www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Martin Luther's descendants

Dear Brian,

I honestly believe that's not fair to Lutherans, Servant of Christ!

The Redemptorist missionary among the Lutherans, St Clement Hofbauer, once said, "The Germans became Protestants because they wanted to live as Christians."

Protestants were horrified at the conditions of the medieval Church, the selling of indulgences, the lack of sincere repentance as a result - one could always go to confession or buy an indulgence etc.

The RC Church should have officially responded to all these abuses much earlier - but it took Luther to shock it into doing so.

Erasmus was a great writer and a good friend of Thomas More.

But he himself exonerated Luther in a piece he wrote of a mythical conversation between himself and Luther to discover the differences in faith between them.

The result?

Not any real differences to justify the separation of the Churches.

As for "justification by (living) faith alone," the Protestants have always understood this to mean, as Barclay wrote, "that faith and works are the passive and active aspects of our ONE RESPONSE to the Salvation of Christ."

And if anyone feels that groups like the Baptists are "smug" about going to heaven by faith alone, they should visit the Baptists who work in Russia's hospitals, tending to those not even the trained nurses will touch and inspiring sympathy in the most hardened atheistic physicians.

Let's not we be smug in this respect, shall we?

Alex

Alex,
Of course I would not say something like that. But in their most extreme forms, the doctrines of "Salvation by Faith Alone" and Predestination did tend to give the message to people that "we are saved" and so one does not have to "work" at being Christian or in some Calvinist circles, the idea that material success was a proof of being part of the Elect.

Dear Friends:

An interesting reading from the perspective of present-day Lutherans is "There We Stood, Here We Stand : Eleven Lutherans Rediscover Their Catholic Roots" by Timothy Drake, with "Foreword" by Richard John Neuhaus.

The book chronicles thought-provoking testimonies by 11 former Lutherans, mostly pastors, which reveal how far their church has strayed from Luther's original thoughts. To each of them, the differences between Lutheranism and Catholicism have become so profound that they have led many Lutherans, like themselves, into the Catholic Church.

Richard John Neuhaus is, of course, the beloved Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, a former Lutheran pastor himself and Editor of the popular Catholic magazine "First Things."

AmdG

Columcille,

You point us to someone you consider an authority on Luther.

Dave Armstrong writes:

"Luther's deviations from traditional Catholic theology, it can be strongly argued, were neither biblically nor historically-based on early Church Fathers such as St. Augustine. At first, Luther desired and sought confirmation in St. Augustine of his own peculiar ideas, since he was considered the greatest Father of the Church, but he was confuted time and again on this score. Grisar writes, "he had given up all idea of finding in these authorities any confirmation of his doctrine on faith alone and works.""

I wonder what Luther thought of the Eastern Fathers of the Church and whether they would have been confuted by Augustine too?

I remember Dave Armstrong quite well. Here is his analysis on the heretical nature of the East.

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ134.HTM

I will leave it up to you to decide if he is leaving any information out, especially in his explanation of the Ecumenical Councils and whether the work of the Eastern bishops to preserve orthodoxy goes un-noticed. Basically, no credit is given to the East.

I wonder: From where did all those defenders of the faith and saints come from that we have icons of in our churches and homes? And its here that I wonder if Mr. Armstrong ever worshipped with us to celebrate the Sunday of Orthodoxy during the Great Fast and the Fathers of the Councils? Can a Church be so heretical by nature and celebrate the triumph over heresy at the same time?

He writes this today:

"One can squabble over details and particulars, but the schismatic spirit and susceptibility to heresy was far more typical of the East than the West long before 1054."

"When I argue that the "entire East" fell, I refer to the mass apostasies of 449 and 482, and to frequent and long-running schisms of the entire Eastern Empire from Rome and the West."

His reason for responding was due to a "vocal Orthodox minority" and not the Orthodoxy itself. Why he feals to deal blows to the whole of Orthodoxy because of a few "rebels" is interesting.

"A vocal Orthodox MINORITY [emphasis mine], however, is currently expressing itself in an alarmingly different fashion, which might be described as "anti-ecumenical," or, in some instances, "anti-Catholic." This group is largely drawn from converts from evangelical Protestantism or from Catholicism (Orthodoxy, like Catholicism, is experiencing a wave of conversions of late)."

Obviously, the East is still more wronger(sic)!

"Both East and West acknowledge wrongdoing in the tragic events leading up to 1054 when the schism finalized. Nevertheless, it is undeniably true that the West (and especially the Roman See) had a much more solid and consistent record of orthodoxy."

Mr. Armstrong likes to rely a lot on half-truths to support his interpretations. St. John Chrysostom not only sought appeal to Rome, but to two other sees in the West. Of course, Dave and others who write in his style (i.e., Steve Ray), don't acknowledge that factoid:

"... many of the East's most revered Church Fathers and Patriarchs sought refuge in Rome (theologically and/or geographically), for example: ... St. John Chrysostom ..."

Why the ommission of the other two bishops that Chrysostom appealed to when he also appealed to the Bishop of Rome? Spin?

Back to Luther...

Mr. Armstrong may point out a lot we don't know about Luther, especially resorting to attacks against his personality and all them nasty psychological traits (I believe the same was done to St. Photius, Sponsor of the Apostles to the Slavs), but he surely leaves out a lot of important factoids regarding all churches and all behaviors. At least Luther didn't feel he had to place his foot on an Eastern Catholic Patriarch's head to make his point. We'll leave half-baked Catholic apologists do that.

