Tuesday, November 02, 2010

The historical “shoot the messenger” approach among Roman Catholic responses to Luther reveals the bankruptcy of their position

I've been following around some of the links that James has posted in recent days, describing some of his motivations, and some of the battles he's fought.

This was telling:
...We are indeed, idol factories. Luther, Calvin, or whoever, were just men, and men with sins and faults. That's why I named this blog what I did. Even the best of our heroes or theologians are just beggars, even Luther.

I constantly have gotten the criticism from Roman Catholics that I "whitewash" Luther. That isn't at all the intent of my blog. I've simply tried to document the two major strands of Catholic interpretation of Luther. The older strand tends to overly vilify him, as do Internet apologists and zealous Roman Catholic laymen. In their minds, if it can proved that he was such a wretched and overt sinner, his theological insights and Reformation work have no value. This is the primary argument I've written against.

On the other hand, more recent Catholic scholarship realizes most of the earlier Roman Catholic criticism went overboard, which is what I've tried to show as well.. Unfortunately, it appears to me the older strand is alive and well, and more often than not, the charges against Luther's character were answered long ago, by more capable mind than mine.

It is extremely telling that Roman Catholics must defend Catholicism by playing "shoot the messenger."

There is not a "glorious Church" that they can defend. If there were, they would not have to take people's minds off the doctrines and practices they are discussing, and turn things into a debate over the personalities involved.

The "trash-the-messenger" response is bankrupt.

I think it's safe to say that one reason why Catholics have to try to debunk Luther at this level -- what he may or may not have believed at a certain time -- is because they can't debunk him at the substantive level of what he actually said about the Roman Church and its doctrines.

Luther was not the first Reformer -- I'm sure we'll get to talk about Wycliffe and Huss and others -- but he was the first Reformer who challenged Roman authority and lived to tell about it.

One can certainly assume that, given his station in life -- his absolute dependence as a monk for his sustenance -- that he was absolutely motivated to say true things. That is, he was not wont to "bite the hand that feeds him" unless what he was saying was absolutely true.

And Martin Luther gave them an opening. He said, "unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason ..."

The Glorious and True Roman Church had its opportunity. They could have said, "Ok Martin Luther, here, by Scripture and Plain Reason, is how we correct you."

If that option had been open to them, do you think they were smart enough to have taken it?

Martin Luther was a responsible eyewitness to the condition of the church in his day. That, too, is very telling. Over my next few postings, I'd like to talk about some of the things he actually said.

17 comments:

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"The older strand tends to overly vilify him, as do Internet apologists and zealous Roman Catholic laymen. In their minds, if it can proved that he was such a wretched and overt sinner, his theological insights and Reformation work have no value."

They should just apply their own methodology of discrediting Luther to their own line of popes.

John Bugay said...

They should just apply their own methodology of discrediting Luther to their own line of popes.

That would be interesting. Would any of our "inconsistency detectors" notice any double standard there?

Doublessly not. Luther tried to "teach," whereas those popes, "for all the trains and the banks that they robbed, they never taught anyone."

So long as the placeholders were in place, [vile though they were], the lineage continues.

Andrew said...

Why can't you Luther worshiping, schismatic, heretical, self-popes just quit trying to defend Martin Luther. I don't know if you know this, but Luther used to punch people's favorite aunties in the face just for fun.

John Bugay said...

"...Luther used to punch people's favorite aunties in the face just for fun..."

Lol, Andrew, I can't even think up a good comeback for this one :-)

Tim Enloe said...

As you look at reformers prior to Luther, please take a look at Wessel Gansfort, as well as Wycliffe and Huss. He lived during the time of Pope Sixtus IV, and his humanist-based criticisms of the monstrosities of the papal system are a must read. Luther read Gansfort. So should we. You can find a two-volume set of his works on Google Books for free. Pay particular attention to "On Ecclesiastical Dignity and Power."

