Free Republic
Browse · Search		 Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The History of the Reformation…The Cowl (Part 6)
Arlington Presbyterian Church ^ | December 5,2004 | Tom Browning

Posted on 12/04/2005 2:14:06 AM PST by HarleyD

Martin Luther entered the monastery of the Augustinian Hermits in Erfurt on July 17, 1505.1 He thought he was about to lose…he expected to lose…all contact with the outside world. He believed he was going inside never to come out again. His father believed his son had thrown his life away. But neither of those things was true. It was not, as Churchill would later say, the beginning of the end. It was rather only, “the end of the beginning.”

Luther was about to be forged in God’s furnace. He was about to be hammered out on God’s anvil. He was about to be fashioned into an instrument suitable for use in the hands of the Savior. He was about to be transformed from a timid little mouse into a roaring lion…or as Leo X would later say, a wild boar.

Now that kind of transformation is not the sort that ever takes place quickly. Men’s hearts can be changed in a moment but erasing habits and natural inclinations like the innate fear of other men takes longer….sometimes, much longer. That sort of transformation…that sort of work takes time. But that is never a concern to our God and it ought never to be a real concern or point of worry for any Christian. You see, Our God is a careful workman, a skilled craftsman. He is never in a hurry. He is never anxious about time. He invented time. Sometimes He brings men to maturity and events to fruition quickly but most of the time He is slow and methodical and when He is…we know that He knows what He is doing.

He will not…He cannot…be rushed.

I bring that up because when Luther entered the monastery in Erfurt on July 17, 1505, he was twelve years, three months and fourteen days away from nailing the 95 Theses to the door of the church at Wittenberg. He was twelve years, three months and fourteen days away from shaking the world from a long, dark, dreamless sleep. Of course, in another sense Luther was a whole lifetime away from the door at Wittenberg and before Luther could be made up to the task…before Luther could become the kind of man God could use to start the Reformation…he had to be fashioned…fashioned into something much different than what he was.

Now I think there ought to be a word of encouragement in that for all of us.

Normally, when we believe the great events of life are acted out on a great stage. We tend to think the preparation for those involved was also acted out on a great stage. When we think of a men or women being fashioned to do great works we tend to think of great settings…we tend to think of something like a prince being prepared to lead his nation by being exposed to the wisdom and practices of a wise and kingly father…or we might think of a general being trained to lead an army by being exposed to the discipline and tradition of a West Point…but that is not always the tact our God uses. Sometimes, he uses humble settings and humble beginnings to make great men.

God allowed Moses to be trained to read and write in the courts of Pharaoh2 but Moses’ education took place on the backside of Horeb in the Sinai wilderness. It took place in a hostile environment and a time of isolation.

The Apostle Paul was raised in Jerusalem at the feet of Gamaliel3 but his real education took place in the loneliness of the Arabian Desert.4

You see, God sometimes uses isolation and loneliness and sorrow to make a man or a woman fit for an important task.

That was the case with Moses, with David, with Paul and that was the case with Luther. Luther was about to be tossed into the forge of isolation and hammered out on the anvil of despair. And some of you have experienced the same kind of thing. Some of you are lonely. Some of you are poor or very nearly poor. Some of you are tired and yet God has given you the grace to endure and the reason for that is that He has something for you to do and for you to do what He wants to transform you into something different than what you are. And so…you are learning the lesson of the forge and the anvil.

That certainly was what was about to happen to Luther but he was unable to see it coming. He thought…he thought he was escaping from the cares of this life. Later, much later, Luther would write:

But that was years later. On July 17, 1505, Luther thought he was escaping the world. He thought going to enjoy peace and tranquility and a life of scholarship and contemplation. But God had something altogether different in mind. Go wanted to turn Luther into a man of steel. He wanted to make him impervious to criticism. He wanted to make him resistant to slander. He wanted to dull his sensitivity to the tirades of vicious and unprincipled men and the way He intended to do that was by making him a monk.

So on July 17th 1505, Luther started his journey toward becoming a monk.

Now I am making that point because simply applying and being accepted to a monastery does not make a man a monk. Not every one that sought admission was accepted. If a man was admitted, he was admitted on a trial basis as a “novice.” “Novices” were on trial or probation for a minimum of one year.

During that time, a novice’s commitment and suitability were evaluated carefully. Many men were turned out after their evaluation. Luther was not turned out. But he was not granted any sort of exception to the regular process on the basis of being a scholar either. He was first a novice…then a monk…and then a priest.

It is important to make that distinction because not every monk in the monastery was a priest.

Do you see what I mean?

