Explain to me Martin Luther

[One Bad Pig]

I didn't see anything in there railing against the "abuse of they system". I saw him railing against the sytem itself actually. Like the fact that the Pope had authority over the church. Or those who consider the Church a spiritual authority, are, as proclaimed by him, "idiots". That's not railing against abuses of the system, that's just railing against the basic systems of the Papacy and the Catholic Church.



What "false teachings"? I thought his entire concern was (supposedly) about the abuse of indulgences and his alleged abuses of ecclesiastical authority? Regardless of any abuses of indulgences, or any alleged abuses of ecclesiastical authority, the Pope only taught Catholic doctrine. He's attacking Catholic doctrine here, pure and simple.



He simply stated he would tolerate the papacy. It's very clear that he didn't directly accept it, both by what he said in this writing, and what he said later, about it.

You and I appear to have different definitions of "content." One is not typically "content" with what one merely tolerates.

[TimelessTheist]

You and I appear to have different definitions of "content." One is not typically "content" with what one merely tolerates.

Maybe he meant "content" with the Pope stating this, and not actually the position itself? Anyway, I'm not sure, I can't seem to find a Latin copy of this paper anywhere, so I don't know how accurate the translation "content" is, however, the rest of the work seems to paint the picture that he's extremely, extremely uncontent with this. Heck, a couple lines later, he straight up says that he has a problem with the Pope declaring himself the authority of the Church. Even later still, he says that he has a problem with the Church declaring itself an authority in general. That seems to deny, both, the legitimacy of the Papacy, 'and' the Church.

Edit: Ah, I see it now. He simply said he was content with the statement: "there must be a corporal head of the Church upon earth."

However, that does not necessarily mean the Papacy. The fact that he denied the authority of the Pope, and the authority of the Church itself, proves this.

[robrecht]

Remember that Luther wasn't the only one calling for the corruption to change. Emeritus (who remained Catholic) wanted it done away with as well. ...

I think you mean Erasmus.

[Sparrow]

It has been my understanding that Luther never wanted to separate from the RCC, only reform it (hence "the Reformation") and that the schism was largely a result of the actions of the opposing side. In other words, blaming Luther for the divisions that followed the reformation seems a bit misguided to me, or at the very least, putting the blame solely on Luther when the RCC leadership practically pushed him and his followers out of the RCC is.

my criticism was directed at the way Sparrow seemed to put the blame on the schism solely on Luther, as if the RCC leadership had nothing to do with it.

That the Protestant Reformation was started by Luther is a pretty non-controversial statement, I think. He also doesn't seem to have gone about things in a particularly irenic fashion. But yes, at least as far as what I've been told, Luther's original intention wasn't to split from the Catholic Church, so I don't mind emending my statement to distribute the blame more evenly:

The agitation of Luther and the other reformers, and the response of the RCC to their calls for reform, resulted in a schism which has fragmented the Church into thousands of denominations. (Better? )

Nevertheless, there is something inherently schismatic about Protestantism itself: unlike previous schisms, in which AFAIK Montanists were just Montanists and didn't split up into dozens of competing Montanist sects, the Protestant reformation immediately split within itself into several competing factions which have only continued to multiply as time progresses. I think it's the way that it places the locus of doctrinal authority in each individual's reading of the Bible rather than in the tradition of the Church.

Wait a second. Are you trying to say that people's misuse and mischaracterization of Luthers teaching on "sola Scriptura" is somehow to be blamed on Luther? To be sure, "sola Scriptura" has been and is misused in the way you write above, but blaming Luther for it when he never intended it that way and never endorsed such a view seems a bit silly to me.

Cow Poke was more or less asking what people's thoughts are on Luther. My thoughts are that I lament the extremes to which his teachings were taken. I don't see anything silly about that.

I just offered this up because I thought it might interest both Sparrow and you.

That was interesting, thanks. It was particularly nice to see that the RCC is not blaming people for were raised outside of the Catholic Church for not being raised Catholic.

[Paprika]

It's common sense, if you actually read it. He rejected the authority of the Pope, the authority of the Church, and claimed that Catholic doctrine had "injected human inventions and lies". He rejected pretty much everything the Church actually was.

All I can say is that your militant attitude is leading you to take some of the looniest stances I've ever seen. Do go on though, it is most entertaining.

