You Know that Luther Guy...

[Piccoli Fiori JMJ]

I've been reading [i]Triumph[/i] and last night I came across the chapter on Martin Luther... and well... let me leave you a quote:

[quote]The founder and [i]primus inter pares[/i] of this priesthood, Martin Luther, was originally a servant of the Church, though not out of a sense of fidelity or spiritual calling.  He became a monk to escape and affront his abusive parents--both of whom beat him severely.  Luther's father was not a Catholic, but an occultist who believed in darker Germanic witches, hobgoblins, and demons.  These would also haunt the imagination of Martin Luther who had visions, which he believed to be actual physical occurances, of the devil hurling "[mushy mud pie]*" at him and his hurling it back.  Indeed, in one of his anal combats with the devil--in which Luther would challenge the devil to "lick" his posterior--Luther thought the best tactic might be to "throw him into my anus, where he belongs."  How one wishes for an exegesis by Dr. Sigmund Freud of that passage.[/quote]* I substituted a nicer word than the one actually quoted...

Interesting fellow...

[DAF]

Haha, oh my Lord, I knew Martin Luther was burning in the eternal fires of hell (and good riddence), I didn't know about his anal fetish. And apparently the Devil has a thing for mushy mud pie slinging as well.

[Lil Red]

oh dear

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

thats very strange i will print it and send it to my lutheran cousins.

[DAF]

what page is that on?

[Piccoli Fiori JMJ]

Page 237 of [i]Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church A 2,000 Year History[/i] by H.W. Crocker III

[Era Might]

Luther was definitely an interesting character, although popular Catholic works have tended to polemicize their study (eg, "The Facts About Luther"). The Holy Father, interestingly enough, admires much of Luther's thought, while maintaining his fundamental disagreement with his course in history.

[quote]I knew Martin Luther was burning in the eternal fires of hell (and good riddence)[/quote]

I don't know that. He may very well be in Heaven with Judas Iscariot, for all we know.

Edited November 30, 2005 by Era Might

[Lil Red]

i've been meaning to get that book. hmmmm

[Myles Domini]

Does 'Triumph' contain a footnote to the work of Luther where that quote is found???

[DAF]

[quote]I don't know that. He may very well be in Heaven with Judas Iscariot, for all we know[/quote]
I knew somebody would bring this up...
Perhaps it's not prudent to willfully think such things, but give me some slack here.

I jsut read the whole part on Luther. Haha, I didn't know that his idea of "salvation by faith alone" came to him while he was taking a ..."mushy mud pie."

[Piccoli Fiori JMJ]

[quote name='Myles' date='Nov 30 2005, 05:20 PM']Does 'Triumph' contain a footnote to the work of Luther where that quote is found??? 
[right][snapback]806050[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It does mention the book it was taken from:
[quote]Quoted in William Manchester, [i]A World Lit Only By Fire: The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance[/i] (Little, Brown & Company, 1993) p. 140[/quote]

[Piccoli Fiori JMJ]

[quote name='DAF' date='Nov 30 2005, 05:21 PM']I knew somebody would bring this up...
Perhaps it's not prudent to willfully think such things, but give me some slack here.

I jsut read the whole part on Luther. Haha, I didn't know that his idea of "salvation by faith alone" came to him while he was taking a ..."mushy mud pie."
[right][snapback]806055[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
"knowledge the Holy Spirit gave me on the privy in the tower"

He was also called "the most anal of theologians" by William Manchester

[N/A Gone]

this is very prejudice. Luther was a great theologian. Whom would have been very helpful in fixing many of the issues of pratice that the church has reformed. I suggest you do some research on luther. He was just a man, so he had his flaw and he dealt with severe depression. But from what we have heard of the practice problems and the indulgence abuse in that time period, would not all of us be called to help reform that? Remember, luther wanted to reform, not revolt. He did open pandora's box, but it was as much the church's fault for what happened as it was his. Instead of actually engaging in dialogue the church condemed him. But now we see many of his reforms actually have happened. The individual reads scripture, we understand a personal faith, we understand the defense of our faith using scripture. We understand a counter cultural eccesiology. As Mark Noll in "Is the reformation over" and Braaten in "Mother church" point out it is very doubtful that Luther would have even wanted a reform in todays church. Ironically the catholic church has become what luther wanted. scary eh?

(want proof, look at the joint declaration documents)

[The Joey-O]

Wow. This is sad. Simply sad. Up until the previous post, this thread has demonstrated the least amount of Christian charity I've seen in all the threads that I've read. Even the crazy "all Catholics go to Hell" guy demonstrated greater charity than some on this thread. This just sickens me.

[Myles Domini]

I think the last two posters are being slightly oversensitive. Some of the comments about Luther have been less than charitable I agree but the fact is that Luther's comments about giving the devil his backside are funny. Anyone would laugh.

Moroever, I would disagree that Luther would be happy with the current Catholic Church. The Catholic-Lutheran dialogue has only advanced because the Lutherans seem to be adjusting their vision of grace. Luther's view of man as dung covered by snow is the anithesis of Catholic thought. Luther was on a crash course with Catholic orthodoxy as soon as he began teaching 'sola fide' at Wittenberg in 1510. His understanding of God in Ockhamist terms and grace in judicial terms rather than as part of the process of theosis put him squarely on the other side of the fence. Cajetan went to debate with him in 1518, Eck in 1519 both times Luther was proved wrong and to hold onto Sola Fide he changed his ecclesiological stance. Luther did not want reform alone, he wanted the Church to teach what he was teaching and she refused.

Yes the problems of simony, indulgence selling (indulgence are still granted), corruption, ignorance amongst the clergy etc. were widespread and you're right who would not want to reform that? However, Luther was not simply planning to reform he wanted to make 'Sola Fide' the foundation of de fide and taught that for almost a decade before All Saints Eve 1517. I dont think Luther would be happy in today's Catholic Church. Indeed, I believe he would do exactly the same thing as he did back then because 'Sola Fide' as he understood it is as much opposed to Catholicism now as it was back then.

In my mind, Luther was not a great theologian. He's an interesting historical figure but his vision of God and his view of grace, the sacraments and the Church are cold and legalistic placing man on the other side of a chasm to Christ Our Lord. He seems to posit no real relationship between man and God other than that of a judge who justifies. The intimacy of becoming a partaker in the Divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) dissapeared in Luther and the widespread dissemination of his theology of grace destroyed the vision of the Church Fathers and has adversely impacted upon Western Theology since. Personally, I have always felt sorry for him. He was never able to understand Catholicism.

INXC
Myles