Not every man in the monastery was a monk. Not every monk was a priest. There was a hierarchy. A man might remain a monk his whole life and never become a priest. Now, that would have been a little unusual but it happened. A man was first admitted a novice and then if approved allowed to take the vow of a monk. If he were approved to go on, he was allowed to become a priest.

Anyway, on July 17th, 1505, Luther was admitted as a “novice.” That meant that he had to start at the bottom and work his way up. That means he had to do all the regular grunt work regular “novices” undertook. He would have gardened. He would have worked in the kitchens. He would have cleaned latrines. But he would have also been instructed in how to pray, how to genuflect, how and when to prostrate himself, how even to walk…both novices and monks were required to walk about with their heads slightly bowed and their eyes pointed toward the ground.6

Novices wore clothing similar to that of the regular monks but it was distinguishable. They were not permitted to have visitors, to write or receive letters without permission, to care for the sick or to attend the regular gatherings of the monks without invitation. The first month in the monastery they were not permitted to speak at all. Their worlds were filled with isolation, study, confession and prayer.

Now what is so remarkable about the novice Martin Luther is that on July 17, 1505 he was not even a Christian. He had no understanding whatsoever of the imputed righteousness of Christ. He had no sense whatsoever of the glories of the doctrine of justification. He was a typical medieval Catholic and by that I mean he believed in a form of “works righteousness.” He subscribed to the popular theological maxim of the day which went like this, “Facienti quod in se est Deus non denegat gratiam.” Translated it meant something like; “God will not deny his grace to the man who does his best.”7

It was the medieval equivalent of our own popular American phrase, “God helps those who help themselves.” And Luther subscribed to the whole idea…hook, line and sinker. That is, he subscribed to a view that God extends His grace to a sinner only after that sinner has done his best and the best a man could do in medieval Catholicism was to be a monk. In Luther’s view only the monks were wholly given over to God and because of their commitment to God they were much more likely to be delivered from God’s wrath.

Later, Luther would write:

Still for all the wrong-headed ideas Luther had about God and about righteousness God required to stand in His presence, God used the experience to make Luther the kind of man he wanted him to be. He did that not by adding embellishments but by stripping away everything that was not essential. I love the way D’Aubigne puts it:

Anyway, Luther endured his year’s probation. We don’t know the exact date of his being received as a monk but it was customary for the event to occur a year and day after becoming a novice. It is both funny and sad to read how the other monks resented him both as a novice and even later as a monk. They resented him because he was in every way their superior in terms of education. The Master’s Degree Luther had attained in philosophy was every bit the equivalent of a modern PhD. The other monks resented him and especially resented his love for study and for books and especially liked to drag him away from his books and to make him join them in begging for food. D’Aubigne writes this:

But as I said, he endured. Some say he was rescued by the prior of the monastery Johann Von Staupitz. At any rate, a year later, perhaps a year and a day…Luther would have been received as a full-fledged monk. The ceremony would have involved Luther being stripped of novice’s garments and being clothed in the habit designated by the order. He then would have then sworn an oath promising to live in poverty and chastity according to the rule of the Holy Father, Augustine and to render obedience to Almighty God, the Virgin Mary and the prior of the monastery.11 He would have then prostrated himself face down on the floor of the church in the form of a cross.12 He would have been sprinkled with water and would have been received as an innocent child fresh from baptism. The prior would have prayed:

Immediately afterward, Luther would have been raised up and would have joined his place in the choir. He would have been from that point on a fullfledged monk. He would have not been able to vote in the affairs of the monastery for another five years and he would have still had to report regularly an older monk. But he was a now a genuine monk and no longer a novice.

Luther returned his clothes to his family and sent his Master’s Degree ring back to the university. He had given up all contact with the outside world.

Luther was given his own room, which was called a cell. His cell was 10’2” x 7’10”, a luxurious 79 square feet.14 He had a bed, a small table, a chair, 2 woolen sheets, a pillow, a blanket and a Latin Bible. He slept in his habit.

I think it is difficult sometimes for us as Protestants this side of the Reformation to appreciate the nature of life in the monastery. It was endless and brutal time of mind-numbing routine interspersed with times of study, devotion and loneliness. Here’s what I mean. Beside all of the chores monks had to do and they had to do quite a few, they were required to pray the canonical hours. The canonical hours were prayers prayed during specific times of the day.

