A reader points out to me that . . . .
ANDREW SULLIVAN PRINTS AN E-MAIL CALLING INTO QUESTION THE LITERALNESS OF LUTHER’S STATEMENT THAT HE HAD HIS PROFOUND, REFORMATIONAL INSIGHT IN CLOACA.
(POTTY-MOUTH WARNING!)
Don’t know whether this is true or not, but it might be.
I also should point out something I forgot to mention the other day: The stories you read about Luther posting the 95 Theses on a church door may well be false.
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
View all posts by Jimmy Akin
Jimmy,
I stopped reading the article at the 2nd sentence: “If you took part in a crusade or sent someone (for example a servant) on a crusade for you, your sins could be forgiven.”
Never take indulgence lessons from a non-Catholic.
WOW .. I wasn’t the only person who stopped reading it at the second sentence? 🙂 … Utterly amazing. Yeah, it would help if people actually KNEW what indulgences were. I thought indulgences were the same thing for most of my life until I reverted back to the Catholic Church and read Jimmy’s “Salvation Controversy” on the matter.
Go figure … knowing the TRUTH about what the Church teaches is 99% of the battle.
I wonder how many Roman Catholics from the Middle Ages and Reformation period would surive if contemporary Roman Catholics held them to the same standard as they hold Luther.
Luther had a peasant’s sense of humor and was given to hyperbole, but even JP II has found room to praise him.
We owe a great deal to Luther, most of it good. I can flagelate myself all I want or even crucify myself (like Catholics in the Philipines do), but unless I throw myself on the mercy of Jesus, I’m lost and headed for Hell: A hard message, but someone had to preach it.
Steve Jackson,
To whom are your commments referring to? I don’t think any Catholic has deliberately made any disparaging remarks about Luther on Jimmy’s blog. Why do you see the need to correct us Catholics about needing to “owe a great deal to Luther”? Why do you feel the need to remind us that we need to throw ourselves upon the mercy of Jesus? We believe in trusting in Jesus with our entire heart, soul, and mind.
The 2 comments before you were simply addressing a common misconception about indulgences. Neither of them even mention Luther. If you want to correct Catholics about ad hominems against Luther, this isn’t the place because nobody has done it here.
” . . .or even crucify myself (like Catholics in the Philipines do) . . .”
This practice has been repeatedly condemned by the Catholic Church.
FYI.
Moochie,
I think that’s Steve’s point: A particular popular expression of the faith is not to be taken as an authentic expression of it. The crassness Luther displayed in some of his writings is thus not to be taken as an authentic expression of Lutheranism.
I would still critique Lutheranism theologically, but he has a point that Luther’s coarse manner of expression is not to be taken as the acid test of its truth.
I don’t know, Jimmy.
Somehow, I feel that the founder of a religion should ne held to a higher standard than regular joe-schmoes. Luther wasn’t just one of many Lutherans, or a Lutheran leader; he was the founder of an entirely new religion. I’d expect him to be holy.
BTW, do you know if Luther’s alleged comparison of justification with “snow covering dung” is true or not?
I would say that an important achievement of Luther and the Reformation was to insist that proper doctrine be taught to the masses.
The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t teach “work your way to Heaven by good works.” On the other hand, that’s what most Catholics I know appear to believe. (Or perhaps, the majority believe every “nice person” goes to Heaven.) But I think it would be wrong to critique Catholicism based exclusively on that.
I don’t think it’s accurate Luther was the founder of an “entirely new religion.”
But did the people of Saxony know the Church’s teaching on indulgences? Did Johannes Tezel? Has there, perhaps, been some change since then?
Steve Jackson (of the games company?) Today’s Catholic teaching is closer to Lutheranism than would have been accepted in 1521 by the magisterium. Melancton’s belief that he was simply teaching Catholic doctrine wasn’t as far off as might be supposed.
Simon, methinks you are being a little over-sensitive.
Moochie, which only shows that lay Catholics, religious and priests can do and teach things that the Church condemns, not only in our day, but in 1521.
Eric, Luther was central, but he was hardly alone. Luther had a crude sense of humor, black periods, and all sorts of other characteristics unhelpful for playing well with others. Melancton was far more of a theologian than Luther, as was whatisname. Nor were the Utraquists gone away forever, and the Waldensians were still all over the place (the real Waldensians, or Brethren, essentially Franciscans without Papal approval, with 500 years of development from that start) Some Dutch engraver, whose name escapes me wrote when Luther disappeared after the Council of Wurms, that “Luther is the clearest preacher of the Gospel in a hundred years” refering to the Jan Hus and the Utraquists. I’d expect popes to be holy, too. But Leo the Simoniac was -not-, nor was his predecessor Julian(?) who preferred to be seen as a soldier than as pope. The Archbishop of Mainz was far from holy, and the same can be said of Tetzel, whose sales techniques eventually became so outrageous that the -Catholics- imprisoned him. It may be handy to condemn a movement of reform by the pecadillos of one man, but it is hardly valid argumentation.
The whole situation shows, among other things, that catechesis is so very, very important. Catechesis in the Germanies at the time weren’t very good, and this contributed greatly to the situation. It shows why clergy must be held to high standards of holiness, These are both present problems in the American dioceses that Jimmy and many other faithful Catholics are very concerned about.
Circuit Rider,
Your point was well taken. However, I still feel that although you feel my point to be over-sensitive, it still is a valid point that needed to be pointed out. Far too often, Protestants are bringing up the shortcomings of individual Catholics or groups of Catholics as some type of argument against the Church.
Yes, there are Catholics in other countries that might have some funny practices. Yes, there are Catholics around the world who don’t know their faith very well. But apologetics (as the name of Jimmy’s blog says, Defensor Fidei) is about defending the orthodoxy of your faith, not the orthopraxy. 2 people corrected the misconception about indulgences, then another comment brought up the practice of Catholics as some sort of counter-argument. I think both Catholics and Protestants would do well if we simply cast aside the criticisms of each other’s practice and have an honest dialogue of the issues of belief.
Oops, let me correct something I said earlier. Apologetics involves defending your practice, but as was pointed out earlier, we must recognize that the Church doesn’t teach its members to crucify themselves or to be ignorant about the faith. We should instead focus on what the Church actually teaches and commands.
=)