Replies

Luther and others came to the conclusion the Church had veered far from its origins. Reform was impossible.

Historical revisionism. Considering Luther's contradicting of himself, repeatedly, along with all of his other problems; drunkenness, schizophrenia, paranoia, inability to control his libido, et al, it's quite the stretch for you to definitively claim what conclusion(s) he came to. This is hardly the person you want to build a religious foundation upon.

"Most Holy Father, prostrate at the feet of your Holiness, I offer myself with all that I am and have . . . I will acknowledge thy voice as the voice of Christ."
Luther letter to Pope Leo X, May 30, 1518

"I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted . . . It is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better."
Luther letter to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519

"drunkenness, schizophrenia, paranoia, inability to control his libido, ...This is hardly the person you want to build a religious foundation upon."

Funny. We can say the same thing about a good many of the Popes, Cardinals and the rest of the hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church during this same era. If you want to throw stones, remember the stain glass windows.

I suppose historical revisionism is in the eye of the beholder.

Historical revisionism. Considering Luther's contradicting of himself, repeatedly, along with all of his other problems; drunkenness, schizophrenia, paranoia, inability to control his libido, et al, it's quite the stretch for you to definitively claim what conclusion(s) he came to. This is hardly the person you want to build a religious foundation upon.

My "church" was built upon the Rock of Christ Jesus.

All other foundations are sinking sand.

Carry on. :-)

This image of Luther as mentally ill etc. is a caricature. He had his neuroses, as most of us do, but schizophrenic, a drunk--really, that's not fair. He may have struggled with compulsive masturbation but it's hard to say for sure--these aren't the sort of things there's reliable evidence for. And, as Jared Wicks has shown (and Karl Adam also insisted, against the unrelenting personal attacks of Grisar and Denifle), before the turning point of 1520, Luther was genuine in his desire for reform of the Church. He embodied a genuine concern about abuses and a vibrant personal piety. Catholics are foolish to try to dismiss him as crazy or drunken or some other personal fault. He was wrong, utterly wrong, after 1520 in his doctrine of the Church and wrong about the way he formulated justification by faith and, in his unfortunate debate with Erasmus, on free will, but he ended up at nearly the same place as Catholics on salvation once you factor in his teaching on sanctification.

Fault him for his doctines that were false, give him credit for genuine faith in Jesus Christ and love of Christ. He remained devoted to Mary to the end of his life, practiced private confession, resisted manfully the false Eucharistic doctrine of Zwingli though he explained real presence in a less than helpful way (consubsantiation).

Character assassination is not the appropriate way to refute Luther. Give him credit where credit is due, fault him where he deserves it but leave off this scurrilous and false character assassination stuff.

He probably should never have entered the Augustinian order. He probabaly did not have a genuine vocation and was ill-served by the discernment process. This set him up for a lot of misery. He certainly had some conflict with his father but he was not psychotic, merely had some neuroses, some "issues" as they say today. But who among us doesn't have some of those kinds of dysfunctional family systems problems? To go from that to slandering him as a drunkard or psychotic is wrong, simply wrong.