The day started somewhere around 4 AM with a prayer service called Matins. Matins included a series of prayers to Mary and the usual twenty-five “Our Fathers” and three “Ave Maria’s.” At six a.m. there was the prayers was called “prime” because it was said during the first hour of daylight. There was another at nine a.m. That prayer was called “terce” because it occurred at the third hour and the prayer at noon was called “sext” being the sixth hour of the day. At three in the afternoon the prayer was called “nones” and at six p.m. it was called “vespers.” There was a time of prayer at bedtime, eight or nine p.m., called “compline.”15

All monks were required to pray the canonical hours. Only the theologians were allowed to pray their prayers privately. Everyone else prayed their prayers together and the prayers always included twenty-five “Our Fathers” and three “Ave Marias.”16 By my count that means at least 175 “Our Fathers” and fifteen “Hail Mary’s” a day.

In addition to the canonical hours, they were required to attend Masses and say their Rosaries.

At the conclusion of the canonical hours they knelt and prayed the Salve Regina and the Ave Maria.18

Monks were also encouraged to pray the Psalter. Sometimes they were made to pray the Psalter as punishment for infractions within the order. Luther, of course, had the Psalter…that s, all of the Psalms memorized…but he later said that he had never prayed either the Psalter or the Lord’s Prayer properly in his life, which is remarkable considering how many times he prayed both.

If a monk was priest, he was, in addition, required to take his turn in saying Masses at the behest of paying sponsors and then, as I said, all of them were permitted to study, assigned manual chores and compelled to beg for their bread.

Luther said later that the rigorous asceticism very nearly killed him. He complained about stomach problems endlessly in his later life and he always believed his digestive track was ruined both by the many fasts practiced and the improper nutrition he received as a monk.20

Still, Luther was a very good monk. He tried to sleep without cover even on the coldest nights refusing to use the blanket given to him by the order because he believed his suffering was pleasing to God, perhaps even meritorious. He was faithful in his observance of the canonical hours but the reason for his faithfulness stemmed more out of fear that of gratitude. He lived in constant fear of God’s judgment. Once in September 1515, he had failed to say the canonical hours for the day because of conflicting responsibilities he had had with the graduation of several doctoral students at Wittenberg. During the night, he was awakened by the sound of an approaching thunder storm and fearing he was about to be punished, remember he had had a bad experience with a previous thunder storm, he got up in the middle of the night and caught up on his prayers.

Later in 1520, his teaching duties forced him to miss the recitation of the hours and he fell behind by a full a full quarter of a year. Luther decided to make the time to catch up by staying awake until he had caught up his prayers. D’Aubigne almost certainly referring to this particular event says that Luther stayed awake once for nearly for seven weeks non-stop trying to catch up on the canonical hours…and that the effort very nearly killed him. Now remember that was in 1520. He had nailed the 95 Theses to the church door at Wittenberg three years earlier in 1517. You can see that Luther’s own personal reformation did not occur all at once.

Later, Luther would write:

But it is at just that point that we must spend time if we want to understand Luther. You see, he was a good monk, a very good monk and yet he was constantly agitated and distressed over whether his righteousness or efforts at righteousness were enough. He longed for peace and assurance and yet the more he did the less certainty he felt. Each action that he took to gain peace or assurance only convinced him or at least caused him to question whether he was adequately fulfilling the obligations he had put upon himself in his vows.

He tormented his confessors, not out of any desire to make their lives miserable but rather out of a desire to adequately confess his sins. He was plagued with doubt and he felt the need to confess his sins fully. He often would leave the confessional and remember something and have to turn around and go back to a bewildered and beleaguered confessor. Once, Luther confessed his sins for six hours. He often confessed his sins every day of the week though it was required only on Fridays.

On confessor grew so tired of Luther’s preoccupation with confession that he yelled at him, saying:

Even the prior of the monastery, Von Staupitz had to tell him”

Bu the problem was that Luther had a realistic view of sin and of righteousness. If small sins are as damning as big ones. If a man’s righteous standing was based on his ability to do works of penance and if those works of penance were based on an accurate assessment of one’s sin…then a person needed to get their confession right. But, of course, it was an endless, absolutely endless, exercise in futility. No man could ever remember or even be aware of every single sin he commits and if a sin could not be recalled, it could not be confessed. Later, Luther wrote:

But you can see his obsessive awareness of his own shortcomings, of his own sinfulness, in other places as well. I think the very best place to see it is in his emotional response to saying the Mass. Now you remember last week that I told you that his father came to hear him say his first Mass. Part of the reason he did that was because two of Luther’s brothers died of the plague and because he had received a report that Luther himself had died from the plague and when he found out his son had not died, he felt ashamed of the way he had acted and came to grudgingly give Martin his approval.

