Posted on 06/19/2009 10:03:34 PM PDT by dangus
I have a friend who was raised Catholic and he said he never saw a Bible until he was an adult and I think a quite mature one, at that.
Not quite. What made it scandalous was that Luther not only approved of the bigamy but asked the duke to keep it quiet because he knew it would be bad if the public found out that he had approved it.
Even Preserved Smith, on page Roman numeral IX of his collection of Luther’s letters says that Luther made two great blunders and that support of bigamy was one of them. On page 91 of the same book, Preserved Smith mentions that Luther believed a woman married to an impotent man could have an adulterous affair with another man – Smith uses the euphemistic phrase “cohabit with another.”
In the same book, Smith publishes Luther’s letter:
TO PHILIP, LANDGRAVE OF HESSE
(EISENACH,) July 24, 1540. Grace and peace in Christ. Serene, highborn Prince, gracious Lord! I have received your Grace's letter, which seems to me to have been written in a rather angry mood, although I am not aware that I have deserved your Grace's ire. For it seems to me that your Grace thinks we act in this matter to please ourselves and not, as is really the case, to serve your Grace and prevent future trouble for you. Wherefore I give your Grace to understand my real reason for advising and warning against the publication of this confessional counsel. Let your Grace not doubt that if all the devils wanted to publish this counsel, I could, by God's grace, give them such an answer that they would not get any satisfaction out of me by doing so.
For in case you publish it, I have this advantage over your Grace and all devils, too, that you must bear me witness, first, that it wag a secret confessional counsel, and second, that I have always truly begged that it be not published, and thirdly, that it will never be published by me. As long as I have these three advantages I defy the devil himself to move my pen. By God's grace I know well how to distinguish between things that should be allowed to consciences privately by way of dispensation and those which should be publicly preached. I would be sorry to see your Grace get into a war of words over this matter, for you have enough else to do. . . .
If your Grace should publish this marriage, you could not get the world to recognize its legality if a hundred Luthers and Melanchthons defended it. ...
And as to what you say about not wishing your second wife to pass for a whore, I do not see why your Grace should mind that, for she has had to pass for one hitherto, at least before the world, though we three persons and God know that she is a wedded concubine. . . .
I write these things to your Grace to show you that it is not for my own sake that I wish this matter concealed ; for if it came to a war of pens, I well know how to draw myself out of it and leave your Grace sticking in it; which, however, I would not do if I could avoid it. Nor do I think to abandon your Grace during the present crisis as long as my life lasts. . . .
Your Grace should think what an offence it would be were it published, and . - also whether you could answer for it to the Emperor, for the Bible says : " All men are liars," and, " Put not your trust in princes." . . .
Wherefore I advise you to give an ambiguous answer by which yon could remain. I commend you to God and assure you that I advise you to do exactly what I should advise my own soul.
Your Grace's obedient, DR. MARTIN LUTHKR.
You wrote:
“I have a friend who was raised Catholic and he said he never saw a Bible until he was an adult and I think a quite mature one, at that.”
I know dozens of Protestants who say they never saw a complete Bible until they read a Catholic one. That I can understand since Protestants cut books out of their Bibles.
I do not understand how it is possible for a Catholic - a practicing, “churched”, Catholic - to not see a Bible in his home, or a store, or a Church, or a rectory, or in a Catholic school, or even a public school back in the day, or in a friend’s home, etc. How is that possible? That would mean this guy (living in America?) never went ONCE to a library, or a book store, or to a Christian friend’s house (whether Catholic or Protestant), etc. Did he live in a cave? Was he kept in a basement? Seriously, I have at least half a dozen Catholic Bibles and New Testaments that are more than 50 years old. How can I have these now, when your friend never saw them then?
He may be your friend, but this point is inescapable, if he is telling the truth, he was an INCREDIBLY ignorant, intellectually lazy man. Or he is simply a liar.