Gansfort was a tireless critic of the papalist system, and extremely learned in Scripture and other humanist emphases. One of his best arguments takes on the "Church as Ship of Peter" trope that the papalists relied upon so heavily. Gansfort argues, quite correctly, I believe, that when the captain of a ship goes insane or otherwise demonstrates a course that will wreck the ship, it is the duty of the passengers to remove him from the helm and pilot the ship themselves. This argument was made barely 30 years before Luther's reforms began.

There are other significant figures as well. One, whose name escapes me at the moment, told a group of late 15th century prelates who would not listen to his cries for reform, "Jesus is sending other reformers after me. You will want to listen to them, but by then it will be too late."

Tim Enloe said...

As you look at reformers prior to Luther, please take a look at Wessel Gansfort, as well as Wycliffe and Huss. He lived during the time of Pope Sixtus IV, and his humanist-based criticisms of the monstrosities of the papal system are a must read. Luther read Gansfort. So should we. You can find a two-volume set of his works on Google Books for free. Pay particular attention to "On Ecclesiastical Dignity and Power."

Gansfort was a tireless critic of the papalist system, and extremely learned in Scripture and other humanist emphases. One of his best arguments takes on the "Church as Ship of Peter" trope that the papalists relied upon so heavily. Gansfort argues, quite correctly, I believe, that when the captain of a ship goes insane or otherwise demonstrates a course that will wreck the ship, it is the duty of the passengers to remove him from the helm and pilot the ship themselves. This argument was made barely 30 years before Luther's reforms began.

There are other significant figures as well. One, whose name escapes me at the moment, told a group of late 15th century prelates who would not listen to his cries for reform, "Jesus is sending other reformers after me. You will want to listen to them, but by then it will be too late."

John Bugay said...

Thanks Tim, I'll look him up.

john said...

We don't even have to go back as far as Luthers's time to find a skeleton in the Roman closet. History is showing that Pius IX aka "Pio Nono", the Pope who made Papal Infallibility a dogma of the Roman Church was quite insane aka a lunatic. If he were "an average American citizen" he would not be allowed to sign any legal contracts or make any binding moral decisions. Yet this lunatic promulgated and made binding the dogma of Papal Infallibility in which the souls of millions must believe it under pain of mortal sin and hellfire if they do not believe this dogma declared and made binding by an insane individual

Andrew said...

John, where are you getting your information? That is a pretty serious charge.

John Bugay said...

History is showing that Pius IX aka "Pio Nono", the Pope who made Papal Infallibility a dogma of the Roman Church was quite insane aka a lunatic.

I'd like to see a source on this as well. Kelly (Oxford Dictionary of the Popes) notes that he "removed all conciliarist interpretations of the role of the papacy," but did not describe him as insane. Rather, he had a "winning personality, kindly wit, and patience in adversity."

John Bugay said...

As you look at reformers prior to Luther, please take a look at Wessel Gansfort, as well as Wycliffe and Huss. He lived during the time of Pope Sixtus IV, and his humanist-based criticisms of the monstrosities of the papal system are a must read. Luther read Gansfort. So should we.

Tim, right now I'm putting together a post on the situation in the church around 1500, relying on Bernhard Lohse's "Martin Luther's Theology." He mentions Gansfort but not in this context. I'll have to look him up.

John Bugay said...

Here is the link to Gansfort's On Ecclesiastical Dignity and Power

John Bugay said...

From the title page of that work:

If I had read his works earlier my enemies might think that Luther had absorbed everything from Wessel, his spirit is so in accord with mine. -- Luther's letter to Rhodius

Tim Enloe said...

I haven't had a chance to read this yet, but it looks interesting:

Martin Bucer and Wessel Gansfort

http://books.google.com/books?id=ObOQgL68k_UC&pg=PA67&dq=Wessel+Gansfort&hl=en&ei=Vii3TO2kDYy6sAPkmqCACQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CEgQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false

John Bugay said...

Pages 73 to 75 are not shown in this preview.

:-)

John Bugay said...

Pages 77 to 102 are not shown in this preview.

Evidently that's the rest of the book!

:-(

john said...

Yes the book "How The Pope Became Infallible:Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion" by August Bernhard Hasler mentions that Pope Pius IX "Pio Nono" was insane at the time of Vatican I