Anyway, when Luther said his first Mass, he very nearly had a total meltdown. You see the church taught that when a priest consecrated the bread and wine it actually, metaphysically, became the body and blood of Jesus. When Luther consecrated the bread and wine and he believed he was holding the body of the Lord Jesus in his hands. But that was no comfort to him for he believed that the Lord Jesus was the righteous judge and only the righteous judge. When he confronted Christ in the Mass, his sin overwhelmed him. He was terrified by the holiness of Christ. Roland Bainton writes this:

Luther faltered in his speech. He stood and trembled. Afterwards, he was deeply discouraged and sought the comfort he need from his father only to have his father tell him, “Have you never read where it is written, ‘A man should honor his mother and his father.’”

Luther began to have doubts not only about his sin but about whether or not he ought even to be in the ministry. He turned to the prior of the monastery Von Staupitz. He sought his comfort. He sought his counsel. Von Staupitz wisely turned him to the mercy of Jesus and to the Bible.

Once sitting at lunch Von Staupitz asked him:

Luther replied:

Von Stupitz replied:

But Luther could not be swayed. He sank deeper and deeper into melancholy. He once failed to come out of his cell for three days and when they broke down the door Luther was incoherent and delusional. He had repented himself almost into madness.

Von Staupitz decided there were only two things that might help Luther. He believed Luther needed to visit Rome and he needed to teach the Bible. He believed that if Luther could take a pilgrimage to the Holy City of Rome and see all of the relics there it might heal his soul. He was wrong about that.

But he also believed that if Luther might begin to teach the Bible, he might gain strength and encouragement from that. He was right…absolutely right about that. We will talk more about both those things next week but let me just relate the conversation between Luther and Von Staupitz when Von Staupitz told him he was going to have to teach the Bible.

Luther shrunk at the very thought:

Von Staupitz replied:

Luther protested:

Von Staupitz replied:

Luther sighed:

Now I think we will stop right there, right there with Luther in the throes of despondency and depression. Next week we’ll pick up with him going to Rome and teaching Romans. But let me add one final thing before we stop. Later after Luther’s trial at Worms…Prince Frederick the Wise had Luther kidnapped and locked away in seclusion at the Wartburg Castle. He did that in order to save his life. There were a great many people who wanted to kill him. Luther was locked away in almost complete and total isolation for nearly two years. During that time Luther completed his translation of the German Bible. Now let me ask you what was it that prepared Luther for two years of perpetual isolation and loneliness in which he was able to give the German people their most prized possession? What was it? It was the years of preparation in the monastery at Erfurt.

What does that tell you?

I think it tells you that when life is hard…that when you suffer… our Lord Jesus is preparing us to be the kind of people that can accomplish what He wants us to do. That certainly was true for Luther and brothers and sisters I have to tell you…I think it is true for us.

Let’s pray.

1 Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: His Road to Reformation 1483-1521, translated by James L. Schaaf, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 58.

2 NIV Acts 7:22…Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in speech and action.

3 NIV Acts 22:3…I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today.

4 NIV Galatians 1:15-18…But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. 18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.

5 Martin Luther, What Luther Says Vol. 2. Compiled by Edwin Plass. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 966. See note number 3039.

6 Brecht, 60.

7 Alister E. McGrath, Justitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification The Beginnings to the Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986; reprinted 1989, 1993, 1994, 1995), 83. “The essential principle encapsulated in the axiom is that man and God have their respective roles to play in justification; when man has fulfilled his art God will subsequently fulfill his part...The medieval period saw this axiom become a dogma, part of the received tradition concerning justification. The final verbal form of the axiom can be shown to have been fixed in the twelfth century, an excellent example being provided by the Homilies of Radulphus Ardens: Est ergo, acsi dicat Dominus: Facite, quod pertinet ad vos, quia facio, quod pertinet ad inc. Ego facio, quod amicus, animam meam pro vobis ponendo; lacite et vos, quod amid, me diligendo e mandaja inca faciendo. It may, of course, be pointed out that the logic underlying Radulphus’ version of the axiom is that man should do quod in se est because Christ has already done quod in se est. In other words, Christ has placed man under an obligation to respond to him. The logic was however, generally inverted, to yield the suggestion that Godʹs action was posterior. rather than prior, to manʹs. The idea that man could, by doing what lies within him (quod in se est) place God under an obligation to reward him with grace is particularly well illustrated from the works of Stephen Langton and others influenced by him. The use of debere by an anonymous twelfth century writer in this connection is of significance: si homo facit, quod suum est, Deus debet facere, quod suum est.”