Trust me, he is no liar and I’m only reporting what he said.
dangus,
Just a quick comment about the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica. I remember very clearly in graduate school when I was working on my master’s in medieval history, our professor, a Protestant, pointed out that historians loved the 1911 edition because it had so many well know historians on the editorial board and writing staff. It was well known, however, that that staff also leaned heavily toward the anti-Catholic side.
Take, for instance, the author of the following articles:
“Celibacy; Concubinage; Indulgence; Knighthood and Chivalry.”
The author was none other than the well known anti-Catholic G. G. COULTON. What is all the more interesting in his case is that he was thoroughly wipped, and embarrassed, in a battle with Fr. Herbert Thurston over exactly those topics because - like a devout anti-Catholic - he relied far too heavily on anti-Catholics for material and believed them implicitly without ever checking their work. Here’s the story of how G.G. Coulton was thoroughly embarrassed: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9605clas.asp although the whole article doesn’t seem to be posted anymore. Perhaps it is only posted here because it is only in book form these days: http://books.google.com/books?id=ik0MVInYfF8C&pg=PA193&lpg=PA193&dq=HERBERT+THURSTON,+S.J+on+g.+g.+coulton&source=bl&ots=wxoUMug9kL&sig=LmEevNh_6DiTBLMgEN7xTdq2P_s&hl=en&ei=FFk9SufXF5LaMYnNiKwO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
In either case, it’s worth the read.
Catholics generally were allowed to only write articles that could not be disputed:
“DELEHAYE, REV. HIPPOLYTE, S.J. (H. DE.)
Bollandists; Canonization; Hagiology; januarius, St; Lawrence, St; Margaret, St; Martyrology; Saint; &c”
So, known anti-Catholics got to write most if not all of the articles about both Protestant and Catholic things that might be disputed, while Catholic got to write ZERO articles about Protestant things and little of controversy about their own faith. Convenient, huh?
Okay, so in your opinion he’s not a liar.
He just never went to a book store EVER. Never had a Christian friend. Never went into a Church, or rectory, or library or school, or anywhere else a Bible might be in 20th century America.
And how likely does that sound to you?
"Luther opposed all indulgences, all pennances, all confessions, the underlying theologies to them..."
Good for Luther. I was appalled reading what the Catholic Church teaches on indulgences and penances - contrary to scripture and common sense.
Nor do we require confession to a human priest, "24 For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him... 11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13 Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy."
Hebrews 9/10.
10.14 is becoming a favorite verse of mine, since it says so much in so little. "... by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy."
Not will make perfect, or perfect as long as they do XYZ - but HAS MADE perfect FOREVER. Past tense, and good for eternity. Who? "...those who are being made holy". Justification and sanctification described in 14 words!
Neither penance nor indulgence is needed or acceptable. God knows the heart of man, and knows if our repentance is true or a sham.
"And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory." - Ephesians 1.13-14.
"4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."
In my defense, I spent my life working electronic warfare, not history or theology - although I have a good but spotty knowledge of military history. And frankly, darn near everyone who writes on these subjects has a bias. I also quoted New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia...which doesn’t seem to be a hotbed of Protestant thought.
I’m not certain we really want to get into the lives of medieval religious figures.