Joe

Dear Amado,

I myself am in contact with Lutheran pastors who are now attending Orthodox Church services and wish to become Orthodox . . .

Lutherans in the continental Churches of Europe can be very High Church and so see less of a chasm between their Lutheranism and Luther's essential Catholicism.

The Lutheran ecumenical theologs talking to RC theologs have suggested the idea of reviving St Anskar's original project of a northern Patriarchate based in Hamburg for the Lutherans where a "Lutheran Rite Catholic Church" could be based.

It says something cogent in this thread on Martin Luther that when Lutherans go back to the thought and praxis of their founder, they see that they have more in common with the Catholic Church than with contemporary Lutheranism in North America.

Alex

Dear Brian,

Yes, of course!

Protestantism then swung its spiritual pendulum the other way with the advent of the Wesleys and the Pentecostal Holiness movements.

But the charge of being saved by "faith alone" so as to feel one is innocent of any responsibility to contribute to the common human welfare is a heresy that affects ALL Christian Churches and groups, would you not say?

Alex

Dear Cantor Joe,

Excellent commentary on Dave Armstrong, himself a sad product of "convert mentality!"

And while Luther could find little in Augustine to justify (no pun intended) his views on faith alone, the fact remains that it was Augustine's view on Original Sin and how it is transmitted that resulted in the extreme predestinationism that came to characterize the latter Protestant movements.

Luther was essentially reacting to what he and others perceived was a "Semi-Pelagian" approach to salvation in the medieval Catholicism that Europe inherited in that time.

That approach emphasized works and "earning salvation" via externals, including indulgences ("Salvation by the shilling").

At the same time, what unnerved Luther and his contemporaries was the Augustinian view that not only the effects of Original Sin were inherited from Adam, but also the guilt and stain of the personal sin of Adam itself.

This raised the great theological problem that challenged Luther and others.

IF one can contract personal sin from another, without having exercised one's will in assenting to it (Augustine's view), THEN of what use is the fallen human will in the process of our salvation to begin with?

Our nature is so bent and fallen (extreme Augustinianism) that nothing we can do can be meritorious for salvation.

Divine Grace alone, without our damaged will involved in trying to do anything else, saves us.

And it only "covers" our sinfulness over, it doesn't "cancel" our sins, but clothes us with the righteousness of Christ for Whose sake alone the Father will forgive us.

Our sins remain and Christian life is essentially a life of "penal servitude" where good works, as the fruits of salvation, must be made evident, but no "merit" or other benefit can be had for them, above and beyond the fact that they give evidence that we have been "saved."

Now, Luther did not go this later Protestant route and did indeed pronounce favourably on Theosis - he was the one who called Christians "little Christs" and Lutheran pastors and professors I've spoken to have never come out against Theosis as a result.

The fact is that Augustine's views led to different forms of Augustinianism that did indeed influence the rise of Protestantism.

Augustine was himself a convert from a life of sexual promiscuity and he deeply distrusted himself and this self-hatred impacted his own philosophical views of the impact of Original Sin on human nature in general.

Evidence shows that Luther was not really all that familiar with the Eastern Fathers, but of what he knew, he favoured above the West.

Alex

While we're on Luther, what about the quote that is supposedly attributed to him, something to the effect of, "if one would sin, then sin boldly"?

Ah... I think I may have answered my own question:

http://www.stnm.org/UncleMarty/luther/02.html

"As you know, Martin Luther returned to the Catholic Church a short while before his death and was received back by the Bishop of Salzburg."

With deepest respect, I must point out that there is not a shred of reliable evidence for this claim.

Martin Luther remained firm in his confession of faith until his death.

Michael

Dear Michael,

Again, this is not a topic that interests me, but I have it on good Lutheran and Catholic authority, people I met at university conferences, that this is true.

Can you present solid evidence to show your view?

There is also a body of literature in the seventies when there was a U.S. Catholic movement to rehabilitate Luther that presented the evidence you say does not exist.

Perhaps when the Lutherans and Catholics get together more closely, this matter can be looked at and the evidence can be made more public - I don't think either Lutherans or Catholics want to have it known that Luther returned to the Church before his death!

It is entirely possible, given the fact that Luther became more disillusioned with the iconoclasm and reaction against tradition that his movement took on with time.

He was also tormented by visions of demons and began to frequent a Catholic confessional etc.

But this will all be made more public in time and even Catholics who regard him as a damnable heretic may have to reconsider their views.

Alex

Dear Martin,

It is true that Luther said that, but to take it out of the context in which he said it is to do to him, what Protestants like to do to us.

I have a better statement for you. That of St Clement Hofbauer of the Redemptorists who said, "The Germans became Protestants (Lutherans) because they wanted to live as Christians."

And yet he was canonized a saint by Rome . . .

Alex

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him Forever!

Alex,

Do you know if Luther's wife returned to the Catholic faith with him? Thanks.

Adam

Dear Adam,

The same sources from which I learned the view that Martin Luther returned to the Catholic Church before his death also maintain that his wife did so as well.

She was a former nun, to begin with . . .

Alex

Dear Cantor Joe,

Tomorrow is the feast of your ancestor, Martin Luther, Reformer of the Church in the Lutheran and Evangelical Catholic Calendars.

A happy day to you!

He would be proud of the great Evangelical, Catholic AND Orthodox Man of Go who is his descendant, Joseph Thur.

Alex