8 Martin Luther, What Luther Says Vol. 2. Compiled by Edwin Plass. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 963. See note number 3036. Paraphrased slightly by me.

9 J. H. Merle D’Aubigne, History of the Reformation of the 16th Century, Book 2, Chapter 3, 193.

10 D’Aubigne, Book 2, Chapter 3, 193.

11 Brecht, 62.

12 David Schaaf, History of Modern Christianity: The Reformation from A.D. 1517to 1648., Chapter 2.21.

13 Roland Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther, (New York: Abingdon Press, 1950), 78.

14 Brecht, 55.

15 Brecht, 64.

16 David Schaaf, History of Modern Christianity: The Reformation from A.D. 1517to 1648., Chapter 2.21.

17 James Tolhurst, A Concise Catechism for Catholics, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1993) 63.

18 Brecht, 64.

19 Bainton, 38.

20 Bainton, 45.

21 Bainton, 45.

22 Martin Luther, What Luther Says Vol. 1. Compiled by Edwin Plass. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 327. See note number 965.

23 Bainton, 42.

TOPICS: Evangelical Christian; History; Mainline Protestant
KEYWORDS: history; luther; reformation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 last
To: HarleyD
Newadvent states that the canonical hours have changed over the centuries. NOW they include just the Psalms and prose Scripture reading. At other times throughout history they contained much more.

It is unclear what Luther was force to recite. It appears from newadvent that although there are guidelines on the canonical hours, interpretations can be made. I would suspect this order that Luther was involved in required much more than others.

This is all speculation on yours and my part. They were consider obligatory and failure to do them could result in excommunication. We can only take Luther at his word that he had a lot of reciting and memorizing to do.

Speculation on your part only. The post to which you replied was accurate. You don't know what you are talking about, so you speculate. But you are a fool to speculate that your interlocutor is speculating just because you are speculating. I'm fed up with the way you and your Calvinist companions feel free just to make it up as you go.

The changes in the canonical hours over the centuries are variations on the constant pattern: the entire Psalter once a week plus readings from other parts of Scripture and homilies on Scripture (during one of the seven hours only) from the great Fathers: Leo, Augustine, Chrysostom etc.

Never was the mere reciting of hundreds of Paternosters part of the canonical office. It was a common devotional practice for lay people and lay brothers who did not know Latin (they recited in Latin but only what they could memorize, such as the Paternoster). That's why some people could not become "choir monks"--they did not know Latin and could not chant the canonical hours.

Luther loved to exaggerate and make stuff up to make a point. This is one instance of it. He knew Latin in and out. The mendicants, including the Augustinian Eremites to which Luther belonged, chanted the canonical hours but not always in convent because of their pastoral ministries. But they were obligated at least to read the Psalter hours in their Breviaries. They undoubtedly encouraged the reciting of Paternosters among the laity and in the course of that, may have led the reciting of Paternosters. But they were not "forced" to do this, they were not obligated to this. They were obligated to other things. Luther is angry at his own religious order, has come to doubt his vows and so he accuses them of mindlessness. He's exaggerating, using perfectly legitimate practices for the laity as a club with which to beat his order of friars over the head.

You can't just lift lines from the Catholic Encyclopedia and decide what they mean, apply them to this or that event or figure in history without knowing more about the history of the Church. I give you credit for acknowledging that you were speculating. You speculated badly. But you have no license to assume that just because you don't know what you are talking about, your opponent is equally ill-informed.

41 posted on 12/14/2005 6:14:44 AM PST by Dionysiusdecordealcis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]
To: Campion
The truth is that he was a very confused Catholic and a very neurotic monk. It wasn't all his fault, of course.

It is amazing that God uses the most imperfect vessels for HIS glory.In Luther He saved His church from the gates of hell prevailing against His church.

42 posted on 12/14/2005 3:01:24 PM PST by RnMomof7 ("Sola Scriptura,Sola Christus,Sola Gratia,Sola Fide,Soli Deo Gloria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]
To: HarleyD
Newadvent states that the canonical hours have changed over the centuries. NOW they include just the Psalms and prose Scripture reading.

I didn't say that they included only those things. The monastic hours in pre-Reformation Germany would have been substantially similar to the revised, post-Tridentine breviary. We know all about what that said, there's not a hint of speculation about it; with minor modifications, it was what every priest and nun said prior to Vatican II.

And it's not that different from the breviary today, except that the post VC2 breviary is in the vernacular.

This is all speculation on yours and my part.

Well, no, not really, Harley. It's pretty well attested what the canonical hours contained, and 175 Our Fathers a day wasn't part of it.