“Pope Alexander VI[1] (1 January 1431 – 18 August 1503), born Roderic Llançol, later Roderic de Borja i Borja (Italian: Rodrigo Borgia) was Pope from 1492 to 1503. He is the most controversial of the secular popes of the Renaissance, and his surname (Italianized as Borgia) became a byword for the debased standards of the papacy of that era....Of Alexander’s many mistresses the one for whom his passion lasted longest was a certain Vannozza (Giovanna) dei Cattani, born in 1442, and wife of three successive husbands. The connection began in 1470, and she bore him four children whom he openly acknowledged as his own: Giovanni, afterwards duke of Gandia (born 1474), Cesare (born 1476), Lucrezia (born 1480), and Goffredo or Giuffre (born 1481 or 1482). His other children – Girolamo, Isabella and Pier Luigi – were of uncertain parentage. Before his elevation to the papacy Cardinal Borgia’s passion for Vannozza somewhat diminished, and she subsequently led a very retired life. Her place in his affections was filled by the beautiful Giulia Farnese (Giulia Bella), wife of an Orsini, but his love for his children by Vannozza remained as strong as ever and proved, indeed, the determining factor of his whole career. He lavished vast sums on them and loaded them with every honour. The atmosphere of Alexander’s household is typified by the fact that his daughter Lucrezia lived with his mistress Giulia, who bore him a daughter, Laura, in 1492.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Alexander_VI#Mistresses_and_family
>> In theological language, “justification” (becoming right with God) was separated from, and comes before, “sanctification” (maturing in holy living)—but both are essentials in the Christian’s life. What Luther was reacting against, was the confusion of the two...or...putting sanctification BEFORE justification.... which logically infers we earn a PART of our salvation—and insults God’s grace <<
Sorry, but I decided this required a response. The Catholic Church doesn’t use the language of justification and sanctification along these lines, but you’ve mischaracterized the Catholic position. When you are baptized, you enter a “state of grace.” This is akin to “justification.” Anyone who dies in a state of grace goes to Heaven. However, while in a state of grace someone may still have “concupiscence,” which is the tendency to commit sin. These sins, provided they aren’t mortal, do not remove one from a state of grace, but they can result in the need for purification in purgatory. The process of sanctification, then is purification of the soul of both such sins, and the concupiscence towards them. It is only in the state of grace that the human soul can desire and work towards such purification, and one does this through mortification (abstinence, fasting, etc.), reception of the sacraments, and prayer.
You wrote:
“I’m not certain we really want to get into the lives of medieval religious figures.”
I would be happy to. Tell me how many mistresses St. Francis had? St. Bernard of Clairvaux? Pope Innocent III?
Were there bad men? Yes. Did that change with the coming of Protestantism? No. Western standards were just lowered and have remained low ever since.
Wow. Pope Alexander. He seems to be to certain FReeper protestants what the racism card is to Democrats. No matter what the issue, you can stop any serious discussion by pulling him out.
Like I stated at the very start of the thread, the purpose is not to launch an ad-hominem attack against Luther to undermine Protestant theology, but rather to present the gravity of the heresies which necessitated the Catholic response to Luther.
Actually, that is the first time in my life I’ve posted a comment on Pope Alexander. I vaguely remembered him from a biography of Luther I read 30+ years ago, along with Will Durant’s histories.
I have no idea except that I know him well enough to know he is no liar. Beyond that, I have no idea why he had never been exposed to a Bible. I will ask him sometime.
Good enough. Thanks.
“This is not Luther’s position. Luther held that it was impossible to avoid sin. “As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin.”
Well, anyone here, of any denomination, want to boldly
step forward and claim sinless perfection for yourself?
[sound of crickets...]
>> I was using a respected encyclopedia for quick information. <<
Well, when you challenge an article challenging conventional wisdom by citing conventional wisdom, isn’t that a tad pointless? And isn’t it downright ironic to then accuse me of “same ol’, same ol’?”
Can someone recommend a good OBJECTIVE biography of Martin Luther? Preferably one with some informative commentary on his place in history?
I know several very active Catholics who, although they owned Bibles, never read or referenced them. They said they relied on their priest to know all they needed to know.
I am not trying to get you mad. I found it surprising as well.
You wrote:
“I know several very active Catholics who, although they owned Bibles, never read or referenced them. They said they relied on their priest to know all they needed to know.”
Laziness such as that does not shock me. An illiterate man may not be able to read about Christ, but if well catechized and open to God’s grace, he can certainly be a saint. Mind you, I believe anyone who can read should study the word and study it assiduously (hence, my tag line).
“I am not trying to get you mad. I found it surprising as well.”
That doesn’t get me mad...well, not at YOU. I may be annoyed with those Catholics. I know the same thing happens among Protestants as well. And I find that annoying too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.