? What could they have done differently? How can we reverse the damage that was caused by both sides? What do we need to stop saying? What should we say to each other and how?

Honesty, humility and reason may help us reunite as one people. I think it is not necessary to add that charity, prayer and penance would not hurt. Just in case, I’ll add that too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I tend to agree with you.

Jon

 

[Izdaari]

I mean this with no disrespect as I honestly do not understand why a person should really care what Luther said or wrote. Why is he considered such a significant man as to warrant the naming of an entire Church for him. I find it odd that there is a whole Church that names itself for a man. I see a lot of threads about Protestants where Lutherans refer to or ask others to read his writings. Just curious as to what Lutherans have to say about this.

There’s no particular reason you, or anyone else who isn’t a Lutheran, should care about Luther’s writings unless they make sense to you. I’ve read some of them (by no means all, he wrote a lot) and by and large they do make sense to me, far more so than most Christian writers.

 

[JonNC]

You know, I was thinking of you when I wrote that! I was not sure you were watching this thread.

I am also thinking of my Eastern brethren, and how they cling to mystery, and resist the over rationalizing of the faith. Scholasticism is a Western phenomenon, and though it has given us many valuable benefits to understanding our faith, at times I think my Latin brethren tend to overthink the faith. In the East, entering into the mystery of Theosis is more important that being able to explain it.

I that clinging to the mystery very inviting. A quote from John of Damascus I’ve stumbled upon says, “… if you enquire how this happens,* it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit**, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit”*

I love the quote, not only for its emphasis on the mystery, but its linking of the Eucharist and the Incarnation.

Jon

 

[ExLibris]

I mean this with no disrespect as I honestly do not understand why a person should really care what Luther said or wrote. Why is he considered such a significant man as to warrant the naming of an entire Church for him. I find it odd that there is a whole Church that names itself for a man. I see a lot of threads about Protestants where Lutherans refer to or ask others to read his writings. Just curious as to what Lutherans have to say about this.

Firstly, you should read Luther’s writing for opposition research.

Also, it makes you a more educated individual. Good or bad. The Protestant Reformation is an important geopolitical and historical event that changed the course of history.

 

[guanophore]

Firstly, you should read Luther’s writing for opposition research.

Also, it makes you a more educated individual. Good or bad. The Protestant Reformation is an important geopolitical and historical event that changed the course of history.

 

[JReducation]

Firstly, you should read Luther’s writing for opposition research.

Also, it makes you a more educated individual. Good or bad. The Protestant Reformation is an important geopolitical and historical event that changed the course of history.

And you can’t work for unity, if you don’t know what separated us.

All of us, Catholics and Protestants, need to get off our perches and admit that our ancestors created this mess. Therefore, it’s oiut responsibility to work together to resolve it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Contarini]

Sticking my nose in, it doesn’t for me. While I find the metaphysics of Transub to be, how shall I say, an unnecessary dogmatic statement, the underpinnings are simply that it is His body, and it is His blood, on which Lutherans unqualifyingly agree. But if we are to use these types of explanations, Transub is a far bit better than consubstantiation.

Jon

Very well put. I thoroughly agree with this.