They were consider obligatory and failure to do them could result in excommunication.

Yes, they still are. All of that Bible reading, under pain of sin. How awful! Some of it's even from St. Paul. Some of it's even from Romans and Galatians.

Stop by my house some night when I say Vespers together with my wife and kids, and you'll see what I mean.

43 posted on 12/14/2005 3:21:36 PM PST by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]
To: Campion; Dionysiusdecordealcis
Unless you follow the Rule of St. Benedict at your house I don't think I'll need to stop by-even if you break out the fruitcake. Here is just a sample of what the monks had to endure in the Middle Ages under these rules:

Now tell me this is what you do at home. This confirms what the author states.
44 posted on 12/14/2005 5:24:12 PM PST by HarleyD ("Command what you will and give what you command." - Augustine's Prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]
To: Campion
For clarification, the post-Vatican II revisions changed the one-week Psalter to a 4-week Psalter, so the number of Psalms per day was reduced significantly. The argument was that the one-week Psalter was out of the reach of the average working stiff to find time to recite and could only be expected of priests and monks and nuns. By reducing the amount to be recited each day, more lay people could join in.

But the basic structure remains as it has been for more than 1500 years.

45 posted on 12/14/2005 6:01:46 PM PST by Dionysiusdecordealcis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]
To: HarleyD
Here is just a sample of what the monks had to endure in the Middle Ages under these rules.

Harley, this is a good example of why someone cannot simply take a text from Catholic history (or for that matter from 16th-century Protestant history) and assume that he knows how to interpret it. I have spent 30 years studying monastic history.

You consider this cycle of prayer onerous. Yet Benedict begins his Rule by stating that his guiding principle is "nothing harsh, nothing burdensome." Compared to previous monastic regimens, Benedict's was moderate.

Benedictine monks would have spent perhaps 5 or 6 hours a day praying, mostly together, depending on the day of the year, perhaps three hours working manually, an hour or two in meditation (the line between meditation and private prayer is fluid). At the height of the Cluniac reform in the 900s and 1000s, they might have spent 8 or more hours in prayer and less in manual labor. Prayer was to be their life. For that they had given up other responsibliities. They simply tried to live out Paul's admonition to pray without ceasing and Jesus' admonition to be vigilant for his coming. Is there anything wrong with that?

They lived this life in a world where a peasant spent up to 16 hours a day at hard manual labor in the fields during the summer, scratching out bare subsistence. Monks fasted a lot but they at least could be fairly well assured of the meals their rule permitted. They were very vulnerable to Muslim and Viking raiders, yes, so their fairly settled and even affluent way of life compared to peasants could be upset at any moment, but that was true for the peasants as well. Monks lived a much harder life than nobles, yes, but even the luxuries of nobles would be considered a hardscrabble life by the poorest Americans today.

Why do you simply assume that monks lived a burdensome, horrible life? Have you ever plotted out what the schedule or prayers you excerpted adds up to? Have you ever tried to follow the regular cycle of seven hours of prayer each day? You Protestants claim that we Catholics don't read our Bibles, don't take our faith seriously enough yet you decry the onerousness of our consecrated men and women.

As to the punishments for making mistakes in choir--the point was that the monk was not just supposed to go through the motions. He was expected to have memorized the Psalms and to put his mind and body (chanting takes energy--far more than you might realize if you've never tried it for three hours in an unheated church) into it. This was his life, he was expected to live up to the vow he took, and there were consequences if he did not. But that was true of all of medieval and traditional society: external rules and punishments were part of the way people assumed one learned, trained oneself.

The only people who still live that way today are athletes and soldiers. No pain, no gain. They recognize that an external regimen, or rule, is essential if one is to make real progress in training. Their goal is important enough to make the suffering during training worth it. Monks believed that we are all on a pathway that can lead to heaven or hell. They chose to give up a lot of things in order to train rigorously for heaven. The Rule was their training regimen set forth in advance; the abbot who enforced the Rule was their personal trainer or drill sergeant. Olympic-level athletes know that they can't train on their own--they cannot by sheer self-discipline hold themselves to a schedule that will get them to their goal. They voluntarily choose to surrender to the authority of a trainer and, having done so, obey him because if they start second-guessing him, they'll never get where they want to go.

"Forced to endure"--they chose to submit themselves to the Rule of Benedict and their life seems onerous only if one knows nothing about monastic life or the life of a medieval peasant.

