[Wondergirl]

Wondergirl,
Yes I know what was going on.
Don't forget that for many years I was very much against the Catholic Church and dug up much dirt to throw at it.
There is NO church that does not have some bad history.
The reason is that those churches are full of human beings.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

But you miss the point. Luther wasn't throwing dirt. He was trying to correct the church's bad administration, the human leaders who were misleading the parishioners.

[arcura]

Wondergirl,
But as I said, I was the one throwing dirt, but no more.
Fred

[JoeT777]

You apparently didn't notice what I had said -- "Don't forget -- the absolutely last thing Luther wanted was to leave the Church. He was interested only in addressing its wrongs and oversights with the hope that they would be corrected. He was devastated when he was excommunicated."
If he was mad, it was because he had lost his anchor.

Wondergirl , I agree that Luther did not want to leave The Church. But he did attack it and even denounced the pope. Peace and kindness,'
Fred

Oh, I disagree with both of you. I believe that Luther was deliberately attempting to bring down the Church..

I’ve come to view the Protestant movement (Luther’s schism) as an intentional movement, as opposed to the happenstance of ‘unfortunate consequences’ or unintended results due to the social and economic situations at the time. The ‘schism’ movement can be viewed as the first step in a move to a more toward a secular government, granting and witholding inalienable rights; as opposed to governing to protect and respect God’s inalienable rights. It seems that all power in the Christian world by the 1500’s was wrapped up in the Church. I’ve come to view the Protestant movement was little more than political in nature using a crippled (redefined by Luther) Christianity as a tool by the aristocracy to pry political power in revolt. It’s my opinion that this is the general sense of the schismatic history in England and the Germanic states. Since that time, being without the moral and ethical rule of Catholic faith, it’s turned into a secular humanist movement to maintain and wield control over the populace – i.e. hold the power

I believe it can be shown that from the onset Luther’s goal was to destroy the Church. There was no attempt at ‘reform’ or ‘correct.’ From a gloss we can see schism early in Luther’s career. His main goal was to tear down what Christ had built up. Considering himself a great prophet on the order of Moses; no doubt aligned with the great deceiver, openly declared his desire to disrupt the Mass:

If I succeed in doing away with the Mass, then I shall believe I have completely conquered the Pope. On the Mass, as on a rock, the whole of the Papacy is based, with its monasteries, bishoprics, colleges, altars, services and doctrines. ... If the sacrilegious and cursed custom of Mass is overthrown, then the whole must fall. Through me Christ has begun to reveal the abomination standing in the Holy Place (Dan. ix. 27), and to destroy him [the Papal Antichrist] who has taken up his seat there with the devils help, with false miracles and deceiving signs. (Grisar, Luther, Vol. II, pg 320 seqq., London Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., LTD., Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, E.G., 1913)

His scheming was hidden from the faithful. It was difficult sometimes to recognize the differences between the Catholic Church that the peasants loved, and the outward appearance of Luther’s Church. When the people noticed, the sword was used. Yet, at Luther’s direction the liturgy of the Mass was incrementally and imperceptibly altered, little by little, like the boiled frog as the heat slowly increased never notices his impending doom, the faithful didn’t see they were embroiled in schism until they were poached. Later Luther was to brag:

“Thank God, in indifferent matters our churches are so arranged that a layman, whether Italian or Spaniard, unable to understand our preaching, seeing our Mass, choir, organs, bells, chantries, etc., would surely say that it was a regular papist church, and that there was no difference, or very little, between it and his own.” (Grisar, Luther, Vol. II, pg 322, London Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., LTD., Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, E.G., 1913)