[RBerman]

Eh, those are both the same things, just different semantics. I mean, it's kind of hard to say that he didn't believe those things at the time, when he, himself, said that he believed that at the time.

If you want to establish what Luther's motives were at the time that he acted, you should read what he carefully wrote at the time that he acted, not summary statements made off-the-cuff (which is what his Table Talk lectures were, transcriptions of extemporaneous conversations with his students) after living half his life excommunicated from the Church he had attempted to Reform. And even in the quotation from Table Talk which you offered, Luther does not say that he left the Church. He fell out with the Pope because he wanted to improve the Church, in an area of practice in which the Church, in the Counter-Reformation, did in fact enact subsequent reforms.

[RBerman]

Maybe he meant "content" with the Pope stating this, and not actually the position itself? Anyway, I'm not sure, I can't seem to find a Latin copy of this paper anywhere, so I don't know how accurate the translation "content" is, however, the rest of the work seems to paint the picture that he's extremely, extremely uncontent with this. Heck, a couple lines later, he straight up says that he has a problem with the Pope declaring himself the authority of the Church. Even later still, he says that he has a problem with the Church declaring itself an authority in general. That seems to deny, both, the legitimacy of the Papacy, 'and' the Church.

"Has a problem," present tense. Again, when you see him in Table Talk quotations denying the Pope's authority, you're dealing with Luther's mature position almost twenty years after his excommunication, after wars, exile, attempts on his life, etc. You're not dealing with what he wanted and thought at Wittenberg or even Worms.

[robrecht]

"Has a problem," present tense. Again, when you see him in Table Talk quotations denying the Pope's authority, you're dealing with Luther's mature position almost twenty years after his excommunication, after wars, exile, attempts on his life, etc. You're not dealing with what he wanted and thought at Wittenberg or even Worms.

IIRC, you are not a Lutheran, but a Calvinist of some sort, correct? As far as I can tell, there is no single, authoitative position of the Lutheran Church about some of these matters, but rather various synods and theologians dispersed over the world and time come up with various interpretations of what exactly the Lutheran church stands for. Is that correct? Perhps an exaggeration?

[robrecht]

If you want to establish what Luther's motives were at the time that he acted, you should read what he carefully wrote at the time that he acted ...

Yes! Finally! Now, where are the Lutherans when you need them?

[RBerman]

IIRC, you are not a Lutheran, but a Calvinist of some sort, correct? As far as I can tell, there is no single, authoitative position of the Lutheran Church about some of these matters, but rather various synods and theologians dispersed over the world and time come up with various interpretations of what exactly the Lutheran church stands for. Is that correct? Perhps an exaggeration?

That sounds correct. When you read Luther's early works (e.g. 1517), what is your own impression of his attitude toward the Pope?

[robrecht]

That sounds correct. When you read Luther's early works (e.g. 1517), what is your own impression of his attitude toward the Pope?

I think he thought the pope (and bishops) could and should and would step in and fix things. But I've only read a little bit of Luther and am not sure of this. The Babylonian Captivity of the Church was written not so longer afterward (1520) and he definitely did not think so at that time. Haven't read that since college, 'though, so, again, I'm not sure I'm remembering this so well.

[RBerman]

I think he thought the pope (and bishops) could and should and would step in and fix things. But I've only read a little bit of Luther and am not sure of this. The Babylonian Captivity of the Church was written not so longer afterward (1520) and he definitely did not think so at that time. Haven't read that since college, 'though, so, again, I'm not sure I'm remembering this so well.

That is my assessment as well.

[robrecht]

That is my assessment as well.

So the evolution in his position, for the most part, seems to have occured very quickly?

[RBerman]

So the evolution in his position, for the most part, seems to have occured very quickly?

I'm no expert on when he changed his mind exactly on what issues, though one would imagine that by the end of 1521, the year of his trial and excommunication, his trust in the papacy had probably evaporated. If "four years" is "quickly," then I suppose so. It could have been quicker, but I wouldn't know.

[robrecht]

I'm no expert on when he changed his mind exactly on what issues, though one would imagine that by the end of 1521, the year of his trial and excommunication, his trust in the papacy had probably evaporated. If "four years" is "quickly," then I suppose so. It could have been quicker, but I wouldn't know.

If our understanding is correct, in less than a year he went from expecting the pope to fix things to calling him the antichrist. I would consider that a fairly quick evolution of his views. But, again, I am no expert on Luther and would happily be corrected.