46 posted on 12/14/2005 6:18:03 PM PST by Dionysiusdecordealcis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]
To: HarleyD
One more point. Luther turned against his monastic rule and said all sorts of horrid things about it. From his biography, it would appear that he either did not have good counsel as he considered entering monastic life or he ignored good counsel. He made a rash commitment to become a friar, but that was not a binding promise. Surely the "admissions committee" of the Augustinian Eremites who received his request to be admitted must have told him he was not bound by his private promise made under emotional duress. It was Luther who considered it binding. He went against all the standard manuals for discerning a vocation that were common in his day. I have read some of these manuscripts of advice for potential monks.

In short, Luther was excessively legalistic (overly scrupulous) in his own private interpretation of his private vow. He did not have to follow through on it. I cannot imagine that he was not informed of this--he himself should have known it simply from his own university studies in law. But he considered it binding and went ahead, against the advice of others, including his father.

Later he regretted it and decided that he should never have become a friar. But once more, instead of putting the blame solely where it rested--on himself--he wrote a book claiming that all monastic vows were unbliblical and against God's will. In his anger at his own failed vocation he then wrote the nasty stuff about monasticism that colored the article you posted and influenced your assumption that monastic life was nasty, brutish and short.

In short, you've been taken in by Martin Luther's personal vendetta against monastic life, a vendetta that originated in his own stubborn refusal to listen to counsel from others as a young man. It did not have to be this way for him but he chose to make it this way. Why should we have to be afflicted by his messed up monastic vocation?

Luther did have many solid insights about Christian living. He was right to criticize many abuses. But on the matter of monastic life, he was so personally entangled in it that anything he wrote about monasticism needs to be teased apart with a fine set of tweezers before the useful can be distinguished from his personal grief, anger, and self-loathing.

47 posted on 12/14/2005 6:26:34 PM PST by Dionysiusdecordealcis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]
To: Dr. Eckleburg

Please read Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 2 vols. McGrath is on your side, an Evangelical, convert from atheism. He recognizes that forensic justification and imputed righteousness was an innovation in the 16thc. He thinks it was a good invention because it restored the true interpretation of Paul. The only problem is that no one before the 16thc realized they were misinterpreting Paul. But then, better late than never.


48 posted on 12/14/2005 6:31:21 PM PST by Dionysiusdecordealcis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]
To: Johannes Althusius
If you would read qu. 23, articles 1 and 3, you would discover that by "God reprobates some" Aquinas takes pains to explain that this means "God permits them to be reprobated" and by "predestines" he means to lead, direct but that he excludes any strictly deterministic understanding of predestination. In qu. 23, art. 1, ad primum he quotes John of Damascus's point that "God does not will malice nor compel virtue" as evidence that predestination is not necessitarian and takes place in accord with man's free will and cooperation (if you would read the sections of the Summa on grace, free will, human nature you might even understand how unlike the necessitarian predestinarians Aquinas was.

Prooftexting is not very helpful, Johannes.

49 posted on 12/14/2005 6:42:47 PM PST by Dionysiusdecordealcis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]
To: Dionysiusdecordealcis; gbcdoj
Prooftexting is not very helpful, Johannes.

Shucks Dion, ya forgot to exhort gbcdoj to refrain from prooftexting.

Nevertheless, I sure would like to know how the redundancy of "necessitarian predestinarian" is different from the oxymoronic "nonnecessitarian predestinarian"?

Frankly, I was trying to figure a way to respond to gbcdoj since the essence of his two quotes are noncontradictory. Sure there are nuances between Calvin and Aquinas in regards to the God-human relation. Perhaps what is most notable is that Calvin is not very politically correct in his coherent understanding of original sin. Yet, first cause is first cause irrespective of the spin. But hey, you guys have been propogandized for so long ya probably don't realize that Biblical Christians understand secondary causes. Here's a little sampler from HG Hart on secondary causes.

According to the Westminster Shorter Catechism, for instance, providence is "God's most holy, wise and powerful preserving and governing all his creatures and all their actions." What lies behind this understanding is the belief that God works his purposes through secondary means, not simply through his direct and miraculous deeds. Whatever appears to be the cause of natural effects, as believers we know also that God is using those secondary causes for the effects he desires. To say that the sun burned off the morning fog does not deny God's hand in nature; we are merely describing the means he used to clear the sky. Likewise, in Reformation studies, to claim that the buffer role Prince Frederick III played in the life of Martin Luther doesn't negate God's role. Frederick was the secondary cause God used to protect Luther from the higher powers of the papacy and the emperor (something that the martyrs John Wycliffe and John Huss lacked).