Why hold Luther up to scrutiny? Scripturally, we are to test every word that is said to have come from God. Further, to discern whether Luther was from God, we need to see if the results one’s life was a good, which would move us closer to God, or an evil, moving us further from God. Testing Luther’s understanding of Scripture we find it to be at odds with the Church’s ordained Magisterium. We most always see Saints make a real and lasting change or move to a permanent holiness. Generally speaking, in Luther, we see right the opposite, a move towards immorality. This was the issue with Henry VIII’s bigamy and his devoice; it seems that Luther proposed that bigamy was more expedient than divorce. While it might raise a flag, it’s not too big a deal, right. What then should we make of Luther’s suggesting bigamy in his council to Phillip of Hesse? We also find that Luther reneged on certain assurances given the Pope Leo X, to his Bishop, Bishop Scultetus, and to Emperor Charles. Why? What’s the story behind this? Chivalry hadn’t died in 1500, not yet anyway – some would say that chivalry moved along with a more ‘rationalized’ morality shortly after Luther, where you might say see moral truth becoming a shivaree of mendacity. I’ve mentioned it before, what is the Evangel, the mystic being that whispered to him while he was on his throne? Are there grounds to suggest that there is a psychological problem with Luther’s sanity? Luther’s writings are complete with battles with the devil – funny? Take it serious - did he lose the battle with the devil? Luther had a funny outlook on the sacrament of marriage, especially for somebody who was a Catholic priest, who claimed to be a prophet (I wonder for whose profit his prognostications are for – the good spirits or the bad guys?)

Sick he might have been, but there was deliberate, some would say Judas-like, madness to that sickness.

JoeT

[Wondergirl]

Oh, I disagree with both of you. I believe that Luther was deliberately attempting to bring down the Church.

You need to read more about this subject. The author of this book has an axe to grind.

Grisar knocked himself out in these volumes to play Freudian analyst (during the Freudian age), labeling Luther a psychopath. The author's bias was implicit; his intent was only to ruin Luther's reputation. There was no attempt to it understand Luther, but only the attempt to rule out Luther's person and all that Luther had achieved. The Catholic philosopher Johannes Hessen has evaluated the methods of Luther "biographer" Dominican Church historian Heinrich Denifle and Jesuit professor Hartmann Grisar as follows: "One may doubt which of the two methods of killing Luther was the most pleasant: The rude, but open, way of the Dominican ... or the cunning method of the Jesuit. . . . There is no doubt that both methods are failures."

Of course, Grisar's work on Luther very neatly ignores Luther's insistence of justification by faith alone. That is where the discussion should be, not on his mental and emotional capabilities or failings.

[arcura]

JoeT,
Thanks for sharing your thots on that.
I find them to be very interesting.
For many years I was a Lutheran and perhaps some of that is still hanging around like old cob webs.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[JoeT777]

You need to read more about this subject. The author of this book has an axe to grind.

Grisar knocked himself out in these volumes to play Freudian analyst (during the Freudian age), labeling Luther a psychopath. The author's bias was implicit; his intent was only to ruin Luther’s reputation. There was no attempt to it understand Luther, but only the attempt to rule out Luther’s person and all that Luther had achieved. The Catholic philosopher Johannes Hessen has evaluated the methods of Luther "biographer" Dominican Church historian Heinrich Denifle and Jesuit professor Hartmann Grisar as follows: "One may doubt which of the two methods of killing Luther was the most pleasant: The rude, but open, way of the Dominican ... or the cunning method of the Jesuit. . . . There is no doubt that both methods are failures."

Of course, Grisar's work on Luther very neatly ignores Luther’s insistence of justification by faith alone. That is where the discussion should be, not on his mental and emotional capabilities or failings.

I couldn’t disagree with you more. It seems kind of strange to hear someone say, ‘the critic grinds axes’ because he has an opinion different from yours. For a long time Lutherans have taken sophist approach to Scripture itself, but thwarts any attempt to Judge Luther the man to discern if any sophistry exists. As it were, “a derailment or departure from a historian's objectivity, to say an ill word against Luther, to speak of a Lutheran heresy, and to call Luther a heresiarch, as I, a Catholic man of letters, do. Besides, if Protestantism and "Catholicism" are two religious persuasions equally warranted, complementing each other in their inmost being and representing at most two different sides of Christian life, it follows that, if the one side be heretical, the other is also, and vice versa.” (Heinrich Denifile, Luther and Lutherdom, Vol 1. Part 1, Foreword to the Second Edition, Page X, English translation Source: Luther and Lutherdom (Open Library)). Do we wish to follow in the footsteps of heresy to avoid hurting one’s sensibilities?

So, we find examples of Luther’s sophistry in examples such as the Pack affair where we see that Luther’s contemporaries felt that he was "the most coldblooded liar that ever got among us." "We must say and write of him that the recreant monk lies to our face like a despairing, dishonorable, perjured scoundrel." "We have hitherto not found in the Scriptures that Christ used so open and deliberate a liar in the apostolic orifice, allowing him to preach the gospel.” (Duke George, on the occasion of the Pack affair, described Luther, December 19, 1528) [The Pack affair mentioned in the text refers to Otto Pack who, in 1528, sent Philipan alleged copy of a treaty between Duke George and other Catholic princes, to the effect that they would rise up and annihilate the Protestants. Pack was never able to produce the original or to offer the slightest proof of its existence.] (Ibid, Pp 138-139) it doesn’t put Luther in a very good light, does it? Should we ignore sin because, as Luther would say, “fragilitas humana non permittit caste vivere (human frailty does not permit one to live chastely)? So, we sin mightily instead?

Hatmann Grisar studied and worked at Innsbruck during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. A Jesuit Priest and professor, he wrote a six volume set on Luther, of course the Protestant world is not happy with his work saying that it’s not a ‘technical’ treatment of Luther’s life and works. Technical being an evaluation and testing of the theological propositions brought forward and proposed by Luther. What Grisar did was to make a psychological profile of Luther while at the same time critiquing Luther's theological views from the given benchmark of Catholicism. It’s my recollection Grisar uses the word ‘psychological’ to describe his historical treatise. It’s this form of treatise that most Protestants object to inferring that it is an ad hominem attack. I think it is a valid approach to evaluate, as it were, the validity of the shadow of the man. If Luther exposes Divine Truth, then such truths will be valid for the Catholic Church as well; but they’re not. One such topic “justification by faith alone” was discussed in my previous post #102 (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ml#post2295616 ) Luther’s understanding was wrong in 1520, it’s wrong now. Catholics then and now interpreted this verse as the prescribed and active justice whereby God punishes sinners AND rewords the faithful. You do recall that justice is a two edged sword, punishing the guilty, rewarding the faithful?

Nevertheless, this is a perfectly legitimate approach especially dealing with the disciplines of Divine truth – in fact, I would argue that it is one of the most important measures of any historical work. The questions that need to be asked are the how, the why, and the wherefores of holding any intellectual truth. The motivation behind holding such Divine-Truths is nearly as important as the object of the Truth. It’s only after this evaluation is made that we can take the Truth to the intellect which in turn moves it to a virtuous wisdom.

So, I think Luther is fair game to criticism. I think both Denifle’s and Grisar’s critical evaluations are valid to expose the man for what he was (good or bad). So, are you proposing that he should be untouchable; should we move Luther to the realm of ‘Demigod’? Do we venerate Luther, like we adore the Blessed Virgin Mary? Would you move Luther into the Blessed Virgin’s rightful Little Office, putting in her place a tormented soul?


JoeT

[Wondergirl]

I couldn’t disagree with you more. It seems kind of strange to hear someone say, ‘the critic grinds axes’ because he has an opinion different from yours.

Scholars (both Catholic and Protestant) have opined that Grisar did indeed have an axe to grind and made his "biography" into a psychological evaluation instead a la the times (Freud).

For a long time Lutherans have taken sophist approach to Scripture itself, but thwarts any attempt to Judge Luther the man to discern if any sophistry exists.

Sophistry??

So, I think Luther is fair game to criticism.

And I will be the first to criticize him, but fairly by looking at both the positives and negatives.

[Wondergirl]

One such topic “justification by faith alone” was discussed in my previous post #102 (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ml#post2295616 )

I clicked and found a thread that was mostly De Maria's comments.

***ADDED*** I finally found this at #101. I see no reasonable objection to "sola fide." I see where Luther was quoted and that quote was misinterpreted by Grisar.

[JoeT777]

I clicked and found a thread that was mostly De Maria's comments.

I don't understand, it took me straight to post no 102?

[Wondergirl]

I don't understand, it took me straight to post no 102?

It took me to another page of the thread (Athos, #29), but I moved to #102 and found it at #101. (What you see is not what someone else sees. We figured that out on some other thread.)

[JoeT777]

I clicked and found a thread that was mostly De Maria's comments.

***ADDED*** I finally found this at #101. I see no reasonable objection to "sola fide." I see where Luther was quoted and that quote was misinterpreted by Grisar.

Faith Alone

When defined by Luther, 'faith alone' means to have an absolute assurance of justification to a salvific state; this is in direct conflict with the Church as Grisar explains:

“In accordance therewith justifying faith includes not only a belief in Christ as the Saviour; I must not merely believe that He will save and sanctify me if I turn to Him with humility and confidence - this the Church had ever taught- but I must also have entire faith in my justification, and rest assured, that without any work whatsoever on my part and solely by means of such a faith, all the demands made upon me are fulfilled, the merits of Christ appropriated, and my remaining sins not imputed to me ; such is personal assurance of salvation by faith alone.”

The teaching of the Catholic Church, we may remind our readers, never recognized in its exhortation to faith and confidence in God, the existence of this "faith alone" which justifies without further ado, nor did it require that of necessity there must be a special faith in one's state of salvation. In place of faith alone the Church taught what the Council of Trent thus sums up:

“We are said to be justified by faith because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and reach the blessed company of His children." [Trent, Session 6, c. 8.]

And instead of setting up a special faith in our own state of salvation, her teaching, as expressed by the same Council, had ever been that "no devout person may doubt the mercy of God, the merit of Christ and the power and efficacy of the sacraments," though, on the other hand, "no one may boast with certainty of the remission of his sins"; "nor may it be said that those who are truly justified must convince themselves beyond all doubt that they are justified and that no one is absolved from sin and justified unless he believe with certainty that he has been so absolved and justified, as though absolution and justification were accomplished by this faith alone"; "but rather everyone, bearing in mind his own weakness and indisposition, may well be anxious and afraid for his salvation, as no one can know, with the certainty of faith which excludes all error, that he has attained to the grace of God." (Grisar, Luther, Vol. I, Pp 418 seqq., London Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., LTD., Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, E.G., 1913)

JoeT

[Wondergirl]

Faith Alone

When defined by Luther, 'faith alone' means to have an absolute assurance of justification to a salvific state; this in direct conflict with the Church

... but is not in conflict with Bible teachings. Salvation "is a gift of God, not of works... "

[JoeT777]

...but is not in conflict with Bible teachings. Salvation "is a gift of God, not of works..."

The discussion here isn’t ‘faith alone’ but let me briefly reiterate what Grisar stated. The Church has always held that salvation is a gift, but it also holds that we have no special claim or inheritance to that salvation, rather we merit it through our works of faith. We can’t, as it were, ‘boast with certainty of the remission of his sins"; "nor may it be said that those who are truly justified must convince themselves beyond all doubt that they are justified and that no one is absolved from sin and justified unless he believe with certainty that he has been so absolved and justified, as though absolution and justification were accomplished by this faith alone”

Faith is dead without works.

JoeT

[Wondergirl]

The discussion here isn’t ‘faith alone’ but let me briefly reiterate what Grisar stated. The Church has always held that salvation is a gift, but

Dr. Phil says that as soon as you stick the work "but" into a sentence, it negates all that came before it. "Salvation is a gift, but" [it is not a gift. We still have to do something to get it.]

No. Salvation is a gift. Period. There is nothing we have to do to merit it.

Works are simply our thank-you to God for His gift.

[Wondergirl]

The discussion here isn't 'faith alone' but let me briefly reiterate what Grisar stated.

The discussion is about Luther and that he was psychotic, didn't know what the heck he believed and why. I'm saying he wasn't psychotic, did know what he believed and why.

The Church has always held that salvation is a gift, but it also holds that we have no special claim or inheritance to that salvation.

This statement supports Dr. Phil's belief that the word "but" negates all that preceded it. According to the RCC, salvation is not a gift. The second half of the sentence confirms that.

What's a gift? A gift is free, no strings attached. If there are strings, it isn't a gift.

[JoeT777]

Dr. Phil says that as soon as you stick the work "but" into a sentence, it negates all that came before it. "Salvation is a gift, but" [it is not a gift. We still have to do something to get it.]

No. Salvation is a gift. Period. There is nothing we have to do to merit it.

Works are simply our thank-you to God for His gift.

Who is Dr. Phil?

Then it would seem to me you can't have 'faith alone' with an absolute assurance of salvation. Because once faith becomes so pronounced, as Luther would require, beyond doubt, giving assurance (i.e. guarantee) of salvation then you've excluded the possibility of redemption which is required for salvation. Thus we can sin, and sin mightily, just so long as we believe all the more?

Again according to my faith (as opposed to Dr. Phil's – whoever he might be): "no one may boast with certainty of the remission of his sins"; "nor may it be said that those who are truly justified must convince themselves beyond all doubt that they are justified and that no one is absolved from sin and justified unless he believe with certainty that he has been so absolved and justified, as though absolution and justification were accomplished by this faith alone"

Works through charity belies 'faith alone'; the reward for works is the fulfillment of a Divine promise that our work in faith, hope, and charity are meriting of redemption and salvation.

JoeT

[Wondergirl]

Who is Dr. Phil?

A psychologist.

Then it would seem to me you can't have 'faith alone' with an absolute assurance of salvation.

Why not?

Because once faith becomes so pronounced, as Luther would require, beyond doubt, giving assurance (i.e. guarantee) of salvation then you've excluded the possibility of redemption which is required for salvation.

Why is redemption excluded? Jesus did that on Calvary. That's the grace, the gift.

Thus we can sin, and sign mightily, just so long as we believe all the more?

All the more? Just the regular way is fine.

Again according to my faith (as opposed to Dr. Phil's – whoever he might be)

You're not reading what I write. Dr. Phil was telling us about the word "but," not about faith.

"no one may boast with certainty of the remission of his sins"; "nor may it be said that those who are truly justified must convince themselves beyond all doubt that they are justified and that no one is absolved from sin and justified unless he believe with certainty that he has been so absolved and justified, as though absolution and justification were accomplished by this faith alone"

I boast and revel in this gift of salvation every day and thank God for it in whatever way I can think of.

Works through charity belies 'faith alone'

Works have nothing to do with salvation. Works are the way we express our thanks to God for His grace and mercy in saving us from eternal death.

the reward for works

There is no reward for works. Works are their own reward.

[Wondergirl]

Thus we can sin, and sin mightily, just so long as we believe all the more?

Btw, just so we get the story straight, Luther wrote to his colleague Philipp Melachthon from his hiding place, the Wartburg Castle, in 1521, "God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world."

[JoeT777]

Btw, just so we get the story straight, Luther wrote to his colleague Philipp Melachthon from his hiding place, the Wartburg Castle, in 1521, "God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world."

You might recall Juan's comment:

Here is what Luther has been quoted as saying. Even the "sanitized" version contradicts Scripture.

13. If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.


Both texts are from Scroll Publishing: Let Your Sins Be Strong: A Letter From Luther to Melanchthon Letter no. 99, 1 August 1521, From the Wartburg (Segment) Translated by Erika Bullmann Flores from: _Dr. Martin Luther’s Saemmtliche Schriften_ Dr, Johannes Georg Walch, Ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, N.D.), Vol. 15,cols. 2585-2590.

The cleaned up version says; similar to your quote:

13.”If you are a preacher of Grace, then preach a true, not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly. For he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here we have to sin. This life in not the dwelling place of righteousness but, as Peter says, we look for a new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. . . . Pray boldly-you too are a mighty sinner.” (Weimar ed. vol. 2, p. 371; Letters I, “Luther’s Works,” American Ed., Vol 48. p. 281- 282)

At the very least, it was a very careless and irresponsible way to express the idea that we should not sin. Because that idea is lost in the shocking manner it is expressed if it is there expressed at all.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Interesting, it seems that by some mystical power of ‘faith’ that when some get a hold of Luther's texts, ‘scheiss’ magically changes to ‘black ink’.

JoeT

[Wondergirl]

You might recall Juan's comment

I don't understand. So what is wrong with what Luther wrote to his friend? Please tell me in simple language. I totally agree with the bold print in De Maria's post.