The same point can be made about conversion or salvation. Ordinarily God does not dramatically claim us as he did the Apostle Paul. God does not appear in person and blind the new believer. Rather, he uses a variety of means in the course of a believer's life to carry out his saving purpose. One example of this kind of providence is the influence of family and friends. Statistics reveal overwhelmingly that those who come to make a profession of faith do so in part because of the influence of a believing family member or friend. Another example is preaching. God does not wallop sinners over the head but uses the proclamation of the Word as a means toward faith and repentance. The same is true of sanctification. Paul exhorts us to work out our faith in fear and trembling. This means that we must, in the words of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, make "diligent use" of the means of grace: the Word and the Sacraments. But we know that ultimately it is God who is at work in us (Phil. 2:10-11).

These secondary means alone do not guarantee God's saving grace. His Spirit has to be at work for any of these means to be effective; thus, the need for supernatural and miraculous activity as the fundamentalists insisted. But Scripture clearly teaches that God uses secondary means to carry out his purposes both in restraining evil and in redeeming his people. In other words, God saves both though providence and miracles. What is more, the secondary causes are as much the work of God as are miracles. If we fail to see this we run the risk of espousing a deistic view of salvation, one where God winds up the clock of the soul in the act of conversion and then lets it run its own course by its own powers. Contrary to deism, the Bible teaches that God is always involved and ever active in sustaining and upholding his creation. The same is no less true of redemption. Whether it occurs providentially or supernaturally, nothing happens without God's purpose.


50 posted on 12/14/2005 7:37:35 PM PST by Johannes Althusius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]
To: Dionysiusdecordealcis
The only problem is that no one before the 16thc realized they were misinterpreting Paul.

Ya know, it's just not that difficult. Now that your church has permitted you to read Scripture for yourself, I encourage you to do so.

John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."

Rom. 3:22, "even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction."

Rom. 3:24, "being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;"

Rom. 3:26, "for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."

Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."

Rom. 4:3, "For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."

Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"

Rom. 4:11, "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also,"

Rom. 4:16, "Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all."

Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"

Rom. 5:9,  "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him."

Rom. 9:30, "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith."

Rom. 9:33, "just as it is written, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."

Rom. 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."

Rom. 10:9-10, "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."

Rom. 11:6, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."

Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."

Gal. 2:21, "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."

Gal.3:5-6, "Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."

Gal. 3:8, "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "All the nations shall be blessed in you."

Gal. 3:14, "in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith."

Gal. 3:22, "But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe."

Gal. 3:24, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith."

Eph. 1:13, "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise."

Eph. 2:8, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God."

Phil. 3:9, "and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith."

1 Tim. 1:16, "And yet for this reason I found mercy, in order that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience, as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life."


51 posted on 12/14/2005 11:42:47 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg (Semper eo pro iocus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]
To: Johannes Althusius

I love prooftexting.

If Scripture declares it, what more is there?


52 posted on 12/14/2005 11:46:44 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg (Semper eo pro iocus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]
To: Dionysiusdecordealcis
Why do you simply assume that monks lived a burdensome, horrible life?

I do not assume monks lived a burdensome, horrible life. If someone today wanted to spend 8 hours of their day in freverent prayer I would not say that was either burdensome or horrible. I'd say have at it.

OTOH, if someone today told me that

I would say they're wrong in either situation. I believe that is the conclusion Luther came to.

In one of the articles the author states that he believes Luther was the first post-modernalist because of this change of thinking. I would agree to some extent except that Luther simply went back to simplier times when you didn't have to work out your forgiveness for sin or your holiness before God. In either case this is the reason our Lord Jesus came.

53 posted on 12/15/2005 10:12:10 AM PST by HarleyD ("Command what you will and give what you command." - Augustine's Prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]
To: HarleyD
Now tell me this is what you do at home.

We aren't Benedictines, but then again, neither was Luther.

And this long preceded the formal institution of the Divine Office; Benedict lived in the 6th century; we're talking about the 15th.

This confirms what the author states.

??? It does? Really? I looked in vain for the 175 "Our Fathers" part. I did see this:

And all being seated upon the benches, there shall be read in turn from the Scriptures-following out the analogy - three lessons; between which also three responses shall be sung.

I guess if you find psalms and Scriptures to be an onerous burden, it's onerous, but I was under the impression that Protestants thought exposure to Scripture was a good thing. Was I wrong?

54 posted on 12/15/2005 10:38:30 AM PST by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]
To: Dr. Eckleburg
If Scripture declares it, what more is there?

I feel the same way about Scripture, especially Matthew 16, Matthew 25, and James chapter 2.

55 posted on 12/15/2005 10:39:27 AM PST by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search		 Religion
Topics · Post Article
FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson